The Mauryan Polity c5.s2.t5.6

c5.s2.t5.6

Kauṭalya refers to a scientific treatise on Metallurgy called Śulbadhātu Śāstra (Copper), and mentions alchemy which was a late growth on the tree of Indian science, besides making a reference to suruṅgā which is from the Greek word syrinx.² These statements only reflect a tendency among some scholars to characterise all technical treatises as post-Alexandrian. It is wrong to think of a history of ancient India to commence with Alexander’s march to India. India has a much older history and a more hoary civilisation and culture, the beginnings of which are still a puzzle to specialists in archæology, anthropology, biology, geology, and scientific history. We cannot fix with any satisfaction the actual origins of science and scientific knowledge in this country or any country whatsoever. From Alberuni³ it is seen that India knew alchemy before Christ and now the theory of its Arabian origin falls to the ground. Vyāḍi to whom is attributed a knowledge of alchemy may be identified with ācārya Vyāḍi, the author of the Saṅgraha, a work on Pāṇini’s School of Vyākaraṇa to which Patañjali was indebted.⁴ As regards the argument that suruṅgā is from the Greek word syrinx it is obvious that the terms śulba and suruṅgā are words borrowed from the Dravidian languages. While the term suruṅgā is seen almost in the same form in the chief Dravidian languages Tamil,¹ Kannaḍa, and Telugu, the word śulba has its proto-type in the Dravidian śeppu or śembu.² Thus the term suruṅgā need not necessarily be from the Greek expression syrinx. Syrinx has been frequently employed in siege warfare of Ancient India. It was in use in India when Alexander invaded it Granting the word suruṅgā is derived from the Greek term it cannot be denied that the use of syrinx was known to India before Alexander's invasion. For in much earlier times the Greeks were living on the western borders of India on the Kabul river and also under the Persians in the Punjab as is evidenced by the use of Greek letters on Persian coins of that time.³ There is again not much force in the argument advanced with reference to Indian alchemy. Jolly and Schmidt basing their authority on later texts on Indian alchemy believe that between the two possible hypotheses of a Greco-Syriac or of an Arabian source, the former derivation is more probable. They conclude that alchemy might have been imported into India at the commencement of the Christian era. But Dr. P. C. Roy has proved that its origin and growth are ‘the outcome of purely indigenous traits’.⁴ Thus these arguments lose their value in the light of more positive evidence to the contrary.