Upadhyaya-Metal Implements Ancient India

7/29/2019 Upadhyaya-Metal Implements Ancient India

1/14

.o>< -? . s . ; : ; ; ; ; . ' i ' ! l i f ~ " " " ' ' i i ! i ' " i l ' ' ' ~ ~ " ~ - ~ ~ - : r . e ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ > ! I ' ~ - . . ~ ~ # ; , ; < & ; " ~ " ' P ~ " S ; W ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ' ' " ' ' ' ' " " " ' ' I i i f i ' ..> 4 : ~ ~ ~ ; . < r l ! i l i U ' i ! i i ' $ f ~ ; w ~ " ~ 1 i i : f ! ' . ~ ~ ~METAL IMPLEMENTS

ANCIENT .INDIA(From earliest times upto circa 2nd centu

ByJagadamba Prasad Upadhyaya

Ph.D.Department of Ancient History, Culture,

. Archaeology & MuseologyEwing Christian College

(An Autonomous College of he Diversity of Allahabad)Allahabad

Pratibha PrakashanDELHI


2/14

--. .,,.. - -...... ' "

.: -

;

AuthorIst Edition 2000 A;D.Published by :Dr. Radhey Shyam ShuklaM.A., M.PhiL, Ph-D.ForPratibha Prakash an(Oriental Publishers &Booksellers)29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-11 0007Phone: (011) 7451485ISBN : 81-7702-016-1Price: Rs. 1200 $ 120Laser type setting:Creative GraphicsA-46/6, Gali No. 2, Brahnlpuri,Delhi-53 Ph. : 2195643Printed at :Tarun Offset Printers, Delhi

C})ecficatedrr'o~ Y ' 9Vlotlier


3/14

2 3 4 5 6 7 818'. Nal Adze Copper 2l.Ox(?)x0.30 Flat Curved splayed Ibid.out cutting

edge, ground onone side.19. Nal Adze Copper 16.3 x(?)x0.90 Flat Curved and Ibid.slightly splayedcutting edgeground on bothsides.20. Nal Saw Copper 37.0x6.0x(?)x4.00 Three holes at Ibid.the broader end,only 3.00 ofsecreted edgecontains 12 teeth.21. Nal Saw Copper 12.6x(?)x(?) - Curved back with Ibid.straight cuttingedge, 4 piecesrejoined, 2.00length contains20 teeth.22. Nal Dagger Copper 112.6>


4/14

48

8:0u 8:0u

01/")c)

1.001triX001C"'lC"

C" 0"" : 1/")0 c)

Metal Implements in Ancient India

1/ ")1/")

001/").triX00t"-:0C"

000C"X0""'".,;N)

...&o.. '0.u

1/")r-:C"X0lr)-8:0u

r--: 00 .0'1

1.0t: -C"X-c)N

c)-.

Early Indus andMature Harappan CulturesSword

Three swords of copper have been reported from Moby Mackay. They furnish the following details.

1.2.

Length(em)

40.0046.99

Breadth(em)

3.356.07

3. 8.12 (extent) 3.07All are tanged. First two specimens are complete, clong and having both the edges sharp In all the specimen

tapers to a sharp point. The specimen No. 1 has two rivethe meeting point of blade and tang.Parasu (Battle-axe)

A fragment of a parasu of copper is reported from thlevels at Raja Kama Ka Qila. 2 No details of the specimen aso far.III. Implements of Various .Crafts

Harappan culture is particularly known for its riCh matemany of which seem to be associated with various crafts (the Harappans. They also made a. variety of copper/bronze which were used in various crafts. This observation is primupon the comparison of their implements with the preseimplements. In the following pages we propose to discuss thelike chisel, gouge, saw, drill, etc., which are likely to havby craftmen like carpenter, coppersmith, housebuilder, cChiselChisels, in a variety of shapes, are by far the most cofound at Mohenjodaro3, Chanhudaro4 and Harappa,5 althou1. Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), V

466. Pl. CXIII, 3; CXVIII, 9; CXX, 17; CXXVIII, 5; CXXX2. Indian Archaeology-A Review (1975-76), 18.3. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization (1973Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1976)4. ~ M a c k a y , E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1943), pp. 184-185. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), pp. 8 7 - ~ 8 8 - a n d p


5/14

- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~50 Metal Implements in Ancien t India Early Indus and Mature Harappan Culturesbeen reported also from several other Harappan sites, like Surkotada, 1LothaF, Mirzapur3 (Kurukshetra), Daulatpur,4 Kot-DijP, Raja KarnaKa Qila,6 Banawali (Harayana? and Hulas (Saharanpur)8, etc. Detailedaccounts of these other sites, however, are yet to be published. Harappanchisels are more usually made of copper than bronze. 9

Different classifications for these tools have been proposed by thevarious excavators. In the absence of a uniform classification, we proposeto study the Harappan chisels by dividing them into various typesbased on such objective considerations as length, breadth, thicknessmeasurements, cross-section and nature of edge profile. These chiselsseem to. fall into two broad basic types-the long narrow chisels andthe short broad chisels, both having rectangular or square cross-sections.The basis .of this classification is their length:-breadth ratio; those havinga ratio upto 10:1 being termed as short broad chisels, and those exceedingthis, long narrow chisels. Besides these two, there are two mmortypes also, VIZ., chisels made out of round bars and pointedchisels. However, both these types appear in small number only. Thedifferent statistical accounts are mentioned in the forthcoming table.

1. Deshpande, M.N., JAR, 1971-72, p. 18; Pl. XXX. B.2. Rao, S.R., Lothal (1979) Vol. '1, P. 30 and p. 233; also Ghosh, A.,IAR, 1957-58, p. 11; pl. XXI.B.3. Singh, U.V., 'Lat e Harappan Culture as Revealed by the Excavation-at Mirzapurand Daultapur (Kurukshetra), liAS, Simla (1977), paper read.4. Ibid., also JAR, 1976-77, 19.5. Agrawal, D.P., The Copper bronze age in India (1971), p. 27; Sankalia, H.D.

The Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan (1974), 342.6. JAR, 1975-76, p. 18.7. Bisht, R.S., 'Banawali : A new Harappan site in Harayana', Man and Environment(1978), Vol. II, pp. 86-88.8. Dikshit, K.N., 'The Harappan Levels of Hulas', Man and Environment (1984),Vol. VIII, pp. 99-102.9. Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), p. 473.

000

iZ

'"Cl30..


6/14

11. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow12. Mohvnjodaro Long

narrow 13. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow

14. M o h ~ n j o d a r o Longnarrow

15. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow

16. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow17. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow18. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow19. Mohenjodaro Long

narrow20. Mohenjodaro Long

narrow21. Mohenjodaro Longnarrow22. Mohenjodaro Long-.narrow

14.78x0.9313.76xl.2114.22x(?)3.35x0.256.60x0.538.20x0.539.14x0.509.14x0.538.91x0.5513.08x0.769.65x0.5811.55x0.73

15.89:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Tangegular11.12: 1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Tangegular

Not splayed Plano-convex Tange13.04:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tagular12.45:1 Squarish Spiayed Biconvex Not ta15.47:1 Square Not splayed Plano-convex Not ta18.28:1 Squarish Not Splayed Biconvex Not ta17.24:1 Rectan- Not splayedgular16.20: 1 Rectan- Not splayedgular17.21: 1 Rectan- Splayed- -gular16.63:1 Squarish Not splayed15.82:1 Rectan- Not splayed

.-\-

BiConvex Not taPlano-convex Not taBiconvex Not taBiconvex Not taPlano-convex Not ta


7/14

35. M o h e ~ o d a r o Long- 9.14x0.50 18.28:1 Rectan- Not clear Not clear Tanarrow gular Edge blunt36. . Mohenjodaro Edge blunt (FLong-:- 13.33x0.88 15.14:1 Rectan- Edge missingnarrow

Edge missing Fl37. Mohenjodaro gular taLong- 11.55x0.63 18.33:1 upper: Not splayed Not clear Flnarrow rectangular;

lower round38. M o h e ~ o d a r o Long- 17.52x0.81 21.62:1 Rectan- Splayednarrow Biconvex Fla39. Mohenjodaro gular tanLong- 11.81x0.88 13.42:1 Rectan- Not clear Not clear Flanarrow gular40. Harappa Long- 15.llx0.65 tan23.24:1 (?) Splayed Sloped but Nonarrow the nature

could not bemeasured41. Harappa Long- 6.85x0.62 11.04:1 (?) Splayednarrow As above No

42. Harappa Long- 9.52x0.71 13.40:1 (?) Not splayed As above Tannarrow43. Harappa Long- 17.86x 1.41 12.66:1 (?)narrow Splayed As above Not


8/14

58. Mohenjodaro Shortbroad

59. Mohenjodaro Shortbroad60. Mohenjodaro Short

broad61. Mohenjodaro. Short

broad62. Mohenjodaro Short- _

broad-63. Mohenjodaro Short

broad64. Mohenjodaro Short


broad66. Mohenjodaro Short-_


broad

9.39x1.62

3.30xO.SO3.98x0.554.49x0.587.56x0.7813.25x2.314.19xl.65

4.01x0.713.35x0.636.85xl.14

5.79:1

6.60:17.23:17.65:19.69:15.73:12.53:15.64:1

5.31:16.00:1

RectangularRectangularRectangularR e c t a n ~ gularRectangularRectangularRectangularSquareSquare

Rectangular

Not splayed Biconvex Not

Not splayed Biconvex Not Not splayed Plano-convex NotNot splayed Biconvex Not

Not splayed Biconvex Not

Not splayed Biconvex TangSplayed Biconvex Not Splayed Biconvex Not Splayed Biconvex Not

Splayed Biconvex Not


9/14

81. Harappa Short- 13.61xl.41broad 9.66:1 (?) Splayed As above No

82. Harappa Short- 14.10xl.69. broad 8.34:1 (?) Splayed As above No83. Harappa Short- 15.04xl.88 8.00:1 (?) Splayed As above Noroad84. Harappa Short- 11.282:2.11 5.34:1 (?) Splayed 'As above Nobroad85. Harappa Short- 8.69xl.41 6.16:1 (?) Splayed As above Nobroad86. Harappa Short- 7.75xl.41 5.49:1 (?) Splayed As above Noroad87. Chanhudaro Short- 2.20xl.54 1.42:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Nobroad gular8. Chanhudaro Short- 12.31 xi.98 6.21:1 Rectan- Splayed Biconvex No.broad gular9. Chanhudaro Short- 16.56x2.28 7.26:1 Rectan- Splayed Biconvex Nobroad gular

16,8lx2.260, Chanhudaro Short- 7.43:1 . Rectan- Splayed Biconvex Notbroad gular


10/14

105. Chanhudaro Short- 9.47x2.81 3.37:1 Rectan-broad gular

106. Chanhudaro Short- 5.66xl.Ol 5.60:1 Rectan-broad gular107. Chanhudaro Short- 5.58x2.03 2.74:1 Rectan-

broad gular108. Chanhudaro Short- 10.94x1.52 7.19:1 Rectan-

pro ad gular109. Chanhudaro Short- 7.62xl.82 4.18:1 Rectan-

broad gular110. Chanhudaro Short- 4.87x2.05 2.37:1 Rectan-

broad gular111. Chanhudaro Short- 4.57xl.04 4.39:1 Rectan-

broad gular112. Chanhudaro Short- 3.12xl.29 2.41:1 Rectan-

broad gular ,. 113. Chanhudaro Short- 2.03xl.52 1.33:1 Rectan-

broad gular 114. Chanhudaro Short- 3.07xl.60 1.91:1 Rectan-

broad gular

Not splayed BiconvexNot splayed BiconvexSplayed Pano-convexSplayed BiconvexNot splayed BiconvexSplayed BiconvexNot splayed BiconvexSplayed BiconvexNot splayed Plano-convexNot splayed Plano-convex

