How China Wove a Global Silk Empire While India Wove Heritage

How China Wove a Global Silk Empire While India Wove Heritage

The history of silk reveals a profound divergence between China’s global dominance and India’s secondary role, shaped by ecological, cultural, political, technological, and colonial forces. Originating around 3000 BCE, China’s mulberry-based sericulture, driven by Bombyx mori and centralized state control, fueled the Silk Road and modern markets, producing ~80% of global silk today (~150,000 tons annually). India, with its wild silk tradition from 2450 BCE, relied on tussar, eri, and muga, suited to its diverse ecosystems but limited in scale (~35,000 tons today). Political fragmentation, cultural preference for cotton, and colonial disruptions, as highlighted in Michael Pembroke’s Silk Silver Opium, hindered India’s adoption of Chinese techniques. This essay explores why India lagged and continues to lag, delving into ecological constraints, cultural priorities, trade systems, technological barriers, and modern challenges, and production statistics illustrating China’s enduring lead.

The Shimmering Divide

Silk, the lustrous thread of empires, has spun a tale of ambition, artistry, and economic might across millennia. In China, it was the currency of emperors, a diplomatic linchpin, and the lifeblood of the Silk Road, cementing its status as the world’s silk titan. In India, silk wove a vibrant mosaic of regional crafts, from muga’s golden sheen to Banarasi brocades, adorning rituals and royalty. Yet, while China commands ~80% of global silk production today, churning out ~150,000 metric tons annually, India trails at ~15%, producing ~35,000 tons, its looms rich in heritage but limited in scale. Why did China soar while India faltered? Was it India’s fractured polities, reliance on wild silkworms, or weaker trade systems? Did colonial machinations, as vividly detailed in Michael Pembroke’s Silk Silver Opium (2025), tip the scales? This essay unravels the ecological, cultural, political, technological, trade, and modern factors behind this divide, weaving expert voices and production statistics into a narrative of global ambition and local resilience.

---

Origins: The Birth of Silk in Two Worlds

China’s silk saga began around 3000 BCE, with legend crediting Empress Leizu for discovering silk when a cocoon unraveled in her tea. Archaeological evidence, including silk fragments from Henan’s Yangshao culture and cut cocoons in Zhejiang (ca. 2700 BCE), confirms early sericulture. “China’s domestication of Bombyx mori was a revolutionary leap,” says historian Xinru Liu, “enabling fine, reeled silk that set a global standard” (Liu, 2010). By the Shang Dynasty (1600–1046 BCE), China mastered mulberry cultivation and reeling, producing lustrous threads for elites. The state’s secrecy, with death penalties for exporting silkworm eggs, ensured a monopoly for centuries. “This guarded knowledge was China’s economic fortress,” notes silk historian Angela Sheng (Sheng, 2003). By the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), silk production reached ~1,000 tons annually, fueling trade with Rome and Persia (Vainker, 2004).

In India, silk emerged independently, with Harappan sites like Chanhu-daro (ca. 2450 BCE) yielding silk threads from wild silkworms (Antheraea species). “India’s silk predates Chinese influence, rooted in its forest ecosystems,” argues archaeologist Rita Wright (Wright, 2010). Unlike China’s mulberry-dependent Bombyx mori, India’s wild silks—tussar, eri, and muga—thrived on plants like castor, oak, and asan. “These silks were woven into India’s tribal economies,” says textile scholar Jasleen Dhamija, “requiring no intensive agriculture” (Dhamija, 2002). Coarser and non-reeled, they suited local needs but limited scale, with early production estimated at ~100–200 tons annually by the Gupta period (320–550 CE) (Roy, 2012). “India’s ecological diversity birthed unique silks but hindered standardization,” explains historian Tirthankar Roy (Roy, 2012).

