rock art in tamil nadu: a status report · beginning in the study of rock art of tamil nadu. pon....

Man In India, 91 (2) : 337-357 © Serials Publications

Address for communication: K. Rajan, Department of History, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry,India, E-mail: [email protected]

ROCK ART IN TAMIL NADU: A STATUS REPORT

K. Rajan

Despite the presence of a variety of archaeological remains, rock art of Tamil Nadu has notreceived sufficient academic attention. This paper presents a status report on the research on therock art of Tamil Nadu. So far more than seventy-five sites are known to yield- paintings executedon rock-shelters and the ‘megalithic’ tombs; but only a few of the sites have engravings. Rockart is witnessed throughout the region with a higher concentration in the northern part of TamilNadu. Situating rock art in proper socio-cultural contexts, studying their chronological evolution,systematic documentation and proper protection are still wanting as far as Tamil Nadu isconcerned. Urgent steps are needed from the government to protect these valuable archaeologicalremains.

Keywords: Rock art - Tamil Nadu - India.

Rock art is not merely an expression, but also a representation of the tremendouslyrich life ways of the prehistoric communities. When researchers confront withrock art, they not only admire its aesthetic value, but also attempt to decipher thesymbols in which are concentrated the ancient belief systems. Rock art, therefore,is not just about expressing ‘things,’ but sublime ideas and flashing values. Rockart, which is the earliest known aesthetic expression of humans, serves as animportant source material to understand the ‘mental world’ of the past societies.This non-verbal language, communicated through an everlasting medium, providesinsights into the world of the bygone era. The study of rock art in Tamil Nadu,particularly in the recent years, has attracted the attention of a number ofacademicians, artists and amateurs from different fields. The curiosity in this ancientform of art has resulted in the discovery of more than seventy-five sites in TamilNadu with paintings (petrographs) and engravings (petroglyphs) executed on thesurface of rock-shelters and the Iron Age (‘megalithic’) graves, particularly thedolmens. Unlike in the northern part of India where the early rock art is dated backto the later Palaeolithic times, the south Indian rock art seems to have first appearedin the Mesolithic times, according to the available evidence, but continued throughthe Neolithic, the Iron Age, and the historical times.

History of Research

Since the first discovery of rock paintings in 1860s by Archibald Carlleyle in theKaimur ranges of Bihar region, several rock art sites have been brought to light indifferent parts of India. The early investigations were in sporadic in nature as one

338 MAN IN INDIA

discovered by Fawcett in 1890s at Edakkal in Wayanad region of Kerala. The studyof rock art as a discipline emerged only in the post-independence era. The discoveryof the cluster of painted shelters at Bhimbetka in 1957 by V.S. Wakankar made atremendous impact in the study of rock art in India. The discovery of rock paintingsat Mallapadi in Dharmapuri District by K.V. Raman in 1978 initiated a newbeginning in the study of rock art of Tamil Nadu. Pon. Arasu, then pre-historicarchaeologist in Tamil Nadu State Archaeology Department took initiatives underthe direction of R. Nagasamy and discovered several sites in South Arcot and NorthArcot districts. Pon.Arasu documented nearly ten sites in a short span of time,particularly in the area around Tirukkoyilur. However, the discovery of Kilvalaipaintings with certain graffiti marks identical to the Harappan/Indus script by BagurKuppusamy in 1984 generated great interest among archaeologists. Subsequently,the Tamil Nadu State Archaeology Department initiated a concrete programme tosurvey and document all the available rock art sites in Tamil Nadu (Sridhar 2005).The archaeological officers posted in different districts took efforts to locate rockpaintings. For instance, R. Poongundran, then Registering Officer of Nilgiri district,discovered several sites in the Nilgiri hills. Likewise, R. Krishnamurthi, theArchaeological Officer of Dharmapuri district, discovered rock art on the dolmensat Maharajakadai and Mallachandram. This discovery opened up a new dimensionand also suggested that the some of the paintings in white pigment might beassociated with the Iron Age culture. V. Vedachalam brought to light a few sites inMadurai region. R. Poundurai (1986) of Tamil University consolidated the availabledata on rock art and brought out a monograph. Pulavar Duraisamy, a schoolteacherof Kaveripakkam, discovered several rock art sites in Dharmapuri district in the1980s and 1990s. Till then, scholars had given much importance to rock art, butlargely ignored the associated cultural materials. To pursue this issue, K.Rajan inassociation with Pulavar Duraisamy and T. Subramaniam carried out archaeologicalsurveys in the region and placed certain sites within a definite chronologicalframework. For a period of fifteen years, between 1990 and 2005, there was a lullin rock art research. Only a few sites were added-up to the list. A few sites wereidentified in the Upper Gundar Basin of Madurai district in Tamil Nadu (Selvakumaret al. 1998). However, recently in the year between 2005 and 2007 a few researchersincluding K.T. Gandhirajan, R.N. Kumanan, M. Saranya and K. Kumar (Kumar2005a, 2005b; Valliyammal 2005) brought to light several sites. K.T. Gandhirajan,an artist, concentrated in and around Kollegal taluk of Nilgiri district and broughtto light one of the largest rock art sites at Karikkiyur. K. Kumar surveyed in Velloreregion in the year between 2005 and 2007 and reported several sites. R.N. Kumaranand M. Saranya as a part of their Ph.D programme noticed rock art sites for thefirst time in the Palani hills of Kodaikanal region in 2007. Irrespective of these‘discoveries’ and rock art study in Tamil Nadu is lacking a systematic approachincluding faithful documentation and micro-level analysis. This scenario is due to

