Archaeology and the Mahabharata (Study)
by Gouri Lad | 1978 | 132,756 words
This study examines the Mahabharata from an archaeological perspective. The Maha-Bbharata is an ancient Indian epic written in Sanskrit—it represents a vast literary work with immense cultural and historical significance. This essay aims to use archaeology to verify and contextualize the Mahabharata's material aspects by correlating epic elements w...
Part 13 - Weapons during Phase II (600-200 B.C.)
The arrival of iron on the scene brought about a total revolution in all walks of life, but particularly so in warfare and weapons. With the manufacturing costs reduced, tools and weapons of metal now became more and more commonplace and more and more specialized, with newer and newer shapes coming into being. But this revolution did not come about in one stroke, it was a gradual change towards progress and prosperity. It took some length of time to tame the new metal, hard to work but more useful and avalaible in plenty. a It is now generally accepted by archeologists
= 547 h that iron was introduced into India around 1000 B.C. It occurs in small fragments and shapeless bits at Kausambi as early as sub-period 1.3 (1025-955 B.C.) even before the arrival of PGW, while iron weapons are already on the scene in Period II (855-655 B.C.) (Sharma 1960:22, 45). At Hastinapura iron slags and ore were found in the top layers of Period II (1100 800 B.C.) in association with PGW (AI 10-11 1954-55:13, 23). Iron objects also appear at other PGW sites like Alamgirpura (IAR 1958-59:54), Sravasti (IAR 1958-59:2), Atranjikhera (IAR 1962-63:12; Gaur 1967:14-15) and Ujjain (Bannerjea 1965:5). Already at this early stage iron spear and arrow-heads, though still only a handful, had started making their appearance (Gaur 1967:14-15%; Bannerjea 1965:4). By 600 B.C. they were found all over Northen and Central India, at Rupar III (AI 9, 1953:123), Purana Quila (IAR 1954-55:14), Jajmau (IAR 1957-58:49), Ujjain (IAR 1957-58:34), Nagda II (300- 500 B.C.) (Wheeler 1959:138-39) and Navadatoli-Maheshwar (Wheeler 1959:140-42). In fact the spread was quite rapid, reaching out into the heart of the Deccan and the South. Thus by the 4 th 5 th century B.C. iron tools and weapons were not uncommon at Prabhas Patan in Gujarat (IAR 1956-57:17), Bahal and Tekwada (Wheeler 1959:146), and even as deep south as Amaravati in Andhra Pradesh (Wheeler 1959:148-49). However, India had to wait for its next cultural
= 548 phase, the NBP culture Phase, to witness a true afflorecence of iron objects. This phase is more or less firmly dated to 500-200 B.C., its spread in the Deccan and South, being more during the latter half. By then the famous 'wootz' process for crucible steel had also been originated in India. We have already refered to the two fine steel swords of Indian make which Ketsias is reported to have seen in the court of the Persian Artaxerses Mnemon (Cordon 1958:162) and the gift of Indian steel to Alexander by Porus (Curtius IX.viii. I). This period coincided with the birth of Buddhism, and the composition of its early canonical literature, the Nikaya and the Pitaka texts. As noted earlier in the cource of this discussion and as will be amply clear from the chart, it is with these texts that the Mahabharata shares a maximum of parallel weapons. With the 4 th century B.C. the NBP saw the rise of the Mauryas and the composition of a political treatise like the Arthasastra with which too the Mahabharata has many parallels as far as weapons go The NBP now became the delux ware of the Mauryas and spread all over the country in the wake of this powerful empire. Thus once again it needs to be repeated that it were these centuries from 500-200 B.C., coinciding with the NBP Culture Phase in North India, which witnessed the growth of the Epic in its present form. This is not to say that the war itself took place during this period. Far from it, for the war certainly preserves many archaic features. -
What must have taken place was simply a complete overhaulting, a total remoulding of the ancient material. is as if the spirit of the narration is old but the grandeuris new. It The first prominently visible change is in the arrows. Their number increases steeply and along with it their shapes too diversify easily. This is as much true of literary as of actual finds. Three sites Taksasila h in the North-west, Kausambi in the Gangetic plain and Ujjain in MP are typical examples of this exuberance of iron arrowheads. h At Kausambi alone there are in all 11 549 types of arrow-heads numbering about 370 in intact conditions, while the intact spear-heads number about 58. These are of courge spread over many centuries, from about 500 B.C. to 300 A.D. but the number is neverthless in sharp contrast to the meagre 2-3 found prior to 500 B.C. Of the 11 types the first 8 occur throughout period III (NBP:605- 45 B.C.) and period IV (45.B.C. - 580 A.D.). Of these again the first 4 types are the most numerous (Sharma 1960:45-46). We have not made any attempt here to identify any of the literary types with the actual ones found in excavations, because despite the power of the poet's words literary descriptions have failed miserably in delineating the exact shape or make of the various arrows mentioned. We have to imagine the shape very often simply from the name, but it is at best, only a gueswork game, and therefore
