Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Cunningham's Ancient Geography of India c4: Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Geography of India.

Cunningham's Ancient Geography of India c4

Language
English

Contents

Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Geography of India.

c4.1

TO THE STUDY OF

1. Pioneers in this field of research.

c4.s1.1

1. *Mr. Francis Wilford, Engineer.*—"A learned and laborious, but injudicious writer" (Wilson's *Hindu Theatre*, I.9) His essays—on Egypt and the Nile from the Ancient Books of the Hindus ; the Sacred Islands in the West ; etc. (*Asiatic Researches* III, IX, XIV); the Comparative Geography of India (published posthumously in 1851). His great merit was to point out the existence of Sanskrit sources of geography. His account of the Nile from Sanskrit sources enabled Lieut. J. H. Speke to discover its source. (*Speke's Discovery of the Source of the Nile*, chaps. I, V, X).

c4.s1.2

2. *H. H. Wilson.*—In 1824 he contributed to the *Oriental Magazine* (Vol. II, p. 180) an article in which he described a Skr. MS. professing to be a section of the *Bhabishya Purâna* which elucidates the local geography of Bengal. In his translation of the *Vishnu Purâna* he commented on the Purânic geography. His *Notes on the Indica of Ctesias* was published in 1836 (Oxford). The geographical portion of his *Ariana Antiqua* (London, 1841)—an account of the coins and antiquities discovered by Mr. Masson during his travels in Afghanistan—is full and valuable.

c4.s1.3

3. *Christian Lassen*—the encyclopædic Indologist.—(a) His *Pentapotamia Indica* (1827) gives an account of the Punjab from the "classical" sources and from the *Mahâbhârata*, the *Koshas* and other Skr. sources. (b) In the geographical section of his *Indische Alterthumskunde* (Bonn, 1843)—the very learned and exhaustive work on the antiquities of India—he described the physical features of India and gave (especially in the footnotes) whatever information he could collect from classical and Skr. sources. Though "his system of identification is based on a wrong principle" (M'Crindle's *Ptolemy*, Preface, p. vii) and hence many of his identifications are wrong (Pargiter in *J.A.S.B.*, 1895, p. 250), these works of erudition are 'precious mines of materials' utilised by later scholars.

c4.s1.4

4. *Vivien de Saint-Martin*, the father of the geography of Ancient India.—(a) His *Etude sur la géographie et les populations primitives du Nord-ouest de l'Inde d'après les Hymnes Védiques* (Paris, 1860) is the sole work on Vedic geography. Its treatment is masterly in the extreme. But as he relied solely on M. Langlois's French translation of the *Rigveda*—"a version which does not seem altogether to have commended itself to later interpreters" (E. Thomas in *J. R. A. S.*, 1883, p. 358)—and as much Vedic research has been done since that time, it is necessary to revise this *Etude*.

c4.s1.5

In his (b) *Etude sur la géographie Grecque et Latine de l'Inde, et en particulier sur l'Inde de Ptolémie* and (c) *Mémoire Analytique sur la carte de l'Asie centrale et de l'Inde* (appended to Vol. III of M. Julien's translation of Hwen Thsang, 1858), he critically examined the classical and the Chinese sources. "His identifications have been made with so much care and success that few places have escaped his research and most of these have escaped only because the imperfection or want of fulness in the maps of India rendered actual identifications quite impossible" (Cunningham's *A.S.R.*, II, Preface, p. 85).

c4.s1.6

5. *Sir Alexander Cunningham*, the father of Indian archæology. A son of Allan Cunningham the poet, he came to India as a "Royal Engineer." The influence of Prinsep—"the decipherer of the early Indian Alphabets"—made him fix his eyes on the antiquities of this country. In 1861 he applied to Lord Canning to sanction an "archæological survey" which he justly showed in his letter to be the only means for the reconstruction of an account of Ancient India. He was appointed the Archæological Surveyor in January 1862; but as after a few years the post was abolished, he went home and produced *The Ancient Geography of India*, Vol. I (1871). In it he gave a summary of the results of V. de St. Martin and Lassen revised and corrected in light of his own researches and discoveries due chiefly to his *vast travels* in this country—an advantage which the earlier writers did not possess. Thus he brought to a focus the then accumulated knowledge into a single English volume which is still the work to which every student of this subject has to refer to. But it must be borne in mind that—

c4.s1.7

(a) Cunningham (following St. Martin and Julien) gave in most cases the proposed restorations of foreign sounds as the Skr. names. Though nothing more than this could have then been possible, it is clear that such restoration of a Greek, Latin or Chinese transcript of an Indian proper name could not always be identical with the original one. Hence one ought to search for the original names from Indian sources and there is no doubt that they would eventually be found out. Thus Pânini furnishes *Kâpisî* (IV. 2. 99), *Sânkala* (IV. 2. 75), *Varnu* (IV. 2. 103 ; IV. 3. 93), *Parvata* (IV. 2. 143), etc.—the Skr. forms of Kapisene, Sangala, Fa-la-na, Po-lo-fo-ta, etc. [*I.A.* Vol. I, p. 21]. *Kâsikâ* supplies Ayomukhî (A-ye-mu-ka'). *Râjataranginî* mentions *Udabhândapura* (Wu-to-ka-han-cha). *Vinaya Texts* (ii, 38) and *Jâtaka* (iv, 30) supply *Kajangala* (Cunningham's *Kajughira*). Inscription No. 14 of *E.I.* VI shows that the Skr. form of Kongyu-to is *Kongoda* and not *Konyodha* as given by Cunningham.

c4.s1.8

(b) In utilising the accounts of Fa Hian and Hwen Thsang—undoubtedly his chief sources—he took 6 *li* of Hwen Thsang as one mile and one *yojana* of Fa Hian to be 6·75 miles. But later researches have shed much light on this subject causing a scrutinization of his work.

c4.s1.9

(c) Cunningham usually says that Hwen Thsang made mistakes when his evidence is not in accord with what he (Cunningham) wishes to prove. It is very easy to say that Hwen Thsang meant East when he wrote West, or that instead of a thousand he meant a hundred. But one must not do this without any strong proof.

c4.s1.10

(d) He estimated Ptolemy's geography to be of much value (His Preface, p. vii). But it will be shown to be otherwise.

