Village Defenses of the Karnataka Maidan,

AD 1600-1800
BARRY LEWIS

Introduction understood f u l l y unless c o n s i d e r e d i n c u l t u r a l context as

part o f related larger issues o f v i l l a g e design. A n d , i f one
T h e N a y a k a period i n K a r n a t a k a roughly brackets the understands the basics o f v i l l a g e design, the w a y is open
c e n t u r i e s between the fall o f R a m a R a y a ' s capital c i t y o f to understanding aspects o f N a y a k a period t o w n and c i t y
V i j a y a n a g a r a i n 1565 a n d the fall o f T i p u S u l t a n ' s c a p i t a l design and how c o m m u n i t i e s g e n e r a l l y coped with the
of Srirangapatna in 1799. T h e former effectively broke t r y i n g conditions o f these centuries.
the b a c k o f the V i j a y a n a g a r a e m p i r e in K a r n a t a k a and the S e v e r a l other p r a c t i c a l reasons also motivate the
latter left the B r i t i s h as the major political force in S o u t h present focus on v i l l a g e defensive features. F i r s t l y , as w i t h
I n d i a . ' I n the turbulent c e n t u r i e s between these events, the m a n y other aspects o f h i s t o r i c a l research on the lives o f
M u g h a l s , the M a r a t h a s , the M y s o r e sultans, the Nizam, c o m m o n people, studies o f South I n d i a n m i l i t a r y features
the B r i t i s h , the F r e n c h , and scores o f s m a l l e r r u l e r s and and landscapes seldom address village-level .security
c h i e f s fought for control o f m u c h o f S o u t h I n d i a . A s i f to concerns.'' T h e result promotes the u n w a r r a n t e d i m p r e s s i o n
m a k e things worse, marauders roamed the countryside that defense w a s p r i m a r i l y the p r o v i n c e of elites, and, i f
p l u n d e r i n g what w a s left, and v i l l a g e s preyed on each other it were widespread throughout society, it w a s o f little
w h e n conditions grew p a r t i c u l a r l y hard.^ consequence in the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record o f v i l l a g e s .
A s is g e n e r a l l y true o f other eras o f South I n d i a n S e c o n d l y , although long-abandoned fortifications
hi.story and archaeology, N a y a k a period research is biased are c o m m o n features o f the modern Indian landscape,
t o w a r d the r u l e r s and other elite m e m b e r s o f society, and comparatively little w o r k has yet been done on their
t o w a r d major sites and e v e n t s . ' C o m m o n people are .seldom functional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ' N o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s i n S o u t h I n d i a
m o r e than shadows i n the b a c k g r o u n d s o f grander scenes. include the w o r k o f J e a n D e l o c h e o f the F r e n c h Institute o f
W h a t is s t r i k i n g about this bias is that it e x i s t s i n the face o f P o n d i c h e r r y ; * the V i j a y a n a g a r a R e s e a r c h Project d i r e c t e d
e v i d e n c e that N a y a k a period c o m m o n people often do have by J o h n F r i t z , G e o r g e M i c h e l l , and M . S. Nagaraja R a o ; '
an a r c h i v a l presence, at least w h e n v i e w e d at the v i l l a g e and C a r i a S i n o p o l i and K a t h l e e n M o r r i s o n ' s V i j a y a n a g a r a
level.* S i m i l a r l y , archaeologists e v e r y w h e r e can study Metropolitan S u r v e y , w h i c h centered on V i j a y a n a g a r a ' s
r e a d i l y the m a t e r i a l r e m a i n s o f a l l m e m b e r s o f society. T h e i m m e d i a t e hinterland.'" O f p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e in the
inescapable inference is that r e l a t i v e l y little is k n o w n about latter research program is R o b e r t B r u b a k e r ' s recently-
the archaeology o f p r e c o l o n i a l s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s in S o u t h completed P h D dissertation on late m e d i e v a l and e a r l y
I n d i a m o r e often becau.se o f the p r e v a i l i n g p r i o r i t i e s and m o d e r n V i j a y a n a g a r a region fortifications."
interests o f m o d e r n society, h i s t o r i a n s , and archaeologists T h i r d l y , the defensive w o r k s o f a l l c o m m u n i t i e s ,
rather than because o f the lack o f data. even s m a l l v i l l a g e s and h a m l e t s , tend to be among the most
M y objective here is to e x a m i n e one aspect o f the m a s s i v e features o f the built e n v i r o n m e n t . Becau.sc o f these
l i v e s o f N a y a k a period c o m m o n people, that o f v i l l a g e qualities (and also, i n m a n y cases, because o f their lack o f
defense. S e c u r i t y c o n c e r n s affect e v e r y v i l l a g e r e q u a l l y subsequent s e c o n d a r y uses except as raw m a t e r i a l sources),
and the data needed to study this aspect o f v i l l a g e d e c i s i o n - the r e m a i n s o f v i l l a g e defenses have often s u r v i v e d to
m a k i n g are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e n v i e w e d the present and c a n be .studied a r c h a e o l o g i c a l l y . T h e s e
across v i l l a g e s in the s a m e region, defenses tend to v a r y less features a r c a l s o a m o n g the few material aspects o f v i l l a g e
than many other factors. B y v i r t u e of their nature, defenses life that frequently have an a r c h i v a l presence. G i v e n their
respond more to e x t e r n a l forces than to the internal s o c i a l relative obtrusiveness, they often stood out enough from
m i l i e u and h i s t o r y that contribute greatly to the d i v e r s i t y their s u r r o u n d i n g s to attract the attention o f c o n t e m p o r a r y
of I n d i a ' s villages.^ T h e a r t i c l e ' s m a i n thesis is that the observers w h o iet't w r i t t e n records. F o r e x a m p l e , F r a n c i s
basic elements of p r e c o l o n i a l v i l l a g e s e c u r i t y cannot be B u c h a n a n ' s n a r r a t i v e account o f h i s tour o f M y s o r e and

91
BARRY LEWIS
Uchchangipura
- i.
!\ Siddavvanadurga
'
\=. ;
•\
Bharmagtn
\ Pillajanahalli
/. Fonified village study area. Kaiiiataka, hi did. showing
the locations of village sites mentioned in this article.
Karnataka •
• lowlands and the Bay of Bengal. The plateau continues to
i.'.3 CO.lf.l.-ll PIVKl: \ Kerala
2. Fortified villages in centra! and southern Karnataka,
1799-1808.
Malabar between 1800 and 1801, immediately after the end
of the Fourth Mysore War, mentions scores, if not hundreds,
of fortified villages that he passed or visited.'- The most
common attributes identified in Buchanan's village
descriptions are the presence or absence of defensive
features such as walls, towers, gateways, and ditches.
Finally, lest there be quibbles about their fimction
and use, abundant evidence attests to the defensive nature
of village features like tho.se examined here. The direct
evidence includes contemporary eyewitness reports in
Karnataka and the archaeological research on South Indian
fortifications cited above (especially Brubaker's 2004
Vijayanagara fortification research)." Additional general
support is provided by recent comparative research on
fortifications and the archaeology of warfare.'"'
92
The next section describes the main dimensions
of the defensive problem that precolonial Karnataka
villagers had to solve and aspects of the region's physical
/
and cultural geography that affected how they dealt with
such issues. 1 then describe general features of a maidan
;• \
'••••'••->. ' „->^...
village in Davangere district, which, while they were
/ < not necessarily shared by every village, were sufiiciently
common to provide a useful heuristic. Next, I examine the
-^Chitradurga^
heuristic's application to the study of village defen.ses and
outline the assumptions that underlie its use. Given this
comparative framework, representative small and large
Kurubarahalli villages are described, based on archaeological field surveys
in Chitradurga and Davangere districts. The final section
identifies general patterns of village defense in the study
region and discusses the extent to which villagers responded
to ditferent security concerns, drew on different resources,
and set different .security priorities to their rulers."
The Maidan region
The study area includes parts of Chitradurga, Davangere,
Bellary, Dharwar, Shimoga, Tumkur, and Chickmagalur
Andhra
Pradesh districts in central Karnataka (Figure 1). It is mostly a
.semi-arid scrub jungle plateau, which geographers call the
Southern Maidan."^' To the west arc the forested mountains,
or mainad, of the Western Ghats, through which narrow
passes lead down to the low-lying, well-watered coastal
plain bordering the Arabian Sea. To the east the transition
from plateau to coast is more gradual through the Eastern
Ghats to the Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu coastal
the north as the Southern Deccan. To the south, it ends in
the Nilgiri Mountains.
Like all natural landscapes, this diverse region
played an active role in the drama of human lives. The
maidan, mainad, and coastal plains each offered different
possibilities, constraints, and histories, all of which
influenced community decision-making. Local surface
relief, vegetation cover, soils, precipitation patterns, rivers,
drainage, and even seasonal changes in climate are just
some of the natural factors that villagers considered in
decisions about the safety and well-being of iheir families
and the community as a whole. In the mainad, for example,
villages were often a web of spatially discrete households
and neighborhoods spread across a relatively large area." In
many such cases, village defense relied on the ruggedness
of the terrain; on barriers and earthworks that defended
roads and trails; and on the option of .scattering into the
forest rather than seeking protection in fortified, nucleated
settlements.
The situation was different in the maidan region,
where the terrain offered a broad natural line of advance for
armies. Much of it was good country for cavalry and it held
abundant opportunities for robber bands. Here, villages
were generally nucleated and some form of defensive works
Suiidi Asian .Snidies 2.5
 V l L L A G I J DlEFIiNSES O l - T l l l i K A K N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1 <S()()

were part o f the basic fabric o f p r e c o l o n i a l v i l l a g e design.'''

F i g u r e 2 s h o w s the distribution o f fortified v i l l a g e s in central
and southern K a r n a t a k a , as recorded by C o l i n M a c k e n z i e ' s
M y s o r e S u r v e y between KSOO and hSOS.''' B a s e d on a
c o n s e r v a t i v e estimate d e r i v e d from the s y m b o l o g y o f the
M y s o r e S u r v e y maps, at least 253 of the 1<S,059 v i l l a g e s
identified by the s u r v e y o r s were fortified.'" O f the fortified
v i l l a g e s , 212 ((S4%) were located in the inuidan region, 4 0
(16%) were in the malnad, and one w a s on the coast in what
is today D a k s h i n K a n n a d a district. E v e n after one controls
for the different s i z e s o f the maidan, malnad and coastal
regions, late N a y a k a period maidan v i l l a g e s were nearly
t w i c e as l i k e l y as malnad v i l l a g e s to be fortified.

M a i d a n village design

T h i s study e x a m i n e s Ihe a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e m a i n s of v i l l a g e s
that were g e n e r a l l y too insignificant to w a r r a n t i n c l u s i o n
on nineteenth-century maps o f South India. T h e concept
of ' v i l l a g e ' , whether v i e w e d in E n g l i s h or K a n n a d a , the
c o m m o n v e r n a c u l a r of the study region, is, at best, rather
fuzzy.-' F o r present purposes, a v i l l a g e is defined as a .)'. Kallapura village layoiil. as described by Guriiiniirrliy
s m a l l c o m m u n i t y o f households in w h i c h religious, r i t u a l , (cf. now 24).
and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e r v i c e s are p r i m a r i l y local in scope.
Following common E n g l i s h usage, v i l l a g e s arc s m a l l e r
than towns and larger than hamlets. extent o f these b a r r i e r s are defined and controlled by the
The t y p i c a l spatial layout of maidan v i l l a g e s owes v i l l a g e , but, in modern v i l l a g e s at least, they do not exceed
little to the g u i d e l i n e s given by traditional t e x t s , " or to the revenue boundaries s u r v e y e d by the government.
the c o m m o n stereotype o f them as out-of-the-way, solf- E a c h v i l l a g e is d i v i d e d into two parts, the urn, or
sutficient communities.-' Nevertheless, the defensive v i l l a g e proper, and the adive, or the v i l l a g e ' s fields, p a s t u i e s ,
aspects o f v i l l a g e layout include some o f t h e more patterned and fallow ground ( F i g u r e 3 ) . T h e core area o f t h e nrn is the
aspects o f v i l l a g e plans because, as noted above, s e c u r i t y temple c o m p o u n d {gudi powli) o f the v i l l a g e deity.-'' T h e
threats arc largely defined by e x t e r n a l factors, not by forces i n n e r settlement {holal<eri) s u r r o u n d s this c o m p o u n d and is
internal to each v i l l a g e . the v i l l a g e ' s oldest residential area. It t y p i c a l l y c o m p r i s e s
large, w e l l - c o n s t r u c t e d houses associated w i t h the o r i g i n a l
The Kallapura layout settlers. O f t e n , the homes o f t h e headman and v i l l a g e priest
K . G . G u r u m u r t h y ' s ethnographic research at K a l l a p u r a , - * w i l l be in the liolakeri. T h e outer settlement {horakeri)
the fictitious name he gave to a v i l l a g e in what is today contains the homes of o r i g i n a l settler f a m i l i e s and l o w e r
southern D a v a n g c r c district, provides a useful general class v i l l a g e r s ; many o f these houses are s m a l l e r and less
model w i t h w h i c h to c h a r a c t e r i z e Ihe basic defensive layout w e l l - b u i l t than those o f the holakeri. B e y o n d the outer
of maidan villages.-'^ A l t h o u g h G u r u m u r t h y describes this settlement is the t h r e s h i n g ground (ola-kanagalu), which
pattern as a series o f " r i t u a l c i r c l e s " , the term ' l a y o u t ' is was o r i g i n a l l y a non-residential area that contained the
used here to e m p h a s i z e the aspects o f ritual c i r c l e s that t h r e s h i n g and w i n n o w i n g areas, as w e l l as storage facilities
contribute to overall v i l l a g e design, not merely its ritual for g r a i n , firewood, and a n i m a l fodder. A s a v i l l a g e g r o w s ,
landscape. Unless otherwise indicated, the following houses and streets encroach on this area. T h e t h r e s h i n g
paragraphs about the Kallapura layout are mostly a ground is ringed by the protecting fence (pahari heri),
synthesis of G u r u m u r t h y ' s several accounts. often a t h i c k bound-hedge open o n l y w h e r e it intersects a

