31 Iron and Urbanization – Impact of Iron on culture

Ravi Korisettar and Smitha S Kumar

Introduction 

The Iron Age in India refers to the period of beginning of iron technology, successive production and its widespread cultural use across the subcontinent. Iron Age has bridged the developmental process between the Neolithic/Chalcolithic and Early Historic Period and has played an important role in the determining the cultural fabric. The use of iron led to change in the cultural milieus and also later ushered in the phase of urbanisation in the Ganga Valley and South India. This post-Iron Age urbanisation which is popularly known as second urbanisation, was characterized by the rise of cities and development of early form of states in the Ganga valley and neighbouring regions and gradually in the entire subcontinent.

By the middle of the 6th century BCE some of these settlements had reached the proportions of urban centres. This suggests that for the first time since the decline of the Harappan Civilization, complex developments including substantial agricultural surplus which could sustain such urban centres, had emerged. The use of silver and copper coins in large numbers during this period implies considerable trade and commerce. Some of the urban centres were also seats of political power as suggested by defense arrangements at some of the sites. Thus a political system with definable territorial units as its bases had developed by this time. To be precise, based on studies on the data recovered from various excavations Vibha Tripathy has suggested three different stages of development of iron technology.

Stage – I

This early stage is represented by Painted Grey Ware culture people and the subsistence was based on hunting, animal husbandry and farming as the lack of implements suggests a low level agricultural production. The house plans are rarely available from the excavations, but post-holes and plastered reeds suggest that circular and rectangular structures of wattle and daub, were prevalent and possibly they had thatched roofs.

Stage – II

This stage is represented by the NBPW culture and Megalithic culture in which the former concentrated in the middle and lower Ganga-Yamuna doab, whereas the latter was in peninsular India. People started making mild steel and iron objects became profuse. It seems that agricultural implements gradually increase. Besides, craftsmanship carpentry and masonry also existed. The size of houses, settlement and use of burnt bricks increased, and glass ornaments became common. During this phase Pyrotechnology reached its zenith.

Stage – III

urban centres like Taxila, Kosambi, Hastinapura, Atranjikhera and many others flourished. Typological proliferation of iron objects particularly agricultural and war weapons increased. Iron became common and the smiths used carburization technique in iron technology.

The urban phase, however, has a gradual growth with regional predominant characteristics and also had a prelude to extensive agro-pastoral ways of life at almost all places. It is the agro-pastoral base of these early cultures coupled with advancement achieved in technology and accumulation of wealth that led to the development of internal forces of complexity. External factors also led to the development of urbanism depending upon ecological and human behavioural aspects.

2. Theoretical Approaches

There have been several debates over the impact of iron technology on the history of ancient India which has to do partly with the larger question of the role of technology in history and partly with assessing the literary and archaeological evidence of iron in different areas at different points of time. The debate has so far focussed on the Ganga valley in the 1st millennium BCE. Some of the older hypothesis thought provoking as they were in their times, are not supported by the evidence and need to be discarded. For instance, D D Kosambi suggested that the eastern movement of the Indo-Aryans was in order to reach the iron ores of south Bihar, and that a near-monopoly over these ores was responsible for the political dominance attained by the state of Magadha in early historical times. He was of the opinion that the conflict between the Magadha and Kosala was due to the trade and commerce. According to him, the nature of society was changing. The absolute monarch was more essential to regulate the changing occupations and also to keep a strict control and ownerships of the resources. The monarch was also responsible for forest clearance and bringing new lands under agriculture. The conflicts for resources led to development of states. Some of these hypotheses are untenable, given the very wide distribution of iron ores in the sub continent. As mentioned earlier, chemical analysis of early iron artefacts at Atranjikhera points to the hills between Agra and Gwalior as the probable source of ores.

R. S. Sharma highlighted the role of iron axes in clearing the forests of the Ganga valley and iron ploughs in agricultural expansion in this area. He argued that the use of these implements was responsible for generating an agricultural surplus, which paved the way for the second phase of urbanization. Religions like Buddhism were a response to the new socio-economic milieu generated by iron technology. Many aspects of this hypothesis were questioned. A. Ghosh and Niharranjan Ray argued that the forests of the Ganga valley could have been cleared through burning. It was pointed out that Sharma’s argument was not supported by archaeological data that the impact of iron technology was gradual that it manifested itself in the mid-NBPW phase, when urbanization was well underway and that socio-political factors had an important role to play in the historical transformations of the Ganga valley in the 1st millennium BCE. Makkhan Lal described the idea of large scale forest clearance through the use of the iron axe and the generation of an agricultural surplus through the use of the iron plough as a myth, he argued that there was no significant increase in the use of iron from PGW to NBPW levels that iron technology was not an essential prerequisite for an agricultural surplus or urbanization that the Bihar iron ores were not tapped during this period and that the Ganga plains in fact remained heavily forested till as late as the 16th and 17th centuries CE.

2.1. Technology

Technology is definitely an extremely important factor in history, but it has to be considered along with other variables. Archaeological data indicates that the beginning of iron technology in parts of the Ganga valley can be traced to the 2nd millennium BCE. The earliest iron artefacts occur in BRW or PGW contexts. The use of iron and its impact increased gradually over the centuries and is reflected in the increase in the number and range of iron objects in the NBPW phase. While the expansion of agriculture must certainly have involved some amount of land clearance large tracts of land continued to be forested

Detailed studies of archaeological data from the various regions and sub regions highlight the complexity of the relationship between technological change and history. For instance, in the far south, the early advent of iron was not followed swiftly by socio economic transformations. Rajan Gurukkal points out that iron plough shares tended to be restricted to the wetland areas. He also argues that notwithstanding the knowledge or iron technology the larger socio-political context of war and plunder hindered the process of agrarian growth in Tamilakam.

2.2 Surplus

The idea of surplus has guided almost all thought processes analysing the emergence of urbanisation. Surplus was responsible for all the economic and social variations. But there is also a line of thought that such developments are inevitable and not due to the internal conflicts. Such changes were due to the technological developments, which led to the emergence of cities and urban centres. The surplus in fact led to a synthesis of the factors like social changes, technological advancement and the authority needed.

2.3 Polity

There are certain scholars who have pointed out that the surplus was not a technical product. A. Ghosh suggests that political authority is the most important factor in economic and social stratification. He suggests that a farmer may not produce a surplus out of his own needs. It is the authority which can compel him to do so and part with a part of his share for some other people. Thus even if surplus is essentially required for social stratification, it may not appear at the time when the capacity to produce it may be there. He agrees that the social stratification can culminate in a state. But, to form such social classes, a coercive authority is necessary. Hence, wherever the use of iron for increasing production was controlled through an authority, there was the growth of urbanism. D.K. Chakrabarti is of the opinion that the use of iron did not bring any such change in agriculture. It might have influenced agriculture, but its presence did not create a stir in the social life. He thinks that if the use of iron became abundant only during the NBPW phase; the role of polity and social classes was much more important leading to urbanism than that of technology. He feels that iron technology no doubt brought about many social and economic changes but, it was the political authority which ushered urban phase. H.P. Ray also feels that iron technology brought in many changes, but its real effect in the social realm could be felt only by the Magadhan expansion. Thus, it is again influenced by the social and political ideology. B. B. Lal has explained in detail as to how the Doab region might have been colonised by the PGW people. There were reported 99 sites of the PGW phase separated by a distance of 9-10 km. These sites were ranging in size from less than 2 hectares, 2- 4 hectares and some sites well above 4 hectares. Similarly, Erdosy has surveyed the Ganga valley. He found that maximum sites were on the river banks and they were mostly agricultural. But, sites in an ephemeral zone like Kausambi, Jakhera became centres. This may be because they were located on the boundary of two ecological zones. This suggests the agricultural colonisation and the land required for sustaining such a site was available around the river banks. There was not much need of an iron ploughshare to till this soil. Hence, he believes that certain social, economic and political factors which were operating for many centuries culminated to give rise to the need of surplus and its circulation. This itself, suggests the importance of political authority in urbanism.

3. Discussion and Conclusion

The review of the Iron Age in India and the theoretical approaches to understand the development towards the State shows that there have been different ways to trace this cultural development. The cultural development towards a well developed state is difficult in true sense since each region will reveal a different story about the process. It is to be noted that at sites like Bhagwanpura, Ataranjikhera, Ahihchhatra and Hastinapur (OCP-BRW-PGW-NBPW) and in the South at sites like Brahmagiri, Veerapuram, Kodumanal, Adichannallur, Nagarjunakonda, Yelleswaram (NEO-MEG- EH) have given evidences of continuous cultural sequence.

Importance given to the technology and its use in economic and social life of the people can be derived from archaeological evidence. From the excavations at PGW sites as well as the Megalithic sites of South India there are evidences of iron smelting, iron objects used for crafts, agriculture and mostly warfare. The use of iron bits and stirrups also suggest the multiple uses of horses. The role of iron in this surplus generation was much more than any other factor. The technology was much advanced, since they had achieved almost steeling by the process of carburization. The settlements from this period have not revealed huge structural evidence but there is public architecture found in excavations, whereas the evidence of megalith building also suggests the investment of labour and resources.

The people mostly subsisted on agricultural produce; however, probably pastoral population formed a major portion of this community. Agriculture was facilitated by rivers in the Ganga plains, whereas in south India the rivers as well as tanks and lakes were used. There also existed groups which was specialised in varied crafts such as smithery, lapidary, wood-work, oil-crushing, domestic constructions and also trade and exchange to smaller extent.

It can be said that the period was marked by a change in the economic and technological fields of life. Thus, use of iron in fact, along with other factors, helped to create a surplus which was a social product and not only technical. The use of technology was in fact more important for this social process, but the technology was probably appropriated and controlled by the elite class. The technology also helped in proliferation of settlements, the varied use of resources for production and also helped to strengthen the social structure. The concept of absolute monarch to control such factors of production and distribution also might have taken root. But, whether such chieftainship was deliberate or an outcome of the social system cannot be said with conformity. The need of such a chief was to control over the various social processes, generate and concentrate the surplus for social and economic needs. The interaction and exchange between various natural zones in Tamil Nadu also suggests the same. Thus, the political and social processes go hand in hand with the concept of surplus and crafts specialisation and these various processes which helped in the development of complex societies and urbanisation.

Web links

• http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore
• www.archive.archaeology.org/1005/etc/india
• www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol1/pp50-64
• www.bu.edu/anep/Ir.html
• www.frontline.in/arts-and-culture/heritage/megalithic-wonder/article4265456.ece
• www.indianetzone.com/55/iron_age_india.htm  www.indianetzone.com/55/painted_gray_ware.htm
• www.kathleenmorrisonlab.com/ehltc/

Bibliography

• Agarwal, D.P. 2000. Ancient Metal Technology and Archaeology of South Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
•  Banerjee, N.R. 1965.The Iron Age in India.Munshilal Manoharlal Publishers PVT Ltd, Delhi Chakrabarti, D.K.1992. The Early use of Iron in India. Oxford University Press, Delhi.
• Erdosy, G. 1988. Urbanisation in early Historical India. BAR International Series.Oxford
• Gaur R C. 1983. Excavations at Atranjikhera: Early Civilization of the Upper Ganga Basin.Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi
• Ghosh, A.An Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology.2 Vols. Munshiram maniharlal Publishers, Delhi.
• Gurukkal, R. 2006. Aspects of Early iron Age Economy: Problems of Agrarian Expansion in Tamilakam, In Iron and Social Change in Early India, (Eds) Bhairabi Prasad sahu, Oxford in India Readings: Debates in Indian History and Society,, oxford University Press, Delhi
• Kosambi, D. D. 1963. The beginning of Iron Age in India. Journal of Economic and Social History of the orient 6(3)
• Lal, M, 1984. Settlement History and Rise of Civilization in Ganga –Yamuna Doab (from 1500 BC to 300 AD). Orient Book distributors, Delhi
• Ray, N.1975. Maurya and Post Maurya art: A Study in Social and Formal Contacts.Indian Council for Historical Research, Delhi.
• Sharma, R.S.1983. Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India. Macmillan India. Delhi
• Shastry, V V K, 1983. The proto and Early Historical Cultures of Andhra Pradesh.The Government of Andhra Pradesh
•  Singh, P.1994.Excavation at Narhan, B R Publishing Corporation,Delhi
• Sundara, A. 1975. The Early Chamber Tombs of South India: a Study of the Iron Age Megalithic Monuments of N. Karnataka. University Publishers, Delhi.
• Thapar, R. 1990. From Lineage to State: Social Formations in the Mid-First Millennium B C in Ganga Valley, Oxford University Press, Delhi
• Tripathi, V. 1976. Painted Grey Ware: An Iron Age Culture of Northern India, Concept Publishing Company. Delhi.
• Tripathi, V. 2001.Emergence of Iron in India: Archaeological Perspective in Metallurgical
• Studies in India : A Retrospective .(Eds. P. Ramachandra Rao and N.G Goswami, India International Publishers, Delhi.
• Wheeler, R. E. M. 1948. Brahmagiri and Chandravalli 1947: Megalithic and Other Cultures in the Chitaldrug District, Mysore State. Ancient India, IV, (1948) 81-308.