Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c17: 9. Chalcolithic Culture in the Eastern India

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c17

Language: English

v1.c17.s1 The Copper Hoard Traditions — 14 parts
v1.c17.s2 Chalcolithic Culture in the Easterly Provinces — 5 parts
v1.c17.s3 Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi and Associated Culture in Bengal — 15 parts

9. Chalcolithic Culture in the Eastern India

The Copper Hoard Traditions

v1.c17.s1.1

Since 1822 numerous copper objects have been discovered from various parts of Eastern India — in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab, the hills of Chota Nagpur, Orissa, West Bengal, etc. Vincent Smith (1905, 1907) was the first to collate a comprehensive survey of the ‘copper hoards’, in U.P., M.P., West Bengal and Bihar. Since then further discoveries have been made by many archaeologists such as B.B. Lal (1951), S.P. Gupta (1965), Subhra Bose (1987), etc. *Fig. 9.1* shows the distribution of ‘copper hoards’ and other bronze and copper implements (Lal, 1951: 21), Allchins (1983: 254) have considered the hoards as divided, culturally, into two main groups, those of the Doab and those of the more easterly province, the former comprising about half of the total.

v1.c17.s1.2

In the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Doab the notable copper hoard sites are Rajpur Parasu, Bisauli, Fatehgarh, Bahadarabad, Dardi, Deoti, Bithur, Kosam and Pondi. Those tools and implements which have been found from there are flat celt, shoulder celt, barcelt, parasu, double-edged axe, ring, anthropomorphic figure, harpoon, antennae sword, fort munro sword, shaft-hole axe and axe-adze.

v1.c17.s1.3

In comparison to the findings of Gangetic Doab, the Copper Hoard Culture in Bengal is simpler in form. More complicated, refined and better finished implements like antennae-hilted swords, hooked spearheads, anthropomorphic forms etc. of the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Doab are yet to be discovered around West-Bengal; here the main tools found are bar-celt, rings, double-edged axes, flat axes, stone bar-celt, etc.

v1.c17.s1.4

DISTRIBUTION OF ‘COPPER HOARDS’ AND OTHER BRONZE & COPPER IMPLEMENTS

v1.c17.s1.5

Fig. 9.1: Copper Hoard Sites.

v1.c17.s1.6

Thus, these numerous copper objects have been discovered from various parts of India either singly or in hoards. Since these have been chance finds, no definite cultural horizon could be associated with them. Due to the absence of associate finds, these remain merely as exhibits of a few types of copper implements. Nothing definitely is known about the authors of this copper hoard culture. Even we have no definite idea about the ethnic groups responsible for this culture. The centre of origin and the diffusion mechanism of this culture are still obscure. As the absolute chronology of this cultural age is not known in specific terms, mainly due to the paucity of chronological data, we will try to reach some positive conclusion through our discussion on tools and other comparative perspectives.

v1.c17.s1.7

After this description of the copper implements and their find spots, one is naturally anxious to know something about their authorship and chronological horizon. Earlier writers like Vincent Smith (1905, 1907) and Hirananda Shastri (1915) did not have much comparative material before them and could not therefore dwell on this aspect of the problem. In later years however, quite a lot has been said on the subject specially by two eminent archaeologists, R. Heine-Geldern (1936, 1937) and Stuart Piggott (1944). Among these two, the first scholar thinks that it is the Vedic Aryans who produced these objects somewhere between 1200 and 1000 BC. According to Piggott’s latest views the copper hoards are to be associated with Harappan refugees and not the Aryans. (Lal, 1951: 31)

v1.c17.s1.8

Let it be stated at the outset that none of the implements noticed in the hoard has been found in a regular excavation; nor is there any other evidence to ascertain the type of pottery or other objects associated with these hoards. In fact, in several cases it is difficult to locate the exact find spot even. Thus, no direct or stratigraphical evidence can come to our help in identifying the culture of which these implements formed a constituent, or in ascertaining their chronological horizon. Any inference at present therefore has necessarily to depend upon stylistic comparisons and other circumstantial evidence. (Lal, 1951: 32)

v1.c17.s1.9

The ‘copper hoard’ sites of the Gangetic basin have so far produced mainly the following types of implements: flat celts, harpoons, antennae swords and anthropomorphic figures.

Flat Celts

v1.c17.s1.t1.1

The common flat axes, sometimes with slightly splayed blades, requires no discussion; these were common in the Indus civilization and at several Post-Harappan chalcolithic sites. Jorwe, 47 miles south-east of Nasik, Bombay state has yielded four of them. But the type is so simple that not much can be based on its occurrence.

Shoulder Celts

v1.c17.s1.t2.1

A second type of flat axe has a semi-circular cutting edge and a pronounced shoulder. This shoulder celts have a south-easterly distribution being in the main confined to eastern U.P., Bihar, Bengal and Orissa. No example has so far been found west of the Gangetic basin. Whether it has any connection with the ‘Burmese’ type of shoulder celt in stone cannot be said in the present state of our knowledge. It is also probable that the type may have developed from the flat celt, through intermediary examples having a well-splayed-out cutting-edge. (Lal, 1951: 24,32)

Harpoons

v1.c17.s1.t3.1

The Megdalenian harpoons of bone have a shape similar to that of our type. But these are so much removed from the Indian specimens, both in point of time and place, that it is difficult to imagine any relationship between the two. Again Heine-Geldern (1936, 1937) has drawn attention to some arrowheads with simple barbs from Transcaucasian, Talish and Lusistan which he thinks may have given rise to the Indian harpoons. This may be over-presumption. Barbed arrowheads are known from several ancient sites in the world, but surely they are quite distinct from the harpoons, the shape and method of hafting of which are fundamentally different. This harpoons has a strong medial rib and a long tapering blade. The middle part has three pairs of finely-pointed incurved barbs of cylindrical section. At the junction of the barbed portion and the tang there is a pair of knobs of which one is perforated. The perforation or ‘eye’ was evidently used for passing a cord through in the process of tying the harpoon on to its shaft. The implement was no doubt cast, although there may have been some subsequent hammering at the blade-end. (Lal, 1951: 32, 25)

v1.c17.s1.t3.2

But what may be worth noting here is that certain implements depicted in the archaic cave-paintings of central India plateau bear a close resemblance to the harpoons. For example, a cave called Ghormangur in the Mirzapur District, U.P. contains a scene of rhinoceros hunt, wherein six persons attacking the animal from various sides are armed with long, harpoon-headed poles. In another cave, Likhunia in the same District is portrayed a man who is about to thrust a multiple-barbed spear into the body of a sambhar. Whether the implements represented in these paintings were of copper or bone or even wood and stone combined cannot be precisely determined, but whatever the raw material, the fundamental conception is indeed the same. It is, therefore, not unlikely that the copper harpoons of the Gangetic basin may have had some relationship with those portrayed in the Central Indian paintings. (Lal, 1951: 35)

Antennae Sword

v1.c17.s1.t4.1

The distinctive feature of these swords is the hilt which bifurcates like the antennae of an insect. Outside the Gangetic basin, Kallur (Hyderabad State) is the only place in India which has yielded swords of this type. Beyond the frontiers of India a bronze sword belonging to the Koban culture of north Caucasia may be cited. But there are some outstanding differences between the Caucasian and Indain specimens. In the former case, the hilt and the blade are two separate parts joined subsequently. Further, the hilt has hole, and the blade is flat-sectioned. In the latter case, on the other hand, the hilt and blade are of one cast, there is no hole in the hilt and the blade has a strong medial ridge. Besides there are only a few examples of this type in the Koban culture itself. Thus, there may not be much justification in tracing the origin of the one from the other, specially in the absence of any examples from the intervening countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, much more evidence is wanted than is available at present to decide the issue either way. (Lal, 1951: 35)

Anthropomorphic Figures

v1.c17.s1.t5.1

These seem to be confined to the Gangetic basin alone, since their occurrence has not been reported from anywhere else in the world. The Bisauli anthropomorphic figure measured about 12-1/2 inch in length from ‘head to foot’ and 11 inch in width from arm to arm. It seems to have been cast and then hammered, the marks left in the later process being clearly visible all over the body. Both the arms are incurved and have sharp outer edges: while the inner sides of the legs are left blunt. D.P. Agrawal (1971: 200) believes that the anthropomorphic figures were used as missiles for killing birds and other preys. Lal thinks that any use that may be suggested for this figure-religious or utilitarian — cannot but be conjectural. But Allchins suggest that these bear some resemblances to the ‘anthropomorphic’ sacrificial axes of iron or steel used by the Santals and other tribal people of Chota Nagpur — their actual function was probably some kind of ritual step. The object according to the chemical analysis shows the presence of copper and nickel only. No other metal is present. The quantitative analysis of the Bisauli specimen gave the following results:

