Regional Director (Centre)

Ahichhatra, is 20 km from Bareilly district, Uttar Pradesh, one of the most ancient settlements in India. It encompasses differential accumulation of cultural and structural deposits beginning from 2500BC -1200AD. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, involving both 2D & 3D profiling, helped in finding the buried structures at the site and also in understanding the pattern of occupancy. GPR and surface investigations carried out at Ahichhatra revealed slumped and displaced walls, warped surfaces, buried pavements and ruins of various foundations that spread over a wide range of area. These evidences are indicative of a large magnitude earthquake related damage and deformation, most likely having earthquake source in Himalayan foothills.

Ahichhatra, is 20 km from Bareilly district, Uttar Pradesh, one of the most ancient settlements in India. It encompasses differential accumulation of cultural and structural deposits beginning from 2500BC -1200AD. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, involving both 2D & 3D profiling, helped in finding the buried structures at the site and also in understanding the pattern of occupancy. GPR and surface investigations carried out at Ahichhatra revealed slumped and displaced walls, warped surfaces, buried pavements and ruins of various foundations that spread over a wide range of area. These evidences are indicative of a large magnitude earthquake related damage and deformation, most likely having earthquake source in Himalayan foothills.

Two versions are included: manuscript and the journal issue version, as the journal issue version has omitted needed space, author name and clarification, as well as imbalanced illustrations were presented, I request readers to go through the manuscript version of the article which has same content.
Space, spatial modeling and pattern recognition has been a central theme of archaeological discussions since coming of ‘processual’ era of archaeology. Ahichhatra, a fortified site, located in the upper reaches of Ganga plain and a harbor of 3000 years of human cultural activities has immense potentiality in identification of intersite spatial organizations and related human interactions. Present paper aims at achieving an understanding about by individual, communal and social space use and furthermore it attempts to reconstruct the social, ideological and political inter-relations at Ahichhatra, with the help of material and digital data. Ethnographic parallels looking into continuities and changes in use of space and similar spatial activities will be discussed in present paper. Looking at an early historic fortified site with structured power relations between different inhabitant groups and compartmentalization of spatial activities, answers to critical questions about selection of space, reuse of space and ideological conflicts in making and keeping of Ahichhatra are to be sought after in present paper.

The Vigukot Fort is in ruins lying along the northern fringe of the Great Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat, India This settlement is located on the left bank of the palaeochannel of the Nara river – a tributary of River Indus. We conducted Real Time Kinematics and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys for surface and subsurface. The digital elevation model (DEM) reveals an average elevation ranging from 2 to 4 m from mean sea-level. Two elevated areas: EA1 (site 1) and EA2 (site 2) represent residential areas in the township. EA1 located on higher ground (3–4 m amsl) in the eastern portion comprised of a housing complex of larger dimensions. Two rooms with an area of 650 and 250 sq. ft respectively, possibly indicative of living rooms attached with a courtyard suggest that high-ranked authorities occupied this portion of the township. EA2 with low-elevation (3 m amsl) marked by a smaller residential complex may be indicative of a trade complex along the western flank of the township. On the basis of 3D GPR survey we infer two levels of settlement at EA1 and one level of settlement at EA2. EA1 remained as a residential complex as reflected from both the levels, whereas EA2 was a trading complex close to the main gateway G1. Probably two scenarios prevailed: (1) Both areas flourished likewise at the first level and might have got disturbed by an earthquake; later EA1 may have been reoccu-pied while EA2 was left to be an open trading complex at the second level (recent). (2) During the first level of occupancy, EA1 was probably a residential complex (having enclosed walls), and EA2 might be the trading complex (with partially enclosed walls lying opposite to G1). Both the areas were affected during the disaster , and the second level of occupancy EA1 was rebuilt and occupied, whereas EA2 was used without renovation. Moreover, the 1819 earthquake probably destroyed both the areas completely and led to their abandonment.

The Vigukot Fort is in ruins lying along the northern fringe of the Great Rann of Kachchh, Gujarat, India This settlement is located on the left bank of the palaeochannel of the Nara river – a tributary of River Indus. We conducted Real Time Kinematics and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys for surface and subsurface. The digital elevation model (DEM) reveals an average elevation ranging from 2 to 4 m from mean sea-level. Two elevated areas: EA1 (site 1) and EA2 (site 2) represent residential areas in the township. EA1 located on higher ground (3–4 m amsl) in the eastern portion comprised of a housing complex of larger dimensions. Two rooms with an area of 650 and 250 sq. ft respectively, possibly indicative of living rooms attached with a courtyard suggest that high-ranked authorities occupied this portion of the township. EA2 with low-elevation (3 m amsl) marked by a smaller residential complex may be indicative of a trade complex along the western flank of the township. On the basis of 3D GPR survey we infer two levels of settlement at EA1 and one level of settlement at EA2. EA1 remained as a residential complex as reflected from both the levels, whereas EA2 was a trading complex close to the main gateway G1. Probably two scenarios prevailed: (1) Both areas flourished likewise at the first level and might have got disturbed by an earthquake; later EA1 may have been reoccu-pied while EA2 was left to be an open trading complex at the second level (recent). (2) During the first level of occupancy, EA1 was probably a residential complex (having enclosed walls), and EA2 might be the trading complex (with partially enclosed walls lying opposite to G1). Both the areas were affected during the disaster , and the second level of occupancy EA1 was rebuilt and occupied, whereas EA2 was used without renovation. Moreover, the 1819 earthquake probably destroyed both the areas completely and led to their abandonment.