Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c17.s1: The Copper Hoard Traditions

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c17.s1

Language
English

Contents

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

| Copper | 98.77 per cent |
| Nickel | 0.66 per cent |
| | 99.43 per cent |

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)

Linked texts (8)