The Colas c31.13

c31.13

By a dexterous use of two inscriptions of the same time and locality, Codrington seeks to establish that the fineness of the *madhurāntakan-māḍai* was roughly about 8⅜ *māttu*;²⁶ but this contradicts the express statement of the inscription of Kulōttuṅga's reign cited above, and it is not improbable that two different *kāśus* are meant by the two records though they stand so close to each other, and that the standard of fineness adopted in both cases was the same, in other words, that *śembon* of one of these records was of the same fineness as the *madhurāntakan māḍai* of 9½ *māttu*. Codrington adds: 'Now none of the Cōḷa coins even approach this standard, and it seems possible that this *māḍai* was a unit of account equal to a *kaḻañju* of gold of the touch mentioned, and had ceased to have any connection with the progressively debased coinage.' This conclusion can hardly be accepted as correct, if it implies that the *kāśu* of proper fineness was not actually issued from the royal mints for circulation. Considering that as late as the thirty-fifth year of Rājādhirāja I²⁷, A.D. 1053, the standard *kāśu* was still current and that a heavier *kāśu*, equal to ¾ *kaḻañju* and 3 *mañjāḍis*, is sometimes mentioned in the records,²⁸ while a lighter *kāśu* of seven *mañjāḍis* was also known,²⁹ the real explanation for the prevalence of different units of currency must be sought elsewhere. As Codrington has himself observed 'it seems probable that each province of the empire retained its local currency' and its relation to the standard currency was a matter for calculation on each separate occasion. That few coins of the high standard of fineness of the *māḍai* have reached us is perhaps due to no other reason than this, that no old coins that were at all fit for the gold-smith's brazier had any chance of survival through many centuries; it is probable that a good part of the Dhavalēśvaram hoard mentioned above has also disappeared in this manner.