Megalithic Markings in Context: graffiti marks on burial pots from Kudatini, Karnataka

1

The megaliths of south India remain one of the mostdistinctive and enigmatic features of South Asianarchaeology. Numbering in the thousands, and foundthroughout the southern part of the Indian peninsula,these monuments are remarkable not only for theirabundance, but also for their variety. The so-called‘Megalithic period’1 of south India is characterised by anastounding array of megalithic types. The majority,though not all, of the south Indian megaliths appear tobe associated with human burials (Leshnik 1974;Mohanty & Selvakumar 2001; Moorti 1994). Despite theallure of the megaliths, and the large numbers of themthat have now been excavated, the south Indianmegalithic tradition remains poorly understood. Mostreports simply describe the monuments and theirassociated finds, and explanations for their diversity areoverwhelmingly culture-historical in nature. Megalithtypes, or more often sub-types, are associated with‘peoples’ and new types of megaliths are taken toindicate the arrival of new migrant populations.

In April of 2002, our joint Cambridge University —Karnatak University team excavated a human burial atthe site of Kudatini in mid-eastern Karnataka (Fig. 1; seeBoivin et al. 2002 and forthcoming, and Mushrif et al.forthcoming).2 While this burial was not marked on thesurface by any lithic feature, several characteristicsallowed us to associate it with the Megalithic tradition.In particular, the style of the burial, and its associatedfinds (most notably the Black-and-Red Ware pottery)were characteristic of burials of the south Indian Mega-lithic tradition. In addition, chronological indicators(discussed in Boivin et al. forthcoming) suggested a lateNeolithic — early Iron Age date for the burial, whichcoincides with the early phase of the Megalithic period.Finally, the fact that some of the burials that are clearlypart of the Megalithic burial tradition in south Indianonetheless display no associated large lithic features(Mohanty & Selvakumar 2001; Moorti 1994) allowed usto attribute the burial to the Megalithic tradition despitethe absence of any stone element, on the surface orotherwise.

The burial at Kudatini, which is the first to beidentified at the site, is a pit burial of a small child(approximately 6-7 years; see Mushrif et al. forth-coming). The 70 cm deep pit was dug down to bedrockand contained a zoomorphic terracotta sarcophagusencircled by at least 13 pots (see Figs. 2 and 3). Thesarcophagus contained the disarticulated, fractionalremains of the child, as well as animal bones,predominantly from cattle and bird species (Joglekar,pers. comm.). Several of the pots also contained one ormore human bones or bone fragments (Mushrif et al.

Megalithic Markings in Context: graffiti marks on burial pots fromKudatini, KarnatakaNICOLE BOIVIN, RAVI KORISETTAR and P. C. VENKATASUBBAIAH

1. Map showing location of Kudatini and other south Indian sitesdiscussed in the article.

NICOLE BOIVIN, RAVI KORISETTAR AND P. C. VENKATASUBBAIAH

2 South Asian Studies 19

2. Sarcophagus discovered at Kudatini, as it appeared at the base of the burial pit after excavation (length 87 cm). Pieces of the lid of thesarcophagus were found inside and around the sarcophagus, but were too fragmented to allow full reconstruction. Drawing by Jenny Doole.

3. Plan of Kudatini burial excavation, showing the location of the sarcophagus and burial pots.

forthcoming). The six-legged sarcophagus was orientedprecisely north-south along its long axis, and alsocontained a blade of red chert.

As is the case in many Megalithic tradition burials,the pots associated with the Kudatini burial possessed aninteresting associated feature. Each of the pots bore whatare commonly referred to in the literature as ‘graffitimarks’. These are normally post-firing scratch marks onthe pot surface, and they are frequently though notexclusively associated with pots found in burial contexts.Foote was evidently one of the first to notice the markson megalithic ceramics, and he suggested that theymight be ‘owner’s marks’ (1916). Subsequently, in theearly decades of the twentieth century, others such asYazdani and Hunt drew attention to the marks and theirwide spatial and chronological distribution in variouspublications (Hunt 1924; Yazdani 1916, 1917, 1918).Unfortunately, and despite the excavation of countlessmore megalithic sites, understanding of the marks hasadvanced little since their day. Our analysis representsan attempt to move beyond description and diffusionistexplanations, towards a more problem-oriented andinterpretive archaeology of the south Indian megaliths(for general discussion of these contrasting theoreticalapproaches see Boivin & Fuller 2001 and Fuller & Boivin2001).

