Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c6: Lecture I. Importance of the Study of Numismatics

Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c6

Language
English

Contents

Lecture I. Importance of the Study of Numismatics

c6.2

Numismatics, as you are all aware, is a science which treats of coins. Before, however, we begin our study of this science, the question must arise: what is the importance of this study for the purpose of the ancient history of India. This question is natural, because it is generally believed that numismatics merely confirms history but seldom modifies or amplifies it. It must be noted, however, that this remark holds good in the case of the history of other countries only, but not of India. No connected written history of this country for any period prior to the Muhammadan conquest has come down to us. We therefore have to construct it as best as we can out of the materials at our disposal. These belong to two main classes, the first of which consists of contemporaneous works whether written as panegyrics by Hindu authors or as descriptive accounts by foreign travellers and historians. The second class of materials is of a more important nature, and comprises epigraphy and numismatics. In the construction of the ancient history of India, coins have therefore to be classed with inscriptions in point of importance. Numismatics is thus like epigraphy an important source of ancient Indian history; in other words, it helps us to construct history and does not merely corroborate it.

c6.3

If numismatics is thus a source of history, as important as epigraphy itself, can it be shown, it may be asked, to shed light on the different aspects of the ancient Indian history? Let us take the Political History first. It is hardly necessary for me to dwell on this point, because many of you are already aware how much beholden Political History is to this science. In a book of the ancient history of India, how often we read about the Indo-Bactrian Greek, Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian and Kushana kings, whose might overshadowed the north of India from about 250 B.C. to about 300 A.D. and who were either ruling conterminously or supplanting each other in succession? What would have been our knowledge of the Indo-Bactrian Greek princes, if we had not had their coins to help us? Of course, some Greek historians like Justin and Strabo have preserved an account of some of them, but this account is of four or five princes only and ranges scarcely over half a century. On the other hand, a study of their coins reveals to us no less than thirty-seven such Greek princes,¹ whose sway extends over two centuries and a half. The condition of their contemporaneous barbarian potentates, *viz.*, the Indo-Scythians,² was even worse. Who would have heard at all of Vonones, Spalirises, Spalahores, Spalagadames, Azes I, Azilises and Azes II, if their coins had not been found? Certainly no historian or traveller, Indian or foreign, has preserved any reminiscences of them. Again, it is their coins which not only give us their names but also enable us to fix their order of succession.³ The Indo-Parthians, who overthrew the Indo-Scythians, do not seem to have fared better. Of course, there is an epigraphic record of Gondophares, the founder of the Indo-Parthian dynasty, and there is also a reference to him, perhaps of a nebulous character, preserved in the Syriac version of the Legend of the Christian Apostle, Saint Thomas. But what about his successors, Abdgases, Orthagnes, Pakores and so forth? If coins of these latter had not been recovered, should we have ever known anything about them? It is true that in regard to the Kushanas we are luckily in possession of a fairly large number of inscriptions of Kanishka, Huvishka and Vāsudeva. But what about their immediate predecessors, Kujula Kadphises and Wema Kadphises, who were the first to establish and propagate Kushana supremacy? Are we not indebted for our knowledge of these rulers to the study of their coinage? Perhaps the most important service done by numismatics to political history is in connection with the Western Kshatrapas who ruled over Kāthiāwār and Mālwā. The founder of this dynasty was Chashtana, who has been identified with Tiastenes of Ozene (Ujjain), mentioned by Ptolemy, and has been assigned to circa 130 A.D. Here too, as in the case of the Indo-Bactrian Greek princes, many names of the Kshatrapa rulers have been revealed by their coins, which, again, as they give the name and title not only of the ruler but also of his father, and, what is most important, specify dates, enable us to arrange them in their order of succession and to determine sometimes even the exact year in which one Kshatrapa ruler was succeeded by another.¹ Nay, a careful study of their coins enables us even to find out where and on what three occasions there was a break in the direct line from Chashtana.

c6.4

¹ *CCIM.*, 5-6.

c6.5

² I agree with Mr. Whitehead in calling them Indo-Scythian. My reasons have been set forth in *IA.*, 1911, 13, n. 15.

c6.6

³ I was the first to fix this order of succession in *JBBRAS.*, XX, 284 & ff., which was accepted by the late Dr. V. A. Smith in *ZDMG.*, 1906, 59 & ff.

c6.7

¹ CICBM-AKTB., Intro., cliii—clvii.

c6.8.1

Let us now turn to the Administrative History of India and see whether the study of coins has ever proved to be of any use there. I hope you have not forgotten the two lectures on Administrative History which I delivered here two years ago. I had then occasion to bring into requisition the various items of information supplied on this point by Indian numismatics. Especially in the second of these lectures, which was concerned with the Saṃgha form of government I drew your prominent attention to three types of Collegiate Sovereignty denoted by the terms Gaṇa, Naigama and Janapada. Gaṇa, I then told you, was an oligarchy and was thus a distinct political form of government. This conclusion was in the main based upon Chapter 107 of the Śāntiparvan of the Mahābhārata, but received corroboration from what we knew from numismatics. At least three types of coins have been brought to light which were issued by three different Gaṇas, viz., the Mālavas, Yaudheyas and Vṛṣṇis.¹ That all of them were Gaṇas was already known to us from inscriptions and Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. And it may, therefore, perhaps be argued that these coins teach us nothing new. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that they possess great corroborative value, which cannot be ignored in a subject connected with Administrative History, which is still in its infancy.

