Archaeology and Culture

ISSN : 2347-7032 Volume : 4 Year : 2017

ICON Journal of

Archaeology and Culture IN HONOUR OF

Dr. Pranab K. Chattopadhyay

ICON Journal of Archaeology and Culture

ADVISORY BOARD Dr. Narayan Vyas

:

Ex-President, Wakankar Rock Art and Heritage Welfare Society, Bhopal

Dr. B.R. Mani

:

Director General, National Museum, New Delhi

Prof. H.S. Jha

:

Professor, Department of Sociology, Social Science and Social Work, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Manjul

:

Director, Institute of Archaeology, Red Fort, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi

Prof. Ajit Kumar

:

Professor, Department of Archaeology, Kerala University, Trivendram

Prof. I.S. Vishwakarma

:

Professor, Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur

Dr. Sanjib Kumar Singh

:

Archaeologist & Museologist, Department of Publication, National Museum, New Delhi

ICON Journal of Archaeology and Culture Vol. 4

2017

EDITORIAL BOARD Prof. K.K. Thaplyal

:

Ex. Head, Department of Ancient Indian History Culture and Archaeology, University of Lucknow

Prof. Basant Shinde

:

Vice-Chancellor, Deccon College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune

Prof. Anura Manatunga

:

Director, Centre for Asian Studies, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka

Prof. Y.S. Alone

:

Department of Visual Studies, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi

Prof. Bharat Dahiya

:

Senior Advisor, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

EDITORS Dr. Amiya Chandra

:

President, Wakankar Rock Art and Heritage Welfare Society, Bhopal

Prof. J.N. Pal

:

Ex. Head, Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad

Dr. Brijesh Rawat

:

Department of History, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow

Sri Jagpal Singh

:

Archaeologist, New Delhi

Dr. Milisa Srivastava

:

Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi

Dr. Sulekha Banerjee

:

Museologist, New Delhi

UGC Approved

An International Referred Research Journal

Wakankar Rock Art and Heritage Welfare Society Bhopal-Delhi

ICON Journal of Archaeology and Culture Vol. 4

2017

Editor in Chief AMIYA CHANDRA Principal Editor J.N. PAL Editor BRIJESH RAWAT Senior Associate Editor JAGPAL SINGH Associate Editor MILISA SRIVASTAVA SULEKHA BANERJEE

Wakankar Rock Art and Heritage Welfare Society Bhopal - 462001 In association with

B.R. Publishing Corporation Delhi-110 052

In Honour of DR. PRANAB K. CHATTOPADHYAY

Pranab K. Chattopadhyay

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay born in 1945 in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. His schooling was done at Salkia A.S. High School, Howrah. From the school end he took extra interest in geology, palaeontology and even atomic minerals. His interest in numismatics also developed in school and his interest further developed with repeated interactions in the Indian Museum. In 1962 he was introduced with Kalidas Dutta, the doyen of archaeology of Bengal. Dutta’s influence highly motivated his interest to archaeology. His parents demanded him to study engineering in Jadavpur University but because of diversion of interest he was bound to join in a polytechnic and later got the diploma in mechanical engineering from Central Calcutta Polytechnic in 1965. In 1966 he went to Durgapur where the Alloy Steels Project were being built, he joined as a contractor labour- as a machinist. In 1968 Chattopadhyay got a permanent service in Alloy Steels Plant, in Research and Control Laboratory as an Inspector. He started in depth studying, got a BSc degree and then a graduation in Metallurgy and MA in Ancient History Culture and Archaeology from Rajasthan University. In 1980 he became a Management Trainee which led further to become a Manager in Training Department.

vi

ICON — Journal of Archaeology and Culture

From 1980 onwards he got the support of Prof D.P. Agrawal of Physical Research Laboratory who motivated him to be an Archaeometallurgist. He became the disciple of Prof Basudev Narayan of Patna University and obtained a Ph. D., in Ancient Indian History Culture and Archaeology, with the topic, Archaeometallurgy in India: Studies on Technoculture in Early Copper and Iron Ages in Bihar and West Bengal (1992). His interest in archaeometallurgy includes from tiny coins to massive cannons and now with mrtallic mirrors. In 1999 he took voluntary retirement from Alloy Steel Plant. He Studied the Harikela coins in the British Museum, obtain AZ Chand Award, London, October 2000. He joined as a Senior Fellow in the Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training, Eastern India in Kolkata, August 2001 to December 2010. He fulfilled his parent’s desire only after 40 years and was Awarded Ph.D. (Engineering) in Metallurgy in Jadavpur University, in February 2013. The title of the research: Archaeometallurgical Investigation on Material Technology of High Tin Bronze between the Early Historic and Pre-industrial Periods of Bengal, under Professor Prasanta Kumar Datta. He authored three books:-Archaeometallurgy in India: Studies on Technoculture in Early Copper and Iron Ages in Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. In 2004 also, Metalcrafts of Eastern India and Bangladesh, Jaipur: Publication Scheme. With Gautam Sengupta, in 2010, History of Metals: Eastern India and Bangladesh. New Delhi: Pentagon Press Ltd. Infinity Foundation has sponsored the project. His connection with the archaeologist, historians, painters and scholars of Bangladesh is wide. His researches included with the scholars of Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh National Museum, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh and others. He jointly edited, Methodologies of Interpreting Ancient Past of South Asia: Studies of Material Culture, with Prof. Nupur Dasgupta. This volume was published by the Sharada Publishing House, Delhi, 2016. He conducted two projects of three years duration with the Indian National Science Academy on the Documentation of Cannons of Eastern India, and the History of High Tin Bronze and Brass of Eastern India. He is much interested in coins, fossils and antiquity collection. He prefers to write jointly with multidiscipline topics. Total papers published in English is 121 in numbers. Since 1997 he is Visiting Faculty of Archaeometallurgy in the Institute of Archaeology, New Delhi. At present he is doing research on mirrors and Harappan copper technology as revealed from Binjor excavation with Dr Sanjay Manjul. Amongst his friend and wellwishers he remembers Gitika Guha, Dr Sunit Kumar Banerjee, Prof. R. Balasubramaniam, Prof Ashok Kumar Singh, Prof. Murtaja Basseer, Prof Nirmalendu Mukherjee, Enamul Hoque, Thilo Rehren and a few others.

