Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tribes in Ancient India c77: Chapter LXXV. Miscellaneous Tribes

Tribes in Ancient India c77

Language
English

Chapter LXXV. Miscellaneous Tribes

c77.2

PEṬENIKAS — GO-LĀṄGULAS — SAILUṢAS — KUSUMAS — NĀMA-VĀSAKAS—ĀDHAKYAS—DAṆḌAKAS—PAURIKAS—ATHARVAS AND ARKALIṄGAS—MAULIKAS—MŪṢIKAS OR MŪṢAKAS—CULIKAS AND ŚŪLIKAS — KAṄKANAS — TOSALAS — VAIDIŚAS — TUṢṬIKĀRAS — MĀHIṢAKAS OR MĀHIṢIKAS—KIKAṬAS—PRAVAṄGAS—RAṄGEYAS—MĀNADAS—UGRAS—TAṄGANAS—MUDAKARAS — ANTARGIRYAS—BAHIRGIRAS — ANŪPAS — KUKURAS — SURYĀRAKAS — VṚKAS — HĀRABHŪṢIKAS — MĀTHARAS — JĀGUḌAS — BRAHMOTTARAS — BHR̥GUKACCHAS—MĀHEYAS—BHOJAS—APARĀNTAS—HAIHAYAS—BHOGAVARDHANAS—SARAJAS—VĪRAHOTRAS—VINDHYA-MAULEYAS — JĀṄGALAS — BHADRAKARAS — KSHUDRAKAS—PUṢKALAS — CĪNAS—TUKHĀRAS—SĀRASVATAS—AŚVAKŪṬAS—KULYAS — MALAKAS — BODHAS — DAŚAMĀLIKAS — HARṢAVARDHANAS—KUŚERUKAS—HAṂSAMĀRGAS—KUHAKAS—ŚATAPATHA—CARMAKHAṆḌIKAS—GABALAS—ŚATADRUJAS—URṆAS—DARVAS—BAHU-BHADRAS—TRAIPURAS—GAJĀHVAYAS—PARṆA-ŚAVARAS—ARBUDAS—KHASAS

c77.3

The Peṭenikas of Aśokan inscriptions have been plausibly identified with the Paithānikas or inhabitants of Paithān on the Godāvarī¹ in North-Western Hyderabad. Paithān is the present name of ancient Pratiṣṭhāna which was a flourishing city during the rule of the Sātavāhana kings. Pratiṣṭhāna, the modern Paithān on the north bank of the Godāvarī in the Aurangabad District of Hyderabad, is famous in literature as the capital of King Śātakarṇi (Sātavāhana or Sālivāhana) and his son Śakti-kumāra who are generally identified with the king Śātakarṇi and the prince Śakti-Śrī of the Nānāghāṭ inscriptions.² According to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar the word ‘Pitinika’ of Aśokan inscriptions, as mentioned in Rock Edicts V and XIII, should not be treated as a separate word and is to be regarded as an adjective qualifying Rāṣṭrika (mentioned in Edict V) and Bhoja (mentioned in Edict XIII) which are mentioned along with it. In this connection Dr. Bhandarkar points to certain passages in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*¹ where the term Pettanika occurs in the sense of one who enjoys property given by father.² Other scholars, however, identify the Pitinikas with the Paithānakas or natives of Paithān and some go so far as to suggest that they are the ancestors of the Sātavāhana rulers of Paithān.³ Both the author of the *Periplus* and Ptolemy mention Paithāna or Baithāna. Paithān is placed by the author of the *Periplus* at a distance of twenty days' journey to the south of Barugaza (identified generally with Bharukaccha or modern Broach), and is spoken of as the greatest city in Dakhinabades or Dakṣiṇāpatha and Tagara (identified by some with Devagiri, by others with Junnar and by R. G. Bhandarkar with Dharur in Nizam's territory), ten days' east of Paithān.

c77.4

¹ Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 603.

c77.5

² Ibid., Vol. I, p. 531.

c77.6

¹ III, 70 and 300.

c77.7

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1919, p. 80.

c77.8

³ Cf. Woolner, *Aśoka*, p. 113; *J.R.A.S.*, 1923, 92.

c77.9

No people of the name Go-Lāṅgulas are known. The *Matsya-purāṇa* reads Cōḷas and Kulyas (CXIII, 46) and the *Vāyu* Caulyas and Kulyas instead (XLV, 124). The Cōḷas (Caulyas) were a well-known people and were famous from very early times, being one of the four tribes of the far south. The Kulyas are not met with anywhere; but undoubtedly they are the same people as the Kolas mentioned more than once in the *Mahābhārata*.⁴ But the people cannot satisfactorily be identified.

c77.10

⁴ *Sabhāparvan*, XXX, 1171; *Aśvamedhaparvan*, LXXXIII, 2476-7.

