In Honour of SHRI JMNDRA KUMAR lron Age in : A Short Summary

V Mnod* and Athira R Pillai.t

ODUCTION Neolithic{halcolithic Cultures (Kumar 2006: 46). transmits a unique position in understanding In absence of any defined Neolithic or Chalcolithic major developmental stages of human culture. settlements in Kerala, Megaliths holds a unique Age is marked by the extensive use of iron in place in bridging the gap between prehistoric and of life gr€atly reflected in tools, weapons historic periods. Flence, absence or lack of other industrial and house hold or utilitarian habitation sites mark a bay and holds us back from Among the iron using cultures of the Indian appreciating the culture holistically. inent Megaliths of Central and Peninsular holds a distinctive place in reconstructing the MEGALITHIC RESEARCHES IN KERALA Age culture. In the above contexf Kerala History of Megalithic researches in Kerala starts stands talt in its variety richness. and with the discovery and excavation of a few burials is blessed with Archaeological relics of Iron at Bangla Motta Paramba in Kannur district by inly intheform of burialmonuments and Babington in 1823. FIis discovery and excavations ary goods. The close affinity of iron in the Malabar regions like Puddiangaddy and in Megalithic burials and tombs force Neelaparambu stimulate an antiquarian interest on to use megalith interchangeably for Iron these monuments. Subsequently several British in Kerala. ad:rrinistrators and many other scholars explored liths essentially denote sepulchral or and excavated a large number of Megaliths and tive monuments erected in honor of published their findings. After that the using large dressed or undressed stones Archaeological Survey of and the vast distribution all over Kerala. Kerala Archaeology Departments of the Travancore and are part of the south Indian megalithic The Cochin states excavated a large number of ral complex draracterized with specific and Megalithic sites. In 1882 Robert Sewell published e megalithic monuments like 'Kudnkknllu' 'The list of Antiquaian Remnins in the Presidency of stone), 'Toppikknllu' (.up- stone) and Mndras' gives a list of megalithic sites in Kerala. In t chambers. Megalithic Culture in South 1887 William Logan published 'Mnlabar'in which is dated between 1000 BC and 100 AD. Some he gives a detailed description on the explored an sites in South India have revealed that excavated megalithic sites of the Malabar region lithic culture overlaps the last phase of and tried to interpret the megalithic burials in

Indian hstitute of Tedrnology, Gandhinagar, VGEC Complex, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad, Gujrat. 100 ICON - Journal of Archaeology and Culture

