ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORttH― EASTiND:A

Archaeologv in North-East lndia: The Post-lnd ependence scenario GAUTAM SENGUPTAAND SUKANYA SHARMA

ABSTRACT

The archaeological record of north-east lndia is distinctive in character. lt is a synthesis of two types of cultural traits: lndian and South-east Asian. Archaeological findings from the region known as in the pre-lndependence period were reported from the beginning of the nineteenth century, but archaeological work was mainly done by enthusiastic administrators or tea planters who were interested in antiquities. The post- lndependence period is marked by problem-oriented research, with institutional involvement, in archaeology. But, till date, none of the universities in the region have an exclusive department of archaeology. The archaeology of the post-lndependence period in north-east lndia can be considered a social phenomenon in a particular historical context. lt is now widely recognized that all archaeology is political in that it involves relations of power and contemporary interventions in the production of the past. A new perspective in archaeology, 'the archaeology of the contemporary past', acknowledges a clear role for archaeology in bringing to light those aspects of history and contemporary erxperience that are explicily hidden from the public view by centres of authority, or are obscured by the absence of authority among individuals and groups within the political arena. This is referred to as 'presencing the absence'. lt is time for presencing the absence in north-east lndia by digging, by reinterpreting, and by analyzing the data in a structured way, within a coherent framework.

CONTENTS l.INttRODUCtt10N 2.THE POST― lNDEPENDENCE SCENAR10 3. 4.ASSAM 5.NAGALAND 6 MANIPUR 7. 8. 9.ANALYSiS OF ttHE ARCHAEOLOGiCAL EVIDENCE

353 ANCiENT ,NEW SERIES,N〈 ).1

:.:NTR00UCT10N

oday,the north― east of lndia comprises of seven di,tinct states.In pre‐ Independence lndia, however,theregionwaslargelyonepoliticalentity,narnedAssaln.Assamwasamongthefouttding states ofthe Union oflndiain 1947,ヽ ″hen the state comprised large part ofthe north― east regicn. Subsequently, a number of other states were carved out of Assam, starting with Nagaland in 19ti3 and ending with Arunachal Pradesh in 7972 (Map 1). At present, the region conforms to a natior al imaginary of an emergent political entity called 'north-east India', which is a conglomerate of s€v,lrl states. These states are believed to possess a set of common fearures such as hilly-mountainous landscapes, Tibeto-Burmese populations, and still retain certain pre-modern ways of life. These are essenrial components in understanding a diverse but historically linked region which has remained peripheral to the study of the archaeology of the subcontinent.

NORTHEASTERN STATES OF:ND:A〈 | ‐ ‐・守へ rt/～ 、/ア/ ′///(.グ〈

ゝ｀」゛ ′ ′ ヽ・ヽ∫′____11=ク′´ |メ (′ ιヘ

・ギ ~~~ | 『

`)・ l ざ ヽチ 1∞ 。橘 t i xmt 嗣 'ヽト

Map 1 Northeastern states of lndia

354 ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORTH―EAST INDIA

During the colonial period, archaeology remained marginal to British interest in Assam. Archaeological findings in the region began to be reported only from the early years of the nineteenth century, mainly through the initiative of individuals interested in antiquities. British interest was focussed on textual sources, mainly of the Ahom period, with a definitive agenda. British scholars tried to project Assam as a remote, isolated outpost of India, its present entirely unrelated to the past; thereby disinheriting the present population of its rich patrimony. At the same time, archaeological efforts undertaken by individual British civil servants and the Kamrup Anusandhan Samity, a voluntary organization of local enthusiasts and scholars, highlighted the cultural linkages berween Kamrup, the historical kingdom that covered a major part of north-east India and the rest of the sub-continent. The active and living linkages that such efforts both saw and sought between Kamrup and the neighbouring regions had implications for the colonial government confronting the aftermath of the division of Bengal. The British were apprehensive that malignant infections like violent protest and radical political mobilization might disrupt peaceful conditions in Assam. Political disturbances of the kind in Bengal would have severely affected the interests of the colonial state in sectors like tea and timber industry of Assam, a disruption that the British could ill afford. It was therefore important to steer Assam's growing intelligentsia towards favouring the British government. The colonial government's initiative was intended to facilitate and encourage a different focus on historical studies. Thus, the Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies (DFIAS) was established in 1928 under direct control of the colonial government and under the leadership of Suryakanta Bhuiyan, a distinguished Assamese scholar. The focus of the department was specifically historical, dealing with periods and events through a clearly defined emphasis on recorded history. As a result, the effort to recover archaeological evidence by systematic exploration and excavation, which was started by the Kamrup Anusandhan Samity and emphasized by E. A. Gait in his Hrsrory of Assam (1905), did not receive adequate attention. Nevertheless, the Bengal Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was set up in 1900. This evolved into the Eastern Circle five years later, in 1905. With the establishment of this Circle, exploratory works were undertaken and important archaeological sites were discovered and located within a broad chronological framework. The monument survey undertaken by T. Bloch in 1901 is an example of an organized archaeological effort in pre-Independence India. Bloch's survey was subsequently published in the Archaeological Survey of lndia Report of 1906-07 under the title 'Conservation in Assam'. Three distinguished Indian archaeologists, R. D. Banerjee, K. N. Dikshit and T. N. Ramachandran, made valuable contributions while appointed Superintendents of the ASI's Eastern Circle. Of special mention is Banerjee's work on the Stone Age of Arunachal Pradesh. His article titled 'Neolithic implements from the Abor country', published in 1,924-25, opened a new chapter in the prehistory of the region. J. C. Duna's Old Relia of , published in 1891, is a useful collection of medieval inscriptions from Assam. K. L. , the author of Early History of Kamarupa, had stressed the importance of undertaking excavations to recover ancient relics, and he published a number of

355 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO'1

published in th: articies along these lines. Barua's article titied 'Prehistoric Cultures of Assam', archaeology by a locel Journal of theAssam Research Society in 1939, is one of the first articles on the use cf researcher. In the preface of Eorly Hbtory of Kamorupa (7966), Barua had advocated artici: archaeological techniques for the reconstmction of Assam's history. Sir John Lubbock's 1867, and th: titled ,The Stone Age: Stone Tools in Upper Assam', published in the Athenaeum in works work done by two British administrators, J. P. Mills and J. H. Hutlon, are other important ir archaeology from the pre-Independence period'