Not tNot tNot tNot tNot tNot tNot tNot tNot tNot t

'"' iU!f


11/14

- 4 . ~ " ' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ' " " " " " " ' " " . . . . ; ; . " " ' " " ' ' " " " E ; i , , ; . " " ' - : " - " * " " " * ' ~ " ' ' " " ~ ~ - - ~ - . - . , ~ ~ : ; ; : ; _ ! : ~ " " " ' i Z " ' , ; ; ; i \ t ~ P " " " ' " ' ' ~ ~ ~ " " ' s . ; ; ; & 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . i i < : : ; s62 . \ , Meta/Implements in Ancient India Early Indus and Mature Harappan CulturesIt is obvious from the above table that the long narrow and theshort b:oad chisels form _the main types of the Harappan metal-tool. epertOire. The cross s e c t 1 0 ~ of most of the specimens is rectangular,and rarely square or squansh, except in the case of those made ofround ba:s. The tanged specimens are comparatively rare, and most

of the chisels have flat, flattish \or burred butt ends. Those describedas having burred b ~ t t s exhibit distinct marks of repeated hammering.The untanged specimens were obviously heavy-duty implements, usedpresumably for cutting and chiselling hard wood, bone, ivory, alabaster,etc. The tanged specimens must have been hafted, and might havebeen found handy for light and fine workmanship.

ConsiderU:g the e d ~ e profiles of the different types, it may probablybe held that chisels havmg plano-convex edge profile might have beenused for oblique cutting of objects, while those having biconvex edgeprofile were used for straight cutting. It should be noted from the tablethat chisels having plano-convex edge profile are less in number thantheir counterparts.. It. may be hypothesised that the chisels having points were usede x c l u s ! V e ~ y for e n g r a v i ~ g and finishing. Out of he four such specimensonly one IS tanged, while the rest are having burred butts. The chiselsmade of round bar of copper or bronze, by no means a common typeaccording to Mackay, were used probably as gravers 1 to work on softstone, wood and e v ~ n metal.2

Some of the chisels having burred butts are also characterised bylong flat shanks, a feature, which could not be included in the abovetable. Mackay thinks that "the long flattened shanks certainly appearto have been made expressly to be fixed in handles ..."3, but Vatswhile dealing with similar specimens from Harappa, does not s e e ~ to support his observation.4 Vats rightly asserted that the long flattenedshanks -must have been used without handles. As they generally narrowtowards t h ~ working edge, the shanked chisels were probably used forI. Mackay, E.J.H., Further excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), p. 474.2. Ibid.3. C.f. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization (1973), p. 502.4. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), p. 88.

making holes or carving stones, wood, etc. more efficientlywithout shanksSome of the long narrow specimens, particularly thos20.00 ems in length, could not have served as effective chthey have been classified as such by the excavators. In othey might have been ploughshares, which, surprisingly, hareported so far from any of the Harappan sites. These obeen discussed elsewhere, for obvious reasons.Saw That saws formed an important aspect of Harappanevinced by the finds at different Harappan sites, like MHarappa2, Chanhudaro3, Lothal4 and Kalibangan,5 etc. Thmore or less with the saws of modern times. The availabare both dentate and undentate, with or-without tangs, genrivet holes for firm hafting. The undentate specimens alshad dentation originally, but it somehow did not survieither due to continuous long use or owing to certain natuThe cutting edge, which in all cases in single, is concavstraight, with a blunt straight back. It is observed that som. have a long tang at the distal end for fixing handles. Therespecimen from Kalibangan6 which is tanged at both thindicating that it was handled by two persons simultanthe types are prevalent even today. Their details are listed in

table.

1. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization, Vol. 501; Pl. CXXXVIII, 4, 8; Mackay, E.J.H:, Further excavations(1938), Vol. I, p. 469-470. _

2. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), Vol. I, p. 88.3. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1943), p. 179.4. Rao, S.R., Lothal, (1979), Vol. I, pp. 26-27; Agrawal, D.P., T

age in India(l971), p. 31; Ohosh, A., JAR, 1959-60, p. 15. JAR, 1962-63, p. 27; Pl. LXI A (iii).6. Ibid.


12/14

Sl. SiteNo.1. Mohenjodaro2. Mohenjodaro3. Mohenjodaro

4. Mohenjodaro5. Harappa6. Harappa .7. Chanhudaro8. Kalibangan

Length x Breadth R.atio(ems)

