Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c9: Chapter III. Particular Account of the Artificers
Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c9
- Language
- English
Contents
- c9.5 — 4 parts
Chapter III. Particular Account of the Artificers
c9.1
‘To the craftsman his reward.’
c9.2
A MORE particular account of the *Ācāri*, *Navandannō*, or caste or guild of artificers proper, will be necessary. The subdivisions of the caste, according to Valentyn, are eleven in number, viz., *acāri*, blacksmiths; *baḍallu*, silversmiths; *vaḍuvō*, carpenters; *liyana vaḍuvō*, turners; *riḍikeṭayankārayō*, damasceners; *eṭatkeṭayankārayō*, ivory carvers and cabinet makers; *galvaḍuvō*, stone cutters; *ratne endra karayō* (?), jewellers; *īvaḍuvō*, arrow makers (lac workers); *sittaru*, painters; *lokuruvō*, founders. But Valentyn’s divisions are rather a list of names given to men who follow particular branches of their craft, than actual caste divisions. The *Janavamsa* merely distinguishes two principal divisions of the caste, viz., (1) *kamburō*, *navandanno* or *acāri*, divided into *lokuruvō*, workers in copper, bronze and brass; *sittaru*, painters; and *svarṇakārayō*, goldsmiths; and including also turners and blacksmiths: and, (2) *vaḍuvō*, carpenters, blacksmiths and masons, including housebuilders, agricultural implement makers (who are also mentioned in the first section) and arrow makers (*īvaḍuvō*, including all lac workers). The existence of a confusion between the two classes is admitted, and appears to have been inevitable as the work of the two to some extent overlapped. It seems likely that the *kamburō* (also spoken of in the *Janavamsa* as *Kammāra Brahmans*) were strictly speaking the imported *kammālar* workmen from the coast, who did fine work as goldsmiths, painters, etc., and that the *vaḍuvō* were the indigenous artificers accustomed only to the ordinary work of building, tool making, etc. Just in the same way there were two groups of weavers, the *beravāyō* who made country cloth (home-spun, so to say) and the ‘chalias’ (*salagamayō*) who were brought over from South India to make fine and gold-woven cloths. Confusion also results from the use of terms in a particular as well as in a general sense. At the present day two main divisions, corresponding in the main with those of the *Janavamsa* form the only real caste division. Those in the higher division (architects, painters, gold and silversmiths, brass repoussers, ivory and wood carvers) called *galladdō*, do not eat or intermarry with those in the lower division, called *vaḍuvō* (ordinary carpenters and turners of wood and ivory, blacksmiths, damasceners, stone carvers and lac workers). The term *vaḍuva* now has the general meaning of ‘carpenter,’ and would hardly be used in speaking of a blacksmith, still less of a goldsmith, but is used in the *Mayamataya* in the sense of ‘architect,’ and together with *sittaruva*, ‘painter,’ refers to men of the superior division. The tailors and embroiderers (*hannali*) and leather workers (*hommarayō*), potters (*baḍahelayō*), weavers of country cloth (*beravāyō*), mat-makers (*kinnarayō*), and makers of whips, cords, and preparers of hides (*roḍiyō*) were of other and inferior caste. These last are only incidentally referred to in the present chapter.
c9.3
For the requirements of the Royal household there existed fourteen Departments of Public Works:
c9.4
1, *Atapattu-vasama*; 2, *Gam-vasama*; 3, *Muhandiram-vasama*; 4, *Koḍituvakku-vasama*; 5, *Kalu Hēvā Muhandiram-vasama*; 6, *Batgamvala Muhandiram-vasama*; 7, *Hiṭi-veḍakarayō*; 8, *Koṭṭal-baḍḍa*; 9, *Henḍa-baḍḍa*; 10, *Baḍahela-baḍḍa*; 11, *Raḍā-baḍḍa*; 12, *Kūruvē*; 13, *Maḍigē*; 14, *Valanbaḍḍa Maḍigē*. Of these, only the 8th (craftsmen), 9th (inferior carpenters) and 10th (potters) especially concern us here, particularly the 8th.
c9.5.1
In each district of the Kandyan kingdom certain craftsmen were organized as a department known as Koṭṭal-badda, supervised by two officers called Koṭṭal-badde Nilame, appointed by the King for districts other than the Disāvaniya. In the Disāvaniya, the office of Koṭṭal-badde Nilame was usually united with that of Disāva, who appointed a Koṭṭalbadde Vidane, usually of the craftsman caste, as his lieutenant. The body of craftsmen thus organized in the Four Kōrales (one of the Disāvani) consisted of the following classes: 1. Seven Vaḍuvō who performed all carpentry work for the King or Disāva; they were usually employed at the Danḍu Maḍuva (timber yard) in Kandy. 2. Five Liyana Vaḍuvō, or turners. 3. Five Sittaru, or painters. 4. Fourteen Ī-vaḍuvō, or arrow makers, who made bows, arrows, spears, staves, etc., and gauded them with lac; of these men, two worked in the Royal armoury. 5. Fourteen Atapattu Karayō who furnished or executed fine work, and were principally employed in ornamenting and inlaying locks, guns, knives, etc., with gold, silver or brass; two of them worked in the Royal armoury. 6. Four Baḍallu, or silversmiths, workers in gold, silver, brass, or copper; two of them worked in the Royal armoury. 7. One Gal-vaḍuva, or mason.
c9.5.2
8. Twenty Mul-acari, or blacksmiths, a certain number of whom, varying according to the exigency of the service, attended constantly in Kandy, and erecting workshops near the Disāva’s house, executed all kinds of common ironwork, for which the metal was furnished them. 9. Eight blacksmiths without regular service lands such as the foregoing held. These had to appear before the Disāva at New Year with a knife and scissors each, and were liable to be called on for work at any time of emergency. 10. Ten Disāva acari under a Haṅgiḍiya, who worked for the Disāva only. The last three classes of blacksmiths were sometimes placed under the same Haṅgiḍiya and Aṭu-haṅgiḍiya. All the above craftsmen, except the blacksmiths in class 9, perform either particular work directed by the King, or work on public buildings allotted to the Disāvaniya. It may be remarked that certain of the Muhandiram-vasama people (3, above) guarded the danḍu maḍuva (Royal timber-yard) and others had to fell and fetch timber, cut wall timber and plane it, and thatch public buildings or the Disāva’s house. Of the Henda-badda people (9, above), six families in the Four Kōrales had to provide couches, stools, and baskets of various sorts woven in rattan. The Baḍahela-badda in the Four Kōrales is described in a later chapter. The foregoing constituted the general body of public craftsmen in one only of the ten disāvani;
c9.5.3
when to these are added those of the other districts and also the special workers belonging to the Four Workshops now to be described, it will be seen that the Royal and public requirements were well provided for. The best of the higher craftsmen (gold and silversmiths, painters and ivory carvers, etc.) working immediately for the King formed a close, largely hereditary, corporation of craftsmen called the Paṭṭal-hatara (Four Workshops); these men worked only for the King, unless by his express permission (though, of course, their sons or pupils might do otherwise); they were liable to be continually engaged in Kandy, while the Koṭṭal-badda men were divided into relays, serving by turns in Kandy for periods of two months. The Koṭṭal-badda men in each district were under a foreman (mul-acāriya) belonging to the Paṭṭal-hatara. Four other foremen, one from each paṭṭala, were in constant attendance at the palace.* Originally there seems to have been only one paṭṭala called the Ābharaṇa (regalia) paṭṭala, but this was afterwards divided into an Ābharaṇa paṭṭala, or jewellery workshop, an Oṭunna paṭṭala, or crown workshop, a Rankaḍu paṭṭala, or golden sword workshop (armoury), and a Simhasana lion throne) paṭṭala, the last including particularly painters and ivory carvers. But the craftsmen seem to have passed from one paṭṭala to another, according to the work entrusted to them.
c9.5.4
A place in the paṭṭala-hatara was usually hereditary in the chief craftsmen families, and was a position much coveted. The chief families had considerable standing, often owning land granted by the King on the occasion of their first settlement, or as a reward for subsequent services.
