.o;>< -? .. ..

METAL IMPLEMENTS IN
ANCIENT . INDIA
(From earliest times upto circa 2nd century B.C.)
By
Jagadamba Prasad Upadhyaya
Ph.D.
Department of Ancient History, Culture,
. Archaeology & Museology
Ewing Christian College
(An Autonomous College of the Diversity of Allahabad)
Allahabad
Pratibha Prakashan
DELHI
-- .. , ,
.,,.
. ..-:..:-
...... :':"
.: -t
; . ~
Author
Ist Edition 2000 A;D.
Published by:
Dr. Radhey Shyam Shukla
M.A., M.PhiL, Ph-D.
For Pratibha Prakash an
(Oriental Publishers &Booksellers)
29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-11 0007
Phone: (011) 7451485
ISBN : 81-7702-016-1
Price: Rs. 1200 $ 120
Laser type setting:
Creative Graphics
A-46/6, Gali No. 2, Brahnlpuri,
Delhi-53 Ph. : 2195643
Printed at : Tarun Offset Printers, Delhi
C})ecficated
rr'o
~ Y '
9Vlotlier
- J
2 3 4 5 6 7 8,
......
0'1
18'. Nal Adze Copper 2l.Ox(?)x0.30 Flat Curved splayed Ibid.
out cutting
edge, ground on
one side.
19. Nal Adze Copper 16.3 x(?)x0.90 Flat Curved and Ibid.
slightly splayed
cutting edge
ground on both
sides.
20. Nal Saw Copper 37.0x6.0x(?)x4.00
Three holes at Ibid.
the broader end,
only 3.00 of
secreted edge
contains 12 teeth.
;,
21. Nal Saw Copper 12.6x(?)x(?) - Curved back with Ibid.
straight cutting
~
edge, 4 pieces
IS'
rejoined, 2.00
......
l?
length contains "G
......
20 teeth.
(I;)
~
22. Nal Dagger Copper 112.6><(?)x(?)
Upper part with
Ibid.
(I;)
- ;::!
(Spear- (ext.)
tang preserved.
~
s;
head ?)
~
23. Nal Foil Silver Details not available
Eight fragments Ibid.
;::!
- ()
.....
of brittle and
(I;)
I
;::!
1
.....
oxidised silver
~
' .
Table : (Contd..)
$:)..
'
foil.
.....
~
j,
_1}'
' 1:ri
~
,, 1.,
f d ~
: ' ~
::,:
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
~
"'I
~ 4 . Nal Uniden- Copper r2.2x(?)x0.30 - Oblique cutting Ibid.
~
~
'
tified edge, ground on '
I
tool both faces. ~

b5. Nal Uniden- Copper 11.8x(?)x0.50 Slightly curved Ibid.
$:j.
-
~ tified cutting edge
tool ground on both
~
~ ~
faces.
~
26. Nat Fragment Copper 6.8x(?)x(?)
- - Ibid.
"'I
~
of unidenti- "G I.
fied tool

27. Nal Fragment Copper 3.30x(?)x(?) Circular shaft Ibid.
('J
- $::!
of unidenti- with straight
:::t:'
I

fied tool cutting, edge
(I)
"'
(0.90) ground
.
.
on both faces.
28. Nal Fragment Copper 12.0x(?)x0.30
- Straight cutting Ibid. '
of un- edge, ground on
identi- one face only.
fied tool
29. Nal Unidenti-. Copper l.OOx(?)x(?) Curved splayed Ibid.
fied tool cutting edge,
ground on both
faces.
30. Amri Bangle Copper Details not available
-
. Mughal, op. cit., p. 141
and rolled
......
- ~
wire
Table : (Contd .. ) ....:1
'
48

8:
0
u

8:
0
u
0
1./")
c)
1.0
0'1
tri
X
0
0'1
C"'l
C"'l
C"'l 0
"": 1./")
0 c)
Metal Implements in Ancient India
1./")
1./")
00
1./")
.tri
X
00
t"-:
0
C"'l
0
00
C"'l
X
0
""'"
..,;
N)
...
&
o..'
0
.u
1./")
r-:
C"'l
X
0
lr)
- N