42.16xll.37

32.00>


13/14

66 Metal Implements in Ancient India Early Indus and Mature Harappan Cultures17. Mohenjodaro Copper 8.94 0.25 35.76:1 Round Gouges (A chisel with hollow blade)18. Mohenjoda ro Copper 11.93 0.27 0.12 . 44.18:1 Rectan- Gouges have been found only at Harappa. 1 Even at thgular number only four. A gouge is essentially a carpenter's too19. Harappa Copper 10.92 0.36 30.33:1 Round making round holes on wood. It. could have been used a20. Chan- Copper/ 8.72 0.50 17.42:1 Round soft materials like bone and ivory for similar purpose. Thhudaro bronze as follows. All the available specimens are made of bro21. Chan- Copper/ 13.20 0.55 24.00:1 Square

hudaro bronze Sf. No. Length (em) Breadth (em) Site-22. Chan- Copper/ 8.12 o.5o 16.24:1 Round

I. 10.16 0.72 Harappahudaro bronze 2. 18.97 0.95 Harappa23. Chan- Copper/ 12.47 0.27 46.18:1 Round 3. 7.11 1.08 Hara ppahudaro bronze 4. 7.11 1.01 Harappa24. Chan- Copper/ 16.43


14/14

- -Sl. Site Metal LengthNo. (em)1. Mohenjodaro Copper 6.092. Mohenjodaro Bronze 7.16

3. Chanhudaro Copper/ 4.06bronze

Dia-meter(em)0.780.27

0.53Min.0.88Max.

Thick- Crossness section(em)RoundRound

Remarks

One endpointedBoth endspointed.bulbousin.middle0.12 Hollow Roundsection

Mackay opined that drills of some kind were extensively used atMohenjodaro on soft stones like limestone and alabaster.1 The statement,however, is not corroborated by available specimens, as only two drillshave been reported from Mohenjodaro. No drill is reported fromHarappa.A drill-bit probably used in bead-making was recovered from the Lothalphase II, and a bronze auger or twist-drill is another example fromthe Lothal phase III. Although three tubular objects from Chanhudaro2have been classified by the excavator as drills, we find it difficult toagree with this identification. It may be noted that none of the availablespecimens is pointed or eXhibits any specific cutting edge, a featurewithout an instrument can hardly be classified as drill. Under thecircumstance, it appears justified to include these objects among metaltubes which could have been variously used in the sophisticated urbanHarappan civilization.Bolts and Bolt-pointsThese are so far reported from Mohenjodaro3 only, and are ofcopper as well as bronze. The details of the available specimens areas follows :Sl. SiteNo.

1. Mohenjodaro2. Mohenjodaro3. Mohenjodaro4. Mohenjodaro

Metal

CopperCopperBronzeCopper

Length(em)

8.178.4320.1963.88

Breadth(em)

1.471.091.541.57

Thick-ness(em)1.391.09

CrosssectionSquarishSquare

1. Mackay, E.J.H., Further excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vols. I & II, pp.320, 597, 598; Pl. CXLIV, 5.2. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1976), p. 186; Pis. LXII (7), LXXX(9), LXXXI(l5).3. Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vol. I, p. 476.

\ Nos. 1 and 2 are straight rods of copper tapering to fpoint, and are categorised as bolt-points by the excavatstraight rod which tapers towards boththe ends. In the sp4, the lower end is narrower than the upper. The differebolts and (Nos. 3 & 4 are bolts) bolt-points is that whilhas both the ends pointed, the latter has only one. Bothbeen used to fasten timber. The bolt-points were probablighter fastening and bolts for heavier, as is suggested by thelength.Bead-toolsSix specimens of a new tool-type were excavated at CThese strange tools of copper and bronze might have been making, as they were found in association of a large numbbeads.2 The appearance of the tool suggests that they wused for ~ u c h purposes as making holes, finishing beadparameters are as follows.Sl. Metal Length Breadth/ Nature ofNo. Diameter1. Bronze 4.82 Dia=0.50 Upper end\ en:d pointe2. Bronze (?) 4.00 Dia=0.40 Upper end

end pointed3. Copper/ 2.50 Dia=0.40 Hollow tub

bronze metal attaclower end4. Copper/ 2.30 Dia=0.40 Hollow tub

bronze misdng5. oCopper/ 2.20 Dia=0.30 Solide low

bronze missing6. Copper/ 2.36 Dia=0.35 It has a ve

Bronze lower tubuIV. Household ImplementsUnder this category are included objects which are to-day life, e.g. knife, shovel, needle, pin, fish hook simple h1. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavation (1976), p. 186; Pl. 2. Ibid.

Documents

Upadhyaya-Metal Implements Ancient India