The Kudatini pots and pot marks

As indicated, all of the Kudatini burial pots were foundoutside of the terracotta sarcophagus, which theysurrounded in an uneven ring (see Fig. 3). Like thesarcophagus itself, they rested on the bottom of the pit,which coincided with the shale bedrock at the base of thesoil profile. Eight of the pots were medium-sizedglobular pots of Red Ware, each of the same style (seeTable 1 and Figs. 4 and 5). The remaining five pots wereof Black-and-Red Ware, and more varied in size andstyle, consisting of variously sized bowls and wide-mouthed pots (see Table 1 and Figs. 4 and 5). All the pots

were simple in form, and bore few embellishments ordecorative effects. All were slipped and burnished,though the Black-and-Red Ware pots were more highlyburnished than the red ones, which were dull ochre incolour.

Each of the burial pots, like the sarcophagus, wasfilled with sediment. Removal and analysis of thesediment fill proved that about half of the pots actuallycontained skeletal remains (see Table 1). This is a veryunusual find for a south Indian megalithic burial, sincethe pots that generally accompany such burials arealmost invariably found to be empty (Mohanty &Selvakumar 2001). Commonly, skeletal remains in

MEGALITHIC MARKINGS IN CONTEXT

3

4. Photographs showing some of the pots found in association with the sarcophagus burial at Kudatini. At left are three of the Black-and-Red Warepots, and on the right are seven of the Red Ware pots.

5. Technical drawings of the different types of pot found in theKudatini burial.



Table 1. Details of the Kudatini burial pots, and their contents and markings

Pot* Type Skeletal material Graffiti marks on Graffiti marks on(from Mushrif et al. forthcoming) exterior of pot interior of pot

1 Black-and-Red n/a† Two types of marks: 1) set NoneWare (large) of two parallel ‘U’s, 2) set

of two parallel vertical lines.Each appears 3 times, and types appear in alternation.

2 Red Ware (med.) None Same as Pot 1. None

3 Red Ware (med.) 1 epiphyseal cap, unidentified, but human; Same as Pot 1. Noneand 2 small-sized unidentifiable (1-1.5 cm; long bone?) fragments, some of which show signs of discoloration, possibly resulting from exposure to fire

A Red Ware (med.) 1 human vertebra (missing); broken shaft of One type of mark: vertical Base bears sets of left radius, 10.3 cm long and preserved in 2 arrow mark with tip of double lines crossedpieces (only mid-shaft portion; extremities not arrow pointed upwards. by double linespreserved); and 2 tiny unidentifiable bone Appears 3 timesfragments

B Black-and-Red None Same as Pot 1. NoneWare (small)

C Red Ware (med.) None Same as Pot A. None

D Red Ware (med.) 2 human cervical vertebrae, 3rd and 5th, Same as Pot 1. Nonecomplete but slightly damaged on the body (3rd) and foramina transversarium (5th); and 1 small-sized unidentifiable bone fragment

E Black-and-Red None ‘Alpha’ mark, variants of NoneWare (med.) arrow mark (?), etc.

F Red Ware (med.) 1 near complete human mandible, with single Same as Pot 1. Nonetooth in crypt; and 1 broken body of human thoracic vertebra

G Black-and-Red None Same as Pot 1. Base bears lines and Ware (med.) possible arrow mark

H Black-and-Red 1 small, unidentifiable bone Same as Pot 1. NoneWare (med.)

I Red Ware (med.) None Same as Pot 1. None

J Red Ware (med.) 1 human axis vertebra, 2 unidentifiable long Same as Pot 1. Nonebone fragments

*Pots 1-3 were discovered in an exposed section prior to excavation, Pots A-J during the excavation itself.†This pot was broken, and the sediment within it had thus been disturbed.

megalithic graves are absent or in poor condition(McIntosh 1985; Mohanty & Selvakumar 2001), and thepresence of skeletal elements in the burial pots atKudatini may reflect local soil conditions, which wereclearly conducive to improved preservation of osteo-logical material (Mushrif et al. forthcoming). On theother hand, absence of evidence for bones in burial potsin other megalithic contexts may also indicate that thepractice of placing skeletal elements in pots wasrelatively rare. It is clearly difficult to distinguishbetween these two possibilities at the present time.

