Part 2 - Urbanity Theories and the Early Indian Context

We may begin our study by looking at important views and theories on urbanisation, offered by the social scientists of the world over, followed by the responses and investigations of the archaeologists, who worked with the evidence at first hand. In 1995, Dilip K. Chakrabarti in his “The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities” presented a host of views of earlier scholars who perceived the pre-modern urbanisation from the angles of sociology, actual archaeological remains and characteristics in general. Sociologists like K. Davies in 1966, held the extreme view of not recognising any pre-industrial urbanisation at all and considered any pre-industrial urbanisation only as a creation of archaeologists and a myth. In that view ancient cities are no match to their modern counterparts and at best can be called ‘mere urban islands in a vast sea of rurality.’^[1] But urbanism as a way of life had been proposed much earlier by L. Wirth in 1938 both in the ancient and the modern contexts. It has also been proposed always affect a very small proportion of people^[2] , yet reflects the basic features of their respective civilisations (Robert Redfield, 1963).^[3] In that sense, cities may be called the repositories of cultural traits. Emile Durkheim, as early as 1900, recognises the need to trace the transition of settlements from rural to urban.^[4]

Durkheim only suggested to find out distinct phases towards urbanisation. Stages pointed out by him were:—

1. Animal promptings and foreshadowings,
2. Cemeteries and shrines,
3. Domestication and the village in the Neolithic context,
4. Ceramics, hydraulics and geotechnics,
5. Contribution of the village,
6. New role of the hunter as the protector of the village and the shepherd,
7. Palaeolithic-Neolithic union.^[5]

For our purpose we are mainly interested in the last phase, i.e. the Palaeolithic-Neolithic union, because traceable human activity started in the middle Gaṅgā plain started in the Palaeolithic times. However number of such old sites is really few. They formed the formative stage for the early historic urbanisation. This stateless condition may be described by heterarchy, a word used to denote an unranked system characterised by fluidity in the power relations. This type of system was mostly found in egalitarian, primitive societies. But this was based on a delicate balance. The subject was open to social change that leads to the origin of territorial states.^[6] The situation described here matches with the Palaeolithic, Neolithic early societies that eventually gave birth to states and cities. Hence it is necessary to make a survey of this phase and much attention was put to explore the antecedents of early cities. The need to know the formative stages to understand the appearance of cities in the social plain was also recognised by George Erdosy. In his recent paper “Origin of Cities in the Ganga Plain”he delineates two stages in the transformation of ordinary settlements to cities. Firstly for accessibility and control of strategic resources a differentiation and stratification in simple and egalitarian societies occurred. In the second level these stratified early societies are organised on a territorial basis. From this point the transformation from simple, kin based society to a territorial, stratified society emerges. So in the whole process elements of resource and territoriality proved to be very vital.

In the historiography of urbanization, for the first time, the real concern for the first urban growth was explicitly expressed by V. Gordon Childe, in 1936, in his book Man Makes Himself.^[7] Two novel aspects of his study were his scheme of ten criteria of urbanity based on archaeological data and his use of the term “Urban Revolution” toemphasise the dramatic changes that characterises urbanity.^[8] Though he found few supporters to his views they sparked off a scholarly debate on urbanity and its major variable and their remover behind urban growth. According to him, in early societies, advancement in science, i.e. copper-bronze metallurgy, use of wheels, knowledge to the relation of agriculture with seasons led to greater agricultural production, expanded foreign trade and drawing minerals from mines. This relative self -sufficiency created the social base for a new way of life, namely urbanism. Moreover he offered his ten traits that distinguish rural and urban settlements. Scholars disagree greatly from his theoretical scheme as his traits are not universal, yet it laid the foundation of a new approach to urban studies. This was reflected in the writings of the ‘Chicago School of Oriental Archaeologists’ as cited by Dilip K. Chakrabarti. Not differing too much from Childe’s theoretical scheme, rather modifying it, in 1950, R.J. Braidwood came with a revised format of Childe’s scheme of ten traits. Thus he came up with eight variables of urbanity, but at the same gave primacy to cultural aspects over technology that separates civilisation from pre-civilisation.^[9] This new approach set the trend for the archaeologists of 1950s and 60s and a number of eminent archaeologists like Kathleen Kenyon, Mortimer Wheeler and James Mellart who brought out archaeologically visible cultural traits as symbols of urbanity. The basic argument of these scholars was how far the cultural causes are determinant of civilization.

However, Childe’s term ‘urban revolution’ and its implications to dramatic changes to urbanity continued to be a point of debate among scholars. Lewis Mumford accepts the dynamism implied by the term revolution but rejects the chaos or upheaval related to it. He suggested that a process is involved in the rise of cities. Taking together all the elements from earlier culture and putting them in a more orderly way or coordinating them and marked a higher stage in settlement history.^[10] H. Frankfort rejects the term revolution altogether. In his view violence for purposeful change involved with revolution does not suit a phenomenon like urbanisation.^[11] Robert Redfield on the other hand prefers the word transformation to revolution to characterise the situation.^[12] Childe later admits the inadequacy of the term and says that it is difficult to fix a point when a city can be distinguished from earlier settlements. It is only R. M. Adams who points to the advantages of the term revolution, in 1965,for it stresses on the transformative and rapid character of the process and restricts the whole focus on a physical urban space.^[13] Childe’s ten criteria of urbanity found little acceptance among scholars. The clearest visible sign of urbanity pointed by Childe was monumental architecture was present in pre-urban or non-civilised societies as well. He finds Childe’s other traits like the beginning of exact and predictive science as confusing, eclectic and matters of interpretation. R. Redfield also expressed his doubts about re appearance of naturalistic arts in the context of cities. The same feeling was shared by Adams too. So Childe’s ten criteria were not s always significant markers of urbanity and for their ambiguity and even if they existed at all and marked the high stage of pre-industrial urbanism that were actually results of cumulative process and seeks to explain Chide’s term of ‘urban revolution in terms of ‘ordered, systematic processes of change through time’.

