iron tools and weapons from megalithic sites in andhra pradesh and maharashtra

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Iron is the most important metal in the human history; the path of human history took

an innovative turn with the Age of Iron. Use of iron gave a fresh impulse, adding strength to

human attempt in the march towards more successful pursuits over enemy and nature. The

efficiency of the new advanced technology lay in its wide and appropriate use. The socio-

cultural atmosphere that supported, sustained and precipitated the rapidity of growth must

have played productive role in the course of action. Appearance of a new technology, starting

from the identification of the ore to the development of different metallurgical processes, the

production of tools and implements necessary to the society and the changing social needs,

the rising demand on technology to meet new social challenges are all interlinked. This

necessitates multidimensional approach to the study of appearance of iron and its techno-

cultural adaption.1

"Iron" is the corrupted form of Scandinavian word "iarn".2 Many surprising stories

have been there about the origin of iron. Some of them articulate that iron was a gift of the

Gods while others try to depict it as coming from spectacular sources. Iron has been known

and used since prehistoric times. The writings of the earliest civilizations refer to it, and there

is proof that it was known earlier, centuries ago than other civilizations; several Vedic poets

wrote that their prehistoric

1 Tripati, Vibha, The Age of Iron in South Asia Legacy and Tradition, New Delhi, 2001, p. 1.

2www.nautilus.fis.uc.pt/st2.5/scenes-e/elem/e02610.html1

ancestors already knew iron and were able to transform it into tools and weapons through a

considerable range of techniques.

Physiography of the Region

The location of India in a Southern Peninsula of the Asian continent give it a

distinctive character, both physical and cultural. India covers an area of 3,268,090 sq. km. the

mainland extending from South to North approximately 3200 km. west to east for 3000 km.,

all the major landforms-hills, mountains, plateaus and plains are well represented in India.

India has seven principal mountain ranges: the Himalayas, the Patkai and other range in the

north-east, the Vindhyas, the Satpura, the Aravalli, the Sahyadri or Western Ghats and the

Eastern Ghats.

The Himalaya, the highest mountain system of the world contains most of the world’s

“eight-thousander” peaks and they are the world’s youngest and longest east to west

mountain system. It was after a large uplift of Himalayas that the monsoon type of climate

could be established in India. The Aravalli is the oldest mountain range in the world.

Extending from the Kumaun Himalaya to the farthest end of the peninsular plateaus on the

south and perhaps one of its arms reaching eastwards across Central India.3 The battered

products of ancient Aravalli range were eventually deposited in the Vindhyan Sea to form

later the Vindhya Range and plateau. The Vindhya Range traverses nearly the whole width of

Peninsular India; this mountain was long recognized along with the Satpura range as the

dividing line between North India and the Deccan. South of Vindhya and more or less

parallel to it raises another ancient mountain system of India, the Satpura. It extends from

3 The Gazetteer of India, 1965, “Physiography”, pp. 1-63.2

Ratanpur on the west to Amarkantak on the east; no other east west tectonic mountain of

Peninsular India is as high as the Satpura, its apex at Ratanpur, and two of its sides parallel to

the Narmada and Tapti-Purna rivers.

The Sahyadri, runs along the western border of the Deccan from near the Tapti mouth

in the north to Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India, overlooking the Arabian Sea

on the west and running more or less parallel to the coast. It is also called the Western Ghats

as far as the Nilgiri and South of the Palghat gap it is known as the South Sahyadri. The

heights of the Sahyadri catch the full force of the moisture laden monsoon winds;

consequently, heavy rains are precipitated on the western scrap face and coastal plains and

the inland plateaus bordering the Sahyadri on the east are deprived of rain. The peninsular

plateaus are bordered on the east by the Eastern Ghats, a tectonic range cut by powerful river

into discontinuous blocks of mountains. The Eastern Ghats become a prominent mountain

range with summits Godavari and Mahanadi and their strike from north-east to the south west

is in the same direction that of the Aravalli. South of River Krishna occur a more well-

defined part of the Eastern Ghats; this is the Nallamala hills, a series of parallel range and

valleys. North of the Godavari, the Eastern Ghats are locally known as the Mahendragiri.

Much of the surface of India has developed a plateau character with Extensive plains,

either flat or rolling and bordered by scarps. Almost all types of plains are represented, the

alluvial plains are most extensive in North India, covering the greater parts of West Bengal,

Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and also occurring in Assam and Rajasthan. Alluvial plains

stretch in the East Coast from Cape Comorin to the Mahanadi delta, across three other deltas,

built by the Cauvery, Krishna and Godavari.

3

Most of the rivers in the Himalayas have built up plains in high altitude and

subsequently dissected them into terraces. So much water is bound to deepen the beds over

which its flow and widen the channels, effecting considerable destruction of the landscape.

The Great Plains of North India are the creation of the eastern tributaries of the Indus, the

Ganga and its affluent, and the Brahmaputra. The East Coast deltas are the handiwork of

Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery rivers.

Rivers in India are of four major types: Himalayan; rivers of the Central India and the

Deccan; Coastal rivers; and rivers flowing into interior drainage basins. The Himalayan

Rivers are generally snow-fed and continue to flow throughout the year. The rivers of Central

India and the Deccan are generally rain-fed and their volume of water fluctuates considerable

throughout the year. The Ganga basin, the largest, receives waters from an area of about

838,200 sq. km. about a quarter of India’s total area. The second largest is the basin of the

Godavari; it covers an area of about 323,800 sq. km. respectively. The Krishna basin is the

second largest basin in Peninsular India with an area of an about 271,300 sq. km.4

South India experiences, various natural vagaries, first the decomposing and

disintegrating power of the sun’s rays strong winds, that clean the surface and transport huge

volume of the sea-shore; and thirdly, the dissolving and denuding strength of a tropical

rainfall. For the present study, South India may be divided into three tracts or regions. First,

the mountainous region of the Ghats, including the higher tablelands and the great upland

plains of Mysore, Secondly, the lowlands of the Malabar Coast, all that narrow tract of moist

seaboard between the foot of the Western Ghats and the Bay of Bengal.5

4 ibid

5 Valkenburg, Samuel Van, “Agricultural Regions of Asia. Part V- India: Regional Description”, Economic 4

The year in Southern India has three distinct seasons: the south west monsoon, from

May to September; the north east monsoon from October to February; and the hot season

from March till May between the two monsoons. The term monsoon is the Arabic word

Mausim, which properly means season. The south west monsoon is the most striking and

beneficent act of the climate, for it brings the rains that revive all living things when almost

parched to death by the hot season, and that fill the rivers and lakes, which fertilize the land

and temper the ardent rays of the vertical sun. The amount of the rainfall is very uncertain,

and occasionally there is little or none, except on the Ghats. The date of its beginning and

ending are equally uncertain; but the wind of this monsoon is most regular in its onset, force,

and continuance. It blows with the force of a strong breeze for four months from May to

September, all over the Arabian Sea, from the south west. On first striking the coast and

ascending the abrupt barrier wall of the Ghats it loses its excess of moisture, which falls in

torrents of rain on their sides and summits, until it has passed the crest of the heights. It then

continues its eastward course as a cool, moist breeze at first, but gradually gets warmer and

drier, until at last it becomes a fierce hot wind.

I n the Bay of Bengal, the winds of this season become southerly, and afterwards blow

up the valley of the Ganges as a south east or easterly wind, almost diametrically opposite to

its course over Southern India. The wind of the south west monsoon is usually supposed to

be the great continental sea breeze of Southern Asia, induced by the excessive rarefaction of

the air over the interior and most heated portion of the continent; and so, doubtless, it is; but

in the marked deviations from the normal direction, just noted we see an anomaly, the reason

Geography, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1934), Published by Clark University, pp. 14-34.

5

for which is not so obvious. The south west monsoon dies out fitfully in September, and after

a sort interval is succeeded by the north east monsoon, which is supposed to be only the

normal trade wind. It is ushered in by storms and heavy falls of rain, which replenish the

rivers and tanks to the east of the Ghats, and render the cultivation of all the unirrigated

plains possible. The north-east monsoon usually lasts till February, accompanied by some

spells of rainy weather, which rapidly bring to perfection the cold-weather crops, as they are

called. Of cold there is really none, except on the mountains, but the day temperature is very

pleasantly cool, and the nights are quite chilly.6

The peninsular plateaus constitute the largest and distinctive physiographic division,

facing the Bay of Bengal in the east and Arabian Sea in the west. The peninsular plateaus

consist of five distinctive physiographic subdivisions: Western hills, north Deccan plateau,

south Deccan plateau, Eastern plateaus, and Eastern hills. All the important rivers of the

Deccan have their sources on the Sahyadri. Next to the Ganga, the Godavari is the most

sacred river of India. It rises near Trimbak in the Nasik District. The Krishna River rises near

Mahabaleshwar hill station, and receives one of its headwaters, the Ghatprabha noted for its

waterfall, at Gokak. Further south raises the Tungabhadra, the most important tributary of the

Krishna. It is formed by the union of the Tunga and Bhadra, both rises near Gangamula peak,

south west of Sringeri. All these rivers flow eastwards into the Bay of Bengal though their

sources are nearer the Arabian Sea.7

6 Branfill, B. R., “Notes on the Physiography of Southern India”, Proceedings of the Royal Geographical

Society and Monthly Record of Geography, New Monthly Series, Vol. 7, No. 11 (Nov., 1885), , Published by Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers). pp. 719-735.

7 Cunningham, Alexander, The Ancient Geography of India, The Buddhist Period Including The Campaigns

of Alexander and The Travels of Hwen-Thsang, Varanasi, 1963, pp. 435-469.6

It is necessary to review here the general picture of major mineral resources from

various parts of India. Karnataka has gold, Iron, porcelain clays and chrome-ore. Gujarat

produces bauxite, salt and manganese ore and oilfields of considerable potential. Rajasthan is

productive centre for non ferrous metal like copper, lead and zinc, mica, steatite, beryllium,

and precious stones. Assam supplies petroleum and of Tertiary coal, West Bengal’s mineral

resources are confined to coal and iron ore. Kashmir is abundant in minerals like lignite, coal,

gypsum, aluminum ore and some minor industrial minerals. Sikkim and Kumaun consist of

some fairly widespread iron ore bodies in areas, the rest of the Himalayans regions terra

incognita with regard to economic minerals. Maharashtra has resources in coal, iron,

manganese, titanium, bauxite and salts. Andhra Pradesh has good reserves of second grade

coal, limonite, monazite, zircon, rutile and silimanite in workable quantities. 8 The spread of

the iron ore is no less extension in the modern state of Andhra Pradesh. The region which are

important are Cuddapah, Kurnool, Guntur, Nellore the districts of Godavari, Krishna,

Vishakhapatnam and Hyderabad. In Cuddapah the significant ore bearing deposits are at

Chabali, Pagadalapalle, Pendlimarri and Mantapampalle. The best ore is said to be found in

the Gunnygull range near Kurnool.9

Megalithism Definition

The Iron Age in south India is referred to as Megalithic culture. The term ‘Megalith’

denotes a grave of huge stone/s either dressed or undressed. The term Megalithic was

originally introduced by antiquaries to describe a fairly easily definable class of monuments

in western and northern Europe, consisting of huge undressed stones and termed in Celtic

8 Kiepert, Heinrich, A Manual of Ancient Geography, Macmillan and Co., London, 1881, pp. 21-28.

9 Chakrabarti, Dilip, The Early Usage of Iron in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992, pp. 30-31.7

dolmens, Chromlechs and menhirs. 10 The terms now used by the Departments of

Archaeology in India are: Alignment, Avenue, Borrow, Cairn, Cist, Cromlech, Dolmen, Hat-

stone, Hood-stone, Menhir, Rock cut caves, Sarcophagus, Stone circles, Stone seats, Topi-

kal. 11 Quite a different megalithic complex is found in North-east India Assam and Chota

Nagpur where the austro Asiatic languages are spoken. Megalithism here is still a living

characteristic of the Khasis and the Gonds. Menhirs for instance, are still erected by the

Khasi women to ’memorialize’ her husband.12

In practice the term is applied only to monument the use of which is known

imperfectly or not at all, but which we presume were erected for some superstitious, ritual or

religious end. In the case of the monuments once termed dolmens, fairly definite and

coherent traits have been detected and classified: all were sepulchral and contained some sort

of funerary association.