connection with religious practices. 1n 1901 Fawcett reported in Kerala (IAR 1964-65:74, 1965-65: 80, explored the Wayanad region and discovered the 1,977-78: 30, L981-82 94, '1,982-83: 36). After megalithic burials around the rock engraving site Porkalam, several lron Age sites in Kerala such as of Edakkal and proposed that the makers of Machad and (Mehta and George carvings could be the builders of innumerable stone 1.978: '1.-34), Perambra (John 7982: 1.48-153), circles near the site. In 191'J,-72, a rock-cut chamber Cheramangad (IAR 1990-97:33-35), Arippa (IAR was accidentally discovered at Chevayur near 1990-91: 33), Mangad (Satyamurthy 1992: 1,-36), Calicutby Longhurstand found a sarcophagus and Poredam (Rajendran and Kshirsagat 1993: 1,48), few ceramics in it. In1927, The Kerala Society was Kurumassery (Peter 2002:110) etc. were excavated started and published a journal titled Kerala Society that enriched our understanding of the past life Papers.It contained many papers dealing with the ways and culture of the Megalithic builders of megalithic burials in Thiruvananthapuram and Kerala. surroundings. In 1930 Camrniade did an extensive study on TYPOLOGY OF MEGALITHIC BURIAT the Urnburialfrom Wayanad region and explored MONUMENTS 16 urn burials and excavated a few around the An important feature of the Iron Age culture in region of Sultan Batheri. His excavation reports give Kerala as well as in Peninsular India is the presence extensive information regarding the exact location of huge burial monuments known as megalithic and extent of the sites (Darshana 2006: 39). He also monuments. A variety of these monuments are attempted to study the grave goods such as iron found in the Ion Age sites of Kerala. kritial attempts implements and beads from the megalithic burial in devising a suitable typology for these of Malabar and made a comparative study of these monuments were made by \4lheeler at Brahmagiri Urns with those from Tamilnadu. Lr the same year (Wheeler 1948: 253-260). Later several scholars Codrington conducted a general survey of attempted to categorize and study them. Among Megaliths and grave goods in South India and the studies V.D. Krishnaswami ft949\. noticed the architectural similarity between the (1.974), Sundara (1979), Mclntosh (1985), a Megalithic Rock cut chambers and Buddhist Caves. Moorthi (1994) deserves special mention. He also used Sangam literatures to explain and from the general types, Kerala is credited wi understand the Megalithic burials. Plenderlieth distinct type of Megalithic monuments such (1930) attempted one of the early scientific studies umbrella stone (kudakknllu), cap stone (topikknllu on pottery fromthe megalitlLic pottery inwhichhe and rock-cut chambers ('rsiasLtramam' , the abode studied the black polished pottery from Wayanad saints.). Based on the geographical a urn burials. physiographic features, the land of Kerala can Systematic investigations of the Megaliths categorized into three well defined parallel began only in7940, when Krishnaswami undertook each of which contains distinctive types field studies in collaboration with Anujan Achan monuments, and also we can say that the nature and classified the Megaliths of the Cochin region the monuments being determined largely by (Krishnasw ami 19 49: 3S.45). L:r mid 1940' s Thaper material available. Thus, the dolmens are to excavated an um burial at Porkkalam (Thaper 1952: found in eastern mountainous region composed 3-76). Leshnik (1976) and Mclntosh (1935)worked granite gnesis and charnochite; the rock towards the chronology and dated Kerala megaliths chambers, menhirs and the umbrella stone to the last phase of Iron Age in South India (Peter on the lateritic plarr',- and um burial with 2002: 5-10). From the beginnings of 19 60' s dolmens menhirs on the alluvial sea board. Though and other megalithic monuments were widely exist uniformity in the burial character of lron Age in Kerala : A Short Summary 101 monuments. differences in its mode of construction include iron tools, beads, bronze artifacts and culminates into various types of megalithic burials. muller stones. The major types of megalithic monuments found 2. Urn Burial: Earthen pots used for the in Kerala are Rock cut-cave, Urn burials, Umbrella deposition of the skeletal remains and other stone, Cap stones, Dolmens, Menhirs and assemblage found buried below the ground are Alignments, Slab cist, Sarcophagi, Pits and Multiple called Urn burials. These urns are generally hood stone (Gurukkal and Varier 1999:10'J,-150, sealed by a granite or laterite cap stone and Peter 2002:67). cairn packing. Um burials occur singly or in 1. Rock cut-cave: The rock cut caves are generally clusters and are found usually in the laterite encountered in the lateritic zone of the districts middle land plains and in the granite high lands of Trissur, Malappuram, Kannur, Kozhikode, of Kerala (Figure 1). Urn sizes vary from Thiruvananthapuram and Pathanamthitta. 180X100 cm to 60X15 cm and vessel thicknesses These caves have been made by scooping out a can be up to 2 cm in the largest example. The square stepped pit in the rock approached by Urn burials of the highland and mid land rock cut steps. One or more doorways were also regions of Kerala yield funerary goods like cut in the sides of the pit. Each doorway about etched carnelian beads, pottery, ashes, bones 60 cm high to facilitate the workman to scoop a etc. Sometimes Urn Burials are also demarcated dome shaped cave. (Figure 1). These are mostly with stone circle. Typical megalithic potteries, quarried into monolithic lateritic belts. They iron objects, beads, were found in the urn have an opening either on the side or on the burials at Machad, Porkalam, and bp surface as determined by the landscape. The Vellimatukunnu etc. The urn burials are found opening is generally a small rectangular or in almost all the parts of Kerala. Three types of circular aperture of about 2x2feet size or 2feet urrrs ere found in the Kerala megaliths. They diameter, leading to the chamber through a are pyriform jars, legged jars and pointed jars passage/ generally sealed by a port slabs. Both (Satyamurthy 1992:3, Gurukkal and Varier pillared and non pillared gpes are found in 1999:111). Kerala. Monolithic cots are scooped inside the J. Umbrella Stone (Kudakkallul: The umbrella chambers that provide berths for the interred. stone, known as'kudakkallu' , represent a unique The rock cut chambers have domical or flat and the most beautiful types among the Kerala roofs. In some instances the open courts leads megalithic monuments. The name 'kudakkallu' to more than one cave. For example at Eyyal is derived from the local words the main cave faces east while the second one 'kuda' and'kallu' which means'umbrella' and faces south. (Gurukkal and Varier 1999:119). 'stone' respectively. They are found mostly in Faqade is fashioned like multiple doorways of the lateritic areas of Kannur, Kozhikode, different sizes. Sharma (1955)has classified the Malappuram, Palakkad, and Trissur. The rock cut caves of Kerala in to four types. They 'kudakkallu' is modeled in the shape of a are (I) Caves with central pillar (II) The caves mushroom on laterite which looks like a typical without central pillar, (III) Caves with a top palmJeaf umbrellawhich is common in Kerala opening and (IV) Multi chambered caves. These till recent times. Structurally, the 'kudakkallu' monurrrents are locally known as Risyashramnm, consist of a circular laterite cap stone resting Guha, and P rnduku zhi (P eter 2002: 54-55). Maoy on four dressed laterite orthostats, each with a of these rocks cut chambers are sepulchral in convex external surface, a flat interior and nature as is evidenced from the grave goods generally conical in shape (Figure 1). The centre found associated to the burial. These mainlv of the clinostat provides space in which very 102 /CON - Journal of Archaeology and Cultur:

