Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c2: Preface

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c2

Language
English

Preface

v1.c2.1

The primary credit for the compilation of this monograph goes to the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), History of Science Division, which financially sponsored our project for the period September 1987 to March 1991. Two scholars were employed for this project and they assisted me in collecting and collating the basic reference materials.

v1.c2.2

Ever since India attained her independence, the subject of history of science has evoked enthusiasm. The INSA created its special division and funded research. During my student days (1950-52), the Bachelor's level programme in Chemistry included a course on history of chemistry. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, U.S.A.) where I worked during 1960-63, the subject of archae-metallurgy was being nurtured by the famous physical metallurgist Prof. C.S. Smith whose work on Damascus sword is well-known. Today the developed nations in the West are spending huge amounts of money for sophisticated instruments and still more sophisticated brains to unravel the mysteries of archae-materials.

v1.c2.3

I published my first book *Science in India* in 1969. Even though I had the latent ambition of working in the field of archae-materials, my professional pre-occupations at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur did not permit me to do anything worthwhile till the Hindustan Zinc Limited (HZL), Udaipur invited me in 1982 to work on the ancient zinc slags. Our findings, together with those of the international team of experts led by Dr. Hegde and Dr. Craddock, are reported in the chapter 18 of Volume I. Our work on this monograph was started in September 1987.

v1.c2.4

We have divided our monograph into two Volumes. Volume I has 21 chapters on the archaeological evidences (foreigners' travel accounts also noted) showing the use of minerals and metals in ancient India, the period provisionally ending in AD 1200. The evidences from the Sanskrit literature are compiled in the 10 chapters of Volume II.

v1.c2.5

Out of the 21 chapters in Volume I, 11 are devoted to the findings in the specifically excavated sites which are chronologically discussed starting from Mehrgarh (chapter 2) to Taxila (chapter 14). We have naturally made copious extracts from the earlier reports. The readers would notice however we have not necessarily accepted all the ‘conclusions’ recorded by the esteemed path-finders such as John Marshall, Mortimer Wheeler, D.P. Agrawal, N.R. Banerjee, etc.

v1.c2.6

In our critical surveys we have entered into controversial topics and asserted on the following independent and occasionally original viewpoints:

v1.c2.7

(a) there is no acceptable proof that any foreign invading group, such as the mythical Aryans, brought from outside to India any material culture such as those related to copper, iron or PGW.

v1.c2.8

(b) chalcolithic culture in the pre-Harappan Mehrgarh precludes the possibility or necessity of any elaborate technology transfer from Iran to the Harappan India.

v1.c2.9

(c) the advent of the Iron Age took place in India around twelfth century BC indigenously in three widely apart geographical contexts, and therefore, the diffusionist theory regarding Hittite (or ‘Aryan’) influence seems to be far-fetched.

v1.c2.10

(d) the primacy of India in the areas of non-ferrous ore mining, production of carburised iron, laminated iron sheets, wootz, steel, forge-welding of wrought iron, zinc as a distillation product, high-zinc brass, diamond and other gems, etc. in the international scenario can no longer be questioned.

v1.c2.11

(e) in several areas we have borrowed materials or traditions from outside: lapis lazuli, turquoise, emerald (possible import following earlier traditions related to beryl), advances in the techniques of statuary, coin-casting and gem incrustations, cementation precipitation of copper from mine-water using iron powder, etc.

v1.c2.12

The acknowledgements in (e) should serve as a pointer that our assertions in (a) to (d) are not motivated by any sense of chauvinism.

v1.c2.13

The compilations of the literary evidences in Volume II follow the chronological sequence as in Volume I and highlight the fact that whereas correlations between the literary and archaeological data are evident in some cases (Pāṇini, Kauṭilya, Varāhamihira, etc.) there are serious discrepancies in the case of the epics. Since the archaeological dates of Hastināpur, Ayodhyā, etc. have been scientifically derived, we have questioned the traditional beliefs regarding the dates of the composition of the epics. If any further evidence is required to convince the readers that we are not chauvinistic, they might turn to chapter 10 of Volume II wherein we have contraposed the literary claims with archaeological data and historical facts, and furthermore placed the irrational trends in the Indian tradition side by side with the rational and positive aspects of Indian science.

v1.c2.14

This monograph contains 62 tables, 24 figures and 5 appendices. Scientific informations on the minerals in appendix ‘A’ may be of special help to some readers.

v1.c2.15

This monograph is not an exhaustive survey; we have endorsed to the readers specific texts on ceramics, pottery, glass, coins, etc. for supplementary reading. We have laid greater emphasis on the raw material aspects such as mines, minerals, gems, process metallurgy, etc. The other aspects of material engineering such as lapidary, fabrication, casting, forging, heat-treatment, etc. have been discussed but need deeper studies; many simulation or replication experiments need to be done in the laboratories before anybody could write a comprehensive book on the fabrication of materials in ancient India.

v1.c2.16

Acquisition and cataloguing of more reliable data are as important as philosophy and methodology of science. First-rate scientific analyses of the ancient Indian artefacts are being done in many foreign laboratories but such quality work is yet to be done in India. The gap between the archaeologist and the material scientist in our country is too wide and must be bridged as soon as possible.

v1.c2.17

I hope to extend my work beyond the ancient period of Indian history and to cover the pre-modern period of AD 1200-1900. I have articulated my vital concern for the sociology, methodology and philosophy of science in my book Science in India and in several chapters of present work (such as chapter 10 of Volume II). The nexus between science, technology and ancient society must be discovered; the conclusions must be well-grounded on the solid rock of facts and more facts, the cataloguing of which need not be unnecessarily vituperated, as done by some scholars.

v1.c2.18

How could modern science emerge in Europe first but not in India is a million-dollar question which should receive our deepest attention. The lessons from the past should help us in the future, and to that extent I earnestly believe that the past has a future!

v1.c2.19

In conclusion, I thank all the friends across three continents who have assisted me in my work. Special mention may be made of the following benefactors:

v1.c2.20

India: Late Prof. H.D. Sankalia, Prof. S.K. Mukherjee, Prof. B.N.

v1.c2.21

Mukherjee, (Drs.) A.K. Bag, K.T.M. Hegde, S.R. Rao, Amita Ray, D.P. Agrawal, O.P. Agrawal, B.V. Subbarayappa, S.N. Sen, S.R. Sarma, Irfan Habib, I.G. Khan, C.V. Sundaram, H.C. Bhardwaj, B. Prakash, Vibha Tripathi, D. Joshi, Pradip, R.K. Ray, A. Ghosh, N.R. Banerjee.

v1.c2.22

England: Prof. R.F. Tylecote, Drs. Paul Craddock, (Ms.) Lynn Willies, A.D.H. Bivar, (Ms.) Susan La Niece, (Ms.) Susan Stronge.

v1.c2.23

U.S.A.: Prof. C.S. Smith, Dr. Ms. Thelma L. Lowe.

v1.c2.24

The Director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and his entire staff have provided consistent patronage to our work. We have received commendable secretarial help from Messrs. M.R. Nathwani, Jiwan Lal, Salig Ram, R.B. Dube of the Department of Metallurgical Engineering. It is indeed commendable that I.I.T., Kanpur, which does not have any department of Archaeology and Sanskrit, has nevertheless allowed Nayan, an archaeologist and Sulekha (my wife) a Sanskritist, to work in the institute under the INSA project. I thank Nayan and Sulekha for their splendid assistance.

Linked texts (6)