CONTENTS

Pranab K. Chatopadhya

v

Editorial

xi

New Techniques to Discovering Ashtapad Palace Temple Rajmal Jain

1

V-Shaped Pattern in North-East Indian Art H.N. Dutta

25

The Ancient Fort of Pakkākot: New Excavations and Researches, 2015-16 Sita Ram Dubey and Santosh Kumar Singh

31

An Analytical Study of Mahishasurmardini with special reference to Object No. 1588/A24756 of the Indian Museum Sanjib Kumar Singh and Swagata Mukhopadhyay

41

A Preliminary Notes on the Excavations at Telhara Atul Kumar Verma

57

Nepalese Art: A Kaleidoscopic View Mala Malla

61

Jainism in Anantapur District, Andhra Desha, South India P. Chenna Reddy and K. Syamala

73

Mapping the Landscape of Archaeo-history as a part of a GIS Techniques and GPS Survey Strategy: The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh Md. Masood Imran, Sohag Ali, Jesmin Nahar Jhumur and Wasim Ahmed

83

Yoga in Harappan Civilization J. Manuel

107

From Miscellaneous Artefacts to Archaeological clues, the Metallic Armament of Mahāsthān Alban François

111

viii


Archaeology of Ancient Cities in Tel River Valley, Odisha Baba Mishra

121

Buddhism in Ancient Bangladesh Shahnaj Husne Jahan

141

Progress of Haryana Archaeology in the 21st Century Vinay Kumar

147

Protohistoric Settlement of Waina Santosh Kumar Singh

159

Imagery of North-East India: An Archaeological Perspective Sukanya Sharma

181

A Study of Spatial and Temporal Context of Second Urbanization in Ganga plain Devendra Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kumar Kushwaha

193

Representation of Lotus on Terracotta Plaques 4th to 13th Century CE Sharmin Rezowana

199

Various streams of Pedagogic instruction in Ancient India Sima Yadav

211

Conceptual Development of Cultural Globalism of 21st Centuries: The Perspective of the Universities of Bangladesh Md. Anisur Rahman

221

Da‡Ça : The Principle of State Management Shalini Awasthi

229

New Discovery of Stupa’s relics of Kushana period at Thanesar, Kurukshetra Manoj Kumar

235

Recent Excavations at Dwarkapur, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Ashok Kumar Singh

239

Issues and Problems of Late Harappan Culture in North India Vinay Kumar and Gunjan Srivastava

245

Gleanings on the Inscriptional References to some Minor Buddhist Sects in South-West India Bandana Mukherjee

251

Contents

ix

Atisa : As a Great Reformer of Tibetan Buddhism Amita Shukla

257

Megalithic Ceramic Tradition in Kerala Saravana N. R.

261

Unpublished Umayyad and Abbasid Silver Coins in the Bangladesh National Museum Shariful Islam

265

Cultural Interpretations of Land Grants in Gupta Era-Epigraphical Gleaning Vivek Shukla

291

Indigenous Cutlery Industry at Kanchan Nagar, Burdwan, West Bengal Rangan Kanti Jana

297

Rock Paintings and their Purpose Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Jagpal Singh

307

Some Prominent Agricultural Features of Chalcolithic People in Central India Jyoti Bhargava

311

Display : The Face of The Museum K.K.S. Deori

317

Culture, Agriculture, Ambedkar and the State of the Vulnerable Group (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) in the Contemporary Agrarian Scenario in India Rashi Krishna Sinha

