See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/374381377

Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships

Article · December 2022

CITATIONS READS
0 124

1 author:

Virag Gopal Sontakke

Banaras Hindu University
22 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Virag Gopal Sontakke on 02 October 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 number 52 2022

JouRNAl of the iNDiAN ARchAeologicAl society

Editors
K. N. DiKshit AND B. R. MANi

The IndIan archaeologIcal SocIeTy

new delhI
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships 39

Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional

Relationships

Pura¯tattva Virag Sontakke*

No. 52, 2022

The term megalith denotes a socio-cultural-

religious expression of burying a dead in a
grave with specific cultural traits (Mohanty
2015). Megalithic culture in peninsular India is
related to the Early Iron Age wherein profuse
use of iron is noticed. Early Iron Age cultural
remains besides settlements are prominently
represented by their burial remains (Fig. 1).
The megalithic culture of India is specifically
identified with their distinct burial practice.
Archaeological vestiges of this period scattered
in India can be divided into two broad groups.
Group I includes the ancient remains buried
underground while group II incorporates
the remains of monuments visible above the
earth. According to geographical patterns and
ecological settings, different types of burial
modes were practised by megalithic folk, hence
regionalism and commonality can be easily
identified.

Central India, especially the eastern

part of Maharashtra, incorporates excessive
megalithic burials. Archaeologically, this group
of monuments are prominently known as the
megaliths of Vidarbha. However, out of eleven
districts of Vidarbha, megaliths are concentrated
in only six districts. Recent inquiries carried out Fig. 1: Megalithic Sites in Peninsular India (after Brubaker 2001)
in the area suggest the megaliths are spread in
the eastern part of Vidarbha on the tributaries part and the Gondwana formation consists in the eastern region of
of the Wainganga and Wardha rivers (Sontakke Vidarbha. Their confluences can be observed in the Nagpur district
2014a). Geologically, the area of Vidarbha is where a maximum number of megaliths are reported. Both the
significant as the Deccan trap covers the western geographic zones seem to be much favourable and suitable for the

