________________
NOVEMBER. 1892.]
fully described in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society by the late Pandit Bhagwanlal, Mr. E. J. Rapson, and the writer of this notice. In a second volume Sir A. Cunningham hopes to deal with the coins of Medieval India from A. D. 600 down to the Muhammadan conquest, including the coinages of (1) the Râjús of Kasmir, (2) the Shâhis of Gandhara, (3) the Kalachuris of Chêdi, (4) the Chandellas of Mahoba, (5) the Tômaras of Delhi, (6) the Chauhâns of Ajmir, (7) the later coins of the Sisodiyas of Mêwar, and (8) those of the Pundirs of Kângrâ.
BOOK-NOTICE.
This is an extensive programme, and all numismatists will anxiously expect the promised volume. The early punch-marked and cast coins. form the first group described in the volume under review, but the section expressly dealing with them is not exhaustive, many punch-marked and cast coins being dealt with in other parts of the book. It is a great pity that Sir A. Cunningham did not prepare an index; for, small though his treatise is, it is full of matter, and an attentive reader finds it very troublesome to be compelled to note for himself all the cross references which require to be made.
Notes of time, marking more or less closely
the date of punch-marked coins, are rare. The
author records two of interest. On the authority
of the late Sir E. C. Bayley he observes that a few much worn specimens of the punch-marked class were found in company with hemidrachms of Antimachus II., Philoxenus, Lysias, Antialkidas, and Menander.
The second note of time is afforded by the
fact that three worn silver punch-marked coins, weighing respectively 34, 35, and 42 grains were
found "in the deposit at the foot of the Vajrasan, or throne of Buddha, in the temple of Mahabodhi at Buddha Gayâ. As this deposit was made about A. D. 150, during the reign of the IndoScythian king Huvishka, we learn that punchmarked coins were still in circulation at that time." This inference nobody will dispute, and coins of the kind may have continued to circulate much later in some parts of the country. The issues of Gupta silver coins did not begin before A. D. 400, and it is probable that the silver punch-marked coins remained in circulation up to that date in Northern India, and possibly even later. But I cannot accept the argument by which Sir A. Cunningham tries to fix the Buddha Gaya coins to a date of about B.C. 450. His words are:-"The three coins weigh 111 grains, giving an average of only 37 grains. But, as the general average of upwards of 800 of these coins from all parts of India is upwards of 47 grains, I
345
am willing to accept a loss of 19 grains [scilicet, from 56, the assumed normal full weight] in about 600 years circulation, or, roughly, from B. C. 450 to A. D. 150, as very exceptional. These three coins show a loss of upwards of 3 grains per century, while the average loss of these punch-marked coins was not more than one grain and a half in a century. It must be remembered that they were all hardened with copper alloy."
The assumption that the normal wear and tear of such pieces was a grain and a half in a century, seems to me rather arbitrary. It would be difficult to quote an example of any class of coins remaining in circulation for 600 years; and small silver coins would be completely worn away long before the expiration of six cen. turies.
British rupees forty or fifty years old are often withdrawn because they have lost more than two per cent in half a century, or, say, from five to six per cent of weight in a century, and I can see no reason why the rate of loss in the case of punch-marked coins should be assumed to be less. Three grains out of fifty-six is approximately six per cent, and that might be taken as the minimum possible rate of loss for the small thin punch-marked coins, which would wear much quicker than English made rupees. Every one knows that four-anna pieces wear out very quickly, and could not be kept in circulation for a single century. It seems to me that B. C. 200 is a much more likely date than B. C. 450 for the early. I can find no reason for the belief of Sir Buddha Gaya coins, and even that may be too A. Cunningham (page 43) that some of the punchmarked coins may be as old as B. C. 1000. I
agree, however, with him that there is nothing to
indicate foreign influence on coins of this class, and that the evidence clearly points to their being an Indian invention.
The conjecture that some of the punched symbols may have been private marks of ancient money changers, is plausible.
The punch-marked copper coins (page 59), are much rarer than the silver ones, and at least one-half of those that Sir A. Cunningham has Been, are simple forgeries of the silver coins, which betray themselves by their weight (that of the fifty grain [sic] kársha), and sometimes by the silver still adhering to them." Similar forgeries or imitations exist in the Gupta series, and in many other ancient coinages.
On page 60, in the account of the cast coins, two slips of the pen have escaped correction.