c77.11

The *Vāyu* (XLV, 125) and the *Matsya* (CXIII, 47) *Purāṇas* read Setūkas instead; but none of the names can be identified. Pargiter's suggestion that they might mean the people who lived near the Setu of Rāma is ingenious and may not altogether be improbable, for they are mentioned in connection with the people of the far south.

c77.12

The Kusumas are also known as Kunanas⁵ and Kupathas.⁶ Pargiter suggests an identification with the Kurubas or Kurumbas, who were the same as the Pahlavas, an important tribe of Southern India.

c77.13

⁵ *Vāyupurāṇa*, XLV, 125.

c77.14

⁶ *Matsyapurāṇa*, CXIII, 47.

c77.15

The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads (XLV, 125) Vanavāsikas and the *Bhīṣmaparvan* list Vanavāsakās (IX, 366) which is the correct reading. Doubtless they refer to the people of the kingdom of Vanavāsī, a well-known region of the south in North Kanara in historical times, and not unknown to the author of the *Harivaṃśa* (XCV, 5213 and 5231-3). The *Matsyapurāṇa* reads Vāji-Vāsikas (CXIII, 47) which is apparently incorrect. It is ancient Vaijayantipura, also known as Jayantipura, capital of the Kadambas and the Vejayantī of epigraphic records. It is held to be the same as the Buzantion of the *Periplus*.

c77.16

The *Vāyu* and *Matsya Purāṇas* (XLV, 126 and CXIII, 48) read Ātavyas which is no doubt the correct reading. Āṭavī as a city of the Deccan is mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*.¹ The Ātavyas were certainly the same as the Āṭavikas of the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta, who were perhaps aboriginal tribes dwelling in the jungle tracts of Central India.

c77.17

¹ Sabhāparvan, XXX, 1176.

c77.18

The Daṇḍakas are undoubtedly the people dwelling in the Daṇḍaka forest celebrated in the *Rāmāyaṇa* in connection with the story of Rāma’s exile. According to the description in the *Rāmāyaṇa*, the forest seems to have covered almost the whole of Central India from the Bundelkhand region to the Godāvarī,² but the *Mahābhārata* seems to limit the Daṇḍaka forest to the source of the Godāvarī.³

c77.19

² J.R.A.S., 1894, p. 241; cf. Jātaka, Fausböll, Vol. V, p. 29.

c77.20

³ Sabhāparvan, XXX, 1169; Vanaparvan, LXXXV, 8183-4.

c77.21

For Paurikas the *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Paunikas instead (XLV, 127) perhaps wrongly. According to the *Harivaṃśa*, Purikā was a city in the Māhiṣmatī kingdom (XCV, 5220-28). It is not improbable that Purikā was the city of the Paurikas.

c77.22

These two names are evidently misreadings and it is difficult to find out what is the correct form. The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads *atha pārśve talaṅgāśca* while the *Matsya* gives *Atharvāśca Kaliṅgāśca*. All these readings are improbable. Tilaṅgas are well known as a southern people who are mentioned in connection with the southern peoples in the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* (Chap. 58, verse 28). They are identical with the Trikaliṅgas. Avantas and Kaliṅgas though otherwise well known are nowhere located in the Madhyadeśa. The *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* speaks of the Avantas as a Vindhyan tribe (Chap. 57, verses 52 and 55). In the same Purāṇa, the Kaliṅgas are once spoken of as a northern tribe (*ibid.*, verse 37) and then again as a southern tribe (*ibid.*, v. 46). The reference to the Kaliṅgas as a northern tribe is undoubtedly wrong.

c77.23

The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Maunikas (XLV, 127) instead. The *Sabhāparvan* of the *Mahābhārata* refers to a people named Mauleyas. The Maulikas were evidently the people of Mūlaka mentioned in the *Pārāyaṇavagga* of the *Sutta-nipāta*.

c77.24

The *Mahābhārata*¹ and the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* mention a people called the Mūṣikas as dwelling in the south; the same people evidently were also called Mūṣakas who are mentioned twice in the *Mahābhārata*.² The *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* in another context refers to a people called Mṛṣikas³ as dwelling in the south-east and still another called Ṛṣikas⁴ in the south. The Mṛṣikas were apparently the same as the Mūṣikas or the Musakas. The Ṛṣikas were also a well-known people; they are referred to as dwelling in the north in the *Mahābhārata*,⁵ in the *Rāmāyaṇa*⁶ as well as in the *Matsyapurāṇa*.⁷ Another section of the same people seems to have their location in the south.⁸ It is difficult to say whether the Ṛṣikas were the same as the Mṛṣikas or the Mūṣikas = Mūṣakas.

c77.25

¹ Bhīṣmaparvan, IX, 366.

c77.26

² Ibid., IX, 366 and 371.

c77.27

³ LVIII, 16.

c77.28

⁴ LVIII, 27.

c77.29

⁵ Sabhāparvan, XXVI, 1033–6.

c77.30

⁶ Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa, XLIV, 13.

c77.31

⁷ CXX, 53.

c77.32

⁸ Rāmāyaṇa, Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa, XLI, 16; Harivaṃśa, CXIX, 6724–6.

c77.33

Pargiter suggests⁹ that the Mūṣikas = Mūṣakas were probably settled on the banks of the river Musi on which stands modern Hyderabad. Dr. Ray Chaudhuri suggests¹⁰ that it is not altogether improbable that the Mūchipa or Mūvipa of the *Sāṅkhyāyana Śrauta Sūtra* are the same people as the Mūṣikas. It is also reasonable to suggest that the Mūṣikas = Mūṣakas were a southern offshoot of the Punjab tribe known to Alexander’s historians as the Mousikenos.¹¹ Patañjali mentions a people called Mauṣikāra¹² which appears to have some connection with the Mūṣikas. A Musikanagara is referred to in the Hāthigumphā Inscription of King Khāravela of Kaliṅga who in the second year of his reign is said to have struck terror into the heart of the people of that place.¹³

c77.34

⁹ Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, p. 366.

c77.35

¹⁰ P.H.A.I., 4th Ed., p. 80.

c77.36

¹¹ Cf. Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 377.

c77.37

¹² IV, i, 4.

c77.38

¹³ Epigraphia Indica, XX, 79, 87; Barua reads Aśvaka or Risika instead in his Old Brāhmī Inscriptions, p. 176; Thomas also finds no reference in the passage to any Musika city, J.R.A.S., 1922, 83.

c77.39

The Culikas and the Śūlikas are mentioned in *Mārkaṇḍeya* list¹⁴ as two different peoples, but both in the north. For Culikas, the *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Pīḍikas¹⁵ and the *Matsyapurāṇa* Sainikas instead.¹⁶ The *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* in another context¹⁷ places the Culikas in the Tortoise’s tail at the westernmost part of India. For Śūlikas, the *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Culikas in the same context, and the *Matsyapurāṇa* says that they were a people through whose country flowed the river Cakṣu, one of the three large rivers which rising from the mid-Himalayan region flows westward.¹ Pargiter suggests that Cakṣu may perhaps be meant for Vakṣu (= Vamkṣu) which is the Oxus, and says that in that case the Śūlikas would be a people on the Oxus in Turkistan.² He also points to the resemblance of the name Śūlikas with that of the Śūlakaras mentioned in the same canto of the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa.³

c77.40

¹⁴ LVII, 40, 41.

c77.41

¹⁵ XLV, 119.

c77.42

¹⁶ CXIII, 43.

c77.43

¹⁷ LVIII, 37.

c77.44

¹ CXX, 45, 46.

c77.45

² Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, p. 342, note.

c77.46

³ LVII, 40.

c77.47

But the Śūlikas are mentioned in the Harāhā Inscription of Īśānavarman Maukhari in a different context; there they are mentioned along with the Andhras and Gauḍas, all of whom appear to have been defeated by Īśānavarman. Dr. Ray Chaudhuri⁴ suggests that the Śūlikas should be identified with the Cālukyas who are mentioned in the Mahākūṭa Pillar Inscription as Calikya, names so near to Culika of the Purāṇas. The Śūlikas may further be identified with the Solaki and Solaṅki of the Gujrat records. The Culikas and Śūlikas may thus be the same people.

c77.48

⁴ P.H.A.I., 4th Ed., 509.

c77.49

The Śūlikas or the Śaulikas are further mentioned in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā⁵ along with the Aparāntas, Vanavāsīs and the Vidarbhas. Elsewhere the Bṛhatsaṃhitā connects the same people⁶ with the Gandhāras and Vokkāras (occupying modern Wakhan). This suggests that a section of the people must have once been dwelling in the north or north-west, and another in the western or Aparānta region. The kingdom of Śulik according to Tārānātha was located beyond Togara = Tegara = modern Ter⁷ in the Deccan.

c77.50

⁵ IX, 15; XIV, 8.

c77.51

⁶ IX, 21; XVI, 35.

c77.52

⁷ Ind. Ant., IV, 364.

c77.53

The Kaṅkanas as a tribe are referred to in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa⁸ and the Harivaṃśa.⁹ According to the latter source, they were defeated and degraded by King Sagara. They must have been the people dwelling along the low strip of land between the Western Ghats and the sea called in historical times Kaṅkan or Koṅkan. Their mention along with the Bhṛgukacchas in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa makes this identification more significant.

c77.54

⁸ VIII, 22.

c77.55

⁹ XIV, 784.

c77.56

The Tosalas are referred to in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa along with the Karūṣas, Keralas, Utkalas, Daśārṇas, Kośalas, Avantis, etc., all of whom dwelt on the slopes of Vindhya mountains. The Matsyapurāṇa reads Stosalas (CXIII, 53) erroneously, for Tosalas is the correct reading meaning the people of Tosali or Tosala and the adjoining region. Tosali or Tosala was the name of a country as well as a city. The city of Tosali was the seat of the provincial government of Kaliṅga in the days of Aśoka. The country or janapada of ‘Amita-Tosala’ is referred to in the *Gaṇḍavyūha* along with its city Tosala.¹ In Pauranic literature, Tosala is always associated with Dakṣiṇa Kośala and distinguished from Kaliṅga. Tosala in medieval times seems to have been divided into two parts: Dakṣiṇa Tosala and Uttara Tosala.² The city of Tosala seems to have been the same as Tosalei of Ptolemy.

c77.57

¹ Cf. Levi, *Pre-Aryan et Pre-Dravidian L'Inde*, J.A., July-Sept., 1923.

c77.58

² *Ep. Ind.*, IX, 286; XV, 3.

c77.59

The Vaidiśas are undoubtedly the people of Vidiśā, a famous city of early times, the capital of the Daśārṇa country, immortalised by Kālidāsa in his *Meghadūtam*. Vidiśā is probably the modern Besnagar, close to Bhilsa. It was situated on the river Vetravatī, modern Betwa.

c77.60

The name Tuṣṭikāras seems to be a misreading. The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Tuṇḍikeras (XLV, 134) which is supported by the *Mahābhārata*³ and the *Harivaṃśa* (XXXIV, 1895). According to the *Harivaṃśa* they belonged to the Haihaya race (*ibid.*). The tribe seems to have left their trace in the little town of Tendukhera, a little to the north of the source of the Narmadā.⁴ Sauṇḍikeras, which is the reading of the *Matsyapurāṇa*, is incorrect.

c77.61

³ *Droṇaparvan*, XVII, 691; *Karṇaparvan*, V, 138.

c77.62

⁴ Pargiter, *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, p. 344, note.

c77.63

The Māhiṣakas or Māhiṣikas are referred to in the Purāṇas⁵ as a people of the south. They are mentioned in the same context in the *Sabhāparvan* list⁶ of the *Mahābhārata*. Undoubtedly they are the same people as the Māhismakas of the *Aśvamedhaparvan*⁷ of the *Mahābhārata*, and were the inhabitants of the ancient region Māhiṣmatī mentioned also in the *Mahābhārata*.⁸ Māhiṣmatī seems to have been situated on the river Narmadā between the Vindhya and the Rikṣa and can safely be identified with the modern Mandhātā region, where there was a river called Māhiṣiki mentioned in the *Rāmāyaṇa*.⁹ According to one passage in the *Harivaṃśa*,¹⁰ the founder of Māhiṣmatī seems to have been Mucukunda, according to another¹¹ Māhiṣmat. According to the Purāṇas,¹² Māhiṣmatī was founded by a prince of the Yadu lineage. Bhandarkar says that Avanti Dakṣiṇāpatha had its capital at Māhiṣmatī or Pāli Māhissati. The Purāṇas style the first dynasty of Māhiṣmatī as Haihaya,¹³ whereas the *Mahāgovinda* Suttanta mentions Māhissati as the capital of the Avantis, and refers to their king Vessabhu. But the *Mahābhārata* distinguishes between Avanti and Māhiṣmatī.¹

c77.64

⁵ *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, LVII, 46; *Matsyapurāṇa*, CXIII, 47.

c77.65

⁶ IX, 366.

c77.66

⁷ LXXXIII, 2475.

c77.67

⁸ *Sabhāparvan*, XXX, 1125-63.

c77.68

⁹ *Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa*, XLI, 16.

c77.69

¹⁰ XCV, 5218ff.

c77.70

¹¹ XXXIII, 1846-7.

c77.71

¹² *Matsyapurāṇa*, XLIII, 10-29; XLIV, 36; *Vāyupurāṇa*, 94, 26; 95, 35.

c77.72

¹³ *Ibid.*, 43, 8-29; *Vāyu*, 94, 5-26.

c77.73

¹ *Mahābhārata*, II, 31, 10.

c77.74

Kikaṭas The Kikaṭas or Kikaṭa tribe are mentioned in the *Ṛgveda* (III, 53, 14) as being under the rule of a king named Pramaganda. Yāska in his *Nirukta* (VI, 32) says that Kikaṭa was a non-Aryan country (*anārya-nivāsa*). The author of the *Bṛhaddharma Purāṇa* echoes this feeling of Yāska when he says that the Kikaṭa country was *pāpa-bhūmi* or impure country (*Kikaṭe ca mṛto’pyeṣa pāpabhūmau na saṃśayaḥ*, XXVI, 47). The Gayā District was probably included in the Kikaṭa country as is evident from the following passage of the *Bṛhaddharma Purāṇa* (XXV, 20, 22):

c77.75

‘Kikaṭe nāma deśe’ sti Kāka-karṇākhyo nṛpaḥ |
Prajānāṃ hitakṛnnityam Brahmadveṣakaras tathā ||
Tatra deśe Gayā nāma puṇyadeśo’sti viśrutaḥ |
Nadī ca Karṇadā nāma pitṛṇāṃ svargadāyinī || ’

c77.76

Similar statements are also found in the *Vāyu* and the *Bhāgavata Purāṇas* as well as in the commentary of Śrīdhara. E.g.: ‘Kikaṭeṣu Gayā puṇyā puṇyam Rājagṛham vanam | Cyāvanasyāśramam puṇyam nadī puṇyā punaḥpunaḥ’ (*Vāyu*, 108, 73). ‘Buddho nāmnāñ-janasutaḥ Kikaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati’ (*Bhāgavata*, I, 3, 24). ‘Kikaṭeṣu madhye Gayāpradeśe’ (Śrīdhara). Kikaṭa thus was an impure country but later Brahmanical sources seem to have regarded some of its localities at least as holy, e.g. Gayā, Rājagṛha and the hermitage of the sage Cyavana. Later authorities seem to hold the Kikaṭa country identical with Magadha. Thus in Hemacandra’s *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi* we find: ‘Kikaṭa-Magadhāhvayāḥ’. According to Prof. A. B. Keith² if the Kikaṭas of the *Ṛgveda* were, as has been suggested, really located in Magadha, the dislike of the country goes back to the *Ṛgveda* itself. The causes most probably have been the imperfect Brāhmanisation of the land and the predominance of aboriginal blood, which later in history rendered Magadha the headquarters of Buddhism.

c77.77

² *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, p. 123.

c77.78

Pravaṅgas The Pravaṅgas probably stand for those people who dwelt just in front of the Vaṅgas (Pravaṅga). It is not unlikely that they may be the same people as the Aṅgas.

c77.79

Raṅgeyas This is evidently a copyist’s mistake for Vaṅgeyas which is the reading of the *Vāyupurāṇa* (XLV, 122). The *Matsyapurāṇa* simply reads Vaṅgas. They are undoubtedly the people of ancient Vaṅga or Bengal.

c77.80

The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Māladas (XLV, 122). Pargiter assumes that here we have a reference to the people of modern Maldah in which are situated the old cities of Gauḍ and Pāṇḍuyā. The Māladas are also mentioned as an eastern people in the *Mahābhārata*.¹

c77.81

¹ *Sabhāparvan*, XXIX, 1081-2; *Droṇaparvan*, VII, 183.

c77.82

The Ugras seem to have been a very old and once a well-known tribe. They are mentioned in the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad* (III, 8, 2) and also in the *Uvāsagadasāo*.² According to the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, the Uggas or Ugras are associated with Vesālī or Vaiśālī.³ They are also connected with Hatthigāma according to the same Nikāya. The *Dhammapada Commentary* refers to a city called Ugga or Ugra. A passage in the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga* seems to suggest that the Ugras along with the Aikṣvākas, Bhogas and Kauravas were associated with the Jñātṛs and Licchavis as subjects of the Vajji rulers and members of the Vajji clan.⁴

c77.83

² Hoernle’s Ed., II, p. 139, art. 210.

c77.84

³ Cf. *Uggo gahapati Vesāliko*; *Aṅguttara Nikāya*, I, 26.

c77.85

⁴ S.B.E., XLV, 339.

c77.86

The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Taṅganas (XLV, 120) and more than once in the *Mahābhārata*⁵ we find reference to Taṅganas and Para-taṅganas. The Epic description shows that they were allied with the Kirātas and Pulindas.⁶ From the description given in the *Mahābhārata* it appears that they were a rude tribe, for their main fighting weapon was stone.⁷

c77.87

⁵ *Sabhāparvan*, LI, 1859; *Bhīṣmaparvan*, IX, 372.

c77.88

⁶ *Vanaparvan*, CXL, 10863-5; *Sabhāparvan*, LI, 1858-9.

c77.89

⁷ *Droṇaparvan*, CXXI, 4835-47.

c77.90

The name Mudakaras is found in the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*.⁸ The *Vāyupurāṇa* gives Sujarakas and the *Matsya* Madgurakas. None of these names is identifiable. One may, nevertheless, guess that here is a name which is a corrupt rendering of Mudgagiri or Modagiri, mentioned in literature and inscriptions, which is generally identified with the hills of Monghyr in Bihar. Monghyr was also known as Mudgala-puri, Mudgalāśrama and so on. The Mudgalas or the people of Monghyr are also referred to in the *Mahābhārata*.⁹

c77.91

⁸ *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, 57, 42.

c77.92

⁹ *Droṇaparvan*, XI, 397.

c77.93

The Antargiryas must be those people dwelling in the hilly stretch of the Rajmahal ranges of the Santhal Parganas. They are mentioned in the *Bhīṣmaparvan* list of the *Mahābhārata*.

c77.94

The Bahirgiras may also be said to have been associated with the hilly tracts of Bihar and from their mention along with the Antargiryas it seems that the people meant were dwellers on the outskirts of the hills of Bhagalpur and Monghyr regions.

c77.95

**Anūpas** The Anūpas are mentioned as a tribe in the *Vāyupurāṇa* (XIV, 134); the *Matsyapurāṇa* reads Anipa (CXIII, 54) while the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* (LVII, 55) reads Annajas. Anūpa literally means any marshy tract or country lying not very far from the seas. In this sense the word ‘*sāgarānūpa*’ is used in several places in the *Mahābhārata*. Thus we find tracts known as Anūpa in Bengal¹ in the far south² on the western coast³ in or near about Kathiawar.⁴ From the *Harivaṃśa* we learn that the country of the Anūpa tribe lay near Surāṣṭra and Ānartta. The *Harivaṃśa* further informs us that it was to the south of Surāṣṭra (XCIV, 5142-80). In the *Mahābhārata* king Kārtavīrya and Nala are styled ‘lords of Anūpa’.⁵ It seems likely, therefore, that the Anūpas occupied the tract of country south of Surāṣṭra, around Māhiṣmatī on the Narmadā. Epigraphic evidence also lends support to such a view. The Nāsik Cave Inscription of Queen Gautamī Balaśrī records that her son conquered Anūpa along with other countries, namely, Mahārāṣṭra, Mūlaka (country round Paiṭhān), Suratha (Surāṣṭra or Kathiawar), Kukura (country near the Pāriyātra or the Western Vindhyas), Aparānta (northern Konkan), Vidarbha (Berar) and Ākarāvanti (eastern and western Malwa). Most of these tracts seem to have been reconquered from Gautamīputra by Śaka Mahākṣatrapa Rudradāman whose Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription states that his sway extended over Pūrv-āpar-ākar-āvanti (east and west Malwa), Anūpanivrit or the Māhiṣmatī (Māndhātā ?) region, Ānartta (tract round Dvārkā according to some; district round Vaḍanagara according to others),⁶ Surāṣṭra (district round Junāgaḍh), Svabhra (the country on the banks of the Sābarmatī), Maru (Marwar), Kaccha (Cutch), Sindhu-Sauvīra (the lower Indus valley), Kukura (part of Central India, probably near the Pāriyātra Mt. according to the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, XIV, 4), Aparānta (north Konkan), and Niṣāda (in the region of the Sarasvatī and the western Vindhyas).⁷

c77.96

¹ *Sabhāparvan*, XXV, 1002; XXIX, 1101; XXXIII, 1268-9.

c77.97

² *Udyogaparvan*, XVIII, 578.

c77.98

³ *Ibid.*, III, 81.

c77.99

⁴ *Harivaṃśa*, CXIII, 6361-9; CXIV, 6410-11.

c77.100

⁵ *Bhīṣmaparvan*, XCV, 4210.

c77.101

⁶ Cf. Bomb. Gaz., I, i, 6.

c77.102

⁷ Cf. Niṣādārāṣṭra, Mbh., III, 130-4 and Pāriyātracaraḥ, Mbh., XII, 135, 3-5.

c77.103

**Kukuras** The Kukuras as a tribe find mention in the *Bhāgavatapurāṇa*. They seem to have occupied the Dvārakā region which is described as: ‘*Kukur-Andhaka-Vṛṣṇibhiḥ Juptāḥ*’. The *Vāyupurāṇa* also seems to refer to the tribe when it represents Ugrasena, the king of the Yādavas as ‘Kukurodbhava’ or ‘originated from Kukura’. The *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* seems to locate the tribe in western or central India (XIV, 4). According to the Nāsik Cave Inscription of Queen Gautamī Balaśrī, her son conquered the Kukuras, Suraṭhas, Mūlakas, Aparāntas, Anūpas, Vidarbhas and others. From the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of Mahākṣatrapa Rudradāman we learn that most of these peoples along with the Kukuras were again conquered by him. These provinces were in all probability wrested from the hands of the contemporary Sātavāhana ruler of Deccan. According to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, the Śātakarṇi lord of Dakṣiṇāpatha from whom Rudradāman conquered these provinces was Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi.¹ According to Rapson the Sātavāhana ruler of Deccan, whom Rudradāman defeated, was Puḷumāyi.

c77.104

¹ *Early History of the Dekkan*, 23.

