History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c11.s3: The Ochre-Coloured Pottery and the Copper Hoards Cultures
History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c11.s3
- Language
- English
Contents
- v1.c11.s3.t1 Copper Hoards Metal Technology — 30 parts
The Ochre-Coloured Pottery and the Copper Hoards Cultures
v1.c11.s3.1
The third important group of copper-using cultures is the Copper Hoards culture, and there is some circumstantial evidence to associate it with the Ochre-Coloured Pottery (OCP). At Saipai the OCP sherds included those giving off ocherous colour on rubbing, those with intact red slip and some with black, painted designs or incised decoration. The site also yielded rubbers, querns, a chert and a chalcedony blade, a burnt brickbat, chunks of burnt clay with reed impressions, bones of *Bos Indicus*, a copper harpoon, and a hooked spearhead (Lal 1972).
v1.c11.s3.2
Fig. 10. A chariot with its driver found near Daimabad. It has been suggested that it is a late Harappan artifact. The author does not agree with this view as explained in the text
v1.c11.s3.3
It is difficult, however, to believe in the association of the Copper Hoard implements with the pottery at Saipai, and, with its spouted, handled and black-painted vessels and chert blades, Saipai appears to be quite unique. Moreover, the Copper Hoard artifacts have generally been found in caches rather than individually, so that the occurrence of only stray tools at Saipai raises doubts. I therefore feel that at present the association of the OCP and the Copper Hoard should be treated only as provisional.
v1.c11.s3.4
*The Copper Hoard Culture*
v1.c11.s3.5
Most of the tools of the Copper Hoard culture (Fig. 11, 12) have been found in hoards or caches, mainly from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh. Since most of the artifacts were chance finds, there was no control of a definite associated assemblage. As a result, finds from such far-flung sites as Shalozan in north-western Pakistan, Bhargrapir in Orissa, and Kallur in the south have been included in the Copper Hoard culture zone. A wide variety of types of tools was included in this amorphous collection: rings, a variety of celts, trunnion axes, anthropomorphs, harpoons, swords, double-edged and socketed axes, and so on. Naturally, such an odd assortment of tools have given rise to a plethora of hypotheses, and it fell to Lal to bring some order to the Copper Hoards.
v1.c11.s3.6
In a brilliant analysis, he showed that a number of types (such as the Fort Monroe sword, axe-adze, socketed axes, and trunnion axes) were confined to the north-western part of the subcontinent (now Pakistan) and never occurred in the *Fig. 11. Two shouldered axes in bronze from village Itawa, Dist. Varanasi*
v1.c11.s3.9
*Fig. 12. Three typical Copper Hoards artifacts from Bisauli, Dist. Badaun. Fromn left to right: barcelt, anthromorphic figure, a harpoon* Gangetic doab. Other types of artifacts (such as antennae- hilted swords, anthropomorphs, harpoons and barcelts) were concentrated mainly in the Gangetic doab.
v1.c11.s3.10
Lal also showed the significant technological differences between the Koban examples (compared by Heine Geldern to prove his Aryan equation) and the antennae swords (Lal 1951: 20)
v1.c11.s3.11
Following Lal, the distinctive types that can be included under the Copper Hoard category are: flat and shouldered celts (Fig. 11) antennae swords, harpoons, anthropomorphs, hooked swords, and double-edged axes (Fig. 12). The last type has been reported from Bhagrapir (Orissa), where, although they are up to 40cm wide, their thickness is less than 3mm; they could not therefore have been used as tools. Their association with the main Copper Hoard types is, in any case, doubtful. The hooked swords seem to have parallel elsewhere, but closer examination reveals the distinctive features of the Copper-Hoard-associated hooked sword: in the apparently similar Harappan examples, a hole is provided for hafting and not a hook; in the Chalcolithic example from Navdatoli, there is hardly any median ridge, nor any hook. Moreover, the hooked sword has been found in association with such distinctive Copper Hoard types as anthropomorphs, antennae swords, and harpoons from Bahadurabad, Sarthauli, Fategarh, and Niori (all in Uttar Pradesh).
v1.c11.s3.12
Anthropomorphs have been identified as ritual objects. We examined several specimens and have found three main features: externally sharpened and in-curved forearms, plain hindlimbs, and a thickened head (Fig. 12).
v1.c11.s3.13
We have proposed their possible use as missiles to kill birds: the sharp arms could cut the bird; the thick head could stun it; and the in-curved arms could entangle and bring it down. When thrown, a replica of an anthropomorph travelled in a whirling fashion and followed a trajectory not unlike that of a boomerang (Agrawal 1969).
v1.c11.s3.14
Sankalia (1974) has objected to this hypothesis on the ground that such a device would be too complicated to have been used by primitive people. The boomerang, however, was not invented by civilized people.
v1.c11.s3.15
Rao (1973a) discovered a fragmentary copper piece with a convex end and two broken side lugs (Fig. 13) in the Harappan levels of Lothal, and compared it with the anthropomorphs from the doab. If it had had longer arms like those of the Copper Hoard examples, however, it would not be mechanically feasible for it to break so near the body (Agrawal 1971:192). It should also be noted that in the whole range of the Harappan artifacts, this piece alone has alleged resemblances to the anthropomorphs.
v1.c11.s3.16
Like the mid-ribbed sword, the harpoon has backward-pointing barbs and holes at the ends of the barbs. Two varieties of harpoons are known: one cut from a thick sheet, and the other cast in a double mould. Such harpoons could have been used either for killing fish or big game, as depicted in a rock shelter in Mirzapur (Fig. 14).
v1.c11.s3.17
The antennae sword type is confined to the doab zone. Its total length varies from 42 to 75 cm and the antennae projections on the hilt end are more than 10cm in length. I feel that such long antennae would be definite handicaps in using these artifacts as swords and have proposed that they could have been better used to kill wild game by fixing the swords upright in pits, with the antennae sitting in slits across green logs. If game were stampeded into the pits, the swords would pierce them without buckling, since the green logs (with branches) would serve as shock absorbers. Admittedly, this hypothesis would be difficult to test, except perhaps by examining use marks on a large number of such artifacts.
v1.c11.s3.18
Fig. 13. A flat copper object found at Lothal, a Harappan site in Gujarat, has been compared with the Anthropomorph of rectangular section however shows that it is a different category of object.
v1.c11.s3.19
From the foregoing discussion it is obvious that the essential core of the Copper Hoards consists only of the anthropomorph, the harpoon, the hooked sword, and the antennae sword (Fig. 12).
v1.c11.s3.20
These types are found together for example, at Bisauli, harpoons and anthropomorphs occur together; at Bithur, antennae swords and harpoons are associated; antennae swords and anthropomorphs were found together at Fatehgarh; and the hooked sword was associated with the other three types at Fatehgarh, Sarthauli, Bahadurabad, and Niori (Agrawal 1971).
v1.c11.s3.21
We would divide the Copper Hoards into two zones: the main doab (Uttar Pradesh) types are specialized tools: the anthropomorph, the antennae sword, the harpoon, and the hooked sword; the main eastern (Bihar) type is the barcelt. Flat and shouldered celts are common to both zones. The barcelt, from sites in copper-rich Bihar, is about 60cm long with a bevelled edge and a thick body. Its sturdiness and length suggests its use as crowbar for digging copper ores, and the use marks on barcells do indicate their use against hard surfaces. The barcelt is the only specialized type in the eastern group; if typology is any clue, the simpler types of Bihar may have preceded the more specialized types of Uttar Pradesh. Except for a reported harpoon from Mitathal, no doab types have been discovered from Haryana or Rajasthan. The parasu seems to be a type of this area and has been reported from Mitathal (Suraj Bhan 1975) and Kurada (Fig. 6) in Rajasthan (Agrawala 1980).
v1.c11.s3.22
Fig. 14. A rock art illustration from Mirzapur indicating the use of harpoons for big game hunting.
v1.c11.s3.23
The distribution of the Copper Hoard types is therefore mainly confined to Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh. It is beyond doubt that the Copper Hoards have an individuality of their own and were not influenced by either the Harappan or the Chalcolithic cultures. This is further supported by the exclusive arsenic alloying of the Copper Hoards. As regards the authorship of the Copper Hoards, there is considerable controversy. Heine Geldern (1936) identified them with the Aryans, Piggott (1950) with the Harappan refugees; Lal (1951) and Gupta (1963) with the Mundari-speaking Australoid tribes of the primaeval doab; and Sankalia (1974), as usual, finds Western Asiatic affinities for the OCP, and therefore for the Copper Hoards.
Copper Hoards Metal Technology
v1.c11.s3.t1.1
Because most of the Copper Hoards have been found in caches, they give an impression of abundance of metal. For example, at Gungeria, 424 artifacts with a total weight of more than 400 kg were discovered. Until we find these implements in regular excavations or habitation sites, however, it will be difficult to infer the real abundance of metal in an archaeological context.
v1.c11.s3.t1.2
An examination of the Copper Hoards artifacts shows that they were made both by hammering and cutting metal sheets, as well as by closed casting. A small percentage of the artifacts (Fig. 5) show lead alloying, probably for better fusibility. Metallographic examination of the artifacts indicates slow cooling, cold work, and annealing.
v1.c11.s3.t1.3
We have few data on the trace impurity pattern of the Copper Hoards, but circumstantial evidence points to the use of Bihar mines. The exclusive occurrence of barcelts in the eastern region may also indicate their use for crowbar-like operations in mining.
v1.c11.s3.t1.4
More interesting is the evidence of arsenic alloying. Out of the 46 artifacts analyzed by us, 50% show more than 1% arsenic. None of the artifacts, however, has any tin (Fig. 5). It is thus obvious that the Copper Hoards technological tradition is different from that of the other cultures. We may recall here that in the earliest phases, both in the Near and Middle East, only arsenic alloying was used (Eaton and Mckerell 1976); tin replaces arsenic only in the third millennium B.C. in Western Asia. At Tepe Yahya, they used arsenic copper ores, which made arsenic alloying easier for them, but there are no significant sources of arsenic in India, although small out-crops are known from Rajasthan, Kashmir, and Bihar. Nal in Pakistan, yielded lollingite (FeAs2). Both of these features, exclusive arsenic alloying and characteristic tool-types, indicate the possibility of the Copper Hoards being an autochthonous, and perhaps the oldest, metallurgical tradition in India.
v1.c11.s3.t1.5
Before we conclude the discussion on the Copper Hoards, we should take note of some remarkable discoveries made recently in Rajasthan (Agrawala 1979:159-160; Agrawala 1980:89-92). Sixty copper flat celts and some arrowheads were discovered from Ganeshwar in Sikar District of Rajasthan.
v1.c11.s3.t1.6
Two points deserve notice: first, the arrowheads are of Harappan type; second, the site is only 80km from the rich Khetri mines. Although we cannot technically include them with the Copper Hoards, they do indicate a factory site.
v1.c11.s3.t1.7
The Khurdi Hoard was reported earlier by Sankalia, but Agrawala (1980:89) reports that the site is actually Kurada, in Nagaur District of Rajasthan. The original hoard consisted of 103 artifacts, but only 10 now remain in the Jodhpur museum. None of the types is typical of the Copper Hoards artifacts; in fact, the channel-spouted bowl has affinities with the Malwa channel-spout and the hatchets with those found at Kalibangan.
v1.c11.s3.t1.8
Although there is a distinct possibility that some of these sites served as factory centers for the Harappan and Pre-Harappan towns, contacts with the Copper Hoards do not appear likely.
v1.c11.s3.t1.9
Agrawal, D.P. : 1969, “The Copper Hoards problem: a technological angle”. *ASP*, **12**, 113-119.
v1.c11.s3.t1.10
Agrawal, D.P. : 1971, *The Copper Bronze Age in India*, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.
v1.c11.s3.t1.11
Agrawal, D.P. : 1982, *The Archaeology of India*, Curzon Press, London.
v1.c11.s3.t1.12
Agrawal, D.P. : 1982a, “The Indian Bronze Age Cultures and their Metal Technology”, in *Advances in World Archaeology*, 1, pp. 231-264, (Edited by) F. Wendorf and A.E. Close, Academic Press, New York.
v1.c11.s3.t1.13
Agrawal, D.P.: 1992, *Man and Environment in India through Ages*, Books & Books, Delhi.
v1.c11.s3.t1.14
Agrawal, D.P. and Kusumgar, S. : 1974, *Prehistoric Chronology and Radiocarbon Dating in India*, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.
v1.c11.s3.t1.15
Agrawal, D.P.: 1976, “Ancient copper workings: some new ¹⁴C dates”, in Margabandhi, C. and Sekar, N.C., *IJHS* **11(2)**, 133-136.
v1.c11.s3.t1.16
Agrawala, R.C. : 1979, “Three copper objects from Ganeshwar, Rajasthan”, *JOI*, **28(3-4)**, 159-160.
v1.c11.s3.t1.17
Agrawala, R.C. : 1980, “Khurdi Copper Hoard from Rajasthan”, in *MAE*, **4**, 89-92.
v1.c11.s3.t1.18
Dhavalikar, M.K. : 1979, “Early farming cultures of Deccan”, in *Essays in Indian Protohistory*, (edited by) D.P. Agrawal and D.K. Chakrabarti, B.R. Publishers, Delhi. pp. 247- 265.
v1.c11.s3.t1.19
Gupta, S.P. : 1963. “Indian Copper Hoards : the problems of homogeneity, development, origin, authorship and dating”, *JBIOR*, **49**, 147-166.
v1.c11.s3.t1.20
Lal, B.B. : 1951, “Further Copper Hoards from the Gangetic basin and a review of the problem”, *ANI*, **7**, 20-39.
v1.c11.s3.t1.21
Lal, B.B. : 1972, “The Copper Hoard Culture of the Ganga Valley”, *ANTI*, **56**: 282-297.
v1.c11.s3.t1.22
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. : 1972, “Trade mechanism in Indus-Mesopotamian interrelations”, *JAOS*, **92**, 222-229
v1.c11.s3.t1.23
Mackay, E.J.H. : 1943, *Chanhudaro Excavations*, 1935-36, American Oriental Society, Boston.
v1.c11.s3.t1.24
Pathak, B.R. and Mehekar, M.K. : 1955, “Report on copper celt and bangle”, in *Report on the Excavations at Nasik and Jorwe*: 1950-51, S.B. Deo and H.D. Sankalia, Deccan College, Poona, p.159-160.
v1.c11.s3.t1.25
Possehl, G.L. (ed): 1978, *Ancient cities of the Indus*, Vikas Publications, New Delhi.
v1.c11.s3.t1.26
Rajam, Sheshadri : 1992, “The composition and smithery techniques of copper artifacts from Nagwada”, *MAE*, **17(1)**, 7-12.
v1.c11.s3.t1.27
Rao, S.R. : 1973, *Lothal and Indus Civilization*, Asia, Bombay.
v1.c11.s3.t1.28
Sana Ullah, M. : 1931, “Copper and bronze utensils and other objects”, in *Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization*, (Edited by) J.Marshall, A.Prosthin, London, pp.481-488.
v1.c11.s3.t1.29
Sankalia, H.D. : 1974, *Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan*, Deccan College, Poona.
v1.c11.s3.t1.30
Wheeler, R.E.M. : 1968, *The Indus Civilization* (3rd edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.