EARLY MEDIEVAL COINS

-SANTOSH KUMAR
M.A. HISTORY (F)
HANSRAJ COLLEGE
Roll no-532
Early medieval period in India is a highly contentious issue not only because its
boundaries are porous and variegated but also it is difficult to nearly demarcate
the temporal chronologies of post Gupta centuries. Also for a long time this
period was not considered a theme of discussion in its own or else was studied as
a period of transition between the ancient and the modern period. Furthermore,
there has been a bias among scholars to treat the post Gupta centuries as that of
a period of decline. Initially nationalist historians tried to see the Gupta centuries
as a "golden age" and the following centuries were dubbed as "dark age" 1. Over
the time these nomenclatures were challenged and Marxist scholars pointing out
to economic dynamics problematize not only the post Gupta but even the Gupta
centuries. But it led to the introduction of nee conceptual categories to define the
period. Thus we find "Indian feudalism" model emerging in a strong way during
1950s and 1960s. These dominant models set the terms of debate for future
discourses. Coins play a very important role because the paucity of coinage in
early medieval India was a recurring idea that was used to argue in support of the
feudalism debate. Though this also sparked a huge debate and we need to
consider the debate in entirety to understand the nuances of the monetary and
economic history of the period.

What we see is a new trend of economic causation by 1950s. According to

upinder singh during this time we find scholars like b.k.dutta and d.d. kosambi etc
challenging the Gupta period and pointing out the economic transitions taking
place from this period onwards which was later called as proto feudal period 2. In
fact it was d.d. kosambi who first suggested the decline of economy and the
paucity of coinage from the post Gupta centuries onwards3, even p.l.Gupta
suggests dismal evidence of coinage from this period4. But this period received
impetus from r.s. sharma who first in Indian feudalism and later in his work the
1
Romila thapar- “medieval india”

2
Upinder singh- “history of ancient and early medieval india”

3
D.D. kosambi- “indian numismatics”
urban decay suggested such processes. Rs sharma suggest a long intertwined
process wherein the coming of the land grant charters and the resultant
feudalization of the state led to the undermining of the process of revenue
collection or coin minting at the central level as well as the lack of demand and
supply mechanism made the use of metal coinage improbable and thus this
period witness a paucity of coins at archaeological level which remains in situ till
11th centuries after the trading conditions gradually improved again. But this
notion has been criticized by various scholars though scholars were divided
regarding the actual causation5. For example Rekha Jain, in her book Ancient
Indian Coinage published in 1995, supports Sharma’s argument that the paucity of
the metallic coinage [due to decline of trade and commerce both internal and
external] in between 5th to 8th centuries CE but witnessed a partial revival of the
money economy since 9th century CE. She said the gold coins were rare, silver
and copper were not many in number during the post-Gupta period (500-800 CE)
and mostly whatever coins issued were the imitation of the Gupta coins6. But john
deyell has criticized this notion by pointing out to an alternative idea which
suggests that the paucity of coins suggested by the likes of sharma was not due to
the lack of demand but rather the excess of demand for which there was no
supply. He suggests expansion of trade to the gulf area and the Arab world as well
as internal trade due to which issuing of coins of precious metals at such a large
level was not possible. Thus we find two developments here- firstly to cope with
the demand of coins different metals were mixed together which though led to
the debasement of coins and further deflation but it was meant to cater to the
increasing demand. Secondly we find the use of alternative sources like cowries
shell as coins or for maritime trade is discerned through literature of this period
as well as through archaeology. Similarly Andre wink has suggested that in the
wake of expanding trade network there was an emphasis of unified currency so
use of coins doesn't actually require production of new coins as foreign coins
4
P.L. gupta- “coins”

5
R.s. sharma- “early medieval indian society”

6
Rekha jain in dr. sakul kundra’s “monetization in early medieval india”
were also used for the purpose7. Though scholars have criticized deyell for his
statistical inaccuracies etc. Even rs sharma points out that though he agrees to the
idea of minting of coins by certain rulers like shah rulers of punjab or in kashmir
and even foreign coins were in use but based on his study of coins in different
museum he has discerned that the number of coins falls drastically between 7th-
10th century as compared to 3rd-5th century ce8. Even romila thapar points out
that between the 7th and 10th century there was a termination of good quality
gold coins after Gupta period. Though the paucity of coins is a general
problematic there were regional variations wherein we find terms like drama,
dubara, nishka, rupaya, gadyanaka etc in the texts9. As well as she and p.l.Gupta
points out the minting of badhaiya coins by indo Sassanian rulers though
p.l.Gupta points out that many of the coins of this period were poor imitations of
the Gupta coins. R.S. sharma does a comparative study of coins between the 3 rd-
5th century ce and the 7th- 10th century ce. He points out that while we find close
to 20000 specimens of coins from the latter period this quantity is way too less as
compared to the preceding period. He uses the statistics from different museums
of India and calculates the proportion of the coins of these two periods. He
calculates the proportion to be one quarter10. Though the severe critique of r.s.
sharma has come from d.c. sircar. SIrcar points out that there are several
problems to this preposition. One, the absence of minting of coins doesn't suggest
paucity of coins as coins have an afterlife much beyond its political timeframe. He
suggests that the older coins were put into use for trade purpose and thus doesn't
require new minting11. Furthermore we find the use of cowrie shells as coins in a
large way. He asserts that these cowries need not be seen as just alternative to

7
John deyell- “living without silver”

8
R.s. sharma- “early medieval indian society”

9
Romila thapar- “penguin history of early india”

10
R.s. sharma- “early medieval indian society”

11
D.C. Sircar- “studies in indian coins
coins but actually they were valid exchange value for trade12. Thirdly though he
concedes the fact that many ruling regimes of this time didn't issued their own
coins but we at the same time the abundance of coins at regions of Bengal the
territory of Pala and Sena rulers13. Fourthly he criticizes the methodological
approach of the museums and the scholars who one don't give credence to
regional coins in order to look for a bigger centralized structure. He laments the
lack of regional history in India. Also according to him museums are more
interested in having more varieties of coins rather than more quantities of a single
coin thus the number of coins in the museum is not an indicator of the real
quantity of coins14.

Further criticism for Sharma has come from B.N. mukherjee. B.N. Mukherjee
opposes Sharma’s argument that the diminished use of coins indicated the
decline of trade. On the contrary, he suggests that there was flourishing trade in
India from 700 to 1200 CE. He focuses his research on mid-eastern India
comprising Bihar, West Bengal and Bangladesh, showing that most of the coined
money in this early medieval period was issued by the Palas and the Senas. There
was no dearth of media of exchange in regard to coinage, gold/silver dust and
cowries. The units of gold and silver probably also served as a medium of
exchange, as they served better in comparison to coins of doubtful value. In
relation to early medieval Bengal, Mukherjee argues that high quality silver
currency was minted and circulated between 7th to 13th centuries CE. These
numismatic evidences countered the argument of absence of currency of precious
metal in Bengal and also somewhat in north India. This historian also points out
the changes in the metrology, shape and execution of the Harikela coinage
starting from 9th century CE that follows the example of reformed Arabic
currency. The supporters of Sharma’s hypothesis said ‘simplicity of the
predominantly rural life… and heavy expenditure of the Palas and Senas rulers on
the maintenance of their armies accounted for restricted use of money. Another

12
ibid

13
ibid

14
D.C. Sircar- “studies in indian coins
reason put forward was the lack of security15. Like the Konkan coast, the region of
the Bay of Bengal, too, was susceptible to the activities of pirates, thus denting
such essential components of markets as order, security and jurisdiction616

Finally another thing to consider is that there is regional variation that

overwhelms the discourse. D d kosambi through the complex interaction of
textual, archaeological and statistical data has given coins a medium to
understand technology economy and consumer behaviour and role of state all at
once through his linear digression theory. According to this theory over the
course of usage of coins through friction and touch metal keeps on losing it's
intrinsic weight at the rate of 0.5grams per 12 years and thus after few years we
come across a condition of disparity between the face and the actual value of the
coin and thus coins need to be re-struck. This theory allows us to study the
economic processes in a more dynamic manner than just coins associated with
rise and decline of state and economy. This also helps us in interpreting the signs
on the obverse of coins17. D.c. sircar on the other hand has challenged the very
basis of how coins are studied in Indian subcontinent. One of his chief criticisms
lies in the way museum curators organize coins. According to him, the curators
are more interested in having more varieties of coins rather than having access to
more quantity of specific coins. What it does is create a false image regarding the
quantity of coins in circulation in a particular period18. This aspect is particularly
important in studying early medieval coinage as we see that the absence of
varieties of coins during this period has made scholars like r.s. sharma assume
that early medieval period designates paucity of coins. Similarly, the variety of
coins available during gupta period has been uncritically taken as a sign of urban
prosperity. He similarly points out the absence of intensive and extensive
15
B.n.mukherjee in dr. sakul kundra’s “monetization in early medieval india”

16
ibid

17
D.D. kosambi- “indian numismatics”

18
D.C. Sircar- “studies in indian coins
academic engagement with coins. There is some distance between historian and
numismatist in the sense that historian is often reluctant to delve deeply into or is
methodologically incapable to delve into plethora of primary evidence and
similarly the historical gaze in a numismatist is wanting.

According to sakul kundra the picture is much clearer regarding south india as
compared to north India as we find much clearer evidence of coinage in south
India19 and for that purpose scholars like B.N. Mukherjee and D.C. Sircar have
criticized R.S. Sharma for focusing on the paucity of coins based on the study of
rashtrakuta empire20. But at the same time, though R.S.Sharma contends to the
fact that though the coins were issued in the southern India particularly in case of
Chola Empire21. But the quantity and purity of metal fell below its requisite level
during this time. But we also see in the 1980’s, works of kesuvan veluthat, noburo
karashima etc have suggested how in south India, the nature of land grants differs
across not only regions, but also on the ownership of land which may be owned
by the state or the temple or be an autonomous self-sufficient units. In all these
cases, the socio-economic patterns differ in these regions22.
In conclusion, what we can point out is that early medieval period need not be
seen in a monolithic way and historicity and dynamics need to be considered
while studying the period. At the same time we need to understand that though
conceptual categories like Indian feudalism are important for understanding the
period they should not act as hindrance to our study. Coins in early medieval india
may not be as diverse as gupta period but it needs to be considered within the
local paradigms and should not generalize the ideas. Coinage is very important
aspect to understand the changing socio economic dynamics of the society of the
period under our study.

19
dr. sakul kundra’s “monetization in early medieval india”

20
D.C. Sircar- “studies in indian coins

21
R.s. sharma- “early medieval indian society”

22
dr. sakul kundra’s “monetization in early medieval india”
Bibliography
1. thapar, Romila- “the penguin history of early India”, 2002, penguin books, new
delhi

2. singh, Upinder- “a history of ancient and early medieval India, 2009, pearson
books, new delhi
3. sircar, D.C.- “studies in Indian coins”,1968, motilal banarsidas, Calcutta

4. kosambi, dd- “Indian numismatics, 1981, ICHR, new delhi

5. gupta, parmeshwari lal- “coins”, 1969, national book trust, new delhi

6 kundra, . sakul- “monetization in early medieval india”, university of delhi, new

delhi

7. sharma, R.S.- “early medieval indian society”, Oriental blackswan, new delhi
8. Agnihotri, V.K.- “Indian history and culture”, 1981, allied publishers, new delhi