The “Round Mound” and its Structural Requirements: A
Possible Scenario for the Evolution of the Form of the
Stupa
Srikumar M. Menon1. National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus,
Bangalore – 560012, Karnataka, India (Email: srikumar.menon@gmail.com)

1

Received: 12 August 2016; Accepted: 16 September 2016; Revised: 11 October 2016
Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4 (2016): 26-46
Abstract: The “round mound” or cairn is one of the simplest megalith type – consisting of a roundedheap of earth or rubble, usually marking a burial spot. As the size of the cairn grows it needs to becontained using various structural techniques such as containment using large boulders as bounding
circle, stone slabs embedded in the earth around in a circle etc. Using examples from various megalithic
sites in the subcontinent, an attempt is made to understand a possible evolutionary sequence of the
Buddhist stupa using the structural necessities of containment. A unique megalith at Mallasandram,near Krishnagiri, which represents a “proto-stupa” or an intermediate type between a dolmen and a
stupa, is discussed. It is stressed that this is not presented as a linear evolutionary sequence, but rather as
how the evolved form of the stupa derives from the structural requirement to build higher and more
extensive mounds.

Keywords: Megalith, Cairn, Boulder Circle, Dolmen, Stupa, Drum, Relic

ChamberIntroduction
The “round mound” or cairn is one of the simplest monuments found worldwide –consisting of a rounded heap of earth or rubble, usually marking a burial spot. Cairns
with or without bounding circles of boulders are quite common in the British Isles andthe rest of Europe (Burl 1976, Scarre 2007). Cairns and boulder circles are also two of
the most common megalith types found in the Indian subcontinent (Moorti 1994,
Brubaker 2001). Typically cairns are rounded mounds of rubble or rubble mixed withearth,and come in various sizes, from 1-3m to over 20m in diameter.
In 1979, Ian Kinnes had suggested that creating a round mound was the most“economical method of creating all round visual impact” (Leary et al 2010). This seems
to be the case with monuments across scales. Of the several megalithic monuments
fashioned out of the soft laterite regions of Kerala in south India, the simplest is the
topikal or the “hat stone” (Figure 1) which is a simple hemispherical or semi-Menon 2016: 26-46

hemispherical mound of laterite, roughly a couple of metres in diameter. Though thetopikal is a monument type endemic to central and northern Kerala, similar small scale
mounds were constructed out of chipped stone pieces to form the simple cairn (Figure2) at many places elsewhere in the subcontinent.

Figure 1: A “hat stone” or topikkal at the megalithic site at Kudakkallu Parambu in
KeralaFigure 2: A small (disturbed) cairn at the megalithic site of Byse in southern
Karnataka27

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Both topikals and cairns form part of the so called “South Indian Megalithic Complex”
that is generally ascribed to the south Indian Iron Age and Early Historic period,
roughly 1200BC – 500AD (Bauer et al 2007), though the construction of megaliths could
have started earlier than the Iron Age (Morrison 2005, Menon in press). However, theashmounds of the preceding Neolithic period in south India are considered by some tohave fulfilled the role of the earliest monuments in this region (Johansen 2004). Theselarge features are massive accumulations of cattle dung that were heaped up and fired
in several episodes to become the monumental features of the Neolithic (Figure 3).
Similar large scale “round mound” monuments are known elsewhere in the world, too,though in different context, such as Silbury Hill at Wiltshirein England (Leary et al2010).

Figure 3: A Neolithic ashmound at Sanganakallu, northern Karnataka
The stupa is another round mound monument that succeeded the age of megalithbuilding in the Indian subcontinent, though megalith production seems to havecontinued for at least some more time, side by side with stupa and temple constructionin the Early Historic period (Bauer et al 2007,Fogelin 2004).
In this paper, we will make a case for the stupa being an evolved form of the simple
megalithic cairn, with the structural necessities for erecting a large and stable roundmound dictating the form of the evolved stupa. This strand of reasoning has evolved
from the study and documentation of numerous megalithic as well as stupa sites in the
country.

28

Menon 2016: 26-46

The megalithic cairn – “form follows scale”
As mentioned earlier, cairns come in various scales, from 1-3m in diameter (Fogelin2004), to large accumulations of earth and rubble over 20m in diameter (Abbas et al2014). Cairns may or may not have bounding circles of boulders, irrespective of scale,though it is common to find the larger cairns bounded by boulder circles (Moorti 1994,
Menon 2012b). Boulder circles not associated with cairns are also quite common(Figure 4).

Figure 4: A large boulder circle at Junapani in Vidarbha, Maharashtra
Figure 5 shows a small cairn at a place called Buddhana Jeddu, near Udupi in south
Karnataka. This rounded heap of chipped laterite pieces is roughly 2.5m in diameterand less than a meter in height. At this scale, it is possible for the heap to retain its
shape over a large period of time without dissipation. This, however is not true ofaccumulations which are larger – both in terms of diameter and height. This is
illustrated by Figure 6, which shows a large cairn without a bounding circle atRamalingeshwara Hill at Aihole in northern Karnataka, which has dissipated overtime, losing its circular shape as well as diminishing in height.
It will thus came as no surprise that a large number of cairns of extended size – say,over 10m in diameter, come with a bounding circle of large boulders that help containthe cairn material and the mound to retain its shape. Figure 7 shows one such largecairn (<20m in diameter) at the extensive megalithic site of Champa in Vidarbha,
Maharashtra and Figure 8 shows another large cairn (~9m in diameter) at Sanur in
Tamilnadu, with bounding circles of large boulders.

29

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Figure 5: A small cairn made of heaped pieces of laterite at BuddhanaJeddu near
Udupi

Figure 6: A large cairn, which has lost its form over time, at Ramalingeshwara Hill,
Aihole30

Menon 2016: 26-46

Figure 7: A large cairn with a bounding circle of boulders at Champa in Vidarbha,
Maharashtra

Figure 8: A large cairn with a bounding circle of large boulders at Sanur,
Tamil Nadu

31

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Containing similar sized, or even smaller heaps with greater height presents anotherchallenge to containment. In these cases, the tendency to dissipate under the persistent
tug of gravity is even more difficult to counteract. A novel method to achieve this isnoticed in at least two sites. At ChikelChetti, near Bandipur in Karnataka, there is amegalithic site with cist burials and cairns (Menon et al 2011). One of the cairns –roughly 10m in diameter and over a meter in height (Figure 9), has a bounding circle
made of stone slabs driven into the ground at an angle to contain the cairn material(Figure 10). Another megalith at Avathi, near Bangalore in Karnataka also employs thesame method to contain cairn material within a small diameter (Figure 11).

Figure 9: A cairn at ChikelChetti near Bandipur in Karnataka which uses a slab
circle to contain cairn material within a diameter of 10m
Thus it can be seen that larger cairns need a suitable containment strategy involving
bounding circles of large boulders or embedded slabs for enhancing monumentality(greater height or diameter or both) and in order to prevent dissipation.

The “proto-stupa” of Mallasandram
Mallasandram (12o 38’ 13.0”N, 78o 05’ 52.9”E) is a megalithic site near Krishnagiri in
Tamilnadu. Most of the megaliths are distributed in three clusters on a rocky hill near
the village of Beerpallam, which can be approached from Samalpallam on the
Krishnagiri-Hosur road.The megaliths of Mallasandram have been discussed by Tilner

32

Menon 2016: 26-46(2004), where he refers to the site as “Birpalli”. From his discussion, as well as theaccounts of Branfill (1880) and Murthy (1976), Mallasandram seems to belong to a classof sites represented by Iralabanda and KadirirayaCheruvu. The most striking
monuments at these megalithic sites are dolmens surrounded by concentric multiple
slab circles, one of which is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 10: Detail of the same cairn showing part of the circle made of slabs driven
into the ground on end