2. TTIE POST-INDEPENDENCE SCENARIO

The post-Independence period is marked by problem-oriented research, with institutione 1 was not developel involvement, in archaeology. But, unlike in other Indian states, archaeology in the regio r inro an academic discipline in north-east India. Till date, none of the universities have an exclusive deparrment of archaeology. The North-Eastern Hill Universiry NEHU) 1973' The inaugurated a combined Department of History and Archaeology at its inception in of History anl Universiry of Nagaland, which was founded in 1998, has also had a Department Archaeology section cf Archaeology since its inception. Courses were taught under the Prehistoric Manipur the Department of Anthropology, Gauhati Universiry, and the Department of Anthropology, Universiry. proper academic The lack of trained archaeologists in the region and the absence of the lack infrastructure to train and nurture young students is one of the prime reasons for Historical Studiel;, of archaeological research in north-east India. In 1980, the Institute of the editorship c'f calcutta, published multiple volumes titled sources of tlteHistory of India under N. R. Ray. In Volume III of this publication, extensive coverage was given to the for the first time that ancient and medieval periods of Assam (sharma 1980). This was probably Prior to this, Assarn a prominent publication on Indian history dealt r,vith the region extensively. or north-east India would hardly be mentioned in history books on India' new Stone Age As a result of the involvement of prehistorians in archaeoiogical research, Meghalaya, North sites were discovered in north-east india. Explorations were undertaken in all the northeastern cachar Hills, Manipur, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh. By the late 1980s, states had departments in charge of, or dealing with, archaeology. of In Arunachal pradesh, archaeological research was placed under the Directorate Archaeology, we's Research; in Assam, a separate department altogether, the Directorate of Education; in Nagalan

3s6 ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORttH― EAS丁 INDIA

3. aRUNACHil PRADESH

Arunachal Pradesh, formerly known as the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA), is one of the youngest states of north-east India. Being an extension of the Himalayan and the patkai mountain ranges, Arunachal Pradesh is also the largest of the northeastern states, covering a total area of 83,743 sq km. This easternmost part of the country is surrounded on three sides by international borders: with to the west, China to the north and north-east, and to the east. To the sourh, it is bordered by Assam and Nagaland. Legends say that this was where the sage Paradurama washed away his sin, where the sage Vyasa meditated, where King founded his kingdom, and where Lord married his consort . Clearly attempts were made at fabricating a respectable lineage for the region by later day enthusiasts with a pronounced Brahmar.rical bias. Remains of past societies have been found in many districts of Arunachal pradesh. The Stone Age is represented by Palaeolithic and Neolithic tools. During the early part of the rwentieth century, there appeared several reports of Neolithic cultural relics recovered from different parts of Arunachal Pradesh (Anderson lB71; Banerjee 7924-25). Stone Age antiquities collected by J. P. Milis and J. H. Grace bet'ween 1933-35 from the state are norv preserved in the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford University. Another important collection, made from the Daphabum area of in 7972 by B. P. Borpardikar, is preserved in the Prehistory Branch of the ASi, at Nagpur. Indeed, Borpardikar's investigation resulted in the first ever discovery of a pre-Neolithic (i.e., Palaeolithic) cultural phase in Arunachal Pradesh. The Pitt Rivers Museum collection, on the other hand, represents the Neolithic phase of Arunachal pradesh. In7979, a Neolithic site was reported to have been discovered at parsi parlo. The site has been excavated by the archaeological branch of the Arunachal Pradesh Directorate of Research. Three cultural phases were identified during the excavation: Phase I: aceramic Neolithic; phase II: ceramic Neolithic; and Phase III: Ferrolithic. Phase I consisted of scrappers and large cutting tools; Phase II was characterized by the occurrence of pecked and ground stone implements, waisted blades/axes, facetted tools and handmade pottery; and in Phase III, alongside pecked and ground stone implements, there was evidence of iron tools. An iron blade was found with a lump of raw iron. Iron has not been reported from any Prehisroric site in north-easr India except parsi parlo. The use of iron poses a problem in understanding the development of prehistoric technology in the region. The heralding of the Iron Age in 1000 BC across India (and across rhe world at different time periods) indicates human cuitural development. To explain the absence of this period in the archaeological record of north-east India, archaeologists and historians from both within and outside the region have often remarked, until now, that cultural development in north-east India may not have occurred along the same lines as in the other parts of the subcontinent. Iron was an easily available metal that made agriculture possible in the monsoon jungles of the Indian plains (Kosambi 1963). However, in the Himalayan foothills, the jungle could be

357 ANCIENT:ND:A,NEW SERlES,NO.1

cleared by fire alone. Further, most Neolithic sites of north-east India have been found situlted either on the foothilis or on hill tops. Evidence also suggests that these cultures practiced shifting cultivation. In the inventory of agricultural implements used by shifting cultivators even in modern times, the use of iron implements is minimal (Sharma 2007). This might, therefore, be one of the probable reasons for the absence of iron implements in this region's pre-modern toolkit. That is, as the requirement for iron was minimal, maybe it was not exploitt:d. Iron-making traditions similar to the Chinese and Burmese traditions \,vere reporteci by British administrators in UpperAssam and the Naga Hills. According to Colonel Hannay (1856) there were, at one time, 3,000 smelters and smiths in Upper Assam. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Assam was famous for the manufacture of big iron guns. F. R. Miillet further observed that the smiths of Upper Assam used contrivances quite different from ttrose used in India 'proper'. Mallet noted that wooden blowing guns were common amongst the Chinese and Burmese, and conjectured that it was probable that the Assamese had acquired a knowledge of the principle from them. Such exchange of technologies might also have been possible during the Prehistoric period. Indeed, archaeologists have reported iron in the Neolithic sites of northern Burma (Pautreau et al. 2070). But the prevalence of iron must have been minimal in north-east Inlia, where it was not widely used to make agricultural implements. This region offered better alternatives like cane, wood and bamboo, which the people might have opted for. Still, the absence of the metal age in north-east India remains an enigma for archaeologists of the region. Iron, copper, bronze, gold, silver and different rypes of alloys have been reported in historical sites of the region from the seventh century onwards. The copper-plate inscriptions of King Bhaskaravarman from Nidhanpur, and the Paglatek gold coins are some of the trest examples of these finds. However, by this time metallurgical technology had matured, and these were products of an advanced stage of production. in these circumstances, we should have had evidence of an incipient stage of metal work in the region. Since this incipient stage is completely missing in the region, it may be conjectured that the technology was borrowed. On the other hand, hardly any Early Historic sites, and no Megalithic sites, have been excavated in the region. In fact, the Megalithic culture of the region has br:en studied primariiy as a living tradition, using ethno-archaeology. In these circumstances, we are left with two options: either the evidence lies buried underground, still unexposed, or organic materials like wood, bamboo and cane fulfilled the role of metal in the region until historical tinres. The Directorate of Research regularly conducts explorations and excavations in the stzrte. Some of the other important archaeological sites here are Bhismaknagar in west Dibzrng Valley district (occupied between the rwelfth and sixteenth centuries), Nakshaparvat in east , and Tamresvari temple of Lohit district. Nakshaparvat is a thirteenth-century site, 3.05 ha. in size. A systematic horizontal excavatLon revealed architectural remains, ceramics and stone sculprures here. There were houses made of dressed blocks of granite, stone pillars, and burnt brick houses. Mud mortar was used for flooring while iron clamps and a variety of iron nails r,r,ere used for binding the granite slabs and blocks. The ceramics consisted of carinated bowls with conical lids, large bowls and pots made in ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORttH^EAST!ND:A

