History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c29.s2: II. Building and Building Materials

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c29.s2

Language: English

v1.c29.s2.t1 Stone and Rock Architecture — 9 parts
v1.c29.s2.t2 Maurya Architecture — 23 parts
v1.c29.s2.t3 Bricks — 46 parts
v1.c29.s2.t4 Mortars and Plasters — 14 parts
v1.c29.s2.t5 Wood — 87 parts

II. Building and Building Materials

v1.c29.s2.1

The existence of great variety of useful stones and wood and employment of bricks, mortars and plasters have greatly contributed to the magnificent achievements of India in the field of architectural engineering.

Stone and Rock Architecture

v1.c29.s2.t1.1

Choice of stone for large structures depends upon its hardness, toughness, porosity, strength and its internal structure (property on which depends the ease or difficulty in quarrying and dressing).

v1.c29.s2.t1.2

*Harappan:* Though man came in contact with stone in pre-historic times its earliest systematic use in India came around Harappan times when massive rough stone walls of unhewn stone were raised. Sometimes these are ten to fifteen feet high. These were built across the course of seasonal streams apparently as a crude effort intended to conserve an intermittently abundant flood water.

v1.c29.s2.t1.3

Exclusive use of stone and rubble was made for raising fortification at Surkotda, an Harappan site in Kutch, dating to 2100-1600 B.C.

v1.c29.s2.t1.4

Use of certain pieces of worked stone at Harappan sites suggest as if these were segments of pillars, but it is not clear whether these were employed structurally. However hammer dressed lime stone slabs were occasionally found covering brick drains. Probably such blocks were quarried with copper - bronze chisels and hammers of stone. Transport of such blocks would have required exacting team work.

v1.c29.s2.t1.5

Iron age megaliths (datable to c. 1000 B.C.) have a large expanse from the extreme south, throughout most part of peninsula. This culture worked with various rocks in which granite and gneiss predominate. In the Malabar coastal laterites, small rocks cut chambers are found. Some times these chambers are approached by an entrance from above and covered with a cap stone. Some of these chambers have vaulted roofs.

v1.c29.s2.t1.6

Some megalithic graves show stone alignment, comprising carefully oriented rows of standing stones, set in a square or diagonal plan. The standing stones are generally 1.5 to 2.4 meter in height, but occasionally examples of over 6 meter height are recorded. Small alignments have been reported with as few as three rows of three stones, four rows of four stones, five rows of five stones etc. But sometimes large diagonal alignments with many hundreds of standing stones are reported from Gulbarga district. These monuments are mainly distributed in Central Deccan and in the districts South Hyderabad.

v1.c29.s2.t1.7

*Rajgir :* On the top of the Vaibhara hill at Rajgir, there is a remarkable stone structure locally known as *masān* (watch tower) called *Jarāsandha-kī-Baithak*, a monument noticed by Huien-Tsang. It is usually identified as the residence of Pippala and Mahākṣapa of Buddhist tradition: this monument is the earliest structure of stone in India. These are watch towers - providing shelter for the guards. It is in the form of a large rectangular platform 85 ft.x81 ft at the base and 22 to 28 feet high.

v1.c29.s2.t1.8

It is built of large unhewn blocks of stone set in the rock without any mortar and contains near the base several small irregularly shaped cells on all sides. Its walls, like those of rectangular bastions of the outer city walls of old Rajgir have a slight batter.

v1.c29.s2.t1.9

*Śiśupālgarh*: There has been massive use of laterite blocks and pillars at Śiśupālgarh. Laterite blocks of an average size 6x2x1 feet have been recovered from Western Gateway (SP IV). Further towards the centre of the fort, there is group of sixteen pillars of laterite, some still intact. The average height of the pillars above the ground is 14-15 feet.

Maurya Architecture

v1.c29.s2.t2.1

Mauryas made a remarkable contribution to stone architecture. They introduced stone masonry on a wide scale. Magasthenes states that Maurya palace at Pataliputra was as splendid as that in the capital of Iran. Fragments of stone pillars and stumps indicate the existence of eighty-pillared hall, discovered at Kumrahar on the out-skirts of modern city of Patna. This attests to the technical skill attained by the Maurya craftsmen in polishing the stone pillars, which have maintained their polish even to-day.

v1.c29.s2.t2.2

Some new methods and techniques were developed to carry the huge blocks of stone from quarries, to polish and embellish them and for placing them erect. These stone pillars and columns are monolithic (made of a single piece of sand stone. Only their capitals which contain beautiful sculptures in the form of lions, elephants, horses and bulls are joined with pillars on the top. All this seems to be a great engineering feat.

v1.c29.s2.t2.3

These polished pillars of sand stone were set up throughout the country, this points out to the development of transport technology. Mention may be made of some of the Aśokan pillars:

v1.c29.s2.t2.4

1. Most celebrated of the pillars is the one of Sarnath (near Varanasi). This lion capital now serves as emblem of modern India.
2. Laurīya - Nandangarh pillar of Orissa.
3. Bull capital of Rāmpurvā pillar in U.P.
4. Pillars of Allahabad (U.P.) and Sanchi Pillar (M.P.) with lion capital.

v1.c29.s2.t2.5

Maurya artisans also started the practice of carving out caves from rocks for monks (*see under ‘Rock-Architecture’*)

v1.c29.s2.t2.6

*Stone and Rock-cut Architecture*: Earth is made up of layers of rocks, one above the other. Indian sub-continent is endowed with various landforms, varying in height and slope and may be classified into there major types : mountains, plateaus and plains, and is provided with rock shelters, caves and stone quarries.

v1.c29.s2.t2.7

*Natural Caves and Rock-Shelters*: Early man in India inhabited the natural rock shelters and caves from lower palaeolithic time onwards. Mention may be made of the rock shelters of Bhimbetka and Adamgarh in Madhya Pradesh, those of Gudium ( a few miles from Madras), Chenchu group of rock shelters in Andhra Pradesh and the rock-shelters near Mirzapur in U.P. etc. These early people were acquainted with stone quarrying and tool making.