c4.s1.11

(e) Cunningham himself has, in his voluminous reports (*A.S.R.*) in 23 volumes (the first two only of which were written, though not published, before the publication of his *Geography*), embodying his researches occupying a period of more than a quarter of a century, abandoned many of the identifications stated in his *Geography*. And the researches of various other scholars—M'Crindle, Stein, Raverty, Foucher, Fleet, V. Smith, Watters, to name only a few of them—have shown that not only are many of his identifications doubtful but that some are positively wrong.

c4.s1.12

6. *H. Yule.*—His annotations on Marco Polo and his map of Ancient India from classical sources in Dr. Smith's *Atlas of Ancient Geography* (1875) are valuable.

c4.s1.13

7. *Dr. M'Crindle,* the translator of Megasthenes, Arrian, Strabo, Periplus, Ptolemy, and other classical writers on India, gave, in his geographical notes a summary of the conclusions of the above writers.

c4.s1.14

8. *Mr. Pargiter.*—His *Geography of Râma's Exile* (J.R.A.S., 1894), Eastern Indian Nations (J.A.S.B., 1895), Eng. translation of Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (Published by the Asiatic Society, Bengal), Nations at the time of the Great War (J.R.A.S., 1908), and Ancient Indian Historical Traditions (Oxford, 1922) have elucidated Epic and Puranic Geography.

c4.s1.15

9. Nandalal Dey's Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediæval India. (A dictionary and not a systematic treatise. Grounds of identifications and references are generally not given). A second edition of it is in course of publication as an appendix to Indian Antiquary.

c4.s1.16

10 Prof. F. Pullé's Cartography of India in the Studi Italiani di Filologia Indo-Iranica, Vols. IV & V. is a valuable contribution.

2. Sources of the Geography of Ancient India.

1.—Foreign.

1. Classical.

c4.s2.t2.1

Though a few references to India may be gathered from the Phœnician and Persian sources, they are not of any importance. Hence of the foreign accounts we have first to turn to that of the GREEKS. Their earliest notion of the earth was that it was a flat and round disc encircled by the mighty river—Ocean. Homer and his contemporaries knew very little beyond Greece, the Archipelago, Asia Minor, Egypt, Sicily and a part of Italy. But the colonizing spirit expanded their knowledge; and the first introduction of maps, at least in Greece, (for the Egyptians and Babylonians are said to have drawn maps long before—J. Keane, p. 5) and the discovery of an instrument to fix the latitude by Anaximander, a disciple of Thales, helped this expansion.

c4.s2.t2.2

∗ Fleet in J.A., 1901, p. 24 ff.; The Evolution of Geography by J. Keane, London, 1899; The Dawn of Modern Geography by C. R. Beazly. London, 1897; etc.

c4.s2.t2.3

HECATOEUS (500 B.C.), the first Greek geographer, knew of two continents only—Europe and Asia (a part of which was Africa). His "Survey of the World" is lost.

c4.s2.t2.4

HERODOTUS (484-431 B.C.), the Father of History, was a traveller. He rejected the flat theory of the earth, but gave none of his own. He knew something of the countries from Scythia to Abyssinia and from India to the Pillars of Hercules. But "his knowledge of India was meagre and most vague. He knew that it was one of the remotest provinces of the Persian Empire towards the East; but of its extent and exact position he had no proper conception." (M'Crindle's *Ancient India*, p. 1). Hence though his work can be utilised as a source of history for informing us of Skylax's Voyage, etc., it contributes little towards the geography of India.

c4.s2.t2.5

The *Indika* of KTESIAS (398 B.C.), the royal physician of Persia, is full of old wives' tales not to be trusted.

c4.s2.t2.6

ALEXANDER THE GREAT'S march through the Punjab and Sindh brought, for the first time, the direct Greek knowledge of India to the banks of the Sutlej. The great invader caused the whole of India to be described by men well acquainted with it (M'Crindle's *Invasion*, p. 6. f. n.). Some of the eminent men of science and letters who had accompanied him wrote invaluable memoirs which are now totally lost, but they furnished materials to subsequent writers—1. DIODORUS (100 B.C.—A.D. 100) who mixed history with fiction. 2. PLUTARCH, 3. STRABO, (60 B.C.—A.D. 19). 4. CURTIUS, (A.D. 100), who was 'deficient in the knowledge of Geography, Chronology and Astronomy' (M'Crindle's *Invasion*, p. 11), 5. ARRIAN (A.D. 200)—the best of Alexander's historians, and 6.

c4.s2.t2.7

JUSTINUS (not later than A.D. 500). As none of these abstractors had even a very slight personal knowledge of India, their works, though based on accounts written by persons who actually visited India, are not so much invaluable for geography as for history. A little vagueness due to want of personal knowledge and a few mutual contradictions diminish not a little of their usefulness as a source of the geography of the North-Western and Western districts of India. Hence it is that "few of the places mentioned in them have been identified with any real approach to certainty" (Fleet in *I.A.*, 1901, p. 24) and a greater number of identifications can only be made from Indian sources and not from them.

c4.s2.t2.8

MEGASTHENES (305 B.C.). His long stay in the very heart of India might probably have given his work great authority in topographical matters also; but, unluckily for us, it exists only in fragments preserved as quotations. In the existing fragments we can only find out his idea of the shape of India, names of some mountains and an important but doubtful catalogue of Indian races and tribes.

c4.s2.t2.9

About 240 B.C. ERATOSTHENES, who was placed in charge of the great library established by the Ptolemies at Alexandria, brought Mathematics to his aid and laid the first foundation of a really scientific geography. Accepting the theory which is said to have originated from Thales (600 B.C.) but the credit of which ought to go to Pythagoras, he took the *earth* to be *spherical* and as lying in the centre of the universe. Though he had various errors, Sir E. Bunbury has justly pointed out that his geography is not only much nearer to the truth than that adopted by Ptolemy three centuries later, but it is actually a better approximation than was arrived at by modern geographers till about two centuries ago. (*Hist. of Ancient Geography*, Vol. I, p. 635). He described India on the authority of Alexander's historians, Megasthenes, and the Register of Stathmi or Marches.

c4.s2.t2.10

After the lapse of about two centuries flourished STRABO (60 B.C.—A.D. 19) whose object in writing a new geography was 'to correct the earlier works in light of the increase of knowledge' due to the foundation of the mighty Roman Empire. He "did not carry us much further than Eratosthenes. Indeed in some respects he is even inferior to his predecessor." He distorted the shape of various countries. But he conceived rightly, noticed the difficulty of correctly representing a curved surface on a plane and perceived that a projection must be to some extent erroneous. As for his account of India, he himself has admitted that it cannot be absolutely true. As an apology he has pointed out the difficulty of getting correct information about India owing to its great distance and to the fact that only a few have ever visited it, that those few have visited only a part of it, and that those again are ignorant men unqualified to write an account of the places they have visited. (Strabo in M'Crindle's *Ancient India*, pp. 17 and 9.)

