xv FORTIFICATIONS The Mbh refers at several places to fortifications, ramparts, city-walls and moats, but only three examples stand out prominently. i) Indraprastha (1.199.26-31) The city of Indraprastha was raised from the scratch and newly laid out by the Pandavas with the 581= 582 help of Krsna. The Khandava forest along the Yamuna was cleared for the purpose and a suitable spot was chosen around which the city was built. The city was protected by a rampart and a wall (prakara) reaching upto the sky. Being white in colour it looked like a huge heap of snow. It was lined with huge city-gates (gopura) and giagantic door- ways spread out like a two-winged eagle. A huge moat (parikha) filled with water surrounded the city-wall on the outside and in the exaggerated words of the poet resembled a surging ocean. ii) Dvaravati (III.16.2-20) Dvaravati's natural defences were almost invincible, but they were further strengthened by a fortified city-wall lined with high wateh-towers (attattalaka) and broad parapets (pratolika) which were provided with wooden seats (uptalpa) for the gaurds. The wall also contained city-gates (gopura) with arched portals (torana) and festooned with banners (pataka). A moat (parikha) filled with water surrounded the wall on the outside with bridges for approach and boats for crossing. However, it was rendered unfordable during a seige by planting sharp nails inside it and by= 583 destroying the bridges and the boats. The area around the moat was dotted for quite some distance with ponds (udapana) and planted with such devices as frying-pans (ambarisaka) to obstruct the path of enemy vehicles, horses and elephants. The Mbh does not elaborate on this point except for saying that the land around the moat was rendered uneven for a distance of nearly about a kroga; but we learn from Kautilya that various methods like planting pikes, concealed traps, barbed wires, frying-pans, caltrops, amd knee~breakers etc. were adopted besides digging pits and ponds as precautionary meassures to make the approaches to the city as difficult and tedious as possible (Arthasastra II.3.16; Kangale 1963: 73). There were probably secret underground passages (khanaka) as escape routes and communication links, but otherwise no one was allowed, during war time, to go in and out of the city, without producing the royal seal (mudra) . iii) Lanka (III.268.2-6, 23-26). Lanka too had very strong natural defences, but they were further strengthened by a solid city-wall (prakara), high protecting watch-towers (karnatta) and turrets and spires (sikharani). The wall was lined with gates (puradvara) facing= 58h all directions and having arched portals (torana) supported by pillars (stambha). It was surrounded by as many as 7 moats filled with water and planted with spikes of Khadira wood (Acacea catechu). In the case of all these three cities the fortifications were gaurded by a host of weapons, which are more or less the same with a few variations here and there. We need not concern ourselves with the usual set of weapons, like arrows, spears, swords, axes, clubs, spikes etc. employed in ancient warfare. Of greater interest are those weapons which were special to these fortifications and to seige warfare. They include i) Wooden beams and bolts (huda) and stone clubs (asma laguda) hurled at the enemy from the high walls. Some like the Sataghni were huge, studded with spikes and provided with wheels. ii) Big and small stones (upala), hurled by the hand as well as by slings and catapults (srngika). iii) Various mechanisms (yantrani), a large number of which are described by Kautilya. iv) Devices like the cakra, the discus or the wheel. The fortified walls employed the larger ones which Kautilya describes as producing wind, raising dust, throwing stones= 585 and obstructing the enemy's path when rotated. v) Other devices like the kacagrahani, the hair- puller for lifting people up by their hair. vi) Huge sheilds of metal and leather to protect the walls from missiles. Such sheilds and cotton-stuffed leather pouches are described by Kautilya. vii) an entire assemblage of crude weapons - if they can be termed as weapons at all ! They include fire- generating and easily inflammable articles like fire- brands (ulka, alata) and various kinds of grasses (trna, kuga, samidha). Fire too was constantly kept burning. It was needed to heat substances like the exudation of the sarja tree (Shorea robusta) and sand which were poured down from the walls upon the enemy soldiers. Pots full of poisonous snakes too were utilized for the same purpose. The description of Indraprastha is rather subdued as compared to that of Dvaravati and Lanka. The stock of weapons too is much more heavy at these two cities, probably because they are described as facing an imminent danger of enemy seige and attack, Dvaravati was being threatened by Salva and Lanka by Rama. There are a few more instances in the Mbh where forts (durga), city-walls (prakara), gates (gopura), watch- towers (attalaka), moats (parikha) and underground passages r (khanaka) are refeyed to, but they are isolated instances= 586 lacking details (1.89-35, 117.8, 135.17, 176.16; II.5.25, 1350-51, 19.14, 31-620, 71.27; III.1.9, 170.3; XII.164.19). Several verses from the Santiparva, however, deserve special attention. They form part of the 'rajadharma! wherein Bhigma imparts from his death-bead detailed instructions to Yudhisthira on polity and statecraft. The relevant portions are given below - A city or a settlement must always be protected by natural or artificial defences (durga), which are described as of six kinds (XII.87.4-5) - i) Dhanvadurga, a desert- fortress, where a desolate uninhabited desert track seals the approaches to the city. ii) Mahidurga, a land- fortress, where a fort is raised on the level ground itself. iii) Giridurga, a citadel- fortress raised on a difficult-to-scale mountain, iv) Manusyadurga, a human-fortress, where heavy armed units constituted the main defences. v) Abdurga, a water- fortress, as on an island, where the approaches to the city are sealed by water. vi) Vanadurga, a forest- fortress with dense, inaccessible forest-tracts surrounding the city.= 587 Once the defences of the city are gauranteed it had to be surrounded by a strong wall encircled by a moat (XII.87.6). All small trees in the vicinity of the defences had to be uprooted and the branches of the bigger ones trimmed (XII.69.39-40). This was to prevent the scaling of the walls by the enemy with the help of trees. The only exception to be made was of the sacred Banyan tree. The city-wall was to be provided with standing places for the gaurds (prakanthi) in which they were concealed up to the necks, with holes to shoot arrows (akagajanani) and with torturous emergency exists (kadanga dvarakani), which were to be gaurded as heavily as the main doorways, all of which were to be fully equipped with huge machines and Sataghnis, Placed on advantageous and elevated positions (XII.69.41-43). The moat was to be filled with water, with fishes, crocodiles, and acquatic plants allowed to breed freely (XII.69.41) 6 The entire construction was to be laid out in such a manner that as far as possible the parapet-walks of the city-wall, the emergency exists (sankatani) and even the moat was not easily visible to the enemy (XII.64.53). A city had to have an ample stock of food, water and weapons, to last through an indefinite seige. But the stocks needed most were of things such as -= 588 i) wood (kastha) ii) hay (tusa) iii) coal-wood (angaradaru) iv) bamboo and bamboo products (vainava) v) various grasses like munja, balvaja, dhanvana and kusa vi) dry leaves of trees like the Palasa (Butea frondosa) . vii) juice of the Sarja (Shorea robusta) plant viii) metal (loha) ix) horns (srhga) x) bones (asthi) and xi) sinews of animals (majja) xii) leather (carma) xiii) animal fat (vasa) xiv) oil (sneha) xv) ghee (ghrta) xvi) honey (ksaudra, madhu) xvii) jute fibres (sana) xviii) medicinal herbs (ausadhani) xix) cereals like barley (yava) and xx) salt (saindhava) (XII.69.54-57, 87.13-1h). Some of these items comprised the most essentialYaw-materials in the manufacture of many a weapons e.g. wood, bamboo, metal, horns, bones and sinews of animals were all needed to make bows, arrows and spears. Oil was essential to grease ghem and to prevent rusting and cording. Leather was handy in the making of sheilds. Animal fat, ghee, honey, sarja juice, dry grasses and leaves, hay and coal-wood were needed to generate fire which played an important role in warfare. Medicinal herbs were for healing the wounded and the poisonous (digdha) ones for tipping weapons (XII.69.55). No discussion on the subject would be complete unless and until& these descriptions of fortified cities are placed in the context of the Mbh war. The ones so far examined do not bear any direct relationship with