Megalithic Religion: An Archaeological Review of Beliefs

and Practices
Aswani O. K.1 and Ajit Kumar1

1. Department of Archaeology, University of Kerala, Kariavattom Campus,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 581, Kerala, India (Email: aswaniok@gmail.com;
ajitkumarku@gmail.com)

Received: 10 October 2018; Revised: 07 November 2018; Accepted: 01 December 2018

Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6 (2018): 647‐668

Abstract: The megalithic cultural remains are a major topic of research all around the world. The
monuments associated with the culture show innumerable variety in types and chronology. Many ancient
beliefs and practices can be read from the tangible remains found from the megaliths and juxtaposing them
with some of the ethnic practices related to the dead vogue today. It is not only that the belief in the life after
death is reflected in the burials, but it is also observable that the megalithic monuments are considered to
be representing various beliefs related to ancestor worship, fear or respect towards the dead and belief in
soul, spirit and ghost etc. Megalithic belief and practices are associated with the installation of variety of
burial monuments, and megalithism attains the expression of a religion. This paper tries to assess about
practices and beliefs associated with megalithic culture in India.

Keywords: Megaliths, India, Religion, Astronomy, Anthropomorphs, Labyrinth,

Sarcophagus

Introduction
The concept of death has mystified the living people for centuries. Since very ancient
times each community followed certain mode of disposal of the dead. The dead were
treated with certain rituals and ceremonies in accordance with the existing beliefs,
customs and traditions. Megaliths are related with the genera of the supernatural or
transcendental which leads us to the archaeology of religion and cult. Cultural aspect
points out that the origin of the burial may strongly sway on the religious or mythical
traditions of the ancient people. The variation in typology, distribution and
characteristics of the megaliths illustrates the behavior of megalithic people and their
approach towards death. Megalithic monuments in their structure, derived cultural and
ecofacts divulge some essence of ‘megalithic religion’.

The main intangible belief nurtured by megalithic builders is the belief in ‘life after
death’. Since these monuments and the practices of megalithism are essentially part of
the belief system or an expression of religion, Stuart Piggott (1959) had attributed
megalithic builders as ‘Missionaries’ and their religion Megalithism or as “Megalithic
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

religion’. As the name suggests, this culture is closely associated with large chiselled or
crude stones of various types. Megalithic monuments are graves or memorials erected
using large stones or without them over primary or secondary mortal remains along
with or without funerary assemblage in honor of the dead. Megalithic monuments are
typologically variant but based on uniformity noticed in cultural vestiges like black and
red ware and iron artifacts etc., they are placed under the category of ‘megalithic
monuments’. The megaliths in India are found in many regions, but the largest
concentrations of it occur in the Peninsular India. In India, the megaliths broadly fall in
the gambit of ‘Iron age’ which ranges from Early historic to Medieval times. The practice
of erecting megaliths is vogue to this day and is observed in various regions of India,
especially in Northeast India.

Religion ‐ A Brief Outline

The English word religion is derived from the Latin religio, which refers to the fear or awe
one feels in the presence of a spirit or a god (Hopfe 1983:3). According to Muller (1878)
the religio is derived from re‐legere, to gather up again, to take up, to consider, and to
ponder. Religio when used subjectively would mean meticulousness, esteem, awe and
was not originally stipulated to the veneration of gods. Gradually people began to speak
of a human religion as piety, faith in the gods, and observance of ceremonies, and at last
an entire system of faith was called religions or religio (Muller 1878: 10).

The archaeological evidences from various sites around the world clearly point out that
religion was earmarked by beliefs, practices or rituals, symbols and ceremonies. These
were also, apparently, reflections of prehistoric human’s perception, reactions and
gratitude to nature’s sylvan spirits and deities which needed perpetuations for
mankind’s harmonious existence within environments (Giddens 2009:676).

The mystery of birth, life and death to humankind was as mysterious as natural elements
and hence came to be worshiped with rituals and rites which are so essential in all
religious beliefs. The attachment to the living and bereavement in death led to evolving
the belief in ‘life after death’ and salvation of the dead in heaven. Various rituals were
evolved to obtain these objectives. Even today this is the basics essence of religion. Every
religion is a product of human evolution which has been conditioned by the natural and
social environment (Hopkins 1923:1; Jai 2012: 68; James 1957: 229).

Religion is one aspect of human life. Occasionally religion is hard to find, but in the
ancient civilizations and in the primitive areas of the world, there are many cultural
structures like temples, monuments, megaliths and so on, that the ancient society has
built at great expense as an expression of their religion.

Discussions and Observations

Megalithic burials and burial relics interned in them gives an idea about the modes of
disposal of the dead, mortuary practices, tradition, their beliefs related to ancestral
worship, fear or respect towards the dead, belief in soul/spirit/ghost etc.

648
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

Practices in Megalithic Context Reflecting Beliefs

The mortal remains and associated antiquities is the expression of their beliefs system.
Skeletons from various sites confirm the evidences of different mode of disposals related
with ritual activities. Megalithic burials encountered are single, double and multiple.
There is a dearth of primary burials in the megalithic context of India, mostly secondary
in nature and symbolic in nature.

