An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c24.s2: 19.2 Copper Hoards
An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c24.s2
- Language
- English
19.2 Copper Hoards
v1.c24.s2.1
It is questionable if isolated copper weapons can be regarded as belonging to the Copper Hoard culture [4.11]. Further even the Copper Hoard objects include several specimens such as flat celts, also found at the Harappa sites, shouldered celts, bar celts and a unique socketed celt from RAJA KARNA-KA-TILA near Kurukshetra, which may not have been used as weapons. Only such objects as were more or less definitely weapons have been described below.
v1.c24.s2.2
*19.2.1 Harpoons.* Harpoons similar in shape to those from the Copper Hoards occur among bone objects of the Magdalenian culture, widely removed from the Copper Hoards in time and space. Though simple barbs from Transcaucasia, Talish and Luristan in Iran are known, they could scarcely have, in spite of the insistence of Heine-Geldern, 1936, 1937, inspired the Indian specimens. Similarly the multibarbed Mesolithic [4.5] horn harpoons mentioned by Gordon, 1958, cannot have anything to do with the Copper Hoard ones. The intermediate land-mass has not yet yielded specimens to suggest any cultural link. On the contrary nearer home the harpoons are comparable with the ones depicted on the cave paintings [13] at GHORMANGUR, Dt Mirzapur, and indicate the source of inspiration as suggested by Lal, 1951, p. 35.
v1.c24.s2.3
Six sites, all Uttar Pradesh, have produced them: PARIYAR has yielded a few, BITHUR and RAJPUR PARSU six and other sites one each. The harpoon from BISAULI, at present in the Bharat Kala Bhawan, Varanasi, 43 cm long, has a strong medial rib and a long tapering blade. The middle part has three pairs of incurved and pointed bards. At the junction of the barbed portion with the tang there is a pair of knobs of which one is perforated. A cord was inserted in this perforation, also called 'eye', to tie it to the shaft. Originally the weapon was cast but there was some hammering at the later stage. Lal's examination of one from SARTHAULI shows that it is possible that the barbs were cut out from the blade by chiselling and then trimmed up with a file, though they might as well have been cast as barbs and then sharpened by filing. A hook-barbed harpoon made in a mould, in the Horniman Museum, is of a fine massive casting of excellent workmanship (Gordon, 1958, p. 137). Although most of the harpoons so far discovered fall within the general category yet there is some technical difference between those from BISAULI and SARTHAULI: in the Sarthauli specimen the blade is not a well-developed entity and is only 7·5 cm long out of a 28 cm total length of the implement, its barbs being flat;
v1.c24.s2.4
the Bisauli blade is nearly half the total length of the implement and its barbs are incurved. While the Sarthauli piece was cast the Bisauli one was made by trimming a plain spearhead as there are indications of trimming on the outlines of the barbs.
v1.c24.s2.5
*19.2.2 Antennae swords.* Eighteen antennae swords have been recorded by Lal, 1951, 13 of them from FATEHGARH and one each from BITHUR and an unknown place. Four more such swords have recently been acquired by the National Museum, New Delhi, from a dealer of Mahesana, Gujarat. To sites outside the Ganga valley have thus to be added MODHERA, Dt Mahesana, with its four such swords and KALLUR, Dt Raichur, with its three.
v1.c24.s2.6
Antennae swords with a comparable shape have been found in the Koban region of upper Iran with the difference that the hilt and handle are separate pieces joined together subsequently, besides having a plain cross-section, as distinguished from the ridged one of the Indian specimens, and having a hole in addition.
v1.c24.s2.7
The antennae swords are long and tapering double-rapiers with a strong medial rib, the hilt bifurcating like the antennae of an insect. The two projections of the hilt stand at an angle of 45° to the base, i.e. the straight hilt. In some cases the other projection of the hilt is so much bent that it almost touches the hilt. The hilt and blade are of one make, with no hole in the hilt. However there is one specimen from SHAHABAD², now in the National Museum, with two holes of the blade, one on each side of the medial rib in the portion. The two edges of the blade were badly battered and irregularly twisted, probably due to their use against some hard object. A similar sword has been reported from n. Caucasus but there are some technical differences between the Caucasian and Indian swords. In the Caucasian specimen the hilt and the blade are two separate parts subsequently joined together. The hilt has a hole and the blade is flat-sectioned. All these characteristics make them entirely independent of each other. Heine-Geldern is of the view that the swords were inspired from the w. of the Koban where they occur between *c.* 1200 and 1000 B.C., or even a little later, but Lal, 1951, disagrees.
v1.c24.s2.8
*19.2.3 Anthropomorphic figures.* Of these bafflingly unique objects there are seven specimens; three each from BISAULI and FATEHGARH and one from SHEORAJPUR. Their purpose is not known but it is quite probable that they were an all-purpose tool. The curved ‘arms’, deliberately sharpened, could be used for cutting purposes. The comparatively long and blunt ‘legs’ might have served as a grip. Since they are very heavy, some as heavy as 5 kg or even more, they might have proved deadly when hurled from close quarters. The intentionally blunted ‘head’, hammered into a flanged ridge, is suitable for breaking the skulls of animals and enemies (Gordon, 1958, p. 137). D.P. Agrawal, 1971, p. 200, has also suggested that they might have been used as missiles. [A ritualistic significance of these objects has been suggested and cannot be ruled out easily. If a heavy metal object was necessary to kill an enemy or an animal, such elaborate moulding was hardly necessary.]
v1.c24.s2.9
The anthropomorphic figure from BISAULI is exhibited in the Allahabad Museum. Its total length is about 32 cm (from ‘head to foot’) and width 28 cm (from ‘arm to arm’). It was first cast and then hammered, as is evident from the visible marks of trimming. The ‘arms’ are incurved and have sharp outer edges. Two other such figures are kept in the Bharat Kala Bhawan, Varanasi, of which one is tall and the other dwarfish. The curved portions of the ‘arms’ of both these types are comparatively thin and the outer edges are very sharp. Hammer-marks visible on the ‘arms’ suggest that this portion was expanded by beating.
v1.c24.s2.10
In this connection reference may be made to a seemingly copper celt from LOTHAL, which has been regarded by van Lohuizen, 1960, as an anthropomorphic figure with arms and legs broken. This view has been upheld by some but disputed by others, *e.g.* Agrawal, 1971, p. 192, who doubts the identification on the ground that the Lothal sepcimen has a flat section at the top unlike the nail-head section of the Ganga valley specimens.
v1.c24.s2.11
*19.2.4 Spearheads.* Altogether eight spearheads have been discovered, five from SARTHAULI and one each from FATEHGARH, MANPUR and NIORAI. They have also been termed as ‘hooked swords’, though the hook of the Fatehgarh weapon, which is broad-bladed and is commonly called ‘Elliot sword’, is not very clear. All these weapons are more than 70 cm long and in spite of their long blades should be taken to be spearheads and not swords. Gordon, 1958, p. 137, says: ‘Both (Fatehgarh and Niorai) weapons have a projection curving outwards from the tang, and the same contrivance is found on three out of five spearheads found at Sarthauli. The ‘Elliot Sword’, has all the appearance of a sword but the three examples from Sarthauli with similarly furnished tangs are barb-headed and must be intended for spears’. This type of projection is seen on the harpoon-head found at the same site and was evidently a method of fastening alternative to the holed lug.
v1.c24.s2.12
The smallest of the five Sarthauli spearheads is 31 cm long. Like the other one it has leaf-shaped blade with a stout mid-rib and a small flat tang which is only 5 cm long. The longest of the lot is 52 cm long. The medial rib is very prominent. Smith, 1905, has also said, ‘In spite of its length it should be called a spearhead. I possess a Somali spearhead which is 2½ feet [76 cm] long without, and 3¼ feet [98 cm] long with, the socket. The hook on the side of the tang seems to have been intended for fastening the blade to the shaft by a thong.’
v1.c24.s2.13
*19.2.5 Battle-axe.* A hatchet or *paraśu* from SARTHAULI in the Lucknow Museum has an unusual shape and is 17 cm long and 23 cm wide. Its cutting edge is not sharp. Hammer-marks are visible on its surface. It was originally cast but in order to give the final touch some retouching was done with a hammer. This is the only specimen of its kind.
v1.c24.s2.14
*19.2.6 Double-headed axes.* Copper double-axes have been reported from other cultural levels. At Harappa there are two specimens of a tool type that recalls the double-axe; the two working ends are not sharp and there are kinks between the edge and the waist. There is another double-axe of the Harappa culture from LOTHAL. Of a slightly different type, it is a rectangular piece of copper flattened at both ends and sharpened. The waist is narrow but not so prominently as in examples from the Hoards. A terracotta double-axe has been reported from Pd III of PANDU RAJAR DHIBI. It is also depicted in the form of a motif on a clay seal.
v1.c24.s2.15
There are three such pieces, one each in the Lucknow Museum, Haripada Museum and Patna Museum. These were apparently intended for use as battle-axes, the shaft being split at the end and the narrow neck of the axe-head firmly bound in the cleft. The largest axe measures 101 cm in length and 40 cm in breadth and might have been intended for ceremonial or sacrificial use. The other two measure 25·5 × 21·5 cm and 26·7 × 18 cm respectively. They are made by casting or hammering out a roughly oval disc of metal, sharpening the edges and then cutting out two more or less circular pieces to form the neck. Two such examples have been found at HALLUR, in the Neolithic-Chalcolithic [4.6.9, 14.14.8] level. Its butt end is sharp and rounded in shape as the primary working edge. The butt portion is shorter and narrower than the primary end. [For BHAGRAPIR specimens see 6.2.]
v1.c24.s2.16
*19.2.7 Fort Munro sword.* This ornamented bronze sword, 44·5 cm long, cast in one piece, from Fort Munro, Punjab (Pakistan), now in Edinburgh Museum, has a modern appearance (Smith, 1905, p. 243) and betrays w. Asian influence. It has a medial rib. The crescent-shaped hilt is well-made. [According to Lal, 1951, this sword should not be regarded as belonging to the Copper Hoard culture.]
v1.c24.s2.17
*19.2.8 Miscellaneous.* In 1965 the National Museum, New Delhi, acquired eight Copper Hoard objects of which the following three are definitely weapons: (1) a double-barbed harpoon, length 35 cm, with straight barbs, having four bars on each side of the shaft, a medial-ridged blade and a shaft with two projecting knobs, one on each side, one of the knobs having a hole; (2) a double-barbed harpoon with curved barbs, length 37 cm, similar to (1) except the curved barbs; (3) an antennae sword, length from the hilt to the tip-end 47 cm, with one portion of the hilt broken and missing, with two holes, one on each side of the medial ridge.
v1.c24.s2.18
*19.2.9 Technology.* According to Agrawal, 1971, p. 242, who has carried out spectroscopic and metallographic analysis of a number of Copper Hoard artefacts, their authors did not know alloying and while knowing the close-casting technique did not use cold work and annealing [16.9.1]. In metal forging the Copper Hoards artefacts are different from that of the Harappa and Chalcolithic cultures. The Harappans [4.9] deliberately used arsenic, lead and tin alloying, the AHAR² [4.14.1] people used lead only and the Malwa [4.14.5] and Jorwe [4.14.6] people employed lead and tin alloying, but the Copper Hoard objects are generally of pure copper.
v1.c24.s2.19
Agrawal, D.P., 1971, *Copper Bronze Age in India*, Delhi. *A.R. Hyderabad Arch. Dept.* 1939-40, pl. V (for Kallur). Gordon, D.H., 1958, *Prehistoric Background of Indian Culture*, Bombay. Heine-Geldern, R., 1936, in *Jour. Indian Soc. of Oriental Art*, 4, pp. 87-113; 1937, in *Bull. American Inst. of Iranian Art & Arch.*, 5, pp. 7-16. Lal, B.B., 1951, in *AI*, 7, pp. 20-39. Smith, V.A., 1905, in *Indian Antiquary*, 34, pp. 229-44; 1907, in *ibid.*, 36, pp. 53-5. van Lohuizen de-Leeuw, J.E., 1960, *De Protohistorische Cultuuren van vor-Indie on hum Datering*, Leiden, pp. 24-5. For sites see respective entries in vol. II.—G.N. PANT.