Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c9.41

c9.41

We shall now turn to another subject connected with ancient Indian numismatics, viz., the shape and the technic manufacture of coins. I hope you remember the passage from the Visuddhimagga to which I drew your attention in my last lecture. Buddhaghosha therein describes the Kārshāpaṇas lying on the wooden board of a Hairanyika or goldsmith, and incidentally speaks of their various shapes. They are *chitra-vichitra* or ‘of irregular form,’ *dīrgha* or elongated, *chaturasra* or rectangular, and *parimaṇḍala* or circular. And, as a matter of fact, we do find coins of all these forms, especially among the Kārshāpaṇas. Thus there are some punch-marked coins which are unsymmetrical in form, that is to say, which have practically no regular shape. These most probably are referred to by the term *chitra-vichitra*. Coins of this class alone can be called ‘rude and ugly’ or ‘singularly crude and ugly’ as no doubt some archæologists have designated the ‘punch-marked’ coins in general. The elongated or the rectangular form of the coins calls for no comments, because numerous specimens of these have been known. The *parimaṇḍala* or round form of the coins, however, requires to be considered here, because the Indian coins are believed to be typically oblong, and not round. This view is held by almost all numismatists, including even Cunningham.¹ But it is a mistake to suppose that there were no coins circular in form among the Kārshāpaṇas, which are now accepted to be the most ancient and indigenous money of India. If you look to Nos. 7, 11 and 12 on Plate XIX in Smith’s *Catalogue*, you will at once see that they are round Kārshāpaṇas and also that they scarcely deserve to be called ‘rude and ugly.’ Even on the sculpture of Bharhut which represents the famous story of the purchase of the garden of Prince Jeta by the merchant Anāthapiṇḍika covering the ground surface of the garden with coins, all the pieces represented are not square as assumed by Cunningham.¹ There are some in this sculpture which are distinctly round, and the wonder of it is how this escaped his notice. It is hinted by some numismatists that the Hindus for the first time adopted the round form for their coins from the Indo-Bactrian Greeks. But this is a mere surmise, for which no evidence has been adduced, or rather which is opposed to all evidence. For in the first place what about the coins bearing on them the legends Vaṭasvaka and Kādasa? Cunningham attributes them to a date “anterior to the Greek conquest of Alexander.” Bühler, however, holds that it is perhaps safer to say “anterior to the Greek conquest of Demetrius.”² Anyhow these coins are admitted to be of a time prior to the rise of the Indo-Bactrian power. But are they not round in shape? Nay, the Indians knew of round coins long long anterior to the Greek conquest of Demetrius or Alexander. In my second lecture, I hope you remember, I had occasion to refer to a passage from the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, which speaks of the practice of a king fastening two Śatamāna coins to a back wheel of his chariot in a particular portion of the Rājasūya ceremony. And it is worthy of note that these Śatamānas are expressly stated to be vṛtta or round in form. It is not thus possible to assert that the circular form of the coins was first suggested to the Hindus when the Indo-Bactrian Greeks came in contact with them.