Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c21: 13. Minerals and Metals in the Mahābhārata Epic Sites of Hastināpura and Ahicchatra

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v1.c21

Language
English

Contents

13. Minerals and Metals in the Mahābhārata Epic Sites of Hastināpura and Ahicchatra

v1.c21.2

Archaeological excavations have confirmed the antiquity of some of the places mentioned in the epics such as Hastināpura, Ahicchatra. This chapter deals with the material findings in the two sites and concludes with some critical comments on the date of the epics specially *Mahābhārata*.

v1.c21.3

The site Hastināpura, 29º 9 'North Latitude and 78º 3' East Longitude, is located in Mawānā Tehsil of Meerut District in Uttar Pradesh, and 60 miles north-east of Delhi. Limited vertical digging revealed as many as five occupational periods (Lal, 1954-55), with a definite break between all of them: Period I — pre-1200 BC, PGW Period II c. 1100 to c. 800 BC, NBPW Period III sixth to third century BC, Period IV second century BC to third century AD and lastly, Period V eleventh to fifteenth century AD.

v1.c21.4

One of the noteworthy features in the Hastināpura excavation was the yielding of 211 beads of which 116 were terracotta, 78 carnelian, agate and precious gems, 12 copper, rest made of gold, ivory and bone. The beads were found in all levels except for the Period I. Maximum number were in Period III.

v1.c21.5

The site was evidently inhabited first in Period I by the OCP (ochre coloured pottery) people. In this level there was not much of terracotta, copper or gems.

v1.c21.6

Painted grey ware or PGW potteries made from well-levigated clay (the Ganges is situated close by) were introduced in Period II, along with copper and later iron. Various copper objects included arrowhead (Period II), reel or spool (III), nail-pairer, bell (IV), etc. The commonest object was the antimony rod. There were nearly 85 shapeless copper objects. Chemical analysis of two copper specimens (~ 97.9 % Cu) showed feeble attempts of alloying: Sn 0.40-0.63, As 0.34-0.48, Ni 0.20-0.38, Zn 0.0-0.55, Fe 0.38-0.52 and Pb 0.1 per cent.

v1.c21.7

Glass bangles were also introduced in Period II. One sample was found to be low Al and Si ordinary soft soda-lime silicate glass. It was brownish on account of iron content. The other sample was also a soft glass of soda-lime type. It was black. Sodium was present in large quantities, and potassium and phosphate in traces. Both the specimens were found fresh and free from weathering and decomposition. Probably, after fabrication, these bangles had been subjected to careful annealing. (Lal, 1954-55: 13)

v1.c21.8

From the excavation, the iron objects yielded were 126 in number, besides of 90 shapeless bits and slag pieces. These include nails, borers, staples, doorings, spear, arrowheads and chisels. Iron was conspicuous by its absence in the Periods I and II, but there were a couple of slag lumps found in the top layers of the latter period. A barbed and socketed arrowhead from the earliest level of the Period III indicates that iron metallurgy at Hastināpura started around the eighth to sixth century BC. There were a chisel from a late level of Period III, an adze from the level of Period IV etc.

v1.c21.9

Some stone objects were recovered from the levels of Periods II-V. Sandstone pestle, whetstone of slate belonged to Period II. Most of the stone images and objects such as casket lid of steatite, of chalcedony, weights of chert and red jasper came from much later Period (V). The terracotta objects and figurines came mostly from the levels of Period III and later periods.

v1.c21.10

The NBP ware era (Period III) in Hastināpur introduced not only iron-making in full swing but also a coinage system punch-marked coins both of silver and copper. Varieties of beads were also introduced during this period.

v1.c21.11

The spherical and short bicone triangular faceted beads of carnelian appeared from Period II. Crystalline quartz, glass, bone and agate beads, some etched, started appearing in Period III. Chalcedony, green jasper, faience, onyx, amethyst and ivory beads were prominent in Period IV. Terracotta beads and statues became prominent only during the Period III.

v1.c21.12

Thus it may be said that Hastināpur did not have any urban splendour before 800 BC. Iron was introduced only around this period, and the variety of gems gradually appeared from sixth century BC onwards, and more so around third century BC after the intimate trade contact with south India.

