CHAPTER I

THE IRON AGE IN KERALA: A RETROSPECT

Introduction

The advent of iron is considered as a wonderful innovation of mankind in

the social formation process, which helps them to fulfill their needs. The Iron
Age in Kerala followed closely on the heels of the Neolithic period. Therefore
there is no gap or cultural hiatus between the two. In this sense an interesting
factor is the complete absence of the chalcolithic phase to interfere the Neolithic
and the Iron Age as observed elsewhere in the vast sub-continent. Iron is one of
the distinctive traits of megalithic monuments so far excavated in the southern
peninsular India.1 V.K. Jain observed that the South Indian megalithic people are
the first to use iron in India and therefore their culture is sometimes described as
„Iron Age Culture of South India‟.2 Universally there was a tendency to label the
discussed period on the basis of the feature which is the most remarkable at first
sight, namely megalithic burials. In the light of current knowledge it seems more
appropriate to study about megalith which indicates the Iron Age in Kerala. This
would suggest that human beings inhabited in the highlands and red-soil tracts of
Kerala roughly in the middle of the first millennium B.C.3
In Kerala there is hardly any megalithic tomb without iron. This kind of
elaborate burial practice came with the beginning of the Iron Age in Kerala. 4
Typologically the iron objects discovered from these tombs includes spears,
swords axes, swords, hatchets, tridents, tripods, dagger, hooks, nails etc.5 Hence

1
T. Sathyamurthy, The Iron Age in Kerala: A Report on Mangad Excavations, Department of
Archaeology, Thiruvananthapuram, 1992, p. 21.
2
V. K. Jain, Pre-History and Proto-History of India - An Appraisal Paleolithic Non-Harappan
Chalcolithic Cultures, D. K. Print World, New Delhi, 2006, p. 125.
3
B. K. Thapar, „Porkalam Excavation‟ in Ancient India, No. 8, New Delhi, 1948, pp. 3 -15.
4
John Ochamthuruthe, „Nadukal Samskaram‟ (Mal.), in Vijnchanakairaly, Vol. 22, No. 2, February 1991,
Trivandrum, pp. 73 - 74
5
T. Sathyamurthy, Op. Cit., p. 21.
23
the megalithic period is known as the Iron Age phase of South India. The burial
monuments are the predominant archaeological remains of Iron Age that
represent a formative phase in the history of peninsular India in general, and
Kerala in particular. This period is distinguished by the practice of raising stone
monuments of various types indicating the cult of the dead practiced by them.
The Rock-Cut caves, Menhirs, Dolments, Cist Burials, Kodakkals, Toppikals, etc.
were the various type of burial monuments prevailed during Iron Age in Kerala.
Since the megalithic builders were the iron using communities, the scholars like
Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin had presented so called megalithism as a
continuation of the iron dominated Neolithic culture.6
The study about the iron metallurgy in ancient India was a complex one.
Historians have difference of opinion whether the iron metallurgical knowledge
in India is indigenous or occidental. On the basis of the available evidences, it is
very difficult to say how, where and when iron was first used. Even though, we
have an idea about its origin, the evolution of spread of iron metallurgy in Indian
context has extensive social complications especially when we compared it with
other metal technologies. Therefore various studies have been done in different
perspectives about the origin of iron with the help of archeological findings and
early literacy evidences. In this epoch the present study mainly focused on the
traditional iron technology of Malabar. Hence it is necessary to understand the
theory on origin of Iron Age in India in general and Kerala in particular. This
chapter discussed about link between megalithic and the Iron Age in Kerala, the
features of megalithic monuments, significance of recent excavation reports etc.
In addition, this chapter attempted to analyze the hypothetical possibilities of
megalithic builders as the forefathers of iron workers in Kerala.

6
Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin, The Birth of Indian Civilization, Penguin Books, New Delhi,
1982, p. 204.

24
Historical Background of Iron Age in India
In Indian historiography, the origin of iron in India becomes an extremely
popular topic of debate among scholars. The recent studies about Iron Age in
India are mainly based on early literary evidences. Rig-Veda, which is believed
to have composed in B. C. 1500, was the earliest literature in Indian history. In
this literature they usually used terms like „ayas‟ and „hiranya‟ to denote metal.
Some scholars claimed that the term „ayas‟ was used to indicate bronze or copper
and not used as a synonym for iron. From this argument the debates about Iron
Age began in India. Rig-Veda mentioned about three metals viz., hiranya (gold),
rajata (silver) and ayas (?). But there was no clarity about metal which denotes
the term „ayas‟. There is some difficulty in identifying the first two metals.
However the problem arises with in the connotation of „ayas‟. From the
beginning of twentieth century a debate developed regarding the interpretation of
the term „ayas‟. The scholars like M. N. Banerjee and Mrinalini Sarpotadar
support the fact that the term „ayas‟, which was used in Rig-vedic texts for about
40 times, denotes iron.7
In the recent studies, scholars argued that the term „ayas‟ indicates bronze
or copper. The following quotation shows the context in which the term „ayas‟
was used. “His name is of gold; his fleet are of ages: his fleet as though Indra is
his inferior (in speed).The gods have come to partake of his being offered as
oblation: the first who mentioned the horse was Indra”.8 The reference about the
feet of a horse denotes that it looks like the color of ayas. While mans are golden,
the feet are ayas colored. It could be the colour of bronze or deep brown colour
of copper. While interpreting such statements, it is clear what the term ayas was
used to denote bronze or copper. In the later Vedic texts like Atharva Veda of
Vajassneya Samhita, the term „shyamaayas‟ or black metal was used to denote

7
Mrinalini Sarpotadar, „Ancient and Medieval Technology in India‟, in Kuppuram, Kumudamani, K.
(eds.), History of Science and Technology in India, Vo. IV, Sandeep Prekashan, Delhi, 1990, p. 60.
8
Vibha Thiruppathi, History of Iron Technology in India: From Beginning to Pre- Modern Times, Rupa
& Co., New Delhi, 2008, p. 60.
25
iron. Meanwhile, the references about smelting process of metal can be seen
more in later Vedic text than in Rig-Vedic texts. For instance the historians
argued that the word „dhma‟ seems to have been derived from the sound of the
bellow. It is understood that the terms like kasnayas and krishnayas used to
denotes the metal „iron‟. References about iron can be also seen in Aitareya
Aranyaka Mailaraya and Maitraya Bramana Upanisad. In short, the period
around 1000 B. C. can be considered as the Age of iron because we get
evidences about this period mainly from the later Vedic texts, which were
composed in around 1000 B. C.
The studies related to the Rig Vedic word ‘ayas’ as iron started in India by
M .N. Banerjee. He observed that the use iron began with the advent of Aryans in
around 1000 B. C. on the bank Ganga River. In his work „A Note on Iron in Rig
Vedic Age‟, he detailed that the use of iron in Rig Vedic age can best be proved
by showing that the Rig Vedic hymns refer directly or indirectly to sword, razor
and quiet ring of iron. 9 This statement reveals that Iron Age began from Rig
Vedic period onwards.
The Iron Age in India began with the Painted Gray Ware (PGW) culture,
which is considered as the formative period of Indian history. The beginning of
sixth century B. C. was the period during which the tradition of iron technology
started in India.10 It is significant to note that the period between 600 B. C. - 500
B. C; no significant changes have been noticed in the material life of the
people.11 The social situation becomes self-explanatory when one notice some
sort of centricity from later Vedic period to these hundred years in the tradition
of iron technology. This period witnessed some most important changes like

9
M. N. Banerjee, The Iron Age in India, Munsiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1965, p. 4.
10
Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Nayanjot Lahiri, „The Iron Age in India – The Beginning and Consequences‟
in Bharabi Prasad Shah (ed.), Iron and Social Change in Early India, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 2000, p. 168.
11
R. S. Sharma, „ Material Background of the Gangetic of the State and Complex Society in the Middle
Gangetic Plains‟ in Bharabi Prasad Shah (ed.), Iron and Social Change in Early India, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, 2000, p. 158.
26
appearance of urban centers, emergence of sixteen Mahajanapadas (territorial
states) and the efflorescence in the domain of ideas etc. When we analyze this
period carefully, these changes materialize the growth of the trends initiated
earlier. The newly emerged technology became wide spread and it leads to its apt
utilization in appropriate direction. The efficient application of technology
brought far reaching results. When the technological potentials where exploited
once, it revolutionized the production mechanism.
There were references about iron ploughshare in „SuttaPitaka’ an early
Budhist text. Subsequently it believed that iron was widely used in the middle
Gangetic valley between 800 -700 B. C. 12 In India, D. D. Kosambi studied about
the iron age in India with the help of archeological and literary sources. He
claimed that the period between 700-600 BC was considered as Iron Age in India.
Meanwhile R. S. Sharma opined that Iron Age started around 800 B. C.
alternately before it in the middle of Gangetic plains in India small scale
excavations, extremely moist atmosphere, steady explorer to foods, profoundly
destructive nature of iron particularly under the condition prevalent in Bihar,
Bengal and the immense spread out in bordering eastern Uttar Pradesh make it
problematic for iron to persevere in an acceptable condition of reservation. 13
From the above assertion of numerous researchers about the period iron in India,
it is very clear that there are some limitations in determining the exact period of
advent of iron in India.
K. N. Dikshit, in his work 'Iron Age in Peninsular India' perceived that
Iron Age in South India began nearly at the end of the Neolithic period and there
is no mediating chalcolithic period. He also says that it started with the
megalithic period. M. D. N. Sahi dates the establishment of Iron Age in India