'a

q v 1. Rock cut Cave 2,Urn Burial 3. Umbrella Stone 4. Cap Stone 5, Multiple Hood Stone '6.0olmen i. Slab Cist 8. Menhir t0 9. Alignments 10 Sarcophagus (Adapted Ghosh,A. 1989)

Figure 1: Major type of megalithic monuments found in Kerala lron Age in Kerala : A Short SummarY 103

rarely, some small artifacts are found. For 7. Slab Cist They are also like dolmens, and are instance, some bones and pottery have been made out of granitic or lateritic stone slabs. They fouhd at Eyyal, while Perambra provides the consist of a port-hole in the upright portion of evidence of iron objects and bronze vessel (Peter the orthostat which is generally found on the 2002:50). eastern side. Usually, the port hole has a range between 10 to 50 cm diameters. This type is Cap Stones: The Cap stones,locally known as conJined to the granitic high land region and 'toppil

burials are the post excarnated in which the dead main type. The jar body was exposed variety includes legged and non. to natural elements first and legged type with carinated shoulder, narrow subsequently the reft over bones were neck coilected and and globular base or buried. From the megalithic high neck, everted rim and monuments, we got round base. fragments The legged jars are mostly of four_ of charred or decayed bone remains. legged Tpes made mair lyof coarsered Based on the remains of such charcoal ware. Red_ fragments slipped jar, painted red jar, and astr, it is believed that russet coated jar have they practiced cremation. also been No complete found at several sites. The small vessels or inhumation burials are reported have lustrous, slipped and so far from the megalithic monuments smooth surface and the also larger vessels are poorly strengthens the above finished and handmade. assumption. Numerous black u, *"ll as red ring stands, used As far as the associated goods or for holding material vessels with round bottim, have been are concerned they recovered are from the rock_ cut chambers at several g the cultural ethos of '#:ff5;ffii',l"? of ceramics, beads, -*?;i:'*:?y'*r:Tl omaments. rows etc are the maj or p hi":T3":?iff; on the vessels. post ".LHff CERAMICS firing graffrnmarks are found in them (Gurukkal and Va.ier .1.999:137_1.41). The ceramic assemblage of the megalithic people consists of a variety of wares such as Blact ana fiea BEADS Ware, Russet coated painted Ware, Red Ware, Red slipped polished Beads of various shape and size have beenreported Ware, Red Ware, Black Ware, Among etc. from many sites. Carnelian, jasper, these wares Black and Red Ware orthoclase, with feldspar, glass, bone, hom, crackled appearance is considered qi*t crystal and to be the most terracotta have been found"na prolific and diagonal ceramic type from a number of of the Megalithic burials (Mehta and people. A variety of shapes has been recovered and Varier 1999:136 from various excavations. the mayo. shapes include feldspar and quartz bowls with flat bases, jars, dishes, vases, ring beads include stands, pots both etched as well as unetched _globular and different kind of urns variety. such as legged, perforated, pyriform Tpes, pointed ones, and those with variously fasirioned rims, shoulders, FAUNAT REMAINS sides and bases. The variety of bowls include The deep bowls with featureless rim, round bone fragments and ashes are the important base in black faunal remains and red ware, hemispherical bowls, from various Iron Age site in Kerala. bowls with in-turned Kerala megaliths rim and flat busu rr., polished have yielded chJred bones and red ware, bowls ashes, which indicates in black ware, bowls with in_ post cremationalnature. No turned rim complete and flatbase inpolishedred ware, bowls skeletons were found ir *y megalithic in black and red sites in Kerala. ware, bowls with concave neck. However, in1gg7, Rajendran has recovered nd sagger bases have been found. a child,s cranium at Arippa. primarily of the Shallow rype with The fragments of ulna, d leg . radius, and skull etc. like pedestrian, urrj having have been reported everted from the sites of Machad and rim and round bottom, with carinated P.azhayannur (Mehta and George 7974: shoulders-and tapering sides 29). The and pointed base. In sites such as Kunnoni vases/ globular (Rajendranl2001:14_16), and and the lid_cum_vase type are the Mangadu (Satyamurth i 1'992: 12_LS) give valirable 105 lron Age in Kerala : A Short SummarY