c9.6
The rewards given to craftsmen on the completion of a large undertaking, such as the completion of a vihāra, consisted usually of rice, cloth, cattle, gold, silver, lands, etc. The following instances quoted from various sannas afford an idea of the amount of wealth expended in such ways by the State or private patrons: Laṅkātilaka, 1342 A.D., paddy, gold, silver, and cloth valued at 3,600,000 gold masas [£120,000]; Mẹdavala, all necessaries, and a remuneration of 15,600 fanams; Asgiriya (Alut vihāra) 65,050 ridis [£2168] and cloths, etc.; Niyangampaha vihāra, repairs and temporary building, 270 ridis [£9]; Palkumburā vihāra, 25,000 fanams. The cost of certain repairs is carefully specified in the Pusulpitiya vihāra sannasa: “these are the works I, . . . Pānabokka Djammajoti, have done in the Pusulpitiyē Vihāra, which I got from my teacher Aluḍeniya, to wit:—New carved rafters to the lower roof of the main vihāra room, tiled both the stories, constructed a small vihāra five carpenters’ cubits long near the ḍagaba, a granite image of one cubit in height which was in a dilapidated state was restored, I performed the Nētra-pinkama, constructed a place for flower-offerings to the bō-tree, built another small vihāra in front of the main vihāra and above the rock on which the sacred foot is sculptured, another hall five cubits long, two rows of rooms of eleven cubits, a hall of fifteen cubits, and another central hall for the accommodation of officiating priests. The whole cost of the work is 2,857 ridis [£95], besides items which may have escaped my recollection” (Lawrie, p. 749). Dehigama vihāra was repaired in 1786, at a cost of 1300 masu [£43], besides materials from the royal stores, and thirty amuṇu paddy to feed the workmen; the repairs of two portals and the seated image, also the painting of one hundred images of Buddha and thirty-two images of rahat priests, and other matters on the walls, and the erection of a stone ḍagaba nine cubits high. At Gaṅgārāma, according to the Mahāvaṃsa, 16,150 pieces of money (say £538) were spent at the dedication feast; which probably includes the gifts to workmen, of which mention is also made: “the carvers of the statue of Buddha and others did he satisfy by presenting them with gifts of elephants, cattle, and divers things that had life and that had not life” (Mahāvaṃsa, Ch. C.). Craftsmen at the present day require a daily wage of Rs. 1 to Rs. 3 if working in Kandy; good painters at the Māligāva receive Rs. 2. The difference in amount depends more on the feeling of the craftsman for his employer than upon his superiority or otherwise. If executing a commission at home, he prefers to leave the amount of his reward to the patron’s judgment, to fixing a price beforehand, but he is likely to be weeks or months in carrying out a piece of work which could be finished in a few days if he were persuaded of the need for hurry, which he usually cannot be. These particulars apply only to the *Artificers* real hereditary landed craftsmen, not to every low-country journeyman working for the jewellers' shops in Kandy.
c9.7
∗ *Just so when English royal builders set about the building of a church, the artists employed “were the royal masons attached to the palace”; “to the king’s palace were attached a chief royal mason, carpenter, smith, and painter, just as there were a chief butler and cook”; “under the chief master-mason or carpenter a body of journeymen were permanently engaged” (Lethaby, ‘Westminster Abbey and the King’s Craftsmen,’ 1906, p. 112). With the advance of civilization, the craftsmen have been dispensed with, while the butler, the cook, and the clerk remain!*
c9.8
The blacksmiths had occasional dealings with the veddas, or wild men of the woods. *Smiths work* "The wilder sort of them, when they want Arrows, will carry their load of Flesh in for Veddas the night, and hang it up in a *Smith's* shop, also a Leaf cut in the form they will have their Arrows made, and hang by it. Which if the *Smith* do make according to their Pattern they will requite, and bring him more Flesh: but if he make them not, they will do him a mischief one time or another by shooting in the night. . . . They are so curious of their Arrows that no Smith can please them. The King once to gratifie them for a great Present they brought him, gave all of them of his best made Arrow-blades: which nevertheless would not please their humour. For they went all of them to a Rock by a River and ground them into another form" (Knox, pp. 62, 63).
c9.9
Thus, in spite of the fact that the artificers were already paid for their services more or *Payment of* less adequately by the lands they held, they were liberally rewarded for ecclesiastical *craftsmen* work, and not infrequently also for special excellence or skill in craftsmanship otherwise applied. But they were never paid a daily wage, nor required to work a given number of hours a day. I have had craftsmen working at my house in Kandy for weeks together; just as they once worked in the royal workshop. They had no idea of 'making money' or 'bettering themselves'; they wanted only money sufficient to buy food for themselves and their families; they had no wish to save money. When a large piece of work was completed they would expect some special gift, such as a good cloth. They rarely worked a week without having to go home for a few days to find some strayed buffalo, or to take part in the cultivation of their fields. Yet they were always most conscientious in money matters, such as expenditure on materials; and though they would have hated fixed hours of work, often worked far into the night by lamp-light, purely by their own wish, and because they so much loved the work itself. Their pride in real capacity was most naïve and unaffected. Their greatest possible ambition was that I should buy them some small piece of land and reward them with it, as did the kings of old.