That means what factors and in what degree they help in urbanisation. He places his confidence on the social factors. He says urbanisation is essentially a social process. Agricultural surplus which is for long believed to be an outcome of technological superiority Adams thinks actually involves and depends on a number of social institutions more than technology. He takes the case of early Mesopotamia where metallurgy flourished under early dynasties. That means technology itself depends on other factors.^[14] In fact, Lewis Mumford recognising supremacy of social factors considered monarchy as the most important agent in urban growth. He said that king is the universal city builder. T. Jacobsen also supported Mumford and on the basis of Egyptian literary records recognised a general tie up between foundation of cities and state power.^[15] V. M. Masson (1968) believes that instead of putting all the concern to urbanisation it is important to look to the growth of a stratified society as an essential element in social change.^[16]

New approaches to look at settlement history increasingly became visible since the early seventies. It put the major emphasis on archaeology. R. M. Adam’s ‘Heartlandof Cities, Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land use on the Central floodplain of the Euphrates (1981) and H.J. Nissen’sThe Early History of the Ancient Near east,9000-2000 B.C (1988)are important works of this school.^[17] Nissen thinks a settlement must be looked in respect of its location. Instead of terms like village, city or state which are misleading he prefers to call them centre and surrounding because they together form a compact system and they are permanently dependent on each other. So the settlements should be named after their relationship to their locale. This group of scholars do not look to the emergence of cities as an isolated growth, but set them in their settlement perspective which has a close relation to the city.

Another approach is to view civilization is through the approach of the systems theory. Kent V. Flannery explains this as a theme to view prehistoric cultures as systems. That means to enquire into the process of change and corresponding human adaptation. It does not view change as something new but minor deviations from the existing system. But such minor changes once set into motion can amplify them because of positive feedback. Colin Renfrew as one of the greatest exponents of this theory in his own case study in the context of the 3^rd millennium B.C.E. Aegean broke the components of change into six subsystems-subsistence, technological, social, cognitive/projective, external exchange and population. He saw the origin of civilization as a sum of these factors, which he calls ‘multiplier effect’. He thought that the real breakthrough comes when two or more such factors entered into a relationship surpassing the primitive isolation or hibernation that metamorphosed the society in totally new forms. This realization that civilisations arose because of interactions between different factors really helped the study of urbanisation.^[18] D.K. Chakrabarti in this regard thinks this is a major analytical way to understand the cultural change within the framework of culture itself rather than in terms of ethnicity, diffusion etc.^[19]

Renfrew contributed greatly on the question of primacy of technological or other factors in the growth of cities. He admits that an economy which has progressed beyond subsistence level is necessary for the growth of cities but that alone cannot promote an urban growth. Improved food production techniques do not create civilizations. Because he believes that in many cases surplus food was available but there was no corresponding growth of civilisation. Rather he suggests that social and other developments coupled with technology have made surplus possible.^[20] Renfrew criticises Adam’s way of attaching primacy to social factors as the prime mover behind urbanisation. Attaching all importance to social factors only reflects another extreme view just like that of giving too much importance to technological factors. He expressed a balanced view where he said that it is not supported by archaeological findings that any of the factors-technological, economic or social factors preceded the other. It is neither possible nor desirable to delineate such factors where a successful transition to urbanity has taken place. As a matter of fact these forces never developed alone. On the contrary they are always linked to others. When multiple factors work together only at that stage a civilization is born with their multiplier effect.^[21]

In dearth of archaeological findings it is not possible to know accurately under what conditions pre-historic and ancient cities emerged. Therefore it is impossible to frame a complete and final history of urbanisation. Scholars have only suggested some factors which might have been instrumental in this process. However it will be difficult to determine which factor is more important or who helped the other to appear. It will be futile to go into such a discussion. Rather it will be logical to accept that a complex interaction of all or at least some of the factors created the background to the emergence of cities. Secondly it is also notable that all civilizations are unique in their own terms. So that cultural specificity should be taken into account while studying urbanisation. So the forces offered by the scholars are common to most of the cultures.

We may now consider the situation of early historical urbanisation of India. The geographical region, in point is the Ganga valley which from the 6^th century BCE showed emergence of a number of fortified settlements that grew on the top of ‘an integrated network of settlements graded by the size and range of their functions.’^[22] This settlement hierarchy implies a complex and advanced stage of settlement pattern in place of simple two tier or mono layer settlements that characterised pre urban cultures. Scholars like Dilip K. Chakrabarti^[23] and Amalananda Ghosh^[24] have actually found three distinct phases in the early historic urbanisation. The first phase corresponding to the 6^th–5^th centuries BCE had urban centres stretching from Rājagṛha, Campā, Kauśāmbī up to Ujjayinī mostly belonged to the middle Gaṅgā plains.Simultaneous growth of such settlement pattern in a single ecological zone considered an urbanisation of a ‘cultural unit’.^[25] Our present study is confined to this cultural unit and a query into the causative factors and a search for actual archaeological evidence can reveal a complete picture of this phenomenon.

Economic Causes: Technology and surplus: Issue of the primacy of factors in the context of early historic urbanisation in India is as hotly debated by the Indian scholars as in the case of foreign scholars. To begin with, Vijay Thakur agrees that economic, political or social factors all played important role in the process of urbanisation, but he certainly gives more importance to economic factors. Because he believes that technological advancement and the resultant surplus created the base of urbanisation. The social and political factors are resultant of this surplus and also sustained by this economic boom.^[26] It appears that economic cause has two aspects. One is a technological advancement and the other is the resultant surplus. Scholarly views differ hugely on this point.

Role of iron: Our central issue is to understand the type of technological advancement in the early Indian context, how far is this linked to surplus and what are the actual archaeological evidences. R. S. Sharma says the much hyped iron technology in India flourished in three distinct phases. The first phase (1200- 600BCE) is a rather insignificant one marked with usage of low grade of iron. The second stage starting from 600BCE shows diverse types of iron objects. In contrast to phase l which yields mainly weapons and hunting tools, this phase shows greater number of agricultural and household objects. Evidences found from the pre-NBPW sites likeChirand, Sonpur, Taradihand Narhan all located in the middle-Gaṅgā Plainsshow a tremendous growth of arts and crafts.^[27] Vibha Tripathi, in her work entitled Painted Grey Ware: An Iron Age Culture of Northern India expressed the opinion that archaeologically, PGW which roughly corresponds to the late Vedic phase saw the advent of iron technology in the subcontinent.^[28] It is also the pre-urban phase in India. Though iron was known from this phase, copper continued to be the main metal of the time. Consequently it could not bring any major breakthrough in the society. The economy was simple and based on a subsistence pattern with a hunting bias. Animal husbandry was also practised. These two were the principal economic activities. Agriculture was practised on limited scale. Rice grains and agricultural implements discovered at various PGW sites like Noh, Atranjikhera confirm their familiarity with agriculture. Alternative professions like making terracotta beads, crafting on bone objects, beads, bangles, stone balls, ivory shells and horn objects also developed, though they played a secondary role in the economy and few people were engaged in them. PGW people also knew glass manufacturing technique. Hastinapur, Śrāvastī and some other PGW sites have yielded large number of glass beads and bangles of different colours, suggesting their familiarity with different metal and minerals like iron, aluminium, silica, sodium and potassium. But all these are found in a limited scale. No traces of large scale commercial activity were found. No coinage or weights to suggest any such profession is lacking.^[29] Basically the social pattern is primitive and some minor advancements in any field does not imply an overall development of the society. More importantly agriculture on a limited scale could not yield any substantive surplus to sustain non-agricultural population. What emerges from the discussion is that though iron came to be introduced it did not lead to any perceptible economic change. It has been suggested by other scholars too. ‘Mere acquaintance with the use of man-made iron was not enough to usher in the iron age’.^[30] A. Ghosh also thinks that ‘introduction of iron did not immediately involve a march towards urbanism’. The PGW society, he believes could not have made enough use of iron. He commented that ‘in a slow moving society the impact of iron was also slow.^[31] Tripathi suggested the reason for this lag. She said ‘the real importance of metals lies in their large-scale availability..... developments had to await the abundant supply of metals during the succeeding NBP phase.’^[32] Another major study on the iron issue was that of M.D.N. Sahi. His field study of Jakhera reveals the first iron specimens from the proto-PGW levels. Multiple iron objects were reported from this layer associated with a population growth and expansion of settlement. He traces the beginning of urbanisation of the site from the mature PGW phase that was based on an agricultural and industrial advance.^[33] He substantiates his view from the evidences iron articles gathered from Hastinapur, Atranjikhera, Alamgirpur and Noh. He demonstrates his opinion by his later publications. His basic argument is an iron related social change. With the advent of iron he traces the growth of a specialised class of agriculturists, social stratification, engagement in variety of artisanal activies and a consequent urbanisation.^[34] However his theory received lukewarm response from the scholars and earned more contenders of this theory. D.K. Chakrabarti also thinks iron industry only came in the NBP phase. The real Iron Age is concomitant with the urban base.^[35] It appears that most scholars deny any direct bearing of iron technology with urbanity.

Two more crucial questions are related to this issue. How far this iron technology was effective in the colonisation of the middle Gaṅgā plains and was there any resultant agricultural surplus because of iron technology. Colonisation first required a clearance of the primeval forest of the middle Gaṅgā plains. It was the centre of the first phase of the early historic urbanisation. Regarding iron’s role in this process, scholarly views are sharply divided. To begin with, A. Ghosh agrees that iron was introduced in India during the PGW culture. By iron technology, he said that it is expected to have in the domain of agriculture, transport, trade and in the general promotion of civic life. More importantly, iron implements were thought to be crucial in clearing the forest and expansion of agriculture. But he is not quite sure about the role of iron. He admits that strength and abundance of iron was certainly an advantage over copper-bronze. But he thinks iron was not indispensible and not the only way to forest clearance. On the basis of Videgha-Mathava legend of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, he concluded that easier and quicker way to clear the forest was through burning. He points out that up till the NBPW times dated around 500 BCE material remains was very poor with very little presence of iron artefacts.^[36] He admits the importance of iron but refuses to assign it any pivotal place to cause a social change. This interpretation of Ghosh was criticised by Vijay Thakur. He is unhappy with Ghosh’s tendency of undermining the crucial role of iron in initiating urbanisation in India and attributed all credit to political power and administrative machinery.³⁸ Earlier D.D. Kosambi commented that for urbanisation a shift in the economy from pastoralism to agriculture was necessary. For deep ploughing, iron share was a must. From 800 BCE the metal started to come from the eastern side of the Ganga plains. So it became urgent to explore those mines. He said that that the Gangetic forests were too thick for the Aryans to clear. Therefore they took a route following a very thin line along the Himalayan foothills to southern Nepal. From there they plunged into the

Bihar plains through the Champaran district. There they cleared the forest by burning. This clearance was limited to the west of river Gandak, which has been attested by the same Videgha-Mathava legend. He assigns the time before 700BCE and said that the actual motive behind this migration has been to explore rich iron mines along the Rajgir hills.^[37] So he means that iron was not a causative factor in eastward migration or colonisation of middle Gaṅgā plains. Rather iron was the motive for such expansion. Kosambi’s view has been discarded on the light of recent researches. Chemical analysis of iron objects of this period has proved that they were largely procured from iron of hills between Agra and Gwalior region.^[38] R.S. Sharma held rather a positive view on the role of iron. On the basis of findings from various pre-NBP and NBP layers he pointed to the variety of iron objects. He said while iron axes were used in cutting trees iron hoe and sickles were really useful in breaking the hard clayey soil of the Magadha plains. This had been particularly true in case of kewal or the calcerous soil found in the south of the Gaṅgāand in some places of northern Bihar. The soil, though fertile, is very hard to break by any wooden plough. An iron ploughshare is required for this purpose. Sharma directly links iron technology and urbanisation by successive stages. From 1500BCE farmers knew main cereals. Between 700-200 BCE variety of new crops were grown in the middle Gaṅgā plains. This has been supported by Pāli literary sources also. In the next stage he connects it with urbanisation. ‘Coupled with the use of iron tools in agriculture, paddy transplantation made available considerable surplus with which the state apparatus and complex society comprising priests, rulers, soldiers, merchants, artisans, professionals, etc., could be maintained.’^[39] This is how the cities are born. D.K Chakrabarti’s stand on the centrality of iron for urbanisation is based on his three main arguments. Firstly, a comparative study of crop patterns from Neolithic-Chalcolithic to iron using cultures does not show any major difference. The advanced agricultural base of this region was already created by pre-iron farmers and not a single new crop was introduced in the region after the advent of iron. Secondly, iron was introduced in the Gaṅgā plains at least four centuries before the large scale settlement growth and therefore iron has no direct bearing to settlement growth or eventual urbanisation. Again, in some areas (S. India, Berar) despite a flourishing iron industry there was no corresponding urbanisation. Therefore, he links iron, neither to the agricultural development and boom nor to the proliferation of settlements. He believes if there is any impact of iron at all, that is restricted on the socio-institutional plain. The advanced iron industry of the NBPW phase of the middle Gaṅgā plains flourished only during its first phase of urban growth. Therefore it is a generalisation that improved use of iron leads to urbanisation.^[41] Lastly,Makkhan Lal rejected the view that iron technology played a crucial role in the forest clearance. Actually the forest remained intact till 16^th -17^th centuries. Clearance of the forest may be attributed to the colonial period. He is not even ready to agree that there was any significant iron technology either in PGW or NBPW phases. Therefore no question of a consequent surplus comes. So the simple equation that iron technology created agricultural boom and surplus that sustained non food producing urban population and created the base of urbanisation does not seem to be the case.^[42]