8:
0
u
r--: 00 .0'1
1.0
t':'-
C"'l
X
-N
c)
N
c)
-.
Early Indus and Mature Harappan Cultures
49
Sword
Three swords of copper have been reported from Mohenjodaro
1
by Mackay. They furnish the following details.
1.
2.
Length
(em)
40.00
46.99
Breadth
(em)
3.35
6.07
3. 8.12 (extent) 3.07
All are tanged. First two specimens are complete, considerably
long and having both the edges sharp In all the specimens, the blade
tapers to a sharp point. The specimen No. 1 has two rivet holes near
the meeting point of blade and tang.
Parasu (Battle-axe)
A fragment of a parasu of copper is reported from the Harappan
levels at Raja Kama Ka Qila.
2
No details of the specimen are available
so far.
III. Implements of Various .Crafts
Harappan culture is particularly known for its riCh material remains,
many of which seem to be associated with various crafts practised by
(
the Harappans. They also made a. variety of copper/bronze implements
which were used in various crafts. This observation is primarily based
upon the comparison of their implements with the present day crafts
implements. In the following pages we propose to discuss the implements
like chisel, gouge, saw, drill, etc., which are likely to have been used
by craftmen like carpenter, coppersmith, housebuilder, cobbler, etc.
Chisel
Chisels, in a variety of shapes, are by far the most common tools
found at Mohenjodaro
3
, Chanhudaro
4
and Harappa,
5
although they have
1. Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vols. I & II, p.
466. Pl. CXIII, 3; CXVIII, 9; CXX, 17; CXXVIII, 5; CXXXI, 19.
2. Indian Archaeology-A Review (1975-76), 18.
3. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization (1973), pp. 501-504;
Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1976), pp. 473-475.
4. E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1943), pp. 184-185.
5. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), pp. .. =3=s7oc--=3=ss".--
tl
"'
.. '

50 Metal Implements in Ancient India Early Indus and Mature Harappan Cultures 51
been reported also from several other Harappan sites, like S urkotada, 1
LothaF, Mirzapur
3
(Kurukshetra), Daulatpur,
4
Kot-DijP, Raja Karna
Ka Qila,
6
Banawali (Harayana? and Hulas (Saharanpur)
8
, etc. Detailed
accounts of these other sites, however, are yet to be published. Harappan
chisels are more usually made of copper than bronze. 9
Different classifications for these tools have been proposed by the
various excavators. In the absence of a uniform classification, we propose
to study the Harappan chisels by dividing them into various types
based on such objective considerations as length, breadth, thickness
measurements, cross-section and nature of edge profile. These chisels
seem to. fall into two broad basic types-the long narrow chisels and
the short broad chisels, both having rectangular or square cross-sections.
The basis .of this classification is their length:-breadth ratio; those having
a ratio upto 10:1 being termed as short broad chisels, and those exceeding
this, long narrow chisels. Besides these two, there are two mmor
types also, VIZ., chisels made out of round bars and pointed
chisels. However, both these types appear in small number only. The
different statistical accounts are mentioned in the forthcoming table.
1. Deshpande, M.N., JAR, 1971-72, p. 18; Pl. XXX. B.
2. Rao, S.R., Lothal (1979) Vol. '1, P. 30 and p. 233; also Ghosh, A.,IAR, 1957-
58, p. 11; pl. XXI.B.
3. Singh, U.V., 'Late Harappan Culture as Revealed by the Excavation-at Mirzapur
and Daultapur (Kurukshetra), liAS, Simla (1977), paper read.
4. Ibid., also JAR, 1976-77, 19.
5. Agrawal, D.P., The Copper bronze age in India (1971), p. 27; Sankalia, H.D.
The Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan (1974), 342.
6. JAR, 1975-76, p. 18.
7. Bisht, R.S., 'Banawali : A new Harappan site in Harayana', Man and Environment
(1978), Vol. II, pp. 86-88.
8. Dikshit, K.N., 'The Harappan Levels of Hulas', Man and Environment (1984),
Vol. VIII, pp. 99-102.
9. Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), p. 473.
0

00
i
CZl
'"Cl

3
0..
<ll
0
z
00
C"!
. N
0
V)
0
X
oo::r
'""
-
00

-
-
'"Cl


......
0
z
00
00
N
<:")
\0
0
X
N
-
oO
00
r--;
0
<:")
o;
0
X
<:")

0
-
'"Cl


......
0
z
\0
r:--
0
X
0
V)
oO
00
V:.
0
X
0\
C"!
\0
00

0
X
\0

9
0
v:
0
X
<:")

00
0

. ,,
. '
''
11. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
12. Mohvnjodaro Long-
narrow
13. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
14. Long-
narrow
15. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
16. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
17. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
18. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
19. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
20. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
21. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
22. Mohenjodaro Long-.
narrow
23. Mohenjodaro Long-
narrow
' 24. Mohenjodaro
25. Mohenjodaro
26. Mohenjodaro
27. Mohenjodaro
28. Mohenjodaro
29. Mohenjodaro
30. Mohenjodaro
3 1. Mohenjodaro
32. Mohenjodaro
33. Mohenjodaro
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow

narrow
Long-
narrow
Long-
narrow
34. Mohenjodaro. Long-
narrow
14.78x0.93
13.76xl.21
14.22x(?)
3.35x0.25
6.60x0.53
8.20x0.53
9.14x0.50
9.14x0.53
8.91x0.55
13.08x0.76
9.65x0.58
11.55x0.73
12.70x0.76
17.98xl.75
17.09x1.04
7.23x0.45
18.03xL77
22.86x1.62
9.77x0.63
12.19x0.60
15.24xl.01
15.11xl.09
20.82x.l.77
12.82x 1.01
15.89:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Tanged
gular
11.12: 1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Tanged
gular
Not splayed Plano-convex Tanged
13.04:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
gular
12.45:1 Squarish Spiayed Biconvex Not tanged
15.47:1 Square Not splayed Plano-convex Not tanged
18.28:1 Squarish Not Splayed Biconvex
Not tanged
17.24:1 Rectan- Not splayed
gular
16.20: 1 Rectan- Not splayed
gular
17.21: 1 Rectan- Splayed- -
gular
16.63:1 Squarish Not splayed
15.82:1 Rectan- Not splayed
gular
16.71:1 Ractan- Not splayed
gular
"\10.29;!
16.45:1
Rectan-
gular,
Rectan-
gular
Splayed
Splayed
. {6.06:1 Rectan- . Not splayed
gular
10.18:1 Rectan- Not splayed
gular
14.11:1 Rectan- Not splayed
gular
.-\-
BiConvex Not tanged
Plano-convex Not tanged
Biconvex Not tanged
Biconvex Not tanged
Plano-convex Not tanged.
Biconvex Tanged
Contd ..
Biconvex Tanged
Biconvex
Tanged
Plano-convex Tanged
Biconvex Tanged
Biconvex Not tanged
15.50:1 Rectan-' Not splayed ' Biconvex
gular
Not tanged
20.31:1 Rectan-
(?)
gular Edge at each end
15.08:1 Rectan- Not clear
gular
13.86:1 Rectan- Splayed
gular
11.76:1 Square Not clear
12.69:1 Square
Edge missing
(?)
Biconvex
Biconvex
Not clear
Not tanged
Tanged
(Flattened
tang)
Tanged
(Flattened
tarig)
Tanged
(Flattened
tang)
Edge missing Tanged
(Flattened
tang)
Contd ...
I
!l["O
J!
)
,\t,


',i
,!Jt;

s
....

"G

::!






,
$:) !
1-;
i fi
i 1!
: trc
-
tl1 i tl
$:) J,
"; 1.'' c::;.t
;t
S'

:11:
[t i



"6'
II
<J I '

$::!'

"'
AI\

i
'
i
' I
I.
I
!"
I
f
'r
Vli
w;
i.
!f.:
,tll,j
-J. "'
35. Long-
9.14x0.50
18.28:1 Rectan-
Not clear
Not clear
Tanged
narrow
gular
Edge blunt
36. . Mohenjodaro
Edge blunt
(Flattened)
Long-:-
13.33x0.88
15.14:1 Rectan-
Edge missing
narrow
Edge missing Flattened
37. Mohenjodaro
gular
tang
Long-
11.55x0.63
18.33:1 upper:
Not splayed
Not clear
Flattened
narrow
rectangular;
lower round
38. Long-
17.52x0.81
21.62:1 Rectan- Splayed
narrow
Biconvex
Flattened
39. Mohenjodaro
gular
tang
Long-
11.81x0.88
13.42:1 Rectan-
Not clear
Not clear
Flattened
narrow
gular
40. Harappa
Long-
15.llx0.65
tang
23.24:1 (?) Splayed
Sloped but
Not tanged
!
narrow I:
the nature

could not be
measured
41. Harappa Long-
6.85x0.62
11.04:1 (?) Splayed
narrow
As above
Not tanged
42. Harappa
Long-
9.52x0.71
13.40:1
(?) Not splayed
As above
Tanged
narrow
43. Harappa Long-
17.86x 1.41
12.66:1
(?)
narrow
Splayed
As above
Not tanged
44. Harappa
Long- 15.04x0.94
16.00:1 (?)
narrow
Not splayed
As above
Not tanged
45. Chanhudaro Long-
11.20x0.48
23.33:1 Square
Not splayed
Plano-convex
Tanged
narrow
Contd ..
I
I
!m
i .I
1i
,.
'

r.
"
:Ml
I
I
14
!J
46. Chanhudaro Long-- 14.73x0.93 15.83:1 Squarish Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged

narrow
47. Chanhudaro Long- 12.97x0.66
./"",.
19.65:1 Rect1m- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
m-
narrow
gular

!:)'''
48. Chanhudaro Long- 12.72x0.78 16.30:1 Rectan-: Not splayed Plano-convex Not tanged
;:s
narrow
gular
49. Chanhudaro Long- 7.36x0.55 13.38:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
narrow
gular
II
50. Chanbudaro Long- f5.03x0.83 - 18.10:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
narrow
gular
'15 ,,
!:) '
51. Chanbudaro Long- 15.01xL06 14.16:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Tanged
;:s';

narrow
gular
'
52. Chanhudaro Long- 10.92x0.76 14.36:1 Squarish Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged

r.ol
narrow
k
53. Chanhudaro Long- 18.llx0.93 19.47:1 Rectan- Splayed Biconvex Tanged
narrow
gular
II
1,1
54. Chanhudaro Long- 14.04xl.09 12.88:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
(
narrow
gular
I
55. Chanhudaro Long- 10.33x0.63 16.39:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
I
I)
gular
Wli
narrow
56. Surkotada Long- 11.62x0.99 11.7381 - - -
-
m
narrow
57. Kot Diji Long- 14.12x0.91 15.51:1 Convex Plano-concave Flattened
narrow
gular Not splayed tang
J .\li
Contd ...
q;
i

I
-i
I
I
58. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
59. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
60. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
61. Mohenjodaro. Short-
broad
62. Mohenjodaro Short- _
broad
-63. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
64. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
65. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
66. Mohenjodaro Short-_
broad
67. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
68. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
69. Mohenjodaro Short-
broad
Mohenjodaro
71. Mohenjodaro
72.
73.
Mohenjodaro
Mohenjodaro
75. Mohenjodaro
76. Harappa
77. Harappa
78. Harappa
79. Harappa
80. Harappa
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
Short-
broad
9.39x1.62
3.30xO.SO
3.98x0.55
4.49x0.58
7.56x0.78
13.25x2.31
4.19xl.65
4.01x0.71
3.35x0.63
6.85xl.14
6.09x0.71
15.49xi.65
13.33xl.39
7.80x0.93
5.48x1.39
3.20xl.57
5.46xl.21
6.60x1.52
8.'l6xl.39
8.00x0.94
6.3Sxl.ll
4.69X0.82
16.4Sxl.88
5.79:1
6.60:1
7.23:1
7.65:1
9.69:1
5.73:1
2.53:1
5.64:1
5.31:1
6.00:1
8.57:1
9.38:1
9.58:1
8.38:1
3.94:1
2.03:1
4.51:1
4.34:1
6.30:1
8.51:1
5.72:1
5.71:1
8.75:1
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular

gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Square
Square
Rectan-
gular
Square
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
Rectan-
gular
(?)
(?)
(?)
(?)
(?)
Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Not splayed Plano-convex Not tanged
Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Not splayed Biconvex Tanged
Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed Plano-convex Tanged
Contd ..
Vl
0'1,
!
i
;t:

:f ..

"6 r


(1)
::oJ .
1:J" it
s 11
::.....
::oJ I
I
f
ll
6"
I
I
l_h,
- . J
Not splayed
Plano-convex Tanged
Splayed
Plano-convex Tanged
Splayed
Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed
Biconvex Not tanged
Not splayed
Biconvex Not tanged
Splayed
Biconvex Not tanged
(Burred butt)
Not splayed
Slope is Not tanged
present; Nature
not clear
Not splayed As above
Not tanged
Not splayed As above
Tanged
Splayed
Slope is Not tanged
present; Nature
not clear
Splayed
As above
Not tanged
Contd ...

"'j
'<'
S'

l
It
I
I
I

t:l --
::J
t:l..

''"
1\\ I

"'j
{l in>
'151
i
\) ..
iii?
"'"to. I;.

ill.'
j
I
'\
/ ir
I_ (
,t,\\1
J
I
!'
Vl i.li
-....l 1
j


81. Harappa
Short- 13.61xl.41
broad
9.66:1
(?) Splayed
As above Not tanged
82. Harappa Short- 14.10xl.69
. broad
8.34:1
(?) Splayed
As above Not tanged
83. Harappa Short-
15.04xl.88
8.00:1
(?) Splayed As above Not tanged'
..
'
broad
!
84. Harappa Short-
11.282:2.11
5.34:1 (?) Splayed 'As above
Not tanged
broad
85. Harappa Short-
8.69xl.41
6.16:1
(?) Splayed
As above Not tanged
lt
broad
86. Harappa Short- 7.75xl.41
5.49:1 (?) Splayed As above
Not tanged i
I
broad

87. Chanhudaro Short- 2.20xl.54
1.42:1 Rectan-
Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
I
broad
gular


. 88. Chanhudaro Short- 12.31 xi.98
6.21:1 Rectan- Splayed
Biconvex Not tanged '
.broad
gular

89. Chanhudaro Short- 16.56x2.28
7.26:1 Rectan- Splayed
Biconvex Not tanged

.I
broad
gular
j
16,8lx2.26
(I) 90, Chanhudaro Short-
7.43:1 . Rectan- Splayed
Biconvex
Not tanged ;::s }!

broad
gular
;:;; ' '
91. Chanhudaro Short- 12.29xl.82
6.75:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex
Not tanged

broad
gular
ff,l 92. Chanhudaro Short- 13.79xl.52
9.07:1 Rectan-
Not splayed Plano-convex Not tanged
..... f:.

;::s .
broad
gular
'
Contd ...
ss
{,

'i
t

I
93. Chanhudaro Short- 9.90x0.99 10.00:1 Squarish Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
!:t-Jl
t:!i
broad


94. Chanhudaro Short- 5.86xl.32 4.43:1 Rectan- Not Plano-convex Not tanged


broad gular /!
1::!
95. Chanhudaro Short- 2.94x 1.01 7.06:1 Rectan- Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
;::s.
I::!.. I
broad gular

16.7lx2.23 Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged

96. Chanhudaro Short- 7.49:1 Rectan-
I .
broad gular
. '

97. Chanhudaro Short- 8.22xl.85 4.44:1 . Rectan- . Splayed Biconvex Tanged
.
broad gular
1::!!
98. Chanhudaro Short- 13.33x2.10 6.34:1 Rectan- Not Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
;::s
Ql
broad gular
:::;:-
99. Chanhudaro Short- 8.12xl.27 6.39:1 Rectan- Splayed Plano-convex Not tanged
:1!
.,
l,l
broad gular
I
100. Chanhudaro Short- 6.93x0.99 7.00:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged
broad gular
j;f;
101. Chanhudaro Short- 11.55xi.39 8.30:1 Rectan- Splayed Not clear Not tanged
broad gular
lit!
102. Chanhudaro Short- 10.54xl.27 8.29:1 Rectan- Not splayed Plano-convex Not tanged
broad gular
103. Chanhudaro Short- 6.85xl.06 6.46:1 Rectan- Not splayed Biconvex Not tanged

broad gular
104. Chanhudaro Short- 7.11xl.32 5.38:1 Rectan- Splayed Biconvex Not tanged
broad gular
Contd. ..
Vo
\0
1!
...,J,
105. Chanhudaro Short- 9.47x2.81 3.37:1 Rectan-
broad gular
1 06. Chanhudaro Short- 5.66xl.Ol 5.60:1 Rectan-
broad gular
107. Chanhudaro Short- 5.58x2.03 2.74:1 Rectan-
broad gular
108. Chanhudaro Short- 10.94x1.52 7.19:1 Rectan-
pro ad gular
1 09. Chanhudaro Short- 7.62xl.82 4.18:1 Rectan-
broad gular
110. Chanhudaro Short- 4.87x2.05 2.37:1 Rectan-
broad gular
111. Chanhudaro Short- 4.57xl.04 4.39:1 Rectan-
broad gular
112. Chanhudaro Short- 3.12xl.29 2.41:1 Rectan-
broad gular ,
. 113. Chanhudaro Short- 2.03xl.52 1.33:1 Rectan-
broad gular
114. Chanhudaro Short- 3.07xl.60 1.91:1 Rectan-
broad gular
115. Kot Diji Short- 7.93x0.63 12.58:1 (?)
broad
-
116. Mohenjodaro Chisels 10.41x0.50 20.82:1 Round
made of (dia)
round bars
1117. Mohenjodaro
As above
10.16x0.25
40.64:1 Round
(dia)
118. Mohenjodaro
Pointed
7.1lxL14
6.23:1 Rectan-
gular
119. Mohenjodaro
Pointed
2.92x0.63
4.63:1 Square
120. Mohenjodaro
Pointed " 11.55x0.99
11.16:1 Round
I
(dia)
I
121. Chanhudaro
Pointed
11.81x0.99
11.92:1 Squarish
122. Chanhudaro
Pointed
4.64x1.39
3.33:1 Rectan-
gular
Not splayed Biconvex
Not splayed Biconvex
Splayed Pano-convex
Splayed Biconvex
Not splayed Biconvex
Splayed Biconvex
Not splayed Biconvex
Splayed Biconvex
Not splayed Plano-convex
Not splayed Plano-convex
Convex Biconvex
Not splayed
Splayed Biconvex
Not splayed
Biconvex
oblique
Pointed
Round
Pointed
Round
Not edged
Not edged
Pointed
Round
Pointed
Round
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
Not tanged
0\
0
t
. ~ .-' ~
'I
'.\
i !1
i,::
I I'll
: r
~
s
-~
.;
-f.
~ f
~ .
~
~
~
~
:.:....
~
~ ill
~ .
.... I
S"
~
1::!
'
~
II
! t ~ ~
Tanged ~ .
~ I .
~ !fi'
~ ,,
Not tanged ~ ~
1
.
~ I '
Vol !; f
1::!
Not tanged ~
Not tanged ~ :
E'l
~ I ~
Tanged ~
~
Not tanged ~ ,
"'c5'
1::! !
~ I
<J'
~
~ J:.
I ..
I_
!I"
I; l
I
0\
.......
I'
i
j
1
I
a.
"'"' iU!f
62 . \ , . 63 .
Meta/Implements in Ancient India Early Indus and Mature Harappan Cultures .
It is obvious from the above table that the long narrow and the
short b:oad chisels form _the main types of the Harappan metal-tool
. repertOire. The cross of most of the specimens is rectangular,
and rarely square or squansh, except in the case of those made of
round ba:s. The tanged specimens are comparatively rare, and most
of the chisels have flat, flattish \or burred butt ends. Those described
as having burred exhibit distinct marks of repeated hammering.
The untanged specimens were obviously heavy-duty implements, used
presumably for cutting and chiselling hard wood, bone, ivory, alabaster,
etc. The tanged specimens must have been hafted, and might have
been found handy for light and fine workmanship.
ConsiderU:g the profiles of the different types, it may probably
be held that chisels havmg plano-convex edge profile might have been
used for oblique cutting of objects, while those having biconvex edge
profile were used for straight cutting. It should be noted from the table
that chisels having plano-convex edge profile are less in number than
their counterparts.
. It. may be hypothesised that the chisels having points were used
for and finishing. Out of the four such specimens
only one IS tanged, while the rest are having burred butts. The chisels
made of round bar of copper or bronze, by no means a common type
according to Mackay, were used probably as gravers
1
to work on soft
stone, wood and metal.
2
Some of the chisels having burred butts are also characterised by
long flat shanks, a feature, which could not be included in the above
table. Mackay thinks that "the long flattened shanks certainly appear
to have been made expressly to be fixed in handles .... "3, but Vats
while dealing with similar specimens from Harappa, does not
to support his observation.
4
Vats rightly asserted that the long flattened
shanks -must have been used without handles. As they generally narrow
towards working edge, the shanked chisels were probably used for
I. Mackay, E.J.H., Further excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), p. 474.
2. Ibid.
3. C.f. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization (1973), p. 502.
4. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), p. 88.
making holes or carving stones, wood, etc. more efficiently than those
without shanks .
Some of the long narrow specimens, particularly those exceeding
