Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7.31.4

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.