India, Dr. Bhuvan Vikrama, Assistant Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India
“Safeguarding Archaeological Sites: A Challenge for Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage – Case Study of Ahichhatra”
Archaeological sites are the primary repository of the cultural heritage of the land and people. In Indian context, archaeological site is defined as “ ‘archaeological site and remains’ means any area which contains or is reasonably believed to contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes— (i) such portion of land adjoining the area as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving it, and (ii) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of the area;” Sec 2 (d) AMASR Act 1958. India is a country with roots deep in antiquity. There are many archaeological sites which show, unlike counterparts in Europe and America, multiple-cultural sequence indicating a long continuity of human settlement. In the post independence era i.e. after 1947, India was reduced of its antiquity as the most ancient centres of civilization had gone to Pakistan. All the focus was trained at exploring ancient sites and plotting them on the archaeological map of India. In this endeavour lot many sites were brought to light with varied antiquity ranging from Early Harappan to Ochre Coloured ware, Painted Grey Ware, Northern Black Polished Ware and several subsequent historic phases. The monumental heritage was more or less known, documented and conserved and protected during the British period. But only fewer ancient sites were known and understood in that phase of Indian Archaeology.
Since, excavating all the sites and retrieving the ancient relics and remains is neither feasible nor necessary, only a handful of these were subjected to excavation and a large number of ancient sites were declared as of archaeological importance and given a centrally protected status under the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1958 and its predecessors. Declaring an archaeological site as a Centrally Protected site provided a relative safety to these sites. It is one form of protection and safeguard for archaeological site which could serve the purpose for quite some time but the population pressure and the resultant need to bring maximum land under cultivation posed a great threat to archaeological site, as the archaeological sites were only protected under a Central Government Act, but the ownership rights of the land were in most cases were with the State Government or with the private populace.
This peculiar situation of dual management often proves a great hindrance in the preservation and protection of the archaeological sites. Where the actual ownership of the so declared archaeological site lies with State Government, the ancient landscape is used for construction of schools, dispensaries, offices and staff quarters of the various government departments and the site is damaged, while other sites which come under private ownership, the land is appropriated for agriculture/cultivation. There are several archaeological sites where the habitation still continues and the entire ancient area is covered by modern structures and older houses give way to modern construction. In short, the development is the biggest threat to the archaeological sites.
Thus, ownership transfers from State Government or Private hand to that of the Central Government i.e. Archaeological Survey of India may be a remedy against such dangers to the archaeological sites. But the cost of compensation against the land would be enormous and therefore, not feasible as the number of such sites is too large. In such a situation a different module is being adopted at an Archaeological site of Ahichhatra, located in the Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh.
Ahichhatra: A Case Study
Ahichhatra, located near village Ramnagar 11 km away from Aonla sub-division of Bareilley district in Uttar Pradesh, is one of the most extensive early historical sites in India. It covers an area of about 225 hectares and is surrounded by almost 6 km long defense wall. Hieun-Tsang, who visited the site in seventh century, mentioned Ahichhatra as Ahi-Chi-Ta-lo. Ptolemy identifies this place as Adisadra. The tradition of associating this site with kings and religious teachers protected by serpents is very much prevailing. The tradition attributes that the ancient fort was built by Raja Adi an Ahir whose future elevation to sovereignty was predicated by Drona when he found him sleeping under the safe expanded hood of a serpent.
Ahichhatra was the capital of North Panchala. According to Mahabharata, the capital of Panchala extended from Himalayas in north to Chambal river in south. Kurus captured the kingdom. The kingdom of Panchala attained prominence during the early centuries of Christian era. Buddha preached here seven days in favour of serpent king and the site was marked by a stupa of Ashok. Cunningham identified the place as remain of Stupa built by Ashoka. Ahichhatra formed an administrative division under the Gupta Empire.
The site is triangular in shape and is devoid of any physical encroachment. It is surrounded by three villages lying in its immediate vicinity viz. Anandapur in southeast, Nasaratganj in north and Ramnagar in the west. The earliest documentary evidence, the map prepared by General Cunningham in 1862, shows that all the three villages were of almost same size (Fig. 1), however, at the present Ramnagar has out done the other two (Fig. 2) in size due to
1. The popularity of the site as a Jaina pilgrimage centre.
2. Its location on the road connecting the Aonla and Shahbad
The popularity of the place as a Jaina centre relating to Parsvanath has lead to the construction of temples of Jaina Sect and of large dharmashalas – rest-house complexes to accommodate large number of pilgrims. This phenomenon has resulted in the marked increase in the demand for land, which in turn has resulted in the conversion of agricultural land into the sites for newer construction.
| | |
| Fig. 1 – A. Cunningham: Annual Report vol.1-2, 1871 | Fig. 2 – Google image |
Threats to the site
The site of Ahichhatra, which otherwise is devoid of any encroachment since first recorded accept that of a small temple and few sheds and structures to house the archaeological remains found from the site from time to time. The land within the site belongs to State Government and private owners. Some of the provincial government land has been leased out to petty farmers for cultivation. So, most of the land is under cultivation. Factor which pose a threat to the site may be short-listed as –
a) Agricultural activities – Although the farming act does not damage the site for more than 30 cm depth but it certainly accelerate the rate of erosion of the protective top soil. Use of modern agricultural equipments like tractor-drawn ploughshare, harvesters, etc. has hastened the appropriation of mounds into agricultural fields. Due to expanding agriculture large and small water bodies in and around the site are gradually silting up resulting in the complete changeover of the ancient landscape.
b) Awareness about the antiquity of the site – the knowledge about the ancient nature of the settlement, instead of generating the pride among the local denizens has on the contrary resulted in the greed for the rich material remains that the site possesses. The belief that the ancient city has buried treasures has given birth to several big and small relic hunters which gradually formed a nexus for illegally retrieving and marketing of the ancient remains from the site. Local people scavenge the site in search of ancient material, some even dig the site.
c) Construction activities – growth of population in the surrounding villages has necessitated construction of houses. The large site proves a great source of readily available ancient burnt-bricks. Brick robbing has become a great threat to the survival of the site. Outside of the fortified area which is close to the road where large scale construction projects are launched for rest houses and temples, smaller mounds of ancient nature are levelled with the use of mechanised excavators and JCB machines. Thus, the ancient landscape is being re-shaped at a much faster pace.
d) Archaeological Excavations – the site has been subjected to archaeological excavation several times ever since its discovery in 1862-63 AD. Several structures and remains were exposed and were left exposed only to deteriorate and decay. As no measure could be taken to drain out the rain water from near the excavated remains most of the smaller structures have changed drastically. Wherever the structural conservation was attempted in the past, it did not match the original material and fabric of the structures and therefore, failed to arrest the decay and in effect resulted in presenting a very poor picture of the site. Further, the excavations and subsequent conservation efforts were done in piece meal and without proper documentation or record of methodology. This fact makes any effort towards the reconstruction of the remains almost impossible. Excavation really is destruction.
The archaeological site which was first brought to the notice of the educated world in 1871 AD has reached, when the present author visited the site by the year 2004, to a vulnerable point where all the above factors were ready to devour the site completely.
Strategy for Protection and Preservation of the Archaeological site Ahichhatra
Protection and preservation are the two main concerns involving the physical (landscape) and archaeological properties of the site. For protecting the site from damages to landscape features, such as encroachment, re-appropriation of land use and illegal digging and levelling of the ancient site, following steps were taken
Physical Protection: The site was declared as a Centrally Protected Archaeological Site under the Archaeological Act in the year 1920, but there was no demarcation of the property on the ground so it was decide to demarcate the land first and proper notice boards were placed in clear view reclaiming it as a protected ancient property. However, as the site is too large for manual surveillance and secondly, it is not under the Central ownership, therefore, entry of villagers cannot be restricted within the archaeological area and as such un-authorised digging also cannot be stopped completely. Unless the entire archaeological area which is more than 300 hectares is taken over by the central Government the site may not survive for long.
Preservation of the Archaeological Site: As the mere protection of the site was not deemed a total solution for the preservation of archaeological features, and the acquisition of land is still being a far cry, it was decided to preserve the site using modern technologies in the digital format with minimal excavation and extensive surface studies. Therefore, a multidisciplinary project was initiated involving the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IITK). IITK carried out Global Positioning System (GPS) surveys, Total Station Survey, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey. Later on, Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany (BSIP), Lucknow was also involved with a view to carry out sampling of organic material for botanical studies as well as for 14C dating of various archaeological strata. For incorporating all the data so generated a Geographic Information System (GIS) platform was developed.
Digital Archiving and Excavation
In the year 2007 knives and pickaxes were once again sharpened to work at Ahichhatra, this time the site was destined to see the application of new technologies in archaeological investigations in addition to the traditional methods. A project for Multi-disciplinary Studies at Ahichhatra, Bareilly was initiated in collaboration with IIT (Kanpur). Global Positioning System (GPS) and Total Station surveys were done extensively to generate dense data for preparing contour plan and elevation models as also the fly through models. High-precision global positioning system was used which has an accuracy of 1mm (courtesy IIT, Kanpur). Entire site was gridded following the established practice. In addition to the GPS survey Total Station were used to generate dense data of the study area (Fig. 3) which was utilized to form contours plan (Fig. 4) and digital elevation models (DEMs)(Fig. 5 & 6). Digital elevation models helped in understanding the land use pattern and identification of ancient water bodies and nature of archaeological deposition within and outside the site. Satellite imageries were used to understand the peculiarities of the ancient landscape and the reasoning behind the establishment of the settlement at the spot and its gradual expansion.
| | |
| Fig. 3 – Google earth image | Fig. 4 – Contour map through Total Station |
| | |
| Fig. 5 – DEM based on Total Station data | Fig. 6 – DEM-2 based on Total Station data |
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was used selectively to procure 2D / 3D profiles of the sub-surface features for later ground-truthing by excavation and also along the excavated remains to check the veracity of the GPR profile as well as to find the horizontal and vertical extension of the remains. Further, after establishing the correctness of the GPR results and matching them with the excavation results, extensive GPR profiles were generated for many other regions also. From one of the GPR profile it could be tentatively established that there probably existed another defence wall within the city indicating towards a possibility of separate fortified localities within the cityscape (Fig. 7). Areas close to the excavated area was also scanned with GPR and good confirmatory results were obtained (Fig. 8).
| |
| |
| Fig. 7 – Street pavement Fortification wall matching the signature of GPR profile |
| |
| Fig. 8 – 3D GPR Profile and the excavated trence |
Various types of satellite imageries were processed and analysed to deduce inference to archaeological tune. A Geographic Information System (GIS) platform has also been developed. For the first time, after General Cunningham, attention was focused on the vast spread of low-rising habitation mounds punctuated with a string of isolated mounds of some height towards west beyond the walls.
Surface study and satellite imageries helped in identifying detailed openings in the defence wall. Although, at present due to animal and human traffic and agricultural activities (use of tractors, excavators, etc.) the defence wall has been breached at several point which now on ground appear as majestic gateways, yet after the study of the surface and the analysed data a set of parameters was defined to identify the gates –
1. Cup formation in the defence wall indented into the city-space, which might have served as a holding area.
2. Presence of projecting bastions on either side of opening.
3. Linear depressions, forking or otherwise, leading from the opening inside the city. These depressions are the streets.
4. Presence of small but tall mound/s immediately outside the opening. These mounds contained temples of the custodian gods of the routes (baat mangala/marg devta/dikpala) and/or sarais (travellers’ inn).
5. Large open space immediately inside the openings wherefrom streets issue. (this condition is applicable only to major gates which probably allowed entry to goods and traders)
Applying these parameters nine gates were identified, of these six were major entry point which fulfilled all the five conditions, while the remaining three were smaller and fulfilled at least two conditions (Fig. 9).
| |
| Fig. 9. Identification of gateways and street-network |
Some 34 trenches were opened on the five mounds located immediately outside one of the major gates in the west wall which fulfilled all the parameters and good results were obtained ranging from Mauryan to 10th/11th century A.D. these results also confirmed the premise that the mounds outside the defence openings contained temples or sarais. On a mound named ACT IVA a series of three north-facing temples were found in negative(Fig. 10 A) i.e. ghost temples, while on the much larger and higher mound ACT IV evidences of existence of a group of temples were unearthed. Two circular structures were also evidenced but their affiliation to Buddhism could not be established and due to majority of evidences belonging to brahmanical faith especially of Vaishnav affiliation these circular structure may also be treated as circular or apsidal temples of the same faith (Fig. 10 B).
| | |
| A. Mound ACT IVA 3 temples | B. Mound ACT IV temple complex |
| Fig. 10 | |
Apart from generating physical data relating to the site the project also envisaged to develop a database for the artefactual remains from the site which can not only record the data but also share the information with the GIS database for their studies in 3d space. It will further help in creating the virtual site where students can even be trained.
Benefits of the Project
The entire project involved small scale excavations only to support and verify the results obtained by the application of new digital technologies, this project also involved the presence of working teams for most part of the year and also a healthy message was passed on to the local people that the property belongs to the nation and the local people are going to benefit from it in many ways. The local villagers were engaged as labourers in the project and this involvement went onto develop a feeling of association among the villager besides helping them financially.
The project is still going on and even when the work teams are not there in the field villagers look after the site as their own and report of any act of damage or attempt thereof.
The project aimed at preserving the archaeological site in its totality including artefacts, landscape, humanscape and also to develop a mechanism to monitor any change in the future. Thus, the site is at least digitally preserved for the time to come.
Acknowledgements:
The study being fresh and unique not only in its finding but also in its being a work of concerted effort of a wide based and young team who in spells worked at the site. The project would not have been a possibility without the initiative of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi and the interest shown by the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and able-guidance of Dr. Onkar Dikshit (Prof. & Head of Dept. Civil Engineering, IIT,K) who supervised the GPS and Total Station surveys and the development of GIS database, and Dr. Javed N Malik (Assoc. Prof. Dept. Of Civil Engineering, IIT,K) who conducted the GPR surveys at the site. The project was sustained through with the timely contributions of Amit Tare, Abhijit, Ashutosh, Satish, Khalid, Sravanthi (M. Tech. Students, IIT,K) Mishra, Shitala Tripathi, Maurya (technical staff of IIT, K) Y. P. Agarwal, Rakesh Tiwari, C. B. Singh, Lochan Singh Chahar (technical staff, Agra Circle, Archaeological Survey of India).
References:
· Archaeological Survey of India., 1963, Indian Archaeology: A Review
· Archaeological Survey of India., 1964, Indian Archaeology: A Review
· Archaeological Survey of India - Cunningham Report Vol. I, 1871(Reprint 2000), pp. 255-265, pl. XLIII
· Amit Tare, 2007; ‘A GIS based approach to study of Archaeological Site: A case study of Ahichchatra’ (A thesis submitted In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering, IIT, Kanpur)
· Bhuvan Vikrama, Onkar Dikshit, et al, 2007; ‘Preliminary Investigations for Ahichhatra Using Geo-informatics Techniques’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology, Vol.2 No. 2; 287-299
