Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c29.s1.t3: Literary Evidence

History of Technology in India, Vol. I: From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. v1.c29.s1.t3

Language
English

Literary Evidence

v1.c29.s1.t3.1

Literature fails to give a realistic picture of town planning. Such descriptions are exaggerated and conventional, yet repetitive mention of high defense walls, deep ditches and moats, wide streets, large portals, busy markets, flowering trees, gardens and ponds needs to be critically examined.

v1.c29.s1.t3.2

Aryans were not city dwellers but were known as destroyers of cities and were called Purāndara. But building activity must have been there and growth of ‘pattanas’, the port town. Rgvedic architects were pre-eminently carpenters and built houses with wood, bamboo, thatch etc.

v1.c29.s1.t3.3

Panini mentions two divisions of town: Udicyagrāma and prācyagrāma viz. Kauśāmbi, Taksaśilā, etc. according to him most important parts of the town were; moat (parikhā), rampart (prākāra) and gate (dvār); the latter were named after the cities towards which they opened.

v1.c29.s1.t3.4

Buddhist texts and Jataka stories mention pattana (port-town) nigamas (market town), dūrga (forts) etc which show urban development which needed some systematisation and thus planning. Milindā pānho mentions the architect (Veddahi/Vardhaki) searching:

v1.c29.s1.t3.5

1. Faultless pleasant spot free from rocks, hills, gullies and not open to danger of attack.

v1.c29.s1.t3.6

2. The city is then laid out in regular measured quarters, with excavated moats and ramparts on all sides. With high towers and strong gate houses, with cross roads, street corners, market places, public squares, with clean and even roads, lined by shops, parks, lakes and gardens etc.(Milinda-panho 1928)

v1.c29.s1.t3.7

The Jain canonical text *Aupapatika-Sūtra* enumerates the important parts of the township as, 1. moat (*parikhā*) broad at the top and cut deep down, 2. solidly built rampart bent like a bow and provided with buttresses, bastions (*aṭṭālayas*), with gates (*toraṇa*) towers (*gopura*) and high roads (*Rājamārga*) etc. It also provided with junctions of 3. 4 or 6 roads.

v1.c29.s1.t3.8

Pānini mentions moat (*Parikhā*) gate (*dvār*) and rampart (*Prākāra*) as the most important parts of the city.

v1.c29.s1.t3.9

In *Arthaśāstra* a *grāma* was 1 or 2 *Krośas* in length. In the center of 800 villages was a *Sthānīya* (district town), of 400 villages, a *droṇamukha* (big town) of 200 villages a *Khārvaṭika* (town) and amongst 10 villages was a *saṅgrahana* (small township).

v1.c29.s1.t3.10

The *Sthānīya* could be circular, oblong or square in plan. The city was divided by three streets, running eastwards and three towards north. Each extremity of the street was to have a gate thus making up 12 gates in all. The main roads had the width of 4 *daṇḍas* or 24 feet. To avoid congestion roads were allotted for different purpose. *Arthaśāstra* mentions five kind of roads: *Rājapatha*, *Devapatha*, *Mahāpatha*, *Rathya* and *Caryā*.

v1.c29.s1.t3.11

The city had fixed position for various classes of people. The palace was in the center facing north or east. Temples of Gods also occupied central position. Surrounding the place were the houses of Brāhmins. The Ksatriyas, the Vaiśyas and Sudras occupied north, east and south parts respectively.

v1.c29.s1.t3.12

The corners were set apart for the guilds. Intermediate portion was marked for market, the houses of the royal priests and officers and so on.

v1.c29.s1.t3.13

Kautilya describes many kinds of roads classifying them according to their use and destination. Each road had a specified width varying from 4 feet for pedestrians and 32 feet to 64 feet for royal roads and trade routes. Roads were made with a convex surface (like the back of the tortoise) and were provided with drains on either side, water flowed down through these drains.

v1.c29.s1.t3.14

Further there are detailed passages on town planning in *Bṛhat Saṃhitā*, *Silpaśāstra* compositions: like *Mayamata*, *Mānasāra*, *Yukitkalpataru*, *Samarāṅgana-sūtradhāra* and *Nītisāra* of *Śukrācārya*. Mention may be made at *Mānasara* on town planning.

v1.c29.s1.t3.15

According to *Mānasāra* a work of c. 11th century A.D. smallest town unit was 100×200×4 cubits and largest was 7200×14,000×4 cubits. *Mānasāra* suggests that the cities should be built near the sea, a river or a mountain and should have facilities for trade and commerce and should be laid either from east to west or from North to South, according to the site.

v1.c29.s1.t3.16

*Mānasāra* divides town into eight classes: (*Rājadhāni*, *Nagar*, *Pura*, *Nagarī*, *Kheta*, *Khārvaṭa*, *Kubjaka* and *Paṭṭana*) and mentions the plan of a city (nagar). It had high, perhaps concentric walls about it in which were watch towers, massive gates, strong doors, protected chiefly by wide bridge moat, latter filled with crocodiles and armed with paling, guarded the walls. The city was laid in several squares. The streets were lighted with torches. The principles of Indian Town Planning have some striking similarity to those of early European cities and it is interesting to compare *Mānasāra* with the work of Vitruvius (a work of c. 25 B.C.).

v1.c29.s1.t3.17

The important subjects considered by *Manasara* and *Mayamata* are:

v1.c29.s1.t3.18

1. *Bhū-parīksā* - (examination the land)

v1.c29.s1.t3.19

2. *Bhumi-samgraha* (selection of the town site)

v1.c29.s1.t3.20

3. *Dikpariccheda* (determination of the cardinal points)

v1.c29.s1.t3.21

4. *Padavinyāsa* (surveying and mapping the area and marking into squares).

v1.c29.s1.t3.22

5. *Balikarma vidhāna* (sacrificial offering).

v1.c29.s1.t3.23

6. *Grāma Vinyāsa*, *Nagara Vinyāsa* (planning of villages and towns).

v1.c29.s1.t3.24

7. *Bhūmi Vinyāsa* (construction of storeyed buildings).

v1.c29.s1.t3.25

8. *Gopura Vidhāna* (construction of gate-ways).

v1.c29.s1.t3.26

9. *Rajaveśma Vidhāna* (construction of palaces).

v1.c29.s1.t3.27

10. *Mandapa Vidhāna* (construction of temples)

v1.c29.s1.t3.28

*Śukranītisāra* depicts city planning in an elaborate manner headed by *Grhadhyāpati* - the minister of town planning and in order of hierarchy stood *Sthāpati* (master architect), *Sūtragrāhik* (Surveyor) and *Takṣaka* and *Vardhaki*. In this text the central place is given to the *Sabhā* and areas are allocated to others depending upon their status and occupational classes. Wealth and cast were the main criterion. Regarding cardinal points of the lay-out of the city, he follows *Arthaśāstra* tradition viz. city buildings should face either the north or the east. It lays great importance on the selection of a site for the capital of the kingdom. The place should abound in natural wealth of flora and fauna, rich source of water and be navigable up to the sea and be even plain and picturesque and, not, far from the hills.

Linked texts (12)