Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2009
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.
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
