An Archaeological and Geospatial Investigation of Lost Forts and Fortalices in Yamuna Valley with Special Reference to Vairat and Mungra Forts in Garhwal (Central) Himalaya, Uttarakhand,

Nagendra S. Rawat1

1. Department of History and Archaeology, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal – 246 174, Uttarakhand, India (Email: [email protected])

Received: 13 June 2018; Revised: 24 August 2018; Accepted: 01 October 2018 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6 (2018): 872‐886

Abstract: The medieval forts, called Garh or Garhi in Garhwal, Uttarakhand which were raised in the mountainous terrain around 1000‐1500 AD have never attracted the attention of historians and archaeologists alike. To fill this gap the present work carried out multidisciplinary investigation combining remote Sensing and GIS with archaeology to examine the structural, defensive aspects and the distribution pattern of medieval forts, particularly the Mungra and Vairat in Yamuna valley, Western Garhwal, Uttarakhand. The present study has wide ramifications in understanding the role of forts and fortalices in the medieval warfare and defensive practices in Garhwal Uttarakhand.

Keywords: Garhwal, Himalaya, Yamuna Valley, Fort, Satellite Image, GIS, Archaeology

Introduction The tradition of played an important role in history of human settlements as it has always been a prime necessity of all times (Mishra 2008: 5). Archaeological explorations and excavations yielded various kind of forts worldwide which were constructed during different periods of history. But at the same time, it is important to point out that the size, location and architectural pattern of the forts varies due to the geographical condition of the area and availability of natural resources. However, towards north in the Garhwal Himalayan region it has been found that the small size small forts were developed in Garhwal Himalayan region during the medieval period as compared to forts raised in central, western and southern part of India during the same period.

Medieval structures are known locally as Garhs or Garhis of which, we have found that, the large structure corresponds to forts and the smaller structures, or Garhi as fortalices based upon their architecture and the size (Rawat 2017: 128). It has been further found Rawat 2018: 872‐886 that forts were used largely also for residential or residential cum watch tower purposes while fortalices were raised only as watchtowers (Rawat 2017: 129). Generally, it is assumed that these forts emerged after the decline of Katyuri dynasty in around the fag end of first millennia, when this part of Central Himalaya was under local chieftains who constructed these forts as their residence or as watch towers as a part of their defensive strategy in order to keep a watch over any possible aggression by invaders. This situation of political hierarchy continued up to the 15th century AD, when AjayPal (one of the chiefs) became powerful and brought all other chiefs of the region under his power. Since then, this part of Central Himalaya, which was hitherto known as Kedarkhand came to be known as Garhwal (The region of Garhs) from fifteenth century onwards (Raturi 1928:1). Although Garh (forts) are a part of history of this region not much is known. This is due to the lack of sufficient historical records and poor interest of archaeologists, this subject has never been studied in wider perspective. Therefore, this paper is an attempt to study the forts dotted in entire Yamuna valley of Garhwal with multidisciplinary approaches of archaeological explorations and geo‐spatial applications of remote sensing and geographical Information system.

Study Area Garhwal is an administrative division of Uttarakhand state of India, this region is well known for its natural beauty and for the four main sacred places viz. Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri. Yamunotri is the source place of river Yamuna which meets river Ganga at Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh). In Garhwal Himalaya, Yamuna basin extends from the latitude 30°31’N to 30° 45’N to 77°50’ to 78° E which covers an area of 6120.31 km2. The basin is bounded by higher Himalaya from north, the south limit of river Yamuna in Garhwal is marked by Shivalik and in western direction Yamuna basin forms its boundaries by an elevated ridge with a group of peaks crossed by the Shatul and Burenda passes and the eastern flange is bounded by the valley of river Bhagirathi. The origin of river Yamuna is Yamunotri Glacier which is at an altitude of 6,387 meters msl on the south western slopes of Banderpooch peaks (38059ʹN 78027ʹE). It covers a total distance of 170 km in the hills passing through the elevated valley of Dehradun before it cuts through the Siwalik Hills to enter the plains of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. River Tons, Asan and Kamal are the main tributaries of it in Garhwal Himalaya (Figure1).

Methods For the present study, the primary information about the locations of forts and fortalices in Yamuna basin, particularly of Mungra in district Uttarkashi and Vairat fort in district Dehradun was collected from different books and other published literatures. After looking in to the published literature the locations were identified by using the available Topo‐sheets and the open source high resolution satellite data of Quick bird (which is popularly known as Google earth imagery) and Bhuvan, an Indian satellite of the area under study. Finally a series of field surveys were also done

873 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

with the help of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to get the exact coordinates of the sites. During the field work a detailed study of Mungra fort has also been done to examine the architectural remains, and other associated aspect of these forts. Under the present study the open source and freely available satellite imageries of Quick Bird (Google earth) and Bhuvan have been used and the data was processed in ArcGIS application to analyze the distributional pattern of the medieval forts on Yamuna valley as well.

Figure 1: Map showing the Yamuna basin Garhwal Himalaya in Uttarakhand

874 Rawat 2018: 872‐886

Figure 2: (a) Satellite view of Vairat fort in Bhuvan, (b) ‐ Satellite view of Vairat fort in Google Earth

Figure 3: Historical images of Vairat fort (a) Image captured in May 2004, (b) Image captured in December 2011, (c) Image captured in January 2018

Figure 4: The longest southern facing outer wall of Vairat fort

Published Literature on Medieval Forts As mentioned above, the published literatures are the primary source of this research. They provide names but not the exact location of a good number of forts scattered in this region. At the same time the earlier workers have provided divergent account as far as the number of the forts are concerned. For instance. Raturi reported around 52 forts in Garhwal Himalaya (Raturi 1928: 154‐57), and only seven Hill forts in Yamuna valley. Thereafter, Katoch threw some more light on forts of Garhwal providing three different lists of forts in Garhwal Himalaya, wherein he mentioned a total of 102 names

875 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

of forts in Garhwal region and 10 forts in Yamuna valley (Katoch 1996:118‐34). While Bijalwan has reported 69 Hill forts only in Tehri and Uttarkashi district, and 15 Hill forts in Yamuna valley (Bijalwan 2007: 351‐370). In this tradition another scholar Rana published a list of 21 Hill forts in Yamuna valley (Rana 2005: 173‐74). In view of these divergent accounts of forts it had become a challenge to identify the exact locations of forts in Yamuna valley. Following section of the paper will elaborate the results obtained by applying the multidisciplinary methodologies of Geo‐spatial tool and archaeological field work.

Remote Sensing Data and Signature of Medieval Vairat Fort Although the published literature by different workers provides us the names of the forts in Garhwal Himalaya including the Yamuna valley but the location of a large number of such forts is completely unknown or some of the medieval forts have gone unnoticed or not recorded by earlier workers. Vairat fort, is one such fort which remained unnoticed by the earlier workers and therefore, it has not been included in the list provided by the earlier workers. Therefore, in view of this, the application of the open access satellite imagery of Quick bird revealed some anomalies on the surface of the ridges and top of the hill located towards west of small village of Nagthat in district Dehradun (Figure 2). A closer look into the series of imageries taken during different period of years through google earth shows three rectangular features enclosed within each other (Figure 3). Another interesting anomaly on this imagery is the series of curved lines at some interval towards south of the rectangular feature. All these anomalies encouraged us to undertake archaeological exploration for confirming whether or not these features are natural or manmade.

Ground Truthing and Arc GIS Mapping A detailed exploration of the area was conducted to ascertain the nature and type of the structure. The field investigation revealed that the feature (as seen on the imagery) are basically two rectangular stone structures enclosing each other and covering a very large area on the hill top as mentioned above. However, only the southern masonry wall of the structure is fully intact, and its larger part is equally exposed. The wall measures 15 Meter in length and 5 meter in height (Figure 4). Another measurable feature on this site is a burnt brick made Well, the opening of the well is 2.5 meter in diameter (Figure 5a), but the semi‐rectangular moat and other features around the stone structure (Figure 5b) including the ditches on southern slope of the ridge are not very clear and measureable.

Although a detailed measurement of the entire site could not be taken but a general outline of all identified features on google earth were digitized in ArcGIS as shown (Figure 6) to understand its plan and nature of other features in relation to the mountainous landscape. This illustration (Figure 6) shows that the moat was dug surrounding the main structure of the fort to provide protection to it as it was widely constructed during the medieval period for defensive purpose as found in various medieval forts in India (Begde 1982: 26). However, it is equally important to point out

876 Rawat 2018: 872‐886 that the moat is a rare feature at this site as such kind of moat has not been found in any other site of Garhwal Himalaya. Furthermore, some curved features are also visible in satellite images which have been identified in field survey as natural ridge of the mountain modified to provide an additional protection to the fort from the southern flank of the structure. It is interesting to add that the evidences of such kind of manmade ditches have also been found surrounding some other forts of Chaundkot, Badhan and Badalpur in Garhwal region (Rawat 2017: 131).