Figure 1: Skeleton in Padmasana Figure 2: Iron Dagger Kept on Chest of

Posture, Kodumanal (Courtesy: K. Rajan) skeleton, Mahurjhari (Courtesy: Sawant)

Most of the burials were found either stretched or flexed or crouched burials and
sometimes in sitting posture with grave goods. A skeleton sitting cross legged in
Padmasana posture (Figure 1) has been reported from Kodumanal (Tripathy and Rajan
2015: 545). One cairn circle from Yeleswaram contains two skeletons placed one over the
other (IAR 1962‐63:2). At Perumbair complete skeleton in seated form is seen, the hands
of the skeleton are placed on the knee (Rea 1915; Darsana 2014: 66). In most of the cases,
the funerary goods were found interred in multiple levels indicate the practice of
frequent death rituals. Some burials have produced large numbers of artifacts, and these
definitely reflect the ‘cult of the dead’ and its strong belief among people. Some of the
burials show evidences of the dead body being exposed to the natural elements, and
later the skeletons are collected and arranged in the grave in a somewhat articulated
fashion. The burial from Kodumanal suggests that the body was exposed or buried
somewhere else and later the bones were collected and buried ceremonially in the grave
(Rajan 2015:65‐79). It is also observed that, in some cases only selected bones are interred

649
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

in the grave. Evidences of cremation are found in the form of ash and partially burnt
bones which are found either kept in pots or directly interred in the grave with grave
goods.

In megalithic burials, the dead body is treated with special rituals. It is attested that the
evidences of trepanning, cut marks and application of red ochre were possibly part of
funerary practices. Bone remains from S.Pappinayakanpatti, Raipur and Kodumanal
show cut marks caused by sharp weapons. From Kodumanal, right side of the parietal
bone had a triangular hole and some scratch marks on the outer side. It seems to be done
after the person had died (Walimbe 2015:524; Walimbe 1992:671; Tripathy and Rajan
2015: 533‐557). Skeletons without lower extremities were reported from Ramapuram
(IAR 1980‐81: 7), Satanikota (IAR 1979‐80:3‐6), Mahurjhari (Sawant 2015:233) and
Kadambapur (IAR 1974‐75: 3‐5). It seems that the feet of the dead were intentionally
chopped off. This intentional activity was possibly to avoid the ghost or spirit of the
departed from walking back to their residences. Megalithic burials from some of the
regions show traditions of preceding Neolithic or Chalcolithic periods. According to
Mclntosh (1985) these graves can be ascribable to the earliest megalithic burials.
Mclntosh has attributed the graves with funerary features or rites with complete
inhumations, north‐south orientation, and in some cases without lower parts as a
common tradition to the Neolithic/Chalcolithic of the Deccan region.

The custom of treating the corpse with red ochre possibly had some ritual significance.
The meanings of the red ochre in relation to the funerary customs, possibly symbolizes
eternal life. Probably it served as a substitute for blood; it may indicate life and the power
to restore life. Red ochre in cists mixed up with broken pottery and remains of bones
were discovered from Gujjarahalli in Dharmapuri of Tamil Nadu. Red ochre is found
used on the skeletal remains of human burials at Shadipur (Jai 2012: 85). At Mahurjhari,
in most of the cases it was found that reddish earth was intentionally spread over and
around the dead (IAR 1978‐79:71). From the site of Sirumugai, an Urn was found with
interiors entirely filled with red earth, which was possibly poured as a liquid into it and
penetrated all the cavities of the fractional human long bones and skulls in the urns
(Leshnik 1974:97).

In a number of instances, the burial floors are neatly arranged with stone rubbles,
sometimes a thick bed of ash and lime covered the uneven floors, and over this prepared
bed the corpse with funeral offerings is placed. The evidences of ash bed preparation on
rugged burial floor are noticed from Nagrajunakonda, Hunur (IAR 1968‐69:21),
Chagatur (IAR 1977‐78:11), Uppalapadu (IAR1978‐79:65), Satanikota (IAR 1979‐80:5),
Ramapuram (IAR 1981‐82:6) and Damnalinga (IAR 2000‐01:102). Making ash bed for
placing skeletal remains and grave goods was possibly a part of their funeral ceremony,
but it is also observed that this practice is limited only to certain regions such as Andhra
Pradesh, Telengana, Karnataka and Maharashtra megaliths. Another important ritual
observed from Oliyonni cist burial site, was pieces of a single red pot that was found
placed exactly at Northwest and Southeast corners opposite to each other within the cist

650
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

burial (Rajendran 2005). This was possibly related with the ritual similar to the
contemporary burial practice of breaking the water pot carried by a blood relative of the
dead, after walking around the funeral pyre with water. The Oliyonni cist burial also
provides a very later date; therefore, the practice could be a later addition but it requires
more archaeological evidence to confirm it. The available dates from the site show that
the megalithic cultural traditions survived beyond medieval period.

Placing iron objects near the skull and feet has been observed in the megalithic burials.
These practices may be linked with some intangible beliefs prevalent in some groups. In
one burial from Mahurjhari the legs below the knee portion of the dead were missing,
but over his chest a dagger with iron blade and copper hilt was kept (Figure 2) (Ghosh
1989:121; Sawant 2015:233). Interring iron or gold in the burials is still a part of death
ritual and practiced by some communities in and around Kerala. Placing iron in grave
and wearing of iron objects is another practice prevalent in present society to avoid bad
spirits. A notable feature noticed in the funeral rites of Nilgiri hills is that the person who
practiced the death rites carries in his left hand a small bar of iron. The belief behind
holding of iron bar is to keep away spirits that wander about the dead (Thurston
1909:119).

