3 militant incidents across border in last six months helped get neighbour on board

India has been sharing evidence and information about locations of various insurgent groups with Myanmar on a regular basis.

Weapons of the Indian army personnel who were killed by militants lie at the scene of an attack on a military convoy in Manipur’s Chandel district. (AFP PHOTO)

National security adviser Ajit Doval will travel to Yangon this week to offer intelligence and hardware cooperation to the Thein Sein government in its fight against insurgent groups operating in Myanmar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENA7MS6MAEQ Published on Jun 10, 2015

Everything You Wanted To Know About Indian Army's Operation In Myanmar 

From ‘insertion’ to ‘kill’ and ‘out’: How India’s elite troopers avenged militant strike in Manipur

• Sanjib Kr Baruah and Rahul Singh, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
| 
• Updated: Jun 10, 2015 10:31 IST

This Mi-35 chopper was one of five flying in the direction of the Manipur-Myanmar border near Haflong on June 6. (Biju Boro/HT Photo)

---

Thirty minutes, from ‘insertion’ to ‘kill’ to ‘out’. Forty of India’s toughest fighting men, commandos from the elite 21 Para (Special Force) Regiment, in two teams. Russian-made Mi-35 attack helicopters of the Indian Air Force. Two rebel camps, four km deep in Myanmar, and more than 20 militants. All destroyed with surgical precision and extreme prejudice.

Indian paratroopers conducted cross-border strikes on two insurgent camps in Myanmar early on Tuesday, inflicting "significant casualties" five days after 18 soldiers were killed in Manipur in the worst attack on security forces in 30 years.

Tuesday’s operation wasn’t just about revenge or hot pursuit; the strikes were pre-emptive. "In the course of the last few days, credible and specific intelligence was received about further attacks that were being planned within our territory," a statement released by the army said.

Releasing details of the operation, the army said it had inflicted "significant casualties" but didn’t give a precise number. Sources said at 22 militants were killed in the twin strikes on camps located well within Myanmar territory.

A similar number were said to be injured, and the others were scattered by the ferocity of the attack that involved use of the machine guns mounted on the Mi-35s. These guns fire the heavy and incredibly powerful 12.7 mm round at the mind-boggling rate of about 4,000 rounds a minute, what is referred to as ‘hosepipe’ in army slang. Little survives such firepower, and in Myanmar early on Tuesday, little did.

The rare cross-border strike was supervised at the highest levels, HT has learnt. National security adviser AK Doval and defence minister Manohar Parrikar monitored the operation that began at 3 am Tuesday. “Myanmar was informed about the plans but the strikes at two locations were conducted by our army,’’ an official said.

Doval, who dropped out of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s weekend tour of Bangladesh at the last minute, Parrikar and army chief Gen Dalbir Singh, who put off a visit of the UK following the Manipur ambush, coordinated the operation.

Intelligence reports and satellite images of insurgent camps were shared with Myanmar. “One attack took place opposite Chassad in Manipur’s Ukhrul district, the other, opposite to Noklak in Nagaland’s Tuensang district,” home ministry sources said on condition of anonymity.

An "immediate response was necessary" to counter the assault being planned by "groups involved in earlier attacks on our security personnel", the army said. The statement, however, didn’t say if the "significant casualties" included those responsible for the June 4 Manipur attack.

The camp close to Manipur was known to be a Peoples Liberation Army, a Meitei outfit, base, sources said. Members of the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) and other Meitei insurgent groups also camped there. Meitei are the majority ethnic group in Manipur, where several insurgent outfits continue to oppose the state’s union with India.

The camp close to Noklak was a Khaplang base, sources said. “It is suspected that top leaders of the Khaplang faction including Starson Lamkang (the self-styled finance minister, or ‘kilonser’) may have been at the camp,” sources said. Lamkang is believed to be involved in the June 4 ambush that was claimed by the NSCN (K). The outfit had in March ended the ceasefire with the Indian government.

Indicating that more strikes could be coming, the army’s statement said they were in touch with the authorities in the neighbouring country.

Read:

Families bid adieu to soldiers killed in Manipur ambush

After the ambush: What needs to be done for peace in Manipur

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/several-terrorists-killed-on-india-myanmar-border-army/article1-1356716.aspx

Centre cancels AAP govt order; reinstates Delhi Home Secretary

Damascus steel was imported into Syria from India. 

Painting in Steel Authority of India Guest House, Ranchi. King Puru presenting an Indian steel sword to King Alexander.

Rare discovery by Prof. KP Rao of iron tools and weapons in Hyderabad ca. 2200 BCE. Additional details on pottery, burials (Telugu report)

Damascus sabers contain carbon nanotubes, as well as nanoscale wires of cementite, giving them a moiré pattern.Close-up, organic pattern of an 18th-century Persian-forged Damascus steel sword. A research team in Germany published a report in 2006 revealing nanowires and carbon nanotubes in a blade forged from Damascus steel. (Reibold, M.; Paufler, P.; Levin, A. A.; Kochmann, W.; Pätzke, N.; Meyer, D. C. (2006). "Materials: Carbon nanotubes in an ancient Damascus sabre". Nature 444 (7117): 286.) The original damascus was likely produced from ingots of wootz steel, imported from India and Sri Lanka. ( G. Juleff (1996). "An ancient wind powered iron smelting technology in Sri Lanka". Nature 379 (6560): 60.)A bladesmith from Damascus, ca. 1900. The Arabs introduced the Indian wootz steel to Damascus, where a weapons industry thrived.[Sharada Srinivasan; Srinivasa Ranganathan (2004). India's Legendary Wootz Steel: An Advanced Material of the Ancient World. National Institute of Advanced Studies.] From the 3rd century to the 17th century, India was shipping steel ingots to the Middle East.[inopoli, Carla M. (2003). The Political Economy of Craft Production: Crafting Empire in South India, c. 1350–1650. Cambridge University Press. p. 192.] "The origin of the Pauravas tribe is quite ancient and pre-dates MAHABHARATAS. The kings who descended from CHANDRA ("moon") were called CHANDRAVANSHI (or "of the lunar dynasty"). Yayati was a CHANDRAVANSHI king, with Puru and Yadu as two of his many sons. They were the founders of two main branches of the Chandravamsha; the YADUS, or Yadavas, were descendants of Yadu, and Pauravas were descendants of Puru." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauravas

• Vitasta (Jhelum)
• Asikni (Chenab)
• Parusni (Ravi)
• Vipas (Beas)
• Sutudri (Sutlej)

Jhelum river

Brief Summary of Alexander's India Campaign

According to Plutarch (79 AD), after defeating the Persians, A lexander the Great continued his conquest of Asia by turning south into Arachosia (southeast Persia) and then continuing north into Afghanistan where he founded cities to serve as army garrisons and centers of his administration. Subsequently, he entered Bactria and Sogdiana, and marched his armies as far as the Jaxartes River. After two years in this region, , Alexander and his army crossed the Hindu Kush mountain region (present Pakistan) and begun the conquest of India during 327-326 BC.

Construction of Fleet - Journey on River Indus - There were several battles during the India campaign. Although victorious, after the June 326 BC battle of Hydaspes - near the northernmost of the five great tributaries of the Indus River - Alexander was pressured by his generals to end his Asian conquest and to return to Babylonia.

Although Alexander was extremely disappointed, he accepted to retun but persuaded his generals to travel south down the rivers Hydaspes and Indus so that they could reach the ocean.

The Athenian type of trireme that served as Alexander's flagship, "Olympias", named after his mother.

Subsequently, Alexander ordered that 30 oared galleys (Athenian triremes) and other ships be built to so they could sail down the Indus River in support of the ongoing Indian campaign before transport part of his army back to Babylonia. A total of 800 ships were built at Hydaspes. In command of the newly constructed fleet, he appointed Nearchus of Crete, who had been the satrap of Lycia and Pamphylia (in Asia Minor), after the Sogdian campaign, and one of his two commanders of the Shield bearers, a heavy infantry unit, before the battle of Hydaspes. Also, Nearchus had considerable naval experience, since he had made a exploration voyage along the Persian Gulf. Onesicritus was appointed to be captain of Alexander's own ship.