*
Assistant Professor, A.I.H.C & Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Email: virag@bhu.ac.in
40
construction of megaliths. Hence, the concentrations
of the megalithic burial sites are witnessed here. Easy
availability of natural resources, suitable environmental
conditions, fertile land and water, accessibility of
other essential resources required for settlement and
sustenance of the living make this region favourable to
megalithic folks.
The megalithic monuments have always generated
curiosity among the natives and foreigners. During the
colonial period many officials, priests, and amateur
researchers who were fascinated Indian culture
attempted to investigate these burials in the search for
remains hidden inside. The investigation of megalithic
monuments in India started nearly two hundred years ago
by Babington on Malabar Coast in Kerala (Babington
1823) and it initiated a never ending research in the
chapter of Indian archaeology. Subsequently, several
Megalithic sites were explored and diggings of burials
were carried out in various parts of the country (Mohanty
and Selvakumar 2002). After the first finding in South
India, many British officials and interested foreigners
started explorations and excavations of megalithic
remains in the Vidarbha region as well. The megalithic
research was commenced of by Hislop and followed by
many British officials during British Raj. Amongst them,
noteworthy works were carried out by Hislop (Smith
1888: 2017), Rivett-Carnac (1879) and Pearse (1869).
After independence, first excavations of megaliths in
Vidarbha were conducted by Thapar in Junapani (IAR
1961-62: 32-34). Since earlier research was mainly
focused on the megalithic cemetery and burial goods,
after 1970 onwards, the focus shifted to the settlement
and subsistence pattern of the megalithic builders.
During the last three decades of the twentieth century,
new archaeological approach was initiated on this
subject and new sites were examined, excavated and
detailed studies on various aspects were done especially
by Prof. S.B Deo followed by various scholars by various
institutions (Deo 1970, 1973; Deo and Jamkhedkar
1982; Deglurkar and Lad 1992; Nath 2002; Mohanty
2002, 2003; Kellellu et al. 2015). A large amount of data
on Vidarbha megaliths has been gathered and studies
carried out focussed on issues like Distribution pattern
Pura¯tattva 52, 2022
(Moorti 1994; Mohanty 1993-1994), Socio-Economic
Perspective (Deo 1985; Mohanty 1993-1994; Moorti
1994), Subsistence Strategies (Deo 1985; Moorti 1994;
Mohanty 1993-1994; Mohanty and Walimbe 1996;
Thomas 1995; Kajale 1989), Trade and Exchange
networks (Deo 1970, 1985; Mohanty 1999; Moorti
1994), Ethno-archaeological studies (Geetali Anuja
1999), Technical Studies (Gogte 1982; Deo 1985) etc.
In the first two decades of the twenty-first century,
megalithic research in Vidarbha altered into a micro
analysis of cultural behaviour patterns. Focus has also
been to understand the socio-cultural explanations for
many problematic issues linked with the Early Iron Age
such as geographic distribution, regional variations,
socio-cultural changes, art and craft production,
resource exploitation, intra-site relationship etc. with
the pragmatic and cognitive way of research (Mohanty
2022; Mohanty and Thakuria 2014; Thakuria et al.
2015; Sontakke 2014a, 2014b, 2018; Vaidya 2014; Roy
and Krishnan 2016; Shete 2018).The research provided
copious information regarding various aspects of the
megalithic culture of Vidarbha.
Identity of Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha
At present, nearly 135 megalithic burial sites are
discovered in Vidarbha. According to the nature of site,
the majority are only burial sites (Fig 2). Habitation
sites are relatively less than habitation-cum-burial sites.
A large number of burials and a few habitation sites are
excavated which provided immense data to understand
the several facets of the megalithic culture of Vidarbha.
It is interesting to note that eighty percent of the burial
and habitation sites are situated in the Nagpur district
and fall in Cairns and Stone Circles.
Stone circle is a classic type of megalithic burial
found in Vidarbha. The characteristic feature of the
stone circle is the pit inside the circle. The pit was dug
out to incorporate the deceased initially, later burial
furniture, fragments of skeleton remains and ceramics
were placed and then circular stone arrangements were
made and finally the area within the circle was filled
with cobbles-pebbles and soil. The burials are normally
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships
Fig. 2: Distribution of megalithic sites in Vidarbha
constructed over the natural soil or bedrock. It is noticed
that the cairn and stone circles are situated close to
each other and often form a cluster. Further, it is also
observed that normally a cluster incorporates a group
of megaliths constructed in a specified landscape and
erected adjacent to each other. Generally, megalithic
circles are single stone circle types but double and rarely
triple peripheral circles are also documented. Peripheral
boulders of the stone circle are made out of undressed
basalt of Deccan trap. The inner deposit of the circle has
an average height of upto 70cm from the surface. It is
also observed that the material for burial construction is
easily available near the cemetery.
Another associated type of burial in Vidarbha is a
cairn, the second most popular type of megalith after
the stone circle in Vidarbha. Cairn is a heap of stones in
circular form. The hemispherical deposit of the cairns
of Vidarbha is mostly devoid of peripherical boulders.
41
Small pebbles and cobbles along with soil are the main
filling component of a cairn. Clusters of cairn circles are
noticed in Bhagimohari, where cairns with menhirs and
chambers are found adjacent to one another (Mohanty
et al. 2017). A heavy concentration of cairns is marked
in habitation-cum-burial site at Sarandi where out of
thirty-six documented megaliths, thirty-five are cairns
(Sontakke 2014a). A recent investigation carried out
in the eastern part of Vidarbha, specifically in Gondia
and Chandrapur districts, brought to light new types of
megaliths which were hitherto undetected in the Vidarbha
megalithic domain. Types like cist, menhir, dolmen, slab
circle etc. were found in a substantial number of changes
to the earlier assumptions on the typology of megalithic
builders of Vidarbha (Sontakke 2014b).
As far as habitation sites are concerned, at sites like
Adam, Nagardhan and Kaundinyapur, Iron Age cultural
material was unearthed but megalithic burial tradition
42
is completely absent (Sontakke et al. 2016). There are
a number of sites associated with both habitation and
burials like Mahurjhari, Bhagimohari, Malli, Naikund,
Khairwada, Vyahad etc. Most of the sites of Vidarbha
megalithic culture are categorised under only burial sites
like Raipur, Dhamnalinga, Borgaon etc. However, the
discovery of habitation deposit in Mahurjhari indicates
the need for comprehensive and micro-level exploration
to uncover the settlement of the megalithic builders
(Mohanty 2002). Excavations at habitation sites of
Vidarbha megaliths like Takalghat-Khapa, Naikund,
Mahujhari, Khairwada, and Bhagimohari revealed
that these sites were primarily occupied by megalithic
people. Such evidence indicates that these were the
first settlers of the Vidarbha. However, cultural remains
from Adam, Tuljapur-Garhi, Shrikhanda and Tharsa etc.
indicate the presence of Chalcolithic people living in the
area. However, the sporadic occurrence of Chalcolithic
remains as compared to the early Iron Age notifies their
existence but their impact upon megalithic culture is not
yet promptly investigated.
Excavations at megalithic sites revealed different
types of skeleton remains from the burials i.e. evidence
of double skeleton remains from Mahurjhari, single