the great war. There are,however, two rather interesting passages in the Udyogaparva which describe the establishment of the base camps (sibirani) by the Pandavas and the Kauravas in preparation for the comming war at Kurukshetra. Yudhisthira and his men took the lead and established their camps on the sprawling banks of the Hiranvati, flowing through Kuruksetra. Her clean waters totally devoid of slush and sand would provide them with a perserjial supply of water (V.149.72-73). A moat was immediately dug around the site and companies of= 590 soldiers were posted to gaurd it (V.149.74). Then hundreds of small dwellings were established within this enclosed site to house the Pandavas and other princes supporting them and they were well-stocked with food and drink to last through an indefinite period (V.149.76-77). There was a heavy stock-piling of weapons too inside these sibiras, particularly bows and arrows, spears and axes, armour-coats and machines, matched only by the huge mountain-like heaps of grain, coal-wood, hay, gana, sarja juice, honey and ghee. This description immediately brings to mind the previous ones except for the absence of any word standing for a fortified wall or a rampart. But the moat is there and the presence of coal, grass, sarja juice, sand etc. raises the possibility that perhaps some kind of fortified battlements were also there. None of these items were Aver brought on to the battlefield of Kuruksetra and used during the Mbh war. So one wonders why they were stocked so heavily inside these camps if not to defend them. The Kaurava camps were equally well-equipped but there is no mention of a moat, although they are described as impossible for the enemy to breadthrough. The roads leading to the camps from the city were made even and straight and care was taken that the supply lines could not be disturbed by the enemy (V.150.14-16). Once again the presence of such items as oil, jaggery, sand, poisonous snakes, sarja-juice, linen, ghee etc. raises the obvious= 591 question whether it was really necessary to stock these when they were not deployed on the battlefield (V.152.37). The concept of a moat (parikha), a rampart (prakara) and gates (dvara) serving as the main defence of a city is found as early as Panini. The moat was the first to be constructed, so that the earth obtained was utilized for raising the mud-ramparts, for moulding bricks for the city-wall and for ramming the hollow masonary works (Agrawala 19633199). Buddhist Pali texts like the Pitakas and the Nikayas too refer to fortifications of cities consisting of walls (prakara), doors at regular intervals (dvara) and moats and trenches (parikha) encircling them. Thus as far as literary evidence goes we can safely assume that the basic features of any fortifications = a wall encircling a city and a moat encircling a wall - were widely practised by 500 B.C. These features became more complex as centuries elapsed. The Jatakas now also speak of watch-towers (attalaka) and gates known as gopuras (Jataka I11.160, VI. 433; Milindapanha 67, 81). But it is the Arthasastra which gives a detailed and a systematic account of a complex fort- structure ( £3 en4 &@4 ), There are striking similarities in the picture of fortified settlements drawn by the Mbh, the Jatakas and the Arthasastra.= 592 Kautilya at the very outset describes 4 types of forts - (i) audaka (a water-fortress), (ii) parvata (a mountain-fortress), (iii) dhanvana (a desert- fortress), (iv) and vanadurga (a forest-fortress), corresponding to the abdurga, giridurga, dhanvadurga and vanadurga of the Santiparva. The first to be taken up was the parikha or moat. Kautilya advises the construction of 3 consequtive moats, each at a fixed distance from the other, in the decreasing order of breadth and with half of the breadth in depth. Its bottom was lined with stones, the sides with stones and bricks and it was filled with water, either of natural springs reached while digging or brought from elsewhere. Lotus-creepers with their meshy network and carniverous crocodiles were encouraged to breed freely in the water so that no enemy soldier would dare swim across the moat. The Jatakas too describe 3 moats one after the other, the first a water-moat, the second a mud-moat and the third a dry-moat, with walls generally built of bricks. The first moat filled with water and made unfordable by slush, snakes and crocodiles (Mehta 1939; 169-170). The earth dug out from the moat was utilized to build the rampart (vapra) which was covered with clusters of thorny bushes and poisonous creepers. On top of the rampart was raised the city-wall (prakara), built mostly of bricks.= 593 This prakara consisted of a pathway for chariots (pathacarya), towers (attalaka) and turrets (pratolis), openings to shoot arrows and a parapet-walk, There were gates (dvara) with arched portals (torana) and others known as gopuras, shaped like a lizard's mouth. Weapons like sling-stones, sula and sataghni, mechanics] devices like the cakra and the yantras, implements like kuddala (pic-axe) and kuthara (wood-cutter's axe), bamboo and other fire-generating equipments were stockpiled inside the fort. The Anguttara Nikaya (IV.106-107) gives an identical list like the one in the Mbh of great stores of grass, wood and water, rice, corn and other cereals, sessame and beans, medicines, ghee, butter, oil, honey, sugar and salt to last through a rigorous seige (Singh 19653132). The combined evidence of the Mbh and the Pali text, of Panini and Kautilya, leaves no doubt that cities fortified for defence purposes came up all over the north between 500-200 B.C., more in the latter half of the period. This assumption based as it is on purely literary data is surprisingly upheld by archgological evidence. This evidence comes from as many as 20 sites spread over the length and breadth of the northen half of the country. The topography and the nature of the so-called fortifications suggests that they were of 2 types - i. those which were mainly embarkments to gaurd= 59h against floods, but also served defence purposes, and ii. those which were almost exclusively for military defence. Those of the first type are chronologically the earlier ones. The primary need of many sites situated precariously as they were along river banks was to prevent the seasonal flooding of the habitational area. Thus the embarkments came up which were later transformed in some cases into defensive structures. The difference is between an embarkment and a rampart. The massive mud-walls rain- forced by timber and externally riveted with burnt bricks were primarily embarkments to resist floods. The massive size and the huge scale on which they were built were quite unnecessary from a strictly military point-of-view. The moats too with a width ranging from 30 to 300 meters at certain points. were a bit too exaggerated in proportions to be merely a defensive provision. They are more likely to have been diversionary channels to take in the first onslaught of flood waters. But above all it is the absence of parapets over these massive constructions which leave no doubt that they were hardly ever intended to be for military defence (Mate 1969-70:68). hb Typical sites with these embarkments are Kauskmbi= 595 Rajghat, Patna (Patliputra), Ujjain and Eran. With the exception of Rajghat and Eran the embarkments originally meant to resist floods were later modified for defence purposes. Diversion channels or moats went side by side with the embarkments at Kausbabi, Rajghat, Ujjain and Eran. The earliest of these building activities occured at Kausfiabi, in Period I, consisting of a mud rampart with a brick revetment of 140 cources and 11 gateways. The date assigned to Period I is 1165-855 B.C. and antedates the arrival of the PGW on the site. The free-standing towers reinforcing the ramparts and the moat surrounding the walls is assigned to a slightly later date in Period II (885-605 B.C.), but before the appearance of the NBP were. In consequent centuries subsidiary ramparts and brick-towers with gaurd-rooms were built over the earlier earthen ones. The ancient habitational area thus fortified had the Yamuna on the south and/Pali and Satira with their tributary streamlets on the western and eastern flanks respectively. The deep channels cut by these rivers when filled with flood waters could cause extensive damage. The constant advancement of the ramparts on the sides facing the rivers and the thick burnt-brick revetment on the eastern and western flanks was certainly meant to contain the onrushing flood waters (Mate 1969-70:67). At Rajghat the massive clay structure was= 596 intended solely for the purpose of containing the flood waters of the Ganga since the township lay on the confluence of the Barna with the Ganga. The excavators do not think that the embarkment was ever meant for defence purposes (IAR 