Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Economy AND Society IN THE POST Gupta Period

The Indian economy changed in a certain way after the Guptas era. In...
Course

Ancient India (HSB654)

254 Documents
Students shared 254 documents in this course
Academic year: 2022/2023
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Aligarh Muslim University

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Related Studylists

HoiHOIHOI

Preview text

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN THE POST-GUPTA PERIOD

Introduction

The Indian economy changed in a certain way after the Guptas era.

In fact, many important cities like Taxila, Kaushambi, and Pataliputra were lost after the time of the Guptas. This decline in the number of cities and towns was not an isolated event; it seems to have been very common.

  1. There were also problems with trade because of a lot of different things. There were a lot less coins made and circulated than there were before, which shows this.

Many of these changes started during the Gupta era, which is why it's important to note. We are seeing the development of an economy that is mostly based on farming. Many people were given land. There was little money; there was a decline in trade, commerce, and cities; there was more agrarian growth and society became more agrarian; and there were more local units of production and consumption. This led to a social structure that was mostly made up of a large aristocracy, middlemen, and a lot of poor peasants. There were also new social groups, more castes, and tribes that became more accustomed to living in the same way as the rest of the people. There was a much more complicated society that had different groups of people, like peasants, brahmanas, craftsmen, merchants, rulers, and so on, who were all different from each other.

ECONOMY

In the post-Gupta era, the economy changed a lot. In what way can one explain the changes in the economy? According to some historians, the system of land grants was the most important part of the chain of events. In the Gupta and after the Gupta, land-grants rose in number and spread across the country. There were many land grants made to brahmanas and religious groups like temples and monasteries by a lot of different people, like kings, chiefs, members of the royal family, and their feudators. From the 5th century on, not only did the donees get the money from the land they were given, but they also got the mines and minerals in the area. The land, village, or village that was given to someone else did not have to deal with soldiers or royal officials. They also gave the brahmana donees the right to punish all crimes against family, private property, and personal safety. They could also enjoy the money they earned from fines. This is how it worked:

Contemporary Dharmashastra literature said that state officials should be given land or the money that comes from it in place of their salary. It also had an effect on the question of land rights, social and economic conditions for the peasants, the right of craftsmen and traders in the towns where they were given land, and a closed economy that formed.

Peasants, artisans, and merchants were all tied to their communities and had to stay there. This created an environment where a closed economy was the natural next step.

Decline of Trade

During the Gupta era, the commercial downturn grew more acute by the 6th century CE. After the early Common Era, the influx of Roman coinage into India ceased. The rise of Arabs and Persians as trading competitors did not bode well for Indian merchants. The Indo-Byzantine commerce included silk and spices. But Byzantium learned to breed silk worms in the mid-6th century CE. As a result, the silk trade suffered. The Huna invasions wiped off any remaining ties with Central and Western Asia. It is stated that India's coastal towns traded with Southeast Asian and Chinese countries. But this interaction appears to have been mild. Foreign trade was not the only one suffering. Weakened linkages between coastal and interior towns, particularly between towns and villages, hurt long-distance internal commerce. This is not to say that trading in basics like salt and iron artefacts stopped. There was also some long-distance commerce in prominent luxury commodities such precious stones, ivory, and horses. For several centuries, it appears that large-scale, structured trade was supplanted by nomadic pedlars and trickling trading.

Paucity of Coins

The scarcity of coinage in the post-Gupta period demonstrates the decline of commerce. Gold coins, which were plentiful throughout the Kushana and Gupta dynasties, were phased out of circulation around the 6th century. The lack of silver and copper coinage draws notice as well. The gold content of later Gupta coins was less than half that of Kushana coins. Harshavardhana's coins are insufficient, and the Rashtrakutas and Palas, who rose to power in the Deccan and Bengal, respectively, in the eighth century, did not produce any coinage. Northern India, Bengal, Odisha, Central India, and the Deccan were all devoid of metallic coinage. What applies to these places also applies to South India.

Some historians suggest that previous coins used as cash in subsequent periods, obviating the need for new coinage. However, the time period under consideration was marked by unparalleled agricultural growth, which would typically have demanded the use of more metallic money. Furthermore, coins were a symbol of power. No king would gladly forego the prerogative of minting currency in his own name unless the compulsions were severe enough. Coins were no longer needed due to the decrease of trade and the transfer of land to high-ranking officials in place of money payments. Furthermore, evidence of barter and the usage of cowries as a means of exchange in daily transactions has been discovered.

Decline of Towns

ungoverned areas necessitates agricultural growth and the extension of village economies. The events described above occurred in early mediaeval India's rural villages. Grama was the common name for a settlement. Rural communities, on the other hand, were not all the same. Other words are used to describe various sorts of rural villages. Palli was originally used to refer to a tribal settlement. Pataka was a slang term for a section of a hamlet. It was a sort of hamlet with its own name, but it was actually part of a bigger settlement. Herdsmen's settlements were known as ghosas. It should be recalled, however, that the words used to describe various types of settlements were not necessarily rigid categories. Tribal hamlets, too, altered in character as agriculture and Brahmanical civilization expanded. While recording land-grants, a great number of copper-plate charters from the post-Gupta period specify numerous types of land, including cultivated, uncultivated, and uncultivated land high, low, flooded, swampy, grassy, and forested terrain Brahmadeyas were villages that were given to and inhabited by brahmanas. Agrahara settlements were linked with non-brahmanas as well as brahmanas, despite the fact that they were inhabited by brahmanas. The brahmanas, on the other hand, were the only owners of such settlements. Mangalams were the name given to such settlements in South India.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The varna-divided society was altered by land grants and the developing landed intermediaries holding economic power and political authority. The four-fold varna structure did not accommodate the new social groups. The uneven distribution of landed property established social levels based on varna concerns that crossed beyond socioeconomic class. The Kshatriya varna's acceptance of foreign ethnic groups and indigenous tribal chieftains as part of the ruling aristocracy, and the Shudra varna's inclusion of acculturated tribes as part of the ruling aristocracy, not only enlarged their ranks but also changed the varna-divided society. Furthermore, around this time, the former difference between Dvija (twice born) and Shudra began to be eroded.

The varna to which one belonged did not determine one's social standing. His social status became linked to his status as a landowner among several groups of landowners. These inclinations originated throughout this time period and became more prominent in the 9th and 10th century. The Kayasthas, traders, and members of the affluent dominating peasants were all given titles such as ranaka, nayaka, and so on between the 9th and 10th centuries. They were members of society's top crust and the reigning landed aristocracy.

There were new jatis (castes) formed. The brahmanas, kshatriyas, kayasthas, and shudras were affected by the expansion in the number of new castes. The number of untouchable castes and mixed castes has grown. The emergence of new jatis was aided by the change of craft guilds into castes as a result of the loss of commerce and urban centres, as well as the localised hereditary nature of the trades.

Lords and Peasants

As previously stated, there were distinct categories of landowners as opposed to peasants in this period's agrarian system. The landed beneficiaries were called bhogi, bhokta, bhogapati, mahabhogi, brihadbhogi, etc. Ranaka, raja, samanta, mahasamanta, mandalesvara, and others were prominent landlords. The king held various titles denoting his dominion and land ownership. The peasants was not a homogenous group. The kshetrajivi were known by several names including karshaka, krishivala, kinasa, kutumba, and bhurnikarshaka. These terms all seem to have nothing to do with land control. Their lands were tilled by various groups of people dependent peasants, share-croppers, field labourers, etc. – none of whom had perfect autonomy.

Proliferation of Castes

While numerous castes were included into one varna, some formerly homogeneous societies broke apart into multiple varnas and jatis. The Abhira tribe split into Abhira brahmanas, Abhira kshatriyas, and Abhira shudras.

Brahmanas

There were many castes among the brahmanas. Those who “commercialised” their priestly services, or who had contact with aboriginals, were degraded in the eyes of the srotriyaagrahara- brahmanas. The movement of brahmanas seeking land grants expedited the establishment of castes and sub-castes within the varna. Brahmanas who held prominent state officials were a separate segment. Due to their prominence, the brahmana varna developed distinct ranks. The kayasthas went through the same thing.

Kshatriyas

The rise of new ruling dynasties among the native tribes and the integration of alien ethnic groups exercising political power created caste multiplication among the kshatriyas. The Bactrian Greeks, Shakas, Parthians, Hunas, etc. were all classified as second class kshatriyas under the varna system. From the 5th-6th century, numerous tribal leaders became “Hinduised” rajas by patronising brahmanas and performing Vedic rituals. The governing families' diverse origins and quest for social approval explain the kshatriya caste growth.

Shudras

Expansion of the shudra varna basis by endogamous people from numerous cultures and areas Slave-like castes, sharecroppers and artisans were all included in the shudra varna during Gupta and post-Gupta eras. Tribes became castes when they became peasants, and these peasant groups became shudras in the brahmanic society. This increased the number and diversity of shudra castes.

Kayasthas Growth

economic status, and a lot of the vaishyas, especially those at the bottom, went down. Thus, there was a shift in the positions of the two lower varna. The shudras were no longer slaves and servants. Instead, they became tenants, share-croppers, and cultivators of the land. Many shudra artisans also had to start growing their own food because of the decline of cities and towns.

It was during the post-Mauryan era that the vaishyas became known for their jobs in the cities and towns. The vaishya traders and merchants of the post-Gupta era lost money and lost their social status in an agrarian world that was mostly farming. People's jobs and living standards made it hard to tell them apart. Wives are in a certain place.

How women are seen by people in this era is that they are going downhill. The law-books say that women should get married at a young age, with pre-puberty marriage being the best. Formal education was not given to them, so they didn't learn anything. This caused a lot of trouble for women's status. They didn't have a lot of rights to own things. There was, however, a slight improvement in the case of widows when it came to their ownership rights Some people say that the word "stridhana," which means "women's wealth," didn't mean much because it didn't cover more than the right to own jewellery and other gifts for herself and her family. It's clear that the Brihat Samhita and other modern texts like it show how women are treated. It was forbidden for them to take part in a lot of sacrifices and ceremonies. The practise of Sati (a wife setting herself on fire on her husband's funeral pyre) became more common in this time. After the 5th century CE, women changed their gotras when they married. Important: This was a big change because it meant that the patriarchal system of male-dominated society had come to an end. It also meant that they had less rights in their parents' homes.

Was this document helpful?

Economy AND Society IN THE POST Gupta Period

Course: Ancient India (HSB654)

254 Documents
Students shared 254 documents in this course

University: Aligarh Muslim University

Was this document helpful?
ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN THE POST-GUPTA PERIOD
Introduction
The Indian economy changed in a certain way after the Guptas era.
In fact, many important cities like Taxila, Kaushambi, and Pataliputra were lost after the time of
the Guptas. This decline in the number of cities and towns was not an isolated event; it seems to
have been very common.
2) There were also problems with trade because of a lot of different things. There were a lot less
coins made and circulated than there were before, which shows this.
Many of these changes started during the Gupta era, which is why it's important to note. We are
seeing the development of an economy that is mostly based on farming. Many people were given
land. There was little money; there was a decline in trade, commerce, and cities; there was more
agrarian growth and society became more agrarian; and there were more local units of
production and consumption. This led to a social structure that was mostly made up of a large
aristocracy, middlemen, and a lot of poor peasants. There were also new social groups, more
castes, and tribes that became more accustomed to living in the same way as the rest of the
people. There was a much more complicated society that had different groups of people, like
peasants, brahmanas, craftsmen, merchants, rulers, and so on, who were all different from each
other.
ECONOMY
In the post-Gupta era, the economy changed a lot. In what way can one explain the changes in
the economy? According to some historians, the system of land grants was the most important
part of the chain of events. In the Gupta and after the Gupta, land-grants rose in number and
spread across the country. There were many land grants made to brahmanas and religious groups
like temples and monasteries by a lot of different people, like kings, chiefs, members of the royal
family, and their feudators. From the 5th century on, not only did the donees get the money from
the land they were given, but they also got the mines and minerals in the area. The land, village,
or village that was given to someone else did not have to deal with soldiers or royal officials.
They also gave the brahmana donees the right to punish all crimes against family, private
property, and personal safety. They could also enjoy the money they earned from fines. This is
how it worked:
Contemporary Dharmashastra literature said that state officials should be given land or the
money that comes from it in place of their salary. It also had an effect on the question of land
rights, social and economic conditions for the peasants, the right of craftsmen and traders in the
towns where they were given land, and a closed economy that formed.

Students also viewed

Related documents