v1.c29.s2.t2.8

From Mauryan times onwards there is development of a specific Indian architecture known as rock-cut architecture. It is also known as monolithic (single upright block of stone), that is to say that shrines were excavated in solid rock, either by hollowing out the necessary sanctuaries (chambers): the caves, the caityas and vihāras or by cutting away the exterior rock so as to leave an entire temple of solid rock.

v1.c29.s2.t2.9

Of the former, some of the earliest examples of rock-cut architecture are found in the granite outcrops of twin Barabar and Nagarjuni hills of Bihar where seven cave temples date from 3rd century B.C. There are Mauryan period inscriptions which indicate that these caves served as retreats for Jain monks. The interiors are remarkable for their mirror-like polished surface as seen at Sudama and Lomaś Ṛṣi Cave.

v1.c29.s2.t2.10

The beginning of monumental architecture in the Deccan is also of rock-cut sanctuaries and monasteries belonging to Śātavāhana period (2nd century B.C. - 2nd century A.D.). These monuments are excavated into basalt out-crop of western Deccan at numerous Buddhist sites including those of Ajanta, Bedsa, Bhaja, Junnar, Karli, Pitalakhora. During later phase (Śātavāhana- Kṣatrapa transition, first-second century A.D. the caitya halls of Kanhere and Nasik show more evolved arched motifs and decorative reliefs on the facades. Ajanta was provided with superb series of caitaya halls under the Vākāṭaka (5th - 6th century A.D). Under the patronage of the Kalacuri and Early Cālukyas (5th - 7th century A.D.) rock-cut caves and temples developed further as seen at Elephanta, Jageshwar, Ellora, Aihole, Badami etc.

v1.c29.s2.t2.11

There is another resurgence under the Rāṣṭrakuta rulers in rock- cut architecture, most important being that of Ellora. In south, during Pallava period (7th century A.D.) rock-cut caves and temples were executed into granite as witnessed at Mamallapuram, Mandagapallu and Tiruchirappalli.

v1.c29.s2.t2.12

In western India, under Kṣatrapa rulers of Junagarh (3rd/4th century. A.D.) monasteries for Buddhist and Jains were cut into the rock at Girnar. There is a group of 16 Jain sanctuaries on a rocky cliff at a height of 2100 feet, datable to Solanki period.

v1.c29.s2.t2.13

In central India a series of 20 cave temples assigned to Gupta period are reported from Udaigiri near Vidisa in Madhya Pradesh. These are excavated into sandstone ridge.

v1.c29.s2.t2.14

Earlier 35 cave temples were excavated into sandstone out-crops of Udayagiri and Khandagiri near Bhubaneshwar (Orissa). These were excavated under the patronage of Chedi Kings of first century B.C.

v1.c29.s2.t2.15

Some later examples of rock-cut architecture imitated free standing buildings. At Mamallapuram in Southern India, granite boulders were cut into monolithic copies of temples during 7th century A.D. The most impressive monolithic monument is the Kailas temple at Ellora, also datable to this period. Here, a great ditch was excavated into a cliff exposing a solid mass of rock, this was then hewn into a free standing monolithic temple, complete in all of its architectural details; from the mouldings of the basement to the dome like roof of the tower.

v1.c29.s2.t2.16

Monolithic solid rock architecture is also known from north India. One such representation is the fifteen towered temple datable to 9-10th century A.D. at Masrur near Kangra (Himachal Pradesh).

v1.c29.s2.t2.17

Rock-Cut Cave temples : Beginning with Maurya period rock-cut caves and temples my be taken as an achievement of Maurya Period. They scooped into hard and refractory quartzose-gneiss outcrops at Sitamarhi near Gaya district the caves of the Barabar and Nagarjuni hills. The technology developed further during Gupta period. The rock-cut caves included scooping out of the laterite, sandstone, granite, gneiss, charnockite and bed rock. Pallavas alone chose the hardest rocks like granite and gneiss.

v1.c29.s2.t2.18

Techniques of Scooping : Some of the unfinished caves give an idea and clue of scooping, chiselling and polishing practices adopted by the ancients.

v1.c29.s2.t2.19

First of all, the outline of the facade was incised by driving a tunnel into the rock, beneath the place where the ceiling would be. For this, small and closely spaced cubical holes were drilled along the selected line for breaking. Dry wooden cubes were forced into these holes and then wetted, their swelling caused the stone to crack and break. Bronze and iron chisels and mallets were the main cutting tools.

v1.c29.s2.t2.20

Considering the present day traditional craftsman it is likely that during Gupta period high quality steel chisels having a width between 1 to 2 cm, with two functional ends one pointed and another with broad cutting edge were used.

v1.c29.s2.t2.21

Sometimes, the rock-face was divided into 2 to 3 feet square blocks and deep grooves were cut between these blocks, which were then hewn off. This process was repeated until required depth was achieved. The concussions of the heavy hammer helped to remove sizeable pieces of the rock.

v1.c29.s2.t2.22

For reaching appropriate height metallic footholds were provided. The work of scooping, and chiselling off the projecting squares was done by vertical, lateral and centripetal strokes.

v1.c29.s2.t2.23

Carving, Dressing, Pecking, Grinding and Polishing : For carving out monolithic columns, brackets, doorways and windows, position of the facade pillars, cornices, beams and doorjams etc. the portions requiring carving were first marked and then carved out. These were finished by more careful and light strokes of chisel by experienced and trained artisans. After blocking, scooping and carving out different architectural members, the dressing of surfaces were made even by parallel straight chiselling as can be noticed in Lomas Rsi cave. The ridges produced by the above mentioned chiselling were removed. In this process of thinning called as pecking one chisel mark overlaps the other and prepares flat surface ready for grinding and polishing. Grinding is done (after even surface is produced by pecking) with the help of coarse grained stone, coarse sand and wetting the surface throughout the process. In this process a vigorous rubbing of the surface was carried out, removing all ridges, pitts, moles and chisel marks. Pillars and all other members were also given this treatment before polishing. For polishing some shining agent was supposed to be added during polishing, but this is not supported by factual evidence. The shine is the result of extensive burnishing with fine stone and fine grained sand. It brings out polished surface which in some cases glistens rather than shinning. The final shining surface also depends upon the quality of the stone.

