Metrological Traditions of South India* - Indian National...

Project Report

Metrological Traditions of South India*

V Selvakumar**

Abstract

Accurate measurement across the landscape was an important concern from the medieval period,when state formation took place in South India. The measurement scales of medieval period marked inTamil Nadu have largely been ignored so far and detailed studies are lacking. Hence, the current researchon the Metrological Traditions of South India was undertaken to fulfill this gap, and it focuses on thelinear measurement system used in South India, more particularly, the region of Tamil Nadu from about500 AD to 1500 AD. The objectives are to explain the variations in the use of spatial measurements inspace and time and to analyze the pattern of standardization of spatial (linear and area) measurements inthe region of Tamil Nadu. To collect empirical data, temples and archaeological sites in Tamil Nadu weresurveyed and the medieval inscriptions were scrutinized. Twenty-five new measurement scales wereidentified during the surveys and the results of the study is discussed in this report.

* The project was accomplished under the sponsorship of Indian National Commission for History of Science between January2011 and March 2014.

**Department of Epigraphy and Archaeology, Tamil University, Thanjavur 613010 Email: [email protected]

Indian Journal of History of Science, 50.2 (2015) 345-356 DOI: 10.16943/ijhs/2015/v50i2/48245

1. INTRODUCTION

A Tamil Proverb says, “God has given ameasured tail to goat”. Goat has shorter tailcompared to many other animals, and the above-mentioned Tamil proverb, implies that God hasgiven each creature what it needs or deserves. Itappears that the size of many particles andorganisms in nature is determined by nature itselfwithin a particular range. The attributes ofmeasurement and symmetry might haveornamental and functional values. The ancientmeasurement systems are often found to be basedon natural and human body-parts.

In India, evidence for the use of ameasurement system is found from the time of theIndus civilization, i.e. from ca 3000 BC (Danino,2005, 2008; Balasubramanian and Joshi, 2008).Ancient texts such as the Śulbasūtra (Sen and Bag,1983), Arthaśāstra (Kangle1968), andarchitectural treatises mention about the

measurement units that were used in ancient India,and many of these measurement units have thenames of human body-parts.

Numerous references to measurement rodsare found in the inscriptions of medieval periodin South India (Shanmugam, 1987; Subbarayalu,2001;Shanmugan, 2006). State formation andintense architectural activities (especially templebuilding and carving of rock cut caves) began inSouth India, mainly from the middle of the firstmillennium AD. In the early medieval period (fromc. 6th century AD), numerous rock-cut templeswere carved in the rocks and hills, and later onfrom the early eighth century AD, structuralbuildings were constructed using stone blocks. Themedieval structures which are generally datableto c. 7thto c. 15th century AD were built withspecific schemes and plans. With the formationof the state system and expansion of agriculturein the medieval period, there was a necessity for

346 INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE

measuring the lands accurately for saletransactions and tax calculation. It appears thatthere were attempts at standardization ofmeasurements in the medieval period. Numerousreferences are found in the inscriptions to spatialmeasurement units such as muntrikai (1/320),kuzhi (one square rod), kaani (1/80), maa (1/20)and veli, and the measurement rods (kol in Tamilor danda in Sanskrit) that were used for landmeasurements. The measurement rods are markedat several places on temple walls and rocks in thecountryside in order to help people to use them asstandards for periodically checking the woodenmeasurement rods that they used for ground surveyin the fields. However, the nature of themeasurement rods used for land measurement, forthe construction of temples and many otherstructures has not been studied in detail and theinformation found in various source categories hasnot been correlated. The studies on temples oftenanalyse their measurements using modern metricmeasures and they rarely correlate themeasurements of traditional structures withtraditional measurement system. The study on theMetrological Traditions of South India, which wasundertaken to fulfill this gap, focuses on the linearmeasurement system used in South India, moreparticularly, the region of Tamil Nadu from about500 AD to 1500 AD. In the area of archaeology,very little research has been carried out on thecognitive aspects of ancient communities of Indiain general and South India in particular. This work,which is a part of cognitive archaeologicalresearch, seeks to systematically investigate thespatial measurement units used by the people inSouth India in the early medieval period.

The research project aims is to explain thevariations in the use of spatial measurements inspace and time, i.e. to analyze the regional andchronological variation in the use of spatialmeasurement units and to analyze the pattern ofstandardization of spatial (linear and area)measurements. The report of the research is

presented in two parts. The first part deals withthe various themes related to land measurementin South India, discussions and conclusions. Thesecond part provides the dataset that was collectedand documented from primary and secondarysources.

Part I has six chapters

1. Introduction,

2. Study of Architectural Sites

3. Study of Measurement Rods

4. Study of Epigraphical Records

5. Study of Ethnographic Information

6. Conclusions

Part II containing three appendices havebeen provided for supplying the sourceinformation and additional data. Appendix 1containing epigraphical information onmeasurement rods gives the data collected fromthe Tamil inscriptions on measurement rods andscales. Appendix 2 has architectural data collectedon the temples and medieval structures of TamilNadu and Appendix 3,measurement rods fromTamil Nadu, presents the data on actualmeasurement rods and scales marked on thetemples and rocks. It also includes the data onnewly identified measurement rods.

2. DISCUSSIONS

2.1 Methods

Survey of texts: The literature published on theMedieval Tamil Nadu and measurement rods wassurveyed. The inscriptions discussed in variouspublications were studied and analyzed. Thejournals on inscriptions such as South IndianInscriptions(30 Volumes, New Delhi,Archaeological Survey of India), Annual Reporton Indian Epigraphy, New Delhi, ArchaeologicalSurvey of India; Avanam, Journal of Tamil NaduArchaeological Society and Varalaaru, Journal of

PROJECT REPORT: METROLOGICAL TRADITIONS OF SOUTH INDIA 347

Rajamanikkanar Historical Research Centre, wereanalyzed.

Field Research: Field studies were undertaken inseveral regions of Tamil Nadu for documentingarchaeological, architectural and epigraphicalinformation. The research method involved hereincludes, the study of the architectural plans ofthe temples. Measurement of the dimensions ofvarious temple structures of the medieval periodwas undertaken to understand the units ofmeasurements used in the design and constructionof structures. For this purpose a few sites wereselected for the study (Fig. 1). The temple partswere measured with tape and also with the Distotool. During the study we found that many of thetemples have strict rules related to conductingresearch, and permission was necessary fromseveral agencies and we had to make more thanone trip to the temples to obtain permission andalso appointment to undertake measurements. Inmany temples it was difficult to access the innerareas for photography and for the preparation ofthe top plans. Wherever necessary, plan of the

temples were prepared and existing data on theancient temples were checked on the ground tofind out their authenticity. From the initial study,it was felt that the temples presented more variedpatterns and hence, the focus of the study wasequally placed on locating the measurement rodsmarked on the temples.

Field archaeological study was conductedfor locating the evidence related to themeasurement rods. The surfaces of the templeswere searched with naked eye to locate themarking of measurement rods. Four sites wereproposed for the study of measurement rods(Idayalam, Lalgudi, Thirupputkuzhi andThirukkovalur) during the initial stage of theproject; and the survey suggested the presence ofmore number of measurement rods and thereforemore than 75 archaeological sites were visited todocument the measurement rods, in addition tothe temples that were surveyed as part ofarchitectural study. Under ethnographic studyinterviews were made with sthapathi forunderstanding the traditional measures used by the

Fig. 1. Select temples of Tamil Nadu for Architectural Study


contemporary architects and certain fields fromThanjavur region were measured to understandtheir relationships with ancient measurementsystem.

2.2 Data Analysis

The data was analyzed from twoapproaches from apriori perspective without anypreconceived notions.

Etic approach

The term etic represents outsider’sperspectives. This can be equated to aprioriapproach to material culture. Without anypreconceived notion, this analysis was undertaken.Here the medieval rods and their measurementswere analyzed from an empirical approach withoutbeing influenced by any outside references in thetexts, inscriptions and other published materials.From the discussions with many scholars, it wasrealized that looking at the data independent ofArthaśāstra or other architectural treatises wasvery important. When we discuss and correlatethe textual reference for understanding ancientmeasurements, it confuses and preconceivedassumption gets into the scenario. Hence, at onelevel this type of analysis was adopted.

Emic Approach

The emic approach is about viewing datafrom insider’s perspective; here it involved “Indianor native perspective” represented in the ancienttexts. Here the evidence from the ancient texts isused and the agulam measurement is equated.In the case of architectural parts the use of emicapproach was adopted, since most of the templeswere built according to the traditionalmeasurement system.

Issues

While undertaking the survey in thetemples we had to approach several authorities.

Accessing the temple garbhagriha, inner prakaraand certain other areas was restricted. Hence wehad to depend upon the published data onmeasurements and plans. We took measurementof gopurams and the enclosures in many of thetemples. Many of the temples have been renovatedseveral times and as a result the stones have beenshifted and placed in different areas, and as a resultthe measurement marks have been dislocated. Dueto this factor, in numerous instances we coulddocument only one + mark and its correspondingmark has been lost. Interpreting the meaning ofthe markings in the temple was difficult. Not allthe measurement rods marked on the temple weremeant for land measuring. Sometimes marks havebeen placed to convey the position where thepillars had to be placed and they indicate thatplacing of the pillars and other members wasdetermined by certain uniform measurements.Some of the natural rocks that have themeasurement rods have been destroyed due toquarrying activities.

3. SUMMARY OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN:Under this project,15000 inscriptions have

been scrutinised to collect data on themeasurement rods, more than 100 archaeologicaland temple sites have been surveyed to identifythe measurement rods, twenty-five architecturalsites have been surveyed and studied to understandthe measurement units, references to morethan 270 measurement rods/scales havebeen identified from the inscriptions. Fiftymeasurement rods have been documented andtwenty five new measurement rods have beenidentified (Table 1).

3.1 Inferences

Analysis of different scales and rodsmarked in the temples reveals that differentcategories of Muzham (two span or Vitasti) canbe observed as shown in the table 2.


Table 1. Newly Identified/Documented Measurement Rods/Scales (Kols or Dandas) in Tamil Nadu (Fig. nos. correspondto the measuring scales mentioned after the table)

Sl Village Location of District Length of the Remarks FigureNo Measurement Kol in cm Number

Rod/Scale

1 Thirumanikuzhi On the northwest side Cuddalore 230 cm With a division Fig. 2of the prakara of the separating 120 cmVanapurisvarar temple and 110 cm units

(Perhaps re-modifiedafter reconstructionof the temple)

2 Thirumanikuzhi On the northwest side Cuddalore 52 cm One end is marked Fig. 3of the prakaara of the with a trident likeVanapurisvarar temple mark (Perhaps re-

modified afterreconstruction of thetemple)

3 Thirumanikuzhi On the northwest side Cuddalore 359 cm With three Divisions Fig. 4of the prakara of the (102 cm each) andVanapurisvarar temple has wall at the other

end. The mark onone side might havebeen disappeared

4 Thiruvamattur Abhiramesvarar temple Villupuram 419.5cm Divisions with Fig.5subunits of 208.5 cm ,105 cm and 106 cm

5 Thiruvamattur Abhirameshvarar Villupuram 423 cm - Fig. 6temple of sanctum,inner enclosure wall

7 Thiruvamattur On the north adhistana Villupuram 167 cm Divisions marked Fig.7the back entrance of indicate subunits ofthe west gopura 82 cm and 85 cm.Abhirameshvarartemple

6 Thiruvamattur On the south c (the Villupuram 167 cm Divisions marked Fig. 8back entrance) of the indicate subunits ofwest gopura 82 cm and 85 cm.Abhirameshvarartemple

8 Thiruvamattur Abhirameshvarar Villupuram 327 cm Divisions marked Fig. 9temple outside wall of with subunits ofthe north side 164 cm and 163 cm

9 Thiruvennainallur Kirubapurishvarar Villupuram 200 cm Divisions marked Fig.10temple, Main gopura indicate subunits ofoutside the Enclosure 50 cm, 50 cm andwall, in the south side 100 cmadhistana



Rod/Scale

10 Thiruvennainallur Kirubapurishvarar Villupuram 640 cm Divisions marked Fig. 11temple - mandapa indicate subunits ofnorth wall 261 cm, 56 cm and

323 cm

11 Thiruvennainallur Kirubapurishvarar Villupuram 359 cm Divisions marked Fig. 12temple of precinct indicate subunits ofeast side 162 cm, 81 cm and

116.5 cm

12 Thiruvennainallur Kirubapurishvarar Villupuram 752 cm - Fig. 13temple of precinctnorth side

13 Thiruvakkarai Chandramoulishvarar Villupuram 362.5cm - Fig. 14temple

14 Kanchipuram Varadarajaperumal Kanchi- 189 cm - Fig.15temple puramabhiœegamandapawest of north side

15 Kanchipuram Varadarajaperumal Kanchi- 152 cm Divisions marked Fig. 16temple puram indicate subunits ofabhiœegamandapa ca. 22.75 cm,west of south side 22.75 cm, 22.75 cm,

22.75 cm and 61 cm(with Tamilinscription reading“Taccamuzham”which means“Architect’s scale”,reported earlier)

16 Thirumaharal Sri Thirumaharalishvarar Kanchi- 312 cm Divisions marked Fig. 17temple of sanctum back puram indicate subunits ofside 38.5 cm, 77 cm and

156.5 cm

17 Uthramerur Sri Viyakrapurishvarar Kanchi- 207 cm Divisions marked Fig. 18temple of sanctum back puram indicate subunits ofside 104 cm, 52 cm and

52 cm

18 Thirukkazhu- Vedakirishwarar temple Kanchi- 694 cm Damaged? Fig. 19kundram of back side puram

19 Thirukkazhu- Vedakirishwarar temple Kanchi- 404 cm Divisions marked Dama-kundram of second entrance puram to mark subunits of ged?

gopura south side 363 + 41?



Rod/Scale

20 Keezhakuruchi Siva temple of entrance Pudukkottai 89 cm - Fig. 20of Mukamandapa side

21 Viralimalai Siva temple of front Pudukkottai 74 cm It has divisions of Fig. 21gopura Shrine facing 2,10, 2, 18 andside of the Adhistana of 42 cms.the northern unit.

22 Kodumpalur On the muppattai Pudukkottai 25.5 cm Indicates a span unit Fig. 22(tripattakumuta)of theadhistana of theAmman shrine in theMukundesvara temple

23 Kodumpalur On the north side of the Pudukkottai 78 cm It has divisions of Fig. 23mukamandapa of the 54, 12 and 12 cmsMukundesvara temple

24 Thiruvandarkoil On the north side of the Pondicherry 694 cm - Fig. 24mahamandapa of the StateSri TripurasundariSametha SriPanjanathisvara temple

25 Thiruvattar On the entrance of the Kanniya- 220 cm - Fig. 25Aathikesavaperumal kumaritemple

26 Thanjavur On the northern side Thanjavur 276.7 Fig. 26adhistana of themahamandapa of theBrihadhiswara temple

Fig. 2. Measurement Rod from Thirumanikuzhi

Fig. 3. Measurement Rod from Thirumanikuzhi (Perhapsre-modified after reconstruction of the temple)

Fig. 4. Measurement rod from Thirumanikkuzhi(Perhapsre-modified after reconstruction of the temple)

Fig. 5. measurement rod from Thiruvamattur

Fig. 6. Measurement rod from Thiruvamattur


Figs. 2-26




Fig. 12. Measurement Rod from Thiruvennainallur

Fig. 13. Measurement Rod from Thiruvennainallur

Fig. 14. Measurement Rod from Thiruvakkarai

Fig. 15. Measurement Rod from Kanchipuram

Fig. 16. Measurement Rod from Kanchipuram

Fig. 20. Measurement Rod from Keezhakurichi

Fig. 10. Measurement rod from Thiruvennainallur

Fig. 11. Measurement rod from Thiruvennainallur

Fig. 17. Measurement Rod from Thirumaharal

Fig. 18. Measurement rod from Uttiramerur

Fig. 19. Measurement rod from Thirukazhukunram


Fig. 21. Measurement Rod from Viralimalai

Fig. 22. Measurement scale from Kodumpalur

Fig. 23. Measurement scale from Kodumpalur

Fig. 24. Measurement Rod from Thiruvandarkovil

Fig. 26. Measurement rod from Brihadhiswara temple,Thanjavur

Table 2. Possible smaller units of measurements representedin the scales/rods marked in Tamil Nadu

Sl. Span or Caan Cubit or MuzhamNo. or Vitasti (cm) or Hastha (cm)

1 18.5 372 20.5 to 21.25 41 to 42.53 22.5 to 27.5 45 to 45.54 23.625 to 23.75 47.25 to 47.55 24.5 to 50 49 to 506 25.5 to 26.25 51 to 52.57 27 548 30.5 61

The marking of the scales/rods found invarious localities in Tamil Nadu indicates a lackof accuracy. Sometimes an error of 1 cm to 3 cm

is found in the marking of the rods or scales.Perhaps they must have done the marking using awooden scale and the error might have come dueto the error in the original scale or due to lack ofaccuracy while marking on the walls. The abovetable reveals that at least eight basic units ofmeasurements were used in Tamil Nadu. It seemsthat body-part measurements were independentlytaken by the people for devising the scales/rods.