20.00 ems in length, could not have served as effective chisels though
they have been classified as such by the excavators. In our opinion,
they might have been ploughshares, which, surprisingly, have not been
reported so far from any of the Harappan sites. These objects have
been discussed elsewhere, for obvious reasons.
Saw
That saws formed an important aspect of Harappan carpentry is
evinced by the finds at different Harappan sites, like Mohenjodaro,
1
Harappa2, Chanhudaro
3
, Lothal
4
and Kalibangan,
5
etc. They resemble
more or less with the saws of modern times. The available specimens
are both dentate and undentate, with or-without tangs, generally having
rivet holes for firm hafting. The undentate specimens also must have
had dentation originally, but it somehow did not survive, probably
either due to continuous long use or owing to certain natural agencies.
The cutting edge, which in all cases in single, is concave, convex or
straight, with a blunt straight back. It is observed that some specimens .
. have a long tang at the distal end for fixing handles. There is ?- solitary
specimen from Kalibangan
6
which is tanged at both the ends, thus
indicating that it was handled by two persons simultaneously. Both
the types are prevalent even today. Their details are listed in the following
table.
1. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization, Vol. II & III, pp. 500-
501; Pl. CXXXVIII, 4, 8; Mackay, E.J.H:, Further excavations at Mqhenjodaro
(1938), Vol. I, p. 469-470. _
2. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), Vol. I, p. 88.
3. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1943), p. 179.
4. Rao, S.R., Lothal, (1979), Vol. I, pp. 26-27; Agrawal, D.P., The copper bronze
age in India(l971), p. 31; Ohosh, A., JAR, 1959-60, p. 17.
5. JAR, 1962-63, p. 27; Pl. LXI A (iii).
6. Ibid.
Sl. Site
No.
1. Mohenjodaro
2. Mohenjodaro
3. Mohenjodaro
4. Mohenjodaro
5. Harappa
6. Harappa ..
7. Chanhudaro
8. Kalibangan
Length x Breadth R.atio
(ems)
42.16xll.37
32.00><7.87
46.48 xl6.00
(?)x6.29
broken
13.71X4.44
12.70x6.09
3.70:1
4.06:1
2.90:1
. 3.08:1
2.08:1
Metal
Copper
Bronze
Bronze
Bronze
Copper
Copper
27.25 x8.96 3.04:1 Copper
c
10.65 x2.55 4.17:1 Copper
Awls or. Reamer
Cross
Section
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Nature
of edge
Convex
dentate
Concave
dentate
Straight
undentate
Not clear
Straight
dentate
Straight
undentate
Flat Convex
undentate
Flat Convex
sharp,
undentate
These rod like implements were excavated in fairly good number
from Mohenjodaro
1
and Chanhudaro
2
, but only a single one from
Harappa.
3
The Hara:ppa specimen, however, is more interesting. It is
made of a copper bar and Vats has identified it as cobbler's awl.
4
There
is a slight inward cut near the sharp point, perhaps for holding the thread.
Awls or reamers from above mentioned sites are either rectangular,
square or round in cross-section. They do not have the inward cut
like objects pointed one or both the ends. Sometimes, both the ends
are blunt with bulbous body. In rare specimens, particularly in the
those in which the other end is blunt a slight bent is noticed near the.
pointed end.
1. Marshall, John, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization (1973), Vol. II, p .. S04.
Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vol. I, p. 475.
2. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1943), p. 185.
3. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), Vol. I, p. 390.
4. Ibid.
It is difficult to suggest a specific use for these specimens. Perhaps,
they were used for making or enlarging holes, and fastening etc., in
various materials like leather, wood, bone, ivory, etc. Marshall and
Mackay name two such implements as reamers (specimen Nos. 4 &
5 of the table), but suggest the same use as above. Alternatively, it
may be suggested that these pointed specimens were also used for
engraving designs ari.d letters on pottery as well as seals. Their length
in comparison to their breadth/diameter to the extent
that the length-thickness ratio of one specimen is as much as 92.45:1,
while it is only 8.86:1 in another. This significant variation in size
may lead us to suggest that not all awls or reamers were used for the
same purpose. The table here records the different parameters of the
specimens.
Sl.
No.
Site Metal Length
(em)
1. Mohenjodaro Bronze 9.60