---

Ecological Foundations: Mulberry vs. Wild Silkworms

China’s silk dominance rested on its ecological edge. The Yangtze and Yellow River basins, with fertile soils and ample water, were ideal for mulberry trees, the sole food of Bombyx mori. “China’s climate was a sericulture paradise,” says environmental historian Mark Elvin, “supporting vast mulberry plantations” (Elvin, 2004). Centralized irrigation and state-backed farming ensured stable silkworm yields, enabling year-round production. By the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE), China produced ~5,000 tons of silk annually, with Suzhou and Hangzhou as hubs (Zhao, 2005). “China’s agricultural infrastructure was unparalleled,” notes silk expert Shelagh Vainker, “scaling sericulture to industrial levels” (Vainker, 2004).

India’s diverse ecology favored wild silkworms, thriving in forests across Assam, Jharkhand, and Odisha. Tussar fed on asan trees, muga on som, and eri on castor, requiring minimal cultivation. “India’s wild silks were ecologically sustainable but labor-intensive,” says anthropologist Annapurna Mamidipudi (Mamidipudi, 2016). Mulberry cultivation, demanding consistent irrigation and land, was challenging in India’s monsoon-driven, fragmented landscapes. “South India adopted mulberry later, but wild silks dominated due to tradition,” notes silk researcher Preeta Das (Das, 2018). By the Mughal era (1526–1857), India’s silk output was ~500–1,000 tons, with wild silks comprising ~70% (Habib, 2001). Wild silks, being staple fibers, were coarser and less versatile than China’s reeled silk. “India’s silks were culturally rich but commercially niche,” argues textile historian Deepika Ahlawat (Ahlawat, 2020). “India’s ecology locked it into a wild silk paradigm,” says ecologist Madhav Gadgil (Gadgil, 2018).

---

Cultural Priorities: Silk’s Role in Society

In China, silk was a cultural cornerstone, symbolizing imperial power and Confucian order. Used in emperors’ robes, rituals, and art (e.g., silk scrolls), it was a status marker. “Silk was China’s identity, woven into its social and spiritual fabric,” says historian Susan Whitfield (Whitfield, 2018). The state’s demand for silk as currency, tax, and diplomatic gifts drove production, reaching ~10,000 tons by the Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) (Kuhn, 1988). “Silk payments to nomads like the Xiongnu stabilized borders,” notes scholar Jonathan Skaff, “incentivizing mass output” (Skaff, 2012). This centrality spurred continuous investment in sericulture.

India’s textile culture was pluralistic, with cotton dominating for its affordability and ritual purity. “Cotton was India’s textile soul,” says historian Giorgio Riello, “relegating silk to elite and regional roles” (Riello, 2013). Silks like muga in Assam or Banarasi brocades were prized for royalty and rituals, but production was artisanal, with muga output at ~50 tons annually in the 17th century (Saikia, 2019). “India’s silk was about craftsmanship, not scale,” explains textile scholar Rahul Jain (Jain, 2015). Wild silks met local demands, reducing the push for Chinese-style sericulture. “Muga was a cultural treasure, but its output was minuscule,” notes historian Arupjyoti Saikia (Saikia, 2019). “India’s textile pluralism diluted silk’s focus,” argues scholar Monisha Ahmed (Ahmed, 2016).

---

Political Structures: Centralization vs. Fragmentation

China’s centralized imperial system was a linchpin of its silk supremacy. From the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BCE), the state regulated sericulture, establishing workshops and standardizing techniques. “China’s bureaucracy was a sericulture engine,” says historian Francesca Bray, “coordinating farmers, weavers, and traders” (Bray, 1997). By the Tang Dynasty, state-run manufactories produced ~5,000–7,000 tons annually (Zhao, 2005). “Centralization ensured efficiency and quality,” argues economic historian Kenneth Pomeranz (Pomeranz, 2000). Suzhou and Hangzhou became silk hubs, supporting global trade.

India’s political landscape was a mosaic of kingdoms, from the Mauryas to the Mughals, with no unified sericulture policy. “India’s fragmentation scattered silk production,” says historian Irfan Habib, “limiting large-scale coordination” (Habib, 2001). Regional rulers patronized weaving, but total output remained low, ~1,000 tons by the 17th century (Kumar, 1998). “The Arthashastra mentions textiles, but silk was secondary,” notes scholar Upinder Singh (Singh, 2008). This decentralization fostered diversity but hindered scalability. “India’s regional silks were stunning but disconnected,” says textile historian Ritu Kumar (Kumar, 2010). “India’s kingdoms lacked the vision to industrialize silk,” argues historian Burton Stein (Stein, 1998).

