Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c46: 10. Resumé

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c46

Language
English

Contents

10. Resumé

v2.c46.1

We have critically surveyed in the previous chapters the references to gems, non-gem minerals and metals in the Sanskrit literatures, from the *Rgveda* to the *Rasaratnasamuccaya*, which cover the entire span of three millennia of the ancient India. Since mere recapitulation would be unnecessarily repetitive, we would restrict ourselves in this last chapter, to our observations on the following points:

v2.c46.2

(a) correlations of the literary evidences with the archaeological data and other historical facts, and
(b) the revelations about the scientific concepts and socio-philosophical attitude in ancient India.

Archaeology and History

v2.c46.s1.1

Archaeology digs not only the earth but also into the past in a telling manner. In this modern age of sophisticated instrumentation, the ancient artefacts can be accurately analysed and C¹⁴-dated through the accompanying organic residues; as a contrast, there are controversies on the dates of several works of literature.

v2.c46.s1.2

On the other hand, the archaeological samples of minerals and metals are mute, and often do not tell whether these were imported or locally made, and in the latter case, the status of scientific knowledge of the indigenous manufacturers. The literary evidences tell us about the state-of-art and the status of concepts and philosophy. Even though the literary evidences on minerals and metals in the Indian scene are scanty, scattered and occasionally of uncertain date, these must be viewed as complementary to the archaeological evidences.

v2.c46.s1.3

The *Rgveda* describes the transition from the neolithic to the chalcolithic period in the Indian history (earlier than second millennium BC), the use of conch-shell and conch-pearl, different ill-defined metals, and widespread trade and navigation. Homer referred to the import of tin and ivory from India.

v2.c46.s1.4

The post-Ṛgvedic literatures describe purification steps, sieving, winnowing, smelting in furnaces using bellows and different kinds of metals—the ornamental and barter metals of gold and silver, low melting point metals lead and tin, copper and the new metal śyāma or iron obtained through solid state carbothermic reduction. The art of forging or joining of metals was mentioned.

v2.c46.s1.5

The problem of correlating archaeological and literary evidences is distinctly severe with the Ṛgveda and the epic Mahābhārata. The epic was definitely expanded from time to time, and the references to ant-gold, marakata or emerald and gem-incrustations must have been later-day insertions. We cannot accept that marakata was known to the residents of 1200 BC Hastināpura.

v2.c46.s1.6

On the other hand, the art of making iron, well-known in 1100 BC Atrañjikherā, was never fully recorded in the literature. High carbon steel was definitely made in the pre-Christian era Taxilā, but the scattered literary evidences came much later. Similarly, zinc and brass were known in Taxilā and during the Kauṭilya’s time, and yet the first clear reference to the making of these items came much later from the celebrated Nāgārjuna’s pen.

v2.c46.s1.7

The problem of correlating archaeological and literary evidences is not so great with Pāṇini and Kauṭilya. The writings of Pāṇini and Kauṭilya clearly reflect the contemporary scenes (fifth to third century BC) of material civilization in India. The coins, the multi-bellowed furnaces and beryl mentioned by Pāṇini, and vṛtta, the circular discs of carburised iron, tīkṣṇa, the steel and ārakūṭa, the high-zinc brass of Kauṭilya have all been found in the different pre-Christian era strata of Taxilā.

v2.c46.s1.8

The Gupta era splendour was fully reflected in the contemporary literatures. The then uses of gems, coins, copper, zinc, brass, iron and steel, the international trade with Sri Lanka and Rome, and the Graeco-Roman influence in India, etc. were revealed in many writings, Ratnaśāstras, Aṅgavijjā, Amarakośa, Bṛhatsaṃhitā and so on.

v2.c46.s1.9

The Rasaśāstra texts appeared after the decline of the Gupta era, and portrayed the decadent scenes of the Tāntric period, the continued practices of zinc, brass and ferrous metallurgy, the use of mineral-based medicines and the technological contact with China through Tibet. Ray (1956: 97) believed that the knowledge of zinc metallurgy came to India from China, but this was an erroneous view. India was the first to make zinc and brass; what we learnt from the Chinese were precipitation of copper from solution by scrap iron, the arts of making paper and gunpowder, etc.

