Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7.15

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.