Analysis of the skeletal elements from the potsindicated that they were all of human origin, andfurthermore exhibited size and morphological charac-teristics identical to those of the skeletal remains in the sarcophagus (Mushrif et al. forthcoming). It wastherefore concluded that the skeletal remains from boththe pots and the sarcophagus belonged to a single

individual, who was approximately six to seven yearsold at the time of death (ibid.). The disarticulated natureof the skeletal remains indicated that the burial wassecondary, following decomposition of the corpse, aprocess which may have occurred in the context of aprimary inhumation burial (ibid.).

During cleaning of the burial pots, it was revealedthat the surface of each pot bore scratch marks, whichhad clearly been made after firing of the pots (see Table 1and Figs. 5, 6 and 7). These had evidently been scratchedonto the pots using some sort of sharp instrument. Themajority of the pots exhibited a similar pattern,according to which two mark types were used: 1) a set oftwo parallel, double ‘U’s; and 2) a set of two verticalparallel lines. The marks were placed at roughly regularintervals around the body of the pot, and three marks ofeach type were made, for a total of six marks per pot. Thetwo types of marks were placed in an alternating series


5

6. Tracings of the graffiti marks on the exterior surface of the Red Ware pots (arrow indicates extent of pot circumference; dotted line indicatesbreak). All Red Ware pot marks are on the shoulder of the vessel (see Fig. 5).

(see Pots 2, 3, D, F, I, and J in Fig. 6 and Pots 1, B, G andH in Fig. 7).

While most (ten out of thirteen) of the potsexhibited the pattern described above, a few potsdisplayed other patterns (see Table 1). For example, twoRed Ware pots (Pots A and C) bore only one type ofmark, a vertical arrow mark (directed upwards),repeated three times around the girth of the pot (see Fig.6). One medium-sized Black-and-Red Ware pot (Pot E)

bore a completely different pattern from the others,consisting of four different marks. One of these wasshaped like an ‘alpha’ sign, while two appeared to bepossible variants on the arrow theme (see Fig. 7).

It is interesting to note that while the marks on theRed Ware pots were located on the upper body of thepot, those on the Black-and-Red Ware pots were situatedon the lower pot body (see Fig. 5; compare 2 and 3 to 1,G, H, E and B). The Black-and-Red Ware pot marks werelocated on the red part of the pot body, generally justbelow the boundary between the upper black and lowerred parts of the body. Thus all pot marks were made onred surfaces.

Comparison of the same pot mark type ondifferent pots, and even at times on the same pot, showsthat pot marks exhibited variation with respect to suchfeatures as pressure exerted during the making of themark, proximity of the mark form to the apparent ‘ideal’form that was targeted, and what might be termed‘boldness of execution’. These variations are similar tosome of those that are seen in the handwriting ofdifferent individuals, and suggest that different peoplewere involved in making the marks. This type ofvariation can be seen very clearly on Pot C, where thethree (possibly four?) arrow marks (see Fig. 6) exhibitsuch substantial differences with respect to the qualities



8. Drawings of the marks found on the interior of Pot A.

7. Tracings of the graffiti marks on the exterior surfaces of the Black-and-Red Ware pots (arrow indicates extent of pot circumference; dotted lineindicates break). See Figure 5 for graffiti mark locations. View is from side, except for Pot E, which is from bottom.

listed above that it seems necessary to conclude that eachof them was made by a different person.

In addition to the external pot markings, at leasttwo pots (Pots A and G) bore marks on their internalsurfaces (see Fig. 8 for an illustration of those inside PotA), which, in contrast to the external markings, seem tohave been made while the clay was still soft, before thepot had been fired. Whether these were a result of thetechniques used in pot production or were in factdeliberately created marks is difficult to say. In addition,encrustation on many of the internal pot surfaces made itdifficult to clarify whether other pots also bore internalmarks.

Most of the marks found on the Kudatini pots havebeen identified on other Megalithic context pots. Severalscholars have created systematic lists of marks they havebeen able to identify on Megalithic pots, and Table 2provides references to specific marks in the lists

compiled by Lal (1960), Yazdani (1916) and Lafitte (1931).Compilations of marks created by Hunt and Yazdani inthe early 1900s have been reproduced in Figs. 9 and 10,to provide a sense of the types of marks found on othermegalithic pots (note that these by no means representall the marks that have been identified).