ROCK ART IN TAMIL NADU: A STATUS REPORT 339

the lack of data on the cultural context of the sites. Further, there is only limitedexcavations were conducted at the sites yielding rock art. The excavations atPaiyampalli, Mallapadi and Mayiladumparai have helped to find out the associationof rock art and their cultural context.

Chronology and Distribution

So far more than seventy-five sites are known to yield- paintings executed on therock-shelters and the ‘megalithic’ tombs (Table 1). Only a few of the sites haveengravings. Rock art is witnessed throughout the region with a higher concentrationin the northern part of Tamil Nadu (Fig. 1). This scenario is, probably, due to thelimited explorations carried out in the southern region. In the recent past, severalPalaeolithic sites have been discovered, beyond the traditional Palaeolithic centreof Kortalaiyar valley, in Chingleput, Vellore, Dharmapuri and Ariyalur districts.The find of a number of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic tools in the Lower Kaverivalley at Kilkolatttur (Figs. 2-5), Kattur and Peraiyur is an eye-opener. Likewise,several Mesolithic sites have been discovered throughout Tamil Nadu (Figs. 6-7).The occurrence of Palaeolithic sites clearly suggests that the prehistoric peopleintensively inhabited across Tamil Nadu. However, their transformation from onecultural phase to another was not within the same chronological frame all overTamil Nadu. Rock art sites are found mainly in association with the Mesolithic, theNeolithic and the Iron Age cultures and to some extent with the Early Historic. Inthe Mesolithic and the Neolithic contexts, they occur on the open rock-shelterslocated within the vicinity of the settlements. In the Iron Age context, they arefound both on the rock shelters as well as the graves, particularly the dolmens. Thelate phase of the Iron Age in Tamil Nadu understandably overlaps with the EarlyHistoric. Some of the paint-ings, though associated with the later phase of the IronAge, do reflect the historical elements. The period around the 6th century BCcould be treated as the overlapping phase. Some of the rock paintings are noticedin the caves associated with the Jain beds engraved with the Early Historic Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions. Whether these paintings are contemporary or prior to the Jainbeds is yet to be assessed. In all probability, Tamil Nadu has a long rock art traditionstarting from the Mesolithic and extending to the historical phase. Majority of therock shelters were in continuous occupation for a long period, which resulted withoverlapping of evidence and in a few cases defacement of earlier rock art. Analysisof superimposition, spatial and stylistic elements of rock art and the associatedarchaeological materials in stratified context have helped to some extent to datethe paintings. The excavations conducted in an open rock shelter associated withrock paintings at Mayiladumparai could be cited as a fine example to this fact(Rajan 2004: 74-89). However, this method could not be applied as a universalrule to all shelters as the content, theme, philosophy and the pigment of the paintingsvary through time. Artefacts like the Mesolithic tools, the Neolithic celts and Iron