It is also important to examine how far this technological advancement is really linked to the issue of surplus and does surplus really help in urbanisation. Improved agricultural knowledge, better tools, irrigation facility made an agricultural boom to support non-food producing professional class is suggested by Gordon childe.^[43] he adds that this surplus finally accumulates in the hands of a small class. That divides the society into classes. That means a stratified society is born. Though R. S. Sharma links iron technology with surplus others have different opinions. A. Ghosh finds this argument too simplistic and says the concept of surplus is very abstract. Surplus is not accumulated automatically. Out of need for surplus it is produced. Only this could not have motivated the farmer to produce it. Only a coercive state power could force the farmer to produce it. Next, the surplus automatically does not go to the consumer. It needs to be distributed properly. So it must be institutionalised through taxes, trade and other agencies. More importantly, in a country like India, too dependable on climatic conditions, a dependable surplus on a long term basis can’t be gathered. Occasional droughts and floods may soon deplete the surplus and a famine would be soon to follow. In such a condition the plight of farmers would be more deplorable than the city dwellers because he will be squeezed for more production. So an utter chaotic situation will set in. No surplus can be accumulated then. So, according to Ghosh no urbanity theory can be developed on the basis of a vague concept like “surplus”. It can only be created by an efficient socio-political organisation.^[44] Therefore surplus is not a causative factor of urbanity, rather a resultant of the latter. Romila Thapar also expressed her doubts that surplus triggering off a chain reaction which ultimately leads tostate formation is a very mechanical interpretation. She also does not believe in sudden accumulation of surplus and thinks a process is involved in which control, management and distribution are important components.^[40] Thapar also put more emphasis on its managerial side and concluded that such a control can best be observed under effective state control. So she also supported Ghosh’s contention that surplus itself is dependent on state, rather than helping in its birth. So rather than economic, she too considers surplus a social product.

Social factors: Demographic growth and Stratified society: One major feature that distinguishes cities from earlier different types of settlements is its high and much dense population.^[45] So huge population growth is one of the precondition of urbanity. Romila Thapar thinks search for new lands is not the sole cause for eastward expansion of later Vedic people to middle Gaṅgā plains. There was a huge population rise. There was not enough land or technological improvement to sustain this increased population. Resultantly there might be some kind of fission among people. Such a condition led them to move eastward and to large scale forest clearance and colonisation of middle Gaṅgā plains.^[46] So, in her view colonisation of middle Ganga plains is largely an outcome of population growth. Pioneering work on population archaeology of this period has been done by Makkhan Lal.^[47] His study covers a period from proto historic to early historic times and hence has offered useful insight on demographic pattern and change. He notices a consistent population growth in the given period. There was a corresponding growth in the size of settlements. At the same time population and number of smaller settlements declined. On the contrary ‘settlements in the higher categories’ register growth both in terms of size and population. That clearly suggests a major population shift from rural to urban areas. His study also reveals that while proto historic settlements sprang up along the river banks and restricted more to the upper Gaṅgā plains, in the NBP phase settlements even grew up in areas far from river banks or other water sources, indicating less dependence on water, fertile land or agriculture and also non-agricultural, professional class who have little relation with land or agriculture. As settlements grew bigger gap between them decreased. Lal suggests this was achieved through a sound technological base and a surplus to support this new urban professional class. That does not mean a general bend towards towards urbanisation. However, population and settlements continued to be rural mainly. Even in the NBP phase 56% of the population were rural. But that that is true about all places and time. What is more important to note is that in the proto historic times rural settlements had the capacity to retain maximum 500 people and could not grow more. Probably non-availability of good agricultural land or resources restricted their growth.^[48] George Erdosy also observes that until 550 BCE in the middle and lower Gaṅgā plains there was a low-population density, as well as the absence of any central places in vast areas.^[49] That means settlement growth was haphazard and followed no pattern. In contrast dramatic changes took place in the next three centuries, principally in the form of colonisation of vast tracts of middle Gaṅgāplain and rise of territorial states.^[50] Such transition was accompanied by a great rise in population. This factor has been recognised by scholars and Gordon Childe was the first to recognise it in his article “Urban Revolution” in 1950. In the Indian context also, Ghosh has recognised tremendous population growth and density in the urban areas and said this population factor is the definition of the city. Ghosh even says that this increased population created a demand for producing the surplus. He considers surplus essentially a social product and popular demand a precondition for it. So, in his view the social climate was ready. R.A.E. Conningham has shown in his study that in early Ironage settlements had sizeable population ranging from 1000 in Inamgaon to 6000 in Daimabad. But these are nothing in comparison to early historical urban sites. Possible population count of some sites located in the middle Gaṅgā plains were-Mathurā 60000, Besnagar and Vaiśālī 48000 each, Kauśāmbī and Rājagṛha 40, 000 and Ujjain 38000. This huge population growth surely accounted for urbanisation.^[51]

