Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka c8.s1.t1: The Vēdas :

Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka c8.s1.t1

Language: English

The Vēdas :

c8.s1.t1.1

While these are the material evidences we have of the chalcolithic period regarding defence walls, we have clear references to the existance of forts even in the earliest literature of India, namely the Vēdas. The Ṛigvēda the powerful mighty God Indra with his Vajrāyudha i.e. Thunderbolt is described as "Purandhara", and destroyer of a hundred forts.

c8.s1.t1.2

In *Rigvēda Samhita* (Bhattacharya Sripada Sharma, Damodarabhatta, 1940, p.461), in the Mandala 8, hymn 1, it is mentioned thus:

c8.s1.t1.3

'Kvavathe Kvadasi Purutra
Chiddhi Te Manah
Alarshi Yudhma khajakrit
Purandara pra Gayatra Agashishuh'

c8.s1.t1.4

(Tr: Where art thou? Whither art thou gone? For many a place attracts this mind, haste, warrior, fort destroyer, lord of battles, din, haste holy songs have sounded forth.
(English translation by Ralph T.H. and Griffith, Sec. Ed.1973, pp. 291).

c8.s1.t1.5

Another Mantra from the same samhīta (Bhattacharya Sripadasharma Damodorabhatta, p.461), Mandala: 8, hymn: 1 Sloka 8: is worth quoting in the context.

c8.s1.t1.6

'Prasmai Gayatramarchata
Dāvaturyah Purandarah
Yabhihi Kanvashyōpa
Varhi rasadam yasad
Vajri Bhinat purah.'

c8.s1.t1.7

Tr: "Sing out the psalm to him, who breaks down castles for his faithful friend, verses to bring the thunder to destroy the forts and sit on Kanvas sacred grass." (SC.Ed, 1973,p.291 by Rasph, T.H. and Griffith.)

c8.s1.t1.8

Pur:

c8.s1.t1.9

Regarding the word "pur", Macdonell, (1958, p.538) observes that, "The individual dwellings, when collected into community dwellings, the idea of pur was materialised.[Pur is a word of frequent occurrence in the Rigvēda and later meaning 'rampart', 'fort' or 'stonghold' (Macdonel,A.A.,1958, p.538). Such fortifications must have been occasionally of considerable size as one is called 'broad' (Prithvī) and 'wide' (Urvī) else where (Rv. IV, 30.20) perhaps sun dried bricks are alluded to by Ama (Lit. raw, unbaked) in Rv.11,35.6_7. A fort made of stone (Asamamayi) is mentioned. Some times strong-holds of iron (ayasi) are referred to, but these are only metaphorical."

c8.s1.t1.10

"[A fort 'full of kine' (gōmati) is mentioned,showing that strongholds were used to hold cattles apparently as belonging to Dàsas. Autumnal (Śaradi) forts are named appare-ntly as belonging to Dāsas. This may refer to the forst in the season being occupied again the (âryan A^a^ttacks or against inundations called by overflowing floods of rivers. Forts with hundred walls (Śatabhuji) are spoken of."

c8.s1.t1.11

"It would probably a mistake to regard these forts as permanently occupied fortified places like the fortresses of medieval times. They were probably merely places of refuge against attack, ramparts of hardened earth with palisades and ditch (Dehi).

c8.s1.t1.12

Pisches and Geldner however, think that there were towns with wooden walls and ditches and like the Indian town of Pātaliputra known to Magesthenes and the Pali texts. This is possible, but hardly susceptible of proof and it is not without significance that the word 'Nagar' is of late occurrence. On the whole, it is hardly likely that in the early Vedic times city life was much developed. In the Epic, accordingly to Hopkins, there are found the 'Nagara', city', Grām 'village, Ghoṣa. Vedic literature hardly seems to go beyond the village, no doubt with modifications in its later period.

c8.s1.t1.13

The seige of forts is mentioned in the samhita and Brāhmenas."

c8.s1.t1.14

Now coming to "Dur", again Macdonell, adds ,

c8.s1.t1.15

"Dur : is used in the Rigvēda (1958 (Reprint) P.369) to denote 'door', both literally and metaphorically (I. 68, 10, 113, 4, 121, 4.188, ii.2, 7 etc.).

c8.s1.t1.16

Durga: Durga meaning : Hard to approach, occurs in Rigvēda as a neuter substantive only, some times in the sence of 'fort', stronghold OF. Pur. 34.7. VII, 25, 2.'

c8.s1.t1.17

Regarding villages, fortresses etc. (Macdonell,(1930, p.539)further observes :

c8.s1.t1.18

"Zimmer, who compares the fact that neither the Germans nor the slaves lived in the towns but like the Ancient Indians, were scattered in villages, each consisting of the houses and steadings of the several families living in the villages. The evidence seems pretty convincing. It is true that the Greeks, when we find them, evidently knew castles and fortresses of medieval type, but the Greeks were clearly an invading race, superimposed on an older and in civilization more advanced people. But, the 'pur' as Zimmer allows, may have some times been built within the limits of the village. Whether, as he urges, 'saradipur' was a protection against the forts of autumn is uncertain. In particular it is not legitimate to connect the mention of these forts with the fact that the purus lived on either side of the Sindhu (India) and to assure that Purukutsa's attack on the aborigines was directed against the

c8.s1.t1.19

forts in which they normally protected themselves on rising of the river."

c8.s1.t1.20

"No argument for the large size of the cities can be drawn from the mention in the Kathak Upanishad of 'Ekādasha dwāra' as an epithet of pura (Svētāsvāra Upanishad; Nava dwāra, the citadels of nine doors), because it is used metaphorically of the body and the number of doors, depends on the nature of the body. The evidence of Satapatha Brāhmana seems rather to point to only one gate in a city."

c8.s1.t1.21

These references imply therefore unanimously the existance of cities surrounded by defence walls, in the Vedic period.

c8.s1.t1.22

Unfortunately material evidences are lacking to know about the political aspect of the civilization, but in Vedic period we have clearly abundant evidences about the institutionalization of the political system and the king was required to protect the people, as a matter of duty and one such measure was the construction of forts.

c8.s1.t1.23

Thus, here we find the development of community defensive enclosures into a regular political defensive walls namely forts during the period covering from the chalcolithic period to the beginning of the historical period. The Excavations at Kumrahara (Mishra, V.K. and Altekar, A.S., 1959, pp. 6–8), (A.S.I., A.R., 1926–27, pp. 135–36) and Sishupalghar (AI 1949, Fig.1, pp. 64, 72–77), Kausambi (Sharma, G.R., 1960, pp. 12–13) and Ujjaini (IAR, 1956–58, p. 24, Fig. 9) have revealed the features of the plans of the forts.

c8.s1.t1.24

Sharma (1960, pp–12–13) thinks that, "Vedic literature offers convincing evidence of the existence of a number of towns in the Gangetic valley, towns like Asandivant the royal city of Janamejaya and Parikshita, Kampila, Ayodhya, and Kausambi are prominently mentioned Panini and Jatakas present a picture of the central Gangetic valley dominated by numerous towns and cities, many of which were evidently fortified. The word pura, denoting rampart, fort or stronghold, is of frequent occurrence in Vedic literature. Deities like Indra and Agni are invoked to destroy enemy's forts, many of which were wide and broad, and had ramparts of mud or Sunbaked bricks, probably also with stone facing. The word Dehi, referring to defensive enclosures or ramparts of hardened earth with palisades and a ditch, occurs in the R.V. (RV. VI. 47.2 A passage in the Satapatha Brahmana shows that moat or ditch was also known in the period. Panini mentions towns, town planning, fort, rampart, moat, gates and watch towers (Agrawal V.S. p. 137). Kautilya (Samasastry, Arthasastra of Kautilya II, 3.51) has given elaborate account of types of the forts, the site for fortification, of rampart, towers, staircases and moats etc. He refers to prākāra or Vapra. According to Pāṇini prākāra was made of bricks and in the light of Pāṇini's prākāra in Kauṭilya may denote revetment of baked bricks against rampart or vapra. The description of Pāṇini and Kauṭilya accords well with the references in Kauśāmbī with the rampart, reverment of bricks, guard rooms and towers flanking a passage through them."

c8.s1.t1.25

"The literary evidence, thus, shows clearly that in the period of Brāhmaṇas, Pāṇini and Kauṭilya (C.1000 to 3rd century B.C.), urban life was fully developed in the Gangetic valley and cities with elaborate arrangements for defence had come into existence. The excavations substantiate the literary evidence described above."

c8.s1.t1.26

"Again in the historical period there are numerous references to forts in the early Buddhist Jātakas (400 B.C. to 200 B.C.), in the original parts of the two Mahākāvyas: Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. However, the dates of the verses of Mahākāvyas, referring to the forts are difficult to decide but anyway they do embody the traditions, including the construction of forts that were prevalent from a remote part."

c8.s1.t1.27

Sastry, K.A.N. (1967, PP. 66-67) observes in historical period that "Another very clear reference in the historical period can be cited from the Alexander's invasion in the North-Western India and his fight with Yaudhēyas and Abiras etc. around 326 B.C. It is also referred to that Alexander crossed the river Ravi after capturing 37 cities and entered the land of the Kathainas (Kathas) who were among the best fighters in the Punjab, and had gathered their allies for the defence of their fortified capital Sangala .... Military engines then began to batter the city walls, but before a breach was effected, Macedonians carried the walls by escalade. Thus the city was taken".

c8.s1.t1.28

From the Mauryan period onwards almost every capital, small or big, had fortification, walls. In fact, in Kauṭilya's Arthashāstra one chapter deals with essentially the necessity, methods, plan of different kinds of forts such as Sthaladurga, Jaladurga, Vanadurga and Giridurga etc. The progress made in the development of architecture of the forts was so much in response to the existing political and social conditions, that the author of Arthashāstra felt necessary to prepare a manual of the fort architecture. Of course, the date of Kauṭilya's Arthashāstra is still disputed, however, literary references recording the earlier traditions are in favour of Kautilya being the most powerful guide and teacher to Chandragupta Maurya. The section devoted, therefore, on the fort architecture is the earliest manual on the literature of fort architecture.

c8.s1.t1.29

There are inscriptional evidences too regarding the construction of forts in early times. The earliest is the Hāthigumphā inscription.¹ The Hāthigumphā inscription (Sircar, D.C., 1965 pp.213-221) and (Mitra Debala, 1961, pp.6-7) of Khāravēla (of 2nd or 1st century B.C.), of Mahāchēdi dynasty, refers to the king as carrying out repairs to the fort of the city in the first year. In the region, now called Āndhra Pradesh, the ancient Andhras are described as having many walled cities. In support of this description, a remarkable fort wall is recently exposed at Dhulikatta, by the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Andhra Pradesh and it is identified (Krishna Sastri, V.V. 1978, p.18) as one of the earliest walled cities of Ancient Andhra.

Linked texts (20)

Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Kaṭhopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Harappā
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Mohenjo-daro
Lothal
Kālībangan
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
Śvetāśvataropaniṣad — Śvetāśvatara, Sanskrit
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Kauśāmbī
Sisupalgarh
Rupar
Kumrahar
Ayodhyā (Sāketa)
Dhulikatta
Surkotda
Sangala