Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c12.s5.7

c12.s5.7

The Mauryas followed the traditional State policy in relation to industry and trade at least in some important respects. We have already seen what care they bestowed upon the construction of roads through a special class of officers called *Agoranomoi* by Megasthenes. That they established State manufactures on their own account is proved by Megasthenes' reference to his fourth Indian caste, viz. that of artisans. Speaking of this class, Diodorus (ii. 41) says that they were not only exempted from paying taxes, but even received maintenance from the Royal exchequer. More guardedly Arrian (*Indica* Ch. xii) states that while handicraftsmen and retail dealers pay tribute, an exception is made in favour of makers of weapons of war, ship-builders and sailors, who even draw pay from the State. Evidently, the artisans maintained by the State were employed on government service. What strict control was maintained by the Maurya government over the artisans and merchants alike of the country-side and of the capital is proved by other statements of Megasthenes. We learn that the *Agoranomoi* had among other duties, to superintend crafts connected with land such as those of the wood-cutters, carpenters, blacksmiths and miners. Again, the officers known as *Astynomoi* ('city commissioners') were divided into six boards. Of these the fourth 'is that which has to do with sales and barter, and these look after the measure, and the fruits of the season, that the latter may be sold by stamp': the fifth 'is that of those who have charge of the works made by artisans and sell these by stamps, the new apart from the old'¹. We have elsewhere² given reasons for identifying Megasthenes' officers in charge of measures with Kauṭilya's *pautavādhyaksha* ('superintendent of weights and measures') and *saṁsthādhyaksha* ('market superintendent'), while connecting 'the stamp' mentioned by the Greek writer with the *abhijñāna-mudrā*, which according to *Arthaśāstra* (ii. 27) was given by the *antapāla* to incoming traders. We have finally to mention in the present place another reference suggesting that the person of the artisans was protected by a special law unlike the general rule of law known to the *Arthaśāstra*. According to Strabo (xv. 1.54), if a person caused the loss of a hand or an eye to a craftsman, he was put to death. This is a severe departure from the milder rule of law in the *Arthaśāstra* (iii. 19) imposing fines alone for the same offences.