Social Status of Artisans in Early Period of Indian History

Author(s): Mahesh Vikram Singh

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 51 (1990), pp. 127-130, 133-134
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44148197
Accessed: 20-01-2020 09:52 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 127

12

Social Status of Artisans in Early Period of Indian History

Mahesh Vikram Singh

1.1 There is much contradiction in the opinions about thevsocial position of the
artisans in ancient India. To some scholars they appear to be the part and parcel
of Vaisya class in the beginning which gradually lost its social importance and
position and came down to be ranked with the Sudras.1 Whereas, some others
consider them as Sudras or low mixed castes right from the beginning of social
stratification.2 And, again it appears to many on the basis of a number of
references in the texts that the artisans were different from the Sudras and the
latter were given the right of following arts and crafts from the Sudras only later
on 4 The question arises, if the artisans were not the Sudras earlier and were
above their ranks or were kept apart from them, then they must have been
Vaisyas who followed all sort of economic pursuits including even artisanry. Why
then the lawgivers of early period also refer to them as Sudras or low caste
people ? And also, if they belonged to such Vaisya communities who gradually
but completely lost its social status so as to mix with the Sudras themselves, why
then it is also suggested that the Vaisyas were drawn to artisanry in the Igter
period.5 Again, in both the cases cited above, the question of Sudras being given
the right of arts and crafts makes no sense in regard to the raising of their social
status when the communities pursuing these vocations had already come down
to be treated as the Sudras themselves.

1.2 Historically we find that the artisanry was more developed in the non-Aryan
communities as is evidenced from the Harappan culture as well as from the
post-Harappan Chalccolithic cultures.6 The Atharva veda clearly refers to the
Asuras as efficient in the art of metal or iron smelting.7 Even the art of pottery
and that particularly of using potter's wheel was perhaps common among the
non-Aryan communities and it has been suggested that because of this, the
word Kulal used for a potter in the Rigveda does not have any parallel in other
Indo- European languages.8 The art and skill of artisans is certainly a matter of
praise during the early Vedic times.9 But the most developed Kill in this field
among the Vedic Aryans seems to have been chariot making and carpentry as
we notice the twasta or rathakara or the chariot-maker was given much
Importance in the early period.10 and was.included among the ratnins also In
Rigvedic times there was no social stigma attached to the artisans11 which

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
128

belonged to Aryan stock. With the social formation and stratification through
inter-ethnical mingling and mutual accommodations, however, the economic
pursuits were left to the Visah 12 or commons who came to be known as Vaisyas
ranking at number three in the four- fold division of the society during the period
of later Vedic Samhitas. Obviously, all the arts and crafts, or to say, mechanical
skills besides agriculture and trade were assigned to the Vaisyas and the
artisans did not figure as separate Varna or caste in that division.13 Whereas the
fourth class named Sudras was no other than the servile class made from
dispossessed and unskilled people from both Aryan and non- Aryan stock.14

1 .3 - But, since the major.types of artisanry were adopted by Aryans from non-Arya
and also, since most of the artisan communities joining the ranks of visahor
Vaisyas as artisans must have been non-Aryans, it may safeiy be assumed th
they were not given higher status in the sociai set-up decided by the theorists
the Vedic Aryans. Soon even the Rathakaras belonging to their own stock cam
down to be treated as the people of mixed origin, i.e. a progeny of a Vaisya fro
a Sudra woman, by the Dharmasutrakaras,15 and were ranked below t
Vaisyas and above the Sudras as mixed caste (or fifth varna), though of course
allowed to have the right of upanayana , in a different season16 for some mo
time. Kautilya also considered a rathakara a Vaisya by virtue of his
occupation.1 But simultaneously, it also began to be classified with persons of
lower categories such as with the Sudras even by Kautilya18 and with suta and
Magadha (declared to be the pratiioma progenies of Kshatriyas from Brahmana
women and of Vaisyas from Kshatriya or Brahmana women respectively) by
others.19 The Buddhist texts also refer to them as people following low
occupations (hina-sippas)20 and even equate them with the Venas, who in their
turn are considered to be the progenies of one of the doubly mixed caste in
pratiioma order,21 and who were one of the most despised people said to be
occupied in basket making from bamboos22 By the time of the Christian era it
seems that the Rathakaras further sank to lower level as they were declared by
yajnavalkya23 as the progeny of some doubly mixed castes, though of course in
the anuloma order viz. of a Mahisya, declared to be the offspring of a Kshatriya
from a Vaisya woman, and a Karani or Karbhi, declared to be the daughter of a
Vaisya from a Sudra woman.

1.4 It appears, at the same time, that with the development of industry, agriculture
and trade and with the advent of iron from the 7th century B.C. and the
corresponding growth of cities the class of artisans found more importance. As
back as in the Taittiriya Samhita itself we notice the desire of getting cooperation
of the craftsmen.24 In the period of Mauryas it can easily be perceived that the
craftsmen like ship builders and others were not only given protection25 and
were allotted places of habitation26 but were also employed by the state and
made free from taxes with their families being maintained by the state itself.
Besides, independent artisan communities started organizing themselves into
organisations like Sreni or guilds of each individual art or craft with a view to earn
more profits and perhaps also more social importance. Megasthenes has put
both traders and artisans together as the fourth class in the Indian society.28 The
organised activity of the artisans and traders can be traced back to the period of
early Buddhist texts29 This also earned them rights of framing their own laws

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 129
30
and of regulating their own economic as well as social practices, which
probably helped them to keep on asserting their position as Vaisyas 31 Though
from this very time, the artisans were also looked down a^ lower mixed castes
either as the progenies of lower Varnas in the anuloma or pratiloma order or as
Sudras by the theorists or lawgivers of their time,32 but they could not be ignored
altogether by them as is very much reflected in this opinion of Baudhayana and
Manu that the hands of artisans always pure while engaged in work.33

1 .5 Further it appears that as the people from higher varnas or castes were attracted
to their pursuits also, firstly, on the pretext of compelling situation theorised as
the rule of emergency (Apada dharma ),34 and later also, as the common
pursuits for all by the time of the Christian era, as Narada declares the pursuits
of the Kshatriyas and Vaisyas common to all,35 the Sreni organisations of the
artisans like weavers, oilmen etc. did nò more remain confined to original
communities engaged in such trade or occupation, but it could enlist people from
any caste, upper or lower, following the similar occupation. That is how the
composition of the guilds has been defined by R.C. Mazumdar36 and have been
supported by commentators on lawbooks of early medieval period 37 The
Mandasor38 and lndore3a inscriptions of the Gupta period provide clear reference
to this composition of the artisans' and traders' guilds and the qualifications of
tfie president of the managers óf the Sreni as laid down 'n Brihaspati Smriti 40
also testifies the same. Thus in the Gupta period Srenis also incorporated
different castes following similar occupation and with tne lapse of time the
members of a particular Sreni might even diversify in different trades retaining at
the same time, their membership of the Sreni as before. The Mandsor
inscription gives a clear example of this phenomenon as well.41 This indicates
that the Srenis in that period remained an economic organisation ever and
above caste affiliations.

1.6 But, as we proceed with time we also notice that the Srenis of artisans and
traders also tended to become castes in their own right42 and in the post Gupta
or early medieval period we find the commentators or later Smritikaras as
declaring the Srenis of artisans also as low castes43 and most of the artisans of
this period being labelled as the progenies of lowest castes or doubly mixed
castes or as illegal offsprings of intercaste relations both in the right or inverse
order. We may for instance refer to Charmakara, Ahindaka and Dhigvana (all
leather workers), Kumbhakara and Kulala (potters), Rajaka, Udvandhaka,
Nirnejaka (all washermen), Napit and Kuntalaka (the barbers), Lohakara and
Ayaskara (ironsmiths), Suvarnakara and Manikara (goldsmiths), Rathakara,
Taksaka, Upkrista, Vaddhaki, twasta, Kastthataksa (all carpenters), Kukkuta
(armoury makers), Khanaka (miners), Chakri and Taiiaka (oilmen), Tantuvaya
(weaver), Tamrakara or Tamropajiyi (working on copper), Pandusopaka, Vena
Mahisya (foreteller), Murdhavisikta (Physician and Varuda (bamboo workers),
Bhisaka (physician) and magical practices), Malakara (the gardener), Sauchika
(the tailor), Ranjaka and Sindolaka (colourer or dyer), Raumika (the salt-
maker) etc. in this context as mentioned in the Ausanas Smriti and by others.44

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
130

1.7 It may be suggested that with the growth of feudal economy the status of the
artisans further deteriorated as there did no more remain open scope of
industrial and urban development and the arts and crafts became more localised
forcing even the Srenis to convert into different castes. Eventually, the artisans
were clearly divorced from the Vaisya community and came to be treated as
Sudras of different grades only. It was in fact the degeneration of a lot of Vaisyas
who happened to have suffered most by the rise of feudal economy. Hence,
allowing the right of arts and crafts to the Sudras does not actually mean raising
of the status of the Sudras, instead, it indirectly refers to the incorporation of the
lot of artisans as a whole in the fold of the Sudras.

1.8 Lastly, referring to the multiplicity of lower castes particularly in the early
medieval period, it may be assumed that when the people from higher castes
also started joining the ranks of artisans of urban centres and when their
organisations also tended to convert into new castes of its own types later on
then it must have affected the social status of those artisans who happened to
have been following such pursuits exclusively as their mode of living from earlier
times. The new occupational groupings converting into new castes must have
thrushed down the original communities to further lower status and it must also
have resulted in further stratification of the social and economic classes. That is
why, perhaps, we also find various names and speculations about the origin of
some communities following almost similar occupations in the early medieval
period45 giving due merit, as well, to other factors such as regional and technical
varieties and the concern for the relative purity of work and workingmen, and
also the consideration of non- violence responsible for the same. This may also,
more or less, explain the cause for the increase in the number of untouchables, a
good number of whom were the artisans themselves.

Notes and references

1 . Refer to The Vedic Age (Vidya Bhawan Series), 1971 , pp. 389, 400, 455, 466.
2. Refer to Jain, P.C., Labour in Ancient India , 1 971 , p. 2.
3. Refer to Mahabharata Santi Parva, 294, 4; Manu Sm riti , X.
99-100, 120; Yagnavalkya Smriti , I. 120; Visnu Smriti , II. 4; Vayu Purana , 6.1
Markandeya Huraña , 28.3-8; Visnu Purana , 3.8-32; Medhatithi on Manu, X. 99-100
Kulluka on Manu, X. 99- 100; Hemachandra's sabdanusasama, VI. 1.2. etc.
4 Jain, P.C., Op.cit ., pp. 16, 18; Singh, M.P., Life in Ancient India ,Varanasi, 1981, pp. 6
Panthri, R., Prachin Bharata me Samajika Parivartan , 1 987, pp. 49, 54 and others.
5. Hazra, R.C., Studies in the Puranic Records of Hindu Rites and Customs , Delhi, 197
209.

6. Refer to Kosambi, D. D., An Outline of History and Culture of Ancient India , 1975, p. 72; In
my own paper presented at the Indian History Congress* 49th Session I have discussed this
viewpoint in detail.
7. Atharvaveda , 7.5.6.
8. Refer to Sharma, R.S., Perspectives in Social and Economic History , 1 983, p. 1 1 3.
9. Refer to Jain, P.C. Op.cit ., p. 3.
10. Rigveda , 1 .61 .4.; see also 1 .161 .5; x.86.5

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 133

11 . Jain, P.C., Op.cit ., p.3; The Vedic Age, Op.cit ., p. 401 .

12. Ibid.

1 3. Refer to Satapatha Brahmana (SBE), No. 44, p. 304.

1 4. See Sharma, R.S., Sudras in Ancient India (Hindi ed.), 1 979, pp. 30-31 .
15. Baudhayana Dharmasutra (SBE), 1.9.17.6; Jain, P.C., Op.cit ., p. 7.
16. Baudhayana Dharmasutra (SBE), II. 5.8.9.
17. Arthasastra (ed. by Kangle, R.P.), 3.7.35.
18. Ibid, 3.7. 23.
19. Gautama Dharmasutra (SBE), IV, 18; Vasistha Smriti (SBE), XVIII.6; Baudhayana
Dharmasutra (SBE), 1.8.16.8; 1.9.17.7.
20. Anguttara Nikaya , Slittavi bhang ha Paccittiya, 11.21; Jain, P.C. Op.cit., p. 10.
21. Baudhayana Dharmasutra (SBE), X.9.13; Vasistha Dharmasutra (SBE), XVIII.2; Manu
Smriti, >¿19, 49.
22. Jataka (Fousboll), IV, p. 251.
23. Yangavalkya Smriti , l.95-refer also to I.92 for Mahisya and Karani; See also
Hemachandra's Abhidhana Chintamamě , 3. 898.
24. Ibid , IV. 5.4.2; Kane, P.V., History of Dharmasastras.
25. A person causing injury to a craftsman was liable to death punishment, Arthasastra (ed.
Kangle, R.P.), 2.2.3; Wages and Contracts of the artisans were well defined-Refer to Singh,
M.V , Society under the Mauryas , 1 989, pp. 264 ff; Jain, P.C., Op.cit ., pp. 14, 19.
26. Streets and corners allotted to artisans in the cities; Arthasastra , 2.4.9-15; Jatakas
(Fousboll), VI, pp. 275-77
27. Refer to Megasthenes, Fr. !: Arrian, Ancient India (ed. by Mazumdar), pp. 40,
216-17; Arthasastra , 5.3.12, 16 cf; Gautama Dharmasutra (SBE), X. 31-34.
28. B.I II. fr. L. VI.

