Megalithic Brief History-Guru Sir

7/27/2019 Megalithic Brief History-Guru Sir

1/14

The Megalithic Culture of India: a

Brief History of Research


2/14

The term megalithic is derived from the Greek words megasmeaning huge andlithasmeaning 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 theinvestigators were attracted by the imposing nature of the megalithis and therich 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 welldocumented exploration and excavation in the Vidarbha region dates back to 1867and was undertaken by J.H. Rivett-Carnac, Alfred Lyall, and Blanford at the site ofJunapani (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).


3/14


4/14

George Godfrey Pearse-

Major 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 11thJuly 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 ofa 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)


5/14

The influence of Diffusionist and migration theory

While commenting on authorship there was a general trend to assign Indian megaliths to the Scythians, theDruids, 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 probablyentered 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 southIndia 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-Haimendorf1943).


6/14

The development in post-independence period

Perhaps it could be corrected as Wheeler and post-Wheeler 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.


7/14

The Carbon-14 dating changed all earlier assumptions andprovided 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 quarterof the 2nd millennium BCE.

Hallur provides oldest dates of 1125 800 BCEKerala 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 agemegaliths and iron age megaliths the former is dated to 1500BC to 1000 BC and later to 800 to 300 BC.

Sigle TL date available from the site of Kumaranahalli


8/14

Classificatory system

There are few who tried to classify the basic types amongthese burials/memorial monuments.

Leshnik (1974), Agrawal (1982) and Allchins (1983)recognized five basic types viz., pit burials, urn andsarcophagi burials, rock-cut burial chambers, cistburials and stone alignments.

Dikshit (1969) and Sundara (1979) inlude some moretypes such as dolmen, menhir, topi-kal and kudai-kal.

U.S. Moorti (1994) has made two broad categoriesa) Sepulchral monuments and

b) Non-sepulchral monuments.

The earlier represent proper burials and latter are

commemorative or memorial

k l l


9/14

Human skeletal remains

This was the trend of the early 20thcentury when theories of invasion, migration and mixing of blood were theanswers 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 theirphenotypic 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 fromBrahmagiri, Nagarjunkonda and Yelleswaram represent the brachycranic head form.

These two categories of sites belong to an intruder population replacing the earlier dolichocranic Neolithicinhabitants of the area.

On the basis of studies carried out on Brahmagiri and Maski skeletal series, Sarkar (1972) claimed that theMegalithic population belonged to a single racial stock.

Now these vies are considered as unscientific and these changes are attributed to an evolutionary process, mostimportantly food preparation technique, the differential functional demands on the body and increasednutritional stress are stated to be the main factors influencing cranio-facial morphological changes among theearly farming societies.

Kennedys (1975) multivariate re-examination of above mentioned sites made it clear that no single charactertypified the Megalithic populations.

Lukacs (1981) studied the dental pathology profile of Mahurjari observes thus, on the basis of caries incidencealone, the Mahurjhari series would fall in either the upper range of the mixed economy category (agricultureand 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 tosupport an external origin of the Iron Age/Megalithic populations. The data rather suggest the origins of theIron Age populations within central and southern peninsular India, and not from north-western regions thepopulations, however, maintain affinity with the farming-herding groups of the Deccan


10/14

Archaeozoological Evidence

Systematic investigation of the archaeo-zoological evidence

from the Megalithic sites began mainly in the 1960s and as aresult a fairly clear picture of the economy of the Megalithicsociety has emerged.

These studies have revealed that pastoralism played a majorrole in the Megalithic economy and hunting of wild animalsand 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 havebeen found.

Among the animal species represented, cattle is predominant.


11/14

Archaeobotonical evidence

Systematic investigation by Vishnu-Mittre and Kajale have

exposed the remains of rice, barley, wheat, kodo millet, jobstear, common pea, lentil, grass pea, horse gram, red gram,Indian jujube, etc.

Metal implements for Agricultural purpose

The available archaeological evidence indicates the utilisation ofmetal implements such as, axes, ploughshares, hoes, sickles,

spades etc.

U.S. Moorty (1994) argued for an increase in the size andnumber of settlements during Megalithic period from the

preceding Neolithic/chalcolithic phase to growing agriculture.

E


12/14

Economy

S. B. Deo (1985) contended on the basis of his observations ofVidarbha Megalithic excavations that the low frequency ofgrains, low percentage of metal artifacts for agricultural

purpose and domination of cattle and sheep/goat bonesamong faunal remains support the pastoral way of life withsmall-scale agriculture.

According to Mohanty and Silva (2002), the biological evidencerecovered from the excavated sites shows that the Megalithiceconomy was a mixed one with a predominance ofpastoralism.

Moorti (1994) conducted locational analysis in the context ofenvironmental factors, such as, topography, climate,pedological condition, forest, mineral and ore resources ofthe Megalithic sites and material and concluded it as a mixedeconomy.


13/14

Social Organization

Detailed study on social organization was undertaken by

Moorti (1994). He adopted Binfords categorization of

artefacts into technomic, socio-technic and ideo-technic and also the criteria developed by Peebles and

Kus (1977) for recognizing social ranking in the

archaeological context and has suggested thatmegalithic 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 stone-

circles in the upper Palar Basin in Tamil Nadu.


14/14

Pottery

Metallurgy

Contribution of K. Ismile- Excavation ofVyahad

Documents

Megalithic Brief History-Guru Sir