Fig 1.
Overview of the research area in Northeast India.
A-C: sites with field surveys, D: Myllem, Meghalaya, E: Nartiang, Meghalaya, F: Nongbag, Meghalaya (Data provisioning and graphic: RGK Frankfurt, UFG Kiel; shape files made with Natural Earth, DEM based on CGIAR-CSI SRTM data. DEM republished from Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org, under a CC BY license, with permission from Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, original copyright 2004–2021). 1 Myllem, Meghalaya, 2 Nartiang, Meghalaya, 3 Nangbah, Meghalaya, 4 Mookynbah, Meghalaya, 5 Tongseng, Meghalaya, 6 Khonoma, Nagaland, 7 Chozuba, Nagaland, 8 Rünguzu, Nagaland, 9 Yoruba, Nagaland, 10 Rhüzazho, Nagaland, 11 Khezhakeno, Nagaland, 12 Zhavame, Nagaland, 13 Ze Mnui, Manipur, 14 Willong, Manipur, Sekume, 15 Maram, Manipur, 16 Maram-Sagonbam, Manipur.
Fig 2.
Structure from Motion (SfM) based map and quantitative data (volume, weight) on the standing stones (Data provisioning and graphic: RGK Frankfurt).
Fig 3.
The villages in Nagaland visited during fieldwork in 2016.
Khonoma and Sechüma are Angami Naga villages; the remainder are Chakhesang Naga villages (Graphic: RGK Frankfurt, M. Wunderlich; shape files made with Natural Earth, DEM based on CGIAR-CSI SRTM data. DEM republished from Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org, under a CC BY license, with permission from Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, original copyright 2004–2021).
Fig 4.
A model of the different spheres of the socially constructed landscape of Rünguzu (graphic: M. Wunderlich, J. Cordts (graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel); DEM based on CGIAR-CSI SRTM data.
DEM republished from Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org, under a CC BY license, with permission from Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, original copyright 2004–2021).
Fig 5.
The Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu and its surrounding landscape.
A: data collected during the field season in 2016. The distribution of the standing stones marks the paths leading towards the terraced fields. B: satellite image of the village (Graphic: RGK Frankfurt; B based on CORONA Satellite Photography, (USGS) EROS Center (EDC); DEM based on CGIAR-CSI SRTM data. DEM republished from Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org, under a CC BY license, with permission from Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, original copyright 2004–2021).
Fig 6.
The different types of megalithic monuments present in Rünguzu: A: Sitting platform (Photo: K. Rassmann, RGK Frankfurt), B: Standing stones without platform (Photo: M. Wunderlich), C: Stone row with a small stone platform (Photo: S. Jagiolla, graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel), D: Stone field/cluster (Photo: K. Rassmann, RGK Frankfurt).
Fig 7.
The association of the megalithic monuments with the two khels (Nyingatsomi and Phüswünumi) present in the Chakhesang village of Rünguzu.
The two tehubas within the village area belong to one khel each (Graphic: RGK Frankfurt, M. Wunderlich; DEM based on CGIAR-CSI SRTM data. DEM republished from Jarvis A., H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara, 2008, Hole-filled seamless SRTM data V4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org, under a CC BY license, with permission from Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, original copyright 2004–2021).
Fig 8.
The four different types of megalithic monuments and their size distribution (m3) in the Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu (M. Wunderlich).
Fig 9.
The size of the different monuments per khel in the Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu (graphic: M. Wunderlich).
Fig 10.
Diagram of the different monument types per khel in the Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu (graphic: M. Wunderlich).
Fig 11.
The size of the different monuments per type belonging to the various clans in the Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu (graphic: M. Wunderlich).
Fig 12.
Diagram of the different monument types per clan in the Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu (graphic: M. Wunderlich).
Fig 13.
Two older houses in the Chakhesang Naga village of Zhavame with house horns, marking the completion of a certain stage of feasts of merit (photo: S. Jagiolla, graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel).
Fig 14.
A house front in the Chakhesang Naga village of Zhavame with the traditional carvings, including mithun and human heads, still preserved (photo: S. Jagiolla, graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel).
Fig 15.
Model of the carved head stones at the footpaths in the Chakhesang Naga village of Zhavame (model: S. Jagiolla, graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel).
Fig 16.
Technical drawing of selected head stones in the Chakhesang Naga village of Zhavame (drawing: S. Beyer, graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel).
Fig 17.
Decoration on a village gate at the paths leading from the village towards the terraced fields in the Chakhesang Naga village of Rünguzu, depicting human heads and mithun (photo: S. Jagiolla, graphics department of the Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology Kiel).
Fig 18.
The size distribution (m3) of sitting platforms in the different villages visited in 2016.
Khonoma and Sechüma are Angami Naga villages; the remainder are Chakhesang Naga villages (Graphic: M. Wunderlich).
Table 1.
The number and percentage of the different monument types in villages visited in 2016.
Fig 19.
The size distribution (m3) of single standing stones in the different villages visited in 2016.
Khonoma and Sechüma are Angami Naga villages; the remainder are Chakhesang Naga villages (Graphic: M. Wunderlich).
Fig 20.
The size distribution (m3) of stone rows with and without attached platforms in the different villages visited in 2016.
Khonoma and Sechüma are Angami Naga villages; the remainder are Chakhesang Naga villages (Graphic: M. Wunderlich).