VEDIC ECONOMY

History – 1.5.1.2

The search for the history of northern part of South Asia between c.1500-and the 600 B.C.E is predominantly centred round the interpretations from the Vedic texts. This is both because the rich information available in the Vedic literature tends to attract the historians and also because the data on the society covered in the literature remain as yet distinct from the contemporary archaeological evidence. However, attempts have been made by scholars recently to compare and correlate the geographical and material descriptions contained in this literature with the archaeological complexes associated with the Ochre Coloured Pottery and the Painted Grey Ware Cultures. Although these correlations are yet to be completely satisfactory, it can be said with a definite degree of certainty that the Vedic culture, especially its later phase was contemporary and spatially close to the PGW culture.

Although circulated in oral form over the centuries, the Vedic literature contains significant information regarding socio – economic and political histories of Vedic society. The Rig Veda (c.1500-1000 B.C.E.) reflecting the material milieu of the early Vedic period is not only the earliest Indian literature but also the earliest extant literary product of the Indo-European languages. Gleanings from the three later Samhitās (Sāma, Yajur, Atharva), the Brāhmaṇa and the Āryaṇyaka literature, compared and supplemented by archaeological evidence indicate that significant changes occurred in later Vedic times (c.1000-600 BCE.).

The Ṛig Veda refers to various tribes settled in the region between the river valleys south of the Hindukush to the Indus and its tributaries - the rivers of the Punjab and the now extinct Sarasvati. The area was described in the text as sapta sindhavah - an area washed by the river Indus, its five eastern tributaries, Vitastā (Jhelum), Vipasa (Beas), Ashikni (Chenab), Irāvatī (Ravi) and Śatadru (Sutlej) as well as the now extinct Sarasvatī. The Sindhu or Indus and the Sarasvatī were given the epithet ‘nadītamā’ or ‘ambitamā’. The most significant tone regarding the material milieu noticeable in the Vedic ambience is the astonishing lack of urbanity when compared with the earlier civilization of the Harappans. The literature in fact carried a tone of hostility towards urbanism. The chief warrior and king of the Gods – Indra was hailed as ‘Purandara’ – the One who destroyed Pura

or urban settlements. This tone throws some light on the basic conditions of Vedic economy too. It was predominantly pastoral in nature and based primarily on cattle domestication. Numerous verses were in effect prayers to the various gods of the Vedic pantheon for boon of cattle wealth and for swift horses – the animal domesticated and put to rigorous use by the Vedic people.

Scholars point out that the Ṛig Vedic economy was predominantly, if not exclusively pastoral since out of the total verses only a few refer to agriculture, and significantly enough, most of these belong to the later portions - that is in the Mandalas I, IX and X. The predominance of cattle as wealth and item of sustenance is illustrated in the various commonly used social terms, which were linguistic derivatives from the root ‘gau’. R.S. Sharma has drawn attention to this fact. Measures of time included godhuli (dusk) and samgava (morning), measures of area / distance included gavyuti and gocharman. The daughter was duhitṛi (she who milks cows). Words for war with the prefix ‘gau’ – such as gaviṣṭi, gaveṣaṇā, goṣu and gavya – suggest that the mainstay of their life was the possession of cattle and many battles were fought among tribes which were in effect cattle raids. Social status or denominations were also conceived in terms of the cattle – so that the tribal chief was known as janasya gopa and a wealthy person was known as gomat (owner of cattle). Gojit (winner of cows) was the word for a hero.

One of the epithets of the god Indra was gopati (lord of the cattle). Wealth was denoted in terms of heads of cattle, and the cow had a special status as the procurer of progeny. Animal pens rich in cattle, sheep and steeds have been described in an allegorical reference to aerial and real cattle-stalls. The cow was also the unit of exchange. A man’s life was often calculated to be worth a hundred cows (śatadeya). The animal gained religious sanctity and was sacrificed on the more auspicious occasions, its flesh being eaten on specified occasions in association with rituals, or when welcoming a guest.

The condemnation of the arbitrary killing of cows would point to their ritual importance. Later on the horse too acquired exchange value and religious status. Its sacrifice was symbolic of fertility and power, but its flesh was not eaten. The horse appears to have accrued more value than the cow due to less availability in the context of the moving bands of the Vedic people into the river valleys of the Punjab and also because of its extreme importance

in leading actions and tribal wars, which were getting more and more complex. Within South Asia, Afghanistan and Sind were the only terrains where horses of good quality could be bred, while the ecological conditions were very favourable for cattle breeding throughout the region. Economic transactions or wealth sharing took place probably on more egalitarian and popular tribal modes. The reference to the institution of Vidatha as a primitive tribal assembly with distributive role might have provided that mode. Cattle wealth provided the first footing to socio-political hierarchy.

Throughout the long time that the early Vedic phase evolved there was a gradual growth and adoption of farming practices. Scholars have drawn attention to the many references to agricultural activity in the Ṛig Veda and argue that, although adopted and developed late, it was by no means marginal.

The verbs vap (to sow) and kriṣ (to cultivate) occur, along with references to various agricultural implements, phalā, lāṅgala, and sīra or śunāsīra were words for the plough, which were described as made from the wood of the hard trees like udumbara and Khadira. Other implements included the hoe (khanitra), sickle (dātra, sṛni), and axe (paraśu, kulisa). The word kṣetra had a range of meanings, including a cultivated field. Hymns refer to the agricultural activities like levelling of fields for cultivation, and laying furrows. Prayers were for fertile fields (urvarā), and furrows (sitā) drenched by rain, producing rich harvests.

The only terms for cereals generally referred in the Ṛig Veda were yava (barley or a generic term for cereal) and dhanya (rice or a generic term for cereals). There are references to seed processing, food prepared from cereals, and large jars that were probably used to store grains. The terms Kṣetra, Kṣetrapati and Kīnāśa indicate the gradual transition into sedentary life, adaptation to farming on land and emergence of man-land relationships. Although the term Kṣetrapati initially referred to the guardian - deity of the cultivation field, it soon became the epithet for possessor of lands. The region where these transitions occurred lay in the upper valleys of the five rivers of Punjab.

In the Ṛig Veda manḍala III the two rivers Beas and Sutlej were praised for providing fertility to the adjacent are facilitating bountiful farming. Some basic kinds of irrigation devices were also vaguely referred, like the term ‘kulyā’ clearly indicates man-made water channels. There was a clear

reference to the digging of canals with spade. Fields were important and required protection from both natural forces and human aggression and hence hymns were offered for protection of fertile fields and water courses along with the beloved sons, grandsons and the essential wealth – the cattle.

Indra, the chief God, described as the protector of crops, winner of fertile fields (urvarajit), and as the one who showers such fields on those who performed sacrifices to him, was beseeched for the grant of rich fields. These were the indirect pointers to the fact that contests now occurred not only for cattle, but also for land. A Ṛig Veda śukta provides some description of the process of cultivation. The verse throws light on how the men ploughed the furrows with the śunā and sīrā and oxen.

The reference to varied occupation groups reveal not only a complex and rich social paradigm but also the growth of an emerging handicraft sector even in the early days described in the Ṛig Veda. Hymns refer to warriors, priests, pastoral cattle breeders, farmers, hunters, barbers, and weavers. The crafts included chariot-making – by the rathakāra,, cart-making, carpentry – by takṣaka, metal working – by karmāra, melting of metals – by drāviṇa, leather tanning – by charmamṇā, the making of bows and arrows and bowstrings – by the iṣukāra, needle work by peśas, weaving by - vayatri , etc. Some of these occupations and crafts may have been the jobs of full-time specialists. The rise of social classes and the final divisions into varṇas would follow towards the end of the early phase.