340 MAN IN INDIA

TABLE 1: ROCK ART SITES IN TAMIL NADU

S.No Site Taluk District Culture Colour / DescriptionPigment

1 Alambadi Tirukkoliyur Villupuram Iron Age Red White Animal figurinemainly deer,bull and boar

2 Alangayam Walajahpet Vellore Early White Trisula, Sun symbol,Historic Men

3 Anaikundu Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometricsymbols

4 Anaipatti Dindukal Madurai Early Red Horse rider, cart,Historic deer, Human figures

5 Andimalai Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White Human figures

6 Appukkal Vellore Vellore Iron Age White Human and Animalfigures

7 Attakuddai Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White Birds, human figureswith weapons

8 Chandira Tiruppattur Vellore Iron Age Red White Human and animalpuram figures, geometric,

symbols, Dancingfemale, finger prints

9 Chandra Vaniyampadi Vellore Iron Age Red Human and animalpuram White figures, fighting

scene

10 Chenna Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age Red Hunting scene, horse,rayanpalli White Human and animal

figures, geometricsymbols

11 Chinna Vellore Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalPalam figures, geometricpakkam symbols

12 Cholavaram Vellore Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometricsymbols

13 Iduhatti Kothagiri Nilgiri Iron Age White Animal and Humanfigures

14 Iduhatti Otacamund Nilgiri Iron Age Red Geometric designs

15 Kamaya Uttama Madurai Iron Age White Human figures, cattleKavundan palayampatti

16 Kandli Tiruppattur Vellore Iron Age White Human and Animalfigures.Engraving ofa peacock

table contd.


17 Karikkiyur Kotagiri Nilgiri Early Red A procession ofHistoric White bison, monkeys

clambering up a treebranch, a herd ofdeer grazing, humanbeings welcomingone another withoutstretched arms, abattle scene withmen aiming at eachother with bows andarrows, men onhorseback engagedin battle, a shoulder-clasping dance aftera successful boar-hunt, a man with amask, the depictionof sun and its rays, aspiral, a tigerfighting anotheranimal, and a manand his dog sleeping.

18 Karkur Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Dancing scene,Human and animalfigures, geometricsymbols

19 Karungala Melur Madurai Early Red Horse, bullkudi Historic

20 Kidaripatti Melur Madurai Iron Age Red Human and animalfigures

21 Kilvalai Tirukkoyilur Villupuram Iron Age RedWhite Dancing scene,graffiti

22 Kollur Tirukkoyilur Villupuram Iron Age RedWhite Human and Animalfigures

23 Kombapatti Kodaikanal Dindugal Iron Age White Wild animals

24 Konavak Coonur Nilagiri Iron Age White Hunting scenes,karai cattle raiders

25 Kuliratti Virudhunagar?Virudhu Iron Age Red White Animal and Humannagar Figurines, geometric

symbols

26 Kumbavarai Kothagiri Nilgiri Iron Age White Human and animalfigures


table contd.

342 MAN IN INDIA

27 Kumuttipati Coimbatore Coimbatore Iron Age White Human and Animalfigures

28 Kuruvi Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White Human figures,nayanapalli geometric symbols

29 Maharaja Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White human and animalkadai figures

30 Malaipatti Usilampatti Madurai Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometricdesigns

31 Malla Hosur Krishnagiri Iron Age White Human and animalchandram figures, archer, plant,

house

32 Mallapadi Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White Horse riders, humanfigures with weapons

33 Mavadaippu Pollachi Coimbatore Iron Age White Tiger, a deer withstraight horns,anthropomorphicfigures marchinginside a circle, anelephant seizing aman with its trunkwhile another manchases it

34 Mayiladuma Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Microlithic Red Human and animalparai Neolithic White figures, human with

Iron Age weapons

35 Melpatti Gudiyattam Velore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures

36 ModikuppamGudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Horse rider, humanand animal figures,geometric symbols

37 Moongil Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White Human and animalpudur figures

38 Mudippina Hosur Krishnagiri Iron Age White Human and animalyanapalli figures, man holding

bow and arrow,geometric symbols

39 Munandip Andipatti Teni Iron Age Red & Human and Animalpatti White figures

40 Muttupatti Tirumangalam Madurai Iron Age White Human and animalfigures

41 Muttuppatti Madurai Madurai Early White Animal figuresHistoric


table contd.


