Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c6.48

Language: English

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.