The Archaeology of Early Medieval and Medieval South Asia: Contesting Narratives from the Eastern Ganga-Brahmaputra Basin 9781138320925, 9781032374826, 9781003340416

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of figures
List of tables
List of contributors
Notes on transliteration
A Dedicatory Note: The unsettling interrogative sensibilities of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya and transgression of the disciplinary boundaries
Chapter 1 Introduction: Trouble of thinking about the archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval in Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Basin
Part 1 Conceptual, methodological, and spatiotemporal domains of archaeology
Chapter 2 Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology: Resetting field methods and practices
Chapter 3 The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history: Perspectives from archaeology
Chapter 4 Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone: Early medieval and medieval in the archaeological context of the north-western part of Bengal
Part 2 Settlements, landscapes, and interpretive frameworks
Chapter 5 Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval North Bengal: A delineation from the inscriptions
Chapter 6 Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral and active part of a delta: An archaeological study of the southwestern part of Bangladesh
Chapter 7 Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements: A precursory understanding of the landscape archaeology of Teesta Megafan of Bangladesh
Part 3 Pottery analyses and the spatiotemporal indexes
Chapter 8 Pottery of Bengal during the early medieval period
Chapter 9 Analysing the pottery from the Brahmaputra Valley: Issues within archaeology and history (seventh to fifteenth centuries CE)
Part 4 Material culture and monumental remains in context
Chapter 10 Religious pictures from Bengal and Eastern Bihar: More than illustrating pantheons
Chapter 11 Temple-building in early medieval–medieval Bengal: Revisiting contexts in Western Bengal
Chapter 12 The regional monetary identity of ‘medieval Bengal’ (thirteenth to sixteenth centuries CE): Coin hoards, mint towns, and connectivity
Index

Citation preview

The Archaeology of Early Medieval and Medieval South Asia

This book looks at the ways in which archaeological methods have been used in debates concerning the early medieval and medieval periods in South Asia. Despite the incorporation and use of archaeological data to corroborate historical narratives, the theories and methods of archaeology are largely ignored in and excluded from the dominating, institutionalized, and hegemonic disciplinary discourses. The volume offers contesting insights, polemical narratives, and new data from archaeological contexts to initiate a debate on many foundational premises of archaeological and historical narratives. It focuses on the much-neglected region of the Eastern Ganga-Brahmaputra Basin as a spatial frame to do this and studies themes such as spatial and temporal scales of concepts and methods, multi-scaler factors and processes of continuity and changes, the settlement archaeology of the alluvial landscape, changing patterns of agrarian transformation, and material cultures, including coins, inscriptions, pottery, and sculptures, in their contexts in sub-regional, regional, and supra-regional intersections. Dedicated to historian Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, this volume presents a crucial and unprecedented intervention in the study of the early medieval and the medieval periods. It will be useful for scholars and researchers of archaeology, ancient history, medieval history, water history, earth sciences, palaeoecology, historical ecology, epigraphy, art history, material culture studies, Indian history, and South Asian studies in general. Swadhin Sen has been teaching in the Department of Archaeology of Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh, as a Professor. He has directed several excavations and undertaken full-coverage surveys in the northern part of Bangladesh. He has conducted ethnoarchaeological and ethnoecological studies in the north-western and south-western parts of Bangladesh. Currently he is directing research projects on the palaeoecology of Bengal and the archaeology of dynamic terrain of Bengal. His fields of interest also include politics of the pasts, critical studies of heritage, archaeologies of religions, popular culture of landscape and waterscapes, and cultural politics of ecology. He loves conversation with people and is passionately entangled with water and rivers.

Supriya Varma is in the process of transitioning from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, to Azim Premji University, Bhopal. She has been the Co-Director of several archaeological projects including the Indor Khera Archaeological Project (IKAP) and the Rohana Khurd Archaeological Project (ROKAP). Her research interests include land use, pastoralism, mobility, landscapes, waterscapes, urbanism, childhood, households, crafts, identities, heritage, and sustainability. Her earlier work focused on the archaeology of childhood and households in ancient cities, but in the last several years, her research has shifted to the medieval and early modern periods. Among her publications are the co-edited book Traditions in Motion: Religion and Society in History and a special issue on Archaeologies of the Medieval in South Asia for The Medieval History Journal. She is currently co-directing an international and interdisciplinary project called MANDU: Monsoon, Climate, and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Times. Bhairabi Prasad Sahu was a Professor at the Department of History, University of Delhi. He was the Head of the Department during 2004–7, and Dean of International Relations at Delhi University during 2007–11. He served the Indian History Congress as its Secretary (2006–9) and the Indian Council of Historical Research as a Council Member (2008–15). He was President of Ancient Indian History at the Indian History Congress (2003) and presided over the Ancient Section of the Punjab History Conference, Historiography Section of the Andhra Pradesh History Congress, and the Uttarakhand History and Culture Association. Professor Sahu was on the editorial board of Indian Historical Review, Studies in People’s History, and Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. He was associated with the German Research Council’s Orissa Research Project (1999–2005). His areas of interest were historiography, political processes, and social formations in pre-modern India, with a greater focus on early medieval Odisha and Chhattisgarh.

The Archaeology of Early Medieval and Medieval South Asia Contesting Narratives from the Eastern Ganga-Brahmaputra Basin Edited by Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Sen, Swadhin, editor. | Varma, Supriya, editor. | Sahu, Bhairabi Prasad, 1957- editor. Title: The archaeology of early medieval and medieval South Asia : contesting narratives from the Eastern Ganga-Brahmaputra Basin / edited by Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu. Other titles: Contesting narratives from the Eastern Ganga-Brahmaputra Basin Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Taylor & Francis Group, [2023] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2022027811 (print) | LCCN 2022027812 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138320925 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032374826 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003340416 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Archaeology–Bangladesh. | Bangladesh--Antiquities. | Archaeology–South Asia. | South Asia–Antiquities. | Bangladesh–History–17th century. | South Asia–History–17th century. Classification: LCC DS393.6 .A73 2023 (print) | LCC DS393.6 (ebook) | DDC 934–dc23/eng/20220624 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022027811 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022027812 ISBN: 978-1-138-32092-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-37482-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-34041-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416 Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Essays in Fond Memory of Professor Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya Guru bine bandhu nāire ār Nidāner kāndāri guru, bhabapārer karṇadhār [Fakir Lalon Sai] [There is no friend other than the teacher. He is the revealer of the path to the final cause of existence. He is the helmsman of the voyage of life] [Translation by Swadhin Sen]

Contents

List of figures List of tables List of contributors Notes on transliteration A Dedicatory Note: The unsettling interrogative sensibilities of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya and transgression of the disciplinary boundaries

ix xix xx xxv

xxvi

BHAIRABI PRASAD SAHU, SWADHIN SEN, AND SUPRIYA VARMA

1 Introduction: Trouble of thinking about the archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval in Ganges– Brahmaputra–Meghna Basin

1

SWADHIN SEN, SUPRIYA VARMA, AND BHAIRABI PRASAD SAHU

PART 1

Conceptual, methodological, and spatiotemporal domains of archaeology

23

2 Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology: Resetting field methods and practices

25

SUPRIYA VARMA

3 The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history: Perspectives from archaeology

58

BHAIRABI PRASAD SAHU

4 Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone: Early medieval and medieval in the archaeological context of the north-western part of Bengal SWADHIN SEN, S. M. KAMRUL AHSAN, ABIR BIN KEYSAR, AND AHMED SHARIF

75

viii Contents PART 2

Settlements, landscapes, and interpretive frameworks

137

5 Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval North Bengal: A delineation from the inscriptions

139

RYOSUKE FURUI

6 Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral and active part of a delta: An archaeological study of the southwestern part of Bangladesh

154

A. K. M. SYFUR RAHMAN AND AFROZA KHAN MITA

7 Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements: A precursory understanding of the landscape archaeology of Teesta Megafan of Bangladesh

194

SWADHIN SEN AND A. K. M. KHORSHED ALAM

PART 3

Pottery analyses and the spatiotemporal indexes

263

8 Pottery of Bengal during the early medieval period

265

COLINE LEFRANCQ

9 Analysing the pottery from the Brahmaputra Valley: Issues within archaeology and history (seventh to fifteenth centuries CE) 287 PREETEE SHARMA

PART 4

Material culture and monumental remains in context

311

10 Religious pictures from Bengal and Eastern Bihar: More than illustrating pantheons

313

CLAUDINE BAUTZE-PICRON

11 Temple-building in early medieval–medieval Bengal: Revisiting contexts in Western Bengal

330

SHARMILA SAHA

12 The regional monetary identity of ‘medieval Bengal’ (thirteenth to sixteenth centuries CE): Coin hoards, mint towns, and connectivity

345

SUTAPA SINHA

Index

363

Figures

1.1 Map of the study area with adjacent regions marked with a white dashed line. The study area and the zones within the network of archaeological sites and settlements are extended from the Himalayan mountains and the sub-Himalayan regions to the littoral zone and the Bay of Bengal to the south. The present names of the places which are mentioned in this chapter are pointed out. Major rivers and natural features to the west and the east are outlined. (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Google Earth image) 1.2 Map of the tentative locations and coverage of the major sub-regions during the early medieval/medieval period in the study area and adjacent regions. Their coverage transcended the present national boundaries. The boundaries of these sub-regions, often mentioned as the early states, were fluid and porous. (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Google Earth image) 2.1 Locations of Ahar, Indor Khera, and Rohana Khurd. (Source: Author’s own) 2.2 Area surveyed around Indor Khera. (Source: Author’s own) 2.3 Locations of test cuttings at Indor Khera. (Source: Author’s own) 2.4 Surveyed area at and around Rohana Khurd. (Source: Author’s own) 2.5 Locations of test cuttings at Rohana Khurd. (Source: Author’s own) 4.1 The study area in the regional setting. (Source: Authors’ own) 4.2 Clustering of settlements with epigraphic provenances and the categorisation of space of different zones. Z.1, 2, and 3 on this map are categorised as zones with the settlements that can tentatively be framed within the early medieval period with its slippery temporal boundary. Z.4, on the

3

4 37 40 41 46 48 78

x Figures other hand, is the tentative boundary of the zone of the settlement of Ghoraghat during the sixteenth–seventeenth century CE. These zones are spatiotemporally juxtaposed and archaeologically inseparable. (Source: Authors’ own) 4.3 The dense clusters and epigraphic provenances in the vicinity of zones 1, 2, and 3. (Source: Authors’ own) 4.4 The clusters, tanks, and places towards Mahasthangarh. Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements, tanks in the study area in reference to the urban settlement at Mahasthangarh (at the bottom right) and Karatoya River with its floodplain, which is shown at the right side. The settlements are bounded by solid lines, and clusters are bounded by dashed line (The area outside Kshetlal and Kalai has not been surveyed following full-coverage survey methodology, and the places and settlements have not been plotted on this map.). (Source: Authors’ own) 4.5 Mosques, mazars, and dargah in the study area. (Source: Authors’ own) 4.6 The settlements and embankments in Pirganj Upazila in relation to the settlements of Ghoraghat. The names of the garhs and features according to the designated numbers are (1) local name unknown, (2) local name unknown, (3) Harsigha Dighi Garh, (4) Chapanda Bill, (5) Baro Bill, (6) Baro Biller Dardah (PRG.05), (7) Katal Garh, and (8) local name unknown. (Source: Authors’ own) 4.7 Daria Garh and the mud walls/embankments. 1a and 1b = Birat Garh; 2 and 3 = Chandi Duar Garh; 4 = Jogini Mandab Garh; 5 = Chandi Duar (water way); 6 = Khola Garh; 7 = Garh Para; 8 = Kodal Dhowa Garh; 9 = Tapupara Garh; 10a = Garher Bhita; 10b = Khurir Garh; 11, 12, and 14 = local names unknown; and 13 = Santana Garh. (Source: Authors’ own) 4.8 Hythethetical changes in flow regimes of the Karatoya River in the study area. (Source: Authors’ own) 6.1 Spatial distributions of archaeological places and settlements in the study area. The zone discussed in this chapter is marked tentatively with a broken line. (Source: Authors’ own) 6.2 Archaeological places and monuments of the settlement popularly recognised as Khalifatābād. (Source: Authors’ own) 6.3 Partial composite plan of Khān Jāhān (r.) residential mound with periodisation. (Source: Authors’ own)

88 90

93 100

101

105 127

156 161 161

Figures  xi   6.4 Structural remains of level 4 (a) and the staircase with structural remains of level 5 (b) at the residential mound associated with Khān Jahān (r.). (Source: Authors’ own) 169   6.5 Glazed tiles and ceramics from various levels of Khān Jāhān (r.) residential mound: (a) bichrome and monochrome glazed tiles from level 3; (b) celadon ware, plate; (c) celadon ware, plate; (d) celadon ware, bowl; (e) upper part of a red jar, painted partially with white; (f) upper part of a storage jar with white painted incised decoration; (g) small jar with shiny slip; (h) fragments of the decorated porcelain plate; (i) and (j) grey spouted vessel; (k) red spouted vessel; (l) buff coloured spouted vessel; (m), (n), (o), (p) red and buff coloured pots; (q) red hand modelled pot. (Source: Authors’ own) 171   6.6 (a) Spatial organisation of the archaeological places and tanks in Barobazar and (b) terracotta inscriptions from Jorbangla Mosque from the same settlement. (Source: Authors’ own) 175   6.7 Excavated Buddhist Temple at Jhurijhara Dhibi (a) and its ground plan (b). Exposed remains of a wall in Rezakpur (Kapilmuni) (c) and cowry shells from the same site (d). (Source: Authors’ own) 178   6.8 Bird’s-eye view of the exposed remains of (a) two shrines and (b) western wing with the entrance of Dalijhara Buddhist monastery. (Source: Authors’ own) 181   6.9 Structural mounds (a, b, c) and the structural remains exposed by riverbank erosion (d) in the Sundarbans. (Source: Authors’ own) 183 6.10 Spatial pattern of archaeological places and settlements in the active Ganges Delta and littoral zone of Bangladesh and West Bengal, India. (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Basak 2014) 189   7.1 Teeta Megafan (TMF) and its geomorphological context. The interpretive zones are based upon the patterning of archaeological places/settlements and associated channel patterns. They have been shown by solid lines. (Source: Authors’ own) 196   7.2 Channels and their forms and patterns on lobe 2 and on the western part of lobe 1 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own) 199   7.3 Channel forms and patterns on lobe 1 of TMF. (Authors’ own) 200   7.4 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 1 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own) 209

xii Figures  

  7.5 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 2 of TMF. High density of walled settlements is detectable in an equally contiguous organisation of palaeochannels and wetlands in NagarKulik basin of the distal part. (Source: Authors’ own)     7.6 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 3 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own)    7.7 Erosion on the left bank of the Tangon River at Bochaganj exposes the buried archaeological remains of the site of Asugaon-Parameshwarpur (BCG.a): (a and b) The white dashed line shows the extent of exposures of archaeological remains, including deposits of pottery (c) and remains of brick built well (d) a depicts the flow towards the downstream and b shows the flow towards upstream. The photos were from May. The flow in the channel is shallow and stored by rubber dams. The flow erodes the banks during July–August when the water during and after the monsoon recedes. (Source: Authors’ own)     7.8 Excavated archaeological remains at Itakura Mura at Bochaganj in flood zone of the Tangon Basin (a). The brick built structural remains of Buddhist and Brahmanical edifices built consecutively one above the other were constructed upon soft, loose, and noncohesive sands (medium to fine grained) of the floodplain of Sua River (b). A thick (>1 m) deposit of hard silty sand was used to consolidate the structural remains above. The Sua River flows to the west of this remains. The temporary inundation by the overbank flooding after the rainfall is attested by the background of (a) and the excavated remains of temples are shown at a distance and surrounded by floodwater (c). (Source: Authors’ own)     7.9 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 4 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own)   7.10 Palaeoseismic evidence from the excavated remains of Bishnupur mound 1 at Birol: (a and c) brick deposits of collapse in which complete bricks are leaning towards the southeast; (b and d) similar deposits of bricks with their inclination towards the north-east. a, b, c, and d represent the deposits upon the floor outside the main Brahmanical temple. The specific pattern of bricks was created by one or more events of earthquake by which

218 220

221

223 225

Figures  xiii the superstructure of the temple collapsed and destroyed. e, f, and g show the deformation and tilting of the brickbuilt structure and walls. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.11a–c (a) Archaeological evidence of a palaeoseismic event on the brick built nava-ratha Brahmanical temple which was excavated at Madhabgaon, Kaharol. a. In the assembly hall (mandapa) of the temple tilting (B, C), lateral wrapping (D), wrapping and slanting (E, F) (on pillar bases) were detected. (b) On the external side of the northern wall of sanctum, upwards (G) and downwards (H) tilting, cracks and lateral dislocations of bricks (J, I. K) were identified. These archaeological signatures of the impacts of an earthquake are corroborated by the deformations and dislocations of sedimentary structures on section TMF 11 (Figure 7.11d–j); location of this section is marked as A in the figure 7.11a, to the northern edge of the temple remains. (c) Effects of a palaeoseismic event on a small Brahmanical temple of early medieval period. The temple was found at Maherpur, Bochaganj. L, M, N, and O demonstrate the upwards and downwards tilting of the remains of brick-built walls of the assembly hall (maṇḍapa) and P shows the crack and lateral dislocation of the bricks from the wall. The date of this earthquake is yet to be determined, although the seismic event might be contemporary to the similar event and destruction identified at Madhabgaon Burul (a and b). The probable date is the thirteenth century CE or earlier. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.11d–j Sedimentary structures on the section exposed on the side of a recently dug pit on the edge of the excavated temple remains (d). The cross bedding and laminations are visible in several layers at the bottom (e, f, and j). These primary structures were deformed after deposition and convolute lamination and slump structures were created because of the movement of earth by a palaeoseismic event (g, h, i). The vertical organisation of these layers and beddings are shown in the simple litholog (h). (Source authors’ own)   7.12 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 5 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own)

227

228

229 230

xiv Figures 7.13 Structural archaeological mounds in the Bergaon Settlement (Kaharol). (a, b) Buried brick-built structural remains are exposed because of the digging by the local people. (c) Ghost wall with partially preserved brick-wall indicates that the robbed wall represents an enclosure wall with tri-ratha projection. (d) Another partially exposed brickbuilt structure with pancha-ratha projection. Both c and d represent two separate mounds containing probable edifice of Brahmanical affiliations of tenth to eleventh centuries CE. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.14 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in association with Dharmapalgarh-Mainamatir Garh in the analytical zone 6 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.15 Different archaeological places in zone 6 with the demarcation of the partial avulsion zone of the Teesta River. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.16 Selective photos of the archaeological places and artefacts from lobe 1 (zone 6) of TMF. (a) The moat of Dharmapal Garh between the walls 2 and 3. (b) Partial view of the interior part of Dharmapal Garh and the entire area is being used for paddy cultivation. (c) Raja Harishchandra Path mound with two stone blocks from the surface scatters. (d, e, f) Satisher Danga mound with a partial view of exposed brick-paved soling and rammed floors. The households possess many artefacts from this structural mound: bases of pillars and stone blocks. (g) A conch shell and potsherds, including sherds of glazed wares (h) and clay lamp (j). (Source: Authors’ own) 7.17 Images from Google Earth and the corresponding cross profiles and longitudinal profiles of lobe 1. The images a, b, c, and d represent the landscape from the north to the south. The longitudinal profiles are marked in a (i–j), b (m–n), c (k–l), d (o–p), and cross profiles are marked in a (I–J), b (M–N), c (K–L), and d (O–P). The undulations, which are often undetectable in the ground survey, are evident in these images with their corresponding topographic profiles. The differences in surface level of less than 1 m could be significant to understanding the variabilities of the surface topographies and their relation to the different courses of the Teesta River, which are marked as T1-T8. The numbers do not represent the sequence of

231

236

238

240

Figures  xv avulsions. Rather, they represent the multiple events of avulsions (and oscillations) along the longitudinal profiles. The ‘Partial avulsion zone’ is defined and characterised by this evidence from the pattern of topographic variabilities. The sequence and patterns of these partial avulsions need to be correlated with the changes in the catchment area of the Himalayan piedmont zone as well as in the deposition and changes downstream Teesta–Brahmaputra system. (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Google Earth Images) 7.18 Images from Google Earth and the corresponding cross profiles and longitudinal profiles of lobe 2. The images e, f, g, and h represent the landscape from the north to the south. The longitudinal profiles are marked in e (a–b), f (c–d), g (e–f), h (g–h), and cross profiles are marked in e (A–B), f (C–D), g (E–F), and h (G–H). This micro-scale topographic variability and changes in relief are very significant for identification of the degree and rate of entrenchments of the channels and the river valleys eroded and modified by the antecedent flows in the channels. The Tangon-Kulik-Nagor River belt is marked by changes of relief from 1 to 8 m, and the change of 1 m or less is very critical for this generally perceived flat terrain. Many abandoned beds, which are not incised, have become moribund and filled with surface wash deposits during monsoon. These palaeochannels are marked by shallow, narrow, and sometimes partially preserved strips which are not detectable on ground. (Source: Authors’ own, modified from Google Earth images) 7.19 Analyses and classification of DEM (Digital Elevation Model) in grey scale. A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are the transverse profiles from the north to the south of lobe 2 and transitional zone between lobes 1 and 2. Despite the slope on the lobes from the north to the south and from the north-west to the south-east, this image provides microscale topographic undulations, slopes, and their aspects in relation to the rivers. The white dashed lines suggest the direction of changes and avulsions of flows in the rivers. The major rivers like Nagor, Tangon, Punarbhaba, Karatoya, Chhoto Jamuna, and Deonai-Charalkata are flowing through landforms which are lower than the adjacent plains. These subsided landforms are 3–8 m lower

242

243

xvi Figures than the adjacent surfaces. These low areas can be identified as the valleys created by these rivers (and their antecedent channels). It is quite probable that the changes in the flow regimes of the Karatoya–Teesta belt did not result in the complete avulsions. The earlier courses and newly formed swamps contained flow during the monsoon, even in the early medieval and medieval periods. Rivers like Nagar and Tangon (including Mahananda) were influenced by the precipitation rate in the upstream piedmont zones, and their changes in these zones in TMF have not connected always with the changes in the Karatoya–Teesta system. It could be proposed that Karatoya never, during the last two millenniums, flowed through these channels. Archaeological remains and their chronosequence in the zones of lobe 2 attest to this proposition. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.20 Hypothesised changing patterns of flow and channels of Karatoya–Teesta River System. Here, K = Karatoya, T = Teesta, KT = Karatoya Teesta, and K/LJ = Karatoya/ Chhoto Jamuna. The numbering does not denote the chronology or sequence of the shifts. West to east direction has been considered for the numbering of the courses of the Karatoya River and an east to west direction has been used for the numbering of the courses of the Teesta River. The probable unification of courses or flows is shown as KT (Karatoya-Teesta) in the absence of any certainty about the name of the course at that time. Black and white arrows indicate the lateral zone of shifts of flows of Karatoya and Teesta River systems respectively. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.21 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 7 of TMF. (Source: Authors’ own) 7.22 Correlation and comparison among three contemporary walled settlements from three zones to represent their planned layout to control, manage, and adapt to the changing channels morphology and water flow. Three walled settlements on three separate landscape contexts of TMF with analogous but different channel flows and water management in the early medieval period. A = Bhitargarh at the proximal part of TMF (on lobe 3) with associated channels and palaeochannels and abandoned valleys as wetlands to the north and east. B = Kantanagar and Malllickpur Garh on the transitional zone between the

247

250 251

Figures  xvii distal parts of lobe 1 and 2. These settlements are on very active landforms characterised by the changing channels and flow regimes. C = Dharmapal Garh at the medial part of lobe 1 associated with wetlands and channels on the east, west, north, and south. A, B, and C went through channel flow management within the space enclosed by mud or brick-mud walls. The spatial and formal dimensions went through transformations in relation to the changes in the channel forms and processes. (Source: Authors’ own)   8.1 (a) Locations of the sites that have been described. (b) General map of Mahasthangarh with the locations of three excavation programmes. (Source: Joint Fanco-Bangladeshi Archaeological Mission of Mahasthangarh, Bangladesh)   8.2 Different Mazar assemblages from early medieval period at Mahasthangarh: (a) Medium Grey Ware (1–3: dishes; 4–6: lids; 7–8: cooking pots; 9–10: jars; 11: miniature pot). (b) Medium Red Ware (1–2: dishes; 3–4: jars; 5: miniature pot, Medium Red-Buff Ware; 6: bowls/cups; 7: dish with handle). (c) Fine Red Slipped Ware (1: bowl; 2: dish; 4–5: pots; 6: jar, Fine Grey-Brown Slipped Ware; 7–8: dishes; 9: bowl; 10: jar). (d) Turquoise Glazed Ware (1: bowl; 2–3: dishes). (Source: Joint Franco-Bangladeshi Archaeological Mission of Mahasthangarh, Bangladesh)   9.1 Locations of six sites in the Brahmaputra Valley mentioned in the chapter. (Source: Author’s own, modified after Google Earth image)   9.2 Vessels and sherds of different fabrics of ceramics from Ambari are shown. Sherds marked as (a), (b), and (c) are at top left, top centre, and top right, respectively. Sherds marked as (d) and (e) are at the bottom left and bottom right, respectively. Except for the (a), which is a complete pot, all the ceramics are represented by sherds. (Source: Author’s own)   9.3 Various types of pottery decoration. (a) Decoration AMB 2(a). (b) Decoration AMB 2(b). (c) Decoration AMB 2(c). (d) Decoration AMB 3. (e) Decoration GHDL1. (f) Decoration PGTK 2. (g) Decoration AMB 4. (h) Decoration AMB 15. (i) Decoration AMB 15(b). (j) Decoration AMB PGTK 1. (k) Globular Bowls with ‘Functional’ Decoration AMB 2(c). (l) Bi-chrome effect of O2M(K)r fabric. (Source: Author’s own)

253

268

270

288

296

300

xviii Figures   9.4 Most common pot type with the attributes. (a) 50R rim style and O2M fabric. (b) Most common jar type with the attributes: 8R rim style and O2M fabric. (c) Common bowl type with the attributes: 11R rim style, 5B base style, and O2M fabric. (d) Common bowl type with the attributes: 15R rim style, 5B base style, and O2M fabric. (e) Common bowl type with the attributes: 20R rim style, 5B base style, and O2M fabric. (f) Common bowl type with the attributes: 42R rim style, 8B base style, and O2M fabric. (Source: Author’s own) 10.1 Parṇaśabarī (a) and Heruka (b) from Vikrampur, National Museum of Bangladesh, Dhaka; Lintel, Lakhisarai (c) showing Mañjuśrī (d) and Avalokiteśvara (e). (Source: (a) Unknown private collection, courtesy: Courtesy: LFI LLC/ Gatto d’Oro LLC; (b) Joachim K. Bautze; (c, d, and e) Vikas Vaibhav) 10.2 (a) Heruka, from Vikrampur, presents whereabouts unknown. (b) Nairātmyā, from Jagaddala. (c) Cāmuṇḑā, from Thalta, Majgram, Bogra District, Mahasthan Museum. (d) Cāmuṇḑā, from Vikrampur, National Museum of Bangladesh, Dhaka. (Source: (a) Huntington Photographic Archive of Buddhist and Asian Art, photo by John C. Huntington; (b) Mahabub ul Alam; (c and d) Joachim K. Bautze) 11.1 (a) Siddheśvara Temple, Bahulara. (b) Pentagonal doorway, Bahulara. (c) Bell motif on the façade of the temple at Bahulara. (d) Miniature śikhara on the central ratha projections. (e) Corbelled vault, Bahulara. (f) Stucco image in temple niche, Bahulara. (g) Panel of decorative stucco motifs below the cornice, Bahulara. (Source: Author’s own) 11.2 (a) The Jatar Deul, South 24 Parganas. (b) Decorative members on the façade, Jatar Deul. (c) Series of miniature āmalakas and bhūmi-āmalakas, Jatar Deul. (d) Corbelled ceiling, Jatar Deul. (e) Typical late sixteenth-century śikhara, Ichai Ghosher Deul. (f) Dome-shaped ceiling supported on squinches, Ichai Ghosher Deul. (Source: Author’s own) 11.3 (a–c) The Śyāmārūpar Garh complex. (d) Dome on pendentives, Kalyāneśvarī Temple. (e and f) Typical eighteenth-century śikhara, Kalyāneśvarī Temple. (Source: Author’s own) 12.1 Locations of the find-spots of coin hoards mentioned in the study. (Source: Sinha 2020, p. 115)

304

317

321

333

334

336 351

Tables

  4.1 Early medieval and medieval settlements and their attributes in the study area   4.2 Mosques, mazars, and dargahs in the study area   4.3 Epigraphic and textual sources from and about the study area   6.1 Stratigraphy of Khān Jāhān Residence Mound   7.1 Sections recorded by ground survey with their geomorphological context and locations   7.2 Archaeological places/settlements and their spatiotemporal and formal context in zone 1   7.3 Archaeological places/settlements and their spatiotemporal and formal context in zone 2   7.4 Archaeological places/settlements and their spatiotemporal and formal context in zone 6   9.1 Fabric varieties of the Brahmaputra Valley   9.2 Total oxidised and reduced sherd counts across the six sites   9.3 Total kaolin and non-kaolin sherd counts across the six sites   9.4 Total sherd counts in diagnostic, non-diagnostic, and Decorated pottery categories across the six sites   9.5 Total sherd counts in fabric varieties within Decorated pottery across the six sites   9.6 Common bowl types with their attributes and the sites 12.1 The number of coin hoards recovered, grouped by century of issue of the latest dated coin in each hoard 12.2 The number of coin hoards found, containing coins of each mint (grouped in regions) and latest date of manufacture (sorted by centuries) 12.3 The number of coin hoards found in each subregion, containing coins of each mint (grouped in regions) 12.4 Coin hoards referenced in this study

80 85 108 164 206 208 216 234 294 295 295 298 302 304 352

354 356 357

Contributors

Syed Mohammad Kamrul Ahsan is a Professor in the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh. He has been in the field of geoarchaeology, conservation, and preservation of monuments related to the heritage and prehistoric archaeology of Bangladesh, for the last twenty years. He has directed several excavations and archaeological surveys and published widely in various journals. He was the director of the Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP 353) funded by Bangladesh University Grants Commission. His field of interests includes prehistory, site formation processes, geoarchaeology, archaeological sciences, field archaeology, and heritage management. A. K. M. Khorshed Alam has served in the Geological Survey of Bangladesh in different capacities during 1981–2015. The main fields of his works included geological mapping, mineral exploration, coastal geology, neotectonic study, geological remote sensing, and earthquake geology. He also taught GIS and remote sensing at Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh. He is the author of a book on neotectonic signature identification in soft sedimentary terrain using remote sensing techniques and has published many scientific articles in national and international journals. He also finds interest in writing popular articles on geoscience for newspapers. Ryosuke Furui works on the socio-economic history of early eastern India, mainly based on epigraphic sources. Awarded PhD degree from Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2007, he has taught at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, the University of Tokyo, since 2008. He has been engaged in the decipherment, edition, and publication of inscriptions discovered from Bengal and the adjoining regions. His representative work is Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India 400–1250 AD (2020). He is currently compiling the corpus of the early Bengal inscriptions. Abir Bin Keysar is presently working as an Assistant Director, Department of Archaeology under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh. He has completed his graduation and post-graduation in Archaeology from

Contributors  xxi Jahangirnagar University. He has almost ten years of experience in archaeological survey and excavation in the north-western part of Bangladesh. His research interest includes survey archaeology, geoarchaeology, material culture studies, and cultural heritage studies. He worked also as a Research Assistant under the Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP 3419) of the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka. Coline Lefrancq is currently involved in the European Research Project DHARMA – The Domestication of ‘Hindu’ Asceticism and the Religious Making of South and Southeast Asia (affiliated at the Centre for South Asian Studies [CEIAS], France) and in the Mission Archéologique Française de Coopération au Bangladesh – Mahasthangarh as the Deputy Director. As an archaeologist and ceramologist, her research focus is on the phenomenon of urbanisation in South Asia, settlement occupation, and regional and trans-regional exchanges between South Asia and Southeast Asia from the fifth century BCE to the fourteenth century CE. She has worked as a postdoctoral fellow at the École Française d’ExtrêmeOrient [EFEO], Paris, France, in the European Research Project Asia. Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State (affiliated at the French Institute of Pondicherry [IFP], India). Afroza Khan Mita is the Regional Director of the Regional Directorate Office, Department of Archaeology, Khulna and Barisal Division under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh. She is also pursuing her doctoral research in the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. She was the coordinator of excavations at the mound of Khan Jahan (r:)’s residence site at Bagerhat, Bangladesh, during 2015–18, and at several other sites. She has been actively involved in archaeological research and site management for the last three years. She has published articles in several national and international journals and edited volumes. Her fields of interest are field archaeology, archaeological remains of Buddhist periods, heritage management, and public archaeology. Claudine Bautze-Picron was till recently affiliated to the research team ‘Mondes Iranien et Indien’ of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Centre for Scientific Research), Paris, and to the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Free University of Brussels) where she taught Indian Art History. Besides numerous articles, she also published the catalogue of the collection of eastern Indian sculpture in the Museum of Asian Art, Berlin (Eastern Indian Sculpture in the Museum of Indian Art, Berlin, Berlin, 1998), a study of the bejewelled Buddha (The Bejewelled Buddha from India to Burma: New Considerations, New Delhi, 2010), and a monograph on the sculpture from Kurkihar (The Forgotten Place, Stone Sculpture at Kurkihar, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India,

xxii Contributors 2014). Her attention has also focused on the murals of Bagan (Burma) from the eleventh up to the thirteenth century (The Buddhist Murals of Pagan: Timeless Vistas of the Cosmos, Bangkok, 2003). A. K. M. Syfur Rahman is active as Regional Director of the Regional Directorate Office, Department of Archaeology, Sylhet and Chittagong Division. He was Director-in-Charge of the excavations at the mound of Khan Jahan (r:)’s residence site at Bagerhat, Bangladesh, during 2014–18. He is also pursuing his doctoral research in the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. He has been actively involved in archaeological research and site management for the last five years. He has published articles in several national and international journals and edited volumes. His fields of interest are geoarchaeology, field archaeology, archaeological remains of early medieval and medieval periods, and conservation of archaeological objects. Sharmila Saha is presently an Assistant Professor at the Department of History, Calcutta Girls’ College. From January 2008 to August 2019, she worked as the cataloguer of the State Archaeological Museum of the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Department of Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal. She has authored a book entitled Vibrant Rock: A Catalogue of Stone Sculptures in the State Archaeological Museum, Kolkata (co-authored with Gautam Sengupta). She also publishes regularly in reputed journals and thematic volumes on early Indian art and archaeology. Her areas of interest include medieval archaeology of South Asia, architecture, and iconography of early medieval and medieval Eastern India. Bhairabi Prasad Sahu was a Professor of History, University of Delhi. His publications include From Hunters to Breeders: Faunal Background of Early India, The Changing Gaze: Regions and the Constructions of Early India, Society and Culture in Post-Mauryan India c. 200 BC-AD 300, History of Precolonial India: Issues and Debates (with H. Kulke), and The Making of Regions in Indian History: Society, State and Identity in Premodern Odisha. Land System and Rural Society in Early India, Iron and Social Change in Early India, Interrogating Political Systems: Integrative Processes and States in Pre-modern India, and History and Theory: The Study of State, Institutions and the Making of History (with Kesavan Veluthat) are among his edited volumes. He has been on the Editorial Board of Indian Historical Review, Studies in People’s History, and Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. Swadhin Sen is teaching at the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, as a Professor. He is pursuing archaeological research in different parts of Bangladesh for the last twenty years. He has published a book in Bengali on the politics of archaeology and history in Bangladesh. He has directed several excavation and survey projects including Higher

Contributors  xxiii Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP 3419) funded by Bangladesh University Grants Commission. His fields of interest include politics of the pasts, critical studies of heritage, landscape archaeology, archaeology of religions, public archaeology, field archaeology, and palaeoecology and rivers. He likes meeting people and tries to write about the perception of the past in popular domain in a blog. Ahmed Sharif is a Senior Lecturer and Research Associate at the Centre for Archaeological Studies (CAS) of the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB). He is also a doctoral student at the Department of Asian Studies of the Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic. He has twelve years of experience in the field of archaeological research. Ahmed has also worked in several archaeological survey programs and participated in some archaeological excavation programs in the northwestern part of Bangladesh. His research interests are material culture studies, field archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, community archaeology, cultural heritage management, and archaeology of early medieval and medieval Bengal. Preetee Sharma works as an Assistant Professor of Ancient Indian History at the Department of History, Cotton University, Guwahati, Assam (India). For her doctoral research on the pottery traditions of the early medieval Brahmaputra Valley, she conducted the first systematic pottery classification study of the region. Her research interests include archaeology of early medieval Brahmaputra Valley, systematic pottery analysis, and ethnoarchaeology. She is currently engaged in a research project investigating the pottery traditions of the lower Brahmaputra Valley from an ethnoarchaeological perspective. Sutapa Sinha currently teaches at the University of Calcutta as a Professor in the Department of Islamic History and Culture. She has been working on the coins and coin hoards of the Bengal Sultans since 1993. Her books include Coins of Medieval India: A Newly Discovered Hoard from West Bengal (co-authored) and Coin Hoards of the Bengal Sultans: 1205– 1576 AD from West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Bangladesh published in 2017. She has edited several books of which the latest is Gold Coins in the Collection, Kolkata, in 2010. She has authored several research papers on different aspects of numismatics of the Bengal Sultans, Islamic architecture, and settlement archaeology of Medieval Bengal in national and international journals and books. Supriya Varma is in the process of transitioning from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, to Azim Premji University, Bhopal. She has been the Co-Director of several archaeological projects including the Indor Khera Archaeological Project (IKAP) and the Rohana Khurd Archaeological Project (ROKAP). Her research interests include land use, pastoralism, mobility, landscapes, waterscapes, urbanism, childhood,

xxiv Contributors households, crafts, identities, heritage, and sustainability. Her earlier work focused on the archaeology of childhood and households in ancient cities, but in the last several years, her research has shifted to the medieval and early modern periods. Among her publications are the co-edited book Traditions in Motion: Religion and Society in History and a special issue on Archaeologies of the Medieval in South Asia for The Medieval History Journal. She is currently co-directing an international and interdisciplinary project called MANDU: Monsoon, Climate, and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Times.

Notes on transliteration

Convenience and familiarity of readers have been the fundamental consideration for romanisation of vernacular words. Officially recognised names and terms regarding places, persons, administrative units, rivers, and other physical and cultural features have not been transliterated. In most of the cases, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, and Bangla words with pre-modern usage have been transliterated. Sanskrit and Bengali words with Sanskrit origins have been romanised following the standard International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). For Arabic and Persian words, the scheme of romanisation in Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary by F. Steingass has been followed. The irrelevant and unnecessary romanisation have been avoided for the words which have accepted norms and familiarity.

A Dedicatory Note The unsettling interrogative sensibilities of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya and transgression of the disciplinary boundaries Bhairabi Prasad Sahu, Swadhin Sen, and Supriya Varma Whether a proposition can turn out false after all depends on what I make count as determinants for that proposition… Do I want to say, then, that certainty resides in the nature of the language-game? … Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical objects comes very early or very late? (Wittgenstein 1969, pp. 5, 457, 479) A chronicler who recites events without distinguishing between major and minor ones acts in accordance with the following truth: nothing that has ever happened should be regarded as lost for history. To be sure, only a redeemed mankind receives the fullness of its past-which is to say, only for a redeemed mankind has its past become citable in all its moments. Each moment it has lived becomes a citation a l’ordre du jour-and that day is Judgment Day (Benjamin 1969, p. 253). He has departed just recently, and we will continue to feel the void he left behind. Prof. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya had that mesmerizing way of engagement with various aspects of the pasts and the presents to continuously push our thoughts to the extreme and dream the impossible. As a passionate thinker with a multilayered and expansive interest, inquiries, and convictions, Prof. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya cannot simply be labelled as ‘one of the key scholars’ who has entirely transformed the idea and intellectual meaning of the early medieval period of the Indian subcontinent. He is not only the pioneer in proposing the idea of ‘the third urbanisation’ or the extraordinary thinker who has problematised the concepts of periodisations in Indian history in a critical way. He cannot merely be recognised as ‘an inspiring and outstanding scholar’ who has dealt quite exceptionally with (rural) settlements based upon epigraphic sources. Nor can his works, contributions, and interpretive rigours simply be justified and reified as extraordinary works of ‘a great historian’ or of ‘an inspiring scholar’ dealing with rural settlements based upon epigraphic sources. These identities are, of course, true. His scholarly works, nevertheless, represent his varied

A Dedicatory Note  xxvii focus and changing processes of intellectual engagement with the precolonial pasts and their narratological and hermeneutic aspects. His methods of interrogation by digging deep into concepts may unsettle someone from their certainties about the way past can be studied, narrated in a linguistic frame and established as the normalised and accepted knowledge. He has questioned the singularity, normalcy, or indispensable status of specific notions. He asks us to get involved with the manner in which a concept – such as ‘Bhāratvarṣa’, ‘deśa’, ‘urban’, ‘tradition’, ‘forest’, ‘otherness’ – were transformed and refashioned through complex and, often, non-causal processes in both normative ideas and lived experiences. These processes, probably, had their trajectories, propensities, politics, and powers shaped by many intersectional, trans-regional, and overlapping phenomena. Simultaneously, the processes and the structural conditions shaped the agency and the ideas through time. Unlike causal and empirically corroborated narratology of dominating history, he has shown the courage with the unparallel eloquence, mastery, and subtlety to present his arguments, engaging in debates and drawing open-ended yet polemically strong propositions. For instance, an archaeologist can easily be fascinated by his problematisation of urbanism in the context of Bengal and India (Chattopadhyaya 2003b; 2003c), and a social anthropologist would be deeply influenced by his elucidation of ‘otherness’ (Chattopadhyaya 2003a; 2018). His scholarship is, indeed, profoundly influential with a predictable impact on the ways changes in the fields of pre-modern historiography and history writing in South Asia have taken place. Considering the entanglement of history and archaeology as disciplinary traditions in South Asia, his propositions and insights have been invaluable for the period of the domain of ‘historical archaeology’ or the ways archaeology is defined in relation to history in the Indian subcontinent. Unlike many other historians (and archaeologists), his engagement with the discipline of archaeology has been more conceptual and rigorous without reducing a discipline to perform a supplementary role of supplying empirical data for the validation of historical narratives. Apart from these rare and extraordinary aspects, the scholarship and contribution of Prof. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, which are pioneering and indicators of paradigmatic shifts, we also inhabit the spirit of scepticism and conceptual critique he has introduced into the tradition of pre-modern historical writing. The relevance and significance of Prof. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya in the archaeological studies of various regions and for historical archaeology can be highlighted from various critical aspects. One cannot but be provoked by and troubled with his interpretive methodology which is, perhaps, very rare in South Asian historiography. His modalities of engagement are shaped and refashioned by a conceptual and reflexive approach where he asks for sincere attention to the concepts which are accepted as foundational as well as essential. He attracts us to the differential, heterogeneous, and contingent contexts of time and space, of texts and objects, and of normative and the actual. Despite his prolific

xxviii A Dedicatory Note and heterogenous conceptual engagement with many ideas, categories, and epistemes in the historical discourses, an archaeologist or a social scientist would be troubled by the hermeneutic approaches he follows and by the narratology he constructs and deconstructs in the way of interrogation and arguments. The trouble of engaging with his discursive enterprises always brings merit to an intimate reader. A person, belonging to any discipline, may introspect and self-reflect on the foundations and essences of her/his interpretive acts and subjective conditions. The trouble is a quality for pursuing the act of thinking and writing. We love to be troubled by his questions which shatters the basis on which we stand and rejoice about the pasts. We feel deeply connected not only to his interpretations and propositions but also to the ways he teases out the things from disparate yet intertwined contexts and sources. Professor Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya’s works, chronologically as well as spatially and thematically, are wide ranging. The point was effectively driven home by the editor of a popular volume on early medieval India in which she expressed her difficulty in making a choice of what to include from Chattopadhyaya’s contributions for the envisaged volume. The observation ‘Chattopadhyaya’s prolific and thought-provoking writings could easily have found their way into any or all of the sections of this book’ briefly but clearly sums up the breadth and significance of his writings on the period (Singh 2011, p. 30). His engagement with the early historical times has been equally productive as can be easily gleaned in his Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historiographical Issues (2003). However, the shift in the discursive ground that his writings on early medieval India have entailed, and the impact they have had on research in the area since the mid-1990s have been remarkable. Together with Hermann Kulke, who has been asking similar questions about the said timeframe, his works ensured that our understanding of early medieval Indian history did not continue to remain the same. Admittedly, Aspects of Rural Settlements and Rural Society in Early Medieval India (1990) preceded the publication of The Making of Early Medieval India (1994) with an addition of an illuminating introduction to the second edition (2012). However, it is the latter anthology which generated excitement, debate, and a huge following, including those who were ill at ease with the incumbent dominant framework for the period. The idea of Indian Feudalism by then had inspired and influenced at least two generations of young minds, but those who moved to the regions and carried out serious work were soon at discomfort with some of the ideas associated with the Indian feudalism paradigm. This was true of both Chattopadhyaya and Kulke, who worked on Rajasthan and Odisha, respectively, in the course of the early seventies. The Making of Early Medieval India is a combination of articles of regional studies focused on Rajasthan and essays with trans-regional or pan-Indian characters. What binds these articles together is the common concern to understanding and explaining

A Dedicatory Note  xxix the simultaneous operation of multiple processes of change in the early medieval period. It beautifully illustrates how changes at the regional and trans-regional contexts were both shaping and getting shaped by each other. Without being polemical, the Introduction suitably reviews the entrenched historiography, including its explanation of the passage from the early historical to the early medieval. The location of the transition in a crisis is seen to be empirically and conceptually incongruous. The emergence of regional agrarian structures as a consequence of agrarian expansion, the horizontal spread of state-societies through the continued process of local state formation, the peasantisation of tribes and consequent caste formation with reference to the varna schema, and integration of local cults are seen to have led to the transition towards the early medieval, and in the long-term, the formation of regional identities. The transition in this perspective is viewed as deriving from acceleration and expansion of the early historical processes of change. Besides, the epicentric view of the early Indian history makes way for multiple interacting nodes spread over different regions, which in terms of their ingredients and chronology of formation were not necessarily similar. The complexities and complementarities of the societal processes of change are captured in their desired details and not brushed under the carpet. To elaborate, while state formation was dependent on agrarian expansion and the spread of rural settlements, the visible manifestation of state society led to growing complexity across rural societies. Similarly, markets, merchants, traders, and towns attract his attention. The ‘third urbanisation’ that he envisages is said to have registered its beginnings in the village fairs or haṭṭas, which were followed by māṇḍapikas or local exchange centres catering to a group of settlements. Some of them, owing to their spatial location or as centres of resource mobilisation, became the focus of political interest, which stimulated them to change through time and move on to transform into towns. Together with the works of V. K. Jain (1990) and R. N. Nandi (2000, pp. 61–122) on Western India and South India, especially Karnataka, Chattopadhyaya’s formulation has serious implications for the idea of ‘urban revolution’ and related changes during the Delhi sultanate. It emerges that these early medieval developments through regional societies were a kind of a prelude to the processes of change in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries CE. If some of these ideas tend to alter our cherished notions that is but natural, largely because during the last three decades historians’ engagement with the regions has brought to the fore empirically valid sound theoretical frameworks which were not available earlier. Rural settlements and rural society were mostly subsumed under general discussions of society and economy within the earlier dominant historiography. For instance, all grants were usually seen to invariably comprise villages or grāmas, or society in the countryside was envisaged to have been in conformity with the Dharmaśastra prescribed categories. Chattopadhyaya moved on to argue that the donated rural settlements as well as those

xxx A Dedicatory Note appearing as part of the boundary markers of such settlements were typologically varied and ranged from grāmas and pallīs (hamlets) to paṭakas (parts of settlements), paḍās (flimsy settlements), and goshas (herders settlements). Society was also captured in all its complexity and included the middle peasants and the well-to-do peasants in Bengal and in Karnataka, for instance. These social segments taken together with the grades of merchants and artisanal sections provided an altogether different picture of the early medieval societies. They were gradually, but constantly, emerging as dynamic and mobile through the historical regions of South Asia. Though developments across regions were being perceived as being comparable, their ingredients, it is said, were not always similar. The diverse morphology of villages across regions is also driven home with reference to the water resources recorded in the land grant documents. Whereas ponds are easily found in the context of Bengal, step-wells, and tanks are the usual boundary markers of donated spaces in Rajasthan and south Karnataka, respectively. The story of the inherent diversity in South Asian history is best manifested in Chattopadhyaya’s The Concept of Bharatavarsha and Other Essays (2017). It vividly depicts the heterogeneity of the subcontinent. The diversities of customs, traditions, languages, cultural traits, and religious beliefs within and between regions are available in early Indian texts. The differences between the aryas and mlecchas, town and countryside, settled habitat (janapada/kṣetra), and the wilderness (vana/araṇya) further enhanced it. However, the continued interactions, adaptations, and changes through time led to the forging of a common pool of ideas, symbols, rituals, and festivals transcending regional boundaries, as also the desire to provide some order to the bewildering variety helped in the shaping of what may be termed as a harmonious plurality. The ‘imitable models’ as represented by Buddhism and its institutions in early historical times and Brahmanical ideology and its accompaniments later provided the necessary connectivity across spaces and cultures. This brief sketch about Prof. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya’s discursive creations and interpretive focus and methods cannot do any sort of justification for the extensive and expansive knowledge domain in which he has weaved together with troubling scepticism and persistent spirit of questioning. This trouble may often unsettle a person and force her/him to raise questions and engage in conceptual and methodological terms about different and contingent perspectives and layers. His discourses are unheralded in the sense that the discomfort of an unsettled state can offer two options for the readers to pick from. The easier one is to submit to the dominating and subscribe to the institutionally and intellectually fashionable. The difficult one is the choice to make a journey on a steep path with many ups and downs by intense intellectual and passionate reflexive arguments. The scepticism as one of his intellectual essence seems intimate to us. This volume is a humble offering to his intellectually, emotionally, and academically rigorous and

A Dedicatory Note  xxxi sceptic journey as well as an acknowledgement of our debt to his methodological and conceptual ways of problematising and interrogating sources and concepts. We were cherishing the dream of offering this volume to him in person. We cannot fulfil our dream anymore, as he has departed from this world after a prolonged illness. He will inhabit our emotional as well as intellectual engagement with the past from the present with all its multiplicities, incongruences, and plurality. By paying this tribute to the memory of this colossal thinker, passionate seeker and down-to-earth beautiful mind, we will keep up with his ways of living with the questions.

References Benjamin, W., (1969). Theses on the philosophy of history. In: W. Benjamin, ed. Illuminations (translated by H. Zohn). New York: Schocken Books. pp. 253–264. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1990). Aspects of rural settlements and rural society in early medieval India. Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2003a). Studying early India: archaeology, texts and historiographical issues. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2003b). Urban centres in early Bengal: archaeological perspectives. In B. D. Chattopadhyaya, ed. Studying early India: archaeology, texts and historiographical issues. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. pp. 66–102. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2003c). The city in early India: perspectives from texts. In: B. D. Chattopadhyaya, ed. Studying early India: archaeology, texts and historiographical issues. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. pp. 105–134. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2012). The making of early medieval India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2017). The concept of Bharatavarsha and other essays. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2018). Representing the other? Sanskrit sources and the Muslims. New Delhi: Primus Books. Jain, V. K., (1990). Trade and traders in Western India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Nandi, R. N., (2000). State formation, agrarian growth and social change in feudal South India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Singh, U. ed., (2011). Rethinking early medieval India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Wittgenstein, L., (1969). On certainty (edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, and translated by D. Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

1

Introduction Trouble of thinking about the archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval in Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Basin Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu Time is either portrayed as linear, as an arrow of time that heads in a teleological direction, or toward an open future, or conceived of as recurrent and cyclical. The first model envisions an irreversible form of sequential unfolding, while the second addresses the recurrence of what is fundamentally the same. Both models are insufficient, because every historical sequence contains linear as well as recurrent elements. […] I use a theoretical approach that draws on the notion of sediments of time to parse historical findings and circumvent the linear-cyclical dichotomy. Historical times consist of multiple layers that refer to each other in a reciprocal way, though without being wholly dependent upon each other …. To propose the existence of different sediments of time makes it possible to grasp different speeds of change and transformation without falling prey to the false alternative between linear or cyclical temporal processes. (Koselleck 2018, pp. 3–4, 9) To define is to repudiate some things and to endorse others. Defining what is [archaeology] is not merely an abstract intellectual exercise; it is not just what one [archaeologist] or the other scholars do. The act of defining (or redefining) [archaeology] is embedded in passionate disputes; it is connected with anxieties and satisfactions, it is affected by changing conceptions of knowledge and interest, and it is related to institutional disciplines. (modified after Asad 2011, p. 39)

Contextualising the archaeologies of the early medieval and the medieval in South Asia The objective of this introductory elucidation is to present the context, relevance, and outline of the edited volume at this specific historical juncture. We touch upon the historicity and conditions of archaeological practices in a region or in closely interconnected regions of the Indian subcontinent by focusing our critique of methods and practice conceptually. The chapters DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-1

2  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu in this volume attempt to include various traditions of engaging with the past with a framework of dialogue and exchange. We feel that despite the perpetual invocation of interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, the examples of incisive and critically engaging dialogues and debates are rare. The overwhelming historical narratives on ‘the early medieval’ and ‘the medieval’ as temporally distinct and processually connected categories need to be rethought and contested with the new idea and nature of data, the retrieval, interpretive, and representational procedures, and, above all, with the fresh, contextualised, and interrelated disciplinary concepts of archaeology and history. We have borrowed the phrase – the trouble of thinking – from David Scott (1999) in order to locate ourselves in the prevailing traditions of scholastic practice and debates and to represent the dilemma we experience in our intellectual and embodied engagements with the ‘pasts’ at ‘the presents’. The idea of this book was conceived in a specific contextual and intersubjective experiential historicity. The historicity is largely and dominantly constituted, shaped, and refashioned by our archaeological research in the region covered by the eastern part of Bhagirathi-Hooghly River (old flow of the Ganges River) and a small segment of the larger catchment of the Brahmaputra (Jamuna in Bangladesh)–Meghna River. The regions which have been addressed in this book are confined partially to the eastern part of the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) Delta and partially to the Himalayan piedmont zone. This region is now mainly under the territorial boundary of Bangladesh (which is conceived as a part of a cultural, spatial unit of Bengal before the partition of 1947) and partly under West Bengal, Assam, and Meghalaya of India. As the concept of the delta is debated and often specifies the southern part of Bangladesh and West Bengal, a more accurate spatial designation can be the ‘basin’ instead of the ‘delta’. It must be noted that any such spatial categorisation is essentially homogenising and simplifying. Considering the porosity and fluidity of pre-modern territorial boundaries at various times, various spatial units or regions/subregions of the area under the focus of this book are historically, geologically, geomorphologically, and archaeologically connected to the greater Eastern and Central Himalayan region to the north (Sikkim, Assam, Meghalaya of India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Tibetan plateau in China), Upper Ganges, Middle and Lower Ganges Plains (covered by present Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and West Bengal of India), parts of the eastern coastal zone of Odisha and beyond in India, and the eastern part of the GBM Delta and Southeast Asia (Figure 1.1). The network and connections among different regions and supra-regional scales (Figure 1.2), through land and water, cannot always be defined with mappable boundaries like modern spatial units. Neither can the interactions among various actors, both human and non-human, be reconstructed and interpreted on a spatiotemporally linear scale. Simultaneously, the spatiotemporal specificities work critically in the human activity patterns and

Introduction  3

Figure 1.1 Map of the study area with adjacent regions marked with a white dashed line. The study area and the zones within the network of archaeological sites and settlements are extended from the Himalayan mountains and the sub-Himalayan regions to the littoral zone and the Bay of Bengal to the south. The present names of the places which are mentioned in this chapter are pointed out. Major rivers and natural features to the west and the east are outlined (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Google Earth image).

the processes in the developments and changes in the patterns. Archaeology and material culture may deal with this apparent contradiction in a nondeterministic way where space and time are specific and contingent at once. Adopting universalised, essentialised, and taken-for-granted concepts and methods may result in the simplification of complexities in past conditions and processes, reification of selective standards as essential and applicable for everywhere and everything, and formulation of inferences according to the requirement of the dominant ideology, interest, and traditions at the present. This volume, with a mixture of various strands of the studies of the past in South Asia, offers a specific yet contingent context for not reaching a homogenous consensus about the concepts, methods, and practices. Rather, we must assert that this volume is a humble attempt to initiate a debate and dialogue which is demanding, necessary, and useful. Interrogation and questioning as such are, unfortunately, ignored, subverted, and silenced in dominating intellectual and academic traditions of scholarship.

4  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu

Figure 1.2 Map of the tentative locations and coverage of the major sub-regions during the early medieval/medieval period in the study area and adjacent regions. Their coverage transcended the present national boundaries. The boundaries of these sub-regions, often mentioned as the early states, were fluid and porous (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Google Earth image).

The region under investigation and interrogation in this book is characterised by archaeological concepts and practices, which, with a few exceptions, are called ‘traditional’ or have a distorted version of modalities categorised as culture historical archaeology (Trigger 2006). The field archaeological methods are enmeshed with specific scholastic traditions, which are continuation (and modifications) of the reified and reductionist lineage of colonialist and nationalist archaeological enterprises. The idea of ‘field’ distinct from ‘home’ as a constructed and imagined space to be explored, exoticised, and discovered by an essentially human character of ‘knowing the unknown’ and ‘taming the wild’ is embedded in the practice of fieldwork. It is assumed that the fundamental responsibility of an educated, aware, and enlightened individual is to know the past (and history) not only through reading but also by learning from the ‘other’. It is a foundational duty of a modern self to be addicted to the perpetual desire to know the unknown past and bring the past to the light through specific perception, understanding, and narration of the objects. A modern perception of corporeality, where fieldworkers’ masculine body is imagined to be in constant struggle

Introduction  5 with the wild and uncontrollable conditions and nature, is dominant as one of the central perceptions of the field archaeology (see Lucas 2001). These concepts and practices of colonial modernity, which were appropriated by the nationalist historians and archaeologists, render the rigorous and critically self-reflexive engagement in the field to romanticised, sensitising, and exhibitionist exercises. The ordinary living with the virtual domain of social media and interconnectivity has intensified the production and consumption of the image of the archaeology searching for the root and origin of a particular group or nation-state. The ‘early medieval’ and ‘medieval’, as temporal and historical domains, are essential for producing and circulating ‘the field’- and ‘object’-oriented practice of archaeology. Monuments, along with several types of objects, in this process, are more useful for maintaining and articulating the archaeological fieldwork and objective enterprise as a romantic, physically challenging, and authentic search for ‘truth’ about the ‘glory, progress, and achievements’ of the nation-state both at the collective (nation) and individual (archaeologist) levels. Archaeology as a discipline of colonial modernity is historically implicated in the development of history as a discipline, and various scholars have already pointed out the colonial and nationalist paradigms of pre-colonial history writing and archaeological practice (e.g., Chatterjee 1993; Cohn 1997; Gottlob 2003, 2011; Guha 2015; Guha-Thakurta 2004). With this lineage of colonial modernity and nationalist dispositions, the current state of the entwinement of the disciplines of history and archaeology is so obvious that their conceptual and methodological distinctiveness and conditions of relationship have hardly ever raised an eyebrow or been questioned (Trautman and Sinopoly 2002). The institutionalised and academic disciplines have played their part in the normalisation of the indispensable relationship status of these disciplines and pertinent concepts and practices. The first aspect of the assumed indispensability is evident in the concepts of temporality and periodisation, which are endorsed and shared in an analogous fashion by both disciplines. In many textbooks and reports, the periods, named after the ruling dynasties, are still the dominating identity of temporal frames in Bangladesh. The tripartite division of ancient, medieval, and modern, which has been questioned in historical narratives as essentialising and as a continuation of colonial disciplinary formations, is followed and reproduced as self-evident. Acts of raising questions regarding the multifaceted problems with these periodising frameworks – ruling dynasty centric or tripartite – in the institutions and discursive domains in the regions under discussion in this book are considered, on most occasions, nonsensical and scandalous. One of the key issues, after all, is the genealogy of archaeology as a subdiscipline of history in the colonial period. The formations of the disciplines like prehistory and Harappan archaeology for which archaeological concepts and methods have been developed by excluding the other historical sources such as texts have their own problems and issues. The period

6  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu identified as ‘a blurred zone’ before the assumed entrance into the domain of historical archaeology or ‘proto-history’ – the period between the Harappan archaeology and beginning of the historical archaeology (c. sixth century BCE) is, interestingly, a domain of recurring vigorous debates across the political divides regarding the oldness and nature of religious scriptures and textual sources. In that sense, textual sources invade the territory of the objects, and scholars cannot refute the intervention of texts as acts of amateurs and people without the sense of ‘rational history and historical methods’. The temporal domain is authenticated, and the authorised area of ‘historical archaeology’ is dominated by the textual (and epigraphic) sources as far as the term ‘historical’ preceding archaeology suggests. The archaeological interpretations based on field and laboratory methods are required to be substantiated and acceptable by citation of normative and prescriptive texts. For example, the settlements archaeologically identified as ‘fortified’ and ‘urban’ are often substantiated with the reference from Kautilya, even when they belong to the ‘early medieval’ period (Jahan 2018). Similarly, the trend of identifying all the walled settlements as ‘forts’ and ‘urban centres’ is an accepted practice in both history and archaeology. Two of the established urban centres of the north-western part of the undivided Bengal – Mahasthangarh and Bangarh – are analogically correlated and designated as urban centres despite the differences in archaeological context, size, and excavated remains (Sen 2017, 2012). While Mahasthangarh has an extended hinterland zone and chronometrically corrected stratigraphy, the stratigraphy of Bangarh was proposed by a dynastic chronology and reports of recent excavations do not offer any understanding of the spatial differentiation within the small walled area and between the walled area and outside (hinterland) (Goswami 1941; Panja 2002; Smith 2001). This is just one of the many examples of the way limitations of archaeological data are coincided with and concealed by references to textual and epigraphic sources. The concept of source in conventional historical discourses is required to be interrogated. There are an incredible number of debates about the concept and methods of history writing in historiography (see Gottlob 2011; Singh 2012). The idea of the archaeological sources, in the narratives of history and archaeology during the period recognised widely as the domain of ‘historical archaeology’ (c. sixth century BCE–eighteenth century CE), has hardly been addressed with a contextually informed notion of archaeological data. The question about whether the ideas and methods of treating archaeological data are required to be contextualised in reference to regional or sub-regional context or not is also undermined in the established narratives. Periodisations, of course, have their inherent essentialisation with an epistemic tradition of universalisation and reduction. We must acknowledge that the temporal categorisations have vigorously been debated in historical discourses in the context of the Indian subcontinent (Chattopadhyaya 2012).