Apart from skeletal remains, ancient beliefs and practices of megalithic builders can also
be read from the tangible remains found from the megalithic burials. Some megalithic
sites from India have produced evidences which reflect megalithic builder’s beliefs,
associated with the following aspects:

o Astronomy
o Mother Goddess Cult
o Animal Sacrifices
o Erection of Anthropomorphic
o Labyrinth Creations etc.

Practices in Megaliths Reflecting Belief in Astronomy

The observation on sun rise and sunsets can predict the coming of seasons; stone
alignments are very important in astronomical context. Generally, these are found in and
around megalithic complex. The observation of rising sun and sunsets, solstices and
change in seasons seems to have influenced megalithic monuments and its erecting. It is
observed that some rows of menhirs are clearly arranged to the sunrise and sun sets of
equinoxes and solstices. The Hanamsagar megaliths are known to be aligned towards to
sun at the solstices. There are large number of the stone arrangements existing which
reflect the directions of summer and winter solstice. Sites like Nilaskal, Baise,
Vibhutihalli, Nilurallu, Mudummal reveal many pairs of menhir stones aligned in
straight lines to the sunrise and sunset points during the solstices and equinoxes, on the
local horizon (Figures 3 ‐ 5) (Rao 2005: 499‐511; Menon 2012). The stone circle of
Brahmagiri seems to be more compact and well‐arranged and show clear astronomical
orientations (Rao 1993:67‐77). The archaeological excavation of megalithic burial site at

651
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Anakkara, Palakkad gave evidences of a number of post holes, probably suggesting the
leftover of an archaic observatory (http://www.megalithic.co.uk). Menon and Vahia
(2011) say that the straight lines may be intentional and the menhirs were possibly
arranged to form a calendar device to keep track of time by observing the solar cycles.
Another main feature of Nilurallu alignment is the shadows of the stones. The shadows
cast could have been used to measure time, days and fractions of a day (Rao et al. 2011:
211‐220). These calendars were perhaps used for conducting some significant rituals
similar to the present‐day practice. The dates of megalithic calendars could be based
upon four major solar positions of the Equinoxes and the Solstices. Celestial bodies are
found represented in Graffiti and arts. The association of sun, moon and stars in the form
of graffiti on pottery and rock art is a sign of certain interest in celestial bodies.

Figure 3: The Winter Solstice Sunset Framed between Two Menhirs at Nilaskal
(Courtesy: Menon)

Figure 4: Equinoxial Sunset over Stones (Courtesy: Rao)

652
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

Orientation
The ancient world communities provide great importance for orientations while
constructing burial monuments. Even today, this practice is still evident from different
parts of the world. Ancient communities must have observed the orientation to conduct
various performances related with their beliefs. Each cardinal point symbolizes
something which is related to their beliefs and practices and it varies from place to place.
In most of the cases the orientation of the monuments is fixed on the basis of the rising
sun. At several places the megalithic monuments are aligned in east and west directions,
which perhaps point the relationship of megalithic graves with the rising and setting
sun.

Cup Marks
Various megalithic sites in India have produced cup marks on stones. Rao possibly for
the first time, states that, there is clear evidence indicating cup mark’s relationship with
constellations from Mudummala Menhir site(2015). According to Rao (2015) the site
Mudummal has the earliest sky chart from India that shows the Ursa Major also known
as the Great Bear constellation or Saptarishi (Figure 5). The Great Bear constellation was
used by several ancient communities especially the caravans and the sea voyagers to
identify the ‘Pole star’ (Rao 2015:561‐564).

Figure 5: Comparison of the Mudumal Depiction with Sky Chart (Courtesy: Rao)

Port Hole
The port hole is noticed in dolmen, Dolmenoid cist, cist and rock cut caves. Circular or
oval and in some cases square, rectangle, trapeze, arrowhead, Latin cross, and ‘U’ shaped

653
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

port holes have been observed. Portholes usually provide the orientation aspect of the
burials. At several megalithic sites port hole is oriented to east or west therefore it
confirms the role of direction of the rising and setting sun in the construction of
megalithic monuments. The seasonal variation of the sun’s direction perhaps influenced
the orientation of the megalithic monuments and also the port hole. Probably the graves
are meant to provide housing to the spirit or soul, possibly the port hole is intended to
provide access to the spirit or ghost to and from the grave (Rao 1988). At some sites,
grave goods are found arranged near the port hole; it suggests port holes are possibly
the opening made for symbolic ways of communication with the dead through frequent
rites and rituals.

Iralabanda, dolmens are found to be surrounded by concentric slab circles and the
porthole in each of the succeeding slab is cut at such a slanting angle so as to facilitate
rays of the rising sun to shine into the chamber of the dolmen (Figure 6) (Rao 2006, 2018).
There is slight variation in the orientation of the port hole on the eastern slabs, which
possibly suggests dependence on the direction of the sun. The seasonal variation of the
sun’s direction perhaps influenced the orientation of the megalithic monuments and also
the port hole.

