The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c5.s1.t11.24

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.