Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Iron in Ancient India c6: Chapter III. Ancient Specimens of Iron in India

Iron in Ancient India c6

Language
English

Contents

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

c6.s5.2

² Bishan Swarup, Konarka—the black pagoda of Orissa, p. 72.

c6.s5.3

A very remarkable thing regarding these temples is the extensive use of iron beams in supporting the roofs and for other purposes. At Bhubaneswar "in the joining of long projecting cornices and roof stones iron clamps were frequently employed"¹ and iron beams also may be seen in great abundance.

c6.s5.4

¹ Rajendra Lall Mitra, "Antiquities of Orissa," Vol. I, p. 36.

c6.s5.5

At Puri iron beams have been much more extensively used and ore of larger dimensions. In the Gunduchibārī or Garden Temple at Puri, where the images of Jaggernāth and his brother Balarām and sister Subhadrā are taken after the car festival in June or July for ten days, as many as 239 iron beams ranging up to 17 feet long and up to 6 by 4 or 5 by 6 inches section have been counted. We give a list of these iron beams prepared by Mr. N. C. R. Chaudhuri, the District Engineer at Puri, and quoted by Mr. H. G. Graves.²

c6.s5.6

² H. G. Graves, "Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute," 1912, Vol. LXXXV, No. 1, p. 200-2.

c6.s5.7

*Number of Beams at the Lintels of the Doors.*

c6.s5.8

| Item 1 | .. | .. | .. | 12 |
| " 2 | .. | .. | .. | 38 |
| " 3 | .. | .. | .. | 45 |
| | | Total | .. | 95 |

c6.s5.9

*Number of Beams below Temple, Pillar Plates, etc.*

c6.s5.10

| Item 4 | .. | .. | .. | 16 |
| " 5 | .. | .. | .. | 112 |
| " 6 | .. | .. | .. | 14 |
| | | Total | .. | 144 |
| | | Grand Total | .. | 239 |

c6.s5.11

1. *At the Lintels of Doors in the Outer Compound Wall.*

c6.s5.12

| No. | Length | Breadth. | Height. |
| | Ft. In. | Inches | Inches |
| Back door .. { 1 | 10 5 | 3 | 4 |
| | { 2 | 7 7 | 3 | 4 |
| " " .. { 1 | 9 8 | 3 | 4 |
| | { 1 | 8 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Front door .. { 2 | 11 4 | 5 | 3 |
| | { 2 | 9 8 | 5 | 3 |
| " " .. { 2 | 8 0 | 5 | 3 |
| | { 1 | 12 6 | 5 | 3 |
| | 12 | | | |

c6.s5.13

2. *At the Lintels of the Outer Doors of the Garden Temple.*

c6.s5.14

| No. | Length. | Breadth. | Height. |
| | Ft. In. | Inches | Inches |
| Door .. { 2 | 5 0 | 5 | 3 |
| | { 2 | 6 7 | 5 | 3 |
| " .. { 2 | 7 6 | 6 | 4 |
| | { 2 | 9 8 | 6 | 4 |
| " .. { 1 | 6 8 | 6 | 4 |
| | { 1 | 5 0 | 3 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 8 | 3 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 4 | 3 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 4 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 4 9 | 5 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 5 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 9 8 | 5 | 5 |
| " .. { 2 | 7 6 | 5 | 3 |
| " .. { 2 | 6 8 | 4 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 5 | 3 |
| " .. { 2 | 6 4 | 4 | 4 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 4 | 3 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 4 | 3 |
| " .. { 2 | 5 0 | 3 | 3 |
| | 38 | | | |

c6.s5.15

3. *At the Lintels of the Inner Doors of the Garden Temple.*

c6.s5.16

| | No. | Length. | Breadth. | Height. |
| | | Ft. | In. | Inches. | Inches. |
| Door | .. { 1 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| | .. { 2 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| | .. { 3 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| .. | .. { 1 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| .. | .. { 2 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| .. | .. { 8 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 6 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 2 |
| .. | .. { 1 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 2 |
| .. | .. { 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| .. | .. { 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| .. | .. { 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| | | --- | | | |
| | | 45 | | | |

c6.s5.17

4. *Pillar Plates (within the temple).*

c6.s5.18

| No. | Length. | Breadth. | Height. |
| | Ft. | In. | Inches. | Inches. |
| 12 | 17 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| 4 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 4 |
| --- | | | | |
| 16 | | | | |

