Forging Assam
Traditional Iron Extraction and Blacksmithing in the Ahom Realm
Abstract
This study explores
the traditional practices of iron extraction and blacksmithing in the Ahom
realm of Assam, situating them within broader frameworks of material culture,
political economy, and technological heritage. Drawing upon manuscript records
and ethnographic evidence, it reconstructs the geography of iron-rich regions
such as Tiru, Hatigarh, and the Doyang floodplains, where seasonal extraction
of iron-bearing soils sustained a thriving industry. The Ahom state
institutionalized smelting and blacksmithing through organized guilds
(kamār-śāl), assigning supervisory roles (Hazarika, Saikia) to regulate
production of weapons, artillery, and utilitarian tools. Under rulers like
Dihingia Rāja and Pratāp Siṃha, the industry flourished, reaching its zenith
with the production of advanced artillery that contributed to the polity’s
military prestige. Yet, socio-political upheavals—particularly the Moāmoriā
rebellion and Burmese invasions—triggered decline, leaving only scattered
households of iron-workers by the early 19th century. The manuscript also
details technical processes: excavation, soil concentration, furnace operation,
and lechērā ingot production. It further highlights socio-economic networks
such as barter exchanges with Garos at Palashbari and Gohai-Haat. The study
underscores the identity and eventual marginalization of Lohā-śālīyā
communities, offering valuable insight into the intersection of craft, state
power, and cultural memory in Assam’s metallurgical history.
Keywords:
#Ahom; #iron_extraction; #lohā-shaliya; #kamār;
#blacksmithing;# Tiru/Hatigarh; #Doyang; #craft_decline; #Moamoria; #material_culture.
The history of Assam
is inseparable from the mastery of its craftspeople, whose skills in iron
extraction and blacksmithing sustained the Ahom polity for centuries. From the
early exploitation of iron-rich floodplains along the Doyang River to the
institutionalization of kamār guilds under Ahom kings, metallurgy formed the
backbone of both agrarian and military life. The ability to forge ploughshares,
chisels, swords, and cannons not only strengthened the economy but also defined
the very contours of statecraft and defense. The present manuscript, Forging Assam, compiles rich
descriptions of these practices—geological sources, technical chains of
production, organizational patterns of labour, and networks of exchange. It
further documents the ebb and flow of this tradition: its zenith under royal
patronage, its resilience through centuries, and its decline during political
upheavals and foreign invasions. By piecing together technical detail with
cultural narratives, this work does more than record a vanished craft; it
illuminates the profound role of blacksmiths (kamār) and smelters (lohā-śālīyā)
in shaping Assam’s material and historical identity. In doing so, it opens
pathways for both scholarly reflection and heritage preservation, ensuring that
the story of Assam’s iron-working communities remains a living part of its
cultural memory.
1.1. Pre-Ahom
and regional geology (undated, foundational):
The Joypur → Bacha-Diyang southern belt of
present-day Sivasagar (along Naga Hills ridges) and areas near the ancient
capital Rangpur (Tiru Hills, Hatigarh, Kasarihhat along Jhanji River) were long
known for abundant, high-quality iron-bearing deposits. Seasonal flood deposits
from the Doyang River concentrated iron-rich sandy clay in the floodplain.
1.2. Institutionalized
smelting under Swargadēo Dihingia Rāja (c. 1500 CE; Dihingia Rāja 1497–1539 CE):
After the conquest of the Chutia
polity (c. 1500 CE), skilled Chutia blacksmiths were relocated by the Ahom
state (some settled near the Bosa-Dihing). The Ahom king established organized
blacksmithing guilds (kamār-śāl) to produce weapons (swords, daggers, lances,
cannons). Supervisory posts such as Hazarika
and Saikia were used for quality
control. The manuscript states that during this period the Ahom kingdom had as
many as 3,000 blacksmiths.
1.3. Pratāp
Siṃha Buŗhārajā’s patronage (r. 1603–1641 CE):
Following western Indian models,
Pratāp Siṃha imported additional blacksmiths and organized production of brass
cannons (hiloi) and heavy artillery (bartop), with specialized professional
community (khels). This expanded the
armoury and artillery capacity of the Ahom polity.
1.4. Military
recognition — Mir Jumla episode (mid-17th century; manuscript narrative):
The manuscript reports that Mir
Jumla—Aurangzeb’s chief general—recoiled upon hearing of the Ahom ruler’s
numerous cannons and heavy artillery. (The claim is preserved here exactly as
in the manuscript; see editorial note on historic cross-verification below.)
1.5. Continuity
of extraction and workshops until the late 18th century:
Smelting communities (the lohā-śālīyā) and kamār workshops
continued producing metal goods and weaponry into the 18th century; Purnananda
Burhagohain’s period is recorded as having 30–40
active smelting furnaces in regions such as Tiru and Hatigarh.
1.6. Disruption
during the Moāmoriā uprising and subsequent decline (late 18th — early 19th
centuries):
The Moāmoriā disturbances led to
social disorder, dispersal of people, and the collapse of many iron-smelting
and blacksmithing operations. By the time of Purnananda Burhagohain (manuscript
periodization), only about 500
blacksmiths/iron-workshops remained; subsequent “Man / Burmese invasion” events
further reduced them to \~100. By 1828 CE (old Sivasagar district) only 40–50 households could be identified as
iron-smelting families. Today the manuscript records that traditional
iron-smelters have practically vanished; only a few kamār workshops survive
(notable names: Dhekargoria, Holongaparia, Katniparia).
2.0.
Technical description of the extraction-smelting chain;
As per ethnographic and technical
detail for the whole chain — seasonal movement, extraction, processing and
smelting…
2.1
Seasonality and settlement pattern
Extraction activity began in the autumn (Assamese months Ahin–Kati),
when fog clears; smelters moved to floodplain mining locations and set up temporary furnace camps called śāl.
2.2
Organisation of labour and the śāl unit:
A typical smelting unit (śāl) comprised one Ojā
(master smelter) + 4–5 Pāli
(assistants / apprentices); typically five men work together in a śāl.
Tasks included fuel procurement (dried paddy husk), introduction of iron soil (luwā/ luvā māti), hammering, moulding and refining. By continuous
operation (day & night) one unit could produce about 13 ingots of “lechērā”, each \~5
kg. Marketable yield varied (typical \~25%,
sometimes as low as 15%).
2.3 Extraction (field method):
Floodplain patches of iron-bearing sandy clay (washed down by
Doyang floods) were identified dug by teams that excavated shafts of variable
depth: 750 cm, 900 cm, 1,125 cm, or
1,200 cm (as recorded). Excavated earth was formed into elongated mounds
(typical dimensions given in the manuscript). After excavation the soil was
divided in seven shares (one to
landowner, six to labourers). Each labourer soaked their share in water pits
and trampled it for 10–12 days to
separate heavier iron particles from lighter matrix. The concentrated iron
fraction was then collected for smelting.
2.4 Smelting
(furnace and process):
The community constructs a
three-posted raised house (central chamber with a bhāti/furnace). The furnace was fuelled with dried paddy husk; layers of loose soil were baked and then melted
to produce slag which was
consolidated, hammered and formed into lechērā
ingots or long flat shapes in moulds. Typical feed increments: about 18 kg of luwā soil per charge; one
attendant fed smaller 250-gram increments at intervals.
2.5
Man-power example and productivity:
The manuscript gives a men-days table
for extraction of 4 tons (Bachā
Daiyāng). I reproduce and summarise the table below and compute the totals.
|
Task |
Number of Workers |
Days |
Total Man-days |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Collection of sandy clay and
separation of iron nodules |
6 |
5 |
30 |
|
Digging of earth |
6 |
15 |
90 |
|
Smelting of iron soil |
6 |
11 |
66 |
|
Sieving and refining |
6 |
30 |
180 |
|
Additional smelting of iron
soil |
5 |
20 |
100 |
|
Total: |
29 |
81 |
466 |
3.0. Socio-economic functions and market networks:
As per record, barter markets at Palashbari and Gohai-Haat, where the Garo
community sold crude iron in exchange for agricultural goods (areca-nut
splitters, paddy, rice, mustard). The iron was used for a wide range of
implements: ploughshares, chisels, fishing hooks, hatchets, pestle-heads (for dheki), weaving shuttles, and also
weaponry (razors, swords, lances, cannons, arrowheads).
Under state policy (from the Dihingia
Raja period onward), the Ahom state institutionalized blacksmithing, set up
guilds, and used officials (Hazarika, Saikia) to supervise production for
military and administrative needs.
4.0.
Identity, caste/occupation and changing demography:
Blacksmiths of the region identified
themselves as a branch of the Kalita
community: some called themselves Saru
Kalita or Kamār Kalita. Over
time the occupational identity spread into other communities; meanwhile the
original iron-smelter group (lohā-śālīyā)
has practically disappeared according to the manuscript’s field record.
5.0.
Editorial observations, ambiguities, and critical queries:
Below I list important matters that require verification or editorial correction before final submission.
5.1 Unit and
measurement inconsistencies:
The manuscript uses Hāt, that is, 1 Hāt = 75 centimeter for
many structural measurements (e.g., stilt height 16/17 Hāt means 1200–1275 cm, interior 20 Hāt
x 10 Hāt means 1500 cm × 750 cm). A stilt height of 1200 cm = 12.00 m is implausible for a simple raised house; more
plausible readings are 120–127.5 cm (1.2
m) or that an extra zero was introduced in digitization.
5.2
Corroboration of numerical claims:
Figures such as 3,000 blacksmiths in Dihingia Rāja’s time, or cannons capable of
discharging “500 rounds simultaneously,” are striking claims that demand
corroboration with primary chronicles (Buranji entries), contemporary traveller
accounts, or arsenals’ inventories if available.
6.0. Conclusion:
The attached field manuscript
furnishes a rich, practice-oriented description of iron extraction and
blacksmithing in the Ahom region, combining technical detail, seasonal labour
patterns, market networks and state institutional interventions. Rearranged and
annotated above, it is now suitable—after the suggested verifications and the
addition of maps/figures—for submission as a scholarly article on historical
metallurgy and craft organization in North-East India.
Footnotes and glossary (explanatory notes)
I.
Śāl / śāl (smelting camp / furnace unit): The temporary smelting complex erected during
the smelting season; includes furnace (bhāti), working platform and sleeping
arrangements for the smelters.
II.
Ojā:
Master craftsman / metallurgical expert who commands the smelting unit and
oversees charging and refining.
III.
Pāli:
Assistants / apprentices who perform excavation, fuel handling, hammering and
refining
IV.
Luvā māti / luwā soil: Local term for iron-bearing clay or lateritic
soil rich in iron nodules; the primary raw material used for smelting in
floodplain contexts.
V.
Lechērā:
The semi-processed iron product (ingot form) obtained after initial smelting,
later hammered and refined by blacksmiths (kamār).
VI.
Luwā-chur:
An admixture or processed soil used to facilitate smelting — a local
flux/mixture described in the manuscript.
VII.
Bhāti:
The furnace chamber where layers of soil are fired and metal-bearing slags
form.
VIII.
Hiloi:
Local name used in the manuscript for brass cannons.
IX.
Bartop:
Term used for heavy artillery in the manuscript. English transliteration used
here preserves the manuscript term.
X.
Khel:
A workshop or organized production unit under state patronage (in Ahom
administrative parlance, often denotes a corporate guild or state workshop).
XI.
Burañji:
Ahom court chronicles and historical records used as primary historical sources
for the region. The manuscript explicitly references Buranji material for furnace
counts.
XII.
Hazarika / Saikia: Ahom administrative and military titles; in
the manuscript they are described as officers appointed to supervise blacksmith
guilds for quality control (Hazarika roughly corresponds to a commander of
1,000; Saikia a commander of 100 in the Ahom administrative-military system;
those functional equivalences should be checked against rubricated
administrative studies).
XIII.
Lohā-Śālīyā:
Iron-smelting communities (literally “iron-craftspeople”), who originally
extracted iron from soil and produced semi-refined metal.
XIV.
Kamār:
Blacksmith — the artisan who forges and refines metal into tools and weapons.
The manuscript distinguishes the Lohā-Śālīyā (smelters) from the kamār
(smiths).
0 Comments