The current terminology of Indian megalithic literature is of no help, for term such as

cromlech, dolmen and cairn are used by various writers’ in entirely different senses. Thus

Taylor (1848) uses the term cromlech for both a dolmen and closed cist, while Rea in 1912

uses it for a stone circle round a burial. The word dolmen again is used in Pudukottai

indiscriminately for underground cists and single urn burials with a capstone. The word cairn

is used in Hyderabad for a Cist grave; Breeks working in the Nilgiris uses it to mean stone

circle of any kind, while elsewhere it means nothing except a promiscuous heap of rubble

10 Sundara, A., The Early Chamber Tombs of South India, Delhi, pp. 5-12.

11 Gururajarao, B. K., The Megalithic Culture in South India, Mysore, 1972, pp. 311- 327.

12 Banerjee, N. R., Iron Age in India, Delhi, 1965, pp. 40-67.8

hiding any kind of grave. Again, working in Hyderabad as late as 1923, hunt merely follows

the past local usage in calling a Cist-burial a cairn.13

Next in importance to an unambiguous terminology for purpose of

classification are regional surveys of the prehistoric tombs and their accurate planning with

consistent conventions. This necessity has been emphasized even in England by Dr. Daniel

as late as 1938 and Dr. Clark in 1939. There were some attempts earlier to standardize the

terminology, and in this work, the definitions given by Rao14 are adopted.

Megalithic Culture in World and India

The megalithic was originally introduced by antiquaries to describe a

fairly easily definable class of monuments in western and northern Europe, consisting of

huge, undressed stone and termed in Celtic dolmens, cromlechs and menhirs. It was

subsequently been extended to cover a far more miscellaneous collection of erections and

even excavations all over the old world and into the new. Megalithic monuments were

constructed for two millennia in Atlantic Europe; they belong to a relatively early phase of

the development of farming economies there. The earliest forms of burial monument are

frequently long mounds of earth and timber, often trapezoidal in shape. Stone then replaces

timber for revetments and internal structures, still often in long mounds; round forms then

become more frequent, and the chambers increase in size.

13 Leshnik, Lawrence S., South Indian Megalithic burials the Pandukal Complex, Franz Stener Verlag GmbH

Wiesbaden, 1974, pp. 1-12.

14 Rao, K.P., Deccan Megaliths, Sundeep Prakashan, Delhi, 1988. 9

The use of extravagantly large stones in their construction suggests a

further element. In a society where labour was the most important commodity, moving large

stones symbolized the size of the workforce which could be assembled at any one time an

epideictic demonstration of demographic strength and co-ordinated effort. The monuments

developed a meaning in their own right, as well as an inherited typological continuity from

their skeuomorphic origins. These constructional changes in early monuments were also

accompanied by an enlargement of their use. Early long mounds often cover individuals;

chambered megalithic tombs received greater numbers of individual remains; and many of

these 'tombs' continued to receive offerings and act as foci for non-monumental burials long

after they themselves ceased to be used for interment.15

That these remarkably parallel developments took place independently in each area is

indicated by the fact that while monumentality in western France began 4600 BC, it only

appeared in Denmark 3800 BC. While the situation in Britain is less clearly established, a

date of 42-4000 BC is a plausible estimate. The process of expansion would thus have

occurred in a clockwise progression, successively but independently, in three separate areas

around the north-west margins of the loess.16

Right across the range at Sialk on the edge if the desert basin of Iran, two tombs in

necropolis comprise undeniable porthole slabs. The side slabs do not support a capstone but

lean together, and the port hole itself has dwindled to a symbolic aperture, in one case only

10 cm. in diameter. But they are concentrated in the south of Peninsula in areas not likely to

15 Andrew, Sherratt, “The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic

North-West Europe”, World Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2, Monuments and the Monumental (Oct., 1990), Published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd.), pp. 147-167.

16 Kinnes, I. Les Fouillages and megalithic origins. Antiquity, 56, pp1982, 24-30.10

be affected by land borne impulses from Iran, but exposed rather to maritime influences. If

their distribution do suggest inspiration from the west, that must surely have come by sea.

Yet the ring of megalithic orthostats that often encircles Indian dolmens does recurring north

western Iran of in Transcaucasia. On the other hand, circles of great stones surround the

dolmens of Palestine and North Africa and many of the megalithic tombs of western and

northern Europe. There, as also in North Africa and probably in Palestine, the stone circle

served as a support to sustain the cairn of stone or earthen tumulus that certainly once

covered all occidental dolmens. Still between the eastern most of the latter and the Indian

peninsula there remains a vast spaces, not wholly covered with water but unspotted on any

dolmen map available.17

The excavated dolmens of the Indian Peninsula have yielded implements of iron or at

least when made vase appropriated to the Iron Age.

The Egyptian mastabas and the rock-cut tombs beneath them, admittedly the plans of

individual Egyptian tombs both under the Old Kingdom and later do agree in a startling way

with those of individual ‘megalithic’ tombs both in Western Europe and in Mycenaean

Greece. Admittedly, too, huge stone slabs but beautifully dressed, were used in building the

funerary chambers of some Earlier Dynastic tombs and for the mastabas and pyramids that

surmounted the burials vaults in the Old Kingdom. But every Egyptian tomb that was

excavated or erected to be the mortuary residence of an individual pharaoh or noble; not even

members of his family were buried therein, but separate tombs constructed for their repose.

17 Child, Gordon,V., “Megaliths” Ancient India No.4 (1947), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, pp.

1011

In different parts of the world, the custom of erecting megaliths on a large scale

among different communities began from the Neolithic times onwards and continued in the

Bronze Age and up to the late Iron Age, so much so that several thousands of megaliths are

found in different parts of Western Europe, the Mediterranean region, Western Asia, India,

Japan and South East Asia. They vary, as it should be in view of the vastness of the regions,

diverse environments and the cultural backgrounds, in structural forms, modes of burials,

cultural characteristics as known from the burial contents and chronology.18

The term “megalithic” not only has chronological and cultural connotations but has

also been used to identify the South Indian Iron Age. Even though iron is associated with

megalithic monuments, the monuments are not chronologically confined to the Iron Age, as

their construction continues into the first centuries AD in the South and is further attested to

ethnographically in various parts of the subcontinent. So although megaliths persist, the

Megalithic period in the archaeological literature has become synonymous with the Iron

Age.19

The South Indian Burial Complex usually referred to as Megalithic comprises a great

variety of grave forms, including stone circles with urn burials, legged pottery sarcophagi,

cist graves, stone alignments, and rock-cut chambers. Although widely dispersed across the

granitic and gneissic plateaus of the south and representative of considerable diversity of

local traditions, they have certain things in common. The abundant grave pottery is

predominantly Black and Red Ware, of a type known from the settlements, and, in addition

to a variety of beads, small gold ornaments, and objects of bronze or copper, iron implements

18 Tripati, Vibha, op. cit. pp.1-7

19 Tripati, Vibha, op. cit. pp. 1-7.12

are universally represented among the grave goods. The latter include flat iron axes, sickles,

spades, chisels, knives, tripods, lamp-pendants, tridents, horse-furniture, daggers and swords,

all of so similar manufacturing techniques as to indicate a closely organized community of

smiths serving the local pastoral population.

Megalithism is a living tradition among some aboriginal tribes in some parts of the

world including India: for instance, in north east India among the Khasis in Assam, the

Mundas in Chorta Nagpur and in Kerala among the Malyarayan. The megalithic tradition

usually associated with the Iron Age in South India. Many of the monuments are found along

the Godavari and Krishna Rivers and their tributaries; there is also a cluster of monuments

known as the Vidarbha megaliths that are located in eastern Maharashtra, set apart

geographically and chronologically from those monuments further south. The megaliths are

funerary monuments or memorials incorporating a variety of large stone constructions. Most

but definitely not all of these monuments contain primary and secondary inhumations and

associated burial furniture, sometimes in great quantity.20 These megalithic monuments are

visible and relatively easily recognizable on the landscape and consequently have been the

focus of more and sustained research than the habitation sites related to the cemeteries. Once

thought to be minimally or even non-existent, habitation sites have now been much more

widely identified.

The complete spatial distribution of the megalithic monuments is not fully known.

Megaliths are found generally in peninsular India. Covering present states of Tamil Nadu,

Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, and southern parts of Maharashtra. The region around

20 Krishnaswamy, “Megalthic Type of South India”, Ancient India, No.5, The Director General Of Archaeology in India, New Delhi, 1949, pp. 41.

13

Nagpur in eastern Maharashtra represents the northernmost fringe of distribution of

megaliths, apart from the ones noticed sporadically in more northerly parts. But the isolated

remains of megaliths in northern India, namely in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and

Kashmir are not without significance; The ritual or process of megalithic internment is

revealing itself increasingly to the probe of the spade and, in this context, the literary

references in the Tamil Sangam literature provide a suitable background and key to the

interpretation. The people whose culture the megaliths represents; are not yet clearly

identified, though, limitedly skeletal evidence and circumstantial indication point to the

Dravidians as the builders of megalithic remains.21

The relative chronology of the Megalithic period at Brahmagiri and Chandravalli in

Karnataka by fitting it in between the Southern Neolithic and Early Historic periods.

Radiometric dates from various sites indicate that the earliest Iron Age levels at these

Megalithic sites date to the beginning of the first millennium BC. The earliest date for iron

in South India is from Gachibowli, going back to 2500 BC. The earliest dates for the

Vidarbha megaliths as a whole fall to the 7th century BC so as a group are slightly later than

that further south. The Iron Age spans the period from approximately 1200 BC to 300 BC,

with the terminal dates assigned on the basis of the emergence of Early Historic cultural

indicators. Evidence from the late Megalithic contexts has pointed to participation in the long

distance exchange networks that characterize the subsequent Early Historic period.22

21 Banerjee, N.R., 1966, “The Megalithic problem of India”, Studies in Prehistory (Ed. D. Sen and A. K. Gosh), Calcutta, p. 163-175.