29. Mazumdar, R.C. Prachina Bharata Me Samaghatthita Jivan , 1966, p. 21

30 Jain, P.C. Op.cit ., pp. 18-19. Brihaspati Smriti (SBE), XVII. 18, Also Damodarpur Copper
plate, El , XV, p. 130.
31 . Refer tc^Jain, P.C., Op.cit ., p. 1 0.
32. Gautam and Baudhayana declare the occupation of handicrafts for the Sudras, Gautama
Dharmasutra (SBE), X.56-60; Baudhayana Dharmasutra (SBE), I.9, 17.6: Artisans and
physicians are referred to as impure persons; Apastaamba Dharmasutra (SBE),
1.6.18.21-22: Gautama Dharmasutra (SBE), XVII. 7, 17; Vasisttha Dharmasutra (SBE),
XIV.3; Arthasastra (ed. Kangle), 3.12.34-35; A Karvar of leather worker is declared as the
offspring of a Nisadas (deemed to be a progeny Brahmana men and Sudra women) and
Vaidehaka women (deemed to be a progeny of of Vaisyas from Brahmana women) by
Manu (X.36); The people working on bamboos referred to as Pandusopaka are considered
to be the offsprings of Chandalas (deemed to the progenies of Sudras on Brahmana
women) and Vaidhehaka women by Manu (X.37); Ayogavas, the people variously referred
to as carpenters, weavers, copper workers, brick layers, white washers etc. are declared to
be the progenies of Sudra men from Vaisya women by most of the law givers, Arthasastra
(p. cit), 3.7.28; Gautami Dharmasutra (SBE) IV. 15? Manu Smriti , X.12, 48; Visnu Smriti
(SBE), XVI. 4. A rajaka (washerman) is called a Sudra by Patanjali (11.4.1 0).
33. Baudhayana Dharmasutra , 1. 5.9. 3; Manu Smriti , V. 129.
34. Baudhayana Dharmasutra , 11.2.4.16-21 and others; Refer also to Jain, P.C., op.cit , pp
8-10; Singh, M.V., Society Under the Mauryas , 1989, pp 52,53.

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
134

35. Narada Smriti (SBE), 1. 57-67; see also Mrichchhakatikam (Act I): A Brahmana srestthi still
respected for his brahmanahood; Yagnavalkya Smriti , 1. 96 Cf. Gautama Dharmasutra,
X.67; Panthri, R. Op.cit .,pp. 29-30 ff.
36. Mazumdar, R.C. op.cit p. 18.
37. According to Mitaksara and Viramitrodaya, Sreni is a combination of the people, differing in
caste, who maintain themselves by the sale of one kind of merchandise; Mitaksara on
Yagnavalkya Smriti , II. 192 and II. 30; Viramitrodaya , Vol. Ill, p. 333; See also Jain, P.C.,
Op.cit, pp. 185-86.
38. Silk weavers of Kshatriya caste who had migrated from Lata in Gujarat to Mandasor: Fleet,
Gupta Inscription No. 18, CM, Vol. Ill, p. 80; Mazumdar, R.C., Op.cit ., pp. 30-31, 63-65,
81-83; see also El , l,V,p.23.
39. Two Kshatriya brothers as the members of the guild of oilmen or merchants: Indore Copper
Plate Inscription: Fleet, CII , lll(35), p. 157; Jain, P.C., Op.cit ., p. 17.
40. According to Brihaspati the manager of a Sreni should be a person who knows the Vedas
and the duties: Smriti, XVII. 8-9.
41 . See Mazumdar, R.C., Op.cit ., pp. 63,65.
42. Amarkosa, kn 2, p. 543.
see also comm. Ramasrayi; Mitaksara , 1 1. 30; Apararka , II. 192.
43. See Panthri, R., Op.cit ., pp. 77-78.
44. Ausanas Smriti , pp. 46-48.
Kulluka on Manu; Vyasa Smriti ; Kritakalpataru of Laksmidhara, Va i khan as a; See also,
Kane, P.V., History of Dharmasastras (Hindi 3rd ed.) Pt I, 1980, pp l¿£ff; Panthari, R.,
Op. cit ., pp. 79-85.
45. See, for example, various names of carpenters, bamboo- workers leather workers,
washermen, barbers, metal workers and smiths as mentioned above.
Doth Atri (199, p.18) and Yama (33, p.# 113) refer to Rajak , chakrakara, nata, vurad,
kaivarta, meda and bhilla as antyajas ; Albiruni also puts them below the Sudras. Among
antyajas also, he observed two categories. The first category includes rajak, chamara,
madari , basket maker, kaivarta , fishermen, hunters and weavers, who lived outside the
village or township but of course, in it's vicinity. The other category includes hadi, domb,
chandala, badhatau and the like ; See Mishra, Jai Shankar, Gyarahanwi Sadi Ka Bharat
Varanasi 1968, pp. 122-127, Singh, M.P., Life in Ancient India , Varanasi 1981, pp. 72-80.

This content downloaded from 14.139.40.15 on Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:52:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms