Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c20.s3: The Five Iron Age Cultures in India

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c20.s3

Language: English

v1.c20.s3.t1 A. North-Western Culture — 2 parts
v1.c20.s3.t2 B. Iron Age Culture of North India — 7 parts
v1.c20.s3.t3 C. B&RW Culture Iron in the Eastern India — 14 parts
v1.c20.s3.t4 D & E. Iron Age in the Megalithic Cultures of the Peninsular and Central India — 8 parts
v1.c20.s3.t5 Early Iron Age in the Hallur Area — 9 parts
v1.c20.s3.t6 Megalithic Culture of Central India — 4 parts
v1.c20.s3.t7 Iron in the Vidarbha Megalithic Culture — 12 parts
v1.c20.s3.t8 Early Iron Age Culture at Nāgdā and Ujjain — 9 parts
v1.c20.s3.t9 Early Iron Industry at Ujjain — 7 parts

The Five Iron Age Cultures in India

v1.c20.s3.1

Following Young’s division of the Iron Age in Iran into three stages, Allchins (1983: 345) divided the Iron Age in India into three periods: (I) spanning 1300-1000 BC — ‘the earliest report from south Rajasthan (Ahar), then Pirak (north-west), Hallur (south), and still later from Brahmāvarta (Noh)’, (II) second period 1000-800 BC, and (III) 800-500 BC period.

v1.c20.s3.2

Such a periodisation of the iron age in India is at best tentative and certainly open to question. Most people do not accept the Ahar date as we have discussed before. Pirak’s date comes after that of Atrañjikhera, which has been strangely ignored by Allchins. It may be useful to have separate discussions on five distinct iron age cultures (Prakash and Tripathi, 1986) A to E mentioned before in this chapter.

A. North-Western Culture

v1.c20.s3.t1.1

In north-east Baluchistan, in the Zhob-Loralai region, a chain of cairn-burials containing iron was discovered by Stein and Mockler. There are no C-14 dates and the chronology is quite controversial. Chakrabarty (1979: 355-58) has questioned whether these can be dated much earlier than the Historical Period of only a few centuries BC. Eight consistent C-14 dates show that the Iron Age levels of Pirak, in the Kachchi plains of Baluchistan, are datable to 800 BC. Dani and Stacul differ in the periodization of the Swat sites e.g. Loebarn, Timargarh, Ghalighai etc. Dani puts the iron-bearing Period III to c. 900-600 BC. Stacul suggested an earlier date. Following Stacul’s scheme, D.P. Agrawal (1984: 251) suggested that the first appearance of iron in the Swat area is datable to c. 1000 BC. Chakrabarty (1979: 360-62) does not find this acceptable, and points out that even Stacul admits that Period V of Katelai (showing iron for the first time in Swat Valley) continued up to 900-800 BC.

v1.c20.s3.t1.2

Thus, north-western India can hardly claim any antecedence over Atrañjikhera in the western Uttar Pradesh and the sites of Noh and Jodhpura in Rajasthan regarding the first advent of iron in India. The anxiety to emphasize ‘early’ dates in the north-west may be traced to the subjective preference for the diffusionist theory (intrusion of the ‘Aryans’ from the west).

B. Iron Age Culture of North India

v1.c20.s3.t2.1

Having discounted the claims of Ahar, Loebarn, Pirak, Timargarh etc. (vide fig. 12.2 taken from Prakash and Tripathi, 1986) for being the earliest Iron Age Sites in India, we are left with the dates of Atrañjikhera (1155 BC) and Tadakanhalli (12th century BC). Until new data force us to review our stand, we may propose that the advent of iron took place in India indigenously and independently in at least two nuclear zones: Rajasthan-Uttar Pradesh area in the north and Karnataka area in the south. We do not preclude independent contribution from the West Bengal-Bihar area in the east.

v1.c20.s3.t2.2

Regarding iron age in north India, one of the most crucial sites is that of Atrañjikhera which we have discussed in chapter 11. The iron-bearing layer, C-14 dated 1155 ± 110 BC (sample TF-191) is associated with the PGW phase which was preceded at Atrañjikhera by OCP phase (up to 1500 BC) and B&RW (black and red ware) phase (1450-1200 BC). The B&RW potteries resembled those of the Ahar and Gilund complexes. It is quite probable that around 1400-1300 BC, a branch of the BRW people left Ahar region, which is not far away, crossed Chambal and settled at Atrañjikhera and then Noh. (Gaur, 1983: 20) The copper-smiths in their group might have stumbled on to the discovery of illdefined wrought iron as indicated by the presence of a few indeterminate objects which have not been so far analysed. In the PGW phase also, fourteen indeterminate objects were obtained along with iron slag pieces and 135 iron objects of 14 varieties. The indeterminate objects could be the results of first few smelting experiments, and if so, the credit for discovering iron at Atrañjikhera area should go to the B&RW people, rather than the PGW culture.

v1.c20.s3.t2.3

We have similar situations at Noh and Jodhpura. Noh provided a C-14 date of 900 ± 225 BC. (UCLA-703 B sample) for its PGW phase and two bits of iron were obtained in the preceding B&RW phase. At Jodhpura, iron slag was found from the black-and-red ware level, and crucibles and hearth in the PGW level. Thus we may say that the rudiments of iron technology were evolved in different sites around Rajasthan and western U.P. during the B&RW era. The early experiments for producing iron might have been performed by the copper-smiths from the Rajasthan sites of Ahar, Noh and Jodhpura.

