Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c5.s1.t11: Aornos.

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c5.s1.t11

Language
English

Aornos.

c5.s1.t11.1

In describing the countries to the west of the Indus I must say a few words on the much vexed question of the position of Aornos. In 1836 General Court wrote as follows:—"As relates to Aornos, it is probably the castle which was opposite Attak, and the vestiges of which we see upon the summit of the mountain. Its foundation is attributed to Raja Hodi."* In 1848 I suggested that the "vast hill fortress of Ráni-gat, situated immediately above the small village of Nogrâm, about 16 miles north by west from Ohind, corresponded in all essential particulars with the description of Aornos, as given by Arrian, Strabo, and Diodorus; excepting in its elevation, the height of Ráni-gat not being more than 1000 feet, which is, however, a very great elevation for so large a fortress."† In 1854 General James Abbott took up the subject in a very full and elaborate article, in which the various authorities are ably and critically discussed. His conclusion is that the *Mahâban* hill is the most probable site of Aornos.* This opinion was combated early in 1863 by Mr. Loewenthal, who again brought forward the claims of Raja Hodi's fort, opposite Attak, which had first been suggested by General Court.† Towards the end of the year General Abbott replied to Mr. Loewenthal's objections, and reiterated his conviction that "the *Mahâban* is the Aornos of history," although he thinks that the question is still "open to discussion."‡

c5.s1.t11.2

∗ Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1836, p. 395.

c5.s1.t11.3

† Ibid., 1848, p. 103.

c5.s1.t11.4

In reopening this discussion, I believe that I am able to clear away some of the difficulties with which the subject has confessedly been obstructed by the vague and contradictory accounts of Alexander's historians; but I can scarcely venture to hope that my identification of Aornos will be received as satisfactory, when I am constrained to own that I am not perfectly satisfied with it myself. But if I do not succeed in convincing others, I feel that my failure will be shared in common with two such able writers as General James Abbott and the lamented missionary, Loewenthal.

c5.s1.t11.5

I will begin with the name Aornos, which, though a Greek word, can hardly, as Mr. Loewenthal observes, be an invention of the Greeks. It must, therefore, be the transcription, either more or less altered, of some native name. Mr. Loewenthal thinks that it was derived from Banâras in its Sanskrit form of *Varânasi*, which a Greek of Alexander's time could only have pronounced by prefixing a vowel. He would thus have got Avaranas or Aornos. But this is, perhaps, proving too much, as the final letter in Aornos is almost certainly the Greek termination, which need not, therefore, have formed part of the original native name. It is also suspicious that the literal transcription of the native name should form a pure Greek word. If Banâras or Varánasi was the original form of the name, then we ought to find another Banâras to the north of the Caucasus, as Arrian relates that after passing Drapsaka, or Andarâb, Alexander “moved against Aornos and Bactra, the two chief cities of the Bactrians, which being immediately surrendered to him, he placed a garrison in the castle of Aornos.”* On comparing Arrian’s names with Ptolemy’s map, it seems evident that his Bactra and Aornos are the same as Ptolemy’s Zariaspa and Bactra regia, and as the latter is placed in the country of the Varni, or Οὔαρνοι, I conclude that the name Aornos, Ἄορνος, is only a natural and slight alteration of Οὔαρνος or Varnos, made by the followers of Alexander for the sake of obtaining a significant name in Greek. Similarly I would refer the second Aornos to Raja Vara, whose name is still attached to all the ruined strongholds between Hashtnagar and Ohind. Thus the old hill fort and city of Takht-i-Bahai, 15 miles to the north-east of Hashtnagar, is said to have been the residence of Raja Vara. But his name is more particularly attached to the grand hill-fort of Ránigat above Nogrâm. Ráni-gat, or the Queen’s rock, is a huge upright block on the north edge of the fort, on which Raja Vara’s Rani is said to have seated herself daily. The fort itself is attributed to Raja Vara, and some ruins at the foot of the hill are called Raja Vara's stables. Some people call him Raja Virát, but as they connect him with the story of the five Pândus, I conclude that the name has been altered to suit the story. The position of the true Virát was in Matsya or Mácheri, to the south of Delhi: all others are spurious. I think, therefore, that the hill fort of Aornos most probably derived its name from Raja Vara, and that the ruined fortress of Ráni-gat has a better claim to be identified with the Aornos of Alexander than either the Mahában hill of General Abbott, or the castle of Raja Hodi proposed by General Court and Mr. Loewenthal.

c5.s1.t11.6

∗ Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1854, p. 309. † *Ibid.*, 1863, p. 14.

c5.s1.t11.7

∗ ‘Anabasis,’ iii. 29.

c5.s1.t11.8

My chief objections to the Mahában hill as the representative of Aornos are the following:—1. It is a vast mountain of comparatively easy access, and of which no spur presents a very steep face towards the Indus. 2. The Mahában hill is not less than 50 miles in circuit, whereas Aornos was not more than 200 stadia, or about 22 miles, according to Arrian, or 100 stadia or 11 miles, according to Diodorus. 3. The Mahávana hill was visited by Hwen Thsang in A.D. 630, and he describes it simply as a great mountain, which derived its name from the Mahávana monastery, in which Buddha had dwelt in a former existence under the name of Sarvvada Raja.[*] That the monastery was on the top of the mountain we know from the subsequent statement, that he descended the mountain towards the north-west for about 30 or 40 li to the Masura Monastery. This place may, I believe, be identified with the large village of Sura in the Chumla valley, which is just 10 miles to the north-west of the highest peak of Mahában. If any fort had then existed on the top of the mountain, it is almost certain that the pilgrim would have mentioned its name, with his usual statement of its size, and of any special point of noteworthiness, such as its inaccessibility, etc. His total silence I look upon as decisive against the existence of any fort on the top of Mahában, whether occupied or in ruins.

c5.s1.t11.9

∗ Julien's ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ ii. 136.

c5.s1.t11.10

Mr. Loewenthal’s objection, based on the opinion of a high military authority, that the Mahában hill “commands nothing,” only shows how readily even a very learned man will accept an utterly false argument when it tells in his own favour. General Abbott has noticed this subject in his reply to Mr. Loewenthal; but some months previous to the publication of his reply, I had already given a similar refutation to this objection, both in conversation with different friends and in writing to Mr. Loewenthal himself. It is objected that Mahában “commands nothing;” I reply that it commands the very thing that the people of an invaded country wanted, it commands safety for those who seek its shelter. It is said to be “so much out of the way” that none would have sought it as a place of refuge, and that Alexander would not have wasted time in its reduction, as it did not impede his passage to the Indus.* This objection supposes that Alexander’s chief object was the passage of the Indus, whereas it is clear, both from his previous and subsequent career, that his invariable plan was never to leave an enemy behind him. For this he had given up the pursuit of Bessus, to conquer Aria, Drangiana, and Arachosia; for this he had spent two years in Sogdiana and Bactriana, until the death of Spitamenes left no enemy remaining; for this he now turned aside from the passage of the Indus to subdue the people who had refused their submission by taking refuge in Aornos; and for this he afterwards recrossed the Hydraotes to attack Sangala, an isolated rock, which commanded nothing but the jangal around it.

c5.s1.t11.11

∗ Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1863, p. 17.

c5.s1.t11.12

Mr. Loewenthal rests his arguments in favour of the castle of Raja Hodi being the Aornos of Alexander, chiefly on the great similarity of the name of Banáras, and partly on Sir Neville Chamberlain’s opinion “that the hill above Khairabad is not only a most conspicuous point for friend and foe, but also one that must be taken before a passage of the Indus at Attok would be attempted by an invading force.” The first argument has already been disposed of in my discussion on the name of Aornos. The second argument takes two things for granted; first, that Alexander crossed the Indus at Attak, and, therefore, that he must have reduced the castle of Raja Hodi before he attempted the passage of the river; and next, that the people of the country had thrown themselves into Aornos to oppose his passage. The latter was certainly not the case, as we are told by Arrian that the people of Bazaria, “distrusting their strength, fled out of the city in the dead of night, and betook themselves to a rock, called Aornos, for safety.* Here we see clearly that the people of Bazaria were desirous of avoiding instead of opposing Alexander; from which we may infer that Aornos did not command that passage of the Indus which Alexander had chosen for his bridge of boats. But as all the accounts agree in placing the scene of Alexander’s campaign before crossing the Indus in the country to the north of the Kophes, or Kabul river, it appears quite certain that neither Aornos itself nor the bridge of boats could have been in the neighbourhood of Attak. For these reasons I conclude that the ruined castle of Raja Hodi cannot possibly be identified with the Aornos of Alexander. Indeed, its name alone seems sufficient to forbid the identification, as the people are unanimous in calling it Raja Hodi-da-garhi, or Hodi-garhi, an appellation which has not even one syllable in common with Aornos.

c5.s1.t11.13

∗ ‘Anabasis,’ iv. 28.

c5.s1.t11.14

After a careful consideration of all the points that have been just discussed, I am satisfied that we must look for Aornos in the direction of the hills somewhere in the north-east corner of the Yusufzai plain. It is there that the people still seek for refuge on the approach of an invader; it is there only that we can expect to find a hill fort that will tally even approximately with the exaggerated descriptions of Alexander’s historians, and it is there also that we ought to look for Aornos, according to the almost unanimous opinion of all those who have studied the subject.

c5.s1.t11.15

The accounts of Alexander’s historians are often vague and sometimes conflicting, but we are generally able to correct or explain the statements of one by those of the others. Where they agree, we can follow them with confidence, as it may be presumed that the original authors from whom they copied were not at variance. The last is fortunately the case with their accounts of Alexander’s movements shortly before his approach to Aornos. According to Arrian, immediately after crossing the Guræus river Alexander marched straight to *Massaga*, the capital of the Assakeni, and after its capture he dispatched Koinos against Bazaria. Curtius calls the river Choes, and makes Koinos proceed straight to Bazaria, whilst Alexander advanced against *Mazaga*. Arrian then states that as Bazaria still held out, the king determined to march thither, but hearing that many Indian soldiers had thrown themselves into Ora, he changed his plan, and moved against that city, which was captured at the first assault. According to Curtius, the siege of Ora was entrusted to Polysperchon, while the king himself took many small towns, whose inhabitants had sought refuge in Aornos. Arrian makes the people of Bazaria fly to Aornos for safety, but he agrees with Curtius in stating that the inhabitants of many of the neighbouring villages followed their example. From these accounts it is evident that Aornos was beyond Bazaria, and from the subsequent narratives of Arrian and Curtius, it is equally clear that *Embolima* was beyond Aornos, and on the Indus, where Ptolemy has placed it. Taking all these points into consideration, I believe that Bazaria, Aornos and *Embolima* may be best identified with *Bázár*, *Ráni-gat* and *Ohind*.¹

c5.s1.t11.16

¹ It would appear also from Arrian, iv. 28, that Aornos was only one day's march from Embolima, which agrees with the distance of Rânigat from Ohind of 16 miles. See No. IV. Map.

c5.s1.t11.17

*Bázár* is a large village situated on the bank of the Kalpan, or *Káli-páni* river, and quite close to the town of Rustam, which is built on a very extensive old mound attributed to the time of the *Kafirs* or Hindus.

c5.s1.t11.18

According to tradition, this was the site of the original town of Bázár. The position is an important one, as it stands just midway between the Swât and Indus rivers, and has, therefore, been from time immemorial the entrepôt of trade between the rich valley of Swât and the large towns on the Indus and Kabul rivers. Indeed, its name of Bázár, or "Mart," is sufficient to show that it has always been a place of consequence. Judging, therefore, by the importance of the place alone, I should be induced to select Bázár as the most probable representative of Bazaria; but this probability is turned almost to certainty by its exact correspondence, both in name and in position, with the ancient town that was besieged by Alexander. This identification is much strengthened by the proximity of Mount Dantalok, which is most probably the same range of hills as the Montes Dædali of the Greeks. In the spoken dialects of the present day, as well as in the ancient Pali, the nasal of the word danta is assimilated with the following letter, which thus becomes doubled, as in datton, a "tooth brush," or twig used for cleaning the teeth. Hence the Greek Daidalos is a very fair rendering of the Pali Dattalok. The Dædalian mountains are mentioned by Justin* as adjoining the kingdom of Queen Cleofis, or Cleophes, who, according to Curtius, was the mother (a mistake for wife) of Assacanus, king of Massaga. I have already identified the cave of Prince Sudána in Mount Dantalok, as described by Hwen Thsang, with the great cave of Kashmiri-Ghár, which is just eight miles to the north-west of Bázár. The Dantalok range would, therefore, have been on the right-hand of the Greeks on their march over the hills from Massaga in the Swât valley to Bazaria. From all these concurring circumstances, I conclude that Bâzâr is almost certainly the same place as Alexander’s Bazaria, and that Ohind was Embolima, as I have previously endeavoured to show.

c5.s1.t11.19

∗ Hist., xii. 7. "Inde montes Dædalos, regnaque Cleofidis reginæ petit."

c5.s1.t11.20

In proposing the ruined fortress of *Ráni-gat* as the most probable representative of the famous *Aornos*, I must confess that the identification is incomplete. In 1848, I estimated the perpendicular height of Rânigat as about one thousand feet above the plain, and Mr. Loewenthal has since confirmed my estimate. But this height is so insignificant when compared with the 11 stadia, or 6674 feet of Arrian,[*] that I should hesitate to attempt the identification, did I not believe that the height has been very much exaggerated. Philostratus[†] calls it 15 stadia; and Diodorus[‡] makes it even greater, or 16 stadia, equivalent to 9708 feet; but as he gives the circuit of the base at only 100 stadia, or just one-half of that of Arrian, I think it probable that his height may have been originally in the same proportion which we may obtain by simply reading 6 stadia instead of 16, or 3640 feet instead of 9708 feet. It is certain at least that one of the numbers of Diodorus must be erroneous, for as a circuit of 100 stadia, or 60,675 feet, would give a base diameter of 19,200 feet, or just twice the recorded height of 9708 feet, the slope would have been exactly 45°, and the hill would have terminated in a mere point, instead of a large platform with arable land, as described by Arrian. Where the difference between the two authorities is so great, and the exaggeration so apparent, it is difficult to suggest any possible alteration that would reconcile the discrepant measurements, and at the same time bring them within the range of probability. I believe, however, that we are quite safe not only in preferring the lesser numbers, but also in applying the altitude to the slant height instead of to the perpendicular height. But even with these lesser measurements, the Indian Aornos would still be twice the size, and more than twice the height of the famous rock of Gibraltar, which is 7 miles in circuit at base, and only 1600 feet in height.

c5.s1.t11.21

∗ ‘Anabasis,’ iv. 28.

c5.s1.t11.22

† Vit. Apollonii, ii. 10.

c5.s1.t11.23

‡ Hist., xvii. 44.

c5.s1.t11.24

In the similar case of the great fortress of Gwalior, we find the usually accurate English traveller, William Finch, describing it as a castle situated on a steep craggy cliff, "6 *kos* in circuit, or, as some say, 11 *kos*." As Finch generally adopts the short imperial *kos* of 1 1/3 mile, his estimate of the circuit of Gwalior will be 9 miles, or nearly twice the actual measurement of 5 miles, while the popular estimate will be nearly four times greater than the truth. It is possible, however, to reconcile these different numbers by supposing that the larger refers to the imperial *kos*, and the smaller to the greater *kos* of Akbar, which is just double the former. But in this case the estimate of the circuit of the fort of Gwalior would be from 14 to 15 miles, or just three times too great. Finch does not mention the height of Gwalior, but he notes that the "steep ascent" to the castle of *Narwar* was "rather more than a mile" in length, which is just double the truth. Here the traveller was led to exaggerate the height by the mere steepness of the ascent. But in the case of Aornos, the Greeks had an additional motive for exaggeration in the natural wish to enhance their own glory. For this reason I would suggest, as a possible explanation of the discrepancy between the 16 stadia of Diodorus and the 11 stadia of Arrian, that the original authority of the former may have quadrupled or trebled the true measurement, while that of the latter only trebled or doubled it. Under this explanation the two numbers would become either 4 and 3⅓ stadia, or 5⅓ and 5½ stadia, or from 2300 to 3400 feet, which might be accepted as a very probable measure of the slant height; similarly the circuit might be reduced to 50 stadia, which are equivalent to 5¾ miles or 30,300 feet, or rather more than the circuit of the road around the base of the Gwalior hill. A slant height of 2300 feet, with a base of 1900 feet, would give a perpendicular height of 1250 feet, or an ascent of 2 feet in every 3 feet. I do not propose this mode of reduction as a probable explanation of the discrepancies in the recorded measurements, but I venture to suggest it only as a possible means of accounting for the evident exaggeration of the numbers in both of the authorities.

c5.s1.t11.25

All the accounts of Aornos agree in describing it as a rocky hill of great height and steepness. Justin calls it *saxum miræ asperitatis et altitudinis*, “an exceedingly rugged and lofty rock.”* Diodorus, Strabo, Arrian, Curtius, and Philostratus, all call it *petra*, or a “rock fort.” Its rocky ruggedness was, therefore, a special feature of *Aornos*. According to Arrian, it was “only accessible by one difficult path, cut out by hand, and it possessed a fine spring of pure water on the very summit, besides wood and sufficient arable soil for the cultivation of one thousand men.” The last expression is still in common use in India, under the form of ploughs of land, and means simply as much land as one man can plough in a day. The same thing was expressed by the Greeks and Romans by yokes, each being as much as one yoke of oxen could plough in a single day. Now the smallest plough of land would not be less than 100 feet square, or 10,000 square feet, which would give 10,000,000 square feet for 1000 men. This would show an area of 4000 feet in length by 2500 feet in breadth, or, making allowance for buildings, of one mile in length by half a mile in breadth, or 2 miles in length by a quarter of a mile in breadth, which is just the size of Gwalior. But if such a vast fortress as Gwalior had ever existed on the western frontier of India, it would certainly not have escaped the notice of the early Muhammadan conquerors, and it could scarcely have eluded the searching inquiries of General Court and General Abbott. I, therefore, look upon the thousand ploughs of land as another gross exaggeration of Alexander's followers for the sake of ministering to their master's vanity. I accept the one difficult path of access and the spring of pure water, as two of the necessary possessions of a strong military post, but I unhesitatingly reject the 100 ploughs of arable land, for if such an extensive tract as half a square mile of irrigable land had ever existed on the top of a hill in this arid district, I cannot believe that such an important and valuable site ever would have been abandoned.

c5.s1.t11.26

∗ Hist., xii. 7.

c5.s1.t11.27

In searching for a position that will answer the general description of Aornos, it is unfortunate that our range is limited to the few points which have been visited by Europeans. The claims of the Mahâban hill have already been discussed; and the only other possible positions that I know of are the following:—
1. The ruined city of *Takht-i-Bahai*.
2. The lofty isolated hill of *Káramár*.
3. The hill of *Panjpir*.
4. The ruined fortress of *Ránigat*.

c5.s1.t11.28

The first of these places stands on an isolated hill, about halfway between Bâzâr and Hashtnagar; Mr. Loewenthal describes it as a barren hill of no great height, which forms three sides of a square, with the open side towards the north-west.* By the trigonometrical survey maps, *Takht-i-Bahai* is only 1859 feet above the sea, or 650 feet above the Yusufzai plain. Mr. Loewenthal also describes the ascent as easy; and as the place is situated not less than 35 miles from the nearest point of the Indus, I think it may be rejected at once as not answering the description of lofty and difficult access, and as being too far from the probable position of Embolima. The position of the lofty isolated hill of *Káramár*, which is situated 6 miles to the south of Bâzâr, and only 18 miles to the north-north-west of Ohind, added to its height, which is 3480 feet above the sea, or 2280 feet above the Yusufzai plain, would give it a most prominent claim to notice if it possessed any remains of former occupation. But the *Káramár* hill is a mere bluff ridge, without ruins and without a name in the traditions of the people. The *Panjpir* hill is a similar but smaller ridge, which rises to the height of 2140 feet above the sea, or 940 feet above the Yusufzai plain. It is a mere sharp ridge crowned with a single building, which is now dedicated to the Panjpir, or five Great Saints of the Muhammadans, of whom the earliest is *Baha-ud-din Zakariya* of Multan, commonly called *Baháwal Hakk*. But the Hindus affirm that the place was originally dedicated to the *Panch-Pandu*, or Five Pandu brothers of the ‘Mahâbhârata.’

c5.s1.t11.29

∗ Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1863, p. 2.

c5.s1.t11.30

The last probable position that I know of is the ruined fortress of *Ránigat*. I visited this place in January, 1848, and I had intended revisiting it during my tour in 1863, but the war on the Buner frontier most unfortunately prevented me from carrying out my intentions. I can, therefore, add but little to the information which I collected in 1848; but as that has not been made public, and as no one but Mr. Loewenthal would appear to have visited the place since then, my account will still possess all the advantage of novelty.

c5.s1.t11.31

*Ránigat* is situated on a lofty hill above the village of Nogram, which is just 12 miles to the south-east of Bâzâr, and 16 miles to the north of Ohind. Its position, therefore, is strongly in favour of its identification with Aornos. The hill itself is the last point of one of the long spurs of the Mahâban range. Its base is rather more than two miles in length from north to south by about half a mile in width, but the top of the hill is not more than 1200 feet in length by 800 feet in breadth. In 1848, I estimated its height at 1000 feet; but from the unanimous assertions of the people that it is higher than Panjpir, I think that it is probably not less than 1200 feet. The sides of the hill are covered with massive blocks of stone, which make it exceedingly rugged and inaccessible. There is only one road, cut in the rock, leading to the top, although there are two, if not more, rather difficult pathways. This, we know, was also the case with Aornos, as Ptolemy succeeded in reaching the top by a “rugged and dangerous path,”* whilst Alexander himself attacked the place by one regular path which was cut out by the hand.† *Ránigat* may be described as consisting of a castle, 500 feet long by 400 feet broad, surrounded on all sides except the east, where it springs up from the low spur of Mahában, by a rocky ridge, which on the north side rises to an equal height. On all sides the castle rock is scarped; and on two sides it is separated from the surrounding ridge by deep ravines, that to the north being 100 feet deep, and that to the west from 50 to 150 feet. At the north-west angle of the castle two dykes have been thrown across the ravine, which would appear to have been intended to arrest the flow of water, and thus to form a great reservoir in the west hollow. In the north ravine, between the castle and the great isolated block called *Ránigat*, there are three square wells; and to the north-east lower down, I thought that I could trace another dyke, which was most probably only the remains of part of the outer line of defences. The entire circuit of this outer line is about 4500 feet, or somewhat less than a mile.

c5.s1.t11.32

The castle itself is thus described by Mr. Loewenthal‡:—“The summit of the hill offers a flat plateau of some size, which had been very strongly fortified by buildings all round the brow. These buildings are constructed of large blocks of stone (conglomerate found on the spot) neatly hewn, and carefully fitted, disposed with very great regularity, and laid in a cement of extraordinary excellence. Unavoidable interstices between the large blocks are filled up by layers of thin small stone tablets, this latter practice being an invariable feature in all the so-called Kafir buildings which I have seen in the Trans-Indus country.” To this description I may add that all the stone blocks are laid most carefully as headers and stretchers, that is alternately lengthwise and breadthwise, which gives a very pleasing and varied appearance to the massive walls. All the buildings are now much ruined, but the external walls are traceable nearly all round, and on the south and west sides are still standing to a considerable height, and in very good order. The main entrance, which is at the south-west corner, is formed in the usual ancient manner by overlapping stones. The passage is not perpendicular to the face of the wall, but considerably inclined to the right for a short distance. It then turns to the left to a small chamber, and then again to the right till it reaches what must have been an open courtyard. The whole of this passage was originally roofed in by courses of stone with chamfered ends overlapping each other so as to form the two sides of a pointed arch, but the ends of the upper course of stones being left straight, the apex of the arch has the appearance of a rectangular cusp. This peculiarity was also noticed by Mr. Loewenthal, who says that “the arch would be pointed, but the centre line is taken up by a narrow rectangular groove.” On the west face I observed a smaller passage of a similar kind, but it was so blocked up with rubbish that I was quite unable to trace its course.

c5.s1.t11.33

∗ Arrian, ‘Anabasis,’ iv. 29. † *Ibid.*, iv. 28.

c5.s1.t11.34

This central castle or citadel, with its open courtyard surrounded by costly buildings, I take to have been the palace of the king, with the usual temples for private worship. At the north end I traced a wide flight of steps leading down to a second plateau, which I presume to have been the outer court of the palace or citadel. The upper courtyard is 270 feet long and 100 feet broad; and the lower courtyard, including the steps, is just half the size, or 130 feet by 100 feet. These open areas were covered with broken statues of all sizes, and in all positions. Many of them were figures of Buddha the Teacher, either seated or standing; some were of Buddha the Ascetic, sitting under the holy Pipal tree; and a few represented Mâyâ, the mother of Buddha, standing under the sâl tree. But there were fragments of other figures, which apparently were not connected with religion, such as a life-size male figure in chain armour, a naked body of a man with the Macedonian *chlamys*, or short cloak, thrown over the shoulders and fastened in front in the usual manner, and a human breast partly covered with the *chlamys* and adorned with a necklace of which the clasps are formed by two human-headed, winged, and four-footed animals, something like centaurs. All these figures are carved in a soft, dark-blue clay slate, which is easily worked with a knife. It is exceedingly brittle, and was therefore easily broken by the idol-hating Musalmans. But as the surface was capable of receiving a good polish, many of the fragments are still in very fine preservation. The best piece that I have seen was a head of Buddha, with the hair massed on the top of the head, and worked in a peculiar manner in wavy lines, instead of the usual formal curls. It was found at Jamâl Garhi, and is by far the best piece of Indian sculpture that I have seen. The calm repose of the finely chiselled features is not unworthy of Grecian art, but the striking beauty of the face is somewhat marred by the round projecting Indian chin.

c5.s1.t11.35

I have already noticed that the Rânigat hill is covered on all sides with massive blocks of stone, which make the approach very rugged and difficult. Numbers of these stones are of very large size, and some of those on the top of the hill have been hollowed out to form cells. Mr. Loewenthal notices this as “one of the most marked features” amongst these remains. Many of the cells are quite plain inside, whilst others have the simple ornament of a niche or two. The most notable of these excavated blocks is on the ridge to the south of the castle. It is called Katri-kor, or the “Grain Merchant’s house,” by the people; but I observed nothing about the rock that would give any clue to its original purpose, save the smallness of the entrance, which was certainly better suited for the cell of a monk than for the shop of a dealer. Mr. Loewenthal notices that “the vegetation on the hill is principally olive and myrtle;” but in 1848 there was a considerable number of good-sized trees scattered over the summit.

c5.s1.t11.36

I do not insist upon the identification, but if we admit that the accounts of the historians are very much exaggerated, I think that the ruins of Rânigat tally much better with the vague descriptions of Aornos that have come down to us, than any other position with which I am acquainted. In all essential points, save that of size, the agreement is wonderfully close. Its position between Bâzâr and Ohind, or Bazaria and Embolima, is quite unobjectionable.

c5.s1.t11.37

Its attribution to Raja *Vara* renders it probable that the place may have been named after him, which would give a very near approach to the Aornos of the Greeks. Its great height, its ruggedness, and difficulty of access, its one path cut in the rock, its spring of water and level ground, and its deep ravine separating the outer works from the castle, are so many close and striking points of resemblance, that, were it not for the great difference in size, I should be very much disposed to accept the identification as complete. But though in this point it does not come up to the boastful descriptions of the Greeks, yet we must not forget the opinion of Strabo that the capture of Aornos was exaggerated by Alexander’s flatterers. It must also be remembered that as the campaign against Assakanus took place “during the winter,”* and the Macedonians entered Taxila “at the beginning of spring,” the siege of Aornos must have been carried on during the very depth of winter, when the Mahâban hill, 7471 feet above the sea, and every other hill of the same height, is usually covered with snow. It is almost certain, therefore, that even the lesser height of 11 stadia, or 6674 feet above the Yusufzai plain, equivalent to 7874 feet above the sea, must be grossly exaggerated. In this part of the country the snow falls annually as low as 4000 feet above the sea, or 2800 above the Yusufzai plain, and as no snow is said to have fallen on Aornos, although the Greeks mention that they saw snow during the winter, I think that their silence on this point is absolutely conclusive against the recorded height of Aornos, and therefore also against the claims of Mahâban, and of any other hill exceeding 4000 feet in height. All the ancient authorities agree in describing Aornos as a πέτρα, or ‘rock,’ with rugged and precipitous sides, and with only a single path cut by hand. The Mahâban hill does not, therefore, fulfil any one condition of the ancient description. It is a huge mountain of comparatively easy access, and is more than twice the size of the most exaggerated estimate of Alexander’s flatterers. Its name also has no resemblance to Aornos; whilst the traditions of Raja Vara, attached to Rânigat, would seem to connect that place directly with Aornos.

c5.s1.t11.38

∗ Strabo, Geogr., xv. 1, 17.

c5.s1.t11.39

*Parasháwara, or Pesháwar.*

c5.s1.t11.40

The great city now called Peshâwar is first mentioned by Fa-Hian, in A.D. 400, under the name of *Fo-leu-sha*.* It is next noticed by Sung-Yun in A.D. 502, at which time the king of Gândhâra was at war with the king of Kipin, or Kophene, that is Kabul and Ghazni, and the surrounding districts. Sung-Yun does not name the city, but he calls it the capital, and his description of its great stupa of king Kia-ni-sse-kia, or Kanishka, is quite sufficient to establish its identity.† At the period of Hwen Thsang’s visit, in A.D. 630, the royal family had become extinct, and the kingdom of Gândhâra was a dependency of Kapisa or Kabul. But the capital which Hwen Thsang calls *Pu-lu-sha-pu-lo*, or *Parasháwara*, was still a great city of 40 *li*, or 6⅔ miles, in extent.‡ It is next mentioned by Masudi and Abu Rihân, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, under the name of *Parasháwar*, and again by Baber, in the sixteenth century, it is always called by the same name throughout his commentaries. Its present name we owe to Akbar, whose fondness for innovation led him to change the ancient *Parasháwar*, of which he did not know the meaning, to *Pesháwar*, or the "frontier town." Abul Fazl gives both names.*

c5.s1.t11.41

∗ Beal’s translation of ‘Fah-Hian,’ p. 34.

c5.s1.t11.42

† Beal’s translation of ‘Sung-Yun,’ p. 202.

c5.s1.t11.43

‡ Julien’s ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ ii. 104.

c5.s1.t11.44

The great object of veneration at Parashâwar, in the first centuries of the Christian era, was the begging pot of Buddha, which has already been noticed. Another famous site was the holy Pipal tree, at 8 or 9 *li*, or 1½ mile, to the south-east of the city. The tree was about 100 feet in height, with wide spreading branches, which, according to the tradition, had formerly given shade to Sakya Buddha when he predicted the future appearance of the great king Kanishka. The tree is not noticed by Fa-Hian, but it is mentioned by Sun-Yung as the *Pho-thi*, or *Bodhi* tree, whose "branches spread out on all sides, and whose foliage shuts out the sight of the sky." Beneath it there were four seated statues of the four previous Buddhas. Sung-Yun further states that the tree was planted by Kanishka over the spot where he had buried a copper vase containing the pearl tissue lattice of the great *stupa*, which he was afraid might be abstracted from the tope after his death. This same tree would appear to have been seen by the Emperor Baber in A.D. 1505, who describes it as the "stupendous tree" of Begrâm, which he "immediately rode out to see."† It must then have been not less than 1500 years old, and as it is not mentioned in A.D. 1594 by Abul Fazl,* in his account of the *Gor-Katri* at Peshâwar, I conclude that it had previously disappeared through simple old age and decay.

c5.s1.t11.45

∗ ‘Ayin Akbari,’ ii. 341. † ‘Memoirs, translated by Leyden and Erskine,’ p. 157.

c5.s1.t11.46

The enormous *stupa* of Kanishka, which stood close to the holy tree on its south side, is described by all the pilgrims. In A.D. 500 Fa-Hian says that it was about 400 feet high, and “adorned with all manner of precious things,” and that fame reported it as superior to all other topes in India. One hundred years later, Sung-Yun declares that “amongst the topes of western countries this is the first.” Lastly, in A.D. 630, Hwen Thsang describes it as upwards of 400 feet in height and 1½ *li*, or just one quarter of a mile, in circumference. It contained a large quantity of the relics of Buddha. No remains of this great *stupa* now exist.

c5.s1.t11.47

To the west of the *stupa* there was an old monastery, also built by Kanishka, which had become celebrated amongst the Buddhists through the fame of *Arya-Párswika*, *Manorhita*, and *Vasu-bandhu*, three of the great leaders and teachers of Buddhism about the beginning of the Christian era. The towers and pavilions of the monastery were two stories in height, but the building was already much ruined at the time of Hwen Thsang’s visit. It was, however, inhabited by a small number of monks, who professed the “Lesser Vehicle” or exoteric doctrines of Buddhism. It was still flourishing as a place of Buddhist education in the ninth or tenth century† when Vira Deva of Magadha was sent to the “great Vihâra of Kanishka where the best of teachers were to be found, and which was famous for the quietism of its frequenters.” I believe that this great monastery was still existing in the times of *Baber* and *Akbar* under the name of *Gor-Katri*, or the Baniya’s house.

c5.s1.t11.48

∗ ‘Ayin Akbari,’ ii. 165.

c5.s1.t11.49

† Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1849, i. 494.

c5.s1.t11.50

The former says, “I had heard of the fame of *Gurh-Katri*, which is one of the holy places of the Jogis of the Hindus, who come from great distances to cut off their hair and shave their beards at this *Gurh-Katri*.” Abul Fazl’s account is still more brief. Speaking of Peshawur he says, “here is a temple, called *Gor-Katri*, a place of religious resort, particularly for Jogis.” According to Erskine, the grand caravansara of Peshawur was built on the site of the *Gor-Katri*.

Linked texts (10)