Introduction  7 The discontent and disagreements are conspicuous in no other temporal frame than for the period what is known as the medieval or as the early medieval. Many scholars prefer to include the period from the seventh to the fifteenth century CE as medieval, while others prefer categories such as the early medieval, medieval, and late medieval (Wedemeyer 2013, especially Figure 2.1; Chattopadhyaya 2012; Singh 2012). Most of the scholars, with an overt inclination to history as a discipline and with a precursory and selective treatment of archaeological data, have presented their justifications for arguing for their proposed periodising framework. The perception and incorporation of archaeological data are often decontextualised, and they are selected as useful and empirical support for their respective arguments and interpretive frameworks. We do not simply claim that the responsibility of the use of archaeological data for one’s own interpretive benefit lies only with the historians or the scholars leaning more towards the textual sources. We argue that the conceptual and methodological questions inherent to archaeological data are hardly matters of concern in the scholastic traditions of both history and archaeology. The historicity of the inseparability of these disciplines in modern South Asia has conditioned the ‘problem spaces’ (Scott 1999) from which it is not normal to raise difficult and uncomfortable questions regarding the established and normative status of entwinement. These questions may threaten to, after all, unsettle the established and institutionalised status of archaeology, especially of historical periods, as a sub-discipline of history and a mere supplier of empirical facts. We are not interested in asserting a superior position of archaeology in the disciplinary hierarchy as more objective, factual, and authoritative. Rather, we point out the inequality in the treatment of the intricacy of the discipline-specific concepts and methods in the relationship of both of these disciplines. Our intention to unsettle the established disciplinary status quo is not aimed at emphasising one disciplinary tradition at the expense of trivialising another. In the traditions of discursive and non-discursive domains, archaeology must be treated as a discipline which has historically been associated with distinctively different theoretical and methodological concerns. Even when interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary methodologies are promoted and asserted, there is a notable silence regarding the archaeological theories and methods in South Asia. Perhaps, scholars belonging to both professions share the responsibility in different ways. Lucas (2004) and Thomas (2004) have shown that archaeology as a modern disciplinary tradition or as various disciplinary traditions was formed in the nineteenth century CE by claiming the objectivity and superiority of empirical and value-neutral data instead of normative and fundamentally scriptural sources. Under the colonial knowledge regimes, archaeology, moreover, became a reliable and objective fact-developing practice to gather, organise, classify, preserve, and exhibit data (‘objects’) about non-western societies, cultures, and religions (Jones 1997). Objects were transformed into artefacts and an authentic basis for the construction of the binaries, such as the

8  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu civilised and the primitive, the rational and the emotional, and the superior and the inferior. Cohn (1997), Guha-Thakurka (2004), and Guha (2015) have emphatically shown the greater role of the objects in the civilisational mission of British colonialists and imperialists in the Indian subcontinent. The idea of objective and positivist disciplinary traditions of archaeology was incorporated by historians and archaeologists belonging to various ideological and political orientations and led to the invocation of identarian supremacy in the Indian subcontinent and beyond (see Guha 2015; Trigger 2006). Curiously, colonial and nationalist scholars, in many cases, have shared the same conceptual universe in which objects were transformed into artefacts dissociated from and associated with the context according to the dominant and institutionalised desires and agenda. The concept and aspiration for a ‘long and continuous tradition’ (see Guha 2015) implicated with the popular nationalistic discourse of getting back to the root or of an arduous search for the origin are foundational for any critical engagement with the archaeology of the timeframes which are the subject of the study here. In lieu of the colonial tripartite division of temporality of the colonised Indian subcontinent alternative timeframes, such as early medieval, late medieval, and early historic, were proposed and propagated. The tripartite categories of time as ancient, medieval, and modern, despite vigorous debates and interrogation, are surviving in academic institutions and discursive domains. The actors of history writing are seemingly comfortable with inhabiting these contradictory temporalities. The early medieval and the medieval, as equally acceptable timeframes, cohabit with the other categories with all the incoherence as well as equivalences.

The indispensable yet the inadequate: Periodisation, spatial variabilities, and material culture In the pretext of the conditions and circumstances interpreted in the section above, we want to engage with the archaeology of ‘early medieval’ and ‘medieval’ regions in this book. These regions, in several ways, were and are still at the margin of the archaeological practices, shaped and refashioned in reference to the central part of the Ganges–Jamuna Plain in the northern and central parts of the Indian subcontinent. Most of the standards of periodisation, nature of data, and settlements are influenced by and modified in comparison to those in the central and northern regions. Archaeological concepts and narratives in the margin have developed and reconfigured as a mirror image or by looking for the difference in the categories and about these central spaces, even when specific regional identities and histories are desired and enumerated. The problems of the archaeology of the early medieval period in South Asia, as have been discussed brilliantly by Hawkes (2014a, 2014b) regarding the methodological and conceptual issues in archaeology, therefore, are required to be contextualised. The point of departure from the convincing arguments by Hawkes is the very

Introduction  9 fact that the practice of archaeology, in Bangladesh and adjoining areas in India under inspection, unlike many other parts of South Asia, is dominated by data from the historical periods. Except for a few sites from the ‘early historic’ period, the sites and material culture about which archaeological narratives are constructed and contested in Bangladesh belong to the early medieval and medieval periods. The establishment of regional polities in the eighth century CE in different sub-regions and the coming of Turks-Afghans epitomised by the conquest of the Sena Kingdom by Muhammad Bakhtiyār Khalji in 1205 CE are marked as the watershed moments for the beginning of the ‘early medieval’ and the ‘medieval period’, respectively. The period after the disintegration of the ‘Gupta empire’ (or disintegration of the imagined kingdom of Śaśāṅka in around the mid-seventh century CE) and the beginning of the formation of regional power by the Pālas is commonly known as the period of mātsyanyāya even though the widely accepted categorisation has its own problem of sources and spatial generalisations, and there is no substantive archaeological data (Pal 2008). The idea of a chaotic society in the absence of centralised political authority has, probably, been normalised for the entire region to justify the centralised modern political system by invoking the past. Even though there is an absence of stratigraphically informed archaeological data, the available data from different regions manifest differential political trajectories during and before this period. The entire framework is parallel to the idea of Bengal (Bangladesh and West Bengal, India), which is often perceived as a fixed and unchangeable territorial category with a distinctive cultural and behavioural pattern. Usually, the formation of this cultural identity is pushed back to the early medieval period despite the lacuna of both epigraphic and archaeological data. The disagreements about the temporal limit – the beginning and the end – of the medieval and the early medieval are yet to be resolved. In several recent textbooks on early Indian history, different periodising categories can be found (Chakravarti 2016; Singh 2009). The problem with the delimitation of the beginning and the end of the medieval and the early medieval is perhaps non-negotiable in the sense that it is impossible to agree upon the sets of standards on a pan-Indian (or pan-South Asian) scale (see Chattopadhyaya 2012; Sahu 2018). The events and trajectories of processes in different regions of peninsular India are different in many ways than the northern or western part of India. The impossibility of resolving the disagreements is exacerbated in the region popularly categorised as ‘Eastern India’. The ‘medieval’ in Odisha, for example, may not coincide with the ‘medieval’ in Bihar and Jharkhand in India and Bangladesh. There are disparities and disconnections between the standards and concepts of periodisation between ‘Eastern India’ and ‘North-eastern India’. Even in a spatial category like North-east India, it becomes explicitly homogenising considering the internal variations and heterogeneity of the sub-Himalayan regions.

10  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu One of the fundamental reasons for the reluctance to negotiate with this universalisation and essentialisation is, probably, the implicit articulations of the idea of religion, nation/regional identity, and language under the rubric of culture and nationality. Objects from the disparate spatiotemporal domains, hastily and spuriously identified as archaeological, are selected to justify and normalise the periodising paradigms. For the regions to the eastern and north-eastern parts of the subcontinent, for example, the concept of Sanskritisation and Brahmanisation, notions of the last stronghold of Tantric Buddhism and its decline as well as the coming of the Turks-Afghans are the dominant watersheds of the temporal divides. These divides are not sustainable without the support of the reductionist, decontextualised, and overwhelming use of monuments, sculptures, coins, and epigraphic sources. Irrespective of the ideological camps, a common and shared framework for interpretation and polemics has long been the dominating episteme in historical and archaeological disciplines. Interestingly, the attempts to engage with social anthropology, disciplines of earth sciences, and critical theory have been rare and, in a few cases, are too sketchy. A new look at the earlier sources, however, may well question established ones and propose different narratives. Based upon epigraphic sources, for example, Furui (2020) has shown that the early medieval had more complexities and heterogeneity than is assumed in different parts of Bengal. His studies, along with a few others, indicate that rethinking and reinterpretation of the epigraphic or textual sources may provide reliable evidence to challenge and question the accepted notions on the early medieval and the medieval (Knutson 2014; Pal 2008). The elucidation above clearly points out that we are not arguing for or against any set of standards or traits of specific temporal categories. Neither are we suggesting that the concepts and methods of interpreting the historical conditions and processes are unacceptable. There are different ways of interpreting the processes, and some are more accurate than others in terms of their modality to address the complexities of the past. Many arguments regarding the social, economic, and religious processes based upon the textual and epigraphic sources may not have any alternative, but the interpretations can well be corroborated, verified, extended, and falsified based upon the incorporation of interpretation under an archaeologically informed epistemological framework. What we want to point out are the reification and reduction of the concepts and methods of the discipline of archaeology in the dominating perceptions and practices as a branch or source of the discipline of history. ‘The object-oriented approach’ as a dominating mode of practice has been refashioned by the archaeology of this specific variety under the jurisdiction of history writing. Archaeology has been relegated to collect, document, preserve, and display objects and monuments which are found important enough for the scholastic traditions of history writing. Archaeology of the historical periods vividly manifests such dominating trends.

Introduction  11 We may cite, for example, the ceramic types, such as Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) or Glazed Wares, which are widely accepted as ‘trademark’ types representing the transition from one period to another (and one process to another). These specific ceramic types and other types of artefacts, such as stone images or metallic currency, are also identified as a marker of ‘cultural change’ where the change (and continuity) is determined within a predominantly spurious diffusionist framework. Diffusionism has long been criticised and questioned as essentially connected to the problematic Tylorian definition (see, for example, Kuklick 1993) of ‘culture’ and unequal knowledge construction about the ‘other’ for the projects of colonial modernity. The explanations of change and continuity by artefacts representing specific ‘archaeological culture’ are founded upon a linear, universalist, and simplified assumption, which ignore the complex relations of power, agency, and authority and heterogeneity of spatiotemporality among various traditions in the past. These artefact types, moreover, are often recognised as the representation of specific regional, religious, behavioural, and developmental traits. The NBPW, for instance, is associated with the second urbanisation or stone images of discrete stylistic categories that are associated with specific religious traditions or dynasties. In a similar manner, the archaeological assemblage or a site is designated to a religious tradition in reference to those sculptural materials. They are also regarded, implicitly, as representing distinct ethnic groups and cultures – their diffusion, migration, change, and continuity. In most of the cases, these types are not corroborated with the stratigraphic contexts, and their spatiotemporal variabilities are not considered in terms of quantitative and qualitative changes. Despite being the largest proportion of the entire assemblage from a period or site, the stratigraphically associated and contemporary common wares are not collated with such ceramic trademarks. Reuse and reconfiguration of an archaeological place, both horizontally and vertically, through time may represent the change from a religious edifice to a non-religious edifice, from a structure belonging from one religious tradition to another. The stone image may easily be appropriated and reused by the later traditions. A place, moreover, is not only determined solely by the identity of religious traditions with their structural remains. Multiple structures belonging to two or more traditions may exist together, both vertically and horizontally in space. A settlement, which is archaeologically detectable only through the structural remains and artefacts used for ritualistic purposes, could be characterised by common habitational remains which are not perished and obliterated. The changes of the artefacts in their raw materials, fabric, reuse, or occurrence in anthropogenically and naturally modified deposits (or cuts) are hardly recorded during excavation. Surface collection of ceramic assemblages, which includes these types as well as other later or earlier types of common wares, is uncritically dated to a preferred timeframe without any consideration of formation processes or the principles of terminus post

12  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu quem and terminus ante quem. In the disciplinary traditions of archaeology, there are many examples of a similar pattern of the use of specific artefacts belonging to the domain of ‘early historic’, ‘early medieval’ or ‘medieval’ and ‘Gupta’, ‘Post-Gupta’, ‘Pāla’, ‘Sena’, or ‘Sultanate’ period in these regions. The temporal changes may only be discerned by careful and cautious consideration of the contexts. It must be mentioned that established terminologies of artefact type such as NBPW are also problematic even though NBPW is a misnomer (as this ceramic type is not essentially black or polished and neither are they confined only to the northern part of the Indian subcontinent). Lefrancq has proposed the term ‘Fine Black Slipped Ware’ in lieu of NBPW for a similar type of ceramic from Mahasthangarh of Bangladesh (Lefrancq 2016). We may cite recent attempts to construct a stratigraphically informed ceramic index from two excavated sites – Balupur and Mahasthangarh – for the early medieval and the medieval periods (Panja, Nag, and Bandopadhyay 2015; Lefrancq 2014–15). Another interesting domain is the art historical and iconographic tradition of scholarship that is accepted as an essential part or aspect of the disciplinary territory of history and archaeology. Leaving aside the problematic identification of sculptures or idols and the artistic traditions with the identity of the ruling dynasties (e.g., Gupta, Pāla, or Sena), the more impending problem is the disregard for the context in which these objects associated with the religious rituals are found. The difference between ‘proveniences’ and ‘provenance’ is hardly recognised, and any ‘find-spot’ is designated and dated to the ruler-centric artistic (and ritualistic) category of objects in a straightforward manner. Again, the history of the reuse, abandonment, and contexts of recovery, along with other associated artefacts, is completely ignored. Similar scholastic traditions have become dominant for the epigraphic sources (e.g., copper plate inscriptions, stone inscriptions, image inscriptions, seal/sealings, coins, etc.). The proposition of any rethinking of the concepts and methods must question the ways in which archaeology has been treated, defined, and shaped in the processes of the selection of objects, and sites, and their archaeological analyses. The conditions of these practices can be identified as the manifestations of inequality in the relationship between or among two or more disciplines. The assumption that archaeology, dissociated from its conceptual and methodological history, can only act as a source for history writing needs to be interrogated. The responsibility of archaeology has been essentialised and reduced to ‘reconstruction of history’. Leaving aside the epistemological improbability of any reconstruction of time and space, the colonial and nationalist fixing of this role of archaeology has perhaps been beneficial for the scholars – archaeologists, historians, epigraphers, art historians, experts on old languages and texts, and others. We may call for interrogation and questioning of the established paradigms. We must remember that questions can be raised about the concepts and methods by which the nature of identity or society or the process of economy

Introduction  13 and culture is interpreted. It is important to investigate the conditions from which a particular set of questions are formulated, raised, and spoken about, and others are dismissed as irrelevant, insignificant, and scandalous. Even if the questions are raised from the ‘problem space’ (Scott 1999), within the interplay of power and subjectivity, they can selectively be kept outside the process of listening. The processes of the development of intellectual and discursive traditions in history and archaeology need to be interrogated carefully to understand the way they have internalised and excluded the engagements with internal and external disputes, disciplinary habits, propensities, and dispositions. Most importantly, as Asad (2015, pp. 166–167) argues: Empiricist theories of knowledge assert the centrality of sensory experience and evidence, but in doing so they ignore the prior conceptualization carried by tradition. My sensory experience is incommensurable with yours. It is only through language (integral to a shared form of life), and the conceptualization that language makes possible, that we can develop argument and knowledge as collective processes. Critique is central to a living tradition; it is essential to how its followers assess the relevance of the past for the present, and the present for the future. It is also essential for understanding the nature of circumstance and therefore the possibility of changing elements of circumstances that are changeable. We contend that the periodisation, as it is defined and interpreted in archaeological surveying and excavation, is completely different than the ways the boundary between two periods is drawn. Despite the typology of artefacts which is used in the dominant mode of periodisation, the categorisation of time (and space) based upon specific types of artefacts has its own limitations. One of the reliable means is to avoid the inherent problems of typology and the dominant notion of archaeological culture intertwined with the classification of type (as equivalent to diffusionist-evolutionist/functionalist ideas of culture) and to verify and correlate the temporally restricted or overlapping types/categories on the basis of stratigraphy and radiometric dating. Periodisation in the interpretation of archaeological stratigraphy relies on the construction of physical relationships among various excavation contexts and interfaces in the method proposed by Edward Harris (1989). The Wheeler-Kenyon system of stratigraphy is intimately related to the culturehistorical archaeology and various assumptions of periodisation with trademark artefacts. This method of archaeological excavation is restricted to the vertical organisation and recognition of specific archaeological culture (e.g., NBPW Culture and BRW Culture) or distinct dynasty-centric timeframes. Lucas (2001) has convincingly argued about the relation of concept and methods of fieldwork with the broader conditions of the social and the political and on the structures of inter-subjectivity.

14  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu Interestingly, even the Wheeler–Kenyon system has been refashioned to fit the conditions, dispositions, and context in South Asia. In the regions which are the subject focus of this volume, the dominating method of the Wheeler–Kenyon system has been refashioned into a description of layers (stratification) of an index section or several sections of a large site and ascribing the dates of the layers based on the ‘trademark’ and datable artefacts from them. In the dominant trend, the published reports show no understanding of the formation processes and reuse and, even, the basic rules of terminus post quem and terminus ante quem. Typological dates are taken for granted as the dates of the layers from which specific types are recovered. Little attention is paid to the other types of material culture from the same layer. The monumental remains, targeted as the most critical features to be exposed, are correlated to the layers (of one or a few sections) without considering the events and processes of transformation of the monumental remains and deposits. The perpetual reuse of a monumental site or a site with many monumental remains is often not considered. Hence, the changes in the temporality of the deposits with a particular type of trademark artefacts are not recognised. Most importantly, the periodisations based upon a deep understanding of the context, formation processes, patterns of reuse and abandonment, and heterogeneity of artefact assemblages do not necessarily coincide with the dynasty-based temporal categories. They may not also corroborate the periodisation based upon the interpretation of events and processes through textual, epigraphic, art historical, and numismatic sources. For example, the development of distinct sub-regions, integrative state formations and development of regional identities, and other trends which are identified as the beginning of the early medieval period (Chattopadhyaya 2012; Sahu 2018) may not be attested by the contextually informed understanding of an assemblage from a site or settlement. This is not to claim that material cultures are complete in themselves and the temporal variations interpreted by correlating stratigraphy and material culture with the aid of radiometric dates are the authoritative and factual ones. The engagement with material culture or artefacts in accepted modalities and norms of debates, however, ought to be more sensitive to the archaeology(ies) as an independent yet connected, both historically and theoretically, discipline and practice. Any detailed excavation report elaborating upon these conceptual and methodological aspects may manifest the vulnerability of established narratives and the limitations of the treatment of objects in the production of historical narratives. The stylistic and typological chronology and interpretations must, therefore, be questioned and tested as a continuous process. The archaeological methods and material culture, simultaneously, need to be verified in reference to the critically informed and ingenuine scholastic narratives in history or art history. It is a mutual and reciprocal process of introspection and corrections, in ideas and practice, in debates and their conditions, about the standards by which the questions

Introduction  15 are raised, authenticated, or vindicated. This book is a humble call for questioning, dialogue, and arguments among various disciplinary, conceptual, and methodological approaches without any prior assumptions and conditions.

The notion(s) of archaeological data (and method) in the discourses on the early medieval and the medieval The ontological status of archaeological data has rarely been debated in the disciplinary domains of South Asian academia, with a few exceptions limited to prehistoric, ‘proto-historic’, and Harappan periods. The absence is quite conspicuous in the selection of standards and parameters of established historical periodisation and interpretations of processes. Along with texts and inscriptions, objects (and monuments) and specific perceptions of archaeological stratigraphy, when they are present in the published reports of any excavation, are mentioned (or ignored) in the discourses and debates on the early medieval and the medieval. In broad terms, the debates regarding feudalism, segmentary or integrative and processual models, and the intersecting propositions of standards of these periods, and the nature, continuity, and changes from one period to another, are heavily dependent upon selective sources. Except for a few extraordinary works (e.g., Chattopadhyaya 2018, 2012, 2003; Sahu 2013), monuments, inscriptions, and coins become the central ‘objects’ around which the notion of the archaeological in the discourses on the early medieval and the medieval hinges. We intend neither to discredit nor to render them irrelevant. These objects are immensely important as both texts and objects. Their interpretations from different theoretical and methodological perspectives attest to their contribution to the construction of space–time narratives in useful ways. Yet their significance and treatment may go beyond the ways they are perceived in different interpretive frameworks. Limitations of the interpretive framework are often part and parcel of the knowledge formation processes. We are not pointing at that epistemological aspect of interpretation. The idea of archaeological data and the changes in the idea are linked with the methodology followed and taken for granted in the disciplinary domains of both the archaeology and history of South Asia. There are several interrelated aspects of the dominance of specific idea or notion of archaeological data and their appropriation (and rejection) in discourses, reports, and published products. First, archaeological data is reified as objective and empirical, and it is partly true indeed on an ontological level. Recent works on material culture studies have shown emphatically that objects are not dissociated from the idea of the object, and the objects are transformed into artefacts or things through various discursive and non-discursive processes. We are curious, for example, about the ways in which objects have been perceived and applied in the frequent and useful debates on periodisation in history.

16  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu Second, there is a consensus on a more general level about the entwinement of archaeological data and the fieldwork. Even though the normalised use of the terms such as exploration, village-to-village survey, and field (as a destination and as the desired space for archaeological data retrieval and production) are uttered unproblematically by both historians and archaeologists, the terms have their own connotations. The disciplinary methodology, incorporating both field- and laboratory-based traditions, therefore, is intimately connected to the conceptual domain and the conditions within which the discourses and embodied practices are formed and normalised (Lucas 2001; Trigger 2006). Without serious consideration of methodology, in both field and laboratory, archaeologists and historians seem to be complacent with mere reference to survey, excavation, or laboratory techniques and enumeration of results and analyses as if they are self-evident. The sites are presented as a ‘point’ on maps to make them compatible for the analyses of specific sites belonging to a period or the distribution of specific trademark artefact types. Sen (2012) has argued for a rethinking of such approaches to archaeological surveying which is intimately related to mapping and representation. The spatial variabilities cannot be explained without plotting, mapping, and analysing the horizontal extent of archaeological features. The vertical dimensions of the archaeological places are required to be correlated, wherever it is possible, either by taking exploratory trenches or by accidental sections of the pits dug by the people during different periods of the year. Delineation of the boundaries of ‘village’ as a spatial unit in this region is subjective, and as a sampling unit, they cannot be used usefully for spatial analyses. The notion of ‘village-to-village’ surveying or exploration, therefore, is foundationally erroneous for understanding and analysing the spatial variations of places and artefacts. The spatial patterning of artefacts on the surface at a horizontal scale and beneath the surface at a vertical scale needs to be compared, correlated, and plotted to understand the nature of the formation, reuse, and spatial patterns of the places. The overt exclusion of the contextualised survey methods and reduction of surveying in the preparation of a description list of sites and artefact in a tabular format have constrained the meaning of archaeological data. Due to a lack of attention to these aspects of archaeological data, the scholars are generating several false assumptions perpetually regarding the periodisation, typology, and variabilities. For example, there is a tendency to identify any settlement of place enclosed by a mud or brick wall as a fort or as an urban centre. The walled settlements have several functional and spatial variations, and they cannot be understood and differentiated without attending to the spatial pattern of artefacts in the internal and external segments of these places/settlements. The spatiotemporal association with the adjacent places and comparison of dimensions, besides, may be useful for a broader and variable understanding. We have referred to such settlements only as an example to show the prevailing limit of interpretations which are conditioned by the methods of surveying (and excavations).

Introduction  17 Third, as far as the treatment of scientific techniques is concerned, the results are incorporated in many cases without any understanding of the limits of the techniques. The uncritical use of radiocarbon dates from different laboratories, by both historians and archaeologists, is a common problematic phenomenon. The method of dating, nature, and contexts of samples which have been dated, the methods of age calculation, and calibration are rarely consulted before the use of the radiocarbon dates in historical narratives. Spuriously, often dates derived from different techniques, laboratories, and nature (like calibrated and uncalibrated) are correlated and compared. Uncritical appropriation of radiocarbon dates is one of the many ways in which data generated by scientific techniques and analyses are accepted, compared, and analysed from disparate contexts. This dominating trend hints at the blind reverence for scientism. Fourth, often, textual sources are treated as the primary source of interpreting religious history. Even though the normative and prescriptive aspects of these texts are addressed by many scholars, the use of artefacts as empirical support for their interpretation has only complementary use. Religion and religious rituals are conceptually different yet related. Artefacts are directly associated with the rituals, and their uncritical use for interpreting or complementing the historical narratives is often simplistic. Simultaneously, non-religious artefacts may become a ritualistic one, and without attending cautiously to the archaeological contexts, it is not feasible to conflate the artefactual and the textual. For example, Brahmanical or Buddhist idols of deities can easily be found in a context which has nothing to do with religion directly. Many idols are recovered from the tanks, and they were abandoned as a part of processes at a particular moment in history. In this way, the tank cannot be designated in a religious term. There is increasing evidence of appropriation and modifications of a religious object or place by other religious activities as far as the stratigraphy of the excavated sites is concerned. It is not possible, therefore, to designate that place or object with a singular religious identity. The reuses of idols are quite common in contemporary contexts, and the biography of these idols with a history of reuse is crucial to understand. The identification of a place or settlement as Brahmanical or Buddhist based on the latest location of an idol can be misleading. The morphology of architectural remains cannot be used for delineating the religious nature of architectural remains which went through transformation and reuse. We have referred to the problems with the perception and use of archaeological data by the historical narratives with the aid of some relevant examples to show that the archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval is either simplified as a complementary exercise in historical interpretation or as simply ‘object-/monument-centric’ exercise in archaeological practice. We are not arguing for an objectivist and positivist superiority of artefacts. Scholastic critiques of the uncritically empiricist and positivist assumptions in archaeology are available (Hodder 2012, 1995; Shanks and Tilley 1993; Thomas 2000).

18  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu It is important to be cautious of the way archaeology has been perceived by both historians and archaeologists. Rather than identifying archaeology as subservient and complimentary to history, the disciplinary practices may focus independently on their respective domain and interact with their strengths and limitations. This volume is an attempt to represent archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval with various interdependent ideas and treatment of artefacts, places, and settlements. The chapters in this volume represent approaches and methods from various disciplinary and interpretive frameworks which transgress the regions and emphasise the interrelations among various regions/sub-regions. Sometimes, perhaps, it is meaningful to talk in terms of plurality – archaeologies instead of archaeology. We may do justice to the diversity and complexity of the human and non-human world and their interconnection by taking the differences in archaeologies of various regions into sincere consideration. For the readers, the chapters offer a wide spectrum of ideas about the way archaeologies can be shaped and refashioned through dialogical interaction among different disciplines, methods, and ideas.

Questions and dialogues: Organisation of the book Rather than presenting a laundry list-type summary of each chapter in this volume, we conclude this introductory chapter by briefly outlining the conceptual framework of the book. The contributions of the author(s) in this volume, moreover, represent her/his discretion in the selection of temporal frames and terminologies and interpretive frameworks for a period roughly from the sixth to the eighteenth century CE. The book is organised into four conceptually different parts. In Part 1, the chapters deal with archaeological and historical issues in South Asian and regional contexts. The focus is on the concepts and methods of dealing with the archaeological data and their interpretation. Specific case studies have exemplified the conventional as well as the alternative ways of dealing with the archaeology of early medieval and medieval periods within a broader perception of data and the contexts. Without restricting into fixed temporal categories, this part shows that the early medieval and the medieval can be used, as suggested by the narratives of different narratives, for similar and overlapping timeframes according to the context of their usage. In Part 2, the focus of the chapters is on the understanding of archaeological places and settlements perceived and interpreted through different sources and data. Epigraphic, geological, sedimentological, ethnographic, geomorphological, historical, and archaeological data – within an interdisciplinary framework or as a single framework – can be interpreted to make sense of the nature, pattern, extent, transformation, and heterogeneity of settlements. Instead of treating archaeological ‘sites’ as a unit of interpretation, the chapters in this part show that the broader and contextually varied idea of the archaeological settlement could be useful and effective for raising

Introduction  19 questions and, additionally, for dealing with the problems regarding the periodisation and sub-regional interconnection. Part 3 includes two chapters in which pottery from an archaeological place, a sub-region, and from different archaeological places of other subregions is typologically treated, categorised, and analysed with regard to the stratigraphic and non-stratigraphic contexts. Pottery is, perhaps, one of the most important yet most ignored categories of archaeological material culture. These chapters present the ways in which pottery and their analyses can be an essential aspect of archaeological understanding of the early medieval and the medieval periods. Part 4, moreover, includes three chapters dealing primarily with three different categories of artefacts which are central to the understanding of these periods and regions. Stone images, temples, and coins are dealt with within a contextually informed framework, and these chapters represent the multiple ways of looking at the early medieval and the medieval through the lens of specific categories of objects and monumental remains. We acknowledge that these chapters with their different conceptual and methodological frameworks and interpretive orientations do not represent the exceptional complexities of the archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval periods. There are many more ways to look at the numerous contexts and aspects of material culture. We, however, think that the necessity and relevance of the much-needed attention to the neglected facets of the archaeology of the early medieval and the medieval can be justified, and the complexities of engaging in such an enterprise can be emphasised by this volume. Studies in the future – we think – would represent an emphatic and passionate intimacy with the archaeologies of these timeframes or alternative timeframes from many other contextual, conceptual, and regional perspectives.

References Asad, T., (2011). Thinking about religion, belief, and politics. In: R. Orsi, ed. The Cambridge companion to religious studies (Cambridge companion to religion). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 36–57. Asad, T., (2015). Thinking about tradition, religion, and politics in Egypt today. Critical Inquiry. 42, 166–214. Chakravarti, R., (2016). Exploring early India up to AD 1300. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Primus Books. Chatterjee, P., (1993). The nation and its fragments: colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2003). Studying early India: archaeology, texts and historical issues. Hyderabad: Permanent Black. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2012). The making of early medieval India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2018). Aspects of rural settlements and rural society in early medieval India. New Delhi: Primus Books.

20  Swadhin Sen, Supriya Varma, and Bhairabi Prasad Sahu Cohn, B. S., (1997). Colonialism and its forms of knowledge: the British in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Furui, R., (2020). Land and society in early South Asia: Eastern India 400–1250 AD. London: Routledge. Goswami, K. G., (1941). Excavations at Bangarh: 1938–41 (Asutosh Museum Memoir no. 1). Calcutta: Calcutta University Press. Gottlob, M., (2003). Historical thinking in South Asia: a handbook of sources from colonial times to the present. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Gottlob, M., (2011). History and politics in post-colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Guha, S., (2015). Artefacts of history: archaeology, historiography and Indian pasts. New Delhi: SAGE India. Guha-Thakurta, T., (2004). Monuments, objects, histories: institutions of art in colonial and post-colonial India. New York: Columbia University Press. Harris, E. C., (1989). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hawkes, J., (2014a). Chronological sequence and the problem of early medieval settlement in India. Puratattva. 44, 208–228. Hawkes, J., (2014b). Finding the early medieval in South Asian archaeology. Asian Perspectives. 53(1), 53–96. Hodder, I., (1995). Theory and practice in archaeology. London: Routledge. Hodder, I., (2012). Entangled: an archaeology of relationship between humans and things. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Jahan, S. H., (2018). Bhitargarh. In: A. M. Chowdhury and R. Chakravarti, eds. History of Bangladesh: early Bengal in regional perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 144–166. Jones, S., (1997). The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present. London: Routledge. Koselleck, R., (2018). Sediments of time: on possible histories (translated and edited by S. Franzel and S.-L. Hoffmann). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Knutson, J. R., (2014). Into the twilight of Sanskrit court poetry: the Sena salon of Bengal and beyond. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kuklick, H., (1993). The savage within: the social history of British anthropology, 1885–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefrancq, C., (2014–15). Etude de la céramique du secteur « Mazar » sur le site de Mahasthangarh au Bangladesh (4ème siècle avant notre ère – 13ème siècle de notre ère). Un nouveau regard sur les potiers de l’ancien Bengale. Ph.D. thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles. Lefrancq, C., (2016). Northern Black Polished Ware versus Fine Black Slipped Ware: towards a new designation for ‘NBPW of the second generation’ in Bengal. Puravritta. 1, 1–16. Lucas, G., (2001). Critical approached to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice. New York: Routledge. Lucas, G., (2004). Modern disturbances: on the ambiguities of archaeology. Modernism/modernity. 11(1), 109–120. Pal, S., (2008). Mātsyanyāya of Khalimpur inscription: revisiting its geo-historical significance. Journal of the Asiatic Society. L(2), 21–36.

Introduction  21 Panja, S., (2002). Understanding early medieval settlements in North Bengal. In: G. Sengupta and S. Panja, eds. Archaeology of Eastern India: new perspectives. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India. pp. 225–276. Panja, S., Nag, A. K. and Bandopadhyay, S., (2015). Living with floods: archaeology of a settlement in the Lower Ganga Plains, c. 600–1800 CE. New Delhi: Primus Books. Sahu, B. P., (2013). The changing gaze: regions and the constructions of early India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sahu, B. P., (2018). Another transition debate? charting the movement towards the early medieval and out of it. In: R. Sheshan and S. Kumbhijkar, eds. Re-searching transitions in Indian history. London: Routledge. pp. 66–85. Scott, D., (1999). Refashioning futures: criticism after postcoloniality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Scott, D., (2006) The trouble of thinking: an interview with Talal Asad. In: D. Scott and C. Hirschkind, eds. Powers of the secular modern: Talal Asad and his interlocutors. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. pp. 243–332. Sen, S., (2012). Towards an archaeological examination of the southern part of the present Dinajpur District, Bangladesh: recognition, recording and interpretation of archaeological and historical (pre-13th century) data with a geoarchaeological understanding. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. Sen, S., (2017). Landscape contexts of the early medieval settlements in Varendri/ Gauda: an outline on the basis of total surveying and excavation in DinajpurJoypurhat Districts, Bangladesh. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 8, 59–109. Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., (1993). Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Singh, U., (2009). A history of ancient and early medieval India: from the stone age to the 12th century. New Delhi: Pearson. Singh, U., (2012). Rethinking early medieval India: a reader. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. L., (2001). The archaeological hinterlands of Mahasthangarh: observations and potential for future research. In: M. S. Alam and J.-F. Salles, eds. FranceBangladesh joint venture excavations at Mahasthangarh: first interim report 1993–1999. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Mission Française de coopération archéologique au Bangladesh, Maison de l’Orient MéditerranéenJean Pouilloux, Lyon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France. pp. 61–73. Thomas, J. ed., (2000). Interpretive archaeology: a reader. London: Leicester University Press. Thomas, J., (2004). Archaeology and modernity. London: Routledge. Trautman, T. R. and Sinopoli, C. M., (2002). In the beginning was the word: excavating the relations between history and archaeology in South Asia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 45(4), 492–523. Trigger, B. G., (2006). A history of archaeological thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wedemeyer, C. K., (2013). Making sense of Tantric Buddhism: history, semiology, and transgression in the Indian traditions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Part 1

Conceptual, methodological, and spatiotemporal domains of archaeology



2

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology Resetting field methods and practices Supriya Varma

Introduction In South Asia, archaeological research has largely focused on the ancient period, which is generally considered to end around 500 CE. Later periods have not been completely neglected, as can be seen in the archaeological studies of different aspects of the imperial capital of Vijayanagara (fourteenth– seventeenth centuries CE), the hinterland/metropolitan region around this city (for instance, Brubaker 2015; Davison-Jenkins 1997; Morrison 2000; Morrison 2009; Sinopoli 1993; Sinopoli and Morrison 2007), as well as Velha Goa during Portuguese colonial occupation (1510–1843 CE) (Wilson 2015). Archaeologically, however, what remains under-researched is the intervening period from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries CE, which is the focus of this chapter. A conversation on locating the ‘early’ medieval in South Asian archaeology has finally begun (Kennet 2004, 2013; Hawkes 2014a, 2014b, 2014–15; Panja 2018; Sanyal 2013; Sen 2017), and this chapter attempts to add to this ongoing dialogue. It is hoped that a discussion of several related issues pertaining to methods that have been followed in the older as well as more recent surveys and excavations may be able to contribute further towards our understanding of the archaeologies of the medieval in South Asia. This chapter has been divided into four sections. In the first, I make a plea for using a single temporal term, viz. the medieval for the period spanning from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries CE, instead of the somewhat arbitrary division between the ‘early’ medieval (c. sixth–twelfth centuries CE) and medieval/‘late’ medieval (thirteenth–fifteenth centuries CE). The second section deals with some of the methodological issues that have contributed to the problems in identifying the medieval in South Asian archaeology. The third section is a historiographical survey of the archaeological methods used in some recent studies that explore agrarian, political, and sacred landscapes in medieval and early modern South Asia. In the final section, I argue that methodologies must be devised such that the entire occupational history of a place is investigated rather than focusing on the early levels alone, as is often the case in South Asian archaeology. The latter, unfortunately, DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-3

26  Supriya Varma remains the usual practice of excavation in South Asia, an enduring legacy of the culture-historical approach, introduced by Mortimer Wheeler nearly eighty years ago. As is well known, occupational areas over time at a place can be marked by lateral shifts; hence by using a combination of survey and excavation strategies, it is possible to reveal the dynamic histories of settlements. Thus, the standard methods should involve a systematic survey, followed by excavations/test pits in different areas of the settlement, rather than limiting these to a few deep trenches that are confined to a small area of the settlement. Eventually, depending on the research questions, a more horizontal excavation can also be planned.

In defence of a single temporal unit for the medieval To begin with, several historians have already alerted us to the serious problems concerning periodisation in Indian history (see Chattopadhyaya 2012c, pp. XIX–LXVI; Singh 2011, pp. 1–4; Torri 2014). It was Chattopadhyaya (2012b) who had in detail clearly delineated the defining characteristic features of the ‘early’ medieval (500–600 CE till 1200–1300 CE) social formation and how these set it apart from the preceding early historical period (600–500 BCE till 500–600 CE). More recently, however, he has not only been critical of the historical practice of dividing the ‘early’ medieval and the medieval but also considers it to be pointless (Chattopadhyaya 2012c). For him, what continues to be a vexed issue is the inconsistency in the usage of both ‘early’ medieval and medieval for varying chronological periods and regions. For instance, he (2012b, p. 7) writes: [The] arbitrariness in the use of labels appears evident when it is noticed that both early medieval and medieval are used in relation to the Sultanate period of north Indian history, as well as in relation to the Chola period in South India, and equally to the Cālukya period in the Deccan. Chattopadhyaya (2012c) has suggested that different periodisation schemes be worked out for the various regions in the country. This, however, would be contingent on how regions are delineated by historians. As he (Chattopadhyaya 2012c, p. lxiii) points out, it is: [T]he unilineal construction of Indian history and looking at India’s constituent regions from that perspective … [that have] created problems of mismatch. At the same time, it should remain open for discussion whether constructing periodization schemes separately for separate regions, which themselves have spaces of unevenness within them, would not create other kinds of historiographic problems. Using the examples of the long histories of state formations in three randomly selected regions, a process which may have begun earlier but

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  27 eventually fructified much later (fourth to the thirteenth centuries CE in Assam, seventh to the fifteenth centuries CE in Rajasthan, and eighth to the seventeenth centuries CE in the Western Himalayas), Chattopadhyaya (2012c, p. XLIV) contends that the divide between ‘ancient’ and ‘medieval’ or ‘early medieval’ and ‘medieval’ is not only artificial but also irrelevant. Thus, he (Chattopadhyaya 2012c, p. LXIV) suggests that long-term histories of regions are more likely to reveal deeper and persisting continuities, particularly of local elites. Singh (2011, pp. 3–4), too, has grappled with some of the problems regarding the ‘early’ medieval. Among these is the issue of chronology, as there seems to be some ambiguity regarding its span, although many would equate it with the period starting from the seventh century CE and ending in the thirteenth century CE. The other more important concern is its use in two very distinct temporal contexts, that is, for the pre-Sultanate but also for the Sultanate period, and occasionally for non-Sultanate dynasties that may have been contemporary to the Sultanate period. This peculiar situation is partly the result of the differing nature and languages of the sources that have been used for writing pre-Sultanate, Sultanate, and non-Sultanate histories. Torri (2014) has argued for a new framework for the periodisation of Indian history based on socio-economic and political factors, with the ancient ending around the fifth century CE, the medieval from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries CE, the early modern spanning the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries CE, and the late modern in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries CE. Given that historians themselves have changed their earlier position regarding the specific attributes of the ‘early’ medieval, which were different from the medieval, to the more recent view (Chattopadhyaya 2012c, p. XLIV) that the ‘early’ medieval and medieval be studied as one entity rather than as two separate periods, archaeologists, too, could follow suit. What also needs to be considered is that if the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries CE constitute the early modern as is now being suggested (Williams, Malhotra, and Hawley 2018), is the medieval only limited to the period between the sixth and the fourteenth centuries CE? In such a situation, does the label ‘early’ medieval then not become redundant? Even if we were to extend the medieval till the fifteenth century CE, it is perhaps still more appropriate to use the term medieval for the entire period from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries CE, rather than the arbitrary bifurcation of the ‘early’ medieval and medieval around the twelfth–thirteenth century CE. Hence, in this chapter, I will consider the medieval as one unit instead of the more common usage of ‘early’ medieval and medieval as two distinct and unconnected temporal segments. Here I am not going into what constitutes medieval in South Asia, as that is outside the ambit of this chapter. At the same time, it is important to note that while the chronological framing of the medieval, spanning from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries CE), is useful broadly for South Asia, yet as

28  Supriya Varma discussed above there would have been variations when applied in specific regional contexts.

Looking for the medieval in South Asian archaeology The medieval period has been extensively studied by historians, and a testimony to this is the sheer breadth of themes covered by them. These include theoretical frameworks of the state and political processes; land rights and social stratification; changing role of merchant guilds in towns; the fluidity of social identities and the centrality of occupations; gender of power; making of cultural regions; literary cultures; histories of ideas and political violence; and religious identities, practices, and institutions (for instance, see Singh 2011). In contrast to the historical studies on this period is the relative paucity of archaeological research on the medieval in India. To an extent, this invisibility of the medieval period in archaeology is related to the persistence of the conventional field methods in India as well as errors that have been made in fixing the chronology of medieval deposits. Yet, at the same time, this is also the result of the institutional location of archaeology in Indian universities, either within the ancient stream of history departments1 or within departments of ancient Indian history, culture, and archaeology. As Hawkes (2014a, pp. 61–66) has shown, nearly 85 religious sites (comprising monasteries, rock-cut caves, stupas, and temples) and 105 settlements with medieval habitation deposits have been excavated. In the case of the former, these have been studied through the lens of either art and architecture or epigraphy, but not archaeology. In other words, systematic surveys of the wider landscapes around these religious sites that should have been undertaken are still largely absent. What also needs to be noted is that many of these religious sites would also have been associated with political centres of power. In other words, such places were simultaneously political as well as religious centres of power in the medieval period in much of South Asia. The nature of medieval polity was such that multiple and shifting centres could be established by individual kings and rulers; for instance, Badami, Mahakuta, Pattadakal, Aihole, Alampur, and Satyavolu are all linked with the early Chālukyas (c. 550–750 CE) (Kadambi 2011, p. 89). As far as the excavations of settlements are concerned, the focus has been either on the early levels or on determining the cultural sequence of the archaeological deposits (Hawkes 2014a, 2014–15). The latter is the hallmark of the culture-historical approach, which continues to dominate excavation practices in India to date. Generally, no systematic survey of the entire site is carried out prior to excavation. The latter are largely vertical in nature, with a few deep trenches in an exceedingly small area of the site.2 Thus, such types of limited excavations can end up revealing partial occupational histories at best, as habitations tend to shift over time, as is evident at many sites/places. For instance, this is apparent at Tekkalakota, in Bellary District, Karnataka, where multiple mounds or localities have been identified

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  29 (Sugandhi 2014). During a systematic survey in an area approximating 64 sq. km, ten different locales (Tek I–X) were identified here. Archaeological remains of the Neolithic, Iron Age, early historic, and medieval periods were noted in different areas. Further, much of the medieval settlement lies underneath the present-day Tekkalakota Village. The medieval and early modern remains that are visible today include temples, small shrines, and a fort. Prior to Sugandhi’s work, however, and as has been the general trend, archaeological research here had only concentrated on the Neolithic period (Rao and Malhotra 1965). There have also been some other attempts in the last decade to devise survey and excavation strategies that are better able to reveal the longer occupational histories of settlements, which are marked often by lateral shifts. In the fourth section of this chapter, I will discuss a couple of case studies where such an approach has been useful in revealing places that endured over 1000 years. Kennet (2004, p. 16, 2013, pp. 335–342) has suggested that a similar situation may have been at the sites of Bhokardan, Nevasa, Besnagar/Vidisha, and Navdatoli/Maheshwar in central India, where occupations may have shifted over time and not necessarily have ended in the early historical period. For instance, at Bhokardan, the excavations were carried out at the peripheral mounds across the river and not at the main mound. It is likely that medieval deposits lie underneath the modern town of Bhokardan, located on the main mound. Similarly, while three mounds (Bhudruk, Khurd, and Ladmod) comprise the site of Nevasa, only Ladmod was excavated as it is presently unoccupied, while Bhudruk and Khurd are overlain with presentday occupations. In this case, too, it is reported that the site was deserted in the third century CE and was reoccupied in the fourteenth century CE. The reassessment of the excavation report, however, has raised several questions regarding the chronological assessment. Many stone sculptures were found strewn across the two unexcavated mounds of Bhudruk and Khurd. While some of these sculptures have been dated between the tenth and the twelfth centuries CE, others are in the range of the thirteenth–sixteenth centuries CE, and the remaining to the seventeenth century CE. In the case of Besnagar and Vidisha, too, there is a possibility that the medieval occupation lies underneath the modern town of Vidisha. Excavations at Besnagar, which is currently unoccupied, revealed that the urban centre was deserted at the end of the early historical period. It is likely that the four mounds at Navdatoli and the five mounds at Maheshwar, across the Narmada River, too, have varying occupational histories. The excavations carried out at Lalkot in Delhi (Mani 1997, pp. 42–86) have revealed a late twelfth century CE elite residential complex of the Ghurids within a fort enclosing nearly 76 hectares. The adherence to Wheeler’s method of excavation at Lalkot has meant that the associated problems of identifying far too few stratigraphical layers, as pointed out by Hawkes (2014a) and Kennet (2004), can be noted here too, along with the absence of detailed contextual information regarding ceramic and other

30  Supriya Varma artefacts. Moreover, no systematic survey was carried out within the fortified area, either. As a result, not much else is known about this capital city of the Ghurids, established and occupied for a brief period of just eighteen years, from c. 1192 to 1210 CE, even though it has great archaeological potential. Often excavators of individual sites make little attempt to draw insights from comparative studies of similar contemporary sites. This is evident from an architectural study that has tried to compare the Ghurid elite residential complex at Lalkot with those from the Ghazna and BustLashkari Bazaar palaces of the Ghaznavid period (eleventh–twelfth centuries CE) as well as the mid-twelfth century CE Ghurid palace complex at Jam-Firuzkuh (Patel 2018). Other methodological issues related to chronology are due to the paucity of radiocarbon dates and the reliance on coins as well as ceramics. Regarding coins, an assumption has been made in the past that coins minted in the early historical period ceased to be used in the medieval (Kennet 2004, p. 14; 2013, pp. 342–346). As a result, medieval deposits, especially between the sixth and the tenth centuries CE, have been mistakenly dated to the early historic. Further, in a detailed discussion of metallic currency in medieval South Asia, Bhandare (2015) has demonstrated how coins have been incorrectly identified, leading to the mistaken idea of a paucity of coins in that period. One such reason that he puts forward is the practice of later period coins using the same legends as in the earlier period. For example, in the Gangetic Plains, the silver dramma coins of the Puṣyabhūtis, Maukhārīs, and even the Hūṇa ruler Toramāṇa use the same legends as those of the Gupta rulers. Even coins of the early Pratīhāras, dated to the eighth–ninth centuries CE, have been mistakenly attributed to Skandagupta’s rule due to this practice of copying. In the case of Eastern and Western Bengal, too, as well as the adjoining areas of Assam and Arakan, coins issued in the seventh and eighth centuries CE are imitations of the Gupta ‘archer’-type series. The second factor responsible for misidentification has been due to the changes in the Brahmi script in the period between the sixth and the tenth centuries CE. Thus, the coins of the Pratīhāras ‘three dots’ dramma series were earlier thought to have been struck by the first Gupta ruler, Śrī Gupta, due to an incorrect reading of the inscriptions on these coins. Similarly, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas drammas with the inscription ‘Śrī Guṇatuṅga’, dated between the eighth and the tenth centuries CE, were originally misread as ‘Śrī Gaṇa Samga’ and attributed to the sixth century CE Kalacuri ruler of Māhiṣmatī, Śaṅkaragaṇa. Another instance cited by Bhandare (2015) is the case of Jaitra Siṃha, a fourteenth-century CE Cāhamāna ruler, whose coins were initially attributed to Nṙisiṃhavarman, the seventh century CE Pallava king as the Nāgarī legend ‘Jaitsi Deva’ was misread as ‘Nrusi Deva’. Archaeologists in the past have generally dated most of the Glazed Wares from the thirteenth century CE onwards, but it is now being suggested that the Turquoise Glazed Wares were possibly being traded from Iraq and even Iran to the western coast of South Asia during the early historical and

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  31 ‘early’ medieval periods (Kennet 2013, pp. 346–347; Tomber 2007, p. 975). Hence, archaeological deposits that were originally dated to the thirteenth century CE based on the presence of Glazed Wares may now need to be revised to the later early historic or the ‘early’ medieval (Kennet 2013, p. 347). Similarly, the upper limit of the dates for Red Polished Ware, too, has been revised and extended from the range of first century BCE–sixth century CE to the range of first century BCE–the eighth century CE (Kennet 2004, p. 15, 2013, p. 347; Tomber 2007). Further, Tomber (2007) has pointed out that torpedo jars dated between the first and the ninth centuries CE and made in Mesopotamia have in the past been misidentified as amphorae of the early historical period. The chronological range of another ceramic type, Rang Mahal Ware, too, has been revised from the third–sixth centuries CE to the fourth–tenth centuries CE (see Uesugi 2014; Miller 2017). As a result, the strata from numerous sites that had earlier been dated between the first and the sixth centuries CE have now been revised to a chronological range extending till at least the tenth century CE or so. A study of the ceramics from Sanjan, located on the north bank of the Varoli River on the western coast, has revealed substantial data about medieval ceramics (Nanji 2011). These included a range of Glazed Earthenware of mostly West Asian origin, such as the Turquoise Glazed Ware, White Glazed Ware, Splashed White Glazed Ware, Cobalt Painted Ware, Lustre Painted Ware, Bichrome Glazed Pink Ware, Splashed Ware with Sgraffiato, Hatched Sgraffiato Ware, Champlevé, Monochrome Glazed Pink Ware, Monochrome Glazed Buff Ware, Cuerda Seca Glazed Ware, White Glazed Pink Ware, Incised Glazed Pink Ware, Black, and Ochre Painted Glazed Pink Ware, Blue Glazed Pink Ware, Painted Glazed Pink Ware, Splashed Glazed Pink Ware, Khambhat Type Glazed Pink Ware, Glazed Red Ware, and Frit Ware. Other ceramics, also of West Asian origin, comprised the Unglazed Wares, ranging from Eggshell Ware, Buff Ware, Torpedo Jars, Unglazed Pink Ware, and White Slipped Pink Ware to incised large storage vessels. Chinese Wares, such as the Changsha Polychrome Underglaze Painted Stoneware, celadon, and porcelain, have also been reported. Ceramics of local origin are the Slipped and Unslipped Wares, such as the Red Polished Ware, Black Slipped Grey Ware, Red Slipped Grey Ware, Grey Ware, Red Slipped Red Ware, Black Slipped Red Ware, White Slipped Red Ware, and Red Ware. As the chronology of West Asian and Chinese ceramics is well worked out on the basis of a large set of radiocarbon dates from sites in West Asia, East Africa, and China, it was easy to construct the chronology of these ceramics between the late seventh and the early thirteenth centuries CE at Sanjan.3 This work is significant as it brings out the wide range of Glazed Wares of West Asian origin that were brought into South Asia through trade and exchange from a much earlier date than the thirteenth century CE as was previously assumed. While at Sanjan they have been reported from the late seventh century CE, Kennet (2013) and Tomber (2007) have suggested that the Turquoise Glazed Wares may have been traded as early as the first half

32  Supriya Varma of the first millennium CE along the western coastal sites of South Asia. The Turquoise Glazed Wares have been generally dated from the Parthian times (247 BCE–224 CE) to about the tenth century CE (Nanji 2011, p. 28).

Exploring landscapes in medieval and early modern South Asia The problems regarding medieval archaeology in South Asia notwithstanding, some work focusing primarily on medieval political and religious centres has been undertaken in the past, although in the last two decades there has been a far greater interest. It is also increasingly realised that for investigating such centres, an intensive systematic survey strategy may be far more useful than excavation. The former can be followed up with some targeted excavations for exposing limited areas for ascertaining chronology through radiocarbon dates as well as building ceramic profiles, along with systematic geoarchaeological and archaeobotanical sampling and analyses. Unfortunately, even while the usefulness of surveys in the context of medieval political centres was pointed out early on by Mate (1983, pp. 338–39), it has not been followed through due to the persistence of the culture-historical approach in India. Most archaeologists are largely trained in Wheeler’s method of vertical excavation, best suited for constructing a cultural sequence of a site. It is only in the last three decades that systematic surveys of sites and regions with a focus on the medieval and the early modern periods have begun to be undertaken (see Coningham 1999; Coningham 2006; Coningham et al. 2007; Coningham and Gunawardhana 2013; Dayal 2005a, 2005b; Hauser and Selvakumar 2021; Iyer 2019; Kadambi 2011; Kalra 2016; Morrison 2000, 2009; Sinopoli and Morrison 2007; Suvrathan 2013; Panja 2002; Panja, Nag and Bandyopadhyay 2015; Sanyal 2013; Sen 2017, 2018, 2020; Chapters 4, 6, and 7 in this volume; Wilson 2015). Much more work seems to have been done in East and South India, as well as in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, in comparison to the other areas in South Asia. Landscape studies inevitably enable the mapping and documentation of features across a longer time frame. Often the more visible features that dot landscapes encompass the medieval as well as the early modern, while those of earlier periods tend to be buried far deeper. One study, which seeks to go beyond the usual focus on sculptural and architectural remains at medieval religious sites, has been undertaken in the Varendra region, encompassing parts of North Bengal and North Bangladesh (Panja 2002). A systematic survey was initially carried out in the region between the Mahananda and the Punarbhaba Rivers using a sampling strategy. To begin with, a survey was carried out around the already known sites. After this exercise, the macro-region was demarcated into subregions, using a range of criteria based on geographical and cultural features. A few zones within these sub-regions were then intensively surveyed. Panja’s (2002) study revealed a somewhat dispersed pattern of small mounds of largely religious architectural remains along with some pottery scatters. The

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  33 only exceptions were a few large, nucleated complexes with the main centre and surrounding settlements, as at Mahasthangarh, Bangarh, and Bairhatta. Overall, Panja’s (2002) study revealed a few major clusters of large habitation mounds but a near absence of smaller habitation sites. She has offered several suggestions for this settlement pattern in this region, ranging from the smaller habitation sites being washed away to these being buried under alluvium after abandonment due to fluvial activity. It is equally possible that if sites were not occupied over long periods of time, as could have been the case in this active floodplain, they would have been relatively ephemeral, perhaps temporary in nature and, therefore, unlikely to survive. At the same time, she points out that buried habitation sites could be present around the ritual/structural complexes. Overall, the settlement pattern in this region in the medieval period seems to comprise habitations that were dispersed, ephemeral, and small, with little visibility of artefacts and ceramics on the surface, along with a few large, nucleated complexes. In the next phase of this project, one of these buried sites, Balupur on the Kalindri riverbank, was excavated, revealing occupations between the seventh and the nineteenth centuries CE in different parts of the settlement, which was spread over an area of 6 sq. km (Panja, Nag and Bandyopadhyay 2015). Other studies in the Varendra region seemingly affirm a similar settlement pattern in the medieval period (Sanyal 2013; Sen 2017, 2018, 2020). In addition, Sen (2017) reports a spurt in the number of settlements from the seventh century CE onwards (for more details, see Chapter 4 in this volume). Around Aihole, a political and religious centre of the early Chālukyas, Kadambi (2011) has carried out a survey in a 5 sq. km area. Aihole is located on the right bank of the Malaprabha River in Southern Deccan. The survey revealed mostly dispersed ceramic scatters, apart from some fragments of bricks, tiles, beads, chipped and ground stone, and shell as well as slag. A variety of architectural features were also recorded during the survey and include brick structures, stone temples, open-air shrines, megalithic dolmens, memorial stones, pillared halls, fortification walls and alignments, reservoirs, and inscriptions. Kadambi has argued that some of the earliest Chālukyan temples may have incorporated elements of the already existing megalithic funerary and memorial monuments as a device ‘to legitimize and define an expansive political and sacred ideology’ (2011, p. 238). Further, the ceramic scatters that were mapped during the survey and largely associated with domestic activities as cooking and storage also seem to indicate a low-density agrarian cum pastoral-based settlement at Aihole beyond the vicinity of its temples. A systematic archaeological survey of a micro-region, covering an area of 50 sq. km centred on Banavasi in the modern state of Karnataka, has enabled Suvrathan (2013, 2014) to examine the organisation of small but enduring complex polities located on the peripheries of larger but relatively lesser stable states and empires in peninsular India. A ‘peripheral’ place, Banavasi, seems to have had a remarkably enduring life span as a regional

34  Supriya Varma administrative centre, beginning in the first century CE and continuing up till the eighteenth century CE. This place located close to the Varada River, a tributary of the Tungabhadra River, also emerged as a local sacred and pilgrimage site, from the eighth to the eighteenth centuries CE. As is the case with landscape studies, issues of temporality and spatiality were fundamental in this case, too. Thus, during the regional survey, structures, features, and artefacts of all periods were recorded. Based on these, three temporal periods were delineated: Third/second century BCE–seventh century CE, seventh century CE–fourteenth century CE, and fourteenth century CE– eighteenth century CE (Suvrathan 2013, p. 106; Suvrathan 2014, p. 259). Long-term continuities have been identified, specifically between the second and the third periods, with reference to structures, such as Shaivite temples, Sati and hero stones, forts with laterite facing and platforms at entrances, watch towers, tanks as well as larger reservoirs. In terms of socio-political, religious, and economic processes, too, Suvrathan highlights remarkable similarities in intermediate elites, religious patronage, and political competition in the medieval and early modern periods, between the seventh and the eighteenth centuries CE, in the micro-region centred on Banavasi. A survey in the Raichur Doab area in Southern Deccan has noted a strong correlation between water bodies (such as reservoirs and wells) and temples, hero stones, as well as Islamic funerary shrines between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries CE (Kalra 2016). During this period, there was a sudden increase in the number of epigraphs that recorded grants of land, other donations, and gifts to religious institutions, deities, and associated functionaries. More recently, a systematic survey of roughly 3 sq. km at Warangal, the medieval capital city of the Kākatīyas (c. 1175–1323 CE) has revealed a complex political landscape encompassing three circular fortification walls along with elite architecture, temples, and other features (Iyer 2019). Though still in the initial stages, this study has revealed the potential of a long-term archaeological study of a place, one that is not just confined to the Kākatīyas phase but also investigates the preceding centuries as well as later developments. Ultimately, the aim is to examine, in general, the relationship between the state and its landscape, and more specifically, how political places were created between the tenth and the seventeenth centuries CE in Northern Deccan. Further south in the lower Kaveri valley, an ongoing project involves the documentation of changes in the patterns and organisation of settlements as well as material assemblages between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries CE at the Danish colonial enclave, Tranquebar (Tharangambadi) and twenty-three associated villages and hamlets (Hauser and Selvakumar 2021). This study involves a systematic pedestrian survey in conjunction with textual, epigraphic, and cartographic data. The aim of this project is to understand both changes and continuities between two specific settlement types, viz. gardens and plantations, with the former emerging between the sixth and thirteenth centuries CE, and the latter in the seventeenth and

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  35 eighteenth centuries CE. Apart from a larger concern of decentring the role of the Atlantic world in the establishment of commercial agriculture during the early modern period, it also demonstrates the importance of looking at the long histories of a micro-region. With most histories of Tranquebar beginning in 1620 CE, this historical archaeology project has the advantage of uncovering the deeper pasts of commercial agriculture in this region, one that predates the early modern period. A sustained study has been undertaken at Anuradhapura, located in the north-central area of Sri Lanka. Habitation here may have initially begun as an Iron Age village around 800 BCE but soon developed as an urban centre in the fourth century BCE and continued till the eleventh century CE (Coningham 1999; Coningham 2006; Coningham et al. 2007; Coningham and Gunawardhana 2013). The fortified area enclosed an urban core of almost 100 hectares, but beyond the walls are stupas, monasteries, and artificial lakes in a 25 sq. km area. While in the first phase, the focus was on the citadel as well as the religious monuments both inside and outside the walled area, in the second phase, a systematic survey and targeted excavations were carried out in the hinterland of Anuradhapura. As part of the survey strategy, a series of random transects extending for a 50 km radius from the centre of the fortified core area were generated. Apart from this, a non-random survey was undertaken along the banks of the Malwatu River, which is the main arterial route from Anuradhapura to the coast. This survey of the hinterland revealed 694 archaeological sites and 235 landscape features, such as tanks. The archaeological sites, in turn, were classified as ceramic scatters (398), sites with stone pillars, blocks, and wells (73), monastic sites (68), sites with slag (61), anicuts, sluices, and irrigation channels (56), megaliths (11), stone bridges (5), and other sites (22). The augur coring of a sample of ceramic scatters indicated that occupational deposits were shallow, ranging from 20 to 30 cm, and this was confirmed by the excavation at one such site. The metal working sites, too, had shallow occupation deposits in contrast to the deeply stratified monastic sites. It has been suggested that the ceramic scatters may represent the remains of peripatetic villages of communities practicing slash and burn agriculture and pastoralism (Coningham et al. 2007, p. 707). This dispersed pattern of sites and monuments, along with the extensive water management infrastructure in the core and hinterland areas of Anuradhapura, has been described as exemplifying a case of an agrarianbased low-density urban city, a phenomenon which has also been observed in other tropical regions of Southeast Asia and Southern Maya lowlands (Fletcher 2012; Lucero, Fletcher, and Coningham 2015). According to Lucero, Fletcher, and Coningham (2015, pp. 1140–1141): In low density cities, agricultural and open land is interwoven with massive [water] infrastructure and a dispersed residential population. The urban-rural population was simultaneously agriculturally based

36  Supriya Varma and civically integrated. The rural world was therefore interdigitated and entangled with the urban world through an extensive, varied crop economy based on profitable trees, swidden agriculture and engineered fields and an urban-based water management infrastructure. The central areas of low-density cities are centripetal because they draw people in via political, social, economic, and religious means. The surrounding areas are centrifugal because people settle across the landscape in farmsteads and villages mirroring the dispersed agricultural and natural resources interspersed with managed forests and grazing land. Farmers relied on flexible subsistence strategies involving local small-scale production and exchange, and water and agricultural systems. The populace supplied staples, local goods, labour and services (e.g., maintaining transportation routes) via tribute and exchange, effectively funding the political economy. People became beholden to a centralised political elite for access to water via central reservoirs during annual drought. In the agricultural (rainy) season, farmers worked their fields throughout the non-urban landscape. A recent study reports, within an area encompassing 6 sq. km, at least five mounds of unequal sizes at and around Ahar (Zubair 2016, pp. 143–174). Ahar (28°28′28″ N, 78°14′64″ E) is located on the western bank of the Ganga River in Anupshahar District (Figure 2.1). While one mound measures nearly 61 hectares and has a height ranging between 10 and 12 m, two are roughly 2 and 8 hectares, while the remaining two are approximately 0.5 hectares each. An area of nearly 2 sq. km was systematically surveyed, and ceramics were collected from 2450 sampling units, each measuring 10 × 10 m. Zubair (2016), based on a detailed study of ceramics, has dated these between the sixth and sixteenth centuries CE. Three exposed sections of the largest mound were cleaned, and profiles were drawn. Two of these sections revealed baked brick walls, the lower courses of which revealed sizes generally associated with the first three centuries CE. In the absence of radiocarbon dates, the suggested chronology of Ahar remains tentative. More than a century ago, Vats (1925–26, pp. 57–58) investigated this settlement through trial trenches in five different areas (Sites A, B, C, D, and E) spread over 2.4 km. While Site A was to the east of the present-day village of Ahar, Site B was on the south and Site C to the north of it. Sites A and C revealed copper coins dated between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries CE, along with glazed ceramics. Architectural remains of bricks and brick bats, as well as stone sculptures, were excavated at Site A. Spouted jars, carinated cooking pots (handis); stone grinders and mortar; casket, dish, ladle, a trefoil, star-shaped boss, bell, and a rattle of copper; iron scythe; and five silver coins dated to around 900 CE were found within a large house with several rooms, one of which had a hearth from Site B. Carved bricks and a stone head of a male, dated to the tenth–eleventh century CE were recovered from Site D, located near the Rukmini Lake. Brick

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  37

Figure 2.1 Locations of Ahar, Indor Khera, and Rohana Khurd (Source: Author’s own).

bats and stone sculptures scattered on the surfaces of six or seven mounds, collectively referred to as Site E, which lay between Site B and Site D, were also reported, although the details are not mentioned. Ten inscriptions dated between the 867 and 904 centuries CE have also been found from Ahar. These inscriptions name this settlement Tattānandapura. Chattopadhyaya (2012a, pp. 139–140) has argued that the suffix pura, as well as references to it as pattana, differentiates it from rural settlements that were termed grāma, pallī, or agrahāra. This settlement

38  Supriya Varma was criss-crossed by different categories of roads, kurathyā (small or narrow roads), bṛhadrathyā (big roads), and haṭṭamārga (roads leading to the market centre). It has also been inferred that while there were several residential areas with associated market clusters, “the eastern market area (pūrvahaṭṭapradeśa) was one of the nerve-centres of the town, dotted as it was with shops and residential buildings” (Chattopadhyaya 2012a, p. 139). The inscriptions also refer to six temples (of Kāñcanaśrīdevī or Kanakadevī, Nandābhagavatīdevī, Vāmanasvāmī, Gandhadevī, Daśāvatāra, and Sarvamaṅgalā) that formed a part of this centre, of which the first two were located away from the town. Chattopadhyaya (2012a, p. 140) writes: Two types of buildings are generally mentioned: āvāris (shops and enclosures) and grhas (residential buildings). The āvāris seem in some cases to have combined the functions of a shop and a residential building. In one case an āvāri with its elevations is said to have consisted of three rooms of burnt bricks; in another it had a few inner apartments. The grhas were also constructed with burnt bricks. The inscriptions abound in references to house sites (grhabhūmi) contiguously situated and belonging to persons of different castes. Can one infer that Ahar was a medieval market town based on the combined archaeological and inscriptional evidence? It appears that a large nucleated residential centre or a town was located on the main mound (61 hectares), but there also may have been smaller centres (2 and 8 hectares) immediately to its south and separated by distances of 100 and 400 m, respectively (Zubair 2016, p. 156). Could the smaller of these (2 hectares) have been a rural settlement? Similarly, could the two mounds that are approximately 0.5 hectares be the temple sites mentioned in the inscriptions? Undoubtedly, much more archaeological work needs to be undertaken at Ahar and the surrounding hinterland for answers to these questions. Apart from the methods that were used in the landscape studies discussed above, what has also been noted in the medieval period are places that appear to comprise a core area surrounded by a hinterland. While the core area can have fortifications and a preponderance of religious monuments, the hinterland is characterised by dispersed rural settlements, ponds, tanks, agricultural fields, as well as smaller structures that could be sacred, memorial, or funerary in nature. Such a pattern is, of course, best exemplified at Anuradhapura, where a sustained archaeological investigation has been undertaken. For us, however, what is an equally important question is to what extent is this characteristic of the medieval period4 in South Asia? This is an aspect that needs further archaeological research and one that requires better-designed survey and excavation strategies. What has also been noted is that both the medieval and early modern periods at Banavasi were marked by analogous socio-political, religious, and economic processes. The agrarian landscape study of Tranquebar and the area surrounding it has revealed

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  39 that the plantations that came up in the early modern period were influenced by such patterns of land use and ownership, farming practices, as well as forms of labour organisations that were already prevalent in the medieval period. The important point to be noted is that archaeological studies through a study of assemblages (landscape and artefactual) have the potential to track changes and continuities over the long term. Often these may not correspond with periods categorised as the early historical, medieval, or the early modern.

