sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cist, Devikulam, Dolmen, Kadanad, Kottayam, Kottayam district

Discovered Around , District, : Some Observations

Ajit Kumar1 and N. Nihildas2

1. Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, , Kerala – 695 581, (Email: [email protected]) 2. Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore Circle, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560034, Karnataka (Email: [email protected])

Received: 18 September 2014; Accepted: 11 October 2014; Revised: 06 November 2014 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2 (2014): 674‐685

Abstract: Archaeological explorations conducted by the second author around Neeloor which lies 18 kilometer north of Pala have yielded six new megalithic sepulchral sites. The sites are in the localities of Mattathipara, Nerappu, Injukave, Kurumannu, Payazmound, and Vadakkummuri. Vadakkummuri is the only site which has yielded a and is in Todupuzha taluk of . All other sites have yielded dolmenoid and are located in taluk of . Some observations and discussions on the finds are annotated in this article.

Keywords: Megaliths, Neeloor, Kottayam, Dolmen, Dolmenoid , Cholanaikans,

Introduction Megalithic have a vast distribution in Kerala. It is a cultural vestige that has always been in the limelight of archaeological studies in Kerala for over a century. Every now and then new sites or data come to fore accidentally or through systematic explorations and excavations. Every discovery is of significance from the archaeological point of view. Recent explorations carried out by the second author have brought forth some new megalithic sites around Neeloor. The first author visited these sites to make an assessment of the finds. His observations and discussion are enumerated below.

Physiography The study area (9° 48’ N; 76° 44’ E) is situated at an average elevation of nearly 1000 AMSL. It is covered with hillocks of the outer ranges of the of Idukki range. The area is lateritic with granite outcrops in plenty. The main crop cultivated along these hills are rubber and the area is occasionally infringed by and other naturally growing trees and plants like mango, , nutmeg, pineapple, pepper, coffee and so on. Kumar and Nihildas 2014: 674‐685

Megalithic Sites Six sites around Neeloor have yielded megalithic monuments namely Mattathipara (9° 47’ N; 76° 42’ E), Nerappu, Injukave (9° 47’ N; 76° 43’ E), Payazmound, Vadakkummuri (9° 51’ N; 76° 40’ E) and Kurumannu (9° 47’ N; 76° 44’ E). Mattathilpara, Injukave and Kurumannu have subsequently been excavated by the Archaeological Survey of India (Nambirajan and Kumaran 2011: 123‐128).

The megaliths around Neeloor are of the dolmenoid‐cist and dolmen variety. These megaliths have been vandalized by the locals. At Mattathipara the dressed granite orthostats of the disturbed are observed in North West‐South East orientation. The north‐west orthostat has a porthole measuring 36 cm in diameter (Fig. 1). The site of Nerappu has been totally destroyed, and the pit is oriented North‐South, the land owner claims to have found a while digging but now lost. Injukave, 1.5 km from Neeloor has two partly vandalized dolmenoid cists. Oriented in the NE‐SW directions the orthostats stand out of the soil for an average of around 29 centimeters and is topped by a partly damaged capstone.

Kurumannu is located 2.5 km south of Neeloor and here there are totally six cists lying close to each other and oriented in the NE‐SW direction. The capstones are missing. Payazmound is located 10 km south of Neeloor. On the slopes of Kayyur hillock here is a single megalithic dolmenoid cist burial oriented north‐south. Its southern and eastern orthostats are partly ruined and exposed above the ground. Vadakkummuri is 8 km north‐west of Neeloor. Here, on the eastern slope of ‘Viranmala’ hill related with Pandava stories is a relatively preserved dolmen made of locally available granite slabs and oriented north‐south (Fig.2). Close to nearly all these megalithic sites is a permanent water source. In excavations conducted at Mattathilpara, Injukavu and Kurumannu, only the last site was rich in artifacts (Fig.3). Implements of iron, gold object, bead of quartz, jasper and chert, and ill fired black and red ware, red ware and black ware showing affinity with those found from megaliths in Coimbatore plateau was found (Nambirajan and Kumaran 2011: 123‐128).

A scrutiny of previously explored and excavated megalithic sites from the region (Kottayam and Idukki districts) divulges that the dolmenoid cists and are the most abundant type in the upper midlands and high ranges of Kerala (Tables 1 and 2). In the burial furniture from excavated megaliths in high hill ranges of Kerala, among the finds, the large urns have not always been rich in size and quantum when compared with those in the lower midland and low land regions of Kerala(except in regions where agriculture is dominant like that in Wayanad and ). Such dichotomy warrants attention and explanation. Material contents from many excavated megalithic tombs have been meticulously recorded in the past and some interpretative studies also been carried out. However, ethno‐archaeological studies to understand the intangible aspects behind the and its associated relics have not been conducted in Kerala though there are some tribal communities who still retain impaired forms of megalithic traditions.

675 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Figure 1: Disturbed Dolmenoid Cist, Mattathipara

Figure 2: Relatively Intact Dolmen at Vaddukumuri

676 Kumar and Nihildas 2014: 674‐685

Figure 3: Dolmenoid Cist at Injukave

One such primitive tribal community of Kerala is the Cholanaikans from Nilambur (Dist. ). They believe in ‘life after death’ and show megalithic traits in their burial practices. A brief ethno‐archaeological study of this community was undertaken to understand the belief and practices of this community in relation with the dead (Kumar 2006). Here, in this article, the megalithic finds from Neeloor are paralleled against the observation and practices of this community and megalithic finds in general to draw some broad based postulations regarding megalithic traditions in Kerala.

Observations and Discussions Previously 16 megalithic sites have been reported from Kottayam district and 41 from Idukki district (see appendix). It is observed that dolmenoid cists and menhirs are the predominant types. and dolmenoid cists are usually made of dressed granite and menhirs at times in laterite. Both granite and laterite of good quality is available in plenty in the rocky mid‐lands and upper high hill ranges of Kerala. All megaliths noticed around Neeloor are of the dolmenoid cist/dolmen variety. The disturbed state of megaliths, dissuades us from conclusively determining the level up to which the orthostats and capstone of these monuments remained exposed or buried in the soil initially or if they were associated with packing or stone circles. Before coming of the present settlers, this area must have been rich in megaliths as it is interesting to note that, many families around Neeloor, etymologically derived their names like Kuzhikal (pit with stone), Kallarakal(stone tomb)etc., possibly from the nature of the megalithic monument in their property.

677 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Table 1: List of Megalithic Sites from Kottayam District Sl. No. Site Taluk Type Reference 1. Arpukkara Meenachil IAR 1992‐93. p.113. 2. Kottayam Menhir and IAR 1963‐64. p.13. Cairn Circle 3. Menhir IAR 1965‐66. p.21. 4. Kallar Meenachil Menhir IAR 1965‐66. p.21. 5 Kaniakari Meenachil Cist and Urns IAR 1963‐64. p.13. 6. Meenachil Dolmens IAR 1963‐64. p.13. 7. Kunnoni Meenachil Dolmens Rajendran 2005 (Payyanithottaru) 8. Mannamkandan Dolmen, Urns IAR 1965‐66. p.21

9. Oliyani Meenachil Dolmenoid Rajendran 2005 Cist 10. Pattan Colony in Kallar Meenachil Cist and Urns IAR 1961‐62. p.98. 11. Kottayam Cist, Menhirs IAR 1965‐66. p.21. and Urns 12. Pannivayalkkara Kottayam Urn IAR 1965‐66. p.21. 13. Tirunakkara Kottayam Urn IAR 1963‐64. p.13. 14. Thottakad Menhir Nair p.319.

15. Vedagiri Kottayam Rock Cut IAR 1963‐64. p.13. (Athirampuzha) , Urns Menir, and Dolmen 16. Kurunji Meenachil Dolmens Das and Joglekar 2011

Table 2: List of Megalithic Sites from Idukki district Sl. No. Site Taluk Type Reference 1 Alampetti Udambanchola Dolmen, Rock‐ IAR 1972‐73. p.18. cut , Urns 2 Alappara Devikulam Menhir Sathyamurti p.26. 3 Ambalamedu Devikulam Dolmen, Menhir Gurukkal and Warrier p. 114. 4 Anakulam Devikulam Dolmen Nair p. 311. 5 Bison Valley Udambanchola Menhir Sathyamurti p.27. 6 Bodimeettu Devikulam Dolmen, Menhir Sathyamurti p.26. 7 Bodinayakanur Udambanchola Urn Burials Nair p.311. 8 Chilliyanara Devikulam Urn Burials Nair p.311.

678 Kumar and Nihildas 2014: 674‐685

9 Chinnakanal Devikulam Menhir IAR‐1982‐83. p.36. 10 Chakkimedu Devikulam Dolmen, Menhir IAR 1977‐78. p.30. 11 Devikulam Devikulam Dolmen, Menhir Mathpal p.25. 12 Edamalayar Devikulam Dolmen IAR1977‐78. p.30. 13 Edathur/Thuduthur Devikulam Dolmen IAR 1977‐78. p.30. 14 Idukki near dam Dolmen Dolmen IAR‐1977‐78. p.30. 15 Kanchanappara Udambanchola Menhir IAR‐1977‐78. p.30. 16 Kallarpattomn Udambanchola Menhir Sathyamurti p.27. Colony 17 Kandanmedu Devikulam Dolmen Sathyamurti p.27. 18 Karnamuzhi Devikulam Dolmen IAR.1997‐78. p.30. 19 Udambanchola Cist, Urns George 2006. 20 Koorkkuzhi Devikulam Dolmen IAR 1997‐98. p.30. 21 Kovilkadavu Devikulam Dolmen IAR 1997‐98. p.30. 22 Kurumuzhi Udambanchola Menhirs Mathpal p.55. 23 Marayur Devikulam Dolmen, Cist, Menon p.80. Menhir, Urn 24 Mattupetti Dolmen IAR 1973‐74. p.18. 25 Meppara Village Udambanchola Menhir Nair P.311. 26 Mookanpara Udambanchola,, Menhir IAR 1981‐82. p.27. 27 Muthukadu Udambanchola Dolmens, Sathyamurti p.27. Menhir 28 Munipara Devikulam Dolmens Nair p.311. 29 Pampadumpara Udumbanchola Urn Burials Satyamurti p.27. 30 Pannivayakkara Devikulam Urn burials Satyamurti p.27. 31 Pariyakanal Devikulam Menhir,Dolmen Mathpal p.55. 32 Periakanadu Udumbanchola Dolmen, Menhir Menon. p.80. 33 Udambanchola Dolmen, Rock‐ IAR 1972‐73. p.18. cut Cave 34 Santhapara Udumbanchola Urn Burials Menon p.80. 35 Surainallur Devikulam Menhir IAR.1982‐83. p.26. 36 Tengakal Peerumedu Urn Burial Nair p.311. 37 Thandimalai Todupulai Urn Burial Mathpal p.56. 38 Thondannur Todupulai Rock‐cut Cave IAR.1997‐78. p.30. 39 Thudathur Todupulai Dolmens IAR‐1977‐78. p‐30. 40 Peerumedu Dolmen, Menhir, Satyamurti. p.27. Cairns 41 Vellappara Todupulai Dolmen IAR‐1981‐82. p.27.

679 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

Figure 4: Megalithic Building Activity in Nisa Island, Indonesia Photographed by Ludwig Borutta in 1915 (Courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith)

An average of 4 km separates each site. At all the sites, the megalithic monuments are constructed using large rudely or partly dressed granite slabs. The availability of quarriable granite outcrops and its convenient transport were key factors that determined the location and distribution of the monuments. Each dressed granite orthostat has an average breadth or height of 140 centimeters, length of 135 centimeters, thickness of 14 centimeters and average weight of 8‐10 tons. Cutting or quarrying of these stones into slabs from the source and digging of large pits into the lateritic terrain would have required quality iron equipments and apt techniques. Transporting of these large stone slabs may have been done using wooden rollers or using and wooden carriers. Such a megalithic building activity in Nisa Island,

Indonesia has been photographed by Ludwig Borutta in 1915 (Fig. 4). These slabs are then lowered or placed into the lateritic pits cut for the purpose using stone and iron lever. The whole process must have been Herculean. Given the magnanimity of the work involved it can be assumed that these monuments were erected out of the active participation of the family and social labour of the whole community.

While erecting the dolmenoid cists, care has been taken to erect it in a roughly Swastika pattern with one end of the orthostat always jutting a bit beyond the adjacent

680 Kumar and Nihildas 2014: 674‐685 walls of the other so as to buttress it from falling inwards. The orientation of the tombs is in North‐South directions with slight NW‐SE deviations. This slight deviation from the true cardinal directions may be because of the orientation of the burial chamber or pit was apparently decided on the position of the Sun of which they were certain. However, sun’s position along the eastern horizon is not stationary. Sun’s location varies slightly towards south or north according to changing seasons or its position in the transit towards solstices. This apparently has influenced the burial direction too. Sun possibly had a role in deciding the position of the port holes. Port holes were usually provided in the western or eastern orthostats of the megaliths. It is quite possible that the round portholes noticed in the east or west facing orthostat signify the sun and the perpetuity associated with it. In megaliths around Neeloor, it is noticed in the western orthostats. In many communities even today the internments or are performed only during day time as though soliciting Sun as a witness in their ceremonies. Today more and more studies are emerging indicating the apparent role of solstices and astronomy in the design and alignment of megaliths (Menon et al. 2014: 42‐43).

Some tribal communities like the Cholanaikans of Nilambur believe in ‘life after death’ and still bury their dead in a modest megalithic tradition. This community does not perform internment after sunset. The rituals associated with death in the community are lead by their headman (chenmakkaran) who also acts as a chief priest. They invoke the holy spirits through singing. Before internment of the body, the soul is captured into a metal ring or image which is then kept in his possession of the head of the family. In case of a commoner’s death he/she is buried within the habitation and in case of a chieftain he is buried in a special far away from the habitation and a small dolmen or stone is erected. Materials used during the life time and others consider essential for their survival in the ‘world of dead’ are interned along with the deceased. They observe pollution caused due to death for three days. During this period they do not go hunting or use their weaponry kit. Following these days, the weaponry kit is purified by the tribal chief and only then put to use. Some intangible practices like these might have been in vogue even among ancient megalithic practitioners too, however evidences are not forthcoming. Ethno‐archaeological studies of tribal communities in Kerala like Kadars, Mala‐arayans, Kanikar and Malapandaram still practicing some vague forms of megalithism are necessary and overdue for proper understanding of the intangible sepulchral rituals, practices and ceremonies associated with the megalithic monuments.

It is interesting to note that most of the sepulchral sites around Neeloor are of the multiple chambered types. Many sites were apparently reused by erecting monuments adjacent to existing ones. At Kurumannu there are six such dolmenoid cists or chambers lying adjacent to each other. At this stage, it is difficult to adjudge whether they were family vaults or of members of the same community or clan in the concept of burial ground. It is also not clear if they were erected at the same time or at different periods according to needs. In case the sites have been reused at later periods, it would

681 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

necessitate the builders of these monuments to have stayed somewhere close to the monuments. However, explorations have not bought forth noteworthy habitation or cultural debris from the vicinity of these sites.

Locals say that in a previous clandestine excavation a small pot with paddy husk /ash and later an iron knife or short sword was also found from around Neeloor. Husk would indicate that paddy cultivation in some form existed here. Local observation and enquiry have lead to the understating there were at least five different forms or varieties of paddy that were cultivated around Neeloor in the past in a form of shifting or slash and burn cultivation. In the present circumstances it is not clear when exactly during the megalithic ‐ early historic phase paddy cultivation was introduced in the region. From the geological settings it is quite apparent that the paddy cultivation if any in megalithic period or later would have largely depended on slash and burn type fed by rains as tracts of wetlands for large scale rice cultivation is meager in these hilly terrains.

Given that the area is not essentially good for large scale cultivation of food crops or cattle rearing it can be assumed that along with some agriculture, foraging or hunting‐ gathering and fishing might have been subsistence pattern for the megalithic folk here. Almost substantiating this is the meager presence of large urns and pots in excavated megalithic tombs (dolmenoid cist and dolmens) from Kerala’s hilly regions. However, these are profuse in megalithic sites of low land and midland regions. This would imply that the subsistence pattern of the megalithic communities were not uniform in a given period. It is possible areas yielding large urns and other earthen ware in profuse quantity probably had an agricultural – pastoral form of subsistence economy. While those in living in hill regions may have had a foraging/hunting gathering /fishing form of subsistence. For foraging communities large storage jars and vessels are redundant in nature. Foraged materials were apparently eaten raw or roasted over fire without much use of cooking vessels as observed among the Cholanaikan tribe of Nilambur.