5. Beams below Temple

c6.s5.t1.1

| No. | Length. | Breadth. | Height. |
| | Ft. In. | Inches. | Inches. |
| 7 | 6 0 | 5 | 4 |
| 53 | 3 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 16 | 2 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 17 | 3 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 6 | 3 | 3 |
| 1 | 1 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 16 | 2 0 | 3 | 3 |
| --- | | | |
| 112 | | | |

6. Beams at the Corner of the Temple Room

c6.s5.t2.1

| No. | Length. | Breadth. | Height. |
| | Ft. In. | Inches. | Inches. |
| 4 | 2 0 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 0 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 0 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 0 | 3 | 2 |
| --- | | | |
| 16 | | | |

c6.s5.t2.2

From the enumeration of as many as 239 iron pieces in the Gunduchibārī Temple it is certain that iron beams have similarly been used on an extensive scale in the main temple itself.

c6.s5.t2.3

At Konarak the beams are even larger in dimensions. Stirling, who visited the shrine in 1824, saw nine iron beams nearly one foot square and 18 to 21 feet long.¹ Fergusson, who visited Konarak in 1838, makes the section less, viz. 8 inches by 9 inches, but the lengths greater to 23 feet. Dr. Rajendra Lall Mitra makes the length of the beams 21 feet with average cross section 8 inches by 10 inches. The Konarak temple was more or less in complete ruins until regular work of preservation, commenced under the Government of Sir John Woodburn, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal (Orissa was then a part of Bengal). Only a heap of debris and the dilapidated porch in the front remained while the Nātmandir and other temples were buried under drift sea-sand probably two or three centuries previously. In 1901 the excavation of sand round the main temple was commenced and beautiful carvings and other objects of architectural value, including iron beams, were discovered. Whilst Stirling saw in 1824 only nine beams, Mr. H. B. Graves has counted in 1912 as many as twenty-nine beams at Konarak, the largest being 35 feet long and 7 to 7½ inches square, weighing about 6000 lbs. There is another beam 23½ feet in length and 11 by 10½ inches in section which was a part of a much longer beam, the other end missing. "Some of the pieces are only 5 or 6 feet in length and, could they be matched, it would probably result in not fewer then twenty complete beams."

c6.s5.t2.4

¹ Stirling, Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV, p. 330.

c6.s5.t2.5

The forging of the Orissan beams is not so perfect as in the case of the Delhi pillar, the weld lines being more or less perfectly visible and cinder lines and cinder more or less apparent in many beams.¹

c6.s5.t2.6

¹ The photograph and the diagram in Plate IV are reproduced by permission of the Secretary of the Iron and Steel Institute. The beam against which the walking stick stands is deeply corroded with holes into which a stick could be thrust.

c6.s5.t2.7

The iron used is undoubtedly pure wrought iron. I was given for analysis a specimen of Konarak iron—a detached piece from a beam, in an excellent state of preservation—by the Varendra Research Society.

c6.s5.t2.8

A small piece of it could be easily flattened out into a thin sheet showing it to be wrought iron. The results of analysis are below.

c6.s5.t2.9

Specific gravity 7·8.

c6.s5.t2.10

| Iron (estimated directly).. | .. | .. | 99·64 per cent. |
| Carbon | .. | .. | .. | traces. |
| Sulphur | .. | .. | .. | traces. |
| Phosphorus | .. | .. | .. | ·15 per cent. |
| Manganese | .. | .. | .. | nil. |
| | | | 99·79 |

c6.s5.t2.11

The nature of the iron is almost similar to the iron of the Delhi pillar, manganese being absent and phosphorus high with traces of carbon and sulphur.

c6.s5.t2.12

Fig. 1. Iron Beams at Konarak. (Journal, Iron and Steel Institute, 1912, No. 1, page 195.)

c6.s5.t2.14

Fig. 2 Blooms in Konarak Iron. (Journal, Iron and Steel Institute, 1912, No. 1, page 197.)

The Iron Pillar at Dhar

c6.s6.1

Besides the celebrated pillar at Delhi there exist two other iron pillars in India, viz. at Dhar, the ancient capital of Mālava, and on Mount Abu in Rajputana, respectively, to which I would like to attract the attention of the scientific world. Fergusson¹ in his "History of Indian and Eastern Architecture"; Vincent Smith² in his article "The Iron Pillar at Dhar," and Barnes³ in his "Dhar and Mandu" have already dwelt on the subject of the great iron pillar at Dhar, whilst a full account of this pillar has been given by Mr. H. Cousens in the annual report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1902-3 (pp. 205—212), and a translation of Akbar's Persian Inscription has been given in "Epigraphica Moslemica."⁴ It is rather strange that the attention of the scientific world has not sufficiently been drawn to this pillar as in the case of the one at Delhi, though as regards dimensions the Dhar pillar comes to be the bigger of the two, the former being 43' 8" long and the latter 23' 8". Vincent Smith has rightly remarked, "Whilst we marvel at the skill shown by the ancient artificers in forging a great mass of the Delhi pillar, we must give a still greater measure of admiration to the forgotten craftsmen who dealt so successfully in producing the still more ponderous iron mass of the Dhar pillar monument with its total length of 42 feet."

c6.s6.2

¹ Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, revised by Messrs Bergess and Spiers (new Edition), Vol. II, p. 247.

c6.s6.3

² Vincent Smith, Journal Royal Asiatic Society, 1898.

c6.s6.4

³ E. Barnes, Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XXXI.

c6.s6.5

⁴ Epigraphica Moslemica, 1909-10, p. 13.

c6.s6.6

The reason, I believe, why the Dhar pillar has hitherto failed to receive its due share of praise is that it is lying broken in three pieces, of which the first and largest is 24 feet 3 inches and is square in section. It could be seen half buried near the northern gate of the "Lat Masjid" of Sultan Dilwar Khan (1405 A.D.). The second one, 11 feet 7 inches long, now lies in the courtyard of the Ananda High School; its shape is not uniform throughout, 8 feet 6 inches being square and 3 feet 1 inch octagonal. The third piece is remaining imbedded within the masonry foundations of the public garden named Lalbag and is 7 feet 6 inches long and rectangular almost throughout its length. The average width is 10 1/4 inches.

c6.s6.7

One end of the largest piece, which was originally the base, is bulbuous like the base of the Delhi pillar, about 20 inches having been imbedded in stone which in turn is fastened within iron bars. A fourth piece seems to be missing, as judged from the proportions of the square and octagonal sections, so that the original total height of the pillar was something like 50 feet. The pillar holds on one of its surface Akbar's Persian inscriptions, while Devnagri letters of the 14th century are chiselled here and there. Several small holes, measuring from 1½ inches to 3 inches, surround the pillar, but they are not equidistant from each other. The weight of the pillar is estimated to be 7 tons, one ton greater than the weight of the Delhi pillar.

c6.s6.8

There exists a diversity of opinion regarding the object of the erection of this pillar. Fergusson holds that the pillar is not a pillar of victory like the Delhi pillar, but served some useful purpose like the iron beams at Konarak, as otherwise it would have been round throughout or have contained an ornamental capital.¹ Cousens on the other hand takes it to be a "jayasthambha" (pillar of victory) and I think Cousens is right in his opinion for the following reasons:—

c6.s6.9

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

c6.s6.10

(1) Of the three iron-pillars which have hitherto been discovered two have undoubtedly been pillars of victory, the probability therefore is that the Dhar pillar is similarly a jayasthambha.

c6.s6.11

(2) The lower part of this pillar is a little flat and bulbuous like the Delhi pillar and is enclosed in stone and iron bars to have it buried, so the probability of its being used as a beam like those of Konarak is very small indeed. Moreover there are many beams at Konarak, Puri and Bhubaneswar, while it is difficult to imagine how one pillar could be used for mechanical purposes.

c6.s6.12

(3) Fergusson's main objection is the absence of architectural work. Engravings on iron, it must be borne in mind, is not so easy as on stone, but there should exist, as a matter of course, some distinctive figure to mark a pillar as one of victory, as for example there is a "trishul" (trident) on the iron pillar on Mount Abu. It is very probable that a capital with a figure adorned the summit of this pillar as Mr. Lenny, Director of Public Instruction, [Figure: Iron Pillar at Dhar. (Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India, 1902-3, page 206.)]

c6.s6.13

Sindh, obtained a capital stone near it which probably was the receptacle of a figure of "Garur," which used to be engraved on the coins of the Hindu Kings of Mālava.

c6.s6.14

(4) Some have gone so far as to suggest from the small holes on the sides of the pillar that it was used as a "dipdān" (lamp-post). This suggestion is negated by the fact that dipdans hitherto discovered are all made either of stone or bricks, but not of iron. Moreover the holes would have been equidistant if the pillar was really a lamp-post. Considering the unequal intervals between the holes, Cousens supposes that these pits were used for the purpose of inserting some instrument like crowbars while the pillar was being forged and welded.

c6.s6.15

The reasons stated above naturally lead one to the conclusion that the pillar was really a pillar of victory.

c6.s6.16

As regards the date of its erection, Vincent Smith supposes that like the Delhi pillar, the one at Dhar was also erected during the time of the Gupta Emperors.¹ This statement has not however been corroborated by any other authority.

c6.s6.17

¹ Vincent Smith, Journal Royal Asiatic Society, 1898.

c6.s6.18

The Moghul Emperor Jehangir in his autobiography writes: "Outside this fort (of Dhar) there is a Jāmi Masjid and a square pillar lies in front of the Masjid with some portions imbedded in the ground. When Bahadur Shah conquered Mālava he was anxious to take the pillar with him to Guzerat. In the act of digging out, it fell down and was broken into two pieces (one piece 22 feet long and the other 13 feet). I (Jehangir) have seen it lying on the ground carelessly and so ordered the bigger piece to be carried to Agra, which I hope to be used as a lamp-post in the courtyard of my father's (Akbar's) tomb."² Obviously Jehangir's orders were not carried out, though we learn that the pillar was broken in the act of uplifting it during Bahadur Shah's invasion of Mālava. Akbar's inscriptions only show that the Emperor approached Dhar at the time of conquering the Deccan. One fact however is certain, viz. that Dilwar Ghori gave the name "lat Masjid" to the mosque erected by him after the "lat" or pillar in front of it. Sultan Dilwar Ghori ascended the throne of Mālava in 1401 A.D., so that the ‘lat’ must have been in existence at least two or three centuries before, so that the approximate date of its erection may be taken as the twelfth century A.D. Fergusson from an examination of its mode of construction holds that it is a work of the tenth or eleventh century.¹ Local tradition points to Raja Vikramaditya or Raja Bhoja of Malava as the King during whose reign the pillar was erected,² whilst Cousens says that Raja Arjunvarma Deb built this pillar with the molten implements of war left in the battlefield by his enemies during his attack on Guzerat as a mark of victory in 1210 A.D. We would not however be far wrong in concluding that the Dhar pillar was erected in the twelfth century.

c6.s6.19

² Tuzzuk-i-Jehangiri, pp. 201-2.

c6.s6.20

¹ Fergusson, ibid.

c6.s6.21

² This Raja Bhoja was a king of Malava (1010-1053 A.D.) called Bhoja Paramār He is a different personage from the other king of the same name (Vincent Smith's Early History of India, second edition, p. 365). If the pillar was really erected by Raja Bhoja the date of its erection would be eleventh century.

c6.s6.22

I am not aware of any analysis of the iron of this pillar. Local tradition states that it is made of seven metals (saptadhātu), but such tradition was also current at Delhi also. If Cousen's theory be true, viz., that the pillar was made by melting down the weapons left by the enemy, then the pillar should be made mainly of steel. As a proof of this theory white shining patches are shown on the pillar as indicating silver obtained from the silver hilts of swords. Such a theory on the face of it is improbable, as such an enormous column of steel was incapable of being forged. This pillar like the one at Delhi is undoubtedly made of wrought iron and in a similar manner.

c6.s6.23

In concluding my observations on the Dhar pillar, I would request the Archaeological Department of India to have the iron analysed and also to build up the entire pillar into one whole by putting the broken pieces over one another. It must not be forgotten that the Dhar pillar in its completed condition would be the biggest iron pillar in the whole world.

c6.s6.24

THE IRON PILLAR ON MOUNT ABU.

c6.s6.25

On Mount Abu, situated in the lower part of Rajputana, stands the temple Achaleswar, built in A.D. 1412 (sambat 1468). An iron [Figure: Iron Pillar on Mount Abu. (Drawn on an enlarged scale from a sketch of the pillar given in Plate XXXI, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India, 1902-3, page 206.)]

c6.s6.26

pillar—the third of its kind—12 feet 9 inches high is situated in the courtyard of the temple with a Saiva trisul or trident on its top. It is stated that just before the death of the Pathan Emperor Alauddin, when rebellion broke out in all parts of India, the Hindus defeated the Mussalmans and built this pillar as a mark of victory with the molten implements of war left by the flying Mussalmans.¹ The iron of the pillar has not yet been under examination, but I have little hesitation in concluding that the pillar is made of wrought iron in a similar manner as the Delhi and Dhar pillars. The iron of this pillar as well as that of the Delhi pillar were probably obtained from Rajputana itself, as numerous hillocks of iron slag exist near Khetri and other places in Rajputana, showing that iron was smelted there in large quantities from ancient times.

c6.s6.27

¹ C. H. Cousens, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India, 1902-03.

Iron in the Gates of Somnath

c6.s7.1

Dr. P. C. Ray in his History of Hindu Chemistry has written "The wrought-iron pillar close to the Kutub near Delhi, which weighs ten tons² and is some 1500 years old; the huge iron girders at Puri; the ornamental gates of Somnath, and the 24 feet wrought-iron gun at Nurvar are monuments of a bye-gone art and bear silent but eloquent testimony to the marvellous metallurgical skill attained by the Hindus." The Delhi pillar and the Puri girders certainly bear 'silent but eloquent testimony' to the metallurgical skill of the Hindus, and the wrought-iron gun also does so in a certain sense, as though guns were introduced by the Mahomedans into India after the Moghul conquest, the workers in iron, as will be shown later on, were mostly Hindus. As regards the ornamental gates of the celebrated temple of Somnath carried away by Mahmood to Ghazni in 1026, the iron in the gates however cannot be regarded as a specimen of Indian iron. Fergusson says that the original gates of Somnath were made of sandal-wood and microscopic examination of the wood of the present Somnath gates, triumphantly brought back by Lord Ellenborough at the conclusion of the second Afghan War and now deposited in the Agra fort, reveals the fact that they are made of Deodar wood. Prof.

c6.s7.2

² This is a mistake. The pillar weighs about 6 tons.

c6.s7.3

Simpson, the well-known artist, says "Rude repairs are done in the gates with scraps of wood and iron."¹ As suspicion has been thrown by authoritative writers on the authenticity of the claims of the gates deposited in the Agra fort to be identical with the gates of Somnath, and even if assuming that the gates are authentic, the pieces of iron used in making rude repairs in the gates cannot be regarded as specimens of ancient Indian iron. The same mistake of regarding the iron in the Somnath (Somnali) gates as a specimen of Indian iron has been made by Dr. Kumarswamy in his work on Ceylonese Art and by Sir Robert Hadfield who has quoted his remarks.²

c6.s7.4

¹ Keene's 'Agra,' Appendix.

c6.s7.5

² Iron in Allauddin's gates in Delhi: While visiting Northern India in 1909 I happened to observe that inside a broken place in the celebrated 'Allauddin's Daroja near the Kutub Minar at Delhi something like iron was visible. The broken place had a diameter of 2 or 3 inches and it appeared that the huge stone gates had in the inside iron plates in order to give them more strength. I mention this fact here as it may attract the notice of the Archaeological Survey of India who may examine the gates more thoroughly. The gates were constructed by the celebrated Pathan Emperor Allauddin Khilliji in 1307 or 1315 (Henry Hardy Cole's Architecture of Ancient Delhi). If my suspicion about this iron turns out to be correct, it would be a specimen of iron of the times of the Pathan rulers of Delhi.

Iron Guns and Cannon

c6.s8.1

It has already been pointed out that a form of iron fire-weapon was known even in Vedic times (p. 5). It is also undoubted that some sort of fire-weapon was known during the epic age as we find frequent mention of 'Satagni' (killer of hundreds), 'āgneya-astra' (fire-weapon), and 'nālika-astra' (tube-weapon) in the epics and ancient Sanskrit literature. But it seems that guns and cannon and the use of gunpowder were unknown in India before the Moghul conquest. Guns were first employed by Babar in the first battle of Panipat in 1526 and were introduced in Southern India by the Portuguese. Guns and cannon, as well as formula for the manufacture of gunpowder, have been given in a Sanskrit work entitled Sukraniti, a compilation evidently of the sixteenth century. In Sukraniti, khudra-nālika stands for small guns or matchlocks and brihannālika for big guns or cannon. The matchlock was 2½ cubits long with a longitudinal bore of the thickness of the middle finger and provided with two raised points in order to take aim.

c6.s8.2

The gunpowder was ignited by means of a fuse, the fire being originated by percussion of powdered stone struck with a hammer. The matchlocks had wooden handles and were used by infantry and cavalry. The big guns were carried in carriages, had no wooden handles, and their range depended on the thickness of the metal-plate and bore, their length and size of balls.¹ These passages have misled many people, including the late Mr. Ramdas Sen, into believing that guns and gunpowder were known to the ancient Hindus. Dr. Rajendra Lal Mitra and Dr. P. C. Ray on the other hand regard them to be either spurious or in the nature of later interpolations.²

c6.s8.3

¹ The original passages in Sukraniti are given below:—

c6.s8.4

² I am afraid it cannot well be contended that the portions of Chapter IV which give accounts of gun, cannon and gunpowder were mere later interpolations, as guns and cannon have been mentioned in many places throughout the work, suggesting the idea that the work was written, at any rate rewritten, after the introduction of guns and gunpowder in India. Besides mentioning guns and gunpowder Sukraniti mentions Yavanas or Mlechchas living in 'North and Western' India, evidently referring to the Mussalmans. That the work could not have been written before the fourteenth century is borne out by the fact that it mentions 'Zinc' as one of the seven metals, while as a matter of fact only six metals were recognized

c6.s8.5

नालिकं द्विविधं ज्ञेयं ह्यतुलुद्रविभेदतः ।
तिर्य्यूर्ध्वच्छिद्रसूत्रं नालं पञ्चमितस्तिकम् ॥
मूलाग्रयोर्लघुभेदं तिस्त्रविन्दुयुतं सदा ।
यन्त्राघाताधिरूढं तपाचूर्णैश्चकर्णमूलकम् ॥
सुकाष्ठीपाञ्चवद्धं सधातुर्विस्तारम् ।
सायेऽधिवृत्तं व्यासंमलाकासंयतं दृढम् ॥
लघूनालकमेयेतत् प्रधाय्यं पत्तिमादिभिः ।
यथा यथा तु लक्सारं यथा स्थूलविजानकरम् ॥
यथादीर्घं ह्यतुलगोलं क्रूरभेदि तथा तथा ।
मूलकोष्ठसमायुक्तं समसन्धानभाजि तत् ॥
इत्यग्निगोलसंज्ञं तत् काष्ठयन्त्रनिर्मितम् ।
प्रवाणैः शकटादेशु क्षुयुक्तं विजयप्रदम् ॥

c6.s8.6

शुक्रनीति, IV, 7.

c6.s8.7

Formulae for the manufacture of gunpowder (one formula being 5 parts of nitre, 1 part of sulphur and 1 part of charcoal) and description of shots and balls are also given.

c6.s8.8

Tavernier, however, gives the credit of discovering guns and gunpowder to the Ahoms of Assam. In narrating the result of Mir Jumla's expedition to Assam in 1663 Tavernier wrote, "It is thought that these (the Ahoms) were the people that formerly invented gunpowder : which spread itself from Assam to Pegu and from Pegu to China, whence the invention has been attributed to the Chinese However, certain it is that Mirgimola brought from thence several pieces of cannon which were all iron guns, and store of excellent powder, both made in the country. The powder is round and small like ours and of excellent quality."¹ Mr. Gait in his *History of Assam*, however, writes that there was no history or tradition in Assam to support Tavernier's assertion. Mr. Gait further writes, "The use of fire-arms by the Ahoms dates from the close of this war (war with the Mahomedans under Turbak and Hosain Khan in 1533, in which the Mahomedans were defeated and a great number of cannon and matchlocks were captured by the Ahoms). Up to this time their weapons had consisted of swords, spears and bows and arrows."² It is possible that some of these captured guns were recaptured by Mir Jumla from the Ahoms during his invasion of Assam later on, and hence Tavernier's assertion.

c6.s8.9

¹ Tavernier, *Travels in India*, 1678, Pt. II, Bk. III, p. 187 (quoted by Mr. Gait in his *History of Assam*).

c6.s8.10

² Gait, *History of Assam*, p. 92.

c6.s8.11

We would now describe some remarkable specimens of very big iron guns of the Moghul times still existing in different parts of India. Guns were cast in brass or made by welding pieces or rings of wrought iron. Laterly guns were made from cast iron as well, but it is difficult to say precisely when iron guns were first cast. It seems that cast-iron guns were introduced into India by the Europeans in the eighteenth century.

c6.s8.12

up to the thirteenth century and zinc only found a place amongst the metals in *Madanpāla-Nirghaṇṭu*, and other alchemical works of the fourteenth century and later. I am afraid Prof Benoy Kumar Sarkar in his "Hindu Sociology" has laboured in vain to explain away the arguments adduced above, which jointly show that the work could not have existed in its present form before the sixteenth century. Moreover Prof. Sarkar has conveniently forgotten to explain the frequent mention of guns and cannon in his eagerness to establish the antiquity of the "Sukra cycle of philosophers."

c6.s8.13

*Bengal guns*: There are many big iron guns of the Moghul times in many parts of Bengal, notably in Dacca, Murshidābād, Bishnupur, Bhāgulpur and other places. Rennel in his celebrated "Memoir of a map of Hindoostan" has described a gigantic wrought-iron gun he found at Dacca in the eighteenth century. He writes: "There are the remains of a very strong fortress in it; and within these few years there was near it a cannon of extra-ordinary weight and dimensions: but it has since fallen into the river, together with the bank on which it rested."¹ Rennel took the measurements of the gun very carefully, which are given below:—

c6.s8.14

¹ Rennel's "Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan," third edition, 1793, p. 61.

c6.s8.15

| Whole length | .. | 22 feet | 10½ inches. |
| Diameter at the breech | .. | 3 ,, | 3 ,, |
| ,, 4 feet from the muzzle | 2 ,, | 10 ,, | |
| ,, of the muzzle | 2 ,, | 2½ ,, | |
| ,, of the bore | 1 ,, | 3⅛ ,, | |

c6.s8.16

He says, "it was made of hammered iron; it being an immense tube formed of 14 bars, with rings of 2 or 3 inches wide driven over them, and hammered down into a smooth surface, so that its appearance was equal to that of the best executed piece of brass ordnance, although its proportions were faulty. The gun contained 234,413 cubic inches of wrought iron and consequently weighed 64,814 pounds avoirdupois, or about the weight of eleven 32-pounders. Weight of an iron shot from the gun, 465 pounds." Local tradition names the gun as *Kāley Khān*, a gun of that name being mentioned by the Venetian traveller Manucci in the list of big cannon possessed by the great Moghul in the seventeenth century.²

c6.s8.17

² Manucci, History of the Moghuls (Irvine's translation), 1653-1708, Vol. II, p. 365.

c6.s8.18

A smaller iron gun still exists at Dacca which was constructed at the same time as the bigger one. Mr. H. E. Stapleton took its measurements, the gun being 11 feet long and the diameter of its mouth 1 foot 7½ inches.

c6.s8.19

The great iron gun at Murshidābād, called Jāhānkoshā (conqueror of the world), 17 feet 6 inches in length and with a circumference of 5 feet 3 inches, is of great historical importance owing to the existence of nine inscribed brass plates on it. From the inscription it is ascertained that this gun was constructed in 1047 Hijira, Jamadinssani (October, 1637), during the reign of Emperor Shājahān (the then Subādār of Bengal being Islām Khān) at Jahāngirnagar (Dacca) by chief mechanic Janārdan under the supervision of Darogā Sher Mahammad and Inspector Harabullava Dās.¹

First 116 of 153 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)