Figure 11: Similar detail in a cairn at Avathi, near Bangalore
33

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Figure 12: One of the dolmens with a double slab circle at Mallasandram, near
Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu
However, there is one unique megalith at Mallasandram that merits discussion fromthe point of view of this paper. At the heart of this monument, in the western cluster, isa large dolmen, measuring 1.3m x 1.7m on the inside, with a circular porthole in its
eastern orthostat, which is surrounded by a circle of erect, tight-fitting slabs, roughly
10m in diameter (Figure 13). The orthostats of the dolmen are interlocked in the“swastika” pattern that prevents inward collapse – a technique encountered often in
the construction of dolmens and cists, such as at Hire Benakal in Karnataka. Outward
collapse of the orthostats was prevented by building a rubble wall adjacent to them, apart of this wall adjacent to the southern orthostat is still extant (Figure 14). Theintervening space between the dolmen and the surrounding slab circle seems to havebeen filled up with a mixture of earth and rubble, which formed a mound till the top of
the orthostats of the dolmen. The monument, which has been badly stripped bytreasure seekers, still retains a part of this mound in the south-eastern quadrant (Figure15). It cannot be said for certain if the original arrangement had a capstone for thedolmen; unless a slab now lying broken into three pieces within the dolmen might
have served that role.

34

Menon 2016: 26-46

Figure 13: A panoramic view of the megalith at Mallasandram showing the central
dolmen with it surrounding circle of close-fitting erect slabs

Figure 14: Detail showing a rubble wall adjacent to the southern orthostat of thecentral dolmen
The similarity in form of this monument with the stupa is very evident. From theoutside, what is visible is the outer part of the slab circle, which forms the “drum” ofthe proto-stupa and the mound that extends till the top of the orthostats, which areabout 1.8m in height (Figure 16). Thus, essentially it is a large mound atop a cylindricaldrum enclosing a chamber within, which is more or less what a stupa is. The
35

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016mechanism by which the slabs of the circle are held in place is visible in the portions
where the mound has been stripped away by vandals. It can be seen (Figure 17) thatlarge blocks of stone have been employed to hold the slabs in position, before filling inwith earth and rubble. Figure 18 (a, b and c) depict how the monument would havelooked like when complete.

Figure 15: A part of the mound covering the dolmen still exists in the south-eastern
quadrant

Figure 16: A view of the “proto stupa” monument at Mallasandram from the outside
showing the “drum” of the stupa formed by erect slabs of surrounding slab circle

36

Menon 2016: 26-46

Figure 17: Detail showing the large blocks of stone that have been employed to keep
the erect slabs of the surrounding circle in position37

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Figure 18: Plan (a), section (b) and elevation (c) of the stupa-like megalith at
Mallasandram as it would have looked when complete
Though this is the only extensive monument of this type at the site, many smallermonuments with the same design philosophy can be seen in the eastern cluster (Figure19). These too consist of dolmens surrounded by very tight slab circles with an infill ofearth and rubble.

Discussion
The cairn or the round mound of earth/rubble is the simplest funereal/memorial
monument, which was in vogue from very early times. Though the Neolithic
38

Menon 2016: 26-46

ashmound is not a burial marker, the round mound or cairn has been a popular
sepulchral megalith at various places worldwide. The stupa as a sepulchral or a burial
monument was not restricted to the Buddhists, as illustrated by the Jain stupa at
KankaliTila, near Mathura. In
In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in reply to a query byAnanda about how his corporeal remains should be treated after his passing, theBuddha replies “As they treat the remains of a king of kings, so, Ananda, should theytreat the remains of the Tathagatha. At
At the four crossroads a dagaba should be erectedto the Tathagatha” (Davids 1894).