This population led to stratification and complication of society. R. S. Sharma describes complex society as essentially state based society, based on social stratification of birth, income or property and status. Such stratification is less visible or even absent in early lineage societies.^[52] Sharma straightaway takes stratified society as a component of state. He proves his points that stratification existed and state promoted such division in the society on the basis of archaeological and literary sources. He says the luxury ware NBPW itself is a pointer to this. This luxury type is mainly used by the upper strata, while the common folk used the ordinary black and red ware. Sharma cites Arthaśāstra suggested that the majority population of the realm should be of lower orders. Because they are the principal taxpaying and labouring class i.e. the Vaiśyas and Śudras. On the other hand there were privileged groups like chief, priest, warriors, bureaucrats and other state officials. Romila Thapar also agreeing with Sharma said in Indian context stratification is a reality and traces the beginning from the later vedic times. The society was divided into two strata-Arya and Dāsa distinguished by wealth and status. Later the gap widened and hardened. Clear and visible division may be seen in the form of caste where higher varṇas were called dvija and śudras were denied of any right to perform rites. Actually they śudras were excluded from the varṇa system. Various factors played vital role in the process.^[53] Sharma thinks among the primary duties of the king it was essential to maintain the traditional caste hierarchy. It was this interest group comprising the king, priest and his other associates were particularly instrumental in creating a stratified society. In Thapar’s view marriage alliances also helped in maintaining social stratification. Firstly it strengthened the tie among a small group where marriages are confined within the same group. Exogamous marriages absorbed new elements within the tribe. The position of the new groups was legitimised by the priestly class and religious sanctions. Nevertheless, the difference of status between the two groups persisted or even got hardened. Socially the elite and commoners distracted from each other. Power concentrated around the towering personality of the king or alternatively in the hands of rich traders, priests or bureaucrats. All the major attributes of the state system appeared.^[54] So Thapar believes in Indian case stratification is a reality and it preceded the appearance of state and towns in northern India. How far this stratification is related to rise of towns is an important question. While, power concentrated in the hands of the king or his peer group responsibility of social mobilization was theirs. That means coercive state power must have been applied in systematic appropriation of labour and production. The state must systematically mobilise the labouring masses to devote their energy to production. That would not only create a surplus necessary for urbanism but also proliferation of new professions that created the social base of cities.

So the stratification factor was actually linked with the economic transition of the society from pure pastoralism to agriculture and then to multiplicity of arts and crafts.

Civic population and community feeling: This shift of economy was also reflected in the outlook of the urban ideology. Rural society with an agricultural base, social relations were mainly land based. Things changed for the sake of urbanisation. New territorial states needed money for running the municipal government or financing public works and standing army. While state carefully mobilised the Vaiśya community to contribute monetarily, they wanted their interests to be reflected in the policies of new states. The old laws that mainly meant for agricultural society no longer satisfied their needs. So a need was felt for new ideologies that could promote and safeguard the cause of trading and manufacturing. Guild laws of a relatively later date reflected these ideologies. A sense of belonging to the city among its residents or a community feeling led them to participate in the policy making functions. A public hall in Vaiśālī to discuss general matters related to the city, frequent gatherings and active participation of citizens may be highlighted in this matter.^[55] This community feeling has been taken as a necessary variable of urbanity by Childe, but Ghosh thinks this may not be present in all the cases. However he speaks of a permanent civic population but the degree of active participation in decision making is uncertain, in his view. He meant differences of class, caste and interests did not let the formation of well-knit citizenry. Certainly all the classes did not feel integrated to a community feeling. So the example of Vaiśālīneed not be taken as the general case.^[56] It is notable even if sense of belonging did not prevail among all the sections of urban population there was a difference of status, a clear social hierarchy existed. In such a society privileged section utilised labour and money of the lower strata for public works. Secondly they maintained the existing social balance with the help of traditional or new laws. So the heterogenous population required for urbanism appeared.

Topography and settlement hierarchy: The ecological theory based on the land uses essentially aimed to explain settlement history on the basis of land uses. The main thrust of the theory is on the central place or the central business zone, around which there grew other layers segregated by their functions. Though this was revised many times the basic theme remained the central zone and periphery. It was criticised on many grounds. Firstly urban space as a resource was not used solely for the economic purpose. Secondly ecological or ecological and economic factors together can’t give rise to urbanism always. There are ethnic, religious or racial factors affecting urban growth and structure. This theory has problems, if applied to different regions. Ghosh thinks in early historical India urbanisation was chiefly confined to the Gaṅgāplain. If that is taken as an ecological zone there were other ecological zones also which witnessed urbanisation in other periods like the Harappan urbanisation or Taxila. But a comparative study of the ecological lay out can’t be done because of lack of evidence. Therefore an ecological pattern can’t be evolved for urbanisation. Without this any decision about the precise role of ecology can’t be reached.^[57]

In the present case, the middle Gaṅgāplain stretching from Delhi to the borders of Bengal covers eastern Uttar Pradesh and the Bihar plains-an area of roughly 1100 km the region saw the early historical urban growth. Ecologically the region is riverine in character mainly drained by the Ganga and regionally by its principal tributaries like Ghaghara, Gandak, Kosi and Son. Originally the area was covered with thick forest which was cleared during the urbanisation of the area. Topographically the area was marked by its sameness. The plain land was continuously filled with alluvium brought from the Himalayas and the Vindhya range.^[58] From the Holocene period the present climate set in the middle Ganga plains. Climate has remained the same from 9000 BCE. Heavy monsoonal rains and occasional winter rains have constituted enough rainfall to carry on extensive agriculture with rice as the principal crop. Rainfall and humidity increase steadily as one approaches the east. Heavy rainfall may be accounted for the humidity of the region. Too much rainfall has also created water logged lands. Lakes created by the shifting river courses locally known as chars have also contributed to the marshy character of the area. They have also offered alternative livelihood to people. It is easier to settle down on the banks of lakes because problem of clearance was not so acute here like the forest area. Again the lakes offered new types of food not found in the running waters or the rivers. NBPW sitesRampurwa, Lauriya-Nandangarh, Areraj,Pandavgarh, Jaymangalgarh all located near lakes. These sites still need to be studied in depth. But the point is if settlements sprang up on the river banks they also did so on the lake banks. The soil type found in the entire plain is that of alluvial soil. But those brought from the Himalayas and from the Vindhyas are different in texture. The soils have different names in different places depending on their types. The kewaltype of soil found in the south Bihar is calcareous and very hard which can only be broken with an iron plough.^[59] The main is that between old (bangar) and new (khaddar). Overall the soil is very fertile and ancient farmers had a thorough knowledge of the soil and climate and carried agriculture likewise.^[60]

In this vast plain, a pattern of settlement hierarchy with a city and its ancilliary sites may be detected. The Magadha plain located in this region is archaeologically an important region for sites belonging to different pre historic and historic times are seen here. Sites belonging to the early phase of iroage concomitant with permanent colonisation of the middle Ganga plain such as Oriup, Kanakarbagh, Apsad, Patna, Rajgir, Champa and Buxar all located in the southern portion of the middle Ganga plain. They are bigger than the sites of the northern portion, owing to better alluvial morphology of the place.^[61]

