Forts in India

The existence of the earliest forts in India have been substantiated by documentation and excavation. In the medieval times, the architecture of the forts had both Hindu and Muslim influence. The forts constructed by the British initially opted for simple designs. The existing castles are continually modified and many of them are privately owned.

Quotes

• It is true that the Rigveda does not provide us details of the inner layout of these forts, but surely the text was not meant to be a treatise on Vastusastra. May it be remembered that it is essentially a compilation of prayers to gods and should be looked at as such. All the evidence that it provides regarding the material culture of the then people is only incidental.
  • B.B. Lal, Aryan invasion of India, Perpetuation of a myth. in : Bryant, E. F., & Patton, L. L. (2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy : evidence and inference in Indian history. Routledge 67

• We have seen fortifications at a number of Harappan sites, from Kalibangan to Dholavira; Mohenjo-daro’s and Harappa’s mounds are also thought to have been fortified. Walled enclosures were of vital importance to the Harappan mind, although a practical usefulness did not seem to be their primary purpose. We find the same situation in historical cities such as Mathura, Kaushambi (both on the Yamuna), Rajghat (near Varanasi), Rajgir, Vaishali (both in Bihar), Shishupalgarh (near Bhubaneswar) and Ujjain (near Indore). The last city’s mud fortifications, for instance, were as wide as 75 m, 14 m high, and ran for some 5 km; it would have taken no less than 4200 labourers toiling for a whole year to erect them! Kaushambi’s 6 km-long rampart of compact clay was about 20 m wide at the base and rose to 9 m; it was strengthened in places by massive revetments of large baked bricks. Shishupalgarh’s rampart was 33 m wide, over 7 m high and formed a perfect square with a perimeter of 4.8 km.
  • Danino, M. (2010). The lost river : on the trail of the Sarasvatī. Penguin Books India.

• Much has been written about pur “fort,town (?)” and Witzel suggests this may refer to the Indus cities (2001: 63). There is only one insuperable difficulty applying to all scholiasts he cites: there is not one mention in RV of i§†aká ‘brick’, the material of the Indus cities, which, however, appears in post-rigvedic texts (see §2, above). The RV has purs of metal (!e.g., IV 27,1 àyasi) and of stone (e.g., IV 30, 20 asmanmáyin). The stone pur is understandable in our terms. But what is the metal pur?… Furthermore, in VIII 1, 8 we find an extraordinary pur–cari§nu ‘mobile’–which belongs to Íu§na, generally thought to be the drought-demon. Now, how mobile and metallic purs can be Indus cities, or other immobile stone- structures found in adjacent areas, is not explained by all these experts.
  • Kazanas, N. (2002). Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda: Indo-Aryan migration debate. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 30(3-4), 275-334.

• I examined the word pur (with the aid of Lubotsky’s Concordance), since I was baffled by the carisnu ‘mobile’ and the Äyasi- ‘metallic’ purs (K IV, 4). I found that in at least 20 instances it does not mean ‘citadel, fort, town’ nor ‘mud-palisade’.. I can only suppose that pur denotes occult, supernatural means of protection.
  • Kazanas, N. (2003). Final reply: Indo-Aryan migration debate. Journal of Indo-European studies, 31(1-2), 187-240.

Rigveda

• Far away in fortresses of unbaked bricks
  • RV II 35, 6

• For Divodasa, him who brought oblations, Indra overthrew A hundred fortresses of stone.
  • RV 4.30.20 (Griffith 1973, reprint: 221) in Bryant, E. F., & Patton, L. L. (2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy : evidence and inference in Indian history. Routledge 66

• And, irresistible, be thou a mighty iron fort to us, With hundred walls for man’s defence.
  • (RV 7.15.14), (Griffith 1973, reprint: 340) in Bryant, E. F., & Patton, L. L. (2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy : evidence and inference in Indian history. Routledge 66

• . . . stitch ye [oh gods] the coats of armour, wide and many; make iron forts, secure from all assailants.
  • RV 10.101.8, (Griffith 1973, reprint: 615) in Bryant, E. F., & Patton, L. L. (2005). The Indo-Aryan controversy : evidence and inference in Indian history. Routledge 66