FEUDALISM IN BENGAL 81 ^ Op.cit., p 343. 100 cf/W.,p342. i°i J^W. 102 Manusmriti, X, 99-100; V S Agarwala, /m/ia as Known to Panini, 1953, p 78. 103 NRRay, op. cit.,p 342; Al-Beruni, I, p 101, Hemadri, Chaturvarga Chintamani, Prayaschitakhanda, p 998. 104 cfRS Sharma,'Indian Feudalism Retouched, The Indian Historical Review, vol 1, No 2, pp 326-27. 105 Idem, Light on Early Indian Society and Economy, 1966, pp 57-59. ^ A Ghosh, The City in Early Historical India, 1973, pp 20-21. 107 R S Sharma, 'Decay ofGangetic Towns in Gupta and post-Gupta Times*, The Journal of Indian History, 1973 pp 135-50. i°a N R Ray,o/». cit., p 199. 109 Ibid., p 366. 110 DC Sircar thinks that there was neither a dearth of coins nor absence of trade and commerce in this period. He backs up this theory with the contention that numerous epigraphic and literary records mention various coins of gold, silver and copper which were prevalent in those days. He argues that even the cowries were used as coined money in this period. See Landlordism and Tenancy in Ancient and Medieval India, pp 33-34. this is untenable because a mere reference to coins in contemporary records does not indicate their prevalence, it merely implies the fact that it was known of by the people. Similarly cowrie-shells were, at the most, being used for simple daily transactions, LGopal, Socio- Economic Implications of Feudalism in Northern India, p 4. Certain recent works on the subject also controvert ^ircar's argument. The work ofUpendra Thakur makes it clear that most coin moulds belong to the early centuries of the Christian era and they became practically non-existent in post-Gupta times(oj&. cit., pp 114-37^. Similarly K K Thaplyal's examination of the seals shows that impressions of coin devices on the seals are not available after the Gupta period (Studies in Ancient Indian Seals, 1972, Appendix C). Even Sircar himself realises the ^'scarcity" of money in this period (Studies in the Political and Administrative System of Ancient and Medieval India^ 1974, pi 8). Sircar's argument regarding the prevalence of trade is based mainly on the evidence of various missions that passed between India and China (Ibid. p 19). These missions, religious or otherwise, do not give much indication of trade in early medieval times. It has been rightly pointed out by L Gopal that by the 8th century AD the most brisk period of Indians intercourse with China ended '(The Economic Life of Northern India, p 131). Active intercourse was revived towards the close of the 10th century, only to be disrupted again after 50 years (Ibid, p 132). Moreover, the volume of trade was definitely very low when compared to earlier times. It is significant that in Bengal between the 8th century, after Tamralipti*s decline, and the 14th century, when the posts of Saptagram and Sonargaon are found to be of importance, there is no reference to any post for sea-borne trade (R S Sharma, 'Indian Feudalism Retouched* op. cit. p325). It is therefore difficult to suppor1 Sircar's theory of ^flourishing internal and external trade" (op. eft., pp 19-20) in the early medieval period. n! Epigraphia Indica, Vol XX. no 5, 1 1.5-11. 112 B C Sen, Some Historical Aspects of the Inscriptions of Bengal 1942, p XII. 113 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (New Series), Vol V, p 164. While editing the Amauna plate of the Maharaja Nandana (Epigraphia Indica, Vol X, no 10), Bloch reads the phrase as Sudrakenotakiranam (1.8), but this is not in accordance with the impression produced there; the reading is certainly sudrakared — r.aksunah, which of course is incorrect Sanskrit (R b Sharma, Indian Feudalism, p 63, fn.4).