The Megalithic Culture of India: a Brief History of Research

The term megalithic is derived from the Greek words megas meaning huge and lithas meaning stone. Babington initiated the study (1823) at Bangala Motta Paramba in the northern part of Kerala.

Investigation can be broadly divided into two phases i) Pre-independence and ii) post-independence
Many early attempts on the megaliths were largely antiquarian in nature, as the investigators were attracted by the imposing nature of the megalithis and the rich cache of antiquities they contained. But there are some investigators who initiated to raise questions pertaining to origin, authorship and chronology of these monuments. M. Taylor J.H. Rivett-Carnac John Henry Rivett-Carnac (1838-1923) was in the Bengal Civil Service. The first well documented exploration and excavation in the Vidarbha region dates back to 1867 and was undertaken by J.H. Rivett-Carnac, Alfred Lyall, and Blanford at the site of Junapani (Nagpur district) (Fig. 1). A rough map based on this survey was prepared by Rivett-Carnac indicating locations of various barrows near Junapani (Fig. 2).

George Godfrey PearseMajor George Godfrey Pearse (1827-1905) of Royal Artillery excavated at the site of Wurreegaon (one mile from Kamptee, Nagpur district) in July 1867. The details of the excavation were published in The Journal of the Ethnological Society of London in the year 1869 (Pearse 1869: 207-217). Perhaps this paper is the best example of the detail description and excellent observation while not much information was available as well as no advanced technique was developed for the excavation of stone circles. During the excavation, he came across vessels of black and brown, and black colour. Black vessels had covers with cone-like top. He also found some husks of coconut shells. Interesting description of human remains is also given:
On the 11th July 1867 (i.e. on the fifth day of excavating), at about 6 feet depth, I found the remains of a man. [] Part of skull, some teeth (one a molar one), are amongst the remains preserved. The body was 6 feet or 6 feet 1 inch long. The bones are of a large-skulled and large-boned person. [] On the 12th July 1867 (that is on the sixth day of excavating) was found, on the same level as the first body, a second body of about the same size, parallel to it and separated from it a yard or so. (Pearse 1869: 211-212)

Other important antiquities reported are iron steel-tipped ploughshare-end, cover of copper vessel (having figures of geese, a snake and a bird), spoons, knives, spatula, frying pan, ring of gold, a little copper ornament having figures of geese ornamenting it (lid?), etc. (Fig. 3a and 3b). Most importantly Pearses conclusion about the author of barrow (stone circle) is worth quotable:
Thus, I believe, they were neither Buddhist nor Hindoos, Greeks nor Christians. It seems probable they are of anterior date to 330 B.C., and possibly that they are of 1200 B.C. It is very certain:They were civilized. They were tall and strong. They were very numerous to have raised such a monument (demanding much time and labour) over two of their number. They made the best of steel. They were agriculturists. They ate wheaten cakes and fried food. They burnt oil. They possessed goldsmiths. They rode horses. They drove carriages or chariots. They knew the use of the potters wheel. They could give fair representations of animals and birds. They could smelt copper. They were traders, the cocoa-nut requiring to be carried 350 miles in a direct line to them. And, by the instruments and articles they have left behind them, they appear to have been early (if not the earliest) users of many of those of a household economical nature which are to be seen in a more or less modified form in general use now-a-days in India. (Pearse 1869: 215-216)

The influence of Diffusionist and migration theory While commenting on authorship there was a general trend to assign Indian megaliths to the Scythians, the Druids, and the Celts, etc. Similar traits were also attempted to trace in skeletal remains, Taylor (1852) identified pygmoid and Negroid elements Zuckerman and Elliot Smith (1930) identified proto-Australoid and Dravidian elements.

This approach seems to persist even in post-independence period. Gordon Child (1947), D. H. Gordon (1958), Haimendorf (1953): Maritime influence. Heine-Geldern (1958) and N.R. Banerjee (1965): Land routes K.N. Dikshit (1969): *+ the builders of Megalithic types like stone-circles, cairns etc. in northern region probably entered India by land-routes, although the possibility of taking the sea-route can not be rouled out altogether. This wave of megalithic idea in my opinion has nothing to do with the megalithic architecture of south India. It is likely that the western Asiatic maritime communities practising megalith-architecture entered south India through persian Gulf or southern Arabia in the hope of founding a new colony. Study of Mortury Practice among living Groups: The Todas (Breeks 1873; Walhouse 1874), the Kurubas/Kurumbas (Thurston 1909), the Khasis (Gurdon 1914), the Gudabas and the Bondos (Hutton 1922; Furer-Haimendorf 1943).

The development in post-independence period Perhaps it could be corrected as Wheeler and postWheeler period. Important contribution of Wheeler: Problem oriented approach, systematic excavation and data collection, and development of relative dating. He offered for the first time tentative chronological framework for the Megalithic culture at Brahmagiri.

The Carbon-14 dating changed all earlier assumptions and provided coherent picture Till 1994 total 23 sites were dated (U.S. Moorty) The dates of Krishna and Tungabhadra basin (nothern Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh) are older, show beginning in last quarter of the 2nd millennium BCE. Hallur provides oldest dates of 1125 800 BCE Kerala and Tamil Nadu second quarter of 1st millennium BCE. And probably continued till 5th century AC. In Maharashtra from 8th century BCE to 4th century BCE The Megaliths of Vidhyan region are grouped into pre-iron age megaliths and iron age megaliths the former is dated to 1500 BC to 1000 BC and later to 800 to 300 BC.

Sigle TL date available from the site of Kumaranahalli

Classificatory system There are few who tried to classify the basic types among these burials/memorial monuments. Leshnik (1974), Agrawal (1982) and Allchins (1983) recognized five basic types viz., pit burials, urn and sarcophagi burials, rock-cut burial chambers, cist burials and stone alignments.

Dikshit (1969) and Sundara (1979) inlude some more types such as dolmen, menhir, topi-kal and kudai-kal.
U.S. Moorti (1994) has made two broad categories a) Sepulchral monuments and b) Non-sepulchral monuments. The earlier represent proper burials and latter are commemorative or memorial

Human skeletal remains

This was the trend of the early 20th century when theories of invasion, migration and mixing of blood were the answers to diversities or discrepancies noted in the skeletal records. The traditional approach in human skeletal biology had aimed to classify the populations on the basis of their phenotypic features, like physical characterisations of face or head shape. With regard to the Megalithic population in India, specimens from Adichanchanallur, Ramgarh, Sanur, Ranchi, Savandurga and Pomarippu are represented by the dolichocranic head form, whereas specimens from Brahmagiri, Nagarjunkonda and Yelleswaram represent the brachycranic head form. These two categories of sites belong to an intruder population replacing the earlier dolichocranic Neolithic inhabitants of the area. On the basis of studies carried out on Brahmagiri and Maski skeletal series, Sarkar (1972) claimed that the Megalithic population belonged to a single racial stock. Now these vies are considered as unscientific and these changes are attributed to an evolutionary process, most importantly food preparation technique, the differential functional demands on the body and increased nutritional stress are stated to be the main factors influencing cranio-facial morphological changes among the early farming societies. Kennedys (1975) multivariate re-examination of above mentioned sites made it clear that no single character typified the Megalithic populations. Lukacs (1981) studied the dental pathology profile of Mahurjari observes thus, on the basis of caries incidence alone, the Mahurjhari series would fall in either the upper range of the mixed economy category (agriculture and hunting, gathering, or fishing) or somewhat below the mid-range values for agriculturalists. A study of more than 4000 samples of dental morphological data by Hawkey (2002) represent little evidence to support an external origin of the Iron Age/Megalithic populations. The data rather suggest the origins of the Iron Age populations within central and southern peninsular India, and not from north-western regions the populations, however, maintain affinity with the farming-herding groups of the Deccan

 Archaeozoological Evidence Systematic investigation of the archaeo-zoological evidence from the Megalithic sites began mainly in the 1960s and as a result a fairly clear picture of the economy of the Megalithic society has emerged. These studies have revealed that pastoralism played a major role in the Megalithic economy and hunting of wild animals and fishing also added to the subsistence. Bones of domestic animals like cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, pig, horse, ass and dog, and many variety of wild animals have been found. Among the animal species represented, cattle is predominant.

 Archaeobotonical evidence Systematic investigation by Vishnu-Mittre and Kajale have exposed the remains of rice, barley, wheat, kodo millet, jobs tear, common pea, lentil, grass pea, horse gram, red gram, Indian jujube, etc. Metal implements for Agricultural purpose The available archaeological evidence indicates the utilisation of metal implements such as, axes, ploughshares, hoes, sickles, spades etc. U.S. Moorty (1994) argued for an increase in the size and number of settlements during Megalithic period from the preceding Neolithic/chalcolithic phase to growing agriculture.

 Economy S. B. Deo (1985) contended on the basis of his observations of Vidarbha Megalithic excavations that the low frequency of grains, low percentage of metal artifacts for agricultural purpose and domination of cattle and sheep/goat bones among faunal remains support the pastoral way of life with small-scale agriculture. According to Mohanty and Silva (2002), the biological evidence recovered from the excavated sites shows that the Megalithic economy was a mixed one with a predominance of pastoralism. Moorti (1994) conducted locational analysis in the context of environmental factors, such as, topography, climate, pedological condition, forest, mineral and ore resources of the Megalithic sites and material and concluded it as a mixed economy.

Social Organization Detailed study on social organization was undertaken by Moorti (1994). He adopted Binfords categorization of artefacts into technomic, socio-technic and ideotechnic and also the criteria developed by Peebles and Kus (1977) for recognizing social ranking in the archaeological context and has suggested that megalithic population of south India was organised into a ranked society.

Darsana (1998) has attributed a clan-based segmentary society to the builders of the dolmens and a hierarchy based chiefdom society to the authors of the stonecircles in the upper Palar Basin in Tamil Nadu.

 Pottery Metallurgy Contribution of K. Ismile- Excavation of Vyahad