I .t\ $x'.

ffimgrr*hm KlnT nar M$$1,rr;i"*

tqr," Anthropology

; DEp4$TlS,llT,, o; S PECI4L AS STSTANCE,

,. P'0LOGIaILI-IKALUNIYERSIIY

Problems and Perspectives

tn
Archaeology of Orissa, India

KISHOR. K. BASA
Ud<al University

1994

Published by the Coordinator,

DSA in Anthropologr, Utkal University,
Bhubaneswar - 751 004, India.
;-She'ilq FOREWORD

I have great preasure in being associated with the pubrication of

the occasional Paper No. 4 under the auspices of the Department
of
specialAssistance programme of the U.G.c. at ouruniversiiy. Sincethe
thrust area of D.s.A. programme is'Anthroporogy of Regionir Devetop
ment with special Reference to orissa", it is most ap[ropriate that
a
critical study on the cultural dynarnics of the region is necessary
for a
better understanding of the issue of regional development from an
anthropological persepctive. The occasional paper No. 4, ,'problems
and Perseptives on theArchaeology of orissa, lndia" is such an attempt
for emphasizing the cultural heritage of Orissa.

The present paper is a comprehensive review of Orissan

archaeology from the Louer paraeolithic to the Earry Medievar period.
Moreover, it has an exhaustive bibliography forthe Lenefit of scholars,
as many papers on orissan archaeology vrere published
in local joumals,
not easily available outside Orissa.

I congraturate my esteemed coileague Dr. Kishor

Kumar Basa
foruniting this occasional paper keeping inviewthe research
needs of
our Department. Dr. Basa was traine :' :,: ai-cnaeorogy in
the oepartment
of History, Delhi University, Departn:rrii of Rnthroporogy,
utrar Univer-
sity and Deccan college, pune. He received his ph.D.
r-rom tne lnstitute
of Archaeology, university co[ege London in 'r991. During
his siay in
London (1986-91), he did course uork on Theoreticar
Aichaeorogy,
south and southeast AsianArchaeorogy and participated
in excavation,
at Lewis castle, iSox Grove and Greater London. Hence,
Dr. Basa has
the necessary ex;r':rience and expertise in writing this paper.
The
Department will feel honoured if this occasionar papir
is appreciated by
scholars.

Professor P.K.Nayak,
Cooridinator, D. S.A. irt Anthr:opology,
Utkal University, Bhubaneswar,
IND|A 751004.
 "'ffiof*o
PROBLEMS AI{D PERSPECTIVES IN
ARCEAEOLOGY OF ORTSSA n\DrA

KISHOR K BASA
Utkal Univcrsity,
Bhubaucssrr.

Traodecades earrier, Raymord Aflcfrin (1973)

had charrn attentioo to the
problemsand perspedives in sar$rAsianarciraeotogv
arr rrao ioenrified
some of the rae,nae wfricir required, in his
such an evaruation
view, m6st ,"g"ni"tt"r,ti-,
necessary for orissan ardraeorogy
i_s
Although arcfraeorogicd research in orissa
i
m" r*,"r,t.
is rnore niir me anJa rrarr
century old, not mucfr emphasis uas gnven,
*i*,
"i*"pti*, * n"
with
secular materiar curture d the past, in comparison
to otnerfart" & noi".
Moreover, the r.rsuar trend v\as to emphaize
region as unitsff research,
although rhe concept- of region rd
;th;. gitico,adminisilnative or
ecological urits rike river vairey. study of crjture
primarily descriptive;
ard civirizatiqr r,ras
horaevur*r* i#rt ancr andyticar sfudiesrame
made in reration to state formation."tby Kutke,
sahu and senevinatne.
Besid.es, anthronolooiSl
pseapfres, nfrid,
sorr ety, have run penarter to arcfraeorogica
ilt; G ;;ft
#il;,r*,rg
investigatio* i'nou-iilr"r"
[;rve set a limit to a futter undersraniirg o oris.an
a.,rtr'- oy ileas or
archaedogy. The eighties ard the ors-"t or
nineties have r^ihessed a
proliferation d arcfraeorogicar researcfr
prehistory and some major exca,atiors
in ori"o-- int"*r**rJL,*
for p.t" ,no S" i,
is time that rae shourd fix our priorities, "J;;;;;.
ioentiiy the probrerns ard mitigate .

the limitations. Before.it is done, it is'necessary

to derinede a historicar
outline of Orissan arcFraeology
Histeyof Archaeology in Orissa

Orissa li es betraeen 1g 28' and 22o4' north latitude and 82"32' and 87o31'
east longitude onthe eastem mastof lndia. Toits north,lie Biharand West
Bengal, to its south Andhra Predesh, to the rarest Madhya Pradesh and to
the east Bay of Bengal. The state of Orissa is divided into fivqgtrts : the
coastal plains, the middle mountainous country, the rolling u$ands, the
river valleys and the suMued plateau (Sinha 1971).

History of Prchistory

It raas V. Ball who initiated prehistoric studies in Orissa by reporting four

Palaeoiithicartefadsfrom Angul, Talcher, Dhenkanal ard Bursapalli (Ball
1876, 1224, 1880 : 507). Half a century later, Acharya (1923-4) and
Banerjee ( 1 930) drewattention io the potentiality of phehistoricar$aeology
of orissa. A preliminary suruey in Mayurbhlui-W-,Wa!:EAn an4Acharya
during 193O's resulted in the discovery of the urell krpvw Palaeolithic site
of !!gfiq1a, wfrich uas subsequently excavated by Nirmal K Bose and
Dniianisen in 1 94O's (Bose and Sen 1 948). This isthe earli est excaratiors
of a palaeolithic site in lrdia and here a palaeolithic assemblage r as
studi ed i n the context of geostrati graphic background. More surveys urere
conducted by schdars from Calcutta University during ,!"gl$s around
Kuliana (Sen etal 1956, Bose etal 1958). Horaever, ituasMohapatra, after
V. Ball, wfro shoued that Palaeolithic culture uas distribded in a mucft
larger region of Oris6a, beyond the district of Mayurbhanj (Mohapatna
1959, 1962, 1972, 1990). Morever, he argued about the succession of
stone age cultures in Orissa Wtrile Mchapatna's raork nas based m his
survey in Central and Northem Orissa, Tripathy brought to light stone 4e
sites of various ages in Sotrih-westem Orissa 1.1972,1973, 1980). During
198Os, scholars made intensive surveys in srnoller aeas ufrich yielded
evidence of rich stme age sites. Thus [A-rdaj'.'!r$g$ o1U_pper lnd-ryyati
basin (1984, 1985), Singhin erstrafrile Dhenkanaldistrict(1985, 1988), Ota
iafhul$.n! district (i982-83, 1986), Mghanty in Keonjhar district (1985,
1988, 1988-89, 1.989, 1993) and Behete in Sundargarh distrid (1989,
1991-92, 1992a,1992b). Ratha and Bhattacharya (1988) reported loraer
palaeolithic artefacls fro'm Kuchinda in ra,estern Orissa. Houever, il is the
Mayurbhanj districtwhich received most attention by scholars (Mohapatra
1962, Thapar 1964, Ghosh and Basu 1969, Ghosh 1970, Basa 1984,
 chakabarti and chaaopadhyay 1 988 Mishna 1 987€8,
; 1 990, c hakabarti
1990, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, n.d.). Some attemptsrarere
made to reviewthe
llidence of prehistoric rerics at a.pan:orissan:rever ( iripatnv rgzz,
1986-87, Sahu 1979, Mishra 1980, Dash 1984, Mohanty
91" THg-lad excavated the neorithic site of Kgchai1992). Morever,
near earipaoa
dT'p 1960's (Ihapar.1e64, le's : 4S), Dastr (ir8ti'*Jrro ,n"
evidence of neolithic:culture in,varior",."iion,
of Orissa. prevalence of
Chalcolithicculture in Orissais knol,r,nfrori Sankerjang
f SeS :Zf O_
22) and the recenily excavated site of Gorbai byA.s.r. 6VUe
(sinha 1993). An
importnafaspeci of pehistoricstudiesfrom teSgi
studies for archaeorooicqli{elences (Mohanty
istn" r*
oreGnogr:aphic
1989, ota igai; ror a
generar review, see Basa 1 gg2). Morever,
the defartment ornntnroporogy,
utkal university conducts survey rnork every year
in various parts of
orissa and unpublished reports of post Graduaie students
in the Department.
rr" ,irilrut"
_

Flis&onieal Archaeology
'
i -"r-
The formatim of the Asiatic society of Bengar
in I 7g4 her:arded a nary bra
forstrdies on archaeorogy r.'frich,in its n&o seile,
incruded tne stuoy
of any materiar remain of the past. rn this broader
connotxion, urtrat
call epigmphii.nug!!{Ir3tics, ur1, ,r.hit""tur-e and 'r,e
tltru :_rylpture,v,ourC
atso be incruded in arcrrEEiiiogy. rt iso,{riru
igth ;"irt1iia;stronrs
PT.1g"-lgq taiE-ror various_.unancnui oi u*nru"i"Ji Olililnerar
survey, see Arcfiarya 1969:32*4O€)). Stirling,s
is infact tl? major vrork on arciraeorogy
r"*unt-& il";?;;;;
-fr'nin"ant
(a)
Irrt and nao tnr""
3spe,T's
: his emphasis on corrcentnation ii rerigiars antiquiti-d arorno
irrfl ry* {prilgrimage, strcfr asthe Hara,Kheh the Msnu orpurushottiama
frhefr, the Arka or p"g3 Khetran.i the Vijayi o, prrurii Xn"ii
illlustation cf an ifii:cription a uoa.rgiiLo fll u^
constructions sr-rdr' as- bridges r"l an rccount of civir
lincruuinl ittstrrtion"), forts and stone
revelm g!ts' Durins 1E3os, Frinsep o,or,i
ulgyagiri
n"* gr;; ;; J"ipt"i
11qt.oj
'1
inscription'and tn" nrnor* "g,n*
inscriprions (Acfrarya
969: 1 31.,. Kittoe,, an as:,.slant prinsep, interpreted
.of the Hati gumpha
inscription and the Dhauli inscription
cnii., ior"pigraphicar studies, see
Rajaguru 1958, 1960a, 1960!, isot. rriprtn y .f,i+.iga+1.
European schorars arso contributed to the study
s;. otn",.
of orissanar"nr.oiogy.
rh
91
raep Ferg usson, Hr;i;i ;;; ;.,';;il;;
and stenkonov. Hcnnaever, while ail of them,
;;sd' nu""i] i"ro
exc.pt "r,
Bdr;;' *ninJJtn"i.
account to the monuments of coastal orissa,
oniy fi"giri ,tuoi*o
 monufi'e;ii Lf in bf ' penetnati n g i nto the hi ll y areas
" "ilt6iroa6rysrAee
(Mohapatra 1986:Pre?ade); E€$ralso reported the recovery of Roman
coirs from lvlayurbhanj (Acharya 1 969: 1 O ; for recent numismatic sttdies,
see Mitchiner il97$:536,579,589, Tripathy 19&4:6976, 1986). R.L. Mitra
(1875, f 880) published on the monuments of Orissa in trao volumes, the
first comprising general obseruations on the nature and chanacterof the
objects noticed; and tlre second detailed desaiptions of these objects.
Studies on monuments vuere also canied on duing early 20th century by
M.M. Gangoly, R.D. Banerjee, M-M. Chakranarty and R.P. Chanda (fbr
recentraorks, see Panigrahi 1961, Mohapatra 1986and Donaldson 1985,
1 986,'1987, Parida 1987). Houever, the first significant excarration of an .