c4.s2.t2.11

PLINY, the Naturalist, (A.D. 23-79) dealt with everything under the sun in his long array of books. Having no new theory of his own and having read (as he himself has said) more than 2,000 books, he became an industrious collector from every source. But "his love of the marvellous disposed him to accept far too readily even the most absurd fiction. He is also liable to the charge of occasional carelessness in his citation." (M'Crindle's *Ancient India*, p. 102). His notices of Asia are fuller and indicate an increasing trade between Europe and the East. And the discovery, made at this time by Hippalus (a navigator who made a study of the winds of the Indian Ocean), of the periodic nature of the monsoons enabling the European navigators to take a direct route to India and not a coasting course, became a valuable aid to the commercial relations with India. The hearsay tales of these rough sailors were mixed by Pliny with the accounts of Alexander's companions and of Megasthenes in his geography of India. (VI Book of his *Natural History*).

c4.s2.t2.12

The increase of trade with India created the demand of a guide-book which was produced in the form of the "PERIPLUS OF THE ERYTHRÆAN SEA" by an anonymous writer (first century A.D.). Erythræan sea was the whole expanse of the ocean reaching from the coast of Africa to the utmost boundary of ancient knowledge of the East. It was so called from the entrance into it by the straits of the Red Sea—the "Erythra" of the Greeks. This Periplus contains the best account of the commerce carried on from the Red Sea and the coast of Africa to the East Indies during the time that Egypt was a Roman province. It mentions river-mouths, ports etc., with distances from one another, exports, imports, and such other details as a merchant would most value. The author of the Periplus evidently sailed in person round the coast of India. But owing to the occasional shifting of sea-side emporia, we cannot now expect to find every place on the coast mentioned by him. As to inland details, he was not correct. Thus he placed Paithan at a distance of twenty days' journey to the south of Barygaza while it is 200 miles to the south-east of it. Thus we cannot trust it as a geographical source for inland knowledge, though we can take its mention of commercial products to be true.

c4.s2.t2.13

The greatest figure of this period is PTOLEMY, whose name marks the highest pitch of perfection in early geography. Klaudios Ptolemaios who flourished in Alexandria (circa A.D. 150) was a musician, mathematician, astronomer and geographer. His work on geography is a sequel to his great "Almagest." It is not a descriptive geography like that of Strabo, but is exclusively a mathematical or cosmical one. His object was to correct and reform the map of the world. So he explained the geometrical principles of geography and pointed out that the only scientific basis on which a map could be constructed must be made on astronomical observations. Hence in describing places he gives their longitudes (calculated from Ferro in the Canaries) and latitudes (parallel of Rhodes). These scientific features are the causes of his wide celebrity. But his system has many defects :—

c4.s2.t2.14

(1) He placed the equator at a considerable distance from its true geographical position and vitiated his Eastern longitudes by about seven degrees.

c4.s2.t2.15

(2) He took every degree of latitude and of longitude measured at the equator as equal to 500 stadia instead of 600 stadia (or 60 geographical miles). And thus if he had arrived at the conclusion that two places were 5000 stadia from each other, he would place them at a distance of ten degrees apart and thus, in fact, separate them by an interval of 6000 stadia.

c4.s2.t2.16

(3) As only a few astronomical observations were made in his time, he had to rely (and specially so in the case of India of which he had not even the slightest personal observation) upon second-hand information—reports of travellers, navigators and works of previous writers.

c4.s2.t2.17

(4) In general shape his countries are narrowed at the north and enormously extended as they approach the south ; so that the eastern parts of Asia are carried a long way beyond their true distance from Europe and Africa.

c4.s2.t2.18

(5) As the result of the above defects, the shape of India is utterly distorted in his map. His results would place Paithan in the Bay of Bengal, make Ceylon an enormous island, make the Ganges flow into the sea somewhere near Canton, make the Mahânadî river run over Siam and Cambodia, carry Pâtaliputra to the east of a line from Tonquin to Pekin, etc.

c4.s2.t2.19

Thus we see that unless we have a thorough adjustment of Ptolemy's results for India, it is with but little confidence that we can use it, with only our present means of applying information given in it, towards reconstructing the geography and political divisions of Ancient India.

c4.s2.t2.20

It is needless to mention the other classical writers [translated by M'Crindle in his *Ancient India*], though they supply some historical information, they do little more than mentioning a few distorted Indian geographical names wihout the specification of any distance or direction. Nor was the old classical culture destined to live long after Ptolemy and the author of PEUTINGER TABLES (A.D. 222.).

2. Early Christian.

c4.s2.t3.1

The spread of Christianity ruined the old "pagan" culture. The *Hebrew* theory of flat earth surrounded by the ocean and having massive pillars at the edges on which the heaven rests like a roof banished the Greek spheroidal view. While the old classical structure was undermined, little was done to further any knowledge. The only work of this period in which we have any interest is *The Christian Topography of the Universe* [M'Crindle's translation of the complete work published by the Hakluyt Society, 1897] by the Egyptian monk COSMAS, nicknamed INDICOPLEUSTES (Indian traveller), who travelled from Egypt to India and Ceylon (A.D. 547). Reviling the impious old pagans for their spheroidal view, he depicts the world in his map—the earliest Christian map—as a flat rectangular island surrounded by the sea beyond which are other regions. He had no idea of what geography is and his work contributed little to the historical geography of India. All that we can learn from him is the name of certain western and South Indian places and their trade.

