Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c40.s1.47

v6.c40.s1.47

This authoritative statement encourages Mr. Dayaram Sahni to say : ‘It is gratifying to know that Sir John Marshall supports me in identifying them as phallic-emblems and the stone rings as their pedestals or *Yonis*.’ He endeavours to strengthen this conclusion by adding that, ‘This view is further corroborated by the evidence of similar objects discovered by Sir Aurel Stein in the course of his recent archaeological expeditions in Baluchistan.’³ But Sir John Marshall safeguards his position by noting under the phallic-emblem that ‘the cones referred to are differentiated by me from the so-called gamesmen. The former I regard as baetylic and the latter as phallic.’¹ Mr. Sahni fully describes the ringstones, the cones and the gamesmen: ‘There are eighteen large-sized stonerings with round tops and bottoms and differing in this respect from large undulating rings found at Harappa. The rings are 9 to 10 inches high and carefully smoothed, all perforated in the middle, the holes being 4½ to 9 inches in diameter and drilled in some cases from both sides. Some of them have shallow holes, neatly drilled on either side of the central perforation, while others have in the same positions long rectangular grooves, possibly for metal clamps. A few of them are also drilled with lines of small cup-marks. There are two round stone caps with rounded tops which resemble the tops of the so-called gamesmen, of varying sizes, found both at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. Other objects of the same class are the cones of stone, terra-cotta, etc., but without the projecting ring at the top. One cone of this type, 11 inches high, unearthed at Harappa, bears similarity to the Śiva-Liṅga and it might have been fixed in a pedestal and worshipped in a tiny brick structure found close to it.’¹