Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c24: 6.1 Agriculture

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c24

Language
English

Contents

6.1 Agriculture

v1.c24.1

Agriculture has been the main productive activity in India. The practice of agriculture is evidenced from very early times in the neolithic phase. There were attempts at improving the agricultural technique and also collecting and systematising the fund of knowledge. Some socio-religious practices and political measures had also helped to extend the benefits of agricultural technology to newer areas. But, considering the conservative nature of the Indian cultivator and the very long period of time involved, the pace of change can be termed as extremely slow.

v1.c24.2

We can form some idea of the nature of agricultural technology in ancient India, but it is very difficult to mark out prominent stages in the course of its long history.

Tools, Appliances

v1.c24.s1.1

The development of agriculture is reflected in the number of tools and implements fashioned by any community and their effectiveness. They help overcome the difficulties presented by nature and geography.

v1.c24.s1.2

Of the different stages in cultivation the impact of implements is seen in the first and basic one, that is tillage. The nature of operations under the tillage may vary from region to region and so will vary the implements. The resources of the cultivator also go a long way in determining the implements to be used. Hence we cannot expect a chronological uniformity in the development of tools throughout the country.

v1.c24.s1.3

Digging stick, hoe and spade are the most ancient tillage implements (Singh, pp. 39-46). Digging sticks with weights made of stone are reported from Mehrgarh, Chirand, Langhnaj, Inamgaon, Ahar and Nevasa since neolithic times. Stone hoes are also evidenced at neolithic sites of Mehrgarh, Burzahom, Jatkara (Khajuraho) and Naga and Sadiya hills of Assam, but none made of either bone or wood has been reported so far. Hoe is the most simple, multipurpose tool for any agricultural community. Though we cannot rule out the possibility of hoes being made of copper or bronze in the second millennium B.C., no single specimen has been recovered.

v1.c24.s1.4

We do not have any archaeological evidence for spade before the fifth century B.C. in Ujjain (IAR. 1957-58, p.34. Pl.XXXVIII.8).

v1.c24.s1.5

The Vedic literature mentions *abhri* as a digging tool (Roy, pp.130-131). It was hollow and was a span or sometimes a cubit long. It was held by its upper part. Generally it was sharp on one side, but sometimes had sharp edges on both sides of its lower portion. It was used both for levelling the land and for digging holes. Though generally translated as spade, some scholars suggest it to be a mattock and not real spade. Vedic hymns dedicated to *abhri* testify to the appreciation of its utility.

v1.c24.s1.6

The *ard* or scratch plough, which is known to have preceded the regular turn-plough in West Asian neolithic levels, is not testified archaeologically in India (Clark, Hutchinson and Sahi)¹.

v1.c24.s1.7

The agricultural surplus of the Harappans presumes the use of ploughing device. But, in the absence of undoubted specimens² scholars have attempted speculations (Vishnu-Mittre and Savithri). S. Longdon (Marshall, Vol.II, p.437, Sing. p.68) hazarded the use of plough as the Sumerian sign for plough appears in the Harappan script. Kosambi (p.71) detects the sign of a harrow or rake on an Indus valley seal. The furrow marks in a pre-Harappan field from Kalibangan (Rajasthan) (c.2900-2700 B.C.) make a case for the Harappans using plough (Lal, p.1; Frankfort, p.303). Sankalia (p.63) and Allchins (p.192) and Gordon (p.71) had suggested that the Harappans³ used wooden ploughs. All doubts have been set at rest by the clay models of plough recovered in the excavations at Banawali, Haryana (IAR. 1983-84, p.26, Pl.21) and Jawaiwala, Bahawalpur, Pakistan, (Weinner)⁴. The absence of actual plough is accounted for by their being made of decaying material and a village site being still unexcavated.

v1.c24.s1.8

The Vedic terms for a plough are *lāngala* and *sīra*. It was made of hard wood like *Khadira* and *Udumbaras*⁵. *Sīra* (plough) was attached to *īṣā* (pole) with a *yuga* (yoke) attached at its upper side. It is debated whether the Vedic people themselves introduced plough or borrowed it from the Harappans. The term *lāngala* is given a Muṇḍā origin⁶, though an Indo-European association has also been suggested (Wojtilla, pp.27-37)

v1.c24.s1.9

Scholars generally take *lāngala* and *sīra* as being synonymous. But Bloch (pp. 411-18) distinguishes between the two - *lāngala* being the plough for breaking the ground and *sīra* the sowing plough.

v1.c24.s1.10

The *Ṛgvedic* plough is taken to be a simple and light implement of wood. But the reference to its well smoothed handle and its sharp pointed share (AV. III. 17.3; Vaj.S. XII.71, *paviravat*, *susīma* and *tsaru*) suggests that there was an effort to improve it to make it something of which the owner could feel proud (Aiyer, p.14).

v1.c24.s1.11

The *Ṛgveda* (VI. 91.1) refers to six to twelve oxen being yoked to the plough. In the *Kathakasaṃhitā* (XV.2) the number goes up to twelve or even twenty-four. The *Atharvaveda* also refers to ploughs drawn by six to eight oxen. This would suggest heavy ploughs required for breaking hard soil. A *Ṛgvedic* passage (X.9.2,3,5,7) refers to the use of horses for ploughing. The application of horse power⁷ would also imply a heavy plough.

v1.c24.s1.12

Later literature leaves no doubt that animal traction ploughs had come into general use. Pāṇini (IV.4.81) mentions the terms hālika and sairika as referring to bullocks meant for plough as distinguished from those used for drawing carts or chariots.

v1.c24.s1.13

There is ample literary evidence to indicate that ploughing had become the most important operation in tilling. The Cullavagga (VII.1.2) mentions ploughing as the first farming operation. Pāṇini (III.1.21) refers to the verb halayati meaning ‘uses the plough’. This is further indicated by the term lāṅalagrāha (one holding the plough) used by Patañjali (on Pāṇini III. 2.9) as referring to a cultivator (Bṛh.S. IV.9 - lāṅalajīvin).

v1.c24.s1.14

It is not possible to determine the date of the beginning of traction ploughs in India. It is suggested that in India ox-drawn plough is not earlier than the first millennium B.C. (Rapson, p.99). But, the Vedic literature amply shows the use of bullocks for dragging the plough. They were to be coaxed gently and not to be treated harshly. A Ṛgvedic passage (VIII.3.8,12) refers to a ploughman as praising and addressing his oxen while drawing his furrows. According to Randhawa (Vol.1. p.298) plough traces were tied to the horns of the bullocks and yokes do not seem to have been used.