2. Mohenjodaro Copper 9.95
3. Mohenjodaro Copper 10.16
4. Mohenjodaro Copper 4.92
5. Mohenjodaro Copper 19.55
6. Mohenjodaro Copper 7.41
7. Mohenjodaro Copper 6.35
8. Mohenjodaro Copper 10.87
9. Mohenjodaro Copper 7.36
10. Mohenjodaro Copper 14.09
11. Mohenjodaro Copper 10.61
12. Mohenjodaro Copper 6.09
13: Mohenjodaro Copper 18.49
14. Mohenjodaro Copper 9.90
15. Mohenjodaro Copper 10.46
antimony
alloy
16. Mohenjodaro Copper 9.19
antimony
-alloy-----------
Dia-
meter
(em)
0.50
0.63
0.48
0.50
0.30
0.45
0.55
0.63
0.22
0.20
0.58
0.30
0.33
Thick-
ness
(em)
0.30
0.71
0.17
Ratio Cross
32.0:1
19.9:1
16.12:1
10.25:1
27.53:1
14.82:1
section
Square
Round
Round
Round
Square
Round
J7 .3 5: 1 Rectangular
36.23:1 Round
16.35:1
25.61:1
16.84:1
27.68:1
92.45:1
17,06:1
34.86:1
27.84:1
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
Round
"
,,
,,
'
I,
'
.@IX
66 Metal Implements in Ancient India Early Indus and Mature Harappan Cultures 67
17. Mohenjodaro Copper 8.94 0.25 35.76:1 Round Gouges (A chisel with hollow blade)
18. Mohenjodaro Copper 11.93 0.27 0.12 . 44.18:1 Rectan-
Gouges have been found only at Harappa.
1
Even at this site, they
gular
number only four. A gouge is essentially a carpenter's tool meant for
19. Harappa Copper 10.92 0.36 30.33:1 Round
making round holes on wood. It. could have been used also on other
20. Chan- Copper/ 8.72 0.50 17.42:1 Round
soft materials like bone and ivory for similar purpose. They measure
hudaro bronze
as follows. All the available specimens are made of bronze.
21. Chan- Copper/ 13.20 0.55 24.00:1 Square
hudaro bronze Sf. No. Length (em) Breadth (em) Site-
22. Chan- Copper/ 8.12 o.5o 16.24:1 Round
I. 10.16 0.72 Harappa
hudaro bronze
2. 18.97 0.95 Harappa
23. Chan- Copper/ 12.47 0.27 46.18:1 Round
3. 7.11 1.08 Harappa
hudaro bronze
4. 7.11 1.01 Harappa
24. Chan- Copper/ 16.43 <r-Ms 36.51:1 Round
hudaro bronze Plumb-bob
25. Chan- Copper/ 3.86 0.30.
12.86:1 Rectan-
Two objects one from Mohenjodaro
2
and another from Chanhudaro
3
hudaro bronze gular
have been identified as plumb bobs by the excavators. The Mohenjodaro
26. Chan- Copper! 4.83 0.38 12.68:1 Rectan-
specimen is a lead ball, 3.04 em in diameter, to which a copper or
hudaro bronze gular
bronze staple is attached at one end for suspension. The Chanhudaro
27.Chan- Copper/ 6.80 0.43 15.81:1 Square
specimen is oval in shape, 2.27 em long and 1.40 em in diameter. It
11
hudaro bronze
is of copper or bronze. The staple is, however, missing in this case.
,,
'
I'
28. Chan- Copper/ 5.38 0.43 12.51:1 Rectan-
Both the specimens differ significantly from the modem plumb-bob, i,
hudaro bronze gular
as the latter is also pointed at the bottom. However, they could have
29. Chan- Copper/ 3.81 0.43 8.86:1 Square
been fruitfully used by masons for erecting straight walls of various
hudaro bronze
building.
30.Chan- Copper/ 19.35 0.66 29.31:1 Rectan- !
hudaro bronze gular
Drills I'
11
31. Chan- Copper/ 11.22 0.66 17.00:1 square Although there are no perfect drills so far from any
hudaro bronze
of the Harappan sites, some objects have been ,identified as drills by
32. Chan- Copper/ 11.83 0.50 23.66:1 Square
excavators. They are from Mohenjodaro,
4
Chandudaro
5
and Lothal.
6
hudaro bronze
Available measurements of these are given in the following table.
33. Chan- Copper/ 12.03 0.76 15.82:1 Rectan-
1. Vats, M.S., Excavations at Harappa (1974), Vol. I & II, p. 389; Pls. CXXV
hudaro bronze . gular 40-42, 44.
34. Chan- Copper/ 9.09 0.63 14.42:1 Recta:n- 2. Mackay, E.J.H., Further excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vol. II, p. 476;
hudaro bronze gular
Pls. CVI, 29; CXXV, 90.
35. Chan- Copper/ 10.26 0.17 60.35:1 Round
3. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudato Excavations (1943), p. 187; Pl. LXX, 26.
4. Mackay, E.J.R, Further excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vols. I & II,
hudaro bronze
p. 475; Pis. CXXXI, 6; CXXXI, 10.
36. Chan- Copper/ 14.4.7 0.33 43.84:1 Round
5. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1976), p. 186.
hudaro bronze
6. JAR, S.R., Lothal (1979),
.;;;;zw.. ;;; .... =su,.._,;:axq(ii'... ..: .. . .. ... .
- 68, . ' in Ancient India - ' "'*i"- - Eart)lTnaus . . ........ ' . -- .
Sl. Site Metal Length
No. (em)
1. Mohenjodaro Copper 6.09
2. Mohenjodaro Bronze 7.16
3. Chanhudaro Copper/ 4.06
bronze
Dia-
meter
(em)
0.78
0.27
0.53
Min.
0.88
Max.
Thick- Cross
ness section
(em)
Round
Round
Remarks
One end
pointed
Both ends
pointed.
bulbous
in.middle
0.12 Hollow Round
section
Mackay opined that drills of some kind were extensively used at
Mohenjodaro on soft stones like limestone and alabaster.
1
The statement,
however, is not corroborated by available specimens, as only two drills
have been reported from Mohenjodaro. No drill is reported fromHarappa.
A drill-bit probably used in bead-making was recovered from the Lothal
phase II, and a bronze auger or twist-drill is another example from
the Lothal phase III. Although three tubular objects from Chanhudaro
2
have been classified by the excavator as drills, we find it difficult to
agree with this identification. It may be noted that none of the available
specimens is pointed or eXhibits any specific cutting edge, a feature
without an instrument can hardly be classified as drill. Under the
circumstance, it appears justified to include these objects among metal
tubes which could have been variously used in the sophisticated urban
Harappan civilization.
Bolts and Bolt-points
These are so far reported from Mohenjodaro
3
only, and are of
copper as well as bronze. The details of the available specimens are
as follows :
Sl. Site
No.
1. Mohenjodaro
2. Mohenjodaro
3. Mohenjodaro
4. Mohenjodaro
Metal
Copper
Copper
Bronze
Copper
Length
(em)
8.17
8.43
20.19
63.88
Breadth
(em)
1.47
1.09
1.54
1.57
Thick-
ness
(em)
1.39
1.09
Cross
section
Squarish
Square
1. Mackay, E.J.H., Further excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vols. I & II, pp.
320, 597, 598; Pl. CXLIV, 5.
2. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavations (1976), p. 186; Pis. LXII (7), LXXX
(9), LXXXI(l5).
3. Mackay, E.J.H., Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro (1938), Vol. I, p. 476.
\
Nos. 1 and 2 are straight rods of copper tapering to form a sharp
point, and are categorised as bolt-points by the excavator. No. 3 is
straight rod which tapers towards boththe ends. In the specimen No.
4, the lower end is narrower than the upper. The difference between
bolts and (Nos. 3 & 4 are bolts) bolt-points is that while the former
has both the ends pointed, the latter has only one. Both might have
been used to fasten timber. The bolt-points were probably used for
lighter fastening and bolts for heavier, as is suggested by their respective
length.
Bead-tools
Six specimens of a new tool-type were excavated at Chanhudaro.
1
These strange tools of copper and bronze might have been used in bead
making, as they were found in association of a large number of minute
beads.
2
The appearance of the tool suggests that they were perhaps
used for purposes as making holes, finishing beads, etc .. Their
parameters are as follows.
Sl. Metal Length Breadth/ Nature of point/end
No. Diameter
1. Bronze 4.82 Dia=0.50 Upper end blunt, lower
\
en:d pointed
2. Bronze (?) 4.00 Dia=0.40 Upper end blunt, lower
end pointed
3. Copper/ 2.50 Dia=0.40 Hollow tube, a point of
bronze metal attached to the
lower end
4. Copper/ 2.30 Dia=0.40 Hollow tube lower point
bronze misdng
5. oCopper/ 2.20 Dia=0.30 Solide lower point
bronze missing
6. Copper/ 2.36 Dia=0.35 It has a very fine
Bronze lower tubular point
IV. Household Implements
Under this category are included objects which are used in day-
to-day life, e.g. knife, shovel, needle, pin, fish hook simple hook, spatula,
1. Mackay, E.J.H., Chanhudaro Excavation (1976), p. 186; Pl. LXXX, 1-6.
2. Ibid.
"