Technological Development in Early Historic GujaratTechnological Development in Early Historic...

Technological Development in Early Historic Gujarat

R.N. Kumaran1 and M. Saranya2 1. Archaeological Survey of India, Excavation Branch – V, 3rd floor, VUDA Bhavan,

Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018, Gujarat (Email: [email protected]) 2. Archaeological Survey of India, Vadodara Circle, 3rd floor, Puratattva Bhavan,

Mandvi, Vadodara – 390 006, Gujarat (Email:[email protected])

Received: 10 August 2014; Accepted: 23 September 2014; Revised: 19 October 2014 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2 (2014): 305‐317

Abstract: The natural resources were one of the main criteria in selection of the site in the early period. The basic of the economic growth and development of a particular region is directly or indirectly lies upon the proximity of raw materials and various technologies involved in exploitation of these natural resources. Keeping in view of these factors, the various technological developments attained in the fields like metallurgy, stone technology, shell crafting, weaving, terracotta, bone, ivory and glass industries, boat/ship building during Early Historic period of Gujarat has been selected as the study area to understand the same.

Keywords: Early Historic Gujarat, Technology, Metal, Stone, Shell, Terracotta, Ship Building

Introduction The nature of settlement and its growth largely depends upon the landscape. Each geographical zone has its own advantages and disadvantages. Apart from the water sources and the fertility of the soil, the proximity to the natural resource area was also preferred by the early people for their settlement. The economic growth and development of a particular region is directly or indirectly based upon the proximity of raw materials and various technologies involved in exploitation of these natural resources.

Technology has always played a leading role in the attempts of any human group or society to control various natural resources and environment by means of more effective methods of hunting, house‐building, agriculture or transport. The gradual emergence of proximity is closely linked to the various industrial and technical arts and other developments of a particular period. The appearances of new technological processes such as the utilization of metal or the wheels of transport, pottery, craft, etc., have revolutionized the economic life of society (Margabandhu 1985: 322). Keeping in view of these factors, Early Historic Gujarat (fig. 1) has been selected as the study area to understand the various technological developments attained in various fields’ viz.,

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

306

metallurgy, shell crafting, bead making, bone and ivory industry, glass manufacturing, weaving and pottery making. According to Ambika Patel (1999: 23), ‘the Early Historic material culture of this region is characterized by the presence of northern black polished ware, dominance of black‐and‐red ware, slow introduction and later dominance of red polished ware, occurrence of Roman amphorae, Rangmahal ware, introduction of glass and lead, followed by gradual conquest of iron, an agro‐based economy, shell industry, development of script, rise of urban settlements, brick structural remains, monumental buildings, international trade and development of Jainism, Buddhism and Vaishnavism’.

Figure 1: Map showing Explored and Excavated Early Historic Sites in Gujarat

Metal Technology Indian iron has been renowned for its high quality. Ores / slags from a site reveal that the objects were produced locally. The excavations at some sites have yielded interesting facts about the extraction of the metal in the form of slags and lumps, tuyeres and terracotta pipes. Such slags are noticed at Shamalaji (Mehta and Patel 1967: 48), Kamrej (Gupta et.al., 2004: 88), Dhatva (Mehta and Chowdhary 1975: 18), Somnath (Nanavati et.al., 1971: 80), Jokha, Timbarva, Vadnagar, Valabhipur and Dwaraka (Patel 1999: 107), Hathab and Khadsaliya (Kumaran et.al., 2004: 93), Ravaliya (Momin 1979: 284), Nani Rayan (Irani 2007:1084), Vikra Dhora, Nehada, Hastinapur Timba (Paul 1999: 148‐179), Nagara (Patel 2009: 393) and Kanmer (Karakwal et.al., 2012: 736).

Kumaran and Saranya 2014: 305‐317

307

Metallurgical study of Iron Slag from Dhatva (Table 1) shows the content of iron is 61% to 63 %. The composition of metal objects at Dhatva (Table 2) shows remarkably purity and forged objects are likely to be carbonized (Mehta and Chowdhary 1975). The metallurgical study of various iron objects recovered from some of the excavated sites like Timbarva, Devnimori, Shamalaji and Nagara (Table 3) were attempted by Patel (1999:127) shows the average percentage of iron is approximately 55% to 70% except at Devnimori where the composition of iron (Fe) ranges from 98 % to 99.01 %.

Table 1: Composition of Slag from Dhatva

Table 2: Composition of Metal Objects from Dhatva

According to Patel (1999: 127), ‘it also has showed that the iron smiths were using the improved technique by application of carbonization which led them to convert the wrought iron into steel by introduction of carbon in it’. However, the study of iron objects at Hathab has showed the composition of iron (Fe) ranging from 57.22% to 85.27% (Pramanik: Pers. Comm.).

Of the above sites, Dhatva, Kamrej, Hathab, Shamalaji and Nagara have revealed industrial hearths used for extracting the metal from its ore. Remains of iron smelting and a mound full of iron ore was also reported from Katera no‐Tekro or Luhar no Tekro in Ravaliya (Momin 1979: 382).

The analysis of iron objects from Nagara by Jairath (1979: 93‐100) has revealed that ‘many of these objects appear to have been made from thin sheets of metal which were repeatedly welded and forged further to shape the metal into various implements’. The chemical and metallographic analysis by Patel (1999:42) indicates that around 400 BC, the blacksmiths were not in position to remove or separate out the slag inclusion from the metal to a great extent and that implies the process of direct smelting, but in the next stage, they became aware of the fact that introduction of carbon into wrought iron could convert it into steel indicating the carburizing technique.

The analytical study of a Bronze Atlas (fig. 2) found at Shamalaji has revealed that the statuette is an alloy of copper and zinc i.e. the brass, and was made out of ‘casting technique’ (Table 4). Further, he opines that ‘as the presence of nickel, arsenic and

Layer Fe²O³ SiO² CaO MnO Al²O³ MgO P²O³ Undetermined Minerals

Total

1 61.26 23.72 0.78 1.96 10.47 0.46 Tr 1.35 100 2 62.57 22.83 0.82 1.70 12.42 0.58 Tr 1.02 100

(expressed in percentage) (Mehta and Chowdhary 1975)

S.No Object Fe Mn Si P Ca Mg Undetermined Minerals

Total

1 Hoe 99.76 Tr ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.24 100 2 Knife 99.84 Tr ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.16 100



308

bismuth in the alloy indicates its Indian origin and could have been cast in Shamalaji itself’ (Hegde 1962: 177‐80). Another interesting feature of the Atlas statuette is an iron rod jetting out through the back of its head. While casting, the iron was embedded in the wax model of the figure and when the wax melted the rod remained in position.

Table 3: Chemical Composition of Representative Iron Samples from Nagara (1‐14), Shamalaji (15‐20), Timbarva (21‐22) and Devnimori (23‐26)

The chemical analysis of a copper Celt (Table 5) found at Jokha has indicated that it was made out of unalloyed copper (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966). Similarly, the XRF and WET chemical analysis of some of the copper objects from Hathab shows the composition of copper ranges from 64.72% to 91.82% (Pramanik: Pers.Comm.). The technical study of metal objects revealed that several techniques such as ‘the welding

S.No Object Fe C S P Cu Ca Mg Mn Si Al Ni 01 Arrow

head 60.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.38 0.01 0.02 1.9 0.18 Ab

02 Spear head

62.15 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.47 0.02 0.02 1.8 0.40 Ab

03 Nail 64.10 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.41 0.17 0.01 3.02 0.12 Ab04 Nail 63.97 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.41 0.16 0.01 3.05 0.18 Ab05 Nail 64.11 0.2 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.20 0.15 0.01 2.01 Tr 0.0606 Dagger 67.57 0.3 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.73 0.08 0.02 3.03 0.35 0.0207 Knife 58.72 0.32 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.79 0.06 0.02 2.12 0.42 0.0208 Blade 63.82 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.61 0.05 0.03 1.81 0.42 0.0709 Knife 61.85 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.60 0.31 0.22 1.85 0.53 0.1110 Nail 54.3 0.41 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.54 0.07 0.01 2.26 0.33 0.5511 Nail 63.97 0.6 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.3 0.17 0.26 2.05 Tr Ab12 Spike 60.17 0.5 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.48 0.13 0.03 0.73 0.65 0.0413 Nail 60.92 0.18 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.40 0.04 0.02 2.08 0.62 0.0614 Handle 63.82 0.32 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.05 0.02 2.12 0.62 0.0615 Nail 62.73 0.62 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.21 0.12 0.01 1.1 0.2 Ab16 Nail 63.01 0.66 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.20 0.13 0.12 1.1 0.02 Ab17 Nail 65.11 0.71 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.10 1.2 0.04 Ab18 Chisel 64.73 0.70 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.2 1.1 0.2 Ab19 Sickle 67.73 0.60 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.02 1.5 0.2 Ab20 Bangle 65.68 0.62 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.04 1.01 0.01 Ab 21 Nail 58.61 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.41 0.02 0.06 1.97 0.5 0.0722 Knife 60.25 0.12 0.08 0.18 0.04 0.58 0.05 0.03 3.02 0.48 0.0823 Nail 98.78 0.14 0.07 0.02 Ab 0.13 0.01 Tr Ab 0.02 Ab24 Nail 98 0.15 0.06 0.02 Ab 0.10 0.06 Tr Ab 0.03 Ab25 Nail 98.88 0.15 0.05 0.01 Ab 0.11 0.04 Ab Ab 0.05 Ab26 Sickle 99.01 0.16 0.06 0.02 Ab 0.12 0.05 Tr Ab 0.03 Ab

(expressed in percentage) (Patel 1999)


309

and forge’, ‘carburizing’ and ‘lamination’ techniques, the ‘hammering of metal’ and ‘solid casting’ were in vogue where the former is evidenced from Hathab as spouted vessel and other objects (Pramanik 2004: 133‐140). Ornaments of gold, silver and copper are made out of dies and moulds as the evidence of several dies and moulds (fig. 3) of stone was noticed at Amreli (Rao 1966: 94) and techniques of ‘granulation’ and ‘filigree’ were adopted. Dies are also reported from Devnimori (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966: 92) and Vadnagar (Margabandhu 1985: 325). Further, the ornaments of gold, silver, copper and lead reported from various sites has revealed ‘socket’ and ‘inlay’ techniques that seems to be indigenous. Some of the ornaments also revealed that they were ‘soldered’ at the ends.

Table 4: Quantitative Chemical Analysis of Bronze Atlas from Shamalaji

Table 5: Quantitative Chemical Analysis of Copper Celt from Jokha

Figure2: Bronze Atlas, Shamalaji (Courtesy: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MSU, Vadodara)

Figure 3: Dies and Moulds, Amreli (Courtesy: Rao 1966; Archaeological

Survey of India)

Cu Sn Zn Pb Co Ni As Bi Sb Fe Mn Mg Total74.92 1.76 15.35 4.25 ‐ Tr Tr Tr ‐ 2.78 ‐ ‐ 100

(expressed in percentage) (Hegde 1962)

Cu Sn Zn Cd Co Ni As Bi Sb Fe Pb Undetermined Total 95.72 ‐ Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr 1.88 Tr 2.40 100



310

Apart from this, terracotta crucibles of early phase (6th century BC to 3rd century BC) was found from Vadnagar (fig. 4) with a vitrified surface containing speckles of iron (Rawat 2011: 208), while of later phase (3rd century BC to 4th century AD) were noticed from Shamalaji (Mehta and Patel 1967: 43), Devnimori (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966: 93), Hathab and Kanmer (Kharkwal et al. 2012: 528). Further, the excavations at Hathab (ASI 2004) have revealed an inscribed coin mould of soapstone probably used in minting of coins. Apart from iron, copper and other metals, a lead ingot was noticed from Vadnagar (Rao and Mehta 1955: 19‐44) and its slag was reported from Kamrej (Gupta et al. 2004: 73).

Figure 4: Crucible Fragments from Vadnagar (Rawat 2011)

Stone Technology Next to metal objects, stone are abundant in the forms of house hold objects like querns, pestles, mortars, pounders, mullers and vessels, ornaments like beads, pendants, bangles, rings and religious objects. Apart from this, the main use of stone was in building the residential structures, fortifications and other secular structures clearly demonstrating the technical skills of Early Historic people in cutting, chiseling and polishing or grinding the stone.

The household objects show that they are well polished and a few are decorated. Even a lathe turned schist dish and casket (fig. 5) was noticed from Devnimori (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966: 90). The beads and pendants show their mastery in the technique of grinding and polishing of various raw materials and turning them into required shapes


311

and sizes. The evidence of bead making industry with large quantity of raw materials, debitages and beads of all stages of fabrication was noticed at Nagara (Irani 1997: 281), Bharuch (Soundararajan 1959‐60: 19) and Hathab (Pramanik 2004: 133‐140). Devnimori (Patel 1999: 107) has revealed an iron drill, while Kanmer (Karakwal et al. 2012: 579) has revealed drill bits of Ernestite. Further, sharpeners are reported from Timbarva (Mehta 1955: 25), Kanmer (Kharkwal et al. 2012: 602) and Devnimori (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966: 90).

Figure 5: Casket from Devnimori

(Courtesy: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MSU, Vadodara)

Shell Crafting Shell fishing is one of the ancient occupations in Gujarat. They are fished not only for consumption but also to make various ornaments from shell (fig. 6). Shell working continued to be a flourishing industry during Early Historic times. Some of the sites have revealed unfinished bangles, core and debitages such as Nagara (Mehta and Shah 1968: 127‐30), Ankleshwar (Mehta 1957: 66), Variav (Rao 1953: 62), Vadnagar (Rao and Mehta 1955:19‐44), Kamrej (Arati 2004: 78‐81), Beyt Dwaraka (Gaur et al. 2005: 73‐82), Sojitra (Parekh et al. 1971‐72:11), Shrijipura and Hathaj (Momin 1979: 382‐384), Fathepur One, Fathepur Two, Mewasa, Valasan, Jambuda, Gangajala, Khimsara, Dhandhorji One, Bamansa, Khakharda One, Hathalaj, Lamba, Nandana, Bharana One, Kota Two, Gajana, Haripur Two, Sewak Bhatia One, Kuranga and Rajpura (Bhan 1983), Bhadravadi, Nana Paliyad, Paliyad, Patana, Valabhi (Jairath 1986), Hathab (Pramanik 2004:133‐140), Bharapur, Chopra, Darad, Saltanpur, Hastinapur Timbo and Piparla (Paul 1999: 185‐86), Karvan (Margabandhu 1977‐78: 22‐23), Mud Dam (Junagadh) (Pramanik 2000‐01: 38), Dholavira (Rao and Parmar 1987‐88: 15), Nani Rayan (Sen 2003: 1047‐58) and Kanmer (Karakwal et al. 2012: 696‐703).


312

Figure 6: Shell bangles from Nagara (Mehta and Shah 1968)

It is interesting to note that shell manufacturing was a flourishing industry at Hathab (ASI 2004). Objects found include bangles with floral motif, pierced with decorations while others were plain with gold plating. The study shows that even the wastes are utilized in preparing other objects. For example, a few sites have yielded net sinkers that are ‘used as weight at one end of the fishing net to keep that end under water, the other end being kept floating with the help of light weight floaters’ (Ghosh 1989:187). Such terracotta pieces are reported from Nagal (1961‐62: 11‐12) and Tarsang (Sonawane 1979: 183), while Kanmer has revealed net sinkers with a thick body and a wide perforation and short cylindrical and one with bulging lower part (Karakwal et al. 2012: 536).

Terracotta Industry There is evidence that moulding objects as well as ceramic manufacture attained high degree of sophistication during the Early Historic period. The varieties of objects used in the day to‐day life both ritual, domestic and trade has been well documented elsewhere (Kumaran 2014: 253‐274). ‘The surface treatment of the vessels indicates the high standard of the skill of the potters in producing vessels with even finish. The northern black polished ware, black‐and‐red ware, red polished ware, black‐on‐red ware of Rangmahal fabric, incised, stamped and painted designs are instances which


313

reveal the technique of manufacture of vessels are of very high order’ (Margabandhu 1985: 327). Though, it is likely that the earthen wares were mostly produced at the sites themselves, there is limited evidence from the excavations. However, sites like Hathab, Devalia, Saltanpur and Timbana (Paul 1999: 148‐196) have revealed vitrified clays indicating the local manufacturing of pottery.

Apart from this, stone dabbers are reported from Devnimori (Mehta and Chowdhary 1966: 90) and Khijadiya (Jairath 1986: 204). Banansa has revealed a terracotta dabber (Bhan 1983: 204) while the Kalsar specimen is an inscribed one (1973‐74: 50). Further, terracotta pallets are reported from Shamalaji (Mehta and Patel 1967: 44) and Tarsang (Sonawane 1979: 183). A spatula of bone having thin edge on one side used for applying or mixing paints over the pot was reported from Kanmer (Kharkwal et al. 2012: 705).

Bone and Ivory Industry Varieties of bone and ivory objects such as dice, comb, antimony rods, ear ring, pendants, beads, bangles, points, tools, arrowheads, awls, chisels, needles, stylus, seal and toy bird are reported from a few sites. Additionally, a bangle made of antler was noticed from Kanmer (Kharkwal et al. 2012: 703). The evidences from Timbarva (Mehta 1955: 25), Akota (Mehta 1957: 70), Nagal (Soundararajan 1961‐62: 12), Nagara (Mehta and Shah: 1968: 151), Amreli (Rao 1968: 109), Jokha (Mehta and Chowdhary 1971: 51), Dhatva (Mehta and Chowdhary 1975: 20), Prabhas Patan (1956‐57: 17), Beyt Dwaraka (Gaur, et.al., 1995: 31), Vadnagar (Rawat 2011: 211 and 220) and Kanmer (Kharakwal et.al., 2012: 703) shows that bone and ivory crafting was also a thriving industry during the Early Historic period.

Glass Industry The antiquity of glass in Gujarat goes back to phase I (i.e. 6th century BC to 3rd century BC) of Early Historic period. Beads, bowls and bottles made of glass of various colour was reported from a few sites. Apart from the above, a few pieces of blue and green opaque glass pieces are noticed from Akota (Rao and Mehta 1953:30). An interesting object noticed at Devnimori is a flat petal shaped object which is partly devitrified (Mehta and Choudhary 1966: 103). Various techniques like pulling out, rubbing its sides, cut on a wheel were also noticed during this period. The evidences at Amreli show that they are imported. Further, a large kiln used for glass working or smiting of metals was reported from Kamrej (Gogte 2004: 86‐87), whereas glass slag was noticed at Nagara (Soundararajan 1961‐62: 132) and Hathab (pers. obv.) indicates the local manufacturing of the same.

Boat/Ship Building The Greek author Galazy’s book Batiyas is about shipping in Kachchha (C.150 AD). Peryaksa described shipping in Kutch. An African book, Tibu tip appreciates strongly built Kachchi vessels that used to sail up to Africa in those days (Irani 2004: 109). Though evidence for boats or ships have not been encountered in any excavations, due


314

to the organic nature of their materials, the wood remains of Rhizophoraceae (Mangrove family), Meliaceae (Mahagany family), Pinus (Pine family), Heritiera (Mallow family), Polyalthia (Asoka family), Acacia sp. (Bean family) and Hopea Sp. (Dipterocarpaceae family) are reported from Beyt Dwaraka (Farooqui 2005: 88‐91). The specialties of most of these woods are used for boat building and under water construction or pilling, boat ribs and for mast are historically known. These clearly show the boat / ship building was a local craft. Even the last mentioned Iron wood is imported from Malabar (Pokharia: Pers. Comm).

Apart from this, evidences in the form of terracotta models from Padri, fish hooks and abundant shell debitages from various sites clearly shows evidences for deep sea fishing. A longest nail 40cm in length was noticed at Kamrej. According to Gupta and Pandey (2004:88), ‘they must have been used for binding a wooden structure or even a boat’. At last, the extensive trade with the western world also vouches the same. (Kumaran 2014: 360‐372).

Weaving Industry Excavations have not revealed any textiles in their original condition with the exception of cotton and silk cloth recovered from the relic caskets. Silk cloth found from the casket II of Devnimori was woven by ‘thrown technique1’ and most probably woven by the silk weavers of Lata country. This is further proved by the Mandasor inscription which states that ‘the silk weavers of Lata migrated to Mandasar, indicating that silk weaving was well known in Lata and they might have been responsible for weaving of the same (Mehta and Chowdhary 1969: 186). Apart from the silk, five tiny bundles of cloth were also recovered. They were folded with various ritual offerings and seem to be cotton (Patel: Pers. Comm). Semi‐carbonized rope and a bundle of un‐carbonized thread like fragments, likely to a mixture of two or more plant fibres are also reported from Kamrej (Kajale 2004: 84), but their actual use for garments is doubtable. Though evidence for cotton thread was not reported from other sites, the botanical remains of tree cotton/levant cotton (Gossypium arboretum / herbaceum) was reported from Kanmer (Pokharia: Pers. Comm).

Apart from this, materials used for spinning, weaving and stitching of dress materials such as spindle whorls, needles and clasps are reported from Dhatva (Mehta and Chowdhary 1975: 15‐16), Kamrej (Gupta et al. 2004:73‐74), Beyt Dwaraka (Gaur et.al., 2005: 34), Khakharda One (Bhan 1983: 212‐13), Khodiyar (Paul 1999:147‐48), Nagara (Mehta and Shah 1968: 114), Hathab (Kumaran et al. 2004: 93) and Kanmer (Kharakwal et al., 2012: 705; 728‐29).

Summary The above study clearly indicates that during Early Historic period most of the basic raw materials were exploited from the nearby area or within their domain. The chemical and spectrometric analysis of some of the lead coins of the Western Kshatrapas has revealed that the material impurities in the coins and the same Galena


315

ore are identical and according to Mangalam (1993:48), lead was extracted from the same area. However, the study of silver Kshatrapa coin and the bronze Atlas figure suggest that the metal had come from the other mines in Rajasthan (Mehta and Chowdhary 1969:186). Future intensive studies of metal objects might be useful in identifying the role of a particular site such as a factory site or a manufacturing hub or a site engaged in other activities.

The finished, decorated and polished stone objects, some of which are lathe turned, show the mastery over stone technology. Shell crafting is an important industry in Early Historic Gujarat and evidence demonstrates that most of the sites were engaged in the manufacturing of shell objects. Sites like Vadnagar and Nagara shows that they were procured from Saurashtra because the nearest source is the peninsula. As far as the raw materials for the beads are concerned, they are mostly exploited from the Sabarkantha, Kheda and Bharuch districts and also from Mardakh Bet in the Little Rann (IAR 1985‐86: 15). The manufacturing of ceramics has revealed both wheel‐turned and hand‐made. Its technology has attained the highest degree, where different types of wares and shapes were manufactured. Most of them are painted with both geometric and conventional patterns and also decorated by incised and stamped designs. Glass technology has showed the employment of various techniques in preparing beads, bowls and bottles. This shows the maturity attained in the glass technology.

Overall, the different techniques employed in preparation of objects clearly show the technological advancement attained by the Early Historic people in Gujarat that culminated in Second urbanization and lasted for about 1000 years i.e. from 6th century BCE to 4th century CE.

Acknowledgement The authors are very much thankful to Prof. K.Rajan, Pondicherry University, Prof. N. Adhiyaman, Underwater Archaeology, Tamil University, Thanjavur, Dr. Rajesh, SV, Associate Professor, Kerala University and Mr. B. N. Pathak, Librarian, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Notes 1 According to Wikipedia, ‘throwing technique was originally a hand process relying on a turning a wheel (the gate) that twisted four threads while a helper who would be a child, ran the length of a shade, hooked the threads on stationary pins (the cross) and ran back to start the process again. The shade would be a between 23 and 32m long. Since a single thread is too fine and fragile for commercial use, anywhere from three to ten strands are spun together to form a single thread of silk.

References Bhan, K. K. 1983. The Archaeology of Jamnagar District, Gujarat Upto 1300 AD,

(Unpublished PhD. Thesis), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.


316

Deshpande – Mukherjee, Arti. 2004. ‘Shell Remains from Kamrej Excavations – 2003’, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 1: 78‐80.

Gaur, A. S., Sundaresh and K. H. Vora. 2005. Archaeology of Bet Dwarka Island: An Excavation Report, Aryan Books International, New Delhi.

Ghosh, A. (ed.). 1989. An Encyclopedia of Indian Archaeology, Vol. I & II, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishing (P) Ltd, New Delhi.

Gogte, V. D. 2004. ‘Scientific Analysis of Ash from the ancient site at Kamrej’, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 1: 86‐87.

Gupta, S. P. Sunil Gupta, Tejas Garge, Rohini Pandey, Anuja Gitanjali and Sonali Gupta. 2004. ‘On the Fast Track of Periplus: Excavations at Kamrej‐2003’, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 1: 9‐33.

Gupta, Sonali and Rohini Pandey. 2004. ‘Iron Working in and around Kamrej’, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 1: 88‐92.

Hegde, K. T. M. 1962. ‘An Analytical Examination of a Metal Image from Shamalaji’, Journal of Oriental Institute 12(2): 177‐180.

I.A.R. Indian Archaeology – Reviews, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Irani, Atusha G. 2007. ‘Early Historic Settlements of Porbandar District’, Indian

Ocean Archaeology (4): 89‐92. Jairath, V. K. 1979. A Cultural and Analytical Study of Iron Objects – Excavated at Nagara in

Gujarat, (Unpublished MA Dissertation), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Jairath, V. K. 1986. Archaeology of the Northern Part of Bhavnagar District, Gujarat up to C. 15th Century AD, (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Kajale, M. D. 2004. Initial Examination of Plant Remains from Excavations at Kamrej’, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 1:81‐85.

Kharakwal, J. S., Y. S. Rawat and Tshiki Osada (eds.). 2012. Excavation at Kanmer 2005‐06 – 2008‐09, Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan, Gujarat State Department of Archaeology, Gandhinagar and Institute of Rajasthan Studies, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, India.

Kumaran, R. N. 2014. Second Urbanization in Gujarat, (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis), Tamil University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.

Kumaran, R. N., M. K. Dwivedi and V. D. Jadhav. 2004. ‘Iron Objects from Hathab’, Puratattva (34): 91‐96.

Mangalam, S. J. 1993. ‘Socio‐Economic Echoes of the Western Kshatrapa Coinage’, Bulletin of the Department of Ancient Indian History culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University (1): 45‐ 49.

Marghabandhu, C. 1985. Archaeology of the Satavahana – Ksatrapa Times, Sundeep Prakashan, Delhi.

Mehta, R. N. and A. T. Patel. 1967. Excavation at Shamalaji, Maharaja Sayajirao University Archaeological Series (9), Vadodara.

Mehta, R. N. and D. R. Shah. 1968. Excavation at Nagara, Maharaja Sayajirao University Archaeological Series (10), Vadodara.


317

Mehta, R. N. and S. N. Chowdhary. 1966. Excavation at Devnimori, Maharaja Sayajirao University Archaeological Series (8), Vadodara.

Mehta, R.N. and S.N. Chowdhary. 1971. Excavations at Jokha, Maharaja Sayajirao University Archaeological Series (11), Vadodara.

Mehta, R. N. and S. N. Chowdhary. 1975. Excavations at Dhatva, Maharaja Sayajirao University Archaeological Series (12), Vadodara.

Mehta, R. N. 1955. Excavations at Timbarva, Maharaja Sayajirao University Archaeological Series (2), Vadodara.

Mehta, R. N. 1957. Archaeology of Baroda, Broach and Surat (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Momin, K. N. 1979. ‘Archaeology of Kheda District (Gujarat) (Up to 1300 AD), (Unpublished Ph. D Thesis), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Nanvati, J. M., R. N. Mehta and S. N. Chowdhary. 1971. Somnath ‐ 1956’, Department of Archaeology, Govt. of Guajrat and The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Patel, Ambika. 1999. Iron Technology in Early Historic India – A case study of Gujarat (Unpublished Ph. D Thesis), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Patel, Ambika. 2009. ‘The Archaeology of Iron Age Sites of Gujarat, Western India’, Saundaryashri – Studies in Indian History, Archaeology, Literature and Philosophy, P. Chenna Reddy (ed.), Sharada Publishing House, Delhi, pp.388‐404.

Paul, Ashit Boran. 1999. Early Historic Settlements in Bhavnagar District with Special reference to Padri (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis), Deccan College, Pune.

Pramanik, S. 2004. ‘Hathab: An Early Historic Port on the Gulf of Khambhat’, Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology (1):133‐140.

Rao, S. R. 1966. Excavations at Amreli, Museum and Picture Gallery, Vadodara. Rao, Subba, and R. N. Mehta, 1955, ‘Excavations at Vadnagar’, Journal of the Maharaja

Sayajirao University of Baroda (1): 19‐44. Rao, Subha B. 1953. Baroda through the Ages, Maharaja Sayajirao University

Archaeological Series (1), Vadodara. Rawat, Y. S. 2011. ‘Recently found Ancient Monastery and other Buddhist Remains at

Vadnagar and Taranga in North Gujarat, India’, Bujang Valley and Early Civilizations in SouthEast Asia, Chia, Stepen and Barbara Watson Andaya (eds.), Deptt. of National Heritage, Malaysia, pp. 202‐232.

Sen, Shushmita. 2003. ‘Nani Raiyan: An Early Historic Site – A Preliminary Report’, Triratna, Tripati, R.C., Agam Prasad and Shalini Awasthi (eds.), Agam Kala Prakasham, Delhi, pp‐1047‐1058.

Sonawane, V. H. 1979. Archaeology of the Panchmahals District up to 1484 AD (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.

Technological Development in Early Historic GujaratTechnological Development in Early Historic...

Documents

Transcript of Technological Development in Early Historic GujaratTechnological Development in Early Historic...