Figure 6: Portholes in Successive Circle of Slabs, Iralabanda (Courtesy: Rao)

Mother Goddess Cult

Some of the megalithic sites revealed figurines made of metal and terracotta which
include male, female and animal representations. Some of the female figurines found,
display prominent maternal characteristics and signify that they were probably interred

654
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

as a part of Mother Goddess or fertility cult. These female figures probably symbolize
fertility, procreation, birth, nourishment and rearing. The primary force involved in
fertility cult is ‘personified earth’, also called the ‘Mother’. The megalithic people
possibly worshipped nature with various ceremonies to ensure wellness and
productiveness of people, agriculture, animals and others. Number of votive terracotta
figurines (Figure 7) have been recovered from Urn burials at Malampuzha, Palakkad
district of Kerala. The female figurines are considered representative of a mother
goddess cult, symbolizing creativity, birth and fertility (Kumar 2005, 2004).

From Adichanallur a figurine of mother goddess (Figure 8) and a potsherd with the
motifs of a woman, a stalk of paddy, a crane, a deer, a crocodile and a knob mark (Figure
9) were found inside an urn which had human skeletal remains. The depiction of the
woman indicates the mother‐goddess/fertility cult (Nambirajan et al 2014:120).

Figure 7: Megalithic Cult Figurines, Malampuzha

(Courtesy: Kumar; ASI Thrissur Circle)

Figure 8: Potsherd with Designs, Adhichanallur Figure 9: Mother Goddess

(Courtesy: The Hindu) (Courtesy: The Hindu)

655
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Animal Sacrifices
Animal remains like of goat, dog, horse, buffalo, cattle etc were found associated with
burial rituals. It is possible that, the animal was buried with his master as accompanying
companion to the hither world or as a carrier of the soul (Rao 1988). Chopping marks on
animal bones have been noticed at Nagarjunakonda (IAR 1959‐60:9), Kotia (IAR 1963‐
64:41), Kodumanal (Rajan 1998:67‐75) and Mahurjhari. These bones suggest that the
cattle and bovine animals found in these graves were possibly sacrificed or killed as part
of some ceremonial practices or as part of feast offered to the community by the kith and
kin of the dead. The animal and human skeletal remains were, in most reported cases,
found from the filling at two or three different levels and were probably connected with
some burial rituals over the years. Most of ethnic groups from various parts of India still
practice feast as part of death rituals and funeral ceremony by sacrificing and offering
animals like Buffalo, cattle, sheep, and goat. The Nilgiri tribes like Toda, Kurumbas
sacrificed buffalo, goat, fowl during funeral ceremonies to get prosperity (Thurston
1909). Attachments to the animals especially horse by megalithic folk is suggested from
the occurrences of skeletal remains and horse ornaments from many graves of north‐
central Deccan region. Horse skeletons and ornaments with human burials either single
or joint were encountered from Vidarbha megalithic sites like Mahurjhari, Junapani,
Takalghat‐Khapa, Naikund, Bhagimohari, Khairwada and Boragaon in Maharashtra.
Stirrups and horse bits were also reported from Adichanallur, Koumanal, Porunthal,
Uppalapadu and so on.

Figure 10: Buffalo Figure, Serupalli Figure 11: Eagle Head like Figure,
(Courtesy: Kumar) Perumundassery (Courtesy: Ramesh)

Animal and Bird Figurines

Plenty of terracotta and metal figurines of animals and birds have been reported from
megalithic burials, most of them are dog, buffalo, bull, pig, goat etc. (Figures 10 ‐ 13)
Usually these animal figurines are found in the final funeral kit. The occurrences of

656
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

animal bones and figurines from graves possibly indicate the belief of animals being the
carrier of the dead person’s soul to the realm of god or salvation.

Figure 12: Terracotta Hunting Dogs, Figure 13: Two Bisons, Naduvile
Pochampad (Courtesy: Murthy) (Courtesy: Sundara)

Figure 14: Labyrinth, Iralabanda, Chittoor District (Courtesy: Lee, Kumar)

Symbols: Labyrinth Creations

Labyrinths are enigmatic motifs with a common design strain that is noticed from
several sites in India. Structural labyrinths have been found associated with megalithic
burials in India. Here burials are interned or placed at the centre of stone circles and

657
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

cairn circles, and it seems to carry connotation with cosmos and heaven as noticed in the
labyrinth representation in rock art. Dolmens and cairn burials from Iralabanda (Figure
14), Kadiriraya Cheruvu, Sogadaball and Edu Chutla Kota (Figure 15) in Chittoor district
of Andhra Pradesh have seven stone concentric circles made with slabs placed around
the burials. The seven circles with burials at the centre could be directly associated with
the vogue belief and concept of seven heavens in some communities (Kumar 2015).
Megalithic stone circles comprising of five and nine concentric circles are also noticed at
Madapatna near Tavarekere, Benguluru.

