Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c24.s1: Tools, Appliances

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c24.s1

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (22)