There are hardly any direct references to metallurgical activities in the Rig Veda. However the term ayas occurs in several contexts, many of which tend to mythicize the use of metals. References were made to the thunderbolt of Indra, which was purported to be made of ayas; the chariot of the gods, Mitra and Varuṇa, which were said to possess columns of ayas; and the home of Indra and Soma were envisioned as made of ayas. Commonplace references also clear the doubts about the prevalence of some metallic items in contemporary culture. Here too the most conspicuous is the reference in the family books to the cities of Dasyus’ made of ayas, even forts of ayas. This is interesting because the ‘Dasyu’ was a term indicating some non-Vedic community. The use of non-ferrous metals in contemporary chalcolithic communities in the region is well documented by archaeological investigations. The practice of metal works among the Vedic people themselves becomes clarified with a few distinct

tools mentioned in the Rig Veda: viz., the kshura (razor), khāḍi (maybe a bangle), and asi / svadhiti (axe). But it is not clear precisely which metal was referred by the term ‘ayas’.

Metal processing through some manner of smelting was described in the Ṛig Veda manḍala IV in an allegory. A hymn drew a simile between the cleansing of social and moral impurities through the action of good deeds in a person’s life and the purification of ayas from raw state.

The medieval commentator Sāyana explained this reference ... “As the smiths heat metal using bellows”. There are a few references in the Ṛig Veda to the words dham and karmāra, implying the sound of metals produced during processing and the metal worker, respectively. But these occur in the later books IX and X, and it is far from certain whether they refer to iron-welding or iron smiths. Ayas could have meant copper, copper-bronze, or may have been a generic term for metals. However, correlations with existing archaeological data in the Painted Grey Ware complex - from the region generally described in the Ṛig Veda - indicate the possibility of minor beginnings of iron technology only towards the end of the early phase. The PGW complex in this context is generally dated to around the 1000 B.C.E.

The primarily pastoral Rig Vedic society had hardly produced the necessary surplus for purposes of trade. Cattle wealth would have been the main merchandise and the cow the primary medium of exchange. Internal transactions of sale and purchase were mostly in barter. The world niṣka seems to have meant ‘a piece of gold’ or ‘gold necklace’, and there is no indication of the use of coins in this early stage. Prayers were offered to the gods for provision of ‘broad paths to travel’ and to ensure a safe journey – but this was to ensure safety for both pastoralists and traders.

Mention was made of chariots and carts drawn by oxen, mules, or horses for communication on land and to boats (nau) as water transport. However, the reference to the ocean by the term samudra is doubtful. A verse in the Rig Veda Manḍala I (1.116.3) refers to the Aśvins rescuing Bhujya in the ocean with the help of a ship with a hundred oars (śatāritra). Another in Manḍala X refers to the eastern and western oceans. There is every possibility that the word samudra was used in the sense of the turbulent waters at the mouth of the great rivers or specifically the Indus itself.

There is hardly any reference to a mercantile class within the Vedic society. The only reference to the occupation of exchange is related to the community denoted as the Paṇi. The term Pani (literally, ‘those who possessed wealth’) is used to refer to a certain people who by description seem to have been of a different social and anthropological community. In some instances the text referred to the pani as merchants and as stingy people who did not perform sacrifices and hid their wealth. Scholars have suggested that these were a non-Vedic people comprising of the merchant class, who probably controlled exchange in the early days. Conflicts between the Vedic people and the Paṇi have been mentioned. Many suggestions to identify the Paṇi with a non-Aryan tribe, or Babylonians, Phoenicians and Egyptians have been offered.

What comes out clearly from the verses was the fact that the Paṇi constituted a class of people, conducting trade and business, whose approach to exchange deals did not endear them to the Vedic people. It also becomes clear that the Ṛig Vedic people were not adept at trading and exchange economy. The Paṇi were blamed for stealing and hiding the cattle in numerous references. There was the famous reference to the dog of Indra – Saramā pursuing the Paṇi to recover the cattle stolen by them. Their hoards of wealth in horses and cattle have been mentioned. However, the reference to the paṇi as a community of traders, headed by Bṛbhu - their leader, who was praised for his bounty, generosity and piety (RV, VI, XLV, 31 – 33.), and was located on the banks of the Gaṅgā, clarifies the prevalence of a special community of traders in the early days.

Although these references to the Paṇi as the ‘other’ signified the Vedic people’s unfamiliarity with trading etc., the evidence from the Later Vedic texts reveal a gradual adoption of the occupation as well as absorption of these communities within the Vedic society with time.

The concept of wealth in a material sense was quite clearly implied in the terms like ‘gomat’ or ‘Maghavan’ referring to wealthy persons. Cattle were the primary wealth and land was added to the category later. The most common term for wealth was ‘rayi’ which denoted objects to be given over to others; ‘dhanam’ was the term implying pleasure associated with wealth; ‘draviṇam’ described the action of the people rushing towards it; and ‘magham’ referred to the inclination to charity.

As far as accumulation and exchange of wealth is concerned the most important institution to observe would be to the garnering of wealth in the form of revenue, which would indicate the emergence of a politico – economic structure. All previous studies have emphasized upon the fact that in the early phase, obligatory taxes were absent and the chieftain received voluntary gift from the people, – the term bali in the Rig Veda conveying this sense. However anthropological studies, pioneered by Marcel Mauss on gift exchanges in simple societies, have shown that such “gifts” were actually strictly obligatory and governed by conventions that had to be observed.

It was not the individual but groups (families, clans, tribes) who made the exchanges and were bound by their obligations. Such exchanges – known as prestations, not only involved material goods of economic value, they also involved the exchange of other things such as courtesies, entertainments, military assistance, ritual, women, children, dances, feasts, and hospitality. The rules of the game in gift exchange are different from the logic that operates in ordinary sorts of economic exchanges. The offering, receiving, and reciprocating of gifts were acts that established and cemented social relationships and social hierarchies.In the Rig Veda, apart from references to voluntary contributions or bali from the viśah to the tribal chiefs or rājā/rājanya, the priests received dāna (ritual gifts) and dakṣiṇā (sacrificial fees) at the conclusion of sacrificial rituals from the yajamāna, often the king or chief. War booty was a major source of wealth, as was cattle and gradually land and produce from land. Distribution of wealth was a major activity through the collective assemblies like the Vidatha. Although the descriptions of the institution of Vidatha convey an idea of egalitarianism and representation, there were indications of the development of hierarchy both in terms of socio- political authority and possession of wealth.

The references to wealthy people and those worthy of attending the assemblies suggest difference in wealth and rank. The composition of the Puruṣasūkta in the later part of the Ṛig Vedic phase indicate this gradual emergence of hierarchy of the society, with the brāhmaṇa and the rājanya claiming precedence over the producing classes. The dānastuti hymns of the Ṛig Veda reveal the possibility that the status of the first two varṇas got reinforced through these rituals.While these hymns indicate the actual materials distributed in the collective assemblies like cattle, horse, chariots, gold and slave girls, the general

prayers offered in the Ṛig Veda illustrate the other items solicited included fertile fields, plentiful food, wealth, jewels, chariots, fame, friends, and children. Wealth in terms of fluid currency had not evolved. The notion of individual private property ownership as we understand it – associated with the right to buy, sell, gift, bequeath, and mortgage – did not exist. However, some scholars interpret the data from the Ṛig Veda to offer the suggestion that family ownership did exist. Generally speaking, the clan, as a whole, enjoyed rights over major resources such as land and herds and this was understood by scholars in terms of communal ownership. The concept of community in the Ṛig Vedic society, however, might have been a fluid one and it was kinship which remained knitting bond within tribal lineages. Since the varṇa later became hereditary, the lineage system continued and ownership was tied to it.

The household was the basic unit of labour and there was no mention of wage labour. The Rig Vedic society was familiar with slavery. The dāsa of the Ṛig Veda has been variously interpreted by scholars, although the most common characteristic attached would have been servility. The Samhitā refers to enslavement in the course of war or as a result of debt. Initially ethnic differences may have been an important basis of enslavement. However, in view of the reference to Dāsa rulers and the people as a whole, the connotation of the term seems to have had plural implications, meaning both servile people and some non-Vedic communities. It was probably with time and absorption of more and more communities into the Vedic complex, including those previously non-Vedic in origin, that the notion of ‘otherness’ got dissolved and the term began to clearly connote servile people as it was often used in conjunction with the śudra varṇa. However, this servility cannot be compared to the Greek concept of slavery. The Later Vedic phase is generally held to represent the Vedic society between the 800 and the 600 B.C.E. The references reveal that the Vedic people had gradually shifted from the Upper Punjab into the Upper and Middle Ganga Valleys with western Uttar Pradesh as the zone where they probably came into close contact with existing Chalcolithic societies. Migration into the eastern regions, especially the doab of Ganga – Yamuna was marked by contests for control marked by intertribal warfare on the one hand and the confrontations between the Vedic and non-Vedic communities on the other. Land had assumed great importance in the conditions of growing farming economy and land reclamation for cultivation had become a major activity. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa states how

Videgha Mathava went on burning the forests till he reached the Sadānirā in North Bihar, an event which probably took place towards the end of the Vedic period. Their expansion to Brahmarṣideśa or Brahma Vartta between the Sarasvatī and Dṛśadvatī rivers and beyond is archaeologically documented by growth of new settlements in the region at many sites in western Uttar Pradesh and adjoining areas of the eastern Punjab, Haryana, Delhi region and Rajasthan.

The process was probably facilitated by the use of iron tools and weapons. These have been discovered at the sites like Atranjikhera in Eta district of western Uttar Pradesh and Jakhera at levels which have yielded the PGW and have been dated around the 1000 B.C. and definitely not later than 800 BCE at most sites. It is not clear by any evidence whether the use of iron was initiated by an incoming band of people from the west who could be identified as the Vedic people. However, the Later Vedic texts do refer clearly to iron as a specific metal with a specific nomenclature indicating its knowledge and possible use. Although initially we generally find iron weaponry in archaeological contexts, the metal may also helped jungle clearance and agriculture subsequently. Iron technology was not the only factor enabling the Vedic people to spread as far as Videha in north Bihar by the end of the Vedic period. This was mainly facilitated by setting forests on fire which is evident from the reference in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The earliest literary references to iron in the Indian subcontinent are found in later Vedic literature. The terms krishna-ayas, shyama, and shyma-ayas (the black or dark metal) in the Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda clearly refer to this metal. There are indications of the use of iron in agriculture.The Taittiriya Samhita (5.2.5) of the Yajur Veda mentions ploughs driven by six or even twelve oxen. Scholars like R.S. Sharma suggest that this description implied the use of very heavy ploughs which may have been made of iron. The Atharva Veda mentions an amulet made out of a ploughshare, smitten away with a knife by a skilful smith. The reference to the smith and the fact that iron is definitely known in the Atharva Veda suggest that the ploughshare in question was made of iron. In the context of implements used in the aśvamedha sacrifice, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa connects iron with the peasantry.

Elsewhere, the same text (13-3.4.5) connects this metal with the subjects or people (prajā). Early Buddhist texts (c.600-200 BCE) contain several references to iron and iron objects. All these references in literature and the corroborations available from the excavated sites indicate that between

c.1000 BCE and 500 BCE, the use of iron in agriculture and other jobs had become prevalent in the Indo-Gangetic divide and the upper and middle Ganga valley. Agriculture had become the dominant economy of the later Vedic period being the chief means of the livelihood for the people. Romila Thapar has cited the legend of Pṛthu Vainya the first righteous king mentioned in the Atharva Veda, who was said to have introduced cattle rearing and the plough as signifying this transition in economy.

Cattle and horse remained the principal forms of movable property, while possession of land gained the connotation of wealth. The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa informs that the Vaiśyas were the cultivators of land. The control that was being imposed on land and the producing class is evident from the allusions to the Vaiśyas as anyasyabalikṛt – or those who were liable to pay tribute to others, and anyasyadyah – or to be lived upon by others and finally jathākāmajyah – to be treated by others at will. The concept underlying this verse has been taken to indicate the position of tenant farmers by some scholars. It is also evident that the whole system of possession of land was probably undergoing radical change in some contexts and the Chief – King’s sovereign right over the produce from land and cattle was being laid down.

There is a passage in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa which claimed the sovereign right of the Kṣatriya to grant a settlement to anyone according to his will but this had to be done with concurrence from the viśah. Such grants bore the sanction of the tribal society. U.N. Ghoshal had tried to interpret this as the indication of the prevalence of the system of public land of the folk or the State at the disposal of the King or the tribal chief. In fact the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa informs that the king while going through the rites of his consecration made grants of land to the officiating priest, which was termed catuspadakṣetra. Whether this was symbolic cannot be ascertained.

In the Chhandogya Upaniṣad there is a reference to a King granting land to a philosopher. On the other hand protestations against arbitrary land - grant were prevalent too and this is allegorically mentioned in both the Aitareya and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇas in an instance when the King Viśvakarman Bhauvan was said to have granted a piece of land to an individual but Mother Earth refused to sanction the action. Yet, the tradition of the King’s right over land had probably gained ground in the Later Vedic phase.

Corollary to this development would have been the practice of private possession of land by extended families.

Scholars like Baden Powell, K.P. Jayasawal and P.N. Banerjee concluded that even in the Rig Vedic phase there was a prevalence of private ownership of land. This is also evident from references to disputes between neighbouring farmers. It is stated that a person who has a dispute about a field or with his neighbours should make an offering to Indra and Agni on eleven potsherds. The clan as a collective came to exercise only general rights over land by the end of the Later Vedic phase. The Atharva Veda clearly demarcated two categories of land: kṣetra and vana. The Vājaśaneyī Saṁhitā refers to green pastures, fertile lands and homesteads. The Chhandogya Upaniṣad and Atharva Veda refer to waste lands as khila. The Taittirīya Saṁhitā refers to good pasture land as suyavas.

The Later Vedic phase witnessed the gradual spread of farming settlements and cultivation fields in the Upper to Middle Ganga Valley and the most effective tool for clearance of land for farming was fire. The Taittirīya Saṁhitā in fact lamented the fact and mentioned that the earth became afraid of excessive burning. On the other hand land clearance by tools such as the axe – svadhiti – was also apparently resorted to quite commonly. The terms like Kṣetrapati and Kṣetrapatni in the Ṛig Veda itself would indicate that besides denoting the guardian-deity of the cultivation field the terms had had human connotations too. The text in fact states that kṣetra was as much as a possession as one’s own offspring.

Plough cultivation was common and the initiation of cultivation was attended with auspicious rituals. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa devotes one whole chapter (VII. 2.2) to elaborate rites in connection with ploughing termed as the lāṅgalayajña. The text also refers to the metal tip of the ploughshare. The body of the plough was made out of hard wood like the catechu or the fig trees. The oxen attached to the plough carried symbolic meanings and their numbers were regarded as bearing auspicious significance. The fertile plains in the doab region, with rich alluvium produced bountiful crops, supporting growing population as is indicated by the number of archaeological sites discovered in this setting. The information from the Later Vedic literature corresponds to this.

A number of crops were cultivated by all evidence. The later Saṁhitās refer frequently to vrīhi which denoted rice. The cereal quickly assumed ritual

status along with barley. Several varieties were produced denoted by distinct names – like the mahāvrīhi, kṛṣṇavrīhi, śuklavrīhi, āśudhānya, nivāra, hāyana – all with different characteristics and habitats. Archaeological evidence from the PGW sites corroborates the literary information and rice was found to be cultivated at Atranjikhera and other sites.

Several varieties of barley were also referred in the texts like govidhuka – a wild variety and the good quality cultivated variety - upavāka or indrayava. The other major cereal was wheat referred as godhuma also corroborated by actual remains. Leguminous crops like black and green gram, millet etc had distinct nomenclature and some have been identified in archaeological remains. Sugar-cane, which is mentioned in the Atharva Veda (1.34.1-5), may have been valued as a wild product. The Atharva Veda contains charms to ward off pests and to avert drought, reflecting the anxieties that farmers must have had.

Concurrent to the progress in production economy, was the growing process of legitimating the rights of the ruling community over land and produce. The practice of deriving compulsory revenue was gradually evolving with the aid of the priestly class. The social overtone of customary bindings were sought to be modified or strengthened only through religious practices in the Vedic context and hence the Kṣhatriya and the Brāhmaṇa came together in devising ways and means for this. The dana-stutis in the later books of the Rig Veda already revealed how a portion of the wealth accumulated by the rājanya was distributed exclusively among the priestly class. These indicated the concentration of wealth in the hands of rulers and the relationship of exchanges between the two higher varṇa. Later Vedic society witnessed the crescendo of the ritualisation of life and the preponderance of the brahmanical control.

The processes of performing yajñas not only paved the way for the Kṣatriya’s claim to rule but also to tax the producing class. The Taittirīya Saṁhitā claimed the rights of appropriation from the viśah enjoyed by the Kṣatriya. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa clearly laid down that the viśah set apart a share for the Kṣatriya. Tensions in the jana between the two sectors is spelt out in such epithets applied to the Kṣatriya as viśmattā or devourer of the viśah mentioned in both the Aitareya and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇas. This marks the subtle change in the nature of bali and the

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa mentions certain Vedic kings recovering bali from defeated rulers.

The Atharva Veda verse claiming the Kṣatriya’s competence to realize bali from his subjects and the epithet attached to the persona of the king as balihṛt implied the evolution of generic right of claim over contributions from the subjects. Although there is no clear mention of new taxes there is a reference to the term śulka in Atharva Veda although it may not have had the same connotation as it would bear in the post Vedic times. The surplus in the field of production helped the growth of handicrafts and artisan classes with varying status. The process of the development of a secondary sector in economy is amply reflected in the emergence of various professionals and the concept of śilpa as referred in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa.

The action of śilpa implied an improvement caused by intervention in nature’s product by man. Even the Ṛig Veda had indicated that śilpa was a means of doing away with poverty. The term covered a wide variety of human activity including performing arts and other skills. The growth of handicrafts especially was indicated by the numerous generic names given to professionals. The later Vedic texts mention various kinds of artisans, such as carpenters or takṣaṇ, chariot makers or rathakāra, bow-and-arrow makers or iṣukāra, metal workers or dhmatṛns, weaver or tantuvāya, leather workers or charmamna, bamboo worker or bidalakāri, tanners, and potters or kulāla and mṛtpac. There is a long list of crafts and occupations in the list of victims, probably symbolic, in the Puruṣamedha sacrifice, described in the Vājaśaneyī Saṁhitā and the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa.

These included the doorkeeper, charioteer, attendant, drummer, mat maker, smith, ploughman, astrologer, herdsman, maker of bowstrings, carpenter, wood-gatherer, basket maker, jeweller, elephant keeper, and the goldsmith. Vocations mentioned in other Later Vedic texts include those of the physicians, washermen, hunters, fowlers, ferrymen, servants, barbers, cooks, boatmen, and messengers. Fixed nomenclature and professional communities signify the growth of a complex society and economy and trade was indicated in many references.Exchange was still predominantly via barter and there is no clear reference to coinage. There was some debate about the exact nature of a niṣka,

mentioned severally in Vedic texts and regarded by some scholars as a metallic piece of exchange value.While D. R. Bhandarkar was of the opinion that it did signify a metallic currency, A.S. Altekar, Macdonell and Keith held that it was an ornament constituted of gold pieces. During the early Vedic phase manā was a term indicating an object given away as gift along with cattle and horses. The Later Vedic texts refer to śatamāna associated with hiraṇya and suvarṇa and the item may have had a value denomination. Kṛṣṇala was another term denoting not only a unit of weight measurement but also an object of gift. The measurement was equal to the weight of one seed of the plant abrus precatorius and the Kṛṣṇala was said to be made of various metals including gold in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa and the Kauśitaki Sūtra. This evidence belongs to the end of the Later Vedic phase around the seventh century B.C.E.

The professional traders were denoted as vanija and most transactions were carried over land. The vanija travelled with his merchandise or avasāya and took rest on the way at resting places or āvasatha. Conditions of the journeys for trade were not very ideal and trail masters or patharakṣin led the way. The Brāhmaṇas contained specific prayers or pathyāsvasti for safe journey.

There were two kinds of carts carrying people and goods over land – anas and śakaṭa mostly drawn by bullocks. A smaller cart was named śakaṭi. Riverine trade might have been prevalent and boats were mentioned. Commodities were referred generally as paṇya and goods for barter exchange were termed paṇa. The texts mention spices, cereals, sheep‘s wool, as well as domestic animals like cow, horse, goat, sheep, oxen etc. as mercantile commodities. The extent of trade is not certain.

While some scholars were of opinion that some kind of guild organization operated in the Later Vedic phase this has not been borne out by deeper examination of such terms as gaṇa and puga. The terms may have denoted bands of people in the same profession but the economic connotation was not implicit in these early days. The general milieu as can be gathered from the texts is a rural one, although towards the end of the period, different categories of village settlements had evolved and there were mention of grāma and mahāgrāma in the Brāhmaṇas. There were traces of the beginnings of urbanism – the Taittiriya Aranyaka used the word nagara in the sense of a town.

The region which has been identified as marking the ground for Later Vedic developments – the upper and middle Ganga valleys – yielded evidence for the emergence of at least three large settlements, Ahicchatra, Kausambi and Hastinapura, the origins of which can be attributed to the sixth century B.C.E. It is doubtful whether arts and crafts contributed in any substantial measure to the rise of these settlements; they seem to have been rather seats of political power. However, the important factor was the production of surplus which created an economic base for the process of political growth.

It is quite evident that compared to the Rig Veda Samhita, later Vedic literature reveals greater complexities in economic activities, social life and political organization, providing the ground for further developments in the post Vedic times in the region. The subsequent period witnessed significant changes in the economy, which was strengthened by the widespread use of iron, the extensive cultivation of rice, sugar and cotton, the rise and growth of numerous towns in north-eastern India, the further diversification of crafts and their organization into guilds and last but not the least the brisk inland and foreign trade.

SUGGESTED READINGS:

1) A.C. Das, Rig Vedic India, Calcutta, 1920.

2) N.C. Bandypadhyay, Economic Life and Progress in Ancient India, Calcutta, 1925.

3) N.N. Bhattacharya, Ancient Indian History and Civilisation. Trends and Perspectives, New Delhi, 1988.

4) R.S. Sharma, Light on Early Indian Society and Economy, Bombay, 1966.

5) ———, Material Culture and Social Formations in Ancient India, Delhi, 1983.

6) R. Thapar, From Lineage to State: Social Formations in the Mid-First Millennium B.C. in the Ganga Valley, Delhi, 1990.

7) Brajdeo Prasad Ray, Later Vedic Economy, Patna, Delhi, 1984.

8) Om Prakash, “Agrarian System in Ancient India: Harappan and Vedic”, in Lallanji Gopal and V.C. Srivastava, eds., History of Agriculture in India upto c. 1200 AD., PHISPC, New Delhi, 2008.