The fleet sailed down the river and into the Indus, with half of the forces on the ships and the other half marching in three columns down the two banks, leaded by Craterus, Haphesteion and Alexander himshelf. In June, Alexander sent a third of his army under the command of Craterus, back to Carmania over a northern land route. The size of the returning army is estimated at 75,000 men. Even with a third of the soldiers leaving for Carmania, based on Plutarch's account, Alexander's army in India still amounted to about 140,000 foot soldiers and 15,000 cavalrymen.

Alexander's India Campaign along the Indus River Valley (map of Livius.org)

The remaimder of the India Campaign and the fleet's journey down the Indus River took approximately seven months, during which Alexander conquered what is now the Punjab state. In the summer of 325 BC, the fleet and the bulk of the army reached Patala, the present city of Bahmanabad, about 75 km northeast of present Hyderabad - at the top of what was then the Indus delta. There he built a harbor and explored both arms of the Indus River, which then ran into the Rann of Kutch. According to Plutarch Alexander also traveled further down to Indus to an offshore island. He describes such a voyage and the appointment of Nearchus as commander of Alexander's fleet, as follows:

"His (Alexander's) voyage down the rivers took up seven months' time, and when he came to the sea, he sailed to an island which he himself called Scillustis, others Psiltucis, where going ashore, he sacrificed, and made what observations he could as to the nature of the sea and the sea-coast. Then having besought the gods that no other man might ever go beyond the bounds of this expedition, he ordered his fleet, of which he made Nearchus admiral and Onesicritus pilot, to sail round about, keeping the Indian shore on the right hand, _"

The island of Scillustis or Psiltucis near the mouth of the Indus River mentioned by Plutarch must have been a deltaic sand island which no longer exists due to extensive sedimentation and shoreline changes.

A portion of Alexander's army continued on land southeast of the Indus River and fought several squirmishes before regrouping at Patala for the journey back to Carmania, across the dangerous Gedrosian Desert.

Sea and Land Routes of Alexander's Army and Fleet

Alexander's Army Return Via the Southern Land Route - In August 325 BC, Alexander with about 135,000 foot soldiers and cavalry men left Patala towards Carmania, for the long and difficult march back homeward, through the harsh Gedrosian desert (Arrian, 135-37 A.D.) - which was part of the ancient Achaemenid empire (present region of Baluchistan region in Iran). Apparently, only one fourth of the army survived the march back. Plutarch describes Alexander's difficult journey via the southern land route and the hardships the army endured as follows:

" and (Alexander) returned himself by land through the country of the Orites (mountain people) , where he was reduced to great straits for want of provisions, and lost a vast number of his men, so that of an army of one hundred and twenty thousand foot and fifteen thousand horse, he scarcely brought back above a fourth part out of India, they were so diminished by disease, ill diet, and the scorching heats, but most by famine. For their march was through an uncultivated country whose inhabitants fared hardly, possessing only a few sheep, and those of a wretched kind, whose flesh was rank and unsavoury,."

The Fleet's Journey to the Indus delta/Kutch region - Chronology of Events

On 15 September 325 BC, following the departure of the bulk of army via the southern land route, the Greek fleet of 150 ships under Nearchus' command, set out to sea for Carmania and Babylonia with the remaining army which had dwindled to about 17,000 - 20,000 men.

Arrian's Chronology of the Greek Fleet Sailing from the Port of Alexander. Written by Arrian in the Ionian dialect - in the style of historian Herodotos.

However, September was too early in the season for the journey west as the summer monsoon winds blow in this region from a southwest direction from May through October. It is possible that Nearchus received false information from the natives who were anxious to see Alexander's ships leave. Almost immediately after sailing from Patala, the ships encountered adverse winds. It took almost a week to reach the Erythraean Sea (the Indian Ocean). Subsequently, the fleet headed west towards Morontobara (present Karachi) through the lagoon between the mouths of rivers Indus and Hab (the ancient shoreline was different than the present shoreline - see diagram on change). 

The above stated chronology of events has been somewhat reconciled with the ancient records as to the month but not the year. A late September departure is supported by Arrian's account (see ancient Greek text on the timing of the fleet's departure from the Port of Alexander at the delta of the Indus river). Specifically Arrian states that soon as the strong summer (seasonal monsoon) sea winds (that make sailing impossible) stopped, the Greek fleet set sail. As for the date and month, he states that the journey begun during the time that " Kifisodoros" was the ruler of Athens ( on the second year of his rule, following the 114th Olympic Games held in 326 BC), and more specifically on the 20th of the month known as "Voidromonas" ( the third month of the Attica calendar - 15 September to 15 October, according to the Athenian calendar, but also known as "Yperveretaios" according to the Macedonian and Asian calendars. Arrian further specifies that the year was the 11th of Alexander's reign, which would make it 326 B.C.E Thus the Greek fleet's journey, according to Arrian, lasted from September 326 to February 325 B.C.

EVALUATION OF THE TSUNAMI OF 325 BC

Partial Destruction of the Greek Fleet by the 325 BC Tsunami

Renewed southwest monsoons and dwindling food and water supplies slowed the fleet's progress - forcing Nearchus to seek safe anchorage for the ships and to establish a fortified shore camp for about 24 days, while waiting for better weather conditions.

From Plutarch's description and timing it can be safely concluded that the camp was established just south of the Hab river (south of present Karachi), designated "Port of Alexander". Upon establishing this camp, the soldiers were forced to hunt and fish for food and to drink briny water.

The most likely location of the Greek fleet in late October /early November 325 BC when the fleet was struck by the tsunami generated by a large earthquake in the Makran Subduction Zone.

It was probably at this time and at this location - in late October / early November 325 BC - that the large earthquake and tsunami occurred near the Indus delta/Kutch region where the fleet had taken refuge. According to Lietzin (1974), the earthquake had large magnitude and massive waves destroyed a good part of Alexander's fleet. Also, according to Sri Lankan texts, a destructive tsunami struck the east side of the island. However, no details are available as to the exact date of the event, the location of Alexander's fleet at that time, or the extent of the losses. 

Location and Magnitude of the 325 BC Tsunamigenic Earthquake

In all probability, the earthquake of 325 BC occurred along the Makran coast (of present southern Pakistan) and generated a destructive tsunami. The earthquake must have been very similar to the Makran earthquake of 1945, which generated a destructive tsunami along coastal areas of India, Pakistan, Iran and Oman. Although infrequently, the Makran subduction zone in the Northern Arabian Sea is capable of generating such tsunamigenic earthquakes that can have an upper limit of moment magnitude (Mw) of as much as 8 (Pararas-Carayannis, 2005a, b, 2006).

There is no information in the historical records about the intensity of the 325 BC earthquake from which a magnitude can be estimated, but since it was widely reported and a tsunami purportedly caused destruction as far away as eastern Sri Lanka, it can be assumed that it must have been as great as that of 1945.

Another possibility is that the 325 BC earthquake occurred in the Gujarat region, where large events are also known to occur - particularly along the Kutch Graben region or even near the Bombay graben. However, none of the recent earthquakes that have occurred along the Kutch Graben region have generated destructive tsunamis (Pararas-Carayannis, 2001). It is possible that an earthquake in the Guajarat region could have triggered an underwater landslide and a local tsunami, but such an event would not have the azimuthal concentration of energy to cause destruction on the east coast of Sri Lanka. More than likely, the large earthquake reported in the ancient texts originated along the Makran subduction zone - a region which is capable of generating destructive tsunamis (Pararas-Carayannis, 2005a,b, 2006).

The Indus delta/Kutch region in the Guajarat region of India - east of the Makran Subduction Zone - is a region that has produced numerous destructive earthquakes in recent times, including a devastating earthquake in 2001 (Pararas-Carayannis, 2001).

Scenario of the 325 BC Tsunami

It is not known with any certainty if the tsunami of 325 BC struck the Greek fleet while at anchor, or while out at sea. None of the ancient texts provide information about losses or extent of damage. However, based on Plutarch's and other historical accounts, and from current knowledge of the sesimo-tectonics of the region, the chronology of the journey of Alexander's fleet and the possible impact of the 325 BC tsunami can be evaluated.

The timing of the large earthquake was critical to the fate of the fleet. What saved the Greek fleet from more extensive destruction was its location when the tsunamigenic earthquake occurred. It is believed that the earthquake occurred along the Makran Subduction Zone in late October or early November of 325 BC, when the ships were still in the Indus delta/Kutch region - near the delta of river Hab (just south of present Karachi). According to Plutarch, the Greek ships did not set sail from the estuary between the mouths of rivers Indus and Hab until early November, when the southwest monsoons subsided.