550 it would be erraneous and worse misleading to try and equate any of the literary types with actual finds. It is suffice to say that the most productive period for iron arrows and spear-heads began with 500 B.C. coinciding with the literary evidence. The story of spears and lances is not any different. The increase in their numbers and the diversification in their shape and size was synonymous with specialization, a particular type for a particular task. Thus we find that the Sakti was for the chariot-warrior, the tomara for the elephant corps and the prasa for the cavalry. In the Mahabharata the sakti is the most prominent of these for the chariot is still the supreme apparatus of war. Next to it comes the tomara which is freely used by the car-warrior, but is also as often used by those mounted on elephants. In Pali literature too it is a specialized spear meant for the elephant riders. The prasas and other lances simply fly and whizz across the battlefield of Kuruksetra in large numbers, sometimes shadowing the sky, but their very presence in the Epic indicates that the mode of warfare was changing. It was no longer the chariot alone which would guide the fate of the war, but the elephants and the horses and the innumerable foot-soldiers too would play a desicive role. This lends some credibility to the oft-repeated concept of a four-fold division of an army houtunangini westra in the Epic. The change
= 551 is already evident in the Nikayas and the Pitakas. The Buddhist cannon pictures a period of tansition. As new problems clamour for an answer in the arena of unabated conflict, old values are put to the test of experience, and the emphasis shifts from the chariot to the elephant and the horseman" (Singh 1965:35). A qualitative as well as a quantitative change came over the sword too at this time. In the Vedas it is simply asi, but now it is also a khadga and nistrimsa. According to Kautilya, nistrimsa had a slightly crooked tip while asi was slender and straight like a staff (yasti). He also refers to sword-handles of different make such as those from the horns of a buffalo or a rhinocerous (khadga, from whence probably the sword derives its name), from the tusks of an elephant, from sturdy wood and from the roots of the bamboo (II.18). Ivory handles/gold decorations were very much in vogue in the Mahabharata too. and as This period witnessed a spurt in another group of weapons. They have been described by us/bars and bolts with great crushing power. Most of these appear on the 1 seene with the Epics, the Buddhist /xts and the Arthasastra and were extremely heavy wooden weapons wooden bars and Wooden Ron rods and posts. but almost always reinforced with metal bands. They were known as parigha, danda, sthuna, huda, sataghni and even mudgara and musala. Their role in the Mahabharata war is very limited. We are no doubt told that they were used in their hundreds but their impact seems to have
552 been negligible. Besides it is rather difficult to imagine how the infantry soldiers or even the chariots could have carried these akward-sized heavy wooden rods into the battlefield. It is Kautilya again who offers the clue. He has described a number of contrivances called yantras, which were so devised as to hurl these huge weapons with great ease and speed, crashing down upon the enemy lines and creating a great havoc amongst their ranks (II.18). This brings us to the yantrani so often alluded to in the Epic, specially in connection with fortified cities like Dwarka, Lanka and Indraprastha. Though the Epic is reticent in giving details of their actual working, we learn much about them from sources like the Arthasastra. Going back in history, one of the earliest mechanisms deployed on an Indian battlefield was known as 'mahasilakantaga', a kind of a mechanically operated catapult to hurl huge pieces of stone. It was a completely new innovation and was used against the Licchavis by Ajatasatru of Magadha in the 6 th century B.C. Another of his innovations was the 'ratha-musala', a chariot which wrought havoc by wheeling about and hurling destruction by its attached rods (Mookerji 1956:103). With these superior military weapons never fielded before, Ajatasatru was able to humble the powerful Licchavis after a protracted struggle. It is significant that these novel weapons came on the scene as iron began to be exploited more and more, and when Ajatasatru
= 553 was in the ambitious process of transforming his kingdom into an empire. The next we hear of these machines are from Greek historians. During his campaign in India Alexander is reported to have used a variety of military engines, like the ram to batter down walls, catapults to hurl missiles, stone and metal bolts, movable wooden towers from which archers could shoot at the enemy fortifications and engines that could throw a bridge across to the battered down walls. These machines were thus mainly effective against fortifications, ramparts and embarkments, and Alexander had to face a great deal of tough opposition from fortified hilly citadels all over North and North-Western India. (Mc Erindle 1969 :67-68, 75). The Indians seem to have learnt a lot from the Greeks about these machines for Kautilya presents an impressive line-up of them, split into 4 movable machines (calayantra) and 12 immovable ones (sthirayantra) (II.18). Again they are assets mainly in fortified warfare, where one has to either gaurd the defences or to batter them down. The very fact that a great majority of them are termed as 'immovable' rules out their use in an open warfare where things have to be constantly moving on the battlefield. Neverthless they throw a very interesting light on the modus operandi of the 2 nd 3 rd century B.C. warfare and it is in fact the first time that the like of them have been systematically described. There were wooden-pillared
= 554 and leather-covered catapults for hurling stone (asphotini), pig-shaped leather bags stuffed with cotton and wool to protect the turrets from arrows and such other missiles (sukarika), big and small wooden beams, in one case two of them facing each other, crashing down when the mechanism is released (devadanda, urdhvabahu, ardhabahu, bahuyantra, visvasghati), wooden planks studded with iron nails thrown across the moat (pancalika), fire-machines made of long beams, to set fire to turrets (samghati), water-machines to put out the fire (parjanyaka), towers of three to four decks from which soldiers shot arrows (bahumukha), a bowlike machine discharging all kinds of weapons (jamdgnya), sharp-rimmed wheels sending stones all around when rotated (sarvato-bhadra), another fan-like wheel producing strong wind and raising dust (talavrnta), and wrenches for pulling down pillars (utpatini). The testimony of Kautilya proves that the yantras of the Epic were no fiction of the poet's imagination. In fact a lot of devices like the huda, sataghni, giant wheels and sheilds that were specially put upon fortified walls, as also some of the divine astras like the agneyastra, parjanyastra vayavyastra and sailastra producing fire, water, wind, stones etc. are more easily explained by the evidence of the Arthasastra. Dr S.D. Singh has rightly observed that "the tenacity of the yantra tradition in Indian literature is proof alike of its real existence and its value" (1965:113).
555 Since hurling stones, large and small was the primary function of most of these machines, it would be worthwhile to trace the antiquity of sling-stone warfare. Zimmer has tried to prove that the words 'asani' and 'adri' in the Rgveda indicate that sling-stones and boulders were hurled at the enemy. But as pointed out by Macdonell and Keith (1912:I.19,41) the context is purely mythical, both being exclusively the weapons of Indra, there being no evidence to show that they were employed in human wars. The Vedic Aryans were therefore most probably strangers to this primitive mode of warfare. evidence of the Mahabharata which suggests that the tribes of the Gangetic plain were inexperienced in sling-stone warfare is rather interesting against the Vedic background. In the Mahabharata it is either the raksasas or some forest-dwelling tribes (vanayujan) or else the foreign and semi-foreign people of the hilly North-West who are experts in weilding the The sling. They were purposely pitched against an inexperienced Pandava army. The need to go into these details arises due to the interesting archeological data avalaible about the use of sling-stones in the Indus valley cities and many other pre-iron neolithic and chalcolithic settlements, e.g. Mohenjodaro Harrapa 2500-1700 B.C. (Singh 1965:90) 2500-1700 B.C. (Singh 1965:90)
Rangpur Lothal = 556 (AI 18-19:10) (Rao 1956-57:87) Surkotada Harrapan (stone) (IAR 1970-71:14) Chandigarh Chirand Late Harrapan (Stone) (IAR 1970-71: 8) Chandigarh IA Pre-iron Neolithic (stone) (IAR 1968-69:5) 2000-1600 B.C. Kayatha chalcolithic (Dhovelikar+ Ansari 1975: 145) 2000-1200 B.C. Ahar chalcolithic (stone) (Sankalia et al 1969:207) 1950-1200 B.C. Navdatoli chalcolithic (Sankalia et al. 1971: 335) 1600-1300 B.C. Gilgud chalcolithic (stone) (IAR 1959-60: 4) 1500 B.C. Chandoli chalcolithic (IAR 1960-61:27) 1200 B.C. Nevasa chalcolithic 1100 B.C. (Sankalia et al 1960:207)
= 557 Maski Chalcolithic stone (AI 13 1957:13) 900-400 B.C. Brahmagiri I Stone-axe culture stone (AI 4 1947-48:253) 1000-100 B.C. Kakoria micro-megalithic stone (IAR 1963-64:58) The above list of excavated sites reveals that there is an ample evidence of sling-balls of stone and sometimes also of baked clay and terra-cotta prior to 1000 B.C. The natural question to follow is wheather in these early societies sling-stones were weapons of offence or merely aids for hunting birds and animals. Similar stoneballs occur in many neolithic sites in West Asia and scholars like Proff. Childe and Mallowan have thought them to be huntsmen's weapons rather than those of the 1971 warriors (Sankalia et al: 335-335 ). The smaller ones were for killing birds, as is the case amongst the Mizo tribals even today, and the bigger ones for big game hunting. They were thus weapons of the open country, formidable in the hands of a skilled man. This is as much true of the early settlements in India as in West Asia. The sling-stones in most neolithic-chalcolithic sites in the country were no doubt killing birds and felling fast-moving There is, however, an exception the find-spot of the sling-pellets can not be overlooked. between game. for AMORE Mohenjo-daro. Here The two common types of backed clay-balls, weighing/6-12
558 ounces, respectively, were found in good numbers in 1950 near the great grannary at the foot of the citadel mound at Mohenjo-daro, while 98 six-ouncers were discovered along the parapet walk connecting two of the south-east citadel towers. Fifty or more, rather rare, ovoid-shaped balls were found stored in a large pottery vessel in the lesser of the two halls on the southern half of the Mohenjodaro citadel, while numerous large pottery balls lay scattered further south in the same area outside a very thick enclosure wall (Singh 1965:90). The close proximity of these find-spots to the citadel and the citadel-wall leaves no doubt that these sling-pellets were meant for serious warfare. Their size, shape and weight merely confirms this. They weighed as much as 6-12 ounces, were anywhere between 2" 4" and and long and 1.6" 2.5" in diameter, some even larger, either round, avoid or egg-shaped, the ovoid form adding to the spin and the accuracy of the throw. These must have been either projected by a sling or hurled by the hand with practice and precision (Wheeler 1968:77). The Mohenjodaro evidence is a clear verdict that the pre-Aryan settlements in India were experienced in sling-stone warfare. Could it be that when the Mahabharata speaks of the raksasas using slingballs it is reviving the memory of these long-lost chalcolithic cities and pre-Aryan inhabitants of the country ? But it is not the raksasas alone who fight with sling-stones in the Mahabharata There are the foreign Yavana and
559 the Sakas too, as well as some other tribes from the hilly tracts of the North-West like the Kambojas, the Bahlikas and the Gandharas. It was with the invasion of Alexander in the 4 th Cent. B.C. that the Greeks came in contact with India, followed later in the 3 rd century B.C. with further Yavana invasions under Bactrian Greek kings. The Scytho-Parthians started making inroads into India around the 2 nd century B.C. and by the 1 st century A.D. they were firmly established in Gandhara and Sind. We have it on record from Greek historians that Alexander used mechanised catapults to hurl stones, wooden beams and metal bolts during his Indian campaign (Macrindle 1989 :75). There is no such record for the Sakas but they might as well have adopted some Greek tactics as they did so many other Greek things. Before the Greeks, the Persians too, are known to have used sling-stones in a big way. Xenophon reports that during the reign of Cyrus the Persian slingers shot large stones, but still they were no match for the Rhodians who used leaden bullets and sent them twice as far as the Persians (Huart 1927:44). The Kambojas, Gandharas and Bahlikas who were an ancient people, probably of IndoIranian stock and known from the days of the Atharvaveda, are likely to have inherited some of these modes of warfare. The entire North-Western region, of what is mainly Pakistan and Afghanistan today, was a melting pot of cultures where much give and take took place. It is thus
11 = 560 well neigh impossible to date these portions. But two factors have prompted us to include them under Phase II the presence of the Yavanas and Sakas and the use of iron sling-balls along with those of stone. Similar iron-balls (ayoguda) are mentioned in the Buddhist texts too (Sanyutta Nikaya V.283), though unfortunately not a single one has been traced so far at any excavated site. On the other hand sling-balls of stone occur quite often at historical sites e.g. 27 Eran pre-NBP (stone) (IAR 1961-62:25) Sonepur IB pre-NBP (stone) (IAR 1960-61:5) Chirand II NBP (stone) (IAR 1968-69:6) Taxila (Sirkap) 50 B.C.-200 A.D. (stone) (AI 4 1947-48:78) Rajghat III 100-300 A.D. (tc and stone) (IAR 1960-61:37) Brahmagiri II megalithic (stone) 200 B.C.-50 A.D. III Andhra (stone) 50-300 A.D. (AI 4 1947-48:253) Of all these sites that of Taksasila (Sirkap) is more interesting from our point of view since the stone
561 sling-balls found there cover the period of Greek, ScythoParthian as well as Kusana occupation. Of the others, Rajghat is the only site situated in the Gangetic plain and its evidence is rather late, from the Christian era. A lot of spadework will have to be done still at many early historical sites before a judgement can be pronounced on the truth and veracity of the Epic weapons.