Posted on 04/04/2005 10:36:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A professor of archaeology at the Jahangirnagar University has stirred a controversy with misleading claims about and unauthorised excavation at an archaeological site.
Professor Sufi Mustafizur Rahman, who led the excavation of an 18 by 16 metre area at Owari-Bateshwar in Belabo upazila of Narsingdi, claimed in April 2004 that the excavation had led to the discovery of a road, a citadel and a raft of artefacts that dated back to 450BC.
Sufi told the media that his findings indicated to the oldest civilisation to have been discovered so far, and would redefine the history of eastern India and substantiate the theory of the Brahmaputra civilisation.
While his claims have sparked a debate among historians and archaeologists who maintain that such a conclusion is premature at this stage of excavation and examination, his go-it-alone approach has enraged the Department of Archaeology under the cultural affairs ministry.
Excavation of any archaeological site has to be done with the permission of and in collaboration with the government, a senior official of the department said.
The official claimed that Sufi had dug the site without obtaining approval from and involving the department. ‘He did not even hand over materials he had dug out from the site or submit any report to the department about his findings.’
The department has already asked the vice chancellor of the Jahangirnagar University to take necessary action so that Sufi hands over the materials and submits a report on the excavation, the official said. ‘Non-compliance with the archaeological rule is a punishable offence.’
Sufi, however, insisted that he had secured permission from the authorities for excavation of the archaeological site.
He admitted that he had neither submitted any report nor handed over the archaeological finds to the department.
‘As the excavation was completed in April 2004, the Department of Archaeology asked me to submit the report and the materials within a month,’ he said. ‘The work is time consuming so I could not submit the report but will in the course of time.’
Sufi also claimed that about 99 per cent of the materials dug out of the site was pottery and that the Department of Archaeology did not preserve ancient pottery at all.
He said he would soon submit his reply to the university and the also the department.
The controversy over his discovery has, meanwhile, raged on.
Mozammel Haque, a professor of archaeology at the university, said the site could not be a road as it started from a ditch and stretched very little. ‘A road must have starting and finishing points that are not visible.’
He also has reservation about Sufi’s claim that the road could be part of an ancient city. ‘It is not possible to pinpoint the time period without carbon dating, an examination which is sensitive as well as expensive.’
Quamrul Ahsan, also a professor of archaeology of the same university, was of the view that based on current findings of the excavation it was not possible to reach a conclusion Sufi had arrived at.
He said there had been several excavations at the site before and the latest was not ‘in accordance with the guidelines set by the government’.
‘It is too early to say the site is part of an ancient civilisation,’ Quamrul concluded. ‘It took many years to validate the Indus valley as the oldest civilisation in the India.’
Sufi claimed that his observation about the site had been blown out of proportion by the media. ‘I have never said the site is part of an ancient city. It was publicised by the media, not me.’
He said the site could be a road or a point of entry to a citadel around which administrative and trade activities might have had taken place.
Sufi claimed that the carbon dating had validated the site to have belonged to 450BC, 80 years of so earlier than the start of the civilisation at Mahastangarh.
Sometime around a year ago (?) on FR there was an article or two about a buried city next to a river (actually the river had covered it) in India, I believe the west, which was figured to be about 9,500 years old. Blam would remember.
Yup, I thought that might be a mistake. After all, the other city I mentioned was supposed to be way, way older than that.
"Yup, I thought that might be a mistake. After all, the other city I mentioned was supposed to be way, way older than that..."
No, the article is right. Some of the coins found had the date "450 BC" stamped on them. ;-)
"No, the article is right. Some of the coins found had the date "450 BC" stamped on them. ;-)"
They were stamped 450 BCE.:)
Here it is:
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
4,000-year old settlement unearthed in BangladeshArchaeologists have discovered artefacts in central Bangladesh that resembles traits of the Chalcolithic culture, which is around 4,000 years old, and believe the finds are the earliest signs of settlement in the region, The Daily Star reported Sunday.
People's Daily Online
March 12, 2006
The excavators, led by Sufi Mostafizur Rahman, Chairman of the Department of Archaeology at Jahangirnagar University, traced a pit-dwelling, one of the primary means of living, at Wari-Bateswar in central Narsingdi district, some 70 km from the capital.
This is the first discovery of the Chalcolithic occurrence in the country.
The Chalcolithic Age, also known as the Aeneolithic or Copper Age, is a phase in the development of human culture in which the use of early metal tools appeared alongside the use of stone tools.
Artefacts of the pit-dwelling era in the Indian subcontinent have been found at places including Burzahom at Swat Valley in Pakistan, which is around 5,000 years old, and Inamgaon in South India, which dated back to around 1400BC-700BC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.