22 Praveena Gullapalli, “Early Metal in South India: Copper and Iron in Megalithic Contexts” , Journal of World

Prehistory, Volume 22, Number 4, www.springerlink.com, 2009, pp.1-18. 14

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0892-7537/


http://www.springerlink.com/content/0892-7537/22/4/

The earliest period is coterminous with the distribution of the Neolithic cultures of

South India while the next period sees the spread of megalithic monuments into the Vidarbha

region of Maharashtra. It is this period that sees the appearance of horse skeletons and

equipment in the graves. Horses and vehicles are present, along with pottery and metal

artifacts including tools and horse trappings. The horse skeletons in some cases exhibit cut

marks on the bone indicating possible sacrifice and burial along with the human interment.

The final periods of megalith building are associated with innovations in the style of the

graves and the introduction of funerary containers such as urns and sarcophagi.

There are many and very different types of megalithic graves in south India and their

distribution “is far wider than any one culture” and is of secondary importance here. It may

only be pointed out that “certain modes of burials and funerary adjuncts are to some extent

regional, but the megalithic grave with porthole stone cists has a very wide distribution

covering the whole of the area of this culture complex”. More important than the typology of

the graves are the common traits uniting the entire peninsular group of ‘megalithic’ burials.

These typical traits, which have long been recognized, seem to accompany the megaliths

from the very beginning and thus provide most important clues about the character and

identity of their introducers.23 The occurrence of iron objects among the megalithic remains

would be an argument in favour of the Dravidians, who have introduced the megalithism and

iron.

23 Praveena Gullapalli, op. cit. pp. 1-1815

CHAPTER 2

CHRONOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

Antiquity of iron in World and India

The most useful metal known to man is iron; the ores of this metal exist in quantity so

bulky and in distribution so wide as to be available all over the world. The delay, therefore,

in the discovery of a method for extracting iron from its many ores is a significant fact in

human history. According to the available evidence, the first smelting of iron took place

about 1400 B.C., and the cradle of the art was in the Near East, possibly in the Hittite

highlands of Asia Minor.

The Parian chronicle, a slab of marble inscribed in 263 B.C., found on the island of

Paros and now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, gives an approximate date for the first

smelting of iron. On this stone are recorded sundry events in Greek history from 1582 to 354

16

B.C., and among them is a reference to the discovery of iron. From the time when Minos the

elder was King of Crete, and built Apollonia, and iron was discovered in Ida, the discoverers

being the Idaean Dactyls, Kelmios and Damnameneos, in the reign of Pandion of Athens.

This Athenian king reigned from 1462 to 1423 B.C. The Mllount Ida mentioned is in

Phrygia. The destruction of Troy is dated on the marble as the equivalent of 1209 B.C., or

about 230 years later than the discovery of iron.' As it is known that the Trojan War ended

ca. 1184 B.C. if we add 230 years, we get 1414 as the date for the first smelting of iron. Such

a date is in accord with that of the iron furnaces and iron tools discovered in 1927 by Sir

Flinders Petrie at Gerar, in Palestine. He found contemporaneous scarabs and amulets of

Egyptian origin, which enabled him to fix a date about 1350 B.C.24 the origin of iron

presents a more difficult problem. Its ores are found everywhere a fact often invoked to

substantiate claims for this or that region to priority of discovery.25

The heroes of the Trojan War are represented as using weapons of chalkos, which is

usually translated as “bronze," although most of the tools that were used in the making of

these weapons were of iron. Apparently the shaping of iron weapons and the sharpening of

them were ill understood, so that rural implements were made of iron, whereas the warriors

were loath to trust their lives to the dubious metal.

The discovery of iron, that is, of the art whereby its ores could be reduced to metal,

may have followed from the finding of a patch of rich iron oxide in the outcrop of a copper

lode and the inadvertent smelting of such iron oxide, possibly because it had something of

24 Rickard, T. A., “The Primitive Smelting of Iron”, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan-Mar.,

1939), Published by Archaeological Institute of America, pp. 85-101.

25 Ibid.17

the weight and color of tin ore. Specular haematite, a shiny ore, might have provoked a trial

because it was somewhat like galena, the Sulphide of lead, in its lustrous quality. A patch of

gray magnetite, the richest of iron ores, might attract curiosity on account of its heft, but this

probably would not happen until the pioneer metallurgist had ascertained that iron occurred

in nature in manifold guise. It is probable that iron smelting had to wait for the use of

efficient bellows, consequent upon the development of copper-smelting practice, whereby a

sufficient, controllable blast became available.26

Iron in sponge form, such as was smelted by the ancients, is what nowadays we term

"wrought iron," in distinction from "cast iron." The two differ in their carbon content, which

affects not only their qualities as metal but their fusibility also. Wrought iron is devoid of

carbon, and it becomes cast iron when the carbon content reaches two and one-half per cent.

The latter is smelted at a temperature of about 850 C., whereas the other requires a

temperature of about 1150 C. It must be remembered, however, that the wrought iron

produced by direct smelting from ore, as done by the primitive founder, is different from the

wrought iron made today by the puddling process, in which pig iron is decarburized to the

composition of the sponge iron of the ancients.27

Our ancient artificer did not want such iron, and if he made any inadvertently, as

necessarily he must have done occasionally, he rejected it as a metallurgic aberration unfit

for his purpose. It remains a curious fact in the history of metallurgy that the casting of iron

intentionally was postponed so long, for if, when meaning to produce sponge iron, it

happened fortuitously that the heat and the absorption of carbon caused a more fusible metal

26 Rickard, T. A., op. cit. pp. 86-87.

27 Rickard, T. A., op. cit. p. 87.18

to be produced and to flow out of the furnace on the floor or ground, and to reproduce its

contours or inequalities, as in a mould, it would seem that the idea of casting iron would have

come to an intelligent observer.28

Economic necessity may have forced the event, in a primitive world where

competition was the law of physical survival the momentum of industry was usually in

proportion to the amount of pressure exerted immediately beyond the ethnic frontier. Iron in

the Asian-Egyptian texts corresponds so nearly in time with invasion from Europe; that the

clearest and best is a part of, or concerned with, the Hittite record. This is precisely what

might be expected to follow a European origin. Naturally the Hittite kingdom, dominating

Asia Minor, would in that case be first of the eastern empires to acquire the knowledge. And

though absolute proof of a west to east trend is now lacking for iron.29 The use of iron was

forced upon Asia by conquering races.

The first Keltic movement took place has not yet been deter-mined, but early in the

seventh century these warriors appear in the upper Rhine valley. Possibly the late Hallstatt

culture can be traced to their influence; in any event, it was this mobile and conquering race

that, in the years between 500 and 100 B.C., spread a knowledge of iron over northern and

western Europe. The growth and extent of this Keltic iron-working is revealed by the

numerous exposed sites scattered throughout central Europe. At Gyular in Translyvania the

remains of a furnace have been found.30 Two of the earliest and best known sites lie within

28Ibid..

29 John Garstang, The Hittite Empire, pp. 38-39.

30 James M. Swank, The Manufacture of Iron in All Ages, p. 76.19

easy reach of Hallstatt-the one in Carinthia on the upper waters of the Drave, the other in

Styria on the Mur.31

The Greeks of the epics, while acquainted with iron, are seemingly without

knowledge of mining or production methods. There is no hint of such knowledge, at least,

among the forty-eight references in the Iliad and Odyssey. And curiously enough the arrow

of Pandarus32 and the mace of Areithous33 are the only weapons of iron in the Homeric

legend. It is quite clear, in fact, that the Greeks of Homer regarded iron as a semi-precious

metal34 to be used sparingly for implements; occasionally, perhaps, as utensil-currency.35 The

working of iron was a part of domestic industry on the larger estates. In such cases the metal

was always furnished by the proprietor from his "treasury." The equipment and tools of the

forge-master were of the simplest kind - anvil, tongs, hammer and hand-bellows. The fuel

was usually charcoal. Unquestionably, through long experience and that further hardening

was possible by a water quench. But the subsequent refining and toughening by reheating

was beyond the early Greek iron-workers, as they lacked the proper facilities to determine, or

control, temperature.36

31 Sir William Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, 1901.

32 Richardson, Harry Craig, “Iron, Prehistoric and Ancient”, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 4

(Oct. - Dec., 1934), Published by Archaeological Institute of America, P. 569.

33 Ibid

34 Ibid

35 Ibid

36 Richardson, Harry Craig, op. cit. p. 569.20

China and India were too far removed from the stream of developing western

civilization to have contributed to, or been influenced by, the early working of iron. No piece

of metal found in China can be dated prior to 1200 B.C.; and the earliest recorded use of iron

goes back only to the eighth century. India, whose civilization is apparently later than that of

China, seems to have passed directly from the use of copper to that of iron with no

intermediate bronze culture. Earlier, there were claims of very late beginning for iron in

India. Some have even given dates like 326 B.C. for beginning of iron in India. 37 But, the

recent evidence from sites like Hallur and Komaranhalli have pushed back this date to the

first half of the second millennium B.C.

The archaeological discoveries and the literary evidence seem to be mutually

corroborative, and 1000 B.C. may be suggested as the provisional date for the introduction of

iron smelting into India. The switch over from the old metals to the new must have taken

some length of time. But Sir Mortimer Wheeler's suggestion that iron came into India with

the Achaemenids towards the end of the 6th century B.C. cannot be accepted. The

archaeologist in India had viewed the evidence of the Vedic literature with cold skepticism,

until at last his spade stumbled on finds that lent a character of reality to the literary

testimony. 'Small fragments and shapeless bits' of iron occur at Kausambi, along with the

first defences, before the arrival of the Painted Grey and the Northern Black Polished Wares

in the Central Ganga valley. The corrosive nature of the metal may account for the scarcity

of iron objects in proper shape in Period I; also perhaps the fact that the earliest smiths must

have found it easier to deal with damaged or outmoded articles than to smelt the metal from

fresh ore. Smiths were always collecting scrap and melting it down in their furnaces. Objects

37Ibid, p. 558.21

of distinctive shapes were found in Period II, and indeed throughout the Cultural Period II at

Kausambi. They increased a great deal in number with the beginning of the Cultural Period

III, characterized by the Northern Black Painted Ware at Hastinapura, iron slag and ore were

found in the uppermost layers in association with the Painted Grey Ware. This Painted Grey

Ware occupation began at the site early in the II century B.C., and ended owing to floods in

the beginning of the 8th century B.C. and the excavations at Alamgirpur similarly confirmed

the association of iron with the Painted Grey Ware; iron objects together with those of copper

were found throughout the Period II. The transition from chalcolithic to iron and in the Iron

Age itself bringing tillage and its tools should have resulted in prosperity which the

megalithic tribes themselves eloquently proclaim in their burials as the product of

considerable community growth and corporate labour potential.38 Ayas in the Rgveda usually

means copper or bronze, it may not invariably do so, especially in the later books. There can

be no mistaking the meaning of Syama ayas or 'black metal' in the Atharva Veda; it cannot

but be iron. Another AV. passage has: "Cut along this skin with a dark, joint by joint with the

knife". The Vajasaneyi Samhita mentions the metals hiranya, ayas, Syama, loha sisa and

trapu. While Syama and loha must mean iron and copper respectively, it is suggested that

ayas may here signify bronze. Ayas is divided into two species, Sydma and lohita in the later

Samhitas and texts; the first must mean iron, and the second copper or bronze. The Satapatha

Brahmana draws a distinction between ayas and lohayasa, between iron and copper

according to Eggeling, who seems to be right. Ayas alone thus signifies iron in a number of

places. The sense of iron in Atharv Veda is certain according to Macdonell and Keith.39

38 Singh, S. D., “Iron in Ancient India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 5, No. 2

(1962), pp. 212-216.