12
D. D. Kosambi, „Beginning of Iron Age in India‟, in Journal of Economic and Social History of Orient,
Vol. 6, No. 3, December, 1963, pp. 309-318.
13
R. S. Sharma, Op. Cit., p. 155.
27
from sixteenth century B.C. on the premise of the discoveries of Ahar.14 At the
same time K. C. Varma has proposed the introduction of iron in India during
1900 B.C. He also suggested that this was on the basis of C-14 data accessible in
India and Pakistan.15
According to Vibha Tripathi the Painted Gray Ware society makes the
Iron Age in North India and show the way for the beginning of urbanization. She
examines the environmental foundation, various sites, PGW etc for this study. By
accepting the fundamental diffusionary theory proposed by N. R. Banarji, she
assumed that Iron Age began in India by around 1000 B.C in the Gangetic valley.
But the most accepted fact is that the Iron Age in India began by around 1200
B.C. Dilip K. Chakrabarthi, studied about the ancient artifacts gathered from six
districts of India and contended that each of the antiquity dated before the first
millennium B. C. He also argued that iron in India is sooner than that in the
Indian borderlands.16
Some other scholars are of the assumption that the period of Iron Age in
the Indian subcontinent was between 1100 -1000 B. C. However, this period was
not generally used as a period of iron in different parts of India. The beginning of
Iron Age in South India particularly in Kerala and in Orissa may have been
around 400 B. C.17 Meanwhile recent excavation report point out that in south
India particularly in Kerala Iron Age began by around 1000 B. C.18 This is clear
from the analytical studies initiated by Sarada Sreenivasan, Sasisekaran,
RajunamaRao and T. Satyamurthy on Kodumanal and the studies by Mel-
Sirvilan on Guttur and Mangad. In this context it may be conclude that wrought
iron, cast iron and high carbon steel prevailed in South India even before the

14
M. D. N. Sahi, „Iron at Ahar‟, in D. P. Agarwal and D. K. Chakrabarti (eds.), Essays in Indian Proto
History, B. R Pub. Corp., Delhi, 1999, pp. 367 - 369.
15
K. C. Varma, „The Iron Age in Vedic and Historical Urbanization‟ in R. K. Sharma (ed.), Indian
Archaeology New Perspectives, Agam Kala Prekashan, New Delhi, 1982, p. 248.
16
Dilip K. Chakrabarthi, Op. Cit., p. 169.
17
B. R. Subramaniam, „Appearance and Spread of Iron in India an Appraisal of Archaeological Data‟, in
Journal of Orient Institute, Vol. 13, 1964, p. 349 – 351.
18
T. Sathyamurthy, Op. Cit., p. 3.
28
early historic period.
Theories of Iron Age in India
One of the most important technological advances of mankind is the
mastery of iron and the introduction of what may be archaeologically described
as Iron Age.19 But the social scientists especially the historians have different
opinions about the society which first produced iron and the area from which it
was first discovered. Some of them argued that the clan named „Chalibus‟, who
lived on the southern parts of mountain ranges called „Cocus‟, were first people
who had the knowledge about iron metallurgy in the world. By studying about
the history of socio-cultural aspects of Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization,
Gordon Childe assumed that the first evidence of iron was discovered from the
graves of the Egyptians. Then he observed that the iron discovered from Egypt is
separated from a type of meteor ore. It is generally believed that this is the
earliest iron product in the world. Hence some argued that this kind of Iron was
not discovered from other parts of Egypt. But the implements made out of the
similar type of meteor ore were discovered in a later period. Meanwhile there is
no evidence about the smelting of iron and the use of iron implements before
1400 B. C. Gorden Childe claimed that the use of iron began only after 1300 B.C.
and it was first used not in Mesopotamia but in Asia Minor.20
According to Thedore A. Wertime iron was first used by pre-Hittite and
the inhabitants of Anatolia and Mesopotamia in the late third and early second
millennium B. C.21 Meanwhile C. P. Manning and R. J. Frveham assumed that
Iron metallurgy began during the beginning of 2000 B. C. Then they presumed
that the iron metallurgy reached in India from Iran.22 Similarly, R. S. Sharma has

19
VibhaTripathi, The Age of Iron in South Asia: Legacy and Tradition, Aryans Books International, New
Delhi, 2001, p. 1.
20
V. Gorden Childe, What Happened in History, Penguin Books, London, 1954, p. 88.
21
Theodare A. Wertime, „The Beginning of Metallurgy: A New Look‟, in Science, New Series, Vol. 182,
No. 4115, 30 November, 1973, p. 875.
22
C. P. Manning and R. J. Frveham , „Emerging Technologies for Iron and Steel Making‟, in Journal of
JOM, Vol. 53, No. 10, pp. 20 - 21.
29
tried to examine the material remains to trace the movements of the „Aryans‟ and
the route followed by them from Central Asia towards India.23 We can see some
sort of similarities in the contemporary works like St. Avesta, which was an
Iranian work and Rig-Veda, which was an Indian text. This similarity is also
evident in the iron remains which were discovered in the grave hoods. Both the
literary as well as archaeological references support the theory of the origin of
iron in India because of the influence of Indo-Aryan relations.24 In short, a few of
them believed that introduction of iron in India has closely related with the Indo -
European and Indo-Aryan affiliations. In this epoch the scholars try to analyze
the origin and evolution of iron in India in general and the introduction and
Dravidian links to the Iron Age in Kerala in particular.
It is claimed that Mesopotamia or Modern Iraq has yielded the first
refined bit of iron in c. 5000 B.C. It has a length of 4. 30 cm. However it is an
unidentifiable article. It was found from a grave at Samara in northern Iraq.
Apart from this three iron balls which were depicted as polishers were found
from TepeSialk in Iran. In addition high nickel content was noticed in these iron
objects. 25 Robert Hadfield in his article in a journal named „Iron and Steel
Institute‟ remarks that without doubt, we can say that the process of making iron
and steel has been used in India four thousand years ago. According to him the
Egyptians were familiar about the presence of iron and steel in India. It is said
that Egyptians utilized the iron metallurgical knowledge of India to build great
stone monument in Egypt. Somehow they might have used the iron available in
India nor did they utilize the workman ship of iron workers in India. It indicates
that advanced form of iron metallurgy prevailed in pre historic period of India.
In the earliest centuries of first Millennium B.C. only a few, fragmentary
unidentifiable iron objects were discovered from Hasthinapura of Atranjkhera in

23
R. S. Sharma, Advent of Aryan in India, Monohar, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 13-19.
24
Vibha, Tripathi, Op. Cit., pp. 57 - 58.
25
Moorey P. R. S., Ancient Mesopetomian Metals and Industries, Clardon Press, Oxford, 1994, p. 27.
30
the Ganga valley. This evidence suggests that the Indian Iron industry was an
uncertain, experimental one. But such evidence is absent in the case of copper
objects in Indian Sub-Continent. Even at the earliest levels of Pre-Harappan sites
like Amri, Kot-Diji the copper and bronze objects recovered were finished and
well-made artifacts. 26 At the same time, the evidence related to the recovered
iron objects was different. The iron that existed between 3rd millennium B C and
1200 B.C. are mostly of meteoric origin. The material remains discovered
through archaeological excavation were ritualistic and elite in nature.
Vibha Tripathi claimed that there is a possibility for the movement of iron
metallurgy from India to the outside world. While studying about the origin and
disposal of iron in India, she rejected the diffusion theory. After examined the
facts in Rig Veda and Zend Avesta, VibhaTripathi explained that linguistic
affinity is very low.
According to N. R. Banerjee and Bridget Allchin the iron metallurgical
knowledge is occidental and not indigenous. They also argued that Asia Minor is
considered as the source center of iron smelting technology. Because the material
remains discovered from this area belongs to the period between 1800 - 1200
B.C. That‟s why it is argued that the technological knowhow acquired by the
indigenous people of Asia Minor later spread to other parts of the world. That is,
this statement tried to establish the concept of „single centered origin of Iron
metallurgy‟.27 According to their belief the metal technology originated during
the Hittite Empire, who considered it as their monopoly. But after the decline of
this empire this technology spread towards east from the west.28 In short, after
the decline of Hititte Empire, the Aryans from there migrated to India and
introduced iron technology here. The Iron Age in India, particularly in North

26
VibhaTripathi, History of Iron Technology in India: From Beginning to Pre- Modern Times, Rupa &
Co., New Delhi, 2008, pp. 243-247.
27
Dilip Chakrabarathi, „Distribution of Iron Ore and the Archaeological Evidence of Early Iron India‟, in
Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 20, No. 2, May 1977, pp. 167 - 168.
28
Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin, Op. Cit., p. 207.
31
India was associated with the Painted Grew Ware (PGW) and Black and Red
Ware (BRW) culture.29 But in South India the iron technology is quite different
from this and it was associated with the megalithic culture.
The Iron technology that existed in India did not come did not came from
one source. Here the single centered origin theory was questioned by the foreign
arising theory. The main supporters of „multi centered origin theory‟ are D. P.
Agarwall, Statria Guzder etc. According to them the iron technology in North
West India came from West Asia. But it is assumed that in Deccan area this
technology emerged indigenously. At the same time there were differences of
opinion regarding the emergence of technology in North Eastern zone, that is
whether it came from South East Asia or it is indigenously originated.30
The idea that Iron Age in India initiated with the arrival of Aryan was the
argument put forward by the supporters of indigenous theory. But it can‟t be
scientifically intercept. On the basis of available evidence some historians
opinioned that iron comes first in the region close to China. But it is clear from
the archeological report that iron reached the inner regions of India earlier than
that in its border land.31 The origin of Iron Age in India might have been the
result of the influences of foreigners. The main evidences were exposed not from
boarder land of India but from Inner land. This fact justified the argument made
by the scholars who support the indigenous origin theory. After examining the
contextual position of the word „ayas‟ in the Vedic literature, it is assumed that
the term „ayas‟ is more applicable to copper than iron. The chronological and
typological analysis of iron that encountered in the western borders of India did
not watch with the one that surfaced in India. The scientific study reports about
the iron articulates discovered from Iron Age sites proved that iron smelting was

29
S. D. Singh, „Iron in Ancient India‟, in Journal of Economic and Social History of Orient, Vol. 5, No. 2,
July 1962, pp. 213 - 214.
30
D. P. Agarwall, „The Metal Technology of Indian Pre-historic Cultures: Its Archaeological
Implications‟, in Journal of History of Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1970, pp. 15-22.
31
D. D. Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prekashan, Bombay, 1975, p. 7.
32
not conducted fully in these areas. There is no evidence for advance smelting
process to prove that a developed technology was implemented in these areas.
Apart from this they usually used small furnaces.32 The archaeological evidences
reveal that early iron smelting communities widely used small furnaces in the
various parts of the country. It is too similar to the copper smelting furnace. In
that sense small furnace is a sign of indigenous origin of iron.
The modern archeologists like B. Prekash, VibhaTripathi, and D. K.
Chakrabarthi support the indigenous origin theory of Iron. According to them
iron had an independent origin within India as an off shoot of Copper
technology.33 That is the people of India had acquired an advanced technology.
This tradition made them easy to make furnace, bellows etc. for smelting iron ore.
It is assumed that they accidently realized the smelting of iron ore while they
were smelting copper ore. Gradually they realized about the scope of iron
smelting and they undergo different stages of evolution. Thus they acquired an
advanced form of metallurgical knowledge. In short, they believe that the
evolution of iron technology was from copper technology. Meanwhile this is
evident from the archaeological remains. By analyzing the contemporary studies
it may conclude that most of these studies supported the indigenous origin theory
of iron.

