44 M. M. Ohakravarti— Troy weights of ancient Orissa. [No. 1, 
ornaments and furniture. In giving a description of these endowments, 
the chronicle says :— 
W ^ f?T ^«TT W W Vi fi V 
fiTB^ <?*T ^ HT *= cT ^TT *TT ? W 3GT fH 
V W* ^ I ^ t K f iir W ^IT'infi t^r BT * *tt ^ 
^ SNtrc i?T ^ Vl W ^ ^ W *** «F ^T *><>** cf I 
“ All these (ornaments) in gold and silver—73 pieces. Gold work 
55 pieces = 859 pals of gold, or at the rate of pala measure used for gifts 
and ceremonies, viz., 1 pala = 8 marhas, = 6872 marhas. Silver work 
18 pieces = 135 palas, or at the rate of 8 marhas per pala, = 1080 marhas 
(in weight) of silver, or at the rate of 1 marha of gold = 5 marhas of 
silver, = 216 marhas of gold. Total (in weight), gold and silver work 
8073 marhas, or (in value), gold 7088 marhas.” 
^ Trf^ TTf^ i?r 11 *ffaT 
“For net 62 turns (of worship), at the rate of 3 chinas (per turn) 
18 marhas, 6 chinas.” 
These two extracts suffice to show the following proportions :— 
10 chinas = 1 marha 
80 ,, =8 ,, =1 pala. 
A measure, very similar to this, still continues in the interior of the 
Puri District:— 
4 ratis = 1 china 
40 ,, =10 ,, =1 marha 
80 „ = 20 „ = 2 „ =1 tola. 
For the highest weight, we have here a tola. But a pala is an old 
weight found in Manu and the Atharva Parisishtha.* In the Institutes 
of Manu, the measures of gold are stated to be 
5 ratis = 1 masha 
80 ,, = 16 ,, =1 suvarna (agrees with tola) 
320 ,, = 64 ,, =4 ,, =1 pala or nislika (agrees 
with the pala of Madala Panji). 
The coins of ancient India were used not merely as an exchange for 
articles, but as weights also. Their study therefore, throws much light 
on the troy measures. In South India, of which Orissa was to all 
intents and purposes a part, the fan am (xfH[ of Lilavati) was the standard 
coin of gold, lhe chinam appears to be another name of fanam, both 
being equal to 4 ratis. One rati is generally accepted to be equal to 
1*75 grains on the average.f A standard fanam or chinam is, there- 
# Quoted in Thomas’ Chronicles of the Pathan kings of Delhi, page 221, note 1. 
t This ratio is accepted by Thomas and General Cunningham. But Mr. Smith 
differs (see his article in this Journal, Yol. LIII, of 1881, pages 14G-7). 
