Dec. 27: The Assam capital is an archaeologist?s delight and, ironically, a nightmare as well.

Priceless relics, reminders of a glorious past, are being lost in the absence of any effort to preserve the archaeological treasure-trove.

Guwahati ? known by different names down the ages ? has served as an important base for several dynasties. It was even under Mughal rule for a few years in the 17th century. Relics harking back to this rich heritage are scattered all over the city. The few that have been recovered belong to the period of the Palas of Assam and the Koch and Ahom dynasties.

Artefacts found here comprise stone blocks and doorsills of temples, stone tablets, pottery, china clay, terracotta items and copper plates. The samples of china clay found hint at Assam?s historical ties with China, a historian said.

Recently, an exquisite sculpted pillar was recovered from the Fancy Bazar area but its period is yet to be determined.

An NGO, the North East Heritage and Research Organisation, had urged the district administration and state archaeological department to start excavations at Fancy Bazar. But nothing could be done as that would entail demolition of several buildings and evacuation of business establishments.

The only site that the state directorate of archaeology is working on is at Ambari whereas the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has taken up protection and preservation activities at the Kamakhya foothills and Urvashi Island.

Efforts to collect historical artefacts from private owners have proved abortive as they are loath to part with their findings. Moreover, relics recovered from private lands are rarely handed over to the archaeology department. This is because owners fear their properties would be taken over.

?Limited excavations at the Ambari site have led to recovery of brick structures and other artefacts dating back to the 7th and 8th centuries. The architectural pattern of the relics is of temples belonging to the Pala period, indicating urban settlements in that area in the past. Since the area is surrounded by the railway station, the textile institute and other institutions, there is no scope for further excavation,? rued state archaeological engineer of the directorate of archaeology, Sonaram Soud.

Since the state?s archaeology department lacks enough funds to preserve such relics, the vagaries of nature and ignorance on the people?s part have taken their toll. Most of these are lost forever.

?During the construction of the Guwahati railway station and Cotton College, several relics were recovered. This indicates that more such artefacts are buried in those places,? Soud said.

He, however, rued that the land acquisition process is extremely cumbersome and time-consuming. ?According to the laws, we don?t have the power to acquire plots of land on our own. We have to apply to the district administration and revenue department,? Soud explained.

Recovery of relics indicates that Ambari, Uzan Bazar, Lamb Road, Guwahati Club, Fancy Bazar, Panbazar, Dispur, Ulubari, Udalbakra and Kahilipara were urban hubs of ancient Guwahati. ?If excavations could be carried out in those areas, the entire perception about Assam?s history could change,? he added.

Assistant archaeologist of Archaeological Survey of India?s Northeast circle, Bimal Sinha, said the ASI has submitted a proposal to the office of its director-general in New Delhi for protection of Kamakhya temple. Many artefacts are scattered all over Nilachal Hill, but since the temple is not protected under the Ancient Monuments and Records Act, these relics are lying unattended.

Again, the ASI?s efforts to protect Urvashi Island on the Brahmaputra have yielded little as the island is submerged during the rainy season.

Sinha added that the discovery of rectangular rooms, wells and soakage pits at Ambari indicate that Guwahati was an urban centre in the past, though it is debatable whether it was a capital since there is no direct evidence of fortifications.

Archaeologist P.C. Sarma pointed out that though mythological legends claim the city was much older than indicated by archaeological evidence, there is no chance of proving this as there is very little scope for further excavation.