Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 ISSN: 1996-8914

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo- Archaeological Records

Mizanur Rahman1*, Md Saifuzzaman2, S. Dara Shamsuddin2 1 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Cox's Bazar-4700, Bangladesh 2 Department of Geography & Environment, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, -1342, Bangladesh

(Received: 20 March 2020, Revised: 25 June 2020, Accepted: 28 June 2020, Online: 30 June 2020)

Abstract Documentation, conservation, and preservation of archaeological sites and artefacts in Bangladesh call for rapid non-invasive methods of scientific investigation in order not to disturb the sites and situation in a densely populated country with considerable fluvio-geomorphological changes. Remote Sensing (RS) and GIS with appropriate use of other supplementary information is an advantageous method of identification and analysis of archaeological features and environmental characteristics of archaeological sites. We had earlier proposed a five-step methodological approach to developing a geospatial database on the physical and cultural aspects of archaeological sites using RS and GIS technologies and tested in six archaeological sites of various sizes, periods, and environmental conditions. The current study is a further exploration of the proposed method in two little known archaeological sites, namely Mainamatir Garh (or Mainamatir Kot) and Dharmapaler Garh, less than 4 km apart in Domar and Jaldhaka Upazilas of Nilphamari District. The local inhabitants have encroached the sites and divided up into plots for their settlements. Consequently, the ramparts of the mud fort are threatened by massive human disturbance. It is also under threat of river erosion flowing along Mainamatir Garh. Freely available multispectral and high-spatial remote sensing data provided additional measurement capabilities of various artefacts in the sites. We recommend that this method for preliminary identification and delimitation of archaeological features is useful, aided with historical maps and other secondary data. The present study demonstrates that we now have both technology and human resources on hand to undertake a rapid on-screen survey of all the archaeological sites of Bangladesh for updating the records on a digital database structure with minimum fieldwork.

Keywords: RS-GIS, Archaeological features, Paleo-environment, Mud-forts.

Introduction Identification and preservation of cultural heritage sites involve integrating knowledge of the present and past physical environment, present characteristics of the site components and the existing socio-economic perspective of the study site without too much invasive intervention in the form of fieldwork and excavation (Akanda et al., 2005; Luo et al., 2019). Reliable database for these aspects are difficult to secure because in most cases, adequate, reliable and accurate data are not available (Begum, 2013; Imran, 2005). Remote sensing data in the form of satellite images and aerial photographs in conjunction with detailed ground-based global positioning system (GPS) survey provides a database with certain reliability.

*Corresponding Author ([email protected])

Citation: Rahman, M. et al., 2020. Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo- Archaeological Records, Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, 11, 94-110. Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records

A modern archaeological project often begins with a survey. Regional survey is an attempt to systematically locate previously unknown sites in a region. Site survey, on the other hand, is an attempt to systematically locate features of interest, such as houses, ramparts and moats, walls, and such other features within a site. Each of these two goals may be accomplished with largely the same methods. The tasks of surveying areas in order to find new sites and features, excavating sites in order to recover cultural remains, classification, analysis, and preservation are all important phases of the archaeological investigation (Kennedy, 1998; Rahman, 1998). The commonality between geographical-environmental and archaeological methods rests primarily on the approaches and methods of survey. Both regional and site survey requirements of archaeology would be fulfilled by the same survey methods as employed in geographical-environmental survey, including use of satellite imageries and aerial photographs coupled with such traditional ground survey techniques as Plane Table, Prismatic Compass and Theodolite, now mostly taken over by GPS survey and Total Station.