stamped, cord-marked brownish, and Chinese celadon wares. Br:ddhist tantric deities, the Buddhist holy tree, dvarpalos, snake motifs, etc., were also found. It is noteworthy that evidence of stone sculptures and stone masonry work lies strewn on the landscape in various parts of Arunachal Pradesh. Though these have been documented, no attempt has yet been made to analyze them contextually. The Bhismaknagar Palace, dating between the rwelfth and sixteenth centuries, or perhaps even earlier, in Dibang Valley district, and in the foothills of West , are important ruins that have been discovered. The Malinithan site is dated to the thirteenth- fourteenth centuries, and is noted for its rich sculptures and abundant architectural fragments. The famous Parasuram Kunda in Lohit district, a Buddhist stupo in , and Bhalukpong in reveal the long-standing influence of various religions on the people of this region. In the state capital, Itanagar, a historical fort dating from the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries has also been found. According to local tradition, it represents the site of old Mayapura. That is, the fort identifies the site with old Mayapura. The Tawang Gompa, or monastery, in is one of the best Buddhist monasteries. Built in the seventeenth cenflrry, this monastery consists of a huge complex with sixty-five residential buildings alongside the main temple srucnrre. It still contains a wealth of old scriptures and records, beautifully illustrated religious texts, images andthongkas (painted scrolls).

4. ASSAM

The most recent excavation in Assam was the reopening of the site of Ambari in the year 2008- 2009 (Pls. 67-62,63A). Two noteworthy findings of the season from the site are: a brick stairway, probably leading to a water tank; and a terracotta plaque of the Sunga sryle. On the basis of these two pieces of evidence, the excavators have dated these structural and cultural findings to berween the second century BC and the first century AD. Three other noteworthy excavations in Assam are the Bhaitbari excavations, undertaken by A. K. Sharma of the ASI in 1992; the Sarutaro-Marakdola excavations, undertaken by S. N. Rao, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, from 1971-74; and the excavation undertaken at Daojali Hading, North Cachar Hills, by T. C. Sharma and M. C. of Gauhati University, in 1961-63. At Bhaitbari, in West Garo Hills district, evidence of a fortified settlement, approximately 5 sq km in size, was found on the south banks of the Jinjiran river, which is an abandoned course of the river Brahmaputra. The most remarkable find of this excavation was a brick-cum-mud structure, 5.75 m in height with a diameter of 30 m at the bottom. This is the only evidence of its rype in north-east India. The fortification wall deserves special mention. The quantiry of archaeological evidence recovered from Bhaitbari was enormous. Two groups of temple complexes were discovered. The sculptures here were mainly Brahmanical. The wealth of archaeological data speaks of a flourishing settlement. The Bhaitbari remains are mainly religious in nature. Except for the fortification wall, no other secular architecture was found. The antiquiry of the lowest level of the site was fixed at the

359

― ― ― ― 一 ― ― ― 一 ― ― ‐ ‐ 口 ‐ 嗜 日 ‐ ‐ ‐ 甲 明 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ L_

― ANCIttNT:ND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

second century BC on the basis of excavated pottery. The temples have been stylisticaily dated ro the ninth to tenth centuries AD. Enormous amount of pottery of different types \vas discovered in different layers, along with terracotta plaques and stone lingas. Analysis of the pottely could throw valuable light on the antiquity of the site. Berween 1971-74, one Neolithic site and one post-Neolithic site were excavaEd in the viciniry of by S. N. Rao, from the Department of History, North-Eastern l{ill Universiry, Shillong. Rao reported the occurrence of double-shouldered celts and cord-marked pottery from Sarutaru in . Another site in the same area, Marakdola, w-as z.lso excavated by S. N. Rao, who reported it as a post-Neolithic site. It was dated by C-14 methoc. to AD 1292 (B.S.I.P. No. 5-42). The site of Daojali Hading in North Cachhar Hills district was excavated by T. C. Shatma and M. C. Goswami in 1961-63 (P1. 638). A detailed study of the cultural material from the site rvas undertaken by Sharma (1966a), and the conclusions drawn are: 1. This is the only evidence of Neolithic cord-impressed and basket pattern pottery found, so far, in India. After this discovery, the boundary of the East Asiatic 'corded ware' Neoli:-hic culture may undoubtedly be extended to include northeastern lildia. Moreover, its discor ery confirms the earlier hypothesis, developed on the basis of the qpological study of stone tools, that the Neolithic is closely linked with the East Asiatic Neolithic complex (Wornan 1949: 188-89; Dani \960: 77). 2. All the srone tools found at the site are closely comparable to those of the late Bacsonian, an industry from Vietnam. The close relationship between these t'wo cultures can also be firmly established on the evidence of the cord-impressed pottery, which is common to both cultures. Besides this, the ASI has excavated the sites of Sri Pahar in district of Assam, and in Sibsagar district of Assam. Sri Surya Pahar is a multicultural site. The remains here are mainly religious in charac:ter. The Brlhmar]ical sculptures have been dated srylistically to the eastern Indian school of art, centuries AD. There are votive Buddhist stupas and three imzLges ■ berween the ninth and twelfth ■ (Pls. ■ of Jaina tlrthaikaras, identified as Adinatha, on the walls of a rock shelter in the site 64-66). ■ ■ A unique characteristic of the site is the carving of votive sllpos and lingas on single flat ■ ■ slabs. These are of different sizes. This pattem of carving a stipa and a linga on a single pladorm has not been reported from any other site in India. Similar carvings are also reporred from Indonr:sia. Further, this cult is believed to have originated in ancient Bengal although, till date, no trace of its place of origln has been found. At Surya Pahar, these carvings might have been made under the influence of a local cult, which might have been practiced there. The site is located on the southern bank of the river Brahmaputra, which at present flows 1.5 km away from the site. Links with ant:ient Bengai by this river route could certainly have been possible. Charaideo is the traditional burial ground of Ahom royalty. Graves of a number of Arom kings are found in the area. The Ahoms used to bury their dead kings and nobles in coffins and erect an earthen mound over it. These mounds varied in size, depending on the power and status of the individual who was buried. The hemispherical mounds had octagonal enclosure walls,

360 ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORTH―EAST INDlA

vvith entrances on the western side and brick structures on top. Thesё mounds are kno、へ″n as rlla:dα ms. The biggest nα idα ls are believed to be that of the Ahonl king Gadadhar Singha 「 (AD 1618‐ 1696)and Rudra Singha(AD 1696-1714). SkeletOn mate五 als and Pottery have been recoVered in excavations at Charaideo(PIS.67,68_A).