3. Arabic.

c4.s2.t4.1

As Arabic enterprise extended their commercial relations far beyond the limits of Ptolemy's world, their knowledge was wider than his and far sounder for many regions in the east and south (Eastern Asia, Africa). In geography, as in astronomy, they had worked on the *old Greek lines*, but on them they had built up their own structures by independent researches on mathematical calculations and reports of travellers. But Arabic geography never got beyond a certain point. It never threw up a truly great writer like Strabo or Ptolemy. What they did was to *preserve the Greek tradition* and to improve it, while Europe was degrading into barbarism owing to ecclesiastical authority. "Men like Massoudy (A. D. 956), Al Beruni or Edrisi (11th century) had a better and more adequate conception than any Christian before A.D. 1300. The construction of maps and globes reached a considerable proficiency in their hand while the Christian ones are almost ridiculous." Besides the above writers, Sulaiman (A. D 851), Abu Zaid (A. D. 916), Ibn Kurdadba (A. D. 912), Al Itakhri (A. D. 951) and Al Kazwini (A. D. 1275) have written about India. But the distortion of Indian names in their works perplexes much. Alberuni's knowledge of Sanskrit enabled him to give a transcript as faithful as the use of the Semitic alphabet allowed him. But his geographical account of India is not a new account; it is mainly a synopsis [chaps. 25, 29] of the Hindu accounts—*Bhuvana-kosa* and *Kûrmavibhâga*. He has only added a few notes on them. His original contribution [chap. 18] is the account of 16 itineraries which seem to have been communicated to him by the military and civil officers of Mahmûd. Here he mentions directions and distances in *farsakh* (=3 miles approx.) [IBN BATUTA in Sindh, *J.R.A.S.*, 1887, p. 401 ff. and a map in 1889; RASHIDUDDIN's geographical notices of India—Col. Yule in *J.R.A.S.*, 1869-70, p. 340 ff.].

4. Chinese.

c4.s2.t5.1

Having discovered the use of the magnet as early as the third century A. D., the Chinese could make extensive sea-voyages. They are even alleged to have discovered what is now known as the North America in A. D. 500 (Beazly's *Dawn of Modern Geography*, pp. 489-90; 493). The conversion of this nation into Buddhism which was introduced into their country in A. D. 67 (Takakusu's Itsing, Introduction) caused a series of pilgrims to visit India—the land of Buddha—and write invaluable accounts of it.

c4.s2.t5.2

As the Greeks and the early Arabs visited India either in the track of some invader or as merchants, their accounts chiefly inform us of the military glories of nations or of kings little known or altogether unknown in Indian literature which is deficient in the historical sense, or of the trades of places which have long ago been deserted or buried in the silts of rivers and are no longer remembered. Hence though these sources give much information, they do not contribute much to the study of geography. Rather it requires much research to elucidate these foreign accounts.

c4.s2.t5.3

But the case is different with the Chinese. These pilgrims, saturated with Indian ideas, visited their holy land and described the sacred monuments of places which have been immortalized in Sanskrit or Pali literature, some of which still retain their celebrity, while the ruins of some others still exist enabling us to understand their Chinese description. This fact explains the importance of the Chinese sources.

c4.s2.t5.4

Of the various Chinese accounts, those of SUNG-YUN and HWI SENG (A.D. 600; translated in Beal's *Records of the Western World*, Vol. I; and in *Bull. de l'Ecole Fr. d'Extrême-Orient*, Hanoi, 1903) and of O-KUNG (A.D. 800; translated in the *Journal Asiatique*, 1895) are very short, describing a few places of North-Western India (Kabul Valley, the Punjab and Kashmir).

c4.s2.t5.5

ITSING landed at Tâmralipti, the then port on the Bay of Bengal, in A.D. 673 and visited Nâlandâ, Gridhra-kûta, Buddhagayâ, Vaisâlî, Kusînagara, Kapilavâstu, Srâvastî, the Deerpark, Cock Mountain, and left India from Tâmralipti. [Translated by Dr. Takakusu, C. P. S. Oxford, 1896]. His account was not accessible to [Sir] Alexander Cunningham.

c4.s2.t5.6

Still more important are the accounts of FA-HIAN (A.D. 399-414) and HWEN THSANG (A.D. 629-45) or YUAN-CHWANG (as Mr. Watters prefers to spell it). FA-HIAN entered India from the North-West, travelled over the whole of the Aryâvarta and left it at the port of Tâmralipti. His record (*Fo-Kue-Ki*) is truthful, clear and straight-forward. Though a devout Buddhist, he was a sensible and not often a hysterical pilgrim-traveller. The earlier part of his work is strictly geographical. But when he reached India, religion had the better of his geography. Still his geographical notices are valuable for their precision, as he generally fixed the position of every place that he visited by its bearing and distance from that which he left

c4.s2.t5.7

Yüan Chwang also entered India from the North-West, travelled through the whole of it and left it by the same route. His records—*Si-Yu-Ki*—are fuller than even that of Fa-Hian and it is almost impossible to exaggerate their importance.

c4.s2.t5.8

In utilising materials from these sources a student should note that:—

c4.s2.t5.9

I. In giving the direction of a place from another Fa-Hian mentions only the four principal cardinal points. [Hence his E. may mean N.E. or S.E.; and so with the other points.] Yüan Chwang also generally does the same; and very seldom does he give the direction as due N.E., etc. But still there are other points of the compass beyond these eight.

c4.s2.t5.10

II. In stating the distance of a place from another, Fa-Hian states it in the *yojana* and Yüan Chwang in the *yojana* and the *li* measure. Dividing the known-distance-in-miles by the number of *yojanas* which the distance covers according to these pilgrims, Cunningham asserted that a *yojana* of Yüan Chwang is 6·75 miles while that of Fa-Hian is 6·71 miles.

c4.s2.t5.11

Mr. V. Smith takes a *yojana* of Yüan Chwang to be 6·5 miles and one of Fa-Hian to be 7·25 miles.

c4.s2.t5.12

M. Julien and probably Dr. Stein take 8 miles as equal to one *yojana* of Yüan Chwang, while in the opinion of Mr. Giles a *yojana* of Fa-Hian varies from 5 to 9 miles.

c4.s2.t5.13

Now Yüan Chwang has himself stated (Watters, Vol. I, p. 141-2) that a *yojana* is a day's march for a Royal army; that there are three kinds of *yojanas* of 16 *li* (found in Sacred Writings), of 30 *li* (common reckoning in India) and of 40 *li* (old Chinese account). He has also stated that a *yojana* consisted of eight *krosas* (a *krosa* being originally the distance that the lowing of a cow can be heard). He has also given figures to change a *krosa* into "bows", "cubits", "fingers" and "barley-corns." Making calculations from these materials Fleet tried to prove that there were three kinds of *yojanas*:—1. MAGADHA YOJANA (used by the Buddhists) of 16000 *hastas* or 4·54 miles:

c4.s2.t5.14

II. GENERAL YOJANA of 32000 *hastas* or 9·09 miles : III. A THIRD YOJANA (which was according to Yüan Chwang 1⅓ of the general *yojana*) of 12·12 miles. This third *yojana* was, according to Fleet, the original *yojana* (from *yuj*, to yoke)—the yoking distance—the distance along which a pair of bullocks could draw a fully laden cart. This *yojana* was taken by the Chinese pilgrims as equal to 100 “*li*”s. [*J.R.A.S.*, 1906, p. 1011.]

c4.s2.t5.15

In making the above calculations Fleet took a *hasta* = ½ yard. But Major Vost has shewn from Medieval and Ancient Chinese and other sources that the *hasta* was formerly taken to be a little larger than is done now. [*J.R.A.S.*, 1903, p 65.] Hence taking his calculations the three *yojanas* will be—I = 5·288 miles or 5·3 miles very nearly ; II = 10·6 miles very nearly ; III = 14·2 miles very nearly.

c4.s2.t5.16

Thus 100 “*li*”s or a *yojana* denoted the distance occupied in making a *day’s journey*. The said day’s journey averaged very closely about fourteen miles. But being actually determined in each case by such considerations as the nature of the country traversed and the distance between the villages, *sarais*, *dharmsâlâs* and other convenient halting places, it might easily be anything from twelve to sixteen miles and in exceptional cases might have even a wider range in either direction.

c4.s2.t5.17

III. Again, as Fa-Hian gives distances in *yojanas* only and not in fractions of it, his one *yojana* may be any distance more than ½ *yojana* and less than 1½ *yojanas*. Yüan Chwang also uses round numbers, such as 500 “*li*”s, 600 “*li*”s, etc. Hence we may allow a certain margin and take his 500 “*li*”s as any distance above 450 and below 550 “*li*”s. Thus the distances of both the Chinese pilgrims can be taken only as approximations.

c4.s2.t5.18

IV. Yüan Chwang’s dimensions of various countries are generally taken to be exaggerations. It became a common practice of Cunningham to take his thousands as hundreds. But as Yüan Chwang has not stated these details in the decimal system of notation, he is not justified to do so. Nor can we condemn his details of this kind in general terms without considering how they can be applied. For as he usually stated these details in thousands of "li"s any one of them may be 50 miles too great or too little. Again re-entering angles may increase a perimeter very considerably, while reducing the area inside it. Conventional ideas as to the size of a country may also have caused some errors in his details. [J. R. A. S., 1907, p. 641 ff.]

c4.s2.t5.19

V. As the names of a country and its capital are sometimes identical [and even when not identical Yüan Chwang has not mentioned them both] and as Yüan Chwang has not always precisely stated whether by a certain place-name he means a capital or a country, the distances and directions given by him cannot precisely be traced on the map, though the best way would be to take them as from each capital to the next one

c4.s2.t5.20

VI. The peculiarity of Chinese phonetics caused Yüan Chwang to insert vowels between Skr. conjuncts and to use "k" for Skr. k, kh, g, gh; ch for Skr. ch, chh, j, jh; t (cerebral) for the cerebrals th, d, dh, ks, str; t (dental) for the dentals t, th, d, dh; p for p, ph, b, bh; l for r, l; f for b and u. Hence the difficulty in finding out the true Skr. form.

c4.s2.t5.21

VII. Again cases of discrepancy between the Records (of the Western World, written by the pilgrim himself) and the Life (of the pilgrim composed by a friend of him) and some apparent mutual contradictions and a few various readings show that the writings of Yüan Chwang have not been correctly transmitted to us.

c4.s2.t5.22

We thus see that even the very best of the foreign sources are not fully satisfactory and though the results arrived at from them are of great value, they cannot be taken as anything more than mere approximations.

c4.s2.t5.23

The Chinese source also includes various notes on India—in Chinese histories and specially in the Chinese translations of Indian works. M. Sylvain Lévi and his pupils have drawn the attention of Indologists to these notes.

3. A critical estimate of Indigenous sources.

I.—Literary.

c4.s3.t1.1

Though the ancient Indians did not pay much attention to history, there are ample geographical materials.

c4.s3.t1.2

Expansion of geographical knowledge is due to (1) military expedition and colonizing spirit, (2) commercial relations, (3) religious activity, and, in the modern age, (4) scientific exploration. Alexander's Historians* and Alberuni's knowledge of India was due to the first cause. Pliny and the author of the Periplus utilized materials accumulated by commercial enterprisers. The Chinese pilgrims' visit to India was actuated by religion. Similar also is the case with the ancient Indians. Their foreign conquest and colonization are made known to us by a series of Sanskrit Inscriptions discovered in Further India and the Indian Archipelago. A fourth century A.D. Pillar Inscription of the Buddhist sea-captain Mahânâvika Buddhagupta of Raktam(i)ttikâ (mod. Rângâmâti in Murshidabad district, Bengal) has been discovered* in the Wellesley district of the Malay Peninsula. A series of inscriptions† proves clearly that there ruled, in Further India, from the second century A.D. up to the seventh century at least, a line of Saiva Hindu kings (Dharmamahârâjas) claiming descent from Asvatthâman, son of Drona. Four Yûpa inscriptions* of king Mûlavarman, in the fourth or fifth century A.D. Pallava characters, discovered in 1879-80 at Kœtei in East Borneo, show the existence of a powerful Hindu royal dynasty at that place. As for the Brahman colony in Fahien's Ye-po-ti (Java, or perhaps, Sumatra) and the extensive Buddhist ruins in Java, they are too well-known to call for any remark. Recent discoveries in Central Asia exhibit political and diplomatic relations of India with Central Asian states (so often referred to in Indian literature).

c4.s3.t1.3

∗ Kern's Verspreide Geschriften, III, (1915), p. 255. † Bergaigne's Insc. Sansk. da Campâ et Cambodge (1893); Bul. Ecole F.E.O., II, p. 185, III, 206-11; IV, p. 918; XI, p. 264; XII, No. 8, pp. 15-16; XV, No. 2, pp. 3-5; Barth's Insc. Sk. du Cambodge.

c4.s3.t1.4

As for commercial intercourse, Von Ihering (in his *Prehistoric Indo-Europeans*) and J. Kennedy (in *J.R.A.S.*, 1898, pp. 241-88) have shown the activity of the early Indians in trading with the Persian Gulf tribes. A couple of Kanarese sentences found embodied in the Greek farce in the Papyrus of Oxyrhynchus† of the first or second century A.D. indicates commercial relations of an intimate nature between Egypt and the Kanarese-speaking Dravidians of Southern India. Cornelius Nepos (who died in the reign of Emperor Augustus, 14 B.C.—A.D. 14) had mentioned Indian commercial activity even in Germany.‡ There are clear statements in Tamil literature supporting Fahien's mention of early Indian's voyage to Java, Sumatra and China.§

c4.s3.t1.5

As for religious activity in this direction, Asoka's sending Buddhist Missionaries to Syria, Egypt and Macedonia is known to all students of History. The recent discoveries in Central Asia exhibit the great influence of Buddhist Missionaries in that region. India's connection with Tibet, China, Japan and Manchuria does not require any comment. Even such a distant place as Lord North's Island in Micronesia,* was indebted to Buddhist Missionaries for its religious instruction.

c4.s3.t1.6

∗ Dr. Vogel in *Overdruk int de Bijdragen tot de Toalen Volkenkande van Nederlandsch-Indië* Deel 74, Aflevering 1-2, 1918 † *J.R A.S.*, 1904, pp. 399-405. ‡ M'Crindle's *Anc Ind.*, p. 110. § Aiyangar's *Beginnings of South Indian Hist.*, pp. 113-4.

c4.s3.t1.7

We thus see that the political, commercial, and religious activities of early Indians made them acquainted with the greater part of the then known countries of the world. And this acquaintance certainly broadened their knowledge of the geography of foreign lands. And though, owing to their so-called want of historical faculty or to their want of vanity, they left no autobiographies or private memoirs, peripli or itineraries like those of Fahien or Yüan Chwang to perpetuate their names, yet, the stock of knowledge thus accumulated was not completely lost. It has been preserved in a corrupted form in the Epic and Puranic conception of the world as containing seven concentric islands—Jambu, Sâka, Kusa, Sâlmala, Krauncha, Gomeda (Gomanda or Plaksha), and Pushkara†—encircled by seven Samudras.‡ Though this conception is childish, we ought not to compare it with that of the twentieth century and stigmatize it as ridiculous. If we compare this fourth or third century B.C. conception of the earth with even the tenth or eleventh century Christian conception as depicted in the maps reproduced in Keane's *Evolution of Geography* (Edward Stanford, London, 1899), it would not certainly appear to be more ridiculous. The true conception of the earth is a thing of modern times—it was formed after the first circumnavigation. Ancient nations had strange notions. The conception of the different parts of the earth as so many islands was maintained also by the Greeks, and is referred to by Teopompo in Eliano, by Eratosthenes, and by Strabo.[*] As for the Indian theory of concentric islands, its origin may be explained thus:—(1) the change of meanings of the words *dvipa* and *samudra*; *dvipa* (derived by Pāṇini as *dvi+ap*; and thus etymologically connected with *doab*) meant, primarily, land having water (and not sea) on two (and not all) of its sides. The original meaning of *samudra* is a collection of water.[†] These words lost their original meanings and came to mean island and sea respectively. (2) Now when the Epic and Puranic writers (who had not the slightest personal knowledge of foreign lands) attempted the difficult task of arranging the traditional accounts of the different parts of the then known world handed down from those who actually visited them, they harmonized (?) the different accounts by reducing them to this system. But though their system is wrong and though there is

c4.s3.t1.8

∗ Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. V, 194. † The order varies in different sources. ‡ The Buddhist system counts eight dvipas and has different names for some of the Samudras. (See Pullé's Studi Italiani di Filologia Indo-Iranica, vol. IV, pp. 15-16; see also J.R.A.S., 1902, p. 142; 1907, p. 42.) In Jaina tradition we have new names. A chapter entitled Diva-samuddâ inserted incidentally in Jivâbhigama-sûtra names the following dvipas :—1. Jambu.

c4.s3.t1.9

² Dhâyaî-Khamda, 3. Pukkharavara, 4. Vârunavara, 5. Khîravara, 6. Ghatavara, 7. Khodavara, 8. Nandîsaravara, 9. Arunavara, 10. Arunavaravâsa, 11. Kundala, 12. Kundalavara, 13. Kundalavaravâsa, 14. Ruyaga, 15. Ruyagavara 16. Rayagavaravâsa, 17. Hâra, 18. Hâravara, 19. Hâravaravâsa. The names of the first two oceans are Lavana-samadda and Kâloya (Sk. Kâloda); the other names are made by adding uda (=water) to the names of the dvipas. Bhagavatî-Sûtra

c4.s3.t1.10

† St. Martin's *Géographie du Vēda*, p. 62.

c4.s3.t1.11

(11, 8, 1-9) states *ayam Jambuddīva savva-dīva-samuddānam savvab-bhantare* and that the first three only of the above dvīpas are inhabited by men—the Trikhanda (௧) (11, 9, 1-2). (See Pullé's *Studi*, IV, pp. 10-20; *J.B.B.R.A.S.*, II, p. 411.)

c4.s3.t1.12

∗ Pullé's *Studi*, vol. IV, p. 20, (giving Teopompo and Eliano in their Italian forms) quoting Berger's "Geschichte der wiss. Geographie der Griechen," p. 12.

c4.s3.t1.13

plenty of the fabulous in Hindu Geography, their accounts of the different parts of the world were based on facts. Mr. Wilford collected an account of the River Nile and of its source and reconstructed a map out of the Purânas.* H. H. Wilson called him an "injudicious writer."† Cunningham remarked that his essay is a "wild speculation."‡ St. Martin stated him to be the first victim of the "imposture" geographical literature of the Hindus.§ But Lieut. J. H. Speke, (in his *Discovery of the Source of the Nile*, chaps. I, V, X) unhesitatingly states that when planning his discovery of the source of the Nile, he secured his best information from Wilford's map and testifies to the substantial correctness of the Puranic account.|| Is it not enough to repay the labours of the Purâna-writers that it is they (and not Ptolemy, the great geographer of Greek Egypt) who helped the nineteenth century explorer with their accurate knowledge of that part of the country? As the subject of our study is the ancient geography of India and not the geographical theories of ancient Indians, we dismiss the theory of seven dvīpas with these remarks and return to the sources describing India only.

c4.s3.t1.14

The indigenous geography of India is, like every other Indian Science, chiefly dependent on religion. India is a land of *tīrthas*—her every crag, every spring, every river, and every hoary tree is sacred. As it is a duty of every pious Indian—Hindu, Jaina, or Buddhist—to make pilgrimages, pilgrims travelled far and wide to pay their respects to the objects of their veneration. This expanded their knowledge which has been embalmed in the sacred

c4.s3.t1.15

* *Asiatick Researches*, vol. III. † *Hindu Theatre*, vol. I, p. 9. ‡ *A. S. R.*, vol. I, p. ii. § St. Martin's *Etat actuel des études sur l' Inde ancienne*, p. xiii.

c4.s3.t1.16

|| Schoff's *Periplus*, pp. 87 and 230.

c4.s3.t1.17

literature—Orthodox (Hindu) or Heterodox (Jaina and Buddhist). Thus, though disregard to the historical order of things, owing to their peculiar religious idea that worldly existence is a misery, has caused the want of historical accounts, yet it is that same peculiar religion which did much to preserve the materials of geography. And though there is plenty of the fabulous in Indian geography of outlandish regions, the allusions to purely Indian topography are generally sober. The main features of the country were adequately known in very early times.

c4.s3.t1.18

Let us now examine the different branches of Indian literature as geographical sources. The VEDAS are our only source of the geography of Vedic India. Vivien de St. Martin first handled the subject. It was also taken up by Zimmer in his *Alt-Indische Leben*. Hillebrandt, Pischel, Roth and other Vedic scholars also have touched on the subject, Brunhofer has attempted, in his *Iran und Turan*, to locate various Vedic rivers in regions outside India.

c4.s3.t1.19

The *R(i)gveda Samhitâ* generally mentions tribes and rivers only. Names of countries occur seldom. In the mention of the following rivers, there is, as Sir A. Stein* has pointed out, a strict geographical order:—Gangâ, Yamunâ, (and the following tributaries of the Indus) Sarasvatî, Sutudrî (Satadru, Satlej), Parushnî (Ravi), Asiknî (असिकनी Akesines, Chenab), Marudvr(i)ddh↠Vitastâ (Jhelum), R(i)jikîyâ and Sushomâ (Sohan). As we find in this list (*Rigveda*, X, 75, 5) a strict geographical order in the mention of the eastern tributaries of the Indus, we ought to take the same order to guide us in identifying the western tributaries mentioned in the next verse—Tristâmâ, Susartu, Svetî ( श्वेती ), Gomatî (Gomal), Krumu (Kurram), Kubhâ (Kabul) and Mehantu. In the next two verses (X. 75, 7-8) are named some rivers. As *Rigveda* X. 64.8 mentions *trisapta sasrâ nadyah*, thrice seven sister rivers, we ought to find the names of seven rivers in X, 75. 7-8. Sâyana was ignorant of the geography of the North-Western Frontier, and therefore explained these words as adjectives. But these words are to be taken as proper names—Urnâvatî, Sîlamâvatî, R(i)jitî, Enî, Chitrâ, Hiranmayî and Rus( र )atî—seven tributaries of the Indus to be located to the north-west. The last five (and Añjasî, Amsu( शु )matî, Asm( अश्म )anmatî, Kulisî (कुलिशी) and Vîrapatnî) have not been mentioned in Macdonell and Keith's *Vedic Index of Names and Subjects*. But those five are to be taken as proper names, and geographical order will be a guide in the attempt to locate them.

c4.s3.t1.20

∗ *Bhândârkar Commemoration Volume.*

c4.s3.t1.21

† Stein has identified it with the Maruwardwan which flows from north to south through the Maru valley of the Kashmir Jammu state and joins the Chenab at Kistawar.

c4.s3.t1.22

The Indus and its tributaries are seldom mentioned in the *Yajurveda*, for the Aryans then lived in the territory of Kuru-Pâñchâla (Thaneswar and Rohilkhand), the old capital of which, Kâmpila, is mentioned. The *Satapatha Brâhmana* (I, 4, 1, 10-18) records the Aryan migration to Videha (Tirhut); while the *Atharvaveda-Samhitâ* shows that the Aryans were then acquainted with Anga and Magadha (which might have been known in Rigvedic age as Kîkata, (कीकट) a country of the non-Aryans, whose leader was *Pra-Maganda* whose name might have some connection with Magadha). The *Aitareya Brâhmana* mentions the Aryan Vaidarbhas and the non-Aryan Andhras, Pundras, (पुण्ड्र), S(श)abaras, Pulindas and Mûtibas. The Vangas seem to be mentioned in the *Aitareya Aranyaka* (ii. 1, 1) as a non-Aryan tribe.

c4.s3.t1.23

This gradual expansion of the Aryans can also be gathered from the *Dharmasûtras* and *Dharmasâstras*. The Sūtras (*Vasistha*, I, 8 ; *Baudhāyana*, I. 1, 2, 9, etc.) state that the country of the Aryans आर्यावर्त lies to east of the region where the (*Sarasvatī*) disappears, to the west of Black forest (*Kalakavana*), to the north of Pāripātra and to the south of the Himālayas. It is strange to note that this definition of Aryāvarta excludes the greater portion of the land of the R(i)gvedic Aryans. A famous episode (*Karna-Salya-samvāda*) in the Karnaparvan of the Mahābhārata also clearly states the impurity of the Punjab tribes during the Epic age. Various explanations may be suggested. (1) Dr. Bühler’s† theory was that the reading of Vasistha presupposes a reading *Adarsa* (आदर्श)‡ which was corrupted into *Adars(i)ana* (=disappearance) and was then paraphrased as ‘‘*Vinas(a)ana*’’ [of the Sarasvatī]. Ingenious as this theory is, it is not a good solution. Though some of the Sūtras and Patañjali’s Mahābhāshya (II, 4, 10) actually give the Western boundary to be *Adarsā*(आदर्शा), we gain little by this reading. Adarsa cannot be located in the N.-W. Frontier so as to include the whole of the Panjab in this Aryāvarta of the Sūtras. (2) Recent study of the modern Indian Aryan dialects indicates, in the opinion of Sir George Grierson, at least two waves of Aryan migration into India. There arose a conflict between the Brahmanical later immigrants (now represented by the speakers of Panjabi, Râjasthânî, Gujarâtî and Western Hindi) and the anti-Brahmanical earlier immigrants (now represented by the speakers of Kâshmîrî, Mârâthi, Bengali and Oriya). This conflict between the two waves of Aryan migrators might have caused the inhabitants of the Middle land to stigmatize the later immigrants as not truly Aryan and their country as outside the pale of Aryan culture. (3) The country to the West of the Sarasvatî was occupied in the later epic age by non-Aryan (Turanian) immigrants—the Takkas. They are now to be found in Jammu, Kistwar and other places.* They claim their descent from Takshaka Nâga.† The biting of King Parikshit by Takshaka Nâga probably symbolizes the destruction of the Aryan power owing to the inroad of the Takkas. Their name seems to have some connection with Takshasilâ ; for in connection with the serpent sacrifice performed by king Janamejaya to chastise the Nâgas, mention is made of his invasion and conquest of Takshasilâ (M.Bh, Ati P., III, 683-3 ; 832-4 ; XL— XLIV ; XLIX, 1954 ; L. 1991). As the Panjab was thus occupied by a non-Aryan race or races, it was outside the boundary of Aryâvarta. (4) As for Pargiter’s theory that the Aryans migrated to the Panjab from the Madhyadesa (Ancient Indian Historical Traditions), that cannot explain the above facts. For, whether the Panjab was the original home or not, Pargiter could not deny the fact that the Aryans lived there during the Vedic age and if it be so, why was it excluded from the Later Aryâvarta?