Scientific Concepts Related to Material Science

v2.c46.s2.1

Notwithstanding the technical excellence related to minerals and metals in ancient India, the question remains as to the level of scientific appreciation in the ancient world.

v2.c46.s2.2

The Harappans were meticulous about measurements and standardisation, and it is a pity that their scripts have not yet been deciphered. The Vedic literatures illustrate basic advancements in linguistics, mathematics, geometry and astronomy which are outside the purview of our studies.

v2.c46.s2.3

Atharvaveda speculated (4.10.1-7) about the cause of orign of conch-shell and conch-pearl. Along with a mythological theory of these gems originating from ‘gods bones’, the other theory proclaimed that the materials could have grown in the sea under atmospheric influences. This mixture of belief in mythology and rational thinking continued for centuries. We find Varāhamihira declaring (*Br. Sam.*, 80.3) in the fifth century AD that the wonderful variety of gems is caused by the characteristic qualities of the earth, and yet the fourteenth century AD text *Rasaratnasamuccaya* continued to repeat the mythological theory.

v2.c46.s2.4

Kauṭilya referred to the scientific approach of categorisation of gems according to colour. The *Ratnaśāstra* texts brought in the useful criteria of relative hardness, specific gravity and optical properties towards the identification of gems. The reference to *rasapāka* in Kauṭilya shows that *rasaśāstra* studies had been initiated during his time to transform matter to useful varieties. Alchemy gradually evolved from the sustained efforts of Caraka, Suśruta, Patañjali and Nāgārjuna.

v2.c46.s2.5

In the meantime, the postulate about the atomic constitution of matter, made by Kaṇāda, was being refined by the followers of the *Vaiśeṣika*, Buddhist and Jain philosophies. Yet there was little correlation between the atomic theories (speculative in nature) and the *rasaśāstra* experiments related to distillation, digestion, reduction, oxidation, sulfidisation, etc. During the Tāntric period we obtain the concept of *sattva/satva* denoting metallic essence, the metal extracted from a mineral or ore. There are references to ‘mercury from mercuric sulphide’, ‘copper from copper sulphate’ etc., but no categorical statement to the effect that such an extracted metal is indeed the same as the variety available in native state or obtainable from another source. Iatro-chemistry in ancient India fell short of the European breakthrough in Daltonian Chemistry, and yet by the thirteenth century it had outgrown the earlier alchemical extravaganza.

Scientific Attitude in Ancient India: The Irrational Trends

v2.c46.s3.1

Chattopadhyaya has articulated in great detail (1976,1977,1982, 1986) what he considers to be ‘living (scientific) and what is dead (unscientific) in Indian philosophy’. According to him the Indian materialistic philosophy of the Lokāyata was systematically denigrated in India by the anti-scientific and Brāhmaṇic philosophy of the Vedānta. Prafulla Chandra Ray had earlier (1902, 1909) developed the same theme, and criticised the Brāhmaṇic tradition for introducing the pernicious caste system and the anti-reason theological stranglehold in our sub-continent.

v2.c46.s3.2

Much of their criticisms are valid. The early casteless Ṛgvedic society gradually introduced a rigid caste system and sanctified it by the so-called ‘divine sanction’. The isolation of the low-caste artisans from the high-caste scholars affected Indian science since the early days. We have mentioned in chapter 3 an ancient tradition that the ritual milking pot was not to be prepared by a low-caste potter! Even metals like gold, copper and newly discovered iron were considered to possess decreasing social status. The concept of hereditary caste permeated into the subject of classification of minerals. According to Rasaratnasamuccaya (RRS), diamond could have four colours or ‘castes’! What was worse, such a classification theory for materials, based on caste, was claimed to have universal applicability :