Figure 15: Educhutla Kota, Tirtham Village, Chittoor (Courtesy: Kumar)

Anthropomorphic Figures
At some places, anthropomorphic figures are noticed in association with the megalithic
monuments in south India and north eastern states. This tradition is however limited
only to southern Deccan regions. Anthropomorphic figures represent human body in an
abstract form. Eyes, ears, mouth and nose are not carved, mostly they are in‐ the‐round
and sex cannot be determined due to lack of sexual features. There are however a few
figures with female features, especially bust reported from Rakshasimitta near
Padugonigudem (Figure 16 and 17) (Rao and Ramabrahmam 2016). The
Anthropomorphs noticed at Mudummal (Figure 18) and Villupuram (Figure 19) have a
shape of bird with stretched wings but without wings. According to Vasanthi (2017) the
ancient man possibly imagined that the soul rises up wards in the form of a bird after
death. Hence, the ancient man might have represented soul or god of death in the form
a bird headed human being (Vasanthi 2017:83‐85). Anthropomorphic figures in a
different shape are noticed from Kumatti (Figure 20) and Hulikunte in Karnataka.
Anthropomorph was found pierced on stone slab, (Figure 21) which was unearthed from
a Cist burial from Gajalakonda (Leshnik 1974). The Heravaru tribe residing in the forests
of Kodagu in Karnataka practiced veneration of the dead people. The 10th day after the
death of a person the villagers gather around the grave and perform some rites and the

658
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

priest or performer lays rice grains over the tomb in the form of anthropomorphic figures
(Chandrashekhar 2017:487‐491). The anthropomorphic figures suggest that the
megalithic people followed certain beliefs and in that way they probably venerate the
deceased in some form. It is possible that they are not certain about the shape of the soul
therefore they leave the figures without carving the human like features the eyes, ears,
nose and mouth (Rao and Ramabrahmam 2016: 65‐73). Some of these anthropomorphs
are under worship even today.

Figure 16: Female Anthropomorphic Figure 17: Female Anthropomorphic

Statue, Padugonigudem (Courtesy: Rao) Statue, Padugonigudem(Courtesy: Rao)

Figure 18: Anthropomorphic Figure, Figure 19: Anthropomorphic Figure,

Mudummal (Courtesy: Kumar) Villupuram (Courtesy: www.wikimapia.org)

Various ethnic groups consider this kind of statues to represent mainly the ancestors and
rarely the god of tribal people. Savaras of Odishaand Chakhesang groups (Manipur) erect
rough wooden figures in human form to accommodate the spirit of the dead until the
commemoration ritual called Gaur ceremony is performed, Gaur is the final ritual
performed for all the deceased who have been cremated (Elwin 1955:345). In parts of
Tamil Nadu and southern Kerala menhir are worshipped as a deity called Madan. There
are also places where the Sudalai Madan temples are located close to burial or

659
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

crematories. Sudalai Madan is considered as a son of Siva and due to his cannibalistic
nature he placed close to crematoriums (Kumar 2016‐17 3).

Figure 20: Anthropomorphs, Kummatti Figure 21: Anthropomoph Pierced

(Courtesy: www.karnatakatravel.com) on Slab (Courtesy: Leshnik)

The Case of Urn, Sarcophagus and Kudakkal

There are various beliefs and practices found associated with the erection of megalithic
monuments in and around India.

Urn Burial
Large earthen pots used for the deposition of skeletal remains and other assemblage are
found below the ground or associated with a type of burial called Urn burial. These urns
are usually sealed with a lid and protected by cap stone and cairn packing. Logan (1887)
correlates the protuberance on the bottom of the urn as a representation of mother’s
womb. This type of burial is connected with the idea of Bhu‐Devi or earth goddess, and
symbolically it is supposed to represents the return of an individual to the womb of
Mother Earth. The rope like decoration on the urn is also considered as the umbilical
cord. Sites like Adichanallur, Mangadu (Figure 22), Nannangadikunnu (Figure 23) have
unearthed pots with similar decoration on the exterior.

According to Das (2009) the neck of the vessel is ornamented with engravings, drawing
or appliqués like a female’s neck adorned with jewellery (Das 2009:49). From
Malampuzha, Kerala fragmentary bones of child inside the Urn with appliqué figurines
was unearthed and in the round female figurines.

These figurines suggest mother goddess cult and themes represented in the terracotta
finds include pregnancy‐childbirth, spirits etc., possibly denoting fertility rituals and
totemic sacrifices (Kumar 2004: 173). Sites like Ramapuram, Arippa and Nadapuram
child burials were found in earthen pots. The custom practiced now a days is that the
ashes are collected and saved in a pot and later immersed in water bodies.

660
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

Figure 22: Mangad Urn Burial with Decoration (Courtesy: Satyamurthy)

Figure 23: Urn Burial with Decoration, Nannangadikunn (Courtesy: Abhayan)

Sarcophagus
The association of animal with funeral rites is suggested by the terracotta sarcophagi in
animal shape. Both primary and secondary mortal remains have been noticed in
Sarcophagus. The custom of placing skeletal remains and the primary deposit of grave
furniture in a sarcophagus is possibly considered as an elaborate form of an urn burial.
Sarcophagus in an elephant shape is reported from Pallavaram and Yeleswaram (Figure
24), Cow shaped noticed from Kattakampal, Buffalo shaped from Peddamarur and Ram
shaped reported from Sankavaram (Figure 25) (Leshnik 1974; Ghosh 1989;
(Subrahmanyam and Reddy 1995: 23‐30). It suggests the animals are considered as the
carriers of souls to the other world. Megalithic people may have believed that some sort
of carrier is essential for the soul to reach the other world (Rao 1988).

