Abstract
The Lower Godavari River Valley is categorized into five different landscapes based on geophysical and cultural resources: floodplains, plateau-uplands, hill tracts, delta, lowlands, and coastal plains, to undertake the present study. The review of archaeological and ethnographic studies in respect of these landscapes has revealed islands of inquiry pertaining to the past as well as the present cultural mosaic of the valley. Concepts of landscape and culturescape are used to understand the culture–historical relevance of these studies in the context of dam construction on the Godavari at Polavaram. The basic premise is that the dam, on completion, leads to the submergence of human habitations together with heritage relics in the catchment area and scale down of heritage relics in the command area due to landscaping for canal irrigation. The prehistoric, protohistoric, and ancient culture-bearing sites are reviewed to consolidate culture–historical characters and heritage-centric tribal–rural, rural–urban continuum issues, and the importance of further documentation and conservation of tangible and intangible heritage of the riverine and maritime landscapes. The study revealed that the main river course has preserved very scanty evidence of Paleolithic cultures, but an abundant number of megalithic graves on either bank, Mesolithic sites in profusion adjacent to tribal habitations of hill tracts, early historic evidence denoted by Buddhist aramas in the delta, and coastal landscape preserved prehistoric and protohistoric phases of cultures. Among these, protohistoric and living megaliths in the catchment area and shrines of little traditions and sacred groves of the command area are a concern for culture conservation and are paramount in understanding the tribe–rural–urban nexus, concepts of little-great traditions, hydraulic cultures, canal impacts, and continuum. The study remarks that multidisciplinary holistic studies are important in the context of vulnerability of tangible and intangible heritage due to the impact of dam and water dynamics. The ephemeral rivers of the study area present a spectrum of Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, and megalithic cultures, and the absence of archaeological evidence on either side of the Krishna-Godavari delta and Kolleru Lake is attributed to the wetland landscape. Among five identified landscapes, three paths of cultural progression from plateau uplands to lowlands and coastal lands through valley floodplains are delineated. The study concludes that the lower Godavari River has been the buffer or fusion zone between south and north as far as pre- and protohistoric cultures of India are concerned.
Introduction
The Godavari is the largest river in peninsular India, and its catchment area presents two typical contrasting geographic basins: the Western Maharashtra plateau and the Eastern lower floodplains, intercepted by the Eastern Ghats (Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, 2014). The Godavari River course down Sriramsagar Project (18° 58′ N. Lat. and 70° 20′ E. Long.) of Telangana state up to the Bay of Bengal is classified as the lower Godavari, on which a multipurpose irrigation project is being built at Polavaram (17° 15′ N. Lat. and 81° 39′ E. Long.) in Andhra Pradesh, a newly formed state in 2014. The valley uplands are composed of plateaus of Telangana and Bastar covered by the Dandakaranya forest on the western side; floodplains together with wetlands at the eastern part, in between these two divergent landscapes, the Eastern Ghats form the ridge. The elevation of these landscapes varies between 500 and 750 m and is intensively dissected by the Indrāvati and Sabari-Sileru tributary systems. The valley receives rainfall between 755 and 1,531 mm, from both southwest and northeast monsoons, causing flash floods, inundation, and denudation in several parts of the valley, resulting in substratum variations of gravels, sands, and soils. The biomass is characterized by subtropical flora and fauna.
The area of the lower Godavari Valley is broadly divided into five types of landscapes/culturescapes based on geophysical and cultural resources to delineate the heritage and cultural processes, particularly in the context of dam construction at Polavaram (Figure 1). The categorized landscape types are:
Floodplains: The floodplains on either side (2–5 km) of the main river, confluences of tributaries, and local hill streams are grouped into floodplains. These are composed of different substratum, rich in soils, the main economic resource subjected to labor-intensive traditional agriculture by local tribal and peasant inhabitants. Plateau and uplands: The Telangana and Bastar Plateau slopes are drained by high energy systems of several streams presenting undulated uplands rich in lateritic sandy silts and silt-clays that are subjected to peasant agriculture by tribal as well as caste populations. Hill tracts: The hill tracts of the Eastern Ghats spread over the border areas of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha states are intensively dissected by several hill streams of tributaries of the Godavari. These are rich in forests of dry deciduous to humid deciduous types. Narrow valleys, gorges, and nullahs are filled with different substrata of gravel and soil layers. The top surface of valley fills and humus surface of hilltops have been the main economic resource for local tribal communities, besides hunting and foraging. In a few spots, limestone caves, caverns, and rock outcrops are found. Delta: The Godavari River splits into two distributaries, namely, the Gautami and the Vasista, east of Rajahmundry. The delta (6,233 sq. km) is rich in alluvial, fluvial, and marine substrata. The fluvial sedimentary environs are intensively used for irrigated agriculture while marine-induced environs are used for aquaculture by several caste populations. Lowlands and coastal plains: The floodplains of the main river down Polavaram are lowlands, which are rich in alluvial soils, while the land between the maritime landscape of the Bay of Bengal and the foothills of the Eastern Ghats forms coastal plains. These landscapes are drained by several ephemeral rivers composted of red soils of different components (ratios of sand, silt, clay) and thicknesses. Gravels and soils found in the coastal landscape are rich in lateritic soils, used for peasant agriculture by different caste populations.