Iron Age in Kerala

The available documents reveal that the beginning of Iron Age in Kerala
closely associated with megalithic monuments. The Iron Age phase is generally
known as megalithic culture in South India. The monuments built of granite
rocks erected over the burials are called megaliths. „The so called superficial
similarities traced in terms of form and technique, by and large, determined what

32
A. K. Vaish, Et. al., „Historical Perspectives of Iron in Ancient India‟ in Journal of Metallurgy and
Material Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, January – March, 2000, ISSN No. 0472 – 4227, pp. 63 - 65.
33
B. Prakash and VibhaTripathi, „Iron Technology in Ancient India‟ in Kuppuram, Kumudamani, K.
(eds.), History of Science and Technology in India, Vo. IV, Sandeep Prekashan, Delhi, 1990, p.13.
33
one implied as „megaliths‟, a word derived out of a combination of two Greek
words „megas‟ means big and „lithos‟ means stone, meaning very large stones.
Megaliths‟ literally means „big stone‟. 34 Various explanations were offered
towards reflecting ways in the very perception of megaliths by the Europeans. It
was the monuments, rather than the associated artifacts that attracted people first,
hence it is often said that the „superficial similarities between megaliths all over
the world caused their attribution to a single cultural group‟.35
The study on megalithic burials in India started with the publication of
Babington‟s article on Pandoo Coolies. But the remarkable point is that he did
not mention about the term „megaliths‟ in his article. In 1874, M. J. Walhouse
was the first person, who referred the term „megalithic monuments. 36 By the
gradual development of these studies made an attempt to provide a scientific
terminology for megalithic types, but here also any attempt to define the term
megaliths itself remained aloof and types are defined in relation to its presence
with mega-liths only. Later numbers of works were exposed defining the term
„megaliths‟. M. Wheeler in 1948 defines megaliths as „those monuments, which
are built of rough, large and undressed block of stones‟.37 Since the Brahmagiri
excavation of Wheeler, the presence of Black and Red Ware at a site has been
accepted as sufficient reason to recognize a „megalithic period‟, even in the
complete absence of liths. Taking insights from New Archaeology and structural
anthropology U.S. Moorti defines megaliths to „mean a socio-religious
expression of burying the deceased in a grave which may or may not have lithic
appendage‟. 38 The influence of the same theoretical position can be seen in

34
V. D. Krishnaswami, „Megalithic Types of South India‟, in Ancient India, Bulletin of Archaeological
Survey of India, No.5, New Delhi, 1949, p. 44.
35
J. McIntosh, „Dating the South Indian Megaliths‟, in Schostmans and Taddei M. (eds.), South Asian
Archaeology 1983, Naples Institute University, Orientale, 1985, p. 203.
36
M. J. Walhouse, „Notes on the Megalithic Monuments of the Coimbatore District, Madras‟, in Journal
of Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1874, pp.172 - 176.
37
Mortimer Wheeler, „Brahmagiri and Chandravalli 1947: Megalithic and Other Cultures in Mysore
District‟, in Ancient India, No. 4, 1948, pp.181- 308.
38
U. S. Moorti, Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-Economic Perspectives, Ganga Kaveri
Publishing House, Varnasi, 1994, p. 1.
34
Shereen Ratnagar‟s work. She suggests that „megaliths may be studied not only
as evidence for migration routes, but as territorial markers appearing in situations
where external threat, or intensified culture contact, or extension of agriculture,
lead to competition over land or crucial resource areas, so that descent groups
acquire a new importance as owners and controllers of resources‟.39
European scholars have clearly declared that the megaliths of Europe have
nothing to do with the use of metals. Hence it is argued that, the grave goods
accompanying the burials were generally unimpressive and contained only a few
pots, a stone axe, a flint blade or two. But in the case of India the megalithic
culture, according to Allchin highlighted a significant change in the settlement
pattern of the South Indian cultures. 40 But, the diffusionary elements in the
spread of the megalithic culture has been recommended by him because, he feels
that the introduction of iron technology itself meant the emergence of
41
civilization. The overall uniformity of the megalithic culture as being
associated with the iron using culture in South India is therefore striking. We find
at some sites that these were superimposed at different levels of the preceding
phase of the Neolithic - chalcolithic settlement.
According to Gordon Childe „in practice it is applied only to monuments,
the use of which is known imperfectly or not at all, but which we presume were
erected for some superstitious ritual or religious end‟. 42 These megalithic
monuments were considered as the pyramids of the commoners. But their origin,
chronology, the people who erected them, their everyday life, economic status,
religious beliefs etc., are still unknown. The term „megalith‟ is appropriate
because these monuments were commonly made by using large, usually
undressed or roughly dressed stone blocks.

39
Shereen Ratnagar, „Archaeological Perspectives on Early Indian Societies‟, in RomilaThapar (ed.),
Recent Perspectives of Early Indian History, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1995, p. 34.
40
Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin, Op. Cit., pp. 266 - 267.
41
Ibid. p. 242.
42
Gordon Childe, „Megaliths‟, in Ancient India –A Review of 1947-1948, No.4, Bulletin of
Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 1949, pp. 4 -15.
35
 The origin and chronology of the phenomenon of Iron Age in Kerala is a
matter of controversy even now.43 In this epoch, the scholar made an attempt to
analyze the major theories existed regards the origin and authorship of megaliths
in Kerala. In the Indian context, megaliths stretch from dates before 3000 B.C.
till about 900 A.D., but are known to be a continuing traditions in some parts of
the country.44 The oldest megaliths in India are found in the western most part of
the country. That is in the present day Afghanistan in the upper Indus Valley
dated to about 3000 B.C. They are in the form of stone circles. But they are also
found in almost all parts of the subcontinent including central, southern and
eastern India. There is also a broad time evolution with the megaliths in central
India dated to be between 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C. While those in the east, are
much later and are dated till 900 A.D. A large fraction of these are assumed to be
associated with burial or post burial rituals including memorials for those whose
remains may or may not be available. The most famous example is that of
Brahmagiri, which was excavated by Wheeler and helped to establish the culture-
sequence in south Indian prehistory.45
Megaliths are thus structures built of large stones normally in the memory
of the dead and erected generally above the ground. The graves of early iron
using people were enriched with big pieces of stone and therefore they are
known as megalithic people. 46 These monuments have been discovered from
various regions of the Indian subcontinent. It reveals great variation in their
forms and structures. In the Indian context, it is a homogeneous culture
dominated by two elements (i) use of iron tools and weapons and (ii) familiarity
with a polished and well-fired pottery called Black-and-Red ware.47 Iron is one
of the distinctive traits of megalithic monuments so far excavated in the southern

43
V. Rami Reddy, Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Culture, Mittal Publications, Delhi, 1991, p. 111.
44
U. S. Moorti, Op. Cit., pp. 29.
45
Mortimer Wheeler, Op. Cit., pp.180 - 310.
46
D. N. Jha, Ancient India: In Historical Outline, Manohar Publishers & Distributers, New Delhi, 2012, p.
115.
47
V. K. Jain, Op. Cit., p. 119.
36
peninsular India. 48 South Indian megalithic people are the first to use iron in
south India and therefore their culture is sometimes described as „Iron Culture of
South India‟.49
It is clear from the megalithic sites like Neelagiri Hills, Adichanellur,
Kodumanel (Tamil Nadu) Manbgad etc., in South India that the Iron Age began
around 1000 B.C. in South India. But this is contradictory with the fact that Iron
Age in India began with the advent of Aryans. Apart from the remains of Iron
implements and iron slags have been excavated from megalithic sites like
Adichanellur in Tirunalveli district, Nagarjunaconda in Gundur district,
Yelleswaram in Dharvar district, Sarganahalu in Bellari district and Kunnathur in
Chegalpetta district and so on. The existence of iron during megalithic period
points out that they have knowledge about the iron technology from that time
onwards. The Carbon -14 dating conducted on the iron remains discovered from
Hallur proves that this belong to1000 B. C. From the excavation reports it is clear
that the majority of the megalithic sites were identified with the existence of iron.
The Paiyampalli excavation report recommend that the presence of a good
quantity of iron slag, leading to the conclusion that iron smelting was known to
these people and they not only extracted iron from the ores but also worked it
into required shapes and objects.50
This kind of elaborate burial practice came to Kerala with the beginning
of the Iron Age.51 The Megalithic culture witnessed the spread of iron throughout
South India especially in Kerala. We find an abundance of objects of this black
metal during megalithic period. In fact we may claim that there is no megalithic
tomb without iron and the very few ones without iron are exceptions and prove

48
T. Sathyamurthy, Op. Cit., p. 21.
49
V. K. Jain, Op. Cit., p. 125.
50
K. S. Ramachandran, Op. Cit., pp. 71- 72.
51
Vellayani Vijayan, „Puravasthukaliloode Anavrethamakunna Keralathinte Prakcharithrakalam‟ (Mal.),
in Samskara Keralam, Kerala Books and Publication Society, Thrikkakara, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1992, pp. 57-
59.
37
the rule.52 All these megalithic sites, the yield of metal objects have been not
only varied but also large numbers. The metal used during this culture comprised
of iron, copper and gold. The prominent metal among them is the black metal or
iron; and bronze, copper, and gold are also found from various sites in very
limited scale. Plenty of iron objects from the megalithic grave hoods have been
reported. Besides metal, the megalith builders used beads of semi-precious stones.
The use of clay for objects other than pottery seems to have been very much
limited. The Iron Age in Kerala is distinguished by the practice of raising stone
monuments of various types indicating the cult of the dead practiced by them.
The Rock-Cut caves, Menhirs, Dolments, Cist Burials, Kodakkals, Toppikals, etc.
were the various types of burial monuments build during the beginning of the
Iron Age in Kerala.

Types of Megalithic Monuments in Kerala

Megalithic monuments are conspicuous features of the site in India
extending from Kashmir in the north to Kerala in the south.53 Megalithic sites are
very widely distributed in the peninsular India and in the case of south India
especially in Kerala with a substantial concentration in north Kerala and its
adjacent areas. Although the south Indian Iron Age culture displays certain
uniformity in the burial character, a significant diversity exists in the mode of
construction culminating in different types of megalithic burials.
The megalithic monuments distributed over a wide area reveal a great
amount of regional variations in their structural forms and burial arrangements.
The structural forms of the megalithic monuments have been classified by
Bridget and Raymond Allchin, B. K. Gururaja Rao, V. D. Krishnaswami and
others in different types. In the entire areas of Kerala the geographical and

52
K. S. Ramachandran, Archaeology of South India: Tamil Nadu, Sandeep Prakashan, New Delhi, 1980,
p. 64.
53
Himanshu Prabha Ray, Op. Cit., p. 161.
38
physiographic features fall into three well-defined parallel strips, each of which
contains distinctive megalithic monuments, the nature determined largely the
material available. Thus, of monuments being Cist burials, Dolmens, Menhirs etc.
are to be found in the mountainous region composed of granite genesis and
charnochite. The Rock-Cut caves, Menhirs, Kodakkals, Toppikals, etc., were
found in the laterite plains. Urn burials are scattered on the alluvial sea broad. A
brief description of these monuments is given below:

Rock- Cut Caves

This form of grave had been scooped out in soft laterite that occurs in
Kochi and Malabar regions of Kerala. The general layout consists of an open
well, rectangular or squares, cut vertically down. Easy access is provided by a
flight of steps. One of the walls, opposite to the steps has an entrance (sometimes
with a recessed facade) leading to a funerary chamber, which can be circular,
semicircular or rectangular in shape. The internal furniture consists of a bench
on two or three sides or a stool and in some cases a fireplace. All those items are
formed out of solid rock to serve as a pedestal for skeletal remains and grave
goods. The ceiling of the chamber is domed and converges towards the top at the
center, where it is provided either with a pillar or a circular opening, invariably
covered with a slab.54
These are the commonest type of burial monuments of Iron Age in the
complex of sites which mainly occur in the northern part of Kerala, scattered in
55
the middle land laterite plains. Rock-cut caves in north Malabar are
underground chambers scooped out of the soft laterite bed rock. Each has an
approach, cut vertically in the laterite bed rock and provided with a flight of steps

54
B. K. Gururaja Rao, The Megalithic Culture in South India, University of Mysore, Mysore, 1972, p.
235 - 237.
55
K. J. John, „The Megalithic Culture of Kerala‟ in V. N. Misra and Peter Bellwood (eds.), Recent
Advances in Indo-Pacific Pre- History, Proceedings of the International Symposium, Held at Poona,
December 19 - 21, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1978, p. 485.
39
or a ramp which descends to a floor in front of the entrance to the chamber. They
are generally classified into cave with top opening, multi-chambered cave, cave
with central pillar and cave without central pillar. All are provided with rock-cut
benches.
A rock-cut pillar, square, rectangular or round, is sometimes left standing
in the middle of the floor rising to the center of the vault, for instance in the
caves at Porkalam and one of the twin caves at Eyyal. But the central pillar is,
sometimes absent at Eyyal and Chowannur and in the multiple–chambered cave
at Kattakampal. Yet another type there is a circular opening in the center of the
domed vault. The caves at Kakkad and Kandanasseri belong to this class. In a
multi chambered cave the same outer court leads to different caves in front and
on sides. At Eyyal the common court leads to the main chamber and on the right
hand side to a smaller chamber.56 Yet another feature is that the excavators of
these caves first suck a pit into the rock usually rectangular or nearly rectangular
to a depth varying in individual cases by scooping out of the solid mass of
laterite. Into the vertical face of the rock was then cut a small rectangular
entrance either a little above the floor level of the open quadrangle or flush with
it.57
The pottery and iron implements recovered from these underground caves
indicate that they sometimes occur in association with cist and monuments of
umbrella series clearly endow them with a sepulchral character.58 Rock-cut caves
were discovered at Porkkalam, Kattakampal, Eyyal, Chowannur, Kakkad and
Kadanasseri all in the central Kerala. 59 Such types are also reported from
Vallinoor 60 and Citari in the village Pattannur in Kannur district.61 A trapezium

56
V. D. Krishnaswami, Op. Cit., pp. 40 - 41.
57
Y. D. Sharma, „Rock - Cut Caves in Cochin‟, in Ancient India, No. 12, Bulletin of the Archaeological
Survey of India, New Delhi, 1985, p. 94.
58
V. D. Krishnaswami, Op. Cit., p. 41.
59
Y. D. Sharma, Op. Cit., pp. 99 -105.
60
A. Gossh (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1961 – 1962: A Review, Archaeological Survey of India, New
Delhi, 1964, p. 98.
40
like rock cut cave tomb with an entrance of the usual type occur at Pallikkal near
Calicut University in Malappuram district. A rectangular Chamber with two
compartments occurs at Cheruppa near Calicut Medical College in Calicut
district. 62 In addition to this archaeological department discovered a Rock-cut
caves at Triprangode in Calicut district.63

Urn burials
Among the megalithic monuments of Kerala, urn burials are predominant,
while terracotta sarcophagi and pit burials are rarely found. The urns are poorly
baked black-and-red ware of various sizes usually ranging between 2×1 and 4×2
feet.64 This type has a wide distribution all over peninsular India. Urn burials
occur singly or in clusters and are found usually in the sandy coastal plains,
although several have also been located in the laterite middle land plains and in
the granite highlands of Kerala. It is generally covered with capstone and
demarcated by stone circle. The highland and middle land urns are usually huge
in comparison to the medium sized coastal ones. The Mangadu excavation
reveals that all the Urns were found to be sealed by layer two consisting of
compact gravel and brownish soil. Urn burials were discovered at
Vellimadukunnu in Calicut district, Angadickal 65 Mangad in Kollam district66,
Edakulatur, Eranallur, Nattika, Kanjirakode 67 Porkulam near Kunnamkulam,
Pangappalli near Irinjalakuda, and Kattakarnbal in Thrissur district,
Kalapattidesam, Palamattu,Vellimala, and Kattiyapattanam Pakuti in Trivandrum

61
K. J. John, „Rock-Cut Cave Tombs of Citari: Some New Light on the Rock-Cut Cave Tomb of
Malabar', in Journal of Kerala Studies, Vol. I, Part. IV, Thiruvananthapuram, 1974, pp. 385 - 89.
62
K. J. John, The Megalithic Culture of Kerala…… Op. Cit., p. 486.
63
A. Gossh, Op. Cit., p. 84.
64
Rajan Gurukkal and M. R. RagavaVarier, Cultural History of Kerala, Vol. I, Cultural Publications,
Thiruvananthapuram, 1999, p. 111.
65
L. A. Krishna Iyer, Op. Cit., p. 12.
66
T. Sathyamurthy, Op. Cit., p. 3.
67
B. B. Lal (ed.), Indian Archaeology Review 1967 - 68, in Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 1968,
p. 23.
41
district.68

Kudakkal
It is restricted to the state of Kerala, especially to the laterite ample
districts like Kozhikode, Malappuram and Trissur. The construction of kudaikkal
comprehends of four vertically planted slabs, significantly narrowing towards the
top. A well dressed, semicircular capstone is placed above them. Their external
shapes look like an umbrella or a mushroom. Therefore it is Thoppikkal or
Kudakkal in Kerala. The monument known as Kudakkal is made of dressed
laterite and resembles a mushroom and looks attractive with top stone, each with
a convex external surface, a flat interior, and generally conical shape. Its circular
hat-stone rests upon four quandrantal clinostat stones which meet together at the
base of the hat-stone. Babington called it a hat stone or umbrella stone, a
translation of local name Topikal or Kudakkal.69 For each Kudakkal four such
slabs were put together to make an interior chamber with a rectangular or square
shape, and each urn burials was placed in a pit below the chamber. On the top of
the orthostats was placed a huge hemispherical capstone with the shape of an
umbrella or a mushroom. But this variety peculiar to Malabar and it is not found
in Travancore region. Large number of these found in Tengakkal estate and
Ranni reserves both are in Idukki district. Cheramangad and Porkalam in
Thrissur district are the important sites where Kudakkals are found.70 Its presence
is reported from Kilikkallu, Vengara, Alathur and Pathuppiriyam etc. in
Malappuram district, Eyyal71 in Thrissur district and Koduvally, Kotal, Atholy,
and Chakkottupara in Kozhikode district.72
Toppikkals are basically urn burials, and the only difference between them

68
Gururaja Rao, Op. Cit., pp. 48 - 49.
69
Ibid, p. 44.
70
T. Sathyamurthy, Op. Cit., pp. 3 – 4.
71
B. K. Gururaja Rao, Op. Cit., p. 44.
72
K. J. John, The Megalithic Culture of Kerala …, Op. Cit., p. 486.
42
and normal urn burials is that the capstone is a dressed laterite slab with a convex
surface, flat base and circular shape. Kudakkal and Toppikkal are the two terms
used by the local people for the monuments belonging to the umbrella-stone
series. They were first rendered into English as „hat stone‟ and „umbrella- stone‟.
The burial urn with its covering lid was placed in a hollow pit and the capstone is
placed over it to project it from above the ground. Toppikkal is not common, but
normally occurs near Kodaikkal, a circumstance which may probably indicate
some status differentiation. 73 And the Toppikkals do not have wide spread
distribution and they are found mainly in Cheramagad, Eyyal and Ariyannur in
Thrissur district and Kalladikode in Palakkad district.74 These are the most well-
known sites of the Toppikkal.

