Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Copper in Ancient India c10: Chapter V. Alloys of Copper—(2) Brass

Copper in Ancient India c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. Alloys of Copper—(2) Brass

c10.2

The next important alloy of copper is brass. The time when brass was first used in India has still been an open question, but if we would have recourse to archaeological evidences such a date can be fixed with a certain amount of precision. Brass articles of the 1st century B.C. or A.D. have been found on excavation of ancient stupas. General Ventura executed operations for the examination of the stupas at Mānikyālaya in 1830. Three deposits were obtained of which the third, at a depth of 64 ft., consisted of a copper box enclosing a brass cylindrical box cast and beautifully turned on the lathe. The lid of the brass casket was found on cleansing to be inscribed. From the inscriptions on the various articles of this deposit and the accompanying Indo-Scythian coins the great tope at Mānikyalaya has been identified to be a mausoleum of the Indo-Scythian King Kanishka (1st century B.C. or A.D.).¹ Another inscribed brass urn of the same date as the former has been discovered in a tope about 30 miles west of Kabul in the district of Wardak. This urn which in shape and size approaches closely the ordinary water-vessels in use in India to this day, was originally thickly gilt and its surface has in consequence remained well-preserved.² As regards coins, both brass and bronze were used in ancient India for coinage. Circular punch-marked brass coins of Dhana-deva and Arya-Varma of Ajodhya (circa 1st century B.C.) have been found.

c10.3

¹ Wilson, Asistic Researches, Vol. XVII, p. 601; Cunningham, Journ. As. Soc. Beng., 1854.

c10.4

² Princep's "Indian antiquities," edited by Thomas, Vol. 1, p. 162.

c10.5

The gigantic brass bell at the Siwe Dagon Paya in Burma. (Photograph by Johnston and Hoffmann).

c10.6

Brass coins of kings of several other dynasties living at that time have also been collected.¹ From these archaeological and numismatic evidence it is clear that brass was in common use in ancient India as early as the first century B.C. It was known in India probably a few centuries earlier as it is mentioned in the famous Aurvedic treatise Charak-Samhitā (circa third century B.C.) along with gold, silver, copper and tin.² The same medical treatise makes mention of brass in another place along with gold, silver, tin and bronze.³ The word in both the places is “riti” (रीति) probably derived from “harita” (हरित) or yellow, though the word “harita” was used in Vedic literature as a synonym for gold which is also yellow. The same word is found in Manu’s Institutes⁴ in which the lawgiver gives directions for the purification of utensils made of copper, iron, bronze, brass, tin and lead vessels with ashes, acid water and water. It therefore appears that brass was known in ancient India as early as the third century B.C and was certainly in general use in the first century before Christ.

c10.7

¹ See Vincent A. Smith’s “Catalogue of coins in Indian Museum.”
2. सुवर्णरूप्यताधाणि लपुरीतिमयानि च—Charak-Samhitā, sutrasthān, V. 26.
3. सुवर्णरौप्यपुतालरीतीकांस्यस्थलोह्रसवेधुदन्तैः—Charak-Samhitā, Sid-dhisthān, III. 4.
4. तान्दाय कास्य रौप्यानां लपुण शीसकस्य च । शौर्य यथाहं कर्तव्यं कारासोदकवारिभि : Manu, V. 114.
5. रीतिका काकतुण्डी च द्विविधं पित्तलं भवेत्—Rasaratna-samuchchaya, V 192.

c10.8

Turning to later times we may compile something like a history of the alloy from literary as well as archaeological evidences. The alloy continued to be designated as “riti.” In Amarkosha’s lexicon and in Varāhamihir’s famous astronomical compendium Brihat samhitā, both works of the sixth century, it is designated by the same word. The modern name “pitala” (पित्तल) seems to have originated at a later date, for example we come across the latter word in the Rasaratna-samuchchaya, an alchemical work of the thirteenth century, in which brass is designated as “pittala” and divided into two classes “riticā” and “kākatundi.”⁵

c10.9

As regards ancient specimens of brass of known date, mention has already been made of the brass casket and urn discovered in stupas of the 1st century. Brass along with bronze was very largely used in making statues of gods and goddesses in the middle ages. An inscribed brass statue of Buddha 30 cm high and 13.5 cm wide of the sixth century has been discovered in a dharamsālā at Fatehpur a village 20 miles due west of Kangra-kot.¹ Another inscribed brass statue of a large size of about 11th century discovered in Bengal has been preserved in the Dacca museum. But the most remarkable and gigantic work of brass has been described by the Chinese traveller Hiuen-Tsiang who saw near the famous Nalanda convent "a Vihara of brass built by Silāditya-rāja. Although it is not yet finished yet its intended measurement when finished (to plan) will be 100 feet."² Though the statement of the Chinese traveller is not explicit as to whether it was 100 feet high or wide, this entire vihara or monastery made of brass by Raja Silāditya (also known as King Harshavardhan who ruled from 606-647 A.D.)³ of the seventh century, when completed, would undoubtedly have been a magnificent example of the skill of the ancient Indians in brass-work.

c10.10

¹ Annual Report, Arch. Surv, India, 1940-5, p. 107.

c10.11

² Beal's Buddhist Records, Vol. II, p. 174; Beal's Life of Hiuen-Tsiang p. 119.

c10.12

³ Vincent A. Smith, Early History of India, pp. 325, 338.

c10.13

It is needless to make any detailed mention of the smaller images of Hindu and Buddhist gods and goddesses made of brass from the middle ages down to our own times, as they may be counted in their thousands in Indian temples and Hindu household throughout this land, and in Tibet. As a matter of fact brass has been very largely used, as has already been pointed out, in making images of idols for worship in mediaeval and modern India.

c10.14

But British Burma has pre-eminently been the land of brass. From the middle ages and specially from the eighteenth century Burma has been famous for gigantic brass statues of Buddha and brass bells which adorn Burmese temples. Though brass and bronze bells are indispensable ornaments of Indian temples, yet in size and dimensions they are insignificant in comparison with Burmese bells. The gigantic brass bell at Siwe dagon Paya constructed by the Emperor Simby Shin in 1775 weighs 41 tons. The celebrated Minguin bell in Upper Burma, the second biggest bell in actual use in the world, cast by the Emperor Bodow Paya in 1790, is 16 ft. in diameter and weighs 88 tons. An idea of its height may be obtained from the fact that it is difficult for three men standing on each other’s shoulders to reach the top of the bell from its bottom.¹

c10.15

¹ The largest bell in actual use in the world is the Moscow bell in Russia which weighs 128 tons. Another bell at Moscow named “Tsar Kolokog” is bigger than this, but as it cracked in the furance it seems never to have been hung or rung. It weighs about 180 tons.

Brass and Bronze Guns and Cannon of the Moghuls

c10.s1.1

In the author’s “Iron in ancient India” (p. 43) an account has been given of the wrought iron guns and cannon used since the Moghul period of Indian history. The Moghul guns and cannon were also made by casting brass and bronze. Bābar, the first Moghul Emperor and the first to introduce guns into India, mentions in his well-known memoirs the casting of a copper gun under the direction of Ustad Kuli Khan. Bābar writes “Around the mould they had erected eight furnaces for melting the metal (copper). From the foot of each started a channel which ended in the mould. As soon as I arrived, the holes to allow the flow of metal were opened. The fused metal rushed into the mould like boiling water. After a time before the mould was full, the fused metal from the furnaces began to flow very slowly, either because their size or the amount of material had been wrongly calculated. Ustad Kuli Khan, in a state that cannot be described, wished to fling himself into the very midst of the melted copper. I made much of him, ordered him a robe of honour and then succeeded in calming.

c10.s1.2

him. A day or two afterwards when the mould had cooled down, it was opened. Ustad Kuli Khan, overwhelmed with joy, sent me word that the bore of the piece had no fault and that a chamber could easily be made in it. The body of the cannon was then uncovered and a certain number of artificers were set to finish it, while he busied himself with the preparation of the chamber.”

c10.s1.3

With the advance in the knowledge of the technique of gun-manufacture, the size of the guns increased enormously and the materials used were chiefly wrought iron and brass or bronze. The iron guns which were often as long as 30 ft. were chiefly made by welding together a large number of wrought iron rings placed side by side. The welding was done in many cases so perfectly as in the case of the Murshidabad gun manufactured at Dacca during Emperor Jehangir’s time, that the weld lines were completely invisible. As regards brass guns we know from Bernier’s account of his travels that early in Aurungjeb’s reign there were in the field with the emperor seventy pieces of heavy artillery mostly of brass. Many of these were so gigantic and heavy that 20 yoke of oxen were often required for drawing them.

c10.s1.4

Amongst the notable brass guns of the Moghuls may be mentioned the “great gun of Agra” which was an enormous howitzer about 14 ft. long and 22½ inch in the bore into which men could easily enter crouching. It was lying near the bank of the Jamunā outside the fort. Its weight was 1049 cwts or 1469 Mds and its value, as old brass, has been calculated to be about Rs. 53,400 but if serviceable, one lac and sixty thousand rupees.¹ Many of Moghul guns and cannon were captured later on by the English. At Agra, for instance, Lord Lake captured a fine 72 pounder of brass as well as 76 brass and 86 iron guns of different kinds, mortars howitzers and gallopers. At Delhi Lord Lake captured 68 guns, mortars and howitzers, many being made of brass which were cast in India.

c10.s1.5

¹ Irvin’s “The army of the Indian Moghuls.”

c10.s1.6

But the most important Moghul gun made of an alloy of copper is the famous “Mālik-i-maidān” or “Monarch of the plain” which has justly been characterised by Meadows Taylor and Furgusson as “the largest piece of ordnance in the world.” A piece of the metal of which the gun is composed has been analysed and has been found to be bronze having the following percentage of composition.

c10.s1.7

| Copper | ... | 80.427 |
| Tin | ... | 19.573 |
| | | ——— |
| | | 100.000 |

c10.s1.8

Though its length is 14'-3" and therefore only half of the length of many of the iron guns of the Moghuls, its diameter is enormous and is as much as 4'-10" at its mouth. Its full dimensions are given below :—

c10.s1.9

| Length | ... | 14'-3" |
| Diameter at mouth | ... | 4'-10" |
| Diameter at nozzle | ... | 4'-5" |
| Diameter at bore | ... | 2'-4½" |

c10.s1.10

It is now resting on the walls of Bijāpur and resembles an enormous howitzer into whose belly a man standing almost erect can easily walk. The surface of the gun had been chased after casting and the muzzle worked into the shape of the head of a dragon having open jaws with small elephants between. It was cast at Ahmednagar in 1548 during the reign of Sultan Burham Nizam Shah and the place where it was cast can still be seen. The casting of such an enormous bronze howitzer as much as five feet in diameter reflects the greatest credit on the workers who manipulated the enormous amount of the alloy in casting it.

c10.s1.11

It is needless to make any detailed mention of the smaller brass guns many of which are still to be found in different parts of India. Some of these called Isā Khān’s guns cast in the 16th century have been discovered in Bengal. One piece of the metal of one of these guns has been analysed which gives the composition of brass as used in India in the 16th century. The result of analysis is as follows¹:—

c10.s1.12

¹ H.E. Stapleton, Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1900, 369.

c10.s1.13

| Copper— | 83.72 |
| Zinc (and iron)— | 13.82 |
| Tin— | 1.83 |
| | —— |
| | 99.37 |

Chemistry of Brass

c10.s2.1

We would now proceed to consider the chemical composition of brass and the method of its preparation in ancient India. The European history of the chemistry of brass is sufficiently well known. Aristotle (4th century B.C.) described the preparation of a kind of copper which was obtained by heating copper with a kind of earth found on the shores of the black Sea. Pliny (1st century B.C.) describes the preparation of *aurichalcum* by heating copper with cadmia or calamine (zinc carbonate). Brass continued to have been manufactured in Europe up to the end of the eighteenth century by heating copper with calamine and charcoal or coal, though “in England there is good evidence of the manufacture of brass with zinc at the end of the 16th century for Queen Elizabeth by patent granted to William Humfrey and Christopher Schutz the exclusive right of working calamine and making brass.” As regards its chemical composition, it was Kunkel in Europe, who at the end of the 17th century recognised it to be an alloy.

c10.s2.2

So far as India is concerned, it would appear that the knowledge of the chemical composition of brass as an alloy and of its preparation from metallic zinc as distinguished from calamine was more advanced in India than in contemporary Europe, because metalic zinc was prepared in India several centuries earlier than in Europe.

Earlier Discovery of Zinc in India Than in Europe

c10.s3.1

Zinc appears to have been prepared in India, as has been stated above, at a much earlier period than in Europe. In Europe "the word zinc is first found in the writings of Paracelsus (16th century) who has pointed out that zinc was a metal." According to W. Hommel, however, "the name zinc is erroneously attributed to Basil Valentine and the discovery of the metal to Paracelsus, for the identification of zinc as the metal from blende was only accomplished by Homberg in 1695."¹

c10.s3.2

It would even appear that the acquaintance of European alchemists with zinc began when it was being imported from India or at any rate from the East Indies by Dutch merchants in the 17th century, as Libavius "who was the first to investigate the properties of zinc more exactly, although he was not aware that the metal was derived from the ore known as calamine" stated "that a peculiar kind of tin is found in the East Indies called caloem. Some of this was brought to Holland and came into his hands."¹

c10.s3.3

¹ Roscoe and Shcorlemmer, Treatise on Chemistry, Vol, II, pp. 643-644.

c10.s3.4

In India, zinc appears to have been extracted from calamine (Sanskrit "rasaka" or "kharpara") by heating it in a covered crucible with substances rich in carbon at least as early as the 7th century. We find the description of a process of the extraction of "essence of calamine" in the alchemical work of the 7th century named Rasaratnākar, ascribed to Nāgārjuna which gives the following recipe—calamine is macerated, amongst other things, with carbonated alkali lac, soot and borax and then heated in a covered crucible in a furnace when an essence of the colour of tin is obtained.¹

c10.s3.5

In this process carbonated alkali and the carbon obtained by the destructive distillation of such carbonaceous substances as lac &c. supply the reducing agents in the extraction of zinc from calamine. In later alchemical treatises the covered crucible is provided with a tubulure so that the completion of the reaction may be ascertained when the blue flame at the mouth of the tubulure suddenly changes to white owing to the volatilisation of zinc. The description of the distillation of zinc in tubulated covered retorts or crucibles in *Rasaratna-samuchchaya*, *Rasaprakāsh-sudhākar* and other alchemical treatises of the 12th and 13th centuries is "so exact that it will bear repetition in any text-book of metallurgy." We give below the description of the process as given in *Rasaratna-samuchchaya*²:—"Rub calamine with turmeric, the chebulic myrobalans, resin, the salts, soot, borax and one fourth its weight of semicarpus anacardium and the acid juices. Smear the inside of a tubulated crucible with the above mixture and dry it in the sun and close its mouth with another inverted over it and apply heat..

c10.s3.6

1. क्षार क्षइज घान्दाञ्ज रसकं भवितं दडं । उचीलाक्षा तथा पथ्या भूखता धूमसंयुतम् ॥ मूकलूषायत घ्रात टणेन समन्वितम् । सत्वं कुटिलसङ्कशं पतते माल सशय ॥ Rasaratnākar.

c10.s3.7

हरिद्रासिकलालारसिन्धु धूमैः सटङ्गणैः । सारुकैरैव पादांशै सास्त्रैः संमही खर्पर ॥ खिजं घ्नाकमूषां शोषयित्वा निरुध्य च । मूपा मूयोपरि खर्परं प्रधमेत् ततः । खर्परे प्रकृते ज्वाला भवेन्तीलासिता पदि । तदा सन्दज्ञतो मूपां घृत्वा कृत्वा त्व धोमुखीम् ॥ शमैरख्याखयेद् भूमौ यन्त्रा वालं अ भज्येत । वङ्गाभं पतितं सत्वं समादाव नित्योजयेत् ॥ Rasaratna-samuchchaya, II, 157—161.

c10.s3.8

When the flame issuing from the molten calamine changes from blue to white, the crucible is caught hold of by means of a pair of tongs and its mouth held downwards and it is thrown on the ground, care being taken not to break its tubulure. The essence possessing the lustre of tin which is dropped is collected for use.” The chemical reaction that takes place in the above process is easily understood and is the same as takes place in the modern process of the extraction zinc. In the first place calamine is converted by heat into zinc oxide, which when heated with soot and carbon obtained by the destructive distillation of carbonaceous substances such as lac is converted into metallic zinc whilst carbon monoxide is evolved which burns at the mouth of the tubulure with the characteristic bluish flame. When the reduction is complete and the zinc vaporises, the bluish flame is replaced by the white flame of burning zinc vapour. At that time the molten zinc is poured out from the crucible by holding its mouth downwards.

c10.s3.9

Similar descriptions are to be found in other alchemical works of this and later times, showing that by the 13th century the process was quite common, though it must be conceded that the process was discovered as early as the 7th century, if not earlier.

c10.s3.10

The Indian process of distillation of zinc described above is thus an anticipation by several centuries of the old English process termed ‘distillation of zinc per descensum’, in which “the mixture of ore and coal was heated in curcibles closed at the top, but having a pipe leading from the bottom stopped by a wooden plug. The latter was quickly carbonised, thus becoming porous and allowing the vapour of the reduced zinc to pass down the tube where it was condensed.”¹ In the Indian process the molten zinc is poured out.

c10.s3.11

¹ Roscoe and Schorlemmer’s Treatise on Chemistay, Vol. II, p. 645.

c10.s3.12

Zinc was recognised as a metal for the first time under the designation of its modern name, *Jasada*, as pointed out by Dr. Ray, in the lexicon ascribed to king Madanapāla written about the year 1374 A.D.¹ But this fact was not universally recognised until the sixteenth century. Sārangadhar, the well known alchemist has not mentioned zinc in its list of nine metals. Rasendrachintāmani, Rasakalpa, Nityanātha's Rasaratnākar and other alchemical works of this period do not mention zinc in the list of metals. It is only in the works of the sixteenth century that zinc finds a permanent place in the list of metals. Dhātukriyā, Bhābaprakāsha and other alchemical works of this century mention it in the list of metals and the Ayeen Akbari also mentions "ruh-i-tutia" (essence of white tutia) or zinc as one of the seven metals. It must therefore be acknowledged that though zinc was universally distilled in India by the 13th century and its metallic nature recognised by Madanpāla in the fourteenth century, it was not until the sixteenth century that it was universally recognised as a metal. Even in this respect India's knowledge of the metallic nature of zinc was more in advance than in contemporary Europe as "the identification of zinc as the metal from blende was only accomplished by Homberg in 1695."²

c10.s3.13

¹ जमदं वङ्गसदृशं दितिहेतम—Madanpāla-Nirgghantu.

c10.s3.14

² It is often remarkable how truth is arrived at by different peoples through almost identical channels of surmises and mistakes. We have already pointed out that in India a good deal of confusion existed regarding the chemical nature of zinc from the fourteen to the sixteenth century. In Europe also "the exact nature of zinc and its ores continued doubtful during the seventeenth century. Glaubey it is true, stated that calamine was an ore of zinc, but Lemery, so late as 1675, believed that zinc was identical with bismuth, and Boyle often employed the names zinc and bismuth indiscriminately for the same substance." Then again in India there was a good deal of confusion for a long time regarding the equivalents for zinc and its ore calamine (rasaka or kharpara). Both the equivalents of calamine were used to designate the ore as well as the metal. In Europe also "the word zinc occurs in many subsequent authors and sometimes it is employed to denote the metal, at other times the ore from which the metal is obtained" It would be rash to suggest from the similarity in the development of the ideas regarding the chemical nature of zinc that Europe borrowed them from India. It often happens that different countries often arrive at a particular truth after pursuing a similar train of reasoning.

c10.s3.15

1. जमदं वङ्गसदृशं दितिहेतम—Madanpāla-Nirgghantu.
2. It is often remarkable how truth is arrived at by different peoples through almost identical channels of surmises and mistakes. We have already pointed out that in India a good deal of confusion existed regarding the chemical nature of zinc from the fourteen to the sixteenth century. In Europe also "the exact nature of zinc and its ores continued doubtful during the seventeenth century. Glaubey it is true, stated that calamine was an ore of zinc, but Lemery, so late as 1675, believed that zinc was identical with bismuth, and Boyle often employed the names zinc and bismuth indiscriminately for the same substance." Then again in India there was a good deal of confusion for a long time regarding the equivalents for zinc and its ore calamine (rasaka or kharpara). Both the equivalents of calamine were used to designate the ore as well as the metal. In Europe also "the word zinc occurs in many subsequent authors and sometimes it is employed to denote the metal, at other times the ore from which the metal is obtained" It would be rash to suggest from the similarity in the development of the ideas regarding the chemical nature of zinc that Europe borrowed them from India. It often happens that different countries often arrive at a particular truth after pursuing a similar train of reasoning.

Recognition of Brass as an Alloy

c10.s4.1

It has already been pointed out that in Europe Kunkel at the end of 17th century recognised brass as an alloy. In India, however, this fact must have been recognised as early as the 13th century as it has been mentioned as such in alchemical works of this century. Yasodhar, author of Rasaprakāsh-Sudhākar writes “*saurāstra*, brass and *vartalauha* are three alloys (*misralauha*).”¹ The author of Rasaratna-samuchchaya also says “bronze, brass and *varta* are the three *misralauha*.”² That brass came to be regarded as an alloy four centuries earlier than in Europe need not cause surprise as zinc itself was distilled, as shown before, several centuries earlier in India. Bhāvmisra the author of *Bhāvaprakāsha* (16th century) writes that brass is a semi-metal (*updhātu*) of zinc and copper,³ as it is derived from these two metals.

c10.s4.2

¹ स मित्रलीहत्रितयं सौराष्ट्रोरितिवर्त्तकाः । Rasaprakāsh-sudhākar. *Saurāstra* here evidently means bronze as the best bronze was obtained from Surāstra (Surat). cf. “कांस्यं तम् सौराष्ट्रं शुभम्” (Rasaratna-samuchchaya). Its other and more common meaning viz. alum is evidently out of place here.

c10.s4.3

² तित्रं मोहं त्रितयमुदितं मित्तलं कांस्यं वर्त्तं—Rasaratna-samuchchaya, V. I

c10.s4.4

³ रीतिर प्पुमधातुः स्यात्तावस्य यशदस्य च—Bhāvaprakāsha.