661
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Figure 24: Elephant Shaped Sarcophagus, Yeleswaram (Courtesy: Subrahmanyam)

Figure 25: Ram Shaped Sarcophagus, Sankavaram

(Courtesy: www.govtmuseumchennai.org)

662
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

Umbrella Stone or Kudakkal

The Umbrella stone is one of the most beautiful and peculiar type of megalith. In Kerala
it is also known as Kudakkal in native language. The term Kuda means Umbrella and kkal
is stone and it resembles the typical Kerala palm leaf umbrella, but the umbrella stone
also resembles the shape of a mushroom. According to Trutmann (2012) the ancient
humans‐maintained connections with mushrooms, and consuming the hallucinogenic
mushrooms is still a part of the ritual performance among some communities and they
could have believed that the mushrooms helped them to communicate with dead
ancestors and predict future events. The shape of Kodakkal resembles that of the
hallucinogenic mushrooms and therefore it is erected with the belief that they could
communicate with the dead ancestors (Nayar 1989; Samorini 2012). According to
Samorini (2012) the Kudakkal represents psychoactive mushrooms with the ability to
enable a vision of the afterlife.

In ancient Kerala the palm leaf umbrella with handles was restricted to elite classes but
people belong to lower social status used palm leaf umbrella but without handles. The
palm leaf umbrella with handles possibly shows the presence of authority and power in
ancient Kerala. Nayar (1989) says the shape of palm leaf umbrellas have probably
influenced them in constructing death memorials in umbrella shapes (Nayar 1989:53).

Grave Goods Reflects Beliefs

Various types of grave goods have been observed in burials, these are interned as part
of their funeral rituals and in another way connected to ‘life after death’. Large numbers
of metal artifacts are found from the megalithic burials. Majority of them are iron tools
and iron weapons. Some of the iron weapons religiously significant are Sword, Spear,
Trishula or Trident, battle axe or Parasu which are found along with burials from different
places. But it is difficult to establish its religious significance in megalithic context.

Figure 26: Gold Diadem, Adichanallur (Courtesy: The Hindhu, Alexander Rea)

663
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Iron implements from burials is an indicative to the sex of deceased person, and such
burials are practiced by several communities. The Cholanaikans have the similar practice
of placing the products of daily use in the grave of the dead. Usually iron axe, hunting
equipments found interred in male burial and in female burial, implements like iron
sickle, ornament, utensils so and so are interred. It is observed that, in megalithic context
iron weapons like sword, axes, dagger and son on are frequently occurred along with
male burials and ornaments like bangles, ear rings, and iron sickle, knife so and so with
female burials. There are some intangible beliefs behind the placement of iron objects
within a grave. Generally these are kept to prevent or the spirits from the burials
(Kumar and Nihildas 2014:674‐685).

Some gold objects (Figure 26) were reported from Adichanallur, which vary in size and
oval in shape, the same have a strip extending beyond the two extremities with small
hole for a wire or string at each end, possibly to fix the diadem to the forehead. They are
thin plates ornamented with triangular and linear dotted designs and all were found in
a manner that suggest that some symbolical meaning may have been attached to the
practice. They are locally known as pattoms and system of tying of a plate to the forehead
of the dead body is prevalent in some communities now a days. Similar kind of gold leaf
has been reported from Kadanad, Kottayam (Figure 27) (Nambirajan and Kumaran
2011).

Figure 27: Gold Object, Kadanad (c.f. Abhayan 2018)

Conclusions
The megalithic monuments serve as a medium of communication to the dead ancestors.
The monuments erected in different shapes and types ultimately intended to
commemorate or honor the dead. There are certain rituals like feasts of merit and some
ceremonies, beliefs and faiths that connect the ancient monument with the contemporary

664
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

megalithic practices. The Tribes from Nilgiri and North‐East regions, performs various
funeral ceremonies in which they sacrificed birds and animals generally as a carrier of
soul to the other world or as an accompanying companion of the master or to get rid of
the sins of the deceased. Interring burial goods, making clay figurines, erecting wood or
stone posts in human form, conducting annual rituals in the memory of the dead etc.,
are still part of the religious beliefs of some ethnic communities. The ethnographic data
throws some light on the beliefs behind erection of anthropomorphic statues, labyrinth
and behind construction of Kudakkals.

It is apparent that the megalithism had a religious bias centered on beliefs in ‘life after
death’. The elaborate architecture of the megalithic burials, grave goods and other
funerary assemblages throw light on the religious beliefs and practices of the megalithic
people. It was primarily a cult of the dead which was normally embodied in the aspect
of religion. Here, the funerary practices form part of religion and to that extent the
megalithism was religion. Thus, megalithism attains the expression of a religion as
evidenced from their location and erecting, sacrificial remains, skeletal remains and
other cultural remains found in them.

References
Chandrashekhar, H. 2017. Ethno‐Archaeo‐Geological Study of Anthropomorphic
Statues and A Dolmen of Kudlagitaluk, Bellari District Karnataka, in Ajit
Kumar, Rajesh S.V and Abhayan G.S (Eds) KailashnathHetu (Essays in
Prehistory, Protohistory and Historical Archaeology) Festschrift to Shri. K. N.
Dikshit. pp. 486‐491. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation.
Darsana, S. 2014. The Megalithic burials of Tamil Nadu: An analysis, in K.N. Dikshit and
Ajit Kumar (Eds). The Megalithic Culture of South India: pp. 45‐49. The Indian
Archaeological Society. New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society.
Das, Subhashis. 2009. Sacred Stones in Indian Civilisation with Special Reference to Megaliths.
New Delhi: Kaveri Book.
Elwin Verrier. 1955. The Religion of an Indian Tribe. Delhi: B.R Publishing Corporation.
Ghosh, A. 1989. An Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology, Volume‐I. New Delhi:
MunshiramManoharlal Publishers.
Giddens, Anthony. 2009. Sociology. UK: Polity Press.
Hoen, Lee Jai. 2012. Megalithic Monuments in Asia. Delhi: Sharada Publishing House.
Hopfe, Lewis, M., 1983. Religions of the world. London and New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co. Inc and Collier Macmillan Publishers.
Hopkins, Washburn, E. 1923. Origin and Evolution of Religion. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya
Prakashan.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/comments.php?sid=2146412855 and tid=26748 and mode=nested
and order= and thold
IAR. 1959‐60 Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1960. Indian Archaeology 1959 – 60 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1962‐63 Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1965. Indian Archaeology 1962 – 63 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.

665
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

IAR. 1963‐64 Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1967. Indian Archaeology 1963 – 64 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1968‐69Lal, B. B. (ed.). 1971. Indian Archaeology 1968 – 69 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1974‐75Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 1979. Indian Archaeology 1974 – 75 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1977‐78Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 1980. Indian Archaeology 1977 – 78 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1978‐79Thapar, B. K. (ed.). 1981. Indian Archaeology 1978 – 79 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1979‐80Mitra, D. (ed.). 1983. Indian Archaeology 1979 – 80 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1980‐81Mitra, D. (ed.). 1983. Indian Archaeology 1980 – 81 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 1981‐82Mitra, D. (ed.). 1984. Indian Archaeology 1981 – 82 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
IAR. 2000‐01 Rajeev, C. B. (ed.). 2006. Indian Archaeology 2000 – 01 A Review. New Delhi:
Archaeological Survey of India.
James, E. O. 1957. Prehistoric Religion: A Study in Prehistoric Archaeology. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Kumar, Ajit and N. Nihildas. 2014. Megaliths Discovered Around Neelor, Kottayam
District, Kerala: Some Observations, Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary
Studies in ArchaeologyVol 2: pp. 674‐685. Thiruvananthapuram: Department
of Archaeology.
Kumar, Ajit. 2004. Unique Terracotta Figurines from Megalithic Urn Burials at
Malampuzha, District Palaghat, Puratattva: pp. 170‐175.
Kumar, Ajit. 2005. Mother Goddess Cult: An Appraisal of New Evidences from
Megalithic Urn Burials at Malampuzha. Journal of Indian History Vol.
LXXXIV. pp. 1‐8.
Kumar, Ajit. 2015. Labyrinths in Rock Art: Morphology and Meaning withSpecial
Reference to India, Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in
ArchaeologyVol 3: pp. 84‐104. Thiruvananthapuram: Department of
Archaeology.
Kumar, Ajit. 2016‐2017. AzhagiapandipuramMahaVisnu image, rock‐cut Visnu temple
and Sepulchral errection, in Kala the Journal of Indian Art History
CongressXXII, Guwahati: pp.1‐4.
Leshnik, L.S.1974. South Indian ʹMegalithicʹ Burials: the Pandukal Complex. Wiesbaden:
Franz SteinerVerlagGmbhH.
Logan, W. 1887. Malabar Manual, vol.1. Madras: Government Press.
McIntosh, J.R. 1985. Dating the South Indian Megaliths, South Asian Archaeology 1983
Volume 2: pp. 467‐494. Janine Schotsmans and Maurizio Taddei (Eds).
Naples.

666
 Aswani and Kumar 2018: 647‐668

Menon, M, Srikumar. 2012. Cosmic Considerations in Megalithic Architecture (An

Investigation into Possible Astronomical Intent in the Design and Layout of
Megalithic Monuments of The Indian Subcontinent With A View To
Understanding Megalithic Knowledge Systems). Unpublished Ph. D.
Dissertation. Manipal University. Manipal.
Menon, Srikumar, M. and Mayank N. Vahia. 2011. Megalithic Astronomy In South India,
Mapping the Oriental Sky. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Oriental Astronomy. Nakamura, T. Orichiston, W. and Storm. R. (Eds).
Tokyo: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. pp. 21‐26.
Muller, Max, F., 1878. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion: As illustrated by the
Religions of India. London: Longmans, Green, and CO.
Nambirajan, M. and C. Kumaran 2011. A Brief Note on Megalithic Excavation
Conducted at Kadanad, in Ajit Kumar (Ed) Archaeology in Kerala: Emerging
Trends: pp. 123‐128. Thiruvananthapuram: Univeristy of Kerala.
Nambirajan, M., Arun Malik and C.R. Gayathri. 2014. Excavations of the Urn Burial Site
at Adichanallur, Tamil Nadu 2003‐04, in K.N. Dikshit and Ajit Kumar (Eds).
The Megalithic Culture of South India: pp.117‐123. New Delhi: The Indian
Archaeological Society.
Nayar, P. 1989. The Megalithic Monuments of Kerala State with Special Reference to Umbrella
Stones. UnpublishedM.A. Dissertation. The Maharaja Sayajirao University
ofBaroda, Vadodara.
Piggott, S. 1959. Approach to Archaeology. London: McGraw‐Hill.
Rajan, K. 1998. Further Excavations at Kodumanal, Tamil Nadu, Man and Environment,
Vol. XXXIII. pp. 67‐75.
Rajan, K. 2015. Kodumanal: An Early Historic Site in South India, Man and Environment,
Vol.XI, No.2. pp. 65‐79.
Rajendran, P. 2005. Oliyani Cist Burial Excavation, Kottayam District, Kerala. Journal of
the Centre for Heritage Studies 2: pp. 41‐47.
Rao, K.P. 1988. The Deccan Megaliths. New Delhi: SundeepPrakashan.
Rao, K.P. 2006. Astronomical relationship of South Indian Megaliths, Proceedings Volume
of the 7th Oxford International Conference on Archaostronomy. Northern Arizona
University. City of Phoenix: pp. 421‐432.
Rao, K.P. 2015. Astronomy of the Megalithic People: The Case of Earliest Sky Map from
India, in KishorK.Basa., Rabindra K. Mohanty and Simadri B. Ota (Eds):
pp.558‐564. Megalithic Traditions In India Archaeology and Ethnography.Vol.II.
New Delhi: Indira Gandhi RashtriyaManavSangrahalaya.
Rao, K.P. 2018. Iron Age Culture In South India: Telengana and Andhra Pradesh, Iron
Age In South Asia South Asian Archaeology Series 2. AkinoriUesugi (Eds):
pp.129‐144. Research Group for South Asian Archaeology, Kansai
University, Japan.
Rao, K.P. and V. Ramabrahmam. 2016. Cult of the Dead: Evidence from the South Indian
Megaliths, Megalithic Monuments and Cult Practices Proceedings of the Second

667
ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

International Symposium. DimitriyaSpasova (Eds). Blagoevgrad: NeofitRilski

University Press. pp. 65‐73.
Rao, Kameswara, N. 2005. Aspects of Prehsitoric Astronomy in India, Bulletin of
Astronomical Society of India Vol. 33. India: pp. 499‐511.
Rao, Kameswara, N., Priya Thakur and YogeshMallinathpur. 2011. The Astronomical
significance of ‘Nilurallu’, The Megalithic stone Alignment at Murardoddi
in Andhra Pradesh, India, Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage 14(3):
pp. 211‐220.
Rao, Kameswara. N. 1993. Astronomical orientations of the Megalithic Stone Circles of
Brhamagiri, Bulletin of Astronomical society in India 21.pp. 67‐77.
Rea, Alexander. 1915. Catalogue of the Prehistoric Antiquities from Adichanallur and
Perumbair. Madras: Madras GAovernment Publications.
Samorini, Giorgio. 2012. Mushroom Effigies in world Archaeology: From Rock Art to
Mushroom‐Stones in Stone Mushrooms of Thrace Proceedings Conference.
Thrace.
Sawant, Reshma. 2015. Relocating AshmakaMahajanpada: An Assessment of Vidarbha
Megaliths, in KishorK.Basa., Rabindra K. Mohanty and Simadri B. Ota (Eds)
Megalithic Traditions In India Archaeology and Ethnography.Vol.II: pp. 226‐
240.New Delhi: Indira Gandhi RashtriyaManavSangrahalaya.
Subrahmanyam, B. and E. Sivangi Reddy. 1995. Terracotta Coffins In Late Proto Historic
Andhra, in N.R.V Prasad (Eds) Journal of The Andhra Historical Research
Society The Government of Andhra Pradesh: pp. 23‐30, Hyderabad.
Thurston, Edgar. 1909. Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Vol I‐VII. New Delhi: Asian
Educational Services.
Tripathy, VeenaMushrif and K. Rajan. 2015. Palaeopathological Aspect of Osteological
studies Carried out on the Iron Age site of Kodumanal, Tamil Nadu, in
KishorK.Basa., Rabindra K. Mohanty and Simadri B. Ota (Eds) Megalithic
Traditions In India Archaeology and Ethnography.Vol.II: pp. 533‐557. New
Delhi: Indira Gandhi RashtriyaManavSangrahalaya.
Trutmann, Peter. 2012. The Forgotten Mushrooms of Ancient Peru. Switzerland: Global
Mountain Action.
Vasanthi, V. 2017. Bird Headed Paintings and their significance in Rock Art of Tamil
Nadu, in Ajit Kumar, Rajesh S.V and Abhayan G.S (Eds) KailashnathHetu
(Essays in Prehistory, Protohistory and Historical Archaeology) Festschrift to Shri.
K.N. Dikshit. pp. 83‐85: Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation.
Walimbe, S. R. 2015. Palaeodemography of the Megalithic Builders of South India, in
KishorK.Basa., Rabindra K. Mohanty and Simadri B. Ota (Eds) Megalithic
Traditions In India Archaeology and Ethnography.Vol.II: pp. 520‐532.New Delhi:
Indira Gandhi RashtriyaManavSangrahalaya.
Walimbe, S.R. 1992. Human Skeletal Evidnece from Megalithic Raipur, Bulletin of Deccan
College of Research Institute, Vol. 51/52, Prof. S.M. KatreFellicitation Volume
(1991‐92): pp. 667‐678, Pune.

668