v2.c46.s3.3

पदार्थेषु अखिलेषु अपि
padārtheṣu akhileṣu api
(RRS, 4.29-4.31)

v2.c46.s3.4

We find the excellent compilation Amarakośa categorising the materials in four caste-categories, the metallurgical equipments falling under śūdravarga. Even the scientifically oriented intellectuals like Caraka, Gotama, Praśastapāda, though not conforming to all the Vedic tenets, tacitly accepted the varṇāśrama and the caste-system. The famous Vedāntist Śaṅkara not only supported the caste-injunctions of Manu, but also criticised the atmoic theory of Kaṇāda (Brahma-Sūtrabhāṣyam, 2.2.17):

v2.c46.s3.5

तस्मात् एवम् असारतर्कसंद्धत्वात् ईश्वरकारणश्रुतिविरुद्धत्वात्
. . . परमाणुकारणवादे . . . श्रेयोर्थिभिरिति वाक्यशेषः
tasmāt evam asāratarkasamdrabdhatvāt
īśvarakāraṇaśrutiviruddhatvāt
. . .paramāṇukāraṇavāde . . . śreyo'rthibhiriti
vākyaśeṣaḥ

v2.c46.s3.6

Such frontal attacks inhibited free-thinking of scientifically minded but god-fearing intellectuals and diffusion of knowledge across caste barriers.

v2.c46.s3.7

That the śūdras should not be allowed to read the Vedas was almost fully accepted in ancient India. There was a cult of secrecy, of course nurtured by vested interests. The alchemical and Iatro-chemical research was marked by professional secrecy, and the astounding claims were made:

v2.c46.s3.8

रसविद्या दृढं गोप्य मातृगुह्यमिव ध्रुवम्। भरेत् वीर्यवती गुप्ता निर्वीर्या च प्रकाशनात्।। रोगिनां बहुभिर्ज्ञातं भवेत् निर्वीर्यम् औषधम्। न रोगविदितं कार्य बहुभिर्विदितं तथा।। rasavidyā dr̥ḍhaṁ gopyā māturguhyamiva dhruvam । bharet vīryavatī guptā nir vīryā ca prakāśanāt ।। rogināṁ bahubhirjñātaṁ bhavet nirvīryam oṣadham ।। na rogaviditaṁ kārya bahubhirviditaṁ tathā ।। (RRS, 6.71-72).

v2.c46.s3.9

That ‘scientific knowledge remains powerful when kept secret and becomes useless when made public’, and that ‘the medicine becomes ineffective when its identity is revealed to the patient’.

v2.c46.s3.10

The insular attitude in India resulted in over-compartmentalisation of technology. Only specific tribes like muṇḍas practised iron-making (hence the name muṇḍaloha), bhīls practised zinc-making, turis gold and diamond-washing, kāṁsārīs bell-metal trading; there were low-caste gem-engravers and even the rasaśāstra experts dealing with plant and mineral-based medicines were known as vaidyas or fallen brāhmaṇas. (Roy, 1946) The different castes practising different aspects of trade rarely exchanged informations, only which could result in faster growth of science and technology in India. It has been well said that ‘the evils that caste system engendered cannot be over-estimated’.

v2.c46.s3.11

During Varāhamihira’s time there was a healthy respect for foreign scholars (Br. Sam., 2.4 and 2.32), but in the eleventh century AD, Al-Beruni observed in India an insular attitude and the vice of vainglory amongst the contemporary Indian scholars. (Sachau, 1910, 1983, Vol.1, pp. 22-23)

v2.c46.s3.12

At the same time, Al-Beruni noted another reason for the decline of Indian Science: ‘Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country . . . .Hindu sciences have retired far away to other places’. Even earlier, the barbarous invasions of the Huns, Scythians and Saracens had stunned the growth of Indian sciences and arts. Ray (1902, 1909) and Chattopadhyaya (1986) have glossed over this aspect of Indian history.

