Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c9.53

Language: English

c9.53.1

We now come to the consideration of the administrative aspect of the science of ancient Indian coinage. And the first question that arises here for our consideration is: who exercised the prerogative of coinage. Of course, so far as the historic times go, this prerogative pertained to the Sovereign, whether it was Sovereign One or Sovereign Number. That most of the old coins were issued by rulers foreign or indigenous to India is too well-known to require any demonstration. And I had more than one occasion to tell you that coins were issued not only by individual rulers but also by Gaṇas or Oligarchies, Naigamas or Autonomous Cities, and Janapadas or Provincial Democracies. Coinage thus was the special privilege of the state in ancient India. I am aware that instances of what may be called ‘Temple coinage’ are by no means unknown, and I may draw your attention in this connection to a paper contributed by Mr. Robert Sewell to the *Indian Antiquary*, 1903. In this paper he describes coins which were struck at the principal temples in southern India. It is true that they were not connected with any regular state issues, but there is every reason to suppose that they were nevertheless struck by, or, at any rate, with the sanction of, the state. And, in fact, this is admitted by Mr. Sewell himself.

c9.53.2

For in regard to certain temple coins struck in the Pudukottah State we are distinctly told by him that four such are given by the Rajah of Pudukottah to each recipient of his rice-dole, distributed in honour of the festival of Dusserah. It, therefore, stands uncontroverted that the prerogative of coinage belongs to the state. This does not, however, mean that the state did not sometimes permit private individuals or firms to coin money, whether of the higher or lower denominations. Of course, in modern times we have instances of both these kinds. Thus about Central India at the beginning of the nineteenth century Sir John Malcolm tells us that the work of coining was vested in no particular body or individuals, and that any banker or merchant sufficiently conversant in the business, had merely to apply to Government, presenting a trifling acknowledgment and engaging to produce coin of the regulated standard, and pay the proper fees on its being assayed and permitted to pass current. This must refer to coins of higher value.¹ Similarly, as V. A. Smith informs us, “to this day the people of Bihar and Gorakhpur prefer the unauthorised ‘dumpy pice’ made at private mints in Nepal to the lawful copper coinage of the British Government.”² This, of course, must refer to the token coinage issued by private agencies to supply the gaps which State issues leave unfilled and thus facilitate small transactions.

c9.53.3

It will thus be seen that coins are known in modern times to have been occasionally struck by private agencies which are of both higher and lower denominations. And so the question arises whether private coinage of this description was at all known to ancient India. I confess no conclusive evidence has yet been adduced in support of this position. I am aware that some coins found in the Punjab with the word *negamā* on the obverse have been looked upon by Bühler and others as token money issued by local mercantile guilds. But I have elsewhere shown that the word *negamā*, though it can mean ‘traders’ or ‘merchants,’ can never denote ‘a guild’ but must stand for the *naigamāḥ* of the Smṛitis in the sense of ‘townsmen’ collectively, *i.e.* a city-state. I am also not unaware that punch-marked coinage is regarded by V. A. Smith as “a private coinage issued by guilds and silversmiths with the permission of the ruling powers.”¹ Smith is here echoing the opinion of Prof. Rapson but with some difference. He holds that the obverse punches were impressed by different moneyers through whose hands the pieces passed. According to Prof. Rapson, if I have understood him correctly, all the obverse punches may in some cases be ascribed to individual merchants.² Smith’s view involves the assumption that the obverse punches were invariably impressed in a haphazard fashion. This view has been shown utterly untenable by Dr. Spooner, as I told you in my last lecture.

c9.53.4

When the obverse devices are in most cases found to occur in constant and regular groups, no sane scholar can subscribe to the view that they were affixed haphazard by shroffs and moneyers. But the question that presents itself to us here is whether these different groups of symbols were the characteristic marks of different merchants as contended by Prof. Rapson or of different localities as maintained by Dr. Spooner. Of course, such of these groups as contain the river or the hill symbol, *e.g.*, can scarcely be thought to be the distinguishing devices of individual merchants, but must be taken to be the peculiar marks of localities, as I showed in my last lecture. There can therefore be no doubt as to some of these groups being the special marks of special towns and villages to which the coins bearing those groups must be assigned. Nevertheless, some of the groups may have belonged to individual merchants as is held by Prof. Rapson. This is not at all unlikely, though it cannot be definitely proved.