Background
A review of archaeological, ethnographic, and culture–historical development studies of this region has revealed that the lower Godavari basin has been a critical habitat for culture–historical processes. The region has been presenting tangible and intangible heritage evidence of prehistoric, protohistoric, and early historic–cultural processes of the past, as well as contemporary tribal–peasant and rural–urban processes. The plurality of landscapes and culturescapes, culture–historical studies, ethnographies of tribal–peasant communities, and my field experience as a culture-historian over three decades in these divergent landscapes (valley, hill tracts, uplands, caves and rock shelters, delta), this article reviews and tries to establish generic connectivity between landscapes and culturescapes by considering landscape archaeology theory and method, in the context of dam construction at Polavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. The basic premises such as (a) the catchment area of the dam leads to submergence of tribal villages together with heritage relics, (b) the command area of the project may transform landscape as well as culturescape of the peasants due to canal irrigation, and (c) necessity of documentation of tangible and intangible heritage expected to vanish due to dam-induced development processes are considered to delineate the heritage perspectives and conservation prospects of cultural prudence in tribe–caste and rural–urban continuum processes in the lower Godavari Valley.
Landscape Archaeology
Landscape archaeology, first used by Aston and Rowley (1974), gained momentum when different archaeologies passed through empirical, processual, and post-processual phases of theory building and standardization of methods and techniques of study. Initially, the concept of cultural landscape, conceived by Sauer (1952), was debated in the context of the management and protection of cultural heritage promoted by the World Heritage Convention (1992), and later, the European Landscape Convention (2000) strengthened the concept of cultural landscape (Parcero-Oubina et al., 2014). Spatial studies of archaeology like settlement pattern, site-catchment analysis, and taphonomy, coupled with multidisciplinary methodologies such as geoarchaeology, bioarchaeology, and environmental archaeology, resulted in the emergence of middle-range research and new archaeology (Binford, 1981). These archaeologies contributed to the understanding of spatial distribution of material culture, human identities, and paleoecologies of different landscapes. Ian Hodder’s social archaeology (1978) entangled landscape in understanding the ideational state of human interaction with their surroundings, heralding the beginning of contemporary notions of landscape archaeology (David & Thomas, 2008, p. 32). Fleming (2006, p. 279), while commenting on landscape archaeology and SWOT analysis (Fleming, 2012, p. 463), concludes that post-processual landscape archaeology has been driven by the idea that theory, interpretation, investigation, and performance are inextricably entangled. Therefore, landscape archaeology could be portrayed as a “holistic” discipline, feeding into landscape history, which is not only rooted in a uniquely complex and interdisciplinary methodological mix but also constitutes a distinctive, insightful, and refreshing way of studying and presenting long-term human history. Landscape archaeology is much different from that of the later part of the twentieth century. Now in the twenty-first century, studies focus beyond the evidence of the trench, site, site within site, vicinity, people, heritage, and so on, encompassing geography, anthropology, or ethnography to infer intangible histories for the furtherance of long-term human history that contribute toward participative construction and management of landscape as culture heritage (David & Thomas, 2008).
Culturescape and Ethnographies
In anthropology, culturescape refers to the visible and tangible landscape features of a particular culture, including its built environment, architecture, geographical features, and material culture, which collectively reflect the values, beliefs, and practices of a community, essentially showing how a culture interacts with its environment and shapes its physical space. In the context of submergence and salvage actions, accessibility and stewardship are ethical concerns for archaeologists and other scholars studying heritage sites and landscapes (Armstrong-Fumero & Gutievez, 2017). Suffixing “scape” to culture after Appadurai (1996) denotes only the unitizing of the study of landscapes under the inhabitation of tribal, peasant, and urban cultures, which are in constant transformation from tribe–caste and peasant–urban culture–historical continuum frameworks (Sachichidananda, 1970; Sinha, 1965). Indian ethnographies of various communities (May, 1873; Rusell & Hiralal, 1916; Thurston, 1909), Census of India reports and monographs since 1881, and Anthropological Survey of India studies since 1945 portrayed the cultural profile and plurality of India. The “People of India Project” identified 4,635 castes and 461 tribal groups (Singh, 1994). These communities are distributed in varied landscapes of India, and they are categorized into tribal, rural, semi-urban, and urban techno-economies. Ethnographic accounts, together with heritage studies in understanding “landscape–culturescape” dynamics, are of great significance in understanding culture–historical processes (Prakash, 2024).
Archaeology of the Valley
The topographical and sedimentary environments of lower Godavari landscapes (five types) have been presenting variance in substratum, due to differential geomorphologic processes. The Pleistocene gravels, soil horizons, and subsequent Holocene soils of different dimensions are recorded at several places in the study area. Weathered zones exposing the bedrock of khondalite, granite, and quartzite; boulder and pebbly hill-wash as colluviums; stratified gravels and soil layers of fluvial deposits along the rivers and streams; and fluvial deposits in floodplains are indicators of spatio-temporal episodes of dry and wet paleo-climates. At some spots, these are subjected to erosion due to riverine, surface wash, gradient, and such related forces, exposing natural and hidden cultural manifestations. These cultural remains are classified into Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, and megalithic under the “pre- and protohistory” head, which contributed to the early historical processes of the study area. A consolidated sedimentary and depositary stratum of different rivers and streams against the pre- and protohistoric cultures is presented in Table 1.
Comparative Sedimentary/Depositary Stratum of Different Landscapes in Study Area.
