Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c7.76

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."