39 Ibid.22

There are numerous references to the smelting of metal in the Vedic literature; the word

dhmd seems to have been derived from the sound of the bellows. The Maitri Upanisad

mentions a lump of iron "overcome by fire and beaten by workmen", passing into a different

form. The Chandogya Upanisads speaks of Karsdayas and also Krishna-ayasa, which

certainly mean iron. And so also the Aitareya Aranyaka and the Maitrayaya Brdhmana

Upanisad refer to iron.40

There was no iron with the invaders of India between 1800-1400 BC. The Hittites

kept the secret of the process (of smelting and forging iron) which would make iron a serious

competitor with bronze. Not till 1200 BC get iron-working starting to spread all over western

Asia, the Caucasus and eastern and central Europe. By 1100 BC iron was superseding bronze

on the Iranian plateau. By 800 BC there was a full Iron Age through-out Eastern Europe and

western Asia. Copper and bronze were no longer economic propositions and gave way to

iron, articles of which were produced far more cheaply and in considerable quantity, making

the possession of metal tools possible for those who had to contend themselves with stone.

The writer, a competent archaeologist, implied that India remained inexplicably backward by

not adopting the new metal.41

Excavations at the Garh Kalika mound on the outskirts of Ujjain revealed that iron

was known to its ancient dwellers from the earliest period. Iron weapons, such as spears,

arrow-heads and knives, have been unearthed from the strata of Period I, assigned to C. 700-

500 B.C. And a few interesting objects of iron, including the curved blade of a spade, were

dug up from the rampart. A flourishing iron industry is evidenced by the large quantities of

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid23

iron ore and slag and finished iron objects found in the deposits of Period II. Iron ore was

available to the people in the form of limonite from the local trap bed-rock; and calcite was

used as a flux. A blacksmith's furnace was excavated; it belonged to the second phase of the

site's life.42

The use of iron had spread very widely at a comparatively early date, as we learn

from the excavations at places such as Bahal in District Khandesh of the South Western

Circle, and Prabhas Patan in District Sorath, Bombay. The layers of period II at Bahal

yielded iron and black and red ware, assigned to C. 600-300 B.C. At Prabhas Patan, iron was

found together with black and red ware in the context of Period III, the second sub-phase of

which yielded the N. B. P. Ware.43

For the iron-ore, however, we have one ancient record well worth consideration, the

Pali Suttanipata. The word Phala for plough-share occurs in both the prose and the metrical

portions of the discourse. The simile runs: 'like a Phala heated for a whole day and plunged

suddenly into water'. Bronze treated like this would become brittle and useless, apart from

being much too costly for ploughshares. Iron reduced from ores by any primitive method

comes out as a spongy mass which has to be heated and forged repeatedly as well as

hardened by sudden chilling before it is of any use for tools.44

There was another discovery of iron in India that is interesting. An examination was

made of the Stone Column of Heliodorus at Besnagar, which dates back to about the middle 42 Ibid. pp. 212-216.

43 Ibid

44 Kosambi, D.D., “The Beginning of the Iron Age in India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the

Orient, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Dec., 1963), pp. 309-318.24

of the second century, B. C. In excavating at the base of the column it was found to rest on

stone slabs in which iron chisels or wedges had been driven by the masons who erected it to

make the shaft stand in a perpendicular position. These pieces of metal were examined and

analyzed by Sir Robert Hadfield who stated they proved to be steel.45

The distribution of iron ore in various geographic areas of India as a backdrop to her

pre industrial smelting through the ages, it is necessary to emphasize a basic point at the

outset. The point that a survey of the distribution of Indian ores on the basis of the Geological

survey of India reports however exhaustive it may be may not be wholly representative of the

sources open to a pre industrial Iron smelter. The distribution begins right from the North

West and northern limits of the subcontinent. In Sind the most important source is the

passage bed between the Kirthar and Ranikot groups, northwest of Kotri, especially near

Laniyan and east of Bandh Vera. In the Panjab foothills there is an abundant used by the

local pre-industrial iron smelters. The ore types are basically in the state of Rajasthan. There

are noteworthy deposits in Alwar, Jaipur, Udaipur and Ajmir and there are reporteds of

ancient working also from Bharatpur, Bundi, Jodhpur and Kota. The whole of central India is

iron country par excellence. In the former Madhya Pradesh iron occur in the geological

formations of laterite, the Vindyan system the Gwalior series and Bijawar series. Southwards

in Mysore iron ores are fairly extensive and geologically belong mainly to the sedimentary

group. In the north of Kerala iron ore are abundant and comprises mostly magnetite and

laterite. The spread of the iron ore is no less extensive in the modern state of Andhra Pradesh

the region which are important are Cuddapah, Kurnool, Guntur, Bellary, Nellore, the districts

of west Godavary and Krishna, Vizagapatam and Hyderabad. In Cuddapah the significant ore

45 Ibid25

bearing the deposits are at Chabali. Pagadalapalle, Pendlimarri and Mantapampalle. The

basic ore type seems to be haematite derived from the ferruginous quartzite formation locally

enriched to iron. The best ore is said to be found in the Gunnygull range near Kurnool town,

which contains veins of pure specular ore. To the east, in Orissa there is enough lateritic

capping outside the Mahanandi-Baitarani delta, and for the early smelters of Orissa these

deposits alone could have been an ample source of Iron. Iron is apparent from the all over

Indian sub continent that except for alluvial tracts of the Indo-Ganga doab, iron ore has been

reported from all the regions and pre-industrial smelting has also been found in several areas

attesting to the awareness of the quality of iron.46

The iron working of traditional societies appears to be very simple and elementary in

nature. But attempts of laboratory simulation prove that it requires experience and expertise

of a high order which have been perfected over a period through generations of trial and

error. Even the slightest miscalculation caused by diversion leads to vigil. Each such group

seems to have evolved its own working style and methodology, as proximity work in their

own individualistic style even selecting different types of ores. In Sarguja district of Madhya

Pradesh there is a group of smelters known as Mahuli Argarias if Parsa group who use

magnetic river sand for iron smelting which is available in Local River, as stated above. They

produce white iron, Locally known as Charka loha. This has not been analyzed so far, but the

description of the product suggests that it must have been steely iron of high quality which is

in demand today for manufacture of weapons, locally.47

46 Chakrabarti, Dilip, “Distribution of Iron Ore and the Archeological Evidences of Early Iron in India”,

JESHO Vol. 20.No. 2, 1977. pp. 166-184.

47 Balasubramaniam, R., “On the Steeling of Iron and the Second Urbanization of Indian Subcontinent”, Man

and Environment, XXXII(1) (2006), Indian Society for Prehistory and Quaternary studies, 2007,pp. 102-107.26

The concept of iron technology diffusing into India from external sources is almost

invalid in light of recent research findings early ideas about the Aryan migration theory and

the introduction of iron technology into India from the west have now been proved to be

incorrect. For example Pleiner (1971) proposed that the so called Aryans had no iron

production until the second half of the first millennium B.C. and that there was no iron export

to the west from the area of Aryans, Whom he assumes to be the Sanskrit speaking people.

However there are firm dates for the advent of iron in the Indian subcontinent before this

period. the independent origin of iron in the Indian subcontinent has been convincingly

argued by Chakrabarti(1992) and Tripathi(2001) Agrawal and Kharakwal(2002) have

compiled all radio carbon dates of excavated iron manufacturing sites in the Indian

subcontinent.48

Iron metallurgy was understood subsequently, the phenomenal acceleration of the

activity of both craft and farming resulted and the economy spinning into prosperity and

urbanization.

CHAPTER 3

IRON OBJECTS FROM MEGALITHIC SITES

48 Brinton Phillips, George, “The Claims of India for the Early Production of Iron”, American Anthropologist,

New Series, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1924), pp. 350-357.27

The use of iron in India had spread very widely at a comparatively early date, the

archaeological discoveries and the literary evidence seem to suggest around 1500 B.C. as the

provisional date for the introduction of iron smelting into India. From the South India, Iron

tools and weapons in quantities found from habitation and grave goods. Megalithic sites

contain large number of grave good and they can be divided into various categories as

discussed below.

Professional Tools

Adzes

Some of the iron objects found from various Megalithic sites of Maharashtra and

Andhra Pradesh like Mahurjhari,49 Naikund,50 Khapa,51 Takalghat and Ganganagar,52

Boregaon,53 Bhagimohari,54 Raipur,55 Yelleshwaram,56 have yielded adzes. The principal use

of the adzes is in dressing and squaring large timbers or hand tool for shaping wood and

serves for smoothing rough cut wood in hard wood working. Mainly adzes found from

megalithic site at Mahurjhari, some of the cobbler adzes for cutting skin etc. were in large

numbers and adzes were found to have been made of thin sheets of iron. They have a broad

49 Deo, S.B., 1973, Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur, pp. 8-13, 43, 51.

50 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, p.34.

51 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 48-49.

52 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 45, 48-49.

53 IAR, 1980-81, p.40

54 IAR, 1983-84, p. 57.

55 IAR, 1984-85, p. 54.

56 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, p. 48.

28

convex cutting end the other end is less broad and straight, and these are double concave in

shape.

Chisels

Chisels are carpentry tool and they are used in dressing, shaping, or working in

timber, usually driven by a mallet or hammer. The blade of a bevel edged chisels narrows at

the top to connect to the handle, which is typically made of hard wood. The chisel is held in

the hand and struck with a wooden mallet. Chisels are found in large numbers from the

various sites of habitational as well as graves in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Megalithic

sites from Maharashtra like Karad,57 Mahurjari,58 Bhagimohari,59 Naikund,60 Junapani,61

Kaundinyapura,62 Boregaon,63 Pauni,64 Bokardan,65 Gangapur,66 Khapa,67 have yielded chises

in good number. And in Andhra Pradesh Yeleswaram,68 Peddamarru,69 and Ramapuram70

57 Mandala, 1949, Exploration at Karad, Poona, pp. 20-31.

58 Deo, S.B., 1973, Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur, pp. 7, 9-13, 45-46.

59 IAR, 1983-84, p.57.

60 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, pp. 33-34.

61 IAR, 1961-62, p. 34.

62 Dikshit, Moreshwar G., 1968, Excavation at Kaundinyapur, Bombay, p.119.

63 IAR, 1980-81, p. 40.

64 Nath, Amarendra, 1998, Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, New Delhi, pp. 57-61.

65 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Bogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 175.

66 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 47.67 Ibid


69 IAR, 1977-78, p. 13.

70 IAR, 1982-83, p. 6.29

megalithic sites also yielded chisels. These chisels are usually with flat and straight body,

some specimens recovered were probably intended for inserting a small stick or a holder into

it in which the circular edge was riveted. Iron chisels are characterized by heavy circular

stem and a pointed end below it, they resolve themselves into two types and they are those

with a broad cutting edge and those with a pointed tip. Variety of chisels with a ring fastener

at the top to ensure grip to wooden handle, chisel with a rectangular cross section, chisel with

semi circular cutting edge near the ankle portion were also found.

Axes

Axe is an implement consisting of a heavy metal wedge-shaped head with one or two

cutting edges and a relatively long wooden handle; used for chopping wood and felling trees.