Figure 19: Smaller megaliths of similar type in the vicinity of the “proto“proto-stupa”
The connection between megaliths and Buddhist stupas has been the subject ofconjecture since long (Cunningham 1854, Venkataramanayya 1930, Longhurst 1936,
Menon 2012a). Apart from the obvious similarity in form as “round mounds”, there aremany instances of spatial proximity between megaliths and Buddhist stupas. Schopen(2010) calls attention to numerous Buddhist stupa sites that have earlier extant
megalithic monuments in the vicinity. He also laments the fact that the early excavators
at many Buddhist sites
ites did not report in detail the megalithic tombs – mostly roundmoundsreferred to as “barrows” or “tumuli”, at several sites (Goli, Chandavaram,
Panigiri, Jaggayyapetta, Kusinara and Lumbini). A large number of megalithic
monuments were also observed near
near the Great Stupa at Amaravati(Fergusson
1873,Sarkar and Nainar 1980,Schopen 2010). According to Fergusson (1873), there were“some hundreds of” rude stone circles in the neighbourhood of the Great Stupa at
Amaravati. Col. Mackenzie’s drawings of a megalith
megalith at Amaravati is reproduced in
Fergusson (1873), andit shows an earthen mound surrounded by large roughly dressed

39

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

boulders arranged in a circle, in other words, a megalith that would be termed a cairnstone circle in today’s terminology. Schopen (2010) also discusses the discovery of urn
burials below one of the smaller stupas at Amaravati. It would appear that the
Buddhist stupas were located within and atop a megalithic graveyard, an observationthat Schopen (2010) interprets as meaning that those locations “were already occupiedby the protohistorical dead before they were taken over by the immigrant monks.”
Lars Fogelin (2004) discusses the Early Historic Buddhist monastery at Thotlakondain
North-Coastal Andhra Pradesh.At Thotlakonda, thereis a main monastic complex on
the hill, consisting of a Maha Stupa, 12 smaller stupas, fivechaityas and a large
monastery. The landscape surrounding this complex is covered with a dense collectionof small stone cairns. The cairns are quite small, between one and three meters indiameter and up to one meter in height. Fogelin speculates that the cairns must havebeen erected over the cremated remains of Buddhist monks and lay-people, thus
making a case for the continued practice of megalith production even after the adventof formal monuments like the evolved Buddhist stupa.
A lot of attention has been focused over the years on the external resemblance of stupas
to megaliths. In the case of megaliths such as the cairn, the resemblance is obvious, but
the resemblance of even megaliths like dolmens (Figure 20) in their intact form to theround mound is not so straightforward to grasp. Dolmens are oblong, box-likestructures created of slabs of stones, forming a chamber which might have once held
relics and votive offerings. Most dolmens found today have been looted by treasureseekers over centuries and their original form badly disturbed. The dolmen at Meguti
Hill at Aihole, shown in Figure 20, is one such monument. However, examination ofanother lesser disturbed monument on the same hill (Figure 21) shows that thechamber was surrounded by a packing of chipped rubble blocks and covered on theoutside with other inclined slabs whose top ends rested on the periphery of thecapstone. The overall impression that such an arrangement creates is that of a low
mound. The similarity to a rounded mound is also seen in some crude dolmens,
termed Irregular Polygonal Chambers or IPC’s by Sundara (1975), as shown in Figure
22, at the megalithic site of Hire Benakal.
The connections between cairn megaliths and stupas stretch beyond mere spatial
proximity and similarity in overall form. The inner architecture of some stupasalso
suggest similarities to megaliths. It is usual to have a relic chamber within sepulchral
stupas that usually contain a relic casket containing the remains of the Buddha or othervenerated Buddhist monks. There are some instances of the relic chamber resembling
megalithic cist burials in form. Cunningham’s excavations of Tope no. 3 atAndherexposed the relic chamber within, which he describes so – “The side stones
were placed so as to overlap at one end, thus forming a Swastika or mystic cross of therelic chamber” (Cunningham, 1854). The drawing accompanying this description
shows an arrangement of slabs similar to that of the dolmens of Hire Benakal discussed
above or the Brahmagiri type of cist construction with capstone (Wheeler 1948).The

40

Menon 2016: 26-46

relic chamber of Stupa no. 17k at Bhojpur depicted by Cunningham (1854) show
analogous form, too. This is quite similar to the “proto-stupa” of Mallasandram
discussed above, though the relic chambers are much smaller than the dolmenchamber encountered at Mallasandram.

Figure 20: A dolmen on Meguti Hill at Aihole

Figure 21: Another dolmen on Meguti Hill, with its rubble packing and outer casingof slabs intact
41

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Figure 22: An IPC at Hire Benakal resembling a small moundFigure 23: The Buddhist stupa at Kanaganahalli, near Sannati in northern Karnataka,showing some of the still extant sculptured slabs of the lower drum

42

Menon 2016: 26-46

Figure 24: A cutaway 3-D illustration of the “proto-stupa” megalithic monument at
Mallasandram, with the dolmen at the centre, and drum of slabs encircling it

Figure 25: An illustration of how structural requirements influence the form of theround mound at the scale of various monuments discussed in the text, with astylized human figure for scale

43

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

It is tempting to look at the form of the evolved stupa, most often encountered in the
Buddhist context, as a product of evolution of the round mound in an attempt to makeit more prominent – with respect to larger spread as well as height. We have alreadyseen in earlier discussions the various structural techniques involved in making roundmounds of greater extent and height – namely, containment using large boulders or
slabs embedded in the ground, in a circle around the mound.
Though it is stressed that it is not a case of linear development from the simple cairn tolarger mounds with boulder circles and slab circles to the evolved form of the stupa, itcannot be denied that the drum of the stupa (Figure 23) is a product of the structuralnecessity for containment of a large mass of earth or rubble. The stupa-like megalith at
Mallasandram (Figure 24) is an illustrative example of a monument that is halfway
between the cairn and the evolved form of the stupa. Figure 25 illustrates how the formof a round mound or stupa is derived from structural requirements of the roundmound at various scales.
It needs to be pointed out, though, that one of the main handicaps in tracing theevolution of the form of a monument by studying examples from different places is thepaucity of reliable dates from most megalithic sites. Though in general it is acceptedthat megaliths are a class of monuments that were built in the Iron Age and whose
construction might have continued into the Early Historic period, the number ofreliable dates from the nearly 3000 known megalithic sites are few in number. Unless
we know the period of construction of, say, the Mallasandram megalith, it would be
difficult to verify the scenario of possible evolution outlined in this paper.

Conclusion
The round mound or the cairn seems to be one of the earliest and most common
monument types – a form common toashmounds or megaliths or even latermonuments, like the stupa. The structural adaptations that permit the construction oflarger round mound monuments result in the transformation of the cairn from a simple
rounded heap to more complex forms bolstered by boulder circles and slab circles
which are quite similar to the form of the Buddhist stupa. Of particular interest is thedevelopment of the cylindrical drum of the stupa, which seems to be anticipated in theslab circles of inclined or erect slabs seen at Chikel Chetti and Mallasandram
respectively. It is this component, which arose of the structural needs of creating around mound on a truly monumental scale, which lent itself as the setting for
sculptural panels depicting various religious and other themes for the benefit ofcircumambulating worshippers in monuments such as the Kanaganahalli stupa.

Acknowledgements
A part of this work was carried out as a Homi Bhabha Fellow (2012-14). The author
gratefully acknowledges the Homi Bhabha Fellowships Council for their support.

44

Menon 2016: 26-46

References
Abbas, R., Vahia, M. N. and Sule, A. (2014) Survey of Stone Circles at Junapani. In
Dikshit, K. N. and Kumar, A. (Ed.) The Megalithic Culture of South India.
New Delhi, Indian Archaeological Society.
Bauer, A. M., Johansen, P. and Bauer, R. L. (2007) Towards a Political Ecology in Early
South India: Preliminary Considerations of the Sociopolitics of Land andAnimal Use in the Southern Deccan, Neolithic through Early Historic
Periods. Asian Perspectives, Volume 46, Number 1, 3-35.
Branfill, B. R. (1880) Rude Megalithic Monuments in North Arcot. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. Vol. 49, 8-10.
Brubaker, R. (2001) Aspects of Mortuary Variability in the South Indian Iron Age.
Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate Research Institute. 60-61, Deccan
College, Pune, 253-302.
Burl, A. (1976) The Stone Circles of the British Isles. New Haven and London, Yale
University Press.
Cunningham, A. (1854) TheBhilsa Topes: Buddhist Monuments of Central India. London,
Smith Elder and Co.
Davids, T.W. R. (2010 - Reprint, originally published 1894) The Last Days of the Buddha:
The Strangely Moving Story Cited in the Famous MahaparinibbanaSutta. New
Delhi, Lotus Press.
Fergusson, J. (2004 - Reprint, originally published 1873) Tree and Serpent Worship Or
Illustrations of Mythology and Art in India in the First and Fourth Centuries
After Christ: From the Sculptures of the Buddhist Topes at Sanchi and Amaravati.
New Delhi, Asian Educational Services.
Fogelin, L. (2004) Beyond the Monastery Walls: Buddhism in Early Historic Period Society inNortheast Andhra Pradesh. In Parasher-Sen, A. (Ed.), Kevala-Bodhi: Buddhist
and Jaina History of the Deccan Vol. I. Delhi, Bharatiya Kala Prakashan.
Johansen, P. G. (2004) Landscape, Monumental Architecture, and Ritual: A
Reconsideration of the South Indian Ashmounds. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 23, 309-330.
Leary, J., Darvill, T. and Field, D. (Ed.) (2010) Round Mounds and Monumentality in the
British Neolithic and Beyond. Oxford and Oakville, Oxford Books.
Longhurst, A. H. (2012 - Reprint, originally published 1936) The Story of the Stupa. New
Delhi, Asian Educational Services.
Menon, S. M. (2012b) Cosmic Considerations in Megalithic Architecture: An Investigation
into Possible Astronomical Intent in the Design and Layout of Megalithic
Monuments of the Indian Subcontinent with a View to Understanding Megalithic
Knowledge Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Manipal University.
Menon, S. M. (In press) Megaliths: New Perspectives for Future Studies. In Korisettar,
R. (Ed.) Rethinking Indian Archaeology: Prehistory to Early History, New Delhi,
Primus Publishers.

45

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4: 2016

Menon, S. M., Vahia, M. N. and Rao, K. (2011) New Discoveries of Stone Alignment
and Megalithic Burials in Karnataka. Man and Environment, XXXVI (1) 9295.
Menon, S., 2012a. Ancient Stone Riddles: Megaliths of the Indian Subcontinent. Manipal,
Manipal University Press.
Moorti, U. S. (1994) Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-economic Perspectives.
Varanasi. Ganga Kaveri Publishing House.
Morrison, K. D. (2005) Brahmagiri Revisited: A Re-Analysis of the South Indian
Sequence. In Jarrige, C. and LeFevre, V. (Eds.) South Asian Archaeology 2001.
Editions Recherchesur les Civilisations-ADPF, Paris, 257-62.
Murthy, C. K. (1976) Unique Megalith from KadirirayaCheruvu, Andhra Pradesh.
Journal of Indian History 54(2): 239-241.
Sarkar, H. and Nainar, S.P. (1980) Amaravati. Archaeological Survey of India, New
Delhi.
Schopen, G. (2010) Immigrant Monks and the Protohistorical Dead: The Buddhist Occupationof Early Burial Sites in India. In Indian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on
Textual, Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence. Delhi, MotilalBanarsidass
Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Sundara, A. (1975)The Early Chamber Tombs of South India: A Study of the Iron Age
Megalithic Monuments of N. Karnataka. Delhi, University Publishers.
Tilner, E-O. (2004) Mallelabanda – Die SteinerneJasminblüteEineMandalaartige
Megalithanlage. In Südindien. Antike Welt 35(2): 57-62.
Venkata Ramanayya, N. (1992 - Reprint, originally published in 1930). An Essay on theOrigin of the South Indian Temple. Asian Educational Services, New Delhi.
Wheeler, R. E. M. (1948)Brahmagiri and Chandravalli 1947: Megalithic and Other
Cultures in the Chitaldrug District, Mysore State.Ancient India, IV, 81-308.

46