A More Sympathetic View

v2.c46.s4.1

Having noted the casteist and irrational trends in Indian science, we may also record the positive aspects in our tradition.

v2.c46.s4.2

In the famous Nāsadīya Sūkta (RV, 10.129), the Rgveda provides the earliest example of India’s spirit of enquiry. When the post-Vedic culture degenerated into rituals and regimentation in thoughts, a large number of non-conformist intellectuals such as Kapila, Kaṇāda, Buddha appeared on the scene. They brought back the culture of reason and logic (Pande, 1969), and none of them, except the Lokāyata scholars, denied the ethical precepts of the original Āryas.

v2.c46.s4.3

Pāṇini stressed on proof (pramāṇa), original discoveries of knowledge ‘which had not existed’ (upajñā) and their applications (upakrama). Kauṭilya stressed on accurate measurements and standardisation in trade and commerce. Whereas the followers of Manu considered philosophy to be a subject subserving the Vedic lores (Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, 1.2.2-3), Kauṭilya asserted that ānvīkṣiki or investigative philosophy was supposed to investigate, by means of reasoning, not only the hazards of economics and politics, but also dharmādharmau trayyām ‘What is spiritual good and evil in the Vedic lore’ (AS, 1.2.11). It was boldly proclaimed that :

v2.c46.s4.4

प्रदीपः सर्वविद्यानाम् उपायः सर्वकर्मनाम्।
आश्रयः सर्वधर्मानाम् शश्वत् आन्वीक्षिकी मता।।
pradīpaḥ sarvavidyānām upāyaḥ sarvakarmanām |
āśrayaḥ sarvadharmānām śaśvat ānvīkṣikī matā ||
(AS, 1. 2.12)

v2.c46.s4.5

Philosophy is ever thought of as the lamp of all sciences, the means of all actions (and) as the support of all laws (and duties).

v2.c46.s4.6

Chattopadhyaya himself has described (1976: 5-7 and 1982: Volume 1, pp. 209-38) how the spirit of debate, enquiry and logic were sustained, during the early Christian era, by Caraka, Gautama and Vātsyāyana, who subscribed to the ethical principles of the Vedānta concurrently. Caraka pointed out the merit of scientific debate which ‘strengthens conviction by way of removing doubt in the pre-existing stock of knowledge, and breaks the tendency to insularism even of those that would not normally impart their own knowledge to others’ (Caraka Saṃhitā, 1.25.27, 3.8.15 and 28). In the second century AD, Gotama or Gautama wrote his famous Nyāyasūtra (which was the origin of the science of logic in ancient India) and three centuries later, Vātsyāyana wrote the equally famous commentary on it. They emphasized the importances of intellectual doubt (samasyā), critical examination of the problem (parikṣā) and final ascertainment (nirṇaya) as distinct stages in the scientific and philosophical pursuits.

v2.c46.s4.7

Āryabhaṭa (born AD 476) did not subscribe to the traditional notion of five elements. His denial of the fifth element, *ākāśa* or ether, was in accordance with the materialistic philosophy of the *Lokāyata*. (Bongard Levin, 1977) Bhāskara I (AD 629) and later Al-Beruni emphasized on Āryabhaṭa’s agnostic approach about the space which is not reached by the solar rays, and the notion ‘that which is not reached by perception is not knowable’. Āryabhaṭa’s theory of the Earth’s rotation around its axis and his scientific explanation for the solar and lunar eclipses invited hostility from those who believed in the earlier cosmogenic doctrines, but there is no evidence that he faced any theological inquisition like Galileo.

v2.c46.s4.8

Al-Beruni rightly accused Brahmagupta (born AD 598) for indulging in half-truths, for criticising Varāhamihira and Āryabhaṭa (who had demolished the Rāhu theory) and yet ‘calculating the diameter of the moon in order to explain her eclipsing the sun’. (Sachau, 1910, 1983, Volume 2, pp. 110-12)

v2.c46.s4.9

Chattopadhyaya (1976: 256-70) has discussed why the intellectuals of the ancient India, not only Brahmagupta, but also Kaṇāda, Caraka, Gautama, Vātsyāyana, Varāhamihira, etc. chose not to go against the Brāhmaṇic or the Vedic concepts and ideals. According to Chattopadhyaya, theirs was an act of ‘subterfuge, a technique of evading inquisition’. He further observed that even in the modern world there are scientists who believe in matter as well as the divine (Newton and Einstein believed in God) and that ‘they have split personalities’.