v1.c20.s3.t2.4

A remarkable evidence of iron smelting has come from Jodhpura in Rajasthan. (Agrawal, 1984: 255) A crucible-shaped furnace used for direct reduction of ore was discovered. Perhaps the bloom was heated in an open furnace and was forged on an adjacent platform. Some lumps of ore were also discovered. Such high grade ore is known from the nearby mines of Bania Ka Bas, Morija, Rampura etc. in Jaipur district. For Atrañjikhera iron, ore could have been obtained from the Jaipur area or the rich haematite deposits around Mirzapur with which the cave drawings were executed.

v1.c20.s3.t2.5

While PGW is normally associated with iron in north India (Tripathi, 1976: 99-106), it should be noted that PGW was primarily a de luxe ware arising amidst a larger proportion of red ware along with grey, black slipped and B&RW, traditions of which persisted. The PGW tradition continued from 1200-400 BC while the more sophisticated NBPW was introduced around 700 BC. The sequential developments of the above-mentioned wares were not essentially linked with the developement of iron technology; these traditions varied from site to site. For example, the PGW was found in non-iron Late-Harappan, non-iron late Chalcolithic, early Iron Age and late phase of Iron Age contexts. Similarly the NBP ware era continued from 700 BC to the Kuṣāṇa period and witnessed several phases of the Iron Age.

v1.c20.s3.t2.6

Thus, the dating of sites cannot be done in terms of the appearances of PGW and NBPW which took place at different time in different sites. Tandon (1967-68) believes that at Alamgirpur iron appeared around 800 BC even though the PGW layer in the site has been C-14 dated as 1025 BC. Allahpur in the Meerut district has yielded a rich collection of iron consisting of spearheads, arrow-heads, blades, rods, pins and nails, along with slags of iron. The PGW layers in Śrāvastī, Kauśāmbī, Hastināpur, Bairat, Atrañjikhera etc. have yielded rich varities of iron objects. Tripathi (1976: 101-02) has noticed a gradual evolution of the iron tool-types in the PGW/NBPW layers over centuries. Hunting tools were the earliest types to be evolved: spearheads, arrowheads, points, socketed tangs, blades etc. Then agricultural tools such as sickle (Atrañjikhera) and axe (Noh) were evolved. Later, household objects such as knives or tongs (Atrañjikhera) and lastly building materials such as rods, pins and nails were manufactured and used.

v1.c20.s3.t2.7

There is a general correlation between the evolution of iron tool-types and material prosperity in the ancient north India. (Tripathi, 1990) Forests could be cleared, wild animals tackled and with the tools for digging wells, the congested sites could be moved far away from the rivers. Improved spades and ploughshares brought in varieties of agricultural crops. Surplus production led to the emergence of large sites like Jakhera, more sites in the Kanpur area and cities like Vārāṇasī, Kauśāmbī etc. The second urbanisation in India inevitably led to mahājanapadas and empires, and evolution of more sophisticated iron weapons for warfare.

C. B&RW Culture Iron in the Eastern India

v1.c20.s3.t3.1

The chalcolithic traditions in (a) the Pre-, Mature-, and Post-Harappan (chapters 2-7), (b) Peninsular India (chapter 8) and (c) Eastern India (chapter 9) gradually gave rise to the Iron Age cultures in the respective areas. In chapter 9, we mentioned about the chalcolithic culture of Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi and the neighbouring areas of West Bengal and Bihar. This culture C-14 dated 1380 to 855 BC (Allchins, 1982: 261) spanned the period from the early chalcolithic to the advent of iron. The people there were in touch with the Copper Hoard tradition in the Doab and the Peninsular Chalcolithic tradition. In West Bengal and Bihar, endowed with high grade copper as well as iron ores, the Iron Age emerged from the chalcolithic period without any interruption; the well-dated period 1050-950 BC has been termed as ‘Ferro-chalcolithic’ by Chattopadhyaya and De (1989).

v1.c20.s3.t3.2

The Black and Red Ware (B&RW) has very distinct local characteristics in the areas of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Central India. We are concerned with the B&RW culture of West Bengal and Bihar which clearly shows the advent of Iron Age during the period 1200-800 BC. (Chakrabarti, 1976, 1985)

v1.c20.s3.t3.3

At the West Bengal site of Bahiri (Chakrabarti and Hasan, 1982) there is iron slag right on the natural soil C-14 dated 950 ± 150 BC. Hatikira village in Birbhum district has shown 1000 BC Iron Age culture. At Mahisadal in West Bengal, Iron Age starts right in the chalcolithic column dated around 800 BC. Iron slags, ingots and tools like arrowhead, point, spearhead have been obtained from the lowest chalcolithic strata Period I (1100 BC) of Mangalkot (in the Katwa sub-division of Burdwan district), 30 km south-east of Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi. (Ray, 1990) This shows that West Bengal acquired the knowledge of iron technology independently, and almost simultaneously as the PGW people of Atrañjikhera.

v1.c20.s3.t3.4

At Barudih in Singhbhum, iron object has been found which occurs in an otherwise neolithic assemblage, characterised by a profusion of celts. Four radio-carbon dates have been obtained, the earliest being 1200 ± 210 BC (TF 1100). Chattopadhyaya and Ghosh (1982) have analysed a sample of carburized iron clearly showing the presence of pearlite, from coarse granular to lamellar, at places in equiaxed ferrite matrix. The normalized structure clearly shows that the implement was thoroughly forged and cooled slowly in air. We may recall that the iron samples from Atrañjikhera (chapter 11) of the same age also show carburization and pearlite structure.

v1.c20.s3.t3.5

In chapter 9 we discussed the ferro-chalcolithic culture of Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi (1000-950 BC), a key site in the Ajoy Valley, district Burdwan, West Bengal. The site was excavated in 1964 and again in 1984-85. Specific C-14 dates have been obtained for the ferro-chalcolithic phase: 1012 ± 120 BC and 1045 ± 55 BC.