skeleton remains from Takalghat, Mahurjhari, Naikund
and Raipur etc. However, mostly fragmentary relics of
the skeleton outnumbered complete portions. Generally,
it is also observed that only a portion of the human
body was buried and other parts were missing. These
phenomena are observed in almost all excavated
megalithic burials of Vidarbha. It seems that the corpus
was kept open outside for quite a long time and the
remaining portions were buried in the circle. The
evidence of post-holes at Mahurjhari suggests the dead
body was kept upon charpoy (Mohanty et al. 2017).
In the south of Chandrapur at Karimnagar district of
Telangana, Kadampur excavations of megalith no III
yielded 14 holes, all round which specify the existence
of a canopy. According to the excavator, it was a case of
“lying in state” prior to the burial (Sastri 1983: 85). Such
evidence indicates the dead body was kept exposed for
quite a long period or at least up to the compilation
and finalisation of plan and arrangements of the grave
structure. Substantial charred bones suggested post-
Pura¯tattva 52, 2022
cremation process from many sites (Sontakke 2015). A
number of burials without skeleton remains were also
found to symbolise different practices of disposing of
the dead in megalithic Vidarbha.
The presence of horse skeletal remains in the
megalithic burials makes a special characteristic feature
of the Vidarbha megalith. Horse remains are found in
Takalghat, Mahurjhari, Naikund, Borgaon and Raipur
etc. signifying the importance of horse in megalithic
society. It is interesting to note that in all the sites, only
partial remains of horses were found and no complete
skeleton was noticed. The partial remains basically
consisted of the skull and teeth, and the lower extremities
of the limbs. The non-meat portion of the horse
particularly the skull and cut marks from habitation sites
indicate its sacrificial value and feast nature (Mohanty
et al. 2017). The tradition of burying multiple horses
was also the tradition as noticed at Raipur (Deglurkar
and Lad 1992: 151). These people were horse lovers
and riders as indicated by the variety of horse ornaments
and objects found in the excavations. It is believed that
horse certainly symbolised the status and prestige of
the deceased (Deglurkar and Lad 1992: 152; Deo 1985;
Mohanty et al. 2017).
Megaliths of Vidarbha have a remarkable status from
the metallurgical aspect of ancient India. Iron smelting
remains from Naikund throw light on the iron smelting
technology of megalithic Vidarbha. The abundance
of metal objects as burial furnitures recovered from
various megaliths show large-scale iron working
production organised in the megalithic community. A
large number of copper objects in burials inspite of the
non-availability of raw material also suggest the socio-
religious ethnicities and rigid customary behaviour of the
people of Vidarbha. In the case of ceramic assemblage,
micaceous red ware seems to be a trademark of Vidarbha
megalithic culture alongwith traditional black-and-
red ware. Widespread use of micaceous red ware in
burial as well as in habitation suggests the indigenous
homogeneity of this particular ware. Two micro types
can be identified, micaceous red ware one with heavy
sides and thick flakes and another with slight thin
sides, small flakes and mica coating. The former type
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships
is generally ill-fired, thick sections consist of big mica
flakes, whereas the latter type is well-fired.
The association of black cotton soil in the megalithic
burial context of Vidarbha needs special mention. The
black compact soil, which is sticky in nature, was
abundantly used by megalithic inhabitants in the burial
process. The soil was generally found spread in a pit
where the deceased was to be buried, and it was spotted
to cover the fragmentary skeleton remains. It is also seen
that black soil was used adjacent to ceramics and burial
goods insinuating the ritualistic and significant character.
In a few cases, it is also noticed that black cotton soil
was used to fill the space in between the peripheral stone
of the circle to act as a binding material and to add extra
strength to the circle.
It is well known that the construction of megaliths is
a tedious job needing a large amount of labour, time and
money (Mohanty 1993-1994; Mohanty and Walimbe
1996). Excavations at Mahurjhari, Naikund and Raipur
etc. yielded fragmentary skeleton remains of more than
one person, suggesting the burial for many people. It may
also be because of repetitive use of single megaliths for
multiple times. Excavations at Dhamnalinga (Kellellu
et al. 2015) and Mahurjhari (Mohanty 2003) revealed
skeleton remains outside the megalith (stone circles).
These burials, without any ceremonial efforts and grave
goods throw new light on the social structure of the
society and the economic sentiments of the megalithic
people.
The overall picture of megalithic traditions in
peninsular India shows the homogeneous cultural
pattern, mortuary practice and material remains. The
megalithic culture of Vidarbha which is currently
bounded within the administrative boundary of the state
of Maharashtra had cultural contacts and association
with adjoining regions. Evidence from megalithic
burials are mainly uniform but certain unmatched items
induce us to see their origin and connection with a larger
area. Often, used traditional items by one society in far
different places and different zones witness the social
composition and cultural affiliation of other cultures. It
is observed that a few items found in Vidarbha megaliths
43
which were not localised and often recovered from
different regions postulate the cultural connection and
intra-region relationship. This issue is highly significant
in order to understand the association and contacts of
megalithic communities to each other. The following
examples show the affiliation of the Megalithic culture
of Vidarbha with adjoining regions.
Stone Sarcophagus
Borgaon (Lat. 21°20ʹ N; Long. 78°58ʹ E) is located
42km north-east of Nagpur, in Nagpur district. The
megalithic burial site is situated not far from the classic
site Mahurjhari. In 1981, the Department of Archaeology
and Museums, the Government of Maharashtra and
the Deccan College carried out joint excavations of
stone circles (IAR 1980-81: 40). Out of forty-eight
documented circles, five megalithic burials were chosen
for excavations. Very little evidence of human skeletal
remains was found from these burials. Antiquities found
during excavations primarily consisted of iron sickles,
chisels, adzes, arrowheads, tridents, horse bits, nail
parers and axes etc. Besides bangles, copper antiquities
included a dish with a lid having a knob of peacock
motif. Semi-precious stone beads of agate and carnelian
(both etched and non-etched variety) were also found in
the excavations. Pottery was mainly black-and-red ware,
black burnished ware and typical micaceous red ware.
The most significant find of the excavations was that of
a stone sarcophagus (trough) recovered from megalith
no. 3 (Plate 1). This rectangular stone sarcophagus
was found at the centre of the stone circle. The stone
sarcophagus is rectangular in plan and has straight walls
and a flat base. The size of the stone sarcophagus is 2.20
x 1.00m (outer) and 1.65 x 0.62m (inner). The outer
height of the sarcophagus is 0.80m and 0.50m from the
inside. A total of 17 cup marks of different sizes were
observed over the sides of the sarcophagus. No chisel
marks visible on stone suggest technical enhancement
of stone cutting. Three holes were also seen at the base
of the sarcophagus, suggesting a different purpose
than the trough. This is the sole evidence of a stone
sarcophagus (trough) recovered from any megalithic
site of Vidarbha. This stone sarcophagus is constructed
of yellow sandstone which is not available nearby. This
44 Pura¯tattva 52, 2022