42 Nayanur Tirukkoyilur Villupuram Iron Age Red Animal figures43 Neganurpatti Gingee Villupuram Iron Age White Human and animal

figures

44 Netterimalai Katpadi Vellore Neolithic Red Animal and HumanIron Age White Figurines, geometric

symbols45 Oppathavadi Krishnagiri Dharmapuri Neolithic Red Archer, bird,

(?) White elephant, Human andanimal figures,geometric symbols

46 Oramana Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron White Human and animalgunta Age figures, man seated

on a cattle, bird

47 Othikuppam Krishnagiri Kishnagiri Iron Age White Men in row48 Pachur Tiruppattur Vellore Iron Age Red Human and animal

figures, geometricsymbols

49 Padiyandal Tirukkoyilur Villupuram Iron Age Red Human and animalWhite figures

50 Paikkal Kothagiri Nilgiri Early White Human and animalHistoric figures

51 Paiyampalli Tiruppattur Vellore Iron Age Red Human and animalEarly White figures, fightingHistoric scenes, elephant,

horse52 Panan Chenkottai ? Tirunelveli Early Black Bull in circle,dancing

parambu Historic figures, elephant

53 Paravaikkal Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometricsymbols

54 Perumukkal Tindivanam Villupuram Iron Age — Engravings of Humanand animal figures,cup marks

55 Pogalur Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Birds, Human andanimal figures,geometric symbols

56 Poonkulam Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometricsymbols

57 Ratnagiri Vellore Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures

58 Ratnagiri Walajahpet Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometric


table contd.

344 MAN IN INDIA

symbols

59 Salakkora Kothagiri Nilgiri Iron Age White Human and animalfigures

60 Sempalli Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Birds, Human andanimal figures,geometric symbols

61 Settavarai Gingee Villupuram Iron Age Red Human and animalWhite figures, hunting

scene, cattle raid

62 Seykundram Gudiyatham Vellore Iron Age White Human and animalfigures, geometricsymbols

63 Sikur Otacamund Nilgiri Iron Age Red Human and animalWhite figures

64 Sirumalai Dindukal Dindukal Iron Age Red Human figures,White hunting and fighting

scenes

65 Sivanatha Vellore Vellore Iron Age Red Human and animalpuram Early White figures

Historic

66 Sundasi Kothagiri Nilgiri Early White Human and animalngam Historic figures

67 Sundeku Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age Red Human and animalppam White figures

68 Tatta Kodaikanal Dindugal Iron Age Red Anima and Humankuzhikadu White figures, geometric

symbols, Huntingscene and dancingscene

69 Thalapalli Krishnagiri Krishnagiri Iron Age White Star, Human andanimal figures, bowand arrow, fightingscene

70 Thengu Kunnoor Nilgiri Iron Age White Human and animalMarahada figures

71 Tirumalai Sivagangai Sivagangai Iron Age Red Human and animalfigures, fighting anddancing scenes

72 Tirumalpadi Wandiwash Tiruvanna Iron Age — Engravings of Humanmalai (?) and animal figures

73 Tiruvadavur Madurai Madurai Early Red Circlehistoric

74 Tondur Gingee Villupuram Early White Human and animal


table contd.


Historic figures

75 Udayarna- Villupuram Villupuram Iron Age Red Human and animalttam White figures

76 Ulkkombai Andippatti Teni Mesolithic White Human and AnimalFigures

77 Vellerikom- Kotagiri Nilgiri Iron Age White Stylised human andbai animal figures

78 Vellerukkan Coimbatore Coimbatore Early White Human and animalpalayam Historic figures

79 Vettavalam Tiruvanna Tiruvanna Iron Age Red Human and animalmalai malai figures

80 Vikkara Usilampatti Madurai Early White Human figuresmangalam Historic

81 Yerpettu Kothagiri Nilgiri Iron Age — Engravings ofhumans and a tree


Age habitation material were recovered from majority of the rock shelters andtheir surroundings in Tamil Nadu, e.g. Mayiladumparai (Fig. 8), Munandipatti,Ulkombai, Kilvalai (Fig. 9), Perumukkal, Mallapadi and Paiyampalli (Fig. 10).

With regard to engravings, Tamil Nadu has very limited evidence, but thePerumukkal engravings are the best examples of this category (Fig. 11). There aresporadic engravings in the rock shelters at Mayiladumparai and Tirumalpadi. Theexcavations carried out in the shelter with engravings suggest that these engravingsbelong to the Neolithic phase. The Perumukkal engravings are identical in all respectto those found at the Edakkal caves in Kerala. But the former’s cultural associationis yet to be ascertained though claims have been made for prehistoric origin. Besidesthe usual engravings on the walls of the shelter, cup-marks are noticed on thecapstone of the Iron Age (‘megalithic’) cist burials at Karubayanahalli andVedarthattakkal in Krishnagiri district. Cup marks were also seen witnessed forthe first time on the boulders of a stone circle entombing a cist burial at Velliripattinear Melur in Madurai district.