64-65:81). At Patna, the ancient Pataliputra situated on the confluence of the Ganga and the Son was found a unique wooden construction, running to a length of 75 meters, consisting of a series of wooden planks at the bottom, flanked by high wooden uprights which were spanned on top by tennoned planks. About a km, away there was a similar wooden structure but without the bottom planks. With the threat of constant floods of a devastating magnitude, as shown by the last great flood of 1975 when almost the entire city of Patna was submerged under water for 8 days, these wooden planks are more likely to have been the inner core of a huge earthen rampart, although they have also been identified with wooden palisades mentioned by the Greek ambassador Magasthenese who was stationed at the court of Chandragupta Maurya in the 4th century B.C. The wooden parapets and walls with 570 towers and 64 gates which according to Magasthenese girdled the city of Patliputra and served as its defences must have been raised on top of this earthen rampart, transforming an original flood- protection device into an impressive defence structure= 597 (Mate 1969-70:63, 67). At Eran, the ancient Airikina, on the left bank of the Bina (ancient Venva) , there was a mud-rampart built in the late phase of Period I (Chalcolithic 1500-100 B.C.). It was of black and yellowish clay with an extant height of 6,40 meters and a basal width of 47 meters. It was girdled on three sides by the Bina river and on the southern or the fourth side by a moat 36.57 meters in width and 5.28 meters in depth. The rampart remained in use also in Period II (covering a few centuries before the Christian era). The wall thus protected the habitation from the flood waters of the Bina while the moat took in a major portion of the excess water reducing the fury of the flooding. The testimony of these sites suggests that flood protection devices like embarkments and diversionary channels had long been in use, some right from Chalcolithic times. During the historical period, beginning 500-600 B.C. however, a few of these with minor altertions also came to serve as ramparts and moats for defence purposes. Defences for purely military purposes were a later phenomenon and some of the typical sites thus defended and fortified were Taksasila, Rajgir, Sravasti, Veightt, Ahichehatra, Sisupalgarh, Jaugada, Besnagar and Broach. Here the fortifications were exclusively for defence against human enemies, and as such in contrast= 598 to earlier embarkments they have walls of smaller dimensions, and have as a rule, brick or timber parapets over them. at Taksasila the construction of the fortifica- tions coincided with the shifting of the city site from the Bhir Mound to Sirkap by the Indo-Greeks in the 2nd century B.C. The ruins of Sirkap, 22 miles north of Rawalpindi in Pakistan, represent the second city of Taksasila and comprise of the extreme end of the Hathial spur together with a small Pateau on its northen and eastern side. The stone wall encircling this area has a perimeter approximately 6000 yards or nearly 3.1/2 miles, with a thickness varying from 15-21 ft. It is irregular in Gingnment, along the edges of the Plateau broken by varios salients and recesses, quite straight on the northen and the eastern sides, follows the contours of the mountains on the south- eastern side, rising high over ridges or dipping down suddenly and finally completes the circuit on the western scrap of the Plateau. Thus it embraces within its fold 3 rocky and precipitous ridges of the Hathial spur, a flat-topped hill and a low-level plateau on its north. Throughout its length the core of the wall was made of random rubble in mud. On the northen side the wall was strengthened on the outside by a raised berm about 25 ft. wide, There were projecting bastions at frequent but irregular intervals, square or rectangular in section. While= 599 the height of the wall was presumably between 20-30 ft., the bastions must have risen still higher and comprised of 2 to 3 stories with hallows and loopholes for shooting weapons. The position and number of city-gates is doubtful though Cunningham has tried to identify in all 7 of them. Excavations,so far,however, revealed the existence of only one, the northen gateway. The rest are all conjectural. The existence of the wall spanned nearly three centuries during successive occupations by Indo-greeks, Sakas, Parthians and kughnes, but its origin and lowest levels are ascribed to the Indo-Greeks of the 2nd century B.C, (Marshall 1951:113-114; AL 4 1947-48:42-h4). The Kugthas shifted the habitional area to yet a third site in the area,Sirsukh. Here only a part of the ancient ramparts have survived on the southern and eastern side, while those on the northen and western side have almost completely disappeared. The wall is again of rough rubble faced with neatly dressed limestone masonary. It is about 18 ft. in thickness,strengthened on the outer face with a heavy roll-plinth. Semicircular bastions, separated from each other by about a distance of 90 ft. line the wall. They are of two or more stories, furnished with loopholes and with the entrances laid in a narrow passage through the thickness of the wall (Marshall 1951: 217-18). Rajgir, the ancient capital of Magadha was= 600 strategically placed in the lap of a valley with hills serving as walls on all sides. Around 5-5th centuries B.C. these natural defences were further strengthened by artificial fortifications. Two lines of wall run around the city, the outer going up and down the hills. They are built of massive undressed stones, carefully fitted and bandéd together, while the core between them is composed of small blocks carefully cut and laid with chips or fragments of stones, packing the intersices between them. The height of the ‘cor was between 11 B12 ft. while the thickness varied from 14 to 17 ft. Undoubtedly a superstructure of small stone-works, bricks and wood was raised above this. Sixteen bastions have been discovered so far, as high as the wall, solidly rectangular, 47-60 ft. long and 34 —) 46 ft. broad. Stairs and ramps built in the thickness of the wall along its inner surface providing access to the top were another feature of these fortifications. The natural gaps between the hills as the wall runs over them were used as gates in the fortifications (Singh 1965:129-30; Mate 1969-70:63). Sravasti is girdled with a mud-wall about 5 km in circuit with a basal width of 29 m. and the extant ht. 3.50 m, A brick-structure, probably a parapet-wall, lies around it. nother brick-structure was later erected over this earlier one. All this building activity, right from its inception took place in the Sunga-Kusana period ise. 250-50 B.C. (Mate 1969-70:65).= 601 at Vaishali in Bihar there were nearly 3 successive stages in the building activity of the forti- fications. First a burnt brick wall about 6 m, in thick- ness was erected in Period I (Sunga: early 2nd century B.C.). Then a massive earthen rampart 3.80 m, high was superimposed on it in Period II e.e. late 2nd century B.C, A moft too was constructed around the wall during this period, the earth dug out being utilized for the ramparts. Another burnt brick-wall 2.70 m. wide was again built on top of this earthen rampart during the late kusgna and early Gupta period (Mate 1969-70:65). At Ahicchatra, the ancient capital of northen Pancala, a mud rampart was built around the city in the Kugina period. It was later reinforced by a brick-wall with proteactive mud-packing. These remains are below a late medieval fortification wall which dominates the landscape at present (Mate 1969-70:63-64). At Besnagar located on the confluence of the rivers Betwa and Beas in M.P., a 8 cource high-backed brick wall was discovered in Period II (NBP). It was originally « built of rubble masonary, but was twice rebuild in brick with supporting buttresses. A significant find in the vicinity of the wall were more than half a dozen large-sized sling-stones lying on either side of the wall (IAR 1963-64: 17, 1964-65: IF ). The Sisupalgarh fort, in the Puri district of Orissa,= 602 is a rough square enclosing an area little over 1/2 a sq. mile in its perimeter, Its contours reveal the existence of corner towers and 8 large gateways. These defences were first erected in the beginning of the 2nd century B.C, in Phase I (300-200 B.C.) and consisted of a clay rampart, about 25 ft. high < 110 ft. wide at the base. In phase II (200 B.C. - 100 A.D.) a & to 6 ft. thick cover of laterite gravel was added on the top of the clay rampart while in Phase III (100-200 4.D.) and Phase IV (200-350 A.D.) the clay filling was retained by baked brick revetments on either side. A moat or a ditch was dug around the defensive wall in the earliest phase and the sticky clay or earth thus available was used in the construction of the rampart. The builders of the fort seem to have taken advantage of the proximity of the Gandhavati river flowing past the western side of the site and trained it around the northen, the eastern and the southern sides also, thus automatically producing a moat with a perrerfial supply of water (AI 5 1949:64, 72-7h) « At Jaugada, in Orissa, the fort came up in Period II roughly square in plan with 2 gateways on each side. The first defences or earthen ramparts consisting of clayii earth with kankar-nodules, laterite gravel and stone chips were built over a sandy layer covering the natural soil. The material for its construction was obtained by digging a moat in this sandy layer. This earthen rampart was reinforced= 603 against the inner side by a 2 ft. high wall of rubble and stone chips, with a cap of large boulders all laid thick in laterite gravel and clay. Both the sides of the wall as well as a major portion of the top were covered with varied deposits (IAR 1956-57:31). It were the first inhabitants of the city of Broach on the Narmada #m Saeraauteea who constructed the earliest defences in Period I, at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., consisting of a mud-rampart with a deep ditch on the outer side. A heavy brick revetment was provided later in Period II (300-600 A.D.) (IAR 1959-60:19). The above 9 sites of the second group though all situated along rivers, streamlets or nalas were neverthless at a safe distance from them so that they were not exposed to periodic flooding. At Taksasila, the Tamra-nala did not pose much of a danger. At Rajgir, Vaishali and Ahicchatra "the rivers flowing past them were at such a safe distance that even in spate they would not encroach upon any of these sites" (Mate 1969-70:68). At Sravasti,the Rapti had possibly already started changing its course towards the north by the time the city was flourishing as indicated by its present position. At Jaugada there was no obvious danger from any river while at Sisupalgarh the river was tamed to become part of the defence. Thus the defences erected at all these places were almost exclusively for military purposes.= 604 Another common feature at all these sites is the chronological sequence of the first fortifications. With the sole exception of Rajgir they were all built around the 2nd-3rd century B.C. and only reinforced periodically in later centuries, Their construction coincides remarkably well with the detailed and systematic treatment of fortifications in the arthasastra of Kautilya. As we have noted earlier the Mbh description of fortified cities has some striking similarities with the Arthasastra. Of the three fortified cities mentioned in the Epic - Indraprastha, Dvaravati and Lanka - the location of Lanka has become controversial. Indraprastha and Dvaravati are today buried under the present highly populated cities of Delhi and Dwarka where it has been possible to excavate only a very small area, which unfortunately has not been able to give any clue as to the ancient fortifications of these cities, Till such a time when excavations will have revealed much more, we have to rely on the testimony of the other excavated sites, particularly of northen India, some of which we have already elaborated upon. Their evidence does not take the construction of forts in India beyond 500-600 B.C, at the earliest. Again these were there more for containing floods than armies. It was only from the 3rd century B.C. onwards that fortifications for purely military and defensive purposes came to be erected. It is difficult to say from where exactly the impetus came, but the break-up= 605 of the Maurya empire must have contributed to a great extent in making the smaller kingdoms and city-states concious of the primary need of defending themselves. So long as the powerful central authority of the Mauryas was at hand, protection was gauranteed from any foreign invasion. With the collapse of this central authority each smaller unit had to take care of itself. The arrival on the scene of foreigner like the Bactrian Greeks, the Sakas, Parthians and Kughnas must have added to the insecurity and the complexity of the political situation which is reflected in almost every important city or town being girdled by heavy fortifications and moats. With this background we would not be very wide off the mark to place the epic descriptions of fortified townships to the same period i.e. the 3rd-2nd century B.C. RiininpenKpeehpniee