Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c8: Lecture III. Kārshāpaṇa : Its Nature and Antiquity

Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c8

Language
English

Contents

Lecture III. Kārshāpaṇa : Its Nature and Antiquity

c8.2

In my last lecture I discussed the question of the antiquity of coinage in India. In connection with this discussion, I had to refer principally to certain classes of coins, such as the Nishka, Śatamāna, Suvarṇa and so forth. And as these are gold coins, you may well ask now whether none but gold coinage was known in India up to the fifth century B.C. This is the first question that must suggest itself to us here. Again, if there were current in India during this early period coins of metal or metals other than gold, can we expect them also to throw some light on the question of the antiquity of coinage in India which we considered in the last lecture? This is the second question that must also occur to us. You will naturally expect me to tackle them both here. This task I will therefore impose upon myself in this lecture.

c8.3

Now, the first question that I am called upon to answer, as you have just seen, is whether there were any coins known in this early period which were of metal other than gold. Even in my last lecture, if you remember rightly, I had occasion to make mention of a class of coins called Kārshāpaṇas, which is frequently referred to in the Jātaka literature, and far more frequently than the classes of gold coins, such as Nishka, Suvarṇa and so on. The Jātaka stories, at any rate such of them as contain references to coins, give us the impression that this Kārshāpaṇa was of three varities, according as it was of gold, silver and copper. Gold Kārshāpaṇa, however, appears to be seldom referred to, the common types being either silver or copper. The different divisions of this coin standard are Kārshāpaṇa, Ardha-Kārshāpaṇa, Pāda-Kārshāpaṇa, Chatur-Māshaka, Tri-Māshaka, Dvi-Māshaka, Eka-Māshaka, Ardha-Māshaka and Kākaṇikā. The values and weights of these coins will receive our full attention later on, but I have here specified the different tokens of this system in order to show how big the table for this money is. I shall now show you, in brief of course, how wide was the circulation of this money in the society depicted by the Jātaka tales. Thus the Gāmaṇi-Chaṇḍa Jātaka speaks of a king of Benares who is noted for his wisdom and impartiality. While one day he is in the judgment hall, two cases come up for consideration in which one and the same individual, namely, Gāmaṇi Chaṇḍa, is charged with having failed to return a pair of oxen which are stolen by thieves and with having caused a grievous hurt to a horse’s leg. The king decides that Caṇḍa shall pay the price of each animal to its owner, that of the pair of oxen being twenty-four and of the horse one thousand Kārshāpaṇas.¹ Of course, these must be silver Kārshāpaṇas, as copper or gold Kārshāpaṇas would be too low or too high a price to pay for those animals. Then another Jātaka gives us the story of a landed proprietor who loses his parcel of a thousand Kārshāpaṇas which falls into the river he is crossing. The parcel is, however, swallowed by a big fish which is caught by a fisherman, and is sold for seven Māshakas to the landed proprietor who is transported with joy to recover his money as his wife was dressing the fish.² These too must be silver Kārshāpaṇas as the seven Māshakas mentioned here as the price of the fish can be a copper token of silver money only.

c8.4

¹ Jāt. II. 305. 19; 306. 19-20.

c8.5

² Ibid., II. 424. 19-20.

c8.6

Various and numerous are the details of every day life portrayed in the Jātakas where we find the Kārshāpaṇa and its small money playing an important part. Thus a professional assessor is paid eight Kārshāpaṇas as his fee,³ and a nice plump dog is bought for one Kārshāpaṇa.⁴ A decent ass is had for eight Kārshāpaṇas, and a fawn for one or two Kārshāpaṇas only.¹ A bundle of grass, again, fetches one Māshaka,² and for the same small coin can be had a jar of liquor.³ A Māshaka or Ardha-Māshaka, again, is the daily wage of a coolie.⁴ And a dead mouse is purchased for a single Kākaṇikā,⁵ almost the lowest money piece of the day, to serve as food to a cat in a tavern, and so on and so on. In fact, whosoever reads these Jātakas carefully cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that silver Kārshāpaṇa and its smaller tokens were intimately connected not only with the commercial life but also the daily intercourse of the period to which these tales belong. Quite in keeping with this is the fact that in the early Buddhist works when any big sums of money are specified, no name of coin is adduced, that of Kārshāpaṇa being understood as is quite clear by its occasional mention.⁶ Kārshāpaṇa was, therefore, looked upon as the standard coin, and the coined money stored in royal treasuries is thus described as Kārshāpaṇa.

c8.7

³ Ibid., IV. 138. 1, 7, 16-20.

c8.8

⁴ Ibid., II. 247. 2.

c8.9

¹ JRAS., 1901, p. 883.

c8.10

² Jāt., III. 130. 8.

c8.11

³ Ibid., I. 350. 11.

c8.12

⁴ Ibid., III. 326. 17.

c8.13

⁵ Ibid., I. 120. 20.

c8.14

⁶ Ibid., IV. 378. 13-15 ; VI, 97. 1-2 etc., etc.

c8.15

Though in the majority of the instances in which Kārshāpaṇa is mentioned in the Jātaka literature, it can refer only to the silver coin, instances are not wanting in which copper and gold Kārshāpaṇas can alone be understood to have been referred to. Thus to hire a carriage in Benares by the hour cost 8 Kārshāpaṇas. The same amount was considered to be a remuneration fit for a barber. Again, tailoring repairs well done, in a suburb of Benares, brought in money at the rate of 1,000 pieces a day.¹ Similarly, a fisherwoman is fined eight Kārshāpaṇas.² In these and a few more such instances it is impossible to conceive Kārshāpaṇa as being of any metal other than copper.

c8.16

¹ JRAS., 1901, pp. 883-4.

c8.17

² Jāt., I. 483. 21.

c8.18

Gold Kārshāpaṇas also were not unknown. I shall give only one reference. The Babbu-Jātaka tells us of a merchant of the Kāśi country who, when he died, left behind a treasure of forty crores of hirañña or gold pieces.³ His wife also died, but so strong was her love of money that she was re-born a mouse and dwelt over the treasure. She fell in love with a stone-cutter, so much so indeed, that she gave him at first one, but afterwards two or three, Kārshāpaṇas every day till by degrees she gave him the whole hoard. Here the treasure is stated to consist of forty crores of gold pieces which are afterwards referred to as Kārshāpaṇas by giving which the hoard is said to have been exhausted. No doubt can be entertained as to Kārshāpaṇa being here intended to denote a gold coin.