c6.8.2

Although in respect of Gaṇa numismatics does not thus furnish us with new information, its value in respect of the other forms of Saṃgha government cannot be denied. In that second lecture of mine on Administrative History, I have clearly shown that side by side with oligarchy, democracy of a two-fold kind was flourishing in ancient India, one styled Naigama which was confined to a town, and the other Janapada which extended over a province. Of course, I am not here referring to the power which the people of towns and provinces, called Paura and Jānapada respectively, sometimes wielded in the administration of a country, and which is often alluded to in the epics and sometimes in works on law, but which was never of a political character. I am here referring to those cities and countries which enjoyed political autonomy and whose existence has been attested by coins alone. I hope you remember I mentioned one type of coins found in the Punjab on the obverse of which you find the word Negamā, i.e., Naigamāḥ, and on the reverse such names as Dojaka, Tālimata, Atakatakā and so forth, and told you that they were really the civic coins struck by the peoples of these cities.¹ This, no doubt, reminds us of similar coinages of Phocæa, Cyzicus and other Greek cities,² and further points to the fact that the Naigama or civic autonomy was as conspicuous among the Hindus of the old Punjab as among the Greeks on the Western coast of Asia Minor.

c6.8.3

That a country autonomy, or Janapada as it was called, was not unknown to India is similarly clear from a study of coins only. Thus we have two types of coins, one of which was issued by the Rājanya Janapada and the other by the Śibi Janapada of the Mādhyamikā country.¹ A few other interesting facts connected with Administrative History are also revealed by numismatics, but it will take me long to mention them. Two administrative puzzles furnished by it I will, however, mention here by way of curiosity. Those of you who have critically examined the coins of the Indo-Scythian dynasty must have already been faced with one of these puzzles. Four kings of this family are Spalirises, Azes I, Azilises and Azes II. Now, the peculiarity of the coins of these princes is that over and above those each issues in his name alone, he strikes coins conjointly with his predecessor and his successor, but with this difference that in the first case his name appears on the Kharoshṭhī reverse and that of his predecessor on the Greek obverse, and in the second case his name on the Greek obverse and that of his successor on the Kharoshṭhī reverse. What is, however, puzzling is that the titles of the prince on the Greek obverse are of exactly the same political rank as those of the prince on the Kharoshṭhī reverse. Thus to take one instance, *viz.*, that of Azes I and Azilises, the former is styled *Basileōs Basileōn Megalou Azou* and the latter *Maharajasa rajarajasa mahatasa Ayilisasa*.

c6.8.4

Here the titles *Maharaja rajaraja mahata*, which have been coupled with the name of Ayilisa, *i. e.*, Azilises, are the exact translation in Prākṛit of the Greek titles *Basileōs Basileōn Megalou* associated with the name of Azes. The titles are thus exactly identical, showing apparently that the two rulers wielded the same degree of political power. But how is this possible? because Azilises is the heir-apparent and Azes the real king. According to Hindu polity a Yuvarāja cannot possibly be assigned to the same political rank as his father the Mahārāja. Such was also not the case with the many foreign tribes who established a kingdom in India. Take, *e. g.*, the Kshatrapa dynasty which held sway over Kāṭhiāwāṛ and Mālwā and to which I have already referred in connection with the light which numismatics throws on political history. Here on their coins and in their inscriptions the actual ruler is invariably designated Mahākshatrapa and the heir-apparent merely Kshatrapa. Hence it becomes inexplicable how in the case of the Imperial Indo-Scythian dynasty the king and the prince-royal come to assume titles of precisely the same political grade. This knotty point I hope some one of you will be able to solve one day.

c6.9

¹ CL., 1918, 157 & 166.

c6.10

¹ CL., 1918, 176.

c6.11

² The Gold Coinage of Asia before Alexander the Great by Percy Gardner, 32.

c6.12

¹ CL., 173.

c6.13

So much for one administrative puzzle presented by the study of numismatics. I will now place another before you. I shall here come to a somewhat later period, *viz.*, the Gupta period, and fix your attention on the coins of the founder of this dynasty. On the obverse are the figures of a king and his queen, who from the legends appear to be no other than Chandragupta I and his wife Kumāradevī, and on the reverse the legend has *Lichchhavayaḥ*, *i.e.* the Lichchhavis. What is the significance of these names? Those who are numismatists need not be told that as the name of the Lichchhavis occurs on the reverse, they had evidently become subordinate to Chandragupta I. But how did they come to occupy this subordinate position? Did Chandragupta conquer them? This does not appear to be possible, because his son Samudragupta calls himself with pride *Lichchhavi-dauhitra*, "the daughter's son of a Lichchhavi." This Lichchhavi father-in-law of Chandragupta could not have been a ruler of Nepāl as conjectured by Dr. Fleet. Before the conquest of Nepāl the Lichchhavis according to their tradition ruled at Pushpapura or Pāṭaliputra, and this is confirmed by one of the Nepāl inscriptions published by Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji.¹ The Lichchhavis, you know, were an oligarchic tribe and consisted not of one but of many chiefs who ruled conjointly.¹ How could they have become subordinate to Chandragupta even through this matrimonial alliance? This is the real puzzle presented by Chandragupta's coins. Perhaps the solution is that he was already married to a Lichchhavi princess, and in some battle or through some such catastrophe all the Lichchhavi chiefs and their heirs were killed, leaving no male issue behind and leaving the whole state as patrimony to Kumāradevī, queen of Chandragupta. Kumāradevī thus through succession came to be the ruler of Pāṭaliputra and the surrounding Lichchhavi territory, and, being a Hindu wife, her husband was naturally associated with her in this rule. But that Kumāradevī was an actual ruler is seen from the fact that along with Chandragupta's her figure appears on the obverse of his coins. I do not claim any finality for the solution I have proposed, and I have no doubt that some one amongst you will suggest a better solution.