Fragments of recovered from the disturbed megaliths around Neeloor are small in sizes and sparser in quantity, though some large pots have been recovered from excavations. Small pots recovered from burials looks defunct in their utilitarian value and appear to carry more of ceremonial or ritualistic value. It is not clear if the pots found in the burial tombs of the hilly regions of Kerala were brought through barter from plains below or made from poor quality local clay. Transit of large pots from plains to forested hill terrains must have placed a problem considering the weight and fragile nature large pots. Hence, apparently the preference for smaller pots in internment was apparently to satisfy the ritualistic requirements of the burial.

In place of large terracotta storage jars or vessels, many a times in tribal areas of Kerala storage bin made of and daub and utilitarian artifacts were made out of bamboo or wood which has rich availability in the wooded forest tracts. Woven or matted

682 Kumar and Nihildas 2014: 674‐685 bamboo or scooped wood containers are relatively easy to make and transport and are even today common among rural and tribal pockets of Kerala. Such containers were possibly mounted on ring stands for checking their quick disintegration while in contact with soil. It is possible such storage jars/containers were also interned in the megalithic graves along with pottery and other goods. The biodegradable containers must have eventually given way while the terracotta ring stands on which they were placed continued to remain in the grave. It is probably for this reason that terracotta ring stands found in the cist and dolmenoid burials many a time out number the interned pots.

The short iron sword found from the clandestine digging at Nerappu from the description of its finders was probably not a weapon of warfare but more of a forest knife or weapon used for cutting undergrowths and defending wild animals while foraging in the forests. Iron ore is not naturally present in rich quantity in the hill ranges of Pala region yet iron implements have been found from the burials here (Rajendran 2005). This prompts us to infer that iron implements used by megalithic folks in the hilly regions who relied on foraging subsistence did not apparently manufacture it themselves but procured them from other contemporary communities manufacturing them through a system of barter or exchange. The items bartered by the megalithic folk of the hill terrain must have been forest products, spices, and honey that are available in the forested tracts. Bartering and exchanging was a way life in Kerala from ancient times till very recent times is attested from various sources.

To substantiate this, one could observe the practice indulged by the Cholanaikans at Nilambur, who still live in dense jungle of the Western Ghats in rock‐shelters retaining a foraging‐fishing form of subsistence. They have no metallurgic skills of their own yet they use iron , knife or cutters, sickles, brass objects and so on. A study of their practices reveals that all objects foreign to their environment is brought from the people in the adjoining regions through barter of their foraged forest products. This then should imply to the postulation that iron objects recovered from megalithic burials need not always be a product of the metallurgic skills of the community or owners of the burial in which it is found or retrieved.

Iron implements from burials, apart from being indicative of the technological, subsistence or environmental status of its builders can form an indicative to the sex of the interned person if parallels could be drawn with internment pattern practiced by Cholanaikans. They have the practice of interning items of daily use in burial pit of the deceased. A male diseased invariable has his iron , forest knife or hunting equipments like /bow and so on interned with him. In case of a female interment implements like iron sickle, , a and bangles and so interned.

On these parallels then, megalithic tombs yielding iron weaponry implements or heavy duty implements like crowbar, axes, and swords may be that of male deceased and those yielding artifacts like bangle, beads, sickle and so on might be that of a female. In

683 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

burials which yield assorted materials/implements usable by both sexes along with rich burial furniture may be indicative of a collective commemorative burial of a family, clan or community. The placement or positioning of the iron objects within a grave appears to have been conditioned by some intangible beliefs. In a burial mound of the Malapandaram tribe from district in Kerala, a knife was observed placed over the funerary mound. On enquiry it was revealed that it was so kept to prevent the spirit from leaving the grave.

Despite megalithic monuments lying scattered all along the hill terrains around Neeloor their habitations are not traceable. If foraging and shifting cultivation was their form of subsistence then they must have shifted habitation quite often. Even if they had settled in a place, the construction material used in their dwellings would have been timber and bamboo and these would not have stood the ravages of time. We do not know if the megalithic folk here had the practice as even now prevalent among the primitive Cholanaikans tribe of burning down and abandoning the settlement in wake the pollution caused by death before shifting to new area.

In a society relaying on foraging or hunting gathering for their subsistence such abandonment of dwelling areas would help the forest to rejuvenate its natural wealth and also help them erase the thoughts of the dead. It is quite possible that something of this sort were in vogue among the megalithic folk living in middle and highland areas in Kerala. This probably will account for many scattered megalithic monuments being found along the hilly regions without any trace of habitational debris around them.

It is apparent that the society practicing the agricultural‐pastoral subsistence community along the low lands of Kerala achieved faster growth. The impetus received from foreign trade and exchange lead to substantial strides in the socio‐ economic and political front in Kerala society. Eventually leading to the establishment of a clan based chieftaincy and political order around 4th ‐5th BC and finds acknowledgement in the Ashokan records as early as 3rd Cent. BC.

Even after this trend consolidated, the communities living in the Kerala’s hill ranges may have continued subsist in foraging economy. The foraging communities also apparently got a surge of these developments when extraneous maritime trade picked up. Foraged forest items came in for demand. The societies living in foraging subsistence were soon in position to procure essential and luxury item (beads of semi‐ precious stone, gold objects etc.) from more affluent societies outside their realm by bartering their collections. This trend gets firmly established around the early centuries of the pre‐Christian era when extraneous maritime trade along the coast of Kerala achieved its zenith as can be observed from references in early Classical literature. Pliny speaks of ‘silent barter’ practiced in Chera region by certain shy tribe groups who brought goods and left them in a clearing for the purchaser to take them replacing it with goods of equivalent value. It is stated that Sinhalese merchants frequented such marts (Rawalison 1977: 124).

684 Kumar and Nihildas 2014: 674‐685

Periplus states that Cottonara/Kottanara district was a great producer of pepper variety called Kottonarikon which was exported from Nelcynda and (Mc Crindle 1911: 28). Cottonara/Kottanara is identified with modern Kottayam or of which Changancheri and elevated tracks of Kottayam and Etumannur formed part(all in Kottayam district of Kerala now)( Thomas 1932 :267). Neeloor is not far from Kottayam. This area is presently also a rich producer of cash crops. It is quite apparent that in ancient times too, the wooded topography of the region was a rich source of spice and other forest products. In that case, the megalithic folks living in this area were possibly the ‘shy tribe’ groups who collected forest products and engaged in the ‘silent barter’ with communities engaged in trade and exchange as observed by Pliny.

References George. V. 2006. Megalithic Burial Site at Kattappana, Idukki District, in Adharam A Journal for Kerala Archaeology and History, Vol.I:85. Kottayam: School of Social Sciences, M.G. University. Gurukkal, Rajan and M. R. Raghava Varier. 1999. Cultural . Thiruvananthapuram: Govt. Press. IAR: Indian Archaeology –A Review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Kumar, Ajit. 2006. An Ethno‐archaeological Study of Cholanaikans of Nilambur and its Reflection on the Megaliths of Kerala, in Journal of Kerala Studies Vol. XXIII: 1‐13. Thiruvananthapuram: Department of History, University of Kerala. Mathpal, Yashodhar. 1998. in Kerala, Delhi: Aryan Books International. Mc Crindle, J. W. 1911. (1995 reprint). Ancient India as Described by the Commerce and Navigation of the Erythrean Sea and Ktesias, Patna: Eastern Book House. Menon, Madhava T. 2000. A Handbook of Kerala, Vol. I. Thiruvananthapuram: ISDL. Menon, S. M., Mayank N. Vahia and M. Kailash Rao. 2014. The Astronomical significance of the Megalithic sites at Nilaskal and Byse in The Megalithic Culture of . K. N. Dikshit and Ajit Kumar (Eds.). New Delhi: IAS. pp. 33‐44. Nair, K. K. Ramachandran. 1986. Kerala State Gazetteer, Vol. II, Trivandrum: Govt. of Kerala. Nambirajan, M. and C. Kumaran. 2011. A Brief Note on Megalithic Excavations Conducted at , District Kottayam in Recent Trends in Kerala Archaeology. Ajit Kumar. (Ed.). University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. 123‐127. Rajendran, P. 2005. Oliyani Cist Burial Excavation, Kottayam District, Kerala Journal of the Centre for Heritage Studies, Vol. II: 41‐46. : Center for Heritage Studies. Rawlinson, H. G. 1977. Intercourse between India and the Western World from Earliest Times to the fall of Rome, Delhi: Rai Books Service. Sathymurthi, T. 1992. Iron Age in Kerala. Thiruvananthapuram, Govt. of Kerala. Thomas, P. J. 1932. (Reprint 1977). Roman Trade Centres in Malabar. Kerala Society Papers, Vol. II. Series. 10: 259‐269. Thiruvananthapuram: Govt. Press.

685