early historic site was coilducted at g.i-supatgarh by Lat (1949). Later.

', Ratnagiri was excavated by Debala Mitra ( 1 981, 1 9S3) and onl| recently
Lalitgiri and Udaigiri have been exeavated by A.-S.1. Brief reports are
available aboutthe early historicsites of Asurgarh in l(dahandi (Behera
1982:86), [{lananunda in Phulbani (Mishra and Pr':adhan 1990) and the
medieval site of Khalkatapatna (Rout and Pattanayak 1993, Sinha
1992). Moreover, while Dash (1985) revieraed the evidence ol spsisnl,-::
potteries in Orissa, Brandtner (1988-89) has surveyed arcfraeological
sites around Bhubaneswar and has compared.the potteries fourd from
his survey with the excavated materials of Sisupalgarh. Tripathy and
Patnaik (1993) have studied red raare of different shapes from various .

archdeological sites in Orissa. Joshi (1984) tliscussed the antiquities of

some early historicand early medieval sites such asKuruma (Buddhist
cornplex of about tenth century,A.D.), Lalitgiri (Stupa Site cff 8th-10th
century A. D. ) and Manag uda Val ey. The ardraeologi cal spl endour
I d the
Prachi Valley raas emphasized by Ray (1975).

Limitations of Archaeotogical Research

Notwithstanding the progress,: there are three major limitatio+rs of

archaeological research in Orissa.

I . .Although surface expl'oration has been made in various regions, only

afewsitesvrere exc€rvated - Kuliana (Palaeolithic) Kuchai (Neolithic),
Sankerjang (Chalcolithic), SiCupalgarh, Ratnagiri, Asurgafi and
Manarnunda (eafly Historic) and Khalkatapatna (Medievat). OrX of
these, no detialed report is knoram about Kuchai. Moreover, the
Ratnagiri report.does not emphasize secular objects like pottery.
Sirce Ciolbari, Lalitgiri, Udaigiri and Manikpaha are recently excavded
 DnBasanta Kumar Mohanta
' :qrj A$thropology
sites, their detailed reports are awaited. A major limitation is that
these vraere mostly vertical excavations and at best these throwsome
light on the relative chronology, with a diachronic perspective. ln the
absence of major horizontal excavation, we do not have a
comprehensive account of the society in question at a synchronic
level.

2..- The second problem is related to chronology, more particularly

absolute chronology. so far, only one radiocarbon date is available
from the site of Sankerjang (2590 + 60.8p (KN 3753), Cat-795BC,
Personal communication Paul Yule 1987). Even from the vievrpoint
of relative chronology, a coiifreiiendive pottery sequence is not yet
available for orissa from the Neolithic to Early Historical level, as one
finds in the Gangetic valley or even in South lndia. Only the site of
Sisupalgarh has an account of such pottery sequence. lt is hoped that
with the recent excavationsat chalcolithic Golbai, the Early Historical
to Early Medieval Lalitgiri and Udaigiri and the Medieval sites at
Khalkatapatna and Barabati Fort by A.S.l. (along u,ith the previously
published sisupalgarh pottery), one cotiid obtain a concise account of
pottery sequence at least for coastal Orissa.
\

3. Anotherlimitation is related to the lron Age. We do not have, as yet, any

clear account of the hansition from the chalcolithic to lron Age.
Moreover, no lron age site has been excavated so far, although iron
artefads are sporadically found here and there.

Problems and Perspectives

with this genenal bac(ground of the state of archaeological research in

orissa, it is relevant novrrtodiscusssome of the maintherires of pre-proio-
ard+arly historic an:haeology of orissa, along nith an attempt in pointh'o ,
out their implications, in partianlar, in terms of future research.

1. Pataeotithic

Right from the days of V.Ball in 19th century, palaeoliths are found in
various regions of orissa. Bose and sen's excavation at Kuliana (1g4g)
shoued that Kuliana is mqlnly a core industrycomprising primarilythe tml
typ"r of_ElgpgfsJ*nd&ui and cteavers. Mor"or*r, it iraO penOtes anO
small admixture of flakes with high flaking angles and unprepared and
unfacetedstrikingsatforms.Quartziteisthemainrawmaterial.Kuliana
u"o.1g Palaeolithic tods' Recentlv'
orimarily yielded 'irr.rat ;';;L[
ilail;t'fi (1993b) nrt geificd,tg'"0 tnai'tne cnrder tmlsraith -minimum
chipping as uell ,,
co1|ext' speak of a fairtv earlv
'ril
development of r-onei-pliruoiimi" cuiture in the Baripada-Kuliana-
Singh's srrvey (1985) in the
Kamnapal complex in the LouefPleistocene'
;ffiro,iuo has yierded 53 Loaer paraeolithic
Dhenkanar District
"f tne pre'oominant types, some oflhese
sites with hanor*"r rnJJuarers as
being associated v,/ith l;;;;orv
gi";l*d kankaised soil' QuartzUpper and
no Middle or
quartzite are the *'ln-i'* *aieiiats' Horlever' the stone age
palaeolithic evidence ilsfound by sirgh. uttrite shoaing
or Middle
ffi;;;;;;;;, ;6le"i. tr eoi)adv;'catedrsthe
cf
evidence
orissa, vr,fricfr induded
stone Age (or Midoe hdaeolithic) culture strati graphically
borer,,"npuil*uitt"' nc'corOirg to Mohapatra'
scraper, gravel
ddi paraeolithic) tools occur in the coarse
the Early stone Age
s of the rivers, on th e surface
lii,iJ"lo"* oi tnl rdaio*, i n th e g rav ei b edthe secordqSy laterite gravel
in the forests ano sroie]'J'inu niri" ?nd_il a layer
e pataeolithi c) tools occtlr in
quani es. The Mioore Stone nge (r\Ii oor
of fine gnaver
* red silt. ln his survey of southraestem
"n*,
' orissa, Tri patnv "]"lqi"ia{
g8;fttrno u'ii of Pebbl e Tml industry and Flake
tr "o"
Aoe (Loraer PalaeolithQ and
industry *rr.rp*o#g;Llrlv .i11e
palaeolithic) According to him, the
respectively.
Middte stone nge (fvlidite
pebble Tool indus,tri,-rr,i.n ,*r tn'e otoest irdustry in southuestem
with
Wtn tn" discovery of only three sites
*'p"ttni"O
Orissa, vras poorly quartzite'
clroppers ard scrapers mde of
tool typescon$stirg primarily of
distribrrted (16 sites) ard uas
The Flake inoustry'iraJnior *to"rv *!
dominated nv prain nalls iaa-sgv')
t iir' scrapers q?lYs the main
th e P ebH e Tool i ndusty
types, primarily *rd;;"d;tt' straliorannicailv'
rarasassociatedwithloruergr:avelardlollersiltyclay(MiddlePleistocene)
silty cl ay (U pper
and th e Flake industri Jtn"'pput go'el ard part of upper
sites in orissa, the
pleistocene). .lntir tnl oismiLry ir upp", Palaedthic
Age as vras happening to
terrns used wre er;v, iiiiJdrt l'g t19 fotne
Mishra (1s83) ditlT?dle Upper
tndian prehistory rniii reost. Wrile
proUrems J dti"*' i{ t*= t'tanda
(198243:84" 1984) wtto
Palaeolithic
reportedUpperPalaeolithicindusiryasadistinttypo-technologicalentityinto
in the lqdrav"ti u"ti"-l'i*;i ;;t& the-upper Palagotitnlg]1dustry
(:t"P:T' d'enticulates' notches' knives'
tuo gro.tps : (al srraplU artefa$:
burins, backed bd;;) * {b) imde.artefacts
(cores' flakes' blades'
retouching
dn"O"O rrtgf"As snorvOeli berate
ctrips ard vrorkeO rJrf *J.
. 'n"tn"siri ple artefacts are the intermediary and
on one or ror"
"ogi;'ffi1.
byproducts of the shaped tools. Upper Palaedithicartifacts are also knovrnr
from Brahmani river valley (Behera 1989) in Sundargarh and from
Baripada, Rairangpur, lGranjia ard Khiclring regions of Mayurbhanj
(Basa 1 984,' Mishra 1 990:27€; S.Chakrabarti n.d. )..Recenfl y, Ghosh and
Ray ( 1 99&93) have reported a $te.at the Utka! U"niVe,rstty, Bhubaneswar
as belonging to.the late phase of Upper Palaeolithic industry on the basis
of tool types, cores and de U4es, technology ard di mensi on of arti f actual
samples. Thus, the proHem of termindogyfor Palaedithic culture sequence
is at least over si nce ue can onveniently use the terms, Louaer, Mid d e and
I