v1.c20.s3.t3.6

Chattopadhyaya and De (1989) examined a dish-shaped iron object (length 62 mm, width 18 mm and thickness 2 mm) obtained from the ferro-chalcolithic phase of Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi. Observation of the specimen in computer automated electron probe micro-analyser (EPMA) revealed that the dish-shaped object was made of iron with a high amount of fayalite (iron silicate) inclusion which made it brittle. No carbide or pearlitic structure was detected. Although carburization did not take place, the presence of substantial amount of potassium in the inclusion indicated that the firing may have been done with charcoal.

v1.c20.s3.t3.7

The slag found in the chalcolithic level (1250-1050 BC) of the above-mentioned site contained 34 per cent magnetite, 6 per cent wüstite, 48 per cent fayalite, 7 per cent anorthite (calcium aluminium silicate) and 5 per cent glass phase. The microstructure reveals that dendritic wüstite (lighter) phase occurs in a fayalite matrix. This kind of slag is similar to ‘Type A’ as described by Tylecote and Wynne. The substantial amounts of slag inclusion in the metal, and high proportions of unreduced oxides in the slag (a few slag samples were strongly magnetic and had 50 per cent magnetite) suggest that smelting could have been conducted below 1100°C. Traces of alpha-iron and hematite (altered from magnetite) were also noticed. Chattopadhyaya and De (1989) suggested that the original charge could have been magnetite ore; however, this need not have been the case. The sequence Fe₂O₃ (hematite) → Fe₃O₄ (magnetite) → FeO (wüstite)

v1.c20.s3.t3.8

→ α Fe (iron) represents the successive stages of reduction, and the slag under consideration shows the results of the earliest efforts, only partly successful, to obtain iron from hematite, commonly available in the West Bengal-Bihar area.

v1.c20.s3.t3.9

Matured Iron Age had existed around eighth century BC in Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi; the hardening and quenching methods were observed (Chattopadhyaya and De, 1989) in a third century BC sickle, which is so far one of the earliest Indian specimens exhibiting the steeling process. The length of the sickle is 255 mm and the maxium width 22 mm. The internal curved region of the agricultural tool has a sharp cutting edge. Chemical analysis revealed that it is a low carbon steel: carbon 0.22 per cent, copper 0.15, nickel 0.13, cobalt 0.11, rest iron. The metallographic structure shows that of tempered martensite. The structure also exhibits retained acicularity at certain places.

v1.c20.s3.t3.10

Electron micrograph obtained at a magnification of 100 X clearly represents the tempered martensitic structure of the sample. Microhardness measurement showed a value of VHN 391 in the ferritic region, and 549 in the martensitic region. It is evident that the smiths of Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi, during third century BC, knew how to forge an iron sample at high temperature to exclude slag particles, how to carburize at red heat, then quench (quickly cool possibly in water), and then finally temper or reheat it to an intermediate temperature.

v1.c20.s3.t3.11

Earlier, Chattopadhyaya (1984a) had studied a second century BC sample of iron razor from Ror, district Kangra, Himachal Pradesh which showed, apart from massive ferrite, martensite plates indicating the technique of rapid quenching. The Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi evidence of low carbon steel has pushed the Indian antiquity of quenched steel further back to third century BC. The Period III in Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi, which yielded the sickle, also exhibited a furnace probably for smelting iron and also one iron-smelting crucible.

v1.c20.s3.t3.12

The Eastern tradition of smelting copper and iron continued well up to the Early Historic Period 450 BC-AD 400 (Chattopadhyaya and De, 1989: 33), and even beyond. The chronology of the traditions is yet to be fully discovered. At several stages, the industrial operations might have been conducted by special tribes.

v1.c20.s3.t3.13

S.C. Ray discovered at Saradkel, 50 km from Ranchi and 9 km from Kunti, an Asura site of Iron Age settlement tentatively dated first-second century AD (Banerjee, 1965: 220-22 and Ghosh, 1989 Vol. 2: 393) A large number of iron objects such as arrowheads, axes with single or double cutting edges, chisels, nails, caltrops, knives and longitudinal ploughshares bespeak the prevalence of a full-fledged iron industry. Also found were hematitic ores, slags and sections of several vertical pits laid into the earth, one metre uniform width, 2-3 metre in depth, described as smelting furnaces. These present a contrast to the cylindrical or cubical clay-built shafts of the Agarias. The presence of punch-marked coin, beads of chalcedony, agate and carnelian, copper objects etc. suggest a complex of the Kuṣāṇa era. It is not clear how and when this Asura culture was replaced by the Muṇḍa tribes. The Muṇḍas continued making wrought iron which the Sanskritists called muṇḍaloha (the variety made by the Muṇḍas). The topic of tribal metallurgical practices, continued right up to the pre-British period, is beyond the purview of our discussion.

v1.c20.s3.t3.14

West Bengal and Bihar definitely constituted one of the nuclear zones for the ancient metallurgical traditions in India. This zone contributed towards the emergence of the second urbanized culture (after the Harappan) and the political power in northern India during the Maurya-Gupta eras. Just as the north-western post-Harappan chalcolithic tradition was followed by the Iron Age in Rajasthan/Western Uttar Pradesh area, and the Copper Hoard and Eastern Chalcolithic traditions gave rise to Iron Age in East India, we witness the third nuclear zone in the Peninsular India where the iron-making tradition was rooted more in the neolithic rather than the chalcolithic era.