Excavating enduring places In this final section, I illustrate through the case studies of two different settlements, Indor Khera and Rohana Khurd, both located in the upper Ganga plains, how a combination of survey and excavation strategies can reveal the long occupational histories of these two places, with both spanning from the early historic to the medieval. Twenty-five kilometres south-west of Ahar is the site of Indor Khera (28°14′57″N, 78°12′48″E), located in Tehsil Debai, in Bulandshahr District of Uttar Pradesh on a small rivulet, Chhoiya Nadi, or Nim Nadi. Indor Khera lies between the Kali Nadi and Ganges Rivers and is about 10 km from the latter (Figure 2.1). The present-day village is located on top of a mound, which measures 22 hectares (400 m north-south × 550 m eastwest), with a height of 15 m. The archaeological field work at and around Indor Khera was carried out in three phases.5 In the first phase, an intensive survey was undertaken in an area of 4 sq. km with this mound in the centre. During the survey, six smaller mounds were also identified (Figure 2.2). In the second phase, three test cuttings were excavated to get an idea of the nature of occupations at Indor Khera in the past (Figure 2.3). Out of these, two 4 × 4 m cuttings (A1 and A2) were located on the southern edge of the mound and excavated up to 2.10 and 1.55 m, respectively (Menon and Varma 2011). Another 4 × 4 m test cutting (A3) located about 100 m east of A1 and A2 was opened and excavated down to natural soil (Menon et al. 2008). The deposits have been dated between 400 BCE and 100 CE based on an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) or radiometric date6 and terracotta sealings. In the third phase, a more extensive area, measuring 465 sq. km, was excavated in the north-western part of the main mound (for details, see Menon and Varma 2010a, 2010b; Varma and Menon 2011, 2015, 2016). The focus here was on occupational levels, which, based on five AMS7 dates, have been dated between 175 BCE and 610 CE. It must also be added that these occupational levels were preceded by an earlier habitation, but in the absence of radiometric dates, it is difficult to ascertain the chronological span. Further, the deposits above the early historic occupational levels here mainly comprised fill material. In this section, I will only detail these two cuttings, A1 and A2, as they alone relate to the medieval period.

40  Supriya Varma

Figure 2.2 Area surveyed around Indor Khera (Source: Author’s own).

As mentioned above, besides the main mound, there are at least six small mounds, of which two are located to its west (IKAP-1 and IKAP-2), two in the north (IKAP-4 and IKAP-5), and two in the north-east (IKAP-3 and IKAP-6) (Figure 2.2). Three of the smaller mounds, two to the north and one to the north-east, were also excavated. Out of the two to the north, one lay across the Chhoiya River. IKAP-5 (N 28°25′10″; E 78°21′14″), on the nearer side of the river, measured 43.3 m (NS) × 54.9 m (EW) with a deposit of nearly 1.5 m. A single trench, measuring 5 × 5 m, revealed evidence of burning as well as thousands of baked but fresh lakhori bricks. The mound may, thus, have been the remains of a kiln for the firing of lakhori bricks. These are known to have been used in the period between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries CE. IKAP-4 (N 28° 15′10″; E 78°12′46″), which lay across the river was roughly circular in shape with dimensions of 32 m (NS) × 28 m (EW), and the depth of deposit ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 m. The excavations revealed the remains of several ritual structures of different phases.8 One charcoal sample (Beta-314198) found within one of these

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  41

Figure 2.3 Locations of test cuttings at Indor Khera (Source: Author’s own).

structures ascribed to the third phase was dated to 2 Sigma calibrated (95% probability) date Cal AD 180–190 (Cal BP 1770 to 1760) and Cal AD 210– 340 (Cal BP 1740–1610). IKAP-6 (N 28°15′00″; E 78°13′09″), directly to the east and about 500 m away from IKAP-4, was also excavated. This mound, at present, measures 51.2 m (NS) × 46.4 m (EW) but would have been much larger originally as much of it has been cut away by farmers to make fields and, therefore, has a deposit of 2.5 m. Two trenches of 5 × 5 m each and two of 5 × 2.5 m each were laid on this mound. The remains of a structure, in the form of broken patches of a platform made of brickbats, extending over the entire excavated area, which covered 75 sq. m, were recovered. A study of the western section of the mound revealed that the height of the platform was about 1.5 m. The artefacts recovered from IKAP-6 were plaque fragments, gaming pieces, worked sherds, lumps, and unidentified objects of terracotta; broken figurines and worked pieces of stone; a copper piece; iron fragments; cowrie; and glass bangle pieces. While a study of ceramics is ongoing, the plaque fragments and the broken figurines suggest that a temple may have existed here in the medieval period. Besides these three mounds, there are three other smaller mounds, which could not be investigated. IKAP-1 and IKAP-2 had already been excavated by A. C. L. Carlleyle in 1874–75 and not much of either mound remains

42  Supriya Varma today. In the excavations, he had found walls of large buildings as well as brick-paved areas. However, too little was reported by Carlleyle (1879) regarding the nature or date of these structures. Neither can IKAP-3, located to the north-west of IKAP-6, be excavated due to the presence of a functioning temple on it. I will now describe in some detail the medieval deposits that were excavated in A1 and A2. In both these cuttings, A1 and A2, three different strata were identified. Stratum 1 in both the cuttings was greyish brown, compact with a few brick nodules, brickbats, and bones. In A1, Stratum 2 was greyish brown in colour and extremely loose in texture, filled with potsherds, brickbats, and bones. There were vitrified terracotta and clay lumps in the same layer. About twenty-eight over-vitrified terracotta lumps, light in weight and filled with holes, were recovered. There were also four lumps that originally comprised pieces of clay which got accidentally burnt, apart from one lump of vitrified terracotta with coarse fraction, like chaff, as well as one unburnt clay piece. Besides these were found four large lumps, which, assuming from their size of 11–14 cm in diameter, possibly originally represented wedged clay, whose surfaces had become oxidized. In Stratum 2 in A2 was also found ash, vitrified terracotta, and clay lumps, and two anvils. There were about sixteen over-vitrified terracotta lumps of varying sizes. Lumps that were accidentally burnt were about nine in number, while the number of unbaked lumps was two. Moreover, the south-western quadrant in A1 revealed a dump (Feature 1) that was composed of mainly pottery vessels and ash. Many of these vessels were unslipped open-mouthed stringcut convex bowls of thin section, largely made for one-time use and then discarded. The recovery of 413 rims of such vessels in a 7 cm dig gives some idea of their quantity. Moreover, in this dig, there was only one other type of rim of another vessel, that is, an outwardly projecting rim of a miniature pot. If we quantify the number of bases from the same dig, 181 bases of open-mouthed bowls were recorded. Stratum 3 in both cuttings was greyish brown and relatively much more compact in nature than Stratum 1. Stratum 3 was associated with structures of brickbats and reused bricks, thus representing primary habitation deposits (Menon and Varma 2011). Houses in this period were made of mud, reused bricks and brickbats with mud mortar, and floors of yellowish-brown rammed earth. Since these were test cuttings, walls and features were numbered separately for A1 and A2. In A1, there are two structural phases. Five walls were discerned in this trench. Walls 1, 2, and 3 (which comprised Feature 2) belonged to the latter phase, while Walls 4 and 5 belonged to the earlier phase. Wall 4 in A1 had a width of about 0.6 m with a facing of brickbats with a width of 0.2 m. This wall was oriented in a north-west–south-east direction. The width of Wall 5 is about 0.4 m. This was oriented in a north-east–south-west direction. These two walls possibly were part of a single structure and hence have been labelled as Structure 1. Feature 2 was recovered in the south-eastern quadrant which belonged to the next phase. This comprised of three walls (1, 2,

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  43 and 3) within which a large quantity of burnt grains was recovered. Walls 1, 2, and 3 were oriented roughly in the cardinal directions. The inner length of Wall 2 is about 1.2 m, while the outer length of Wall 2 is about 2 m. The extant inner length of Wall 3 is about 1.5 m. The thickness of the walls of this structure is about 0.4 m. The width of the space within this structure would have been about 1.2 m. The walls of this structure were constructed of rammed earth over a brickbat foundation, possibly plastered over with lime. To the same phase belonged Feature 3 in the north-western quadrant. This was circular in shape with a diameter of 0.9 m. Within this feature was the evidence of burning, as well as a large brickbat. This was possibly an oven or fire installation (Menon and Varma 2011). There were three structural phases in A2. To the earliest, Phase I, belong Walls 5, 6, and 7, the extant portions of which were made of brickbats. Wall 5, oriented north-east–south-west met with Wall 6 which was oriented north-west–south-east. Both walls were about 0.30 m. Wall 7, projecting from Wall 5, was slightly narrower, at 0.20 m. To Phase II, in A2, belonged Walls 3 and 4, about 0.26 and 0.30 m in width, respectively. Both walls were made of reused bricks and brickbats. The sizes of the bricks were 22 × 17 × 4 cm. Walls 3 and 4 were not built on any of the earlier walls. From the south of Wall 3 was recovered in situ a pot within which, however, nothing was found. Walls 1 and 2, attributed to Phase III, are about 0.32 and 0.26 m in width, respectively. It may be conjectured that Walls 1 and 2 were structurally connected. None of these walls was built on the earlier phase Walls 3 and 4. There is a possibility that the upper portions of walls in this phase were of compacted earth. A yellowish-brown rammed earth floor, in some places about 3 cm thick, was recovered on either side of Wall 2. On this floor was a large spread of bones (some of which were burnt), seeds, and potsherds. In the same area were also found pieces of copper and iron. Particularly, on the eastern parts of the trench are apparent blackish deposits with ash, along with over-vitrified clay lumps (Menon and Varma 2011). If we try to correlate the structures in A1 and A2, we find that Phase I, which was delineated in A2, is absent in A1. Phase II in A2 is contemporary to the earliest structural activity in A1, while Phase III in A2 is contemporary to the later phase in A1. Overall, it appears that the walls of all three phases were built with brickbat foundations. What is also striking is that in each of the phases in A2, walls were on completely different plans from each other. In no phase were walls resting on those of an earlier phase. While there are no changes in the method of construction or materials used, at the same time, there appears to have been little continuity in house plans between the different phases. The ceramics recovered from A1 and A2 was largely of the Red Ware category of both slipped and unslipped types. The main shapes are basins, carinated cooking pots (handis), dishes, jars, spouted vessels, and storage jars. However, numerically, the most predominant shape was the open-mouthed convex bowl form as mentioned above. Decorations include paintings of

44  Supriya Varma linear designs (black on red), incised marks on rims, and stamped designs with a dusting of mica as well as micaceous bands. Apart from Red Wares, four sherds of Glazed Wares were found from A1, two from Stratum 1, and two from Feature 1, respectively (Menon and Varma 2011). The small finds from the two test cuttings include a range of terracotta objects such as gaming pieces, bangles, studs, an ear stud, a bead, a pendant, anvils, balls, a wheel, buttons, discs, reels, human and animal figurines, marbles, sealings, worked sherds, and unidentified artefacts. Artefacts of clay included handmade miniature pots. Glass artefacts were bangle pieces, beads, misshapen pieces, and several fragments. Iron artefacts included nails, blades, a point, a ring, a curved fragment, and several indeterminate pieces. Artefacts of copper were rings, a point, a coin, an earring, and indeterminate pieces. A silver bead with a clay core was also recovered, as well as a lead coil. Stone artefacts included worked pieces of schist, sandstone, sapphire and soapstone, a sandstone pestle, a quartzite grinding stone, a soapstone tablet, and beads of carnelian, agate, and jasper (Menon and Varma 2011). One charcoal sample (Beta-314195) from Stratum 3 of A2 at a depth of 130–140 cm. from the surface was dated to 2 Sigma calibrated (95% probability) date Cal AD 770–900 (Cal BP 1180–1050) and Cal AD 920–940 (Cal BP 1030–1010). There is also evidence of the terracotta sealing, albeit from Stratum 1 in A1. Palaeographically, it has been dated to the tenth– eleventh centuries CE. It has been read as ga nandaha (Pushpa Prasad, personal communication). Overall, the occupational deposits associated with Stratum 3 in A1 and A2 could tentatively be dated between the late eighth and the early to the mid-tenth centuries CE. Overall, Indor Khera and its immediate hinterland provide a complex history. While it may have begun as a village around 400 BCE, it developed into a small town by 175 BCE, with evidence of household-based pottery and terracotta production. While the north-western area of the main mound revealed only fill deposits in the medieval period, there is some evidence of habitation in the southern area between the late-eighth and the early to mid-tenth centuries CE as revealed in the two cuttings, A1 and A2. As only limited excavations were carried out here, it is likely that occupation deposits prior to the late-eighth century CE may be there as well. More archaeological work needs to be done to ascertain the extent as well as the nature of the settlement here in the medieval period. Certainly, it ceased to function as a town from the seventh century CE onwards, but occupation continued till the tenth century CE and even later. Could it be that with a new town emerging at Ahar, between the sixth and sixteenth centuries CE, Indor Khera once again reverted to a rural settlement in the medieval period? What emerges is that the main settlement seems to have been urban in form between 175 BCE and 610 CE but was rural both in the preceding two centuries as well as in the medieval period that followed from the late sixth or early seventh centuries CE. Equally noteworthy is that both in

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  45 the early historic as well as medieval periods, temples and other buildings associated with rituals may have been built outside the main settlement at IKAP-4 and IKAP-6, respectively. The site of Rohana Khurd (N 29°35′15″; E 77°42′18″), about 135 km north-west of Ahar, is in Muzaffarnagar District (Figure 2.1). The archaeological mound is located 400 m to the south-east of present-day Rohana Khurd Village and is locally known as Bhumia Khera or Khera Khel Aashram. The western branch of the Kali River flows about 400 m to the east of the mound. Today, the river makes a sharp meander bringing it close to the mound of Rohana Khurd. The site, at present, is located amidst fields. In shape, the mound is almost circular and around 8 m high from the current field level. Ceramic scatters are visible on and in the fields surrounding the mound. About one-third of the highest part of the mound is occupied by three main temples, numerous small ancestral shrines, and a house for the temple priest, as well as brick-paved paths that lead to the temples. On the western edge of the mound lies a small cemetery which is no longer in use. The aim of the project at Rohana Khurd9 was to undertake a systematic survey of the mound and the adjacent area, to be followed by test pits in different parts to ascertain the occupational history of the site (Menon and Varma 2016). While the elevated area of the mound is 3.7 hectares (207 × 177 m), a larger area (280 × 210 m) was selected for an intensive survey. Within this area, four alternate transects of 30 × 280 m were systematically surveyed (Figure 2.4). Within each transect, individual collection units measured 5 × 5 m. This constituted a total of 3336 sample units. No architectural fragments were detected on the surface, and the collections comprised ceramics and a few artefacts (Nair 2014). A total of 3102 diagnostic sherds (1492 rims and 1610 bases) and 9533 non-diagnostic sherds were analysed (Nair 2014). Among the ceramics were Painted Grey Ware and Grey Ware in featureless, straight, or incurved bowls and dishes. Such types of ceramics are not known to have been produced beyond the first century BCE. Apart from these, there were several Red Ware rim sherds that helped to fix the chronology of the site. In the open category of vessels, there were types of long durations, beginning from the fourth century CE and continuing until the tenth century CE or so. Among these types, for example there were those with bilateral/nail-headed rims with incurved sides, bilaterally projecting rims with incurved sides, and bilaterally projecting beaked rims with incurved sides. They ranged from the fourth to the tenth centuries CE or so. Finally, bowls with flaring sharp-edge rims with tapering sides, and out-going featureless rims with thickened grooved exterior and incurved/tapering sides are the types ranging approximately from the sixth to the tenth centuries CE. In the closed category of vessels, the types characterised by the externally projecting rims with a beak-like horizontal projection, and the bilaterally projecting rims with a thick round rib below on the exterior and a concave neck dated roughly to the beginning of the fourth century CE. Types characterised by

46  Supriya Varma

Figure 2.4 Surveyed area at and around Rohana Khurd (Source: Author’s own).

the externally projecting rims with a concavity on the exterior and the externally projecting rims with a concavity on the top and a beak-like projection ranged from the fourth to the tenth centuries CE or so. Other types with the externally projecting rims thickened on the lower part of the exterior, the externally projecting rims with a carinated projection below on the exterior, the externally projecting rims with a convex top and externally re-curving into a carinated projection, and the externally projecting beak-shaped rims belonged to a range from the sixth to the tenth centuries CE or so. Among the decorated sherds, a total of 330 sherds in a non-diagnostic category or body sherds, as well as 24 diagnostic or rim sherds were analysed. The decorative techniques include incising, painting, appliquéing, stamping, moulding, as well as the use of graffiti. Another technique noted was the application of slurry in bands on leather-hard clay vessels onto which mica was applied to create a decorative effect. A total of thirty-eight artefacts were collected from the survey units. These were classified into three categories: Terracotta, stone, and slag. Twentytwo objects of terracotta were collected comprising one eroded and broken

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  47 animal figurine, one cylindrical bead, one broken bangle piece, one broken anvil, three broken terracotta discs, one marble with an incised cross on the top, one intact and two fragmentary spindle whorls, one terracotta tile piece, five worked sherds or pottery discs, one fragment of a wheel with a hole in the middle, and four unidentified terracotta objects. In stone objects, a total of fourteen fragments were found, most of which were pestles. Out of six pestles, four are made of red sandstone, one is of greyish sandstone, and one of quartzite. Three worked fragments of red sandstone were also found. One survey unit also yielded two decorated pieces of chalk-like material which might be architectural fragments. These fragments bear a sort of foliage design but are in an eroded and powdery condition. Three other stone pieces included an unidentified small, black-coloured stone piece, a purplish sandstone piece, and a sedimentary stone piece. From the survey, two heavy slag pieces were also found (Nair 2014). In the next phase, twenty test units were opened for excavation across the mound. Of these, sixteen units were 3 × 3 m, two units (RKD-1 and RKD-2) were 5 × 5 m, and another two units were 2 × 3 m (RKD-18) and 2 × 1.5 m (RKD-20), respectively (Figure 2.5). Two units were opened (RKD-1 and RKD-2) at the top of the mound which were soon abandoned after disturbed deposits were encountered caused by the digging up of soil for raising the plinth of a newly built temple in recent years. Two other units (RKD-3 and RKD-4) located around 50 m apart from each other were also opened in the south-west area of the mound. While RKD-3 was in a field, RKD-4 was in an area that was not being cultivated. These units mainly comprised run-off deposits from the mound with natural soil appearing after digging down about 0.5 m. RKD-5 and RKD-6 were opened on the south-western edge of the mound. In these units, too, the deposit was mainly limited to pulverized potsherds. The natural soil was reached here at the depth of 1.0 m. RKD-8 was opened in the southern part of the mound, and in the northern part of the mound, RKD-9 was opened. Thirty-five meters east of RKD8, two more units (RKD-10 and RKD-11) were opened. Since the deposits in RKD-8, RKD-10, and RKD-11 were similar, it was decided to concentrate only on RKD-11, which was dug 2.63 m or till 249.93 msl, without reaching the natural soil. An AMS date (Beta-356709) was obtained for a sample of charred organic material from locus 23 of RKD-11. The 2 Sigma calibrated date (with 95% probability) of the sample ranges from 680 to 880 AD (calibrated BP 1270–1070). Another AMS date (Beta-580411) from locus 39 of RKD-11 with 2 Sigma calibration (95% probability) is in the range of 653–774 AD (calibrated BP 1297–1176). A series of contiguous units (RKD-7, RKD-13, RKD-14, RKD-15, RKD-16, and RKD-19) were excavated horizontally in the south-eastern part of the mound. This entire area revealed several superimposed floors with storage pits and multiple hearths. RKD-12 was opened about 10 m to the south-east of these units. This unit revealed ceramic dumps and pits in which mixed material was found. Three more units (RKD-17, RKD-18, and

48  Supriya Varma

Figure 2.5 Locations of test cuttings at Rohana Khurd (Source: Author’s own).

RKD-20) were excavated 5 m south of the contiguous units. Out of these three units, only RKD-17 was dug 1.35 m down to natural soil that was reached at 247.7 msl. All three, RKD-17, RKD-18, and RKD-20, revealed a dump of Red Ware bowls. An AMS date (Beta-580412) from locus 11 of RKD-17 with 2 Sigma calibration (95% probability) was in the range 770–972 AD (calibrated 1180–978 BP). Artefacts of several materials were recovered in the excavations. Terracotta artefacts included four wheels, nine marbles, sixteen discs, forty-three spindle whorls, nine beads, one tile, thirteen bangle pieces, nine animal figurines, two balls, one top, six reels, three miniature vessels, one votive tablet, two pellets, one tablet, one seal, two plaques, one human figurine, seventy-five worked sherds, as well as three and twenty-seven unidentified objects of clay and terracotta, respectively. Artefacts of other materials included two rings, one nail, one rod and various unidentified pieces of iron, two glass beads, two agate beads, two carnelian beads, two red jasper beads, three beads of faience/vitreous materials, one crystal bead, twelve glass bangle pieces, one gold glass bead, three bone points, one bone pendant, one ring,

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  49 one antimony rod, and fragments of copper, two cowries, one shell bangle piece, and stone artefacts that included thirteen grinders/pestles/mortars, one incised disc, one marble, and numerous worked fragments. The entire range of ceramics from two units, RKD-7 and RKD-9, has so far been closely analysed (Nair 2014). In all, eight features were recorded in RKD-7, comprising fragments of six different mud floors, a storage pit, and a firing installation. Several ceramic forms such as jar/pot, bowl, basin, lid, and lamp were found. Among the closed category of vessels, which can be dated from about the sixth–seventh centuries CE onwards, are Type 7 (externally projecting beak-shaped rim), Type 13 (externally projecting rim, thickened at the lower part of the exterior); Type 27 (externally projecting rim with a beak-like horizontal projection), Type 37 (externally projecting rim with a concavity on the top and a horizontal beak-like projection), Type 86 (externally projecting rim with a concavity on the exterior), and Type 131 (externally projecting bifurcated rim with a concave neck). In the open category are vessels with rims having appliqué and indented designs. Among the decorated sherds, the chequered impressed sherds are also present which are found from about the fifth century CE onwards. Bowl Type 126–2 (externally projecting horizontal flanged rim with slightly slanting sides) from Feature 2 can be dated to between the sixth and the tenth centuries CE. It also bears a painted design of loop/arches on its splayed-out rim. Many bowls, with sharp-edged rims and tapering sides, found in this unit belong to the sub-Type 28–22, which is found from the sixth century CE onwards (Nair 2014). A charcoal sample from locus 4 (Beta-320139) revealed a 2 Sigma calibrated date (95% probability) ranging from Cal AD 770–900 (Cal BP 1180–1050) and Cal AD 920–940 (Cal BP 1030–1010). RKD-9 was dug down 2.68 m to natural soil that was reached at 248.1 msl. In total, twenty loci were excavated in RKD-9. Within these loci, several features, including eight mud floors, two pottery dumps, six pits, and two storage pits were identified. Structural evidence comprised a clay mud platform, and a grain storage structure containing several charred barley grains (Dimri 2020). It appears that the levels from Loci 1 to 8 were disturbed by several pits, whereas those from 9 to 15 were relatively less so. In contrast, the lower deposits, from Loci 16 to 20, were undisturbed and marked by Painted Grey Ware and Grey Wares. The ceramic analysis by Nair indicates that Loci 1–8 can be dated between the fourth and the tenth centuries CE. Loci 9–20 can be dated between the fourth century BCE and the fourth century CE. A charcoal sample from locus 19 (Beta-320140) revealed a 2 Sigma calibrated date (95% probability) ranging between Cal BC 360–270 (Cal BP 2310–2220) and Cal BC 260–170 (Cal BP 2210–2120). Overall, the evidence indicates that this part of the mound was abandoned around the fourth century CE, following which it began to be used as a refuse area where discarded material including ceramics was dumped. Much of this is captured by the evidence from Loci 1 to 8 in the various pits and dumps that were excavated and based on ceramics, dated between the fourth and

50  Supriya Varma the tenth centuries CE. Among the chronologically diagnostic ceramics are various rim types of the jar/pot category. These include Type 178 dated to the fourth–fifth centuries CE; Types 1, 27, 30, 37, 86, 131, 168, and 192 of the periods ranging from roughly the fourth to the tenth centuries CE; and Types 7 and 13 of the periods ranging from the sixth to the tenth centuries CE or so. Among bowls, Type 12–17 was typical of the fourth–fifth centuries CE, while Type 28–22 was in use from roughly the sixth to the tenth centuries CE. Type 41 was the rim for a common basin form in the period ranging from the sixth to the tenth centuries CE or so, while Type 194 was a handi form typical of the period ranging from the fourth to the tenth centuries CE or so (Nair 2014). The occupation at Rohana Khurd10 appears to have begun around the fourth century BCE and continued possibly till the end of the tenth century CE, as indicated by the five AMS dates mentioned above. Overall, the size of the settlement, depth of deposit, absence of architectural remains, and numerous mud floors associated with pits and hearths suggest that Rohana Khurd remained a rural settlement over the entire duration, from the fourth century BCE till it was abandoned at the end of the tenth century CE. Thus, the archaeological studies at Indor Khera and Rohana Khurd have demonstrated the potential of documenting long-term, dynamic occupational histories of places by combining systematic surveys with small-scale excavations. The next step will be to closely analyse the ceramic and artefactual assemblages along with the architectural remains to further understand the changes as well as continuities over time especially in the contexts of periods categorised as early historic as well as the medieval. This should include both within the early historic and the medieval as well as across these two periods. In the case of Indor Khera, two major transformations have been noted, the first around the beginning of the second century BCE and the second around the beginning of the seventh century CE. On the other hand, the village at Rohana Khurd exhibited far fewer changes in artefacts and architecture over a period spanning almost fourteen hundred years. In the absence of material indicators for inequality, can we speculate that this settlement at Rohana Khurd and perhaps others as well in the northern part of the upper doab region remained home to egalitarian smallscale agrarian societies for millennia?11

Conclusion Although the medieval and early modern periods have not received as much attention from archaeologists working in South Asia as compared to the earlier periods, yet archaeological research on the later periods has been gradually emerging in the last two decades and is currently rapidly moving forward in encouraging directions. In South Asia, archaeologists have tended to focus on individual sites rather than on micro- or macro-regions. Even while investigating the former, the focus has invariably been on the

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  51 deepest pasts. It may, however, be now more fruitful for archaeologists to investigate at multiple scales, ranging from political/ritual/administrative/ market centres to their hinterlands of villages and camps, or from individual sites to micro- and macro-regions, to get new insights about the medieval and even early modern periods in South Asia. Methodologically, multiphase as well as multidisciplinary projects need to be planned at the regional or micro-regional scales, spanning a longer temporal frame; instead of focusing on a single period as has often been the case. In the first stage, systematic field surveys combined with GIS (geographical information systems), geoarchaeological and archaeobotanical studies need to be undertaken at and around many more known medieval and early modern settlements. This can be followed by test pits and small-scale excavations for ascertaining chronology, building ceramic profiles, archaeobotanical and archaeozoological analyses, use wear and residue analyses of carefully collected samples of ceramics, and other artefacts. Such studies, however, also need to be integrated with textual, inscriptional, numismatic, architectural, and cartographic data. Given that the medieval and early modern remains are most often visible or are close to the surface, surveys and excavations are far easier than for the earlier periods, which lie buried in far deeper contexts. It is perhaps a strange twist in South Asian archaeology that even as we have far more accessible traces of the medieval and early modern periods, we continue to chase the elusive deeper histories, the remains of which barely exist. It is well known that archaeological studies are best suited for registering changes as well as continuities over the longue durée. Even though in this chapter, I have attempted to locate the medieval in South Asian archaeology, yet invariably this historiographical exercise has made it clear that it is impossible to not make forays into the early historic as well as the early modern periods due to the longer continuities that may have existed at the beginning as well as the end of the medieval period. Hence, the temporal frame of the medieval should be viewed as an open and a porous entity, and perhaps therein lies the strength of the middle period. This location makes it easier to trace pre-existing trajectories in the early historic period as well as track those that followed into the early modern period. Nonetheless, doubts remain about persisting with a category such as ‘medieval archaeology’ and whether in the context of South Asia, it may be better to replace it with the field of Historical Archaeology. How do we define Historical Archaeology, specifically in the context of South Asia? Here, my own sense is that rather than framing Historical Archaeology in a temporal sense,12 we need to do so from methodological and theoretical lenses. What we are currently witnessing is really a debate on the ontology of archaeology itself. It is increasingly being argued that what has defined archaeology from the beginning has been not so much a long chronology but a new method for understanding the past and even the present: The analysis of material culture. Thus, archaeology can gain much from being defined not in relation to chronology but in relation to materiality.

52  Supriya Varma

Notes 1 On rare occasions archaeologists have undertaken some work at medieval sites such as M. S. Mate at Daulatabad, R. N. Mehta at Champaner, and R. C. Gaur at Fathpur Sikri. 2 This methodological problem was first highlighted by Dayal (2005a, p. 65), although her point was made in the context of differential occupation within parts of a single mound. She had suggested that “only horizontal and extensive excavations can adequately expose the complex depositional patterns at a site” (p. 61). She had also argued that archaeological research alone had the potential of revealing both urban and rural settlements of the medieval period. 3 A similar range of ceramics has been reported from Chaul (Gogte et al. 2006) and Banbhore (Felici et al. 2016). While Chaul is located on the north bank of the Kundalika River on the Konkan coast, Banbhore is located on the northern bank of the Gharo creek at the mouth of the Indus Delta. This is a sixty-fivehectare site, with an unwalled settlement around a citadel. Excavations have revealed evidence of structures identified as harbour, warehouses, and workshops along with evidence of craft production. An artificial lake and sluices have also been reported from Banbhore. Based on ceramic analysis, it has been suggested that during the period between the second–third century CE and the seventh–eighth century CE, there was a closer relationship with the western coastal sites of South Asia, although torpedo jars from the Persian Gulf region are also quite significant. In the next phase, however, between the late seventh and early thirteenth centuries CE, the ceramics indicate far more trade with West Asia. 4 On the face of it, the settlements in the preceding early historical period were more nucleated. However, this impression is partly due to the focus of archaeological research solely on the fortified urban core areas. Seldom has any attempt been made to examine the hinterlands of the early historic urban centres. One micro-region, the Taxila Valley, reveals a pattern in the early historical period that may not be that different from what we encounter in the medieval period except for the presence of water management systems, such as tanks and artificial lakes. The valley lies in the western half of the Potwar plateau, which is located between the Indus and Jhelum Rivers, nearly 42 km north-west of Islamabad in present-day Pakistan. Spanning a period of nearly 1000 years, successive fortified cities existed at the three adjacent sites of Bhir Mound, Sirkap, and Sirsukh, all circumscribed within an area of 6 sq. km. Yet, the entire landscape of the Taxila Valley, encompassing an area of nearly 144 sq. km (18 × 8 km), was marked by over fifty-five stupas, twenty-eight monasteries, and nine temples (Marshall 1951, pp. 222–397). This micro-region was thus interspersed by three broad types of settlements: Cities, religious establishments, as well as villages. It is likely that the numerous small mounds in the low-lying areas are the loci of ancient rural settlements. None of these would have existed in isolation and instead would have been politically, socially, ritually, and economically intertwined. 5 This was co-directed by the author in collaboration with Jaya Menon, with a permit from the Archaeological Survey of India. 6 A charcoal sample from locus 27 (Beta-310833) revealed a 2 Sigma calibrated date (95% probability) ranging between Cal BC 390–350 (Cal BP 2340–2300) and Cal BC 300–220 (Cal BP 2250–2180) Cal BC 220–210 (Cal BP 2170–2160). 7 These dates are (Beta-580410) Cal BC 175–AD 8 (Cal BP 2124–1942), (Beta310834) Cal BC 90–80 (Cal BP 2040–2030) AND Cal BC 50 Cal AD 60 (Cal BP 2000–1890), (Beta-314196) Cal BC 110 Cal AD 30 (Cal BP 2060–1920) AND Cal AD 40–50 (Cal BP 1910–1900), (Beta-580409) Cal AD 245–402 (Cal BP 1705–1548), and (Beta-314197) Cal AD 440–450 (Cal BP 1510–1500) AND

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  53 Cal AD 460–480 (Cal BP 1490–1470) Cal AD 530–610 (Cal BP 1420–1340). All these are 2 Sigma calibrated dates. 8 The earliest (Phase I) was a structure composed of circular alignments of large sized (50 × 20 × 6 cm) baked bricks making an almost bowl-shaped construction that ended at the bottom in a thick packing of brickbats. On the outer part of the structure was a flat paving of bricks (each ranging from 35–40 × 20–25 × 6 cm), possibly a path going around the structure. The circular structure as well as the path around it had an overall diameter of 4.55 m. Three baked brick structures, in the southern (with brick size of 29 × 21 × 5 cm), western (with brick size of 33–38 × 21–24 × 6 cm) and northern (with brick size of 30 × 20 × 6 cm) parts of the area were built in Phase II. These are small, square in shape and had their entrances towards the east. The northern structure measured 2.85 × 2.05 m (extant) on the outside and 1.65×1.60 m (extant) on the inside and had a wall thickness of 0.60 m. The southern structure measured 2.55 × 2.05 m on the outside, 1.60 × 1.40 m on the inside and had a wall thickness of 0.50 m. The outer dimensions of the western structure were 5.80 × 4.25 m and the inner 2.45 × 2.15 m. The inner and outer measurements of the entrance to this western structure were 1.55 × 0.90 m and 2.35 × 2.05 m, respectively. The wall thicknesses of the western structure and the entrance were 1.0–1.05 m and 0.75 m, respectively. In the next two phases of construction (Phases IIIa and IIIb), two rectangular structures of baked bricks (with size of 33–35 × 21–24 × 6 cm) were built, oriented in different directions. The dimension of the Phase IIIa single-roomed/hall was 12.50 × 8.75 m with a wall thickness of 0.65–0.75 m. The IIIb structure comprising of two rooms measured on the outside 10.20 × 3.25 m, with a wall thickness of 0.50–0.60 m. The eastern and western rooms measured 3.70 × 2.35 m and 4.90 × 2.45 m, respectively. The earlier structure is oriented north-south, while the latter is in an east-west direction. It is possible that the western shrine was still in use when the earlier rectangular structure was built, as a wall from the latter proceeds to meet up with the former. It is not quite clear what the function of these structures could have been. Were these congregational areas for ritual or living areas for ritual personnel? Stratigraphically later than the second rectangular structure is a baked brick structure (with brick size of 34 × 21 × 6 cm), of Phase IV, comprising an extensive (about 36 sq. m) paved plinth made of baked bricks (31–32 × 20–21 × 5 cm), with a height of about 0.9 m, on the eastern side. The excavated artefacts comprised an animal figurine, a moulded figurine of a seated bull (of which an almost exact copy was found on the main mound), bead, shuttle, plaque, whorl, marble, handle, tiles, worked sherds, lumps, and several unidentified pieces of terracotta; moulded bricks; clay lumps; a coin, bangle pieces, ring, rod, and fragments of copper; grinding stone, disc, and a few worked pieces of stone; a shell bangle piece; cowries; glass bangle pieces; and fragments of iron. Other than these, slivers of bones, a few seeds, and ceramics in a limited area of the mound were also recovered. 9 This was co-directed by the author in collaboration with Jaya Menon, with a permit from the Archaeological Survey of India. The ceramics collected during the systematic survey as well as from the excavations in test units RKD-7 and RKD-9 were analysed by Deepak Nair (2014) as part of his Ph.D. thesis. 10 Although this site had been reported as “a regional centre” of the Harappan/ Ochre Coloured Pottery period (Chakrabarti 2007, pp. 170, 172, 182), neither the survey nor the excavations at Rohana Khurd have revealed any evidence for Harappan or Ochre Coloured Pottery. 11 For more on this, see Varma, Menon, and Nair 2021. 12 In contrast, in the case of the North America and Australia, the term Historical Archaeology is largely associated with the European colonial expansion in the

54  Supriya Varma last 500 years. There are, however, critiques of this understanding of Historical Archaeology being confined to the last 500 years, especially from archaeologists who work in South America and Africa. The archaeological traditions in Britain, however, are slightly divergent from those in North America. In the case of the former, archaeology remains tied to specific historical periods, for instance, Classical Archaeology, Medieval Archaeology, Post-Medieval Archaeology, Industrial Archaeology, and Contemporary Archaeology.

References Bhandare, S., (2015). Space for change: evaluating the ‘paucity of metallic currency’ in medieval India. In: H. P. Ray, ed. Negotiating cultural identity: landscapes in early medieval South Asian history. New Delhi: Routledge. pp. 159–202. Brubaker, R. P., (2015). Vijayanagara: warfare and the archaeology of defence. New Delhi: Manohar. Carlleyle, A. C. L., (1879). Reports of tours in the Central Doab and Gorakhpur in 1874–75 and 1875–76, volume XII. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Chakrabarti, D. K., (2007). Archaeological geography of the Ganga Plain: the Upper Ganga (Oudh, Rohilkhand, and the Doab). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Chattopadhyaya, B., (2012a). Trade and urban centres in early medieval North India. In: B. Chattopadhyaya, ed. The making of early medieval India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 134–159. Chattopadhyaya, B., (2012b). Introduction: the making of early medieval India. In: B. Chattopadhyaya, ed. The making of early medieval India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–37. Chattopadhyaya, B., (2012c). Introduction to the second edition: passages from the classical towards the medieval, understanding the Indian experience. In: B. Chattopadhyaya, ed. The making of early medieval India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. XIX–LXVI. Coningham, R., (1999). Anuradhapura: the site, volume I. Oxford: Archaeopress. Coningham, R., (2006). Anuradhapura: the artefacts, volume II. Oxford: Archaeopress. Coningham, R. and Gunawardhana, P., (2013). Anuradhapura: the hinterland, volume III. Oxford: BAR. Coningham, R., Gunawardhana, P., Manuel, M., Adikari, G., Katugampola, M., Young, R., Schmidt, A., Krishnan, K., Simpson, I., McDonnell, G. and Batt, C., (2007). The state of theocracy: defining an early medieval hinterland in Sri Lanka. Antiquity. 81, 699–719. Davison-Jenkins, D. J., (1997). The irrigation and water supply systems of Vijayanagara. New Delhi: Manohar. Dayal, S., (2005a). Towns, villages and desertion: exploring the early medieval phase in Indian archaeology. Man and Environment. 30(1), 61–66. Dayal, S., (2005b). Brahmana settlements in a famine zone: a case-study of Shorapur Doab in the early medieval period. Man and Environment. 30(2), 83–89. Dimri, H., (2020). Palaeobotanical study from Rohana Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, c. 4th Century BCE–10th Century CE: stereomicroscopy. Unpublished Project Report, Delhi-NCR: Shiv Nadar University.

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  55 Felici, A. C., Fusaro, A., Ibrahim, A., Lashari, Kh., Manassero, N., Fiorani, M. V. and Tilla, A., (2016). Archaeological excavations at Banbhore, Sindh: preliminary report of the Pakistani-Italian 2014 and 2015 field seasons. Parthica. 18, 125–173. Fletcher, R., (2012). Low-density, agrarian-based urbanism. In: M. E. Smith, ed. The comparative archaeology of complex societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 285–320. Gogte, V., Pradhan, S., Dandekar, A., Joshi, S., Nanji, R., Kadgaonkar, S. and Marathe, V., (2006). The ancient port at Chaul. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology. 3, 62–80. Hauser, M. W. and Selvakumar, V., (2021). Gardens of the Coromandel Coast: landscape Considerations of commercial agriculture in Tamil Nadu, South India. International Journal of Historical Archaeology. [online] [Viewed on 20 September 2020]. Available from: https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10761​-021​-00591​-x. Hawkes, J. D., (2014a). Finding the ‘early medieval’ in South Asian archaeology. Asian Perspectives. 53(1), 53–96. Hawkes, J. D., (2014b). Chronological sequences and the problem of early medieval settlement in India. Puratattva. 44, 208–228. Hawkes, J. D., (2014–15). Passage to India: locating South Asia in the Indian Ocean World during the early medieval period. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology. 10–11, 95–121. Iyer, S., (2019). Political landscapes and the construction of a medieval city: an archaeological study of Warangal. M. Phil dissertation. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University. Kadambi, H., (2011). Sacred landscapes in early medieval south India: the Chalukya state and society (ca. AD 550–750). Ph.D. dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Kalra, K., (2016). Water management and settlement patterns in South India, from c. eleventh century to sixteenth century AD. Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of California. Kennet, D., (2004). The transition from early historic to early medieval in the Vakataka realm. In: H. Bakker, ed. The Vakataka heritage: Indian culture at the crossroads. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. pp. 11–17. Kennet, D., (2013). Reconsidering the decline of urbanism in late early historic and early medieval South Asia. In: J. Schiettecatte and C. Robin, eds. Les préludes de l’Islam: Ruptures et continuités dans les civilisations du Proche-Orient de l’Afrique orientale, de l’Arabie et de l’Inde à la veille de l’Islam, Orient & Méditerranée No. 11. Paris: de Boccard. pp. 331–353. Lucero, L. J., Roland, F. and Coningham, R., (2015). From ‘collapse’ to urban diaspora: the transformation of low-density, dispersed agrarian urbanism. Antiquity. 89, 1139–1154. Mani, B. R., (1997). Delhi: threshold of the orient (studies in archaeological investigations). New Delhi: Aryan. Marshall, J., (1951). An illustrated account of archaeological excavations 1913– 1934, volumes I–III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mate, M. S., (1983). Daulatabad: road to Islamic archaeology in India. World Archaeology. 14(3), 335–341.

56  Supriya Varma Menon, J. and Varma, S., (2010a). Reading archaeological evidence: ceramic and terracotta production at Indor Khera, Uttar Pradesh (200 BCE–500 CE). Indian Historical Review. 37(2), 187–216. Menon, J. and Varma, S., (2010b). Children playing and learning: crafting ceramics in ancient Indor Khera. Asian Perspectives. 49(1), 85–109. Menon, J. and Varma, S., (2011). Everyday objects, pottery production and nonelite houses in the medieval period at Indor Khera. Journal of History and Social Sciences. 2(1), 34–47. Menon, J. and Varma, S., (2016). Excavation at Rohana Khurd, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Indian Archaeology 2011–12 - A Review, 94–105. Menon, J., Varma, S., Bal, P., Dayal, S., Abid, M. and Ahmed, Z., (2008). Indor Khera revisited: excavating a site in the Upper Ganga Plains. Man and Environment. 33(2), 88–98. Miller, H. J., (2017). A further note on Rang Mahal pottery, interpreting ceramics and dynastic history. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology. 5, 47–55. Morrison, K. D., (2000). Fields of victory: Vijayanagara and the course of intensification. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Morrison, K. D., (2009). Daroji Valley: landscape history, place, and the making of a dryland reservoir system. New Delhi: Manohar. Nair, D. K., (2014). Understanding ceramic variability from the archaeological sites of the Ganga-Yamuna Doab. Ph.D. thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Nanji, R. J., (2011). Mariners and merchants: a study of the ceramics from Sanjan (Gujarat). Oxford: BAR. Panja, S., (2002). Understanding early medieval sites of North Bengal. In: G. Sengupta and S. Panja, eds. Archaeology of Eastern India: new perspectives. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Studies and Training. pp. 227–278. Panja, S., (2018). Whither ‘early medieval’ settlement archaeology: a case study of the Varendra Region. Journal of the Asiatic Society. LX(1), 27–62. Panja, S., Nag, A. K. and Bandyopadhyay, S., (2015). Living with floods: archaeology of a settlement in the Lower Ganga Plains, c. 600–1800 CE. New Delhi: Primus. Patel, A., (2018). Connecting capitals: the Ghazna - Firuzkuh – Lalkot Trilogue. Naples. 24th Conference of the European Association for South Asian Archaeology and Art. Organised by the European Association for South Asian Art and Archaeology. 2–6 July, 2018. [unpublished paper]. Rao, M. S. N and Malhotra, K. C., (1965). The stone age hill dwellers of Tekkalakota. Poona: Deccan College. Sanyal, R., (2013). Beyond explorations: a case study on early medieval archaeology from epigraphic perspective. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 4, 33–51. Sen, S., (2017). Landscape contexts of the early mediaeval settlements in Varendri/ Gauda: an outline on the basis of total surveying and excavations in DinajpurJoypurhat Districts, Bangladesh. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 8, 59–109. Sen, S., (2018). Northwestern Bangladesh: sites and settlements. In: A. M. Chowdhury and R. Chakravarti, eds. History of Bangladesh: early Bengal in regional perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 317–350. Sen, S., (2020). ‘Gupta and post Gupta’ settlements in the ‘hinterland zone’ of Varendri. In: J.-F. Salles, ed. Sources on the Gauḍa period in Bengal: essays in Archaeology. New Delhi: Primus. pp. 13–43.

Locating the medieval in South Asian archaeology  57 Singh, U., (2011). Introduction. In: U. Singh, ed. Rethinking early medieval India: a reader. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–44. Sinopoli, C. M., (1993). Pots and palaces: the earthenware ceramics of the noblemen’s quarter of Vijayanagara. New Delhi: Manohar. Sinopoli, C. M. and Morrison, K. D., (2007). The Vijayanagara metropolitan survey, volume I (Memoir 41). Ann Arbor, MI: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Sugandhi, N. S., (2014). Tekkalakota through the ages: recent research and perspectives. Man and Environment. 39(1), 62–80. Suvrathan, U., (2013). Complexity on the periphery: a study of regional organization at Banavasi, c. 1st–18th century AD. Ph.D. dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Suvrathan, U., (2014). Regional centres and local elite: studying peripheral cores in peninsular India. Indian History. 1, 89–142. Tomber, R., (2007). Rome and Mesopotamia: importers into India in the first millennium AD. Antiquity. 81, 972–988. Torri, M., (2014). For a new periodization of Indian history: the history of India as part of the history of the world. Studies in History. 30(1), 89–108. Uesugi, A., (2014). A note on the Rang Mahal Pottery. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology. 2, 125–151. Varma, S. and Menon, J., (2011). Craft quarters at the edge of a settlement: Indor Khera 200 BCE – 300 CE. Journal of History and Social Sciences. 2(1), 1–18. Varma, S. and Menon, J., (2015). Mapping histories and practices of potters’ households in ancient Indor Khera (200 BCE – 500 CE). In: K. Roy, ed. Looking within, looking without: exploring households in the subcontinent through time. New Delhi: Primus Books. pp. 19–45. Varma, S. and Menon, J., (2016). Terracotta Anvils and Dabbers from potting households in ancient Indor Khera (200 BCE – 600 CE). Pratnatattva. 22, 9–19. Varma, S., Menon, J. and Nair, D., (2021). Ephemeral traces: archaeology of a medieval rural settlement. The Medieval History Journal. 24(1–2), 281–319, Special Double Issue, Archaeologies of the Medieval in South Asia. Vats, M. S., (1925–26). Ahar. In: J. F. Blakiston, ed. Annual report of the archaeological survey of India. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 56–58. Williams, T., Malhotra, A. and Hawley, J. S. eds., (2018). Text and tradition in early modern North India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Wilson, B. C., (2015). In the shadow of the cathedral: the production of urban landscapes, human environment interaction, and ruination in Velha Goa during Portuguese colonial occupation. Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago. Zubair, A., (2016). The archaeological landscape of the Upper Ganga Plain: the Chhoiya, Kali Nadi and Ganga Tract. Ph.D. thesis. Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University.

3

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history Perspectives from archaeology Bhairabi Prasad Sahu

I Recent perspectives of the early medieval Indian history have moved away from its earlier characterisation from the vantage point of Indian feudalism and all that it entailed. The movement towards studying the regions since the 1970s brought new issues and perspectives to bear on the reading of the inscriptions, which so far have constituted the major source material for deciphering the times. The earlier idea of decline or shrinkage of the nonagricultural sector of the economy, involving crafts manufacture, towns, and trade, and, deriving from it, even the requirement and circulation of metallic money has been both contested and problematised on empirical considerations. The notion of contemporary Indian villages being self-sufficient, isolated, and immutable has not only been questioned but actually ‘shattered’. Histories of settlements, their spatial and social compositions as well as variations across settlements, and their inherent dynamism have emerged as a new area of interest among historians. Rural settlements and societies are seen to be interacting at various levels and changing through time (Chattopadhyaya 1990). It is in these changes at the local and regional levels that the growth of towns, perceived as the ‘third urbanisation’, and concomitant developments have been located. A set of different questions are being increasingly asked of the inscriptional material in the wider context of geography and earlier history of the respective localities and regions, and it has led to a new understanding of the early medieval period (for an overview, see Sahu 2016). Quantification and contextualisation of the data in some cases have opened up new frontiers (Subbarayalu 2012). It is in the aforesaid dynamism of these centuries (agrarian growth – the rise of exchange centres and locality markets – the emergence of nodes and towns) that the roots of medieval efflorescence are seen to be situated. Historiographically, these tendencies are easily discernible from the 1990s onwards, though the early alternative conceptualisations can be traced back to the early 1980s, and their lineage can still be pushed back to the mid-1970s – the heyday of Indian feudalism. Almost synchronising with the above-said developments, archaeologists and numismatists have since the 1990s begun looking at the early medieval DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-4

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  59 material evidence more carefully and even in a nuanced fashion. The works of Dilip K. Chakrabarti, John Deyell, Shailendra Bhandare, Derek Kennet, Jason Hawkes, Sheena Panja, Jaya Menon, Supriya Varma, and Swadhin Sen, among others, easily come to mind. Today, we have a different understanding of the numismatic history of the period under consideration and a richer perspective of the history of material remains and settlements, flowing from a critical analysis of the representative potteries of the times, such as Red Polished Ware, Torpedo Ware, and Glazed Ware, as well as their respective stratigraphies and chronologies. Field surveys beyond single excavated mounds and the study of settlement complexes instead of just single sites are beginning to enrich our understanding of settlement patterns through regions. The spatial constituents of settlements are being understood better. Their transformation over time and also the multi-religious character of most archaeological sites are gradually beginning to attract attention. Similarly, the plea for focusing on the archaeology and geography of land grants, too, holds promise for the future, with the possibility of modifying some of the earlier cherished ideas. Increasingly, the question of the emergence of cultural/historical regions, as distinguished from modern administrative units through the sub-continent during the early medieval and medieval centuries, is acquiring importance among social scientists. Incidentally, this is an area where the archaeologist and historian can collaborate in unveiling the constituent ingredients: materiality, social structure, art, religion, literature, and script. Settlement patterns and their cultural assemblages, including associated hamlets, flimsy settlements, and water resources, together with their changing spatial contours and spread of settlements, are issues which can be addressed by both archaeologists and historians independently and from different sources. However, it needs to be said that it is time they moved in tandem for more productive results, and the venture to be successful should begin with the participants appreciating what has been achieved in particular fields by the practitioners of the respective crafts. This chapter makes an effort to assess the works done by archaeologists on early medieval India, followed by what has been achieved by historians for the same period in more recent decades, and concludes with a few suggestions. Given the commonalities of interest between the two sister disciplines, the discussion at times tries to juxtapose and interweave their findings.