v2.c46.s4.10

A more sympathetic view may be proposed. The issue whether matter has evolved from consciousness (the spiritual view) or consciousness has evolved from matter (the materialistic view) has not yet been finally settled. This could be the famous ‘chicken and egg’ problem. Most intellectuals of all ages and countries might have preferred not to put all their eggs in one basket (atheistic material science). It is better to remain more open-minded on this issue. (Biswas, 1969 : 19-31 and 99-118)

v2.c46.s4.11

At any rate, the spectacular scientific achievements in the ancient India clearly show that not everything was dead in the intellectual plane. Whereas Śaṅkara ridiculed Kaṇāda’s atomic theory, Śubhagupta commented that if atoms are to be doubted on the ground that these are not demonstratable like macroscopic objects, then one should doubt the human mind also!

v2.c46.s4.12

Ancient India always believed in accurate observations and experiments. *Atharvaveda* initiated the ancient medical tradition by recommending that the animals in the forest may be closely observed to discover the pharmaceutical properties of the herbs (AV, 8.7.23-26). Caraka has laid emphasis on the importance and utility of scientific experiments (Caraka Saṃhitā, 6.8.132,10.5):

v2.c46.s4.13

परीक्षायास्तु खलु प्रयोजनम् प्रतिपत्तिज्ञानम्। सम्यक् परीक्षा हि बुद्धिमताम् कार्यप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ति कालौ शंसति। परीक्षाकारिणो हि कुशला भवन्ति।। *parīkṣāyāstu khalu prayojanam pratipattijñānam |* *samyak parīkṣā hi buddhimatām kāryapravṛttinivṛtti* *kālau śaṃsati | parīkṣākāriṇo hi kuśalā bhavanti ||*

v2.c46.s4.14

The entire Āyurvedic science of medicine has been based on experimentation; for example, poisoned food and drinks and antidotes were tried on lower animals followed by trial of drugs on human beings. Abundant material on this topic is available in the Saṃhitās of Caraka and Suśruta and in the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha. For centuries, this approach was pursued by the Rasaśāstra scholars.

v2.c46.s4.15

The author of the thirteenth-century text Rasakalpa wrote:

v2.c46.s4.16

साक्षात् अनुभवैर्दृष्टो ना श्रुतो गुरुदर्शितः। लोकानाम् उपकाराय एतत् सर्वं निवेदितम्। *sākṣāt anubhavairdr̥ṣṭau nā śruto gurudarśitaḥ* *lokānām upakārāya etat sarvaṃ niveditam |*

v2.c46.s4.17

I have performed the aforesaid experiments with my own hands and have seen them with my own eyes. They are not recorded from mere hearsay or from the dictation of a teacher. These are being promulgated for the benefit of mankind’. (quoted by Ray, 1956:157 and 370)

v2.c46.s4.18

Yaśodhara made a similar statment in Rasa-Prakāśa-Sudhākara.

v2.c46.s4.19

The author of the fourteenth century text Rasendracintāmaṇi wrote :

v2.c46.s4.20

That which I have heard of learned men and have read in the śāstras but have not been able to verify by experiment, I have discarded. I am committing to writing only those which I have been able to perform with my own hands’ (Ray’s translation quoted by Chattopadhyaya, 1982, Volume 1, p. 345)

v2.c46.s4.21

Rasaratnasamuccaya (RRS) of the fourteenth century AD defined who could undertake rasaśāstra experiments :