c4.s3.t1.24

∗ I propose to identify Kālakavana, the eastern boundary of Aryāvarta of the Sūtras, with Prayāga, the eastern boundary of Manu’s Madhyadesa, which is identical with the Aryāvarta of the Sūtras. As the other three boundaries are the same (Pāripātra being a portion of the Vindhyas), the eastern limit also ought to be identical. In the later age there flourished a city (Prayāga) and a country there, where the earlier literature locates a forest. Ayodhyākānda (LIV and LV) of the *Rāmāyana* states that Prayāga was then a clearing in a forest.

c4.s3.t1.25

† S.B.E., vol. XIV, p. 2.

c4.s3.t1.26

‡ आदर्श the western boundary of the Aryavarta, has not been located by any scholar. As अमरकोश XIV, 25, mentions Adarsa with the sources of the Yamunā, Trigarta, etc., it is to be placed not far from the ancient kingdom of Srughna and Trigarta (Kangra). Varāhamihira’s mention makes it clear that it cannot be located in the N.-W. Frontier.

c4.s3.t1.27

The Dharmasâstra of Manu, however, calls the

c4.s3.t1.28

[^ *]: A.S.R., vol. II, pp. 6-7. [^ †]: Tod’s Rajasthan, I, p. 9.

c4.s3.t1.29

Aryâvarta of the Sûtras to be the *Madhyadesa* or "Middle country" (*Himavad-Vindhyayor-madhyam yat prâk vina-sanâd* (विनशनाद्) *api, pratyag-eva Prayâgâchcha Madhya-desah...*) and greatly extends the boundaries of its Aryâvarta by defining it as *â Samudrât tu vai Pûrvâd â Samudrâchcha Paschimât* (पश्चिमात्) *tayor-evâ'ntaram giryor-âryâvarttam vidur-budhâh*.

c4.s3.t1.30

The "Middle country of the BUDDHIST LITERATURE" expanded to the East. Its boundaries as mentioned in Mahâvagga, V, 13, 12 [and Divyâvadâna] are:—E., Kajangala* [or Pundra(पुण्ड्र) varddhana acc. to Div.]; S. E., River Salalavati [Sarâvatî]; S., the town of Satakannika (*v. l.* set...); W., the Brahman district (or village) of Thuna† [Sthûna]; N., Usîradhaja‡ [Usira]. "The middle country is in length 300 yojanas, in breadth 250 yojanas, in circuit 900 yojanas."§ The sixteen great countries mentioned in the Pali literature are:—(1) Anga (C. Champâ), (2) Magadha, (3) Kâsi (subject to Kosala), (4) Kosala (C. Sâvatthî), (5) Wajjis, (6) Mallâ of Kusinara and Pâwâ, (7) Chedi, (8) Vatsa (C. Kausâmbî), (9) Kuru, (10) Panchâla, (11) Matsya, (12) Surasena (C. Mathurâ). (13) Assaka on the Godâvari, (14) Avanti (capital Ujjayini ; Mâhissatî was the capital of the southern division of Avanti or Avanti-dakshinâpatha).[*] (15) Gandhâra (C. Takkhasilâ), (16) Kamboja in the extreme North-West (C. Dvârakâ?).[†] The Pâli literature gives important trade-routes also.[‡] But it plainly indicates that Southern India was not then Aryanized.

c4.s3.t1.31

∗ It is the Ka-chu-wen-ki-lo of Yüan Chwang, who located it at a distance of above 400 *li* E. from Champâ (Bhagalpore). It was thus somewhere in Râjmahal district. It is the Kayangala mentioned in the com. on Râma[pâla]Charita (II, 6). The *ya* for *ja* is to be explained as due to Prakrit influence—intervocal explosive elided and *y* inserted to avoid hiatus—the *य-श्रुति* of Jaina Prakrit.

c4.s3.t1.32

† Thuna has not been identified by any scholar. As Yüan Chwang's account makes Thaneswar the western-most country of the Buddhist Middle country, I propose to identify Thuna (or Sthûna of Divyâvadâna) with Sthânvîsvara. Sthûna and Sthânu seem to be different forms of the same word, such metathesis of vowels being found in Pali and Prakrit. *Iswara*, the second part of Sthânvîsvara (Mod. Thaneswar) is redundant, it being identical in meaning with Sthânu (=Siva).

c4.s3.t1.33

‡ Usîradhaja is probably Usira-giri, a mountain to the North of Kankhal (Hardwar).—*Hultzsch* in *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 179.

c4.s3.t1.34

§ Commentary on *Jâtaka* and *Sumangala*. (*Rhys Davids* in *J.R.A.S.*, 1904, p. 86.)

c4.s3.t1.35

The next stage of the expansion of the Aryans is to be inferred, as Sir R. G. Bhandarkar has shown (Early History of Dekkan pp. 5-6), from PANINI AND HIS COMMENTATORS. Pânini (700 B.C. ?), an inhabitant of the extreme N.-W. of India, has mentioned many place-names of N. India and specially of the Panjab and Afghanistan. But of S. India, he has mentioned only Kachchha (IV. 2. 133), Avanti (IV. 1. 176), Kosala (IV. 1. 171), Karusa and Kalinga (IV. 1. 178).[§] Thus it appears that S. India was probably unknown in his time. Kâtyâyana (400 B.C.), however, knows even Chola, Mâhishmat and Nâsikya. In Patanjali's time (150 B.C.) the whole of India was known.

First 97 of 160 passages. Read on

Linked texts (54)