Archaeological and Geospatial Investigation of Lost Forts ... · known for its natural beauty and for the four main sacred places viz. Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri

An Archaeological and Geospatial Investigation of Lost

Forts and Fortalices in Yamuna Valley with Special

Reference to Vairat and Mungra Forts in Garhwal

(Central) Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India

Nagendra S. Rawat1

1. Department of History and Archaeology, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal

University, Srinagar, Garhwal – 246 174, Uttarakhand, India (Email:

[email protected])

Received: 13 June 2018; Revised: 24 August 2018; Accepted: 01 October 2018

Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6 (2018): 872‐886

Abstract: The medieval forts, called Garh or Garhi in Garhwal, Uttarakhand which were raised in the

mountainous terrain around 1000‐1500 AD have never attracted the attention of historians and

archaeologists alike. To fill this gap the present work carried out multidisciplinary investigation

combining remote Sensing and GIS with archaeology to examine the structural, defensive aspects and

the distribution pattern of medieval forts, particularly the Mungra and Vairat fort in Yamuna valley,

Western Garhwal, Uttarakhand. The present study has wide ramifications in understanding the role of

forts and fortalices in the medieval warfare and defensive practices in Garhwal Uttarakhand.

Keywords: Garhwal, Himalaya, Yamuna Valley, Fort, Satellite Image, GIS,

Archaeology

Introduction The tradition of fortification played an important role in history of human settlements

as it has always been a prime necessity of all times (Mishra 2008: 5). Archaeological

explorations and excavations yielded various kind of forts worldwide which were

constructed during different periods of history. But at the same time, it is important to

point out that the size, location and architectural pattern of the forts varies due to the

geographical condition of the area and availability of natural resources. However,

towards north in the Garhwal Himalayan region it has been found that the small size

small forts were developed in Garhwal Himalayan region during the medieval period

as compared to forts raised in central, western and southern part of India during the

same period.

Medieval structures are known locally as Garhs or Garhis of which, we have found that,

the large structure corresponds to forts and the smaller structures, or Garhi as fortalices

based upon their architecture and the size (Rawat 2017: 128). It has been further found

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

873

that forts were used largely also for residential or residential cum watch tower

purposes while fortalices were raised only as watchtowers (Rawat 2017: 129).

Generally, it is assumed that these forts emerged after the decline of Katyuri dynasty in

around the fag end of first millennia, when this part of Central Himalaya was under

local chieftains who constructed these forts as their residence or as watch towers as a

part of their defensive strategy in order to keep a watch over any possible aggression

by invaders. This situation of political hierarchy continued up to the 15th century AD,

when AjayPal (one of the chiefs) became powerful and brought all other chiefs of the

region under his power. Since then, this part of Central Himalaya, which was hitherto

known as Kedarkhand came to be known as Garhwal (The region of Garhs) from fifteenth

century onwards (Raturi 1928:1). Although Garh (forts) are a part of history of this

region not much is known. This is due to the lack of sufficient historical records and

poor interest of archaeologists, this subject has never been studied in wider

perspective. Therefore, this paper is an attempt to study the forts dotted in entire

Yamuna valley of Garhwal with multidisciplinary approaches of archaeological

explorations and geo‐spatial applications of remote sensing and geographical

Information system.

Study Area Garhwal is an administrative division of Uttarakhand state of India, this region is well

known for its natural beauty and for the four main sacred places viz. Badrinath,

Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri. Yamunotri is the source place of river Yamuna

which meets river Ganga at Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh). In Garhwal Himalaya, Yamuna

basin extends from the latitude 30°31’N to 30° 45’N to 77°50’ to 78° E which covers an

area of 6120.31 km2. The basin is bounded by higher Himalaya from north, the south

limit of river Yamuna in Garhwal is marked by Shivalik and in western direction

Yamuna basin forms its boundaries by an elevated ridge with a group of peaks crossed

by the Shatul and Burenda passes and the eastern flange is bounded by the valley of

river Bhagirathi. The origin of river Yamuna is Yamunotri Glacier which is at an

altitude of 6,387 meters msl on the south western slopes of Banderpooch peaks

(38059ʹN 78027ʹE). It covers a total distance of 170 km in the hills passing through the

elevated valley of Dehradun before it cuts through the Siwalik Hills to enter the plains

of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. River Tons, Asan and Kamal are the main tributaries of

it in Garhwal Himalaya (Figure1).

Methods For the present study, the primary information about the locations of forts and

fortalices in Yamuna basin, particularly of Mungra in district Uttarkashi and Vairat fort

in district Dehradun was collected from different books and other published

literatures. After looking in to the published literature the locations were identified by

using the available Topo‐sheets and the open source high resolution satellite data of

Quick bird (which is popularly known as Google earth imagery) and Bhuvan, an

Indian satellite of the area under study. Finally a series of field surveys were also done

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 6: 2018

874

with the help of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to get the exact coordinates of the

sites. During the field work a detailed study of Mungra fort has also been done to

examine the architectural remains, and other associated aspect of these forts. Under the

present study the open source and freely available satellite imageries of Quick Bird

(Google earth) and Bhuvan have been used and the data was processed in ArcGIS

application to analyze the distributional pattern of the medieval forts on Yamuna

valley as well.

Figure 1: Map showing the Yamuna basin Garhwal Himalaya in Uttarakhand

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

875

Figure 2: (a) Satellite view of Vairat fort in Bhuvan, (b) ‐ Satellite view of Vairat fort

in Google Earth

Figure 3: Historical images of Vairat fort (a) Image captured in May 2004, (b) Image

captured in December 2011, (c) Image captured in January 2018

Figure 4: The longest southern facing outer wall of Vairat fort

Published Literature on Medieval Forts As mentioned above, the published literatures are the primary source of this research.

They provide names but not the exact location of a good number of forts scattered in

this region. At the same time the earlier workers have provided divergent account as

far as the number of the forts are concerned. For instance. Raturi reported around 52

forts in Garhwal Himalaya (Raturi 1928: 154‐57), and only seven Hill forts in Yamuna

valley. Thereafter, Katoch threw some more light on forts of Garhwal providing three

different lists of forts in Garhwal Himalaya, wherein he mentioned a total of 102 names


876

of forts in Garhwal region and 10 forts in Yamuna valley (Katoch 1996:118‐34). While

Bijalwan has reported 69 Hill forts only in Tehri and Uttarkashi district, and 15 Hill

forts in Yamuna valley (Bijalwan 2007: 351‐370). In this tradition another scholar Rana

published a list of 21 Hill forts in Yamuna valley (Rana 2005: 173‐74). In view of these

divergent accounts of forts it had become a challenge to identify the exact locations of

forts in Yamuna valley. Following section of the paper will elaborate the results

obtained by applying the multidisciplinary methodologies of Geo‐spatial tool and

archaeological field work.

Remote Sensing Data and Signature of Medieval Vairat Fort Although the published literature by different workers provides us the names of the

forts in Garhwal Himalaya including the Yamuna valley but the location of a large

number of such forts is completely unknown or some of the medieval forts have gone

unnoticed or not recorded by earlier workers. Vairat fort, is one such fort which

remained unnoticed by the earlier workers and therefore, it has not been included in

the list provided by the earlier workers. Therefore, in view of this, the application of

the open access satellite imagery of Quick bird revealed some anomalies on the surface

of the ridges and top of the hill located towards west of small village of Nagthat in

district Dehradun (Figure 2). A closer look into the series of imageries taken during

different period of years through google earth shows three rectangular features

enclosed within each other (Figure 3). Another interesting anomaly on this imagery is

the series of curved lines at some interval towards south of the rectangular feature. All

these anomalies encouraged us to undertake archaeological exploration for confirming

whether or not these features are natural or manmade.

Ground Truthing and Arc GIS Mapping A detailed exploration of the area was conducted to ascertain the nature and type of

the structure. The field investigation revealed that the feature (as seen on the imagery)

are basically two rectangular stone structures enclosing each other and covering a very

large area on the hill top as mentioned above. However, only the southern masonry

wall of the structure is fully intact, and its larger part is equally exposed. The wall

measures 15 Meter in length and 5 meter in height (Figure 4). Another measurable

feature on this site is a burnt brick made Well, the opening of the well is 2.5 meter in

diameter (Figure 5a), but the semi‐rectangular moat and other features around the

stone structure (Figure 5b) including the ditches on southern slope of the ridge are not

very clear and measureable.

Although a detailed measurement of the entire site could not be taken but a general

outline of all identified features on google earth were digitized in ArcGIS as shown

(Figure 6) to understand its plan and nature of other features in relation to the

mountainous landscape. This illustration (Figure 6) shows that the moat was dug

surrounding the main structure of the fort to provide protection to it as it was widely

constructed during the medieval period for defensive purpose as found in various

medieval forts in India (Begde 1982: 26). However, it is equally important to point out

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

877

that the moat is a rare feature at this site as such kind of moat has not been found in

any other site of Garhwal Himalaya. Furthermore, some curved features are also

visible in satellite images which have been identified in field survey as natural ridge of

the mountain modified to provide an additional protection to the fort from the

southern flank of the structure. It is interesting to add that the evidences of such kind

of manmade ditches have also been found surrounding some other forts of Chaundkot,

Badhan and Badalpur in Garhwal region (Rawat 2017: 131).

Figure 5: (a) ‐ A deep well constructed with burnt bricks, (b) ‐ Some parts of the moat

surrounding the wall

Figure 6: Different Archaeological feature of Vairat fort digitized in Arc GIS


878

Figure 7: (a) Remotely identified location of Raj Garhi, (b) Hansora Garhi

Figure 8: (a) Decorated wooden doorframe of Kotha at Rajgarhi, (b)‐Field

photograph of Hansora and partially exposed wall in inset

Figure 9: Arrow showing the visible walls at Mungra fort (hillock‐2) Including

Manmade ditches (Between hillock1 and hillock‐2)

Based on this study it may be said that the remote sensing is immensely useful in

identifying the signatures of the some of surviving remains of old medieval

structures of Vairat fort in the remote Yamuna valley of western Garhwal which

otherwise would have remained completely unexplored till date. While examining

the signatures of some other archaeological remains, the author encountered

signatures of two more medieval buildings of Rajgarhi and Hansora by using open

source satellite data in the Yamuna valley (Figure 7a,b), which are located about 32 km

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

879

north of Vairat Fort valley which shall be discussed subsequently in this paper. The

satellite image also shows some regular feature right in the heart of the village Rajgarhi

which is located on one end of the ridge of the hill. Therefore, in order to confirm the

nature of the building and its architectural pattern it necessitated a ground trurthing as

well.

Figure 10: Walls of Mungra fort covered under bushes and heavy vegetation Figure

Field Investigation – Ground Tuthing The field exploration was carried out in the area for ground truthing and it was found

that the features identified under the satellite imagery is primarily a square shaped

stone cum wooden structure. This structure is a fortified residence of royal family or

noble class of late medieval period, locally called as Kotha. This structure is double

storied house measuring 16X16 meters. The building has one entrance from eastern

side with decorated wooden doorframe (Figure8a). Here it is important to mention

that, some of the buildings of noble class which were built around 15th or 16th century

in Garhwal have been found still surviving and quite intact in some parts of Garhwal

like‐ Kotha of Bharpur near Deoprayag in district Tehri and, Kotha of Sarkot near

Chorda Garh in district Chamoli which are interestingly located near the lost forts of

Bharpur Garh and Chorada Garh respectively.

Interestingly, the signature of some archaeological site was also marked in the imagery

which is located North East of Virat fort. However, it is interesting to find out the old

or remnant channel towards the eastern side of the present Yamuna river in the

satellite imagery which must have provided natural protection from the eastern side as

well. In this context it is worthwhile to point out the occupant of this fort must have

exploited the geomorphological background as it provided a natural protection to the

human occupation on the hill. Although the signature of an archaeological site is not

very clear on the hill top as found in the case of Vairat fort. However during the field

visit only a small portion of a damaged wall was found suggesting that the structure

was not very huge (Figure8b) but keeping in view the strategic importance of location

it can be said that the site must have been used as a watchtower to keep a watch over


880

the valley from any possible invasion. The following section of the paper describe the

result of field verification of Mungra fort and its archaeological remains and possible

warfare strategy of the occupant of the fort.

Figure 11: Cup marks on hillock‐1 at Mungra

Figure 12: Natural and artificial defensive elements at Mungra fort (a)River Yamuna

covering the fort, (b)‐ Exposed portion of underground passageway

Mungra Fort The Mungra fort (30°47ʹ33.05ʺN, 78°8ʹ25.00ʺ) is located on the left bank of river Yamuna

at an altitude of 648 meters from MSL in Patti Mugarsanti of Rawain Paragana in

district Uttarkashi. This is one important fort not only in Yamuna valley but also in

entire Garhwal region as it is discussed by earlier workers who have highlighted this

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

881

fort (Raturi 1928: 154, Katoch 1996: 124, Rana 2005: 73, Bijalwan 2007: 359). In this

context, Bhatt (1952: 116) quoted that Mungra fort as the one structure “which was

under dominance of Rawats of Rawain that is Mungra fort, presently Rontela

community surviving here who rudely defeated the implacable enemy, which was

horrid like holocaust”.

Archeological Signatures Mungra Fort is located on the left bank of river Yamuna at an altitude of 1741 Meters.

Since the major portion of the structure of the fort is covered under bushes, it was quite

difficult to find the exact plan and detailed information of the fort but at the same time

some remains of the walls and other feature have been seen which clearly shows the

archaeological importance of the site. The fort was constructed on top of the ridge

which is divided into two hillocks by a manmade ditch (Figure9). The available outer

wall of the large structure on hillock‐2 is about 71‐meter‐long 6 meter high and 76cm

wide (Figure. 9).

Besides the outer wall on hillock‐2 few other walls have been seen which are mostly

covered under bushes and heavy vegetation (Figure10). Similarly, onhillock‐1

impression of a room measures 4 X 4 meter and few cup marks also have been found,

which was possibly used for thrashing the grains or for metal working (Figure11).

Apart from these findings no other associated material evidences like pottery, metal

objects etc were found during field survey.

It is important to highlight that through the study of satellite imageries of the medieval

remains it has also become possible to identify and explore such important historical

structures or surviving heritage in these remote villages which are in the state of is

appearance from the mountainous landscape and secondly which hold important

information on the history and culture of this region.

Geographical profile and defensive strategy

It has been understood that any kind of fort is basically a defensive architecture which

was raised ingeniously to protect the noble class and their associates. In this context,

after examining the Mungra fort and its surroundings it has come to light that this fort

was protected by two rings of protection i.e. natural protection and manmade

protection. In the first ring, the naturally protected site was selected to construct the

fort. This fort is was mainly protected by natural barricades of river Yamuna, at north‐

west and north east, thick forest and sloppy ditches and due to steep slope the fort was

completely inaccessible from south, east and south east sides as can be seen in

following figure (Figure12a).

The river flowing around the hillock certainly formed a natural fortification for this

location. Beside the natural protection, the second ring of protection further added to

the fortification, which included manmade ditches, underground passageway and

arrangement of many fortalices or watchtowers in hinterland of Mungra fort.


882

Figure 13: Map showing the distribution of Forts and Fortalices dotted in

Yamuna Valley

Presently, there are two manmade ditches which can be seen over the only available

connecting route on south‐western flank. Most possibly the main purpose of modifying

the ridge in this manner was to make the access more difficult for invaders who

intended to approach directly to royal residence (Begde 1982: 26). Secondly, the

construction of an underground passageway of the fort is also a very interesting

feature which has its opening to the bank of river Yamuna. However, presently it is

difficult to trace the entire passageway because a major part of it is now blocked by

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

883

stone boulders and other waste but the opening of the passageway can be seen clearly

(Figure12b). Interestingly, constructing the underground passageway is not a regional

concept, it is well discussed as an important part of fortification in various ancient

Indian texts and have been clearly found at Daulatabad fort, Maharashtra (Ranade

1992: 23). It seems that this underground tunnel was a secret passage or ‘emergency

exit’ which was efficiently designed to be used by the royal family during any

emergency. Additionally, the arrangement of several fortalices or watchtowers

surrounding Mungra fort is another important manmade defensive feature which is

being discussed in following paragraphs.

Figure 14: A possible ‘Visual Networking System’ of Mungra fort and surroundings

(Based on Line of Sight Analysis)

Consequently, based on the review of the available literature, satellite imageries and

field work a total number of 34 locations of lost forts and fortress/watchtowers have

been identified in entire Yamuna valley of western Garhwal which are listed in

following table (table.1) and shown in map (Figure13).

Distributional or Configurational Pattern of Forts and Fortalices As shown in table 1, 34 sites of Forts and Fortalices were identified in Yamuna valley,

in which only few sites (fort) like Mungra, Nimga and Vairat have huge architectural

remains as compared to other small sites (fortalice/watchtower) like Hansora, Billa,

Vojri and others. Therefore, after plotting all the locations of these Forts and Fortalices

on GIS, further analysis has been done to know their distributional pattern as well.


884

Table 1: List of Forts and Fortalices Identified in Yamuna Valley

S.N. Name of the site Latitude Longitude Elevation

(In Meter)

Possible

Category

1 Mungra Garh 30°47ʹ33.05ʺ 78°08ʹ25.00ʺ 1741 Fort

2 Sankri Garh 31°04ʹ51.45ʺ 78°11ʹ02.83ʺ 1905 Fort

3 Raain Garh 31°07ʹ47.29ʺ 77°45ʹ06.65ʺ 1441 Fort

4 Biralta Garhi 30 42 43.60 78 07 41.25 1611 Fortalice

5 Idiya Garh 30°47ʹ15.01ʺ 78°09ʹ30.88ʺ 1738 Fortalice

6 Dodra‐Quara Garh 31°11ʹ32.75ʺ 78°02ʹ06.71ʺ 3272 Fortalice

7 Joulpur Garhi 30° 31ʹ18.78ʺ 77°58ʹ49.16ʺ 927 Fortalice

8 Gon Garhi 30°50ʹ16.76ʺ 78°12ʹ51.54ʺ 1899 Fortalice

9 Saula Garhi 30 48 07.88 78 06 51.16 1655 Fortalice

10 Kandrala Garhi 30°51ʹ11.20ʺ 78°04ʹ58.24ʺ 1570 Fort

11 Srikot Garhi 30 56 48.35 78 05 40.62 1796 Fortalice

12 Ser Garhi 30°40ʹ36.70ʺ 77°20ʹ57.17ʺ 1098 Fortalice

13 Kani Garhi 30°40ʹ27.30ʺ 77°26ʹ15.97ʺ 1643 Fortalice

14 Vairat Garh 30°35ʹ06.17ʺ 77°56ʹ11.92” 2229 Fort

15 Garhlani Garhi 30°41ʹ36.51ʺ 78°02ʹ57.82ʺ 1421 Fortalice

16 Billa Garhi 30°42ʹ43.60ʺ 78°07ʹ41.25ʺ 1611 Fortalice

17 Hansora Garhi 30°47ʹ52.77ʺ 78°08ʹ50.91ʺ 1722 Fortalice

18 Syalda or Saula Garhi 30 48 06.88 78 06 40.16 1641 Fortalice

19 Chamrai Garhi 30°47ʹ24.64ʺ 78°09ʹ13.31ʺ 1729 Fortalice

20 Munor Garhi 30°46ʹ33.02ʺ 78°09ʹ00.18ʺ 1709 Fortalice

21 Barkot Garhi 30°48ʹ50.56ʺ 78°12ʹ05.63ʺ 1283 Fortalice

22 Raj Garhi 30°50ʹ24.11ʺ 78°14ʹ21.75ʺ 1752 Fort

23 Vojri Garhi 30°54ʹ21.94ʺ 78°19ʹ59.49ʺ 1687 Fortalice

24 Dhol‐Sangula Garhi 30°52ʹ17.99ʺ 78°08 35.65ʺ 1777 Fortalice

25 Rainuka Garhi 30°55ʹ22.65ʺ 78°09ʹ33.28ʺ 2503 Fortalice

26 Garh Khatali 30°44ʹ23.54ʺ 78°06ʹ46.80ʺ 2012 Fortalice

27 Gattu Garhi 30°42ʹ2.36 78° 6ʹ53.53 1537 Fortalice

28 Shahastrabahu Garhi 30°48ʹ46.43ʺ 78°12ʹ50.30ʺ 1311 Fortalice

29 Gugti Garhi 30°50ʹ21.30ʺ 78°06ʹ01.14ʺ 1535 Fortalice

30 Nimga Garh 30 51 42.30 77 51 44.14 1696 Fort

31 Gan Garhi 30 41 36.51 78 02 57.82 1421 Fortalice

32 Thadung Garhi 30°49ʹ45.64ʺ 78°05ʹ38.19ʺ 1635 Fortalice

33 Dal badra Garhi 30°55ʹ11.39 78° 9ʹ47.80 1990 Fortalice

34 Halna Garhi 30°56ʹ53.79 78° 6ʹ50.03 2062 Fortalice

which prominently proves two major facts‐ (i) most dense concentration of fortalices

surround the Mungra Fort and (ii) maximum sites are found along river Yamuna and

its main tributaries. In first case, the Line of Sight Analysis (LoSA) has been made with

all the locations and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the area. The basic principle of

Rawat 2018: 872‐886

885

this analysis is based on inter‐visibility between the sites scattered within a valley or in

a larger region (Brughmans et.al. 2015: 58‐143, Petrasova et.al. 2016: 82). Thus, on the

basis of LoSA it has been observed that a good number of fortalices were strategically

raised on the hilltops in hinterland of Mungra fort, which falls in particular line of

sight. This strategic arrangement of fortalices forms a complex visual networking

between Mungra fort and other surrounding fortalices as shown in the following figure

(Figure14). This particular pattern of visual network must have been used to convey

the messages at the time of any aggression through specified signaling of fire and

smoke during night hours and specific drum beats during day time. Apart from pure

defensive purpose these forts and fortalices might have played an important role to

manage the pilgrims who visited Yamunotri shrine. Because according to Hindu belief,

Yamuna is second most holy river after Ganga, therefore, the source of it (Yamunotri)

became a sacred destination (Dham) for Hindu pilgrims and for others as well. In view

of this, it could be said that apart from military purposes these fortalices were also

used to provide necessary facility and to collect taxes from pilgrims.

Conclusion The findings discussed in present paper are an outcome of Multi‐disciplinary approach

or methodology used for the study of medieval forts/fortalices dotted in Yamuna

valley. Interestingly, on one hand this paper shows the importance of literary data,

satellite images and field work for identifying the lost fort/fortalices at the same time it

also described the role of GIS application to analyze and map the archaeological sites.

The role of satellite images has been clearly explained in the case of Vairat fort which

established that‐ this example of using open source satellite imagery is positively first

and pioneering finding for archaeological investigation in Garhwal Himalaya, as such

clear imagery of any other archaeological site have not been traced yet. And the use of

GIS application and its several analysis also uncovered the distributional pattern of

fort/fortalices in the valley and particularly surrounding the Mungra fort. However,

the basic distributional pattern shows that the fort/ fortalices were not raised randomly

these were positioned on specific locations to manage the pilgrims and also to keep

watch over any suspicious activity or invaders. The advance Line of Sight Analysis

(LoSA) clearly proved three major facts about the locations of forts and fortalices (i)

The Forts and Fortalices were located at the regular interval of about 2‐3 Kilometer (ii)

The fort/fortalice were raised on the location which provide natural protection to it

(iii) the selected site should be within visible distance of other location. In short, it can

be stated that present paper uncovered many important aspects about the defensive

architecture and the configuration pattern of forts/ fortalices which were developed by

the nobility during the late medieval period.

Acknowledgement I would like to give big thanks to the Department of History and Archaeology of HNB

Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, for providing necessary facilities to complete

this research paper. Subsequently, I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to


886

Prof. Vinod Nautiyal who helped me in every issue of this paper and particularly in

language correction. I am also grateful to Dr. Manmohan S. Rawat of Uttarakhand

Council of Science and Technology (UCOST) Dehradun, Mr. Saurabh Purohit of Indian

Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS) Dehradun, and Mr. Govind Singh Negi of

Uttarakhand Space Application Center (USAC) Dehradun for their help in collecting

the coordinates and preparing the Maps. I would also like to give big thanks to the

local villagers of Mungra village for their help and support during the field work.

References Begde, P. V. 1982. Forts and places of India, Sagar Publications New Delhi.

Bhatt, B. K. 1952. Kanak vansh kavya (vol. II), Narayankoti Publication, Uttarakhand,

India.

Bijalwan, J. P. 2007. Tehri‐ Uttarkashi janpad ka sanskritik aur rajnetik itihas (pracheen kaal

se 1947 tak), Jananand Publication, Uttarakhand, India.

Brughmans, T., S. Keay and G. Earl. 2015. Understanding Inter‐settlement Visibility in

Iron Age and Roman Southern Spain with Exponential Random Graph

Models for Visibility Networks, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

22 (1): 58‐143.

Katoch, Y. S. 1996. Madhya Himalaya part‐I: Sanskriti ke pad chinha, Bhagirathi Prakashan.

Uttarakhand, India.

Mishra, R. 2008. Fortified Cities in Ancient India, Literary circle Pub., Jaipur, India.

Petrosova, A., B. Harmon, V. Petras, H. Mitasova. 2016. Tangible modelling with open

source GIS. New York. Springer.

Rana, R. S. 2005. Yamuna upatyaka: Yamunotri. Munal Publication, Uttarakhand, India.

Ranade, U. 1992. Architectural and Sculptural remains, In M.S. Mate and T.V. Pathy

(Eds.). Daulatabad: A Report on the Archaeological investigations, Deccan

collage Post graduate and research institute, Pune, India.

Raturi, H. K. 1928. Garhwal ka Itihas, Bhagirathi Prakashan Tehri, Uttarakhand, India.

Rawat, N. S. 2017. An Ethnographic, Archaeological and Geo‐Informatics Study of Medieval

Garhs / Forts of Garhwal Himalaya: A Study in Politico‐Geographic Perspective,

(Unpublished PhD thesis) Department of History and Archaeology, HNB

Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, India.

Documents

Archaeological and Geospatial Investigation of Lost Forts ... · known for its natural beauty and for the four main sacred places viz. Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri