Bihar Megaliths & Rock Carvings
Summary
The article challenges Sir James Fergusson’s sweeping claim that dolmens and other megalithic monuments do not occur in the Ganges valley. Adris Banerji surveys available evidence for megaliths in Bihar, compiling references from nineteenth- and early twentieth‑century antiquarians. He notes that Valentine Ball argued for the existence of ‘Kolhan’ megaliths in Singhbhum as early as 1872 and describes menhirs, cromlechs and dolmens near Chaibassa, Pokharia and other villages. The author emphasises that the megalithic culture of Bihar has not been systematically studied; most observations are incidental and the provenance of finds is rarely recorded. After summarising reports from Hazaribagh, Ranchi, Palamau and Gaya districts, he cautions against assuming that all stone circles are prehistoric; some may be recent memorials. Banerji also discusses ossuary sites associated with the so‑called Asura people near old Ranchi, where large earthen jars and charred bones were found under stone slabs. He suggests that these may represent fractional burials reused by later groups. Turning to rock carvings, the article notes that Bihar’s petroglyphs are generally late in date and mostly depict Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina motifs. Notable sites include Kawa Dol and Sultan Ganj, where panels show the ten avatāras of Viṣṇu, and the Sarajamhatu irrigation channel, where carvings of deities and dancers were discovered during recent works. Banerji cites Dr. P. Mitra’s description of dolmens and menhirs at Barkela in Singhbhum and remarks that similar monuments exist in villages such as Sargam Hato, Sarandagarh and Bokrom. He warns that theories linking Bihar megaliths to North or South Indian builders are speculative until systematic excavation and radiocarbon dating are undertaken. The article concludes that Bihar possesses a scattered but significant heritage of megalithic monuments and rock carvings, most of which remain undocumented. Until comprehensive surveys are conducted, scholars should treat generalisations about their distribution with caution. Banerji calls for local authorities and researchers to record sites systematically and for archaeologists to differentiate prehistoric structures from later imitations.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Adris Banerji’s survey demonstrates that megalithic and rock‑carving traditions were present in Bihar despite earlier denials. From menhirs at Singhbhum to ossuaries near Ranchi and rock panels at Kawa Dol, the evidence is varied but insufficiently studied. The author argues that many assumptions about origins and connections to other Indian traditions are premature. Only careful fieldwork, proper recording and scientific dating can clarify the chronology and cultural affiliations of Bihar’s megaliths. Until then, scholars should avoid sweeping generalisations and recognise the region’s potential to enrich our understanding of India’s megalithic past.