Silk route was a
network of many roads that merchants used for the trade of silk, and spices.
for exchange with not only China, but also with Japan, Persia, and many other countries.
It was prominent till the end of the Kushan Empire in India which then was
replaced by safer sea routes. China has started revive of the ancient silk
route. (December 28, 2016
http://www.iiiem.in/blog/amazingly-efficient-trade-logistics-in-ancient-india/)
The Grand route, or
the Grand Trunk Road or the G.T Road was bulit during the Mauryan Empireand
Sher Shah Suri extended the road to great length during the sixteenth century..
from the modern day Bangladesh in the east to Afghanistan in the west. ‘The
route was a lifeline to facilitate uninterrupted trade between India and
Western Asia.’
‘Over 90% of the trade was via sea routes from
a large number of ports like Lothal in the present day Gujarat, to Surat,
Sopara , Vizag ontrading to the Mediterranean Sea and to many Southeast Asian
countries for saling gold, spices, cotton, and many more goods that are
valuable. They were taken to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Africa, Arabian Peninsula and
many other regions of the world via sea routes across the Indian Ocean. during
the rule of Pallavas, Cholas and the Chalukyas The trade reached its pinnacle. http://www.iiiem.in/blog/amazingly-efficient-trade-logistics-in-ancient-india/)
Following list will
make the subject more pointed :
India had Imports
like
Raw Materials
- Gold: Afghanistan and Karnataka
- Silver: Afghanistan and Iran
- Copper: Oman, Baluchistan and Rajasthan
- Lead: East or south India
- Lapis lazuli: Baluchistan and Afghanistan
- Fuchsite: Northern Karnataka
- Amethyst: Maharashtra
- Agate: Baluchistan and Gujarat
- Chalcedony: Baluchistan and Gujarat
- Carnelian: Baluchistan and Gujarat
- Jade: Central Asia
- Turquoise: Baluchistan and Iran
- Shell: Gujarat, Karachi and Oman
- Ivory: Gujarat and Punjab
- Mother of Pearl: Oman
- Wool: Mesopotamia
- Incense: Mesopotamia
Manufactured Goods
- Carved chlorite containers: Baluchistan and
Iran
- Green schist containers: Baluchistan and Iran
- Fuchsite containers: Baluchistan and Afghanistan
Exports
Raw Materials
- Gold: Mesopotamia
- Silver: Mesopotamia
- Bronze: Mesopotamia
- Ebony
- Ivory: Oman
- Indigo: Oman
- Wood: Oman
- Livestock: Oman
- Grain: Oman
- Fresh fruit: Oman
Manufactured Goods
- Carnelian beads: Mesopotamia
- Shell inlays: Mesopotamia
- Shell bangles: Mesopotamia
- Lapis lazuli: Mesopotamia
- Bone inlays
- Clarified Butter: Oman
- Pickled vegetables: Oman
- Pickled fruits: Oman
- Honey: Oman
- Chert weights: Oman
- Wine: Oman
Manufactured Objects
- Gold
- beads
- pendants
- amulets
- brooches
- needles
- ornaments
- Silver
- large utensils
- buckles
- Ivory
- combs
- carved cylinders (for
seals, small sticks and pins)
- Shell
- beads
- bracelets
- decorative inlays
- Steatite beads
- bracelets
- buttons
- vessels
- faience
- amulets
- sealings
- Faience bangles
- rings
- miniature animals
- pots
- Terracotta
- animals
- toy carts
- whistles
- rattles
- birds and animals
- gamesmen
- discs
- beads
- Agate
- beads
- Carnelian
- beads
- Chalcedony weights
Manufacturing Areas
Kalibangan
- steatite beads
Saraikhola
- lapis lazuli beads
Chanhudaro
- shell and bone artefacts
Dholavira
- carnelian bead processing
Lothal
Mehergarh
- painted pottery
- steatite ornaments
- faience ornaments
- metal tools
- agate and carnelian beads
- inlaid objects
Harappan Ports
- Lothal
- Sutkagen-dor
- Sotka-koh
- Balakot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chalcolithic http://www.ancientindia.co.uk/staff/resources/background/bg23/home.htmlFollowing
table gives how cities grew in anient India
British East India Company rule (1764–1857) over 250 million acres
(1,000,000 km2), or 35 percent of Indian domain. Indirect rule was
established on buffer states.
Ray
(2009) explains when did the industry begin to decay, what was the extent of
its decay during the early 19th century, and why it happened. Ray uses the industry's market performance
and its consumption of raw materials and emphasizes that the decline actually
started in the mid-1820 s and reached a crisis by 1860, when 563,000 workers
lost their jobs. ‘The industry shrank by about 28% by 1850 and just survived as
British policies depressed the industry's exports, but suggests its decay is
better explained by technological innovations in Britain.’
“Many
historians point to colonization as a major factor in both India's deindustrialization and Britain's Industrial
Revolution.[55][56][57][77]
The
capital amassed from Bengal following its 1757 conquest supported investment in
British industries such as textile manufacture during the Industrial
Revolution as
well as increasing British wealth, while contributing to deindustrialization
and famines in Bengal;[55][56][57][54] following the British conquest, a
devastating famine
broke out in Bengal in the early 1770s, killing a third of the Bengali population and 5
percent of the national population.[78] Colonization forced the large Indian market
to open to British goods, which could be sold in India without tariffs or duties, compared to heavily taxed local Indian
producers. In Britain protectionist policies such as high tariffs
restricted Indian textile sales. By contrast, raw cotton was imported without
tariffs to British factories which manufactured textiles and sold them back to
India. British economic policies gave them a monopoly over India's large market
and cotton resources.[79][66][80] India served as both a significant supplier
of raw goods to British manufacturers and a large captive market for British manufactured goods.[81]”
Bengal
was still a major exporter of cotton cloth to the Americas and the Indian Ocean in 1811, However, Bengali exports declined
over the course of the early 19th century, as British imports to Bengal
increased, from 25% in 1811 to 93% in 1840.[82]
Stephen Broadberry and
Bishnupriya Gupta gave the following comparative estimates for Indian and UK
populations and GDP per capita during 1600–1871 in terms of 1990 international
dollars.[25][84][85]
Year |
India
($) |
UK
($) |
Ratio
(%) |
India
population (m) |
UK
population (m) |
1600 |
782 |
1,104 |
72 |
142 |
5 |
1650 |
736 |
904 |
83 |
142 |
5.8 |
1700 |
719 |
1,477 |
49.3 |
164 |
8.8 |
1751 |
661 |
1,678 |
39.9 |
190 |
9.2 |
1801 |
639 |
2,142 |
32.6 |
207 |
16.3 |
1811 |
609 |
2,093 |
29.6 |
215 |
18.5 |
1821 |
580 |
2,090 |
28.2 |
205 |
21.0 |
1831 |
585 |
2,176 |
26.6 |
216 |
24.1 |
1841 |
584 |
2,380 |
24.6 |
212 |
26.9 |
1851 |
586 |
2,721 |
21.9 |
232 |
27.5 |
1861 |
554 |
3,065 |
18.0 |
244 |
29.1 |
1871 |
526 |
3,629 |
14.5 |
256 |
31.6 |
However, Parthasarathi criticised
the per-capita GDP estimates from Broadberry and Gupta.[27][4] Workers in the textile industry, for
example, earned more in Bengal and Mysore than they did in Britain, while
agricultural labour in Britain had to work longer hours to earn the same amount
as in Mysore.[5] Others such as Andre
Gunder Frank,
Robert A. Denemark, Kenneth Pomeranz and Amiya
Kumar Bagchi also
criticised estimates that showed low per-capita income and GDP growth rates in
Asia (especially China and India) prior to the 19th century, pointing to later
research that found significantly higher per-capita income and growth rates in
China and India during that period.[86]
Economic historian Sashi
Sivramkrishna estimates Mysore's average per-capita income in the late 18th century to be five
times higher than subsistence,[27] i.e. five times higher than $400 (1990 international
dollars),[63] or $2,000 per capita. In comparison, the
highest national per-capita incomes in 1820 were $1,838 for the Netherlands and
$1,706 for Britain.[64] According to economic historian Paul Bairoch, India as well as China had a
higher GDP per capita than Europe in 1750.[87][88] For 1750, Bairoch estimated the GNP per
capita for the Western world to be $182 in 1960 US dollars ($804 in 1990 dollars) and for the
non-Western world to be $188 in 1960 dollars ($830 in 1990 dollars), exceeded
by both China and India.[89] Other estimates he gives include $150–190
for England in 1700 and $160–210 for India in 1800.[90] Bairoch estimated that it was only after
1800 that Western European per-capita income pulled ahead.[91]
No comments:
Post a Comment