II Conventionally, archaeology suggests that the Gupta period witnessed the decay of early historical urban centres, though a chronological variance is noticed across spaces. While some regions witnessed the desertion and decline of sites around 300 CE, others suffered the same fate in the middle of the sixth century CE, coinciding with the fall of the Guptas. This position, initially articulated in the mid-1960s by R. S. Sharma, assumed greater clarity

60  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu in the early seventies in an article by him and was subsequently systematised in a monograph titled Urban Decay in India c. AD 300–1000 in the later eighties (Sharma 1965, 1972, 1987). This thesis has come in for criticism in recent times by historians and archaeologists, as should be clear in what follows. To be fair to Sharma, it needs to be mentioned that this impression of decay is largely articulated by the published reports of excavated sites and their structure and organisation. Meanwhile, from the middle of the seventies onwards, B. D. Chattopadhyaya, turning to inscriptions, moved on to argue that in the Gurjara-Pratīhāras territories in Northern India, Rajasthan, and adjoining areas, exchange centres began to surface as a consequence of agrarian growth and the availability of a marketable surplus. Some of these centres known as haṭṭtas (village fairs) and māṇḍapikās (locality markets), with the passage of time, emerged as nodes largely owing to their spatial location, acting as the centres of resource mobilisation or being the focus of political interest. Such locality markets were known as peṇtas and nagarams in the Deccan and South India, respectively. Residential areas, market spaces, presence of royal officials, donations by the merchants to popular deities and shrines and the intersection of routes, and also the goods and commodities of exchange and the mercantile and artisanal guilds at these ‘central places’/‘nodal points’ come through vividly as constituents of these towns and commercial centres in Chattopadhyaya’s works. In the context of Rajasthan, the eighth century CE appears to be the turning point, and several studies across regions seem to endorse this position (Chattopadhyaya 1974, 1985, 1986; Nandi 2000; Jain 1990; Champakalakshmi 1996; Sahu 2015; Heitzman 2008, pp. 34–42). What the above discussion points to is that, though the second urbanisation was evidently coming to a close by the end of the Gupta period, a new phase, aptly characterised as the ‘third urbanisation’, was beginning to play itself out riding on the back of land grants, agrarian expansion, and the growth of the rural economy through the varied cultural regions. These urban centres were more rooted in the regional context and local exchange networks compared to those of the early historical period. Their numbers increased, and they provided not only linkages with the countryside but also the basis for urbanisation during the Sultanate in Northern India. That apart, a closer study of the archaeological reports attests to the continued persistence of some early historical settlements through the early medieval times. Kanauj, despite being a good example, does not stand alone. Rajghat, Ujjain, Malhar, Salihundam, and Kalinganagara have yielded similar evidence. Continuity of settlements is registered at Bangarh, Mangalkot, and Karnasuvarna in West Bengal and Mahasthangarh in Bangladesh, and they seem to have survived well into the Pāla times (Chattopadhyaya 2003, pp. 66–101). Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Odisha, and Karnataka, too, registered a fresh spate of urbanisation (Champakalakshmi 1996; Prasad 1989; Sahu 2015). Aihole, the Chalukyan capital located in the last-mentioned region, was home to the merchant guild called Ayyavole-500 in the seventh century

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  61 CE. They expanded to Tamil Nadu and then elsewhere. Simultaneously, the times witnessed the rise of other trading guilds known as manigramam (village of jewels), Nānādeśi (people from different countries), and anjuvannam. While some manigramams extended their orbit of activities to parts of Southeast Asia, the anjuvannam merchants traded with West Asia. That helps us to situate West Asian spice merchants such as Abraham bin Yiju operating from Mangalore in the closing centuries of our period. Warehouses and mercenary armies to protect goods in transit and at the warehouses followed to form important components of the urban landscape (Subbarayalu 2012, pp. 176–206). Coinage in the post-Gupta period, it is said, did not suffer shrinkage, and in terms of volumes, was comparable to other periods of Indian history. Admittedly, they did not constitute varied types, but there was no paucity of coins from the north-central or north-west part of India to Afghanistan, including Gujarat (Deyell 1990). More recently, it has been persuasively demonstrated that many of the earlier coin motifs circulated in the regional contexts at least up to the eighth century CE because of their local acceptability in exchange transactions (Bhandare 2015). The failure to recognise that coin types undergo a ‘fossilisation’ process had its obvious pitfalls. The eighth-century CE archer-type coins in Bengal were placed almost three centuries earlier. The relative paucity of coins suggested earlier had a bearing on the dating of the early medieval layers insofar as they are seen as good dating objects. Moreover, coins used to date layers based on their centuries of issue created their own inherent problems largely because coins were in circulation over long durations. That apart, the issue and circulation of coins from Gandhara and Sind to Bengal and Bangladesh, and Kashmir to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been lucidly demonstrated with reference to extant coins. (Bhandare 2015). In addition, it has been shown that the Pālas, Gurjara-Pratīhāras, and Rāṣṭrakūṭas did, indeed, issue a large number of coins. Coins continued to be produced in gold and silver, and dramma, the silver coin, was the main Northern Indian currency of the times. The earlier methodological problems associated with the study of early medieval coins such as difficulties in dynastic attribution and non-recognition of posthumous issues, among others, appear to have led to erroneous conclusions. It is necessary not to lose sight of the continuous coming of Chinese pilgrims which indicates the overland connectivity provided by the Silk Road. Arab involvement and gradual domination of trade in the Indian Ocean from the late eighth century CE, which connected the Persian Gulf with China, was yet another development that impacted contemporary processes. The said voyages were necessarily segmented, and it brought South Asia, especially the western coast of India, into play. In fact, the Arabs, Persians, and Jews traded on the coast of Sind and the west coast down to Malabar. Interestingly, the period was also marked by the intensity of South Asian interactions with Southeast Asia (Manguin et al. 2011; Kulke et al. 2009). It needs to be mentioned that most of these recent narratives of

62  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu ‘connected histories’ did not find attention, let alone engagement, of our historians because they looked at our early medieval pasts through the Indian feudalism lenses, which provided only a blinkered understanding by not encouraging to look beyond the country’s borders. Thankfully, the more recent years are marked by a change in perspectives (Singh and Dhar 2014). It needs no emphasis that these past processes can be ignored only at the cost of our own peril. In recent years, some good work is being done to retrieve the legacies, as well as the city spaces and public domains, of early medieval times. The archaeological evidence collated to argue for urban decay in the post-Gupta centuries is increasingly being contested on several counts. The idea of desertion or decline of towns is seen to have been built on evidence which is suspect because the methods employed in arriving at such conclusions are found to be unsatisfactory. New settlements are said to have come up at fresh locations. The works of Chattopadhyaya, Champakalakshmi, and Ranabir Chakravarti, for instance, not only provide us with a list of new settlements but also explain their origins with reference to contemporary processes of change, within and outside the country (Chakravarti 2020, 2015; Champakalakshmi 1996; Chattopadhyaya 2012). While some cities indubitably continued into the early medieval period, several others began to register their presence. Whereas closer examination of the archaeological reports of excavated sites reveals the persistence of some of them and not their desertion or decay around the Gupta period, field surveys across regions attest to the emergence of new archaeological sites in the early medieval centuries. Sirpur and Rajim in Chhattisgarh, and Sonepur, Angul, Boudh, Jajpur, Cuttack (Barabati Fort), Puri, and Konark in Odisha in Eastern India are a few examples among many such sites. Some of them were commercial centres, while others were administrative centres or tīrthas, whereas yet others were multifunctional sites. The details for these are mostly drawn from epigraphical and archaeological sources. A systematic effort has not been made to test the validity of the envisaged pan-Indian decline of early historical sites, though there have been sporadic attempts to show the limitations of the general applicability of the thesis. Again, no concerted attempt has been directed towards working out a list, even if tentative, of the towns that surfaced during the early medieval centuries. However, it needs to be said that, region-wise, one can obtain some pictures of the emerging pattern, which admittedly will be uneven. Based on a review of the mainstream journals, a total of 108 early medieval settlements with excavated material remains have been identified (Hawkes 2014a, 2014b). To put things in perspective, one would like to suggest that many sites get reported in non-mainstream literature and that needs to be factored in for a more realistic appraisal. The map showing the distribution of early medieval settlements in Hawkes’s article shows a conspicuous blank for Chhattisgarh and Odisha, for instance, whereas excavated materials have been reported from some sites in these regions for the same period: Sirpur, Malhar, Cuttack,

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  63 Khalakatapatana, Manikapatna, and more recently, Aragarh (not to mention the Buddhist sites of Ratnagiri, Lalitagiri, and Udayagiri). Studies based on epigraphic material need to be taken seriously, especially when they are dealing with purās and paṭṭanas or multifunctional sites. The archaeology of such sites will help in clearing the haze. Besides, only 0.05%–2% of the area under the occupation of the early medieval settlements is said to have been excavated (Hawkes 2014a). It raises questions about how well they represent the sites under discussion or even the range of activities being pursued there. Bhubaneswar, for instance, has had a long history going back to the beginnings of Sisupalgarh (fifth century BCE), the times of Aśoka (Dhauli area) and Kharavela (Udayagiri-Khandagiri complex), through the early medieval times which is identified with the old part of the city with its cluster of temples to the modern state capital. It needs to be emphasised that the habitation area even in the early historical times was not necessarily confined to the fortified space but usually fanned out as is easily discernible in the spread of ancient ruins up to Dhauli from the outer walls of Sisupalgarh (Brandtner 1988–89). Mahasthangarh in Bangladesh has yielded comparable patterns where ruins are spread over a radius of about 5 km. The point that one is trying to make is that settlements comprise several mounds and are mobile and dynamic; they do not freeze in time, and this needs recognition in planning excavations to expose the necessary material.

III The recognition of the casual treatment meted out to the Gupta and postGupta archaeological layers in site after site, and the advantages of studying settlement complexes instead of single sites as has been carried out at Beshnagar and Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh, Nevasa in Maharashtra, Northern Bengal, and Lalgudi Taluk in Tamil Nadu, while questioning the earlier paradigm of urban decay, provide material evidence for early medieval settlements (Raman and Shanmugam 1997, pp. 81–92; Kennet 2004, pp. 11–17; Panja 2002). It is recognised that there are shifts in the area of occupation within the same locality, and yet large areas at the above-mentioned sites were never excavated. However, the data was used to support the idea of early medieval abandonment of urban settlements. Recent works suggesting the raising of the dates for the Red Polished Ware layers to the eighth century CE and bringing down those for the Islamic Glazed Ware to the eighth–ninth century CE, in fact, have a significant bearing on the usually posited deurbanisation gap (Kennet 2004). It needs to be mentioned that epigraphic material and field surveys in Tamil Nadu, Bengal, Kashmir (Lone 2015), and other regions are opening up possibilities for a relook at the history of settlements in the early medieval times insofar as the emergent picture is suggestive of a rise in the number of settlements, and in several cases, it also involved a marginal shift from the earlier early historical location of the site. The survey in Lalgudi Taluk, in Tamil Nadu, for instance, has made the latter pattern clear.

64  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu The steady manifestation of janapadas/nāḍus (settled agrarian localities) and gradually maṇḍalas/deśas such as Kāmrūpa, Varendrī, Kaliṇga, Daksina Kośala, Veṇgi, and Tondai all through the first millennium CE, particularly in its latter half and beyond, need to be appreciated as an interrelated development, demonstrating the gentle transformation of space and continuous spread of settlements and complex society. The history of early medieval settlements and the problems associated with the pottery types of those centuries warrant some serious consideration. The early medieval centuries are generally not studied archaeologically at all. In post-Independence India, the period has not been given the attention it deserved by archaeologists. The early medieval layers are mostly treated as just a phase in the several phases of occupation at a site, where interest is mostly focused on the earlier layers. (Hawkes 2014a). The early medieval layers at archaeological sites are usually defined by the presence of Red Polished Ware and Roman amphorae below, which are generally dated to the early centuries CE, and what is popularly known as ‘Islamic Glazed Wares’ above, at times dated to the eleventh century CE but mostly to the thirteenth century CE and after. Excavations at port sites in India such as Pattanam, Vizhinjam, Chaul, and Sanjam are now showing the export of Glazed Wares from the Persian Gulf and adjoining areas from the early part of the first millennium CE (Hawkes 2014a, p. 213). Red Polished Ware similarly at sites in Gujarat (Amreli, for example) has been dated up to the sixth century CE. Sherds of Indian Red Polished Ware have been obtained in contexts dated to the seventh–eighth centuries CE from sites in East Africa and UAE. Moreover, it has been shown that pottery earlier assumed to be Roman amphorae are actually Torpedo jars, a storage vessel used as late as the eighth–ninth century CE. They are also marked by the presence of a thick layer of bitumen on the interior surface (Hawkes 2014a, p. 213). It made them leak proof and safe for storing and transporting liquids. Their presence on the western coast of India as far as Sri Lanka is indicative of trade with the West Asian, South Arabian, and Mesopotamian regions. These findings force us to rethink the chronologies of the said ceramics or ‘fossil types’ as well as the thesis of the desertion of settlements during the Gupta period. In fact, deriving from it, many of the supposedly deserted sites might as well have been under habitation during the early medieval times. That said, it needs to be acknowledged that we know very little about early medieval material culture, including pottery typologies. Usually, the finds are Red and Grey Coarse Ware, which dominate the assemblages. Future question-driven field surveys and excavations will possibly open up opportunities to fill in the gap. In light of the above discussion, the material from Nagara in Gujarat was revisited to assess the validity of the conclusion that the site experienced a ‘hiatus of occupation’ between the eighth and fourteenth centuries CE. Four pieces of sherds earlier identified as Roman amphorae were seen to be Torpedo jars in their revised identification and dated to the eighth or even

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  65 ninth century CE. The Turquoise Glazed Pottery (TGP) sherds from the site on the basis of parallels for the ware from Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula (where they are said to span from the third to the fifteenth centuries CE) and the site of Sanjan are placed in the eighth–ninth centuries CE. It is believed that they were produced in Southern Iraq, in the vicinity of Basra, though there may have been other manufacturing centres, too. TGP has a light beige fabric and glaze expressing itself in green, yellow, white, or blue shades. The combined testimony of the two wares, the layers they came from, and the ‘architectural remains of the Chalukyan temples dating to between the tenth and twelfth centuries’ compel a reconsideration of the previously suggested early medieval break in the history of the site (Hawkes 2014a, pp. 222–225). Dwarka and Brahmapuri (Kolhapur) are supposed to have yielded a few fragmentary sherds of this ware. Chaul on the same coast has yielded this pottery together with an early medieval lid of a pot, Silhara Pottery, and a four-legged saddle quern (Gogte 2003). Further, Pattanam in the mid-Kerala coast has yielded TGP sherds of bowls, plates, and jars of varying sizes. At the site, the upper limit of the pottery remains (2148 fragments) has been dated to the eighth century CE. The Torpedo jar fragments (4082) are also assigned to the same terminal date (Cherian 2016, pp. 27, 30). The east coast, too, is said to have produced remains of the Glazed Pottery. Sherds of TGP have been identified in the excavated assemblages from Manikapatana and Palur on the northern part of the Chilika Lake and surface finds at Gourangapatana near Rambha in Odisha (Glover 2002, p. 169). All this is not to argue that all earlier dates assigned to assemblages and sites are wrong but only to suggest that in some cases they do need reassessment. Appreciating the earlier occurrence of TGW at some sites in no way minimises the significance of the study of the entirety of cultural assemblages at other archaeological sites. The above reassessment of the known material suggests that many of the early historical sites would have continued into the fourth–seventh centuries CE and beyond. The story of ruralisation of the economy and society from the Gupta period onwards then gets partly, if not entirely, queered. One may add that almost all sites that have been excavated and assigned to the early historical times have been identified as urban centres. We need to remind ourselves of the cautious note of H. B. Sarkar who, drawing on evidence from Andhradeśa, argued that a closer examination of the nature of the archaeological assemblage and their spatial context required the necessary consideration in determining the character of sites. Flowing from it, he moved on to demonstrate the essentially rural or what in his words were at most agrarian towns surrounded by rural settlements, and sites such as Bhattiprolu and Kesarapalle were under reference in this context (Sarkar 1988). Similarly, the early medieval Karṇasuvarṇa (present Rajbadidanga in Bengal) was located in an area with dense peasant settlements and seems to have served as an important node. The deposition of burnt grains of wheat and three varieties of rice at the settlement is seen to be indicative of its

66  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu linkages with South Bengal and the Upper Ganga Plains (Chattopadhyaya 2003, p. 88). While these instances warrant a relook at the available evidence region-wise, they in no way minimise the need for locating and excavating some rural sites. Similarly, the settlements that supported major cities, temple towns, or viharas need investigation. What immediately comes to mind is the pioneering work done not long ago in and around Sanchi, for instance (Shaw 2009). In the context of North Bengal, efforts have been made to look at the patterning of settlements and also account for the same. Interestingly, a distinction is made between sites and settlements, while the former was marked by stray finds and the latter represented human habitation. The absence of systematic work on pottery of the said chronological span is pointed out while urging the need to have a pottery index to move forward in the field of early medieval archaeology (Panja 2002). Jagjivanpur, the monastic site, being a single culture site dating from around the ninth century CE with its pottery remains holds some promise in this area as a type site. The areas taken up for survey were in Malda and Dinajpur Districts. The early medieval material mostly comprised pottery, structural, sculptural, and architectural remains. Most sites were multicultural, and the habitation appeared scattered and was in patches. Modern village habitations have impinged on them in many cases. Big settlement complexes like Bangarh and Mahasthangarh in Bangladesh are separated by huge distances, though Bangarh is away from the Barihatta complex by a distance of 24–30 km. Smaller habitation sites between major clusters are conspicuous by their absence. They may have been washed away or suffered deposition through time. The clusters of habitation-cum-structural remains are followed by gaps or isolated structural remains between such complexes, suggesting that common people mostly lived in impermanent flimsy dwellings in these flood-prone areas. Complexes like Bangarh and Mahasthangarh seem to have been located in areas less prone to flooding. It also emerges that large settlements such as Bangarh, Raniganj, Kandaran, and Jagjivanpur were near rivers amenable to riverine transport (Panja 2002). The patterning of settlements in the region surveyed makes it difficult to obtain a reasonable hierarchy of settlements. Interestingly, some of these ideas are also present in Chattopadhyaya’s contribution on urbanisation in Bengal published earlier in Pratna Samiksha and later included in his anthology (2003, pp. 85–90). In the same essay, he argues for the identification of historical regions and/ or subregions where settlements continued over a long span and in which new nodes emerged while also urging the location of such spaces where settlements proliferated significantly, leading consequently to the emergence of nodes. It needs no emphasis that regions comprised subregions, and the latter in turn were constituted by localities or janapadas. None of these cultural entities was homogeneous. In the more recently published treatise by Sheena Panja and her colleagues (Panja, Nag, and Bandyopadhyay 2015), many of her earlier findings have

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  67 been elaborated and enriched, especially in the light of the material obtained from Balupur situated in a dynamic flood plain. The importance of the excavated site lies in the nature of its formation in a flood zone, and also the mapping of its long-term cultural history between the seventh and nineteenth centuries CE. It is said that the permanent structures were mostly religious or administrative in nature, while the majority of the domestic dwellings in the area were ephemeral. Many structures were made of reused bricks because bricks happened to be a rare commodity in a flood zone. Deriving from it, the difficulty in classifying settlements as rural or urban has been expressed. Most of the habitation in the area appears to have been small, scattered, and flimsy. In the unstable and changing landscape, people relied on multiple subsistence activities. Agriculture was supplemented by forest products, fishing, manufacture of crafts, and trade. Their broad-based subsistence strategy is also borne out by the archaeozoological and archaeobotanical analysis of the Balupur material (Panja, Nag, and Bandyopadhyay 2015, pp. 182–90). All these activities also had a pre-thirteenth century CE history. While the net sinkers from Mahasthangarh affirm fishing, Chinese coins of the Northern Song dynasty dated to the eleventh century CE, for instance, attest to the trading activities in the region. Jaya Menon and Supriya Varma’s study of ceramics and terracotta (Menon and Varma 2010) dating between c. 200 BCE and 600 CE at the excavated site of Indor Khera in Tehsil Debai, District Bulandshahr, suggests the transmission of knowledge of crafts from one generation to another. What also comes through is that the study of single artefact types such as terracotta anvils and dabbers can help in delineating the histories of different houses and households from which they are recovered. Furthermore, in an insightful study, they have argued that the usually assumed change in artefacts and material cultures with the change in the composition of the ruling elites is largely unwarranted. Flowing from an analysis of the archaeological data from several sites ranging from the tenth–eleventh to the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries CE in North India, located between Thaneswar and Rajghat, the binaries such as ‘Rajput’ and ‘Sultanate’ are seen to be non-existent. The problems associated with the construction of religious or ethnic identities from the available archaeological material are unequivocally driven home (Varma and Menon 2008). It is argued that based on the analysis of the antiquities, including artefacts and structures, from sites such as Thaneswar, Hastinapur, Ahichchhatra, Purana Qila, Lalkot, and Rajghat, it is not possible to distinguish differences between the seventh–twelfth and twelfth–fifteenth centuries CE. The time period at all these places as at Indor Khera was marked by continuities. Tendencies to ascribe religious and/or ethnic identities to antiquities can be traced to colonial times. Insofar as it was used to designate monuments as ‘Buddhist’, ‘Hindu’, and ‘Mohammedan’, it was acceptable, but extending it to materials of everyday use such as bricks, pots, pans, bones, and glass objects has its complications. Styles do not vary with change in political elites, nor are

68  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu styles and ethnicity bounded. These findings, while demonstrating continuity in the material remains through half a dozen sites in Northern India between the tenth and fifteenth centuries CE, also have implications for the dynastic labelling of archaeological remains of the earlier periods. This is not the same as turning one’s back to technological changes and tastes through time, which is generally a result of concomitant and cumulative changes, and not just shifts in the ruling elites. Swadhin Sen has been working on the north-western part of Bangladesh in the hinterland area between Mahasthangarh (Pundranagara) and Bangarh (Kotivarsha) for some time now, largely to map the settlement history of the area which increasingly emerges to be dated to the early medieval period. He seems to be addressing some of the problems associated with early medieval archaeology in general, and more specifically, with the area between the southern part of Dinajpur and the northern part of Joypurahat Districts in Varendrī region of pre-modern Bengal. The effort has been to locate the spatio-temporal variations in settlement patterns in the area and delineate settlements and their boundaries in the pre-thirteenth century CE period. Water bodies, mostly ponds and their clustering, have been used to demonstrate settlements in the absence of fortifications and moats. All the settlements appear to belong to the seventh–thirteenth centuries CE, and that is important because the preceding fourth–sixth centuries CE do not provide much evidence for settlements. There seems to have been a major acceleration in the spread of settlements during and after the seventh century CE. People seem to have selected comparatively stable landforms during the seventh–eighth centuries CE and yet negotiated the changing river courses and floods. The Somapura mahāvihāra was situated in a terrain in flux and seems to correspond to the colonisation of different terrains in the area. Four types of settlements have been identified in terms of their relation to rivers and flood plains (for instance, Sen 2017). In spite of the finding of epigraphic material from the Gupta and post-Gupta times in the area, the archaeological picture was hazy until recently. The use of perishable materials in the shaping of mostly rural settlements, admittedly though some were in-between rural and urban settlements, and the floods may account for the meagre evidence. The ponds among other things were important for subsistence requirements, too. The interdisciplinary nature of the work and the questions that are being sought to be addressed hold great promise for the future.

IV It is generally believed that the rural dynamics of the early medieval centuries are mostly taken for granted and not laid bare in the textual historical treatment of the inscriptions. However, in works on rural settlements and society, water bodies in the context of the regions are indeed factored in (see Mishra 1997; Chattopadhyaya 1990; Fururi 2015; Karashima

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  69 1984; Chattopadhyaya 1990, Ghosh 2009; Sahu 1997). Whereas A. K. Choudhuary and B. D. Chattopadhyaya have meticulously worked on the spatial composition of rural settlements, Chattopadhyaya, Cynthia Talbot, Kesavan Veluthat, and this author have delineated the social morphology and physiology of particular regions (Choudhury 1971; Chattopadhyaya 1990; Talbot 2001; Veluthat 2018; Sahu 2013, pp. 61–79). Chattopadhyaya’s exemplary study of the changing constituents and landscape of Kalikatti village in South Karnataka, which changed character thrice in course of about a hundred years (changing hands from a sāmanta to the state and next being donated to the Brahmanas) drives home the dynamism of early medieval rural settlements and society (Chattopadhyaya 1990, pp. 93–124). The differences between rural settlements, and even villages, have been systematically highlighted. The interaction between pallī (hamlet), pada (a flimsy settlement at a distance from a village), grāma (settled village), and their transformation through time across regions also points in the same direction. The emergence of rural nodes and the mutation of mandapikas to towns in the later early medieval times further reinforce it. Hawkes’ grouping of the find spots of land grant charters issued between the fourth and seventh centuries CE on maps is very useful insofar as they suggest the emerging patterns in terms of their spatial distribution (Hawkes and Abbas, 2016, pp. 47–49), but historians have been aware of the evolving uneven patterns in the spatial spread of land grants, especially outside the Gangetic valley, and its implications. Issues such as local and subregional state formation, the inextricable relationship between state formation and land grants, given their spatial and chronological correspondence, and the spread of Brahmanical ideology, including Vedic-sastric-epic-puranic ideas, with the horizontal expansion of monarchical states, have been recognised at least over the last two decades. (Chattopadhyaya 1995; Kulke 1995; Sahu and Kulke 2015). The identification of the location of Vakataka grants mostly at early historical settlements or in the vicinity of excavated sites in the Vidarbha region is helpful insofar as it provides the grants with a geographical context. However, it makes wider generalisations as much speculative as the early mega formulations by the school of Indian feudalism. It partly corrects the notion of colonisation of spaces associated with the said historiography but does not entirely negate the narrative of agrarian spread associated with land grants. Admittedly, land grants were made in both settled and fallow and forest tracts. Indeed, there exists good evidence for the latter being brought under plough agriculture. Spaces in the past, as so often today, were differentiated, and historians have come to both recognise and address them (Eschmann et al. 1978; Chattopadhyaya 2003, pp. 172–190; Talbott 2001; Gunasekaran 2007; Sahu 2013, pp. 278–297). Similarly, land grants do not seem to have consumed the bulk of the state’s resources. In fact, for Tamil Nadu, it has been suggested that even with its humungous amount of land grants to Brahmanas and temples, they constituted only about 20% of

70  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu the available land (Subbarayalu 2012, pp. 217). The rest were under ‘free’ peasant cultivation. Simple straight-line correlations between land grants and agrarian expansion or an early instance of the migration of Brahmanas to an area are being increasingly given up in favour of a contextual analysis of the text. Returning to the issue of settlement mounds, one does not have to stretch oneself to emphasise the complexities involved in mound formation, especially at multicultural sites. The Vidarbha sites spanned the megalithic to the early historical period and beyond. Their megalithic background and gradual transformation with the passage of time have attracted the notice of both archaeologists and historians for about thirty years now (Chattopadhyaya 1988; Nath 2014). Perceiving the rural and urban settlements in dichotomous terms is neither correct nor very easy. As late as the 1970s in Ganjam District of south coastal Odisha, there were full-fledged rural settlements at a distance of 2–3 km from towns, and they coexisted in situations of continuous symbiotic relationships. Both early Indian literature and inscriptions reveal that the vana (forest/wilderness) and ksetra (settled habitations) were not mutually exclusive; the vana indeed was ever present in and around the ksetra, including towns. The density of settlements around a particular node would be as much dependent on the stage of agrarian expansion as on other variables. The Vakataka grants were the earliest land donations in the area and, in some instances, their location in vanas adjoining early settlements may not be entirely unexpected. How and when some other land grants reached their urban location, given their usefulness for claiming entitlement rights across generations, needs investigation. The multi-religious character of excavated and explored settlements during our time span attracts attention. Sirpur in Chhattisgarh, Khijjingakotta (Khiching) in Northern Odisha, Uttara Tosali or central coastal Odisha, and Varendra in Bengal, like many other then-contemporary localities and regions in the country have unveiled a picture of the sharing of sites by competing religions and their communities of believers. Interestingly, they tend to place things in perspective, which was otherwise disturbed and skewed by studies of individual religions. The latter had unwittingly identified sites and localities as Vaisnava, Saiva, or Sakta, and also Buddhist or Jaina, largely derived from their immediate requirements. The disjuncture between textual historical and archaeological scholarship is not as much as is usually perceived. Both can be sensitive to each other’s requirements and complement and/or corroborate their individual findings. The wider linkages of settlements, including monastic structures, the multireligious character of the sites, the rural foundations of urban settlements, and their changing profile over time, in fact, interest both. That apart, there is no denying that the material culture, including structural remains, settlement patterns, their constituents, subsistence economy, and much more can be retrieved from archaeological data to have a rounded view of our early medieval pasts. Renewed field surveys and excavation of earlier sites in some cases are necessary to test the earlier arrived conclusions. Similarly,

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  71 some of the epigraphically well-attested early medieval towns require being located on the ground. The continuation and proliferation of settlements need to be mapped region-wise. Regions such as Gujarat and Maharashtra on the west coast and Bengal, and modern Bangladesh on the east coast, hold possibilities for the future, largely because of their trade networks in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and the availability of comparative material remains. Besides, these regions also have the necessary personnel to carry forward the demands of early medieval archaeology.

References Bhandare, S., (2015). Evaluating the ‘paucity of metallic currency’ in medieval India. In: H. P. Ray, ed. Negotiating cultural identity: landscapes in early medieval South Asian history. New Delhi: Routledge. pp. 159–202. Brandtner, M., (1988–89). Archaeological explorations around Bhubaneswar. Manav. 3, 231–250. Chakravarti, R., (2015). Indian trade through Jewish Geniza letters (1000–1300). Studies in People’s History. 2(1), 27–40. Chakravarti, R., (2020). Trade and traders in early India. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Manohar. Champakalakshmi, R., (1996). Trade, ideology and urbanization: South India 300 BC to AD 1300. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1974). Trade and urban centres in early medieval North India. Indian Historical Review. 1(2), 203–219. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1985). Markets and merchants in early medieval Rajasthan. Social Science Probings. 2(4), 413–440. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1986). Urban centres in early medieval India: an overview. In: S. Bhattacharya and R. Thapar, eds. Situating Indian history. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 8–33. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1988). Transition to the early historical phase in the Deccan – a note. In: B. M. Pande and B. D. Chattopadhyaya, eds. Archaeology and history: essays in memory of Shri A. Ghosh, vol. II. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. pp. 727–732. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1990). Aspects of rural settlements and rural society in early medieval India. Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1995). State and economy in North India: fourth century to twelfth century. In: R. Thapar, ed. Recent perspectives of early Indian history. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. pp. 309–346. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2003). Studying early India: archaeology, texts, and historical issues. New Delhi: Permanent Black. pp. 66–101. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (2012). The making of early medieval India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Cherian, P. J., (2016). Muziris children’s museum catalogue. Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Council for Historical Research. Choudhary, A. K., (1971). Early medieval village in North-Eastern India (AD 600– 1200). Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi. Deyell, J. S., (1990). Living without silver: The monetary history of Early Medieval North India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

72  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu Eschmann, A., Kulke, H. and Tripathi, G. C. eds., (1978). The cult of Jagannathan and the regional tradition of Orissa. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Manohar. Furui, R., (2015). Variegated adaptations: state formations in Bengal from the fifth to the seventh century. In: B. P. Sahu and H. Kulke, eds. Interrogating political systems: integrative processes and states in pre-modern India. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 255–273. Ghosh, S., (2009). Situating water bodies in the landscape of early medieval Bengal and Assam: gleanings from epigraphy and literature. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 69, 159–166. Glover, I., (2002). West Asian Sassanian-Islamic ceramics in the Indian Ocean, South, Southeast and East Asia. Man and Environment. 27(1), 165–177. Gogte, V., (2003). Discovery of the ancient port of Chaul. Man and Environment. 28(1), 67–74. Gunasekaran, S., (2007). Cattle raiding and heroic tradition: sedentary pastoralism in Upland Tamil Nadu (sixth to tenth century CE). IHR. 34(1), 91–124. Hawkes, J. D., (2014a). Finding the ‘early medieval’ in South Asian archaeology. Asian Perspectives. 53(1), 53–96. Hawkes, J. D., (2014b). Chronological sequences and the problem of early medieval settlement in India. Puratattva. 44, 208–228. Hawkes, J., and Abbas, R., (2016). Copperplates in context: A preliminary investigation of the study and archaeological settings of land grant inscriptions. Pratnatattva, 22, 41–71. Heitzman, J., (2008). The city in South Asia. New York: Routledge. Jain, V. K., (1990). Trade and traders in Western India (AD 1000–1300). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Karashima, N., (1984). South Indian history and society (studies from inscriptions AD 850–1800). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kennet, D., (2004). The transition from early historic to early medieval in the Vakataka realm. In: H. Bakker, ed. The Vakataka heritage: Indian culture at the crossroads. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. pp. 11–17. Kulke, H., (1995). The early and imperial kingdom: a processual model of integrative state formation in early medieval India. In: H. Kulke, ed. The state in India, 1000–1700. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 233–262. Kulke, H., Kesavapany, K. and Sakhuja, V. eds., (2009). Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: reflections on the Chola Naval expeditions to South East Asia, ISEAS. New Delhi: Manohar. Lone, A. R., (2015). ‘Semthan’ and the historical geography of Kashmir. Ph.D. thesis, Department of History, University of Delhi. Manguin, P.-Y., Mani, A. and Wade, G. eds., (2011). Early interactions between South and Southeast Asia: reflections on cross-cultural exchange, ISEAS. New Delhi: Manohar. Menon, J. and Varma, S., (2010). Reading archaeological evidence: ceramic and terracotta production at Indor Khera, Uttar Pradesh (200 BCE–500 CE). Indian Historical Review. 37(2), 187–216. Mishra, R. N., (1997). Village life and settlements in the light of Vakataka inscriptions. In: B. P. Sahu, ed. Land system and rural society in early India. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 74–80. Nandi, R. N., (2000). Growth of rural economy in early feudal India (Presidential address ancient India section, Annamalainagar session, 1984). In: R. N. Nandi,

The changing landscape of early medieval Indian history  73 ed. State formation, agrarian growth and social change in feudal South India. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 61–122. Nath, A., (2014). The Vakataka Vindhyasakti: an enquiry into his early life. Indian Historical Review. 41(2), 157–171. Panja, S., (2002). Understanding early medieval sites of North Bengal. In: G. Sengupta and S. Panja, eds. Archaeology of Eastern India: new perspectives. Kolkata: Centre for Archaeological Study and Training. pp. 227–277. Panja, S., Nag, A. K. and Bandyopadhyay, S., (2015). Living with floods: archaeology of a settlement in the Lower Ganga Plains, c. 600–1800 CE. New Delhi: Primus Books. Prasad, O. P., (1989). Decay and revival of urban centres in medieval South India, c. AD 600–1200. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. Raman, K. V. and Shanmugam, P., (1997). Settlement pattern in Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, Tamil Nadu. In: B. P. Sahu, ed. Land system and rural society in early India. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 81–92. Sahu, B. P., (1997). Introduction. In: B. P. Sahu, ed. Land system and rural society in early India. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 1–58. Sahu, B. P., (2013). The changing gaze: regions and the constructions of early India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sahu, B. P., (2015). Markets, merchants and towns in early medieval Odisha. Studies in People’s History. 2(1), 9–20. Sahu, B. P., (2016). Writing alternative histories: case of early India. Economic and Political Weekly. 51(18), 30–36. Sahu, B. P. and Kulke, H., eds., (2015). Interrogating political systems: integrative processes and states in pre-modern India. New Delhi: Manohar. Sarkar, H. B., (1988). Emergence of urban centres in early historical Andhradesa. In: B. M. Pande and B. D. Chattopadhyaya, eds. Archaeology and history: essays in memory of Shri A. Ghosh, vol. II. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. pp. 631–641. Sen, S., (2017). Landscape contexts of the early medieval settlements in Varendri/ Gauda: an outline on the basis of total surveying and excavations in DinajpurJoypurhat Districts, Bangladesh. Pratna Samiksha New Series. 8, 59–109. Sharma, R. S., (1965). Indian feudalism, c. AD 300–1200. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Sharma, R. S., (1972). Decay of Gangetic towns in Gupta and Post-Gupta times. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 33rd session. Muzaffarpur. pp. 94–104. Sharma, R. S., (1987). Urban decay in India c. AD 300–1000. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Shaw, J., (2009). Stupas, monasteries and relics in the landscape: typological, spatial and temporal patterns in the Sanchi Area. In: J. Hawkes and A. Shimada, eds. Buddhist stupas in South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 114–145. Singh, U. and Dhar, P. P. eds., (2014). Asian encounters: exploring connected histories. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Subbarayalu, Y., (2012). South India under the cholas. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Talbot, C., (2001). Precolonial India in practice: society, region and identity in medieval Andhra. New York: Oxford University Press.

74  Bhairabi Prasad Sahu Varma, S. and Menon, J., (2008). Archaeology and the construction of identities in medieval North India. Studies in History. 24(2), 173–193. Veluthat, K., (2018). Congealing of castes: the case of medieval Kerala. In: K. Veluhat, ed. Notes of dissent: essays on Indian history. New Delhi: Primus Books. pp. 124–135.

4

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone Early medieval and medieval in the archaeological context of the north-western part of Bengal Swadhin Sen, S. M. Kamrul Ahsan, Abir Bin Keysar, and Ahmed Sharif

Problems, perspectives, and contextualisation In this chapter, we try to engage with the archaeology of the established timeframes of the early medieval (c. seventh–thirteenth centuries CE) and the medieval (c. thirteenth–eighteenth centuries CE) periods by interrogating the established and institutionalised spatiotemporally homogenous narratives. Because of the voids, discrepancies, and contradictions exposed by the recent archaeological studies in the normalised historical discourses, this interrogation and introspection seem to be inevitable for rethinking the concepts, methods, and data. We have found that the established historical narratives are less cognisant of the archaeological concepts and methods; they are far less inclined to carefully attend to the nature and contexts of the archaeological data, which they often appropriate and use for empirical support of specific narratives. The temporal divide between the early medieval/ancient and the medieval, besides, is taken for granted, and the periodisation is not conceptually verified by the contextually informed material cultures in this part of South Asia. Unlike the Indian context, the historical and archaeological scholarship in Bangladesh is not habituated, with a few exceptions, with the traditions of debates on the early medieval and medieval (Sen 2018, 2019). The thirteenth century CE, by and large, is considered the benchmark for the beginning of the ‘medieval’. The problems in perceiving such a break as the beginning of the medieval for the entire territory constructed and regarded as the homogenous entity of Bengal are hardly discussed. Various earlier rulers continued to control a vast territory in the central and south-eastern part of Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) Delta at least till the end of the thirteenth century CE or the beginning of the fourteenth century CE. The religious identity of the rulers or ruling dynasties is considered, overtly or covertly, as one of the primary markers of this scheme of periodisation,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-5

76  Swadhin Sen et al. and the beginning of the medieval in the 1205 CE can be regarded as a loosely defined and problematic standard of conventional historical writing. The established narratives, after all, are dominated by textual and epigraphic sources. They selectively use monumental remains and interpretations of a few ‘trademark’ artefacts classified by stylistic, typological, and formalistic attributes. Temporalities, consequently, are determined by the stylistic and typological understanding of material culture. The archaeological studies, moreover, subscribe to the established tradition of surveying that is confined to finding selective and monumental archaeological sites/ mounds defined by their greater size, monumentality, and formal attributes. These sites are conceived as suitable for representing the past glory and achievements of the nation. They are represented at ‘points’ on a few maps for describing the distribution pattern and diffusion and fusion (preferably as syncretism) of various formal and stylistic attributes. The surveyed ‘sites’ are represented as a descriptive list of potential sites for future excavation (see Sen 2018, 2011; Sen et al. 2010). The excavations, with a few exceptions, are conducted with a methodology of a made-easy and distorted version of Wheeler-Kenyon school. A single vertical section or a few vertical sections are described as ‘indexes’, and often, descriptions of numbered layers or horizontally distinguishable deposits are narrated as ‘stratigraphy’. The periodisation, based on these layers or construction episodes of monuments, is defined either in corroboration with dynastic chronology or by dividing the changes in architectural remains into various sequential categories. Again, the remains which are established in the earlier phase with monumental remains or continue in a later phase with monumental remains are the central frame of reference to these practices of periodisation. Pre-structural periods or post-structural periods with deposits and cuts or activity surfaces without marked distinction by monumentality are not recorded and explained. They are often jumbled up into one period with flitting references to chronologically diagnostic objects. Bengal as a spatial category, moreover, is fraught with a homogenising framework of interpretation. In most cases, additionally, the history and archaeology of Bengal have hardly been referred to in the supposedly panIndian debates on the structures, processes, and orientations of the ‘early medieval/medieval’. Even when the sources and data are referred to, they follow a framework which either universalises the standards from the north and central India or essentialises the exclusivist propagating interpretations in the name of uniqueness and contingency. The marginalisation and essentialisation of this space in the traditions of scholarship cannot merely be brushed aside by citing a few serious works based on epigraphs and selective textual sources (Furui 2020; Knutson 2014). The exercises which are represented in this chapter, under these circumstances, are not only challenging but also ambitious to a certain extent. Archaeologists (and perhaps, historians as well) cannot confine themselves

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  77 within a pre-determined timeframe, especially in dealing with data from archaeological surveying and stratigraphically informed excavations. They are bound to deal with data transcending the boundaries of the accepted timeframe, and their patterning does not necessarily follow the accepted categories. The issues, problems, and arguments presented above are not to claim that archaeology and archaeological data are more objective and superior to the data used in established narratology of history. Concepts and methods are always essential to deal with any type of data.

The spatial context of this study The focal area is a sample from the north-western part of Bangladesh. This space covers parts of the southern region of the present Dinajpur District, parts of Rangpur, Gaibandha, and Joypurhat Districts, and reference to part of Bogra District of present-day Bangladesh (Figure 4.1). This part of the study area, as a result, crosses the accepted political boundaries and subregional states of the early medieval and medieval periods. The study area was a part of a distinct sub-region in early Bengal. We have also referred to the relevant archaeological places of adjacent locales. All these locales were situated in the sub-region that was known, at least after the seventh century CE onwards, as Gauḍa and afterwards as Varendrī. Another spatial identity of this region, mostly administrative, was Puṇḍravardhana. On the other hand, part of the study area in Rangpur and Gaibandha was probably under the territorial jurisdiction of the sub-region of KāmrūpaPrāgjyotiṣa since the seventh–eighth centuries CE or earlier, according to textual and epigraphic sources. The spatial identities and boundaries went through several shifts and reorientations during the timespan of more than one millennium, from the seventh century CE to the nineteenth century CE for both Varendrī and Kāmrūpa. We have selected Ghoraghat and the adjacent area of present Pirganj, Kalai, Ksetlal, and Panchbibi Upazilas for specific reasons. Methodologically, it is always problematic to sample an area or zone from a larger spatial unit or region which has been subject to full-coverage surveying. With the results of purposive prospection in selected areas of these last Pirganj and Govindaganj Upazilas, and the results of the total surveying in the rest of the zone mentioned above, the area which is the focus of this chapter has been selected for the following reasons. Firstly, the present administrative unit of Ghoraghat Upazila and the adjoining regions under discussion is recognised as one of the core settlement localities during the medieval period. The area’s increased prominence during and after the fifteenth century CE is testified to by several textual sources. Secondly, archaeological excavations were conducted earlier in two places in Ghoraghat Upazila. Although detailed reports of those excavations have

78  Swadhin Sen et al.

Figure 4.1 The study area in the regional setting (Source: Authors’ own).

not yet been published, a summary of the stratigraphically referred findings has already been reported (Sen 2018, 2019). We have found archaeological evidence from a period between the ninth century CE and the fifteenth century CE. The survey results, soon to be published in detail, reflect the materiality of temporalities transcending the boundary between the early

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  79 medieval and the medieval. Except for the summary of the two excavations, the data presented in this chapter are mostly unpublished and they offer the scope for delving into the multicausal processes in the archaeology of the area and beyond. Thirdly, several inscriptions, both copper plates and stone slabs, were found within the area. These inscriptions belong to both the early medieval and medieval periods. A few textual sources from the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries CE mention the zone as an important centre of trade, defence, and administration (see Table 4.3). The conventional historical narratives also present the area as a renowned ‘medieval’ locality and settlement and often as an urban centre.

Methodological aspects of the study The archaeological pieces of evidence from this area represent the data gathered from systematic full-coverage surveying and stratigraphically informed excavation following the Harris Matrix Method in selected archaeological places. Data from geoarchaeological and landscape surveying has been an essential component of the analyses. Analyses of the data were a multi-stage and cyclic process in which the data were checked and rechecked more than three times through intense ground survey, predominantly by field walking. As far as our earlier works are concerned, we attempted to create a methodology for detecting settlements by analysing the degree of clustering of archaeological places and their discrete and clustered occurrences. This chapter, additionally, must be read on the backdrop of our studies on the region (see Sen 2018, 2017, 2015a, 2015b, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011; Sen et al. 2010). The interpretive framework is multicausal and without any specific central focus. We have attempted to develop the narratology of the chapter in a polemical framework with conceptually multidirectional movement and trajectories of arguments and presentation of evidence. We feel that unilinear narrative under an objectivist framework often fails to deal with the diverse and spatiotemporally varied factors and processes of human and non-human pasts.

Archaeology of early medieval and medieval settlements and places in the study area It is not possible to present the details and thick data from our studies in this chapter. Our objectives of this chapter do not require a detailed presentation of the database. They are going to be published in the databases of the total survey of the area soon. It is, however, essential to present the archaeological places with their intensely varied patterns, nature, and structure. Some settlements in Kalai and Kshetlal and one settlement in Nawabganj were presented in the previous paper by Sen (2017). The attributes and area have been modified in Table 4.1.

GGT.S.1 GGT.S.2

GGT.S.3 GGT.S.4 GGT.S.5 GGT.S.6 GGT.S.7 GGT.S.8 GGT.S.9 GGT.S.10 GGT.S.11 GGT.S.12 GGT.S.13

GGT.S.14 GGT.S.15 GGT.S.16 GGT.S.17 GGT.S.18 GGT.S.19 GGT.S.20 GGT.S.21 GGT.S.22 GGT.S.23

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Damodarpur Karanji-Balian Kundaran Sidalgram Paikpara-Kochmardan Purail Chatsal Amra Palsa Balahar-Bamongara

Satparagarh Raghunathpur Garh Teghora-Gayeshwarpur Kucherpara Shyampur Rameshwarpur Hatpara-Abirer Para Belwa Gopalpur Jalalpur-Baragaon Khodatpur

Ghoraghat Fort Baro Paiker Garh

Cluster/ Name Settlement code

Sl no.

69.8

43.5

96.2 34.2 111

2.69

17.3

156 129 89.7 22.8 66 46.2 127 29.9 47.9 67.7

63.8 15.1 471 265 247 6.10 141 219 130 213 86.8

103 112

Tanks Tank cluster

Tanks

Mud wall and moat Mud wall, moat, and abandoned channel Mud wall and moat (?) Mud wall and moat Cross-cutting ditches Cross-cutting ditches Cross-cutting ditches Moat Moat Intercutting ditches and tanks Intercutting ditches and tanks Tanks Tanks and cross-cutting ditches Tank cluster Tanks Tank cluster Non-specific Cross-cutting ditches

Semi-quadrangular Square Semi-circular Semi-quadrangular (Continued)

Rectangular Quadrangular Semi-circular Quadrangular Semi-circular

Polygonal, nucleated Rectangular, nucleated Quadrangular, compact Quadrangular, nucleated Quadrangular, nucleated Square Quadrangular/square Quadrangular/square Quadrangular/square Semi-circular Semi-circular

Polygonal, nucleated Polygonal, nucleated

Settlement Settlement area Type and nature of settlement Type area (core) (hectares) boundaries (hectares)

Table 4.1 Early medieval and medieval settlements and their attributes in the study area

80  Swadhin Sen et al.

GGT.S.24 GDG.S.1 GDG.S.2 GDG.S.3

GDG.S.4 GDG.S.5 GDG.S.6 GDG.S.7 GDG.S.8 GDG.S. 9 GDG.S.10 GDG.S.11 GDG.S.12 GDG.S.13 GDG.S.14 PHB.S.3

PHB.S.4 PHB.S.5 PHB.S.6 PHB.S.7 PHB.S.8 PHB.S.9 PHB.S.10

24. 25. 26. 27.

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38 39.

40. 41. 442. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Naodoba-Fatehpur Chhatianchura-Bihigaon Kanthali Peyara-Sreekrishnapur Molal-Rashidpur Shantaghurni-Binhara Mohammadpur

Birat Rajar Garh Raidangi-Jalita Uttar Telihar-Bhatnahar Sapmara-Rampur Narangabad-Sahebganj Roagaon Baligaon-Kharita Besain-Maklain Sihigaon Ayabhangi-Dasnal Raghunathpur-Tulat Jhanjhair

Deogaon Changura-Besain Palasatti Enayatpur-Puiagari

Cluster/ Name Settlement code

Sl no.

Table 4.1 Contiuned

71.4 28.7 28.3 18.8 110 65 31

23 17.7 15.4 24.3 5.37

18.7

13.8

34.2

18.2 66.8 12.4 88

227 153 72.6 60.4 211 237 124

269 27.5 54.2 123 181 78.2 104 75.4 102 55.6 150 10.9

47 220 48.1 376

Tanks Tanks

Tank cluster and moat Tanks Moat Cluster of tanks on cardinal directions Mud wall and moat Tanks Tanks Non-specific Moat? Tanks Tank cluster Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks Moat and tanks with crosscutting ditches Tanks Moat and tanks Moat and tanks Moat

Semi-quadrangular Square, compact Square, compact Rectangular Semi-quadrangular Semi-quadrangular Square (Continued)

Rectangular Semi-circular Semi-circular Polygonal Polygonal Semi-circular Semi-quadrangular Semi-quadrangular Quadrangular Semi-circular Semi-circular Square, compact

Semi-quadrangular Semi-circular Semi-quadrangular Semi-circular

Settlement Settlement area Type and nature of settlement Type area (core) (hectares) boundaries (hectares)

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  81

KLI.S.1

KLI.S.2

KLI.S.3

KLI.S.4

KLI.S.5 KLI.S.6 KLI.S.7 KLI.S.8 KLI.S.9 KLI.S.10 KLI.S.11 KLI.S.12 KLI.S.13 KLI.S.14 KTL.S.1

KTL.S.2

KTL.S.3

KTL.S.4

47.

48.

49.

50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

62.

63.

64.

Khetlal

Khetlal-Baira

Krisnanagar

Baligram KusumsaraRoair Silimpur-Biyala Matrai Shibsamudra Kathial Begungaon-Karimpur Karanka Banihara Samsira Rasulpur

Borai

Duranju

Haitor

Salgun

Cluster/ Name Settlement code

Sl no.

Table 4.1 Contiuned

18.8

16.9 38.2 61.2 83.6

82.5 29.7 27.2

67.5

37.5

60.7

24

81.9

319.04 35.44 268 116 102 28 58 43.3 140 246 278

40.81

46.94

93.70

155.47

Tanks

Tank cluster

Tanks

Tanks Tanks Tanks Tank cluster Tanks? Tanks Tanks Tanks Tanks

Tanks

Tank cluster

Tank cluster

Tank cluster

Tanks

Semi-circular, semi-compact Semi-circular, semi-compact Rectangular, semi-compact Semi-circular, semi-compact Semi-circular, nucleated Linear, semi-compact Semi-circular Semi-circular Semi-circular Polygonal Semi-quadrangular Semi-quadrangular Semi-circular Semi-circular Semi-circular, semi-compact Semi-circular, semi-compact Semi-circular, semi-compact Semi-circular, semi-compact (Continued)

Settlement Settlement area Type and nature of settlement Type area (core) (hectares) boundaries (hectares)

82  Swadhin Sen et al.

KTL.S.6

KTL.S.7

KTL.CLS.8 KTL.S.9 KTL.S.10 PRG.S.1 PRG.S.2

NWB.S.1.

66.

67.

68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

73.

Source: Authors’ own.

KTL.S.5

65.

Haranathpur Rajbari

Banaich Alampur-Raghunathpur Punat Daria Garh Patgram Rajpuri

Ati

Dasara

Kasba

Cluster/ Name Settlement code

Sl no.

Table 4.1 Contiuned

49.5 52.8 67.8 92.8

24.5

204

36.4 119 255 680 178

94.6

151

43.4

Tank cluster Tanks Tanks and streams Moat and mud walls Mud wall and cross-cutting ditches Tanks and cross-cutting ditches

Tanks

Tanks

Rectangular

Semi-circular, semi-compact Quadrangular, semi-compact Semi-circular, semi-compact Linear, semi-compact Semi-circular Semi-circular Circular, nucleated Quadrangular, nucleated

Settlement Settlement area Type and nature of settlement Type area (core) (hectares) boundaries (hectares)

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  83

84  Swadhin Sen et al. We have categorised the archaeological places and settlements for interpretive purposes, and these categories are fluid and overlapping. Instead of details, brief enumerations about the categories, the places, and their varieties in the study area are as follows. Category one: Walled settlements As a medieval centre of human activity, Ghoraghat is mostly known for two walled settlements popularly known in the literature as forts or qilla. In our archaeological surveying, two more walled settlements were detected in the present Ghoraghat Upazila. There are six more walled settlements in the study area, falling within the more significant settlement zone of ‘medieval Ghoraghat’. The date of the walled settlements transcends the taken-forgranted boundary of the periods. The walled settlements are identified as places with specific purposes, and they are referred to as ‘forts’ (durga or qilla or garh). They are also considered either as the signature of urban settlement formation and as the manifestation of urbanism or as a structural component of the military system. Ghoraghat Fort, or durga, is one of the eight walled settlements in the study area. In most of the literature in which Ghoraghat is considered an important administrative and military centre during the Sultanate and Mughal period, ‘Ghoraghat Fort’ is referred to as the core of the ‘urban’ settlement (Zakariah 2010; Begum 2013; Hossain et al. 1995). The plan of the settlement is polygonal, and it has two sectors separated by mud walls. The sector to the south is semi-circular (referred to hereafter as sector S) and covers 103 hectares. The sector adjoining to the north (sector N hereafter) is semi-quadrangular (63 hectares) and attached to the mud walls of sector S. It seems, however, that sector N (north) was added later to sector S (south) based on the stratigraphic relationship between the walls of these two sectors. There are mazars and dargahs (tombs or graves of Muslim saints) in both sectors (see Table 4.2). Archaeological evidence cannot put them into any ascertainable temporal range because of their continuous restoration and reuse of construction materials. Baro Paiker Garh (fort of twelve soldiers) is the second walled settlement in the area. The shape of this settlement is semi-triangular, and there are two separate concentric spatial organisations made of a smaller walled settlement lying within another larger settlement. They might have been constructed one after another, or to designate separate specified activity patterns. According to the prevailing oral histories, the inner walled settlement is known as Chhoto (small) Baro Paiker Garh. The area of the broader walled space measures 112 hectares, and the internal one covers 17.3 hectares. This small triangular area can be identified as the core of this settlement, and the construction of this entire walled settlement is ascribed to the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries CE by the oral narratives, in one of which the Khen king

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  85 Table 4.2 Mosques, mazars, and dargahs in the study area Sl no.

Site code (original database)

Name

Latitude (N)

Longitude (E)

Ghoraghat 1.

GGT.03

25°13′59.88″

89°17′24.96″

2.

GGT.04

25°13′39.72″

89°17′26.46″

3.

GGT.06

25°13′27.18″

89°17′38.64″

4.

GGT.09

25°13′48.78″

89°17′38.10″

5.

GGT.10

25°14′19.02″

89°16′10.80″

6.

GGT.12

25°14′31.50″

89°17′18.36″

7.

GGT.17

25°15′30.90″

89°16′23.76″

8. 9.

GGT.20 GGT.22

25°15′7.14″ 25°17′28.14″

89°12′44.76″ 89°15′55.68″

10.

GGT.26

25°17′45.00″

89°11′48.60″

11.

GGT.27

25°17′43.92″

89°14′14.52″

12. 13. 14.

GGT.32 GGT.33 GGT.37

25°17′11.46 25°17′6.24″ 25°16′39.12″

89°13′46.80″ 89°14′0.36″ 89°8′58.32″

15.

GGT.38

25°16′27.72″

89°9′29.94″

16. 17.

GGT.39 GGT.41

25°16′34.92 25°16′34.62″

89°13′14.40 89°12′57.42″

18.

GGT.44

25°16′40.98″

89°9′47.46″

19.

GGT.48

25°18′18.96″

89°9′33.06″

20.

DNP.51

Dargah of Ghoraghat Fort Mosque of Ghoraghat Fort (Bhanga Masjid) Mazar of Shah Ismail Gazi Mazar of Shahebganj Champatoli Pir Yameni Mazar Pir Daria Bokharir Mazar Mosque and Mazar of Pir Kazi Sadaruddin Sura Masjid Tongishohor Dargah Panch Pirer Mazar Darga of Baro Paiker Garh Kashigari Masjid Miskiner Dargah Uttar (Mollabag) Puroil Masjid Chouria Gram Dargah Bandar Dargah Tupghoria Saha Masjid Paschim Palsa Gramer Darga Sonarpara Darbeser Darga Mazar of Shahjahan Siraji

25°14′45.50″

89°17′11.20 (Continued)

86  Swadhin Sen et al. Table 4.2 Continued Sl no.

Site code (original database)

Name

Latitude (N)

Longitude (E)

21.

GGT.52

25°14′25.71″

89°17′7.52″

22.

GGT.53

25°18′13.1″

89°12′42.0″

23.

GGT.54

25°18′10.90″

89°15′5.10″

Pirganj 24.

Mazar of Pir Khondokar Bodre Arefin Pir Lal Mia Mazar Saherdighi and Darga

PRG.02

25°22′30.3″

89°17′59.7″

25.

PRG.04

25°30′21″

88°17′22.4″

26.

PRG.05

25°24′00.3″

89°18′23.1″

27.

PRG.13

25°19′13.6″

89°16′56.9″

28.

PRG.14

25°18′58.4″

89°16′02.7″

29.

PRG.15

25°19′20.5″

89°17′15.8″

30. 31.

PRG.20 PRG.21

25°18′46.2″ 25°18′41.4″

89°17′18.5″ 89°17′22.3″

32.

PRG.22

25°22′3.3″

89°14′34.2″

Gobindaganj 33. 34.

Hatibanda Mosque and Mazar of Shah Ismail Gazi Baro Dargah of Shah Ismail Gazi Panir Darga, Baro Beel Mazar of Shah Ismail Shah Gazi Chandi Duwar Mazar Mazar of Buro Fakir Pir Taler Darga Ma Fatema Bibi Sahebanir Darga Panch Pirer Mazar/Darga

GBG.05 GBG.07

25°13′11.60″ 25°9′7.70″

89°19′1.00″ 89°18′3.10″

35. 36. 37.

GBG.08 GBG.08 GBG.09

25°13′52.70″ 25°11′5.30″ 25°12′40.76″

89°16′23.30″ 89°14′28.90″ 89°12′45.47″

38.

KLI.1

Fulhar Masjid Panditpur Masjid Gambuj Masjid Pir Mia Bhita Kamdia Jami Mosque Moail Mahipur Pukur Masjid

25°4′28.50″

89°13′4.51″

Source: Authors’ own.

of Kāmta, Nīlāmbar (c. 1480–98 CE), is credited with the construction of this walled settlement. The earlier survey by the Government Department of Archaeology identified several heaps of bricks and mounds in these walled settlements, but all these mounds are now erased by the contemporary activities of the local people. Zakariah has convincingly refuted the association

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  87 of this walled settlement either with Nīlāmbar or with any other ruler of Sultanate Bengal on the ground of archaeological evidence (Zakariah 2010, pp. 119–20). The third walled settlement is Satparagarh. The alignment of the mud walls is modified by the westward riverbank erosion of the Karatoya River and cultivation activities. Hence, it is tough to ascertain the original shape of the walled space. Buchanon (Hamilton) gave a brief description of structural remains and mounds within this walled settlement (Buchanon 1833, pp. 63–64). The structures and place names he mentioned are not recognisable now. It is, however, possible to ascertain a portion of the walled space of Satparagarh through ground surveying. Predictably, the settlement was differentiated into two or three different segments extending up to the Govindapur Karatoya River bend. The alignment of the mud walls and the moats identified by ground surveying and by remote sensing suggests that the original settlement was semi-rectangular. The first sector to the north presently measures 24.5 hectares, and the other one, divided by a moat, measures 39.2 hectares. The eastern part of the settlement and the walls were eroded, and subsequently, the new floodplain was formed in this area at this highly sinuous meander bend. This settlement was connected to the mud walls (e.g., Birat Garh) of the left bank of present-day Karatoya River at Chhatra, Pirganj Upazila. The fourth settlement is Raghunathpur Garh. Much smaller than the previous three, this rectangular walled settlement has two concentric walled spaces. The internal and smaller one measures 2.69 hectares, and the external one covers 15.1 hectares. This walled settlement is notable for its size and the construction of the walls with earlier deposits. We have found two accidental sections on the walls. They reveal initial deposits containing small to very small potsherds within sandy soil and clayey soil, respectively. In another place, five large storage jars were dug by the locals. These jars were in situ and were buried up to their rim-neck portion. In other places, the occasional occurrence of potsherds and brickbats was also detected. Probably, the wall of the inner one was built with a brick-built core that was overlain with mud or sediment. Remains of the brick-built wall in one location attest to the construction style (see Figure 4.2 for the spatial dimensions of the garhs). The fifth walled settlement is situated 10 km to the north-west of Ghoraghat Durga in Govindaganj Upazila and is known in oral history as Birat Rajar Garh (Fort of King Birat). This walled settlement is smaller than the first three and covers 34.2 hectares. The small walled settlement, moreover, is surrounded by numerous tanks of various sizes in the clustered organisation to the east, north, and south. The numbers of tanks are fewer to the west. These clustered tanks, according to our observation in the study area, acted as another line of protection in addition to their pivotal role in the formation, development, and decline of settlements since the seventh–eighth centuries CE. They are the remains of human activities, both religious and secular, in the settlements which developed around this walled

88  Swadhin Sen et al.

Figure 4.2 Clustering of settlements with epigraphic provenances and the categorisation of space of different zones. Z.1, 2, and 3 on this map are categorised as zones with the settlements that can tentatively be framed within the early medieval period with its slippery temporal boundary. Z.4, on the other hand, is the tentative boundary of the zone of the settlement of Ghoraghat during the sixteenth–seventeenth century CE. These zones are spatiotemporally juxtaposed and archaeologically inseparable (Source: Authors’ own).

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  89 space. Banerjee referred to this location in his report Annual Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1925–26 (Banerjee 1928), and Zakariah followed the description of Banerjee in his discussion on this site (2011, pp. 170–73). Banerjee reported an excavation by the zamindar of Bardhankuthi on one of the mounds in this place, and he referred to the discovery of a Brahmanical temple (?). Zakariah, however, could not detect the exact location of this mound (Figure 4.3). We have failed to identify such remains within the walled space. In our survey in the area, we have found several structural mounds. The local people dug two of these mounds, and one of them exposed the external side of the sapta ratha garvagṛha (sanctum). The other mound partially uncovered the outer surface of the wall of the maṇḍapa (assembly hall). These partially exposed structural remains hint at the presence of two Brahmanical temples within the walled place that could be dated tentatively to the tenth–eleventh centuries CE. The other mounds, one of which is larger than the others, and possibly mentioned by Zakariah (2011, p. 172), are still preserved despite the destruction of the edge of the mound. The sixth settlement under this category – one of the most remarkable walled settlements – is located in Pirganj Upazila on the opposite side (to the east) of the Karatoya River, at a distance of 2.46 and 5 km to the northeast of Satparagarh and Baro Paiker Garh, respectively. With an exceptional elliptical shape, this walled settlement is known locally as Nil Daria (a sea named after Nīlāmbar), or Raja Nilambarer Durga or Daria (a sea or a water body of considerable size). It is located on the active floodplain of the Karatoya River. The walled space is enclosed by a wide moat which is now a water body of significant size. One of the mauzas covered by the settlement, intriguingly, is called ‘jalamahal’ (literally, a palace within water; the name also uttered as jalmahaal or an area or space within the water), and the place is referred to by Damant as Jala Maqam (a place named Jalmokam or adobe with/within the water) (1874, p. 215) (Figure 4.7). The area enclosed by the brick wall surrounded by the moat covers 26.2 hectares, and the moat covers an area of 41.6 hectares. The width of the moat is 286 m (max., the north-western side) and 79 m (min., the northeastern side). The brick wall divides the internal space into two sectors. The sector to the northeast (covering 15.9 hectares) and the sector to the south-west (covering 6.63 hectares) are separated from each other by a moat (width 23–36 m) and a brick-built wall covered with mud. There is a gateway or cut on the enclosure wall of the south-west sector measuring 76 m. The brick-built enclosure wall (3–4 m wide and 1.5–3 m high from the level of the internal space) has two walls with the inner core buttressed by another wall on the side of the moat. The two sectors of this walled space seem to be archaeologically different from each other. The sector to the northeast possesses no detectable cultural materials except occasional potsherds, and presently the area is under cultivation. The south-west sector, on the other hand, is covered almost entirely by buried structural remains,

90  Swadhin Sen et al.

Figure 4.3 The dense clusters and epigraphic provenances in the vicinity of zones 1, 2, and 3 (Source: Authors’ own).

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  91 and this area is covered with trees planted by the forest department. The structural remains within the garh and the brick-built walls along with the potsherds suggest that the walled settlement was constructed during the ninth–tenth centuries CE or earlier and reused later during the medieval period. Daria Garh is enclosed by consecutively built mud walls which were erected possibly for defensive as well as flood management purposes. They are briefly discussed under category 6. The Daria Garh, as a core, is dated to the fourteenth–fifteenth centuries CE according to oral history and the hagiography of pir/Sufi Shāh Ismā’il Ghāzi – Risalat-ush-Shuhada – discovered from the mazar of Shāh Ismā’il Ghāzi in the nineteenth century CE (Dammant 1874) at Kantaduar and composed in the 1633 CE, 159 years after the death of Shāh Ismā’il Ghāzi on 4 January 1474 CE. The hagiography narrates, according to the partially translated excerpt of the original Persian text, the event of the arrival of the Sufi to this area, his subsequent association with Sultan Rukn al-dīn Bārbak Shāh (c. 1459–74 CE), his eventual success in conquering Kamrup, and his consequent murder by the conspiracy of the Hindu governor of Ghoraghat. The ruler of Kamrup has been referred to in this text as Kameshwar (Kamteshwar?), and there is no mention of the name of the Khen ruler Nilambar in this text. The garh, however, is associated with the name of the ruler Nilāmbar akin to the walled settlement of Baro Paiker Garh. It is not possible to verify the actual events and their chronology because of their later composition and because of the typical narrative framework of the hagiography (Stewart 2017; Digby 1970; Burchett 2012). It must be noted that a stone inscription issued during the reign of Sultan Alā al-dīn Ḥusain Shāh (c. 1494–1518 CE) was discovered from a decontextualised location near the mazar of Shāh Ismā’il Ghazi at Kantaduar. This inscription narrates the construction of a mosque during the reign of Ḥusain Shāh (Karim 1992). The presence of more than one walled settlement is detectable to the north-east of Daria Garh, and the area is known as Satgara (a place marked with seven walls or walled settlements). These settlements are associated with the Akhira River and its abandoned valleys. Among several seasonally flooded low marshlands (known locally as bil) in the upazila, Chapandaha Bil is situated to the south of this location. It was possible to detect partially preserved remains of various mud walls, moats, and signatures of mud walls (now reused as roads) in this area. We could not, however, determine the number and patterning of these mud walls of Satgara. Patgram Rajpuri is the eighth walled settlement in this category. This settlement also manifests the features of the places included here under category 2. Located 7.5 km to the north of Daria Garh on the right bank of the ephemeral course of Akhira River and its abandoned valley, two semi-square and enjoined walled spaces have created the settlement. The survey in the eastern sector, covering 92.8 hectares, shows that there are remains of ditches, dilapidated structural mounds, and surface scatter of

92  Swadhin Sen et al. potsherds. The signature of the moat is detectable outside the partially preserved remains of the mud wall. This eastern sector has separation of the spaces either by ditches/moats or by mud walls. At the core, a small square moat encloses an old tank. There are surface scatters of potsherds within this space measuring 183 m (north to south) and 137 m (east to west). The second square is attached to the southern boundary, which is featured by a wall and a moat, and it measures 196 m (east to west) and 192 m (north to south). The third one is formed by extending the enclosure to the north, the south, and the east. It measures 1.27 km (north to south) and 1.25 km (east to west). There are scattered deposits of potsherds, structural mounds, and tanks (Figure 4.6). In one of the robber trenches, a cell was found during our surveying. The robber trenches and ghost walls suggest that the remains could belong to a Brahmanical temple comprised primarily of two enjoined cells, and the ground plan has similarities with the temple remains that were excavated in Chandipur, Birampur, and Belwa, Ghoraghat (Sen 2015b) (Figure 4.3). Category two: Archaeological places enclosed by moats and cut by intersecting ditches Several archaeological records which can be classified as separate settlements in this zone have curious features which distinguish them from many other contemporary settlements to the north (outside the study area, see Sen 2017; Zakariah 2010, 2011) and to the south. These settlements are enclosed by moats, walls, or other features, including tanks, or some of them do not have any detectable boundary marker. Many intersecting ditches (locally known as jola) cut the area within or without the moat. The intersecting patterning of these ditches is enigmatic because it is challenging to interpret the function or purpose of these crisscrossed ditches reliably. In several settlements, the intersecting ditches cover a relatively large space. The role of moats and intersected organisation of ditches might be connected to habitational or specific activities or both. Probably, the ditches on a space enclosed by a distinct boundary like a mud wall, brick wall, tanks, or moats could have served multiple purposes. They could be cut for defence, for the segregation of space into various functionally and behaviourally different parts, as communication ways attested by their connection with rivers, abandoned channels, or river valleys, and for irrigation and drainage (to facilitate the rapid regression of floodwater) (Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). One of these settlements is Haranthpur Rajbari in Nawabganj Upazila. Zakariah (2010, pp. 109–111; 2011, pp. 164–65) identified the ‘peculiarity’ of this place. In our survey of the place, we could not identify the same number and patterning of the ditches referred to by Zakariah above. Despite Zakariah’s observations regarding the ‘peculiarity’ of the place, occurrences of partially exposed brick-built walls and tanks remain to be reliable evidence for probabilistic inferences.

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  93

Figure 4.4 The clusters, tanks, and places towards Mahasthangarh. Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements, tanks in the study area in reference to the urban settlement at Mahasthangarh (at the bottom right) and Karatoya River with its floodplain, which is shown at the right side. The settlements are bounded by solid lines, and clusters are bounded by dashed line (The area outside Kshetlal and Kalai has not been surveyed following fullcoverage survey methodology, and the places and settlements have not been plotted on this map.) (Source: Authors’ own).

94  Swadhin Sen et al. The segregation of spaces by these ditches is most confusing as the spaces do not show any regular patterning. The spaces created by the intersecting ditches in four cardinal directions vary widely in their area, and all of them have detectable archaeological remains in the form of surface scatters of potsherds on the surface and partially exposed brick-built walls on accidental sections, etc. These compartmentalised spaces were used for habitational and religious purposes and probably for specific activities (e.g., market). The space intersected by ditches is a square (measuring 994 m [north to south] and 1 km [east to west]). The boundary-marking ditches on the north, south, and east are straight, and on the west, the ditch marking the border has an inward (towards east) projection. The area covers 106 hectares. The settlement area, including the clusters of tanks to the east and the west, covers 221 hectares. The intersecting ditches have created twelve segregated spaces, and the spaces to the east are broader than the spaces to the west. The excavated mound of Parur Dhidbi is located almost at the centre of the area enclosed by the ditch. The detailed report of the excavation is yet to be published. A summary, however, has already been published (Sen 2018, 2019). A Brahmanical temple was constructed in this place, and it went through a transformation and structural addition in the early periods after construction during the c. ninth–tenth centuries CE. The place was converted into a habitation space later, and the remains of hearths built on complete earthenware attest to this change during the second period. The subsequent period witnessed a complete transformation of the place, and the structural ruins of the earlier temple were buried. Habitational remains of mud floors, thin walls built with reused bricks, and several hearths (filled with charcoal and ash) on mud floors were detected. The final and fourth period is attested by a solid and indurated rammed floor made of clay and powdered bricks which were constructed upon a deposit of filling that overlayed the earlier floors and hearths. Later activities mostly destroyed the extent of deposits inside the Brahmanical temple before the conversion of the sacred space into a mundane one. Hundreds of broken fragments of stones (representing the stone blocks and pieces used in the brick-built structure of the earlier temple, pillar bases, stairs, pedestals, etc.) were recovered and recorded. Fragments of stone sculptures were found from the contemporaneous deposits. These fragments represent Surya images, Viṣṇu images, and undetectable others. A miniature bronze image of Ganeśa was also found in the sediments above the floor of the temple. The dates of these destructions are yet to be determined with chronometric dates. It could, however, be proposed referring to stratigraphy and pottery that the destruction and reuse from the second period to the fourth period and the eventual abandonment of the place was extended after the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries CE till the seventeenth– eighteenth centuries CE. Two copper plate inscriptions from this place were issued during the reign of the Pāla ruler Mahīpāla I and Vigrahapāla III. Therefore, two

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  95 copper plate inscriptions (CPIs) belong to two different temporalities (c. 998 CE and c. 1070 CE). The provenance of the first copper plate could not be confirmed in corroboration to the place names in the content. The village of the Vēllāvā, of the second CPI, where the donee lived seems to be the present place of Belwa (Sircar 1951–52, p. 11). We may accept provisionally that the provenance of the second copper plate can be confirmed by crossreferencing the village name of the donee. The Belwa was a settlement where the donee of the CPI during Vigrahapāla’s reign lived. This settlement, according to its archaeological context and materials, was different than many others with intersecting ditches and clusters of tanks. This settlement was located within two tributaries in/of Tulshiganga River system, which is morphologically, hydrologically, and temporally different than the Karatoya River system. The connection between the ditches and the abandoned channels to the west and the east cannot be detected, though the trace of two abandoned channels abruptly ends very close to this settlement. Zakariah has mentioned an inscription, on a brass (?) plate, with the names of five pirs and a motif of fish, was found in the vicinity of one of the tanks (dighi) to the east of Belwa. The inscription is missing from the Dinajpur Museum since the War of Liberation in 1971. The inscription could be dated later than the eighteenth century CE (Zakariah, 2010, p. 113). The stratigraphic transformation of the Brahmanical temple at Parur Dhibi (possibly contemporary to the copper plate inscriptions) could be contemporary to the latest period (period 4) to the pirs or panchpir (as the mazar of Panch Pir attests). The period in the middle illustrates the transformation and conversion (initially violent) of the temple into a habitational space. The ditches possibly indicate the differentiation of space functionally or based on ownership or land use. The settlement of Gopalpur, adjacent to the south-west of Belwa, is another example of the settlements with intersected ditches. Partially preserved remains of brick-built walls and scatters of potsherds were detected in different places, such as in the courtyard of the households, on the accidental sections of pits dug by the locals, or within the dumped earth collected from different places. We discovered the remains of a brick-built rectangular water reservoir with a ghat (landing stage) to the west. This reservoir was first exposed by the digging of the locals who were removing earth. The filling inside the artificial water reservoir and the filling outside the brickbuilt walls of the water reservoir revealed frequent and thick deposits of potsherds which can tentatively be ascribed to the tenth–eleventh centuries CE or earlier (Sen 2018, 2019). It could be restricted to a specific ritual purpose or a specific group of people in the area. The proximity of the settlement of Belwa and Gopalpur is noteworthy. The distance between these two settlements is 1 km if the cores bounded by intersected ditches are examined. Even though we could not discern any connection of ditches between

96  Swadhin Sen et al. these two settlements, these two distinctly bounded settlements could be intimately related to each other as places differentiated for specific activities. Other settlements with intersecting ditches are situated just to the west of the walled settlements of Baro Paiker Garh, Satpara Garh, and Ghoraghat Durga. These settlements are Teghora-Gayeshwarpur, Kucherpara, Shyampur, and Jalalpur-Baragaon. The Changura-Besain is another settlement with intersecting ditches, and, in this settlement, the ditches are challenging to detect and map because of their modifications. Unlike Belwa, Gopalpur, and Harinathpur Rajbari Bhita, there are no discernible boundaries by ditches. Teghora-Gayeshawarpur is situated adjacent to the west and south-west of Ghoraghat Durga. The structural mound of Nayapara to the north of the ditches was spatially, temporally, and behaviourally associated with the area covered by the intersecting ditches. Several tanks are placed within the spatial units segregated by intersecting ditches. The Kucherpara settlement (covering Abdulla Para, Abirer Para, Kucherpara, and Sidhalgram Mouza) is adjacent to Baro Paiker Garh and the moats to the south of the garh. The intersecting ditches in this settlement create parallel segregated spaces and one square spatial unit. They are linked to the moats mentioned above to the south of Baro Paiker Garh. The space characterised by intersecting ditches measures 265 hectares, and the area to the west of Baro Paiker Garh measures 141 hectares. Kucherpara, Baro Paiker Garh, Sidhalgram (including Pallo Rajar Bari Mounds), and space to the west of Baro Paiker Garh are inseparable in terms of occupational activities. All these settlements were contemporary in the sense that from the ninth–tenth centuries CE to the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries CE earlier settlements appropriated within the latter ones, and latter ones formed, developed, and expanded by changing the formal and spatial dimensions of the earlier ones. The settlements Jalalpur-Baragaon, Paikpara-Kochmardan, Changura-Besain, and Jhanjhair have the signatures of cross-cutting ditches within the boundary. In these cases, the boundaries are demarcated by a cluster of tanks. It is significant to point at the concentration of the settlements of this category within an area in the western and southern direction of Ghoraghat (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Category three: Archaeological places enclosed by the cluster of tanks These settlements are detectable by the visibility of their boundaries which are demarcated by the spatial patterning of tanks. They are arranged most often either as a cluster in a circular or semi-circular pattern or as separate clusters in cardinal directions, around the central locus of habitation and activities. The first author of this chapter has already pointed out the specificity of these patterning and spatial arrangements of tanks concerning specific settlements in one of his previous articles (Sen 2017). Sometimes, these

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  97 settlements are typified by more than one boundary distinguished by the presence of a moat, or a mud wall, or cross-cutting ditches. The significance of the settlement at Baligram has already been mentioned (Sen 2018, 2019) (see Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). Interestingly, the spatially contiguous settlements of Baligram, SilimpurBiyala, Naodoba-Fatehpur, Shibsamudra, Enayetpur-Puiagari, and Raidangi-Jalita are the settlements the core activity areas of which are surrounded by a cluster of tanks. The tank clusters, as an essential component of both habitational and agrarian activities, are patterned in a way to give these settlements a circular or semi-circular shape. These six settlements, akin to several others, form a settlement cluster. This area of the cluster is defined with variable spatial features, and in most cases, the core area is highlighted by numerous structural mounds and surface scatters of potsherds. Several other settlements, which can be defined by spatially segmented units, are differentiated from one another by the clustered organisation of tanks. With such distinguishable boundaries, they also have a semi-circular or circular pattern. For example, Matrai and Salgaun, two contiguous settlements, are separated from each other by a cluster of tanks. At the same time, the core space of habitation, as suggested by the frequency and density of cultural material, is bounded by the clusters of tanks. Similar spatial organisation of tanks with increased density and uniformity could be detected in case of the settlements like Haitor, Durunju, Borai, Ksetlal-Boira, and Banaich. The core of these settlements is also dotted with tanks which are less frequent and irregular in patterning. On the other hand, a different pattern can be detected for the settlements of Samsira, Santaghurni-Binsira, Banihara, Mohammadpur, Ati, and Punat. Like the settlements mentioned earlier where clusters of tanks are on four cardinal directions, or two or three directions of the enclosed space or core, these settlements are characterised by a core in which the occurrence of tanks is less frequent and less dense, and the borders are determined by these clusters. The settlements mentioned earlier have a moat, or intersecting moats or mud walls as the boundary of the core, and the tank clusters were outside the perimeter. The tanks on the margin were utilised, perhaps, as a boundary marker, and for use in both habitational and irrigation purposes. The less frequent tanks within the core were probably used only for habitational purposes (Figure 4.4). Category four: Archaeological places associated with the cluster of tanks This category of settlements and their boundaries are most fluid and porous compared to the earlier categories. The fundamental characteristics of this type are the high density of tanks with the irregular spatial distribution of the surficial occurrences of potsherds and brickbats and partially exposed

98  Swadhin Sen et al. walls in robber pits and on accidental sections. Under the present condition of preservation, it is not possible to detect the core activity area and the periphery. It is quite probable that the zones of habitational activities were discretely arranged in the area marked by the high density of tanks. Adjacent spaces were for agrarian use or other uses like empty space interspersed in between the relatively smaller units of habitation. The tanks in these instances had multipurpose functionality – for water harvesting, habitational use, drinking water, aquatic resources, and differentiating the spaces (Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). Two of the most notable settlements in this category are NarangabadSahebganj and Rampur-Sapmara. It is not possible to determine whether these two settlements were a single entity or whether more settlements were there. The entire area covering Rampur, Sapmara, Madarpur, and part of Bogdaha Mouza has been a part of Sahebganj Sugarcane Farm since the late 1950s. The sugarcane farming and the modification of landscape have erased the archaeological places beyond recognition. Zakariah (2010), who surveyed this area during the 1960s, has mentioned the gradually diminishing archaeological landscape in this area. Even before the sugarcane farming had begun, the inhabitants were destroying archaeological mounds, as has been attested by Ahmed (1991, pp. 214–19). He has presented a sketchy report of the excavation for one season in the farm area. The Pakistan Directorate of Archaeology was informed about the discovery of archaeological materials during the modification of the land for building the rest house and other establishments of the farm. In the paper, he has referred to the excavations of five structural mounds in one season and mentioned three other mounds which were already destroyed in 1959. Zakariah (2010, pp. 167–70) has mentioned these excavations, and he referred to several dilapidated remains within the farm area which extends beyond the Narangabad-Bogdaha Mouza on the right bank of the present course of Karatoya River. He added that there were numerous signatures of archaeological places in the area from Sahebganj to Ghoraghat. We could only locate one structural mound (known locally as mer) during our surveying because of the official restrictions and obliteration of the archaeological materials. This mound, probably the largest among the eight archaeological places, as Ahmed (1991, pp. 214–16) mentioned, revealed the remains of a small Buddhist vihāra. He also said that this vihara had two periods: The first one belonged to the eighth–twelfth centuries CE, and the second one was dated to the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries CE. It seems that the remains of the Buddhist establishment were reoccupied during the later periods. A small ditch to the east and south of the present village could be a signature of an early settlement enclosed by a moat. In both settlements, there are clustered occurrences of tanks. Interestingly, Ahmed has reported the existence of eleven punch-marked coins and two coins issued by Kumargupta II. Nurul Islam, an official of the farm, recovered these coins during the

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  99 digging of a ditch in Sapmara-Rampur settlement (Ahmed 2010; Ahmed and Islam 2011). In 1910, an earthenware was found by a local farmer hidden under a brick-paved location, and the pot was hoarding five large bronze Viṣṇu sculptures. The hoard was retrieved from Narangabad and probably concealed in some part of structural remains by the overlaying bricks above at a later period (Spooner 1915, pp. 152–58; Mukhopadhya 1317 BS, pp. 128–30). Hiding coins and sculptures in a hoard is a common practice in this region, and several miniature bronze sculptures, for example, were recovered from a hidden chamber during the excavation of Jagadala mound in Naogaon (Alam 2016). The sizes of these sculptures are rare in terms of bronze images from Bengal. Five idols of Viṣṇu hidden within a pot is a piece of extraordinary evidence in the sense that the idols in ritual use were required to be hidden at a critical juncture in history (Figures 4.3 and 4.4). Category five: Places, mosques, and mazars in a dispersed pattern The problem of continuity and changes in the settlement building and human activity patterns from the early medieval to medieval can be addressed most effectively by the archaeological pieces of evidence which are datable to the established temporal boundary of the ‘medieval’ in Bengal. Though the taken-for-granted status of the typological class of Glazed Ware has been questioned, these specific varieties of ceramic and some other categories designated to the ‘medieval’ can provisionally be dated to the twelfth–thirteen centuries CE or later. (Lefrancq 2014–15; Panja, Nag, and Badhopadhyay 2015). The stratigraphic sequence of many of the pottery assemblages is yet to be established with fine resolution chronometric dates (Figure 4.5). It must be noted that monumental remains in isolation have their own limitations as archaeological data, and they do not often represent the structures and processes regarding the settlement formation and transformation. The formation of the ‘town’ or ‘administrative centre’ of Ghoraghat in the post-thirteenth century CE period is argued on the basis of the walled settlements mentioned earlier, and on the basis of the structural remains of a number of mosques and mazars (a venerated place or tomb of a Muslim saint/darbesh/fakir). Both Buchanon (1833) and Martin (1838b) have mentioned fifteen mosques, most of which were in ruinous condition under the ownership of rich farmers (Buchanon 1833, p. 62) (Figure 4.6). We have detected archaeological remains of twenty-three such places in present Ghoraghat Upazila in the purposive surveying. Nine places were found in Pirganj Upazila, and four places were recorded in Govindaganj Upazila. Often mosques and mazars are found in association with one another. Dispersed or isolated occurrences of mosques and mazar/dargah are also detected. Several such places were identified within the enclosed walled spaces or settlements bounded by distinct markers.

100  Swadhin Sen et al.

Figure 4.5 Mosques, mazars, and dargah in the study area (Source: Authors’ own).

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  101

Figure 4.6 The settlements and embankments in Pirganj Upazila in relation to the settlements of Ghoraghat. The names of the garhs and features according to the designated numbers are (1) local name unknown, (2) local name unknown, (3) Harsigha Dighi Garh, (4) Chapanda Bill, (5) Baro Bill, (6) Baro Biller Dardah (PRG.05), (7) Katal Garh, and (8) local name unknown (Source: Authors’ own).

102  Swadhin Sen et al. Sura Masjid is documented as one of the iconic architectural remains among these mosques. Currently a protected and conserved monument, this single domed mosque rests upon a raised terrace, and it is identified, based on stylistic dating, as representing the Hussain Shahi Style of mosque architecture in Bengal (Hassan 2007, pp. 193–94). The mosque and a tank to the west were part of the settlement of Kundaran, which covers an area of 89.7 hectares. There are several other tanks to the south of the mosque. The mosque on the terrace and the associated enclosure wall and gateway were constructed upon the remains of an earlier brick-built structure. The structure is partially preserved and exposed on the surface at various locations. The exposure of this structure is most visible on the bank of the tank to the south-east of the mosque. A considerable number of stone blocks or pieces were identified by Zakariah (2010, pp. 137–39) and during our survey on the surface around the mosque. It seems a few of the stone blocks were also reused in the construction of the mosque complex. These stone blocks or pieces were initially used in the earlier brick-built structure, as has been suggested by Zakariah (2010, pp. 137–39). During our survey, we detected a thick deposit of ash and charcoal mixed with potsherds and fragments of the rammed floor (50–85 cm) laterally extending over 15 m on the eastern bank of Sura Dighi. This deposit was overlain by the deposit of clayey reddish-yellow soil collected from the digging (or re-excavation) of the tank to raise the bank. The provenance, thickness, and lateral extent of this deposit suggest that this deposit could be redeposited during the restoration of the tank, and it could well be contemporary to the structural remains predating the mosque. The Bhanga Masjid within Ghoraghat Durga is the only remains of the mosque within the walled settlement. Buchanon (1833) noted a deserted mosque within the Ghoraghat Fort, and he referred to an inscription in situ, narrating the construction of the mosque by Zainul Abedin (sic.), the governor of Ghoraghat in AH 1153 (1740–41 CE). This ruin could well be Bhanga Masjid. The remains of two structural mounds, one of which is recognised as Chowkidarinir Mazar, could well be the remains of a mosque or a secular building. The date of these remains cannot be placed before the Hussain Shahi period. The associated remains of potsherds, moreover, could well be placed chronologically during or after the seventeenth century CE. Similar instances of appropriating a space or a settlement by building a monument like a mosque or by recognising the remains as the place or tomb of a holy saint can be recorded in several other cases. For example, the mazar of Kazi Sadar Uddin and the adjoining mosque at Ghoraghat, Kashigari Mosque (now a building with a corrugated tin shed), Uttar Purroil Mosque (completely renovated or reconstructed), Chowria Village dargah (partially preserved remains of a seventeenth–eighteenth centuries CE mosque), Daria Bukharir Mazar (built upon a mound with surficial exposures of stone blocks within modern walled compound of the mosque), and

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  103 Hatibandha Mosque (restored by preserving the entrance with chala shaped dome and three domed main prayer chamber and can be dated by a stone inscription to the eighteenth century CE) have evidence of appropriating the spaces and monumental remains in various patterns. These mosques have scattered stone blocks around the later monumental constructions. There are signs of reuse of stone blocks and partially preserved and exposed brick structural remains. Surficial exposures of dilapidated brick-built structural remains from earlier periods are visible under or adjacent to these mosques. On the other hand, there are remains of mosques, such as Teghoria Saha Mosque, Gambuj Mosque, Phulhar Mosque, and Panditpara Mosque which have no detectable reuse of earlier construction materials or there are no surficial scatters of stone blocks around. The sacred place Miskiner Dargah is a semi-circular structural mound upon which a relatively new brick-built structure is fashioned as dargah. A recent appropriation of space by identifying it as a sacred burial place of a holy saint can be explained in the case of Tongisahor (Tongi Pirer Mazar) and Pir Yameni Mazar, or the case of the continuous renovation of the dargah on the mud wall of Baro Paiker Garh (Figure 4.5). The identification of a place with a saint or deity is a dominant tradition of place making related to the idea of the sacred. An empty landform within the large swamp or bil (seasonally flooded low land) in Baro Bil (large water body) is known as the Panir Dargah associated with Shāh Ismā’il Ghazi. The tradition of identification of a place – a specific landform devoid of any visible cultural material, part of earlier structural remains or a mound, a single stone block, or a site where earlier stone pieces are gathered – as sacred with supernatural power is very dominant. The processes and their significance in the formation, reconfiguration, and transformation of the collective identity pertaining to religious traditions and the embodied ordinary living of the people have already been interpreted by the first author and other scholars (Aquil 2003; Burchertt 2012; Digby 1970; Sen 2020; Stewart 2019). The spatial patterning of these places suggests that there is a centrality of a zone between Ghoraghat Durga and Daria Durga. The density of these places in this area covering 12 km (from north to south) and 7.5 km (east to west) is higher. The spatial pattern that might have transformed with time suggests the centrality of this zone for the activities of Sufi saints and the processes of sacralisation of various places through popular memorialisation. The proximity and the close association of these places to the functionally and behaviourally (administrative, military, and commercial) different places belonging to various other categories manifest their reciprocal entanglement. It may suggest that the sacredness of these places is historically associated with the formation, development, and transformation of the commercial, military, agrarian, administrative, and spatial significance of this particular area, especially between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries CE and even later.

104  Swadhin Sen et al. Category six: Mud walls and embankments All the earthworks – enclosure walls, embankments, and embankments cum roads – are locally known as garh. The eastern side of the present course of Karatoya River, particularly the space included in this chapter as the study area, is featured by several such garhs. These earthworks or mud walls were not constructed primarily for enclosing a space. There are several bils or low, seasonally flooded, swampy landforms in this area which, except for a portion covered by the uplifted Barind Terrace, is situated on Teesta-Brahmaputra Floodplain. The area is bounded by Karatoya to the west and Jamuna (Brahmaputra) to the east. Numerous channels, palaeochannels, channel remnants, and geomorphic features suggest that channel dynamics have been intense in this zone during the later Holocene period, especially during the last 1500 years or so (see Sen 2017, 2015a, 2015b, 2014). Mud walls around Daria Garh (category one) are representative of this category. Six mud walls built consecutively in the zone between Karatoya and Matsya Rivers were multipurpose. Apart from an embankment to the west of an oxbow lake to the south-west of Daria Garh built during postindependence flood management projects, most of the remains of mud walls are pre-colonial. Each portion of the mud walls has its local name. Seemingly, this is the outermost mud wall to enclose the entire space covering 680 hectares. The signature of a canal connecting the moat of Daria Garh to the Karatoya River is still detectable. This whole space can be counted as the settlement area in which very crucial archaeological evidence of anthropogenic modification of the dynamic floodplain for more than 800 years is observed (Figures 4.6 and 4.7). The walled settlement of Daria Garh was built during the ninth–tenth centuries CE or earlier on the floodplain of Karatoya marked sedimentologically by medium to fine sand with occasional deposition of silt or clay in different patches. A study of sedimentary sections within and outside the core settlement area attests to the relative instability of the zone that was always under the impact of regular monsoon flooding. Another remnant of the channel was probably a canal or waterway dug to ensure water supply into the moat of the Daria Garh. The watercourse was navigated to manage the communication from Karatoya to the settlement. The mud walls acted in protecting the surrounding landscape from flooding during peak monsoon. The presence of the portion of the Birat Garh to the east of the Shāh Ismā’il Ghazi’s Mazar at Kantaduar is a vital signature. It seems that the present monument of the mazar was built upon a high structural mound on the right bank of the abandoned bed of Matsya River. It was probably made during a period when the river was active, yet the occupational periods of the remains of the monument underneath were at their latest phase (see Sen 2018, 2019, 2015a, 2015b, 2014).

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  105

Figure 4.7 Daria Garh and the mud walls/embankments. 1a and 1b = Birat Garh; 2 and 3 = Chandi Duar Garh; 4 = Jogini Mandab Garh; 5 = Chandi Duar (water way); 6 = Khola Garh; 7 = Garh Para; 8 = Kodal Dhowa Garh; 9 = Tapupara Garh; 10a = Garher Bhita; 10b = Khurir Garh; 11, 12, and 14 = local names unknown; and 13 = Santana Garh (Source: Authors’ own).

106  Swadhin Sen et al. Several mud walls or partially preserved remains of mud walls are located to the west and east of the Akhira River flowing through this upazila parallel to the east of Karatoya. Pirganj Upazila and Palashbari Upazila lying south of Pirganjare are well known for the presence of several bils (low-lying swamps and back swamps seasonally flooded during monsoon). Apart from the walled settlements of Patgram and Satgara, a few archaeological places are lying on the left bank of the Matsya River and on the eastern side of the Akhira River. The traces of several mud walls, now detectable in various forms and shapes, cannot effortlessly be identified as enclosure walls. For example, Katal Garh is a mud wall which is running from the eastern bank of the Akira River valley in Dhansala Mouza up to Baro Bil (length 1.28 km) to the east. It then turns to the south and continues up to the southern edge of the swamp (length 2.99 km) and again turns towards the river to the west and ends at its bank (length 892 m). Another mud wall is attached to this turn, and it is traceable parallel to the eastern edge of the Akhira River. Turning towards the northeast, it joins the bent of Katal Garh in Nakharpara. The length of the wall on the bank of Akhira River is 682 m, and the length of the portion which joins Kathal Garh is 500 m. There are partially preserved remains of other mud walls within this area. A linear trace, now almost flattened, can be detected 2 km to the north-west of the north-western segment of Katal Garh. With a north-west to south-east orientation, this 2.14-km long segment is extended into the neighbouring mouzas of Rampur, Keshabpur, and Parashurampur. The Dharmadaspur Garh, as the locals call the mud wall, starts at the bank of Akhira River and acts as the north-western wall of Satgara and continues up to the north-west in Kangur Para Mouza. The total length of this garh is 3.85 km. The third one begins from the southern enclosure wall around Chapondaha Bil and continues up to the south-east crossing Chhatra Mouza. This mud wall is locally known as Garhpara Garh, and its length is 1.84 km. It is not possible to categorise the mud walls which were constructed for multipurpose functions by referring to the temporal division of ‘early medieval’ and ‘medieval’. Their construction and reconstruction were dependent more upon the changing landscape and rivers and on the management of land and agriculture pertaining to the flood management and settlement formation. Changes in landscape, river, and flood regimes, after all, did not follow the ‘early medieval’ and ‘medieval’ divide. Category seven: Tanks The massive number of tanks in the study area, their spatial organisation and differentiation, their size and shape, and most importantly, their contextual association with the cultural materials of various kinds demand detailed attention in separate papers (Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). A few issues, however, should be declared. The date of all these tanks is impossible to ascertain with a certain degree of reliability. Their contextual

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  107 association and concomitance with datable cultural materials may be a useful way to propose a date or a temporal boundary. In many cases, brickbuilt remains of ghats (landing stages) are noticed on the slopes of the banks of the tanks which are usually bounded by a high, raised, and equi-convex earthwork. These remains can be recognised as one of the datable features. The raised mud walls or banks, built by the earth removed during the digging of the tanks, may reveal various archaeological features including pottery scatters, monumental remains, and rubbish from the period the tank was in use. They may also provide a clue for the date of the tank as terminus ante quem. Most importantly, the tanks in the region often reveal stone sculptures, pottery, and other remains during recent re-excavation and restoration, or even during the flattening of the high bank to make cultivable land. These remains give the terminus ante quem for the tank. In several instances, no archaeological material is detectable in association with the cluster of tanks. For example, the Chatnail cluster of tanks (1 km to the west of Srikrishnapur settlement) can be the location of a settlement in terms of habitation and water harvesting. There are several other examples in the southern part of the study area in Kshetlal, Govindaganj, and in the area extending from the northern to the north-western part of Shibganj Upazila. The wattle-daub constructions of the households and other habitational activities have been erased because of their lack of endurance in a climate which is not favourable for long-term preservation. Their absence must also be accounted for on the ground of demographic shifts and destruction owing to continuous migration after the partition in 1947. On this ground, the comments by Panja (2018) on our studies and methodology can be identified as essentialised and reductionist (Sen 2012, 2011; Sen et al. 2010). We have elaborately pointed at the reconceptualisation and contextualisation of the survey methodology earlier. The absence of a pottery index is a key problem for dating, and it has rightly been pointed at by her. Yet, the reports of excavation and surveying overtly suggest that the absence of ‘habitational’ remains must be interpreted, often on micro-scale terms and processes along with macro-scalar understanding (see Sen 2017, 2018, 2015a, 2013). The tanks, the variegated nature and pattern of remains (not essentially in terms of mound or structures), and the spatiotemporal contingencies are very crucial for explaining the eradication of habitational remains like activity surfaces and features. Simultaneously, contemporary land use and activity patterns are incredibly vital for explaining the nature and patterning (presence or absence) of archaeological data in this region.

Archaeology of settlements and places: Rethinking dominant sources and narratives Table 4.3 has pointed at the datable epigraphic and textual sources associated spatially with the study area. One of the most remarkable aspects is the provenance of six copper plates and one stone slab inscriptions from

Datable source

Copper plate inscription 1

Copper plate inscription 2

Copper plate inscription

Copper plate inscription

Copper plate inscription

Stone slab inscription

Copper plate inscription Stone slab inscription

Sl no.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

Temporality

Belwa, accidental Mahīpāla I (c. 997–1045 discovery in contextual CE) association with archaeological place Belwa, surface collection Vigrahapāla III (c. 1060– 1086 CE) Chatsal, surface collection Nārāyaṇpāla (c. 883–937 CE) Naodoba, surface Nayapāla (c. 1045–60) collection Biyala, surface collection Mahīpāla I (c. 997–1045 CE) Silimpur Tenth–eleventh centuries CE Peyara, surface collection Unknown Champatali, surface Sultan Alā al-dīn Ḥusain collection Shāh (c. 1493–1518), date of issuance 910 A.H. (1504–5 CE)

Provenance

Table 4.3 Epigraphic and textual sources from and about the study area

Unknown Karim (1992, 268–69)

Basak (1915–16, 283–95)

Sircar (1951–52, 1–15), Furui (personal correspondence) Ryosuke Furui (personal communication), Sen (2019) Ryosuke Furui (personal correspondence), Sen (2019) Furui (2010, 99–106)

Sircar (1951–52, 1–15), Ryosuke Furui (personal correspondence)

References

(Continued)

Comments

108  Swadhin Sen et al.

Stone slab inscription

Stone slab inscription

Stone slab inscription

Text, Ā’īn-i-Akbarī, Abul Fazl Safar-nāmā, Abdul Latif Text, Risalat-ush-Shuhada (Hagiography of Shah Ismail Ghazi) Text, Baḥāristān-i-Ghaybī, Mirza Nathan

9.

10.

11.

12.

Source: Authors’ own.

15.

13. 14.

Datable source

Sl no.

Table 4.3 (Continued) 

Manuscript

Manuscript Kantaduar

Kantaduar, surface collection Hatibanda, Peerganj, mosque Ghoraghat

Provenance

References

27 May 1632 CE (1608– 24 CE)

1609 CE 1633 CE

Nathan 1936; Nathan 2012

Sarkar (1928, 143–6) Damant, (1874, 215–21); Karim (1992, 317)

Sultan Alā al-dīn Ḥusain Karim (1992, 316–18) Shāh (c. 1493–1518 CE) 1130 AH (1717–18 CE) Sahidul Hasan (personal correspondence) 1153 AH (1740–41 CE) Buchanon-Hamilton (1833, 63) c. 1595–6 CE Allami (1891, 135–36)

Temporality

Issue date unknown Reused in the mosque?

Comments

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  109

110  Swadhin Sen et al. the settlements which are contiguous to one another. In reference to the provenance of the epigraphic materials, we may categorise two clusters of settlements: Belwa-Gopalpur-Chatsal-Amra-Damodarpur (cluster extended up to 1b) and Raida​ngi-S​hibsa​mudra​-Puia​gari-​Enaya​tpur-​Royga​on-Si​limpu​ r-Biy​ala-B​aligr​am-Bi​nsara​-Srik​risna​pur (cluster 2a). The latter one is larger in area coverage than the former one, with coverage of 1981 and 3831 hectares, respectively. They are 9.5 km away from each other. Most importantly, the space between these two clusters is covered by several other settlements, according to our study. These settlements can also be categorised into several clusters on the basis of spatial pattern, segregation, and proximity to each other (Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). If we consider the inscriptions, first, in reference to their respective archaeological contexts which have been designated as a place and a settlement, and second, in reference to the settlement cluster the inscriptions are contextually part of, the place names mentioned in the inscriptions do not necessarily hint at the places of donation, at least in terms of village names, and at the places in which the donee lived. The copper plate of Vigrahapāla III mentions the donee’s village name with which the present name of Belwa could be correlated. The copper plate of Vigrahapāla III also refers to Lovanikāman Village in Puṇḍarikā Maṇḍala of Phāṇiṭavīthī Viṣaya. Belwa copper plate of Mahīpāla I mention three villages in which land was donated. These villages are Ossinnakaivarttavṛtti within Amalakṣudduṅga (in Phāṇiṭavīthī viṣaya), Nadisvaminī in Puṇḍarikā Maṇḍala of Phāṇiṭavīthī, and Gaṇeśvarasametagrāmapuṣkuriṇī (village pond accompanied by Gaṇeśvara) in Pañchanagarī Viṣaya (Furui, personal correspondence). We have not been able to identify the villages and place names mentioned in these CPIs during our survey. There are no comparable toponyms in the detailed database of village names in the adjoining areas of Birampur, Nawabganj, Hakimpur, Panchbibi, Kshetlal, Kalai, Palashbari, Mithapukur, Pirganj, and Govindaganj. If the accepted way of identification based on linguistic or phonetic similarity with the place names is taken into consideration, the village names from these two copper plates are impossible to recognise. If the present settlement of Punat in Ksetlal (28 km to the south of Belwa) is recognised as phonetically closer to Phāṇiṭavīthī Viṣaya, then Pundaria in present-day Akkelpur (24 km to the south-west of Punat and 48 km to the south of Belwa) could be considered as a residue of the name of Pundarika Mandala. Punat was evidently an archaeological settlement during the early medieval period. Pundaria-Deur in Akkelpur also possesses dense archaeological places. It can be proposed that while Pañchanagarī Viṣaya is situated to the north and east of Belwa, the Phāṇiṭavīthī Viṣaya could include the area to the south at least till the Puṇḍranagara (present-day Mahasthangarh) during the tenth–eleventh centuries CE. The names of the donated places/villages in the Naodoba copper plates could not be deciphered because of corrosion. The village of the donee

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  111 – Rajyagrāma – does not have any philological or phonological correspondence to any village or place names in the aforesaid region (Ryosuke Furui, personal correspondence). The first author has already argued the disparities between the mentions of larger administrative units in the copper plate inscriptions and their provenances. Two copper plate inscriptions found from the same provenance, in this case, mention different places in completely different administrative units (Sen 2018, 2019). Often in the accepted version of history writing in which epigraphic sources have received paramount importance, the archaeological context is either completely ignored or mentioned as complimentary support without paying any attention to whether the epigraphic materials were recovered from primary or secondary context. The historians, in most cases, are not inclined to evaluate the authenticity of the data in the secondary contexts. As data, moreover, these copper plate inscriptions are normative and standardised documents and they were issued, refashioned, and distributed selectively from the top of the governing system (see Hawkes and Abbas 2016). The spatial patterning of the settlements mentioned earlier in various categories, in reference to contiguity and distance, problematises the takenfor-granted epigraph and text-centric interpretations of settlements and variabilities. Belwa and Gopalpur, for example, have extremely specific spatial segregation with intersecting ditches. The ditches and the tanks were probably used to differentiate space in order to separate the ‘religious’ from the ‘non-religious’ or to organise space in conformation with social, political, and economic stratification and complexities. These complexities in the arrangement of space with monumental remains at the centre raise questions regarding the established ‘notion of a uniform agrarian rural society’ in early medieval Varendri (and Bengal). Rigorous and elaborate elucidation of social differentiation during this period with regard to epigraphic and textual sources are available (see, for example, Furui 2020); Knutson 2014). The clustered archaeological settlements that are individually and collectively larger than several urban settlements in the vicinity, nevertheless, do not represent an agriculture centric, simple, and closed settlement formation and development. Several other extensive settlements with complex differentiation of space by ditches and tanks and their probable hierarchical networks point to the complexities which remain unrecognised in the dominating historical narratives. The stratigraphy of the Brahmanical temple at Belwa and other excavated places (Sen 2018, 2019), besides, could be taken as a frame of reference to infer the variability. The centrality of Amra in the circular clustering of these settlements is also important to signify the complexities. Three copper plate inscriptions and a stone slab inscription were found from the archaeological places of settlement cluster 2. One of the CPIs from the Peyara village of the Panchbibi Upazila has not yet been officially recovered. Baligram has been identified as one of the places – Vā(bā)lagrāma – mentioned in the Silimpur stone slab inscription (Basak 1915–16). The

112  Swadhin Sen et al. other place names, though without any current toponymic references in the region, correlated to our analyses of settlements. The village or settlement of Sīyamva (ba), for example, could be the settlement of Shalgun. The Śrāvasti could well be the Uchai-Mahipur settlement in Panchbibi, with the adjacent village of Sekati on the bank of Jhinai Khari as the Sakaṭī (name of a place or a river) of the inscription (see Sen 2018, 2019). It is quite possible that an idealised Brahmanical space like Śrāvasti, as the place of origin of the Brahmin family in the inscription, has been declared to construct the authority of the lineage of Prahāsa, the protagonist of the inscription. It has also been mentioned that the archaeological materials, especially the structural remains and pottery predates the date of the inscription and, therefore, the settlements formed earlier than the date of the inscription (Figure 4.3). Similar propositions can be offered for the Biyala copper plate of Mahīpāla I (Furui 2010) found an archaeological place of the same settlement adjacent to Baligram. The donated tract in the village of Palāśvṛnda (which is proposed as identical to Palāśvṛndaka in the Damodarpur plate of 163 GE [482 CE]) can be anywhere in the adjacent area. There are several place names with the prefix Palash in Govindaganj, Pirganj, Palashbari, and Akkelpur. If the tract is meant for agricultural land, then it is impossible to identify at present. Curiously, the mandala and visaya within which Vēllāvā as the village of the donne in Belwa copper plate of Vigrahapāla II is located are not mentioned. In the Biyala plate the village of the donee – Vāmānāhara – has its phonological resemblance with at least four places with the prefix of Bamon and there are at least two places – both known as Banhara – with the suffix ‘hara’. There is another place, in addition, known as Bamnihari. All these places are close to the provenance of the inscription. The donated land was in the village of Jyamayīgrāma in Halāvartta maṇḍala of Koṭīvarṣa Viṣaya. The photologically closer names of the village, mandala, and the village of the donne – Rājyagrāma – in the Naodoba inscription of Nayapāla could not be identified yet (Ryosuke Furui, personal correspondence). The place names in the Chatsal CPI of Nārayanpāla have not been deciphered (Ryosuke Furui, personal correspondence; see Sen 2019) (see Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). The first author mentioned earlier that lands were donated in different administrative divisions, and the provenances of these inscriptions do not give any clue about their provenances with regard to those administrative divisions and mobility (Sen 2018, 2019). These divisions either could be overlapping and changing with time or they could well be in an area distant from the provenance (which is highly unusual). In spite of these profound limitations of dealing epigraphic sources in relation to archaeological context, specifically, in reference to present place names in the area around the provenance of the copper plates, a few propositions have been offered about the probable locations of the administrative divisions, most convincingly by Zakariah (2010) and later modified by the first author (Sen 2018). According to these propositions, the area under study mostly falls within

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  113 the jurisdiction of Phāṇiṭavīthī Viṣaya, overlapping with Koṭīvarṣa viṣaya to the west of Chhoto Jamuna River, and Pañchanagarī Viṣaya including the northern part of the study area. Chaṇḍīgrāma Viṣaya was identified by Furui (2009) as an evolution of a village into a new administrative unit which was mentioned in the CPI of Gopāla IV. This viṣaya probably corresponded to the Chandipur-Garhpinglai settlement to the north of the present study area (Sen 2015b, 2018). There are a few recent exercises which have attempted to deal with the archaeological contexts of the inscriptions. Sanyal’s illuminating attempts, for example, to engage with the settlement patterns based on epigraphic sources could be mentioned here (Sanyal 2013, 2010). His methodology cannot be applied in many cases where the natural and cultural features of the donated tracts or the places and their boundaries are not described in detail. The provenance of the inscriptions and their provenances could be entirely different. Their provenances could be changed in the processes of mobility, reuse, and decontextualisation because of their critical importance as an authoritative and accepted document of ownership. As an archaeological object, this crucial difference between provenance and provenience is of great significance in corroborating mentioned toponyms with the present ones. The disproportion between the number of inscriptions and the number of settlements/places, moreover, is noteworthy. The number of places/settlements is much higher than the number of inscriptions. Tables 4.1 and 4.3 can be compared to one another to understand the level of disproportionality. To attend to these issues, we may shift our attention from a mere correlation between normative textual material and the actual behavioural processes. The variabilities of spatiotemporality and processual aspects of the settlement clusters and their attributes could be an alternative focus. Cluster 2 can well be extended horizontally south-westward by including MatraiSalgun-Samsira settlements. This extended settlement (cluster 3) can then be contextually connected with another important cluster 4 with the settlements of Birat Rajar Garh-​Ayabh​angi-​Dasna​l-Roa​gaon-​Balig​aon-K​harit​ a-Bes​ain-M​aklai​n-Sih​igaon​. A narrow, sinuous, incised, and partially modified tributary of Tulshiganga River separates cluster 4 from the extended clusters to the west. The entire extended area covers 9385 hectares, while cluster 4 covers 2474 hectares. One of the general properties of these settlements is the central core space enclosed by tanks or tank clusters. In these cases, the clusters are usually formed in circular or semi-circular patterns keeping an open space at the centre. These open or empty spaces are considerably large in coverage. For example, the open spaces in clusters 1, 2, and 4 are 344, 901, and 698 hectares, respectively (Figures 4.3 and 4.4). Here, ‘emptiness’ denotes the less density of tanks and any other archaeological materials. These spaces could be kṣhetra/land for cultivation and gocara/pasture. Often, the land which is kept fallow for one season can be used as pasture in the next. The spaces outside the clusters dotted with tanks were used mostly for cultivation. The clustered occurrences

114  Swadhin Sen et al. of tanks, however, could be vāstu/habitations, the archaeological traces of which have been erased. Under these circumstances, the examples of clustering of settlements, and their specific spatial organisations in circular or semi-circular patterns, point to the relative compactness of the settlements and their significance in local settlement networks. Their role as nodal zones in a settlement network can be recognised if this compact organisation is compared with the others in dispersed patterns or semicompact quadrangular patterns. These latter groups were more open (see Chhattopadhyaya 2018). It should be reiterated that there is a detectable discrepancy between epigraphic sources and archaeological data for the so-called ‘Gupta period’ from this area. The first author has already elaborated upon this issue, and the limit of understanding epigraphic sources in his early works and a few propositions have already been offered by the first author (Sen 2018). Another pattern emerges if the walled settlements and their locations in the settlement hierarchy are considered. Walled settlements or settlements enclosed with moats were frequent, and they were situated in the flood zone like the Patgram or Daria Garh or Baro Paiker Garh during or after the eighth–ninth centuries CE. Walls or moats may enclose certain establishments and habitations of selective collective or authorities or could have been strategically placed to maintain control over the routes of communication and trade. The location of Daria Garh on very active alluvial terrain with the organisations of multitiered mud walls and moats, the shape of the settlement with no permanent entrance, and the location in relation to the settlements of Ghoraghat and clusters 2–4 signify its decisive role in the settlement network. Narangabad-Sahebganj seems to be an isolated settlement in cartographic representation because of the anthropogenic modifications by the sugarcane farm. The evidence reported earlier from these settlements implies that these settlements were central in relation to the settlement network paths. In relation to Mahasthangarh to the south and Daria Garh and Harinathpur Rajbari Bhita to the north, their locational significance cannot be brushed aside. The finds of punch-marked coins and Gupta-imitation gold coins, mentioned earlier, may hint at these settlements’ commercial importance, and these coins were being reused and were still in circulation. The continuity of the circulation of earlier currency was not an uncommon phenomenon (Pal 2019; Deyell 2010). The complex and heterogenous intra- and inter-settlement structure and network (including the urban centre of Mahasthangarh) and spatial patterning of settlements – contrary to the accepted wisdom on the agrarian-centric economy and society – force us to rethink the established ideas about the society and economy of early medieval Northwestern Bangladesh (or Northern Bengal). Besides, cluster 2 is situated 29 km to the north-west, and the SahebganjNarangabad settlement cluster is 24 km to the north of Mahasthangarh

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  115 (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). According to the stratigraphic understanding of the excavations at Mahathangarh, the eighth–twelfth centuries CE marks the period with a proliferation of material culture and architectural production. This is the second period, according to the excavators, attesting to the flourishment in this urban centre after the first period during the third–first centuries BCE (Salles 2018; Bernard et al. 2001). The study area as the hinterland of this urban centre had a concurrent proliferation of settlements during the early medieval period. The extent of the hinterland zone of Mahasthangarh as an urban centre was much larger than the area proposed by Smith (2001). The network and hierarchy of settlements and settlement clusters in terms of various urban, semi-urban, non-urban, and rural or mixed categories of settlements may provide a deeper understanding of the social, religious, and economic matrix and their changes through time. The size, density, and resolution of settlements in this study decrease towards the north and north-west in Hakimpur, Birampur, Nawabganj, and Fulbari areas (Sen 2017, 2012). As a corresponding phenomenon, the number and density of tanks also decrease except for a few interspersed augmented clusters (e.g., Pukuri in Sen 2017). There is a probable dense nodal zone organised in a 20 km stretch in Birampur and Nawabganj Upazila on the bank of Asur-Nalshisha-Choto Jamuna-Karatoya Rivers (see Sen 2015a). This nodal zone with a marked increase in density of settlements is characterised by very few tanks. These spatial variations of tanks in relation to the settlements are worthy of interrogation. The number of tanks also seems to decrease in the south towards Mahasthangarh. Several other categories of archaeological evidence which have mostly been ignored by archaeologists and historians alike could be addressed for manifesting the complexity of structures and processes during the early medieval period. In our survey, we have detected and recorded several places marked with deposits of iron slags. In most of the excavations, iron slags were found from different levels. In a few cases, iron-smelting furnaces were found in association with structural mounds identified as Buddhist vihāra (Sen 2017, 2018). We excavated one such place earlier and found out that the iron working space with a small hearth might belong to the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries CE in Birampur. In this study area, however, iron slags were found in various contexts. They were found in religious edifices (like Belwa) and from surficial exposures and heaps in Ghoraghat-Kalai-Kshetlal-Panchbibi mixed with other materials like potsherds and stone chips. The stratigraphy of the excavation suggests that a long tradition of the iron-smelting works continued in this entire region from c. tenth century CE to c. sixteenth–seventeenth centuries CE. Why are the slags present in the religious structures in different periods? Why are we getting more slags than the finished products? How did various occupational groups specifically connected to the production chain maintain their networks from the source outside the region to the manufacture

116  Swadhin Sen et al. and distribution? These questions become critical for understanding the heterogeneity in occupational groups, production processes, and material culture. The second category of data is incredibly significant, considering the accepted wisdom about this region. There are hundreds of brick-built structures, mostly religious edifices, contrary to the narrative about the absence of a considerable number of religious architectures. Most of the settlements possess three to thirteen (when the mounds could be counted) or more such structural remains. It is not possible to identify their ground plan and their religious affiliations without excavations. The sampled data imply that there were hundreds of Brahmanical temples and a considerable number of small Buddhist vihāra or clusters of vihāra/vihārīkā and shrines. Contrary to the established perception, hundreds of Brahmanical temples and edifices were built during the early medieval period, even by appropriating the built spaces owned by other religious sects or groups. How could a predominantly agrarian society and economy condition the agency and processes of construction of so many brick-built structures? Were patronage and support of the ruler or local landlords enough for maintaining such a huge construction enterprise for centuries? We must shift our attention to finding answers to these questions in this region. The third category of archaeological data is quite intriguing and obscured by the exclusion from the scholastic discussions. Various fragments and pieces of stone blocks were used for various purposes and functions (e.g., beams, pillars, pillar bases, pedestals, wall bases, door jambs, stairs) in the brick-built structures. They were essential components of the monument construction techniques. The attention of the scholars, dominantly from art historical and iconographic perspectives, has been only upon the stone sculpture or images from this region. Even the stone sculptures from this region have hardly been subject to petrographic or contextual analyses for understanding the provenances and proveniences of the raw materials and the artefacts, and their network of mobility, manufacture, and transportation (for exceptions, see Asher 1998; Butze-Picron 2016). Micromorphological studies of eight samples from stone artefacts hint at their inclusion into a group of igneous rocks, like granite and basalt (Ameen and Sayem 2014). Although the size of the sample is small, the field observations of the physical properties of these rocks indicate their resemblance to the studied samples. It is quite plausible that the primary source of producing these architectural and ritual artefacts was in the Chhotonagpur Plateau. The various stages in the process of production – a collection of raw materials, manufacture, and transportation – required a complex multi-locational and multitiered enterprise and network. In one of our early study, UchaiMahipur settlement in Panchbibi was identified as a locality for carving and modelling these artefacts. It is evident from the huge number of such artefacts that various occupational groups were involved in the entire process (Ferdousi et al. 2012).

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  117

Archaeology of ‘early medieval’ to ‘medieval’: Unsettling the established narratives The Ghoraghat, a familiar name in the history of medieval Bengal and Bangladesh, and its archaeology must be addressed for rethinking the change and continuity from early medieval to medieval. The interpretation of settlement nature, pattern, and changes may also be useful for questioning the accepted periodising categories. Historians have generally identified Ghoraghat as the place which was Muhammad Bakhtiyār Khalji’s sojourn or crossed by him during his expeditions to Kāmrūpa or Tibet. The walled settlements of Ghoraghat are unquestionably identified as ‘medieval’ remains (see Karim 1993; Hussain 2003). Generally, there is no reliable archaeological evidence to relate Ghoraghat with the pre-Husain Shahi period of the Bengal sultanate. The fundamental methodological problems with the treatment of data in early medieval archaeology and history persist in the discourses of medieval archaeology in this region. Zakariah has comprehensively demonstrated the errors of historians on several occasions. His most convincing arguments can be found in the introduction and detailed endnotes for the chapters in his Bengali-translated version of Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣiri (Siraj 2014; Minhaj-ud-Din 1881). Most historians identify present Ghoraghat and its archaeological ruins as Barsaul or Barsauli, though there is not a single mention of such toponym or phonetically corresponding toponyms in Ṭabaqāt (see, for example, Karim 1993; Hussain 2003). This place name, they assume, is also corresponded to Badāūnī’s reference to Narnaul or Narnauli in Muntakhabu-t Tawārīkh (composed in c. 1594 CE) (Zakariah 2014). Ṭabaqaāt-i-Nāṣiri was completed in 658 AH (1260 CE) though the beginning of its composition is not certain. Minhaj-i-Siraj was a witness to many events in the Indian subcontinent after 624 AH (1226–27 CE). The narration of the events before that date was recorded from other sources (Zakariah 2014). Barsoli, Bārsuli, Barsaul, or Barsauli as a place name first occurred in Ṭabaqāt-i-Ākbari (Ahmed 1927, pp. 55–56). Moosvi (2015, p. 19) has placed the date of this text to c. 1593 CE. Barsāla as a mahal with another mahal – Town of Nasratābād – was referred to as one of the eighty-four mahals under Sarkar of Ghoraghat of the Subāh of Bengal in Ā’īn-i-Akbarī (Allami 1891, pp. 135–36). The date of the completion of Ā’īn-i-Akbarī has been ascribed to c. 1598 by Moosvi (2015, pp. 5–7), though she suggested that Abū’l Faẓl began the collection of data before probably during or before the 1586 CE. We need to investigate the temporal discrepancies among various sources which have often been used quite uncritically and anachronistically in the historical narratives on the ‘medieval’ Ghoraghat. There is no phonological corroboration neither to the place names such as Nārkoti, Nārān-koe, and Nārnaul (used by ‘Abdul Qādir Badāūnī in Muntakhabu-t Tawārīkh, Text, 59) (cited in Zakariah 2014) nor to Nāran-goi, Bārkoni, and Bārkoti (cited from various versions of translations of Ṭabaqaāt-i-Nāṣiri) in the area.

118  Swadhin Sen et al. Zakariah has pointed out the ambiguity regarding where Nizamuddin Ahmed got the name Barsaul from (Zakariah 2014, pp. 56–57, note 108). The temporalities of the composition of two texts – Ṭabaqaāt-i-Nāṣiri and Ā’īn-i-Akbarī – according to the last available date of completion are 1260 CE and 1598 CE. The difference is approximately 330 years or more. Nasratābād is identified as the mint town named after Nāṣir al-dīn Nuṣrat Shāh (c. 1519–31 CE). There is numismatic evidence for this place name, though the provenance of most of the coins is from a secondary context. We have no reliable evidence of any coins with this mint name from this region. On the other hand, one of the most familiar textual sources for the Ghoraghat region and its history, as we have referred to earlier, is the hagiography of Shāh Ismā’il Ghazi. In this text, it was mentioned that Shāh Ismā’il Ghazi was beheaded by Sultan Rukn al-dīn Bārbak Shāh (c. 1460–74 CE) in 878 AH (1473–74 CE). The place names above have not been mentioned in the text, as far as the English summary is concerned (Dammont 1874). Hussain has also pointed out at the discrepancies among various textual, numismatic, and epigraphic sources regarding the history of this area during and after the reign of Sultan Alā al-dīn Ḥusain Shāh (c. 1494–1519) (Hussain 2003, pp. 142–57). Surprisingly, historians including Hussain himself have taken recourse to this hagiographic text composed much later than the actual events. The place and the study area are simultaneously identified with Nilāmbar, the ruler of the Khen dynasty of Kāmtā, in the oral narratives and in Buranjis, which were composed later with questionable chronological and narratological authenticity (Barua 1933; Baruah 1985). Interestingly, textual sources like Baḥāristān-i-Ghaybī (Nathan 2012, 1936) and Safarnāmā (Sarkar 1928) were composed just within 40 years or so after the date of Ā’īn-i-Akbarī mention Ghoraghat instead of the place names like Barsaul, or Nasratābād. The summary above illustrates the narratological and spatiotemporal disparity in the medieval history of Ghoraghat. The Sarkār Ghoraghat consisting of eighty-four mahals in Ā’īn-i-Akbarī was an administrative unit which has only been referred to with regard to revenue collection. We may assume that the territoriality of that Mughal administrative unit cannot be juxtaposed in its entirety with the present Ghoraghat. That unit cannot, moreover, be corroborated territorially with the sub-division of Ghoraghat which was mentioned by Buchanon (1833) and Martin (1838a, 1838b). The surveying for the cartographic representation of the territory of Ghoraghat in the map of Rennel which was published in 1776 was conducted during the 1760s. Despite the spatial and toponymic discrepancies between the place names in Sarkār Ghoraghat and those labelled in the territory of Ghoraghat represented by Rennel, Rennel’s cartographic representation can be recognised as the closest to the territoriality in Ā’īn-i-Akbarī. Rennel’s Ghoraghat included the present upazilas of Pirganj, Palashbari, Panchbibi, Kalal, Kshetlal, Govindaganj, and part of Shibganj, Saghata, Gaibandha Sadar, and Sonatala. The comparison of the names of mahals under the

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  119 Sarkār Ghoraghat with the place names marked on Rennel’s map could be an interesting exercise to understand the corroboration and discrepancies. That is, however, not the focus of this chapter. In reference to two inscriptions issued during the reign of Ḥusain Shāh, found from secondary contexts in present Ghoraghat-Pirganj, the relatively more reliable timeframe can be referred to for these specific places. Both inscriptions were issued to commemorate the construction of two mosques, probably, in this area. The sources like Baḥāristān-i-Ghaybī and Safarnāmā could also be taken as valuable and reliable sources for discerning chronological frameworks. Even if we accept the relationship of this place with rulers like Bārbak Shāh, the temporal range of more than 200 years from the Turkish conquest of Bakhtiyār Khalji and Bārbak Shāh remains quite obscure in terms of reliable textual and epigraphic sources. Archaeological data from our survey and excavation might be useful for understanding several aspects of this region during the timeframe, which has been accepted as ‘medieval’ and assumed to have commenced with the expedition of Bakhtiyār Khalji in 1205 CE. It is mentioned by citing the reference to Ṭabaqaāt-i-Nāṣiri, for example, that ‘Bakhtiyar left Ali Mardan Khalji in Narkoti identified with Barsala in the Sarkar Ghoraghat to watch the eastern frontier from his headquarters at Barsul or Barsala’ (Sarkar 2003, pp. 35–36). The methodological problems of identifying and analogising the place names have already been stated. This temporal break, we contend, has not been reflected in the archaeological data in the way the break has been homogenised and universalised particularly for the northern part of undivided Bengal and for Bengal in general. Different processes, at the same time, could be identified during different periods or temporalities which are not essentially relatable to the history writing in the way it has been produced even under the term like social or economic history (Chowdhury 2012; Karim 2014). The stratigraphy of excavated sites published so far overtly points to the changes and continuity in terms of material culture, structure, and space, both horizontally and vertically. These changes did not follow the chronology or periodisation of the normative historical narrative. Different stratigraphic periods demonstrate that in several cases religious edifices continued to be in use centuries after the Turkish expedition, even in a transformed use pattern. Some of the other religious edifices, at the same time, went through changes in functions and nature before the Turkish expedition and during the fourteenth–fifteenth centuries CE. Transformations and continuity, as events and processes, elucidated in stratigraphic periodisation and horizontal patterning of places and artefacts, therefore, do not conform to the established division between early medieval and medieval on a sub-regional scale or even in a zone as small as the area under discussion. In the study area, in and around Ghoraghat, several mosques or remains of brick-built mosques were detected. They have been briefly pointed out under category 5 (see Table 4.2). All these mosques, except one in Hatibanda

120  Swadhin Sen et al. at Peerganj and another in Panditpara, Govindaganj, are within 7–8 km of the walled settlement of Ghoraghat Fort. It must be noted that their distribution pattern is dispersed and, unlike the dargah and mazars, the density and distance of which are closer to the walled settlements, they do not necessarily signify any degree of clustering or distinct pattern. They were built, moreover, upon the settlements of the earlier period. The size of these mosques is smaller, and they could not be a space for a large congregation. Except for Sura Mosque, no other mosque can be ascribed to before or during the sixteenth century CE. On several occasions, the mazars are not associated with the remains of the mosques or the renovated mosques. Even the dates of mazars associated with the mosques are impossible to ascertain with accuracy because of their recent renovations. The grand idea of legitimising the power and authority of a new ruling order through the construction of monuments is difficult to validate with the number and size of these monumental remains, used as ‘the trademarks’ of the medieval period in Bengal. This is not to claim that they were merely religious places and had no relation to the processes of legitimisation of the authority and expansion of Islam. Rather, they acted in corroboration with other factors in a process of legitimisation that were heterogenous and spatially variegated. The period between the first part of the thirteenth century CE and the last part of the sixteenth century CE is almost invisible in detectable (with high visibility and obtrusiveness) monumental representation. Surprisingly, the proportions of the mosques are incredibly low in comparison to the proportion of brick-built Brahmanical and Buddhist religious edifices. If the number of structural mounds and the number of detected Brahmanical temples (c. eighth–thirteenth centuries CE) are estimated in the study area in reference to random samples, the proportion of mosques and temples is 1:25 and the proportional disparity may even go up to 1:35 in reference to the settlements in the clusters 1 and 2. The building activities of brick mosques from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries CE are proportionately few in comparison to the earlier Brahmanical-Buddhist (or Jain) religious edifices. How can the processes and conditions of change in the religious demography which is attested to by colonial censuses, or even the earlier colonial survey or chronicles of the Mughal regime, be explained in terms of this proportional disparity? The thesis of ‘Islamisation’ through the expansion of an agrarian frontier or the framework of ‘syncretism’ (Roy 2014; Haq 1975) may be too causal and wishful to be tenable. It can be argued that as religious built spaces, temples-monasteries, and mosques had different functions, roles, and effects within a polytheistic and a monotheistic order respectively, in the processes of change. It may, moreover, be contended that the brick-built mosques do not represent the actual number of mosques and their role in religious processes, as most of the mosques were of wattle and daub construction. Additionally, someone may refer to the large number of inscriptions commemorating the construction of mosques (Karim 1992;

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  121 Siddiq 2017) and the lesser number of inscriptions citing the donation of land for the construction and maintenance of Buddhist, Brahmanical, and Jain edifices. There are counter-arguments, however, to these reasonings on both conceptual and methodological scales. Islam as a religious tradition(s) in South Asia, and especially in various parts of Bengal, went through complex processes of reconfiguration. Brahmanical and Buddhist religious traditions were neither uniform nor static. The monotheistic versus polytheistic binary could, therefore, be simplified. Huge numbers of stone and bronze idols and the probable clay-made perishable idols hint at a tradition of worship in open spaces and temples constructed with perishable construction materials. If their numbers are added with the estimated number of brick-built temples and other religious edifices related to Brahmanical-Buddhist-Jain traditions, the proportional disparity may increase further. Finally, the extant empirical data of the mosques and the inscriptions commemorating their constructions are comparable and relatable to a certain extent. Archaeological data, on the contrary, are proportionately too large to be compared to the few numbers of inscriptions from a specific area. It must be mentioned that the reuse and appropriation of a religious place belonging to other contesting religious traditions was a continuous practice. Evidence from our excavations and surveying support this continuous tradition of reuse and appropriation since the early medieval period has already been reported from the north-western part of Bangladesh. The simultaneous processes of appropriating the deities, idols, and embodied and discursive traditions are attestable. The interpretative frameworks are often conditioned and refashioned more by contesting structures of political narratives of the present than the critically informed and methodologically nuanced retrieval and understanding of data. The resolution, coverage, and patterning of ‘early medieval’ settlements and tanks clearly demonstrate a dominantly agrarian landscape, and temporally detectable habitational localities show an increase in density during the early medieval period. Any proposition of change in the religious identity of the population in close relation to the process of agrarian expansion and associated model of conversion, proposed by Richard Eaton, is invalid for this study area which shows the highest range of Muslim population in the census data of 1871 (Eaton 1993). In this area, agrarian processes and settlement formation have been processual entangled with one another since the eighth–ninth centuries CE. The appropriation of religious places belonging to other religious traditions (e.g., Buddhist by the Brahmanical, or Vaisnavite by the Saivite, and vice versa) are archaeologically and textually attestable from this region since the early medieval period (Sen 2018; Sanderson 2009). These processes are evident in this region before the coming of the Turks-Afghans in the thirteenth century CE. The complex and unequal relationship among various Sufi orders in this area until as late as the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries, besides, force us to abandon

122  Swadhin Sen et al. unilinear and simplified notions of ‘syncretism’ and orchestrated and undifferentiated enterprises of the Sufi saints in the process of Islamisation (see Aquil 2003; Bhattacharya 2008; Burchett 2012; Cantu 2015; Hatley 2007; Stewart 2000). Several archaeological remains or mounds identified as the mazar/dargah of the same pir/saint or unknown pir are a common place-making process in the north-western part of Bangladesh. The study area, for example, represents six different places within a segment of 20 km on either side of the present course of the Karatoya River as the mazar or dargah of Shāh Ismā’il Ghāzi. Shāh Ismā’il Ghāzi has a strong and perpetual presence in the local oral narratives and popular imagination, and this phenomenon is mentioned earlier in reference to the Daria Garh. Unlike Birat Raja and his associated places, the factual existence of this Sufi saint is attested by his hagiography. According to some oral narratives, his body is buried here, and his head is buried in Mandaran. Scholars have also pointed out the narratological similarities in the oral narratives of two distant locations (Hussain 2003). The linear progressive chronology within which several scholars have attempted to fit the events of this hagiographic text, nonetheless, is hugely problematic (see Hussain 2003; Karim 1992). Rather, the argument of Stewart (2017) about Shāh Ismā’il Ghāzi and the hagiographic representation as a familiar historical process of sacred place making is important. Interestingly, some dargahs/mazars are not personified by any specific pir and Chowkidarinir Mazar, and Tongi Pirer Mazar, Darbesher Dargah, Panch Pirer Dargah, etc., are a few of the examples which are not associated with specific sufi/ pirs. Rather than treating archaeological places as an empirically objective entity for validating established historical discourses, it is imperative to seek an alternative interpretive framework of Islamisation, roles of pirs, and political order. The relationship between the events, time, and places of hagiographic sources and such archaeological places can best be approached by considering the role of miracle and imagination in the construction of religious and political authority and processes which are often simplified under a homogenising umbrella term like ‘sufism’. Archaeological data, thus, become the embodiment of the complex processes of inter-subjective human agency structured by the religious and political contexts within which they are transformed. Archaeological data from the study area, therefore, are also defined by their contingent association with temporal categories of the linear calendrical scale. This ontic status of such archaeological data has been fashioned within the religious processes since the period of their being from the pre-medieval. Sufi saints and their mazars/dargahs are embodiments of the continuity and changes of these processes. In contrast to the proportional disparity between religious edifices of the early medieval and the pre-nineteenth century CE religious edifices, we can see a surge of both mosque and temple building activities, especially after the seventeenth century CE in Bengal. Most of the mosques in the study area and around belong to this period. Though the number of temples is

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  123 few in this area, their number increases to the south and the north (Zakariah 2011). These mosques, morphologically, have many components in common with the distinct varieties of temples of that period (McCutchion 1972; Michell 1983; Sanyal 2012). The pattern of reuse of the stone and other construction materials continued even in the eighteenth–nineteenth century CE mosques. Even the number of mosques built in this period during the ‘so called decline of the Mughal Empire’ (see, for example, Bhargava 2014) does not supersede the number of the religious edifices of the early medieval period. In a way, the factors such as the proliferation of trade and economy in this period in association with other factors were not enough to be numerically analogous to the building activities in the early medieval period (see Aquil and Mukherjee 2020). The reuse of the early edifices with perishable materials might well be another aspect to be considered in the context of the changing religious demography. It must be noted that the relationships among various religious and ritualistic traditions have been unequal and uneven spatiotemporally. The decline and eventual disappearance of Buddhist and Vaisnavite traditions reflected by archaeological evidence, for example, cannot simply be explained in terms of these accepted frameworks. For example, the largest proportion (estimated up to 60%–70% of the total numbers) of stone and other idols from undivided Bengal belongs to Vaisnavite traditions. The early medieval Vaisnavite traditions and their empirical or ritualistic manifestations (i.e., idols) are completely absent during or after the fourteenth century CE. The imagined continuity and re-emergence of these traditions (often based on the interpretation of disparate textual sources) in the Neo or Gauḍiya Vaisnavism in the sixteenth century CE and later – the ways it is represented by the works of Mukherji (1966) and Josh (1982) – are spurious. Archaeological evidence reflecting the ritualistic traditions from the study area (and north-western part of Bangladesh) does not reflect continuity.

Archaeology of water: Reflecting on the processes in an alluvial zone The archaeological understanding of the study area during the early medieval and medieval periods must consider the fluvial environment dominated by tanks and rivers in a continuously changing alluvial landscape. Tanks with various sizes and patterns required sustained, planned and learned enterprises of maintenance and management. A tank or a number of tanks were excavated under the patronage of a ruler or a sāmanta or by any person or a group possessing power, ability, and desire to patronise (or to be persuaded or forced by the institution or power). The foundational requirement of production and subsistence played one of the key roles in the digging of these numerous water reservoirs. They were dug, moreover, with objectives to gain merit, authority, and legitimisation in the contemporary social and political hierarchy.

124  Swadhin Sen et al. Floodplain, as an essential component of the agricultural hub, did not require so many tanks for the perennial preservation of water for irrigation. The surface run-off and the regular flooding from Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall (ISMR) were adequate for floodplain agriculture. The natural waterbodies on the floodplains between the present course of Karatoya and Jamuna, like back swamps, oxbow lakes, and depressions of various types created through the deposition and erosion of a dynamic floodplain, often acted as a perennial source of water. These reservoirs were modified anthropogenically in order to manage the long-lasting water-retaining capacity and floods. It is attested by the locations of natural waterbodies and associated embankments cum roads in the study area, in Pirganj and Palashbari Upazilas. This advantage was, however, not available on the uplifted terrace of Barind characterised by yellowish red to reddish-brown soils with clayrich horizons. With less permeability, these areas of the landscape required irrigation water, especially during the dry season and during the season after the monsoon. Another important point must be noted with regard to the recent availability of palaeoclimatic proxy data. Studies on various types of proxy records of paleoclimatic data have revealed interesting results (Sinha et al. 2007; Breitenbach 2009; Polanski et al. 2014; Kaushal et al. 2018). The results might have implicit or explicit implications for our understanding of tank-settlement entanglement in the region. Several studies have suggested that there were detectable fluctuations in the Indian Summer Monsoon precipitation rate during the last 2000 years (and even more) in the GangesBrahmaputra-Meghna basin. These fluctuations need to be understood as a reversal of the ISMR pattern from the central Indian subcontinent. Based on analyses and simulations of data from various provenances and types, scholars have generally agreed upon a Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) or Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries with accentuated rainfall and wet-humid phase. At the same time, they proposed a Little Ice Age (LIA) during the sixteenth–eighteenth centuries CE when a decrease in rainfall resulted in an arid and cold phase of climatic history. The water harvesting by the numerous tanks could be related to the increased rainfall during the MWP/MCA. This warm and humid period with increased rainfall could be an impact factor on the growth of agricultural areas and production as well as on the dynamic changes in fluvial processes and forms. In the same vein, the state of tanks in the region was identified as unsuitable for use in the absence of proper management by Buchanon (1833). The digging activities, according to his narrative, continue. The lack of necessary maintenance and restoration led to the abandonment of many tanks in the area. This condition of tanks might be related to the increasing irrelevance of this water-harvesting tradition during LIA. Water and waterbodies can be treated as archaeological data for a multilayered and nuanced understanding of the archaeology of the study area.

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  125 The settlements in this area are predominantly concentrated in zones characterised by two interconnected river systems: The Karatoya System and the Tulshiganga System. Earlier, Sen (2017, 2015a) discussed the changes in Karatoya and Tulshiganga systems in relation to archaeological settlements. Mirza Nathan’s recording of the events of the early seventeenth century CE in Baḥāristān-i-Ghaybī clearly points to the low water level and narrow channel width of Karatoya River directly and indirectly (Nathan 1936, pp. 45–53). In that sense, the volume and flow of water were already in a state of continuous shrinking even during the first part of the seventeenth century CE when a thriving administrative and commercial centre was active at Ghoraghat. At the same time, the brief account of Ghoraghat by Khawajah Abul Hasan in 1609 CE called this place a qasba (literally a village with a market) and Sarkar (1928, pp. 145–46) translated it as ‘town’. He described the vibrant commercial activities and commodity exchanges with several other interesting attributes. A few of the commodities were brought at Ghoraghat from Kuch (Kochbihar) and Orissa. Among them, tangan horses (hill ponies), precious stuff from Kochbihar, and myna birds were significant. The place names Ghora (horse) and Ghat (a landing place on the river bank or bank of the pond) are probably derived from the place’s significance in the trade of horses coming from the Tibetan plateau (Hussain 2013). The trade of mountains and warhorses has been a rallying point for several historians of inter-connectivity and trade since the early medieval period when there was an absence of metallic currency in this area (Chakravarti 1999; Sen 2003; Hussain 2013; Deyell 1998, 2010; Sen 2003; Yang 2004). If we consider the archaeological data on settlements and their close association with rivers, it is evident that riverine routes have been extremely important as communication routes since the early medieval period (see Figure 4.1). The change in the Karatoya River, especially its oscillation from east to west, and the changes in the hydrological regimes in the river systems upstream probably played a critical role in the continuous conflict of the rulers of Varendri with the rulers of pre-Ahom Assam and Ahom kingdoms since the early medieval period. Ghoraghat was neither a complete urban centre (i.e., Gaur); nor was it developed into an urban centre in medieval Bengal. In the study area, Baro Paiker Garh with the abandoned channel of Maila River to the west, the Matsya River to the east of Daria Garh, and the present Karatoya in between reflect an interesting yet complex process in channel dynamics in this zone. Both the Matsya and Maila Rivers are connected to the present channel of the Karatoya and the detectable geomorphic features with numerous channel remnants, oxbow lakes, and back swamps attest to the fact that Matshya and Maila are abandoned beds of the present Karatoya River. The problem, however, is to build a temporal framework for these changes. The archaeological settlements and sites may help us to propose provisional timeframes (Trimble 2012, 1998). The settlement of

126  Swadhin Sen et al. Chak Junid-Chak Diyanat in Nawabganj Upazila and Harinathpur Rajbari Bhita settlement to the south of Ghoraghat are situated on the earliest course of the Karatoya River. This course takes the present name of Maila River and began to act as the moat of Baro Paiker Garh, possibly during or after the loss of headwater (1b). This earliest course, therefore, could tentatively be ascribed to the eighth–eleventh centuries CE, and then the second course (1a) became the main flow, currently known as the Matsya River which came into prominence at around the eleventh–fourteenth centuries CE. Daria Garh and the mound beneath the mazar of Shāh Ismā’il Ghazi is the key reference for this second course (Figure 4.8). The changes were holistic, controlled by the events and processes of the entire catchment area and by the events and processes of localised phenomena and factors. The localised lateral migrations and meandering shifting within the strip of floodplain confined to both east and the west by relatively consolidated, stiff, and uplifted Barind Terrace come into focus here. In reference to this archaeology of riverine dynamics, the present course of Karatoya in this part up to the confluence with the second course presents two events of changes (course 1c–a) at Palashbari. The Karatoya from the confluence at Palashbari to the steep meandering bent at Gobindaganj went through episodic oscillation probably several times before the KaratoyaKatakhali-Banglai mingling in the nineteenth century CE (Figure 4.8). The problem, however, is to identify the nature and process of abandonment of the palaeocourse of Karatoya that flowed past the Mahasthangarh, the familiar urban centre for at least 2000 years (1a–b–c). The recent excavations in the Mahasthan mazar area have revealed remarkably interesting evidence of an earthquake which destroyed the buildings in the upper layers. The date of the earthquake, according to the most plausible hypothesis, has been proposed as 1255 CE. The radiocarbon date from the upper layer corresponds to the historically recorded earthquake in 1255 CE with an epicentre in Kathmandu, Nepal (Salles 2018, pp. 255–56; Berliet and Faticoni 2013, pp. 39–43). This paleoseismic event and changing pattern of ISMR might have changed the flow of Mahasthan Karatoya and accentuated the loss of importance of Mahasthangarh as an urban centre. It could be hypothesised that these events with their probable impact on Karatoya and Tulshiganga River systems accelerated the processes of formation of settlements and trade activities in Ghorahgat and adjacent zone in Pirganj and Govindaganj in the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries CE. In the process of transformations of settlement nature, structure, pattern, and hierarchy, the fluvial network was vital, moreover, for the agrarian expansion and land use patterns. The changes in the regional hydrology combined with ISMR and rivers influenced the changes in the settlement density and extent on the horizontal scale. The embankments in the flood-prone, low floodplains are one of the signatures of the flood management system in relation to habitational and agrarian space.

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  127

Figure 4.8 Hythethetical changes in flow regimes of the Karatoya River in the study area (Source: Authors’ own).

128  Swadhin Sen et al.

Transgressing comfortable categories and assumptions: Concluding observations and questions The changes occurred in vertical and horizontal patterning of settlements in which development could be detected in one locality, and decadence can be detected in several others. These changes and continuity need to be understood by taking the changes in the regional fluvial environment into account. The only change that occurred in the sixteenth century CE is the construction of smaller mud-walled settlements during the Mughal period, and their numbers are not significant compared to the early medieval settlements enclosed with walls and moats. Though it is impossible right now to compare the proportion of excavated tanks during these two periods, it is plausible that many earlier tanks were in use and a few more tanks were added during this period. Economic change or the change in polity and revenue systems, as it has been standardised by historians, cannot be attested by archaeological data. The advent of metallic currency and accepted notions about the intensification of trade and commerce were not translated into the monument building in the study area in the medieval period. The impact of continued trade and commerce or their intensification was possibly more centrifugal than centripetal. While the period of ‘early medieval’ witnessed a wide-scale and decentralised settlement formation with monuments as their core, the subsequent period saw a more centralised monumental representation. Similarly, the narrative of the expansion of urbanism or urban centres during the ‘medieval’ period with the intensified external trade cannot be attested by archaeological data from the study area. Ghoraghat was not developed into an urban centre in the medieval period either (for rethinking urbanism and urban from archaeological perspectives, see Cogwill 2004; Smith 2014, 2006). Additionally, the theory of the expansion of authority and legitimacy of polity by temple building or tank excavating activities cannot be sustained by patronisation and top-to-bottom hierarchical structure alone. It is not possible to explain the ways in which the supposedly agrarian economic order of the early medieval period managed to sustain an economic and social system which produced so many monuments and which supported a large scale of artisan groups pertaining to brick production, metal manufacture, stone working, tank excavation, and maintenance. On the contrary, it is not possible to interpret the lack of monumental representations in the upper layers of excavated sites and the overtly few religious monuments with reused construction materials under an economy vibrant with trade and commerce aided by metallic currency. The established binary between ‘an agrarian and locally commercial early medieval’ and ‘a widely commercial and trade oriented and an agrarian medieval’, we claim, is oversimplified, homogenised, and artificial. Could the dense settlement clusters with variegated combinations of open, compact, or semi-compact organisation of activity areas be places

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  129 that cannot be defined with the accepted notions and standards of urbanity or rurality? Could they be places or networked places where differential space organisation was permitted by different settlements? Could some of the settlements in nodal locations with temples, and Buddhist mahāvihāra/ vihāra, mosques, or other religious structures be core organisers and managers in the communication and exchange networks dominated by rivers? The answers to these questions are immensely crucial for interpreting the contradictions, incoherencies, and essentialisations in the established narratives about the past of this area in particular and the region in general. After all, we may convincingly argue that the archaeological data, defined and contextualised from a different conceptual and methodological framework, can be extraordinarily important for unsettling the normalised narratives about the pasts in this region.

Acknowledgements Some of the initial surveys and excavations were funded by Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP) Projects of Bangladesh University Grants Commission. The collaboration of the Department of Archaeology and the Ministry of Cultural Affairs has always been useful for various purposes. Conversations with our colleagues and friends on different issues have played a critical role in the process of rethinking the established frameworks. We would like to acknowledge the debt of gratitude, especially to Prof. Arun Nag, Dr Sheena Panja, Dr Bishnupriya Basak, Dr Ryosuke Furui, Sahidul Hasan, Wahid Palash, Alamgir Hossen Bhuiyan, and Prof. Mozammel Hoque. Our students from the Department of Archaeology have played a key role in fieldworks. We would like to mention the contributions of Kabya Krittika, Golam Maola Murad, Taijul Islam, Galib Hossen Khan, Md. Masum, and Thandu Bhai. The people from the region have always supported us with an open heart. Zillur Rahman, Alamgir Hossen, and several other persons from the local administrations have helped us in local-level management of the fieldworks. We are indebted to all of them.

References Ahmed, B., (2010). Documentation of Gupta coins found in Bangladesh. Unpublished Report, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. Ahmed, B. and Islam, N., (2011). Silver punch-marked coin from Sahebganj, Gaibandha District: numismatic study. In: S. M. Hasan, ed. Nazimuddin Ahmed commemoration volume. Dhaka: Islamic Art Organization. pp. 413–425. Ahmed, K. N., (1927). Tabaquat-I-Akbari: a history of India from the early Musalman invasions to the thirty-sixth year of the Reign of Akbar, vol. I (Translated by B. De). Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Ahmed, N., (1991). Sahebganjer Prachin Dhangsastup. In: S. Ahmed, M. R. Tarafder and A. Ray, eds. Abu Mohamed Habibullah Smarak Grantha (Abu Mohamed

130  Swadhin Sen et al. Habibullah Commemorative Volume). Dhaka: Bangladesh Itihas Parisat. pp. 214–219. Alam, M. U., (2016). Jagaddal Mahavihara: sampratik tathyabhittik parjalachona. Pratnatattva. 22, 97–112. Allami, A. F., (1891). Ain-i-Akbari (vol. II.). Translated from Persian by Colonel H. S. Jarrett. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Ameen, S. M. M. and Sayem, A. S. M., (2014). Report on the micromorphological/ this section analyses of the stone artifacts in the HEQEP 353 Project in the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. Unpublished Report, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. Aquil, R., (2003). Miracles, authority and benevolence: stories of Karamat in Sufi literature of Delhi Sultanate. In: A. Taneja, ed. Sufi cults and the evolution of medieval Indian culture. New Delhi: Northern Book Centre and Indian Council of Historical Research. pp. 109–138. Aquil, R. and Mukherjee, T. eds., (2020). An earthly paradise: trade, politics and culture in early modern Bengal. New Delhi: Manohar. Asher, F. M., (1998). Stone and the production of images. East and West. 48(3/4), 313–328. Banerji, R. D., (1928). Excavation eastern circle: Birat. In: J. F. Blakiston, ed. Annual report of the archaeological survey of India, 1925–26. Calcutta: Government of India Central Publication Branch. Barua, K. L., (1933). Early history of Kamrupa: from the earliest times to the end of the sixteenth century. Shilong: Published by the Author. Baruah, S. L., (1985). A comprehensive history of Assam. New Delhi: MunshiramManoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Basak, R. G., (1915–16). Silimpur Stone-slab inscription of the time of Jayapaladeva. Epigraphia Indica. 13, 283–295. Bautze-Picron, C., (2016). Moving images between Bihar and Bengal in the ninth and tenth centuries. Pratnatattva. 22, 85–96. Begum, A., (2013). Forts and fortifications in medieval Bengal. Dhaka: University Grants Commission of Bangladesh. Berliet, E. and Faticoni, B., (2013). From the Mauryas to the Mughals: the imperial history of Mahasthan. RivistadegliStudiOrientali, (Nuova Series). LXXXV1, pp. 25–46. Bernard, V., Boussac, M.-F., Breuil, J.-Y. and Salles, J.-F., (2001). Excavation at the Eastern Rampart Area (1993–1998): preliminary report of the French team. In: M. S. Alam and J.-F. Salles, eds. France-Bangladesh joint venture excavations at Mahasthangarh: first interim report 1993–1999. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Mission Française de coopérationarchéologique au Bangladesh, Maison de l’OrientMéditerranéen-Jean Pouilloux, Lyon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France. pp. 74–160. Bhargava, M. ed., (2014). The decline of the Mughal Empire (debates in Indian history and society). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bhattacharya, A., (2008). Madariya Sufi Silsila, their distinctive characteristics and relations with Indian powers. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 69, 384–402. Breitenbach, S. F. M., (2009). Changes in monsoonal precipitation and atmospheric circulation during the Holocene reconstructed from stalagmites from Northeastern

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  131 India. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis [online]. (Scientific Technical Report; 10/06). Potsdam: Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ. [Viewed 27 March 2020]. Available from: https://doi​.org​/10​.2312​/GFZ​.b103​-10060. Buchanon (Hamilton), F., (1833). A geographical, statistical and historical description of the district, or zila of Dinajpur in the province, or Soubah of Bengal. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. Burchett, P., (2012). My miracle trumps yours magic: encounters with yogis in Sufi and Bhakti Hagiographical literature. In: K. A. Jacobsen, ed. Yoga powers: extraordinary capacities attained through meditation and concentration. Leiden: Brill. pp. 345–380. Cantu, K. E., (2015). Theurgy and the snake: the yoga Kalandar and Bengali Sufism. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Chakravarti, R., (1999). Early medieval Bengal and the trade in horses: a note. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 42(2), 194–211. Chhattopadhyaya, B. D., (2018). Aspects of rural settlements and rural society in early medieval India (Reprint). New Delhi: Primus Books. Chowdhury, S., (2012). Trade and commerce. Banglapedia: national encyclopedia of Bangladesh [online]. [Viewed 22 March 2020]. Available from: http://en​ .banglapedia​.org​/index​.php​?title​=Trade​_and​_Commerce. Cogwill, G. L., (2004). Origins and development of urbanism: archaeological perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology. 33, 525–549. Damant, G. H., (1874). Notes on Shah Ismail Ghazi, with a sketch of the contents of a Persian MS., entitled “Risalatush-Shuhada,” found at Kanta Duar, Rangpur. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. XLIII(1), 215–239. Deyell, J. S., (1998). The China connection: problems of silver supply in medieval Bengal. In: S. Subrahmanyam, ed. Money and market in India 1100–1700. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 112–136. Deyell, J. S., (2010). Cowries and coins: the duel monetary system of the Bengal Sultanate. Indian Economic and Social History Review. 47(1), 63–110. Digby, S., (1970). Encounters with Jogis in Indian Sufi hagiography. Unpublished paper presented at the seminar on Aspects of Religion in South Asia, University of London. Eaton, R. M., (1993). The rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ferdousi, F., Sen, S., Rahman, A. K. M. S. and Ahsan, S. M. K., (2012). Report of the Microregional Survey at Panchbibi. Pratnatattva. 18, 1–15. Furui, R., (2009). Re-reading two copper plate inscriptions of Gopala II, Year 4. In: G. J. R. Mevissen and A. Banerji, eds. Prajnadhara: Essays on asian art, history, epigraphy and culture in honour of Goureshwar Bhattacharya. New Delhi: Kaveri Books. pp. 319–330. Furui, R., (2010). Biyala copperplate inscription of Mahipala I. Pratna Samiksha, New Series. 1, 99–106. Furui, R., (2020). Land and society in early South Asia: Eastern India 400–1250 AD. London: Routledge. Haq, M. E., (1975). A history of Sufism in Bengal. Dacca: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Hassan, P., (2007). Sultans and mosques: the early Muslim architecture of Bangladesh. London: I. B. Tauris. Hatley, S., (2007). Mapping the esoteric body in the Islamic Yoga of Bengal. History of Religion. 46(4), 351–368.

132  Swadhin Sen et al. Hawkes, J. and Abbas, R., (2016). Copperplates in context: a preliminary investigation of the study and archaeological settings of land grant inscriptions. Pratnatattva. 22, 41–71. Hossain, M. M., Dewan, T. A., Akbar, S. M., Ahmed, M. R. and Bashar, M. M. A., (1995). Archaeological survey report of Greater Dinajpur District. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Govt. of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. Hussain, S. E., (2003). The Bengal Sultanate: politics, economy and coins (AD 1205–1576). New Delhi: Manohar. Hussain, S. E., (2013). Silver flow and horse supply to Sultanate Bengal with special reference to trans-himalayan trade (13th – 16th centuries). Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 56, 264–308. Josh, P., (1982). History and evolution of Vaisnavism in Eastern India. Calcutta: Roy and Chowdhury. Karim, A., (1992). Corpus of the Arabic and Persian inscriptions of Bengal. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Karim, A., (1993). BanglarItihash (Sultani Amal) [History of Bengal (Sultanate period)]. Dhaka: Bangla Academy. Karim, M. A., (2014). Social history of the Muslims in Bengal (Reprint). Dhaka: Jatiyo Sahitya Prakash. Kaushal, N., Breitenbach, S. F. M., Lechleitner, F. A., Sinha, A., Tewari, V. C., Ahmed, S. M., Berkelhammer, M., Band, S., Yadava, M., Ramesh, R. and Henderson, G. M., (2018). The Indian summer monsoon from a speleothem δ18O perspective – a review. Quaternary [Online]. 1(29). [Viewed 02 March 2020]. Available from: https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/quat1030029. Knutson, J. R., (2014). Into the twilight of Sanskrit court poetry: the Sena Salon of Bengal and beyond. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lefrancq, C., (2014–15). Etude de la céramique du secteur « Mazar » sur le site de Mahasthangarh au Bangladesh (4ème siècle avantnotreère – 13ème siècle de notreère). Un nouveau regard sur les potiers de l’ancienBengale. Ph.D. thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles. Martin, M., (1838a). The history, antiquities, topography and statistics of Eastern India; comprising the districts of Behar, Shahbad, Bhagulpoor, Goruckpoor, Dinajpoor, Puraniya, Rungpoor & Assam in relation to their geology, mineralogy, botany, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, fine arts, population, religion, education, statistics, etc. (vol. 3 Puraniya, Ronggopoor and Assam). London: WM. H. Allen and Co. Martin, M., (1838b). The history, antiquities, topography and statistics of Eastern India; comprising the districts of Behar, Shahbad, Bhagulpoor, Goruckpoor, Dinajpoor, Puraniya, Rungpoor & Assam in relation to their geology, mineralogy, botany, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, fine arts, population, religion, education, statistics, etc. (vol. 2 Dinajpour). London: WM. H. Allen and Co. McCutchion, D. J., (1972). Late mediaval temples of Bengals: origins and classification. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Michell, G. ed., (1983). Brick temples of Bengal: from the archives of David McCutchion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Minhaj-ud-Din, Abu-‘Umar-I-‘Usman, M., (1881). Tabakat-i-Nasiri: a general history of the Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia including Hindiustan from A. H. 194 [810 A.D.], to A. H. 658 [1260 A. D.] and the irruption of the infidel

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  133 Mughals into Islam, vol. 1 and 2. Translated from Persian by H. G. Raverty. London: Gilbert and Rivington. Mokhopadhyaya, J. N. S., (1317 BS). Rangopureabiskrita Bishnumurti. Rangopur Sahitya Parisat Patrika. 3–4, 128–130. Moosvi, S., (2015). The economy of the Mughal Empire c. 1595: a statistical study. Revised and enlarged edition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mukherji, S. C., (1966). A study of Vaisnavism in ancient and medieval Bengal – upto the advent of Caitanya. Calcutta: PunthiPustak. Nathan, M., (1936). Baharistan-i-Ghayebi (vol. I). Translated into English by M. I. Borah. Guhati: Government of Assam in the Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Narayani Handiqui Historical Institute, Assam. Nathan, M., (2012). Baharistan-i-Ghayebi. Translated into Bengali by Khalequedad Chowdhury. 2nd ed. Dhaka: Dibuaprakash. Pal, S., (2019). Media and exchanges under the Palas and the Senas as reflected in their inscriptions. In: J. Deyell and R. Mukherjee, eds. From mountain fastness to coastal kingdoms: hard money and ‘cashless’ economies in medieval Bay of Bengal. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 53–76. Panja, S., (2018). Whither ‘early medieval’ settlement archaeology: a case study of the Varendra region. Journal of the Asiatic Society. LX(1), 27–62. Panja, S., Nag, A. K. and Bandopadhyay, S., (2015). Living with floods: archaeology of a settlement in the Lower Ganga Plains, c. 600–1800 CE. New Delhi: Primus Books. Polanski, S., Fallah, B., Befort, D. J., Prasad, S. and Cubasch, U., (2014). Regional moisture change over India during the past millennium: a comparison of multiproxy reconstructions and climate model simulations. Global and Planetary Change. 122, 176–185. Roy, A., (2014). The Islamic syncretistic tradition in Bengal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Salles, J.-F., (2018) Mahasthan. In: A. M. Chowdhury and R. Chakravarti, eds. History of Bangladesh: early Bengal in regional perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 224–262. Sanderson, A., (2009). The saiva age: the rise and dominance of saivism during the early medieval period. In: S. Einoo, ed. Genesis and development of tantrism. Tokyo: University of Tokyo. pp. 41–350. Sanyal, H. R., (2012). Banglar mandir. Kolkata: Karogar Prakashani. Sanyal, R., (2010). Copperplate inscriptions of West Bengal: finding find-spots and locating localities. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 1, 107–134. Sanyal, R., (2013). Beyond explorations: a case study on early medieval archaeology from epigraphic perspective. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 4, 33–51. Sarkar, J. N., (1928). A description of North Bengal in 1609 A.D. Bengal: Past and Present. XXXV(II), 143–146. Sarkar, J. S. ed., (2003). The history of Bengal volume II (Muslim period). New Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation. Sen, S., (2011). Arguing for contextualization of archaeological prospection: thinking about objectivist and phenomenological paradigm with regard to the studies in the northern part of Bangladesh. In: B. K. Choudhary, ed. Changing perspectives and methodologies in South Asian archaeology. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute. pp. 113–150.

134  Swadhin Sen et al. Sen, S., (2012). Towards an archaeological examination of the southern part of the present Dinajpur District, Bangladesh: recognition, recording and interpretation of archaeological and historical (pre-13th century) data with a geoarchaeological understanding. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. Sen, S., (2013). Where were the ‘Gupta and Post-Gupta’ settlements in the hinterland zone of Varendri? understanding discrepancies between epigraphic and archaeological data on the basis of recent archaeological and geoarchaeological studies in Northwestern part of Bangladesh. Unpublished paper presented at the international conference, Towards an archaeology of Gauda?, organized jointly by the Institut de Chandernagore, West Bengal, India and Indian National Museum. Kolkata, 18–23 February, 2013. Sen, S., (2014). Interpreting transformation of material culture with reference to stratigraphy: report on the excavation at Bowalar Mandap Mound, Birampur, Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 4, 13–37. Sen, S., (2015a). Settlements on the changing alluvial landscape in early medieval Varendri: survey and excavation at Domile-Khairghuni in Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Man and Environment. XL(2), 33–64. Sen, S., (2015b). The transformative context of a temple in early medieval Varendri: report of the excavation at TileshwarirAara in Dinajpur District, Bangladesh. South Asian Studies. 31(1), 71–110. Sen, S., (2017). Landscape contexts of the early medieval settlements in Varendri/ Gauda: an outline on the basis of total surveying and excavation in DinajpurJoypurhat Districts, Bangladesh. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 8, 59–109. Sen, S., (2018). Northwestern Bangladesh: sites and settlements. In: A. M. Chowdhury and R. Chakravarti, eds. History of Bangladesh: early Bengal in regional perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 317–350. Sen, S., (2019). Uttar Pashchim Bangladesh: Pratnasthan o Pratnabasati. In: A. M. Chowdhury, ed. BangladesherItihash: AnchalikParipreshte Adi Bangla (anu. 1200 sadharanabdoparjanto). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladeh. pp. 133–168. Sen, S., (2020). Mahasthan-mahatmya: sthan, kaalarsomayerbibidhaakhyan. Unpublished paper. Sen, S., Islam, K. M., Akanda, M. K. H., Sharif, A. and Ahsan, S. M. K., (2010). Survey archaeology in the margin: construction and analysis of the initial database of the recognized and recorded archaeological data/places of present Biral Thana, Dinajpur of Northwestern part of Bangladesh. In: M. M. Hoque, A. T. M. A. Rahman and S. Hoque, eds. Selected essays on history & archaeology: papers presented in memory of professor Abu Imam. Dhaka: Centre for Archaeological Studies, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. pp. 233–331. Sen, T., (2003). Buddhism, diplomacy and trade: the realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600–1400. Honolulu, HI: Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawaii Press. Sen, T., (2017). India, China and the World: a connected history. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Siddiq, M. Y., (2017). Arabic and Persian inscriptions of Bengal (studies in Bengal art series no. 13). Dhaka: The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art.

Engaging with the past beyond the comfort zone  135 Sinha, A., Cannario, K. G., Stott, L. D., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Yadava, M. G., Ramesh, R. and Singh, I. B., (2007). A 900–year (600 to 1500 A.D.) record of the Indian summer monsoon precipitation from the core monsoon zone of India. Geophysical Research Letters [online]. 34(16). [Viewed 12 February 2020]. Available from: https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​/2007GL030431. Siraj, M. I., (2014). Tabkat-E-Nasire. Translated from Persian by A. K. M. Zakariah. 2nd ed. Dhaka: Dibyaprakash. Sircar, D. C., (1951–52). Two Pala plates from Belwa. Epigraphia Indica. 29, 1–13. Smith, M. L., (2001). The archaeological hinterlands of Mahasthangarh: observations and potential for future research. In: M. S. Alam and J.-F. Salles, eds. FranceBangladesh joint venture excavations at Mahasthangarh: first interim report 1993–1999. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Mission Française de coopérationarchéologique au Bangladesh, Maison de l’OrientMéditerranéenJean Pouilloux, Lyon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France. pp. 61–73. Smith, M. L., (2006). The archaeology of South Asian cities. Journal of Archaeological Research. 14, 97–142. Smith, M. L., (2014). The archaeology of urban landscapes. Annual Review of Anthropology. 43, 307–323. Spooner, D. B., (1915). The Vishnu images from Rangpur. In: S. J. Marshall, ed. Annual report of the archaeological survey of India, 2011–12. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing. pp. 152–158. Stewart, T. K., (2000). Alternate structures of authority: Satya Pir on the Frontiers of Bengal. In: P. Gottschalk, ed. Beyond Hindu and Muslim: multiple identity in narratives from village India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 21–54. Stewart, T. K., (2017). The hermeneutics of religious biography: the life and legacy of Pīr Śāh Ābubakar Siddikī. Unpublished Paper presented at the International Seminar on ‘Pir Abu Bakar Siddique and the Socio-Religious Reform Movements in South Asia’. Organised by the Shah Abu Bakar Siddique Memorial Committee Furfura Sharif, 14–15 January 2017. New Delhi, India. Stewart, T. K., (2019). Witness to marvels: Sufism and literary imagination. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Trimble, S. W., (1998). Dating fluvial processes from historical data and artifacts. Catena. 31, 283–304. Trimble, S. W., (2012). Historical sources and watershed evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society A [online]. 370, 2075–2092. [Viewed 17 April 2020]. Available from: https://doi​.org​/10​.1098​/rsta​.2011​.0606. Yang, B., (2004). Horses, silver and cowries: Yunan in global perspective. Journal of World History. 15(3), 281–322. Zakariah, A. K. M., (2010). Bangladesher Pratnasampad. 2nd ed. Dhaka: Dibyaprakash. Zakariah, A. K. M., (2011). The archaeological heritage of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Zakariah, A. K. M., (2014). Upakramanika: M. I. Siraj Tabquat-i-Nasiri. Translated from Persian language by A. K. M. Zakariah. 2nd ed. Dhaka: Divyaprakash. pp. 1–198.

Part 2

Settlements, landscapes, and interpretive frameworks



5

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval North Bengal A delineation from the inscriptions Ryosuke Furui

Introduction One phenomenon characterising the early medieval history of South Asia was the development and expansion of sedentary agriculture connected with the state formation, which were important elements of the making of a particular region (Chattopadhyaya 1994, pp. 18–24). The recent studies on the history of regions, on the other hand, emphasised the inner difference of a region in terms of geography and environment, which manifested itself in the diverse histories of its constituent sub-regions (Sinha Kapur 2002; Talbot 2001; Sahu 2013). The region of Bengal also saw agrarian development with sub-regional diversity throughout its history. The most important source for studying this process is the inscriptions, especially copper plate grants which record transfers of landed property at specific place and time. Though the recorded incidents are limited to the religious endowments, the related information on objects, donees, conditions and stipulations, border landmarks, transactions, and so on has bearings on the patterns of agrarian development which were enabled or necessitated by the particular socio-economic conditions. In the present study, I will delineate the changing patterns of agrarian development in Varendra, North Bengal, through the analysis of the inscriptions pertaining to this sub-region in the period from the second quarter of the fifth century CE to the end of the twelfth century CE. Through this exercise, I would like to provide a historical outline with which the archaeological data can be interpreted.

Small-scale expansion through the reclamation of Khilakṣetra: The fifth and sixth centuries CE From the early fifth century CE to the mid-sixth century CE, North Bengal was under the Gupta provincial rule as Puṇḍravardhanabhukti. The fourteen copper plate inscriptions are so far known to have been issued under it.1 All those inscriptions are land sale grants which record sales of land plots and their donations to religious agents like brāhmaṇas and Brahmanical DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-7

140  Ryosuke Furui temples, petitioned by individuals (Yamazaki 1982). Notably, those documents were issued not by the king but by a local body called adhikaraṇa, organised at diverse administrative units at different levels of hierarchy and constituted by local influential people, namely, urban elites in the case of the adhikaraṇa of the city (adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa), and dominant section of kuṭumbins (peasant householders) including mahattaras, their upper category, in case of the adhikaraṇas in rural space (vīthyadhikaraṇa/aṣṭakulā dhikaraṇa). The adhikaraṇas wielded the authority to receive the petition of individuals for purchasing waste/fallow land (khilakṣetra) for donative purposes, approve it with verification by record keepers (pustapālas), and issue the grant. Their authority was based on the position of the constituent members as representatives of the interest of rural society, especially the remnant of communal land rights, and as agents of state administration which needed their collaboration to govern the area away from its core territory in North India (Furui 2015a, pp. 258–60). The cases recorded in those documents can be divided into two categories, according to petitioners and the size of land. The first is the case of residents or would-be residents of a locality applying for a small-scale land purchase. In the Damodarpur plates of the years 124 and 128 Gupta Era (444/447 CE), the petitioners were brāhmaṇas most probably engaged in the cultivation of land (Sircar 1965b, pp. 290–94). In the other cases, the petitioners seem to have been involved in the management of donated tracts. In the Baigram plate of the year 128 Gupta Era, kuṭumbin brothers Bhoyila and Bhāskara purchased 3 kulyavāpas of khilakṣetra and 2 droṇavāpas of homestead (vāstu) land for maintenance of the Sun Temple built by their father (Sircar 1965b, pp. 355–59).2 While the money for all the plots was collectively paid by them,3 the plots in two villages which were given to each of them were specified in the plate (Sircar 1965b, p. 358, ll. 15–17), suggesting that they would respectively cultivate or manage these newly acquired land plots and allocate a part of the product for the maintenance of the temple. The cases of the Jagadishpur and Paharpur plates, dated years 128 and 159 Gupta Era (447/479 CE), respectively, were similar. In the former, the 6 droṇavāpas of land assigned to śramaṇakācārya Balakuṇḍa for maintenance of the Jain vihāras were said to belong to the three petitioners, while 2 dronavāpas for the Sun Temple to one of them (Sircar 1973, p. 62, ll. 17–19).4 In the latter, brāhmaṇa Nāthaśarman and his wife Rāmī acquired land plots 1½ kulyavāpas in total for their use in a manner requested by themselves, namely, for the maintenance of a Jain vihāra (Sircar 1965b, pp. 359–63). In these cases, the petitioners may have managed the donated land plot and enjoyed its product on the condition that they would transfer a part of it to the donees for stipulated purposes. A case recorded in the Raktamala plate belonging to the second century of the Gupta Era (the first half of the fifth century CE to the early sixth century CE) may also attest to the same: kulaputraka Guṇadatta, a resident of Mahatīraktamālāgrahāra, purchased 1 kulyavāpa of khila land in Khuḍḍīraktamālāgrāma to donate

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  141 it to brāhmaṇa Yośobhūti residing in the same agrahāra (Griffiths 2018, pp. 25–30). In the case of the Kalaikuri-Sultanpur plate of year 120 Gupta Era (439 CE), the petitioners consisting of a kulika (artisan), seven kāyasthas (scribes), and two pustapālas purchased 9 kulyavāpas of land plots and donated them to the three brāhmaṇas. While the donees acquired 5, 2, and 2 kulyavāpas, respectively, land plots were scattered around the four settlements as 1 kulyavāpa in Dhānyapāṭalikagrāma, 2 droṇavāpas in Gulmagandhika, and 7 kulyavāpas and 6 droṇavāpas in the three hamlets belonging to Hastiśīrśa and Vibhītaka (Sircar 1965b, pp. 354–55, ll. 21–27). It means that each donee held several separate land plots distributed over those settlements and had them cultivated by local residents. It is possible that the petitioners were involved in the management of donated tracts, even though they were not directly engaged in cultivation. From the discussion made above, we can assume that those donated tracts were managed by the petitioners. The size of the plot for each petitioner ranged from ⅓ kulyavāpa in the Jagadishpur plate to 15/8 kulyavāpas in the Baigram plate. As the petitioners must have had their own landholdings, which enabled them to accumulate enough wealth to purchase khila land plots, the involvement in the management of the latter could be additional and interpreted as an extension of agrarian management through the reclamation of khilakṣetra. From the rough estimation of the size of a kulyavāpa, which was enough to support a brāhmaṇa and his family, we can conclude that what was added to the agrarian basis of petitioners was rather moderate. The other category is the purchase and donation of relatively large land plots by outsiders, which was witnessed in the later phase from the third quarter of the fifth century CE onwards. In the Mahatiraktamala plate dated year 159 Gupta Era (478/9 CE), mahāmātra Suvarcasadatta purchased 2 kulyavāpas of the land plot to donate it to a brāhmaṇa belonging to a community of cāturvidyas (Griffiths 2015, pp. 19–20), while viṣayapati Chattramaha in the Nandapur plate of year 169 Gupta Era (488 CE) purchased 4 kulyavāpas for a brāhmaṇa with the title of agrahārika (Sircar 1965b, pp. 382–84). In the case of the Damodarpur plate without date, assignable to the third quarter of the fifth century CE, nagaraśreṣṭhin Ribhupāla donated 11 kulyavāpas of land plots previously and homestead land for two temples and two small storehouses further to the deities Kokāmukhasvāmin and Śvetavarāhasvāmin (Sircar 1965b, pp. 336–39). Kulaputra Amṛtadeva, the petitioner of the Damodarpur plate of year 224 Gupta Era (543 CE), purchased 5 kulyavāpas of khilakṣetra and donated them to the last deity (Sircar 1965b, pp. 347–50). It is not clear whether petitioners were involved in the management of the donated tracts or the donees themselves were. At least in the third case, it is plausible that the petitioner Ribhupāla was involved in the management of these temples and their landholdings (Furui 2013a, p. 400). No matter which takes charge, both petitioners and donees

142  Ryosuke Furui need to organise reclamation and cultivation of the donated khilakṣetra by mobilising local residents. The case recorded in the plate dated year 198 Gupta Era (518 AD) can fall into either category, depending on the position and location of Nāgavasu, the petitioner, which is not stated in the plate. He purchased 2 kulyavāpas of khila land plots in three hamlets, namely Śiṣīpuñja and Madhyamasṛgālikā belonging to Āryagrāma and Grāmakūṭagohālī belonging to Abjataṭāpagaccha, for the ritual services; the subsistence of resident ascetics and repairs at the three Jain vihāras were superintended by kṣamaṇakācārya Jinadāsa and Karṇaka in these hamlets (Griffiths 2018, pp. 35–39). In either case, the petitioner or the donees had to mobilise local residents of those hamlets in managing khila land plots. In both categories of land purchase and donation, one economic aspect, namely, the acquisition or extension of the resource base is recognisable as an intention of petitioners. What compelled them to take this form to accomplish their purposes? One answer lies in the contemporary agrarian relation. A main component of contemporary rural society was kuṭumbins, peasant householders.5 This fact points to the production based on the family labour of their household as a dominant form. It had reached the level beyond subsistence, at which some could accumulate enough wealth to purchase land plots. While the differentiation among kuṭumbins both in terms of economic condition and authority was in progress, as exhibited by the presence of some acting as members of adhikaraṇa and the others obliged to obey their decision, it had not yet gone far enough to generate a sharp division among cultivators and a separation of landholding and cultivation. In this condition, the extension of agrarian management was possible for some members of rural society only through the acquisition of additional land plots and their cultivation by family labour, the limited size of which inevitably resulted in the moderate scale of management. The limitation was the same for influential outsiders who should depend on the additional labour of kuṭumbins for the extension of their agrarian base and its management in the absence of any alternative way of labour mobilisation. They had to negotiate with kuṭumbins, especially their dominant section, for this purpose. Another answer can be found in the character of adhikaraṇas. The adhikaraṇa wielded the authority to preside over the matters related to khilakṣetra as an organisation representing both remnants of communal control and emerging state claim over land in different degrees. It was necessary for the dominant sections both within and outside rural society to overcome the restrictions imposed by the community and state for extending their resource base through the reclamation and cultivation of waste/fallow land. Their petition for land purchase and donation can be understood as a way to legitimately overcome both restrictions in the name of religious endowment.

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  143 The agrarian relation and manner of expansion discussed above had inherent contradictions. Though the production was beyond subsistence, the potential of further agrarian expansion was limited by available labour power confined to that of family members. The relation of kuṭumbins to rural society and community was also contradictory. As just discussed above, the remnant of communal control over land was an obstacle to be overcome by them for extension of their resource base, at least for their dominant section. However, their dominance and eminence in rural society were based on their capacity to represent its interest. It was also necessary for them to keep their cohesion as a community to confront outside authority. These contradictions were to be resolved by the stratification of cultivators, growth of landed magnates and establishment of their dominance, and weakening of communal restriction, all of which would result in a new agrarian relation with the subjection of cultivators. Some symptoms in this direction were present in the later phase of this period. The most notable was a new pattern of land purchase and donation involving outsiders and relatively large plots represented by the second category mentioned above. Their involvement in land management dependent on labour of kuṭumbins indicates the tendency towards the creation of higher land rights separated from cultivation. The same can be said of the religious institutions accumulating land plots, which had the potential to grow to large-scale landholders. This new pattern also suggests the growing presence of authorities outside rural society. In spite of those developments, the limit imposed by a labour shortage and communal land control remained, as shown by the continuance of the same form of agrarian expansion and the procedure centred on the adhikaraṇa. The resolution of the aforementioned contradictions would be seen in the following period in a different social and political context.

Development of riverine tract and clustering of settlements: The sixth and seventh centuries CE From the mid-sixth century CE onwards, sub-regions of Bengal saw the rise of local independent kingships (Furui 2015a, pp. 262–64). North Bengal was no exception, as attested by a copper plate inscription mentioning the reign of mahārājādhirāja Pradyumnabandhu (Griffiths 2015, pp. 29–30). Land sale grants continued to be issued under those kingships, in changed power relations around rural society, both internal and external. The most important change in rural society was the ascendancy of mahattaras and the other landed magnates. With the adhikaraṇas consisting of clerical groups like kāyasthas, they wielded the authority to decide on the cases of land sale grants, excluding urban elites and kuṭumbins (Furui 2015a, pp. 262–63). Their ascendancy is shown by their increasing subcategories like mahāmahattara, mahāpradhāna, and pradhāna, and the position of some to represent particular settlements. They also constituted a nexus with literate groups.6 All those tendencies are detectable in the grant

144  Ryosuke Furui of the time of Pradyumnabandhu pertaining to Ghoṇādvīpakaviṣaya of Puṇḍravardhanabhukti. As receivers of the petition for land sale, it lists thirtysix people including four mahāmahattaras, five pāṭakamahattaras, sixteen mahattaras, two brāhmaṇas, three karaṇikas, three viṣayādhikaraṇikas, and three others (Griffiths 2015, p. 30, ll. 4–10). Among them, karaṇikas and viṣayādhikaraṇikas could be members of the adhikaraṇa and their incorporation in this list indicates the formation of a nexus of landed magnates and literates. The other change in power relations was the growing presence of agents of state control including officials and subordinate rulers, who were appointed to the administrative positions. As main applicants for land purchase, they confronted and negotiated with local landed magnates and encroached upon the authority of the latter (Furui 2015a, pp. 263–64). Ghoṇādvīpakaviṣaya seems to have been governed by mahāpratīhāra Avadhūta, who held his estate (bhoga) within it (Griffiths 2015, pp. 29–30, l. 2). He was also an applicant for the sale of village Mastakaśvabhragrāma with citron grove (vījapūrakavṛṇḍa) by 1000 cūrṇikās for donation to a brāhmaṇa (Griffiths 2015, p. 30, ll. 2–4, 12–16).7 The contemporary copper plate inscriptions of the sub-regions of Vaṅga, lower Bengal, and Rāḍha, West Bengal, mostly record the sales and donations of land plots or villages. Except that in the Ghugrahati plate in which a brāhmaṇa asked for a donation of fallow land (Bhattasali 1983), all the plots donated in these cases were cultivable land (kṣetra), indicating the progress of agrarian development in some areas of Bengal (Furui 2013b; Sircar 1965b, pp. 363–77; Furui 2011b). The donation of a village (Tripathy 1997, pp. 174–79), which actually denotes right over income from it, attests to both agrarian development and emergence of an incipient division of land rights. The geographical features discernible from the descriptions of border landmarks of the donated tracts, on the other hand, indicate the agrarian expansion to marshy low land and forest tract. The clustering of settlements in particular areas, the tendency observable in the grants pertaining to Rāḍha, was also an indication of agrarian expansion with settlement formation. The plate of the time of Pradyumanabndhu attests to the similar tendencies witnessed in an area of Puṇḍravardhanabhukti. The border demarcation of Mastakaśvabhragrāma shows that it was surrounded by water bodies like a stream (srotikā) with three landing places (ghaṭṭikā), a ditch (khāta), a canal (joṭā), and a lake (villikā) which were interconnected with each other, pointing to a village with plenty of water resource served with river traffics (Griffiths 2015, p. 30, ll. 16–18). The term island (dvīpa), constituting a part of the names of the viṣaya and the three settlements, which a mahattara and a brāhmaṇa resided in and another mahattara belonged to, also points to a riverine tract.8 The clustering of settlements in this area is, on the other hand, indicated by the 14 villages represented by the landed magnates in the grant (Griffiths 2015, p. 30, ll. 6–9). Thus, the agrarian

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  145 expansion to riverine low land with clustering of settlements similar to the other areas had proceeded in this area of Puṇḍravardhana. The agrarian expansion to such tracts necessitated mobilisation of labour power with which large-scale works as draining of ponds, excavation of tanks, and opening of forest tracts could be made. The condition which enabled such mobilisation was the change in power relations around rural society, namely, the ascendancy of mahattaras and other landed magnates including brāhmaṇas. Their enhanced authority in rural society may have given them command over labour of kuṭumbins and other residents. It makes a stark contrast with the condition in North Bengal in the previous period discussed above. However, the command of landed magnates over labour of kuṭumbins was not so strong in some areas that they still had a shortage of labour power and had to keep some plots fallow for a while (Sircar 1965b, p. 369, ll. 15–17). Further expansion and development would proceed under the stronger political powers in the following period.

Agrarian expansion under stronger political powers: From the ninth to the eleventh century CE In the mid-eighth century CE, Varendra saw the rise of the Pāla Dynasty, which grew to the regional kingship extending its control to western Bengal and eastern Bihar and even interfering with the struggle in the mid-Ganga heartland occasionally. Under its strong control, the issue of land and village grants became the royal monopoly. These grants, of which the sixteen so far known pertained to Varendra,9 shed light on the changed and changing power relation among rural residents and political powers and a new form of agrarian expansion proceeding in the sub-region. Rural society in Varendra from the ninth to the eleventh century CE was characterised by growing stratification. It is most evident in the address of the Pāla plates, especially from the reign of Gopāla II onwards. In the address, local residents are described as ‘residents, of whom brāhmaṇas are foremost, headed by mahattamas, uttamas and kuṭumbins, reaching to medas, andhras and caṇḍālas’.10 In this expression indicating both the top and bottom ends of social hierarchy, the presence of the dominant landholders and the lowest strata tagged with the terms denoting discriminated marginal social groups is implied. The latter could indicate the incorporation of non-sedentary groups, represented by ḍombīs mentioned in the Caryāgīti, the anthology of Old Bengali esoteric verses (Kvaerne 2010, Caryās 10, 14, 18, 19, and 47), into the margin of sedentary agrarian society as agricultural labourers called pāmaras depicted in the Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa, the anthology of Sanskrit verses compiled in contemporary Bengal (Kosambi and Gokhale 1957, vv. 300, 314, 318, 1173, and 1176). While having established their dominance in rural society, dominant landholders, especially landed magnates, had to confront the stronger state control, which was attested by many officials and functionaries listed

146  Ryosuke Furui in the address, and by extensive privileges conferred on donees in royal grants, especially rights to a wide range of resources including commons. The state power, however, contained within itself the tension among its constituents, especially between the king and subordinate rulers with own territories who tried to enhance their local control and resource base by legitimately encroaching upon the royal authority through the construction of religious institutions and applications for land and village grants to them. The king countered their intentions by enhancing local control through the land measurement and estimation of production in currency units, and by implementing qualified brāhmaṇas in the rural area as representatives of the state power (Furui 2017). The changed power relation around rural society, especially its intensified stratification, produced the condition in which the limit of agrarian development imposed by the inherent contradictions of agrarian relations based on family labour of peasant householders, characterising the earlier period and receding afterwards, could be overcome. The emergence of lower social strata providing agrarian labourers solved the problem of labour shortage, while the social stratification and enhancement of state control weakened communal restriction on which infringement by the state power was expressed as the bestowal of right to commons on donees. The resultant agrarian expansion is detectable in the rural landscape described in the royal grants. In the Indian Museum plate and the Khalimpur plate of Dharmapāla and the Jagajjibanpur grant of Mahendrapāla, the donated settlements are described with border landmarks. The most characteristic features of them are water bodies and related facilities including river (gaṅginikā/nadī), stream/canal (śrotā/śrotikā/joṭā/joṭikā), lake/pond/ reservoir (puṣkariṇī/ādhāra), embankment (āli/bandha/bandhāka), and ditch (khātaka/avakhātaka) (Furui 2011a, p. 153, ll. 30–32; Sircar 1983, pp. 67–68, ll. 31–43; Bhattacharya 2007, pp. 68–69, ll. 31–35). The landscape delineable from them is a riverine tract marked by ponds and crisscrossed by watercourses. The village Kaṅkāvāsaka donated in the Mohipur plate of Gopāla II, which was accompanied by ‘land of both banks’ (pārāvārabhūmi), may also have been in such a landscape (Furui 2008, p. 73, ll. 40–41). What is notable is the presence of artificial water bodies or facilities prefixed with personal names like ‘pond of Rahayyāditya’ and ‘embankment of Viṭaka’.11 They can indicate the enterprise of local magnates in agrarian expansion through the construction of such facilities. It is clearer in the case of ‘embankment made by rājaputra Devaṭa’.12 Those descriptions show the agrarian expansion in low land facilitated by an enterprise of local landed magnates including the lowest rank of subordinate rulers like rājaputras. The new situations in contemporary rural society allowed for such an enterprise. The agrarian expansion seems to have resulted in the extension of the settled area leading to the rearrangement of administrative units in Varendra. Under the Pāla administration, units called maṇḍalas were established at the

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  147 tier between viṣaya/vīthī and settlements. Some of them contain the term grāma as an element of their names.13 They could have been named after the settlements on which maṇḍalas centred. Such arrangement indicates the establishment of a maṇḍala necessitated by the expansion of settled area around a central village. The same can be said of Caṇḍagrāmaviṣaya mentioned in the two grants of Gopāla II dated year 4 (Furui 2009, p. 324, l. 25, p. 327, l. 25). Caṇḍagrāma was a village mentioned in the Damodarpur plate of the year 163 Gupta Era (Sircar 1965b, p. 333, l. 3). In the last plate, the aṣṭakulādhikaraṇa located in village Palāśavṛndaka and some of its residents presided over the case of sale and donation of a land plot in Caṇḍagrāma, which apparently did not have such an organisation (Chattopadhyaya 1990, p. 38). The emergence of a viṣaya named after it indicates the growth of the previously insignificant settlement to the centre of a locality. On the other hand, Palāśavṛnda, identical to Palāśavṛndaka, appears in the Biyala grant of Mahīpāla I as a village belonging to Amalakīmaṇḍala of Koṭīvarṣaviṣaya (Furui 2010, p. 104, ll. 27–28). This can be a case in which settlement expansion changed the geographical context of a village, resulting in its loss of centrality and reconfiguration of an administrative setting surrounding it. Names of the other maṇḍalas also have an implication for agrarian expansion. Most of them are unheard of in the earlier records and named after fauna and flora like Vyāghrataṭī (tiger shore) and Amalakī (Āmalakī) (Indian gooseberry) (Sircar 1983, p. 67, l. 31; Furui 2010, p. 104, l. 27). Their establishment can be connected with the expansion of settled area through the reclamation of wild tracts with which wild animals and trees are related.14 Some aspects of the process of agrarian expansion on the frontier are discernible in a series of copper plate grants pertaining to Phāṇitavīthī, corresponding to the area around present Belwa in Palsa union, Ghoraghat Upazila of Dinajpur District in Bangladesh. They are the three grants of Mahīpāla I and Vigrahapāla III belonging to the period from the end of the tenth century to the second half of the eleventh century. In the Rangpur plate, the earliest of them, one of the donated villages seems to have included a tract related to a hill and tamarind tree, where kirātas took some actions (Furui 2011c, p. 240, ll. 27–29). Together with the resting place of elephants included in the same village, the reference to kirātas, a generic term denoting any forest tribes, points to the proximity of donated tracts to the forest area and the agrarian expansion through its reclamation (Furui 2011c, p. 237). Remarkably, the same village was located in a place called Uddhannakaivartavṛttivahikala (Furui 2011c, p. 240, l. 27). Similarly, one of the settlements donated in the Belwa plate of Mahīpāla I was called Osinnakaivartavṛtti (Sircar 1987, p. 7, ll. 28–29). Kaivartas, who were deemed to be fishers or boatmen in the Manusmṛti and the Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa (Olivelle 2006, 10. 34; Kosambi and Gokhale 1957, v. 1351), first appeared in a grant of Gopāla II as one of the lowest categories

148  Ryosuke Furui of rural residents, side by side with medas, andhras, and caṇḍālas (Furui 2009, p. 325, l. 36). The reference to their vṛtti, a land given for livelihood or some service (Sircar 1966, p. 381), connotes their settling in the agrarian frontier and the growth of some section into a class of landholders. This phenomenon suggests the agrarian expansion through peasantisation of non-agrarian groups in the lower social strata like kaivartas. The agrarian expansion resulted in the extension of the settled area, as the growth of Phāṇitavīthī to Phāṇitavīthīviṣaya by the time of Vigrahapāla III illustrates (Sircar 1987, p. 11, l. 27). Thus, by overcoming the limit of the earlier period, a new form of agrarian expansion proceeded in the changed power relation. It however would reach another limit in the following period, of which some symptoms are detectable in the contemporary inscriptions.