5. NAGALAND

The most recent archaeological work in Nagaland was carried out by the Department of History and Archaeology, Nagaland Universiry, Kohima, at the Neoiithic site of Chunlyiemti (2009); in an excavation ar Cave 2 of Ranyak Khen (henceforth RYK) in Mimi; and in the Osteobiographic studies of skeletal remains dug out from graves of Jotsoma village (2008). Handmade portery and ground stone tools were reported from Chunlyiemti in 1974. This is a Naga ancestral site in Tuensang district of Nagaland. In a recent excavation led by Tia Toshi Jamir from the Department of History and Archaeology, a habitation site was discovered. In a localiry named Longtrok, a stone staircase leading to a house was discovered. Polished stone axes, grinding stones, spindle whorls, pottery vessels, beads of rare stones, earrings made of stone, and mullers and pestles were found alongside coarse, gritry handmade pottery decorated with grooved beater impressions and rwisted cord designs. Attempts were made to re-create a Neolithic house using locally available material, based on rhe ground plan found during excavations. Local villagers were invited to participate in the construction. This was done with an aim to encourage'community-based archaeology', and arose as the result of a concern to preserve archaeological sites. With new development activities like construction of telephone towers, water supply pipes, buildings, etc., archaeological sites are under constanr threat. The Chunlyiemti excavation confirmed the region's Neolithic heritage. Recent Neolithic studies undertaken in Nagaland reveal some regional peculiarities in terms of the raw material used. Neolithic celts are chiefly fashioned from greenstone or gneiss. Other sparingly-used rocks include shale, slate, fossilized wood, sandstone and jadeite. These materials are not available locally, and were obtained from Upper Burma, South China or the Naga Ophiolite belt on the Indo-Myanmarese border. Excavations at Mimi uncovered occupational debris about 7.17 mthick (from datum), along w-ith evidence of edge grinding tools of serpentinite and limestone made from river pebbles, a rich collection of faunal materials, grinding stones, a few discoids and bone tools (Pis. 6BB-C, 69A). A significant find from the Mimi cave was a human interment accompanied with grave goods. The most common cultural remains were ceramics and lithic tools, with very rare occurrence of bone tools. Wares were mostly coarse, mixed with stone granules, ranging from thick to thin wares and confined to reddish brown, dark bro'orn, brown, yellowish-brown, greyish-brown and grey ware. Besides plain ware, design elements consisted mostly of cord marks, carved paddle impressions, irregular incised lines artd appliqu6s. Three distinct cording impressions were observed: thick cord impression, thin cord impression, and overlapping patterns of cord marks executed either vertically or in an oblique fashion.

361 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, N(I.1

Three worked bones were also reported. The rich faunal data, including sharp cut mar{s and charring on the bone, implies that the cave not only serv-ed as a habitation site but also as a place where hunted animals were butchered and cooked (Jamir et aL. 20Ll). The ash depol;it reported fr"om stratigraphic unit 3, from a depth of 111-126 cm (from datum), is dated. and the date is l Sigma calibrated result: Cal BC 4450 to 4350 BC (Cal BP 5400 to.5300). This is the first Neolithic date discovered in north-east India. The osteobiographic study of human skeletal remains from Jotsoma, a village in Kohinra district, was also carried out. The study focussed on the conditions of the skeletons' preservation, cranial and post-cranial descriptions of each individual, dental pathology and sex determination. Excavations were undertaken for three seasons by Toshi Jamir and Ditamulu Vasa of the Department of Hisrory and Archaeology, at the Jotsoma burial ground. The ground is no longer in use, and the graves have suffered considerable damage as a result of road-building. The studyprovt:d that the individuais represented in this skeletal population were markedly different from the contemporary Naga population. Both the males and females studied were dolichocephalic, ,>r long-headed, tall and robust in build. Another noteworthy find was a jar burial, reported for the first time from Nagaland. The first Neolithic tool reported from Nagaland was a highly polished stone axe of bltte jadeite, acquired by a tea planter from Namsang. Most surface finds in Nagaland are rePort(:d from areas that are currently inhabited by the Angami, Sema and Lotha Nagas. A few of tire important sites where these collections have been found are: Rokimi, Karami, Siromi, Lazimi, Itun i, Lokhimi, Sachema and Kgwema, Chunlyiemti, Jotsoma and Changsang. ln 1997 , Wati Jungshi Jamir provided an excellent review of the Megaliths seen in the regic,n in his Ph.D. thesis, 'Megalithic Tradition in Nagaland: An Ethno-Archaeological Study'. Jamir undertook a village-to-village survey, documenting Megalithic fields and also documenting the process of erection of Megaliths. The existence of this custom in modern Naga sociery was ak;o investigated, and it was identified as a living tradition. Archaeological research activities are picking up in the state. Nagaland University is plannirLg ro start a separate department of Archaeology. In the meanwhile, its Department of History ard Archaeology has undertaken commendable work, led by a team of young scholars whose passiona..e involvement is bound to take the discipiine to much higher levels in the years to come.

5. MANIPUR

Sekta in Manipur is located 18 km north-east of imphal. it was excavated by A. K. Sharma r:f the ASI in 1991, and by O. K. Singh, from the State Archaeology Department of Manipur ,n 7997. Sekta's antiquity may be traced back to the second century BC, and it was in occupation unlil the eighteenrh century AD. The occupation has been divided into eight cultural layers belongir g to different historical periods. The site is important for the archaeology of north-east India becaul;e it is the only archaeological site from which we have evidence of human burial, and evidence ,>f

362 ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORttH‐EASTIND:A

the use of copper, bronze, iron and beads. The pottery in its lower levels is said to have similarities rvith Bhaitbari pottery. The Sekra report was published by the State Archaeology Department, but the richness of the site demands much better attention and greater involvement of archaeologists.