They adopt the structural principles in{ormation regarding the bone remains in the architecture. of wooden architecture. (Kumar 2006:48-53)' Th" megalithic graves. rock cut caves are oblong or circular in plan and plan AND ITS TECHNOLOGY consist of domical roof, rectangular floor IRON IMPLEMENTS ut Iron artiJacts or imPlements ti- important cultural remains of it. Kerala. These imPortant of All varieties however, invariably have an open fore- found from most of the Iron Age sites of Kerala' A court and the caves themselves are generally east facing. The iron remains such as chisels, axes' nails' etc are the indicator of the practice of carpentry at that time. A terracotta model of a round hut with is rePorted from the Due to the quantity and economic life of the people. du. Keralahas troPical the.culture has got quality of the iron implements, such circular houses mainly by iis name. The culture is characterized raised on a lateritic rm of with a domed roof probably the wid f been the norm' A few such found basement could have impleme f clustered together around an 1 orking huts may have been fromthe open courtyard. Rectangular huts with thatched was the fundamental feature of the Iron Age culture roof and timber construction also aPPears to have been prevalent (Leshnik 197 4: 79-81)'

SUBSISTENCE PATTERN the analysis of the material evidences can skill. This study has also revealed that the folding From reveal the subsistence strategies of the megalithic

etc were suitable to ensure high quality in the bill hooks, plough share, cutting knifes' casting of iron (Rajendran and Iyer 2008:72-17' as sickles, be caused the improvements in the field Gurukkal and Varier 1999: 133-136)' etc. could

SETTLEMENT PATTERN

agriculture. Grinding stone and rollers are 6 : 48 -53)' ,e"c o'o e.e d from P erun gulam (Kumar 200 From this we can clearly state that they used i; ts property to b en uPon durable' i.yitg made from a burial pot and from Perump atally, rice husk These caves a wooden 106 ICON - Journal of Archaeology and Culture