c8.19

³ Ibid., I. 478, 7 and 16.

c8.20

Nay, the practice of striking gold, silver and copper Kārshāpaṇas was not confined to the Jātaka period only, but seems to have continued to at least the fifth century A.D., when the celebrated commentaries on the Pāli Canon were written. The Sāmanta-pāsādikā, while explaining a verse from Pātimokkha, says about Kārshāpaṇa as follows: " *tattha Kahāpaṇo ti : suvaṇṇamayo vā rūpiyamayo vā pakatiko vā*, here Kārshāpaṇa is either made of gold, or that made of silver, or the ordinary one,"¹ It will thus be seen that even so late as the fifth century A.D. when the commentary Sāmanta-pāsādikā was composed, Kārshāpaṇa was known to be of three kinds, *viz.*, of gold, silver and copper.

c8.21

¹ INO-ACMC., 8 and n. 3.

c8.22

So far in regard to the Buddhist literature. It may now be asked whether the conclusions we have so far drawn on the strength of Pāli works receive any corroboration from Sanskrit literature. Those who have read Manu will be reminded of the verse: *kārshāpaṇas=tu vijñeyas-tāmrikaḥ kārshikaḥ paṇaḥ*.² Manu, it will be perceived, takes Kārshāpaṇa to denote a *paṇa* or coined money which is *tāmrika*, i.e., made of copper and is *kārshika*, i.e., one Karsha in weight. Thus according to Manu, Kārshāpaṇa is a copper coin only, and the question arises whether there are any Sanskrit works where Kārshāpaṇa is mentioned as being also of gold and silver metals. Surely because Manu has said that Kārshāpaṇa was copper money, it does not follow that this must have been so at all times and at all places. Nārada, quoted in the *Vāchaspatya* under *karsha* regards Kārshāpaṇa apparently as synonymous with Paṇa and remarks that in the south Kārshāpaṇa was a silver coin. The same *Vāchaspatya*, again, under the word *Kārshāpaṇa*, gives three quotations, one from Gautama, one from Kātyāyana and one from a work called *Shaṭ-triṁśat*, and conclusively shows that Kārshāpaṇa is a synonym of Purāṇa which is known to be a silver coin only. Take also the Amarakosha which distinguishes between Kārshāpaṇa and Paṇa. Both, we are told, are *kārshika*, i.e., one Karsha in weight,¹ but Amarasimha speaks of Paṇa alone as *tāmrika*, i.e., made of copper, from which his commentators Kshīrasvāmin and Rāmāśrami infer that Kārshāpaṇa was a silver coin. If we, however, consider the statement of Amarasimha critically, a wider inference is permissible. All that this lexicographer implies is that Kārshā- paṇa was not a copper coin. This may mean that it can be not only silver but also gold money. This seems to me to be the natural inference to draw in the present case. It may, however, be asked whether, as a matter of fact, there is any explicit mention of gold Kārshāpaṇa made anywhere in Sanskrit literature though this inference is permissible from the Amarakosha. I may therefore draw your attention to the gloss of the Kāśikā on Pāṇini’s aphorism jātarūpebhyah parimāṇe,¹ where two illustrations are given in verification of the sūtra, viz., hāṭako Nishkaḥ hāṭakaṃ Kārshāpaṇam. Here the author of the Kāśikā speaks not only of Nishka but also of Kārshāpaṇa as being hāṭaka, i.e., made of gold. No doubt need, therefore, be entertained as to Kārshāpaṇa being also a gold coin.

c8.23

² VIII. 136.

c8.24

¹ II, 9, 88.

c8.25

¹ IV. 3. 153.

c8.26

Now, what is the upshot of this whole discussion? We learn in the first place that the issue of Kārshāpaṇa was not restricted to any particular metal and that there were Kārshāpaṇas not only of copper but also of silver and gold. In favour of this conclusion is the concurrent testimony of both Brahmanical and Buddhist literature. Secondly, Kārshāpaṇa appears to have been so called, because in weight it conformed to one Karsha. We have got the authority of both Manu and Amarasimha in support of this position. Thirdly, one Sanskrit work entitled *Shaṭ-triṃśat* leads to the inference that the silver money called Purāṇa was also known as Kārshāpaṇa. Let us take these three points one by one and try to know about each something more. The first of these points, of course, is why there should be Kārshāpaṇa of three different metals. If Kārshāpaṇa was looked upon in those early days as the standard money, why should it have been struck in gold, silver and also copper? What could be the explanation of this strange fact? In this connection I cannot do better than quote the words of Prof. Rapson who is one of the best authorities on the pre-Muhammadan numismatics of India. In his book on Andhra and Kshatrapa coins he says: “We may gather both directly from the statement of the law-books, and more generally from the study of the coins, that in Ancient India silver and copper coinages were often independent of each other and circulated in different districts. A copper currency was not necessarily regarded as merely auxiliary to the silver currency; but a copper standard prevailed in some districts just as a silver standard prevailed in others.”¹ I will verify this statement here. When Wema-Kadphises, the second Kushana ruler, introduced gold coinage in the first century A.C., it continued to be the standard money in North India for a long time and practically supplanted the silver currency of the preceding dynasties. In Mālwā, Kāthiāwār, Gujarāt and Rājputānā, on the other hand, where the Kshatrapas exercised supremacy, the silver currency held the field. Both these gold and silver currencies were so firmly established as the standard money in these respective regions that when the Guptas succeeded these foreign dynasties in the sovereignty of India, they had to strike gold coins in the Kushana dominions in imitation of the Kushana gold coinage and silver coins in the Kshatrapa provinces after the model of the Kshatrapa silver coinage. This shows that the standard coin of one country was gold and of the other silver for a long time. On the other hand, Besnagar, the ancient Vidiśā, capital of eastern Mālwā, tells us a different tale. Here I excavated two consecutive cold seasons at a good many sites and of different periods, but from the pre-Mauryan down to the Gupta times no gold or silver coins were picked up except one solitary silver coin of Gautamīputra Yajña Śrī-Sātakarṇi, all the coins obtained being copper Kārshāpaṇas and constituting the currency of the town. This is a clear instance in my opinion of copper coinage forming the standard money. There can, therefore, be no difficulty in taking Kārshāpaṇa in any town or district to mean the standard coin whether of gold, silver or copper.

c8.27

¹ CICBM-AKTB., Intro., clxxix.

c8.28

The second point we have to consider in detail is that Kārshāpaṇa was so called because it was one Karsha in weight. Manu, we have seen, says this about the copper Kārshāpaṇa only, but Amarasimha gives this to be the weight of all the three classes of Kārshāpaṇa. So the first question we have to answer is: what is Karsha? It is a matter of regret that the term *Karsha* has not been explained by Manu, Yājñavalkya or any law-giver. I hope you remember *e.g.*, the verse in which Manu says that Kārshāpaṇa is a copper coin weighing one Karsha. But this Karsha has not been explained by Manu in this or any verse of his Code. The term has been explained only by his commentators. Kullūka, *e.g.*, tells us that Karsha is equal to one-fourth of Pala. And as Pala is equivalent to 320 Kṛishṇalas or Ratis, we infer that Karsha was 80 Ratis in weight.

c8.29

Cunningham has calculated that the average weight of Ratis is 1·83 grains. Kārshāpaṇa is thus 146·4 grains in weight. In this connection it is necessary to take the sub-divisions of the Kārshāpaṇa into consideration. For our object here is to see whether we can identify Kārshāpaṇa with any coins recovered from old sites by finding out whether the latter conform to one Karsha in weight. And this object can be best realised by seeing that not only Kārshāpaṇa but also its smaller tokens can be satisfactorily identified. A specification of these token coins occurs in two Jātakas,¹ in one passage from the Vinaya-Piṭaka,² and in Kauṭilya’s *Artha-śāstra*.³ An exhaustive list of the sub-divisions of the Kārshāpaṇa money, prepared from these sources, would comprise the following: Kārshāpaṇa, Half-Kārshāpaṇa, One-fourth Kārshāpaṇa, One-eighth-Kārshāpaṇa, Four-Māshaka, Three-Māshaka, Two-Māshaka, One-Māshaka, Half-Māshaka, One-Kākiṇī, and Half-Kākiṇī. Whether these smaller tokens were all of them and at any time prevalent is very doubtful. The most constant factors from amongst these seem to be Half-Kārshāpaṇa, One-fourth-Kārshāpaṇa, One-Māshaka, Half-Māshaka, One Kākiṇī and Half-Kākiṇī. These together with some of the intermediate sub-divisions appear to have formed the token money of the standard Kārshāpaṇa of any particular district or of any particular period. If, therefore, Kārshāpaṇa was one Karsha in weight and is equal to 146·4 grains according to Cunningham’s calculations, in attempting to detect Kārshāpaṇa amongst the numerous types of ancient coinage in India we ought to find out not only whether there are any which conform to this weight but also those of smaller sizes which would correspond to one-half, one-fourth and so on of this weight so as to give us the smaller tokens of the Kārshāpaṇa as well.

c8.30

¹ I. 340. 30; III. 448. 14-15.

c8.31

² II. 294. 15-16.

c8.32

³ p. 84.

c8.33

Let us find this out, in the first place, in the case of the copper Kārshāpaṇa to which we have already confined our attention. The numismatist who has made a systematic study of the Kārshāpaṇa is Sir Alexander Cunningham, whose view would therefore naturally be worth seeking for in this matter. "The unit of the old Indian copper money," says he, "was the *pana*, weighing 80 *ratis*, or 146 grains. This was subdivided into halves, quarters, eighths and sixteenths, of all of which I possess numerous specimens."¹ Cunningham is here speaking of that class of coins called Punch-marked by authorities on Indian Numismatics, and he affirms that he was in possession of numerous specimens not only of copper Kārshāpaṇa but also of at least four of its smaller tokens. This testimony is, therefore, invaluable. But let us take another instance. I have already informed you that in the ancient Vidiśā copper Kārshāpaṇa was the standard money from slightly before the rise of the Mauryas to at least the beginning of the Gupta supremacy, *i.e.*, for upwards of 600 years. And you would naturally be curious to know whether in that ancient capital of Central India punch-marked coins of these proportionately diminishing weights were found. If you refer to my two reports on the excavations I carried at this place,¹ you will find that the coins picked up here completely confirm Cunningham’s conclusions, and also prove something more. What this ‘something more’ is, will be duly placed before you in the course of this lecture, but what we are here specially concerned with is that many coins were found in these excavations, corresponding in weight to 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and 1/16th of Karsha and thus pointing clearly to their being Kārshāpaṇa and its sub-divisions.

c8.34

¹ NChr., XIII (1873), p. 202.

c8.35

¹ ASI-AR., 1913-14 p. 220 and ff. ; 1914-15, p. 87.

c8.36

So far in regard to the copper Kārshāpaṇa. Let us now see what gold Kārshāpaṇa could have been. A Karsha, you have seen, is equal to 80 Ratis. Do we know of any gold coins which conform to this weight? Those who are acquainted with the metrology of the ancient coins of India will at once tell you that the gold coin called Suvarṇa has this weight, *i.e.*, weighs 80 Ratis. Take Manu, *e.g.*, who, while describing the gold standard, says: *pañcha-Kṛishṇalako Māshas=te Suvarṇas=tu shoḍaśa*,² *i.e.*, five Kṛishṇalakas or Ratis make one Māsha and sixteen Māshas make one Suvarṇa. Does this not make a Suvarṇa equal to 80 Ratis, the weight of the Kārshāpaṇa? Kauṭilya also gives precisely the same information in his Artha-śāstra.³ For he says that five Guñjās make one Suvarṇa-Māsha and sixteen such Māshas make one Suvarṇa or Karsha. It will be seen that according to Kauṭilya also one Suvarṇa equates 80 Guñjās, i.e., 80 Ratis. But what is most important in this connection to note is that according to him another name for Suvarṇa is Karsha. Can any doubt be entertained after this as to Suvarṇa being the gold Kārshāpaṇa? Perhaps a sceptic may not be completely satisfied on this point, and may ask whether there were any subdivisions of Suvarṇa corresponding to those of Kārshāpaṇa. This is a very natural question to ask. If Kārshāpaṇa is looked upon as the standard money and if Suvarṇa is gold Kārshāpaṇa, Suvarṇa surely becomes the standard coin; and Suvarṇa cannot be admitted to be the standard coin unless it can be shown to have had its smaller tokens like those of Kārshāpaṇa. Have we got any evidence to prove this? Now, the same chapter of Kauṭilya’s Artha-śāstra, that tells us that Suvarṇa is Karsha, gives us a list not only of the sub-divisions but also of the multiples of gold weights of which the unit is Suvarṇa. I will quote it here for your comparison. It runs thus: *Ardha-Māshakaḥ, Māshakaḥ, dvau, chatvāraḥ, ashṭau Māshakāḥ, (Suvarṇa ekaḥ), Suvarṇau dvau, chatvāraḥ, ashṭau Suvarṇāḥ, daśa, vimśatiḥ, trimśat, chatvārimśat, śatam=iti*. As the denominations of coins correspond to the metal weights, are we not entitled to infer from this list that Suvarṇa also had its smaller tokens similar to Kārshāpaṇa? No reasonable doubt can now be entertained as to Suvarṇa being intended as the gold Kārshāpaṇa. Unfortunately these Suvarṇas, or the gold Kārshāpaṇa, cannot be identified with any of the gold coins of ancient India that we have been able to examine or obtain.¹ Students of Indian numismatics know full well that very few gold coins have survived of the pre-Kushana period and that none of these were struck by any royal dynasties native to India. Perhaps the excavation of the sites of the Mauryan and pre-Mauryan periods may lead to the discovery of indigenous gold coins, to the existence of which we have abundant references in Vedic and post-Vedic literature as I shewed you in my last lecture.

c8.37

² VIII. 134.

c8.38

³ p. 103.

c8.39

¹ Curiously enough, W. Theobald says: small gold coins of this class are known (JASB., 1890, p. 182). If he, however, means the gold pieces with punch marks referred to by Sir Walter Elliott on p. 54 of INO-CSI., they can hardly be designated Kārshāpaṇas. For Cunningham’s view, however, see CAI., 51.

c8.40

If gold coins of genuinely Indian types have not been obtained prior to the Gupta period, silver coins at any rate have been found in abundance and of much earlier periods. Are there any from amongst them which are one Karsha in weight and may thus be regarded as representing the silver Kārshāpaṇa? This is what we have now to find out. I am afraid we have to answer this question in the negative, as no coins have so far been discovered which singly weigh one Karsha. Are we therefore to suppose that there were no silver Kārshāpaṇas? How then are we to reconcile this with the fact that Purāṇas are designated Kārshāpaṇas in some of the Sanskrit works as I told you just a while ago? Purāṇa has on all hands been admitted to be a class of silver coins and known also as Dharaṇa. But Manu says that two Kṛiṣhṇals or Ratis make one silver Māshaka and that sixteen such Māshakas make one Dharaṇa.¹ A Dharaṇa or Purāṇa is thus equal to 32 Ratis. How can a Dharaṇa by any stretch of language be called a Karsha and how can a Purāṇa be supposed to denote the silver Kārshāpaṇa? Again, the weight which Manu has specified for Purāṇa is not a figment of the imagination, because many silver coins of 32 Ratis or of approximately 58 grains have been found.² Why then should Purāṇa have been looked upon as representing the silver Kārshāpaṇa, when it does not weigh one Karsha? This question must, therefore, confront us here. If we now refer to the chapter from Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra which gives an account of weights and upon which we drew just a while ago to prove that Suvarṇa was the gold Kārshāpaṇa, we find that he gives the specification of the weight of a Dharaṇa also, and what is most interesting is that this Dharaṇa is almost the same as Karsha. Thus according to Kauṭilya 88 Gaura-sarshapas or white mustard seeds equal one silver Māshaka and sixteen silver Māshakas equal one Dharaṇa. The question now is: What is the weight of a Gaura-sarshapa as compared to a Kṛiṣhṇala or Rati. Here Manu comes to our aid as he tells us that 18 Gaura-sarshapas make 1 Kṛiṣhṇala and 5 Kṛiṣhṇalas 1 Māshaka. A Māshaka is thus, according to Manu, equal to 90 Gaura-sarshapas, whereas it is equal to 88 according to Kauṭilya. This difference of two white mustard seeds is so insignificant that it is a negligible quantity, especially as a mustard seed of one province cannot possibly be of exactly the same weight as that of another. Thus the Dharaṇa of Kauṭilya practically comes to 80 Ratis, the weight of a Karsha. Further it is to be noted that he specifies also the smaller tokens of this silver money, for he speaks not only of silver Paṇas but also ½ Paṇas, ¼ Paṇas and ⅛ Paṇas.¹ No rational objection can therefore be raised to Dharaṇa of Kauṭilya’s description denoting the real silver Kārshāpaṇa. But here we are confronted with another question. If Dharaṇa was up till the time of Kauṭilya equal to one Karsha, why did it suffer a diminution shortly after as is clearly evinced by the actual specimens of Purāṇas we have obtained which weigh not 146 grains like a Karsha but 58 grains only? Those who have read Cunningham’s book entitled “Coins of Ancient India”¹ must be familiar with his remark that India produced little or no silver. Kauṭilya,² on the other hand, speaks of many varieties of silver, and in no place gives us the impression that it was scarce in his time. Is it possible that shortly after Kauṭilya the sources of producing silver in India began to fail and that consequently as silver became scarce and increased in value, the Purāṇa had to be diminished in weight?

c8.41

¹ VIII, 135-6.

c8.42

² NChr., XIII (1873), p. 201.

c8.43

¹ Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, 84.

c8.44

¹ P. 5; INO-CSI. 51 and n. 1.

c8.45

² P. 86.

c8.46

We thus see that the old Kārshāpaṇa, which is so frequently mentioned in the early Buddhist literature and Hindu law-books, can be recognised at least in the punch-marked coins from among the specimens found of the ancient coinage of India. Unfortunately no gold coins conforming to the Hindu metrological standard have been discovered of a period prior to the Gupta supremacy. But, so far as the silver or copper Kārshāpaṇa is concerned, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the punch-marked coins being among those intended. It, therefore, seems necessary now to say something more about these punch-marked coins in order that you may obtain a clearer idea of the Kārshāpaṇa. If Kārshāpaṇa, as we have perceived, represents the standard money of any province, whether it be gold, silver or even copper, it stands to reason that the punch-marked coins which have been identified with them must be found all over India. Is this a fact? I have just told you that no gold coins of a Hindu dynasty have been discovered of a period anterior to the Guptas. No wonder if gold Kārshāpaṇas have not yet been identified. But what of the silver or copper Kārshāpaṇas, you may ask. I will, therefore, quote the testimony of two celebrated numismatists to show you over what wide area the punch-marked coins are found. "These silver punch-marked coins," says Cunningham, "are found all over India, from Kabul to the mouth of the Ganges, and from the Himalaya Mountains to Cape Comorin. There were 200 specimens in the South Indian collection of Mackenzie, 500 in Masson's Kabul collections, 373 in Stacy's North Indian collection, 227 in the British Museum. About 2000 have passed through my hands, and altogether I have seen between 4000 and 5000 specimens." Another numismatist, E. Thomas, makes the following remarks in regard to the range of the distribution of the Kārshāpaṇa coins. "The silver pieces of this class,” says he, “the *purāṇas* of the Law-books, are found in unusual numbers, and over almost the entire length and breadth of Hindústán,—starting from the banks of the sacred Sarasvatí—to a crypt formed by nature, eighteen feet below the soil which now covers the inhumed city of ancient Behat—down the course of the Ganges to the sea, encircling the eastern and western coasts, and taking refuge even in the “Kist-vaens” of the extinct races of the Dakhin.”¹ These quotations will give you an exact idea of the range of the circulation of the punch-marked coins. Of course, copper punch-marked coins also have been found, but they are comparatively few. Copper is a more perishable metal than silver. Copper coins, again, are more apt to be melted down into domestic utensils. Besides, it is quite possible that in the ancient period represented by the punch-marked coins, the standard issue was generally silver Kārshāpaṇa, occasionally copper and rarely gold Kārshāpaṇa. This may explain the proportionate paucity of the copper and gold, as compared to the silver, Kārshāpaṇas found in India.

c8.47

¹ CIA., 42.

c8.48

¹ INO.-ACMC., 53.

c8.49

But at this stage some of you may perhaps ask: what is meant by punch-marked coins? The term ‘punch-marked,’ let me tell you, is used in contradistinction to ‘die-struck.’ A die covers the whole or very nearly the whole of the

c8.50

LECTURE III

c8.51

face of a coin, but a punch covers only a small portion of its surface so that the blank of a coin is impressed not by one but by many separate punches representing many devices and applied irregularly at various points. The face of the coin thus presents a curious appearance, consisting, as it does, of a regular net-work of symbols often overlapping. It had for a long time been thought that these symbols were the arbitrary marks of particular shroffs and moneyers and not assignable to any particular state or locality and that they were punched into these coins haphazard by these authorities as the coins passed through their hands.¹ Dr. D. B. Spooner was the first scholar to refute this view. In November, 1906 some silver punch-marked coins were found in the Government House grounds in Peshawar. Of these only 61 could be secured, and were examined very carefully by Dr. Spooner, who contributed a paper on them to the *Annual Report of the Archæological Survey of India*. In one place in this paper he makes the following remarks—"But my tabulation of the marks occurring on the coins of the present collection tends directly to a refutation of this view. The above mentioned group of 5 symbols occurs on 20 of the 61 coins in the collection, with one symbol regularly in each corner, and one, with like regularity the dharma-chakra, impressed on one edge and overlapping the nearest two. This alone would have rendered the old theory doubtful, but when it is added that in every case where the punch-mark on the reverse was decipherable it was found to be what Cunningham called the ‘Taxila mark,’ we have an invariable concomitance established between a particular group of 5 symbols on the obverse and a particular ‘mint mark’ on the reverse, which cannot conceivably be lacking in significance and which points decidedly to these coins having been the regular coinage of some one accepted central authority, and the symbols or their selection the recognised insignia of the same, not the private marks of individual moneyers impressed haphazard from time to time.”¹ Practically the same conclusion was forced on me when I had to examine the punch-marked coins, all copper, which I picked up in my excavations at Besnagar. Here I could detect at least three classes of coins corresponding to three distinct groups of symbols found on them.² And it is a matter of extreme gratification that Mr. Walsh came to the same conclusion from an examination of 108 punch-marked silver coins from an earthen ghaṛā—found buried in the bank of the Ganges at Golakhpur in Patna City, about 15 feet below the present surface of the ground. The interest of this find lies in the fact that the marks on the coins "occur in certain constant and regular groups on the obverse," though, of course, with a few varying additional symbols as might be expected,¹ and that these regular combinations of marks enabled Mr. Walsh to divide the coins into at least five classes. These discoveries of punch-marked coins with their provenances definitely known, give a death-blow to the theory that all symbols on them "were affixed haphazard by shroffs and moneyers through whose hands the coins passed," and give rise to the incontestable conclusion that they constitute "coinages" peculiar to three different provincial towns,—one belonging to Takshaśilā of North-West India, the second to Pāṭaliputra of Eastern India and the third to Vidiśā of Central India.

c8.52

¹ CCIMC., 133-4.

c8.53

¹ ASI.-AR., 1905-6, p. 153.

c8.54

² Ibid., 1913-14, p. 220 and ff.

c8.55

¹ JBORS., 1919, pp. 18-19.

c8.56

That different places had their constant and regular groups of symbols or mint marks peculiar to them not only can be apprehended by a critical study of these punch-marked coins, but is also attested by a passage from the *Visuddhimagga* of Buddhaghosha to which I have already drawn the attention of scholars in my report on the excavations at Besnagar.² It describes how a lot of coins lying on a wooden slab would strike an inexperienced boy, a man from the village, and a shroff or money-changer. The boy would notice simply that some coins were oblong, some round and some elongated in shape. The rustic would know all this, and also that coins were, like gems, worthy objects of enjoyment to mankind. The shroff, on the other hand, not only would be conversant with all this, but also would be in a position to decide, after handling the coins in a variety of ways, which of them were struck at which village, mufassil town, capital city, mountain and river bank, and also by what mint master. Is it not clear from this passage that every place which issued coinage had its own distinguishing mark or marks stamped on it, by observing which the shroff of the ancient day could at once tell from which place any particular coin came? In regard to villages and towns we have just seen that Takshaśilā, Pāṭaliputra and Vidiśā had their own individual marks on their coinage. And when a new hoard of Kārshāpaṇas is discovered, we have only to notice their provenance and such distinguishing marks in order that we might obtain knowledge of the characteristic symbols of the coins of other villages and towns. The passage from the *Visuddhimagga* also speaks of coins struck near hills or on river banks. Those who have examined the Kārshāpaṇas found at Besnagar or Eraṇ are already familiar with the sign—a zig-zag—denoting a river-bank.¹ The same sign occurs on the coins of the Western Kshatrapas along with another, which was so long wrongly supposed to stand for a *stūpa* or *chaitya* but which is now rightly perceived to represent a mountain.² Mr. Theobald has written an interesting paper on the significance of the symbols on punch-marked coins, and we have only to refer to the plates of his article to be convinced that there were many variations of one and the same symbol, *e.g.*, that representing a hill or a riverbank.³ These variations of the symbols the shroffs of the early periods must have been conversant with, to enable them to tell from what different hills and river banks the coins came.

c8.57

² ASI.-AR., 1913-14, p. 226.

c8.58

¹ ASI.-AR., 1913-14 pl. LXV, Nos. 1-4 etc. ; CAI., pl. XI. Nos. 1-5.

c8.59

² ASI-AR., 1913-14, p. 211-12.

c8.60

³ JASB., 1890, pl. VIII, nos. 46-52.

c8.61

I have just alluded to Mr. Theobald’s article on punch-marked coins. Therein he enumerates no less than 277 symbols occurring on them. Many more have since been discovered. But no numismatist has yet been able to give an intelligent classification of them. Mr. Theobald has no doubt made an attempt at this classification. He has thus placed these devices under six heads, namely, (1) the human figures; (2) implements, arms and works of man, including the *stūpas* or *chaityas*, bow and arrow, *etc.*;

c8.62

(3) animals; (4) trees, branches and fruit; (5) symbols connected with solar, planetary or Śivite worship; and (6) miscellaneous and unknown. But this classification, I am afraid, is as good as nothing, for what is gained by our being told that one group of devices is human figures; another, animals; a third, trees, and so forth? What we should like to know is the significance of the human figures, or animals such as the elephant or horse, that we find punched on the Kārshāpaṇas. Elsewhere,¹ in this connection, I have remarked that one set of symbols is certainly the seven *ratnas* or treasures, the possession of which constitutes paramount sovereignty. These have been described *e.g.*, in the *Mahā-sudassana-sutta*. They are (1) *chakra* or wheel, (2) *hastin* or elephant, (3) *aśva* or horse, (4) *maṇi* or gem, (5) *strī* or woman, (6) *grihapati* or treasurer, and (7) *pariṇāyaka* or counsellor.² All these symbols can be easily recognised on the Kārshāpaṇas, and their presence is quite natural and intelligible on coins which are indicative of sovereignty. In the same paper where I identified these devices I have thrown out a hint that another group of signs on these coins must consist of auspicious symbols and that some of them are certainly those met with in old cave inscriptions which begin or end with them. But no scholar seems to have yet worked in this direction.

c8.63

¹ ASI-AR., 1913-14, p. 211.

c8.64

² SBE., XI. 252 and ff.

c8.65

Far more interesting than the classification of these symbols is their origin; and Mr. Theobald has done great service to the cause of ancient Indian numismatics by drawing our prominent attention to this fact. His attempt at explaining the origin of most of these marks, it is true, was not much successful, and many of his conclusions in regard to the origin of particular symbols will not commend themselves to archæologists. Nevertheless, he was the first to perceive that most of the symbols noticeable on the punch-marked coins "occur in such diverse lands as Assyria, Egypt, India and Scotland," and to trace at least fourteen of these signs which were identical with those figured on the sculptured stones of Scotland.¹ This raises an issue of paramount importance for the history of the world, and suggests a pre-historic origin of some of the marks punched on the Kārshāpaṇas. I will cite here two or three instances only to show what I mean. Take first the *svastika*, which is regarded as a symbol of auspiciousness in India to this day. We are so much accustomed to perceive this symbol in the modern homes as on the antiquities of India that we are apt to suppose that it is an auspicious symbol peculiar to this country alone.

c8.66

¹ JASB., 1890, pp. 186-7.

c8.67

And if it is found in Japan, China and Tibet in ancient as well as modern times, it can be explained as being imported there from India. What is, however, noteworthy is that it is found on the pre-historic antiquities of Spain, Portugal, Greece and even America. With regard to this symbol Mr. Cartailhac says as follows: “Modern Christian archæologists have obstinately contended that the Svastika was composed of four gamma, and so have called it the Croix Gammee. But the Ramayana placed it on the boat of Rama long before they had any knowledge of Greek. It is found on a number of Buddhist edifices; the Sectarians of Vishnu placed it as a sign upon their foreheads. Burnouf says, it is the Aryan sign par excellence. It was surely a religious emblem in use in India fifteen (?) centuries before the Christian era, and thence it spread to every part. In Europe it appeared about the middle of the civilization of the bronze age, and we find it, pure or transformed into a cross, on a mass of objects in metal or pottery during the first age of iron.” It is not my object to enter into a full discussion of the origin, antiquity and dispersion of the Svastika, round which has clustered a mass of literature and for which I would refer you all to the most exhaustive treatment of it by Mr. Thomas Wilson, published in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the year ending June 30, 1894. What, however, I wish you to note in this connection is that though in modern times the Svastika is confined to India, Tibet, China and Japan, in ancient days it was well-known all over the southern and western portion of Europe and made its appearance as early as the middle of the bronze age. The systematic study of the pre-historic archæology of India has but just begun, and has been started by this University. It would therefore be interesting to know to what early period our University colleagues are able to trace the existence of the Svastika on the prehistoric Indian antiquities.

c8.68

Another symbol which is met with on the Kārshāpaṇas and later coins and to which I would invite your attention now is the sign which is supposed and wrongly supposed to represent the stūpa or chaitya. We have got at least two specimens of this symbol, on one of which a pea-cock and on the other a dog is represented as standing. If the symbol is taken to be one of a stūpa or chaitya, the presence of a pea-cock or dog on its summit is inexplicable. Cunningham was the first to suggest that it was a sign for Mount Meru,¹ and this idea was afterwards accepted by Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji.² I have elsewhere expressed the view that the symbol need not be taken to stand specifically for Mount Meru but rather for a hill in general.¹ According to this view the pea-cock or dog on its top can very well be understood to stand for the different vehicles of the different hill deities represented. Now, a seal-impression of late Minoan style has been found at Knossos which has been ascribed to circa 1500 B. C. On it figures the mountain-mother standing on the peak of her hill and flanked by guardian lions.² The hill on which she stands is represented as consisting of rows of semicircular curves raised in tiers exactly as the so-called *stūpa* or *chaitya* symbol does. This clearly shows that the symbol cannot possibly denote a *stūpa* or *chaitya* but rather a hill, and that this representation of the hill can be traced even outside India and to the pre-historic period, certainly earlier than 1500 B. C. to which the Knossos seal has been assigned.

c8.69

¹ NChr., XIII (1873), p. 188.

c8.70

² BG., Vol. I, Pt. I. p. 30.

c8.71

¹ See note 2 on p. 101 above; JRAS., 1915, p. 412.

c8.72

² ERE. VIII. 868; Farnell's *Cults of the Greek States*, III, 295-6 and pl. XXXIII.

c8.73

Two more of the pre-historic signs occurring on the punch-marked coins. Figure 144 of Mr. Theobald's plates is described by him as "a star of eight points," and is a mark found on Kārshāpaṇas. But precisely the same sign has been observed on the megalithic pottery exhumed by Mr. Yazdani from the pre-historic cairns in the Nizam's Dominions as will be seen from No. 69 of his "Diagram of marks."¹ The same symbol is noticeable also in the neolithic rock-carvings in Edakal in Malabar.² Again, the numismatists need not be told what is meant by the 'Ujjain symbol' Cunningham invented this designation, because the symbol frequently occurred on coins found at Ujjain. The designation is, however, admitted to be defective, because the same symbol is noticeable in other parts of India. The designation is applied to an object which consists of a cross with each of its arms terminating in a ball or circle. And precisely this object is found in crosses on the Kassite cylinders in Western Asia.³

c8.74

¹ JHAS., 1917, p. 57.

c8.75

² IA., 1901, p. 413, No. 24.

c8.76

³ W. H Ward's Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, 394.

c8.77.1

It would be too irksome for me to exhaust the list of the symbols on Kārshāpaṇas which have a pre-historic origin.⁴ Mr. Panchanan Mitra, who is keen on the prehistoric archæology of India, is, I hear, already engaged on a systematic study of these symbols. This is just as it should be. What we have to note here is that there are not one or two but many pre-historic symbols to be found on the punch-marked coins. Mr. Theobald himself has observed not less than fourteen such, engraved on the sculptured stones of Scotland. There was a time when Fergusson and archæologists of his kidney relegated the rude stone monuments of Great Britain and Scotland to the post-Roman period, but no archæologist of any repute now disputes its pre-historic character or assigns them to any time posterior to 1500 B. C. When therefore we find so many symbols of pre-historic origin occurring on the punch-marked coins, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Kārshāpaṇa coinage must have been handed down to us from pre-historic times.

c8.77.2

If any further evidence is required, it is furnished by the fact, first brought to our attention by Elliot, that these punch-marked coins "have been discovered among the ashes of the men who constructed the primitive tombs known as the Pāṇḍukulis (or Kistvaens) of the South, and unearthed from the ruins of buried cities in excavating the head-waters of the Ganges Canal."[¹] "A large hoard of these coins," says he elsewhere, "was discovered in September, 1807, at the opening of one of the ancient tombs known by the name of Pāṇḍukulis near the village of Chavadi paleiyam in Coimbatore, thus identifying the employment of this kind of money with the aboriginal race whose places of sepulchure are scattered over every part of Southern India."[²] In regard to Pāṇḍu-kulis or Pāṇḍu-kuṛis as they are properly called, Caldwell in his *Dravidian Grammar*¹ says as follows: "It is a remarkable circumstance that no class of Hindus know anything of the race to which these Druidical remains belonged, and that neither in Sanskrit literature nor in that of the Dravidian languages is there any tradition on the subject. The Tamil people generally call the cairns by the name of Pāṇḍu-kuṛis.

c8.77.3

Kuri means a pit or grave, and pāṇḍu denotes anything connected with the Pāṇḍus, to whom all over India ancient mysterious structures are attributed." It will thus be seen that quite in consonance with the indisputable fact that pre-historic signs are found on the Kārshāpaṇas is the other fact, equally indisputable, that they have been picked up also from the pre-historic cairns. I have repeatedly remarked that pre-historic archæology of India is yet in its infancy, but even taking the most unfavourable estimate of the age of these monuments, the Pāṇḍu-kuṛis, I am afraid, cannot possibly be placed later than 1500 B. C. In these circumstances the introduction of the Kārshāpaṇa coinage must be attributed to about the beginning of the second millenium before Christ. Cunningham who had far deeper insight into the age and nature of the ancient monuments of India than any of his successors was disposed to date these coins as early as 1000 B. C., but Smith thought this estimate to be certainly "much in excess of the truth" because his mind was obsessed with the idea that coinage began with the Lydians about 700 B. C. and that consequently there could be no coined money in India prior to that date.

c8.77.4

It is inconceivable how he stuck to this notion when the passage from Elliot regarding the find of punch-marked coins in the pre-historic Pāṇḍukuris was known to him, and has actually been quoted by him in his *Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum*.¹ This is another piece of evidence, over and above that based on references to coins in the Vedic literature, to which I drew your attention in the last lecture,—I say, this is another piece of evidence which points to a much higher antiquity for the coinage of India than numismatists would fain allow. In order that I may not be misunderstood, let me make it clear to you that all that I contend is that the coinage of India must date from the pre-historic period. I do not, however, maintain thereby that the art of coinage originated in India, though the trend of evidence points to that hypothesis, no actual specimens of or even references to coins having yet been found in respect of the pre-historic age of any other country than India.

c8.78

⁴ Attention may also be drawn in this connection to JBORS., 1920, p. 400.

c8.79

¹ INO-CSI., 45.

c8.80

² Madras Jour, Lit. & Science, 1858, p. 227.

c8.81

¹ p. 526.

c8.82

¹ P. 135.

c8.83

Just one or two minor points connected with Kārshāpaṇa before I conclude this lecture. We have seen that Kārshāpaṇa is a coin which weighs one Karsha. We have also seen that though both Manu and Yājñavalkya speak of Kārshāpaṇa, they do not specify the weight of a Karsha, which is, however, done by their commentators and which comes to 80 Ratis. Prof. Rapson goes a step further and gives an actual table, according to which 5 Ratis or Raktikās make 1 Māsha, and 16 Māshas 1 Karsha.¹ And the same is repeated by Mrs. Rhys Davids in her "Notes on Early Economic Conditions in Northern India."² Whether this table is based on the authority of any Smṛiti I have not been able to find out, but certain it is, as I have already said, that neither Manu nor Yājñavalkya has given it. The same table is, however, cited by Suśruta, and, in fact, Karsha is a weight pretty familiar to the Hindu science of medicine. Thus in accordance with this table, sixteen Māshas made one Kārshāpaṇa. The commentary on the Vinaya-Piṭaka,³ however, tells us that in the time of the king Bimbisāra five Māshakas equalled one Pāda, thus making one Kārshāpaṇa equivalent, not to sixteen, but twenty, Māshas. This receives corroboration from a Jātaka which, while mentioning the sub-divisions of a Kārshāpaṇa, speaks of a four-Māshaka piece as of lower value than a Pāda.¹ It is not, however, clear whether this Kārshāpaṇa, because it consisted of twenty Māshas, weighed more than 80 Ratis. It is quite possible that its weight continued to be the same, making its Māsha equal to four Ratis only, and not five.

c8.84

¹ CICBM-AKTB., Intro., clxxviii.

c8.85

² JRAS., 1901, p. 878.

c8.86

³ III. 45.

c8.87

¹ Jāt., III, 448, 14-15.

c8.88

It is worth noticing in this connection that Kauṭilya in his Arthaśāstra speaks of Paṇa, Half-Paṇa, Quarter-Paṇa and One-eighth Paṇa as silver coins, and Māshaka, Half-Māshaka, Kākaṇī and Half-Kākaṇī as copper coins.² This information is interesting in more than one way. For, in the first place, we see that the smallest silver coin in Kauṭilya’s time was One-eighth Paṇa or Kārshāpaṇa. Secondly, the smallest copper coin in his time was Half Kākaṇī. As Kākaṇī denotes a lower denomination than Half-Māshaka, Kākaṇī could not have weighed more than one-fourth of a Māsha. Half Kākaṇī must, therefore, have weighed one-eighth of a Māsha, i.e., one-eighth of five Ratis. And as one Rati is equivalent to 1·83 grains, Half-Kākaṇī must have equalled 1·14 grains at the most. Just imagine having any coin weighing only a little above one grain! Such a thing is almost inconceivable in the present age.

c8.89

² P. 84.

c8.90

But perhaps the most complicated point we have to tackle in connection with this type of coinage is the weight of the Kārshāpaṇa and its smaller tokens. This weight problem I will place before you in a few words. Take first the weight of the copper Kārshāpaṇa. It weighs, we have seen, approximately, 146·4 grains. But, as a matter of fact, the Kārshāpaṇas of all provinces do not strictly conform to this weight; e.g., among the various coins picked up by me in the Besnagar excavations the Kārshāpaṇa weighs 147·5 grains.¹ I admit it is quite possible to explain this small difference of weight by saying that the Ratikā or Guñjā seeds of the different provinces, like any other seeds, cannot be of exactly the same weight, and that this insignificant difference of 2 or 3 grains is, therefore, permissible. But take another case which, I am afraid, cannot be made explicable in this way. If the Kārshāpaṇa weighed 147·5 grains at Besnagar, the Ardha-Kārshāpaṇa must have weighed about 74 grains. But between these weights of the full and half Kārshāpaṇas, i.e., between 147 and 74 grains, we have coins found at Besnagar itself which weigh 136, 114, 111·5 and 107 grains.² What could be the denomination of these four coins? Are we to imagine that there was also a ¾th Kārshāpaṇa? In that case it is true it would weigh approximately 111 grains, and among the four coins whose weights have just been mentioned there is no doubt one which weighs 111·5 grains. And there is nothing to preclude us from supposing that it represents the 3/4th Kārshāpaṇa. But what about the remaining three? Their denomination cannot possibly be explained away similarly, because their weights are far removed from those of the 1/1, 3/4th and 1/2 Kārshāpaṇas. Again, it is not the copper Kārshāpaṇas only that present this difficulty. The silver Kārshāpaṇas, or Purāṇas as they are called, give rise to the same problem. Of course, we shall not here take for our consideration any promiscuous group of Purāṇas coming from different places. But we will restrict ourselves only to those which have been discovered at one single place just as in the case of copper Kārshāpaṇas we consider only those that were found at Besnagar. Let us therefore confine ourselves, e.g., to the Peshāwar hoard of Purāṇas which was reported upon by Dr. Spooner. The accepted weight of a silver Kārshāpaṇa is 58·56 grains. The weight of a half Purāṇa must therefore come to 29·28. There is really no specimen of the half Purāṇa or lower denomination in this hoard. The lowest weight to which some of these Purāṇas conform is 42·09 which is far removed from 29·28, the weight of the half Purāṇa and which cannot thus be identified with that denomination.

First 92 of 105 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)