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.t13: Shorkot.

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c5.s4.t13

Language
English

Shorkot.

c5.s4.t13.1

Shorkot is a huge mound of ruins, which gives its name to the parganah, or division of Shor, or the lower half of the Richna Doâb.[*] It was visited by Burnes,[†] who describes the place as "a mound of earth, surrounded by a brick wall, and so high as to be seen for a circuit of six or eight miles." He adds that it is much larger than Sehwân, which, following the measurement of De la Hoste, is 1200 feet long, by 750 feet broad.[‡] According to my information, Shorkot is much smaller than Harapa, and about the size of Akbar, that is, 2000 feet by 1000 feet, but loftier than either of them. The mound is surrounded by a wall of large-sized bricks, which is an undoubted sign of antiquity. Burnes was informed by the people that their town had been destroyed by some king from the westward, about 1300 years ago. The locality leads him to fix on it as the place where Alexander was wounded, and to assign its downfall to Alexander himself. I received the same tradition about its destruction, which I would attribute to the White Huns, who must have entered the Panjâb from the westward during the sixth century, or about the very time specified in the tradition.

c5.s4.t13.2

∗ See Map No. VI.

c5.s4.t13.3

† ‘Bokhara and Panjâb,’ i. 113.

c5.s4.t13.4

‡ ‘Journ. Asiat. Soc., Bengal, 1840, p. 913.

c5.s4.t13.5

The foundation of the city is attributed to a fabulous Raja Shor, of whom nothing is known but the name. I think it probable that Shorkot may be the Alexandria Soriane, Σωριάvη, of Stephanus Byzantinus, who gives no clue to its position save the bare fact that it was in India. The names agree so exactly that I feel tempted to suggest that Shorkot may have been enlarged and strengthened by Philip, whom Alexander left behind as governor of the Oxudrakæ and Malli. This suggestion seems the more probable when we remember that Shorkot was in the direct line of Alexander’s route, from the junction of the Hydaspes and Akesines to the capital of the Malli. I would, therefore, identify it with the city of the Malli, which, according to Diodorus and Curtius, surrendered after a short blockade.* Curtius† places it at 250 stadia, or 28¾ miles, from the junction of the rivers, a position which corresponds exactly with that of Shorkot. The account of Arrian differs from that of the other two historians in several very important particulars. He states that the first city taken by Alexander after leaving the confluence of the rivers was inland 400 stadia, or 46 miles,‡ distant from the Akesines, and that it was captured by assault. I infer that this city was *Kot Kamália*, and I would explain the discrepancy in the two narratives by a reference to the details of this campaign which are given by Arrian. Alexander divided his army into three great bodies, of which the advanced division, commanded by Hephæstion, marched five days ahead; the centre was commanded by himself, and the rear division, which was commanded by Ptolemy, followed three days behind. As the campaign was directed against the Malli, I conclude that the army marched by the direct route, *viâ* Shorkot towards Multân, which was certainly the capital of the Malli. . Shorkot would thus have fallen to Hephæstion, who commanded the advanced division of the army. Alexander’s own route will be described presently, when I come to speak of Kot Kamália.

c5.s4.t13.6

∗ ‘Diodorus,’ xvii. 52; Curtius, “coronâ cepit.” † Vita Alex., ix. 4, 10.

c5.s4.t13.7

The antiquity of Shorkot may be ascertained approximately by the coins which are found in its ruins. These consist chiefly of Indo-Scythian copper pieces of all ages, with a few Hindu specimens, and a large number of Muhammadan coins. A single copper piece of Apollodotus was obtained by Burnes. From these data I would infer that the town was certainly occupied as early as the time of the Greek kings of Ariana and the Panjâb, and that it was in a flourishing state during the sway of the Indo-Scythians, or from B.C. 126 down to A.D. 250, or perhaps later. But as the Hindu coins which I obtained from Shorkot were entirely confined to the Brahman kings of the Kabul valley and the Panjâb, I conclude that the place was either deserted, or, at least, in a very decayed state, during the middle ages; and that it was either re-occupied or restored in the tenth century by one of these Brahman kings.

Linked texts (1)