Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7: Lecture II. Antiquity of Coinage in India

Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7

Language
English

Contents

Lecture II. Antiquity of Coinage in India

c7.2

I believe, you still remember the words which the President of the last Oriental Conference used in regard to the mentality of the European and the Indian scholar towards Oriental subjects. "The Indian's tendency," said he, "may be towards rejecting foreign influence on the development of his country's civilization and to claim high antiquity for some of the occurrences in its history. On the other hand, the European scholar's tendency is to trace Greek, Roman or Christian influence at work in the evolution of new points and to modernize the Indian historical and literary events." It is not possible to determine how far these words are true of the Indian scholars in regard to the ancient Indian numismatics, because there is hardly any one amongst them yet who has seriously devoted himself to this subject, but it must be admitted that they are true of some of the European scholars who were or are looked upon as authorities on this subject. Their attempt seems to have been unconsciously to prove that the invention of coinage was not indigenous to India and that the Indians learnt the art of stamping money either from the Babylonians or from the Greeks, and that again certainly not prior to B.C. 600 or 700. Thus James Prinsep, to whom must always go the honour of having unravelled the most ancient Indian alphabet, the Brāhmī lipi, thought that the Hindus derived their knowledge of coinage from the Greeks of Bactria. And although afterwards he had to admit that the Hindus had an indigenous currency of precious metals, he persisted in at least maintaining that from the time the Greeks entered India “ may be assumed the adoption of a die-device, or of coined money properly so called, by the Hindus.”¹ And as Prinsep was Assay Master of the Calcutta Mint, his words naturally carried great weight. And it is not strange if we find that H. H. Wilson, the author of the *Ariana Antiqua*, also indulged in surmise, and asserted that it was “likely that the currency of the country consisted chiefly, if not exclusively, of lumps of gold and silver not bearing any impression, until the Hindus had learned the usefulness of money from their Bactrian neighbours, and from their commerce, especially with Rome.”² At the time when Prinsep and Wilson wrote, there were two other numismatists, both of them Englishmen, Alexander Cunningham and Edward Thomas, who, however, held the opposite view, and maintained the existence of an indigenous Indian coinage. But their arguments, forcible and cogent though they were, were left unheeded, and the tendency of assigning a later date and tracing almost everything Indian that is good or original to a foreign source, which is so natural to some European writers, re-asserted itself, probably with greater vigour. Thus James Kennedy holds that the punch-marked coins, or the Kārshāpaṇas as they were known to the ancient Hindus, which form the most ancient money in India, were copied from Babylonian originals after the opening of maritime trade in the sixth century B.C.¹ V. A. Smith’s view is substantially the same. In his article on Numismatics, which he contributed to the *Imperial Gazetteer*, he says as follows: “The introduction into India of the use of coins, that is to say, metallic pieces of definite weight authenticated as currency by marks recognised as a guarantee of value, may be ascribed with much probability to the seventh century B.C., when foreign maritime trade seems to have begun. There is reason to believe that the necessities of commerce with foreign merchants were the immediate occasion for the adoption by the Indian people of a metallic currency as well as of alphabetical writing.”²

c7.3

¹ JASB., I. 394 ; IV. 626.

c7.4

² AA., 404.

c7.5

¹ *JRAS.*, 1898, p. 279 & ff.

c7.6

² *IG.*, II. 135.

c7.7

In his *Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta*, he gives a later date to the earliest coinage of India, the earliest type of the Kārshāpaṇas being assigned by him to 500 or 600 B.C.¹

c7.8

¹ *CCIMC.*, 133.

c7.9

Such, in short, are the theories held by most of the European numismatists in regard to the origin and antiquity of the Indian coinage. The view that the knowledge of the stamped or die-struck coins the Hindus obtained from the Bactrian Greeks, which was originally started by James Prinsep, is no longer countenanced by numismatists of any repute. As early as 1853 when, Sir, then Mr., E. C. Bayley was Deputy Commissioner of the Kangra District in the Punjab, were discovered a number of silver coins “comprising specimens of Antimachus II, Philoxenes, Lysias, Antialkidas, and Menander, together with a few punch-marked pieces, the last being much worn, whilst all the Greek coins were comparatively fresh.”² Evidence of a more convincing nature has been furnished by a find of coins made in Sir John Marshall’s excavations at Taxila during the cold season of the year 1912-13. In the Bir Mound, the earliest of the three cities till then excavated by him there, he lighted upon a small hoard in the shape of one hundred and seventy-five punch-marked coins along with a gold coin of Diodotus struck in the name of Antiochus II of Syria.¹ It will thus be seen that the hoard belongs to a period when Diodotus was still a Satrap of Antiochus and before he declared the independence of Bactria. As the punch-marked coins of this deposit are thus of a time when Bactria was still subordinate to the Seleukidan power, it is not possible to assert now that the Hindus learnt the art of coinage from their Bactrian Greek neighbours. Even numismatic considerations pointed to the same inevitable conclusion, as was contended long ago by Alexander Cunningham. "If the Hindus had derived their knowledge of coinage from the Greeks, the types, shape, and standard of all their money would have been Greek."² The Bactrian Greek coins are round in form, conform to the Attic standard, and contain invariably a bust on the obverse and a Hellenic deity on the reverse. The earliest Hindu coins, on the other hand, are mostly square in form, correspond to any but the Attic standard, and, in point of type, have never shown any bust or any Hellenic divinity on any one of their sides. Besides, they are utterly without inscriptions which are invariably found on Bactrian Greek coins. In these circumstances, to say that the Hindus are indebted to the Bactrian Greeks for the art of stamping money is a mere gratuitous supposition unwarranted by any facts or rather opposed to all facts. It is no wonder, therefore, if the modern followers of Prinsep and Wilson have given up this assailable position, and are now taking their stand on the ground that the art of coin-making was adopted by the imitative Hindus, somewhat earlier, *i.e.*, between 500 and 700 B.C., but doubtless from some foreigners, possibly the Babylonians. You may perhaps ask whether Cunningham and Thomas, who, representing the other view, have any successors at present just as Prinsep and Wilson have Kennedy and Smith, and I may therefore inform you that amongst the modern numismatists Prof. Rapson is the only one who holds that the most ancient coinage of India was developed independently of any foreign influence.¹ In regard to their date, however, he says that its earliest specimens are probably as early as the beginning of the 4th century B.C. only.²

c7.10

² *N Chr.*, XIII (1873), 209; *CAI.*, 54.

c7.11

¹ ASI.-AR., 1912-13, pp. 41-2.

c7.12

² NChr., XIII (1873), 212.

c7.13

¹ JRAS., 1895, 869 & ff.

c7.14

² IC., 2.

c7.15

I confess, I cannot possibly understand how Kennedy and Smith can bring themselves to regard the Kārshāpaṇas, the earliest coinage of India, as a foreign importation. Both again go to the extent of saying that the Hindus adopted the art of coin-making just as they learnt the usefulness of alphabet—from foreign country. This is, indeed, a most astounding assertion. Of course, there was something to be said in favour of those who held that the Brāhmī, the oldest Indian alphabet, was derived from the Semitic script, as no doubt was contended by Weber and Bühler. We had both Brāhmī and Semitic alphabets before us for our scrutiny. We could very well see that there were many characters which bore close resemblance to each other, and were intended to denote the same sound. Again, it was almost conclusively shown that the Brāhmī like all Semitic alphabets, was originally written from right to left. Besides, the earliest Semitic script was definitely known to be earlier than the earliest form of the Brāhmī lipi. When, therefore, Bühler wrote on this subject, he was certainly right in maintaining that the Brāhmī was derived from the Semitic script, though, as I showed you last year, we have now to abandon this theory in the light of the evidence furnished by certain pre-historic artifacts. But what are the grounds for saying that the Hindus adopted their metallic currency from foreign source, as is no doubt asserted by Kennedy and Smith? Have they found any coins outside India of a period prior to 600 or 700 B.C. and of a type closely corresponding to the Kārshāpaṇas? Is there any evidence at all to show that there was foreign coinage, of a date anterior to 600 or 700 B.C. the earliest date assigned by them to the Kārshāpaṇas, which through identity or at any rate extreme similarity of type can rightly be called to be their prototype? I confess I am not aware of any such foreign coinage, and carefully as I have read the articles written by Kennedy and Smith on this subject, I do not find that they ever describe what sort of foreign coinage this was or even attempt to adduce any shred of evidence to show that such a coinage at all existed outside India. In these circumstances is it not absurd to asseverate that the Hindus learnt the use of coinage from foreigners? Does it not clearly indicate that such an *ipse dixit* has been prompted by nothing but the propensity of attributing everything useful or clever in Indian art to an extraneous origin? I emphatically and without any fear of contradiction maintain that the Kārshāpaṇa coinage, which is the earliest metallic currency whose specimens are found in India, has not yet been definitely proved to be of foreign origin.

c7.16

To find out, however, whether there was any foreign influence on the earliest metallic currency of India, we must discuss the question: to what earliest period the art of coin-making in India is traceable. The question can be satisfactorily answered only by ransacking our literature, sacred and profane, Brahmanic and Buddhist, and finding out what classes of coins were prevalent at different periods before 400 B.C. which is the earliest date assigned by Prof. Rapson to the Kārshāpaṇas.

c7.17

Now, if we take up Pāṇini's *Aṣṭādhyāyī* which is useful not only for the study of Sanskrit grammar but also for constructing the social, religious and economic history of India, we find that in *adhyāya* V and *pāda* 1 he mentions certain affixes which have the sense of *tena krītam*, i.e. "purchased with this price" and *tad=arhati*, i.e. "which deserves that." You can at once perceive that here is a section which must throw some light on the economic condition of India in Pāṇini's time and the various media of exchange then prevalent. And, as a matter of fact, this natural expectation is more than fully realised through a study of these Sūtras. We are not, however, here concerned with a detailed specification of these media of exchange. Our present object is merely to ascertain whether there are any references to the use of coins in Pāṇini's work, and if so, what kinds are mentioned. And somewhat startling as it may appear, we notice that Pāṇini refers to at least seven kinds of coins. Not only does he speak of the Kārshāpaṇas but also of Nishkas, Śatamānas and so forth. Pāṇini, as I have repeatedly told you, has to be assigned to the middle of the 6th century B.C. at the latest. And if seven different types of metallic currency were prevalent in India about 550 B.C., the beginning of the art of coin-making in this country must be placed earlier than 700 B.C.

c7.18

But I can very well imagine some sense of doubt crossing your mind. I have no doubt said that Pāṇini flourished about 550 B.C. Prof. Goldstücker and Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar would place him even earlier. But as I have told you in my last lecture, this view is not shared by the European scholars in general. The argument about the antiquity of Indian coinage, which may be based upon the study of Pāṇini’s Sūtras as I have done just now, will, I am afraid, not carry conviction to them, as they drag Pāṇini down to 350 B.C. We must, therefore, base our argument on that section of Indian literature, about the early date of which there is a general consensus of opinion among European scholars. And what other works can present themselves to our mind in this connection than the Jātakas or Buddha’s Birth Stories which form an important part of Buddhist literature? The Jātaka stories may not perhaps constitute the earliest class of this literature, but certain it is that they represent a social and political condition prior to the rise of Buddhism and belonging to the sixth or even seventh century B.C. This is the opinion not of Indian antiquarians but of European scholars, such as Bühler and Prof. Rhys Davids.¹ Let us, therefore, see what the Jātaka tales teach us on this point, i.e. whether they speak of any class or classes of coins which were current in India at the early period.

c7.19

¹ Bühler (IS., III. 16 & ff) refers the Pāli Buddhist Canon "to the fifth and possibly to the sixth century B.C."; and as he says that the Jātaka stories are loans from “the old pre-Buddhistic national tradition of India” and that the state of civilisation described in them “is in various respects primitive,” the life portrayed in them must be assigned to the seventh, at the latest the sixth, century B.C. For Rhys Davids’ views, see Buddhist India, 207-8.

c7.20.1

Now, any one who carefully studies Pāṇini’s Sūtras and the Jātaka stories cannot but be impressed by the fact that both depict ancient India of practically the same period. It is not, therefore, surprising if we find the same classes of coins referred to in both. But Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī, just because it consists of aphorisms, cannot be expected to throw much light on this subject beyond the mere mention of the denominations of coins. The case is, however, different in regard to the Buddhist Jātakas. As they portray social and economic India of the 7th century B.C., it is here that we can clearly see what part, insignificant or important, stamped metallic currency played in the manifold transactions of the people at that early period. Let us, in the first place, see whether there was any gold currency in India at that time. Of course, as India was the land of gold in those days at least, we must naturally expect some sort of gold coinage to have been then prevalent. And we certainly find that our expectations are not unfounded. For we read of at least three classes of gold coinage in the Jātaka literature. And as gold is the most precious metal of which coins can be manufactured, it is only in connection with hoards of money, munificent gifts and so forth that we find gold coins mentioned. Thus the Kuhaka Jātaka¹ gives us an amusing story of a scamp of an ascetic who goes to a village and lives in a hermitage built by a local Kuṭumbika or farmer.

c7.20.2

Taking the ascetic to be a model of goodness, the farmer brings his hundred nishkas of gold to the hermitage and there buries them, requesting him to keep watch over them. Confiding in the pious protestations of the hermit, the farmer goes off, but the former covertly removes the gold and buries it in the wayside. The very next day the ascetic takes leave of the farmer, but returns shortly after to return a straw from the farmer’s roof which has stuck in his matted hair but which does not belong to him. This over-manifestation of moral sensitiveness arouses the suspicion of a shrewd trader who has halted on the outskirts of the village and who forthwith sees the farmer and warns him. Away they hasten in hot pursuit, catch the rascal, and kick and cuff him till he shows to them where he hid the gold. The trader, who is the Bodhisattva of this story, rebukes the ascetic, saying: “So a hundred Nishkas did not trouble your conscience so much as that straw." Here then a specific class of coins—gold coins—is mentioned, *viz.* Nishkas, for the valuation of a rich farmer's hoarding. Only two references to Nishkas may be given out of the many which I was able to trace in the Jātakas.

c7.20.3

Some of you are pretty well conversant with the Vessantara Jātaka, which, among other things, tells us how Vessantara, King of Śibi, who had retired to a forest, gives over his son and daughter completely to a Brāhman called Jūjaka.¹ Of course, the children are reluctant to go, and he comforts them by saying : "Son Jāli, if you wish to become free, you must pay the Brāhman a thousand Nishkas. But your sister is very beautiful ; if any person of low birth should give the Brāhman so and so much to make her free, he would break her birthright. None but a king can give all things by the hundred ; therefore if your sister would be free, let her pay the Brāhman a hundred male and a hundred female slaves together with elephants, horses, bulls and Nishkas, all a hundred each." Thus did he price the children and comfort them, and taking water in his waterpot he poured it out, giving the Brāhman this precious gift of his children. Here we have a father before us, putting a price upon his children ; and as the latter are of the royal blood, naturally this price has to be the heaviest, and the coins to appraise it must necessarily be of the highest value. The Nishkas here specified must, therefore, represent the highest order of gold coins. We now turn to a third Jātaka, the Great Being of which story is a snake-king called Champeyya who allows himself to be caught by a snake-charmer for his good.

c7.20.4

By making the snake perform to the crowd of a frontier village the snake-charmer earns as much as one thousand Kārshāpaṇas in one single day.¹ Desire of further gain impels him to go to the capital-town, Vārāṇasī. While the performance to the local king is going on, the wife of the snake-king suddenly makes her appearance and offers a handsome ransom, one of the numerous items of which is one hundred Nishkas.² In this Jātaka we find two classes of coins specified, viz. the Kārshāpaṇas and Nishkas. The first evidently are the silver and the second the gold money of the country of Kāśi.

c7.21

¹ Jāt. I, 375 & ff.

c7.22

¹ Ibid., VI, 546. 28 ; 547. 6.

c7.23

¹ Ibid., IV, 458, 6.

c7.24

² Ibid., 460, 28 ; 461, 7 & 10.

c7.25.1

It is, however, a mistake to suppose that Nishkas were the only class of gold coins known to the Jātaka literature. Not unfrequently we meet with an expression in which the words *hiraṇya* and *suvarṇa* are associated together. Thus the Bhūridatta Jātaka gives us another tale of a snake-king tamed by a snake-charmer who amassed a fortune by making him assume various appearances and exhibit dancing powers. At the very first performance that he gave in a village, the people, we are told, were so pleased that they heaped on him *hiraṇya*, *suvarṇa*, *vastra*, *alaṃkāra* and the like.¹ Of course, *vastra* and *alaṃkāra* mean ‘garments’ and ‘ornaments’ respectively. But what about *hiraṇya* and *suvarṇa*? For both signify ‘gold,’ and consequently one of these words becomes superfluous. On the other hand, *suvarṇa* denotes a specific kind of gold coins, which the other word, *viz.* *hiraṇya*, does not. It is true that Suvarṇa denotes a certain weight as well as a gold coin of this weight, and it is no doubt possible to suppose that in this particular Jātaka story, the word *suvarṇa* means merely gold bullion of this weight. But according to this supposition, *suvarṇa*, like the other word, *viz.* *hiraṇya*, would signify gold only, and thus there remains no distinction between the two. Are we not therefore compelled to infer that *suvarṇa* in this as in other places where it is associated with *hiraṇya* must stand not for ‘gold’ but a ‘type of gold coins’? But this is not all.

c7.25.2

For in the Jātaka literature we read of gold coins of a still smaller denomination. I have been able to trace at least two references to a type of gold coins called Suvarṇa-Māshaka. Thus in the Udaya-Jātaka we are introduced to Udayabhadra and Udayabhadrā, who are brother and sister and yet become husband and wife. They are the king and queen of the Kāśi kingdom. Udayabhadra dies, and becomes Śakra in the Heaven of the Thirty-three (*Tāvatiṃsa-bhavana*). And he comes to the mortal world one day to tempt his former wife with riches, by, we are told, lavishing encomium on her beauty and holding before her a golden dish replete with Suvarṇa-Māshakas.¹ Again, in the Saṃkhapāla-Jātaka we have a third instance of a snake-king being captured, this time, however, by a party of sixteen men. A rich landowner, who happens to pass that way, sees the Bodhisattva in great agony, and, struck with compassion, releases him by making handsome gifts to those lewd fellows amongst which prominent mention is made of the Suvarṇa-Māshakas.² But what is a Suvarṇa-Māshaka, you may naturally ask me here? I may have something to tell you about it in my next lectures, but here it will be sufficient to state that *māsha* is a unit in the weight system of Indian coinage which differs in weight according as the coin is of gold, silver or copper. And while, as a rule, *māsha* denotes the weight, Māshaka denotes a coin of this weight.

c7.25.3

A Suvarṇa-Māshaka is, therefore, a gold coin which is equal to one *māsha* in weight according to the standard of gold coinage. And in the first of the two instances here quoted we have seen that Udayabhadra holds in front of his wife a plate filled with Suvarṇa-Māshakas, which, just because we are not told how many they were, cannot denote pieces of gold bullion but gold coins only,—such as were ready at hand and could be got hold of at any time for waving them round a person. As the plate is said to have been filled with Suvarṇa-Māshakas, it follows that they were all distinct pieces, so that each one of them could be called a Suvarṇa-Māshaka, and that each piece weighed one *māsha*. And are we to suppose that in this instance gold bullion was so adroitly chopped off, and just on the spur of the moment, that every bit weighed exactly one *māsha* and could thus be a separate piece by itself? This is simply absurd. We thus perceive that in ancient India of the sixth or perhaps of the seventh century B. C. no less than three types of gold coins were current. Of the lowest value was the Māshaka, of a higher denomination was the Suvarṇa, and of a still higher denomination, the Nishka.

c7.26

¹ Ibid., VI. 186. 3. The phrase *hirañña-suvaṇṇa* occurs also in Jāt. VI. 69. 18, which is translated by ‘gold and coin’ by Cowell and Rouse (p. 38). The same phrase is met with in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (p. 243) also but in its Sanskrit form, and is rendered by Mr. Shama Sastri as ‘bar gold and coined gold’ (p. 305). Compare also JRAS., 1901, p. 879.

c7.27

¹ Jāt., IV. 106. 1; 107. 17.

c7.28

² Ibid., V. 164. 15-6.

c7.29

There was yet another class of coins which is frequently referred to in the Jātaka stories.

c7.30

I mean the Kārshāpaṇa about which most of you must have already heard. I do not wish to say much here about this type as the whole of my next lecture will be devoted to this subject. The Kārshāpaṇa, as we read of it in the Jātaka literature, was of three varieties according as it was of gold, silver and copper. Gold Kārshāpaṇa, however, is seldom referred to, and the common types of Kārshāpaṇa that we hear of are either silver or copper. How extensive and deep the circulation of this type of money was in all the strata of the society of the seventh century B. C. is clear even from a cursory study of the Jātaka tales, but this we shall see in the next lecture.

c7.31.1

I am afraid we cannot stop here but must proceed further to find out whether there are any references to metallic currency in literature of a still earlier date than that of the Jātakas. You must have already guessed that it is the Vedic literature that I am here alluding to. No doubt, even here there is perceptible the tendency of some European scholars to drag down the various compositions of this literature to as late a period as possible. But even then it must be admitted that they have not been able to place them later than the age represented by the Jātakas. If we can, therefore, trace any mention of coined money in the Vedic literature, we can conclusively say that the use of this money was known to India long long prior to 600 or 700 B.C. Let us therefore see whether the works comprising this literature make mention of the metallic currency. Some of you probably know that Kātyāyana’s Śrauta-sūtra contains a reference to a coin called Śatamāna. It is curious that there is no mention of this class of coins anywhere in the Buddhist works, though the name occurs in a Pāṇini’s sūtra¹ and Kātyāyana’s vārtika,² showing clearly that Śatamāna was known till the Maurya period.

c7.31.2

The Śrauta-sūtra of Kātyāyana, in the chapter entitled the Rājasūya-nirūpaṇam, refers to the Śatamāna coin in three consecutive Sūtras.³ But this Śrauta-sūtra probably is of the same period as the Jātakas, and it may consequently be argued that it does not take us anterior to the time we have reached on the strength of these Buddhist Birth Stories. We must, therefore, go to Vedic compositions which are prior in date to this Sūtra. The class of writings, which are of an immediately prior period to the Śrauta-Sūtras are, of course, the Upanishads. The only coin name that we meet with in these works is Nishka which occurs thrice in the Chhāṃdogya.⁴ But if we correctly interpret the passages of this Upanishad, the word nishka in them must be taken to signify "a necklace" and not "a coin." We know that even in classical Sanskrit literature this word had both these senses. And as in the Chhāndogya Upanishad the term nishka has been used in the sense of a "necklace" only, it cannot serve our object. But if the Upanishads are not thus of any use to us, the Brāhmaṇas which are predecessors to the Upanishads can be profitably brought into requisition in this connection. Of this class of composition the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa is perhaps the best known to us, as both a well-edited text and a critical translation are available. We will therefore confine our main attention to this Brāhmaṇa.

c7.31.3

Now, in the Kāṇḍa dealing with the Rājasūya we have a section which treats of the Ratha-vimochanīya oblations. And in connection therewith we are told that behind the right hind-wheel of the cart-stand the king fastens two ROUND Śatamānas, which he has afterwards to give to the Brāhman priests as his fee for this ceremony.¹ Again, in another place the same Brāhmaṇa has the following: "Three Śatamānas are the sacrificial fee for this (offering). He presents them to the Brahman; for the Brahman neither performs (like the Adhvaryu), nor chants (like the Udgātṛi), nor recites (like the Hotṛi), and yet he is an object of respect: therefore he presents to the Brahman three Śatamānas.”¹ Of course, Sāyaṇa in this and the preceding passage takes Śatamāna to denote ‘a round plate,’ but the case is not unlike that of Nāgojibhaṭṭa who, while commenting on the celebrated passage from the Mahābhāshya referred to in my last lecture, interprets Mauryas as idol-makers. But just as no scholar will now understand Mauryas to mean idol-manufacturers but take them to denote the Maurya princes only, no one can similarly explain the term Śatamāna in the way in which Sāyaṇa has done, but he must interpret it to denote the Śatamāna coin alone. Śatamāna may, however, have been one hundred mānas or guñjā berries in weight as explained by Sāyaṇa and accepted by Prof.

c7.31.4

Eggeling, but as it is spoken of as vṛitta or ROUND in shape in the first of the two instances just adduced, it must stand for coined money and not mere bullion weighing one hundred guñjās. I will quote two more passages from the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, because in them another class of coins have been mentioned side by side with Śatamāna. The first passage is: *Suvarṇam hiraṇyaṃ bhavati rūpasy=ev=āvaruddhyai Śatamānaṃ bhavati śatāyur=vai purushaḥ.*² The second is: *hiraṇyaṃ dakshiṇā Suvarṇam Śatamānaṃ tasy=oktam.*³ It will be seen that here Suvarṇa is associated with Śatamāna, and both are called *hiraṇya* or gold. As Suvarṇa is thus distinguished from *hiraṇya*, Suvarṇa must, like Śatamāna, denote a coin, and not simply ‘gold’ as has been wrongly understood by Prof. Eggeling in his translation of this Brāhmaṇa. Two passages of similar import are noticeable also in the Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa, which specify the reason why Śatamāna is given as a sacrificial fee. Here I shall cite one only, viz. *Śatamānaṃ bhavati śatāyuḥ puruṣaḥ śat-endriyaḥ āyuṣy=ev=endriye pratitiṣṭhati*.¹ Nay, the very same passage is traceable in the Taittirīya-Saṃhitā,² which, you are all aware, forms the Saṃhitā text of the Black Yajur-Veda. This means that the Śatamāna type of coin was known to the Aryan India not only in the Brāhmaṇa but also in the Saṃhitā period.

c7.32

¹ V. 1. 27.

c7.33

² On Pāṇini’s V. 1. 29.

c7.34

³ XV. 181-3.

c7.35

⁴ IV. 2. 1-3.

c7.36

¹ V. 4. 3. 24 & 26.

c7.37

¹ V. 5. 5. 16.

c7.38

² XII. 7. 2. 13.

c7.39

³ XIII, 2. 3. 2.

c7.40

¹ I. 7. 6. 2; I. 2. 7. 7.

c7.41

² III. 2, 6. 3; II. 3. 11. 5.

c7.42

The fourteenth or concluding Kāṇḍa of the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa³ gives us a story about Janaka, King of Videha. He had celebrated a sacrifice in which he bestowed huge largesses upon the Brāhmaṇs of the Kuru-Pañchāla country. A curiosity sprung up in his mind as to who was the best-read of these Brāhmaṇs. He collected a thousand kine, and we are told that to every single horn of each cow were tied ten *pādas*, and it was proclaimed that they should be taken away by him alone who is best cognisant with *brahman*. The story further goes, as some of you here probably know, that Yājñavalkya alone had the indomitable courage of claiming them. But we are not concerned with that part of the story. What we are here concerned with is to know what those *pādas* were, ten of which were fastened to each horn of the cows. It has been suggested by Böhtlingk and Roth, and accepted by Prof. Rhys Davids¹ that the word *pāda* here denotes the fourth part of a certain gold weight but not a coin. Are we then to suppose that as the cows that were brought were one thousand in number, as each cow has two horns and as each horn carried ten Pādas, King Janaka ordered 20,000 pieces of gold to be hammered out, each again weighing just one-fourth of a certain weight,—all this just on the spur of the moment when the idea of testing the erudition of the Brāhmaṇs occurred to him²? I am afraid this idea would be too ridiculous for any scholar to entertain seriously in his mind. On the other hand, Pāda is known to be the name of a coin and has been referred to in one of Pāṇini’s sūtras¹ and also in an inscription of the tenth century A.D.² Of course, it must have denoted a coin which in value was one-fourth of that coin which was the standard money, just as the modern denomination pāvlā or pāvlī which is derived from the word pāda denotes four annas, i.e. exactly one-fourth of the standard coin, viz. the rupee. Only if pāda is taken to stand for a coin, it is easy to understand that Janaka could at any moment get hold of 20,000 such coins from his treasury for being tied to the horns of the cows.

c7.43

³ The same story is repeated in the Bṛhadāraṇyakopanishad, III, 1. 1 & ff.

c7.44

¹ ACMC., p. 3, n. 2.

c7.45

² Even if we suppose that to each horn of a cow was fastened gold weighing ten *pādas*, we have to assume that Janaka on the spur of the moment had 2000 pieces of gold hammered out, each conforming to that weight—which also is absurd enough.

c7.46

¹ V. 1. 34.

c7.47

² EI., I, 173. 23 & 178. 11.

c7.48

There is another class of coins referred to in the Brāhmaṇas,—I mean Kṛiṣṇala. Thus the Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa has the following passage: *Kṛiṣṇalam Kṛiṣṇalam Vājasṛidbhyaḥ prayachchhati*,³ i.e. he gives a Kṛiṣṇala to each racer. Kṛiṣṇala, we know, denotes the well-known raktikā or guñjā berry, and what Kṛiṣṇala here means is a coin, possibly of gold, weighing one guñjā berry. This receives confirmation from the fact that the Kāṭhaka-Saṃhitā makes mention of *hiraṇya* Kṛiṣṇala,⁴ i.e. the gold coin Kṛiṣṇala. Kṛiṣṇala certainly continued to be known as a coin as late as the time of Manu.⁵ Thus in Chapter VIII, e.g., he ordains that a hired servant or workman, who, without being ill, out of pride fails to perform his work according to the agreement, shall be fined eight Kṛiṣṇalas.

c7.49

³ I. 3. 6. 7.

c7.50

⁴ XI. 4.

c7.51

⁵ VIII. 215 & 330 ; IX. 84; XI. 137.

c7.52

It is well-known that the names of coins are also the names of metal weights. Thus not only are Nishka, Suvarṇa, etc., the names of particular classes of coins but they are also the names of the weights according to which metals are weighed. In most of the instances here adduced there can be no doubt that they are the names of coins, but in the case of a few of them some of you will, I am sure, think that the names specified may be the names of weights and not of coins. Thus in the instances of Nishkas from the Jātakas and of Kṛiṣṇalas which I have cited above, it may possibly be contended that it is not very satisfactorily demonstrated that they are coins, and not the weights according to which metal bullion was weighed and passed for money. Up till the advent of the British administration the practice in Burma, *e.g.*, was to carry lumps of metal as currency and chop off the required weight from the lump and tender the chip in exchange for the article wanted.¹ And it is quite possible to imagine that in the instances just referred to, gold bullion equal to one Nishka or Kṛiṣṇala in weight is what is meant, and not necessarily a coin of that denomination. It is, however, to be noted that in Burma there were only two denominations of weight. The smaller, according to which bullion was paid in Burma as money, was the Tickal which was almost invariably mentioned in computing money, the other and higher denomination being Viss which equalled one hundred Tickals but which was seldom used.¹ What is again noteworthy is that Tickal and Viss were employed in weighing not only money but also goods. In India, on the other hand, there were at least six denominations in the Jātaka and earlier periods, and they were used invariably to denote the weights of metal or money, but never of goods. It is again inconceivable that as six different denominations could be employed in one and the same country for paying money by weight. For, if money is to be paid by weight at all, one or two denominations are quite enough. The natural conclusion is that they all denoted not simply money weights but also denominations of coins. And even if we exclude Nishka and Krishnala, I have clearly shown that all the other names could be of coins only in the instances adduced above. And it is, therefore, most unnatural to suppose that Nishka and Krishnala alone denoted money weights, when Suvarna, Satamāna, Māshaka and Kārshāpaṇa were all coins.

c7.53

¹ IA., XXVI, 160.

c7.54

¹ Ibid., 204-5.

c7.55

But what about Nishka in the Vedic period? you are sure to interrogate me here. We see that in this period three types of gold coins were known, viz., Suvarṇa, Śatamāna and Kṛiṣṇala. We hear about them also in the post-Vedic period, up to at least the decline and fall of the Gupta empire. But then in this later period we read about the Nishka coins also. Were they, however, known in the earlier or Vedic period, and, if so, how far earlier in this period can they be traced? This is the question that will now present itself to you. I may at once tell you that mention has been made of Nishkas both in the Brāhmaṇa and Saṁhitā sections of the Vedic literature. I suppose, some of you are acquainted with the story mentioned about Uddālaka Āruṇi in the Śatapatha¹ and Gopatha² Brāhmaṇas. Uddālaka Āruṇi, we are told, was driving about, as a chosen offering-priest, amongst the people of the northern country. By him a Nishka was offered to call out the timid to a disputation. Fear seized the Brāhmaṇas of the northern country, who elect Svaidāyana-Śaunaka as their champion. And a fierce wrangling arose in which, however, Svaidāyana-Śaunaka had the better of Uddālaka Āruṇi, who gave up to him the Nishka, saying, “Thou art learned, Svaidāyana; and, verily, gold is given unto him who knows gold.”

c7.56

¹ XI. 4, 1. 1 & 8.

c7.57

² I, 3, 6.

c7.58

Let us now try to find out whether there are any references to Nishka in the pre-Brāhmaṇa strata of the Vedic compositions. But here it is necessary to repeat the remark which I made sometime ago. Nishka, I then told you, is used in two senses. It signifies ‘a coin’ and also ‘a necklace.’ Many are the passages in which the word nishka is employed in the sense of ‘a necklace,’ but passages are not wanting in which the other signification of the word occurs. Thus in the Atharva-Veda, Nishka, denoting a coin, is found at least in one place. Thus we have a passage in this Veda,¹ where Kaurama, the liberal King of the Rushamas, bestows upon a Ṛishi along with other things a hundred Nishkas, which can here mean Nishka coins only, and not necklaces, because it was customary to present one necklace only to a priest and because a hundred necklaces could not be intended for the personal ornamentation of a single individual, viz., the priest. Similarly, in the first Maṇḍala of the Ṛig-Veda we have a hymn in which the poet-priest Kākshīvat praises the munificence of his patron, King Bhāvayavya, thus:

c7.59

¹ XX, 127. 3.

c7.60

शतं राज्ञो नाधमानस्य निष्कान्दशतमश्वान् प्रयतान्सद्य आदम् ।
I. 126. 2.

c7.61

“A hundred Nishkas from the king, beseeching, a hundred gift-steeds I at once accepted.”

c7.62

In regard to this passage, the authors of the “Vedic Index”¹ rightly say that “as early as the Rigveda traces are seen of the use of Nishkas as a sort of currency, for a singer celebrates the receipt of a hundred Nishkas and a hundred steeds : he could hardly require the Nishkas merely for purposes of personal adornment.” In justice to Edward Thomas it must be said that it was he who first drew attention to this among other passages to prove the existence of metallic currency in the Rig-Vedic times.² His other passages, however, were by no means reliable, because some were misinterpreted and others were made to prove far more than was logically warranted. It is for this reason that the single passage which I have just quoted but which was first pointed out by him does not seem to have arrested the attention of scholars.

c7.63

¹ I. 454-5.

c7.64

² AIW., 34.

c7.65

But here a question arises : what was the kind of metallic currency represented by the Nishkas in the Rig-Vedic times ? Were they coined money or unstamped bullion currency ? Let us see whether we can settle this point more precisely. Just a short while ago, I told you that as in classical, so in Vedic Sanskrit, the word nishka is used also in the sense of ‘a necklace.' ‘Vedic Sanskrit’ must, of course, include the Ṛik-Saṃhitā. From this Saṃhitā I have already quoted a verse in which nishka occurs in the sense of at least ‘metallic currency.’ If any instance of the other sense from this source is required, it is supplied by Hymn 33 of Maṇḍala II of the Ṛigveda. The line in question is :

c7.66

अर्हन्बिभर्षि सायकानि धन्वारहन्निष्कां यजतं विश्वरूपम् ।

c7.67.1

Here the god Rudra, to whom this hymn is addressed, is described as wearing a nishka or golden chain or necklace. But be it noted that this nishka is called viśva-rūpa. What can viśva-rūpa mean? Does it signify ‘omniform’? If so, what is meant by saying that Rudra’s necklace was omniform? I am afraid this does not convey any good sense, and we must try to find out what could be the natural and proper sense of this term? Before, however, we can hope to arrive, at any rate, at a plausible solution, we must consider the question : how could the word nishka come to signify both ‘a currency’ and a ‘necklace’? Was there in the nature of things anything common which could make any one of these senses yield the other. A little reflection will tell you that this is possible only if we suppose that Nishka means not simply ‘a currency’ but ‘a coin,’ and that Nishka denoted a necklace because it consisted of Nishkas--the coins. The practice of making necklaces out of coins is prevalent almost all over India, and is by no means unknown, I am told, even in Bengal. In Mahārāṣṭra, I know, the poorer classes get a goldsmith to cast gold coins in imitation of certain Byzantine originals which they call *puṭalyā*, which are afterwards strung into a necklace which also is called *puṭalyā*. If such is the case to this day in Mahārāṣṭra, we can easily understand how ‘a gold coin’ and ‘a necklace’ can both be called *nishka*.

c7.67.2

The practice of fastening coins into a necklace can by no means be regarded as a feature of modern India only, but was actually in vogue in ancient times also. Thus the Jaina canonical work entitled the *Kalpa-sūtra*,¹ which describing Śrī, the goddess of beauty, whom Triśālā, mother of Mahāvīra, saw in her dream, speaks of the former as bearing *urattha-dīnāra-mālaya*, i.e., a string of Dīnāras on her breast. Now, Dīnāra, as most of you are aware, is an Indian gold coin adopted from the Roman *denarius* during the Kushana rule in the first century A.D. And here we are told that a *mālā* or necklace was made of these gold coins and adorned the breast of the goddess Śrī. The custom of stringing coins into a necklace is thus not of modern origin, but was prevalent in ancient India also. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to say that ‘a necklace’ was called *nishka*, because it was made of coins called *nishkas*. *Nishka* must, therefore, be taken in the sense of ‘a coin’ and not merely of ‘a metallic currency.’ If this natural explanation is not accepted, I ask, how are you going to interpret the word *viśva-rūpa* occurring in the hymn referred to above, how can you explain satisfactorily the god Rudra’s wearing a neklace that was *viśva-rūpa*. A good sense of the term *viśva-rūpa* it is possible to fix upon, only if we admit that *nishka* means a necklace, originally at any rate, consisting of *Nishka* coins.

c7.67.3

The *rūpa* in *viśva-rūpa* can at once be recognised to be a word technical to the old Indian science of numismatics and denoting the symbol or figure on a coin which for that reason is styled *rūpya*. The term is met with in this technical sense not only in the early Brahmanical but also in the Buddhist literature. We shall come to know more about it in the fourth lecture of this series. But suffice it to repeat here that *rūpa* signifies a symbol or figure on a coin, and this enables us at once to perceive the significance of *viśva-rūpa*. What the seer, or rather the composer of the hymn, means is that the necklace worn by the deity Rudra was composed of *Nishka* coins, and that just because these *Nishka* coins bore various *rūpas* or figures on them, the necklace was naturally *viśva-rūpa*. The earliest of coins found in India are the punch-marked coins, and we know that no less than three hundred different devices or *rūpas* have been marked on them. No wonder if the necklace of Rudra which was made of Nishka coins is described as *viśva-rūpa*, i.e., covered with manifold *rūpas* or figures.¹ This seems to be the most natural and reasonable interpretation of the phrase *viśva-rūpa* which qualifies the term *nishka* in the sense of ‘necklace.’ And this is additional evidence to show that Nishkas were coined money and not merely metallic currency.

c7.67.4

In fact, unstamped metallic currency also was not unknown in the Ṛig-Vedic period, and is distinguished from the Nishkas by a distinct phraseology. Thus Maṇḍala VI contains a hymn, which is a panegyric by the Ṛishi Garga of the King Divodās, son of Śriñjaya.² In this hymn there is one Ṛik which enumerates the gifts bestowed by this king on the poet-priest. And among these mention is made of *daśa hiraṇya-piṇḍa* which the Ṛishi received. Now, what does *hiraṇya-piṇḍa* mean here? As these *hiraṇya-piṇḍas* have been specifically mentioned as ten, it appears that each *hiraṇya-piṇḍa* conformed to a definite recognised value. And as the word *piṇḍa* shows, it was bullion beaten into somewhat definite, *i.e.*, probably roundish, shape. The *hiraṇya-piṇḍas*, which the seer Garga received, appear, therefore, to be buttons of gold which passed as unstamped money in the Ṛig-Vedic period. Of course, there is nothing strange in both stamped and unstamped money circulating in one and the same period. Not many years ago, as you will recollect, the Ḍhābuās, which were unstamped copper coins, circulated freely in Bengal along with stamped coinage of various denominations. We need not, therefore, be surprised, if we find from the Ṛig-veda that both *hiraṇya-piṇḍas* and Nishkas, *i.e.*, unstamped and stamped money, were current at one and the same time.

c7.68

¹ P. 44; SBE., XXII. 233. An inscription at Śrīkūrmam dated 1240 Śaka speaks of a necklace consisting of seven gold Nishka coins themselves (EI., V, 37).

c7.69

¹ This is exactly the interpretation put upon the phrase by E. Thomas, who rightly also draws our attention to *lakshaṇ-āhataṃ Dināra-dvayam* occurring in Northern Sanskrit Buddhist texts (NO.—AIW., 35-36).

c7.70

² VI. 47. 23.

c7.71

Now, what is the upshot of the whole discussion? We find that not only Pāṇini’s Sūtras or Buddhist Birth Stories, but all sections of the Vedic literature, contain undoubted references to the different classes of coins. Thus the coins called Kṛiṣṇalas, Suvarṇas, Śatamānas and Nishkas have been mentioned not only in the Brāhmaṇa but also in the Saṃhitā portions of the Vedas. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the art of coining was known to India when the Vedic Aryans composed their hymns. I am aware that different scholars have propounded different theories in regard to the duration of the Vedic period, especially in regard to its initial point. Thus according to some of them the Vedic period begins from 1200, according to some from 1500 and according to some again from 2000 B.C., all however agreeing that it terminates about 500 B.C. The ‘Age of the Veda’ was about eleven years ago subjected to a searching and exhaustive scrutiny by Prof. Winternitz, whose views have now-a-days to be accepted. “As the result of the investigations of the last ten years,” says he, “it could be said that it is probable that in place of 500 B.C. will have to be substituted the date 800 B.C., and it is more probable that the initial date falls in the third rather than in the second millennium.”¹

c7.72

¹ Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur, Pt, I, p. 258.

c7.73

Thus, according to Prof. Winternitz, the Vedic period in all probability extends from 2500 to 800 B.C. If this is so, coined money must be considered to be existing in India as early as the middle of the third millennium before Christ. Is it not therefore absurd to say, as Kennedy and Smith have done, that India did not know of any coined money before 400 or 700 B.C.? What is strange is that they have expressed this sweeping view even when they had E. Thomas’ book before them and especially the passage from the Rig-veda quoted above. This, I believe, has to be attributed to the tendency of some European scholars to regard everything Indian that is good or original as having been adopted from the foreigners and as being of a comparatively late date. This tendency, I am afraid, even a savant like Max Müller was not able to shake off from his mind. Last year while lecturing on the ancient alphabet of India I had occasion to show how far he had exhibited it. This year it is my misfortune to point out how far he has manifested it in regard to the subject we have been considering here to-night. Max Müller emphatically maintains that "the Hindus derived their knowledge of coined money from foreign nations."¹ But then what becomes of the word Nishka which occurs in the sense of a gold coin and which was certainly known to him, he being a pre-eminent Vedic scholar? This is what he says: "Nothing seems to be more likely than that it should be derived from Kanishka, the Sanskrit name of Kanerki, as we speak of a "Sovereign," the French of a "Louis." The First syllable Ka may be taken as the usual royal prefix, particularly as Fahian calls the same king Kanika and Nika. Yet nobody would draw from this the conclusion that the Veda was written after the time of Kanishka. If Nishka be really derived from Ka-Nishka, Kanishka must have been the name or title of more ancient kings, whose money became known in India." In other words, what Max Müller means is that there must have been foreign kings of the name or title of Kanishka before the Veda was written. And why this preposterous supposition? Because the word Nishka in the sense of ‘a coin’ occurs in the Ṛig-veda, and certainly the Hindus derived their knowledge of coined money from the foreign nations!! In justice to Prof. Max Müller it must be said that he does admit that “Nishka may have a very different etymology” to the one that he has proposed. But he makes this remark so incidentally and covertly as to make very little impression on the mind of the student who reads his view about the derivation of Nishka from Kanishka, and it leaves absolutely no doubt in the mind of an impartial and dispassionate scholar as to the kind of bias which has impelled Prof. Max Müller to his view. A far better judicial frame of mind has been displayed by E. Thomas, who traces the Sanskrit word nishka to the Semitic root miskāl, ‘to be weighed,’ but he admits that the Aryans of India “do not appear to have imported or had any knowledge of the Hebrew shekel of 220 grains. So that the integrity of the Indian system of weights remains altogether unaffected.”¹

c7.74

¹ HASL., 331-2, and n. on 332,

c7.75

¹ NO.—AIW., 17.

c7.76

I am aware that it is possible to suggest any number of etymological explanations for the word nishka, e.g., the authors of the Śabda-kalpa-druma and the Vāchaspatya derive it from the root nis+kai, thus niśchayena kāyati śobhata =iti. But such etymologies, I am afraid, are anything but convincing. For we know that names of coins are names of weights. No derivation of the word nishka can therefore be acceptable to us except that from a root which means "to weigh." E. Thomas' proposal connecting it with the Semitic root signifying "to be weighed" has thus apparently something in it to commend itself to us, especially as miscal is also the name of a weight in Persia. But this miscal is equal to 72 grains of barley corn only, whereas a Nishka weighs 960 such grains. Whether, therefore, it is permissible to equate Nishka with Miscal is very doubtful. And even if we trace the Sanskrit word to the Semitic root, we must bear in mind that such a proposal can at best go to show that the Aryan and Semitic languages influenced each other—a conclusion that is in no way surprising. This cannot, however, be taken as evidence to show that the art of coin-making was imported into India from the Semitic country, because outside India no metallic currency is known to exist prior to 800 B.C. Besides, no Semitic word of an early period is yet known, corresponding to nishka in sound and denoting a weight like it. Hence Edward Thomas is right in saying that "the integrity of the Indian system of weights remains altogether unaffected."

First 86 of 92 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)