Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c32.s2.t9: Water-Lifting Devices

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c32.s2.t9

Language
English

Water-Lifting Devices

v1.c32.s2.t9.1

The origin of the Yantras or mechanical contrivances for lift irrigation in India is obscure, because of their great antiquity. R.J. Forbes (1965, II. p. 32) believes that, “such machines existed in the later stages of antiquity and they were developed from the simple ladle gourd or vessel used to collect water from stream or pool. The machinery moved by beast or men was finally driven by force of the river alone, by water-wheels”.

v1.c32.s2.t9.2

To make an enquiry into their evolution, it would be difficult, because different devices ranging from the simple basket to the water-wheel had no doubt been used in olden days side by side and remained in practice up to the present day. The first known mechanical aid practised in ancient India was the bucket-wheel or the water-wheel. The earliest evidence of the existence of water- lifting devices is furnished by the antiquities unearthed from the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa excavations. Sir John Marshall who studied the pottery evidences from Mohenjo-daro expresses his opinion about the possible use of pottery for water-wheels (Marshall, 1931, I, p. 318). His view amply finds corroboration in the remarks advanced by Ernest Mackay who says that, “though there is no direct evidence that the water-wheel was known to the people of the Indus Valley the shape and make of these jars certainly suggest that why such a number were made and broken” (Mackay, 1948, p. 120). It is thus quite discernible that some technically advanced devices were put into practical use during that period.

v1.c32.s2.t9.3

In the Vedas, mention is made of wells, canals and dams. That is to say, the Vedic Aryans did not entirely depend on rainfall alone for agriculture, but some definite artificial devices were used by them. In the hymns of the *Rgveda* the uses of mechanical contrivances for drawing water from deep and goodly wells are well narrated (*RV*. X. 101.5-7). The contrivance with a stone wheel as mentioned in the same Veda is known as the *aśma-cakra* (*RV*. 101.7). In other places we are informed of the use of machine, *ghaṭi-cakra* or *ghaṭi-yantra*, for lifting water (*RV*. X. 93. 13).

v1.c32.s2.t9.4

The mechanical contrivances worked by animals, particularly bullocks, were also clearly known and made use of in ancient India as early as the fourth century B.C., as indicated by the term *yugavaratra*. But Pāṇini, the celebrated grammarian, has mentioned in his *Aṣṭādhyāyī* (IV. 2.45; see also Agrawala, 1931, p. 204) the *yugavaratra* to mean the yoke and the rope or strap by which the bullocks were driven for raising water. The word *udamcana* denotes a large earthen bucket which must have been used to lift water from wells for irrigation (AŚ. III. 3.123).

v1.c32.s2.t9.5

During the days of Candragupta Maurya there was an elaborate system of irrigation which is wholly attested by Kautilya’s *Arthaśāstra* and the *Indica* of Megasthenes. Though Megasthenes has described at length about the facilities provided for irrigation, yet he has not made any attempt to mention the mechanical water- lifters.

v1.c32.s2.t9.6

The water-rates (*udakabhāgam*), according to the *Arthaśāstra* varied with the modes of irrigation, which were four in number, viz., (1) *Hastaprayartimam* - that is drawing water with the hands and carrying it to the fields in pitchers, etc.,(2) *Skandhaprāvar timam* - by carrying water on the shoulders or the necks of bullocks (*water-lifts worked by bullocks*); (3) *Srotoyantraprāvar-timam* - a mechanism for lifting water from the channels (*kulya*); and (4) *Udghāṭam* - the water-wheel for raising water from rivers, lakes, tanks and wells, *nadīsarasaṭātakakūpadghāṭam* (AŚ. II. 24.41; see also Kangle, 1963, p. 173). These four types of irrigation as mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra* must have been classified for the convenience of taxation and a close study of them would prove how methodically Kautilya had arranged on the basis of their merit, efficiency and the extent of the area of irrigation. Bhoja’s *Samarāṅgaṇa-sūtradhāra* describes a few types of water machines, *vāri-yantras*, but the text does not give a systematic classification of all the *yantras* (Shukla, 1960, I. p. 382).

v1.c32.s2.t9.7

In the southern part of the sub-continent there were also water- lifting devices prevalent from the very early centuries of the Christian era. But the *Saṅgam* literary works, from which we derive materials for our study on the subject, do not clearly mention the provenance of the use of such devices. The application of water-lifters and other simple devices are, however, unmistakably mentioned in the literary works such as the *Akānānūru*, the *Maduraikāñci*, the *Silappadikāram* and the *Manimekalai*, the twin epics in Tamil, the *Periyapurāṇam* and so on.

v1.c32.s2.t9.8

In the *Silappadikāram*, the poet Ilango Adigal, while giving a detailed account of the Kaveri describes the modes or devices, particularly the bucket, the water-lifts and palm-leaf baskets. In the tenth canto of the work it is thus described: “By finding her (Kaveri) movement arrested by the barrier - the anticut with its doorway - she noisily leaps beyond it in the sportive mood natural to her first freshes. No sound other than this can be heard. We can hear neither the sound of the bucket nor of the water-lift; neither the usually loud, *picotah* nor the palm-leaf bucket used in irrigation” (*Silappadikāram*, X. 107-119; see Ramchandra Dikshitar, Eng, tr. p. 161).

v1.c32.s2.t9.9

A passage like this would surely indicate the existence of water-lifting mechanisms for the purpose of irrigation and cultivation. In the *Maduraikāñcī* we get a glimpse of the modes or different types of water-lifting devices employed in irrigation: “In thy domain is heard the sound of those who stand in rows and irrigate their fields from tanks with basket-pails to well-sweep tied and baskets strongly made and softly bound” (*Maduraikāñcī*, ll. 89-92; see also Chelliah 1947, p. 237)³.

v1.c32.s2.t9.10

In the text the words *āmbi* and *kilar* stand for baskets, pails and buckets (*Maduraikāñcī*, I. 89; *Silappadikāram*, X. 107-119). They suggest that different types of baskets and buckets were employed in irrigation. ‘*Tev*’ and ‘*eda*’ are the terms generally met with in the Tamil literary works to denote palm-leaf baskets; and *pilā* (*Silappadikāram*, X. 111) is also a basket made of metal.

v1.c32.s2.t9.11

The *Periyapurāṇam*, a compendium of biographical sketches of the 63 Saivanāyaṇmārs (Saints) also makes reference to *edā-periḍā*. Here the term ‘*periḍā*’ stands for a large ‘basket’ (*Periyapurāṇam*, V. 1793, see also Sendilvel Mudaliyar T.S. 1930).

v1.c32.s2.t9.12

‘*Ettapulam*’ (ANRIE, No. 116, 1929) and ‘*ettapādam*’ (*EI*, V. p. 49) are the expressions often used in the Tamil inscriptions to categorize lands irrigated by means of *picotahs* (water-levers). Generally speaking, *etta*, *ettam*, or *erram* are the terms current even now in local usage in South India. The importance of *ettam* is well highlighted by Kambar, the author of the *Erelupadu*. In the following stanza of the *Erelupadu* a eulogium on agriculture and the cultivator class, Kambar lays stress on the importance thus: “Let not rain fall: Let the seas and the rivers dry up; Let there be famine every where; Let not each do his respective duty, in the world; Even if all these adverse circumstances happen at the same time, only if the peasants do their duty, water their crops from wells by means of *ettam*, the crop will grow and there will be no hunger in the land” (*Erelupadu*, vs. 39; see also Jagannathachariar, 1967, p. 52).

v1.c32.s2.t9.13

Inscriptions refer to two types of *ettam* like the *kurrettam* and *perettam* and literally they stand for ‘small *picotah*’ and ‘large *picotah*’ respectively. Probably, they must have been specifically applied depending upon the extent of wet-lands under irrigation. A Pallava epigraph (ANRIE, No. 372, 1911) from Tiruvorriyur in Madras Kampavarman tells us of the lands watered by four *picotah* : “cultivable lands on the banks of the tank Tengeri, to be irrigated by four *picotah* ”. Another record (*SII*, XII. p. 93 line 15; ANRIE. NO. 180, 1912) from the same place of the Pallava king Aparājita mentions “the land irrigated by two large *picotah*” which by their description must have irrigated large areas of land. The same record refers to two water-levers (*jala yantra*) which appear to have been added as an additional means of irrigation in the village (Fig.5). A record (*SII*, III. No. 10. pp. 15-17) of the Rajendra Cola I says that the villagers of Ukkal sold 3,000 *kuli* of land and five water- levers to a servant of the king who assigned it to the village tank. It is learnt from the Rāyakoṭa plate (EI, VII, pp. 48-52) of Skandaśiṣya (fourth year) that such water-levers were also known as etta-p-pāḍam. While there are these and other distinct references to the principal types of water lifting devices there is absolutely no full account or description of them in any ancient literary or inscriptional references.

v1.c32.s2.t9.14

Fig.5. Water-lifting by the Picotaḥ (photo courtesy: M/s G.K. Vale & Co., Madras)

v1.c32.s2.t9.15

In the preceding pages we have seen the application of various types of water-lifting devices with different names varying with the area of cultivable land in the light of literary and epigraphic evidences. We shall speak of them in detail further on. Only selected devices and techniques have been dealt here with a view to focus attention on the technological achievements of the ancients in this obscure but important sphere of activity. Technically speaking, there can be no doubt about the evolution of devices. On the basis of all available evidences and references, the methods of mechanisms can be arranged and reconstructed under three broad heads. They are as follows:

v1.c32.s2.t9.16

(I) Intermittent or discontinuous water-supply from the streams, canals and wells;

v1.c32.s2.t9.17

(II) Semi-mechanical devices, i.e., the balanced-bucket; and

v1.c32.s2.t9.18

(III) Continuous water-supply by water-lifting machinery.

v1.c32.s2.t9.19

A systematic classification of all the devices used in ancient kingdoms has been done by R.J. Forbes very recently (Forbes, II, pp. 38-39). The list covers all the devices applied at various periods in different countries. But Kauṭilya’s *Arthaśāstra* has made a scientific classification of all the water-lifting devices into four broad categories as early as the fourth century B.C. (AŚ. II. 24.41). His method of arrangement of devices is fairly in accordance with the methods adopted by modern authors and it still holds good.

v1.c32.s2.t9.20

(I) Intermittent or Discontinuous Water-Supply from the Streams, Canals and Wells

v1.c32.s2.t9.21

The three types, the basket, the bag or bucket moved by pulley-wheels and the water from wells by animal power come under this category.

v1.c32.s2.t9.22

(i) *Basket or Bag* : In ancient India irrigation by means of baskets was practiced from the early days by means of animal power from wells. We have a few definite instances as proof of the widespread use of baskets, particularly those made of palm-leaf, in ancient South India.

v1.c32.s2.t9.23

*Āmbi*, *pilā* or *eḍā*, otherwise known as *iraikūdai* in Tamil, was a basket specially employed for bailing out water from deep channels or streams to nearby fields (*Maduraikāñcī*, line 91; *Śilappadikāram*, X. 107-119). It was made or knotted out of palm-leaf and had a thin rimmed wide mouth with a shallow bottom.

v1.c32.s2.t9.24

Even now such baskets are commonly found used in South Indian villages. Two factors may be ascribed to the common utilisation of palm-leaf baskets in South India; first, the easy availability of palmyra trees and the second factor is that the baskets are fairly leakproof and durable. In a Tamil inscription (*SII*. II pp iii, p. 352) this method is specifically mentioned as *kuḍai*. “The Vaikhānasas (priestly group of Vaisnavas) of the temple of Mahaviṣṇu arranged for the cultivation of the garden themselves. In order to do this, they employed persons to lift water with buckets, dig the earth, fence the field and do well other connected duties” (*ANRIE*. 1916, pt. ii, para 11).

v1.c32.s2.t9.25

An inscription (*SII*, XVII. No. 170, *ANRIE*, No. 150, 1904) of Jaṭāvarman Sundarapāṇḍyadeva mentions fields watered with the aid of *ettam* and *eḍā*. It is thus evident that the *eḍā* was one of the simplest contrivances handled by the application of human labour.

v1.c32.s2.t9.26

(ii) *Pulley-wheels* : The earliest reference to ancient Indian pulley-wheels of stone or wood, similar to those used in modern times, found in the *Ṛgveda* (RV. X. 101.7) was known as *aśma cakra*; here the word *aśma* stands for stone. That is, the water was raised by a wheel (*cakra*) of stone (*aśma*) to which was fastened a strap (*varatra*), with a pail (*kośa*) attached to it. When raised it was poured (*siñc*) into buckets (*āhava*) of wood (*RV.* X. 101.7). Sometimes these wells appear to have been used for irrigation purposes, the water being led off into broad channels (*Sūrmi susirā*) (*RV.* VIII. 69.12; Macdonell and Keith, I, p. 40). In the Tamil country, the wells fitted with such pulley- wheels for drawing water from them were known as *kilār*. (*Silappadikāram*, X. 110; *Maduraikāñci*, l. 83). Among the devices invented by the ancients, the pulley-wheel was the simplest one for practical purposes. It was a one-man job to draw water from the well for increasing the flow of water. Obviously, it is the pulley and rope that gave rise to the *mhōte* of Northern India, which was in use for irrigating fields, the rope being drawn by bullocks.

v1.c32.s2.t9.27

(iii) *From wells by animal power*: Irrigation by means of animal on draught-plane came to be known and practiced in ancient India atleast as early as the fifth century B.C., as indicated by the word *yugavartra* (Agrawala, 1931, p. 204) meaning the yoke and the rope or strap by which the bullocks were harnessed for raising water from wells. The classified modes of irrigation in the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya brings to light, the word *skanda* which stands for the shoulders or the backs of bullocks. It is thus evident that harnessing animals to the task of drawing water from wells had been conceived quite early, but to our knowledge no ancient representations on stone are traceable of a beast pulling up the bucket. It is also curious to note that water from wells worked by bullocks, now popularly known as *Kapilai-ettam* in South India, does not find place either in the early Tamil works or in the numerous inscriptions of South India. Though the *Dosapāḍu* inscription (*HRAS*, No. 18) dated A.D. 1254, records the gift of a water-lifting pulley, *rāṭanam*, together with two bullocks, yet it does not disclose the much needed details. Probably this important mode or practice with full improvements may have been introduced into or adapted in South India at a later stage as an additional means of distributing water for irrigation.

v1.c32.s2.t9.28

Let us examine the actual working of the bullock *mhōte*. In this type, a pair of bullocks move down from the slope, specially constructed to the wall of the well, lifting behind them a bucket or a leather bag which is discharged into the connecting channel by means of a rope. After discharge the bullocks walk up the slope until they reach the top by which time the bucket will have again reached the surface of the water and got filled; and then the process is repeated. This method is not free from the application of human labour; for the man who sits on a seat in between the animals has to conduct the animals properly during the process. Two reasons may be ascribed for the low efficiency of this practice: (1) water flow is discontinuous and insufficient; (2) the time consumed by the animals during each operation is so much that the water-supply hardly covers the required portion of land. And this mode of practice, not withstanding its handicaps and deficiencies, must have certainly given stimulus to the invention of other semi-mechanical and full-mechanical devices.

v1.c32.s2.t9.29

(II) Semi-mechanical Devices : The Balanced-bucket

v1.c32.s2.t9.30

(i) *With counterweight*: There were in practice in ancient India two types of balanced-bucket which by its operation and design was semi-mechanical; one was efficiently performed with counterweight, and the other one balanced by the weight of human body. It has been severally known in different countries to mean this semi-mechanical device, e.g. *shadoof* (Egypt), *dāliya* (Iraq), *picotaḥ* (South India), *lāt* (some parts of Northern India) and so on (Forbes, II, p. 32). It is generally known in South India as *etta* or *ettamaram* while in the Kannada districts it is called the *rāṭaṇam* (Sharada Raju, 1941, p. 116). In the Tamil speaking areas during the period under review, *ettapulam* and *ettapāḍam* are the terms used to specify the lands irrigated by means of *picotaḥ*. Wells fitted with such water-lifts for irrigating the fields were also known as *puttai-k-kinaru*. This is confirmed by a record of the Cola Rajendra I (*SII*, V, No. 489, l.4).

v1.c32.s2.t9.31

The device, *shadoof* or *swape*, though an offshoot from the evolution of bucket or pot, is only a semi-mechanized water-hoist worked not by any wheel but by a pair of vertical beams and a horizontal pole. Probably water was raised from wells by means of buckets tied by rope to one end of a long wooden pole, working about fulcrum near the other end that carried a heavy weight.

v1.c32.s2.t9.32

Let us now go into the details of the actual working of this simple but efficient device. The *shadoof* or *ettam* consists of a long tapering and nearly horizontal pole pivoted on a horizontal beam fixed across two vertical pillars about 8 to 10 feet high which are set up less than a yard apart above the ground. In some cases, granite stone pillars act as the vertical beams instead of the palymra ones. A leather bag of considerable size or a bucket made either of earthenware or metal is hung on a rope or thin horizontal pole from the larger and thinner end and a counterbalance placed on the shorter and thicker end. The counterbalance will always be a block of stone secured tightly at the end. The worker who stands at the edge of the well, pulls down the rope to fill the bucket, after which the counterbalanced end drops and raises the bucket of water to his hand who empties the water in the connecting canal. The process is repeated.

v1.c32.s2.t9.33

(ii) *Balanced by the weight of human body* : This is the same as the previous one in all respects; but one conspicuous difference is that it is operated with the application of human labour. This type of water-lifting operation is very common even now in Tamil Nadu and some parts of South India. The tapering horizontal pole is worked by trampling along the pole instead of the counterweight placed at the other end. The man who stands and tramples the pole by using his weight must have sure balance and adequate previous experience to operate the device and therefore it requires considerable practice.

v1.c32.s2.t9.34

The principle of the well-known *picotaḥ* is the same as that of the balance and certainly goes back to early historic times. The change from the system of animal power to mechanical was doubtless an achievement, but the output was limited by the depth of the well. The *picotaḥ* with its rhythm of rise and fall, dip and empty, to which the ancient labourer must have sung as does his modern counterpart, can prove to be much more quicker and efficient than any non-mechanical type of water-lift.

v1.c32.s2.t9.35

(III.) Continuous water-supply by water-lifting machinery

v1.c32.s2.t9.36

*Wheels of pots* or *Water-wheel* : The next and the last stage, technologically speaking, was the fully mechanized water-hoist moved by a water-wheel or wheel of pots. As has been mentioned earlier that the water-lifting device using a wheel of pots was put into practical application as early as the second millennium B.C. A particular type of pottery, otherwise known as ‘scored pottery’ found at Mohenjo-daro shows the use of wheel for lifting water.

v1.c32.s2.t9.37

Sir John Marshall opines that, “some arrangement for drawing water for irrigation, by means of an endless rope working over a wheel, with pottery vessels attached to it at intervals was in use in Sind and other parts of Western India from early times though it may not have taken the form of modern wheel” (Marshall, I, p. 318, f.n). But the excavation finds at other Calcolithic sites unmistakably show that, “only one type of jar has been found broken in large numbers. Jars of this kind average about six inches in height, have a pronounced, pointed and deeply scored belly, and are certainly too large to be grasped comfortably in one hand”.

v1.c32.s2.t9.38

And, according to E.J. Mackay, “they are frequently coated with a thin cream wash, they all have deep spiral grooves round the middle, which would have served to give greater security if they are attached to some kind of water-wheel” (Mackay, E.J. 1937-38, 1, p. 193).

v1.c32.s2.t9.39

Though the water-wheel “may not have taken the form of modern wheel” but yet it must have had a definite form and shape which by the passage of time had got fully developed into the water- wheel of modern times. At this stage we are at a loss to reconstruct the actual model of the water-wheel used in the Pre- historic period; for the spade of the archaeologist has not exhumed other relevant material evidences than the pottery to throw light on the water-wheel and its essential parts.

v1.c32.s2.t9.40

In the early Sanskrit works specific names are mentioned to mean the wheel of pots. It is known as *ghaṭicakra* in the *Ṛgveda* and *udghāṭam* in the *Arthaśāstra*. It has also been mentioned as *jala- yantra-cakra* (water-machine-wheel).

v1.c32.s2.t9.41

There was a contrivance by name *Araghaṭṭa*, *araghaṭa* or *arahaṭa* for lifting water from wells and canals. The term *araghaṭṭa* has been translated as ‘machine-wheel’ or ‘Persian-wheel’. A large number of lithic records relating to Rajasthan (6th to 13th centuries) refer to the widespread use of ‘*araghaṭṭa*’ as an efficient contrivance for irrigation. “The importance of *araghaṭṭa* may be deduced from the fact that almost invariably they bear separate names and from the social status of the people who seem to have transferred land irrigated by an *araghaṭṭa*” (Chattopadhyaya, Pts II-III, p. 305). While there is no satisfactory technical details relating to the *araghaṭṭa* or *ghaṭiyantra* available as yet in India, it is not true that these devices were not set up on wells. A recent re-interpreted passage in a Mandasor inscription (Joshi, pp. 214-17) of 532 A.D., referring to a newly constructed well, eulogies its “rotary motions (moving ring) resembling a garland of “skulls” which would continue to discharge “nectar like pure water”. More explicit evidence that an *araghaṭṭa*, with its pots, was set up on a well, like the *ghaṭiyantra* of *Amarakośa*, comes from a passage in the *Pañcatantra* (Chattopadhyaya, p. 304). While describing the traditions of Kashmir, Kalhana records in his *Rājatarangiṇī* (IV. 191) that “at Cakradhara (modern Tsakadar) he (Lalitāditya 740- 776 A.D.) made an arrangement for conducting the water of the Vitastā (Jhelum) and distributing it to various villages by the construction of a series of water-wheels (*araghaṭṭa*)” (see also Stein, 1900, II, p. 428). The above references definitely show that *araghaṭṭas* were set up on wells and river banks. But they do not indicate the use of both chain or rope and gearing mechanism. “To be set up on a *mahākūpa* (big well), the wheel carrying the pots required the mechanism of a chain but the gearing mechanism, which facilitated the use of animal power may have come at a later stage” (Chattopadhyay, p. 304 f.n.). Based on the above evidences, we are unable to deduce the mechanism of an *araghatta*; nevertheless its operation was distinct from that of other indigenous water-lifting devices.

v1.c32.s2.t9.42

Archaeological evidence in support of the use of *araghattas* is available in the form of two sculptures at the Jodhpur museum. They are from Mandor and Saladhi (Pali district, Rajasthan). A panel from Mandor (Agrawala, 1966, pp. 87-88) belonging to the 11th century depicts a ‘water-wheel’ or *araghatta* with pots (*Fig.6*). The surviving evidence serves to illustrate the most important parts of the wheel. The panel, small in size, depicts a band of warriors, the water-wheel with pots, the operator and an animal in a row from left to right. The right side of the panel shows the wheel with six spokes (*aras*), probably the other spokes are concealed. The supporter, perhaps made of wood, is shown supporting the hub of the wheel. The pots with pronounced and flaring mouth are mounted on the outer rim of the wheel with ropes at regular intervals. The position of the wheel and the direction of pots unmistakably indicate the rotary motion of the wheel, that too in the anti-clockwise direction.

v1.c32.s2.t9.43

As a potter’s wheel continues to revolve from the force of the previous impulse, so also the wheel of pots circulates continuously with momentum gained by the human force or movement of the running water. The man who stands very close to it must be an operator. The presence of an animal (elephant?) to the right and the warrior with the prancing horse to the left cannot be satisfactorily explained. One noticeable absence in the panel is the horizontal wheel which is an important part of the ‘Persian- wheel’ mechanism. Anyway, this solitary piece of evidence would suffice to testify the existence of such indigenous devices in the northern villages in ancient India (Srinivasan, 1970, pp. 379-389). So it is a misnomer to brand ‘*araghatta*’ as ‘*Persian- wheel*’. We may safely say that they represent pre-Persian wheel technology and operated on the water surface.

v1.c32.s2.t9.44

To conclude, on the basis of some literary and archaeological data, water-supply in the arid and scarcity areas in ancient India was doubtless derived from water-lifting machines. But they have survived the ravages of time despite the emergence of modern discoveries and new techniques. Particularly, the two old inventions, the buckets and levers and the wheel of pots have neither been revised nor discarded nor replaced by new ones. This is because of the fact that all these devices employed for raising water are simple, economical and effective. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that the invention of these devices not only served to enhance the technical ability of the inventors, but also paved the way for a more intensive cultivation than the single annual crop.

v1.c32.s2.t9.45

Fig.6. Panel depicting warriors and the wheel of pots (jala- yantra- cakra) from Mandor (11th century A.D.) (photo courtesy: ASI, New Delhi)

v1.c32.s2.t9.46

1. *Eight leaves of the treatise on water by sage Garga are even now preserved in the Library of Nepal Darbar. This manuscript is dated A.D. 1070 (Central Board of Irrigation and Power, Leaflet No. 7, 1953, p. 5).*
2. *One among the thirty-two karṇas or departments, according to the Lekhapaddhati, Gaekward Oriental Series No.XXI, pp.97-128 (Glossary), see also Sircar, 1966; Murari K, pp.194-95.*
3. *The Perumbāṇārruppaḍai, one of the idylls of the Paṭṭupāṭṭu refers to a large vessel, sāl for drawing water. The word sāl also stands for a unit of cultivation measured by the quantity of water irrigated by it. In the northern part of India leather buckets were used to draw water from wells and canals. This is evidenced by a Partabgarh inscription of the Gurjāra-Pratihāra period (A.D. 946). The kosavāhe is applied to as much land as could be irrigated by one kosa or leather bucket (EI. XIV. p.176).*

v1.c32.s2.t9.47

Agarwala, V.S. : 1931, *India as known to Pāṇini : A study in the Cultural Material in the Aṣṭadhyāyī*, Varanasi; Reprinted 1953. Agrawala, R.C. : 1966, “Persian Wheel in Rajasthani Sculpture”, *MAI*, 16, 87-88. Aiyangar, S.K. : 1928, *Manimekalai in its Historical Setting*, Luzac. Altekar, A.S. and Mishra, V. : 1959, *Kumrahār Excavations. Amarakosa : 1808, (Eng tr.) H.T. Colebrooke, Serampore.* *Atharvaveda : Amarakosa*. Eng. tr. H.T. Colebrooka, Serampur, 1808. (Sanskrit text with Eng. tr.) Devi Chand, First edition, New Delhi, 1982. Balakrishna Mudaliyar, R. : 1960, *The Golden Anthology of Ancient Tamil Literature*, Vol. III. Banerjee, N.R. : “The Megalithic Problems of Chingleput District, *ANI*, 12. Basham, A.L. : 1954, *The Wonder that was India*, New York. Bhandarkar, D.R. : 1914-15, “Excavations of Besanagar”, *ANRASI* Bilgrami, S.H. and Willmott, C. : 1884, *Historical and Descriptive Sketches of H.H. The Nizam's Dominions*, Vol. II. Bombay. *Bṛhat Saṃhitā* : (Edited with Eng tr.), V.Subrahmanya Sastri and M.R. Bhat, 2 vols. Bangalore, 1947.

v1.c32.s2.t9.48

Buhler, G : (Eng. tr.): 1964, *The Laws of Manu*, SBE, Vol. XXV. (reprinted) Delhi.

v1.c32.s2.t9.49

Chattopadhyaya, B.D. : “Irrigation in Early Medieval Rajasthan”, *JESHO*, 16, pts. II-III.

v1.c32.s2.t9.50

Chelliah, J.V. : 1947, *The Ten Tamils Idylls a Puṭṭuppāṭṭu*. (Eng.tr), Colombo,

v1.c32.s2.t9.51

Cox, Arthur F. :1895, *Madras District Manuals : Manual of the North Arcot district*, Vol. II.

v1.c32.s2.t9.52

Crole, C.S. : 1879, *Manual of the Chingleput District*, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.53

Cowell, E.B. and others : *The Jatakas*, Vol. 1. (Eng Tr), Cambridge.

v1.c32.s2.t9.54

Forbes, R.J. :1965, *Studies in Ancient Technology*, Vol.II, Leiden

v1.c32.s2.t9.55

Gopal Reddy, Y. : “Agriculture under the Kakatiyas of Warangal”.1973, *Ithihas JAPSA* Vol. 1 No. 1.

v1.c32.s2.t9.56

Gupta, K.M. : 1933, *The Land System in South India, between c. 800 A.D. and 1200 A.D.* Punjab Oriental Series No. XX., Lahore.

v1.c32.s2.t9.57

Jagannathachariar, C. :1967, *Erelupadu*, edited with notes, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.58

*Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa* : (Edited by) Lokesha Chandra, Nagpur, 1950.

v1.c32.s2.t9.59

Joshi, M.C. : “An Early Inscriptional Reference to Persian Wheel”, *Prof. K A Nilakantha Sastri 80th Birthday Felicitation Volume*.

v1.c32.s2.t9.60

*Kalavali* : (Annotated by) E.V. Anantharama Iyer, Madras, 1931.

v1.c32.s2.t9.61

Kanakasabai Pillai, V. : 1904, *The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago*, Madras and Bangalore.

v1.c32.s2.t9.62

Kane, P.V. : 1974, *History of Dharmaśāstra*, Vol. II, Part II., ch.XXVI; 2nd Ed.130ri, Poona.

v1.c32.s2.t9.63

Kangle, R.P. : 1963 *Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya*, (Eng tr) University of Bombay.

v1.c32.s2.t9.64

Karthikeya Sarma, I. : 1958-59, “Ancient Canals”, *JIH*, XL, pt 1.

v1.c32.s2.t9.65

Kosambi, D.D. : 1975, *An Introduction to the Study of Indian History*, Bombay.

v1.c32.s2.t9.66

Krishnaswami, V.D. : 1959, *Neolithic Pattern of India*, ISC

v1.c32.s2.t9.67

Kuppuswamy, G.R. : 1975, *Economic Conditions in Karnataka (A.D. 973 - A.D. 1336)*; Karnataka Univ., Dharwar.

v1.c32.s2.t9.68

Macdonell, A.A. and Keith, A.B. : 1912, *A Vedic Index of Names and Subjects*, 2 Vols, London.

v1.c32.s2.t9.69

Macdonell, A.A. : 1924, *A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary*.

v1.c32.s2.t9.70

Mackay, E.J.H. and others : 1937-38, *Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro* Vol.1, Delhi.

v1.c32.s2.t9.71

Mackay, E.J.H. : 1948, *Early Indus Civilizations*, London, Luzac.

v1.c32.s2.t9.72

Maity, S.K. : 1957, *Economic Conditions of Northern India in the Gupta Period (A.D. 300-550)*, Calcutta.

v1.c32.s2.t9.73

Marshall, Sir John and others : 1931, *Mohenjo-daro and Indus Civilizations*, Vol. 1, London.

v1.c32.s2.t9.74

Murari Krishna, K. : 1977, *The Calukyas of Kalyani*, Delhi.

v1.c32.s2.t9.75

*Nānmaṇikkaḍigai* : The South India Saiva Siddhanta Works, Publishing Society, Madras, 1947.

v1.c32.s2.t9.76

*Nārada Smṛti* : 1889, (Eng tr.) Julius Jolly, *Sacred Book of the East*, Vol.XXX, London, 1889.

v1.c32.s2.t9.77

Nilakantha Sastri, K.A. : 1932, *Studies in the Cola History Administration*, Univ. of Madras, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.78

Nilakantha Sastri, K.A. :1955, *The Colas*, Univ. of Madras, Madras Pope, G.U. (Tr) : 1886, *The Sacred Kural*, London.

v1.c32.s2.t9.79

*Puranānūru* : (One of the anthologies of the *Ettutokai*, edited by) U.V. Swaminatha Iyer, 5th edition, Madras, 1956.

v1.c32.s2.t9.80

*Paripādal* : (One of the anthologies of the *Ettutokai*, edited by) U.V. Swaminatha Iyer, 4th edition, Madras, 1956.

v1.c32.s2.t9.81

Raikes, R.L. : 1984, “Mohenjo-daro Environment”, in *Frontiers of the Indus Civilization*, Lal, B.B. and Gupta, S.P. (Eds), 1984.

v1.c32.s2.t9.82

Rajan Gurukkal : 1986, “Aspects of the Reservoir System of Irrigations”, *Studies in History*, Vol. 2, No. 2 (n.s).

v1.c32.s2.t9.83

Ramachandra Dikshitar, V.R. : 1939, *Śilappadikāram*, Eng. tr. *The Lay of the Anklet* Oxford, University Press

v1.c32.s2.t9.84

Raman, K.V. : 1968, *Hand Book : IInd International Conference- Seminar on Tamil Studies*, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.85

Ramgopal : 1953, *India of Vedic Kalpa Sutras*, New Delhi.

v1.c32.s2.t9.86

*Rgveda* : (Sanskrit texts with Eng tr.) Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar, *Rgveda Samhitā*, New Delhi.

v1.c32.s2.t9.87

Roy, Pratap Chandra (tr) : The *Mahābhārata*, Vol. II. Sabhaparva, Section V, Calcutta, 1919-35.

v1.c32.s2.t9.88

Sarma, I.K.: 1958-59, *Ancient Canals*, *JIH*, vol. XL, pt. I, p. 307 ff.

v1.c32.s2.t9.89

Satya Srava : 1953, “Irrigation in India Through the Ages”, Central Board of Irrigation and Power, Leaflet No. 7.

v1.c32.s2.t9.90

Sendilvel Mudaliyar, T. : 1930, *The Periyapurāṇam of Sekkilar (Ed)*, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.91

Sewell, R. : 1882, *List of the Antiquarian Remains in the Madras Presidency*, Vol. 1.

v1.c32.s2.t9.92

Shama Sastry, R. : *Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra*, (Eng.tr.), 8th edition, 1967.

v1.c32.s2.t9.93

Sharada, Raju, A. : 1941, *Economic Conditions in the Madras Presidency*, 1800-1850, Univ. of Madras, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.94

Shendge, Malati J. : 1990, “The Decline of the Indus Civilization”, *ANNORI*, LXXXI, p. 255.

v1.c32.s2.t9.95

Shukla, D.N. : 1960, *Vāstu-Śāstra*, with a special reference to Bhoja’s *Samarangana Sūtradhāra*, Vol.1, pt.IV, Chandigarh.

v1.c32.s2.t9.96

Sircar, D.C. : 1966, *Indian Epigraphical Glossary*, Delhi.

v1.c32.s2.t9.97

Srinivasa Iyengar, M. : 1914, *Tamil Studies*. Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.98

Srinivasan, K.R. and Banerjee, N.R. : “Survey of South Indian Megaliths”, *ANI*, 9.

v1.c32.s2.t9.99

Srinivasan, T.M. : 1970, *Water-Lifting Devices in Ancient India; Their Origin and Mechanism (from earliest times to c. AD 1000)*; *IJHS*, 5(2), 379-389.

v1.c32.s2.t9.100

Stein, M.A. (tr) : 1900, *Rājataranginī*, Kalhana’s *Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir*, 109-112, Vol.I,pt.II, Westminister.

v1.c32.s2.t9.101

Subrahmanya Aiyar, K.V. : 1917, *Historical Sketches of Ancinet Dekkan*, Vol. II, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.102

Subrahmanyam, R. : IAR 1954-55, IAR, 1958-59.

v1.c32.s2.t9.103

Venkatarama Iyer, C.P. : 1916, *Town Planning in Ancient Deccan*, Madras.

v1.c32.s2.t9.104

*Viswakarma Vāstuśāstram*, Tanjore Saraswati Mahal, Series, No. 85.

v1.c32.s2.t9.105

*Yājñavalka Smriti* : (Eng tr. with notes in *The Collection of Hindu Law Texts*, Bombay, 1936-44).

v1.c32.s2.t9.106

*Yajurveda* : (Sanskrit text with Eng. tr.), Devi Chand, 4th edition, New Delhi, 1988.

v1.c32.s2.t9.107

Yazdani, G. (Ed) : 1964, *The Early History of Deccan*, O.U.P., Cambridge.

Linked texts (34)