Emerging limit of agrarian expansion: The twelfth century CE Towards the end of the eleventh century CE, the multiple contradictions in Varendra culminated in the Kaivarta rebellion, which resulted in the temporary ouster of the Pālas from the sub-region and their heavy dependence on subordinate rulers until the end of their rule (Furui 2015c). Vijayasena, one of the subordinate rulers, became independent and extended his control towards Varendra at the cost of the Pālas, who finally lost it sometime after 1165 AD.15 The Senas ruled Varendra until losing it to the Turks at the beginning of the thirteenth century CE. The sub-region of Varendra was in the process of recovery from the devastation caused by the Kaivarta rebellion and its suppression. Rāmapāla encouraged the restart of cultivation with moderate tax and excavated a large pond (puṣkariṇī) (Sastri 1969, 3. 27, 42). Though the confusion of villages was still observed in the reign of Madanapāla (Sastri 1969, 4. 23), the three grants of Gopāla IV and Madanapāla, which pertained to the same locality of Halāvartamaṇḍala and recorded the donations of villages with the production of 300 or 320, presumably computed in a currency unit of purāṇa (Furui 2015b, p. 57), to individual brāhmaṇas, attest to some level of recovery in this particular area around the mid-twelfth century (Furui 2015b, p. 43, ll. 37–38, p. 45, l. 51; Vasu 1900, p. 71, ll. 32–33; Furui 2015b, p. 53, l. 48). However, the supposed village donated in the Rajibpur grant of year 22 was actually not a village but a sum of tracts consisting of 35 āḍhāvāpas of land in the land plots (khaṇḍakṣetra) of Vāṭhuṇḍavallī, Kusumuṇḍā, Piśācakuleya, and Vivudhapallī, and the other land belonging to Vaṅgaḍī (Furui 2015b, p. 51, ll. 33–35). As the individual villages with similar production could be donated in the two earlier plates (Furui 2015b, p. 43, ll. 37–38; Vasu 1900, p. 71, ll. 32–33), it suggests decreasing availability of cultivated land tracts for donations, which could be primarily due to the shrinkage of the Pāla territory but have some implications for a limit of agrarian expansion about to be reached.

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  149 The progress of this trend, namely the agrarian development reaching a limit of expansion, is discernible in the three Sena grants pertaining to Varendra. First of all, plots or a settlement donated in the Tarpandighi, Anulia, and Madhainagar plates of Lakṣmaṇasena was relatively small in size: 120 āḍhāvāpas, 5 unmānas, 1 pāṭaka, 9 droṇas, 1 āḍhāvāpa, 37 unmānas, 1 kākinī, 100 khāḍīs, and 91 khāḍikās, respectively (Majumdar 1929, p. 102, ll. 36–37, p. 87, ll. 36–38; Sircar 1983, p. 128, ll. 42–43). Though the difference in measuring standard and units make it difficult to compare them with the other plots or settlements, the productions of 150, 100, and 163 kapardakapurāṇas each confirm their relatively small sizes (Majumdar 1929, p. 102, ll. 37–38, p. 87, l. 38; Sircar 1983, p. 128, l. 43).16 The descriptions of border landmarks in those grants further support the conjecture about the emerging limit on agrarian development. The land plot donated in the Tarpandighi plate was bordered by the eastern embankment of 1 āḍhāvāpa of the tax-free donated land of the deities of the Buddha vihārī to the east and by a pond (puṣkariṇī), a reservoir (kuṇḍī), and a canal (khāḍī) to the remaining three directions (Majumdar 1929, p. 102, ll. 33–38). Water bodies, both natural and artificial, surrounding the concerned tract and the donated land of the other religious agent lying within it are notable. The existence of the last is also confirmed by a clause excluding land without income such as that of deities and cattle tracks.17 The border landmarks of the land plot donated in the Anulia grant were an aśvattha tree, Jalapillā which could be a watercourse or a river, a śāsana (donated tract) of śānti Gopī, and a garden (vāṭī) of Mālāmañca to the four cardinal directions (Majumdar 1929, p. 87, ll. 35–36). The presence of a donated tract and a garden in this landscape should be noted. Dāpaṇiyāpāṭaka, the donated settlement in the Madhainagar grant, was demarcated by the lands of settlements Caḍaspasāpāṭaka, Gayanagara, Guṇḍīsthirāpāṭaka, and Guṇḍīdāpaṇiyā to the four cardinal directions (Sircar 1983, p. 128, ll. 40–42). Remarkably, the well-defined borders are provided in reference not only to the neighbouring settlements but also to the lands within them. The name of the last settlement, which consists of the elements of the names of the donated settlement and its western neighbour, suggests its establishment by migrants from both settlements. Adding to them, the presence of previously donated tracts within Dāpaṇiyāpāṭaka is suggested by a clause excluding land of deities and brāhmaṇas similar to that of the Tarpandighi plate mentioned above.18 What transpires from these border descriptions is the process of agrarian development through the establishment of artificial water bodies and the expansion by migration to neighbourhood resulting in the formation of a settlement cluster. However, the relatively small size of each plot or settlement, the strict and minute demarcation of its border, and the presence of several donated lands within a limited space, even within the donated tract itself, indicate the congestion of agrarian tracts brought out by the limit of agrarian expansion coming to near.

150  Ryosuke Furui

Concluding remarks The change in the patterns of agrarian development in the early medieval Varendra could be summarised as the one from the small-scale reclamation of waste/fallow land with limited family labour to the agrarian expansion and settlement formation in marshy low land and riverine tracts through the mobilisation of subject cultivators by ascendant landed magnates. It corresponded to the growing social stratification and the enhanced control of political powers observed around rural society. It was a process in which a limit on agrarian development imposed by contradictions in a particular social formation was overcome in a changed power relation which brought out a new relation of production. The development in the twelfth century CE, on the other hand, shows that the form of agrarian development which had overcome a limit would reach another limit to be overcome in the following period in a new social formation with different power configuration and technological development. The outline of changing patterns of agrarian development provided above is based on particular kinds of sources which offer a view from a certain perspective. How far it conforms to or contradicts the vision constructed on the archaeological data, which have expanded enormously due to the intensive explorations and excavations made recently on both sides of Bengal, is a matter to be sorted out through the interactions among followers of diverse disciplines including history, epigraphy, archaeology, and geology, as attempted in the international conference from which the present volume has come out. I hope that the present study can make some contributions to the interactions at present and those to follow in the future.

Notes 1 For the list of the sixteen plates issued under the Gupta rule in Bengal, see (Griffiths 2018, pp. 18–23). Among them, a fragment of plate from Baigram and a plate pertaining to Tāvīraviṣaya in southwestern Bengal are excluded from the present discussion. 2 Kulyavāpa and droṇavāpa are units of land measurement. 1 kulyavāpa equals 8 droṇavāpas. For a discussion on their actual sizes, see (Sircar 1965a, pp. 411–15). 3 (a)vayos sakāśāt ṣaḍ dīnārān aṣṭa ca rūpakān āyī[kṛ]tya (Sircar 1965b, p. 357, ll. 6–7). 4 For the identification of the vihāras as those of Jain, not of Buddhist as assumed by Sircar, see (Griffiths 2018, p. 47). 5 This connotation of kuṭumbin is clear from a verse in the Nāradasmṛti, the contemporary Dharmaśāstra, which mentions house and land as essentials for subsistence of kuṭumbins (Lariviere 1989, 11. 37). For the changing connotation of the word, see (Chakravarti 1996). 6 Both tendencies are clear in the Panchrol grant of the time of Śaśāṅka (Furui 2011a, pp. 121–22, ll. 8–16). 7 cūrṇikā is a unit of currency with value equal to 100 cowrie-shells (Chattopadhyaya 1977, p. 59). 8 Ṣaṇḍadvīpa, Pravaradvīpa, and Dvīpaka (Griffiths 2015, p. 30, ll. 6, 8).

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  151 9 Apart from them, two more Pāla plates, respectively, of Nārāyaṇapāla and Nayapāla pertaining to Varendra were brought to my notice by Swadhin Sen, who also provided me with their photographs. I am currently working on their decipherment and edition. 10 Ex. prativāsino vrāhmaṇottarān mahattamottamakuṭumvipurogamedāndhracaṇ ḍālaparyantān (Sircar 1987, p. 8, ll. 39–40). 11 rahayyādityapuṣkariny (Furui 2011a, p. 153, l. 31); viṭakāli (Sircar 1983, p. 67, l. 33). 12 rājaputtradevaṭakṛtāli (Sircar 1983, p. 67, l. 32). 13 Udragrāmamaṇḍala (Sircar 1983, p. 68, ll. 42–43); Trapatagrāmamaṇḍala, Śivagrāmamaṇḍala (Furui 2011c, p. 240, ll. 26, 29); Brāhmaṇīgrāmamaṇḍala (Banerji 1982, p. 297, ll. 24–25). 14 This phenomenon and its possible connection with agrarian expansion are pointed out by Rajat Sanyal through personal communication. I look forward to his further discussion and elaboration on this matter. 15 This is so far the last date of Madanapāla’s reign in Varendra known from his Rajibpur plate, dated year 22 (Furui 2015b, p. 57). 16 Kapardakapurāṇa seems to be a theoretical unit of account representing the value of a purāṇa, a unit of silver currency, counted in cowrie-shells (Mukherjee 1982, pp. 68–69). 17 devagopathādyasārabhūvahiḥ (Majumdar 1929, pp. 102, l. 36). 18 devavrāhmaṇapālyabhavadbhiḥ, (Sircar 1983, p. 128, l. 42). Sircar emends bhavadbhiḥ as svabahiḥ. It can be better emended to bhūvahiḥ.

References Banerji, R. D., (1982). The Amgachhi grant of Vigraha-Pala III: the 12th year. Epigraphia Indica. 15(1919–20), 293–301. Bhattacharya, S. C., (2007). The Jagajjibanpur plate of Mahendrapāla comprehensively re-edited. Journal of Ancient Indian History. 23(2005–2006), 61–125. Bhattasali, N. K., (1983). The Ghugrahati copper-plate inscription of SamacharaDeva. Epigraphia Indica. 18(1925–26), 74–86. Chakravarti, R., (1996). Kutumbikas of early India. In: V. K. Thakur and A. Aounshuman, eds. Peasants in Indian history vol. 1: theoretical issues and structural enquiries (essays in memory of professor Radhakrishna Chaudhary). Patna: Janaki Prakashan. pp. 179–198. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1977). Currency in early Bengal. Journal of Indian History. 55(3), 41–60. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1990). Aspects of rural settlements and rural society in early medieval India. Calcutta: K P Bagchi. Chattopadhyaya, B. D., (1994). Introduction: the making of early medieval India. In: B. D. Chattopadhyaya, ed. The making of early medieval India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–37. Furui, R., (2008). A new copper plate inscription of Gopala II. South Asian Studies. 24, 67–75. Furui, R., (2009). Re-reading two copper plate inscriptions of Gopāla II, year 4. In: G. J. R. Mevissen and A. Banerji, eds. Prajñādhara: essays on Asian art, history, epigraphy and culture in honour of Gouriswar Bhattacharya. New Delhi: Kaveri Books. pp. 319–330.

152  Ryosuke Furui Furui, R., (2010). Biyala copperplate inscription of Mahīpāla I. Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology (New Series). 1, 99–106. Furui, R., (2011a). Indian Museum copper plate inscription of Dharmapala, year 26: tentative reading and study. South Asian Studies. 27(2), 145–156. Furui, R., (2011b). Panchrol (Egra) copperplate inscription of the time of Śaśāṅka: a re-edition. Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology (New Series). 2, 119–130. Furui, R., (2011c). Rangpur copper plate inscription of Mahīpāla I, year 5. Journal of Ancient Indian History. 27(2010–11), 232–245. Furui, R., (2013a). Merchant groups in early medieval Bengal: with special reference to the Rajbhita stone inscription of the time of Mahīpāla I, year 33. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 76(3), 391–412. Furui, R., (2013b). The Kotalipada copperplate inscription of the time of Dvādaśāditya, year 14. Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology (New Series). 4, 89–98. Furui, R., (2015a). Variegated adaptations: state formation in Bengal from the fifth to the seventh century. In: B. P. Sahu and H. Kulke, eds. Interrogating political systems: integrative processes and states in pre-modern India. New Delhi: Manohar. pp. 255–273. Furui, R., (2015b). Rajibpur copperplate inscriptions of Gopāla IV and Madanapāla. Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology (New Series). 6, 39–61. Furui, R., (2015c). Characteristics of Kaivarta rebellion delineated from the Rāmacarita. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 75, 93–98. Furui, R., (2017). Subordinate rulers under the Pālas: their diverse origins and shifting power relation with the king. The Indian Economic and Social History Review. 54(3), 339–359. Griffiths, A., (2015). New documents for the early history of Puṇḍravardhana: copperplate inscriptions from the late Gupta and early Post-Gupta periods. Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology (New Series). 6, 15–38. Griffiths, A., (2018). Four more Gupta-period copperplate grants from Bengal. Pratna Samiksha: A Journal of Archaeology (New Series). 9, 15–57. Kosambi, D. D. and Gokhale, V. V. eds., (1957). The Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kvaerne, P., (2010). An anthology of Buddhist tantric songs: a study of the Caryāgīti. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Orchid Press. Lariviere, R. W. ed., (1989). The Nāradasmṛti (critically edited with an introduction, annotated translation, and appendices). (University of Pennsylvania studies on South Asia 4-5). Philadelphia, PA: Department of South Asia Regional Studies, Pennsylvania University. Majumdar, N. G. ed., (1929). Inscriptions of Bengal volume III: containing inscriptions of the Chandras, the Varmans and the Senas, and of Īśvaraghosha and Dāmodara. Rajshahi: The Varendra Research Society. Mukherjee, B. N., (1982). Commerce and money in the western and central sectors of eastern India (c. A. D. 750–1200). Indian Museum Bulletin. 17, 65–83. Olivelle, P. ed., (2006). Manu’s code of law: a critical edition and translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sahu, B. P., (2013). Shifting the gaze: facets of sub-regional agrarian economies. In: B. P. Sahu, ed. The changing gaze: regions and the constructions of early India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 278–297.

Changing patterns of agrarian development in early medieval  153 Sastri, H. P. ed., (1969). Rāmacaritam of Sandhyākaranandin. (R. G. Basak, rev., tr. and notes). Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Sinha Kapur, N., (2002). State formation in Rajasthan: Mewar during the seventhfifteenth centuries. New Delhi: Manohar. Sircar, D. C., (1965a). Indian epigraphy. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sircar, D. C. ed., (1965b). Select inscriptions bearing on Indian history and civilization vol. 1: from the sixth century B. C. to the sixth century A. D. 2nd ed. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Sircar, D. C., (1966). Indian epigraphical glossary. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sircar, D. C., (1973). Epigraphic discoveries in East Pakistan. Calcutta: Sanskrit College. Sircar, D. C. ed., (1983). Select inscriptions bearing on Indian history and civilization vol. 2: from the sixth to the eighteenth century A. D. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sircar, D. C., (1987). Two Pala plates from Belwa. Epigraphia Indica. 29(1951–52), 1–13. Talbot, C., (2001). Precolonial India in practice: society, region and identity in medieval Andhra. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tripathy, S., (1997). Inscriptions of Orissa vol. 1: circa fifth-eighth centuries A. D. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vasu, N. N., (1900). Copper-plate inscription of Madanapāla. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 69(1), 66–73. Yamazaki, T., (1982). Some aspects of land-sale inscriptions in fifth and sixth century Bengal. Acta Asiatica. 43, 17–36.

6

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral and active part of a delta An archaeological study of the southwestern part of Bangladesh A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita

Introducing the context The archaeological sites, structural remains, and habitational remains of the coastal and active area of the Ganga–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GMB) Delta in the southwestern part of Bangladesh are widely recognised as the space marked by several renowned medieval settlements only. Among them, the archaeological sites of Bagerhat are enlisted as one of the World Heritage sites – ‘Historic Mosque City of Bagerhat’ – in Bangladesh. The mosques and monuments are assumed to be built by the Ulugh Khān Jahān, who was a warrior and administrator. His mazar is located in the same area, and he is revered in the popular domain as Khān Jahān ‘Ali (r.). According to epigraphic records, he died in c. 863 AH (1459 CE) (Karim 1992, pp. 137–140). During the later part of his life when Khān Jahān (r.) came and occupied this territory, the ruler of Gour – the contemporary capital city of the region – was Sultan Naṣir al-dīn Mahmud Shah (c. 1434–1459 CE). It is not certain whether this saint was associated with the administration of the Sultanate or not (Karim 1992, p. 140). The cluster of archaeological sites and monuments of Bagerhat was identified as a part of medieval mint-town and sarkār (an administrative division under the Mughals) of Khalifatābād. Another cluster of archaeological sites and monumental remains of Barobazar in the present Jhinaidaha District, situated to the north of the settlement of Bagerhat, was probably identified and renamed as Māhmudābād, during the contemporary period or later. Established narratives in history and archaeology, moreover, have reduced these medieval archaeological settlements into monumental remains without attending to the spatial pattern of the monuments and habitational remains. As Sen (2014) has noted, this monument centrism is central to the construction of the past in Bangladesh. Monumental remains of the early medieval period from Jashore District (e.g., Bharat Bhayna and Damdam Pirasthan Dhibi), again, have been the few places which are mentioned as DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-8

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  155 the sign of scarcity of pre-medieval archaeological places in this active part of the delta. Recent archaeological studies have generated data to raise questions about these taken-for-granted assumptions and narratives on human occupation in this zone (see Sen 2018a, 2018b). In this chapter, we attempt to present new data as well as new perspectives on the old data to understand and interpret the early medieval and medieval settlements in this southwestern part of Bangladesh. We present the data and their context in brief to show the complexities of human–landscape interaction and their differential outcomes. In recent studies, we have attempted to correlate the data from the excavated archaeological context and propose a provisional stratigraphic sequence in one of the archaeological places in Khalifatābād. The physical relationship of the deposits in various trenches, however, could not be established because of the disturbances by previous excavations. Simultaneously, we try to refer to various groups of archaeological sites in this zone belonging to both periods for interpreting the nature, pattern, and transformation of human activity patterns. In the established historical narratives, this region is occupied and ‘colonised’ initially during the Sultanate period and extensively during the Mughal period. These narratives are founded mainly upon the monumental remains belonging to the fifteenth century CE or later. A few monumental remains of the early medieval period are treated in isolation as exceptions and as insignificant markers of human occupation on a large scale in this region. The dynamic, unstable, and continuously changing fluvial environment and network and the alluvial landscape is referred to as principal causes for these later developments of human settlements on an intense scale. These perceptions of the fluvial terrain and instability need to be questioned and verified, as Sen (2017, 2018a, 2018b) argues, with archaeological studies which incorporate new methods of surveying and excavations and a reconceptualisation of human–landscape interrelationship on a historical scale (Figure 6.1). It is inferred that the greater Jashore–Khulna Districts were part of a greater region which was identified as Gaṅgāridāi by various Greek and other sources (Chowdhury 2012; Bhattacharya 1977; Mukherjee 1987). These sources are dated from the first century BCE to the second century CE. The area was within the Vaṅga janapada, covering the southern part of both Bangladesh and West Bengal, India, and the central part of Bangladesh during the early medieval period and earlier (Figure 6.1). As a sub-region, the territorial boundary went through changes during the early medieval period. The name Vaṅga was mentioned in different textual and epigraphic sources (Mazumdar 1945, pp. 6–7). The Khalimpur copperplate inscription of Dharmapāla (issued in c. 807 CE) mentioned the donation of land in the Vyāghrataṭī maṇḍala of Puṇḍravardhana Bhukti (see Mukherji and Maity 1967, p. 107). As byāghra and taṭa denote tiger and coast (riverbank),

156  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita

Figure 6.1 Spatial distributions of archaeological places and settlements in the study area. The zone discussed in this chapter is marked tentatively with a broken line (Source: Authors’ own).

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  157 respectively, it is assumed that this unit included the study area, including the Sundarbans. Copperplate inscriptions of Vijaysena, Lakṣmaṇasena (dated to the twelfth century CE), and Dommonpāla (dated to the twelfth century CE) have been found from the Sundarbans and the adjacent region of present West Bengal, India (Mukherji and Maity 1967, pp. 74, 79, 83, 290, 333). The names of administrative units (maṇḍala, viṣaya, and bhukti) vary considerably in these inscriptions; for example, the region or part of the region was under Khāḍi viṣaya (in Barrackpur copperplate inscription of Vijayasena) and maṇḍala (in the Dighirpar-Bakultala or Sundarban copperplate inscription of Lakṣmaṇasena) in Puṇḍravardhana bhukti. Rakshakhali plate of Dommanapāla refers to Pūrva Khāṭikā. Pūrva Khāṭikā and Paścima Khāṭikā could well be the eastern (pūrva) and western (paścima) part of the Sundarbans (Sanyal 2010, p. 128). Varddhamānā Bhukti (in reference to Paścima Khāṭikā) is mentioned in the Govindapur copperplate inscription of Lakṣmaṇasena (Sanyal 2010, pp. 125–128). The names of these spatial units were associated with the Sundarbans area as the find-spots of these inscriptions signify (see Sanyal 2010; Basak 2014; Chakraborty 2017). According to Bṛhat Saṃhita and Digvijoy Prakāś, this region, especially Jashore and nearby kānonsaṅjukta (attached with the forest?) area, was included in Upavaṇga during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries CE (Mazumdar 1945, p. 9). Geographically, the southern or lower part of Bengal was known as bhati during the medieval period (Allami 1891, p. 116). Geologically and geomorphologically the region along with the Sundarbans are classified and mapped differently by different scholars. Islam (2016) and Islam and Gnauck (2008) have divided the region into four landforms: moribund delta (early Ganges Delta), mature delta, tidally active delta (covered by later Ganges Delta and later Meghna Delta), and tidal delta (covered by later Meghna Delta and later Ganges Delta). Greater Jashore–Khulna region is apparently covered by tidally active delta (including Sundarban), mature delta, and moribund delta. Mature and tidally active delta are characterised by several large wetlands or bils. Simultaneously, Alam et al. (1999) have sedimentologically divided this area into primarily three zones: coastal, deltaic, and paludal. They have shown several subdivisions of the second and third sedimentary categories. On the other hand, Brammer (2012) has mapped the region by Ganges River Floodplain (northern part of the greater Jashore District and Khulna District) and Ganges Tidal Floodplain (southern and coastal part of Greater Khulna District). Most importantly, Alison et al. (2003) have shown with the support of radiometric dates that the delta not only prograded towards the south. The Ganges Delta progradation took place towards west and southwest, and the portions in the southern part of the Satkhira, Khulna, and Bagerhat Districts have developed between 1.8–5 kyrs and the parts in Barishal have developed between 70% bricks and 10–15% lime mixed with sand have been found in different parts of this level. It is evident that this deposit represents the destroyed and fragmented parts of those floors. In addition to floods, they might have been altered by the cut and fill activities for the construction of the walls in the later period wall (for example, wall 7015). A terracotta pipe 7012 (recognisable down to 7.15 m depth) was found on these floors. Covered with a brick wall (W. 7015), the pipe was slopping towards the north. The terracotta pipe is an indication of the drainage or sewerage system in this sector of the site. The walls W.1520, W.1521, and W.7015 reveal an interesting occupational pattern. They were constructed by encasing the terracotta pipe. Another deposit of yellowish grey sandy sediments with potsherds has been found on the wall (W.7015) under the later structures (W1710 and W1711). Pipe 7012 and Wall 7015 are made of complete bricks. All these sedimentary evidences, along with floor (Fl. 7018), terracotta pipe (7012), and the wall (7015) under the later structures, indicate that more than one flood sequence, probably seasonal in nature, occurred after the abandonment and destruction of the earliest structural remains of the site. This level is probably the evidence of the earliest occupation of contemporary to the Sultanate period before the coming of Khān Jāhān (r.). Few complete pots were found from this level. A Chinese Greenish Long Quan bowl has been found, which is contemporary to fourteenth–fifteenth CE of the Ming dynasty of China (Figure 6.5). The trade and communication between Bengal and Ming China were very vibrant, and the settlements in the coastal zone of the southwestern part of present Bangladesh was within the trade and exchange network of the period (Folch 2008, p. 15). Level 3 Intensification of the segmentation and reuse of earlier deposits: This level corresponds to the deposits and features of the construction of comparatively massive structures and floors. Several walls and associated contemporary floors [3.27–3.41 m] were found. These floors [Fl.1412, Fl.1414, and Fl.1420 with brick soling 1409, Fl.1714, Fl.7010, and Fl.7043, Fl.8034, and Fl.1513] are contemporary with walls [W9010, W.7015, W.1520, W8016, and W.1521]. Small fragments of shells, brick fragments, and lime were rammed to construct these floors. These floors were randomly repaired, extended, and continuously reused at this time. Subsequently, the floors were partially destroyed during the processes of reuse of a later period. Another wall (9010) was found in the southwestern part of the place at a depth of 2.98–4.37 m in association with a floor (Fl. 8034). The wall is oriented in a north–south direction and it joins an east-to-west oriented wall (2021). Another wall (8023) in the same alignment is also attached to the wall (9010). These walls also seem to be completely or partially destroyed by floods, as far as the sedimentary deposits associated with them attest. The area enclosed by these walls is covered by a deposit composed of a

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  167 large, poorly sorted, and irregular mixture of bricks 1406 (3.57–3.78 m), 3–5% lime–surki concretion, and grey loose sandy loam. In some locations, the presence of a deposit of grey sandy silt under structural remains of the subsequent periods was recorded. The large bricks mixed with loose sandy and sandy, silty loam and lime–surki concretions suggest that the bricks were collapsed during or after a probable strong-to-moderate flood event. These collapsed deposits also mark the end of this period. Bi-chrome and mono-chrome tiles of various shapes and sizes were found from a deposit (9032) of this period. These tiles are designated to the Sultanate period, and they were used for decorating floors and walls (Sinha 2012, pp. 127– 137). It is not possible to determine whether these tiles were brought from other regions or manufacturing centres like the medieval urban centre of Gaur and its hinterland. The existence of such inter-site and inter-regional exchange and communication networks was indisputable, and the smaller quantity of these materials points to such networks of craftsmen and their products. The existence of a local manufacturing network, however, cannot be brushed aside as the number of excavated sites in this period are few in this region, and the frequency of such artefacts reflecting specific technology and craftsmanship cannot be verified in the absence of the intra-subregional scale (Figure 6.3). Level 4 Large-scale construction, reuse, and reorganisation of the space: This level represents a well-planned and organised construction of brickbuilt structures. A few walls contemporary to each other have created well-demarcated space division in a sector of the site. A wall [1710], with a north–south orientation, was exposed in the trench EVII/7 at a depth of 3.47 m, and it is 38.75 m long and 0.90 m wide at the top. The wall becomes wider downwards to the bottom with offsets. Several walls join this wall to create the square and rectangular compartments. The brick sizes are difficult to measure as they are reused and broken. The floor (Fl. 1708, Fl. 1712, Fl. 1714, and Fl. 1820) was destroyed and cut to make the later wall (1710), and another wall (1711) was constructed upon the same floor (1714). A thick deposit of light yellowish-grey sandy sediment [8004] was found between the floor (Fl. 8002) and Fl. 1714 of level 3. The brick-built walls and other deposits of construction and occupation of this level were affected by some natural catastrophic events like floods and the movement of sediments. A heap of bricks from the collapsed wall (8005) was accumulated on the same wall, covered by a thick deposit of yellowish grey sandy sediments. It seems that the upper part of the wall had collapsed and fell upon the bottom of the wall that was destroyed, and the collapsed bricks fell on both sides. The relationship between the collapsed heap of bricks and the wall may suggest a sequential event of destruction with a very narrow temporal gap. The possibility of a seismic event and its impact upon the unconsolidated sediments of the active delta cannot be ruled out. A few interesting structural remains indicative of habitational activities like a brick-built toilet with a safety tank, a small structure with two steps of

168  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita a stair, and some small structural remains with lime–surki floors built upon brick soling were found. This level manifesting probably the period of the most organised and extensive construction works can tentatively be dated between the lifetime of Khān Jāhān (r.) and the early part of the Mughal dominion when the Mughals were in conflict with the intermediaries of this zone (Figure 6.4). Level 5 Reuse of earlier deposits for simplified space organisation: Partially preserved remains of a well-constructed 18–20 cm thick whitish floor composed of highly cemented lime, and powdered bricks were found in different parts of the mound at a depth of 5.27–5.04 m. For example, a similar floor (Fl. 8002) was found in association with one of the walls. A coating of lime, preserved in different parts, gave the floor a whitish tint of the surface. A square structure with a step was found at the southwestern part of the mound, which is associated with a floor of the same level. The structure is square with a veranda around it. Six steps of the stair served as the entrance to the middle of the northern wall, and remains of the lime coating were detected on all these steps. The internal surface was covered with a rammed floor composed of powdered bricks and lime underlain by a brick soling. A small structure was added later to the staircase. The entrance through the stairs was closed at a later time. Remains of a few narrow walls are also recorded in an adjacent space. Functions of these walls are difficult to determine in their present state of preservation. It seems, however, that these walls at their functional state added complex differentiation of space around the hall with the staired entrance. The pottery from these levels is mixed and the types representing the latest ones give a terminus post quem for the level and that date could not be earlier than the sixteenth century CE (Figure 6.4). Level 6 Destruction, reuse, and refilling: We categorised this level as the late medieval or colonial to onwards. This period represents a few layers and features of large pits, flimsy structures (W.1508), floors, and alluvial deposits over them. After Mughal, different structures of the previous period were reused and added flimsy structures and floors with very poor conditions. Some evidence of post holes is found on the walls. Many large pits [Pt.1506, Pt.7003, Pt.6009, Pt.6010] have been found, which represent the evidences of the destruction of earlier periods. Various objects of different periods are found in pits. Pits are also full of charcoal, ash, and medium-to-large-sized potsherds, as well as different types of artefacts. Later, brick walls [W.1508, W.7004, W.1118 and W.1021] were constructed with reused bricks on pits at different places. The construction of these structures was very poor. It happened when the whole area of the earlier settlement was totally abandoned, and colluvial deposits covered the site. These are the modern activity of the last century. During this time, ‘the abandoned residential area of Khān Jāhān (r:)’ or ‘the Mound’ were inhabited by local people and also used for betel leaf cultivation.

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  169

Figure 6.4 Structural remains of level 4 (a) and the staircase with structural remains of level 5 (b) at the residential mound associated with Khān Jahān (r.) (Source: Authors’ own).

170  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita Artefacts from the excavation: Pottery is the most abundant archaeological material from the excavated site. Many of these pots were complete. Some of the complete pots were also found in the surface collection of the place. Unfortunately, there is a stratigraphically informed pottery index for the region except for a few broad, selective, and descriptive catalogues of site-specific assemblages. We have compared the pottery assemblages with the index constructed by Panja, Nag, and Bandopadhyay (2015). Some of the index-wares (i.e., Celadon Wares) are well designated, and they have been correlated with some others based on both types and fabrics for dating. Various types of pottery were found from different periods of the mound (Figure 6.5). These potteries were found in a context which clearly indicates a later mixture with the earlier potteries. The mixing of potteries is probably the result of, firstly, the continuous reuse of the space for more than seven to eight centuries, and secondly, the destruction of the buried deposits by digging pits during the last four to five decades for the collection of bricks. It must, therefore, be clarified that many typological varieties of potteries could not be stratigraphically correlated. Detail recording and analyses of the pottery assemblages from the excavations are being done, and a few selected types are mentioned in this chapter. According to use and shape, a category can be ascribed as luxury wares with special formal features (i.e., glaze) or shape (i.e., storage jar and table wares for drinking purposes). On the other hand, common wares are the largest proportion of the assemblage and they represent fine and coarse fabric. Common wares include cooking wares, which are locally known as hari. There are bowls, black slipped and chocolate slipped plates, cups, narrow-necked ornamented, and non-ornamented spouted vessels for storing and pouring liquids temporarily. There are overt Persian influences on the shapes of some of the types which were produced locally. Chinese porcelain and celadon have been found, and they were, probably, imported ceramics from China. These types have been found in other contemporary medieval settlements in Bengal. Intense diplomatic and trade linkages between Bengal and China are the subject of several studies (Sen 2015; Mukherjee 2011; Folch 2008, p. 16). So it can be assumed that there was a strong connection between China and Bengal during the medieval periods. Usually, the present port of Chittagong, Sonargaon and Satgaon, and several other ports and urban centres are recognised as connected by multiple extended maritime and riverine routes with China and Southeast Asian centres to the east and eastern coast of present India and the Indian Ocean. Vibrant trades in the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean during the early medieval and medieval periods have also been subject to scholastic works. It can be hypothesised that early medieval and medieval settlements like Khalifatābād were an important entrepot and centre of exchange considering their location in the

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  171

Figure 6.5 Glazed tiles and ceramics from various levels of Khān Jāhān (r.) residential mound: (a) bichrome and monochrome glazed tiles from level 3; (b) celadon ware, plate; (c) celadon ware, plate; (d) celadon ware, bowl; (e) upper part of a red jar, painted partially with white; (f) upper part of a storage jar with white painted incised decoration; (g) small jar with shiny slip; (h) fragments of the decorated porcelain plate; (i) and (j) grey spouted vessel; (k) red spouted vessel; (l) buff coloured spouted vessel; (m), (n), (o), (p) red and buff coloured pots; (q) red hand modelled pot (Source: Authors’ own).

172  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita littoral zone of the Bay of Bengal. We see a few other places and settlements with the evidence of these trade activities in the later sections of this chapter. Several types of these ceramic assemblages, including those belonging to imported and luxurious wares, can be typologically correlated to the same types of wares from various medieval sites or medieval levels of sites like Gaur, Pandua, Balupur, Maldah (Sinha 2012, pp. 127–137), and Fatehpur Sikri (Panja, Nag and Bandopadhyay 2015, p. 133). Typologically, some of these wares are diagnostic. Blue painted white porcelain and greenish, long Quan Celadon wares are dated to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries CE, blue or greenish-blue glazed wares are dated to a period from the thirteenth century to the eighteenth century CE, and white painted red wares can be dated to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries CE, and ceramics with Persian influence can be dated to the fifteenth century. Some of the common wares can be dated to both early medieval and medieval periods. We hope to prepare and present detailed categorisations on the basis of typology and contextual association after the completion of the recording. Among other notable artefacts, bi-chrome and mono-chrome glazed tiles, bichrome glazed painted bricks, unglazed terracotta bricks with a floral and geometric design, pieces of glass bangles, iron objects, terracotta toys, and cowries are important to be noted. The glazed tiles and ornamented bricks attest to the intra-regional exchange and trades as mentioned earlier (Mitra 2010, p. 36; Sinha 2012, pp. 127–137). Small glass objects like miniature bottles and small cups are also among the artefacts. Nature and pattern of the site and settlement: According to Ā’īn-iAkbarī, Khalifatābād was one of the Sarkar of the Bengal Subah during Mughal period, particularly in the reign of Emperor Akbar (Allami 1891, p. 123). Khalifatābād was also included as a mahal under the larger administrative unit of Sarkar Khalifatābād. A few mahals of Sarkar Khalifatābād are mentioned in Ā’īn-i-Akbarī, which can be identified by their toponyms. For example, Baghmara is located in Bagerhat District near Shait Gumbad Mosque, Khalishpur, Charaula, and Sahes are located in Khulna District, Jesar is located in present Jashore District, Tala is located at Tala in Satkhira District, and Sundarbans is covering the coastal part of the tidally active delta in Khulna, Bagerhat, and Satkhira District (Allami 1891, p. 134). Mitra (2013, p. 275) and Karim (1960, p. 164) have also mentioned the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century CE maps, drawn by foreigners, to identify the Khalifatābād. On one of those maps by Joao de Barros, which was printed in 1777 (Huque 2018), a place in the littoral zone of Bengal has been depicted as ‘Cuipatavaz’. They identified ‘Cuipatavaz’ to be a misdemeanour of the place-name of Khalifatābād. It must be noted that the analogy between ‘Cuipitavaz’ and ‘Khalifatābād of present Bagerhat’ is not certain on a locational basis. Additionally, in different numismatic pieces of evidence, Khalifatābād is designated as a mint town during the rule of

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  173 Sultan Nāṣir al-dīn Nuṣrat Shāh (922 AH:1516 CE and 925 AH:1519 CE) (Karim 1960, pp. 119, 121; Sinha 2010, p. 172), Sultan Ghiyath al-dīn Māhmud Shāh (939 AH:1533 CE, 941 AH:1535 CE) (Karim 1960, pp. 131, 133), and Ala al-dīn Firuz Shāh (938–39 AH: c. 1532–33 CE) (Sinha 2010, p. 172). A coin issued by Sultan Rukn al-dīn Bārbak Shāh (c. 1459– 1474) was also found in Shait Gumbad area.2 The textual and numismatic sources suggest that the settlement which is known as ‘the mosque city of Bagerhat’ in the World Heritage list, or identified by historians as an urban centre of Khalifatābād, was a prominent and critical centre of human activities in medieval Bengal. The cluster of religious monuments is, however, one of the parameters for identification of this settlement as an urban centre or a settlement with exceptional prominence in the settlement network in this period. There is no discernible boundary of the settlement in the form of a wall or moat. The course of the Bhairav River acted as the boundary on one side. On the other sides, there are no natural features which could be identified as the boundary of the settlement. On the basis of spatial patterning of the archaeological places and features, we may demarcate an area which was the core zone of the settlement with variable distribution of archaeological places and material culture (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence). This area of the settlement of Khalifatābād covers 4,139 hectares or 16.7 sq. km. This is the space within which the remains of the mosques, tomb complex, and non-religious structural and non-structural remains, including the road, tanks, and habitational deposits, are distributed. A systematic and finegrained archaeological survey can reveal more archaeological places, and with careful mapping and analyses, their spatial patterning and organisation can be enumerated. Spatial patterns of archaeological features, material culture, and monumental remains are key to the identification of the nature and structure of a settlement. It must be noted that the urban centres of Gour cover 46 sq. km (Smith 2006, p. 129), and it was enclosed by several layers of walled segments. Distribution of various archaeological features and materials, however, in this settlement overtly hints at the differential functional organisation of space. For example, Shait Gumbad Mosque and the archaeological places adjacent to it (including the tanks and excavated mound) were the core sector of activity. The mosque was a built space used for religious as well as administrative purposes. The excavated mound overtly suggests the functional differentiation as habitational space. There are unsubstantiated reports of several other such archaeological places with habitational remains in reference to surface occurrences. There are possible features related to defence (Chilekhana, Ranobijoypur Mosque, Barakpur), communication (roads and ghat), currency production, and management (dhanvāṇḍār or mint house). Though many of these places are recognised in the ways above in the popular narratives, further archaeological investigations in a systematic way may shed light on the spatial organisation and its temporal changes.

174  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita The settlement is north–south oriented and is parallel to palaeochannel/ oxbow lake of Bhairab. The settlement measures 2 km (north–south) and 8 km (east–west). The brick-built road, exposed over more than 1 km, is still preserved on the bank of the palaeomeander of the Bhairab River. A considerable portion of the road is still buried under thin sediments, and some parts have been destroyed. Many small roads, linked to this road, create a network connecting various monuments like Kathaltala, Chunakhola, excavated mound, Shait Gumbad Mosque, and Ranobijoypur Mosque within the settlement. The spatial organisation of archaeological places and features, along with the variable types of material culture, suggests that the settlement had attained an urban character at around the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries CE. The established parameters of urbanity and urban centres cannot be validated from the spatial and archaeological character of this settlement. The nature and function of this urban centre was different in many ways from the contemporary urban centre of Gour and Pandua of Bengal. Simultaneously, unlike other contemporary urban centres like Sonargaon and Satgaon, the differentiated occurrence and organisation of archaeological features are very conspicuous in this settlement. It is, however, difficult to determine the nature of the settlement in the pre-medieval period though the pieces of archaeological evidence are reliable enough to identify the formation of the settlement during the pre-medieval period. The monumental remains of the Khalifatābād are dated to the fifteenth century CE on the basis of the inscription on the tomb of Khān Jahān (r.), and the inscription records the death of the saint in 1459 CE (Bysack 1867, p. 131; Eaton 1990, pp. 6–16). Sen (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence) thinks that the chronology of the settlement must be rethought on the basis of the archaeological evidence from the excavation. The most flourishing period of this urban centre might be between the fourteenth and the seventeenth centuries CE, bracketing the Sultanate and the Mughal period. He has also suggested that the settlement or multiple settlements, possibly rural in nature, formed and developed in this zone before the thirteenth century CE (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence). Barobazar Cluster of monumental remains, Jhenaidah Situated in Jhenaidah District, Barobazar (popularly known as Muhāmmadābād or Māhmudābād) is a cluster of archaeological mounds and monumental remains of the medieval period (Figure 6.6). A few coins, stones, and terracotta inscriptions of the Sultani period were found in Barobazar. A terracotta inscription (Figure 6.6), which was found during excavation at Barobazar (Alamgir 1998, p. 276), dates the construction of the mosque during the reign of Sultan Mahmud Shah in the first half of the sixteenth century CE (Alamgir 1998, p. 276). Based on this inscription, Qadir (1999) claimed that this settlement was the ‘Shaḥr Muhāmmadābād’, an urban centre of the medieval period. Numismatic evidences refer to a

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  175

Figure 6.6 (a) Spatial organisation of the archaeological places and tanks in Barobazar and (b) terracotta inscriptions from Jorbangla Mosque from the same settlement (Source: Authors’ own).

mint-town of Māhmudābād during the reign of Sultan Māhmud Shāh (in 922 AH:1516 CE) (Karim 1960, p. 102; Sinha 2010, p. 172). According to the Ā’īn-i-Akbarī, Sarkar Māhmudābād was one of the Sarkars of Bengal Subah during the reign of Emperor Akbar (Allami 1891, p. 123). The location of Barobazar can be identified with a place name

176  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita – ‘Mahmudshahi – in Rennel’s map of 1756. Even if we take Barobazar as the location of the medieval mint-town of Muhammadābād or Māhmudābād, two different place names or settlement names cannot be possible within a short time frame unless the official records refer to the same place by two names or two different settlements in proximity to each other by different names. Ascertaining the nature of the settlement is also difficult as most of the archaeological remains are monumental, except for a low mound known as jahajghata (anchorage) on the bank of the palaeobed of the Bhairab River. Interestingly, the urban settlement of Khalifatābād and this settlement of Barobazar is located on the bank of the same river. The beginning of the human occupation of this place is a mystery too. Scholars like Mitra (2013) think that the medieval monuments were constructed upon the pre-medieval Brahmanical-Buddhist remains. It is impossible to verify all the claims or inferences on the basis or nature of available archaeological data. The clustering of monuments and structural mounds in a contiguous spatial pattern suggests that this settlement was not a typical rural settlement. The importance and locational significance of the settlement are evident. Following Sen (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence), we would like to propose that the medieval settlement of Barobazar formed with it monumental remains at a time not earlier than the fifteenth century CE. During their lifetime as settlements, both Barobazar and Khalifatābād were contemporary to each other for a considerable period. The archaeological places, monuments, and tanks are patterned in a linear and semi-compact form on the bank of the river. The settlement, smaller and simpler in spatial organisation than Khalifatābād, could serve specific purposes as a small town which was spatially, functionally, and behaviourally different from a city. Without stratigraphically informed excavations on the mounds which are still preserved and without dating of the stratigraphically associated material culture, the period of the sustenance and change in the nature and extent of this settlement and its relation to Khalifatābād cannot be determined. The pre-medieval existence of an earlier settlement, in the same way, cannot be substantiated without further contextually informed archaeological evidence (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence).

Killa Bari-Mirzanagar Hammamkhana Cluster, Mirzanagar, Jashore Two particularly important ruins of the Mughal period are located in Jashore District. The first one is known as a Hammamkhana, located at Mirzanagar of Trimohini Union of Keshobpur Upazila. It was a ruin of ancient buildings with two square courtyards and separated by a high wall. These are designated as the residence of Nawabs or Foujdars of Jashore. The second one is situated on a 3–4 m high mound, and it is enclosed by walls. Locally it was known as killa-bari or fort and located 1 km south of the Hammamkhana. According to the local people, there were three cannons in

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  177 this fort (Mitra 2013, p. 209; Westland 1871, pp. 50–51; Zakariah 2011, p. 420). There are partially exposed brick-built structural remains under these medieval ruins of the enclosed structural remains. It is highly probable that the Mughal structures were built upon pre-medieval structural remains.

Agra-Kapilmuni-Jhurijhara Cluster, Khulna Agra-Kapilmuni-Jhurijhara is the area with one or several clusters of archaeological remains, which can be spatially separated into several settlements based on the degree of clustering, the medieval settlement which is located in Khulna District (Westland 1871, p. 54). The archaeological remains are distributed over an area within five mouzas in Kapilmuni Union (Kapilmuni Kashimnagar, Rezakpur, Singhajani, and Ramnagar). Before partition, the Kashimnagar and Rezakpur were included in the mauza of Agra. A systematic fine high-resolution survey may reveal many other archaeological places and settlements in the zone to the south of Kapilmuni in Tala Upazila of Satkhira. Sporadic occurrences of cultural materials suggest the distribution of early medieval and medieval settlements over a large area extending from Keshabpur to Tala Upazila (Figure 6.7c and d). Hunter (1877) and Mitra (2013, p. 209) have also mentioned a broad area from Tala to Chandkhali (distance covering 14 miles) with several archaeological ruins. These clusters are representative of a zone of many archaeological remains. The reconnaissance survey suggests that a north- to south-oriented zone bordered by two wide depressions to the west and the east has the potential to reveal various types of archaeological places and material culture. Preliminary surveying in Shyamnagar Upazila of Satkhira District close to the Sundarbans has provided convincing support for this assumption. The settlements in this zone formed at least during the ninth and tenth centuries CE and continued with certain changes in the nature and spatial patterns till the seventeenth century CE (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence). One of these mounds was dug and structural remains of ancient houses were found (Mitra 2013, p. 209; Westland 1871, p. 54; Zakariah 2011, p. 420). Two Buddhist images were recovered during the digging of tanks by the local people (Zakariah 2011, p. 421; Westland 1871). In the recent archaeological excavation of the Regional Directorate Office, Department of Archaeology, Khulna exposed a Buddhist Temple at Jhurijhara mound in Tala Upazila (Figure 6.7a and b). This temple has a cellular construction style which is also common for the temple in Damdam Pirasthan Dhibi and the two temples which were found in association with Dalijhara Buddhist Vihara. The construction of the temple can be dated back to the period from the eighth to the tenth centuries CE. The edifice was reused during the medieval period. The pottery assemblage from this site clearly attests to this continuous reuse (Rahman, Alam, and Hasnat 2020). The report of the excavation with stratigraphic analyses is going to be published soon.

Figure 6.7 Excavated Buddhist Temple at Jhurijhara Dhibi (a) and its ground plan (b). Exposed remains of a wall in Rezakpur (Kapilmuni) (c) and cowry shells from the same site (d) (Source: Authors’ own).

178  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  179 Ruins of a mosque of Sultan Hasrat Alā al-dīn Ḥusain Shāh are located at Arshnagar of Dumuria Upazila in Khulna District, at a distance of 2 km to the northeast of Jhurijhara mound. An inscription of 907 AH (1501 CE) has been recovered from the mosque (Rahman 2017, p. 81).

Borobari cluster (popularly known as Pratapaditya’s Garh), Kaira, Khulna The core of this cluster is a walled settlement which is popularly known as Barobari. Like many remains in this active deltaic part of Bangladesh, this walled settlement is associated with Pratāpaditya, one of the famous landlords of baro-Bhuiyan, who resisted the Mughal subjugation of Bengal. The walled settlement is also known as Pratāpaditya’s Garh (fort or walled space) and is in North Bedkashi of Koira Upazila of Khulna (Hossain 2004, pp. 27–29). There is a moat around the garh. It is rectangular in plan and measures 335 m × 275 m. The wall was constructed with bricks and overlain by mud. The walls are still preserved in different locations. In many pits inside the walled space, the remains of brick walls are visible. An old tank, known as Dui Sotiner Dighi, is in the walled settlement. Outside the walled space, a structural mound is a location to the north. Many stone objects, primarily used as components of construction with bricks (e.g., pillar bases, door jambs, pedestals with ratha projections, and square gaurīpaṭṭas) and sculptural fragments, are seen on the surface of different parts of the settlement to the north. They were collected by the locals during the digging of the places for different activities.3 Deposits of stone flakes are also sporadically detectable. A few silver and gold coins of the medieval period were found in 2018 by local people outside the Pratāpaditya’s Garh.4 It is evident from the pottery and other artefacts that the settlement dates to the early medieval period (c. from ninth to eleventh centuries CE) and the walled space was probably reconstructed and reused during the medieval period till the eighteenth century CE. The legendary association of this settlement with Pratāpaditya is not unquestionable.

Bonghipur-Ishwaripur-Dhumghat, Satkhira Bonghipur-Iswaripur-Dhumghat cluster is especially important evidence of medieval settlements in the Jashore-Khulna region. Bongshipur Garh, Jishur Girza, Ishwaripur Hammamkahana, Tenga Shahi Mosque, and Burujpota archaeological sites within a zone visibly illustrate settlements dating from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries CE. Like many other archaeological sites of this region, legends and oral history associate several sites with Raja Pratapāditya, though it has no empirical proof. At several locations, medieval structural remains were built upon the ruins of earlier (possibly, early medieval) structural and non-structural remains. The remains are visible in the accidental sections of the pits and ditches dug by the locals for various purposes.

180  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita

Bharat Bhayna-Dalijhala-Bharat Rajar Bari cluster These three clusters of archaeological places in Keshabpur Upazila of Jashore represent the early medieval structural remains like those from Tala Upazila of Satkhira mentioned earlier. As we have noted earlier, these structural remains might be patterned within a zone which represents a palaeolevee or uplifted landscape with lowlands and palaeochannels to the east and to the west. The Damdam Pirasthan Dhibi and Khedipara mound group in Manirampur Upazila can be related to these concentrations of settlements over a large area (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence). Bharat Bhayna is a cruciform Buddhist Temple. Based on the form and style of temple architecture, the construction of this cruciform temple can be dated to the period from the seventh to ninth centuries CE (Mita and Rahman 2018). This cruciform temple (the four projections to the cardinal directions) is believed to be an important addition to the evolution of Eastern Indian temple architecture after the seventh century CE. It has similarities to several other cruciform temples in Bengal and in Southeast Asia. Damdam Pirasthan is a Buddhist Temple with a different construction style which has similarities to Jhurijhara Dhibi Temple and the temples exposed in Dalijhara Buddhist Monastery. Sen (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence) hypothesised that this flat topped cellular technique is different from the similar technique of the north-western part of Bangladesh and that these temples may represent a different type in the Buddhist and Brahmanical Temple architectural ensemble. The temple at Damdam Pirasthan has two construction phases. Temple of the first construction phase was square in plan. In the subsequent phase. Structural modification and extensions were added to the main structure, giving it a rectangular shape. To the east of the main temple, a small structural remain (stupa?) was also exposed during the excavation. The temple’s construction date is not earlier than the ninth century CE, and the edifice continued to be reused in the medieval period. Dalijhara mound was a low and flattened mound in the vicinity of Bharat Bhayna Temple. The mound is being excavated. The first season of excavation by the Regional Directorate of Khulna Office of the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, has partially exposed the remains of a Buddhist vihara Temple complex. This Buddhist monastic complex is the first reported Buddhist monastery from the southern part of undivided Bengal. Based on the pottery, the date of the monastic establishment has been assumed to be between the ninth and eleventh centuries CE (Figure 6.8a and b). The Buddhist monastery is rectangular in shape. Two temples to the east, two monastic cells in the north, nine in the south, and seven in the west have been uncovered so far. The central cell of the west wing is larger with a projection towards the west and was possibly the main entrance into the monastery. Two temples in the eastern wing have a close resemblance to the temples of Jhurijhara and Damdam Pirasthan, and they measure 19 m (north–south) and 24 m (east–west) and 21 m (north–south)

Figure 6.8 Bird’s-eye view of the exposed remains of (a) two shrines and (b) western wing with the entrance of Dalijhara Buddhist monastery (Source: Authors’ own).

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  181

182  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita and 24 m (east–west). There was another temple in the southeast corner, and it has been destroyed by the construction of a household by the locals. The northern wing and the remaining part of the courtyard would be excavated in the next season.

Isolated structural remains Some of the monumental remains seem to be isolated and devoid of any association with other archaeological data. A few of these are Masjidkur Mosque, Masjidbaria Mosque, Paigram Kasba Mosque, Shuvorara Mosque, Bibi Chini Mosque, Kalupole Rajar Dhibi, Charulia Dhibi, Mirzanagar Hammam Khana, Probajpur Shahi Mosque, Kamlapur Mosque, Nasrat Shah Mosque, Kasbah Allahr Mosque, etc., and they are usually designated as isolated monuments of the medieval period. These monumental remains can be the only surviving evidence of settlements which were characterised by human habitations constructed with perishable materials. These monumental remains were the core or marker of settlements, and on this persistently changing alluvial terrain they have been preserved while the other pieces of evidence have been obliterated (see Sen 2017, for the centrality of monumental remains in settlement formation and development in the northwestern part of Bangladesh). It is, therefore, logical to recognise these structural remains, mostly religious, as reliable markers of settlements in these zones. Signification and function of the monumental remains as the marker, and the core of settlement formation, is probably a continuous process of settlement formation since the early medieval period.

Early medieval settlements in Sundarbans and the problems of established understanding Archaeological surveying has been conducted by the directorate of archaeology and other enthusiasts in the Sundarbans area. Several new archaeological sites of different periods have been discovered in this process. It must be noted that surveying in the reserve forest zones of the protected area required special attention to the tidal waterscapes of the mangrove forest area. The recently discovered sites are as follows: six structural mounds and an upstanding monument (Kali Mandir or Temple) in Shekhertak, Alkir Nimak Khilari, and other Nimak Khilari (salt-making furnaces and structures) at Morjal and Alki River, Ghat of Chand Shawdagar at Sharonkhola Upazila and Karomjali Khas Abad at Chandpai Range of Rampal Upazila of Bagerhat District, six structural mounds in Agraghona Burigoalini Range at Munshigonj Upazila of Satkhira District (these mounds are at Sindhukkhali, one mound is at Terokathi and two mounds are in the vicinity of Sundari Wood Collection Centre of Sundarbans), six structural mounds in Arpangashia area (Figure 6.9a and b). There are structural remains and artefact assemblages on the banks of Arpangashia, Harikhali Khal, Kholpetua River, Kapotaksha or Kabodak River, Katka Channel, Moravola River, Sonamukhi Khal, Shekher

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  183

Figure 6.9 Structural mounds (a, b, c) and the structural remains exposed by riverbank erosion (d) in the Sundarbans (Source: Authors’ own).

Khal, Kalir Khal, and the sea shore at Khejurdana of Sundarbans in the Greater Jashore-Khulna region. Some of these structures have been destroyed and exposed because of riverbank erosion after the recession of flood water and tidal surge. It is predictable that there are several other remains which are yet to be detected within the dense forest characterised by continuous erosion and deposition, ebb and tide, and flood (Figure 6.9c and d). The nature of these partially exposed and destroyed structural remains is unknown. The structural mounds are preserved in several locations as clustered pattern, and systematic excavations are needed to determine their nature and their relationship with the dynamic fluvial process. Associated pottery from these sites can be typologically dated to the tenth to twelfth centuries and later. The salt-making structural remains are not from later than the medieval period. Remains of the structural remains are exposed by the erosion and migration of the rivers at Khejurdana, and the remains are partially visible during the short interval between the two cycles of tides. The nature of this structure cannot be determined because of the lack of visibility and very poor accessibility. There are square brickbuilt structures in a linear pattern measuring at least 800–900 m. There is a square hole at the centre of each of these structures (Mahmud 2018). Future systematic investigations with a contextually informed methodology may shed light on these structural remains on the riverbed on the coast. The structural remains can be completely eroded by the riverbed erosion at any

184  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita moment. This risk is applicable to most of the archaeological sites within the mangrove forest area, which is changing annually and persistently, especially because of the impacts of climate change (Sen 2018b). In referent to these new findings, it can be inferred that human occupation in the area which is now occupied by the mangrove forest and coastal depositional environment was occupied during the ninth and tenth centuries CE or earlier. Interestingly, occupational activity continued with a change in the spatial and functional pattern during the medieval period. According to Sen (Swadhin Sen, personal correspondence), the fundamental question is: if there were similar ecological conditions in this area as it is at present, why did the anthropogenic intervention and occupation to a considerable extent take place? How have human activities adapted and transformed with the changing landscape and fluvial ecology? What was the nature of these structural remains and settlements which were formed deep into a dynamic and apparently inaccessible ecozone? The answers to these questions demand rethinking our perceptions about human–landscape interaction and human adaptation to the ecological milieu, which are recognised as unstable and unsuitable as a human habitat. As the number and preservation nature of several sites denote, and as the spatial pattern of these settlements manifest, Sundarbans was occupied earlier than what is assumed and, perhaps, these occupational activities had their significance and purpose which are different than the other ecozones of Bengal. Different activities pertaining to the production (i.e., salt) and the Bay of Bengal trade have to be taken into account for rethinking the human adaptive patterns in the dynamic littoral landscape (Sen 2018a; Mukherjee 2011; Chakraborty 2017, pp. 27–58).

Epigraphic and sculptural materials: A short enumeration Epigraphic records from the early medieval period have not yet been reported from the southwestern part of Bangladesh. Three copperplate inscriptions of Lakṣmaṇasena (c. eleventh to twelfth centuries CE) and a copperplate inscription of Dommonpāla (c. eleventh to twelfth centuries CE) have been found in Sundarbans and adjacent areas in the similar landscape context in the part of West Bengal, India (Mukherji and Maity 1967, pp. 74, 79, 83, 290, 333; Sanyal 2010). Several epigraphic evidences from the medieval period are reported from the southwestern part of Bangladesh. According to the inscription, Masjidbaria Mosque was built in 907 AH (1465 CE) during the reign of Sultan Rukn al-dīn Bārbak Shāh (Azad 2003, p. 189; Zakariah 2011, p. 442). An inscription of 907 AH (1501 CE) has been discovered from a ruined mosque at Arshnagar of Dumuria Upazila in Khulna District (Rahman 2017, p. 81). Two inscriptions, probably of Sultanate period (not yet been deciphered), have been found from a ruined mosque at Sharifpur in Jashore (Hossain 2005, p. 24). A terracotta brick inscription (from

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  185 Jorbangla Mosque) (Qadir 1999, pp. 250–251) and a stone inscription (from Satgachhiya Mosque) of Sultan Māhmud Shāh have been reported from this region (Qadir 1999, pp. 251, 253). Another terracotta brick inscription from this region issued during the reign of Sultan Ghiyath al-dīn Māhmud Shāh is presently preserved in an Indian museum. On the other hand, many stone images of the early medieval period have been found in this region. Mitra (2013), Jalil (1991), and Hossain (2004) have mentioned a considerable number of sculptures from this region. We may cite a few examples. These are: an image of Ganga was (from Isvaripur of Satkhira District) (Haque 1992, p. 85) a unique six-armed stone image of seated Devi (Bhūvaneśvarī) (from Sheikhhati, Jashore) (Zakariah 2011, p. 379; Haque 1992, p. 218), a black stone image of seated Viṣṇu (from Sundarbans area) (Haque 1992, p. 85), an image of Gaṅga on makara (from Isvaripur in Satkhira) (Haque 1992, p. 304), an idol of Visnu (from Mahesvarpasha in Khulna) (Haque 1992, p. 77), an idol of Buddhist creed (from Thakur Dighi at Bagerhat) (Mevissen 2015, p. 42, 64; Alam 1985, pp. 182, 184–85), a few stone slabs of a door frame of a temple carved with Laksṣmi, Bidyadhari and Ganga (from Naldanga of Jashore) (Zakariah 2010, p. 376), an image of Viṣṇu is being worshiped at present in a temple at Tala bazar of Satkhira, a Parimala image (from Kaira Upazila of Khulna) (Mitra 2013, p. 496), a Viṣṇu image (from Bedkashi of Kaira Upazil), an image of Mārīci (from Khulna), an Aṣṭādaśvūjā Mahiṣmardinī image (from Panighat of Bagerhat) (Mitra 2013, p. 176; Jalil 1991, p. 224), and a Caturvūja Viṣṇu image (from Kharamkhali near Chitalmari village of Bagerhat) (Jalil 1991, p. 225). Sculptures of animals, such as an image of crocodile, were recovered from Varat Rajar Bari at Gaurighona, Keshobpur, Jashore (Zakariah 2011, p. 382). Four sculptures were found from Khulna, but their current location is unknown. They are: a Vāsudeva image from Kalibari, a Viṣṇu and a Garura found from Senhati, and a Narayana image from Sripur (Hossain 2004, p. 39). Even if we consider the pattern of reuse of these idols in various temporal and spatial context after their primary provenance, the presence of archaeological settlements of the early medieval period attests to the fact that most of these images were primarily worshipped in different edifices in this region since the ninth to tenth centuries CE.