Ahicchatra Archaeology

v1.c21.s1.1

Excavations at Ahicchatra yielded potteries (Ghosh & Panigrahi, 1946) and terracotta (Agrawala, 1947-48) showing nine levels of cultural settlement, the last one (IX) spanning the period AD 850-1200, Period I before 300 BC, II 300-200 BC, III 200-100 BC, IV & V 100 BC to AD 100 and so on.

v1.c21.s1.2

Dikshit (1952) surveyed the patterns of the beads in Ahicchatra. Among the stone beads, agate and carnelian constituted the largest number. A large majority of the former is banded. The spherical beads are distributed over all the strata, with their dates ranging from 300 BC to AD 1100. The long barrel circular beads dated around AD 350 resembled similar ones at Kauśāmbī, Taxila and Valabhi. There was an early specimen of a fine leech-shaped bead with interchanging bands of black and white. Such beads were found at Harappa, the Mauryan strata in Bhir Mound at Taxila and during the early centuries of the Christian era at Sirkap. The most popular shapes of the carnelian beads at Ahicchatra were spherical and long barrel circular.

v1.c21.s1.3

Since the Harappan era, the etched varieties, the beads having decorative patterns etched on their surfaces by some chemical process, were known in India. (Dikshit, 1949) According to the method of their manufacture, three principal types of etched beads have been recognized. These are white patterns on red background (Type I), black patterns on whitened surface of stone (Type II) and black patterns etched directly on the stone (Type III). In type I, the thick liquid applied on red carnelian contained potash, white lead and the juice of the Kirar bush. In Type II, the surface was whitened by alkali treatment and patterns in black lines were drawn using mineral salts of copper and manganese. In Type III the salt liquor was used directly on the surface. It is quite likely that Chanhu-Daro, during the Harappan era, and Cambay, during the Historical Period, were the active centres for the production of the etched beads.

v1.c21.s1.4

Etched carnelian and agate beads of the spherical, short barrel and long barrel circular varieties were found at Ahicchatra. Similar ones were found at Taxila, Kauśāmbī, etc. during 300-200 BC. None of these places showed any evidence of local bead-making. It is quite likely that these settlements had common sources of finished beads — etched agate and carnelian from Cambay area and the rest from the southern India.

v1.c21.s1.5

Bicone truncated chalcedony beads, having a pentagonal section were first met in the fourth century BC. Taxila and later appeared in 100 BC Ahicchatra. The crystal beads found were mostly hexagonal. The natural shape of the crystals required less cutting and polishing. Beads or yellow quartz from Ahicchatra were dated 300-200 BC. Similar beads were found in the Mauryan strata at Tripuri, Taxila and later at Kauśāmbī. The use of this stone was prescribed against jaundice, as recorded by Pliny in his Natural History (37.139). In this connection, we may mention about the half-inch serpentine pendant from Ahicchatra, which, imitating Śuṅga art, depicted a pregnant woman in a squatting position with bent legs. This pendant was probably used as a charm against difficult labour. (Dikshit, 1952: 50)

v1.c21.s1.6

Also found were a bead of milky quartz, tortoise-shaped amulet bead of garnet, long barrel bead of amethyst representing Śuṅga tradition. Green jasper beads resembled those of the Sātavāhana period of the Deccan. The hexagonal beryl bead probably corresponded to the Gupta date.

v1.c21.s1.7

Green-coloured āmalaka-shaped faience beads became popular in Ahicchatra during the Christian era. Most of these are dated after AD 350. Faience beads had been popular in the Harappan era, but lost their appeal on account of the extensive use of glass. Their uses were resumed only during and after the post-Mauryan period in the Sātavāhana era, in Sirkap, Taxila during the early Christian era.

v1.c21.s1.8

More than one hundred glass beads have been recovered at Ahicchatra: 28 green glass beads (containing copper and/or iron), 12 blue-green beads, resembling the Persian blue shade, blue glass (containing cobalt or copper), blue millifiori glass small barrel lenticular bead, short-barrel annular beads of orange glass (AD 100) containing cuprous oxide, red glass with white core from Ladakh, gold-foil glass beads in which a layer of gold foil is sandwiched between layers of transparent glass (similar specimens from Kauśāmbī are dated between 300 BC and second century AD), dark red opaque glass beads containing copper, bright red, black and black and white glass-beads etc.

v1.c21.s1.9

A few beads obtained were made of copper. Terracotta and glass beads imitating conch-shells were common. Similar beads made of coral were found by Cunningham at Gayā. Terracotta beads, baked very hard under a high temperature, were assigned to the Gupta Period. (Dikshit, 1952: 33-63)

Comments on the Mahābhārata Sites

v1.c21.s2.1

There was very little material prosperity in the pre-1200 BC settlement at Hastināpura. Even the PGW era on the site starting from 1100 BC does not show widespread urban settlement. Along with PGW we find some alloyed copper, glass and carnelian. Iron was introduced only towards the end of the era, i.e., around 800 BC.

v1.c21.s2.2

The Hastināpura evidence shows that the original core of the Mahābhārata story evolved in an agro-rural setting, and was later expanded in the altogether different urban setting of the Historical Period of the sixth century BC NBPW era. Ahicchatra archaeology is not dated very much earlier than third century BC.

v1.c21.s2.3

White copper and its alloys, glass, faience, shell, carnelian and agate, mentioned in the Mahābhārata, were pre-Mauryan commodities, the rest of the gems mentioned in the epic must have come from south India or across the north-western border of India during the Mauryan period. The varieties of the weapons made of iron were evolved during the Historical NBPW Period. There was another spurt of gem industry during the Christian era 100 BC to AD 200. While etched beads and special glasses were evolved in India, coral came from Italy, and gem incrustations might have been introduced by the Indo-Scythians’ (?).

v1.c21.s2.4

The negative evidences in Hastināpura and Ahicchatra clearly show that the Mahābhārata epic text was heavily re-touched and expanded at least twice — once during the Historical Period starting from the fifth century BC, and later during 100 BC-AD 200.

v1.c21.s2.5

The other epic Rāmāyaṇa is based on the story in Ayodhyā where the archaeological excavations have shown a PGW settlement but nothing else of an earlier date such as the OCP culture of Hastināpura. This contradicts the usual notion that Rāmāyaṇa story is of an earlier date compared to Mahābhārata. The horde of gems mentioned in the Rāmāyaṇa cannot be explained in terms of the Ayodhyā excavations. Evidently certain portions of the epic were written much later in the Historical Period. (Gupta & Ramachandran, 1976; Lad, 1983)

v1.c21.s2.6

Agrawala, V.S., 1947-48, “The Terracottas of Ahichchhatra”, In *Ancient India*, No. 4, 1947-48, pp. 104-79.

v1.c21.s2.7

Dikshit, M.G., 1949, *Etched Beads in India*, Deccan College Monograph No. 4, Poona, 1949.

v1.c21.s2.8

——, 1952, “Beads from Achichchhatra, U.P.”, In *Ancient India*, No. 8, 1952, pp. 33-63.

v1.c21.s2.9

Ghosh, A. and Panigrahi, K.C., 1946, “Pottery of Ahichchhatra (U.P.)”, In *Ancient India*, No. 1, 1946, pp. 37-59.

v1.c21.s2.10

Gupta, S.P. and Ramachandran, K.S. (ed.), 1976, *Mahabharata, Myth and Reality*, New Delhi.

v1.c21.s2.11

Joshi, J.P., 1987, “The Mahabharata and Indian Archaeology”, In *Archaeology and History*, edited by B.M. Pande and B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 19-34.

v1.c21.s2.12

Lad, Gouri, 1983, *Mahabharata and Archaeological Evidence*, Deccan College, Poona.

v1.c21.s2.13

Lal, B.B., 1954 & 1955, “Excavation at Hastinapura and other Explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins 1950-52”, In *Ancient India*, No. 10 & 11, 1954 & 1955, pp. 5-151.

v1.c21.s2.14

The date of the whole evolved text of the Mahabharata is thus conjectural. It is generally agreed that the core of the epic was already formed before the Christian era, and that it evolved from oral traditions, which might have been introduced to the Indian subcontinent by the Aryans.

v1.c21.s2.15

The archaeological evidence of the Mahabharata is still inconclusive. Excavations at Hastinapur have shown no settlement but nothing else of the Mahabharata period. The Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, which is often associated with the Mahabharata, is dated to the period of about 1200-600 B.C.

v1.c21.s2.16

The epic is primarily based on the story of the Bharatas, and archaeological excavations have shown a PGW settlement but nothing else of the Mahabharata period. The PGW culture is dated to the period of about 1200-600 B.C.

v1.c21.s2.17

References: Aswal, S.V., 1987. The Mahabharata. Delhi, pp. 101-104. Chakravarti, A., 1990. The Mahabharata. Delhi, pp. 105-107. Gupta, S.P. and Ramachandran, K.S. (eds.), 1976. Mahabharata: Myth and Reality. Delhi, pp. 17. edited by M.C. Joshi and K.S. Ramachandran, 1976. Mahabharata: Myth and Reality. Delhi, pp. 18. Lal, B.B., 1954-55. Excavations at Hastinapur and other explorations in the upper Ganga and Sutlej basins. Ancient India, 10 & 11, pp. 5-151.

Linked texts (13)