v1.c24.s1.15

The literary sources mention a number of tools used in digging. Besides khanitra (Panini III.2.184) and ākhana or akhana (Ibid, III.3.125) we have a special type of hoe called stambaghna (Ibid, III.3.83) which was used for weeding out the stumps.

v1.c24.s1.16

We learn from the Jātaka stories that after ploughing the clods were broken and the fields were levelled with the help of spade or hoe (Jātaka II.59;V.68). The Amarakośa (II.9.12) implies that loṣṭabhedana was a separate tool for breaking clods. Possibly it was in the nature of a wooden club.

v1.c24.s1.17

Archaeological evidence is not forthcoming for any levelling tool, possibly because it was made of wood. Patañjali (on Pāṇini I.4.49) informs that levelling of the field was done by a long wooden log, yoked by two oxen⁸.

v1.c24.s1.18

Harrow used for preparing the seed-bed after ploughing and for covering the seeds after sowing is not much evidenced. A blade-harrow found in the excavations at Sanchi is 21.75 inches long and 3.125 inches wide, with two vertical tangs, one on each end, fixed into the flat wooden back. Koṭiśa mentioned by the Amarakośa (II.9.12) is taken to be a harrow (Randhwa, Vol.1, p.418). Biddhaka is mentioned by the Kṛṣi-Parāśara (verse 118) as an implement nine cubits long and having twenty-one spikes. It refers to Indian harrow.

v1.c24.s1.19

The Kṛṣi-Parāśara (verse 118) mentions a tool by the name madika. It does not provide any details about its form and function. It merely says that it was 14 cubits in length, the present moi is of different forms and shapes. Here possibly we have a reference to a wooden log used for levelling the field.

v1.c24.s1.20

Specimens of ploughs of ancient times have not come down to us in their full form. The perishable nature of wood has been the main reason. Even in the case of the ploughshare corrosion and rusting have reduced the early pieces to mere metallic lumps. It will be interesting to make a comparative study of the size, shape, and weight of the ploughshares belonging to different periods and different parts of the country. Likewise, there are depictions of plough in terracotta and sculptural art. Though there has been little change in Indian plough in course of centuries, we can easily notice variations which may reflect regional characteristics. But, no such study, especially in correlation with their modern descendants, has been attempted which may have interesting facts to reveal about the development in agricultural technology.

v1.c24.s1.21

The literary sources help us form an idea of the plough in ancient times. Pāṇini mentions distinctive terms for some parts of a plough: *īṣā* (the long wooden pole), *potra* (the central bent portion III. 2.183), *kuśī* (the ploughshare IV.1.42), *yuga* (yoke), *yotra* or *yoktra* (rope) and *naddhrī* (leathern throngs) (III.2.182). The absence of terms for other parts does not mean that they did not exist in Pāṇini’s time. They are equally important constituents of a plough. Possibly distinct terms for them were coined in course of time or else there was no need for recording them in a work of grammar. The *Amarakośa* (II.9.13, 14) gives a consolidated list of terms for some important parts of a plough: *yotra* or *yoktra* (rope), *nirīśa* or *kuṭaka* (the part where ploughshare is attached to the pole), *phāla* or *kṛṣika* (ploughshare), *lāṅgala* or *hala* (plough), *śamyā* or *yugakīlaka* and *īṣā* (pole) (Wojtilla, pp.325-38).

v1.c24.s1.22

The Kṛṣi-Parāśara (verses 112-20) gives a very detailed account of the different parts of a plough (Gangopadhyaya):

v1.c24.s1.23

(1) *Yuga* or the yoke which is ear-shaped (*karṇasamānaka*),

v1.c24.s1.24

(2) *Aḍḍacalla* or the pins of the yoke where the bullocks are tied which is 12 *aṅgulas* or fingers (=9 inches) long,

v1.c24.s1.25

(3) *Īṣā* or the pole of the plough, which is 5 cubits long,

v1.c24.s1.26

(4) *Niryola* or the plough proper, excluding the ploughshare, which is 1½ cubits.

v1.c24.s1.27

(5) *Śuula* or an extra piece of wood that tightly fixes the *niryola* to the pole and is a cubit (*aratni*) long,

v1.c24.s1.28

(6) *Niryolapāśikā* or the plate that fixes the ploughshare to the *niryola* and is 12 *aṅgulas* (=9 inches) long,

v1.c24.s1.29

(7) *Halasthāṇu* or a strong piece of wood fixed to the *niryola* at the end opposite to the one to which the ploughshare is fixed, and is 2½ cubits long,

v1.c24.s1.30

(8) *Pañcanī* or goad made of bamboo with iron top and 12½ or 9 *muṣṭis* or fists (= 4½ or 3 feet) long,

v1.c24.s1.31

(9) *Ābandha* or a rod of iron, which prevents the *niryola* from falling out of the pole, is cylinderical in shape and is 15 *aṅgulas* (=1 feet) long,

v1.c24.s1.32

(10) *Yoktra* or the tie yoke, 4 cubits long,

v1.c24.s1.33

(11) a rope, 5 cubits long, and

v1.c24.s1.34

(12) *Phāla* or ploughshare, 1 cubit or 1 cubit and 5 *aṅgulas* (=3-4 inches) long.

v1.c24.s1.35

The description of the plough and its parts in the *Mānasāra* (V.56-77) is more graphic. The plough proper is to be made of Babul tree, *Acacia catechu*, nimb, pines or plants containing milk sap and blood. It is to be 1, 1¼, or 1½ cubits long and 3, 4, or 5 mātras (=aṅgulas) wide at the bottom. At the middle of its length it is to be octagonal, half being three-stripped, like a bamboo leaf. At the upper part of its bottom the top end of a bamboo rod is to be pushed in. The rod is to be 3 cubits long with a proportional breadth so that it may be strong. The length of the plough tail is to be 1½ cubits and its width at the bottom 5 aṅgulas (=3¾ inches). As an alternative the tail is to be 1¼ or 1 cubit long. The top of the tail ending by the plough-root is to be 2 aṅgulas (=1½ inches). The tail is to be 1 to ½ aṅgulas thick. Thr root of the tail is to be furnished with a lotus leaf like device. The length of the ploughshare at the forepart of the tail is to be 3, 4, or 5 or 6 aṅgulas and its height 2 or 3 aṅgulas and it is to be furnished with various devices. At the hole an iron nail is to be driven in. The yoke is to be 2½ cubit long. The ploughshare is to be 3, 4, or 5 aṅgulas wide at its middle and 2 or 3 aṅgulas at its two ends.

