The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c5.s1.t11.8

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.