Barnagar, Sadiya

Template:Prod llm/dated

Barnagar
Dikrang Nagar or Che-lung
Error creating thumbnail: Map showing Barnagar along with the two other cities of Sadhayapura.
Type	Fortified settlement
Location	Sadiya, Assam, India
Built	medieval period
Built by	attributed to the Chutia kingdom

Part of a series on the
History of Assam
File:Deopahar-head.jpg
Proto-historic Pragjyotisha Kingdom Danava Dynasty Bhauma Dynasty Sonitpura Kingdom
Medieval Kamarupa Kingdom Varman Dynasty Davaka Dynasty Mlechchha Dynasty Pala Dynasty
Late Medieval Sutiya Kingdom Dimasa—Kachari Kingdom Kamata Kingdom Ahom Kingdom Koch Kingdom Baro—Bhuyan Moamoria rebellion
Modern Colonial Assam Assam Province
Contemporary Assam Movement
Categories
Architecture Palaces Forts

Barnagar was a historical settlement and royal centre of the Chutia kingdom in the Sadiya region of the eastern Brahmaputra Valley. It is mentioned in several Buranjis in accounts of the final Ahom campaigns against the Chutia rulers in the early sixteenth century. One Assamese chronicle records Suhungmung advancing to "the Chutias' Barnagar", while other Buranji accounts record the victorious Ahom forces returning to Barnagar and presenting captured members of the royal family and royal property to the Ahom king. Barnagar (Che-lung in Tai), was one of the three fortified Chutia settlements mentioned in the Buranjis, the others being Thanggiri (Doi-Thang) and Chandangiri (Doi-Chantan).

A large ruined fortified settlement in the same historical Sadiya region, between the Dikrong (Deopani) and Dibang rivers, was described by British officers E. A. Rowlatt in 1845 and S. F. Hannay in 1848. Hannay documented extensive earthen ramparts, brick gateways, large brick-lined tanks, sandstone masonry, and other remains, which he interpreted as evidence of a large town or inhabited tract. The geographical correspondence suggests a possible identification of this archaeological complex with the Barnagar of the Buranjis, although this has not been conclusively established.

Location

The historical references place Barnagar within the wider Sadiya capital region. During the final Ahom–Chutia conflict, the Assamese Assam Buranji records Suhungmung advancing by the bam bat or raised route to "the Chutias' Barnagar", after which the Chutia ruler withdrew to the fortified hill position of Chandangiri. The Tai Ahom-Buranji similarly places Suhungmung at Barnagar after the fighting at Chandangiri and again during the Chutia uprising of 1529.

The archaeological complex described by Hannay lay in the tract between the Dikrong (also known as Deopani) and Dibang rivers. While searching the area, he referred to the two rivers at one point as being about five miles apart. One of the principal tanks inside the fortification lay close to the right bank of the Dikrong, and a road from the associated fortified gateway was traced westwards towards the Dibang.

Hannay regarded the ruins as part of a much larger archaeological landscape. Based on masonry, earthen mounds and reported areas of former cultivation, he suggested that related remains extended from the Dibang to the Kundil River, over a distance of about 10–12 miles, including the hill fortifications then known as Bishmook Nuggur (today's Rukmininagar) and Sisoopal Nuggur (today's Bhismaknagar).

The Buranji narratives distinguish Barnagar from the fortified settlements in the adjoining hills. During the 1529 uprising, Ahom forces were separately dispatched against the Chutias at Doi-Thang and Chandangiri while Suhungmung remained at the former Chutia capital; after the operations at Chandangiri, the commanders rejoined the king, who is then recorded as leaving Barnagar for Kangkham. This sequence places Barnagar separately from the two hill strongholds and is consistent with its identification as a settlement in the Sadiya plains.

L. W. Shakespear, summarising Hannay's explorations of the Sadiya region, placed the ruined cities of Sadiya within a wider overland network. He recorded Hannay's view that a raised road had existed before the reign of Koch king Nara Narayan, connecting the old cities east of Sadiya with the western districts of Upper Assam and providing a route for pilgrims travelling to the Tamreswari Temple and Bora Bhoori shrines. Shakespear distinguished this earlier route from the sixteenth-century Kamali Ali, the raised road completed under Nara Narayan between Cooch Behar and Narayanpur.

Etymology and identification

The name Barnagar denotes a "great" or "large town". The name occurs directly in the Assamese Buranjis in connection with the Chutia royal centre at Sadiya. The corresponding Ahom account calls the place Che-lung. The Tai text of the Ahom Buranji, "Chao-pha tam Che-lung" corresponds to Barua's translation stating that the captured Chutia royal property was presented to the Ahom king "at Barnagar". The name literally means "Great City", with the Ahom Lexicons glossing che as "a city" and lung as "large; great".

The identification of Barnagar with the extensive ruins along the Dikrong is suggested by the geographical correspondence between the historical and archaeological evidence. Rowlatt and Hannay independently documented a large fortified and inhabited tract in the Dikrong–Dibang area of Sadiya.

During his 1848 survey, Hannay was searching for another temple and tank said to exist at or near an ancient place called Pritthimee, or by some informants Phoontook Nuggur, between the Dibang and Dikrong. Although his search produced extensive archaeological remains, Hannay explicitly stated that he had not found the particular temple and tank for which he had been searching. He therefore left the location of Pritthimee unresolved. A modern archaeological survey has tentatively compared Hannay's Pritthimee with the surviving site of Pratimagarh in Sadiya, while also noting that the geographical positions do not correspond satisfactorily.

History

The Deodhai Assam Buranji gives a more detailed account of the Ahom advance into the Chutia capital region. It records that the Chutia king did not return to his capital, but instead took refuge in the fortified hill position of Chandangiri. After occupying a Chutia fort, Suhungmung remained there for the night; on the following day he sent forces towards the hill forts of Chandangiri and Thanggiri, while he himself proceeded to Barnagar. The sequence therefore distinguishes Barnagar from the hill fortifications to which the Chutia forces had withdrawn.

Barnagar appears prominently in the Buranji accounts of the final conflict between the Chutia and Ahom kingdoms. An Assamese Assam Buranji records that, following the failure of negotiations with the Chutia ruler, Suhungmung advanced with his forces along the raised route and reached "the Chutias' Barnagar". On learning of the Ahom advance, the Chutia king withdrew with about two hundred followers to Chandangiri, while the chronicle records the fall of Sadiya during the same campaign. The Satsari Assam Buranji preserves a parallel account. Following the defeat of the Chutia royal forces, the Ahom troops returned to "the Chutias' Barnagar", where the captured royal possessions and prisoners were presented to Suhungmung. The Tai-Ahom chronicle published by Golap Chandra Barua gives a closely corresponding account. Following the death of the Chutia ruler and his son at Chandangiri, the Ahom commanders seized royal objects including gold and silver umbrellas, stools and ornaments and captured members of the royal family. These were subsequently delivered to Suhungmung at Barnagar. The king then made arrangements for the administration of the conquered Chutia territory.

Barnagar again figures prominently during the Chutia uprising of 1529. The Ahom-Buranji records that Chutia forces rebelled against the Ahom officials stationed in the conquered territory. Suhungmung consequently proceeded into the Chutia country and "entered into the capital of the Chutia king", while separate Ahom forces operated along the Dibang and Lohit and against Chutia positions at Doithang and Chandangiri. After further fighting at Chandangiri, the same narrative states that Suhungmung "left Barnagar for Kangkham" and then proceeded upstream along the Lohit. The sequence of the account therefore closely associates Barnagar with the Chutia capital occupied by Suhungmung, although the chronicle does not explicitly equate the two expressions in a single sentence. After suppression of the rebellion, Phrasenmung and Bangen were left in charge of Sadiya.

Architecture

The remains described along the Dikrong represented an extensive system of fortification, water management and brick-and-stone construction. Hannay recorded a high earthen rampart accompanied by a ditch beginning near one of the principal tanks on the right bank of the Dikrong. The earthwork proceeded south-west and west before curving through the north-west towards the north and could be followed for several miles. At the time of his survey, parts of the rampart stood approximately 18 ft (5.5 m) high, despite large trees having grown upon it.

At one point in the defensive circuit, Hannay found the remains of a brick gateway incorporated into the rampart. A road led westwards from the gateway and was subsequently traced towards the Dibang River. Immediately in front of the gateway lay a small watercourse, apparently connected with the outer ditch. Remains of dressed-sandstone buttresses survived on either side together with large fallen slabs, leading Hannay to conclude that a bridge had formerly crossed the ditch at this point.

Three large masonry tanks were found within the fortified area. They were rectangular in plan, with their length approximately three times their breadth, and each possessed two opposed bathing ghats positioned approximately midway along the embankments. The embankments were made of high-quality brick, arranged in three steps or ledges descending to the water, without lime or surkhi mortar; their upper surfaces were also paved with brick.

One of the tanks, situated several miles inland, measured approximately 280 yd (260 m) in length and 96 yd (88 m) in width and was aligned approximately north–south. Its bathing ghats were constructed from dressed sandstone blocks. Shield-shaped sandstone slabs formed the sides of the approaches, and detached stones from the ghats bore battle-axe and other masons' marks similar to those which Hannay had observed on the sandstone masonry associated with the enclosure wall of the Tamreswari Temple. The comparison with the Tamreswari masonry is significant because Hannay described its enclosure as a substantial brick wall raised upon a foundation of sandstone blocks, some of which carried masons' marks. The enclosure is identified with the prākāra whose construction by the Chutia ruler Muktadharmanarayana is recorded in the Tamreswari inscription of 1442; the inscription refers to bricks and other materials used in its construction. The occurrence of comparable masons' marks on sandstone elements of the Dikrong tanks and on the masonry of the dated Tamreswari enclosure indicates a closely related building tradition within the wider Sadiya archaeological landscape.

The tanks were situated inside the large earthen enclosure. Hannay consequently interpreted the defended area as the remains of a "large town or inhabited tract of country". Accounts obtained from people familiar with the surrounding forests also described additional brick and stone works, high earthen mounds and tracts of cultivable land interspersed among the ruins.

A later description in the Sadiya and Balipara Frontier Tract Gazetteer (1928) records the Sadiya Serpent Pillar in the same general area between the Dibang and Deopani rivers, near the seventh milepost on the road from Sadiya to Nizamghat. A stone bridge stood near the pillar, and a road from the bridge led towards a brick tank in the vicinity. This bridge and tank seem to be the same as described by Hannay in his writings, thus indicating that the Serpent pillar was located near the fortified city.

A substantial rectangular brick enclosure was discovered elsewhere within the Dikrong archaeological landscape. It measured approximately 96 by 84 feet (29 by 26 m) and had been constructed without lime or mortar. Hannay described its bricks as exceptionally well made. Some bricks in the doorway measured approximately 18 inches by 12 inches by 3½ inches, while the enclosing wall was about 4.5 ft (1.4 m) thick and survived to a height of more than 6 ft (1.8 m). A well made from tile rings stood in one corner of the enclosure, while a brick terrace lay beside the eastern wall. A carved sandstone block approximately 7.5 ft (2.3 m) long, 18 inches broad and 10 inches thick was found within the enclosure. Its sculptured face and proportions led Hannay to interpret it as the left side of a temple doorway. A smaller carved block lying nearby bore a chain-frieze decoration and was interpreted as part of a cornice.

Hannay believed that the brick-and-stone masonry encountered across the wider tract from the Dibang towards the Kundil represented the work of the same builders. He also considered the sandstone used at the different sites to have originated from the same quarry, probably in the sandstone formations along the southern edge of the neighbouring hills. On this basis he suggested that the Dikrong lowland settlement and the hill fortifications of Bishmook Nuggur and Sisoopal Nuggur had belonged to the same historical population or dynasty.

Archaeological findings

Rowlatt's 1845 account

One of the earliest British descriptions of major ruins in the Sadiya area was made by Lieutenant E. A. Rowlatt during his exploration of the region in 1845. After examining the hill fortifications, Rowlatt reported another and considerably larger fortified site farther west of the Sishupal fort (today's Bhismaknagar) in the plains. He described it as a large fort which he believed to have been constructed almost entirely of brick, together with a tank of similar construction and numerous smaller hill forts in the surrounding country. He also observed numerous indications of former cultivation in the country between the Kundil and the foothills.

Rowlatt's observations demonstrated that the lowland Dikrong–Dibang ruins represented a substantial archaeological complex distinct from the better-known hill forts, although he did not identify the site with the Barnagar mentioned in the Buranjis.

Rowlatt further recorded a local tradition concerning the former inhabitants of the ruins. According to this account, after the destruction of the kingdom, its ruler and people fled from the plains into the neighbouring hills, where their descendants were said to have become incorporated among the people then known as the Abors. The tradition associated the destruction of the kingdom with the legendary story of Krishna and Bhishmaka; Rowlatt himself treated this as a tradition concerning the antiquity of the ruins rather than as established history.

Hannay's 1848 survey

Major S. F. Hannay investigated the Dikrong area in considerably greater detail in 1848. During a week spent on the banks of the Dikrong, he made repeated excursions into the surrounding jungle while searching for the ancient place called Pritthimee or Phoontook Nuggur. Although he failed to locate the particular temple and tank associated with that tradition, his exploration revealed the three large masonry tanks, extensive ramparts, brick gateway, road, bridge remains and substantial brick-and-stone structures described above.

Hannay noted that even the local people accompanying his expedition had not previously seen some of the remains and could not describe the full extent of the fortified enclosure. From the surviving rampart, the tanks enclosed within it and reports of further structures, he concluded that the site represented a large former settlement rather than an isolated fortification.

He went further and interpreted the distribution of masonry, mounds, tanks and cultivable ground from the Dibang towards the Kundil, together with the adjoining hill forts, as evidence for an extensive, interconnected settlement landscape extending approximately 10–12 miles.

Hannay also considered the geographical setting of such extensive remains. Because the ruins appeared unusually far inland from the contemporary Brahmaputra, he recorded a local tradition that the river east of Sadiya had formerly flowed substantially nearer the northern hills. He suggested that the lower ground towards the Gormora River, about four or five miles inland, might once have formed a channel of the Brahmaputra connecting with the Dibang near the mouths of the Dikrong and Gormora. Such a course, he argued, would have placed the major archaeological settlements considerably closer to the main river than they appeared in the nineteenth century.

Later identification

The Gazetteer's description is of interest for the identification of the archaeological complex. Its association of the Sadiya serpent pillar with a nearby stone bridge, road and brick tank corresponds closely to Hannay's earlier description of a brick gateway fronted by a ditch crossed by a sandstone bridge, with an associated road and large brick-lined tanks. The correspondence suggests that the pillar may have stood within or near the fortified Dikrong settlement described by Hannay, although the precise relationship between the surviving pillar, the lost structures and the gateway has not been established archaeologically.

The Buranji evidence independently establishes Barnagar as an important Chutia royal centre in the Sadiya region: Suhungmung is recorded there immediately after the conquest, and the narrative of the 1529 rebellion closely associates Barnagar with the former Chutia capital. Rowlatt and Hannay independently demonstrate the existence of an extensive fortified settlement in the Dikrong–Dibang tract, Taken together, these sources establish a close geographical correspondence.

See also

• Chutia kingdom
• Sadiya
• Sadiya Serpent Pillar
• Padum Pukhuri, Sadiya
• Bhismaknagar
• Rukmininagar Fort
• Tamreswari Temple

References

This article "Barnagar, Sadiya" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Barnagar, Sadiya. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.

---