323

Popular Hindi Cinema Intersecting Tourism Yasharth Manjul and H.S. Jha

337

BOOK REVIEW : Jain Murtiyon Ka Udbhav aur Vikas Sanjai Kumar Manjul

343

Plates

347

Notes for Contributors

363

Life Members

365

Editorial Board Editors

x


EDITORIAL This issue of the Journal ICON is associated with two significant proceedings. Firstly, this Journal has been approved by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. Secondly this volume has been published in felicitation to honour the renowned Archaeomettalurgist Dr. Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay along with the subject-matter contributed by the invaluable scholars in this issue. Dr. Chattopadhyay has established new dimensions and has done numerous momentous works in the field of Archaeomettalurgy. You are an asset to the world of intellectual society. We all have gained equally through his intellectual knowledge. It is because of this reason that you are worthy of this honour. An effort has been made to publish important matter related to the new excavations carried out in the present journal ‘ICON’. Doorway obtained from ‘Pakkakot’ (Sitaram Dubey and Santosh Kumar Singh), various objects of metals from ‘Mahasthana’ (Allean Francois), ‘Telhana’ Excavations (Atul Kumar Verma), Ancient Cities of Tel River Valley ( Baba Mishra), Protohistoric Settlement of ‘Waina’ (Santosh Kumar Singh), Recent excavations at ‘Dwarkapur’ (Ashok Kumar Singh). Many such archaeological evidences have come to light through the recent excavations that has enriched the Archaeology. Other aspects of Archaeology are also being published in this publication. Evidence of ‘Yoga’ in Harappan Civilization (J. Manual), the problem of ‘Late Harappan Culture’ has been beautifully presented (Vinay Kumar and Gunjan Srivastava), Megalithic ‘Ceramic Tradition’ in Kerala (Sarvana N.R.) and an analysis of consolidating features of ‘Agriculture’ during Chalcolithic Age in Central India has been discussed(Jyoti Bhargava). The relics of New ‘Kushana Stupa’ at Thaneshar (Manoj Kumar) and Rocks paintings and their Purpose have also been vividly discussed (Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Jagpal Singh). Second Urbanization in the Ganga Plain has also been verified through evidences (Devendra Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kumar Kushwaha),the matter related to the prevalence of Buddhist religion has been dealt with in ‘Buddhism’ in Ancient Bangladesh (Shahnaz Husne Jahan) also forms the subject matter of this edition, The Presence of ‘Jain religion’ in the Anantpur District of Andhra Pradesh (P. Chenna Reddy and K. Syamla), description about the V-shaped pattern in North -East Indian Art(H.N. Dutta), and about the great reformer King ‘Atisa’ in Tibetan Buddhism (Amita Shukla) has also been dealt with.

xii


Beside this, the use of GIS and GPS Technique has also been outlined (Md. Masood Imran, Sohag Ali, Jesmin Nahur Jhumur and Wasim Ahmed), A new technique has been utilized for the discovery of Ashtapada Palace Temple. The position of Ashtapada Temple has been described (Rajmal Jain).Two distinctive research papers apart from the concerned field has also been place in this issue of the journal namely ‘Culture, Agriculture Ambedkar and the State of the Vulnerable Group (Schedule caste and Schedule tribes) in the contemporary Agrarian Scenario in India’ in which the agriculture and the farmers have been perceived and the analysis of the situation of Schedule caste and Schedule tribes has also been effectively (or commendably) analysed. The relevance of Ambedkar’s view in this context has also been discussed (Rashi Krishna Sinha) and the other one is ‘Popular Hindi Cinema Intersecting Tourism’ which mentions that cinema and tourism are the product of the culture. Their deep interpersonal relations have also been delineated (Yasharth Manjul and H.S. Jha). An effort has been made to establish mutual coordination and Harmony and gather matter from all the area of Archaeological genre beit Exploration, Excavation, Epigraphy, Numismatics, Art, Rock-paintings, Pre-history, Proto-history, Chalcolithic and Megalithic cultures. Though this Journal has already made its recognition with its Volume 2, Year 2015 being felt both nationally and internationally. In the above said issue the research paper of Professor Dilip K. Chakrabarty of Cambridge University U. K. and in the Volume 3 the research paper of eminent scholar of Bangladesh Md. Masood has been published. But this new Volume is very fortunate enough to have the privilege of publishing seven research papers from Nepal, Bangladesh and France of different forms of Archaeology. There is no need comment that this kind of exemplary work was impossible without the incorporation of the indigenous scholars. The cooperation of the writing of intellectual scholars provided momentum to our work and has thus expanded the horizon of the canvas of ICON. It gives us immense pleasure and happiness in publishing this work. We acknowledge with sincerity and humbleness the work of these distinguished scholars. We believe and anticipate that this journal would make a profound impression in the archaeological and cultural world. A great applause is also due for the excellent publication of this Journal by B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi.

AMIYA CHANDRA

Mapping the Landscape of Archaeo-history as a part of a GIS Techniques and GPS Survey Strategy

83

Mapping the Landscape of Archaeo-history as a part of a GIS Techniques and GPS Survey Strategy: The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh Md. Masood Imran*, Sohag Ali**, Jesmin Nahar Jhumur*** and Wasim Ahmed****

F

rom the very beginning of archaeological practice, location maps, archaeological surface survey and documentation have been one of the most fundamental tools of the discipline. The number, variety and prominence of maps in archaeology have been increasing further since the beginning of the 1990s due to the availability of a growing range of digital technologies used to collect, visualise, query, manipulate and analyse spatial data. It is therefore surprising that whilst

generalised critiques of mapping as a modernist practice have been ubiquitous, direct and focused critiques of the archaeological map have been rare. Generating the map is one of the most essential skills of an archaeologist, because, maps visualise the connectivity of archaeological records and the landscape. These associations are referred to the spatial pattern of archaeological records on the landscape. Archaeological mapping is also

* Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh ** Ph.D. Student, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar Univeristy, Bangladesh and Research Associate, Shastra, Bangladesh *** Research Associate, Shastra, Bangladesh **** Director, Shastra, Bangladesh

84

a systematic documentation to understand the distribution of archaeological records in a much larger scale, such as the relationship between two or more ancient villages or settlements. So, the information of maps record is perhaps more important than all the other information recorded by archaeologists. Before mapping, the archaeological process begins by dening a research question or area of interest. To answer questions about past societies, archaeologists need to nd and interpret material remains. Field archaeologists use surveys to nd and conduct initial studies on archaeological sites. So before generating map, survey is the most essential step to identify the archaeological records on the landscape. In the most general sense, the term survey, when applied to archaeology, can be described as the non-destructive inspection of a geographical area for evidence of previous human use or occupation such as artifacts and other cultural features (houses, religious monuments, pits, hearths, etc.). Many types and variations of archaeological survey exist to accomplish different tasks and research in different circumstances. This paper focuses specically on full coverage systematic site surface survey and its value as an archaeological tool. Mainly, this paper deals with the development of a preliminary spatial database of archaeological record through systematic ground survey. This type of survey entails a systematic on eld inspection of cultural features and the collection and documentation of all archaeological records on the surface. Site surface survey is used for various purposes such as nding site boundaries and studying the distribution of artifacts (Renfrew and Bahn 1991). By examining the data from the artifacts and features, archaeologists gain better knowledge about a site.


