Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/644

PBAPI?LL? special name. for all Mnds recent, were not as yet giv? any These names then were usually used of grain, although there misht have been some attempts to speeialise one for any parti- cular graim From the 'very brief and hidbeet reference in the P? Veda, it is not possible, st this distant c]ste, to reconstruct the moulding thought and nomenclature of the time. We shall therefore examine eaoh of these words and refer them to the contexts where they occur stud try to learn the nature of the use to whic? each was put. This is indeed disappointing, but we eaunot help it for want of sufficient information. First let us take the word ??, which is by far th? most important in this connection. In later days its me?ing was unambiguously "barley." In fact sSculture one of the most duxing the period important prodacts just ?fter the Veda, Next in import&nee came m4&i does mot oecu? in the Big Veda, ?rmva is used frequently, it seem8 to general product. repeatedly for either refer probably to same year. men,on of or rice. But and although be used as a term for gra?, that is,-any agricultural A husbandman is said ?o plough the esr? .?ava (i, 28, 15). This repetition may to its cuRure year after year, or more its cultivation more ?han once in the The latter interpretation tallies with the the various seasons of the year. If this grain was produced twice in the year, i? might have been barley, as that would shnd two cultivations on the nine soil in s country like the Punjab. But Iudisn soil is unusually productive snc? even now rios (r?bi and klu?r/f) is produced twice in Bengal and thFee times in Madras. 'It is was meant in this passage. improbsble that rios It had s distinct sad entirely differen? name, vriki, in the labor 8smhi?ss. If yov? meant any special grain, i? musl have been