In Tamil Nadu, traces of rock art are found in the districts of Dharmapuri,Krishnagiri, Tiruvannamalai, Vellore, Coimbatore and Madurai with muchconcentration in the former two districts. Any new addition to the list in future maychange the present concentration in northern Tamil Nadu. The northern part,particularly the Dharmapuri and Vellore districts, has paintings of the Mesolithicand the Neolithic phases. The findings at Mayiladumparai, Paiyampalli andMallapadi are the best examples for this category. These sites are located in thelandscape, which is an extension of the Mysore plateau. Palaeolithic tools wererecovered from Varatanapalli and Kappalavadi in Krishnagiri district. The earliest

346 MAN IN INDIA

Figure 1: Map showing Rock Art Sites in Tamil Nadu


Figure 2: Kilkolattur : Palaeolithic Tools

Figure 3: Kilkolattur : Middle Palaeolithic Tools

348 MAN IN INDIA




Figure 6: Tirutangal : Microlithic Tools

Figure 7: Tirutangal : Microlithic Tools

350 MAN IN INDIA

Figure 8: Mayiladumparai : Rock Paintings

Figure 9: Kilvalai : Rock Paintings


Figure 10: Paiyampalli : Rock Paintings

Figure 11: Perumukkal : Rock Engravings

352 MAN IN INDIA

paintings associated with the Mesolithic phase could be seen at Mayiladumparaiin Krishnagiri district. The tradition continued in the Neolithic phase and much ofthe evidence surfaced in the Iron Age as seen at Kilvalai in Tiruvannamalai district.None of the Palaeolithic site so far has yielded any remnants of rock art. The latephase of Iron Age culture in Tamil Nadu overlaps with the Early Historic phase.The cultural transformation from one cultural phase to another is not uniform acrossthis region. The uneven ecological settings in the area might have led to an unevendevelopment in the cultural process. The southern part of Tamil Nadu, particularlythe area south of the river Vaigai has not witnessed the Neolithic phase. Though,quite a number of Neolithic celts have been recovered from surface explorations,we hardly have anything to say conclusively about the Neolithic phase. The recentexcavations conducted at Mangudi (Shetty 2003) and Teriruveli reveal that thisregion transformed from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age directly. This is very muchcontradictory to the scenario in the northern parts of Tamil Nadu. Very littleexplorations and negligible amount of excavations have been conducted in thisregion. So future explorations and issue-based excavations may change this scenario.As the present evidence goes, the rock paintings found at sites like at Sirumalai,Mayiladumparai, Ulkombai, Munandipatti and other places could be associatedthe Mesolithic phase.

In the case of Iron Age, the picture is somewhat clearer. The area under studyhad witnessed the inhabitants belonging to different social/occupational groups.The earliest groups mainly involved in hunting and cattle rearing, while the latergroups engaged in agriculture. The former groups generally settled down on hillocks,whereas the latter groups occupied the riverine tracts, which are suitable foragriculture. Though both the groups followed the practice of raising Iron Age(‘megalithic’) tombs for the dead, there seem to be architectural and culturalvariations in their funerary rites. The groups that occupied the hillocks or foothillregions generally built dolmens and dolmenoid cists. Their main water source wassmall tanks and perennial ponds. The inhabitants settled on the plains adopted urnburials and stone circles entombing cist or urn burials (Rajan 1992a: 35-47). Thesize, type and location of the burials and the associated habitations indicate that inTamil Nadu, rock art was adopted by the people who actively involved in cattleraising rather than those associated with agriculture. Most of the paintings werenoticed on the rock-shelters and dolmens. The rock-shelters are generally locatedin the middle elevations of the hillocks, and in the vicinity of the habitation moundsand Iron Age graves thereby exposing their close relationship. Most of the habitationmounds normally lie on the flat surface of the hillock, whereas the rock-sheltersare located a little away from the habitation mound. The non-availability of anycultural material in these shelters clearly suggests that these rock-shelters did notwitness long-term human occupation, and instead they were used occasionally onspecific times. It probably suggests their ritualistic role. Some of the shelters are


still under worship of the local communities. For instance, at Mallachandram(Dharmapuri District) and Kilseppuli (Tiruvannamalai district) even today duringthe festival time, particularly in the Tamil calendar month of karthikai (November-December), the inhabitants of the village first light a lamp in the dolmen and rockshelter before beginning the celebration at home. The living tradition explicitlyindicates the continuity of use and the importance of the rock shelters. In ancienttimes too, the Neolithic or Iron Age people would have visited these shelters onspecific occasions to perform some rituals. The ethnographical observation showsthe spiritual importance attached to the shelters. Close observation of various rockart sites suggests such an association. Chronologically, the earlier rock art sites arefound in the northeastern part of Tamil Nadu, in Krishnagiri taluk of Dharmapuridistrict. It seems that the idea slowly penetrated into Tiruvannamalai district throughthe Chengam pass. The tradition of painting the Iron Age tombs was discarded andthis prac-tice was continued only in the rock-shelters. For instance in Dharmapuridistrict nearly 90 % of the rock art sites was found in association with dolmens.Out of 18 dolmen sites, nearly 14 sites were reported with paintings (Fig. 12)(Rajan 1991: 37-52). Hence, it is clear that this art was well received and absorbedinto the historical period too, as witnessed in the rock shelters.

Figure 12: Mallachandram : Rock Paintings

Pigments

Rock paintings were made invariably by using both white and red pigments asobserved at Kilvalai, Chettavarai, Alambadi, Oramanagunta, Mayiladumparai and

354 MAN IN INDIA

Oppatavadi. At Mayiladumparai and Ormanagunta paintings in red pigmentsuperimposed by white pigment are seen and thereby suggesting an earlier date forthe red pigment. It indicates that paintings were drawn on the shelters at an earlydate, then on the graves. It is probable that the paintings with red pigment belongedto the Neolithic. However this needs to be researched further. The non-availabilityof paintings in red pigment in the Iron Age tombs and their superimposition bywhite pigment suggests their earlier date. The type, position and techniques indicatethat they were executed particularly in different locations of the same shelter.

Motifs and their Locational Context

There is very slight difference between the motifs found on the dolmens and therock-shelters. The former had numerous human figurines involved in fighting,whereas the later had scenes depicting social gatherings. The figures are doneeither in flat wash or in outline. While executing painting on the interior surface ofthe dolmens, the painters always preferred the western orthostat first and then thenorthern, southern and finally, the eastern orthostats. Generally, the paintings wereseen on the western orthostats. The paintings in the rock-shelter were generallyfound on the ceiling, but a little interior from the edge. Interestingly atMayiladumparai, the rock-shelter was devoid of any natural light, and the paintingswere found in the darker part of the shelter.

Themes

Cattle Raids

The paintings at several sites including Mayiladumparai, Oppattavadi,Oramanagunta and Konavakkarai depict the scenes of warriors heading for cattleraids. In these cases, generally the warriors were seen mounted on cattle and holdingweapons such as swords, javelins, lance like objects and shields. In a few cases thevictorious hero is shown with a headdress or square box and mounted on a cattle.The square box may also indicate the memorial stone raised for the slain heroinvolved in cattle retrieval. These themes recall the later day hero stones found inthe study area. At Konavakkarai, the hero is shown in a large size, whereas the restwere depicted comparatively in a smaller size (Paundurai 1986: 34-36). This schemeof depiction is well illustrated in the later day hero stones too.

Hunting Scenes

Hunting scenes are shown in different patterns. At a site, an archer holds a bow andarrow above his head in a position of charging the arrow upwards. In a scene, fourhunters encircle a deer standing in the centre. The horns of the deer are depictedwith branches (Cervus unicolour?), and this suggests the attention for details onthe part of the painter. In another occasion, a hunter kills an animal by piercing a


lance-like object. It is to be recalled here that memorial stones were raised duringthe historical period for the heroes who were killed while hunting or fighting wildanimals (Rajan 1992b). There are number of such memorial stones calledpantrikuttipattankal, pulikuttipattankal and yanaikutti- pattankal, respectively inTamil, indicating the stone memorials erected for the men who were killed by aboar, a tiger and an elephant (Nagasamy 1975: 45-49).

Other Scenes

Fighting scenes, tilling of land, dancing in a row, riding a horse and cattle rearing(Fig. 13) are some of the other scenes portrayed in rock art. In one instance, thefighting scene of a horse rider (?) is depicted. The contenders fight with a shield inone hand and holding rein of the horse in the other hand. Sometimes, they hold along lance-like object. While depicting the dancing scenes, the painters alwayspreferred to draw the human figures in a row. In one case a house is drawn in frontof a row of four human figures in dancing posture. In a painting, a plant is depictedemerging out of a square box recalling the ‘tree-in-rail’ symbol of the punch markedcoins or Buddhist tradition?.

Figure 13: Mavadaippu : Rock Paintings

Interestingly, the paintings observed at Kuruvinayanapalli had symbol with12 square boxes formed out of 5 vertical and 4 horizontal strokes. Out of fivevertical strokes, the inner three strokes end with arrow marks. Four human figureswere also depicted, two each on either side of the above-said symbol. In addition,two human figures and one animal were also seen. The boxed-symbol with arrow

356 MAN IN INDIA

mark in the centre is similar to the symbols depicted in the fertility stone, locallycalled sanniyasikal of the later historical times. The animal depicted on one side ofthe above motif may be a symbolic representation of the ritual in which animalwas made to cross the feature represented in the motif, probably in order to increasefertility. Some other symbols like stars, human genitals, flower motifs and circleswith a dot were also found.

Symbols

Another important aspect of the study is the graffiti found in association with variousthemes. At Kilvalai five symbols were found (Samy 1984: 71-72) and such graffitiwere also found at Vettavalam, Tirumalai, Kurralapadai and Podikaimalai. ThePanaikkarans, a contemporary ‘tribal’ population, worship the symbols found atPodikaimalai. Recently engravings were found on the rock-shelter at Perumukkaland at Tirumalpadi. These engravings are identical to the paint-ings found elsewhere.It is probable that in the course of time, instead of painting, people began to engraveto make their art last forever.

Conclusions

Situating rock painting in proper socio-cultural contexts, studying theirchronological evolution, systematic documentation and proper protection are stillwanting as far as rock art of Tamil Nadu is concerned. The varied nature of thepaintings and their association with contemporary cultural materials can giveenormous data to understand the past societies in a right perspective. The open,unprotected nature of the rock shelters and the Iron Age megalithic dolmens exposethem to a greater amount of vandalism. This kind of destruction would lead to theloss of these precious tangible cultural properties in the near future. Urgent stepsare needed from the government to protect these valuable archaeological remains.

References

Kumar, K. (2005a). Karkur Parai Oviyangal, Avanam, Journal of Tamil Nadu ArchaeologicalSociety, 16: 124-127.

Kumar, K. (2005b). Neeterimalai Tolliyal Chinnagal, Avanam, Journal of Tamil NaduArchaeological Society, 16: 128-131.

Nagasamy, R. (1975). Dharmapuri Kalvettukkal (Dharmapuri Hero stones), Chennai, Departmentof Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu.

Poundurai, R. (1986). Tamilaga Parai Oviyangal (in Tamil), Madras, Sekar Pathippakam.

Rajan, K. (1991). Archaeology of Dharmapuri District, Man and Environment, 26-1 : 37-52.

Rajan, K. (1992a). Iron Age Culture of North Arcot Region, Puratattva 22 : 35-47.

Rajan, K. (1992b). Memorial Stones in Tamil Nadu, New Trends in Indian Art and Archaeology,ed. By N.C. Ghosh & B.U.Nayak, pp. 251-270, Goa, National Institute of Oceanography.

Rajan, K. (2004). Excavations at Mayiladumparai, Man and Environment, 29-2 : 74-89.


Selvakumar, V., K.T. Gandhirajan and S. Kannan (1998). Recent Archaeological Discoveries inThe Usilampatti Area. Proceedings of Tamil Nadu Historical Congress. VthSession.Thirunelveli. pp. 93-96.

Samy, P. L. (1984). Tamilnattil Sinduveli Eluttoviyam (Harappan Scripts in Tamil Nadu), Madras.

Shetty, Ashok Vardhan K. (2003). Excavations at Mangudi, Chennai, Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamil Nadu.

Sridhar, T. S. (2005). Rock Art of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, Department of Archaeology, Govt. ofTamil Nadu.

Valliyanmmal, M. (2005). Panan Parambu Parai Oviyam, Avanam, Journal of Tamil NaduArchaeological Society, 16 : 132-133.

rock art in tamil nadu: a status report · beginning in the study of rock art of tamil nadu. pon....

Documents