The prehistory of the Manipur may broadly be divided into two cultural phases: 1. Paleolithic or, more preferably, pre-Neolithic 2. Neolithic

Pre-Paleolithic tools have been discovered from the hilly areas of the state. O. K. Singh is the pioneer in this field. Singh discovered Paleolithic tools from the Khangkhui limestone caves near Khangkhui Khullen. The Khangkhui caves and rock shelters in the eastern districts of Manipur are located about 11 km south-east of Ukhrul at an altitude of 7,767 m. The stream flowing near the western foothill of I(hangkhui provided a congenial area for human habitation. A trial excavation was undertaken at one of the caves of the rn estern slope, and Singh discovered many stone artefacts, bone tools and faunal remains. A chopper of south-east Asian rype, hand-axes, spear-heads, scrapers of different tn)es, bone, blade, burins, lorers, flake pointsl knife, tabular flakes and large fluted cores of sandstone were recovered. The remains associated with these tools are the bones and teeth of herbivorous animals. Faunal remains obtained from these caves were examined byG. L. Badam of Deccan College, Pune, who identified them as belonging to Cenrrs, Sus Bovide and r,vild fowls. According ro him, these species cannot be older than Late Pleistocene, and compare with those recovered from the Kurnool caves in Andhra Pradesh. Further, the stone tool industries of Manipur are closely comparable with those found in the Zhoukoudian cave of China. Both these industries were based on the manufacture of core and flake tools with a few blades, in addition to a small series of microliths. The antiquity of the Khangkhui caves may go back to the late phase of the Quaternary period. Other explorations,/excavations have been carried out at Sajik Tampak (Chandel), which brought to light Palaeolithic culture, and around the Songbu cave, at an elevation of 900 m. Explorations yielded scrapers, knives, flakes, blades, and cores ofsandstone and quartzitic sandstone. Other significant explorations/excavations were undertaken at Tharon cave, Nongpck Keithelnranbi, etc. Cultural remains found here consist of flake tools, fine pebble tools of Haobinhian rype, split pebbles, flake choppers, pebble strikers, chisel edge and different types of pebble tools, blades, flakes, cores, scrapers, engravers, etc. The collection of a small Neolithic tool series was srarted in October 7967, from Phunan hill, situated 22Wfi south-east of Imphal. The collection includes a number of potsherds such as plain ware, stamped ware, incised ware, cord-marked ware, ware with circular spots, and appliqu6 wares. It was followed by the exploration of Neolithic sites ar Napachik. The cultural materials discovered from this exploration comprised choppers, scrapers, flakes, edged ground knives, grinding stones, ground and polished celts, and potsherds including handmade tripod vessels.

つ ４ つ ０ υ υ ■

ANCIENT iND:A,NEW SERIES,N().1

U. MEGH6L6YA fhe two most recent archaeologicai studies in i{eghalaya w-ere of the Prehistoric sites (i\litri 2009) around rhe Barapani lake, 50 km from Shillong in the Khasi hiils, and a study of the Prehisto::ic sites of the Ganol and Rongram river valley in the Garo hi1ls (Sharma 2007). The main objective of Mitri's lvork was to construct the basic framework of the Neolittric cuiture of the Khasi-Jaintia hills. The work identified the Ri-Bhoi region of East Khasi Hills district as having the maximum potential for Neolithic research. The Neolithic sites identified oy Mitri are Umiam-Barapani, Sohpet Bneng, Khanduli, Saipung, Sutnga, T'rangblang in Ezrst I(hasi Hills district, and Nongspung and Wahlung in West l(hasi Hills district. The stone tools found were classified as axes, adzes, shouldered tools, tanged tools and harvesters (PI. 698). Tlds research was able to establish a close link between the ancestral sites of Khasi folklore and tre areas of Neolithic finds. The main aim of the research programme developed by S. Sharma (2007) w'as to devel,lp a regional archaeological structure. Initiated by ecological considerations, this model was adopted ro understand the adaptability conditions developed by the Prehistoric inhabitants of the area. Situated as it is between two different environmental systems - the monsoonal tropics and the tropical rainforest zone - the regional ecology of north-east India has had a major rc'le in the gro\ rrh and development of human culture in the area. Affinities between the Neolithic tools of south-east Asia and north-east India were very clear. However, certain bifacial artefar:ts found here are also similar to certain middle-Paleolithic assemblages from other parts of India. Thus, there appears to be a synthesis of two types of cultural traits. These are tae adaptabilir-v conditions indigenous to the region. This explains the relationship betwe:n Prehistoric human behaviour and the observable archaeological record of the region. Sharma's study confirmed the stratigraphy of Prehistoric sites in the region. It was established that the ground and polished celts occurred within the yellowish brown alluviu;n, and that the bifaces, flakes and pebble tools occurred within the strong brown alluviu;n. Geological studies undertaken in the region establish, with C-14 dates, that the strong brolvn alluvium is Pleistocene in origin while the yellowish-brown alluvium is Holocene. The 'bamb,:o hypothesis' has been used to explain the amorphous character of the flakes. These were identifi:d as processing tools, while more specialized tools are believed to have been made frc,m organic materials like bamboo or wood. Unfortunately, as these are perishable, we do not find the ,m in the archaeological record of the area. Twelve sites from the area were intensively studied. They are Gawak Abri, Didani, Rongram IB, Ida Bichik, Bibragiri, Missimagiri, Selbai Bichik, Mokbol Bichik Il, Chitra Abri, Mokt,ol Bichik I and Didami. Other pioneering works from Meghalaya includes a study on 'Megaliths and Social Formation in Khasi-Jaintia' by Cecile Mawlong from the Department of History a:rd Archaeology, North-Eastern Hill Universiry, Shillong, (Pl. 69C) and the works undertaken by Tarun Ch. Sharma from the Department of Anthropology between 1977 and 1987.

364 ARCHAEOLOGY:N NORTH‐EAST INDIA

8. TRIPURe

The most prominent areas of archaeological interest in Tripura are the Haora and river valleys, Pilak and Unnakoti. Pilak in South Tripura district is srylistically dated to between the eighth and ninth cenruries AD, and has Buddhist and Hindu remains. Unnakoti is dated to the eleventh and rwelfth centuries AD, and has sculptures of Hindu gods and goddesses. In 1983, B. C. Poddar and N. R. Ramesh of the Geological Survey of India reported the discovery of Stone Age sites in the Haora and Khowai river valleys in Tripura. This study included exhaustive documentation of the late Quaternary sediments of northeastern India, and of associated Stone Age sites in Tripura. In Tripura, the lower layers, with a silicified fossil wood industry, have been dated by C-14 method to 32,500 BC, and the upper layers, with Neolithic tools, havp been dated to 1500 BC (Ramesh and Rajagopalan 1999: 13-30). The discovery of the silicified fossil wood industry with hand-axes, cleavers, choppers, and flake and blade tools was a noteworthy development in the prehistory of north-east India.

