Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics (Carmichael Lectures, 1921) c6.43

c6.43

the characters cannot with certainty be proved to be earlier than those of the time of the Kushana king. Vāsudeva (circa 200 A.D.). Secondly, Mr. Banerji no doubt reads *l(iṅ)go* in his transcript, but the word is clearly *lago*, whatever that may mean. The late Dr. Bloch also read it *lago*, as Mr. Banerji informs us in a footnote. Thirdly, even taking the word to be *liṅgo* with Mr. Banerji and further correcting it into *liṅgam*, it cannot denote the "phallic symbol of Śiva," because in inscriptions such an image is termed *Mahādeva*, as was rightly maintained by Bloch. Fourthly, what is meant by *saying* that "the *liṅga* of the sons of Khajahūti was dedicated by Nāgasiri," as Mr. Banerji's translation has it? If the sons of Khajahūti had caused the idol to be made, the construction would have been *liṅgam kāritam Khajahūti-putraiḥ pratiṣṭhāpitam cha Vāsiṣṭhīputreṇa* etc. Fifthly, Mr. Banerji's opinion that the sculpture represents a Liṅga is based merely on the inscription which, as we have seen, does not speak of any Liṅga at all. He does not tell us that the sculpture looks like a Liṅga. Dr. Führer, on the other hand, looks upon it as the capital of a column, as we have seen. It is exceedingly desirable that some archaeologist should examine this sculpture carefully and tell us whether it has the form of a Liṅga.