Because of lack of inscriptions it is notpossible to accurately date the measurement rods.Their date perhaps varies from tenth century to20th century AD and they comprise measurementrods used for land measurement and architecturalmeasurement.

Interestingly, some of the measurementrods match with the three types of hasthassuggested by Balasubramanian (2009) which fallin the range of 42 cm, 49 cm and 95 cm. TheArthaśāstra perhaps attempted to standardize themeasurement scales based on the prevailingconventions. However in reality people were usingdifferent types of scales all over India, till thearrival of the British. Even the arrival of the newkingdoms could not completely replace the oldscales or rods since it was an impossible task inthe medieval period, considering the nature andperception of administration. The reasons for thisare understandable as the Indian states andagencies gave space for diversity and they did not

Fig. 25. Measurement Rod from Thiruvattar


want to or spend efforts to maintain uniformityall across the regions of their control.

The lack of accuracy of measurement rodscould be attributed to the changes in the structuresof the temples due to the ravages of time andreconstructions. The measurement rods marked onthe rocks and single large stones are stable.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The findings and conclusions of theresearch are listed below.

• From the study, it is certain that well developedmeasurement scales were used in Tamil Nadufrom the Medieval period (from ca. 6th centuryAD). While in the early historic period (3rd

century BC to 3rd century AD), the use ofmeasurement scales was limited. Theextensive use of measurement scales in themedieval period could be attributed to theformation of states, the emergence of properland administration and taxation measures inthe Medieval period. The above observationproves that the medieval state wascomparatively well organized.

• Measurement rods were integral part ofmedieval land administration. However, therewas no attempt to introduce a uniform type ofmeasurement rods or system all over theterritory in the medieval period. The centralpolitical administration could not and probablydid not want to standardize the measurementsystem and each region was allowed to use itsown (local) measurement system. Whilecertain measurement rods were in use for along duration, a few of the measurement rodsunderwent modification in the later period.The measurement rods of “16 spans” appearto have been very popular, as it has moreoccurrences. The presence of numerousmeasurement rods suggests that landmeasurement was not standardized during thetime of Rajaraja I or other Chola kings as

claimed by researchers, although there was alimited attempt to standardize themeasurements. The Chola monarch, especiallyRajaraja I and Rajendra I could standardizethe measurement rods only to a limited extent,which suggest that the medieval states werenot as totalitarian as the modern states and theyhad allowed the local traditions and rules tosome extent.

• The size of the agulam used in medievalTamil Nadu in some contexts matches withthe basic agulam measurement of 1.76 cmsuggested by Balasubramaniam (2008).However, in several cases the measurementdoes not match with the standards suggestedby Arthaśāstra. There existed agulams ofdifferent types from those discussed byArthaśāstra.

• The length of traditional agulam cannot bestated to be very accurately, and it was notuniform. A variation of 1.70 to 1.90 cm couldbe suggested for one type of agulam and itsaverage may fall around 1.75 cm. This maybe treated as a basic agulam. There wereseveral other varieties of agulammeasurements that were derived from thecombination of the basic agulammeasurement.

• Several varieties of rods were used by thekings and the local administration. This wasprobably for different purposes. Differenttypes of measurement rods were used for drylands and wet lands, in some contexts. Theuse of variety of rods was necessitated by thevariation in the production of the land.

• A vast variety of measurement rods were usedduring the medieval times and they vary fromfour piti (bow-grip) to 24 ati (foot) in lengthin traditional scale. In the later periodmeasurement rods of 54 foot were also used.Some of the scales were used for constructionactivities.


• There was a gradual increase in the size of themeasurement rods from the early Medieval toLater Medieval period. The precise reason forthe increase of the rod is not known. Perhaps,it could be for faster measurement of land, asmore lands were brought under cultivation.

• The Arthaśāstra standard was used in the landmeasurement of the Cholas in a few contexts.However, several measurement rods differgreatly from the Arthaśāstra standard

• In the land area units, both decimal and binarybased systems were used. Sometimes units of100, 1000 are met with. In some cases 128,256 and 512 units (kuzhi) are seen. These typesof units are because of the measurement inmultiplication of 8 or 16.

• The kings asserted their political power bygiving their names to the measurement rods(e.g. Ulagalanthankol, in the later context,Rayavibhadan kol, Kandara Kandan kol), forgaining symbolic power and authority over thesubjects and territory.

• From the architectural survey, we do noticevariation in the use of measurement units. Notmuch uniformity is seen and it appears thateach temple was designed according todifferent muzham(cubit) unit and sometimesthe units were based on the danda of 82 to 84cm in length. In the size of agulam too wenotice variations.

• Another important issue is the inaccuracy inthe execution of measurements in varioustemples. Although the planners might havecome up with accurate designs, the artists whoexecuted did make some mistakes. However,in the case of Brihadhiswara temple we noticesome degree of standardization.

• The ethnographic information on human bodyparts indicates a huge diversity in themeasurement units. Therefore, it cannot beargued that agulam had a standard measure.

However, there have been attempts tostandardize agulam and it is reflected in thecase of some measurement rods.

• The data from the contemporary agriculturalfields reveal that the fields were laid outaccording to a scale. It is likely that in themedieval period, fields were formed accordingto a measured scale in order to have specificunits and this is attested by the evidence fromthe inscriptions.

• The measurement rods are distributed mainlyin the Kaveri valley and in the northern TamilNadu and this could be attributed to theintensity of wet cultivation undertaken in theseregions.

• In terms of size, the smallest measurementscale measures 25.5 cm and the longestmeasurement scale is 697 cm in length.

• The measurement rods of early Medievalperiod are smaller in size, generally less than400 cm in length. Post-14th century, theirlength increases and it could be attributed tothe changes in the taxation system. Perhaps toreduce the time taken for measurement of vastareas of land they might have adopted suchlong scale rods.

• The field survey indicates that themeasurement rods were marked only oncertain temples which were regionallyimportant. For example, in the medievalperiod, there were certain centers thatfunctioned as headquarters of theadministrative division of naatu (which canbe compared to modern taluk in theadministrative hierarchy). These centers havethe temples, which were sung by saints as partof the Bhakti movement (called Devāramtemples). From this research, we learn thattemples in such towns with higheradministrative status have markings of suchmeasurement rods.


• Apart from the measurement rods, severalgames related markings and other unknownmarks are engraved or carved on the temples.They were also documented during thesurvey.

• The traditional units of fraction used in theancient inscriptions are interesting andimportant (e.g. maa, muntirikai 1/320) andthey can be taught in the schools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank INSA for the funding,Mr. A.Raja, Project Fellow, and the expertcommittees, especially Dr A.K. Bag, Late Dr R.Balasubramanian and Mrs. Shabnam Shukla andMr. Madhvendra Narayan for their support.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balasubrahmanyam, S.R., Middle Chola Temples (985-1070). Thomas India Ltd., Faridabad, 1975

Balasubramaniam, R., On the mathematical significance ofthe dimensions of the Delhi Iron Pillar, Current Science95, 6, 25 Sep. 2008, 766-770.

Balasubramaniam, R., On the confirmation of the traditionalunit of length measure in the estimates ofcircumference of the earth. Current Science, 2009, 96:547-552.

Balasubramaniam, R. and Joshi, J. P., Analysis of terracottascale of Harappan civilization from Kalibangan.Current Science, 95(2008): 588-589.

Danino, M., Dholavira’s Geometry: A Preliminary Study.Puratattva,35(2005):76-84

Danino, M., New insights into Harappan town-planning,proportions, and units, with special reference toDholavira, Man and Environment 33(2008): 66-79

Heitzman, James and S. Rajagopal., Urban geography andland measurement in the twelfth century: The case ofKanchipuram, Indian Economic Social History Review41(2004):237-268. DOI: 10.1177/001946460404100301.t

Raju, L and Mainkar. V.B, Development of Length and AreaMeasures in South India -Part I. Journal of Weightsand Measures 7.1(1964): 3-13.

Raju, L. and Mainkar, V.B..Development of Length and AreaMeasure in South India Part II. Metric Measures7(1964): 12-23.

Sen, S.N. and Bag A.K., The Śulbasūtras, Indian NationalScience Academy, New Delhi,1983.

Shanmugam, P., The Revenue System of the Cholas 850-1279. New Era Publications, Chennai, 1987.

Subbarayalu, Y., Land Measurement in Medieval TamilNadu, in Studies in Cola History. Madras, 2001

Venkayya, V., “Introduction” pp. 1-41.South IndianInscriptions, Vol. II (Parts I & II) by E. Hultzch. FirstPublished by Archaeological Survey of India, Madras1892.Reprinted by Navrang, New Delhi, 1983.

Metrological Traditions of South India* - Indian National...

Documents

Transcript of Metrological Traditions of South India* - Indian National...