Location of Alexander's Fleet in late October / early November 325 BC.

The delay in the fleet's departure due to the adverse winds was a blessing in disguise and probably saved most of the ships from total destruction. If the earthquake had occurred later in November after the fleet had left Morontobara (Karachi), or when the fleet was sailing along the Makran coast (southern Pakistan) near Bagisara (present Ormara), there could have been total destruction.

Not only the timing of the earthquake but the orientation of the tsunami generating area were critical to the fate of the Greek fleet. The tsunami generating area along the Makran Subduction Zone would have an east-west orientation. Therefore, the azimuthal propagation of the tsunami energy was greater to the north and to the south - and much less to the east or west. Thus the tsunami waves were very large in height along the entire Makran region as well as along the southwestern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, as the tsunami wave energy refracted in deeper water. Immediately to the east, where the Greek fleet was located, the waves were not as high or as destructive. Apparently, the destruction must have been partial and most of the ships were able to make repairs and continue the journey west.

The Makran Accretionary Front and Tectonic Subduction Zone in the Northern Arabian Sea, marking the convergence boundary of the Oman oceanic lithosphere and the Iranian microplate - a region of large but infrequent tsunamigenic earthquakes (map modified after, Mokhtari and Farahbod, 2005)

The impact of the 325 BC tsunami in the region was probably very similar to what happened with the 1945 Makran event (Pararas-Carayannis 2005, 2006). The maximum run up height of the 1945 tsunami was 13 m (40 feet), along the Makran coast. The waves destroyed fishing villages, caused great damage to port facilities and killed more than 4,000 people. However to the east the waves were significantly lower. In 1945, Karachi was struck by waves of only about 2 meters (6.5 feet) in height. Therefore, Alexander's fleet - which in late October / early November 325 BC was still located east of the delta of river Hab - must have been impacted by similar waves of about 2 meters, thus limiting the damage.

The Fleet's Journey after the 325 BC Tsunami

With no opposing winds during the monsoon transitional period in November of 325 BC, the ships were able to make significant progress westward. According to Arrian (based on Nearchus account), after leaving the Indus delta/Kutch region, the Greek fleet continued the difficult journey, first to Morontobara or Woman's Harbor (present Karachi) near the mouth of the Hab river, then through the Sonmiani Bay, along the Makran coast. One night, the Greek ships camped near the battlefield on the coast where Leonnatus, one of Alexander's generals, had defeated the native population, the Oreitans ('Mountain people'). He had left a large food deposit for Nearchus' men - enough to last for ten days. With renewed supplies and favorable winds the ships reached the Hingol River and then continued to Bagisara (present Ormara) - where the 325 BC tsunami probably must have had its maximum impact earlier in late October / early November.

A Greek trireme under sail

The fleet made significant progress westward when the northeast (winter) monsoons picked up in early December, thus reaching rapidly Colta (Ras Sakani), Calima (Kalat) and an island called Carnine (Astola). After provisioning there, the fleet continued and passed Cysa (near present Pasni) and Mosarna (near Ras Shahid). At Mosarna, a Gedrosian pilot joined them, and in two days led the ships to what is now modern Gwadar, where According to Arrian's account) they Greek army was delighted to see date palms and gardens. Three days later, Nearchus' men reached Cyisa, a town near modern Chah Bahar and and raided it for supplies. Afterwards, they anchored near a promontory dedicated to the Sun, which was called Bageia (dwelling of the gods') by the local natives - which is probably the presetn day Ra's Kûh Lab. Other places mentioned by Nearchus account of the voyage - as conveyed by Arrian of Nicomedia - such as Talmena, Canasis, Canate, Taa or Dagaseira cannot be identified. However Dagaseira may be the present town of Jask, in Southern Iran.

After the long and arduous journey, the fleet finally reached the Carmania region and was subsequently reunited with the rest of Alexander's army at Harmozeia (modern Mînab). Harmozeia (near the Strait of Hormuz), was one of the largest ports in the Persian Gulf in ancient times.

The coastline along the Northern Arabian Sea

Finally, sometime in January 324 BC, Alexander's fleet reached safely the mouth of the Tigris River in Mesopotamia. However, Plutarch, Arrian and none of the ancient historians give any information as to how many ships of Alexander's fleet survived the long journey along what were-until-then, uncharted waters. It is believed that Nearchus provided the first navigational charts for this region.

Tsunami Occurrence Elsewhere in Alexander's Empire

Although there is no specific accounting in ancient texts of the tsunami along the Makran region, it is interesting to note that besides Alexander the Great's fleet, Julius Caesar's Roman fleet also sustained damage from unusual wave conditions (not a tsunami) and tidal phenomena in 55 AD. Caesar was forced to retreat from the shores of England after suffering damage to his fleet when he anchored the Roman fleet in bays that had extensive tidal ranges and unusually large waves.

There is a record of a tsunami elsewhere in Alexander's Empire. The following account of a tsunami is given by the ancient historian, Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicely). Diodorus - in his rather allegorical narrative below - includes a sea-monster in his account of the tsunami wave that flooded the harbor of Alexandria. Of course, the event is attributed to god Poseidon who was believed to be the originator of earthquakes and tsunamis:

"As the Macedonian construction came within range of their missiles, portents were sent by the gods to them in their danger. Out of the sea a tidal wave tossed a sea-monster of incredible size into the midst of the Macedonian operations. It crashed into the mole but did it no harm, remained resting a portion of its body against it for a long time and then swam off into the sea again. This strange event threw both sides into superstition, each imagining that the portent signified that Poseidon would come to their aid, for they were swayed by their own interest in the matter".

Conclusions

Although infrequently, large magnitude earthquakes occur along the Makran region of Southern Pakistan and the Indus delta/Kutch region. Earthquakes, involving thrust motions along the Makran subduction zone are known to generate destructive tsunamis. Destructive tsunami waves can be generated also by underwater landslides in the region because of extensive sediment accumulation along the deltas of major rivers. Large earthquakes near the Kutch Graben can trigger such underwater tsunamigenic landslides.

Ancient texts support that a large earthquake and tsunami occurred in 325 BC. Since Alexander the Great's fleet spent considerable time that year in the Indus delta/Kutch and the Makran regions (India in ancient times), it is very possible that the fleet sustained damage from the tsunami, but managed to make repairs and continue west towards Babylonia. In all probability, the tsunami originated along the Makran Subduction Zone - the same source area that produced the great Makran earthquake and tsunami of 1945. Based on ancient records and current geophysical knowledge, it is believed that the 325 BC earthquake occurred in late October but more likely in early November. At that time, Alexabder's fleet was either at anchor at the estuary near the delta of river Hab, or had just set out to sea.

The source area of the 325 BC tsunami along the Makran region had an east west orientation - similar to that of 1945. The azimuthal propagation of the tsunami energy was greater to the north and to the south. Since the Greek fleet was still in the Indus delta/Kutch region - to the east of the generating area near the mouth of Hab River - it is estimated that it was struck by waves that were about 2 meters in height. The wave heights of the 1945 tsunami were significantly lower to the east. In 1945, Karachi was struck by waves that were only 2 meters (6.5 feet) high. However, along the Makran coast, the 1945 waves reached a maximum run up height of 13 m (40 feet), destroyed fishing villages, caused great damage to port facilities and killed more than 4,000 people. We can conclude that the 325 BC tsunami had similar wave heights.

The timing of the 325 BC tsunamigenic earthquake and the location of Alexander's fleet were critical. If the earthquake had occurred later in November of 325 BC, after the fleet had left Morontobara (Karachi), or when it was near Bagisara (present Ormara), the outcome could have been disastrous. The delay due to adverse monsoon winds probably saved Alexander's fleet from total tsunami destruction.

REFERENCES

Arrian of Nicomedia", 135-137 A.D. Indikê, appendix to Anabasis. One of seven books of the history of Alexander's march into Asia - The fleet's journey is based primarily on the Indikê by Alexander's fleet-commander Nearchus. (The first chapters are derived from Megasthenes, a Greek envoy who visited Patna.)

Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes with an English Translation by C. H. Oldfather. Vol. 4-8. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd. 1989.)

