Methods and Problems in the Site Census Approach: A View from Mewar through Archaeology and Ethnohistory Namita Sugandhi1, Teresa P. Raczek2, Prabodh Shirvalkar3, Charles K. Brummeler2 and Lalit Pandey4 1. Hartwick College, One Hartwick Drive, Oneonta, NY 13820, USA (Email: [email protected]) 2. Kennesaw State University, 402 Bartow Ave, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA (Email: [email protected]; [email protected]) 3. Deccan College Post‐graduate and Research Institute, Yerwada, Pune –411006, Maharashtra, India (Email: [email protected]) 4. J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India (Email: [email protected]) Received: 30October 2015; Accepted: 08November 2015; Revised: 22 November 2015 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3 (2015): 163‐179 Abstract: The practice of conducting a regional census has some similarities but many differences from systematic archaeological survey. Both attempt to study “sites”, or material traces of human activities in the past, but the idea of an archaeological “census” utilizes a more informal approach to visiting sites that have been previously documented by earlier researchers. Archaeological census has the goal of assessing site destruction, degradation, and various issues associated with heritage management. The method can provide valuable data about the current status of sites and serve as an expedient tool for future research planning as well as in the development of community and cultural resource management strategies. In this paper, we present census details from a multi‐year project conducted in the Mewar Plain of Rajasthan, outlining our methods and the various conditions that shaped our approach and results, emphasizing in particular the role of ethnohistory. Keywords: Archaeological Census, Archaeological Survey, Oral History, Rajasthan Archaeology, Mewar, Ahar‐Banas, Gilund Introduction Field survey in its various forms has been an important research tool since the beginnings of the discipline of archaeology. The very title of the “Archaeological Survey of India” (ASI) demonstrates the place of priority that survey has held throughout the history of Indian archaeology. Initiated in 1862 by Alexander Cunningham as a temporary project with the goal of describing and documenting all archaeological remains encountered over two seasons of research(Cunningham 1972), the work remains ongoing today(Sengupta and Lambah 2012),despite the belief at ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015 Cunningham’s retirement in 1885 that the ASI’s work would be done in 5 years (Marshall 1903: 3). The ASI built on survey work of early researchers like Colin Mackenzie and Francis Buchanan who mapped and documentedsites and monuments for the British East India Company in order to examine “unknown territory,” Aurel Stein who undertook surveys as part of the “Great Game”(Chakrabarti 1981; Edney 1990; Ghosh 1953; Robb 1998; Roy 1961; Stein 1905, 1929), and Luigi P. Tessitori who identified the significance of Kalibangan(Tessitori 1917‐18, 1918‐19). Since that time, survey has continued to be an important research method for identifying sites and understanding ancient regional landscapes. Since the early years however, a number of variations of this technique have developed. Random exploration gave way to village‐ to‐village survey, systematic survey, and site catchment analysis. Archaeologists who focus on excavation also implement informal local surveys in the form of site visits to check on sites that have been previously documented. We refer to this practice as a “site census,” and argue that, like more formally developed survey methods, site censuses provide a valuable way of assessing and analyzing the archaeological record.Today, site census has become relevant in part due to increasing population and development, which has led to villagers encroaching upon previously identified sites. Thus, site census is an important element of salvage archaeology and has become an urgent need. In its most basic form, a census is an enumeration and collection of demographic data. An archaeological site census includes the counting of sites and the assessment of their condition. As a method, the sitecensus has some similarities but many differences from other forms of archaeological survey. Allattempt to locate “sites,” or material traces of human activities in the past, but asurvey typically emphasizes discovery of new sites while census assesses the status of those that have been previously documented. Surveys locate and record sites of archaeological importance, and fashion that data into a form of knowledge useful for individual, regional or comparative social, political, and economicanalyses of past society. Systematic archaeological survey can be exhausting, grueling and take an unforeseeable number of years to complete, but is a valuable tool for understanding not just where sites are located but also significant patterns of settlement, development and exchange that occurred over time. In contrast, the idea of an archaeological “census” suggests a more expedient and informal approach to revisiting and documenting sites. Archaeological censuses have the goal of assessing site destruction, degradation, and various issues associated with heritage management. They can also be used to re‐examinearchaeological assessments that were based on previous research or earlier paradigms, particularly at sites documented decades ago when archaeological techniques and theoretical frameworks may have been different from those used today. Archaeological census can provide valuable data about the current status of sites and serve as an expedient tool for future research planning as well as the development of community and cultural resource management strategies. The contingent and informal nature of site census also highlights the highly subjective nature of archaeological investigation in general, an 164 Sugandhi et al. 2015: 163‐179 important consideration in all archaeological research. In this paper, we present results from a small census project conducted in the Mewar Plain of southeastern Rajasthan over the course of multiple field seasons from 2009 through2015, outlining our methods and the various conditions that shaped our approach and results. The Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment (MPAA) Archaeological research has documented a long sequence of occupation in Mewar, beginning with the Paleolithic era and continuing up until the present day(Misra 2007). By the 4th millennium BC the region was inhabited by sedentary agriculturalists as well as semi‐nomadic pastoral groups(Raczek 2016; Shinde and Sarkar 2014). Archaeological excavation at the settlement sites of Ahar, Balathal, Chatrikhera, Gilund, Ojiyana, Panchmata, and PuraniMarmihave documented evidence for a regional Chalcolithic tradition distinct from other Copper and Bronze Age societies in the surrounding regions such as the Ganeshwar‐Jodhpura Complex to the northeast, and the urbanized Indus civilization to the northwest(Meena and Tripathi 2001, 2001‐ 2002; Mishra 2003; Misra 1997; Misra, et al. 1995; Mohanty, et al. 2000; Raczek and Shinde 2010; Raczek, et al. 2015; Sankalia, et al. 1969; Shinde, et al. 2014; Sugandhi, et al. 2010).Research at the site of Bagor, often interpreted as a pastoral camp, revealed evidence for anoccupation that was contemporaneous with the early farming communities of the Ahar tradition(Misra 1973). Comparison between the lithic assemblages recovered from Bagor and Gilund has identified significant overlap in technological knowledge, suggesting important connections between the sedentary and mobile groups inhabiting Mewar during the Chalcolithic period(and see Possehl and Kennedy 1979; Raczek 2011). Between 2009 and 2015, the Mewar Plain Archaeological Assessment has conducted work to explore the archaeological sequence of pre‐, proto‐, and early historic Mewar while also investigating issues of community history and site preservation(Raczek, et al. 2015). Three sites were excavated as part of the MPAA:Chatrikhera, Jawasiya‐Arni and Panchmata. Oral histories collected from local residents demonstrated varying narratives tied to both village history and other aspects of identity(Raczek, et al. 2011). In addition to its archaeological goals, the MPAA was also designed to assess the level of site destruction at many archaeological sites in the vicinity. To this end, team members conducted interviews with residents at Chatrikhera, Jawasiya‐Arniand Panchmata about their plans for the archaeological remains in and around their villages, and documented artifact reclamation and re‐use(Raczek and Sugandhi 2010; Sugandhi, et al. 2010). The team also conducted a small scale archaeological census through a judgment sampling strategy that targeted sites in between the major settlements of Ahar and Gilund. It is this latter portion of the project that we outline here. Terminology and Methodology Before proceeding, it is important to clearly define what we mean by the terms “village 165 ISSN 2347 – 5463Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 3: 2015 to village survey,” “systematic archaeological survey,” “site catchment analysis,” and “archaeological census.” As mentioned above, the idea of “survey” indicates the search for new or undocumented archaeological sites through a variety of means.“Village to village survey” relies far more on the knowledge of local inhabitants and historical geography, and is