Paleolithic Cultures
The evidence of Paleolithic cultural remains is grim in the study area. Only a few sites are identified, in spite of scientific explorations conducted by academic and government departments (Prakash, 1986a; Ramakrishna Rao, 2015; Reddy & Murty, 1988; Satyanarayana, 1983–1984). The absence of archaeological sites may be due to intensive erosion and shift of river course due to flash floods. However, traces of core and flake tool evidence in floodplains are compared to the studies undertaken in the adjoining landscapes of the valley. The prehistoric studies conducted by Murti during the period (1984–1986) have yielded Mesolithic and Neolithic evidence in the hill streams of Bayaneru, Kovvada, and Errakaluva on the right side, and Sitapallivagu, a tributary hill stream, on the left side of the main river course, but no Paleolithic evidence is recorded.
The Eleru, an ephemeral river, originates in the hill tracts and drains toward the coastal lands to meet the sea toward the north of the Godavari. It has given evidence of blade tool elements characteristic of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Kasturibai, 1982, 1992), but no Lower and Middle Paleolithic evidence. These prehistoric sites are located at the foothills of the Ghats, mostly in the habitat of tribal and peasant communities. The blades are made on chert, and the blunted back character of blades is minimal, though classified as Upper Paleolithic. Some of these sites are composed of microliths of the Mesolithic phase. Geomorphological processes of a few ephemeral rivers draining further north, such as Gosthani, Gambheeram and Sarada, together with the coastal laterites, duricrusts, and red sands form maritime landscape, which have presented all phases of pre- and protohistoric cultural development. The first evidence of Paleoliths was identified by Murti (1975–1976), and subsequent investigations brought to light core and flake tool cultures along the Visakhapatnam coastal landscape (Murti, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c; Murty, 1988). Evidence of bifacial core tools, flake tools, and blade tools along the Gambheeram River (Prakash, 1981), a Middle Paleolithic culture-bearing cave site at Borra (Prakash et al., 1995) in the Gosthani catchment area, and site-specific geomorphological studies of Lower and Middle Paleolithic cultures (Nageswara Rao et al., 2006; Rath, 1996; Rath et al., 1997; Reddy et al., 1995, 1998) in the coastal landscape are paramount in establishing Paleolithic cultural progression of the region. Acheulean hand axes, picks, cleavers, and a variety of flake tools are made on coarse-grained quartzite, khondalite (a porous rock), and quartz. In spite of the inferior quality of the rocks, the workmanship is worth considering. Similarly, the blades are made on coarse-grained chert but exhibit perfect blunted backs.
Mesolithic Culture
The discovery of microliths in peninsular India is a century old, when Cammiade (1924) collected microliths in the tribal habitat of the lower Godavari Valley, particularly in the Sitapallivagu catchment area. The Godavari Valley microliths, the Kurnool limestone cave evidence (Cammiade, 1927), together with the Vindhya hill range collections (Carlleyel, 1885), contributed to carving out a four-fold classification of Indian prehistoric cultures (Cammiade & Burkitt, 1930), at par with the European Lower, Middle, Upper Paleolithic, and Mesolithic cultural phases. Since then, thousands of microlith-bearing sites have been reported from varied geo-environs such as semi-arid sand dunes, coastal sand dunes, woodlands, oxbow lakes, hill ranges, and plateau areas, besides river valleys and coastal plains (Misra, 1989). In spite of non-geometric and geometric microliths being the core element, the Mesolithic phase is composed of heavy-duty tools, mace heads, pottery, rock art, and such related prehistoric traditions of preceding and succeeding phases (Misra, 1989; Sankalia, 1974), signifying a plurality of traditions in divergent biogeographies. A review and mapping of Mesolithic cultural evidence in the study area presents three types of cultural variants, and they are (a) non-geometric microliths, (b) geometric microliths, and (c) geometric microliths with perforated stones and pottery. Each of these variants shows generic attribution to all landscapes, with the exception of delta environs.
Non-geometric: The Mesolithic sites located at plateau uplands and foothills are in the vicinity of stream courses, springs, and lake margins as open-air clusters, dominated by artifacts of unfinished than finished forms. The sites at Kirandul iron ore deposits (Rath et al., 1995–1996), Chitrakoot waterfalls (Cooper, 1997), Dankini-Sankini highland streams (Sankhyan et al., 2011) of Bastar plateau, uplands of Nagavali (Krishna Rao, 1986), Gambheeram (Prakash, 1986b), and Eleru (Kasturibai, 1982, 1992) river courses at the foothills of the Eastern Ghats exhibit non-geometric elements of Mesolithic culture. Most of the finished forms at these sites are points and scrapers, retouched as well as fresh, thereby characterizing non-geometric Mesolithic (Prakash, 2009). However, a few geometric microliths, blades of Upper Paleolithic, and flakes of Middle Paleolithic are also associated as scanty occurrences at these sites.
Geometric: Mesolithic sites located in the interiors of the Eastern Ghats are found in different microhabitats. Most of them are open-air stations proximate to hill streams, nullah cuttings, rocky outcrops, hilltops, and a few caves contiguous to present-day tribal habitations. The evidence of microliths in profusion in hill tracts and lowlands dates back to the discovery by Cammiade and Burkitt in 1930, and subsequent reports in Sitapallivagu (Murti, 1987a, 1987b; Rao, 1972), Eleru (Kasturibai, 1982, 1992), Patala (Murty, 1986), Sabari (Reddy & Murty, 1988), Machkund (Mouli, 1998), and Tajangi (Prakash, 1989) indicate a wide distribution of Mesolithic culture in different spatial contexts within and proximate to tribal habitations (Murti, 1984; Prakash, 2000a). A solitary cave site at Vangasari in the hill tracts has yielded geometric microliths along with semi-fossilized microfauna (Prakash, 1998), and it is the only cave site in the region yielding microliths. A hilltop site on the left bank of the Godavari at the apex of the delta, contiguous to the lateritic zone at Dhavaleswaram near Rajahmundry, is significant in the context of riverine and coastal Mesolithic culture (Reddy & Prakash, 1985). Metrical analysis of microliths on par with Paleolithic tools is from Bayaneru, an ephemeral river of the Godavari catchment area (Murti, 1985). The lithic assemblages exhibit geometric tools characterized by crescents, triangles, and trapezes, along with non-geometric pygmy points, scrapers, bores, and burins.
Geometric ceramic: The coastal plains are rich in prehistoric and protohistoric sites. Hundreds of microliths are spread over beach environs as well as inland foothills of the Eastern Ghats, wherever nullahs, hill streams, and ephemeral rivers are subjected to gully erosion. Clusters of microliths associated with material remains such as ring stones and potsherds of thick, coarse red ware characterize the Mesolithic site. The Mesolithic culture is predominantly geometric, such as crescents, triangles, trapezoids on fine-grained chert, agate, chalcedony, and quartz, found all along the coastal landscape north and south of Visakhapatnam environs (Murti, 1975–1976; Prakash, 1981, 1986b).
Neolithic culture: The Neolithic culture-bearing sites in the Godavari are poorly represented in the valley, banks, floodplains, stream confluences, and delta. Poor representation of Neolithic in terms of the number of sites and cultural assemblages in both floodplains and delta landscapes may be attributed to frequent flooding, inundation, and progradation of alluvium. Potsherds of coarse red ware, often with red slip, a few polished axes and chisels, broken saddle querns, and elongated blades form the repository in the floodplains (Pydipaka and Madhapuram sites), while only potsherds are found in the delta depository substratum. In the absence of enough data pertaining to the Neolithic culture of the valley, on comparative methodology, the adjacent coastal landscape toward the north of the delta is consulted, which is considerably rich in discerning the protohistoric roots of the study area.
The coastal Neolithic culture is characterized by stone celts, mace heads, mullers, beads, and pottery of different types, mostly red and buff ware, embedded within red soils or eroded substratum of the coastal landscape (Murti, 1983; Naseem, 1981; Naseem & Reddy, 1998, Prakash et al., 1994; Reddy, 1978) and also at the foothills of the Eastern Ghats (Krishna Rao, 1986; Krishna Rao & Reddy, 1987). The Neolithic industry is characterized by thin, slender, and elongated blades on semiprecious stones, beads of round, spherical, and barrel shapes perforated from both sides on carnelian, while food processing equipment like mullers, saddle querns, and mace-heads/ring stones on khondalite. The pottery is mostly handmade of coarse red ware, often with a red slip of hematite paste, found only in sherds than pots. Reconstructed shapes present three types: large pots/urns for storage/burial, kitchen and dining ware (carinated bowls, platters, and mugs), and small ritual pots with narrow necks (Korisettar et al., 2002; Naseem, 1981). Neolithic sites are mostly recognized by cultural objects at eroded topsoil surfaces, section cuttings, or in agricultural fields, unlike mounds in cases of South Indian Neolithic sites, and they are in the vicinity of present-day Koya tribal habitations (Murti, 1983, 2004). In the absence of mounds, settlement patterns were delineated into linear, scattered, and clustered patterns by chemical analysis of soil samples collected at potsherd concentrations of different sites (Naseem & Reddy, 1998).
Megalithic culture: Megalithic culture of the valley is known through the burials, typical of South Indian types (Krishnaswami, 1949), represented by menhirs, dolmens, cists, cairns, and such of these in both archaeological (Ahmad, 1942, 1950; King, 1877; Murty, 2000; Satyanarayana, 1983–1984; Stephen, 1998; Wakefield, 1917–1918) and living contexts (Gopikrishna, 2002; Som & Prakash, 2006). Archaeological megaliths are found along the banks and adjacent hilltops of the main river course. Some sites are represented by hundreds of graves of different types, either in primary context yielding osseous remains or commemorative, both with assemblages of grave goods such as pottery, stone, and metal objects, mostly of iron. Living megaliths or megaliths of recent times are found in tribal habitats of neighborhood hill tracts of the Eastern Ghats.
Since the Holocene deltas world over were formed due to deceleration in the rate of sea-level rise and subsequent progradation, leading to resource-rich depocenters during c. 8500 to c. 6500 (Warner & Stanley, 1995). The integrated geological and archaeological database shows that conditions in and around these deltas were conducive to human immigration and settlement (Stanley & Warren, 1997). Exploratory studies in the Godavari delta have resulted in the identification of characteristic potsherds of coarse red ware of Neolithic and black and red ware of Megalithic at 26 sites in small mounds within habitations, near shrines, and ploughed fields (Prakash et al., 1999). The identified 26 sites are located proximate to the Gautami (3), Vasista (7), Vainateyam (6) rivers, buried channels of Kaushika (4) and Tulyabhaga (6), and coast (1). Efforts of unearthing to delineate protohistoric cultural horizons have failed due to wet sticky soils and oozing of water even at a depth of one foot (Prakash, 2000b). The borehole data at 9.0 m depth at the Panangipalli site have yielded four types of ceramic wares, namely, coarse red ware, red-slipped ware, coarse gray ware, and black and red ware. These are attributed to the early historic period, tentatively between the third century
Ethnic Composition and Heritage
Tribal communities of the study area live in villages in a pattern of scattered, clustered, or wagon-type houses, consisting of about 20–200 households, depending upon terrain, soil cover, and water resources. These villages could be classified into single tribe habitation or up to as many as nine different tribes cohabitating (Prakash, 2002–2003). The tribe-wise mother tongue and the languages known and spoken compiled data indicate their distribution over three different linguistic states of the Indian Union, but the non-tribal languages indicate exposure to change (Table 2). Thirty-six tribes speak eighteen different languages, out of which only two languages, Oriya (8) and Telugu (9), have scripts. The Mundari and Dravidian groups of language-speaking groups are more in number. The languages are Gadaba, Gondi, Kuvi, and Savara. It is believed that the Austro-Asians of Mundari stock were the first immigrants, followed by the Dravidians, of which Kuvi is more archaic than Telugu (Krishnamurthy, 1969). It is observed that the distribution density of the number of tribes is not uniform in the study area, showing less number in floodplains followed by plateau and hill tracts. The Koya in the Godavari River course, Gond Maria in the plateau, and Bhagata and Konda Dora in the hill tracts are the prominent and numerically dominant tribes. The habitation pattern study (Prakash, 2000a) indicates that some tribes show segregation in microhabitats (like Bondo in Malkangiri), while others live in clusters along with brethren tribes that share macrohabitats like narrow valleys, hill ranges, and flatlands.
Their history is not recorded as they do not have a script, but their actions are embedded in the landscapes in which they inhabit. Similarly, data related to disposal practices indicate that 7 (19.44%) communities practice burying their dead, 16 (44.44%) cremate, while the remaining 13 (36.11%) bury as well as cremate. Though the variations in funerary practices are attributed to age, sex, cause, and place of death, the core practice of burial and cremation in relation to monumental characters is significant. The plurality of disposal practices is one of the pertinent points for the present study, as protohistoric relics exhibit some generic connectivity with that of tribal communities’ monumental erection. Three communities, one each representing Gondi, Bondo, and Kuvi language-speaking communities: the Gonds of Bastar (Elwin, 1945; Grigson, 1938), the Bondo of the Malkangiri plateau (Elwin 1950; Haimendorf, 1943), and the Konda Reddi of Papi Hills (Haimendorf & Elizabeth, 1945), are important ethnographic accounts. Extensive field studies in the habitats of these three communities, particularly the material culture aided by the ethnographic descriptions, have brought out the continuity of some cultural relics, which are of heritage significance in different plateau, hill, and valley landscapes. Several types of these rock structures are visible in plenty within or on the outskirts of the habitations, recalling the protohistoric megalithic graves.
Tribal Communities of the Study Area to Their Mother Tongue, Languages Known and Spoken, and Disposal Practices.
Sacred Structures
Face-to-face interviews with the inhabitants and different village/community functionaries about these structures revealed that they belong to their ancestors but failed to answer their significance. However, similar types of structures are being erected and used for ritual and funerary purposes by some tribes. A few stone blocks, preferably flat slabs supported by several small stone blocks, are intentionally placed to provide a sitting platform for organizing village meetings. These are variously known as sindobar, sodor, and rachabandalu (Elwin, 1950; Grigson, 1938; Mohana Rao, 1993). These structures recall protohistoric megaliths (dolmens) in physical properties but functionally a different connotation. At some of the platforms (sodors), standing stones are erected in memory of an ancestral member of the lineage group of the village. The number of standing stones at a sodor indicates episodes of events in the lineage or village history. These are the seats of the village political order where the village functionaries exercise traditional law and justice, and they also act as central places for sociocultural and festive congregations. Runnukbor is a stone wall with an entrance, piled up about 4 feet above the ground level at the entrance of the village, commonly seen in Bondo land. Bondo, while entering into the village, offers a small twig and salute with folded hands, indicating their belief that the rennukbors are the abodes of their ancestors. These standing stones recall the menhirs and avenues of the megalithic period.
Similarly, sacred enclosures are found within and outside habitations, where stone chambers (dolmen) are fenced by standing stones, either in oblong or rectangular planes. These enclosures are forbidden for trespassing as they are most serene chambers, enshrining objects of worship, such as stone balls (water-worn pebbles), flat stone pieces, some strange rocks (quartz/calcite crystals), or earthen pots with offerings, which are ritually placed. The sacred enclosures found within the habitation are called Nisan, enshrining the Sanku deity, while those outside are called Bod, sheltering ancestral souls (Prakash, 2001, 2005; Som & Prakash, 2006). These structures have been playing a vital role in consolidating tribal ways of life. They are centers of large tribal congregations on several festive occasions for worship and are an important component of tribal identity in the cultural milieu, which are heritage relics of the region.
