पृष्ठभागोऽयं यन्त्रेण केनचित् काले काले मार्जयित्वा यथास्रोतः परिवर्तयिष्यते। तेन मा भूदत्र शोधनसम्भ्रमः। सज्जनैः मूलमेव शोध्यताम्।
मृन्मृत्तिका प्रशस्ता तु मृत्सा मृत्स्ना च मृत्तिका। उर्वरा सर्वसस्याढ्या स्यादूषः क्षारमृत्तिका॥
पदार्थ-विभागः : , द्रव्यम्, पृथ्वी
उर्वरा¦ स्त्री उरु शस्यादिकमृच्छति ऋ--अच्
“पततां गर्णः पिवतु सार्द्धमुर्वरा” माघः
२ भूमिमात्रे[Page1368-b+ 38] विश्वः
३ अधिकेंत्रि॰ उर्वरमधिवं जातमस्य तारका॰ इतच्। उर्वरित आधिक्ययुक्ते (उपचान) अधिके। उरून् महतऋच्छति ऋ--अच्
६ त॰। अप्सरोभेदे
उर्वरा [urvarā], [उरु शस्यादिकच्छमृति, ऋ-अच्]
Fertile soil (yielding every kind of crop); पततां गणैः पिवतु सार्धमुर्वरा Śi.15.66. also बीजानामिव चोर्बरा 7.4.2.
Land in general.
A mixed mass of fibres, wool &c.
A humorous term for curled hair.
उर्वरा f. (probably connected with उरु) , fertile soil , field yielding crop RV. AV. TS. S3Br. etc.
उर्वरा f. land in general , soil , the earth Ba1lar. S3a1rn3g. etc.
उर्वरा f. N. of an अप्सरस्MBh.
URVARĀ : A celestial woman in the palace of Kubera. In the company of some other celestial women, she danced before the hermit called Aṣṭāvakra. (M.B. Anuśāsana Parva, Chapter 19, Stanza 44).
*7th word in left half of page 811 (+offset) in original book.
Vedic Index of Names and Subjects[सम्पाद्यताम्]
Urvarā is with Kṣetra the regular expression, from the Rigveda onwards, denoting a piece of ‘ploughland’ (). Fertile (apnasvatī) fields are spoken of as well as waste fields (ārtanā). Intensive cultivation by means of irrigation is clearly referred to both in the Rigveda and in the Atharvaveda, while allusion is also made to the use of manure. The fields (kṣetra) were carefully measured according to the Rigveda. This fact points clearly to individual ownership in land for the plough, a conclusion supported by the reference of Apālā, in a hymn of the Rigveda, to her father's field (urvarā), which is put on the same level as his head of hair as a personal possession. Consistent with this are the epithets ‘winning fields’ (urvarā-sā, urvarā-jit, kṣetra-sā), while ‘lord of fields’ used of a god is presumably a transfer of a human epithet (urvarā-pati). Moreover, fields are spoken of in the same connexion as children, and the conquest of fields (kṣetrāṇi saṃ-ji) is often referred to in the Saṃhitās. Very probably, as suggested by Pischel, the ploughland was bounded by grass land (perhaps denoted by Khila, Khilya) which in all likelihood would be joint property on the analogy of property elsewhere. There is no trace in Vedic literature of communal property in the sense of ownership by a community of any sort, nor is there mention of communal cultivation. Individual property in land seems also presumed later on. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad the things given as examples of wealth include fields and houses (āyatanāni). The Greek evidence also points to individual ownership. The precise nature of the ownership is of course not determined by the expression ‘individual ownership.’ The legal relationship of the head of a family and its members is nowhere explained, and can only be conjectured (see Pitṛ). Very often a family may have lived together with undivided shares in the land. The rules about the inheritance of landed property do not occur before the Sūtras. In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the giving of land as a fee to priests is mentioned, but with reproof: land was no doubt even then a very special kind of property, not lightly to be given away or parted with.
On the relation of the owners of land to the king and others see Grāma; on its cultivation see Kṛṣi.
- i. 127, 6;
iv. 41, 6;
v. 33, 4;
vi. 25, 4;
x. 30, 3;
142, 3, etc.;
Av. x. 6, 33;
xiv. 2, 14, etc.
- Rv. i. 127, 6.
- vii. 49, 2.
- i. 6, 4;
xix. 2, 2.
- Av. iii. 14, 3, 4;
xix. 31, 3.
- i. 110, 5.
- viii. 91, 5.
- Rv. iv. 38, 1, and vi. 20, 1;
ii. 21, 1;
iv. 38, 1.
- viii. 21, 3. Cf. Kṣetra.
- Rv. iv. 41, 6, etc.
- Taittirīya Saṃhitā, iii. 2, 8, 5;
Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, v. 2;
Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 12, 3.
- Vedische Studien, 2, 204-207.
- Cf. Baden Powell, Indian Village Community (1899);
Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 236;
Mrs. Rhys Davids, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1901, 860.
- vii. 24, 2.
- Cf. Diodorus, ii. 40;
Arrian, Indica, 11;
Strabo, p. 703;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 87 et seq. Cf. ibid., 20, 22, 23.
- Cf. Gautama Dharma Sūtra, xviii. 5 et seq.;
Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra, ii. 2, 3;
Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra, ii. 6, 14. Of course, the rules probably go back to the earlier period, but how far it is impossible to say. With the settlement of the country, however, inheritance of land and its partition must have become inevitable.
- xiii. 6, 2, 18;
7, 1, 13. 15.
- It is significant that in the famous episode (Taittirīya Saṃhitā, iii. 1, 9, 4) of Manu's division of his property, from which Nābhānediṣṭha was excluded, this exclusion is made good by the son's obtaining cattle (paśavaḥ). It is clear that cattle, not land, was the real foundation of wealth, just as in Ireland, Italy (cf. pecunia), Greece, etc. Cattle could be, and were, used individually, but land was not open to a man's free disposal;
no doubt, at any rate, the consent of the family or the community might be required, but we are reduced to reliance on analogy in view of the silence of the texts. Cf. Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 289;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 94-96;
Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, 48 et seq.