v1.c17.s1.t5.2

v1.c17.s1.t5.3

The small amount of nickel detected in the specimen represents only an impurity derived from the copper ore. The fact is significant, as it shows that the ore from which the metal was smelted was of Indian origin. The Indian, copper-ores have generally arsenic or nickel or both as impurities, and these are considered as the key elements in placing the source of raw material. The nearest copper-mines and ancient copper workings exist in Rajputana and Singhbhum, and it is probable that the specimens in question may have derived from ores from such a source. Even Agarwal has suggested that the source of the copper is likely to have been from the Rakha mines of Bihar, rather than the Harappan source, which was most probably the Khetri region of Rajasthan. The fact that this object is made of copper and not bronze, and the same applies to most of other objects as well, seems to be decisive in ascertaining the cultural affiliations of these copper hoards. (Lal, 1951: 24, 35; Allchins, 1983: 256)

v1.c17.s1.t5.4

So, from the above, it will be seen that there exists no good parallel to these copper hoards in either the Indus Valley cultures or any of the proto-historic cultures of Western Asia. If that is true, as it seems to be, how is it that professors Piggott and Heine-Geldern have been led to think otherwise? The reason is not far too seek. It lies in the mixing up of issues. The two writers have assumed that the well-known sword from Fort Munro in the Punjab, the trunion celt from Shalozan in the Kurram Valley, socketed axes from Shahi Tump and Chanhu-Daro and the adze axe from Mohenjo-Daro also belong to these ‘hoards’ and can be treated as such. As a matter of fact, this is not true. None of the four types just stated occurs in the Gangetic basin and conversely no harpoon, anthropomorphic figure or antennae sword etc., occurs west of that basin. Not a single site can be named where an implement from the former group has been found in association with an implement from the latter. If this is realised, things get straightened at once. (Lal, 1951: 35)

v1.c17.s1.t5.5

Here it would not be out of place to recall that almost all the implements comprising the ‘hoards’ are of pure copper. The specimens from Bithur, Fatehgarh, Mainpuri, Gangeria, Bisauli etc. have amply testified to this. The socketed axe, adze axe, trunion celt, Fort Munro sword and their associated implements on the other hand are mostly of bronze. Again the socket is entirely absent from the Gangetic celts. From the technological point of view also, therefore, the two groups fall out from each other.

v1.c17.s1.t5.6

Thus, while the socketed axe, adze axe, trunion celt and Fort Munro sword etc. with their demonstrable West Asiatic affinities are likely to have been associated with the upheaval and movement of people that followed the break-up of the Harappa Culture, the ‘copper hoards’ on the contrary seem to point to a culture which was mainly confined to the Gangetic basin with a possible southward extension across the Vindhya and Kaimur ranges. (Lal, 1951: 37)

v1.c17.s1.t5.7

Lal has pertinently wondered who were then the authors of this ‘copper hoard culture’. As stated above a trial excavation very close to the find spot of the Bisauli hoard produced rolled fragments of ill-fired, ochre-washed ware which may have been associated with the implements. Another copper-hoard site Rajpur Parasu was excavated by Lal, but no copper implements were obtained. Only the lower levels produced the same kind of ill-fired, thick, ochre-washed, rolled pottery as was found at Bisauli. Thus, B.B. Lal wonders whether the copper implements and the pottery products were of the same culture. He thinks that if the answer is in the affirmative (which only further work at these sites can finally decide), it may perhaps be possible to identify the authors some day. (Lal, 1951: 37)

v1.c17.s1.t5.8

Lal further adds that the excavation at Hastināpur has yielded an ill-fired, thick, ochre-washed pottery from the lower level. The fabric, wash and general look of the specimens from the three sites viz. Bisauli, Rajpur Parasu and Hastināpur suggest that they might belong to one and the same class. At Hastināpur the strata overlying this pottery contained Painted Grey Ware which appears to have been associated with the ‘Aryans’ or a group of immigrants when they occupied the upper basins of the Sutlej, Saraswati, Yamunā and Gaṅgā around 1000 BC.

v1.c17.s1.t5.9

Thus, Lal thinks that if the copper hoards are to be associated with the ill-fired, ochre-washed, thick ware it would follow that they are the products of a people who inhabited the Gangetic basin, presumably before the arrival of the ‘Aryans’. Who exactly were these pre- and non-‘Aryans’ is very difficult to determine in the present state of our knowledge, but it may not be out of place to recall here two typological observations made previously.

v1.c17.s1.t5.10

First the bar-celt, which constitutes an important type among the copper-hoards, seems to have developed from stone celts of a similar shape occurring in the hilly tracts of north-eastern Madhya Pradesh, Southern Bihar, Western West Bengal and Northern Orissa. Secondly, the harpoon, another outstanding type in the copper hoards has a resemblance to certain tools depicted in the cave-paintings of Mirzapur in southern Uttar Pradesh. If these similarities have any significance, it would appear that the authors of the copper hoards were once associated with the areas just stated. At present these tracts are known to be chiefly occupied by the Muṇḍas, Santhals and other tribes belonging to the proto-Australoid group of the Indian population. Can it then be said that the ancestors of these Proto-Australoid tribes were responsible for the copper hoards? From the Vedic literature itself Lal has shown that the Nishadas were having a dark complexion, short stature and flat nose. Since more or less the same physical features characterize the Proto-Australoid tribes, the question posed above would appear to gain support from the Vedic literature itself. (Lal, 1951: 38-39)

Chalcolithic Culture in the Easterly Provinces

v1.c17.s2.1

The copper hoard sites of the easterly provinces are located near the eastern fringe of Chota Nagpur plateau with a copper belt not far off. Only exception is Chatla, situated in Midnapore-Balasore border, from where a single copper axe has been discovered and this seems to be an isolated phenomenon. The main sites in West Bengal are Tamajuri, Parihati, Jamboni, Aguiboni, Chatla, Bhaktabandh, Kulgara and Perua. (Bose, 1987: 39-40) These sites in the Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia districts are quite close to the copper belt of the Chota Nagpur plateau.

v1.c17.s2.2

Tool kits discovered from these sites mainly consist of shouldered celts, bar-celts, double-edged axes, rings, discs and a peculiar object, shaped somewhat like a ‘hansuli’ or handle of a ‘Karai’. These tool types are generally found in Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Eastern Madhya Pradesh and have a basic difference from those found in the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Doab. None of the axes found in West Bengal has exact parallels in the copper hoard assemblage in U.P. The thin-edged double-edged axes of Parihati are not cast object but were hammered into shape from copper sheets. On the other hand no antennae-hilted sword, spearhead, harpoon of anthropomorphic figures appears in the collection of copper hoard implements so far discovered from West Bengal. Double-edged axes from Parihati are typologically different from the usual shouldered axe variety and may be compared with axe types of Bhangrapir in Mayurbhanj, Orissa. The forging technique too seems to be the same. Proximity of the two places may be noted in this connection. The similarity between Banasuria stone celts and Bhaktabandh copper bar-celt, strengthens the theory that stone celts are pre-types of copper bar-celt of the plateau zone. (Bose, 1987: 42)

v1.c17.s2.3

Among the main tool kits of Bengal, the most prominent ones are shoulder-celt, bar-celt and ring. About shoulder-celt we have already discussed earlier. Now let us discuss about bar-celt and ring.

Bar-Celt

v1.c17.s2.t1.1

A bar-celt consists of a nearly parallel-sided bar, the length of which measures several times its width. It has a rectangular section, flat bottom and convex upper side. The cutting edge, usually crescentic, is obtained by bevelling the upper side. Most of these features are simulations of the stone celts from the hilly tracts of southern Bihar, western West Bengal and northern Orissa. There is therefore, good reason to believe, according to Dr. Lal that the copper bar-celts were developed from their prototypes in stone in course of time, when metal began to replace stone. It has been suggested by Professor Piggott that the bar-celts may have developed from the narrow elongated celts discovered at Chanhu-Daro and Nal. But these latter specimens do not possess the characteristic features of bar-celt. Besides, in view of the more positive evidence regarding the evolution of the copper bar-celts from their stone prototypes as discussed above, the possibility of an Indus Valley origin of this type of implement may have to be given up. (Lal 1951: 35)

Rings

v1.c17.s2.t2.1

These do not occur at the Indus Valley sites. Smith refers to ‘Irish gold ring-money and silver ring-money’, but it is doubtful if the Gangetic specimens of copper have any connection with them. (Lal, 1951: 35)

v1.c17.s2.t2.2

The problem of identity of these copper hoard makers is yet to be solved. This problem is extremely vexed since so far no skeletal remains have been found associated with the authors of this hoard. Subhra Bose considered the theory that they were either the aboriginals of Ganga basin belonging to the Proto-Australoid group of people, or the ancestors of the modern Munda and Santal tribes inhabiting the hilly tracts of Bihar and Bengal.

v1.c17.s2.t2.3

She further opined that this Copper Hoard Culture must have originated in a particular region and then expanded to other regions, gradually gaining maturity in technique and variety in typology. In Bengal we find the Copper Hoard Culture in its original and more simpler form. More complicated, refined and better finished implements like antennae-hilted swords, hooked spear-heads, harpoons, anthropomorphic from etc. of the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Doab are yet to be discovered in West Bengal, whereas Bengal Copper Hoard tools types have been discovered from Doab region and in certain parts of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. This indicates earlier origin of the Bengal Hoards and subsequent migration of the culture to the Gangetic Doab and other regions. (Bose, 1987: 42)

v1.c17.s2.t2.4

Apart from these copper implements no other material evidence has been found which may indicate their way of life. The theory of B.B. Lal that the authors of copper hoard culture are the same group who used ochre coloured pottery (OCP) (yet to be confirmed with further discoveries) may be applicable to the Doab sites but not to the easterly sites of Bihar and Bengal. OCP has not been found with any of the copper hoards discovered in West Bengal. So the scanty idea that we form about their socio-economic life is on the basis of these copper implements alone. Shoulder celts were used as hoes for digging and ploughing, double-edged axes were used for felling trees and cutting wood, bar-celts for deep digging, leverage, breaking of stones etc. and circular discs for hunting. The pattern of their economic life was therefore very simple, based on rudimentary agriculture, jungle clearance and of course hunting. (Bose, 1987: 42-43)

v1.c17.s2.t2.5

Yet, certain evidences certify a degree of sophistication reached by the authors of the chalcolithic culture people in Bengal. They probably knew the technique of strengthening copper with arsenic and silver. (Dutta, 1982) Some copper slags collected from Parihati (Lat. 22º 31' N long 86º 51' E), Dist. Midnapore in West Bengal and scraps from one of the ‘Parihati Hoard’ have been analysed. The analysis shows the presence of boron added as borax or Na₂B₄O₇, 10H₂O in the slag; evidently this served as flux for the extraction of copper. (Bose, 1987: 43)

v1.c17.s2.t2.6

Chemical analysis showed that a sample of slag contained 65.1 per cent SiO₂, 10.3 per cent Al₂O₃, 9.2 per cent Fe₂O₃, 0.4 per cent TiO₂, 2.5 per cent MgO, 9.5 per cent CaO and 0.07 per cent MnO. Spectrographic determination by oxide arc technique revealed presence of Na, B and Cu in the range of 0.01-0.1 per cent and V in the range of 0.005 to 0.01 per cent. (Dutta, 1982) “The addition of borax in the process of extraction is indeed a superior form of technology. It may also be pointed out that at least in the Indian context no such report has been made, and naturally it may be said that the extraction technology in case of copper is quite superior in this region, compared to other regions of copper culture”. (Bose, 1987: 43) The analyses of slag showing presence of Mg, Ti, V etc. indicate that the typical ores in the Bengal-Bihar-Orissa border were used in smelting copper.

Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi and Associated Culture in Bengal

v1.c17.s3.1

Hastināpur excavation showed that the copper hoard culture pottery preceded the PGW culture and therefore could be dated as 1000-1100 BC. This culture might have spread from Bengal as revealed from the dates of the chalcolithic Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi (Burdwan District, West Bengal, lat 23º 35' N long 87º 39' E, six miles from Bhedia on the Calcutta-Bolpur Line) and associated sites. Charred rice and other radio-carbon samples from Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi has been dated 1380 to 855 BC, Bharatpur in Burdwan district, 1350-1000 BC, these dates covering the period from the early chalcolithic to the advent of iron. (Allchins, 1983: 261)

v1.c17.s3.2

Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi excavation on the valley of the Ajay river shows several stages of inhabitation, Period I being agro-rural and neolithic-chalcolithic, and belonging to the middle of the second millennium BC. (Dasgupta, 1964) Microlithic industry flourished producing hand-axe of quartzite having rounded pebble-butt with dots of ochre-cloured *kaṅkar*. Gradually, black and red ware gave rise to lustrous red ware bearing a painted design in black. Period II witnessed flourishing chalcolithic civilisation and yielded beautiful channel-spouted bowls of black and red ware, beads, semi-precious stones, and objects of copper, such as copper bangles — some spiral ones, ornaments, eye-pencils, fish-hook etc. Also found were milk-white shell beads, microlithic flake of green jasper etc. During this period around eleventh century BC, there was an industry of bone tools.

v1.c17.s3.3

The channel-spouted bowls of black and red ware are comparable with the terracotta channel-spouted bowls of Navdatoli and Maheswar. Some scholars have compared these ornaments and potteries with the Minoan and Greek artefacts.

v1.c17.s3.4

Period III (around 1000 BC) revealed a few implements of iron including a long celt and an arrowhead with a hollow tang; this metal was totally absent in the Periods I & II. Also discovered was a fairly precious room with smooth lime-plastered floor and diagrammatic rows of lime-plastered ovens resembling those from Navadatoli in Central India. During this period, iron was known and probably smelted at this site, side by side with the use of copper. The area has been traditionally one of the few ones in India sufficiently close to copper as well as iron ore deposits.

v1.c17.s3.5

It is quite possible that there was a cultural diffusion from the Central India to this easterly site. The legs of some of the skeletons found in Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi were found to be severed from ankles as it happened at the chalcolithic sites of Chandoli and Nevasa in Maharashtra.

v1.c17.s3.6

Between the Periods III and IV, there was an extensive conflagration which might have been due to some foreign influence. In a pit of Period IV was found a round seal of black steatite which has been claimed by Michael Ridley, a British archaeologist, to be of Minoan origin. It is possible that there was some trade link with the people of Crete. (Dasgupta, 1964: 29) In the Trench No. 7A were found iron tools, double axe, terracotta mother goddess, hammered gold piece bearing minute parallel scratches, bronze fish with about 95.5 per cent of copper and a three-pronged tail identified with prehistoric *Coelacanth* species *Latemeria*.

v1.c17.s3.7

Similar artefacts have been found in West Bengal in the valleys of Ajay, Kunoor, Bhagirathi and Kopai, in Basantpur, Mangalkot (Lat. 23º 32' N long 87º 54' E), Ganga-Danga, Mandira (Lat. 23º 45' N long 87º 27' E) etc. Mangalkot, Mandira might have been ports during the end of the second millennium BC maintaining maritime contact with foreign lands across the sea.

v1.c17.s3.8

Recently microlithic chert tools, beaked jug or vase, short channel-spouted or lipped bowl, a good number of copper objects, fine scaraboid amulets of copper or bronze, a broken chisel, a miniature ship with a symbolic orb etc. have been discovered from Deulpota on the banks of the Ganga about six miles north of Diamond Harbour. These evidences testify to a thriving chalcolithic culture in the valleys of Ajay, Rupnarayan, Subarnarekha ending up in Bhagirathi and maintaining contacts with Central and northern India as well as distant foreign countries. (Dasgupta, 1964: 11-82)

v1.c17.s3.9

Copper Hoards people developed copper metal technology indigenously. Probably this technology was developed by itinerant smiths as indicated by lack of permanent settlement mounds near these hoards and complete absence of metal pots and pans. (Agarwal, 1971: 205) The artisans definitely knew closed casting and smelting, but probably did not know alloying or annealing and cold work for hardening the tools. (Agrawal, 1971: 242) Since the raw material was near the Singhbhum area, it is safe to presume that the copper hoard tradition spread from Bihar/Bengal region to the Gangetic Doab; the artefacts became more sophisticated in the latter area. The anthropomorphic figures could be either ritual totem or missiles or simple scarecrows.

v1.c17.s3.10

Although copper hoard by itself did not signify any ‘cultural’ pattern, this technology probably coincided in age with the pre-PGW Ochre washed Pottery tradition in the Doab as suggested from the Hastināpura excavation and the Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi culture in Bengal. The latter culture must have been indigenous. It is marked by painted BRW and also Black-on-Red wares covered by a time bracket of 1500-800 BC. Bharatpur, Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi, Mahishadal, where copper celt was found, were some of the principal sites showing links with other chalcolithic cultures e.g. copper-hoard tradition, Malwa/Navdatoli tradition of the Central India, and the second millennium chalcolithic culture of South-East Asian countries such as Thailand (Solheim, 1967). S.P. Gupta beautifully summarised (Gupta, 1965: 7):

v1.c17.s3.11

The period of the second millennium BC in India is not as dark as was thought a couple of decades back. Broadly speaking, the western regions had the late phase of Harappan culture, the southern regions the Neolithic-Chalcolithic complex, and the eastern regions the hoards.