Fernando, A.D.N.,2005. Tsunamis, earthquakes, their intensity and periodicity. Online edition of the Island of Sri Lanka
http://servesrilanka.blogspot.com/2005/03/tsunamis-earthquakes-their-intensity.html

Gopala Pillai, N., 1937. Skanda: The Alexander Romancein India. Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference_, Vol. IX (Trivandrum: Government Press, 1937), pp. 955-997

Mokhtari, M., Farahbod, A.M. 2005. Tsunami Occurrence in the Makran Region, Tsunami Seminar, Tehran, 26th February 2005

Nearchus of Crete, 325 BC. Indike in classical' Greek. Nearchus of Crete. http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nearchus/nearchus.html

Pararas-Carayannis, G. 2001. The Earthquake of 25 January in Guajarat, India.
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Earthquake2001India.html

Pararas-Carayannis, G., 2005. "The Earthquake of 8 October 2005 in Northern Pakistan".
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Earthquake2005Pakistan.html

Pararas-Carayannis, G., 2006. "The Potential of Tsunami Generation Along the Makran Subduction Zone in the Northern Arabian Sea - Case Study: The Earthquake and Tsunami of November 28, 1945", (abstract). Journal of Tsunami Hazards. Paper for 3rd Interantional Conference on the Science of Tsunami Hazards, May 23-25, 2006, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Plutarch of Chaeronea, 79 AD. Life of Alexander, 356-323, translated by John Dryden.
Also in "The Fortune and Virtue of Alexander"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes

Found on miniaturasmilitaresalfonscanovas.blogspot.com.es "The Battle of the Hydaspes River was fought by Alexander the Great in 326 BC against King Porus of the Hindu Paurava kingdom on the banks of the Hydaspes River (Jhelum River) in the Punjab near Bhera. This battle is considered as Alexander's most costly by many historians, Peter Connolly notable amongst them." https://www.pinterest.com/pin/536280268103185559/

Alexander the Great, detail from Alexander and Porus, painting by Charles Le Brun, 17th century; in the Louvre, Paris.

War elephants, Hydaspes

"But this last combat with Porus took off the edge of theMacedonians' courage, and stayed their further progress into India. For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading them on to pass the Ganges, too, which they were told was thirty-two furlongs broad and a fathom deep, and the banks on the further side covered with multitudes of enemies."

	"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was •thirty-two furlongs, its depth •a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India."
—Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Life of Alexander" 62.1-4 [unquote] The 'Porus Medallion', a silver decadrachm  Macedonian Alexander's cavalry vs Indian Paurava elephant "Alexander’sturning back at Indian borders was symptomatic of the fear that Indian elephants evoked in the rest of the world... Elephant capture (khedda), training, manuals and terminology originate in India. Elephant riders (mahavats), elephant chairs (howdahs) and elephants in heat (masth) are all Indian terms. From India, elephant management skills, in a limited manner spread, to Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia and other parts of South East Asia." https://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/hannibals-elephants/  This appears to be a victory medallion of King Porus of Pauravas in the British Museum. Reverse show a vajra wielding divinity crowned by a kinnara. Obverse shows Porus and elephant mahour fighting a Greek cavalry warrior. For an alternative interpretation:  [quote]The “Porus Medallions” or “Franks Medallion” (named after the donor of the first example of the coin to the British Museum) was discovered in modern Afghanistan in the late 19th century. The obverse shows a cavalryman, identified as a Macedonian by his Phrygian-style helmet and characteristic long lance (or sarissa), charging at an elephant with two warriors mounted on its back. The reverse shows another Macedonian horseman, or possibly the same one, this time standing and being crowned by a winged Victory but still wearing his distinctive helmet. However this Macedonian is carrying what could either be a sarissa or a royal sceptre in his left hand, and more importantly in his right hand he holds the thunderbolt of Zeus. The coin is obviously a reference to the Macedonian victory at the Hydaspes and it is just as clear that the Macedonian figure is intended to be Alexander himself, both through his wielding of the thunderbolt of his ancestor Zeus and through the distinctive white plumage which Plutarch tells us the king wore on either side of his helmet. The standing figure mounted on the elephant and brandishing a spear on the obverse has been identified as Porus because of the figure’s height. Porus is described in almost all primary sources as extremely tall, sometimes as over 2.1 metres or 7 feet tall, and the height of the figure on the elephant would certainly tally with those measurements. On some examples of the medallion it is even possible to discern the foot of the rider behind the elephant about halfway up its leg, adding further emphasis to the prodigious height of the man. The depictions of Alexander and Porus on the medallions are interesting, but it is the dating of the coin that makes it truly fascinating. It is almost impossible to tell exactly when the coin was minted due to the lack of any kind of legend. However the coin has been approximately dated to the very end of Alexander’s lifetime, minted in Babylon either shortly before or shortly after his death in 323 BC. If we take the date before Alexander’s death and accept that it is Alexander himself featured on the reverse, then this series of coins is remarkable. It would represent not only the sole surviving depiction of Alexander the Great produced in his lifetime, but would be the earliest known image of an identified living person on coins. This coinage provides not only an intriguing mystery for numismatists but could also provide remarkable insight into the mindset of Alexander and his views on his own divinity. They also demonstrate, through the use of an image of a living person as a type, the development of coin types as a form of propaganda which would continue to be used throughout history. [unquote] http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/numismatics/entry/the_porus_medallion/

Battle of Hydaspes River, 326 BCE

The power of e-will

G. Posssehl & P. Gullampalli  on The Early Iron Age in South  Asia

 

 

 The 'lathe' is the top portion; the 'portable furnace' is the bottom portion. Dotted circles denote the beads pierced by the gimlet of the lathe. kandi 'bead' (Pargi) Rebus: kanda 'furnace' (Santali). Pa. kandi (pl. -l) necklace, beads. Ga. (P.) kandi (pl. -l) bead, (pl.) necklace; (S.2) kandiṭ bead.(DEDR 1215)

Indus seals showing 'lathe' hieroglyph.

P. goṭṭā ʻ gold or silver lace ʼ, H. goṭā m. ʻ edging of such ʼ (→ K. goṭa m. ʻ edging of gold braid ʼ, S. goṭo m. ʻ gold or silver lace ʼ); M. goṭ ʻ hem of a garment, metal wristlet ʼ(CDIAL 4271)

Kur. goṭā any seed which forms inside a fruit or shell. Malt. goṭa a seed or berry(DEDR 069) N. goṭo ʻ piece ʼ, goṭi ʻ chess piece ʼ; A. goṭ ʻ a fruit, whole piece ʼ, °ṭā ʻ globular, solid ʼ, guṭi ʻ small ball, seed, kernel ʼ; B. goṭā ʻ seed, bean, whole ʼ; Or. goṭā ʻ whole, undivided ʼ, M. goṭā m. ʻ roundish stone ʼ (CDIAL 4271) <gOTa>(P)  {ADJ} ``^whole''.  {SX} ``^numeral ^intensive suffix''.  *Kh., Sa., Mu., Ho<goTA>,B.<goTa> `undivided'; Kh.<goThaG>(P), Sa.<goTAG>,~<gOTe'j>, Mu.<goTo>; Sad.<goT>, O., Bh.<goTa>; cf.Ju.<goTo> `piece', O.<goTa> `one'. %11811.  #11721. <goTa>(BD)  {NI} ``the ^whole''.  *@. #10971. (Munda etyma)

Rebus: <gota>  {N} ``^stone''.  @3014. #10171. Note: The stone may be gota, laterite mineral ore stone. khoṭ m. ʻbase, alloyʼ (Punjabi) Rebus: koṭe ‘forging (metal)(Mu.) Rebus: goṭī f. ʻlump of silver' (G.) goṭi = silver (G.) koḍ ‘workshop’ (Gujarati).

Mohenjo-daro seal.Zebu, bos indicus. Hieroglyphs on the pictorial motif of this seal are: 1. Zebu; 2. Hump; 3. Dewlap.

A type of hard native metal, ferrous oxide – kuṇṭha munda (loha)  is denoted by khũṭ  'zebu'/ mū̃ḍhā 'hump'  hieroglyphs.

pola, ‘magnetite’  is denoted by pōḷī, ‘dewlap, honeycomb’ hieroglyphs.

bichi , ‘hematite’ is denoted by hieroglyph bicha ‘scorpion’ (Assamese) Rebus: bica ‘stone ore’ (Santali).