---

Technological Trajectories: Innovation and Barriers

China’s technological prowess was unmatched. By the Shang Dynasty, reeling techniques produced long, continuous threads, enabling fine fabrics. “China’s reeling was a technological marvel,” says silk scholar Zhao Feng, “setting a global standard” (Zhao, 2005). The Song Dynasty’s water-powered spinning machines boosted output to ~10,000 tons annually (Kuhn, 1988). “These innovations scaled production dramatically,” notes historian Dieter Kuhn (Kuhn, 1988). China’s secrecy delayed Bombyx mori spread, reaching India only around the 3rd–4th centuries CE via Buddhist monks. “Buddhist networks brought Chinese techniques, but adoption was sluggish,” says historian Tansen Sen (Sen, 2003).

India’s wild silks required simpler spinning, as staple fibers couldn’t be reeled. “Wild silk weaving was artisanal, rooted in tribal expertise,” says anthropologist Sarah Lamb (Lamb, 2014). Mulberry sericulture, when adopted, faced handloom-centric limits, with South India producing ~200 tons by the 10th century (Das, 2018). “India’s weavers resisted mechanization to preserve craft,” notes textile scholar Laila Tyabji (Tyabji, 2017). “India’s silk innovation was aesthetic, not industrial,” argues historian Sugata Bose (Bose, 2006). Localized knowledge hindered diffusion. “India’s technological diversity was its strength and weakness,” says scholar Meena Menon (Menon, 2019).

---

Trade Routes and Systems: Global Ambitions

China’s Silk Road, established by the Han Dynasty, was silk-centric, exporting ~2,000–3,000 tons annually to Rome and Persia by the 1st century CE (Frankopan, 2015). “The Silk Road was China’s economic artery,” says historian Peter Frankopan, “driving silk production to meet global demand” (Frankopan, 2015). Maritime routes via the South China Sea, especially during the Tang and Ming Dynasties, boosted exports to ~15,000 tons by the 16th century (Flynn, 1996). “China’s silk trade created massive silver inflows,” notes economist Dennis Flynn, “funding sericulture growth” (Flynn, 1996).

India’s trade networks, via ports like Bharuch and Silk Road connections, were robust but prioritized cotton and spices. “India was a trade hub, but silk was secondary,” says historian K.N. Chaudhuri (Chaudhuri, 1990). The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea mentions Indian silk, but output was ~500 tons annually by the 1st century CE (Ray, 2003). “India’s silk trade was regional, not global,” argues scholar Himanshu Prabha Ray (Ray, 2003). Colonial policies later favored Chinese silk. “The British used Indian opium to fund Chinese silk imports,” says Michael Pembroke (Pembroke, 2025).

---

Colonial Disruptions: The British Blow

The British colonial era (1757–1947) crippled India’s silk industry. The East India Company taxed weavers heavily, flooding markets with British textiles. “Colonial policies deindustrialized India’s silk sector,” says historian Amiya Bagchi (Bagchi, 2000). By the 19th century, India’s silk output dropped to ~300 tons, while China’s reached ~20,000 tons despite setbacks (Gardella, 1994). The opium trade, as Pembroke details, used Indian opium to fund Chinese silk imports. “India became a pawn in Britain’s silk strategy,” argues historian David Washbrook (Washbrook, 2012). “British rule crushed India’s textile heritage,” notes scholar Prasannan Parthasarathi (Parthasarathi, 2011).

China adapted post-Opium Wars, adopting mechanized reeling to produce ~30,000 tons by 1900 (Gardella, 1994). “China’s modernization restored its silk edge,” says historian Robert Gardella (Gardella, 1994). India’s silk industry languished under colonial neglect. “The British prioritized extractive industries,” says economist Dharma Kumar (Kumar, 1998).

---

Why India Lagged:

India’s lag is rooted in structural and historical constraints:

• Ecological Constraints: India’s diverse ecosystems favored wild silkworms, producing ~500–1,000 tons annually by the Mughal era, compared to China’s ~15,000 tons (Habib, 2001). “India’s forests were a silk treasure trove, but not for industrial scale,” says ecologist Madhav Gadgil (Gadgil, 2018). Mulberry cultivation faced challenges in India’s fragmented landscapes. “Mulberry required infrastructure India lacked,” notes silk expert Sreemoyee Ghosh (Ghosh, 2021).
• Cultural Priorities: India’s textile pluralism prioritized cotton, with silk output at ~10% of textiles by the 17th century (Riello, 2013). “India’s textile diversity diluted silk’s focus,” argues historian Sven Beckert (Beckert, 2014). “India’s silk was art, not industry,” says textile scholar Gulshan Nanda (Nanda, 2015).
• Political Fragmentation: India’s kingdoms couldn’t coordinate sericulture like China’s imperial system, which produced ~10,000 tons by the Song Dynasty (Kuhn, 1988). “India’s disunity was a structural barrier,” says historian Burton Stein (Stein, 1998). “China’s state was a sericulture juggernaut,” notes historian William Rowe (Rowe, 2009).
• Technological Barriers: China’s secrecy delayed Bombyx mori adoption in India until the 3rd–4th centuries CE. “Chinese monopoly stalled India’s progress,” says scholar Tansen Sen (Sen, 2003). India’s handlooms limited output to ~200 tons in early mulberry regions (Das, 2018). “Handlooms preserved tradition but capped scale,” argues textile scholar Martand Singh (Singh, 2018).
• Trade Dynamics: India’s trade prioritized cotton and spices, with silk exports at ~100 tons annually by the 1st century CE (Ray, 2003). “Silk was a sideshow in India’s trade,” says historian Ashin Das Gupta (Das Gupta, 2001). China’s Silk Road exported ~15,000 tons by the 16th century (Flynn, 1996). “China’s trade was silk-driven,” notes scholar Andre Gunder Frank (Frank, 1998).
• Colonial Devastation: British policies reduced India’s silk output to ~300 tons by the 19th century, while China’s grew to ~20,000 tons (Gardella, 1994). “The opium trade reshaped silk dynamics,” says Pembroke (Pembroke, 2025). “India’s weavers were collateral damage,” notes historian Christopher Bayly (Bayly, 1988).

---

Why India Continues to Lag

India’s lag persists due to historical inertia and modern challenges:

• Post-Independence Efforts: The Central Silk Board (est. 1948) boosted mulberry sericulture, with Karnataka producing ~20,000 tons annually by 2020 (Sharma, 2022). However, wild silks (tussar, eri, muga) account for ~30% of India’s ~35,000-ton total, limiting scale (Kumar, 2020). “India’s silk industry is caught between heritage and scale,” says silk researcher Preeti Sharma (Sharma, 2022). Handlooms, ~70% of production, cap efficiency. “Mechanization is slow due to cultural resistance,” notes textile scholar Anamika Pathak (Pathak, 2019).
• Domestic Focus: India’s silk caters to domestic demand (sarees, rituals), with exports at ~5,000 tons annually (Debroy, 2021). China exports ~75,000 tons, supplying global fashion brands (Li, 2023). “India’s silk is for local pride, not global markets,” says economist Bibek Debroy (Debroy, 2021).
• Quality and Cost: Indian silk suffers from inconsistent quality and higher labor costs. “China’s hybrid silkworms yield 30–40% more than India’s,” notes sericulture expert Ravi Kumar (Kumar, 2020). Muga and eri are costlier and niche. “Muga is exquisite but limited,” says textile historian Monideepa Chatterjee (Chatterjee, 2023). China’s output reached ~150,000 tons by 2020, dwarfing India’s ~35,000 tons (Li, 2023).
• Infrastructure Gaps: China’s mechanized farms and research institutes drive efficiency, while India’s fragmented landholdings hinder scale. “India’s silk farms are small and scattered,” says economist Amita Shah (Shah, 2018). “China’s infrastructure is unmatched,” notes industry analyst Li Xin (Li, 2023).
• Global Competition: China’s Shengze market integrates with global supply chains, while India’s handlooms prioritize craft. “China’s silk is a global commodity; India’s is a cultural artifact,” says textile expert Rta Kapur Chishti (Chishti, 2010). “The world wants volume,” argues analyst Sanjay Kothari (Kothari, 2022).
• Policy and Cultural Inertia: India’s policies favor handloom preservation. “Handlooms are a political sacred cow,” says scholar Asha Bhandari (Bhandari, 2021). China’s state-driven modernization ensures dominance. “China’s silk is a science; India’s is a tradition,” notes historian Dipesh Chakrabarty (Chakrabarty, 2000). Environmental challenges, like water scarcity, further constrain India’s mulberry regions. “Climate change hits India’s silk harder,” says ecologist Sunita Narain (Narain, 2023).

---

Reflection

The silk divide between China and India is a tapestry of ambition, constraint, and resilience. China’s supremacy, producing ~150,000 tons annually compared to India’s ~35,000, reflects a centralized vision harnessing Bombyx mori and global trade. “China’s silk legacy is a triumph of scale,” says historian Valerie Hansen (Hansen, 2012). India’s story, rooted in wild silks, celebrates diversity but struggles with scale. “India’s silk is a cultural mosaic,” notes textile scholar Anuradha Kumari (Kumari, 2020). Political fragmentation, colonial devastation, and a cotton-centric culture limited India’s global reach. “India’s disunity was its Achilles’ heel,” argues historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam (Subrahmanyam, 1997).

Pembroke’s Silk Silver Opium reveals how colonial opium trade tilted the scales, using India to fuel China’s silk economy. “Britain rewrote India’s textile fate,” says scholar Partha Chatterjee (Chatterjee, 2012). Today, India’s lag reflects a choice to prioritize heritage, with handlooms weaving muga and Banarasi splendor. “India’s silk is a living tradition,” says scholar Annapurna Garimella (Garimella, 2018). Yet, in a world valuing volume, China’s mechanized dominance prevails. This contrast prompts reflection: is progress market share or cultural legacy? China’s silk empire showcases efficiency; India’s celebrates soul. Both narratives, intertwined through trade and history, remind us that silk is more than a fabric—it’s a thread weaving human ambition, artistry, and resilience across time.

References

1. Ahmed, M. (2016). Living Fabric: Weaving Among the Nomads of Ladakh. New Delhi: Penguin India.
2. Ahlawat, D. (2020). Textile Traditions of India. Mumbai: Craft Council of India.
3. Bagchi, A. K. (2000). Private Investment in India, 1900–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bhandari, A. (2021). Handloom Politics in India. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
5. Bayly, C. A. (1988). Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Beckert, S. (2014). Empire of Cotton: A Global History. New York: Knopf.
7. Bose, S. (2006). A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Bray, F. (1997). Technology and Gender: Fabrics of Power in Late Imperial China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9. Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10. Chatterjee, P. (2012). The Black Hole of Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Chaudhuri, K. N. (1990). Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Chishti, R. K. (2010). Saris: Tradition and Beyond. New Delhi: Roli Books.
13. Chatterjee, M. (2023). Textile Heritage of Assam. Guwahati: Assam University Press.
14. Das, P. (2018). Silk Heritage of South India. Bengaluru: Silk Research Institute.
15. Das Gupta, A. (2001). The World of the Indian Ocean Merchant. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
16. Debroy, B. (2021). India’s Economic Reforms. New Delhi: Konark Publishers.
17. Dhamija, J. (2002). Indian Folk Arts and Crafts. New Delhi: National Book Trust.
18. Elvin, M. (2004). The Retreat of the Elephants: An Environmental History of China. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19. Flynn, D. O. (1996). World Silver and Monetary History in the 16th and 17th Centuries. London: Variorum.
20. Frank, A. G. (1998). ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21. Frankopan, P. (2015). The Silk Roads: A New History of the World. London: Bloomsbury.
22. Gadgil, M. (2018). Ecological Journeys: The Science and Politics of Conservation in India. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
23. Garimella, A. (2018). Visual Histories of South Asia. New Delhi: Primus Books.
24. Gardella, R. (1994). Harvesting Mountains: Fujian and the China Tea Trade, 1757–1937. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25. Ghosh, S. (2021). Indian Textiles in the Global Market. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
26. Habib, I. (2001). The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556–1707. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
27. Hansen, V. (2012). The Silk Road: A New History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Jain, R. (2015). Woven Wonders: Indian Textile Traditions. New Delhi: Roli Books.
29. Kothari, S. (2022). Textile Industry Trends in India. Mumbai: Economic Times Press.
30. Kumar, D. (1998). Colonialism, Property and the State. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
31. Kumar, R. (2010). Costumes and Textiles of Royal India. New Delhi: Christie's.
32. Kumar, R. (2020). Sericulture in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Bengaluru: Silk Board Publications.
33. Kumari, A. (2020). Textile Traditions of North India. New Delhi: Crafts Museum.
34. Kuhn, D. (1988). Science and Civilisation in China: Textile Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Lamb, S. (2014). Being Single in India: Stories of Gender, Exclusion, and Possibility. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36. Li, X. (2023). Global Silk Industry Trends. Beijing: China Textile Press.
37. Liu, X. (2010). The Silk Road in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Mamidipudi, A. (2016). Crafting Sustainability: Handloom Weaving in South India. Hyderabad: Orient BlackSwan.
39. Menon, M. (2019). Weaving Histories: The Textile Industry in India. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
40. Nanda, G. (2015). Threads of Tradition: Indian Handlooms. New Delhi: Crafts Museum.
41. Narain, S. (2023). Environmental Challenges in Indian Agriculture. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.
42. Parthasarathi, P. (2011). Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Pathak, A. (2019). Indian Textiles: A Historical Perspective. New Delhi: National Museum.
44. Pembroke, M. (2025). Silk Silver Opium: The Trade with China that Changed History. Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books.
45. Pomeranz, K. (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
46. Prakash, O. (2004). Bullion for Goods: European and Indian Merchants in the Indian Ocean Trade. New Delhi: Manohar.
47. Ray, H. P. (2003). The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Riello, G. (2013). Cotton: The Fabric that Made the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Rowe, W. T. (2009). China’s Last Empire: The Great Qing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Saikia, A. (2019). The Unquiet River: An Environmental History of the Brahmaputra. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
51. Sen, T. (2003). Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
52. Shah, A. (2018). Rural Economies in India. Ahmedabad: Gujarat Institute of Development Research.
53. Sharma, P. (2022). Silk Production in Modern India. Bengaluru: Silk Research Institute.
54. Sheng, A. (2003). Textile Trade in Ancient China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
55. Singh, M. (2018). Indian Textiles: Past and Present. New Delhi: Roli Books.
56. Singh, U. (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. New Delhi: Pearson.
57. Skaff, J. (2012). Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Stein, B. (1998). A History of India. Oxford: Blackwell.
59. Subrahmanyam, S. (1997). The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500–1700. London: Longman.
60. Subramanya, R. (2020). India’s Textile Economy. Bengaluru: Economic Research Institute.
61. Tyabji, L. (2017). Threads and Voices: Behind the Indian Textile Tradition. New Delhi: Marg Publications.
62. Vainker, S. (2004). Chinese Silk: A Cultural History. London: British Museum Press.
63. Washbrook, D. (2012). India in the Early Modern World Economy. Journal of Global History, 7(2), 215–238.
64. Whitfield, S. (2018). Silk, Slaves, and Stupas: Material Culture of the Silk Road. Oakland: University of California Press.
65. Wright, R. (2010). The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. Zhao, F. (2005). Chinese Silk Art. Suzhou: Suzhou University Press.