c10.s4.5

Though the alchemical works of this century make mention of brass as an alloy, they however, do not definitely state that it was an alloy of zinc. It has only been mentioned as an alloy of zinc in alchemical works of the sixteenth century such as Bhāvaprakash, Dhātukriā and others.⁴ The reason for this is not far to seek. It is owing to the fact that zinc was not generally recognised, as has already been pointed out, as a metal before that century. As has already been mentioned, though Madanpāla was aware of its metallic nature in the fourteenth century, zinc was not universally recognised in India as a metal until the sixteenth century. It may therefore be contended that though brass was distinctly recognised as an alloy in the thirteenth century, it was distinctly recognised as an alloy of zinc in the sixteenth century. Even then India can lay a priority of claim of the discovery of the chemical nature of brass by at least a century, as it was at the end of the seventeenth century only that Kunkel recognised brass as an alloy and Homberg recognised “zinc as the metal from blende.”

c10.s4.6

⁴ रीतिरपुमधातुः सात्तावस्य यशदस्य च—Bhāvaprakāsha. शुल्बर्मरसंयोगे जावते पित्तलं शुभम्—Dhātukriyā. शुल्चर्मरसंयोगे नारौधातुस्तु जायते—Ibid.

Manufacture of Brass from Zinc

c10.s5.1

From the fact that brass was designated as an alloy by the thirteenth century, it might follow that at least from that time onwards brass was manufactured in India by melting the two metals. But as zinc was not generally recognised as a metal, and as brass was not generally recognised as an alloy of zinc before the sixteenth century, we cannot be certain of the fact that brass was manufactured in India directly from its constituent metals before that century. It is true that zinc was first distilled in India, as has already been stated, as early as the seventh century so that it may be presumed that brass was manufactured directly from zinc from that time onwards, but as direct evidence on that point is lacking the point cannot be urged with sufficient emphasis. Again we might be permitted to assert that brass was manufactured in India directly from zinc from the thirteenth century (i.e. at least three or four centuries earlier than in Europe) as it was recognised as an alloy at that time, but as the fact of its being prepared directly from the metals copper and zinc has been openly mentioned only in works of the sixteenth century and later (see before), it is safest to conclude that brass was undoubtedly manufactured in India directly from zinc from the sixteenth century onwards. Even then India was ahead of Europe in this respect by a century, as in Europe brass was manufactured directly from zinc not earlier than the last part of the seventeenth century.

c10.s5.2

Prior to this, brass must have been manufactured from calamine as in Europe. We have a recipe in Rasaratnākar (7th century) for the conversion of copper into a gold-like substance meaning evidently brass, by heating copper, calamine and organic substances in covered crucibles.¹ This recipe is quoted almost bodily in the alchemical work Rasāranva (12th century). The organic substances on being heated in covered crucibles evidently supplied the carbon necessary for the reduction of calamine.

c10.s5.3

¹ *Both Blockman and Gladwin evidently made a mistake in rendering ruh-i-tutia (essence of calamine) as “a kind of native pewter”, as it is mentioned as one of the seven metals, (the other six metals being gold, silver, copper, tin, iron and lead) and not as one of the alloys. The word is evidently Persian translation of the Sanskrit word rasaka-svattwam (रसकसत्व) or ja-svattwam (जासत्व)—meaning “essence of calamine.”

c10.s5.4

The famous Minguin bell in Burma. (Photograph by Johnston and Hoffmann).

c10.s5.5

Though brass has repeatedly been mentioned in alchemical works of the 13th century and later as an alloy, the proportions in which copper and zinc were mixed have not definitely been mentioned. From the Ayeen Akbari, however, we learn that during Moghul times brass was manufactured by melting two seers of copper and one and half seer of ruh-i-tutia or zinc.*

c10.s5.6

1. किमन चित्रं रसको रसेन ।
” ” भावितः ।
क्रमेण कत्वाधुधरेण रक्षितः ।
करोति शुल्ं त्रिपुटेन काहनम् । Rasaratnār, 1, 3.

Linked texts (14)