BOOK BUILDING
How cities prosper
D. MURALI
The city can best be seen as a unit of human settlement sharply distinct from a village, says Ranabir Chakravarti in ‘Trade and Traders in Early Indian Society’ ( www.landmarkonthenet.com).
He cites Gordon Childe to list ‘the essential hallmarks’ of a city, thus: One, it is ‘much more extensive and densely populated than any previous human settlement’. Two, the main inhabitants of the city consist of non-food-producing people, such as ‘full-time specialist craftsmen, merchants, priests, rulers and administrative officers’, all supported by farm surplus.
As Thiruvalluvar says, cities owe their origin to the concentration of surplus from the primary producers. Cities, in turn, help in ‘concentration of social wealth’, which goes on display as monumental buildings, narrates Chakravarti.
“A part of the concentrated surplus is meant for paying for the importation of raw materials. Trade and market and especially long-distance trade are closely linked up with city life.”
Though the earliest cities appeared in the subcontinent as far back as the days of the Harappan civilisation (2300 BC-750 BC), urban centres virtually vanished from the scene between 1500 BC and 600 BC, one learns.
Tracking urbanisation that reappeared ‘almost after a millennium since the decline of the Harappan towns’, Chakravarti writes that available literary sources describe nearly 60 towns and cities. Campa, Rajagaha, Savatthi, Varanasi, Kausambi and Kusinara were six of the ‘outstanding cities’ belonging to ‘the early phase of the second urbanisation’.
These cities were intimately associated with the life and activities of the Buddha. The trading community supported the samgha, the congregation of monks. Chakravarti reasons that the concept of gift of alms fits better with an urban milieu than a rural one, “as townsmen with more surplus at their disposal were in a position to patronise Buddhists more effectively.”
How were the big cities depicted in literature? With “huge ramparts, moats, gateways, lofty palaces, busy streets full of merchants and artisans and royal residences.” The descriptions are often so stereotyped that you may have to take them with a grain of salt, suggests the author.
Findings from excavations offer some corroboration of literary depictions. But there is a major problem! “Most of early historical urban sites were vertically excavated, mainly with a view to determining their chronology,” rues Chakravarti. “Only regular horizontal diggings could really unravel the structure, layout and life in such urban centres.”
For example, “the most enormous fortification wall is reported from the Kausambi excavation (circuit over 6.5 km),” dating back to 1000 BC.
Inequality and wealth disparity existed in those good old days too. For, archaeologists have found evidence of ‘newly moneyed class’, who used ‘a deluxe black polished pottery which appears to have been beyond the reach of ordinary persons’. Thus, not only were ‘fairly high degree of manufacturing skills’ available then, but also ‘an urbane rich community which required such luxury items.’
What was the key factor behind urbanisation? On this, there appear to be differences among researchers. According to some, it was iron technology that played an important role: “Regular use of iron implements helped clear the dense forest and till the heavy alluvial soil.” The resultant agrarian surplus, appropriated in part by political authorities, was behind the emergence of non-rural settlements.
Another school of thought emphasises the role played by the social need/political demand for surplus, rather than the capacity to produce the surplus as a result of technological innovations.
The author concludes saying that cities could hardly exist and prosper “without the combination of the two,” viz. technological change and the rise of a power structure.
Feedback to dmurali @thehindu.co.in
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Property Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Hyderabad
Kochi
Thiruvananthapuram