monolithic sarcophagus is tremendously heavy and

must have needed a lot of effort to prepare, transport and
assemble. Moreover, it was situated at the centre of the
stone circle which itself needs a large amount of labour
for the construction of the megalith and placement of
the sarcophagus. Besides pottery, a skeleton of a young
horse, human teeth, earrings of gold and muller stone
were also found inside the circle. As mentioned, this
unique evidence of stone sarcophagus was solitary
in Vidarbha megalith. In contrast, such types of stone
sarcophagi are popularly found in the megalithic sites of
north Telangana (Plate 2).

Megalithic site Janampeth is situated in north

Telangana in Warangal district where thousands of
burials of various types were situated (Ahmad 1940: 1-4).
The earlier excavations of dolmenoid cists and dolmens
unveiled stone sarcophagus inside. Interestingly, these
megaliths generally contain two to six sarcophagus each
(Rao 1991). These rectangular sarcophagi generally
measure around 1m and 2.5m in length with 50cm and
80cm in width and an average height of about 50cm. The
earlier excavations carried out by Ahmad have reported
that these coffins (sarcophagus) contain pottery and iron
objects like ploughshares, horse-bits, hoes, etc., but no
skeletal remains (Rao 2018). Another excavation of the
stone circle at Janampeth uncovered a stone sarcophagus
at the centre. The stone sarcophagus was found inside
the cist which was placed nearly 41cm below from
surface. Two iron implements were recovered from this
sarcophagus. No skeleton remains were found inside,
instead they were placed outside the circle (Wakefield
1920: 24-29). A similar stone sarcophagus was also
noticed in Dongatogu (Lat. l8°10ʹ N; Long. 80°40ʹ E)
where 1500 megalithic monuments have been found
by Khwaja Muhammed Ahmed and he excavated a few
of them. The stone sarcophagus found inside the stone
circle was made of dressed stones. Generally, more than
one sarcophagus (coffin) was found within the circle
(Ahmad 1940: 1-4) (Fig 3). The stone sarcophagus was
also reported in Polechetti Cherugudda, a megalithic
burial site. This site is situated about one and a half
kilometres to the east of Janampet in the Khammam
district. Likewise, the stone sarcophagus was also
reported from inside the stone circle in Hasmatpet (Lat.
Fig. 3: Two stone sarcophagus recovered from Megalithic burial at
Domada, Warangal (After Rao 1991)
l7°25ʹ N; Long. 78°30ʹ E) Barrelagudem (Lat. 18.02° N;
Long. 80.00° E), Domada (Lat. 18.05° N; Long. 80.35°
E), Pandurangpuram and Totigutta (near Janampeth) in
Khamma district of Telangana (Rao 1988: 25; Murali
1993: 23-76; Yazdani 1938: 10)
The stone sarcophagus resembling a water trough is
made of dressed stone items found at the centre of the
stone circle, cist or dolmen. Generally, a sarcophagus
was reported singularly inside the circle or cist,
however, more than one sarcophagus in the megalith
was also noticed. In a few cases, small coffins were also
found probably made for child burials (Ahmad 1940:
1-4). No skeletal remains were found in these graves. A
large number of stone sarcophagi are remarkably found
in Telangana indicating this was a core area, where the
stone sarcophagus was mostly manufactured and used in
mortuary practices. The practice of disposing of the stone
sarcophagus seems to be the regional trait of Telangana
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships 45