c9.10
The reason for the special payments for ecclesiastical work was that it was felt unbecoming for the patron to obtain the credit for a meritorious action, unless the cost was really borne by him; unless, indeed, he did so bear it, there was no real merit acquired. The feeling came out as strongly when the Ruvanvæli dāgaba was built (see Chapter I., p. 4), and Duṭṭha Gāmaṇi deemed it unmeet that such work should be executed by unpaid labour, and took extraordinary precautions to prevent any voluntary work being done, lest any of the merit should be lost to himself; he could share the merit by deliberate gift, without loss to himself, but if voluntary work were done secretly, only the doer obtained the merit. The lamp of sacrifice burned as steadily in India as in mediæval Europe. There is no more evidence that in the religious architecture of the East any saving of cost was attempted or desired, than there is of any such thing in mediæval English building of church and shrine.*
c9.11
The family of Nilavala Muhandirams of Eldeṇiya and Maṅgalagama, artificers belonging *Nilavala* to the *rankaḍu-paṭṭala*, may be chosen to illustrate these points. The early history of the *family* family is given in a *vitti-vaṭṭoruva*† (statement of claim) in possession of the family, tracing their settlement in Ceylon to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. When King Bhuvanēka Bahu (? VI.) was reigning at Koṭṭe, he heard that a very skilful master smith from India had landed in Mānaduva, and said that since such a master had come over to Simhala he should be honoured by being brought to the Court on an elephant, and despatched to him Vaḍuvāvala Dēvasimha Mulācāri Nayide on an elephant and brought to Koṭṭe the master smith of Mānaduva on the same elephant. On his arrival he presented himself before the king and offered to His Majesty a telescope (iri-handa balana kannāḍiya) by means of which to look at the sun and moon, and also a pēṭeṭiya (an instrument to reckon time). He was liberally rewarded by the king, and he was given the village called Maṅgalagama, in Kiṅdigoḍa Kōrale, of Four Kōrales, for his sustenance (baḍa-veḍilla), and was invested with the title of Mandalavalli Nayide.
c9.12
After Mandalavalli Nayide’s death, the ruling king (? Vira Parākrama Bahu VIII.) enquired for his descendants. There being two orphan children related to each other as aunt and nephew, he had them brought up at the Court and finally married to each other, the girl being given the title of Etana (Lady) and the village of Maṅgalagama in mavurume (inheritance in the female line). Her daughter likewise possessed the village; she married Kolomba Nayide, who served Rāja Simha II. Her son, Madduma Nayide, inherited the village and served Vimala Dharmma Sūrya II. His son, Gallat Nayide, inherited from him, and served Narēndra Simha of Kuṇḍasāle. His son, Madduma Nayide, made the plaint detailed in the vaṭṭoruva giving these particulars. The siṭṭuva, or order of the Adigār who enquired into the case, confirmed the tenancy of Nilavala Loku Nayide; its date is 1763 A.D. Lands and titles were conferred on other relatives; Rāja Simha I. of Sītāvaka, invested the grandson of Mandalavalli Nayide with the same title, and he also served the king. In 1644 A.D. the following Sannasa was granted to one Hadu Nayide of Maṅgalagama, a representative of the family who had given to the king a gold-hilted sword:
c9.13
“Hail! The order delivered on Saturday, the 7th day of the waning moon, in the month of Vap (September—October), in the year of Śaka 1566 (1644 A.D.). Whereas the goldsmith Hadu Nayidā of Maṅgalagama, having presented a (newly) gilt koku-sword of gold, hath performed faithful services to the Palace; six amuṇams sowing extent of Mahagoḍa in Kiṅdigoḍa Kōrale in the Disāvaniya of Four Kōrales, including houses and gardens, trees and plants, high lands and jungles appertaining thereto, have been granted (to him) to be held as pravēṇi land, so long as his children, grandchildren and their progeny shall survive. The (original) order upon which this sannasa was granted, that order is thus proclaimed the (final) decree” (H. C. P. Bell, Report on the Kēgalla District, 1892, pp. 98, 99). A later sannasa of the same family reads as follows:
c9.14
“His Majesty the supreme ruler of Śrī Laṅkā, . . . passed a royal edict that a certain portion of the Saddharmaya, doctrines inculcated by our King Buddha, the teacher of the three worlds, be transcribed on leaves of beaten gold; and on the occasion when Nilavala Ratnavalli Navaratna Ābharaṇaya, to whom gold and gems had been supplied for this purpose, completed and presented the work, His Majesty, out of his bountiful liberality, commanded that the following allotment of lands . . . in all three amuṇu in extent, together with the houses, gardens, plantations, and high and muddy lands appertaining thereto (be granted to him), to be undisturbedly possessed by him and his generations so long as they shall exist, . . . in the year of Śaka 1677” (1755 A.D.) (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 643). Representatives of the family still hold lands at Eḷeṇiya and Maṅgalagama, and possess heirlooms of great historical interest (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 214).
c9.15
The descendants of goldsmiths live at Mottuvela, an ancestor of one of these obtained the following sannasa in 1665 A.D.: “During the reign of His Majesty the Mighty Emperor Rāja Simha, . . . as Marukona Ratna Ābharaṇa Veḍakāraya offered himself before the Great Gate, orders were given to make jewellery required for the royal Artificers dress, and having made and submitted several jewelleries to the Great King, he stated that he required the Mottuvela Nilapaṅguve Baḍaveḍilla in Pallesiya-pattuva of Asgiri Kōrale, in the Disāvaniya of Mātale, for his maintenance. . . . His Majesty . . . did . . . Their in the year of Śaka 1587, absolutely grant the high and low lands in Mottuvelagama charters Baḍaveḍilla . . . to Marukona Ratna Ābharaṇa Veḍakāraya, to be possessed without any disturbance or hindrance during the existence of the sun, the moon, Senkaḍagala, and the Mahaveli-gaṅga” (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 608).
c9.16
At Ullandupiṭiya, a painter obtained the following sannasa in A.D. 1593: “When the works of Jetavanārāma were fully completed on Thursday, the full moon day of the month Vesak, the year of Śaka 1515, the Great King Vimala Dharma Sūrya, after receiving the merits and becoming joyous on the occasion, thought of bestowing a land to be possessed from generation to generation; and granted unto the painter, Rājeśvara Hittara Ācariya of Ullandupiṭiya, . . . a garden and three hēna lands, situate at Ullandupiṭiya in Kulugammanasiya-pattuva, to be possessed without any dispute whatsoever.” (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 872).
c9.17
In A.D. 1710 the following sannasa was granted to an artificer of Gannoruva: “As Gannoruve Navaratna Davuṇḍa Ābharaṇa Ācariya was serving the Great Gate faithfully, on this Tuesday, the eleventh day of the increasing moon, in the month of Esala, in the year of Śaka 1632, styled Vikṛita, the field Vaḍuḍeniya of three amuṇu, with all its appurtenant high and low lands, plantations, and buildings, was granted to him for his maintenance. This is the purport of the command, and it is this” (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 278).
c9.18
“In the reign of King Kirti Śrī, Gannoruva Muhandirama, a descendant of the last-mentioned, was a skilful goldsmith. He worked in the king’s palace. The king made him presents of land and money and an elephant. Later it was reported to the king (Rājādhi Rāja Siṃha) that Gannoruva Muhandirama had died possessed of much property belonging to His Majesty. He seized the property and removed it to the royal treasury” (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 277).
c9.19
It will be observed that in this way the chief families of smiths possessed what was really Devendra a state endowment. The artificers were much considered and favoured by the Kings, Mulacariya occasionally so much so as to lead to quarrels between them and the nobles, ending in disaster to the former, befell at the time of the building of the Audience Hall in Kandy, in the last King’s reign. Dēvēndra Mulācariya, whose descendants still flourish, was foreman, and is said to have deliberately shortened, and then rejected as too short, the timber supplied by the chiefs! On their complaint the King ordered one of the smith’s fingers to be cut off; but he drowned himself in the Kandy lake to avoid this disgrace.* The iron cubit rule (riyan lella) used by him is still preserved by his descendants (‘Ceylon National Review,’ No. II., 1906, p. 235).
c9.20
The names of artificers are not recorded in their work, nor as a rule remembered except Silvatenna by their own descendants. The most famous painter of the late eighteenth century, however, appears to have been Devaragampala ‘Unnānse’ Silvatenna, an ‘unordained priest’ of ācāri caste, who painted at Degaldoruva, Riḍi Vihāra and elsewhere in Kirti Śrī’s reign. He wore a white robe and was unordained, because only Veḷḷalas were admitted to the priesthood by the Siamese sect, which was the only one then in existence, having been established in Ceylon as the result of Kirti Śrī’s and his predecessors’ missions *Artificers* to Siam.* The names of innumerable other craftsmen are recorded in *sannas* and deeds of various sorts, but can hardly ever be associated with any particular piece of work.
c9.21
∗ Devendra Mulacariya also built the octagon (Maligāva Library) in Kandy; at Mideṇiya there is a maḍuva built by him (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 589).
c9.22
*Penalties* We gather an idea of the reasons and manner of punishment of craftsmen from an incident *for bad work* connected with the building of the parapet of the Kandy lake, about A.D. 1806; although the work was carried out as *rajakariya* by ordinary villagers, and was not (except as regards the design), done by the craftsmen themselves. One Gannoruve Ṭikiri Gammahe of Gannoruva had charge of part of the work, which was allotted to his people, and those of Parakaṭavela Āracci. When the king came to inspect the work, the gammahe’s part was still unfinished, but the rest completed. He was taken to prison by the *kaṅkānama* (overseer) of the Veḍakārayō people, and his certificate of office forfeited. He was eighteen days in prison, but ‘got released,’ after which other adventures befel him.
c9.23
A story is told of the goldsmith, Ratnavalli Navaratna Ābharaṇa of Nilavala, already mentioned, that seeing the King (Kirti Śrī) one day asleep he conceived the idea of setting a gem in the royal great toe nail; which he succeeded in doing without awakening the sleeping monarch. His awakening was awaited with some trepidation, lest he should have presumed too far; but the King was delighted at his skill, and rewarded him with liberality.
c9.24
*Rewards* Amongst the rewards and marks of favour bestowed by the Kings on artificers, were portions of the royal dress; when the Gaṅgārāma Vihāra was completed an entire costume was presented. In the ordinary way no one would have been allowed to wear such garments, the sumptuary laws being very definite; but probably the smiths could use them as the *kumāra eṇḍuma* at *netra maṅgalya* (see Appendix to this Chapter); in the meanwhile these gifts were, and still are in a few cases, greatly treasured. It is also said that the maker of the crown might try it on his own head; which would have been horrible treason for any other to do. The *paṭabeṇḍi* decoration was sometimes conferred on eminent craftsmen; it was a *paṭa-tahaḍuva* or gold frontlet, tied on by the king himself as a mark of honour.
c9.25
*High spirit* The high spirit of the craftsmen is sufficiently indicated in Knox’s account of them. He *of the crafts-* says: “Next after the degree of Hondrews may be placed Goldsmiths, Blacksmiths, *men* Carpenters and Painters. Who are all of one degree and quality. But the Hondrews will not eat with them: however in Apparel there is no difference; and they are also privileged to sit on stools, which none of the inferior ranks of People hereafter mentioned, may do. Heretofore they were accounted almost equal to the Inferior sort of Hondrews, and they would eat in these Artificers’ Houses, but afterwards they were degraded upon this occasion. It chanced some Hondrews came to a Smith’s Shop to have their Tools mended, when it came to be Dinner time, the Smith leaves work, and goes in to his House to dine, leaving the Hondrews in his Shop: who had waited there a great while to have their work done. Now whether the Smith fearing lest their hunger might move them to be so impudent or desperate as to partake with him of his Dinner, clapt to his Door after him: Which was taken so hainously by those hungry people in his Shop, that immediately they all went and declared abroad what an affront the Smith had put upon them. Whereupon it was decreed and confirmed, that for ever all the people of that rank should be deposed, and deprived of the Honour of having the Hondrews to eat in their Houses. Which Decree has stood in force ever since.
c9.26
Nevertheless these Smiths take much upon them, especially those who are the King’s Smiths (i.e., *paṭṭal hatara men*); that is, such who live in the King’s Towns, and do his work. These have this Privilege, that each has a parcel of Towns belonging to them, whom none but they are to work for. The ordinary work they do for them is mending their Tools, for which every man pays to his Smith a certain Rate of Corn in Harvest time according to ancient Custom. But if any has work extraordinary, as making new Tools or the like, besides the aforesaid rate of Corn, he must pay him for it. In order to this, they come in an humble manner to the Smith with a Present, being Rice, Hens, and other sorts of Provision, or a bottle of Rack, desiring him to appoint his time, when they shall come to have their work done. Which when he hath appointed them, they come at the set time, and bring both (char-) Coals and Iron with them. The Smith sits very gravely upon his Stool, his Anvil before him, with his left hand towards the forge, and a little Hammer in his Right. They themselves who come with their work must blow the Bellows, and when the Iron is to be beaten with the great Maul, he holds it, still sitting upon his Stool, and they must hammer it themselves, he only with his little Hammer knocking it sometimes into fashion. And if it be anything to be filed, he makes them go themselves and grind it upon a Stone, that his labour of fileing may be the less; and when they have done it as well as they can, he goes over it again with his file and finisheth it. That which makes these Smiths thus stately is, because the Towns People are compelled to go to their own Smith, and none else. And if they should, that Smith is liable to pay Damages that should work for any in another Smith’s Jurisdiction.”
c9.27
∗ See P. E. Pieris, ‘Kirti Śrī’s Embassy to Siam,’ *J.C.B.R.A.S.*, Vol. XVIII.
c9.28
We have seen that less than four per cent. of the Kandyan population now belong to the artificers’ caste. But in the census report, on which this estimate is based, statistics are given of occupation, and not of caste; for in this social institution, Government affects a blindness which in actual administration it cannot maintain.* The number of persons belonging to the craftsman castes greatly exceeds the number of those still practising their craft, so that we may suppose that quite as many as ten per cent. of the population in the eighteenth century, consisted of craftsmen and their dependents. Of these, not more than half can have been *navandannō* (p. 54), the superior artificers which alone are spoken of in the present chapter. It is necessary to say a few words as to their origin.
c9.29
At first sight it seems strange to suppose that many of them were of Indian origin; yet this is a point on which no doubt can be entertained. Numerous references to the importation of artificers from Southern India have been given in Chapter I.; that the practice continued even into the eighteenth century is attested by contemporary records and *sannas*. The *navandannō* at any one time, speaking of the eighteenth and immediately preceding centuries at least, consisted partly of indigenous craftsmen, and partly of newly-settled Tamil artificers, coming from Southern India, to work for the king, who showed them favour and made them grants of land. Hence it is that not only do we find the closest correspondence in detail and technique between South Indian (Tamil) and Sinhalese work; but also that the artificer families have often Hindu names (such as Rājēśvara Dēvasurēndra), they preserve traces of Śiva worship (such as Sanskrit *ślokas* written in his praise), and of other Hindu ceremonies (*nētra maṅgalya*, etc.); their technical works are obviously a part of the Indian *Śilpaśāstra*; some of their technical terms are corruptions of Tamil words; they make use of Hindu *mantrams* (cf. p. 74); they are occasionally referred to as *Kammālar*; and so forth. The community of design elements would not *Immigrant* *Tamil* *craftsmen* alone suffice to prove the recent Indian origin of many of the craftsmen, as the decorative motifs go back to a source common to both India and Ceylon.
c9.30
∗ So far does this fiction prevail, that a valuable paper, dealing with the origin, distribution and traditions of the craftsmen in Ceylon, recently offered to the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, was rejected by the referee, a Government official (though not in any sense an official censor to this learned society) who vetoed it on the ground that it dealt with caste; as if any such paper could do otherwise!
c9.31
The indigenous craftsmen and the newly-arrived Tamils worked together side by side. They did not always agree, as we learn from the case of one Vaḍugē Anura Appa of Hārispattuva who in A.D. 1765 made a complaint regarding tools stolen from him and from a certain Demaḷa Baḍala (Tamil goldsmith), and also against the Demaḷa Baḍala himself (Lawrie’s Gazetteer, p. 354); ill-feeling between the old-established craftsman and the newly-arrived ‘Tamil goldsmith’ evidently existed! Nevertheless, the craftsmen thus from time to time imported, very soon became part and parcel of the Kandyan Sinhalese people, Buddhist by faith; the style and feeling of their work was modified under the influence of the living local tradition, something of the Hindu-Dravidian element being lost, and the Buddhist-Aryan acquired. It is remarkable indeed, that the local tradition should have so successfully and continuously preserved its vitality and individuality.
c9.32
*The* *indigenous* *tradition* The indigenous craftsmen, it will be perceived, represented both the original Sinhalese stock, and the later immigrant craftsmen incorporated from time to time into their community. It would be difficult to say how far an original Sinhalese element is represented in the body of superior craftsmen; for we do not know much of the state of the arts in very early times, and we have the record of the introduction of Indian craftsmen with Buddhist missionaries from the North (p. 2), and again at the time of Gaja Bāhu’s invasion of Southern India (p. 6). The inferior craftsmen, potters, weavers (except salāgamayō), mat makers, etc., on the other hand no doubt represent an integral part of the Sinhalese population, perhaps even carrying on the remote traditions of the pre-Sinhalese inhabitants, who may have been by no means uncivilised.
c9.33
In a general way it may be stated that the indigenous craftsmen of all sorts, integrally a part of the Sinhalese population, were makers of the plainer and most necessary articles normally required by a simple agricultural people, and the imported craftsmen were more especially sumptuary artists from the big cities and craftguilds of Southern India, making the more elaborate and costly goods required by the Court and the capital. The distinction is clearly marked in the case of weavers, the indigenous beravāyō making country cloth, good but not fine, and the imported salāgamayō making the gold-woven muslins worn by royalty and nobility. So, too, the dye-painting of cloth, the more elaborate sorts of embroidery (with gold), and tailoring and sandal making and so forth were crafts practised almost exclusively by foreign craftsmen, at the Court only. The king, sometimes himself a Tamil, and always with Tamil queens, naturally favoured Tamil fashions, and the results are seen in the Tamil influence upon jewellery and dress in the eighteenth century. India was the source of sumptuous cloths and skilled craftsmen for the Sinhalese, much as Paris sets the fashion in London. Even at the present day, those who require silk brocades or gold-woven turbans in Ceylon, are obliged to import them from Southern India, and dye-painted kerchiefs are made in Jaffna for sale in Kandy. It will thus be seen how intimately connected was the art of Southern India and Ceylon; but while thus recognizing the influence of the Tamil craftsmen, it is necessary to remember also the continuity and vitality of the indigenous tradition, and to give to the Sinhalese people the full credit for the fact that their art, taken as a whole, is perfectly distinct in style and feeling from that of Southern India, and preserves clearer and more numerous traces of the Early Indian, and especially of the Early Buddhist style, than can easily be found in India itself.
c9.34
It is desirable to trace a little more fully the history of the kammālar, the South Indian craftsmen who thus came to Ceylon from time to time, and there joined their fellows already settled there and practising their craft. The Kammālar in South India are the craftsmen par excellence, the builders and sculptors of the great Hindu temples. The Artificers following account of the Kammalar in South India is mainly condensed from Dr. Pulney Andy’s paper in No. 50 of ‘The Journal of Indian Art and Industry’:
c9.35
The *kammalar* are descendants of a race of Aryans who entered India across the Panjāb Origin of long before Vyāsa began the collection and arrangement of the Vēdas. They were known craftsmen in early times as Viśva Brahmans, Dēva Brahmans or Dēva Kammālar, in contradistinction to the modern Brahmans who are descendants of Vashishta. They spread gradually towards the south and appear to have gone thence to Ceylon, Burma, Siam and Java, the art of all which lands is closely related to that of South India. They reject the authority of the Brahmans, having priests of their own caste, and perform many rites after the manner of Brahmans. The Kammālar claim to have been at one time spiritual guides and priests to the whole people, of which a trace survives in the proverb, ‘The Kammālan is guru to the world,’ which is said to be current in Southern India. They still perform priestly rites in connection with the consecration of images. They both claim and possess various special privileges which they have always upheld with much vigour. Their priests are or were learned in the *Silpaśastra*. The majority are Saivites. They trace their ancestry to the five sons of Viśvakarma, of whom the first-born Manu, worked in iron; the second, Maya, in wood; the third, Tvastra, in brass, copper, and alloys; the fourth, Silpi, in stone; and the fifth, Viśvajna, was a gold and silversmith and jeweller. Even to-day the blacksmith is said to take precedence amongst the artificers—a point of difference from Ceylon. In former times the artisans had their own guilds, which protected the interests of their own trades; but as these institutions gradually declined, the Kammālar were driven to seek the aid of capitalists of other castes, and now they are, in a majority of instances, reduced to mere paid workmen, earning daily wages. The five occupations are not mutually exclusive; for example, the son of a goldsmith may, if he likes, follow any of the other crafts, or *vice-versa*. We have seen this is only partially the case in Ceylon, as there is a general division into two groups which do not intermarry. In India the five sects form one compact community; as indeed they do in Ceylon, though partly divided as remarked.
c9.36
Some part of the foregoing history of the Kammālar is mythical. A critical examination of the history and traditions of the Kammālar, and of their technical literature is greatly to be desired, and may be expected to throw light on the general history of art, of guilds, and perhaps of freemasonry. Will not the Viśvakarma Kulabhimana Sabhā in Madras begin this much-needed investigation before the opportunities are lost for good and all? It is probably true that there existed a caste or guild of artificers at a time long antecedent to the Christian era, and that they had spread all over India, perhaps as far as the extreme south at the time of the founding of the Sinhalese nation by Vijaya. Later, they passed to Ceylon, Java and other places. There is a remarkable unity underlying the diverse developments of Indian art (including the art of Ceylon, Burma, Siam, and Java), not merely as regards the persistence in time of elements of decoration, but also geographically; here I refer to the present peculiar isolation of particular trades and techniques which survive, so to say, in scattered ‘islands’ all over India (cf. ‘Indian Art at Delhi,’ 1904, pp. 112, 154, 158, 179, 206, 221, 233, and also this work, in various places). The argument from distribution is, that a knowledge of these crafts was once more widely spread and continuous; it is also fairly clear that it was once very much more extensive and thorough.
c9.37
The greatest interest attaches to the system of apprenticeship and instruction found Apprentice- amongst the Kandyan craftsmen. From the social and guild point of view, the same ship method may be said to be characteristic of all the craftsmen, both of the artificers’ caste *Apprentice-ship* and also potters and weavers, etc. That is, the trade was hereditary, and the sons are brought up to it as a matter of course,* and trained in the actual workshop, being given easy or monotonous work at first (as grinding colours) and little by little picking up a knowledge of the craft by precept, example, and practice; and so the tradition was perpetuated. Thus from the very beginning, the disciple absorbed together, technique, tradition and metaphysic. No technical education of the future can replace the workshop training of the old craftsmen; for technical education supplies only technique, and that inferior; the imagination it takes no account at all! When the son married and set up for himself, he would be given tools, but would still very probably continue to work with and for his father. We see here the working of the joint family system. Very often also the craftsman trained up with his own sons those of other men of the same caste. In either case the relation between master and pupil was one of lasting reverence and affection; especially where the period of instruction was prolonged, and the information imparted of great value, as amongst the higher craftsmen.
c9.38
Such was the general type of apprenticeship amongst the craftsmen; but the teaching of drawing and design was confined to the superior division of the artificer's caste, the *galladdo* from whom the *pattal-hatara* men were drawn. The lower division of craftsmen had also some knowledge of design, but in the main relied upon the others to set out their work.
Linked texts (3)
- Veda — Sanskrit
- Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
- Viśvakarmaśilpa — Viśvakarman, Sanskrit