v1.c24.s1.36

The yoke diminishes gradually from the middle towards the forepart and the hinder. There are two holes for yoking oxen, one on each half of the yoke. Half-way between these two holes the plough rod is to be filled in.

v1.c24.s1.37

The most vital question about the plough is when did the iron ploughshare replace the primitive wooden ones. The use of iron ploughshares presupposes a fair knowledge of iron. Scholars differ on the question of the knowledge of iron in the Vedic literature. The exact metal denoted by the term ayas is not certain. In the list of six metals in the Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā (XVIII.13) loha (red) and śyāmam (swarthy) respectively signify copper and iron, and hence ayas would stand for bronze. Ayas (bronze or copper) was the metal with which the Vedic people were originally familiar; later on, being introduced to iron, they gave it the name kṛṣṇāyas or black metal to distinguish it from the red colour of copper or bronze. Archaeological evidence places the introduction of iron around 1000 B.C., but iron implements seem to have come for frequent use from roughly 600 B.C.(Gopal, 1962).

v1.c24.s1.38

The earliest reference to iron ploughshare is taken to occur in the Atharvaveda (III.17.3) wherein lāṅgala is described as pavīravat (Macdonell and Keith, p.509). Sāyaṇa takes pavīra to be sharp-edged like vajra and explains it as the lance made of iron (ayomaya), fixed at the end of the plough, which tears the land. Pāṇini (IV.1.42) mentions the ploughshare (kuśī) as being filled in the potra (the central bent portion) and made of iron (ayovikāra). The Kokalika-sutta in the Suttanipāta refers to a phāla being heated and making sound when dipped into water.

v1.c24.s1.39

The Mahābhārata (XII.262.46) and Manusmṛti (X.84) describe a plough as consisting of an iron blade driven into a piece of wood (kāṣṭham ayomukham). Vasiṣṭha (II.35) praises plough as being Kalyāṇanāsika, which , according to the commentator, refers to the ploughshare piercing the field deeply. There are some indirect references suggesting metallic ploughshares⁹.

v1.c24.s1.40

We have some evidence to indicate an attempt to improve the quality and refinement of ploughs. Panini (V. 4.121) mentions terms for a farmer having a good plough or a bad plough. The advantage of using a large plough was also realised. Hali was the term for a large plough, whch was also called jityā (Pāṇini.III.1.117), perhaps from its utility to break down even the hardest ground and to reclaim waste land (Agrawala, p.198).

v1.c24.s1.41

The plough was a mark of prosperity and a householder’s position was determined in terms of the number of ploughs he owned (Agrawala, p.198). A Jātaka story (No. 218) relates to a man misappropriating 500 ploughshares deposited with him.

v1.c24.s1.42

The only metallic implement (Upadhyaya, 1987) of the pre-Harappan people (4th millennium B.C. to the middle of 3rd millenniu B.C.) which could have been used for agricultural purposes was axe made of copper. The furrowed field, exposed by excavations at Kalibangan (Lal) will require us to assume that ploughing or digging was done by a wooden plough or some stone implement. In the Harappan assemblage of copper and bronze implements those for agriculture are approximately 19.2% . Of these, axes of various types cover 88%, hoe, sickle and ploughshare being respectively 3.4%, 4.2%, and 4.2%. The excavators have not reported any ploughshare, but, according to Upadhyaya (pp. 42-43) five implements, described as chisels, which are thin and narrow and measure 20 cm. or more (Mackay, p.473: Marshall, p.502; Vats, p.88, see Plates) were used as ploughshare. The Copper hoard culture, whose emergence was contemporaneous with the mature Harappan, is characterised by axes of various types, flat axe, shouldered axe, splayed axe, narrow splayed axe, bar axe, or long narrow axe and double axe, which could have been used also for clearing forests for agriculture. The large number of bar axes found in Chhotanagpur (Yule et al, pp.126-128) were possibly used as digging implements. A Parasu, a Khurpi and two suspected ploughshares [IAR, 1971-72, p.51, Pl.LXV(B); IAR, 1976-77, p. 82, Pl.LXIII(A)] have also ben noticed in the copper hoard assemblage. Copper axes are found also with the Chalcolithic cultures of Central India, Deccan and the Neolithic-Chalcolithic culture of South India.

v1.c24.s1.43

The introduction of iron is clearly noticed first with the Painted Grey ware culture (c. 1000-800 B.C.). But agricultural implements form 4.8% of the assemblage. This includes a sickle, a hoe, and a ploughshare from Jakhera (IAR, 1974-75.p.44). A developed iron technology and a wider use of iron implements characterises the NBP Ware culture (c. 600-200 B.C.). But agricultural implements are still only 10% of the total. Besides axes, Parasu and a Khurpi, we have hoes, spades and spuds10.

v1.c24.s1.44

The sickles (Gaur, p.429; Upadhyayay, p.205) are crescent-shaped with a tang and a pointed tip. They are generally 0.5 to 1 cm. thick. The inner edge is concave and sharp, whereas the outer is convex and blunt. The ploughshare from Rupar measures 39.37 x 2.79 x 2.28 cm. The Atranjikhera specimen is smaller measuring 14.7 x 4.1 x 1.9 cm. Elongated, with tapering sides, it has a deep depression in the upper half for fixing it to the wooden frame (Gaur,p.429). Iron ploughshares are reported from Kaushambi and Raghuasoi (Vaisali) also. In the Megalithic culture of Peninsular India (1st millennium B.C.) the iron agricultural implements represent 18.5% of the total assemblage. The axes are divided into two categories, short broad and long narrow whch may further be subdivided into two on the basis of their thickness. The sickle from Yeleswaram is 43.91 cm.(Khan. p.48), whereas others generally measure around 18 cm. The hoes are reported to measure between 16.50 and 22.88 cm. Besides a spade, there is a broken ploughshare measuring 24.37 x 8.58 cm.

v1.c24.s1.45

For agricultural economy the number of metal implements is not large. Corrosion does not explain the paucity satisfactorily. It is to be noted that the sites are generally urban centres. Possibly wooden ploughs and stone implements continued to be used for digging, especially by ordinary cultivators.

