sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cist, Kanthippara, Nedumkandam, Ramakkalmedu, Udumbanchola

A Preliminary Report on Megalithic Sites from Taluk of ,

Sandra M. S. 1, Ajit Kumar1, Rajesh S.V. 1 and Abhayan G. S.1

1. Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus, – 695 581, Kerala, (Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; [email protected])

Received: 15 November 2017; Revised: 02 December 2017; Accepted: 29 December 2017 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5 (2017): 519‐527

Abstract: As part of the MA Dissertation work, the first author explored the Udumbanchola taluk for . The exploration was productive and 41 new megalithic sites could be located. This article is a preliminary report on some interesting megalithic artifacts found during the exploration and also enlists the newly discovered sites.

Keywords: Megalithic, Udumbanchola, Kallimali, Pot, Goblet, , Crucible

Introduction Udumbanchola taluk (09° 53 ̍ 57. 68 ̎ N and 077°10 ̍ 53. 33 ̎ E) is located in the Idukki district. is the major town and administrative headquarter of Udumbanchola taluk. This taluk borders with on the east. Due to large scale of migration from other parts of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, this taluk is melting pot of Kerala and Tamil cultures. This area is also inhabited by various ethnic tribes like Mannan, Muthuvan, Urali, Paliyan, Hilpulayan, Malapandaram, Ulladan, Malayan etc. Some archaeological explorations have been conducted in the taluk in the past and 16 sites have been reported from here.

Though the of Idukki is still shrouded in obscurity, we get evidence of megalithic‐early historic cultures from Idukki district. Already 70 sites are reported from different taluks in Idukki district. There has been no serious attempt to understand the distribution pattern of megaliths in Udumbanchola taluk, which has areas inter‐spread with high hill ranges, valleys and plateau region.

Explorations undertaken in the taluk by the first author have been very fruitful (explored 46 sites). In the explorations, 40 new megalithic sites have been brought to light from Udumbanchola taluk and typologically they include , urn‐burials, cists and (Figure 1 and Table 1). Excepting sites which are under worship, nearly all other sites are in various vandalized stages. ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5: 2017

Figure 1: Distribution Map of Megalithic Sites in Udumbanchola Taluk

Table 1: The List of Explored Sites in Udumbanchola Taluk Sl. No. Site Name Co‐ordinates Nature of Finds 1 Kuruvilacity Locality‐1 N09 58̊ 38.90̍ ̎ Ruined Urns and E077 11̊ 17.78̍ ̎ disturbed menhirs 2 Kuruvilacity Locality‐2 N09 58̊ 33.61̍ ̎ Ruined Urn burials E077 10̊ 53.98̍ ̎ 3 Kuruvilacity Locality‐3 N09 58̊ 39.75̍ ̎ Partially destroyed E077 10̊ 50.62̍ ̎ Menhirs 4 Manjakkuzhy N09 59̊ 12.00̍ ̎ Intact menhirs E077 10̊ 14.93̍ ̎ 5 Muniyarachal N09 59̊ 01.61̍ ̎ Destroyed menhirs E077 10̊ 20.20̍ ̎ 6 Kuruvilacity Locality‐4 N09 58̊ 26.21̍ ̎ Shattered menhirs E077 10̊ 37.05̍ ̎ 7 N09 59̊ 16.53̍ ̎ Protected menhirs E077 11̊ 37.84̍ ̎ 8 N09 57̊ 51.97̍ ̎ Protected E077 13̊ 02.19̍ ̎ 9 Oonukal N09 48̊ 41.25̍ ̎ Protected Menhirs E077 13̊ 02.19̍ ̎ 10 Sanyasippara N09 49̊ 07.53̍ ̎ Ruined cist and urn E077 12̊ 54.68̍ ̎ burials

520

Sandra et al. 2017: 519‐527

11 Kumbhappara N09 58̊ 38.04̍ ̎ Damaged menhirs E077 07̊ 54.55̍ ̎ and ruined urns 12 Kallimali Locality‐1 N09 56̊ 54.80̍ ̎ Ruined Urn burial E077 05̊ 11.73̍ ̎ 13 Kallimali Locality‐2 N09 56̊ 55.88̍ ̎ Ruined Urn burial E077 08̊ 18.66̍ ̎ 14 Kallimali Locality ‐3 N09 56̊ 53.86̍ ̎ Partially damaged E077 05̊ 14.86̍ ̎ Cist 15 Kallimali Locality‐4 N09 56̊ 53.86̍ ̎ Unharmed Cist E077 05̊ 14.86̍ ̎ 16 Kuruvilacity Locality‐5 N09 97̊ 59.39̍ ̎ Destroyed Urn burial E077 17̊ ̍ 94.67 ̎ 17 Parathodu N09 52̊ 39.51̍ ̎ Protected E077 09̊ 37.31̍ ̎ and destroyed cist 18 Karithodu N09 53̊ 46.62̍ ̎ Disturbed Cists E077 07̊ 42.96̍ ̎ 19 Vedhagiri N09 54̊ 00.70̍ ̎ Damaged Urn burials E077 07̊ 21.90̍ ̎ 20 Anakallu N09 42̊ 54.50̍ ̎ Damaged Urn burials E077 11̊ 26.88̍ ̎ 21 N09 39̊ 57.78̍ ̎ Damaged Urn burial E077 09̊ 23.39̍ ̎ 22 Santhigram N09 48̊ 17.24̍ ̎ Damaged Urn burial E077 05̊ 48.82̍ ̎ 23 Adayalakallu N09 49̊ 30.10̍ ̎ Preserved Menhir E077 04̊ 49.80̍ ̎ and Damaged urns 24 Njarakkulam N09 43̊ 19.68̍ ̎ Protected Menhir E077 10̊ 43.61̍ ̎ 25 Kuruvikkanam N09 47̊ 38.14̍ ̎ Destroyed Urn E077 13̊ 01.64̍ ̎ burials 26 Aruvilamchal Locality‐1 N09 57̊ 08.59̍ ̎ Destroyed Menhir E077 09̊ 10.92̍ ̎ and Urns 27 Aruvilamchal Locality‐2 N09 57̊ 01.78̍ ̎ Damaged Urn burials E077 09̊ 23.76̍ ̎ 28 Aruvilamchal Locality‐3 N09 56̊ 47.41̍ ̎ Partially damaged E077 08̊ 41.14̍ ̎ Menhirs 29 Muniyarakunnu N09 57̊ 02.39̍ ̎ Preserved Menhir E077 07̊ 22.95̍ ̎ and Urn burials 30 Mukkudil West N09 56̊ 31.73̍ ̎ Destroyed Urn burial E077 07̊ 04.10̍ ̎ 31 Aavanakumchal N09 57̊ 10.82̍ ̎ Partially destroyed E077 09̊ 45.68̍ ̎ Menhir

521

ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5: 2017

32 Senapathy Locality‐1 N09 57̊ 01.56̍ ̎ Ruined Urn burial E077 10̊ 33.34̍ ̎ 33 Senapathy Locality‐2 N09 50̊ 59.23̍ ̎ Ruined Urn Burial E077 11̊ 08.44̍ ̎ 34 Thottikkanam N09 57̊ 27.22̍ ̎ Damaged menhirs E077 12̊ 34.31̍ ̎ 35 Pallikunnu N09 56̊ 53.56̍ ̎ Damaged Urn Burial E077 11̊ 36.81̍ ̎ 36 Munippara N09 57̊ 42.41̍ ̎ Damaged Menhirs E077 09̊ 26.37̍ ̎ 37 Kuruvilacity Locality‐6 N09 58̊ 20.00̍ ̎ Damaged Menhirs E077 10̊ 14.12̍ ̎ 38 B Division N09 59̊ 38.12̍ ̎ Destroyed Urn E077 09̊ 31.40̍ ̎ burials and Menhirs 39 Bison Valley N10 01̊ 14.40̍ ̎ Damaged Dolmens E077 08̊ 53.31̍ ̎ 40 Mullanthandu Locality‐1 N09 58̊ 56.72̍ ̎ Protected Menhir E077 11̊ 12.08̍ ̎ 41 Mullanthandu Locality‐2 N09 58̊ 50.28̍ ̎ Damaged Menhirs E077 11̊ 18.04̍ ̎ 42 Mullanthandu Locality‐3 N09 58̊ 48.15̍ ̎ Destroyed Urn burial E077 11̊ 10.61̍ ̎ 43 Estate Poopara N09 58 21.37 Partially damaged E077 12̊ 11.50̍ ̎ Menhirs 44 Mullakanam N09 58̊ 23.49̍ ̎ Damaged Urn E077 04̊ 57.73̍ ̎ Burials 45 Kajanappara N09 58̊ 41.35̍ ̎ Intact Menhir with E077 28̊ 32.15̍ ̎ inscription 46 N09 56̊ 53.17̍ ̎ Damaged Urn burials E077 08̊ 21.92̍ ̎ and Menhirs

Kallimali village in Udumbanchola is very rich in megaliths and vestiges were noticed in four localities. Two localities have yielded remains of cist burials and two disturbed urns burials. Locals had collected archaeological artifacts from two localities and kept them in their premises and these were made available to the researcher for study.

The megalithic artifacts collected from Locality‐I was kept by Shri. Anilkumar Puthenpurackal and they include a full Red Ware pot and a Black and Red Ware goblet. In Locality‐II, Shri. Jose Pallipparambil had collected a crucible and small Celt from an urn burial accidently found while broadening a road and he was kind to part with it on request from the researcher. This article tries to briefly discuss these major finds (Red Ware Pot, Black and Red Ware Goblet, Neolithic Celt and Crucible) and its importance.

522

Sandra et al. 2017: 519‐527

Kallimali Locality‐1 Red Ware Pot: This Red Ware pot weighs 206.2 gm. It has 17.3 cm height and 10.5 cm rim diameter (Figure 2). The pot is made out of fine clay and has a smooth slip over the body. It has a dull red color. This pot has constricted neck, flaring rim and narrow mouth. It has globular body and slight round base. It is the typical megalithic found in Idukki district and reported earlier from sites like (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Red Ware Pot from Kallimali Locality – 1

Black and Red Ware Goblet: Black and Red Ware is the principal ceramic of megalithic culture. The popular shapes noticed in Black and Red Ware so far from

523

ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5: 2017

Kerala is bowls of various shapes, miniature pots, lids and ring stands. Goblets in Black and Red Ware have not so far been reported from megaliths in Kerala region. It measures 36.1 gm in weight (Figure 4). It has 12.8 cm height and its rim has a diameter of 6.8 cm. Both slow and hand technique was apparently used to make it. The lower portion (stem) is hollow. It has thin sharp incurved rim and convex side. The rim and internal surface is in black colour. The surface has red slip and it is burnished. Remains of ashes can be seen inside the vessel. The ash remains and the shape of the ware suggest that it may be used for interning corporal relics of the deceased. Similar shaped Goblet was reported from Adichanallur in Tamil Nadu (Leshnik 1974: 61, Fig.15.31).

Figure 3: Megalithic Pottery from Ramakkalmedu (Courtesy: The Hindu)

Kallimali Locality‐2 Neolithic Celt: From the second locality at Kallimali, a Neolithic (?) Celt and a crucible were found within an urn. The Celt is not very massive. It has 266.9 gm weight and 8.6 cm length (Figure 5). The cutting edge is semicircular in shape and is not very sharp. Its size and shape suggest that it is not used as a cutting but apparently interned as a votive object. It is hard to guess the purpose of such internment. The presence of Neolithic Celt in the megalithic context could be indicative of continuity of Neolithic traditions.

524

Sandra et al. 2017: 519‐527

Figure 4: Black and Red Ware Goblet from Kallimali Locality – 1

Crucible: An ellipsoidal shaped ceramic crucible was also found from the site (Figure 6). It has 206.5 gm weight, 7.4 cm rim diameter and 6.5 cm height. The surface of the crucible has thumb impressions, clearly indicating hand making technique of production. The external surface has red colour while the internal surface is black in colour. This coarse crucible is very hard. The presence of crucible gives clues about the metal working and the technological advancement acquired by the Iron Age people during that period.

525

ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5: 2017

Figure 5: Neolithic Celt from Figure 6: Crucible from Kallimali Kallimali Locality – 2 Locality – 2

Discussion It is interesting to note that the menhirs in granite are the most prolific of the megalithic monuments in the area, may be because it is rather easy to erect them, and raw material is available in plenty. Some of them are under worship and bear various names like Munikkallu, Masathikkallu, Veerakkallu, Pulachikkallu etc. Some of them have come under worship recently is obvious since the name they bear is written in modern script.

The cists which are the next in list of popularity are in various states of destruction and none of them were found to be intact. Most of them are oriented in the east west direction and are located in red soil tracts.

The urn burials are represented by middle sized urns of coarse Red Ware. No urn burial was found intact. Large quantities of urn sherds were collected from the area. The size of the urns tentatively varies from 40‐ 50cm in height.

The coarse Red Ware pot found intact by the villagers is interesting. The pot does not seem to have been used for and appears more like a symbolic pot interned with burial. Similar Red Ware pots have been reported from Ramakkalmedu in an excavation conducted by Shri. Rajesh (The Hindu 26.2.2012).

The most important find is possibly the goblet. This goblet was apparently a relic holder as the villager who found it said that he found ash in it and still traces are visible. The goblet possibly had a lid and that is possibly the reason that red soil is absent inside and traces of ash is still visible at the bottom of the goblet. While no goblet shaped pottery in Black and Red Ware with slip and vertically scrapped slip possibly to retain paintings in white has been reported from Megalithic assemblage in

526

Sandra et al. 2017: 519‐527

Kerala. Similar shaped pottery has been reported earlier from Palani hills and Adichanallur, but not sure if it was Black and Red Ware (Leshnik 1974: Fig. 13.13 and15.31).

Other two very interesting finds are the Celt and the crucible. Earlier stray Celts have been reported from various parts of Kerala. Celts have been reported in association with megalithic burials. This Celt found from the urn burial given its size, nature and wear and tear does not seem to be used as an implement. It seems to have had some religious value for finding internment, which is now difficult to gauge. This Celt and its associated occurrence with megaliths again seem to pose a question of its Neolithic association in Kerala. In some tribal hamlets they are found placed on pedestals and are under worship (Ambily 2017: 45).

The crucible in association with a megalithic urn burial is also bewildering. The similar shaped bowls have been earlier reported. The coarse and uneven surfaces of the bowl seem to indicate that it could have been used as a crucible and indicates the possibility of metal working in the area.

Conclusion Archaeological evidence indicates that the Idukki region has been thickly habited from megalithic times. The hill ranges were major spice producing centres and the ancient trade route connecting western Indian ports with Madurai region passed through this area. The early historic antecedents of this area are from the various hoards of Roman coins found from the district (Kumar 2017). The latest explored finds from Udumbanchola taluk add to the list of megalithic finds from Idukki. More works need to be undertaken in the region and it will be perused with interest in future studies.

References Ambily, C.S. 2017. Archaeology of Pamba Basin (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Department of Archaeology. University of Kerala. Kariavattom. Gurukkal, R. and R. Varier. 1999. Cultural , Volume ‐1. Thiruvananthapuram. Department of Cultural Publications, . http://www.thehindu.com/news/ national/ kerala/ copper‐ beads‐ spring‐a‐ surprise‐in‐megalithi c‐excavation/article2935549.ece Kumar, Ajit. 2017. Chola inscription on a Menhir from Mepara, Rajakumary Panchayath, Idukki district Kerala. Journal of Tamil Studies. International Institute of Tamil studies. Chennai. Leshnik, S. Lawrence. 1974. South Indian Megalithic Burial: the Pandukal Complex. Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH Weibaden. Rajesh, T. 2008. Idukki Charithrarekhakal (Mal), e‐lion Books. .

527