Figure 5: (a) ‐ A deep well constructed with burnt bricks, (b) ‐ Some parts of the moat surrounding the wall

Figure 6: Different Archaeological feature of Vairat fort digitized in Arc GIS

877 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Figure 7: (a) Remotely identified location of Raj Garhi, (b) Hansora Garhi

Figure 8: (a) Decorated wooden doorframe of Kotha at Rajgarhi, (b)‐Field photograph of Hansora and partially exposed wall in inset

Figure 9: Arrow showing the visible walls at Mungra fort (hillock‐2) Including Manmade ditches (Between hillock1 and hillock‐2)

Based on this study it may be said that the remote sensing is immensely useful in identifying the signatures of the some of surviving remains of old medieval structures of Vairat fort in the remote Yamuna valley of western Garhwal which otherwise would have remained completely unexplored till date. While examining the signatures of some other archaeological remains, the author encountered signatures of two more medieval buildings of Rajgarhi and Hansora by using open source satellite data in the Yamuna valley (Figure 7a,b), which are located about 32 km

878 Rawat 2018: 872‐886 north of Vairat Fort valley which shall be discussed subsequently in this paper. The satellite image also shows some regular feature right in the heart of the village Rajgarhi which is located on one end of the ridge of the hill. Therefore, in order to confirm the nature of the building and its architectural pattern it necessitated a ground trurthing as well.

Figure 10: Walls of Mungra fort covered under bushes and heavy vegetation Figure

Field Investigation – Ground Tuthing The field exploration was carried out in the area for ground truthing and it was found that the features identified under the satellite imagery is primarily a square shaped stone cum wooden structure. This structure is a fortified residence of royal family or noble class of late medieval period, locally called as Kotha. This structure is double storied house measuring 16X16 meters. The building has one entrance from eastern side with decorated wooden doorframe (Figure8a). Here it is important to mention that, some of the buildings of noble class which were built around 15th or 16th century in Garhwal have been found still surviving and quite intact in some parts of Garhwal like‐ Kotha of Bharpur near Deoprayag in district Tehri and, Kotha of Sarkot near Chorda Garh in district Chamoli which are interestingly located near the lost forts of Bharpur Garh and Chorada Garh respectively.

Interestingly, the signature of some archaeological site was also marked in the imagery which is located North East of Virat fort. However, it is interesting to find out the old or remnant channel towards the eastern side of the present Yamuna river in the satellite imagery which must have provided natural protection from the eastern side as well. In this context it is worthwhile to point out the occupant of this fort must have exploited the geomorphological background as it provided a natural protection to the human occupation on the hill. Although the signature of an archaeological site is not very clear on the hill top as found in the case of Vairat fort. However during the field visit only a small portion of a damaged wall was found suggesting that the structure was not very huge (Figure8b) but keeping in view the strategic importance of location it can be said that the site must have been used as a watchtower to keep a watch over

879 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

the valley from any possible invasion. The following section of the paper describe the result of field verification of Mungra fort and its archaeological remains and possible warfare strategy of the occupant of the fort.

Figure 11: Cup marks on hillock‐1 at Mungra

Figure 12: Natural and artificial defensive elements at Mungra fort (a)River Yamuna covering the fort, (b)‐ Exposed portion of underground passageway

Mungra Fort The Mungra fort (30°47ʹ33.05ʺN, 78°8ʹ25.00ʺ) is located on the left bank of river Yamuna at an altitude of 648 meters from MSL in Patti Mugarsanti of Rawain Paragana in district Uttarkashi. This is one important fort not only in Yamuna valley but also in entire Garhwal region as it is discussed by earlier workers who have highlighted this

880 Rawat 2018: 872‐886 fort (Raturi 1928: 154, Katoch 1996: 124, Rana 2005: 73, Bijalwan 2007: 359). In this context, Bhatt (1952: 116) quoted that Mungra fort as the one structure “which was under dominance of Rawats of Rawain that is Mungra fort, presently Rontela community surviving here who rudely defeated the implacable enemy, which was horrid like holocaust”.