c6.14

¹ IA., IX, 178, v. 7.

c6.15

We now turn to the sphere of Historical Geography and see what light numismatics throws on it. In this connection the coins issued by the old republics of ancient India are very useful. I shall give here two or three instances only.

c6.16

We know that the Yaudheyas were an oligarchic tribe and are mentioned in inscriptions as being opposed to Rudradāman about 150 A.D. and to Samudragupta about 330 A.D. They have also been referred to in the Mahābhārata and by Pāṇini.¹ But the question arises : where are they to be located? It is scarcely necessary for me to remind you of Pāṇini's Sūtra *Janapade lup* (IV. 2. 81), according to which the name of a tribe or people serves also as the name of the country occupied by them. Hence when the question is asked : ' where are the Yaudheyas to be located,' it is also meant ' which was the province occupied by them?' Now, the answer to this question can be given only by their coins, *i.e.*, by taking into consideration the localities where the coins have been found. And we know that their coins ' are found in the Eastern Punjab, and all over the country between the Sutlej and Jumna Rivers. Two large finds have been made at Sonpath, between Delhi and Karnal.'² It is this knowledge supplied by numismatics that enabled Sir Alexander Cunningham to identify the Yaudheyas, rightly I think, with the Johiyas settled along both banks of the Sutlej—which part is consequently known as Johiya-bār.

c6.17

¹ CL., 165-7.

c6.18

² ASIR., XIV, 140; CAI., 76.

c6.19

We know, again, from epigraphic records that the Mālavas were another tribe with oligarchic form of government. The present province of Mālwa which is in Central India was doubtless named after them when they were settled there. But when this province came to be called Mālwa after the Mālavas we do not exactly know, but certainly not till the Gupta period. In the time of Alexander, however, they were settled somewhere in the Punjab and have been referred to as the Malloi republic by the Greek historians who accompanied him.¹ Certainly the Mālavas must have migrated through the intermediate regions before they passed from the Punjab to Central India. But it may be asked : Is there any evidence as to what this intervening province was through which they moved southwards? This evidence is furnished by their coins, which, as we know, have been picked up in large numbers in the south-east part of the Jaipur State called Nāgar-chal in Rājputānā. As the coins here found range in date from circa 150 B.C. to circa 250 A.D., we may reasonably hold that in this period the Mālavas had established themselves in this province and must have been in occupation of that region when about 100 A.D. Uṣavadāta, son-in-law of the Kṣatrapa Nahapāna, defeated them,¹ as we learn from a Nāsik cave inscription. They were not then far distant from Puṣkar near Ajmer.

c6.20

¹ CL., 158.

c6.21

¹ IA., 1918, 75.

c6.22

The migrations of the Mālavas remind us of the migrations of another people which have been brought to light by their coins,—I mean the Śibis whose coins have been found in and near Nagarī not far from Chitorgarh in Rājputānā and who have been called not a Gaṇa but Janapada. Of course, from the Mahābhārata and also from an inscription we know that the Śibis originally belonged to the Punjab,² but coins show that some of them were settled in the Chitorgarh district shortly before Christ. It is curious, however, that the province so occupied by them is not called Śibi after them, but Madhyamikā, as is quite clear from their coin legend. In one of my lectures, I informed you that the province of Madhyamikā has been mentioned both in the Mahābhārata and Varāhamihira's Bṛhat-saṃhitā,³ and that Madhyamikā was in reality the name of both the province and its principal town as Avanti and Ayodhyā no doubt were. The coins thus enable us to identify the city of Madhyamikā with Nagarī, near Chitorgarh, which, as I have elsewhere shown, contains the ruins of a large town.¹ The significance of this identification will flash on you. You are aware that Patañjali in his *Mahābhāshya* gives two instances of *laṅ*, viz., *aruṇad = Yavanaḥ Sāketam* and *aruṇad = Yavano Madhyamikām*, to show that the past event denoted by this *laṅ* must be such as is capable of being witnessed by the speaker. Patañjali thus evidently gives us to understand that the city of Madhyamikā was besieged by a Yavana or Greek prince shortly before he wrote. And naturally curiosity centred round the location of this Madhyamikā. This curiosity, we know, was gratified by the study of coins only, *i.e.*, by the occurrence of the name Madhyamikā on the coins of the Śibi Janapada. We thus see that this Madhyamikā can be no other than Nagarī itself, as far south as which place the Greek prince, whosoever he was, pushed forward in his expedition of conquest when Patañjali lived and wrote.

c6.23

² MASI., 123-4.

c6.24

³ CL., 173, n. 3; MASI., 124-5.

c6.25

¹ MASI., 125 and ff.

c6.26.1

So much for the light which numismatics sheds on the ancient Geography of India. Let us now see what its utility is for the History of Religion. Religious history is of two kinds, *viz.*, socio-religious and mytho-religious. We shall first confine our attention, briefly, of course, to socio-religious history. The most important fact in this connection is the adoption of Hindu religion by, and absorption into Hindu Society of, the foreign tribes which poured into India from time to time. This subject has been handled at full length by me in a paper entitled *Foreign Elements in the Hindu population*.¹ Epigraphic records are of great service in this respect, but numismatics is by no means far behind. What is noteworthy here is that not only did these foreigners embrace Hinduism, *i.e.*, Buddhism or Brahmanism, but that some of them also actually adopted Hindu names. Thus Gondophares, the founder of the Indo-Parthian dynasty, has one type of coins on the reverse of which figures Śiva holding a trident.² Similarly on at least two types of coins of Wema Kadphises, the second ruler of the Kushana family, we find Śiva bearing a trident, sometimes with his bull Nandin behind and sometimes with gourd and tiger skin.³ Here then we have two foreign kings who had become worshippers of Śiva and consequently followers of Brahmanism. The case was, however, different with Wema Kadphises' successors, Kanishka, Huvishka and Vāsudeva.

c6.26.2

Here we notice great eclecticism practised by those Kushana rulers in the matter of religious faith. We find very few Greek, many Iranian, and only some Hindu divinities selected for worship. This indicates a curious religious cast of mind with these Kushana sovereigns, and this sort of eclecticism we never find again in the religious history of India. But be it noted that this singular trait of religious mind evinced by these Kushanas in deducing a pantheon of their own by a selection from among the deities of various religions, which is of extreme importance for the religious history of any country, is made known to us for the first time not by epigraphy but numismatics only. Now, among the Indian divinities worshipped by these foreigners the most pre-eminent is, of course, Buddha, who, however, figures indubitably on the coins of Kanishka alone. There is nothing strange in this as Kanishka is looked upon as a patron of Buddhism. There can be no doubt in regard to the identity of Buddha on Kanishka’s coins as he has been actually so named on them. And this is a very important piece of information and conveyed to us by numismatics only, because this is the earliest human representation of Buddha¹ known to us so far which can be assigned to the reign of any particular king. Although Kanishka was a devotee of Buddha, he had not given up the Kushana family worship of Siva, which god also appears on some of his coins,¹ and also on those of Huvishka and Vāsudeva.

c6.26.3

The name of this god, as it appears on their coins, consists of four Greek letters o h p o, which has puzzled many numismatists. They are all convinced that the god so represented is no other than Śiva, but his name has baffled all their attempt at decipherment. Some numismatists equate it with Ugra (Śiva),² some see in it some connection with ukshan or vrisha,³ the bull of Śiva, and others take it to stand for Bhaveśa.⁴ But none of these readings can be considered satisfactory, because the word ukshan or vrisha by itself can hardly denote Śiva, and Bhaveśa and Ugra, although they are names of Śiva, can hardly be represented in sound by the four Greek characters. Now, the second of these four letters, as I have just said is H. Knowing as numismatists do how H is confounded with M in the Kushana period, I feel no hesitation in reading the letters to be o m p o, and taking them to stand for Umeśa.⁵ The worship of Śiva seems to have been continued by the Scytho-Sassanians who succeeded the Kushanas. We thus have coins of Varahran V (A.D. 422-440), the reverse of which bears Śiva and bull.¹ This Śiva-bull type is afterwards found on the coins of only one king, *viz.*, Śaśāṅka, king of Gauḍa (A.D. 600-625).² But Śiva is not the only divinity that was worshipped. Other deities connected with him are found represented either jointly or severally on the coins of Huvishka, *viz.*, Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena.

c6.26.4

Nay, an instance is not wanting of even the bull of Śiva being worshipped by these foreigners. Thus on some coins of Mihirakula, the most powerful Hūṇa potentate, we have a bull-emblem of Śiva—with the legend *jayatu vṛishaḥ* on the reverse.³

c6.27

¹ *IA.*, 1911, 7 and ff.

c6.28

² *BMCGSKI.*, lviii and 104; *JRAS.*, 1903, 285; *CCPML.*, 151-2.

c6.29

³ *BMCGSKI.*, 124 and ff.; *CCIM.*, 68; *CCPML.*, 183.

c6.30

¹ Perhaps this goes back to the reign of his predecessor Kadaphes, because one coin-type on which his name is illegible but which on other grounds has been attributed to him, has on the obverse Buddha seated in conventional attitude (JASB., 1897, 300; CCPML., 181).

c6.31

¹ BMCGSKI., 132; CCIM., 74; CCPML., 187.

c6.32

² BMCGSKI., lxv.

c6.33

³ Revue Numismatique, 1888, 207; NChr., 1892, 62; JRAS., 1907, 1045, n.1.

c6.34

⁴ JRAS., 1897, 323.

c6.35

⁵ The name of Umā occurs on a coin of Huvishka (NChr., 1892., pl. XIII. 1) where M is twice written like H (JRAS., 1897, 324).

c6.36

¹ IC., pl. II, No. 15.

c6.37

² CCGD., 147.

c6.38

³ CCIM., 236.

c6.39

As regards the adoption of Hindu names, there is but one instance among the foreign princes so far noted, *viz.*, Vāsudeva, successor of Huvishka. But if you turn to the Kshatrapa dynasty which held Surāshṭra and Mālwa, you will find that except two all the twenty-seven names of these rulers supplied to us by their coins are distinctly Hindu. The founder of this family was, of course, Chashtana, and his father’s name was Ysāmotika. Both these names are Scythic and therefore foreign. But immediately after Chashtana we begin to get a string of Hindu names, such as Jayadāman, Rudradāman and so forth, and as if to remind us that these Hindu names were borne by princes of alien extraction, we find immediately after Rudradāman the name Dāmaysada, about whose foreign origin no doubt can arise.

c6.40

Let us now see whether a study of coins can prove itself useful in the sphere of mytho-religious history. A short while ago I told you that Gondophares and the Kushana rulers were devotees of Śiva and that this god was represented on the reverse of their coins. Evidently Śiva here figures as an object of worship. But how is Śiva worshipped now-a-days? Do the Hindus worship this deity under his man-like representation, *i.e.*, do they worship his image holding a trident and tiger-skin and standing near his bull, as we no doubt find him on the coins of these Indo-Scythian kings? Do they not invariably worship him under the form of Liṅga? Of course, images of Śiva as on these coins are by no means unknown at the present day or even as far back as the post-Gupta period, but certainly they are not now, and were never then, objects of worship. On the coins of these foreign rulers, however, the figure of Śiva has no significance except as an object of worship, and yet we find on them not a Liṅga but a regular representation of Śiva. This clearly shows that up to the time of the Kushana king Vāsudeva at any rate, Śiva worship had not come to be identified with Liṅga worship. Of course, from Patañjali’s *Mahābhāshya* on Pāṇini’s Sūtra, *jivik-ārthe ch-āpanye* we learn that till his time, *i.e.*, the middle of the second century B.C., an image of Śiva and not phallus was made for worship.¹ But now we know that till the seventh century A.D., at any rate, Śiva in his human form continued to be worshipped, though already in the beginning of the Gupta period phallus worship was being foisted on the Śiva cult. And, in fact, the earliest representation of Liṅga that has been found in a Śiva temple is at Guḍimallam in South India, and, on the grounds of plastic art, it cannot possibly be assigned to any date prior to the 4th century A.D. And even here, it is worthy of note, you do not see a mere Liṅga, but also a standing figure of Śiva attached to it in front² showing clearly that even in this period the representation of Śiva was not entirely forgotten and was not completely supplanted by Liṅga.³ Another very early representation of phallus is that supplied by the Liṅga stone found near the village of Karamḍāṇḍā and inscribed on the base.¹ The epigraph is dated 117 G.E.=436 A.D., and speaks of the Liṅga as Bhagavān Mahādeva, showing a clear identification of phallus with Śiva in this instance. But it must have taken sometime longer for the phallus to completely supersede and supplant, all over India, the human form of Śiva as an object of worship. For Śiva in his human representation certainly occurs, as I have said above, on the coins of Śaśāṅka who flourished in the first half of the seventh century A.D.

c6.41

¹ JBBRAS., XVI, 208. ² T. A. Gopinatha Rao’s *Elements of Hindu Iconography*, Vol. I., pt. I, p. 6. ³ There is a sculpture originally found at Bhiṭā but now lying in the Lucknow Museum. Dr. Führer, who discovered it, apparently took it to be the capital of a column. Mr. R. D. Banerji, however, says that Dr. Führer did not pay much attention to the inscription on it, from a careful study of which it appears that the sculpture represents a Liṅga and that the date of the Liṅga on palaeographic evidence is the first century B. C. (ASI.-AR., 1909-10, 147-8). Now, in the first place,

c6.42

¹ EI., X, 70 & ff.

c6.43

the characters cannot with certainty be proved to be earlier than those of the time of the Kushana king. Vāsudeva (circa 200 A.D.). Secondly, Mr. Banerji no doubt reads *l(iṅ)go* in his transcript, but the word is clearly *lago*, whatever that may mean. The late Dr. Bloch also read it *lago*, as Mr. Banerji informs us in a footnote. Thirdly, even taking the word to be *liṅgo* with Mr. Banerji and further correcting it into *liṅgam*, it cannot denote the "phallic symbol of Śiva," because in inscriptions such an image is termed *Mahādeva*, as was rightly maintained by Bloch. Fourthly, what is meant by *saying* that "the *liṅga* of the sons of Khajahūti was dedicated by Nāgasiri," as Mr. Banerji's translation has it? If the sons of Khajahūti had caused the idol to be made, the construction would have been *liṅgam kāritam Khajahūti-putraiḥ pratiṣṭhāpitam cha Vāsiṣṭhīputreṇa* etc. Fifthly, Mr. Banerji's opinion that the sculpture represents a Liṅga is based merely on the inscription which, as we have seen, does not speak of any Liṅga at all. He does not tell us that the sculpture looks like a Liṅga. Dr. Führer, on the other hand, looks upon it as the capital of a column, as we have seen. It is exceedingly desirable that some archaeologist should examine this sculpture carefully and tell us whether it has the form of a Liṅga.

c6.44

Connected with Śiva are the four gods, Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena. They are, however, regarded at present as only four different names of one and the same god, viz., Kārtikeya. The well-known two verses of the Amarakosha, which include these names, are taken as giving seventeen names of this deity. In ancient times, however, these four names denoted four different gods. Of course, the passage from Patañjali’s Mahābhāshya, which I have just referred to and which speaks of an image of Śiva made for worship, speaks also of Skanda and Viśākha in that connection. This indicates that images not only of Śiva but also of Skanda and Viśākha were made in Patañjali’s time for worship. Here both Skanda and Viśākha have been mentioned. Certainly, if these two names had denoted but a single deity, Patañjali would have mentioned only one, but as he has used two names, it is clear that Skanda and Viśākha must denote two different gods. But let us see what coins teach us on this point. Those of you who have studied the Kushana coinage need not be told that we have two types of Huvishka’s coins which are of great interest to us in this connection. One type bears on the reverse three gods who have been named Skanda, Kumāra and Viśākha, and another, four gods named Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena.¹ As all these names have each a figure corresponding to it, is it possible to doubt that Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena represent four different gods? The coins thus convey to us an important piece of mythological knowledge, which we do not yet know from any other source. Huviskha, most of you are aware, flourished in the second half of the second century A. D., and the Amarakosha is now-a-days being assigned to the 4th century A. D.¹ As the interval between the two is not very great, a doubt may naturally arise as to whether we are right in taking the two verses from the Amarakosha as giving us seventeen names of only one god, viz., Kārtikeya. The two verses in question consist of four lines, and strange to say, none of these lines mentions more than one of the four gods Skanda, Kumāra, Viśākha and Mahāsena. Thus the first line has Mahāsena, the second Skanda, the third Viśākha, and the fourth Kumāra only. Had we not rather take each line separately and say that it really intends setting forth the different names of each one of these four gods instead of saying as we have been doing up till now that all the four lines together give seventeen names of one and the same god?

c6.45

¹ CCPML., 207.

c6.46

¹ IA., 1912, 216.

c6.47.1

You will thus see what light is thrown and on what various aspects of the ancient history of India by the study of coins. But it is impossible, I am afraid, to perceive the full importance of numismatics unless we select coins of any particular class or period and find out what cumulative effect their critical study produces. I will show you what I mean by giving only one instance, *viz.*, the group of coins struck by the Greeks settled in and about north-west India. Of course, I have already referred to their extreme importance in respect of the political history of the Indo-Bactrian rule. I shall therefore refrain from doing so here. But the question that presents itself to us at the very outset and even before we can think of deducing their political history is: when and where did the Greeks first come in contact with the people of India? I know some of you may say: "Of course, in the time of Pāṇini," for does he not in one Sūtra teach us the formation of the word *Yavanānī* which is derived from *Yavana*, and which, as Kātyāyana tells us, signifies 'the writing of the Yavanas or Greeks?' " But this is just the misfortune of Pāṇini, for, because he mentions the word *Yavana* in his Sūtra, he is at once dragged down to the 4th century B.C., *i.e.*, to a period after the invasion of Alexander.

c6.47.2

The internal evidence, which was adduced long ago by Goldstücker and Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar and which must perforce place Pāṇini at least in the 6th century B.C., is set aside, although it is of an irrefragable character, and most of the European scholars will not even entertain the idea that the Yavanas or Greeks might possibly have been on the borders of India long before Alexander, and that Pāṇini's reference to this people is thus perfectly compatible with the date assigned to him by Goldstücker and Sir Ramkrishna. In fact, I confess that the possibility of the Yavanas having come in contact with the people of India long prior to the time of Alexander had suggested itself to me when I first took up the study of the Aśoka inscriptions. Rock Edict XIII, as most of you must be aware, speaks of five Greek kings, whose kingdoms were, of course, outside India, at any rate, outside the dominions of Aśoka. But I am not referring here to the passage which contains the name of these Greek potentates. I am alluding here to that part of the edict which gives the list of those peoples whose countries were included in Aśoka's empire. And this list, be it noted, begins with these very Yonas, after whom are mentioned Kambojas, Gandhāras and so forth. The question here arises: Who were these Yavanas? Of course, they were Greeks. But where are they to be placed?

c6.47.3

It is no doubt tempting to say that they may have occupied Bactria which was certainly associated with Greek rule, at a somewhat later period, at any rate. In Aśoka's time we know that Bactria was comprised in the Syrian empire of Antiochus Theos. We learn from the Greek historians, Trogus, Justin and Strabo, that it was Diodotus who first made Bactria independent. He was a Satrap of this province under Antiochus Theos, and it was after the death of this monarch that Diodotus took advantage of the disturbances that followed it and managed to make himself independent. It is therefore impossible to locate the Yonas of Rock Edict XIII in Bactria, because this edict was promulgated when Antiochus Theos was living, his name being actually specified therein. Which country, then, did these Yonas occupy? Of course, it must have bordered on Gandhāra, which is mentioned immediately after it in Aśoka's inscription. And I suspect that it has to be identified with Aria or Arachosia which were the two provinces ceded by Seleucuos to Chandragupta and which must have been inherited intact by Aśoka. I admit it is not possible to locate these Yonas exactly, but this much is certain that they were outside the kingdom of Antiochus Theos, and lived in Aśoka's empire in a territory adjoining Gandhāra but outside India. But when could they have come and settled there? Did they come with Alexander?

c6.47.4

No, this is not possible, because the Macedonian conqueror did not leave behind him any permanent settlements in or near India.

c6.48.1

Of course, he may have left some Greek garrisons, but certainly a province is not named after the race of garrisoned soldiers. It is only when a tribe or people comes in such terrific masses as to outnumber the original inhabitants that it gives its name to the province so occupied by them. We have many such instances, *e.g.*, of the Ābhīras, Gurjaras and so on.¹ The idea of a mere garrison imparting the name of its race to the country where it is stationed is, I am afraid, utterly inadmissible, if not even ludicrous. In all likelihood, the Yavanas of Rock Edict XIII must have come and settled in large numbers in some outlying province of India long before Alexander. But if we assume that the Yavanas had their colony in a territory conterminous to India, they must have exercised some sort of political independence and for at least some period, and have we, you may naturally ask, got any evidence to that effect? And this question numismatics is, I think, in a position to answer in the affirmative. Coins, similar to those of the earliest type of Athens, are known to have been collected from the north-west frontiers of India. They bear head of Athena on the obverse and owl on the reverse.² And the question must naturally arise: Why are they to be found in the frontier provinces of India?

c6.48.2

It is no doubt possible to say that these *owls* of Athens, as this type of coinage is called, were carried to India in the course of commerce.¹ Similar *owls* have also been picked up in Southern Arabia Felix.² But none of the *owls* found in the east are of the types known from Athens. In the case of this Semitic country, again, it is not impossible to say that they may have travelled there as a result of commercial intercourse, because they are generally countermarked on the obverse with Sabaean letters or are scratched with a Sabaean monogram on the reverse. When a foreign money for the first time comes into circulation along with the native coinage of a country, all the new specimens are tested, and those, which are found not deficient in weight or quality of metal, are sanctioned by marking them with an official stamp, which may consist of a single letter or symbol. These official stamps are no doubt noticeable on the *owls* of Athens brought to light in South Arabia. But they are conspicuous by their absence on those recovered on the frontiers of India.

c6.48.3

It cannot be doubted that the practice of countermarking foreign coinage in circulation was observed in or near India also, for we do know that the silver Persian sigloi which were current in the Punjab bear distinctly Indian countermarks.¹ When, therefore, no countermarks are traceable on the *owls* of Athens picked up from the frontier region of India, it is not reasonable to say that they were brought there with the expansion of commerce. The natural inference must be that they were native to some outlying district of India which was peopled by the Yavanas or Greeks. And as the original *owls* of Athens have been assigned to *circa* 594-560 B.C.,² a Greek colony, it is possible to infer, may have been established near India about 550 B.C.³ There can, after all, be nothing strange in Pāṇini flourishing in the 6th century B.C. and in his referring also to Yavanānī, the writing of the Greeks. In fact, if it is not admitted that the Greeks had a settlement near India before Alexander, how is it possible, I ask, to unravel the enigma about the coins of Sophytes? Sophytes, you know, ruled over a province somewhere in the Western Punjab when Alexander invaded India, and as he acknowledged speedy submission to the Macedonian emperor, he was re-instated in his kingdom. Now, we have found some coins, which bear his head on the obverse and a cock and his name in Greek character on the reverse. When could he have struck these coins? This is the most puzzling question to answer.

c6.48.4

Did he strike them after the death of Alexander but before the Punjab was subjugated by Chandragupta? Then it is very strange that we do not see the bust of Alexander instead of his. For up to B.C. 306, *i.e.*, till the extinction of the old royal line of Macedonia, we find that all the generals of Alexander retain the name and bust of Alexander on their coins, and if Sophytes was no better and perhaps even worse in point of political power than these generals, does it not look the height of presumption for him to have his own name and bust on the coins instead of those of Alexander who was doubtless his overlord? And if it is the height of presumption to have his name and bust on coins, if they are supposed to be struck after the death of Alexander, would it not be sheer folly on his part if he issued them when Alexander was actually alive and in the Punjab? I am afraid, the only way to get over this difficulty is to suppose that Sophytes struck his coins before Alexander invaded India and before he lost his independence. Now, if Sophytes was an Indian by extraction, how is it possible to account for the presence of a bust and the employment of the Greek character before the Macedonian conquest of the Punjab? This is simply inconceivable.

c6.49

¹ JBBRAS, XXI, 430 and ff.

c6.50

² NChr., XX, 191.

c6.51

¹ IC., p. 3. §9.

c6.52

² G. F. Hill's *The Ancient Coinage of Southern Arabia* (Reprint from the *Proceedings of the British Academy*, Vol. VII), pp. 2-3.

c6.53

¹ *JRAS.*, 1895, 874 and ff.

c6.54

² Hill's *Historical Greek Coins*, 11.

c6.55

³ For the extreme probability of a similar Roman settlement at or near Madura in the Madras Presidency, see *JRAS.*, 1904, 613-5.

c6.56

The only explanation that is plausible is that he was a Greek prince in India before the advent of Alexander. I know Sophytes is not considered to be a Greek name. It has been taken to be identical with the Sanskrit Saubhūti.¹ But there is nothing strange in a Greek taking a Hindu name immediately before the Maurya period, if another Greek, shortly after, i.e., in Aśoka’s time, adopts a Persian name, viz., Tushāspa.

c6.57

¹ Rapson's Ancient India, 152-3; CCIM., 7.

c6.58

But if the Greeks really conquered some region near the north-west frontiers of India and were settled there, as no doubt numismatic considerations lead us to conclude, is there any reference to such a fact in any one of the accounts drawn up by the Macedonian historians of India about the time of Alexander’s invasion? If the Greeks really established a colony in a border province of India, it is inconceivable that such a thing which would be of supreme interest to a Greek should be ignored by any historian of Alexander’s time. Do we then, as a matter of fact, find any reference to it in the work of any Greek historian? This is the natural question that must arise here and which you will no doubt expect me to tackle even though I may have to deviate strictly from the subject of to-night’s lecture. And I am glad to say that there are two passages in the Fifth Book of Arrian’s work which in my opinion answer this question and thus corroborate the numismatic evidence.¹ The passages in question, to which Mr. Hemchandra Raychaudhuri was the first to draw my attention, give a description of the city and people of Nysa which was situated between the Kophen and the Indus. The deputies of Nysa, who waited upon Alexander, themselves told the Macedonian monarch that their city was founded by Dionysos as he was returning to the shores of Greece after conquering the Indian nation and that he called it Nysa after the name of his nurse Nysa, and in proof of their statement that Dionysos was their founder adduced the fact that ivy which grew nowhere else in the land of the Indians grew in their city. In fact, anybody who carefully reads these passages will be convinced that Dionysos here is a real Hellenic deity and not any Hindu god in Hellenic garb and that the account clearly points to Nysa having been a Greek colony.

c6.59

¹ McCrindle’s Ancient India : its Invasion; by Alexander the Great, 79-80. For an ancient Greek burial ground, see IA., 1909, 144.

c6.60

Let us now look at the coins of the Indo-Bactrian Greeks from the religious point of view. You will perhaps wonder what new thing can possibly be taught by this class of coins.

c6.61.1

And you may naturally ask: What new contribution these coins can possibly make to the knowledge of Hellenic pantheon which we already possess from more direct and exhaustive sources? Let us, however, see whether it is possible to approach the study of these coins from a new angle of vision. If Sophytes was a Greek of the time of Alexander and yet he adopted a Hindu name, is it not possible to say that some of the Indo-Bactrian kings must have embraced Hindu religion? Or if you want to leave Sophytes out of account, do we not know that during the regime of Antialkidas when the Indo-Bactrian rule was in the heyday of its glory, his very ambassador Heliodorus, a Greek, had become a Bhāgavata, a devotee of Vāsudeva? How is it then possible to think that none of the Indo-Bactrian kings was a Hindu? Is it not therefore possible to study their coins more closely and from this view-point? In this connection, allow me to invite your attention to the square bronze coins of Eucratides.

c6.61.2

The deity figuring on the reverse has been taken to be Zeus seated on throne who holds a wreath and a palm branch and has fore-part of elephant in front of him.¹ There is also a Kharoshṭhī inscription on the reverse, which reads *Kaviśiye nagara-devatā* and means "the city-deity of Kāpiśī.” Now, Kāpiśī was a Hindu town and has been referred to in one of Pāṇini’s Sūtras as a place where good wine was brewed.¹ Evidently, therefore, the divinity figuring on the coin is a Hindu one, being the *nagara-devatā* of Kāpiśī, and yet it has been so figured on the coin that it can be easily mistaken for a Greek deity and has actually been mistaken for Zeus by the numismatists, as we have seen. The term *nagara-devatā* occurs on another coin also, which unfortunately cannot be assigned to any king as the legends on it have not been preserved whole and entire. On the obverse is a goddess with the Kharoshṭhī legend [*Pa*]khalavadi-devada,² which has been taken to mean the tutelary divinity of Pushkalāvatī. Pushkalāvatī also was a Hindu city, and yet we find that the goddess on this coin wears Greek dress and a mural crown which is the emblem of a Greek civic deity. The natural inference from a study of these coins is that mere Greek dress and emblems do not stamp a deity as necessarily a Hellenic one and that a Hindu divinity may appear under Hellenic garb on Indo-Bactrian coins.

c6.61.3

The Greeks were notorious for identifying foreign deities with their own so long as there were any characteristics in common. For do we not know that Megasthenes, *e.g.*, calls Kṛiṣhṇa or rather Balarāma of Mathurā, Herakles, and Śiva of the hills, Dionysos? Nay, that some of the deities occurring on the coins of the Indo-Bactrian Greek princes may not be Hellenic, though they are invested with Hellenic attributes, was suspected long ago by Percy Gardner. "On coins of Demetrius," says this eminent numismatist, "Artemis is sometimes radiate, on coins of Agathocles Zeus bears in his hand the three-headed Hekate, Herakles crowns himself with a wreath, Pallas appears in short skirts, and many other such strange forms of Greek deities appear. To search out the reasons of these variations of type, reasons to be found probably in many instances in the influence of local Indian or Persian legend or belief, would be a very attractive task, and not hopeless, considering the data furnished us by the legends of the gold Indo-Scythic coins. The earliest of the clearly Indian types to make its appearance is a dancing-girl, wearing long hanging ear-rings and oriental trousers, on the money of Pantaleon and Agathocles. As we come to a later period, non-Hellenic types, or types in which there is a non-Hellenic element, gradually make their way on the coins. On coins of Philoxenus and Telephus we find a radiate figure of a sun-god, holding a long sceptre.

c6.61.4

On those of Amyntas and Hermaeus we find the head of a deity wearing Phrygian cap, whence issue rays.”¹ I am sorry I had to quote this long extract here, but as Percy Gardner is looked upon as a very great authority on this subject, his opinion must be considered to be invaluable. And you have just seen what that opinion is. He clearly admits that some types of Greek deities are fantastic even according to the Hellenic standard and that some contain an unmistakable non-Hellenic element. It is a matter of regret that no numismatist has gone farther than where Percy Gardner left this line of inquiry, but what I have said is enough to show to you that the Indo-Bactrian Greeks were by no means slow to be influenced by Indian and other religious beliefs with which they came in contact. The exact character and extent of this influence can be determined only by a critical study of their coins, and the results of such a study, I have no doubt, will form an important contribution to the religious history of India, if not of the world.

c6.62

¹ JRAS., 1905, 783 & ff.

c6.63

¹ IV. 2. 99.

c6.64

² JRAS., 1905, 787.

c6.65

¹ BMCGSKI., Intro., lvii-lviii.

Linked texts (9)