Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Iron in Ancient India

Literary evidence for iron in Vedic and later texts; iron pillars (Delhi, Dhar), wootz steel, smelting methods, rasaśāstra preparations of iron.

Language
English
Author
Panchanan Neogi
Extent
367 passages, 26,735 words
Text
complete digital text
Source
archive.org · Calcutta: Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science 1914 (Bulletin 12); scan on archive.org, OCR… · In copyright (Panchanan Neogi); freely available on archive.org — shown with credit and a link to that copy,…

Contents

Text

Front matter

c1.1

BULLETIN No. 12.

c1.2

The Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science.

Iron in Ancient India

c2.1

PANCHANAN NEOGI, M.A., F.C.S. Premchand Roychand Scholar, Professor of Chemistry, Government College, Rajshahi, Bengal, India.

c2.2

CALCUTTA: Printed for, and Published by, the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science. 210, Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta. — 1914.

c2.3

Price, Rs. 2/4 or 3s. net.

c2.4

THIS SERIES OF MONOGRAPHS ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE METALS IN ANCIENT INDIA IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE DR. MAHENDRA LAL SIRCAR, M.D., D.L., C.I.E., THE FOUNDER OF THE INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE, AND THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS SCIENTIST OF INDIA WHO WORKED STRENUOUSLY FOR SCIENCE AND MEDICINE DURING THE LATTER HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, AS A RESPECTFUL TRIBUTE OF GENUINE REGARD OF HIS HUMBLE ADMIRER THE AUTHOR.

Introduction

c3.1

My object in preparing this series of monographs is to study the knowledge of the ancient Hindus of the different metals and their compounds from ancient Sanskrit literature, medical and non-medical, and also from analytical, archæological and mineralogical sources. Dr. P. C. Ray, in his well-known "History of Hindu Chemistry," has collected a large amount of medical or rather medico-chemical Sanskrit literature bearing on the knowledge of the Hindus of the metals and their compounds, but I would like to submit that there are other sources, specially non-medical Sanskritic and archæological literature, which would throw considerable light on the subject. It is my desire to bring together in a connected form the information on all these heads as far as practicable so that a more detailed history of Hindu Chemistry may be written afterwards.

c3.2

So far as the present monograph is concerned, it embodies in an enlarged form a lecture delivered on the 7th January, 1914, at the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Dr. P. C. Ray presiding. I have attempted to discuss at considerable length the question whether iron was known in the Vedic Age, and I hope I have been able to prove that the use of iron was perfectly known to the first Aryan settlers in India. Such a discussion might throw some light on the vexed question of the prior use of iron and bronze, though so far as India is concerned there was no bronze age, as bronze weapons are scarcely to be found in India. As regards archæological evidence, ancient specimens of iron are so very abundant in India that an enumeration of these alone will convince any one that India has always been a rich iron-producing country. The great iron pillar at Delhi is well known to all, but I would like to draw prominent attention of all students of science to the other two less-known iron pillars, viz. the one at Dhar, which is nearly twice as big as the Delhi pillar, and the other on Mount Abu. Nor must we lose sight of the gigantic iron beams at Konarak, recently brought to full view from drift sea-sand in which many remained buried for two or three centuries, as well as of the numerous iron beams at Puri and Bhubaneswar where as many as 239 pieces have been counted in the Puri Gunduchibārī temple alone.

c3.3

I believe that the theory of forging small blooms of wrought iron into entire beams and pillars is the real solution of the question how these beams and pillars could have been forged with hand labour. As regards the solution of the problem how these pillars have so long withstood the rusting influence of wind and rain, my idea is that " low manganese with low sulphur and high phosphorus " in the composition of the iron has something to do with the " corrosion-resistance " capacity of wrought iron. I also suspect that the pillars and beams were originally painted.

c3.4

As regards the metallurgy of iron, wrought iron was produced in India by the *direct process*, i.e. directly from the ores in small blast furnaces without the intermediate production of cast iron, whilst the modern process may be called the *indirect process*, in which wrought iron is prepared from cast iron which is first formed in modern blast furnaces.

c3.5

I have devoted considerable space to the consideration of the manufacture of Indian steel which was certainly the material from which the famous Damascus blades were manufactured. It will be seen that the crucible process of making cast-steel by means of cementation was really an Indian invention, and that it was not till the nineteenth century that Mr. Mushet re-discovered the process in Europe.

c3.6

In conclusion, I should take this opportunity of thanking Dr. Spooner, Superintendent of the Archæological Department, Indian Museum, Calcutta, for his permission to take photographs of the Budh-Gaya iron clamps, and Dr. J. H. Marshal, Director of the Archæological Department, Government of India, for his permission to reproduce the plates from the Reports of the Archæological Survey of India. I am also indebted to the publishers of the *Empress* for their loan of the blocks of the Bijapur Guns for use in this paper. Mahamahopadhyay Dr. Satish Chandra Vidyabhushan, Principal of the Sanskrit College, Calcutta, placed every facility at my disposal, enabling me to study Vedic literature on the subject in the library of the College. I should also state that I was not aware of Sir Robert Hadfield's excellent papers on " Singhalese Iron and Steel of ancient Origin "

c3.7

in the Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute and Proceedings of the Royal Society, and that my attention was drawn to the papers at the meeting in which my paper was read. I have incorporated in this paper Sir Robert's analysis of Ceylon iron, as Ceylon was only a part of Greater India in ancient times.

c3.8

RAJSHAHI, 1914.

c3.9

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

c3.10

Page CHAPTER I. Iron in the Vedic Age .. .. .. .. 1 Iron in the Brahman Age .. .. .. .. 7

c3.11

CHAPTER II. Iron in the Epic Age .. .. .. .. 8

c3.12

CHAPTER III. Ancient specimens of iron in India. Prehistoric iron implements discovered in Tinnevelly .. .. .. 12 Iron from the Piprāhwā Stupa .. .. .. 13 Iron in the Buddhist Temple at Bodh-Gaya .. .. 14 Iron pillar at Delhi .. .. .. .. 15 Iron beams in the temples at Bhubaneswar, Puri and Konarak in Orissa .. .. .. .. 21 Iron pillar at Dhar .. .. .. .. 27 Iron pillar on Mount Abu .. .. .. .. 30 Iron in the gates of Somnath .. .. .. 31 Iron guns and cannon .. .. .. .. 32

c3.13

CHAPTER IV. Matters of chemical interest relating to Indian iron. Analysis of Indian iron .. .. .. .. 41 Tensile strength of Indian iron .. .. .. 42 Micrographic examination of ancient Ceylon iron .. 43 Varieties of Indian iron .. .. .. .. 44 Theory of forging iron beams and pillars .. .. 47 Explanation of "corrosion resistance" power of Indian iron.
(a) Low manganese with low sulphur and high phosphorus .. .. .. .. .. 49
(b) Application of paints on iron beams and pillars .. 51 Compounds of iron.
(a) Oxides of iron .. .. .. .. .. 53
(b) Sulphides of iron .. .. .. .. 58
(c) Chlorides of iron .. .. .. .. 58

c3.14

CHAPTER V.

c3.15

Metallurgy of Indian iron ores and mines of iron in ancient India . . . . . 59 Direct process of manufacturing wrought-iron .. .. 60 Why wrought-iron and not cast-iron is produced by the Indian process .. .. .. .. .. 64

c3.16

CHAPTER VI.

c3.17

Indian steel or wootz. Derivation of " wootz " .. .. .. .. .. 65 Historical . . . . . 65 Manufacture of wootz. Crucible process of making cast-steel by cementation .. .. .. .. .. 69 Crucible process of making cast-steel—an Indian discovery 74

c3.18

CHAPTER VII.

c3.19

Cast-iron . . . . . 77

c3.20

By P. Neogi.

Chapter I. Iron in the Vedic Age (circa 2000—1000 B.C.)

c4.2

¹ Prof. Hermann Jacobi from astronomical calculations is inclined to push the beginning of the Vedic age so far back as 4000 B.C. We have, however, adopted here the more moderate estimate of the antiquity of the Vedic age. Prof. Max Müller is of opinion that the Vedas represent the most ancient writings in he world.

c4.3

The revival of iron industry in modern India under the auspices of the Bengal Iron and Steel and the Tata Iron and Steel Companies leads naturally to the question whether the present industry, which promises so much in the near future, is entirely a new venture in India or is a revival of past ventures in this direction. India is known to the West primarily as the abode of an ancient civilization rich in ethical and philosophical doctrines, but the fact that Indian civilization was rich in material progress also is slowly but steadily being brought to the notice of the world at large. So far as the present subject is concerned, a careful study of the available literature and archaeological evidence will easily convince any student that India had always been in the past, as it promises to be in the near future, a rich iron-producing country. Well has Sir John Hickshaw said in his presidential address to the British Association Meeting at Bristol in 1875 that "the supply of iron in India, as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, seems to have been unlimited. India well repaid any advantages which she may have derived from the early civilized communities of the West if she were the first to supply them with iron and steel." Shaw maintains that "the hardest tools in ancient Egypt, such as drills for working the granite obelisks, were made of Indian iron" and it was again from India, as will be shown later on, that the Persians and afterwards the Arabs and the Europeans learnt the tempering of steel, the best specimens of which were the famous Damascus blades of the Middle Ages. Roscoe and Schorlemmer in their well-known "Treatise on Chemistry" have written "it appears probable that iron was first obtained from its ores in India." They further say "the word iron, which is identical with the Scandinavian 'iarn' (instead of 'isarn') and German 'eisen' (adjective 'eisern') appears to be connected with the Sanskrit 'ayas' (Latin 'aes'), and this, according to Grimm, is an indication that bronze was in use amongst the Germans at a much earlier date than iron."

c4.4

Ethnographists usually divide the age of using implements of warfare into principally three divisions, viz. stone age, bronze age and iron age. Such a division might be tenable in the case of European countries but hardly applicable in the case of India which was colonized by the Aryans possessing a very high order of civilization at a very early age. It is true that implements of the stone age are found scattered in Chota Nagpur, Central Provinces and other parts of India, but it seems that these stone implements were mostly used by the aboriginal, Palæolithic and Neolithic, people who inhabited India before the Aryan Conquest and whose descendants are the Kols, Bhils and other aboriginal tribes of modern India. In India the use of bronze as material for making arms was never extensive, and weapons made of bronze are scarcely to be found, though Vincent Smith is disposed to maintain that there was a copper age in India prior to the iron age.¹ Vincent Smith, however, places the limit of the copper age at 1000 B.C., which falls easily in the Vedic age when, as will be shown later on, the use of iron was well known.

c4.5

¹ Vincent Smith, Indian Antiquary, 1905, Vol. xxxiv, p. 236.

c4.6

There is even a considerable difference of opinion about the general question whether bronze really preceded iron. The well-known metallurgist Dr. John Percy in his well-known treatise entitled "Metallurgy of Iron and Steel" held, and I think very rightly, that the use of bronze cannot really precede the use of iron. The preparation of bronze would presuppose the knowledge of the metallurgy at least of two metals, viz. copper and tin, whilst the use of iron requires the knowledge of the metallurgy of one metal only. Moreover, as Dr. Percy points out, the metallurgy of iron is very simple—"if a lump of red or brown hæmatite be heated for some time in a charcoal fire, well surrounded by or embedded in the fuel, it will be more or less completely reduced so as to admit of being easily forged at a red heat into a bar of iron." Mr. St. John V. Day, the author of "The Prehistoric use of Iron and Steel," also maintains that the use of iron preceded the so-called bronze age. At any rate so far as India is concerned there cannot be distinguished a distinct age called the bronze age, and the Aryan conquerors seem to have known the use of iron from their very first habitation in the Punjab, as can be gleaned from the frequent mention of iron in Vedic literature.

c4.7

The word "Ayas" frequently occurs in the Rig and other Vedas. It means "iron" and has been translated as such by the great commentator Sāyana, Prof. Max Müller, Griffiths, Wilson, R. C. Dutt, the author of Bāchaspatya Lexicon, and others, though Sāyana in some passages has taken it to mean "gold" also. On the other hand Macdonell and Keith in their "Vedic Index" suppose it to mean "bronze," perhaps being influenced by the theory that bronze preceded iron in India also.¹ They argue "as favouring the sense of 'bronze' rather than that of 'iron' may perhaps be cited with Zimmer (Altindisches Leben, 52) the fact that Agni is called 'Ayo-damstra,' with the teeth of ayas, (Rig. I, 88, 5; X, 87, 2) with reference to the colour of his flames, and that the car-seat of Mitra and Varuna is called 'aya-sthuna' (Rig. V. 62, 8) with 'pillars of ayas' at the setting of the sun (but this is not convincing, as in the same verse it is said to be of 'golden appearance at the flash of dawn' (footnote)." I have been at some pains to consult the original text, specially Sāyana's commentary, and am afraid that Macdonell and Keith's argument cannot stand. As regards "ayo-damstra" in Rig. I, 88, 5, it is an adjective of "barāhūn,"¹ the passage being translated by Max Müller as "wild boars rushing about with iron tusks." I am completely at a loss how it may be taken to refer to the colour of flames. There are, however, other passages in which the word has been used as an adjective of Agni, for example in Rig. X, 87, 2, where Wilson translates it as "teeth of iron." The same passage occurs in Atharv. VIII, 3, 2, in which Whitney translates the word as "tusks of iron." The adjective evidently refers to the sharpness of the tongues of flames and not to their colour. Then as regards "ayo-sthuna" in Rig. V, 62, 8 (and also in Rig. V, 62, 7)² we find that Shāyana has rendered "ayas" as "gold." This rendering is in full agreement with what Macdonell and Keith mention "as golden appearance at the flash of dawn." In any case in this or similar passages we may safely take the rendering of the scholiast of "ayas" as "gold" as fully authoritative. There is absolutely no justification for bringing in the idea of "bronze."

c4.8

¹ Vedic Index, pp. 31 and 32.

c4.9

¹ The original passage is "अयो दंष्ट्रान् विधावतः वराहम्"।

c4.10

² Shāyana comments thus: "स्थूणाः कीलकादयोवा चिरखनामेतत् अयोविकारा इत्यर्थः । अयोमयो वा । Mr. R. C. Dutt translates as "iron bolts" (लोहकीलकाः)।

c4.11

But it is undoubted that 'ayas' in by far the largest number of passages in the Rigveda means "iron" and not "gold." In Rig. VI, 47, 10 and VI, 3, 5 occurs the passage 'ayasho na dhārām'³ which is explained by Shāyana as 'shower of iron swords or javelins.' In Rig. VII, 95, 1⁴ occurs the passage 'āyashī pūh' or 'iron city,' which, though not to be taken literally, means a safe place, and shows that the ancient Aryans were perfectly familiar with the strength and hardness of iron. The same words 'iron city' occur in another passage, Rig. VII, 15, 14.⁵ The picture of 'iron melter or blacksmith melting iron in his forge' is given in Rig. IV, 2, 17 and Rig. VI, 3, 4.⁶ We find in Rig. VI, 75, 15 that arrows were tipped with iron.¹ Hardness of iron is again referred to in Rig. I, 163, 9 where we read the description of a horse " with golden manes and iron feet and fast as mind²." From the passages quoted above it is evident that the use of iron and of iron weapons was well known in the Rigveda.

c4.12

³ "अयसो न धारां"। In Rig. VI, 47, 10 Shāyana explains the passage as "अयोमयस्य खड्गादेर्धारासिव" and in Rig. VI, 3, 5, as "अयोमयस्य परश्वादेर्धारां"।

c4.13

⁴ Rig. VII, 95, 1, "आयसी पूः"

c4.14

⁵ Rig. VII, 15, 14, "यथा मघो न चायसानाहतो वपीयते पूर्वैवा शतभुजिः"।

c4.15

⁶ Rig. IV, 2, 17—"सुकर्मानः सुवचो देवयज्ञियो न देवा जनिमा धमतः"। This passage is commented upon by Shāyana as follows: "यथा कम्मारा अयो धमेव"

c4.16

¹ Rig. VI. 75, 15, "यस्या वधिसूर्य" which is commented upon by Shāyana as "यस्या रमोसेधमयोऽयोमयं भवति"।

c4.17

² Rig. I, 163, 9 "चिरश्वाश्वेगोऽथो चस्य पादा मनोजवा अबर इदं चासीत् ।

c4.18

In the Black Yajurveda³ is mentioned a remarkable kind of fire-weapon called Sūrmī which is defined by the commentator Shāyana as a "burning iron barrel." It is described as having a long bore inside the barrel and with its help hundreds could be killed at a time. The mention of an iron fire-weapon in Vedic literature shows the high quality of civilization prevalent amongst the ancient Aryan settlers.

c4.19

³ इमा वै सूर्मो कर्षेकावत्येमयाऽऽ वै देवा असुरारां शतधरां सूर्मि । Black Yajurveda, I, 5, 6, 7. Shāyana comments on the above thus "ज्वलन्ती लोहमयी सूर्मि सूक्ष्मो । सा च कर्षेकावती छिद्रवती, यतस्त्र ज्वलन्तो । शतेन प्रधारैय शतसंख्याकान मारयन्तः सूराः शतधरां । असुरारां मध्ये तादृशान रत्या चा देवाः सा चिंषन्ति"।

c4.20

In the White Yajurveda occurs the following passage in which six metals have undoubtedly been mentioned, viz. 'hira-nya,' 'ayas,' 'shyām,' 'loha,' 'sīsa' and 'trapu.'⁴ On further enquiry I find that the same passage occurs in the Taittiriya Samhita⁵ and also in the Maitrāyanī Samhita,⁶ with this difference that in the last-named Samhitā the word 'loha' has been replaced by the word 'lohitāyas' or 'red metal' meaning evidently copper. There is no difference of opinion regarding the meaning of 'sīsa' and 'trapu' which mean lead and tin respectively, but commentators are hopelessly at variance in their interpretations of 'ayas,' 'shyām' and 'loha.'⁷ After reading these

c4.21

⁴ हिरण्य मे चयस मे श्यामं मे लोहच मे सीसञ्च मे त्रपुच मे यज्ञेन कल्पन्ताम् । XVIII, 13.

c4.22

⁵ तैत्तिरीय संहिता, IV, 7, 5, 1.

c4.23

⁶ मैत्रायणी संहिता, II, 11, 4, 5.

c4.24

⁷ Mahidhar comments in the following manner on the passage in the White

c4.25

धमन्ति नदत्" । In Rig. VI. 3, 4 we have "इवि: न द्रावयति" meaning as a melter causes to melt.' commentaries I have formed the opinion that the passage refers to the following six metals, viz. silver (hiranya), gold (ayas), iron (shyām), copper (loha), lead (sisa) and tin (trapu). The word ‘hiranya’ ordinarily means gold, but as the commentator Mahidhar points out that it means ‘silver’ also, I have preferred this meaning in order to make sense. Sāyana in many passages has taken ‘ayas’ for gold, and I have adopted his interpretation here. The word ‘shyām’ meaning ‘black’ evidently means iron, and the word ‘loha’ or ‘lohitāyas’ means, as has been pointed out, copper.

c4.26

The most prolific mention of ‘iron’ or ‘ayas’ occurs in the Atharvaveda, the latest of the four Vedas. I would give below several amongst many such passages of the text together with Whitney’s translation, which is the most literal of all translations of the Atharvaveda. In the passage Atharv. XI, 3, 1, 7¹ the word ‘shyamamaya’ is explained by Sāyana as ‘black metal’ or iron and the word ‘lohita’ as ‘red metal’ or copper. Whitney also remarks that ‘‘that is doubtless iron and copper respectively.’’ In Atharv. V, 28, 1, while describing a formula for an amulet of three metals, ‘harita’ (gold), ‘rajata’ (silver) and ‘ayas’ (iron) are mentioned.² In VI, 63, 2 ‘bond-fetters of iron’ are mentioned and in the next verse (VI, 63, 3) ‘iron post’ is referred to.³ The word ‘‘ayodamstra’’ in VIII, 3, 2 has been rendered by Whitney as ‘‘thou of iron tusks,’’ applying the epithet to Agni or fire. ‘‘Ayojālā’’ in XIX, 66, 1 has been translated by Whitney as ‘metal nets’ and ‘ayashmayena ankena’ in VII, 115, 1 as ‘‘with hooks of metal’’; they can, however, be more appropriately translated as ‘iron nets’ and ‘iron hooks’ respectively. It

c4.27

¹ Atharvaveda, XI, 3, 1, 7. श्यामसीव्य मांसानि जोषितमस्य जोषितं।

c4.28

² हरितं चोचि रजते चोखयसि चोचि तपसारिखितानि। Atharv V, 28, 1.

c4.29

³ नमोऽस्तुते निर्ऋते तिग्मतेजोऽयश्मायाभिः कृता वन्धपाशान—VI, 63, 2 ‘‘homage be to thee, O Nirrti, thou of keen keenness; unfasten the bond-fetters of iron.’’ अयश्मये इपरे वंधिष इचाभिहितो यत्यधिषेसंदसम् (VI, 63, 3)—‘‘thou wast bound here to an iron post bridled with deaths that are a thousand.’’

c4.30

Vajurveda ‘‘हिरण्यं सुवर्णं रजतं वा द्वयोनाकृष्योत्याभिधानात्। अथो लोहं। श्यामं लोहं कांस्यं रजतं कनकं वा। लोहं कालायसे’’ Mādhabāchārya in his commentary on the Taittiriya Samhita says, ‘‘श्यामं कृष्णायसम्। लोहं कांस्यताचादि’’ Macdonell and Keith have rendered ‘ayas’ as ‘bronze’ (Vedic Index pp. 31-32).

c4.31

will readily be seen that in the passages quoted from the Atharvaveda, the sense of iron makes more complete sense than any other metal. There can remain scarcely any doubt of the use of iron in Vedic times in various directions.

Iron in the Brahman Age (circa 1000 B.C.-500 B.C.)

c4.s1.1

In the Brāhmans and Upanishads, which belong to Vedic literature though later in date than the Vedas, the latest date of their composition being 800 B.C. to 500 B.C., we find that the word 'ayas' has been completely differentiated into 'kṛiṣṇāyas' or black metal and 'lohitāyas' or red metal. Iron is thus referred to as 'kṛiṣṇāyas' or 'kārṣṇāyas' in Chāndogya Upanishad IV, 17, 7; VI, 1, 5; in Jaimini Upanishad Brāhmana III, 17, 3, in Taittiriya Brāhmana III, 62, 6, 5 and other places.¹ The distinction between iron and copper is explicit and complete.

c4.s1.2

¹ Macdonell and Keith, Vedic Index.

Chapter II. Iron in the Epic Age (circa 500 B.C.—200 B.C.)

c5.2

¹ Mr. R. C. Dutt takes the date of the Epic Age to be 1400—1000 B.C. We have adopted here the more moderate estimate.

c5.3

Coming to the Epic Age during which time the civilization of the Aryans had greatly advanced and become highly complex, we find the most extensive use of iron in the two celebrated Hindu epics, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata (specially the latter), the greater portions of which are admitted to have been composed by the 4th century B.C. We find the most prolific mention of iron swords, spears, javelins, axes, arrows, maces and other numerous kinds of weapons of warfare, though the southern monkey hordes of Rāma fought in Ceylon with fragments of mountains and uprooted trees. The great iron 'gadā' or maces of Bhīma and Durjodhan as well as the story of the blind king Dhritarāstra's breaking to pieces in great agony the life-size iron statue of Bhīm, who had killed the hundred sons of the king in the great battle of Kurukhetra, are well known to every reader of the Mahābhārat. Mention may also be made here of the story in the Mushala Parva of the Mahābhārat, of the wicked descendants of the kings of the Yadu dynasty mocking the Rishis (sages) and of one of them giving birth to a big iron mace (mushal) through the curse of those Rishis, which, however, ultimately proved to be the engine of destruction of the entire family of the Yādavas. These stories naturally lead to the conclusion that the production of iron in India during the Epic Age was very considerable indeed or else the stories of the life-size iron statue of Bhīm or the iron mace would not have been possible.

c5.4

Turning to the Laws of Manu² we find that the great Hindu lawgiver mentions the use of household utensils made of copper, iron, bronze, brass, tin and lead and enjoins their purification with ashes, acid water and water.¹ He also prescribes that a thief who would steal precious stones and metals like copper, silver, iron and bronze, would, as a penalty, eat for twelve days small grains of rice.² Manu in the seventh canto of his Institutes gives elaborate descriptions how a king should construct several kinds of forts and equip them with iron swords, engines of warfare, arrows, and bows.

c5.5

² Manu's age does not seem to have been fixed definitely. Many authorities place Manu's Institutes before the Epics, but Macdonell says, "it (Manu's Institutes) is closely connected with the Mahābhārat of which three volumes alone (III, XII, XVI) contain as many as 260 of its 2684 slokas. It probably assumed

c5.6

¹ ताम्रायः कांस्यरैलानां नपुना चौसकस्य च । शौचं यथावत् कर्तव्यं चारास्त्रोदकवारिभिः । Manu, V, 114.

c5.7

² मणिसुक्ताप्रवालताम्रस्य रजतस्य च । अयः कांस्योपलानाञ्च द्वादशाहं कवाशना । Manu, XI, 168.

c5.8

As regards ancient medical literature we find in the great medical work of Sushruta, who should have flourished in the 3rd or 4th century B.C., as can be guessed from the Bower manuscripts edited by Hoernle, elaborate description of nearly one hundred kinds of surgical instruments by means of which many major operations such as opening of the abdomen, eye operations, dissection of the fœtus, were performed. A great many of them must have been prepared from the best steel, for which India was so justly famous from time immemorial, as we find that the dissecting instruments had an edge which would be less than ‘half of a piece of hair bisected longitudinally.’ The instruments were used to be whetted on a stone having the colour of ‘māskalāi’ (a kind of black pulse).

c5.9

Next coming to historical times we find Megasthenes, the celebrated Greek ambassador, who visited India in 302 B.C., bearing testimony to the fact that Indian soil had “underground numerous veins of all sorts of metals; for it contained much gold and silver and copper and iron in no small quantity, and even tin and other metals, which are employed in making articles of use and ornaments, as well as the implements and accoutrements of war.” During the invasion of Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. the Indian King Porus, who was defeated, gave a present of 40 lbs. of steel to the Greek conqueror, showing in what high

c5.10

its present shape not much later than 200 A.D.,” “History of Sanskrit Literature,” p. 428.

c5.11

estimation was Indian steel held in Europe. Chānakya or Kautilya, the Indian Maichaveli and the well-known prime minister of Chandra Gupta, has in his well-known 'Treatise on Polity' (Artha-shāstra) left a magnificent account of the political, industrial, social and military organization of the fourth century B.C. In it we not only find the description of various implements of warfare such as iron swords, arrows, shatagni (killer of hundreds), axes, spades, etc., besides iron breast-plates and armour, but also the description of the functions of an important state functionary called 'ākarādhwakhya' or 'superintendent of mines.' I have not come across this word in any other old Sanskrit writing, and the duties of this official show that there was formerly a regular government department responsible for mining work. The superintendent of mines should make trial borings "with the help of trained men who are versed in the knowledge about metals and distillation of mercury. He should be an adept in the examination of precious metals. He should be provided with necessary apparatus and make borings in those places where the presence of slag, charcoal and ashes indicates previous smelting operations or in those places, either in the plains or at the foot of mountains, where the colour or smell of soil and ores would suggest the existence of metals."¹ Chānakya also gives descriptions of ores and mines of gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, tin and precious stones and mentions that the ores of iron should have a colour of the orange, faint red or red like vermillion.² The ores evidently refer to brown and red hæmatites (gairik) which are found abundantly in India.

c5.12

¹ आकराध्यक्षः शुल्वधातुशास्त्रपाकनविशारदः वा तज्ज्ञातकथं करोपकरण्य-सम्यक् किलामूपाङ्गरमखादिषु वा आकरं भूतपूर्वमभूतपूर्व वा भूमिप्रस्तररसधातुमयवर्च-सोरवम् उपलभ्यस परोचेत—कोटिल्यं अर्थशास्त्र Edited by R. Sham Sastri, p. 81.

c5.13

² कृष्मः पाण्डरो हिमस्निग्धवारुणप्रभवो वा तीक्ष्णधातु—p. 83.

c5.14

Abundant evidence has been quoted above to show that the use of iron was common in India from 2000 B.C. to the fourth century B.C. I shall purposely avoid referring to the later Purānas and Sanskrit literature as we find that from the first or second century after Christ not only iron was being used in the arts and industries but also in internal use as a medicine. The great religious reformer and alchemist Nāgārjuna who flourished in the middle o the second century A.D. discovered the process of "killing" iron and other metals and even introduced mercury preparations for internal use. Moreover in spite of the fact that iron rusts very easily, so many archæological specimens of iron of great antiquity are found throughout India that these specimens, alike remarkable for massiveness and age, show the use of iron in India on a very extensive scale and in all ages. We would now proceed to describe some of the important archæological specimens of iron found in different parts of India.

Chapter III. Ancient Specimens of Iron in India

Prehistoric Iron Implements Discovered in Tinnevelly

c6.s1.1

A very remarkable and large number of prehistoric iron implements such as swords, daggers, tridents, spears, javelins, arrows, spades, hangers, saucer lamps, beam rods and tripods has been unearthed during the excavation of numerous burial sites in the gravelly mounds of the Tinnevelly district of the Madras Presidency, adjoining the valley of the Tāmraparni river.¹ The age of these burial sites cannot be ascertained with anything approaching approximation as the burial urns must have been sunk inside the earth in an age when the custom of cremation was not introduced into Southern India. The Pandiyan Kingdom existed from a very early time, and is referred to in an Asoka inscription 250 B.C. in Northern India.² The Pandyas were also known to the Sanskrit grammarian Kātyāyana whose date probably is not later than the fourth century B.C. Earlier and later writers mention them. In the Rāmāyana and Mahābhārat, the Pandiyans, Dravidas and Cholas are mentioned. The Pandiyans were in possession of the Tinnevelly district from the earliest historical times.³ The original line of kings seems to have continued down to their conquest by Rajendra Chola in A.D. 1064. It would be hazardous to guess if urn burial was prevalent during the reign of the earliest Pandiyan kings, the custom of burial being supplanted by cremation later on.

c6.s1.2

¹ A. Rea's "Prehistoric Antiquities in Tinnevelly," Annual Report of Arch. Survey of India, 1902-3, 111-140.

c6.s1.3

² Sewell's Lists, II, 221.

c6.s1.4

³ Sewell's Lists, I, 303.

c6.s1.5

However the most extensive prehistoric burial site was at Ādittanattur. The funeral urns were large, one-legged, elongated, globular pots of thick red earthenware, averaging less than a yard [Figure: Prehistoric Antiquities in Tinnevelly: Iron Swords and Daggers. (Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India, 1902-3, page 132.)]

c6.s1.7

in diameter by a slightly greater height. All the urns had flat conical covers and contained skulls or bones of a skeleton accompanied with articles of pottery and of metals such as gold, bronze and iron. The gold ornaments were oval diadems which appear to have been fastened to the forehead of a corpse. The bronzes exhibit a high degree of skill in workmanship and used for ornamental purposes in the shape of vase stands, bowls, jars and cups. No stone implements of the palæolithic or næolithic age were found. The iron implements and arms were generally found outside the urns with their points downwards, showing that they were thrust into the earth by the attendant mourners. Many of the iron implements were deeply corroded, while others were fairly well-preserved. The swords were generally two feet or two feet four inches long and about two inches broad, the blades being all double-edged. They had a spike or an iron handle at the hilt which was attached to a wooden handle, the latter having decayed in most cases through age. A collection of these swords and daggers is shown in the annexed plate. In the plate Nos. 1, 2, 4, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 are daggers and the rest are swords. The daggers were generally eight to twelve inches long and one to one half inch broad. Besides these weapons numerous axes, spades, arrows, javelins, lances and iron lamps were also found, showing that iron was used in those remote times in making implements of every description. The nature of the iron has not been determined. Southern India was famous from remote times for its steel called "wootz," and it would not be a surprise if this very remarkable collection of ancient weapons and implements turns out on examination to be specimens of steel, though the chances are that these weapons were made of wrought iron.

Iron from the Piprāhwā Stupa

c6.s2.1

In January 1898, Mr. William Peppe, a landholder of Birdpur in the Basti district, excavated an old stupa near the village of Piprāhwā¹ situated on his estate half a mile from the Nepal frontier and fourteen miles south-east of the ruins at Kapilāvastu. During the excavations a big stone-coffer was discovered, containing inside two vases, one lotā and one box, all made of soap-stone together with a beautiful crystal bowl with a fish handle and numerous cut stones, and gold stars and leaves. The relic urns contained pieces of bone, which, from an inscription on one of the vases, were supposed to be the bones of the " divine Buddha " (the bones were subsequently presented to the King of Siam). Mr. Peppe also discovered in the building to the east of the stupa several objects of iron, viz. a small iron spear-head, with blade measuring 3¼"×⅞"×¼", and handle measuring 4½", also an iron spike, nails with large heads and sundry pieces of iron. The Piprāhwā vases as well as four iron pieces, viz. the spear-head, two nails of ordinary size and one curved iron spike longer than the nails have been preserved in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. The inscription is regarded as older than the reign of Asoka, being circa 450 B.C., but the iron articles were not found inside the stone-coffer but in the monastery to the east of the stupa, which Vincent Smith recommended to excavate as he hoped that objects of interest and inscriptions might be obtained. The monastery was possibly erected a few centuries later, and we may regard the iron articles to be specimens of the first or second century A.D.¹ The author has seen these articles; the spear-head has rusted considerably but the nails have been very well preserved. The nails show distinct signs of hammering and it is wonderful to see that they have been preserved so well. The iron is undoubtedly wrought iron.

c6.s2.2

¹ Journal Royal Asiatic Society, 1898, pp. 573-588, and p. 388. Ibid., 1899, p. 570. Indian Antiquary, 1907, XXXVI, p. 117.

c6.s2.3

¹ The authorities of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, should note down in the almirah in which the Piprāhwā finds are exhibited that the iron articles were obtained in the monastery east of the stupa and not inside the stone-coffer. As exhibited at present the unwary observer will run away with the impression that the iron articles were found in the stone-coffer and therefore belong to the fifth century B.C.

Iron in the Buddhist Temple at Bodh-Gaya

c6.s3.1

Iron has been discovered while excavating the foundations of the celebrated stupa at Bodh-Gaya and also as clamps in the adjoining temples. As the present custom is to preserve newspapers and coins when laying foundation stones of public buildings, the ancient custom was also similar in this respect, as various coins, precious stones, metals like gold, silver, copper, iron have been discovered while excavating the foundations of old temples and monasteries. The stupa of Bodh-Gaya is a venerable one. Hoean Thsang described it in his travels.¹ The stupas have multiplied since Asoka first built a Buddhist bihār in Bodh-Gaya (3rd century B.C.). Afterwards the bihār was converted into a temple. General Cunningham was of opinion that the temple was constructed by King Huviska and that it was expanded in the fourth century. Fergusson, however, is of opinion that it was constructed in the 6th century.² However, the Asoka foundations of the stupa, on excavation, has yielded a piece of iron slag which has been preserved in the Calcutta Museum.³ This piece of iron slag is, I believe, the most ancient archaeological evidence of a historical nature of the manufacture of iron in India as early as the third century B.C. Besides the iron slag many iron clamps five or six inches long and about 1/4 inch broad have been found in the main temple and various stupas in Bodh-Gaya and preserved in the Indian Museum. They have greatly rusted. Such iron clamps have largely been used in the temples at Puri, Bhubaneswar and Konarak in Orissa from the sixth to the twelfth century. On account of the antiquity of the Bodh-Gaya temple the iron slag and the iron clamps are important in the history of the manufacture of iron in ancient India, being specimens of the 3rd century B.C. to the 6th century A.D. I am not aware of any analysis of the iron, but there is little doubt that the iron is wrought iron.

c6.s3.2

¹ Beal's Buddhistic Records, Vol. II, pp. 118-121.

c6.s3.3

² Fergusson, Indian and Eastern Architecture, New edition (1910), Vol. I, p. 77.

c6.s3.4

³ Catalogue and Hand-book of Archaeological Collections in the Indian Museum by John Anderson, Part II, p. 67.

c6.s3.5

Iron Clamps at Bodh-Gaya. (Photograph by the Author.)

Iron Pillar at Delhi

c6.s4.1

This celebrated iron-pillar stands in a quadrangle adjoining the famous Kutub Minar, which is situated in a village called Mihrauli (Mihirapuri) about 12 miles from the city of Delhi. It stands about 22 ft. above the ground, and exact excavations have shown that it goes about 20 inches below the ground. Roscoe and Schorlemmer, while admiring the metallurgical skill of the ancient Hindus, have repeated the original mistake of General Cunningham in thinking it to be 60 ft. in length, while as a matter of fact it is 23 ft. 8 in. long. Writes Fergusson: "It is a curious illustration how difficult it sometimes is to obtain correct information in India, that when General Cunningham published his reports in 1871, he stated, apparently on the authority of Mr. Cooper, Deputy Commissioner, that an excavation had been carried down to a depth of 26 ft. but without reaching the bottom. The man in charge, however, assured him that the actual depth reached was 35 ft. (Vol. I, p. 169). He consequently estimated the whole length at 60 ft., but fortunately ordered a new excavation, determined to reach the bottom and found it at 20 inches below the surface (Vol. IV, p. 28). At a distance of a few inches below the surface it expands in a bulbuous form to a diameter of 2 ft. 4 in. and rests on a gridiron of iron bars, which are fastened with lead into the stone pavement."¹

c6.s4.2

¹ Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. II, p. 279.

c6.s4.3

The diameter of the pillar at the lower end is 16·4" and towards the top at the capital 12·05". The capital which is engraved and of the bull pattern is 3 ft. 6 in. in length. The weight is estimated to exceed six tons.

c6.s4.4

There is an inscription on the pillar which is unfortunately undated, being a posthumous eulogy in verse of a king named Chandra. The script as well as the text of the inscription have served as a clue to the fixation of the date of the construction of the pillar. Prinsep was of opinion that the script was of the 3rd or 4th century A.D., while Bhai Daju held that it was of the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. Fergusson supposes it to be the work of some of the Chandra Rajas of the Gupta family and places it in 363 or 400 A.D. Dr. Hornœle judges the characters to be of the Gupta variety of the North-Eastern alphabet and unhesitatingly ascribes the iron pillar to Chandra Gupta II and assigns it the approximate date of 410 A.D.² Dr. Hornœle's opinion is fully confirmed by Vincent Smith who on the examination of the text of the inscription has also come to the conclusion that the King referred to is no other than Chandra Gupta II. We give below a translation of the inscription as given by Dr. Fleet and modified by Vincent Smith.¹ "The lofty standard of the divine Vishnu was erected on Mount Vishnupada by King Chandra, whose thoughts were devoted in faith to Vishnu. The beauty of that king's countenance was as that of the full moon ;—by him, with his own arm, sole world-wide domain was acquired, and long held; and although, as if wearied, he has in bodily form quitted this earth, and passed to the other-world country won by his merit, yet like the embers of a quenched fire in a great forest, the glow of his foe-destroying energy quits not the earth; by the breezes of his prowess the southern ocean is still perfumed;—by him, having crossed the seven mouths of the Indus, were the Vahlikas vanquished in battle; and when warming in the Vanga countries he breasted and destroyed the enemies confederate against him, fame was inscribed on [their] arm by his sword."

c6.s4.5

² Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXI, pp. 42-44.

c6.s4.6

¹ Vincent Smith: Journal, Royal Asiatic Society, 1897, p. 6. Vincent Smith writes: "The word bhāvēna, which we translate 'in faith,' is actually dhāvēna. The earlier translators regarded this word as a proper name, and supposed the name of the king commemorated to be Dhāva. But the construction of the sentence scarcely admits of this interpretation. The use of the two names Dhāva and Chandra for the one person in such a brief record, without a word of explanation or amplification, would be intolerably harsh composition, and it is to my mind quite incredible that the writer intended to give the king two names. The correction from dhāvēna to bhāvēna appears to be both necessary and certain. The error is easily explained by the fact that a very slight slip of the engraver's tool was sufficient to convert the character used for bh into a form which may be read as dh."

c6.s4.7

Iron Pillar at Delhi. (Photograph by Johnston and Hoffmann, Calcutta.)

c6.s4.8

The facts recorded in the inscription thus are that the pillar was erected in honour of Vishnu on Mount Vishnupada (Vishnu's foot) by a monarch named Chandra, who had long enjoyed world-wide sovereignty, but was deceased at the time when the inscription was engraved, and that this sovereign defeated a hostile confederacy in the Vanga countries, and had, after crossing the seven mouths of the Sindhu or Indus, vanquished the Vahlikas. Vincent Smith is convinced that the emperor referred to in the inscription is no other than Chandra Gupta II, in whose reign the Gupta empire attained its climax. Chandra Gupta II died in A.D. 413, and the posthumous inscription, which was presumably executed by his successor soon after his decease, must be dated not later than A.D. 415. This determination settles within a year or two the date of a very remarkable and interesting monument which has always attracted the attention of all travellers.

c6.s4.9

There is another thing in connection with the erection of this pillar which is of great importance. The inscription says that the pillar was erected on a hill called Vishnupada, whilst as a matter of fact the place in which it stands at present is a level country. Vincent Smith contends, and there is evidently much force in his contention, that the pillar was originally erected in some other place which "must have been a well-known spot frequented by Vaishnava pilgrims, within the Gupta dominions and not very remote from Delhi. All the conditions of such a place are satisfied by Mathurā" which is less than eighty miles from Kutab Minar. Vincent Smith supposes that "the Katra Mound, where the magnificent temple of Vishnu, under the name of Keshava, once stood, may very probably prove to be 'Vishnupada giri,' the mount of Vishnu's footmark, mentioned in the inscription." He also concludes that the pillar was removed to its present site by Ananga Pal II in or about A.D. 1050 when he founded the city of Delhi *de novo*. This conclusion is supported by the comparatively new structure of the platform on which the pillar is erected as well as the fact that there is another inscription on the pillar itself in which Ananga Pal announces the date of the foundation of Delhi by himself.

c6.s4.10

For some time there existed a good deal of misconception regarding the composition of the material of which the pillar was made. There was a local tradition that it was made of "sapta-dhātu" or seven metals, and from the peculiar yellow colour of the top of the pillar many people supposed it to be a casting of brass or copper. All doubts were removed when General Cunningham had two specimens of the metal analysed, one by Dr. Murray Thomson of the Roorkee Engineering College and the other by Dr. Percy of the School of Mines. Both found it to be wrought iron without an alloy. The specific gravity of the metal was 7·66, that of purest wrought iron being 7·84. Quite recently a complete analysis of the metal has been published by Sir Robert Hadfield,¹ who found its specific gravity to be 7·81. The results of analysis are:—

c6.s4.11

¹ Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 1912, Vol. 85, No. 1, p. 170 (slip).

c6.s4.12

| Iron | .. | .. | 99·720 per cent. |
| Carbon | .. | .. | ·080 " |
| Silicon | .. | .. | ·046 " |
| Sulphur | .. | .. | ·006 " |
| Phosphorus | .. | .. | ·114 " |
| Manganese | .. | .. | Nil " |
| **Total** | .. | .. | **99·966** |

c6.s4.13

The analysis shows that the metal was pure wrought iron having no manganese, "a somewhat special point, as wrought iron usually contains manganese." The low proportion of sulphur shows that the fuel employed must have been charcoal and that the ores must also have been pure. It will be explained later on that probably "high phosphorus and low sulphur and manganese" have contributed to the capacity of the iron in resisting the rusting influence of rain and wind for full fifteen centuries.

c6.s4.14

This remarkable monument of the metallurgical skill of the ancient Hindus has won the unstinted admiration of all who have seen it. Chemists, archæologists, travellers, engineers and geologists are unanimous in pronouncing this pillar of wrought iron as unique in the annals of metallurgy in the four quarters of the globe. We cannot do better than conclude our account of this pillar with quotations from the opinions of some of these expert observers.

c6.s4.15

Roscoe and Schorlemmer in their well-known "Treatise on Chemistry" have remarked that "the dexterity exhibited by the Hindus in the manufacture of wrought iron may be estimated from the fact of the existence in the Mosque of the Kutub near Delhi of a wrought iron pillar no less than 60 feet in length. This pillar stands about 30 feet out of ground and has an ornamental cap bearing an inscription in Sanskrit belonging to the fourth century. It is not an easy operation at the present day to forge such a mass with our largest rolls and steam hammers; how this Could be effected by the rude hand-labour of the Hindus we are at a loss to understand." Though the two distinguished chemists have made a mistake, as has already been pointed out, in thinking that the Delhi pillar is 60 feet high, while as a matter of fact its height is 23 feet 8 inches, nevertheless their eulogy is thoroughly well-deserved. Roscoe and Schorlemmer were evidently ignorant of the existence of the Dhar pillar, which is 43 feet 8 inches long, and the numerous iron girders in the temples of Orissa, some of which are even 35 feet in length. These gigantic beams and pillars were constructed, as has been explained afterwards, by forging small blooms of wrought iron.

c6.s4.16

Fergusson, the great archæologist, has written "Taking A.D. 400 as a mean date—and it certainly is not far from the truth—it opens our eyes to an unsuspected state of affairs to find the Hindus at that age capable of forging a bar of iron larger than any that have been forged even in Europe up to a very late date, and not frequently even now. As we find them, however, some centuries afterwards, using bars as long as this in roofing the porch of the temple at Kanarak, we must now believe that they were much more familiar with the use of this metal than they afterwards became. It is almost equally startling to find that after an exposure to wind and rains for fourteen centuries, it is unrusted, and the capital and inscription are as clear and as sharp now as when put up fifteen centuries ago."¹

c6.s4.17

¹ Fergusson, "History of Indian and Eastern Architecture," Vol. II, p. 280.

c6.s4.18

The opinion of two engineers is given below. One engineer says, "Nothing heretofore brought to light in the history of metallurgy seems more striking to the reason as well as the imagination, than this fact that from the remote time when Hengist was ruling Kent and Cedric landing to plunder our barbarous ancestors in Sussex down to that of our Third Henry, while all Europe was in the worst darkness and confusion of the Middle Ages—when the largest and best forging producible in Christendom was an axe or a sword blade—these ancient peoples in India possessed a great iron manufacture, whose products Europe even half a century ago could not have equalled." Another engineer's opinion will also be found to be interesting—"while considering forging of large masses of iron and steel, it is not easy to forget the impression caused by first seeing the iron pillar at Delhi. This column of wrought iron which is 16 inches in diameter, of which 22 feet are above the ground, and which is said to be 50 feet long and weighing about 18 tons, is finished perfectly round and smooth, with an ornamental top, and was made many centuries ago from iron produced direct from the ore and built up piece by piece. Remembering the lack of facilities men had in those days for first forging and then welding together such an enormous mass makes one wonder at the iron worker of those days, who must have possessed engineering ability claiming the admiration of our times. It is questionable whether the whole of the iron works of Europe and America could have produced a similar column of wrought iron so short a time ago as the exhibition of 1851."¹

c6.s4.19

¹ Presidential address to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, 1905.

Iron Beams in the Temples at Bhubaneswar, Puri and Konarak in Orissa

c6.s5.1

Orissa is famous for her temples. The magnificent temple at Bhubaneswar, the black pagoda of Konarak, and the white pagoda of Puri are remarkable specimens of Hindu architecture of the Middle Ages. Of these gigantic temples the one at Bhubaneswar is the oldest, being constructed in A.D. 640. The temple of Puri was built in the 12th century (A.D. 1174). From architectural considerations Fergusson was of opinion that the black pagoda at Konarak, which was so similar in workmanship to the great temple at Bhubaneswar, must have been built two or three centuries after the Bhubaneswar temple, but certainly before the time of the erection of the Puri temples. Mr. Bishan Swarup in his excellent work on the Konarak temple concludes after a careful examination of old records and literature on the subject "that the temple of Konarka was built by Purandra Kesari in the latter half of the 9th century and its Natmandir was constructed in A.D. 1241 by Raja (Nagroo) Narsinha Deva of the Gangetic dynasty."²

First 105 of 400 passages. Read on