History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c28: Inland Fisheries

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c28

Language: English

v1.c28.s1 II — 21 parts
v1.c28.s2 III — 37 parts
v1.c28.s3 IV — 11 parts
v1.c28.s4 References — 13 parts

Inland Fisheries

v1.c28.1

Literally, fishery means business of catching fish or industry of fishing. Fishery concerns itself with the effect of commercial fishing on fish population and to acquiring adequate knowledge of interrelationships of various species of fish to each other, to other animal life and the environment. Evidences of fisheries life in the Indus valley and the adjoining areas of Sind, Punjab and Baluchistan have been brought out by a careful study of the actual remains of fish and fish hooks found in Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Amri, Nal, Nundara and Rupar cultures. Seals, amulets, fingurines, paintings on the pottery and other wares have been engraved with fish designs.

v1.c28.2

Our knowledge of history of man’s earliest culture is almost entirely restricted to the stone tools that have been preserved. The concept of three Ages viz., Stone, Bronze and Iron was first given by the Danish archaeologist, Vedel-Simonsen in 1813. The Stone Age was later split up into Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures.

v1.c28.3

The stone-age people hunted for the wild animals that lived in jungles along the rivers and lakes. Apart from the wild animals, fish found in lakes and rivers also formed the source of food for them.

v1.c28.4

Hunting, food gathering Mesolithic people used microliths to point and barb their arrows and also as knives and scrappers. Microliths have been found in large quantities from the Indian subcontinent. Sankalia (1962) pointed out that these microliths must have been made by people for the purpose of hunting and fishing as they lived in temporary camps near the river banks or sea-coasts. Arrow heads made of stone indicate that they used bows and arrows for hunting and fishing.

v1.c28.5

The Neolithic period in India is difficult to determine. The transition from hunting in the Palaeolithic to farming way of life in the Neolithic culture took place gradually.

v1.c28.6

From the pre-Harappan peasant communities of Baluchistan, some interesting pottery remains with fish paintings have been excavated from Nal (Jhalwan division of Kotat State in Baluchistan). The Nal valley in Baluchistan is about 30 miles long and seven miles broad. It lies in latitude 17°40' North, longitude 60°48' East and is nearly 3834 feet above sea level. Data available on fish paintings from Nal have been brought together and discussed by Hora (1955). From the fish decorations on Nal pottery, there can be little doubt about their generic identification except for a pair of fishes painted on Vase No. 142 of Hargreave's (1929) list. However, their identification at the species level cannot be said to be certain. From the decorations of the hill stream fishes on Nal pottery, it is evident that fast-running clear streams existed in its vicinity. Except for the genus Cyprinion, fishes of the other seven genera out of eight painted (Garra, Labeo, Crossochilus, Tor, Nemachilus Botia, Glyptothorax) are well represented in the perennial streams of Himalayas.

v1.c28.7

Since no fishing implements have been excavated from Nal, it can be inferred that the usual methods of fishing by nets and angling were not applicable to torrential streams. Then the methods of fishing must have been by damming small channels and allowing them to run dry or by poisoning the pools with certain plant juices which stupefy the fish and cause them to float on the water surface. Such methods of fishing though considered illegal, are still practiced at many places in the hills.

v1.c28.8

The Indus valley civilisation or the Harappan culture is older than the chalcolithic culture. The Harappans produced their own characteristic fish hooks, pottery and seals.

v1.c28.9

Fish remains obtained from the excavation at Mohenjodaro (Sewell, 1947), Harappa (Prashad, 1936), Rupar I, Ranjpur I and Lothal belonging to Indus valley culture indicate the following types :

v1.c28.10

Mohenjodaro — Rita-rita, Wallago, Arius sp. and Carp bones. Harappa — Rita rita and remains of a Carp.

v1.c28.11

Vats (1940) has pointed out a fish toy discovered from Harappa.

v1.c28.12

The art of angling seems to have reached a high level of perfection in the Indus valley civilisation. Apart from the Indus valley, no other excavated or explored site has yet brought to light any specimen of fish hook in India. At the same time, the aboriginal tribes of India appear to be ignorant of the method of fishing by hooks.

v1.c28.13

The Maria Gonds (Grigson, 1938) use horns as hooks to catch fish. The Sakai of Malay-Peninsula ( Skeat and Blagden, 1906) use curved thorns of rattan (Calammus).as fish hooks. Fishing by gorge-hooks is, however, practised in the case of Koi (Anabas) fishes in paddy fields of East Bengal. It is probably one of the local indigenous methods as it is not prevalent in West Bengal.

v1.c28.14

The fish hooks of the Indus valley can be classified into two main types : (1) Barbed, and (2) Unbarbed.

v1.c28.15

All the 16 specimens of Mohenjodaro are barbed. The Chanhudaro finds, 3 are barbed and 4 are unbarbed. The solitary specimens from Harappa is unbarbed. The paucity of fish-hooks at Harappa indicates that angling was not popular at this place.

v1.c28.16

The variation in the relative sizes of the Indus valley fish hooks evidently shows that hooks of different sizes were employed for catching different kinds of fishes. While the Mohenjodaro specimens vary between the lengths of 2-9" and 1-04", the Chanhudaro hooks vary between the lengths of 1-87" and 0-43". The difference in the relative sizes of the hooks indicate that fishing was probably confined to tanks and small streams at Chanhudaro whereas at Mohenjodaro all fishing was done in the Indus.

v1.c28.17

It cannot be denied that although the majority of the Indus valley sites are situated on the bank of navigable rivers, yet artefacts connected with boats and navigation from among the archaeological finds have not been discovered. Circular stones of various sizes (1/2" to 4' in diameter) with central hole have been found at Harappa and Mohenjodaro. Such stones are conspicuously absent from the sites at Chanhudaro. The large ringstone with heavy weights might have been used as anchors for boats.

v1.c28.18

Fishing nets have been identified from paintings on a pot-shred found at Harappa. It shows a fisherman carrying two nets hanging from a pole across his shoulder. Some fish and turtles are lying close to his nets. The fisherman stands on a cross- hatched band possibly a river as identified by Vats (1940).

v1.c28.19

Net-sinkers discovered from various sites may be classified into two types, namely (i) hollowed or annular and (ii) grooved. While type I has been found from Mohenjodaro, type II from Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro both. Reports from Harappa do not contain any reference to net-sinkers.

II

v1.c28.s1.1

Fisheries occupies an important place in Indian tradition and mythology. The Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā throws light on the mode of hunting of fish and the food and drink of people. The Vedic Aryans appear to be meat eaters rather than fish eaters. However, matsya as fish is mentioned in the Ṛgveda. Muksija is also found in one passage of the Ṛgveda which clearly means a “net” for catching fish or animals.

v1.c28.s1.2

In Atharvaveda and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, reference to fisheries has been made by narrating a legend in which a fish saved Manu from deluge. The Vedas, the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, the Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads contain several references of fisheries.

v1.c28.s1.3

Fish names appear in these texts. However, these names may refer to an individual species or to a genus as a whole. For example, the terms like Purikaya, Jasu Matsya and Sakula may refer to some genera or species of fishes.

v1.c28.s1.4

In the post-vedic period, fish was caught by nets, hooks hands or by damming streams and baiting with poison as evident from the various names mentioned in Yajurveda.

v1.c28.s1.5

Sāyaṇa (Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa) says that Dhaivara is one who takes fish by netting a tank ; Dāsa and Sauskala do so by means of fish hooks (Baḍisa) ; Kaivarta and Mainala by means of net (Jāla) ; Margara by means of hands; Aṇḍa by putting pegs in dams and Parṇaka by putting a poisoned leaf in the water.

v1.c28.s1.6

After the Vedic period, separate treatises were written which framed rules concerning social laws, rituals and domestic ceremonies. These were respectively called *Dharma-Sūtras*, *Śrauta-Sūtras* and *Gṛhya-Sūtras*. The *Smṛtis* deal with the same subjects but in a more elaborate way. It gives more prominence to social laws. Hence, it is also known as the *Dharma-Śāstras*.

v1.c28.s1.7

We find only casual references to fish in the *Sūtras* and the *Smṛtis*. Nevertheless, they reveal to a considerable extent the part played by fish in man’s affairs in those early days in India.

v1.c28.s1.8

References to specific types of fish have been made in different contexts particularly either in connection with the ‘*Śrāddhas*’ (i.e. ceremonies wherein food is offered to the manes but is actually consumed by Brahmana priests) or with certain forbidden foods.

v1.c28.s1.9

The *Mahābhārata* is full of references to a large variety of animals many of which are common to *Rāmāyaṇa* and Vedic literatures. Vedavyās, the writer of *Mahābhārata* is a son of Matsyagandhā and sage Parāśara. Arjuna of *Mahābhārata* married Draupadī by shooting the target of a fish eye. His daughter-in- law Uttarā, wife of Abhimanyu, is said to have a fish origin. Sage Sauvari was attracted to a family life by seeing a fish moving happily with its off-springs.

v1.c28.s1.10

The names of three fishes have been frequently referred to in the *Ramayana*. These are :

v1.c28.s1.11

(i) *Cakratuṇḍa* or *Garra mullya* (Sykes)

v1.c28.s1.12

(ii) *Nalamīna* or *Mastacembelus armatus* (Lecepede)

v1.c28.s1.13

(iii) *Rohita* or *Labeo fimbriatus* (Cuvier & Valenciennes)

v1.c28.s1.14

In the north-western recessional of *Rāmāyaṇa*, instead of *Cakratunda* and *Nalamina*, *Sakula* and *Pathina* are mentioned. *Sakula* of the *Rāmāyaṇa* or *Saula* of Bengal is the snake-headed fish, *Ophicephalus striatus* (Bloch). *Pathina* of the *Rāmāyaṇa* or *Boal* of Bengal is a cat-fish known as *Wallago attu* (Bloch).

v1.c28.s1.15

In *Rāmāyaṇa* Lakṣmaṇa is advised to use an arrow (shot from a bow) for catching fish (iii. 73) in the crystal clear water of the Pampa lake and in the marshy areas around, full of reed. The second method of catching fish is referred to by means of a baited hook or angle.

v1.c28.s1.16

At the lake Pampa, Lakṣmaṇa is advised to have the scales cleared and the fishes roasted in an iron pan over the rife (iii. 73. 15). In *Araṇyakāṇḍa* (76.24), Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa are advised to cook rice and salt with red pepper on reaching an *āśrama* on the west bank of the Pampa lake. Thus, roasting fish on fire and the use of salt and red pepper appear to be very ancient traditional practice in India.

v1.c28.s1.17

There has been a lot of references regarding animal sacrifices in the Vedas but unfortunately, the Zoological knowledge of the Vedic period has not yet been fully elucidated. The *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* has classified animals on the basis of their ovum or seed (*bīja*) into three groups.

v1.c28.s1.18

(1) Born of eggs (*Aṇḍaja*)

v1.c28.s1.19

(2) Born of fully developed or viviparous (*Jīvaja*)

v1.c28.s1.20

(3) Born of plant-like organism (*Udvījja*)

v1.c28.s1.21

Further, the animals have been classified into eight classes on the basis of their feeding habits and habitats. The animals living in water logged areas, marshy lands or even grazing on river bank were called *Anūpa*. The class *Anūpa* appears to represent an important class as it also included the group “Matsya” which according to Rao (1956) represented both fresh water and sea water fishes.

III

v1.c28.s2.1

Caraka gives classification of animals based on therapeutic values of flesh. The dietic value of flesh of an animal was conceived to depend mainly on its habitat and mode of life it leads. Dietary animals were accordingly divided into eight classes including fishes in the class *Anūpa*.

v1.c28.s2.2

The *Suśruta Samhitā*’s classification of animals is based on their origins. The animals were divided into four groups :

v1.c28.s2.3

(I) *Jarāyuja* or (viviparous) - e.g. mammals

v1.c28.s2.4

(II) *Aṇḍaja* or (oviparous) - e.g. fishes, birds, reptiles

v1.c28.s2.5

(III) *Svedaja* (born out of heat and moisture) - e.g. ants, worms etc.

v1.c28.s2.6

(IV) *Udbhijja* (born out of vegetation) - e.g. fire-flies, tadpoles etc.

v1.c28.s2.7

The second system of classification is based on habit and habitats of the animals. These are :

v1.c28.s2.8

(1) *Jāṅgala* (animals that live in jungle, dry or hilly lands) (2) *Anūpa*-aquatic or amphibious animals (animals living in marshy or water logged areas).

v1.c28.s2.9

The class *Anūpa* is further divided into five sub-classes. The fishes were given place in the sub-class, ‘*Matsya*’ which included both fresh water and sea water fishes. About more than twelve inland or fresh water fishes have been described in this text.

v1.c28.s2.10

The animals were classified according to whether they were born sexually or asexually. Umasvati in his work *Tattvārthādhigama* evolved another method by which animals were classified into four categories based on the number of senses possessed and used by them.

v1.c28.s2.11

The fishes were assigned the fourth category in which animals with five well developed senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearings were placed.

v1.c28.s2.12

The fourth category was further subdivided according to the mode of production. Fishes were placed in the sub-group “*Aṇḍaja*”.

v1.c28.s2.13

Suśruta not only enumerated a number of fish species that have food value but also gave the relative medicinal properties possessed by different fishes. Hora (1955) stated that fresh water fishes are more nutritious than the marine fishes. According to him, the non-protein nitrogenous components such as trimethylamine oxide and urea which are present in marine fishes, putrefy more readily and thereby reduce their palatability and sale value. The fresh water fishes on the other hand, do not contain these components and can stay fresh for a relatively long period. In ancient days when refrigeration was not known, the relatively high merit of fresh water fish as an item of diet in India could thus, be readily understood.

v1.c28.s2.14

Kautilya *Arthaśāstra* is the earliest known dated work of the ancient Hindus. The life of the people and their agriculture including fisheries science during the Buddhist period and in the Magadhan empire are well documented in it. Then we have Jātaka stories which tell us about the previous incarnations of Lord Buddha, the sculptures of the railings and gateways of the stupas of Bharhut and Sanci. The Nanda dynasty was over-thrown by Candragupta Maurya in 325 B.C. whose chief adviser was Kauṭilya, also known as Cāṇakya or Viṣṇugupta. He was the author of the Arthaśāstra.

v1.c28.s2.15

Hora (1948) consulted Shamasastry’s English translation of the Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra (2nd edition, Mysore, 1923) and made the following references from this translation.

v1.c28.s2.16

(1) Role of fisheries during shortage of food : Book IV, Chapter III, deals with remedies against national calamities under famines. The passage is significant for it shows that in the ancient days the invading armies carried a supply of dried fish with them. As such, the art of processing fish must have been known to those people.

v1.c28.s2.17

(2) Fishery management :- In Book II, Chapter I, it is stated (p. 51) that ‘the king shall exercise his right of ownership (svamyam) with regard to fishing, ferrying and trading in vegetables (heritapanya), in reservoirs or lakes (setuṣu)’. The reservoirs referred to in this passage appear to be irrigation tanks. These reservoirs or tanks in those early days were used for fish culture enterprise. Book II deals with the ‘Regulation of toll-dues’. As contained in Chapter XXII (p. 135), imported commodities were charged one-fifth of their value as toll. In case of perishable articles such as flowers, fruits, vegetables (śāka), roots (mula), seeds, dried fish and dried meat, the toll was one-sixth of the value of the articles. The noteworthy point is that dried fish must have been a regular trade commodity in those days and therefore, the methods of processing fish must have been known to the people.

v1.c28.s2.18

(3) Rendering fishes poisonous : Kauṭilya deals with secret means to injure an enemy and suggests a mixture and treatment for rendering fishes poisonous (Book XIX, Chapter I, pp. 478, 479).

v1.c28.s2.19

Fish and fisheries have been extensively referred in Jātaka literature comprising 547 stories (Hora and Saraswati, 1955). According to them, the varieties of fish mentioned in the Jātakas and their identifications are as follows :-

v1.c28.s2.20

(i) Ānanda-maccha (=Rhineodon typus, the Whale shark), Jātaka 32.

v1.c28.s2.21

(ii) Kanamahamaccha (= Catla catla), Jātaka 38

v1.c28.s2.22

(iii) Mahamukhamaccha (= Wallago attu), Jātaka 288.

v1.c28.s2.23

(iv) Rohita (=Labeo rohita), Jātaka 454

v1.c28.s2.24

(v) Velamaccha (=Carcharias gangeticus), Jātaka 402.

v1.c28.s2.25

(vi) Ksura-nasika (= Pristis cuspidatus), Jātaka 463.

v1.c28.s2.26

(vii) Suvannavanna-maccha (= Puntius sophore), Jātaka 491.

v1.c28.s2.27

(viii) Kumbhila (=Tetraodon), Jātaka 529.

v1.c28.s2.28

(ix) Pavusa (= Callichrous pabda), Jātaka 545 & 451.

v1.c28.s2.29

(x) Valaja (= Mastacombelus armatus).

v1.c28.s2.30

(xi) Muñja-rohita (=Labeo rohita), Jātaka 451 & 545.

v1.c28.s2.31

(xii) Pṛthuloma (=Scaly fish), Jātaka 545.

v1.c28.s2.32

Inscriptions of Aśoka who succeeded Bindusāra on the Mauryan throne in 246 B.C. have been found engraved on rocks, separate stone blocks and stone pillars. These have been designated as dhamnalipis, translated as “edicts of the law of piety (morality)”. Aśoka’s pillar edict V, deals with regulations for the protection of many varieties of animals. Five varieties of fish or fish like animals are included in this Edict. These five species of fish in this pillar edict were discussed and identified by Hora (1950) as :

v1.c28.s2.33

Anathikamachhe (sharks), Vedaveyake (eel fish), Gaṅgāpupuṭake (fresh water porpoise, fish-like creature), Samkujamacche (skate or ray), Kaphatasayake (globe fish)

v1.c28.s2.34

Indian sculpture is largely an expression of the religious beliefs of the people. Fish are, however, found in reliefs illustrating the Jātaka folk-tales, either in connection with the theme of a story or to indicate some points in its artistic treatment.

v1.c28.s2.35

The Jātaka sculptures clearly indicate that Rohu and Kāṭla were the most popular fresh water fishes of the Northern India during the second century B.C. The representation of fishes in the Bharhut sculptures are sufficiently accurate to permit identification.

v1.c28.s2.36

The Saṅgama literature is an important source of information about the economy and social life of the people of South India. A few species of fish are referred to in the Saṅgama literature. Coins of the Pandyan kingdom are stated to bear the fish symbol as the Chola and Chera coins bear other animals.

v1.c28.s2.37

During Gupta dynasty Kalidasa’s Abhigyān Śakuntalam deserves particular mention. We find that Duśyanta and Śakuntalā were reunited through a lost ring obtained from a fish.

IV

v1.c28.s3.1

From the 7th century A.D. to 11th century A.D., the fisheries declined. We get only one reference of fish production in Rajpur Kingdom of North India. The text of ‘Matsyavinoda’ in ‘Mānasollāsa’ written by king Śomeśvara in 1127 A.D. is the first known treatise on the art of angling in India. He classified fishes according to their habitat and size. He dealt with those fishes that are common in the sport of angling.

v1.c28.s3.2

The tackle for angling is dealt with by king Someśvara under the heading - line, hook and rod. He suggested that the rod, line, hook and bait have to be adjusted according to the nature of the water, size of fish and their feeding habits.

v1.c28.s3.3

Someśvara’s advice on fishing is of interest:

v1.c28.s3.4

(1) Ground Bait : He considers regular ground baiting as a necessary condition preceding actual fishing.

v1.c28.s3.5

(2) Tackle : The examination of the tackle to be used for fishing is Someśvara’s next instruction. He advises that one should determine the length and thickness of the cord and rod by taking into consideration the depth of the water and the size of the fish. He further says that the size of the hook should be consistent with the length of the cord.

v1.c28.s3.6

(3) *A Quill Float* : A float in the form of peacock-feather should be tied in the middle of the cord to watch its movement when the fish touches the bait.

v1.c28.s3.7

(4) *Bait* : Flour or meat, whatever is liked by a particular fish desired for sport, should be put on the hook as a bait.

v1.c28.s3.8

(5) *Striking a fish* : As soon as the movement of the feather is noticed, the angler should strike with a sharp pull.

v1.c28.s3.9

(6) *Playing as fish* : When a fish gets entangled on the fishing hook, it becomes very vigorous. One should haul it up, as soon as it gets exhausted, taking care that the cord does not give way.

v1.c28.s3.10

Thus it seems probable that Someśvara’s ‘*Matsyavinoda*’ probably contains the accumulative knowledge about fishes and fisheries of the later half of the 10th century, the whole of the 11th century and nearly three decades of the 12th century. In any case, the knowledge recorded is remarkably accurate and instructive and could be used in pond cultural practices to which considerable attention is now being paid in India.

v1.c28.s3.11

The justification for the present compilation of the hitherto known but scattered facts is that enmasse, they may furnish a better prospective of fisheries science in ancient India.

Linked texts (21)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Jātaka — Pāli
Suśrutasaṃhitā — Suśruta & Nāgārjuna (siddha/alchemist), Sanskrit
Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Harappā
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Mohenjo-daro
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Lothal
Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
Chanhu-daro
Amri
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Abhijñānaśākuntala — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit
Rangpur
Bharhut
Rupar
Nūndara (Sīāh-damb)
Mānasollāsa (Abhilaṣitārthacintāmaṇi) — Someśvara III, Sanskrit

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c28: Inland Fisheries

Contents

Inland Fisheries

II

III

IV

References

Linked texts (21)