Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c13.s10: 10. On metals and mines

The Mauryan Polity c13.s10

Language
English

10. On metals and mines

c13.s10.1

Prof. Stein agrees with Jolly when he says that Megasthenes mentions only silver, gold, bronze, iron, and tin, whilst the list of Kauṭalya includes more metals like copper, lead, *vaikarantaka*, mercury, and brass, and shows that that period must have been an infant stage of knowledge with regard to metals whilst that of the Kauṭalīya shows a highly developed knowledge in both chemical and technical sciences. Stein concludes thus⁴:—"The enumeration of these metals with details as to shape, colour, and quality, ability to work upon the metals, and finally, the many kinds of officials for almost every branch of the mining industry, overseers and inspectors of mines, of useful metals (lohādhyakṣa), of coinage, of salt, of gold, of goldsmith, and legal regulations with regard to private management,—all these demonstrate that in this field there is a higher culture than in the Greek reports commencing with Megasthenes. Undoubtedly here we find a more recent epoch." The above conclusions are untenable for the following reasons:—

c13.s10.2

³ Op. cit., p. 61.

c13.s10.3

⁴ Pp. 63-64.

c13.s10.4

(a) The report of Megasthenes does not simply mention only these five metals and does not say that India knows only of these and no other. We shall quote Megasthenes¹: "And while the soil bears on its surface all kinds of fruits which are known to cultivation, it has also under ground numerous veins of all sorts of metals, for it contains much gold and silver, and copper and iron in no small quantity, and even tin and other metals are employed in making articles of use and ornament, as will be the implements and accoutrements of war."² Thus Megasthenes mentions by name five metals but is careful to speak also of "other metals." It is a significant phrase. It shows that other metals and their use were well known. Apparently he did not seem called upon to give a complete list of metals known. In fact they were so many that he used the term "other metals" advisedly.

c13.s10.5

¹ Fg. 1.

c13.s10.6

² Cf. Jolly, Intro., p. 35; Keith, *Sanskrit Lit.*, p. 460.

c13.s10.7

(b) It is also evident from the above passage that these metals were put to different uses, jewellery, arms of war, etc. This means that there were different flourishing industries and the work was done by skilled labourers. It seems that these industries were under the supervision of the state and its officials. Nevertheless private enterprise was not discouraged. Private people could take to these manufactures after obtaining the necessary licence. Even mines were exploited by private people with licences previously obtained. To turn the metals into articles of utility requires naturally a sound knowledge of melting, smelting, moulding, and other chemical and technical processes.

c13.s10.8

(c) Metallurgy and alchemy are not recent growths in India as the learned German scholar would have it. It has been already shown¹ that there were ancient works on metallurgy and alchemy as is evidenced by the Kauṭalīya itself. It is a wrong reading of Indian history, to repeat what has been already said, that Indian culture began with or after Alexandar’s invasion to India. The Buddhist Jātakas,² the Rāmāyaṇa,³ and other ancient works, composed before Alexander invaded India, knew of different arts and crafts connected with metals.⁴

c13.s10.9

¹ See above, pp. 16-17.

c13.s10.10

² G. Bühler: *Indische Palaeographie*, p. 17; Fick’s *Social Organisation*, translated by S. K. Maitra, (1920) *Intro.*, pp. ix-x.

c13.s10.11

³ According to Prof. Jacobi, *Das Rāmāyaṇa, Geschichte und inhalt*, (Bonn, 1893), the date suggested is before 500 B.C. Prof. Keith suggests the fourth century B.C. (*J.R.A.S.*, 1915, pp. 38 ff).

c13.s10.12

⁴ J. J. Meyer, *Intro.*, pp. 45-47.

c13.s10.13

(d) To say that Megasthenes’ account betrays an infant stage of India’s technical sciences is a contradiction in terms. His mention of other metals as well as their different uses show as much an advanced stage as that portrayed in the Arthaśāstra. We are not able to find any difference between the two versions except the fact that Megasthenes does not mention much by way of workmanship in metals. If we rely on literary tradition, advancement of metal culture has reached a great stage before Kauṭalya’s time. It continued to keep its level and maintain its prestige with greater glory and success under the Mauryas, because the Mauryas gave the country tranquillity and peace which are so essential for the progress of any business or industry. It may however surmised that it had become decadent under the Nandas and revived under the Mauryas with greater vigour and fresh enthusiasm. Whatever may be the truth, the fact remains that there is no warrant to call the statement in Megasthenes' records as infantine and that in the *Arthaśāstra* as progressive culture. It is something like the proverb "Give the dog a bad name and hang it".¹

c13.s10.14

¹ J. J. Meyer, *Intro.*, p. 29.

Linked texts (3)