Bricks

v1.c29.s2.t3.1

Bricks both unbaked and baked are standard building material since Pre-historic times. Their use has been attested from Pre- Harappan levels. Bricks are made of clay which is easily available in plenty in alluvial lands and was economical for use. It could be moulded in desired shapes, dried in the sun and used in unbaked form. Sun dried bricks were baked for use in structure to withstand weathering and resist wear-and-tear to last longer.

v1.c29.s2.t3.2

Unbaked mud bricks or adobe was used extensively in Pre- Harappan and Harappan times and upto historic period. Even to day unbaked bricks are used in undeveloped rural areas specially in arid and semi-arid regions.

v1.c29.s2.t3.3

*Nature of clay:* The soil used for fabrication of bricks consists mainly of clay along with natural impurities of the soil as quartz, mica, feldspar, calcite, kaolinite, depending upon the basic material from which the soil is formed. Main criterion for the mud to be useful for moulding bricks is its plasticity. Pure clay is very plastic and natural impurities affect its plasticity. The nature of the minerals, shape and size of the grains, presence of soluble salts and organic material influence the suitability of the soil for bricks. Plasticity can be increased by adding selected clay and can be decreased by adding quartz, sand, slag, organic material like husk of rice, or chopped straw. The composition of the brick varies according to the region.

v1.c29.s2.t3.4

In *Yajurveda-Saṃhitā* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* hair of goat, very fine sand, pounded rock and iron filings are mentioned as degressant material. These materials help in holding the non- plastic ingredients of the clay together. Use of *Ukhya-bhasma* is mentioned as an additive to mud for making bricks in *Baudhāyana Śulba Sūtra*. Most of the bricks are rectangular, yet bricks in various shapes and types: square, wedge shaped, L Shaped, decorated and inscribed have been used according to their specified use.

v1.c29.s2.t3.5

Wedge shaped bricks are found for steening wells, and are reported from Harappan period onwards. These are also used for construction of circular structures in early historic period. e.g.. at Lauriya Nandangarh, Kaundinyapura for stupas.

v1.c29.s2.t3.6

Square bricks have been reported from a large number of sites (vide infra).

v1.c29.s2.t3.7

*Round and cubical bricks are also known*

v1.c29.s2.t3.8

*L-Shaped bricks* - the Ksatrapas, Guptas and later rulers used decorative pieces by moulding. This is attested from Bhitargaon, Nibiakhera, Sirpur, Nalanda, Vikramsila etc. Such bricks were used in eastern India till medieval times.

v1.c29.s2.t3.9

*Light weight bricks* - these were made specifically where heavy bricks could not be used. These were made by adding to the clay such material which will be partially burnt out releasing carbon dioxide. For this the clay was mixed with limestone, organic matter like saw dust etc. At the Ramappa temple at Palampet (Andhra Pradesh) the use of light bricks is noted. The *Śikhara* there is made of such bricks. These bricks have low density and can even float in-water.

v1.c29.s2.t3.10

*Bricks used in Śyena-citi (Altars)* - Bricks of typical shapes and sizes are noted from Kausambi and Jagatgram. These are also inscribed.

v1.c29.s2.t3.11

*Size of bricks*: On the basis of measurement of bricks from various Harappan sites and structures the range of the size in cm is: 50 to 25 (length) × 25 to 12.5 (width) × 12.5 to 6.35 (thickness); keeping the general ratio of 4:2:1. The most common size is 28 × 14 × 7cm. A few examples may be necessary - earliest use of bricks (unbaked and baked) is attested for the first time from Pre-Harappan levels at Kalibangan (Dt. Ganganagar, Rajasthan)

v1.c29.s2.t3.12

*Kalibangan*: 30 × 20 × 10 cm (laid in English Bond) and the ratio of length: breadth: thickness is 3:2:1. (Pre-Harappan level). A large number of Harappan sites have been excavated and there is a great variety of structures and hence despite the standardization there is bound to be different sizes and shapes. Kalibangan Harappan levels reveal two sizes of bricks 40 × 20 × 10 cm in the earlier phase and 30 × 15 × 7.5 cm in later structural phase, both have the same ratio e.g. 4:2:1. (Harappan level).

v1.c29.s2.t3.13

*Banawali* (Dt.Hissar, Haryana): Pre-Harappan levels reveal unbaked bricks and following sizes in the ratio of 3:2:1 (as that at Kalibangan) are recorded: 30 × 20 × 10 cm, 36 × 24 × 12 cm, 39 × 26 × 13 cm an aberrant size square in nature is also reported e.g. 24 × 24 × 12 cm.

v1.c29.s2.t3.14

*Mitathal* (Dt. Haryana): Here also Pd I the size of the brick is 30 × 20 × 10 cm and in PD IIA the size is either 40 × 20 × 10 cm or 36 × 18 × 9 cm. (4:2:1).

v1.c29.s2.t3.15

*Surkotda* (Dt Kutch, Gujrat) Some structures show 40 × 20 × 10 cm size (4:2:1).

v1.c29.s2.t3.16

*Daimabad* (Dt Ahmadnagar, Maharashtra): Here too in Period II (Late Harappan) the size is 32 × 16 × 8 cm 28 × 14 × 7 cm (4:2:1).

v1.c29.s2.t3.17

*Post-Harappan Chalcolithic context*: At Gilund (Ahar culture) mud bricks of the size 40 × 22 × 7 cm and 33 × 13 × 10 cm and baked bricks of 35 × 15 × 12 cm have been reported. These look to have no resemblance with Harappan size.

v1.c29.s2.t3.18

*O.C.P. and P.G.W. Cultures*: Some old bricks and brick fragments have no doubt been reported from O.C.P. culture for example from Lal Qila, Saipai, Bhagwanapura and Hastinapura. Their number is limited, there are no structural remains nor any intact brick.

v1.c29.s2.t3.19

From Kausambi large sized bricks have been reported in very large number, from 9 feet thick rampart dated to c. 1000 B.C. their size is 48 × 33 × 7 cm.

v1.c29.s2.t3.20

At Hastinapura some bricks have been reported from P.G.W. level but these are fragmentary and only their thickness is known to be 5.6 cm.

v1.c29.s2.t3.21

*N.B.P.W. Culture*: There are regular brick structures during this phase datable to 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. and have been reported from a large number of sites but these do not fall in any fixed dimension. A few examples are given below:

v1.c29.s2.t3.22

Hastinapura itself has three sizes 45 × 25 × 7 cm. 30 × 23 × 6.5 cm and 37 × 23 × 6.5 cm.

v1.c29.s2.t3.23

Bricks from Mathura measure 40 × 24 × 5 cm and those from Kausambi show a range with 48 to 35 L × 30 to 18 B × 7.6 to 5.6 Th. Rajghat (ancient Varanasi) again has range of bricks 50 to 48 L × 31-29 B × 7 to 6 cm Th. Most common size taking all the N.B.P. sites is 45 × 24 × 7 cm.

v1.c29.s2.t3.24

Mathura (Kankali Tila tank) has three sizes 40 × 25 × 5 cm. 30 × 26 × 4 cm and 30 × 17 × 5 cm; Hastinapura bricks of this period measure 37 × 22 × 6.5 cm and 28 × 28 × 10 cm (the latter are square). Eran bricks measure 43 × 23 × 7.5 Sringverpura bricks range 41.5 to 44 × 27 to 28.5 × 5.5 to 7 cm.

v1.c29.s2.t3.25

Gupta Period: Brick size during the Gupta period also shows a wide variation. Large bricks like 61 × 31 × 9 cm and small bricks 19 × 19 × 16 (square) are found. A few examples giving range of length × breadth × thickness in cm will illustrate the point:

v1.c29.s2.t3.26

1. Sārnāth : 41.91 to 22.86 × 29.21 to 17.78 × 13.97 to 5.08 cm Square 22.86 × 22.86 × 5.08

v1.c29.s2.t3.27

2. Rājghat : Unbaked 48:26 × 22.86 × 9.27, baked 40 × 24.76 × 9.72

v1.c29.s2.t3.28

3. Kusīnagar : 39.37 to 20.32 × 24.13 to 12.7 × 6.98 to 4.44

v1.c29.s2.t3.29

4. Śrāvastī : 60.96 to 24.13 × 30.48 to 20.32 × 8.89 to 5.08

v1.c29.s2.t3.30

5. Bhita : 4.72 × 15.24 × 7.62

v1.c29.s2.t3.31

6. Kumrahār : 45.72 to 30.48 × 33.02 to 22.86 × 17.78 to 3.98

v1.c29.s2.t3.32

7. Vaiśālī : 41.26 to 13.97 × 27.94 to 13.97 × 6.35 to 5.08

v1.c29.s2.t3.33

8. Bodhagayā : 18.58 to 11.43 × 18.58 to 11.43 × 15.54 to 11.43 (Square bricks)

v1.c29.s2.t3.34

9. Bhītargaon : 45.72 to 33.02 × 26.67 to 22.67 × 7.62 to 5.08

v1.c29.s2.t3.35

10. Ahicchatra : 45.72 to 25.4 × 26.67 to 21.59 × 8.4 to 5.08

v1.c29.s2.t3.36

11. Candraketugarh : 33.02 to 30.48 × 22.86 × 5.04 to 4.44

v1.c29.s2.t3.37

12. Ratnagiri : 45.72 × 22.86 × 7.62

v1.c29.s2.t3.38

13. Eran (Pd III) 38.10 × 27.94 × 10.16

v1.c29.s2.t3.39

14. Devnimori : 48.26 to 40.64 × 33.02 to 15.24 × 24.76 to 6.35

v1.c29.s2.t3.40

15. Taxila : 45.72 to 25.40 × 35.56 to 17.78 × 6.35 to 5.08

v1.c29.s2.t3.41

16. Kaveripattanam : 41.91 × 24.13 × 10.16

v1.c29.s2.t3.42

17. Paharpur (Bangladesh) Round bricks of 16.0 cm, 13, 10.5 cm diameter and cubical bricks 7.62 × 7.62 × 7.62

v1.c29.s2.t3.43

18. Bharauch : 7th century A.D. 40.64 to 30.48 × 27.94 to 20.32 × 7.62

v1.c29.s2.t3.44

19. Thaneshwar (Harsha’s time) 35.56 × 21.59 × 6.35

v1.c29.s2.t3.45

20. Burogoan (Dt. Jhansi A.D. 10th century) 35.0 × 23.76 × 6.35 445; 0×29.84×6.35.

v1.c29.s2.t3.46

The above description of the size of the bricks from N.B.P.W. phase to Gupta period and onwards brings out the fact that bricks though made in moulds do not show any standardization as prevalent during Harappan period. This is mainly due to the fact that no scale was prevalent (none has been reported from any site after the Harappans). The measurements were taken from human body, length of the brick was based on hasta (forearm e.g. cubit), breadth on vitasti (stretched hand or span) and the thickness was based on four *angulas* (fingers). As this varied from person to person, the variation in the size of bricks can be explained as done by Lal (1983).

Mortars and Plasters

v1.c29.s2.t4.1

Amongst the building materials mortars and plasters are important ingredients. mortar may be defined as a material used for building or cementing the building materials e.g. bricks or stones. Plaster is the material used for coating walls etc. Some times the same material may be used as a mortar as well as for plaster. In ancient period mud was almost exclusively used as mortar and plaster. Though gypsum and lime plaster/mortar have been used during antiquity. The earliest use of lime and gypsum comes from Indus civilization.

v1.c29.s2.t4.2

At Harappa, gypsum cement of light grey colour was used in certain buildings. It consists of variable mixture of sand (20 to 40%), gypsum (45 to 75%) and lime (2 to 25%). Lime mortar with sizeable percentage of magnesium is also used in Indus Civilization. It contains calcium carbonate (26 to 57%), magnesium carbonate (4 to 11%) and sand clay (34 to 61%). The high percentage of sand and clay in lime plaster suggests that it was prepared by burning *Kankar* (calcarious nodules). The use of lime was restricted to drains and floors. *(See Table 1)*.

v1.c29.s2.t4.3

From the analysis of various samples of mortars and plasters from Mohenjo-daro, it may be concluded that gypsum mortar/plaster was quite common. Lime plaster was generally mixed with gypsum, but lime plaster free from gypsum has also been reported both from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. The use of lime and gypsum mortar was confined to drains or floors where mud mortar was of no use. Gypsum and lime mortar are stronger and resistant to water.

v1.c29.s2.t4.4

Lime mortars have been used at Kausambi. These date from 600 B.C. to A.D. 100. But it may be emphasized that by and large only mud mortar and plaster were used. The results of the chemical analysis (*Tables 2* and *3*) show that the content of sand in the mortar, was slightly higher than that in plasters. The average ratio of sand : lime Ca(OH)₂ is about 1:1, whereas in the case of mortars the average is 2:1. For mortars, probably 2 parts of sand were mixed with one part of slaked lime.

v1.c29.s2.t4.5

Lime Plaster from Karwan (Dt. Vadodara, Gujrat) from pre- Gupta levels : From the analysis (*Table 4*) it is clear that two types of plaster was used. Samples 1 to 4 represent the upper coat of the plaster and 5 to 8 represent lower rough plaster. The former has higher content of lime as compared to the latter. Fine layer was laid and burnished to make it smooth and elegant.

v1.c29.s2.t4.6

Lime Plaster from Bhitari (Dt. Gazipur. U.P) (Gupta Period) : shows low grade lime plaster (*Table 5*) was used at the brick temple of Gupta period. It has sand and lime ratio of 6:1. The red colour of the plaster/mortar is due to the use of ferruginous *kankar* for preparation of lime.

v1.c29.s2.t4.7

Lime Plaster from excavations at Nalanda (7th-10th century A.D) (*Table 6*) shows 3 parts of lime (calcium carbonate) and 2 parts of sand. Some of the monasteries are thickly plastered. Jars with dried up mortar and a cell used as a cistern in monastery No 11 are indicative of the preparation of concrete.

v1.c29.s2.t4.8

Lime Plaster from Lingaraj temple at Bhubhaneshwar (Orissa - 10th century A.D) (Table 7) shows that lime:silica ratio was 3:1.

v1.c29.s2.t4.9

Cola and Nayaka Plasters show two types of plasters used : rough and fine, it has a ratio of 1:1 of lime : sand in rough plaster, and 9:1 in case of fine plaster. Nayaka rough plaster 1:3 lime : sand ratio, while fine plaster has 4:1 ratio.

v1.c29.s2.t4.10

Lumps of finely made lime in the shape of balls have been found mostly from late Jorwe levels at Inamgaon (datable to first millenium B.C.). Sometimes these have been carefully stored in pots. In one house of late Jorwe phase a large number of lime balls were found. This indicates some people were engaged in the manufacture of lime. Significantly a heap of shell, was noticed near the house, but no kiln.

v1.c29.s2.t4.11

Lime kiln for manufacturing Lime : Kilns were rudely constructed of stone blocks and usually located in a cavity. In charging the kiln large pieces of limestones were formed into a dome like arch with large open joints and kiln was filled with fragments of lime stones. The larger pieces of lime stone were placed above the arch and kiln was topped with fragments of small size. Kiln was charged with alternate layer of lime stone and fuel (wood). Bright heat was maintained for three or four days at a temperature of about 95°C, lime stone, kankar modules, sea shells are converted into quick lime (CaO) and CO2 gas is evolved. Before using it is slaked by mixing it with mater and slaked lime is mixed with sand or bajari for masonry work.

v1.c29.s2.t4.12

In addition to the above, mention may be made of use of clay, lime, gravel and hydraulic lime from post-chalcolithic levels at Navasa.

v1.c29.s2.t4.13

At Taxila, lime is used extensively during Parthian levels. Though at Bhir mound there is no evidence of the use of lime plaster. At Sirkap lime was used for finishing both internal and external surfaces. Floors at Julian (Takile) were covered with bajari-lime concrete.

v1.c29.s2.t4.14

At Arikamedu lime mortar is reported from historical period. Use of lime is also attested from Hullas Khera (Dt. Lucknow) from Kuṣāṇ-Gupta levels and from Banagarh (Dt. Dinajpur) where use of lime and Surkhi is known from Gupta and Pala levels. At Purana Quila lime plastered gutter connected with house drains is reported from levels datable to 8th-9th century A.D.

Wood

v1.c29.s2.t5.1

Wood and the vegetable world supplied the first building materials and wood was amongst the first constructional material for buildings. Post holes supporting wooden posts or bamboos have been identified from prehistoric settlements right from neolithic times. Sanskrit (*Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*) and Pali literature (*Jātakas*) *Arthaśāstra* and *Rāmāyaṇa* show that buildings were generally made of wood. That wooden architecture prevailed in India for a long time is attested by the fact that when other material was used the buildings were made after their wooden models. The pillars, the arch, the door and the mouldings of the early caves all disclose their indebtedness to buildings made of wood. From the use of bamboos came the

v1.c29.s2.t5.2

Table 1—Percentage Composition of Gypsum and Lime Plasters and Mortars from Harappa and Mohenjodaro

v1.c29.s2.t5.3

| Chemical Constituents | Mortar from Mohenjodaro | Mortar from Mohenjodaro | Plaster from Mohenjodaro | Mortar/Plaster from Mohenjodaro | Mortar/Plaster from Mohenjodaro | Mortar from earthen ware Mohenjodaro | Mortar from drain & cesspool Mohenjodaro | Mortar from floor at Harappa (Floor) | Lump of Mortar from Harappa (Floor) | Mortar from Harappa (Floor) | Mortar from Concrete floor at Harappa |
| Ca SO4 2H2O (Gypsum) | 72.3 | 74.12 | 56.9 | 43.75 | 63.25 | 56.7 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ca CO3 (Calcium carbonate) | - | 2.50 | 0.94 | 13.78 | 1.64 | 25.0 | 69.58 | 39.96 | 35.02 | 56.51 | 26.5 | 37.63 |
| Mg CO3 (Magnesium carbonate) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10.62 | 4.81 | 8.46 | 2.18 |
| Sand & Clay | - | 20.41 | 42.16 | 38.04 | 31.52 | - | 21.71 | 47.48 | 51.39 | 34.35 | 61.60 | 59.29 |
| Alkaline Salts | 27.7 | 1.18 | - | 2.47 | 2.56 | 18.3 | 5.44 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Moisture (Water) | - | 1.79 | - | 1.96 | 1.01 | - | 3.27 | 3.74 | 2.97 | 4.33 | 3.44 | 0.90 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.4

Table 2 — Percentage Composition of Lime Plasters and Mortars from Kausambi (based on Satya Prakash and N.S.Rawat:1965) (Dt. Allahabad)

v1.c29.s2.t5.5

| Sample No. | CaO | Insoluble sand, etc | MgO | CO2 + H2O | Moisture | P2O5 | SO2 | Fe2O3 + Al2O3 | Cl, Alkali | Total |
| 1 | 31.12 | 33.43 | 2.01 | 24.08 | 1.42 | 0.51 | 0.30 | 7.13 | - | 100.00 |
| 2 | 28.41 | 41.40 | 1.38 | 20.16 | 1.63 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 4.65 tr | - | 98.74 |
| 3 | 28.08 | 39.13 | 1.21 | 21.09 | 2.37 | 0.71 | 0.41 | 7.00 | 0.30 | 100.30 |
| 4 | 29.00 | 36.37 | 0.63 | 21.12 | 2.88 | 0.60 | 0.34 | 8.93 | - | + 99.87 |
| 5 | 25.06 | 44.49 | 0.92 | 18.29 | 3.44 | 0.68 | 0.29 | 6.60 | - | + 99.70 |
| 6 | 15.12 | 65.39 | 1.98 | 9.20 | 2.73 | 0.48 | 0.31 | 4.49 tr | - | 100.62 |
| 7 | 18.53 | 57.37 | 1.80 | 13.00 | 1.48 | 1.12 | 0.51 | 6.19 | 0.62 | 100.51 |
| 8 | 27.51 | 38.09 | 1.30 | 19.29 | 3.10 | 0.99 | 0.56 | 9.67 tr | - | |

v1.c29.s2.t5.6

Table 3 — Ratio of sand and slaked lime based on Table-2 in Plasters and Mortars from Kausambi

v1.c29.s2.t5.7

| Sample No | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Sand | 33.43 | 41.40 | 39.13 | 36.37 | 44.49 | 65.37 | 57.37 | 38.09 |
| Slaked lime Ca (OH)2 | 41.11 | 37.53 | 37.09 | 38.30 | 33.10 | 24.48 | 24.48 | 36.34 |
| Ratio of Sand and Ca (OH)2 | 3:4 | 1:1 | 1:1 | 1:1 | 4:3 | 3:1 | 2:1 | 1:1 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.8

Table 4 – Percentage Composition of fine lime plaster Samples (1 to 4) and rough lime plaster (5 to 8) From Karwan (Dt. Vadodara, Gujarat)

v1.c29.s2.t5.9

| Sample | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Ca CO3 | 94.12 | 94.28 | 94.46 | 94.26 | 69.98 | 74.26 | 71.88 | 68.34 |
| Sand | 5.88 | 5.72 | 5.54 | 5.74 | 30.02 | 25.74 | 28.12 | 31.66 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.10

Table 5 – Percentage Composition of Bhitari (Dt. Ghazipur. U.P.) Plaster

v1.c29.s2.t5.11

| Sample | Si O2 | Ca O | MgO | Fe2O3 | Al2O3 | Alkali | Total |
| 1 | 73.40 | 13.65 | 1.85 | 6.45 | 0.65 | 1.75 | 97.45 |
| 2 | 74.20 | 13.42 | 1.76 | 4.50 | 2.60 | 1.46 | 97.94 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.12

Table 6 – Percentage Composition of Plaster samples from Nalanda

v1.c29.s2.t5.13

| Sample No. | CaO | CO2 + H2O | Clay and Sand | MgO | Fe2O3 + Al2O3 | NaCl | H2O | SO3 | Total |
| 1 | 33.95 | 25.84 | 27.5 | 1.13 | 7.84 | - | 2.24 | 0.27 | 98.79 |
| 2 | 34.78 | 30.30 | 23.41 | 1.30 | 5.54 | 2.40 | 2.16 | 0.40 | 100.29 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.14

Table 7 - Percentage of Plaster sample from Lingaraj temple Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) 10th century A.D.

v1.c29.s2.t5.15

| CaO | CO2 + H2O | Clay + Sand | MgO | Fe2O3 | Cl | H2O | SO3 | Total | Lime Sand ratio |
| 37.30 | 33.31 | 19.26 | 3.12 | 5.62 | 0.23 | 0.68 | 0.78 | 100.30 | 3:1 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.16

Table - 8 - Percentage Composition of Cola and Nayak Plasters

v1.c29.s2.t5.17

| Description | Ca O | CO2 | SiO2 | Fe2O3 + Al2O3 | MgO | SO3 | Moisture | Alkalies | Total |
| Chola rough plaster | 27.88 | 18.05 | 49.97 | 1.89 | 0.51 | 0.26 | 0.38 | 1.05 | 99.99 |
| Chola fine plaster | 65.59 | 25.13 | 7.02 | 1.06 | 0.37 | 0.58 | 0.23 | - | 99.98 |
| Nayak rough plaster | 18.56 | 9.38 | 63.39 | 3.69 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 3.14 | 1.34 | 100.00 |
| Nayak fine plaster | 55.58 | 23.67 | 13.76 | 1.59 | 1.02 | 0.59 | 3.77 | - | 99.98 |

v1.c29.s2.t5.18

curvilinear type of roof which was later reproduced in cut timber and subsequently in stone and from which were evolved the *caitya* arches.

v1.c29.s2.t5.19

For protection of wood from white ant and other corrosive effects the wooden posts were set in jars of earthern ware. The *Ṛgveda* refers to the dwelling places but the characteristics of the buildings are not clear. From the reference to *Tvasta*, it is clear that master architect was a carpenter and wood was the main material used along with others. *Takṣaka* in later architecture means a mason whose duty was to give fine shape to the stone, wood or the brick (*Mayamatam*, ch. V. 20).

v1.c29.s2.t5.20

Though stone architecture was followed by the Buddhists, the Hindus continued to build their houses, *Prāsādas* & *Devālayas* in bricks and wood. That is why no Hindu temple is known before Gupta period. The brick and wooden temples have perished for ever.

v1.c29.s2.t5.21

The main structure of Mathura temple of Vāsudeva, the Heliodoros temple of Vāsudeva at Besnagar have not been preserved.

v1.c29.s2.t5.22

Aryans lived in wooden and brick houses and being strict followers of *Vāstuvidyā* hesitated to depart from that tradition. Stone structures were made by non-Aryans.

v1.c29.s2.t5.23

Wood has been used as constructional material from neolithic times. Post holes in early neolithic settlements confirm this. As wood is perishable material only a fragment of what was used has come to us. In Harappan period it was used in conjunction with bricks masonry, for door frames, door leaves and as wooden beams for roofing purposes. Use of timber has also been attested for making embankments or wooden walls.

v1.c29.s2.t5.24

Variety of wood has been identified from archeological sites. Special mention may be made of Acacia (*babūl*), Adina cardifolia (*haldu*), Albizzia (*kokko*), Anogeissus (*baklī*), Casearia (*cilla*), Cedrus deodara (*deodār*) dalbergia spp. (*śiśam*), Dendrocalamus sp (Bamboo), Mangifera indica (Mango) Pinus roxburgii (*cira*), Shorea robusta (*sāl*) and Tectonia grandis (*teak*).

v1.c29.s2.t5.25

Important sites from where wood samples have been identified are: Lothal (Harappan), Atranjikhera (O.C.P) Śiśupālgarh (early historic), Jagatgram (early historic ‘aśavamedha’ site), Patliputra (Patna) early historic period.

v1.c29.s2.t5.26

Identified specimens from various sites are mentioned below in alphabetical order :

v1.c29.s2.t5.27

1. Acacia Sp. (*babūl*): Lothal and Rangpur (Harappan) Maski and Prakāsh (Chalcolithic) and Śiśupālgarh (early historic).
2. Acacia nilotica (L) Del (*babūl*): Atrainjikhera (O.C.P)
3. Adina cardifolia (*haldu*): Lothal (Harappan)
4. Albizzia sp. (*kokko. sirisa*): Lothal
5. Angoissus sp.(*baklī*: From all levels of excavations of Prakash.
6. Bassia latifolia (Roxb).(*mahua*): From Kirari, yupa (early historic)
7. Boswellia serrata (Roxb) *salai*: From Śiśupālgarh (early historic).
8. Casearia Sp. (*cilla*): From Śiśupālgarh (early historic).

v1.c29.s2.t5.28

9. Cedrus deodara (*deodār*): From Harappa, Mohenjo-daro Atranjikhera (N.B.P.W)
10. Cupressus torulosa (*devdiar*): From Atranjikhera (N.B.P.W.).
11. Dalbergia sp. (rosewood) *śiśam*: From Prakash (early historic).
12. Dalbergia latifolia (black *śiśam*): From Harappa, Prakash (chalcolithic).
13. Dalbergia Sissoo (Sissoo): (*śiśam*) From Monhenjo-daro, Atranjikhera (O.C.W.), Hastinapur (Late Historic).
14. Dandrocalamus Sp. (Male Bamboo): From Prakash (Chalcolithic, N.B.P.W.).
15. Diospyros sp. (Ebony): From Arikamedu (early historic).
16. Heritier Sp. (*sundari*): From Arikamedu (early historic).
17. Holarrhena antidysentrica (*kurchi, karci*): From Prakash (chalcolithic) Śiśupālgarh (early historic) Hastinapur (late historic).
18. Madhuca latifolia syn *mahua*: From Kirari, Yypa (early historic).
19. Mangifera indica (mango): From Jagatgram (early historic site of Aśvamedha)
20. Mimusops (*mūlsari*): Arikamedu (early historic).
21. Pinus roxburgii (*cīr*): Atranjikhera (P.G.W.) Pinus sp. (Pine): Harappa.
22. Shorea robusta (*sāl*): Atranjikhera O.C.P., Jagatgram (early Historic), Patliputra.
23. Soymida febrifuga (*Rohan*) From Lothal (Harappa), Śiśupalgarh (early historic).
24. Tamarix Sp. (*Jhāu*) From Rangpur, Atranjikhera N.B.P.
25. Tectona grandis (teak): From Lothal (Harappa) Prakash (Chalcolithic) Atranjikhera (Black and Red Ware).
26. Terminalia tomentosa: From Prakash (Chalcolithic) Atranjikhera, N.B.P., Jagatgram Aśvamedha site (early historic).
27. Zizyphus sp. (*ber*): Harappa.
28. Ulmus lancifolia (elm): Harappa.

v1.c29.s2.t5.29

Wood is of perishable nature. However fragmentary evidence of timber is available:

v1.c29.s2.t5.30

*Harappan* : Universal flat roofs with evidence of sockets indicate that square cut beams with spans of as much as 4 meter were used for roofing at most of the Harappan sites in India and Pakistan. Timber was also used for semi-structural frame or lacing for brick work.

v1.c29.s2.t5.31

*Taxila*: Use of timber for the upper floors and roofs as well as for varandahs, doors and smaller fittings.

v1.c29.s2.t5.32

*Bairat* (Dt. Jaipur): Octagonal columns of wood, 26 in number have been identified on the basis of charred stumps.

v1.c29.s2.t5.33

*Śiśupālgarh*: The wood has been used for gates.

v1.c29.s2.t5.34

*Large Scale use of timber at Paṭaliputra*

v1.c29.s2.t5.35

The excavations at Kumrahar, Bulandibagh and Kankarbagh have exposed extensive remains of massive timber pallisade of ancient city of Patliputra, which is believed to have been founded a year before Buddha’s death and which became capital of Magadhan empire shortly thereafter. Magasthenes also mentions this wooden palli-sade. According to him the pallisade had numerous gates and watch towers surrounded by a deep moat.

v1.c29.s2.t5.36

It might have been constructed in the time of Nandas who built first an all-India empire in historic period with Pataliputra as the capital, rather than by Candra Gupta Maurya as might be inferred from the statement of Magasthenes.

v1.c29.s2.t5.37

Archaeological excavations in 1926-27 resulted in the discovery of east-west wooden structure running for a distance of about 137 meters. It is a wall made of heavy wooden sleepers placed vertically in a double row with similar sleepers joining them horizontally at the bottom. In 1935 a similar structure was found at Gosainkhanda 800 meter east of Bulandibagh but here the wooden structure had a reverse design viz. the vertical sleepers were capped by horizontal ones.

v1.c29.s2.t5.38

Kumrahar excavations during 1951-55 have not brought to light any wooden boundary walls, or railings or wooden floor of the hall. The hall was probably destroyed by fire during Sunga period. Hall may not be a part of the palace of Aśoka as mentioned by Fa-Hien and was destroyed long before Fa-Hien’s visit to India.

v1.c29.s2.t5.39

The temples of Brahmaur, Catrarhi, Manali and Camba (datable to 8-9th century) all in Himachal Pradesh, have carved wooden doorways, columns, beams, and ceilings, still surviving. There are temples wih wooden architecture in U.P. also, mention may be made of temples at Sarahan and Jageshwar. Cedar wood has been used in Himachal.

v1.c29.s2.t5.40

Though India’s early wooden architecture has not survived, techniques derived from this tradition influenced later rock-cut and masonary monuments. Among the timber, bamboo and thatch elements that were preserved in later architecture are circular or part circular plans, curved doorways and window openings and domed and barrel-vaulted roof forms.

v1.c29.s2.t5.41

The earlist rock-cut Buddhist and Jain sanctuaries had timber- like ceilings with cross-beams and rafters: actual teak ribs were even inserted into the stone vaults. Clearly, these artificial caves were intended as copies of timber structure. Stone posts and rails that surrounded stupas also imitated timber originals, even to the details of jointing, so too did the stone gateways with carved architraves known as ‘toran’. Masonary details of temples were often wooden in origin: projecting blocks on basements and cornices were derived from the ends of timber beams, doorways had jambs and lintels of timber designs. Towers with curved profiles and roofs with barrel-vaulted or dome-like tops were also wooden in origin as were the curved cornices but like roofs of brick temples in Bengal in eastern India, or the sloping stone roofs of temples in coastal southern India. Some completely wooden structures have survived the corrosive effects of India’s climate. In the Himalayan valleys and in Kerala, temples have carved timber doorways, columns and beams, angled wooden brackets etc.

Linked texts (59)

Mayamata — Maya, Sanskrit
Jātaka — Pāli
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Baudhāyanaśulbasūtra — Baudhāyana, Sanskrit
Harappā
Mohenjo-daro
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Lothal
Kālībangan
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
Banawali
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Rangpur
Mitathal
Daimabad
Takṣaśilā
Ahicchatra
Hastināpura
Kauśāmbī
Atranjikhera
Sārnāth
Śrāvastī
Vaiśālī
Pāṭaliputra
Nālandā
Bodh Gayā
Chandraketugarh
Sisupalgarh
Nevasa
Maski
Gilund
Inamgaon
Śṛṅgaverapura
Lingaraja Temple
Jagatgram
Ramappa Temple
Prakash
Kumrahar
Devnimori
Kaveripattanam
Lal Qila
Bhitari
Saipai
Karvan
Purana Qila
Bhītargāon
Jaulian
Kusinagara (Kasia)
Chamba
Saráhan
Bhir Mound
Bhita
Sirkap
Paharpur
Bulandibagh
Bairat
Surkotda
Jagesvari