Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c8.98

c8.98

Let us now see how far this theory solves the weight problem of the Kārshāpaṇas. I have told you that M. Decourdemanche relies upon the punch-marked coins described in Smith's *Catalogue*. But nobody knows from which provinces which of these coins came. We, however, do know the provenance of the hoard of Purāṇas upon which Dr. Spooner reported. It was undoubtedly found at Peshāwar. Nobody can dispute that Peshāwar and the surrounding region were subject to the Akhæmenian rule. But what tale do these coins tell? They reveal a gradation of weights, each gradation marked by 1.83 grains, *i.e.* exactly by half a Māsha. There are here, not one, but seven such gradations, and every one of these gradations is represented precisely by half a Māsha. I have already tried to explain why this regular progression or rather retrogression of weight is perceptible in the coins of this lot. But whatever the correct explanation may be, this much is certain that the metrical system to which these differences of weight are conformable is purely Indian, for Māsha is certainly an Indian weight. And if the punch-marked coins were really an Indian variety of the Akhæmenian coinage as maintained by M. Decourdemanche, would we have found this gradation marked, not by the Assyro-Babylonian, but by the Hindu weight, Māsha, in a hoard of coins found in a territory which certainly was once under the Akhæmenian sway? Even conceding for the moment that the punch-marked coins are Indian variety of the Akhæmenian coinage, M. Decourdemanche does not explain why the multiplicity of weight evinced by the Kārshāpaṇa coinage is reserved only for the Indian variety, and not found in Sigloi, the Persian variety, a large number of which has been discovered in the Punjab and the frontier region. Again, one class of coins weighing about 55 grains is called Tetrobolus by him, and another weighing 46 Tribolus. A third class of coins weighing between 47·8 and 52·5 is treated as a third variety. We have thus three distinct classes of coins here. And as the difference of weight in none of these classes exceeds nine grains, I defy any ordinary human being to distinguish between these three varieties by the mere use of his hand. As they have been regarded as three different varieties, it stands to reason that they also have three different values. And if they are intended to possess different values, they must be capable of being distinguished by an ordinary individual by the mere handling. But as the difference of their weights does not go beyond nine grains, how it is possible, I ask, for an ordinary person to easily distinguish between these varieties? I am afraid, it is not possible to look upon them as so many distinct denominations of coins, and any attempt therefore to refer them to any weights of the Assyrio-Babylonian system will not carry conviction. Fourthly, M. Decourdemanche selects some coins weighing about 26·5 grains, which, he thinks, represent the smallest class; and taking that weight as equivalent to 1/8th of the unit he arrives at the weight of the unit, and concludes from it that this unit is an Egyptian Pharohic Shekel. It is not, however, clear to me why he regards that 26·5 grains are the smallest weight exhibited by the silver punch-marked coins when even Smith's *Catalogue* gives a still lower weight, *viz.*, 21·5 grains. It is also not clear to me why he looks upon it as representing 1/8th part only of the unit, and not any other fraction of it. These are some of the reasons for which I cannot bring myself to accept M. Decourdemanche's theory.