HUNTERS and Hunter-gatherers in Historical South India

V. Selvakumar

HUNTERS AND HUNTER-GATHERERS IN

HISTORICAL SOUTH INDIA

Introduction

Hunting-gathering served as the main mode of subsistence in thePrehistoric Period and, with the development of animal domestication andcultivation and, due also to cultural and historical processes, hunting-gatheringbecame a limited activity in the Historical Period, with ‘simple’ hunter-gatherers being confined to the marginal areas. Possibly, ancient communitiesin some contexts coined the label ‘hunter’ to distinguish hunters and hunter-gatherers from the people who practiced pastoralism and cultivation in theLater Prehistoric Period ––once these new modes of subsistence had emerged.Hunter-gatherers continued to exist and interact with non-hunter-gatherersgroups in the Historical Period, and hunting as a profession, skill-set, andmeans of subsistence, did contribute to the historical developments in manyways. On the one side, there are surviving hunter-gatherers such as Paliyans(Gardner 1972; 2000), Malapandarams (Morris 1999), Nayakkas (Bird-David1992), Jenu Kurumbas (Demmer 1997), and ‘Cholanayakkas’ or Cholakkar(Bhanu 1989: 40; 1992: 31) in the hilly and remote parts of Southern India. Onthe other hand, there is evidence for hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic context,up to the Late Holocene (Selvakumar 2001). What happened to the hunter-gatherers in the gap, i.e., between the Mesolithic and the Modern Periods, sayfrom about 4000 BP to 500 BP? How did they transform? These are complexquestions that need to be addressed through detailed research. In this paper,I attempt to trace the history of hunters and hunter-gatherers in the HistoricalPeriod of South India, especially the Tamil Region, from ca. 300 BCE to 1600CE, based on literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence.

The southern part of India witnessed the activities of the LowerPaleolithic hunter-gatherers from about the Early Pleistocene in the regionaround Chennai (Pappu et al. 2011). With the arrival of agro-pastoral way oflife in the Neolithic Period, hunter-gatherers became less dominant on thelandscape, from about 2500 BCE (Paddayya 1973; Fuller et al. 2009) in SouthIndia. In Tamil Nadu, Neolithic evidence is found only in the northwestern

V. SELVAKUMAR, Assistant Professor, Department of Epigraphy and Archaeology, TamilUniversity, Thanjavur 613010, Tamil Nadu, India, E-mail: [email protected]

258 THE EASTERN ANTHROPOLOGIST 67: 3-4 (2014)

part, which is part of the southern Neolithic cultural region (Narasimhaiah1980).

The Iron Age that succeeded the Neolithic Period saw the dominanceof the pastoral way of life and the construction of megalithic burials (Leshnik1974; Moorti 1994). The Historical Period began with the introduction ofwriting, and transformation in socio-political formations from about 300 BCE(Gurukkal 2012).

Hunter-gatherers in the Neolithic and Iron Age

The Neolithic way of life began in South India from about 2500 BCEin the core areas of South India, i.e., in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka andthe northwestern part of Tamil Nadu. However, hunter-gatherers continuedto maintain their traditional ways of life in certain regions of South India,e.g., Andhra Pradesh (Murty 1981; 1989) and the Upper Gundar Basin(Selvakumar 1996a; 1996b; 2000; 2001a). Evidence for similar developmentsexists in several parts of India, such as Central India (Jacobson 1970; 1975)and Rajasthan (Misra 1973). Apparently, because of the environmentalconditions and ideological factors (cultural beliefs), some of the hunter-gatherergroups preferred not to lead agro-pastoral way of life, in place of theirtraditional hunting-gathering mode of living.

The Iron Age, which began around 1000 BCE in South India, and whichsaw the building of burials for, and worship of the dead, further increased thecultural complexity. Pastoral life in major regions and tilling the soil in limitedareas became dominant modes of subsistence. It has been argued elsewhereby the author that some of the megalithic burials of the Iron Age South Indiacould have belonged to hunter-gatherers groups (Selvakumar, in press).1 Fromthe Iron Age, migration and movement of people, as well as local developmentscontributed to the increased settlements in Tamil Nadu,2and populationdiversity was achieved in the Late Iron Age. Environmental variation of thelandscape, apart from cultural components, was an important factor for thecultural diversity of Iron Age South India. We do not know if any movementof hunter-gatherers happened from the Neolithic region of South India (Andhraand Karnataka) to further south into Tamil Nadu, during the Neolithic Period.It is likely that such migrations of hunter-gatherers did happen, but tracingthem archaeologically would be very difficult.

Studies in the Upper Gundar basin have suggested the existence ofhunter-gatherers in the Iron Age and Early Historic contexts (Selvakumar2000; 2001a). In rock shelter sites of Kanavaypatti, Virapatti, and other partsof the Upper Gundar Basin close to the Western Ghats, microliths, blackand red ware, and indications for cultural interactions between hunter-gatherers and agro-pastoral groups in the Iron Age-Early Historic Period areto be found.3

HUNTERS AND HUNTER-GATHERERS IN HISTORICAL... 259

Hunter-gatherers in the Early Historic period

During the Early Historic Period, too, ‘hunter-gatherers’ existed incertain regions of India (Parasher-Sen 1998). Archaeological evidence for theirexistence during that time comes from the two sites mentioned above in theUpper Gundar Basin (Selvakumar 1996a; 1996b; 2000; 2001a). However, moregraphic evidence of different categories of hunters and their ways of life occursin the Sangam Tamil texts, which portray the fivefold landscapes of hilly(Kurinji), riverine (Marutam), forested (Mullai), dry (Palai) and coastal(Neytal) regions with their distinctive groups of peoples leading different waysof life. The hilly, forested, and dry regions had hunter-gatherers. However,not all these groups were ‘simple’ hunter-gatherers. A few of them werecomplex, sedentary hunter-gatherers.

Vettuvan

Vetti means hunting in Tamil. The people who hunt are called Vedarsor Vettuvars. Vettu, Vedar and Vettuvar4 are labels (names) for hunters inthe Sangam Tamil poems (Subrahmaniyan 1966: 788-9). The term is relatedto ‘Beda’ of Kannada and Vedda of Sri Lanka. The term ‘Vettuvan’ (sg.) or‘Vettuvar’ (pl.) is used in Sangam texts in several senses. It is used in thegeneric sense of a hunter (Purananuru 19, 5), e.g. in references to elephanthunter and bird hunter (Purananuru 214, 6). The use of Vettuvar in somecontexts appears to be referring to the hunter as an ethnic group. Fishermenare referred to as fish hunters in the Sangam texts (Subrahmanian 1966: 789;Akananuru 28, 270). VaLai Vettuvan in Purananuru 252 refers to the hunterswho use nets for hunting animals. Elephant hunter is mentioned inPurananuru (320). In Sangam texts, Vettuvans are described as having dogs,which helped them in hunting. Hunters did interact with other groups of peopleand exchanged various commodities. ‘The hunter who leads the life of forestalong with his angry dog, places the venison in the vessel and it was exchanged[for] rice grown near the pond,’ (Purananuru 33, 1). The exchange of forestproduce for the rice and curd of agricultural, and pastoral groups is discussedin the Tamil literature. The physical appearance of the hunters is graphicallyprovided by poets and such descriptions precisely remind us the colonialethnographers’ photo documentations:

The hunters have a large head, their eyes resemble that of the male jungle

cat and the mouth has the smell of the meat of the birds. In the vicinity of

Vettuvar settlements, the youth of Vettuvars target the wild rat, moving

underneath a fence of the field, with their bow and arrow (Purananuru 324).

Hunter Chiefs

Hunter chiefs existed in the Early Historic Period. A chief namedKadiya Netiya Vettuvan is mentioned in one Sangam poem. The term Vettuvanis used to refer to the hunter chief called Nalli (Purananuru 150: 6). Ori is


also referred to as a Vettuvar (Purananuru 152). Another chief is referred toas a Vettuvar (Purananuru 205). Here the chief is described with an angrydog. The hunter chiefs offered gifts to the bards, which suggests that thesechiefs enjoyed higher status, and were not simple nomadic hunter-gatherers.It is clear that some of the hunter-gatherers were aggressive, and dominatedpolitically, although their sphere of control could have limited to a fewsettlements or hills.

Kanavans

The title ‘Kanavan’ (kaan- plus -avan) literally means ‘forest person,’i.e. one who lives in the forests. It appears to refer to hunter-gatherers whoalso practiced shifting cultivation. They were probably sedentary hunters whooccupied specific settlements. The literature talks about the Kanavarpossessing dogs and sharing the meat with their kinsmen. They are depictedin the Tamil texts as killing people on the highway, and also as being elephanthunters. But Early Historic Tamil poets, who were perhaps influenced byBuddhist and Jain ideas of non-violence, have portrayed them as people ofhard nature, indulging in non-violent activities.

Pulaiyars

The Pulaiya or Pulaiyarare now a marginalized people who seem tohave originally been hunter-gatherers. They are often associated with thePaliyars; and some Paliyars of Madurai region say that the Pulaiyars arerelated to them. English spelling can mislead us however; the word ‘Paliyan’is spelt with retroflex ‘L’,while the name of the Pulaiyan is not, and themeanings of pulai and paLiare quite different (T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau1961: entries 3714 and 3309).5 Sangam Tamil poems have several referencesto the Pulaiyars. The Kalittogai poem 68 mentions the Pulaiyars who offeredblessings in the houses on special occasions. Kalittogai poem 95 indicates thatthey were singing in praise of the local chiefs with their string instruments(lutes). The Pulaiyar playing drums is mentioned in Narrinai poem77: 1 andin Narrinai poem 347: 5, they are equated with Panan. Pulaiyars are portrayedas cremating the body and performing funerary rituals in the burial grounds(Purananuru 287: 1; Purananuru 360: 19). The poems do not mention thePulaiyars as hunters or with bow and arrow. This points out a possibility thatsome of the hunter-gatherers could have survived without using bow and arrowfor hunting. It appears that the Pulaiyars were one group of early hunter-gatherers who took to different services and occupations, perhaps from theIron Age. However, it would not be possible to subsist just by playing drumsor lutes and by offering services. It is likely that these groups were involvedin hunting-gathering and agricultural activities, in addition to offering variousservices to the agro-pastoral communities. Interestingly, a poem in Kuruntogai

(169) mentions the fishing activities of Panan. Some of their groups could


have existed as ‘simple’ hunter-gatherers in the marginal areas. The Pulaiyarsperhaps lived according the cultural conditions of the landscapes. The Pulaiyarsand their settlements (Pulacheris) (Subbarayalu 2003: 441), as well asPulaiyatiyar (or slaves) from the Pulaiyas (Subbarayalu 2003: 441), arementioned in the medieval Tamil inscriptions. Pulaiyas also live in Kerala asa caste group.

Other Groups

Several groups of hunters are mentioned in the Sangam texts.Valaiyars is one such group (Kalittogai 55, 17; Cilappathikaram VII, 10: 1).Valaiyars are known as Muppars and are considered to have been related tothe Paliyars. Certain descriptions of the hunters in the Sangam poems seemto have been exaggerated for poetic flavor. For example, the Maravars of drypalai region are often described also as robbing the people of the highway in aruthless manner, and these scenes appear to be exaggerated and stereotypedto some extent, although they reflect the social reality. A community cannotentirely subsist by waylaying the travelers and it could also have been involvedin hunting and gathering activities.

Comments

The category of Vedars or Vettuvans (occupation based grouping) musthave emerged after the rise of pastoral and agricultural identities. Similarly,the identities of “hill people” and “forest people” occur in the Sangam texts.The Early Historic period witnessed several cultural developments across thelandscape. The agricultural activities were limited to riverine landscapes andthe territories with tank irrigation. Pastoral activities were confined to theforested regions. The hilly, forested and dry regions supported the hunter-gatherers. There existed different scales of hunting-gathering basedsubsistence on the landscape. Kanavans were hunter-gatherer-horticulturalists who lived in the hilly, forested region.

Cattle lifting/raiding activities are often mentioned in the literature.The act of lifting enemy’s cattle may have been used as a strategy, by aggressivehunter-gatherers, to engage in a pastoral way of life. The hunter-gathererswere also involved in the gathering activities that contributed to the Indo-Roman trade and exchange system of the Early Historic period. Some of thehunters, e.g. the Kanavans, were well organized and were settled, and theyalso practiced shifting cultivation. Hunting skill was an important requirementfor the chiefs of Early Historic period. As state formation had not taken deeproots in the Early Historic Tamil Nadu and many of the areas were not yetbrought under cultivation, hunting-gathering was an important means ofsubsistence. In the remote regions the hunter-gatherers remained foodgatherers, on the plains they adapted to the way of life as service providers toother communities, in addition to hunting and gathering. However, apart from


the sites in the Upper Gundar basin not much evidence has been found for theexistence of hunter-gatherers.

Hunters in the Medieval Period

The Medieval Period was an age of complex cultural developments inSouth India. State formation, rise and dominance of Brahmanical religions inresponse to earlier religions of Jainism and Buddhism, the Bhakti movement,and expansion of agriculture to cover more landscapes mark the historicalchanges of this period. The space for hunter-gatherers became limited as moreterritories were brought under cultivation, and as medieval armies recruitedthe warriors and donated land to them for cultivation. These factors contributedto the reduction in the natural landscape available for hunting-gathering-based subsistence in many regions and also transformed the hunter-gatherers.Although agricultural expansion started around the sixth century, it intensifiedafter the eighth century CE. However hunting gathering continued to exist incertain pockets. Hunting skills, especially, archery skills were in great demandin the Medieval Period for the armies of the states. Some of the martial groupstransformed into agricultural communities during this period (Subbarayalu2012: 171-2).

Kannappar – The Hunter devotee of Shiva

Kannappar was an important hunter personality of the HistoricalPeriod, treated as one of 63 saints of the bhakthi movement of the Medievalperiod (Peterson 1994). The bhakthi movement in fact recruited people fromvarious sections of the society and Kannappa was from the hunter sect. Thestory of Kannappa took place in the Kalahasthi hill of Andhra-Tamil Naduborder. In the Kalahasti forest, there was a Shiva shrine (Shiva Linga) wherea Brahman priest used to perform puja. One day the Brahman priest foundanimal meat in front of the Shiva Linga and the priest lamented in front oflord Shiva that somebody had spoiled the sanctity of the place. Shiva whoappeared in his dream said that Kannappar offered the meat and the devotionof the hunter was supreme. Shiva asked the priest to hide nearby the shrineand watch the devotion of Kannappar. Shiva tested the devotion of Kannappar.When Kannappar visited the shrine, it started bleeding from the eye of ShivaLinga. Kannapar was shocked. He applied herbal medicine, but the bleedingdid not stop so the hunter plucked his eye and placed it over the bleeding eyeof the lord Shiva. Bleeding stopped, but now, the other eye also started bleeding.Kannappa kept his leg in the place of another eye of Shiva, to mark Shiva’seye (the target), and attempted to pluck out his other eye. Then Shiva appearedand held the hand of Kannappa and offered him blessings. The story depictsthe ‘blind devotion’ of Kannappar (Figs. 1 and 2). We do not know the historicalbasis for the story, but it could be an exaggerated version of a real event, or astory based on the devotion of a real individual, intended to spread the message


Figure 1: An Illustration of Kannappar story. Courtesy: www.shaivam.org

Figure 2: Shiva stopping Kannappar plucking his second eye: Sculpture depicted in

the 11th century Arinjigakaiiswaram temple at Melpadi, Vellore, Tamil Nadu; note

the hand from the Linga depicted in the sculpture.


of the bhakthi movement and Shiva worship, because the 63 saints of theSaivaite religion were real life personalities who were devotees of Shiva. Theymade strong and conscious attempts to spread Saivism as part of the bhakthi

movement. The story of Athipaththa Nayanar also illustrates this. There isan inscription dated in 1220 CE at Thirukkuvalai in Nagapattinam districtmentioning that a fisherman chief installed the image of Athipaththar in theShiva temple and offered donations for worship (Gurumurthy 2007: 93). Thesestories clearly highlight the diversity of the population groups and the attemptby the Shaivaite fold to bring people from all walks of life into their religion.Kannappar’s images are found in many Shiva temples of South India.

Interestingly, many contemporary groups mention their associationwith Kannappar. It is very surprising that the Paliyar of the hill region ofMadurai also remember the story and mention that Kannappar belonged totheir community. There is no way that this story could have reached the Paliyarthrough modern media. The Vettuvars of Coimbtore also report that they arerelated to Kannappar. Definitely it indicates some connections and suggestsstrong oral traditions.

Vettuvar

Vettuvars are a caste group of people living in the Kongu region, inthe western part of Tamil Nadu. They find mention in the Early HistoricSangam texts. Vettuvars are also mentioned in several inscriptions of theMedieval period. They are considered to have been the original inhabitants ofKongu region, but immigrant Vellala farmer groups later dominated them(Rasu 1977). Rasu reports that the Vettuvar sold kani (land owning) rights tothe Vellalars who migrated into the Kongu country from the Chola country.

Some of the Vettuvar groups were also involved in cattle lifting in theMedieval Period. An inscription at Eduttavaynattam near Villupuram ofseventh-eight century CE mentions the Vettuvar of Kadavenmalaikodu orVenmarukkodu (Poongundran 2007: 167) who took away the cattle. And thedead hero of this battle is remembered in an inscription (Veeraragavan andMagayarkarasi 1999: 6). Many such ‘hero stone’ inscriptions are found in TamilNadu (Rajan 2000). Even in the later period, Nayakas have fought for cattle.There are many hero-stones of Vettuvars worshipped by the Vettuvardescendants. These are found at Talanallur, Thukkachi and Pazhamangalam(Rasu 1977). References in the Medieval inscriptions suggest that some of theVettuvars were in administrative positions and took to agriculture. KaraiyaVettuva was an army chief under the Hoysala king Vira Vallala. Their nameindicating their hunting affiliation was perhaps retained because of theircontinuous involvement in hunting in the Medieval Period or mainly due totheir hunter ancestry.

In the Tevaram songs, Sundarar talks about ‘Vaduga Vettuvar;’ thismeans that some of the Vettuvar groups belonged to northern region, perhaps


Andhra or Karnataka. This indicates the later migration of hunters from thenorth into the Tamil region (Rasu 1977: 1).

While in Tamil Nadu there are references to Vettuvan, in Karnatakathere exist a caste group called Bedars who are referred to as Vedars in theinscriptions. An inscription of 1103 from Karnataka (Ephigraphia Carnatica

X, Sd. 91) refers to ‘the sin of the hunters who killed animals in the forest’ asa curse, if somebody destroys a donation.4

Valiyars

Valaiyars or net hunters (valai means ‘net’ in Tamil) are found inpockets of Central Tamil Nadu. The Valiyars are known as Muppars and theyengage in fishing along the river Kaveri s well as hunting with the help ofnets. They seem to have been related to the Paliyars, who treat them as elderbrothers. They report that the Paliyans could not pay the taxes to the kingsand they moved to the hills. There are instances where Muppars have marriedto Paliyans in Usilampatti region. Similar evidence for marriage is alsoreported from the region west of Srivilliputtur. It is certain that such groupsthat occupied the dry, forested regions practiced hunting and gatheringactivities during the Medieval period.

Pulaiyar

Pulaiyar are one group of people mentioned in the inscriptions. Theterm “Pulai” occurs in an inscription of Travancore region dated to 891 CE. Itis translated as a person belonging to Pulaiya caste (Tamil Kal VettuSollakarathi 2003: 440-1). Another inscription of 1232 C.E. mentions thesettlement of Pulaiya as ‘Pulaichcherinattam’ (South Indian Inscriptions IV,242). There is a reference to “Pulaiatiyar” as slaves belonging to the Pulaiyarcaste (South Indian Inscriptions VIII, 590). It is not clear how far the Pulaiyasare related to the Paraiyars. Poongunran (1977) argues that their relationshipsneed to be investigated, implying some kind of connections. Fox (1969) hasargued that some of the hunter-gatherers became service providers to othercommunities. Obviously they also continued to be involved in hunting andfood gathering activities.5

Comments

The Medieval period saw the conversion of hunter-gatherers in mostof the main territories. However, hunting was used in the dry marginal areasperhaps to supplement other means of subsistence. Pure hunter-gathererslived in the hill regions. The hunters were also involved in shifting cultivation.For example, ‘Vedarkummari’ is mentioned in an inscription of 1073 CE fromKarnataka (Epigraphia Carnatica X, Mb 49). It refers to the cultivation afterburning the forest. The shops where the hunted goods were sold are mentionedin an inscription of 1300 CE (South Indian Inscriptions, VIII, 245).


Pristine hunter-gatherers were confined to regions such as the WesternGhats and the isolated hills. Archaeological sites with medieval pottery andmicroliths have been found in the Upper Gundar Basin, e.g. in E. Gopalapuramrock shelter (Selvakumar 2001b). There are many rock shelter sites reportedin the Western Ghat regions with archaeological remains and rock paintings;hunter-gatherers may perhaps have occupied these sites fully or intermittently.Unfortunately, they remain unexplored and uninvestigated.

Hunting was adopted as a pastime by agro-pastoral groups andwarriors. There are references to hunting undertaken by warriors riding horses(parivettai) (Subbarayalu 2003: 405) in the medieval period. It is clear thatpeople, especially warriors, went hunting for animals as past time or foradditional subsistence means.

People from hunting professions (background) were much in need inthe Medieval armies. They were considered martial groups and from aboutninth century their services were more in demand. There is epigraphicalevidence for the warrior (martial) groups taking to agriculture from abouttenth century C.E. (Subbarayalu 2012: 170-1). Many hero stones depict huntersand their involvement in the protection of territory, cattle and even women(Rajan 2000). Some of the hunter-gatherer groups helped to maintain law andorder in the society.

Modern Period

The period after 1500 CE is labeled Modern in South India. Theethnographic accounts of the Europeans give a detailed description of thevarious tribes or indigenous people that occupied the hilly, remote regions ofthe Western Ghats from the 18th century. Edgar Thurston and K. Rangachari’sCastes and Tribes of Southern India (1909) published in seven volumes presenta detailed account of these people and various caste groups. It is certain thatthese people lived at least from ca. 15th century onwards. Most of the hunter-gatherers were limited to the hills and forested regions.

The Story of Annamar or Ponnar and Sankar, is about two brotherswho defeated the Vettuva chiefs (Arunachalam 1976). This story is sung as aballad in many villages of Kongu region. There are many shrines of Annamarin this region. It is reported as an evidence for the dominance of the VellalaKounders, who migrated from the Chola country, over the Vettuvars who werenatives of the Kongu region. It is also said that the Vettuvars should notlisten to the story of the Annamars. If the story is recited, they would notlisten and leave the spot.

Archaeological Sites of Hunter-gatherers

Archaeological sites associated with the Paliyans are found at a fewareas in the Upper Gundar basin. The sites of Pettankal (Fig. 3) andChittirakkalpodavu (Fig. 4) near Chettiyapatti are the rock shelter sites on


Figure 4: Chittirakkalpodavu near Chettiyapatti, Rockshelter with paintings

used by the Paliyans

Figure 3: Rock paintings at the site of Pettankal near Chettiyapatti.

A Site used by the Paliyans


the plains associated with the Paliyans of Usilampatti region (Selvakumar2007). In the Chaturagiri hills rock shelter sites are found at Kuliratti caves.These sites have pottery and rock paintings that show the honey gatheringscenes identified by the local Paliyans. These sites show evidence for occupationonly after the 15th century C.E. There are microlithic scatters in this region,but we do not know how they are related to the later population. Research inthe Gundar basin does indicate continuous occupation of humans, especiallyfrom the Mesolithic times.

Discussion

From the above account, a few hypotheses can be proposed on thehistory and transformation of the hunter-gatherers.

1. A few groups continued to exist as hunter-gatherers throughout thehistorical period and they moved to marginal areas, because of localpressures. Some of these surviving hunter-gatherers werephilosophic; they sought an undisturbed life away from the materialwealth driven, greedy mainstream society. They have been describedas peaceful foragers, who preferred isolation.

2. Certain hunter-gatherer groups continued to practice hunting andgathering and also offered services to other communities. Theypreferred a symbiotic, yet, adaptive lifestyle, because of the changesin the landscape and demography and the inevitable social conditions.Some of these groups were exploited and subordinated by themainstream society.

3. Aggressive hunters played a dominant role politically and joined theMedieval armies. These warriors received land donations and becamefarmers and landlords.

South India has a number of marginalized populations, often called‘tribes,’ living in the hill regions of the Western Ghats and other isolated hills.Some of these groups until a few decades ago were involved in food-gatheringactivities. These groups are considered to have taken refuge in the hills due tothe pressures of the agrarian neighbours or the people from the plains.

The Early Historic and Medieval sources, both literature andinscriptions, speak about frequent cattle raids. Why did they raid cattle sofrequently? It was an attempt by a pastoral group to assert domination overother pastoral groups. The raiding of cattle was undertaken not only by thepastoral groups; hunter groups were also involved. The cattle raids seem tohave been conducted by the hunters to either intentionally convert themselvesinto pastoralists or it happened naturally when they sought to assert theirdominance over the pastoral groups. While some of the dominant hunter-gatherers adopted the agro-pastoral way of life and became part of the


mainstream society, some were marginalized, while others moved to theremote, isolated areas.

Can we trace the history of the indigenous (so called ‘tribal’) andother marginalized groups of South India? Did some of the indigenous groupsoccupy the hill from the prehistoric period continuously? How did they subsistin the historical period? What was the position of these hunters in thehistorical period? These questions need to be addressed through furtherresearch.

The Paliyans of the Gundar basin say that Muppars are their elderbrother and they went to the hills because they could not pay the taxes tothe government. We need not view the hunter-gatherers as having existedin the hills from time immemorial without any change. As the oral traditionsof the Paliyans tell us, these communities could have moved into the hillsdue to the pressures of the communities from the plains. Much remains tobe done to identify the archaeological sites of the hunter-gatherers and theforest peoples who had had substantial role in the history of India. Oftenthese voiceless people are represented only by archaeological sites. Manyarchaeological sites of these communities are found in India. Detailedinvestigations are necessary to identify these sites and ascertain their natureand content.

The history of these marginalized forest peoples have not been studiedin as much detail as the history of the people from the plains. The hill areas ofSouth India need to be investigated for archaeological remains. So far manyof the studies have focused only on the ethnographic aspects, and thearchaeological remains have not been correlated with the communities livingin these areas. Archaeology offers an opportunity to work on the history ofthese people. The attempt to focus on the archaeology of these groups could belabeled as ‘Subaltern Archaeology.’ However, this is not an easy area to workwith since the archaeological record is very complex by nature.

Certain groups retained their identity label as hunters (e.g. Vettuvan)even in the later period, since they indulged in hunting activities for a longtime even after other communities shifted to other forms of subsistence, andthe labels became a matter of identity. The Vettuvar were present all acrossSouth India and Sri Lanka, before the Late Neolithic and Iron Age expansionof agro-pastoral groups in South India. This could explain the similarity inthe terms such as Vettuvar, Vedar and Veddas in South Asia.

There has been a tendency to view their history as a glorious epoch bymany contemporary groups in South India. Almost all of them want to portraytheir ancestry as related to the ruling class or royal lineage as part of socialmobility. There have been several popular attempts to write imagined history.Against this social milieu, ethno history has become a contentious field ofstudy.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the University Grants Commission, Indian Council of

Historical Research and the Nehru Trust for the Indian Collections at the Victoria and Albert

Museum for the financial support to undertake parts of this research. I am grateful to Peter

Gardner, Promode Misra, Larry Barham and the Wenner Gren Foundation for the support. I

have to thank Peter for his valuable suggestions and comments.

NOTES

1. While commenting on the occupation of the megalithic population, scholars have asked

questions such as ‘Were they agriculturalists?’ and ‘Were they pastoralists?’ However,

hunting-gathering also acted as a means of subsistence and some of hunter-gatherers

could have also built megalithic burials.

2. See, Rajan et al. 2009 for the details Iron Age megalithic burial and habitation sites.

3. In Kerala, certain indigenous groups come and play instruments and sing in front of

the houses and it is considered auspicious even now,e.g. Pulluvan Pattu.

4. Capital ‘E’ stands for long ‘E’ of Tamil. I have used it only when I stress this

pronunciation. Although ‘Vettuvar’ should always be written as ‘vEttuvar,’ for the

sake of readability I have used ‘Vettuvar’ in most occasions.

5. Pulai means ‘baseness, defilement,’ and ‘outcaste’ and paLLi means ‘hamlet’ or ‘small

settlement of jungle tribes’ in Tamil and Malayalam (T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau

1961: entries 3714 and 3309).

REFERENCES

Arunachalam, B.

1976 Peeps into Tamil Literature: Ballad Poetry.Tiruchitrambalam, Gandhi

Nilayam.

Bhanu, B. Ananda

1989 The Cholanaickan of Kerala. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India.

1992 “Boundaries, obligations and reciprocity: Levels of territoriality among

the Cholanaickans of South India.” Pp. 29-54 in Michael J. Casimir (ed.)

Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among

Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics. Oxford: Bloomsbury.

Publishing PLC.

Bird-David, Nurit

1992 “Beyond ‘the hunting and gathering mode of subsistence’: Observations

on the Nayaka and other modern hunter- gatherers.” Man 27: 17-44.

Burrow, T. and M. B. Emeneau

1961 A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Demmer, Ulrich

1997 “Voices in the forest: The field of gathering among the Jçnu Kurumba.”

Pp. 164-91in P. Hockings (ed.) Blue Mountains Revisited: Cultural

Studies on the Nilgiri Hills. Delhi: Oxford University Press.


Fox, R. G.

1969 “Professional primitives: Hunter-gatherers of Nuclear South Asia.” Man

in India 49 (2): 139-60.

Fuller, D. Q., N. Bolvin, and R. Korisettar

2009 “Dating the Neolithic of South India: New radiometric evidence for key

economic, social and ritual transformations.”Antiquity 81 (313): 775-8.

Gardner, P. M.

1972 “The Paliyans.” Pp. 404-47in M. G. Bicchieri (ed.) Hunters and Gatherers

Today. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

2000 Bicultural Versatility as a Frontier Adaptation among Paliyan Foragers

of South India. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.

Gurukkal, Rajan

2012 Social Formations of Early South India. New Delhi: Oxford University

Press.

Jacobson, J.

1970 Mesolithic Contexts in the Vindyan Hills of Central India, Ph.D. Thesis,

Columbia University.

1975 “Static sites and peripatetic peoples: Notes on the Archaeology of

population mobility in Eastern Malwa.” Pp. 68-91 in L. S. Leshnik and

G. D. Sontheimer (eds.) Pastoralists and Nomads in South Asia.

Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowits.

Gurumurthy, S.

2007 Nagapattinam Kalvettu. Chennai: Tamil Nadu State Archaeological

Department.

