Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c42: 6. Minerals and Metals in the Indian Epics from An Archaeological Viewpoint

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c42

Language
English

Contents

6. Minerals and Metals in the Indian Epics from An Archaeological Viewpoint

v2.c42.1

The Indian epics, *Rāmāyaṇa* and *Mahābhārata*, constitute a part of the nation’s sacred traditions respected by millions. On the other hand, the tradition of archaeology is to unveil truth and not to romanticize the cavalcade of myths. The Ayodhyā archaeology seems to start with the PGW culture, whereas the Hastināpur excavations show that its earlier OCP culture may be dated before 1200 BC. Thus, contary to the popular notion, the date of the story is earlier for the *Mahābhārata*, to which most of our remarks would be confined. We would briefly mention the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the Buddhist literatures towards the end.

The Antiquity of the Background of the Epic Story

v2.c42.s1.1

The *Mahābhārata* clearly recalls the earlier Ṛgvedic civilization on the shores of the Vinaśana, the lost river Sarasvati. The archaeological findings in this area point out settlements in the third and second millennium BC. The Pre-Harappan Sothi culture in Kālībaṅgan was followed by the urban Harappan settlements in Kālībaṅgan, Banawālī, etc. Bhagwānpura (Kurukṣetra district), Dadheri (Ludhiana), Katpalon and Nagar (Jullundur) are credited with the interlocking of the PGW and the Harappan material. (Sharma, 1983:23-24 and 172-73) They exhibit the once forgotten, but newly discovered link between India’s first urban culture (Harappan) and the second (Historical period).

v2.c42.s1.2

Thermoluminescence dating by BARC, Bombay, has established that the settlement at Bhagwānpura started around 3000 BC and the change-over to the PGW culture took place around 1220 BC (Joshi and Madhubala, 1982: 193-94); this transition occurred between the sixth and seventh layers in the site. The onset of the PGW culture at the *Mahābhārata* site of Hastināpura, and also at Atrañjikherā, took place around 1100 BC; in these sites the earlier cultures thrived on OCP wares. At Bhagwānpura, the excavations yielded terracotta ear ornaments, bangles of copper, shell, faience and glass, *ghaṭa*-shaped beads, semi-precious stone beads, bone and ivory hair-pins, violin-shaped Mother Goddess (Sarasvatī?) statues, wheeled terracotta rams (*vāhana* of Sarasvatī?). Oval structures made of baked bricks found at Bhagwānpura, Dadheri, Nagar and Katpalon most possibly had religious affiliations. (Joshi, 1987: 19-23) This region of the Sarasvati Valley was considered to be holy in the later age of the epics, and quite significantly we find the principal characters of the epics, such as Balarāma in *Mahābhārata*, undertaking elaborate pilgrimage tours in the area.

v2.c42.s1.3

Apart from Hastināpur and Ahicchatra, the *Mahābhārata* story also refers to Indraprastha (modern Delhi) and Dvārkā as important sites. For obvious reasons detailed excavations could not be undertaken in the city of Delhi. However the recent marine archaeological excavation of the submerged port of Dvārkā has yielded important evidences and a significant date. (Rao, 1988: 47-53)

v2.c42.s1.4

Off the shore of the modern Dvārkā, lies the ruin of the mid-second millennium BC port of Dvārakā or Dvārāvatī, founded by Lord Kṛṣṇa. Underwater expedition has shown fortification wall of limestone blocks and stones measuring around 2 × 1 × 0.5 m sizes. Some moonstone pieces recovered from the debris suggest that a religious structure existed there. The retrieved chert blades and sherds of lustrous redware and black- and redware are clearly of the Late-Harappan origin; the triangular and prismatic shaped stone anchors having three holes each are analogous to the anchors used in the fourteenth century BC Syria and Cyprus. A small seal of conch-shell has an animal motif, reminiscent of the Bahrainian art. A jar bears an inscription in the Late-Harappan characters (partly resembling Semitic and partly Brāhmī) which has been deciphered by Rao (1988:52) as *mahahagacha Shah Pa* conveying the sense ‘Sea Lord Protect’. Rao had earlier (1982) deciphered the Indus Valley Script and showed how this script was eventually transformed into the Late-Harappan and the Brāhmī.

v2.c42.s1.5

To cap it all, A.K. Singhvi of PRL, Ahmedabad announced that the pottery sample no. 9 from the rubble wall in cliff section of BDK I (Period I) in the underwater Bet Dwarka had been thermoluminiscence dated as 3520 BP or 1533 BC. (Rao, 1988: xxiv and 52) Some scholars have adduced reasons to propose that the *Mahābhārata* war took place around 1465 to 1430 BC.

The Text of Mahābhārata in the Light of the Archaeological Evidences

v2.c42.s2.1

The date of the Mahābhārata war has been variously suggested as 3100 BC, 1900 BC, 1400 BC and 900 BC. While we tend to favour the last two dates 1400-900 BC, we also agree with Joshi (1987:20) that the kind of war that was described in the epic, with the full range of iron weapons, could not have been fought before 600 BC. Inevitably, the conclusion, as drawn by Lad (1983), emerges that there was a core of the story existing before 800 BC, essentially as a folklore and orally transmitted, which became heavily padded with the later-day experiences. Additions to the text were made in several instalments during 500-100 BC, 100 BC - AD 100 and AD 100-400. Thus, instead of discussing minerals and metals mentioned in the epic Mahābhārata as a coherent subject or referring to them as the material resources in India during any particular epoch, we should rather follow Lad (1983:66) in relating the specific references to minerals and metals with the different era during which such references were introduced in the text as additional extravaganza and distortions.

v2.c42.s2.2

Lad (1983: 66-68) pointed out several reasons to believe in the antiquity of the epic. Some of the heroes of the epic such as Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna, etc. have been mentioned in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.17.6) and Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini (4.3.98) which correspond to the eighth century and sixth-fifth century BC period respectively. Āsvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra (3.4.4) eulogized the epic and Sāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra (15.16) referred to the Kurukṣetra war. These Sūtras may be dated around sixth century BC. Kautilya and Patañjali have also referred to the epic. It is quite possible therefore that a small core of the epic was in circulation before the eighth century BC.

v2.c42.s2.3

An early version of the epic probably referred to the pastoral economy and unsophisticated agro-rural set up as in vogue in Bhagwānpura and Hastināpura during the OCP and early PGW era. As a matter of fact, several archaic features, not only of language and construction, but also of culture contained in the epic have managed to escape the scrubbing and polishing of later centuries’. Some of the awkward and conspicuous examples have been cited by Lad (1983:66).

v2.c42.s2.4

The food habits of some of the princely heroes are almost primitive: they cook their own meat-broths. They dress simply in cotton cloth and hardly wear decorative shoes. Sugar, quite common in India by 400 BC, is nowhere on the scene in the epic. The complete absence of coins and money economy (niṣka is more of a gold ornament than a piece of coin) proves the distant origins of the epic. Conch-shell bangles were of Harappan tradition and pearls were mentioned in the Vedas. Glass (kāca) and quartz crystal (kācamaṇi) were rarely mentioned.

v2.c42.s2.5

Although Ahicchatra and Girivraja (modern Rājgīr) occur in the epic, Pāṭaliputra founded in the sixth century BC is not mentioned, proving the antiquity of the epic. At several places in the epic, the modest descriptions fit in with the early PGW cultures in Hastināpur etc., which were hardly urban, and were at best large agro-rural settlements resembling that in the Late-Harappan Bhagwānpura. (Ghosh, 1973: 9-11; Sharma, 1983:172-73 and Joshi 1987: 27)

500-100 BC Additions

v2.c42.s2.t1.1

The first major portion of additions and accretions came during the Historical Period. The large number of gems, ornaments, iron weapons, and metal utensils mentioned in the *Mahābhārata* have their exact counterparts in the Buddhist Pāli literature. The materials were either processed in North India or brought from South India or across the Western frontiers under the influence of the Persians and Greeks, and later Scythians and Romans.

v2.c42.s2.t1.2

References to *vaidūrya* or beryl (1.143.23; 2.48.30; 3.39.17; 4.36.39, etc.) clearly show that this part of *Mahābhārata* was composed after fifth century BC. The Vedic literatures do not mention beryl, and the first time this is introduced in the Sanskrit literature is by Pāṇini. The epic *Mahābhārata* itself refers to the South Indian topography which yielded beryl and other gems during the Historical Period:

v2.c42.s2.t1.3

प्रागायता महाराज षडेते रत्नपर्वताः
अवगाढ़ा हि अभयतः समुद्रौ पूर्वपश्चिमौ
नीलश्च वैदूर्यमय श्वेतश्च रजतप्रभः
सर्वधातुविनद्रुश्च शृंगवान्नाम पर्वतः
*prāgāyatā mahārāja sadete ratnaparvatāḥ*
*avagāḍhā hi abhayataḥ samudrau pūrvapaścimau*
*nīlaśca vaidūryamaya śvetaśca rajataprabhaḥ*
*sarvadhātuvinadrūśca śṛngavānnām parvataḥ*
(6.7.2-3)

v2.c42.s2.t1.4

Mount Nila (Nilagiri) probably derived its name from the sea-blue aquamarine in the Coimbatore district. The ocean and Sri Lanka have been mentioned as the chief sources of gems such as beryl, pearl and coral etc:

v2.c42.s2.t1.5

समुद्रसारं वैदूर्य मुक्ताः शंखान् तथैव च
शतशश्च कुथां स्तत्र सिंहलाः समुपाहरन्
*samudrasāram vaidūrya muktāḥ śaṅkhān tathaiva ca*
*śataśaśca kuthām statra simhalāḥ samupāharan*
(2.48.30)

v2.c42.s2.t1.6

The international trading port Barygaza in Gujarat or modern Broach was known as Bhrgukaccha or Bharukaccha. Its importance was acknowledged:

v2.c42.s2.t1.7

भरुकच्छं गतो धीमान् दूतान् माद्रवतीसूतः
*bharukacchaṃ gato dhīmān dūtān mādravatīsūtaḥ*
(2.28.50)

v2.c42.s2.t1.8

Mention was made of *bharukacchanivāsinaḥ* (2.47.8).

v2.c42.s2.t1.9

Green beryl (*vaidūrya*) has been clearly distinguished from sea-blue aquamarine (*nīla vaidūrya*):

v2.c42.s2.t1.10

*Vaidūryaharitānīva* (5.98.10), *nadīśca bahulāvartā nīlavaidūrya sannibhāḥ* (3.39.17), *nīla vaidūrya sadrśa indanilanibhaḥ kvacit* (12.326.5). Further distinction has been made from *nilāñjana* (12.326.3) or carrollite and *indranila* (12.326.5) or sapphire.

v2.c42.s2.t1.11

Emerald is the deep green variety of beryl. This gem was not available in the South, and it is doubtful whether the Udaipur, Rajasthan reserve was tapped that early. Most probably the supply of emerald came from the Asiatic side of the Ural mountains, 80 km east of Sverdlosk, or from Ethiopia or Egypt. At any rate, according to Pliny and the *Periplus*, Rome received emerald at one stage through India alone; this trade was possible only during the Christian era. The *Mahābhārata* refers to emerald, *marakata* or *masāra* in several places:

v2.c42.s2.t1.12

पित्तान् मरकतं यथा
*pittān marakataṃ yathā*
(3.213.13)
मसारगल्वर्मयैः विभगैः भूषितम् हेमपिनद्रू चक्रम्
*masāragalvarmayaiḥ vibhangaiḥ bhūṣitam hemapinadrū cakram*
(12.46.33)

v2.c42.s2.t1.13

Amongst the beryl-like green gems, the light green beryl was the most popular one in ancient India. The *Mahābhārata* provides evidences as to how popular beryl had become to the Indians. The sparkling green of flowers (2.155.61), petals (12.95.15), fresh moss (1.143.23), young shoots of grass (5.118.8) etc. were compared with the beautiful green *vaidūrya*:

v2.c42.s2.t1.14

नदीद्वीप प्रदेशेषु वैदूर्य सिकतासु च
*nadīdvīpa pradeśeṣu vaidūrya sikatāsu ca*
(1.143.23)
वैदूर्यांकुर कल्पानि मृदुनि हरितानि च
*vaidūryānkur kalpāni mṛduni haritāni ca*
(5.118.8)

v2.c42.s2.t1.15

वैदूर्यपत्र विततां मणिनलमया अम्बुजाम् *vaidūryapatra vitatāṃ maṇinālamayā ambujām* (2.3.27)

v2.c42.s2.t1.16

The earliest archaeologically recovered sample of beryl was from Bhir Mound III of Taxilā (fifth-fourth century BC). Beryl beads were also obtained from Kauśāmbī (150 BC) and Sirkap III (AD 100).

v2.c42.s2.t1.17

*Vidruma* or *pravāla* (coral) mentioned in the *Mahābhārata* (1.105.17, 3.212.13-14, 7.73.25, 12.326.3-5) also came from Sri Lanka and the Malabar coast and later from the Mediterranean Sea. Of course coral was known in the Chalcolithic India, and archaeological samples have been obtained in the successive periods of Prakash (Period I 1700-1300 BC, II 600-100 BC, III AD 100-300) Navdatoli (Period I 1600-1300 BC, III AD 100-300), Maski (Period I 900-400 BC, III AD 50-300). The most substantial finds however are from the Indo-Greek (Bhir Mound II Mauryan) and Indo-Roman Trading Period (Nevasa V 50 BC-AD 200). Roman corals along with many other materials were imported and found in Nevasa V. Medicinal value of coral was testified by Caraka and Suśruta around the first century AD.

v2.c42.s2.t1.18

Pearls, *muktā* or *mauttika* (Pāli) also came from Sri Lanka (2.48.30) and Gulf of Mannar. In the Vedic literatures, peral was known as *kṛśan*. This was probably conch-pearl or the darker variety from the Persian Gulf or the black mis-shapen perals from the winnow oysters of the Saurashtra backwaters (Lad, 1983: 30). During the historical period, the much better species of oysters (*Pinetada Vulgaris*), flourishing in the Gulf of Mannar and noted for its beautiful silvery white colour, were exploited for the pearl trade. There are many references to pearls in the *Mahābhārata* (1.191.13; 7.73.25; 9.34.31; 9.61.32; 11.165.17 etc.) Pearl necklaces were quite common (3.108.9; 3.146.25). A delicate network of pearls known as *muktājāla* used to be hung from doorways (13.20.36-37) and pillars in an auditorium etc.

v2.c42.s2.t1.19

मुक्ताजाल परिक्षिप्तं वैदूर्यमणि भूषितम् शतकुम्भमयं दिव्यं प्रेक्षागारम् उपागमत *muktājāla parikṣiptaṃ vaidūryamaṇi bhūṣitam* *śatakumbhamayaṃ divyaṃ prekṣāgāram upāgamat* (1.124.13)

v2.c42.s2.t1.20

Such lavish use of pearls was possible only during the Mauryan and Post-Mauryan era. The use of bangles made out of conch-shell or *kambu* was rooted in the Harappan and the Post-Harappan chalcolithic traditions. However, at the time when the epic was written, shell bangles were used by lower class people only (2.54.13, 4.10.15-19, 4.15.2). Evidently, the newer commodities such as the fragrant *candana*, *aguru* and sandalwood from the South, were more attractive.

v2.c42.s2.t1.21

Diamond or *vajra* was very popular for its brightness *vajrasārojjvalāni* (5.98.10), but we do not know how much earlier before the first century AD (when Pannā mine was exploited), the actual diamond-mining had started in India. Sapphire (blue *indranila* 12.326.5) was obtained from the gem-beds of Sri Lanka which contained more sapphire-blue variety of corundum, and less of ruby-red variety of the same mineral.

v2.c42.s2.t1.22

Sunstone (*sūryakānta* or *arka*) and moonstone (*candrakānta*) both belong to the feldspar family. In the sunstone structure, embedded hematite or goethite crystals scatter an internal glow of yellowish or reddish beams, and thus the mineral exhibits self-luminescence. The reference 12.46.33 quoted earlier, describes the chariot of the Lord Kṛṣṇa bedecked with gold, emerald and arka or sunstone. Was Kṛṣṇa’s *syamantaka* a piece of sunstone or diamond?

v2.c42.s2.t1.23

The moonstone is an intimate combination of orthoclase and albite in an arrangement of thin layers to which it owes its beautiful blue bloom and its lovely sheen. This mineral has been available in the Kangayam district of Tamil Nadu in South India and also in the famous gem-gravels around Ratnapura in the south-western Sri Lanka.

v2.c42.s2.t1.24

Quartz or rock crystal has been mentioned several times as *sphaṭika* in the *Mahābhārata* (2.3.16 & 27; 3.212.13-14; 12.326.3-5 etc.). Due to its resemblance with glass, which was used to imitate gems, it came to be known as *kācamaṇi*, and gradually got devalued as a common place material. The epic mentions few other minerals such as *nīlāñjana* (12.326.3) which is probably the blue pigment carrollite, *ásmasāra* (2.47.14) (was it iron or agate or amethyst?) which was used to make *bhāṇḍa* or containers.

Metals in the Mahābhārata

v2.c42.s3.1

During the Pre-Mauryan era, the Greek authors such as Herodotus (3.102-105) first mentioned about the legend of ant-gold in India. In the *Mahābhārata* also, we find the same topic: *pipīlikaih jātarūpam* (2.48.4). Megasthanes (Indica 32), Strabo (15.1.44), Pliny (6.22;11.35) repeated the story that ant-golds came from Kashmir, Tibet and the Dardic region.

v2.c42.s3.2

The mystery was solved in the nineteenth century (Ball 1881). It was found that a tribe in the Himālayas used to dig out gold in the extreme winter to avoid the prying eyes of the robbers. The miners' black tents made of yak hair looked like hairy animals from some distance. The miners spread the myth that big gold-digging ants used to dig that gold.

v2.c42.s3.3

From the Vedic age, *niṣka* was known as a prominent gold ornament and sometimes as a decorative lump of gold. In the *Mahābhārata*, this has been mentioned as an ornament for both men and women (1.67.2; 7.19.35); a round piece of gold, tied at the neck in a string or chain (7.91.26), at times several such pieces strung into a necklet (7.138.17). Rarely *niṣka*, *śatamāna* and *sāna* were mentioned as coins or money-exchanging units. Gold vessels were frequently mentioned but these were probably too costly to be left behind and to be subsequently recovered as archaeological items. Silver pitchers — *kalaśa* (15.3.12) and *kumbha* (8.6.37) — were probably items imported through Graeco-Roman trade (2.34.4; 2.47.16). Bell metal and brass (*kāṃsya*) were used as milking and drinking vessels (2.45.26; 2.49.3; 15.34.13-14). Sometimes these were gilded with gold (4.63.47).

v2.c42.s3.4

The *Mahābhārata* recorded the onset of iron age in India. Iron is everywhere on the scene, for arrows, spears and other weapons referred to as *ayas* (6.50.68; 9.14.3), *pāraśava* (6.76.36; 9.14.14), *adrisāramaya* (3.170.49), *aśmasāramaya* (8.66.58), *karṣṇāyasa* (7.28.4), etc. Thirty to forty different types of arrows were described. The Vedic *rsti* disappeared. The sword (2.47.1) (*asi, khadga*) assumed increasing importance but the literature described it as a defensive weapon compared to the arrows. Similarly body-armours like *kavaca* (5.150.81), *varma* (1.28.11; 3.24.3), *dehāvarana* (8.10.29), *śirastrāna* (6.31.54; 8.16.25) were used for protection. A typical weapon associated with durga or fort was *śataghni* (1.199.32; 3.274.22; 7.108.40; 9.12.24) which was a huge structure, studded with spikes and provided with wheels or *cakras*; this was described by Kautilya.

Post-Christian Era Additions to the Epic

v2.c42.s3.t1.1

The art of gem-incrustation was earlier known but popularized later in India by the Indo-Scythians and Parthians at Taxilā around the first century AD. Significantly, Lad (1983: 51 and 70-71) opines that the fifty odd references to the jewelled artefacts were entered in the epic during or after the aforesaid date. Some of the references are listed below.

v2.c42.s3.t1.2

Eight *vaidūrya* stones encased in gold were offered by Prince Uttara to Arjuna (4.36.39). Lord Kṛṣṇa, always dressed in yellow, was likened to a *mani* encased in gold (5.92.52; 12.45.14)

v2.c42.s3.t1.3

अतसीपुष्प संकाशः पीतवासा जनार्दनः
व्यभ्राजत सभामध्ये हेम्नीवोपहितो मणिः
*atasipuṣpa saṃkāśaḥ pītavāsā janārdanaḥ*
*vyabhrājata sabhāmadhye hemnivopahito maṇiḥ*
(5.92.52)

v2.c42.s3.t1.4

King Drupad presented to the Pāṇḍavas vessels or bhājanas ornamented with beryl and diamond:

v2.c42.s3.t1.5

शयनासन यानि विविधानि महान्ति च
वैडूर्यवज्रचित्राणि शतशो भाजनानि च
śayanāsana yānāni vividhāni mahānti ca
vaidūryavajracitrāṇi śataśo bhājanāni ca
(1.191.15)

v2.c42.s3.t1.6

A few gold pātras ear-marked as gifts for brāhmaṇas were likewise incrusted with vajra (12.165.14). Similar silver dishes with gem incrustations were introduced at Taxilā by the Greeks around AD 100 for the first time; these were known as paterae. The drinking horn or rhyton of the Graeco-Romans was also imitated. In one solitary instance, the Mahābhārata (8.6.37) describes some elephant-tusks and rhino and cattle-horns, ornamented with pearls and precious stones, which were used as water-sprinklers during the consecration of Karṇa as the commander of the Kauravas.

v2.c42.s3.t1.7

The references to the Chinese silk (2.47.22), Bharukaccha and Roma (Rome):

v2.c42.s3.t1.8

अन्ताखीं चैव रोमां च यवनानां पुरं . . . भरुकच्छं गतो
antākhīṃ caiva romāṃ ca yavanānāṃ puraṃ . . . .
bharukaccham gato
(2.28.49-50)

v2.c42.s3.t1.9

clearly prove that insertions were made in the epic long after the onset of the Christian era. The description of the gold-decorated ornametal armour-coats in the Virāṭaparva is very significant on account of their close affinity with Sassanian metal works of the fifth-sixth centuries AD (Lad, 1983).

On Rāmāyaṇa

v2.c42.s4.1

The above discussion on the Mahābhārata clearly shows that its references to the minerals and metals and various products indicate that the text of the epic was continually expanded over the centuries. Some of the specific portions of the text can be identified with specific periods in the Indian history.

v2.c42.s4.2

The Rāmāyaṇa contains a much shorter list of minerals and metals probably because this epic itself is much shorter, and has been spared from the later-day interpolations. Like the other epic, the Rāmāyaṇa also must have been compiled in the present form during the Historical period and contains the usual references to the widely used minerals and metals.

v2.c42.s4.3

The Sundara Kāṇḍa of this epic refers to vaidūrya or beryl (3.9), vajra (diamond), sphatika (quartz), muktā or pearl (3.10), indranīla, mahānīla or sapphire (9.16), vidruma or coral (9.17), etc. The metals mentioned are: ayasa (2.40.23), kālāyasa or iron (5.41.12), kāmsya, bell-metal or brass (3.29.20; 4.50.34), copper (4.23.20), lead and tin (1.37.20) etc.

Buddhist Literature Sources

v2.c42.s5.1

The major portions of the two epics were compiled during the Maurya Period. During this era the Pāli canons were also recorded in writing. This fact is reflected in the similar references related to minerals and metals in India. Some specific points may however be noted.

v2.c42.s5.2

The Buddhist literature mentioned seven kinds of jewels or ratna: suvanna (gold), rajata (silver), muttā (pearl), veluriya (beryl), vajra (diamond), pravāla (coral) and maṇi or miscellaneous gems (Milinda, Vol.1, p. 267, Jātaka, Vol. 6, p. 480). Different kinds of loṇa or lavaṇa or salts mentioned are: samuddaloṇa, kālaloṇa, saindhavaloṇa, sovirka, etc. loṇakāras used to process salts. Decorative pigments or añjanas were widely used. Five kinds were mentioned: kālā, seta, rasa, geruka and kappila (Dīgha Nikāya, Vol.1, pp.7, 12; Jātaka, Vol.1, p.194; Vol.2, p.369; Vol.5, p.416).

v2.c42.s5.3

Aṅguttara Nikāya (Vol.3, p.116) recognised five kinds of metal or jātarūpa: ayo (iron), loho (copper), tipu (tin), sisā (lead) and sajjha (silver). Knife and needle (sūci) made of iron were mentioned. Dhammapada Atthakathā referred to gold-brick, gold-plate and vessels of gold, silver, copper and bronze or kāmsa It also mentioned (Vol.1, p.79) about the traders or kāmsakuta who cheated with false metals, i.e., selling brass metals for gold. Brass is yellow like gold, and this reference shows that not only bronze, but brass also was indicated by the word kāmsa.

References

v2.c42.s6.1

Aṅguttara Nikāya, (P.T.S.) London, 1885-1900. Ball, V., 1881, Economic Geology, Calcutta, p. 203. Dhammapada Atthakathā, Tr. (H.O.S.), Vols. 28, 29, 30, Cambridge, 1921. Dīgha Nikāya (P.T.S.), Tr. Rhys Davids (S.B.E.) 3 Vols., London, 1899, 1921. Ghosh, A., 1973, The City in Early Historical India, Simla, pp. 5-11. Gupta, S.P. and Ramachandran, K.S. edited 1976, Mahābhārata, Myth and Reality, New Delhi. Jātaka, Ed. V. Fousboll, London, Tr. by E.B. Cowell, Cambridge, 1895-1913. Joshi, J.P., 1987, The Mahābhārata and Indian Archaeology, In Archaeology and History, edited by B.M. Pande and B.D. Chattopadhyay, Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, pp. 19-34.

v2.c42.s6.2

Joshi, J.P. and Madhubala, 1982, *Manda: a Harappan Site in Jammu and Kashmir*, In G.L.Possehl (edited) *Harappan Civilization — A Contemporary Perspective*, New Delhi, pp. 193-94.

v2.c42.s6.3

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

v2.c42.s6.4

*Mahābhārata*, critically edited by V.S. Sukthankar and S.K. Belvalkar, Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1944.

v2.c42.s6.5

*Milindapañho*, Tr. by T.W. Rhys Davids (S.B.E.), Oxford, 1890-94.

v2.c42.s6.6

*Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmiki*, Ed. by Raghuvira, Banaras, 1951.

v2.c42.s6.7

Rao, S.R., 1982, *The Decipherment of the Indus Script*, Bombay.

v2.c42.s6.8

Rao, S.R. edited, 1988, *Marine Archaeology of Indian Ocean Countries*, National Inst. of Oceanography, Goa.

v2.c42.s6.9

Sharma, R.S., 1983, *Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India*, New Delhi, pp. 23-24, 172-73.

v2.c42.s6.10

Some Aspects of the Indian Guilds

v2.c42.s6.11

(1) *Jātaka* and *Mahāvastu* (ed. E. Senart, Paris, 1882-97).
(2) *Vinaya Piṭaka* (ed. H. Oldenberg, London, 1879-83).
(3) *Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā* (ed. H.C. Norman, London, 1906-14).
(4) *Mahāvaṃsa*, ed. by W. Geiger (P.T.S., London, 1908).
(5) *Dīpavaṃsa*, ed. by H. Oldenberg, London, 1879.
(6) *Divyāvadāna*, ed. by E.B. Cowell and R.A. Neil, Cambridge, 1886.
(7) *Milindapañho*, ed. by V. Trenckner, London, 1880.
(8) *Sutta Nipāta*, P.T.S., London, 1913.
(9) *Jātaka*, Vol. I, p. 267 *et seq.*, Vol. II, p. 12, *et seq.*, as mentioned in the text. *Jātaka*, Vol. I, p. 106; Vol. II, p. 12; *Jātaka*, Vol. I, p. 106; Vol. II, p. 12.

v2.c42.s6.12

Five kinds of metal or *pañcaloha* are mentioned in the *Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā* referred to above, viz., gold, silver, copper and bronze or *kamsa*. It is said about the trader or *kamsakāra* who cheated with the *kamsa* or bronze for gold. Brass is yellow like gold, and this is often confused with bronze, but brass etc. was indicated by the word *kamsa*.

v2.c42.s6.13

References

v2.c42.s6.14

Agrawala, V.S., *India as known to Pāṇini*, Lucknow, 1953. Digha Nikāya, P.T.S., *Pali Text Society*, Vol. I, London, 1890-1923. Ghosh, A., 2002, *The Early Vedic Age*, New Delhi, pp. 4-11. *Jātaka*, with commentary, ed. by V. Fausböll, Cambridge, 1877-1897. Majumdar, R.C., *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, Calcutta, 1922, pp. 32-34.

Linked texts (24)