D & E. Iron Age in the Megalithic Cultures of the Peninsular and Central India

v1.c20.s3.t4.1

South India evolved a mega (big) lithic (stone) culture in which the burials were surrounded by a circle of stone boulders; this culture extending gradually to the Central India and even trans-Vindhyan areas, exhibited early traditions of the use of iron.

v1.c20.s3.t4.2

In 1823, Babington discovered a rock-cut burial chamber in Malabar. Since then, 1400 megalithic sites have been brought to light — 1116 in the region of Peninsular India. (Deo, 1985) The largest number of megalith monuments have been found in Tamil Nadu (388), followed by Karnataka (300), Kerala (188), Andhra Pradesh (147), Maharashtra (90) and Pondicherry (3). There are some megalithic sites north of Vindhya range such as in the Mirzapur district. Apart from the megalithic tombs and graves, we have the neighbouring habitation sites. The contemporaneity of iron age habitation and the burials have been proved at least in some cases, as in Brahmagiri and Maski. (Nagaraja Rao, 1971 and 1981) .

v1.c20.s3.t4.3

The megalithic burials may be broadly classified into three groups: the chamber tombs, the unchambered graves and monuments not actually associated with burials. There are many sub-groups such as (a) urn burial, (b) sarchophagus burial, (c) pit burial, (d) dolmen or table-stone-chamber raised from above the ground, (e) passage chambers of north Karnataka, (f) port-hole chambers (g) topikal or hat-stone in the lateritic area of Kerala, (h) kudaikal or umbrella-stone at Kolappuram, Koduvayur etc., (i) menhirs or long-stone in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, (j) rock-cut chambers of Kerala (k) cists or round receptacles stones in the quartzite-sandstone region of Andhra-Karnataka, (l) stone circle with cairn filling in Vidarbha region and so on.

v1.c20.s3.t4.4

We are not sure whether the varieties as stated above are due to differences in traditions of the sub-cultures or geological diversity regarding the availability of stones or both. We should not overlook the wide range of the dates of these megalith sites. The MASCA corrected date of the Hallur site is 1200 BC. On the other end of the spectrum is the Coimbatore megalith in which Roman coins (Christian era) have been found.

v1.c20.s3.t4.5

Amidst the diversities in time and place, one commonality emerges in the megalith sites; as early as 1921, L. Munn pointed out that the megalithic sites were close to the ancient mine sites in the region. Sundara (1975) emphasized that the Kappatgudda range in South India, where there is a number of megalithic sites, “is rich in gold as well as in iron and has many gold-working pits and sites strewn with iron slags”. Very useful comments have been made by Vibha Tripathi and V.D. Misra with reference to Deo’s (1985) paper on megaliths. Tripathi commented that “the megalith-builders basically appear to have been smelters and makers of a wide variety of metallic objects, iron being the most important among them”. She felt that they were nomads and marginal agriculturists. Misra partially disagreed and pointed out that ‘the very existence of the professional groups — potters, copper-smiths, black-smiths, bead-makers etc. — presupposes surplus production, however marginal it might have been”.

v1.c20.s3.t4.6

The earliest phase of the Iron Age in the South has been revealed in the excavation at Piklihal and Hallur (1150-1030 BC) and the Karnataka sites of Tadakanhalli, Komaranhalli etc. In many of these sites, the Iron Age started almost from the neolithic stage. Further north in Central India, megalithic sites are dated somewhat later 800-700 BC, and it is possible that the Chalcolithic sites imbibed Iron Age Culture from the megalithic people.

v1.c20.s3.t4.7

Among the most common tools are flat iron axes, often with crossed iron bands for hafting. The shaft-hole axe of North India (Noh and other sites) is unknown in the Iron Age graves of South India. There are flanged spade, hoc, spud or pick axe, sickles or bill-hooks made or iron. Iron wedges or crowbars or perhaps spears of great length; knives, chisels, tripods, daggers and swords, some time with ornamented bronze hilts were meant for military purposes. Iron tridents, in one case with a wrought iron buffalo attached to the shaft, are reminiscent of (Śiva-Durgā) ritual tradition. Around Nagpur graves were found horse furniture, iron snaffle bits, cheek pieces found in the mouth of a buried horse.

v1.c20.s3.t4.8

The traditions of the Iron Age as stated above were evolved over centuries and across a large section of the sub-continent; these definitely started in southernmost India, but the origin of the culture is shrouded in mystery. There are unfounded and wild speculations that the culture had diffused from Egypt, Arab countries or the North-West, people coming to South India by boat (Tripathi, 1973: 274; Allchins, 1982: 340-43) and so on. However, we would support the notion of indigenous and independent development of Iron Age in South India unless new facts prove the contrary.

Early Iron Age in the Hallur Area

v1.c20.s3.t5.1

Hallur is in the district of Dharwar on the left bank of Tungabhadra, anciently known as Hallavaru. In this area, the Neolithic Period I (1710-1030-100 BC) overlapped with Iron Age starting around 1200-1100 BC with a very short iron-free chalcolithic period. The megalithic iron age was characterised by typical B&RW, varieties of iron tools, megalithic cairns and cists, bone, carnelian, terracotta, gold, green stone and antler beads. (Nagaraja Rao, 1971 and 1981)

v1.c20.s3.t5.2

The Hallur area provides one of the three earliest dates for Iron Age Culture in India (Atrañjikhera and Pāṇḍu Rājār Dhibi in North India providing the other two). In chapter 10, we referred to some of the ancient mines of copper in the Karnataka area which must have witnessed very early open cast iron ore mining also. We would like to record the technical details of a few iron objects found from Komaranhalli and Tadakanhalli. Komaranhalli is one of the important megalithic burial sites 12 km east of Hallur dated 1200-1100 BC by thermoluminescence determination. (Indian Archaeology — A Review 1980-81, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1983, p. 29) Tadakanhalli is the megalithic site dated 1000 BC, near (and contemporary to) Hallur site. (Nagaraja Rao, 1981: 25) The National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property (NRLCCP), Lucknow, India received 31 objects from Komaranhalli (arrowheads, axes, knives, daggers, swords, spearheads, bars and rods etc.) and 20 from Tadakanhalli (above types and also chisels) for metallographic examination. Several samples were found to be heavily corroded; investigations were carried out on the rest which had some residual metal. (Agrawal, O.P., 1980-81 and 1990) A Komaranhalli spear and an axe from Tadakanhalli were examined with great detail, the results of which are presented below.

v1.c20.s3.t5.3

Both the specimens revealed laminated structure. Two sections were drawn from the blade and stem portion of the Komaranhalli spear measuring 178 cm in length and 3 cm in breadth. The blade showed a small metal core (the rest corroded) in three layers, two carburized and one uncarburized iron. While the light-coloured layer was ferritic and had low carbon (0.05%) and low hardness (HV 105), the darker carburized layer was of hypoeutectoid steel with dispersed pearlitic structure and had higher carbon content (0.2 to 0.24%) and higher microhardness. (HV 125-35) The section from the stem also revealed an air cooled dispersed pearlitic structure. Agrawal *et al.* (1990) concluded that the spear must have been prepared by hammering and welding together the sheets of carburized iron. The blade of the spear after receiving the final shaping at high temperature was also worked below the critical temperature 730°C and cooled in air. There is no evidence of hardening. The examination of other artefacts from Komaranhalli (1200-1100 BC) such as spearheads, daggers and swords also showed the evidence of lamination technique.

v1.c20.s3.t5.4

Similarly the cutting edge of the Tadakanhalli axe revealed a banded structure caused by three carburized and pearlitic layers (hardness HV 120-130 and carbon 0.2-0.3 per cent) and four uncarburized and ferritic layers (HV 98-109 and carbon 0.04-0.05 per cent). A close examination of the ferritic microstructure in the uncarburized layer indicated that the diffusion of carbon was only along the grain boundaries. This probably took place around 700-800°C. The deformed state of the lamellar pearlitic structure suggests that the axe was forged below the critical temperature (around 650°C) and cooled in air. In their first communication, Agrawal *et al.* (1980-81: 99) claimed the presence of bainite and martensite in the Tadakanhalli axe which was suggestive of quench-hardening. But Chattopadhyaya (1984b: 364) pointed out that “from the published photomicrograph nothing can be ascertained about the presence of martensite or bainite”. Subsequently, Agrawal *et al.* also agreed (1990: 15) that ‘there is no indication of the Tadakanhalli axe having been hardened and tempered’.

v1.c20.s3.t5.5

Nevertheless, Agrawal *et al.* have proven beyond doubt that the metalsmiths of the megalithic period (1200-1000 BC) introduced in India the lamination (layering or faggoting) technique in which two sheets of iron were welded and forged together. One sheet was carburized and the other was not. In this way several sheets of iron and carburized iron could be piled alternately and forged into a flat slab having requisite ductility (of wrought iron) as well as hardness (of carburized iron). Later on these piles could be heated, hammered and folded during the fabrication of the artefacts. Agrawal *et al.* showed that the laminated samples examined had (a) clearly visible welding joints, (b) continuous chain of slag inclusions, (c) sudden changes in concentration of carbon, and (d) sudden changes in the orientation of elongated slag inclusions. These evidences confirm that lamination had indeed been done.

v1.c20.s3.t5.6

Earlier in this chapter, we have quoted Maddin *et al.* (1977) reporting ‘the earliest known laminated iron object’ which is an Egyptian knife dated 900-800

v1.c20.s3.t5.7

BC. This date is much later than that of the Hallur site laminated weapons and we believe that it is quite possible that the technology diffused westward from India.

v1.c20.s3.t5.8

Agrawal et al. (1990) further showed that the lamination techniques was in vogue in India 1200 BC-AD 600. This is evident from the diversity of samples from Jājamau (600 BC-AD 600), Hulaskhera (700 BC-AD 700), Sringverpura (250 BC-AD 200), Kauśāmbī, PGW AD 500 etc. which were examined by them.

v1.c20.s3.t5.9

Jājamau (near Kanpur city) yielded 210 iron artefacts. Many of them were laminated structures. The cutting edge of an iron axe had a low carbon layer (0.2-0.24% carbon) sandwiched by two high carbon layers having carbon content as high as 0.6-0.65 per cent in some places. The low carbon layer had hardness HV 125 and the high carbon layer HV 267. The latter had a ‘tempered structure’ near the cutting edge having hardness HV 280. This suggests that the axe in the final stages was quenched, tempered and allowed to cool in air. It is not clear whether the axe had martensite in the cutting edges and whether the date of the axe could be 600 BC or later, since the site is dated 600 BC to AD 600.

Megalithic Culture of Central India

v1.c20.s3.t6.1

Iron appears in the megalithic burials of the Vidarbha region in Central India, with B&RW which is quite different from that found in the north-east. The region of Vidarbha has 72 of the 83 Megalithic sites in Maharashtra exhibiting only one kind of megalithic monument viz., the stone circle with cairn filling.

v1.c20.s3.t6.2

A large majority of the Vidarbha sites are in the north and south-west of Nagpur and within a circle of 50-60 km radius around the modern city. Thus what we witness here is a highly compact and homogeneous megalithic culture dated around 800-700 BC. Takalghat, Khapa and Gangapur are in south-west, Mahurjhari, Junapani, Borgaon in north-west, and Naikund in north-east direction relative to Nagpur. Kaundinyapur site is near Amaravati.