The prime attempt of this study is to map the landscape of archaeo-history. Most of the survived archaeological evidences found in Bangladesh; are related to religion based architectures and mounds. Number of researches have been conducted on these archaeological records, however, are focused on the macro level history of Bangla, basically using the archaeological records as a source. Understanding the context of the archaeological records, these surveys are neglected in those researches. The decontextual approaches have been given a chance to raise some basic questions. Archaeological eld methods and analytical techniques are not followed properly. Recently developed GIS (Geographic Information System) technique and GPS (Global Positioning System) survey are well known in the study of archaeological site in contextual approach. This technique will help to produce a detail distribution map along with the landscape context. Therefore; it can be claimed that the GIS technology and GPS survey strategy yet to be used to document the archaeological records of Bangladesh. To generate a preliminary map of landscape of archaeo-history, an upazila of Nilphamari district has been chosen as a study area, name Jaldhaka Upazila (Fig. 1). Dharmapala ghar is the well-known archaeological mound of this region. Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, Bangladesh, listed this mound as a protected archaeological site. Recently, this department conducted an excavation here but the report yet to be published. Later part of this paper made detail about the archaeological ndings and spatial distributions with detail pictorial illustration as maps (Table 2 & 3).


Fig. 1: Location Map of Jaldhaka Upazila

85

86

Research Methodology The full coverage systematic ground survey was performed to accrue information of archaeological records. Mouza is considered here as a micro unit of land to survey. Mouza with imaginative grids have been followed to locate the archaeological records. After locating the records, GPS (Fig. 2) was used for documenting the spatial address. Perhaps the most popular is UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinates. UTM coordinate break up the earth into grids called zones. Points within each zone are plotted by meters on an east-west axis, called an easting and on a north-south axis called a northing. This particular mapping system remained so popular, because, these locations can be easily accessed using a hand-held GPS device. Now a day, this makes it the favourite of most archaeologists (Imran 2013: 82). Usually, archaeologists have to tie their maps to natural features or brass survey markers in the ground. Now GPS became an essential device of eld work for most of the archaeologist. Stand over the datum, get a reading and record the exact position of the datum. It locates the archaeological records within its region and the world. Basically the device calculates its position by receiving signals from at least two satellites orbiting the earth. Through triangulation the GPS device is able to calculate the zone and the easting and northing measurements. Although two satellites can give a reading, accuracy in plotting a position increases with the number of satellite signals received by the GPS devices. After getting the spatial data, GIS have been used to convert, match and plot the data on BTM (Bangladesh Transverse Mercator) projected base map. Systematically to do this research, in preeldwork stage, we comprised data recognition and collection from several sources (e.g. Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh, A.K.M. Zakariah (2011)’s work and www.archaeology.gov.bd) regarding the previous archaeological, geological, historical,


cartographic and any other relevant works on and around the region. Three consecutive stages have been followed to conduct the eld work: online survey has been done by Google earth technology to extract the landscape pattern of study area, ground survey has been gured out the distribution of archaeological records of study area. Extensively, we used GPS device to identify the feature of satellite images in ground and to get the location contextually. Examinations and recording of archaeological evidences has been used as a method of investigation to understand the typological pattern of archaeological records of study area. After completion the pedestrian survey, in post-eld research level, mainly, we focused on different methods of GIS technology to prepare a map and to dene the category of maps according to time frame in the context of landscape. To tackle the data, MS Excel, ArcGIS, Adobe Photoshop and

Fig. 2: Sample of Hand GPS


Google Earth have been used as data organisation and analysis. Conceptual Background Jacqutta Hawkes’s Atlas of Ancient Archaeology (1974), consider as a rst complete archaeological atlas and B.D. Chattopadhyaya, G. Sengupta, and S. Chakrabarty (eds.)’s An Annotated Archaeological Atlas of West Bengal: Volume I: Prehistory and Protohistory (2009) were the initial inspiration to do this work. This paper is a preliminary attempt by following these works. Our work become more possible because of the archaeological scholarship of A.K.M. Zakariah (2011) (Fig. 3), a gifted and passionate archaeologist of Bangladesh, who conducted a great archaeological survey. He received the Ekushey Padak award in 2015 for his contribution in research. His work published as The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh (2011). It was rst published in Bangla on 1999 from Shilpakala Academy, Dhaka,

87

Bangladesh. Near about one decade after, under the editorial margin of Md. Mosharraf Hossain, this book published in English on 2011, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka. Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affaire, People’s Republic of Bangladesh, has done number of survey. In fact, most of the reports have not been published yet. That is why, at a glance, Zakariah’s book is considered here as a unique archaeological work. He made a detail description of location of archaeological sites, however in most of the cases, during the eldwork: it is very difcult to nd out those sites, due to, the natural and anthropogenic hazards. If he was able to prepare some location maps of sites, then it could be more worthy. But it was so difcult at that time, specially, absences of the today’s technology. This problem occurs in every step before doing archaeological research. So, it is too important to prepare an archaeological atlas by doing detail ground GPS surveys where archaeological sites would be represented contextually.