9. ENAIYSIS OF THE ERCHaEOLOGICAT EUIDENCE

The archaeological record of north-east India uncovered till now reveals certain shortcomings in the data needed for a proper reconstruction of the past. These are: 1. absence of absolute dates; 2. absence of clear stratigraphy of the sites; 3. absence ofbotanical and zoological data; 4. absence of metal, except the discovery of iron from Parsi Parlo. The absence of this vital data can be attributed to the absence of excavation in the region, which, in turn, may be attributed to the absence of the discipline of archaeology in the universiry curricula of the region. In these circumstances, we are forced to consider the archaeology of the post-Independence period in north-east India as a social phenomenon in a particular historical context. It is now widely recognized that all archaeology is political in that it involves relations of power and contempordry interventions in the production of the past (Buchli and Lucas 2001). North-east India, on the periphery of the Indian Union, retained its image as a remote isolated outpost of India even in the post-Independence period. The archaeological record reported till now shows affinities with the archaeological record of south and south-east Asia. Often, researches in the region working on extra-Indian linkages are viewed with some amount of apprehension. However, by considering archaeology as a way of creating the past in the present, we can see how the archaeology of post-Independence nofih-east India has recreated a past which carries significance even in the context of our own times. The decisive features of this relationship of power are ethniciry, electoral politics and resources. Archaeology stands peripheral in the picture. In fact, compared to anthropology and history, archaeology remains marginal to the larger discourse on the region.

365 ANC:ENTIND:A,NEW SERIES,ヽ 0.1

The archaeological record of north-east India is distinctive in character. As noted earlier, t is a synthesis of rwo rypes of cultural traits: Indian and south-east Asian. The data seems insufficie nt, but the man-land relationship in the area has produced this data. Interpreting this man-lzind relationship in the light of present theoretical developments in the discipline will bring us closer to a comprehensive understanding. This should be the main objective of archaeological research in the region. When we speak of archaeology as a material witness, we refer to the potential of archaeokrgy to uncover that which is hidden, obscured, clandestine or forgotten. A new perspective in archaeology, the archaeology of the contemporary past', acknowledges a clear role for archaeology in bringing to light those aspects of history and contemporary experience that are explicitly hidden from the public view by centres of power, or are obscured by the absence of author:ity among individuals and groups within the political arena. This is referred to as 'presencing :he absence' (Buchli and Lucas 2001; Gonzalez-Ruibal 2008; Zarankin and Funari 2008). It is time for presencing the absence in north-east India by digging, by reinterpreting, €,nd by analyzing the data in a structured way, within a coherent and home-baked theoretical framework. Emphasis on communiry archaeology and culture resource management programrles can provide further support to this endeavour.

References Anderson, J. 1871. Report on the Expedition to Westem Yunnan via Bhamo, Appendix C ('The Stone lmplements of Yunnan, etc.'): 410-1 5. Ansari, Z. D. anC M. K. Dhavalikar 1971. Excavation atAmbari. Journal of the University of Poona (Humanities Section) 36: 79-87. Ashraf, A. A. 1990. Prehistoric Arunachal: A study on Prehistory and Ethnoarchaeology of Kamla Vahey. Directorate of Research, ltanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. Banerjee, R. D. 1924-25. Neoltithic implements from the Abor country. Astan 1O2. Barua, K, L. 1939. Prehistoric Cultures of Assam. Journalof theAssam Research SocietyT(1-2):6-18, 35-41. Barua, K. L. 1966 (reprint). Early History of Kdmarupa. Lawybrs Book Stall, Guwahati. Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems ttnd Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20. Bloch, T. 1906-07. Conservation in Assam. Archaeological Survey of lndia Repoft'.17-28. Borpardikar, B. P. 1972. Prehistoric lnvestigation: Dapabhum Scientific Survey Expedition (NEFA). Archaeological Cong ress and Seminar Pape rs: 1 -8. Nagpur University, Nagpur. Buchli, V and G. Lucas (eds.) 200'1. Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. Routledge, London Chatterjee, S. K. 1970. The Place of Assam in the History and Civilization of lndia. Gauhati Univerc;ity, Guwahati.

366 ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORTH¨ EAST INDIA

Choudhury, P. C. 1967. Gauhati: An Ancient City of the East in Kamrupa' Paper presented at Souvenir: All lndia Teachers'Conference, 12th session. Guwahati. Choudhury, P. C. 1987. The History of Civilization of the to the Twelfth Century AD. Spectrum Publications, New Delhi. Dani, A. H. 1960. Prehistory and Protohistory of Eastern lndia. Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta Dharmeswar, Chutia (ed.) 1984. A Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripfs. Kamrup Anusandhan Samity, Guwahati. Dhavalikar, M. K. 1973. Archaeology of Gauhati. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research I n stitute 31 -32: 137 -49. Gait, Edward 1967 (reprint). A . Thacker Spink & Co., Calcutta. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A. 2008. Time to Destroy: An Archaeology of Supermodernily. Current Anthropology a9(2):247-79. Hannay S. F. 1856. Notes on the iron-ore statistics and economic geology of UpperAssam. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal35: 330. Jamir, T., David Tetso, Zokho Venuh 2011 (forthcoming). Recent Archaeological lnvestigation in the Naga Ophiolite Belt of the lndo-Myanmar. Jamir, T. 2009. Cultural Resources, local community and archaeology in Nagaland: A case study from Chungliyimti, an early Naga ancestral site. Paper presented at the 19th lndo-Pacific PrehistoryAssociation Congress, Hanoi, November-December. Kosambi D. D '1963. The Beginning of the lron Age in lndia. Journal of the Economic and Socla/ History of the Orient 6(3) (December): 309-318. Lubbock, SirJohn 1867. The StoneAge: StoneTools in UpperAssam. Athenaeum June22:822. London Mills J. P. 1933. Assam as a field of research. Journal of the Assam Research Society 1(1): 3-6 Mills. J. P. and J. H. Hutton 1929. Monoliths of North Cachar. Journal Of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 25: 285-300. Mitri, Marco 2009. An Outline of the Neolithic Culture of the Khasi-Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya, lndia: An Archaeological lnvestigafion. BAR lnternational Series, Hadrian Books, Oxford. Neog, Maheswar 1960. Pabitra Asam (in Assamese). Asom Sahitya Sabha, Dhemaji. Neog, Maheswar 1973. Prachya Sasanava/i (in Assamese). Asom Prakashan Parishad, Guwahati. Pautreau, Jean-Pierre, Anne-Sophie Coupey, Christophe Maitay, Emma Rambault, Aung Aung Kyaw 2010. lron Age grave goods and ritual in the Samon valley (Upper Burma). Paper presented in the 19th lndo-Pacific Prehistory Association Congress, Hanoi, November-December. Ramesh, N. R. and G. Rajagopalan 1999. Late Quaternary Sediments of Northeastern lndia:A Review. Gondwana Geological Magazine 14(1): 13-35. Rao, S. N. 1973. The Neolithic Culture of Sarutaru. Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology 2: 1-9. University, Dibrugarh. Rao, S. N. 1980. Continuity and Survival of Neoltihic Traditions in Northeastern lndia. Asian Perspectives 20(2):191-205. Rhodes, Nicholas and S. K. Bose 1999. Ihe Coinage of Cooch Behar. Library of Numismatic Studies, .