Analysis did not reveal any clear patterns ofassociation between marks found on pots and factorslike pot ware, pot style, pot contents or pot locationwithin the grave. It is important to note in this regardthat it is likely that not all of the burial pots wererecovered, since the entire burial pit was not excavated.

Discussion

It does not seem possible, at least at this stage, to assignany specific meanings to the pot marks from theKudatini burial. It is possible, however, to begin to try to


7

9. Pot marks observed by Hunt in different Megalithic burials in the Hyderabad area (from Hunt 1924, pp. 152).

Table 2. Comparison of Kudatini pot marks to those found in the literature

Pot mark at Kudatini Parallels in literature

Set of two parallel ‘U’s Symbol 20 (Lal 1960); mark 95 (Yazdani 1916)

Set of two parallel vertical lines Symbol 33 (Lal 1960)

Arrow mark Symbol 5 (Lal 1960), variation of mark 16 (Yazdani 1916)

Variation of arrow mark seen on Pot E Mark 11 (Lafitte 1931)

‘Alpha’ mark Symbol 30 (Lal 1960)

tease out something of the significance of these marks,and the role they may have played in the context of thesociety that produced them. This may be accomplishedby 1) examining more closely the features of the marksand the context in which they occur; 2) comparing themto graffiti marks in other megalithic contexts; and 3)considering them in light of the interpretations of graffitimarks that have been offered in the literature.

It is important, first of all, to dispense with thenotion that these scratch marks may have been eitherpotter's marks or ownership marks (e.g. Foote 1916),especially since these early interpretations of theMegalithic graffiti marks are still commonly referred toin the literature on Megalithic south India. The potter'smark explanation seems particularly unlikely, since themarks are prominently displayed on the walls of thevessel, and are applied post-firing, in an irregular andaesthetically rather unpleasing way (cf. Hunt 1924; Lal1960; Thapar 1957). Potter’s marks would more likelyhave been placed in a discrete location and applied priorto firing (as Thapar (1957) has also pointed out). Inaddition, the same marks are found on Megalithic burialpots in very different chronological and geographicalcontexts in south India (Lafitte 1931; Hunt 1924). Thismakes it unlikely that they indicate the work of a singlepotter, or the property of a single individual (see alsoLafitte 1931). Finally, any given pot may bear up to fourdifferent marks, or alternatively, the same mark repeatedtwo or three times (as observed on the Kudatini burialpots; see also Thapar 1957; Yazdani 1916). In numerouscases, pots carry no marks whatsoever (Thapar 1957).How these patterns would fit with the notion that the

marks were made by potters to indicate their work, or byowners to indicate their belongings, is unclear.

Few alternative explanations have been offered asto the possible significance of the marks found on pots insouth Indian megalithic graves. Rajan identifies them asclan symbols (Rajan 1998), though this seems unlikelygiven the wide geographical distribution of at least someof the symbols. Lal makes various suggestions con-cerning the significance of the marks, including that theywere clan marks, or indicators of profession (Lal 1960).Attempts have also been made to link the Megalithicgraffiti marks with Etruscan, Cretan and Aegean,Egyptian and Libyan scripts and signs (Yazdani 1916,1918), and, more plausibly, marks from Harappan sealsand ceramics (Lal 1960), as well as the early Brahmiscript (ibid.). Lal's analysis of the Megalithic andHarappan marks suggests that 89% of the Megalithicsymbols go back to Chalcolithic-Harappan times, while85% of the Chalcolithic-Harappan symbols continuedown to megalithic times (ibid.; note, however, thatmany of the Megalithic marks are very simple, andprobably occur in a wide range of cultural contexts).

While the megalithic graffiti marks may well haveborn some relationship to signs in use during the earlierHarappan period, which may have been copied andacquired new meanings in the context of Megalithicsouth India, and may well have subsequently evolvedinto an alphabet, recognition of such linkages does notreally help us to understand what role the marks playedwithin the society or societies that created the megalithicgraves. As will be demonstrated, the marks do provideinformation about the context of their use, both in their



10. Pot marks compiled by Yazdani, who was careful to note that they represented only a partial selection (from Yazdani 1916, p. 56).

form and their distribution.Firstly, it seems extremely relevant to note that

while the marks are occasionally found on potsherds insettlement contexts (Lal 1960; Banerjee & Soundara Rajan1959), they are predominantly associated with the potsthat were deposited in Megalithic burials (Thapar 1957).Secondly, like the Kudatini marks, most Megalithic potmarks were applied after firing (Hunt 1924; Lal 1960;Thapar 1957), and cannot really be consideredaesthetically pleasing (Hunt 1924; Thapar 1957). Theylook as if they were produced without much concern fortheir appearance, as if the process of making them wasmore important than their final form. This quality wouldseem to suggest that the creation of the marks was partof a performance, that may have perhaps been witnessedby a group.