Megaliths. The evidence of a stone

sarcophagus found in Vidarbha Megaliths
at the site of the Borgaon is significant
as it is made of non-local sandstone and
represents a solitary example. Moreover, the
stone sarcophagus of Borgaon has a close
resemblance with the sarcophagus found
in megaliths of Telangana suggesting the
social affiliation of megalithic communities
of Vidarbha with Telangana.

Terracotta Sarcophagus

Dhamana Linga (Lat. 21°8.30ʹ N; Long.

78°51ʹ E), a megalithic burial site falls
under the industrial zone of the Nagpur
district. It is situated in Hingna taluka
of Nagpur district and located on the
south-east and south-west bank of Wenna
reservoir between Peth and Linga. It was
excavated by Nagpur University in two
sessions in 2000 and 2001 (IAR 2000-01:
97-107). Megaliths here belong to the stone
and cairn circle type. Out of 50 megaliths,
twelve megalithic burials were taken up for
excavations. The most significant discovery
of the excavations was the discovery of
an ill-fired terracotta sarcophagus. It was
found towards the southeast of megalith
no 19 (Plate 3). The dull red sarcophagus Fig. 4: Megalithic sites of Terracotta Sarcophagi (modified after Brubaker 2001)
was oval or boat-shaped, ill-baked though
intact and had a flat base with a featureless
rim. The lid of the sarcophagus was also that infant or child burials are very rare in Vidarbha megaliths. Hence,
ill-fired and had beaded rim which was child skeleton remains kept in sarcophagus indicate the separate burial
perfectly fit. It measured 45 x 15 x 12cm practice for infants or children.
and contained fragmentary remains of
bones of a child. The bones were post- It is well known that the terracotta sarcophagus is quite often found
cremated and charred. Also, a glass ear stud in megaliths of South India. Remarkably, terracotta sarcophagus
was found inside the sarcophagus. The size alongwith lid was encountered in excavations at Sanur in Chingleput
of the ear stud indicates that the wearer was district in Megalith I and IV inside the dolmenoid cist and cairn circle
a child (Kellellu et al. 2015). Like the stone respectively (Banerjee 1956; Banerjee and Soundara Rajan 1959).
sarcophagus at Boregaon, the terracotta Megaliths 4 and 5 of the site Agiriapalli contain terracotta sarcophagi,
sarcophagus at Dhamana Linga is also an measuring 1.37 x 0.45 x 0.47m and 1.12 x 0.45 x 0.50m, having six
unaccompanied example found in Vidarbha legs each and both containing fragments of skeleton remains (IAR
megalithic culture. It is significant to note 1976-77: 5). Zoomorphic terracotta sarcophagus is reported from
46
Sankhavaram in Kaddapa district (Raghavan 1935)
while huge bath-tub like sarcophagus was recovered
from Tenneru in Krishna district (Sastri 1983: 89). In
Janampet, Khammam district also yielded terracotta
sarcophagus (Wakefield 1920: 12-13).
The terracotta sarcophagus found in Dhamnalinga
was handmade, simple and avoided of any decoration.
On the other hand, the sarcophagus recovered from
megaliths in south India is more elaborated and
decorative. The usual types of south Indian sarcophagus
are handmade, red ware, rectangular or barrel-shaped
having vertical sides that bent invert making a bulgy
body. It has multiple rows of legs at the bottom, a
decorated applique band, and various types like the
barrel, fusi form and oblong different sizes often not
matching with others (Sastri 1983: 90). Though the
terracotta sarcophagus found in Dhamnalinga is much
smaller and plain as compared to other South Indian
TC sarcophagus yet its pattern, nature and purpose is
similar. Since, the terracotta sarcophagus is often found
in megaliths of south India, and sole evidence from
Vidarbha megaliths substantiates that the sarcophagus
found in Dhamnalinga probably has cultural contacts
with the southern Indian megalithic community (Fig 4).
Inner Cist at Raipur
Raipur is a megalithic burial site now situated in Nagpur
urban area. The site was excavated in 1990 by Deccan
College, Pune. The megaliths of Raipur are cairn type
enclosed by surrounding stones having an average
diameter of 15m. During the excavations at Megalith 1,
a cist was found inside the stone circle. This cist was
not visible from the surface level. This cist consisted
of a chamber divided into two equal dimensions by
a horizontal slab placed in the middle. The entire cist
measured 2.25 x 0. 75m. The thickness of the cist slab
was 11cm. The cist was filled with loose soil and pebbles
and was found to be empty (Deglurkar and Lad 1992).
This cist was made of white micaceous schist which is
not available locally. The presence of cist inside the circle
is not the usual pattern of megaliths of western Vidarbha
hence, it is assumed that the cist of Raipur was probably
brought from somewhere. The evidence of cist of Raipur
Pura¯tattva 52, 2022
is again a solitary evidence of its kind and surely not
a local invention. The cists are found in various sites
of eastern Vidarbha, but the nature of the cist of Raipur
is somehow different and resembles a close connection
with South India. Similarly, fashioned cists prevailed in
megaliths of Telangana and further south (Plate 4). The
chambered cist was found in Thandikuddi (Kumaran
and Saranya 2015), Agiripalli, Peddamaruru, and
Uppalapadu in southern Indian megalithic sites showing
likeness with the cist of Raipur (Sastri 1983: 62-66).
Apart from Telangana, numerous sites like Bramhagiri,
Thandikudi, Porunthal, and Irdukki from southern
states reported various cists inside the megalith (Rajan
2009). This evidence indicates the cultural contacts and
relationship of Vidarbha megalithic communities with
the southern region and it is also possible that the cist
of Raipur was brought from the southern part of India.
Daggers with copper hilts
Mahurjhari is one of the prominent and most investigated
megalithic sites of the Vidarbha Megalithic culture.
In the excavations at the stone circle at Mahurjhari in
Locality III, megalithic no. 6 unearthed a unique dagger
with an iron blade and copper hilt. The size of the dagger
is 10 x 30cm. For better and comfortable grip, the hilt
of the dagger is double concave and the tip of the blade
is pointed. This dagger was placed upon the skeleton
which was without legs. According to the excavator,
it was the body of a dead warrior, possibly badly hurt
in the legs and buried with his dagger (Deo 1970:11).
This particular specimen shows the technological and
metallurgical enhancement of the Vidarbha megalithic
folks (Deo 1985) (Plate 5).
On the other hand, a similar dagger with a copper
hilt was noticed in excavation at the megalithic burial at
Pochampad (Lat. l8°50ʹ N; Long, 78°20ʹ E), situated on
the right bank of the river Godavari in Adilabad District.
The excavated burials included cairn-circles, cists and
platforms. In one of the excavated cairn-circles, daggers
with copper hilts alongwith pots of the black-and-red
ware, black ware and red wares and iron implements
(IAR 1963-64: 1) were found. Parallel types of daggers
with copper hilts were also recovered from Kadambapur
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships
at Karimnagar district of Telangana. The dagger with
copper hilt was found inside the megalith placed near
the skull at a corner of the pit (Sastri 1983: 84). A site
like Polechetti Cherigudda in Khammam district also
yielded copper hilted dagger having resemblance to
Mahurjhari dagger (Rao 1988: 45). It is observed that
the daggers with copper hilts are often reported from
megaliths of Telangana; their occurrence in Vidarbha is
seldom. Therefore, it can be assumed that this particular
dagger with copper hilt represent some association of
megalithic folk of Telangana with Vidarbha.
Horse Burial
Horse skeleton remains were found in a number of
megalithic sites in Vidarbha. In fact, the presence of
horse skeleton remains and horse ornaments in burial
practice make it extraordinary and distinguishing traits
of this culture. Horse remains found in Takalghat-Khapa,
Mahurjhari, Naikund, Raipur, Borgaon etc. indicate
the importance of horse to the megalithic society of
Vidarbha. The presence of horse bones and horse gear in
the burial probably denotes the position of the deceased
in the society in particular. As the horse was not an
indigenous breed; it suggests cultural contacts of the
megalithic folk of Vidarbha much farther than expected.
Hitherto, it was believed that the association of horse
in the megalithic culture of Vidarbha makes it different
from other contemporary megalithic communities but
scanty evidence of horse skeleton remains and horse
gear found in other regions too shows the practice of
similar traditions and perhaps cultural correlation.
In the megalithic site at Pochampad in the Adilabad
district, several burials were excavated. Amongst them,
in one circle in the south-western quadrant, just beneath
the ancient ground level, skeleton of a horse was found.
As like Vidarbha megalithic traditions, it was probably
interred as a final offering before the end of the ritual.
According to the excavator, the horse was buried
alongwith the master. It was placed in the centre of two
human skeletons, one each of a male and a female, in
an extended position, was reported. Most of the bones
were found in a disarticulated position (Kennedy
47
2002). Similar evidence of horse sacrifice is also found
in the excavations at Yeleshwaram (Khan 1963: 6).
Alongwith horse skeleton, scanty remains of horse
gear are reported from Pochampad (IAR 1963-64:
1), Polechetti Cherugudda (Ahmed 1940-41: 13-17),
Hashmatpet (Sastri 1983: 72-73) and Porunthal (Rajan
2009) where a horse stirrup was found from excavated
burial. This evidence suggests a similar practice in some
of the megaliths of the Telangana area. The similar
practice of burying the horse in different geophysical
arena suggests a broad area of the relationship of
megalithic communities.
Variant Megalithic types
Menhirs in Vidarbha are reported from a few sites
but their appearance is very limited as compared to
other types. Geographically, menhirs are specifically
observed in close range of the Wainganga river. Sites
like Pachkhedi (Nath 2002: 81-82), Bhiwapur and
Tilota Khairi (ARASI 1928-29: 37), Gondia, Gangla
and Janva (Sontakke 2014a), Dongargaon, Navkhala
(Bhagat 2019) yielded menhirs individually or inside
the cairn or stone circles. Dolmens are specifically
reported from eastern Vidarbha and found in Malli,
Hirapur, Pimpalgaon, and Kelzar (ARASI 1930-31: 141;
Pawar and Kim 2014; Sontakke 2014a). Hitherto, it was
believed that the cist type of megaliths had not existed
in the megalithic community of Vidarbha (Deo 1985).
However, recent explorations in Wainganga valley bring
forward a handful of sites containing cists like Janva and
Malli in Gondia district (Sontakke 2014a). These types
show their sporadic presence, unlike stone circles and
cairns. On the other hand, these types of megaliths are
plentiful in the megalithic culture of south India. Recent
studies carried out in the eastern Vidarbha in Chandrapur
and Gondia districts yielded cairn with capstone types
of megaliths (Pawar 2022). These types of megaliths
are rarely visible in Vidarbha, but are quite popular in
Telangana and Chhattisgarh areas (Sharma 2015). Such
correlation in the typology of megalithic sites indicates
the connection or contact of the Vidarbha megalithic
societies with adjoining regions.
48
The above evidence suggests that the megalithic
folk of Vidarbha not only shared intra-site relationship
but were also involved in cultural connections with
neighbouring megalithic communities. Megalithic
burial sites of Vidarbha are situated adjacent to each
other have close connections. Chemical analysis of the
ratio of chemical elements present in iron implements
suggests the iron produced from Naikund was circulated
to sites like Khapa, Gangapur, Boregaon and Mahurjahri
(Gogte 2015). This evidence suggests the association of
megalithic sites of Vidarbha within a range of 80km to
100km. Similar is the case of Gondwana and sandstone
slabs recovered from megaliths at Bhagimohari and
Dhamnalinga. These slabs are not available nearby
and the closest accessible distance is about 50-60km.
This evidence indicates the social exchange with
neighbourhood sites (Mohanty et al. 2017). The
affiliations of the megalithic people of Vidarbha with
South Indian megaliths are displayed in a variety
of carnelian, jasper, chalcedony alike semiprecious
stone beads recovered as grave goods, as in the etched
carnelian beads found from Kaundinyapur (Dikshit
1968), Junapani (IAR 1961-62: 32-34) and Mahurjhari
(Deo 1973; Mohanty 1999, 2008) which show relation
with southern Indian megalithic traditions. Certain
regional items like radial lines on tablet shapes beads
are a distinctive type of south Indian megalithic etched
beads. They were found in large numbers from Maski
(Thapar 1957), Kodumanal (Rajan 1990) and Porunthal
(Rajan 2009). Mahurjhari and Kodumanal probably
were two regional beads manufacturing centres during
the Megalithic period as indicated from excavations
(Mohanty 1999, 2008; Mohanty and Thakuria 2014).
The occurrence of beads suggests their special status in
the community and studies indicate their foreign origin
and imported nature for burial custom and traditions
(Thakuria 2010). Similar beads are also found in
Vidarbha though less in number.
It is significant to note that copper objects like
horse ornaments, bangles, bells, vessels and bird and
animal finials which are found in megalithic burials of
Vidarbha were created by three techniques i.e. casting,
forging and riveting. A few vessels had a lustrous shine,
and were thin and well preserved than others with a
Pura¯tattva 52, 2022
content good amount of tin. These shiny vessels were
surely manufactured by different techniques than their
counterparts, proposing their outside origin (Mohanty
et al. 2017). Copper bowls with finials of birds and
animals found in Vidarbha are also recovered from
many megalithic sites in south India.
Cultural contact and influence of one megalithic
community over the other may have played an important
role in the development of megalithic type and
respective inner architecture. Stone circles and cairns
without much inner architecture are predominantly
found in the Vidarbha region. Though a few megaliths
of Raipur incorporated cist and crude chamber, still it
appears that cist was not the principal megalithic type of
Vidarbha. The double chamber found in the megaliths
of Bhagimohari, inner circle at Vyahad, Dawlameti and
square enclosed stone wall at Hirapur probably indicate
the contemporary southern influence. The geophysical
conditions, unavailability of raw material and social