367 ANCIENT lNDlA, NEW SERIE:S, NO.1

Sankalia, H. D. 1974 (revised edition). Prehistory and Protohistory of tndia and Pakistan. Deccan rlollege PG and Research lnstitute, Pune. Sengupta. G. 1990. Sculpiure: The Formative Period. ln HistoricalArchae

Research Society 9: 1-11 . Sharma, T. C. 1967. A Note on the Neolithic Pottery of Assam. lilan 2(1): 126-128. Sharma, T. C. 1968-69. Excavations at Ambari, Gauhati. ln lndian Archaeotogy 1968-69: A Review (8. B. Lal, ed.) 3-4. Archaeological Survey of lndia, New Delhi. Sharma, T. C. 1974a. Prehistory of Assam. ln lndia Anthropology Today (Sen, D. ed.) 63-70. C:alcutta University, Calcutta. Sharma, T. C. 1974b. RecentArchaeologicalDiscoveries in Northeast lndia. PurdtattvaT:17-19. Sharma, T. C. 1980. Sources of the History of Assam: Ancient Period. ln Sources of the History cf tndia, Vol. lll (Ray, N. R. ed.). lnstitute of Historical Studies, Calcutta. Singh, O. K. 1972. Antiquities of Manipur. Manipur Stafe Museum Bulletin 1:1-3. Singh, O. K. 1997. A report on the 1994 excavation of Sekta, Manipur. Arts and Culture Department, Government of Manipur, lmphal. Singh. J. P. and G. Sengupta (eds.) 1991. Archaeology of Northeastern lndia. Vikas Publishing --louse, New Delhi. Worman, E. C. 1949. The Neolithic Problem in the Prehistory of lndia. Journal of the Wasnington Academy of Scr'ences 39(6): 181-200. Zarankin, A and P. P. A. Funari 2008. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Archaeology and Consl.ruction of Memory of Military Repression in South America (1960-1980). Archaeologies 4(2):310-27.

下

368 EXCAVATlONS AT LATHIYA(GHAZIPUR DISTRiCtt UTTAR PRADESH):2009-10 PLATE 41

A

:::li:::::】 ::i re ツ ψ ψ ψ 浩ψψ∵ド∴ ψ∵メ∴ ャ∵▼.ウ 」冒∵F.・

t,e r,v ｀ ゛、、vゥ ψ ψ ψ,ψ ψ ψ o ψヤψ ψ ψ e- iv * w -ri * vv

Ａ Lathiya 2009 - 1 0, Site- cum-contour map Ｂ Location plon for Lothiya P LATE 42 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES' \O.1

A: lVlortolithic pillar, Gupto period B & C: Gqrudo capital (view fromboth sides) xaldlu o r -lDlluapwaE i g rDllld qiu SuolD xaydwoc-a1ilual aql {o atl )tutDrouDd :V ^

8シ ヨ上∀]d 0 t-6002 : ( us=ovua uv1ln t-3tut-sto und tzvH e) v,r.r srw fv sN o |-LVAV3XI DaJD lDlluaplsal uJaqlnos u7 saJnl)nJls :g rDllld {o U)uarl uollDpunol iV

8

一

・ ― I

.S]IU3S .VIONI I'ON M:IN IN:IICNV 17シ ヨ上∀ld EXCAVAT10NS AT LATHIYA(GHAZIPUR DISTRICtt UTTAR PRADESH):2009-10 PLATE 45

:島 ■ ヽ1電‐11 電

A & B: Structures ond ghost walls; C: General view of the site ANCiENT INDIA,NEW SERIES,NO.1 PLATE 46

口■ロロロ

A & B: Hearths 7 and 2 EXCAVATIONS AT LATHIYA (GHAZIPUR DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH): 2009-10 PLATE 47

■ ■ CM A

B

A & B: Spouted pots C: Period II (Gupta period) spoufs PLATE 48 ANC:ENT IND:A,NEW SERIES,N01

A

つ 、

tr,

! r r r._r' CM

B ヽ 暴、.1ハ 「'

曇」口」□」■」腱J CⅣ I

A-C: Period II (Gupto period) spouts EXCAVATIONS AT LATHIYA(GHAZIPUR DiSTRICT,UTTAR PRADESH):2009-10 PLATE 49

「~ L 回 "鸞 V 「 ∠

‐■■■■‐CM

A 富雪‡菫 ?

CR/1

B

亀亀 壌"鶴 ■EEコEコEコロ■ Ch/1

C

A: Period I potsherds B & C: PeriodII sprinklers, sPouts PLATE 50 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

ICM -r-CM

A B

C D

A & B: Period ll decorated potsherds C & D: Terracotta humon figurines EXCAVATIONS AT LATHIYA (GHAZIPUR DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH): 2009-10 PLATE 51

A B

撃 ・

・

ICM rCM

C D

A: Period II tetocotta lruman figurine B: Period II stone figurine C & D: Miscelloneous objects PLATE 52 ANCIENT!ND:A,NEW SER!ES,卜 0.1

∩

m

C C 摂 も e Σ ∪ '・ ｌ ｌ ｌ ∪

〕 ‘ 層 υ

ロ く

聡 ｏ ω 0 お ｏ ∽ コ ｏ ω だ 還 ヽ 桃 ヽ『 く ∩¨ く！ EXCAVATIONS AT LATHlYA(GHAZIPUR DiSTRiCtt UTTAR PRADESH)2009-10 PLATE 53

〕 ‘ ∪ 日 ∪ ＝ ロ

Σ ∪

く

Σ υ

ｌ m

∽ だ 『 ｏ ｏ Ｌ ω Ｑ ヽ 。 い 「 て ｏ 『Ｌ ω ヽ ∪¨ Ｌ ｑ PLAttE 54 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO,1

A

B

C D

A: Period I copper coins; B: Period I inscribed copper seals C & D: Period II (Gupta period) terracotta sealings EXCAN/AT10NS AT LATHIYA(GHAZIPUR DISTRICT,UTTAR PRADESH):2009-10 PLATE 55

匡 ―

‐

‐ ― ‐ ‐ ●

‐

A B

C D

:‐ CM

E

A-E: Period II (Gupta period) terracotto sealings INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.I PLATE 56 ANCIENT

Ｐ 穐 Ｆ ｛ 』 饉 I

A

”Ｌ

■ ヽ 「 ヽ 一 蝿 「

ヽ 一 登 ・ 一

A: Aview of the Ropar mound B: Exposed trenches at Ropar E∨ OLUT10N OF TERRACOTTA FEMALE FORMS FROM ROPAR PLATE 57

B

C

A: pieces of humon figurines with pin-holes and punched circles to indicate ornamentation B: Mouryon stylefigurine C: Female figurine recovered from Ropar with beoded headdress D: Period NA female forms ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NI).1 PLATE 58

A

菫・ 」 一

C

B

A: Images depicting elaborate headdresses B: Female figurine with a beaded woistband C: Femole figurines with elaborate decorations E∨OL∪ T10N OF TERRACOTTA FEMALE FORMS FRttM ROPAR PLATE 59

A

t:

□ ず

B

A: Kushon period hond-modelled female forms B: Coarse/rudimentory female figures of the Kushon period

E---r t .. ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, I{O.1 PLATE 60

A: Female figurine belonging to the Gupto period; B: Bust of a woman holding o kala6a-like obiect (Period NC); C: Tercacottafigurine of vl\a-player recoveredfrom Period NC ARCHAEOLOGY!N NORTH― EAST INDIA:THE POST― INDEPENDENCE SCENARIO PLATE 61

． 一 ‐ 幸 彎 ト

b面 よ協lxl汚讐巧ぶ測;『1避鷺∬ PLATE 62 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIE{i, NO.1

A

咀

一 ¨

■ “ 一

B

A: Decorated potsherds, Ambari B: Kaolin ware, Ambari ARCHAEOLOGYlN NORTH― EAST INDIA:THE POST‐ INDEPENDENCE SCENARIO PLATE 63

t:'iT

οrl bllrnt ciay lLImpJ Ambari A:Scalirlg m B:Cord― marたcd Neο lithic Pο ιtcッ クοrn Dα ttα l:Hading2 North Cachhar Hilltt Assα PLATE 64 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

E

A: Rock-cut images, Sri Surya Pahor B: Adinatha, Sri Surya Pahar ARCHAEOLOGY lN NORTH-EAST INDIA: THE POST-INDEPENDENCE SCENARIO PLATE 65

A: Rock-cuf caves, Sri Suryo Pahor B: Rock-cuf stupas, Sri Suryo Pahor PLATE 66 ANCiENT INDIA,NEW SERiE(,,NO.1

躙 IJ

B

A: Exposed adhishth[na of Pafi"chayatana temple, Sri Surya pahar B: Terrocotta Naga figure, Sri Suryo Pahor ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORTH― EAST INDIA:THE PttSTINDEPENDENCE SCENARIO PLATE 67

― ― ― ― ― ∃

A

鋼 ¶

A: Exposed dome-like structure, maidam 2, Choraideo B: General view of maidam, Charaideo 「 ―

ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1 PLATE 68

A

9------lcvr 39-.--=--Eclvr B C

A: Wooden decoronve piece found in maidam 2, Charoideo B & C: Neolithic tools from RW cave, Mimi, Nagalond (Courtesy: Toshi Jamir, Department of Hktory ond Archaeologr, Nagaland University) ARCHAEOLOGYIN NORTH‐ EAST INDIA:THE POSIINDEPENDENCE SCENARIO PLATE 69

０ ● １ ■ ● ● ０

L_∴ cM CA/1 ― A B 豚

A: Pottery from RW cave, Mimi, Nagoland (Courtesy: Toshi Jomir, Deportment of History ond Archoeologt, Nogaland university); B: Took from Umiam-Baroponi, Sohpet Bneng, Khanduli, Soipung, Sutnga, Trangblong in East Khasi Hills and Nongspung ond Wohlung in West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya (Courtesy: Marco Mitri, Assistant Professor, Union Christian College, Baropani, Shillong); C: Megoliths from Cherrapuniee, Shillong PLATE 70 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

B A: Medallion showing Jetavana monastery with inscribedlobelbelow, Bharhut rails, Madhya Pradesh. Second century BC, Indian Museum, Kolkota;B: Yaksha/rom Pitalkhora, inscribed, Maharashtra. Second century BC, Nationol Museum, New Delhi M∪ SEUMS iN iNDIA:A REVIEW PLATE 71

B

A: Ganga from Ahichchhatra. Nationol Museum, New Delhi B:Yamunafrom Ahichchhatra. Notionol Museum, New Delhi ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERI NO.1 PLATE 72 =S,

A: TheVeiled Rebecca, Solar Jung Museum, Hyderabad B: Sculpture of Man-and-Woman, Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad MUSEUMS iN INDIA:A RE∨ IEW PLATE 73

B

A: lnscribed. casket from Piprahwa. Fourth century BC, lndion Museum, Kolkota B: Didarganj Yaksh! Potno Museum, Patna 「 Ｆ ＞ 「 田 Ｎ ヽ

o FI*ar.--*' .FFT l'F tlt!

."¬ ‐時 百 :

＞ ２ 〇 一ｍ Ｚ ↓ ｚ一 口 ＞一 ） ２ ｎ Ｓ ヽ Ｏ ｍ 刀 ｍ¨ ＾ ン ２ ,9f jα ０ Al,i釧 Ⅵ6ι ο]・ fα Mc7■ 0「 7 Hα f4,Kο ′kala 〓

l ζ ⊂ ∽ ｍ ⊂ ζ ∽ ｚ一 Ｚ一 ∪ ＞一 ¨ ＞ 刀 ｍ ＜ ｍ一 ｇ ヽ

「 Ｆ ＞ 「 ｍ Ｎ Aview of Chhatrapati Shivaji MaharajVastu Sangrahaloya' Mumbai ｏ PLATE 76 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NO.1

B

A: panel Sculptural depicting the adoration of Buddha's feet from Amravati, Second. century AL,, Government Museum, chennai; B: Kanishka, inscribed, Mathura Museum, Mathura ルlUSEUMS IN INDIA:A RE∨ I Ell1/ PLATE 77

A B

A: Crowned-Buddha in bhumispar6a-mudr4 PaLa period, Bodhgoya Museum, Bodhgoya B: Buddho inbronze, Nalanda ■

PLATE 78 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, N().1

A: Lion-capitol of Aioka, Mnseum, Sarnoth B: A silver throne, Hazarduari Palace Museum, Mushird-abad. MUSEUMS IN INDiA:A RE∨ IE1/V PLATE 79

A

A: Terrocotro Yaksh! Ashutosh Museum, Kolkato B: Yaksh! Bharat Kola Bhawon, Voronasi PLATE 80 ANCiENT IND:A,NEW SERIES,NO.1

甲 ∵ 「 ■

． 「 “

警 躍膳 二 麗 〓 磁

Picnic by Ramakinkor Baij, Notional Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi