INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 2000-2001 -A REVIEW PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA JANPATH, NEW DELHI 2006 Picture-1 Picture-2 Picture-3 Picture-4 Back Picture-5 Front Cover: 1 and 2, Sravasti: plaque showing bust of a lady and lady with conches; 3, Ajanta: plaque depicting Mahishasuramarddini ; 4, Nyarma (Leh): inscribed tablet; 5, Munikallu: topikal Back Cover: Datia: mural painting. Raja Bir Singh Deo Palace © 2006 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Price: Rs. 600.00 Primed at: M/s VEERENDRA PRINTERS, 2216. Hardhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, email:[email protected] PREFACE It gives me great pleasure in presenting this issue of Indian Archaeology 2000-01 — A Review. This annual publication reviews the activities conducted in various fields of the archaeology in the country every year. But this first issue of the 21st century is also an occasion to review the Indian Archaeology in the last century and to plan for the first century. When I look back, I can see some of the events that shaped Indian Archaeology in the last century. The first half of the century is rightly termed as the era of Marshall and Wheeler. Joining of Sir John Marshall as the Director General in the Survey, in 1902, was the beginning of a new era in the Indian Archaeology. His principles on archaeological conservation guided all of us in the Survey throughout the century, and are still relevant. The first decade also witnessed many other important events like publication of Annual Reports of the Director General, which presented the works and research activities carried out by the Survey, creation of a separate branch for epigraphical research and enactment of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act in 1904 which provided legislative powers for the protection of monuments and archaeological sites and remains. In 1906, the Survey was placed on a permanent and improved footing. Discovery of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in 1921-22 and subsequent excavations pushed the Indian History two thousand years back. With the establishment of Exploration Branch, explorations and excavations were given due attention. R.E.M. Wheeler, who became Director General in 1944, laid special emphasis on exploration, excavation techniques and the problem related to chronology. He introduced the system of periodization by stratification technique of excavation and improved the system of reporting and publishing. It had a great impact on Indian Archaeology, which can be felt till date. After independence in 1947, we lost both the most famous sites in Indus Civilization. Archaeological explorations by the Indian Archaeologists resulted in the discovery of a large number of Harappan sites in the country. Loosing Mohenjo-daro and Harappa created such an intense emphasis on Harappan Archaeology that the study of archaeological remains of other periods was not given much attention. India has vast treasures of epigraphic records in the form of inscriptions, copper plates and numerous ancient manuscripts. Our epigraphists have collected thousands of inscriptions and deciphered them, which helped in rewriting the history. I am deeply concerned about the subject and appreciate the work being done by the dedicated teams. In 1945 conservation was also brought under the purview of Survey. Enactment of the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act in 1951 added a large number of monuments under central protection. It increased Survey's activities many fold. According to the need of the hour the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act was enacted in 1958, which as on date, is the main Act for the preservation of ancient monument and archaeological sites and remains of national importance. Other legislative actions in the form of Acts and amendments to them provided necessary powers to protect our cultural heritage. Coming back to the publication of IAR, the first issue was published as "Report of the Director General of Archaeology in India on the occasion of the tenth meeting of Central Advisory Board of Archaeology, 1954". It was a good beginning and till 1960-61 it published regularly. From the 1961 -62 issue, it started getting delayed, which unfortunately, could not be covered up despite the best efforts by successive Directors General, in the last quarter of the century. Though I am happy to present the first issue of this century but I am also aware of the long delay of five years. This delay occurring for last 45 years in publication of this Annual speaks for itself. Excavation is the prime activity in archaeology. A glance on any Review makes it clear as it covers the most part of the publication. But I feel sorry to note about delay in writing and printing of excavation reports. A number of archaeological sites are excavated every year but their report, which are an integral part of the excavation, are not written. I feel that any excavation remains incomplete unless its results