The urban settlements of the north-west, pre-eminently Taxila, emerge from cultures that differ from those of the Ganges Plain. The excavation of Hathial, which was prior to this period, and the excavation of Bhir Mound – the part of the city complex of Taxila which dates to this period – underlines the importance of the site. Gandhara, in the north-west, is mentioned in the Iranian Achaemenid inscriptions as one of the provinces of the empire, so Taxila is likely to have been an important administrative centre. This may have provided the initial impetus towards urbanization, although its importance grew when it became a point of exchange between north India and places to its west. It has been suggested that the trend towards urbanization of what were to become cities in Gandhara, such as Taxila and Pushkalavati, may have been tied into the earlier importance of cities further west, such as Kandahar in Afghanistan.
Both urbanization and the formation of states are dependent on the realization of a surplus in production and on the mechanisms by which this was made possible. An agricultural surplus was necessary to townspeople who did not produce their own food and it provided a base for economic diversification. Perhaps the crucial factor was the possibility of two crops a year, in some cases even three. Wet-rice cultivation made a noticeable difference given the substantially larger amount that could be harvested as compared to other crops, and this provided the necessary surplus. This made irrigation a precondition. Converting what was described in the Vedic corpus as the marshland of the middle Ganges Plain to arable land would have involved draining some areas through inundation channels. These may have suggested the idea of cutting channels for irrigation. Irrigation through wells and water-lifting devices would then have been supplemented to a far greater degree. The prerequisite to the cultivation of high-yielding crops and the provision of irrigation would have included the availability of labour, together with a system by which labour could be controlled and directed.
But the production of a surplus is not in itself sufficient, since it has to be gathered and distributed in ways that enable a small group in society to effectively control these activities: a control which also had to be acceptable to the larger society. Surplus produce provides a basis for power only when it can be deployed to enhance the authority of those claiming special status. Since it feeds those who do not produce their own food, it also enables specialization in -various professional craft activities. These are no longer geared only to local consumption, but to producing over and above that in order to augment exchange, since exchange also yields revenue. But, again, the augmentation becomes useful only if there are people to organize the availability of raw material and the distribution of the finished product.
It was earlier thought that providing irrigation was the primary precondition to producing a surplus, and therefore control over irrigation was the foundation of power. This argument has now been questioned and, although irrigation is important, it is not the primary or only factor. The current debate focuses on whether iron technology was the crucial variable. Iron objects of a rudimentary kind go back to the end of the second millennium BC. The use of iron, especially in weaponry, was known around 800 BC although the quality of the metal was of a low grade. The more systematic use of better quality iron is later, with a quantitative and qualitative increase of iron artefacts, which included implements of various kinds, vessels, nails, and suchlike, as well as an improvement in weapons.
The smelting of iron may have begun with using a technology parallel to that of copper-smelting, but the marked confidence in using iron by the mid-millennium is striking. Higher temperatures began to be possible, which was also reflected in the firing of the Northern Black Polished Ware. Excavation at Jodhpura in northern Rajasthan has revealed furnaces for smelting and forging ore, and other centres of iron production were Atranjikhera and Khairadih in the western Ganges Plain. Efficiency in handling iron was a new experience, given that the chalcolithic cultures of the Ganges Plain do not suggest the extensive use of metal. Judging by the artefacts at sites in many parts of India from this time, it would seem that various societies were experimenting with new technologies facilitating the use of iron. The frequency of iron slag also points to its widespread use. It has been plausibly argued that there are references in the earlier sections of the Mahabharata to the quenching of iron and to molten metal for casting.
The argument that iron technology changed agricultural production draws on a series of links; iron axes facilitated the clearing of forests so that land could be used for cultivation, the iron hoe was an effective agricultural implement, and the invention of the iron ploughshare was more efficient in a heavy soil as it could plough deeper than a wooden share. However, very few iron axes have appeared in excavations. Textual evidence seems to prefer burning forests as a method of clearing. Iron ploughshares are still rare from excavated sites, but a much quoted example from a Buddhist text refers to tempering such a share. The efficiency of an iron ploughshare in soils other than that of the Ganges Plain has been questioned.
A function of iron technology, often overlooked in the emphasis on axes and ploughshares, is that of the technical changes which the introduction of iron implements would have brought about in various craft activities. There is a striking increase and qualitative improyement in the making of items from bone, glass, ivory, beads of semi-precious stones and shell, and stone objects, as compared to earlier chalcolithic levels. This is suggestive of a confidence in using the new technology and using it more extensively, for example in various constructions in wood, from the making of beams for ceilings to improving the structure of the chariot, cart and possibly even river craft. Interdependent technologies, such as the firing of superior pottery and the making of glass, were probably also tied into experiments to improve iron artefacts.