V i l l a g e s are protected by both p h y s i c a l and ritual road.-' G u r u m u r t h y describes this fence as

barriers that, taken together, defend the community

against bad people, evil s p i r i t s , diseases, ill fortune, the d i v i d i n g l i n e between the residential
lessened fertility, and other factors that c a n d i m i n i s h the and the non-residential area, between
health, prosperity, s e c u r i t y , and general w e l l - b e i n g o f its the members and the non-members, and
inhabitants. T h e s e b a r r i e r s form an integrated whole that between the l i v i n g and the dead members
influence how the v i l l a g e maps itself onto the ground and of the c o m m u n i t y . It is left open o n l y at
its spatial relationships w i t h neighboring c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e the roads w h i c h lead to the neighbouring

93
BARRY LEWIS
Non-defensive boundary
4. Village defensive iavoiiis: A. Area-iype defense; B. Poinl-lype defense using a inide or rower.
villages. In the past there were gates {agase
bagilu) to regulate the movement of men
and materials. They were watched round the
clock by the village watchman,^"
The protecting fence defended the village against human
enemies, animal predators, evil spirits, the loss of fertility,
and diseases; village rites ensured its ritual purity.
The adive lies between the protecting fence and the
village's ritual boundary (Figure 3). Taken as a whole, the
adive is not a residential area, nor is it ritually protected
or pure. The village's ancestral fields (inanedolagalu) abut
the protecting fence. These fields are among the most
valued in the village and are the locus of several village
rites and some of the ancestral tombs. The fields [Imla)
that stretch beyond the ancestral fields are less valued,
are often more difiicult of access, and have little ritual
significance in village life. The village ritual boundary
{lira gadi) surrounds the latter fields. Although infused
with considerable importance as the village's outmost
perimeter of ritual and economic activity, delimited
by ritual boundary stones (niinidrekal.iu), and guarded
by village deities who may be acknowledged by shrines
erected at the parts of the boundary under their protection,
it is established by village rituals alone and does not follow
the village's revenue boundary. It does, however, lie within
the latter boundary.^'
The rudlira bliumi (cemetery or cremation ground)
(Figure 3), or the space between the ritual boundaries of
94
Defensive boundary
two adjacent villages, is noteworthy because it is ritually
unclean. As the name implies, it serves as the burial and
cremation ground for some classes of village residents.
Within it live evil spirits, diseases, and ill fortune, all
of which have been driven there by the village gods.
Presumably, the boundary stones and markers that identify
the revenue limits of the village fall in this space.
A s community-centered as the Kallapura layout may
be, Gurumurthy describes a mid-twentieth-century world
that was more strongly focused on individual households
than existed anywhere in the maidan region during the
Nayaka period. Missing from the Kallapura layout are the
stone and mud fortifications and ditches that were once the
most obtrusive features of village layout. Like Kallapura's
fort walls, which vanished over the past couple of centuries,
this aspect of village design disappeared as the state
imposed its authority across the region in the nineteenth
century, dismantled the strongholds, and disbanded the
private armies of the remaining poligars.'"
Village defenses
Archaeological field survey in central Karnataka suggests
that precolonial village defensive works other than
bound-hedges commonly varied with the size of a given
community and whether its inhabitants decided to defend
a perimeter or a point. Most large villages and some small
villages opted to defend a perimeter. They typically sited
their main defenses between the inner and outer settlements
(the holakeri and Iwrakeri respectively) (A in Figure 4). For
Souili Asian Suidies 25
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1800

e x a m p l e , w r i t i n g about central and southern K a r n a t a k a in
the late nineteenth c e n t u r y , B . L e w i s R i c e o b s e r v e d .
M o s t important v i l l a g e s and t o w n s have a
considerable fbrt of mud or stone, also the
erection o f former tioublous t i m e s , w h e n
e v e r y gauda a i m e d at being a palegar, and
every palegar at becoming independent.
T h e fort is the quarter generally affected by
the B r a h m a n s , and c o n t a i n s the p r i n c i p a l
temple. T h e p e / e or m a r k e t , w h i c h i n v a r i a b l y
adjoins the fort at a greater or less d i s t a n c e
beyond the w a l l s , is the residence o f the
other o r d e r s . ' '
and revenue boundaries, but the v i l l a g e as a w h o l e may not
v i e w such land in the same light as s i m i l a r property that lies
w i t h i n the ritual b o u n d a r y or w i t h i n the protecting fence.
F i n a l l y , v i l l a g e (and c i t y ) w a l l s are not n e c e s s a r i l y
the o n l y defenses, but may be s i m p l y the most visible
component o f a defense that incorporates other o u t l y i n g
elements, such as bound-hedges, that m a y be r e m o v e d
spatially from the v i l l a g e c o r e and leave little trace in the
a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record. V i e w e d strictly from a f u n c t i o n a l
perspective, v i l l a g e w a l l s and bound-hedges c o u l d play
s i m i l a r det'ensive roles. T h e y both created p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s
that c h a n n e l e d access through the v i l l a g e gates. T h e y a l s o
made (as v i l l a g e r s undoubtedly hoped) the anticipated co.st
of penetrating these b a r r i e r s greater than some k i n d s o f
attackers were prepared to pay.

R a t h e r than attempt to defend the v i l l a g e as a w h o l e , m a n y How can one use these ideas to facilitate the
s m a l l e r c o m m u n i t i e s tended to defend a strategic point interpretation o f p r e c o l o n i a l v i l l a g e defenses? T h e y are
w i t h i n or adjacent to the holakeri ( B in F i g u r e 4 ) . W r i t i n g probably best treated as h e u r i s t i c s , w i t h w h i c h one asks
about the study l e g i o n i n the nineteenth century, R i c e noted the question: what w o u l d p r e c o l o n i a l defenses look l i k e
that ' v i l l a g e s c o m m o n l y have the r e m a i n s o f a round tower i f maidan v i l l a g e layouts w e r e o r g a n i z e d along the s a m e
in the m i d d l e , a s o m e w h a t picturesque feature, erected in general l i n e s as K a l l a p u r a ? W i t h these e x p e c t a t i o n s in
former d a y s as a place o f retreat for the w o i n e n and c h i l d r e n m i n d , w e c a n then turn to the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record and
in case o f attack'.'- assess from m a t e r i a l r e m a i n s and spatial relationships the
Even without the direct e v i d e n c e o f stone and extent to w h i c h a g i v e n v i l l a g e site w a s laid out a c c o r d i n g
mud fort w a l l s , G u r u m u r t h y ' s K a l l a p u r a layout concept to s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e s .
is p a r t i c u l a r l y i-elevant to a d i s c u s s i o n o f v i l l a g e defense B e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g real cases, several additional
for several leasons. F i r s t l y , it identifies a logic and order assumptions need to be made about v i l l a g e defense. F i r s t l y ,
of v i l l a g e design that goes beyond a s i m p l e perspective of v i l l a g e s , whether ancient or m o d e r n , in I n d i a or e l s e w h e r e ,
defense as a response only to anticipated h u m a n conflict. do not attempt to defend against a r m i e s . V i l l a g e r s l a c k
The Kallapura layout r e m i n d s us that village defense the means - w e a p o n s , t r a i n i n g , manpower, leadership, and
is i n e v i t a b l y more than walls, gates, ditches, towers, stores - to lesist o v e r w h e l m i n g force. V i l l a g e r s u n l u c k y
and protecting o n e s e l f against other people. It is about enough to find t h e m s e l v e s in the path o f an a d v a n c i n g
protecting the v i l l a g e from the w h o l e gamut o f h u m a n , a r m y or the object o f a concerted attack by a large band o f
a n i m a l , and s p i r i t u a l forces that may act on its w e l l - b e i n g . m a r a u d e r s tend to hide what they c a n and r u n away.'* F o r
C a s t in this light, it also s h o w s c l e a r l y that the m a t e r i a l the latter v i l l a g e r s , passive defenses such as g r a i n storage
expressions o f v i l l a g e defense must be e x a m i n e d both pits, or hagevii, hidden in and near the v i l l a g e , helped to
broadly and c o n t e x t u a l l y i f they are to be understood in protect a f a m i l y ' s harvest from both a g r i c u l t u r a l pests and
more than a superficial way. robbers.'-^ H o w e v e r , even hagevii were not proof against

Secondly, viewed archaeologically, villages are loss. F o r e x a m p l e , d u r i n g the T h i r d M y s o r e W a r , E u r o p e a n

more than s p a t i a l l y concentrated debris scatters o f the soldiers w i t n e s s e d both M a r a t h a and M y s o r e m a r a u d e r s

r e m a i n s o f houses, o u t b u i l d i n g s , and public spaces. A s e e k i n g out and robbing v i l l a g e hagevu as their respective

v i l l a g e layout extends w e l l beyond w h e r e the streets and a r m i e s a d v a n c e d through the c o u n t r y s i d e . " '

houses end and the fields begin, and its spatial patterning Secondly, defensive w o r k s are inherently reactive.
c a n be infused w i t h m a n y layers of m e a n i n g that are T h e i r design reflects a v i l l a g e ' s assessment ofthe likely forces
significant in v i l l a g e life. Insofar as this is true, it follows that threaten its w e l l - b e i n g and the anticipated strength,
that a r c h a e o l o g i c a l investigations of v i l l a g e s , e s p e c i a l l y technology, and probable tactics o f these forces. Insofar as
research that c o n s i d e r s such problems as defense, must this is true, fortifications say nearly as m u c h about possible
adopt a spatial p e r s p e c t i v e o f v i l l a g e s that is greater than attackers as they do about the v i l l a g e r s w h o erected them.
their residential cores. T h i r d l y , and related to the p r e v i o u s a s s u m p t i o n , the
T h i r d l y , not a l l v i l l a g e b o u n d a r y markers mean s c a l e o f v i l l a g e defensive w o r k s tends to be p r o p o r t i o n a l
the same thing, nor do they figure prominently in a to the s i z e and w e a l t h o f t h e c o m m u n i t y it defends. S i m p l y
community's defensive priorities.'' Depending on the put, a wealthy community can afford a more robust
nature o f local land tenure practices, v i l l a g e revenue defense than a poor one o f t h e s a m e size, and may be more
boundaries may, for e x a m p l e , be important to l a n d o w n e r s motivated to do so because it feels that it has m o r e to lo.se
w h o s e property includes land that lies between the ritual if the defense f a i l s .