The idea that more than one person was involvedin whatever process unfolded when the pots weremarked is furthermore suggested by the fact that thestyle of the markings on the Kudatini pots varied bothbetween pots and in at least one clear case, on the samepot, as discussed above. It seems clear that more thanone person was marking the pots. Hunt came to the sameconclusion based on his analysis of the marks on potsfrom cairn burials in the vicinity of Hyderabad (Hunt1924; see Fig. 11). He argued that for most burials wherethere were many pot marks, it seemed likely that four orfive people were involved in making them (ibid.).

Another interesting feature of the Kudatini potmarks, which is also found in other Megalithic contexts,is that the pot marks exhibit patterns that are found to berepeated on multiple pots. Thus it is clear that atKudatini, in almost each case, the pot was lifted and amark or set of marks was made, then the pot was turnedapproximately 180 degrees and a new mark or set ofmarks was made, and then this action was repeated onemore time. The pot may have been set down or passed toa different person between the three (or perhaps, in somecases, six) individual steps, but whatever the exactsituation, it is clear that a particular series of steps wasfollowed, leading to a repetition of particular series ofmarks on several different pots.

Thus, in the case of the Kudatini burial, andperhaps other Megalithic contexts as well, we canreconstruct a situation in which the production of the potmarks is likely to have had something to do with theburial the pots accompanied, and to have taken place inthe context of a group situation that involved aperformative aspect. This performance entailed regular,repeated actions, leading to the production of repeatedseries of marks. If we consider the types of humanbehaviour that are characterised by such traits, it is hardto escape the conclusion that the marks were made aspart of some sort of ritual. As Bell has recognised in hercross-cultural study Ritual Perspectives and Dimensions,

formal ritual is often carried out in group contexts andassociated with such characteristics as performance andrepetition (Bell 1997). Furthermore, we can ascertain thatthe ritual (or rituals) probably related to death andburial, and in particular the burial of skeletal elementscollected from a primary exposure or burial context,since the marks are associated with pots found in asecondary burial context. Studies of contemporarysocieties that practice secondary burial have shown thatsecondary burials are often associated with importantrituals that take place within the settlement or, in caseswhere the burial is extra-settlement, at the site where thebones will finally be deposited, or both (Hertz 1960;Huntington & Metcalfe 1979; Parker Pearson 1999).

Thus, for the Kudatini burial, we can imagine ascenario in which the bones of the dead child were takenfrom their location of primary burial or exposure (seeMushrif et al. forthcoming) to the mound at Kudatini (see Boivin et al. forthcoming) and deposited in theground according to a complex ritual sequence. Thiswould have involved marking the pots and placingindividual skeletal elements into them (it is also possiblethat these activities took place prior to transport of theremains and burial paraphernalia to the final burial siteif this site was indeed different from the site of primaryburiel and exposure). Marking of the pots is likely to


9

11. Marks on pots from burial XXIII at Raigir, which Hunt arguedshowed evidence of having been produced by more than one person(he compared this to analysis of handwriting style) (from Hunt 1924).

have been carried out by a number of people, some ofwhom were probably ritual specialists and/or closefamily members of the deceased. The presence of one ormore ritual specialists is likely, given that a complexseries of steps needed to be carried out, including theeventual placement of the individual burial componentsin the pit in what was no doubt a particular meaningfuland ritually prescribed way (which included orientationrelative to the cardinal directions).

Elucidating the role the marks played is moredifficult than suggesting a context for their production.In the case of the Kudatini burial, there are no clearpatterns of association between the pot marks and thetype of pot on which they appear, its contents or itslocation within the burial that might help to elucidatetheir meaning. Hunt also noted that the same pot marksappeared on pots of all sizes and shapes, and did notappear to relate to pot contents (Hunt 1924; though notethat since few contextual analyses of the marks havebeen carried out, this lack of patterning remains to beconfirmed). As has also been noted above, there is noclear pattern of association between pot mark type andgeographical area or chronological period. Pot marksvery similar to the ones found at Kudatini have beenobserved on pots from the site of Sanur in Tamil Nadu(see Fig. 12; Banerjee & Soundara Rajan 1959), Feroke inKerala (see Fig. 13; Aiyappan 1933), and Jadigenahalli

(see Fig. 14; Seshadri 1960), Savandrug (Lal 1960), and T. Narasipur (Lal 1960) in Karnataka (see Table 3, andalso Fig. 1 for site locations). Thus marks like thoseobserved in the Kudatini burial have been found on bothcoasts and in three of the four south Indian states, and,since the rock cut tombs of Kerala appear late in theMegalithic chronological sequence (McIntosh 1985), themarks probably also cover a substantial time period.

Is the situation, then, hopeless for linking the



12. Pot marks recorded from the site of Sanur in Tamil Nadu (fromBanerjee & Soundara Rajan 1959, pp. 32).

13. Pot marks recorded from a burial at Feroke in Kerala (fromAiyappan 1933, pp. 308).

14. Marks found on pots at the site of Jadigenahalli in Karnataka (fromSeshadri 1960, pp. 23).

megalithic marks of Kudatini and other sites with anypatterning in the archaeological record? While obser-vations such as those listed above initially suggest that itmight be, one interesting potential pattern that did beginto emerge during the course of our analysis was thepossibility of a linkage between the marks and the typeof burial. While many discussions of graffiti marks lackcontextual data, those for which such data exists suggestthat the marks found on the pots at Kudatini occur onpots associated with sarcophagi burials in other contextsas well. For example, pots marks identical or very similarto those found at Kudatini are found at Sanur, Ferokeand Jadigenahalli (see Figs. 12-14), all of which featurelegged terracotta sarcophagus burials. In fact, as Table 3shows, each of these sites features not just one, but twoor three of the mark types found at Kudatini, indicatinga linkage not just to burial type, but also possiblybetween mark types as well. Given that many differentmark types occur in the Megalithic period (Lal groupedthe marks into 61 types: see also Figs. 9 and 10), and thatsarcophagi are found in only a small proportion ofMegalithic burials in south India, the coincidencebetween the marks and the sarcophagi is not easy todismiss as fortuitous.

A few other researchers have suggested a linkbetween pot marks and burial types. For example,Thapar observes that “at Brahmagiri, save for a singleoverlap, the markings on the pots from the cists were notrepeated on those from the pit circles, [while] at Sanur,where two major types of megalithic burials wereopened, some of the markings are peculiar to the pit-burials” (Thapar 1957, pp. 87). Also, Hunt makes thesuggestive though somewhat unclear statement that:

The same mark turns up in burial after burial in the samegroup, and in group after group, though these be ahundred miles and more apart. We must presume thatcenturies at least separate burials which produce thesame marks, and combinations of marks. (Hunt 1924, pp.150-51).

If indeed there is to be found some sort of (nodoubt complex) relationship between pot mark type andburial type, then what might this indicate about themeaning of the pot marks? The wide geographical andchronological distribution of both pot mark types andburial types would seem to reduce the possibility thatthe marks relate to geographically localised identities,like those typical of clans or ethnic groups. It is morelikely that the marks relate to entities that are notcircumscribed in space or time, like, for example, ritualor religious sectarian beliefs. Perhaps then the markswere linked, at least in some contexts, to the beliefs andpractices of followers of a particular religious sect.Different religious beliefs and mythical understandingsabout the world and the afterlife might lead differentpeople to pursue different burial practices, and accountfor some of the variety in Megalithic burial types foundin south India. In addition, religious identities may havebeen expressed and negotiated through the observanceof particular practices, including the creation ofparticular types of marks on pots.

That the marks were symbols (i.e, things thatrepresented other things (Graves-Brown 1995)) seemslikely. Their patterns of use certainly do not suggest thatthey formed part of any alphabet or script (at least in thecontext of their use on the pots, though such a use cannotbe discounted for all the regions and phases of the‘Megalithic’ period). If the marks were ritual symbolsrelating to particular cult practices, this might explainwhy they are found not just in graves, but also onsettlement sites. But their primary association withgraves suggests that these marks were particularlyimportant in the context of burial-related practices.Whether they were symbols of religious identity or moreesoteric symbols whose use was confined to particularritual activities is difficult to ascertain. Their absence onother forms of material culture, where they might beexpected if they were identity signs or commonly usedsymbols, would seem to suggest the latter. If this is the


11

Table 3. Sites with pot marks similar to those found at Kudatini

Site Marks found that are similar or identicalto those found at Kudatini

Sanur, Chingleput District,Tamil Nadu set of two parallel ‘U’ marks, arrow mark, set of parallel vertical lines

Feroke, Kozhikode District, Kerala set of two parallel ‘U’ marks (and variations on this theme; though note all are upside down relative to Kudatini), arrow mark, sets of parallel linescrossing at right angles

Jadigenahalli, Bangalore District, Karnataka arrow mark (and variations on this theme), set of two parallel ‘U’ marks

Savandrug, Bangalore District, Karnataka set of two parallel ‘U’ marks, arrow mark

T. Narasipur, Mysore District, Karnataka set of two parallel ‘U’ marks, ‘alpha’ mark, arrow mark

case, it may be that the symbols were primarilyunderstood and used by ritual specialists, whosepossession of this esoteric knowledge set them apartfrom the ordinary members of society. This knowledgemay have been particularly important in securing safetransit of the deceased to the next world, hence theassociation of the marks with funerary contexts.

There can be little doubt that whatever themeaning of the marks that appeared on the Megalithicpots in south India, it was neither straightforward norstatic. Meaning is never fixed, but emerges in the contextof action and process (Graves-Brown 1995; Robb 1998;Turner 1967). While one reading is suggested here, it islikely that the use of pot marks and the meaningsattached to them changed during the course of the longso-called ‘Megalithic period’. It may also be that theinterpretation offered here is not correct for any phase orcontext of the south Indian Megalithic tradition.However, until more contextual information about potmarks is forthcoming, it is difficult either to verify or torule out the picture that has been constructed here.

Thus this paper concludes with a plea, and onewhich unfortunately is hardly new (Thapar 1957; Lal1960), for the recording and publication of detailedcontextual information about all marks identified onpots and pot sherds in Megalithic contexts. Indeed,detailed contextual recording should extend to allaspects of Megalithic burial. Any attempt to reconstructpast meaning relies heavily on contextual associations(Hodder 1986), and until we systematically secure suchinformation for a more substantial number of Megalithicburials, we are reduced to offering largely unsubstant-iated interpretations of some of the world's mostfascinating prehistoric remains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to those whoparticipated in the 2002 field season, including HelenLewis, Deepak Havanur, Kalyan Malagyannavar,Shankar Pujar and Subhas Chincholi. Thanks is alsoextended to Dilip Chakrabarti, Dorian Fuller andMichael Petraglia for commenting on a draft of thispaper, to John Robb for insightful discussion about theburial and to Jenny Doole for creating a three-dimensional image of the sarcophagus. Funding for the2002 Sanganakallu-Kupgal project was provided by theBritish Academy, with additional aid coming from theSociety for South Asian Studies, the Prehistoric Societyand Karnatak University.



NOTES

1 The concept of a Megalithic period is problematised inBoivin et al. forthcoming (see also Devaraj et al. 1995;Mohanty & Selvakumar 2001; Korisettar et al. 2001).

2 Our project website at http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/Projects/bellary/index.html includes photos and discuss-ion of the burial.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

Aiyappan, A. 1933, “Rock-cut cave-tombs of Feroke, S.Malabar”, The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society 23(3),pp. 299-314.

Banerjee, N.R. & Soundara Rajan, K.V. 1959, “Sanur 1950 & 1952:A Megalithic site in District Chingleput”, Ancient India 15.

Bell, C. 1997, Ritual Perspectives and Dimensions, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Boivin, N. & Fuller, D., 2001, “Looking for post-processualtheory in South Asian archaeology”, in S. Settar & R.Korisettar (eds.), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, VolumeIV: Archaeology and Historiography, Manohar, New Delhi,pp. 191-215.

Boivin, N., Korisettar, R, Venkatasubbaiah, P.C., Havanur, D.,Malagyannavar, K. & Chincholi, S., forthcoming,“Sarcophagus Burial at Kudatini”, Karnataka.

Boivin, N., Korisettar, R., Venkatasubbaiah, Lewis, H., Havanur,D., Malagyannavar, K. Melakar, S.K. & Chincholi, S.,2002, “Exploring Neolithic and Megalithic South India:the Bellary District Archaeological Project”, Antiquity 76,pp. 937-8.

Devaraj, D.V., Shaffer, J.G., Patil, C.S. & Balaubramanya 1995,“The Watgal excavations: an interim report”, Man andEnvironment 20(2), pp. 57-74.

Foote, R.B. 1916, Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities of India,Leeladevi, Delhi.

Fuller, D. & Boivin, N., 2001, “Beyond description and diffusion:A history of processual theory in the archaeology ofSouth Asia”, in S. Settar & R. Korisettar (eds.), IndianArchaeology in Retrospect, Volume IV: Archaeology andHistoriography, Manohar, New Delhi, pp. 161-90.

Graves-Brown, P.M. 1995, “Fearful symmetry”, WorldArchaeology 27(1), pp. 88-99.

Hertz, R. 1960, Death and the Right Hand, Translated by R.Needham & C. Needham, Free Press, New York.

Hodder, I. 1986, Reading the Past, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge: Cambridge.

Hunt, E.H. 1924, “Hyderabad cairn burials and theirsignificance”, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Instituteof Great Britain and Ireland LIV, pp. 140-56.

Huntington, R. & Metcalf, P. 1979, Celebrations of Death: TheAnthropology of Mortuary Ritual, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Korisettar, R., Venkatasubbaiah, P.C. & Fuller, D.Q., 2001,“Brahmagiri and beyond: The archaeology of thesouthern Neolithic”, in S. Settar & R. Korisettar (eds.),Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume 1: Prehistory,Archaeology of South Asia, Manohar, New Delhi, pp. 151-237.

Lafitte, N. 1931, “A note on certain signs inscribed on potteryfound in ancient funeral urns in South India”, IndianAntiquary 60, pp. 3-4.

Lal, B.B. 1960, “From the Megalithic to the Harappan: Tracing

back the graffiti on the pottery”, Ancient India 16, pp. 4-24.

Leshnik, L.S. 1974, South Indian ‘Megalithic’ Burials: The PandukalComplex, Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.

McIntosh, J.R. 1985, “Dating the South Indian megaliths”, in J.Schotsmans & M. Taddei (eds.), South Asian Archaeology1983, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples, pp. 467-93.

Mohanty, R.K. & Selvakumar, V., 2001, “The archaeology of themegaliths in India: 1947-1997”, in S. Settar & R. Korisettar(eds.), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume I: Prehistory– Archaeology of South Asia, Manohar, New Delhi pp. 313-481.

Moorti, U.S. 1994, Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-Economic Perspectives, Ganga Kaveri, Varanasi.

Mushrif, V., Boivin, N., Korisettar, R. & S.R. Walimbe,forthcoming, “Skeletal remains from the Kudatinisarcophagus burial”.

Parker Pearson, M. 1999, The Archaeology of Death and Burial,Sutton, Stroud.

Rajan, K. 1998, “Further excavations at Kodumanal, TamilNadu”, Man and Environment 23(2), pp. 65-76.

Robb, J.E. 1998, “The archaeology of symbols”, Annual Review ofAnthropology 27, pp. 329-46.

Seshadri, M. 1960, “Report on the Jadigenahalli MegalithicExcavations For the Year 1957”, Government Press,Mysore.

Sundara, A. 1973, “Chronological order of megalithic tomb-types in Karnataka”, in D.P. Agrawal & A. Ghosh (eds.),Radiocarbon and Indian Archaeology, Tata Institute forFundamental Research, Bombay, pp. 239-51.

Thapar, B.K. 1957. “Maski 1954, A Chalcolithic site of theSouthern Deccan”, Ancient India 13, pp. 4-142.

Turner, V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual.London: Cornell University Press.

Yazdani, G. 1916, “Megalithic remains of the Deccan – a newfeature of them”, Journal of the Hyderabad ArchaeologicalSociety 1916, pp. 56-79.

Yazdani, G. 1917, Annual Report of the Archaeological Departmentof H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions, for the years 1915-1916,pp. 9-10.

Yazdani, G. 1918, Annual Report of the Archaeological Departmentof H.E.H. the Nizam’s Dominions, for the years 1916-17, pp.5-8.


13

Documents

Megalithic Markings in Context: graffiti marks on burial pots from Kudatini, Karnataka