Early India and Pakistan to Ashoka c9.4

c9.4

The problem, then, of interrelationship (or its absence) between megalithic areas and customs is not an easy one. On the whole, however, in spite of occasional and partial analogies, the differences between the megaliths of the tribal areas and the ancient tombs of the Deccan and peninsular India are far more impressive than their resemblances. As von Fürer-Haimendorf observes, ‘I have seen the monuments of the Nāgas and Khāsis, of Gadabas, Bondos and Gonds, and I have seen many of the prehistoric dolmens and cromlechs of Hyderabad, but was never struck by any close resemblance. This alone would, of course, not prove the absence of a genetic connection. More important are the differences in function and meaning of the monuments. The megaliths of the tribal folks of today are, with comparatively few exceptions, memorials unconnected with graves or burning-grounds. Those of prehistoric times are in the majority graves or closely associated with graves.¹⁴ He adds that the distinctive 'port-hole' opening which will be found to characterize many of the megalithic cists of southern India 'does not occur among any of the tribes of middle India who bury their dead in megalithic graves, such as the Mundas and Hos'. The time-factor is another consideration to which much further attention is needed. The south Indian megaliths seem to have come to an end in the 1st century A.D.; those of middle India and the north-east represent a living tradition of entirely unknown antiquity. If we add to these various diversities and difficulties the almost complete geographical exclusiveness of the two great groups, their essential separateness is at present a fair premise.