Iron Age in India

"The introduction of iron into the subcontinent by the Indo-Aryans is another discarded intruding-Aryan tenet that is no longer accepted by archaeologists: "Archaeologically . . . the problem of the Aryans and their association with iron remains as confusing as ever, regardless of the earlier strongly expressed theories of their apparently tautological association" (Banerjee 1981, 320)."

"Iron occurs in a number of locations that could not have been influenced by one particular source. Chakrabarti (1993-94) was one of the first to reject the idea that the Iron Age represents a "major social and economic transformation" (25). Questioning the idea of its external origin, he claims that iron appears in the archaeological record without causing any significant cultural break. Here, again, he complains about "the role of the Aryans in this context which seem[s] to have forced scholars into a position where their primary concern has been to correlate the early Indian data on iron to some diffusionary impulses through the north- west" (25)."

"Of greater implication is Shaffer's argument (1984a, 49) that during the late third millennium B.C.E. iron ore was recognized and utilized in southern Afghanistan and was manipulated to produce iron luxury items. The fact that there are early Harappan artifacts in the same stratigraphic proveniences as the iron artifacts suggests to him that "the 'Early Harappan' complexes had access to, or knowledge of, an iron technology." In actual fact, although there is no evidence for awareness of smelted iron technology, iron ore and iron items have been uncovered in eight bronze age Harappan sites, some going back to 2600 B.C.E. and earlier. So there was as awareness of iron, which may have been encountered accidently during the smelting of copper, and a willingness to exploit it. The Harappan awareness of iron ore cannot be considered an "iron age," which is when smelted iron items became common items of household use and occurred around 1000 B.C.E."

"The traditional view, that iron was brought into the subcontinent by invading 'Aryans' (Banerjee 1965), is wrong on two counts: there is no evidence of any knowledge of iron in the earliest Vedic texts (Pleiner 1971), where ayas stands either for copper or for metals in general, and the idea that the aryas of the Rigveda were invaders has become just as questionable. Wheeler's assertion that iron only spread to India with the eastward extension of Achaemenid rule (Wheeler 1962) is even more untenable in the face of radiocarbon dates from early iron-bearing levels."

"The alternative thesis (Chakrabarti 1977), that iron smelting was developed in the subcontinent, rests on two principal arguments. First, iron ore is found across the length and the breadth of India, outside alluvial plains, in quantities that were certainly viable for exploitation by the primitive methods observable even in this century (Ball 1881; Elwin 1942). Ample opportunities thus existed for experimentation, although given the complexity or iron smelting this is not a conclusive point. The second argument, that the earliest evidence for iron comes from the peninsula and not from the northwest, is much more persuasive, even if better examples than quoted by Chakrabarti can be adduced in support of it. Briefly, while the dating of Phase II of Nagda (the earliest iron bearing level) depends on ceramic analogies, and the stratigraphy of Ahar (another site which is claimed to have produced evidence for iron) is hopelessly muddled, the testimony of radiocarbon dates is instructive."

"Iron Age levels have yielded dates of 2970 + 105 bp (TF-570) 1255, 1240, 1221 cal. BC and 2820 + 100 bp (TF-573) 993 cal. BC from Hallur, and 2905 + 105 bp (TF-326) 1096 cal. BC and 3130 + 105 bp (TF-324) 1420 cal. BC from Eran. They are not only earlier than any date from the Ganga valley (which dates fall between 2700-2500 bp) but are also earlier than the dates from Pirak in the northwest, with the exception of an anomalous reading of 2970 + 140 (Ly-1643) 1255, 1240, 1221 cal. BC. Since the process of diffusion from the west should produce rather the opposite pattern, a strong case can be made for an indigenous origin of ion smelting, although it could do with further support given the complexity of this industrial process which by common consent renders multiple centers of innovation unlikely."

"According to Possehl (1999b), "the iron age is more of a continuation of the past then a break with it" (165). Moreover, iron tools did not "lead to the subjugation of indigenous population by invading warriors" (164)."