Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t16: The Fortification of Pāṭaliputra

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t16

Language
English

The Fortification of Pāṭaliputra

c11.s1.t16.1

Among the descrepancies between Megasthenes and Kauṭalya as discovered by Stein one relates to the kind of building material used for forts. Megasthenes is alleged to have mentioned wood. But in the *Arthaśāstra* the use of wood is said to be forbidden and that of stone to be recommended. A stone-wall is also noticeable in it. But on the other hand recent excavations have come across remains or fragments of wood work of the Maurya epoch.

c11.s1.t16.2

In regard to the ditch around the fort Megasthenes and Kauṭalya are said not to agree. It is possible, according to Stein, to demonstrate the existence of stone work in the *Arthaśāstra* but not wood work on a large scale.²

c11.s1.t16.3

² Pp. 34, 38, 45, 299.

c11.s1.t16.4

It is interesting to observe, however, that Stein is not in a position to say that stone, i.e., something other than wood, was not used in the wall. Indeed, he quotes passages to indicate that a "long brick wall" ran from north-east to south-east. He is also aware that remnants of a stone wall as well as four high walls of stone and earth have been found in the course of archæological explorations and excavations (p. 40). In other words, wood work is not the only material that has been discovered at Pāṭaliputra in recent years.

c11.s1.t16.5

Further, following Stein we can get the following equations :³

c11.s1.t16.6

³ Pp. 36, 37, 39.

c11.s1.t16.7

(1) The *prākāra* of Kauṭalya = the wall of Fragment No. 26.
(2) The *indrakoṣa* of Kauṭalya = the loophole arrangement in the palisade of Fragment No. 25.
(3) The house drains of Kauṭalya lead to the ditch outside the city which in Fragment 25 serves a double purpose : (i) defence and (ii) sewage.

c11.s1.t16.8

As regards the building materials in the *Arthaśāstra* Stein is not blind to the fact that wood is used in considerable quantities (pp. 43-45). He is quite aware that as regards the numerous "public buildings" the materials used may be either wood or stone. As for the internal structure of houses most of the materials is wood. He is not definite about the material of the walls of the houses.

c11.s1.t16.9

Altogether, one should believe that in regard to the fortification Stein has offered relatively more points of agreement between Megasthenes and Kauṭalya than discrepancy. It is curious, therefore, that in his general conclusion he should be so convinced about the discrepancy.

c11.s1.t16.10

As for the chronological value of stone *vs.* wood in regard to the priority or otherwise of Kauṭalya, Stein should not have much worry, because he himself has cited Rhys Davids's reference to the stone walls of the fort or city of Giribraja in the sixth century B.C. (p. 40). Even with stone walls, then, there is nothing in the *Arthaśāstra* to prevent it from being at least as old as Megasthenes.

c11.s1.t16.11

In regard to the item of fortification one should let the question drop here. But because Stein has laboriously cared to maintain a thesis which virtually leads him to inconsistency let us dwell at length on the details as well as his general methods of discussion.

Cites (1)