Upper Palaeolithic, as in other parts oitnOia

The distribdion of palaeolithicculture isra,ett-emphasized in Orissa. \Mat

is urgently required at the moment is interdisciflinary researgh. ldlthis
context quaternary geologists can play a signficant role. True, some
archaeologists like Dharani Sen, A,K. Ghosh ard G.C. Mohapatra had
gmd backgrotrnd in studying geomaphology. Especiatly Ghoshls critical
account of laterites and his linking of paladdithic artefacts to secondary
laterites needs special mention (Ghosh 1966, 1979). Still one could
broadly complain that in Orissa:prehistoric studies by archaeologists and
quaternary studies by geologists have remained as separate entities.
Recently from the geological vieupoint, a good study is made about
laterites in relation to their distribr.rtion, stratigr:aphy, mineralogy and
geocfremistry pas 1992).Thts'one can'reitenaie inrit'pr"nirtoriJ* rno
scientists studying quatemary period shor.rld raork together in an area
emphasizing differerfl problems. The usefulness of sBh an approacfr has
already been demonstnated in Westem lndia (Agr:araal and Pande 1gll,
Allcfrin et al 1978) andin Nsthem Pakistan (Rendell et at 1989).
;,.-
Aircther importnat issue wtridr needs attentim for Stone Age Cuttures in
general and Palaeolithic in paticular, is the problem of site formation
process (Sctriffer 1S7). Since there is a time gap betraeen the occupation
of a site by prchistoric men and its discovery by archaeologists and (in the
case of palaeolithic, he span is very long), it is necessay to evaluate the
extent and nature of changes and disturbances to that site, both by natural
and humanfactors.'V\rtthotrtsrch evaluation, no significaril attempt can be
made about the behaviour pattern of that society, where geoarcfraeology
can play an important role.

For palaeoliths in Orissa emphasis has been given, sofaron the urvey
of big river basins - the Mahanadl, Br:ahmani, Baitalani and Burhabalang
etc. A recent trend in palaeolithic is to survey the region of small streams,
as the likelihood of getting primary site is more in such regions because
of less fluvial action. Paddayya's study in the Hungsi valley in Kalfiataka
and
has already shcrwn the potentiality of such approach (Paddayya 1982)
hence palaeotithic researchers in orissa should take note of this.

2. Mesolithic
and
The mesolithic culture of Orissa, as a transition between palaeolithic
neolithic has been subjected to intensive research in the lasl decade.
Basin'
tlanOa (1982S3, 1984) reported 85 microlithic sitesin the lndravati
core and scrapers are the predominant varieties,
Backed blades, fluted
win gn.rt as the principal rawntaterial. ln his survey of Phulbani disiricl'
Ot, fr g8Z+ g, t s'ao1 f ound both g eom etric.and norrgeom e-tri cmicrol iths
from g"O open air siies with quartz as the main ranr material. Mohanty's
the
iu*"iin k"bnjhar (Mohanty 1985, 1989,1992 and 1993) resulted inwith
Oil*r"w of 5b ntesdithic sites, most of them being associated
granite otrtcrops and only a few being found in the foot hill regions close
ioin" rtrur1n.l n r,.tt developed blade technology, occunence of backed
es,
;il;.,- iquety truncaied blades, retouched blades, knives,andtriangluse
"bl
trapezes, crescents, scrapers and cores as main tool types the
of chert as the primary raw material are important features of Keonjhar
basin
mesolithic. Recovery of mesolithic artefacts are reported from Jira
,nO tn Vallev (Trip{hv 1982-83)' A typical aspect of
ifrfirnr, 1982-83) (such as horse-
brisrn mesolithicisthe association of heavy implements
hoof cores or sctzlpers, choppers and pointed tools) with microliths
bythe recovery_of sLhh
ifrrf"n*ty ie89, Ota 1986). Thisisfurtherdtested
n""ry implements in association lMth microliths from the Dubtrri-Tamaka
region in'Jajpur district as a result of a survey by the Anthropology
Pur
DJpartment,'Utfa Universiiy in late 1992 and from Shyam Sundar
1993 by
near Rairangpur in Mayurbhanj district during a survey in March
pradeep Mohanty of Deccan cdlege and myself. The heavy tools ta/tere,
mosi probably, uiedforforest clearing' raood lrcrking' house consfftlction
and food preparation (Mohanty 1989, 1993: 102)'

Mohanty's work in Keonjhar district is interesting on Mesolithic

orissa
primarilyfortworeasons:(1)hisresearchstrategygfexplodngtracts
atong ttre banks of smaller streams and (2) his analysis of mesolithic
1992,
rceoilhar from the setilernent system peppective (Mohanty 1989,
1993i. tt needs to be stated that both these approaches o.. fi.rT
of their
elaboration.
kindson stone age studiesin orissa. Therefore, hisuorkneeds
 on the basis of size of settlements, Mohanty ciivided Keonjhar Mesolithic
sites intofour majordasses : Class I - extensive sites in the range of 5625
to 20,0O0 square metreis, Cfasi ii - medium range sites of 500 to ZSOO
square metres, Class lll with restricted area of 100 to 5O0 square metres
and Class IV with occunence of isolated artefacts. Class lll forms the
largest number of mesolithic sites in Kenjhar district. ln this classification,
Mohanty did not observe significant geographical differences. The
differences urcre mainly in terms of ( 1 ) raw materials, (2) mmposition of
assemblages and (3) the size and the regularity of artefacts. From the
typological point of view, Mohanty reported three types of sites - those
yielding microlithic implements, microliths and heavy imptements, and
siteswhere heavy implements predominate. However, he argued, following
Binfood and Binfood (1966), thatallthesethreetypesof sites belong toone
lithic tradition vvith different tool types performing different funciions. He
furtheradvocated that the majority of small sites (Class lV) were extractive
locations of an ephemeral nature, while the medium sites (Class ll and lll)
implied general maintenance ac;iivitiesasinfened from the tool assemblage
of retouched blades and flakes, choppers, knives, picks etc. The large
sites or the base camps (Class l) have the lryidest afrray of features and
have tools Wth diverse maintenance activities. The large sites usually
have evidence of manufacturing tools, habitation depcsits and shoued
larger duration of rccupation than medium range sites. The large sites
might have been seasonal summer setflements with the availability of
plenty of plant fmds.

Thus settlement system approach is a promising area of research for

mesolithic studies. Hora,ever, as Mohanty himself has admitted, the four
classes of sites have no chronological significance. This is the major
limitation of this approach at the moment, in the absence of absolute
dating. This meant that settlement system approach in mesolithic orissa
is openative at the moment at a synchronic level btit not from diachronic
perh'pective. Mohanty further mentions that no defi-nite statement about
grcup size or duration of occupation can be m6de in the absence of
adequate predic'tive model showing the relationship betvrreen stone tools
and human behaviour (Mohanty 1993:102).

Anotherlimitation in Mesolithic studies sofar

is the nonrecovery of organic
remainswfrich isa majorhindrance for making infereneesabout subsistence
resources. lt is believed that because of acidic soil, preservation of
organic material becomes difficult. ln this context, palynology or study
ofpollensfromtheoffsitecoredrillingcanbeofimmensehelp,sinceit
for stone
woutd showthe potential range of plant available forsubsistence
age peoPle.

from the Jeypore

ln south onssa, the distribution of wild rice is reported
tract.nccordingtoSharma(inMurty1988:32-3)'thereareaboutt\ll]or
in Eastem Ghat,
ihree thousano tocat rice varieties grovvn by aborigines
bythe Central Rice
out of wlrich about 1700 varieties have been mllected
mai n
Research l nstitute, C rittack, Sh arma f urther d rewatte ntion to the trao
nivara and o'
.p.ri.t of vvild rice in the Eastem Ghat, which are oryTa
sativavar.spontanea.sharmaalsoreferredtointerestinglocalvariants
suchasuridhanmeaningricethatgrovYsnearsettlemenl,janglidhan
the rice given by god and
meaning rice that gro\ 6r,nild, dtobhrflndicating
akastadiwhichisthericethatSpringsupwiththeonsetofmonsoon;all
(in Murty 1988:33)'
these rice varieties are gathered'by snifting cultivators
reported the
ln the nearby lndravatl basin, Ninda (1984) has already
occurenceofmesolithicsites.Moreover,intheKoraputregion,shifting
99 2:87 -*), Mahapatna
cultivat on s sti I a majorsubsi stence pattern (Basa 1
distribution zone is a
i I

iS9Ol. ft is sometimes believed that the wild rice ''

(Glover 1-985) and

potential area for tracing the origin of rice .agriculture
hence the Jeypore tract"of soutn orissa with its
ricfr diversity of rrild rice
i s a possi U e iiea for cofrsiderati
on of a secondary centreJor th e ori.gin and
protiterationoftheAsiancultivatedrice(Murty1988:33)'Thus'ifthese
post-
ihree -distribution of wild rice, occutTence of mesolithicsitesoreven
mesolithicsites,andcontinuanceofshiftingcultivationcanbeinterlinked'
il;j;;r;; inciplentagrictrlture, or at least the trtilisation of wild rice for
subsistence can be addressed to a great extent'

3. Neolithic
grinding and polishingtechrrique'
Neolithicculture is usuallyassodatedvrith
animds- Thapafs
evidence of pottery and domestication of plants and
Baripad3.ouinq earty 1960's yietded neolithic
,ior"tion ai xucnai, near
and polishing technique, togetherwith a coarse
artefacts made oi grinding-(sometimes
grit+"*p"r"d red ware incised and
itippeO and shorruing
(t-hapar 1985:45). Dash
il.g"i_tib decoration) and an orange-brornn raare
of orissa from the
iiriaA iras made an extensive ltuoy on neoliths
ard raw materials used'
vievrpoint of oistrioution, iypotogy, technology
development
n""orOing to him, there arc iive stages of neolithictypological
in orissa]oblong forms, resembling the
pataeolithic axeforms, appeared

10
in the first phase, to be folloured in the second stage by the oval types, in
the third stage by the trigonal and cylindrical types, in the fourth stage
quadrangularforms without comered.edges and in the fifth and last stage
by the purely quadrangular and facfdd forms lt,ith accurately straight
g eometric outli nes. Hora,ever, it is to be bome i n mind that these observations
were made primarity on the basis of materials from surface collections.
Confining himself to a restricted zone, Behera has argued that the
Bonaigarh neolithic complex lfas a pebble tool component (1992a) and
that Sulabhdihi in the Bonaigarh area had a rich neolithiccelt manufacturing
centre rnftn Oolerlte as the raw material (1992b).

An important problem in neolithic research is the iss.ue oJ domestication

of flants and animals since there is no such direct evidence from Orissa.
Despite the long tradition of the argument forthe origin of rice in Orissa by
agronomists and geographers (Watabe 1984), there are only limited
aqhaeological investigations to that effect. Wld rice is reported from the
neolithic sites of Baidyapur (Msnu-Mittre 1974) and Kupha_i (Visnu-Mittre
1976) in Mayuqbhanj (foran uptodate reviewondomesticationof rice, see
Ahn 1993). Singh (1985, 1988) had reported the recovery of crude and
baked hand made potteryvlith grain impressions asassociated materials
of the Neolithic industry in central Orissa. Singh's example along with the
recovery of, massive and el orgated bar celts and ri ng stones from neolithi c
culture show indircct evidence of emergence of agrio..rlture.

Asin WestAsiaandalso atMe[gg[1ip fakistan, attemptcould be made

to distinguish' betraeen acerffit and ceramic neoliths and their
chronological,implication, if any.. .,,' -:
.

,1,:,,.: ,i*i:j;i*tii; j:,r-,:., ' '.

ln hissurvey of Bonaigarh neoliths, Behera (1992a) discussed three types
of sites - (i) large scale production site where semi-finished celts were
manufaclurcd in very large number as at $,:!abhdihi, (ii) more than
hundred small and medium sized clusters of stone chips mostly located in
the foot hills: adi'rarell as nearby plains and representing the sites of
microchipp{ng and finishing of the nedithic celts ?nd (iii) a fewhabitation
sites closetothe Brahmani. He mentioned aboutthe majortypes of chisels
from Sulabhidihi manufacturing site, one with medial rectangular cross
section ard another with triangular cross section, the former being the
dominant type. Out of these tral types, only chisels with rectangular cross
section are found from miciochipping sites and habitation sites. This led
Behera to hypothesise that the knappers of Sulabhidihi supplied their

11
 cross section to the local
semi_finished chisels lr,ith medial rectangualr
with triangular cross
n"oiitni. population, *r,ite tnuy manufaclured,chisets
section with a viewto supplying them to
their distantly located consu'mers'
ln the absence ot retiailJ putilin"o accounts' Behera could not identify
these distant consum;rs Tni, i, potentially a good area of neolithic
not much emphasis has yet
research, since, what; ;p";k of neolithic'
Oeen given on prehisloric exchange
in Orissa'

Moreover, neolithic culture needs to be studied from the settlement

rytt., PersPective.

4. Chalcolithic
'lnced
Althoughsomedoubthasbeencastastowhetherorissahasexpent
1eeoe3)' the discovery and
;;;H;;'i"* il;;; at 1t'aonapatra
the prevalance of orissan
excavation of cfracotiinrc sitei demonstrates
in Orissa is knoun from the
protohistory. fne eviOenCe of copper artefacts
discovery ot copper oo-uuf L i'i* Baghra Pidha in Mayurbhanj district;
"'"
hovrever their precise context is not
known (Agrawal_1982:203J' The
recovery of copper ;;i;s fq qtT."nt parts of orissa has been
Moreover' Dash (1989) has
compiled recently nV Vuf t tigag:20s13)'
age in Orissa' According to
discussed various phases oi copper bronze
revers of sisupargarh wtrich has
him, the first phase comestrom ine eany
yielded copperartef;;;;cn as nangtes.'
ueaos'fingerrings etc' The next
phase is associateo witn in" n" typu" recovered from Daspalla'
"lit in the subsequent phase by the
sitabanjhi and rhaxuianr, to u" foilowed
Probably the last phase \ as
double_edgeo natue_axe irom MayurOhanj.
an enigmatic four-legged
associated wtn somJlipicai oniucts' 'utl' "
from Keonjhar and a rim of
plane-plate with a smalliail-like frotruberence
copper v esset atong ;th a broken suord recov ered f rom Gumpha-Konda'
near Balimefr. frr a comprehensive idea of such technological
e"i
objects from vrellknown contexts'
evolution can be t**tJ'OV analysing

Betterknovr,ledgeaboutchalcolithiccultureinorissabecameavailable
C"lll
Orissa (Ray
with the discovepnO of Sankerjang in
"**'Xion
1977, Dash 1986, 19;9, Y'le 1989:21G2'
Yule et al 1989' 1990)' The
in its material recovery such as
importance of SrnXeti'ng [es not only small
knapped ano grounJ iil'i" and idzes' metallic bangles and
tools as well
""=
,, nu*"n rr"ietatremains, yielded sofar' the
b_ut also having
(KN 37s5) (Cal' 7e5 BC) for
only one r,aoio caroJn;;Ui;ro ! 60 BP)

t2
Orissan archaeological sites. Houeverdifferences of opinion exist regardi ng
the use of barcelts. Yule et al ( 1989) argued that barcelts from Sankerjang
the earliest musical instruments in lndia and that they were similar
vrrere
tothose in Vietnam. On the otherhand, Dash (1986) pointed out thatthese
tmls of Sankerjang bean thrashing mark of grain and hence might have
begn used in pounding or @m+Iunctring, or as mallets or even as nut
crackers.

The recently excavated Golbai in Khurdha district by Archaeological

Survey of lndia is a rich site. According tothe excavator (Sinha 1993), the
sequence of cultures has been wcrked out in the form of Period I as
Neolithic, Period llA as Chalcolithic and Period llB as the lron Age. The
Chalcolithic levels are associated with a large number of stone tools and
impl ements of bone and copperwere recovered along with otheraniiquiii es
of tenacotta and faience. Pottery was handmade, although some
wheelmade specimens raere also found. Chronologically, Period llA
(Chalcolithic) is tentatively dated bet,arcen 14O0 and 9O0 B. C. lts deiailed
report raould open newvistas for a not much knornnr chapter on Orissan
archaeology. The discovery of iron object in the later phase at Golbai wilt
hopefully bridge the gap in the transition from Chalcolithic to lron Age in
Orissa-

Near Golbai, another important site has been located at Gopalpur by the
Department of Anthropology, Utkal University and A.S.l. On the basis of
Golbai excavation, one could attempt the settlement archaeology of that
region.

Study of the copper objecls from archaeometallurgical vieupoint is yet

another important avenue of research. The mpper objects should be
analysed to determine theircompositions, so thattheir provenance can be
deteimined as iothe source of rararmaterials. Evidence of neolthic-metal
age is found at Kuanr near Kanjipani in Keonjhar district by Calcutta
University recently (Personal communication, Ranjana Ray, July, 1993).

5' lron Age

.;., -.
As has been pointed out egrlier, no lron Age site has been excavated as
yet, although sites with iron artefactts have been reported from.various
places of OriSsa such as at Kharligarh and Gudavella in Bolangir (Dash
1982) and Viratgarh and Baripada in Mayurbhanj distriet. Although

13
 BC (Chakrabarti
antiquityof iron inlndiaisrecentlytraced backto't3OO-1200
1992),wedonothaveanypreciseideaabouttheantiquityofironinorissa.are
of Gotbai vrould iropefully provide a clue to
this. lron artefacts
LL-Jii" ll A) and
Sisupalgarh (Perod
recovered from the E;;y H'ttdc Site of
Jaugarh (Period I & ll) (Dash 1982)'
make interyvl survey
Forlron Age research' the firstthing necessaryisto
forlocatingsuchsites,too"tott*,.obyexcavation.Surveyintheironrich
receive priority'
zones of Mayurbrranj anO Xeonlnar should
Archaeometallurgicatlyoneshouldalsoexaminewhetherironsmelting
is necessary
emerged fro* *pp"ri*elting' Moreover' critical evaluation
abouiethnographic account of iron smelting'

6. Early History and Medieval History

Ratnagiri, Jaugarh and
The excavations of ancient sites of Sisupalgarh,
Manamundahavethrolmlightonancientsociety,culture,urbanisation
mentioned
as has been
andtrade. Alongwiththese, the recent excavations'
earlieroftheancientsitesManikapatna,UdaigiriandLalitgiri,andthe
Fort (cuttack) raourd herp
medievar sites of xnaGiapathi and Barabati *'
build up a pottery for coastalO{issa' This \ ,oyld erylt!"
""qu"n""
for studying setteme'Jarcnaeotogy of Orissa for early and medieval
period.

Forthehistoricalperiod,theproblemsoflegitimationofauthorityandof
ng on th e
ghily em phasi zed..Discussi
state formati on i n orissa hav e be en ri
authority and patronage in earty Orlssa'
Sahu (n'd') mentioned that
: rather its objective was
patronage was not a raridom and spwrtaneous act
of patryn+lierd relatiorrships,
the creationof social bords and netraprks
consequenttyfurtherstrengtheningtheprevalentauthoritystruantre.
pJtnlg" included not only impressive monuments' i:'"i also more
really mattered. was the
modest efforts and servicesas rarell, for what
atthe popular level an!.th.e image
fei-eption tnat such activities created intenelationship between
the
inrt tn"y helped to pro,ied.. sahu discussed 100 B.C.-
(especially during
art, religion, ,t t" rnJro"iety in early orissa
and.epignaphic
A.D. 1oo) on the Gst or'archaeological, scttlptural
sources. Speaking oiinl ,"ri"u of cavJs for
Jaina monks at Khandagiri
sahu infened trao categories of donors,
,^Juorvgiri near-Bhubaneswar,
donors' such as lav
(rir;Grs or ruling Jass and (b) humble individual
devotees and monfJ. ine fact tnat the donors considered it necessary to
record their gifts suggests, Sahu argued, that they were seeking
advertisement, recognition and status, apartfrom religious perit. Refening
to the Hatigumpha inscription of Kharavela at Udaygiri, Sahu mentioned
that a carefully construcied image of royalty was projected by depicting
Kharavela as a successful wanior, a hero, a conqueror, a liberal donor, a
benevolent and responsive administrator as uell as a patron of art and
religion. The mntent and spirit of this epigraph found a remarkable
conespondence in the nanative reliefs on the facade of the caves of
Udaygiri, primarily those of theJovrer storey of Ranigumpha, where
representations bore uitness to emphasis on royal action.

Accordi ng to S enevi ratne98 1 ), th e process f rom chi efdo m to secondary

(1

state formation in Kalinga (Modem Orissa) resulted when autochthonous

forces combined vr,ith the consequences resulting from a period of political
subordination to the metropolitan state of the Mauryas. This process
rapidly accomplished the task of transforming the 'ranl( society of the pre-
state cfriefdom into a 'sfuatified' dass society, with the consolidation of the
ruling classes and theirgaining direc{ accesstothe surplus prodrrct and its
distribution. The accumulation of pre-staie social elites during the period
of metr6pditan state hegemony resulted in the legitimization of their
political status.

Sahu (1987) points otrt that Early Kalinga has been loosely raoven into
Senevinatne's account, his major thrust being Andhra. Emphasizing the
dynamics of intemal transformation of tribal society in arpient Orissa,
Sahu begins his discussion from the Kalinga War (261 B.C), in the
absence of, in his opinion, the existence of a ra,ell defined Neolithic or
Chalcolithic culture. For the Kali nga underthe Mauryan rule, little is known
about the vertical eXension of Kalinga's ad mi nistrative structure. Ho\Aever,
the excavation of early historic sites espe.;tally Sisupalgafi shoras the
emergence of urbanisation, specialisation of arts and cnafts, partial
monetisation of economy during late centuries B.C. lt is vvith Khanavela
that the institution of kingship emerges during 1st century B.C. along with
social stratification tnith a functional hierarchy operating within the socio-
economic and political structure. During late centuries 8.C., southem and
westem Orissa was at best it the level of cfriefdom or in a state of proto-
state formation. The next stage in Orissa, i.e. from C. A.D. 35O to 600
witnessed the emergence of private cna,nership in land, the subordination
of peasaqlry, the rise of a number of dynasties and petty kingdoms in
different pockets of Orissa, with each dynasty bestorruing landgrants on
brahmanas and religious establishments. Moreover, the association of the
state Wth religion in Orissa may be traced back to Kharavela' but in the
post-A.D. 3soOrissa, this association became intense andrnidespread. ln
order to gain both vertical and horizontal legitimacy of their: political
arnhor:ity,1he ruling dynasties made use of autoclrthonous tribal deities
and other religions. This was the desideratum for state formation in tribal
areas.
t
sahu's discussion is interesting. Hourever, it needs to be mentioned that'
there is now a vrrell defined neolithic and chalcothic phase in Orissan ?
prehistory. Hence any discussion on state formation atthe moment hasto
iake into account the cultural processes and changes from band and
chi ef dom soci ety of th e prehi stori c pe ri od to th e early state f orm ati on of th e
early historic Period.

Kul ke (1 977) discussed the issue of state formati on at a subregional I evel

forthe period roughlybetuEen 5ooand 1oooAD. Inthis, Kulke used Burton
i'nuclear areas" which u,ere politically fundamentally
Stein's concept of .1

independent, economically autonomous units and socially and culturally

:

centies of Hindu civilisation. These "nuclear areas" in Orissa, Kulke

argued, rarere centres of integration of tribal elernents rather than of
their
"sJstained displacement" as Burton Stein shorared in case of South lndia'
Thus, the early Hindu Kingdoms in orissa at a suFregional level have
been deeply influenced by tribal culture. Even some tribal deities are
accepted as a means of legitimation of political authority'

From an anthropological sland-point, Mahapatra (1976) Sho\^red the

intenelation betvreen gofls, kings and the caste system in orissa and
aryued that the state deit| cult raras used for political purpose to achieve
the subjugation and integration of vassal princedoms in an empire.

Recently, much information is available about the distribution of

precious
and semi-precious stones such as diamond, cat's eye, rubby, saphire'
gamet,beryl,rockcrystal,topaz,tourmalineandacquamarineinvl/lestem
6nsra 1993, Khuntia n.d., Mishra et al. 1993). On a broad frame
lOadicf
the gem bearing diatremes are around the graphite belt and seem to so
,or-" wth the carbon content, if derived from the commonly
believed inofanic sources (Mishr:a ei al. 1993:44). According toKhuntia
"onr"rgence
(n.d.), the usJof gemstones in antiquity in Orissa can be infenedfro-"1p th.e
names of deities associated with various semi-precious. stones, for
 example Manikesvtari (Goddess of Ruby) at Bhawanipatna in Kalahandi,
Panneswari (Goddess of Emerald) near patnagarh in Balangir and
samba/eswari (Goddess of Resources) in sambalpur. Thus survey in
u,estem orissa has gmd potenti al ity in the discovery of anci ent setil ements
associated lMth mining of semi-precious stonesand theiruse and importance
in trade - both inside lndia and abroad, as is known from such mines in the
Deccan.

lnter- disciplinary research is also necessary in early and medieval

archaeol ogy. The pl e of remote sensi ng is important in this regard. on the
basis 0f satellite imagery and aerial photogr:aphy alonglMth detailed field
checking, Kar (1989) studied the geomorphic evolution of the prachi river,
at presenta dead river. Heargued thatthe prachiraasa mightyriverduring
6th-1Sth century and was constricted by later: riversystems of Mahanadi
Delta i.e., Debi and Kuakhai etc. ln the prachi valey, the Gondraana
sandstones, available in the head of the river, rarere used for temple
construction in th€- earlier phase. ln the later phase, Khondalites of the
Baddmba, Narasihgpurregionvrere used, wfricfr facilitated bettersculptural
and archiiectural raorkmanship and wfrich raere less erosive. Kar even
visualised that Khondalit'es in Konark temple uere brought through
Mahanadi to Prachi and from prachi via patharbuha river to Konarlc
Petrographic analysis raould solve the problem comprehensively. ln a
different uay, the antiquiiies of prachi valley urere studied f'rom an
anthropological perspective by Mishr:a and Dash (1992) in theiraccournt of
sacred com pl ex of this val ey. such ki nds of interdispl nary raork should be
I i

canied out in other regions of Orissa also.

Recently G. c. Mohapatra (1 990-93) has posed certain problems for Early

Historic orissa, such as (i) wfrat uras the ethnic, pditical ard social
conditions oJ orissa during the 1st millennium B.c. ; (ii) when and how
Jainism was brought to orissa so as to achieve tremendo.s royal
patronage of 'Kharavela; (iii) wfrether there were more fortified urban
settelments in orissa like sisupalgarh dating backto pre-christian era and
what happened to sucfr urban tradition.

7. Orissa and Southeast Asia

The location of orissa on the coast of Bay of Bengal and as a link betraeen
North and south lndia had enhanced its importance for both intemal and
a exemal trade (for trade in ancient orissa, see Behera 1 977, Nayak 1 997,
17
and for medieval
pelod' see Pandaleel:ff*H'nffi:H:ffi
rrr."r e*---
has of€mlt
ia,*"" and Southeast Asia
""ssa
scholars'
S-outheast Asia
re dr*rasiz
enrphrized by
bewveen Orissa-and
Cultural contacts
;il 6 ; i,t,'Itf
ffi'iiJ'fiTi.Iff
fi"-fi,u;fill:m1i,
ii",*;il Jffi*:
.,'l "'i *l- -1, u cont# beh,€en orissa

mil**:*u**r#a*tr"1ruruU+
SisuPalgarh in Oriss
;:,i#;;ii;"r.","r:ffi"g[ff
-prectou:
beads, se mi "Y'::-1:;r
;1$"ip;95ffi;1ffi
r..-i.,a t]l'rr o
in orissa ard the

*h**rrft *ffi n;ryn$'i*'m;ffim

l
gr"i#H:g Hli"t''$!1:'fli,*:Hz'ls*r"t*;
H,I'. 1"J5 ;:l':"mr;qg,[ffir#h:ls*'mx*n'{
ffifr :THitrulru;:t661*rr*',"s*ffi #":Jr
#fi*"*llmr"ffi'fifi
* oi tll##x,urutm*f ru
El',i.!, TI,"#*:l B'"Eij.ffi'X, iil,5:*i:-11?l'","-il
co
testimonv to orissan
atso oears
lL"i''f#lriffiHi#ruil
Southeast Asia'

IHffi :tr[:,lJ3:f u,:",T'i':'ff:i]$,i:"iffHgi"'uffi

l,"u'"i..o",cendantfus?3-l'ktT#,X[1'r;"lihil_:*f ,!."T:
rich as in South
evidenceot""n'"ui'iJt'Lnt'"t"."'-'il;iffi :f l-:*terorihe
t?*H;;;';;i'iti;;
such referen"": are obtained
does come across
ram*sHo*",Jiiiiil""i",io*:"-:l"T.T,tffi ;T:lffitn"sshowins
Oriyaliterature and
f rom folk and medieval
of the oriyas vr'ith
H;;
sea' rett ,; ;;uiical terminology
,lnti"i*'"v
Despite these problems, there is much potentiality for raorking on the
theme of cultural interaction betu,een orissa and sotitheast Asia. Firsily,
intensive survey is necessary on the coast of orissa lo discover and
identify port sites such as Palura. Recent excavations at Mani!<apatna and
Khalkatapatna have resulted in the discovey of important port sites. such
excavations uould thrownewlight on orissa-southeast Asia relationships
as u,ell as a comprehensive idea about the chrondogy of such relationship.
Moreover, from techno-archaeological perspective, the sculptural
representation of boats in various temples (patnaik and Tripathy 1993)
should be conelated with the living tradi{on of sea faring boats in orissa.
Besides, emphasis should be given asto which aspects of orissan culture
have been influenced by Southeast Asia.

