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.s4: Tâki, or Panjâb.

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c5.s4

Language
English

Contents

Tâki, or Panjâb.

c5.s4.1

The kingdom which Hwen Thsang calls *Tse-kia*, or *Tâki*, embraced the whole of the plains of the Panjâb from the Indus to the Biâs, and from the foot of the mountains to the junction of the five rivers below Multân.[*] The Chinese syllable *tse* is used by Hwen Thsang to represent the cerebral *ṭ* of the Sanskrit in the name of *Danakaṭa*, which is found in no less than five of the western cave inscriptions at Kanhari and Kârli.[†] In Hwen Thsang’s travels this name is written *To.no.kia-tse.kia*, in which the last two syllables are transposed. It is the *Danaka* of Abu Rihân, which, as will be shown hereafter, is most probably the same as the old town of *Dhárani-koṭṭa*, on the Kistna river, adjoining the modern city of Amaravati. *Tse-kia*, therefore, represents *Tâki*, which would appear to have been the name of the capital as well as of the kingdom of the Panjâb in the seventh century, just as Lahor has since been used to describe both the kingdom and the capital of Ranjit Singh. The position of the capital will be discussed hereafter. It will be sufficient at present to note that it was within a few miles of the more ancient capital of *She-kie-lo*, which was long ago identified by Professor Lassen with the *Śakala* of the *Mahâbhârata*, and with the *Sangala* of Arrian. Now the people of *Śakala* are called Madras, *Araṭṭas*, *Jârttikas*, and *Bâhîkas*,* in the *Mahâbhârata*; and in the Lexicon of Hemachandra the *Bâhîkas* are said to be the same as the *Takkas*.† Again, in the ‘Raja Tarangini,’ the district of *Takkadesa* is mentioned as a part of the kingdom of *Gurjjara* (or Gujarât, near the Chenâb), which Raja Alakhâna was obliged to cede to Kashmir between A.D. 883 and 901.‡ From these statements it is clear that *Śakala* was the old capital of the powerful tribe of *Takkas*, whose country was named after themselves *Takka-deśa*.§ The name of the new capital is not actually stated by Hwen Thsang, but I believe it to have been *Ṭaki*, or *Ṭakká-war*, which I would identify with the *Tahora* of the Pentingerian Tables by the mere softening of the guttural *k* to the aspirate *h*. In the latter authority *Tahora* is placed at 70 Roman miles, or 64⅓ English miles from *Spatura*, opposite *Alexandria Bucefalos*.

c5.s4.2

∗ See Maps Nos. V. and VI.

c5.s4.3

† Dr. Stevenson read this name as the Pali form of the Greek *Xenokrates*, but in all the inscriptions at Kanhari and Kârli it is clearly the name of a town or country.

c5.s4.4

† Lassen, ‘Pentapot Indica,’ p. 21. *Bâhîkâśṭakkanâmâno*.

c5.s4.5

‡ ‘Raja Tarangini,’ v. 150, Troyer; v. 155, Calcutta edit.

c5.s4.6

§ For the position of *Śakala*, or *Ṭaki*, see Maps. Nos. V. and VI.

c5.s4.7

I will now turn to the early Muhammadan writers who have noticed Kashmir and Sindh, and who, therefore can scarcely have omitted all mention of so important a country as the Panjâb, which lies immediately between them. In A.D. 915, Masudi thus describes the Indus, according to Sir Henry Elliot’s translation:* “The *Mihrán* of es-Sind comes from the “well-known sources of the high land of es-Sind, “from the country belonging to Kinnauj in the kingdom of Budah, and of Kashmir, el Kandahâr, and *et-Tákin*. The tributaries which rise in these countries run to el Multân, and from thence the united “river receives the name of *Mihrán*.” In this passage *Tákin* must certainly be intended for the hills of the Panjâb. The Kabul river and the Indus both flow through *Gándhára*, or el Kandahâr; the Jhelam comes from Kashmir; and the Biâs and Satlej flow through Jâlandhar and Kahlur, which in the time of Hwen Thsang were subject to Kanoj. The only other tributaries of the Indus are the Chenâb and the Râvi, which must therefore have flowed through the kingdom of *Tákin*. The mention of Gândhâra and Kanoj shows that Masudi does not refer to the actual sources of the rivers, but to the points in the lower ranges of hills, where they enter the plains. *Tákin*, therefore, in the time of Masudi, represented the lower hills and plains of the Panjâb to the north of Multân, which was then in the possession of the Brahman kings of Kabul.

c5.s4.8

∗ In the *Mahâbhârata* and Vishnu Purâna the name is written *Bâlhîka*; but as they follow the *Kulûtas*, it seems certain that the true reading is *Bâhîka*, as proposed by Lassen.

c5.s4.9

The name is read *Tákin*, طاقين, by Sir Henry Elliot, and *Táfan*, طافن, by Gildemeister,† in his extracts from Masudi. The first reading is supported by the strong authority of Abu Rihân and Rashid-uddin, who agree in stating that the great snowy mountain of *Kelárjik* (or *Lârjk*), which resembled Demavend by its cupola form, could be seen from the boundaries of *Tákishar* and *Lohâwar*.* Elliot, in one passage, corrects *Tákishar* to *Kashmir*; but this alteration is quite inadmissible, as the mountain is specially noted to have been only 2 farsangs, or about 8 miles, distant from Kashmir. One might as well say that St. Paul’s Cathedral is visible from Ludgate Hill and Windsor. The mountain here referred to is the great *Dayamur*, or *Nanga Parbat*, to the west of Kashmir, which is 26,629 feet in height; and which I have myself seen repeatedly from Râmnagar, on the Chenâb, a distance of 200 miles. In a second passage of the same author, Sir Henry calls the mountain *Kalárchal*,† and the two places from which it can be seen he names *Tákas* and *Lohâwar*. This *Tákas*, or *Tákishar*, I take to be the same place as the *Tsekia*, or *Táki* of Hwen Thsang, and the *Tákin* of Masudi.

c5.s4.10

∗ Sir H. M. Elliot’s ‘Muhammadan Historians of India,’ p. 56; and Prof. Dowson’s edition, i. 21, where the name is read as *Táfan*. But Sprenger, in his translation of ‘Masudi,’ p. 193, gives *Táfi*, with *Tákan* and *Táfan* as variants, and at p. 390, *Tákin*.

c5.s4.11

† ‘De Rebus Indicis,’ p. 161.

c5.s4.12

† Sir H. M. Elliot, p. 30; and Dowson’s edition, i. 46. If this is the same as Ibn Batuta’s *Karâchal*, or “Black Mountain,” the identification with *Nanga Parbat*, or the “Bare Mountain” is nearly certain, as “bareness” means “blackness,” from want of snow.

c5.s4.13

The earliest Muhammadan author who mentions *Táki* is the merchant Sulimân, who visited the east before A.D. 851, when his account was written. He describes *Táfak*, طافك, as not of very great extent, and its king as weak, and subject to the neighbouring princes; but he adds that he possessed “the finest white women in all the Indies.”‡ As *Táfak* and *Tákin* are almost the same in unpointed Persian characters, I have no hesitation in identifying *Táfak* with the Panjâb, where the women, and especially those of the lower hills, are the "fairest," as well as the "finest," in India.

c5.s4.14

∗ Reinaud, ‘Fragments Arabes,’ p. 118. In Sir H. M. Elliot, p. 41, and in Dowson’s edition of Elliot, i. 65, Tâkishar is altered to Kashmir.

c5.s4.15

‡ Sir Henry Elliot, p. 49; and Dowson’s edition, i. 4.

c5.s4.16

Ibn Khurdâdba, who died in A.D. 912, mentions the king of *Taffa** as next in eminence to the Balha Râ. Lastly, Kazwini describes *Taifand*, طيفند, which was taken by Mahmud of Ghazni in A.D. 1023, as a strong Indian fort, on the top of an inaccessible mountain.† This account agrees with the actual hill of *Sangala*, which is almost inaccessible on three sides, and on the fourth is protected by a sheet of water.

c5.s4.17

† Gildemeister, ‘De Rebus Indicis,’ p. 208.

c5.s4.18

All these slightly different names of *Tákin*, *Táfan*, *Táfak*, *Táffa*, *Tákas*, and *Tákishar*, I take to be only various readings of the one original form of *Táki*, or *Tákin*, which, when written without the diacritical points, may be read in several different ways. M. Reinaud gives another spelling as *Tában*, طابن, which, without the points, may be read in as many different ways as the other form of *Táfan*. I conclude, therefore, that the true form of the name of the country was *Táki*, or *Táka*, as recorded by Hwen Thsang. The name of the capital was probably either *Tákin* or *Takkáwar*, of which the former agrees exactly with Kazwini's *Taifand* طيفند, and the latter with the *Tahora* of the Pentingerian Tables. I consider it almost certain that the name must have been derived from the tribe of *Táks* or *Takkas*, who were once the undisputed lords of the Panjâb, and who still exist as a numerous agricultural race in the lower hills between the Jhelam and the Râvi.

c5.s4.19

∗ Sir Henry Elliot, ‘Muhammadan Historians of India,’ p. 53. In Dowson's edition, i. 13, this name is written *Tifan*.

c5.s4.20

The former importance of this race is perhaps best shown by the fact that the old *Nágari* characters, which are still in use throughout the whole country from Bamiyan to the banks of the Jumna, are named *Ṭákari*, most probably because this particular form was brought into use by the *Táks* or Takkas. I have found these characters in common use under the same name amongst the grain dealers to the west of the Indus, and to the east of the Satlej, as well as amongst the Brâhmans of Kashmir and Kangra. It is used in the inscriptions, as well as upon the coins of Kashmir and Kangra; it is seen on the *Sati* monuments of Mandi, and in the inscriptions of Pinjor; and lastly, the only copy of the ‘Raja Tarangini’ of Kashmir was preserved in the *Ṭákari* characters. I have obtained copies of this alphabet from twenty-six different places between Peshâwar and Simla. In several of these places the *Ṭákari* is also called *Mundé* and *Lundé*, but the meaning of these terms is unknown. The chief peculiarity of this alphabet is, that the vowels are never attached to the consonants, but are always written separately, with, of course, the single exception of the inherent short *a*. It is remarkable also that in this alphabet the initial letters of the cardinal numbers have almost exactly the same forms as the nine unit figures in present use.

c5.s4.21

In the seventh century the kingdom of *Ṭáki* was divided into three provinces, namely, *Ṭáki* in the north and west, *Shorkot* in the east, and *Multán* in the south. The province of *Ṭáki* comprised the plains of the Panjâb, lying between the Indus and the Biâs, to the north of the Multân district, or the whole of the *Chaj Doâb*, together with the upper portions of the three Doâbs of Sindh-Sâgar, Richna, and Bâri. The province of *Shorkot* comprised the middle portions of these Doâbs, and the province of *Multán* their lower portions. It is probable, also, that the possessions of Multân may have extended some distance to the west of the Indus as well as to the east of the Satlej, as was the case in the time of Akbar.

1. Tâki, or Northern Panjâb.

c5.s4.t1.1

The province of Tâki contained several of the most celebrated places of ancient India; some renowned in the wars of Alexander, some famous in Buddhist history, and others known only in the widely-spread traditions of the people. The following is a list of the most important of the ancient places, arranged according to their relative geographical positions from west to east. The names of the Doâbs were invented by Akbar by combining the names of the including rivers. Thus, *Chaj* is an abbreviation of Chenâb and Jhelam; *Richna* of Râvi and Chenâb; and *Bâri* of Biâs and Ravi.

c5.s4.t1.2

Sindh-Sâgar Doâb { 1. Jobnâthnagar, or Bhira.
2. Bukephala, or Dilâwar. Chaj Doâb . . { 3. Nikæa, or Mong.
4. Gujarât. Richna Doâb . { 5. Sâkala, or Sangala.
6. Tâki, or Asarur.
7. Narsingha, or Ransi.
8. Ammakatis, or Ambakapi. Bâri Doâb . . { 9. Lohâwar, or Lahor.
10. Kusâwar, or Kasur.
11. Chinapati, or Patti.

Jobnáthnagar, or Bhiṛa.

c5.s4.t2.1

The modern town of Bhiṛa, or Bheḍa, is situated on the left, or eastern bank, of the Jhelam; but on the opposite bank of the river, near Ahmedabad, there is a very extensive mound of ruins, called *Old Bhiṛa*, or *Jobnáthnagar*, the city of Raja Jobnáth, or Chobnáth. At this point the two great routes of the salt caravans diverge to Lahor and Multân; and here, accordingly, was the capital of the country in ancient times; and here also, as I believe, was the capital of Sophites, or Sopeithes, the contemporary of Alexander the Great. According to Arrian, the capital of Sopeithes was fixed by Alexander as the point where the camps of Kraterus and Hephæstion were to be pitched on opposite banks of the river, there to await the arrival of the fleet of boats under his own command, and of the main body of the army under Philip.* As Alexander reached the appointed place on the third day, we know that the capital of Sophites was on the Hydaspes, at three days' sail from Nikæa for laden boats. Now Bhiṛa is just three days' boat distance from Mong, which, as I will presently show, was almost certainly the position of Nikæa, where Alexander defeated Porus. Bhiṛa also, until it was supplanted by Pind Dâdan Khan, has always been the principal city in this part of the country. At Bhiṛa† the Chinese pilgrim, Fa-Hian, crossed the Jhelam in A.D. 400; and against Bhiṛa, eleven centuries later, the enterprising Baber conducted his first Indian expedition.

c5.s4.t2.2

† Beal's translation, chap. xv.; Fa-Hian calls it Pi-cha or Bhi-ḍa—the Chinese *ch* being the usual representative of the cerebral *ḍ*.

c5.s4.t2.3

The classical notices of the country over which Sophites ruled are very conflicting. Thus Strabo* records:—"Some writers place *Kathæa* and the country of Sopeithes, one of the monarchs, in the tract between the rivers (Hydaspes and Akesines); some on the other side of the Akesines and of the Hyarotes, on the confines of the territory of the other Porus,—the nephew of Porus, who was taken prisoner by Alexander, and call the country subject to him *Gandaris*." This name may, I believe, be identified with the present district of *Gundalbár*, or *Gundar-bár*. *Bár* is a term applied only to the central portion of each Doâb, comprising the high lands beyond the reach of irrigation from the two including rivers. Thus *Sandal*, or *Sandar-bár*, is the name of the central tract of the Doâb between the Jhelam and the Chenâb. The upper portion of the *Gundal Bár* Doâb, which now forms the district of Gujarât, belonged to the famous Porus, the antagonist of Alexander, and the upper part of the *Sandar-Bár* Doâb belonged to his nephew, the other Porus, who is said to have sought refuge among the Gandaridæ. The commentators have altered this name to *Gangaridæ*, or inhabitants of the Ganges; but it seems to me that the text of Diodorus† is most probably correct, and that the name of *Gandaridæ* must refer to the people of the neighbouring district of *Gandaris*, who were the subjects of Sophites.

c5.s4.t2.4

∗ ‘Anabasis,’ vi. 3.

c5.s4.t2.5

† Hist., xix. 47.

c5.s4.t2.6

The rule of the Indian prince was not, however, confined to the Doâb between the Hydaspes and Akesines; for Strabo‡ relates that "in the territory of Sopeithes there is a mountain composed of fossil salt sufficient for the whole of India.” As this notice can only refer to the well-known mines of rock salt in the Salt Range, the whole of the upper portion of the Sindh Sâgar Doâb must have been included in the territories of Sopeithes. His sway, therefore, would have extended from the Indus on the west to the Akesines on the east, thus comprising the whole of the present districts of Pind Dâdan and Shâhpur. This assignment of the valuable salt mines to Sopeithes, or Sophites, may also be deduced from a passage in Pliny by the simple transposition of two letters in the name of a country, which has hitherto puzzled all the commentators. Pliny says, “when Alexander the Great was on his Indian expedition, he was presented by the king of *Albania* with a dog of unusual size,” which successfully attacked both a lion and an elephant in his presence.* The same story is repeated by his copyist, Solinus,† without any change in the name of the country. Now, we know from the united testimony of Strabo, Diodorus, and Curtius, that the Indian king who presented Alexander with these fighting dogs was *Sophites*, and *he*, therefore, must have been the king of *Albania*. For this name I propose to read *Labania*, by the simple transposition of the first two letters. *ΛΑΒΑΝ* would, therefore, become *ΛΑΒΑΝ*, which at once suggests the Sanskrit word *lavana*, or ‘salt,’ as the original of this hitherto puzzling name. The mountain itself is named *Oromenus* by Pliny,‡ who notes that the kings of the country derived a greater revenue from the rock salt than from either gold or pearls. This name is probably intended for the Sanskrit *Raumaka*, which, according to the Pandits, is the name of the salt brought from the hill country of *Ruma*. H. H. Wilson, however, identifies *Ruma* with *Sámbhar*;* and as *rauma* means "salt," it is probable that the term may have been applied to the *Sámbhar* lake in Rajputana, as well as to the Salt Range of hills in the Panjâb.†

c5.s4.t2.7

∗ Geogr., xv. 1, 30.

c5.s4.t2.8

‡ Geogr., xv. 1-30. This notice was most probably derived from Kleitarchos, one of the companions of Alexander, as Strabo quotes him in another place (v. 2-6) as having mentioned the salt mines of India, καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἰνδοῖς ἅλας.

c5.s4.t2.9

† *Ibid.*, xxxi.

c5.s4.t2.10

³⁹ “Sunt et montes nativi salis, ut in Indis Oromenus.

c5.s4.t2.11

† See Maps Nos. V. and VI.

c5.s4.t2.12

The historians of Alexander have preserved several curious particulars regarding Sophites and the country and people over which he ruled. Of the king himself, Curtius‡ records that he was pre-eminent amongst the barbarians for beauty; and Diodorus§ adds, that he was six feet in height. I possess a coin of fine Greek workmanship, bearing a helmeted head on one side, and on the reverse a cock standing, with the legend ΣΩΦΥΤΟΥ, which, there seems good reason to believe, must have belonged to this Indian prince. The face is remarkable for its very striking and peculiar features. The subjects of Sophites also were distinguished by personal beauty, which, according to Diodorus, they endeavoured to preserve, by destroying all their children who were not well formed. Strabo relates the same thing of the *Kathæi*, but, as he adds, that they elected the handsomest person for their king,‖ his account must be referred to the subjects of Sophites, as the *Kathæi* of Sangala had no king. There is, however, so much confusion between all the authorities in their accounts of the *Kathæi* and the Lacedaemonians, who had been waiting for the signal, now attacked the city. The Plataeans, seeing the enemy already inside and their own men falling, and knowing nothing of the plot, were seized with panic and, thinking that the Thebans were far more numerous than they really were, surrendered at discretion. But when they discovered that the Thebans were few, they took heart and, resolving to attack them, closed the gates and fell upon them.

c5.s4.t2.13

∗ See his Sanskrit Dictionary in voce. *Ruma*, *Rauma*, *Raumaka*.

c5.s4.t2.14

‡ Vita Alex., ix. 1.

c5.s4.t2.15

§ Hist., xvii. 49.

c5.s4.t2.16

‖ Geogr., xv. 1, 30.

c5.s4.t2.17

The Thebans, finding themselves in a trap, began to defend themselves. Twice or thrice they repelled the attacks of the Plataeans, but when the women and slaves began to shout and throw tiles and stones from the houses, and a heavy rain began to fall, the Thebans, confused and blinded, broke and fled through the city. Most of them, not knowing the way in the darkness and rain, fell into the drains or were killed by the Plataeans, who knew the streets. The gate through which they had entered had been shut by a Plataean who had found a javelin-head and used it as a bolt, so that there was no way out. Pursued through the city, some climbed the wall and jumped down, most of them perishing; others reached the gate and, finding it shut, were cut down by the women and slaves. A small party, seeing a large building with an open door, rushed in, thinking it was a gate, and were captured.

c5.s4.t2.18

Meanwhile, the main body of the Thebans, who were to have arrived at daybreak to support the first party, had been delayed by the rain and the swollen river Asopus. When they heard of the disaster, they hurried to the city, intending to seize any Plataeans who might be outside the walls. The Plataeans, suspecting their intention, sent a herald to them, warning them not to harm the prisoners they had taken, and threatening to kill them if they did not withdraw from their territory. The Thebans, upon this, retired.

c5.s4.t2.19

The Plataeans, having thus cleared the city, collected their dead and the prisoners. The prisoners, numbering about one hundred and eighty, were executed the next day, despite a message from the Thebans claiming that they had surrendered on terms. The Plataeans denied this, asserting that they had promised to spare them only if they did not commit further acts of violence.

c5.s4.t2.20

Thus ended the attempt of the Thebans upon Plataea, an event which was the immediate cause of the war between Athens and the Peloponnesians. The Plataeans, having secured their city, sent a messenger to Athens with the news, and the Athenians, fearing for the safety of the Plataeans, sent a garrison to their aid and removed the women and children to Athens.

c5.s4.t2.21

ALEXANDER'S PASSAGE OF THE HYDASPES AND BATTLE WITH PORUS. B.C. 327. 4 Miles to 1 Inch.

c5.s4.t2.22

of the subjects of Sophites, that it seems highly probable that they were one and the same people. They were certainly neighbours; and as both of them would appear to have had the same peculiar customs, and to have been equally remarkable for personal beauty, I conclude that they must have been only different tribes of the same race of people.

2. Bukephala, or Dilâwar.

c5.s4.t3.1

The scene of Alexander’s battle with Porus has long engaged the attention, and exercised the ingenuity, of the learned. The judicious Elphinstone* placed it opposite to Jalâlpur; but Burnes† concluded that it must have been near Jhelam, because that place is on the great road from Tartary, which appears to have been followed by Alexander. In 1836 the subject was discussed by General Court,‡ whose early military training, and unequalled opportunities for observation during a long residence in the Panjâb, gave him the best possible means of forming a sound opinion. General Court fixed the site of Alexander’s camp at Jhelam, his passage of the river at Khilipatam, 3 kos, or 6 miles, above Jhelam, the scene of his battle with Porus at Pattikoti on the Jaba Nadi, 8 miles to the east of Jhelam, and the position of Nikæa at Vessa, or Bhesa, which is 3 miles to the south-east of Pathi or Patti-koti. The late Lord Hardinge took great interest in the subject, and twice conversed with me about it in 1846 and 1847. His opinion agreed with mine that the camp of Alexander was most probably near Jalâlpur. In the following year, General Abbott* published an elaborate disquisition on the battle-field of Alexander and Porus, in which he placed the camp of the former at Jhelam, and of the latter on the opposite bank near Norangabad. The passage of the river he fixed at Bhuna, about 10 miles above Jhelam, and the field of battle near Pakrâl, about 3 miles to the north of Sukchenpur. In this state the question remained until the end of 1863, when my tour through the Panjâb gave me an opportunity of examining at leisure the banks of the Hydaspes from Jalâlpur to Jhelam.

c5.s4.t3.2

∗ Elphinstone’s ‘Kabul,’ i. 109. † ‘Travels in Panjab, Bokhara, etc.,’ ii. 49. ‡ ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society,’ Bengal, 1836, pp. 472, 473.

c5.s4.t3.3

Before discussing Alexander’s movements, I think it best to describe the different places on the line of the river, between Jhelam and Jalâlpur, with the approaches to them from the westward. When we have thus ascertained the site that will best agree with the recorded descriptions of Bukephala, we shall then be in a better position for deciding the rival claims of Jhelam and Jalâlpur as the site of Alexander’s camp. The distances that I shall make use of in this discussion are all taken from actual measurements.*

c5.s4.t3.4

The town of Jhelam is situated on the west bank of the river, 30 miles to the north-east of Jalâlpur, and exactly 100 miles to the north-north-west of Lahor. The remains of the old town consist of a large ruined mound, to the west of the present city, about 1300 feet square and 30 feet high, which is surrounded by fields covered with broken bricks and pottery. The square mound I take to be the ruins of the citadel, which is said to have been called Puta. Numbers of old coins are still discovered in the mound after rain; but those which I was able to collect were limited to the mintages of the later Indo-Scythians, the Kabul-Brahmans, and the princes of Kashmir. As similar and even earlier coins are described by Court and Abbott to have been found in great numbers in previous years, it is certain that the city must have been in existence as early as the first century before Christ. But the advantages of its situation, on one of the two principal lines of road across the North Panjâb, are so great that it must, I think, have been occupied at a very early date. This opinion is confirmed by the numbers of large bricks that have been dug out of the old mound.

c5.s4.t3.5

∗ ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society,’ Bengal, 1848, part ii. p. 619. † See No. VII. Map of ‘Alexander’s Passage of the Hydaspes.’

c5.s4.t3.6

The ruined city near Dârâpur, which has been described by Burnes* and Court,† is situated on the west bank of the river, 20 miles below Jhelam, and 10 miles above Jalâlpur. In their time, the old mound was unoccupied, but about 1832 A.D. the people of Dilâwar abandoned their village on a hill to the west, and settled on the site of the ruined city. Before that time, the place was usually called Pind, or "the mound," although its true name is said to have been Udamnagar, or Udinagar. The same name is also given by Burnes, but Court, who twice alludes to these ruins, mentions no name, unless he includes them under that of Gagirakhi, the ruins of which he describes as extending along the banks "of the Hydaspes from near Jalâlpur to Dârâpur." According to this account, the ruins would not be less than 6 or 7 miles in length. I think it probable that there has been some confusion between two different places, which have here been joined together as one continuous extent of ruins. *Girjhák*, which I take to be the original of Court's *Gagirakhi*, is an old ruined fort on the top of the hill to the north of Jalâlpur, to which the people assign a fabulous extent; but it is at least 8 miles from *Dárápur*, and is, besides, separated from it by the deep Kandar ravine, and by the precipitous range of hills at whose west foot Dilâwar is situated. Burnes also describes the old city as extending "for three or four miles." But this is certainly an exaggeration, as I was unable to trace the ruins for more than one mile in length by half a mile in breadth. The ruins consist of two large mounds just half a mile apart, with two smaller mounds about midway between them. The south mound on which Dilâwar is situated, is about 500 feet square at top, and 1100 or 1200 feet at base, with a height of 50 or 60 feet. The north mound, on which old Dârâpur stands, is 600 feet square, and from 20 to 30 feet in height. Between these mounds the fields are covered with broken bricks and pottery, and the whole place is said to be the ruins of a single city. The walls of the Dilâwar houses are built of the large old bricks dug out of this mound, which are of two sizes, one of 11½ by 8¼ by 3 inches, and the other of only half this thickness. Old coins are found in great numbers in the Dilâwar mound, from which the Jalâlpur bazar is said to be supplied, just as Pind Dâdan is supplied from the ruins of Jobnâthnagar. The coins which I obtained belonged to the first Indo-Scythians, the Kabul-Brahmans, the kings of Kashmir, and the *Karlúki Hazára* chiefs, Hasan and his son Muhammad. The site, therefore, must have been occupied certainly as early as the second century before the Christian era. Its foundation is attributed to Raja Bharati, whose age is not known. I conclude, however, that the dominating position of Dilâwar, which commands the passage of the Jhelam at the point where the lower road from the west leaves the hills, just below the mouth of the Bunhâr river, must have led to its occupation at a very early period.

c5.s4.t3.7

∗ ‘Travels in Panjâb, Bokhara, etc.,’ ii. 51.

c5.s4.t3.8

† Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1836, 472, 473.

c5.s4.t3.9

The town of Jalâlpur is situated on the west bank of the Jhelam at the point where the Kandar ravine joins the old bed of the river. The stream is now 2 miles distant, but the intervening ground, though partially covered with small trees, is still very sandy. The town is said to have been named in honour of Akbar, in whose time it was most probably a very flourishing place. But since the desertion of the river, and more especially since the foundation of Pind Dâdan, the place has been gradually decaying, until it now contains only 738 houses, with about 4000 inhabitants. From the appearance of the site, I estimated that the town might formerly have been about three or four times its present size. The houses are built on the last slope at the extreme east end of the salt range, which rises gradually to a height of 150 feet above the road. Its old Hindu name is said to have been Girjhâk, and as this name is found in Abul Fazl's ‘Ayin Akbari’* as Kerchak (read Girjak) of Sindh Sâgar, we have a proof that it was in use until the time of Akbar, when it was changed to Jalâlpur. But the people still apply the name of Girjhâk to the remains of walls on the top of the Mangal-De hill, which rises 1100 feet above Jalâlpur. According to tradition, Girjhâk extended to the west-north-west as far as the old temple of Bâghanwâla, a distance of 11 miles. But this is only the usual exaggeration of ignorance that is told of all ancient sites. There is no doubt that the city did once extend to the westward for some considerable distance, as the ground on that side is thickly strewn with broken pottery for about half a mile. Its antiquity is undoubted, as the coins which it yields reach back to the times of Alexander's successors. But I believe that it is much older, as its favourable position at the south-east end of the lower road would certainly have led to its occupation at a very early period. I think, therefore, that it may be identified with the Girivraja of the Râmâyana. Tradition has preserved the name of only one king, named Kâmkamârath, who is said to have been the sister's son of Moga, the founder of Mong. Mogal Beg* writes the name Ghir-Jehâk, and it is so written by some of the people of the place, as if it was derived from Giri-Zohâk, or "Zohâk's Hill." But the usual spelling, which accords with the pronunciation, is Jhâk.

c5.s4.t3.10

∗ Gladwyn's Translation, ii. 263.

c5.s4.t3.11

From Jhelam to Jalâlpur the course of the river is from north-east to south-west, between two nearly parallel ranges of mountains, which are generally known as the Tila and Pabhi Hills. The Tila range, which is about thirty miles in length, occupies the west bank from the great east bend of the river below Mangala, to the bed of the Bunhâr river, 12 miles to the north of Jalâlpur. Tila means simply a "peak or hill," and the full name is Gorakhnâth-ka-Tila. The more ancient name was *Bálnáth-ka-Tila*. Both of these are derived from the temple on the summit, which was formerly dedicated to the sun, as *Bálnáth*, but is now devoted to the worship of *Gorakhnáth*, a form of Siva. The latter name, however, is very recent, as Mogal Beg, who surveyed the country between A.D. 1784 and 1794, calls the hill “*Jogion-di-Tibi*, or tower of the Jogis, whose chief is called *Bilnát*.” Abul Fazl* also mentions the “Cell of Balnât,” and the attendant Jogis, or devotees, from whom the hill is still sometimes called *Jogi-tila*. But the name of Bâlnâth is most probably even older than the time of Alexander, as Plutarch† relates that, when Porus was assembling his troops to oppose Alexander, the royal elephant rushed up a hill sacred to the Sun, and in human accents exclaimed, “O great king, who art descended from Gegasios, forbear all opposition to Alexander, for Gegasios himself was also of the race of Jove.”

c5.s4.t3.12

∗ Manuscript Map of the Panjâb and Kabul Valley, by Wilford, from the surveys of Mirza Mogal Beg, in my possession.

c5.s4.t3.13

The “Hill of the Sun” is only a literal translation of *Bálnáth-ka-Tila*, but Plutarch goes on to say that it was afterwards called the “Hill of the Elephant,” which I take to be another proof of its identity with Bâlnâth, for as this name is commonly pronounced *Bilnát* by the people, and is so written by Mogal Beg, the Macedonians, who had just come through Persia, would almost certainly have mistaken it for *Fil-nath*, or *Pil-nath*, the “Elephant.” But wherever Alexander’s camp may have been, whether at Jhelam or Jalâlpur, this remarkable hill, which is the most commanding object within fifty miles of the Hydaspes,

c5.s4.t3.14

[^ *]: ‘Ayin Akbari,’ ii. 110. [^ †]: ‘De Fluviis,’ in voce “Hydaspes.” Gegasios must be *Yayâti* or *Jajâti* in a Greek form.

c5.s4.t3.15

must certainly have attracted the attention of the Macedonians. Its highest peak is 3242 feet above the sea, or about 2500 feet above the level of the river.

c5.s4.t3.16

The Pabhi range of hills, on the east bank of the river, stretches from the neighbourhood of Bhimbar to Rasûl, a length of 30 miles. This range is a very low one, as the highest point is not more than 1400 feet above the sea, and is less than 500 feet above the river; but the broken and difficult ground on both flanks of the hill presents a barrier quite as impassable as a much loftier range. Until the British occupation of the Panjâb, the Pabhi hills were crossed by only one carriage-road through the Khori Pass, 5 miles to the north-east of Rasûl, and by one foot-path through the Khârian Pass, 10 miles to the south-east of Jhelam. But though the main road has since been carried through the latter pass, it is still liable to interruption after heavy rain.

c5.s4.t3.17

In approaching the Hydaspes from the westward, Alexander had the choice of two different lines, which are distinguished by Baber as the upper and lower roads. From the Indus to Hasan Abdâl, or Shahdheri, the two lines were the same. From the latter place, the upper road proceeded by the Mârgala Pass through Râwal Pindi and Mânikyâla to Dhamâk and Bakrâla, from which place it descended by the bed of the Kâhan river, through a gap in the Tila range, to Rohtâs, and from thence over an open plain to Jhelam. From Bakrâla there was also a foot-path to Jhelam, which crossed the Tila range about 6 miles to the north-east of Rohtâs, but this pass was always a dangerous one for horses and camels, and was difficult even for foot passengers. The length of this upper road from Shah-dheri, viâ Rohtâs, to Jhelam, was 94 miles; but this has since been shortened to 87 miles by the new road, which avoids the two long *détours* by Rohtâs and Dhamâk.

c5.s4.t3.18

From Taxila, or Shah-dheri, the lower road proceeds viâ the Mârgala Pass to Jangi, from whence it strikes off viâ Chaontra to Dudhiâl. From this point the road branches into two lines, that to the south proceeding by Chakowâl and the salt mines to Pind Dâdan and Ahmadabad, and that to the east proceeding viâ Asanot and the Bunhâr river to Dilâwar, opposite Rasûl, or viâ Asanot and Vang to Jalâlpur. From Shah-dheri to Dudhiâl the distance is 55 miles, from thence to Asanot 33 miles, and thence to Dilâwar, or Jalâlpur, each 21 miles, the whole distance by this route being 118 miles. But this distance would be shortened to 114 miles by the traveller proceeding direct from the foot of the Salt Range to Jalâlpur. There is also a third line, which branches off from the upper road at Mandra, 6 miles to the south of the Mânikyâla tope, and proceeds viâ Chakowâl and Pind Dâdan to Jalâlpur. By this route the whole distance from Shah-dheri to Jalâlpur is 116¾ miles, or only 112¾ by leaving the line at the foot of the Salt Range and proceeding direct to Jalâlpur. The respective distances by these three different routes are 109, 114, and 112¾ miles, the mean distance being 112¼ miles.

c5.s4.t3.19

Now, the distance from Taxila to the Hydaspes is given by Pliny,[*] from the measurement by Alexander's surveyors, Diognetes and Beiton, at 120 Roman miles, which are equal to 110⅓ English miles, at the value of 0·9193 each, as fixed in Smith's ‘Dictionary of Antiquities.’ As all the copies of Pliny give the same number, we must accept it as the actual measurement of the route that was followed by Alexander from Taxila to his camp on the Hydaspes. In comparing this distance with those already given from Shah-dheri to Jhelam and Jalâlpur, we must unhesitatingly reject Jhelam, which is no less than 16 miles short of the recorded distance, while Jalâlpur differs from it by less than 2 miles. But there is another objection which is equally fatal to the claims of Jhelam. According to Strabo,* “the direction of Alexander’s march, as far as the Hydaspes, was, for the most part, towards the south; after that, to the Hypanis, it was more towards the east.” Now, if a line drawn on the map from Ohind on the Indus, through Taxila to Jhelam, be continued onwards, it will pass through Gujarat and Sodhra to Jâlandhar and Sarhind. As this is the most northerly road to the Ganges that Alexander could possibly have taken, his route by Jhelam would have been in *one continuous straight line*, which is in direct opposition to the explicit statement of Strabo. But if we adopt Jalâlpur this difficulty will be obviated, as the change in the direction would have been as much as 25° more easterly.† There is also a third objection to Jhelam, which, though not entitled to the same weight as either of the preceding, is still valuable as an additional testimony on the same side. According to Arrian, the fleet, on descending the Hydaspes from Nikæa, reached the capital of Sopeithes on the third day. Now, I have already shown that the residence of Sopeithes must have been at Jobnáthnagar, or Ahmedabad, which is just three days’ distance for a laden boat from Jalâlpur, but is six days from Jhelam. As the evidence in each of these three separate tests is as directly in favour of Jalâlpur as it is strongly opposed to Jhelam, I think that we are fully justified in accepting the latter as the most probable site of Alexander’s camp.

c5.s4.t3.20

∗ Hist. Nat., vi. 21, “Ad Hydaspen fluvium clarum, cxx. mill.”

c5.s4.t3.21

∗ Geogr., xv. 1, 32.

c5.s4.t3.22

† See Map No. V.

c5.s4.t3.23

We have now to examine how the river and the country about Jalâlpur will agree with the recorded accounts of Alexander’s operations in his passage of the Hydaspes and subsequent battle with Porus. According to Arrian* “there was a high wooded promontory on the bank of the river, 150 stadia, or just 17¼ miles above the camp, and immediately opposite to it there was a thickly-wooded island.” Curtius† also mentions the wooded island as “well fitted for masking his operations.” “There was also,” he adds, “not far from the spot where he was encamped, a very deep ravine (fossa præalta), which not only screened the infantry but the cavalry too.” We learn from Arrian‡ that this ravine was not near the river because “Alexander marched at some distance from the bank, lest the enemy should discern that he was hastening towards the promontory and island.” Now, there is a ravine to the north of Jalâlpur which exactly suits the descriptions of both historians. This ravine is the bed of the Kandar Nala, which has a course of 6 miles from its source down to Jalâlpur, where it is lost in a waste of sand. Up this ravine there has always been a passable but difficult road towards Jhelam. From the head of the Kandar, which is 1080 feet above the sea, and 345 above the river, this road proceeds for 3 miles in a northerly direction down another ravine called the Kasi, which then turns suddenly to the east for 6½ miles, and then again 1½ mile to the south, where it joins the Jhelam immediately below Dilâwar, the whole distance from Jalâlpur being exactly 17 miles. I marched along this ravine road myself, for the purpose of testing the possibility of Alexander's march; and I satisfied myself that there was no difficulty in it except the fatigue of making many little ascents and descents in the first half, and of wading through much heavy sand in the latter half. The ravine lies "at some distance from the bank" as described by Arrian, as the bend in the Kasi is 7 miles from the Jhelam. It is also "a very deep ravine," as described by Curtius, as the hills on each hand rise from 100 to 250 and 300 feet in height. Therefore, in the three leading particulars which are recorded of it, this ravine agrees most precisely with the accounts of the ancient historians.*

c5.s4.t3.24

∗ ‘Anabasis,’ v. 11. ’Απέχει δὲ ἡ τε ἄκρα καὶ ἡ νῆσος τοῦ μεγάλου στρατοπέδου ἐς πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν σταδίους. † Vita Alex., viii. 13, “tegendis insidiis apta.” ‡ ‘Anabasis,’ v. 12, ἀπέχων τῆς ὄχθης.

c5.s4.t3.25

Amongst the minor particulars, there is one which seems to me to be applicable only to that part of the river immediately above Jalâlpur. Arrian† records that Alexander placed running sentries along the bank of the river, at such distances that they could see each other, and communicate his orders. Now, I believe that this operation could not be carried out in the face of an observant enemy along any part of the river bank, excepting only that one part which lies between Jalâlpur and Dilâwar. In all other parts, the west bank is open and exposed, but in this part alone the wooded and rocky hills slope down to the river, and offer sufficient cover for the concealment of single sentries. As the distance along the river bank is less than 10 miles, and was probably not more than 7 miles from the east end of the camp, it is easy to understand why Alexander placed them along this line instead of leaving them on the much longer route, which he was to march himself. Another minor particular is the presence of a rock in the channel by the river, on which, according to Curtius, one of the boats was dashed by the stream. Now, rocks are still to be found in the river only at Kotera, Meriâla, Malikpur, and Shah Kubir, all of which places are between Dilâwar and Jalâlpur. The village of Kotera is situated at the end of a long wooded spur, which juts out upon the river just one mile below Dilâwar. This wooded jutting spur, with its adjacent rock, I would identify with the ἄκρα, or promontory of Arrian, and the petra of Curtius.* Beyond the rock there was a large wooded island which screened the foot of the promontory from the observation of the opposite bank. There are many islands in this part of the Jhelam, but when a single year is sufficient to destroy any one of these rapidly formed sandbanks, we cannot, after the lapse of more than 2000 years, reasonably expect to find the island of Alexander. But in 1849, opposite Kotera, there was such an island, 2½ miles in length and half a mile in breadth, which still exists as a large sandbank. As the passage was made in the height of the rainy season, the island, or large sandbank, would naturally have been covered with tamarisk bushes, which would have been sufficiently high to screen the movements of infantry and dismounted cavalry.

c5.s4.t3.26

∗ See Map No. VII.

c5.s4.t3.27

† ‘Anabasis,’ v. ii. Παρά πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν ὄχθην φυλακαί τε αὐτῷ καθε-στηκυῖαι ἦσαν, διαλείπουσαι ὅσον ξύμμετρον ἐς τὸ ξυνορᾶν τε ἀλλήλους καὶ καταχούειν εὐπετῶς ὁπόθεν τι παραγγέλλοιτο.

c5.s4.t3.28

∗ Arrian, ‘Anabasis,’ v. ii., ἄκρα ἦν ἀνέχουσα τῆς ὄχθης τοῦ Ὑδάσπου. Curtius, Vita Alex., viii. 11, “Unâ ergo navi, quam petræ fluctus illiserat, hærente cæteræ evadunt.”

c5.s4.t3.29

The position of the two camps I believe to have been as follows :*—Alexander, with about 50,000 men, including 5000 Indian auxiliaries under Mophis of Taxila, had his head-quarters at Jalâlpur, and his camp probably extended for about 6 miles along the bank of the river, from Shah Kabir, 2 miles to the north-east of Jalâlpur, down to Syadpur, 4 miles to the west-south-west. The head-quarters of Porus must have been about Muhâbatpur, 4 miles to the west-south-west of Mong, and 3 miles to the south-east of Jalâlpur. His army of nearly 50,000 men, including elephant-riders, archers, and charioteers, must have occupied about the same extent as the Macedonian army, and would, therefore, have extended about 2 miles above, and 4 miles below Muhâbatpur. In these positions, the left flank of Alexander's camp would have been only 6 miles from the wooded promontory of Kotera, where he intended to steal his passage across the river, and the right flank of the Indian camp would have been 2 miles from Mong, and 6 miles from the point opposite Kotera.

c5.s4.t3.30

As my present object is to identify the scene of Alexander's battle with Porus, and not to describe the fluctuations of the conflict, it will be sufficient to quote the concise account of the operation which is given by Plutarch from Alexander's own letters :—"He took advantage of a dark and stormy night, with part of his infantry and a select body of cavalry, to gain a little island in the river, at some distance from the Indians; when he was there, he and his troops were attacked with a most violent wind and rain, accompanied with dreadful thunder and lightning.” But in spite of the storm and rain, they pushed on, and wading through the water breast-high reached the opposite bank of the river in safety. “When they were landed,” says Plutarch,* who is still quoting Alexander’s letters, “he advanced with the horse 20 stadia before the foot, concluding, that if the enemy attacked him with their cavalry he should be greatly their superior, and that if they made a movement with their infantry his own would come up in time enough to receive them.” From Arrian† we learn that, as soon as the army had begun fording the channel, between the island and the main land, they were seen by the Indian scouts, who at once dashed off to inform Porus. When the ford was passed with some difficulty, Alexander halted to form his little army of 6000 infantry and about 10,000 cavalry. He then “marched swiftly forward with 5000 horse, leaving the infantry to follow him leisurely and in order.” While this was going on, Porus had detached his son with two or three thousand horse and one hundred and twenty chariots to oppose Alexander. The two forces met at 20 stadia, or 2¼ miles, from the place of crossing, or about two miles to the north-east of Mong. Here the chariots proved useless on the wet and slippery clay, and were nearly all captured. The conflict, however, must have been a sharp one, as Alexander's favourite charger, Bucephalus, was mortally wounded by the young prince, who was himself slain, together with 400 of his men. When Porus heard of the death of his son, he marched at once against Alexander with the greater part of his army; but when he came to a plain, where the ground was not difficult and slippery, but firm and sandy, and fitted for the evolutions of his chariots, he halted and arrayed his troops ready for battle. His 200 elephants were drawn up in front of the infantry about one plethron, or 100 feet apart, and the chariots and cavalry were placed on the flanks. By this arrangement, the front of the army facing north-east must have occupied an extent of about 4 miles, from the bank of the river to near Lakhnawâli, the centre of the line being, as nearly as possible, on the site of the present town of Mong. Around this place the soil is "firm and sound;" but towards the north-east, where Alexander encountered the young Indian prince, the surface is covered with a hard red clay, which becomes both heavy and slippery after rain.*

c5.s4.t3.31

∗ See Map No. VII.

c5.s4.t3.32

∗ ‘Life of Alexander.’ Sir W. Napier has paid a just tribute to the skill of both generals. Speaking of Alexander’s passage of the Granicus, he says that it cannot “be compared for soldierly skill with his after passage of the Hydaspes, and defeat of Porus. Before that great man he could not play the same daring game.” (‘London and Westminster Review,’ 1838, p. 377.)

c5.s4.t3.33

† ‘Anabasis,’ v. 13.

c5.s4.t3.34

When Alexander saw the Indian army drawn up in battle array, he halted to wait for his infantry, and to reconnoitre the enemy's position. As he was much superior to Porus in cavalry, he resolved not to attack the centre, where the formidable line of elephants were supported by masses of infantry, but to fall upon both flanks and throw the Indians into disorder. The right wing, led by Alexander himself, drove back the enemy's horse upon the line of elephants, which then advanced and kept the Macedonians in check for some time. " Wherever Porus saw cavalry advancing, he opposed elephants, but these slow and unwieldy animals could not keep pace with the rapid evolutions of the horse."* At length the elephants, wounded and frightened, rushed madly about, trampling down friends as well as foes. Then the small body of Indian horse being surrounded, was overpowered by the Macedonians, and nearly all slain; and the large mass of Indian infantry, which still held out, being vigorously attacked on all sides by the victorious horse, broke their ranks and fled. Then, says Arrian,† " Kraterus, and the captains who were with him on the other side of the river, no sooner perceived the victory to incline to the Macedonians, than they passed over, and made a dreadful slaughter of the Indians in pursuit."

c5.s4.t3.35

∗ I speak from actual observation of the field of Chilianwâla for some days after the battle, when the country had been deluged with rain. Both battles were fought on the same ground, between the town of Mong and the southern end of the Pabhi hills.

c5.s4.t3.36

† 'Anabasis,' v. 18.

c5.s4.t3.37

From the last statement which I have quoted, it is clear that the battle-field was within sight of Alexander's camp. Now, this is especially true of the plain about Mong, which is within easy ken of the east of Alexander's camp at Shah-Kabîr, the nearest point being only 2 miles distant. With this last strong evidence in favour of Jalâlpur as the site of Alexander's camp, I close my discussion of this interesting question. But as some readers, like Mr. Grote,‡ the historian of Greece, may still think that General Abbott has shown “highly plausible reasons” in support of his opinion that Alexander’s camp was at Jhelam, I may here point out that the village of Pabrâl, which he has selected as the battle-field, is not less than 14 miles from Jhelam, and therefore quite beyond the ken of Alexander’s camp. I may quote also Abbott’s own admission that the bed of the Sukhetr river, a level plain of sand one mile in width, “is a torrent after heavy rain, and is so full of quicksands as to be unsuited to military operations.” Now, this very Sukhetr river actually lies between Pabrâl and the site of the Indian camp opposite Jhelam, and as we know that a heavy storm of rain had fallen during the preceding night, the Sukhetr would have been an impassable torrent at the time of the battle. And so also would have been the Jada river, which joins the Jhelam just below the Sukhetr. With these two intervening rivers, which, whether wet or dry, would have been obstacles equally great to the march of the Indian army, and more specially to the passage of the war-chariots, I am quite satisfied that the battle-field could not have been to the north of the Sukhetr river.

First 82 of 300 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)