Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c35.s1: Literary Evidence

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c35.s1

Language
English

Literary Evidence

v1.c35.s1.1

The ancient Indian literature abounds with references to the furniture known through the ages. The common Indian term to denote furniture in Pali, Senāsana and Sanskrit, Śayanāsana. The Śayanāsana or Senāsana is a compound consisting of two words — Śayana and āsana. When furniture is meant to be denoted in a collective sense we have the use of the form Senāsanam or Śayanāsanam and where it is meant to be denoted in detail, we have the use of the plural form Śayanānyāsanāni¹ (Shastri, 1969, p. 250). Thus, furniture was technically known as Śayanāsana or Sayyāsana corresponding to Pali Senāsana.

v1.c35.s1.2

As early as in Vedic period we get references to the furniture articles. The terms like *Paryaṅka* (AV. XV. 3.3), *Āsandi* (Macdonell & Keith, 1912, vol. 1. p.71), *Proṣṭha* (*RV*. VII. 55.8), *Talpa* (*RV*. VII. 55.88; AV. V. 17.12; XIV. 2.31.41; Taitt, S. VI. 2.6.4), *Vāhya* (*RV*. VII. 55.8: AV. IV. 5.3, 20.3; XIV. 2.30), *Śayana* (AV. III. 2.5.7; V. 29.8), *Upabarhaṇa* (Macdonell & Keith, 1912, Vol. 1, p.71), *Upavāsana* (Macdonell & Keith, 1912, Vol. 1, p.71), *Upastaraṇa* (*RV*. IX. 69.5; AV.V. 19.12; *Kaus. Up.* i.5) *Upadhāna* (AV. XIV. 2.65) denote the furniture known to the Vedic India. *Paryaṅka* denoted a seat for the Brahmins (*Kaus. Up.* i.5). It corresponded more a throne (Weber) and the *Pāllaṅka* of the Buddhist text and the *Paryaṅka* seem to connote the same meaning, throne and interestingly it gets frequent sculptural and mural depictions.

v1.c35.s1.3

The *Āsandi* type of furniture was a long reclining chair resembling the modern sofa. The *Atharva Veda* (XV. 3.2. cf. seq.) informs that it had two feet, length-wise and cross-pieces forward and cross-cords, showing that it was made of wood (*udumbara*) and also cording. According to the *Śathapatha Brāhmaṇa* (V. 4.4.1) it was an elaborate seat made of *Khaḍhira* wood, perforated (*vi-tṛṇṇa*) and joined with straps (*vardhra-yutā*). This *Āsandi* type of furniture finds place in the lithographic delineations at several places.

v1.c35.s1.4

The *Proṣṭha* was a bench (*Śat. Br.* VII. 55.8) and the seats with solid lower structure and without arm-rests depicted in the sculptures in all probability, represent the *Proṣṭha*.

v1.c35.s1.5

The term *Talpa* (*RV*. VII. 55.8; AV. V. 17.12; XIV 2.31.41.; *Taitt. S.* VI. 2.6.4; *Taitt. Br.* II.2.5.3; *Pañc. Br.* XXIII. 4.2; XXV. 1.10), *Vāhya* (*RV*. VII. 55.8; AV. IV 5.3, 20.3; XIV. 2.30) and *Śayana* (AV. III.25.1; 29.8; *Śat.Br.*, VI.5, 1, 2, 7, 4) denoted bed or couch. One made of *udumbara* wood is mentioned in the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* (I. 2.6.5). The *upabarhaṇa* and the *upadhāna* were the pillows or cushions provided invariably to *Āsandi*. The *upavāsana* and *upastaraṇa* were the coverlets generally used for the seats.

v1.c35.s1.6

Several articles of furniture find mention in the *Sūtras*. The house holder is enjoined upon to ascend a couch at the conclusion of *Śrāvaṇā* sacrifice. A seat called *Āsandi* had four legs and was inter-woven with cords of *Muñja* grass. The *Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra* (X, 12) and the *Śaṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra* (XVII, 2, 6-9) lay down that the *Āsandi* (made of *udumbara* wood) legs should be one span high, that the length-wise and cross-pieces of this seat should be one cubit long and that it should be woven with cords of *Muñja* grass. The *Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra* (XII. 36) forbids a *snātaka* to take his meals on a chair. A soft seat called *Bhadrapīṭha* is mentioned in the *Paraskāra Gṛhya Sūtra* (I. 15.4). The priests of the *Mahāvrata* rite were allotted *Bṛsīs*, cushions of grass (*Kāt. Śr.*. XIII. 3.1; *Śāṅk. Śr.* XVII. 4.7). The skins of a red bull and a black antelope were used as seats on sacrificial occasions. Besides, a plaited seats of various kinds of grass was also in vogue (Ram Gopal, p. 156.)