Archaeological remote sensing involves the use of remote sensing technology and remotely sensed images for archaeological investigation (Alexakis et al., 2012; Mollah, 2011; Sultana, 2007). The images used are from sensors placed on satellites and aircraft. Archaeological remote sensing may be divided into two types, depending on the platform used, namely aerial photography using an aircraft, and satellite imaging, using a satellite (Lillesand et al., 2004; Smoot, 1995; Wang et al., 2004). Both of them are useful for regional survey and site survey. Remote sensing archaeology is to explore cultural relics from spaceborne satellite images coupled with the ground survey (Cox, 1992; Faintich, 2003; Kvamme, 2005; Tan et al., 2005). The use of remotely sensed images for the archaeological survey is scanty in Bangladesh, though it is widely used in other countries (Agapiou et al., 2014 and 2015; Alexakis et al., 2009). A detailed discussion of this is available in our previous study (Saifuzzaman et al., 2012). These studies and the present study have proved that widely available Google Earth images offer great opportunities and possibilities for archaeological studies in Bangladesh. Depending on resolution available for a particular site, the nature of the ground vegetation cover and other site disturbances, and the requirements of the study, Google Earth images are reasonably acceptable data source on which to develop a digital database for all archaeological sites in Bangladesh.

Archaeological investigations have now reached a stage where Bangladesh has the required technology, know-how, adequate number of qualified professionals in archaeology and RS-GIS to answer to the need for the technology-based nationwide archaeological survey (Imran et al., 2002; Jahan, 2016; Saifuzzaman et al., 2011). This study aims to further test and refine the methodological approach we developed earlier to identify and describe archaeological-structural features and layout plan in addition to the present and paleo-environment of the site. The objectives, therefore are to refine the methodology of such investigation and develop site maps with structural details and supporting database. For this purpose two little known sites were selected, one of which is not yet on the listed sites of the Department of Archaeology, Government of Bangladesh.

The specific site objective was to identify, interpret and analyse the archaeological features, particularly structural features and layout plan of these two mostly unexplored sites, especially those structural features that may not be visible on the ground. An additional and equally important

95

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al. objective was to determine the past and present biophysical and socio-economic environment of the sites under study.

Materials and Methods The two sites Dharmapaler Garh and Mainamatir Garh/Kot are both in the Nilphamari District (Figure 1). Here onward, the name Mainamatir Garh and Dharmapaler Garh are marked as ‘1’ and ‘2’ respectively. The sites were identified through systematic visual on-screen scanning of the North-West part of Bangladesh, known for its Hindu-Buddhist period mud-forts and other archaeological sites (Begum, 2013). The terms Garh, Kot, Dhap, Dhibi, Dhipi, Tibi, Qella, Kella, Burj, Khitta, Damdama and Chauki are used, sometimes interchangeably, to different types of fortifications to be found in Bangladesh and Poschimbongo of (Begum, 2013).

The section below is a detailed description of the general methodological approach we took for the study (Figure 2). This general approach was tested previously in six different sites (Saifuzzaman et al., 2012) and was tailored to suit the specific requirements of each study site and the objectives of this study.

Figure 1: Location of Mainamatir Garh (1) and Dharmapaler Garh (2); (a) Physiographic map of North along with Nilphamari District map, (b) Dharmapaler Garh in Rennell’s map, (c) District Gazetteer 1930, (d) US topo map 1960.

96

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records

Figure 2: Flow chart of the research method/approach.

Step one: Objective of the specific site study- It is an obvious but very important step to clearly state the objectives/purpose of the study in question. The more clearly the purpose is stated the easier would be to identify and carry out the next steps.

Step two: Procure and evaluate data-The next step is to collect, examine, interpret, analyse and evaluate the data and information available on the archaeological site/s and the larger study area. The sources and considerations are: . Satellite images from Google Earth open source. . Maps: topographical maps, district maps, mauza maps, other maps of scale (R.F). . Previous survey and reports: types of survey and reports (i.e. individual/institutional) dates, limitations. . Online data: locational data, raster and vector data, geo-tagged photographs.

97

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

Step three: Checklist of information requirement-This is a step to be followed if the study requires field investigation for ground-truthing. Having examined all the information extractable from the images and maps from various sources, a detailed checklist is to be prepared for the collection of information from the field. Table 1 below is a detail sample checklist:

Table 1: Checklist of information for ground-truthing of study sites Features Category Detail Features . River, active and paleo-channels . Khal/small river . Bil Bio-Physical environmental features . Byde . Soil types . Land type (Bhita, Chala etc) . Vegetation cover

. Settlement . Hat bazars Land use features other than . Pucca Road archaeological features . Kutcha road . Pond/Dighi . Agricultural land

