Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c30: Fortification And Forts

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c30

Language
English

Contents

Fortification And Forts

Concept of Fortification

v1.c30.s1.1

The erection of a physical barrier between oneself and an anticipated enemy is the basic concept of fortification. The nature of the barrier changes with reference to the thing to be protected and the danger to it perceived by its protectors. To cite an example, the object of protection could be a temporary camp and the danger apprehended might be of wild animals; or, it could be a whole city and the danger might be posed by an army equipped with artillery. In the case of the former, a train of carriages chained to each other and small screens of tough branches or bamboos in between, would be enough whereas in the case of the latter strong stone walls of considerable height and thickness would be needed. However, the basic concept is the same - a physical barrier. The fortification is thus static, purely defensive in purpose and is in the nature of a well thought-out reaction to a given set of circumstances. Since these might change, and the nature and size of the objects to be defended might change, the nature of fortification would undergo a corresponding change.

Fortification in Literature

v1.c30.s2.1

Before the extensive application of archaeological methods to the ancient past, students had to depend on literary sources for information. Apart from the Epics and the Purāṇas which give descriptions of cities like Lanka, Hastinapur or Dwarka and which might be dismissed as outcomes of poetic imagination, a body of scientific literature exists, consisting of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, the Smṛti of Manu and several treatises on Vāstu Vidya. All these treat Dūrga vidyā as a separate branch of architecture and engineering. The Arthasastra explains the varieties of forts like land forts (Bhū-dūrgas), forest forts (Vana-dūrgas) and sea forts (Jala dūrgas) and so on. Such features as battlements, (Kapiśirṣas) turrets or bastions, gates and moats find a mention in these texts. The Epics mention various projectiles, however, it is difficult to ascertain both their existence and their nature. Interestingly none of the battles in these Epics are described as having been fought around fortifications; all battles were fought in the open ground, armies clashing head on. Moreover, these works do not describe in detail the principles, mainly with reference to defensive strategies, employed in the construction of the forts. Their main utility is that they testify to a long experience in the art and craft of fortification; for texts like the Arthaśāstra are an embodiment of communal experience spread over generations, may be centuries.

Fortification in Art

v1.c30.s3.1

Sculptural representations dated to the first and second centuries B.C. from places like Barhuṭ, Amravati and Sanchi depict walled towns. The walls are surmounted by triangular battlements and have massive gates or gate-houses. These gate- houses were the precursors of laterday ‘Gopuras’ found in temples of South India - with two tall pylon-like structures on either side and a ‘śālā’ type of structure surmounting and joining them. Soldiers manning these walls carry swords, javelins and bows and arrows. No projectiles other than arrows are in evidence. The size of the gate can be inferred from the fact that in almost every depiction an elephant with riders on its back is emerging from it.

v1.c30.s3.2

All these, the poetic as well as plastic representations, were treated with some reservation by scholars and gradually greater reliance came to be placed on material remains, that is, archaeological data uncovered through excavations.

v1.c30.s3.3

The earliest traces of fortifications found on the Indian subcontinent belong to the Harappans, dated to between 2500 B.C. to 1700 B.C. (Mate, 1970, pp. 75-84). Some sites like Kot Diji perhaps have slightly earlier defences whereas in Gujarat they spill over the fifteenth century B.C. The area covered by this civilization is vast, comprising as it does present day Pakistan, parts of India, Punjab, Rajasthan and northern Gujarat. Within this area, more than a hundred villages or stations of the Harappans, at least some seven townships and a number of outposts have been located, surveyed and excavated to a greater or lesser extent. If as the Allchins (1968) suggested, Sandhanawala, Judeirjodaro and Darbar Kot (all in Pakistan), turn out to be major townships, the number of towns would be ten. Of these at least nine have yielded evidence of town-walls. There however seem to be two categories in these townships, some are enclosed in while others have only their citadels so protected.

v1.c30.s3.4

Desalpur, Lothal and Kalibangan are examples of the former while Harappa, Mohenjodaro are of the latter. In the case of the latter sites there are two different entities the smaller one (citadel) well defended, whereas the bigger (township) inhabited by the general public is left undefended (Fig. 1).

v1.c30.s3.5

Some important sites are noted below.

v1.c30.s3.6

Harappa was the first place where large-scale fortifications were noticed. The citadel at this place is a rough parallelogram measuring 450m x 210m. It is between nine to twelve meters higher than the surrounding plains. The defences rest on pre-Harappans deposits which show signs of heavy flooding. These inroads of water were first filled up with mud-bricks and the whole was then raised to a higher level with baked bricks. This served as an anti-flood bund, spreading protectively beyond the outer foot of a great defensive wall 14m wide at the base and tapering Fig. 1. Plans of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, showing township and citadel. (Wheeler, R.E.M., 1953, "Cambridge History of India, Supplementary Volume - the Indus Civilization, p.19)

v1.c30.s3.7

SITE PLAN OF MOHENJO-DARO

v1.c30.s3.8

SITE PLAN OF HARAPPA

v1.c30.s3.9

HARAPPA EXCAVATED BUILDINGS & CEMETERY FORTIFICATION INVESTIGATED IN 1946 INFERRED FORTIFICATION SCALE OF FEET SCALE OF METRES

v1.c30.s3.10

towards the top (Wheeler, 1947, pp. 19-20). The core of the wall was of mud brick but it had burnt brick revetment 1.20m to 1.80m thick, externally. A sort of buttress was added internally, as an after- thought, in the form of a sloping platform of mud-brick. Bastions were erected at regular intervals and at least some of them were greater in height than the circuit wall. The main entrance was on the northern side. Evidence of guard rooms flanking the subsidiary gateways in the western wall was clear. At the southern end a broad ramp or stair led up to the citadel. Three phases or reconstructions have been identified by the excavator.

v1.c30.s3.11

Of these, a few points are of interest in the present discussion. Of the first or original phase, the excavator states, ‘as originally built the defences of the citadel long remained untouched save by weather, which wore and rounded the exposed surface of the baked brick revetment to a notable extent’ (Wheeler, 1953, p. 20). The final phase or rejuvenation consisted of an enlargement of the defences on the north-east corner and the blocking off the gateway in the northern wall.

v1.c30.s3.12

The citadel at Mohenjodaro was situated to the west of the township. It was raised on an artificial mound as at Harappa. Its general height was between 6.5m to 13m. From early times, the artificially raised platforms at Mohenjodaro had to be protected from floods and for this purpose a mud brick embankment of 14m breadth was first constructed. The defences of this place have not been so fully explored as those of Harappa, but whatever work has been done is enough to give a good idea of how the things must have looked like. The extent of the citadel mound was the same as that at Harappa. This was surrounded by a baked brick wall and massive towers. Out of these the earliest had to be protected from floods and hence mud-brick embankments were constructed. ‘The gradual multiplication of rectangular bastions at the south-east corner cannot be fully explained without further excavation. Two of them seem to have originally flanked a postern gate which was later blocked and replaced by a platform with a parapet.’ (Wheeler, 1953, pp. 28-29).

v1.c30.s3.13

Kalibangan in Rajasthan also had two mounds, the citadel and the lower city. Of these the former is on the western side and measures 150m EW and 250m NS. Here, the lower city also had a town-wall. Its width varied between 3m and 4m ; the maximum available courses of bricks being fifteen. In the northern part at least, the town wall had been built on the box pattern, with bricks on the outer side and a mud fulling inside (IAR, 1967-68, pp. 43-44). Three possible gateways have been located and these were probably flanked by guardrooms. The citadel at this place holds unusual interest as it has preserved fortifications of two periods: Harappan and pre-Harappan. The wall was initially 1.90m thick but its width was increased to 3.70m to 4.10m during the pre-Harappan period itself. It was strengthened by rectangular bastions and had well guarded entrances. The Harappans superimposed their fortifications on these but occupied only half the area, that on the south. In the construction of these, mud- bricks was used and massive towers stood sentinel over the corners. The main gate again perhaps flanked by a bastion lay on the southernside.

v1.c30.s3.14

Lothal on the gulf of Cambay was an important port and the city proper was well defended. A rampart of mud-brick some 4.50m in thickness and 2.30m of available height surrounded the rectangular town. These ramparts were in the nature of Fig. 2. Plan of Lothal, Rao, S.R., 1962, “Further Excavations at Lothal”, (Lalit Kala, No. 11)

v1.c30.s3.15

ANCIENT RIVER BED (FIRST STAGE) CEMETERY BEAD FACTORY BLOCK GBLOCK FBLOCK EBLOCK A UNEXCAVATED PERIPHERAL WALL BLOCK CBLOCK BWELL SPILL-WAY D O C KREFERENCE ACROPOLIS = BLOCKS B, C & DLOWER TOWN = BLOCKS A, E, F & G 100 50 0 100 SCALE OF FEET ANCIENT RIVER BED (SECOND STAGE) ENTRANCE TO ACROPOLIS

v1.c30.s3.16

anti-flood or flood protection measures (Fig. 2). Within the area so enclosed, the excavator has identified a citadel with ramparts of its own (Rao, 1962, pp. 14-30).

v1.c30.s3.17

Kot Diji in Sind (Pakistan) has preserved a pre-Harappan fortification used by or rebuilt by the Harappans (Khan, 1958) The pre-Harappan residential buildings were set against the ramparts, the latter often served as the back wall of the houses. This pattern at Kot Diji was of common occurrence at a number of Anatolian and West Asian sites of the same date (Clarke and Piggot, 1965, pp. 203-205). Very probably the Harappans followed this time-honoured practice in their citadels also.

v1.c30.s3.18

The other category of fortified places mentioned above, can be called fortified outposts. Examples of these have been discovered along the Makaran coast of Balucistan in Pakistan and half a dozen places in Saurashtra-Kathiawad areas of Gujarat.

v1.c30.s3.19

Sutakagen-Dor on the western extremity of Balucistan has been explored twice, first by Stein (1931, p. 60) and then by Dales (1962, pp. 86-92). Standing on two separate ridges of sandstone was the usual pair of township and citadel. The latter was a parallelogram of 206m x 103m. The wall was built of huge blocks of stone, was 11m wide at the base according to Stein, and had a mud brick buttress 2.50m in thickness. The gates were flanked by massive towers. The place was situated on the estuary of the river Dasht and perhaps was intended to serve as a well protected entre’ port.

v1.c30.s3.20

Desalpur in Kutch has retained traces of a stone wall 4m in basal width and 2.50m in extant height. It has been reinforced with corner salients and towers. Huge blocks of stone, often as big as 1.5m to 1m are used in the construction. The excavators have not given the extent of the fortified area. (IAR, 1963-64, p. 17).

v1.c30.s3.21

A small outpost, also in Kutch, was excavated at Surkotada (IAR, 1970-71, pp. 13-15). Here the ramparts were of mud and mud-brick (40 x 20 x 10 cm). For the citadel part it was 7m thick at the base and at places a rubble veneer was applied. The published report speaks of the citadel and township adjoining each other but does not mention the area covered by either. More recently at a place called Kuntasi remains of ramparts have been noticed but the excavations have progressed only partially and nothing definitive can be said.

v1.c30.s3.22

Like their residential structures the Harappans used almost exclusively bricks - both of the sun dried as well as baked variety - for their fortifications. The walls were very thick, broader at the base and tapering upwards. Gates with flanking bastions were provided for. In many cases the ramparts served a dual purpose, defence from enemy and protection from floods. A closely countoured map of each of the places would indicate which of the two was more important from the point of the builders. Such maps are not available at present.

v1.c30.s3.23

The weaponry of the Harappans consisted mostly of personal or anti-personal nature, swords, knives, spears, arrows and maces. Clay tablets might have served as missiles to be flung from slings - these again were anti-personal. Commenting on the nature of the arms found in the Harappan sites Mackay states, “it cannot be assumed that these (axes) were used in war, as there is no evidence that their inhabitants were ever seriously threatened by outside enemies until the last phase of the existence of the Indus cities; but they could have been used in working wood, in the chase, and perhaps against dacoits, like the little battle-axe so often carried by the countrymen of Upper Sind.” (Mackay, 1935, p. 124). It is quite evident that as compared to other contemporary societies the armoury of the Harappans is most unimpressive. There is no evidence of forcible destruction of any of the Harappan fortifications. Except in the Kutch region there were no military stations or outposts and hence one has to conclude that the Harappan fortifications were local security measures, often serving to stave off floods. This also indicates that the military element was never an important aspect of Indus life.

v1.c30.s3.24

A few of the Calcolithic sites excavated so far have revealed traces of mud-brick or mud ramparts and bunds. However, these have not been explored or exposed to an extent where their plans, strategic situation etc. could be made out. Hence for the period of circa 1700 BC to 500 BC, one has to remain satisfied by mentioning the possibility that some of early farming communities perhaps had rudiments of fortifications around them.

v1.c30.s3.25

With the advent of the second half of the first millennium BC a much clearer picture emerges. In the first place the literary works mentioned above received their final shape during this period and must have reflected contemporary practices. Secondly accounts of foreign officials and travellers are now available. Megasthenes, who was the Greek ambassador to the court of Candragupta Maurya states that the capital Pataliputra was protected by wooden ramparts that had sixty four gates and five hundred and odd towers. Pliny/Ptolemy, speaking of the Satavahana empire state that there were thirty walled towns in their empire. Plastic representations on Buddhist monuments of this date have already been referred to above. From 1860 onwards surveys of surface remains have been extensively conducted and numerous ancient remains have been noted (CUNN). Over the last forty years numerous sites have been subjected to excavations. Most of these however, were vertical digs, that is, the area excavated was very small. This was mainly due to the fact that most of the ancient sites or mounds of debris are covered with modern habitations and excavations could be conducted on small plots that were unoccupied. This also limited the choice of the site for digging in a given locality. The plan of fortifications have been traced in some cases mostly through

v1.c30.s3.27

Fig. 3. Plan of Fortfications at Ujjain. ("Indian Archaeology - 1956-57; A Review", p.21, Fig.9).

v1.c30.s3.28

contour maps and aerial photographs, but hardly ever through excavations. The picture that can be pieced together would be somewhat as under (Mate, 1970A, pp.58-69). Most of the important townships in North India were situated on the banks of rivers that supplied water the year round. These were located on natural eminences and were often flanked by small streams that joined the main rivers and served as natural barriers or moats. These towns were enclosed within gigantic ramparts mostly consisting of heaps of earth and sometimes of sun dried bricks. Ramparts at Ujjain (Fig. 3) had a basal width of 60 to 75m and the extant height was 12m while the moat surrounding the wall was between 27.50 to 45m broad (IAR, 1955 to 1958). This was lined with baked brick where danger from floods of the river was apprehended. At Kausambi the average height of the rampart was 10.50m to 12m but the basal width is not mentioned in the published report.

v1.c30.s3.29

Free standing towers some 22m in height were a special feature of the defensive system at this place (Fig. 4). There were eleven gateways and at a later stage baked brick revetments were provided for. These were in 140 courses (Sharma, 1960, pp.27-40). Other places like Rajghat, Vaisali had earthen ramparts around them. At Ahichatra this earthen wall was topped by a brick wall of 3m height and to economise in brick it was built in blocks, the intervening spaces being filled with rubble and clay. Its width was 4.88m (IAR, 1963-64, p. 44). In a number of cases the foundation of the earthen ramparts was strengthened by placing huge logs of wood in piles at the base. Ujjain has yielded the best example in this regard (IAR, 1957-58, pl.XLI). The so-called palisade of timber uncovered in the excavations at Pataliputra poses more problems than it solves. It is often cited to support the statement of Megasthenes that there were wooden ramparts (Fig. 5) round the town. These palisades really seem to form a long tunnel or reinforcement over which the earthen ramparts were built. In that case Megasthenes could not have seen them, the only possible explanation of his statement seems to be that instead of brick parapets as at Ahicchatra wooden parapets were erected over the earthen walls. With the possible exception of the so called War of Relics' which is depicted as having taken place below the ramparts of a number of towns, no important battle in ancient India had taken place below or around a fortified town.

v1.c30.s3.30

There are hardly any descriptions of a siege or siege-warfare from this period. The geographical location and the stupendous size of these ramparts around the towns of north India, especially the Gangetic valley make it appear that they were flood protection measures.

v1.c30.s3.31

There are places like Rajgir, in Bihar, Śiśupālgarh in Orissa which have got an essentially military or defensive purpose. Rajgir or Rajagṛha or Girivraja was situated in a valley surrounded almost completely by hills and sometime in the sixth- fifth centuries BC a rubble wall of 'considerable height' running atop these hills was erected. Its circuit was twenty five miles. Nearer the township, clay and rubble ramparts were erected and the perimeter was five miles. This was in the 4th century BC. The site was deserted in the latter part of the century in favour of Pataliputra. (Ghosh, 1951, p. 66). Far more convincingly defensive or military in purpose was the site of Sisupalgarh (Fig. 6). It is a rough square on plan, each side approximately 1.40 km with a tower on each corner and two gates in each side. These were flanked by guardrooms. Somewhere in the third century BC this rampart of clay with a basal width of 110 feet and twenty five in height was erected. In the second phase of construction a 4'.6" thick covering of lateriate ‘gravel’ was added over the clay base, and subsequently a baked brick rivetment was provided on either side or face of the mud rampart. The fortification served the town for well over seven centuries, was kept in a constant state of repairs. The whole area was surrounded by natural streams ‘one of which was diverted for the purpose’ (Lal, 1949, pp. 62-78).

v1.c30.s3.32

Fig. 4 Photograph of defences of Kauśāmbī. ("Indian Archaeology - 1957-58, A Review", pl. LX).

v1.c30.s3.33

Fig. 5 Photograph of wooden construction in the make up or the ramparts. ("Indian Archaeology - 1957-58, A Review", pl. XLI A).

v1.c30.s3.34

Towns and cities in Southern India slightly later in date than the Ganga valley fortifications were surrounded by town walls and ramparts. A number of places, more especially in Andhra Pradesh, like Satanikota, Dharanikota have been explored and partially excavated to reveal town walls. It was however, Nagarjunakonda that gave a detailed picture of defensive architecture as practiced in the South (Fig. 7). Two separate areas, both surrounded by protective walls were revealed during the explorations. The one on the northern side enclosed a large Buddhist vihar-cum-caitya area, consisting of a number of stupas and vihāras (Fig. 8). The walls around these were renovated, strengthened and enlarged often but it remained an enclosure wall and nothing more. On the southern side a trapezoidal area 900m × 750m referred to by the excavators as the Citadel, had fortifications proper. The southern side of this area was protected by the Pedakundelgutta hill with an average height of 170'. On the other three sides was a moat 12' in depth and between 74' and 132' in breadth, fronting the ramparts. The maximum extant height of these ramparts, above the surrounding plains is 16' and they run along the ridge of the hill on the southern side. The excavators had noticed two phases; in the first phase a rampart of rubble and earth was constructed with a basal width of 80'; in the second phase a wall of baked brick 9' to 14' in thickness was built over the earthen rampart.

v1.c30.s3.35

Fig. 6 Aerial photograph of Śiśupālgarh. (Ancient India, No. 5, pl. XXVII).

v1.c30.s3.36

Two gateways, one in the western side and the other in the eastern side were cleared; a small entrance was also noticed on the northern side. Very probably guardrooms or barracks were placed inside the eastern gate. There were no turrets or bastions anywhere along the wall or near the gates. The entire fortification is placed in the 3rd-4th centuries AD.

v1.c30.s3.37

It would be observed that unlike their counter-parts in the north, the ramparts in the southern sites are smaller in size. This possibly was because the absence of the danger of massive floods in the case of the southern cities, which the cities in the north constantly faced. As such the fortifications around the southern cities could be treated as defensive or military measures.

v1.c30.s3.38

Fig. 7. Plan of Fortifications at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa. (“Indian Archaeology - 1957-58 ; A Review”, p. 7).

v1.c30.s3.39

The rise of the Gupta dynasty and its equally illustrious contemporary, the Vakatakas in the fourth century is usually regarded as the Golden Age of Indian Culture. The uncertainty following the repeated incursions of the various Saka and Kusana tribes was put to an end. The Ganga basin to begin with and then most of the country north of Narmada was pacified and brought under imperial control by successive Gupta rulers. The records of Candragupta II and Samudragupta narrate that story and it needs no repetition here. It is to be noted that the rise of the Guptas was facilitated more by mutual understanding, often resulting in matrimonial alliances between the small regional kingdoms and tribes like the Nagas of Central and Northern India. It was more a process of consolidation and recognition by equals that one among them was superior to the rest.

v1.c30.s3.40

It was in the later phase that military element crept in, but that was outside the core area of the Gupta empire. The Vakatakas had friendly relations and matrimonial relations with their northern neighbors and in general, the political climate appears to be peaceful; consequently the need for constant military preparedness, in the nature of fortifications, seems to have become less pressing than in the previous age. This era of comparative tranquility came to an end by the closing decades of the fifth century and once again ‘region-based’ kingdoms and dynasties started asserting themselves. There was no dearth of claimants to the imperial mantle of the Guptas but few were in a position to assert their superiority over others in terms of military might. This situation continued well upto the eleventh century, perhaps slightly beyond. These region-based kingdoms were not necessarily small and by the seventh century a well established pattern emerged - the Pala-Senas in Bihar-Bengal; the Śaśāṅkas in north and the Candellas in south U.P.; the Pratiharas in the Rajasthan area; The Traikutakas and Kalacuris in the Narmada area; the Calukyas in north Karnataka and the Pallavas in the extreme south. In terms of fortifications it meant that so many frontiers were created and had to be protected. Additionally trade and military routes, important cities and capitals had to be taken care of, thereby multiplying the places to be fortified.

v1.c30.s3.41

(a) (b) (c) (d)

v1.c30.s3.42

Fig. 8. Representations of fortifications in Sculpture. Mate, M.S., 1970A,

v1.c30.s3.43

Literary records of this period, both of the Puranic variety and the scientific variety - sastras - speak of forts, their classes, locations etc., indicating greater and renewed interest and activity in the field.

v1.c30.s3.44

Ironically it is this period which has received little attention from archaeologists. The surveys carried out by Cunningham in the last century supply whatever reliable information that we have. Occasional excavations at a number of places, which were more a matter of unavoidable effort as the excavators wanted to reach lower levels, supply additional information which at best is sketchy. The paucity of firm data has obscured the picture. To add to the confusion is the fact that many of the forts like Citorgarh or Kalanjar originally erected in the period under reference have been reused, renovated, remodelled, and alterations carried out by the succeeding Islamic rulers of the post-12th century period. This has in most cases obliterated the original fortifications, except perhaps the locations and the general plan, thereby limiting our ability to isolate and understand the art of fortification of the pre-11th century period. However, the picture is not as bleak once we turn to the Deccan and South India. Here the earlier traditions seem to continue, with a difference whereas north Indian townships continue to have earthen ramparts around them, those in the former area have started using stone.

v1.c30.s3.45

Mahasthangarh (Bengal) was a small plateau measuring 1.37 km × 1.22 km rising to a height of 4.50m over the surrounding plains. There were broad and deep moats on the north, south and west while the river Kartrya defended the eastern side. The corner bastions rose to a height of 10m and gates were provided for in all four directions.

v1.c30.s3.46

The city wall was 3.35m in thickness and 3m in extant height, both faces built of burnt brick and the core filled with brick-bats and mud. The introduction of semi-circular bastions is an intriguing feature. This place was identified as Paundravardhan, the capital of the Varendra kingdom and its antiquity went back to the 4th century B.C. But its close association with the Guptas is indicated by numerous coins of Candra Gupta II and Kumaragupta, as well as by the ruins of a temple of the Gupta period (CUNN, XV, 104-117 and ANRSI, 1928-29, 1930-34, p. 128).

v1.c30.s3.47

The castle of Mandor or Junagarh in Rajasthan (CUNN, XXIII, pp. 73-85 and ANRSI, 1909-1910, p. 100) stands on a rock or hill. It is surrounded by a moat and the eastern and southern sides of the rock are almost vertical, like a scarp. The walls are built of massive squarish blocks of stone put together with lime-mortar or any other cementing material. Perhaps the use of such massive squarish blocks led to another feature found in most pre-Islamic forts, squarish or rectangular bastions and turrets. The height when Cunningham surveyed it was 7.62m. A few circular bastions were added during the subsequent period.

