SANSKRIT PITA AND SAIKYA/SAIKYA TWO TERMS OF IRON AND STEEL TECHNOLOGY IN THE MAHABHARATA.

• Author: FITZGERALD, JAMES L.

Two weapons-terms of Mah[bar{a}]bh[bar{a}]rata battle accounts, p[bar{i}]ta and [acute{s}]aikya, are poorly understood. This paper examines the use of both words in the epic closely and concludes: 1) p[bar{i}]ta is the past participle of the verb [surd]p[bar{a}], "drink," and refers to the treatment of "iron" with a liquid bath, i.e., the quenching of carburized iron (effectively a low-carbon steel). 2) [acute{s}]aikya is an allomorph of saikya, which is an adjective based on the noun seka ("pour, cast") from the root [surd]sic, "pour, cast (molten metal)"; it is an adjective meaning "metal that has been fused, metal ready for casting, (previously) molten metal." The word saikya/[acute{s}]aikya must refer to India's ancient steel, famous in the classical Mediterranean world, made by a process essentially the same as that of the famous crucible-fused wootz of South India, long the basic steel of "damascene" blades.

ONE DOES NOT EXPECT TO FIND serious descriptions of battles in the Mah[bar{a}]bh[bar{a}]rata's [acute{S}][bar{a}]nti Parvan, [1] which follows the account of the great Bh[bar{a}]rata war and is principally concerned to cool and calm (pra[acute{s}]amana) the dangerous excess of heat generated by the war. [2] But MBh 12.99 is an interestingly ambitious description of war-making that forms part of the R[bar{a}]jadharma Parvan. It contains two extended analogies describing warfare and the battlefield, analogies that employ terms particular to the epic's battle episodes. The meanings of two of the words used to describe weapons, p[bar{i}]ta and [acute{s}]aikya, are highly problematic, and the purpose of this article is to propose resolutions for both of them. In his comprehensive review of the early use of iron in India, Dilip K. Chakrabarti concludes a review of ancient literary references to iron technology with this comment on literary depictions of "Metallurgical Details": "In the whole range of early Indian literature there is not a single reference to any metallurgical process which can be specifically associated with iron." And, ".... it needs to be emphasized that nowhere in early Indian literature is there a specific reference to steel-making." [3] If my arguments here are correct, the evidence of the Mah[bar{a}]bh[bar{a}]rata requires that both these statements be modified.

According to MBh 12.99, when the illustrious ancient r[bar{a}]jan Ambar[bar{i}]sa went to heaven he was surprised to find that his former general (sen[bar{a}]pati) Sudeva occupied a more exalted position there than he himself did. Sudeva had been a man whose inner self was thoroughly calm (he was pra[acute{s}][bar{a}]nt[bar{a}]tm[bar{a}]) and he had not lived a life of rites and pious deeds as Ambar[bar{i}]sa had. Indra explained to Ambar[bar{i}]sa that Sudeva had been a true sacrificer nonetheless:

Indra uv[bar{a}]ca / etasya vitatas t[bar{a}]ta sudevasya babh[bar{u}]va ha samgr[bar{a}]mayaj[tilde{n}]ah sumah[bar{a}]n ya[acute{s}] c[bar{a}]nyo yudhyate narah [4] 12

samnaddho d[bar{i}]ksitah sarvo yodhah pr[bar{a}]pya cam[bar{u}]mukham

yuddhayaj[tilde{n}][bar{a}]dhik[bar{a}]rastho bhavatiti vini[acute{s}]cayah 13

Ambar[bar{i}]sa uv[bar{a}]ca /

k[bar{a}]ni yaj[tilde{n}]e hav[bar{i}]msy atra kim [bar{a}]jyam k[bar{a}] ca daksin[bar{a}]

rtvija[acute{s}] c[bar{a}]tra ke prokt[bar{a}]s tan me br[bar{u}]hi [acute{s}]atakrato 14

Indra uv[bar{a}]ca /

rtvijah ku[tilde{n}]jar[bar{a}]s tatra v[bar{a}]jino 'dhvaryavas tath[bar{a}]

hav[bar{i}]ms[bar{i}] param[bar{a}]ms[bar{a}]ni rudhiram tv [bar{a}]jyam eva ca 15

srg[bar{a}]lagrdhrak[bar{a}]kol[bar{a}]h sadasy[bar{a}]s tatra satrinah

[bar{a}]jya[acute{s}]esam pibanty ete havih pr[bar{a}][acute{s}]nanti c[bar{a}]dhvare 16

Indra said:

Son, this Sudeva performed the tremendous sacrifice of battle, and so does any other man who wages war: Every warrior equipped for battle is ritually consecrated, and when he goes to the front of the army he gains the right to perform the sacrifice of battle--that's a settled conclusion.

Ambar[bar{i}]sa said:

What are the offerings in this sacrifice? What the clarified butter? What are the presents for the priests in it? And who are supposed to be the priests? Tell me this, O [acute{S}]atakratu.

Indra said:

The elephants there are the invoking priests, and the horses are the officiating priests. The chunks of the enemy's flesh are the offerings and their blood is the clarified butter. Jackals, vultures, and ravens sit in the ritual assembly and are participants in the solemn rite. They drink what remains of the clarified butter and they eat the offerings of the rite.

Indra's metaphor moves from participants to implements and we encounter the problematic word p[bar{i}]ta:

pr[bar{a}]satomarasamgh[bar{a}]t[bar{a}]h khadga[acute{s}]aktipara[acute{s}]vadh[bar{a}]h

jvalanto ni[acute{s}]it[bar{a}]h p[bar{i}]t[bar{a}]h srucas tasy[bar{a}]tha satrinah 17

c[bar{a}]paveg[bar{a}]yatas tiksnah parak[bar{a}]y[bar{a}]vad[bar{a}]ranah

rjuh suni[acute{s}]itah p[bar{i}]tah s[bar{a}]yako 'sya sruvo mah[bar{a}]n 18

dv[bar{i}]picarm[bar{a}]vanaddh[acute{s}] ca n[bar{a}]gadantakrtatsaruh

hastihastagarah khadhah sphyo bhavet tasya samyuge 19

The masses of darts, lances, swords, spears, and battle-axes--blazing, whetted, and pita--are the sruc ladles of each of the rite's partakers. The keen arrow--straight, whetted, and pita--racing away from the bow's violent thrust and splitting the body of an enemy is his great sruva ladle. And the sword wielded in battle by arms big as elephants' trunks--its grip made of elephant's tusk and its sheath from tiger skin--would be its sphya stirrer.

The other problem word, [acute{s}]aikya, turns up in the next [acute{s}]loka:

jvalitair ni[acute{s}]itiaih p[bar{i}]taih pr[bar{a}]sa[acute{s}]aktipara[acute{s}]vadhaih

[acute{s}]aiky[bar{a}]yasamayais t[bar{i}]ksnair abhigh[bar{a}]to bhaved vasu 20

[bar{a}]veg[bar{a}]d yat tu rudhiram samgr[bar{a}]me syandate bhuvi

s[bar{a}]sya p[bar{u}]rn[bar{a}]hutir hotre samrddh[bar{a}] sarvak[bar{a}]madhuk 21

The blows landed with the keen darts, spears, and battle-axes made of [acute{s}]aikya iron--gleaming, whetted, and pita-- would be its riches. The blood which runs upon the earth from the violence of the battle is its full libation, the rich cow from which all wishes flow.

The episode develops the analogy further and adds to it another powerfully constructed passage that describes the field after battle by means of a detailed river analogy. But in the midst of this elaborate and studied praise of war, what do the words p[bar{i}]ta and [acute{s}]aikya mean? I take them each in turn.

1. P[bar{I}]TA

   The Petersburg dictionary registers three words of the form "p[bar{i}]ta." The first is the past participle p[bar{i}]t[acute{a}] of the root [surd]p[bar{a}] (p[bar{a}]ti, p[acute{i}]bati), "drink," a word known from the RV onward. The second, an adjective meaning "yellow," appears first in the Ch[bar{a}]ndogya Upanisad and is common in the epics. Third is a rare past participle of the root [surd]{p[bar{i}] (also listed variously as pi, py[bar{a}], py[bar{a}]y, and pyai), p[acute{a}]yate, py[bar{a}]yate, "puff out; be or become full" (the normal past participle of this root is p[bar{i}]na, a word unattested before the MBh). This third form has been attested previously only in [bar{a}]p[bar{i}]ta (at RV 8.9.19) and pr[acute{a}]p[bar{i}]ta (at RV 7.41.7 and 7.80.3), but it seems to occur, without any modifying prefix, at MBh 3.186.66, as I will point out below.

   There are over one hundred instances of one or another of the words p[bar{i}]ta in the MBh, and more than forty of these occur in connection with weapons, as in the passages cited above. In 12.99.17, darts (pr[bar{a}]sa), lances (tomara), swords (khadga), spears ([acute{s}]akti), and battle-axes (para[acute{s}]vadha) were all referred to as ni[acute{s}]ita (which, along with its cognates, means [acute{s}]il[bar{a}][acute{s}]ita, "whetted on a grindstone," "ground, i.e., shaped or sharpened on a stone") and p[bar{i}]ta. And so too the arrow (s[bar{a}]yaka) next in 99.18. Similarly, 4.32.6, an upaj[bar{a}]ti stanza, tells us that the armies of the Trigarlas and the Matsyas attacked each other "gad[bar{a}]sikhajgai[actue{s}] ca para[acute{s}]vadhai[acute{s}] ca pr[bar{a}]sai[acute{s}] ca t[bar{i}]ksn[bar{a}]grasup[bar{i}]tadh[bar{a}]raih," that is, with "clubs, swords, short swords, battle-axes, and darts with sup[bar{i}]ta blades and sharp points." In other weapon-contexts of the MBh, other iron ([bar{a}]yasa, ayomaya) weapons or parts of weapons are also described as p[bar{i}]ta: iron clubs ([bar{a}]yasa parigha, 1.17.16), arrows ([acute{s}]ara, 3.24.3; bhalla, 6.43.16; ksurapra and a[tilde{n}]jalika, 6.58.38; vi[acute{s}]iskha, 11.16.35), another dart or hurled knife (rsti, 8.68.27), another sword (nistrim([acute{s}]a, 4.38.34), knives (ksura, 6.58.38), and sharp-bladed weapons in general ([acute{s}]astra, 7.138.17). So, which word p[bar{i}]ta is being used in this connection and what does it mean?

   The basic approach was correctly indicated by N[bar{i}]lakantha, who comments on this word at least six times. He interprets p[bar{i}]ta as the past participle of [surd]p[bar{a}] "drink," and though he usually understands this to signify some kind of treatment of metal with a liquid, doubtless water, making the metal better suited to its use as weaponry, his explanations of exactly what this treatment was are not detailed and are not consistent. The Petersburg dictionary did not initially have access to a complete edition of N[bar{i}]lakantha's commentary (which was not published until 1860-62), and the commentator's glosses of p[bar{i}]ta seem never to have become available to its authors. [5] B[ddot{o}]htlingk and Roth do take brief note of this usage of p[bar{i}]ta (in connection with arrows only) and, like N[bar{i}]tlakantha, they see the past participle of [surd]p[bar{a}] at work. They gloss p[bar{i}]ta as meaning here "soaked" (getr[ddot{a}]nkt)...