Settlement hierarchy is most clearly documented in George Erdosy’s detailed study of the Vatsa janapada-modern Allahabad district. It gives an index to other similar cases in the early historical times. He divides the whole period of growth in this area in early NBP (550- 400 BCE) and late phase (400- 100 BCE). The largest and most important site which also happens to be the capital of the janapada was Kauśāmbī. It stood apart and separated from all other sites by its large earthen wall. Other ancilliary sites were Kara and Sringaverpur near the Ganga. With Kauśāmbī as the Central place and the other two sites as secondary centres the settlement hierarchy is clearly visible. The early period shows an increase of size and population and rapid political and economic centralization. The Central place is deliberately located near major communication routes. On the basis of functionality he places the nucleated, subsistent villages with the principal economic activities of agriculture and husbandry at the lowest tier. Above them there were minor centres with minor manufacturing (specially iron smelting) centres with civic and municipal attributes. Next comes the towns or the ancillary centres below the capital with a complete manufacturing and production functions. They also performed a good deal of political functions. The general settlement pattern described above matches the basic principles of Central Place theory.

In the late phase there are two other changes. Firstly there emerged a new type of settlement, amidst villages, performing administrative functions of provincial headquarter. That matches with the sthāniya type of settlement described by Kautilya.^[62] They now participate in a long distance trade. Number of villages multiplied rendering low level services and acting as manufacturing stations. There was a corresponding population growth. Large scale forest clearance to make room for increased population and for agriculture also took place during this phase. In the hinterland of Kauśāmbī, traces of forest clearance were clearly found. Settlements far from water sources started to spring up from this period.^[63] This has been attested by Makkhan Lal’s study also. He also says that in the NBPW/ early historic period there was a major population shift to areas far from water.^[64]

Material Base: For a general layout of early historical cities Erdosy depends on Marshall’s excavation at Bhita. Though the site belonged to Maurya/ post Maurya period owing to the city’s longevity and findings from NBP layers he concluded the foundation of urbanity was laid down in a far antiquity. In the remains he found streets leading to gateways and on both sides there are shops. Houses all lined up behind the shops. They are equipped with drains, wells and courtyard. There was clearly distinct area for the habitation of the poorer section of the society with less civic amenities available. Such differences in living conditions points to a stratified society.^[65]

T. N. Roy has conducted a survey of the PGW/ NBPW sites on a vast area. Major sites of his study area are Bhagwanpura, Dadheri, Sanghol, Jakhera, Hastinapura, Ahichhatra, Allahpur, Alamgirpur, Mathura, Rajghat, Champa, Chirand, Sonepur etc. Most of the sites are located in the Ganga valley. On the basis of the archaeological remains, a general material culture may be found. Baked bricks came to be used for building purposes from the late PGW times as found in Hastinapura and Ahichhatra. Such building activity increases more in NBPW phase especially in the late phase. NBPW bricks are also bigger in size suggesting more building activity, precisely public buildings. Roads have been discovered from the PGW site Jakhera. NBP site Rajghat also shows traces of kaccha street. At Kaushambi also road has been found. The ancient text of architecture “Manasara” suggests there should be at least five carriage roads with one footpath and the main road should have two footpaths.^[66] Remarkable advancement can be noticed in the field of sanitation from PGW/ NBPW phase settlements. In the early NBP phase clean water for human needs might be collected from nearby rivers or streams, as were in most cases, but individual houses had their own sanitary facility for the disposal of wastes. A circular unlined pit probably used as refuse pit has been found in PGW site Jakhera. Pit latrines of early NBP phase has been discovered from Rajghat. Other sites to show similar evidences were also available from Kauśāmbī, Śrāvastī and Rajgir. Such pit latrines were not very effective to dispose wastes in densely populated urban areas. Therefore in the late phase of NBP, a remarkable advancement in sanitary engineering was found in the form of ring wells. This is definitely an improvement in the socio-economic status. These were used for variety of purposes. More importantly these ring wells which characterised the culture had a wide spatial distribution and are in vogue, even in modern times. Pit latrines marked the highest stage of development in sewerage system. From the 7^th- 6^th centuries BCE they came to be used by rural communities and they became a common urban phenomenon by late NBP phase. They were used for variety of purposes. Their use as latrines provided a better hygienic condition to people. They were also used to store water.

What is even more striking about PGW cultures is fortifications or ramparts around some settlements. As early as from mature PGW phase mud embankment in the form of rampart may be found from the site Jakhera. Very low in height, rather than defence this was probably built for protection against flood. Such fortifications became more common during the late phase of NBP. Places with such fortifications like Kaushambi, Pataliputra, Rajgir, Sravasti, Vaishali, Ayodhya, Champa, Balrajgarh, Katragarh, Mathura, Ahichhatra, Chandraketugarh and Bangarh are all located in the Ganga plains. In contrast to PGW ramparts they are much higher in height and defence mechanism was far stronger.^[67] Unlike PGW ramparts which were mainly built to resist floods these fortifications mainly defended and demarcated the urban centres “as islands of order in an otherwise chaotic landscape”.^[68]

The PGW/NBPW phase showed a rich material culture. Spatially a vast area, almost the whole of the Ganga plain comes under this cultural unit, on the verge of urbanisation. Both Vibha Tripathi and T. N. Roy think that this phase showed unmistakable urban traits.^[69] However Tripathi thinks that particularly the PGW economy could not produce enough surplus to have an urbanisation and had to wait for large scale availability of iron to sustain urban growth. Vijay Thakur too considers PGW culture as a very important phase in the context of urbanisation because it was coeval with the use of iron. He admits that very little iron was available and used. But the culture demonstrates a clear superiority over other immediately preceding cultures. The society was moving towards more civilised way of life.^[70] So the period may be regarded the formative period of early Indian urbanisation.

The overall agricultural picture of this period is bright. Actually the agricultural base of the present times was laid down much before the historical period began. The transition from foraging to farming in our concerned area started at least ten thousand years ago. It meant optimum utilization of available land, more food to be obtained, that can sustain more people. Thus it facilitated long-term sedentary life i.e. sustenance of large and more complex social groups that are the prerequisites of urbanisation.

This domestication of crops and resultant agricultural boom metamorphosed the human society and its behavioural and psychological outlook. An agricultural society created and in its turn demanded a sedentary life. Permanent settlements in the form of earliest villages based on family ties and other organisational set up emerged. The kind of agricultural attainments can be seen in a number of pre-historic sites of middle Ganga plain scattered over U.P. and Bihar. Traces of rice cultivation have been found from sites like Lahuradewa (U.P.), Senuwar, Chirand, Taradih, and Oriup (Bihar) have yielded signs of different types of rice grains. Besides rice, Chirand has also showed remains of wheat, barley, lentil, field pea, grass-pea and some leguminous weeds belonging to mid 3^rd millennium BCE. Two sites Chirand and Senuwar display a complete and consistent sequence of crop cultivation from Neolithic-chalcolithic to early historical times. Between the two and among all sites Senuwar bears the richest evidence of crop cultivation. Here, variety of crops including rice, barley, jowar and ragi millet, types of pulses like lentil, field pea, grass pea etc. were grown during late 3^rd millennium BCE to mid 2^nd millennium BCE. These crops make the staple food of modern agricultural society of India. So it seems that major crops appeared in the scene even in the pre historic times. Later the greater production of food scrops could sustain a large number of non agricultural, professional and specialist classes. Also the agricultural surplus led to the complex system of trade and commerce, growth of new social groups based on specialization of knowledge. These are all preconditions of urbanisations. So this agricultural boom helped in formation of cities.^[71]

Political milieu: Despite the urban phenomenon it is difficult to say when exactly the state and cities appeared. Scholars generally trace the urban phase from the 6^th century BCE that may also be called the beginning of early historical period. The period saw the emergence of large territorial states-mahajanapadas. Magadha, Kośala, Avantī and Vatsa were the four superpowers among them. The earliest batch of towns that accounted for this urbanisation were Campā, Rājagṛha, Śrāvastī, Saketa, Kauśāmbī and Vārāṇasī–all except Saketa were capitals and chief administrative centres of their respective mahājanapadas. The process of transformation of these administrative seats into cities is obscure. Romila Thapar had her doubts that how far the notion of territoriality may be applicable to these early states. Boundaries of these states were defined very loosely by entities like forests, rivers, streams or hills. Also territory probably implied area barring forests or waste lands. Rastra on the other hand meant the realm of political authority.^[72] Vijay Thakur traces the beginning of states from the later vedic times. He says that monarchical states with less important popular assemblies started to come up from this period with two limbs–taxation system and an official machinery.^[73] The issue of governance was discussed by Thapar. She says that the state was consisted of resources like agricultural land, forests, rivers, mines and so on. Their maintenance and proper utilization were the responsibilities of the state. A strict taxation on these resources could ensure a continuous flow of money to the treasury. In its turn the treasury became the source of all redistributive functions. All these functions were done in the administrative headquarters which in most cases are the capital cities.^[74] Ghosh adds some other attributes for the growth of states. A definite system of coinage necessitated by commerce, in its turn actually boosted commercial activities. Punch marked coins of abundance and an elaborate network of roads and routes further proves this point. However Thakur assigns the opening up of these major routes to the period immediately preceding the invasion of Alexander i.e. late 4^th century BCE. There developed a system of writing. Ghosh leaves two centuries for these developments to be standardised. By that time the old loosely defined janapadas became much more organised. That may be attributed to the office of kingship. Ghosh thinks for the growth of cities both political and commercial factors are important, but among the two certainly the office of king was much more important in effecting the change. King or his office played the most important role in transforming the decentralised village economy into a highly organised urban economy.^[75] Echoing the same Thapar has also taken political authority as a major precondition for urbanisation. She admits interplay of various factors ultimately leads to the formation of state but the office of the king or political authority of other kinds play the central role in assimilating and integrating all these factors for the urban growth.^[76] A.K. Sinha has also felt the same. He says that the consolidation of political power provided a common ideological base and favourable condition for urbanisation. The uniform development of agriculture, transport and metal, stone and ceramic technologies became possible under strong political set up.^[77]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

K. Davies, Urban Research and its Significance, in J. Gibbs ed., Urban Research methods, Delhi, 1966, pp.xi- xxii, cited by D. K. Chakrabarti, The Archaeology of Ancient Indian Cities, Oxford, 1998,op.cit.1998,p.2

[2]:

L. Wirth, Urbanism as a Way of Life, American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1938, pp.1-24.

[3]:

Robert Redfield, Peasant Society and Culture, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1963, pp.41-42.

[4]:

Emile Durkheim, Sociology and its Scientific Field, in K.H. Wolff ed. Essays on Sociology and Philosophy, New York, Harper and Row, 1900, reprint 1964, p. 361. (355-75)

[5]:

Lewis Mumford, The City in History, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961pp. 5, 22- 23

[6]:

Monica L. Smith,The Archaeology of the South Asian Cities in the Journal of Archaeological Research, 2006, p.106

[7]:

V. Gordon Childe, Man makes Himself, London, Watts & Co., 1936

[8]:

V. Gordon Childe, Man makes Himself, revised in London, Watts & Co., 1941, chapter 7.

[9]:

Robert J. Braidwood, The Near East and the Foundations for Civilization, Condon lectures, Oregon State System of Higher Education, 1950, pp. 41-42.

[10]:

Lewis Mumford, The City in History, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1961, p.51.

[11]:

H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East, London, 1951, p.38. cited by Dilip K. Chakrabarti, op.cit.1995, p.5.

