Part 9 - Details of Non-Vegetarian Food in the Mahabharata

The most conspicuous feature of the ancient diet was the prevelance of meat-eating among all castes, including the Brahmins. The occasions for meat-eating were many, and it was not taboo even for religious and ceremonial functions. In fact, yajna was one of the most important occasions when animals were slaughtered in hundreds and thousands. Thus, during the Asvamedha of Yudhisthira, it appeared as if there would be no end to the killing of animals (XIV. 91.38). Another famous sacrifice, that of King Rantideva, performed in some hoary past, and whose memory is evoked again and again in the Epic, as a model sacrifice, resulted in the killing of innumerable animals, particularly cows, so much so, that the Mahanadi into whose waters the scaled cow-hides were cast away, came to be renamed as the

- 147 *Carmanvati' (XIII.29.116, 65.41). Nothing but meat and meat-broth was served to the guests during the sacrificial feast of Rantideva (XII.29.10). This mass slaughter of animals was undertaken. with the firm belief that Agni, the god of Fire, was extremely fond of flesh (III.199.9). Other gods too, were equally fond of it, and so the offerings to Siva and Kubera, and his Yaksas, consisted of meat dishes along with sweets and flowers (XII.101.59-61; XIV.62.9, 64.4-5, 7). Even the manes looked forward to a meaty treat, and so invariably meat was cooked at the sraddha feast (XIII.88.3-4, 5-10, 15). It is indeed surprising that a large number of items like assafoetida, onions, garlics, salt, cumins, the fruits Srngataka (Trapibispinosa) and Jambu (Rose Apple) were debarred from sraddha, whereas meat was absolutely a must (XIII.91.38-41). We have come a long way today when meat is almost totally banned on all religious occasions! In Epic India, however, meat-eating was part of the religion, during yajnas, during sraddha, and during ceremonial offerings to gods. Socio-religious occasions like marriage too, witnessed a mass slaughter of animals for the large number of guests attending the wedding feast. This was particular- -ly true of royal weddings, which were always performed on a rather lavish scale (IV.67.27). Hunting trips into forests by Kings and princes,

- 148 also sparked off. a wanton destruction of animal life. Not all hunting, however, was undertaken as sport or pleasure. Much of it was the result of sheer necessity, as when the Pandavas were residing in the forest for twelve long years, their main subsistence was the flesh of hunted animals, particularly deer. A typical example of hunting for sport was the ghosayatra of the Kaurava Princes, when they went out into the cowherd villages, bordering the forest, to check on the cattle population. Throughout the day they indulged in large-scale hunting of every species of animal life that roamed the forest (III.229.10-12). The two main participants in all religions the ceremonies were generally the Brahmins in their capacity as preists and special invitees, and Ksatriyas as the performers and the donors. The question naturally arises whether the Brahmins also took part in the large-scale killing of animals on such occasions. They certainly did, It was however repulsive the idea may sound to us today. a specialized Brahmin preist called the 'Samitru', who did the ceremonial slaughtering and cutting-up of the sacrificial animal. The other preists joined with the chanting of the mantras (VIII.62.24). All the assembled Brahmin preists and guests regularly partook of meat during the sacrificial feast (XIV.91.37). The same was true of the sraddha and the wedding feast (IV.67.37, XIII.24.85). Aven individual Brahmin guests, who often

happened to be learned sages of great repute, asked for and were served with meat by ksatriya kings (III.94.8; XIII.53.16, 18). The slaughtering of a cow or oxen in honour of a renowned guest, who oftener than not was a Brahmin, was a very common practice among all people (III.96.8; V.35.20, 38.3, 87.19). A large number of Brahmin dependants were - 149 always at the disposal of a Ksatriya king. They naturally shared in the heavy meat diet that was prepared for the royal household. Similarly the day's hunting spoil was first offered to the Purohita and other Brahmin dependants by the Pandavas, before partaking of the remaining (III. 47.4.7). Even Brahmin ascetics living in forest hermitages had no qualms about eating the flesh of hunted deer, brought to them regularly by a Nisada. Some however, refused to accept it for fear of contaminating themselves with the food of a low-caste Dasyu (XII.133.8-9). Evidently, contacts with the aborigines was more distastestful than any form of meat-eating. Thus a totally different pattern of foodhabits prevailed from that which exists today amongst Brahmins all over the country. Very slowly, however, a change is perceptible. In the Santi and Anusasana, a Brahmin is again and again exhorted not to partake of flesh without a proper occasion for it. Meat-eating for a Brahmin was being gradually restricted to yajna only (XII.186.13, 235.5; XIII.107.55). Yet it was significant that a total ban on meat-eating is