Leshnik, L. S.

1974 South Indian ‘Megalithic’ Burials: The Pandukal Complex. Wiesbaden:

Franz Steiner VerlagGmbhH.

Misra, V. N.

1973 “Bagor: A Mesolithic settlement in Northwest India.” World Archaeology

5 (1): 92-110.

Moorti, U. S.

1994 Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-economic Perspectives.

Varanasi: Ganga Kaveri Publishing House.

Morris, Brian

1999 “The Hill Pandaram of Kerala.” Pp. 265-8 in R. B.Lee and R. Daly (eds.)

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Murty, M. L. K

1981 “Hunter-gatherer ecosystems and archaeological patterns of subsistence

behaviour on the southeast coast of India: An ethnographic model.” World

Archaeology 13: 47-58.


1989 “Pre-Iron Age agricultural settlements in South India: An ecological

perspective.” Man and Environment 14 (1): 65-81.

Narasimhaiah, B.

1980 Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures in Tamil Nadu. New Delhi: Sundeep

Prakashan.

Paddayya, K.

1973 Investigations into the Neolithic Culture of the Shorpur Doab, South

India. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Pappu, S., Y. Gunnell, et al.

2011 “Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India.”

Science 331: 1596-9.

Parasher-Sen, Aloka

1998 “Of tribes, hunters and barbarians: Forest dwellers in the Mauryan

Period.” Studies in History 14: 173-91.

Peterson, I. V.

1994 “Tamil Saiva hagiography: The narrative of the Holy Servants (of Shiva)

and the Hagiographical Project of Tamil Saivism.” In W. and M.

Callewaert and Rupert Snell (eds.) According to Tradition:

Hagiographical Writing in India. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Poongunran,R.

1977 “Varalarril Paraiyar.” Proceedings of the Taamil Nattu Manila Varalarru

Kurunththarangu, Chennai. 22, 23-12-1977 [in Tamil].

2007 Tenninthiya Nadukarkal. Avanam, Journal of Tamil Nadu

Archaeological society 18: 154-67.

Rajan, K.

2000 South Indian Memorial Stones. Thanjavur: Manoo Pathippakam.

Rajan, K., V. P. Y. Kumar, and S. Selvakumar

2009 Catalogue of Archaeological Sites in Tamil Nadu, Vols.1-2. Thanjavur:

Heritage India Trust.

Rasu, S.

1977 “Conditions of Vettuvar in the social life of Kongu Nadu.” Proceedings

of the Tamil Nattu Manila Varalarru Karuththarangu, Chennai” 22,

23-12-1977 [in Tamil].

Selvakumar, V.

1996a “Archaeological investigations in the Upper Gundar Basin.” Man and

Environment: 22 (2): 27-42.

1996b Investigations into the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cultures of the Upper

Gundar Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Poona

2000 “Investigations into the Iron Age-Early Historic Cultures of the Upper

Gundar Basin, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu, India.” South Indian

Studies 16: 119-32.


2001a “Investigations into the Iron Age-Early Historic Cultures of the Upper

Gundar Basin, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu, India.” Asian Perspectives

42.

2000b Adaptation Patterns of Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers of the Upper

Gounder Barin, Tamil Nadu. Report submitted to ICHR Post-doctoral

Research Deccan College Pune.

2007 “A Study of the Rock Art in the Upper Gundar Basin, Madurai District,

Tamil Nadu.” In P. C. Reddy (ed.) Exploring the Mind of Ancient Man:

Festschrift to Robert G. Bednarik. New Delhi: Research India Press.

2010 “Ethnohistorical, ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological investigations

on the Paliyans of the Varushanad-Andipatti Hills in Tamil Nadu.” In

K. Paddayya et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the H. D. Sankalia Centenary

Seminar. Pune: Deccan College.

in press “A cognitive study of the Megalithic culture of South India.” In Rabi

Mohanti and K. K. Basa (eds.) Megalithic Culture of South India.

Subbarayalu, Y.

2003 Glossary of Tamil inscriptions. 2 Vols. Chennai: Santi Sadhana.

2012 South India under the Cholas. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Subramaniyan, N.

1966 Pre-Pallavan Tamil Index. Madras: Madras University.

Thurston, E. and K. Rangachari

1909 Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Madras: Government Press.

Veeraragavan and Magayarkarasi

1996 “Villipuram Mavattil Puthiya Nadukarkal.” Avanam (Journal of Tamil

Nadu Archaeological Society) 10: 6-7.

Documents

HUNTERS and Hunter-gatherers in Historical South India