iron tools and weapons from megalithic sites in andhra pradesh and maharashtra
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
68 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, p. 48.
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.
72 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, pp. 33-34.
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.
85 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, p. 53.
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
98 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. 147.
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.
101 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 45-46.
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.
118 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, pp. 33-38.
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
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.
129 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.
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
134 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 47.
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.
142 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. 147.
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.
151 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, pp. 48-54.
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
155 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, pp. 48-54.
156 Ahmad, Khwaja Muhammad, Preliminary excavation at Prehistoric sites near Janampet, pp.1-4.
157 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, pp. 45-50.
158 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 52.
159 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. 147.
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
167 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 174.
168 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 51.
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.
175 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 174.
176 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 46.
177 Dikshit, Moreshwar G., 1968, Excavation at Kaundinyapur, Bombay, p. 115.
178 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.
179 Deo, S. B. and Jamkhedkar, A. P., 1982, Naikund Excavation, 1978-80, Bombay, p. 33.42
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.
193 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, p. 48.
194 IAR, 1968-69, pp. 1-2.
195 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.
196 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, p. 48.
197 Deo, S.B., 1974, Excavation at Bhokardan (Boogavardana) 1973, Nagpur, p. 177.
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.
200 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.
201 IAR, 1963-64, p. 1.
202 Dikshit, Moreshwar G., 1968, Excavation at Kaundinyapur, Bombay, p. 119.
203 IAR, 1961-62, p. 34.
204 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 46.
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.
211 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.
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
212 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.
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.
222 Khan, MD Abdul Waheed, 1963, A Monograph on Yelleswaram Excavations, published by The Governemt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, p. 48.
223 IAR, 1968-69, pp. 1-2.
224 IAR, 1977-98, p. 39.
225 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 49.
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.
231 Deo, S. B., 1970, Excavation at Takalghat and Khapa (1968-69), Nagpur, p. 49.
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
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
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