Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c24.s7: Notes

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c24.s7

Language
English

Notes

v1.c24.s7.1

1. Sahi, 1981, p 47 suggests, on the basis of anchylosis of hook-joints in cattle bones from Hallur,the use of plough in south India in neolithic culture in the second millennium B.C.

v1.c24.s7.2

² Mackay, Pl. CVIII.3 - records chipped chart objects measuring 12.5 × 5.35 × 3 inches.

v1.c24.s7.3

4. *A terracotta object from Mohenjodaro (now at Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay) measuring 7 × 19.7 cm (Mackay, Pl. CVIII.3) could also have been a model of a plough.*

v1.c24.s7.4

5. *They are hard and lasting. In some parts of Central India ploughs are made of Khair without an iron share - Dhavalikar in Puratattva, No.8, p 44. Cosmos (Christian Topography XI, p. 358) mention ploughshares made of the leather of rhinoceros. It is not supported by any other evidence, but cannot be ruled out as being improbable.*

v1.c24.s7.5

6. *On this basis Malti Shende, p. 240 postulates the use of plough by the Harappans.*

v1.c24.s7.6

7. *Sharma R.S. p.111 doubts if horses were yoked to ploughs. Pliny refers to ploughing done by elephants. See Majumdar R.C. p. 342.*

v1.c24.s7.7

8. *Agnihotri, p. 254 adds that the driver stands on the log.*

v1.c24.s7.8

9. *Kings ploughing with golden ploughs - MB, III. 255.28; III. 256.2 red hot or flaming ploughshares - Sik.S. pp. 77.87; Balarāma fighting with a plough - MB, IX. 37. 38; clefting heads of elephants and horses with a plough Kat. K. p. 62; gift of pañcalāṅgalaṃ - Mat. Pu. 274.9; 283; ordeal of ploughshare - Bṛh. P. X. 28-29.*

v1.c24.s7.9

10. *Ray, p. 134 holds that wooden ploughshares might have been used during the NBP period. Ray also infers from a few iron hoes from some urban sites that hoe cultivation was the general vogue, but they could as well have been household tools.*

v1.c24.s7.10

11. *Hemacandra, Abhidhānacintāmaṇi, VII.2. 135 gives several explanations of it which indicate deep ploughing.*

v1.c24.s7.11

12. *The reading Prthurāma is enigmatic.*

v1.c24.s7.12

13. *Raychaudhuri, pp 10-11 adopts faulty reading. Verses 35 and 41-42 given here do not appear in the critical edition prepared by Rahul Peter Das.*

v1.c24.s7.13

14. *Verse 57 prescribes a special treatment of the seed of Ervāru (or Airvāru) which cannot be identified.*

v1.c24.s7.14

15. *Bhaṭṭotpala takes saktu to refer to a separate item along with vṛhicūrṇa, masacurna and tilacurna.*

v1.c24.s7.15

16. *Bhaṭṭotpala paraphrases tāla as tālā. Tāla is a measure of length. Bhaṭṭotpala explains it as referring to a measure of time.*

v1.c24.s7.16

17. *EI, V. - no. 5 (I and II) vṛhīpitakavapam, vṛhidaśapras- thavapam; EI, II, no. 5 (1) - vṛhiptavāpam ; EI, V, no.16 (A) and EI, XII, no.12 - dvādaśakhaṇḍikakodravabījapari- māṇam, EI, X, no.11 - vāpagatyā koraḍe sundhadroṇasapta- parikalita.*

v1.c24.s7.17

18. *Randhawa, pp. 485-86 quotes Parāśara for the full operation of transplantation. But this is not found in the Kṛṣiparāśara.*

v1.c24.s7.18

19. *Raychaudhuri, p. 103 splits it into Rājakośa and Āmra.*

v1.c24.s7.19

20. *Itayaḥ smṛtaḥ.*

v1.c24.s7.20

21. Raychaudhuri, pp. 94-98 gives translation of verses 185-222 and 165-84 from this text without any justification for reversing the order. Earlier, on pp. 85-86 he reproduces translation of verses 87-105 from a Vṛkṣāyurveda, but without giving details about the location of the manuscript and its author Evidently, this is also based on Surapāla's text.

v1.c24.s7.21

22. Raychaudhuri, p.95 renders it as diluted milk apparently on the basis of the reading kṣīrāmbu.

v1.c24.s7.22

23. Raychaudhuri p.99: 'according to scientific works', appparently reading śāstraeṇa for śastreṇa.

v1.c24.s7.23

24. Raychaudhuri, pp. 85-88, 96-97 is confusing about the original sources and their translation.

v1.c24.s7.24

25. Raychaudhuri, p.87 gives the English translation, but does not mention the original source.

v1.c24.s7.25

26. Raychaudhuri, pp. 96-97 mentions it as occurring after verse 222. But the printed text does not have it.

v1.c24.s7.26

27. Raychaudhuri, p.87 does not mention the source.

v1.c24.s7.27

28. Majumdar and Banerji, p. 83, f.n 2 point out that "all the names are not intelligible, and, therefore, not mentioned here".

v1.c24.s7.28

29. Verses 645-48. Raychaudhuri, p.73 mentions these as verses 599-601.

v1.c24.s7.29

30. Raychaudhuri, p. 605, verse 404 - "has been carefully dressed with the dung of cows or goats or with (decayed) vegetable matter".

v1.c24.s7.30

31. Raychaudhuri, p.99 translates gomāṃsatulayā as "beef equal in weight".

v1.c24.s7.31

32. Raychaudhuri, p.99 gives translation of verses from the Vṛkṣāyurveda of Surapāla on manures and manuring in two sets, pp. 48-52 (verses 101-7, 112b-14, 118-26, 128-57, 159) and pp. 52-55 (verses 82-85, 112-61) without indicating their relationship, which is confusing. See Gopal, 1980, pp. 104-8 where the passage in the first set are reproduced as being from the Vṛkṣāyurveda of Surapāla. The text has now been critically edited by Rahul Peter Das (Stuttgart, 1988). The second set of verses belong to it. The first set is derived from an anonymous manuscript entitled Vṛkṣāyurveda. Rahul Peter Das, pp. 19-52 has shown that many authors drew on Surapāla's Vṛkṣāyurveda.

v1.c24.s7.32

33. Raychaudhuri, p.49 does not recognise the word Dhammina.

v1.c24.s7.33

34. Raychaudhuri, p.49 oca (?) in place of uttha, meaning 'arising from'.

v1.c24.s7.34

35. Beer or spirituous liquor made of unripe corn; Raychaudhuri p.49 - Murā liquor.

v1.c24.s7.35

36. Pānīyāmalaka (Flacourtia Cataphracta).

v1.c24.s7.36

37. It also means saffron and asafoetida.

v1.c24.s7.37

38. Three myrobalans taken collectively are Harītakī (Hiraḍā), Vibhītaka (Bahaḍā) and Āmalaka (Āmbalakaṭī).

v1.c24.s7.38

39. Verse 132 refers to superstitious practices of hanging the skull of a blue jay (cāṣa) on a pomegranate tree and the neck of a broken jar on top of a hog-plum (Āmrāta) tree.

v1.c24.s7.39

40. A species of rodent animal.

v1.c24.s7.40

41. Jālinī = Kosātaki (Luffa acutangula Roxb).

v1.c24.s7.41

42. It also means the jujube tree.

v1.c24.s7.42

43. For the first part Raychaudhuri, p.51 reads 'sprinkled (?) with mouthfuls of kitakalapa (?)'. This is on account of a misreading of the original kilā-kalāpu-kavalaiḥ kalitā. For Pātalā also the translation 'with water mixed with kitakalapa' is not supported by the text.

v1.c24.s7.43

44. Raychaudhuri, p.51 takes 'the solution of dung in water' to be prescribed for Saptacchada.

v1.c24.s7.44

45. Raychaudhuri, pp. 52-55 mentions both the texts as the Vrksāyurveda of Surapāla - ibid, pp. 48-52.

v1.c24.s7.45

46. Aiyangar, p.78 for rotation of crops. Bandyopadhyaya, p.129 suggests that the practice of leaving fields fallow had been completely dispensed with.

v1.c24.s7.46

47. A track of land not under cultivation for a year is termed ardhakhila by Nāruda, XI.26.

v1.c24.s7.47

48. Breloer takes vāpatirikta in Arthaśāstra, II. 24.16 to mean 'fallow land', but Kangle, part II, p. 172 f.n. 16 explains it as referring to 'land which the sitādhyaksa has not managed'.

v1.c24.s7.48

49. Dabok Inscription dated A.D. 813 (EI. XX, no.13)—śāradyagraiṣmikakṣetra, śāradyakṣetra and graiṣmikakṣetra

v1.c24.s7.49

50. Ganapati Sastri (Arthaśāstra, 1. p.287) does not take it to be a third crop, but explains it as meaning sowing in a field of rice etc. Johnston, JRAS, 1929, p.26 proposes the reading kedare meaning 'on wet land'.

v1.c24.s7.50

51. Raychaudhuri. pp. 81-82, pūrvavāpa and paścādvāpa are taken to correspond with Kharīf and Rabi crops respectively.

v1.c24.s7.51

52. The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, II, p. 172, f.n. 12 - 'in the alternative, this may imply sowings one after another in the same field; but that does not appear very likely'.

v1.c24.s7.52

53. Ganapati Sastri reads karṣakān for kariṣān, but this cannot mean ploughing or sowing.

v1.c24.s7.53

⁵⁴ Marshall, 1931, p. 318 opposed the suggestion.

v1.c24.s7.54

⁵⁵ The text has not been published. It is available in the form of manuscript (Mss. Collection No. 195) in the Vallabha Vaisnava Matha Library, Nathdwar, Rajasthan. Raychaudhuri pp. 6-9, 24-33, 55-58, 88-94 gives transatation of long passages from Chapters 1,2,6-8. The text, which claims to have been composed by Cakrapāni, a devotee of Rāma and belonging to a Brāhmana family of Mathurā, as desired by the king, is evidently a late work, though it draws upon earlier texts. On its own admission, it borrows from Hemādri and Sārngadharapaddhati and hence could not have been earlier then the fifteenth century.

v1.c24.s7.55

56. *Laping AS II. 3.3* - water reservoirs in a fort; *II. 3.4* moats; *II. 1.3* - manipulated rivers to be established to serve as boundary marks. Also *Manu*, VIII. 252. Laping speculates that the cultural contact with Mesopotamia could have introduced the technology of building large canals.

v1.c24.s7.56

57. Elsewhere we had suggested that the third and the fourth expressions may refer respectively to a water-wheel device similar to a Persian wheel, *Gopal*, 1980, pp.155-56.

v1.c24.s7.57

58. Popularly known as *dhekuli* it operates with the help of a weight or big stone at one end of a pole with a vessel or water bag attached to the other end.

v1.c24.s7.58

59. The relationship between a canal and river is compared to that between a calf and a river.

Linked texts (12)