Sacred Groves (SGs)
In spite of environmental degradation and deforestation, groves of trees are found in tribal and peasant habitats. Some of these are classified as SGs, which are segments of landscape containing multi-species, multitier primary forest or clumps of trees and other forms of life (Malhotra, 1998). The geographical features of SGs are delimited and protected by imposing taboos and sanctions, and are dedicated to ancestral spirits or deities by local communities (Hughes & Subash Chandran, 1998; Roy Burman, 1992, 1995). Such groves attain sacredness due to enshrinement of deities, mostly female, and also the belief that they are the abodes of ancestral spirits. Often, they are burial places. Several plants and endangered species of medicinal value are part of the SGs, which support the practice of ethnic medicine and Ayurveda by traditional healers and medicine men of tribal and peasant societies, and Ayurvedic doctors of complex agrarian societies.
As per the report of WWF-Andhra Pradesh (1996), the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh has more than 750 SGs, out of which the divided AP has 213. Most of these are located in the Eastern Ghats or adjacent habitats of tribals and peasants. About 14 types of species, flower and fruit-bearing, shades are identified in the groves, which are important in the performance of several rituals (Prakash, 2005). In the study area, 27 SGs are reported in East (10) and West (17) Godavari districts (WWF-Andhra Pradesh, 1996). It is presumed that there may be many more existing in the catchment and command areas of the dam, which need systematic survey, enumeration, and documentation.
Catchment and Command Areas of the Dam
A multipurpose irrigation project contemplated at Polavaram will have a catchment area of about 5,000 sq. km, covering the forested land of West Godavari on the right side and East Godavari on the left side of the erstwhile districts of Andhra Pradesh; it will bring in a command area of about 4,500 sq. km under irrigation, hitherto rain-fed dry farming. The impact assessment and salvage studies were undertaken for resettlement and rehabilitation of people (Subba Reddy, 1996), and for salvage of heritage relics (Ramakrishna Rao, 2015; Reddy & Murty, 1988). The reports indicate that the catchment area falls in the Scheduled Area, which has been an extension of the forested hill tracts of Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh (Figure 2), and is inhabited by 36 different tribal communities (Table 2). Therefore, the Polavaram project catchment area shall be viewed as a “tribal culturescape.” The survey reports project that tribal habitations (276 villages, of which 10 are in Chhattisgarh, 7 in Odisha, and the remaining in Andhra Pradesh) would be submerged (I&CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2005). Similarly, some prehistoric and protohistoric sites, particularly hundreds of megaliths (menhirs, cists, dolmens) of the Iron Age, would be subjected. The dam construction in the habitats of tribal and caste communities is of immense value and academic concern in the context of Mitchell’s “hydraulic hypothesis” (1973).
Upon completion of the project, the command area would come under intensive agriculture (ayacut), covering 22 mandals of West Godavari and Krishna districts, and 26 mandals of East Godavari and Visakhapatnam districts of the right and left bank canals, respectively (Anil Kumar, 2009; I&CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2005; Environics Trust Report 2011). At present, this 48-mandal landscape is under upland farming by several peasant communities and artisanal craftsmen, who are at various levels of socio-economic and cultural development twined together into “peasant culturescape” of the command area. The culturescape of the command area is sandwiched between deltaic and hill tracts, bridging the two divergent culturescapes, a crucial resource vulnerable to change in the context of dam construction (Hunt & Hunt, 1976; Mitchell, 1976). So far, understanding of the transition between protohistoric and early historic phases is grim. Therefore, systematic understanding of the catchment and command area culturescapes would shed some light on hitherto less known causative cultural processes. The canal networks of the project are expected to bring in rapid landscaping for habitation expansion, intensive agriculture, and the establishment of food processing industries. In view of project-induced changing processes, documentation and conservation of cultural assets are necessary.
Observations/Discussion
Pre- and Protohistoric Cultures
The prehistoric cultural evidence denoted by Paleolithic cultures is obscure in the study area. The Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic culture-bearing sites are limited to floodplains and are few in number, with only traces of lithic evidence, unlike the southern Cuddapah Basin or northern Narmada Valley. Contrary to Paleolithic evidence, microlithic evidence of Mesolithic culture is profuse and has wider distribution in different landscapes, such as upland plateaus, hill tracts, floodplains, and coastal plains. The element of non-geometric microliths in upland plateaus and geometric microliths in hill tracts appear to be the dominant characters. In the case of protohistoric sites, the Megalithic cultural relics are more visible and show variation in typology. These are located in the floodplains of the main river valley adjoining foothills and hilltops, while the Neolithic evidence is limited to traces of potsherds, a few polished tools, and other household paraphernalia. Site-specific successive or progressive development of prehistoric and protohistoric cultures is not evident in the lower Godavari Valley; rather, the sites are culture-specific. It is observed that the sites and their respective cultural milieu seem to be landscape-specific. In any of the identified landscapes of the valley, site-specific evidence of cultural progression from prehistory to protohistory, or within, is not discernible. However, ephemeral rivers in the vicinity on either side of the main valley, to some extent, have provided evidence of pre- and protohistoric cultural progression of the region.
Archaeology of Ephemeral Rivers
Several ephemeral rivers and networks of hill streams have preserved pre- and protohistoric cultural remains. The Bayaneru, Kovvada, and Errakaluva in the south, and Eleru, Gambheeram, Gosthani, Champavathi, Nagavali, and Vamsadhara in the north of the Godavari are principal ephemeral rivers that have preserved several sites of archaeological significance. Prehistoric, protohistoric, and early historic evidence are found in situ as well as in surface scatters, often eroded due to surface wash, but in the form of “scattered sites,” unlike mounds, which are potential repositories of cultural depots. The successive geo-stratigraphy at inland stream and nullah cuttings, laterite, duricrust, and red sand deposits in the coastal landscape has given rise to piecing together a relative chronology based on stratigraphic sequences and cultural development of the region (Reddy, 1994), which can be corroborated to consolidate the spatio-temporal cultural development of the lower Godavari Valley.
Damage of Heritage Relics
It is known that the archaeological sites are subjected to considerable transformation due to various economic (O’Brien & Lewarch, 1981) and developmental activities (Allchin, 1995). Among protohistoric sites, megaliths are highly visible and thereby susceptible to transformation as they are found in the vicinity of human habitations, agricultural fields, and the belief that they contain treasures (Paddayya, 1996). Similarly, the belief among locals that megaliths are siddharkatte (platforms of ascetics), bhasmadakakatte (platforms containing ash), or pandavarakatte (platforms of the Pandavas) and contain either gold or some kind of ash that could convert any metal into gold prompted for vandalism and quarrying (Nagaraja Rao, 1981). Some of the graves at sites located on hilltops (Janampet, Cherla, Dongatogu, Mukunuru, Vemuluru) have been vandalized by treasure hunters (Prakash & Gopikrishna, 2000), while the graves close to the river flow (Rudramkota, Mungapet, Isunuru) have been subjected to erosion, exposing graves and remnants of disturbed graves (Prakash & Gopikrishna, 1998). A huge archaeological mound rich in protohistoric and early historic relics at Vemagirigutta near Rajahmundry was quarried for earth (Reddy & Prakash, 1989–1990). The river dynamics of point bar formation, bank erosion, and shifting of river course, island formation, and such of these geomorphic processes noticed at Isunuru, engulfed a potential Megalithic site (Prakash & Gopikrishna, 1998). In light of the dam construction on the Godavari, it is assumed that the destruction would be much more severe.
Aramas and Urbanization
The red ware, black and red ware, red and black ware, and black wares were the earliest ceramic types indicating the genesis of protohistory in the delta of the Godavari. The sites yielding these relics are within the present-day habitation, which were rebuilt several times due to inundation and denudation. Some of these habitation mounds are quarried to build walls and also as fertilizer to farmlands. Protohistoric sites could not be recognized, except through the collection of characteristic ceramics in the form of potsherds at street sides, backyards, and graveyards of congested habitations. The other notable worthy sites are aramas of Buddhist traditions. The aramas, popularly known as pancharams (pancha means five), are located in the lower catchment areas of the Krishna (Amararama) and Godavari (Bhimarama, Ksheerarama, Somarama, Kumararama) rivers. These aramas are brick structures of the Buddhist period, dated from c. 200
Of late, Saivitic shrines were built at or over aramas, as evidenced by the pottery, bricks, and other associated material remains of the Buddhist period. The then-contemporary peasant populations, residing nearby aramas, could be protohistoric or Neolithic–Megalithic or Megalithic people. The “peasant–monk” interaction in the delta could be delineated by the dependency of monks on peasants, as monks, by tradition, live on bikshatana (begging) among local populations, who produce food by cultivation in delta soils. The donor–acceptor nexus of “peasant–monk” might have led to the context of propagation of Buddha Dharma among local populations, who were animists, ancestral worshippers, and early urbanization or Iron Age populations of the delta. The peasant–monk nexus period was further consolidated sociocultural institutions into “Andhra culture” by the Satavahana rulers, as revealed by inscriptions, architecture, sculptural art, and other associated cultural evidence (Hanumantha Rao, 1989). Of late, it appears that habitations of the Buddhist religion are stigmatized as lanjadibbalu (mounds of the whors), tabooed and down-looked by the emerging new religion, leading to the abandonment of habitations (Varma, 1974). It is observed that the ancient mounds of the delta, denoting “protohistoric–Buddhist–ancient” phases of culture are found in the vicinity of present-day saivitic kshetras (temples of Lord Shiva) in the sedimentary deposits of the delta (Prakash, 2000). Labor-intensive paddy cultivation in the delta signifies the bhuswami–rytu (landowner–farmer) nexus, symbolizing “delta-culture,” which has been reciprocal in nature by partaking in two dominant populations, owner–tenant in delta economics and culture, ever since protohistoric times. Cultivation of paddy (plough cultivation) and animal husbandry (mostly cattle) were dominant agricultural activities until the dam construction at Dhawaleswaram by Sir Arthur Cotton (Hope & Digby, 1900). Subsequent to dam, mechanization, hybridization, and farming methods resulted in the Green Revolution, which propelled the process of urbanization about a century ago. In recent years, aquaculture has been added to agro-activities at the coastal front of the delta. The delta area is now subjected to rapid transformation as evidenced by the emergence of port towns, temple towns, market yards, and health and education centers at various localities of human habitations, but not much industrialization due to sediment hindrances of the landscape.
Remarks
Tribals and the Catchment Area
The tribal history of the study area is not recorded as they do not have a script, but their actions are embedded in their respective landscapes. The imprints of indigenous technological knowledge in sustaining a subsistence economy and the material manifestations for sociocultural and economic needs, over generations, which are stones, terracotta, and wooden posts, whether prehistoric, protohistoric, or present, have been the pride and identity of the inhabitants as well as the landscape. Due to various developmental initiatives, the catchment area of the dam is subjected to unprecedented landscaping, leading to the wipe-out of heritage and uprooting of people. Since the dam causes inundation of heritage relics of “floodplains and plateau uplands,” which are rich in protohistoric megaliths and living megaliths (sacred structures/shrines), they need to be documented, salvaged, and conserved for posterity. Though the megaliths at Rudramkota and Rayanipeta are being excavated by the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the present study reveals that the tangible and intangible heritage aspects of protohistoric megaliths and living megaliths, and their generic nexus to landscape and people is not dealt. Therefore, systematic and scientific studies are necessary before the completion of dam construction.
Peasants and the Command Area
The command area spreads over the rural mosaic of Andhra Pradesh, covering the erstwhile Krishna, West Godavari, East Godavari, and Visakhapatnam districts. It is inhabited by varied caste groups who live in villages and small towns. The majority of them are peasant farmers and artisanal craftsmen, making the rural landscape self-sufficient. At present, the lowlands and coastal plains are under economies of farming, horticulture, and animal husbandry. The collective and cooperative modes of production, sharing, use of common resources for the well-being of people, domesticates, organization of traditional fairs and festivals, and such cultural ethos are managed by traditional functionaries besides democratic institutions, characterizing rural cultures. Noteworthy heritage of these landscapes have been, as per Redfield (1955, 1956), shrines of little tradition, temples of great tradition, and SGs. Each one of these is encompassed by intangible heritage, which has been the cohesive character of the rural mosaic of the folk–urban continuum and needs to be analyzed with empirical precision as the context is susceptible to change.
The water dynamics of the command area are expected to bring sea changes not only to the landscapes of the lowlands and coastal plains but also to farming and crop patterns. Enumeration of vulnerable cultural assets, together with the intangible aura unique to the lowlands and coastal lands, needs to be brought out in the context of irrigation-induced rural–urban transitions. In addition, the erstwhile coastline, marked by an imaginary line between the mainland and wetlands passing through the command area (Figure 1), is less known for Pleistocene landforms and Paleolithic cultural remains of the Godavari may be promising and need to be verified.
Delta and Buried Channels
The vicinities of Buddhist aramas, stupas and Saivitic kshetras (temples), shrines of little tradition, and temples located along buried channels of erstwhile distributaries seem to be potential areas for delineating the history of delta culture. The delta “temple mounds” contain burnt ashes and cinders along with cultural objects, which may throw some light on temple history. In the absence of archaeological objects in understanding cultural history or urbanization processes of the delta, the study of temple mounds with appropriate methodology and techniques is of great significance in building delta culture and climatic history, which are influenced by maritime vagaries such as cyclones, tidal waves, and tsunamis.
Islands of Investigations
The archaeological and ethnographic studies of different landscapes in the study area have revealed that the archaeological investigations were initiated in 1924 and ethnographic studies in 1938. Since then, the area has been subjected to culture–historical inquiry. All five landscapes have their respective cultural imprints and progressions, but an integrated and consolidated cultural–historical continuum is not brought out. Thereby, the studies have remained as islands of inquiry. In view of isolated studies and in the context of dam construction, multidisciplinary holistic studies aimed at landscapes and culturescapes would bring new vistas of knowledge, heritage, identity, and pride among respective populations and academic outcomes. The context of dam construction at Polavaram could be an experimental ground to undertake immediate benchmark studies to test the data at a later date to debate concepts like (a) little and great tradition, (b) hydraulic civilization, (c) tribal–rural–urban continuum, (d) canal induced change, (e) resettlement and rehabilitation, and such related issues of social sciences.
Tributary and Ephemeral Rivers
The tributary rivers of the Godavari draining the hill tracts of the Eastern Ghats and both sides of the valley are rich in prehistoric cultures, particularly Mesolithic evidence. Between the lowlands and coastal lands, the coastal lands are rich in both prehistoric and protohistoric cultures. However, coastal lands on either side of the delta show decimal evidence of prehistoric and protohistoric, as the deltas of the Godavari and Krishna rivers and the Kolleru wetlands in between (Nageswara Rao, 1985), which are of Holocene origin prograded into the sea (Nageswara Rao, Sadakata et al., 2005; Nageswara Rao, Takayasu, 2005), might have hindered trespass. Among the five identified landscapes of the Godavari Valley, three paths of cultural progress are deciphered. They are (a) connectivity between plateau uplands (Deccan) and lowlands through floodplains on the right side, (b) plateau uplands (Bastar) and lowlands–coastal lands through floodplains on the left side during Pleistocene/Paleolithic times, and (c) floodplains and hill tracts on either side during the Holocene appear to be plausible. However, based on the Lower Paleolithic evidence along the coastal landscape and lateritic belt of the Coromandel Coast, the maritime influence of Paleolithic culture into the Godavari Valley cannot be ruled out, but for wetlands. The ephemeral rivers of the coastal landscape present a spectrum of archaeological evidence, such as Acheulean of the Lower Paleolithic, flake tools of the Middle Paleolithic, blade tools of the Upper Paleolithic, microliths of the Mesolithic, and Neolithic and Megalithic cultural phases might have had maritime influences and local riverine resources rather than main river course of the Godavari. The study reveals that the Godavari River has been the buffer or merger zone between the south and north as far as pre- and protohistoric cultures of India are concerned.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
The author sincerely acknowledges and thanks Dr. Konda Srinivasulu, Head of the Department of History (Retd.), C. S. R. Sarma College, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, who has been surfing the internet to browse the required textual information. His patience, academic interest, and editing are of immense help in bringing out this review article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