95
BARRY LEWIS
Finally, .status display is seldom an issue in village
defenses. Unlike the fortifications erected in the towns
which were the headquarters of nayakas and poligars,
villagers seldom attempted to incorporate status markers
into their defensive works. For example, archaeological field
survey in the study region suggests that village defensive
works emphasized function over style consistently. To
these villagers, the value of physical barriers rested more
with perceived etficacy than adherence to a particular
architectural vocabulary or style.
The next two sections apply the Kallapura heuristic
to example sites drawn from the results of field surveys
in Chitradurga and Davangere districts, Karnataka. The
first section deals with small villages and compounds, the
second with large villages.
Small villages and compounds
The most commonly-encountered archaeological remains of
village defenses are those designed to protect communities
against the real threats posed by other people. These
aspects of the built environment tend to survive longer
than other cultural features because they are typically
the most massive and, consequently, the most obtrusive
identifiable surface remains of the villages they were built
to defend. Houses and outbuildings may disappear quickly,
boundary stones be uprooted, and bound-hedges cut away,
but fortifications, especially those built entirely or partly
with stone, often endure simply because of their size and
the fact that they have few, if any, secondary uses except
as a source of raw materials. The choice of fortification
building materials does matter, however, and the surface
remains of mud-walled forts are often only identifiable
today as ridges of earth that follow the trace of what were
once proper walls. Few Nayaka period mud brick walls
and buildings in the study region are as well-preserved
as those at Chitradurga Fort, where coatings of chtinain
(lime plaster) and the district's low average rainfall have
preserved them."
This section considers the smallest precolonial
village sites that show surface evidence of defensive
works. The main challenge faced by the inhabitants of
the.se villages was to devi.se a viable defen.se from limited
resources. It has never been a trivial task to defend a small
poor community. A s the mid-nineteenth-century expert on
fortifications Hector Straith remarked, the rule of thumb
when designing a defense is 'small place, bad place', and for
sound reasons.'" In many such communities, for example,
what may seem to be the obvious solution of erecting mud
or stone walls around the inner settlement of the village
would have been utterly impractical because, even if the
raw materials were readily available and affordable, there
were too few villagers to construct, maintain, and defend
the resulting large perimeter. The plight of the small
village therefore compels us to identify that which was to
96
be defended, if one could not defend the whole, and then
ascertain how villagers achieved this objective.
The object of a community defen.se takes many
forms and varies according to cultural traditions, historical
contexts, and what villagers agree to defend against. One
could choose to defend some or all of a village's inhabitants,
village places or neighborhoods of particular significance,
historically- or ritually-defined perimeters, and so on. As
noted above, a village's defensive pose is also a function of
the inhabitants' assumptions about the nature, tactics, and
means of potential threats. A disciplined army thought to
be dragging a train of artillery would have been viewed
quite difl'erently by villagers to a small band of marauders
mounted on country ponies and armed with swords, spears,
and the odd rusty matchlock.
Next to simply running away (a viable defensive
strategy for the inhabitants of many small communities),
the Kallapura layout conferred on its inhabitants a certain
amount of protection - both real and ritual - without
further elaboration. In particular, the protecting fence, or
bound-hedge, defined a cheap yet eft'ective perimeter. For
some villages it was in fact the primary defensive feature.
A dense protective fence of thorn bushes required attackers
to concentrate their force at particular points, whether
to cut through the fence or to contest the gates where
the fence intersected roads. The main drawback of the
protecting fence was that once penetrated, it could become
a defensive liability if it constrained the villagers' ability lo
concentrate force or flee. Nevertheless, Arthur Wellesley,
the future Duke of Wellington, found bound-hedges to be
.serviceable protection for many villages during the Third
Mysore War.''' Similarly, Tipu Sultan's regulations required
that existing village and town hedges be maintained and
new ones planted where they were needed.'"'
Pillajanahalli
Moving beyond the protecting fence, which, to date at least,
is effectively invisible archaeologically, to the habitation
area of villages, the siinplest niaidan defense did not
attempt to secure the entire community, but concentrated
resources on defending a point, typically using a tower
or hude built in or near the village ( B in Figure 4). Kittel
describes the hude as "a circular bastion-like structure
of stones, etc. at some distance from a village in which
peasants endeavoured lo secure themselves in the time
of a sudden attack from marauders'.'" Francis Buchanan,
traveling through Kolar district in May of ISOO, described
one of the many varieties of hude:
A l l the houses are collected in villages, and
the smallest village, of five or six houses,
is fortified. The defense of such a village
consists of a round stone wall, perhaps forty
feet in diameter, and six feet high. On top
of this is a parapet of mud, with a door in
South Asian Studies 25
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1800

i i , 10 w h i c h access is by a hiddcr. In case based v i l l a g e defenses, a l l o f w h i c h , l i k e the S c o t t i s h

of a plundering party coming near the dun or broch that they superficially resemble, are
v i l l a g e , the people ascend into this tower, set i n gently rolling terrain that offers few natural
with their families, and most valuable d e f e n s i v e advantages.*" O n e o f the s i m p l e s t e x a m p l e s
etfects, and h a v i n g d r a w n up the ladder i,s P i l l a j a n a h a l l i , w h i c h l i e s s e v e r a l k i l o m e t e r s south o f
defend themselves w i t h stones, w h i c h even the V e d a v a t i R i v e r i n H i r i y u r t a l u k , C h i t r a d u r g a d i s t r i c t
the women throw with great force and (Figure 1). No inscriptions or other dated remains
dexlerity."'- a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s site, w h i c h is i n f e r r e d to be a
N a y a k a p e r i o d l o c a t i o n based on i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d
R i c e further notes that, i n the districts l y i n g north-east f r o m l o c a l v i l l a g e r s and the s i m i l a r i t y o f its c o n s t r u c t i o n
from the B a b a B u d a n s |i.e. the present study area], v i l l a g e s m e t h o d s and m a t e r i a l s to d o c u m e n t e d Nayaka period
c o m m o n l y have the r e m a i n s o f a round tower in the m i d d l e , sites e l s e w h e r e in the s t u d y r e g i o n .
a somewhat picturesque feature, erected in former days as T h e o n l y s u r v i v i n g P i l l a j a n a h a l l i s t r u c t u r e is the
a place o f retreat for the w o m e n and c h i l d r e n in case o f hude i t s e l f ( F i g u r e 5 ) , w h i c h stands out so m u c h f r o m
attack'."" T h a t hude were often, i f not u s u a l l y , c o n s i d e r a b l y the s u r r o u n d i n g fields that the d i s t r i c t m a p m a r k s the site
t a l l e r than the K o l a r district v i l l a g e e x a m p l e quoted above w i t h a fort symbol.*"' T h e hude m e a s u r e s e l e v e n meters i n
is illustrated by C a m p b e l l ' s r e m a r k about B i j a p u r d i s t r i c t d i a m e t e r and its m u c h - r e d u c e d w a l l s are a p p r o x i m a t e l y
v i l l a g e s : " F r o m a distance the first parts o f a v i l l a g e that five to s e v e n meters h i g h . It c o n s i s t s o f a c i r c u l a r t w o -
catch the eye are the trees and the v i l l a g e tower'.*'*' T h e faced s l a b - a n d - r u b b l e w a l l , m e a s u r i n g about 1.6 meters
same can be said of the hude r u i n s that still s u r v i v e in the t h i c k , w h i c h w a s filled in w i t h e a r t h and stones to m a k e a
study a i e a . solid p l a t f o r m . N o t h i n g r e m a i n s o f its o r i g i n a l top, a n d it
Chitradiirga and Davangere districts contain cannot be d e t e r m i n e d i f a stone or mud parapet and door
the archaeological remains of several types of hude- once c r o w n e d the P i l l a j a n a h a l l i s t r u c t u r e .

97
BARRY L E W I S
Later construction
6. Kiin(haralialli sile plan.
The weeds, brush, and other ground cover around
the Pillajanahalli hude make it hard to identify more than a
few major surface features, even during the dry season, and it
is unknown i f the hude was constructed within the village's
residential area or nearby. Inspection of the overgrown field
in which the hude sits revealed traces of a 1.5 to 1.7 meter-
wide two-faced rubble wall that may have once enclosed it.
The point-based objective of a /H(f/e-centered village
defense worked best, or perhaps only worked at all, i f one's
attackers were simply marauders for whom success was a
quick raid with opportunities for looting or cattle lifting. In
the face of a more sustained attack, the hude must have been
of little defensive value.
Kurubarahalli
The /lurfe-centered defense was not the only option open
to small communities. Given sufficient resources and a
small area to protect, they sometimes elected to defend the
living area itself. The Kurubarahalli site is the remains of
a walled compound with corner towers (Figure 6) set on a
stony level plain about one kilometer north of the Vedavati
River in Hiriyur taluk, Chitradurga district (Figure I ) . The
site does not have a local name, so it is referred to here
by the name of the closest village, Kurubarahalli, which
is situated about two kilometers to the southwest."' Like
Pillajanahalli, it is identified as a late precolonial site based
on its .stylistic similarities with documented Nayaka period
sites in the region.
Given the ab.sence of visible habitation remains
in the fields around the site, its size (1876 meters .square),
and its interior features, Kurubarahalli appears to have
been an isolated large household of means, possibly the
fortified compound of a wealthy farmer or local poligar,
The compound and its adjacent fields may well have been
surrounded by a bound-hedge, but surface traces of any
such natural defen.ses vanished long ago.
98
The two-faced compound wall measures about 1.3
meters wide and is made of dry-laid rubble and lenticular
slabs, each of which are roughly 25 to 50 centimeters long
and 20 to 35 centimeters thick. It is not banked or revetted
on the interior by earth or rubble. The same general wall
construction style persists in local village hou.se walls to
this day. The only identifiable gateway is about midway
along the south wall, where there is a three meter-wide gap
in the rubble, flanked on the interior by the foundations of
what appear to have been small guard rooms (Figure 6). As
originally constructed, the compound walls lacked corner
towers. Taken by themselves, these walls would have
provided relatively little security, even if their outer faces
were piled with cut thorn bushes, a practice that is also still
common in the region. The wall is too eroded to ascertain i f
it had been finished with loopholes and the like. The corner
towers, which were added to the compound walls in a later
construction stage, may well have been the main defense
points, as they enfilade the walls completely.
The remains of a large ruined building and courtyard
take up about one third of the compound interior. It was
built in the same general manner as the compound walls
and towers. Additional structural remains may be present
inside the compound, but they cannot be delineated clearly
in the rubble and thorn bushes that cover the site.
Sometime subsequent to the construction of the
compound walls, a rectangular structure of dry-laid rubble
and lenticular slabs was built against the exterior of the
south wall (Figure 6). The slabs of this structure are roughly
25 to 50 centimeters long and 5 to 10 centimeters thick; they
are noticeably thinner than the slabs used in the compound
walls. Several nagakal, or snake stones, rest against the
base of the north wall of this collapsed structure.'"*
In summary, Pillajanahalli and Kurubarahalli offer
different material expressions of defensive measures taken
by the smallest maidan villages or hamlets and represent
site types that are archaeologically unknown in South India.
The Pillajanahalli villagers chose to defend a point, the
hude, while Kurubarahalli defended a small area, possibly
comprising a single isolated household. Both types also
may have incorporated natural defensive features such as
bound-hedges into their overall plan, which would have
helped to mitigate some of the defensive challenges of the
flat to gently rolling terrain on which they were built.
Large villages
The variety of defensive poses increases with village size,
but in a complex way that is more aptly described as the
expression of an interrelated web of factors than links in
a chain. In the maidan region, for example, isolated hills
or clurrips of hills provided naturally strong defensive
features, especially when they were also well-watered and
near major lines of communication.'*'' Over the centuries,
many such maidan locations became the sites of cities.
South Asian Snidies 25
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1800

t o w n s , or v i l l a g e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , natural defensive qualities NOTE: Tho

con!our-iike lines
alone cannot account for the spatial distribution of N a y a k a
are intended io give
period v i l l a g e s and t o w n s or for the w a y s in w h i c h h i l l s a sense of the
terrain and are no!
were integrated into v i l l a g e layouts. !0 scaie

The following three examples illustrate the

d i v e r s i t y o f defensive poses of maidan v i l l a g e s larger than
Pillajanahalli and K u r u b a r a h a l l i . T w o o f these v i l l a g e s ,
Bharmagiri and S i d d a v v a n a d u r g a , incorporated isolated
h i l l s in their designs. B o t h v i l l a g e s also included an i n n e r
- J.,.::
core or citadel that s e r v e d as the ultimate l i n e of defense. Approximate locations
of destroyed walls
T h e r e m a i n i n g v i l l a g e , U c h c h a n g i p u r a , erected the most
substantial defensive w o r k s o f t h e v i l l a g e s considered here, Village'
Area
but, instead o f a citadel, its ultimate defensive feature w a s a
liude placed inside the fort w a l l s .