v1.c30.s3.48

The Candellas of Bundelkhand were reputed to have eight mighty forts in their possession. These were supposed to be ‘boundary forts’ that protected the frontiers of their kingdom. The eight that are usually named are : Bairagarh, Kalanjara, Ajayagarh, Mahiyarh, Marpha, Mandha, Kalpi and Garka. Some lists substitute the names of Mahiyar or Kirtigiri for Kalpi.

v1.c30.s3.49

Among these forts, Kalanjar was the most important, a sort of heart of the military might of the kingdom. It is a hill more or less detached from the main Vindhya ranges and stands to a height of 245m above the surrounding area. The plateau on top is oblong in shape and the fort wall runs all around it, measuring 6.4 km in length. A number of gates, loop-lines, bastions are encountered in the ascent to the top but these were in all probability additions during the Islamic period. (CUNN., XXI, pp. 20-28; ANRSI., 9127-28, pp. 1112).

v1.c30.s3.50

Ajayagarh (CUNN, VIII, pp. 46-49 and XXI, pp. 46-48) has a similar story to tell except that its natural location is much stronger as the natural scarp all around the top makes it almost totally inaccessible. The selection of hill tops from which surveillance over a vast surrounding area was possible and which were never easy of access are the main features to be noted in these forts.

v1.c30.s3.51

Badami in Karnataka, the capital of the early Calukyas had a fort, the date of which is uncertain and shows signs of extensive renovation during the 16th - 17th centuries.

v1.c30.s3.52

Aihole in Karnataka, the temple city of the Calukyas and Alampur (A.P.) had till recently preserved traces of town-walls and gates. These were built of fairly large blocks of stone laid without mortar. The walls were generally three to four meters in thickness and equal in height. The gates were of the pillar and lintel variety, more like the Buddhist *toraṇas*. Such ramparts served quite well so long as the defenders faced weapons like javelins, arrows or sling-balls. But with the introduction of gun-powder a number of changes became necessary.

v1.c30.s3.53

The defenders had to cope with a much greater destructive impact, higher trajectory and greater range. The answer was, much thicker and mortar bound walls, greater heights and extension of areas covered by ramparts so as to keep artillery as far away as possible.

References

v1.c30.s4.1

ANI, *Ancient India* Published by the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Allchin B. and R. : 1968, *The Birth of Indian Civilization*, Suffolk. ANRSI, *Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India*, (Ed.) Marshall J.N., Calcutta. Clarke G. and Piggot S. : 1965, *Preshistoric Societies*, London. CUNN, Cunningham (Ed), *Archaeological Survey Reports*, Calcutta. Dales G.F. : 1962, “Harappan Outposts on the Makran Coast”, *ANI*, London, XXXVI. Ghosh A. : 1951, “Rajgir”, *ANI.*, No. 7, 66-78. IAR *Indian Archaeology - Review*, published by the Archaeological Survey of India. Khan F.A. : 1958, *Preliminary Report on Kot Diji Excavations*, Karachi Lal B.B. : 1949, “Shishupalgarh”, *ANI*. Mate M.S. : 1970, “Harappan Fortifications - a study”, *Studies in Indian Archaeology - Indian Antiquary* (NS) No.IV, 75-84. Mate, M.S. : 1970 A, “Early Historic Fortifications in the Ganga Valley”, PURA, No. 3., Varanasi, 58-69. Prakash D.V. : 1975, “A History of Fortification in India”, (Unpublished PH.D. thesis submitted and accepted by the University of Poona, Poona) Rao S.R. : 1962, “Further Excavations at Lothal”, *Lalit Kala* No. 11, New Delhi. Sharma G.R. : 1960, *The Excavations at Kaushambi*, Allahabad Singh S.D. : 1965, *Ancient Indian Warfare*, Leiden Stein, A. : 1931, “An Archaeological Tour of Gedrosia”, *MAS*, No. 43, Calcutta. Wheeler, R.E.M. : 1947, “Harappa : 1946”, *ANI* No. 3 Wheeler, R.E.M. : 1953, *Cambridge History of India - Suplementary Volume : The Indus Civilization*, Cambridge. Wheeler, R.E.M. : 1960, “Ancient India - the Civilization of the Subcontinent”, *Dawn of Civilization*, London.

Linked texts (29)