are published and made available to the scholars and to the public in the form of a detailed report. It was Wheeler who pointed out that excavation without a report is destruction. During my interaction with scholars, some scholars shared my view that the reports published in the Review may be taken as reports published. We have discussed the issue time and again and have made it adequately clear to all those who have such erroneous view that the brief information included in the IAR is only the review of various activities and not the report. I am of the view that every work in the field of archaeology, either exploration, excavation or conservation needs to have a report. I remember the first Director General of the Survey, A. Cunningham, whose monumental work in 24 volumes was reports on explorations carried out by him in different parts of the country. In this century, if we review that tradition, it would be a great service to the subject. With the development of the scientific studies, there is need to change our views about large excavations where hundreds of people are engaged and a large number of trenches are dug in a relatively short period. Huge data recovered in such diggings generally becomes unmanageable for limited number of qualified staff and in the process invaluable evidences are lost. Therefore, our approach should be more scientific in order to utilize various scientific and remote sensing methods for nondestructive reconnaissance. Another thing that we need to pay proper attention is the scientific dating. In the first half of the last century chronology of the cultures was based primarily on comparative archaeology. In the second half absolute dating methods were utilized but the dates obtained were limited in number and still many gaps exist in the chronology. We need to address this aspect and firmly date all the periods with a number of absolute dates to build up a firm chronology leaving no room for speculations. It is unfortunate that this issue has no information for the chapter Radiocarbon dating. The present review is divided into eleven chapters following the traditional system. Excavation, as usual, forms the major part of the activities reviewed. Among these, excavations carried out in the Northeastern States - Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura, need to be mentioned. Excavations carried out by the Guwahati Circle are noteworthy. Discovery of reliquary with silver and gold casket and charred bones in the stupa at Ambaran (J & K) is also a significant find. Excavations at Kanaganahalli (Karnataka) have further exposed remains of Buddhist stupa and vihara. Excavation at Sravasti (U.P.) is another major excavation taken up during the period under review. I am deeply concerned with the minimal entries in the chapter entitled treasure trove. We often hear about the discovery of treasures but due to ignorance much of the valuable evidence still get lost, destroyed or melted. Awareness about the provisions of the Treasure Trove Act, 1878 may encourage to declare such finds which in turn will enrich our collections in various museums. I appreciate the studies carried out by B SIP, Lucknow but at the same time it worries me that why despite so much archaeological researches carried out in the country, we have very few trained palaeo-botanists to carry forward further research on the field of Archaeobotany. I also feel that the archaeological site museums need to modify their display and activities as per the changing scenario. They need to be more educative and interactive than mere displaying the objects. New museums are set up at Nizamabad by the Government of Andhara Pradesh and Mirza Ghalib Memorial Museum, Government of Delhi. Setting up of new museums at Thanesar in Haryana and Kangra in Himachal Pradesh, by the ASI, are in progress. I am thankful to all the field archaeologists who have sent us information about the works carried out by them during the year under review. While presenting this review to the scholars I trust in this century we would work in more systematic manner to search, study and preserve the cultural heritage of the nation. Lastly, I express my thanks to Dr. B.R. Mani, Director (Publication); Dr. Arundhati Banerji, Superintending Archaeologist (Publication); Shri Hoshiar Singh, Production Officer (Publication); Dr. Piyush Bhatt and Shri Gunjan Kr. Srivastava, Assistant Archaeologists (Publication) besides all the other members of the Publication and Drawing Sections for their cooperation at every stage in the preparation and publication of this issue. New Delhi 01-09-2006 C. Babu Rajeev Director General CONTENTS I. Explorations and Excavations .... .... .... .... 1 Andhra Pradesh, 1; Arunachal Pradesh, 3; Assam, 3; Bihar, 8; Goa, 19; Gujarat, 29; Haryana, 39; Himachal Pradesh, 41; Jammu and Kashmir, 47; Karnataka, 68; Kerala, 81; Madhya Pradesh, 86; Maharashtra, 92; Manipur, 107; Meghalaya, 108; Orissa, 109; Pondicherry, 113; Punjab, 114; Tamil Nadu, 115; Tripura, 117; Uttar Pradesh, 119; West Bengal, 153 II.