. Type of site . Absolute and relative location . Approximate dimension (height, width, depth etc.) . Approximate shape Archaeological features . Condition of the site . Existing human use . Degree of exposure and disturbance . Legal status

Step Four: Appropriate field methods and techniques-This is the step that is critically important once it is decided that detail field investigations are required. Detail plan and the program is to be drawn up for field-level data collection. First and foremost is the development of an exhaustive data collection sheet based largely on the checklist developed above. For the site-specific survey, all features must be measured and have the field data collection sheet meticulously filled in. This is of utmost importance for developing an RS-GIS map. List of instruments required includes GPS, Digital camera, Santo Level, Pole and measuring tape. It is also of utmost importance that the researcher/s personally conduct fieldwork by going to each location, taking appropriate reading and measurements, taking digital photographs and GPS location, observing the important and the unusual, taking notes, and filling up the data collection sheet for every site, reviewing and editing the sheet at the end of day’s work and revisiting the site, if necessary, to double-check the readings and measurements. All these are very important for step five which is to follow.

Step Five: Integrate data and information-There are several procedural sub-steps that are to be carried out in order to effectively integrate data and information obtained from diverse sources into

98

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records a standard digital format (Table 2). These are described below, used in other studies, as required. The methods have the same objective but differ in details: . Satellite navigation data linking with topo-sheet: Topo-map and GPS survey data of the archaeological sites and surrounding areas are inter-linked to place the sites in relation to mapped rivers and channels and other topographical information of the present day. GPS surveyed data overlaid with Google image of the sites (Figure 6). . Geo-processing and geo-correcting remote sensing images: Satellite navigation data are to be linked with Geo-processed and geo-corrected remote sensing image. Google Earth images were used for detail identification of the site features followed by detail but non-invasive field verification and measurements. Wherever vegetation and/or settlement and human or natural disturbances impeded proper identification and interpretation of present Google Earth images, we took recourse to historical images that were available up to 2006. Archaeological sites and road network of study sites and surrounding areas were shown on Google Earth image using GIS in order to show the distribution of the sites in relation to the general geomorphological environment. Each archaeological site is overlapped on remote sensing imagery with GPS satellite navigation data. . Metadata and geo-tagged photos linked with remote sensing Images: Metadata and geo-tagged photos were linked with the images for each archaeological site having spatial references (Photo plate 1).

(a) (b) Photo plate 1: (a) GPS readings on the site, (b) Measuring the height of Rampart.

. Developing grids and graticules: Developing grid and graticules were most important for detailed survey and ID generation on each archaeological site. Satellite navigation data were overlapped on grids for distance calculation from one archaeological site to another. ID generation is very important for a large archaeological complex because all archaeological sites may not be possible to be surveyed at the same time.

99

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

Table 2: Data types and their quality to identify the archaeological features Data source Year Data types Data quality Rennell’s 1779 Map showing the location of Both absolute and relative map Dharmapaler Garh and indicative symbol. location closely matches with the topo map location and Google Earth image.

District map 1930 Map showing the location of the Both absolute and relative Dharmapaler Garh. location closely matches with the topo map location and Google Earth image.

US topo 1960 Map showing the location of both Both absolute and relative maps Dharmapaler Garh and Mainamatir Kot. location closely matches with the topo map location and Google Earth image. Outline of Dharmapaler Garh closely matches with Google Earth image. Mainamatir Garh’s outline is vague and suggestive.

Topo maps 1972 Map showing the absolute and relative Both the layout plans match location of both Dharmapaler Garh and very closely with the Google Mainamatir Kot with approach roads, Earth image; the absolute and condition of the roads, and layout plans of relative locations and access both the Garhs. roads match with those of the Google Earth image.

Mauza maps 1986- Maps showing both the Garhs been The plot patterns match very 1987 settled for land revenue, divided into plots closely with the layout of the of various sizes and shapes, the plot Garhs. patterns reflecting the landscape of the Garhs and their layout.

Sentinel- 2016- Image showing the totality of natural and The visual data quality is high, 2/Google 2020 human landscape; the ramparts and the depending on the purpose and maps moats, human encroachments and skill of interpretation and destruction; the active rivers and paleo- familiarity with the site and channels not shown or discussed situation. elsewhere, the agricultural land use, village settlements, roads and water bodies.