Ploughing

v1.c24.s2.1

Ploughing was regarded as an important process in cultivation. It is observed in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (VIII.2.2.5) that furrow is like the womb in which seeds are sown and casting seeds into unploughed field is like sowing seeds into any place other than the womb.

v1.c24.s2.2

Prayers were offered for the ploughshare to plough the field properly and for the tillers to ply rightly (*Ibid*, VII.2.2.9). Mistakes in ploughing were corrected, as was done by a priest in reciting a hymn (*Ait.Br.*III.3.38). The *Milindapañho* (IV.6.47; II, p.79) notes that one of the four essential requirements for a successful crop is that the field should be well ploughed. The necessity of ploughing a field deeply was realised. Deep ploughing brings out clods of earth from the soil and increases the fertility of the field. There were distinct terms for fields cultivated twice or thrice (Pāṇini V. 4.59; *Amarakośa* II.9.9). Pāṇini (V.4.58; also Amara II.9.9) further provides for the formation of terms signifying ploughing done more than three times. The *Kṛṣi-Parāśara* (verses 142-43) recommends ploughing to be done five times. The first ploughing gives wealth, the third the desired object, and the fifth rich harvest. The term *śambākṛta* (Pāṇini V. 4.58) refers to a field cultivated twice from one end to another, and second time in a reverse direction. V.S. Agrawala (p.255) explains the term as referring to ploughing the furrow a *śama* or 14 *angulas* (=10¹/₂ inches) deep.¹¹

v1.c24.s2.3

The general practice was to plough a field before scattering seeds. But another parctice of long standing required the field to be ploughed after the seeds had been sown. There were special terms to refer to this practice (Pāṇini V. 4.58; Amara, II.9.8). It was fully realised that ploughing done at the right time yields an abundance of fruit (*Uttar. Ti.* I, p.10a).

v1.c24.s2.4

The *Kṛṣi-Parāśara* attaches great importance to ploughing. It raises the act to an auspicious rite, designated as *hala- prasāraṇa* (commencement of ploughing) which is necessary for the success of cultivation (verses 152-53). The advice concerns mostly the time and method of ploughing, but the details smack of superstition and do not seem to have much practical applicability although referrring to astronomical considerations.

v1.c24.s2.5

The *hala-prasāraṇa* is to be done in the Nakṣatras Svāti, Uttaraphālgunī, Uttarāṣāḍā, Uttarabhādrapada, Rohiṇī, Mṛgaśiras, Mūlā, Punarvasu, Puṣyā, Śravaṇā and Hastā, on Friday, Monday, Thursday, and Wednesday (but not on the remaining days) and on the second, third, fifth, seventh, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth lunar mansions (but not on the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth, twelfth and fourteenth). For this the sun’s entrance (*lagna*) into Vṛṣa, Mīna, Kanyā, Yugma, Dhanuṣ and Vṛścika are auspicious, whereas inauspicious ones are Meṣa, Karkaṭa, Siṃha, Kumbha, Makara and Tulā (*Ibid.*, verses 121-24).

v1.c24.s2.6

The owner of the field is to take bath and put on a pair of white clothes at a time when the position of the sun and the moon is favourable, duly worship the earth, the planet, Pṛthu and Prajāpati with sandal and flowers, circumambulate fire keeping it on the right, make ample gifts, besmear with honey the tip of the ploughshare and perform halaprasāraṇa at the left side of the field. Vasava (Indra), Sukra, Pṛthu¹² and Parāśara are to be invoked and fire, a Brāhmaṇa and God are to be worshipped. The sides of the bulls yoked to the plough are to be besmeared with butter or ghee. Facing northward, one should give an offering of milk mixed with white flowers and curd to Indra and sitting on a seat with a concentrated mind and placing the knees on the ground should bow to him. One should give without fail an offering and lamp of ghee to Marutvān and utter an incantation to Vasudhā (Ibid., 139-40).

v1.c24.s2.7

The text points out that there should not be a broken furrow. The furrows should be one, three, or five in number. The text lists a number of inauspicious portents in the act of ploughing : the plough raising a tortoise, the forced raising of and a breach in the ploughshare, the plough, īśā, yuga or the śaula breaking, the yotra snapping, the cultivator or a cow falling down or a bull running away. Likewise, a cow bellowing and licking the nose and the bulls voiding dung and passing urine are considered to be auspicious.

Plantation

v1.c24.s3.1

Plantation requires a knowledge of a number of processes in cultivation and objects connected with them. The preparation of the soil, including its irrigation and manuring, the ploughing of the field and sowing the seeds are three main activities in plantation, which implies an acquaintance with the qualities of soil, seed and season.

(a) Soil

v1.c24.s3.t1.1

Experience must have made people even in the neolithic phase aware of the suitability of soil in some areas for cultivation. Originally the term ksetra signified an abode and not an agricultural field. In the early Vedic literature it signifies farm land. Urvarā was used for the fertile and anurvarā for the barren land. Kṛṣya was the arable land.

v1.c24.s3.t1.2

According to Oldenberg, Khila was the unfertile land which lay between cultivated fields. The nature of the soil as containing sarkara (salty), sikatā (sandy) and aśmān (stony) was recognised. The Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā (XVI.43) mentions lands of many kinds, such as tracts in hill area, open plains, stream land, slopes and undulating regions, flat surfaces with green pastures, low fertile regions and cultivable lands with homesteads (Roy, pp.118-20).

v1.c24.s3.t1.3

In ancient India there were special terms to refer to different types of land. Of these, many were based on their properties and characteristics. The consolidated list of such terms occurring in the Amarakośa (II.1.1-5, 9-11) includes bhūmi (soil in general), mṛtsnā (an excellent soil), urvara (a fertile soil for all sorts of crops), ūṣa (salt ground), usara (a spot with lime soil), maru (a region devoid of water), khila or aprahata (untilled or waste land), naḍvān, kumudvān, vetasvān and śadvala (a country abounding in reeds, waterlilies, ratans or green grass), paṅkila (clayey or muddy soil), anūpa (land contiguous to water), śarkarila (soil full of stony or similar modules), and siktila (sandy soil). Some of these appear as early as the Vedic literature. These terms imply an awareness of the properties of the soil and classifying them on that basis.

v1.c24.s3.t1.4

In ancient India land was generally classified into three jāṅgala, anūpa and sādhāraṇa, on the basis of the moisture in it. Jangala is dry land, anupa is wet land and sādhāraṇa has moderate or average moisture.

v1.c24.s3.t1.5

The classification into jāṅgala, anūpa and sādhāraṇa seems to have been formulated before the times of the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya. It refers to the anūpa and jāṅgala land (AS. II.24.5). This classification was adopted by the authors of medicinal texts. They mention the three types of soils and list the trees characteristic of them.

v1.c24.s3.t1.6

Caraka (Kalpa, 6,7) describes jāṅgala as the region which is full of unobstructed open spaces, where a steady and dry wind blows, which is pervaded with expansive mirages, where rivers and rivulets are scarce, which abounds in wells (on account of scarcity of water) and is full of dry and rough sands and big sandy granules. According to Suśruta (Sūtra, 35.35), it presents a flat surface, with its dull monotony enlivened by scanty growth of thorny shrubs and tops of a few isolated hills and knolls, and in which water in springs and wells accumulated during rains becomes nearly drained and strong gales of warm wind blow. Plants characteristic of jāṅgala region mentioned by Caraka are Khadira, Asana, Aśvakarṇa, Dhava, Tinisa, Sallaki, Sāla, Somavalka, Vadari, Tinduka, Aśvattha, Vaṭa and Āmalakī and Sami, Arjuna and Siṃsapa.

v1.c24.s3.t1.7

According to Caraka (op. cit.,8), the anūpa region abounds in rivers, is bordered by seas, and is swept by cold wind. It is interspersed with rivers whose banks are decked with Vanjula and Vanira. Mountains are absent from this region. It is thickly overgrown with forest bowers, trees, verdent trees and tender creepers.

v1.c24.s3.t1.8

Suśruta (op.cit.34) describes it as the region which contains a large number of pools, is wooded and undulated with chains of lofty hills, is impassable owing to its network of rivers and sheets of accumulated rain-water, and has a gentle humid air.

v1.c24.s3.t1.9

Caraka (op.cit., 9) describes sādhāraṇa region as endued with creepers, plants and trees of both the classes, the vanaspatis and vanaspatyas. According to Suśruta (op. cit. 36), it exhibits features common to both the classes, the jāṅgala and anūpa.

v1.c24.s3.t1.10

The Suśrutasaṃhitā also accepts the classification of soil into six each, on the basis of their distinctive odour (gandha), colour (varṇa) and taste (rasa) (Sūtra 37.11). It adds another classification according to the qualities of the five elements, earth (pṛthvī), water (ambu), fire (agni), wind (anila) , and sky (ākāśa), being predominant in them, and enumerates their characteristic features (Ibid.4). It describes sādhāraṇa soil as one which is endowed with all the properties (Ibid. 13). For medicinal plants it recommends soil with distinct features (Ibid.2). The classification of land into three types was evidently known to Varāhamihira. He does not give full details about them. But, he has listed sixteen trees that are the characteristic products of anupa land (Bṛhatsaṃhitā 54.11).

v1.c24.s3.t1.11

The Vṛkṣāyurveda of Surapāla has a separate section (verses 35- 44)¹³ on determining the ground (bhūminirūpana). It follows the generally accepted classification of land into three: jaṅgala (dry or arid land), anūpa (wet land), and sāmānya (moderate humidity land). It introduces another classification on the basis of colour (varṇa) and taste (rasa).

v1.c24.s3.t1.12

There are six types of soils according to their colour: asita (black), vipāṇḍu (pallid), śyāmala (dark blue), lohita (red), sita (white) and pīta (yellow). Likewise, they are classified into six according to their taste: madhura (sweet), āmla (sour), lavaṇa (saline), tikta (pungent), kaṭuka (acrid) and kaṣāya (astringent). The soil, that is full of poisonous matter, stones or ant-hills or is saline, gravelly and has underground water too deep, is not favourable for trees. That soil is praiseworthy which is of mild colour like saphire (indranīla) and the plumage of a parrot, is white like a conch, jasmine (kunda), water-lily (kumuda) and moon, and vies with molten gold and blossoming Campaka. In a soil which is even (sama), contiguous to water, full of sprouts of green trees and grass, trees of all kinds thrive when planted at proper places. The land which is of moderate humidity (sādhāraṇa) and not dry (jaṅgala) nor wet (anūpa) is good and all kinds of trees grow on it without doubt.

v1.c24.s3.t1.13

Panasa, Lakuca, Tālī, bamboo, citron (Jambīra), rose-apple (Jambū), Tilaka, fig-tree (Vaṭa), Kadamba, hog plum (Āmrāta), date-palm (Kharjūra), arecanut (Pūga), plantain (Kadalī), Tinisa, red-grape vine (Mṛdvi), Ketakī, coconut and others are trees that grow on anūpa land. Śobhāñjana, Śrīphala, Saptaparṇa, Śephālikā, Aśoka, Śami, Karīra, Karkandhuka, Kesara, Nimba and Soka flourish on jāṅgala land. Citron (Bījapuraka), Punnāga, Campaka, mango, Atimuktaka, Priyaṅgu, Pomergranate are trees that grow on sādhāraṇa land.

v1.c24.s3.t1.14

These verses occur in the Upavanavinoda (verses 35-44), which is a part of the Śārṅgadharapaddhati (Raychaudhuri, pp.9-10). They have been evidently borrowed from the Vṛkṣāyurveda of Surapāla.

v1.c24.s3.t1.15

Varāhamihira regards soft (mṛdvi) to be good for all kinds of trees. He emphasises the need for preparing the soil before sowing. The first process in preparing the land is to sow sesamum in the soil and, when they grow and have put forth flowers, they are to be uprooted (Bṛhatsaṃhitā 54.2).

(b) Seeds

v1.c24.s3.t2.1

Surapāla, in his Vṛkṣāyurveda, dealing with plants (pādapa) in general, including big trees (vanaspati), trees (druma), creepers (latā) and thickets (gulma), mentions three ways of planting them, namely, by seeds (bīja), scion of a plant (kāṇḍa) and bulbous root (kanda). It lists different groups of plants that grow from seeds and scions, from bulbous roots, and from both seeds and bulbous roots (verses 45-51).

v1.c24.s3.t2.2

Varāhamihira makes a special mention of the fact that certain trees grow from scion and not from seeds. The scions are plastered with mud. These trees are Panasa (bread-fruit tree), Aśoka, plantain, rose-apple, Lakuca, pomegranate, Drākṣā (vine), Pālīvata, Bījapūra (citron) and Atimuktaka. They are to be carefully planted by taking their stem or by digging them up from the roots (Bṛhatsaṃhitā, 54.4-5).

v1.c24.s3.t2.3

A passage in the *Milindapañho* (IV.6, 47; II, p.79) implies a clear appreciation that the knowledge about seeds has two main parts - the selection of good seeds and sowing them in a proper manner.

v1.c24.s3.t2.4

Through experience the cultivator had realised that all seeds do not germinate. According to a passage in the *Milindapañho* (IV.1.64; I,p.193), the failure of a seed to germinate is, to a great extent, due to defects. The similies based on infertile seeds imply a general awareness of the properties of a seed. The *Mahābhārata* (XII.320.33) refers to parched grains as seeds unfit to grow. The *pulākā* grains mentioned in the *Mahābhārata* (XII.181.7) are explained by Nīlakaṇṭha as those rendered incapable of growing due to the excessive underground heat. Another passage in the *Mahābhārata* mentions the fruitlessness of *saṇḍa-tilas* and *kākayavas* (II.77.13). According to Nīlakaṇṭha, *kākayavas* is a term for a seed separated from its outer skin and thus rendered unproductive.

v1.c24.s3.t2.5

The collection of seeds in the appropriate time (*yathākālam*) was of great importance for the success of cultivation. The *Arthaśāstra* mentiones it as the first duty of the Superintendent of Agriculture (*sītādhyakṣa*). He is required to collect in the proper seasons seeds of all kinds of grains, flowers, fruits, vegetables, bulbous roots, roots, creeper fruits, flax and cotton (II.24.1).

v1.c24.s3.t2.6

The *Kṛṣi-Parāśara* (verses 157-67) is more detailed and specific. It requires seeds to be collected either in Māgha or Phālguna. They are to be dried up thoroughly in the Sun. The chaff is to be removed. The seeds which are uniform to be collected. They are to be kept in a very tight packet and the grass that has come out is to be cut. The advice about the preservation of the seeds is mixed up with traditional notions about sacramental purity. Seeds are not to be kept on an ant-hill, in the cowshed, the place where a woman has delivered a child, or a house having barren women. They are not to come in contact with remnant food, a woman in menses, a barren woman, a pregnant woman, or a woman who has just delivered. Ghee, oil, butter-milk, lamp and salt are not to be kept on seeds. Seeds, kept in contact with a lamp, fire or smoke, or damaged by rain, or kept in pits or underground, are not to be used. Likewise, seeds, which are mixed up or are chaff or mixed with particles, become barren.

v1.c24.s3.t2.7

To increase the fertility of the seeds they were treated before sowing. According to the *Arthaśāstra* (II.24.24), seeds of grains are to be soaked in dew and dried in the heat for seven days; those of pulses for three days and nights or five; stalks that serve as seeds are to be smeared at the cut with honey, ghee and pig's fat mixed with cow-dung; bulbous roots to be smeared with honey and ghee; and stone-like seeds to be smeared with cow-dung.

v1.c24.s3.t2.8

The *Vṛkṣāyurveda* (verses 52-58) of Surāpāla deals with the treatment of seeds in some details. It requires the seed to be extracted from a fruit that has ripened in due season and dried. The seed is to be soaked (*niṣicya*) in milk. It is to be besmeared (*lipta*) with the ashes of Bṛhati and sesamum and ghee and is to be rubbed well (*parimardita*) in cowdung. Then it is to be dried in shade for five days. After it has dried, it is to be rubbed repeatedly in honey and the powder of Viḍaṅga or in the ashes of Bṛhati, sesamum and Nala mixed with mustard.

v1.c24.s3.t2.9

It is to be fumigated with the fumes (dhūpayet) of ghee mixed with Vidanga, or of fat. The treatment is specially recommended in the case of seeds of mango (Makanda), rose-apple (Jambu) and bread-fruit (Panasa)¹⁴.

v1.c24.s3.t2.10

Varāhamihira prescribes the method for treating seeds for increasing their fertility. For ten days daily the seeds are to be handled by hands smeared with ghee and soaked in milk. Then they are to be repeatedly rubbed with cowdung. They are to be fumigated with the fumes of the flesh of hog and deer and are to be sown mixed with meat and the fat of hog (Br̥hatsaṃhitā, 54. 19- 20). Tintidi and other seeds are to be sprinkled with combination (saktu)¹⁵ of powder of rice, Māṣa and sesamum mixed with putrid flesh and regularly fumigated with the fumes of turmeric (Ibid.21). Kapittha seeds are to be placed in milk which has cooled down after boiling in the eight roots (aṣṭamūli) consisting of Āsphoṭa, Dhātrī, Dhava and Vāsikā, Vetasavallī and Sūryavallī with leaves, Śyāmā and Syandanaka for tālaśata¹⁶ and then dried in the Sun. This process is to be repeated daily for a month (Ibid., 22-23). A fourth method is to sprinkle the seeds a hundred time with the paste made of the fruit of Aṅkola or the oil made of it from the fruit of Śleṣmātaka (Ibid.27). The shell of the seeds of Śleṣmātaka is to be removed and then treated with the lubricous fluid of Aṅkola and then dried in shade. This is to be repeated seven times. Then they are to be rubbed in the dung of buffalo and put in the dry dung of the same animal and then mixed with hail and soil (Ibid.,29-30).

v1.c24.s3.t2.11

The prescription about the treatment of seeds is not without some scientific basis. If the seeds are soaked in any solution, the decayed ones will float and can easily be detected and discarded. The application of cowdung, honey, butter, etc., would protect it from insects and diseases. The cowdung, being hygroscopic and containing potassium, nitrogen and phosphates and also microbes, is expected to help germination.

