Settlement in Early Historic Ganga Plain

by Chirantani Das | 143,447 words

This page relates “Commercial complex of Varanasi” as it appears in the case study regarding the settlements in the Early Historic Ganga Plain made by Chirantani Das. The study examines this process in relation to Rajagriha and Varanasi (important nodal centres of the respective Mahajanapadas named Magadha and Kashi).

Part 15 - Commercial complex of Vārāṇasī

< Previous

Next >

On mound I some remarkable structures were noticed spread over an area of 4000 square m. strangely enough these structures were in no way meant for residential purpose. Two things which draw attention were the underground chambers attached to them and their closeness to the river. The latter point has implied that they are somehow associated with some kind of overseas trade. Three complexes numbered 26, 27 and 31 can be put into this category. Of them 26 is rectangular in shape and has a courtyard in the middle. Eight rooms of varying sizes were found around the courtyard. It was built on a Chatuhśālāh plan. Judging its plan and construction it may be presumed that it was related to some public work.

Another complex, a little smaller in size was discovered near the last one. It was built in east-west orientation and had three rooms of different sizes and had a long verandah. The entrance to the building could not be located. The building had two courtyards. This strange building in all likelihood served some official or social purpose. But the exact nature could not be determined. These large courtyards might have been meant for community gathering. To the south of these complexes there stood another building with its back to the river and front to the road side. The building had a series of rooms arranged in a row. They appeared to be shops. Such shops supplied the city with its essentials. This has been prescribed by Kauṭilya too. He advises the city authorities to make shops that deal in fats, grains, sugar, salt, perfumes, medicines, dried vegetables, fodder, dried meat, hay, wood, metals, hides, charcoal, tendons, poisons, horns, bamboos, barks, strong timber, weapons, shields and stones.^[1]

In this complex, thirteen different sized underground structures were also located. Most of them are located on the river side. They were simple constructions made of complete or broken burnt bricks. They were wider on the top and narrower at the bottom. Many of them were provided with holes at regular intervals in the side walls, though their specific purpose is not known. But it was conjectured that these holes held wooden beams to reach the bottom, or in these holes wooden planks were kept to divide the underground chamber into several compartments.

Broadly five types of underground structures were found at mound 1. These were rectangular chambers, structures with holes, those with larger dimensions and depth, massive structures and those with unusual depth. They formed a class by themselves but nothing is known about their nature and function. Similar structures were present at Kauśāmbī, Sringaverapura, Kapilāvastu, Fazilnagar, Bangarh, Ujjain, Ᾱrikamedu and Khairadih. Type 2 and 3 of Vārāṇasī were closely analogous to that of khairadih and Kapilāvastu respectively. At Kapilāvastu these structures were perhaps associated to some religious operations. At Vārāṇasī however no such specific identification could be made. Observations made by archaeologists are rather circumstantial and not unanimous. So their opinions were not of much help in identifying these chambers. Notable about these structures were their close location to the river Gaṅgā. They were in no way connected to the residential area and those were shallow among them had holes on walls. Here Kauṭilya’s prescription is noteworthy. He suggests to dig up square well, neither deep nor moist and having compartments in them. Grains may be stored in them. It should be supervised by an officer called the Sannidhāta. The structures under discussion match with the description of Kauṭilya. Therefore it was proposed that these structures of Vārāṇasī might have played the role that has been described in Kauṭilya. This practice is even prevalent in modern M.P. and U.P.(Jaunpur, Latilpur etc). This might have been continued from the old times. The Buddhist and the Jaina literature too spoke of such grain stores called Dhannagara and Catussala Avaparaka, made of bricks. Since no structural details are available it becomes difficult to identify these structures. Epigraphic records also could not help us much.

Storehouse of grains (Koṣṭhagāra) was mentioned in Sohgaura bronze inscription of 3^rd century BCE. But due to lack of structural details no definite conclusion was reached. Nevertheless these references at least prove that grain was stored in some of the early Indian cities. Vārāṇasī might have followed the same custom either regularly or occasionally. Again the possibility of storing some other items may not be ruled out altogether also. More logically it appears that these underground chambers had compartments where different types of grains or grains of different owners were stored. They were taken out as per requirement. These grain stores were located very close to the Gaṅgā.

Great granary of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro was located close to a river. This close location to the river is implicative. Because Vārāṇasī was a great grain trading centre, that was mostly transported by the water route. So it was important to store grains near the river. The grain trade of Vārāṇasī has been mentioned in the Jātakas. In this area a large building complex of Catuhśālāh plan numbered 26 appeared to be somehow linked with those grain stores. It is possible that this building was the office or the office-cum-residence of the authority in charge of the management of the grain stores or warehouses. This authority may be Sannidhāta or the officer in charge of different stores as mentioned by Kauṭilya. In case of Vārāṇasī largeness, grandeur and beauty of these building remains and finding of nigama and śreṇī seals indicate that those underground chambers wee owned by them.

If not anything else, archaeological and literary references made it amply clear that near the Gaṅgā the ancient city of Vārāṇasī had a commercial zone at least in the Gupta times that was highly operative. The location and lay out of this zone closely matches with the town called Paṇyapattana.^[2] It was a market town or principally a port, not an inland town. This suggested that market towns were generally situated in the river banks. The Mānasāra description of the city of Pattana even closely matches with Vārāṇasī. Pattana is a citadel city which is situated in the proximity of waterways, furnished lengthwise with a rampart, contains dwellings of various castes, always had a conglomeration of merchants and a centre of exchange of goods. Fulfilling these criteria Vārāṇasī seemed to function as a port town.

The layout of old Vārāṇasī reveals a definite planning. Houses were found in clusters. Houses were separated by roads and lanes. This has been recommended by Kauṭilya too. He says royal highways running from west to east and north to south should divide the residential area.^[3] so the city planning followed the grid pattern. Houses generally had basic amenities at least from the beginning of the Christian era. The settlement was provided with civic amenities like public wells, baths etc. Advanced sanitary system manifested itself into various forms. There were different types of sanitary devices. Well planned streets, commercial complex and shops point to a vibrant population interested in buying and selling. The whole settlement was enclosed by a massive wall with four gates. This wall has often been identified as an embankment. As a matter of fact this rampart served more than one purpose. It safeguarded the settlement from external invasions. At the same time it prevented the flood water to enter the locality.

Everything was in full agreement with ancient injunctions on city planning and maintenance. All these required planning, execution, strict vigilance and maintenance. These were never possible without a city administration. Kauṭilya devotes a whole chapter on city administration and assigns the duty of upkeep of municipal works on city authorities. He confers the duty of constant inspection of supplying water, roads, watercourses, covered paths, ramparts, parapets and fortification to the city superintendent.^[4] General appearance and presence of all the components of urbanism place Vārāṇasī among the leading cities of Northern India in the early historical phase and it was the capital city of the Kāśī mahājanapada too. This high degree of urbanity speaks of the presence of a central authority. Vārāṇasī, being the capital and administrative seat of the Kāśī mahājanapada was certainly under the presence of a monarchical rule. The political history saw many ups and downs but Vārāṇasī continued to be the capital city.

There is a fair consensus among scholars that the earliest occupational level of Vārāṇasī belonged to the 8^th century BCE, though a much earlier antiquity was discovered from nearby sites like Ᾱktha (1300-1200 to 700-600 BCE)^[5] or Sarai Mohana (1300 BCE).^[6] Such early sites may also be found in the Vindhyan quarry area located near Vārāṇasī. So the Vārāṇasī area came to be occupied much earlier than the 8^th century BCE. This has been furnished in the literary sources as well. From the Jātakas we learn that two or three centuries before the rise of Buddhism over a vast stretch of the middle Gaṅgā plain there existed a number of important states like Magadha, Videha, Kāśī, Kośala, Uttara-Pāñcāla and Indraprastha.^[7] Kāśī figured prominently among contemporary rising powers. It is important to find out how far the political factors helped Kāśī to secure this place. For this purpose we have consulted a number of early Indian texts, especially, the Purāṇas, Epics and the early Buddhist literature. It may be mentioned that in this segment we have chiefly relied on literary sources because they throw welcome light on the politico-cultural situation.