Fig. 3: AKM Zakariah (1918-2016)

88


Archaeological Records of Study Area The Figure 4 is showing the variation of archaeological records. From the book of A.K.M. Zakariah (2011) and in the list of protected archaeological sites in Jhaldhaka Upazila, only one site has been cited as a big advertisement of Nilphamari District and that is Dharmapal Garh.

We considered up to British period’s structures as archaeological records. But Dharmapal Garh is the most prominent archaeological mounds of this region. Except Dharmapal Garh, A.K.M. Zakariah (2011) mentioned only three archaeological sites, are Dharmapala palace, ancient building at Paitkapara of Dharmapla village and Raja Horish Chandro’s pat and mound.

Fig. 4: Spatial Distribution of Archaeological Records

This region developed with the deposition of Rivers: Deownai and Tista. At rst, Dr. Fransis Buchanon noticed this site. He visited this region around 1807-08 AD. For highlighting this site to Government and historians, he generated a cartographic map (Martin 1976: 449-50). In 1876, Major Renel conducted a survey in the area. In the end of eighteen century, Mr E.G. Glazier also visited this area as a part of his ofcial responsibility (cited

in Zakariah 2011: 179). He reported that lower class Hindus were living there. In 1974 Bangladeshi archaeologist A.K.M. Zakariah (Fig. 3) visited dharmapala garh and other nearest archaeological sites and described detail (Zakariah 2011: 179-80). Recently, Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, People’s Republic of Bangladesh, conducted a small scale excavation. The report is yet to be published.


89

Fig. 5: Spatial Distribution of Dharampal Ghar in the present Geomorphological Context

From our full coverage survey, we found a rectangular area, is surrounded by earthen walls, is locally identied as a Dharmapal Garh (Fig. 5). Sufx of the name of mound is ‘Garh’. Usually, in rural area of Bangladesh, people always identied the mounted highland as ‘Garh’ (Imran 2005: 37). The length of wall in northern part is about 585 meter, southern part is about 840 meter, eastern part is about 1305 meter and western part is about 1285 meter successively. The width is about 30/32 meter and height is 4/5 meter from the plain land. The inner rectangular wall is surrounded by moat and outer wall (Fig. 5). This second earthen wall is 90/95 meter away from inner wall. The

length of northern, southern, eastern and western wall is about 850 meter, 900 meter, 1235 meter and 1230 meter successively. The width is about 10 meter and height is 1/1.5 meter. Between rst wall and second wall there are 30 meter width moat. 50 meter away from the second surrounding wall, another earthen wall has been found. Most of the walls of outskirts are almost disappeared. Some small parts and some signature/mark of those walls, in a few cases, are visible. Only southern part of outskirts wall exists. The length of this earthen wall is about 2000 meter. It can be considered as an indicator to imagine the length of this Ghar.

90


Fig. 6: The Present Geomorphological Features of Dharmapal Ghar

These lands are widely used for agricultural purpose and getting different sizes of complete and broken bricks during cultivation is very common here. The frequency of getting the potshards is higher than bricks (Fig. 6). In 2016, Department of archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, People’s Republic of Bangladesh, carried out a small scale excavation

at the outskirts of Dharmapala Garh, is adjacent of south- east corner of the main boundary wall. They unfolded some bases of brick walls, is a good indicator to predict a part of the structure. In recent exhibition at Bangladesh National Museum (November 2016), they claimed it as a part of a Buddhist temple of twelve century. They found potsherds, brick bats and stone slabs there.

Chiravija Golona

Uttar Deshibai Kanthali

GarhDharmapala

2.

3.

4.

Dharmapala

Golna

Golmunda

Bhabanchur

1.

Union

Mouza

ID

Nil. Jol. Dhar. GDhar. 04

Nil. Jol. 03

Nil. Jol. 02

Nil. Jol. 01

Record Code No.

Dharmapala Garh

North deshibai garh

Thakurpara mound

Babur vita (house)

Name of Archaeological Records

26º04’49.52” N 88º53’54.60” E

26º 00’24.46” N 88º58’26.96” E

26º 06’08.5” N 88º54’39.7” E

26º03’37.99” N 89º04’06.83” E

Geodetic Position

Buritista river 200m to the east

Nearest water body

The fortied earthen wall is almost rectangular in shape, are about 1285 m in the east, 1305 m in the west, 585 m in the north and 840 m in the south. The average height is about 4 m and width is about 30 m to 32 m. The whole area surrounded with several earthen walls and moat. The second earthen wall is 90/95 m away from inner wall. The length of northern, southern, eastern and western are accordingly about 850 m, 900 m, 1235 m and 1230 m. The width is about 10 m and height is 1/1.5 m. There is another earthen wall 50 m away from the second wall. Most of the wall does not exist now; a small part can be seen in some places. Most of the part of southern wall is available. The length of the earthen wall is about 2000 m.

Long high land, are about 280 m x 7m and 1.25m high from the surrounding land. Archaeological evidence is rear in the mound but potsherds are irregular found in the surrounding low-land.

Mound

Mound

Flat mound

Type

Guptobasi Mound river 200 m to the west. Deownai river 1km to the west and old big pond Chandonpat 1.5 km to the northwest.

Dhaidan river adjacent south to the record.

Rectangular abandoned land, measures about 10 m x 5 m and 1 m high. Some parts of the land have already removed by the local people. Structural remains and brick bats are found here. Potsherds are found in the surrounding land in small amount.