Results and Discussion Historical fluvio-environmental changes Considerable fluvio-environmental changes have taken place in the North-West of Bangladesh due to the River Tista avulsion in 1787 (Fergusson, 1863). The then section of Tista lying between present-day Banshkanthia (approximate lat. & long.: 26026’N & 88045’E) in India and Debiganj (approximate lat. & long.: 26006’N & 88045’E) in Bangladesh and all the distributaries that took off from this section was directly affected. These included the River Karatoya, Deonai, and an

100

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records unnamed paleo-river that used to flow by the eastern side of the Dharmapaler Garh. This paleo- channel, identified as the Sui River, is only discernible on Google Image and other satellite images, but not recorded in any of the maps studied. The River Deonai, still flowing by the eastern side of the Mainamatir Garh carrying local rainfall-runoff (BWDB, 2005) may also have been an offshoot of pre-1787 Tista (Figure 3). There are numerous stagnant cut-off channels in the west and north- west of Rangpur town, most of which are known as Mora (dead) or Buri (old) Tista are believed to be evidence of past channel changes of Tista (DoA, 2020).

Figure 3: Possible channels of pre-1787 Tista river, off-shoot point of the paleo-channel (Sui River) and off-shoot point of Deonai river.

Location and Names Dharmapaler Garh, which is on the list of the Department of Archaeology, is situated in Gar Dharmapal mauza, (JL No. CS/RS 03). Also known as Gar Dharmapur (Nomani, 1952) and Dharmapal Garh (Zakaria, 2007) is situated in Dharmapal Union under Jaldhaka Upazila. Mainamatir Garh, also known as the Mainamatir Kot (Zakaria, 2007), is situated in two adjacent mauzas, namely Harinchara (JL No. CS/RS 35) and Atiabari (JL No. CS/RS 47) in Harinchara Union (previously Sonaray Union) under Domar Upazila. Dharmapeler Grah is located between 88.89 degrees E 26.08 degrees N and 88.90 degrees E 26.07 degrees N. On the other hand, the Mainamatir Garh is located between 88.85 degrees E 26.08 degrees N and 88.87 degrees E 26.07 degrees N. The aerial distance between them is less than 4 kilometres. Both the sites are approachable by road from Nilphamari, the last few kilometres are mud roads but motor-able during the dry season.

101

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

Maps and other studies The earliest map reference is found in Major Rennell’s map, who surveyed North-Eastern India between 1764 and 1777 (Hirst et al., 1914; Rudra, 2016). The maps were published between 1777 and 1779. Map number V (five) indicates an “Old Kella” south of Dimla (spelt Deemlah). When georeferenced, this place approximates to the location of Dharmapaler Garh (Figure 1b). The next map reference is found in the District map of Rangpur, 1930 showing the location of “Gar Dharmapal” south of Dimla (Figure 1c). US Army topo map of the 1960s based on Survey of India map of 1930-33 shows for the first time a Garh whose outline closely matches that of the Dharmapaler Garh (Figure 1d). It does not carry a name. However, the map carries a place name some distance to the west from the Garh outline called “Mainamatirkot”. It also very vaguely suggests a rampart and a large tank within the rampart. The next map reference is that of the Topo map of 1972 that clearly shows the location of both the Garhs and clear and detail outlines of the ramparts (Figure 4). However, what we now know as Dharmapaler Garh is referred to as Bhitarkot. We, therefore, have a map reference stretching over more than two and quarter centuries. The District Gazetteer of Rangpur, 1911 has a detail description of the general layout plan of the Dharmapaler Garh, which is worth quoting (Vas, 1911). “A few miles south of Dimla are the remains of a fortified city, which retains the name of Dharma Pal. An image found in this city contains the typical Pal emblem of an elephant borne down by a lion. The City is in the form of an irregular parallelogram, rather less than a mile from north to south, and three-quarters of a mile from east to west in the centre, diminishing towards the north and increasing in breadth towards its southern extremity. It consisted of an inner and outer city, with raised ramparts of earth and ditches on the outer side.” Another study mentioned both the mud forts, with some quantification of the layout plan of the Dharmapaler Garh, designated as Dharmapalagarh, accompanied by sketch maps after Zakaria (Figure 5). Begum (2013) described Dharmapaler Garh as follows: “The fort has three close oblong enclosures, one within the other. The fort measures 1371.6 m (4500 ft) north-south by 914.4 m (3000 ft) east-west. The mud walls are again surrounded by outer moats. According to tradition the name of Dharmapala, a Pala emperor, is associated with the fort of Dharmapalagarh. The ramparts of this irregular square fort are distinct earthen works with gaps at various places indicating the positions of gateways and openings for water in different moats.” Begum (2013) illustrated Mainamatir Garh or Mainamatirgarh as follows: “The remains of another small fort-Mainamotirgarh are on the bank of river Deonai in the district of Nilphamari (Greater Rangpur). It is situated two miles west of Dharmapalgarh. It measures an area of 259.2 hectares (one square mile) and consists of two concentric ramparts: one within another and the ramparts are separated by a moat.”

102

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records

Figure 4: Location of Dharmapaler Garh and Mainamatir Kot in a topographic map, 1972.

(a) (b) Figure 5: Sketch maps of (a) Mainamatir Garh and (b) Dharmapaler Garh (Source: Zakaria, 2007).

103

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

Structural and environmental description of Mainamatir Garh Mainamatir Garh stands on the right bank of the River Deonai. Deonai is a local river now. It originates from a bil area in Domar Upazila and passing through Jaldhaka and Kishoreganj Upazilas of Nilphamari district falls into in Nababganj Upazila in Dinajpur (BWDB, 2005). However, from close study of Google Earth image it might be safe to speculate that River Deonai was a left bank offshoot of the old Tista before the 1787 avulsion (Figure 3). Measurements of ramparts and moat are provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Mainamatir Garh: Measurements of ramparts and moat by the data source Sources of information Structural measurements Field Mauza Topo map of Google Zakaria (m) measurement map Bangladesh Earth image (2007) (GPS) Outer North 458 450 454 454 NA rampart South 483 600 582 582 NA length East 411 300 376 376 NA West 606 550 625 625 NA

North 180 400 347 347 910 Inner rampart South 376 350 379 379 910 length East 330 250 325 325 910 West 402 500 391 391 910

Distance North, average 100 175 117 NA 151 Between the South, average 78 79 85 NA 151 Inner and the East, average 109 118 115 NA 151 outer rampart West, average 85 104 93 NA 151

Moat Length NA Moat Width NA Note: Not Available (NA)

The Garh has two ramparts, the outer and the inner (Figure 6). The north-eastern corner of the outer rampart may have been washed away by the Deonai. On the other hand, the river-front may have been open. Besides, there is a large and high “watchtower” at the end east end of the outer rampart, suggesting that this may have been the end of the rampart. The lengths of the four arms of the inner rampart vary from 180 m to 500 m (Table 3). Similarly, the lengths of each of the four arms of the outer rampart vary from 376 m to 606 m. The distance between the inner and outer rampart varies from an average of 93 m on the west, 81 m on the south, 114 m on the east and 131 m on the north. From the alignment of plot boundaries and presence of small ponds, it would seem there may have been a moat only along the outside of the inner west embankment. There is no other visible sign of a moat, neither along the inner nor along the outer rampart. There are 13 circular platforms on the inner rampart (Figure 7a). They looked like “watchtowers”. Two of them, one on the north opening and the other on the south opening is considerably and more spacious and larger than the others. They could perhaps be termed as the “gate watch towers” On the outer rampart, in addition to the large “watchtower’ at the east end of the outer tower, we could only locate two such “watchtowers’,

104

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records on the south-west corner, one on the south arm, the other on the west arm. The total area enclosed by the outer rampart would have been around 34 hectares.

(a)

(b)

Figure 6: Google Earth images of the (a) Mainamatir Garh and (b) Dharmapaler Garh, overlaid with mauza boundaries. The images are dated October 19, 2016. The fieldwork was undertaken in February 2016.