Axes are recovered from many places from Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra and different

varieties especially from Mahurjhari,71 Naikund,72 Junapani,73 Bhagimohari,74 Khapa,75

Gangapur,76 Takalghat,77 Junapani,78 Mansar,79 Boregaon,80 Khairwada,81 and Raipur82in

71 Deo, S.B., 1973, Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur, pp. 6-7, 9-10.


73 IAR, 1961-62, p.34.

74 IAR, 1983-84, p.57.

75 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 48.

76 Ibid77 Ibid

78 IAR, 1961-62, p. 34.

79 IAR, 1994-95, p. 57.

80 IAR, 1980-81, p. 40.

81 IAR, 1981-82, p. 51.82 IAR, 1984-85, p. 54.

30

Maharashtra and from Andhra Pradesh Pochampadu,83 Hashmatpet,84 Yelleshwaram,85 and

Veerapuram86 have yielded axes. Axes with cross fasteners and elongated body with thin

rectangular section, convex butt end and straight and broad working end are reported mostly

from Vidarbha megaliths. Cross-strapped hatchets were obtained from Pochampad.87

Door Hinges

A movable joint used to attach, support, and turn a door about a pivot; consists of two

plates joined together by a pin which support the door and connect it to its frame, enabling it

to swing open or closed. At Dhulikatta88 Andhra Pradesh such hinges were reported.

Drilling and Cutting Implements

Drilling and cutting implements are found from Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, at

Nasik 89 a heavily rusted drill with probably a round body and with a sharp tapering point is

reported. At Khapa,90 from one of the largest cairn measuring about twenty three yards in

diameter grave, drilling implements were obtained. They were used both for carpentry and

83 IAR, 1964- 65, P. 1.

84 Nigam, M. L., 1971, Report of the Excavation of Two Megalithic Burials at Hashmatpet, Hyderabad (A.P), p. 7.


86 Sastri, T.V.G., 1981, “Veerapuram Excavation, A Type Site for Cultural Study in the Krishna Valley”, Exploration and Excavation Series 1, Birla Archaeological and Cultural Research Institute, Hyderabad, p. 148.

87 IAR, 1963-64, P. 1.

88 IAR, 1975-76, p. 2.

89 Sankalia, H.D. Deo, S. B. 1955, The Excavation at Nasiki and Jorwe, Poona, pp. 109 and 114.

90 IAR, 1967-68, p. 34. 31

household purposes, so as to insert small wooden pieces into the bored holes and thus obtain

tight grip over the joints instead of iron nails. Such drill-bits have also been reported from

Khapa in Maharashtra.

Handles

The appendage to object that is designed to be held in order to use or move it.

Probably used to fastener the actual tool for easily hold. From Ramapuram91 a broken

fragment of the cylindrical handle was found. It has a perforated handle and an arch like

cutting edge. At Peddamarur,92 only one specimen of a small sword, having a copper cup like

ferrule at the handle portion with a central long handle of iron, was found.

Hooks

A curved or sharply bent device, usually of metal, used to catch, drag, suspend, or

fasten something else. A wooden lever with a movable iron hook and a blunt, often toothed

tip near the lower end, used chiefly for grasping and canting, or turning over logs. To seize,

fasten, suspend from, pierce, or catch hold of and draw with or as if with a hook. Naikund

Megalithic habitational93 as well as burial site, Khapa,94 Takalghat,95 Bhokardan,96 Paunar97

91 IAR, 1981-82, p. 6.

92 IAR, 1977-78, p. 13.

93 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, pp. 33 and 35.

94 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 13 and 49.

95 Ibid

96 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, pp. 173 and 179.

97 Deo, S.B. and Dhavalikar, M. K., 1967, Paunar Excavation, Nagpur, p. 96.32

and in Andhra Pradesh from habitaitonal site and as well as burials like Veerapuram98 and

Yelleshwaram99 hooks were found.

Nails

Nails may have been used in carpentery and were made of copper or bronze apart

from iron. Early nails were shaped, or forged, with hammers. In Maharashtra and Andhra

Pradesh there are many megalithic sites which shows usage of nails. In Maharashtra

megalithic sites like Karad,100 Khapa,101 Gangapur102 Naikund,103 Boregaon,104 Brahmapuri,105

Bhagimohari,106 and Pauni107 and in Andhra Pradesh from Veerapuram,108 Satanikota,109


99 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p.49.

100 Mandala, 1949, Exploration at Karad, Poona.


102 Ibid.

103 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, pp. 35.

104 IAR 1980-81, p. 40

105 Sankalia, H.D. Dikshit, M.G , 1952, Excavation At Bramhapuri(Kolhapur), Poona, p. 124.

106 IAR, 1983-84, p. 57.

107 Nath, Amarendra, 1998, Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, New Delhi, p. 59.

108 Sastri, T.V.G., 1981, “Veerapuram Excavation, A Type Site for Cultural Study in the Krishna Valley”, Exploration and Excavation Series 1, Birla Archaeological and Cultural Research Institute, Hyderabad, pp. 147-148.

109 Gosh, N. C., 1986, Excavation at Satanikota, New Delhi, p. 74.33

Chagatur,110 Polechetti Cherugudda in Yelleshwaram,111 Nagarjunakonda,112 Dhulikatta,113

Kesarapalle,114 and Peddamarur115 iron nails were reported. They were usually long points,

square in section at the top and pointed at the bottom end. Use of drills shows the high

standard of technical skill attained by the folk. They were used for agricultural and household

purposes, so as to insert small wooden pieces into the bored holes and thus obtain tight grip

over the joints instead of iron nails. Fixing iron joints to a wooden post or marking a wooden

joints by placing one wood against another by way of drilling and nailing, must have also

been practiced as against directly driving the nail into the wooden posts, to avoid splitting of

the wooden. Even today, drill bit form an important tool in the carpenter’s kit.

Agricultural Tools

Crowbars

A crowbar is a metal tool which is designed to be used as a digging tool or as a lever.

The basic design of a crowbar is very simple, and humans have probably been using versions

of this tool for centuries. From south Indian megalithic sites, thick round bars with one

pointed end, probably used as crowbars, are among the important agricultural equipment

found. One thick crowbar is reported from Ramapuram in Kurnool district.

110 IAR 1977-78, p.11.

111 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, pp. 49-53.

112 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.

113 IAR, 1975-76, p. 2.

114 Sarkar, H., 1966, “Kesarapalle”, AI No. 2, p. 74.

115 IAR 1977-78, p. 12.34

Hoes

A tool with a flat blade attached approximately at a right angle to a long handle, used

for weeding and other agricultural operations. A hoe can be made up of many types of

blades, with a variety of uses, probably the most common of which is the removal of weeds

and unwanted crops. Hoes reported from various sites of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra

from Kaundinyapura,116 Adam,117 Naikund,118 Khairawada,119 Bhagimohari,120 and Janampet121

Peddamarrur.122 Along with the spade and fork, the hoe is considered a basic, essential hand-

farming implement. It is prepared by folding over two ends of the iron strip which forms the

sockets for the handle. The lower portion of the implement is flat and rectangular in shape.

Similar hoes are reported from different sites. These have a round splayed base and the

holders are of folded straps. The habitational deposits yielded iron objects like hoes with iron

ring fastener, hoes with sides turned in to form a socket and other iron objects.

Ploughing Implements and Plough Shares

In the Iron Age itself the tillage and its tools get variegated and should have resulted

in great farm prosperity which the megalithic tribes themselves eloquently proclaim in their

burials and graffiti marks on pottery as the product of considerable community growth. The

ploughshare provides evidence for field cultivation. The size and form of the shares imply 116 Dikshit, Moreshwar G., 1968, Excavation at Kaundinyapur, Bombay, p. 120.

117 IAR, 1991-92, p. 68.


119 IAR, 1981-82, p. 52.

120 IAR, 1983-84, p. 57.

121 Ahmad, Khwaja Muhammad, Preliminary excavation at Prehistoric sites near Janampet, pp.1-4.

122 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.35

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Weed

the use of light plough which only scratched the surface of the soil. In Maharashtra and

Andhra Pradesh plough shares and plough implements are recovered from various megalithic

sites such as Adam,123 Mahurjhari, Takalghat, Khapa, Yelleshwaram124 Janampet and

Polechetti Cherugudda, Hashmatpet, Pochampad, etc.

Sickles

A sickle is a curved, hand-held agricultural tool typically used for harvesting cereal

crops or cutting grass. The inside of the curve is the cutting edge, and is serrated. From

Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra sickles were found from various sites like Boregaon,125

Adam,126 Hashmatpet,127 Pochampad,128 Yelleshwaram,129 Edithanur,130 Peddabankur,131

Chagatur,132 and Peddamarrur.133

Domestic Objects

123 IAR, 1989-90, p. 64.

124 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.

125 IAR, 1980-81, p. 40.

126 IAR, 1991-92, p. 68.

127 Nigam, M. L., 1971, Report of the Excavation of Two Megalithic Burials at Hashmatpet, Hyderabad (A.P), p. 7.

128 IAR, 1964-65, p. 1.


130 IAR, 1987-88, p. 6.

131 IAR, 1968-69, p. 2.

132 IAR, 1977-78, p. 11.

133 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.36

Knives

Kives are used for cutting and slicing tasks, some of the knives are multipurpose

usage. From Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, Knives are found in a number of sites like

Khapa and Takalghat,134 Nasik and Jorwe,135 Brahmapuri,136 Naikund,137 Pauni,138 Janampet,139

Peddamarur,140 Yellaeshwaram,141 Veerapuram142 Kaundinyapura,143 Adam.144

Iron Dishes

An open, generally shallow concave container for holding, cooking or serving food. At

Bhokardan,145 shallow dish with hallow boss in the centre was found . The domestic iron

artefacts found in the habitation site at Peddamarur146 includes dishes. At Naikund147 shallow


135 Sankalia, H.D. Deo, S. B. 1955, The Excavation at Nasiki and Jorwe, Poona, p. 113.

136 Sankalia, H.D. Dikshit, M.G, 1952, Excavation At Bramhapuri(Kolhapur), Poona, p. 124.

137 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, pp. 33 and 35.

138 Nath, Amarendra, 1998, Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, New Delhi, pp. 57and 59.

139 Ahmad, Khwaja Muhammad, Preliminary excavation at Prehistoric sites near Janampet, p.3.

140 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.

141 MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 51.


143 Dikshit, Moreshwar G., 1968, Excavation at Kaundinyapur, Bombay, p. 119.

144 IAR, 1988-89, p. 59.

145 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 174.

146 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.

147 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, 33-38.37

dishes of iron were found also at Veerapuram148. The artifacts usually composed of a dish

with flat base and with raised straight side. At iron was utilized mostly for house hold

purpose, they used for making of dishes, nail and etc.

Iron Frying Pans

A shallow thick bottom pan used for shallow frying. Probably a frying pan or skillet

is a pan used for frying, searing and browning foods. Their short height render it possible that

they were intended as frying pans. Kaundinyapura149 and Khapa,150 frying pans along with

fragments of human bones were found. At Yelleshwaram, piece of an Iron pan with a

flattened projection at the one end was recovered.151

Iron Lamps

Basic lighting in ancient times was provided by fires; the lamp was by far the most

sophisticated means of lighting and had become ubiquitous in most of the world. The rim

becomes wider and flatter with a deeper and higher spout. The tip of the spout is more

upright in contrast to the rest of the rim. In Maharashtra Nasik,152 Junapani,153 Naikund,154

148 Sastri, T.V.G., 1981, “Veerapuram Excavation, A Type Site for Cultural Study in the Krishna Valley”, Exploration and Excavation Series 1, Birla Archaeological and Cultural Research Institute, Hyderabad, pp. 147-158.

