TRIBE,TRIBAL,AND INDiAN N∪ MiSMATiCS V:S― A_vis NEOEVOLUT10NARY PARADIGM Tribe, Tribal, and lndian Numismatics vis-ir-vis Neoevolutionarv Paradigrn MAHESHWAR P JOSHI ABSTRECT The study of the evolution of human society has always been an attractive field for social scientists, albeit so far dominated by anthropologists. ln recent years, some archaeologists have also addressed this issue. However, archaeologists' dilemma is that the dynamics and complexities of past socio-political organizations cannot be explained through modern analogies. Therefore, this study attempts to explain that numismaticg is an indispensable source material not only for unravelling the dynamics and complexities of past political organizations but also for identifying the various stages of political evolution, beginning with 'tribe'. Significantly, numismatics also helps in tracing transitional stages of early polities from simple to complex ones, which are otherwise missing from the literature on evolutionary studies that is based purely on ethnographic and archaeological records. ln addition, numismatics shows that ancient lndians used a variety of terms to signify different political societies, which, frozen in time, are analogous to'tribe/rank society'and 'chiefdom/stratified society'as used in the neoevolutionary paradigm. CONTENTS l.INTRODUCTiON 2.THE`TRIBE'AND`丁 RIBAL COINS' 3.D:SCUSSiON 4 CONCLUS10N 337 ANC:匡NT INDiA,NEW SERIES,NO.1 鴫 鷺選‖ 亀購罵器 朧 Ⅷ 酬 識 撚 朧 =・ 馳 I. INTRODUCTION often base their arguments on analogies (vocial scientists studying the evolution of society \- human organizations' These analogies contemporary or near contemPorary primitive 6\with understanding of the or relational, and their proper use can lead to better l.1/can be formal are (Hodder 1gB2: Ch. 1). Accordingly, social organizations social organizations of past societies try to identify these various traits in the categorized on the basis of cermin traits, and archaeorogists However' ethnographic evidence would record for explaining evolutionary rypology' archaeological associations ,great types of sociery and a lack of determinacy in suggest variety between different (Hodder 1982: 154)' Thus' the use of analogies in classifying berween the various traits described' record is beset with assumptions' organizations of past societies in the archaeologicai social various of social there is no denying the fact that there existed rypes However, culture' can be identified through their materiar organizations in the past, and that these the study of evolutionary typology' Indian numismatics offers fascinating data for Interestingly, generarizations abour' the limitations of studies that are based on cross-curtural It also shows always as' reveal complexity, since tribal society is not human behaviour, because tribal coins simple as it is thought to be' sadly,scholarsengagedinneoevoltltionarystudieshavepaidlittleattentiontolndiairL general,andtonumismaticsinparticular'socialarchaeologyinlndiahasfewtakers'andthereil; of sociery in the archaeologicaI the identification of different stages of evolution hardry any work on (1989: 15't on rhe ciry and state formation, Allchin record.l Thus, while concluding his essay obsen'es: uL:^:fL:裏tl-re emersence of cities *g Finally,lnally,lc[lL let it beυじ 1じrepeatedP● aLし u u■that 「 l~X:L,deserving far more:t1:^'i:::,*:tfl"tfl:ti'-:?:': attentiOn than it has so far for arChaeo10giStS and histOrian _ _. .. _」 ^^●=^^｀bv、γ nr′archaeologist;hり 0ハlo01qlミ ~~ノ ~~ bv″ the wider adoption υ ■い 。 wouldVV V… Ч beレー o‐greatty― enhanced ffi;::1?;::',il'rrorr.r,recelvea.LIICCLlVC P■ る c notinnrllrr enrl lge of宙 -: ewS^-^.^1-^+1. bOth natiOnally an(1 orof aa problern―prODEIPUllにorientednLに u ary上approaCh;byV… rnore diSCussiOn and exchar . ´ 1___^～ _^― ―^・ ln ttho´ S Of Soutll _。 ―― ^1lntrい yP■こ1111■■■ ■u｀:“V Ψr‐perattnofresearChprogrammesinthecountrieSOfSouJl^― …―一― ― エ ー internationally;byinternatlonally;り planning 60■and _ _ ■ ____^‐ o▼ nti∩ n Яnd fiel(1 ・ Op eration=^- 1-in av´excaVation and fiel(1 Asia; and by the encOuragement Of Wider international co‐ research. scholars' The scope of this paper is exceedingly Allchin,s wishful thinking is yet to attract which offers fascinating prospects for understanding ●●工 ‐ ~ it to numismatics, vast.V abL.■ However,■υ VVし Vし ■,工 I wil^^~ヤ confine― what follo■ げS. 0■ OV｀ ■｀い‐‐ ―~~~~ vOrd`tribe',and`tribal'thereo:ち the behaⅥaⅥ our O[allcicllLOf ancient p01itiCalPυ ■■Lユ ヽ societies,aS,― Will be clear fron■ In ancient lndian nurnismatic studies,the appliCation_ __● ofthe w ハ ・1_'_ ´_■ _1^^.′ I● ο rnf“ ぐ catatogue^^f● of the coins ― in vincent smith's La■ ■■ ヽ人u● υ Vら ‐▼一^― is―― ―rirst― noticed ln,, assoCla1loll ,rro.'[;H1H::;um':'ffi';;;;, w lLll LC■ *^i- nlocca< nf ancierrt in ιたc lndiαn MuscIIm.AccOrding to SInith'S Classification,there are Seven main Classes Of anciertt 338 TRIBE,TRIBAL,AND iNDiAN NUMiSMAT!CS VIS‐ A― ViS NEOEVOLUTIONARY PARADiGM indian coins oi'which'tribal coins'form one ciass, which he describes in Sectiou Vli of his cataiogue ismirh 1906: 160-83). Introducing these coit'ts Smith says (Smitl'r 1906: 160J: ...ancieni India exhibited a greater variery of polirlcal constitutions, and large areas were occupied by nations, uibes, or clans, lvho managed to dispense ti'ith the commonplace despot, and governed themselves under some form of aristocratic or democratic constitution - the Greek writers give us giimpses of such communities - the Malioi (probably Nlalavas), Oxydrakai (Kshudrakas), and others - in the Panjab during the fourth century BC; and in later times occasional notices in inscriptions prove that the 'kingless' peoples still held their ground in various regions. To such peoples, appar:ently, must be assigned the curious coins described in this section. Smith's introduction, however, betrays realiry ior, while describing these coins, he himself admits not only representation of the person of 'king' on certain rypes of 'tribal' coins, but also the occurrence of the personal names of certain 'kings' together with the titles Raja or Maharaja in the coin-legends (Smith 1906: 767,774-77). Thus, we may notice that while attributing a certain class of coins to tribal organizations, Smith does not differentiate between the organizations of monarchies and'kingless peoples'. J. Allan's Catalogue of the Coins of Ancient lndio appears to have been inspired by Smith for, while classifying the coins of ancient India, Allan distinguishes certain types of coins as 'tribal' coins. These comprise Part V of his catalogue (Allan 1936: lrcrix-cliii; 177-278), and include six out of seven rypes of Lhe 'iribal' coins described in Smith's caialogue, namely, the ,\junayana, Audumbara, Kuninda, Malava, Rajanya and the Yaudheya. Since Alian's catalogue included coins dating from the earliest ro 'about 300 AD', he did not take account of the Naga coins (datable to the fourth century AD), the only remaining rype of the tribal coins of Smith's catalogue. In addition to these six, Allan also includes the coins of Achyrta, Almora, Aparanta, Ayodhva, Erana, Kada, Kannauj(?), Kau6ambi, Kuiuta, Maharaja, Milava, Mathura, Paflchala, Puri, Taxila, Trigarta, Tripuri, Uddehika, Ujjayini, Upagoda, Upatikya, and Vatafvaka in the class of 'tribai coins'. It is interesting that some of these types are listed by Smith in the category of 'local coins', for example Ayodhya, Kosam, and Taxila (Smith 1906: 148-56), the coins of 'kings' of Paflchala (Smirh 1906: 186-88), and of Rajas (kings) of Mathura (Smith 1906: 792-97). However, as we have already seen, Allan's classification of the 'tribal coins' rests on the same ground as that of Smith. Allan (1936: lxxix) argues: They may be conveniently called tribal coins; indeed, on several, the word gano (tribe) actually occurs in combination with the proper name: thus we have the ganaof the Yaudheyas and of the Arjunayanas. Moreover, like Smith, Allan does not differentiate between a'kingless/tribal' polity and a 'monarchy'. Thus, a majority of the coins atrributed to 'tribal' polities byAltan are in reality monarchies, as is clear from the use of the titles Rajo (king) and Mohoraja (great king) adopted by the issuers of these coins. Likewise, S. K. Chakrabortty (1935-36) also adopts the same position. That this arrangement continued to persist in the writings of subsequent scholars follows from the fact that rwo seminars were held on 'local coins' (Narain, Singh and Ahmad: 1968) and 'tribal 339 ANCIENT INDIA, NEW SERIES, NC.'i consensl.is coins, (Singh and Ahmad : 1977), respecriveiy, to resoive this tangle, but there \ /as no summarized this among scholars concerning rhe use of these [erms. Lallanji Gopal (1977: ix) has issue as follows: of the term tribal There is a reasonable difference of opinion among scholars about the precise use to describe all ther;e coins, especially in relation to the other contemporary coins... One suSSestion is coins. Among the coins as regional or locai coins, whereas another prefers the use of the term tribal (a) Iocal different possibilities about subdMding these series three have received greater attention: and uibal, and monarchical, (b) Iocal and tribal, and (c) janapada andnaigama' Coins cf This citation from Gopal's foreword to the Proceedings of the Seminor on the Tribol thereof, 'tribal Ancient/ndia shows the confusion of numismatists concerning the term 'tribe' and, an arbitrary coins, of ancient India. This confusion stems from the fact that the term 'tribal' is the term und:r signifier of the signified concepr - a class of coins termed'tribal coins'. In using reference, little concern is shown in explaining the object, i.e., the'tribe'' Mukherjee appears to be the first scholar to have used an anthropological formulation :o to the Semin;r explain the term 'tribal' in the context of Indian numismatics in a paper presented mentioned above, in7972. Mukherjee notes (1977:22): a area, According to anthropological concept, a tribe is 'a social group, usually with definite dialect, culture, homogeneity, and unifying social organization. It may include several subgroups, ancestor as wt:ll such as sibs or villages. A rribe ordinarily has a leader and may have a common throuS;h as a parron deity.