1865.] Ancient Indian Weights. 19 
came in process of time to apply to “an ornament of the neck,” the 
component elements supplying the designation in either case. From 
the passage in question we may reasonably infer that the Nishka of 
the Vedas had, even then, attained so much of a definite and unvarying 
form, and partial ornamental fashioning, as to be suitable for decorative 
purposes in its current shape; a deduction which would further imply 
that the piece itself was understood, or admitted to be of a constant 
and uniform make, and that, in effect, it carried its description in its 
name. 
Tt is a question whether it is not also necessary to amend the trans- 
lation of the adjective, Vis’wa rupa, from ‘‘omniform,” to the more 
intelligible ‘“ pervaded,” or covered “with forms” or symbols,* a 
rendering which would singularly accord with the state in which we 
find the silver money of the period. Should any difficulty be felt at 
the supposition of the adornment of a god with so obvious a work of 
man’s hand, it may be said that bows and arrows are scarcely divine 
weapons; but the inherent tendency of lightly-clad, imperfectly domi- 
ciled races to wear on their persons their more valuable and easily 
portable wealth, would naturally suggest the notion that the deities 
followed a similar practice; and the expression instructs us that the 
people among whom it was uttered were in the habit of hanging round 
their necks sections of the precious metals, even as their successors in 
the land for ninety generations have continued to do; having thereby, 
* This rendering is in complete harmony with Burnonf’s ‘“ Dindras marqués 
de signes” (lakshandéhatam dindra dvayam), two dinars impressed with symbols. 
A difficulty has been felt about the supposed Latin origin of the word Dindr ; 
but, if the passage quoted by Burnouf truly represents the tabric of the earlier 
mintages, it does not matter what term the original recorder or translator 
applied to the piece itself; he may well have used the conventional word of his 
age for gold coin, without damaging the authenticity or antiquity of the legend, 
or losing sight of the character of the old type of money he was then describing, 
and which must have been still abundant in the land. But apart from this, 
Colebrooke, in his Algebra of the Hindus (p. exxxiii.), has affirmed that Dindr 
“is a genuine Sanskrit word,” the derivation of which Professor Goldstiicker 
explains by dé (preserved in didi, and kindred with div, dip), hence the participle 
dina, “ shining,’ with the affix dra, implying “pre-eminence,” As regards the 
term Nishka, Max Miiller has thrown out a suggestion that it may be in some 
way associated with the name of the Indo-Scythian king Kanishka (‘ Sanskrit 
Literature,” p. 332). Professor Goldstiicker, on the other hand, thinks that the 
word may be satisfactorily derived from nis, “out,” and ka, “splendour” (from 
kan, “‘to shine”), Nishka occurs in Panini, v. 1, 20; v. 1, 30: v. 2, 119. 
See “Introduction a THistoire de Buddhisme,” p. 423; Max Miiller, 
«Sanskrit Literature,” p. 245; Prinsep’s “ Essays,” i, 246, note 3; and “Jour. 
As Soc. Bengal,” vi, 459, 
