Society, Kinship, Caste, and Class (Ancient India)

Varnas

In ancient Indian society, particularly from the Later Vedic period onwards, a hierarchical social structure known as the Varna system became increasingly prominent. This system divided society into four main categories or varnas based on occupation, although it later became associated with birth.

The Four Varnas:

According to Vedic texts and later Dharmashastras, the four varnas were:

Brahmins: Associated with priestly duties, studying and teaching the Vedas, performing sacrifices. Occupied the highest position in the hierarchy.
Kshatriyas: Associated with ruling, administering, warfare, and protecting people.
Vaishyas: Associated with agriculture, pastoralism (cattle rearing), trade, and commerce.
Shudras: Associated with serving the other three varnas, performing manual labour. Occupied the lowest position.

This system was often presented as divinely ordained, stemming from different parts of a primeval being (Purusha Sukta in the Rigveda, although the varna system was less rigid in the Early Vedic period).

Features of the Varna System (as it developed):

Hierarchy: The varnas were arranged in a hierarchical order, with Brahmins at the top and Shudras at the bottom.
Birth-based: Over time, the varna system became hereditary, with a person's varna determined by birth.
Rules and norms: Texts like the Dharmashastras laid down rules about the 'ideal' occupations, duties, and social interactions for each varna.
Restrictions: Restrictions were placed on inter-varna marriage and dining. Access to Vedic knowledge and rituals was often limited for lower varnas.

While the varna system was a theoretical framework described in texts, the actual social reality was more complex, with variations across regions and over time, and the existence of other social groups (jatis) and those outside the varna framework.

Finding Out About Social Differences (Megaliths)

Archaeological evidence can provide clues about social differences that existed in the past, even in societies without written records or before the full development of rigid social hierarchies described in later texts. Megalithic burial sites in South India are an example of this.

Evidence from Megalithic Burials:

Megaliths are large stone structures, often marking burial sites, found across the Deccan and South India, dating back around 3000 years ago.
Archaeologists excavating these burial sites have found evidence suggesting social differences among the people buried.
Variations in grave goods: Some burials contain more objects, or objects made of more precious or difficult-to-obtain materials, compared to others. For example, some burials have only simple pottery, while others include iron tools and weapons, gold ornaments, or beads made of semi-precious stones.
Variations in burial structures: While the general practice was burial in pits marked by large stones, there might have been variations in the size or elaborateness of the stone structures.
Multiple burials: Finding evidence of multiple individuals buried in the same spot, sometimes over a period, might suggest family burials or burial practices specific to certain groups.

Image showing archaeological finds from a megalithic burial (iron tools, pottery, ornaments)

*(Image shows a photograph or illustration of artifacts recovered from a megalithic burial site, such as iron implements, black and red pottery, and perhaps beads)*

The differences in the type and quantity of grave goods found in megalithic burials are interpreted by archaeologists as indicators of social differences – some people likely had more wealth or higher status than others in that society. These silent sentinels provide valuable, albeit indirect, evidence of social stratification in ancient India.

A Special Burial At Inamgaon

Inamgaon is an archaeological site in Maharashtra, associated with early farming communities dating back from around 3600 to 2700 years ago. Excavations at Inamgaon have also provided insights into social organisation and burial practices, including some burials that appear special, suggesting social distinctions.

Evidence from Inamgaon Burials:

At Inamgaon, the dead were usually buried in the ground, often inside the houses.
Bodies were typically laid out straight, with the head towards the north.
Grave goods like pottery containing food and water were placed with the deceased.
One particular burial found in the central part of the settlement, in a large, four-roomed mud house (which was perhaps a chief's house), was special.
In this burial, a man was found buried in a large, clay jar in a cross-legged position.
This form of burial (in a large jar and in a cross-legged position), and its location within a large house in the centre of the settlement, sets it apart from other burials at the site.

Illustration or diagram of the special burial in a jar at Inamgaon

*(Image shows an illustration or diagram depicting a human skeleton placed within a large pottery jar, perhaps in a cross-legged posture, as found in the special burial at Inamgaon)*

Archaeologists interpret this special burial as evidence of a high-status individual, possibly a chief or leader of the community. The location of the house, its size, and the unique nature of the burial suggest social and political differences existed within this early farming community.

What Skeletal Studies Tell Us (Inamgaon)

Studying human skeletons found at archaeological sites like Inamgaon provides valuable information about the people who lived in the past, complementing the insights gained from artifacts and structures. Skeletal analysis (osteology) can reveal details about their health, diet, age, sex, and sometimes even cause of death.

Information from Skeletal Studies at Inamgaon:

Age: By examining the development of bones and teeth, archaeologists can estimate the age of the individual at death (e.g., infant, child, adult, old adult).
Sex: Differences in bone structure, particularly in the pelvis and skull, allow archaeologists to determine the sex of adult skeletons.
Health and Diet: Studies of bones can reveal signs of diseases, nutritional deficiencies, or injuries. For example, marks on bones can indicate infections or trauma. The condition of teeth can provide clues about diet and health. The presence of certain trace elements in bones can also indicate dietary sources.
Height and Physical Build: Bone measurements can help estimate the height and general physical build of individuals.
Activities: Wear and tear patterns on bones or specific bone developments can sometimes suggest types of physical activities individuals engaged in.

Findings from Inamgaon Skeletons:

Studies of skeletons from Inamgaon have shown that the population included individuals of different ages and sexes.
Evidence of certain health issues or nutritional statuses has been found. For example, analyses have indicated possible signs of anaemia or other deficiencies in some individuals.
The bones of children have also been studied, providing insights into infant and child mortality.

Combining the information from skeletal studies with evidence from grave goods, burial practices, and settlement patterns allows archaeologists to build a more comprehensive picture of the life, health, and possibly social organisation of the people who lived and died at sites like Inamgaon.

Kinship And Marriage Many Rules And Varied Practices

Family, kinship, and marriage are fundamental aspects of social organisation in all human societies. In ancient India, texts like the Mahabharata and the Dharmashastras, along with inscriptions and archaeological evidence, provide insights into the rules and practices related to these aspects, highlighting both prescribed norms and variations in practice.

Finding Out About Families

Historians study texts like the Mahabharata to understand family structures and relationships in ancient times. The Mahabharata is essentially a story about a conflict between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas and the Pandavas, who belonged to the same lineage or kula (family).
Texts provide information about rules of patriliny (descent through the father), rules of marriage, and the position of women within the family structure.
Inscriptions recording genealogies or property transfers can also shed light on family structures and inheritance patterns.

The Ideal Of Patriliny

From the Later Vedic period onwards, the ideal of patriliny (descent from father to son, grandson, etc.) became increasingly important, especially among ruling families and higher varnas.
Sons were considered important for carrying on the family lineage and performing ancestral rites.
The Mahabharata narrative reinforces the importance of patriliny, as the conflict is over the succession to the throne, which is expected to pass from father to son.
This emphasis on patriliny was not universally followed in practice, and variations existed.

Rules Of Marriage

Texts like the Dharmashastras laid down detailed rules about marriage.
One important rule was exogamy, marrying outside one's own kin group (gotra). The idea was to prevent 'incest' within closely related individuals.
Marriage within the kin group (endogamy) was also practised in some communities, particularly in South India.
Different forms of marriage were described, with varying degrees of social approval.
Polygyny (one man having multiple wives) and Polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) were also practised in certain communities or royal families, although monogamy was often presented as an ideal. The example of Draupadi marrying the five Pandava brothers in the Mahabharata is a notable instance of polyandry, which is explained within the epic's narrative.

Rules of marriage were often linked to varna and social status, reflecting attempts to maintain social boundaries and purity of lineage.

The Gotra Of Women

From about 500 BCE onwards, the Brahmanical practice of classifying people into gotras (based on the name of a Vedic sage) became common.
Two rules were prescribed regarding gotra:
1. Members of the same gotra could not marry.
2. Women were expected to give up their father's gotra after marriage and adopt their husband's gotra.
Historians have found exceptions to these rules. In inscriptions from the Satavahana rulers (Deccan, 2nd century BCE - 2nd century CE), some queens who married into the royal family are shown to have retained their father's gotra even after marriage. They also gave their children the name of their father's gotra. This suggests that the Brahmanical rules regarding gotra were not universally followed.

These examples highlight the gap between the norms prescribed in texts and the actual practices in society.

Were Mothers Important?

While patriliny and the importance of sons were emphasised in texts and practices, there is evidence that mothers and women held significant positions within families and society in some cases.
For example, the Satavahana rulers are identified in inscriptions by names derived from their mothers (e.g., Gautamiputra Satakarni - son of Gautami; Vashishtiputra Pulamavi - son of Vasishthi). This is known as a matronymic.
While succession to the throne was generally patrilineal, the prominence given to mothers' names in the Satavahana inscriptions suggests that mothers held important status within these royal families.

The study of kinship and marriage in ancient India reveals a complex picture with prescribed rules, varied practices across different regions and communities, and evolving norms over time, reflecting the dynamic nature of social structures.

Social Differences: Within And Beyond The Framework Of Caste

The Varna system was a theoretical framework for social hierarchy, but the reality of social differences in ancient India was more complex. Other social groups existed, and there were instances that did not fit neatly within the four-varna model.

Jatis And Social Mobility

Besides the four varnas, ancient Indian society was also characterised by the presence of numerous jatis. Jatis were often based on occupation and were more specific groupings than varnas (e.g., goldsmiths, weavers, carpenters belonging to different jatis).
Jatis were hierarchical and often hereditary. Rules about marriage and social interaction were often stricter at the jati level.
Unlike the rigid theoretical varna system, jatis were more flexible in practice. New jatis could emerge based on new occupations or integration of groups.
There were instances of social mobility, where individuals or groups could change their jati status over time by changing their occupation, accumulating wealth, or migrating to new areas.

The “Right” Occupation

Dharmashastras prescribed the 'ideal' occupations for each varna. Brahmins were expected to study and teach, Kshatriyas to rule and fight, Vaishyas to farm and trade, and Shudras to serve.
However, in reality, people did not always follow these prescribed occupations. Brahmins sometimes took up trade or administration, and people from other varnas engaged in warfare or ruling.

Non-Kshatriya Kings

According to the varna system, only Kshatriyas were supposed to be kings. However, many powerful ruling dynasties in ancient India originated from groups that were not classified as Kshatriyas according to Brahmanical texts.
Example: The Mauryas, who founded the first major empire, were considered to be of Shudra origin according to some sources.
The Satavahanas, a powerful dynasty in the Deccan, originated from a group that was not considered Kshatriyas. The most famous Satavahana ruler, Gautamiputra Satakarni, claimed to have destroyed the pride of the Kshatriyas, while he himself was likely of Brahmana or mixed Kshatriya-Brahmana origin according to different interpretations.
The Guptas, who ruled a large empire in North India, were likely Vaishyas.

These examples demonstrate that political power was not strictly limited to the Kshatriya varna, and people from other groups could and did become rulers, challenging the theoretical varna framework.

Beyond The Four Varnas: Integration

The varna system only theoretically included four groups. However, many groups in ancient India did not fit into this framework.
These included people living in forests (hunters, gatherers), nomadic groups, and groups who performed occupations considered polluting by the Brahmanical system.
Over time, some of these groups were integrated into the varna system, often by being classified as Shudras or by the formation of new jatis based on their occupation.

Beyond The Four Varnas Subordination And Conflict

Some groups were placed completely outside the varna framework and were considered 'untouchables'. These groups performed tasks considered ritually impure (e.g., handling dead bodies, cleaning waste).
They were subjected to severe discrimination and social exclusion. Texts described rules meant to maintain physical distance and prevent contact with them.
These groups were often subjected to subordination and faced conflict when they challenged the varna-based hierarchy and discrimination.

The study of social differences in ancient India reveals a complex reality shaped by the theoretical varna system, the more fluid system of jatis, social mobility, and the existence of marginalised groups outside the varna framework, with ongoing processes of integration, subordination, and conflict.

Beyond Birth Resources And Status

While birth (varna and jati) was a major factor influencing social status and access to resources in ancient India, there were also instances where other factors like wealth and gender played a role, and situations that presented alternative social models.

Gendered Access To Property

Generally, in ancient India, access to property was primarily controlled by men.
Under patrilineal systems, sons inherited the property of their fathers.
Women's access to property was often limited. According to Dharmashastras, a woman could inherit property only in specific circumstances, such as 'streedhana' (gifts received at the time of marriage), which she could dispose of without her husband's permission.
However, women were generally not entitled to a share in the ancestral property of their fathers.
This gendered access to resources was a significant factor in determining the social and economic position of women.

Varna And Access To Property

Texts also suggested a varna-based differential access to property.
Brahmins and Kshatriyas were often associated with higher status and control over land and resources (through land grants, revenue collection).
Vaishyas were associated with wealth through agriculture, trade, and pastoralism.
Shudras were primarily seen as labourers with limited access to property or resources.
While these were textual prescriptions, actual control over resources varied based on political power, regional customs, and individual circumstances.

An Alternative Social Scenario: Sharing Wealth

While texts and practices often highlighted hierarchies and unequal access to resources, some traditions and texts presented alternative social scenarios.
For example, the Tamil Sangam texts (from South India, c. 3rd century BCE - 3rd century CE) describe a society where wealth was often shared or redistributed.
Chiefs were often praised for their generosity and for distributing resources (food, wealth) among their followers and bards.
There are descriptions of wealth being accumulated and then shared in feasts and gatherings.
This suggests that in some ancient Indian societies or during certain periods, practices of wealth accumulation and distribution differed from the more stratified and unequal models described in Brahmanical texts from North India.

Studying different types of sources, including regional literature and archaeological finds (e.g., evidence of communal feasting), helps reveal the variations and complexities in social structures and access to resources across ancient India, showing that birth was not the only determinant of status and that alternative social practices existed alongside dominant norms.

Explaining Social Differences: A Social Contract

Ancient Indian texts not only described the social structure (like the varna system) but also sometimes offered explanations or justifications for the existence of social differences and the role of the state in maintaining order.

Brahmanical Explanations:

Texts like the Dharmashastras presented the varna system as divinely ordained, stemming from a cosmic being. This provided a religious justification for the hierarchy.
They also laid down rules for maintaining this order and prescribed punishments for violating caste norms.

Buddhist Perspective:

Buddhist texts offered a different perspective on social differences. They did not accept the divine origin or inherent inequality of the varna system based on birth.
They often explained social differences as a result of actions (karma) in past lives or as a consequence of social organisation rather than divine decree.
Some Buddhist texts also put forward a theory of social contract to explain the origin of the state and social order.

The Buddhist Social Contract Theory:

Buddhist texts suggest that in the early stages, humans lived in a state of nature where everyone was equal and there was no private property.

However, as people started cultivating land and accumulating private property, conflicts and disputes arose (theft, violence, falsehood).

To resolve these problems and establish order, people collectively agreed to choose a leader (the 'great elect' or Mahasammata) and pay him taxes in return for protection and maintaining justice.

This leader became the king, and the state emerged as a result of this voluntary agreement by the people to ensure peace and order.

This theory suggests that the state and social hierarchy were human creations, arising out of necessity for order and justice, rather than being divinely imposed. It implied that the king's authority was based on the consent of the people and that his duty was to protect them and uphold justice.

This Buddhist perspective on social contract provided an alternative explanation for the origin of the state and social order compared to the Brahmanical emphasis on divine origin and varna hierarchy. Studying these different textual explanations helps historians understand the various ways in which social differences and political authority were perceived and justified in ancient India.