Page 1 ! " # $ % &'(( ) * " ) + * " ! " , " " - ) - ) " ) " " ) ) " . * " * ) ) ) " * " / ) 0 ...

"

! " # $

% &'(( )

*

" ) +

* "

! " ,

"" -) -) " ) "" ) ) " . * " *

)

) )

" *

"

/ )0

) 1 2 ) )0)! " $ "/) !$

"3 4 " ), 5

) "

"

!

!"

# ! " # $ !% ! & $ ' ' ($ ' # % % ) %* %' $ ' + " % & ' ! # $, ( $ - . ! "- ( %

. % % % % $ $ $ - -

- - // $$$ 0 1"1"#23."

"0" )*4/ +) * !5 !& 6!7%66898& % ) 2 : ! * & $%&'()*)(+'*)+*+,)' ; "- %< =-% " -%9>89 & &-# + " /- ?9>89"0" )*4/ +) "3 " & 9>89

For Majeda Rahman Jharna My wife, My love

i

ii

Acknowledgements I want to express my indebted gratitude and respect to my thesis supervisor Professor Syed Mohammad Kamrul Ahsan, Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, for his careful guidance, valuable and considerable co-operation have helped me to complete my thesis. Without his fatherly support, it was impossible for me to combat with the complex quantitative spatial research method. I also thank Swadhin sen for introducing me to the recent survey design and evaluation. My interactions with him led me to try to find a recent archaeological model as applicable to archaeological records of mediaeval Khalifatabad. In addition, encountering argument with him forced me to learn from my mistakes. I remember with gratitude Late Professor Abu Imam, Professor M. M. Hoque, Professor S. M. K. Ahsan, Swadhin Sen, without their support it was near to impossible to introduce the course ‘Computer Applicatin in Archaeology’ in the Department of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University. As a coordinator of that course, I got interest to do the research by using quantitative analysis technique. I owe to all my teachers and colleagues, for keeping their faith on me to lecture this course. My beloved students helped me to make my class interactive in my academic enterprise. We learnt the quantitative analysis technique together. My beloved students helped me to make my class interactive in my academic enterprise. We learnt the quantitative analysis technique together. Raihan Rabbi, Emtiaj Deep, Babu, Hasan, who have helped me to conduct the field work, I am solely thankful to them. Of the many people who have helped me in my academic iii

enterprise except my supervisor, I thank Professor A.K.M. Shanawaz, Professor Seema Hoque. I owe a debt of gratitude to the honourable Chairman Professor Mostafizur Rahman Khan and the respected Members of the Higher Studies Committee, Department of Archaeology, for their cooperation to submit my thesis. Finally, for the person who was with me every inch of the way and who kept the edifice of my academic enterprise standing, with support, love and labour- Majeda Rahman Jharna, my wife and also Medha Manyata, my sweet little daughter, words are inadequate for them. I am showing my gratitude to them.

Md. Masood Imran Dhaka September 2012

iv

Contents Acknowledgements

iii

List of Figures

vii

List of Plates

vii

List of Tables

ix

Chapter 1 (p. 01-14) 1. Introduction

01

1.1. Research Objectives

11

1.2. Research Methodology

11

1.3. Software to analyse the data

12

1.4. Architecture of the Research Paper

12

Chapter 2 (p. 15-26) 2. General History of the Study Area

15

2.1. Debate of the identification of Ulugh Khan Jahan

19

2.2. The Routes of Khan Jahan from the Archaeological Evidences

22

2.3. Pre-Muslim activities

23

Chapter 3 (p. 27-34) 3. Legendary Archaeological Records of Khalifatabad

27

Chapter 4 (p. 35-40) 4. Environmental context

35

4.1. Environmental Setting of Khalifatabad

38

Chapter 5 (p. 41-56) 5. Critically Introduced a Proposed Archaeological Surveying Model

41

5.1. Genealogy of Archaeological Survey in Bangladesh

46

v

5.2. Unique Models of Archaeological Surveying

49

5.3. Proposed Survey Design

50

Chapter 6 (p. 57-74) 6. Spatial Distribution Pattern Analysis of Khalifatabad Town as an Urban Centre 57 6.1. Measure of Dispersion

62

6.2. Point pattern centrality Analysis

63

6.2.1. Median Centre of the Khalifatabad Town

68

6.3. Distribution Pattern of point disposition

71

6.4. Nearest Neighbour Analysis

73

Chapter 7 (p. 75-78) 7. Predictive Model of the Khalifatabad Town

75

Chapter 8 (p. 79-84) 8. Results and Discussions

79

Chapter 9 (p. 85-86) 9. Concluding Remarks

85

Reference

87

Enclosure

93

vi

Illustrations Figures Fig. 01. Location Map of Khalifatabad Region, Bagerhat

02

Fig. 02. Google’s Satellite image of Khalifatabad

04

Fig. 03. Regional Map and Buffer Zoning of Khalifatabad

18

Fig. 04. Physiographic Map of Bagerhat District

37

Fig. 05. Four types of systematic ground survey

50-51

Fig. 06. Proposed Survey Model

55

Fig. 07. Spatial Distribution Pattern of Monuments of Khalifatabad

62

Fig. 08. Estimated Mean Centre of Khalifatabad

66

Fig. 09. Estimated Weighted Mean Centre of Khalifatabad

67

Fig. 10. Estimated Median Centre of Khalifatabad

69

Fig. 11. Physically Defined Centre of Khalifatabad Town

70

Fig. 12. Predictive model of Khalifatabad.

76

Fig. 13. The Sketch of Habali Khalifatabad by S. Mitra, in 1914 (reprint 2001).

76

Fig. 14. The Sketch of Khalifatabad by Dept. of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, BD.

76

Fig. 15. The Fort and Place of Gaur (modified after Roy 1999: 146)

77

Plates Plate 01. Locally known this Place as a Mint Centre with Mitha Pukur (Tank) 15 Plate 02. Depiction of Mahish-Mardini Deity of Jahajghata Pillar

25

Plate 03. Jahajghata of Khan Jahan

25 vii

Plate 04. Shait Gumbad Mosque

28

Plate 05. Bird’s Eye view of Shait Gumbad Mosque

28

Plate 06. Bird’s Eye view of Shait Gumbad Mosque (Extreme Close)

29

Plate 07.Bird’s Eye view of Shait Gumbad Mosque with Ghora Dighi and Kodal dhoya Dighi

29

Plate 08. Tomb and One Domed Mosque of Ulugh Khan Jahan

30

Plate 09.Bird’s Eye view of Mausoleum of Ulugh Khan Jahan

30

Plate 10. Mausoleum Complex of Khan Jahan with Thakur Dighi

31

Plate 11. Singair Mosque

32

Plate 12. Bibi Begoni Mosque

32

Plate 13. Chunakhola Mosque

32

Plate 14. Rawnabijoypur Mosque

32

Plate 15. Rezakhoda Mosque

32

Plate 16. Nine Dome Mosque

32

Plate 17. Zindapir Mosque, Mazar and Grave Yard

32

Plate 18. Residential Structure besides Zindapir’s Mazar

32

Plate 19. Ten Dom Mosque

33

Plate 20. Evidences of ruined 35 domed Bara Azina Mosque

33

Plate 21. Tapaghar

33

Plate 22. Interior of Tapaghar

33

Plate 23. Residential Area of Khan Jahan

33

Plate 24. Part of the Resident of Khan Jahan

33

Plate 25. Partial View of Khan Jahan’s road

34


34

Plate 27. Partial View of Excavated Khan Jahan’s road

34

Plate 28. Google’s Remote Sensing image of Moribund Bhairab River

39

Plate 29. Moribund Bhairab River

39


39

viii

Tables Table 01. Estimation of the Mean Centre and the Weighted Mean Centre of Khalifatabad from the Spatial Distribution of Archaeological Records 64 Table 02. Estimation of the Median Centre of Khalifatabad from the Spatial Distribution of Archaeological Records

68

Table 03. Estimation of the Spatial Distribution Pattern of Archaeological Records

71

Table 04. The Nearest Neighbour Analysis of Khalifatabad from the Spatial Distribution of the Archaeological Records

ix

73

x

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad

Chapter

1

1. Introduction Khalifatabad town is partly a living archaeological site of Bangladesh and has been listed in world cultural heritage site by UNESCO. Historically prominent Khalifatabad is situated in couple of km away from the present Bagerhat District Town (Fig. 01). Bagerhat has become synonymous of Shait Gumbad Mosque/Khan Jahan’s Mausoleum among the common peoples, believers and researchers. However, the series of mosques (e.g. Bibi Begni Mosque (Plate 12), Chunakhola Mosque (Plate 13), Rawnabijoypur Mosque (Plate 14), etc.) and other architectural feature (e.g. Tapoghar (Plate 21), Takshal (Plate 01), etc.) are found in similar fashion in the same period of Shait Gumbad. Blochmann (1872: XLI), identified this region as a mint town: Khalifatabad under the later Ilyas Shahi Sultans of Bengal and subsequently this identification has been defended/debated by the historians (Mitra 1914, Karim 1960, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari 1989, et. al.). Besides, most of the historians were convinced by the definition of Karim (1960: 164), “Khalifatabad is identified with Bagerhat in Khulna District (Fig. 03). The area was first brought under the Muslims by one Khan Jahan in the reign of Sultan Nasir al-Din Mahmud Shah I. The name Khalifatabad is known from these coins. .......... Khalifatabad appears as a mint-town in the coins of Sultan Nasir al-Din Nusrat Shah and Sultan Ghiyath al Din Mahmud Shah. Nusrat Shah’s coins bearing this mint are dated 922 AH, 924 AH and 925 AH, thus provides the idea that he issued coins in the lifetime of his father. The date in Mahmud Shah’s coin bearing the mint-name Khalifatabad is not satisfactorily established”. Since this definition, the Shait Gumbad Mosque region is considered as a Mint-town, named Khalifatabad, has been carried out by the contemporary historians. In Khalifatabad, a road and series of fashioned buildings of 1

Fig. 01. Location Map of Khalifatabad Region, Bagerhat


2


sultanate period have been identified. Archaeological evidences have come out from recent excavation and most of the structures have been restored by the Department of Archaeology; Ministry of Cultural Affairs; Bangladesh. From the historical account (e.g. Karim 1960 & 1977, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari 1989, Roy 1999, et.al.), in Bengal, there are eight towns: Nadia, Lakhanawati, Pandua, Gaur, Saptagram, 16th century’s Nabwadip, Jessore and Sonargaon, are indexed as the Prominent Sultanate’s towns. Regrettably, with the exception of Gaur, the boundaries and spatial pattern of structures of those towns have not been outlined (Fig. 15). In fact, it is rarely possible to estimate the boundary, because of the lack of evidences, social crisis, absent of systematic survey and so on. Apart from this reason, a different observation is, methodologically those works are inconvenient to understand the spatial pattern of medieval towns. Like Gaur (Hussain 1997, Roy 1999 etc.), the monuments and other features of the Khalifatabad are prominent to define the outline of the town. In this case, the finest example is the sketch of Habeli Khalifatabad (Fig. 13) what had been prepared by Shatis Chandra Mitra in 1914 (reprint 2001: 507). Apart from the sketch of Mitra, none of the research-works have been tried to understand the town plan. Most of the scholars, individually/collectively, have concentrated in understanding the architectural style and ornamentation design of the monuments. In the first half of the 15th century AD, a Muslim domain has been found in the inhospitable mangrove forest of the Sundarban (Fig. 04), a vast marshy and impenetrable tract along the coastline of southern Bangladesh, by an obscure saintgeneral named Ulugh Khan Jahan. This Muslim domain is always characterised as an individual entity because, very few reliable historical records about the origin and career of the legendary warrior-saint are available. Circumstantially there are no clues to find out a link with the other Sultans of Bengal. Some of the historians have tried to figure out the relation with the Sultan of Sonargaon. However, this controversial 3

Fig. 02. Google’s Satellite image of Khalifatabad


4


argument is still in a debate, what has been discussed in the chapter of historical background of this paper. The myths and the materialistic evidences, which are popularly practised and are known about Ulugh Khan Jahan, are derived from the inscription engraved upon his grave. It clearly mentioned that Ulugh Khan Jahan died on 25 October 1459 AD (27 Zilhajj 863 AH). This remarkable adventurer by Ulugh Khan Jahan, undoubtedly one of the earliest messengers of Islam in the south, at this unclaimed forest land systematically lays out the nucleus of an affluent city not far from the present town of Bagerhat, which sprawls along the bank of the moribund Bhairab River (Fig. 01 & Plate 28). It can be said that this missing link could be the key reason to fail to get priority in the history of Sultanate period. As a result, it always has been discussed as an individual entity of Sultanate period. The question raises before and beneath the story of Ulugh Khan Jahan that if there are nothing to find out his paternal identity and native soil. The well-known story is that, he comes here for spreading Islam and beside maintains the administrative control on behalf of the Delhi Sultanate. However, the debates are taking place in critical levels. Moreover, most of the debates are playing because of the historical sources and stylistic architectural forms (e.g. Mitra 1914, Dani, 1961, Karim 1977, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari 1989, Hasan 1984, Ahmed 1984, Hossain 2004, et. al.). Number of researches have been conducted in this era, which were focused on the macro level history of Bengal. Basically, using the archaeological records as a source, the works were done based on the study of symbols and lettering of coin, inscription and stylistic variation of architecture and ornamentation. Ironically, understanding of the spatial pattern of archaeological records has been neglected in those researches. The de-contextual approaches have been given a chance to raise some basic questions. Archaeological field methods and analytical techniques are not followed systematically. Recently developed quantitative analysis technique is well known in the study of medieval archaeological site in the contextual approach. This technique 5


will help to figure out the town plan and estimate statistically the mean centre of this town. The spatial analyses have not been introduced here by any previous researchers. Khalifatabad flourishes as a Sultanate’s town, however, the town plan have not been discussed on the basis of the spatial distribution pattern analysis. That is why the central and foremost critical aspect of this research is to verify the applicability of some analytical techniques of quantification in the archaeological research of Bangladesh. This research and its outcome are evaluated on the ground of its preliminary nature and appropriation of some techniques of quantitative analyses, which have been applied in other contexts and relatively newer in archaeological practices in Bangladesh. Quantitative analysis methods always deal with the spatiotemporal distribution pattern of archaeological records. It means to understand the space in respect to human culture. Archaeologists concerned with space and the use of space are, in fact, influenced by a great deal of cultural values. Before entering further with this discussion of space and its associations with settlement plan, landscape and town plan in archaeology; let us turn for a moment to some early examples of the philosophy of space and spatial classifications. James (1972:35-36) pointed out that the concept of space has been pondered by the ancient Greeks. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers of his time recognise two kinds or types of space. These are celestial space and earth space. In addition, James suggests that there are also some speculations about the space within the interior of the earth. This probably represents the first known classification of space into general categories. Aristotle believes that space is the logical condition for the existence of things. Sir Isaac Newton sees space as an absolute reality but void. George Berkely thinks of space as a "Mental construct based on the coordination of sight and sound” (cited in James 1972:459). Immanuel Kant describes space as an a prior form into which 6


sensuous experience necessarily falls, providing therefore, for the physical classification of knowledge (cited in James 1972:459-450). In the latter part of the 1800's, Tonnies (1957) makes the all important distinctions between natural forms of spatial interaction and "deliberately constructed social conventions” (Tonnies 1957)." The importance of this classification into the concepts of natural and manmade social or spatial units is very important and it is the basis of today’s spatial theories. Buttimer (1969: 59: 417-426) write up on the interdisciplinary perspective of social space states that it is Emil Durkheim in the 1890's that first articulates and applies “the concept of social space”. The French geographer, Chambart deLauwe (1952, 1966) then expands the general theme of social space into a hierarchy of social spaces. These are family space-relationships at the domestic level of interaction and neighbourhood space relationships on the basis of daily and local movements, Economic space which embraces employment centres, and finally, urban space which contains all the space relationship mentioned above (Buttimer 1969: 59: 417-426). This research paper has combated with the medieval urban space by using the quantitative analysis. Here Khalifatabad town has pondered as a medieval urban space. In archaeological research, space is always dealt by the spatial analysis technique. Several scholars (e.g. Clark 1957, Hodder 1971, Orton 1980 and Shennan 1997) already have established their multilayered and divergent works to understand the spatial pattern of Archaeological records. These works have been triggered the quantitative archaeology. Under the subtitle, ‘why use quantitative methods?’ Shennan in his book Quantitative Archaeology (1997: 2) answers and explains the question following C. Orton’s work (1980);

7


C. Orton Provides an excellent demonstration of why this is the case by taking some of the standard questions which archaeologists asks, such as ‘What is it?’, ‘How old is it?’, ‘Where does it come from?’ and ‘What was it for?’, and showing how a quantitative approach can help to provide the answers. He (Shennan 1997: 2) also adds: Quantitative methods should be seen, not as a distinct scientific specialisation within archaeology, like artefact characterisation technique, for example, but as part of every archaeologist’s mental toolkit. Statistical, mathematical and computer awareness to recognise when problem arise which can be helpfully tackled in a quantitative fashion. Quantitative data are an integral part of recent archaeological reports. These include for example, counting of potsherds, litchis of different types, sizes of pits, etc. Most importantly, quantitative data and their careful analyses can help us to assess the outcome of a research and formulate new queries. As ‘research is not a linear process, of course; it is a loop, because the conclusions will (or should) send back to the first stage again, to design a new investigation’ (Shennan 1997: 4). Archaeological space is always dealt by the archaeological surveying for collecting data systematically and these data are used for quantification to understand the spatial pattern of archaeological records. “It is the bread and butter of all archaeologists, even those who do not go into the field themselves”; Lucas (2001: 3) uses this testimony to explain the significance of the ‘field’ in archaeology from the account of Tilley (1989: 275). L. Binford’s works materialise the concept of New Archaeology in 70s’ and Archaeology got the idea of contextualization. This idea has given priority to the ‘field’ and ‘survey’ as a first step of archaeological fieldwork. Survey is regarded as one of the primary and fundamental method of data collection in Archaeology. Owing to rapid destruction of archaeological records, survey data often 8


constitutes the sole conserved record of prehistoric, early historic and historic evidences of an area and are used as the foundation for understanding the cultural history. The fundamental nature of the survey data in relation to other archaeological pursuits inherent biases, are important and have been the subject of a number of stimulating studies (Wandsnider et. al. 1992: 169). Field work, as a part of a professional practice, performed by the scientists themselves, emerges in the later Nineteenth century primarily among naturalists and geologists but also among archaeologists and slightly later, anthropologist (Kuklick 1997: 48). According to Lucas (2001: 3), most researchers has relied heavily on material brought back by travellers or specially commissioned collectors, going into the field was not regarded as the proper activity of a gentleman, aspects of both class and comodification being implied in this. This, however, has been determined by the proximity of the material. Sen (2009) points out that how to find and detect locations of past cultural activities is the quintessential and most probing question in archaeology. The methods, technique and actions for detecting, recording and interpreting various spatial aggregates of artefacts are known as Archaeological prospection in the dominating ideas of doing archaeology. Banning (2000) makes a difference, in definition between archaeological prospection and archaeological survey. Banning (2002: 27, 28) claims that prospection is one of the goal of survey, when survey is used to test the specific hypothesis. In the context of the archaeological practice of Bangladesh, Sen (2009) uses these two terms interchangeably because of the acceptance of both the terms in the archaeological tradition of Bangladesh. In other paper, Sen et. al.(2010: 233) wants to transgress the boundaries drawn by the practices produced at the centres of cultural production on one hand and by the mimicry, rejection or selective appropriation of these practices on the margin as well as they commit to these continuing and changing spaces and location of struggles. 9


Sen et. al. (2010: 233) makes this proposition because Bangladesh, as an ex-colonial nation-state, often conscripts of modern western disciplinary practices. In spite of marked deviations in many discursive spaces in the margin, the western disciplinary norms and practices are assumed, accepted and revered as the standards. As per Sen et. al. (2010: 233) about the paradigmatic shifts of archaeological survey; there are; Various decisive shifts have been occurred in the concepts and practices of survey archaeology during the last four decades. Paradigmatic rapture in archaeological methods and theories, partially as the consequence of the advent of the Processual archaeology in the West, entails these shifts. Categorically, it could be said that before the Processual rapture, archaeological survey did not have the same status as a method as excavation. The changes are multifaceted and they have been fostered by the subsequent conceptual shifts in archaeology that has been categorised variously as contextual, interpretive and phenomenological. Therefore, an attempt has been made to understand the impact of the paradigmatic shift of archaeological survey on the archaeological practice in the margin of the fields of academic and cultural production of Bangladesh following Sen (2009) and Sen et. al. (2010). In this endeavour, effort has been also made to develop a systematic survey model on the basis of geographer Peter Haggett’s systematic ground survey method (Drewett 1999) which will use to get the spatial data regarding the medieval archaeological records of Khalifatabad, Bangladesh. On the whole, the notion of this research is to understand the town plan of Khalifatabad through the quantitative analysis of the spatial data related to archaeological record and the systematic survey of this region. 10


1.2. Research Objectives In this endeavour, following objectives are emphasised; 1. To develop a systematic survey model to document computation friendly archaeological data and to analyse them for reliable and meaningful interpretation in context of medieval sites of Bangladesh. 2. To introduce a quantitative analysis technique in the context of archaeological records of Bangladesh. 3. To estimate the spatial pattern of Khalifatabad Town and to develop a predictive model of Khalifatabad Town.

1.3. Research Methodology The methodology of this research is divided into three stages. These are; 1. Pre-fieldwork research: This stage comprised data recognition and collection from several sources regarding the previous archaeological, geological, historical, cartographic and any other relevant works on and around the region. 2. Fieldwork: One of the research objectives is to develop an archaeological surveying model to do the ground survey. The model has been planned and successfully testified in the said area. This model develops critically which has been discussed after the next segment below. 3. Post-field analyses and interpretations: This stage mainly focuses on different methods of spatial analysis i.e. estimate the mean centre, nearest neighbour analysis, shape analysis, point analysis, etc. and interpretation.

11


1.4. Softwares to analyse the data A number of software has been used to organise the data, which are as follows: •

MS Excel and SPSS: The spreadsheet analytical tools have been used for pointing pattern analysis, distribution frequency analysis, nearest neighbour analysis and develop a master database system.

•

Adobe Photoshop: Photographs processed by using this software.

•

Adobe Illustrator: Sections drawn by using this software.

•

ArcGIS 9.2: This is GIS based software, which is used to locate and analyse the structure, tanks, road system and hydrological system of the Khalifatabad town.

•

Auto Cad: this drawing software is used to draw the predictive town plan from the GPS data.

•

Google Earth: Remote sensing technique of Google earth is used to locate and extract the present hydrological system and road map.

1.5. Architecture of the Research Paper According to the research objectives this research paper is dealing with the three major research steps, which are; 1. Rearranging a systematic Survey Model 2. Introducing Quantitative Analysis Technique and 3. Estimating the space of Khalifatabad Town In fact, the ultimate objective is to understand the town plan of Khalifatabad. To do this, here, quantitative analysis is used to define the space through spatial data. To 12


collect the spatial data, a systematic survey might have been followed. That is why Peter Haggett’s systematic ground survey model has been modified and has been prepared an individual archaeological survey model. Because of the above requirement, at first, a proposed archaeological surveying model has been introduced critically. And secondly, after systematically surveyed geodetic data, spatial analysis techniques have been used to analyse the spatial pattern of Khalifatabad. Before discussion of the analytical section, the necessary step of this research paper is to introduce the existing history and its historical debate. The legendary architectures of the study area are discussed briefly and these monuments considered of this research paper as a data of spatial pattern of archaeological records. Here also the environmental context has been discussed to introduce the environmental setting of the study area.

13


14


ȱ

Ř

2. General History of the Study Area The dominating history of Khalifatabad is that in the first half of the 15th century, Ulugh Khan Jahan finds a city of an unknown name not far from the present town of Bagerhat. From the inscribed writings on reported coin, the town has been identified as Khalifatabad by several historians (i.e. Blochmann 1872, Mitra 1914, Karim 1960, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari, 1989, et. al.). According to Mitra (1914, reprint 2001) Khan Jahan settles in an area of vast marshy, impenetrable tract and wild jungles along with the coastline of Southern Bangladesh. However, there may be previous settlers have been staying around that area.

ȱ

Plate 01. Locally known this Place as a Mint Centre with Mitha Pukur (Tank)

15


Few reliable historical facts about the life of Khan Jahan as the legendary warriorsaint and founder of Khalifatabad. In some of these narrations (i.e. Blochmann 1872, Mitra 1914, Karim 1960, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari, 1989, et. al.), he has been identified as a Turkish, and sent to extend the Muslim territory by central rulers of Delhi. But in some tales, he has left the capital on his own accord or he has been forcedly sent to the Sundarbans in punishment. No evidences or logics have been produced in favour of the above-mentioned statements. However, archaeological evidences in this space show that he and his followers dedicate themselves in flourishing Islam. However, it can be said that the city Khalifatabad has some impact on the controlling of surrounding areas (parts of Present districts of Khulna, Jessore, Patuakhali and Barisal (Fig. 03)). Some monuments of same style and materials, located at the surrounding area can be shown as the evidences in favour of the said statement. Some tanks and roads located at an area, 10 miles north of Jessor, are named after him. Some of the historians (i.e. Mitra 1914, Karim 1960, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari, 1989, et. al.) argue that Khan Jahan owes no allegiance to the Sultans of Delhi but he might be subordinated to the independent Muslim rulers of Bengal whose capital has been at Gaur. Then again, there is no evidence that suggests that Khan Jahan does not mint any coins of his own and the coin was discovered from the area which has any sort of connectivity with Khan Jahan. So far, the evidences reported from this area do not assume any other royal titles. However, his exact political status remains rather vague and obscure but perhaps the physical geography of the intractable and distant Sundarbans offer a partial explanation of his virtual independence in this area. When attacked, it is likely that he has retreated into the swamps which would explain why neither town walls nor a fortress, have so far been discovered, although there is partially excavated ruin which is supposed to have been his dwelling place (Plate 24). The only reliable historical fact known about Ulugh Khan Jahan is provided by the inscription on his tombstone at Bagerhat. It informs that he dies on the 25 October, 16


1459 (27 Zilhajj 863 AH) and has been buried the next day in the fine building which still stands on the banks of the beautiful Thakur Dighi (Plate 10). It is here that he is said to have retired in his old age and to have led a religious life until he dies. One of the reasons why history is silent about him – apart from the date of his death – may well be that he probably dies without issue. He has not only founded a city but also a dynasty, then it is likely that a few more facts might have become known by way of a hereditary family history. The two fakirs who have been living near his tomb in 1866 and 1871 and who claim to be his descendants have been unable to substantiate their claim as it is normally the case in such instances. After Ulugh Khan Jahan’s death, his capital has been reverted to jungle, only to be partially reclaimed very much later, as it is today. Prior to 1863 Bagerhat is still described as a piece of ‘low lying jungle’ (Fig. 04). The nebulous and intriguing personality of this staunch warrior and pious chief whose memory is still cherished throughout the area he ruled and who became the most important ‘pir’ or saint of the Sundarbans is still a point of conjecture. Since 1866 at least, pilgrim are known to have been flocked to his tomb and it is almost certain that his grave becomes a centre of pilgrimage long before that date. Local people know him as a wise and benevolent ruler, devoted to the cause of Islam. According to the legend, he builds 360 mosques throughout his capital with an equal number of fresh water tanks, so indispensable in the highly saline area of the Sundarbans. These artificial lakes and tanks are often called after his generals, some of whose tombs have survived in the region. The ancient city of Khalifatabad (Fig. 10) lay over more than four miles along the banks of the former course of the Bhairab River and roughly covers the area between the present town of Bagerhat in the east and the Ghora Dighi (Fig. 01 & 02) in the west. With the exception of a few outlying remains, all the ancient monuments and ruins are situated along or near the main road of the former city which skirts the banks of the old and now dried up bed of the Bhairab River (Fig. 02 & Plate 28) and 17

Fig. 03. Regional Map and Buffer Zoning of Khalifatabad


18


which is known as Khan Jahan’s road (Plate 25). The original road has been 8 – 10 feet wide. It has now been metalled but in 1877 its bricks on edge surface are still in ‘fair order and much used’. Several other old roads, which are partly traceable today, lead off at right angles from this main artery (Plate 26). One of these, it is said in 1865, leads to Gaur and another is believed, in 1871 to run straight to Chittagong, though this has never been verified. Tradition reports that Ulugh Khan Jahan goes on pilgrimage regularly to this last town in order to pay his respects to a Muslim saint whose existence is confirmed by local sources in Chittagong. In this connection, it is interesting to note that there still exists a single-domed mosque known locally as Hammad’s mosque at Masjudda near Kumira not far from Chittagong. It is said to have been constructed in the Khan Jahan style and may consequently have been built during his time. Nevertheless, its style is sufficient to confirm the close connections between Khalifatabad and Chittagong in the 15th century. Apart from the many roads and tanks attributed to Ulugh Khan Jahan, he also builds several brick bridges, some of which still exist.

2.1. Debate of the identification of Ulugh Khan Jahan Till today, Ulugh Khan Jahan is located in the history as anonymous, obscure and most influential Sufi within the inter-religion people; especially in the south Bengal. There are no archaeological records or no historical registers yet to give the clue about him or his followers. On the basis of regional character of power dynamics, it might be wildly speculated that Ulugh Khan Jahan has been a representative of Delhi Sultanate as well as a Sufi. Being a Sufi, he has been a warrior that makes a difference with the other Sufis of Bengal. The signature of Sufis has revealed as a fakir whose essence is to spread Islam. Love, passion, cultural adaptation, etc. have been the ultimate tools to put the seeds of Islam among the local people. Nonetheless Khan Jahan has been the exceptional example among the Sufis, who has come to Bengal as a Muslim Saint. In history, Ulugh Khan Jahan is identified as a 19


controversial character and the reason to select this place is embedded with identity of this illusive Muslim saint. Enormous numbers of popular saying on Ulugh Khan Jahan have been emerged and practised, even today. Lack of evidences makes him a debatable character. One of the popular versions is, being a Turkish Muslim; he comes to India during the time of Sultan Mohammad Bin Tuglak and pulls out an appointment as a minister of Delhi Sultanate according to his merit. Following the well known proverbs, he comes to Bengal with 11 Sufi and 60 thousand solders for spreading Islam. Though, this proverb contains enormous extempore opinion. On the register of Satish Chandra Mitra (2001), Khan Jahan is the title of Malik Marwar who established a new kingdom of Jaunpur in 1394 AD as well as he has been the Ujhir (Minister) of Sultan Mahmud Tughlak, grandson of Sultan Firoz Shah Tuglak of Delhi Sultanate. As a profound administrator, Sultan gave him a title “Malik-Ush-Sharque” that means the owner of the eastern part of the Sultanate. He ruled as an independent sultan but he never-ever mints any coin by his name. He articulated himself as a representative of Delhi Sultanate. Khawaja Jahan came to the Shait Gumbad region during the time of King Ganesh who declares himself as an independent king. According to Riyaz-Us-Salatin, in the old age, Sultan Malik-UshSharque or Malik Marwar or Khawaja Jahan, makes his mind to work for spreading Islam. That is why he hands over the administrative power to Ibrahim, who has been the adopted son of Jaunpur. Along with the Block’s Archaeological Survey Report (1930, p. 24), Satish Chandra Mitra (2001) has summarised that Khan Jahan and Khawaja Jahan have been the same person. However, extreme debates are going on yet and some of the historians absolutely dropped the probabilities of resemblance between Khawaja Jahan and Khan Jahan. Because, Malik Marwar Khawaja Jahan dies on 1399 AD and his adopted son Malik 20


Quaranful get the administrative power. After that, in 1402, Ibrahim Shah, younger brother of Malik Karanful has been crowned as a ruler. Regarding R.C. Majumdar (1943), “We have noticed before how during the period of confusion following the invasion of Khawaja Jahan threw off his allegiance to the Delhi Sultanate and founded a dynasty of independent rulers of Jaunpur known as the Sharki Dynasty after his Title Malik-Ush-Sharque. He died in 1399 BC living his throne to his adopted son Malik Quaranful.” Several historians (i.e. Sir H. H. Risley 1891, Ishwari Prasad 1933, et. al.) strongly support this opinion (Fig. 03). From the above-discussion, it has been cleared and clarified that Khawaja Jahan and Khan Jahan are not the same person. Other than this, historians have located the identity of Khawaja Jahan differently. On the contrary, the identity of Khan Jahan is still in dark as a popular Muslim saint, countless folk tales and oral traditions have been assembled. These all had been happened due to extreme devotion on Khan Jahan. The hyperbole of oral traditions portrays Khan Jahan as a mythical hero. Recently, Dr. Habiba Khatun (1987) plots the identity location of Khan Jahan in her unpublished PhD thesis. She points out that Azam Khan, son of Shaiakh Nur Kutub Alam, has been the friend as well as Ujir (Minister) of Sultan Giwas Uddin Azam Shah. And Giwas Uddin Azam Shah titles Azam Khan as Khan Jahan. All on a sudden, a political assassination had been done by Raja Ganesh. As a result of which Sultan Giwas Uddin Azam Shah died. Due to this, Shaiakh Nur Kutub-Ul-Alam requests Sultan Ibrahim Sharki, Jounpur, to declare the war against Raja Ganesh. Sultan Ibrahim Sharki responds the request and he moves with his soldiers towards Gaur. Before reaching to Gaur, he crosses the Bihar first and sets up a camp at Firozpur. When Raja Ganesh finds that he has been in a big trouble and it has been out of his capacity to face the Sultan Ibrahim Sharki. Then he takes a political strategy to ask an apology from Kutub-Ul-Alam. Therefore, unwillingly, Ibrahim Sharki goes back to Jounpur. Afterwards, Raja Ganesh becomes an unruly king again. 21


He arrests Kutub-Ul-Alam and his son Sheikh Anwar and his grandson Sheikh Jahid. He tries to find out the hidden treasurer of Kutub-Ul-Alam. After being failed to collect the treasure, he kills Sheikh Anwar. Due to the political instability and insecurity, Khan Jahan leaves the Capital city and moves towards the southern part of Bengal. Therefore, he establishes a Muslim colony at Bagerhat. Thus, Dr. Habiba Khatun’s (1987, 2006) explanation does not reconfigure and historians do not put their opinions about the identification of Ulugh Khan Jahan. Along with this she does not use any sort of archaeological evidences in favour of her explanation. It can be recognised as an extempore explanation. However, the conflict with Raja Ganesh of Gaur, the Bagerhat might be the perfect place for hiding and making political defences. As said by Dr. Habiba Khatun (1987, 2006), Ulugh Khan Jahan needs an alternative identity and a place which would be the far away and rather inhospitable to reach from Gaur and Sonargaon. 2.2. The Routes of Khan Jahan from the Archaeological Evidences Satish Chandra Mitra (2001) tries to point out the route of Khan Jahan. He tells that at first Khan Jahan comes to Baro Bazar, Kaliganj Upazila, Satkhira. This settlement has been established on the bank of Buri Bhairab or Bhairab River. Dr. A.K.M. Shahnawaz (2009) also pursues the same opinion. There are several mosques structures, dug out by the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, Bangladesh. These mosques might be built by the followers of Khan Jahan. On account of stylistic variation of structures, Baro Bazar can be explained as a first footstep of Khan Jahan (Fig. 03). May be moribund Bhairab River has been the main route of Khan Jahan to reach the Bagerhat. Before coming to Bagerhat, he gets a stoppage at Jessore. Because, two tombs have been established in Jessore by the two followers of Khan Jahan and these are honoured by the local people now a days. Here it should be mentioned that 22


wherever he goes, he digs the tanks for sweet water. Because, this region is situated too close to the sea and salty water has been surrounded there. The Muslim saint, Khan Jahan, has dug enormous number of tanks. There are no records even found what can expose that Khan Jahan moves after the establishment of the mint town of Khalifatabad. It can be summarised according to his attitude that he never-ever has wanted to be an independent administrator. He has minted the coin on behalf of the name of Delhi Sultan. Rest of his life he lives in this town and works for spreading of Islam. He has been the first Muslim saint who comes to the southern part of Bengal. Provably, his mission has been to spread Islam as a classless, loveable, passionate, helpful religion in the remote area. 2.3. Pre-Muslim activities How has been this space before coming of Khan Jahan with his followers? Has there been any settlement? Has it been abundant? Has it been in a deep virgin forest? Has the geographical advantage been only the main factor to select this place? What are the geographical advantages? To know the explanation of these questions, the following evidences can be able to show the path away towards the past. Before developing Khalifatabad as a mint town, a number of records have been found to customise a conventional settlement. Bagerhat is the present name of the Khalifatbad. The prefix of the word Bagerhat is hat. ‘Hat’ is a Bengali word. It means a weekly village-market. At first a hat has been established in the bank of moribund Bhairab River (Fig. 02). Basically, the hat has been established in the bank of the turn of Bhairab River what is from Harikhali, northern part of Bhairb River to present Nager bazaar. Popular

23


perception is that the name of the present city Bagerhat has been named after this ancient renowned hat. A Buddhist icon has been found from the Thakur Dighi (Plate 07) that has been preserved in the Khulna museum. Bharat Bhaina mound of Satkhira District has been characterised as a Buddhist Bihar (Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of India, 1921-22, p. 76). These two evidences may be able to verify the establishment of PreMuslim settlement. Apart from this, numbers of Gupta artefacts have been found in this region. One Gupta coin has been found from Kalighat (British Museum Catalogue of Indian Coins, Allan, p. XVII). Sener Bazar (Market zone named Sen), northern bank of Bhairab River and opposite of the present Khulna town, is conveying the story of the rule of Sen Dynasty. From the popular domain, Laksman Sen is the founder of this market. Two copper inscriptions, one is found from Betor village Hawra and other one is found from Pathar Protima village, eastern part of Sundarban, give the information in favour of Sen Reign. Satish Chandar Mitra (2001) claims that besides of Shait Gumbad Mosque, there have been so many Buddhist and Hindu structures which are noticed by him. However, there are no existed structures. Shait Gumbad Mosque’s pillars are made by stone. The popular perception about the stone is that those might be imported as a raw material. However, some of the pillar contains several Hindu deities and animal figures. One of the stone pillar has been visited during the field work, is locally known as Jahasghata (Port of Khan Jahan) (Plate 03). The Jahasghata pillar is presently considered as a deity because the figure of Mahish-Mardini has been depicted (Plate 02). Though, in Muslim customs, neither animals nor human figures can be inscribed. In most of the cases, those figures have been deformed like Arhidinka Jhopra Mosque, Quatul Islam Mosque, Adina Mosque, 24


etc. Therefore, these are the sings of the Pre-Muslim occupation. There is a popular saying that khan Jahan collects those stones from outside of this region. Other than this, the feasibility of transportation of the stone and huge river based activities during those days has not come out yet. Thus, it would not be wild speculation that most of the stone have been collected from the temples what have been abundant or demolished.

Plate 02. Depiction of Mahish-Mardini

Plate 03. Jahajghata of Khan Jahan

Deity of Jahajghata Pillar

As a result, it can be said that a small-scale settlements have been there before invasion of Khan Jahan. As well as it can be said that Khan Jahan is the first Sufiadministrator, whose basic principle has been to spread Islam in this extremely backward land. Geographically, it is the part of Sundarban. Basically, this part has been the thinner part of the Mangrove forest.

25


26


Chapter

3

3. Legendary Archaeological Records of Khalifatabad Beside the utilitarian civil works of Ulugh Khan Jahan undoubtedly erects his own mausoleum (Plate 08 & 10) with its adjoining mosque and almost certainly also have erected the spectacular Shait Gumbad Mosque (Plate 04) with its fine entrance gateway. The architectural style, introduced by the saint-warrior, is limited only to the southern part of Bengal and known as ‘Khan-e-Jahan’ style (Naqi et. al. 2004). The brick construction, stone plinths and supporting systems adorned with terracotta ornaments has shown a vital interaction of foreign and local building tradition in an explicit manner (Rahman 2006: 3). It can be told that the most important and ‘well-known’ of all the monuments in Bagerhat is the Shait Gumbad Mosque (Plate 04). This brick building, which is the largest historical mosque in the whole Bangladesh, measuring 160/ 0// x 108/0//, is said to have been erected by Khan Jahan himself. It is roofed over with seventy-seven low squat domes (Plate 06) that are supported off sixty stone pillars. The brick walls are again unusually thick and externally are slightly tapering. In the western wall, there are arched openings, following the pattern of bays and pillar divisions. The western façade has one unusual small opening, enabling easy access for the prayer leader. In two of the four corners, there are circular and tapering brick turrets, two of which on the eastern side contain circular staircases. From here, the faithful can be called to their prayer. The forest of stone pillars together with the eleven unusually ornate stone and terracotta mihrabs, makes the interior very special. Although this building has had a chequered history – there are reports in 1871 that the mosque was covered in jungle and in 1903 it has been considered that the mosque could only be preserved 27


as a partial ruin – it survives in reasonable condition as a representative of an important period of architecture.

Plate 04. Shait Gumbad Mosque

Plate 05. Bird’s Eye view of Shait Gumbad Mosque 28


Plate 06. Bird’s Eye view of Shait Gumbad Mosque (Extreme Close)

Plate 07.Bird’s Eye view of Shait Gumbad Mosque with Ghora Dighi and Kodal dhoya Dighi Apart from the Shait Gumbad Mosque and the complex around Ulugh Khan Jahan’s tomb; a number of other religious buildings and ruins dating from the same period are scattered over the area of the former city. Their style is a blending of local Bengali 29


elements on the one hand, and architectural features derived from the imperial buildings of contemporary Delhi, on the other. Together these shrines form a highly important group of monuments are representing the initial phase of Muslim architecture in Bangladesh.

Plate 08. Tomb and One Domed Mosque of Ulugh Khan Jahan

Plate 09.Bird’s Eye view of Mausoleum of Ulugh Khan Jahan 30


Plate 10. Mausoleum Complex of Khan Jahan with Thakur Dighi The style of both Mosque and Mausoleum (Plate 08) is similar in the way that they are built of bricks and are either single or multi-domed. Decoration is used sparingly and is limited to vegetal or geometric patterns, usually moulded in terracotta. Characteristic of all the extant buildings of the Khan Jahan Ali’s period in and around Bagerhat is the curve-linear cornice running between circular corner turrets. The single domed mosques such as Ranvijoypur (Plate 14), which is the largest of its kind, Singar (Plate 11), Bibi Begni (Plate 12) and Chunakhola (Plate 13) are constructed with massive brick walls – often 6 to 8 feet thick and solid circular turrets in each corner, designed no doubt to counteract the thrust of the dome. Of the multidomed Mosques, only three are still in their original forms. They are the Shait Gumbad Moasque and the Ten-domed Mosque (Plate 19), the latter is being a beautifully proportioned structure, with four central stone pillars supporting the nine brick domes. On all but the western wall, there are three pointed arches opening into the Mosque, giving it an unusually light and open atmosphere. 31


Plate 11. Singair Mosque

Plate 12. Bibi Begoni Mosque

Plate 13. Chunakhola Mosque

Plate 14. Rawnabijoypur Mosque

Plate 15. Rezakhoda Mosque

Plate 16. Nine Dome Mosque

Plate 17. Zindapir Mosque, Mazar and Grave Yard

Plate 18. Residential Structure besides Zindapir’s Maz

32


Plate 19. Ten Dom Mosque

Plate 20. Evidences of ruined 35 domed Bara Azina Mosque

Plate 21. Tapaghar

Plate 22. Interior of Tapaghar

Plate 23. Residential Area of Khan Jahan

Plate 24. Part of the Resident of Khan Jahan

Another existing feature of the town is the road system that has been noticed by S.C. Mitra (2001) and Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affaire, Bangladesh. However, they do not take it seriously than the architecture. Till now this road is used by the local people and locally known to everyone as “Khanjahan Ali’s Road” (Plate 25). It is near about 400 m. long and 4.87 m. wide. The lines of bricks are divided into 7 (seven) parts (Plate 27). The bricks types are similar to Shait 33


Gumbad Mosque. Recently, part of the road has been come out from the excavation of Residence of Ulugh Khan Jahan (Plate 23 & 24).



Plate 27. Partial View of Excavated Khan Jahan’s road 34


Chapter

4

4. Environmental context Previously it has been expressed that Bagerhat is the part of the mangrove forest Sundarban (Fig. 04) and near past it has been covered by deep forest. Therefore, the environmental contexts of Sundarban have been detailed for the sake of this study. Except to the study of the regional setting of environment, this is absurd to understand the spatial pattern of landscape. According to H. Beveridg (2001), Dineshchandra Sen (2001) and Satish Chandra Mitra (2001), Sundarban has covered a huge region, which has tentatively expanded from the west, the bank of Bhagirathi River to the east, the bank of Meghna River. This is the southern part of ancient samatata, usually between the landscape of Ganga River and Meghna River, mentioned as Sundarban. Hence, as a political location, it has covered up from the 24 Pargona District of India to the lower part of former Bakirgong District, which means to the coastline of the Bay of Bengal. Mangrove formation are described as ‘Mangal’ by MacNze (1968) and Chapman (1976) leaving the term mangrove for the individual species (Chapman 1977; Grindrod 1988). Mangroves provide the coastal tropical formation found along the border of the sea reaching as far as up the rivers banks to the point where the water is still saline, growing in swampy soils and covered by the sea during high tides (Blasco, 1975). Frequency and duration of flooding, the nature of the soil as to whether it consists of sandy or clayey mud deposits, and the degree of admixture of saline and fresh water at the river mouth are the three environmental factors which determine mangroves’ growth, development and donation (Walter 1971) (Fig. 04). MacNae (1968) argues that mangroves would occur only along protected sedimentary 35


shores. Wakushima et. al. (1994) suggests that the growth and donation of mangroves are regulated by salinity and pH. Local topography and high precipitation are also favourable for the extensive growth of mangroves formation (Boaden and Seed 1993). High wave energy and a dynamic coast are not favourable for germination and survival of mangrove vegetation (MacNae 1968). (Fig. 04) The south-western part of the Bengal delta is covered by a belt of extensive and dense mangroves forest is made by Rainey (1891). Prain in 1903 makes a detailed account of the forest and reports from the Sundarbans and adjoining areas a total of 334 species, belonging to 245 genera of Spermatophytes and Pteridophytes. Some other significant attempts also have been made to describe the ecology of the forest (e.g. Champion 1936; Blasco 1975, 1977; Chapman 1976; Chaffey and Sandom 1985; Mukharjee 1992; and Karim 1988, 1994). The Sundarban forest covers a coastal belt with dimensions of about 175 km in length and 60 km in width (Blasco 1975). It belongs to two countries, are about 6000 sq. km in Bangladesh and about 2000 sq. km in India (Blasco 1977). The major vegetation types of the present day Sundarban forest are Heritiera fomes (sundari), Excoecaria agallocha (gengwa), Sonneratia apetala (keora), Rhizophora mucronata (big goran), Xylocarpus mekongensis (passur), etc., Sundari is the dominant tree here. Unlike many other mangrove forests, the mangroves of the Sundarban are not apparently in zones but when the entire forest is considered (Mukherjee 1992), it forms a mosaic which is related to the local topography. Karim (1988) has divided the forest from east to westward into three horizontal salinity zones: oligohaline, mesohaline and polyhaline. Each zone is delineated by distinctive physiographic units viz., mudflat, levees and backswamp, each characterized by inundation and water supply of differential salinity (Karim 1994). There is, as a result, a very complex vegetation composition.

36


¢ȱȱȱȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱǻǼ ȱȱȱǻȬǼ ȱȱȱǻǼ Ȭ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ¢

ŗŖŖ

Ŗ

ŗŖ

ŗŖŖ

Ŗ

ŗŖ

Fig. 04. Physiographic Map of Bagerhat District (modified after SRDI 1977) 37


4.1. Environmental Setting of Khalifatabad The landscape around Khalifatabad consists of lush tropical vegetation with many clusters of coconut palm trees, betel nut trees, bamboo and bananas. Pan leaves are grown quite extensively under shaded cover as well as mangoes, guavas, papayas and other fruits. Much of the land is cultivated but there are small patches where natural ‘jungle’ has re-established itself. At the south and eastwards, the landscape opens up with moderately large paddy and wheat fields. Lack of irrigation leaves this open land very dry by the end of the winter and at present only single crop is achieved. A major feature of the area is the number of freshwater tanks or dighis, the largest of which covers the area of some 34 acres. Most of the tanks are aligned and associated with adjoining mosques or mausoleum, thus dating from the 15th century A.D. Their primary purpose is to provide reservoirs of freshwater as the soil is inclined to become salty with inundation from the tidal estuaries of the Bay of Bengal. Soil thrown up from excavation of these human-made tanks remains as large embankments. These provide interestingly elevated views, especially as some of the monuments, e.g., Khan Jahan’s Mosque and Mausoleum, and the Nine-domed Mosque – are built on the tops of these banks. Once Khalifatabad has been standing on the south bank of the river Bhairab; has flowed eastward at this point. Later the river takes a turn to the north-east to rejoin its old course near the modern town of Bagerhat. The old river bed is still discernible by the field pattern and by a series of beels. Small village settlements remain scattered over the site of the old city. Several mosques are being used indeed, two of them have been ‘fashionably’ but regrettably modernized. Some Saints’ mausoleum has been encroached upon by farm or village buildings or has been allowed to cover totally by overgrown jungle. Some are so ruinous and hidden that they are not easily found.

38


ȱȱ

ȱ ȱȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ

¢ȱ

ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ

Plate 28. Google’s Remote Sensing image of Moribund Bhairab River


39



40


Chapter

5

5. Critically Introduced a Proposed Archaeological Surveying Model Conceptually and methodologically, archaeological survey shifts through the different path ways. From 1880-1920, Heinrich Schliemann and Pitt Rivers, the two figure can be considered the first field worker in Archaeology and they stand at quite opposite poles. Schliemann has been the romantic, the treasure-hunter and Pitt Rivers has been the field archaeologist, the scientist. In order to his workmanship, Pitt Rivers has gone down in all the history books as the father of British field archaeology. In fact, Lucas (2001: 5) argues that field work, as we understand it today, has more in common with the work of Mortimer wheeler in Britain or Alfred Kidder in the USA. In the Indian Subcontinent, as a colony of British Empire, Mortimer Wheeler has introduced the systematic field work and he has considered as the father of Indian Archaeology (Lucas 2001: 7). Second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century gives the systematic pathway of field walking that can be called the early archaeological reconnaissance. Various projects of archaeological survey of this period has hinged around the reconfigurations of space and time. Here, a brief description of the benchmark archaeological survey have been organised following the works of Banning (2002) and Sen (2009). •

Early Air Reconnaissance Survey: First World War gives the idea of the early air reconnaissance survey. Archaeologists were quick to apply this new technology to the archaeological discovery in regions ranging from England by Crawford (1929, 1953 cited in Banning 2002) and Syria by Poidebard (1934 cited in Banning 2002). Not only it has been easier to discover earthworks and detect patterns in their distribution by viewing landscapes from the air in 41


raking light, sometimes buried ditches and building foundations becomes detectable in vegetation patterns called “crop marks” (see Bewley and Rackowski 2001, Dasste 1978, Deuel 1969, Kennedy 1995, 1995, Kennedy and Rilley 1990 cited in Banning 2002). •

Landscapic Archaeological Survey in Northwest Europe: Landscape Archaeology specially focuses largely on the distribution of small farms, villages, burial monuments, field walls and ditches and it has been practised in Northwest Europe traditionally. o In Scandinavia, archaeology has close links with natural history even in the late 19th century and sometimes this leads to a more ecological perspective on site distributions. By the first quarter of the 20th century, regional settlement archaeology has become more common (e.g. Almgren 1914; la Cour 1927 cited in Banning 2002) and later regional settlement surveys by Therkel Mathiassen (1948; 1959 cited in Banning 2002) used large numbers of amateurs.

•

The Virù-Valley Survey focused on Settlement Pattern: Virù-Valley of Peru is the classic example of archaeological study what has been done by Gordon Willey. With some resemblance to the European field walking surveys, it focuses on “Settlement Pattern” and it takes archaeological survey well beyond the simple prospecting for interesting sites. This survey and other studies of settlement patterns in the 1950s has already begun to address the identification of “community patterns” with temporal, functional, ecological and social components in addition to the spatial one. American archaeology gets the shape as today for practice. In 1970s spatial sampling and environmental orientation are the common phenomena in

42


surveying. Eventually, even to the kinds of landscape archaeology becomes popular in the late 1980s. •

Floodplain Survey in Diyala and Uruk, Iraq: These survey techniques inspires the whole generation of archaeologist in the Near East. Since a major goal of these surveys has been to document changes in agricultural land use in the region, linking the survey so explicitly to the most limiting agricultural strategy.

•

The Basin of Mexico Project - A Benchmark of Pedestrian Survey: It considers as a role model of pedestrian survey. The Mexico Projects has the ambitious goal of 100% coverage by pedestrian survey over a region of some 600 km in area to document changes in residential distributions and people’s interactions with their social and natural environments since 1000 BC. This has been a site survey with inferred settlement locations as its basic units of observation and analysis. The surveyors argues that settlements are places “where people has spent enough time to leave some obvious, enduring physical traces on the present ground surface” (Sanders et. al. 1979: 15 cited in Banning 2002). Their definition ‘site’ requires that survey teams recognise fairly discrete clusters of surface artefacts to which they can assign boundaries, apparently where density dropped off to ‘empty space’. They recognise the possibility that some of these clusters are palimpsests of several overlapping occupations and strive to separate these. They think that they can estimate what type of settlement some sites represented and occasionally even used artefact densities to estimate sites numbers of residents. Importantly, they recognise the importance to ensure according to Sanders et. al. (1979: 16-17 cited in Banning 2002), “that a blank on the settlement map for any particular time period was the product of a lack of settlement rather than a lack of survey”. 43


•

Survey in America: American archaeologists consecutively use ‘traditional’ and ‘New Archaeology’ technique in southeast and north America. Especially in North America where the forest cover and the leaf litter are the major obstacle to the surface visibility of sites and according to that archaeologists develops a method called subsurface survey. o Site and Non-site both have importance in American survey methods. The Old World concentrates on the documentation of ‘sites. There is not much consistency in the definition of sites, but generally these are concentrations of material culture, sometimes involving traces of architecture that archaeologist tends to assume marking the location of ancient settlements, workshops and so on. o In the late 1970s , inter tidal and shallow-lake survey replace the chance exposures. It reveals by falling water. Changes in sea levels, erosion of coasts, the excellent preservation of organic remains and the human tendency to make use of coastal areas all combine to make it extremely important to survey the surfaces that receding waters briefly expose. At first, Philip Hobler (1978 cited in Banning 2002) demonstrates the importance of the intertidal zone to the early prehistory of British Columbia, when sea level has been as much as 5 m lower than they are today, in a survey of Moresby Island.

Theoretically, Sen (2009) explains “the most important shift in archaeological survey, broadly in archaeological fieldwork, came with the advent of an objectivist, functionalist and neo-evolutionist system theory oriented paradigm known as processual archaeology. Seeking cultural process in the form of multi-casual interrelationship of various natural and cultural subsystems, the proponents claimed for scientism in fieldwork. Re-conceptualisation of archaeological record as static at 44


the present reflecting the processes of past paved the way for appropriating a more statistical approach for the explanation of past and site formation processes.” Although Sen (2009) articulates “the debates on different registers between them, Binford and Schiffer revolutionised survey methods along with Muller (1975), Plog (1978), Plog et. al. (1978), Flannery (1976), Redman (1975, 1974) and others. The common ground of these debated and new approaches was primarily to castigate bias in samples and objectives. The culture-historical objective of locating ‘sites’ as per the interest and certain criteria of value-laden definition of ‘sites’ as distinct forms (e.g. Monuments, big structural mounds, etc.) was contested. The changing reconceptualisation of environmental system and landscape context as the correlates of archaeological fact acted additionally. Most importantly, consideration and identification of various formations, modification and disturbance processes were crucial from essentialising quantitative methods and sampling processes as bias-free and as means to know the past objectively.” Even though Sen (2009) has mentioned, Archaeological thought has passed a long path considering the shifts in theoretical milieu and intellectual worldview since then. Post-processual archaeology, later has bracketed variously as contextual, cognitive and interpretive archaeologies, questions the neutrality and objectivity of archaeological knowledge and the methods of gaining it. Referring to the sociopolitical and ideological conditions in which archaeologists’ world is at present, they have argued for a more individualistic, cognitive and symbolic past. In spite of great variability and incongruence of conceptual universes, these paradigms question the (re)constructability of the past and the idea of ‘fact’. Instead of explaining processes of the interaction between past cultural and natural systems, they sight after for a structurally nuanced interpretation of phenomenon and individual agency. By attempting to make the sense of the past at the present, multiple and pluralistic interpretations of the past has been thought to be possible with regard to the context. 45


These approaches are often criticised for being too relativistic and ‘present’ specific. Thus, despite their capacity to understand and elaborate upon the politics of the past, they are identified as of limited application on case of understanding and interpreting the material remains from the past especially through the fieldwork. 5.1. Genealogy of Archaeological Survey in Bangladesh A good number of Archaeological projects under the East India Company and the Empire of British government have been conducted by the colonial modernity. The disciplined past as a new discursive formation provides the conceptualisation of the ‘past’ in such ways as if it is ‘savages’ as the non-western world. Sen (2009) epistemologically classifies the past into discipline within a Cartesian worldview and Baconian. He (Sen 2009) connotes the ‘Time’ as a mode of colonisation with the mediation of material culture. In this context, although Sen (2009) states that reconnaissance of the early period in the west influences and provokes various brands of surveys in the colonies, like Indian Subcontinent. Here is the history of archaeological surveying which has been carried out in the Indian subcontinent by the project of colonial modernity. Cohn (1996: 1-15) mentions , these survey modalities have been neither innocent acts conditioned by ‘innate human character to know’, nor

they have planned and performed by a few pioneers and geniuses, as it is

simplified in the conventional historiography, observational, museological, surveillance and as a whole investigative modalities of the colonial form of knowledge. From various registers of archaeological survey in Indian Subcontinent under the colonial aura, Antiquarianism has been the paradigm of Archaeological and historical pursuits in India with the effort of Sir William Jones, who put together a group of antiquarians (like Tavernier, Finch and Bernier, Thevenot, Careri, Fryer, Ovington, Hamilton, Anquetil du Perron, Joseph Tieffenthaler, William Chamber) to form the Asiatic Society on 15th January 1784 in Kolkata. Mainly they have carried out survey of monuments in various parts of India. Sir Alexander Cunningham, Sir 46


John Marshall, Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni, Rao Bahadur K.N. Dikshit and R.E.M. Wheeler have successfully conducted the archaeological research since 1861 to 1947 (Roy 1961). The paradigm of these researches is cultural-historian approach. Objectifying the past is the ultimate goal of colonial and post colonial archaeology in Indian Subcontinent. Civil and Military Officer of the East Indian Company have conducted the primary archaeological survey, however, they have not had any background of modern discipline. In fact, Colonial Colin Mackenzie, Francis Buchanon and others characterise their work as a ‘statistical survey’ though ‘statistical survey’ has no contact with the modern thought of ‘statistic’. Cohn (1996: 80) states, “It was made sense in term of collection of information considered necessary and useful to the state. These actors collected data of a wide ranging variety about archaeological monuments, texts and relics aided by documentation, photography and drawing”. Singh (2004: 1) identifies this phase as a period of Antiquarianism. Historically and Geographically, Bangladesh is the part of Indian Subcontinent before 1947 and epistemologically and ontologically Bangladesh Archaeology has grown up with the colonial legacy. If a look is given through the paradigm of survey methodology of Bangladesh archaeology considering the published works and the position of Sen (2009) would be chosen to hold up; Paradoxically, the post-colonial practices are featured by predicament of selective appropriation and rejection and often, careful and systematic manoeuvres of dominant colonial and nationalistic intellectual undercurrents. Normative deviations were inevitable for the validation for new identities after partition. Pakistani nationhood were claimed to be imagined and validated by the past and its relics (see Wheeler 1955: 222 for invocation of Indus Civilisation for the legitimisation of Pakistan). The post-liberation war period 47


in Bangladesh inherited the bureaucratic structures and echoed the thematic and the problematic of the Pakistani and Colonial formations. ‘Medieval’ period of history and survey for the documentation of medieval grand buildings became prominent in academic and statistic practice. Secularised national identity was the key around which these enterprises hinged (Sen 2002). However,

along

with

the

Govt.

Department,

individual

historians,

administrators, newspaper reporters and amateur enthusiasts have conducted most of the surveys. A.K.M. Zkaria’s book – Bangladesher Pratnasampad (Archaeological Resources of Bangladesh) (1984) – could be identified as a seminal text of the genre of works done by the people outside the institutional domain. Regional surveys conducted by Govt. Department of Archaeology could be the examples from the statist domain (see, for example, Ali 1995). Institutionalization of archaeology as an academic discipline in Jahangirnagar University marks another shifting point in archaeological surveying. While most of the surveys were conceptualised within a nationalistic episteme characterised by oldness and past fame, fortune and glory, the students and teachers of this department have been able to apply and experiment various approaches with different theoretical premises. Yet, it should be asserted that even with respect to the dominating practice in the university Department of Archaeology, these practices are marginalised. The dominating theoretical universe shared and inhabited by the majority, within which the surveys are conducted and normalised, has been essentialised by the search for a majoratarian national identity, for validation of the Nation-state and its ideals and for the aspirations for a practice, which could often be categorised as pseudoarchaeological. Surprisingly, there is not a single work what has been followed systematically or has not added or discarded the western methodology. Before processual archaeology, 48


Mortimer Wheeler’s field method has been the most dominated field method and they claims to follow this method. However, the published report is unable to explain it properly. Sen (2010: 234) also finds the development and paradigmatic shifts generated and formed in the west are critically important for archaeological survey in this particular context. 5.2. Unique Models of Archaeological Surveying A good numbers of archaeological surveying have been defined as surveying models throughout the world (Banning 2002). Even surveys that appear to have had no explicit research design employ models of distribution of cultural remains in space relative to the modern surface. It would be naive to suppose that these models have no effect on the results of those surveys. The following presents some highly simplified and idealised models on which many survey designs appear to have been based, even when the designs were far from explicit. The list is not exhaustive, and some archaeology involves combinations of two or three of these simple models. In addition, the way the models are conceived here often mixes models for ancient behaviour (discard, etc.) with models for pos-depositional processes and models for the final product for these processes. The order of models is not intended to imply any value judgements, and only roughly reflects historical order in the use of these models. Here, the name of models assigned arbitrarily. These are; •

The Monument Model o The Earthwork Model o The uniform Distribution o The Modal, “Bulls-eye” or “Fried-egg” Model Mathematical Models for Clusters of Artefacts Contagious Distributions o The Palimpsest Model 49


o The “Off-site” or “Intersite” Model o The Distributional or “Non-site” Model o The place Model o The Paleolandscape Model 5.3. Proposed Survey Design The above discussed western methodologies have not been claimed within appropriation/rejection. This research paper has no intention to define that modern survey methodologies are acted as the colonial projects. Surveys, by the nature, have always a functional approach and ontologically utilitarian. As well as, none of the surveys has an acceptance to work out as a universal model. However, teleological, above discussed methodologies have been followed as a basic way of surveying and archaeologists use these methods considering the context of archaeological records. Here, contextualisation distinctly ground upon spatial and temporal relativism based on which it could be argued that each meaning of ‘an artefact of group of artefact’ is valid.

Simple Random Sampling Design

Stratified Random Sampling Design

50


Stratified Systematic Unaligned

Systematic Sampling Design

Sampling Design

Fig. 05. Four types of systematic ground survey (After Haggett, cited in Drewett, 1999) The proposed survey method for Khalifatabad, a medieval town of Bangladesh, teleologically grounded on systematic random survey by Peter Haggett (Drewet, 1999), a human geographer. Additionally, GIS technology has been used of this research. This is the combination of systematic ground survey and Purposive Survey procedure. Before elaborating the proposed survey plan of this research, it is necessary to explain that the systematic ground survey method was developed by Geographer Peter Haggett (1977). This can be approached in a variety of ways, depending on the aims of the survey. Four types of systematic ground survey had been designed. According to Drewett (1999), the simple random sample involves gridding the area (on a map) and then using random number tables to select a point on the x-axis and a point on the y-axis. Where the two lines drawn out from these axis points cross is the randomly selected spot on the landscape. How many such random spots are selected will depend on the available time, resources and research objectives. Also the size of the area searched at the main problem with simple random sampling to locate sites in 51


a landscape is that as the spots may be anywhere, they could all cluster leaving great areas out of surveying though big enough to miss even the largest site. Archaeological sites are, of course, unlikely arbitrarily dotted over the landscape. Therefore, it is advisable to make sure any random sample includes all geographic zones. One way to achieve geographic coverage is to use a stratified random sample. To do this, the area to be surveyed is broken into geographic zones, like mountains, low hills and valleys. Each zone is then sampled separately in the same way as simple random sampling. This guarantees geographic coverage. It does not, however, get around the problem of clustering. To avoid clustering, the area could be sampled in a systematic way. To do this the area is gridded and a point within the first square is selected randomly. Exactly the same location is then selected in each square. An alternative of doing this is to select randomly a different location, a different location within each square. This design, known as stratified systematic unaligned, has the advantage of being systematic (guaranteeing wide coverage) but with a random element. In practice, of course, all these sample designs, Drewett (1999) figure out some problems in the field. •

When a sampling strategy applies rigidly, without looking at the landscape first, so many points end up in settlement structures, on motorways, or in the middles of rivers! Clearly some landscapes are more amenable to this type of sampling than others.

•

An alternative to examining quadrates in the landscape is to examine lines or transects across the landscape. This could be done from randomly selected spots in the landscape, creating a random pattern of transects; but more usually 52


it is done using a systematic pattern of transects like parallel lines across a river valley or mountain range. The actual width of the transects and their spacing depends on time and resources. Clearly the closer the spacing and the wider the transects, the better coverage will be. The important thing is to discover the range of sites of different levels of complexity, rather than pretending it is actually possible to discover all archaeological sites that ever existed in an area. Whether by using random quadrates, transects or simple non-probabilistic sampling based on your experience of where sites are likely to be, the next stage is to decide what ground survey techniques to use. Although, Drewette (1999) mentioned, •

If the area is ploughed, then field walking – to locate, collect and plot artefact spreads – is probably the most appropriate method. This survey should be systematic, although at its simplest this could be a grab sample recorded by field (if they are of relatively small size). It is more usual, however, to walk either lines or squares, although other shapes, like circles, have been tried.

•

For surveys that are more intensive the grid system is more appropriate. In this type of survey, the area is gridded. The size of the grid square will depend on how detailed a survey would be. Usually the squares are 20 m or 30 m square, but they could be larger or smaller. The smaller the squares, however, the longer they will take to set out, more bags will be used and analysis and plotting will take longer. Given the nature of material in ploughed fields, overdetailed recording is often a waste of time. For lager squares a team of archaeologist will line up on one side of the square and walk across the square in a line, picking up all artefacts they see.

•

The interpretative survey involves looking at relationships between humps and bumps and dips. Which bit of the pattern was their first? Which bit overlies the 53


earlier feature? How were they modified through time? As with the interpretation of aerial photographs, the surveyor is looking for identifiable patterns and relationships to build up sequence of development of a site without any damaging resort to excavation. Of course, not all archaeological features will show as humps or dips in the land surface. Even large pits and ditches could be so well filled that they simply do not show on the surface. They may also be overlain to excavation is to use the wide range of geophysical techniques now available to field archaeologists. Here, the above discussed survey method have been customised built-in with GIS technology. GIS technology makes easy to solve the limitations of this method. In most of the cases, it deals within the 100 m areas. However, after Haggett (1977), the proposed systematic survey using GIS technology can be dealt with the wide area of archaeological records. According to Haggett (1977), a digitised map of Khalifatabad Town, what is the partial area of Bagerhat Upazilla, used with the 15/ grid and these grids have been considered here the Haggett’s (1977) proposed way but the size is huge. In this context, regional scale survey conducts with the contextually informed area. This 15/grid considers here due to the structure contained area what has been identified as a middle age town and the objectives of that survey to understand the town plan. In fact, purposive survey intend to take this zone as well as, no challenges have been here to find out the archaeological records. The spatial pattern of the structures and the pathways, water body are the main targeted sample to understand the distribution. However, every grid has been virtually visible on the field. Here the grids on field using GPS and GIS technology have been figured out. That is why; the GPS and Laptop has been the obvious instrument to operate this huge area survey. On field, GPS has been used to take point data and projected the data on the base map of Bagerhat Upazilla using ArcGIS 9.2 software. 54

Fig. 06. Proposed Survey Model


55


The following figure is showing the design of sampling through customised systematic survey using the GIS technology. Model of the systematic survey with the combination of Spatial Structural Survey (i.e. Peter Haggett’s (1977) grid ground survey) and Purposive Survey procedure has been followed here.

56


Chapter

6

6. Spatial Distribution Pattern Analysis of Khalifatabad Town as an Urban Centre Before speaking about the spatial distribution pattern analysis of archaeological evidences of Khalifatabad, this is necessary to clarify the basics of urban pattern. Because of this, Max Weber (1956: 23) remarks that although there have everywhere been civil market privileges, companies, guilds and all sorts of legal differences between the town and the country, the concept of the citizen has not existed outside the occident, and that of the bourgeoisie outside the modern occident. He also mentioned (cited in Bhattacharyya 1996: 33), ‘the emergence of the autonomous and autocephalous medieval city with its own administrative council and their Consul, Major or Burgomaster on top, was a process of development different not only from the growth of the Asiatic cities but the ancient cities as well’. It means, according to the opinion of Weber, there are no cities in the sense of unitary communities outside the occident. In the middle age of India, the major problem is, economic condition is very doubtful and unified political law, citizens, autonomous administration are also so doubtful. However, Weber considers the republican city of Vaisali has been an urban centre, but not in the sense of the Western Urbanisation Thought (cited in Bhattacharyya 1996: 34). He thinks that these cities disappear as the great kingdoms arise based on water regulation (cited in Bhattacharyya 1996: 34). Hence, ‘only in the west did the development come to a full maturity’ (Weber 1950: 321). Weber’s definition of modern urban centre is very much related with economic activities and the percentage of demography. However, Land use planning, demography and transporting planning ponder a space as urban, city or town is in 57


present time. The Greek Hippodamus (c. 407 BC) designed the Miletus and this iconic design honoured him ‘Father of City Planning’ in the history. Alexander commissions him to lay out the city of Alexandria, the grandest example of the ancient Mediterranean world. And grid plan has been the basic idea of his work. However, the earliest examples of deliberately planned and managed cities are: Harappa, Lothal or Mohenjo-Daro at present in India and Pakistan, where same fashioned grid pattern had been followed with a hierarchy of streets from major boulevards to residential alleys. Archaeological records help to speculate that most of the houses of Harappa are laid out to protect from noise and enhance residential privacy as well as many also had their own water wells, sanitary and ritual space. Nevertheless, sanitation and drainage system have been the unique and ideal example of an ancient town. In the ancient period, a wall to protect the town from invaders and to make the city limited has surrounded these cities. Areas outside city limits have been left open as farmland. At the end of each main road, there has been a large gateway with watchtowers along with the city walls. An aqueduct was built outside the city walls. Childe (1979: 12) summarises that monumental edifices, large settlements with dense population, non-food producing classes (including artisans and merchants) and the cultivation of art, science and writing s as traits of urban revolution. Adams, however, gives more stress on the size and density of population, than on the contribution of specialised crafts for the development of an urban centre (cited from Bhattacharyya 1996: 34). Bhattacharyya (1996: 34) also adds that ‘...........the most crucial for growth of an urban centre is not merely size and population but the quality of material life and nature of occupations’. In the case of medieval urbanisation in India, “The immediate and the most significant effect of the Turkish occupation.... was the liquidation of the old system of city planning” – this statement coins by Akhtaruzzaman (2009: 133) from the article of M. Habib and K.A. Nizami. It means that Muslim era, epistemologically, brings 58


out the advance techniques which have been replaced ontologically the pre-Muslim town planning. However, in Muslim reign, some of the pre-Muslim urban centres have survived as Non-commercial Township under the aegis of a political authority (Akhtaruzzaman, 2009: 132). According to Akhtaruzzaman (2009: 135), some of the pre-Muslim urban centre converts, renovates, or rebuilds by the Muslim power and Lakhnauti (Gaur) could be an ideal example in these circumstances. Usually, streets, shops, drains and fortifications can give a good idea of the urban settlement. Fortifications have been traced in some cases and these indicate the need for security. Akhtaruzzaman (2009: 135) characterises the medieval town plan. Administrative building, Thanas, Khanqahs, Mosques, Madrasah structures are the basics of the medieval town plan and identifies the very generalised character, which are pointed out in below; •

Rulers used to consider its topographical position first.

•

Urban centres (e.g. Lakhnauti, Pandua, Sonargaoun, Satgaoun, Chittagong, etc.) have been situated on the banks of the river or on the converging points of some trade routes.

•

These are situated usually on a higher level of land than the surrounding areas.

•

This very nature of location has served the purpose of easy communication, defence and security, drainage facility, water supplying and trade and commerce links. (Akhtaruzzaman, 2009: 143)

In addition, Sonargaon can be the best example as a medieval urban centre. Three types of medieval towns have been classified, which are some administrative capital cities (e.g. Lakhnauti, Pandua, Sonargaon etc.), religion based towns (e.g. Tabrizabad or Deotala) and mint towns (e.g. Muazzamabad, Fathhabad, Khalifatabad etc.) (Akhtaruzzaman, 2009: 133-144). 59


The study area of this research paper might be a mint town. The research objective of this paper is to understand the town plan by using the quantitative archaeological methods and introducing a systematic survey design and developing a predictive model. In Bengal, there are no standard-measurement have been outlined yet to understand the medieval town and this has been the basic limitation of doing this research. In contrast, so many extensive works have been done on ancient period’s town plan in India and those works have been able to fix up the standard, which have been discussed above. This is very much difficult to outline the economic activity and the demographic situation. Non-religious structures are usually absent in the most of the medieval urban centre. Coin and communication system are the evidence of economic activity. But scanty of coins and de-contextual discovery have made to heard to hunch the economic activities. Therefore, the historians always make their decision on the basis of the scanty of coin. The inadequate data and evidences, specially based on economy and demography, it is quite difficult to determine the medieval centre. So spatial distribution of structures, like roads, buildings etc., have to be considered to understand the town plan of medieval Bengal. On the other hand in Bangladesh, historians and archaeologists never attempted to understand the medieval township on the basis of spatial planning. These towns have always been explained in a descriptive mood. Individual architecture got the concentration and commonsense based speculation and indistinct outline description were made. Another limitation is that no extensive researches have been done yet. Akhtaruzzaman (2009: 126) notices that N.R. Ray (1949) is the first scholar to formulate the model of the decaying urban condition in the early medieval Bengal. After his work, the medieval historians only followed his work unconditionally. Roy (1999) discusses about the city of medieval age, however, the discussion has centred only to locate the town and the history of discussed area. Most of the cases, he tries to speculate the dispersion of the town. Therefore, he has not tried to fix any standard 60


spatial distribution, determinants and measurement of a medieval town. Same story have been moderately repeated by Akhtaruzzaman (2009). Due to these limitations, from the scholar’s registers, it is near to impossible of understanding the town plan from spatial point of view. With this context, here, an attempt has been made to develop a measurement-standard of medieval town plan using spatial analytical techniques. Statistics is very popular tools to analyse the spatial distribution techniques in Geography, Urban Planning, etc. The mean centre, weighted mean centre, median centre, physical centre, standard distance and nearest neighbour analysis techniques have been used to understand the point pattern and central place of an urban zone. The coordinated points and size of features have been used as population of this analysis. Every urban centre has flourished based on a centre point. Even today, urban centres are flourishing depend on a centre point like market, port etc. And most of the points have been developed in respect of the central point. In a planned town, every point should have a nearest neighbour. That is why, point pattern and central place theory have made easy to understand the town plan of medieval Khalifatabad. This town also might have two centre places. At first the above discussed proposed systematic ground survey has been conducted. Here GPS has been used extensively to collect the geodetic address. Every record has been featured as points. The GPS data have been projected on the BTM projection maps and the town, digitally outlined, has come out (Fig. 10). The figure 39 is showing the spatial distribution of monuments and tanks of Khalifatabad town as a point feature. The road is shown in red coloured line feature and the moribund Bhairab River is featured as a dotted line. This is the outline of a planned city what had been drawn by S. Mitra in 1914 (2001) (Fig. 13). The automatically prepared town sketch is almost similar to S. Mitra. However, in figure 44, the monuments and other features are geo-referenced. 61


Fig. 07. Spatial Distribution Pattern of Monuments of Khalifatabad

6.1. Measure of Dispersion

62


The distributions of archaeological monuments might not be considered as a planned town. So many archaeological sites have been plotted in Bengal, however, most of the sites have not characterised as the town by the traditional researches. In fact, absence of spatial analysis technique in archaeological or historical researches is one of the reasons to fail to understand the medieval places. There are not a single town in medieval Bengal that has been flourished in a day. Usually, it had been grown gradually. Therefore, the mean centre and median centre must be changed phase by phase and always has maintained the centre of gravity. Without a town plan, there are no possibilities to find these features. The weight of the town can be measured by the population (e.g. the size of monuments etc). A planned town must have above-mentioned features. Therefore, the town plan can be featured by estimating the standard distance of the tendency of dispersion. Here, all of the structural records of the Khalifatabad have been projected as a point feature in the BTM projected map of Bagerhat region, Bangladesh. The point ‘0’ has the long is 22033/00/ E and late is 89030/00//N. It has to be mentioned that distance for every 15/ lat variation is 25.67 km towards along x-axis and 15/ long variation is 27.71 km along y-axis and the distances have been measured from the zero (22033/00/ E & 89030/00//N). This geodetic position has been featured as the reference point from where distances of the location of archaeological records have been measured in km. These measured locations have been showed in the following segments of analysis.

6.2. Point pattern centrality Analysis Based on the geo-referenced plotting, mean centre and weighted mean centre of the town have been estimated below:

63


Table 01. Estimation of the Mean Centre and the Weighted Mean Centre from the Spatial Distribution of Archaeological Records

x

y

w

Site

(km)

(km)

(m2)

Shait Gumbad Mosque

18.91

24.87

Bibi Beguni Mosque

19.7

24.36

60.80

1197.76

1481.088

Chunakhola Mosque

19.2

23.47

49.40

948.48

1159.418

24.8 15542.21 297477.9

385446.8

Xw

1609.19 30429.71

Yw 40020.46

Residence of Khan Jahan

19.14

Singair Mosque

18.79

24.87

Korial Kha/ Koira Mosque

18.72

26.05

36.00

673.92

937.8

Sadot Kha Mosque

17.58

25.03

28.00

492.24

700.84

Grave of Unknown Sufi

17.67

26.01

12.67 223.9142

329.5987

Ranobijoypur Mosque

18.5

26.46

120.34 2226.307

3184.22

Zinda Pir Mosque

17.3

26.18

600.00

10380

15708

Reza Khuda Mosque

17.32

26.21

169.05 2927.946

4430.801

Mausoleum of Khan Jahan Ali

17.67

26.87

56.08 990.9336

1506.87

Khan Jahan Ali Jami Mosque

17.67

26.87

48.76 861.5892

1310.181

Nine Dome Mosque

17.8

27.32

265.67 4728.882

7258.036

Baro Ajina Mosque

16.81

29.52

1073.00 18037.13

31674.96

Ten Domed Mosque

17.54

27.77

111.33 1952.644

3091.501

Mausoleum of Pagla Pir

17.39

26.84

12.38 215.2013

332.145

Grave of Ahmed Kha

17.51

26.56

14.27 249.8852

379.0378

Tapoghar

20.27

26.83

40.19 814.6108

1078.244

Pathar Ghata/Jahaj Ghata

20.25

25

141.13 2651.915

3510.013

60.00

1215

1500

20 365.74 521.89 20050.46

378696

505040

64


Mean centre x = 365.74/20 = 18.29 km; ˝ = 521.89/20 = 26.09 km

The Mean Centre of the spatial distribution of monuments is 18.29 km and 26.09 km. So Mean centre point of this town should be the 0.15 km north-west corner from the grave of an unknown Sufi, is besides the pedestrian road of Sadot Kha Dighi (Fig. 08).

Weighted Mean Centre xw = 378696/20050.46 = 18.89 km; ˝w = 505040/20050.46 = 25.19 km. Weighted Mean Centre of the town of Khalifatabad is 18.89 km and 25.19 km. So spatial location of the weighted mean centre point is .05 km north from the present Shait Gumbad Mosque (Fig. 07).

In Khalifatabad, Shait Gumbad Mosque has the special importance due to its huge and fort like architecture ((Dani, 1961, Bari 1989, Hasan 1984, Ahmed 1984, Hossain 2004, Rahman 2006, Naqi et al. 2004). On the basis of architectural characteristics, historians (Mitra 2001, Karim 1960, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari 1989, et.al.) speculate that this mosque also has been used for the administrative purposes. Because of this phenomenon, the general opinion is that Khalifatabad town might be flourished based on Shait Gumbad Mosque. The position of weighted mean centre partially supports this view. However, it must be taken into consideration that an urban centre has not been flourished in a day. Moreover, as time passes, parameters of flourishing of a town changes depending on cultural adaptivity, connections, technology, subsistence activities and necessities of inhabitant of that town. Therefore, position of the centre point of a town might change. 65

Fig. 08. Estimated Mean Centre of Khalifatabad


66

Fig. 09.Estimated Weighted Mean Centre of Khalifatabad


67


6.2.1. Median Centre of the Khalifatabad Town In this spatial analysis, median centre has been calculated in two ways: 1. statistical and 2. Physical. The ideal town should have a centre point and the point features must be distributed equally around a physical centre point. The centre point of the Khalifatabad Town has been identified in respect of the spatial distribution of geodetic points, which have been mentioned in below figure 42. In this endeavour, only the archaeological evidences bearing Khan Jahanee style have been considered for spatial analysis. The sub-periodisations of evidences have not been considered because it is difficult to establish exact time and causes of construction of measured archaeological evidence. Table 02. Estimation of the Median Centre of Khalifatabad from the Spatial Distribution of Archaeological Records Site Shait Gumbad Mosque Bibi Beguni Mosque Chunakhola Mosque Residence of Khan Jahan Singair Mosque Korial Kha/ Koira Mosque Sadot Kha Mosque Grave of Unknown Sufi Ranobijoypur Mosque Zinda Pir Mosque Reza Khuda Mosque Mausoleum of Khan Jahan Ali Khan Jahan Ali Jami Mosque Nine Dome Mosque Baro Ajina Mosque Ten Domed Mosque Mausoleum of Pagla Pir Grave of Ahmed Kha Tapoghar Pathar Ghata/Jahaj Ghata 20 Calculated Median 68

X 18.91 19.7 19.2 19.14 18.79 18.72 17.58 17.67 18.5 17.3 17.32 17.67 17.67 17.8 16.81 17.54 17.39 17.51 20.27 20.25 365.74 17.67

Y 24.36 23.47 24.8 24.87 26.05 25.03 26.01 26.46 26.18 26.21 26.87 26.87 27.32 29.52 27.77 26.84 26.56 26.83 25 521.89 26.87

Fig. 10.Estimated Median Centre of Khalifatabad


69


Here the median point of the town of Khalifatabad has been calculated and found that it is Mausoleum of Khan Jahan Ali. The plotted data on the map are divided by two lines physically, where the centre have been found, are showing the below (Fig. 11).

ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ Ȧȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱ Ȧ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱȱ ȱ £ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ

ŗ

Ŗ

ŗ

Fig. 11. Physically Defined Centre of Khalifatabad Town 70


If the above figure 43 is observed carefully, the two lines (horizontal and vertical) have been found to cross a point perpendicularly where 10 location points of the archaeological evidences have been divided into two sides, each side contains 5 points. The point where the two lines crossed perpendicularly is physically defined as a median centre. Surprisingly, the calculated median centre and the physically defined median centre are the same point in the case of Khalifatabad town, which is Mausoleum of Khan Jahan. In fact, presently, this region has the importance due to this mausoleum. Popularly known that Ulugh Khan Jahan has conducted the social, administrative and spiritual activities from mausoleum area where there has been a Khanka. The followers of Khan Jahan, till today, maintain his spiritual activity.

6.3. Distribution Pattern of point disposition The estimation of spatial distribution gives information of others structural distribution pattern of points based on the fixed mean centre. This analysis has been used to estimate the standard distribution of points of Shait Gumbad Mosque area as well as to estimate the standard distribution of tanks and town plan of Khalifatabad. Table 03. Estimation of the Spatial Distribution Pattern of Archaeological Records Site

x

y

x2

y2

Shait Gumbad Mosque

18.91

24.87

357.59

618.52

Bibi Beguni Mosque

19.7

24.36

388.09

593.41

Chunakhola Mosque

19.2

23.47

368.64

550.84


19.14

24.8

366.34

615.04

Singair Mosque

18.79

24.87

353.06

618.52


18.72

26.05

350.44

678.60

Sadot Kha Mosque

17.58

25.03

309.06

626.50

71



17.67

26.01

312.23

676.52

Ranobijoypur Mosque

18.5

26.46

342.25

700.13

Zinda Pir Mosque

17.3

26.18

299.29

685.39

Reza Khuda Mosque

17.32

26.21

299.98

686.96

Mausoleum of Khan Jahan Ali 17.67

26.87

312.23

722.00


17.67

26.87

312.23

722.00

Nine Dome Mosque

17.8

27.32

316.84

746.38

Baro Ajina Mosque

16.81

29.52

282.58

871.43

Ten Domed Mosque

17.54

27.77

307.65

771.17


17.39

26.84

302.41

720.39

Grave of Ahmed Kha

17.51

26.56

306.60

705.43

Tapoghar

20.27

26.83

410.87

719.85


20.25

25

410.06

625.00

20 365.74 521.89 6708.44 13654.08 Mean centre x = 365.74/20 = 18.29; y = 521.89/20 = 26.09 km. Standard Distance DSD = 1.67. ** These results have been generated using statistical software.

The average standard distance of monuments from each other is 1.67 km. This town might be planned to consider this distance to maintain the weighted mean centre. It does not mean that this distance has always maintained. In fact it is the average distance which has been calculated. Therefore, the planned town Khalifatabad has a slandered distance. 72


6.4. Nearest Neighbour Analysis These analyses are always used to understand the cluster distribution of monuments of a site. Usually, a location analyst wants to understand the dispersion of monuments or other structural features to classify the town. For this purpose following data has been used: Table 04. The Nearest Neighbour Analysis of Khalifatabad from the Spatial Distribution of the Archaeological Records Nearest Neighbour

Distance

Chunakhola Mosque

0.87

Bibi Beguni Mosque

0.45


0.21

Shait Gumbad Mosque

0.11

Singair Mosque

0.11


0.49

Sadot Kha Mosque

0.98


0.29

Ranobijoypur Mosque

0.49

Zinda Pir Mosque

0.07

Reza Khuda Mosque

0.07

Mausoleum of Khan Jahan Ali

0.01


0.01

Nine Dome Mosque

0.48

Baro Ajina Mosque

0.46

Ten Domed Mosque

0.54


0.14

73


Grave of Ahmed Kha

0.22

Tapoghar

1.75


1 20

8.75

Mean Nearest Neighbor Distance ÿobs = 0.44. Total area= 42.13 sq km Point Cluster, P= 0.47 sq km Standard Distance DSD = 1.67. ÿran = 0.34 R= 1.29 Rn= 0.728 Here the Rn value is lesser than the estimated calculated value of R. Therefore, in the level of 0.01, the distributions of monuments are not reasonably clustered.

74


Chapter

7

7. Predictive Model of the Khalifatabad Town The computerised predictive model has been generated by the GPS provided data and the spatial distribution analysis of archaeological records, which has been showed below (Fig. 07). This plan is almost analogous to the proposed plan of S. C. Mitra (Fig. 13) and the well circulated plan what had been prepared by the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affaire, Bangladesh (Fig. 14). The existing Khan Jahan’s road (Plate 25, 26 & 27) and existing residential structure besides the Zindapir Mazar (Plate 18) are the logical example of a town. In Bengal, there are no records about the road system of Sultanate period. I have marked and recorded this road during the survey period from the residential structure of Ulugh Khan Jahan to Reza Khuda Mosque passing through from Rawnobijoypur Mosque and Mausoleum of Ulugh Khan Jahan. The figure 44 is showing the recorded road marked by red colour. This road has been connected to every structure with lane/by lane. There are no medieval town in Bengal, which has been analysed systematically. Only a sketch of Gaur fort is available (Fig. 15) which is prepared by Roy (1999: 146). However, the Sketch has been focused only for the fort area of Gaur. Here the Gaur town plan has not been shown. Significantly, the historians (i.e. Dani, 1961, Karim 1977, Shahnawaz 1992, Bari 1989, Hasan 1984, Ahmed 1984, Hossain 2004) have talked about the existence of a road in the town. However, some scattered portion of the road system is still in evidence. But it is very difficult to reconstruct the whole road system of the town from the existing evidences. Probably, fort area was the part 75


ȱ ȱȱȱ Tapoghar

Pathar Ghata/Jahaj Ghat

Gondhoraj Dighi Chunakhola Mosque

Beach Pukur Andhi Dighi

Bibi Beguni Mosque

Mokaddama Dighi

Ghora Dighi

Kodaldhoya Dighi

Singair Mosque

Korial Kha/ Koira Mosqu

Koirar Dighi Ranobijoypur Mosque

Ranobijoypur Dig

Nine Dome Mosque Grave of Unknown Sufi

Mausoleum of KhanAliJahan Jami Mos Khan Jahan Grave of Ahmed Kha Mausoleum of Pagla Pir Reza Khuda Mosque Pir Mosque Zinda

Sadot Kha Dighi Sadot Kha Mosque

TenDomed Mosque

Ten domed Mosque Dighi

Di gh io f Z inda Pir &Re za Kh

Mitha Pukur

ȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱǭ ȱȱȱ ȱ ¢

Takshal Baro Ajina Mosque

ŗ

Ŗ

ŗ

Pocha Dighi

Fig. 12. Predictive model of Khalifatabad.

Road

N

of Di

Bahadur Kha Dighi

Board strict

E

W

Road of Mogra

S

b Bhaira

House of Nimai Patni Villa Bugh mara

M

Bish Pukur (Pond)

M

River

ge of

Jahaj Ghata (Port)

M

M M

M

An

Didar Kha

Bura sain Hos

R Residential Area of Khan Jahan

D

a Kh ab

ah Sh

Kha

Habshi Khana

R

M

Doria Kha Eid Ga

Mosque of Katani

M Su nd

ar

M Gho na

Mausoleum of Khan Jahan

Abandon Road

Ganga Kha

Ahmad Kha

Mitha Pukur (Pond)

Pocha Dighi

Village of Ranobijoypur

Gate Baburchi Khana

Ghora Dighi Shat Gumbad

Tomb of Khan Jahan Badha Ghat

Kara Par a

Zenda Pir Kare Dighi M

Thakur Dighi

Habeli Khalifatabad (Bagerhat) of Kha Jahan Ali Map Prepared by Sri Shatish Chandra Mitra for the History of Jessor-Khulna 1 Mile. M = Mosque, Dighi = Big Size Tank, R = Road

f eo na lag bati rata Vil asa Da B of er Riv

Fig. 13. The Sketch of Habali Khalifatabad by S. Mitra, in 1914 (2001).

Fig. 14. The Sketch of Khalifatabad by Dept. of Archaeology, Ministry of Cultural Affair, BD.

76

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad ŗ

ȱȱȱ

Ř Ŝ

ř

ś

Ś

řş

£

ŗȬŚśȱ ¢ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ ȱ £

řŞ ŝ

¢ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ş

ş

£ȱ ŗŖ ŚŘ

ŗŗ ŗŘ ŗŜ ŗŝ Řŗ ŘŖ

ŗŞ ŗş

ŗř

ŗŚ Śř

ŘŘ

ŗś

ŘŚ Řř

řŖ

Řś

Śś Śŗ Řŝ ŚŚ ŘŜ

ŘŞ

£

Řş řŘ

řŗ

řř řŚ

řś

řŜ řŝ

Fig. 15. The Fort and Place of Gaur (modified after Roy 1999: 146) of a town, because, Darashbari Mosque and some other monuments have been found outside of the fort area. So it can be speculated that Gaur might be a big city. For the lack of systematic research using spatial analysis technique in the prominent city of the medieval age of Bengal, there are no given parameters that can be used to characterise a medieval city of Bengal. 77


With these limitations, an attempt has been made in this research to find out some parameters and to understand the town plan of a medieval Khalifatabad. There is no chance to analyse the Khalifatabad Town with the comparison of other prominent town of medieval Bengal.

78


Chapter

8

8. Results and Discussions After collecting the data using the proposed survey method after Haggett’s method and analysing the data using the quantitative technique, here, the results have been discussed step by step according to the objectives of this research in below: In the analytical section of this research, is the modified systematic ground survey after Haggett, quantitative analysis and predictive modelling which has been carried out the objectives of this research. To develop a systematic survey model to document computation friendly archaeological data and to analyse them for reliable and meaningful interpretation in context of medieval sites of Bangladesh. A survey model for documenting medieval archaeological evidences with their context has been proposed and applied which is very easy to manipulate to understand medieval town plan by digital technologies. It has been mentioned in the part of the proposed survey method that the several archaeologists, however, has conducted the number of surveys but none of them have discussed or documented with the data which is friendly for spatial analysis to get a town plan of medieval sites in the context of Bangladesh. Sen et. al (2010) has out lined the limitations of following the western methodology blindly and has also discussed the prominent survey methodologies and showed that every methodology has its own goals, historicity and politics.

79


The proposed systematic survey model of this research is geometrised and uniformed (e.g. quadrates, transects, etc.), considering the present administrative unit (e.g. upazilla, mouza, etc.) as a primary reference. This model would be more comfortable to understand the spatial distribution of regional medieval structures and to define the relationship with the landscape features. During the survey period of spatial distribution pattern of the town plan of Khalifatabad, after Haggett’s systematic ground survey with the support of GIS technology helped systematically to draw out the town plan. As well as, this systematic survey has helped to collect the regional data that have been used to quantify statistically the town plan in detail. I hope that this model would be an effective endeavour opens up for archaeologists whose goal is to do a systematic survey. Hegget’s spatial analysis was applied in very low scale areas. But here, it has been modified and customised for large scale areas as the GPS and GIS technology is available now a days. Before confirming the utility of the proposed model, it could be tested for analysing other large scale areas. To introduce a quantitative analysis technique in the context of archaeological records of Bangladesh. In this research paper, quantitative analysis techniques is used to understand the town plan of Khalifatabad and outline a standard measurement of the medieval town plan in Bangladesh. Here spatial analysis techniques have been used to understand the space of Khalifatabad town. The spatial distributions of monuments and its mean centre, weighted mean centre, nearest neighbour analysis, median centre and distribution of monuments disposition analysis have been given a clear profile that Khalifatabad has been a planned town. Urban planner, Geographer and recently archaeologist have been using these techniques to understand the space. There is no standardmeasurement outlined for the spatial analytical techniques that have been trailed to 80


fix up the standard of the medieval age town. It is the biggest challenge of this research paper to introduce effective measurement for the said analysis technique in Bangladesh Archaeology. The results of analysis: Firstly, this town has a mean centre that could be not found in an unplanned town. The estimated mean centre and the mausoleum of Ulugh Khan Jahan are situated in the same zone of this town. The local myth and the popular history describes that in the second phase, Ulugh Khan Jahan might maintain his social, spiritual, administrative activities from here. The distributions of different architectures and place-names (e.g. Khajanchikhana) of the mausoleum areas are speaking in favour of the statement. This mean centre might be the central activity zone of Khalifatabad Town. Secondly, the weighted mean centre has proven the distribution with the size of monuments that has been maintained. It can be speculated from this analysis that, at first, the region has developed on the basis of Shait Gumbad Mosque and it can be main centre in the first phase of the development period as a town. After that, the second phase of this town within the time period of Ulugh Khan Jahan has flourished on the basis of Mausoleum. The present estimated centre has projected the same area. The physical centre is showing the region as well as Ulugh Khan Jahan’s administrative and spiritual activities might be operated from this area during the second phase of this town. Here the spatial analysis of this research suggests the position of mint centre and Bara Azina Mosque (the 35 domed mosque like Shait Gumbad Mosque), developed in third phase. Only archaeological evidence Chunakhola Mosque is situated in the opposite side of moribund river of Bhairab where Shait Gumbad Mosque is located (Fig. 12). Therefore, this Chunakhola can be second or third phase development of this town like Bara Azina Mosque, Mint Centre, Tapoghar. Perhaps, Ulugh Khan Jahan became a Sufi and earned respects and devotion from the local people. And his philosophy was accepted by the dwellers of 81


that area and made him powerful. Still his philosophy practised among the people irrespective of religion. Thirdly, from the nearest neighbour analysis, a gentle average distribution distance had been followed to build the structures. There is a vital question that has already been raised: why so many single domed mosques have been erected within vicinity. In this case, the Sufism should be understood philosophically, unlikely, what has not been done yet in this region. Sufism might be solved the geo-political problem of location by the historian (e.g. Haque 1935, Karim 1977, Sharif, Shanewaz 1992, et.al.). To estimate the spatial pattern of Khalifatabad Town and to develop a predictive model of Khalifatabad Town. In this context, here, a measurement-standard of medieval town plan using spatial analytical techniques has been proposed. Statistics is very popular tools to analyse the spatial distribution techniques. The mean centre, weighted mean centre, median centre, physical centre, standard distance and nearest neighbour analysis techniques have been used to understand the point pattern and central place of an urban zone. The above spatial analysis calculated the centre point of the Khalifatabad town is the mausoleum of Ulugh Khan Jahan and measured the nearest neighbour which cleared that the archaeological records was not developed in clustered way. So it could be said that this Khalifatabad town was developed in a planned way according to then human activities. In the predictive model segment, the discussed proposed systematic ground survey has been conducted and the geodetic addresses were collected using GPS extensively. Every record has been featured as points. The GPS data have been projected on the BTM projection maps and the town, digitally outlined, has come out (Plate 12). The Plate 10 is showing the spatial distribution of monuments and tanks of Khalifatabad 82


town as a point feature. The road is shown in red coloured line feature and the moribund Bhairab River is featured as a dotted line. This is the outline of a planned city what had been drawn by S. Mitra in 1914 (reprint 2001) (Plate 13). The automatically prepared town sketch is almost similar to S. Mitra. However, in figure 15, the monuments and other features are geo-referenced. It can be concluded on the basis of spatial distribution analysis of monuments that the Khalifatabad might be developed as an almost planned town and it maintains a three consecutive phase during the flourishing period as an urban centre.

83


84


Chapter

9

9. Concluding Remarks Considering the significant role of the Khalifatabad town in the history of Architecture, it has been included on UNESCO’s World Heirtage List in 1985. However, the living historical debate is to identify the Shait Gumbad Mosque region as a Khalifatabad town. There are no single written documents, inscriptions and coins which describe Ulugh Khan Jahan as the ruler of Khalifatabad. Even historical accounts also have failed to give any convincing logic about the power of Ulugh Khan Jahan which is the evident by the archaeological evidences in that area. Here, Bagerhat has been known as a mint town named Khalifatabad in the dominating history by the identification of Blochmann (1872: XLI). It could be speculated wildly that the name Khalifatabad might be generated from the ‘Khalifa’ or ‘Caliph’ what has been the title of the ruler then Islamic regime. However, there are no archaeological evidences that have been found yet what can define a relation between the Khalifa of middle-east in medieval age and Ulugh Khan Jahan. So it is very difficult to consider this place as a mint town named Khalifatabad. On the contrary, combating with this debate is not the ultimate objective of this very research. However, it could be assumed that it has been a planned town through the distribution of archaeological evidences. The objective of this research is to define the nature of this planned town. Here, existing sultanate road system can be considered as a physical prove (Plate 12). This city might not be abandoned completely. Inhabitant of this town always have kept alive in their own ways. Importance of the town might be varied after the Sultanate period. But till now the importance of this town is there. However, the reasons have not been known and no such work has been done yet 85


about the geo-political importance of this place. Future works will lead us for convincing behavirial understanding of this very important medieval town. Simply this research paper estimates the space of Khalifatabad town and introduces a standard-measurement to analyse the medieval sites systematically. As well as, in this endeavour, a systematic survey design has been equipped to understand the medieval evidences and collect the data with their spatial context. This research paper can be considered as an attempt to do research using spatial analysis technique in the research of medieval age of Bengal than the descriptive fashion.

86


Reference Ahmed, N. (1980) Islamic Heritage of Bangladesh. Dacca: Padma Printers. Ahmed, N. (1987) The Buildings of Khan Jahan in and around Bagerhat, Dhaka: University Press Limited. Akhtaruzzaman, Md. (2009) Society and Urbanisation in Medieval Bengal, Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, pp. 126-177. Banning, E.B. (2002) Archaeological Survey, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Bari, M.A., (1989) Mughal Mosque Types in Bangladesh: Origins and Development, PhD Thesis, Rajshahi University. Beveridg, H. (2001 reprinted) Were the Sundarbans Inhabited in ancient times, in the Bangla Book of Jessore-Khulnar Itihas, Dey’s Publication, Kolkata, vol. 1. pp. 159. Biswas, K.R. (2001) Rivers of Bengal, West Bengal District Gazetteers, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata. Blasco, G. (1975) The Mangrove in India, Institut Francais de Pondichery, India. Blasco, G., (1977) Outline of Ecology, Botany and Forestry of the Mangal of the Indian Subcontinent, in Chapman, V.J. (ed) Ecosystem of the World, Vol. 1. Wet Coastal Ecosystem, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co. Oxford, 241-260. Blochmann, H., (1872) Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XLI, 1872. Blochmann, H., (trans.), The Ain-i-Akbari, 1, third edition, 1977; HS Jarrett (trans.), The Ain-iAkbari, II & III, revised by JN Sarkar, third edition, 1978; VA Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, London, 1914. Buttimer, A. (1969) Social space in interdisciplinary perspective, Geographical Review 59:417-426. Chaffey, D.R., F.R. Miller and J.H. Sandom (1985) Sundarbans Forest Inventory Project, Bangladesh; A Glossary of Vernacular Plant Names and a Field Key to the Trees. ODA Project Record – 98. Chakrabarty, D.K. (1997) Colonial Indology: Sociopolitics of the ancient Indian past, Delhi: Munshiram Mahowharlal Publishers.

87

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Champion, H.G., (1936) A Preliminary Survey of the Forest Types of India and Burma, Indian Forest Record, 1(1), 1-294. Chapman, V.J., (1976) Mangrove VegetationI, Cramer, Lehre. Chapman, V.J., (1977) Introduction, in Chapman, V.J. (ed.) Wet Coastal Ecosystem, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1-30. Childe, V.G. (1979) The Urban Revolution, in Gregory L. Possehl (ed), Ancient Cities of the Indus, Delhi. Cohn, B.C. (1996) Colonialism and its forms of knowledge the British in India, Princeton University Press. Crawford, O.G.S. (1929) Air-photography for Archaeologists, London: Ordnance Survey, H.M. Stationery Office. Dani, A.H., (1961) Muslim Architecture in Bengal, Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Pakistan. Dasste, J. (1978) Manual d’ Archaeology Aeriennne, Paris: edition TECHNIP. Deuel, L. (1969) Flight into Yesterday, New York: Macdonald. Drewett, P.L. (1999) Field Archaeology: An Introduction, London: UCL Press. Elahi, M., (1991) Parishankhan Paddahti and Sthanik Bislation, in Bangla, Academic Publisher, Dhaka. Ellis, L. (1999) Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopaedia, London: Routledge. Flannery, K.V. (1976) Empirical determination of site catchments in Oxaca and Tehuacan, in K.V. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp. 103-117, New York: Academic Press. Grindrod, J., (1988) The Palynology of Holocence Mangrove and Saltmarsh Sediments, Particularly in Northern Australia, Review Palaeobot. Palynol, 55, 229-245. Haggett, P., A. D. Cliff and A. Frey, (1977) Locational Analysis in Human Geography, London: Edward Arnold. pp. 259-290. Haque, E., (1935) Bonge Sufi Probhab, in Bangla, Kolkata. Hasan, P., (1984) The Ornamentation of the Sultanate Architecture in Bengal, Annual Journal of the Bangladesh Shilpalala Academy, Dhaka. Hodder, I. R., (1971) The use of Nearest Neighbour Analysis. Cornish Archaeology 10: 35-36. Hussain, A.B.M., (1997) Gawr-Lakhnawti: A Survey of Historical Monuments and Sites in Bangladesh, Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Islam, M.S., (2001) Sea-Level Changes in Bangladesh:The Last Ten Thousand Years, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. 88

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Jakaria, A.B.M., (1984) Bangladesher Pratnasampad, in Bangla, Shilpakala Academy, Dhaka. Jalil, A.F.M., (1991) Sundarbaner History (in Bangla). James, P. (1972) All possible worlds: A history of geographical ideas, Odessey Press, New York Karim, A., (1977) Banglar Itihasa, Sultani Amal, in Bangla, Dhaka: Bangla Academy. Karim, A., (1988) Environmental Factors and the Distribution of Mangrove in Sundarbans with Special Reference to Heritiera Fomes, Unpub. PhD Thesis, University of Calcutta, India. Karim, A., (1994) Sundarbans: The Physical Environmenta, Vegetation and Environmental Impacts, in Z. Hussain and G. Acharya (eds). Vol. 2: Bangladesh, IUCN, Bangkok, 11-74. Khatun, H. (1987) Sonargaon: Its History and Monuments (1338-1608), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Dhaka University. Khatun, H. (2006) Iqlim Sonargaon (History Jurisdiction Monuments), Dhaka: Academic Press and Publisher Library. Kuklic, H. (1997) After Ishmael: the fieldwork tradition and its future, in A. Gupta and J. Ferguson (eds.), Anthropological Locations. Boundaries and Grounds of a Science, pp. 47-65, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lucas, G. (2001) Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice, London and New York: Rutledge. MacNac, W., (1968) A General Account of the Fauna and Flora of Mangrove Swamps and Forest in the Indo-West Pacific Region, Advan Marine, Biol. Majumdar, R. C. (edited by) (1943) History of Bengal, vol. 1., Dhaka: Dhaka University. Mally, L.S.S.O., (1914) Khulna Gezetter. Mitra, S. C., (2001 reprinted) Jessore-Khulnar Itihas in Bangla, Dey’s Publication, Kolkata. Mukherjee, B.B., (1992) On the Ecology of the Mangroves with Special Reference to Those in Sundarbans in the Territory of India and Bangladesh, Journal of Histrory, Mus. Inst. Chiba, 2(1), 77-81. Muller, J.W. (ed.) (1975) Sampling in Archaeology, Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Orton, C., (1980) Mathematics in Archaeology. London: Collins. Plog, S. (1974) The Study of Prehistoric change, New York: Academic press. Plog, S., F. Plog and W. Wait (1978) Decision Making in Modern Surveys, Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory 1: 384-421. Poidebard, A. (1934) La Trace de Rome dans le De’sert de Syrie; Le Limes de Trajan a la conquete Arabe, Recherches Aeriennes (1925-1932), Paris: Geuthner. 89

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Prasad, I. (1933) History of Medieval India, Allahabad, A. D. Rainey, J.R., (1891) The Sundarbans: its Physical Features and Ruins. Proc. Royal Geog. Soc., 13, 273-287. Redman, C.L. (1975) Productive Sampling Strategies for Archaeological Sites, in J.W. Mueller (ed.) Sampling in Archaeology, pp. 147-154, Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Risley, H. H. (1891) The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Calcutta. Roy, A., (1999) Moddhojuger Bharotio Shahor (in Bangla), Kolkata: Anando Publisher’s Private Limited. Roy, S., (1961) The story of Indian Archaeology 1784-1947, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Sanday, J., (1983) Bangladesh: Building Conservation and Repair. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. Sen, D., (2001 reprinted) Sundarban, in the Bangla Book of Jessore-Khulnar Itihas, Dey’s Publication, Kolkata, vol. 1. pp. 153. Sen, S. (2009) Arguing for contextualisation of archaeological prospection: Thinking about objectivist and phenomenological paradigm with regard to the studies in the Northern Part of Bangladesh. (A Paper going to be published in the proceedings of the Conference of K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute,Patna, India.) Sen, S., K.M. Islam, M.K.H. Akanda, A. Sharif and S.M.K. Ahsan (2010) Survey Archaeology in the Margin: Construction and Analysis of the initial database of the recognised and recoded archaeological data/places of present Biral Thana, Dinajpur of Northwestern part of Bangladesh, M.M. Hoque, A.T.M.A. Rahman and S. Hoque (eds.) Selected Essays on History and Archaeology, Paper Presented in Memory of Professor Abu Imam, pp. 2333331, Dhaka: Centre for Archaeology and Heritage Research (CAHR). Shahnawaj, A.K.M., (1992) Mudra o Shilalipite Moddojuger Banglar Samaj o Sankskriti (12001538 AD), PhD Thesis, Jadoppur University, Kolkata. Shahnawaj, A.K.M., (2009) Bangladesher Shanskritik Oitijzha, in Bangal, Novel Publishing House, Dhaka. Shennan, S., (1997) Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Terrenato, N. and A. J. Ammerman, (1996) Visibility and Site Recovery in the Cecina Valley Survey, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 91-109. Tilley, C. (1989) Excavation as Theatre, Antiquity 63: 275-80.

90

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Wakushima, S., S. Kuraishi and N. Sakurai (1994) Soil Salinity and pH in Japaness Mangrove Forest and Growth of Cultivated Mangrove Plants in Different Conditions. Journal of Plant Researech, 2, 1-14. Walter, H., (1971) Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Vegetation, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. Wandsnider, L. (1998), Regional scale processes and archaeological landscape units. In A.F. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen (eds.), Unit Issues in Archaeology, pp. 87-0. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Weber, M. (1950) General Economic History, tr. F.H. Knight, Illinois. Weber, M. (1956) The Protestant Ethic and the Sprit of Capitalism, tr. Talcott Parsons, London: George Allen and Unwin. Zakaria, A.K. (1999) [in Bangla] Bangladesher Pratnasampad, Dhaka: Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy, Reprinted with some revisions in 2007. "Shait Gumbad". World Monuments Fund Panographies. http://www.world-heritagetour.org/asia/bd/bagerhat/shaitGumbad_out.html. [Accessed February 2, 2006]

91


92


Enclosure Database of Monuments of the sites: Site Shait Gumbad Mosque Shait Gumbad Mosque Shait Gumbad Mosque Shait Gumbad Mosque Bibi Beguni Mosque Chunakhola Mosque Ajoddha Moth Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Residence of Khan Jahan Singair Mosque

Mouza

Zila & Upazila

id

Sundarghona

Bagerhat

1

781638.9 2509460 473420.4 506885.2

Sundarghona

Bagerhat

2

781621.8 2509460 473403.3 506885.2

Sundarghona

Bagerhat

3

781622.5 2509423 473403.3 506848.4

Sundarghona

Bagerhat

4

781639.6 2509423 473420.4 506848.3

Mogra

Bagerhat

5

781208.5 2509563 472992.6 506996.7

Mogra

Bagerhat

6

780349.1 2509695 472136.9 507145.8

Ajoddha

Bagerhat

7

Sundarghona

Bagerhat

8

781754.1 2509721 473540.7 507143.3

Sundarghona

Bagerhat

9

781719.5 2509739 473506.5 507161.8

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 10 781684.9 2509757 473472.3 507180.3

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 11 781668.1 2509738 473455.2 507161.9

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 12 781652.3 2509664 473437.9 507088.1

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 13 781670.5 2509609

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 14 781705.1 2509591 473489.2 507014.2

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 15 781738.3 2509647 473523.5 507069.6

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 16 781675.6 2509332 473454.5 93

UTM (E)

784756

UTM (N)

2516943

BTM (E)

476685

473455

BTM (N)

514296.4

507032.8

506756

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Korial Kha/ Koira Mosque Sadot Kha Mosque Grave of Unknown Sufi Ranobijoypur Mosque Zinda Pir Mosque Reza Khuda Mosque Mausoleum of Khan Jahan Ali Khan Jahan Ali Jami Mosque Nine Dome Mosque Baro Ajina Mosque Ten Domed Mosque Takshal Mausoleum of Pagla Pir Grave of Ahmed Kha Tapoghar Pathar Ghata/Jahaj Ghata

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 17 782893.9 2509262 474669.9 506661.7

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 18 781955.8 2508081 473709.1

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 19 782930.9 2508191 474685.3 505591.6

505501

Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 20 783326.4 2509048 475097.6 506439.5 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 21 783090.9 2507880 474838.8 505277.7 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 22 783055.6 2507935 474804.7 505333.1