149 Dikshit, Moreshwar G., 1968, Excavation at Kaundinyapur, Bombay, pp. 115-120.

150 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur. pp. 45-50.


152 Sankalia, H.D. Deo, S. B. 1955, The Excavation at Nasiki and Jorwe, Poona, pp. 109-117.

153 IA R, 1984-85, p. 54.

154 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, 1982. 38

and in Andhra Pradesh Yelleshwaram,155 and Janampet156 have yielded iron lamps.

Habitational deposits and burials were rich in iron artefacts at Naikund, Khapa, Takalghat

and Ganganagar,157 the artefacts were composed of a wide range of ladles or lamps and other

iron objects. At Maula ali, was found very extensive field of cairn circles and dolmenoid cists

occurring in groups. From these cists iron lamps supported on three bar and iron lamp with

legs were found. At the village Upperu, an iron wick lamp with shallow base was found.

Hanging saucer lamps and iron pendants or hangers used for hanging cup shaped iron saucer

lamps were found at Janampet and Guntakal in Andhra Pradesh.

Iron Needles and Pins

Basic implement used in sewing or embroidering and, in variant forms, for knitting

and crocheting. The sewing needle is small, slender, rod like, with a sharply pointed end to

facilitate passing through fabric and with the opposite end slotted to carry a thread. From

Yelleshwaram, 158 and Veerapuram,159 long needles were found. In Maharashtra, at

Bhagimahari,160 the iron needles were found.

Ladle


156 Ahmad, Khwaja Muhammad, Preliminary excavation at Prehistoric sites near Janampet, pp.1-4.




160 IAR, 1992-93, p. 68.39

A long-handled, cuplike spoon or deep bowl for serving or transferring liquids.

Ladles were probably used in special rituals for dispensing sacred liquids such as water or

oil. In Maharashtra from the Mahurjhari,161 Naikund,162 Nasik and Jorwe,163 Takalghat,164 and

Khapa,165 Gangapur,166 Bhokardan,167 and in Andhra Pradesh from

Yelleshwaram,168Habitational deposits and burials found rich artifacts including ladles or

lamps. The seventeen specimens from Takalghat, Khapa and Gangapur, these are equipped

with a circular shallow bowl with a straight vertical handle whose end is sometimes turned

for hold. It may be stated that none of the bowls have any channel and pinched border for the

wick. This tends to designate them more as ladles than lamps. Such ladles are even now in

use for taking out oil or ghee. At Bhagimohari, iron objects like ladles with straight handles

and other artifacts found around the forearm bones of skeleton.169 At Junapani, a cup with

horizontal handle, serving as ladle for the transfer of hot liquids and a cup with vertical

handle serving as a kind of lamp which was suspended from a wall were found. From

Yelleshwaram, a cup like thing with the traces of an attachment, probably ladle and another

ladle with a handle were recovered.

161 Deo, S.B., 1973, Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur, pp. 8-12 and 50.

162 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, p. 33.

163 Sankalia, H.D. Deo, S. B. 1955, The Excavation at Nasiki and Jorwe, Poona, P. 114.

164 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 45.

165 Ibid

166 Ibid



169 IAR, 1992-93, p. 67.40

Bangles and Bracelets

A rigid, ring-shaped bracelet usually made without a clasp so as to slip over the hand,

but sometimes having a hinged opening and a clasp. Bangles are bracelets shaped as a single

loop of a rigid material At Bhagimohair, the bangle pieces were recovered from habiational

deposits and also in habitational site.170 At Takalghat and Kapha, three circular bangle of iron

were found. A uniformity of cultural life over the extensive peninsular expanse of South

India. Resolve themselves in tow groups those with circular cross section and that with a thin

rectangular one, a complete section bangle of iron circular on plan and in section. Complete

bangle with a thin rectangular section.171 At Paunar, a complete iron bangle, circular in

section was found.172

Fishplates

A wood or metal piece used to fasten together the ends of two members with nails or

bolts. A fishplate is a metal or wooden plate that is bolted to the sides at the ends of two rails

or beams, to join them. From Excavation, done at Mansar in district Nagpur, the fish plates

were reported.173

Cauldron

A cauldron or caldron is a large metal pot for cooking or boiling over in open fire,

with a large mouth, and frequently with an arc-shaped hanger. Cauldrons have largely fallen

170 IAR, 1992-93, p. 67.

171 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 45 and 49.

172 Deo, S.B. and Dhavalikar, M. K., 1967, Paunar Excavation, Nagpur, p. 96.

173 IAR, 1994-95, p. 57.41

out of use in the industrialized world as cooking vessels. From Takalghat and Kapha,

Gangapur cauldrons were reported.174

Bowls

Dishes that are round and open at the top for serving foods; a round vessel that is

open at the top. Neck less iron vessel, which can be defined as having a height more than

one-third of, but not greater than, its diameter. The bowl, a common open-top container in

many cultures, is used to serve food, and is sometimes also used for drinking and storing

other items. From Bhokardan, two fragmentary bowls were recovered. Extant fragments

belong to the rim portion and do not help in knowing the size of the bowls.175

Weapons

Sword

From the stone circles of Khapa and Takalghat an iron sword was found. A single

specimen which could be identified as sword with long and wide blade with a tang was found

here.176 At Kaundinyapura,177 a portion of the balde of sword lenticular in section was found.

At Yelleshwaram the main weapons employed in the war and chase found are swords.178

Sword was also reported from Naikund179 where a copper rod with iron rivets was found.174 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 45-50.





179 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, p. 33.42

http://www.answers.com/topic/one-third-1

Bill-Hooks

A bill-hook is an agricultural implement consisting of a thick, heavy knife with a

hooked end, useful for chopping off small branches of trees or cutting apart entangled vines

or roots. An implement with a curved blade attached to a handle, used especially for clearing

bush and for rough pruning. In India from Junapani a bill-hook with looped end tang, curved

blade with a small sword, having a copper ferrule at the handle portion with a central long

handle of iron was found.

Arrow Heads

Arrow-heads were recovered from Pauni,180 Boregaon181 Adam,182 Takalghat,

Gangapur and Khapa183 and Bramhapuri184 The Vidarbha sites have thus far only produced

leaf shaped arrow heads with lenticular sections. A leaf shaped iron arrow head provided

with a tang was found also from the Bhagimohari habitational deposit.185 Mahurjari yielded

iron arrow heads and a fragmentary arrowhead, heavily encrusted with sides tapering to a

point, beveled shoulder and tapering tang.186 From Paunar187 tanged and socketted arrowheads

were found. From the site Bhokardan,188 Leaf-Shaped, Bud Shaped and Barbed arrow heads

180 Nath, Amarendra, 1998, Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, New Delhi, pp. 59 and 61.

181 IAR, 1980-81, p. 40.

182 IAR, 1988-89, p. 59.

183 Deo, S. B., 1970,Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur.

184 Sankalia, H.D., Dikshit, M.G, 1952, Excavation At Bramhapuri(Kolhapur), Poona, pp. 121-122.

185 IAR, 1983-84, p. 57.

186 Deo, S.B., 1973, Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur, pp. 8 and 47- 48.

187 Deo, S.B. and Dhavalikar, M. K., 1967, Paunar Excavation, Nagpur, p. 95.

188 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 177.43

are reported. In Andhra Pradesh, A tanged, leaf shaped arrow head, and a hollow conical

object appears to be an arrow head are reported from a cist at Satanikota.189 At Peddamarur,190

in the funerary deposit and from habitation also contain arrow heads. Arrow heads with

pointed tangs are foud at Nagarjunakonda,191 Ramapuram,192 Yeleswaram.193 Peddabankur,194

Veerapuram.195

Spikes

At Yelleswaram the spikes-studded lance or javelin was recovered.196 From

Bhokardan197 the two specimens one having a lenticular section forming somewhat rib like

edges at sides was found. These converge into a conical point. The other one is similar to

first object, but it is circular in section and smaller. Two implements with long tang having

knobbed end and a long tapering blade were recovered, one each from Khapa and Gangapur

Stone Circles.198 Their precise utility and use could not be ascertained, the specimens are

possibly spikes.

189 Gosh, N. C., 1986, Excavation at Satanikota, New Delhi, p. 74.

190 IAR, 1977-78, p. 13.

191 IAR, 1980-81, p. 7.

192 IAR, 1968-69, p. 2.


194 IAR, 1968-69, pp. 1-2.




198 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 47.44

Javelins

A short throwing spear, used as a shock weapon, the javelins was probably used for

war and chase. Evidences of javelins from the megalithic monuments come from

Nagajunakonda,199 and Yelleshwaram200 Pochampadu,201 Kaundinyapura.202

Lances and Spears

In Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra a large quantity of lances and spears were found.

Adam, Junapani203 Khapa204 Gangapur,205 Bhandara,206 Bhagimohari207 are the sites

from Maharashtra which have yielded lances and spears. Peddamarur208 and Uppalapadu209

Nagarjunakonda,210 Yelleshwaram,211 are the sites from Andhra Pradesh which have yielded

199 IAR, 1958-59, p. 6.


201 IAR, 1963-64, p. 1.


203 IAR, 1961-62, p. 34.


205 Ibid

206 IAR, 1992-93, p. 64.

207 IAR, 1983-84, p. 57.

208 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.

209 Ibid

210 IAR, 1959-60, p. 7.


45

lances. Veerapuram212 and Ramapuram,213 yielded spear head and other iron objects. Iron

objects obtained from Polechetti Cherugudda include an iron shafted spear and a socketed

spear point. At Dongatogu, west of Janampet spears were found and also at Pochampad,214

iron lance and other objects were found.

Stirrupps

As a tool allowing expanded use of horses in warfare, the stirrup is often called the

third revolutionary step in equipment, after the chariot and the saddle. The basic tactics of

mounted warfare were significantly altered by the stirrup. A rider supported by stirrups was

less likely to fall off while fighting, and could deliver a blow with a weapon that more fully

employed the weight and momentum of horse and rider. Adam215 yielded horse outfits like

iron stirrups and horse shoe.

