Khirthar National Park
Baseline Environmental Study

The field survey

Background

Prior to departure for Pakistan a survey of bibliographic resources in Melbourne was undertaken to provide background material for comparative purposes. A short workshop presentation was also prepared for the meeting in Karachi, to address the training and educational needs of local project stakeholders in relation to both broad understanding of archaeological and heritage issues and in particular the archaeological heritage of Khirthar National Park.

Personnel

The field work component of the archaeological survey was conducted by Liza Hopkins, archaeologist and Murray Clayton, archaeological surveyor, both of the University of Melbourne, with the expert local assistance of Mr Ghulam Sarwer Jamali of the Sindh Wildlife Department, Pakistan. Various locally engaged drivers and guards also assisted with local knowledge and collection of sherds and artefacts. The field season was undertaken from September 14 to September 27, comprising 14 days of field survey.

Field methodology

Because of the size and the logistical difficulties of travelling in the park, a comprehensive survey of the entire park area could not be undertaken. Instead a sampling strategy was employed, focussing on four main districts of the park. The districts were chosen to reflect a broad geographical spread across the park area (including the 5km buffer zone around the park boundary). Three of these districts were chosen in particular because they contained known archaeological sites.These are:

1. the area around Karchat centre;
2. the Taung Valley;
3. Rani Kot fort and surrounds in the north east of the park.

The fourth district which was tested for archaeological remains was that lying around the Khar centre in the south west of the park. No known sites had previously been recorded in this area.

Work commenced in each sampling district by visiting previously recorded sites and rerecording them, using the parameters of this study (see 7.2.4). Landscape observations were also carried out during the drive to and from known sites, and notable features were examined and recorded if necessary. Such visible features included low mounds or hillocks, graveyards and remains of stone structures constructed of both cut stone and field stone. Such observations were also carried out in areas where no previously known sites had been found, within the sampling districts chosen. Likely areas for such observations include: alongside permanent water-courses; near springs; and along natural passes and travel routes.

When a site was identified, either from the vehicle or because it was already known, the team stopped and the survey personnel walked over the entire site taking measurements and observations as noted below. In many cases conversations with local residents provided additional information, such as names of sites and local traditions associated with them.

Recording

During this time 78 individual archaeological sites within the greater National Park area were identified and recorded (Fig. 7.1). Data obtained for each site included:

•geographical location recorded by GPS positioning
•location of site in relation to nearby features (villages, roads, water courses)
•size (length, width, height)
•visible remains
•associated artefacts
•name where known
•a sketch of important features
•colour and black and white photographs.

A complete gazetteer of the sites recorded in the survey may be found at the end of this report (Appendix 7.1).

Limitations

The archaeological survey of Khirthar National Park does not claim to be a comprehensive report of all archaeological sites in the park. This type of survey can only ever record the presence of those sites which are still visible on the surface, and thus tends to provide better results for more recent sites, whilst older sites may be under represented in the resulting analysis. A lack of collection of artefactual material, sub-surface testing or excavation also limits the interpretation of sites to the information to be gleaned from surface remains.

In addition, in this particular survey physical restrictions provided by rugged terrain limited research, on the whole, to the flatter, more open valley floors. Restrictions on the distance travelled on any given day (within a return day trip drive of either Karchat or Khar research centres) also precluded survey of some of the more remote corners of the park.

Nonetheless, awareness of the limitations to the project can help to mitigate some of the effects of those restrictions. The results presented below represent a sample of the types of sites which occur in the Khirthar National Park as well as the range of periods from which those sites date. The very diversity of the types of sites found and the great variety of possible ages for those sites suggests that the survey did indeed uncover a representative cross section of the remains of prehistoric and historic human activities in this region.

Back to Main