Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c10.73

c10.73

We cannot go into the history of crafts and craftsmen, which might well form the subject of a separate monograph. But certain broad points may be noticed. The artisan members of the śūdra varṇa played an important role in the agrarian economy of the pre-Mauryan period. Workers in metal not only made axes, hammers, saws, chisels etc. meant for the carpenters and smiths,¹ but also supplied agriculture with ploughshares, spades and similar implements,² which enabled the farmers to provide surplus food for people living in the towns. The urban life³ and the thriving trade and commerce, which appear for the first time in north-eastern India during this period, could not have been possible without considerable amount of commodity production by the artisans. In the principal towns the crafts were organised into guilds, the chiefs of which stood in a special relation to the king.⁴ Certain artisans were attached to the household of the king and enjoyed his patronage. According to the gloss on Pāṇini’s grammar these were known as royal artisans, of which the royal barber (rāja-nāpita) and the royal potter (rāja-kulāla) are especially mentioned.⁵ This is also corroborated by a later Jātaka story, which speaks of the royal potter (rāja-kumbhakāra) and the royal garland-maker (rāja-mālākāra).⁶ Some artisans were also attached to the seṭṭhis and gahapatis. We learn that a seṭṭhi had his own tailor (tunnakāra), who lived under his patronage and worked for his house.⁷ Mention is also made of the weavers of the gahapati, who supplied yarn to him.⁸ But the majority of the artisans were probably not attached to such masters; as instances of independent craftsmen we might cite the villages of the carpenters¹ and smiths,² or the artisans living in towns.³ Possibly the king exercised some sort of loose control over the artisan villages through the patronage of their chief. Thus the jeṭṭhaka (head) of the village of a thousand smiths is called a favourite of the king (rājavallabho).⁴ There was no such control over the scattered families of artisans, who lived in the villages catering to the needs of the agriculturists. They are mentioned as grāmasilpins by Pāṇini.⁵ Probably villages had their potters, carpenters, smiths, weavers and barbers, but they were not attached to their clients in the same manner as in the jajmāni system. According to Pāṇini there were two kinds of carpenters, the grāmatakṣa who worked for daily wages at the house of his clients in the village, and the kauṭatakṣa who worked at his own residence.⁶ and was "an independent artisan, not particularly bound under engagement to any one."⁷ A Jātaka gāthā refers to an itinerant smith, who carries his furnace wherever he is called to go.⁸ The artisans owned their implements and in some cases had free access to materials. Thus we learn of a brāhmaṇa carpenter, who gained his livelihood by bringing wood from the forest and making carts.⁹ This may have been the case with the potter, who could obtain a free supply of clay and fuel, but not with the weavers and workers in metal. Nevertheless, by and large, those who were served by the artisans were not their masters, as was the case in Greece and Rome, where slaves were employed in handicrafts,¹⁰ but just their clients. The only control exercised by the state over the artisans in general lay in the imposition of a kind of *corvée*. It was laid down that in lieu of taxes they would have to work for a day in a month for the king.¹ Otherwise the Dharmasūtra rules give the impression that those śūdras who worked as craftsmen and artisans were independent people, for these occupations are prescribed for them in case they fail to maintain themselves by service,² which would imply domestic or agricultural work.