v2.c46.s4.22

सम्यक् साधन सोद्यमा नानकर्मपरार्मुखा *samyak sādhana sodyamā nānākarmaparāmmukhā* An ideal dedicated student, a hard working, meticulous research worker in *Rasaśāstra* (RRS 6.5-6.7; 6.67-6.68)

v2.c46.s4.23

and described:

v2.c46.s4.24

अत्यन्तोपवने रम्ये . . . तत्र शाला . . .
सम्यक् वातायनोपेता दिव्यचित्रैः विचित्रिता
*alyantopavane ramye . . . tatra śālā . . .*
*samyak vātāyanopetā divyacitraiḥ vicitritā*

v2.c46.s4.25

The ideal *rasa-śālā* or alchemical laboratory, well-ventilated, well-decorated and set in a pleasing environment (RRS, 6.11-6.58).

v2.c46.s4.26

The layout and the diversity of equipments were described in detail. (Biswas, 1987: 43-44)

Conclusion

v2.c46.s5.1

Continuing investigations, both archaeological as well as literary, are likely to augment our knowledge on minerals and metals in ancient India. On the basis of the informations gathered by us so far, we may safely conclude that in the field of material science and technology, ancient India was second to none amongst the contemporary nations in the world.

v2.c46.s5.2

A variety of reasons, discussed in this chapter, inhibited the rate of scientific progress in this sub-continent, and India failed to match the spectacular intellectual renaissance in Europe. Nevertheless, when the British investigators of the nineteenth century surveyed our sub-continent, they obtained abundant evidences of ancient mines, working metallurgical outfits in the sectors of iron, copper, zinc, brass and gold, well-informed practices related to gems and non-gem minerals and, briefly stated, of the entire gamut of the ancient and medieval Indian traditions in minerals and metals.

References

v2.c46.s6.1

Biswas, Arun Kumar, 1969, *Science in India*, Firma KLM Private Ltd., Calcutta. —, 1987, ‘Rasa-Ratna-Samuccaya and Mineral Processing State-of-Art in the thirteenth century AD India’, In *Indian Journal of History of Science*, 22 (1), 1987, pp. 29-46. Biswas, Sulekha, Chakravorty, Nayanananda and Biswas, Arun Kumar, 1990, ‘Archaeo-Material Studies in India and Literary Evidences’, In *Historical Archaeology of India*, edited by Amita Ray and Samir Mukherjee, Books and Books, New Delhi, pp. 49-66. Bongard Levin, G.M., 1977, ‘Āryabhaṭa and Lokāyatas’, In *Indian Journal of History of Science*, Vol. 12, no. 2, November, 1977, pp. 187-93.

v2.c46.s6.2

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad, 1976, *What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy*, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi. ——, 1977, *Science and Society in Ancient India*, Research India Publication, Calcutta. ——, 1982, edited, *Studies in the History of Science in India*, 2 volumes, Editorial Enterprises, New Delhi. ——, 1986, *History of Science and Technology in Ancient India — The Beginnings*, Firma KLM Private Ltd., Calcutta.

v2.c46.s6.3

Pande, G.C., 1969, ‘Philosophical Trends and the History of Science in India — Heterodox Trends’, *In Indian Journal of History of Science*, Volume 4, nos. 1 & 2, May & November, 1969, pp. 42-51.

v2.c46.s6.4

Ray, Prafulla Chandra, *History of Hindu Chemistry*, Vol. I, 1902-3; Vol. II, 1909, Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Limited, Calcutta.

v2.c46.s6.5

Ray, Priyadaranjan, edited, 1956, *History of Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India*, Indian Chemical Society, Calcutta.

v2.c46.s6.6

Roy, S.K., 1946, ‘Glimpses into India’s Heritage in Geology, Mining and Metallurgy’, *In Quarterly Journal of the Geological, Mining and Metallurgical Society of India*, Volume 18, March 1946, pp. 101-23.

v2.c46.s6.7

Sachau E.C., edited, 1910, 1983, *Alberuni’s India* (about AD 1030), Volumes I & II, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Private Ltd., New Delhi.

v2.c46.s6.8

col. Ill. 2.1 Amethyst. Manganese containing quartz or sphaṭika.

v2.c46.s6.9

col. Ill. 2.2 Colour in Agate/Carnelian Amongst the earliest gems in India.

v2.c46.s6.10

col. Ill. 2.3 Native Gold on Quartz. Often ends up in river sand (through metamorphosis) recovered by Indian artisans for ages.

v2.c46.s6.11

col. Ill. 2.4 Hope Diamond, probably part of Great Blue diamond taken from India by Tavernier.

v2.c46.s6.12

col. Ill. 2.5 Hexagonal Ruby or Padmarāga.

v2.c46.s6.13

col. Ill. 2.6 The Star of India. Largest Sapphire — 563 Carats.

v2.c46.s6.14

col. Ill. 2.7 Faint green hexagonal beryl or vaidūrya. Ratnaśalākā of Kālidāsa.

v2.c46.s6.15

col. Ill. 2.8 Emerald Crystals in Limestone.

v2.c46.s6.16

col. Ill. 2.9 Panning for gems in the Mahānadi. Inset an aquamarine or probably green beryl.

v2.c46.s6.17

col. Ill. 2.10 (a) Rosser Reeves Ruby (138.7 carats) from Sri Lankā — the largest and finest star ruby in the world. (b) 911 carat aquamarine from Brazil. (c) The Maharani — 58.2 carat chrysoberyl cat's eye.

v2.c46.s6.18

col. Ill. 2.11 Emerald. The name was derived from the Sanskrit word Marakata meaning the (Egyptian) gem found near desert (maru) and sea-coast (kata), Masāraka (Egyptian gem) and Smaragdos.

v2.c46.s6.19

col. Ill. 2.12 The Taj Mahal Emerald, Mughal, circa 1630-50, Colombian emerald.

v2.c46.s6.20

col. Ill. 2.13 Weight for Floor Covering, Mughal, circa 1700, alabaster with gemstone inlay.

v2.c46.s6.21

col. Ill. 2.14 Istanbul Dagger set with three emeralds, Istanbul Museum.

v2.c46.s6.22

col. Ill. 2.15 18-19th century 94.5 cm. long sword of the Maharaja of Holkar set with rubies, emeralds, diamond and onyx.

v2.c46.s6.23

col. Ill. 2.16 Skandamātā. Tanesara — Mahadeva, south of Udaipur. Blue Schist. Rajasthan.

v2.c46.s6.24

col. Ill. 2.17 Gaṅgā and Yamunā. Terracotta. Ahicchatra.

v2.c46.s6.25

col. Ill. 2.18 The famous Ajanṭā Buddhistic cave and temple.

v2.c46.s6.26

col. Ill. 2.19 The famous Ajanṭā Buddhistic cave and temple have been carved out of basaltic rock.

v2.c46.s6.27

col. Ill. 2.20 The famous painting (Ajanṭā, cave no. 1). The pigments used in are lamp black, charcoal, red and yellow ochres, vermillion, ultramarine, terre verte etc.

v2.c46.s6.28

col. Ill. 2.21 Maternity scene in Black basalt. Could be birth of Kṛṣṇa, Devaki and Kṛṣṇa. Pāla, 11th century AD.

v2.c46.s6.29

col. Ill. 2.22 Konārka Temple 13th century in Khondalite rock.

v2.c46.s6.30

col. Ill. 2.23 Female Musician. Koṇārka Temple, in Khondalite rock. Erosion is on account of decomposition of the Khondalite mineral.

v2.c46.s6.31

col. Ill. 2.24 Avalokiteśvara (Bronze). Hemis Gumpha, Leh, 15th century. Inset blue turquoise.

v2.c46.s6.32

col. Ill. 2.25 Dancing Tārā. Gilded Statuette set with turquoise, ruby and other semi-precious stones. 18th Century AD, Nepalese statuette.

Linked texts (16)