Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7.52

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.