[12]:

R. Redfield, The Cultural Role of Cities, Human Nature and the Study of Society in M. Redfield ed. Papers of Robert Redfield, Chicago, 1962, pp.326-50, cited by D.K. Chakrabartiop.cit. p.5

[13]:

R. M. Adams, The Evolution of Urban Society, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965, p.9.

[14]:

R. M. Adams, The Origin of Cities, Scientific American, 1960, p.233, cited by D. K. Chakrabartiop.cit. p. 6.

[15]:

T. Jacobsen, Comments in C. H. Kraeling and R. M. Adams ed. City Invinsible 1960, p.243,cited by D. K. Chakrabarti op. cit. p. 6

[16]:

V. M. Masson, The Urban Revolution in southern Turkmenia, Antiquity, 42, 1968, pp.178-87, cited by D. K. Chakrabarti, op.cit. p. 6

[17]:

H. J. Nissen, The early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000- 2000 B. C.,University of Chicago Press,Chicago,1988, cited by D. K. Chakrabarti,op.cit. p.7

[18]:

Colin Renfrew Approaches to Social Archaeology, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1984, cited by D. K. Chakrabarti, op.cit. p. 7

[19]:

Chakrabarti, op. cit. p. 8

[20]:

Colin Renfrew 1984,p.277, cited by D. K. Chakrabarti,op. cit. p.8

[21]:

Ibid,p.278, cited D. K. Chakrabarti, op. cit. p. 9

[22]:

G. Erdosy, City States of North India and Pakistan at the time of the Buddha in F. R. Allchin ed. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, Cambridge, 1995, p. 109

[23]:

Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Iron and Urbanization, Puratatttva, No. 15, Vol. 15, New Delhi, 1984-85, p.69,

[24]:

A. Ghosh, The City In early Historic India, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, 1973

[25]:

Nupur Dasgupta, Settlement Patterns in Early History: Queries and Evidence in Chittabrata Palit ed. Urbanisation in India: Past and Present, Nisith Ranjan Ray Centenary Volume, Institute of Historical Studies, Kolkata, 2009, pp.9-30

[26]:

Vijay Kumar Thakur, Urbanisation in Ancient India, New Delhi, Abhinav Publications, 1981, p.47.

[27]:

R. S. Sharma, The State and Varna Formation in the mid- Ganga plains: An Ethnoarachaeological View, New Delhi, Manohar, 2001,pp. 64-66.

[28]:

Vibha Tripathi, Painted Grey Ware: An Iron Age Culture of Northern India, New Delhi, Concept publishing Company,1976, p.100

[29]:

Ibid, pp.109-112

[30]:

N. R. Bannerjee, The Iron Age in India, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1965, cited by Vijay Thakur, op.cit.p.2

[31]:

A. Ghosh, op.cit. pp. 10-11

[32]:

Tripathi, op.cit. p.110

[33]:

M.D.N. Sahi, Process of Urbanization in Upper Gangetic Valley in the Light of Excavations at Jakhera in Saiyada Najamula Raza Rizvi ed. Studies in Indian History, New Delhi, Anamika Publishers and Distributors, 1999, pp.34-38

[34]:

M.D.N. Sahi, Transition from Ruralism to Urbanism in the Gangetic Doab in Bharati, New Series 2, Varanasi, 1983, pp.9-20

[35]:

D. K. Chakrabarti op. cit. 1984- 5, p.71

[36]:

A. Ghosh, op. cit. pp.7-9 38. Thakur, op.cit. p.4

[37]:

D. D. Kosambi, The Culture and civilization of Ancient India in Historical outline, New Delhi, Vikas

[38]:

Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and early Medieval India, Pearson, 2012, p.253

[39]:

R. S. Sharma, op.cit, p.25

[40]:

R. S. Sharma, op.cit, p.25

[41]:

D. K. Chakrabarti, op.cit. 1984-85,pp.72-3

[42]:

Makkhan Lal, Settlement History and the Rise of Civilization in Ganga- Yamuna Doab, (from 1500 BC to 300 AD), Delhi, Orient Book Distributors, pp.20-66

[43]:

V. Gordon Childe, What Happened in History, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1942, p.99, cited by A. Ghoshop.cit. p.19

[44]:

A. Ghosh, op. cit. p. 21

[45]:

Romila Thapar, From Lineage to State, Oxford, 2008, p.77

[46]:

V. Gordon Childe: Urban Revolution, 1936, cited by Vijay Thakur op.cit. 1981,p.18

[47]:

Romila Thapar, op.cit. 2008,p.77

[48]:

Makkhan Lal, Archaeology of population (a study of the population change in the Ganga- Yamuna doab from 2^nd millennium B.C. to the present),Varanasi, Banaras Hindu University,1984

[49]:

G. Erdosy op cit. 1995, p.99.

[50]:

Ibid,p.99.

[51]:

R.A. E. Conningham, “Dark age or Continuum?” F. R. Allchin edited- The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia, Emergence of Cities and states, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p.69.

[52]:

R.S. Sharma,op.cit.p.17

[53]:

Romila Thapar, op.cit. p.44

[54]:

Ibid,pp.8-9

[55]:

Vijay Thakur,op.cit.p.15

[56]:

A. Ghosh, op.cit. p. 28

[57]:

Ibid,pp.28-30

[58]:

B. Allchin, The Environmental Context in F.R. Allchin ed. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia,op.cit.1995, pp.16-18

[59]:

R.S. Sharma op.cit.pp.24-25

[60]:

B. Allchin op.cit. p.18

[61]:

T.N. Roy, The Ganges Civilization: A Critical Study of the Painted Grey Ware and Northern Black Polished Ware Periods of the Ganga plains of India, New Delhi, Ramanand Vidya Bhavan, 1983,pp.10-11

[62]:

R. P. Kangle, The Kauṭīlya Arthaśāstra, Vol. II, An English Translation with Critical and Explanatory Notes, New Delhi, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1997, 2.3.3, p.61.

[63]:

G. Erdosy, op.cit. pp.105-9

[64]:

M. Lal op.cit. p.33

[65]:

G. Erdosy, op.cit. pp.111-12

[66]:

Prasanna Kumar Acharya translated, Architecture of the Mānasāra, Mānasāra Series IV, New Delhi, Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1980,The Village, IX. 91-104,p.68

[67]:

T. N. Roy, op.cit. pp.129- 49

[68]:

G. Erdosy, op.cit. p.33

[69]:

V. Tripathi, op.cit. p.117, T. N. Roy op.cit. p.129.

[70]:

Vijay Thakur op.cit. p. 34

[71]:

Purushottam Singh, Archaeology of the Ganga Plain: Cultural- Historical Dimensions, New Delhi,Aryan Books International, pp. 160-63.

[72]:

Romila Thapar, 2008, op cit. p.34

[73]:

Vijay Thakur op cit. p.13

[74]:

R.Thapar, 2008, op.cit. p.125

[75]:

A. Ghosh op.cit. pp. 13,14, 21

[76]:

R. Thapar op.cit. p.116

[77]:

A.K. Sinha, The Historical Urbanisation- A Suggestive Date in Puratattva, no.11, vol.11, New Delhi, 1979- 80, p.152