v1.c35.s1.7

As examples of household furniture, *Pāṇini* (Agrawala, 1953, p. 144) in his *Aṣṭādhyāyī* mentions *Śayyā* (bed), *Khatvā* (cot), *Paryaṅka* or *Pālyaṅka* (couch), *Āsandi-setti* (a royal throne), *Viṣtara* (an ordinary seat) and *Parpa* (a wheeled chair for disabled persons). Interestingly, all these are represented in the sculptures.

v1.c35.s1.8

Much can be known about the furniture from the Jaina and Buddhist literatures. In Jaina literature we come across furniture articles like rich beds, cushions, pillows, chairs etc. Among the marriage gifts mention has been made of Pāviḍha (foot-stool), Bhisiyā (seat), Pallankāya (couches) and Paḍisijjā (sofa). Various kinds of chairs like swan chairs, heron chairs, eagle chairs, tall chairs (oṇaya), sloping chairs (paṇaya), long chairs, fine chairs (bhadda), winged chairs (pakkha), crocodile chairs, lotus chairs, and Disāsovatthiya chairs are mentioned (Jain, J.C, 1947, p.157).

v1.c35.s1.9

The Buddhist texts go long way in supplementing the history of the furniture of the period. The furniture items such as Āsandi, Miḍhi (bench), Pālliaṅka (throne), three-legged chairs, Mañca (seat or bed stead or couch), Vidalamañca, or Vettamañca (cane-seat), Kocca (cane-bottomed chairs), Pattakaṇḍolika (wicker stands), Bhojānaphalakas (tables), Pāda-pīṭhas (foot-stools), Bhisi (bolster), Bimbohaṇa (pillow) etc., are mentioned in the Vinaya texts and interestingly, many of these articles are represented in the sculptures and murals of the period under study.

v1.c35.s1.10

Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra (Ghosh, 1950, I, pp. 234-36) prescribes seats according to the status of the people and this incidentally throws light on the variety of furniture known to the period. Thus, gods and kings in a royal court are to be given a lion-seat (throne). The priests and ministers are given cane- seat. The commander of the army and the crowned princes should occupy muṇḍa seat. The Brāhmins will occupy the wooden seats while the other princes would take carpet seat (Ghosh, 1950, 1, p.235).

v1.c35.s1.11

Similarly the chief queen should be given a lion seat in a royal court. The female relatives, wives of the kings other than the chief queen should occupy muṇḍa seat. The wives of the priests and ministers have been given cane-seat. The concubines of the kings are given seat consisting of cloth, skin or carpet. The wives of brahmins and female ascetics are provided seat made of wood (Paṭṭa). The wives of the Vaiśyas are given cushion seats and for the remaining women the ground will be the seat. But, one can take any seat according to ones own liking while residing in ones own house.

v1.c35.s1.12

The seats for the ascetics should be according to the rules of the order they are observing. The performer of the sacrifices should sit on vṛṣi muṇḍa seat or cane-seat. The king should offer seats equal in height to that of his own to persons equal to him. To the persons of medium importance, the seats of middle height and to persons who are superior to him, should be given a more elevated seat, while the lowly persons are to be seated on the ground. What is interesting is that in the lithic representation, many of the rules prescribed by Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra are well answered. Thus, the kings, queens, princes, sages, brahmins at times in sculptures and murals are given prescribed seats as enjoined in the Nāṭyasastra of Bharata.

v1.c35.s1.13

Kālidāsa’s references to the furniture articles are copious. Several kinds of furniture items like thrones, high seats, benches, bedstead, boxes etc., are mentioned in his kavyas (Upadhyaya, 1947, pp. 214-216). Siṃhāsana (Raghu, VI. 6), the throne of the king was made of gold with set gems. There were also other seats made of gold and of precious stones which ought to have been the property of the rich (Raghu VI.4; VII. 28). There is also reference to beautiful seats made of ivory covered (*Raghu*, XVII. 21) with white covers. Again *Bhadrapīṭha* or *Bhadrāsana* was another kind of seat in circular or rectangular shape (*Raghu*, IV.; See also Gopinatha Rao, 1. p.20).