- 150 not prescribed even for a Brahmin. The class that indulged most in meat-eating was the warrior class, the Ksatriyas. Meat was an integral part of their diet, and it is doubtful if any meal was served without meat. In the palace kitchen of King Rantideva, as many as 2000 animals were slaughtered daily, and the Epic proudly proclaims that the King's great fame was built up on the heavy meat diet served to his innumerable dependants (III.199.7). This picture need not be fanciful, for we have as proof, the inscrip- -tion of Emperor Asoka wherein he confesses to the daily slaughter of a hundred thousand animals in his own kitchen, prior to his conversion to Buddhism (Hultzsch 1925: 1). What took place in one royal kitchen took place in others too! Thus Bhima as the cheif cook of Virata regularly passed the surplus meat supply to his other brothers serving in the same household (VI.12.6); Duryodhana feasted daily on a royal diet of rice cooked with meat (II.49.5; XII.124.10); and the Vrani cheiftains carried a load of meat and liquor on their ill-fated visit to Mt. Raivataka (XVI.4.7). Many more such examples can be cited. The meat supply for the royal household came from different sources. Sometimes the princes went hunting themselves. But more often it must have been the head-cook and others under him who did the slaughtering and cooking of such domesticated species as the cow, goat, POONA LIBRARY

❤ 151 sheep etc. Thus, such epithets as 'aralika' (weilding a curved knife') and 'govikarta' (a cow-slaughterer), came to be used for a cook (IV.2.9; IV.1.17). Very often Ksatriya princes were themselves expert cooks. Damayanti had only to taste the meat prepared by Nala, disguised as Bahuka, to be convinced of his identity (III.73.20, 22). As far as animals that roamed the wild are concerned, professional hunters and trappers were employed for the task (IX.29.22-23). Even when the Ksatriyas resorted to forest, they stuck to their meat-diet. Thus, the Pandavas subsisted almost entirely on the flesh of hunted deer in their 12 years of forest residence, so much so, that even to a chance visitor like Jayadratha, Draupadi offered as early morning breakfast, the flesh of as many as 500 deer (III.251.11). The number might appear a trifle inflated, but not so much if we take into consideration the large retinue of the Pandavas, consisting of Brahmin preists, charioteers, cooks, servants and slaves, all of whom had to be fed in the forest where cultivation was not possible. The Mahabharata being primarily an Epie of the warrior class, it is more or less silent about other castes, the particularly the Vaisyas, farmers, traders, merchants, artisans etc., and the lowly Sudras. It was actually the Sudras, often refered to as Nigada, Candala, Dasyu etc. who lived by the trapping and sale of wild animals, deers, birds and fish (III.29.22-23, 34.33; XII.136.23-25;

= 152 XIII.50.14-15). A certain Nigada from the city of Ayodhya had a regular shop selling the flesh of various animals, and people flocked to it (III.198.10). Although these men kept alive the artieries of food supply, their professions were looked down upon as the lowliest of/lowly (III.188.21; XIII.24.77). for food. the A large number of animal species were utilized Domesticated Species 1) Cow: Beef, no doubt, was included in the diet of the ancient Indians. Every important guest had to be welcomed with Madhuparka and a cow, which was slaughtered in his honour (V.35.20, 38.3, 87.19). Cows and oxen were also slaughtered for sraddha, yajna and probably the wedding feast (XIII.65.41, 88.8-9). It would however, be mislead- -ing to say that no taboo whatsoever was attached to beefeating. A Brahmin is asked to avoid beef, but it is noteworthy that the probibition does not apply only to beef, but also to mutton, to the flesh of a peacock, and to dried and stale meat (XIII.107.85). Besides it does not say anything about similar rules for the other three castes. verse from the Dronaparva (VII.51.27) is much more emphatic in its condemnation of the beef-eaters, wherein Arjuna vows before his supporters that if he failed to kill Jayadartha he shall be ready to enter those regions of hell which fall to the lot of men who kill Brahmins and cows. The later A

