5 Territorial and Transterritorial Economic Actors in Early Historic South Asia

Abstract

The period between 300  to 300  is one of change and, in general terms, growth, which was the result of cooperation of different sociopolitical participants in the economy.1 This chapter discusses the major actors that participated in and influenced various economic functions in early historic South Asia. The purpose here is to briefly introduce those engaged in different economic behaviors of production, consumption, acquisition, and redistribution of goods, services, and knowledge. As these behaviors are not strictly exclusive, this chapter is organized to highlight the capacities (individual or collective) in which the actors direct their wealth and pursue their economic goals. Here, the emphasis is on who are the actors and what are their functions in the economy. The questions about the structures within which these actors operated, and the various institutions they developed are discussed in my chapter below.2 Structurally, this chapter organizes the actors based on their geographical scope of operation and radius of interaction, moving from smaller to greater spheres of influence. Within this trajectory, I alternate between actors with a clear territorial base and those with a transterritorial presence, which do not necessarily have a physically identifiable core tied to a territory or locality. I begin with the domestic households at the core of the economy, which were the most basic production and consumption units in addition to being the primary provider of human resources to all other socioeconomic organizations. I then go on to discuss the providers of manual labor, who were the first point of contact for fulfilling the labor demands of a household that cannot be fulfilled by the members of the household themselves. Therefore, while the household was an institution with a core, its transterritorial counterparts were the manual laborers. Local elites could be both territorial, when their wealth was based on agriculture; and transterritorial, when their wealth was based on trade. Mercantile and professional corporate bodies, and their territorial counterparts, settlements and cities, were more complex organizationally and operated over larger distances. Finally, the Buddhist monastic system and the monarchical state had the largest spheres of economic influence. The institution of state was bound to a dynasty and its territorial boundaries, while in contrast the monasteries had a pan-Indic presence, and a network of transmission and connection without capitals or administrative centers, surviving through political changes and the rise and fall of dynasties.