v1.c20.s3.t6.3

The megalithic people around Mahurjhari practised a mixed subsistence economy, and thier diet included agricultural products as well as hunted game animals. In the entire area, real agricultural tools like sickle and ploughshare were rare. At Borgaon, the tools of offence like spikes, axes, trident and other objects account for nearly 77 per cent of the total collection. At Takalghat, 28 out of 76 iron implements (37%) are offence tools like axe, arrowhead, dagger, blade, sword, spear, knife etc. We have the same pattern in the peninsular megaliths: Brahmagiri shows 28 out of 44 (63%) as offence tools. Many items were ‘socio-technic’ — related to the status or rank of a person in a given social set-up. These indicated specifc status; for example only one out of four burials at Borgaon showed horse-bit of iron and trident. At Takalghat and Mahurjhari were found hose-trappings, ornaments, dagger with iron blade and copper hilt etc. The culture reflected nomadic pastoralism, emphasis on warfare using horses, ritual tradition for sacrificing animals, and a strong tradition for metallurgy.

v1.c20.s3.t6.4

Whereas the Vidarbha Megalith culture shows less use of tin in bronze items, the peninsular counterparts show more lavish use of the metal: Brahmagiri sample 16 per cent tin in bronze, Raigir, Andhra Pradesh sample 21 per cent, Nilgiri area bronze 30 per cent etc. At Mahurjhari and Takalghat 15-30 per cent of the metallic items in the burials were made of copper. The number of copper bronze artefacts used by the Megalithic people is much higher than that associated with the full-fledged chalcolithic Jorwe culture in Western Maharashtra. The Megalith traditions in gold are equally impressive. Takalghat and Mahurjhari show a high percentage of silver (51.2%) in gold items. The gold diadems of Adichanallur are the most classic specimens of skilled technology. Paiyampalli provides the evidence of a goldsmith’s stone mould. The Megalithic people of Maski must have obtained gold from the nearby Hutti mine.

Iron in the Vidarbha Megalithic Culture

v1.c20.s3.t7.1

Thus it is evident that the Iron Age in the Vidarbha area emerged in the framework of a well-established chalcolithic culture and strong metallurgical (tin, gold, silver etc.) traditions. We do not know whether the metallurgical traditions in the Vidarbha area were inherited from the earlier Megalithic culture of the Peninsular region in the south.

v1.c20.s3.t7.2

15 km west of Nagpur are the twin megalithic sites of Junapani (habitational) and Mahurjhari (burial). In Mahurjhari, burials were found along with skeletons, offence items like lances, swords, spears, a dagger with iron blade and copper hilt; utility items like a cauldron and nail-parers of iron; ornaments of gold, objects of copper, beads of carnelian, some etched, crystal, agate etc. (Deo, 1973) Junapani has yielded hoes, flat axes with cross-ring fasteners, horse bits and chisels with long blades. Typologically similar and nearby megalithic sites of Takalghat-Khapa have been C-14 dated to seventh-sixth century BC: 615 ± 105 BC and 555 ± 100 BC. Later, Mahurjhari became a very important centre for processing of semi-precious stones and bead-making. The megalithic site of Kaundinyapura (associated with Rukmini, Krishna’s wife) also yielded etched carnelian beads. The iron objects, claimed as ‘cast steel’ (?) in view of high carbon, and obtained by G.G. Pearse in 1869 from the stone circles at Wurre Gaon near Kamptee and Nagpur, also probably belong to the pre-Christian megalithic era. These objects are kept in the British Museum.

v1.c20.s3.t7.3

45 km north-east of Nagpur, Naikund must have been the principal iron- [Figure: Fig. 12.4: Megalithic Iron Smelting Furnace Reconstructed from the Evidence Obtained at Naikund 700 BC.
(a) circular clay bricks, (b) bloom, (c) tuyere, (d) cinder, (e) tapped slag, (f) charcoal.]

v1.c20.s3.t7.4

smelting megalithic site in the Vidarbha region. It yielded daggers, spears, axes, nail-parers etc. V.D. Gogte used geophysical method (Deo, 1985: 107) — a modified three probe resistivity survey — to locate an iron-smelting site at Naikund. There were the remains of a furnace built of curved bricks and with a clay pipe for blowing in air, perhaps with the help of leather bellows (fig. 12.4). Gogte calculated that in a single operation this furnace could turn out nearly 3 kg of pure iron out of about 10-12 kg of ore. He further pointed out that the people used local ore. (Deo and Jamkhedkar, 1982; Deo, 1985: 92)

v1.c20.s3.t7.5

Around the furnace were found abundant remains of iron slag and a fragmentary iron axe similar to those found in the habitation and burial sites. Some idea about the date of this megalithic iron technology is obtained from the C-14 dates for the Vidarbha megaliths ranging from 615 ± 105 to 540 ± 105 BC. (Deo and Jamkhedkar, 1982: 56)

v1.c20.s3.t7.6

The specimens from Mahurjhari, Takalghat and Naikund show high percentages of pure iron — 99.1, 99.6 and 98.2 per cent respectively. Whereas Takalghat sample of iron does not contain any appreciable amount of carbon, Mahurjhari specimen contains 0.9 per cent carbon and Naikund sample has a little over 1 per cent of carbon. These figures show a basic identity of technology and suggests professional expertise. Gogte (1983) examined the Mahurjhari sample; evidence of banded structure, widmanstätten structure, ferrite and pearlite indicated that the iron pieces were forged at high temperature.

v1.c20.s3.t7.7

Today the available accounts of the Megalithic culture in Peninsular and Central India and the Iron Age thereof are far from complete or adequate. Surely there are many sites yet to be discovered; many discovered sites have not been fully excavated. Scientific analysis of many samples are yet to be done.

v1.c20.s3.t7.8

We have highlighted the early contribution of Iron Age in the Hallur sites (1200-1000 BC) and the notable development in the Naikund area (700-600 BC). These are the key features of the Megalithic Iron Age which continued for more than a millenium — Bastar, M.P. tradition still survives (Prakash and Igaki, 1984) — and spread from the south towards north India.