Although iron may not have been the crucial variable as a single technological input there is little doubt that as part of a package of change its role cannot be minimized. Since control over the surplus was in the hands of the few, that which enhances the surplus becomes a significant factor. The new technology was diffused through the availability of iron and the fact that blacksmiths were itinerant. To establish a monopoly over the technology was therefore not so easy. Blacksmiths were ranked socially as low. Control therefore could be extended to specific products. Objects made of iron, other than functional ones, could have become status symbols. The state asserted its control over the armoury.
Agricultural expansion and the use of iron are in themselves necessary but not sufficient factors in the creation of a surplus to bring about urbanization and state systems. An interesting comparison could be made with the contemporary megalithic societies of the peninsula that had both features but remained at a pre-state and pre-urban level. The collecting and redistributing of the surplus was yet another necessary component to the change, which was not limited to accessing what came to the treasury but also extended to control over those who laboured in creating these products. The evolution towards the state required a new relationship between those who laboured and those who managed their labour.
Textual sources point to early urbanization in two ways. One was the description of some villages specializing in professions such as blacksmithing, pottery, carpentry, cloth-weaving, basket-weaving and so on. These were villages close to the raw materials and linked to routes and markets. The availability of the right type of clay, for instance, would attract potters to a particular area, carpenters would head to where timber was available. Specialized craftsmen tended to congregate because this facilitated access to resources and distribution of the crafted items. Such a concentration could evolve into a town, and towns in turn expanded their production and their markets to become commercial centres. Some, such as Vaishali, Shravasti, Champa, Rajagriha, Kaushambi and Kashi, were of substantial importance to the economy of the Ganges Plain. Others, such as Uj jain, Taxila or the port of Bharukaccha (Bharuch), had a wider geographical and economic reach.
A pointer to urbanization also lies i
n the hierarchy of settlements. The grama, village, was the smallest settlement. Places referred to as nigama and putabhedana were exchange centres and local markets. River ports, such as Pataligrama, and crossing-points on rivers, such as Shringaverapura, facilitated exchange. The nagara was the town and the mahanagara was the substantially larger, well-established, prosperous, politically important city. Kaushambi could well have been a mahanagara, since its size has been estimated at 150 hectares. Buddhist sources sometimes refer to gama, nigama, nagara, in that order, suggesting a hierarchy of the village, the market and the town.
Different wide-ranging identities among townspeople are characteristic of urban centres. In theory, occupational groups are said to have lived and worked in specified sections of the town. Textual sources refer to two highways intersecting at right angles, forming the axis of the town, with the central point being the seat of authority, such as the palace and court of the king, or the assembly hall in the gana-sangha. This would be a more monumental building, although such buildings are associated with the mature phase of urbanization, for example the palace at Kaushambi. The religious institution that carried authority would also be associated with the centre of the city, and at this stage would have been the Buddhist monastery. Although both palace and monastery exist at Kaushambi, the latter is not at the central axis of the city. Bhir Mound, where such a city-plan is absent, indicates that cities need not have conformed to the plan. Some attempts at urban coherence were possible through the network of roads, drainage systems and occupational sectors.
Judging by the evidence available so far, it does seem that there was neither remembrance of the city-plans of Harappan times, nor any attempt to imitate them. The structures of the Harappan citadel seem to have been incorporated into the city centre or scattered in the city. Despite the fact that some cities were built on the banks of rivers, which were liable to be affected by floods, there is no evidence of brick foundations to safeguard the buildings. The urban requirements of the Ganges system and its city-dwellers were clearly different from those of the Indus urban centres. Possibly the mobilization of labour for the extension of agriculture took precedence over urban construction.
Townsmen were not kin-related (except perhaps in the towns inhabited by small oligarchies) and, as the town grew, kinship ties declined despite towns being more densely settled than villages. Urban links were therefore based on other features, such as the interdependence of occupation or mechanisms of administration. However, towns were still small enough to allow face-to-face relationships. Apart from the seat of authority, the other important location was where the exchange of goods took place. Later, the locations of religious institutions were added to these. Indian cities generally did not have a central, single market place. Buying and selling were part of the transactions in the locations where items were produced, which may in part account for the concentration of particular products in certain parts of the city. This system may have developed from production and exchange centres growing into cities. Towns, therefore, included a wide span of occupations that allowed experimentation in technologies. They were inhabited by people of varying social strata, permitting varieties of social interchange or social demarcation, and were frequently the location for diverse religious sects.
Gana-sanghas – Chiefdoms and Oligarchies
The gana-sanghas were an alternative polity to the kingdoms and may represent the continuation of an earlier system. The connection between the gana-sanghas and the growth of various ideologies and belief systems, particularly Buddhist and Jaina, was due to many of these being rooted in the gana-sanghas. Buddhist sources therefore mention the working of this system. Panini’s grammar refers to both the chiefdoms and the kingdoms, but, owing to the nature of the text, it does not provide detailed descriptions. Brahmanical sources disapproved of the gana-sanghas because they did not perform the required rituals or observe the rules of varna, therefore they tend to be ignored in the Vedic corpus. Disapproval is extended to towns in general, whereas the Buddhist Canon has more empathy with urban centres, and emphasizes the centrality of the town. Nevertheless, the role of the town seems more active in the kingdoms, particularly where the town is the capital.