(c) Sowing

v1.c24.s3.t3.1

Sowing being an important process in cultivation, it was given serious attention and care. Befitting its importance solemn religious rites were performed on the occasion. Panini (IV.3.45) shows that farmers selected auspicious days for sowing seeds; the full-moon day of the month of Agrāhāyana was one such auspicious day. The Arthaśāstra (II.24.27) advises the Superintendent of Agriculture (sītādhyaksa) at the first sowing to sow the first handful after immersing it in water containing gold and recite the mantra meaning “Salutation to Kāśyapa, the Lord of Creation, and to the god (of rain) always. May the divine Sītā prosper in my seeds and my grains”. The Vr̥kṣāyurveda (verse 59) of Surapāla requires the master to bathe and become pure, put on clean clothes, worship the gods, salute the preceptor, make the gift of money or land to a meritorious person, make obeisance to the presiding deity of the land (vāstupuruṣa) and then himself first sow a few seeds, after which the attendants are to sow all over the field.

v1.c24.s3.t3.2

A significant development in regard to sowing was the practical realisation of the quantity of seed required for sowing in a particular field. Pāṇini (V.1.45-46) provides for the formation of terms to refer to fields according to the quantity of seed sown in them. These and other distinctive terms are found in the Amarakośa (II.9.10) also. The literary references are confirmed by epigraphic records, which, in mentioning the fields (kṣetram) granted, specify the quantity of seed required to sow them¹⁷. The cultivator was also required to know how seeds of a particular type were to be sown, thickly or sparsely (Medhātithi on IX.330)

v1.c24.s3.t3.3

The selection of one of the crops of a particular crop season depended to a great extent on the amount of water available (AS.II.24.19). The Arthaśāstra (AS. II.24.22) says that a region where the foam strikes (river bank) (phenāghāta) is suited for creeper fruits; regions on the outskirts of overflows (parivāhānta) for long pepper, grapes and sugarcanes; those on the borders of wells (kūpaparyanta) for vegetables and roots; those on the borders of moist beds of lakes (haraṇiparyanta) for green grasses; and ridges (pālya) for plants reaped by cutting, such as perfume plants, medicinal herbs, uśīra grass, hrībera, piṇḍāluka and others.

(d) Sowing Methods

v1.c24.s3.t4.1

The earliest primitive method of sowing was that of individual planting or dibbling of seeds into holes made by digging sticks. With the coming of field-tillage the method of broadcasting or scattering was introduced. We can speculate that in neolithic times, when cultivation was generally of the shifting or jhuming type, sowing was done either by dibbling or by broadcasting.

v1.c24.s3.t4.2

S.R. Rao (p.79) has identified the figure of a seed-drill on an Harappan seal from Lothal (Randhawa, p.157). This will mean that the Harappans practised line-sowing by using seed-drills. The inference receives support from the pre-Harappan ploughed field exposed by excavations at Kalibangan (Lal, pp. 1-4). The furrows reveal a grid pattern running at right angles to each other, the north-south ones having an average distance of 1.9 meters and the east-west having 30 cm. only. The present practice in Kalibangan in fields with this ploughing pattern is taken to suggest that this was done for mixed cropping, the horizontal furrow for sowing one crop and the vertical for another.

v1.c24.s3.t4.3

The Ṛgvedic references are not very explicit about the sowing method. One passage (ṚV. X.9.23) says “Harness the ploughs fit on the yokes, now that the womb of the earth is ready to sow the seeds therein”. Aiyer(p.16) interprets it as showing that seeds were “either sown in plough furrows or broadcast and then covered over by ploughing”. Another passage (ṚV X.101.3-4) has a similar import. “Attach the ‘sira’ (plural) spread apart the yokes, sow the seeds into the prepared womb”. These two passages will suggest that after an initial ploughing the seeds were sown with the help of a plough. J. Bloch also interprets sīram occurring in the passage as a plough used for sowing seed. This is evidence of sowing by a seed-drill plough.

v1.c24.s3.t4.4

We do not have an undisputed reference to the method of sowing rice by transplantation before c. 500 B.C. The terms ropaṇa and ropeti occurring in early Pali literature refers to transplantation. In the Aṅguttara Nikāya (I. 239-40) the expression bījani patitthapeti is explained as meaning ‘plants seedling’, patiṭṭhapeti being the forerunner of the present terms bīṭhauni current for this practice in parts of north Bihar and biya (from bīja) signifying seedlings for planting. In the Jain text Nāyādhammakahāo (vii.68, p.85) there is a reference to five paddy grains being sown on a well prepared bed and the seedlings being transplanted twice or thrice.

v1.c24.s3.t4.5

The expression for transplanting is *ukkhayanihae* or *ukkhāyanihae* which literally means ‘uprooted and planted’ (Jain, p.122). It has been suggested that the distinction between the Vedic term *vrīhi* and the post-Vedic *śāli* is that the first is grown without transplanting, whereas the second is grown by transplantation (P.B. pp. 122,204). Greek writers refer to the practice of wet paddy production and transplantation. Aristobolus says that rice crop stands in water enclosure and is sown in beds (Majumdar, p.251). Megillus, as quoted by Strabo, mentions that rice cultivation was by transplanting (Majumdar, p.251).

v1.c24.s3.t4.6

The usual practice was to sow the seeds after the field had been ploughed. This is indicated by numerous literary accounts, which, in describing the sowing processes in cultivation, speak of the sowing of seeds in a field that has been carefully tilled [*Sat.Br.* I.1.6.3 ; *Cu.V.* VII. 1.2 ; *Mil.* II. p. 269 f(VI.22)]. Generally seeds were scattered by hand (Ray, pp.100, 120). We get an idea of the method of sowing seeds from a verse in the *Mahābhārata* (VII.25.31) which compares it with the throwing of arrows in quick succession. But there were some other methods as well. In the *Matsyapurāṇa* (Ch. 154.404), the Ṛṣis, who approached Śiva for Umā’s marriage with him, when returning, bent their bodies before Śiva as done by a farmer in sowing seeds. This may be interpreted as referring to the practice of line-sowing in which the farmer, in dropping seeds in the furrows, keeps his body in a drooping position. Panini mentions the term *bījakaroti* (V.4.58), which is explained by the *Kārikā* to mean tilling along with the seeds (*saha bījena vilekhanam karoti*). This suggests a device by which a cultivator sows the seeds in the line of tilling through a cone attached to the pole of the plough (Agrawal,p.200). Medhātithi (on Manu II.112) also refers to seeds being sown with the help of the plough.

v1.c24.s3.t4.7

*(e) Transplantation*

v1.c24.s3.t4.8

Kālidāsa (*Raghuvamśa*, IV.20,37) makes an apt reference to the practice of the seedlings of *śāli* being uprooted and then transplanted at another place. The *Kṛṣi-Parāśara*, in laying down the processes in cultivation, has in mind the details of paddy cultivation. It prescribes the procedure of transplantation (*ropaṇa*) (verses 183-185)¹⁸. It envisages the sowing of seeds for transplantation (verses 169,172). It classifies seeds into two, those which are sown and those which are later transplanted. Sowing is free from defects, but transplantation is attended with maladies. For transplantation seedlings are not to be gathered (*bījakarṣaṇa*) from full grown (*vṛksarūpam*) paddy plants, because all seedlings, grown hard in fields, do not yield fruit. Seedlings are to be transplanted one cubit from one another in Karkaṭa (Śrāvaṇa), half a cubit in Siṃha (Bhadra), and four fingers apart in Kanya (Asvina). The text requires the cultivator to perform the *kattana* (possibly meaning thinning out) of paddy in the month of Āṣāḍha and Śrāvaṇa, without which there is an indifferent and poor growth of paddy. But *kattana* and plantation are not to be done in a low land (verses 186-88). The removal of weeds (*niṣṭṇikaraṇa*) from paddy is to be done between Kulīra (Śrāvaṇa) and Bhādra. Agriculture suffers loss due to weeds. Agricultural produce from which weeds are removed becomes highly fruitful (verses 189-92). The text further advises that in Bhādra water is to be drained off, preserving it up to the roots only. This will keep paddy free from disease (verses 193-94). Water is to be preserved in Āśvina and Kārtika (verses 196-97).

v1.c24.s3.t4.9

Varāhamihira records some practical hints about transplatation of trees. Plants that have not put forth branches are to be transplanted (praropayet) in the winter, those that have put forth branches, in the beginning of winter, and those that have developed trunks, at the advent of the rainy season (Bṛh. S. 54.6).

v1.c24.s3.t4.10

The trees are to be transplanted (saṅkrāpanaviropana) after plastering them from their root up to the branches with ghee, uśīra, sesamum, honey, viḍaṅga, milk (kṣīra) and cowdung (ibid.7). To emphasise the importance of transplantation the person was required to be pure and clean and to perform religious rites. The transplanted trees are to be watered both morning and evening during summer, on alternate days in winter, and during the rainy season when the soil becomes dry (ibid.9).

v1.c24.s3.t4.11

Varāhamihira (Bṛh.S. 54.12-13) brings out the importance of proper spacing in planting trees. The best kind of planting is that in which the trees are planted at a distance of twenty cubits (hastas) from each other, the middling one when they are sixteen cubits apart, and the worst when they are at a distance of twelve cubits from each other. Trees that grow too close and touch each other do not yield adequate fruits owing to their roots entwining and injuring each other.

v1.c24.s3.t4.12

In its chapter (282) on Vṛkṣāyurveda the Agnipurāṇa deals with the planting (ropana) of trees. It mentions the religious rites to be performed and the asterism under which it is to be done (verses 3-4). When the earth is dry, the planted trees are to be watered each morning and evening in summer, on alternate days in winter, and in the night in the rainy season (verses 7-8). It considers a distance of twenty cubits (hastas) between the trees to be best, of sixteen to be middling, and of twelve to be the inferior most. Trees planted too close become fruitless, hence they are to be chopped off in the beginning (verses 8-9).

v1.c24.s3.t4.13

The Vṛkṣāyurveda of Surapāla gives directions about the plantation of trees in the section called vapanavidhi (the method of sowing). Trees are to be sown or planted on a land which is even and pleasant and in which flowers, sesamum and Masa have been scattered (verse 63). The distance of fourteen, sixteen or twenty cubits between trees is considered respectively to be bad, middling and excellent (verse 64). The interval between thickets (gulmas) may be four or five cubits and that between Puga (arecanut) etc. two or three cubits (verse 65). If the gap is larger than prescribed, there is danger to the trees from storm and, if it is less, the fruits will be poor (verse 66). Sowing and especially planting of mangoes, pomergranates etc. and pumpkin gourds Alāmbuka is to be done in a pit measuring one cubit all round, dug long back, dried, filled with cow-bones and cowdung, well burnt and allowed to cool down naturally, and then after removing the ashes irrigated with carcass water (kuṇapa) and filled with manure (verses 67-69).

v1.c24.s3.t4.14

The Vṛkṣāyurveda of Surapala mentions the months for planting various trees; Kṣirikā, mango, pomergranate, and Bakula etc. in Śrāvaṇa, Rāja, Kośāmra¹⁹, and Lakuca etc. in Bhādra, (verse 87), Golla and brinjal (Vārtāka) etc. in Āśvina, majoram (Phanijja), Satapattrika, coriander (Dhānyaka) and Mūlaka etc. in Kārttika (verse 88), Paṭola etc. in Phālguna, Karkāruka etc. in Caitra and plantain etc. in Vaisakha under Sukra (verse 89). In Āṣāḍha all sorts of seeds may be sown and trees may be planted at will. Sahas (Mārgaśīrṣa), Sahasya (Pauṣa) and Māgha are forbidden for sowing etc. (verse 90).

Pesticide

v1.c24.s4.1

In reference to plants, Pest signifies any insect, fungus, etc. which destroys plants. Pesticide means pest-killer.

v1.c24.s4.2

The major calamities, termed as *iti*, were traditonally enumerated as being six: excessive rain, drought, locusts, rats, parrots and foreign invasions²⁰. All these have a reference to agriculture. The term *iti* signifies an infectious disease also, but we do not find any reference to its application for the diseases of the plants.

v1.c24.s4.3

In the Vedic literature we find prayers to Indra and Rudra for protecting crops from drought and lightning (*RV*. VI. 50.1-3; VI.142.1). For warding off harmful insects several spells and rites are prescribed. The *Atharvaveda* voices the anger against insects harming the field: "O Aśvins, slay the *tarda* (borer), the *samanka* (hook) and the mole, cut off their heads and crush their ribs, shut their mouths, that they shall not eat the barley, free the grain from danger. Ho *tarda*, locust, gabhya (snapper), *upakvasa* do get out, not eating this barley, without working injury. O husband of the *tarda* (female), husband of the *bhaga* (female), of the sharp teeth, listen to me. The *vyadvaras* (rodents) of the forest, and whatever other *vyadvara* there are, all these we do crush".

v1.c24.s4.4

The *Agnipurāṇa* (282, verses 10-13) prescribes a few treatment to promote the growth of flowers and fruits and overcome infertility. After plastering the plants with mixture of Viḍaṅga and ghee, they are to be sprinkled with cold water mixed with Kulattha, Māṣa, Mudga, barley and sesamum. It recommends sprinkling with ghee and cold water as a general remedy. The powder of the offal matter of sheep and goats, barley powder, sesamum, beef, and water are to be kept burried for seven days and then are to be sprinkled on plants. The plants are to be irrigated with the washings of fish.

First 102 of 375 passages. Read on

Linked texts (78)