Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c10.18.2

c10.18.2

Thus we have got a South-Indian inscription of Śaka 1231,¹ where Gaṇḍamāḍa has been called a Nishka. This Gaṇḍamāḍa has in another inscription² been explained as a māḍai or coin of Gaṇḍagopāla which clearly shows that it cannot be identical with the Nishka of Manu. We thus perceive that the Nishka denomination mentioned in the Vedic and the Jātaka literature and detailed in the Manusaṃhitā had really gone out of vogue long before the fifth century A.D., though the mere name Nishka had been preserved up till the 14th century, to denote other coins. Not much different was the case with Śatāmāna which is another gold denomination of the periods just referred to. For, we do not find any trace of this coin in literature or in inscriptions after the beginning of the Christian era. No doubt, that word occurs in the Amarakosha, but there is no evidence that this lexicon is here dealing with a class of coins actually prevalent at the time of its composition. In the case of Nishka, we have seen that the Amarakosha makes it synonymous with Dīnāra which was then in actual use. But there is no such evidence to show that by Śatamāna the Amarakosha is referring to some coin of its period. The mere occurrence of the word Śatamāna in this lexicon is, therefore, of no consequence, for lexicons have to take cognizance of all words whether there are any objects corresponding to them or not. Such was not, however, the case with Suvarṇa which is the third denomination of gold coins.