AN INSIGHT INTO AGRONOMIC PRODUCTS OF ANCIENT BENGAL

Author(s): Annapurna Chattopadhyay

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1981, Vol. 42 (1981), pp. 100-107
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/44141117

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AN INSIGHT INTO AGRONOMIC PRODUCTS OF

ANCIENT BENGAL
By
Annapurna Chattopadhyay ,

Like other parts of India, the Neolithic people of Bengal might have
been also actively engaged in producing food articles. However, since no
Neolithic settlement site has been detected and excavated in Bengal áš yet
our knowledge about the agronomy of these peoples is indeed inadequate.

It is from the succeeding Chalcolithic stage of culture which began

with thè use of copper and bronze that we have positive records of produ-
ced food grains. In this context, particular reference may be made to the
significant results of excavations at Pandurajardhibi (Burdwan district) which
in 1962 yielded records relating to the oldest inhabitants at the site, who
appear to have been simple agricultural people living in mud houses and
making hand-made pottefy.1 Pottery sherds obtained from this site were
also found to beat* paddy-husk impressions. Scientific analysis of this
paddy husk-impression has shown that it is a variety of cultivated paddy
namely oryza sativa .2 The pottery has been attribüied to B.C. 1012= 120.3
Another site in the district of Birbhum, námely, Mahisdal has yielded car-
bonised rice, assigned to 1380-855 B.C.4 These are the two oldest records
of produced food grains in Bengal.

With the advancement of tool-making techniques, development of

agricultural operations and growth of populàtioh óaüsed primarily by intru-
sions of peoples from both western and eástern directions there was a
tremendòus demand íor more ańd more agricultural fields in Bengal which
in ancient times abounded in swamps and forests, it would be evideüt from
a study of the epigraphic records from c. 5th century A.D. onwards that
waste lands, water-logged and forest areas were either purchased or donated
invariably for cultivation.5 Deforestation could have been, however, most
effectively done only with the help of iron tools, and it may be noted that
the introduction arid use of iroh in Bengal must have beģtiri oh a large scale
only from the beginning of historical time. This is evident firöm thè disco-
very of all kinds of iron tools and other objects from excavated «tes of
early historical periods.

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 101

Ancient Bengal producd many kinds of food grains, descriptions of

which are to be found in the accounts of the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang,
the Ramacharita and also in a large number of inscriptions 6 Of all agri-
cultural products of Bengal, the most important one was, of course,
dhanya/ricQ (< oryza sativa ). Detailed descriptions of its cultivation, sowing
of seeds, nurturing of plants, reaping, threshing, are to be found in
the Rghuvamsa of Kalidasa, the Ramacharita and the Saduktikarnamri ta . 7
In the inscriptions of the Sena period also there are frequent references to
dhanya (salidhanya) and also to the paddy-granary, the oldest record of
which is to be found in the Mahasthangarh inscription^ Reference may
be made here to the significant discovery of a big granary containing solid
deposition of burnt grains of rice and wheat at Rajbadidanga in the district
of Mursidabad. Carbon-14 analysis of these burnt grains has given 1200+
80 as the date of this granary.9 This is the oldest evidence of wheat in
Bengal.10.

Next to paddy may be mentioned the cultivation of sugarcane

(ikshu/paundra which has been described also in the Classical accounts.11
Ramcharita presents a wonderful description of sugarcane-cultivation in
the Paundra Country (North Bengal), and the nadutikarnnarita makes a
reference to ikshuyantra for making molasses.12 Besides, mention may be
made of a large scale cultivation of narikela (coconut, of ocosmucifera) and
quvaka ( supari , betelnut, areca palm or areca catechu), in most of the
inscriptions there are accounts of the donation of villages with the expre-
ssion : Saguvaka-narikela , i. e., along with coconut and betelnut planta-
tions.18 Even the Ramacharita speaks of coconut plantation in Varendri.14
Again, mention is also to be made of betel-vines or varajas cultivated in
different parts of Bengal.15

Fruits grown in Bengal included amra (mango, mangifera india),

dalimba (pomegranate, punica orapatum-Lyîhraceese) kadali or kala
(plantain, banana, musa paradisiaca) madhuka ( mahua , honey, bassia latifo -
lia), pharjura (date, phoenix sylvestris roxb), vija , (citron) panksa or kanthal
(jackfruit, artocarpus heter ophyllus lamp or artocapus inteq rif olia,) par kati (fig,
ficus cunea or ficus infectoria )10, etc. in both literary and epigraphic records
there arc references to all these fruits and plants.17 Reference may also be
made to the cultivation of Sarshapa (mustard, brassica Juncea (czern) and
Karpasa (gossypium arboreumļ Bombax eiba linn).11*.

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 102

It would appear from a detailed study of agronomic products as men-

tioned in both literary and epigraphic records of ancient Bengal that each
village was an agronomic unit by itself. Most significantly, cultivation as
such and agricultural products in particular were perhaps introduced into
Bengal by the Austro-Asiatic peoples of South-east Asia. Very deep and
penetrating researches of Przyluski, Block, Levi, Chatterji, Bagchi and others
have revealed that the Austro-Asiatic language-speaking peoples of South-
east Asia were the torch-bearers of the Neolithic revolution, and as such,
of food-producing economy, and that they were primarily responsible for
the introduction of cultivation and agriculture in North-eastern India,
Bengal and other neighbouring areas. This would be evident from an ana-
lysis of Sanskrit and Bengali words denoting cultivation and agricultural
produce. Despite the very fact that all such words have undergone conside-
rable changes or transformations through adaptation and transcription,
their Austro-Asiatic derivations or roots can yet be traced and determined.
In this respect, particular reference may be made to Sanskrit and Bengali
words relating to cultivation, plantation, fruits, plants, etc.

It has been found that digging by stick or stone hoeaxe was indeed
the most important gift of the Austrie people. In this context, particular
reference may be made to Jhu n or shifting cultivation widely practised
even today in North-eastern India by the primitive peoples who are mostly
of Austo-Asiatic origins. Mention may also bemade of the cultivation by
plough which is denoted by the word langalal languia. Its etymology is not
to be found in Indo-Aryan language, but can be traced in Austrie tongues.18
It has also been found that the term ¡angola bears analogy with linga or
penis, and in fact, in Melanesia the digging stick has the form of a penis.1*
In reality linga and langala have a common derivation with an identical
function.20

Besides the plough, even the various words denoting agricultural

products like dhanya (paddy/rice), narikela (coconut), guvaka or supari
(betelnut), pan (betel-leaf), etc., are all of Austrie deiivations.21 Even betel-
vines and their cultivation are of Austrie origins.2* The use and chewing of
pan-supari is also said to be an Austrie contribution,28 Other cultivated plants
and fruits with Austrie names were sarshapa (mustard, Brassica juncea) or
quda (quia), i.e„ sugar for molasses produced from sugarcane-juice, ihshu
(sugarcane), vatingana (brinjal) or baigun/hegun ( Solanum melongena),

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 103

Kadalllkaîalrambha (plantain), darimba (dalim) /or pomegranate simba

(dolichos lablab), nimba (citrus), labujluuļalabu (bottle gourd, lagenaria
vulgaris), nimbu, jambuj jambara, kamranga (a sour fruit, averrhoa carambola),
dumur (fig), haridra/halud (turmeric, curcuma longa), etc.24 In fact, a critical
study of colloquial words for agricultural products of Bengal show them
to be of Austro-Asiatic origins. This contention is also supported by the
very fact that the agricultural activities are even today considered as a low
occupation, and the people engaged in agriculture hold an inferior social
position in the Brahmanical hierarchy, implying thereby that the agronomy
as such was the primary concern of the non-Aryan Language-speaking
peoples, The same is the case with regard to the craftsmen/artisans of
Bengal.25 Again, a critical study of the folk religious rites and practices of
Bengal reveals that these were particularly performed for the purpose of
promoting human and agricultural fertility.26 It has been also presumed
that all socio-religious rites of Bengal concerned with agricultural processes
are of Austro-Asiatic origins.27 The main contention is that the Neolihtic
Austrie peoples contributed the essential agronomic components along with
their associated rituals, beliefs and practices which have been subsequently
Brahmanized.

Now the question arises as to how and when did the Austrie speaking
peoples enter Bengal and contribute the basic elements of agronomic
activities. The only available evidence to answer this question consists of
polished stone tools, more particularly shouldered stone celts, discovered
from various parts of Assam, Santal parganas, the valleys of the Goda vri
and Irrawady.28 But no typical specimens of the shouldered stone celt could
be found in Bengal. This is no doubt mysterious. A critical study of the
nature, character and distribution of the shouldered stone celt in India,
Burma and South-east Asia would reveal that these are all of South-east
Asiatic origins.29 It has also been contended that these shouldered stone
celts were produced in imitation of copper/bronze prototypes.30 From the
study of their type and techniques of making, it may, however, be held that
the stone celt was an earlier innovation, and this was perhaps done by the
Austrie speaking peoples of South-east Asia.31

Truly speaking, there is no unimpeachable archaeological record

relating to the intrusion of the Austrie speaking peoples into India. But
the very presence of the Austro-Asiatic peoples in Northeastern India,
Bengal and Chotanagpur invariably demonstrates that they had migrated

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 104

from outside. There is little possibility of their migration from the West as
suggested by some scholars. The only possibility as indicated by archaeolo-
gical finds is chat the Austrie speaking peoples of South-east Asia moved
northwards and entered into India via Burma with their Neolithic culture
tradition.

In this context, it would be profitable to refer to the significant results

of archaeological excavations at various sites of South-east Asia, more
particularly of those in Vietnam. Recent excavations at a number of sites
yielding finds of Bacsonian and Hoanbinhian culture and also of those
from Cai-beo, Spirit Cave, etc., may be referred to. The shouldered stone
axe culture has been regarded as the direct continuation of Bacsonian-Hoa-
nbinhian culture. This is also found in Cai-beo II atong with pottery,
bearing cord-decoration, which is absent in ;ls lower stratum. The interme-
diate stage yielded shouldered axes/adzes attributed to 3695+ 11 5s* B. C.
Agriculture as such appeared in Hoanbinhian culture 11000 years ago.
This was in fact the very cradle of the most ancient agronomic activities.
Even before the use of pottery, cultivated plant-remains were found in the
Spirit Cave.83 It has been accordingly observed that in South-East Asia
agriculture preceded the Neolithic which implies a technical revolution only
without changing the very core of the economy. In South-east Asia agro-
nomic development is to be found in two stages, namely, vegetables adn
tuberous plants and rice. The first stage may be simply called gardening
and the latter flourished during the Bacsonian culture period.84 Solheim
refers to the discovery of paddy grains from the upper level of Banyan
(Thailand) along with cord-decorated pottery as in the lowest stratum of
the Spirit cave.35 This stratum with carbonised paddy remains has been
attributed to 6802-5600 B. C„ when the people of this region were fully
acquainted with rice-growing which appears to have begun in South-east
Asia quite early.36

In India the recorded evidence of rice is much later in comparison to

South-east Asia. Oldest records of rice in India have been attributed to
c. 2000 B.C. and in Bengal to 1380-855 B.C. (Mahisdal) and 1012+120
(Pandurajardhibi). Oldest records of rice have been unearthed from Western
India, Northern Deccan and Central India, and it has been accordingly
contended by Bridget and Allchin and others that rice-growing might have
travelled from the West to eastwards and the Gaņgetic valley around the
close of the second millennium B.C.37 Bridget and Allchin have not* how-

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 10 õ

ever, taken into consideration the possibility of its intrusion from South-
east Asia via Burma. In this connection, a particular reference may be made
to the discovery of rice ( oryza sativa), edge ground stone tools, cord-deco-
rated pottery, etc. from the Spirit Cave and Non-Nok-Tha. Carbon-14
analysis of rice samples indicates a dating ranging from 2500 to 6000-9700
BC.*8 It is very interesting to note here that oryza sativa variety of rice
has been also found from various sites in India like Navdatoli, Hastinapur
Sonepur, Pandurajardhibi etc.39 Besides, shouldered celts of Assam bear a
marked similarity with those from South-east Asia. As the oldest record
of rice comes from South-east Asia, it may be reasonably upheld that rice-
growing was an intrusion into Assam and Bengal from South-east Asia.
The vast alluvial plains of the Gangetic region with all other gifts of nature
like those of South-east Asia no doubt offered potential environs for the
cultivation of rice and other plants.
A perusal of archaeological findings in South-east Asia shows that
the food-producing economy was preceded by a primary. Neolithic stage
which was related to gardening activities. Secondly, it becomes also
evident that the shouldered celt and other tools and potttery are also to
be associated with this food producing economy i e ., 'stone polishing
plus ceramic plus husbandry plus crop-growing. '4#

South-east Asia has been acclaimed as the very cradle of the Neoli-
thic revolution in the Eastern horizon, and it may be most reasonably
held that the people from this region might have moved out in different
directions, and that their early movement was northwards to Burma, from
where they finally entered into India through the North-eastern passes.
Another wave might have come through water routes to the northern parts.
This is amply borne out by the distribution of Neolithic artifacts, more
particularly shouldered celts which are also most significantly co-cxtensive
with the Austro- Asia tic language speaking peoples of today.

From the above short discussions on agronomy of ancient Bengal,

it follows that agronomic operations and products were introduced by
the Austrie language-speaking peoples of South-east Asia. This is
amply borne out by the study of the roots/derivations of various Sanskrit
and Bengali words denoting different agronomic products. In fact, almost
all words in Bengali dialects have been found to bear an Austrie base» which
implies that there was an intrusion of the Austrie peoples iato India from
South-east Asia via Burma. This contention derived from philological

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 106

study is also considerably supported by the available archaeological

records as outlined above. īt may be accordingly held that the very
economic base of Bengal, i. e ., food -producing economy, was laid by the
Austro-Asiatic language-speaking peoples who subsequently mingled with
the Indo-Aryan language-speaking colonisers from upper India. Undou-
btedly, these non-Aryan Austrie speakers were gradually brought within
the fold of Brahmanism, but their original language, socio-economic and
religious activities, including their patterns of life, have persisted through
the long period of history, and their surviving elements are still to be
found in every walk of life and in all aspects of the Bengali culture asa
whole.

REFERENCES

1. Dasgupta, Excavation at Pandurajardhibl , pp. 14, 16-20.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid .

4. Bridget and R. Allchin, The Birth of Indian Civilization , p. 199.

5. Maity & Mukherjee, Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions , pp, 67, 70; IHQ, Vol. VI. pp. 56,
59-60; EI, Vol. XV., pp. 307-311

6. Watters, Vol. II, pp. 184, 189, 19/; Beai, Records, II. pp. 191, 194, 199, 200-201;
Majumdar, etal, Ramacharita , III; pp, 90ff.
7. Raghuvamsa , Canto IV. p. 37 ( Utkhata-protiropitah ); Majumdar etal, Ramacharita,
III. V. 17B. p. 91; Kavlprasastl , V. 13, p-190; Sridharadasa, Saduktikarnamrita, 21
84/3, 2/136/5.

8. Majumdar, Inscriptions of Bengal, p. 129; Maity & Mukherjee, opt . cit, pd. 39-40
9. Das, Rajbadidaaga , p. 42
10. Ibid .

11. Majumdar, History of Beugal, Vol. I. p. 650; Mcrindle; Ancient India , p. 122.
12. Majumdar, etal. Ramacharita, III. V. 17. p. 91; Saduktikarnamrita, 2/54/3, 2/136/5.
13. Majundar, Inscriptions of Bengal , pp. 5, 8, 24, 63, 66, 74, 79, 96. 102, 104, 137-138,
179-180 & 125ff; MASB, I. p. 90; Majumdar, opt . cit . Vol. I. p, 651.
14. Majumdar, etal , Ramacharita , III. V. 19. p. 93 V. 17B. p. 91

15. Majumdar, Inscriptions of Bengal , p. 180 (Calcu/ta Sahitya Parishat CP); EI. vol.
XXVII, pp. 26-27

lé. Beai, Records II, pp. 194ff ; Watters, II, pp. 184, 189, 191, Majumdar etal , Ramacha -

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 107

rita , III. V. 21, p. 94, 91, 93; Majumdar Inscriptions of Bengal , pp. 96-97, 154, 156,
5, 8,21,24, 66ff. Paharpur Terracotta Plaques, 70; Majuirdar, History of Bengal;
vol. I. pp. 451, 651, f. n. 5. etc.
17. Ibid

17a. Chattopadhyay, P1HC, 1980, pp. 138-39.

18. Bagchi, Pre- Ary an and Pre-Dravidian in Indian, pp. 8-15
19. Ibid
20. Ibid

21. Chatterji, AIOC, vol. VII., pp. 35-40; Hutton, Census Report oj lidie , vol. I. Part. I.
1931, p- 360; Bagchi, opt 4 cit., p. 19.

22. Bagchi, Ibid.

23. Bagchi, Ibid .
24. Bagchi, Ibid. , pp. XXIX, XXVIII, 1VV, 5; TYkakuslu, <4 Eecvrd oj the E v.dahist Rel-
igion, pp. 125, 220.
25, Chattopadhyaya, P1HC; 1910, pp. 138-39.
26. Das, Folk Religion of Bengal, pp. 12-15, 24-33; Folk Ritual L rowings o] Birgel, pp.
42-44, Folk Religious Rites of Bengal.
27. Ibid.

28. Dani, Prehistory and Protohistory of Eastern India, pp. 98-99, 102, 223-24; Hu/ton,
opt. cit. p. 36
29. Dani, opt cit., 224; Hutton, opt. cit. pp. 362-63
36. Ibid. , Sankalia, Prehistory of India , p. 162.
31. Annual Bibliography of Indian Archaeology for 1934, Vol. IX. 1936
32. Vien, Vietnamese Studies , No. 46., p. 164.
33. Ibid.

34* Ibid., p. 193.

35. I bid., pp. 193-94

36. Ibid.

37 Ē Bridget and Allchin, opt. cit. pp. 259, 264-66.

38. National Geopraphy, March; 1971, pp. 330-39; Sankalia, Chalcolithic-Navdatoli,
p. 429.

39. Bridget and R. Allchin, The Birth of Indian Civi ization, pp. 215, 259, 263-66; San-
kalia, Chacolithic Navdatoli, p. 418.
40. Vien, Vietnamese Studies, p. 189.

This content downloaded from

27.147.204.177 on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:02:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms