Hyderabad’s prehistoric sites are disappearing under granite quarrying and urban expansion, taking with them evidence of human activity that predates the city’s better-known Qutub Shahi and Vishnu Kundi histories. The loss is not limited to isolated rocks or old markings: historians and archaeologists say the city’s expanding residential areas and infrastructure have already destroyed rock paintings, stone tools, burial sites and other remains that could have shown how people lived across the region thousands of years ago.
The problem identified in the report is fundamentally an urban-planning failure. Sites near Turkapally Cheruvu, Lotti Kattina and Chitthaaru Gundu in Dasarlapalli, along with Dhanam Gundu near Maisamma Gandi, have disappeared. Other locations, including BNR Hills and Raidurg, are described as having once contained ancient markings and cup-shaped depressions associated with prehistoric activity. Their destruction means that archaeological evidence is being removed before it can be systematically surveyed, documented or placed within a protection framework.
Historian Dr Dyavanpalli Satyanarayana said the remains demonstrate that Hyderabad’s history extends beyond the dynastic periods more commonly associated with the city. He also pointed to an undeciphered script at BNR Hills in Jubilee Hills. His explorations in Dasarlapalli and Yadaram identified 10 rock-art sites within a four-kilometre radius, featuring ochre paintings of bulls, elephants, hunting scenes and human figures. The report says these sites have since been destroyed by quarrying.
This pattern shows why prehistoric heritage is particularly vulnerable in a rapidly urbanising landscape. Unlike a monumental structure with a visible boundary, rock art, tool-sharpening grooves, burial formations and stone circles can be embedded in granite outcrops, open land or areas that appear to be ordinary development sites. Once a hill is quarried or a site is built over, the physical context that makes the evidence meaningful may be lost along with the artefact itself.
The archaeological record described in the report is spread across the metropolitan region. Findings at Tabelu Gundu, attributed to archaeologists E. Sivanagi Reddy and Sriramoju Haragopal, indicate that granite formations near Jubilee Hills served as seasonal habitations between 4000 and 2000 BC. Mrugavani National Park preserves grooves used for sharpening tools and paintings of animals. Hasmathpet and Bollarum contain megalithic cist burials, while the University of Hyderabad campus has stone circles and cairns. Uppal is also associated with ancient burials.
Taken together, these locations suggest that prehistoric evidence is not confined to a single protected archaeological zone. It is distributed across places that have subsequently become part of Hyderabad’s urban geography. The evidence also comes in different forms: paintings, tools, burial structures, stone arrangements, grooves and habitation indicators. This variety makes a city-wide survey important, because a narrow focus on individually famous monuments can miss the wider landscape in which prehistoric communities moved, lived and buried their dead.
The report also identifies the institutional weakness at the centre of the problem: awareness has not translated into consistent protection. Archaeologists and historians are calling for systematic surveys, boundary mapping and safeguards for surviving remains. These measures are basic administrative requirements for heritage protection. Without a verified inventory and mapped boundaries, planning agencies, local administrations, landowners and developers may not know that a site exists or what restrictions apply to it.
The destruction of Kokapet is cited as a further warning. Archaeologist Sriramoju Haragopal said the site was destroyed despite a court case. The report does not provide details of the proceedings or identify the precise administrative decisions involved, but the example indicates that legal recognition alone may not be sufficient if physical protection and enforcement do not follow. A site can remain the subject of public concern while continuing to be exposed to quarrying, construction or other forms of disturbance.
Haragopal also said Narapally, Hasmathpet, Hayathnagar and Moulali were once large prehistoric sites, many of which have been erased within residential areas. Palaeolithic tools at Manchirevula are described as continuing to disappear. These locations illustrate how the urbanisation process changes the archaeological record incrementally. A large site may be fragmented by roads, plots, buildings and boundary walls, while smaller remnants may be damaged or removed without a formal decision that the public can see.
That fragmentation creates a governance problem as much as a heritage problem. Responsibilities are likely to be divided among archaeological authorities, municipal bodies, revenue and land agencies, planning institutions, forest or park authorities, universities and courts, depending on the location and legal status of each site. The supplied report does not establish which agency has jurisdiction over every location, nor does it provide a consolidated list of protected sites. That absence itself underscores the need for a clear institutional inventory and a defined process for notifying planning authorities before land is altered.
The evidence available in the report does not quantify the total number of prehistoric sites lost across Hyderabad, the area affected by quarrying, or the number of surviving locations with formal protection. It does, however, provide specific indicators of the scale and distribution of the problem. Ten rock-art sites were identified within four kilometres in the Dasarlapalli-Yadaram area; the Tabelu Gundu evidence places seasonal habitation between 4000 and 2000 BC; and multiple locations across west, north, east and south Hyderabad are associated with burials, tools or rock art.
Those details matter because they shift the question from whether Hyderabad has prehistoric heritage to whether its urban systems can recognise and retain it. The city’s historical identity is often presented through later architectural and political eras, but the sites described here locate human activity much further back in time. Losing them narrows the evidence available for understanding the region and removes potential public assets that could have supported education, research and carefully managed heritage interpretation.
The immediate policy challenge is therefore not simply to preserve a few prominent formations. It is to establish what remains, record it before further change, and connect that information to land-use decisions. Systematic surveys would create the evidence base. Boundary mapping would make sites legible to authorities and landholders. Protection measures would determine what activity is permitted. The report’s call for all three reflects the sequence required for conservation: identification, demarcation and enforcement.
Urban development and heritage protection do not necessarily have to operate as opposing systems, but the report shows what happens when development proceeds without reliable knowledge of what lies on or beneath the land. In Hyderabad, surviving rock art, megalithic burials, stone circles and tool-related features may exist in locations already surrounded by housing, campuses, parks or other urban uses. Their future will depend on whether they are treated as part of the city’s planning information rather than as isolated discoveries made after damage has occurred.
The evidence confirms that Hyderabad’s prehistoric landscape has already suffered substantial and, in some locations, irreversible loss. It also shows that important remains survive across a wide urban region, including within Mrugavani National Park and the University of Hyderabad campus. What remains unresolved is the full inventory, legal status and responsible authority for each site. The next meaningful developments to monitor are systematic surveys, public boundary mapping, protection decisions and the response of planning and archaeological institutions to the locations identified by researchers.
