Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c6.s1.t8: Patala, or Nirankot.

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c6.s1.t8

Language
English

Patala, or Nirankot.

c6.s1.t8.1

The position of Nirankot is fixed at Haidarâbâd by the concurrent testimony of M‘Murdo, Masson, Burton, and Eastwick.* Sir Henry Elliot alone places it at Jarak, as he thinks that that locality agrees better with the descriptions of the native historians. But as Haidarâbâd is the modern name of the city, which the people still know as Nirankot, there would seem to be no doubt of its identity with the Nirun, or Nirunkot, of the Arab historians and geographers. Its position is described by Abulfeda as 25 parasangs from Debal, and 15 parasangs from Mansura, which accords with the less definite statements of Istakhri and Ibn Haukal, who simply say that it was between Debal and Mansura, but nearer to the latter. It was situated on the western bank of the river, and is described as a well-fortified but small town, with few trees. Now, Haidarâbâd is 47 miles from the ruined city of Brâhmanâbâd, or Mansura, and 85 miles from Lâri-bandar, which I will presently show to have been the most probable position of the ancient Debal; while Jarak is 74 miles from Brâhmanâbâd, and only 60 miles from Lâri-bandar. The position of Haidarâbâd, therefore, corresponds much better with the recorded distances than that of Jarak. At present the main channel of the Indus runs to the west of Haidarâbâd, but we know that the Phuleli, or eastern branch, was formerly the principal stream. According to M‘Murdo,* the change of the main stream to the westward of Haidarâbâd took place prior to A.H. 1000, or A.D. 1592, and was coincident with the decay of Nasirpur, which was only founded in A.H. 751, or A.D. 1350. As Nasirpur is mentioned by Abul Fazl† as the head of one of the subdivisions of the province of Thatha, the main channel of the Indus must have flowed to the eastward of Nirunkot or Haidarâbâd at as late a date as the beginning of the reign of Akbar.

c6.s1.t8.2

∗ M‘Murdo in Journ. Royal Asiat. Soc., i. 30; Masson, ‘Travels,’ i. 463; Burton, ‘Sindh,’ pp. 131, 376; and Eastwick, ‘Handbook for Bombay,’ p. 483. See Map No. IX.

c6.s1.t8.3

† ‘Ayin Akbari,’ ii. 272.

c6.s1.t8.4

Nirunkot was situated on a hill, and there was a lake in its neighbourhood of sufficient size to receive the fleet of Muhammad Kâsim. Sir Henry Elliot identifies the former with the hill of Jarak, to the west of the Indus, and the latter with the Kinjur lake, near Helai, to the south of Jarak. But the Kinjur lake has no communication with the Indus, and therefore could not have been used for the reception of the fleet, which at once disposes of the only special advantage that Jarak was supposed to possess over Haidarâbâd as the representative of Nirunkot. Sir Henry‡ admits “that the establishment of its locality depends chiefly upon the sites which are assigned to other disputed cities, more especially to Debal and Mansura.” The former he identifies with Karâchi, and the latter with Haidarâbâd; and consistently with these emplacements he is obliged to fix Nirunkot at Jarak. But since he wrote his ‘Appendix to the Arabs in Sindh,’ the ancient city of *Bambhra-ka-Thúl* has been found by Mr. Bellasis in the very position that was long ago pointed out by M‘Murdo as the site of Brâhmanâbâd. Its identification as the site of the famous cities of Mansura and Brâhmanâbâd leaves Haidarâbâd, or the ancient Nirankot, available as the true representative of the Nirunkot of Biladuri and the Chach-nâma. Its distance of 47 miles from Bambhra-ka-tul, and of 85 miles from Lâri-bandar, agree almost exactly with the 15 and 25 parasangs of Abulfeda. It is also situated on a hill, so that it corresponds in position, as well as in name, with Nirunkot. The hill, called Ganja, is 1½ mile long, and 700 yards broad, with a height of 80 feet.* The present fort was built by Mir Ghulâm Shâh in A.H. 1182, or A.D. 1768.† About one-third of the hill, at the southern end, is occupied by the fort, the middle portion by the main street and straggling houses of the city, and the northern end by tombs.

c6.s1.t8.5

∗ Journ. Royal Asiat. Soc., i. 236.

c6.s1.t8.6

‡ Sir H. Elliot’s ‘Muhammadan Historians of India,’ Dowson’s edition, i. 400.

c6.s1.t8.7

† M‘Murdo, Journ. Royal Asiat. Soc., i. 234.

c6.s1.t8.8

In A.D. 641, when the Chinese pilgrim Hwen Thsang visited Sindh, he travelled from Koṭeswara, the capital of Kachh, a distance of 700 *li*, or 117 miles, due north to *Pi-to-shi-lo*,‡ from whence he proceeded 300 *li*, or 50 miles, to the north-east, to *O.fan.cha*, which I have already identified with Brâhmanâbâd. M. Julien renders the Chinese syllables by *Pitaṣilá*, but I should prefer *Pátaṣila*, or the “flat rock,” which is an accurate description of the long flat-topped hill on which Haidarâbâd is situated. This name recalls that of *Pátalpur*, which, according to Burton,* was an old appellation of Haidarâbâd, or Nirankot; and as this city is exactly 120 miles to the north of Koṭesar, in Kachh, and 47 miles to the south-west of Brâhmanâbâd, I have no hesitation in identifying it with the *Pitasila* of the Chinese pilgrim. The size of the hill also, which is 1½ mile in length, by 700 yards in breadth, or upwards of 3 miles in circumference, corresponds very closely with the dimensions of Pitasila, which, according to Hwen Thsang, was 20 *li*, or 3⅓ miles, in circuit.

c6.s1.t8.9

∗ Wood, ‘Journey to the Source of the Oxus,’ p. 30.

c6.s1.t8.10

‡ ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ iii. 180.

c6.s1.t8.11

The names of *Pátalpur* and *Páṭaṣila* further suggest the probability that Haidarâbâd may be the *Pattala* of Alexander’s historians, which they are unanimous in placing near the head of the Delta. Now, the present head of the Delta is at the old town of Mattâri, 12 miles above Haidarâbâd, where the *Phuleli* separates from the main channel of the Indus. But in ancient times, when the main stream, which is now called *Purána*, or the “Old River,” flowed past Alor and Brâhmanâbâd to Nirunkot, the first point of separation of its waters was either at Haidarâbâd itself, past which a branch is said to have flowed by Miâni to Trikal, or 15 miles to the south-east of it where the *Phuleli* now throws off the *Guni* branch to the south, and then proceeds westerly to join the present stream of the Indus at Trikal. The true head of the old Delta was therefore either at Haidarâbâd itself, or 15 miles to the south-east of it, where the *Guni*, or eastern branch of the Indus, separated from the *Phuleli*, or western branch.

c6.s1.t8.12

Now, the position of Patala can be determined by several independent data:—

c6.s1.t8.13

∗ ‘Sindh,’ chap. i. note 7.

c6.s1.t8.14

1st. According to Ptolemy, the head of the Delta was exactly midway between *Oskana* and the eastern mouth of the Indus, called *Lonibare ostium*. This fixes Patala at Haidarâbâd, which is equidistant from the capital of *Oxykanus*, that is, from Mahorta near Larkâna, and the *Kori*, or eastern mouth of the Indus, which is also the mouth of the *Loni* river, or *Lonibare ostium*.

c6.s1.t8.15

2nd. The base of the Delta was reckoned by Aristobulus at 1000 *stadia*, or 115 miles; by Nearchus at 1800 *stadia*, and by Onesikritus at 2000 *stadia*.[*] But as the actual coast line, from the Ghâra mouth on the west, to the Kori mouth on the east, is not more than 125 miles, we may adopt the estimate of Aristobulus in preference to the larger numbers of the other authorities. And as Onesikritus states that all three sides of the Delta were of the same length, the distance of *Patala* from the sea may be taken at from 1000 *stadia*, or 115 miles, up to 125 miles. Now, the distance of Haidarâbâd from the *Ghára*, or western mouth of the Indus, is 110 miles, and from the *Kori*, or eastern mouth, 135 miles, both of which agree sufficiently near to the base measurement to warrant the descriptions of Onesikritus that the Delta formed an equilateral triangle. Consequently, the city of *Patala*, which was either at or near the head of the Delta, may be almost certainly identified with the present Haidarâbâd.

c6.s1.t8.16

3rd. From a comparison of the narratives of Arrian and Curtius, it appears that the Raja of Patala, having made his submission to Alexander at *Bráhmana*, or the city of Brahmans, the conqueror sailed leisurely down the river for three days, when he heard that the Indian prince had suddenly abandoned his country and fled to the desert.* Alexander at once pushed on to Patala. Now, the distance from Brâhmanâbâd to Haidarâbâd is only 47 miles by the direct land route; but as the old bed of the Indus makes a wide sweep round by Nasirpur, the route along the river bank, which was doubtless followed by the army, is not less than 55 miles, while the distance by water must be fully 80 miles. His progress during the first three days, estimated at the usual rate of 10 or 12 miles by land, and 18 or 20 miles by water, would have brought him within 19 miles of Haidarâbâd by land, and 26 miles by water, which distance he would have easily accomplished on the fourth day by a forced march. From Patala he proceeded down the western branch of the river for a distance of 400 stadia, or 46 miles, when his naval commanders first perceived the sea breeze. This point I believe to have been Jarak, which is 30 miles below Haidarâbâd by land, and 45 miles, or nearly 400 stadia, by water. There Alexander procured guides, and, pressing on with still greater eagerness, on the third day he became aware of his vicinity to the sea by meeting the tide.† As the tides in the Indus are not felt more than 60 miles from the sea, I conclude that Alexander must then have reached as far as Bambhra, on the Ghâra, or western branch of the river, which is only 35 miles from the sea by land, and about 50 miles by water. Its distance from Jarak by land is 50 miles, and by water 75 miles, which the fleet might have easily accomplished by the third day. From these details it is clear that Patala must have been at a considerable distance from the sea, that is, not less than the length of the tidal reach, plus three days' sail on the river, plus 400 stadia. These distances by land are respectively 33 miles, 50 miles, and 30 miles, or altogether 113 miles, which corresponds almost exactly with the measurement of Aristobulus of 1000 stadia, or 115 miles.

c6.s1.t8.17

∗ Strabo, Geogr., xv. i. 33.

c6.s1.t8.18

∗ Arrian, ‘Anabasis,’ vi. 17; Curtius, Vita Alex., ix. 8, 28, says that he fled to the mountains.

c6.s1.t8.19

† Curtius, Vita Alex., ix. 9, 29.

c6.s1.t8.20

As these three independent investigations all point to the same place as the most probable representative of Patala, and as that place is called *Patasila* by Hwen Thsang in the seventh century, and is still known as *Pátalpur*, I think that we have very strong grounds for identifying Haidarâbâd with the ancient *Patala*.

c6.s1.t8.21

In his account of the Indus, Arrian* says, “this river also forms a delta by its two mouths, no way inferior to that of Egypt, which, in the Indian language, is called *Pattala*.” As this statement is given on the authority of Nearchus, who had ample opportunities during his long detention in Sindh of intercourse with the people, we may accept it as the general belief of the Sindhians at that time. I would therefore suggest that the name may have been derived from *Pátala*, the “trumpet-flower” (*Bignonia suaveolens*), in allusion to the “trumpet” shape of the province included between the eastern and western branches of the mouth of the Indus, as the two branches, as they approach the sea, curve outwards like the mouth of a trumpet.

c6.s1.t8.22

I cannot close the discussion on the site of this ancient city without noticing another name of which the conflicting accounts appear to me to have a confused reference to Nirunkot. This name is the *Piruz* of Istakhri, the *Kannazbur* of Ibn Haukal, and the *Firabuz* of Edrisi. According to Istakhri, *Piruz* was 4 days' journey from Debal, and 2 days from *Mehábari*, which was itself on the western bank of the Indus, at 2 days' journey from Debal. Ibn Haukal and Edrisi agree that the road to *Kannazbur*, or *Firabuz*, lay through *Manhábari*, or *Manjábari*, which was on the western bank of the Indus, at 2 days from Debal; but they make the whole distance beyond Debal 14 days instead of 4. Now, Ibn Haukal and Edrisi place their city in Mekrân, a position which they were almost forced to adopt by their long distance of 14 days, although the first two days' journey lie exactly in the opposite direction from Mekran. But if we take the shorter distance of 4 days from Debal, which is found in Istakhri, the earliest of the three geographers, the position of their unknown city will then accord exactly with that of *Nirankot*. Debal I will hereafter identify with an old city near *Lâri-bandar* and *Manhábari* with *Thatha*, which is just midway between Lâri-bandar and Haidarâbâd. Now, Ibn Haukal specially notes that *Manjábari* was situated "to the west of the Mihrân, and there any one who proceeds from Debal to Mansura will have to pass the river, the latter place being opposite to Manjábari."* This extract shows that Manjábari was on the western branch of the Indus, and therefore on the high-road to Nirankot as well as to *Piruz*, or *Kannezbur*, or *Firabuz*. I would therefore suggest that the first of these names, which is thus mentioned in conjunction with Manhâbari might possibly be intended for Nirun, and the other two for Nirunkot, as the alterations in the original Arabic characters required for these two readings are very slight. But there was certainly a place of somewhat similar name in Mekrân, as Bilâduri records that Kizbun in Mekrân submitted to Muhammad Kâsim on his march against Debâl. Comparing this name with Ibn Haukal’s Kannazbur,[*] and Edrisi’s Firabuz, I think it probable that they may be intended for Panjgúr, as suggested by M. Reinaud. The 14 days’ journey would agree very well with the position of this place.

c6.s1.t8.23

∗ Prof. Dowson's edition of Sir H. Elliot's Hist. of India, i. 37.

Linked texts (4)