“Innovation of Iron Technology and its Impact on Indian Society”: Two day UGC Seminar held at Kuppam University on February 25th and 26th 2019 [2]

“Innovation of Iron Technology and its Impact on Indian Society”: Two day UGC Seminar held at Kuppam University on February 25^th and 26^th 2019 [2]

Ayub Ali chaired the session, where Dolly Thomas, J. Soundararajan, Osman Pasha, Sivaramakrishnaiah and Jammana presented papers.

25-02-2019 proceedings continued: After lunch, some papers were read, presented by the scholars and researchers. There was paper, “Porto novo iron works – retelling the story of a failed industrial enterprise of 19^th century Madras and its impact,”  supposedly presented jointly G. J. Sudhakar and Dolly Thomas, however, it was presented by the latter. I pointed out that the places chosen by the Dutch and the British had already been the iron and steel products producing sites by the Indians. In other words, they had taken over with their power. The fail could be attributed to the financial adjustments, as the British officers were engaged in the “private business.” In a recent paper also, details are given about the successful run of the factory and then changing name[1]. It is stated clearly[2], “………….the Porto Novo factory serviced the needs of India and Britain for iron and steel for more than 25 years, although after 1849, it changed names.”

Mohammed Osman Pasha and Syed Ayub Ali presented a paper, “Social customs and rituals of iron making people in Telanga,” but, it was changed to other title. How and why Golconda rulers having land locked area should engage in exporting goods through the Coromandel coast ports was an intriguing factor. For example, Machilipatnam port was situated 350 kms from the Golconda capital. For this, the paper presenter tried to give different answers to justify. The “Banjaras” were engaged in transporting the goods.

1. Soundararajan presented, “Iron age in Krishnagiri region,” based on the field work carried on by him
2. Sivaramakrishnaiah, journalist presented a paper on the recent finding of iron implements in Telangana.

Jammanna presented a paper on the leather industry of the Madhiga people. Many pointed out that he should relate his paper to the theme of the seminar.

25-02-2019 – first session – Ayub Ali heads. Jammanna presented paper

25-02-2019 – first session – Ayub Ali heads.audience

The paper of E. Ravi and N. R. Charles had been, “Usage of iron in rituals and religious structures,” however, the paper presenter Charles delved upon the metallic items – chalice, paten, ablution cup, pyx, sprinkler, thurible, cross, paschal candle stick, ciborum, baptism bowl, censer, ambry, bell and others – used in church, that too, Roman Catholic,  without giving any date etc.

Balachandran presented a paper, “Innovation of iron technology & its impact on Indian society treatment of iron in Indian English poetry, ” without having any bearing on the subject matter. As an English professor, ironically, he tried to exploit through his speech and act.

26-02-2019 – K. V. Ramakrishna Rao chaired the session. Shyamala presented paper.

26-02-2019 – KVR session.audience

The second day proceedings: 26-02-2019 – first technical session – morning: This session was chaired by me and there were papers as follows:

First, I presented my paper, “The antiquity of iron and steel technology in India: Problem, probe and product,” with PPT. In between, Jitendra and Jaikishan were asking querries and I responded and proceeded. Aravinda Kumar and Harsha Vardhan also commented, but I responded and continued.

The iron implements found at Munigak, Morasi Ghundai, Asa shrine are dated to c.2250-1950 BCE period.

Ian De Lisle[3] and her colleagues note that, “As early as 6000 BC, southern India has been creating wootz (crucible) steel.

Ann Feuerbach[4], noted that, “Artifacts of crucibles and weapons have been found in the Indian area that date back to 3000-4000 BCE”

Rakesh Tewari [5] gives dates based on B. Sekar in the range of 1687-290 BCE for earlier Indian sites and 1882-486 BCE for Gangetic plains[6]. The 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.

IVC – Mundigak iron impements – Kenoyer

IVC – SAid Qala Tepe- iron implements – Kenoyer

IVC – SAid Qala Tepe- iron implements – Kenoyer

IVC – Ahar- iron impements – Kenoyer

Based on these specific excavated examples and datings, I suggested that the date of iron and steel and related historiography has to be correlated, corroborated and corresponded and revised accordingly.

1. Syamala with her paper “Delving into the history of iron technology in India: A historiographical study” argued that based on the archaeological evidences, history has to be written taking them into account.
2. Jayaram Natru, “Use of iron tools in domestic field in Kaviti mandal, Srikakulam District,” was just displaying current iron implements used. He accepted that he was presenting the paper for the first time.
3. Adinarayana “Iron age cultures in Andhra Pradesh: A review” Venkata Subbaia asked him that he was using his title and paper. Moreover, he could not answer the questions he asked about the sites. As the PhD scholar belongs to the same University, he could have acknowledged the papers of predecessors in his paper.
4. B. Lateeb Kumar “Iron and agriculture: A study on the impact of iron implements in the development of archaeology in Kerala.” First he claimed that from the very beginning of the common era itself, when Kerala was part of ancient Tamilakam, the people of Kerala used iron implements. However, he claimed that iron implements were not used for agriculture. “Brahminical settlements were growing in Kerala during 7^th century AD and as a result of this large areas of land were used for agricultural purpose….iron implements used………plough was introduced in south India through the Buddhist contacts…..” Thus, his views had been queer and evidently based on other interpretations, instead of archaeological evidences.
5. Bollepelly Manichanda, Aruri Devaraju and Jeshrun Shalem “Study of the utilization of Iron and steel in war fields.” Actually, the paper presenters were not available and the youngsters wanted them to be presented through their friend. Just to encourage the youngsters, it was allowed.

26-02-2019 -Jitendra chairing the second session – Ravichandra, A. Subash, John Milton, G.S.V. Prasad

26-02-2019 -Jitendra session.audience

The second technical session: The second session was chaired by Kurra Jitendra Babu. His title of the paper was “Description of metals in early and medieval Sanskrit texts,” however, he was talking about many issues. He was connected with naxalites, trustee of “Hampi mutt……,” mafia are after the land of the mutt and so on. He also passed remarks to the extent that, “I expected more important papers, but, the papers were not so good. Te papers presentedshould nt be published as such, as others would laugh at us. They have to be edited thoroughly before publishing.” He claimed that the Iranians invaded India and while returning, they erected two inscriptions at Afghanistan and Iran around 1380 BCE. When I asked give references about them, he could not give. He diverted by talking about other issues. When I asked to tell specifically, the two places, he was telling that he “would send me a book within  six months that contains all the details I want”!  Again when I asked, “was it the Bhogozkai inscription that mentions Indrasil, Mitrasil, Varunasil, Nasatya etc..,” he said “..no, they are different.” He was describing medieval chemical and siddhanta works. He was also referring a Telugu mass that describes different types of surgery and instruments. His remarks about the paper presented had been outrageous, as he cannot generalize all papers.

John Milton “Gender identities in megalithic cultures of iron age: A study of archaeological remains in Kothagudem Bhadradri district of Telngana.” He was trying to interpret that the “Mother worship” prevalent among the megalithic cultural people could have had an impact on them.

26-02-2019 -Jitendra session.audience.another view

26-02-2019 -Jitendra session.audience.another view.2

Subash “The Dutch East Indian company and the organization of iron trade in the 17^th century Golconda,” in fact, he was repeating about the Dutch trade again and again, instead of dealing with iron. He was repeating the point that nails were manufactured and they were used for building huge ships. Ayub Ali also pointing out that he was repeating, instead of giving specific examples about Iron. I also had drawn his attention to my published paper, “The Dutch Iron factory at Narsapur” in the last proceedings of the APHC[7].

Valedictory function: After one more technical session, the valedictory function was there. Prof Sarada Srinivasan, National Institute of Advanced Studies, IISc campus, Bangalore was the VIP. She spoke about the steel manufactured during the megalithic period in Tamilnadu and the process involved, that she called as “Tamil Nadu Process.” G. Narayanappa was the Special Invitee. After the function, the participants dispersed to their destination.

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

01-03-2019

[1] Anantanarayanan Raman, Large-scale iron and steel production in the Coromandel: the earliest and longest survived Porto Novo Iron Works (1830–1859), Current Science, VOL. 113, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2017, pp.984-989.

[2] https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/113/05/0984.pdf

[3] Ian De Lisle et al., Ancient Regional Steel quality: Historical method of steel production around the world, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, UK, 2016, p.1.

[4] Ibid, p.26.

 Feuerbach, Ann. Crucible Damascus Steel: A Fascination for Almost 2,000 Years, Jom 58.5 (2006): pp.48-50.

[5] Rakesh Tewari, The origins of iron-working in India: new evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas, 2003, pp.536-545.

[6] These dates are calibrated by Dr B. Sekar, BSIP, Lucknow. References for data sets used: Stuiver, et al. 1998a. 537.

[7] K. V. Ramakrishna Rao, The Dutch Iron factory at Narsapur, the Proceedings of the APHC, Narsapur, 2018, pp.232-239.