Reading Milk, Curd and Ghee in an 1826 Krishna Drawing Record

A museum record can document a reference to milk, curd and ghee without telling us what every household ate. A British Museum drawing dated 1826 offers a specific example: read the object's description, inscription translation and uncertain details separately.

Identify the record

The British Museum record for object 1962,1231,0.12.29 identifies a Company School drawing made in pen, ink and wash on paper. It dates the work to 1826 and describes Balakrishna playing a flute on a couch. Its translated inscription associates Krishna with having consumed milk, yoghurt and ghee.

The catalogue lists Thanjavur and Tiruchirapalli as possible production places, each with a question mark. Retain that uncertainty when taking notes. The museum also qualifies its identification of one object beneath the couch as a possible spittoon; a confident modern caption should not erase the qualification.

Separate three kinds of statement

• Object information: what the catalogue records about this drawing, such as its date and materials.
• Narrative content: what the depicted religious story and translated inscription describe.
• Your interpretation: the question you want to explore after reading the record.

For example, “the catalogue's translated inscription names dairy foods” is a narrow observation. “This proves a particular daily diet across a region” is a much wider claim that this record alone does not establish.

A useful note-taking sequence

1. Save the object number and exact catalogue link so another reader can locate the same record.
2. Write the catalogue's artwork date in a field labelled “object date”. Do not turn it into a date for the story's events or the invention of ghee.
3. Attribute translated wording to the museum record. Do not imply that you translated an inscription yourself.
4. Keep question marks and other qualifications beside the relevant detail.
5. List new research questions separately, rather than completing gaps from imagination.

This article is a reading exercise based on the catalogue, not a reported museum visit or an independent examination of the physical drawing. The banner is a modern conceptual illustration, not a reproduction of the object.

What the reference cannot establish about a modern jar

The record does not identify a contemporary brand, verify an A2 source, establish a churning process or provide a measured recipe. Historical interest should not become a product certification.

For a separate present-day recipe using regular cow ghee, Danedar Cow Ghee is the matching current product reference. It is not represented as the ingredient depicted in this artwork or as having a connection to its maker.

Quick questions

Should I replace “yoghurt” with “curd” in a quotation?

Preserve a source's wording in a quotation. Explain terminology separately and attribute any paraphrase.

Can I copy a museum image just because its record is public?

Check the actual image's reuse terms first. A readable catalogue page and permission to reproduce its image are separate matters.

Compare this exercise with reading ghee in an 1889 cookbook.

Browse Heritage & Society.

Prepared by Faimly Farm with AI assistance. Sources and catalogue checked 23 October 2026. Banner: AI-generated editorial illustration, not a photograph of a product pack, kitchen test, museum object or historical event. Visit the Faimly Farm Journal.