The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c17.40

v1.c17.40

The head of the family appears also to have been the owner of the property of the family; but on this point we are reduced in the main to conjecture. It is certain that the Rigveda recognises to the full individual ownership of movable things, cattle, horses, gold, ornaments, weapons, slaves, and so forth. It seems also certain that land was already owned by individuals or families: the term *kshetra*, 'field,' is unmistakably employed in this sense, and in one hymn a maiden, Apālā, places her father's cultivated field (*urvarā*) on the same level with his hair as a personal possession. Reference is also made to the measuring of fields, and to *khilya*, which appear to have been strips of land between the cultivated plots, probably used by the owners of the plots in common. The Rigveda has no conclusive evidence that the sons were supposed to have any share whatever in the land of the family, and the presumption is that it was vested in the father alone, as long as he was head of the family and exercised his full powers as head. We are left also to conjecture as to whether the various plots were held in perpetuity by the head of the family and his descendants, or whether there were periodic redistributions, and as to the conditions on which, if there were several sons, they could obtain the new allotments necessary to support themselves and their families. But there can hardly have been much difficulty in obtaining fresh land; for it is clear that population was scanty and spread over wide areas, and wealth doubtless consisted in the main in flocks and herds.