Thakur Dighi Bagerhat 23

783386

2507682 475129.6 505074.3

Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 24 783364.4 2507922 475112.9 505314.1 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 25 783197.5 2507679 474941.2 505074.6 Sonatala

Bagerhat 26 786492.7 2507482 478228.5 504811.2

Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 27 784697.7 2508132 476448.8 505496.5 Bagerhat 28 786864.9 2507747 478605.6 505069 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 29 783704.1 2508095 475455.6 505479.7 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 30 783634.5 2508149 475387.2 505535.1 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 31 783670.5 2510828 475477.2 508210.1

Mogra

Bagerhat 32

781769

2510774 473576.9 508194.8

Database of the Dighi of the site: Water Body Ghora Dighi Ghora Dighi Ghora Dighi Ghora Dighi Andhi Pond Andhi Pond

Mouza Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona

Zila & Upazila id Bagerhat 1 Bagerhat 2 Bagerhat 3 Bagerhat 4 Bagerhat 5 Bagerhat 6 94

UTM (E) 781639.3 781348 781362.4 781602.6 781705.1 781670.5

UTM (N) 2509442 2509436 2509584 2509570 2509591 2509609

BTM (E) 473420.4 473129.4 473146.7 473386.4 473489.2 473455

BTM (N) 506866.8 506867.3 507014.8 506996 507014.2 507032.8

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Andhi Pond Andhi Pond Beach Pond Beach Pond Beach Pond Beach Pond Korial Kha/ Koirar Dighi Korial Kha/ Koirar Dighi Korial Kha/ Koirar Dighi Korial Kha/ Koirar Dighi Kodal Dhoya Dighi Kodal Dhoya Dighi Kodal Dhoya Dighi Kodal Dhoya Dighi Sadot Kha Dighi Ranobijoypur Dighi Ranobijoypur Dighi Ranobijoypur Dighi Ranobijoypur Dighi Dighi of Zinda Pir & Reza Khuda Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Pocha Dighi Pocha Dighi Pocha Dighi

Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona Sundarghona

Bagerhat 7 781704.1 2509646 Bagerhat 8 781721.5 2509628 Bagerhat 9 781720.2 2509702 Bagerhat 10 781737 2509721 Bagerhat 11 781754.1 2509721 Bagerhat 12 781737.7 2509684

473489.3 473506.3 473506.5 473523.6 473540.7 473523.6

507069.6 507051.1 507124.9 507143.3 507143.3 507106.4

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 13 782826.7 2509187 474601.3

506588

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 14 782826.4 2509205 474601.4 506606.4

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 15 782860.3 2509224 474635.6 506624.8

Sundarghona Shait Gumbad Mosque Shait Gumbad Mosque Shait Gumbad Mosque Shait Gumbad Mosque

Bagerhat 16 782861.3 2509169 474635.5 506569.5

Bagerhat 20

Sundarghona

Bagerhat 21 781971.9 2508137 473726.3 505556.3

Bagerhat 17 781724.3 2509480 473506.1 506903.5

Bagerhat 18

781776 2509463 473557.4

506885

Bagerhat 19 781777.4 2509389 473557.3 506811.2

781726 2509388 473505.9 506811.2

Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 22 783343.9 2509030 475114.7 506421.1 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 23 783344.2 2509012 475114.6 506402.6 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 24 783327.1 2509011 475097.6 506402.7 Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 25 783327.1 2509011 475097.6 506402.7

Ranobijoypur Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Thakur Dighi Sonatala Sonatala Sonatala

Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 95

783090.6 783383.6 783246.5 783233.8 783509 783537.8 785209.4 785074.8 784937

2507899 2507812 2507809 2507569 2507519 2507815 2507347 2506292 2506326

474838.9 475129.8 474992.8 474975.3 475249.1 475283.9 476944.1 476788.3 476651.4

505296.2 505203.5 505203.6 504963.9 504908.1 505203.1 504702.4 503651.1 503688.1

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad Pocha Dighi Mitha pukur Mitha pukur Mitha pukur Mitha pukur Ten domed Mosque Dighi Gondhoraj Dighi Mokaddama Tank Mokaddama Tank Mokaddama Tank Mokaddama Tank

Sonatala

Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat Bagerhat

35 36 37 38 39

785105.6 786830.6 786796.3 786847.1 786812.8

2507400 2507747 2507746 2507784 2507783

476841.5 504757.9 478571.4 505069 478537.1 505069 478588.6 505105.9 478554.3 505106

Ranobijoypur Bagerhat 40 784663.7 2508113 476414.4 505478.1 Bagerhat 41 783616.7 2510033 475407.4 507416.9 Bagerhat 42 781807.2 2509630 473591.9

507051

Bagerhat 43 781824.7 2509611

473609 507032.5

Bagerhat 44

473609

507014

Bagerhat 45 781807.9 2509593 473591.9

507014

781825 2509593

Database of the Sultanate Period Road of Khalifatabad : id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

UTM (E) 782875.7 782858.3 782857.9 782840.8 782840.4 782831.2 782823 782120.1 782102.6 782085.5 782085.1 782068 782067.7 782050.5 782033 782015.9 782015.6 781998.4 781998.1 781981 781963.5 781946 781928.5

UTM (N) 2509316.8 2509335 2509353.5 2509353.1 2509371.6 2508946.6 2509389.7 2509395.2 2509413.4 2509413.1 2509431.5 2509431.2 2509449.7 2509449.3 2509467.5 2509467.2 2509485.6 2509485.3 2509503.8 2509503.5 2509521.6 2509539.8 2509557.9

BTM (E) 474652.9 474635.8 474635.8 474618.7 474618.7 474600.9 474601.7 473899.7 473882.6 473865.5 473865.5 473848.4 473848.5 473831.3 473814.2 473797.1 473797.2 473780 473780.1 473763 473745.9 473728.8 473711.6 96

BTM (N) 506717 506735.5 506754 506754 506772.5 506348.2 506790.9 506810.6 506829.1 506829.1 506847.5 506847.6 506866.1 506866 506884.5 506884.6 506903 506903 506921.5 506921.5 506940 506958.5 506976.9

WGS 84 (Lati) 22 40.200 22 40.210 22 40.220 22 40.220 22 40.230 22 40.000 22 40.240 22 40.250 22 40.260 22 40.260 22 40.270 22 40.270 22 40.280 22 40.280 22 40.290 22 40.290 22 40.300 22 40.300 22 40.310 22 40.310 22 40.320 22 40.330 22 40.340

WGS 84 (Long) 89 45.030 89 45.020 89 45.020 89 45.010 89 45.010 89 45.000 89 45.000 89 44.590 89 44.580 89 44.570 89 44.570 89 44.560 89 44.560 89 44.550 89 44.540 89 44.530 89 44.530 89 44.520 89 44.520 89 44.510 89 44.500 89 44.490 89 44.480

Urban Planning of Medieval Khalifatabad 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

781911.4 781911.1 781893.9 781876.4 781859 781841.8 781841.5 781824.4 781807.2 781806.9 781789.7 781772.3 781754.8 783055.6 783021.3 782969.9 782935.6 782884.6

2509557.6 2509576.1 2509575.7 2509593.9 2509612 2509611.7 2509630.2 2509629.9 2509629.6 2509648 2509647.7 2509665.9 2509684 2507934.9 2507934.3 2507933.3 2507932.7 2507913.3

473694.6 473694.6 473677.4 473660.3 473643.3 473626.1 473626.2 473609.1 473591.9 473592 473574.8 473557.8 473540.7 474804.7 474770.4 474719 474684.8 474633.4

97

506977 506995.5 506995.4 507013.9 507032.4 507032.4 507050.9 507051 507051 507069.4 507069.4 507088 507106.4 505333.1 505333.2 505333.3 505333.3 505315

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

40.340 40.350 40.350 40.360 40.370 40.370 40.380 40.380 40.380 40.390 40.390 40.400 40.410 39.450 39.450 39.450 39.450 39.440

89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89

44.470 44.470 44.460 44.450 44.440 44.430 44.430 44.420 44.410 44.410 44.400 44.390 44.380 45.120 45.100 45.070 45.050 45.020

Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of world’s fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to Print-on-Demand technologies.

Buy your books online at

www.get-morebooks.com Kaufen Sie Ihre Bücher schnell und unkompliziert online – auf einer der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit! Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produziert.

Bücher schneller online kaufen

www.morebooks.de VDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH Heinrich-Böcking-Str. 6-8 D - 66121 Saarbrücken

Telefon: +49 681 3720 174 Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749

[email protected] www.vdm-vsg.de

Page 1 ! " # $ % &'(( ) * " ) + * " ! " , " " - ) - ) " ) " " ) ) " . * " * ) ) ) " * " / ) 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % &'(( ) * " ) + * " ! " , " " - ) - ) " ) " " ) ) " . * " * ) ) ) " * " / ) 0 ...

Suggest Documents

Page 1 ! " !# $ % &' ( ) % % * ! # % $ * ! % $ % $ + , # " - . # / 0 # 0 ...

Page 1 ! ! " # $ % ! & $ ''" ( ' " $ " ) # $ % ! * % % % & + , - ! + .. / 0 ! 0 ! ) 1 ...

Page 1 !" # $ % % & # ' ( & ) # * ' # ( ) # !+" ) & , ) ) - # #./ .0 # 1 ) . - # # 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ # % & % % ' " " " ' ( $ ) " ' " " *+ ," $ ' - . / + " $ ! " ! ) 0 + 0 + ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % & ' ( ' ) & ! ' * ' % $ +,,-$ . ' (. ' ) & ! ' % $ +,,/ & 0 (0 ...

Page 1 ! " ! # $% & $ ' () *++, #-& .( % & ((# (/$(#.(. $0 % 1%( . ,(#& 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ # % % " $ & ' ( # (' )**+ & , ( # -../ ! 0 ' , ( # -..1 0 ...

Page 1 ! " ! # $% & $ ' () *++, #-& .( % & ((# (/$(#.(. $0 % 1%( . ,(#& 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ $ % # & ' ( ) # ++, # - & % +.+ *+./ ) ) 0 1 ( & % 0 ...

Page 1 ! "# $ % & ' & ( $ ) ( * & ) $ $ ( ( ' $ ) + , $ ) ) - $ % . / 0 % 0 * 0 ...

Page 1 ! ! " #$$% ! &'( ) *! ! + , # % $ - . / $ - 0 0 ! + . 1 1 Page 2 Page 3 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % &'( " ) # " *+ ) # # # " ! ! , - " , ( ' . / 0 ! ! " 0 % ) 1 ! ! 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , & $ + (- . * / . 0 $ & 1 0 . ( * & #0 2 - Page 2 ...

Page 1 ! " # # $ % ! & " & ' ()) * )) + ! & $ , ) $ - * - . / ( . . 0 * ( $ - / 1 ) ' * ( + ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ % &' ( ! ) * + * $ $ ! ! * , , ! * * ! "$ $ - + * $ * ! . ) ! . /0&1 ...

Page 1 ! " # ! $ ! % & ' ( ) ! % $ ! * % $ # % ( ' % ' # + * , ( * ! - . / 0-./ 1 + ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % & ! $ ' # ( ) ! * " ! + , - & ! $ ) . ! $ ) ! + & / ) . ! + ! / ) ( 0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " " " # # " $ % &'()" " % &''*" +#, - . " % " . / " " #, " % 0 # ,1 " + ...

Page 1 ! " # " # $ % & ' % & % & ! & ' %& ( ) * % + , & - . /& , $ . / 0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " # # $ % # & ' ( ! " # # # ) # * # ' + # # , # ) $ ' - . # $ ' # ' # / 0 # 1 ...

Page 1 !" # $ % $ & ' ()+ % ( # , - * + % . - # $ $ $ " " / " . ' ! 0 $ ' "1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ % & $ ' % ( & % ) $ ' $ % ) $ % % % ! * + $ $ , - * . /0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ %&'( ) %&'+ ! ',% '(, ,- # + -. -, (' '. ' ,- + / 0 # $ %&'( ) %&' 1 ...

Page 1 ! "# $ "# %&' %(' %)' * %+' "# * %,' - $ * *. &) )& % &/$) '$ 0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % &'(( ) * " ) + * " ! " , " " - ) - ) " ) " " ) ) " . * " * ) ) ) " * " / ) 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % &'(( ) * " ) + * " ! " , " " - ) - ) " ) " " ) ) " . * " * ) ) ) " * " / ) 0 ...

Suggest Documents

Page 1 ! " !# $ % &' ( ) % % * ! # % $ * ! % $ % $ + , # " - . # / 0 # 0 ...

Page 1 ! ! " # $ % ! & $ ''" ( ' " $ " ) # $ % ! * % % % & + , - ! + .. / 0 ! 0 ! ) 1 ...

Page 1 !" # $ % % & # ' ( & ) # * ' # ( ) # !+" ) & , ) ) - # #./ .0 # 1 ) . - # # 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ # % & % % ' " " " ' ( $ ) " ' " " *+ ," $ ' - . / + " $ ! " ! ) 0 + 0 + ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % & ' ( ' ) & ! ' * ' % $ +,,-$ . ' (. ' ) & ! ' % $ +,,/ & 0 (0 ...

Page 1 ! " ! # $% & $ ' () *++, #-& .( % & ((# (/$(#.(. $0 % 1%( . ,(#& 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ # % % " $ & ' ( # (' )**+ & , ( # -../ ! 0 ' , ( # -..1 0 ...

Page 1 ! " ! # $% & $ ' () *++, #-& .( % & ((# (/$(#.(. $0 % 1%( . ,(#& 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ $ % # & ' ( ) # *++, # - & % *+.+ *+./ ) ) 0 1 ( & % 0 ...

Page 1 ! "# $ % & ' & ( $ ) ( * & ) $ $ ( ( ' $ ) + , $ ) ) - $ % . / 0 % 0 * 0 ...

Page 1 ! ! " #$$% ! &'( ) *! ! + , # % $ - . / $ - 0 0 ! + . 1 1 Page 2 Page 3 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % &'( " ) # " *+ ) # # # " ! ! , - " , ( ' . / 0 ! ! " 0 % ) 1 ! ! 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , & $ + (- . * / . 0 $ & 1 0 . ( * & #0 2 - Page 2 ...

Page 1 ! " # # $ % ! & " & ' ()) * )) + ! & $ , ) $ - * - . / ( . . 0 * ( $ - / 1 ) ' * ( + ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ % &' ( ! ) * + * $ $ ! ! * , , ! * * ! *"$ * $ - + * $ * ! . ) ! . /0&1 ...

Page 1 ! " # ! $ ! % & ' ( ) ! % $ ! * % $ # % ( ' % ' # + * , ( * ! - . / 0-./ 1 + ...

Page 1 ! " # $ % & ! $ ' # ( ) ! * " ! + , - & ! $ ) . ! $ ) ! + & / ) . ! + ! / ) ( 0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " " " # # " $ % &'()" " % &''*" +#, - . " % " . / " " #, " % 0 # ,1 " + ...

Page 1 ! " # " # $ % & ' % & % & ! & ' %& ( ) * % + , & - . /& , $ . / 0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " # # $ % # & ' ( ! " # # # ) # * # ' + # # , # ) $ ' - . # $ ' # ' # / 0 # 1 ...

Page 1 !" # $ % $ & ' ()*+ % (* # , - * + % . - # $ $ $ " " / " . ' ! 0 $ ' "1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ % & $ ' % ( & % ) $ ' $ % ) $ % % % ! * + $ $ , - * . /0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ %&'( ) %&'*+ ! ',% '(, ,- # + -. -, (' '. ' ,- + / 0 # $ %&'( ) %&'* 1 ...

Page 1 ! "# $ "# %&' %(' %)' * %+' "# * %,' - $ * *. &) )& % &/$) '$ 0 1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ $ % # & ' ( ) # ++, # - & % +.+ *+./ ) ) 0 1 ( & % 0 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ $ % &' ( ! ) * + * $ $ ! ! * , , ! * * ! "$ $ - + * $ * ! . ) ! . /0&1 ...

Page 1 !" # $ % $ & ' ()+ % ( # , - * + % . - # $ $ $ " " / " . ' ! 0 $ ' "1 ...

Page 1 ! " # $ %&'( ) %&'+ ! ',% '(, ,- # + -. -, (' '. ' ,- + / 0 # $ %&'( ) %&' 1 ...