The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t17: Building Materials in Maurya India
The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t17
- Language
- English
Building Materials in Maurya India
c11.s1.t17.1
Stein quotes Fragment No. 25 as well as Fragment No. 26. But it is necessary to call attention at the very outset to the fact that the two Fragments, as explained by Stein, although agreeing in the figures about the length and breadth of the city, differ in certain respects, as follows (pp. 29, 32):
c11.s1.t17.2
| Fragment | First Defence | Second Defence |
| No. 25 (Strabo) | Wooden Palisade | Ditch |
| No. 26 (Arrian) | Ditch | Wall |
c11.s1.t17.3
In No. 25 the wooden palisade is the first defence round the city and then comes the ditch. But in No. 26 the ditch is the first defence immediately round the city and is followed by the wall. In this second report the wall is not described as wooden. It appears, therefore, that nobody can be sure of what Megasthenes actually saw at Pāṭaliputra.
c11.s1.t17.4
The statements in No. 26 are somewhat more elaborate than those in No. 25 which indeed is much too short. "The number of Indian cities is so large that it is not possible to report about them correctly," says Fragment No. 26. It is clear that Pāṭaliputra is not the only city this Fragment has in view. No. 25 does not have any statement like this. About the architecture of towns No. 26 has in part the following: "Those which lie on a river or on the sea-coast were built of wood." Another statement runs thus: "Those which are situated in high and dry regions were built with brick and mud." Then comes the description of the greatest city of the Indians, Palimbothra. The report from Megasthenes is added at the end where the wall is mentioned but not as a wooden structure.
c11.s1.t17.5
From Fragment No. 26 one should believe that one is getting a general idea of the cities in India. The idea is derived from more than one report. The cities are not uniform in the matter of building materials. The proper conclusion from the two Fragments should be as follows:
c11.s1.t17.6
(1) Both wood and brick were in use in India as building materials.
(2) About Pāṭaliputra nothing definite is known: (i) The position of the wall in relation to the moat is an open question, and (ii) that wood was a material used at all for the wall is problematic. Further, there is no guarantee that wood was the only material used.
c11.s1.t17.7
On the strength of the two Fragments, then, we should be well advised to refrain from feeling that we have a positive knowledge of Pāṭaliputra's external structure. Megasthenes cannot, therefore, be taken as the touch-stone of all subsequent reports about the external features of Pāṭaliputra.