v1.c35.s1.14

*Vistara* was also an honoured seat, a high seat worthy of royal household. In all probability, those rich seats depicted in the Ajanta murals may represent *Vistara* type of seats. Besides these, there were benches and bedsteads. *Mañca* was a bench. Acharya explains it as a bedstead, couch, bed, a sofa, a chair, a throne, a platform, a pulpit (Acharya P.K. 1927, p. 461). *Talpa* was again a high bedstead (*Raghu*. V. 75; XVI.6). The coverlets like *Uttaracada* and *āstaraṇa* are also mentioned in the kāvyas (*Raghu*. V. 65; XVII. 21; VI.4). The *uttaracada* appears to have been a bed cover or a cover to *Āsandi* (sofa). The other coverlet *astaraṇa* seems to have been used for covering chairs, cushions and the like.

v1.c35.s1.15

Boxes were also a necessary furniture of the household and have been variously referred to as *Mañjuṣā*², *Karaṇḍaka* and *Talarantapidhāna*.

v1.c35.s1.16

Some of these furniture articles described by Kālidāsa do find place in the early Indian sculptures and in the Ajanta Paintings.

v1.c35.s1.17

Later *Silpa* texts like *Mānasāra* (Acharya, P.K. VII. pp. 298, 304, 380, 459, 499, 522 etc), recounts furniture articles and their prolific use in chapter XLIV. The words like *Siṃhāsana*, *Mañca*, *Mañcali*, *Pallaṅkāsana* etc., are referred to mean the furniture material. The *Manasara* mentions a throne marked with lion³ (Ed., Acharya, P.K. XLV. 204, 206). In fact, the *Manasara* enumerates ten kinds of thrones namely — *Padmāsana*, *Padmakeśara*, *Padma-bhadra*, *Śrī-bhadra*, *Śrī-viśāla*, *Bhadrāsana* *Padma-Bhandaka*, *Śrī-mukha*, *Vijaya* etc. Besides, there is another throne known as *Vajrāsana*.

v1.c35.s1.18

Again, the *Mānasāra* refers to several words such as *Kakaṣṭa*, *Khaṭṭaka*, *Khaṭva niṣadya*, *Paryanka*, *Mañca* and *Mañcali* which are synonymous and all mean a bedstead.

v1.c35.s1.19

According to the same work *Paryankas* are of two kinds viz. *Balaparyanka* and *Paryanka*. The former is intended for the children while the latter is meant for elders. They are distinguished by their sizes. Interestingly, of the Āgamas *Suprabhedāgama* deals with the furniture articles like *Āsana* (chair, seats), *Paryanka* (bedsteads, couches etc), *Siṃhāsana* (thrones) (Acharya, P.K. 1927, p. 619).

v1.c35.s1.20

In *Amarakośa* (2.3.138) we get scanty references to the furniture articles. It also refers to the word *mañca*⁴ to mean a bedstead.

v1.c35.s1.21

We have clear evidence in the Vātsyāyana’s *Kāmasūtra* of the typical articles of domestic furniture then in use among the fashionable people, Nāgarakas. The articles that Vātsyāyana first draws attention to in the Nāgaraka’s apartment are two couches with beds, soft and comfortable and spotlessly white, sinking in the middle and having rests for the head and feet at the top and the bottom. At the head of his bed is a *Kūrca-sthāna*, a stand or perhaps a niche for placing an image of the deity he worships, besides, at the head there is also an elevated shelf serving the purpose of a table, whereon are placed articles necessary for his toilet in the early dawn. On the floor is a vessel for catching the spittle. On the wall, on *Nagadantakas* (brackets) are arranged his vīṇā, a casket containing brushes and other requisites for painting, a book and the garland of the Kurantaka flower.

v1.c35.s1.22

Not far from the couch, on the floor, is spread a carpet with cushions for the head and besides, there are boards, for playing a chess and dice. Outside the room is the Nāgaraka’s aviary where are hung cages of birds for game and sport (Chakladar, 1954. pp. 109-110).

v1.c35.s1.23

Varāhamihira’s Bṛhat Saṃhitā offers adequate information about the furniture which prevailed in his time. The words like Sayana or Śayyā (bed and bedstead as a whole), Khatvā (cot), Paryaṅka (couch or high seat), Āsana (a seat) Bhadrāsana or Bhadrapīṭha (throne), Pīṭha (a stool or a seat), Upadhāna (a pillow), Śayanācchādana or Śayanastāraṇa (bed sheet) are mentioned in the Bṛhat Saṃhitā to constitute furniture articles known to Varāhamihira’s time (Shastry, 1969, p. 251). The measurements of the couches meant for the kings, princes, ministers, army-chiefs and royal priests are prescribed. In the manufacture of a couch the Pradakṣiṇāgra order should be strictly adhered to. Paryaṅkas were usually made from the timber of a single tree. The Paryaṅka meant for royal household was fabricated from the sandal wood, covered with gold and decked with jewels.

v1.c35.s1.24

Bhadrāsana was a royal seat and it was also called Bhadrapīṭha. In the ceremonious ablutions, the king sat on a Bhadrāsana placed over the skins of certain animals (Shastry, 1969, p 254). It appears from the Rāmāyaṇa (II.26.17) that it was a sign of royalty and carried by an attendant in front of the king (Raghu, XVII. 10).

v1.c35.s1.25

In the early Indian civilization, wood had always been the basic material in the manufacture of furniture. Owing to its perishable nature and the hot and damp climate of the country made its survival for long centuries impossible. The total absence of any piece of furniture from the excavated remains is undoubtedly due to its being fashioned out of wood or other perishable material. We have therefore to depend solely on the plastic representations of furniture, if we seek to comprehend the ancient Indian furniture. For this, the sculptures of Barhut, Sanci, Amaravati, Nagarjunakonda, Gandhara, Mathura and the murals of Ajanta and sculptures of later period under review form a potential source of the study. The contemporary literary sources form a vital source in supplementing the sculptural and mural data of the furniture. They refer to the variety of furniture articles and amazingly, many of them find place in the lithic and mural representations.

v1.c35.s1.26

Broadly, the furniture as gleaned from the ancient Indian sculptures and murals comprise thrones, chairs, wheeled furniture, seat. and moras, wicker stands, foot-stools and bed steads of which majority of them are indigenous while a few of them betray foreign influence.

v1.c35.s1.27

The thrones with solid base and devoid of arms and back can be identified as proṣṭha of the Ṛgveda or the midhi of the Cullavagga.⁵ It is said in Vinaya (iii, 163) that midhi is generally built against the outer wall of the house of hut. It is made of hardened mud with two wooden legs in front. It is a bench used to sit or sleep on. Invariably, this throne is occupied by the Buddha as is evident from their depictions in Amaravathi, Gandhara and Nagarjunakonda sculptures. Similarly, the small thrones with or without arms but having pillar shaped legs probably represent the *Pallankas* (Pali) or *Paryaṅka* or *Paryaṅkika* (Sanskrit) (VP. Culla VI. 2-A). The *Pallankas* which have no arms are known as *Addhapallankas*. The legs of the throne seem to have been fixed by the turnery technique. The chief novel introduction by the Greeks was the widespread use of turnery after 6th century B.C. The art of turning on the lathe was probably developed in the wood-producing areas of the Middle East whence it spread slowly to the Greek mainland. In the latter Hellenistic period, turning was introduced into Egypt and other parts of the Roman world. In all probability this technique of turnery was the introduction of the Greeks and Romans into India with whom India had contacts from the early times. These thrones persist in the early Indian sculptures since Śātavāhana period. But they became very common in Vākāṭaka-Gupta period and are known as rich seats. Some these seats as seen at Ajanta are decked with peals and diamonds and they probably represent *Ratnāsanas*. Such furniture involved the intricate technique of inlay of semiprecious stones. At times, they were quite ornate with incised geometric and floral patterns. Further, the thrones having animal figures (lions) as arm-rests or legs or both can be identified as *Siṃhāsanas*. Their widespread distribution in early Persia perhaps proned Stuart Piggot to their origin to western Asia. This is evident in the light of the Persian impact on the imperial Mauryan era. However, *Siṃhāsanas* gained popularity in the subsequent centuries of the Christian era as is evident from the frequent depictions in the sculptures of Amaravati, Nagarjunakonda, Mathura etc. Their popularity seemed to have reached zenith, particularly in Śātavāhana and Ikṣvāku periods in the 2nd-3rd centuries A.D. But they became rare in later period and apparently seemed to have been replaced by rich seats or *ratnāsanas* as is evident from the mural depictions at Ajanta. Another interesting throne with prancing deer-supports as seen in the Ajanta frescoes denotes *Mṛga-siṃhāsana* (Dhavalikar, p. 93).

v1.c35.s1.28

The large thrones (*āsandis*) are in no way different from the smaller thrones except that they provide accommodation for two or three persons. These large thrones or *sofas* did not gain favour in early period. However their popularity seemed to have increased in the late Śātavāhana and the Ikṣvāku periods but again dwindled in the Kuṣāṇa and Vākāṭaka periods. It is quite probable that these large thrones could have been the contribution or the innovation of the Śātavāhanas and the Ikṣvākus. The modern name *Sofa* is of Eastern origin and was first used in 1680 to designate a Diwan like seat in France. The same type had also been called *Canape*. It has a back and arms at each end but was distinct from the settee by its greater comfort.

v1.c35.s1.29

Besides the small thrones, there were also three-legged and high backed chairs with armrests (*Pāllankas*) or without (*addha- Pāllankas*). They are represented only at Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda. Further, the chairs depicted at Nagarjunakonda are shown as used exclusively by the women. It is interesting to note that somewhat similar chairs with sloping or arched out backs known as *Cathedras* (Krishna Murthy p. 41) were used exclusively by the women of the Roman period.

v1.c35.s1.30

The most familiar types of chairs were known in Egypt, Greece and Rome in ivory, metal, stone and wood. The well-known folding or ‘X’ type chair commonly found in the Egyptian tombs was often carved with animal forms and covered with skin. This Egyptian furniture has possibly become the basis of all the later styles. In India, China and Japan furniture of brass, bronze and iron of great antiquity are found. Stone furniture was also not uncommon. However, wood is probably the only material used most commonly and it appears that metals did not find favour with Indians as it did with ancient Greeks and Romans in the fashioning of furniture. This may just as well be due to the availability of excellent quality of wood within the country itself.

v1.c35.s1.31

As for the wheeled chair, only the Nagarjunakonda sculpture reveals a wheeled chair. Pāṇini mentions a wheeled chair (Parpa) used by the disabled persons. (Krishna Murthy p. 43). Probably, the utility of the chair depicted in the sculpture may be different from that known to Pāṇini.

v1.c35.s1.32

The cane seats or morās were generally used by all sections of the society irrespective of their status. The rectangular seats (mañca) did not find favour at Sāñchi and Mathura. Evidently, the small thrones with solid low-structure were developed from these rectangular seats.

v1.c35.s1.33

The rectangular low seats represented at Ajanta resemble very much the modern caukis used in North India in the present day. Sometimes hermits as shown at Ajanta used rectangular wooden blocks. Itsing informs that such blocks of wood were widely used by the ascetics more especially by the junior members of the Buddhist order at the time of taking meals. Interestingly, such blocks of wood were widely used by the ascetics more especially by the junior members of the Buddhist order at the time of taking meals. Interestingly, such blocks of wood are still in use in South India being utilised for similar purpose and are known as Pīṭalu in Telugu language.

v1.c35.s1.34

The cane-seats were used freely and did not remain the monopoly of any particular section of the people. The cane-seats were the most favoured item of furniture during the Sātavahana and the Ikṣvāku periods. Sometimes the cane-seats (munda-seat) were used by princes as prescribed by Bharata in his Nāṭya Śāstra. It is quite probable that the morā might be related to the word munda as both signify identical form and material. These cane-seats which were in profuse use in early period became rare in later period and gave place to rich seats. When these cane seats had backs, they were called Vidālamañcaka or Vetramañcam. The wicker-stands or paṭṭa-kaṇḍolikas of Cullavagga were however rare and at times when these were used as dining tables, they represented Bhojana Phalakas of Buddhagosha.

v1.c35.s1.35

The foot-stools (pāda-pīṭhas) constituted an important article of furniture in the Indian house-hold. The foot-stools were generally provided to high thrones. Evidently, the height of the throne necessitated the foot-stool. They were rectangular or square or circular or oval or octagonal in shapes. Some of these foot stools interestingly resemble the Jala-caukis of Bengal or Caukis of Uttar Pradesh.

v1.c35.s1.36

The bed steads (mañcas of the Buddhist literature or Vettrapaṭṭikas of Bāṇa) were many. The beadsted with pillow (bimbohana) and coverlet (uttaratharaṇa) arranged on the bed usually constituted the Senāsana (bedding). Sometimes, bed steads had elephant faced legs as seen in the Gandhara sculptures. In fixing the legs to the cot the technique of turnery seemed to have been employed. Mats and mattress (tūlikas) were used for sleeping on the floor. Interestingly, cilimika (carpet), Tina- Santharo (grass-mat), Panna-Santharo (leaf-mat) were all known to the Buddhist period. Pillows and cushions were used freely. The roll cushions used resemble the present day lod and the circular cushions resemble the modern ṭākiās.

v1.c35.s1.37

The jewel boxes (ābharaṇa samudgakas) and the betel boxes (tāmbūla-karaṇḍas) were all known. At times, these betel boxes were also made of ivory (dantasapharuka).

v1.c35.s1.38

Owing to the trade contacts between India and the west, during the succeeding and preceding centuries of Christian era, India came into contact with many foreign countries. As a result, the impact of foreigners on India and vice-versa was inevitable. Thus the throne with pillar shaped legs and side arms but devoid of back is one such example among furniture. This throne which was only available in early period betrays a clear Hellenistic influence. Such seats with side arms were very common in Hellenistic and Roman world from where this type appears to have been found its way into India. However, it does not appear to have found favour in the later period due to the reasons that it has not afforded to sit in the true Indian fashion of the cross- legged posture.

v1.c35.s1.39

Again, the wheeled brazier represented at Ajanta seems to be non-Indian. Such wheeled braziers were very common in the classical world and were used for carrying food from kitchen to the dining table. It is interesting to note that the movable braziers of iron resembling the classical pattern are reported to have been discovered from the excavations at Taxila (Krishna Murthy, p.44).

v1.c35.s1.40

The three-legged stool or tripod represented in the Gandhara sculpture distinctly betrays Hellinistic origin. Such stands existed in Egypt in modest from as altars. The present example might have been introduced to India by the Greeks. Later in Roman period, these miniature tripods developed into an elegant tripod in metal (Krishna Murthy, p. 99).

v1.c35.s1.41

The tables represented in the Gandhara sculptures and the murals of Ajanta show foreign impact. The X-shaped table revealed unmistakable Greek origin. Evidently the Greeks in turn borrowed such tables from the Egyptians. Similarly, the table in the form of tripod sculptured at Gandhara may represent Greek ornamental table dephica. In all probability, the present table could have been developed from the Greek's costly table monopoded or orbes which rested on one leg with a wooden top cut out of a single leg in the whole of the diameter (Seyfert, 1891, p. 610 a).

v1.c35.s1.42

The table with rectangular top mounted on two sets of legs, each pivoting medially on the other as revealed in the Ajanta murals is of foreign origin. A finest example of such table datable to 1st century A.D. is reported from Pompeii.

v1.c35.s1.43

It is quite likely that this type of table found its way into India through Greeco-Roman world and continued to be in use though rarely, till 5th-6th centuries A.D. as is evident from its representation at Ajanta and Ellora.

v1.c35.s1.44

The dressing table sculpted at Ajanta in the conceptions scene is non-Indian and bears striking resemblance with the ultra-modern examples of our times. Another variety of dining table low in height and having oval top mounted on curved legs, represented in the Ajanta paintings has foreign origin. It is interesting to recall that Athenams refer to similar dining table of the Mauryan emperor Candragupta. As is evident from the statement of Megasthanese the antiquity of such tables can be traced to 4th century B.C. (Dhavalikar, p. 100). It is probable that such tables came into India in the 5th century B.C. during the time of Persian invasion. Various kinds of curtains or blinds (Cakkalikas) were in use. A movable curtain (Samsaraṇa or Ugghaṭanakiṭikā) gets represented at Nagarjunakonda. Curtains of different colours in three rows (tiraskrani) get depicted in a royal court (Dhavalikar, p. 102) in the Ajanta paintings. Curtains are usually referred to as Yavanikas or Javanikas and the Ionian Greeks are generally credited with their introduction in India. Perhaps in early period, curtains were imported from abroad for merchants on the western coast are said to be buying foreign curtains (IA. XVI. 1887, p. 8).

v1.c35.s1.45

Thus, the furniture articles known to ancient civilizations were copious and various of which some of them remained prototypes or the forerunners of the furniture of the later periods.

Linked texts (28)