[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c19.s4 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c19.s4: 14.4 Asura Sites An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c19.s4 - **Language:** English ### 14.4 Asura Sites ### [v1.c19.s4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c19.s4.1) Attention to the so-called Asura sites in Dt Ranchi was prominently drawn by Ray, (1915, 1920) according to whom the Mundas, the present-day inhabitants of large parts of the Dt, regard the Asurs or Asuras as having preceded them in the region. Such antiquities as do not belong to the Mundas have been ascribed to these Asuras irrespective of their nature and age. They range from Palaeolithic tools, copper and iron objects, coins, architectural fragments of temples, graveyards, ruins of baked-brick houses, dried-up tanks and so on. Surely such a motely of disparate objects cannot belong to a single people, far less to a reasonable chronological range. Nevertheless Ray's exploration had the merit of bringing to light a large number of sites, particularly in Khunti Subdivision. Subsequent investigations have produced Palaeolithic \[4.2.4\], Microlithic \[4.5\] and Neolithic \[4.6.5\] tools in the whole of the Chota Nagpur region. Megalithic monuments, largely in the form of menhirs \[4.17.4\], are many, but as megalithism is still a living tradition in the region they cannot be related to any one of the established Megalithic groups of India, either structurally or chronologically. ### [v1.c19.s4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c19.s4.2) In 1944 the author on behalf of the ASI undertook an exploration of large parts of Khunti Subdivision and revisited many of the sites reported on by Ray. His enquiries showed that the Mundas had no tradition of the sites as belonging to the Asuras; even if they had such a tradition they had forgotten it in course of time. What appeared to be most striking was the existence of ruins of brick-built houses in the midst of Munda surroundings which have no use of bricks. He excavated a site called KUNJLA not far form Khunti—a site already known to Roy—and found the shell of a modest house. Later on a larger site SARADKEL was excavated by S.C. Ray of the ASI. The common features of all these sites are the existence of baked bricks, a coarse pottery with quartz grits in the clay, a distinctive shape being the bowl-cum-lid with an internally flanged rim, Kushan coins and considerable quantities of iron slag \[16.9.4\]. The last two would indicate that the houses belonged to a comparatively sophisticated people who came to the region in the early centuries of the Christian era to exploit the local iron ores. Ray also excavated a burial site at KHUNTITOLI. ### [v1.c19.s4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c19.s4.3) If the term ‘Asura site’ must be retained in the archaeological vocabulary of India, it should be restricted, for the sake of terminological precision, to these habitation sites. ### [v1.c19.s4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c19.s4.4) Ray, S.C., 1915, in \*Jour. Bihar & Orissa Res. Soc.\*, I, pp. 229-53; 1920, 6, \*ibid.\*, pp. 393-423. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—A. GHOSH ## Linked texts (2) - [Saradkel](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.saradkel) - [Khuntitoli](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.khuntitoli) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c19.s4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c19.s4) · Pramāṇa