megalithic pot have been unearthed the megalit ric The evidences of non local items from the community may have Iived a pastoral life. They megalithic grave goods su ggest that they obtained may be used the meat of hunted and domesticated these items through an exchange network. The the animals for their food. Terracotta models of raw materials such as jasper, agate, carnelian, animals such as dog have been discovered from bronze, copper, and gold have no known Feroke and Perumpatally suggest that they source in Kerala. Their occurrence in urn burials domesticated animals. Field agriculture is more indicates the existence of exchange and conunon in low lands and coastal plains. In high networking system. lands and mid lands, they could have been cleared the forest with the help of iron tools and they rnight DISTRIBUTION OF MEGALITHIC SITES IN cultivated on forest (Rajendran and Iyer 1997:61,_ KERALA 66). The megalithic sites in Kerala are distributed over ARCHITECTURAL the entire state. If we look into the physiographic FEATURES .division, Kerala is divided into high land, mid land The megalithic monuments indicate the level of architectural knowledge. Monuments like rock_cut chamber tombs, dolmens, and multiple hood_ stones necessitated a remarkable skill in designing and executing their structures. The archit"it*J skill evident in the inter locking alignment of slabs utilization. of the dolmens and slab cists is remarkable. Inrock_ Based on the distribution pattem Kerala cut caves, the pillar, doorways, and bench or cot_ can again be grouped like berth etc. carved out from the laterite rock into Northern region, Central represent the level of region and Southern region. The Northern region comprises architecfure. The use o of districts such as Kasargode, Karnur, the rock-cut caves that Wayanad, Kozhikkode, Malappuram, palakkad and Trissur. The most predominant shows the rock-cut architecture to be the proto type gpes of the megalithic monument of what had been evolved in wooden architecture found in this region are Rock cut caves, (Gurukkal and Varier 1999: 141-142). Urn Burials, Umbrella Stones, Dolmens, and Menhirs. This region is credited with BELIEF SYSTEM AND EXCHANGE NETWORK maximum number of Iron Age sites among Kerala. The Central region consists of districts such as Megalithic monuments are considered to be and Kottayam. Major types of representing various beliefs related to ancestor nts found from this region are worship fear or respecttowards the dead and belief and Urn Burials. in the soul or life after death. The third The elaborate division, tha procedures prescribed for raising the hero stones districts like in the Tamil epic'Chilappathiknram' and the buriat and Thiruvananthapuram and the most predorninant gpe of monuments found in this region are Dolmens, Cists, Urn Burials, and Menhirs. Ffowever, most of these sites are found distributed throughout in Kerala i:respective of form of grave goods which indicates that their their dominance in certain region. In beliefs in life after death (Gurukkal Kerala, Trjssur and Varier L9g: district is credited 1,42-1.4n. with maximum number of the iron monuments, and the low land region in Kerala, lron Age in Kerala : A Short SummarY 107

Figure 2: Disribution of Megalithic sites in Kerala

which is Alappuzha district, has the minimum REFERENCE

number of megalithic sites. From these, we can Ghosh, A. 1989 . An En cy clop e dia of Indian Ar chaeolo gy . N ew understand that they are more close to the lateritic Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd' area of the region. Gurukkal, R. and M.R.R. Varier. 1999. Cultutal History of Kerala. Vol. I. Thiruvananthapuram: Department of CHRONOLOGY Cultural Publications. IAR. 1955-56. Ghoslu A. (ed.). 1956.Indian Archaeology 1955- The chronology of the megalithic culture in South 56 - A Re-obzu. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India is a subject of controversy. There is no India. of opinion regarding the chronology of unanimity lAR. 1956-57. Ghoslu A. (ed.). 1957. Indian Arclmeology 7956- Alexander Rea megalithic culture. According to 5 7 - A Reoiew. New Delhi: Archaeolo gical Survey of India. (1911), the dolmens of South India are not more lAR. 1957-58. Ghosh" A. (ed.). 1958. lndian Archaeology L957- says that than a thousand year old. Gordon Childe 58 - A Reuiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Suwey of India. the iron using megalithic community might have IAR. 1958-59. Ghoslu A. (ed.).7959.Indian Atchaeology L958- entered India from the west by a direct maritime 59 - A Reziew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of Lrdia. Arabia between 1400 and 700 B.C. route through lAR. 1959-60. Ghoslu A. (ed.). 1960. Indian Archaeology 1959- (1985), (Peter 2002). B.K. Thapar (1952), Mclntosh 60 - A Reaiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. suggest a date in between 3'd century B.C to L't lAR. 1960-61. Ghostu A. (ed.).1961'.Indian Archaeology L960- Leshnik century A.D for the Iron Age in Kerala. 61 - A Rniew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. (1974) has of the view that this culture can be dated 1AR.1961-62. Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1964.Indian Archaeology 1967- back to 3'd century B.C and 2nd century A.D. The 62 - AReoieu:. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. carbon dates from Mangad and available radio IAR.1%2-53. GhosluA. (ed.). 1965. Indian Archaeology 1962- Kunnoni. is dated back to c.900 B.C. and 1000 A.D 63 - A Repieu:. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of (Satyamurthy \992, Raj endran 2001 ). lndia. 108 /CON - Journal of Archaeology and Culture

I4R.1963-64. Chosh, A. (ed.).1967 . Innian Archaeology 1963- IAR. 1990-91. Mahapatra, S. K. (ed.). 1995. Indian Ar&aeology 64 - A Reoiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. 7990-91 - A Rniew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1964L65. Ghosh, A. (ed.).1969.Indian Archaeology 7964- 65 -AReaiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. 14R.1997-92. Singtu B. P. (ed.). 1996. Indian Archaeology 799L-92 - A ReL)iew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of IAR. 1955-65. A. (ed.).7973.Indian Ghostu Archaeology 7965- India. 66 - A Reoieu:. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1992-93. Shankar, A. (ed.). 1997. Indian Archaeology IAR. 1966-67. Deshpande, M. N. (ed.). '1,975. Indian 19 92-93 - A Rnieu:. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of Archaeology 7966-67 - A Reaieut. New Delhi: India. Archaeological Survey of krdia. IAR. 1993-94. Bisht, R. S., C. Dorje and A. Banerji (ed.). 2000. I4R.1967-68. Lal, B. B. (ed.). 1968.Indian Archaeology 1967- Indian Archaeology 1993-94 - A Reoiew. New Delhi: 68 - A ReaietD. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Archaeological Survey of Lrdia.

IAR. 1968-69. Lal, B. B. (ed.). 1971.Indian Archaeology 1968- IAR. 1994-95. Manjhi, H., C. Dorje and A. Banerji (ed.). 2000. 69 - A Reuiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Indian Archaeology 7994-95 - A Reaiezn. New Delhi: 14R.1969-70. Lal, B. B. (ed.). 7973.Indian Arclmeology 1969- Archaeological Suwey of trdia. 70 - A Reaiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 1995-96. Menory K. G. (ed.). 2002.Indian Archaeology IAR. 1.970-71. Deshpande, M. N. (ed.). 1974. Indian 7995-96 - A Rnieut. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Archaeology 7970-71. - A Repieut. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of hrdia. 14R.7996-97. Menort K. G. (ed.). 2002. Indian Archaeology 7996-97 A Reoiezn. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of IAR. 1972-73. Deshpande, M. N. (ed.). 7978. Indian - India. Archaeology 7972-73 - A Reztiern. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. I4R.1997-98. Menon, K. G. (ed.). 2003. lndian Archaeologll 1997-98 - ARmiew. New Delhi: ArchaeologicalSurve,v of IAR.1974-75. Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 1979.Indian Arclueology India. 1 9 7 4 -7 5 - A Rn iew . New Delhi : Archaeolo gic al Survey of India. IAR. 1998-99. Misra, R. C. (ed.). 2004.Indian Archaeologlt 7998-99 - A Rniew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of IAJ<.7975-76. Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 1979. hdian Archaeology India. 7 9 7 5 -7 6 - A Reaiew . New Delhi : Archaeolo gical Sun'ey of India. IAR. 1999-00. Rajeev, C. B. (ed.). 2005.Indian Arclueolog, 7 9 9 9 4 0 - A Reu iew. New Delhi : Archaeolo gic al Survev o; IAR.7977-78. Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 7980. Indian Arclueology India. 7977-78 - A Rettiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. IAR. 2000-01. Rajeev, C. B. (ed.). 2006.Indian Archaeolog" 200047 - A Rniew. New Delhi: Archaeological Surver- o- IAJ<.1978-79. Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 798L. Indian Arclmeology India. 7 9 7 8 -7 9 - A Rm iew. New Delhi: Archaeolo gical Survey of India. |ohn, K.J. 1,982. "Perarnbra7979 New Lights on Kodakkal. of Malabar". 'Indian Archaeology New Perspectioes' (P"p- IAR. 1979-80. Mitra, D. (ed.). 1983.Indian Archaeology 1979- Presented at Annual Congress of the India:- 80 - A Reaiew. New Delhi: Archaeological Suwey of India. Archaeological Society and the ISPQS, Bhopal R.K. Sharma (ed.). Kala lAR. 1980-81. Mitra, D. (ed.). 1983.Indian Archaeology 7980- New Delhi: Agam ltakasharu 14> tJ4. 81 - A Reuiqn. New Delhi: Archaeological Suwey of India. Krishnaswami . V . D. 19 49.'Megalithic types of South ledia IAR. 1981-82. Mitra, D. (ed.). 198a. Indian Archaeology 1981- Ancient India (Bulletin of the Archaeological Suroey of ht;'' 8 2 - A Rezrian New Delhi: Archaeological Suwey of India. 5. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of L:rdia: 35-45. IAR. 1982-83. Rao, M. S. N. (ed.). 1985.Indian Archaeology Kumar, Ajft. 2006.'A Socio-Economic Study of I:,= 7982-83 A Rniew . New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of - Megaliths in Kerala', Issues in Keala Historiogra:i:'- India. Kusuman K.K. (ed.). Thiruvananthapuram: Ker=-: IAR. 1989-90. Mahapatra, S. K. (ed.). 1994.Indian Arclueology Historical Society: 46-66. 1989-90 A Rmieut. New - Delhi: Archaeological Survey of Leshnik, L.S. 1974'South Indian Megalithic Burial:. l'- India. Pandukal Conrlplex. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. lron Age in Kerala : A Short Summary 109

