Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c9.28

c9.28

Let us now see of what different substances the coins were made in ancient India. In this connection, allow me to draw your attention to a passage from the commentary on the Vinaya-Piṭaka which I had occasion to refer to partly in my last lecture. Of course, it is scarcely necessary to repeat that the commentary was composed by the celebrated Buddhaghosha in the 5th century A. D. The passage is concerned with Kārshāpaṇa and its sub-division, the Māshaka. We are told that the Kārshāpaṇa may be composed of gold or silver or may be the ordinary one, *i.e.* made of copper. The Māshaka, we are further informed, may be of three different varieties.¹ One variety is that composed of copper, iron or some other metal Another variety is that made of *sāra* wood, the outside of the bamboo, or palmyra leaf, each of which has been turned into the Māshaka coin by a *rūpa* or figure being cut into it. The third variety consists of lac or gum on which a *rūpa* or figure has been caused to rise up and which has thus become a Māshaka. And Buddhaghosha winds up by saying that there are other kinds of money which are current in the different parts of the country but which have not been referred to by him. They are of bone or skin or the fruits or seeds of trees, and may be with or without a *rūpa* raised on it. This, in short, is the substance of the passage, and serves a rich pabulum to the numismatist. The very first conclusion that a careful consideration of this passage will suggest to you is the wide range of the meaning assigned to the term 'coin,' and it is with this conclusion really that we are concerned here. What do you generally understand by a coin? I will take here the definition which has been given by V. A. Smith, and which is the one generally accepted. Coins, according to him, denote "metallic pieces of definite weight authenticated as currency by marks recognised as a guarantee of value."¹ Thus in all classes coins to be coins must be metallic pieces. But at least two classes of Māshaka specified by Buddhaghosha were certainly not of metal. The Māshakas, which were made of wood, bamboo or palmleaf or which consisted of lac or gum, cannot possibly be described as metallic pieces. Māshakas, however, were a class of coins. And as the two kinds of money just referred to have been designated as Māshakas, they must be regarded as coins. And, as a matter of fact, we know that they bore *rūpas* on them, which certainly were "marks recognised as a guarantee of value." No doubt can possibly be entertained as to these two classes of money being looked upon as coins by the people though they were not made of metal. Evidently they understood the term ‘coin’ in a much wider sense than we do now.