Bharmagiri
S u r v e y o f I n d i a topographical map Sheet 57 C / 5 (1975
edition) s h o w s two r u i n e d forts on the h i l l above the modern
v i l l a g e o f B h a r m a g i r i ( F i g u r e 1), w h i c h is situated about
four k i l o m e t e r s west-northwest o f the K u r u b a r a h a l l i site. Bharmagiri
F i e l d s u r v e y revealed that B h a r m a g i r i a c t u a l l y c o m p r i s e s
0
the r e m a i n s o f a N a y a k a period fortified v i l l a g e that c o v e r s
a r i d g e - l i k e h i l l w i t h p e a k s at each end and a broad saddle
between them ( F i g u r e 7 ) . S u r v e y o f I n d i a cartographers
misinterpreted the h i l l t o p towei's as the r e m a i n s o f separate 7. Bliarriiagiri sue piair
fortifications.

L o c a l v i l l a g e r s apply the name B h a r m a g i r i to both

the modern and the long-abandoned v i l l a g e s ; as used here
the term B h a r m a g i r i refers o n l y to the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l site.
NOTE; Ttte contour-lil^e
V i l l a g e f o l k l o r e attributes its c o n s t r u c t i o n to B h a r a m a p p a lines are intended to give
a sense of the terrain and
Nayaka (AD 1689-1721) of Chitradurga. They also are not to scafe

associate the c o n s t r u c t i o n of B h a r m a g i r i w i t h the v i l l a g e

fortifications at L a k k i h a l l i , w h i c h lies about five k i l o m e t e r s
to the west. T h e y say that d u r i n g B h a r a m a p p a N a y a k a ' s - Dry dilcin

t i m e , he made a wager w i t h his m i s t r e s s , L a k k a m m a , about

w h o could complete fortifications at their respective places
first. Lakkamma finished fortifying Lakkihalli village
before B h a r a m a p p a N a y a k a c o u l d complete the one at
B h a r m a g i r i . H e lost the wager and subsequently abandoned
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f these w o r k s .

T h e v i l l a g e r s ' account ofthe origins of B h a r m a g i r i

Main c
a n d L a k k i h a l l i m a y w e l l be true, but, for the m o m e n t at
least, w e l a c k the e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e n e c e s s a r y to v e r i f y
it. A s w i t h the other v i l l a g e s d e s c r i b e d here, there are
no k n o w n i n s c r i p t i o n s or c o n t e m p o r a r y accounts that
c a n help us to understand its o r i g i n s . M o r e o v e r , the s t y l e ,
c o n s t r u c t i o n methods, and m a t e r i a l s o f the B h a r m a g i r i
fortifications and the village site they enclose are
'Gate
b a s i c a l l y those d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r for P i l l a j a n a h a l l i and
K u r u b a r a h a l l i , neither o f w h i c h show any e v i d e n c e o f an
i n v e s t m e n t o f dressed m a s o n r y or other elite r e s o u r c e s Siddavvanadurga j
in their c o n s t r u c t i o n . I n short, few, i f any, features o f
c o n s t r u c t i o n or m a t e r i a l s d i s t i n g u i s h the fortified v i l l a g e 100 m
at B h a r m a g i r i from other N a y a k a p e r i o d v i l l a g e defenses
in the region. 8. Sldclavvaiiaclarga sue plan.

99
BARRY LEWIS
Local villagers say they lived within Bharmagiri's
walls until the 1950s, when (hey moved off the hill to
be closer to the modern road and a better water supply.
Abundant evidence of two-faced rubble walls, block
mortars, potsherds, and other cultural debris on the saddle
area of the hill provide convincing evidence that the village
thrived there for many generations. Although the general
condition of the old village is poor, mostly because it has
been scavenged for building materials, the move had a
generally positive impact on site preservation. The site now
appears to seldom be visited except by shepherds and little
boys from the village below.
Bharmagiri's basic design concept was to fortify the
hill's opposing elevations with square towers, both of which
offer commanding views for several kilometers, and erect
the village on the saddle between them (Figure 7). Walls
built along the saddle crest connected the two towers and
completed the village enclosure. It was a good plan, but it
would have been a better one if the hill had had an adequate
water supply. The lack of water on the hill undoubtedly
hindered any sustained defense of the village.
The walls and towers are dry laid courses of
lenticular slabs and rubble like those found at Kurubarahalli.
The village walls that once connected the hilltops can be
traced on the ground surface by following the line of one or
two stone courses. The rest of the walls have fallen down,
eroded away, or been robbed of their stones. The towers are
the best preserved portions of the fortifications with walls
that measure 1.5 to 3 meters high. The northern hill differs
from the southern one in that its tower also covers an area
of roughly 740 meters square, which appears to have been
a small citadel. The single remaining standing building at
Bharmagiri is a small (3.1 by 4 meter) abandoned masonry
structure, possibly a former shrine of the village deity, in
the citadel.
No gateways can be identified from surface evidence
in the wall line that connects the two towers. The citadel on
the north hilltop has a 2.3 meter-wide entryway placed in
the middle of its south wall; this gate controlled movement
between the citadel and the village center.
The only identified water storage feature is inside the
citadel, where a 3.S by 3.1 meter natural depression was built
up on one side with rock slabs and sealed with chiinam to
create a small well.
Bharmagiri was not surrounded by a ditch, nor would
one have contributed materially to the defense of the hill.
Even with its natural advantage of elevation,
Bharmagiri may well originally have been surrounded by
a bound-hedge planted at some distance from the foot of
the hill. Such a feature would seem to have been essential
to protect the threshing grounds, storage facilities, animal
pens, and other parts of the village for which there was
no room on the hill's saddle. Systematic survey of the
surrounding locality needs to be undertaken to identify
how the villagers dealt with this aspect of the design.
100
Siddavvanadurga
Hills were also incorporated into village layouts as one
component, generally the citadel, of a larger plan. For
example, the remains of the old village at Siddavvanadurga
cover an isolated hill and adjacent area of a gently rolling
plain of red soil and boulders about fourteen kilometers
northwest of the city of Chitradurga (Figure 1). The
southern edge of the village walls lies within 100 meters
of the present Siddavvanadurga, which straddles the paved
road connecting National Highway 4 and the town of
Jagalur. About 40 years ago, the village moved to its present
site from inside the fort walls to have more room for growth
and to be closer to a newly constructed main road.
According to local villagers, the old fortified village
was built by Madakari Nayaka (of which there were four
Chitradurga rulers with this name) in honor of his wife,
Siddavva. Given the village's location on one of the major
early nineteenth-century roads that crossed this region, it
may also have played a role in the collection of customs
duties or sayar on goods.'"
The core of the village layout was the small fortified
hill that formed the citadel (Figure <S). The villagers say
that this part of the fortifications once had five towers, the
locations of two of which can no longer be identified. Two
rounded towers are present on the eastern side of the citadel
facing the main village area and a much larger circular
tower dominates the highest point in the village at the north
end of the citadel. The living area proper was concentrated
at the foot of this hill to the east, which is also the side
where the old main road passed the village.
Most of the outer fortification walls stand less than
a meter high today, especially on the south side of the
site, which is closest to the present village. No evidence of
towers or other defensive features could be identified in the
outer wall line. As with other abandoned village and town
fortifications in the region, the walls continue to provide
the modern village with a convenient source of building
materials. The wall remnants around the village proper are
more accurately described as earth ridges than walls except
on the northern side where a two-faced rubble wall can be
clearly traced up the hill. The presence of these earth ridges
suggests that the eastern and southern Siddavvanadurga
walls were mostly mud rather than stone.
The citadel and western village walls, on the other
hand, are granite blocks and boulders laid in dry courses
and chinked with small stones. The blocks used to build
the large circular tower at the north end of the citadel share
a more consistent shape than do the blocks and boulders
of the fortification lines. This may reflect two distinct
construction episodes at the site, the most recent of which
was the addition of the towers in the citadel."
No gateways are now recognizable in the outer fort
line, but the scattered remains of the southwestern corner
of the fort may include such a feature in the area marked
'Gate?' in Figure iS. When asked about such features.
Sutiili Asian Snulies 25
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D
Granite
boulders
9. ilchchaitgipiira site plan.
Siddavvanadiiiga v i l l a g e r s pointed out the main gate's
a p p r o x i m a t e location in the midpoint o f the eastern w a l l
l i n e . T h e v i l l a g e r s say that the gateway w a s about three
meters w i d e , w i t h dressed stone p i l l a r s and bronze shutters.
It opened d i r e c t l y onto what w a s then the m a i n north-south
road, now a mere cart track, and did not have a bent or
covered approach.
T h e inner or citadel fortification l i n e has t w o gates.
T w o large boulders in the southern citadel w a l l define a 3 . 6
meter-wide gateway that leads d o w n a s t a i r w a y of dressed
granite slabs to a s m a l l protected area in the southwestern
c o r n e r o f the v i l l a g e . T h e other citadel gateway passed
through the eastern citadel w a l l and led d o w n granite slab
s t a i r s to the northern part o f the m a i n v i l l a g e area.
T h e l e m a i n s o f a 1 0 to 1 5 meter-wide ditch can be
traced along the outside o f the northeastern and eastern
v i l l a g e w a l l s ( F i g u r e S). It could not be determined from
surface evidence whether the ditch continued along the south
fort w a l l . T h e northwestern and western fort w a l l s rest on
the granite sheet-rock of the h i l l and a ditch w a s apparently
deemed i m p r a c t i c a l or unnecessary on these sides.
T h e c i r c u l a r tower at the northern end o f the citadel
is the most v i s u a l l y p r o m i n e n t part o f t h e site. T h i s tower
w a s c r o w n e d by a low m a s o n r y w a l l pierced by r e g u l a r l y -
spaced loopholes. T o d a y , the top o f the tower also holds
a chewwakesar'i (Deloiiix species) tree and a s m a l l (2.65
1600-1800
by 2 . 6 0 meter) m o d e r n s h r i n e dedicated to the village
d e i t y . " T h e s h r i n e ' s w a l l s and roof are dressed r e c t a n g u l a r
granite slabs. Its n a r r o w d o o r w a y faces east. T h e r e m a i n s
of o n l y one other structure, a large rectangular b u i l d i n g
of u n k n o w n age or use, can be traced in the citadel. M a n y
w a l l a l i g n m e n t s that m a r k the Ibundations o f old b u i l d i n g s
are v i s i b l e in the v i l l a g e area proper (designated as ' V i l l a g e
A r e a ' in F i g u r e <S).
W e l l s and water storage facilities are noticeably
absent from the v i s i b l e surface features, but this may m e a n
little as the site l o c a l i t y appears to be relatively w e l l watered.
In s u m m a r y , S i d d a v v a n a d u r g a w a s about t w i c e the
size o f B h a r m a g i r i , but its c o r e def'ended area represents
a v a r i a t i o n on the general theme of i n c o r p o r a t i n g a s m a l l
isolated h i l l into the basic fabric of v i l l a g e layout and its
anticipated defense. A s w i t h modern v i l l a g e s in the district,
v i l l a g e design sought to adapt itself to the local natural
landscape rather than reshape it.
Uchchangipura
T h e final e x a m p l e , c a l l e d U c h c h a n g i p u r a , occupies a low
h i l l just west o f t h e v i l l a g e o f t h e s a m e name i n J a g a l u r t a l u k ,
D a v a n g c r c d i s t r i c t ( F i g u r e 1). It d e r i v e s its name f r o m the
v i l l a g e goddess, U c h c h a n g i y e l l a m m a , w h o s e ancient s h r i n e
lies i m m e d i a t e l y to the west o f the northwestern corner
of the fortified v i l l a g e . L i k e the other v i l l a g e s d e s c r i b e d
101
BARRY LEWIS
in ihis section, Uciichangipiira was occupied until a few
generations ago, when the villagers moved their homes to
a bare ridge near the tank that lies to the south. Later, after
the construction of the paved road that passes the eastern
side of the village, the village moved again to its present
site just east of the old fortified village. The latter is now
virtually abandoned and serves only as a source of building
stones. That the villagers have not entirely forgotten ties
to their ancestral home is evidenced by the fact that the
ea.stern face of the village walls, the side that faces the
modern village, still looks relatively untouched. Another
generation or two of wall-robbing from the rest of the old
village walls will reduce the site to an east-facing fajade.
The basic plan of the old village is that of a
rectangular fortification with extensions to the east and
west (Figure 9). Although the lower courses of walls can be
traced throughout the enclosed area of roughly 1.4 hectares,
surface features are poorly preserved. A large natural well,
which now holds little water during the dry season, is also
enclosed by a fortification wall extension to the south. The
latter looks like a later addition; it is the only place where
the village walls extend to two lines.
There are two main gateways, both of the bent
entrance type, one about mid-wall on the north side of the
village, the other about mid-wall on the south. The poorly
dressed granite pillars and lintel of the south gate are still
standing, but the rest of this gate and the walls that abutted
it were pulled down long ago. No gateway access could be
identified for the fortified natural well, but most of the walls
in this part of the site have been robbed of their stones and
the remains of a gateway could easily lie hidden among the
dirt and rubble ridges that now mark the wall lines.
A hude placed near the village center is the only
standing structure within its walls. It measures 15.9 meters
in diameter at its base and stands 6 to 9 meters tall. The
upper courses of the dry laid masonry of this tower and
the bastions on the fort walls are pierced with loopholes at
regular intervals." As at Bharmagiri and Siddavvanadurga,
the fort walls are narrow and may have lacked parapets.
Such narrow ramparts may have been of little service in
an active defense other than to facilitate communication
between the bastions." The latter were often the main
fighting platforms. Both the walls and the bastions of South
Indian forts often had tiled or thatched roofs.'''
The fragmentary basements of two temples,
dedicated to Durga and Hanuman respectively, are situated
inside the south gate (Figure 9). Local men report that, after
the village moved to its present location, both temples were
dismantled and reassembled outside the old village walls.
The Durga temple is now close to the southeastern corner
of the fortification; the Hanuman temple stands inside the
modern village.
A ditch surrounds the village walls everywhere
except immediately outside of the northern and southern
gates. It measures about three meters deep and ten meters
102
wide. The fill from the ditch was piled to either side of the
excavation, forming two low parallel ridges around the site.
On the west side of the old village, between the dry
ditchand the fort wall, is the east-facing Uchchangiyellamma
shrine (Figure 9), which is still in worship and considered
by the villagers to be an integral part of the community.
This shrine, the villagers claim, existed at its present
location before the walls were erected, and it was the wish
of the deity that the shrine would remain in its present,
quite unusual location between the enceinte and the ditch.
In summary, Uchchangipura oft'ers an excellent
example with which to end this survey of fortified villages
because its defenses combine point- and area-type
features found in other large villages, as well as in several
towns across the study area. A s a case in point, consider
Colin Mackenzie's description of Holalkcrc, a pargana
headquarters town in what is now western Chitradurga
district, which Mackenzie visited on 20 July 1801."' It
was '...large, surrounded by a wall faced with stone with
several narrow but high turrets in the country fashion, of
no strength: no guns - it has a dry ditch; two gateways;
one large circular stone tower (or bruge) in the centre - it
is populous and crowded with houses, being the cusbah
or capital...'. Significantly, however, the fundamental
design of Uchchangipura and Holalkcrc difl'er little from
that which is typical of smaller communities such as
Pillajanahalli and Kurubarahalli.
Discussion and conclusion
The main constraints of maidan village defenses were
available manpower, wealth, building materials, local
terrain characteristics, and villagers' assessments of the
forces against which they could reasonably expect to defend
themselves.''' Mud, rubble, and stone were the primary
building materials. Wood was not used in the construction
of fortifications, as it is a scarce resource throughout much
of the study area. Most stone for hude and village walls
was quarried locally, and average block size, the degree to
which blocks have a regular shape, and the extent to which
chinking was used in walls appear to be largely a function of
the natural properties of the available stone.'" Wall bastions
can be semi-circular or rectangular in plan, sometimes in
the same fortification (e.g. Rantdurga, near Nayakanahatti
in Chitradurga district).''^ Although gates were occasionally
protected by bent or covered entrances, the passageways
were low and narrow by comparison with the gates of major
towns such as Chitradurga, Kannakuppe, Hosadurga, or
Molakamuru. As a rough rule of thumb, two people walking
abreast, perhaps even a bullock cart, could pass through
a village gate, but a caparisoned elephant and its niahout
could pass through the main gates of a major town.
Nayaka period maidan village fortifications also
show considerable variability in their plans. Brubaker
notes a similar lack of consistency in the plans of several
Souih Asian Snulies 25
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1800

possibly p o s t - V i j a y a n a g a i a (i.e. N a y a k a period), small s m a l l a i e a - t y p e defense added ba.stions or round towers to

fortified sites i n B e l l a r y and R a i c h i i r d i s t r i c t s , w h i c h lie
to the north o f the study area.''" S u c h v a r i a b i l i t y in s m a l l
fortified settlements is c o m m o n e l s e w h e r e . F o r e x a m p l e , in
her c o m p a r a t i v e study o f E n g l i s h and W e l s h m e d i e v a l t o w n
defenses, H . L . T u r n e r notes the considerable v a r i a b i l i t y
of t o w n plans, w a l l s , towers, and gates.''' S h e infers that
t o w n defenses were largely local undertakings without
m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n c o m i n g from outside o f the i m m e d i a t e
area. S h e reasons that a c o n s i s t e n c y o f plans a c r o s s a region
w o u l d i m p l y that e x t e r n a l forces e x e r c i s e d a c e r t a i n degree
of control over v i l l a g e and t o w n defense. Its absence, by
itself, proves nothing, regardless whether w e are d i s c u s s i n g
sites in E n g l a n d , W a l e s , or I n d i a , but T u r n e r ' s observations
c e r t a i n l y agree w i t h other indications of considerable local
autonomy e x e r c i s e d by the inhabitants of maidan villages.
W h a t is .strikingly consistent about N a y a k a period
settlement defenses is how such basic elements as the
bound-hedge fence, the liude, isolated h i l l s , and village
w a l l s w i t h bastions and gates w e r e s e l e c t i v e l y integrated
into the layouts of most c o m m u n i t i e s , from the smallest
v i l l a g e s to major c i t i e s . T h i s section briefly e x p l o r e s these
c o n s i s t e n c i e s , al'ter w h i c h some general c o n c l u s i o n s about
v i l l a g e defenses are d r a w n .
the c o r n e r s o f a c o m p o u n d w a l l and achieved a result that
stood a reasonably good c h a n c e o f s u r v i v i n g an attack by
a s m a l l force. T h e m a i n d r a w b a c k o f such a defense, even
for s o m e t h i n g as s m a l l as a fortified c o m p o u n d , is true o f
e v e r y defended perimeter - it c a n fail out o f hand i f too few
defenders are a v a i l a b l e to m a n the w a l l s and towers in an
attack. T o r e c a l l S t r a i t h once again, a defended s m a l l place
has m a n y disadvantages and f'ew advantages.""-^ C o n s i d e r e d
in that light, the w a l l s and towers at K u r u b a r a h a l l i m a y
have had more v i s u a l impact than practical value.
L a r g e r v i l l a g e s such as B h a r m a g i r i , S i d d a v v a n a d u r g a ,
and U c h c h a n g i p u r a adapted aspects of the same defensive
concepts found at P i l l a j a n a h a l l i and K u r u b a r a h a l l i . T h e
differences identifiable from surface r e m a i n s are mostly
those o f scale, not k i n d . T h e hude tends to be an exception
to this general rule because it w a s best applied to the defense
of a s m a l l area. F e w large v i l l a g e s and towns appear to have
turned to hude except as one element o f a more ambitious
defensive plan. T h e y often achieved the same advantages
of elevation by incorporating isolated h i l l s and ridges into
their c o m m u n i t y layout. B h a r m a g i r i and S i d d a v v a n a d u r g a ,
both o f w h i c h may have been fortified or strengthened by
regional leaders, incorporated isolated h i l l s into a v i l l a g e

The smallest and pooiest communities might design that offered two lines of defense, the v i l l a g e w a l l s

depend on a bound-hedge as their m a i n l i n e of det'ense and and bastions or towers on the high ground that c o m m a n d e d

as a s e c u r e retreat for their herds, in a m a n n e r l i k e that the v i l l a g e and its approaches.'''' A t U c h c h a n g i p u r a , a v i l l a g e

of Kallapura.''^ S u c h a fence provided a moderate level of of moderate s i z e .set in r o l l i n g terrain that l a c k s isolated

s e c u r i t y at little cost and had the added benefit o f being h i l l s , a s i m i l a r efl'ect w a s achieved by a v i l l a g e w a l l and

essentially self-maintaining. Eighteenth-century Indian a hude set in the middle o f the def'ended area.'''' T h e s e

and British military commanders acknowledged the defen.ses are v a r i a t i o n s on the same general theme, centered

defensive value o f bound-hedges, e s p e c i a l l y for v i l l a g e s , on the core o f t h e v i l l a g e proper and its s u r r o u n d i n g fields

and r e c o m m e n d e d their widespread use.''' Unfortunately, and threshing grounds. In each case, bound-hedge fences

N a y a k a period bound-hedges are efl'ectively i n v i s i b l e in w o u l d have added to the overall s e c u r i t y o f these v i l l a g e s ,

our c u r r e n t understanding o f the legion's a r c h a e o l o g i c a l i n c l u d i n g their herds and fields.

record.'"' R e c o n n a i s s a n c e s u r v e y tbr the r e m a i n s o f such An important defensive feature present at larger

features has yet to be undertaken a n y w h e r e in the S o u t h . v i l l a g e s such as S i d d a v v a n a d u r g a and U c h c h a n g i p u r a , but
S m a l l , poor v i l l a g e s in l o c a l i t i e s w i t h little surface not yet identified at s m a l l e r sites, is the ditch that p a r a l l e l s
relief, such as P i l l a j a n a h a l l i , c o u l d also turn to the liude. the l i n e o f the village fortification w a l l s (Figures 8
Often c o m b i n e d w i t h a bound-hedge, the hude gave v i l l a g e and 9).''** L . H . K e e l e y et al.'s recent c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s
defenders the t a c t i c a l advantage o f high ground at relatively of fortifications identifies ditches as one o f three u n i v e r s a l
low cost. H o w e v e r , the objects o f a /!j(f/e-based defense defensive features.'^^' Eighteenth- and early nineteenth-
w e r e l i m i t e d n e c e s s a r i l y to persons and portable w e a l t h , c e n t u r y B r i t i s h soldiers w h o had first-hand experience of
and w e r e designed o n l y to repel a raid by a relatively a s s a u l t i n g s i m i l a r I n d i a n forts w o u l d undoubtedly have
s m a l l group o f attackers. H a v i n g elected to defend what agreed w i t h K e e l e y about the defensive v a l u e o f ditches.
w a s effectively a point, c o m m u n i t i e s that opted for the A r c h i b a l d G a l l o w a y , a veteran o f several assaults by regular
hude also excluded the p o s s i b i l i t y of a sustained defense troops and a r t i l l e r y on mud forts in B e n g a l in the e a r l y
because there w a s not enough room in the hude for enough 1800s, v i e w e d ditches as formidable obstacles. He w r o t e .
p r o v i s i o n s to last more than a few days.
The fortified c o m p o u n d at K u r u b a r a h a l l i s h o w s They |the Indian commandersi reckon a
that even the s m a l l e s t maidan c o m m u n i t i e s ( i n this case, place strong w h i c h has lofty ramparts; but
one that m a y have been no larger than an extended t'amily the strength o f their F o r t s consists chiefly,
and their servants) had more defensive options than j u s t perhaps entirely, in the depth and w i d t h
the hude and the bound-hedge. T h e y c o u l d , and s o m e t i m e s of their ditches. A n y w a l l may be soon
d i d , opt to defend an entire l i v i n g space. K u r u b a r a h a l l i ' s breached, but it requires the process of

103
BARRY LEWIS
10. Bangalore Fori, I79J (J. W. For/escne, A Hislory of the
British Army, 2nd edn (London: Macniillan, 191 J), lU, pi.
10, lop).
a regular siege lo etfeci with a certainly
of success a passage of troops accross a
formidable ditch.'"
The final applications of the interpretive utility of
the Kallapura model of village layout place it in comparative
perspective with village defenses in the mountainous
mainad region of the Western Ghats and with maidan cities.
It should be noted that Mainad villages are
archaeologically as little known as their maidan
contemporaries. Nevertheless, based on eighteenth- and
early nineteenth-century accounts, it is clear that the logic
and material expression of mainad village defenses differed
fundamentally from the Kallapura model and the example
maidan sites. Most of these differences can ultimately be
attributed to terrain characteristics. Mainad villages tended
to be dispersed collections of neighborhoods that often
depended on their relative isolation and the rugged terrain
on which they lived forsecurity." Community defense often
took place away from the village, not around it. Taking
advantage of the malnad's natural defensive strengths,
most villages elected not to defend the village proper,
but the lines of communication that led to it. Apparently
the inhabitants of these communities reasoned that if an
attacking force cannot reach your village, then it cannot
harm it. Consequently the passes, roads, and trails of the
mainad were defended in depth by trenches, earthworks,
barriers, and breastworks collectively called kadangas,
while the communities to which these lines led might be
essentially undefended.'^
The main point is that/na/z/cic/village defense focused
on the communication 1 ines, not the villages themselves, in a
defense approach that differed strongly from that of maidan
villages. The mainad pattern also reinforces my thesis
104
that investigations of prccolonial village security need to
be rooted firmly in local cultural context. Archaeologists
would be hard put to discover mainad village sites that
appear as groups of spatially clustered households. Those
that are found through site reconnaissance survey would
likely appear to be undefended simply because the defenses
were off-site along the community's trails and roads, not
clustered around the village proper.
Although the Kallapura model clearly offers little
insight into the defensive strategies of mainad villages, one
can identify elements of it in the largest Nayaka period
maidan towns and cities readily. Perhaps the best known
examples of this point are the late eighteenth-century
defensive works of Bangalore and Srirangapatna. The core
of Bangalore's defenses was a masonry fort that covered
the city walls, both of which were also protected by ditches
(Figure 10). The outermost perimeter, however, was a
bound-hedge that surrounded the city in a radius of roughly
5.5 kilometers from Bangalore Fort (Figure 11). This line
of works enclosed an area of approximately 95 kilometers
square and was cut by at least six major gateways on the
main roads. Few details are available about the land-use
patterns of the area enclosed by Bangalore's bound-hedge,
but it clearly created a de facio hinterland for the city and,
as such, differed more in scale than kind from the Kallapura
village model.''
Srirangapatna, Tipu Sultan's heavily fortified
capital, occupies an island in the Kaveri River about ten
kilometers north of the modern city of Mysore. As at
Bangalore, Srirangapatna's defenses included multiple
lines of fortifications, as well as bound-hedge fences
that enclosed far less area than at Bangalore but were
particularly well integrated into the city's overall defensive
plan.''' Alexander Dirom, who participated in the British
assault on Srirangapatna during the Third Mysore War
(1790-1792), wrote,
On both sides of the river, opposite to the
island of Seringapalam, a large space is
inclosed by a bound hedge, which marks the
limits of the capital, and is intended as a place
of refuge to the people of the neighbouring
country from the incursions of horse. On
the south side of the river this inclosure was
filled with inhabitants, but that on the north
side was occupied only by Tippoo's army.
The bound hedge on the north side of the river
includes an oblong space of about three miles
in length, and in breadth from half a mile
to a mile (Figure 12|... Six large redoubts,
constructed on commanding ground, added
to the strength of this position..."
Etfective though the bound-hedge may have been in
discouraging cavalry, it made less of an impression on
Souih A.siciii Snulies 2.5
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-ISOO

'3 JKHlmtipoxnr

II. Bangalore locality, 1792 (deiailfrom R. H. Colehrooke, Survey of the Marches tf the British Army In Mysore Country
during the Caiupalgtti of 179/ and 1792 under Earl Cornwallis, The iVatlonal Archives of the UK: Public Record Office MR
I/3H6).

E u r o p e a n infantry. Srirangapatna's bound-liedge slowed, but the range of potential aggressors against w h i c h they could
did not otherwise hinder the B r i t i s h forces, who .sent pioneers reasonably expect to defend their l e s p e c i i v e c o m m u n i t i e s .
forward to cut gaps where unit c o m m a n d e r s intended to pass G i v e n their t y p i c a l l y l i m i t e d resources, most v i l l a g e s could
the fences."' defend o n l y against relatively s m a l l threats. Major t o w n s
B a n g a l o r e and Srirangapatna share most o f the and cities, such as B a n g a l o r e and S r i r a n g a p a t n a , went far
same defensive elements that w e find in maidan villages beyond that and invested the resources n e c e s s a r y to contest
and towns - the bound-hedge fence, the commanding the outcomes of sieges and artillery-assisted assaults.
elevations of isolated h i l l s and ridges, and substantial w a l l s However, even in these larger c o m m u n i t i e s , one finds the
dotted w i t h bastions and e n c i r c l e d by ditches. T h e hude is kernel o f t h e K a l l a p u r a layout.
noticeably absent from the c i t i e s and is the one defensive Villages also difi'ered s i g n i f i c a n t l y from towns
feature that appears to be unique to the defensive needs and cities in that the latter settlements were infused w i t h
of s m a l l maidan settlements." O t h e r differences between material expressions o f e m b l e m a t i c m e a n i n g . F o r t s such
maidan v i l l a g e and city defenses can be traced partly to as C h i t r a d u r g a were built w i t h as m u c h intent to i m p r e s s

105
BARRY L E W I S
12. Seringupaiam (Srirangapania). 1792 (ac/apied from ./. W. For/e.'iciie, A HLfforv of Ihe Briii.sh Army. 2ncl eclii (London:
Maanillan. 1911), IN, pi 10. hoiiom).
as to command, and the ability of a ruler to add his own
embellishments to the existing fortifications, even if they
did not contribute materially to the overall defense, were
clear, highly visible statements of his legitimacy and status.'**
Similar examples of the symbolic use of fortifications can
be found in major settlements worldwide, but are seldom
seen in small villages.™
To conclude, Nayaka period maidan village defenses
were described by contemporary observers, but little can be
learned from such descriptions unless they are considered
in cultural and historical context along with archaeological
evidence. Applying the Kallapura village layout as a
heuristic, this article has examined and interpreted the
defensive features of village sites that have been discovered
through field reconnaissance survey in central Karnataka.
The example sites illustrate the range of defensive poses
typical of maidan villages. Significant differences are
identified between different kinds of maidan villages
106
and between maidan and mainad village defenses. It is
reasonable to speculate that village defenses also varied in
patterned ways across other Karnataka regions. Although
fundamentally different in some important ways, the gross
spatial layout of maidan villages and cities is surprisingly
similar, certainly more so than one might expect at first
glance. The results demonstrate the interpretive value
of comparative analysis of the gross spatial patterns of
many site types, the crucial importance of considering the
cultural context of such patterns, and the relevance of the
villages to the understanding of such patterns.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article is based on research supported by a Senior
Scholarly Development Fellowship from the American
Institute of Indian Studies and by grants from the University
of Illinois Research Board. The late C . S. Patil and the stafi"
Soiiih Asian Studies 25
 V I L L A G E DEI-ENSES OF T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1800

o f t h e K a r n a t a k a D i r e c t o r a t e of A r c h a e o l o g y and M u s e u m s Post-Vijayanagara K a r n a t a k a H i s t o r y ' , The hullaii

provided valuable assistance that facilitated the successful Archives, 26(1-2) ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1-lS; T R. Trautmann
completion of this research. In Chitradurga, Shankar and C . M . S i n o p o l i , T n the B e g i n n i n g W a s the
Athani, B . Rajashekharappa, the V . S. R e d d y f a m i l y , C . W o r d : E x c a v a t i n g the R e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n History
Jagadeesha and his extended f a m i l y , and m a n y other people and A r c h a e o l o g y in South A s i a ' , Journal of the
helped to m a k e m y 1996-97 stay in their c o m m u n i t y , as Economic and Social History of the Orient, 45
w e l l as later v i s i t s , pleasant and productive. M a n y t h a n k s (2002), 492-523.
also to J o h n F r i t z , G e o r g e M i c h e l l , K l a u s Rotzer, S. K . 4 D. Bhattacharya and R . D e b R o y , ' K h a n a s u m a r i
A r u n i , K . G . G u r u m u r t h y , Sujata P a t i l , and V e n k a t e s h N a i k R e c o r d s and the Statistical S y s t e m of I n d i a ' , Indian
for their c o m m e n t s and support. T h e data reported here are Historical Records Commission. Proceedings
on file w i t h the D e p a r t m e n t of A n t h r o p o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of of the Session, 45 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 227-37; N . Hatti and J .
I l l i n o i s and the K a r n a t a k a D i r e c t o r a t e of A r c h a e o l o g y and Heimann, ' T h e R e t u r n of the " B l a c k B o o k s " : A
Museums, Mysore. U n i q u e , N e w S o u r c e - M a t e r i a l for Reinterpietation
of South I n d i a n H i s t o r y ' , Scandinavian Economic
NOTES History Review, 39(2) (1991), 4 2 - 8 9 ; N . H a t t i , V . S .
S a t y a p r i y a , and J . H e i m a n , ' Y e l a n d u r K a d i t a s and a
1 A r g u a b l y so, at lea.st in the eyes of the Marathas, C r i t i q u e o f t h e S u r v e y Settlement i n M y s o r e State',
w h o soon contested the point in the S e c o n d A n g l o - South Indian Studies, 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , 111-35; N . Peabody,
M a r a t h a War, 1803-1805. ' C e n t s , Sense, C e n s u s : H u m a n Inventories in L a t e
2 F o r e x a m p l e , F. B u c h a n a n , A Journey from Madras P r e c o l o n i a l and E a r l y C o l o n i a l I n d i a ' , Comparative
Through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Studies in. Society and History, 43 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , 819-50.
Malabar, 3 vols ( L o n d o n : T . C a d e l l and W. D a v i e s , 5 S e e M . J . R o w l a n d s , 'Det'ence: A Factor in the
1807), 1, pp. 4 0 0 - 1 , w r i t e s . Organization of Settlements', in Man, Settlement,
Although in the i m m e d i a t e neighbourhood of and Urbanism, ed. by P. U c k o , R . T r i n g h a m , and
a powerful garrison | S i r a , T u m k u r district], all G. W. Ditnbleby (London: Gerald Duckworth,
the v i l l a g e s are strongly fortified. O n a s k i n g the 1972), pp. 4 4 7 - 6 2 , for a systematic e x a t n i n a t i o n of
reason of such precautions from a v e r y intelligent the m a n y factors that affect the nature and extent of
c h i e f of a v i l l a g e , from w h o m I took most of my v i l l a g e defenses.
i n f o r m a t i o n , he told me, that it w a s chiefly on 6 See for example J. Deloche, 'Etudes sur les
account of robbers, w h o in the time of f a m i n e F o r t i f i c a t i o n s de I ' l n d e H . L e s Monts F o r t i f i e s dti
w e r e v e r y numerous. D u r i n g this c a l a m i t y the M a i s m ' M e r i d i o n a l ' , Bulletin de TEcole Frangaise
inhabitants of one v i l l a g e w i s h , by plundering d'E.xtreme-Orient, 81 (1994), 219-68; Ibid., 82
their neighbours, to support life; and of course, (1995), 231-62; J. Deloche, Senji (Cingee): A
e x p e c t i n g the same treatment, each is shut up, Fortified City in the Tamil Country (Pondicherry:
and guarded from the nocturnal attacks of its F r e n c h Institute o f P o n d i c h e r r y , 2 0 0 5 ) ; J . D e l o c h e ,
neighbours, as i f these were its most inveterate ' M y s o r e H i l l F o r t s ( 1 4 0 0 - 1 8 0 0 ) ' , in Indo-Portugue.s-e
e n e m i e s . I n w a r also the people have found these Encounters: Journeys in Science, Technology and
fortifications v e r y useful. In their defence they Culture, ed. by L . V a r a d a r a j a n ( N e w D e l h i : A r y a n
employ few weapons except stones, w h i c h both B o o k s , 2 0 0 6 ) , pp. 796-817; J . Deloche, Studies
men and w o m e n throw w i t h great dexterity, and on Fortification in India (Pondicherry: French
equal boldness. T h e y do not attempt to defend Institute of P o n d i c h e r r y , 2 0 0 7 ) ; S. K . J o s h i , Defence
themselves against any t h i n g that w e a r s the face
Architecture in Early Karnataka ( D e l h i : Sundeep
of a regular body of men; but they stone, w i t h
P r a k a s h a n , 1985); G . M i c h e l l , ' C i t y as C o s m o g r a m :
the greatest intrepidity, the i r r e g u l a r c a v a l r y that
The Circular Plan of Warangal', National
attend a l l native a r m i e s , and w h o are seldom
Geographical Journal of India, 4 0 (1994), 217-37;
provided with fire-arms. O n a visit 1 made to
M . S. N a r a v a n e , Forts of Maharashtra (New Delhi:
the c h i e f above mentioned, he boasted, that w i t h
A P H , 1995); M . S. N a v a r a n e , Maritime and Coastal
ten men he had beaten off 2 0 0 of the Marattah
Forts of India ( N e w D e l h i : A P H , 1998); C . S. P a t i l ,
c a v a l r y , o f w h o m several men and horses were
Karnataka Kotegalu (Hampi: Karnataka University,
killed.
1999); N . S. R a m a c h a n d r a M u r t h y , Forts ofAndhra
3 S. V . D e s i k a c h a r , ' A r c h i v a l M a t e r i a l s on K a r n a t a k a Pradesh from the Earliest Times up to the 16th c.
and Historical Research', in Historiography of A.D. ( D e l h i : B h a r a t i y a K a l a Praka.shan, 1996); V .
Karnataka: Seminar Papers, ed. by S u r y a n a t h U . S u g u r n a S a r m a , History and Antiquities of Raich ur
Kamath (Bangalore: The Mythic Society, 1991), Fort (Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, 1998);
pp. 7 8 - 8 3 ; S. V . D e s i k a c h a r , ' A r c h i v a l W e a l t h and R . V a s a n t h a , Penugonda Fort, A Defense Capital

107
BARRY LEWIS
of Vijayanagara Empire: History, Art & Culture
(Delhi: Sharada, 2000).
,1. J . L . Gommans and D. H. A. Kolff, -VVaifare
and Weaponry in South Asia: 1000-l.SOO A.D.', in
Warfare and Weaponry in South Asia lOOO-ISOO,
ed. by J . J . L . Gommans and D. H. A. KolH-(Ncw
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 1-42 (p.
37).
Points made in Deloche's work are also made
by Gommans and Kolff, pp. 37-38. See Deloche,
Etudes sur les Fortif cations de ilnde (1994-95);
Deloche, Senji; Deloche, 'Mysore Hill Forts';
Deloche, Studies on Fortification in India.
J. M. Fritz, G . Michell, and M. S. Nagaraja Rao,
The Royal Centre at Vijayanagara: Preliminary
Report, Department of Architecture and Building,
Vijayanagara Research Centre, Monography Series
4 (Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 1984); J .
M. Fritz, 'Sally Ports and Other Small Entries in
the Fortifications of the Urban Core (NPj, NPu,
etc)', in Vijayanagara, Archaeological E.xplorations,
1990-2000, Papers in Memory of Channahasappa
S. Paid, ed. by J . M. Fritz, R. P Brubaker, and T.
P. Raczek (New Delhi: Manohar/American Institute
of Indian Studies, 2006), pp. 157-80; C. S. Patil,
'Mudugal Fort and Its Bearing on the Defence
System at Vijayanagara', in Vijayanara: Progress
of Research 1988-1991, ed. by D. V. Devaraj and
C. S. Patil, Vijayanagara Research Centre Series, 9
(Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums,
1996), pp. 197-209.
10 M. Dega and R. P Brubaker, ' V M S - 6 : A Fortified
Settlement Complex', in Fritz, Brubaker and
Raczek (eds.), pp. 539-56; C. Sinopoli, 'Beyond
Vijayanagara's City Walls: Regional Survey and
the Inhabitants of the Vijayanagara Metropolitan
Region', in Archaeology as History in Early South
Asia, ed. by H. P. Ray and C. M. Sinopoli (New
Delhi: Aryan Books, 2004), pp. 257-79; C. Sinopoli,
'Nucleated Settlements in the Vijayanagara
Metropolitan Region', in South Asian Archaeology
1995, ed. by B . and F. R. AUchin (New Delhi:
Oxford and I B H Press, 1997), pp. 475-87.
R. Brubaker, 'Cornerstones of Control: The
Infrastructure of Imperial Security at Vijayanagara,
South India' (doctoral dissertation. University of
Michigan, 2004).
12 For just a few cases, see Buchanan, 1, pp. 32, 34-35,
271, 276, 310, 400-401; Ibid., 11, pp. 24, 33-34, 58-
59; Ibid., I l l , pp. 304, 310, 360-61.
13 J. Bristow, /\ of the Sufferings of James
Bristow, Belonging to the Bengal Artillery. During
Ten Years Captivity with Hyder Ally and Tippoo
Saheh (London: J . Murray, 1793); Buchanan; A.
Diiom, A Narrative of the Campaign in India which
108
Terminated with the War with Tippoo Sultan in 1792
(London: W. Buhner, 1793); E . Moor, A Narrative
of the Operations of Captain Little's Detachment,
and of the Muhratta Army, commanded by
Purseram Bhow: during the Late Confederacv in
India, against the Nawab Tippoo Sultan Bahadur
(London: George Woodfall, 1794); A . Wellesley,
Duke of Wellington, Supplementary Despatches
a fid Memoraiula of Field Marshall Arthur Duke
of Wellington, Vol. I: India. 1797-1805 (London: J .
Murray, 1858), pp. 59-60,67.
14 L . H. Keeley, M. Fontana, and R. Quick, 'Baffles and
Bastions: The Universal Features of Fortifications',
Journal of Archaeological Research, 15 (2007),
55-95; L . H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The
Myth of the Peaceful Savage (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996); K . F. Otterbein, How War
Began (College Station, T X : Texas A & M Press,
2004); J . D. Tracy, 'Introduction', in City Walls: The
Urban Enceinte in Global Perspective, ed. by J . D.
Tracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000), pp. 1-15.
15 A companion article will address the archival side
of the picture with a spatial analysis of Buchanan's
survey of Mysore in 1800-1801, and consider
the extent to which these observations can be
generalized across South India.
16 A. T. A. Learmonth, Sample Villages in Mysore
State India, Department of Geography, Research
Papers, 1 (Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 1962;
repr. 1966), pp. 105-42; R. P Misra, Geography of
Mysore (New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1973), pp.
26-27.
17 P. E . Connor, Memoir of the Codugu Survey, Pt I
(Bangalore: Central Jail Press, 1870), p. 25; C.
Hayavadana Rao, Mysore Gazetteer, new edn, 5
vols (Bangalore: Government Press, 1930), I , p.
367; B . L . Rice, Mysore: A Gazetteer Compiledfi)r
Government, rev. edn, 2 vols (London: Archibald
Constable, 1897), 1, p. 3; V. R. Thyagarajaiyar,
'Mysore: Part I - Report', in Census of India
(Bangalore: Government Press, 1923), vol. 23, p. 19.
18 Rice, Mysore: A Gazetteer, I, p. 263.
19 B. Lewis, 'The Mysore Kingdom at A D 1800:
Archaeological Applications of the Mysore Survey
of Colin Mackenzie', in South Asian Archaeology
2001, ed. by C . Jarrige and V. Lefevre (Paris:
Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2005), pp.
557-65.
20 The five major Mysore Survey maps (Oriental and
India OUice Collection, British Library, Shelfmarks
X2108/1-5) do not differentiate consistently between
fortified and unfortified villages and the settlement
counts given in the map legends seldom tally exactly
with those calculated from the map symbology.
South Asian Studies 25
 V I L L A G E DEFENSES O E T I I E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 16()()-1800

Nevertheless, based on cross-referencing Mysore J. Murray, 1903), p. 108. I n older K a n n a d a and

S u r v e y map data w i t h B u c h a n a n ' s route information T e l u g u d i c t i o n a r i e s , these l i v i n g fences are c a l l e d
and m o d e r n site s u r v e y s , it is c l e a r that fortified tetlu - see P. P e r c i v a l , Telugu-English Dictionary
v i l l a g e s a i e underreprcscnted on the M y s o r e S u r v e y ( M a d r a s : P u b l i c Instruction Press, 1862), p. 238;
maps. D. S a n d e r s o n , A Dictionary, Canarese and English
21 Kannada has several terms that describe ( B a n g a l o r e : W e s l e y a n M i s s i o n P r e s s , 1858), p. 133.
communities of the same general c o m p l e x i t y and 28 G u r u m u r t h y , ' R i t u a l C i r c l e s ' , p. 3 1 .
size as the E n g l i s h notion of v i l l a g e (e.g. ha/li, iini, 29 1-1. W h i t e h e a d , The Village Gods of South India,
grama). 2nd edn ( C a l c u t t a : A s s o c i a t i o n P r e s s , 1921) gives
22 P. K . Advcuya, Archiiecliire of Maiiasara, Manasara an accessible but dated introduction to the v i l l a g e
Series 4 (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, gods and goddesses of South I n d i a . E . Harper, ' A
1994), pp. 6 3 - 9 2 : Mayamaia, An Indian Treatise on Hindu V i l l a g e Pantheon', Southwestern Journal
Housing. Architecture, and Iconography, trans, by of Anthropology, 15 (1959), 227-34, d e s c r i b e s the
B . Dagens ( N e w D e l h i : S i t a r a m B h a r t i a Institute o f b o u n d a r y - g u a r d i n g role of v i l l a g e gods at a m o d e r n
S c i e n t i f i c R e s e a r c h , 19.S5), pp. 25-37. v i l l a g e in S h i m o g a district. O n South I n d i a n v i l l a g e
23 S. Gordon, Marathas, Marauders and State boundary rituals, see also E . Thurston, Omens
Formation in Eighteenth-Century India ( N e w D e l h i : and Superstitions of Southern India (New York:

O.xford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1994), pp. 9 9 - 1 2 1 . M c B r i d e N a s t , 1912), pp. 3 6 - 3 8 , 6 0 - 6 1 , 184.

24 K . G . G u r u m u r t h y , ' F e r t i l i t y F e s t i v a l s and V i l l a g e 30 G u r u m u r t h y , Kallapura, pp. 19-20.

Unity', Society and Culture, 4 (1973), 111-20; 31 R i c e , Mysore: A Gazetteer, 1, p. 2 6 3 .
K. G . Gurumurthy, Kallapura, A South Indian 32 Ibid.
Village, Research Publications Series, 24 ( D h a r w a r : 33 T h e r e are m a n y k i n d s o f v i l l a g e b o u n d a r y stones.
Karnatak University, 1976); K. G. Gurumurthy, S e e C . T . M . K o t r a i a h , ' B o u n d a r y Stones: A Short
' R i t u a l C i r c l e s in a M y s o r e V i l l a g e ' , Sociological S t u d y w i t h S p e c i a l Reference to T h o s e A v a i l a b l e
Bulletin, 2 0 (1971), 24-38; K . G . G u r u m u r t h y , Rural in the Hampi Museum', Journal of the Andhra
Development and Factional Politics (New Delhi: Historical Research Society, 37 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 129-46, for
R e l i a n c e , 1988). an introduction to the d i v e r s i t y of late m e d i e v a l
25 Gurumurthy's characterization of the Kallapura V i j a y a n a g a r a b o u n d a r y stones. T h e M y s o r e V i l l a g e
layout as t y p i c a l of m a i d a n v i l l a g e s is supported by Manual describes briefly the many boundary
H a y a v a d a n a R a o , Mysore Gazetteer, I , p. 367, w h o m a r k e r s that were important to the land revenue
w r i t e s the f o l l o w i n g o f t h e general spatial patterns system - see The Mysore Village Manual, Pan I,
of the m a i d a n districts: '...the houses are collected Government of M y s o r e ( B a n g a l o r e : Government

in a p r o m i n e n t or c e n t r a l portion of the v i l l a g e , Press, 1918), pp. 11-14; detailed information on

waste and cultivated lands s u r r o u n d i n g them on v i l l a g e and land b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s c a n be found

all sides'. M o d e r n K a l l a p u r a o b v i o u s l y differs in in the Mysore Revenue Survey Manual, Part II,

m a n y w a y s from the precolonial v i l l a g e s e x a m i n e d Government of M y s o r e ( B a n g a l o r e : Government

in this study. I n particular, it is larger, with a Press, 1966).

1968 population of 2 2 2 8 inhabitants a c c o r d i n g to 34 S e e for e x a m p l e Buchanan, 111, p. 2 0 6 ; Gordon,

G u r u m u r t h y , Kallapura, p. 15. U c h c h a n g i p u r a , the pp. 105-7. A s pointed out in M . W i l k s , Historical
largest of the study v i l l a g e sites, w o u l d have been Sketches of the South of India in an Attempt to
hard put to shelter more than about 5 0 0 inhabitants. Trace the History of Mysore, 2nd edn, 2 vols ( N e w
26 The temple or shrine of the v i l l a g e deity, or Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1930; repr.
gramadevata, w a s a fundamental element of v i l l a g e 1989), pp. 3 3 4 - 3 4 5 , K a n n a d a and T e l u g u even have
identity. T h e Western I n d i a proverb of 'no God, a word to d e s c r i b e those w h o flee in the face of
no v i l l a g e ' , found for e x a m p l e in A . S. A l l e k a r , A an o v e r w h e l m i n g threat - wulsa or valse. Writing

History of Village Convnunities in Western India, about r u r a l southern K a r n a t a k a , M a c l a c h l a n and

University of Bombay Economic Series, 5 (Bombay: B e a l s report that the a r r i v a l of strangers w a s s t i l l

O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1927), p. 117, also applies enough to send villagers fleeing to the forest as

to South I n d i a n v i l l a g e s . recently as 1953 - see M . D . M a c l a c h l a n and A . R .

27 T h e concept of a 'bound-hedge', or ' b o u n d a r y hedge' B e a l s , ' T h e Internal and E x t e r n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s of

a M y s o r e C h i e f d o m ' , Journal of African and Asian
appears to be obsolete in m o d e r n K a r n a t a k a - see H .
Studies, I ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 87-99 (91).
Y u l e and A . C . B u r n e l l , Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary
of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, 35 S. Nagnur, G. Channal, and N. Channamma,
and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, "Indigenous Grain Structures and Methods of
Geographical and Discursive, 2nd edn (London: Storage', Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge,

109
BARRY LEWIS
5 (2004), 114-17.
36 Moor, p. 85; Dirom, p. 243.
37 Lewis, T h e Mysore Kingdom'; B . Lewis,
Chitradurga in the Early 1800s: Archaeological
Interpretaiion of Colonial Drawings, Southern
Regional Centre, Lecture Series Publications, 6
(Bangalore: Indian Council of Historical Research,
2006); B . Lewis and C . S. Patil, 'Chitradurga: A
Nayaka Period Successor State in South India',
Asian Perspectives, 42 (2003), 267-S6.
38 H . Straith, Treatise on Fortifications and Artillery,
6th edn, 2 vols (London: William H . Allen, 1852),
11, p. 43.
39 Wellington, pp. 59-60.
40 C. F. Greville, British India Analyzed (London:
Faulder, 1795), pp. 37-38.
41 F. Kittel, A Kannada-English Dictionary (New
Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1894; repr.
1999), p. 1673.
42 Buchanan, I , p. 32.
43 Rice, Mysore: A Gazetteer, I , p. 263.
44 Bijapur, ed. by J . M. Campbell, Gazetteer of the
Bombay Presidency, 25 (Bombay: Government
Central Press, 1884), p. 73. On the diverse hiide
of northern Karnataka, see S. K . Aruni, Surapiira
Sainsthana: Historical and Archaeological Study
of Poligar State in South India (Delhi: Bharatiya
Kala Prakashan, 2004), pp. 154-56; S. K . Aruni,
'Hude Athava Hudevu: Madhyakaleena Deccanda
Grama-Rakshana Vastu - Ondu Avalokana', Studies
in Karnataka History & Culture, Proceedings, 6
(2006), 139-44.
45 1. Hogg, The History of Fortifications (New York: St
Martin's Press, 1981), pp. 14-16.
46 Chitradurga. Karnataka, District Planning Map
Series (Survey of India, 1995).
47 Here 1 follow the common archaeological
convention of assigning a newly-recorded site the
name of a nearby known place. While Kurubarahalli
means 'Shepherd Village' in Kannada, no evidence
associates this archaeological site with the Kurubas.
48 Nagakal are found throughout the region, and are
often associated with pipal (Ficus religiosa) or neem
(Azadirachta indica) trees and women's desire for
offspring - see J. Vogel, Indian Serpent-Lore, or the
Ncigas in Hindu Legend and Art (London: Arthur
Prob.sthain, 1926), pp. 270-271. These stone slabs
are typically less than one meter long and bear the
chiseled outlines of one or more cobras.
49 Deloche, Studies on Fortification in India, pp. 189-
98.
50 Lewis, 'The Mysore Kingdom'.
51 This inference is based mostly on patterned
dilferences in the block sizes used in these two
parts of the fort. The blocks used in the largest of
110
the three citadel towers have a median length of 35
centimeters, median height of 28 centimeters, and
length-to-width ratio of 1.2. Blocks and boulders in
the inner fortification line to the south of this tower
have a median length of 48 centimeters, median
width of 33 centimeters and length-to-width ratio
of 1.7.
52 The shrine contains two earthenware pots, one of
which represents the Goddess.
53 Fort wall loopholes enabled defenders to fire
through the walls, which was particularly important
because many fort walls lacked parapets. British
soldiers felt that loopholes weakened Indian fort
walls - see for example Moor, pp. 110, 143-49 -
but one must bear in mind that they looked at
such features from a European perspective, which
tended to assume strong projectile capability. Wall
loopholes probably served Indian defenders quite
well until the availability of effective and readily-
transportable artillery rendered largely obsolete
both the loopholes and most of the forts that had
them.
54 Moor, p. 257.
55 Ibid., pp. 137, 148. See R. Orme, History of the
Military Transactions of the British Nation in
Indostan, from the Year MDCCXLV (London: F.
Wingrave, 1803), vol. 2, facing p. 255, for an excel lent
line drawing of a Nayaka period fort in northeastern
Andhra Pradesh. The walls and bastions, which in
this case had an adequate rampart and a parapet
pierced with loopholes, were protected by a thatched
roof. He describes this phenomenon on p. 256: 'The
rampart and parapet is covered by a shed of strong
thatch, supported by posts; the eaves of this shed
project over the battlements, but fall so near, that
a man can scarcely squeeze his body between:
this shed is shelter both to the rampart and guards
against sun and rain'.
56 C. Mackenzie, Remarks on the Forts on the
Northern Frontier of Mysore in 1800 and 1801
(extracted, from the papers of the Mysoi-e Survey),
prepared by Capt. Colin Mackenzie of the Engineers
and Superintendent Mysore. Fort St. George, 12
January 1803, University of Southampton, Hartley
Library, Wellington Papers, WP3/3/I00, pp. 3-4.
57 Nayaka period villagers in South India faced the
same community defense dilemma confronted by
Japanese villagers in Akira Kurosawa's classic 1954
film Shichinin No Samurai (Seven Samurai), and
they sought similar solutions using time, contributed
labor, and local materials, as opposed to cash.
58 See Brubaker, 'Cornerstones of Control', pp. 399-
407, 428-29, for a detailed examination of the use of
chinking stones in the walls of sites included in the
Vijayanagara Metropolitan Survey.
South Asian Studies 2.5
 ViixAGE DEFENSES O F T H E K A R N A T A K A M A I D A N , A D 1600-1800

59 B . L e w i s , 'Poligar Chiefdoms of Chitradurga: T h e i r u n e q u i v o c a l l y that ditches w e r e not present at s m a l l

F o r t s as M a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f L e g i t i m a c y and Status', v i l l a g e s and h a m l e t s situated i n t e r r a i n w h e r e it
F i n a l report submitted to the A m e r i c a n Institute o f w o u l d have been feasible to d i g defensive ditches.
I n d i a n Studies ( N e w D e l h i , 1997). 69 T h e other t w o u n i v e r s a l features are bastions and
60 B r u b a k e r , pp. 310, 314. defended gateways. S e e K e e l e y , F o n t a n a , and Q u i c k ,
61 H . L . T u r n e r , Town Defences In England and Wales: pp. 5 8 - 6 2 .
An Architectural and Documentary Study, AD 900- 70 A . G a l l o w a y , Observations on the Attack of Mud
1500 ( L o n d o n : A r c h o n B o o k s , 1971), pp. 71-72. Forts ( C a l c u t t a : \n. pub.|, 1813), p. 9.
62 I n the southern D e c c a n , such defensive features 71 C o n n o r , p. 2 1 .
protected ' l a n d and b u l l o c k s , the s o c i a l l y significant 72 I b i d . , pp. 2 4 - 2 5 ; B . L . R i c e , Mysore and Coorg
forms o f w e a l t h ' w e l l into the twentieth century ( B a n g a l o r e : M y s o r e G o v e r n m e n t P r e s s , 1878), pp.
a c c o r d i n g to K . I s h w a r a n , Shivapur. A South Indian 3 0 0 - 1 ; K . K . S u b b a y y a , Archaeology of Coorg, with
Village ( L o n d o n : Routledge and K e g a n P a u l , 1968), Special Reference to Megaliths (Mysore: Geetha
p. 3. B o o k House, 1978), pp. 2 0 1 - 2 . C o n n o r c a l l s the
63 G r e v i l l e , pp. 37-38; W e l l i n g t o n , pp. 5 9 - 6 0 . kadangas 'cuddungs'. Kadangas are a broad c l a s s o f
64 A s demonstrated by R . M o x h a m in Great Hedge features that a l s o include e a r t h w o r k s and trenches
of India: The Search for the Living Barrier That used as b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s .
Divided a Nation ( N e w York: C a r r o l l & Graf, 2001), 73 A . M a t h u r and D . da C u n h a , Deccan Traverses: The
his recent popular history o f the I n l a n d C u s t o m s Making of Bangalore's Terrain (New Delhi: Rupa,
Hedge o f c e n t r a l and northern I n d i a , w h i c h appears 2 0 0 6 ) provides an e x c e l l e n t introduction to the r i c h
to have been c o n s i d e r a b l y more substantial than body o f e a r l y B r i t i s h maps and d r a w i n g s o f late
typical v i l l a g e bound-hedges; surface evidence eighteenth-century Bangalore i n their s t r i k i n g l y
of such features may be v e r y difficult to find. unusual book on the m a k i n g o f its m o d e r n land.scape
Archaeologically, village bound-hedges may 74 W i l k , s , 11, pp. 526-27.
prove to be most e a s i l y d i s c o v e r e d through field 75 D i r o m , p. 130.
reconnaissance surveys aimed at identifying 76 I b i d . , pp. 142, 144-45.
gateways w h e r e these fences crossed v i l l a g e roads. 77 S r i r a n g a p a t n a ' s redoubts ( F i g u r e 12) appear to have
65 S t r a i t h , 1, p. 47. s e r v e d m a i n l y as gun platforms. A s s u c h , they owed
66 T h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f regional leaders could take m a n y more to E u r o p e a n notions o f t h e defensive u t i l i t y o f
forms, i n c l u d i n g s i m p l e sponsorship o f a b u i l d i n g such o u t w o r k s than to the S o u t h I n d i a n hude.
project or p r o v i s i o n o f funds or raw m a t e r i a l s . F o r m L e w i s , Chitradurga in the Early 1800s; L e w i s and
the most part, these v i l l a g e s were too insignificant Patil.
to w a r r a n t d i r e c t intervention by an outside l e a d e r 79 S e e for e x a m p l e B . K e m p and others, 'Egypt's
67 The con.struction sequence of these village Invisible Walls', Cambridge Archaeological
fortifications is u n k n o w n . Which came fir.st at Journal, 14 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , 2 5 9 - 8 8 ; D . P a r r o t t , ' T h e U t i l i t y
U c h c h a n g i p u r a , the hude or the v i l l a g e w a l l s , or of F o r t i f i c a t i o n s in E a r l y M o d e r n E u r o p e : I t a l i a n
w e r e they built at the s a m e time? V i l l a g e traditions Princes and Their C i t a d e l s ' , War in History, 1
do not address this question, w h i c h c a n probably ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 127-53; S. Pepper, ' S i e g e L a w , Siege R i t u a l ,
o n l y be a n s w e r e d through extensive e x c a v a t i o n s . and the S y m b o l i s m o f C i t y W a l l s in R e n a i s s a n c e
68 Field reconnaissance survey in the study aiea E u r o p e ' , in T r a c y (ed.). City Walts, pp. 5 7 3 - 6 0 4 ;
has thus far been insufficient to demonstrate Tracy, 'Introduction'.

Ill