An abandoned dwelling place. Although the site is not in existence. But evidences of ancient structures are found up till now. Villagers collect those from the old structure. The bricks have different shape.

Description

Notes/ Remarks

Abandoned place but some portion has already been removed for preparing the land of cultivation

12th – 18th century

In 2016 Department of archaeology carried out an excavation on the outside of Dharmapalagarh (adjacent south- east corner).

Not recog- Some portion nized has already been removed for preparing the land of cultivation.

14th 18th century AD

Not recog- A newly estabnized lished village.

Time (Approximately)

Mapping the Landscape of Archaeo-history as a part of a GIS Techniques and GPS Survey Strategy 91

Mouza

Harischandra Pat

Shimulbar

Kaligonj

Kharija golna

Nekbakta

ID

5

6

7

8.

9.

Daowabari

Golna

Golna

Shimulbari

Khutamara

Union

Nil. Jol. 09

Nil. Jol. 08

Nil. Jol. 07

Nil. Jol. 06

Nil. Jol. 05

Record Code No.

Sorderpara mound

Masterpara vanga mosque

Old kaligonj bazaar archaeological remains

Kacharipara vanga (broken) temple

Raja Harischandra Pat


26º 01’45.96” N 89º03’51.60” E

26º05’15.58” N 88º56’55.53” E

26º 04’30.4” N 88º57’48.1” E

26º02’42.14” N 88º54’35.22”

25º 59’34.6” N 88º55’14.9” E

Geodetic Position

It is a rectangular shaped low-height mound, are about 12 m x 6 m and 1 m from the surrounding agricultural land. Archaeological records are rear here but small amount of brick bats are seen.

This place popularly known as vanga (broken) mosque There are no signature has been existed of old mosque. The place measures about 25 m x15 m and 0.80 m high from the surrounding land. Although absent the structure of ancient structure but around the place, some evidence like brick and brickbats are found. The thickness of brick found here is 4 cm. According to local people the mosque was small and three domes.

Here, there are any ancient structure are exists now but structural remains found there in buried mood. Different sized bricks are found and thickness is about 4 cm.

Locally known as old kali mondir (temple). Now it is an abandoned structure. Rectangular in shape, measures about 12 m x 8 m. A door on the south side and the north wall there are two niches. Brick lime mortar was used and cement plaster can also be seen in the structure. local people say there were boundary wall around this structure

Shape of the area is rectangular, are about 70 m x 60 m and 2.5 m from surrounding land. In the top of the mound, eight big stone pieces in different size are visible. The big one is (1 x .5 x .5) m3. In the west side, on the exposed section, there are potsherd are visible. Near the mound, there are another high land has been visible, is locally called choto pat. It is square in shape, are about 50 m2 and 1 m height. Small amount brick bats and potsherds are also found here.

Description

Type

Buri tista river 2.2km to the east

Auliakhana river 500m to the east.

Konchonar bil 100m to the west.

Flat mound

Mound

Flat land

Religious Architecture (temple)

Deaonai Mound river 100 m to the east. Two big pond Duai and Suai 500m to the east.

Nearest water body

Not in use

Notes/ Remarks

Not recog- Abandoned nized land

Not recog- Now this place nized are using as a Eidgha

Not recog- This place nized are using as a Eidgaha now.

Last of 20th century

12th - 18th century


92 ICON — Journal of Archaeology and Culture

Nijpara

Patkipara

11.

Mouza

10.

ID

Dharmapala

Mirgonj

Union

Mound of Dorger par structure

Hajipara old mosque

Nil. Jol. 12

Nil. Jol. 13

Hunder mosque

Chowdhuri Bari

Nil. Jol. 10

Nil. Jol. 11


Record Code No.

26º04’55.73” N 88º52’09.77” E

26º03’47.20” N 88º53’11.44” E

26º02’32.09” N 89º03’50.45” E

26º02’32.09” N 89º03’50.45” E

Geodetic Position

Nearest water body

Three domed brick built mosque is oblong in plan with octagonal corner towers at the four corners, are about 10 m x 5 m externally and 7 m x 2.5 m internally. The walls are 0.80 m thick. Three doorways in the east and central one is bigger than the anking ones. The central entrance is 1.5 m high and 0.70 m wide. It has two windows, in the north and the south sides. Three mehrabs inside in the western wall, are aligned with the three entrances. The central mehrab is bigger than the anking ones which are equal in size. Three domes cover the mosque, of which central one is bigger than the side ones. The parapet and cornice are straight. A gateway also in the south-east corner.

Dorgar par is a high land like mound, is square in shape. The length are about 150 m and height is about 3/3.5 m from the surrounding land. Different types of archaeological evidence found hear. Regular brick structural remains, a huge amount of potsherds and brick bats are seen easily in surface.

It is ve domed mosque and renovated many times. Accordingly to the local people, it is approximately not more than 60 years old.

Dewonai river 1.25 km to the west.

Guptabashi river 100m to the east.

An abandoned ancient sized brick structure Buri tista with cementing agents are found here. Less river 500 than triple sized parts of structures are ex- m to east isted. The existing portion of the building approximately 15 m in length and width of about 10 meters. The entire structure extends north to south. In the existing building has ve room, one in the centre and two in the right and two in the left. The central room has two doors. The building has two corridors; one is in front side and other one in back side. Every corridor has three arched entrance. Simple type design also seen in many places including in cornice.

Description

Religious hitecture (mosque)

Mound

Religious Architecture (mosque)

Secular structure

Type

19th-20th century

12th – 18th century

19501960

18th -19th century


The mosque renovated many times (last 5 years ago).

Department of archaeology Bangladesh have recently made a trail excavation hear in 2016.

Modern mosque building

Not in use

Notes/ Remarks


Paschim Balagram

Paschim Kanthali

Paschim shimulbari

Purba golmunda

Purba Shimulbar

13.

14.

15.

16.

Mouza

12.

ID

Mirgonj

Golmunda

Mirgonj

Kanthali

Jaldhaka

Union

Nil. Jol. 18

Nil. Jol. 17

Nil. Jol. 16

Nil. Jol. 15

Vimer dhap

Satighat mound

Mosjid para old mosque

Babu bari temple

Jaldhaka dakbanglo

Mondir para/ SotisherDansga potsherds occurrence

Nil. Jol. 24

Nil. Jol. 14


Record Code No.

26º 02’45.28” N 88º57’27.44” E

26º 02’67.3” N 89º02’76.4” E

26º02’56.98” N 88º55’40.48” E

26º02’24.44” N 88º58’05.81” E

26º01’31.33” N 89º00’44.62”

26º03’24.65” N 88º52’26.86” E

Geodetic Position

Awuliakhana river 250 m to the east.

Deaonai river adjacent to the north

Nearest water body

It is about 250 m long, 10 m width, 1.5 m high from the surrounding land and covered with vegetation. There are no archeological evidence was visible.

Awuliakhana river 200m to the east.

Sotighat mound is not exist today. Most of 200 m the time it covered with water. It is a promi- away, in nent place in local history. the west is Satighat dara and a beel was record

The ancient mosque building is not existed there. It was torn down in 2015. However, it`s base and bricks are still here. The bricks were getting very thin type. It was about 4 cm thick. According to local people, it was a three dome mosque.

It is a Hindu religious structure, is quite small square shape. Each arm about 5 m with a height of about 12 m. An entrance is the south side to enter the temple and a small corridor at the front of the temple with three semi-circular porch entrances. There is a courtyard in front of the temple and then an old pond.

Small rectangular building, are about 20 m in length and width is 10 m. There are three rooms in the building with a long corridor. The building is built on a raised platform.

There are innumerable potsherds and brickbats are observed in everywhere of this village. Mondirpar seems to be the center of potsherds consentration. Mondirpa, approximately, in northern side is 150 m, 200 m are the southern side and eastern side is about 500 m. But western side got huge cultural intervention and it can be wildly speculated that it might be around 100 m. There are different variety of potsherds concentration visible. And also different sizes of stone fragments and irregular brick structures are observed on the surface.

Description

Mound

Low mound



Secular structure

Potsherds occurrence

Type

Renovated several times (last 2005)

Currently use as a Government rest house.

Department of archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, People’s Republic of Bangladesh, took a trail excavation in 2016.

Notes/ Remarks

Not recog- People, almost, nized removed the mound for preparing the land of cultivation.

Not recog- Presently local nized people are using this place as a crematorium.

Not recog- A modern nized mosque building built in the same place.

18901915 AD

1915

12th - 18th century


94 ICON — Journal of Archaeology and Culture

Mouza

Rashidpur

Gopaljhar

Taluk Golna

Taluk shailmari

Cherenga

ID

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Jaldhaka

Shailmari

Golna

Daoabari

Mirgonj

Union

Nil. Jol. 23

Nil. Jol. 22

Nil. Jol. 21

Nil. Jol. 20

Nil. Jol. 19

Record Code No.

Jharpara Thakur bari temple

Kajipara vanga mosque

Sonnasi thakurer dhap

Siddeshwari old jamy mosque

Dinger par


26º01’13.54” N 89º03’21.03” E

25º 59’2.00” N 89º05’32.4” E

26º 02’45.5” N 88º57’50.7” E

26º02’4.00” N 89º04’66.4” E

26º 03’18.12” N 88º56’17.94” E

Geodetic Position

Nearest water body

It is a rectangular Hindu religious structure, are about 5 m x 3 m. An entrance in the south with a small corridor. Currently, it is being used for worship of Radha-Krishna.

At present the ancient mosque doesn’t exist anymore. The broken part of ancient mosque is seen around the new mosque. From the people’s account, the ancient mosque had three domes.

It’s shape is rectangular, are about 15 m x 12 m. About 1 m high from the surrounding land. The mound is fully covered with small tree.

Awuliakhana river adjacent north to the record.

It is a three dome mosque with round cor- Ajacent ner towers. The mosque is rectangular in west to shape and size are about 12 m x 5 m exter- Tista river nally and 10 m x 3 m internally. The walls are about 0.80 m width. Three semicircular entrances in the east. Central one is bigger than the others. There are three mehrab in west, central one is bigger than others. The corner tower rise above the horizontal parapet. The three domes, each being placed on an octagonal drum, are crowned with lotus and kalasa nials. The domes were made in squinch method. The walls are internally and externally plastered. An Arabian inscription has observed over the corner of northern doorways. Two square size stone piece have also been observed in the east and every wing is 0.5 m.

It is a high land, like a boat, are about 350 Sui river m (east & west), 180 m in north and about 200m to 2 m high from the surrounding land. Here the west visibility of archaeological evidences are very low. The soil is silty-sand.

Description



Mound


Mound

Type

Notes/ Remarks

It has renovated several times (last 2008

19001920 AD

Last renovated in 1970

Not recog- A new mosque nized is built on the same place of ancient mosque.

Not recog- It might be a nized part of Vimer Dhap. At present local use the place as a crematorium.

18th -19th century

Not recog- At present use nized for multi-purpose activities.



96



97

98



99

100



101

102



103

104

Concluding Remarks This paper, hopefully, will be considered as an experimental approach of generating micro-level spatial database. Many problems occurred during the research. Absence of previous examples, lack of budget and lack of experiences are the foremost limitations to do so. To conduct the eld survey, the identication of the archaeological records is very critical due to the highly dense populated landscape. Getting an abundant or unused land is extremely rare. Previously, it has been mentioned that, timescale of archaeological records have considered from British period to backwards. To conduct the pedestrian survey in every mouza, talking with the local people, and the visibility of archaeological records on landscape were the main method to identify. In case of Architecture, we consider the architectural style and purpose of use by the local people. There are so many discarded, lost or abandoned part of structure and bricks have been found. Some mosques or temples are found newly built. Most of the cases, after talking with the local people, we describe those archaeological records. Most challenging part of this survey is to make description of discarded, lost or abandoned archaeological records. It could be speculated that deposition process may be cultural, as in the case of burial or materials in pits; more often, however, they are natural processes containing uvial, Aeolian, lacustrine or residual aggradation. Binford (1982: 16) explained about this deposition process as “the nature of the deposited archaeological record is not simply the result of discard, but rather of the ‘tempo’ of the occupation or use of a place and its relationship to the periodicity of depositional processes”. But during our survey, we didn’t try to expose any deposition prole. Our ultimate goal was to identify the spatial distribution of archaeological records. Hopefully after generating the mouza level spatial database of archaeological records, we will able to start our geoarchaeological endeavour.


Therefore, the notion of this research is to generate a mouza base spatial database of archaeological records and mapping the archaeological records. To do that, we started from the micro level single unite. We know, if we are able to generate a single unit, then it will help us to move on towards detail mapping. So GPS considered here from the beginning to collect the spatial archaeological data. This research work could be considered as an experimental journey towards our big dream and that is to generate a mouza base spatial database of archaeological records and their mapping. GIS technology is the main concern to tackle the mapping process and which has been used in this research. By using and creating various data tables, shapeles, layers, and maps, a visual representation of archaeological records were created. These map documents allowed the distribution and density of different types of artifacts to be seen. While this project was not as successful as hoped, it establishes certain steps and data qualities needed for other archaeologists interested in analyzing surface data through GIS. Due to the complexities involved, survey is not particularly effective in interpreting surface artifact distributions when used alone, but is a useful tool when trying to gain basic knowledge of a site on which other methods will be used. Accountability of Archaeologists is needed for the possible displacement of archaeological records over time and for the factors that can skew the results. Usually, a single survey cannot provide signicant information on a site by itself. Only basic information can be trusted on this basis. To nd more in-depth information, other archaeological methods should be used in conjunction with the site surface survey. Any interpretation based on the surface survey has the potential to be off only due to the complexities of the site and the survey. Archaeologists do not work in controlled environments and uncertainty must be accepted. That perfect understanding is impossible to achieve but


on the other hand, it should not and does not prevent attempts to recreate and understand history better. There is a reason why archaeologists use a variety of methods to reach their conclusions. Different methods present different types of information and when used in combination present a clearer picture. In this case, our intention is to generate a mouza base spatial database of archaeological records and their mapping as a part of GIS techniques and GPS survey strategy. Acknowledgement We express sincere gratitude to all of them from whom we received continuous support and encouragement. Acknowledgement is gratefully given to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. We are very grateful to Honorable Minister Asaduzzaman Noor, who allowed us to conduct the research in Nilphamari district and to Secretary Aktari Mamtaz for providing necessary support in various ways. Their intense interest and help made us motivated to step forward. Research organization `SHASRA’ deserves special recognition as it took an important part in accomplishing the research. We receive logisticsupport from Professor Swadhin Sen, and Sikdar Md. Zulkarnine, Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. Cordial thanks to them. Israt Taslim Him, lecturer, BGMEA University of Fashion and Technology, help us for debugging the text. We are also thankful to her. We

105

would like to thank Ashraful Alam, 42nd batch, G M Murad, 43rd Batch, Ahshan Habib, 45th batch, students from the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University and Goljar Hossain from Dinajpur who helped in eld level survey. They did the work with great patience. REFERENCES Binford, L.R. (1982). The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31 Chattopadhyaya B.D., G. Sengupta, and S. Chakrabarty (eds.) (2009). An Annotated Archaeological Atlas of West Bengal: Volume I: Prehistory and Protohistory, Kolkata: CASTEI Hawkes J. (1974). Atlas of Ancient Archaeology, London: William Heinemann Ltd. Imran, M. (2005). ‘Folklore-archaeology of Wari-Bateshwar: An Interpretation of the Landscape and Settlement Pattern in Respect to Natural and Cultural Features of Toponym’, Pratnatattva 11: 35–44, Journal of the Department of Archaeology, Dhaka: Jahangirnagar University. Imran, M. (2013). ‘Genealogy of Archaeological Surveying in Bangladesh: Delineating Peter Haggett’s Systematic Ground Survey with the Modication by GIS in Khalifatabad, Bagerhat’, Pratnatattva 19: 75–87, Journal of the Department of Archaeology, Dhaka: Jahangirnagar University. Martin, M. (1976). The History, Antiquities, Topography, and Statistics of Eastern India: Volume V: Rangpur and Assam, Delhi-110006, Cosmo Publication, India. Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn (1991) Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, New York and London: Thames and Hudson Zakariah, A.K.M. (2011). The Archaeological Heritage of Bangladesh. M.M. Hossain (edts.), Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.