Draggers

Daggers and dagger blades which are stronger, flexible, and able to survive through

damages brought by ageing, war, and use. The Iron Age marks the beginning of a whole new

warfare with the introduction of daggers. Daggers have parallel edged blades which end in a

rounded tip, the pommel is formed by a circular disc, and it is hafted by a simple tang. The


213 IAR, 1981-82, p. 6.

214 IAR, 1964-65, p. 1.

215 IAR, 1991-92, pp. 65 and 68.46

remaining objects from Junapani,216 Pauni,217 Mahurjhari,218 are some of the sites from

Maharashtra that have yielded daggers. Junapani, yielded daggers represented by seventeen

specimens, more or less evenly distributed in all the Localities, Those with medium broad

blades with bi-convex section, pointed tip and tang, that with blade similar with the tang long

and broad and covered with possibly wooden handle riveted, that with a long and broad blade

with copper hilt. Dagger blade, thicker, straight shoulders thicker tang. Fragmentary piece

with tip broken, bevelled shoulders tang with less pronounced, a complete specimen with

rather broad blade tapering to a point, a ring at the butt end of the blade, the tang broad and

with possibly rivetted wooden handle and a complete dagger with rather broad tapering to a

point with a copper hilt double concave in outline and flaring convex at the butt end. A

complete blade of a dagger with pointed end, beveled shoulders, pointed tang and thin

section, daggers, axes and animal bones were found, fragments of knife or dagger blade with

pointed ends come from Naikund.219 In the one burial the lower part of the dead man’s

body was missing, but he had a dagger with an iron blade and copper hilt placed on his chest,

which indicate that the person was probably a warrior, having died in actual fighting, and

thus he was honored with a decent burial along with his weapon. Daggers with copper hilts

found from Pochampadu,220 have double-edged and tapering point. The objects worth of note

216 IAR, 1961-62, p. 34.

217 Nath, Amarendra, 1998, Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, New Delhi, p. 59.

218 Deo, S.B., 1973, Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur, p. 8.

219 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, p. 35.

220 IAR, 1963-64, p. 1.47

comprise daggers at Nagarjunakonda.221 Daggers are recovered from Yelleshwaram,222 near

complete human skeletons in extended position, one atop the other. Abdul Waheed Khan

who undertook excavation at Peddabankur,223 reported daggers.

Horse Bits

Horse bits are accessories placed inside a horse's mouth to control its movement.

They rest on the delicate part of a horse's mouth called the bar, and they are connected to two

reins on both sides of the mouth. The snaffle bit consists of either a straight or jointed

mouthpiece connected to a variety of ring styles. The reins connect to these rings and when

used apply direct pressure to the bars, tongue and the corners of the mouth. At Naikund,224

the mouth pieces and bits of iron for the horse were found. Horse bits were recovered from

Khapa,225 Junapani226 and Boregaon.

Iron Rings

At Nasik five specimens of iron rings were found, out of which three were intact and

two fragmentary. At Bhokardan,227 four specimens of rings of the size usually worn on

221 IAR, 1958-59, p. 6.


223 IAR, 1968-69, pp. 1-2.

224 IAR, 1977-98, p. 39.


226 IAR, 1961-62, p.33.

227 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 179.48

fingers were found. Iron rings were found at Peddamarrur,228 district Mahbubnagar, in cist

burials, which were probably used as ornament for fingers and toes. At Bhagimohari229

district Nagpur, from the habitational deposits iron ring was found. At Kesarapalle230 an

iron ring of indefinite use and a bangle were obtained.

Iron Rods

Iron rod was represented by two pieces the exact purpose of use of these could not be

ascertained one each came from Takalghat and Khapa.231 At Peddamarrur,232 the sarcophagus

was covered with a lid and it contained human bones. An iron rod was placed along with the

offerings. At Bhagimahari,233 also an iron rod was found.

228 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.

229 IAR, 1983-84, p. 57.

230 Sarkar, H., 1966, “Kesarapalle” AI No. 22, p. 43.


232 IAR, 1977-78, p. 12.

233 IAR, 1980-81, p. 40. 49

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Generally, works on metallurgy in antiquity tend towards a monolithic model made

up of an evolutionary development of metal craft with a unifunctional use of artifacts and

raw materials. Iron technology in India seems to have independent origin. Chronologically,

the use of iron in the neighboring regions hardly precedes its occurrence in India. Hakra-

Saraswati valley, which seems to have an earlier phase of PGW, does not yield iron.

The smelting of iron ore was first discovered in Asia Minor of the Causcasus and that

between 1800 and 1200 B.C. it remained virtually a monopoly of the Hittites. The Rigveda,

usually dated to 1500 BC. seems to has references to iron and iron technology. The later

50

Vedic text may be said to fall between approximately 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C. and they have

undeniable mention of iron. Iron Age, which proceeds the early historic period, generally

lasts for more than a millennium. At Brahmagiri, Piklihal, Sanganakal and Maski the depth

of Iron Age occupation is generally more than four feet.234

This is not the only claim India has to the early manufacture of iron. Objects of iron

of ancient date by other nations were confined to implements of no great size such as sword

blades, iron bars for currency, and there seems to be no evidence that iron was used for

architectural or constructive purpose. There is evidence that in India there was not only an

established iron industry, but that in the first few centuries of our era, the native metallurgists

were able to produce pillars and beams of such size as are now manufactured only with the

aid of powerful and complicated steam machinery. The Delhi iron column shows what skill

these ancient iron workers were able to produce such results, when it is remembered the work

was done by hand without the aid of modern machinery. The iron column measures twenty-

two feet above the ground with a diameter near the base of sixteen and one-half inches

tapering to twelve and one-half inches at the end. It has a capital three and one-half feet high,

consisting of a receded bell, plain discs and square top which served as a pedestal for a statue

of Vishnu to whom it was dedicated. The bottom of the shaft extends eighteen inches below

the ground terminating in a knob or bulb resting on a net work of iron bars to which it is

soldered and embedded in the stone pavement. The iron column although exposed to air and

moisture for many centuries shows no sign of rust and was once from its peculiar color

234 Banerjee, N. R., 1965, Iron Age in India, Delhi, pp. 41-49.51

thought to be bronze, and even in late times it was believed by an eminent engineer familiar

with castings, to be cast iron instead of wrought iron.235

The iron in central and south India is, on present showing, earlier than the iron in the

north western periphery of India. South India seems to be the earliest of the six early Indian

centers. Iron seems to have entered the Indian productive system by 1400 B.C. the literary

data alone seems to suggest 700 B. C. or earlier, if we rely on Rigvedic reference to iron.

The knowledge of iron must have come to India presumably earlier than 1500 B.C. We may

not unreasonably conclude that though ayas in the Rigveda usually means copper or bronze,

it may not invariably do so, especially in the later books. There can be no mistaking the

meaning of syma ayas or 'black metal' in the Atharva Veda; it cannot but be iron. Another

Atharva Veda passage has: "Cut along this skin with a dark, slaughterer, joint by joint with

the knife. The Vajasaneyi Sathitd mentions the metals hiranya, ayas, Syama, lohas and trapu.

While Syama and loha must mean iron and copper respectively, it is suggested that ayas may

here signify bronze. Ayas is divided into two species, Syma and lohita in the later Sarhitas

and texts; the first must mean iron, and the second copper or bronze. The Satapatha

Bridhmanad draws a distinction between ayas and lohayasa, between iron and copper. Ayas

alone thus signifies iron in a number of places. The sense of iron in Atharva Veda V. 28.1 is

certain according to Macdonell and Keith. There are numerous references to the smelting of

metal in the Vedic literature; the word dhma seems to have been derived from the sound of

the bellows. The Maitrz Upanisad mentions a lump of iron "overcome by fire and beaten by

workmen", passing into a different form. The Chandogya Upanisads speaks of karmaradayas

235 Brinton Phillips, “The Claims of India for the Early Production of Iron”, American Anthropologist, New

Series, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1924), Published by Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American

Anthropological Association, Pp. 353-354.52

and also Krishna-ayas, which certainly mean iron. And so also the Aitareya Aranyaka and

the Maitrayaya Brahmana Upanisad refer to iron.236

A look at the list of iron production areas of India will show that all these early

centers are either in or near the ore areas. The evidence of pre-industrial smelting also comes

from almost all these areas. The evidence of pre industrial smelting and rich ore deposits is

very impressive in central and southern India which also seems to show the first evidence of

Indian iron. The first Indian iron tool types do not specifically correspond to the iron tool

types known in west Asia. There is no other demonstrable proof of diffusion during that

period from west Asia to the peninsular block of India. There is an apparent continuity

between the early and the contemporary traditions of the iron metallurgy in India. These

points suggest to us that India was a separate and possibly independent centre of the

manufacture of early iron. The process of smelting and forging iron appear to have improved

considerably by about 1400 B.C. In south India the evidences for the first use of iron objects

appears in a different cultural context. It is the megalithic people who introduced iron objects

in this part of India.237

Peninsular India, along with Deccan has megalithic burials. Iron is used with it for the

first time there. In these parts the chalcolithic evidence is marginal. Incidentally, this whole

are is full of iron ores. It may be for this reason that Neolithic folk shifts to iron from

copper which is scarce. Hallur yields iron in an early context of 1100 B.C. from a Neolithic

megalithic overlap phase. Thus, the story is altogether different here.238

236 Brinton Phillips, George, op. cit. p. 352.

237 Brinton Phillips, George, op. cit. p. 352.53

The south Indian megalithic complex had its distinctive tool types which are

occasionally found far to the north. The important iron items of the megalithic culture of

India, the wide variety of iron objects recovered from both burials and habitational sites have

domestic and agricultural uses and also serve as weapons. Iron tool and weapons of largely

identical types are almost universally and in quantities found as grave goods. The latter

including knives; daggers; wedged shaped blades; lances javelins; spearheads; battle axes,

often with barbs, arrowheads, both socketed and tanged; swords with single and double

edges. The objects of household utility and agriculture include flat axes, hatchets; chisels

mattocks; tripods to support lamps or point based vassels; lamps rods with rounded heads

resembling the beam of a weighing scales; horse bits including stirrups; ferrules; bangles;

nails frying pans ladles with long handles, sometimes used as hanging lamps and bells. The

chemical and metallographic data are not available for this period. One may however, refer to

this chemical analysis of an axe and spears from Mahurjhari and Takalghat and Khapa

respectively.239

Stratigrphically, the megalithic phase overlaps with the earlier Neolithic one and two

C14 dates from the overlap phase at Hallur gives a date around 1100 B.C some have doubted

the dependability of these dates but there is no reason to do so considering that the

immediately earlier neolithic phase began as early as 2300 BC. and that the Hallur dates are

not inconsistent with the date from Takalghat-Khapa. It is worth noting that megaliths

continued well in the historic period and there is no way of saying which one is earlier and

which one later.15

238 Singh, S. D., “Iron in Ancient India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 5, No.

2 (July, 1962), Published by BRILL, pp. 212-216.

239 Chakrabarti, Dilip, 1976,”The Beginning of Iron in India”, Antiquity Vol. L No. 19, pp.114-122.54

The beginning of iron in India is regional. Every zone had intra-regional contact. Inter

regional relations were confined to adjacent areas within an ecological zone. They are

nothing but small pockets of village cultures, each with its own local features. These were the

communities which used the earliest iron in India. Iron technology appears to have been

locally developed by some of these communities which were in search of an alternative to

stone or scarce copper and much scarcer bronze for better tool and implements.240

Once the technology was perfected, that is about 1000 B.C., the pattern of adoption

changes. Iron objects no longer remain confined to hunting or carpentry tools. Agricultural

implements come in use at most of the sites. This must have been a two way process. The

priorities of the society changed and technology was ready to take up the new challenges. It

was no longer a subsistence economy based on hunting and small scale agriculture. The

rising demographic chart necessitated expansion. This must have exerted pressure on artisans

for better tools and implements in larger quantities. Thus a qualitative and quantitative

change became imminent. The archaeological data from 700-600 B.C. reflect such changes

in techno-cultural features settlements pattern, economy and material life all show signs of

change from this period onwards.241 Thus iron technology played important role in

transforming the sedentary agro-pastoral Neolithic-Chalcolithic folk into dynamic megalithic

folk, who ultimately laid foundation for transition into Early historic period.

240 Balasubramaniam, R., 2007, “On the Steeling of Iron and the Second Urbanization of Indian Subcontinent”, Man

and Environment XXXII(1): 102-107(2006), Indian Society for Prehistory and Quaternary studies, pp. 102-106.

241 Chakrabarti, Dilip, 1977, “Distribution of Iron Ore and the Archeological Evidences of Early Iron in India”, JESHO Vol. 20.No. 2, pp. 166-184.

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agrawal, D. P. and Kharakwal, J. S., Bronze and Iron Age in South Asia, Aryan Books

International, New Delhi, 2003.

Ahmad, Khwaja Muhammad, Preliminary excavation at Prehistoric sites near Janampet,

S.L.: S.N., 19, 1976.

Allchin, Bridget and Raymond, The Birth of Indian Civilization : India and Pakistan before

500 B.C., Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1968.

Ansari, Z. D., Davalikar, M. K., “Megalithic Burials at Pimpalsuti”, Bulletin of the Deccan

College Research Institute, Vol No. XXXVI (1976- 77), Nos. 1-4, Deccan College

Postgraduate and Research Institute, Pune, Pp. 84-88.

Balasubramaniam, R., “On the Steeling of Iron and the Second Urbanization of Indian

Subcontinent”, Man and Environment XXXII (1): 102-107(2006), Indian Society for

Prehistory and Quaternary studies, 2007, Pp. 102-107.

Banerjee, M.N., “On Metal and Metallurgy in Ancient India”, The Indian Historical

Quarterly, Vol. III (1927), Pp. 121-133.

Banerjee, N. R., Iron Age in India, Munshiram Manohar Lal, Delhi, 1965.56

Banerjee, N.R., “The Megalithic Problem of India”, Studies in Prehistory (Ed. D. Sen and A.

K. Gosh), Calcutta, 1966, Pp. 163-175.

Boswell, J.A.C., “On the Ancient Remains in the Krishna District”, Indian Antiquary, I,

Kessinger Publishing, 1872, Pp. 149-155.

Branfill, B. R., “Notes on the Physiography of Southern India”, Proceedings of the Royal

Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography, New Monthly Series, Vol.

7, No. 11 (Nov., 1885), Published by Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal

Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), Pp. 719-735.

Brinton Phillips, George, “The Claims of India for the Early Production of Iron”, American

Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1924), Published by

Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association, Pp.

350-357.

Chakrabarti, Dilip, “The Beginning of Iron in India”, Antiquity Vol. L No. 198, 1976, Pp.

114-130.

Chakrabarti, Dilip, “Distribution of Iron Ore and the Archeological Evidences of Early Iron

in India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 20.No. 2.

Published by Brill, 1977, Pp. 166-184.

Chakrabarti, Dilip, The Early Usage of Iron in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1992.

Childe, Gordon, “Megaliths” Ancient India No.4 (1947), Archaeological Survey of India,

New Delhi, Pp. 5-13.

Cunningham, Alexander, The Ancient Geography of India, The Buddhist Period Including

The Campaigns of Alexander and The Travels of Hwen-Thsang, Indological Book

House, Varanasi, 2006.

David J. Breeze, Joanna Close-Brooks, J. N. Graham Ritchie, Ian R. Scott, A. Young,

Britannia, Vol. 7 (1976), Published by Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

57

Deo, S. B., Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur University, Nagpur,

1970.

Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Government of

Maharashtra & Deccan College Bombay, 1982.

Deo, S.B., Mahurjhari Excavation (1970-1972), Nagpur University, Nagpur, 1973.

Deo, S.B. and Dhavalikar, M. K., Paunar Excavation, Nagpur University, Nagpur, 1967.

Deo, S.B., Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Aurangabad, Nagpur 1974.

Dikshit, Moreshwar G., Excavations at Kaundinyapura, Director of Archives and

Archaeology, Maharashtra State, Bombay, 1968.

Foote, Robert Bruce, Prehistoric and Protohistoric Antiquities of India, New Delhi, 1979.

The Gazetteer of India, 1965, pp. 1-63.

Gogte, V.D., “Megalithic Iron Smelting at Naikund (part-1) Discovery by Three-Probe

Resistivity Survey”, Naikund Excavation (1970-80), Pp. 56-59.

Gopal, Lallanji, “Antiquity of Iron in India”, Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society

Vol. No. XXVIII, 1962-63, Rajahmundry, 1963. Pp. 39-54.

Gordan, D. H., “The Early Use of Metals in India and Pakistan”, The Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, LXXX (1950), Parts 1-2. Pp.

55-78.

Gordan, D. H., The Pre-Historic Background of Indian Culture, Munshiram Manoharlal

Publishers Pvt Ltd., Bombay, 1955.

Gosh, N. C., Excavation at Satanikota, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1986.

Gururajarao, B. K., The Megalithic Culture in South India, Prasaranga, University of

Mysore, Mysore, 1972.

58

http://openlibrary.org/search?publisher_facet=Prasaranga,%20University%20of%20Mysore

http://openlibrary.org/search?publisher_facet=Prasaranga,%20University%20of%20Mysore

Indian Archaeology a Review, Publication of the Archaeological Survey of India, for the

relevant years.

Khan, Md. Abdul Waheed, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The

Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1963.

Khan, Md. Abdul Waheed, “Yeleswaram Excavation”, Journal of Andhra Historical

Research Society, Vol. XXIX. (1963-64), Hyderabad, 1964, Pp. 1-8.

Kiepert, Heinrich, A Manual of Ancient Geography, Macmillan and Co., London, 1881.

Kirk, William, “The Role of India in the Diffusion of Early Cultures”, The Geographical

Journal, Vol. 141, No. 1 (Mar., 1975), Published by Blackwell Publishing on behalf

of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), Pp.19-

34.

Kosambi, D.D., “The Beginning of the Iron Age in India”, Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Dec., 1963), Published by Brill, Pp. 309-

318.

Krishnaswamy, V. D., “Megalthic Type of South India”, Ancient India, No.5, The Director

General Of Archaeology in India, New Delhi, 1949, Pp. 35- 45.

Lahiri, Nayanjot, “Indian Metal and Metal-Related Artefacts as Cultural Signifiers: An

Ethnographic Perspective”, World Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 1, Symbolic Aspects of

Early Technologies (Jun., 1995), Published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Pp. 116-132.

Leshnik, Lawrence S., South Indian Megalithic burials the Pandukal Complex., Franz Stener

Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden, 1974.

Leshnik, Lawrence S, “Early Burials from the Nagpur District Central India”, Man, vol. 5.

No. 3, 1970, Pp. 496-511.

Leshnik Lawrence S, “A Unique Implements from a South India Megalithic Burials”, Man

Vol. 4 No. 4., 1969. Pp.641- 644.

59

Leshnik, Lawrence S, “Some Early Indian Horse-Bits and Other Bridle Equipment”,

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Apr., 1971), Published by

Archaeological Institute of America, Pp. 141-150.

Majumdar, R. C Pusalker, A.D., The Vedic Age, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1951.

Mandala, Exploration at Karad, Bharata Itihas Samshodaka Mandala, Poona, 1949.

Murthy M. L. K., Pre and Proto Historic Andhra Pradesh up 500 BC. Orient Longman

Private Limited, Hyderabad, 2003.

Nath, Amarendra, Further Excavations at Pauni 1994, Archaeological Survey of India, New

Delhi, 1998.

Nautiyal, K. P., Protohistoric India, Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1989.

Nigam, M. L., Report of the Excavation of Two Megalithic Burials at Hashmatpet, Birla

Archaeological & Cultural Research Institute, Hyderabad (A.P), 1971.

Parpola, Asko, Arguments for an Aryan Origin of the South Indian Megaliths, The State

Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamilnandu, 1973.

Praveena Gullapalli, “Early Metal in South India: Copper and Iron in Megalithic Contexts” ,

Journal of World Prehistory, Volume 22, Number 4, www.springerlink.com, 2009,

pp.1-18.

Rao, K.P, Deccan Megaliths, Sandeep Prakashan, Delhi, 1988.

Richardson, Harry Craig, “Iron, Prehistoric and Ancient”, American Journal of Archaeology,

Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1934), Published by Archaeological Institute of America,

Pp. 555-583.

Rickard, T. A., “The Primitive Smelting of Iron”, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 43,

No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1939), Published by Archaeological Institute of America, Pp.85-

101.

Sankalia, H. D., Indian Archeology Today, Ajanta Publication, Delhi, 1979.

60

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0892-7537/22/4/


Sankalia, H.D. Dikshit, M.G, Excavation At Bramhapuri(Kolhapur), Deccan College

Postgraduate and Research Institute, Poona, 1952.

Sankalia, H.D. Deo, S. B. The Report on Excavation at Nasiki and Jorwe, Deccan College of

Postgraduate & Research Institute, Poona, 1955.

Sarkar, H., “:Kesarapalle” Ancient India, No. 22(1966), Archaeological Survey of India, Pp.

37-74.

Sastry, Krishna. V.V., “Megalithic Cultures: The Iron Age”, Pre and Protohistoric Andhra

Pradesh up to 500 B.C., (ed.) Murty, M.L.K., Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad,

2003, Pp. 107-138.

Sastri, T.V.G., “Veerapuram Excavation, A Type Site for Cultural Study in the Krishna

Valley”, Exploration and Excavation Series 1, Birla Archaeological and Cultural

Research Institute, Hyderabad, 1981, Pp. 146-156.

Sherratt, Andrew, “The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social

Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe”, World Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2,

Monuments and the Monumental (Oct., 1990), Published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd.,

Pp. 147-167.

Singh, S. D., “Iron in Ancient India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the

Orient, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Jul., 1962), Published by Brill, Pp.212-216.

Soundara Rajan, K.V., “Protohistoric India Metal Tools for Tillage- A Note”, Puratattva No.

11 (1979-80), Pp. 59-64.

Subranmanyam, B., Pre-Proto and Early Historic Cultures of Krishna Tungabhadra Valley,

Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1997.

Sundara, A., The Early Chamber Tombs of South India, University Publishers (India), Delhi,

1975.

Thakur, Vijay Kumar, Urbanisation in Ancient India, Abhinav Publication, New Delhi,

1981.

61

Tripati, Vibha, The Age of Iron in South Asia Legacy and Tradition, Published by Aryan

Book International, New Delhi, 2001.

Valkenburg, Samuel Van, “Agricultural Regions of Asia. Part V--India: Regional

Description”, Economic Geography, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1934), Published by Clark

University, Pp. 14-34.

Wainwright, G. A., “The Coming of Iron Antiquity”, Antiquity, Gloucester, 1936, Pp. 5-24.

Yazdani, G., “Excavation”, Annual Report of the Archaeological Department of His

Highness the Nizam’s Dominions (1915- 1916), PP. 6-10.

Yazdani, G., “Excavation”, Annual Report of the Archaeological Department of His

Highness the Nizam’s Dominions (1916- 1917), PP. 5-8.

Yazdani, G., “Hashmatpet”, Annual Report of the Archaeological Department of His

Highness the Nizam’s Dominions (1934- 1935), PP. 10.

* * *

62

iron tools and weapons from megalithic sites in andhra pradesh and maharashtra

Documents