Changing Tradition and Megalith Practices in Odisha: Some ...

Changing Tradition and Megalith Practices in Odisha:

Some Observations

Subodha Mendaly1 and Sakir Hussain1

1. Post Graduate Department of History, Sambalpur University, Jyoti Vihar, Burla ‐

768 019, Odisha, India (Email: [email protected]; sakirhussain303@

gmail.com)

Received: 26 July 2018; Revised: 11 September 2018; Accepted: 24 October 2018

Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6 (2018): 594‐605

Abstract: Last few years’ research in the state of Odisha has brought to light several megalithic sites of

ethnic community and most of them belong to Austro‐Asiatic group of family. Their megalithic structure

is as that of other ethnic communities that follow megalithism in the present day in central eastern part of

India. During the course of our research, we have noticed many changes that have occurred on their

funeral rituals, beliefs and cultural tradition. Different factors were responsible for their changes.

However, in this paper, we have given some observation on changing tradition and beliefs, its responsible

factors; problem and prospect in future research on living megalithic tradition.

Keywords: Burial Custom, Megalithic Tradition, Population, Austro‐Asiatic,

Subsistence Pattern, Urban Process, Odisha

Introduction Funeral rituals and burial custom is a very common tradition found in every human

society. It began during the prehistoric time and continues to the modern era but their

process, tradition, beliefs and characteristic feature have changed from time to time

and, it also differs from community to community. However, the present paper is a

preliminary observation on changing traditions of living megalithic culture within the

ethnic community viz., Munda, Gond and Ho communities, settled in hilly tract of

Odisha.

Megalithic burials are not only found in India but also a similar kind of tradition found

in Europe (Chapman 1981; Hodder 1982a; Bradly 1998), Africa (Laporte), Southeast

Asia (Sahi, 1991; Mohanty and Selvakumar 2002:313‐352) and other part of the world

(Child 1948; Drinot 2009:15‐32). During the Iron‐Age phase we find a variety of

megalithic structure in different parts of the country, mostly the southern and central

parts of India provide good evidence regarding this cultural tradition (Sundara 1975,

1979: 331‐340; Sudyka, 2011:359‐89; Mendaly 2016:1‐4). There are a number of ethnic

communities that are still practicing this tradition but due to urbanization and effect

Mendaly and Hussain 2018: 594‐605

595

from other religious developments, many changes have been occurred in these cultural

traditions.

The state of Odisha has occupied a unique position in the field of ethnographical

research in India for having highest numbers of tribal communities. The Constitution

of India (Amendment) in 1976 enlisted 62 types of ethnic communities in Odisha

(Census Report 2001). However, the present study is focused on Gonds of Nuaparha

district, Mundas of Sundergarh district and Ho communities of Mayurbhanj district.

All the three groups were practicing megalithism. Their beliefs and traditions differ

from group to group, region to region and different from other religion. Mostly, they

are nature worshippers and follow their own traditional beliefs and practices (Roy

1912; Elwin 1945, 1955; Haimendorff 1943; Mendaly 2015).

However, the present study is based upon the data collected from both primary and

secondary sources. In addition, authors have carried out several seasons’ fieldwork.

During the time of survey, we systematically surveyed several burial grounds or

Matha, located in foothill areas occupied by tribal people in Nuaparha, Sundergarh and

some parts of Mayurbhanj district. This was also, supported by further ethnographical

data as well as questionnaire schedule which had been adopted to understand the

opinion of the people regarding the megalithic practices and their belief on changing

tradition.

Population Distribution and Their Subsistence Pattern The Mundas were settled more or less in all the districts of Odisha and they were

belonging to Austro‐Asiatic language family (Anderson 2001, 2008). The Munda

people call themselves as Horo‐ko (men) and the word Munda is given to them by their

Hindu neighbors (Roy 1912). The concentration of Munda communities in Sundargarh

is the highest in numbers. Further, they were divided into a number of groups like

Erenga Munda, Mahali Mundas and Mundas.

The Gonds were widely distributed in Bastar region comprises eastern part of

Chhattisgarh and Western part of Odisha (Elwin 1945:78‐133; Dewangan and Kumar

2015). They were sparsely distributed in Nuaparha district and are belonging to

southern Mundari groups which is also a branch of Austro‐Asiatic language family

(Chaubey et al, 2017). The Ho tribes are one of the major groups found in Jharkhand

and Orissa. The Kolhan area of Jharkhand is the original place of their habitat. In due

course of time, they spread towards its neighboring states of Odisha, West Bengal and

Assam (Chaterjee and Das 1927; Duary et al 2005:293‐304). The Hos belong to the

“Munda branch” of Austro‐Asiatic languages and in certain respect allied to Santali and

Mundari dialect (Anderson 2008). The Singhbonga or the Sun God is the supreme deity

of Ho communities (Das Gupta 1983:42‐45) (Figure 1).

Subsistence pattern of the tribal communities are based on the agro‐pastoral economy;

most of the people were seasonal cultivators and cattle herders and in forest area.

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

596

Paddy is the principal crop grown and rice is their staple food. Agriculture is

supplemented by one or more subsidiary occupation such as hunting, fishing,

collecting different types of forest products. They collect honey, roots of the different

types of medicinal plant, and also hunting and fishing but they belong to labourer

class, those who often work in othersʹ plough field, as daily wage earners. The female

members of the family engage themselves with spin yarn from the bark‐fiber of a

deciduous flowering shrub, colorings with vegetable and other natural dye, and weave

clothes, which are both durable and artistic in effect. Besides, they prepare different

types of handicraft products like bamboo jar and earthen pots and the local markets are

very favorable to sell their products and earn some money for maintaining their

livelihood.

Figure 1: Distribution of Living Megalithic Sites in Odisha

Changing Tradition of Megalithic Culture Urban process in many parts of the world, lead to change the socio‐economic status of

people day by day, gradually they have been changing their lifestyle. Sometimes the

local people were bound to migrate to other areas to maintain their minimum

livelihood. Besides, due to the process of deforestation the quantity of forest product is

gradually decreasing and most of the ethnic groups prefer to live in forest or hilly

region but now a days they are not able to find sufficient amount of forest product for

their survival and are bound to migrate to another region. Migration process and

change of environment is responsible for the change of their traditional beliefs and

practices. Further, NGOs and Missionary activities have greatly influenced the people

in these regions to change their food habit, adaptation strategies, cultural traditions,

traditional practices and beliefs.


597

Figure 2: Cemented Burials of Gond Tribes

Figure 2A: Cemented Burials of Gond Tribes


598

Figure 2B: Pidha Type Burial Structures

The Gonds The Gonds occupy most of the parts of the Nuaparha district and still practicing

megalithic tradition (Mendaly 2015) but during last few years we have seen a number

of changes that occurred due to the influence of other caste and religion along with the

process of urbanization which may have had some impact resulting in change in their

tradition and custom. In mortuary practices, they have changed many ritual processes

and used new types and methods of tradition. In some of the region of Nuaparha

district, they use cemented chamber for burial purposes instead of cairn heap and

Menhirs. Some of the wealthy people prefer to build cemented chambers because they

believe construction of cemented structure involves less human labour and is

connected to socio‐economic conditions of the people. Mostly the higher‐class people

do not prefer to build any cairn heap or memorial pillars, which was practiced by their

ancestors (Figures 2 and 2 A).

However, burning the body of deceased and performing secondary funeral rites is still

popular within the Gonds community. After burningthe dead body, they collect the

burnt ash and bone fragments to the river Ganga for purification and salvation from


599

this world. The concept of “Ganga and purification” is recently included in their

ceremonial procedure and found within the urban and semi urban people. The

secondary funeral rituals were not prevalent before a few decades in this region and it

has occurred due to the influence of other caste people in this region, which is now

connected with the social status of the person within the community and society. Some

people preferred to preserve the burnt bone fragments and they construct small Pidha

type of structure using mud and bricks or cement and bricks, depending upon their

financial status (Figure 2B). However, we have observed number of changes that

occurred in their ceremonial feast. On the day of erecting memorial pillars, the family

members of the deceased distribut feast of merit and in this feast time meat and fish

play an essential part. But within the last few years changes have occurred in this

ceremonial feast and we have noticed that in some of the cases the higher‐class people

prefer to use vegetarian food.

The Mundas Among the Munda community of Sundergarh district, we have seen a number of

changes that took place in their megalithic practices and beliefs regarding death rituals.

Presently some of the Munda people prefer to use cemented structures instead of cairn

heap or stone slabs. When asked why, they said that some of the Munda people were

greatly influenced from other religions and cemented chamber comparatively requires

less human involvement than the procurement of stone material requires. In a broad

spectrum, if any one preferred to use stone slabs or erecting a memorial pillar he may

require much more wealth to complete the entire procedure of death rituals, because

searching, selecting, cutting and transporting from the query site to burial ground is

not an easy task and it requires the involvement of many people. Further, the family

members of the deceased are bound to every type of facility to complete this work, but

on other side, to build a cemented chamber, they need hardly five to ten people to

complete their work. Sometimes the observation of the entire ritual process is not

possible for common people, since now a days most of the people belong to lower class

family prefer to build concrete cemented chamber (Figure 3). Sometimes the higher‐

class people burn the dead. One of the biggest problems is the lack of cultural

awareness; during road construction work, many megalithic structures were destroyed

and due to lack of awareness people did not take care of these structures. During the

exploration in Bonaigarh subdivision of Sundergarh district in 2015, we had found

many memorial pillars, that were erected along the road sides of the village and every

year the village people performed ancestor worship over there but during my recent

visit to this region I found that all the memorial pillars were destroyed due to road

construction (Figure 4).

The Hos The Ho tribes from the Northern Odish also practice living megalithic traditions and

performed an elaborate procedure of death rituals. The expenses they endure during

the funeral ceremony results in them taking a few years to gain their previous


600

economic status (Mohanta 2015). Even though the beliefs and procedure of death

rituals are different from group to group, every person of this community try to

observe the entire procedure of death rituals for the satisfaction of ancestral soul and

protection of his own clan from evil power.

Figure 3: Cemented Burial of Munda Tribes

Presently due to urbanization and influence of other religion, caste, and community,

we have observed many changes that occur among the Ho people such as changes on

their social organisations and cultural practices. Like Mundas and Gonds tribes, Ho are

also preferred to burn the dead body of the deceased and after that they collect burnt

ash to preserve it in a small “Pidha” type structure, which is usually about one to five

feet high. Originally, this process was not found within the Ho tribes, perhaps they

borrowed it from the Hindu people.

Changes are also seen on their megalithic structure, many of them now construct

cemented grave and use small size of pillars for memory of the deceased. Most of the

younger people migrated to other state, to work in factories instead to maintain their

livelihood. Besides during the rainy seasons many people are involved in agricultural

field, so they cannot give much time to the family member of deceased and also

shortage of laborer is a big issue in the countryside. We observe that construction of a


601

cemented structure is requires a smaller number of labour forces in comparison to

cutting and transporting a mega structure from query to burial ground and vertically

erecting the structure in the memory of the deceased. However, in some areas wealthy

people are much more interested to construct cemented burials as it symbolizes

economic status of the family (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 4: A‐ Memorial Pillars Placed in Road Side of Anugul village (in 2015),

3B and C ‐ Destruction of Memorial pillars in Anugul Village (2018)


602

Figure 5: Concrete Memorial Platform of Ho Community (Mohanta 2015)

Figure 6: stepped Round‐Shaped Concrete Memorial Pillar (Mohanta 2015)


603

Discussion Changing cultural system is a continuing process, it has occurred from time to time

and a number of factors are responsible viz., changing environment, migration,

influence of other community‐ culture and religion. Changing traditions due to the

influence of other religion is not only seen in Odisha rather similar form of changes

also occurred in other part of India such as North eastern India. Our recent visits to

North eastern India (Some parts Phek district of Nagaland and Senapati district of

Manipur) region provide some valuable information on changing tradition due to the

influence of urbanism and effects of the other religions. However today we do not find

the same rituals and traditions that were practiced a few years ago among the ethnic

communities. Some of them are influenced from Hinduism and many others are

influenced from the Christianity. Now a days very few villages are there who are

practicing megalithic tradition. In addition to the tribal population settled in urban and

semi urban areas have almost forgotten their traditional beliefs and practices. They do

not know why they were practicing this tradition, some of them do not believe in

ancestral soul or evil spirits but people settled in hilly regions were still practicing

megalithic tradition although, few changes have occurred on their ritual process.

Finally, the processes of cultural changes have created obstacles in ethno‐

archaeological researches since we are using and doing ethno‐archaeology, we always

have try to elucidate the truth behind the Megalithic culture which is that it started

during the Iron Age phase in India and continued up to the modern era. In such extent,

the study of living megalithic tradition of ethnic community gives us much

information to understand the socio‐economy and political condition of megalithic

using community in Iron Age phase, but after few years we face some problems to

elucidate and reconstruct their history.

References Anderson, G.D.S. 1999. A New Classification of the Munda Language Family: Evidence from

Comparative Verb Morphology. Presented at the 209th Meeting of the

American Oriental Society, Baltimore.

Anderson, G.D.S. 2001. A New Classification of South Munda: Evidence from

Comparative Verb Morphology, Indian Linguistics 62 (1): 27‐42.

Anderson, G.D.S. 2008. The Munda Languages, Oxford/Network: Rutledge

Binford, L.R. 1971. “Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential”. Memoirs of

the Society for American Archaeology, Approaches to the Social Dimensions of

Mortuary Practices: 25: 6‐29.

Bradley, R. 1998 The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in

Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Rutledge, London.

Chapman, R. (1981). The emergence of formal disposal areas and the ʹproblemʹ of

megalithic tombs in Europe. In The Archaeology of Death edited by R.

Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, England, 1‐25.

Chaterjee, A. N. and T.C. Das 1927. The Hos of Sareikela. Calcutta, Calcutta University.


604

Chaubey G., R., Tamang, E, Pennarun ,PavanDubey ,N. Rai, R. K. Upadhyay, R. P.

Meen, J. R .Patel, G. Van Driem, K. Thangaraj , M. Metspalu and R. Villems.

2017. Reconstructing the population history of the largest tribe of India: the

Dravidian speaking Gond. European Journal of Human Genetics (2017)

25,493–498.

Childe , V. G. (1948). “Megaliths”. Ancient India. 4:4‐13.

Das Gupta, B. K. 1983. The Hos of Bihar. Adivasi XXIII (i): 42‐45.

Dewangan , L.N. and A. Kumar, 2015. Changing trends in Living Megalithic practices

in Bastar, Chhatisgarh, 771‐775, in K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B.Ota,

(ed), Megalithic Tradition in India Archaeology and Ethnography, Vol‐II,

application of scientific techniques and ethnographic Study, IGRMS‐Bhopal and

Aryan Book International New Delhi.

Drinot, P. 2009. For Whom the Eye Cries: Memory, Monumentality, and the

Ontologies of Vio‐lence in Peru. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies,

18(1):15–32.

Duary, N.K, B. K. Mohanta and P.Das. 2005. Death Rituals of the Ho: a study in Kolhan

area. In Dimension of researches in Indian Anthropology, Oriental

Anthropologist Series II. V.S. Sahay, P.K.Singh and G.K. Bera eds, Pp.293‐

304, Allahabad: The Oriental institute of Cultural and Social Research and

New Delhi: Serial Publication.

Elwin, V. 1945. “Funerary customs in Bastar State”. Man in India. 25:78‐133.

Elwin, V. 1950, Bondo highlander. Madras (Geoffery Cumberlege). London: Oxford

University Press.XIX‐290.

Elwin, V. 1955. The Religion of an Indian Tribe. Bombay (Geoffery Cumberlege), Oxford

University press, London, XXIV‐597.

Haimendorf, Furer Von C. 1943. “Megalithic Rituals among the Gadabas and Bondos

of Orissa”. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. 9 (1): 149‐78.

Haimendorf, Furer Von C. 1945. “The Problem of Megalithic Cultures in Middle

India”. Man in India. 25 (2): 73‐86.

Hodder, I. 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In

Ideology, Power, and Prehistory edited by D. Miller, and C. Tilley.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 51‐68.

Mendaly, 2016, “Menhirs and Cultural Diffusion: Megalithic practices in Central‐

Eastern India”. Antiquity, 352: 1‐3.

Mendaly, S. 2017. Funeral Rituals and Megalithic Tradition: A Study on Some Ethnic

Communities in South‐Western Part of Odisha. Heritage: Journal of

Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 5 (2017): 930‐943.

Mendaly, S.2015, “A Study of Living Megalithic Tradition among the Gond Tribes,

District‐Nuaparha’, Odisha”. Ancient Asia. (6)9:1‐6.

Mohanta, B.K. 2015, Living Megalithic tradition of the Hos of Jharkhand and Orissa

700‐731, in K.K. Basa, R.K. Mohanty and S.B.Ota, (ed), Megalithic Tradition

in India Archaeology and Ethnography, Vol‐II, application of scientific techniques


605

and ethnographic Study, IGRMS‐Bhopal and Aryan Book International New

Delhi.

Mohanty, R. K. and V. Selvakumar 2002. The Archaeology of the megalithic in India:

(1947‐1997). In Prehistory Archaeology of South Asia, S. Settar and R.

Korisettar (edited). ICHR, Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New

Delhi, 1:313‐351.

Roy, S. C. 1912. “The Munda and Their Country, Ranchi”. Man in India. XIV: 391.

Sahi, M. D. N. 1991. Origin of Megalithism in India a Reppraisal, in Indian

Archaeological Heritage edited by C. Mangabandhu, R. S. Ramachandran,

and D. K. Sinha. Delhi. Agam Kala, 211‐16.

Sudyka, Joanna. 2011. The “Megalithic” Iron Age Culture in South India‐Some General

Remarks, Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia, Vol‐5: 359‐89.

Sundara A. 1975.The Early Chamber Tombs of South India. Delhi. University Publishers.

Sundara A. 1979. Typology of Megaliths in South India. In D. P. Agrawal and D. K.

Chakrabarti (eds.), Essays in Indian Protohistory. New Delhi: B.R. Publishing

Corporation, pp. 33.

Changing Tradition and Megalith Practices in Odisha: Some ...

Documents

Transcript of Changing Tradition and Megalith Practices in Odisha: Some ...