v1.c20.s3.t7.9

Prakash Period II (600-100 BC) artefacts mentioned in chapter 8 included iron implements. The settlement started six hundred years after the expiry of the preceding chalcolithic culture in 1200 BC and iron appeared almost from the inception, i.e., 600 BC. Thus the iron-using tradition must have been brought from elsewhere — either the Naikund or the Ujjain nuclear zone. The earlier samples were found heavily corroded. Two shaft-hole axes of 100 BC level were metallographically analysed and revealed equiaxed ferrite with a small amount of pearlite structure implying carburization. (Athavale, 1964-65)

v1.c20.s3.t7.10

There are many megalithic monuments north of the Vindhya mountains in the districts of Banda, Vārāṇasī, Mirzapur, Allahabad etc. At Kotia on the right bank of the Belan in district Allahabad, there is a definite association of iron with the megalithic structures dated 270 BC ± 105. The megalithic tradition of iron-making spread as far as the Chota Nagpur region in Ranchi and survived there amongst tribals until very recent times. Thus apart from Atrañjikhera area, the West Bengal-Bihar area and the Southern Peninsular Megalithic area constituted second and third nuclear zones for Iron Age culture whose influence spread and possibly met each other in the Madhya Pradesh-Uttar Pradesh area during the Historical Period.

v1.c20.s3.t7.11

The Chalcolithic sites of Eran, Kayatha, Ujjain and Nāgdā in Madhya Pradesh and Inamgaon in Maharashtra show Iron Age occupations at the top. Ujjain and Nagda might have received impetus for iron-making from the Atrañjikhera era during the early Historical Period.

v1.c20.s3.t7.12

There is controversy about the date of the earliest Iron Age in Eran: 1100-1000 BC or 700 BC. (Ghosh, 1989: Vol. II, pp. 135-36) In any case the tradition of iron-making must have diffused from the Yamuna-Ganga doab sites of Atrañjikhera, Hastināpura etc. Banerjee (1965: 28-32) cited literary evidences about the abandonment of the flooded site of Hastināpura during king Nichakshu’s time and re-settlement of the population at Kauśāmbī near Allahabad; he argued that this might have taken place around 800 BC. Ghosh (1989: Vol II, pp. 214-15) supports this date for the pre-NBPW phase at Kauśāmbī, and disagrees with the suggestion of G.R. Sharma (1969), the excavator, who had suggested a much earlier date. Kauśāmbī shows iron in its earliest phase; varieties of the offence weapons however proliferated only after the NBPW era had started in 500 BC. Similarly, the site of Rajghat, Vārāṇasī has its earliest date in eighth century BC and the varieties of iron equipments appeared 600 BC onwards.

Early Iron Age Culture at Nāgdā and Ujjain

v1.c20.s3.t8.1

Ujjain (23°12'N; 75° 48'E), situated on the eastern bank of Śiprā was the well-known capital of Avanti, one of the sixteen mahājanapadas during Buddha’s time. Nāgdā, on the east bank of the Chambal, is located 55 km north of Ujjain. Both the sites had chalcolithic background linked with Eran, Prakash, Maheshwar etc., and showed early use of iron which has been dated 750-700 BC by Banerjee, (1965: 14-40), the excavator of the sites. The characteristic double-slipped red ware of this era at the two sites has been found at Kauśāmbī, and Ahicchatra also.

v1.c20.s3.t8.2

Pre-NBPW, Period II (750-700 BC) of Nāgdā shows earlier chalcolithic features as well as iron objects: tanged and non-tanged arrowheads, spearheads, daggers, axes including socketed ones, knife-blades, blades, celts, sickles, spoons, nails and rings. Period III ascribed to 500-200 BC shows more varieties: double-edged daggers, sickles with curved blades, hoes, bowls etc.

v1.c20.s3.t8.3

We find similar trend at Ujjain. The first phase (750-550 BC) shows arrow-heads, spearheads, crowbars, spades, choppers, knives and presumably saws of iron. There is a fortification built of hard yellow clay and black cotton clay which must have been dug and processed by hard metal. A fairly well-preserved blade of an iron spade has been found in the body of the rampart.

v1.c20.s3.t8.4

The presence of well-processed and extremely hard wooden sleepers or beams and columnal dressed stones in a 500 BC apsidal structure also indicate early use of iron equipments at Ujjain. Two centuries later (273-236 BC), the Aśokan craftsmen must have used hard steel or carburised iron chisels to excavate quartzose gneiss of the Barabar hills of Bihar and to finish the shafts and pillars of Chunar sandstone.

v1.c20.s3.t8.5

Presenting literary and epigraphic evidences, Banerjee (1965: 18-25) has suggested that the second phase of culture at Ujjain (and the neighbouring area including Nāgdā etc.) started with the warrior ruler Pradyota defeating the Haihayas of Māhiṣmatī or Maheswar on the bank of Narmada (southern Avanti) and founding his empire of northern Avanti at Ujjain around 528 BC. Pradyota was contemporary to Gautam Buddha and the mahājanapadas at Kauśāmbī, Magadha, Śrāvasti, Taxila etc. He waged an unsuccessful war against king Pukkusāti (Pukkusārin) of Gāndhāra (Taxila) which must have taken place prior to c. 521 BC when some areas in the north-west part of India, including Gāndhāra were conquered by the Persians under Darius. Pradyota imprisoned Udayana, king of Kauśāmbī. The war-like activities in the mahājanapadas explain the fortifications at Kauśāmbī, Ujjain etc. and the increasing production of offence equipments made of iron.

v1.c20.s3.t8.6

The second cultural phase at Ujjain (550 BC — ) produced a large number of iron objects including arrow-heads, spear-heads, axes, spades, points, chisels, knives, horse-bits (link with Naikund area?), sickles, door-rings, hooks, blades, clamps, sockets, choppers, latches, pivots, bars, tires, borers, rods, door chains, pans with handle etc. The Iron Age had come to Ujjain and India (we have similar array of iron items at Kauśāmbī of the NBPW era) with a full force!

v1.c20.s3.t8.7

Before giving further details about the iron technology at Ujjain, we may note that this area was known as Ākarāvanti or Avanti the land of ākara or mines. Ākara has been identified with the mining township of Āgār 64 km to the north-east of Ujjain which had some iron ores on the surface. There were many other mineral deposits in the area.

v1.c20.s3.t8.8

In Period II there was a workshop for the manufacture of stone-beads. In Period III (200 BC to AD 500), Ujjain produced beads of terracotta, carnelian, amethyst, garnet, chalcedony, jasper, glass, bone and ivory, bangles and ear-ornaments of copper, shell and glass, copper wire items, relief sculptures on sandstone slabs showing Gaṇeśa, Mahiṣāsuramardinī, etc. This site was well-known to the Roman traders as Ozene.

v1.c20.s3.t8.9

Phase III A yielded very interesting evidence for the manufacture of beads of stone on a large scale, especially chalcedony. Rough-dressed specimens of beads were subjected to slow firing in small earthen pots with a closely fitting stopper of chalcedony, and after the rough-outs had acquired an opaque hue in the process, they were ground on slabs of sandstone with an abrasive, such as sand, and finished with the piercing of the perforation done with a drill working on one side at a time. Disc-shaped and highly polished ear-ornaments were also produced by the same method. (Banerjee, 1959)

Early Iron Industry at Ujjain

v1.c20.s3.t9.1

Banerjee documented (1965: 19-20, 68, 178-81) the nature of the early iron industry at Ujjain. The weapons of war were manufactured within the bounds of fortifications during Periods II and III.

v1.c20.s3.t9.2

The evidence of smelting is provided by enormous deposits of iron slag, unsmelted or partly smelted iron ore, lumps of a crystalline material calcite or aragonite, whitish powder lime dumped with slag on both sides of a canal. The evidence ranges from Period II (500 BC onwards).

v1.c20.s3.t9.3

Iron ore in the form of mammiliated limonite is indeed available in the hollows of trap in the region. A little over twenty pounds of calcium carbonate was found and identified as the aragonite variety on the basis of its hardness. Lumps of calcite or aragonite crystals occur sporadically in the occupational deposits. These must have been used as flux in the smelting of iron ore to remove the siliceous gangue. The whitish powder found in the slag, presumably lime or the product of calcination of calcium carbonate, also probably served as flux.

v1.c20.s3.t9.4

As regards the actual mode of smelting, the evidence is not clear, though certain broad inferences are possible. Alternate deposits of charcoal mixed with the iron slag and a whitish powder, possibly lime, as stated above, occurring in an exposed section, point to a simple method of smelting. Probably charcoal and iron ore were laid in alternate courses, covering the entire pile thickly with clay to prevent the heat from escaping. The heaped circular kiln must have been provided with passages for the intake of air and escape of gases. Banerjee (1965: 179) refers to the ‘outlets for molten iron’, but we doubt that the iron could be molten in the primitive furnace. The solid wrought iron must have been hammered to drive out the molten slag inclusions.

v1.c20.s3.t9.5

Banerjee reported (1965: 179) that “the remains of a forge with a groove for the introduction of the working end (or nozzle) of a blower or bellows, an improvised stand made from the sturdy and large neck of a broken vessel to support a water jar to store water for quenching, a small or miniature jar to collect small quantities or water according to necessity, and a shallow but large enough bowl to contain water near at hand for quenching, help to reconstruct the process of a black-smith’s working. The use of an anvil, also of iron, and iron tools like pincers for handling the red-hot iron bar or tool, is clearly indicated. The iron nail and chisel lying near the forge, which is lined with bricks and clay, burnt hard, and contains ash and charcoal, suggest the variety of objects produced, sharpened or remade at the forge”.

v1.c20.s3.t9.6

Banerjee (1965: 180) quoted Manimekalai (19.2.107-9) and Perungadai (1.2. 40-44) of the early centuries of the Christian era admiring Greek carpenters, the jewellers of Magadha, goldsmiths of Pāṭaliputra, the metal workers from Marāṭṭa, metal-smiths of the Vatsa country (Kauśāmbi) and the black-smiths from Avanti: Avanti-K-Kollarum thus acknowledging the early Iron Age traditions of the Ujjain locality.

v1.c20.s3.t9.7

The Ujjain tradition for iron-making continued in the area for centuries. An elliptical Vasudeva temple of c. fourth-third century BC at Besnagar (23°32'N; 77° 48'E), 3 km north-east of modern Vidisha, had pillars firmly set on thick stone basal slabs and fixed by steel wedges. At the same site, a piece of broken iron sword dated 125 BC contained 0.7 per cent carbon and showed elongated and irregularly disposed crystals of pearlite upon ferrite ground mass; 146 was the Brinell Hardness measured. 100 BC Kauśāmbi iron arrowhead assayed 0.74 per cent carbon and showed grains of pearlite throughout the section. (S. Prakash and R. Singh, 1968, Coinage in Ancient India, pp. 529-32) Ujjain technology might have been borrowed in Taxila which produced in AD 100, carpenter’s adze assaying 1.23 per cent carbon, a double-edged sword with 1.3-1.5 per cent carbon and 235 Brinell hardness. During third-second century BC, Rairh in district Jaipur was a major centre of ironsmithy showing huge quantities of slag, also swords, daggers etc.