CHAPTER III

FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE:

MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD

77

Kasaragod has had the dubious distinction of being a part of

erstwhile Tulunadu and Malabar, and yet did not merit serious

consideration in the archaeological map of either Kerala or South Canara.

Certainly, an important zone archaeologically the reasons for this lack of

research are hard to explain. This chapter embodies the data from the

region and begins by looking at the status of Kasaragod in the

archaeological map of Kerala, (Fig.3) in terms of excavated megalithic

sites, trying to discern the absence through a review of the existing

literature pertaining to the region. Moving into the evidences that have

been unearthed through explorations the first half looks at what sets

Kasaragod apart in terms of sites, patterns of distribution, size, frequency

and types of structures, together with the assemblages. Based on the

evidences provided from the sites, an attempt is made to understand the

interpretative reconstruction of megalithic life worlds by drawing on

landscape as a trope of analysis. An attempt is made to move away from

the standard approach of site led reports and writings, where hardly any

emphasis on landscape features let alone abstract components of the

landscape and symbolic space were attempted. Here landscape is not

merely considered as a geographic space in trying to address the key

question of why particular locations were chosen for the erection of

monuments. Drawing insights from the phenomenological approach in

philosophy an attempt is made to construe sets of meanings partially

discernible from the archaeological record but too important to be ignored.

THE REGION

Nestled between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea, Kasaragod

lies between 12002’ and 12

0 47’ North latitude and 74

0 52’ and 75

0 26’East

longitude, covering an area of 1992 sq. km. (Fig.3.1). Formerly a part of

Dakshina Kannada and integrated with Kannur district in 1957, the district

CHAPTER III

FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE:

MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD

77

Kasaragod has had the dubious distinction of being a part of

erstwhile Tulunadu and Malabar, and yet did not merit serious

consideration in the archaeological map of either Kerala or South Canara.

Certainly, an important zone archaeologically the reasons for this lack of

research are hard to explain. This chapter embodies the data from the

region and begins by looking at the status of Kasaragod in the

archaeological map of Kerala, (Fig.3) in terms of excavated megalithic

sites, trying to discern the absence through a review of the existing

literature pertaining to the region. Moving into the evidences that have

been unearthed through explorations the first half looks at what sets

Kasaragod apart in terms of sites, patterns of distribution, size, frequency

and types of structures, together with the assemblages. Based on the

evidences provided from the sites, an attempt is made to understand the

interpretative reconstruction of megalithic life worlds by drawing on

landscape as a trope of analysis. An attempt is made to move away from

the standard approach of site led reports and writings, where hardly any

emphasis on landscape features let alone abstract components of the

landscape and symbolic space were attempted. Here landscape is not

merely considered as a geographic space in trying to address the key

question of why particular locations were chosen for the erection of

monuments. Drawing insights from the phenomenological approach in

philosophy an attempt is made to construe sets of meanings partially

discernible from the archaeological record but too important to be ignored.

THE REGION

Nestled between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea, Kasaragod

lies between 12002’ and 12

0 47’ North latitude and 74

0 52’ and 75

0 26’East

longitude, covering an area of 1992 sq. km. (Fig.3.1). Formerly a part of

Dakshina Kannada and integrated with Kannur district in 1957, the district

78

lies in the Northern zone of Kerala, which is a long narrow strip with a

coastline of 293 kilometres. It is bounded by Kannur district in the south,

South Kanara and Kodugu districts of Karnataka state in the North and

East respectively, and Arabian Sea on the west .The district consists of 2

taluks viz. Kasaragod and Hosdurg (Kanhangad). The Western Ghats runs

parallel to the sea on the eastern side. The eastern belt covered by reserved

forests, is an undulating terrain

PHYSIOGRAPHY

Physiographically Kasaragod can be divided into three well-defined

natural divisions, viz.coastal plains, midland, and Eastern Highlands. The

eastern belt or highlands represents an undulating terrain with a series of

hills and valleys intersected by rivers and streams. Low red laterite hills

interspersed with green paddy, coconut, and areca nut gardens are visible.

Population density is high. The lowland is a narrow strip of land 10 meters

above sea level formed out of sand and alluvium deposits stretching from

the seashore up to 3 kilometres towards east. But at places like Bekal,

hillocks of 45-60 meters can be seen. The proximity to the sea and

availability of alluvium soil permits fishing and agriculture as the

predominant means of subsistence. The midland, which covers a

substantial part of the district, lies 10-300 meters above the sea level

leaning towards the east. Formed by red sandstone laterite and alluvial soil

deposited at riverbanks, this division has provided agriculture as a means

of subsistence. Further east and 300-1000 meters above the sea level

intersected with mountains and hills is the upland region. In extent, it is

comparatively less than the midland. Laterite capping in the midland is

fertile for cashew plantations. Wastelands are plenty in the area amidst the

plantations, which are graze lands for the cattle. The geographical area of

the district is 96130 hectares with coconut as the major crop followed by

cashew and areca nut.

79

RIVERS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM

Nine rivers the Manjeshwar, Uppala, Shiriya, Kumbla, Mongral,

Karingote, Chandragiri, Payaswini, and Nileshwaram rivers water the

district. The Chandragiri River is one of the major rivers flowing through

Kerala in Kasaragod taluk. 65 miles long from its source with a catchment

of 482 square miles, the river has two tributaries- the Payaswini and the

Chandragiri. The longest tributary Payaswini has its origin in Coorg

district in Mysore in the Patti reserve forest at an altitude of +4500 MSL.

The other tributary Chandragiri Hole originates in Saampajenad of Coorg

district at a level of +4500MSL. The Chandragiri River enters the Kerala

State at Peraja 25 ½ miles west of Kasaragod. At Machipura, the

Chandragiri Hole coming from the south enters the Payaswini River. The

waters of the Chandragiri become tidal on its confluence with the

Payaswini. It flows north / south forming small islands, which are flooded

on its widening, and takes the u form winding around Kasaragod town

before entering the sea. The port of Kasaragod with long stretches of

backwaters is the result of the expanding of rivers.1

The Nileshwaram River has its origin in Kinnanur near the stream

called Kumbalapalli chal. Two other streams join the main stream 5 miles

further down, where extensive paddy fields and stagnant pools amidst these

fields are visible. The total length of the river from its origin to its mouth is

29 miles, the lower seven miles being tidal as a result of which a vast stretch

of water provides facility for navigation. To the south of the Nileshwaram

River lies the Karingote River, one of the major rivers flowing through

Hosdurg taluk. It is 40 miles long from its source, which is Padinalkad

Ghat, reserve forest of Coorg in Mysore State. It is perennial and even

during the dry months; there is a flow of about 3 feet depth of water at

1 A.Sreedhara Menon, Kerala District Gazetters:Kottayam Trivanduram: Government

Press,1975,pp6-9.

78

lies in the Northern zone of Kerala, which is a long narrow strip with a

coastline of 293 kilometres. It is bounded by Kannur district in the south,

South Kanara and Kodugu districts of Karnataka state in the North and

East respectively, and Arabian Sea on the west .The district consists of 2

taluks viz. Kasaragod and Hosdurg (Kanhangad). The Western Ghats runs

parallel to the sea on the eastern side. The eastern belt covered by reserved

forests, is an undulating terrain

PHYSIOGRAPHY

Physiographically Kasaragod can be divided into three well-defined

natural divisions, viz.coastal plains, midland, and Eastern Highlands. The

eastern belt or highlands represents an undulating terrain with a series of

hills and valleys intersected by rivers and streams. Low red laterite hills

interspersed with green paddy, coconut, and areca nut gardens are visible.

Population density is high. The lowland is a narrow strip of land 10 meters

above sea level formed out of sand and alluvium deposits stretching from

the seashore up to 3 kilometres towards east. But at places like Bekal,

hillocks of 45-60 meters can be seen. The proximity to the sea and

availability of alluvium soil permits fishing and agriculture as the

predominant means of subsistence. The midland, which covers a

substantial part of the district, lies 10-300 meters above the sea level

leaning towards the east. Formed by red sandstone laterite and alluvial soil

deposited at riverbanks, this division has provided agriculture as a means

of subsistence. Further east and 300-1000 meters above the sea level

intersected with mountains and hills is the upland region. In extent, it is

comparatively less than the midland. Laterite capping in the midland is

fertile for cashew plantations. Wastelands are plenty in the area amidst the

plantations, which are graze lands for the cattle. The geographical area of

the district is 96130 hectares with coconut as the major crop followed by

cashew and areca nut.

79

RIVERS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM

Nine rivers the Manjeshwar, Uppala, Shiriya, Kumbla, Mongral,

Karingote, Chandragiri, Payaswini, and Nileshwaram rivers water the

district. The Chandragiri River is one of the major rivers flowing through

Kerala in Kasaragod taluk. 65 miles long from its source with a catchment

of 482 square miles, the river has two tributaries- the Payaswini and the

Chandragiri. The longest tributary Payaswini has its origin in Coorg

district in Mysore in the Patti reserve forest at an altitude of +4500 MSL.

The other tributary Chandragiri Hole originates in Saampajenad of Coorg

district at a level of +4500MSL. The Chandragiri River enters the Kerala

State at Peraja 25 ½ miles west of Kasaragod. At Machipura, the

Chandragiri Hole coming from the south enters the Payaswini River. The

waters of the Chandragiri become tidal on its confluence with the

Payaswini. It flows north / south forming small islands, which are flooded

on its widening, and takes the u form winding around Kasaragod town

before entering the sea. The port of Kasaragod with long stretches of

backwaters is the result of the expanding of rivers.1

The Nileshwaram River has its origin in Kinnanur near the stream

called Kumbalapalli chal. Two other streams join the main stream 5 miles

further down, where extensive paddy fields and stagnant pools amidst these

fields are visible. The total length of the river from its origin to its mouth is

29 miles, the lower seven miles being tidal as a result of which a vast stretch

of water provides facility for navigation. To the south of the Nileshwaram

River lies the Karingote River, one of the major rivers flowing through

Hosdurg taluk. It is 40 miles long from its source, which is Padinalkad

Ghat, reserve forest of Coorg in Mysore State. It is perennial and even

during the dry months; there is a flow of about 3 feet depth of water at

1 A.Sreedhara Menon, Kerala District Gazetters:Kottayam Trivanduram: Government

Press,1975,pp6-9.

80

Kakkadavu. The river flows through the steep slopes of the Western Ghats.

At Pulingom village joined by a stream, apart from two other main streams,

the Pulingom chal divides Taliparamba and Hosdurg taluks from Pulingom.

Joined by many streams from north and south the river flows through

Hosdurg for about 1 mile upstream of Kakkadu. It is named Ariyakaduva

Hole in Cheemeni and Kannindala villages. It flows due west reaching

Kilayyikote turning south 2 miles, further traversing westward until it is

joined by the Nileshwaram river coming from the north.2

BACKWATERS, LAKES AND TANKS

Kumbla, Kalanad Bekal, Chittari, and Kavvayi are the important

backwaters. The Bevenje water springhead at Changala village, 5 miles

from Kasaragod and the water spring at Thekkil village are the two minor

springheads in the district.

CLIMATE

The region experiences a tropical climate and the diversity of

physical features has given it a diverse climate. Humidity is high. The

Southwest monsoon starts towards the end of May or beginning of June

heralded by thunderstorms and remains till September until it fades out.

October brings in the Northeast monsoon. Rice, which forms the staple

food, is raised by means of rain alone and without the aid of artificial

irrigation. The climate is generally hot and humid with temperatures

varying between a maximum of 33.1° C and a minimum of 20.7° C. The

annual rainfall of Kasaragod is 3581 mm and during the Southwest

monsoon, it receives 2695 mm. The normal rainfall from the Northeast

monsoon is 569 mm.3

2 Ibid.,p.10.

3 Land Resources of Kerala State, Kerala State Land Use Board, Thiruvananthapuram August

1995,pp.59-60.

81

SOILS

Among the ten broad groups of soils identified based on

morphological features and physio-chemical properties, laterite soil-reddish

brown to yellowish red in colour is the most predominant type, supporting

a wide variety of crops such as cashew nut, coconut, tapioca, rubber, areca

nut and pepper. The laterites are good aquifers, well drained, low in plant

nutrients and organic matter. Cash crops are dominant compared to the

food crops and cashew plantations are ideal on laterite fields.

Hydrologically characterised as dark due to over development, ground

water appears the principal source of irrigation and most of the crops are

rain fed.4

FLORA AND FAUNA

The heavy rainfall stimulates essentially a forest district and the

slopes of the Western Ghats from north to south are cloaked with dense

forests of magnificent timber. The heavy forests to the North of Kasaragod

is seen further inland with the extensive plains having denser populations.

Even portions of the plains sometimes are covered with heavy forests and

jungles, varying from moderate forests to mere scrub. An exceptionally

huge area of wasteland cultivation is confined to the plains, close to the

coast and the bottoms of the innumerable valleys, which wind amongst

laterite hills and plateaus from the Ghats to the sea. Kumaki lands reported

by Buchanan5 in 1501 include many trees formerly being cleared to keep

the bushes down. To destroy vermin the grass is annually burnt. Kumari

cultivation is practised in Kasaragod, which includes shifting cultivation by

felling and burning a patch of forest and raising on the ground which has a

manure of ashes, a crop of rice or dry grains, mixed with cotton, castor,

4 K.Soman, Geology of Kerala. Bangalore: Geological Society of India, 1977.

5 J Stturrock, Madras District Manuals: South Canara. Vol.1.Madras Government Press,

1894,p.15.

80

Kakkadavu. The river flows through the steep slopes of the Western Ghats.

At Pulingom village joined by a stream, apart from two other main streams,

the Pulingom chal divides Taliparamba and Hosdurg taluks from Pulingom.

Joined by many streams from north and south the river flows through

Hosdurg for about 1 mile upstream of Kakkadu. It is named Ariyakaduva

Hole in Cheemeni and Kannindala villages. It flows due west reaching

Kilayyikote turning south 2 miles, further traversing westward until it is

joined by the Nileshwaram river coming from the north.2

BACKWATERS, LAKES AND TANKS

Kumbla, Kalanad Bekal, Chittari, and Kavvayi are the important

backwaters. The Bevenje water springhead at Changala village, 5 miles

from Kasaragod and the water spring at Thekkil village are the two minor

springheads in the district.