Dolmens
Dolmens are formed by stone slabs or boulders arranged according to a
square or rectangular plan. The whole construction remains uncovered by the
ground and is topped by a cap stone, in some cases covered with a heap of cairn.
Various types of burials were reported from inside the dolmens, such as cists,
sarcophagi or urns.75 They are found scattered on the long chain of wooded hill
of central and southern India, and are known as „stone of monkeys of India‟. The
people of the Anjinad call them Valvidus or abodes of the monkeys. The burials
call the Pandukizhis, pits made by the Pandus or Pandavas to whoms are
ascribed all mysteries monuments.
In Kerala dolmens are burial chambers in which people in the late pre-
historic or proto-historic times buried their people. There are two varieties of
them-the holed and without hole. For the holed type extravagant claims have

73
K. J. John, „The Megalithic Culture of Kerala‟, in Proceedings of South Indian History Congress XI
Session, University of Calicut, Calicut, 1991, p.168.
74
William Logan, Malabar Manual, Vol. I, Asian Educational Services, Madras, 1989, p. 180.
75
B. K. Gururaja Rao, Op. Cit., pp. 13-14.
43
been made. 76 According to Morgan a dolmen is a stone monuments varying
dimensions composed of vertical slabs set on end one or more slabs forming the
roof. It is a burial chamber in which people of the Neolithic times, or later buried
their persons of importance. 77 A single slab of stone supported by several
orthostatic boulders or slabs built on the surface of the ground in such a way as to
enclose a space or chamber beneath the capstone.78 It may or may not be wholly
or partially covered by a barrow or cairn. The Kerala dolmens consists of a
rectangular box like chamber built of several orthostats, one or more on each side,
which support one or more huge capstones of dressed granite slabs. This type is
mainly confined to the granite area of the high land region. In some of the
dolmens, one of the side-slabs has a circular opening known as „port-hole‟.
In the dolmens of Travancore region are found as the widest part of the
monuments and on the ridges and spurs of Rani Reserve and the Cardamom hills
in Rani Reserve. They occur invariably on the crests of hills and are of the hole
less variety. Dolmens with three supports and a cover slab are found in the
Anjanadu Valley and with four supports in the land of the Rani Reserve. One of
the dolmens in found at Kandukutti, on the crest of a hill, was rectangular and
measured 8 feet and 2 ¼ feet above the ground. Lengthwise it had one slab on the
side while on the other two formed the walling, sideways there is one on each
side. The flooring was also paved with stone slabs.79 Nearly fifty megalithic
monuments were discovered in the Anjanagadu Valley of the High Ranges near
Marayur mostly dolmens at Parattapalaehi, Kottakulam, Kovilpettivayal and
Pallaperkumba. In addition to this Puliyur in Alapuzha district, Porkalam and
Eyyal in Thrissur district, Pulimattu in Trivandrum district and Bison Valley and
Periyakanal in Idukki district can be cited as representative examples for the

76
L. A. Krishna Iyer, Kerala Megaliths and their Builders, University of Madras, Madras, 1967, p. 15.
77
B. K. Gururaja Rao, Op. Cit., p. 44.
78
V. D. Krishnaswami, Op. Cit., p. 43.
79
L. A. Krishna Iyer, Op. Cit., p. 15.
44
dolmens in the plains and harangues respectively.80
In the locality of Marayur close to the banks of the Thalayur or the Pamba,
a branch of the Amaravathy large number of dolmens is found. These groups of
dolmens are distributed in a circle facing east to west. At the same time few are
also in north to southern direction. Most of the dolmens have four uprights, but
but one dolmens in some groups has only three uprights, leaving one side open.81
At Vadathupara, in the Malayattur Reserve, a dolmen consisting of four uprights,
but smaller and crudes in shape than those in Anjanadu Valley was found.
Another type of dolmens found in Mattupetty on the Cardamom hills. Here the
chamber is buried in the earth showing only the capstone above the ground. The
urn itself and the vessels found inside conform to various type of Iron Age
pottery, some which were Thandikudi in the Palani hills and other parts of
Madurai district, but most of which were Nilagiri, Coimbatore, Thirunelveli
district and Malabar Region.

Slab Cists
These are similar to the usual South Indian types, and have port holes in
one of the slabs. They are widely distributed in the rocky midlands as well as the
high ranges. Several huge solenoid cists are reported from Elanthikkara and
Angamaly in the Ernakulam district, Tengukkal Estste near Vandiperiyar in
Idukki district, Porakalam near Kunnamkulam in Thrissur district, Thiruvillamala
in Palakkad district and those from Kuppakkolli in the Wayanad district are the
examples for the types in the plain and high ranges respectively.82

Rock-Cut Pits
It is the simplest type of burial. The deceased along with funerary

80
B. K. Gururaja Rao, Op. Cit., pp. 44 - 48.
81
L. A. Krishna Iyer, Op. Cit., p. 17.
82
T. Sathyamurthy, Op.Cit., p. 4.
45
accretion was placed in a pit dug out especially for this purpose and filled with
earth and signpost stuffing. There are instances when the pits sealed by a huge
capstone. Diverse dimensions and depths may be encountered; the shapes also
vary from oval to rectangular. Shallow pits are specific for the Vidarbha region.83
There are large urn-shaped pits, each with a rounded bottom and constricted neck
scooped out of the laterite bed-rock. Like the rock-cut caves they are each
demarcated by a circular ditch in the bed rock on the surface. The pits hold small
vases which contain bones and ashes and are sealed by cap stones. Rock-cut pits
were discovered at Cannanore and Thrissur districts.84

Menhirs
Menhirs are the huge monolithic pillars, dressed or not, planted vertically
into the ground. Their height ranges between 1 m and even 5 m, but usually does
not exceed 2 m. Their function is essentially commemorative, as they mark a
nearby burial. 85 Menhirs in Kerala are rooted mainly to the laterite and are
scattered far and wide.The term „Menhir‟, „alignment‟ and „avenues‟ denote
monuments which may not prove to be really such, for it often happens that a
series of stone-circle suffer mutations which may give to unrelated stones the
appearance of „alignments‟ and „avenues‟.86
V. D. Krishnaswami observed that menhirs rooted in laterite and scattered
far and wide. Usually they are monolithic, rude granite slabs oriented north south
and standing high above the laterite ground. The local people call the menhirs by
various names such as Nadukal and Pulachikkal. The Menhir at Anapara, called
Pulachikallu, was considered as the reminiscent of a memorial stone on a
battlefield and commemorates as a Pulayan woman (Pulayi) died at the spot.87

83
B. K. Gururaja Rao, Op. Cit., p. 10.
84
K. J. John, The Megalithic Culture of Kerala… Op. Cit., p. 11.
85
A. Sundara, Op. Cit., pp. 331 - 340.
86
V. D. Krishnaswami, Op. Cit., p. 35.
87
L. A. Krishna Iyer, Op. Cit., p. 19.
46
Similar monoliths are seen at Kuttur, Choorakattukara and Muttam. The area
around Kuttur menhir is dreaded by the local people as being haunted by ghosts.
Parallel monoliths are also met with in Malabar and Travancore region, and trial
excavation made by Vasudeva Poduval on a group of four menhirs at Devikulam
revealed a burial –urn underneath, with pottery and iron objects placed inside it.
These huge stones mark the neighboring presence of an urn burial. Such menhirs
are quite rare in Kerala when compared to other above mentioned types. An
„alignment‟ of menhirs are appeared in different sizes, the largest 12 feet 9 inches
in high, 7 feet 6 inches at foot and 1 foot thick at the top, is reported at
Komalaparathala.88
Another monument near Triuppunithra is a variant and consists of
monolithic pillar of laterite, round in section and rudely dressed. Some Menhirs
with fragmentary inscriptions were found at Kanchanpara, Pottankolu and
Pupparapakutti in Idukki district,89and Kallar in Kottayam district.90 But in a few
cases of excavation the menhirs have been found containing no relics. Devikulam,
Cheramangadu, RamavarmapuramAlappara, Kuttur, Churukkattukara, Attappadi,
Waynad and Mattam are some of the well-known sites of menhirs in Kerala.
When we analyze the megalithic monuments of Kerala, we could
understand that megalithic tombs were of many shapes and kinds. Some of them
have two or three chambers and rock-cut tombs of similar style. The main forms
of burial are in pyriforme urns and large pottery, sarcophagi. Most of these burial
types belong to the one basic Indian culture. The red and black ware was being
found alike with urn burial, sarcophagi and in megalithic tombs. Iron shafted
tridents were deposited in urn burials at Adittanallur, in the megalithic cist at
Raigar in Andra Pradesh, and in rock-cut tombs in Kerala especially in Malabar
region.91 Certain modes of burial and funerary adjuncts, such as tripods and four-

88
V. D. Krishnaswami, Op. Cit., p. 39.
89
B. K. GururajaRao, Op. Cit., p. 48.
90
A. Gossh (ed.), Indian Archaeology Review 1962, Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 1964, p. 98.
91
L. A. Krishna Iyer, Op. Cit., p. 54.
47
footed urns are to some extent regional, but the megalithic grave with a port-hole
stone has a very distribution extending to the far south and covering the whole of
the area of the Dravidian culture complex

Recently Excavated Megalithic Sites in Kerala

A rock-cut tomb was discovered by A.H. Longhurst92 in June 1911, on a
private land to the left of the road from Malappuram to Chevayur about five
miles from Calicut. Longhurst examined the tomb and found a circular rock-cut
chamber with a doomed roof, supported in the center by a short round pillar
tapering from the top to bottom. The entire structure, including the pillar, being
hewn out of the solid laterite rock and the interior is very small, measuring only
7‟g” x 7‟8” and 3‟9” in height.
Another site was exposed by Jeuveau - Dubreuil in the beginning of the
year 1931at Feroke. There were seven or eight tombs in this site and he assigned
them a Vedic origin (Aryan). One of these rock-cut tombs at Chenapparamabu
was examined by A. Aiyappan in 1933. 93 Excavated site revealed fragments of
black polished ring-stand and lids, bone fragments and pieces of charcoal.
Different types of pottery except the large urns such as four- footed urns
somewhat rounded with the reddish color and polished surface remaining only
patches here and there. About a dozen vessels of the pitcher type with wide
mouths and generally finer in make than the four legged urns. Iron objects like
large tripod, iron dagger and iron trident were also discovered.
The systematic analysis of the megalithic sites in Kerala began with B. K.
Thappar‟s Porkalam excavation in 1948.94 Porkalam was the most extensively
excavated megalithic site of Kerala. Actually it is a site of multiple monuments

92
A. H. Longhurst, „Rock-Cut Tomb near Calicut‟, in Annual Report, 1911-12, in Archaeological Survey
of India, 1912, pp.159 - 160.
93
A. Ayyappan, „Rock-Cut Tombs of Feroke, South Malabar‟, in Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society,
Vol. XXXIII, No. 3, Banglore, January 1993, pp. 299-314.
94
B. K. Thapar, Op. Cit., pp. 3-15.
48
such as huge dolmens, porthole cists with stone circles, rock-cut caves and urn
burials and Toppikkals. Thapar excavated urn burials from here. A date of third
century B.C. to first century A. D. has assigned by him to the urn-burials of
Porkalam on the basis of typological evidences.
Next important findings were the excavation of two cists from Machad in
1978 by Mehta and George.95 Besides of various shades and dimensions made of
carnelian, jasper, glass ware wax, bone, horn, and quartz have been uncovered.
Other interesting objects are grinding stones. Large amount of human skeletal
remains is available. Existence of the practice of cremation is also suggested
based on the occurrence of the remains of charcoal fragment and ash. The
availability of copper and bronze presupposes the circulation of non-local goods
through some form of exchange. Mehta and George, Pazhayannur, 1978.96 This
site is noted for its iron melting technology. The analysis of a metallic hook has
revealed that it contained 99.62% pure iron and was free of air bubbles, which
indicates contemporary level of metallurgical skill. This study has also revealed
that the folding and forging techniques were employed in iron working.
In 1972, K.J. John discovered a site named Chari near Pattannur in
Kannur District, one of the 13 laterite rock-cut caves was examined.97 The cave
was marked by a circle, having the diameter of 8.12 meters. The pottery
consisted of Black-Ware and Red-Ware having the shape of vases and bowls.
Another important discovery by him was a Kodakkal was excavated at Perambra
in 1982.98 .The interior chamber was quadrangular at base and conical. In the
technique and fabric the pyriform jar of Perambra resembles that of Porkalam
and that of Maski. He had recovered a number of artifacts such as the fragments
of a few unidentifiable objects and pieces of iron artifacts were recovered from

95
Mehta and George, „Megaliths at Machad and Pazhayanur‟, in Report of the Excavation Conducted in
1974, Thalapilly Thaluk, Kerala State, Baroda M. S. University Series 15, 1978, pp. 112 – 117.
96
Ibid.
97
K. J. John, Rock-Cut Cave Tombs of Citari…, Op. Cit., pp. 383 - 387.
98
Ibid.
49
the monuments. The iron types from the Kodakkal consists of a tripod stand, two
saucer lamps; and a double edged dagger with pointed tip and tang. All these
were found lying above the level of the urn lid. The Kodakkal chamber yielded a
highly polished and thin fragile bronze-vase (18c.m high and 15c.m broad at
shoulder) with a flaring externally oval – collard rim, vertical flat neck with a flat
base.
The State Archaeology Department of Kerala systematically explored a
site at Pilikkode in 1970. It has a persuaded midland region and the soil is
unfathomable gravel with exhausted clay soils. In the west part a paddy field and
a stream is located about 500 meters away of this land. The close locality of the
paddy field and watercourses throw light on the agricultural activity of the people.
It is a midland laterite area connected between hills and agricultural fields. The
soil type of the surface area is red and hard laterite. The important antiquities
unearthed from the site are four legged jars number of Black ware with handle
and stood and the iron implements of long bars and chisels.99
In 1989 K.J. John excavated another site named Naduvil100, situated on
the left bank of Kuppam River, which finally goes and join Thaliparamba river.
It is situated very near to the Kudiyanmala, a foot hill of the Western Ghats. At
Nendravattom of Naduvil near Taliparamba, eight rock-cut caves and twelve
hood-stone circles were excavated. The circle was made of 12 literate
quadrennial stones and seen above the ground. Each hood-stone was planted in
rock-cut ditches in a circular form with its major portion projecting above the
ground. It is a highland laterite region and bit of barren rocky stony waste sheet
rock area. The soil type of the surface level is red and had laterite. Large
number of laterite quarries existed on very closely to the site. There was rock-cut
passage below the ground outside the circle which led to a sub terrene a rock-cut

99
Administrative Report of the Year 1970 - 1971, Department of Archaeology, Kerala, Thrissur, 1972, p.
14.
100
K. J. John, Unpublished Excavation Report of Naduvil, Kannur District, Kerala State, Excavation
Conducted by Calicut University, 1989, pp. 1 - 5.
50
chamber. On the floor of the cave was found unidentified bronze equipment, iron
sword, iron dagger, tridents, knives, chisels, iron lamps, iron tripod, a crystal
bead, a quartz bead, earthen vases, ring and port rests. The iron objects found
from this site were one wedge shaped blade, one knife and a sword.
Some urn burials were explored by T. Sathyamurthy at Mangad in
1992.101 It reveals about the post-cremation fragmentary burials. On the basis of
the two C-14 dates from Mangad, scholars in recent time have argued that Iron
Age began in Kerala around 1000 B.C. Excavation revealed a deposit of human
varying from 10cms to 20cms. The humans in 20cms in the northern side of the
site and reduce to 10cms as it slopes down to the south. All types of urns were
found here. Besides these, the findings include iron slag (the percentage of iron
in these slags varies from 18.8% to 66.5%) bone pieces, charcoal, wedges, and
long cutting knife, sickle tangled knife and blades.
In 1991, a double chambered cist was unearthed by P. Rajendran and C. S.
P. Aiyer from place called Arippa.102 It has revealed fragments of human and
animal bone relics which include conical part of an infant less than six months
old, bone fragments of adult and animal bones. Copper objects and gold sheets
are also reported.
Rajan Chedambath has excavated a site at Kurumasseri, in 1997.103 From
here, beads of various shades and dimensions mark of carnelian, jasper, and glass
ware bone horn and quart crystal have been uncovered from a number of burials;
the remains of rice husks were also discovered.104
Ummichipoyil is one of the major megalithic sites exhumed in 2003. It is
situated in the south east part of Kasargod district, lies between Chandragiri and

101
T. Sathyamurthy, Op. Cit., pp. 6 - 24.
102
P. Rajan and C. S. P. Aiyar, A Preliminary Report on the Characterization of Copper and Gold
Ornaments of the Arippa Megalithic Culture in Kerala District, South India, pp. 61 - 66.
103
Rajan Chedambath, „Investigation on to the Megalithic and Early Historic Periods of the Periyar and
Ponnani River Basin of Kerala‟, in Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Poona, Pune, 1977, pp. 29
- 37.
104
Ibid.
51
Neeleshwaram rivers, 23 kilometers far from Neeleshwaram town.105 The site is
located on the left bank of Kumbalapallichal, a stream which finally joins
Neeleshwaram River 46 kilometers further south-west. This site offers a dozen of
rock-cut caves from where large quantity of pottery and iron implements were
unearthed. 106 The artifacts found from the cave include terracotta beads. The
burial seems to be secondary in nature with the absence of skeletal remains. All
these areas have similar structure of the subterranean rock-cut chambers. Pottery
includes four legged jars, number of Black ware with handle and stood and three
numbers of Iron implements long bars and Chisels also discovered.
The excavation conducted by the archaeologist at Feroke in 2007 revealed
the fact that Feroke was a settlement area as far back as 200 B.C. 107 The
availability of water resources from very near the site may be fulfilling the needs
of water from early times onwards. The close vicinity of the river Chaliyar also
throws light about the sedentary settlement of the people. The river Chaliyar
crossing which the land is upland and undulating the centre surrounded by all
three sides. The laterite hillock called Chenaparambu, west of the Feroke railway
station, now quite bare is the site of ancient tombs. The surface level of the site
is hard laterite and red soil. Beads pottery and ironobjects including large tripod,
iron dagger and iron trident have been uncovered from this site.
Chakkottupara is an important megalithic site excavated by the
Department of History, C.K.G.M. Government College, Perambra in 2009. 108
This site is situated on the north-east part of Perambra of Kozhikode district.
Clusters of slab-cist have been identified from here. It is a midland laterite region,
and the soil type of the surface level is red and hard stony. Large number of big

105
Jayasree Nair, „Survival of the Neolithic in the Megalithic Excurse on Ummichipoyil Evidence‟, in
Presented Paper, SAP Seminar on Cultural History of Malabar From Early Settlements to the
Formation of the State, Department of History, University of Calicut, February 16-18, 2006.
106
Ibid.
107
L. A. Krishna Iyer, The Prehistoric Archaeology of Kerala, Ratnam, Trivandrum, 1948, p. 30.
108
Field Exploration Report of Chakottupara, Conducted by Department of History, C. K. G. M.
Government College, Perambra in October, 2009.
52
granite slabs was found here. Pottery, iron measuring rod, iron ploughshare, iron
knife and seven pieces of iron also discovered from this site. The site Ezhilode
situated in the north-west part of Kannur district. A big umbrella stone Kodakkal
has been reported from here. It lies between Thaliparambu River and the
Ezhimala. Ezhimala, the historical place situated very near to the site, has its
own significance in the history of Kerala. The accessibility of sea, river, paddy
field, etc. was visibly associated in the case of Ezhilode. Pannimukku is the one
another megalithic site has been accidently unearthed by the local people and
systematically documented by State Archaeology Department.109 A big umbrella
stone or Kodakkal have been observed from here. It is a lowland laterite
formation. The soil type of the surface level is dark and hard laterite. The most
recent megalithic site explored and excavated by the State Archaeology
Department of Kerala was Kinalur that is in 2016.110
The available excavation reports suggest that the major components in the
grave goods of the megalithic sites are iron tools and implements. The objects
found in these tombs show a divergent variety comprising weapons of offence
and defense, household objects, artisan tools, horse furnishing, tridents, etc.
Typologically it includes variety of arrow-heads, spear-heads and spears, javelin
heads and javelins, swords, lance, hoes, axes, chisels, daggers, knives, hooks,
multi-pronged horse-bits, sickles, hangers resembling a candelabra, ladles,
handled saucer lamps, billhooks et.., and the objects are varying sizes. The range
of objects made out of iron includes all types of implements used for various
purposes. S. B. Deo categories the iron objects found from the megalithic grave
as follows.
 Objects of offence: swords, daggers, spears, tridents, spikes, and arrow
heads.
 Objects of domestic utility: ladles, lamps, cauldron, utensils and fish-

109
Excavation Conducted by State Archaeology Department, Kerala State, 2015.
110
Excavation Conducted by by State Archaeology Department, Kerala State, 2016.
53
 books.
 Objects of ornamentation and toiletry: bangles and nail-parers.
 Carpentry tools: chisels and axes.
 Objects of agricultural use: hoes, ploughshares and sickles.
 Cobbler hooks: adzes
 Horse trapping: cheek pieces/bits111.

The categories and number of objects recovered points out the existence
of expert craftsmen. The existence of large number of Chisels, tools of offence,
tools of agriculture, tools for cobbler etc. 112 indicate the presence of the
professionals which constituted the megalithic community. So we can assume
that the most distinctive element of the megalithic culture of Kerala is the
plentiful use of tools and weapons made of iron.

Dravidian Links to the Iron Age in Kerala

Even though there is lot of excavated sites of Iron Age, historians were
able to form a clear picture of the south Indian megalith builders. They have no
unanimous opinion about the authorship of megaliths in Kerala. The scholars like
Gorden Childe, S. B. Deo, D. K. Chakravarti, A. Sundara, Asko Parpola etc., put
forward the theory of Aryan authorship of the megaliths in South India.
Meanwhile Haimendorf, Zuckerman, Rajan Gurukkal, K. R. Srinivasan and so
on consulted both archaeological and literary references and form the theory of
Dravidian links to the Iron Age in Kerala. In this epoch this section is an attempt
to evaluate the authenticity of these arguments in a detailed manner.
The megalithic monuments similar in forms and shapes to those found in
all over India have also been reported from other eastern and western part of the

111
S. B. Deo, „Technology of the Vidarbha Megalithians‟, in I. K. Sarma Et.al (ed.), Essays in Indian
Archaeology, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Art , Architecture, Iconography and Cultural History, Sundeep
Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000, p. 24.
112
Ibid, p. 25.
54
world but the interrelationship between them is not clear even now. The base of
the Aryan authorship was on the horse centered early iron-age graves, and those
of South India, predominantly the port holed tombs. The cairn burials of the
Baluchistan seem to provide a link in this chain. Some scholars like Mortimer
Wheeler, Leshnik etc. assign these similarities to the migration of people from
foreign land to India. D. K. Chakrabarti argued that the earlier assumption that
the beginning of iron in India should be associated either with the coming of the
Aryans from north-west or with the supposed dispersal of Hittite monopoly of
iron technology from West Asia should now be discarded. He argues that, iron
artifacts found in southern and central India are of earlier date than those
recovered from north-western India; India may be accepted as a „separate‟ and
„independent‟ center of iron technology during the ancient times. 113 K. A. R.
Kennedy on the basis of the skeletal studies rules out the possibility of any large
scale migration of people into South India during this period. Hence Asko
Parpola argues that the Indian megalith may have been Aryan in origin.
A. Sundara, reveals that Indian Iron Age culture was derived from the
Mediterranean region via coastal route. 114 Gorden Childe also put forward the
idea that the Mediterranean region was the birth place of the megaliths.115 He
observed that „this is not some vastly remote pre-historic period that we are
considering, that of the early historic period (322 B.C. to 500 B.C.) there must
have been the people who introduced the use of iron and red and black ware and
the disposal of the dead in a number of ways, interment in urns as megalithic
tomb being the most characteristic, and it unlikely that they discarded their own
language in favor of their predecessors‟.116

113
V. K. Jain, Op. Cit., pp.125 - 26.
114
A. Sundara, The Early Chamber Tombs of South India, Delhi University Publishers, Delhi, 1975, p.
226.
115
Gordon Childe, „Megaliths‟, in Ancient India July 1947-1948, No. 4, 1949, p. 5.
116
Gorden Child, Megaliths…, Op. Cit., p. 5.
55
 Mortimer Wheeler regarded Karachi as the source of the megaliths in
South India. L.S. Leshnik develops the view that the ancestry of Indian megaliths
seems to lie in Persia and linked to the Caucasian influence.117 B. K. Gururaja
Rao assumed that the South Indian megaliths have many common features those
of Western Europe and Mediterranean, particularly those of Palestine and
Syria. 118 Yazdui is of the opinion that Indian Megalith come from Makran
coast.119 Hence some scholars believed that the megalith culture reached South
Indian from the Meditaranian region through the costal route.
Meanwhile some of the scholars suggest that the authorship of megalith is
a mystery.120 Some other scholars favor the idea of an indigenous origin of the
megalithic structures in South India especially in Kerala. Soundara Rajan
attributes the authorship to local non-Aryan people.121 Hence there are numerous
opinions about its authorship. The two skulls excavated at Adichanallur found to
be obviously Australoid.122 He asserts that our cross-country chase in South India
after the new chronology did not end in Brahmagiri. Near the famous town site
of Bhuvaneswar is also a notable fortified site Sisupalgarh. Its importance and
midway position between the Gangetic valley and the southern areas signed it out
as a likely focus. The skeletal evidences have yielded mixed results particularly
from Yeleswaram, Brahmagiri and Adichanellur. According to Sarkar the
Brahmagiri skeletal remains hint probably Iranian stock. 123 K. R. Srinivasan
supports the theory of Dravidian authorship of the megaliths on the basis of the
Sangam reference about iron smelting in Akananuru and Purananuru.

117
L. S. Lenshink, South Indian Megalithic Burials, Wiesbaden, 1974, p. 226.
118
B. K. GururajaRao, Op. Cit., p. 224.
119
K. M. Sreenivasasthava, Op. Cit., p. 26.
120
B. K. Thappar, Op. Cit., pp. 3 - 15.
121
V. K. Jain, Op. Cit., pp. 123-124.
122
K. M. Sreevasthava, Community Movement in Proto Historic India, Agam Kala Prekashan,
Delhi,1980, p. 26.
123
S. B. Deo, Problem of South Indian Megaliths, Kannada Research Institute, Karnataka University,
Dharwar, 1986, p. 51.
56
 The views expressed by the scholars regarding possible migration of
megalithic people in India also varied. Subbarao holds the view that the
megalithic people migrated from north India to south India via Rajasthan and
Central India. 124 In addition to this one remarkable point is that no skeletal
evidence has so far been found to bear any evidence of a Negrito race in south
India especially in Kerala.125 He arbitrates it by analyzing the contents and the
nature of the megalithic monuments recovered from this region. Then he
abbreviated that not only in post Vedic but also in later times this culture seems
to have spread from the central Indian plateau to south India.
In this epoch, Haimendorf claimed that megalithic builders of south India
were Dravidians, but he was committed the error of linking race and language.
Megalithic builders have often recognized as the primary speakers of the
Dravidian language, who belongs to the Mediterranean region.126 He claimed that
Dravidian has entered south India in about 500 BC. Then he claims that the
megalithic form of burial occurred by the people speaking Dravidian languages –
Tamil, Thelungu, Kannada and Malayalam. He urged that there was no doubt
that those who built the megaliths were the dominant race in many parts of the
south at the end of the first millennium B.C. and that as the present distribution
of the Dravidian languages coincided largely with that of the megalithic graves.
In this background he raised up a question that, if the megalithic builders did not
speak Dravidian, what language would they have spoken.127 In short there has
been a peaceful infiltration of the lower indigenous cultures by the higher
Dravidians. The Dravidians were able to impose their language on the lower
without any violent destruction of the lower by the higher that forced their

124
B. Subbarao, „Archaeology and Anthropology of Indian Archaeology‟, Megalithic Problem of South
India in the Silver Jubilee Volume of the Archaological Society of South India, Madras, 1962, p. 26.
125
Ibid, p. 32.
126
C. F. Haimendorf, The Problem of Megalithic Cultures in Middle India, Archaeological Survey of
India, Delhi, 1950, No.2, p. 84
127
Ibid.
57
language on them.128 In addition to this primitive jungle tribes appear to have
acquired Dravidian languages by the contact with the Dravidian neighbors.
H. D. Sankalia observed that the basic evidence which Haimendorf relied
on far propounding the theory was that a certain group of megaliths known as
Dolmenoid cist with port hole appeared in western European megaliths. These
latter are not later than 2000 B.C. and do not contain any iron products. Thus
both the chronological and the cultural aspects, these European megaliths are far
more removed geographically and in one of the south Indian megaliths.
Especially the structural affinity than remains unexplained.129 He also point out
that out of 34 burials found in Nevaga, in which three were those of persons,
whose age have been calculated to be 6, 10 and 20, the last being that of a
woman. In this case it is possible to speculation based only the racial type. From
the prognathy broad face and long and narrow head Earnhardt is remained of the
characteristic of the primitive people in the jungles of Deccan. The prognathy is
seen in the other two skeletons as well. Then he concluded that these were
considered as the valuable evidence to be of the first century A.D.130
Zuckerman analyzed both the cranial and skeletal findings discovered
from the urn burials of Adittanallur. He assumed that the megalithic builders
belong to the Dravidian race. He equates this fact on the basis of the following
grounds; 131 (i) the megalithic culture consisting of an improved ceramic
technique and the use of iron was an extraneous intrusion on the local primitive
culture at Brahmagiri. (ii) the edicts of Ashoka found in the contiguous village in
the neighborhood of the site at Brahmagiri could have been only addressed to the
primitive Neolithic folk of the locality (iii) since the entire south India speak only

128
C. F. Haimendorf, Op. Cit., pp. 85 - 89.
129
H. D. Sankalia, „Indian Archaeology Today, From Food Collection to Urbanization in India‟, in Indian
Archaeology, Bombay, 1962, p. 3.
130
Ibid, pp. 4 - 7.
131
L. A. Krishna Iyer, The Prehistoric Op. Cit., p. 30.
58
Dravidian languages today those found may have of the locality. As regards the
origin of the Neolithic folk, he is inclined towards a Mediterranean origin.
South Indian graves appear as a developing complex with several streams
of influence combing in them on the indigenous Neolithic culture phase.132Some
sort of similarity to those of South Indian occurs in Mesopetomia and Persian
Gulf region. These may have been received as influence or through the maritime
relation with Middle East. Rajan Gurukkal assumed that the spread of Dravidian
speaking people and the diffusion of BRW were interconnected. Wide spread of
BRW of this region as a part of the Dravidian zone, presented some kind of
linguistic identity and homogeneity.133
In addition to this no uniform pattern of disposing the human had apparent
homogeneity with other megaliths of peninsular India, but had left evidences of
incipient element. This is also corroborated by C-14 dating. Mangad was
considered as the „first arrival‟ zone of megaliths in south India. Moreover it is
significant to note that the Black and Red ware with painting is conspicuously
absent at Mangad site. But it appears in the district of Madurai and Thirunelveli
in association with megalithic ceramic. And it has already been established that
this variety developed independently around the early centuries of Christian
era. 134 This suggest that the introduction of iron and megaliths in south India
especially in Kerala was during the beginning of the first millennium B.C. K.R.
Srinivasan supports the theory of Dravidian authorship of the megaliths on the
basis of the reference in Akananuru and Purananuru, which were the important
Sangam works, about the iron smelting.135

132
Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin, Op. Cit., p. 223.
133
Rajan Gurukkal, The Kerala Temple and the Early medieval Agrarian System, Vallathol Vidyapeedam,
Sukapuram, 1992, p. 16.
134
T. Satyamurthy, The Megaliths of Kerala, in I. K. Sarma, Et. al. (eds.), The Essays on Indian
Archaeology, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Art Agriculture, Iconography and Cultural History, New Delhi,
2000, p. 37.
135
K. R. Srinivasan,„The Megalithic Burials and Urn-Fields of South India-In the Light of Tamil
Literature an Tradition‟ in Ancient India, No. 2, Delhi, 1946, P. 78.

59
 Megalith culture crossed the boundaries of the countries. It is believed that
the culture had its origin somewhere in Oman from where it spread to Europe,
Middle East and India by the sea route. Variations in forms of monuments are
attributed to the physiography of the land in south India. It took its roots from the
iron using communities, who practices farming and pastoralism in their primitive
forms. It is characterized with three distinctive traits; the use of pottery, iron
implements and funerary customs. Their elaborate burial rituals in erecting
monuments suggest the strong social link among the members. In short, the
debate on the origin and the founders of the megalith culture is still on. Even
though a variety of iron implements recovered from excavation/exploration in
Kerala reveal that an indigenous iron technology was developed by the
megalithic builders.
Archaeologists have defined the culture of the megalith period primarily
on the basis of its tool technology. The level of tool technology attained by the
people can be discussed in the context of the wide range of tools used by them to
meet their requirements. The number of objects like agricultural implements such
as axes, hoes, ploughshares; offence objects like swords, arrow heads, daggers
etc., implies that it was used for both warfare and agriculture. Another important
fact was that the raw material was available on a large scale in Kerala. That
means, rich deposit of iron ore is found locally in Kerala. In the south Indian
megalithic sites like Mangad, the megalithic folk utilized the local raw materials
as indicated by the findings which include iron slag and charcoal. 136 It is
observed that traditional smelting techniques were used by them. Slag is found at
few sites but not in a stratified context.
In fact at Mangad, the excavator found a good quantity of iron slag. This
lead to the conclusion that iron smelting was known to these people and they not
only extracted iron from the ores but also made required shapes and objects out
of it. The discovery of iron slag within the trench associated with the Urns is very
136
T. Sathyamurthy, Iron Age in Kerala…., Op. Cit., pp. 3 - 4.
60
important and the slag specifies the local manufacture. 137 In addition to this
several abandoned iron ore mines have been found in this region near the sites.138
The available references indicate that most of megalithic sites were the treasures
of iron tools and implements. In this context we may assume that this metal must
have been worked by the megalithic folk from the locally available ores.139 As a
result of the smelting of iron and making of sophisticated iron tools they could be
employed for quarrying the stone blocks in order to detach them from hillocks
which, in turn, facilitate the construction of structural edifices, both domestic and
funereal.
Consequently the authors of Mangad megaliths had attain the knowledge
of indigenous iron metallurgy. The discovery of Mangad megalithic site
reconstructs the knowledge of the beginning of Iron Age in South India
especially in Kerala. Because, Mangad megalithic site has attested the
knowledge of iron metallurgy in Kerala cost around circa around 1000 B.C.140 In
shortly, the available excavation reports suggest that the introduction of iron
metallurgy in Kerala probably emerged from the early megalithic builders and
Iron Age people of Kerala, who were the Dravidian speakers of divergent
groups.141
The discovery of Iron ploughshare from the Megalithic sites of
Chakottupara in Kerala reveals the fact that when compared to the use of other
metal technologies for agriculture the widespread use of iron artifacts led to the
agrarian growth.142 From this we can understand that iron had a major role in the
drastic development of megalithic community in Kerala. They could clear the
forests and introduces large scale cultivation of spice products for export in the

137
N. R. Banarjee, Op. Cit., p. 9.
138
Field Study.
139
T. Sathyamurthy, Iron Age in Kerala…, Op. Cit., pp. 4 - 5.
140
T. Sathya Murthy, The Iron Age in Kerala…, Op. Cit., p. 4.
141
Ajesh A. M. „Dravidian Links to the Iron Age in Kerala‟ in Research Scholar, Peer Refereed Inter
Disciplinary Research Journal, ISSN 2249 - 6696, Vol. II, No. IV, December 2012, pp. 113 - 118.
142
Excavation Report of Megalithic Artifacts from Chakkottupara in October, 2009.
61
early centuries. All these prove that Iron smith was an important member of the
megalithic community, who provides tools and weapons. Megalithic remains of
Kerala, reveals that hunting and agricultural tools were found in addition to the
weapons of offence or defense.
The analysis of iron objects from the megalithic sites like Pazhayannur,
Machad143and Pattannur144 shows that the iron contents in the iron objects ranged
between 92.2 and 99.62%. It is relatively true that majority of iron objects may
be certified with high percentage of pure iron. The iron objects found in the
burial sites point out that the ready stock of these implements is possible only
when there is local production rather than imports. 145 This shows that the
megalithic community comprises of a section of highly skilled iron smiths who
satisfied the needs of their community in respect of iron artifacts.
By the examination of the megalithic relics we could understand that the
iron tools and implements of that time, which are found in such burials, contains
99.62 % iron and was free of air bubbles. It indicates existing level of
metallurgical skill. And it also reveals that there existed highly advanced iron
smelting system during the early Iron Age in Kerala. Available excavation
reports suggest that the introduction of Iron metallurgy in Kerala probably
emerged from the early megalithic builders who introduced iron technology. It is
considered as a significant factor in the transformation of Kerala society.
Iron technology not only played an important role in the economy of the
megalithic folk, but also paved the way for an improvement of craft
specialization. With regard to this study noted that in the level of craftsmanship
we find an improvisation as reflected in the manufacture of tools and implements.
It has been suggested that this transfer to hand in hand with the use of iron for
making the molds. This had an impact on the fact that a separate group of

143
Mehta and George, Op. Cit., pp. 112 - 117.
144
K. J. John, Rock-Cut Cave Tombs of Citari…, Op. Cit., p. 384.
145
S. B. Deo, Op. Cit., p. 25.
62
artisans emerged in the village that catered to the needs of the people for making
crafts of a specialist kind. In short the level of craftsmanship reflected in the
megalithic sites in the manufacture of metal objects, potteries and other artifacts
indicate that the megalithic people had a separate class of artisans who catered to
the needs of the community. In this context it can be assumed that a specialized
group of artisans such as blacksmith, goldsmiths, potters, etc. were prevalent
during the megalithic period. It also suggests that the megalithic people produce
some agricultural surplus to meet the needs of their professional artisans.

It is impossible to form a clear depiction of the South Indian megalith

builders because the excavated sites of Iron Age are fewer. Among the grave
hoods of the megalithic sites, major components are iron tools and implements.
From this it is understood that iron had a major role in the drastic development of
megalithic community in Kerala. It also reveals that the megalithic builders used
local iron ore and produced qualitative iron for the manufacture of iron artifacts.
The rich deposits of iron ore found in Kerala helped the early iron smiths to
flourish in the region, which was a major factor in the social formation in the
Pre-Modern period. The iron technology spread here as a result of the emergence
of blacksmith community in this area. They probably emerged from the early
megalithic builders who introduced iron technology in Kerala. They can be
regarded as the forefathers of blacksmith community.

63