ideological beliefs restrained the Vidarbha megalithic
community from constructing inner architecture.
Therefore, it is possible that Raipur cist was erected for
a person who had connections or relations with South
India or that it was a result of cultural contact with
the megalithic society of South India. This hypothesis
becomes significant in light of Moorti’s work which
pointed out that major megalithic sites were situated on
trade routes (Moorti 1994).
It is noteworthy to note that the Telangana region
is highly rich in deposits of Iron. Iron ore is available
in form of magnetite and laterite which are easily
available. Both the minerals which are yielding high
content of iron must have been used by megalithic
builders. The smelting of iron in the traditional way by
indigenous tribes was documented until the nineteenth
century throwing significant light on the exploitation of
iron ores (Voysey 1832). It is believed that these iron
deposits were used by early Iron Age settlers (Juleff et
al. 2014). Therefore, it is possible that the exchange
of iron was one of the key factors in the relationship
between the megalithic communities of Vidarbha and
Telangana (Plate 6).
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships
It is obvious that typological variations in megaliths,
different nature of disposing of dead and diversified
grave goods within the megaliths perhaps relate to people
who practice or believe in different customs or belong
to different clans or groups of megalithic communities.
The construction of a variety of megaliths within the
same site can also be attributed to people practising
different beliefs and customs in the same society.
Ethnoarchaeological studies have also proven that every
megalithic constructing tribe has its own processions
and persuasions related to burial construction and
appendages and that the variety of megaliths basically
depends upon the social customs and beliefs of the
society (Devi 2014). Thus, it appears that the consistent
megalithic burial traditions and rigid customs seem to
References
Ahmad, K.M. 1940. Preliminary Excavations at Prehistoric Sites
Near Janampet, Hyderabad.
………………. 1940-41. Annual Report of the Archaeological
Department of His Highness The Nizam’s Dominions, Hyderabad.
ARASI - Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of India, 1928-
29 and 1930-31.
Babington, J. 1823. Description of the Pandoo Coolies in the
Malabar. Transactions of The Literary Society of Bombay 3: 324-
30.
Banerjee, N.R. 1956. The Megalithic Problem of Chingleput in the
Light of Recent Excavations. Ancient India 12: 21-34.
……………… and K.V. Soundara Rajan. 1959. Sanur 1950 and
1952: A Megalithic Site in District Chingleput. Ancient India 15:
4-42.
Bhagat, A. 2019. Recent Discovery of Megalithic Sites in
Chandrapur District of Maharashtra. Heritage:Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 7: 740-771.
Brubaker, R. 2001. Aspect of Mortuary Variability in the South
Indian Iron Age. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate
and Research Institute 60-61: 253-302.
Deglurkar, G.B. and G. Lad. 1992. Megalithic Raipur (1985-1990).
Pune: Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute.
49
be followed by the megalithic folk of Vidarbha. It is
certain that the diversified items used as grave goods
simply suggest the socio-economic and complex nature
of the living society. Also, a few items explain the intra-
regional social connections and trade networks. Social
relationships and cultural contacts of Vidarbha with
other groups probably resulted in two ways. Evidence
obtained from sites suggests horse skeletons, horse
ornaments and iron daggers with copper hilts may have
originated from Vidarbha and travelled to South India.
In lieu, stone sarcophagus, terracotta sarcophagus, cists
and other prominent types were surely influenced by
South India to Vidarbha.
Deo, S.B. 1970. Excavations at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69).
Nagpur: Nagpur University.
………… 1973. Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972). Nagpur:
Nagpur University.
………… 1985. The Megaliths: Their Culture, Ecology, Economy
and Technology. In Recent Advances in Indian Archaeology, eds.
S.B. Deo and K. Paddayya, 89-99. Pune: Deccan College Post-
graduate and Research Institute.
………… and A.P. Jamkhedkar. 1982. Excavations at Naikund
(1978-80). Bombay: Department of Archaeology and Museum,
Government of Maharashtra.
Devi, B. 2014. The Megalithic Tradition of the Chekhesangs
of Manipur. In The Megalithic Culture of South India, eds.
K.N. Dikshit and Ajit Kumar, 398-407. New Delhi: The Indian
Archaeological Society.
Dikshit, M.G. 1968. Excavations at Kaudinyapura. Bombay:
Government Central Press.
Geetali, Anuja. 1999. Megalithic Practices among the Madia
Gonds of the Bhamragad, District Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.
Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Deccan College, Pune.
50
Gogte, V.D. 1982. Megalithic Iron smelting at Naikund (Part II):
Efficiency of Iron Smelting by Chemical Analysis. In Excavations
at Naikund 1978-80, eds. S.B. Deo and A.P. Jamkhedkar, 56-59.
Bombay: Department of Archaeology and Museums.
………….. 2015. Megalithic Iron Smelting. In Megalithic
Traditions in India: Archaeology and Ethnography, Vol. II, eds.
K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B. Ota, 407-417. New Delhi:
Aryan Books International.
IAR - Indian Archaeology- A Review (Volumes mentioned in text)
Juleff, G., S. Jaikishan, S. Srinivasan, S. Ranganathan and B.
Gilmour. 2014. Northern Telangana, an Iron and Crucible Steel
Production Landscape in India. ISIJ International 54 (5): 1030-
1037.
Kajale, M.D. 1989. Archaeological Investigation on Megalithic
Bhagimohari and its Significance for Ancient Indian Agricultural
System. Man and Environment XIII: 87-100.
Kellellu, I., C.S. Gupta, P.S. Meshram, P.M. Khobragade, R.K.
Mohanty and T. Thakuria. 2015. Recent Development in the
Megalithic Research in Vidarbha: A Review. In Megalithic
Traditions in India: Archaeology and Ethnography, Volume I, eds.
K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B. Ota, 204-225. Bhopal and New
Delhi: IGRMS and Aryan Books International.
Kennedy, Kenneth A.R. 2002. Megalithic Pochampad: The
Skeletal Biology and Archaeological Context of an Iron Age Site
in Andhra Pradesh, India. Asian Perspectives 41 (1): 103-128.
Khan, M.A.W. 1963. A Monograph On Yeleswaram Excavations
(Andhra Pradesh Archaeological Series 14). Hyderabad:
Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Kumaran, R.N. and M. Saranya. 2015. Megaliths of Kodaikanal
Region. In Megalithic Traditions in India: Archaeology and
Ethnography, Volume I, eds. K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B.
Ota, 88-100. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Mohanty, R.K. 1993-1994. Vidarbha Megalithic: A New
Perspective for Field Investigations. Bharti 20 (1-2): 59-69.
……………… 1999. Significance of Bead Manufacturing
Centre at Mahurjhari, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. Man and
Environment XXIV, No. 2: 59-69.
……………… 2002. A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at
Mahurjhari and Explorations in Vidarbha. Deccan College Annual
Report 2001-2002: 45-47.
……………… 2003. A Preliminary Report of the Excavations
at Mahurjhari: A Megalithic and Early Historic Site in Vidarbha,
Maharashtra. Pratnatattva 9: 41-48.
Pura¯tattva 52, 2022
……………. 2008. Mahurjhari: A Bead Manufacturing Center in
Central India. In Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, eds.
G. Sengupta and S. Chakraborti, 459-476. New Delhi: Pragati
Publication.
…………….. 2015. The Megalithic Problem of Vidarbha in
a Wider Perspectives: Retrospect and Prospect. In Megalithic
Traditions in India: Archaeology and Ethnography, Volume I,
eds. K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B. Ota, 131-171. New Delhi:
Aryan Books International.
……………… 2022. Iron Age in Peninsular India. Puratattva 51:
1-23.
……………… and S.R. Walimbe. 1996. An Investigation into the
Mortuary Practices of Vidarbha Megalithic Culture. In Spectrum
of Indian Culture, eds. C. Margabandhu and K.S. Ramachandran,
136-49. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.
……………… and V. Selvakumar. 2002. The Archaeology
of Megaliths in India: 1947-1997. In Indian Archaeology in
Retrospect-Prehistory: Archaeology of South Asia, Vol. I, eds.
S. Settar and R. Korisettar, 313-351. New Delhi: Manohar
Publication.
…………….. and T. Thakuria. 2014. Peninsular and Southern
India. In History of Ancient India, Vol-3, Texts, Political History
and Administration till c 300 B.C. eds. D. Chakrabarti and M. Lal,
343-378. New Delhi: Vivekananda International Foundation and
Aryan Books International.
………………, S. Vaidya, J.S. Kharakwal, V. Sontakke and
T. Thakuria. 2017. The Early Iron Age Megalithic Culture of
Vidarbha in Broader Perspectives: A Pragmatic Observation.
Shodh Patrika 68: 21-51.
Moorti, U.S. 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio
Economic Perspectives. Varanasi: Ganga-Kaveri Publishing
House.
Murali, M. 1993. The Megalithic Culture of Andhra Pradesh A
Study with special reference to Anantpur district. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Sri. Krishndeva University, Anantpur.
Nath, A. 2002. Excavations at Pachkhedi: A Megalithic Habitation
Site. Puratattva 32: 81-88.
Pawar, K.A. 2022. Early Iron Age Mortuary Practices in Gondwana
Region of India: Burial Landscape, Settlements, Antiquity and
Continuity. Puratattva 51: 141-165.
…………… and Kim, Y. 2014. Excavation of Non-Sepulchral
Megalithic Burials at Hirapur, Maharashtra. In The Megalithic
Culture of South India, eds. K.N. Dikshit and A. Kumar, 238-261.
New Delhi: The Indian Archaeological Society.
Megalithic Culture of Vidarbha, Maharashtra: Inter-regional Relationships
Pearse, G.G. 1869. On the Excavation of a Large Raised Stone
Circle or Barrow near the Village of Wurreegaon, One Mile from
the Military Station of Kamptee, Central Provinces of India. The
Journal of Ethnological Society of London 1 (3): 207-17.
Raghavan, M.D. 1935. A Ram Sarcophagus from Cuddapah.
Current Science 4 (5): 306-307
Rajan, K. 1990. New Light on the Megalithic Culture of the Kongu
Region, Tamil Nadu. Man and Environment XV, No. 1: 93-102.
…………. 2009. A Note on Porunthal Excavations. Avanam 20:
109-15.
Rao, K.P. 1988. Deccan Megaliths. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.
………… 1991. A Unique Iron Age Grave Complex from South
India. East and West 41 (1/4): 363-369.
………… 2018. Iron Age Culture of South India: Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh. In Iron Age in South Asia, South
Asian Archaeology Series 2, ed. A. Uesugi, 129-144. Japan:
Archaeological Research Institute, Kansai University.
Rivett-Carnac, J.H. 1879. Prehistoric remains in Central India.
Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal 48: 1-16.
Roy, O. and K. Krishnan. 2016. Understanding the Megalithic
Landscape of Ubali, Kalmeshwar Taluk, Nagpur District,
Maharashtra. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in
Archaeology 4: 86-104.
Sharma, A.K. 2015. Megaliths of Chhattisgarh. In Megalithic
Traditions in India: Archaeology and Ethnography, Vol. I, eds.
K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B. Ota, 285-305. New Delhi:
Aryan Books International.
Sastri, V.V. Krishna. 1983. The Proto and Early Historical Culture
of Andhra Pradesh. (Archaeological Series 58). Hyderabad: The
Government of Andhra Pradesh. 51-114.
Shete, G. 2018. The Early Iron Age Pottery of Vidarbha: A
Comparative Study. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary
Studies in Archaeology 6: 333-343.
Sontakke, V. 2014a. Early Iron Age Archaeology of Upper
Wainganga Valley with special reference to Gondia District.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Deccan College, Pune.
……………. 2014b. A Review of Inner Layout of Megalithic
Burials in Upper Wainganga Valley: A new Emergence in Vidarbha
Megaliths. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in
Archaeology 2: 492-515.
51
…………… 2015. Malli: An Early Iron Age Site, Gondia District,
Vidarbha Region, Maharashtra. Man and Environment XL, No.
1: 43-53.
…………… 2018. The Stones of Death: Archaeology of Early
Iron Age in Central India. In Iron Age in South Asia, South
Asian Archaeology Series 2, ed. A. Uesugi, 101-128. Japan:
Archaeological Research Institute, Kansai University.
……………, S. Ganvir, S. Vaidya and P.P. Joglekar. 2016.
Excavation at Nagardhan, Nagpur District, Maharashtra (2015-
16). History Today 17: 43-51.
Smith, G. 1888. Stephen Hislop: Pioneer Missionary and
Naturalist in Central India from 1844-1863. London: John Murray.
Thakuria, T. 2010. Society and Economy during Early Iron Age
and Early Historic Period in Deccan with Special Reference to
Beads (1000 BC to 500 AD.). Unpublished PhD Thesis, Deccan
College, Pune.
…………..,R.K. Mohanty and P.P. Joglekar. 2015. Craft
Specialization and Socio-Economic Behavior of the Megalithic
People of Vidarbha. In Megalithic Traditions in Ethnography and
Archaeology in India, eds. R.K. Mohanty, K.K. Basa and S.B. Ota,
188-203. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Thapar, B.K. 1957. Maski 1954: A Chalcolithic Site in the Tapti
Valley. Ancient India 13: 4-142.
Thomas, P.K. 1995. Subsistence and Burial Practices Based on
Animal Remains at Khairwada. Bulletin of Deccan College Post-
Graduate and Research Institute 53: 379-395.
Vaidya, S. 2014. Megalithic Culture in Vidarbha: Studies and Ideas.
Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2:
720-741.
Voysey, H.W. 1832. Description of the native manufacture of steel
in southern India. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal 1: 245- 247.
Wakefield, G.E.C. 1920. Note on a visit to the Prehistoric Burial
Grounds of Janampett in the Paloncha Taluka of the Warangal
District of His Exalted Highness The Nizam’s Dominions. Annual
Report of the Archaeological Department of H.E.H. the Nizam’s
Dominions, 1918-1919.
Yazdani, G. 1938. Excavations (Hasmatpet). Annual Report of the
Archaeological Department of the H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions.
Plates 5

Sontakke, Pl. 1: Stone Sarcophagus from megalithic burial

at Borgaon (courtesy: Central Museum, Nagpur)

II
Sontakke, Pl. 2: Stone Sarcophagus from megaliths I)
Boregaon II) Janampeth

Sontakke, Pl. 3: Terracotta Sarcophagus from Dhamnalinga

 6 Pura¯tattva 52

Sontakke, Pl. 5: Dagger from megaliths of Mahurjhari

Sontakke, Pl. 4: Double cist from megaliths I) Raipur II)

Thandikuddi (after Kumaran and Saranya 2015)

Sontakke, Pl. 6: Similarity of Iron Hoe - i) Polechetti Cherugudda (Telangana) ii) Naikund (Nagpur)

View publication stats