Iron in Ancient India. 3
rightly, that the use of bronze cannot really precede the use of
iron. The preparation of bronze would presuppose the know-
ledge of the metallurgy at least of two metals, viz. copper and
tin, whilst the use of iron requires the knowledge of the metal-
lurgy of one metal only. Moreover, as Dr. Percy points out, the
metallurgy of iron is very simple-"if a lump of red or brown
hematite be heated for some time in a charcoal fire, well sur-
rounded by or embedded in the fuel, it will be more or less
completely reduced so as to admit of being easily forged at a red
heat into a bar of iron." Mr. St. John V. Day, the author of
"The Prehistoric use of Iron and Steel," also maintains that the
use of iron preceded the so-called bronze age. At any rate so far
as India is concerned there cannot be distinguished a distinct age
called the bronze age, and the Aryan conquerors seem to have
known the use of iron from their very first habitation in the
Punjab, as can be gleaned from the frequent mention of iron in
Vedic literature.
The word Ayas" frequently occurs in the Rig and other Vedas. It means "iron" and has been translated as such by the great commentator Shayana, Prof. Max Müller, Griffiths, Wilson, R. C. Dutt, the author of Bachaspatya Lexicon, and others, though Shayana in some passages has taken it to mean "gold" also. On the other hand Macdonell and Keith in their "Vedic Index" suppose it to mean "bronze," perhaps being influenced by the theory that bronze preceded iron in India also.[1] They argue as favouring the sense of 'bronze' rather than that of 'iron' may perhaps be cited with Zimmer (Altindisches Leben, 52) the fact that Agni is called 'Ayo-damastra,' with the teeth of ayas, (Rig. I, 88, 5; X, 87, 2) with reference to the colour of his flames, and that the car-seat of Mitra and Varuna is called 'aya-sthuna' (Rig. V. 62, 8) with pillars of ayas' at the setting of the sun (but this is not convincing, as in the same verse it is said to be of golden appearance at the flash of dawn" (footnote)." I have been at some pains to consult the original text, specially Shayana's commentary, and am afraid that Macdonell and Keith's argument cannot stand. As regards "ayo-daqstra" in Rig. I,
- ↑ Vedic Index, pp. 31 and 37.