Whereas the kingdoms were concentrated in the Ganges Plain, the gana-sanghas were ranged around the periphery of these kingdoms, in the Himalayan foothills and just south of these, in north-western India, Punjab and Sind, and in central and western India. The gana-sanghas tended to occupy the less fertile, hilly areas, which may suggest that their establishment predated the transition to kingdoms, since the wooded lowlying hills would probably have been easier to clear than the marshy jungles of the plain. It is equally plausible, however, that the more independent-minded settlers of the plains, disgruntled with the increasing strength of orthodoxy in territories evolving into kingdoms, moved up towards the hills where they established communities more in keeping with egalitarian traditions, at least among the ruling clans. The rejection of Vedic orthodoxy by the gana-sanghas indicates that they may have been maintaining an older or an alternative tradition. There were also systems similar to the gana-sangha in western India, of which the Vrishnis as described in the Mahabharata would be one. Since the Buddhist texts focus on the Ganges Plain, little is said about those in western India.
The compound term gana-sangha or gana-rajya has the connotation of gana, referring to those who claim to be of equal status, and sangha, meaning an assembly, or rajya, referring to governance. These were systems where the heads of families belonging to a clan, or clan chiefs in a confederacy of clans, governed the territory of the clan or the confederacy through an assembly, of which they alone were members. The term has been translated in various ways. It was once thought that they were democracies but this is hardly appropriate, given that power was vested in the small ruling families and they alone participated in governance. The larger numbers of people who lived in the territory had no rights and were denied access to resources. The term ‘republic’ was therefore preferred, since it conceded social stratification but was distinct from monarchy. Another term used is ‘oligarchy’, which emphasizes the power of the ruling families. More recently, early forms of such systems are seen as chiefdoms, underlining their particular genesis, suggesting that they might be prestates or proto-states, and, at any rate, different from kingdoms.
The gana-sanghas consisted of either a single clan, such as the Shakyas, Koliyas and Mallas, or a confederacy of clans, such as the Vrijjis and the Vrishnis. The confederacy of the Vrijjis, located at Vaishali, was of independent clans of equal status and the identity of each was maintained despite their having confederated. These were kshatriya clans, but the existence of kshatriyas did not presuppose the observance of a varna society. They retained more of the clan tradition than did the kingdoms, for example the concept of governing through an assembly representing the clan, even if the assembly was restricted to the heads of clans or families. Legends relating to their origin generally refer to two curious features: one was that the ruling families were frequently founded by persons of high status who, for a variety of reasons, had left or been exiled from their homeland; the other was that a claim to high status was encapsulated in a myth tracing the founding family to an incestuous union between brother and sister. Tracing origins back to such parentage was thought to prove purity of descent, and was therefore highly complimentary. This parting from Vedic orthodoxy is also apparent from at least one source, attributed to brahman authorship, which describes certain gana-sangha clans as degenerate kshatriyas and even shudras, because they have ceased to honour the brahmans or to observe Vedic ritual. Honouring the brahmans included accepting varna stratification. The gana-sanghas had only two strata – the kshatriya rajakula, ruling families, and the dasa-karmakara, the slaves and labourers. The latter were therefore non-kin labour, which was a departure from earlier clan systems where kinsfolk laboured together. Their non-acceptance of Vedic ritual is also evident in their veneration for sacred enclosures and grove
s, with other manifestations of popular religious cults.
The corporate aspect of government was held to be the major strength of gana-sanghas. The actual procedure involved the meeting of the heads of families, or of clans in the assembly, located in the main city where they lived. The assembly was presided over by the head of the clan. This office was not hereditary and was regarded as that of a chief, rather than a king, although the later gloss on raja tended to treat it as that of a king. The matter for discussion was placed before the assembly and debated, and if a unanimous decision could not be reached it was put to vote. Assisting in the rudimentary administration were those who advised the raja, the treasurer and the commander of the soldiers. Later sources describe an elaborate judicial procedure, the suspected criminal having to face in turn a hierarchy of seven officials.
Social and political power lay with the rajas who sat as representatives in the assembly, and who were ranked as kshatriyas. This may account for Buddhist sources often placing the kshatriyas first, with the brahmans second in the varna hierarchy, since they were more familiar with the gana-sanghas, although it could also have been due to Buddhist opposition to Brahmanism. The income of the gana-sanghas of the middle Ganges Plain came largely from agriculture, particularly wet-rice cultivation, cattle-rearing no longer being a primary occupation except in parts of the Punjab and the doab. However, their cities also attracted traders, which would have been an additional source of wealth. For the chiefdoms of the north-west, however, revenue from trade would have been primary.
The Penguin History of Early India Page 23