8. RockArt
Although earlieststudies on rockart rarcre made during 193os primarily on
the Vikamkhole shelter (Jayasual 1933:58, FaUri 1gg+:Ste, tggO:ZgO,
chakavarti 1936:229), nocomprehensive study raas made until recenily.
Several photographs and draldngs v\Ere published by pathy (19g4:11-5).
Houever, up to daie accotmts of rock art of r,tttestern Orissa uere made by
Behera (1991-92) and Elwin (1992). According tothem, although urestem
orissa is not different geographlcdly fmm,cenfialrtmh, the rock art of
westem orissa presenis a unique tradition by the,uee of black colour in
the polychrome paintings and by the depictibn of femde genital orgam,
human pal m and foot. Beh era ( 1 g9 1 -92) related the f emal e genrtali organ
tofertilitycultandtraced the earliest phaseof rockarttomesolithic.perid,
br.lt did not agree with Mohapatra (1982) thai symbols of ushaltuthi rock
shelter \ rere some archaic script.

Hourrever, Pradhan (n.d.) mentioned that the presence of a central hole in

some of the triangular pattem believed to be female genital organ uas
caused by rock i nsects, natural agenci es i:nd human vardal ism. Acmrd ng i

to him, the unique features of orissan rock art iradition are (a) coinplete
absence of hunting and chasing scenes, (b) absence of nanative pictorial
code of expression, (c) restricted depiction of animal and human forms
and (d) depictionof avarietyof enigmaticdeconative pattems and designs
as independent forms for wall decoration, popular depiction of harpoon
and broom, never encountered elsewhere in lndia.

Morever, Pradhan infers threq phases of rock painting in vr,estem Orissa.

ln Phase I there are the paintings of animal and human figures in
19
 patina'
a thin fitm of white
of dark red being covered by
monochrome *rr the polychrome'paintings
una 'itvmnots lxecurted
o'-**'o'it"*'"
Phase II consists in purple
of animal forms ''n"'Joll"''i'"ml
and
o'i"iine dark red painting of
red, white ano vencnn,
a#';;;;;;;po."orn'trite ano orange red depictins
Ph'ase l. Atl thep'im#]iil;;;""#te*ror,-r;;rd., sti6ks and musical
human;iru;;ffirns
Pnas; ir on-tnt u"ii
buil, deerand of their associated
,'" pr'""I'i'i
s ;t -il; JJ ;t::,y:',ll'fl,[: i :E f#.lT ili
instruments
artet as, rre sh ne
e s

::*:.J,.isr:x',";o!ix?ll'iJ;l'y,l3iilh""in"'"*&"pronounced I and tr'

ot tn" pa'ntings of Phase
cpmpared to tne natu'r'i;;;;il;"g ori oli"ng J r.m th e prehi stori c
J"g
Accordi ng to ni n,,n"'l{"il"n
r.'
" " "f
i[1;'""d;";d"n*lithi"-"nalcolithicperiod'
mesotithicpe,tootot#lxfi
possibl e
details' along with
present task is to fi rstly study in more the' cultural
Now, the inl
u'oition and
archaeolosicar r"ri"i'ir'J';;''q"-J;& "t made
i"t"ni]"" ttudies should beand the
whi"n it o"*rlp""i i!*-"01v'
ot that tradition
to find out ,nv itl""
milieu in
on tribat art of this ,"gi[n ?o'fr;"J'"t' n g*d account
or
meanins ascribed dY;;i;il;]"""h saoras of South orissa
iribar artis ,ro" nv'*.i'ri"ffir"o.l"nirtrioiin. ievi ew or ori ssan tri
bal
and o"n r fr iirt^l
n r e'Ss' t"t' g J";id
Behura
(

I't, t"" MahaPatra 1991)'

9. EthnoarchaeologY
as
rraohic vrPrk continued
itr'i$il#[i';d;;;'"*''"n'"'l"a
i"l'J,::::llh,*1,3!li3ll1,ffii"t"n""**9ffit:H.:;H;i:'J:t1il:"il'
inexeonirrarme-sotitr'rc*if
g.'1"".,#:'t3ffi 'ffilJ::#ii"'T"d;;#J'-::1:'"nt'
tlsiulilr*,"#:-#u#i-?$ffi nmr*g;ffi #}1..ilfil:
r:"tmm*m:u'"rm:m:m:zuJlr-'to'"':r.li1{
ons, so i;i?i ry9'*; research
n ori ssa (Basi i

three mitati
li
"in"tiJt"r'
1ee2)Firs,ry,"tr'nosil;;i'";,i**(o11:''1fl :#ff H&"::l-{"ffift
:'iItr*fliffiifJi";j[#:I,ffffi ]T:':#il"*i-ut
studies eti''nographic
i'L'ftririffi1?rffi""=,'J'J"iJ#;trom i

20
Ethnoarchaeological research should be taken up urgenfly at least forrwo
reasons. Firstly. orissa provides a mosaic of diversiiy with 62 tribes
ranging from huntergathererstoshifiing cultivatorstosetiled agriculturisis.
along nith linguistic affinities wth lndo-Aryan, Dravidian and Austroasiatic
categones. secondly, the tribal life style is changing so r:apidly in the face
of modemization that as regards ethnoarchaeology is concemed, it is now
or never.

Conclusion

Thus archaeology in orissa has come a long uayfrom the antiquarianism

of 19th centuryto the problem-oriented research of late 2oth century and
hence has, to use lan Hodde/s phragg,',lost its innocence',. The evidence
of various stone age culiural sequenCe. ihe recovery of metal age as a
bridge between prehistory and early history, the issue of state formaiion
,in early history, the discovery of uniqueness of orissan rock art tradition
and the mosaic of diverse iribal culture from hunting gathering to setiled
agriculture, portray a rich archaeological heritage of orissa. l*iovr,ever,
researches done so far have not yet throvrnras much light as one comes
across in the Gangetic valley or in westem lncjia. problems still remain
asto site formation process, domestication of plants and animals,
identificationof portsitesfrom earlyhistoric period onuards, determination
of antiquity of semiprecious stone quarrying in urestem orissa, meaning
of rock painting and the provenance of rocks used in various temples and
also the metal artefacts recovered from various sites. The ansu,er for all
these problems lies in inter-disciplinary research. Yhe sooner it is realised
and translated into practice, the brighter: is the future of archaeology in
Orissa.

Acknowledgement :

Mysincere thanksare dueto Dr. s.chakrabarti, visva'Bharati, wtro

commented on an earlier.version of this paper- However, t anioniy
responsible for any mistake. Thanks are alfo due to professor K.c.
l_f
patny, Profe_ssor K.S. Behera, professor p.K. Nayak, Dr. S.K,
Ghoshmaulik, O,:. .1. Dash, Dr. p.k.Das and Dr. n.N. bijhTortneir
help and encouragement.
 RETERJNCES

ACHARYA" P.
1g2g-24 Annuat Repott of the Archaeological Suruey of lndia,PP'
10G1.

1969 Odissara Pratnatatfua O Anyanya Prabandha (ln Oriya)'

Bhubanesraar : Orissa Sahitya Academi.

AGRAWAL, D. P.
1982 Archaeology of lndia. London. Cuaon Press. /
AGRAWAL, D.P.& B. M. PANDE
1977 Ecology and Archaeology of Westem India' Delhi'
l
AHN,SUNG.II'O ]
1993 Aigin and Differentiation of Domedicated Rice in Asia')
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of London'
l
I
ALLCHIN, B., A. S. GOUDIE & K T. M. HEGDE i
1987 of the Gred lndia$
The Prehisiray and'Prdohi*ory
Desed Lordon : Academic Press. I
I
I
ALLCHIN, F. R. I

1973 "ProblemsandPerspectivesinSourthAsianArcfraeologt'l
in SoufhAsra n Nchaeology. Edited by N.Hammane, PP'
1-11. London : Ducknorth.

BALL, V.
1876 On stone implements found in the tributary states of
Orissa. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Benga!:
120-1.

1880 Jungte tife in tndia.l-ondon : Thos.De La Rue and Co'

r ji
BANERJEE, R. D.
1930 His-tory of Orissa, Vol.l. Calcutta : prabasi press.

BASA, K. K.
1984 Palaeohistory of Mayurbhani: A Review. Unpublished
M.A. Dissertation, U-tkal University, Bh ubaneswar.

1992 Ethnoarchaeology of Orissa: A Review. Man in Society

6: 79-106.

n.d. Cultural relations betvreen Orissa and Southeast Asia :

an archaeological perspective.

BEHERA, K. S.
1977 "Maritime trade in ancient Orissa',, in M. N. Das (ed.) pp.
115_21.

1993 Ancient Orissa/Kalinga and lndonesia : the maritime

contacts. Ukal Historical Research Journal 4:1ZZ-32.
\
BEHERA, P. K.
1989 ' Archaeology of Sundargarh District with Special
Refe re nce to th e Brah m ani Valtey, Orissa. Unpubl isheO
Ph.D. Thesis, Banaras Hind0 University, Varanasi.

1991-92 Prehistoric Rock Art pertaining to fertility cutt and other

subjects of Orissa. pragdhara 2:l-12.

1992a The pebble tool component of the Bonaigarh neolithic

complex, Orissa. Man and Enironment lZ1Z1: 57_63.
.,:
1992b surabhdihi : A neorithic cert manufacturing centre in
Orissa. puratatfua 22: 124_32.

BEHERA, S. C. (ed).
1982 lnterim Excavation Reporfs. Jyoti Vihar : Sambalpur
University.

BEHURA, N. K. & J. DASH.

1991 'hrt, symbolism and ritual in a non-literate society : A
23
 and modem relevance of
study of the Social contgxt
Saura icon" ' in Tibatp"tn Aft : Primitivism and Modern
a" rc*' i' ioii"o uv o' v' PP' 1Cf-12' Bhubanesmr
wo'rti'i's" A; tf,-nit*i "ti
on'
' "
BINFORD
BINFORD, L. R' & S. R. variatility in the
1966 n p"rililw "n"rvtit jr functional Arthropotosid
' M""i#;; ; u!'"riJt r""i es'' Ameican
68 :238-95'

BosE, N.K. & D. sEN alrr rna:calcuttaunive

.ieaa excaf,ationinMayurbhani'Calcutta:CalctrttaUniversity'

BosE, N. K., D. sEN & G'

s' RAY . i.ra6aaQ t..'f i
stone age rn
tuttural.evidences of the
1958 Geol;;; Man ani
in tndia3S: 49-55'
rvravtir"Jnani'

cat- expl orati ons around Bhubaneswar'

"TYJJ[E*' T'"n"' ol ogi
Manav3:231-50'

cHfsAPlurrx;\or use of tron idndia.Delhi

: oxford university

Press'

CHATTOPADHYAY
CHAKRABARTI, D.K. & R'K'
1e88 A#;th;ritnlciryultrlesofMavurbhanjandKeonjhar'
o;;:'d;; ;;td Environment 12 : 203-8'
S
CHAKRABARTI, Orissa' Man and
1990 tne stone aOe grelrislolV of Khiching'
Environment 15:13-21'
palaeolithic archaeology of
1992 "New perspectives on
Kuli ana, Northem Ori
ssa' La"tem ndi a"' n- Proceedings
I I

of the W cont,"n'" JltnZ tiii"' s"iety for Prehistoric

Kamataka University'
andQu atemr.y Sf
'O*''On"'*"d'
PP. 1-3.

Exploration at Kuliana
and its neighbourhood'
1993a
A
 Mayurbhanj District, Orissa - 1992_93. A Report
Submitted to the Archaeological Survey of lndia.

1993b Recent advances in stone age prehistory in Mayurbhanj.

Paper presented in the Seminar "Recent Advances in
Archaeology of Orissa" held in Utkal University, on gth
September, 1993.
n.d. Kalapathana:AnUpperpalaeolithicsitefromMayurbhanj
(in press).

CHAKRAVARTI, N.P.
1936 The Mkram Khol Rock lnscription. Annuat Repoft of the
Archaeological Suruey of lndia,193&34 :229.

DAS, J.
1992 Geology and Geochemistry of Laterites rn Orlssa.
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Utkal University,
Bhubaneswar.

i DAS, M. N. (ed.)
1977 Side/rghfs on History and Culture of Orissa.
CuttackMdyapuri

DASH, J.
1992 Ecology and Techno_Econontic Development of the
Foresf+ased Groups in Similipat Hills. Unpublished
Ph. D. Thesis, Utkal University, Bhubanesraai.
DASI.I, R.N.
1982 The rron and otherobjectsfrom Gtdaveilaand Kharrigarh.
Journalof fhe Onssa Research Socieity.ii2) : 53-dO.
'' 1984 -- tr
Pre and protohistory of Orissa,,, in H. Mahtab (ed.) pp.
284_s04.

1985 Ancient potteries in Orissa. 'j.he Orjssa Historicat

Research Jo um at 3 1 (2-4) : 1 02-29.
'1986
Sankerjang - A Chalcolithic site in Onssa. Orlssa
Historical Research Joumat 32 : g9-125.
,<
 Ph'D' Thesis' Utkal
1987 Neolrths of Onssa' Unpublished
UniversitY, Bhubaneswar'
in Orissa'
and copper - bronze age anltures
1989 ' Chalcolithic of tni *V ennuat Session.of fhe orissa
Proceedings P'
i i i i-C ii g r,'ss, Raidhani c oll es e' Bhubanesraa r'
' P

22-5.

Leiden : E'J'Br,t'
?;t#:bH?J! l;7;, rempte Art or orissa(3
Vors)'

ELWN, v. -^ A.rarr{ t IniwerqitvP

1955 TheRetigionofanlndianTribe'OfiqdUniversityPress'

ERWN, N. 1*24'
1gg2 Rock pictures in Orissa' PuratatfitaZ2:

FABRI, c.L. script' lndian Culture q

1934 Lates-t attempt to read the lndus
1 :51-6'
Remark)' Ann-u1l
The Mkramkhol inscdption (Editorial
i"ii ine erciar;itog''it s'*'v
1936 or tndia 1e3G34:

230. PI.CXXa.

GARLICK, H. J. in Nafion al Seminar'

1993 "Diamond pnospectsin Orissa' lndia"'
Gemsfones, PP' 46€0' Bhubaneswar: Society of Geo"
sci entists and Atlied Technologists'

GHOSH, A. K. I ndi a"' in Sfudies

in
1966 "l mpl em entif erous I aterite in eastem
Ghosh PP' 149-
iir{ni"tiirv:.Edited nv u'sen and A'K'
bi, C"r",itt, : Firma K'L' Mukhopadhyay' Joumal
1970 n" V.it tvtayurUnani Pataeolithicindustry'
23&48'
""rf "t 5 :
;iii, tidan Anthropotogical Societv

: A contextual analysis'
1979 Laterites and artifacts in India
Ancient CeYton 3: 115-34'
GHOSH, A. K. & A N. BASU
1969 AnappraisalonthePalaeolithicindustriesofMayurbhanj
in the light of recent discovery. Science and Cufture 39
:47&9.

GHOSH, A. K. & SUBHA RAY

1990-93 " Process of microlithism : a sludy of stone age materials
from Orissa. Manav 4;80-7.

GLOVER, I. C.
1985 '-, "Some problems relating to rice in Asia", in Recenf
" AduancesinlndoPaciftcPrehidory.Edited byV.N.Mishna
and P.Belluood, PP.26$74. New Delhi : Oxford and
t.B.H.

JAYASWAL, K.P.
., 1933 The Vikramkhol inscription, Sambalpur district. Ihe
lndiarn Antiquarcy LXJI : 58-60.

JOSHI, A.
' ''1984 :. "Recent archaeological discoveries in Orissa", in H.
Mahtab (ed.) PP; 227-30.

KAR, R. K.
"t " 1989' : Geomorphic,Evalution of Prachi River Sysfem in
Mahanadi Delfa. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, Utkal
University, Bhubaneswar.

KHUNITA" G. H.
I 'n'cl. ', j: Geology of gemstone'resources of Orissa.
-l
: , ai.- I

KULKE; H.
.1977

[AL,,B.'.,B.
' 1949'
MAHAPATRA' lirlor, in lndia"' i'1-'rne
Kings and th:.ca:t-e svstem
Reatm of the Ertra'Human
:
Agerrts and Audiences'
Editei UVngtn""'"da Bharati'
PP '7-26'Paris: Mouton'

Traditionat Altematives in
1990 Swidden Cultivation and tts centre for
onssa, Bhubaneswar : N'K' Choudhury
DeveloPment Studies'

MAHAPATRA, S.K'
"'^i6gr- . sa. Bhubanesi\ ar : Orissa
Tribat wattpain,tingS of orist
Lalit Kala Akademi'

*ffi"' *'t"t)''o"es
of orissa n en.7.n! cutture'
(Golden Jubilee
Research Joumai)'
volume of the Orissa Historical
Bhubaneswar: Orissa State
Museum' I

MISHRA, C. R' & S. PRADHAN

iicavation.leel : A Preliminary
Report \
'teeo u"i*f,iii

MlsHRA, P. K. & J. DASH civilisation :A study

1ss2 lGi'p*chiand PoqiVallev
;;;;;;b-"';"ana l-v : 1-18''
Tnu
th:';"d;;d"';;'
"r
& J' M'-DAS
MISHRA, R. N., B. B' SARANGI
1993 "n"*'iltitoiorrssa"inNafiona/seminarGems{ones'
PP.37-45.Bhubaneswar:societyofGeo-scientistsand
- Allied Technologists'
s. K.
MlsHRA, Brief Studyrnf
a o-r^f crrrrfr Fnvirr
of Environment
1980 Lithic tndu$ries ofOrisgS : A
Unpubtisle! Dissertation'
and Culture of Earty Man'
ogy' Archaeol ogi cal survey of I ndi a'
s"noiioin'"naeot
New Delhi'
and other sites in the
1982-83 Stone age antiquities of Sarasara
Jirariverbasinoforissa:Areappraisal.Manavl{.l):31-
42'
 1983 The Upperpalaeolithicproblem of Orissa: A reappnaisal.
P rccee d n gs of t h e In dia n S c i e n c e C on g re.ss Assdr.afion,
,, 7Uh Sessio4 T,rupati.

1987-88 Stone age antiquities of Jashipur Orissa, a resurvey.

1990 Stone-age remains and palaeo-human activities in the

Burhabalang and Chipat'rivervalleys of Orissa. Man in
Society 4:21-32.

MITCHTNER, M.
1978 Oriertal Coins and Their Values : The Ancient and
C/assrba/ World, 600 B.C. -A.D. 650. London : Haurkins
Publications.

MITRA D.
1981 Ratn:agiri (r9ss-6r) vor:r. New'Derhi : Archaeorogicar
Survey of lndia.'

1983 Ratnagirt 0958-6) Vot.ll. .New Delhi : Archaeotogical

t Survey of lndia.

M|TRA R. L.
1875 The Antiquitiesof onssa. Vor.r. carcutta Baptist Mission
press.

1880 The Antiquitiesof Onssa, Vol.ll. Calcutta :W.Newman

& Co.

MOHAIIITY, P.
1985 The Mesolithic culture of Keonjhar District, Orissa : A
preliminary report. Buttetin of tie Deccan iofiege post
Graduate andResearch lns-titute 44: 103_12.

,1988 Five seasons of expronation in Keonjhar District orissa.

Bulretin ofthe rndo-pacific prehMory Assocrafion g : 47-
53' I
 1988-sgThemesolithiccultureofKeonjhardistrict,orissa,with : a
component
special reference to the heavy-duty tool
of the Deccan College
functional interpretation' Butletii
ute' 47 -48 : 227 -37'
Posf Araiuate' and Rese arch I nstit

Mesotithic Sefttemeft Sy*em of Keonihar

Didid' Onssa'
1989
Unpublished Ph.D' Thesis, University of
Poona'

Man in lndia
1992 Stone age research in Orissa : an overview'
72(2):2a74z
orissa' lndia'
1993 Mesolithic huntergatherers of Keonjhar'
Asian P ersPecfiYes 32(1):87 -1 M'
.-
MOHAPATRA, G. C.
Joumal of the
1959 Middle stone age industries of Orissa'
Palaeofiological Society' lnfra 4"#'

Agp Cufture of Onqga, Poona : Deccan

4i

1962 The Stone

' College. t
1972 PrehistoryandProtdristoryofDhenkanal'OrissaDisfnc{"
Gazetteers : Dienkanal' 42'

rok shetters in
1982 Notes on tne firramrndid"'io Ushakothi
97-100'
Oriss a ' Man and Environment 6 :

Acheulian Tenain in Orissa : nature'

range and
1990
connections' Paper presented at tbe lntemational
seminar on Rising irends in ' Palaee-nthropology'
Deccan
Environmental Change and Human Rei;onse'
college, Pune'l.;' r' ,.
'::
1g9o-g3 university-level cuniiuium for a career in archaeology
in Orissa. Manav 4: 73-9'

MURry, M. L. K. (lndia) : an
1988 Rice and tuber crops in the Eastem Gh.ats
.etnno"*rog'*lperspective.Buttetinofthelndo-Paciftc
P re hi st ory Associafion 8 : 26-36'
 MOHAPATRA, R. P.
1986 Archaeology rn Onssa (Srtes and Monuments) 2 Vols.
Delhi : B.R. Publishing Corporation.

NANDA, S. C.
1982€3 A note on stone age succession of lndravati valley,
Koraput district, Orissa. Manav 1(l)_g3_S.

1984 Stone Age Cuiures of lndravati Valley, Distict Koraput,

orissa. Unpubrished ph.D. Thesis, university or poon".

1985 'The microrithic curtures of tie rndravati vailey, District

Konaput, Orissa',, in Recent Advances in lnclopacific
Prehistory- Edited by V.N.Misr:a and p.Beilraood, pp.
159€9. NewDelhi , b*forO a f.efi.-

HAYAK, A. K.
1SB7 Trade and Commerce in Ancient Ozssa. Unpublished
M. phil. Thesis, Kuruksetra University, Kuruksetra.
f
oT& s. E.
1982€3 New research designs in the prehistoric research in
orissa with speciar reference to pebbre industry of north
Boudh-Khandmal district Manav 1(t) : 16C80.

'- 1986.:=15=L. Mesolithic curture of the phurbani district (orissa)

with
'
'
""' speciar referen6b to ihe heavy toor component. ainetin
af the Deccan Coltege post Graduate and Research
tnstitute 45:47_ffi.

FADEAYII'/3., K.
, 1S82 Thr_
Acht:Jian Culture of Hungsi Vattey (peinsutar
tndia) : A Setilement Sysfem -eerspraiui. i;il-,
Deccan College.

PANIGRAHI, K.C.
1961 Archaeorogicar Remains of Bhubaneswar. carcutta :
Orient Longman.

31
PANDA, S. K. New Delhi
1991 Medieval Orissa : A Socio-Economic Sfudy'
:Mittal Publications'

PARIDA, A. N.
A'D' to the
1587 Early Temptes of Orissa trgm 6th Certury
D' Thesis'
ena of-saiavamsi Ru/e' Unpublished Ph'
Uikal UniversitY, Bhubanes\^'ar'

PATi{Y, D.
Rock shelter Painiingi of Orissa' Chitn' AnAnnual on
1984 and Crafts'
nrts anJnesthetics'-B'K' College of Arts
Bhubanesaar : 1 1-5'

J. K. A B. K. TR1PATHY
P.ATNAIK,
i9e3 snips and tnipp*g in orissan atl' Pwddfira23 : 61€'
PRADHAN, S. d
n.d. Rock art of Orissa'
t
RAJAGURU, S. N.
'-;r58 ' lnsui$ions of Orissa' Vol't' Govt' of orissa'
GovL o'i
1960a tnscisions of Onssa Vol'll' Bhubaneslrtr'

1960b tnscri$ionsoforfssaVot.lll(Part.l},Bhbanesn4orissa
Sahiiya Akademi.

lnsc;pfibns ol' Orissa, Vol'lll(Part-ll), Bhubanesarar

:
1961
Orisst SahitYa Akademi'

RATHA, S. N. & B. K. BHATTACHARYA

Lourer Palaeoliths from Kuchinda (Orissa)'
Man and
1938
Environment 12:234'

RAY, P. K.
lgTSPrachiVattey.(ArchaeologicalsurveyReport).
Bhubaneswar : Orissa State Archaeology'
 1977 Recent arehggotogical excavations in Oris$a,,,
i n M. N.
Das (ed.) PP. 539-41. :

REN-D.ELL, H. M., R. W. DENNELL & M.

A. HALIM
Pleistocene and palaeotithic tnvefuations rn:the
Soan
Northem p akistan. Oxf orO':-Bnn
Va I ley,
f nterniti-onai
Series 544.

ROUT, L. N. & S. K. PATTANAYAK

1g9S Trade in medieval Orissa : a study on Khalkatapatna
pori. The Joumal of Histuical and Social
Analysrs_V1trto.
10): 27_32.

SAHU, B. P.
1979 prehi!.grlc
?p earry Histoic Archaeotogy of Or.ssa,
Unpubtished M.phit. Thesis, Universiry oibelhi.

1987 'Ancient orissa : the dynamics of intemar transformation

? of the tribalsoggty',, in Essaysrn/n dian
Art, Retigiin and
Society. Edited by K. M. Shrimati, pp. f OgaO.-Dethi-
&

n.d. Authority and patronage in early Orissa.

SCHIFFER, M. B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeotogioat
Record.
Albuquerque : University of New MexicoFress.

SEN, D., G. S. RAY & A. M. BETEILLE

1956 A new paraeorithic site in Mayurbhanj. Man in tndia
36
(4):23t46.
SENEVIRATNE, S. .

1981 "Kalinga and Andhra : The process of secondary

state
loiylign in earty tndia", in The Study of f/re Sfafe.
Edited by H.J.M. Claessen and p.Skatnik, pp.
317€8.
The Hague : Mouton publishers.

SINGH, P. K.
1985 pataeoanthropology of
Centrat Onssa. Unpublished
ph,D- Thesis, Utkal University,
Bhubanesraai.
 'Prehistoric Culture in Central
1988 "Cultural succession of ,

Orissa", in Cufture otthe Past' Edited by K'L'

BhowrniK' t
PP. 87-99. NewDelhi : lnter-lndia Publications :j'I
,
SINHA B.K.
"Kalkattapatna : A small port on the coast "f
O1s:?,,il{
1992
New Treinds in tndian Nt and Archaeology-(? Yo::l I:
fOit"O
LUI(eu by
v, B.U.
er v. Nayakand
r !5, -
N'C'Ghosh' PP' 423-8' Delnr
: Aditya Prakashan.
''1gg3 Excavations at Golbai Sasan' Dist : Puri'
Orissa'
Puratattva 23:48-50'

-
SINHA B. N.
Geographyof Orissa' NewDelhi : NationalBookTrust'
leZt
STIRLING, A.
lstsAnaccount,geographical'statisticalandhistoricalof
Orissapropeior Cuttacf' Asiatic Researches X/
: 163'
338.

THAPAR, B. K.
1964 lndian Archaeotogy: A Review 1961-62 P'36'

Recent Archaeological Discoveries in lndia' Paris

:
1985
UNESCO.

TRIPhTHY, B. & S. K. PATNAIK

1993 eottery in ancient Orissa : a study of red raare' Ihe
On'ssa Historicat Research Journal 3S: 224'34'

TRIPATHy' *'"ror*
rndustries of sa,ih westernorissa. unpublishedt
Ph.D. Thesis, Utkal University' Bhubaneswar'
age
1973 South Orissa Prehistory - The First record of stone
tools. Asian Perspectives 4 : 47-59'
(ed') PP' 5S
1977 " Prehistoricstudies in Orissa", in M' N' Das
64.

ieao Lithic tndustries in lndia : A Study of south westem

Orissa' New Delhi : lnter lndia Publication'
"34
 ,,

1982-83 PreliminaryArchaeological Surveydthelb. rltanavl(l)

:6G6.
1986-87
' Archaeology of Orissa, Manavltlty : t+SS.
TRIPATHY, S.
1974 lnsciptions of Onssa, Vol.M. Bhubanes;vrar : Stale
Museum.

1984 "Epigraphic and numismatic sources of the history of

. Orissa", in H. Mahtab (ed.) pp. 66-78.

1986 Earty and Medieavat Coins and Currency System d

Onssa. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak.

VISHNU.MITTRE
1974 ,"Palaeobotanical evidence in lndia", in Ewlutionary
-
Studies in World Crops. Edited by J.Hutchinson, pp. $
30. Cambridge : Cambridge University press.

1976 ' The Archaeobotanical and Palynological evidence for

the early agriculture in South and Southeast Asia.
Gastronomy: 13-21.

WATABE, T. :

1984 . Origin and dispersal of rice in Asia. East Aisian Cufturat

. i Sfudies 24 : 33-9.
YULE, P.
1989 The Copper Hoards of the tndian Subcontinent :
Preliminaries for an lnterpretation. Mainz : Romisch _
,* 6st'rnrtlsches Zentral Museum.

YULE, P., B. K.RATH & K. HOJGAARD

-
1989 ., sankarjang - ein metalrzeiilicher Bestattungspratzim
: Dhenkanal-Vorgebirge Ostindiens . AnthropoiA,q: rcl_
32.

1990 "Sankafang - a metals period burial site in the Dhenkanal

Uplands of Orissa", in Soufir Asian Archaeology 1gg7.
Edited by M.Taddei, PP. SB1-4, Rome : tSMEO.
 Printed & Designed at
SOFT1VARE AR"EA NET1VORK SYSTEMS
248, JAGANNATH NIWAS, SAHIDNAGAR,
BHUBANESWAR - 751 OO7