Mclntosch, J.R. 1985. "Dating of the South Indian Baroda: Department of Archaeology andAncient History. Megaliths". 'South Asian Archaeology L993'. Yo1. 2. M.S. University of Baroda. Taddei (eds.). Helsinki: Papers from Schotsmans, J. and M. Rajendran, P. and A. Kshirsa gar. 1D3.' Poredam Urn burial : Seventh International ConJerenceof the Association of A Chalcolothic culture', Current Science 64(3). Banglore: South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe: 467493. 1.48-L49.

Mehta R.N. and K.M. George. 1978. ' Megaliths at Machad and Rajendran, P. and C.S.P. Iyer. 1997.'A preliminary Report Pazlwyannur, Talpally Taluka, Tichur District, Keral-a State ( on the Characterization of Copper and Gold Ornaments A Report on Mangad Excaztatios Conducted ftom L8tu ApiI to of the Arippa Megalithic culture in 61-66. 12th May 1974).Baroda: Department of Archaeology and Sathyamurthy.T.1992. The lron Age In kerala: A Report on AncientHistory atM. S. University of Baroda. Mangadu Excaaation. Thiruvananthapuram: The Moorti, S. Udayaravi. 1986.'Socio-Economic Aspects of Department of Archaeology Government of Kerala. Megalithic Vidarbha', P ur atattu a 1'5: 56-57 . Sharma.Y.D. L955. 'Rock Cut Caves in Cochin , Ancientlndia Moorti, S. Udayaravi. 1,991. 'Evidence of Social (Bulletinof the Arclrcolngical Surcey of lndia)12. NewDelhi: Differentiation and Sociopolitical Organization during Archaeological Suwey of L:rdia.

P a 20:. 1' -65. Megalithic period in South India', ur atattu Sundara, A.1979. 'Typology of Megaliths in South India', Moorti. S. Udayaravi.1994. Megalithic Cultures of Southlndi.a Essays in Indian Protohistory. Agrawal, D.P and D.K. So cio-economic P er spectiaes. Varanasi: Kaveri Publishing Chalcrabarti (eds.). Delhi : B R publicating co-opration: House. 331-340. Sundararajan, K.V. 1980. Glimpses of Indian Culture History Peter, Jenee. 2002. Dimensons of Megalithic Culture of Kerala in relation to Peninsular India: An Interdisciplinary and Arcfuology. Delhi. Sundeep Prakashan. Approach (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Vadodara: Thaper, B.K. 1952. 'Porkalam 1948: Excavation of a Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, The Megalithic Urn Burial' , Ancient India (Bulletin of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Ar&neological Suraey of India) 8" New Delhi: Archaeological Plenderleittu H.J. 1930. 'Black Polished Pottery from Urn Survey of India. Burials in Wynad', Man andEnoironment XXX: 190. Wheeler, R. E.M. 1 948.' Brahma giri and Ch andr av alli 19 4T : Megalithic andOther Cultures in Mysore Di'sfrct', Ancient Rajendran, P. 2001. 'Megalithic Cultural Evidences at India (Bulletin of the Arclweological Suroey of India) 4. New Kunnoni in the light of the Oliyani Cist burial Excavatiorl Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Kottayam District, Kerala', Abstract in the loint Annual Conference of IAS,/SPQS and IHCS. Baroda. Department Fawcett, F. 1901.'Notes onthe RockCarvings inthe Edakkal of Archaeology and Ancient History. M.S. University. Cave, Wyanad' Indian Antiquary 30. Bombay.