EXPLORATION OF SETTLEMENT PLANNING IN EARLY HISTORIC TO EARLY MEDIEVAL INDIA W.R.T. VĀSTUŚĀSTRA

Abstract

The most important takeaway from this research is that historicizing traditional Indian architectural literature also humanizes it. This can lead to a better understanding of the context of the texts and their milieu, thus both aiding academic investigations as well as deconstructing popular beliefs. The understanding is obtained that the earliest seminal texts on Vāstuśāstra (such as the Gṛhyasūtras, the Arthaśāstra and the Brihat Samhitā) were texts that depended less on the traditional exegesis of older authoritative literature and contributed descriptive observations of contemporary praxis. This could indicate that Vāstuśāstra was never meant to be set in stone; but was generated within a dynamic process of observation, description, and prescription of contemporary building traditions. The original research question of the influence of contemporarily recognized Vāstuśāstra texts and traditions on historic Indian settlement planning is thus demonstrated to have been effective only if the settlements were planned after 1000 CE. The review of historic literature and archaeological research demonstrates that the cities and settlements popularly held to have been planned according to Vāstuśāstra such as Madurai, Jaipur etc. have no contemporaneous epigraphic or literary evidence supporting these claims. The research methodology and reviewed literature also demonstrates the invalidity of presenting selective correspondence of built features to textual norms as being reliable indicators of compliance with Vāstuśāstra. The historic settlement of Uttaramerur is shown to have epigraphic evidence for compliance only with Āgamic rules for temple locations and temple architecture, and not for compliance with the later Vāstuśāstra norms for settlement planning. The conclusions formed are that the theory and praxis of architecture and planning in historic India were related but not demonstrably instructive. The history of the practice of Vāstuvidyā (more than 2000 years Before Present) is shown to be older and fundamentally different as compared to the literary tradition of Vāstuśāstra (about 1000 years BP). The increased correspondence of Vāstuśāstra literature and built evidence from 1000 CE onwards is offered as proof of its recent and descriptive origins through technically competent and historical authorship. The emergence of detailed prescriptions for settlement planning in the mature phase of Vāstuśāstra literature (post-1000 CE) is presented as signs for its later and descriptive origins. The methods of literary historicism and deconstructive meta-analysis is enjoined for future research on the Vāstuśāstra corpus.