Hieroglyph: Bi. mẽṛhwā ʻ a bullock with curved horns like a ram's ʼ; M. mẽḍhrū̃ n. ʻ sheep ʼ.(CDIAL 10311) mēṇḍha2 m. ʻ ram ʼ, °aka -- , mēṇḍa -- 4, miṇḍha -- 2, °aka -- , mēṭha -- 2,mēṇḍhra -- , mēḍhra -- 2, °aka -- m. lex. 2. *mēṇṭha- (mēṭha -- m. lex.). 3. *mējjha -- . [r-- forms (which are not attested in NIA.) are due to further sanskritization of a loan -- word prob. of Austro -- as. origin (EWA ii 682 with lit.) and perh. related to the group s.v. bhēḍra -- ] Pa. meṇḍa -- m. ʻ ram ʼ, °aka -- ʻ made of a ram's horn (e.g. a bow) ʼ; Pk. meḍḍha -- ,meṁḍha -- (°ḍhī -- f.), °ṁḍa -- , miṁḍha -- (°dhiā -- f.), °aga -- m. ʻ ram ʼ, Dm. Gaw. miṇKal.rumb. amŕn/aŕə ʻ sheep ʼ (a -- ?); Bshk. mināˊl ʻ ram ʼ; Tor. miṇḍ ʻ ram ʼ, miṇḍāˊl ʻ markhor ʼ; Chil. mindh*ll ʻ ram ʼ AO xviii 244 (dh!), Sv. yēṛo -- miṇ; Phal. miṇḍ, miṇ ʻ ram ʼ,miṇḍṓl m. ʻ yearling lamb, gimmer ʼ; P. mẽḍhā m., °ḍhī f., ludh. mīḍḍhā, mī˜ḍhā m.; N. meṛho,meṛo ʻ ram for sacrifice ʼ; A. mersāg ʻ ram ʼ ( -- sāg < *chāgya -- ?), B. meṛā m., °ṛi f., Or.meṇḍhā, °ḍā m., °ḍhi f.,H. meṛh, meṛhā, mẽḍhā m., G. mẽḍhɔ, M. mẽḍhā m., Si. mäḍayā.2. Pk. meṁṭhī -- f. ʻ sheep ʼ; H. meṭhā m. ʻ ram ʼ.3. H. mejhukā m. ʻ ram ʼ.(CDIAL 10310) <menDa>(A) {N} ``^sheep''. *Des.<meNDa>(GM) `sheep'. #21810<meD>(:)  <arij=meD>(Z),,<ari?=me?n>(A)  {N} ``^female ^kid''.  ^goat.  #3022.<kin=meD>(Z)  {N} ``^male ^goat, billy goat''.  |<kin> `prefix used in names of male animals'.  #17072. <auG kinme?n>(A)  {N} ``^nanny ^goat''.  |<auG> `mother'.  #3729.(Gorum)

Catalogs of pola, kuṇṭha, goṭa, bichi native metalwork in Meluhha Indus script hieroglyphs 

Magnetite and pyrite from, Piedmont, Italy.

Laterite, Angadipuram, India.

Historic Indian sword was masterfully crafted

Italian, UK researchers use non-destructive techniques and show the secrets of forging methods

New York | Heidelberg, 10 February 2015

The master craftsmanship behind Indian swords was highlighted when scientists and conservationists from Italy and the UK joined forces to study a curved single-edged sword called a shamsheer. The study, led by Eliza Barzagli of the Institute for Complex Systems and the University of Florence in Italy, is published in Springer’s journal Applied Physics A - Materials Science & Processing.

The 75-centimeter-long sword from the Wallace Collection in London was made in India in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century. The design is of Persian origin, from where it spread across Asia and eventually gave rise to a family of similar weapons called scimitars being forged in various Southeast Asian countries.

Two different approaches were used to examine the shamsheer: the classical one (metallography) and a non-destructive technique (neutron diffraction). This allowed the researchers to test the differences and complementarities of the two techniques.

The sword in question first underwent metallographic tests at the laboratories of the Wallace Collection to ascertain its composition. Samples to be viewed under the microscope were collected from already damaged sections of the weapon. The sword was then sent to the ISIS pulsed spallation neutron source at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK. Two non-invasive neutron diffraction techniques not damaging to artefacts were used to further shed light on the processes and materials behind its forging.

“Ancient objects are scarce, and the most interesting ones are usually in an excellent state of conservation. Because it is unthinkable to apply techniques with a destructive approach, neutron diffraction techniques provide an ideal solution to characterize archaeological specimens made from metal when we cannot or do not want to sample the object,” said Barzagli, explaining why different methods were used.

It was established that the steel used is quite pure. Its high carbon content of at least one percent shows it is made of wootz steel. This type of crucible steel was historically used in India and Central Asia to make high-quality swords and other prestige objects. Its band-like pattern is caused when a mixture of iron and carbon crystalizes into cementite. This forms when craftsmen allow cast pieces of metal (called ingots) to cool down very slowly, before being forged carefully at low temperatures. Barzagli’s team reckons that the craftsman of this particular sword allowed the blade to cool in the air, rather than plunging it into a liquid of some sort. Results explaining the item’s composition also lead the researchers to presume that the particular sword was probably used in battle.

Craftsmen often enhanced the characteristic “watered silk” pattern of wootz steel by doing micro-etching on the surface. Barzagli explains that through overcleaning some of these original ‘watered’ surfaces have since been obscured, or removed entirely. “A non-destructive method able to identify which of the shiny surface blades are actually of wootz steel is very welcome from a conservative point of view,” she added.

Reference: Barzagli E. et al (2015). Characterization of an Indian sword: classic and noninvasive methods of investigation in comparison, Applied Physics A - Materials Science & Processing. DOI 10.1007/s00339-014-8968-0

Caption: 75-centimeter-long shamsheer from the late 18th or early 19th century made in India (Wallace Collection, London)

Credit: Dr. Alan Williams/Wallace Collection

https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/springer-select/historic-indian-sword-was-masterfully-crafted/48964

18th century Indian sword was masterfully crafted

Press Trust of India  |  London   February 11, 2015 Last Updated at 15:55 IST

Researchers have shed light on the processes and materials used to forge a 75cm long Indian sword, made in the late 18th or early 19th century, which was probably used in battle.

Scientists and conservationists from Italy and the UK joined forces to study a curved single-edged sword called a shamsheer.

The sword from the Wallace Collection in London was made in India in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century.

The design is of Persian origin, from where it spread across Asia and eventually gave rise to a family of similar weapons called scimitars being forged in various Southeast Asian countries.

Two different approaches were used to examine the shamsheer: the classical one (metallography) and a non-destructive technique (neutron diffraction).

The sword first underwent metallographic tests at the laboratories of the Wallace Collection to ascertain its composition. Samples to be viewed under the microscope were collected from already damaged sections of the weapon.

The sword was then sent to the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK. Two non-invasive neutron diffraction techniques not damaging to artifacts were used to further shed light on the processes and materials behind its forging.

"Ancient objects are scarce, and the most interesting ones are usually in an excellent state of conservation," said Eliza Barzagli, from the Institute for Complex Systems and the University of Florence in Italy, who led the study.

"Because it is unthinkable to apply techniques with a destructive approach, neutron diffraction techniques provide an ideal solution to characterise archaeological specimens made from metal when we cannot or do not want to sample the object," said Barzagli.

The research established that the steel used is quite pure. The high carbon content of at least one per cent shows it is made of wootz steel. This type of crucible steel was historically used in India and Central Asia to make high-quality swords and other prestige objects.

Its band-like pattern is caused when a mixture of iron and carbon crystallises into cementite. This forms when craftsmen allow cast pieces of metal (called ingots) to cool down very slowly, before being forged carefully at low temperatures.

Barzagli's team believes that the craftsman of this particular sword allowed the blade to cool in the air, rather than plunging it into a liquid of some sort.

Results explaining the item's composition also lead the researchers to presume that the particular sword was probably used in battle.

Craftsmen often enhanced the characteristic "watered silk" pattern of wootz steel by doing micro-etching on the surface.

Barzagli said that through overcleaning some of these original 'watered' surfaces have since been obscured, or removed entirely.

The study is published in Springer's journal Applied Physics A - Materials Science & Processing.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/printer-friendly-version?article_id=115021100704_1

Materials: Carbon nanotubes in an ancient Damascus sabre

Topof page

Abstract

The steel of Damascus blades, which were first encountered by the Crusaders when fighting against Muslims, had features not found in European steels — a characteristic wavy banding pattern known as damask, extraordinary mechanical properties, and an exceptionally sharp cutting edge. Here we use high-resolution transmission electron microscopy to examine a sample of Damascus sabre steel from the seventeenth century and find that it contains carbon nanotubes as well as cementite nanowires. This microstructure may offer insight into the beautiful banding pattern of the ultrahigh-carbon steel created from an ancient recipe that was lost long ago.

"Damascus blades featured two qualities not found in European steels at that time: an attractive wavy-like banding, known today as Damast, an extremely sharp edge (according to the legend a sword could slice through a silk handkerchief floating in the air)...The formation of the (Damast) pattern depends on the formation of cementite (Fe3C) particles of a certain size, shape and spatial distribution...How was genuine Damascus steel done? It is generally agreed that those ingots of crucible steel were made in ancient India ('wootz') and Central Asia ('bulad'), then sold to the Near East and to Europe for forging. Details of the blade production were kept secret. At the end of the 18th century the ability to produce this type of steel got lost. Numerous attempts have been made since that time to reproduce this quality...a pronounced structuring of the material at nanoscale has been observed. One component of this is the appearance of wire-like objects of cementite structure...Their spacing is of the order of 100nm...Taking ancient recipes of wootz-technology into account, we have speculated that organic additions with the aid of catalysts might have given rise to this carbon nanotube formation..."

Fig. 1. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) image of cementite nanowires in a Damascus sabre. Left panel: The dark stripes indicate wires of several nanometers in length. Right panel: View showing an almost circular fross section (dotted)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444286a.html

Legendary Swords' Sharpness, Strength From Nanotubes, Study Says

Mason Inman
for National Geographic News

November 16, 2006

New studies of Damascus swords are revealing that the legendary blades contain nanowires, carbon nanotubes, and other extremely small, intricate structures that might explain their unique features.

Damascus swords, first made in the eighth century A.D., are renowned for their complex surface patterns and sharpness. According to legend, the blades can cut a piece of silk in half as it falls to the ground and maintain their edge after cleaving through stone, metal, or even other swords.

But since the techniques for making these swords have been lost for hundreds of years, no one is sure exactly why these swords are so exceptional.

Now studies of the swords' molecular structure are uncovering the tiny structures that may explain these properties.

Peter Paufler, a crystallographer at Technical University in Dresden, Germany, and his colleagues had previously found tiny nanowires and nanotubes when they used an electron microscope to examine samples from a Damascus blade made in the 17th century.

Today in the journal Nature, the teams reports that it has also discovered carbon nanotubes in the sword—the first nanotubes ever found in steel, Paufler says.

The nanotubes, which are remarkably strong, run through the blade's softer steel, likely making it more resilient. (Related: "Nano-Switches Could Yield Even Smaller Gadgets"[August 16, 2005].)

"It is a general principle of nature," Paufler said. "Materials that are softer, you can strengthen by including harder wires."

Secret Techniques

Some of the nanowires Paufler and his team had previously found were made of an extremely hard iron-based mineral called cementite.

In the new research, the team discovered that carbon nanotubes encase some cementite nanowires, protecting them.

These nanotube-nanowire bundles may give the swords their special properties, Paufler says.

The bundles run parallel to the blade's surface and may help larger particles of cementite arrange in layers. These hard layers, which have softer steel in between, could help explain how the steel remains strong yet flexible.

This combination of strength and flexibility makes the steel ideal for forging swords.

The blades were generally made from metal ingots prepared in India using special recipes, which probably put just the right amount of carbon and other impurities into the iron (India map).

By following these recipes and following specific forging techniques, "craftsmen ended up making nanotubes more than 400 years ago," Paufler and his colleagues write.

When these blades were nearly finished, blacksmiths would etch them with acid. This brought out the wavy light and dark lines that make Damascus swords easy to recognize.

But it could also give the swords their sharpness, Paufler says. Because carbon nanotubes are resistant to acid, they would protect the nanowires, he theorizes.

After etching, many of these nanostructures could stick out from the blade's edge, giving it tiny saw-like teeth.

Skeptical Smiths

The techniques for making the steel were lost around A.D. 1700. But many researchers are studying how to recreate the blades—even though metallurgical experts warn that the blades, though exceptional for their time, are far outperformed by modern steels.

While some scientists have claimed success, others dispute that the reproductions are truly the same as the originals.

And many experts doubt that the new findings will clear things up.

John Verhoeven, a metallurgist at Iowa State University at Ames who has worked on reproducing the Damascus sword-making techniques, is skeptical that Paufler and his colleagues have cracked the secret of Damascus blades.

"I don't think that [the nanowires] are anything unusual," Verhoeven said. "I think those structures would be found in normal steels."

The Damascus sword is also an example of how unexpected nanosize structures can show up in materials—and sometimes give them surprising properties, experts say.

But not all these nanoproperties are good. Asbestos, for example, comes in needle-like particles that cause severe lung disease. Break these particles into shorter pieces, and they much less harmful.

Because of nanomaterials' unpredictable behavior, several researchers asked in an article published today in Nature for more studies of these materials and their potential side effects.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-nanotech-swords.html

Srinivasan, C., Do Damascus swords reveal India's mastery of nanotechnology? in: Current Science, Vol. 92, No. 3, 10 February 2007, pp. 279-280

Close-up of an 18th-century Persian-forged Damascus steel sword

Carbon nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes are long chains of carbon held together by the strongest bond in all chemistry, the sacred sp2 bond, even stronger than the sp3 bonds that hold together diamond. Carbon nanotubes have numerous remarkable physical properties, including ballistic electron transport (making them ideal for electronics) and so much tensile strength that they are the only substance that could be used to build a space elevator. The specific strength of carbon nanotubes is 48,000 kN·m/kg, the best of known materials, compared to high-carbon steel’s 154 kN·/kg. That’s 300 times stronger than steel. You could build towers hundreds of kilometers high with it.

From Arab Seafaring by George F. Hourani:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/filling-gap-history-pre-modern-industry-1000-years-missing-islamic-industry

The origins of Iron-working in India

New evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas

By Rakesh Tewari

[Director, U.P. State Archaeological Department, Roshan-ud-daula Kothi,
Kaisarbagh, Lucknow 226 001 (U.P.) India (Email: rakeshlko@rediffmail.com)]

Recent excavations in Uttar Pradesh have turned up iron artefacts, furnaces, tuyeres and slag in layers radiocarbon dated between c. BCE 1800 and 1000. This raises again the question of whether iron working was brought in to India during supposed immigrations of the second millennium BCE, or developed independently.

Introduction

The date and origin of the introduction of iron artefacts and iron working into India has remained a much debated research problem, not unconnected with the equally debatable question of its association with the supposed arrival, in the second millennium BCE, of immigrants from the west, as often suggested on the basis of the Rigveda. Around the middle of the last century, iron-working origins in India were dated to c. 700-600 BCE (Gordon 1950; Wheeler 1959). Subsequently, a combination of an association with Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and the advent of radiocarbon dating began to push this date back towards the second millennium BCE, a period which had in fact favoured by some scholars earlier in the early twentieth century (Chakrabarti 1992: 10-12).

Considering the radiocarbon dates for the iron bearing deposits at Ataranjikhera in Uttar Pradesh (Table 1) and Hallur in Karnataka, and stratigraphic position of iron in the lower levels mainly at Kausambi near Allahabad, Jakhera in district Etah in the Ganga Valley, and Nagda and Eran in central India, dates around 1000 BCE were suggested (Subramanyam 1964; Banarjee 1965; Chakrabarti 1974; Nagarajarao 1974). At the same time Chakrabarti (1974: 354) challenged the view of a western origin, stating “there is no logical basis to connect the beginning of iron in India with any diffusion from the west, from Iran and beyond”, and further (1976: 122) “that India was a separate and possibly independent centre of manufacture of early iron.”

Since then there has been fresh evidence for even earlier iron-working in India. Technical studies on materials dated c. 1000 BCE at Komaranhalli (Karnataka) showed that the smiths of this site could deal with large artefacts, implying that they had already been experimenting for centuries (Agrawal et al. 1985: 228-29). Sahi (1979: 366) drew attention to the presence of iron in Chalcolithic deposits at Ahar, and suggested that “the date of the beginning of iron smelting in India may well be placed as early as the sixteenth century BCE” and “by about the early decade of thirteenth century BCE iron smelting was definitely known in India on a bigger scale”. On the basis of four radiocarbon measurements, ranging between 3790 + 110 BP and 3570 + 100 BP, available for the Megalithic period (without iron) Sharma (1992: 64, 67) has proposed a range of 1550-1300 BCE (uncalibrated) for the subsequent iron bearing period at Gufkral (Jammu & Kashmir).

On the basis of this evidence a date of around 1300/1200 BCE has been suggested for the beginning of iron in India and c. 800 BCE for the mid Ganga Valley (Allchin & Allchin 1982: 345; Prakash & Tripathi 1986: 568; Gaur 1997: 240). Chakrabarti (1992: 68, 164; 1999: 333) has observed that at Ahar it would be the first quarter of the second millennium BCE and in Malwa soon after the middle of the second millennium BCE. However, the early dates for iron at Ahar are refuted on the grounds of uncertain stratigraphy (Gaur 1997: 244). As far as Komaranhalli is concerned, it is stated that the TL dates have large errors and hence uncertain (Agrawala 2000: 197, 200).

Table 1. Dates* for early iron-use from Indian sites

* These dates are calibrated by Dr B. Sekar, BSIP, Lucknow. References for datasets used: Stuiver, et al. 1998a. 537

More recently, early contexts containing iron at Jhusi, located on the confluence of the Ganga and Yamuna in district Allahabad, have been dated to 1107-844 cal BCE (Tewari et al. 2000: 93). Komaranhalli (Karnataka) has given TL dates in the twelfth – fifteenth century BCE, while the radiocarbon dates for early Iron Age sites of Veerapuram and Ramapuram (Andhra Pradesh) are sixteenth – eleventh century cal BCE (Table 1) (Deo 1991: 193; Moorti 1994: 122-23) while in Vidarbha region (Maharastra), contexts containing iron have given radiocarbon dates between the fourteenth and tenth centuries cal BCE (Table 1).

Recent Findings in Uttar Pradesh

This paper briefly reports the results of some recent excavations conducted by the Uttar Pradesh State Archaeological Department under the leadership of the present author and their implications for understanding the beginning of iron-working in the Central Ganga Plain and the adjacent part of the Vindhyas.

Map showing locations of the Early Iron Age sites in the Central Ganga Plain, the Eastern Vindhyas, and different regions of India.

Painted black-and-red ware shards, from early iron bearing deposits of Period II, Raja Nala-ka-tila, Dist. Sonbhadra.

This has further implications in defining the beginning of iron in the subcontinent as a whole. The excavated sites are Raja Nala-ka-tila (199698), Malhar (1998-99), Dadupur (1999-2001) and Lahuradewa or Lohradewa (2001-2002) (Figure 1) Raja Nala-ka-tila (Lat. 24°41’ 55” N.; Log. 83°19’ E.) is located in the upper reaches of the Karamnasa within its loop like meander in district Sonbhadra. The excavations revealed a sequence which has been divided into four periods (Tewari & Research Srivastava 1997; 1998).

 Iron artefacts, from the lower and middle levels of Period II, Raja Nala-ka-tila, Dist. Sonbhadra.

In Period I, no metal was fund and is stratigraphically continuous into Period II. Period III is characterised by the presence of Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW). Period IV is defined as a Gupta/ post Gupta phase. Iron was found in pre-NBPW deposits (1.5 to 2.00m thick) of Period II in association of the pottery hitherto supposed to be the characteristics of the Chalcolithic period, placed between early to late second millennium BCE, in the area concerned.

The main associated ceramic industries were plain and painted black-and-red black slipped and red wares, in forms which included footed bowl, legged bowl with perforated base, pedestal bowl and button-based goblet. Some sherds also showed cord impressions. Evidence for iron-working included slag and iron artefacts such as a nail, arrowhead, knife and a chisel Radiocarbon dates for the iron bearing deposits range between 1400 and 800 cal BCE.

Table 2. New 14C dates for early iron-use from the Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas

* These dates are calibrated by Dr B. Sekar, BSIP, Lucknow. References for datasets used: Stuiver, et al. 1998a.

Since the date for the introduction of iron in the middle and lower Ganga Valley was being considered as c. 800 BCE (above), its appearance in c. 1400/1300 cal BCE at Raja Nala-ka-tila posed new questions. Realising that this should not be the only site with such early evidence and that there should be examples of experimental iron-smelting which were earlier still, we started a new search. These efforts were rewarded in locating a potential site near a village called Malhar.

 Iron artefacts, from the lower and middle levels of Period II, Malhar, Dist. Chandauli.

Malhar (district Chandauli; Lat. 24°59’ 16” N.; Long. 83°15’ 46” E.) is on the bank of the Karamnasa which at this point flows through a rocky, haematite-rich terrain before joining the Ganga near Banaras. The excavations carried out at this site also revealed a sequence of four periods: defined as Period I: Pre Iron; Period II: Early Iron; Period III: NBPW; Period IV: BCE 200 to 300 AD (Tewari et al. 2000: 69-98). There is no stratigraphic interval between the layers of Period I and Period II. Iron is present in all the layers of Period II,and identified finds include a nail, clamp, spear-head, arrow-head, awl, knife, bangle, sickle and plough share. As well as iron slag, there were tuyeres and several elongated clay structures, with a burnt internal surface. The ceramic industries of this period are represented by mainly red, black-and-red, black slipped, and grey wares. Red ware and black-and-red ware sherds bearing cord impressions on their exterior were found in greater number in the lower levels. The presence of the coarse variety of corded potsherds implies that the iron appeared earlier here than in Period II at Raja Nala-ka-tila. This assumption was endorsed by two radiocarbon dates ranging around 1800 cal. BCE (Table 2).

Important cultural components of the early iron Naugarh kot suggest that large-scale iron bearing deposits, showing corded ware sherds, iron artefact, slag, smelting activities continued at these sites tuyere, stone and bone artefacts, painted and incised potsherds, for a long time. stone and terracotta beads. Period II, Malhar, Dist. Chandauli.

The area around Malhar may have been something of a centre of iron production. A small mound, of a kind known locally as lohsan or lohsanwa, about 500m south to the main site of Malhar, which looks like a heap of iron slag, on excavation revealed two damaged clay furnaces, one of them is illustrated here as Figure 6, filled with iron slag along with a few sherds of the red, grey, and black slipped wares, an axe, and tuyeres. Survey revealed several lohsanwa sites near Musakhand village, the site known as Phakkada Baba located within the Musakhand dam, to the north-west of Malhar, on Baba Wali Pahari (Tewari et al. 2000) and near Naugarh kot (Singh et al. 2000: 143). Plans of damaged clay furnaces within heaps of iron slag along with tuyeres stuck with smelted iron, and potsherds of the grey, black slipped, NBP and red wares were found at these sites. The pottery assemblage at Phakkada Baba also included examples of dish or bowl-on-stand and other forms, comparable to those from Malhar Period II, in red ware, and black-and-red ware. This extraordinary concentration of iron-slag heaps on Baba Wali Pahari and Naugarh kot suggests that large-scale iron smelting continued at these sites for a long time.

 Damaged circular clay furnace, comprising iron slag and tuyeres and other waste materials stuck with its body, exposed at lohsanwa mound, Period II, Malhar, Dist. Chandauli.

As discussed elsewhere (Tewari et al. 2000) the sites at Malhar, the Baba Wali Pahari, and the Valley are archaeologically linked to the area of Geruwatwa Pahar which appears to have been a major source of iron ore. The Geruwatwa Pahar situated to the southeast of the Baba Wali Pahari, is full of hematite. Villagers reported (as a tradition passed down from several generations), that the agarias (a particular tribe known for their iron smelting skills) from Robertsganj side, used to come in this area to procure iron by smelting the hematite. Probably hematite was being primarily smelted at the Baba Wali Pahari and carried over to the valley sites (situated at a distance of about 6-8 km) for secondary smelting. The presence of tuyeres, slags, finished iron artefacts, above-mentioned clay structures with burnt internal surfaces and arms, revealed at Malhar, suggest a large scale activity related to manufacture of iron tools. It appears that smelted iron was being carried to this site to manufacture the artefacts and the clay structures were used as the furnaces for forging purposes. Thus this part of the Karamnasa Valley would have been a regional centre for iron production and the Malhar a workshop-site for the manufacturing of the iron artefacts.

 Highly corroded iron arrowhead, Period I, Dadupur, Dist. Lucknow.

Dadupur (26°42’ N: 80°49’ E) is in the valley of the Sai, a minor Gangatributary near Lucknow. It is the earliest dated site (Tewari et al. 2002:111) between the Gomati and the Sai rivers. The excavations at this site have revealed a sequence divided into three periods. The cultural material of Period-I consists of iron artefacts such as the arrowheadm shown in Figure 7. Red ware dominates the pottery assemblage of this period, while the black-and-red ware is nominally represented. Three radiocarbon dates lie between the eighteenth and sixteenth centuries BCE (Table 2). Period II and III are characterised respectively by the presence of Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and NBP ware.

Lahuradewa (district Sant Kabir Nagar; 26°46’ N; 82°-57’E) is in the trans-Sarayu plain, the Sarayu being a major tributary of the Ganga. The excavations have revealed new information regarding the early farming cultures of the Sarayupar region, including evidence for the domestication of rice (Oryza sativa) in Period I, radiocarbon dated to c. sixth and fifth millennium BCE. Associated ceramics include mostly plain and corded, hand made red, and black-and-red, besides, some grey, and black ware sherds. Period II is marked by the appearance of copper. Pottery of the preceding period continued and a new type of pottery, i.e. black slipped ware is added, and the forms include pedestal bowl, and dish or bowl-on-stand. Iron artefacts appear in Period III in the form of corroded nails and other objects. Other components of the assemblage, however, are the same as in Period II. A radiocarbon date obtained for this level was thirteenth – twelfth century BCE (Tewari et al. 2002a: 57) (Table 2).

As per K.S. Saraswat’s observations (pers.comm.), the carbonised material dated from the sites mentioned above included the branches of some trees, such as Acacia sp., Madhuca indica, Dalbergia sissoo, Treura nudiflora, Boswellia serrata, Aegle marmelos, Syzygium sp., Tectona grandis, Butea monosperma, Logerstroemia sp., Bambusaa sp., etc., and the shrubs like Zixiphus sp., Capparis saparia, Carissa opaca. The above species are in mixed content, with the carbonised remains of leaves, stems and seeds of a number of seasonal herbs and grasses. These tropical vegetations referred to above have generally 60-70 yrs of average life span in case of trees and the shrubs and herbs survive hardly from two to three months to the maximum period of a year or two.

There are other observations on the assemblages from these four sites which might be significant. Copper has been found in a lesser proportion in comparison to iron; presence of burnt clay chunks bearing reed and straw marks and postholes are indicative of wattle and daub houses and thatched huts; associated finds include mainly bone arrowheads, terracotta, stone and steatite (?) beads; some storage bins are dug into the surface and bases of the large earthen storage vessels are represented at Lahuradeawa and Raja Nala-ka-tila; a large quantity of faunal and carbonised archaeo-botanical remains have been recovered at all the sites. As a whole the assemblage is suggestive of well equipped and permanent settlements.

Discussion

These results indicate that iron using and iron working was prevalent in the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas from the early second millennium BCE. The dates obtained so far group into three: three dates between c. 1200-900 cal BCE, three between c. 1400-1200 cal BCE, and five between c. 1800-1500 cal BCE. The types and shapes of the associated pottery are comparable to those to be generally considered as the characteristics of the Chalcolithic Period and placed in early to late second millennium BCE. Taking all this evidence together it may be concluded that knowledge of iron smelting and manufacturing of iron artefacts was well known in the Eastern Vindhyas and iron had been in use in the Central Ganga Plain, at least from the early second millennium BCE. The quantity and types of iron artefacts, and the level of technical advancement indicate that the introduction of iron working took place even earlier. The beginning of the use of iron has been traditionally associated with the eastward migration of the later Vedic people, who are also considered as an agency which revolutionised material culture particularly in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (Sharma 1983: 117-131). The new finds and their dates suggest that a fresh review is needed. Further, the evidence corroborates the early use of iron in other areas of the country, and attests that India was indeed an independent centre for the development of the working of iron.

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to Dr Rajagopalan and Dr B.Sekar, Birbal Sahni Institute for Palaeobotany, Lucknow for the determination of 14C dates, to Dr Sekar for the calibration of most of the 14C dates, to Dr KS. Saraswat – a renowned archaeobotanist of the same institution – for the observations regarding the material radiocarbon dated, to Dr P.C. Pant and the Editor, Antiquity for the input to improve the manuscript and to Shri Ram Gopal Mishra and Shri Manmohan Dimri for the figures which illustrate this paper.

References

AGARWAL, D.P. 2000. Ancient Metal Technology and Archaeology of South Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
AGRAWAL, D.P., S. KUSUMGAR & R.P. SARNA 1964. Radiocarbon dates of Archaeological samples, Current Science 33: 266-69.
AGRAWAL, O.P., H. NARAIN AND G.P. JOSHI 1985. Iron Objects from South Indian Megaliths (Karnataka)
– A Technological Study and Significance, in Sundara, A. (ed.), Archaeology in Karnataka: 219– 234. Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology & Museums.
ALLCHIN, BRIDGET & RAYMOND 1982. The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge.
BANARJEE, N. R. 1965. The Iron Age in India. Delhi.
CHAKRABARTI, D.K. 1974. Beginning of Iron in India: Problem Reconsidered, in A.K. Ghosh (ed.), Perspectives in Palaeoanthropology: 345-356. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay.
–1976. The beginning of iron in India. Antiquity 4: 114-124.
–1992. The Early Use of Iron in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
–1999. India An Archaeological History. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
DEO, S.B. 1991. New Discoveries of Iron Age in India, in C. Margbandhu, K.S. Ramachandran, A.P. Sagar & D.K. Sinha (eds.), Indian Archaeological Heritage I: 189-97. New Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.
GAUR, R.C. 1997. Studies in Indian Archaeology and Ancient India I. Jaipur: Publication Scheme, pp. 238-250.
GORDON, D.H. 1950. The Early Use of Metals in India and Pakistan, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 55-78.
MOORTI, U.S. 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-Economic Perspectives, Varanasi, Ganga Kaveri Publishing House.
NAGARAJARAO, M.S. 1974. Iron Age in South India: Fresh Evidence on Chronology, in A.K. Ghosh (ed.), Perspective in Palaeoanthropology: 357-62. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay.
POSSEHL, G.L. & P.C. RISSMAN 1992. The Chronology of Prehistoric India: From Earliest Times to the Iron Age, in R.W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Vol. I: 465-490; Vol. II: 447-474.Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
PRAKASH, B. & V. TRIPATHI 1986. Iron technology in ancient India, Historical Metallurgy: 568-579.
SAHI, M.D.N. 1979. Iron at Ahar, in D.P. Agrawal &
D.K. Chakrabarti (eds.). Essays in Indian
Protohistory. Delhi: pp. 365-68.
SHARMA, A.K. 1992. Early Iron Users of Gufkral, in Nayak B.U. & N.C. Ghosh (eds.), New Trends in Indian Art and Archaeology I: 63-68. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
SHARMA, R.S. 1983. Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India. Delhi: Macmillan.
SINGH, P., R. TEWARI & R. N. SINGH 2000. Explorations in Chandauli District (U.P.) 19992000: A Preliminary Report, Pragdhara 10: 135148.
SUBRAMANYAM, B.R. 1964. Appearance and Spread of Iron in India – An Appraisal of Archaeological Data, Journal of the Oriental institute, Baroda 13: 349-59.
TEWARI, R., & R. K. SRIVASTAVA 1997. Excavations at Raja Nala-ka-tila (1995-96), District Sonbhadra (U.P.): Preliminary observations, Pragdhara 7: 77
95.
–1998. Excavations at Raja Nala-ka-tila (1996-97) District Sonbhadra (U.P.): Preliminary Observations, Pragdhara 8: 99-105.
TEWARI, R., R.K. SRIVASTAVA, K.S. SARASWAT & K.K. SINGH 2000. Excavations at Malhar, District Chandauli (U.P.) 1999: A Preliminary Report, Pragdhara 10: 69-98.
TEWARI, R., R.K. SRIVASTAVA, & K.K. SINGH 2002. Dadupur Excavations 1999-2000-2001, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh: A Preliminary Report, Pragdhara 12: 99-116.
TEWARI, R., R.K. SRIVASTAVA, & K.K. SINGH 2002a. Excavation at Lahuradewa, District Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Puratattva 32: 54-62.
WHEELER, R.E.M. 1959. Early India and Pakistan. London. 

http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore