Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:27:54.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Segregation of artisans in early medieval India: Mohammad Habib's thesis reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

Renu Thakur
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The view propounded vigorously by Mohammad Habib that workers, artisans and craftsmen were not allowed to live within the city walls prior to the establishment of Turkish rule in India is examined. On the basis of primary archaeological sources, especially excavation reports and epigraphic data, this paper argues that diverse occupational groups, whose services were essential for the growth and development of towns, lived within the city precincts. Manufacturers and merchants both worked and lived together in the same town. The segregation theory, therefore, is rejected.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , August 1997 , pp. 141 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nizami, K.A. (ed.), Politics and Society During Early Medieval Period: Collected Works of Professor Mohammad Habib (New Delhi, 1974), vol. 1, 62.Google Scholar

2 Sachau, E.C. (ed.), Alberuni's India (reprinted Delhi, 1964), vol. 1, 101.Google Scholar

3 Nizami, K.A., Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India During the Thirteenth Century (Delhi, 1984), 85.Google Scholar

4 Nizami, , Politics and Society, 63.Google Scholar

5 Sjoberg, G., The Preindustrial City: Past and Present (New York, 1965), 203.Google Scholar

6 Thakur, R., ‘Urban hierarchies, typologies and classification in early medieval India: c. 750–1200’, Urban History, 21, 1 (1994), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 For further details see Roy, U.N., ‘Fortifications of city in Ancient India’, Indian Historical Quarterly, 30, 3 (1954), 237–44.Google Scholar

8 Mate, M.S., ‘Building in ancient India’, World Archaeology, 7 (1969), 244.Google Scholar

9 Mayamata, ch. x, 21–2.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., chs x, 21–2; xxix,70–72a.

11 Samaranganasutradhara, ch.x.

12 Aparajitaprccha, chs ii, 18Google Scholar; i, 11; lxxi, 2; lxxii, 31, 51. The city wall was made impregnable by the weapons piled on the wall. Also see Roy, U.N., ‘City architecture as depicted in the writings of Bhoja Deva’, Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society, 30, 1–4 (1964–1965), 166–7Google Scholar

13 Travancore Archaeological Series, i, no. 7, 152Google Scholar; Annual Progress Report, Madras and Coorg, 1904–1905, 41.Google Scholar

14 Indian Archaeology–A Review, 1970–1971, 35.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., 1955–56, 27; Annual Progress Report, Southern Circle, 1981, 2.Google Scholar

16 Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1904–1905, 31Google Scholar; Indian Archaeology – A Review, 1955–1956, 27.Google Scholar

17 Annual Progress Report, Southern Circle, 1981, 2Google Scholar; Indian Archaeology – A Review, 1955–1956, 27.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 1971–72, 4.

19 Maymata, ch. xxix, 67–9.Google Scholar

20 Samaranganasutradhara, ch. x, 89.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., ch. x, 21.

22 Ibid., ch. x, 92 and 96–7.

23 Aparajitaprccha, ch. vi, 8Google Scholar; and lxxii, 47–8, 4–5. It recommends quarters of all the silpins should be in the north-east, the leather workers in the south-west; the distillers and traders of spirituous liquor in the south-west, weavers in the north-west, goldsmiths and ivory workers in eastern sector of the town, whereas dealers in iron, different weapons, fans, etc., should be in the southern direction.

24 Kumarapalacarita, cited in Jain, V.K., Trade and Traders in Western India c. AD 1000–1300 (New Delhi, 1990), 138, 116.Google Scholar

25 Annual Reports of Epigraphy, 311 of 1968–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also see Champakalakshmi, R., ‘Urbanization in medieval Tamil Nadu’, in Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi and Thapar, Romila (eds), Situating Indian History far Sarvepalli Gopal (Delhi, 1986), 51Google Scholar, n. 72.

26 Ramaswamy, Vijaya, Textiles and Weavers in Medieval South India (Delhi, 1985), 52–4Google Scholar. The epigraph of AD 1062 refers to the town of Mulgunda where fifty weavers (saligas) actively participated in the town administration along with four settis, the gavundas, 120 mahajans, 120 telligas and 58 malagaras. See South Indian Inscriptions, vol. xi, pt 1, 97Google Scholar; vol. ii, 26–7.

27 Ramaswamy, , Textiles and Weavers, 62Google Scholar; see also Epigraphia Indica, vol. xxii, 146.Google Scholar

28 South Indian Inscriptions, vol iv, no. 223.

29 Annual Reports of Epigraphy, 136 of 1912.Google Scholar

30 Epigraphia Indica, vol. xix, 56–7.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., vol. i, 162–79.

32 Ibid., vol. xxxv, 108.

33 Ibid., vol. xxiv, 329–36.

34 Ibid., vol. xix, 41.

35 Ibid., 40.

36 Indian Antiquary, vol. xiv, 19–25.Google Scholar

37 Epigraphia Indica, vol. xix, 309.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., vol. xxiv, 329.

39 Jain, K.C., Ancient Cities and Towns of Rajasthan (Delhi, 1972), 239.Google Scholar

40 Epigraphia Indica, vol. xiv, 188.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., vol. xix, 30ff.

42 Ibid., 38.

43 Ibid., vol. xv, 95.

44 Ibid., 80.

45 Cited in Epigraphia Indica, vol. xxii, 146.Google Scholar

46 South Indian Inscriptions, vol. ii, pt. 3, nos 94–5; vol. iii, no. 128.

47 Indian Archaeology–A Review, 1954–1955, 24–6.Google Scholar

48 Elliot, H.M. and Dowson, J., The History of India, vol.1 (Allahabad, n.d.), 10.Google Scholar

49 Acharya, P.K., Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad (reprinted Bhopal, 1979), 103.Google Scholar

50 Pandeya, B.K., Temple Economy Under the Colas (New Delhi, 1984), 103.Google Scholar

51 As in Tiruvidaimarudur temple complex a separate residential area was set up for drummers (uvaccas); see Champaklakshmi, , ‘Growth of urban centres in South India: Kudamukku-Palaiyarai, the twin-city of the Colas’, Studies in History, 1, 1 (1979), 21.Google Scholar