The flourishing agriculture and prosperity in Amarāvatī (Dhānyakaṭaka)

It can be stated that the prosperity of a trading centre depended on the resources of the hinterland and access to the routes. The strategic position of Dhānyakaṭaka satisfied both these factors. The second factor has been explained earlier. Regarding the resources of the hinterland mention may be made of the rich agricultural wealth in Dhānyakaṭaka.

The region was agriculturally extremely fertile and among various products rice was an important item. The very name of the place literally means “rice bowl”. However, it is noteworthy to mention that the same area prior to 200 BCE experienced a simple subsistence economy, the material remains of which can be seen in the megalithic burial culture. The flourishing agriculture transformed the area into a’rice bowl’ which indirectly helped in the stable state formation in the shape of the Sātavāhana rule^[1].

The presence of cereals like rice, wheat, millet etc in abundance was supplied to the local markets. The double crop system, that is, Rabi and Kharif speaks of a distinct advancement of farming^[2]. The discovery of various weapons like sickle, hoe etc. also points to the flourishing agricultural activity in the region. The abundance of crops was supplied to the market. Incidentally Dhānyakaṭaka was a rich market town.

The flourishing agriculture in Dhānyakaṭaka is hinted in many inscriptions and literary sources. It is believed that the name Dhānyakaṭaka, that is ‘corn town’ might have originated from the paddy cultivation in the region. Śrī Dhānyakaṭaka was the popular name in Buddhist literature denoting its plenitude of wealth (Sri) and paddy or grains (dhanya) and prosperity as a marketing town (kataka). In literature and inscriptions both in Sanskrit and Telegu the name was variously spelt as Śrīdhānya, Śrīdhāna, Dhāna, Dhānakaṭaka, Dhānyakaṭaka, Dhānyāṅkapurī, Dhānyavaṭika, Dhannāda, Damnālokoṭa Dharaṇkoṭa etc. Śakoddeśaṭīkā, a medieval tāntric work mentions it as Śrīdhānya and in Tibetan Blue Annals it is spelt as Śristhāna^[3]. The Tibetan historian Tārānatha also refers to Dhānyakaṭaka as Dpal-dan-brass-spun (in Tibetan) meaning “accumulation of grain. In an inscription on the pillar of the Amareśvara temple dated 1361 CE it is referred to as Dhāniyavatī or the place of grain^[4].

The region also witnessed the development of several industries. In this regard mention may be made of the ceramic industry. The ceramic industry became a major and prevalent craft during the Early Historic period. Along with the pottery of the Magalithic period seen in the form of Black and Red Ware, many new types were produced. Potsherds of this tradition were found in Amarāvatī/Dhānyakaṭaka. Terracotta production (Pl 32c) was negligible in Dhānyakaṭaka though other areas of Andhra reveal greater production.

Ivory carving was a prevalent industry in Andhra. Sculptures from Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunakoṇḍa illustrate use of combs in the hair dressing scenes. Bangles of ivory and ivory stylus were found in Amarāvatī^[5].

At Dhānyakaṭaka a goldmith’s mould was reported in 200 B.C.E^[6]. Gold coated bangles and other objects also signify the presence of gold related craft^[7].

Glass Industry also developed in the region. Glass bangles, (Pl 32d) ear ornaments and other forms of glass jewelleries were discovered from the region.

The Kṛṣṇā Guṇṭur valley was known as the ‘Diamond Valley’. In 1816, a British cartographer found two diamond mines in areas opposite to the bank of Kṛṣṇā, near Dharaṇikoṭa, the other name of Dhānyakaṭaka. Fergusson identified the temple of the Diamond sands with the Amarāvatī stūpa.^[8]

The trade both inland and long distance not only helped in the development of commerce and material affluence of the region but was also responsible for the growth of cities. Dhānyakaṭaka was no exception to this general pattern. The growth of Dhānyakaṭaka as a megacity resulted in the increased importance of the centre, thereby giving impetus for the longevity of the Mahācaitya. However, regarding the emergence of towns and cities, no uniform pattern can be discerned.

Gordon Childe put forward ten criteria essential for urbanization. These are:-

1. Population in terms of both size and density.
2. Surplus food produced by the peasants in villages to support and sustain the non-food producing urban communities.
3. Rural economy, taxation etc.
4. Ruling class;
5. Monumental public buildings;
6. Temples/religious complex;
7. Invention of writing;
8. Artists, sculptors, painters, architects, seal engravers etc.
9. Trade and industry;
10. Specialized craftsmen, merchants and different occupational group^[9].

These features were more or less present in the region of Dhānyakaṭaka/Dharaṇikoṭa.

It became an urban centre in the early phase of NBPW. It became a famous town with the erection of the Buddhist stūpa. Planned towns with engineering skill displayed in the construction of buildings, huge religious establishment, water supply, transport facilities etc in Dhānyakaṭaka is indicative of comfortable living and urban sophistication. Massive embankments with laterite blocks, wharf-cumnavigational channels at Dharaṇikoṭa indicate technical superiority. Wells, cisterns, closed drains, sewage, attached baths and other standard domestic conveniences were common in the settlement^[10]. Pliny mentioned about 30 walled cities in Andhra^[11]. He mentioned Dharaṇikoṭa along with Koṇḍāpur, Peddabankur, Koṭaliṅgāla, Sātanikoṭa, Sāttanapalli etc^[12]. In addition to these urban features Amarāvatī also served as a market town. Thus it can be stated that Dhānyakaṭaka provided civic amenities and urban benefits to the population. Naturally the population flocked to this region providing congenial atmosphere for the growth and development of the Mahācaitya. The nature of patronage of the Mahācaitya suggests involvement of the various section of the society. In this regard mention may be made of several commercial social groups. Among them mention may be made of the gahapatis at the outset.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Chakravarti Ranabir, 2008, ‘Early Historical Urban Centres, C 600 B.C.E300 C.E,’ Subramanian Lakshmi (ed), Ports Towns Cities A Historical Tour of the Indian Littoral, Marg, Vol 60, No. 2, Mumbai, p 54.

[2]:

Pisipaty S. Rama Krishna, Op.cit, p 227.

[3]:

Prasad P.R.K, 1991, ‘Pre-Sātavāhana Phase at Amaravati-Dharaṇikoṭa, Op.cit, p 328.

[4]:

Ramachandran A, Op.cit, p 40.

[5]:

Pisipaty S. Rama Krishna, Op.cit, p 194.

[6]:

Ghosh A, (ed), 1969, Indian Archaeology-A review, 1964-65, New Delhi, p 2.

[7]:

Pisipaty S. Ramakrishna, Op.cit, p 155.

[8]:

Ramachandran A, Op.cit, p 50.

[9]:

Lama G.K, 2009, Indus to Ganges, Varanasi, p 209.

[10]:

Dr. Pisipaty S. Rama Krishna, Op.cit, p 221.

[11]:

Ibid, p 222

[12]:

Ibid, p 222