v1.c17.s3.12

The Post-Harappans might have influenced the pottery traditions of the south and the east; some pottery and burial traditions travelled from the south-west and central India to the eastern culture of Bengal and the copper hoard tradition migrated from Bengal to the Doabs. A fusion of the three traditions took place around 1000 BC when India entered the iron age.

v1.c17.s3.13

Agrawal, D.P., 1971, *The Copper Bronze Age in India*, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi. Allchin, Bridget and Raymond, 1983, *The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan*, Select Book Service Syndicate, New Delhi. Bose, Subhra, 1987, *Vajapeya: Essays on Evolution of Indian Art & Culture*, edited by A.M. Shastri and R.K. Sharma, Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi. Dasgupta, P.C., 1964, “The Excavations at Pandu Rajar Dhibi”, *In Bulletin of the Directorate of Archaeology*, West Bengal, No. 2. Dutta, M.L., 1982, “Spectrographic Determination of Minor Constituents in Ancient Copper Slag”, *In Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals*, Vol. 35, no. 5, October 1982, pp. 487-88. Gupta, S.P., 1965, “Further Copper Hoards: A Re-Assessment in the Light of New Evidence”, *In The Journal of the Bihar Research Society*, Vol. 51, Jan.-Dec., 1965, parts 1-4, pp. 1-7; also Vol. 49, 1963. Heine-Geldern, R., 1936, “Archaeological Traces of the Vedic Aryans”, *In Journal Indian Society of Oriental Art*, Vol. 4, 1936, pp. 87-113. Lal, B.B., 1951, “Further Copper Hoards from the Gangetic Basin and a Review of the Problem”, *In Ancient India*, No. 7, 1951, pp. 20-39. Shastri, H., 1915, “Recent Additions to our knowledge of the Copper Age Antiquities of the Indian Empire”, *In Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*, New Series, No. 11, 1915, pp. 1-16. Smith, Vincent A., 1905, “The Copper Age and Prehistoric Bronze Implements of India”, *In Indian Antiquity*, Vol. 34, 1905, pp. 229-44; also Vol. 36, 1907, pp. 53-55. Solheim, W.C., 1967, *Science*, Vol. 157, p. 896.

v1.c17.s3.14

The Post-Harappan sites have influenced the pottery traditions of the east and west, and have been linked with the Painted Grey Ware and the chalcolithic cultures of the Deccan and the south. The problem of the origin of the Painted Grey Ware is still debated, but it is generally accepted that when India entered the Iron Age, the culture was already in a thriving state in the Ganges valley.

v1.c17.s3.15

Altekar, A.S., 1944. The Coinage of the Gupta Empire. Allchin, B. and Allchin, F.R., 1982. The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. Banerji, R.D., 1933. History of Orissa, Vol. I. Basham, A.L., 1954. The Wonder that was India. London. Chakrabarti, D.K., 1988. A History of Indian Archaeology. New Delhi. Chakrabarti, D.K., 1992. The Early Use of Iron in India. Oxford University Press. Dani, A.H., 1963. Prehistory and Protohistory of Eastern India. Calcutta. Dikshit, K.N., 1984. 'The Sothi Complex: Old Records and Fresh Observations', in B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta (eds.), Frontiers of the Indus Civilization. New Delhi. Ghosh, A., 1973. The City in Early Historical India. Simla. Gupta, P.L., 1974. Gangetic Valley Terracotta Art. Varanasi. Lal, B.B., 1954-55. 'Excavation at Hastinapura and other explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins', Ancient India, Nos. 10-11. Marshall, J., 1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization. London. Piggott, S., 1950. Prehistoric India. Harmondsworth. Sankalia, H.D., 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. Pune. Sharma, G.R., 1960. The Excavations at Kausambi. Allahabad. Thapar, B.K., 1985. Recent Archaeological Discoveries in India. Paris. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1947. 'Harappa 1946: the defences and cemetery R 37', Ancient India, No. 3. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1953. The Indus Civilization. Cambridge.