Early Medieval and medieval settlements in the deltaic landscape: a brief appraisal The representation of archaeological data above, albeit, in a nutshell, obliges us to rethink the established narrative of the history of human occupation in this region of the Ganges Delta. In Bangladesh archaeology, this region has been marginalised, citing its younger age and the instability of fluvial processes and landforms. The instability and continuous dynamics are assumed as unsuitable for human occupation and activities. The

186  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita studies in the adjacent landscape zones of West Bengal, however, revealed settlements and archaeological places dating from the early historic period (Chattapadhyaya 2018; Chakraborty 2017). Concentration on monumental remains and neglect of systematic and scientific methods of surveying and excavation, besides, have misled scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds. New and contextually informed application of the transdisciplinary methodology, as it has briefly been shown in this chapter, can reveal the intricacy of the landscape–human interaction in this region. Preliminary analyses of the locations of archaeological sites and monuments from various time frames, as have been enumerated in previous sections, clearly suggest that the early medieval settlements and sites are distributed on coastal tidal delta and mature delta dotted by paludal deposits. The distribution pattern remained analogous even in the medieval period irrespective of the age of the landscape and the processes associated with them. The changes in the pattern and nature have been part and parcel of the human activity patterns in the region. The changes, nevertheless, have had very little or nothing to do with the dynamic and often unstable fluvial and coastal environment. Rather, the human activity patterns and their changes in this region must be addressed as a continuous negotiation and adaptation to the transformations which have been more intense, rapid, and unpredictable than in other ecological zones of Bangladesh (Sen 2018a, 2018b). The excavated places and material culture could be useful for understanding the settlement nature and structure. Khalifatābād was a relatively well-demarcated and mature urban centre than the contemporary Māhmudābād, which was probably a satellite or small town. The settlements in Jhurijhara, Bharat Bhayna, and Dalijhara developed around these monuments on a relatively higher landform. The zone from Kapilmuni to Shamnagar is densely occupied by early medieval structural-cum-habitational remains. It is not possible to identify their nature as urban or rural. Rather, as Sen (2018c, 2017) has suggested, for the northwestern part of Bangladesh, we need to contextualise the spatiotemporal patterns of the archaeological data. The settlements and their spatial extent and nature have to be determined after a careful and systematic understanding of the space and its variabilities. Several settlements were connected with the trade and exchange networks, as is attested by pottery and cowries (which were imported from the Maldives in exchange for river and were exported to various parts of the world from Bengal). Local exchange network based on such daily essentials as salt must be taken into consideration (Sen 2018a). Taking all these variabilities of material culture and production processes, the settlements nature and their networks must be understood and interpreted. It is evident that many of these rural and different variants of urban settlements did not have any specific and permanent boundaries in the form of a wall or moat. The settlements with walls and moats cannot be identified unquestionably as urban either. The settlement boundaries, at least the habitational-ritualistic space, were probably demarcated by the natural

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  187 features of an alluvial landscape, which were subject to unpredictable changes (Sen 2018a, 2018b). The landform between the wide lowlands cut and fill by the channels was primarily preferred for habitational activities. There is considerable evidence of the construction of religious edifices in lowlands or wetlands, like the temple of Jhurijhara Dhibi. These lowlands were cultivated and used for various aquatic resources. In this condition, the settlement formation was primarily determined by ecological processes and the concentration, density, area, and contiguousness of the settlements were interacted with the landforms which are not inundated during the tide. Further studies with a very systematic endorsement of space and its variability would be able to provide more specific details about the nature, pattern, and networks of settlements in this region from the early medieval to the medieval period (Sen 2018a, 2018b). They force us to rethink the chronology of the human occupation in the active and moribund part of the deltaic landscape. The entire landscape was occupied earlier than the medieval period as far as the landscape and settlements in present West Bengal, India, are concerned. For this part, we have found archaeological evidence of a large scale and intense human occupation down to the present coastal area, and this occupation can convincingly be dated to the ninth to tenth centuries CE or even earlier. Future non-exclusive surveying in a systematic manner may reveal more archaeological evidence, and the temporality of early medieval might be traced back further. The mangrove forest of Sundarbans, a world heritage site, can be traced on the palaeobotanical ground more than 7000–8000 years ago from the present (Aziz and Paul 2015, p. 245). The mangrove ecosystem has been subject to disappearance and reappearance alternatively through time (Hait and Behling 2009). Historical, geological, and geographical data suggest that various natural calamities like cyclones, floods, storms, coastal erosions and depositions, riverine shifts, climate change, and sea-level rise have transformed the landscape as well as the forest ecosystem. Mitra (2013, pp. 253– 260) noted at the beginning of the twentieth century that the Sundarbans was moving away towards the south. This mangrove forest expands and shrinks at different times. He also mentioned that the evidence of a mangrove forest is buried under present Khulna city. Textual sources also refer to the well-wooded, and marshy environment around the medieval settlements that existed within the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Sarkār Khalifatābād and Sarkār Māhmudābād. The urban centres of Khalifatābād and the semiurban settlement of Māhmudābād, we may assume, were surrounded by a mangrove ecosystem as well as agricultural land. The cultivation in this region began well before the medieval period, and the settlements of the early medieval period in this region were primarily supported by an agrarian production system supported possibly by the transitional zone of trade and exchange between seascape and inland territories (Sen 2018a). Sarkar Khalifatābād is well-wooded and holds wild elephants (Allami 1891, p. 123). It had various castes, 100 cavalries, and 15,150 infantries

188  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita (Allami 1891, p. 134). Abul Fazl Allami (1891, p. 123), during the reign of Emperor Akbar, described Sarkār Māhmudābād as: the marshes around the fort have added to its impregnability. The ruler of this district, at the time of its conquest by Sher Khan let some of his elephants loose in its forest from which time they have abounded. Long peeper grows in this tract. The name ‘bhati’ is mentioned by Allami (1891) [lowlands overflowed by the tides (Allami 1891, p. 116)] and was ascribed to the region also by the medieval chroniclers during their coastal trip to the Sundarbans from Hijjli to Meghna. This region denoting term is still popular. We must point at the famous and popular thesis by Richard Eaton (1990) about the expansion of Islam in Bengal. Sen (2018a, 2018b) has argued already that his thesis is untenable in the light of the human occupation in the southwestern part of Bangladesh. Eatonian thesis about the expansion of Islam with the aid of cultivation (of especially wet rice) and Sufi pirs has been problematised by Sen (2018a). At the beginning of the twentieth century, Mitra (2013) and other scholars supplied valuable information about pre-medieval settlements in different parts of the Sundarbans and other regions to the north (in Khulna-Jashore area). It is not possible for us to engage with the elaborate theories proposed by Eaton about the process of religious expansion in this deltaic zone (Eaton 1993). In contrast to his arguments, as Sen has shown clearly (Sen 2018a), irrefutable evidence of settlement formation and development before the fifteenth century is available from archaeological and other sources. Comparatively detailed and extensive archaeological data from the part of West Bengal, India, provide ample evidence of the human occupation and intervention in the coastal and tidal landscape (Basak 2014; Chakraborty 2017) (Figure 6.10). The date of these events and processes, as we have mentioned before, goes back to the early historical period (c. from fourth century to third century BCE). The date of the landscape and its geomorphological and depositional character has not changed drastically, even if the gradual avulsion of the Ganges River from the west to the east is considered. Sen (2018a, 2018b) has emphatically pointed out that the rivers and riverine landscape have been changing for the past 3,000 years. The instability or catastrophic changes in the fluvial environment has influenced the spatiotemporal nature and structure of the human occupation and effected the strategies for human adaptation to the landscape. The changing character of this landscape has had nothing to do with the temporality of human occupation in this region. Rather, the processes and strategies of human interaction with the landscape and forest must be understood as a complex and ever-transforming reciprocal relationship where agriculture and other activities were initiated by the human occupants to a considerable extent since the middle of the first millennium. Further research may even push back the date. The spatial patterns and structures of the settlements changed in accordance with the changing

Figure 6.10 Spatial pattern of archaeological places and settlements in the active Ganges Delta and littoral zone of Bangladesh and West Bengal, India (Source: Authors’ own, modified after Basak 2014).

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  189

190  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita ecology, landscape, and fluvial dynamics of the region. Further studies from transdisciplinary perspectives are essential to elucidate the intricate details of the spatiotemporal dynamics and processes of these changes.

Acknowledgements This chapter is a culmination of a few years spent in the archaeological fieldwork in the greater Khulna-Jashore region of the southwestern part of Bangladesh. We are grateful to Md. Altaf Hossain and Md. Hannan Mia, Director Generals of the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh, for allowing us to conduct the archaeological survey and excavations and for the permission to publish the preliminary outcomes. We would like to thank all the members of the archaeological excavation team of the Regional Directorate Office, Department of Archaeology, Khulna and Barisal Division, for their valuable contribution and effort in the fieldwork. We would like to express our gratitude to Professor Swadhin Sen, our teacher of the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, for encouraging us to write this chapter with his continuous guidance and suggestions.

Notes 1 Archaeological survey and exploration have been conducted by AKM Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita in Khulna, Jashore, and Satkhira region from 2014 to 2020. 2 Personal contact with Jummon sheikh of Khān Jāhān (r.) mazar area, Bagerhat. He provided the information and photograph of the coin. The coin probably found from Kotwali Chowtara near Khanjahan (r:) residence mound. 3 An exploratory visit has been made by the authors in 2016. The total area is covering a large ancient settlement with archaeological remains of structural ruins (brick walls, huge brickbats, and stone fragments) pottery and stone assemblages. 4 The coins acquired by local police and handover six silver coins to the Department of Archaeology, Khulna. The coins were so corroded that they were difficult to decipher. The letters on the obverse and reverse suggest that they were issued during the Sultanate period.

References Alam, A. K. M. S., (1985). Sculptural art of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology and Museum. Alam, M. K., Hasan, A. K. M. S., Khan, M. R. and Whitney, J. W., (1999). Geological map of Bangladesh. [Viewed 25 April 2020]. Available from: https:// pubs​.usgs​.gov​/of​/1997​/ofr​-97​-470​/OF97​-470H​/ofr97470H​_geo​.pdf. Alamgir, K., (1998). Archaeological remains at Barabazar, Jhenaidah District. Journal of Bengal Art. 3, 276. Allami, A. F., (1891). Ain-i-Akbari. Translated from Persian by H. S. Jarrett. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, Baptist Mission Press.

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  191 Alison, M. A., Khan, S. R., Goodbred, S. and Kuehl, S., (2003). Stratigraphic evolution of the late Holocene Ganges-Brahmaputra lower delta plain. Sedimentary Geology. 155(3–4), 317–342. Azad, A. K., (2003). Bibichini Mosque (Betagi) Barguna: reflection on its architectural features. Journal of Bengal Art. 8, 185–189. Aziz, A. and Paul, A. R., (2015). Bangladesh Sundarbans: present status of the environment and Biota. Diversity [online]. 7, 242–269. [Viewed 22 March 2020]. Available from: https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/d7030242. Basak, B., (2014). Interpreting historical archaeology of coastal Bengal: possibilities and limitations. In: D. N. Jha, ed. The complex heritage of early India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors. Bhattacharya, A., (1977). Historical geography of ancient and early mediaeval Bengal. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. Brammer, H., (2012). The physical geography of Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Ltd. Bysack, G. B., (1867). On the antiquities of Bagerhat. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. XXXVI(I), 118–135. Chakraborty, S., (2017). Archaeological sites of lower deltaic region of West Bengal and their context: some preliminary observations. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 8, 27–58. Chattopadhyaya, R. K., (2018). The archaeology of coastal Bengal. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chowdhury, A. M., (2012). Gangaridai. In: S. Islam, ed. Banglapedia: National Enclyclopedia of Bangladesh. 2nd ed. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. [online] [Viewed 24 April 2020]. Available from: http://en​.banglapedia​.org​/index​ .php​?title​=Gangaridai. Datta, K., (1934). The antiquities of Sundarbans. Varendra Research Society’s Monographs. 5, 1–16. Dikshit, K. N., (1924). Barat Bhayna and Kodla. In: D. B. Spooner, ed. Annual report of the archaeological survey of India 1921–22. Simla: Government of India Press, p. 76. Eaton, R. M., (1990). Human settlement and colonization in the Sundarbans, 1200– 1750. Agriculture and Human Values. Spring 7(2), 6–16. Eaton, R. M., (1993). The rise of Islam and the Bengal frontier, 1204–1760. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Folch, D. ed., (2008). Els grans viatges de Zheng He [The Seas of Zheng He]. Barcelona: Angle Editorial. [Viewed 14 February 2019]. Available from: https:// www.researchgate. net/p​ublic​ation​/3238​70005​_The_​Seas_​of_Zh​eng_H​e Hait, A. K. and Behling, H., (2009). Holocene mangrove and coastal environmental changes in the western Ganga-Brahmaputra Delta, India. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 18(2), 159–169. Haque, E., (1992). Bengal sculptures: Hindu iconography upto c. 1250 A.D. Dhaka: Bangladesh National Museum. Hossain, M. M., (2005). Greater Jessore: archaeological survey report. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs. Hossain, M. M. ed., (2004). Archaeological survey report of Greater Khulna. Dhaka: Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs. Hunter, W. W., (1877). A statistical account of Bengal, Vol. II: Districts of Nadiya Jessor. London: Trubner & Co.

192  A. K. M. Syfur Rahman and Afroza Khan Mita Huque, E., (2018). Mapping Bengal. [Viewed 24 March 2019]. Available from: https://mappingbengal​.com​/the​-de​-barros​-map. Islam, S. N., (2016). Deltaic floodplains development and wetland ecosystems management in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Rivers Delta in Bangladesh. Sustainable Water Resources Management. 2, 237–256. Islam, S. N. and Gnauck, A., (2008). Mangrove wetland ecosystems in GangesBrahmaputra delta in Bangladesh. Frontiers of Earth Sciences in China. 2(4), 439–448. Iqbal, I., (2010). The Bengal delta: ecology, state and social change 1840–1943. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jalil, A. F. M., (1991). Sundarbaner Itihas [History of the Sundarbans]. Dhaka: Ahmed Publishing House. Karim, A., (1960). Corpus of the Muslim Coins of Bengal (Down to A.D. 1538). Dacca: Asiatic Society of Pakistan. Karim, A., (1992). Corpus of the Muslim coins of Bengal (down to A.D. 1538). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Mahmud, I., (2018). ‘Early settlement discovered in Sundarbans, revealing rich civilization’ (translated in English by Ayesha Kabir). Prothom Alo [online]. 28 Febaruary 2018. [Viewed 1 July 2018]. Available from: http://en​.prothomalo​ .com​/bangladesh​/news​/171783​/Early​-settlement​-discovered​-in​-Sundarbans. Mazumdar, R. C., (1945). Bangladesher Itihas (Prachin Joug) [History of Bangladesh (Ancient Period)]. Kolkata: General Printers and Publishers. Mevissen, G. J. R., (2015). SciBa update 1: addenda, corrigenda, desiderata et monenda to “Sculptures in Bangladesh” (2008). In: M. H. Bhuiyan, ed. Studies in South Asian heritage: essays in memory of M Harunur Rashid. Dhaka: Bangla Academy. pp. 37–94. Mita, A. K. and Rahman, A. K. M. S., (2018). Rethinking the archaeological remains of Barat Bhayna. In: A. M. Chowdhury and R. Chakravarti, eds. History of Bangladesh: early Bengal in regional perspectives (up to c.1200 CE): Vol. 1. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 416–424. Mitra, P. K., (2010). Rediscovering Gaur: source material in the public collections of the United Kingdom. Journal of Bengal Art. 15, 9–48. Mitra, S., (2013). Jasohor Khulnar Itihas [History of Jessor-Khulna]: Vol. 1. Kolkata: Dey’s Publication. Mukherjee, B. N., (1987). The territory of Gangaridai. Indian Journal of Landscape Systems and Ecological Studies. II, 65–90. Mukherjee, R. ed., (2011). Pelagic passageways: the Northern Bay of Bengal before colonialism. New Delhi: Primus Books. Mukherji, R. and Maity, S. K., (1967). Corpus of Bengal inscription. Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay. Panja, S., Nag, A. K. and Bandyopadhyay, S., (2015). Living with floods. Archaeology of a settlement in the Lower Ganga Plains, c. 600–1800 CE. New Delhi: Primus Book. Qadir, M. A., (1999). Eight unpublished Sultanate period inscriptions of Bengal. Journal of Bengal Art. 4, 250–251. Rahman, A. K. M. S., (2015). Archaeological excavation: Khanjahan (r:) Residence Mound, 2014–15. Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Regional Directorate office, Khulna and Barisal Division. Unpublished report. Rahman, A. K. M. S., (2016). Archaeological excavation: Khanjahan (r:) Residence Mound, 2015–16. Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs,

Early medieval and medieval settlements on the littoral  193 Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Regional Directorate office, Khulna and Barisal Division. Unpublished report. Rahman, A. K. M. S., Alam, M. S. and Hasnat, U., (2020). Preliminary excavation report: Jhurijhara Mound, Tala, Satkhira. Khulna: Regional Directorate Office, Khulna and Barisal Division, Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Unpublished report. Rahman, M., (2017). Khulnar purakirti [Antiquities of Khulna]. Dhaka: Jatiya Sahitya Prokash. Rainey, J. R., (1891). The Sundarban: its physical features and ruins. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography. 13(5), 273–287. Sanyal, R., (2010). Copperplate Inscriptions of West Bengal: finding find-spots and locating localities. Pratnasamiksha (New Series). 1, 107–134. Sen, S., (2014). Crossing the boundaries of the archaeology of Somapura Mahavihara: alternative approaches and propositions. Pratnatattva. 20, 49–79. Sen, S., (2017). Landscape contexts of the early medieval settlements in Varendri/ Gauda: an outline on the basis of total surveying and excavation in DinajpurJoypurhat Districts, Bangladesh. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 8, 59–109. Sen, S., (2018a). Banglai Islamer Prasar Samparkito Eaton er tattwer parjalochana [online]. A lecture presented under series organized by Bodhichitta (Jahangirgar University. [Viewed 20 March 2020]. Available from: https://www​.youtube​.com​ /watch​?v​=tch​_AXNMkCc. Sen, S., (2018b). Engaging with the ‘pasts’ at the ‘presents’ of the Anthropocene: beyond accepted wisdom on climate change and heritage in Southwest coastal region of Bangladesh. Khulna. Project planning workshop on Enhancing Climate Resilience to Heritage Sites in Coastal Region of Bangladesh. 25–28 November 2018. Organized by UNDP in collaboration with Department of Archaeology, Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, UNESCO and IDCOL. [Unpublished paper]. Sen, S., (2018c). Northwestern Bangladesh: sites and settlements. In: A. M. Chowdhury and R. Chakravarti, eds. History of Bangladesh: early Bengal in regional perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 317–350. Sen, T., (2015). Buddhism, diplomacy and trade: realignment of Indian-China relations, 600–1400. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Kittlefield. Sinha, S., (2010). The coin collection of the Bengal Sultans in the cabinet of Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 1, 163–175/172. Sinha, S., (2012). Settlement pattern through archaeological finds. Special issue, Gaur: the medieval city of Bengal (c.1405–1565). Pratna Samiksha (New Series). 3, 127–137. Smith, M. L., (2006). The archaeology of South Asian cities. Journal of Archaeological Research. 14(2), 97–142. Westland, J., (1871). A report on the district on Jessore: its antiquities, its history and its commerce. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Office. Zakariah, A. K. M., (2010). Bangladesher prottnosampad [Archaeological assets of Bangladesh]. Dhaka: Shilpakala Academy.

7

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements A precursory understanding of the landscape archaeology of Teesta Megafan of Bangladesh Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

The river is there; the river is nowhere: The limits to comprehending the entangled (im)permanence Investigations of the alluvial landscape within an archaeological framework are quite common in different parts of the world. Despite the formidable developments and sophistication in various methods of the earth sciences and their applications to solve archaeological problems, the region of Bengal or the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) Delta has remained almost outside the domains of these new developments. We attempt to engage with the events, processes, and transformations of human–landscape entwinement in a specific landscape unit known as the Teesta Megafan (hereafter referred to as TMF). The songs belonging to Bhawaiya genre in the Greater Rangpur area adjacent to the Teesta River system represent the entanglement of the Teesta River and human life, living, emotion, and transformation on the landform (for example, Sheikh 2019; Haque 2019; Dav 2016). Sudden and catastrophic as well as the regular and gradual metamorphosis of the water flow, the landscape formation (and erosion), and, most significantly, the flood (and scarcity of water flow and volume of water in the channels) are entwined with the anthropogenic activities on this landscape. The flow, land, and human life are so intimately enmeshed in one another that modern cartographic perception of the landscape is often in a dilemma. While referring to this dilemma, Debesh Roy (1988), in his widely acclaimed fiction – Teesta Paarer Britanto (Chronicles of Teesta) – detailed the problem of the land surveyor preparing cadastral map with land ownership. ‘Nodi aacche, ki nai’ (‘whether the river is there or not’) – is the title of one of the sections where a landowner tries his best to present evidence of his land ownership (Roy 1988, pp. 83–93). A decade ago, the land was there on the bank of the Teesta. Now, the river has changed its flow and has eroded the land. The land was here, and the river was there, at a distance.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003340416-9

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  195

The landscape of the Teesta Megafan: Previous studies and their shortcomings for attending to archaeological problems Several publications have already illustrated various geomorphological, sedimentological, and temporal aspects of the Teesta Megafan (TMF). Studies by Abrahami et al. (2018) and Chakraborty and Ghosh (2010) can be mentioned immediately. They have studied the megafan on a macro scale, and the sampling locations of their studies are restricted to the part now included in India, even though the larger portion of the megafan is in present-day Bangladesh (Figure 7.1) They have proposed that this megafan is a triangular, multilobate landform which is one of the several fluvial megafans in the proximal foreland of the Himalayas. The Teesta Megafan is bounded by two hinterland catchment-fed large braided rivers – the present Teesta on the east and the Mahananda on the west. The drainage pattern on the megafan, according to them, is radial, and there are many plain-fed entrenched and sinuous streams in this network. The megafan has a convex upwards cross profile and concave upwards radial profile. The lobes of the megafan have been classified by Chakraborty and Ghosh (2010) based on the discordance of drainage at the boundaries. Sandy sheet braided-stream deposits dominate the proximal and the medial part of the megafan. Low-energy sand-mud channel deposits characterise the distal part. Simultaneously, deposits of marsh and lake become more frequent and expansive in the distal part. The average slope of the megafan is about 0.5. The multilobate character of the TMF has been identified as unique by scholars, and this multilobate character is discernible by the laterally stacked up multiple convex up segments. Three lobes have been identified by Chakraborty and Ghosh (2010). Chronometric dates are available from the samples of the part in India. Abrahami et al. (2018), Singh et al. (2016), and Chakraborty et al. (2010) have published OSl and IRSL dates. It has been postulated that lobe 2 is older than lobe 1. Different studies have classified the region according to the authors’ specific disciplinary orientations, methodology, and objectives. Alam et al. (1990) have divided the area into the Teesta Alluvial Fan (old) and the Teesta Alluvial Fan (young); Reimann (1993) categorised the area into the Himalayan Piedmont Plain and the Teesta Floodplain; and Brammer (2012) classified the zone into the Western Old Himalayan Piedmont Plain and the Eastern Teesta Floodplain. Various aspects of the geology of the Teesta Megafan in Bangladesh have been studied (Grimaud et al. 2019; Hossain 1996; Kabir et al. 2009; Khan et al. 1990; Roy, Ahmed and Aktar 2004; Sarker et al. 2009), and also that in India (Abrahami et al. 2018; Chakraborty and Ghose 2010; Mukhopadhayay 1982). Despite these studies, as has been mentioned earlier, the scales, objectives, and outcomes of these scholarly endeavours have very little relevance from an archaeological perspective.

196  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Figure 7.1 Teeta Megafan (TMF) and its geomorphological context. The interpretive zones are based upon the patterning of archaeological places/settlements and associated channel patterns. They have been shown by solid lines (Source: Authors’ own).

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  197 There are a number of studies on sedimentology and tectonic structures and their history on a deeper temporal scale (e.g., Akhter et al. 2019; Alam et al. 2003; Alison 1998; Goodbred Jr. et al. 2003; Grimaud et al. 2019; Kuehl et al. 2005). Bangladesh constitutes the eastern continuation of the central broad Indo-Gangetic plain of the Indian subcontinent between the Peninsular (shield) area to the south and the extra-Peninsular (Himalayan mountains) region to the north and north-east. Bengal Basin is located in the eastern part of the plain having a complex tectonic history. Based on the results of geophysical surveys, geological mapping and borelog data, Bangladesh part of the Bengal Basin could be divided into two major divisions: (a) the Rangpur Platform (also known as ‘Indian platform’ or ‘Stable shelf’) and (b) the Bengal Foredeep (Reimann 1993; Reitz et al. 2015). The summarised characterisation of the Teesta Megafan in the context of the Bengal Basin and the Trans-Himalayan and Himalayan Foreland zone above is relevant to archaeological studies to a certain limit (see Sen 2017, 2015a, 2012). The reasons for these shortcomings could be pointed out as follows. First, the spatial and temporal scales of earth science studies have traditionally dealt with longer and broader frameworks. The archaeological data and their geoarchaeological context are temporally circumscribed to late Holocene period (Rajnagar Quadrangular, compact, walled settlement, 96.3 Mirgarh Unidentified, compact, walled settlement, 55.3

Bhitargarh

Name of the settlement/place

(Source: Authors’ own)

Database code

Sl. No.

Medieval(?)

Medieval (?)

Early medieval and medieval(?) Early medieval and medieval Medieval (?)

Medieval

Medieval (?) Medieval (?)

Early medieval and medieval Early medieval and medieval Early medieval and medieval Medieval (?)

Time frame

Table 7.2 Archaeological places/settlements and their spatiotemporal and formal context in zone 1

Karatoya

Karatoya

Karatoya and Ghoramara Karatoya

Sui

Dahuk

Karatoya Karatoya

Karatoya

Chawai and Karatoya

Talma (and Shalmara), Sui and Kurum Talma and Karatoya

Contextually associated channels

208  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  209

Figure 7.4 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 1 of TMF (Source: Authors’ own).

210  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam Panchagarh District) and the present course of Teesta River. Talma River, as a tributary of the Karatoya River, flows down from the north and acts as the moat between two outermost quadrangles to the west. Another channel gets into the fourth and third quadrangles from the northwest and passes out through the south-west corner of the two concentric quadrangles. This part of the channel inside the fourth and third enclosures is known as Shalmara River. The western wall of the second quadrangle follows the meandering channel planform of this river which is ephemeral. Another tributary of Ghoramara River, known as Kurum, flowed close to the eastern side of the fourth quadrangle. Another completely abandoned tributary of the former river, locally known as Sui, flows towards the north, and it goes through another wall to the south of the core walled area and touches the southern wall of the fourth quadrangle. The topography is also gradually sloping from 92 m to 81 m to the north of the walled settlement. The slope gradually declines also to the south from 88 m to 76 m. Jahan (2018) has already mentioned that the branch of the Talma River is entirely straight and acts as the moat between fourth and third quadrangle. This channel is evidently anthropogenically modified. We contend that this entire moat is evidence of channelisation, and it was created by connecting the northern part of the Talma-Shalmara River and the southern part of the Talma-Shalmara River. The channel pattern inside and outside the walled spaces suggests that the quadrangles were not built simultaneously. The entire plan of the settlement went through episodic modifications, additions, and restorations (Figures 7.4 and 7.18). It is possible to hint at the processes through which an encultured landscape fashioned and refashioned. The eastern wall of the second quadrangle, predominantly built of brick, was constructed on an abandoned meander loop which is now is detectable as low lying. The remains of another partially preserved mud wall in the east to west orientation in the space between the second and third quadrangle in the north and the south points at the impact of fluvial activities inside the walled space. The northern one has spatially coincided with the abandoned beds of Shalmara (Talma). These water architectures and intervention into channel morphology and pattern characterise the continuous interaction or continuous anthropogenic response to a channel and to a location which is on the Himalayan forelands with regular flash floods and high risk of seismic activities. Talma is a channel which was formed upstream by two channels originating from the Jangalmahal of the Tarai region in West Bengal. It is a distributary of the Teesta River. Kurum was a distributary of Talma originating just above the north-eastern corner of the walled settlement. It is quite probable that Kurum was a later channel that emerged because of the human intervention into the Talma basin. Eventually, it died later either

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  211 because of continuous intervention into the channel or because of the gradual decline of upstream water intake and the downstream changes in the Teesta-Karatoya system. The wall to the south running west to east is partially preserved, and it can be assumed that it went up to the Talma and was connected to the southeast corner of the walled space. The later erosion and eastward lateral movement of the Talma River eroded this wall. The remnant of a paleochannel to the west of the channelised Talma River attests to the transformation. The signature of moat and mud walls are still detectable at the southeast of the third quadrangle despite the recent anthropogenic modifications and destructions of the settlement by the migrated locals. This wall and a few other mud/brick-built constructions in the corners of the walled settlement were later additions, as has been proposed by Haque (2014), like a quadrangular enclosed space to the external side of the northwest corner. The location of the settlement in a transitional zone between various subregional entities in the early medieval period is incredibly significant. It is situated in the zone where the sub-regions of Varendrī, Kāmrūpa, Bhutan, and the northern part of Bihar, along with routes to and from Nepal and Tibet, merged with one another. There are, moreover, remains of several mud walls on the left bank of the present Karatoya River at a distance of 9.40 km from the western wall of the fourth quadrangle of Bhitargarh. Generally, this space enclosed by mud walls is identified as Devnagar>Debengarh (city of Gods). There are a few other dilapidated and almost unrecognizable remains of mud walls, which are popularly known as Moinagurir Garh (narrated to be a long mud wall crossing the Karatoya River up to the present North Dinajpur, West Bengal, India) and Bangla Chandi Garh. The mud walls are destroyed by both riverbank erosion and by recent anthropogenic modification. The dates of these walled settlements are debatable in the absence of any datable remains. Devnagar > Debengarh, now, represents the remains of a mud wall with semi-circular projection, and it is conventionally dated to the pre-thirteenth century CE, and other mud walls are dated to the medieval period. Another substantial walled settlement is located just opposite to space with mud walls in the North Dinajpur district of West Bengal, India. This square walled settlement (covering 17.8 hectares) is on the right bank of the present Karatoya channel and is known as Hossengarh. In the popular narrative, this walled settlement was built during the expedition of Alā al-dīn Ḥusain Shāh (c. 1494–1519 CE) to conquer Kāmrūpa (present Cooch Behar, Assam, and Meghalaya of India). Other archaeological places, like the Buruj to the west of a larger tank of Kajla Dighi, are dated to the ninth to tenth centuries CE or later (Zakariah 2010, 2011; Hossain et al. 1995). This mound is associated with the Sui River, which ended abruptly at the northern edge of Bhitargarh and is a tributary of the Ghoramara River. To the south, two walled settlements, known as Mirgarh and Rajnagar > Rajangarh, are located within the Panchagarh

212  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam Sadar Upazila (the district headquarter) close to the right bank of the present channel of Karatoya River. Remains of mud walls and surviving moats of this walled settlement could be detected with difficulties now. Towards the south, another noteworthy walled settlement is situated 21 km to the southeast of the southern wall of the fourth quadrangle of Bhitargarh. This small and square walled settlement (covering 198 hectares) is known locally as Bahirgarh (the walled space at the exterior, in contrast to Bhitargarh – the walled space at the interior) or Bodeshwari Garh. A colonial-period temple of the goddess Bodeshwari is located at the centre of this garh. This garh has two consecutive mud walls as the enclosure with a moat in between. The north-western corners of the enclosure wall and the northern part of the enclosure wall have been ruined by riverbank erosion. Based on pottery and other artefacts from the surface of the enclosed space, the settlement has been dated to the pre-thirteenth century CE. In the popular narratives, this walled settlement and temple are identified as the shelter of Muhammad Bakhtiyār Khalji during the retreat after the failed expedition to Kāmrūpa or Tibet in 1206 CE. We do not have any corroborative evidence to attest to this narrative. There are several other mounds and mud walls within Boda, Atwari, and Tentulia Upazila of Panchagarh District (Haque 2014). The location of Bodeshwari Garh on the left bank of the present channel of Karatoya suggests that the course of the Karatoya in the ninth to tenth centuries CE was close to this settlement. One may hypothesise that the course of Karatoya flowed straight towards the north through the zone to its north characterised by the present course of Ghoramara River and other sinuous streams with low width/depth ratio. In this case, the Karatoya was connected to the Teesta River’s contemporary course(s) in Jalpaiguri and region towards the north. The course continued towards downstream and took any of the palaeochannels to the east of present Atrai and oscillated up to the courses of Deonai-Jamuneshwari in lobe 1. Specific episodes of this fluid history of the flows from the channel of the Karatoya to the CharalkataDeonai were connected to the palaeocourse of Teesta to the north of present Domar-Dimla Upazila. The eighteenth-century flow of Karatoya, depicted by Rennel, is not akin to the courses during the sixth to fifteenth centuries CE. The locations of the mid and downstream of Karatoya can be predicted based upon their association with archaeological settlements and places downwards from Parbatipur (see Sen et al. in this volume). The Karatoya River to the west of Panchagarh was depicted as a western tributary of the Teesta River by Rennel. In the chronicles of Buchanon and Martin, the carrying capacity of boats was a measure of the volume of water in the channel. Chroniclers and surveyors during the colonial period, including Rennel, Buchanon, and Martin, referred to the rivers and the volume of water in different periods of the year by referring to the carrying capacity of vessels in the mon, the local unit of mass (one maund/mon is equivalent to 40 kg) (Martin 1838a, 1838b; Buchanon 1833). Boats with a carrying capacity

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  213 of 1,000 mons could navigate up to Panchagarh during the rainy season, though usually the carrying capacity was 500 mons (Martin 1838b, p. 360). Before the mapping of Rennel, the flow of Karatoya probably ran through any of the abandoned beds of the Patharghata, Bhulli Rivers, Patheraj, and Satnai Rivers in lobe 2. Punarbhaba River, therefore, was a tributary of either Karatoya River flowing through the above channels or of Teesta River during the early medieval period. Contrary to the established assumptions, the Teesta River was not flowing through the Buri Teesta (west) (shown as the main course of Teesta in Rennel’s map) or through the Buri Teesta (east) exclusively during this period of more than a millennium. The Teesta and the Karatoya Rivers, together with other channels and their transformation in the upstream and midstream area, were critical to the formation and transformation of settlement, at least in the zone between present PathrajKaratoya-Atrai Rivers and the current flow of the Teesta River. A second hypothesis also seems plausible considering the Karatoya-Atrai course and its history from the eighth to ninth centuries CE to the seventeenth century CE. The most reliable and accepted version of the channel pattern is, as pointed earlier, the cartographic representations by James Rennel’s Bengal Atlas (2016). Zakariah (2014) has pointed out the relationship and history of the changes of these two rivers with regard to the history of the region. Additional propositional inferences can be formulated as a working hypothesis. Zakariah (2014, 1979) proposed that the Atrai River flowed through the present channel of Ghoramara during the twelfth to thirteenth centuries CE or earlier. This channel is parallel to Buri Teesta (west), and, in contrary to the propositions of Zakariah (2014), the present channel of Ghoramara is one of the abandoned braided beds of Palaeo-Teesta. The current Ghoramara channel does not fit into the pattern and morphology of the abandoned channel beds of the Karatoya River. Analyses of the topography, relief, and slope of the area to the south of the oblique segment of the Karatoya (and Atrai) suggest that several channels and abandoned beds are patterned in parallel to this segment. Atrai could be a channel which was linked to Karatoya through these abandoned and ephemeral channels of Patharghata-Bhulli-Pathraj-Satnai. The spatial distribution of archaeological settlements in this proximal zone, both walled and non-walled, and their temporal segregation into the broader periodising historical categories of early medieval and medieval corroborate the first hypothesis. Zone 2: Nekmarad-Ranisankail settlements and places From the proximal part of 2, we now move southwards to the medial part of lobe 2. Fine resolution and full coverage archaeological data are not available from this zone. The zone of Nekmarad-Ranisankail area in Ranisankail, Thakurgaon Sadar, and Baliadangi Upazilas is marked by several walled

214  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam settlements and archaeological places from both early medieval and medieval periods (Zakariah 2010; Haque 2014). One of the most exciting aspects of these walled settlements (and the settlements around them yet to be detected and recorded in detail) is the linear pattern on the eastern side of several abandoned channels which are north to south oriented. This space is between the present channels of the Kulik River and the Nagar River. Within a north–south oriented stretch of 13.90 m, four-walled settlements of various sizes and other archaeological settlements without marked boundaries are situated. Several places and settlements are also reported to the west and the south of this area. Table 7.3 enumerates their types, area, and association with the channels and palaeochannels (Figure 7.5). Four walled settlements (RSL. 5, 6, 9, 10) and other semi-compact settlements (RSL. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8) within a zone from Nekmarad to upazila town of Ranisankail Upazila deserve particular attention. The concentration of walled settlements in a linear pattern on the left bank of an abandoned tributary of the Kulik River is rare in the settlement pattern of the north-western part of Bangladesh. The reasons for this dense and contiguous spatial patterning could be manifold. The Kulik River during the occupational period (c. ninth to tenth centuries CE and later) was a prominent and competent river. Intriguingly, the density of the settlements is greater on the bank of one of its small tributaries, which died possibly later during the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries CE. Zakariah (2010, 2011) reported several fascinating artefacts and features from different locations of these settlements, including miniature bronze images, stone sculptures, carved stone blocks, and brick-built walls. It must be noted that Nekmarad was a prominent trade centre till the early nineteenth century CE when Buchanon (1833, p. 33) and traders from different regions of the trans-Himalayan zone came to this centre. The trade activities were specifically vibrant for a longer period during the uras (celebration of the birth or miraculous deeds of the Sufi saints) of Sayed Nasir al-dīn Shāh Awlia, popularly known as Nekbaba (Holy Father) or Nekmarad (Holy man) (Ghani 2015). According to the popular oral narratives, the saint came to this place in the twelfth to thirteenth centuries CE, though the date of the Sufi’s association and the mazar should be placed much later (fifteenth to sixteenth centuries CE). One of the significant reasons for this rare spatial concentration of walled settlement and their occupational continuity for more than a millennium, therefore, could be related to the locational importance of this area for trade and exchange. This was, probably, one of the conditions among several others pertaining to changes in the fluvial networks, pilgrimage network, political control, and agrarian expansion. The boundary of this entire zone cannot be ascertained with certitude like Bhitargarh. Many of these places in this zone of the TMF are associated with the legend of King Prithu of Kāmrūpa, who has tentatively been identified as Viśwasunderadeva (c. 1195–1228 CE) (Baruah 1985, pp. 131, 660)

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  215 of later ruling lineages after the Pāla dynasty [the last ruler was Jayapāla (c. 1120–1138 CE) of Kāmrūpa and Vaidyadeva (c. 1138–1145 CE) was the first ruler of this lineage of kings]. Copperplate inscription of Iśwarghoṣa was found from a location close to the Ranisankail police station in the early part of the nineteenth century CE. Iśwarghoṣa seems to be a mahāsāmanta (intermediary) belonging to the twelfth to thirteenth centuries CE (Maitreya 2012a, 2012b). Though he seems to assume the authority of issuing land grant, the political affiliation of the territory under his jurisdiction is yet to be confirmed in the absence of any more corroborative evidence. Remains of Mahalbari Mosque in Mahespur could be dated to the period of Sultan Alā al-dīn Ḥusain Shāh, and based on epigraphic records, it was constructed in 905 AH (1500 CE) (Zakariah 2010, pp. 72–73). Several other remains of mosques, dated tentatively to the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries CE, are distributed in and around this zone (Haque 2014). Other settlements in this zone are associated with the tributaries which are narrow, ephemeral, highly sinuous, and entrenched (see Table 7.3 and Figure 7.5). These settlements are walled like TGS 1, 3, BLD. 1, HRP. 1, ATR. 2, and others are part of semi-compact settlements. The affiliation of this territory with the changing political realms of preAhom Kāmrūpa and Ahom Assam and with the Pāla-Sena and SultanateMughal domain in Varendrī/Gauda cannot be established with precision. The twelfth to thirteenth centuries CE is regarded as a time of the rise of new geopolitical trends that resulted in the development of new territorialities in the Ahom period. This period is also characterised by obscurity in terms of the ruling lineages and their spatial control in this part of Varendrī, although the axiomatic, and unsubstantiated claim about the control of the Pāla-Sena lineages is dominant. It could, however, be assumed that zone 2, along with zone 1, had been a transitional, connected, and contested space since the early medieval period. The fluvial networks between Karatoya and Mahananda and the Himalayan piedmont zone to the north, however, had their part to play in the political and economic events and processes in this zone. On the one hand, archaeological data had a multifaceted association with the abandoned channels like Kaichya (which are incapable of flooding and draining the area anymore). They were associated with the channels which have evolved from relatively large, slightly sinuous, and perennial channels into highly entrenched and sinuous streams like present Kulik-TirnaiNagar-Lona-Tangon and other rivers, on the other hand. This variability demonstrates the spatiotemporally varied anthropogenic interaction with the transformation of the landscape features and rivers. The partial avulsion of the channels like Kaichya and others to the present channel of Kulik and the later entrenchment with the increase in the channel’s sinuosity were major fluvial processes which had made a considerable impact. Small tributaries of the Nagar River like Tirnai, Amandaman, Petki, and Alowa, which are now highly sinuous with low width/depth ratio, and

Name of the archaeological place

Nekmarad 1

Nekmarad 2

Nekmarad 3

Nekmarad 4

Ranisankail Garh

Garhgram

Mahespur cluster

Bangaon cluster

Malduar Garh

Code number

RSL. 1

RSL. 2

RSL. 3

RSL. 4

RSL. 5

RSL. 6

RSL. 7

RSL. 8

RSL. 9

Timeframe

Contextually associated channel

Semi-compact, semi-circular, cluster, 150

Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Semi-compact, semi-quadrangular, Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) cluster, 81 hectares. medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Elongated rectangular, compact, Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) cluster, 47.7 medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Quadrangular, compact, walled Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) settlement, 80.5 medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Semi-quadrangular, compact, Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) of walled settlement, 172 medieval a channel and the Kulik River Square, compact, walled Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) settlement, 46.6 medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Semi-compact, semi-quadrangular, Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) cluster, 38.4 medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Semi-compact, semi-quadrangular, Early medieval and Abandoned bed (Nacheya/Nacheta?) cluster, 153 medieval of a channel connected to the Kulik River Square, compact, walled Early medieval and Kulik River settlement, 24.1 medieval

Type and area (in hectares)

Table 7.3 Archaeological places/settlements and their spatiotemporal and formal context in zone 2

216  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Garkhai/Gorkui

Dharmagarh

Garh Bhabanipur

Garhkhari

Dhantala Buruj

Govindanagar Garh

Burujer Danga

Koram Khan Garh

Nayani Buruj

Dhantala Dhap

Koyeli Rajar Garh

Chengti Rajar Garh

RSL. 11

RSL. 12

HRP. 1

BLD. 1

BLD. 2

TGS. 1

TGS. 2

TGS. 3

ATR. 1

ATR. 2

ATR. 2

DBG. 1

(Source: Authors’ own)

Banglagarh

RSL. 10

Early medieval

Early medieval

Early medieval to present Early medieval

Medieval(?)

In between two tributaries, one of Kulik River and another of Tangon River Abandoned bed of a channel connected to the Nagar River Abandoned bed of a tributary of the Nagar River Abandoned channel, a distributary of the Kulik River and a tributary of the Nagar River. Tirnai River

Early medieval and Abandoned channel beds connected to medieval the Tirnai River Semi-quadrangular, compact, Medieval to Tangon River walled settlement, 30.7 present Settlement enclosed by moat, semiTributary of The Bhulli River and was compact, rectangular, 32.7 connected to the Karatoya River Rectangular, walled settlement, Medieval Tangon River compact, 40.1 Semi-compact, semi-circular, Early medieval to Tangon River structural mound, 6.58 medieval Semi-compact, semi-circular, Early medieval to Tributaries of Nagar River structural mound, medieval Compact, square, walled Medieval Tangon River settlement, 15.2 Compact, semi-quadrangular, Medieval Bhulli River walled settlement, 13.8

Quadrangular, compact, walled settlement, 49 Semi-compact, semi-circular, 20.2

Semi-quadrangular, walled settlement, compact, 14.9 Elliptical, compact, walled settlement, 23.6

Rectangular, compact, walled settlement, 88.2 Semi-circular, semi-compact, 21.6

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  217

218  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Figure 7.5 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 2 of TMF. High density of walled settlements is detectable in an equally contiguous organisation of palaeochannels and wetlands in Nagar-Kulik basin of the distal part (Source: Authors’ own).

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  219 ephemeral, and like Gargoria, which cuts through the abandoned bed of an earlier channel, and parallelly patterned abandoned channel belts of the early tributaries of the Nagar River, were wider, and navigable during the early medieval period. Several other channels, now used as cultivation fields or alive only as highly sinuous and narrow (3 m. The absence of pedogenesis compared to the incipient development soils under the structural remains and pottery at Rajbhita (section TMF 9) indicates that both these contemporary settlements were built upon two different types of sediments associated with different fluvial environments: one was relatively stable (at Rajbhita) and associated with the first-order channel and the other was a developing floodplain which was being formed by the sediment transported and deposited by a tributary (or second-order channel) of the same drainage network pattern.

Figure 7.8 Excavated archaeological remains at Itakura Mura at Bochaganj in flood zone of the Tangon Basin (a). The brick built structural remains of Buddhist and Brahmanical edifices built consecutively one above the other were constructed upon soft, loose, and non-cohesive sands (medium to fine grained) of the floodplain of Sua River (b). A thick (>1 m) deposit of hard silty sand was used to consolidate the structural remains above. The Sua River flows to the west of this remains. The temporary inundation by the overbank flooding after the rainfall is attested by the background of (a) and the excavated remains of temples are shown at a distance and surrounded by floodwater (c) (Source: Authors’ own).

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  223

224  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam Multicausal events and processes have been in effect throughout this period of more than a millennium. The variability in the Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall (ISMR), the change or fluctuations in the rainfall in the catchment, and eventual fluctuations in the volume of water, sediment load, and channel response on a landform with high topographic variability acted together for the evolution of the Tangon River and its tributaries and branched in this midstream area. It is obvious from the number of settlements in this zone and in the zone covering the Bochaganj, Birol, and Kaharol Upazila (zones 4 and 5) that the number of settlements is higher than the areas to the south, and probably the areas to the north in the piedmont plain in West Bengal. Most of these settlements were confined on the bank of narrow and small tributaries/distributaries of other channels. As a predictable consequence of increasing settlement formation, the anthropogenic interventions into channels and their basins were intensified. The use of the surrounding landscape for agrarian expansion provided another factor for the transfigurations of the channel morphology and associated landscape in lobe 2 during the early medieval and later periods (c. ninth to fifteenth centuries CE). Zone 4: Maherpur-Bishnupur and other settlements and places This zone is also associated with the Tangon River and several abandoned channels which are either connected to the Tangon or to another abandoned channel which is flowing between the Tulai and the Nona Rivers. The zone contains several clusters of high-density occurrences of archaeological sites dated to both the early medieval and medieval periods. In most cases, as far as the excavated places of a few sites and the datable cultural materials from the surface collection of other places suggest, there was continuous occupation or reoccupation after a few localised hiatuses till the end of the medieval period (c. eighteenth to nineteenth centuries CE). The first cluster occurs around two channels and their abandoned beds and swamps. One of them is completely dead and could be identified on the ground with a few low linear strips cultivated throughout the year. This channel is known upstream at Rakshashi(ni) and downstream as Tentulia. As a tributary of the Tulai River, which is a tributary of the Tangon River, Rakshashi(ni) and Tentulia are the third-order channels in the drainage network pattern of the Tangon River (Figure 7.9). The upstream of Tulai with completely abandoned beds is another locale of clustered archaeological places. In the first cluster on the right bank of the abandoned beds of the Rakshashi(ni), a small Brahmanical Temple (c. tenth to eleventh centuries CE) was exposed by the local people. The temple consisted of a solid square platform (garvagṛha or sanctum) attached to a square cell to its east (mandapa or assembly hall). The remains of the brickbuilt structures represent signatures of crack, tilting, and sliding deformations (Figure 7.11c). These deformations of the walls attest to the effect of

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  225

Figure 7.9 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 4 of TMF (Source: Authors’ own).

226  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam a palaeoseismic event. The date of this event is not certain, and the impact of this palaeoseismic event on the surrounding landscape and rivers are not discernible at this moment (Sen 2018). This small temple is one of the mounds organised in a linear cluster on the bank of the abandoned channel, and the mounds probably contain remains of small religious edifices datable to c. tenth to eleventh centuries CE or later. The pattern resembles other clusters associated with several other channels, which are either completely abandoned and cultivated at present or evolved into narrow, sinuous ephemeral ones. Two more clustered occurrences are detectable along the abandoned channel of Parulganga River in Birol Upazila (Sen et al. 2018, 2010) and along the bank of a small channel which is a tributary of Nona River. The Parulganga River was a distributary of the Nona River, and it joins Rakshashi(ni)-Tetulia to form a single channel, known as the Maan River in South Dinajpur District (and Naal River in Bangladesh) of West Bengal. All these small and narrow channels with silted and cultivated beds are secondand third-order channels in the Tangon drainage system. Bishnupur Mound 1 (Burir Than) is one of the excavated structural mounds in the linear clusters on the bank of the Parulganga River in Birol Upazila. The report of the excavation is published (Sen et al. 2018). The excavation exposed a Buddhist religious complex (c. ninth to tenth centuries CE or later), part of which was later transformed into a sapta-ratha Brahmanical temple (c. eleventh to twelfth centuries CE or later). Later the Brahmanical temple possibly collapsed or partially demolished by a seismic event as far as the structural rapture and lateral sliding of the bricks, and the deposits of collapsed bricks and their patterning imply (Figure 7.10). After the abandonment of the Brahmanical temple, the space was occupied by habitational and manufacturing (lime) activities as well as ritual activities by the mazar of a Sufi saint popularly known as Muluk Dewan and other structural remains. The sections and their correlations represent a buried palaeochannel and the later development of floodplain through vertical accretion of sediments (section TMF 12; Sen et al. 2018). The earliest temples were built upon this floodplain, and Parulganga was the channel which conditioned the construction of these temples along with several others along its course despite the presence of swamps and bils around. These bils were subject to temporary inundation during monsoon. The responses of Parulganga to the disturbances were different than other channels, which continued to respond to differential processes of disturbances by downcutting and increasing their sinuosity. Parulganga was aggraded because of the downcutting of the Nona River upstream and the aggradation of the channel fed by Parulganga and Rakshashi(ni)-Tentulia midstream. Zone 5: Madhabgaon-Bergaon-Bhelowa and other settlements Along with the distal part of lobe 2 of TMF, a portion of Barind terrace on the south-western part is included within this zone. Data regarding

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  227

Figure 7.10 Palaeoseismic evidence from the excavated remains of Bishnupur mound 1 at Birol: (a and c) brick deposits of collapse in which complete bricks are leaning towards the southeast; (b and d) similar deposits of bricks with their inclination towards the north-east. a, b, c, and d represent the deposits upon the floor outside the main Brahmanical temple. The specific pattern of bricks was created by one or more events of earthquake by which the superstructure of the temple collapsed and destroyed. e, f, and g show the deformation and tilting of the brick-built structure and walls (Source: Authors’ own).

past events and processes come from one of the excavated mounds, which is relatively isolated. Excavation on this mound, locally known as Madhagaon Buruj (at Dabor Union, Kaharol Upazila), exposed a navaratha Brahmanical (Viṣṇu) temple dated to c. tenth to eleventh centuries CE. The excavation report has been published. From this excavation, structural evidence of the collapse of the superstructure of the temple by an earthquake and subsequent reuse of the temple edifice for other,

228  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Figure 7.11a–c (a) Archaeological evidence of a palaeoseismic event on the brick built nava-ratha Brahmanical temple which was excavated at Madhabgaon, Kaharol. a. In the assembly hall (mandapa) of the temple tilting (B, C), lateral wrapping (D), wrapping and slanting (E, F) (on pillar bases) were detected. (b) On the external side of the northern wall of sanctum, upwards (G) and downwards (H) tilting, cracks and lateral dislocations of bricks (J, I. K) were identified. These archaeological signatures of the impacts of an earthquake are corroborated by the deformations and dislocations of sedimentary structures on section TMF 11 (Figure 7.11d–j); location of this section is marked as A in the figure 7.11a, to the northern edge of the temple remains. (c) Effects of a palaeoseismic event on a small Brahmanical temple of early medieval period. The temple was found at Maherpur, Bochaganj. L, M, N, and O demonstrate the upwards and downwards tilting of the remains of brick-built walls of the assembly hall (maṇḍapa) and P shows the crack and lateral dislocation of the bricks from the wall. The date of this earthquake is yet to be determined, although the seismic event might be contemporary to the similar event and destruction identified at Madhabgaon Burul (a and b). The probable date is the thirteenth century CE or earlier (Source: Authors’ own).

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  229

Figure 7.11d–j Sedimentary structures on the section exposed on the side of a recently dug pit on the edge of the excavated temple remains (d). The cross bedding and laminations are visible in several layers at the bottom (e, f, and j). These primary structures were deformed after deposition and convolute lamination and slump structures were created because of the movement of earth by a palaeoseismic event (g, h, i). The vertical organisation of these layers and beddings are shown in the simple litholog (h) (Source authors’ own).

possibly different ritual purposes were found. There are convincing attestations of cracks, slanting of the brick-built pillar bases, and wrapping on various parts of the remains (see Sen et al. 2018; Figures 7.11a–c, 7.11d–j and 7.12). Simultaneously, the section on the edge of the excavated remains has uncovered the deformed sedimentary structures originated probably from the same palaeoseismic event (see Figure 7.11d–j). The corroboration between evidence of earthquake on archaeological remains and sedimentary structures is extremely rare. Based upon earlier dating of a palaeoseismic event through archaeological remains at Mahasthangarh (Salles 2018), the date of this earthquake has been placed in the thirteenth century CE, possibly in 1255 CE or later. The reoccupation of the edifice after the collapse of the superstructure can also be placed tentatively after the thirteenth century CE or later. The section also shows that the Brahmanical temple was constructed on a younger floodplain upon the bed of a channel surrounded by lowlands. There are geomorphic signatures of abandoned channel beds to the north-west, the west, and the east of the site.

230  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Figure 7.12 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in analytical zone 5 of TMF (Source: Authors’ own).

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  231 The settlements of Bheloya and Bergaon in this zone, in a similar way, support the explanation of the dynamic and active state of the channels during the later part of the early medieval period. During the behavioural phase of these archaeological places in c. ninth to tenth centuries CE or later, the channels were not so wide that they could be called large rivers. The settlement of Bergaon in Kaharol is located on the bank of an abandoned channel and associated wetlands, which formed because of the channel evolution and avulsion. The structural mounds in Bergaon cluster are in a circular pattern, and there is open space within the area of the circle, which was probably the habitational/congregational zone. The robber trenches exposed walls, and they indicate that remains of Brahmanical temples (c. tenth to

Figure 7.13 Structural archaeological mounds in the Bergaon Settlement (Kaharol). (a, b) Buried brick-built structural remains are exposed because of the digging by the local people. (c) Ghost wall with partially preserved brick-wall indicates that the robbed wall represents an enclosure wall with tri-ratha projection. (d) Another partially exposed brick-built structure with pancha-ratha projection. Both c and d represent two separate mounds containing probable edifice of Brahmanical affiliations of tenth to eleventh centuries CE (Source: Authors’ own).

232  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam eleventh centuries CE) are buried under these mounds (Figure 7.13). The section (section TMF 10, Sen and Alam 2020) has exposed the deposits of fine-grained silty sand to sand in the upper units affected by biogenic activities. Underlying deposits represent a stronger hydrological regime, but that is also not representative of the condition of the river during the occupational period of the settlement. Bheloya is another settlement in the basin of the early course of Punarbhaba and abandoned courses of Nona. Buddhist, Jain, and Brahmanical idols have been reported from this settlement, and they can be dated to c. tenth to eleventh centuries CE (Zakariah 2010). This settlement was excavated, and a landing stage of the tank and two stupas (śarirīka) were exposed. All these structures were built upon loose sandy alluvium, which does not show any sign of pedogenesis. Because of the gradual loss of competence and flow from upstream sources and because of the aggradation of the bed and consequent cut-off from the contemporary channels like Punarbhaba and Dhepa (which also lost their capacity as a response to the disturbance in the upstream and downstream), these underlying deposits represent the transitional phase of the channel before it was abandoned entirely and consequently turned into cultivated land. These changes for the abandoned beds, along with the beds in Ishania Union of Bochaganj and Jayananda of Kahrarol to the north, took place well before the survey by Rennel. We may tentatively propose a time frame from c. fourteenth to sixteenth centuries CE for the beginning of the transformation. Zone 6: Dharmapalgarh-Mainamatir Garh-Ramurgarh-Goriber Kot and other archaeological places This zone represents a larger area of the landscape to the east of KratoyaAtrai River and to the west of the present Teesta River. The zone on lobe 1 is triangular considering the point of confluence of the Karatoya-Atrai-Buri Teesta (west) and the present course of the Teesta River as the top of the triangle and Debiganj-Domar-Dimla-Jaldhaka Upazila as the bottom. This is the only zone, therefore, that represents the archaeology and landscape of lobe 1 in this chapter. The zone covers mostly the proximal and portion of the medial part of lobe 1. Archaeological surveying and excavation in this zone have been sporadic, and the coverage is not total. Data from our surveying, along with other initial surveys (Alam 2018; Imran et al. 2017; Zakariah 2010), have been used for understanding the spatial distribution of archaeological sites and places in this zone. Excavations in a few locations have been conducted, and these reports are yet to be published. The newspaper articles of these excavations have been referred to in the absence of any systematic reporting. Besides, a brick-built ghat (landing stage) has been found in the excavation on the bank of Nilsagar (a large tank) at Nilphamary Sadar Upazila by the Government Department of Archaeology, and it could be dated to the early medieval period. The zone is also located

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  233 to the south-west of Kamtapur, which is a walled settlement and was excavated. This walled settlement is considered to be the capital of per-Ahom and Ahom Kingdoms (Ota 2006) (Table 7.4, Figure 7.14). Two of the most impressive archaeological places are the walled settlements of Dharmapal Garh and Mainamatir Garh in Nilphamary District. According to the oral narratives, Dharmapal Garh was built by Dharmapāla (c. 1096–1120 CE), a ruler of the Pāla dynasty of Kāmrūpa. Any evidence supporting this narrative has not yet been found. The territoriality and the historical geography of Kāmrūpa indicate that this area was an integral part of the sub-region of Kāmrūpa during the pre-Ahom period. Dharmapal Garh is on the edge of an abandoned channel which is popularly known as the Sui River. The area covered by the walled space is 164 hectares. On the north, west, and east, two by two parallelly built mud walls (first and the second wall from inside to outside) with a moat in between enclosed the core activity area. The third mud wall or the outermost wall to the north, west, and east was 87 m away from the outer wall of the parallel walls. The erosion of the floodwater has damaged most of this wall. The remains of this third wall were probably extended diagonally to the southeast and continued up to the abandoned bed of the river (a fourth wall). On the right bank of the abandoned bed remains of a wall (fifth wall) can be traced, and it followed the orientation of the abandoned meander loop. The pattern of mud walls and moats to the north, west, and south is symmetrical. The fifth mud wall has given a quadrangular shape to the enclosed space. The alignment of the third wall is diagonal, and it runs towards the south-west to meet the third wall in the south. The shape of the walled settlement with the third wall is not symmetrical or rectangular (Figures 7.14 and 7.18). To the left bank of the river bed another mud wall (sixth wall) was constructed on the mid-channel bar of the river, and this wall on the bar, known as Suidanga, is oriented from north to south and encloses the space to the eastern side of the channel. The abandoned channel, therefore, was flowing through a space enclosed to the east and the west by the fifth and sixth walls. A low mound was excavated in the south-west corner of the settlement between the second and the third walls by the Government Department of Archaeology. The report has not yet been published. According to the media report, the excavators claimed that a Buddhist Temple was exposed. The first author of this chapter, however, has seen the ground plan of the excavated structural ruins and the photographs (Asaduzzaman 2016). The excavated structural remains represent the ground plan of a Brahmanical Temple with a planimetric resemblance to the temple excavated at Chandipur and Belwa of Dinajpur District (Sen 2015b, 2018). Mainamatir Garh, on the other hand, is a comparatively smaller walled settlement lying to the west of Dharmapal Garh on the right back of the Deonai River. Two concentric quadrangles of mud walls have shaped this

JDK.2

JDK.3

JDK.4 JDK.5

JDK.6

JDK.7

JDK.8

JDK.9

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Masjidpara Masjid

Hajipara Masjid

Mastarpara Bhanga Masjid Dargar Par

Uttar Deshi Bari Garh Raja Harishchandra Paat

Thakurpara Mound

Satisher Danga

Early medieval, medieval Early medieval

Early medieval

Early medieval, medieval

Early medieval

Timeframe

Medieval, eighteenth to nineteenth centuries CE Semi-compact, semi-quadrangular, Medieval structural mound(?), Monument Medieval, eighteenth to nineteenth centuries CE Monument Medieval, eighteenth to nineteenth centuries CE

Compact, semi-quadrangular, walled settlement, 206 Semi-compact, quadrangular, structural mound Semi-compact, semi-quadrangular, structural mound Linear, mud wall Semi-compact, circular, structural mound Monument

JDK.1

1.

Dharmarpal Garh

Type and area (in hectares)

Sl. no Database Name of the settlement/ code place

Table 7.4 Archaeological places/settlements and their spatiotemporal and formal context in zone 6

Sui River

Deonai River

Kachchakhali River

Buri Teesta (east)

Dhaijan River Charalkata-Deonai River

Deonai River

Deonai River

Sui River

Contextually associated channels

234  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

JDK.11

JDK.12

DML.1

DML.2

DML.3

DMR.1

DMR.2

DMR.3

NSD.1

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Semi-compact, semi-quadrangular, Medieval (?) structural mound Siddheshwari Jami Masjid Monument Medieval, eighteenth to nineteenth centuries CE Kazipara Bhanga Masjid Monument Medieval, eighteenth to nineteenth centuries CE Satighat Mound Semi-compact, semi-circular, Early medieval to medieval structural mound Ramur Garh Compact, circular, walled Early medieval to medieval settlement, 39.6 Burujer Danga Compact, semi-circular, structural Early medieval to medieval mound, 36.6 Mainamati Garh Compact, square, walled Medieval (?) settlement, 36.4 Chamuar Bil Swamp and tank Medieval (?), secondary deposit Goriber Kot Compact, semi-quadrangular, Medieval (?) walled settlement, 78.1 Nilsagar Ghat Landing stage of a tank Early medieval to medieval

Bhimer Dhap

(Source: Authors’ own)

JDK.10

10.

Chhoto Jamuna

Deonai

Burikhora

Deonai

Buri Teesta (east)

Buri Teesta (east)

Buri Teesta (east)

Teesta River

Sui River

Sui River

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  235

236  Swadhin Sen and A. K. M. Khorshed Alam

Figure 7.14 Spatial pattern of archaeological settlements and places in association with Dharmapalgarh-Mainamatir Garh in the analytical zone 6 of TMF (Source: Authors’ own).

Chronicles of perpetually reconfiguring entanglements  237 settlement. It is difficult to ascertain the date of this walled settlement in the absence of any datable material so far. The north-eastern corner of the walls of the square settlement has been destroyed by the riverbank erosion of the Deonai River. This garh is 2.5 km to the west of Dharmapal Garh. There is a narrow (