= 153 concept of a Ksatriya as a protector of Brahmins and cows, is very much evident here. A similar idea occurs just three verses later (VII.51.30), according to which it is a sin to touch a Brahmin or a cow with one's feet. Since these are the only instances of their kind, it would not be wrong to assume that they have entered the Epic at a later date. Beef-eating was very prevelant amongst certain people e.g. the North-western Bahlikas and Madras, but from Karna's condemnation of their food-habits, it is clear that these were distasteful to tribes from India proper (VIII.27.77, 30.15, 29). Thus, on the whole, the impression persists that beef-eating was largely restricted to ceremonial occasions. One has to however, keep in mind that the Epic has undergone, even at a very late date, a lot of scrubbing and polishing at the hands of Brahmin scribes, who might have conveniently erased those portions which were unpalatable to them. 11) Goat: was one of the most commonly slaughtered animal (II.94.8; IV.14.8; XIII.88.5). 111) Sheep: So also the sheep (IV.14.8; XIII.63.32). Edaka (ran) meat was very popular with the Bahlikas, a region still well-known for its fine wool-producing sheep (VIII.30.30-32). iv) Donkey

and - 154 v) Camel: meat was also relished by the Bahlikas (VIII. 30.30-32), but the other tribes from the East looked upon these foodhabits with dissaproval. vi) Pig: The flesh of the domesticated village pig was considered unclean (XII.159.70), but there is no reason to believe that the common man really abstained from eating pork. vii) Dog: The term 'avapaka' or 'avapaca' i.e. 'one who cooks dog-meat', refers to the lowliest of castes, originating from the Candalas (XIII.48.21). Either it was the special status of the dog as a household pet and close companion, or his unclean habit of feeding on rubbish heaps (XII.157.70), which resulted in the clamping down of this taboo. Whatever be the reasons, it is almost certain that very low-caste tribes did indulge in this 'depravity', either due to their extreme poverty or the easy avalability of a prey like the dog. Thus an outspoken simile compares Krana's joy at the death of Ghatotkaca, a warrior of his own camp, to the joy of a dog-eater when his dog is killed in a fight with a boar (VII.157.8). Evidently, some of the Candalas and other castes, who made a living by trapping and hunting wild animals, used dogs as helpmates in their out hunting expeditions, but had no qualms in making use of

= 155 their flesh in times of need. Wild Species 1) Deer: The deer was the most widely and the most ruthlessly hunted denizen of the forest, a favorite target of every hunting party. Colonies of deer must have disappeared in the cource of each hunting expedition, for they were massacred in hundreds. During their long sojourn of twelve years in the forest, the Pandavas and their sizable retinue, subsisted almost entirely on the flesh of hunted deer (III.47.3-11, 157.7; 251.11; 253.1). The extent of the damage to wild life, particularly the deer population, can be had from a rather touching episode from the Aranyakaparva (III.244). One night the surviving deer of the Dvaitavana forest, adjoining Hastinapura, where the Pandavas had been living for more than a year and a half, appeared before Yudhisthira in his dream, and requested him to change his abode and move into another forest, so that they are given a chance to propogate themselves again, without the fear of becoming totally extinct. The kind-hearted Yudhisthira immediately took pity on them, and complied by moving into the Kanyaka forest. Thus, if within a comparatively short span of one year and eight months, the deer population of an entire forest was on the verge of extinction, at the hands of a few skilled hunters, how great must have been the destruction

wrought over years of hunting and trapping of the deer. The episode also brings aut effectively, the battle of S - 156 concience that even a Ksatriya Prince like Yudhisthira faced, when he had to kill daily, a large number of innocent animals. There are other places too, in the Epic, which record the painful outbursts of Yudhisthira, lamenting his birth as a Ksatriya which forces him to live by hunting (III.257.8-9). Venison was a favorite food of the Epic Indians, and there is every reason to believe that it figured in their daily meals. Whenever a meat diet is refered to, it is primarily of deer-flesh (III.47.3-7; 131.16; 251.11; IV.14.8, 67.27; XII.133.8; XIII.88.7). It was even sold in open markets and in shops in some cities like Ayodhya (III.198.10). This easy availibility points to a fruitful trade, where hunting and trapping of deer had become a profitable livelihood. Deer were generally trapped in nets, set up for the purpose under Nyagrodha trees and such other spots where the herd resorted for the night's rest (XII.136.23-25). 11) Buffalo (mahiga) and 111) Boar (varaha), were two other widely hunted creatures of the wild (III.229.10-12, 251.11, 253.1). Their flesh too, was a must for araddha (XII.88.6), and it was sold in markets and shops along with venison (III.198.10). Boar-

- 157 meat was a particular favorite with the Bahlikas (VIII.30. 30-32), but the domesticated village pig was looked upon as unclean (XII.159.70). As pointed out in an earlier section (Fauna), the frequent mention of the mahisa along with other animals hunted in the forests, points to the wild buffalo. It is doubtful if the domesticated species was at all known. iv) Gayala (gavaya), a species of (Bos gavaenus), v) Bear (rsya), vi) Rhinocerous (khadga), and vii) Hare (sasa) were some of the other animals hunted in the wild, not merely for sport but also for their flesh. At one stage of their forest life Draupadi requests Jayadratha, who happened to pass by, to wait awhile, till the Pandavas returned with a fresh load of hunted animals for food, like the gayala, hare and bear (III.251.11). Offerings of hare and gayala-meat were also made for araddha, while rhino-meat was a rare delicacy. Birds There were bird-catchers using nets, poking sticks and cages to trap colonies of birds who were later sold in the town markets (III.34.33; XII.141.13). The flesh of a

- 158 bird also figures in araddha offerings (XIII.88.6). (1) Quails (Latva): whose flesh was believed to be unexcelled by any other taste (XII.173.29). (11) Pigeons (Kapota): were trapped in nets and baskets, and sold in the markets (XII.143.10). (111) Chicken (kukkuta): were looked upon as unclean and their flesh was forbidden along with that of a dog, a village pig, and a donkey (XII.159.70). It was, however, a favorite of the Bahlikas (VIII.30.30-32). A large number of birds were declared as protected species (XII.37.17-19), but it was a limited protection, which forbade only the Brahmins from killing any of these birds. The list includes picturesque water-birds like the White Crane (baka), the Swan (hamsa), the Diver-bird (Madgu), and the Brahmany Duck (cakravaka); kh al also the beautiful Peacock (mayura), and certain birds of prey like -

the Vultures (bhasa and grdhra), the Eagle (Suparna), the Owl (uluka), and - 159 the Crow (kaka). It is quite unlikely that the birds of prey were killed as table-birds. It were their feathers that were more rather on the other hand, sought after/than their flesh. At least the feathers of the vulture grdhra were immensely popular for arrows (III.34.83; IV.38.26; VII.99.15). The acquatic birds and the peacock/were certainly tracked down as much for their flesh as for their feathers. The Mahabharata itself tells the story of a Brahmin named Gautama who treacherously murdered a big Crane (bakaraja), after having earlier shared the fish which the bird was picking out from the river (XII.166.3-4). More authentic are the words of Emperor Asoka that two peacocks were slaughtered daily in his kitchen despite his conversion to Buddhism (Hultzsch 1925 : 1). Acquatic Species (1) Fish: There are some very prominent examples of fish-eating, even by Brahmins, in the Mahabharata Fish was cooked for araddha (XIII.88.5); it was roasted in fire and eaten

- 160 by Gautama Brahmana (XII.164.4-6), the learned Saraswat- -muni kept the knowledge of the Vedas alive by subsisting entirely on the fish from the waters of the Saraswati, through twelve long years of drought (IX.50.35-44); there were colonies of fisherman busy casting nets and catching fish from rivers and lakes, particularly the Ganga, which was teeming with huge fish (XII.135.4, 11, 13, 196.11, XIII.50.14-15). (11) Frogs and (iii) Tortoise: too, seem to have been caught for food. The Santiparva (XII.37.17) forbids a Brahmin to take frogs, but permits the tortoise. The other castes evidently, had a free hand in thematter. Meat-eating by all sections of the society was a marked feature in ancient India, right from Rgvedic times. Even in the Buddhist literature, with its great emphasis on 'ahimsa', the number of non-vegetarians was considerable. The sacrificial killing of the animals too, was an ancient Vedic feature. Despite the emergence of a strong taboo against meat-eating in later times, sacrificial slaughter was condoned, even to a Brahmin, for a long time.

■ 161 Meat preparations were common for sraddha in the Sutra period. Only when a man could not afford meat was he allowed the use of vegetables (Om Prakash 1961: 39). The flesh of a large number of animals was recommended for the sraddha offerings, some of whom like the rhinocerous, deer, buffalo, boar, hare and oxen figure in the Mahabharata too, in similar contexts (XIII.88.5-10). In the Vedic as well as the Sutra literature, mutton, pork and beef were more common than venison, and goats, sheep, boars and buffaloes were killed in large numbers. Venison became prominent as a favorite food in the pics and in the Buddhist Pali literature. The Jatakas are full of stories of kings and princes "hunting merely to experience the delicacies and pleasures of eating venison, roasted on charcoals". There were special villages, inhabited only by professional hunters, whose sole means of livelihood was the killing, capture and sale of animals, particularly deer (Mehta 1939: 236). Venison was also sold in open markets of important cities like Kasi (Om Prakash 1961: 63-64). We have the famous First Girnar Rock Edict of Asoka which testifies to the regular use of venison in royal house-holds (Hultzsch 1925: 1). According to him a deer was slaughtered daily in his kitchen even after his conversion to Buddhism. The Mahabharata with its emphasis the on venison, and large-scale hunting and trapping of deer has much in common with Buddhist Pali literature in this respect. liang POONA GA LIBRARY.

As far as beef is concerned, the concept of a - 162 cow being 'aghanya' i.e. not to be killed, is as old as the Rgveda (RV. I.164.27). The logig behind this special status was singie. Milk and milk-products formed a major part of the Vedic diet. The cow as the giver of milk was invaluable. Bullocks were needed for working the plough and drawing the cart. Thus, quite naturally the wealth of a cheiftain came to be counted in heads of cattle. Without any religious taboo being attached to beef-eating, it automatically became restricted on economic grounds. Even in the Rgveda cows and oxen were slaughtered mainly during sacrifi ces, for the marriage feast and to welcome a guest, all occasions of communal get-to-gether (On Prakash 1961 : 15-16). Very often the cow chosen was a barren one, and as such of no use as a milch animal. same state of affairs is evident in the Sutras and the Mahabharata, but already the taboo against beef-eating had started to tighten. By the time of the Sutras protection was also The The afforded to a large number of other animals and birds. flesh of dogs, village fowls, domesticated pigs, asses and carnivorous birds was excluded from diet due to a notion of its being unclean. On the other hand, such beautiful species of birds as the swan, cockoo, Cakravaka, Sarika, the white pigeon etc., also came within the perview of these rules (Apastambha Dharma Sutra I.5.17.29-37; I.7.21. 14-15; Vasistha Dharma Sutra XIII.25, XIV.30-37). In the FOONA 6

= 163 Mahabharata too, some of these very species of birds and animals were excluded from human diet. The lists in the Sutras run into many more species, not mentioned by the Mahabharata, one of the reasons being that most of these prohibhitory rules apply to Brahmins, and as such are given in greater details in the Sutras, which deal with rites and ritual, rather than in the libh, which is a heroic poem. Even in the Epic they are mainly restricted to such didactic portions. as of the Santi and Anusasanaparvas (III.37.17-19, 159.70; XIII.107.84-86). a Archeological excavations have brought to light a wealth of animal remains which tell us a great deal about the food-habits of the people right from the Neo- -lithic stage down to the Historical period. These remains comprise mostly of bones and marine and shell remains, but at times also of antlers and horns (and objects made from them). Many of the bones are in a charred condition, others split, or with cut-marks of sharp instruments to indicate their use for food. The largest number of remains, at almost all the sites, belong to the species (Bos indicus) or the Domestic Humped Cattle of India. Large herds of cows were maintained, and beef-eating was evidently the norm of the day in ancient India.

- 164 Some of the earliest and more well-known sites in Northern and Central India where these remains occur are: Mohenjo-daro : 2500-1500 B.C., Harrapa : 2500-1500 B.C., Rupar: Harrapan : 2500-900 B.C., Lothal: Harrapan : 2500-1200 B.C., (Nath 1968: 18-19) Navdatoli: Chaleolithic : 1600-1300 B.C., Ahar : Chaleolithic : 2145-1875 B.C., (Thomas 1974: 198-201) Nasik-Jorewe: Chalcolithic: 1600-1300 B.C., Nevesa : Chaleolithic : 1500-1000 B.C., Nagda : Chalcolithic : 1600-1300 B.C., Ujjain : PGW Culture : 800-500 B.C., Iron Age : 400- 200 B.C., Hastinapura: PCW Culture: 1100-800 B.C., Takgasila: Late Historical: 50 B.C.-100 A.D., (Nath 1968: 18-21).

In the South too, similar evidence comes from - = 165 Piyampally : Neolithic : 1725 B.C., Sangankallu: Neolithic : 1600-1500 B.C., (Thomas 1974 : 198-201) Nagarjunkonda: Neolithic : 1200 - 600 B.C., and Megalithic: 200 B.C.-500 A.D., (Nath 1968 : 20-21) Maski : Chaleolithic: 900-400 B.C., Megalithic : 300 B.G. - 50 A.D., (AI, 13, 1957: 14) Brahmagiri Megalithic : 200 B.G. - 50 A.D., Arikamedu Indo-Roman and (Nath 1968: 18-19) 100-200 A.D. (AI, 2, 1946: 114-15). Thus beef-eating, beyond doubt, continued in practice, though condemned in religious writings, through the centuries, even as late as the 8 th century A.D.

The next largest deposits of bones are those of the (Bubalis bubalis), the Indian domesticated buffalo, found at very much the same sites as those of the (Bos indicus). As noted earlier, in the discussion on milk and dairy products, it is very difficult to differentiate between a domestic and a wild buffalo, so that a portion of these remains could also belong to the wild buffalo. The Mahabharata testifies to the fact that the buffalo was a much-hunted animal of the wilds. The remains of another much-hunted animal, the Indian Boar, (Sus scrofa eristatus), also occur in large numbers, next only to the domestic cattle, sheep and goat, from almost all ancient sites (Nath 1968: 32-35). The bones of the Indian domestic goat, (Capra hircus aegaegrus), and of the domestic sheep, (Ovis - 166 vignei), also occur in large numbers, in all habitational deposits along with those of the cattle (Nath 1968 : 24-29). a Archeological evidence supports the fact that the deer were the most widely hunted species of the wild, for its skeletal remains are found at almost every important site. In many cases the remains constitute entirely of antler fragments and very rarely of bones. The presence of only antlers at Mohenjo-daro has led to the belief that they were imported from outside for medicinal purposes (Nath 1968 :4). However, there are

- 167 At other sites like Nasik, Rupar, Nagarjunkonda, Ujjain, Noh, Ahar, Navadatoli, Inamgaon, where parts of bones, jaws and teeth too, have been recovered along with the antlers. Hastinapura, the epicentre of the Epic drama, the deer were hunted in large numbers in the PGW cultural layers, dated to 1100-800 B.C., for their bones and their antlers have been used for making a number of objects, like stylli etc. (Nath 1968: 8; Ancient India, 10-11, 1954: 14). According to the Mahabharata too, the city and its surrounding forests were teeming with large colonies of deer. A number of deer species are represented in these remains. They are: (1) Tetraceros quadricornus: the four-horned antelope, (11) Anstulope cervicapra: the Black Buck or the Kranamrga of the Mahabharata, (111) Axis asix: the Spotted deer, the Prsata or Saranga of the Mahabharata, (iv) Cervus elaphus haulu: the Kashmir Steg or Red deer, (v) Cervus unicolour : the Sambar, known to the Mahabharata as Sambara, (vi) Cervus peretnus: the Hog deer,

(vii) Cervus duvaucelli : the Barasingha, (viii) Muntiacus muntiak: the Muntijak or the Barking deer, - 168 (Nath 1968: 26-33, 58-59). The Mahabharata also refers to five other types, but gives no details of their physical descriptions, which makes it impossible to identify them with any of the modern zoolo- -gical types. The remains of the domestic ass (Equus asinus), the camel (Camelus dromedarius), and the dog (Canis familiaris), also occur at a number of sites (Nath 1968 : 16-17, 36-37), but these may be simple skeletal remains. The ass and the camel being beasts of burden, it is not unnatural to come across their remains in human habitational sites. The same is true of the remains of the dog, which occur right from Neolithic times, for he was a close freind and a possible companion in the hunting expeditions of the primitive man. On the other hand, the skeletal remains of the Indian hare (Lepus negricollis dayanus), and the Indian rabitt (Lepus negricollis ruficandatus), were certainly food-remains. So also probably those of the Indian Rhinocerous (Rhino unicornis) found at Harrapa, Lothal (Nath 1968: 18-19), Langhnaj (Clutton Brock 1965: 9, 10) and Piyampalli (IAR 1967-68: 28), meagre though they are.

a of - 169 Of the birds, so far the most common remains at archeological sites are those of the (Gallus Sp.), the domestic fowl, reported from Mohenjo-daro, Harrapa, Lothal, Rupar, Ahar, Navadatoli, Brahmagiri and Piyampalli (Thomas 1974 : 198-201). As noted earlier, the didactic portions of the Epic forbade the use/chicken for food, although the people of the North-Western region were very fond of it. All the above named sites fall within the time range of 2500-1000 B.C. Very few animal remains from Historical sites have been studied so far. But it would be interesting to see if the seriptural taboos had any significant effect on the food-habits of the people, in later Historical periods. Quite some variety of river and esturine water- -fish comes from ancient sites like Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (Nath 1968: 46-47). Certainly more will come when the animal, remains from all sites situated on river-banks are studied. At present, of greater interest are the remains of the tortoise and turtles of various types, which occur very frequently at many an important excavated sites. They are of the (1) Fresh water tortoise (Kachuga Gray tectum), (11) Fresh-water turtle (Trianyx gangeticus), (111) Soft-shelled river turtle (Chitra indica), mys (iv) Pond-turtle (Pissed punctata),

(v) The Common Land tortoise (Estundo elegans), and (vi) A River turtle (Batagur baska). - 170 As noted earlier in the Mahabharata contexts, while the semi- -ac quantic frog was protected by an injunction, the poor tortoise was not exempt even from consumption by Brahmins. These remains comming from Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, Lothal, Rupar, Rangpur, Hastinapura, Nevasa, Nagda and Nasik, from 2500 B.C. - 300 A.D., show that it was indeed a much sought after creature, mainly for its flesh and probably for its thick outer covering. also Systematic excavations have brought out many more species of vertebrates, as well as invertebrates. Not all are likely to have been slaughtered for food. Hence only those that occur in the context of the Mahabharata food- -habits have been mentioned. Uptill now we have merely listed the various species whose flesh was consumed by the ancients, but what exactly were their priorities is made clear by the Anu- -sasanaparva (XIII.88.5-10), which sets forth a list of different flesh offerings for the manes at the sraddha rites :an offering of fish satisfied the manes for two months, mutton for three,

hare-meat for four, sheep-flesh for five, pork for six, a bird for seven, the Spotted-deer for eight, the Ruru deer for nine, the Gayala for ten, the buffalo for eleven, while beef for a complete year, = 171 a and what's more, a castrated ox for/full twelve years. Last comes rhino-meat, which leads to a permanent satisfaction of the manes. These priorities of a ceremonial occasion could not have been very different in the daily lives of the people, with the probable exception of the Ksatriyas, who were in a position to obtain, rather more frequently, the wilder species, like deer, boar, gayal and the buffalo, either by indulging in sport-hunting themselves, or through the employment of professional hunters and trappers. The majority of the population, however, must have restricted themselves to such smaller, domesticated or easily caught species like the fish, hare, goat and sheep. The Rhino, one of Nature's thoughest and most thick-skinned animal was not easy to trap or kill. Therefore its flesh is almost a rare delicacy. Of great significance, however, is the fact that beef was almost as precious and rare as an

offering of rhino-meat. A cow or a bullock was not slaughtered at random even for a sraddha. Beef-eating was certainly reserved for very special ceremonial occasions. a Thus the broad picture that emerges from both literature and archeology, leaves no doubt that non- -vegetarianism was the mode of life with all people in ancient India. - 172