Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7.31

Language: English

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.