Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c12: 8 Zoology

A Concise History of Science in India c12

Language
English

Contents

8 Zoology

c12.1

J. L. BHADURI K. K. TIWARI BISWAMOY BISWAS

c12.2

ANCIENT Indians, like their contemporaries in the West, had collected considerable information about the living world, although their efforts in this field have generally passed unnoticed in books on the history of biology by such modern authors as Nordenskiold, Locy, Bodenheimer and several others. One of such modern historians of biology remarks: ‘The civilized peoples of Eastern Asia, the Hindus and Chinese, have likewise contributed very little of importance to the development of the science of biology. Hindu Science, indeed, especially in the sphere of mathematics, reached a high standard...’a We believe that remarks and opinions of this kind, due probably to the lack of knowledge of Sanskrit and other classical languages of India on the part of Western historians of biology, now require revision. We have abundant evidence, albeit scattered in archaeological and literary records, of the interest and curiosity of ancient Indians in the living world around them leading to a large mass of facts and ideas comparing favourably with similar efforts made contemporaneously by peoples of other culture areas of the world.

Prehistoric Period

Neolithic Haematite Drawings of Animals

c12.s1.t1.1

The earliest concrete evidence of interest in animal life is furnished by the ‘ruddle’ or ‘haematite drawings’ in caves or sheltered rocks, made by the neolithic men in India (Fig. 8.1). That these neolithic dwellers of the subcontinent, out of sheer necessity for existence, must have acquired familiarity with animals and plants is self-evident. Keen naturalists as they were, they must have memorized shapes and forms of animals hunted in Sweden under Linnaeus. Koenig was an enthusiastic collector of natural science products. He not only made a serious study of the flora of Madras coast but also sent dry plants to Sir Joseph Banks and his teacher Linnaeus. The latter gave special place to these plants in his herbarium.

c12.s1.t1.2

a Nordenskiold, p. 7.

c12.s1.t1.3

It must be pointed out here that Koenig was the first botanist who introduced Linnaean system of classification of plants in India. Before this the classification was mainly based on uses of plants without giving serious consideration to how flowers and other parts were arranged in a plant.

c12.s1.t1.4

Missionaries gathered round Koenig’s ‘United Brotherhood’, a society established for the promotion of botanical studies in India. Members of the Brotherhood included many missionaries of Tranquebar such as Heyne, Klein, Rottler, William Roxburgh, William Jones and Buchanan Hamilton.

c12.s1.t1.5

Koenig, after 10 years with the Mission, transferred his services to the Nawab of Arcot and then to the East India Company. He was sent to Siam and the Malay Peninsula to ascertain if Siamese cardamom could be grown in south India. He became ill and retired in 1785.

c12.s1.t1.6

Systematic botanical investigations were continued later by several European naturalists in different parts of India. Of them, special mention may be made of William Roxburgh, William Carey, Nathaniel Wallich and George King. The Royal Botanic Garden came into being as early as 1787 through the efforts of Robert Kyd. The part played by this garden, botanical investigations in the nineteenth century, the formation of the Botanical Survey of India and related matters are discussed in chapter 10.

c12.s1.t1.7

species of animals associated with the lives of prehistoric peoples. The total number of species identified is 92. Mammals represented by 41 species top the list. Next in order are molluscs represented by 31 species, including some marine and land forms and reptiles by 12 species, while fishes and birds, of which only five and two species respectively have so far come to light, are scantily represented. Barring molluscs, the only other invertebrate occurring at Mohenjo-daro (but not reported from other places) is coral, *Favia fabus* (Forskål). For a full list of species, Nath’s work may be consulted.a We shall, however, restrict our remarks to a brief discussion of the faunal characteristics.

c12.s1.t1.8

The rich yield of animal remains comes from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. Sewell and Guhab have listed 37 species from Mohenjo-daro, while Prashadc has identified 30 species from the remains obtained from Harappa, among which many are common to both sites.

c12.s1.t1.9

The identified mammals from prehistoric animal remains fall under three major categories, viz. domestic, semi-domestic or the wild forms habitually associated with vicinities of human dwellings, and wild beasts.

c12.s1.t1.10

The domestic animals are the humped cattle, buffalo, horse, domestic ass, sheep, goat, elephant, camel, pig, dog and cat. Of birds, remains of only two species are known with certainty; the fowl was definitely domesticated and the black partridge might have been so. The presence of so many domestic species in prehistoric India is not surprising. It is now universally accepted that the domestication of animals either preceded or went side by side with the transition of man from a nomadic hunting and root-gathering stage to a farming one. The people had already taken to agriculture and had domesticated the species mentioned above. The commonest domestic animals whose remains have turned up at several prehistoric sites in India were the humped cattle, buffalo, sheep, goat and pig. The elephant seems to have been tamed fairly early as its remains have been found at both Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. The ass was a common domestic animal but not everywhere. The horse appears to have come into the picture later as its remains are not found in the earlier stratifications. This animal was very popular among the later Aryans who used it for drawing chariots, for riding and as a sacrificial animal. The dog and the cat are not plentifully represented, though they might have been popular. There are archaeological indications that the people of Harappa were familiar with at least two kinds of dogs, one of which, a mastiff, had been a locally restricted breed (Fig. 8.2).

c12.s1.t1.11

Of the remains of other animals so far found, which were not truly domesticated in the economic sense but moved freely among human settlements or at their outskirts in prehistoric times, mention may be made of the rat, the mongoose and the shrew. The jackal and the wolf had been the prowlers in forests or scrubs skirting the inhabited areas.

c12.s1.t1.12

a Nath, pp. 1–63.

c12.s1.t1.13

b Sewell and Guha, pp. 649–73.

c12.s1.t1.14

c Prashad (1), pp. 1–62.

c12.s1.t1.15

The wild life apparently familiar to these people consisted of the elephant, rhinoceros, wolf, jackal, nilgai, gaur (Indian bison), buffalo and a few species of deer like the hangul or Kashmir stag (whose horns

c12.s1.t1.16

FIG. 8.2. Skull of the Harappan dog, *Canis tenggeranus harappensis* Prashad. A, lateral; B, dorsal; C, ventral views.

c12.s1.t1.17

were perhaps imported by the people of Harappa along with those of the sambhar and chital for medicinal purposes),a chital, sambhar, barasingha, four-horned antelope, blackbuck and hog deer. The sambhar, barasingha and chital, specially the last, were fairly widespread as their remains had been found in several prehistoric and historic sites from different parts of India.

c12.s1.t1.18

a Sewell and Guha, p. 671.

c12.s1.t1.19

The abundant molluscs which included many marine forms like *Xancus* (Chank shell) and *Arca* (Arc shell), etc., were apparently used for food (along with the domestic animals) as well as for ornamental purposes. The remains of bangles and their fragments at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, and cores of shells from which these had been sawn off, point to the existence of a well-developed bangle industry at those sites. Possibly several species of turtles recovered at many sites might also have served ornamental purposes in addition to fulfilling the dietary requirements.

c12.s1.t1.20

Among the 12 species of reptiles, eight belong to tortoises and turtles in seven genera, while the remaining ones are the crocodile, gharial and two species of monitor lizards.

c12.s1.t1.21

Fishes are scantily represented and their remains do not furnish their identity with certainty. There are carp and other ‘teleostean’ remains, *Rita rita* and *Wallago* sp., both freshwater forms, and *Arius* sp., an estuarine fish. The scantiness of fish remains, however, may not indicate paucity or lack of interest in fish. There is definite evidence, furnished by the unearthing of several fish-hooks from these sites, which indicate that angling was a common pastime, as also the netting of fishes.a

c12.s1.t1.22

Strangely enough, no remains of the tiger and lion are found though the former was by no means uncommon to the Harappans as we shall see later. The occurrence of rhinoceros remains at Harappa and Mohenjodaro is interesting indeed. It has also been discovered at Lothal in Gujarat and formed the subject of neolithic haematite drawings in Mirzapur. The distribution of this dweller of marshy forest lands is now severely restricted, though only in historic times it was hunted by the Mughal Emperor Babur at Peshawar in the former North-West Frontier Province of undivided India. Judged from the archaeological finds and from references in the Vedic and the Puranic texts, it is apparent that rhinoceros was a fairly common animal in certain parts of India until recent historic times.

c12.s1.t1.23

The animal remains dug up from the prehistoric sites give concrete evidence of the association of the people with the animal world and of the extent to which these were harnessed in the service of man. Some idea as to the impact of animal life on the prehistoric Indian culture and on the thought processes of these people can also be gathered from the glyptic art represented on seals, paintings on pottery and animal figurines and toys.

c12.s1.t1.24

Large numbers of steatite seals excavated from Harappa and Mohenjodaro bear engravings of animals in profile with inscriptions in a pictographic script still remaining undeciphered. Some of the animals depicted—the unicorns and chimaeras—are apparently mythical, but others are immediately recognizable as beasts obviously familiar to the artists of those times. The dexterity and sureness of touch with which many engravings have been executed are indeed commendable, specially the humped bull, in which even the wrinkles on shoulders and dewlaps have been faithfully reproduced.

c12.s1.t1.25

a **Sarkar (H.), pp. 133–34.**

c12.s1.t1.26

The recognizable animals on seals from Mohenjo-daro, according to Mackay, are the short-horned bull (a smaller humpless breed), zebu or Indian humped bull or brahminy bull (*Bos indicus*), buffalo (*Bubalus bubalis*), elephant (*Elephas maximus*), Indian one-horned rhinoceros (*Rhinoceros unicornis*), tiger (*Panthera tigris*), gharial (*Gavialis gangeticus*) and antelope (blackbuck ?). Further excavations from the same site have also unearthed a few seals with engravings of a frog (?), the chinkara or Indian gazelle (*Gazella gazella bennetti*) and the goat (*Capra hircus aegragus*)a (Fig. 8.3).

c12.s1.t1.27

FIG. 8.3. Representation of animals on seals of Mohenjo-daro. A, short-horned bull; B, Indian humped bull; C, buffalo; D, elephant; E, rhinoceros; F, tiger; G, gharial; H, chinkara; J, domestic goat; K, wild goat (after Mackay, 1931, 1938).

c12.s1.t1.28

Majority of the seals excavated from Harappab bear engravings identical with those from Mohenjo-daro, but on some are carved animal forms not represented at the former site. These are the gaur or Indian bison (*Bos gaurus*), eagle (?) (Fig. 8.4) and a hare (?). In addition, miniature seals representing the gharial, fish and tortoise are also available from Harappa.

c12.s1.t1.29

[Figure: FIG. 8.4. Representation of animals on seals of Harappa. A, gaur; B, eagle (?) (after Vats, 1940).]

c12.s1.t1.30

Judging from the frequency of reproduction on seals, it seems that among the recognizable animals the most popular (next to unicorn) are the bulls which are represented both by a smaller, short-horned, humpless variety (only found in the seals at Mohenjo-daro) and by the brahminy bull or the Indian humped cattle. The short-horned bull is invariably carved in a characteristic stance, the head lowered and slightly twisted to one side, as if in an angry mood and just about to charge.c In most cases the heavy wrinkles on shoulders, and sometimes the dewlaps, are also reproduced with great fidelity. The sureness of touch with which these are executed leaves no doubt as to the identity of the zebu. The elephant, next to the bull in order of popularity, was certainly tamed by the Indus Valley people, and has been represented on the seals by two types, one with flat back, square head and stout legs, and the other less heavily built and with a sloping head.

c12.s1.t1.31

a Mackay (1), pp. 385–92; Mackay (2), I, pp. 326–35.

c12.s1.t1.32

b Vats, I, pp. 300–309; *vide* also pp. 451–58.

c12.s1.t1.33

c Mackay (1), p. 385.

c12.s1.t1.34

Among the wild animals only the tiger, rhinoceros, gaur, blackbuck (?) and chinkara appear to have impressed the Indus Valley artists sufficiently to warrant a place on the seals. The tiger, fairly well-represented, is of special interest on two seals, where the animal is depicted as standing below a tree, tail curled up and turned behind intently watching a man perched safely above on the tree (Fig. 8.3F). Apparently, such a scene might not have been an unusual one during those days.

c12.s1.t1.35

Many animals are shown along with a manger, or tethered, indicating domestication or a state of captivity. The accuracy with which several animals are depicted on the seals reveals the intimate acquaintance of the artist with them, an acquaintance which could have been resulted only from close and sustained observations, and from a real understanding of the animal life.

c12.s1.t1.36

A remarkable feature is the non-representation of the cow on the seals. The animal was surely as abundant as the bull, yet there is not one figure depicting it. In strange contrast to this, as we shall see further on, the cow assumed importance among the Aryans who inhabited India in later times. Similarly, the absence of the lion, another well-known animal of the Vedic Indians, is conspicuous. It is difficult to explain why it is so; perhaps it may have something to do with their traditional beliefs rather than zoology.

c12.s1.t1.37

Turning to the other forms of animal representations, we find the list of species further enhanced by the figurines, toys and paintings on pottery. Animal figurines are found in large number, apparently made as toys for children, containing some curious inconsistencies like the hare with a long tail or cattle with a truncated tail. As on seals, the most popular objects for figurines are the short-horned bull and the brahminy bull, followed by the rhinoceros. The ram, not depicted on the seals, appears to be popular as figurines.

c12.s1.t1.38

Animals represented through this form of art at Mohenjo-daro are the two kinds of bulls, rhinoceros, dog, mastiff, elephant, gharial, hare, monkey, turtle, antelope (blackbuck ?), horse (?), pig (rare), sheep, goat, buffalo and other unidentified species. Birds like the dove, domestic fowl, peacock, bunting (?), duck and goose are also representeda (Fig. 8.5).

c12.s1.t1.39

The Harappa toys, as Vatsb has pointed out, contain representations of the two bulls, rhinoceros, goat and ram. The tiger (which is found only on the seals in Mohenjo-daro), elephant and pig are also depicted. The monkey and possibly the cat were also known and squirrels and reptiles were very popular. The mongoose, snake and pangolin also figure. The crocodile, turtle, and the fish among aquatic animals, and the duck, peacock, hen, kite, pigeon, sparrow, dove, parakeet and owl among birds find representation in the toy art (Fig. 8.6). There is also a toy that looks much like a grasshopper.

c12.s1.t1.40

a Mackay (1), pp. 394–96.

c12.s1.t1.41

b Vats, I, pp. 300–309, 452.

c12.s1.t1.42

FIG. 8.5. Figurines, toys, etc., of Mohenjo-daro. A, dog; B, mastiff; C, monkey; D, pig; E, dove; F, domestic fowl; G, goose (after Mackay, 1938).

c12.s1.t1.43

The artistic representations of animals, associated with pottery, start coming up in archaeological finds belonging to pre-Harappan cultures in India. The excavations made by the Archaeological Survey of India at Kalibangan, Ganganagar district, Rajasthan, are specially interesting in this context. The animal motifs represented on pottery from this site include some excellent, stylized figures of the blackbuck, chinkara (?), and an incomplete, but otherwise highly realistic drawing of a duck (Fig. 8.7).a Another unique feature in this pottery is the representation of a spider and scorpion, two ubiquitous creatures of India, which do not find place in any other ware excavated so far from different parts of India.

c12.s1.t1.44

a *Indian Archaeology, 1962–63*, p. 24.

c12.s1.t1.45

The decorations found on pottery from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro as well as from other areas of the north-west, like Rana Ghundai, Nāl, etc., contain several animal motifs and panels depicting natural scenery with animal and plant life. Animal designs on Mohenjo-daro pottery include the ibex (which must have been fairly well known to the inhabitants there), antelope, jackal, bird, snake and lizard (perhaps the monitor). Figures on faience wares depict the dove, parakeet, peacock, masks of a panther-like animal, squirrel (seated on its haunches with forepaws in the mouth, as if eating), mongoose, hare, elephant, monkey, humped bull and the short-horned bull.

c12.s1.t1.46

FIG. 8.6. Toys, etc., of Harappa. A, ram; B, pangolin; C, crocodile; D, fish; E, rhinoceros; F, pigeon; G, parakeet (after Vats, 1940).

c12.s1.t1.47

FIG. 8.7. Animal paintings on pottery of Kalibangan, Rajasthan. A, blackbuck; B, duck (after *Indian Archaeology, 1962–63*).

c12.s1.t1.48

Harappa wares also display similar representations of animals. In addition, many sherds with plain and painted pottery show decorative panels with animal motifs (Fig. 8.8). Thus, a decorated pot shows two goats, a highly conventionalized representation of a peacock and a grasshopper between the feet of one of the goats. Another ware depicts a she-goat suckling her young and a peacock, while a third one shows a peacock holding a plant in its beak and some crude caricatures of small birds.

c12.s1.t1.49

FIG. 8.8. Animal motifs on Harappa wares. A, peacock with other animals; B, ibex; C, fisherman with net and pole (after Vats, 1940).

c12.s1.t1.50

Most interesting is a sherd depicting 'a fisherman carrying two nets suspended from a pole across his shoulders, with a fish and what is probably a turtle near his feet, which rest on a cross-hatched band, presumably the river by which he is walking'a (Fig. 8.8C).

c12.s1.t1.51

a * Piggott (2), p. 193.

c12.s1.t1.52

Examples of decorated pottery with naturalistic representations are available from other prehistoric sites adjoining Harappa-Mohenjo-daro culture in Baluchistan.

c12.s1.t1.53

The Kulli wares from Kolwa in south Baluchistan contain natural representations of animals and plants on a frieze between zones of non-representational motifs. 'The frieze represents a standard scene, in which two animals, usually humped cattle but sometimes felines, dominate in grotesquely elongated form, a landscape with formalized trees and sometimes ancillary rows of diminutive, very stylized goats.'a

c12.s1.t1.54

Some very interesting pottery remains with fish paintings executed in polychrome have been excavated from Nāl (Jhalawan Division of Kalāt State, Baluchistan). Horab has attempted to identify the fishes represented on the 4,000-year-old Nāl ware, which he assigns to seven genera, namely *Garra*, *Crossochilus*, *Cyprinon*, *Tor*, *Nemachilus*, *Botia* and *Glyptothorax* (Fig. 8.9). The attempted identification is indeed a tribute to the Nāl artists for realistic accuracy. If Hora's identifications are correct,

c12.s1.t1.55

FIG. 8.9. Polychrome painting on Nāl ware showing *Nemachilus*-like fish (after Hora, 1957).

c12.s1.t1.56

and they appear to be so, the pottery fish designs may throw some light on the climatic conditions then prevailing in Baluchistan. Hora rightly concludes that Baluchistan, now an arid area, might have had more rainfall and voluminous perennial streams during those times, since at least three of the fish motifs on the pottery represent genera which live in such streams.

c12.s1.t1.57

a Piggott (2), p. 100.

c12.s1.t1.58

b Hora (6), pp. 78-84.

c12.s1.t1.59

No account of animals that caught the attention of prehistoric Indians can be complete without a reference to the mythical forms, specially the ‘unicorn’, depicted on seals from Harappa and Mohenjo-daro (Fig. 8.10A). The fact that 312 seals out of 387 excavated from Mohenjo-daro in the first explorationa depict this fabulous animal indicates the importance it might have had in the traditional beliefs of these peoples. Use of animal symbols as totems is known throughout the world since the beginning of human cultures and animals have indeed played a very important role in conditioning certain aspects of instinctive behaviour in man. No wonder, this mythical animal—the unicorn (so called for want of a better name)—dominated the glyptic art of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, though the reasons for this may never be known until one could decipher the script on the seals. The unicorn, always depicted in profile like other totems, is a male beast with one horn, body of a heavily-built antelope or of an ox with a long tufted tail. The horn is either smooth or transversely ridged (so unlike that of an ox) and the ears are long and pointed (as in antelopes). Apparently it is a composite animal belonging to the realm of legends. Indian mythological lore abounds in such fabulous creatures. Besides the unicorn, there are chimerical beasts represented on some seals. One such seal depicts a human figure with hoofs, horns and tail of a bison (Fig. 8.10B). Another has a fantastic figure of a ram and horns of a bull on human face with trunk and tusks of an elephant and hindquarters of a tiger (Fig. 8.10C). A three-headed beast with head and horns of an antelope joined to the body of a unicorn adorns one seal (Fig. 8.10D), in which one head is in eating posture, another is looking forward, and third is looking backward in (apparent) alarm. Furthermore, there is the ‘triskillion’, three tigers with bodies crossing each other in the centre (Fig. 8.10E). Finally, one damaged seal shows heads and necks of six animals radiating from a ring-like motif (Fig. 8.10F); of the four unbroken heads, one is of a unicorn, another of a short-horned bull, the third is of an antelope and the fourth of a tiger, the remaining two heads probably represent an elephant and a rhinoceros.

c12.s1.t1.60

FIG. 8.10. Mythical animals depicted on seals of Mohenjo-daro. A, unicorn; B, human figure with hoofs, horns and tail; C, ram + bull + man + elephant + tiger; D, three-headed beast; E, ‘triskillon’; F, heads and necks of six animals radiating from a common ring (after Mackay, 1931).

c12.s1.t1.61

The above picture of the animals of prehistoric India, built up from their actual remains and representations through glyptic art, decorative pottery and figurines, points out to the climatic conditions that might have been prevalent in north-west India, the seat of the Harappan culture that flourished some 4,300 years ago. The present climatic conditions in the Panjab and Sind are hardly suitable for the type of fauna that this tract supported in prehistoric times. The archaeological finds, specially the kiln-dried bricks utilized in building the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa settlements, also indicate the presence of large stretches of highly wooded areas rich in water resources and teeming with a large variety of wild life including the tiger, the elephant, the rhinoceros and the buffalo.

Historical Period

c12.s2.1

With the advent of the Aryans and the development of the Vedic literature, prehistory passes into history in India. Animal world, to the Vedic people, was not a separate entity, but a part of the great cosmic system embracing the whole world. Biological phenomena, therefore, are not separately treated but, along with other cosmic phenomena, are diffused throughout the Vedic and classical literature. Sifting through this vast mass of literature spread over centuries, a difficult but rewarding exercise, reveals that the ancient Indians were keen observers of the living world, amassing facts of natural history, speculating upon the nature and origin of life, attempting to classify living beings into rational groups based on the modes of reproduction, ways of living or dietary values. Their anatomical, physiological, embryological and genetical observations, however, were chiefly based on their knowledge about man. The only other animals receiving similar treatment were the cattle, horse and elephant, that is, animals of economical or military importance.

c12.s2.2

a Mackay (2), p. 382.

Animals and Natural History

c12.s2.t1.1

Natural history is probably the most appropriate term to express the observations recorded by the ancient Indians. Though animal names were galore in ancient texts, the science of naming animals had not achieved the status of taxonomy. Animals were observed and named simply for recognition. Several animal names have been based on some structural peculiarities or some distinct traits in habits, making recognition easy. However, these names are not accompanied by any descriptive details which can be taken as an aid to identification. Nevertheless, a good many animals mentioned in the ancient texts have been identified with species known today, because their names have passed on through centuries without any change or as easily reconcilable derivatives and are still in use in different parts of India.

c12.s2.t1.2

Observations on habits and habitats of several animals have been recorded in the sacerdotal and lyrical works. The impact of Nature on the creative faculties of the poets of olden days has received wide acclaim for their beauty and vividness.

c12.s2.t1.3

Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads

c12.s2.t1.4

The *Saṃhitās*, the *Brāhmaṇas*, the *Āraṇyakas-Upaniṣads* contain several names of animals as well as observations on their habits and habitats. Macdonell and Keitha have compiled a list of over 260 animal names used in the Vedic literature. Raob has also dealt with Vedic animals while recording the knowledge of Indian fauna through the ages. The majority of animals listed therein comprise mammals and birds, while reptiles (chiefly serpents), fishes and insects are not numerous. The *Yajurveda* and the *Atharvaveda* are, in particular, full of animal names. The *Yajurveda* provides a list of animal victims in the *aśvamedha* with the horse, as the name of the ritual implies, occupying the place of honour. In the *Atharvaveda*, snakes and worms (*kṛmi*) are mentioned in some details. The Atharvan priest, in giving a series of charms against snake-poison, describes different types of snakes as follows:

c12.s2.t1.5

a Macdonell and Keith, I and II.

c12.s2.t1.6

b Rao (H. S.), pp. 251-80.

c12.s2.t1.7

‘O *kairāta*, speckled one, *upatṛṇya* (grass-dweller), brown one listen to me; ye black repulsive reptiles, (listen to me)!...’
‘I release (thee) from the fury of the black serpent, the *taimāta* the brown serpent, ...’
‘Both *āligī* and *viligī*, both father and mother, we know your kin everywhere...’
‘The daughter of *urugūlā*, the evil one born with the black—of all those who have run to their hiding-place the poison is devoid of force.’
‘The prickly porcupine, tripping down from the mountain, did declare this: “whatsoever serpents, living in ditches, are here, their poison is most deficient in force”.’a

c12.s2.t1.8

The toxic effects of snake-poison are described with prescription of necessary chants to destroy them. The importance of snakes was obvious and a special science—*sarpavidyā*—formed an important and recognized branch of knowledge from Vedic times.

c12.s2.t1.9

Sixteen types of *kṛmis*, the obnoxious worms, are mentioned in the *Atharvaveda*.b These were regarded as poisonous and spoken of as found in the mountains, forests and in the human body. These were believed to cause diseases of cattle and man. In man, the worms infested the head and ribs and crept into the eyes, nose and teeth. These were described as having dark brown bodies, white in the forepart, with black ears and three heads!

c12.s2.t1.10

Twenty-eight arthropod names are listed in the Vedic literature, mostly referring to insects, in addition to a few scorpions and spiders. These include ants, bees, cochineal insects, flies, mosquitoes, fireflies and locusts. The depredations caused by the locust to crops were well known, and a few names indicate vermins damaging grains and seeds. Caterpillars and grasshoppers were also distinguished. There is also a reference to crabs.

c12.s2.t1.11

Of other invertebrates, pearl and conch-shells (Mollusca) are mentioned.

c12.s2.t1.12

The vertebrates figure pre-eminently in the Vedic literature. Seven fish-names appear in the texts, but it is not certain whether these names refer to individual species or to a group as a whole.

c12.s2.t1.13

Among the reptiles, snakes, as mentioned earlier, figure prominently, and about 29 names are used to denote various types, some of which are doubtless group-names. Other reptiles include the gharial, chameleon, monitor lizard and tortoise.

c12.s2.t1.14

Birds and mammals occupy a prominent place in the Vedic literature. Several species of birds, many of them recognizable, have been listed. These include common forms like the sparrow, myna, parakeet, cuckoo, pigeon, etc., birds of prey like the vulture, hawk, eagle, owl, aquatic and semi-aquatic forms like the heron, stork, curlew, ducks, geese, swan, and several others.

c12.s2.t1.15

a AV., V, 13.5–9; Bloomfield's translation.

c12.s2.t1.16

b AV., II, 31.1–5.

c12.s2.t1.17

The mammals known to the Vedic people are of three categories, domestic, semi-domestic and wild. Practically all the species represented in the Harappa culture were known, not surprisingly, because the advent of the Aryans did not make any change in the wild life then extant. The domestic animals were the cow, buffalo, elephant, horse, camel (not very popular), ass, mule, sheep, goat, pig, dog and cat. The jackal and the wolf, and possibly the hyena, skirted the forests around human habitations. The mongoose and the rat were forms common within and around settlements.

c12.s2.t1.18

Among wild beasts were the carnivores like the lion, tiger, leopard, bear, wolf and hyena. The artiodactyls included the antelope, gazelle, spotted deer, barasingha, sambhar, etc. There is also mention of others, such as the polecat (?), wild boar, monkey, gaur, porcupine, hare and pangolin (?), and the rhinoceros and elephant.

c12.s2.t1.19

It is rather surprising that the *Ṛgveda* does not mention the tiger, a beast so familiar to the Harappans and so common in the later *saṃhitās*. The most popular carnivores in the *Ṛgveda* are the wolf and the lion. Among the domestic animals, cattle and horse occupy the place of honour; and there are plenty of special terms to distinguish different kinds among these and their calves and foals. In the later stage of the Vedic period, the cow became a very important animal; it was sanctified and its slaughter had been prohibited (except on certain special occasions), a decree that has been so faithfully honoured by the Hindus of all castes even to this day.

c12.s2.t1.20

The mythology and legends of the Vedic period have been considerably influenced by animals. Many animals, specially the horse and also the kine, goat and deer, figure as the mounts of gods or drawing their luminous cars through the air. The importance of the cow in the Vedic and post-Vedic literature has already been mentioned. In the ritual of sacrifice, the most common practice to appease the galaxy of gods, animals (of several types) figure prominently. The serpent, as a noxious creature, is one of the most conspicuous animals, specially as the foe of Indra, appearing in the form of a demon. Many birds are alluded to as bringing bad omen or good luck.

c12.s2.t1.21

The ethology of animals did not escape the attention of the Vedic bards. In fact, many animal names take after some peculiar traits either in their structures or in their habits.

c12.s2.t1.22

The Indian python, frequently referred to in the sacred and mythological lores, is the *ajagar* (the swallower of goats). The Indian koel's habit of depositing its eggs in the nests of other birds is noticed, and the *Vājasaneyī* and the *Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitās* call this bird *anya-vāpa* which means sowing for others; its other name *parabhṛta* also connotes its parasitic habits. The spiders are called *ūrṇanābha*, meaning wool in the navel, an appellation no doubt inspired by the way in which the material forming its web comes out of the abdomen.

c12.s2.t1.23

The cock is *kukkuṭa*, an onomatopoeic word, suggesting the sound emanated by its crowing. Several references are made in the *Ṛgveda* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* to the casting of slough by serpent. Mention is made in the *Atharvaveda* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* of peculiar movements of snakes, earning the name of *Datvatī rajju* or ‘toothed rope’.a Similar lines are also found in the *Aitareya Āraṇyaka*. The poisonous character of snake-bite is frequently mentioned in the *Ṛgveda* and other *saṃhitās*. The *Atharvaveda* mentions the torpidity of snakes in winter when they creep into the earth, a phenomenon now well known as hibernation. The mongoose (*nakula*) has been regarded as the deadly enemy of snakes and immune to their poison by the use of a healing plant, perhaps a blind belief that still persists among our people.

c12.s2.t1.24

The carnivorous beasts, the lion and the tiger, were dreaded for their dangerousness. The roaring (*nāda*) of the lion is compared to the thunder in the Vedic texts. The king of beasts, as it is called, wanders about (*kucara*) and lives in the hills (*giriṣṭha*) and is the terror of other beasts whom he slays. The lion, being dangerous to men, was trapped, ambushed or chased by hunting bands.b The tiger, not mentioned in the *Ṛgveda*, finds, however, a frequent mention in the *Atharvaveda* which is taken as an evidence of eastward extension of the Aryan territory during the time when it was said to be composed. The destructive nature of this beast is often alluded to and it passed, like the lion, as a symbol of strength. Man-eating tigers (*puruṣād*) are also mentioned.c

c12.s2.t1.25

The frog is mentioned as the harbinger of rain. The awakening of frogs at the beginning of the rainy season inspired an interesting hymn in the *Ṛgveda*d graphically re-enacting a scene with which people in India are very familiar. The chorus of the croaking frogs is compared to the chants of priests exhilarated by *soma* and with the clamour of pupils at school repeating the words of their teacher. The relevant portion of this hymn is quoted below:

c12.s2.t1.26

b The *Ṛgveda* refers to the lion as follows: ‘Exceedingly wise they roar like lions mightily’ (*ṚV.*, I, 64.8); ‘roar as the lions roar’ (*ṚV.*, III, 26.5.7); ‘like a dread lion’ (*ṚV.*, IV, 16.14); ‘as a snared lion leaves the trap that caught him’ (*ṚV.*, X, 28.10).

c12.s2.t1.27

(1) The frogs have lifted up their voice, the voice Parjanya hath
inspired.

c12.s2.t1.28

a The figure of speech ‘toothed rope’, or ‘the rope full of teeth’, is also used in the *Atharvaveda*. Thus ‘on a distant path shall move the biting rope (the serpent)…’, *AV.*, IV, 3.2. The *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* has it ‘… for snakes are like rope, and snakes’ haunts are like wells (pits)…’ (*Śat. Br.*, IV, 4.5.3).

c12.s2.t1.29

c ‘The forest animals, the wild animals homed in the woods, the man-eating lions and tigers that roam’ (*AV.*, XII, 1.49). Elsewhere, ‘Thyself a tiger, dost thou upon this tiger-skin stride (victorious) through the great regions’ (*AV.*, IV, 8.4). The tiger’s skin was a mark of royalty, as the tiger, and also the lion, was regarded as the king of animals.

c12.s2.t1.30

d *ṚV.*, VII, 103; English translation by Griffiths.

c12.s2.t1.31

(2) What time on these, as on a dry skin lying in the pool's bed,
the floods of heaven descended,
the music of the frogs comes forth in concert like the cows
lowing with their calves beside them.
(5) When one of these repeats the other's language, as he who
learns the lesson of the teacher,
your every limb seems to be growing larger as ye converse
with eloquence on the waters.
(7) As Brāhmaṇs, sitting round the brimful vessel, talk at the soma-
rite of Atirātra,
so, frogs, ye gather round the pool to honour this day of all
the year, the first of rain-time.

c12.s2.t1.32

Post-Vedic literature follows the tradition of the Vedas in recording the names of animals and some observations on their natural history. As food and as offerings for sacrifice, animal life had acquired an important status. The sport of hunting which is one of the time-honoured recreations and means for obtaining protein food must have assisted in amassing observations which gradually accumulated and served as a storehouse of knowledge that stimulated thought and developed concepts about classification, heredity, embryology, etc.

c12.s2.t1.33

*Animals in the Epics*

c12.s2.t1.34

Constant references are made to animals in the two great epics, the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata*.

c12.s2.t1.35

Chaudhuri and Roy have provided lists of animals, both aquatic and terrestrial, as extant in the *Rāmāyaṇa*. They include the commonly known mammals, birds, fishes, insects, etc. The aquatic animals are the mythological *makara* (whose identity is still in dispute), *nakra* (crocodile, gharial) and *timi* (whale). The insects are *indragopa* (cochineal), *kośakāra* (silkworm), *daṁśa* (gnat), *maśaka* (mosquito) and *ṣaṭcaraṇa* which literally means six feet and can be applied to any insect. The scorpion (*vṛścika*) is also referred to. Fishes have been identified by Hora (1952) as *Garra mullya* (*cakratuṇḍa*), *Mastacembalus armatus* (*nalamīna*), *Labeo fimbriatus* (*rohita*), *Channa striatus* (*śakula*) and *Wallago attu* (*pāṭhīna*). There are a few names signifying snakes. Birds include the *kāraṇḍava* (coot), *kurara* (osprey), *krauñca* (pond heron), *cakravāka* (brahminy duck), *koyaṣṭībhas* (lapwing), *kadamba* (purple moorhen), *kaṅka* (gray heron), *gṛdhra* (vulture), *śikhin* (peacock), *śyena* (hawk or falcon), *dātyūha* (waterfowl), *madgu* (aquatic bird, probably cormorant) and *sārika* (a bird of doubtful identity).

c12.s2.t1.36

The most familiar animal in the *Rāmāyaṇa* is indeed the *kapi* or monkey. There was a varied assortment of these creatures variously called *golāṅgula*, *gopucchas* (probably synonymous with the Indian langur), *vānara* (similar to man and living in forests), *plavaga* or *plavaṁga* (moving by leaps, a familiar habit of monkeys when running). The monkey was also known as *śākhāmṛga* (an animal living in the branches of trees, obviously referring to its arboreal habits). Eleven types of deer are listed in the *Rāmāyaṇa*, some of which are no doubt our common species.

c12.s2.t1.37

The *Mahābhārata* is full of references to a large variety of animals, many of which are common to *Rāmāyaṇa* and the Vedic literature. Of great interest in this epic is the *Āstīkaparva*, which deals with the *nāgayajña* of Janmejaya, a descendant of the Pāṇḍavas. Janmejaya, to avenge the death of his grandfather Parīkṣit who was the fatal victim of snake-bite, organized a big snake-hunt to decimate the serpent tribe on the earth. In connection with this anti-snake ritual, about 170 species of snakes are listed. Vedi has compiled a list of snakes mentioned in Indian literature. This list enumerates 418 names, of which many are no doubt synonyms.

c12.s2.t1.38

The *Mahābhārata* has interesting explanations for the poisonous nature of some snakes and their forked tongues (*dvijihva*). Some snakes are poisonous because they licked drops of the *halāhala*, deadly poison retrieved along with *amṛta* from the primordial sea when it was churned by the gods and demons.

c12.s2.t1.39

Similarly, the forked tongue of snakes has a mythological explanation. The much sought-after vessel of *amṛta* was kept on a bed of sharp-edged grass (*kuśa*) under strong guard. The snakes sneaked near the repository, crawling unnoticed; their darting tongues were said to be split into two by the sharp blades of *kuśa*.

c12.s2.t1.40

*Animals in the Medical and Miscellaneous Works*

c12.s2.t1.41

The two great medical works, the *saṃhitās* of Caraka and Suśruta, give an almost complete list of animals of various groups known till then as also some details about anatomy, zoological classification, ecology and dietary value of animals, and physiology of man. The treatment followed is basically similar in the two treatises. While Caraka gives some details about parasites, Suśruta's spectrum is much wider, embracing leeches, insects, spiders, scorpions, frogs, fishes, reptiles (specially snakes), birds and mammals.

c12.s2.t1.42

Suśruta's account of fishes inhabiting various freshwater habitats reveals a keen insight into the correlation between the form and locomotion of fishes, as Horaa has pointed out. The rudiments of the science of functional morphology, that is correlation between forms and functions, are clearly discernible is Suśruta's compendium.

c12.s2.t1.43

Ray and Gupta have given an interesting scientific synopsis of the *Caraka Saṃhitā* with references to Caraka's zoology. For Suśruta, the excellent English translation of the *Suśruta Saṃhitā* in three volumes by Kunja Lal Bhishagratna,b as also Seal's work, are recommended.

c12.s2.t1.44

a Hora (1), pp. 1-7.

c12.s2.t1.45

b 'Bhishagratna' is the Ayurvedic title conferred on the author Kunja Lal Bhaduri. On the title-pages of the volumes the prefix 'Kavirāj'—a title equivalent to 'Doctor' as is usually ascribed to medical practitioners—has been used for the author's name. 'Sharma', used as surname by the author on the dedication page of Vol. 1, is often used by the Brahmans.

c12.s2.t1.46

Reverting to early natural history one cannot but be impressed by allegorical tales, narrated in the *Jātakas*, dealing with animals. Hora,a and Hora and Saraswatib have given primarily an account of fish in the *Jātaka* tales and sculptures (Fig. 8.11), but have also casually mentioned other animals, elephants, monkeys, antelopes, crabs, crocodiles (?), sharks (?), etc., occurring in the tales and associated sculptures at Bharhut (200 B.C.)

c12.s2.t1.47

FIG. 8.11. Animals in *Jātaka* sculptures (after Hora, 1955).

c12.s2.t1.48

and Sanchi (100 B.C.). The animals mentioned in the inscriptions on rock and pillar edicts of Aśoka have been given by Chakravartic and Hora.d Jayaram has given an account of the knowledge regarding animal life in India during the early Jaina and Buddhist period. An important development during this period was the propagation of the creed of *ahiṃsā*, a reaction against the sacrificial ritual of the Vedic Hindus. Though there is no substantial addition to the list of animal names which had already gained currency during the period prior to this, there is a distinct change in the outlook towards animals. It was decreed that animals should not be needlessly slaughtered, though there was no ban on eating meat. For the first time we hear about national parks (*abhayāraṇya*), where animals could move about unmolested. In Kautilya's *Arthaśāstra*, there are indications of regulations governing fisheries, livestock, hunting, etc.

c12.s2.t1.49

a Hora (5), pp. 1–13.

c12.s2.t1.50

b Hora and Saraswati, pp. 15–30.

c12.s2.t1.51

c Chakravarti (M.), pp. 361–74.

c12.s2.t1.52

d Hora (2 ii), pp. 43–56.

c12.s2.t1.53

The period preceding the Christian era and a few centuries immediately after, witnessed intense philosophical-scientific activities, no doubt activated by the Buddhist and Jainist reaction towards orthodox Brahminism (in centuries preceding the birth of Christ) and Hindu reaction against Buddhism in the following half millennium after the Gregorian Calendar was introduced. This was the period of Hindu Renaissance, which crystallized the different systems of philosophy and produced commendable works on mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, botany and zoology.

c12.s2.t1.54

In the post-Christian period, specially in the later half of the first millennium A.D., some remarkable works on Sanskrit poetry were produced. Among these the lyrics and dramas of Kālidāsa have received world-wide acclamation for the poet's deep understanding of Nature. As Macdonell, while discussing the works of that great poet Kālidāsa, aptly remarks about *Ṛtusaṃhāra*: 'Perhaps no other work of Kālidāsa's manifests so strikingly the poet's deep sympathy with Nature, his keen powers of observations, his skill in depicting the Indian landscape in vivid colours.'a This is true indeed not only of Kālidāsa but also of many other Sanskrit poets and dramatists.

c12.s2.t1.55

Animals and plants figure prominently in Kālidāsa's poetry, details about which can be seen in Law's bookb on the birds of Kālidāsa, and in various articles by Guptac dealing with birds and insects mentioned by the poet. His understanding of animal life can be easily gauged by an account of summer in *Ṛtusaṃhāra*, in which the effects of heat on animal life are vividly portrayed by the thirst or lethargy that it produces in serpent, lion, elephant, buffalo, boar, gazelle, peacock, crane, frog and fish; and the devastation caused by forest fire is graphically described as the tongues of flame devour trees and shrubs and drive before them crowds of terror-stricken beasts.

c12.s2.t1.56

Varāhamihira, the great encyclopaedist, did not fail to mention nature and animals in his *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, in which he has extensively described the cow, dog, cock, tortoise, goat, horse and elephant in separate sections.

c12.s2.t1.57

The *Amarakośa*, a great lexicographic work by Amar Singha, gives meanings, synonyms and definitions (at places) of practically all animal names in the Vedic and post-Vedic texts. For a list of animal names current during and before this great lexicon (as important as Pāṇini's grammar), one can unhesitatingly refer to this work. Though not zoological by any means, the animals have been listed according to their habitats as well as habits.

c12.s2.t1.58

a Macdonell, p. 337.

c12.s2.t1.59

b Law (S. C.).

c12.s2.t1.60

c Gupta, pp. 145–72.

c12.s2.t1.61

Classification of Animals

c12.s2.t1.62

The *Ṛgveda* does not furnish any indication of classification of animals other than the division of common mammals into two groups, viz. the domestic forms (*grāmya*) and those living in forests (*āraṇya*), the wild animals. Later in the *Atharvaveda* we come across the term *jagat*, moving or mobile, to encompass the domestic forms vis-à-vis *śvāpada* which include the wild ones. Among the domestic forms, the solid-hoofed (*ekaśapha*) horse, ass and mule and the split-hoofed (*dviśapha*) were further distinguished from one another by the presence of incisors in both the jaws (*ubhayadanta*: in the *Ṛgveda* and later *saṃhitās*) and by having incisors in the lower jaw only (*anyatodanta*) as in the cattle and sheep. Man has been included among the *ubhayadanta*, that is with incisors in both the jaws, in a passage in the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā*. Man as *dvipada* (biped) was further distinguished from the *catuṣpada* (quadruped) animals. Mammals were called *paśu* (also *mṛga* later on), birds (*pakṣī* having wings) and reptiles (and perhaps other crawling animals) were *sarīsṛpa* (the crawlers); snakes were *sarpa*, and insects (and probably their larvae) were *kīṭa* (non-flying) and *pataṅga* (winged insects). In the *Atharvaveda*, as we have already seen, obnoxious parasites of man and cattle were called *kṛmi*; possibly all (or at least some) of the kinds named were worms parasitizing man and domestic animals.

c12.s2.t1.63

The first attempt to classify animals in a rational (though not natural) way is found in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, where they are divided into three groups according to the nature of their *bīja*, literally meaning seed, but metaphorically implying mode of origin and development. These three groups of animals are *aṇḍaja* (born from egg), *jīvaja* (born alive or born from womb) and *udbhijja* (born from sprouts). The *Aitareya Āraṇyaka* adds one more group, *svedaja* (born out of sweat), generated by hot moisture to comprise flies, worms, etc., which becomes *jarāyuja* in later works. Further, the term *jīvaja* of the *Chāndogya* is replaced by *jaruja*. The term *jarāyu*, used in *Atharvaveda* in the sense of 'serpent's skin', is more frequently used in the later Vedic texts to denote the outer covering (chorion) of the embryo as opposed to ulva, the inner covering or amnion (*Ṛgveda*, *Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā*, *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, etc.). The *jaruja* or *jarāyuja*, therefore, comprises placental mammals.

c12.s2.t1.64

The *Manu Smṛti* divides the living world into *sthāvara* (fixed or immobile plants) and *jaṅgama* (the mobile animal world). The animals are further classified into three groups, namely (i) *jarāyuja* which includes *paśu* (domestic quadrupeds), *mṛga* (wild herbivores), *vyāla* (wild carnivores), *ubhayatodanta* (with incisors on both jaws), *rākṣasa*, *piśāca* and man; (ii) *aṇḍaja* which includes birds, snakes, crocodiles, fishes, tortoises and turtles and similar kinds of terrestrial (*sthalaja*) and aquatic (*audaka*) animals; and (iii) *svedaja* which comprises organisms born out of heat and moisture of the earth, viz. stinging gnats and mosquitoes (*daṃśa* and *maśaka*), lice (*yūka*), flies, bugs and others.

c12.s2.t1.65

The class *udbhijja* comprises the fixed plant world. Terms such as *pratuda* and *viṣkira* came to be used later by Caraka and Suśruta for birds, the former to indicate those which tear their food with their beaks and the latter for those which scatter their food with claws. There is also the use of the term *pañcanakha* (five-clawed) which includes *śvāvit* (? pangolin), *śallaka* (porcupine), *godhā* (monitor lizard), *khaḍga* (rhinoceros), *kūrma* (tortoise) and *śaśa* (hare).

c12.s2.t1.66

The division of the animal world into four groups according to their modes of birth, first made in the Vedic literature, gained wide currency in the post-Vedic literature and found frequent mention in the *Purāṇas* and the *Mahābhārata*. Caraka and Suśruta both followed this classification in their medical treatises.

c12.s2.t1.67

According to Carakaa the *jarāyuja* (placental animals) includes man, the quadrupeds, etc.; the *aṇḍaja* (egg-born or oviparous) fishes, reptiles and birds; the *svedaja* (born of moisture and heat, i.e. spontaneously or asexually reproduced) worms, mosquitoes, etc.; and all animals, born of vegetable organisms, are included in the class *udbhijja*. He further mentions that each *yoni* has innumerable divisions and consequently the appearance, etc., of organisms are also exceedingly varied.

c12.s2.t1.68

Pāṇini defines *kṣudra jantu* as small organisms or animals without bones (*anasthi*) or animals so small that hundreds or even thousands of them can be held in the palm of a hand or animals up to the size of the mongoose.b Patañjali further elaborates the definition of small animals (*kṣudra jantu*) as follows: ‘What are *kṣudra jantu*? Boneless are *kṣudra jantu*. Or those that number more than a thousand in a palmful are *kṣudra jantu*. Or those that cannot be easily crushed are *kṣudra jantu*. Or animals up to ichneumon (*nakula*) are *kṣudra jantu*.’

First 133 of 265 passages. Read on

Cites (41)