Pratna Samiksha

A Journal of Archaeology

New Series

Volume 9

2018

CENTRE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES & TRAINING

EASTERN INDIA • KOLKATA

Pratna Samiksha, New Series The responsibility of the facts stated, opinions expressed and conclu-
is an annual journal published by the sions reached are entirely those of the author of the respective article.
Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training, Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training, Eastern India does not
Eastern India, Kolkata. accept any responsibility for them.

Editorial Address © 2018 Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training,

Pratna Samiksha Eastern India
Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training,
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
Eastern India, State Archaeological Museum
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
Old Building, First Floor, 1 Satyen Roy Road
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
Behala, Kolkata 700 034
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
email: castei5n@gmail.com

ISSN 2229 7979

Editor
Sharmi Chakraborty Periodicity: Annual
Founding Editor
Gautam Sengupta Subscription (per volume): ` 1,000.00

Editorial Assistant Published by the Member Secretary for the

Mithu Karmakar Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training,
Eastern India ( An Autonomous Institution of the
Editorial Advisory Board Government of West Bengal )
State Archaeological Museum
Krishna Bose
Old Building, First Floor
Chairperson, Centre for Archaeological Studies
1 Satyen Roy Road, Behala
& Training, Eastern India, Kolkata
Kolkata 700 034
Member Secretary castei5n@gmail.com
Centre for Archaeological Studies & Training,
Eastern India, Kolkata Typeset in Baskerville
by Mithu Karmakar
K. Paddayya
mithu.karma@gmail.com
Professor Emeritus, Deccan College, Pune
B.D. Chattopadhyaya Printed in India at Barnana Prakashani
Former Professor, Centre for Historical Studies, 4/10A Bijoygarh, Kolkata 700 032
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi barnana95@gmail.com
Pratip Kumar Mitra
Former Keeper, State Archaeological Museum,
West Bengal
Suchandra Ghosh
Associate Professor, Department of Ancient Indian
History & Culture, University of Calcutta, Kolkata
The Director (ex officio)
Directorate of Archaeology and Museums,
Government of West Bengal
 Contents

EXPLORATIONS
Reconnaissance in Search of Sarutaru
Jitendra Kumar and Sukanya Sharma 1

EPIGRAPHY
Four More Gupta-period Copperplate Grants from Bengal
Arlo Griffiths 15
An Inscription of the Western Calukya King Vikramaditya VI Tribhuvanamalla
Nupur Dasgupta 59
Inscribed Buddhist Images and Copperplates from Odisha:
An Analysis of the Social Background of Donors and Issues of
Brahmanical-Buddhist Relations
Umakanta Mishra 69

SCULPTURE
New Sculptural Evidence from the Lower Ajay River Valley
(District Birbhum, West Bengal)
Shubha Majumder and Pampa Biswas 95
A Rock-cut Panel of Heruka-Nairatma and an Unrecorded Female Figure
from Unakoti, Tripura
Priyanku Chakraborty 103

ARCHAEOMETRY
Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic:
An Archaeo-Metallurgical and Ethnographic Perspective
Oishi Roy and K. Krishnan 115

NOTE
An Inscribed Stone Sculpture of ‘Marici’ from Birbhum (West Bengal)
in the Gurusaday Museum (Kolkata)
Rajat Sanyal and Sharmila Saha 137
Few Recently Reported Sculptures from Pali (District Gaya, South Bihar)
Kumkum Bandyopadhyay 147

A Note on an Old Bridge of Pandua

Pratip Kumar Mitra 153
ARCHAEOMETRY

Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the

Vidarbhan Megalithic: An Archaeo-Metallurgical and
Ethnographic Perspective
OISHI ROY and K. KRISHNAN
Department of Archaeology and Ancient Indian History
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara

Abstract : Early Iron Age megalithic culture of Vidarbha dated to 700–555 ± 100 bc has brought to light
evidences of earliest iron working, especially smelting, in India, from a site named Naikund. In the vicinity of
Naikund, there are 8 sites which yielded 32 types of artefacts. Of these categories Naikund yielded 12 types.
Naikund is the only site that has reported evidence of iron smelting activity from Early Iron Age megalithic
level. Typological analysis of the objects show a degree of standardisation based on usage pattern. Wet
chemical analysis aids in understanding the chemical composition of the ore utilised. This probably suggests
existence of centralised production unit. However, to prove the existence of a centralised production unit a
typo-technological analysis of the artefacts recovered coupled with ethnographic survey is required. Micro-
structural analysis gives us a clear insight of the existing technical knowledge of iron working. Ethnographic
study of the present day Lohar community residing in the Vidarbha region aids in reconstructing the
metallurgical know-how of the megalithic people. Therefore, comparative analysis of objects from excavated
sites, located in the vicinity of Naikund, would aid in constructing a model of the probable existence of a
centralised administrative unit. The paper discusses the formulation of this hypothesis and its relevance in
societal reconstruction of the Vidarbhan megalithic culture.

Keywords : Early Iron Age, megalithic, SEM, EDX, optical microscopy, steel.

Introduction Iron Age’ – is attributed to the introduction and

The presence of ferrous artefacts provides us with
an insight to the existence of indigenous methods
of procurement of raw materials such as ore,
fuel, etc. production process and final shaping of
the products using various techniques. Certain
environmental factors also contribute and
provide an impetus to the development of specific
techniques in certain zones. The iron assemblage
also differs in typology in different ecological
zones as they reflect the purpose for which they
were made and the purpose for which it was
used. It is necessary to study the iron artefacts
from the megalithic context of Vidarbha as very
little is known about the techniques adopted by
the indigenous iron workers as they were the
earliest known iron producing community and a
chunk of our cultural evolutionary phase – ‘Early
Pratna Samiksha, New Series 9, 2018. © Centre for Archaeological
Studies & Training, Eastern India, Kolkata, pp. 115–36.
culmination of the iron technology.
According to Tewari (2003), the beginnings of
the Iron Age have been dated to the early half of
the second millennium bce. Megalithic burials are
marked by a sepulchral architecture where along
with the deceased and a large amount of burial
goods and offerings are incorporated. The burial
goods are dominated by the metallic assemblage.
We do get similar iron objects from both the
habitation and burial levels. The megalithic
culture of Vidarbha marks the beginning of Early
Iron Age in the Deccan Peninsular region. It is
marked by one central settlement (Naikund) and
multiple satellite settlements which are similar
to each other in associated tool-types, pottery
assemblage and burial practice.
The diffusion of iron technology and the
usage of the term ‘Early Iron Age’ itself has led
116 O I S H I ROY
to various intractable debates. The indigenous
origin has been propounded by Banerjee (1965)
who ascribed the founders of iron technology to
the authors of the Painted Grey Ware culture,
Subramanyam (1964), on the other hand, has
assigned the authorship of iron technology
to the Black and Red Ware culture. However,
ascribing the development of certain technology
as succeeding or preceding another technological
innovation presents ambiguities and problems.
There are problems in charting the trajectory
of individual technologies leading to overlaps
in the timelines as certain technological types
continue in subsequent cultures too. Secondly,
the beginning of iron technology in the Indian
subcontinent has been assigned an external
origin by Gopal Lallanji (1960), ascribing it to
the Aryan invasion.
Pl. 1: Map of Vidarbha showing the district boundaries
K. KRISHNAN
In this paper, the crux of the discussion
revolves around the iron technology practised
by the megalithic Vidarbhan community which
is exemplified by their smelting and smithery
activity. Eventually with the comparative analysis
of objects from the excavated sites of Naikund,
Bhagimohari and Vyahad the probability of the
existence of a centralised manufacturing unit
with a trade nexus will be analysed. Finally,
it is proposed that the ethnographic study
of the Lohar community will aid in societal
reconstruction of the megalithic community.
The map in plate 1 shows the Vidarbha
region (20°45´31.3˝ N–20°11´9.6˝ N and
76°10´55˝ E–80°11´46˝ E) within the present
day state of Maharashtra. It encompasses the
easternmost eleven districts of the state namely
Nagpur, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Bhandara,
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 117

Gondia, Wardha, Amravati, Akola, Buldana,
Yavatmal and Washim. It is important to note
that coal, one of the major requirements of
the iron smelting industry is present only in
the Vidarbha region in Maharashtra and the
richest coal deposit is at Telwasa in Chandrapur
district. Furthermore iron ore is also naturally
found in Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and Bhandara
region and the most economic deposit is Lohara
located in Chandrapur district and the only
known magnetite deposit (titaniferous magnetite
with vanadium inclusion) is located in Bhandara
district (Pl. 2).
The three sites selected for this study fall
within the Nagpur district and have a similar
geographical setting. Naikund (NKD) is located
on the banks of river Pench. The stone circles
grouped into clusters are located on the left bank
and the habitation mound along with an iron
smelting workshop with associated finds such as
slags, cinders, ore lumps and a smelting furnace is
located on the right bank. Bhagimohari (BMR) is
located on the bank of river Kolar, we have both
habitation and mortuary activity. Lastly the site
of Vyahad (VHD), again a habitation cum burial
site is located on the banks of river Vena. As the
tool typology from the three above-mentioned
sites follow a similar pattern with local variants,
it was found necessary to do a comparative
analysis of specific tool-types so as to locate the
similarities and dissimilarities of the chemical
composition and microstructures of the artefacts.

Pl. 2: Map of Vidarbha denoting the iron ore and coal deposits
118 O I S H I ROY
Resume of Artefact Assemblage
Three hundred and fifty six artefacts were
recorded and a systematic typological and
statistical analysis was done. Table 1 shows the
distribution of artefacts amongst the 3 sites.
Bhagimohari has revealed the highest variety
of artefacts. Adze (Pl. 3), better known as rapi
in the local language, was found in abundance
from all the 3 sites and is a major component
of the megalithic tool assemblage. However,
only 3 adzes were found from Naikund. This
artefact has been earlier described as fanned
blades tapered and joined at one end and has
been assigned no specific functional use (Park
and Shinde 2012). However, it is important to
note that a tribal society in the Kurnool district
of Andhra Pradesh used this double-sided
blade tool for minor surgical purposes (personal
Pl. 3: Adzes
Pl. 4: Nail parer
K. KRISHNAN
communication, Ismail Kellellu 2012). Nail
parers (Pl. 4) dominate the frequency distribution
and have been found in close association to
adzes; similar artefact had been used during the
1950’s and 1960’s by the tribal people of Odisha
(personal communication, R.K. Mohanty 2016).
Another interesting artefact is the fish hook (Pl. 5)
which has been found only from Bhagimohari.
Interestingly hooks of any variant have not been
found from any of the other Vidarbhan megalithic
sites. The visual examination of the tools suggests
that the megalithic tool assemblage consists of
tools having various utilitarian purposes such as
wood work (chisel), hunting (arrowhead, spike,
spearhead), agricultural activity (axe, digging
tool, sickle), horse ornaments (horse bits, stirrups),
iron smelting activity (ingot, slag), multi-purpose
(dagger, knife, ring, rod, wire, pan).
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 119

table 1: Artefacts available from the

3 megalithic sites

Artefacts VHD NKD BMR Total

Adze 18 3 36 57
Arrowhead 0 2 0 2
Axe 4 1 3 8
Bevelled point 2 0 0 2
a. BMR E
Borer 1 0 0 1
Chisel and Chisel point 17 2 10 29
Dagger 5 5 3 13
Digging tool 0 0 2 2
Drill point 0 0 1 1
Fish hook 0 0 3 3
Hoe 0 1 0 1
Horse bit 3 3 1 7 b. BMR 7
Ingot 0 2 3 5
Knife 3 7 2 12
Ladle 8 0 2 10
Lamp 5 0 19 24
Nail 0 0 2 2
Nail parer 17 2 46 65
Pan 0 2 0 2
Ring 0 0 7 7
Rod 0 0 22 22
Sickle 0 0 1 1
Slag 0 3 0 3
Spear/Spear head 5 0 1 6
Spike 0 0 10 10
Tang 0 5 7 12
Unidentified objects 0 4 43 47
Wire 0 0 2 2

total 88 42 226 356

c. BMR 34
Pl. 5: Fish hook
120 O I S H I ROY
Laboratory Procedure
The prime objective of metallographic
examination is to reveal the structure of the
metals and also to aid in composition analysis
(EDAX). Microscopic examination aids in
analysing fractures and recording non-metallic
inclusions. Samples were taken from 16 selected
artefacts (Table 2), they were clipped from
the working edge of the artefacts (Pl. 6). The
samples were selected on the basis of available
fractured sections as the destruction of antiquity
is not allowed by the excavating agencies. The
major problem encountered was sampling
the spikes and axes as they were almost intact
and no fractured samples were available for
metallographic analysis. Although systematic
sampling could not be followed completely,
representations from both burial and habitation
are present. They were mounted in plastic using
cold setting compound DPI-RR (Cold cure). First
a plastic cast was made from PVC pipes then the
sample was placed within it, then the cold setting
compound along with the resin was added to
the cast and left overnight for setting. Then the
sample was given a flat semi-polished surface by
grinding on a motor driven rough grinder, and
then the sample was polished on different grades
Pl. 6: Sampled Section of VHD 6
K. KRISHNAN
of emery paper. While grinding on the motor
driven belt grinder, it has to be ensured that the
sample is dipped in water at regular intervals as
the constant grinding produces heat and emits
sparks. This stage is usually done to remove the
rusted coating on the surface of the sample;
however, corrosion removal sometimes leads to
the complete removal of the sample itself as
certain artefacts do not have a proper existing
metallic core. Care should be taken not to grind
the entire sample. Fine polishing of the sample
is required for the sample to attain mirror like
polish and this was done on a polishing machine
using diamond paste as an abrasive paste. Finally
the surface was etched using Nital solution
(Ethenol [ 1100 ml ] + Nitric acid [ 10 ml ]). Then
the etched samples were studied under reflected
light microscope. Then the samples were
observed under the optical and scanning electron
microscope (SEM) so as to observe the surface
features and the grain boundaries and signatures
of forging techniques. While preparing samples
for SEM and EDAX gold coating had to be
applied on the surface of the sample to make it
inductive and the sample had to be over etched
for SEM analysis. The EDAX analysis was
mainly done to get a quantitative analysis of the
chemical composition of the samples.
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 121

table 2: Samples selected for Microscopic Examination

Accession no. Artefact Provenance Length Breadth Thickness Description

(mm) (mm) (mm)

a VHD 62 Dagger Meg: 1 Qdr: SE 200.86 37.99 3.37 Straight cutting

(Pl. 7) (central pit) edge. Corroded
rusted surface
b VHD 74 Ladle Meg: 1 Qdr: SE — — — Vertical handle
(Pl. 8) (central pit) broken from the
luting end
c VHD 50 Chisel Meg: 1 Qdr: SE 99.33 11.73 5.84 Tanged end
(Pl. 9) (central pit) broken. Use
wear marks on
broader section
d VHD 33 Adze Meg: 1 Qdr: NE — — —
(Pl. 10)
e VHD 24 Ladle Meg: 1 Qdr: SW — — — All broken
(Pl. 11) (vertical fragments
handle)
f VHD 16 Adze Meg: 1 Qdr: SE — — — Broken
(Pl. 12)
g NKD 5866 Nail parer LOCUS: II Meg: 110.81 — 6.11 Elongated
(Pl. 13) 7 cylindrical
object rod like
object
h NKD 5861 Nail Parer Locality V Md 1 104.35 — 4.24 Elongated
(Pl. 14) Tr: C1 Layer: 3 cylindrical
object rod like
object
i BMR 5809 Adze Meg: 2 South 49.8 17.65 2.12 Broken
(Pl. 17)
j BMR 173 Rod Tr: Y23408 — — 5.46 Broken
(Pl. 19b) Depth: 40 cms
k BMR 151–2 Tang Meg: 1 Qdr: SE 145.49 5.21 4.58 Broken
l BMR 136 Nail parer Meg: 4 Qdr: SW 137.32 — 5.26 Very regular,
Spiral
corrugations on
the shaft
m BMR 112 Chisel Locus - SE Cist 80.74 18.62 1.79 Broken from the
Chamber 58 cms working edge
n BMR 130 Spike Tr: D30213 44.91 9.04 3.03 Broken
(Pl. 16) (broken) Depth: 65 cms
④
122 O I S H I ROY K. KRISHNAN

Results (Pl. 14a), BMR 136 (Pl. 15a) shows a pearlitic

Metallographic examination
The optical micrograph of VHD 62 (Pl. 7a), 74
(Pl. 8a), 33 (Pl. 10a), 24 (Pl. 11a), 16 (Pl. 12a)
represents hypo-eutectoid steel composition. It
shows pearlite embedded in primary ferrite. To
form the hypo-eutectoid composition, it starts
with pure austenite along with dissolved carbon.
After cooling, the austenite region forms two
mixed regions α + y and some Fe3C (Cementite)
are formed. The SEM micrograph of VHD 50
(Pl. 9a), 24 (Pl. 11b), NKD 5866 (Pl. 13a), 5861
structure. It has a two phased lamellar formation
composed of alternating layers of ferrite and
cementite. This eutectoid phase is formed when
the austenite solid solution decomposes at 727°C
to form the two solid phases, ferrite (α) and
cementite (Fe3C). The lamellar formations show
that the technique of steelmaking was being
successfully practiced by the Megalithic Iron-
smiths and the chemical composition (Table 3)
also has similarity with present day commercial
steel.

table 3: Chemical composition of samples indicating steel technique

Sample C Fe Al Si S V Co As Mn W Tb P Mo Ni Micro- SEM

no. % % % % % % % % % % % % % % graph no.
no.

VHD 7a
62
VHD 8a
74
VHD 2.96 94.25 0.34 0.97 0.26 0.02 2.51 0.68 0.47 0.11 12.6 — 9a
50
(Pl. 9b)
VHD 10a
33
VHD 3.28 93.83 0.42 2.41 0.42 0.18 0.61 — 0.18 11a 11b
24
(Pl. 11c)
VHD 12a
16
NKD 13a
5866
NKD 14a
5861
BMR 3.79 93.55 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.05 2.09 0.15 0.09 0.45 15a
136
(Pl. 15)
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 123

Pl. 7: VHD 62

Pl. 7a: Optical Micrograph of VHD 62

showing Ferrite-Pearlite Structure

Pl. 8: VHD 74

Pl. 8a: Optical Micrograph of VHD 74

showing Ferrite-Pearlite Structure
124 O I S H I ROY K. KRISHNAN

Pl. 9: VHD 50

Pl. 9a: SEM Micrograph showing

Ferrite-Pearlite Structure

Pl. 9b: EDAX Composition Graph of Sample 50

 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 125

Pl. 10: VHD 33

Pl. 10a: Optical Micrograph of VHD 33

showing Ferrite-Pearlite Structure

Pl. 11: VHD 24

Pl. 11a: Optical Micrograph of VHD 24 Pl. 11b: SEM Micrograph

showing Ferrite-Pearlite Structure showing Ferrite-Pearlite Structure
126 O I S H I ROY K. KRISHNAN

Pl. 11c: EDAX Composition Graph of VHD 24

Pl. 12: VHD 16

Pl. 12a: Optical Micrograph of VHD 16

showing Ferrite-Pearlite Structure

Pl. 13: NKD 5866

 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 127

Pl. 13a: SEM Micrograph

showing Lamellar Formation

Pl. 14: NKD 5861

Pl. 14a: SEM Micrograph Pl. 15a: SEM Micrograph

showing Lamellar Formation showing Lamellar Formation in BMR 136
128 O I S H I ROY
Pl. 15: EDAX Composition Graph of BMR 136
We also have evidences of failed attempts
which is represented by the SEM micrograph
(Pl. 16a) of BMR 130. The micrograph
shows ferrite grains with iron carbide at grain
boundaries. Steeling was attempted but the
control on the absorption of carbon was not
achieved. The predominance of ferrite suggests
that the hardness of the structure was not
elevated.
The third evidence we derive from the
metallographic analysis of the samples is the
usage of cast iron. It has been identified first,
on the basis of their chemical composition and
secondly, on the basis of their microstructure. The
carbon content is the main difference between
cast iron and steel which is around 2–4 per cent.
Presence of carbon decreases the melting point
of iron and induces the formation of graphite
and silicon induces strength in the ferrite
structure. Generally cast iron has phosphorous
content (0.03–1.5%) which forms the laminated
constituent in white iron and this is formed in
the interstices of dendrites. The other elements
that are added to cast iron are nickel, chromium;
copper and molybdenum and sample number
BMR 5809 have shown the existence of all the
added elements except copper (Pl. 17c). However,
we do get the presence of niobium and zirconium
too. Nickel is usually added as it induces the
properties of grey iron and chromium induces
K. KRISHNAN
carbide formation. The presence of nickel
and chromium together produces the desired
closeness of the grain structure and molybdenum
strengthens the matrix.
Cast iron when given heat treatment for stress
relief results in dissolving of some graphite
formations in austenite, which is followed by air
cooling which leads to the formation of pearlite
and have the same features as steel (Rollason
1973). However, the composition is distinctive
of cast iron. The optical micrograph (Pl. 17a)
of Sample no. BMR 5809 shows ferritic grain
boundaries at high magnification along with
graphite flakes. The micrograph shows dendritic
structure typical of cast iron. Free graphite flakes
are a characteristic component of non-alloyed
and low-alloyed cast iron. However, the SEM
micrograph (Pl. 17b) shows lamellar formation
which resembles steel, which indicates that the
sample was annealed.
SEM micrograph (Pl. 18) of sample number
BMR 151–2 shows features of grey cast iron. The
microstructural constituents other than graphite
and transformed ledeburite are similar to steel,
along with ferrite and pearlite. The chemical
reaction involved in the formation of grey cast
iron is as follows. At temperature t1 the molten
metal starts to solidify and austentite grains in
the form of dendrites begin to form, enclosed by
the molten metal, with the falling temperature,
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 129

Pl. 16: BMR 130

Pl. 16a: Optical Micrograph of Sample BMR 130 Pl. 17: BMR 5809

Pl. 17a: Optical Micrograph Pl. 17b: SEM Micrograph

showing Dendritic Structure showing Lamellar Formation in BMR 5809

Pl. 17c: EDAX Composition Graph of BMR 5809

130 O I S H I ROY
the molten metal cools and eutectic is formed.
The eutectic composition consists of ledeburite,
austentite and Fe3C (Radzikowska 2004).
The artefacts BMR 173 and BMR 5833
were extremely corroded and minimal metallic
core was available for metallographic analysis,
however, the microstructures are inconclusive
and do not provide much scope for interpretation.
The chemical compositional data (EDS graph of
BMR 173 Pl. 19b) leads us to the following data:
Carbon (C): 1.16 % Iron (Fe): 95.18 %
Aluminum (Al): 0.25 % Silica (Si): 1.81 %
Sulphur (S): 0.43 % Vanadium (V): 0.13 %
Cobalt (Co): 0.13 % Manganese (Mn): 0.68 %
Tungsten (W): 1.01 % Phosphorous (P): 0.12 %
Chromium (Cr): 0.21 % Niobium (Nb): 0.13 %
Nickel (Ni): 0.23 % Zirconium (Zr): 0.01 %
Copper (Cu): 0.83 % Cerium (Ce): 0.65 %
Terbium (Tb): 13.1 % Tantalum (Ta): 0.74 %
Titanium (Ti): 0.25 %
The carbon content along with the other elements
present such as phosphorous, Chromium, Nickel
suggest that the artefact was probably given the
treatment of High Carbon Steel. However, the
SEM micrograph (Pl. 19a) shows no sign of
lamellar formation.
Finally, to understand the methods adopted
by the megalithic iron smithers an ethnographic
survey was undertaken. The ethnographic study
of the Lohar community gives us an insight into
the trade nexus adopted by them, procurement
of raw material and smithy techniques. The
survey also throws light on the social interaction
of the Lohar community which may have some
relevance for the megalithic community. Their
interaction with other communities and the
barter system adopted by them provide an answer
to the probable social reconstruction of the
megalithic society. It must be kept in mind here
we are adopting the process of travelling from
the known to the unknown; however, nothing
certain can be said about the propositions.
Ethnographic Survey of Lohars
An ethnographic survey of the Lohar community
residing in the region of Vidarbha was
K. KRISHNAN
undertaken. This nomadic group renders service
to the villagers by the mode of barter system. The
earliest account of this community by Russell
and Hiralal (1916) gives a vivid description of
this community during the colonial period.
Presently we have two categories of Lohars: the
one which still follows the nomadic way of life
and the other who has adjusted to the settled
life. Due to the changing social structure and the
freedom to choose one’s profession many of them
have adopted the work of a lohar; however, they
do not fall under the lohar community. These
lohars are termed as lohara nakkala and those who
are lohar by birth are known as suddha lohara.
Although every village has a resident lohar, and
the nomadic lohars set up their seasonal camps
every 3 to 4 months. An area separated from the
main habitation, located near a water body is
designated as the area for their seasonal camps.
While undertaking the surveys, a travelling Lohar
group was encountered. They are basically semi-
nomads and interestingly follow a route which
covers all the megalithic sites of Vidarbha and
generally set up their camps in the vicinity of the
megalithic sites. A vital question arises: does this
very precise mobility pattern project some sort
of chrono-cultural affinity between the present
day Lohars and the Early Iron Age Megalithic
people? According to the account of Russell and
Hiralal (1916) a village Lohar mends or makes
iron agricultural implements in lieu of twenty
pounds of grains per 15 acres of land held by
each cultivators, a handful of grain at the sowing
time and a sheaf at the harvest time. The record
clearly states that if a Lohar was asked to make
a new implement, he was always provided with
charcoal and iron and the present scenario is
quite similar where a Lohar sharpens and repairs
agricultural tools in lieu of food grains; however
for making new tools they barter with livestock.
In 1873, indigenous or ‘native’ furnaces for
iron smelting used by the Maharattas in Chanda
Central province were recorded by Theodore
W.H. Hughes (1873). Present day Chandrapur
was known as Chanda during the British regime.
According to the report, the native iron smelters
preferred utilising the anhydrous haematite
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 131

Pl. 18: BMR 151–2 Pl. 19a: SEM micrograph

showing unclear grain boundaries

Pl. 19: BMR 173

Pl. 19b: EDAX Composition Graph of BMR 173

132 O I S H I ROY
deposit because of its high ferric content (69.208
per cent). These Maharattas referred to the
spongy mass of smelted iron as kit. This mass of
spongy iron underwent two stages of refining,
the first stage was done by themselves where they
reheated it in a refinery and then forged it for
the maximum removal of slag. This reduced the
weight of the bloom. The final bloom referred
to as chul by them was cut into portions and
bartered with the lohars and the final refining
and shaping into final products were done at
the lohars’ workshop. We have no existence
of the Maharatta community now and the art
of indigeneous iron smelting is also lost. The
present lohar community buys scrap material
from nearby sources and engages in melting and
remelting of the same metal.
The Lohar community residing in Ubali
(Nagpur district) was represented by one suddha
lohara and one lohara nakkala. They engage only
in smithery activity. While observing them it was
noticed that both the men and the women took
turns at the anvil and the anvil was worshipped
as Goddess Bhavani by them who could only be
appeased by the blood of a slaughtered animal
and the burning flecks of iron which is blown
all over during forging. In the case of the suddha
lohara the profession of iron smithery had been
practised by his family from time immemorial
and the present Lohar, Tulsiram Sitaramji
Mojankar was initiated as an apprentice at the
age of 8 by his father. While being an apprentice
it is important to learn the probable temperature
the fire in the furnace would attain by the colour
of the flame; otherwise the art of forging would
be difficult to master. So as to understand the
methods undertaken while producing a tool, the
lohar was asked to make two specific tools which
looked similar to those found from archaeological
context. The tools he was asked to make were an
adze and a nail parer.
Adze
A solid iron rectangular strip was first selected
and it was heated in the furnace till red hot
condition (30 minutes approximately) (Pl. 20).
K. KRISHNAN
While it was in red-hot condition, it was forged
on the anvil (Pl. 21). Forging was done for shaping
out the artefact. Forging was continued only till
the iron strip was in red-hot condition, and then
it was again annealed. Alternate annealing and
forging helps to shape the artefact. The duration
of the process depends on the hardness of the
polat (iron strip). During the alternating process
a kanas (chisel) was used to cut out the shape by
placing the chisel vertically on the sheet and then
hammering from above (Pl. 22). This process
was repeated 9 times till the exact shape could
be cut. The shaped iron strip was again placed
inside the furnace to attain red-hot condition;
then the quenching process starts. First, the
broader blade was dipped in a trough filled
with cold water; this hardens the surface then
the same process was repeated for the narrower
blade (Pls 23 and 24). The degree of quenching
is understood by the change in the colour of the
red-hot surface. If the red-hot surface changes to
pink, then the hardness is minimal, if green then
it is comparatively high; but the smith always
aimed for the white colour which showed that it
had attained its maximum hardness. The degree
of hardness cannot be quantitatively stated as it
is a qualitative measure. The final product is as
shown in plate 25.
Microstructural Analysis
The optical micrograph shown in plate 26 is of
eutectic cast iron. The wear-and-tear process
for this type of metal is slower than grey cast
iron; however, the existence of a higher rate of
carbide, the process of wear-and-tear is higher
than steel. The lines visible horizontally along
the micrograph are markers of smithery activity,
which denotes the metal was forged on the anvil.
The hammering of the artefact, better known
as hot-working, is done at a temperature above
the recrystallisation temperature and it results
in plastic deformation without strain hardening.
The lines denote the flow of the metal during the
forging stage (Reardon 2015).
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 133

Pl. 20: Rectangular strip being heated to Pl. 21: Cut shape being forged in
red-hot condition red-hot condition

Pl. 22: Forged sheet is cut using a chisel

Pl. 23: Quenching of the broader blade Pl. 24: Quenching of the narrower blade
134 O I S H I ROY
Pl. 25: Adze the ethnographic sample
Nail parer
The iron strip selected for this object was square
in cross section and 160.71 mm in length. It
was first heated to red-hot condition and then
forged to reduce the cross-section, i.e. to make
it thinner. The forging was alternated with the
annealing process. This made the strip malleable
enough to be shaped. While forging the sides
were folded to make it thin, so that two ends
of the strip converged to form a triangle. Then
the shape of a triangular blade is achieved after
hammering on one end of the cylindrical shaped
strip, and then by using a chisel the sides were
cut to make a triangle. The next step was to form
the corrugations, this was done by first heating
it to red-hot condition then the strip was fixed
between two tongs and then they were twisted
to give it a spiral look. The other end of the tool
which was supposed to be pointed was re-heated
Pl. 27: Nail parer: an ethnographic sample
K. KRISHNAN
Pl. 26: Optical Micrograph of sample adze
and forged to make a point. After the tool was
finally shaped both the ends were again brought
to red-hot condition and were hardened by
quenching (Pl. 27).
Microstructural analysis
The optical micrograph plate 28 of the sample
clearly shows pearlite formation which denotes
it as steel and we have martensite formation on
the upper surface of the sample as the object was
quenched only on the outer surface.
Discussion
The ethnographic survey suggests that the
iron tools used by single village inhabitants
are habitually manufactured by the resident
Lohar and the satellite villages that have no
resident Lohar purchase their tools from the
 Understanding Ancient Iron Technology of the Vidarbhan Megalithic 135

attempted, on the other hand nail parer samples

Pl. 28: Optical Micrograph of sample nail parer
neighbouring village Lohar. The neighbouring
settlements Ghorad and Mohapa are small
village settlements and the nearest town is Ubali
which caters to their market needs. In the case of
the suddha lohara of Ubali he catered to four other
villages other than Ubali including Ghorad and
Mohapa. So the agricultural tools manufactured
at one workshop are supplied to the host village
and also to the surrounding villages. An axe used
at Ubali and an axe manufactured at the same
workshop and used at a satellite village Ghorad
show similar characteristic features as they have
been made by the same Lohar, oftentimes, out of
the same polat.
In the case of the megalithic communities
at NKD, VHD and BMR, we find that similar
smithy techniques were adopted; however,
exact parallels cannot be drawn from the
present day traditional smithy community. In
the case of Adze all the samples analysed show
lamellar formation suggesting that steeling was
also show similar forging techniques, probably
suggesting the existence of a single workshop
with multiple trading networks between Naikund
and the other satellite settlements. There can
also be an alternative hypothesis suggesting
that the megalithic community of Early Iron
Age Vidarbha was well versed with the iron
smithy techniques and there was a centralised
administrative unit which governed and
controlled the manufacturing of iron tools which
resulted in the standardised manufacturing
technique and standardised tool types. Although
the number and variety of tools unearthed from
Naikund are very few but it is the only site that
has brought to light early iron smelting activity.
Due to this reason Naikund has been considered
as the central manufacturing unit from where
all other satellite megalithic settlements received
their necessary tools.
In the case of technology, it is evident that
the megalithic iron smelters and smithers had a
developed and standardized iron technology. It
is evident that the process of steel making was
indigenous as we find failed attempts at making
steel; and it is important to note that grey cast
iron as well as wrought iron was also used. The
microstructures of implements (BMR 130, 136,
ND 5866, 5861, VHD 33, 16, BMR 5809 and
VHD 62) that required a pointed edge or sharp
cutting edge had the features of steel (pearlite
structure). Steeling induced strength without
strain hardening and reduced defects such as
fractures in the implements which helped in
increasing the duration of usage of the tools and
the nature of their use.

A cknowledgements : This article wouldn’t have seen the light of day without the constant help,
encouragement and financial support of a few people and institutions. The iron assemblage from
the above mentioned excavated sites were made available for study by R.T.M. Nagpur University,
Department of Archaeology and Dr R.K. Mohanty of Deccan College, Pune, Department of
Archaeology. The metallurgical and chemical analysis was possible because of the Department of
Metallurgical Engineering, Jadavpur University. Dr Rajib Dey willingly trained the first author and
allowed her to use the laboratory facilities.
136 O I S H I ROY
References
Banerjee, N.R. (1965). The Iron Age in India, Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal.
Hughes, Theodore W.H. (1873). ‘Notes on Some of
the Iron Deposits of Chanda, Central Provinces’,
ed. Thomas Oldham, Records of the Geological Survey
of India 6(4): 77, 79.
Lallanji, Gopal (1960). ‘Antiquity of Indian Iron’,
Uttara Bharati 9 (3).
Park, J.S. and V. Shinde (2012). ‘Iron Technology
of the Ancient Megalithic Communities in the
Vidarbha Region of India’, Journal of Archaeological
Science 40(11): 3822–33.
Radzikowska, J.M. (2004). ‘Metallography and
Microstructures of Cast Iron’, ASM Handbook 9:
Metallography and Microstructures, ASM International.
K. KRISHNAN
Reardon, C. Arthur (ed.) (2015). Metallurgy for the Non-
Metallurgist, ASM International.
Rollason, E.C. (1973). Metallurgy for Engineers, The
English Language Book Society and Edward
Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Russell, R.V. and Rai Bahadur Hiralal (1916). The
Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India III,
London: Macmillan.
Subramanyam, B.R. (1964). ‘Appearance and Spread
of Iron in India: An Appraisal of Archaeological
Data’, Journal of the Oriental Institute 13 (4): 349–59.
Tewari, Rakesh (2003). ‘The Origins of Iron-Working
in India: New Evidence from the Central Ganga
Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas’, Antiquity 77 (297):
536–44.