Archeological Signatures Mungra Fort is located on the left bank of river Yamuna at an altitude of 1741 Meters. Since the major portion of the structure of the fort is covered under bushes, it was quite difficult to find the exact plan and detailed information of the fort but at the same time some remains of the walls and other feature have been seen which clearly shows the archaeological importance of the site. The fort was constructed on top of the ridge which is divided into two hillocks by a manmade ditch (Figure9). The available outer wall of the large structure on hillock‐2 is about 71‐meter‐long 6 meter high and 76cm wide (Figure. 9).

Besides the outer wall on hillock‐2 few other walls have been seen which are mostly covered under bushes and heavy vegetation (Figure10). Similarly, onhillock‐1 impression of a room measures 4 X 4 meter and few cup marks also have been found, which was possibly used for thrashing the grains or for metal working (Figure11). Apart from these findings no other associated material evidences like pottery, metal objects etc were found during field survey.

It is important to highlight that through the study of satellite imageries of the medieval remains it has also become possible to identify and explore such important historical structures or surviving heritage in these remote villages which are in the state of is appearance from the mountainous landscape and secondly which hold important information on the history and culture of this region. Geographical profile and defensive strategy

It has been understood that any kind of fort is basically a defensive architecture which was raised ingeniously to protect the noble class and their associates. In this context, after examining the Mungra fort and its surroundings it has come to light that this fort was protected by two rings of protection i.e. natural protection and manmade protection. In the first ring, the naturally protected site was selected to construct the fort. This fort is was mainly protected by natural barricades of river Yamuna, at north‐ west and north east, thick forest and sloppy ditches and due to steep slope the fort was completely inaccessible from south, east and south east sides as can be seen in following figure (Figure12a).

The river flowing around the hillock certainly formed a natural fortification for this location. Beside the natural protection, the second ring of protection further added to the fortification, which included manmade ditches, underground passageway and arrangement of many fortalices or watchtowers in hinterland of Mungra fort.

881 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Figure 13: Map showing the distribution of Forts and Fortalices dotted in Yamuna Valley

Presently, there are two manmade ditches which can be seen over the only available connecting route on south‐western flank. Most possibly the main purpose of modifying the ridge in this manner was to make the access more difficult for invaders who intended to approach directly to royal residence (Begde 1982: 26). Secondly, the construction of an underground passageway of the fort is also a very interesting feature which has its opening to the bank of river Yamuna. However, presently it is difficult to trace the entire passageway because a major part of it is now blocked by

882 Rawat 2018: 872‐886 stone boulders and other waste but the opening of the passageway can be seen clearly (Figure12b). Interestingly, constructing the underground passageway is not a regional concept, it is well discussed as an important part of fortification in various ancient Indian texts and have been clearly found at , (Ranade 1992: 23). It seems that this underground tunnel was a secret passage or ‘emergency exit’ which was efficiently designed to be used by the royal family during any emergency. Additionally, the arrangement of several fortalices or watchtowers surrounding Mungra fort is another important manmade defensive feature which is being discussed in following paragraphs.

Figure 14: A possible ‘Visual Networking System’ of Mungra fort and surroundings (Based on Line of Sight Analysis)

Consequently, based on the review of the available literature, satellite imageries and field work a total number of 34 locations of lost forts and fortress/watchtowers have been identified in entire Yamuna valley of western Garhwal which are listed in following table (table.1) and shown in map (Figure13).

Distributional or Configurational Pattern of Forts and Fortalices As shown in table 1, 34 sites of Forts and Fortalices were identified in Yamuna valley, in which only few sites (fort) like Mungra, Nimga and Vairat have huge architectural remains as compared to other small sites (fortalice/watchtower) like Hansora, Billa, Vojri and others. Therefore, after plotting all the locations of these Forts and Fortalices on GIS, further analysis has been done to know their distributional pattern as well.

883 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Table 1: List of Forts and Fortalices Identified in Yamuna Valley S.N. Name of the site Latitude Longitude Elevation Possible (In Meter) Category 1 Mungra Garh 30°47ʹ33.05ʺ 78°08ʹ25.00ʺ 1741 Fort 2 Sankri Garh 31°04ʹ51.45ʺ 78°11ʹ02.83ʺ 1905 Fort 3 Raain Garh 31°07ʹ47.29ʺ 77°45ʹ06.65ʺ 1441 Fort 4 Biralta Garhi 30 42 43.60 78 07 41.25 1611 Fortalice 5 Idiya Garh 30°47ʹ15.01ʺ 78°09ʹ30.88ʺ 1738 Fortalice 6 Dodra‐Quara Garh 31°11ʹ32.75ʺ 78°02ʹ06.71ʺ 3272 Fortalice 7 Joulpur Garhi 30° 31ʹ18.78ʺ 77°58ʹ49.16ʺ 927 Fortalice 8 Gon Garhi 30°50ʹ16.76ʺ 78°12ʹ51.54ʺ 1899 Fortalice 9 Saula Garhi 30 48 07.88 78 06 51.16 1655 Fortalice 10 Kandrala Garhi 30°51ʹ11.20ʺ 78°04ʹ58.24ʺ 1570 Fort 11 Srikot Garhi 30 56 48.35 78 05 40.62 1796 Fortalice 12 Ser Garhi 30°40ʹ36.70ʺ 77°20ʹ57.17ʺ 1098 Fortalice 13 Kani Garhi 30°40ʹ27.30ʺ 77°26ʹ15.97ʺ 1643 Fortalice 14 Vairat Garh 30°35ʹ06.17ʺ 77°56ʹ11.92” 2229 Fort 15 Garhlani Garhi 30°41ʹ36.51ʺ 78°02ʹ57.82ʺ 1421 Fortalice 16 Billa Garhi 30°42ʹ43.60ʺ 78°07ʹ41.25ʺ 1611 Fortalice 17 Hansora Garhi 30°47ʹ52.77ʺ 78°08ʹ50.91ʺ 1722 Fortalice 18 Syalda or Saula Garhi 30 48 06.88 78 06 40.16 1641 Fortalice 19 Chamrai Garhi 30°47ʹ24.64ʺ 78°09ʹ13.31ʺ 1729 Fortalice 20 Munor Garhi 30°46ʹ33.02ʺ 78°09ʹ00.18ʺ 1709 Fortalice 21 Barkot Garhi 30°48ʹ50.56ʺ 78°12ʹ05.63ʺ 1283 Fortalice 22 Raj Garhi 30°50ʹ24.11ʺ 78°14ʹ21.75ʺ 1752 Fort 23 Vojri Garhi 30°54ʹ21.94ʺ 78°19ʹ59.49ʺ 1687 Fortalice 24 Dhol‐Sangula Garhi 30°52ʹ17.99ʺ 78°08 35.65ʺ 1777 Fortalice 25 Rainuka Garhi 30°55ʹ22.65ʺ 78°09ʹ33.28ʺ 2503 Fortalice 26 Garh Khatali 30°44ʹ23.54ʺ 78°06ʹ46.80ʺ 2012 Fortalice 27 Gattu Garhi 30°42ʹ2.36 78° 6ʹ53.53 1537 Fortalice 28 Shahastrabahu Garhi 30°48ʹ46.43ʺ 78°12ʹ50.30ʺ 1311 Fortalice 29 Gugti Garhi 30°50ʹ21.30ʺ 78°06ʹ01.14ʺ 1535 Fortalice 30 Nimga Garh 30 51 42.30 77 51 44.14 1696 Fort 31 Gan Garhi 30 41 36.51 78 02 57.82 1421 Fortalice 32 Thadung Garhi 30°49ʹ45.64ʺ 78°05ʹ38.19ʺ 1635 Fortalice 33 Dal badra Garhi 30°55ʹ11.39 78° 9ʹ47.80 1990 Fortalice 34 Halna Garhi 30°56ʹ53.79 78° 6ʹ50.03 2062 Fortalice which prominently proves two major facts‐ (i) most dense concentration of fortalices surround the Mungra Fort and (ii) maximum sites are found along river Yamuna and its main tributaries. In first case, the Line of Sight Analysis (LoSA) has been made with all the locations and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the area. The basic principle of

884 Rawat 2018: 872‐886 this analysis is based on inter‐visibility between the sites scattered within a valley or in a larger region (Brughmans et.al. 2015: 58‐143, Petrasova et.al. 2016: 82). Thus, on the basis of LoSA it has been observed that a good number of fortalices were strategically raised on the hilltops in hinterland of Mungra fort, which falls in particular line of sight. This strategic arrangement of fortalices forms a complex visual networking between Mungra fort and other surrounding fortalices as shown in the following figure (Figure14). This particular pattern of visual network must have been used to convey the messages at the time of any aggression through specified signaling of fire and smoke during night hours and specific drum beats during day time. Apart from pure defensive purpose these forts and fortalices might have played an important role to manage the pilgrims who visited Yamunotri shrine. Because according to Hindu belief, Yamuna is second most holy river after Ganga, therefore, the source of it (Yamunotri) became a sacred destination (Dham) for Hindu pilgrims and for others as well. In view of this, it could be said that apart from military purposes these fortalices were also used to provide necessary facility and to collect taxes from pilgrims.

Conclusion The findings discussed in present paper are an outcome of Multi‐disciplinary approach or methodology used for the study of medieval forts/fortalices dotted in Yamuna valley. Interestingly, on one hand this paper shows the importance of literary data, satellite images and field work for identifying the lost fort/fortalices at the same time it also described the role of GIS application to analyze and map the archaeological sites. The role of satellite images has been clearly explained in the case of Vairat fort which established that‐ this example of using open source satellite imagery is positively first and pioneering finding for archaeological investigation in Garhwal Himalaya, as such clear imagery of any other archaeological site have not been traced yet. And the use of GIS application and its several analysis also uncovered the distributional pattern of fort/fortalices in the valley and particularly surrounding the Mungra fort. However, the basic distributional pattern shows that the fort/ fortalices were not raised randomly these were positioned on specific locations to manage the pilgrims and also to keep watch over any suspicious activity or invaders. The advance Line of Sight Analysis (LoSA) clearly proved three major facts about the locations of forts and fortalices (i) The Forts and Fortalices were located at the regular interval of about 2‐3 Kilometer (ii) The fort/fortalice were raised on the location which provide natural protection to it (iii) the selected site should be within visible distance of other location. In short, it can be stated that present paper uncovered many important aspects about the defensive architecture and the configuration pattern of forts/ fortalices which were developed by the nobility during the late medieval period.

Acknowledgement I would like to give big thanks to the Department of History and Archaeology of HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, for providing necessary facilities to complete this research paper. Subsequently, I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to

885 ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

Prof. Vinod Nautiyal who helped me in every issue of this paper and particularly in language correction. I am also grateful to Dr. Manmohan S. Rawat of Uttarakhand Council of Science and Technology (UCOST) Dehradun, Mr. Saurabh Purohit of Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS) Dehradun, and Mr. Govind Singh Negi of Uttarakhand Space Application Center (USAC) Dehradun for their help in collecting the coordinates and preparing the Maps. I would also like to give big thanks to the local villagers of Mungra village for their help and support during the field work.

References Begde, P. V. 1982. Forts and places of India, Sagar Publications New Delhi. Bhatt, B. K. 1952. Kanak vansh kavya (vol. II), Narayankoti Publication, Uttarakhand, India. Bijalwan, J. P. 2007. Tehri‐ Uttarkashi janpad ka sanskritik aur rajnetik itihas (pracheen kaal se 1947 tak), Jananand Publication, Uttarakhand, India. Brughmans, T., S. Keay and G. Earl. 2015. Understanding Inter‐settlement Visibility in Iron Age and Roman Southern Spain with Exponential Random Graph Models for Visibility Networks, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22 (1): 58‐143. Katoch, Y. S. 1996. Madhya Himalaya part‐I: Sanskriti ke pad chinha, Bhagirathi Prakashan. Uttarakhand, India. Mishra, R. 2008. Fortified Cities in Ancient India, Literary circle Pub., Jaipur, India. Petrosova, A., B. Harmon, V. Petras, H. Mitasova. 2016. Tangible modelling with open source GIS. New York. Springer. Rana, R. S. 2005. Yamuna upatyaka: Yamunotri. Munal Publication, Uttarakhand, India. Ranade, U. 1992. Architectural and Sculptural remains, In M.S. Mate and T.V. Pathy (Eds.). Daulatabad: A Report on the Archaeological investigations, Deccan collage Post graduate and research institute, , India. Raturi, H. K. 1928. Garhwal ka Itihas, Bhagirathi Prakashan Tehri, Uttarakhand, India. Rawat, N. S. 2017. An Ethnographic, Archaeological and Geo‐Informatics Study of Medieval Garhs / Forts of Garhwal Himalaya: A Study in Politico‐Geographic Perspective, (Unpublished PhD thesis) Department of History and Archaeology, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, India.

886