CLIMATE

The region experiences a tropical climate and the diversity of

physical features has given it a diverse climate. Humidity is high. The

Southwest monsoon starts towards the end of May or beginning of June

heralded by thunderstorms and remains till September until it fades out.

October brings in the Northeast monsoon. Rice, which forms the staple

food, is raised by means of rain alone and without the aid of artificial

irrigation. The climate is generally hot and humid with temperatures

varying between a maximum of 33.1° C and a minimum of 20.7° C. The

annual rainfall of Kasaragod is 3581 mm and during the Southwest

monsoon, it receives 2695 mm. The normal rainfall from the Northeast

monsoon is 569 mm.3

2 Ibid.,p.10.

3 Land Resources of Kerala State, Kerala State Land Use Board, Thiruvananthapuram August

1995,pp.59-60.

81

SOILS

Among the ten broad groups of soils identified based on

morphological features and physio-chemical properties, laterite soil-reddish

brown to yellowish red in colour is the most predominant type, supporting

a wide variety of crops such as cashew nut, coconut, tapioca, rubber, areca

nut and pepper. The laterites are good aquifers, well drained, low in plant

nutrients and organic matter. Cash crops are dominant compared to the

food crops and cashew plantations are ideal on laterite fields.

Hydrologically characterised as dark due to over development, ground

water appears the principal source of irrigation and most of the crops are

rain fed.4

FLORA AND FAUNA

The heavy rainfall stimulates essentially a forest district and the

slopes of the Western Ghats from north to south are cloaked with dense

forests of magnificent timber. The heavy forests to the North of Kasaragod

is seen further inland with the extensive plains having denser populations.

Even portions of the plains sometimes are covered with heavy forests and

jungles, varying from moderate forests to mere scrub. An exceptionally

huge area of wasteland cultivation is confined to the plains, close to the

coast and the bottoms of the innumerable valleys, which wind amongst

laterite hills and plateaus from the Ghats to the sea. Kumaki lands reported

by Buchanan5 in 1501 include many trees formerly being cleared to keep

the bushes down. To destroy vermin the grass is annually burnt. Kumari

cultivation is practised in Kasaragod, which includes shifting cultivation by

felling and burning a patch of forest and raising on the ground which has a

manure of ashes, a crop of rice or dry grains, mixed with cotton, castor,

4 K.Soman, Geology of Kerala. Bangalore: Geological Society of India, 1977.

5 J Stturrock, Madras District Manuals: South Canara. Vol.1.Madras Government Press,

1894,p.15.

82

oilseeds etc. Deciduous forests cover the district and teak is most

abundant. Inferior domestic stock with small stunted breed cattle showing

no remarkable specimens of their class makes the district dependent on the

annual cattle fair at Subramanyam for the supply of draught bullocks,

buffaloes and ghauts. Cattle are poor and stunted creatures with a damp

climate not favourable for animal life. Until the rainy season, pasture is

scanty. Horses, sheep, and donkeys are not bred.6

GEOLOGY

Geologically7 the crystalline rocks of the Achaean age occupy the

entire district. Along the coast, Tertiary and Recent sedimentary rocks are

seen. Hornblende gneiss and charnockites constitute the crystalline rocks

and are widely laterised and form good aquifer in the midland area. The

geological successions of the rock types are

RECENT unconsolidated formation (Alluvium, Sand, Clay and Silt)

---------------------------------------Unconformity---------------------------------

PLEISTOCENE Laterite

(Residual formation)

MIOCENE Sediments equivalent to Workalli

Beds of Southern Kerala

(Semi consolidated formation)

------------------------------------------Unconformity-------------------------------

6 J.Sturrock, Op.cit.,,p.44.

7 A.V.Sijin Kumar, “Mapping of Land Use System of Kasaragod city and Environs for Urban

Planning and Development, Kerala,” Unpublished M.Sc diss, Department of Geology,

Kannur University, 2003, pp.6-7.

83

ARCHAEAN Basic Intrusives

(Crystalline Rocks) Granites

Charnockites

Hornblende/ Biotite Gneiss and

Other associated crystalline

rocks.

PRE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Antiquarians, Prehistorians and Archaeologists have failed to explore

Kasaragod regions archaeological potentialities, despite the fact that

archaeological research is nearly two centuries old in India. Surprisingly

when Babington’s discoveries in the first quarter of the 19th

century

unveiled to the world of Indian archaeology an interesting set of

archaeological relics on the west coast stimulating subsequent discoveries,

Kasaragod was projected in the early literature as devoid of any antiquarian

remains. This was despite the first discovery being made in Malabar not

too far from Kasaragod.

EARLY RESEARCH

Gleaning through the literature, which bears reference to the pre-

history of Kasaragod the failure to enhance knowledge on the pre-history,

is quite apparent whether it is the literature of South Canara or Malabar.

One wonders how such structures went unnoticed. J.Sturrock8 discusses

the archaeology of south Canara thus:

“The archaeology of south Canara has not yet been properly worked

out and the known architectural remains are not of any great antiquity. No

8 J.Sturrock, Op.cit., p.84.

82

oilseeds etc. Deciduous forests cover the district and teak is most

abundant. Inferior domestic stock with small stunted breed cattle showing

no remarkable specimens of their class makes the district dependent on the

annual cattle fair at Subramanyam for the supply of draught bullocks,

buffaloes and ghauts. Cattle are poor and stunted creatures with a damp

climate not favourable for animal life. Until the rainy season, pasture is

scanty. Horses, sheep, and donkeys are not bred.6

GEOLOGY

Geologically7 the crystalline rocks of the Achaean age occupy the

entire district. Along the coast, Tertiary and Recent sedimentary rocks are

seen. Hornblende gneiss and charnockites constitute the crystalline rocks

and are widely laterised and form good aquifer in the midland area. The

geological successions of the rock types are

RECENT unconsolidated formation (Alluvium, Sand, Clay and Silt)

---------------------------------------Unconformity---------------------------------

PLEISTOCENE Laterite

(Residual formation)

MIOCENE Sediments equivalent to Workalli

Beds of Southern Kerala

(Semi consolidated formation)

------------------------------------------Unconformity-------------------------------

6 J.Sturrock, Op.cit.,,p.44.

7 A.V.Sijin Kumar, “Mapping of Land Use System of Kasaragod city and Environs for Urban

Planning and Development, Kerala,” Unpublished M.Sc diss, Department of Geology,

Kannur University, 2003, pp.6-7.

83

ARCHAEAN Basic Intrusives

(Crystalline Rocks) Granites

Charnockites

Hornblende/ Biotite Gneiss and

Other associated crystalline

rocks.

PRE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Antiquarians, Prehistorians and Archaeologists have failed to explore

Kasaragod regions archaeological potentialities, despite the fact that

archaeological research is nearly two centuries old in India. Surprisingly

when Babington’s discoveries in the first quarter of the 19th

century

unveiled to the world of Indian archaeology an interesting set of

archaeological relics on the west coast stimulating subsequent discoveries,

Kasaragod was projected in the early literature as devoid of any antiquarian

remains. This was despite the first discovery being made in Malabar not

too far from Kasaragod.

EARLY RESEARCH

Gleaning through the literature, which bears reference to the pre-

history of Kasaragod the failure to enhance knowledge on the pre-history,

is quite apparent whether it is the literature of South Canara or Malabar.

One wonders how such structures went unnoticed. J.Sturrock8 discusses

the archaeology of south Canara thus:

“The archaeology of south Canara has not yet been properly worked

out and the known architectural remains are not of any great antiquity. No

8 J.Sturrock, Op.cit., p.84.

84

discoveries have been made of any ancient cave or rock-cell sepulchres

similar to those found in Malabar and the early edifices of the Dravidian

inhabitants of the country were probably built in wood, as is done to the

present day throughout the Western coast as well as Burmah and other

places where somewhat similar climatic conditions led to the abundance of

wood being available.”

Stuart9 projected ancient Jain temples as the only interesting

structures of archaeological or architectural interest in South Canara. K.V

Ramesh10

while discussing on earliest man and Iron Age says “The dating

of the earliest man in South Canara will however have to stand the test of

thorough archaeological exploration which has not so far been conducted

in that region.”

Despite repeated emphasis on the lack of thorough archaeological

exploration no serious attempt to unravel Kasaragod’s pre historic past was

made, let alone contemplated. While the early literature of South Canara

failed to enhance knowledge of Kasaragod’s prehistoric relics, the later

literature of Malabar wasn’t very different when Kasaragod became a part

of it. The virtual absence of an initial horizon for prehistoric relics can be

gleaned from the literature on Malabar. Here it is worth quoting from The

Kerala District Gazetteers of Cannanore.11

“The Malabar and the Kasaragod-Hosdurg areas of the district offer

to some extent a study in contrast in regard to the prevalence of megaliths.

While many an ancient cave or rock cut sepulchre has been discovered

from the Malabar area of the district, no significant discovery of the kind

9 H A. Stuart, Op.cit., P.278.

10 K.V.Ramesh, A History of South Kanara- from the earliest Times to the fall of Vijayanagara.

Research Publication Series: 12. Dharward: Karnatak University, 1970, in the introduction,

xxiii. 11

A. Sreedhara menon, Op.cit.,p.61.

85

has been reported from the Kasaragod Hosdurg area which formed part of

erstwhile South Canara. The reason for this is perhaps that the South

Canara region is relatively modern from the point of view of human

habitation and also that the people of the area might have used a perishable

material like wood rather than stone for building purposes.”

The existence of megaliths in the district was for the first time noted

by George12

in his attempt undertaken to discover more sites through

intensive fieldwork, in trying to build up a sequence of cultures up to circa

1500 AD for the Archaeology of Kerala. His description of 71 explored

sites and the antiquities found from them, included references to sites in

Kasaragod. Among the explored sites in the Kasaragod Taluk, he refers to

Kukkamon 3 kilometres east of Kalikkadavu bearing six cist-circles

scattered in an area of about 800 metres made of granite with circle stones

of laterite.

“Half kilometre west of Kalikkadavu bus stop on somewhat laterite

plain is the site of Kalikkadavu. There are more than a dozen rock-cut

caves seen in an area of about 200 meters.”13

He also reports a large urn

burial 50 meters to the south on the right side of the Kalikadavu bus stop.

P.Ganapaya Bhat14

in his Prehistory of Tulunadu published in 1978

speaks thus

During the last one hundred years archaeological research has

established the existence of Stone Age man over most of the

Indian subcontinent, with the exception of coastal Karnataka

12

K.George, “Archaeology of Kerala upto 1500A.D.” Unpublished Ph.D. Diss.Baroda: M.S.

University, 1975. 13

Ibid.,p.152. 14

P.Ganapayya Bhat, “Pre-History of Coastal Karnataka,” The Quarterly Journal Of The Mythic Society. Vol.LXX. Nos. 1-2, 1979 January-June. Also an unpublished paper,

presented at a seminar in Udupi, 1994.

84

discoveries have been made of any ancient cave or rock-cell sepulchres

similar to those found in Malabar and the early edifices of the Dravidian

inhabitants of the country were probably built in wood, as is done to the

present day throughout the Western coast as well as Burmah and other

places where somewhat similar climatic conditions led to the abundance of

wood being available.”

Stuart9 projected ancient Jain temples as the only interesting

structures of archaeological or architectural interest in South Canara. K.V

Ramesh10

while discussing on earliest man and Iron Age says “The dating

of the earliest man in South Canara will however have to stand the test of

thorough archaeological exploration which has not so far been conducted

in that region.”

Despite repeated emphasis on the lack of thorough archaeological

exploration no serious attempt to unravel Kasaragod’s pre historic past was

made, let alone contemplated. While the early literature of South Canara

failed to enhance knowledge of Kasaragod’s prehistoric relics, the later

literature of Malabar wasn’t very different when Kasaragod became a part

of it. The virtual absence of an initial horizon for prehistoric relics can be

gleaned from the literature on Malabar. Here it is worth quoting from The

Kerala District Gazetteers of Cannanore.11

“The Malabar and the Kasaragod-Hosdurg areas of the district offer

to some extent a study in contrast in regard to the prevalence of megaliths.

While many an ancient cave or rock cut sepulchre has been discovered

from the Malabar area of the district, no significant discovery of the kind

9 H A. Stuart, Op.cit., P.278.

10 K.V.Ramesh, A History of South Kanara- from the earliest Times to the fall of Vijayanagara.

Research Publication Series: 12. Dharward: Karnatak University, 1970, in the introduction,

xxiii. 11

A. Sreedhara menon, Op.cit.,p.61.

85

has been reported from the Kasaragod Hosdurg area which formed part of

erstwhile South Canara. The reason for this is perhaps that the South

Canara region is relatively modern from the point of view of human

habitation and also that the people of the area might have used a perishable

material like wood rather than stone for building purposes.”

The existence of megaliths in the district was for the first time noted

by George12

in his attempt undertaken to discover more sites through

intensive fieldwork, in trying to build up a sequence of cultures up to circa

1500 AD for the Archaeology of Kerala. His description of 71 explored

sites and the antiquities found from them, included references to sites in

Kasaragod. Among the explored sites in the Kasaragod Taluk, he refers to

Kukkamon 3 kilometres east of Kalikkadavu bearing six cist-circles

scattered in an area of about 800 metres made of granite with circle stones

of laterite.

“Half kilometre west of Kalikkadavu bus stop on somewhat laterite

plain is the site of Kalikkadavu. There are more than a dozen rock-cut

caves seen in an area of about 200 meters.”13

He also reports a large urn

burial 50 meters to the south on the right side of the Kalikadavu bus stop.

P.Ganapaya Bhat14

in his Prehistory of Tulunadu published in 1978

speaks thus

During the last one hundred years archaeological research has

established the existence of Stone Age man over most of the

Indian subcontinent, with the exception of coastal Karnataka

12

K.George, “Archaeology of Kerala upto 1500A.D.” Unpublished Ph.D. Diss.Baroda: M.S.

University, 1975. 13

Ibid.,p.152. 14

P.Ganapayya Bhat, “Pre-History of Coastal Karnataka,” The Quarterly Journal Of The Mythic Society. Vol.LXX. Nos. 1-2, 1979 January-June. Also an unpublished paper,

presented at a seminar in Udupi, 1994.

86

region. It was believed that this region was largely bypassed

by the early man because of the non availability of suitable

raw material for the manufacture of tools and the relatively

inhospitable environment with dense, tropical monsoon

forests.15

He goes on to add that subsequent archaeological discoveries have

proved undoubtedly the extensive inhabitation of man in the Stone Age

period. He adds, “Geographically and climatically identical situation exists in

Tulunadu and in the regions of Konkan, Goa, and Kerala.” If we agree that

“Like environment evokes like “cultural response”, than we can justifiably

conclude that it is only due to the lack of systematic field explorations that the

remains of stone age man have not come to light in Tulunadu and not that they

are absent in this region.”16

He refers to the existence of Mesolithic cultural

remains revealed during explorations and to solitary stone axes.

On the megalithic culture he refers to large number of megalithic

sites in different parts of Tulunadu convincingly establishing “the existence

of the Iron Age Man in Tulunadu.” “All these are megalithic burial sites

and no traces of settlement of Iron Age man has hitherto come to light.”17

He goes on to classify the megaliths of Tulunadu into 3 main groups viz.

port holed chambers, urn burials and rock cut caves. Urn burial sites at

Puttur and Hiriyadka, Vaddarse in Udupi Taluk and Belur in Kundapur

Taluk are mentioned.

The third category of structures called Rock cut caves he believed

are no longer exclusive to Kerala region but have been discovered in as

many as 20 localities in Tulunadu and their distribution is seen as

15

Ibid.,p.87. 16

P.Ganapaya Bhat, “Prehistory of Tulunadu” an unpublished paper, presented at a seminar in

Udupi on 29/1/94. 17

P.Ganapayya Bhat, Op.cit., p.89.

87

spreading further north in the coastal Karnataka region as well. Sullia,

Karkala, Udupi and Kundapur Taluks bear the existence of such structures.

K.J.John reports the existence of a rock cut cave from Udipi but not

Kasaragod. Citing the discoveries made by individuals and institutions in

the appendix Ramachandran Nair18

mentions rock cut caves at Muttathodi

village, Manathody village in Kasaragod. Interestingly since George’s

discoveries and subsequent emphasis on the indiscriminate presence of

such relics in 1990’s the State Department of Archaeology claimed to have

excavated a rock cut cave at Pillicode has provided a fragmentary report

with no other information. It was Gurukkal and Varrier19

who very

emphatically outlined the immense potentialities and need for intensive

surveys, especially in Kasaragod and Alapuzha district to understand the

overall distribution of megaliths in Kerala.

Books on local history largely primordial in nature brought out by a

few panchayaths20

in the recent past have been more of compilation of

facts but have passing reference to the megalithic sites and nothing beyond

that. A survey and exploration in fact documentation, of the available

evidence becomes indispensable, especially when there is hardly any

strengthening textual evidence to reconstruct the history of Kerala

stretching from 1st millennium BC to the 1

st millennium AD

It is against this backdrop portraying a negative picture on the

archaeological remains on this area that the present researcher initiated a

systematic study of the megaliths in the district in 1999. Explorations have

18

Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair, Kerala State Gazetteers. Vol.2. Part 1.

Thiruvananthapuram: Government of Kerala, 1986, p.324. 19

R.Gurukkal and M.R.R. Varier, Op.cit.,Cultural History of …p.124. 20

C.Balan, (Ed.). Kasaragod Charthiravum Samuhavum. Kasaragod Panchayath. (In

Malayalam), 2001. V.Kuttiyan, Nerippu Madikayauda Anubava Charithram. Madikayi

Panchayath. (In Malayalam), 2004.

86

region. It was believed that this region was largely bypassed

by the early man because of the non availability of suitable

raw material for the manufacture of tools and the relatively

inhospitable environment with dense, tropical monsoon

forests.15

He goes on to add that subsequent archaeological discoveries have

proved undoubtedly the extensive inhabitation of man in the Stone Age

period. He adds, “Geographically and climatically identical situation exists in

Tulunadu and in the regions of Konkan, Goa, and Kerala.” If we agree that

“Like environment evokes like “cultural response”, than we can justifiably

conclude that it is only due to the lack of systematic field explorations that the

remains of stone age man have not come to light in Tulunadu and not that they

are absent in this region.”16

He refers to the existence of Mesolithic cultural

remains revealed during explorations and to solitary stone axes.

On the megalithic culture he refers to large number of megalithic

sites in different parts of Tulunadu convincingly establishing “the existence

of the Iron Age Man in Tulunadu.” “All these are megalithic burial sites

and no traces of settlement of Iron Age man has hitherto come to light.”17

He goes on to classify the megaliths of Tulunadu into 3 main groups viz.

port holed chambers, urn burials and rock cut caves. Urn burial sites at

Puttur and Hiriyadka, Vaddarse in Udupi Taluk and Belur in Kundapur

Taluk are mentioned.

The third category of structures called Rock cut caves he believed

are no longer exclusive to Kerala region but have been discovered in as

many as 20 localities in Tulunadu and their distribution is seen as

15

Ibid.,p.87. 16

P.Ganapaya Bhat, “Prehistory of Tulunadu” an unpublished paper, presented at a seminar in

Udupi on 29/1/94. 17

P.Ganapayya Bhat, Op.cit., p.89.

87

spreading further north in the coastal Karnataka region as well. Sullia,

Karkala, Udupi and Kundapur Taluks bear the existence of such structures.

K.J.John reports the existence of a rock cut cave from Udipi but not

Kasaragod. Citing the discoveries made by individuals and institutions in

the appendix Ramachandran Nair18

mentions rock cut caves at Muttathodi

village, Manathody village in Kasaragod. Interestingly since George’s

discoveries and subsequent emphasis on the indiscriminate presence of

such relics in 1990’s the State Department of Archaeology claimed to have

excavated a rock cut cave at Pillicode has provided a fragmentary report

with no other information. It was Gurukkal and Varrier19

who very

emphatically outlined the immense potentialities and need for intensive

surveys, especially in Kasaragod and Alapuzha district to understand the

overall distribution of megaliths in Kerala.

Books on local history largely primordial in nature brought out by a

few panchayaths20

in the recent past have been more of compilation of

facts but have passing reference to the megalithic sites and nothing beyond

that. A survey and exploration in fact documentation, of the available

evidence becomes indispensable, especially when there is hardly any

strengthening textual evidence to reconstruct the history of Kerala

stretching from 1st millennium BC to the 1

st millennium AD

It is against this backdrop portraying a negative picture on the

archaeological remains on this area that the present researcher initiated a

systematic study of the megaliths in the district in 1999. Explorations have

18

Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair, Kerala State Gazetteers. Vol.2. Part 1.

Thiruvananthapuram: Government of Kerala, 1986, p.324. 19

R.Gurukkal and M.R.R. Varier, Op.cit.,Cultural History of …p.124. 20

C.Balan, (Ed.). Kasaragod Charthiravum Samuhavum. Kasaragod Panchayath. (In

Malayalam), 2001. V.Kuttiyan, Nerippu Madikayauda Anubava Charithram. Madikayi

Panchayath. (In Malayalam), 2004.

88

brought to light more than 30 sites and the author begins with the

discoveries made.

MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD: Explorations in Kasaragod (Fig.3.2),

have thrown up a curious mixture of monuments in terms of their location,

types, distribution frequency and size. The types discovered include Rock

cut caves, umbrella stones, hat stones, dolmenoid cist, urn burials and stone

circles. The Hosdurg Taluk comprising 26 villages has revealed as many as

25 sites while Kasaragod Taluk comprising 37 villages has 5 sites. The

focus of exploration has largely been in Hosdurg Taluk

Sites in the Karinthalam Village

The current researcher closely surveyed Karinthalam village in

Hosdurg taluk in which lies the site of Umichipoyil. Discoveries of sites in

and around Umichipoyil showed their occurrence at regular intervals

(Fig.3.3). The site of Umichipoyil was subject to an intensive exploration

and four rock cut caves were excavated. Karinthalam has 2391 hectares of

highlands and is characterised by an absence of lowlands and midlands.

The soil is deep gravely well-drained soil with a gentle slope.

NAME OF THE SITE : KUNDARAM

TYPE OF MONUMENT : ROCK CUT CAVE

VILLAGE : KINNANUR

PANCHAYATH : KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM

TALUK : HOSDURG

AREA ALSO BEARS THE NAME CHAYOTHADAKKAM

6 Kilometres away from Nileswaram and 1/2 kilometre away from

Chayoth Girls Higher Secondary School is the site of Kundaram.

Sandwiched between hillocks the site is on a sloping land. Visible to the

89

Southeast is Kayyur Cheemeni, which bears megaliths (Fig.3.4). To the

Northwest is Chervathur, which also has the presence of Rock- cut caves

and to the North is Madikayi, which again bears sites with megaliths. To

the West is Nileswaram and to the East are the large sites of Umichipoyil

with a huge cluster of Rock cut caves. Half a kilometre to the East is the

Tejaswini River (Fig.3.5), which separates Kayyur, Cheemeni and

Chayoth. The region consists of undulating land with or without scrub and

a bit of barren rocky stony waste sheet rock area. The site lies sandwiched

by laterite rocks uphill interspersed with sporadic vegetation and below by

green paddy fields overlooking the Tejaswini River.

ROCK CUT CAVE

Two rock cut caves separated by 154 meters bearing portholes

overlooking the river is visible (Fig.3.6). Cave1 has an eastern porthole

with a flight of steps leading to a series of doorways measuring 70cms,

60cms and 50cms respectively leading to a circular chamber inside with a

centrally running wedge 5cms in width (Fig.3.7) Here a consistency can be

seen in the measurement of the doorways. Cave2 also has a porthole

measuring 32 cms facing west and sealed with a capstone. The steps and

wedge running through the centre of the chamber visible in the first cave is

conspicuous by its absence. Nothing could be retrieved from either of the

caves as the locals had disturbed them. The capstone here is characteristic

of the Kasaragod megaliths and the porthole is in conformity with caves

having such capstones as it measures exactly 32cms in width. (Fig3.8 &

Fig.3.9)

88

brought to light more than 30 sites and the author begins with the

discoveries made.

MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD: Explorations in Kasaragod (Fig.3.2),

have thrown up a curious mixture of monuments in terms of their location,

types, distribution frequency and size. The types discovered include Rock

cut caves, umbrella stones, hat stones, dolmenoid cist, urn burials and stone

circles. The Hosdurg Taluk comprising 26 villages has revealed as many as

25 sites while Kasaragod Taluk comprising 37 villages has 5 sites. The

focus of exploration has largely been in Hosdurg Taluk

Sites in the Karinthalam Village

The current researcher closely surveyed Karinthalam village in

Hosdurg taluk in which lies the site of Umichipoyil. Discoveries of sites in

and around Umichipoyil showed their occurrence at regular intervals

(Fig.3.3). The site of Umichipoyil was subject to an intensive exploration

and four rock cut caves were excavated. Karinthalam has 2391 hectares of

highlands and is characterised by an absence of lowlands and midlands.

The soil is deep gravely well-drained soil with a gentle slope.

NAME OF THE SITE : KUNDARAM

TYPE OF MONUMENT : ROCK CUT CAVE

VILLAGE : KINNANUR

PANCHAYATH : KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM

TALUK : HOSDURG

AREA ALSO BEARS THE NAME CHAYOTHADAKKAM

6 Kilometres away from Nileswaram and 1/2 kilometre away from

Chayoth Girls Higher Secondary School is the site of Kundaram.

Sandwiched between hillocks the site is on a sloping land. Visible to the

89

Southeast is Kayyur Cheemeni, which bears megaliths (Fig.3.4). To the

Northwest is Chervathur, which also has the presence of Rock- cut caves

and to the North is Madikayi, which again bears sites with megaliths. To

the West is Nileswaram and to the East are the large sites of Umichipoyil

with a huge cluster of Rock cut caves. Half a kilometre to the East is the

Tejaswini River (Fig.3.5), which separates Kayyur, Cheemeni and

Chayoth. The region consists of undulating land with or without scrub and

a bit of barren rocky stony waste sheet rock area. The site lies sandwiched

by laterite rocks uphill interspersed with sporadic vegetation and below by

green paddy fields overlooking the Tejaswini River.

ROCK CUT CAVE

Two rock cut caves separated by 154 meters bearing portholes

overlooking the river is visible (Fig.3.6). Cave1 has an eastern porthole

with a flight of steps leading to a series of doorways measuring 70cms,

60cms and 50cms respectively leading to a circular chamber inside with a

centrally running wedge 5cms in width (Fig.3.7) Here a consistency can be

seen in the measurement of the doorways. Cave2 also has a porthole

measuring 32 cms facing west and sealed with a capstone. The steps and

wedge running through the centre of the chamber visible in the first cave is

conspicuous by its absence. Nothing could be retrieved from either of the

caves as the locals had disturbed them. The capstone here is characteristic

of the Kasaragod megaliths and the porthole is in conformity with caves

having such capstones as it measures exactly 32cms in width. (Fig3.8 &

Fig.3.9)

90

NAME OF THE SITE: KATTIPIOYIL

12031’38” NORTH LATTITUDE AND 75

0 23’38’ EAST

LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KINNANUR

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

TALUK: HOSDURG

Rock cut cave

The region bears the name Nelliyadakkam. 21kilometers away from

Nileshwaram junction, on the Birikulam Parapa road lay the site of

Kattipoyil. 5kms away from the Birikulam Parapa road and 100meters to

the east of Kattipoyil post office lay the site. The area is steep sloping and

the land slopes towards the east. Sandwiched between sparse vegetation up

and green paddy fields below the area was a place of extensive slash and

burn cultivation.

A rock cut cave with a porthole measuring 46,64,86cms respectively

with a circular chamber inside was discovered but completely despoiled by

the locals (Fig.3.10). The rock cut cave faces and looks towards Umichipoyil.

150meters to the east is a small stream called the Karalam chal. On either side

of the chal occur green paddy fields called Karalam Vayil, which today has

given way to rubber plantations. The north looks towards Kadaladipara. The

cave yielded on clearing the most interesting find that of a set of copper

earrings with gold covering. They seem identical to the ones discovered at

Arippa (Kollam by Rajendran) (Fig.3.11).

91

NAME OF THE SITE: PULLANHIPARA

12030’74” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

022’9” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KARINTHALAM

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A SMALL

CLUSTER.

The caves lie on the left side of the Birikulam Parapa road very

close to Kattipoyil. The caves were in a bad state of preservation and it was

impossible to ascertain the nature of the cave. However the capstone so

typical of the porthole of the Kasaragod rock cut cave was clearly visible

(Fig.3.12).

NAME OF THE SITE: MELKARLAM

VILLAGE: KINNANUR

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

2 ½ kilometres away to the east of Kattipoyil on the Chembena

Kattipoyil road lies the site of Melkaralam which bears a rock cut cave

with an eastern porthole measuring 42cms. The entrance looks towards the

stream, which is a mere 200meters away, and the sound of water is audible

at the cave. To the north ½ kilometre away is the site of Meladakkam,

which bears rock, cut caves beyond which lies Umichipoyil. To the south is

the Kadaladipara and the area has been extensively one of slash and burn

cultivation.

90

NAME OF THE SITE: KATTIPIOYIL

12031’38” NORTH LATTITUDE AND 75

0 23’38’ EAST

LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KINNANUR

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

TALUK: HOSDURG

Rock cut cave

The region bears the name Nelliyadakkam. 21kilometers away from

Nileshwaram junction, on the Birikulam Parapa road lay the site of

Kattipoyil. 5kms away from the Birikulam Parapa road and 100meters to

the east of Kattipoyil post office lay the site. The area is steep sloping and

the land slopes towards the east. Sandwiched between sparse vegetation up

and green paddy fields below the area was a place of extensive slash and

burn cultivation.

A rock cut cave with a porthole measuring 46,64,86cms respectively

with a circular chamber inside was discovered but completely despoiled by

the locals (Fig.3.10). The rock cut cave faces and looks towards Umichipoyil.

150meters to the east is a small stream called the Karalam chal. On either side

of the chal occur green paddy fields called Karalam Vayil, which today has

given way to rubber plantations. The north looks towards Kadaladipara. The

cave yielded on clearing the most interesting find that of a set of copper

earrings with gold covering. They seem identical to the ones discovered at

Arippa (Kollam by Rajendran) (Fig.3.11).

91

NAME OF THE SITE: PULLANHIPARA

12030’74” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

022’9” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KARINTHALAM

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A SMALL

CLUSTER.

The caves lie on the left side of the Birikulam Parapa road very

close to Kattipoyil. The caves were in a bad state of preservation and it was

impossible to ascertain the nature of the cave. However the capstone so

typical of the porthole of the Kasaragod rock cut cave was clearly visible

(Fig.3.12).

NAME OF THE SITE: MELKARLAM

VILLAGE: KINNANUR

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

2 ½ kilometres away to the east of Kattipoyil on the Chembena

Kattipoyil road lies the site of Melkaralam which bears a rock cut cave

with an eastern porthole measuring 42cms. The entrance looks towards the

stream, which is a mere 200meters away, and the sound of water is audible

at the cave. To the north ½ kilometre away is the site of Meladakkam,

which bears rock, cut caves beyond which lies Umichipoyil. To the south is

the Kadaladipara and the area has been extensively one of slash and burn

cultivation.

92

NAME OF THE SITE: EDAYADUKKAM

12018’ 21” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

012’25”EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: THAYANUR

PANCHAYATH: KODOM / BELUR

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES FOUND IN A SMALL

CLUSTER

To the east of Chayoth 5kilometers away lay the site sandwiched

between two hills up and green paddy fields below. Rock cut caves with

portholes measuring 42cms-oriented Southeast is visible. 100meters north

lays another cave with an eastern porthole. The caves are similar to the

ones at Umichipoyil and have a circular groove running on top. The

porthole is finely chiselled. 100meters away is a small stream, which joins

the Kuvati Chal. The cave was disturbed by the locals.

Important find: Neolithic Celt (Fig 3.13).

NAME OF THE SITE: THALALOPOYIL

12019’19”NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

018’47”EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: WEST ELERI

PANCHAYATH: WEST ELERI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CAVE, STONE

CIRCLE AND DELMENOID CIST OCCUR TOGETHER. (Fig.3.14).

The site lays 21kilometers away from Umichipoyil and to the

Southeast is Pattenganam a site, which has megalithic structures. The

region is known as Chennaddakkam from where 2kilometersms away is

93

Varakkad and further 3kms lays the site of Thalalopoyil. To the east of

Varakkad the Western Ghats and uplands are visible. Very close to the site

are the Kamadar stream and Varakkad Chal.

NAME OF THE SITE: PATTENGANAM

120 19’28” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

0 20’46” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: EAST ELERI

PANCHAYATH: EAST ELERI

TALUK: HOSDURG

A Rock cut cave completely disturbed by the locals was discovered.

Even the structure of the cave could not be ascertained. However the

pottery was retrieved. The legged jars seemed of a coarse variety in red

ware and seemed a shade different from the frequently encountered legged

jars (Fig3.15&3.16).

NAME OF THE SITE: PARAMBA

120 25’ 5” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

0 21’ 26” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: MALOTH

PANCHAYATH: BALAL

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CANE WITH A CENTRAL

PILLAR

The cave was noticed while quarrying for laterite. A miniature pot

was retrieved from the cave.

92

NAME OF THE SITE: EDAYADUKKAM

12018’ 21” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

012’25”EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: THAYANUR

PANCHAYATH: KODOM / BELUR

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES FOUND IN A SMALL

CLUSTER

To the east of Chayoth 5kilometers away lay the site sandwiched

between two hills up and green paddy fields below. Rock cut caves with

portholes measuring 42cms-oriented Southeast is visible. 100meters north

lays another cave with an eastern porthole. The caves are similar to the

ones at Umichipoyil and have a circular groove running on top. The

porthole is finely chiselled. 100meters away is a small stream, which joins

the Kuvati Chal. The cave was disturbed by the locals.

Important find: Neolithic Celt (Fig 3.13).

NAME OF THE SITE: THALALOPOYIL

12019’19”NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

018’47”EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: WEST ELERI

PANCHAYATH: WEST ELERI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CAVE, STONE

CIRCLE AND DELMENOID CIST OCCUR TOGETHER. (Fig.3.14).

The site lays 21kilometers away from Umichipoyil and to the

Southeast is Pattenganam a site, which has megalithic structures. The

region is known as Chennaddakkam from where 2kilometersms away is

93

Varakkad and further 3kms lays the site of Thalalopoyil. To the east of

Varakkad the Western Ghats and uplands are visible. Very close to the site

are the Kamadar stream and Varakkad Chal.

NAME OF THE SITE: PATTENGANAM

120 19’28” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

0 20’46” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: EAST ELERI

PANCHAYATH: EAST ELERI

TALUK: HOSDURG

A Rock cut cave completely disturbed by the locals was discovered.

Even the structure of the cave could not be ascertained. However the

pottery was retrieved. The legged jars seemed of a coarse variety in red

ware and seemed a shade different from the frequently encountered legged

jars (Fig3.15&3.16).

NAME OF THE SITE: PARAMBA

120 25’ 5” NORTH LATITUDE AND 75

0 21’ 26” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: MALOTH

PANCHAYATH: BALAL

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF STRUCTURE: ROCK CUT CANE WITH A CENTRAL

PILLAR

The cave was noticed while quarrying for laterite. A miniature pot

was retrieved from the cave.

94

NAME OF THE SITE: CHEMBENA/PERALAM

VILLAGE: PARAPA

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM PANCHAYATH

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

6 Kilometers away from the Kattipoyil post office and further east

lay the Melancheri/Chembena road from where further east a small cut

road 2-½ kilometres away takes one to the site of Chembena. A rock cut

cave (Fig. 3.17), which was partially opened was subject to a salvage

excavation by the author to retrieve the remains. A brief description is

provided regarding the nature of pottery and iron unearthed.

Northeast portion of the chamber revealed a lid in black ware, bowl

in red ware, big red pots, and small pot in black and red ware in an inverted

position with iron underneath. To the south eastern wall of the chamber

was placed a big red ware pot, iron implement, black bowl with a red bowl

inside beneath which was iron. A Big bowl in and black and red ware and a

small bowl with black ware inside, big bowl with a small black and red

ware pot by the side, lipped bowl in red ware with charcoal and a small pot

inside, double lipped bowl in red ware, Small black and red ware pot with

small black and red ware bowl inside in an inverted position and a big bowl

in black and red ware with a small bowl in black and red ware inside and

ring stand in black ware were seen. From the western side came iron

implements [three in number], bowls in black and red ware in an inverted

pot and a small red pot. From the southern side came small bowls and pots

in red ware and also a big pot in red ware. The northern portion had a black

bowl. Interesting here again among the pottery is the presence of Neolithic

95

shapes in dull red ware, which is consistent in the Karinthalam region.

(Fig. 3.18).

NAME OF THE SITE: KUDOL/ PERALAM

VILLAGE: PARAPA

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A CLUSTER

To the South of Birikulam is the Melancheri-Parapa road and to the

East 2 ½ kilometres away is the Kudol Mayanganam road where towards

the north 1 ½ kilometres away is the site with rock cut caves. One of the

caves, which were partially disturbed by the locals, was subject to a

salvage excavation by the current researcher. The locals spoke of the

discovery of an urn burial a few meters away nothing of which remains.

Going by their description a chain of beads seems to have been placed in

the urn. The northern and southern area of the site converges at a point

called Thatta. To the West is Kudol and to the east is Peralam and where

the two converge is called thatta. A mere km away on either side is the

Kudol and Peralam chal running close to the Mayanganam chal which is a

stream of the Kumblapalli chal on the left side of which occurs the huge

site of Umichipoyil. A half-opened rock cut cave, which was subject to a

salvage excavation, had some interesting finds. Right at the entrance in the

east, at the passage in a deposit of mud of 55cms lay a Neolithic Celt

(Fig.3.19). The cave had a central pillar (Fig.3.20) without the top opening

and a large quantity of rim portions of pottery (Fig.3.21) mostly in red

ware and black ware. At the end of the chamber were a few black and red

ware fragments of pottery together with iron (Fig.3.22). This is the only

cave, which has yielded two carnelian beads circular and cylindrical

(Fig.3.23).

94

NAME OF THE SITE: CHEMBENA/PERALAM

VILLAGE: PARAPA

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/KARINTHALAM PANCHAYATH

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

6 Kilometers away from the Kattipoyil post office and further east

lay the Melancheri/Chembena road from where further east a small cut

road 2-½ kilometres away takes one to the site of Chembena. A rock cut

cave (Fig. 3.17), which was partially opened was subject to a salvage

excavation by the author to retrieve the remains. A brief description is

provided regarding the nature of pottery and iron unearthed.

Northeast portion of the chamber revealed a lid in black ware, bowl

in red ware, big red pots, and small pot in black and red ware in an inverted

position with iron underneath. To the south eastern wall of the chamber

was placed a big red ware pot, iron implement, black bowl with a red bowl

inside beneath which was iron. A Big bowl in and black and red ware and a

small bowl with black ware inside, big bowl with a small black and red

ware pot by the side, lipped bowl in red ware with charcoal and a small pot

inside, double lipped bowl in red ware, Small black and red ware pot with

small black and red ware bowl inside in an inverted position and a big bowl

in black and red ware with a small bowl in black and red ware inside and

ring stand in black ware were seen. From the western side came iron

implements [three in number], bowls in black and red ware in an inverted

pot and a small red pot. From the southern side came small bowls and pots

in red ware and also a big pot in red ware. The northern portion had a black

bowl. Interesting here again among the pottery is the presence of Neolithic

95

shapes in dull red ware, which is consistent in the Karinthalam region.

(Fig. 3.18).

NAME OF THE SITE: KUDOL/ PERALAM

VILLAGE: PARAPA

PANCHAYATH: KINNANUR/ KARINTHALAM

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES IN A CLUSTER

To the South of Birikulam is the Melancheri-Parapa road and to the

East 2 ½ kilometres away is the Kudol Mayanganam road where towards

the north 1 ½ kilometres away is the site with rock cut caves. One of the

caves, which were partially disturbed by the locals, was subject to a

salvage excavation by the current researcher. The locals spoke of the

discovery of an urn burial a few meters away nothing of which remains.

Going by their description a chain of beads seems to have been placed in

the urn. The northern and southern area of the site converges at a point

called Thatta. To the West is Kudol and to the east is Peralam and where

the two converge is called thatta. A mere km away on either side is the

Kudol and Peralam chal running close to the Mayanganam chal which is a

stream of the Kumblapalli chal on the left side of which occurs the huge

site of Umichipoyil. A half-opened rock cut cave, which was subject to a

salvage excavation, had some interesting finds. Right at the entrance in the

east, at the passage in a deposit of mud of 55cms lay a Neolithic Celt

(Fig.3.19). The cave had a central pillar (Fig.3.20) without the top opening

and a large quantity of rim portions of pottery (Fig.3.21) mostly in red

ware and black ware. At the end of the chamber were a few black and red

ware fragments of pottery together with iron (Fig.3.22). This is the only

cave, which has yielded two carnelian beads circular and cylindrical

(Fig.3.23).

96

SITES IN MADIKAYI VILLAGE

To the East of Umichipoyil on the left bank of the Nileshwaram

River is the village of Madikayai, which has yielded six sites with rock-cut

caves. Madikayi has 5163 hectares of midlands with an absence of high

lands and low lands. The soil is deep well drained gravely clay soils with

moderate surface gravelliness and iron stone layer at 100 to 150 cm on

gently sloping midland laterites with moderate erosion associated with

laterite outcrops.

NAME OF THE SITE: THEKKE BANGALAM

12017’11”NORTH LATITUDE & 75

09’11”EAST LONGITUDE.

VILLAGE: MADIKAI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVR WITH A CENTRAL

PILLAR AND A TOP OPENING.

NAME OF THE SITE: MELAPECHERI

12018’45” NORTH LATITUDE & 75

011’5” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

NAME OF THE SITE: KALICHAMPODI

12018’30” NORTH LATITUDE & 75

07’42” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

97

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

NAME OF THE SITE: UMICHIPOYIL

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

NAME OF THE SITE: KANHIRAPOYIL

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE.

NAME OF THE SITE: KOLANGAT

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

To the south of Madikayi on the Right Bank of the Nileshwaram

river lays sites in the villages of Pillicode and Cheemeni.

NAME OF THE SITE: PALLIPARA

VILLAGE: CHEEMENI

PANCHAYATH: KAYYUR/ CHEEMENI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: TOPIKKALL-S

The area surrounding the site bears the name channaadakkam.

Topikkal-s occurs and seems a prototype of the capstone of the rock cut

96

SITES IN MADIKAYI VILLAGE

To the East of Umichipoyil on the left bank of the Nileshwaram

River is the village of Madikayai, which has yielded six sites with rock-cut

caves. Madikayi has 5163 hectares of midlands with an absence of high

lands and low lands. The soil is deep well drained gravely clay soils with

moderate surface gravelliness and iron stone layer at 100 to 150 cm on

gently sloping midland laterites with moderate erosion associated with

laterite outcrops.

NAME OF THE SITE: THEKKE BANGALAM

12017’11”NORTH LATITUDE & 75

09’11”EAST LONGITUDE.

VILLAGE: MADIKAI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVR WITH A CENTRAL

PILLAR AND A TOP OPENING.

NAME OF THE SITE: MELAPECHERI

12018’45” NORTH LATITUDE & 75

011’5” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

NAME OF THE SITE: KALICHAMPODI

12018’30” NORTH LATITUDE & 75

07’42” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

97

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

NAME OF THE SITE: UMICHIPOYIL

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

NAME OF THE SITE: KANHIRAPOYIL

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE.

NAME OF THE SITE: KOLANGAT

VILLAGE: MADIKAYI

PANCHAYATH: MADIKAYI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVE

To the south of Madikayi on the Right Bank of the Nileshwaram

river lays sites in the villages of Pillicode and Cheemeni.

NAME OF THE SITE: PALLIPARA

VILLAGE: CHEEMENI

PANCHAYATH: KAYYUR/ CHEEMENI

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: TOPIKKALL-S

The area surrounding the site bears the name channaadakkam.

Topikkal-s occurs and seems a prototype of the capstone of the rock cut

98

cave (Fig.3.24). Further south of Cheemeni occurs the huge site of

Pillicode, which bears a cluster of rock, cut caves excavated by the state

department of archaeology and mentioned by George (1975).

NAME OF THE SITE: PILICODE

12014’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75

08’ EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: PILICODE

PANCHAYATH: PILICODE

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: CLUSTER OF ROCK CUT CAVES IN

CLOSE PROXIMITY.

SITES IN THE KASARAGOD TALUK

Kasaragod taluk has yielded sites where Kotakkal-s predominates

unlike the Hosdurg taluk. Interestingly the Kotakkal-s is seen sometimes

with a cluster of rock cut caves. The site of Varikulam, which like

Umichipoyil has yielded a large cluster of monuments, was subject to an

intensive exploration by the current researcher together with the

surrounding regions.

NAME OF THE SITE: VADAKKEKARA/VARIKULAM

12030’&12

025’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75

010’ EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KOLATHUR

PANCHAYATH: BADEKA

TALUK: KASARAGOD

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL-S

Nestled between the Chandragiri and the Payaswini Rivers,

Varikulam lays on the Right Bank of the Payaswini a tributary of the

chandragiri. Chandragiri is one of the major rivers flowing through

99

Kasaragod taluk. 5Kilometers to the east of Poinachi junction is

Paraladdakam from where 1 ½ kilometre away is Vadekkekara and the site

of Varikulam bearing a cluster of Kodaikallus and rock cut caves

(Fig.3.25). Situated on a slope it is sandwiched between sparse vegetation

up and green paddy fields below. Overlooking to the east are hills known

as Ramanadakkam, to the west Mananadakkam where two rock cut caves

can be seen. To the south is Paraladakkam beyond, which is

Periyataadakkam with Kodaikallus and rock cut caves. To the North is

Kanakeadakkam. Merely 1 ½ km away is the monbam chal, which joins

the Chandragiri River.

A cluster of four-rock cut caves in close proximity to a bigger cluster

of umbrella stones sets this site apart from the others discovered. The entire

area has 392 hectares of which 83 hectares are barren rocky stony waste

sheet rock area and 309 hectares of undulating upland with or without

scrub.

Kotakkal-s occurs in rows and seems to be linearly aligned with the

alignment visible unto Peryiatadakkam, which has too has a small cluster

of Kotakkal-s. Occurring in four rows at contours of 129, 130, 131, 132

(Fig.3.25a), respectively and separating them by a distance of 75-80 meters

to the Northeast can be seen four rock cut caves brought to light as a result

of quarrying. The capstone characteristic of the megaliths in Kasaragod can

be seen here (Fig.3.26). The rock cut caves occur at contours of 136, 137

and 138. A centrally located Kotakkal surrounded by upright blocks of

laterite forms the focal point (Fig.3.27), with monuments on either side in a

linear progression (Fig.3.28). To the east at a distance of 40 meters away

from the cluster occurs a solitary Kotakkal (Fig.3.29). Two types of

Kotakkal can be discerned with type 1 characterised by encircling upright

98

cave (Fig.3.24). Further south of Cheemeni occurs the huge site of

Pillicode, which bears a cluster of rock, cut caves excavated by the state

department of archaeology and mentioned by George (1975).

NAME OF THE SITE: PILICODE

12014’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75

08’ EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: PILICODE

PANCHAYATH: PILICODE

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: CLUSTER OF ROCK CUT CAVES IN

CLOSE PROXIMITY.

SITES IN THE KASARAGOD TALUK

Kasaragod taluk has yielded sites where Kotakkal-s predominates

unlike the Hosdurg taluk. Interestingly the Kotakkal-s is seen sometimes

with a cluster of rock cut caves. The site of Varikulam, which like

Umichipoyil has yielded a large cluster of monuments, was subject to an

intensive exploration by the current researcher together with the

surrounding regions.

NAME OF THE SITE: VADAKKEKARA/VARIKULAM

12030’&12

025’ NORTH LATITUDE & 75

010’ EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KOLATHUR

PANCHAYATH: BADEKA

TALUK: KASARAGOD

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL-S

Nestled between the Chandragiri and the Payaswini Rivers,

Varikulam lays on the Right Bank of the Payaswini a tributary of the

chandragiri. Chandragiri is one of the major rivers flowing through

99

Kasaragod taluk. 5Kilometers to the east of Poinachi junction is

Paraladdakam from where 1 ½ kilometre away is Vadekkekara and the site

of Varikulam bearing a cluster of Kodaikallus and rock cut caves

(Fig.3.25). Situated on a slope it is sandwiched between sparse vegetation

up and green paddy fields below. Overlooking to the east are hills known

as Ramanadakkam, to the west Mananadakkam where two rock cut caves

can be seen. To the south is Paraladakkam beyond, which is

Periyataadakkam with Kodaikallus and rock cut caves. To the North is

Kanakeadakkam. Merely 1 ½ km away is the monbam chal, which joins

the Chandragiri River.

A cluster of four-rock cut caves in close proximity to a bigger cluster

of umbrella stones sets this site apart from the others discovered. The entire

area has 392 hectares of which 83 hectares are barren rocky stony waste

sheet rock area and 309 hectares of undulating upland with or without

scrub.

Kotakkal-s occurs in rows and seems to be linearly aligned with the

alignment visible unto Peryiatadakkam, which has too has a small cluster

of Kotakkal-s. Occurring in four rows at contours of 129, 130, 131, 132

(Fig.3.25a), respectively and separating them by a distance of 75-80 meters

to the Northeast can be seen four rock cut caves brought to light as a result

of quarrying. The capstone characteristic of the megaliths in Kasaragod can

be seen here (Fig.3.26). The rock cut caves occur at contours of 136, 137

and 138. A centrally located Kotakkal surrounded by upright blocks of

laterite forms the focal point (Fig.3.27), with monuments on either side in a

linear progression (Fig.3.28). To the east at a distance of 40 meters away

from the cluster occurs a solitary Kotakkal (Fig.3.29). Two types of

Kotakkal can be discerned with type 1 characterised by encircling upright

100

blocks of laterite. A section of both types revealed a kind of precision,

which is simply amazing.

TYPE1 (Fig.3.30).

The umbrella on top measures 210 to 280 cms and the whole

structure has a height of 50-70cms. Each of the supporting laterite stone

measures 30-40cms, 50-90cms and the gap between them is 100-120cms.

TYPE II (Fig3.31).

The umbrella measures 210 to 280 cms, supporting stones 40-

30cms, 50-90cms and distance between the stones 100-120cms. The height

of the structure is 50-70cms. Separated by less than 1.22metres, 3.56metres

and 3.84 meters these are oriented along the East/West and North /South

axis. To the west of the site 1 kilometre away is the site of Manadakkam

which bears two rock cut caves one of which bears the capstone (Fig.3.32),

unique to Kasaragod with the porthole measuring exactly 32cms.

NAME OF THE SITE: PARALADAKKAM

12025’57” NORTH LATITUDE & 75

04’36” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KOLATHUR

PANCHAYATH: BEDAKA

TALUK: KASARAGOD

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL

NAME OF THE SITE: PANAYAL/ MUNIKAL

(PERIYATADAKKAM)

PANCHAYATH: PALLIKERE

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: KOTAKKAL

101

Within Kolathur village (Fig.3.33), again Kotakkal-s occurs at regular

frequency, as can be see at Varikulam and Paraladakkam.

What sets Kasaragod apart?

Spread out in the lowlands, midlands and uplands Kasaragod which

remained a completely neglected area until recently has revealed certain

elements unique in terms of distribution, frequency, size, interior and

exterior components. The Rock cut cave is predominant followed by the

Kodaikallus (Fig.3.34). They occur in large clusters and small clusters.

Certain commonly occurring components (Fig.3.35) can be seen in most of

the sites, which bears these structures. The porthole is a commonly

occurring component together with the circular groove running on top of

the cave and the wedge running through the centre of the inner chamber.

The typical bench and stool so characteristic of the rock cut caves is

conspicuous by its absence Every pocket in which the rock cut caves occur

has a cave with a porthole measuring 32cms and this unique cap stone. An

internally running wedge can sometimes be seen dividing the central

chamber. In the clusters one or two are marked by a circular groove

running through the top of the cave. Hooks lining the walls of the chamber

can be seen.

If one was to draw a parallel with the Thrissur rock cut caves which

has always formed the basis of discussion on rock cut caves in terms of

architectural grandiose the ones in Kasaragod seem different not only in

terms of internal and external components but also internment’s. The

presence of the channel spouted vessel in red ware and Neolithic

chalcolithic shapes (Fig. 3.36, 3.36 a), among the pottery together with

Neolithic Celts is what sets Kasaragod apart.

I

SECTION M

PLAN

Figure. 3.31 Details of Umbrella Stone Type - 2

100

blocks of laterite. A section of both types revealed a kind of precision,

which is simply amazing.

TYPE1 (Fig.3.30).

The umbrella on top measures 210 to 280 cms and the whole

structure has a height of 50-70cms. Each of the supporting laterite stone

measures 30-40cms, 50-90cms and the gap between them is 100-120cms.

TYPE II (Fig3.31).

The umbrella measures 210 to 280 cms, supporting stones 40-

30cms, 50-90cms and distance between the stones 100-120cms. The height

of the structure is 50-70cms. Separated by less than 1.22metres, 3.56metres

and 3.84 meters these are oriented along the East/West and North /South

axis. To the west of the site 1 kilometre away is the site of Manadakkam

which bears two rock cut caves one of which bears the capstone (Fig.3.32),

unique to Kasaragod with the porthole measuring exactly 32cms.

NAME OF THE SITE: PARALADAKKAM

12025’57” NORTH LATITUDE & 75

04’36” EAST LONGITUDE

VILLAGE: KOLATHUR

PANCHAYATH: BEDAKA

TALUK: KASARAGOD

TYPE OF MONUMENT: ROCK CUT CAVES AND KOTAKKAL

NAME OF THE SITE: PANAYAL/ MUNIKAL

(PERIYATADAKKAM)

PANCHAYATH: PALLIKERE

TALUK: HOSDURG

TYPE OF MONUMENT: KOTAKKAL

101

Within Kolathur village (Fig.3.33), again Kotakkal-s occurs at regular

frequency, as can be see at Varikulam and Paraladakkam.

What sets Kasaragod apart?

Spread out in the lowlands, midlands and uplands Kasaragod which

remained a completely neglected area until recently has revealed certain

elements unique in terms of distribution, frequency, size, interior and

exterior components. The Rock cut cave is predominant followed by the

Kodaikallus (Fig.3.34). They occur in large clusters and small clusters.

Certain commonly occurring components (Fig.3.35) can be seen in most of

the sites, which bears these structures. The porthole is a commonly

occurring component together with the circular groove running on top of

the cave and the wedge running through the centre of the inner chamber.

The typical bench and stool so characteristic of the rock cut caves is

conspicuous by its absence Every pocket in which the rock cut caves occur

has a cave with a porthole measuring 32cms and this unique cap stone. An

internally running wedge can sometimes be seen dividing the central

chamber. In the clusters one or two are marked by a circular groove

running through the top of the cave. Hooks lining the walls of the chamber

can be seen.

If one was to draw a parallel with the Thrissur rock cut caves which

has always formed the basis of discussion on rock cut caves in terms of

architectural grandiose the ones in Kasaragod seem different not only in

terms of internal and external components but also internment’s. The

presence of the channel spouted vessel in red ware and Neolithic

chalcolithic shapes (Fig. 3.36, 3.36 a), among the pottery together with

Neolithic Celts is what sets Kasaragod apart.

L'.

- 1 1 -

J

' . - -: ,n ;: ~ ' 4 - ' c ' ,.I

. 'p : i y --v Figure 4.46 Cups in Red Ware

102

KOTAKKAL-S

They occur in clusters big and small with subtle variations within the

cluster. Compared to the Kotakkal-s in the Thrissur region the ones in

Kasaragod are distinctly different. Two types can be discerned and like the

rock cut caves of the region at least one in each of the pockets in which

they occur have a circular block of upright stones encircling them. This is

unique in the region.

TOPIKKAL-S

Topikkal-s occurs not in isolation but in a group and can seem a

prototype of the capstone (Fig. 3.37, 3.37 a). Larger in size than the

capstone it has a knob at the bottom and is not encountered elsewhere.

FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE

The sites described cannot be seen merely as sites with monumental

constructions but everywhere they respond to the landscape and it is the

landscape, which affords it much of its grandeur. Landscape as a trope of

analysis is conspicuous by it absence as is evident when one probes into

texts that three phases of megalithic scholarship on Kerala has bequeathed.

Monumental constructions centred on death-oriented cults inserted in the

landscape also meant an insertion of the geography of the megalithic

world. But the sites reigned supreme relegating the landscape in which they

existed to the background little realising that people create their landscapes

and have different concepts of landscape, from which comes perspective

and context.

The present researcher moves from site to landscape focusing on the

recently identified megalithic sites of Kasaragod district. It begins by

looking at how the existing literature on megaliths of Kerala has described

the sites. The monuments were located insensitive to the landscape that it

103

constituted or the man who made the landscape through his wilful

interventions or otherwise. The need for expanding one’s interpretative

gaze beyond the sites, to an entity, which falls under the rubric of

landscape archaeology, is emphasised. Taking the sites described above the

argument revolves round the need for doing way with an approach that is

site led rather the need for looking at the areas between the sites as the

setting rather than entity itself.

THE EARLY ENCOUNTERS

To Longhurst 21

as he describes it, meant “The tomb here described

is situated on private land to the left of the road from Malaparamba to

Chevayoor…” Here the monument alone is described with no mention of

even the topography. The second generation of archaeologists, quaternaries

place emphasis but again in a small measure on physiographical features.

Aiyappan, B.K.Thapar, and Y.D.Sharma’s treatment of the location of

monuments can be discerned from their writings. To Aiyappan:

the site of these ancient tombs is a hillock of laterite to the

West of the Feroke Railway station known locally as

Chennaparambu. The hillock is now quite bare though some

seventy years ago it was covered with dense growth of

shrubs. The eastern edge of the site has been levelled down

for the railway line and in the course of the works; dozens of

earthenware urns of the pyriform type burned in hollows in

the rock were brought out. The place therefore must have

been an important crematorium once. 22

21

A.H. Longhurst, “Rock –cut Tomb… Op.cit.,p.159 22

A. Aiyappan, “Rock-cut Cave… Op.cit., p.229

102

KOTAKKAL-S

They occur in clusters big and small with subtle variations within the

cluster. Compared to the Kotakkal-s in the Thrissur region the ones in

Kasaragod are distinctly different. Two types can be discerned and like the

rock cut caves of the region at least one in each of the pockets in which

they occur have a circular block of upright stones encircling them. This is

unique in the region.

TOPIKKAL-S

Topikkal-s occurs not in isolation but in a group and can seem a

prototype of the capstone (Fig. 3.37, 3.37 a). Larger in size than the

capstone it has a knob at the bottom and is not encountered elsewhere.

FROM SITE TO LANDSCAPE

The sites described cannot be seen merely as sites with monumental

constructions but everywhere they respond to the landscape and it is the

landscape, which affords it much of its grandeur. Landscape as a trope of

analysis is conspicuous by it absence as is evident when one probes into

texts that three phases of megalithic scholarship on Kerala has bequeathed.

Monumental constructions centred on death-oriented cults inserted in the

landscape also meant an insertion of the geography of the megalithic

world. But the sites reigned supreme relegating the landscape in which they

existed to the background little realising that people create their landscapes

and have different concepts of landscape, from which comes perspective

and context.

The present researcher moves from site to landscape focusing on the

recently identified megalithic sites of Kasaragod district. It begins by

looking at how the existing literature on megaliths of Kerala has described

the sites. The monuments were located insensitive to the landscape that it

103

constituted or the man who made the landscape through his wilful

interventions or otherwise. The need for expanding one’s interpretative

gaze beyond the sites, to an entity, which falls under the rubric of

landscape archaeology, is emphasised. Taking the sites described above the

argument revolves round the need for doing way with an approach that is

site led rather the need for looking at the areas between the sites as the

setting rather than entity itself.

THE EARLY ENCOUNTERS

To Longhurst 21

as he describes it, meant “The tomb here described

is situated on private land to the left of the road from Malaparamba to

Chevayoor…” Here the monument alone is described with no mention of

even the topography. The second generation of archaeologists, quaternaries

place emphasis but again in a small measure on physiographical features.

Aiyappan, B.K.Thapar, and Y.D.Sharma’s treatment of the location of

monuments can be discerned from their writings. To Aiyappan:

the site of these ancient tombs is a hillock of laterite to the

West of the Feroke Railway station known locally as

Chennaparambu. The hillock is now quite bare though some

seventy years ago it was covered with dense growth of

shrubs. The eastern edge of the site has been levelled down

for the railway line and in the course of the works; dozens of

earthenware urns of the pyriform type burned in hollows in

the rock were brought out. The place therefore must have

been an important crematorium once. 22

21

A.H. Longhurst, “Rock –cut Tomb… Op.cit.,p.159 22

A. Aiyappan, “Rock-cut Cave… Op.cit., p.229

104

To B.K.Thapar

the site only 50 feet above sea level lies on the low

sloping laterite formation which passes by imperceptible

gradation into sandy-clay or gravel. Until recently the site had

been extensively deposited for building material. It had long

served as an easy quarry for the local roads. 23

To Y.D Sharma

of the three broad physiographical divisions of Kerala –

the alluvial sea board, the plains with extensive laterite

outcrops and the uplands composed of granitic gneiss and

charnokite- the lateritic region of Cochin contains a good

number of these caves situated on high grounds locally

known as parambas.24

To Krishna Iyer25

In Kerala megaliths are found on the Cardamom hills,

the Anjanad valley, Parambikulam, Nelliampathi, Pallapalli

forest and on an extensive scale west of the Edakkal caves in

Waynad. They are found larger in size on higher elevations

than at lower levels where they exhibit deterioration in size.

What can be discerned in these writings is that it was more of a site

led understanding where physiographical elements like the nature of the

soil, proximity to township, and location on high grounds were

underlined. Their interpretative gaze did not move beyond the site nor

did they incorporate into their thinking space and landscape as settlement

23

Y.D.Sharma, “Rock-cut Caves… Op.cit., p.3. 24

Ibid.,p.94. 25

L.A.Krishna Iyer, Kerala Megaliths and …0p.cit.,in the preface.

105

archaeology. Landscape archaeology had yet to gain currency into

archaeological thinking and writing. Archaeological thinking about the

nature of the landscape has changed significantly perceiving the nature of

its role in archaeological inquiry. If one was to look at Leshnik’s work26

he says

A significant aspect of Pandukal geography is that the burials

do not necessarily conform to the land-use patterns inherent

to agriculture. Unquestionably these are cemeteries in or near

cultivable tracts but in numerous instances they appear in

forested hill ranges, in remote valleys or in isolated

wastelands without knowledge of the micro-environment an

assessment of the likely ecological relationships has little

meaning. Yet it is particularly instructive to note that in

several instances where the investigator specifically sought to

locate a former habitation associated with a Pandukal

cemetery, the efforts were in vain.

To Leshnik land, its physiographical features were considered as

evidence for settlement and subsistence, which too often has been the task

of landscape archaeology and prehistoric landscapes. Leshnik’s interest

was primarily at establishing pastoral nomadism of the megalithic builders

forcing him to construe the space he problematized as one left unmediated

by human interventions, as any attempt to find out the habitation of these

people will be entropy.

26

L.S.Leshnik and G.D.Sontheimer, Nomads and Pastoralists… Op.cit., p.58.

104

To B.K.Thapar

the site only 50 feet above sea level lies on the low

sloping laterite formation which passes by imperceptible

gradation into sandy-clay or gravel. Until recently the site had

been extensively deposited for building material. It had long

served as an easy quarry for the local roads. 23

To Y.D Sharma

of the three broad physiographical divisions of Kerala –

the alluvial sea board, the plains with extensive laterite

outcrops and the uplands composed of granitic gneiss and

charnokite- the lateritic region of Cochin contains a good

number of these caves situated on high grounds locally

known as parambas.24

To Krishna Iyer25

In Kerala megaliths are found on the Cardamom hills,

the Anjanad valley, Parambikulam, Nelliampathi, Pallapalli

forest and on an extensive scale west of the Edakkal caves in

Waynad. They are found larger in size on higher elevations

than at lower levels where they exhibit deterioration in size.

What can be discerned in these writings is that it was more of a site

led understanding where physiographical elements like the nature of the

soil, proximity to township, and location on high grounds were

underlined. Their interpretative gaze did not move beyond the site nor

did they incorporate into their thinking space and landscape as settlement

23

Y.D.Sharma, “Rock-cut Caves… Op.cit., p.3. 24

Ibid.,p.94. 25

L.A.Krishna Iyer, Kerala Megaliths and …0p.cit.,in the preface.

105

archaeology. Landscape archaeology had yet to gain currency into

archaeological thinking and writing. Archaeological thinking about the

nature of the landscape has changed significantly perceiving the nature of

its role in archaeological inquiry. If one was to look at Leshnik’s work26

he says

A significant aspect of Pandukal geography is that the burials

do not necessarily conform to the land-use patterns inherent

to agriculture. Unquestionably these are cemeteries in or near

cultivable tracts but in numerous instances they appear in

forested hill ranges, in remote valleys or in isolated

wastelands without knowledge of the micro-environment an

assessment of the likely ecological relationships has little

meaning. Yet it is particularly instructive to note that in

several instances where the investigator specifically sought to

locate a former habitation associated with a Pandukal

cemetery, the efforts were in vain.

To Leshnik land, its physiographical features were considered as

evidence for settlement and subsistence, which too often has been the task

of landscape archaeology and prehistoric landscapes. Leshnik’s interest

was primarily at establishing pastoral nomadism of the megalithic builders

forcing him to construe the space he problematized as one left unmediated

by human interventions, as any attempt to find out the habitation of these

people will be entropy.

26

L.S.Leshnik and G.D.Sontheimer, Nomads and Pastoralists… Op.cit., p.58.

106

U.S.Moori27

uses location instead of site.

Locational pattern studies as is well-known use features and

sites as their data basis. The basic assumption here is that

locational patterning of archaeological features that

represented ancient buildings, cemeteries and ceremonial

places could be analysed in order to reconstruct the past

decisions regarding the use of environment, allocation of

resources, social relationships and the like. The term

‘locational pattern’ is used here in a broad sense, which

means the physical location of the site across the landscape,

and it tries to explore the relationship of living arrangement to

geographical features such as topography, soils, vegetation

types etc. Since it essentially forms a part of the settlement

system, I do not intend to make micro level analysis of the

sites, as normally the term location analysis is understood but

would like to consider it at macro scale that too in relation to

physiographic zones.

But in recent researches on megaliths especially pertaining to

geographical determinants, landscape as a trope of analysis does not arise;

the unit of analysis is the site. Jenne Peter’s28

analysis of megalithic sites

of Kerala gives emphasis “on the geographical factors, such as distance

from the site to the material sources, its position in the physiographic zones

and inter site interaction.” “Granite and laterite monuments coexist in many

multiple monument sites. The nature of terrain like slopes, and the nature

and availability of raw material seem to have determined the typology of

monuments.” Here sites gained currency over the landscape.

27

U.S.Moorthi, Megalithic Culture of …Op.cit.,p.8. 28

P.Jenee, “Dimensions of Megalithic…Op.cit., p.126.

107

Historians too have been grappling with the landscape, which

remains an enigma to them. Rather than providing an in-depth analysis of

the available landscape, they limit their description of the landscape to the

existing texts, excavation reports and towing the oft-repeated

commonsensical notion that nature and landscape are limiting factors. To

quote Gurukkal and Varier29

the natural agencies that determine the formation of

archaeological sites in Kerala that has a quiet ecological set

up from other dry regions of Peninsular India have to be taken

into consideration. The high amount of rainfall and the

resultant fluvial activities, together with steep gradient of the

landscape do not allow the formation of the characteristic

mound like features in Kerala… the thickly vegetated Kerala

offers a number of organic media which would have played a

substantial part in their material culture. This factor also

contributed to the flimsy and poorly visible nature of the

habitation remains.

A brief perusal of the existing literature shows that the term

landscape did not figure in any of the writings but always reports were site

led with hardly any emphasis on the material record of landscape features

let alone abstract components of the landscape and symbolic space.

Landscape is not merely a geographic space that nature bequeathed rather it

is considered as a cultural product in the sense that it “refers to the

integration of natural and human phenomena on a portion of the earth’s

surface…” And landscape as systems of settings are intimately related to

human life, and are primarily for living and working in rather than for just

29

R.Gurukkal and M.R.R.Varier, Op.cit.,p.130.

106

U.S.Moori27

uses location instead of site.

Locational pattern studies as is well-known use features and

sites as their data basis. The basic assumption here is that

locational patterning of archaeological features that

represented ancient buildings, cemeteries and ceremonial

places could be analysed in order to reconstruct the past

decisions regarding the use of environment, allocation of

resources, social relationships and the like. The term

‘locational pattern’ is used here in a broad sense, which

means the physical location of the site across the landscape,

and it tries to explore the relationship of living arrangement to

geographical features such as topography, soils, vegetation

types etc. Since it essentially forms a part of the settlement

system, I do not intend to make micro level analysis of the

sites, as normally the term location analysis is understood but

would like to consider it at macro scale that too in relation to

physiographic zones.

But in recent researches on megaliths especially pertaining to

geographical determinants, landscape as a trope of analysis does not arise;

the unit of analysis is the site. Jenne Peter’s28

analysis of megalithic sites

of Kerala gives emphasis “on the geographical factors, such as distance

from the site to the material sources, its position in the physiographic zones

and inter site interaction.” “Granite and laterite monuments coexist in many

multiple monument sites. The nature of terrain like slopes, and the nature

and availability of raw material seem to have determined the typology of

monuments.” Here sites gained currency over the landscape.

27

U.S.Moorthi, Megalithic Culture of …Op.cit.,p.8. 28

P.Jenee, “Dimensions of Megalithic…Op.cit., p.126.

107

Historians too have been grappling with the landscape, which

remains an enigma to them. Rather than providing an in-depth analysis of

the available landscape, they limit their description of the landscape to the

existing texts, excavation reports and towing the oft-repeated

commonsensical notion that nature and landscape are limiting factors. To

quote Gurukkal and Varier29

the natural agencies that determine the formation of

archaeological sites in Kerala that has a quiet ecological set

up from other dry regions of Peninsular India have to be taken

into consideration. The high amount of rainfall and the

resultant fluvial activities, together with steep gradient of the

landscape do not allow the formation of the characteristic

mound like features in Kerala… the thickly vegetated Kerala

offers a number of organic media which would have played a

substantial part in their material culture. This factor also

contributed to the flimsy and poorly visible nature of the

habitation remains.

A brief perusal of the existing literature shows that the term

landscape did not figure in any of the writings but always reports were site

led with hardly any emphasis on the material record of landscape features

let alone abstract components of the landscape and symbolic space.

Landscape is not merely a geographic space that nature bequeathed rather it

is considered as a cultural product in the sense that it “refers to the

integration of natural and human phenomena on a portion of the earth’s

surface…” And landscape as systems of settings are intimately related to

human life, and are primarily for living and working in rather than for just

29

R.Gurukkal and M.R.R.Varier, Op.cit.,p.130.

108

looking at. They are always “symbolic”. i.e. they always have meaning-

which is another way of saying they are cultural.”30

There are a variety of ways in which archaeological evidence might

be useful for exploring the possible significance of landscape and of

relationships between monuments and their surroundings, which are

suggestive of an importance of the landscape or aspects of it. The entire

surface on which people moved and lived and within which they

congregated is the landscape, which is the backdrop against which

archaeological remains are plotted. This backdrop is no longer seen as a

passive backdrop but rather a forcible, active far more complex entity in

relation to human lives. Landscapes world-wide are a construct of human

beings something that is perceived, experienced and contextualized by

people beside providing resources, refuge and risks that impel and impact

on human actions and situations. Ever since the interpretative gaze of the

archaeologist has moved from sites to the areas between the sites seen as a

setting rather than the entity itself, the focus has also shifted from

landscape not being seen as a static unit. Be it a “subjective, locally

situated perspective as something that not only shapes but is shaped by

human experience”31

or as experience, that focuses on monuments rather

than on more ephemeral traces of human activity.32

As an actively

inhabited space and particularly as the arena for ritual or ceremonial

activity33

or as a stage constructed in the mind to convey meaning to those

who inhabit it,34

landscape is seen as a surface that was given meaning.

People acted upon the world within the context of the various demands and

30

Rapopoort, Antiquity of man landscape archaeology.htm, 1992. 31

B.Bender, (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg, 1993. 32

As cited in A. Bernard Knapp and Wendy Ashmore “Archaeological Landscapes:

Constructed, Conceptualised, Ideational,” in Wendy Ashmore and Bernard Knapp,

Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspective, Blackwell, 1999,p.4. 33

Ibid., p.4. 34 Ibid., p.6.

109

obligations, which acted upon them and such actions, took place with a

certain tempo and at certain locales a culturally meaningful resource.

Landscape is neither exclusively natural nor totally cultural; it is

mediation between the two, an integral part of Bourdieu’s habitus,35

the

routine social practices within which people experience the world around

them. Beyond habitus however, people actively order, transform, identify

with and memorialise landscape by dwelling within it. The environment

manifests itself as landscape only when people create and experience space

as a complex of places. People’s sense of place and their engagement with

the world around them are invariably dependent on their own social,

cultural and historical situations.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Space was seen as an abstract container for human activities within

the perspectives of New Geography and New Archaeology. Here space was

seen as something that could be objectively measured- nothingness, simple

surface for action lacking depth. Space existed in and for itself external to

and indifferent to human affairs.36

In its purity and simplicity this

perspective provided scope for objectively plotting on maps and on a

quantitative scale study of artefacts, sites, populations and flows of

information and exchange across regions and landscapes. New geography

provided the ground for a mathematical spatial archaeology as seen in

Hodder and Orton 1976,37

and Clarke.38

Chorley and Haggett’s39

model in

Geography, Harvey’s Explanation in Geography40

both formed the basis

35 Ibid., p.8. 36

C.Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford, Berg,

1994. 37

I. Hodder, and C. Orton, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 38

D.Clarke, (ed), Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic Press, 1977. 39

R.Chorley and P.Haggett, (Eds), Models in Geography, London: Methuen, 1967. 40

D.Harvey, Explaination in Geography, London: Arnold, 1969

108

looking at. They are always “symbolic”. i.e. they always have meaning-

which is another way of saying they are cultural.”30

There are a variety of ways in which archaeological evidence might

be useful for exploring the possible significance of landscape and of

relationships between monuments and their surroundings, which are

suggestive of an importance of the landscape or aspects of it. The entire

surface on which people moved and lived and within which they

congregated is the landscape, which is the backdrop against which

archaeological remains are plotted. This backdrop is no longer seen as a

passive backdrop but rather a forcible, active far more complex entity in

relation to human lives. Landscapes world-wide are a construct of human

beings something that is perceived, experienced and contextualized by

people beside providing resources, refuge and risks that impel and impact

on human actions and situations. Ever since the interpretative gaze of the

archaeologist has moved from sites to the areas between the sites seen as a

setting rather than the entity itself, the focus has also shifted from

landscape not being seen as a static unit. Be it a “subjective, locally

situated perspective as something that not only shapes but is shaped by

human experience”31

or as experience, that focuses on monuments rather

than on more ephemeral traces of human activity.32

As an actively

inhabited space and particularly as the arena for ritual or ceremonial

activity33

or as a stage constructed in the mind to convey meaning to those

who inhabit it,34

landscape is seen as a surface that was given meaning.

People acted upon the world within the context of the various demands and

30

Rapopoort, Antiquity of man landscape archaeology.htm, 1992. 31

B.Bender, (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg, 1993. 32

As cited in A. Bernard Knapp and Wendy Ashmore “Archaeological Landscapes:

Constructed, Conceptualised, Ideational,” in Wendy Ashmore and Bernard Knapp,

Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspective, Blackwell, 1999,p.4. 33

Ibid., p.4. 34 Ibid., p.6.

109

obligations, which acted upon them and such actions, took place with a

certain tempo and at certain locales a culturally meaningful resource.

Landscape is neither exclusively natural nor totally cultural; it is

mediation between the two, an integral part of Bourdieu’s habitus,35

the

routine social practices within which people experience the world around

them. Beyond habitus however, people actively order, transform, identify

with and memorialise landscape by dwelling within it. The environment

manifests itself as landscape only when people create and experience space

as a complex of places. People’s sense of place and their engagement with

the world around them are invariably dependent on their own social,

cultural and historical situations.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Space was seen as an abstract container for human activities within

the perspectives of New Geography and New Archaeology. Here space was

seen as something that could be objectively measured- nothingness, simple

surface for action lacking depth. Space existed in and for itself external to

and indifferent to human affairs.36

In its purity and simplicity this

perspective provided scope for objectively plotting on maps and on a

quantitative scale study of artefacts, sites, populations and flows of

information and exchange across regions and landscapes. New geography

provided the ground for a mathematical spatial archaeology as seen in

Hodder and Orton 1976,37

and Clarke.38

Chorley and Haggett’s39

model in

Geography, Harvey’s Explanation in Geography40

both formed the basis

35 Ibid., p.8. 36

C.Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford, Berg,

1994. 37

I. Hodder, and C. Orton, Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 38

D.Clarke, (ed), Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic Press, 1977. 39

R.Chorley and P.Haggett, (Eds), Models in Geography, London: Methuen, 1967. 40

D.Harvey, Explaination in Geography, London: Arnold, 1969

110

for Clarke’s models in Geography. Archaeological research meant

incorporating new Geography’s spatial methodology to archaeological

evidences. Renfrew41

spoke of texts of geographers, as providing source

books for future generation of archaeologists.

The alternative view began with regarding space, as a medium of

action not divorced from events and activities that occur within it. “Space

has no substantial essence in itself, but only has a relational significance,

created through relations between people and places.”42

Who and how it is

experienced is what is space. The phenomenological approach is about the

relationship between Being and Being in the world. Heidegger and

Merleau Ponty from different phenomenological perspectives have

underlined the ontological characteristics of the relationship between

inhabited space and social being in the world. To Heidegger43

‘Spaces

receive their essential being from locations and not “space”. A

mathematical space to him is not humanised but of measurement with no

places or locations. Dwelling in Heideggerian terms meant staying with

things that couldn’t be separated: the earth, the sky and the constellations,

the divinities, birth and death. Merleau Ponty44

argues for the body

providing the fundamental mediation point between thought and the world.

“The world and the subject reflect and flow into each through the body that

provides the living bond with the world.”

The relationship between space and place has been theorized within

the phenomenological school of geographical research from a particular

perspective, where places are seen as constituting space with centres for

41

C.Renfrew, Review of “Locational Analysis in Human Geography” by P.Haggett, Antiquity, 43:74-5,1969.

42 C. Tilley, op.cit.,p.11.

43 M.Heidegger, ‘Building dwelling thinking’ in M.Heidegger, Basic Writings, (ed. D.Krell),

London: Routledge, 1972.p.332. 44

M.Merleau Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge, 1962.

111

human meaning. There can be no spaces without places where following

forms of space can be identified- somatic space, perpetual space, existential

space and cognitive space. Somatic space takes as its starting point the

upright human body looking out on the world differentiable in terms of

front/back; left/right; vertical/horizontal; top/bottom; within reach/ beyond

reach; within/ beyond hearing; within sight/beyond sight; here/there

polarities as seen in the works of Relph;45

Taun.46

Perpetual space is

grounded in individual perception of distances and directions, natural

objects and cultural creations. It is always relative and qualitative. It is

linked to existential space, which is mobile rather than passive,

experienced and created through life activity. A sacred, symbolic and

mythic space is replete with social meanings wrapped around buildings,

objects and features of the local topography, providing reference points and

planes of emotional orientation for human attachment and involvement.

Architectural space is a deliberate attempt to make tangible, visible and

sensible space creating an inside and outside and makes sense in relation to

pragmatic, perpetual and existential space. It is this space, which is being

analysed and discussed. Cognitive space provides the basis for reflection

with regard to understanding others.

Neolithic populations made little impact on the land and the implied

knowledge of agriculture in however primitive form, domestication of

animals, making pottery- singly or collectively implied that man lived at a

fixed place. No longer a hunter moving from place to place in small

groups, agriculture, was the core element, which led to a settled form of

life. There was no idea of a fixed space as the idea of space was not a

particular place but anywhere. It is a settled form of life, which brings in

the idea of a fixed place or permanent space. The illusion of staying in a

45

E.Relph, Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. 46

Y.F.Taun, Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold, 1977.

110

for Clarke’s models in Geography. Archaeological research meant

incorporating new Geography’s spatial methodology to archaeological

evidences. Renfrew41

spoke of texts of geographers, as providing source

books for future generation of archaeologists.

The alternative view began with regarding space, as a medium of

action not divorced from events and activities that occur within it. “Space

has no substantial essence in itself, but only has a relational significance,

created through relations between people and places.”42

Who and how it is

experienced is what is space. The phenomenological approach is about the

relationship between Being and Being in the world. Heidegger and

Merleau Ponty from different phenomenological perspectives have

underlined the ontological characteristics of the relationship between

inhabited space and social being in the world. To Heidegger43

‘Spaces

receive their essential being from locations and not “space”. A

mathematical space to him is not humanised but of measurement with no

places or locations. Dwelling in Heideggerian terms meant staying with

things that couldn’t be separated: the earth, the sky and the constellations,

the divinities, birth and death. Merleau Ponty44

argues for the body

providing the fundamental mediation point between thought and the world.

“The world and the subject reflect and flow into each through the body that

provides the living bond with the world.”

The relationship between space and place has been theorized within

the phenomenological school of geographical research from a particular

perspective, where places are seen as constituting space with centres for

41

C.Renfrew, Review of “Locational Analysis in Human Geography” by P.Haggett, Antiquity, 43:74-5,1969.

42 C. Tilley, op.cit.,p.11.

43 M.Heidegger, ‘Building dwelling thinking’ in M.Heidegger, Basic Writings, (ed. D.Krell),

London: Routledge, 1972.p.332. 44

M.Merleau Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge, 1962.

111

human meaning. There can be no spaces without places where following

forms of space can be identified- somatic space, perpetual space, existential

space and cognitive space. Somatic space takes as its starting point the

upright human body looking out on the world differentiable in terms of

front/back; left/right; vertical/horizontal; top/bottom; within reach/ beyond

reach; within/ beyond hearing; within sight/beyond sight; here/there

polarities as seen in the works of Relph;45

Taun.46

Perpetual space is

grounded in individual perception of distances and directions, natural

objects and cultural creations. It is always relative and qualitative. It is

linked to existential space, which is mobile rather than passive,

experienced and created through life activity. A sacred, symbolic and

mythic space is replete with social meanings wrapped around buildings,

objects and features of the local topography, providing reference points and

planes of emotional orientation for human attachment and involvement.

Architectural space is a deliberate attempt to make tangible, visible and

sensible space creating an inside and outside and makes sense in relation to

pragmatic, perpetual and existential space. It is this space, which is being

analysed and discussed. Cognitive space provides the basis for reflection

with regard to understanding others.

Neolithic populations made little impact on the land and the implied

knowledge of agriculture in however primitive form, domestication of

animals, making pottery- singly or collectively implied that man lived at a

fixed place. No longer a hunter moving from place to place in small

groups, agriculture, was the core element, which led to a settled form of

life. There was no idea of a fixed space as the idea of space was not a

particular place but anywhere. It is a settled form of life, which brings in

the idea of a fixed place or permanent space. The illusion of staying in a

45

E.Relph, Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, 1976. 46

Y.F.Taun, Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold, 1977.

112

single place forever inducing a profound effect on the way people saw their

presence in the world was a change brought about by the introduction of

agriculture involving little arable cultivation with emphasis on animal

husbandry. Existence became fused with place. Neolithic mortuary rituals

however left nothing in the way of archaeologically identifiable

monuments. The dead were buried within the settlement very often right in

the houses or courtyard or just in the periphery of the house.

In the Neolithic ancestral connections between living populations

and the past were embodied in being in the landscape and made relatively

little impact on the land but in the megalithic the relationship between

populations and the landscape took a different form. Through the

construction of monuments ancestral powers became double where through

the medium of architectural morphology, natural landscapes in which these

structures are found reflect transformations in the land. Architectural space

is made visible, tangible and sensible. Ancestral powers were being

projected and were always in a way being visibly brought into human

consciousness. It was a means of making permanent, fixing and anchoring

to perceive the connection between people and land for the first time.

During the Neolithic small and unstructured groups moved through the

landscape. A dramatic change is visible where permanent structures and

forms of monuments altered day-to-day rhythms of social life as they now

became bound up with permanent place- bound dwellings rather than

seasonal movement across wide tracts of land.

The building of monuments also imposes itself on human

consciousness in three ways47

. It creates an entirely new sense of place-

enhancing the significance of particular locations. Places then enter the

47

R. Bradley, Altering the Earth, The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1993.

113

consciousness of people who live and work around them until the

landscape as a whole is changed. Their extraordinary longevity brings in

another kind of consciousness distinctive, related to monuments. A

sense of time is inculcated involving subtle perceptions of place,

creations and the use of these structures, something, which never gets

reversed. More sedentary ways of life come into play as these

monuments and places worked together in directing and stimulating the

experiences of prehistoric people reflecting the significance of

monuments being created at particular places.

THE CASE OF THE MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD

The evidences from the explored and excavated megalithic sites in

Kasaragod provide traces of the survival of the Neolithic in the megalithic.

Umichipoyil is being taken up separately in the subsequent two chapters

but the regions in and around Umichipoyil have yielded typical Neolithic

assemblages from the megaliths, which were indicative of a transition from

the Neolithic to the megalithic. The transition was also indicative of

transformations apparent in the landscape through the medium of

architectural morphology. The transition from the Neolithic to the

megalithic saw a new sense of time, place and social identity through the

insertion of monumental constructions in the landscape. Monumental

constructions in relation to the landscape became specific settings allowing

experience of the ancestral past and their relationship to the outside world.

By undertaking a journey to the site ancestral powers could be understood

and the “monuments deployed and captured on ancestral history.”48

The evidence at hand provided by monuments numbering more than

50 are indicative of the significance of particular places, reaffirming

connections between places and the transformations evident in the land

48

C. Tilley, Op.cit., pp. 203-208.

112

single place forever inducing a profound effect on the way people saw their

presence in the world was a change brought about by the introduction of

agriculture involving little arable cultivation with emphasis on animal

husbandry. Existence became fused with place. Neolithic mortuary rituals

however left nothing in the way of archaeologically identifiable

monuments. The dead were buried within the settlement very often right in

the houses or courtyard or just in the periphery of the house.

In the Neolithic ancestral connections between living populations

and the past were embodied in being in the landscape and made relatively

little impact on the land but in the megalithic the relationship between

populations and the landscape took a different form. Through the

construction of monuments ancestral powers became double where through

the medium of architectural morphology, natural landscapes in which these

structures are found reflect transformations in the land. Architectural space

is made visible, tangible and sensible. Ancestral powers were being

projected and were always in a way being visibly brought into human

consciousness. It was a means of making permanent, fixing and anchoring

to perceive the connection between people and land for the first time.

During the Neolithic small and unstructured groups moved through the

landscape. A dramatic change is visible where permanent structures and

forms of monuments altered day-to-day rhythms of social life as they now

became bound up with permanent place- bound dwellings rather than

seasonal movement across wide tracts of land.

The building of monuments also imposes itself on human

consciousness in three ways47

. It creates an entirely new sense of place-

enhancing the significance of particular locations. Places then enter the

47

R. Bradley, Altering the Earth, The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1993.

113

consciousness of people who live and work around them until the

landscape as a whole is changed. Their extraordinary longevity brings in

another kind of consciousness distinctive, related to monuments. A

sense of time is inculcated involving subtle perceptions of place,

creations and the use of these structures, something, which never gets

reversed. More sedentary ways of life come into play as these

monuments and places worked together in directing and stimulating the

experiences of prehistoric people reflecting the significance of

monuments being created at particular places.

THE CASE OF THE MEGALITHS IN KASARAGOD

The evidences from the explored and excavated megalithic sites in

Kasaragod provide traces of the survival of the Neolithic in the megalithic.

Umichipoyil is being taken up separately in the subsequent two chapters

but the regions in and around Umichipoyil have yielded typical Neolithic

assemblages from the megaliths, which were indicative of a transition from

the Neolithic to the megalithic. The transition was also indicative of

transformations apparent in the landscape through the medium of

architectural morphology. The transition from the Neolithic to the

megalithic saw a new sense of time, place and social identity through the

insertion of monumental constructions in the landscape. Monumental

constructions in relation to the landscape became specific settings allowing

experience of the ancestral past and their relationship to the outside world.

By undertaking a journey to the site ancestral powers could be understood

and the “monuments deployed and captured on ancestral history.”48

The evidence at hand provided by monuments numbering more than

50 are indicative of the significance of particular places, reaffirming

connections between places and the transformations evident in the land

48

C. Tilley, Op.cit., pp. 203-208.

114

which bears survivals of the Neolithic. However no traces of a Neolithic

place being transformed into a megalithic space is evident as seen in the

neighbouring regions of Karnataka where the most intriguing element in

the Neolithic of the Southern Deccan is the ashmounds. Several sites have

evidences for cattle dung accumulated and heaped up that were

episodically burnt.49

There are sites in South Karnataka, where ash mounds

are lacking and sites occur on riverbanks. These could represent a separate

cultural tradition where ash mounds associated with ritual activities were

absent. It is quite possible but difficult to conclusively say unless extensive

settlement studies are carried out that the ashmound tradition did not exist

in Kerala. There is also an absence of rock art sites, which again can only

be conclusively proved after exhaustive studies in the region.

Transformations are evident in the monumental constructions, which was

in a way establishing ancestral powers in the landscape through monument

building, enhancing its symbolic potency and power. Without places there

can be no spaces. From places come spaces and here architectural space is

seen as creating and bounding space, an inside and outside. These

monuments and their construction in relation to the landscape can be seen

in terms of commonly occurring components, internal and external

components in relation to dominant features in the surrounding landscape-

rivers, rock outcrops, oriented capstones, intervisibility and linear

alignments.

Looking at the evidence at hand provided by the burial monuments

in more than 25 sites show that while the architectural morphology

emphasises difference, their location in relation to topographic features of

the landscape seem to be highly structured and repetitive. The relationship

49

Ravi Korisettar, P.C.Venkatasubbaiah and Doran Q.Fuller “Brahmagiri and Beyond: The

Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic” in Prehistory Archaeology of South Asia S.Settar and

Ravi Korisettar {Ed], Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Vol I, ICHR, 2002.

115

to a water source especially a small stream is evident at all the sites and in

majority of the cases the monuments look towards the stream which is

never more than a km away (as indicated earlier in fig.3.6). While in some

cases standing by the monument it was possible to see the stream in most

cases it is invisible highlighting landscape features, which were important.

The monuments might have been located to be intervisible with each other.

Despite the closeness of the location, intervisibility is restricted in one or

two directions with the land rising up immediately beyond which maybe in

the midpoint of a slope with the rock out crops or the land surface rising

above it. Standing near the monument (Fig.3.38) one could see the hills in

all four cardinal directions each of them again having similar monuments

where the emphasis was not on maximum visibility of the monument but

rather meant to be seen or approached from various directions.

Another notable feature is the area (Fig.3.39) surrounding these

structures, which in most cases is a plain ground, a barren rocky stony

waste sheet rock area with very little scrub or no scrub overlooking green

paddy fields below. (Fig.3.40). The monuments were chosen in close

relation to these. Here the rock out crops helps make the monuments

visible and invisible. Built of the same rock outcrop these monuments are

only visible when one actually is very close to it. It is not the monuments,

which are visible, but the natural outcrops, which are prominent features of

the landscape, which help to locate these monuments in space. The

dominant focal points are these outcrops keying the monuments into the

landscape at a distance indicating where to look for or expect to find a

monument both marking out the monument location and hiding them from

the eye. They were deliberately chosen to be located at places on

undulating terrain close to streams with extensive views across hills and

paddy fields where other megalithic sites are found. While within big

clusters one centrally located monument is surrounded by a small cluster

114

which bears survivals of the Neolithic. However no traces of a Neolithic

place being transformed into a megalithic space is evident as seen in the

neighbouring regions of Karnataka where the most intriguing element in

the Neolithic of the Southern Deccan is the ashmounds. Several sites have

evidences for cattle dung accumulated and heaped up that were

episodically burnt.49

There are sites in South Karnataka, where ash mounds

are lacking and sites occur on riverbanks. These could represent a separate

cultural tradition where ash mounds associated with ritual activities were

absent. It is quite possible but difficult to conclusively say unless extensive

settlement studies are carried out that the ashmound tradition did not exist

in Kerala. There is also an absence of rock art sites, which again can only

be conclusively proved after exhaustive studies in the region.

Transformations are evident in the monumental constructions, which was

in a way establishing ancestral powers in the landscape through monument

building, enhancing its symbolic potency and power. Without places there

can be no spaces. From places come spaces and here architectural space is

seen as creating and bounding space, an inside and outside. These

monuments and their construction in relation to the landscape can be seen

in terms of commonly occurring components, internal and external

components in relation to dominant features in the surrounding landscape-

rivers, rock outcrops, oriented capstones, intervisibility and linear

alignments.

Looking at the evidence at hand provided by the burial monuments

in more than 25 sites show that while the architectural morphology

emphasises difference, their location in relation to topographic features of

the landscape seem to be highly structured and repetitive. The relationship

49

Ravi Korisettar, P.C.Venkatasubbaiah and Doran Q.Fuller “Brahmagiri and Beyond: The

Archaeology of the Southern Neolithic” in Prehistory Archaeology of South Asia S.Settar and

Ravi Korisettar {Ed], Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Vol I, ICHR, 2002.

115

to a water source especially a small stream is evident at all the sites and in

majority of the cases the monuments look towards the stream which is

never more than a km away (as indicated earlier in fig.3.6). While in some

cases standing by the monument it was possible to see the stream in most

cases it is invisible highlighting landscape features, which were important.

The monuments might have been located to be intervisible with each other.

Despite the closeness of the location, intervisibility is restricted in one or

two directions with the land rising up immediately beyond which maybe in

the midpoint of a slope with the rock out crops or the land surface rising

above it. Standing near the monument (Fig.3.38) one could see the hills in

all four cardinal directions each of them again having similar monuments

where the emphasis was not on maximum visibility of the monument but

rather meant to be seen or approached from various directions.

Another notable feature is the area (Fig.3.39) surrounding these

structures, which in most cases is a plain ground, a barren rocky stony

waste sheet rock area with very little scrub or no scrub overlooking green

paddy fields below. (Fig.3.40). The monuments were chosen in close

relation to these. Here the rock out crops helps make the monuments

visible and invisible. Built of the same rock outcrop these monuments are

only visible when one actually is very close to it. It is not the monuments,

which are visible, but the natural outcrops, which are prominent features of

the landscape, which help to locate these monuments in space. The

dominant focal points are these outcrops keying the monuments into the

landscape at a distance indicating where to look for or expect to find a

monument both marking out the monument location and hiding them from

the eye. They were deliberately chosen to be located at places on

undulating terrain close to streams with extensive views across hills and

paddy fields where other megalithic sites are found. While within big

clusters one centrally located monument is surrounded by a small cluster

116

with one isolated monument away as seen in both Umichipoyil and

Varikulam, in other places they seem to occur in pairs or in small clusters

of three and all occur on opposite sides of major rivers.

ORIENTATION AND DIRECTIONAL SETTINGS

The Kotakkal (as described earlier in fig.3.25a) display great regularity

and are linearly aligned all the eight at Varikulam including the first nearest

neighbour at Periyatadakkam being represented between two poles North

South and East West. They were not placed at random but based on principles

of precise directional setting. They display great regularity in their spacing

related to landscape components. This is true of the rock cut caves where the

porthole a common component together with the entrance to the cave

emphasised their orientation in all four cardinal directions towards the sun.

Their orientation, linear alignments, entrances, passages and chambers was in

a sense freezing perspective through the architectural lens of the monuments

themselves establishing control over “topographic perspective and

individual’s possibilities for interpreting the world.”50

The transformation evident in the land through these burial

structures which bears survivals of the Neolithic was indicative of the

significance of reaffirming connections between places and the land

establishing ancestral powers in the landscape through monument building,

enhancing its symbolic power and potency. Umichipoyil an explored and

excavated site that bears survivals of the Neolithic reflects a refashioned

landscape through the imposition of the constructed monument. The next

two chapters embody the empirical reality from Umichipoyil.

50

C.Tilley, Op.cit.,p.72.