105

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

The total area covered by the inner rampart may have been a little over 13 hectares. Two sections of the southern arm of the outer rampart have been badly damaged. The north-eastern corner of the outer rampart has been partly taken over by a village settlement with thick homestead vegetation. Adjacent to the village settlement there is a thick grove of natural vegetation. The entire Garh area has been turned into rich agricultural land with rice and tobacco crops growing, one following the other (Photo plate 2).

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Photo plate 2: (a) One of the Gateways of Mainamatir Garh, (b) Tobacco cultivation inside Mainamatir Garh, (c) The Sui River before excavation and (d) The Sui river after excavation.

Structural and environmental description of Dharmapaler Garh The Dharmapaler Garh stands on the river Sui, a local name that is not on the current record of Bangladesh Water development Board list of rivers (BWDB, 2005). However, about 7 km downstream, in Karimganj Union of Jaldhaka Upazila excavation of the Sui River was inaugurated in 2019. Comparing Rennell’s map with the Google Earth image (Figure 3) it would seem likely that the river was part of an old channel of Tista, now known as the Buri Tista. The channel flowing by the Dharmapaler Garh was less than 130 m wide. However, this is more than double the width of the present Deonai river. The River Sui would seem to have been a braided river. There was a large elongated island on the other (east) side, beyond which there was even a larger channel measuring about 500 m in width. Both these channels seem to have been offshoots of what is now known as Buri Tista.

Dharmapaler Garh has an interesting and complex structure (Figures 6 and 7). It has no rampart along the entire length of riverfront, which is about 1800 m. The west rampart is about 1250 m long. The north, which is the shortest is about 565 m long, and the south rampart is about 1050 m long (Table 4). There are two outer ramparts, one to the north and the other to the south. The

106

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records northern outer rampart is about 171 m away from the inner rampart. It starts from the paleo-channel to the east, goes west for a distance of about 520 m and then bends gently towards the south making a small arc of nearly 200 m. The southern outer rampart is about 158 m away from the inner rampart. It runs straight from the paleo-channel (i.e. the Sui River) for a distance of about 1700 m. There is no west outer rampart to join the northern and the southern outer ramparts. In other words, the outer rampart is not closed.

There is a moat running alongside the inner rampart with an average width of about 24 m. The southern moat takes an inverse “Z” shape before joining the paleo-channel to the east. There are two further interesting features of the moat. There are three large lobes on the moat, one to the south, one to the west and the third to the south, all about the same size (Figure 7). The total area covered by the inner rampart without taking into account the moat, is about 85 hectares. If the area covered by the moat and the two outer ramparts are taken into account, a further 22 hectares is added, making the total 107 hectares. This makes the Dharmapaler Garh considerably larger than the Mainamatir Garh.

Table 4: Dharmapaler Garh: Measurements of ramparts and moat by data source Source of information Structural measurements Field Mauza Topo map of Google Zakaria (m) measurement map Bangladesh Earth image (2007) (GPS) Outer North 724 900 755 724 NA rampart South NA 2200 1496 1503 NA length East NA NA NA NA NA West NA NA NA NA NA North 569 550 578 562 1390 Inner rampart South 1150 1100 1131 815 1366 length East NA NA 1200 1258 1454 West 1176 1500 1171 1156 1454 Distance North, average 137 221 155 NA NA Between the South, average NA 181 134 NA NA Inner and the East, average NA NA NA NA NA outer rampart West, average NA NA NA NA NA North 655 NA 640 NA NA Moat Length South 1171 NA 1172 NA NA East NA NA NA NA NA West 1201 NA 1136 NA NA North 28 NA 22 NA NA South 21 NA 25 NA NA Moat Width East NA NA NA NA NA West 22 NA 24 NA NA Note: Not Available (NA)

107

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

(a) (b) Figure 7: Maps showing the components and condition of (a) Mainamatir Garh and (b) Dharmapaler Garh through the incorporation of ground-truthing and integration of information from topo and mauza maps.

The entire area, including the ramparts and moats, has been divided into plots of land for revenue settlement with the villagers (Figure 6). Even the Sui River has been marked off into plots with numbers. Most of the Garh area has been turned into agricultural land. Some sections of the moat have been turned into ponds for fisheries. There are some village settlements grown up, mostly along the ramparts, but some inside as well.

Conclusions The objectives of this research were two-fold, one methodological and the other the output. On the methodological objectives, we have been able to further refine the five steps we applied. The Google Earth images, both present as well as historical, provided immensely useful digital information of the site and the environment of the site and the surrounding landscape. Dependable interpretation of the images required careful examination of all the previous data, maps and studies coupled with ground-truthing for clarification and digital data generation. Historical satellite images and aerial photographs may provide a rich source of information for future archaeological site studies.

Integrating GPS coordinates with mauza boundaries were the most important contribution of this study. With the locational data, GPS routes were drawn so that future researchers would get direction and distance. Use of Geo-tagged photographs from a digital camera is another innovative idea of this study adding new methodological dimension. All photographs were properly geo- referenced and identified with latitude and longitude with WGS-1984 datum. This important integration would help others to make a compilation of the characteristics using photo integration tools. The coverage of Digital Maps of Bangladesh using GIS methods is another key integration.

108

Application of Environmental Remote Sensing for Updating Geo-Archaeological Records

All levels of administrative regions were overlaid and geo-processed and integrated with field and remotely sensed databases. Thus, rich GIS datasets have been created for further studies.

On the output aspects of the study, we have successfully determined the structure and environment of the two study sites with minimum time spent on ground-truthing. We know that functions and structures are closely interrelated. Future researches may now focus on the possible range of functions these Garh structures performed including the functions of the individual components of the structures.

Acknowledgements Najmus Shakib, M.Sc. Geography and Environment, Jahangirnagar University, presently teaching at Nilphamari Govt. High School, Nilphamari provided valuable information on the local environment, particularly for confirming the name of the Sui River and sending valuable photographs on Sui River excavation. The authors are also grateful to Krishna Prosad Mondal for technical help.

References Agapiou, A., Lysandrou, V., Alexakis, D.D., Themistocleous, K., Cuca, B., Argyriou, A., Sarris, A., Hadjimitsis, D.G., 2015. Cultural heritage management and monitoring using remote sensing data and GIS: The case study of Paphos area, Cyprus. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 54, 230-239. Agapiou, A.A., D.D.; Sarris, A.; Hadjimitsis, D.G., 2014. Evaluating the Potentials of Sentinel-2 for Archaeological Perspective. Remote Sens. 6, 2176-2194. Akanda, M.K.H., Ahsan, S.M.K., Sen, S., 2005. Nature of Archaeological Records on Floodplain: A Geo- archaeological Interpretation of Wari-Bateshwar, Bangladesh. Pratnatattva 11, 75-86. Alexakis, D., Sarris, A., Astaras, T., Albanakis, K., 2009. Detection of neolithic settlements in Thessaly (Greece) through multispectral and hyperspectral satellite imagery. Sensors (Basel) 9, 1167-1187. Alexakis, D.D., Agapiou, A., Hadjimitsis, D.G., Sarris, A., 2012. Remote Sensing Applications in Archaeological Research, in: Escalante-Ramirez, B. (Ed.), Remote Sensing - Applications. IntechOpen, Rijeka, Croatia, pp. 435-462. Begum, A., 2013. Forts and fortifications in medieval Bengal. University Grants Commission of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. BWDB, 2005. Bangladesher Nod Nodi. Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB), Dhaka, Bangladesh. Cox, C., 1992. Satellite imagery, aerial photography and wetland archaeology. World Archaeology 24, 249- 267. DoA, 2020. : Important Site of Rangpur Division. Department of Archaeology Dhaka. Accessed date: 24/05/2020. Retrieved from http://www.archaeology.gov.bd/site/page/97f2c70d-9db0-4b8b-b547-758d5e232a2b. Faintich, M.B., 2003. Using Remotely Sensed Imagery for Expedited Archaeological Site Characterization, 5th World Archaeological Congress. World Archaeological Congress (WAC), Washington, D.C. Fergusson, J., 1863. On Recent Changes in the Delta of the Ganges. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 19, 321.

109

Bangladesh Journal of Environmental Research, Vol. 11, 94-110, 2020 Rahman et al.

Hirst, F.C., LaTouche, T.H.D., Rennell, J., Ascoli, F.D., 1914. A Memoir upon the maps of Bengal constructed from 1764 onward by Major James Rennell: in explanation of Rennell's atlas of 1779, that of 1781, and a companion atlas of 1914 which contains those remnants of Rennell's work not published previously. Bengal Secretariat Book Depot, Calcutta. Imran, M., 2005. Folklore-archeology of Wari-Bateshwar: An attempt to understand landscape history with aid of toponyms of natural and cultural features. Pratnatattva 11, 35-44. Imran, M., Ahsan, S.M.K., Huq, S.M.M., Sen, S., 2002. Interpreting the Landscape of Wari-Bateshwar: An Interrogation Using GIS and Remote Sensing. Pratnatattva 8, 105-115. Jahan, S.H., 2016. Prehistoric Archaeology in Bangladesh. A Companion to South Asia in the Past, 399- 411. Kennedy, D., 1998. Declassified satellite photographs and archaeology in the Middle East: case studies from Turkey. Antiquity 72, 553-561. Kvamme, K.L., 2005. Terrestrial Remote Sensing in Archaeology, in: Maschner, H.D.G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods AltaMira Press, Altamira, Lanham, pp. 423-477. Lillesand, T.M., Kiefer, R.W., Chipman, J.W., 2004. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Luo, L., Wang, X., Guo, H., Lasaponara, R., Zong, X., Masini, N., Wang, G., Shi, P., Khatteli, H., Chen, F., Tariq, S., Shao, J., Bachagha, N., Yang, R., Yao, Y., 2019. Airborne and spaceborne remote sensing for archaeological and cultural heritage applications: A review of the century (1907– 2017). Remote Sensing of Environment 232, 111280. Mollah, T.H., 2011. Satellite Navigation Data Development on Archaeological Sites and Integrating with Remote Sensing Imagery: A GIS Based Study in Narsingdi Region, Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Nomani, H.H., 1952. First Census of Pakistan, 1951: Rangpur District: village lists. Manager of Publications, Karachi. Rahman, S.S.M., 1998. Recent discovery of northern black polished ware in region: An archaeological perspective. Journal of Bengal Art 3, 75-93. Rudra, K., 2016. A Bengal Atlas / Major James Rennell (F.R.S.). Kolkata Shishu Sahitya Samsad Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, India. Saifuzzaman, M., Mollah, T.H., Shamsuddin, S.D., 2012. Testing Remote Sensing and GIS as a Methodological Approach to the investigation of Archaeological Sites of Bangladesh. Pratnatattva 18, 17-30. Saifuzzaman, M., Shamsuddin, S.D., 2011. Extraction of Archaeological Features from High Resolution Satellite Imagery: A Case Study of Bhitargarh, Bangladesh. Pratnatattva 17, 75-86. Smoot, J.L., 1995. Archeological Remote Sensing. Accessed date: 24/06/2020. Retrieved from https://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/archeology/remote_sensing.html. Sultana, T., 2007. Investigating the Applicability of Remote Sensing in Detecting Structural Elements of Ancient Sites, Unpublished M.Sc. Report. Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Tan, K.-L., Wan, Y.-Q., Yang, Y.-D., Duan, Q.-B., 2005. Study of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Archaeology. Journal of Infrared and Millimeter Waves 24, 437-440. Vas, J.A., 1911. Eastern Bengal and Assam District Gazetteer-Rangpur. The Pioneer Press, Allahabad, p. 20. Wang, Y., Woodcock, C.E., Buermann, W., Stenberg, P., Voipio, P., Smolander, H., Häme, T., Tian, Y., Hu, J., Knyazikhin, Y., Myneni, R.B., 2004. Evaluation of the MODIS LAI algorithm at a coniferous forest site in Finland. Remote Sensing of Environment 91, 114-127. Zakaria, A.K.M., 2007. Archaeological resources of Bangladesh. Dibbo Prokash, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

110