c77.105

The name Suryārakas is a misreading for Sūrpārakas. The Sūrpāraka country was known from very early times, and is celebrated in the *Mahābhārata* in connection with the legend of Rāma Jāmadagnya.² There it is located in the western region, but some passages seem to locate it in the south as well.³ This does not mean that there were two Sūrpārakas. The reason for this anomaly seems to be clear, for the country was near the southern sea in the western region. According to the same Epic,⁴ it was situated on the sea near Prabhāsa, that is, modern Somnath in Kathiawar. The city of Sūrpāraka, identical with the modern town of Sopārā near Bassein, is said to have been founded by Rāma Jāmadagnya.⁵

c77.106

² *Vanaparvan*, LXXXV, 8185.

c77.107

³ *Sabhāparvan*, XXX, 1169; *Vanaparvan*, I, XXXVIII, 8337.

c77.108

⁴ *Vanaparvan*, CXVIII, 10221-27.

c77.109

⁵ *Harivaṃśa*, XCVI, 5300.

c77.110

In the *Mahābhārata*⁶ we find reference to the Vṛkas. The *Matsyapurāṇa* reads Andhakas instead. The Andhakas are intimately associated with the Yādavas and are often referred to in the *Mahābhārata*⁷ but they are known to have been located in Western India or Aparānta. A more correct or better reading seems to be Vṛṣṇikas.

c77.111

⁶ *Bhīṣmaparvan*, LI, 2106.

c77.112

⁷ *Udyogaparvan*, LXXXV, 304; *Harivaṃśa*, XXXV, 1907-8; *Ibid.*, XXXIX, 2041.

c77.113

The variant readings are Hārapūrikas⁸ and Hāramurtikas.⁹ None of these names is identifiable. Pargiter suggests Hāra-hūṇakas who are mentioned in the *Mahābhārata* as a people outside India on the west.¹⁰

c77.114

⁸ *Vāyu*, XLV, 116.

c77.115

⁹ *Matsya*, CXIII, 41.

c77.116

¹⁰ *Sabhāparvan*, XXXI, 1194; L, 1844; *Vanaparvan*, LI, 1991.

c77.117

This reading is evidently wrong. The *Matsyapurāṇa* (CXIII, 43) reads Rāmathas instead. The *Mahābhārata* makes mention of them and locates them in the west.¹ The name of the people is also given as Ramaṭas or Ramathas in the *Vāyupurāṇa* (XLV, 117) and also in the *Mahābhārata*. There is, however, no clue to their identification.

c77.118

¹ Sabhāparvan, XXXI, 1195; Vanaparvan, LI, 1991; Śāntiparvan, LXV, 2430.

c77.119

The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Juguḍas, the *Matsya* Jāngalas. In another place the *Matsya-purāṇa* mentions the Jaguḍas as a people through whose country the Indus flows (CXX, 46-48).² But this indication is too vague to admit of any definite identification. The *Mahābhārata*³ also mentions the Jāguḍas.

c77.120

² Cf. Pargiter, *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, p. 322, note.

c77.121

³ Vanaparvan, LI, 1991.

c77.122

Pargiter suggests the reading Suhmotkalas⁴ which is neither intended nor necessary, for evidently a better suggestion is that of the *Matsya* which reads Suhmottaras meaning the people who dwelt north of the Suhma country.

c77.123

⁴ *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, p. 327, note.

c77.124

In the Kūrmaniveśa section⁵ of the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* the Bhṛgukacchas are located in the south. Evidently this is the correct Sanskrit form of the name which we find in a corrupt form, Bhiru-kacchas, in another section of the same *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*,⁶ whereas the *Matsyapurāṇa* reads Bharukacchas (CXIII, 50), who are the same people, namely, the Bhṛgukacchas of Sanskrit literature. Bhṛgukaccha, Bharukaccha, Bhirukaccha are all identical with the modern Broach or Bharuch which is the Barygaza of early Greek geographers. All these names survive in the modern Broach, on the mouth of the Narmadā. In early Buddhist literature as well as in the early centuries of the Christian era, the town was reputed to be an important seat of sea-going trade and commerce.

c77.125

⁵ LVIII, 22.

c77.126

⁶ LVII, 51.

c77.127

Along with the Bhṛgukacchas, the *Vāyu* (XLV, 131) and the *Matsya Purāṇas* (CXIII, 51) mention a people called the Kacchikas. These were undoubtedly the people of what is now known as Kutch or Cutch.

c77.128

The Māheyas must have been the people dwelling on the banks of the Māhi. They are the same as the Māhikas of the *Bhīṣmaparvan* list of the *Mahābhārata* (IX, 354).

c77.129

The *Vāyu* (XLV, 132) and *Matsya Purāṇas* (CXIII, 52) read Bhojas which is undoubtedly a more probable reading. The Bhojas were a Yādava tribe who dwelt in north-eastern Gujrat.

c77.130

The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Aparitas and *Matsya* Purandharas instead; both are evidently erroneous. The *Bhīṣmaparvan* list of the *Mahābhārata* agrees with that of the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa. Mention is often made of this tribe in the Mahābhārata as Aparānta or Aparāntas.¹ Generally the term is applied to all the tribes living in the western region of India. But the Mārkaṇḍeya and Bhīṣmaparvan list must also be taken to signify a particular tribe. According to the astronomical list of the Mārkaṇḍeya (Chap. 58) the tribe seems to have been located north of the Sindhu-Sauvīra country. The word Aparānta in the narrowest sense or connotation of the term, that is, the kingdom of Aparānta is identified with northern Konkan with its capital at Śūrpāraka (modern Sopara). It lay to the west of Mahārāṣṭra. It is mentioned in the inscriptions of Aśoka where we find that his empire included all the Aparāntas (Śūrpāraka, Nāsik, etc., according to the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa (57, 49-52)). The author of the Periplus mentions King Mambarus (identified by some with Nahapāna) whose capital was Minnagara in Ariake. According to D. R. Bhandarkar Minnagara is Mandasor and Ariake is Aparāntika. Uśavadāta’s inscriptions show that Nahapāna’s political influence extended from Poona and Śūrpāraka (N. Konkan) to Mandasor and Puṣkara (Ajmīr). From the Nāsik record of Queen Gautamī Balaśrī we learn that her son extended his sway over Aparānta as well as over other western countries. Later on Aparānta was reconquered by the Śaka Satrap Rudradāman of Western India, as we find from his Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of the year 72, that is, 150 A.D.

c77.131

¹ Bhīṣmaparvan, IX, 355; Vanaparvan, CCXVII, 7885-6; Śāntiparvan, XLIX, 1780-82.

c77.132

The Purāṇas style the first dynasty of Māhiṣmatī as Haihaya.²

c77.133

² Matsya, 43, 8-29; Vāyu, 94, 5-26.

c77.134

Haihayas This family is referred to in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (p. 11). The Haihayas are said to have overthrown the Nāgas whose habitat was probably somewhere in the Narmadā region (cf. Nagpur). Five branches of the Haihayas are mentioned in the Matsyapurāṇa, namely, Vītihotras, Bhojas, Avantis, Kuṇḍikeras or Tuṇḍikeras and the Tālajaṅghas (43, 48-9). In the fourth century B.C. Avanti formed an integral part of the Magadhan empire. Thus Mahāpadma Nanda, the first Nanda king, is described in the Vāyu, Matsya and Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas as ‘ekarāṭ’, or sole and undisputed monarch of the earth and ‘sarva Kṣatrāntaka’, that is, the destroyer of all kṣatriya families who ruled over the different parts of India along with the Saiśunāgas, viz. the Ikṣvākus, Kurus, Pañcālas, Kāśīs, Maithilas, Vītihotras, Haihayas, Kaliṅgas, Aśmakas, Sūrasenas and so on.³ It appears, therefore, that the Haihayas were one of the ruling Kṣatriya dynasties of ancient India. In the Mahābhārata (XIII, 30) Pratardana, king of Kāśī, is said to have crushed the power of Vitahavyas or Haihayas. According to E. J. Rapson,¹ the Haihayas, Aśmakas and Vītihotras, like the Sūrasenas, belonged to the great family of the descendants of Yadu who occupied the countries of the river Chambal in the north and the river Narbadā in the south, though it is difficult to identify with precision the kingdoms indicated by these different names. Haihaya is often used as a synonym of Yādava to denote the whole group of peoples and the Vītihotras are said to be a branch of the Haihayas. The Vītihotras and the Aśmakas are closely associated in literature with the Avantis of Western Mālwā, whose capital was Ujjain (Ujjayinī) on the river Siprā, a tributary of the Chambal (Charmanvatī). In the Puranic list of ruling dynasties the rulers of Ujjain are not mentioned. The obvious explanation for this, as Rapson points out, is that they are probably styled Haihayas in the Purāṇas.²

c77.135

³ Ray Chaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, 4th Ed., p. 141.

c77.136

¹ Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 316.

c77.137

² Ibid., p. 316.

c77.138

Bhogavardhanas The tribe cannot satisfactorily be identified. Bhogavadham occurs in the Barhut Inscriptions.³

c77.139

³ Vide Barua and Sinha, Barhut Inscriptions, p. 15.

c77.140

Sarajas The Vāyu and Matsya Purāṇas read Mālavas⁴ which is no doubt the correct reading. The Mālavas had settlements in different parts of India. The tribe referred to here may probably mean that branch of the Mālavas which settled in and around that portion of Malwa which borders on the Vindhyas.

c77.141

⁴ XLV, 132 and CXIII, 52, respectively.

c77.142

Virahotras The Vāyu and Matsya Purāṇas read Vītihotras,⁵ which seems to be the correct reading. They were descended from king Vītihotra and were a branch of the Haihaya race.⁶ A variant of their name is given in the Droṇaparvan of the Mahābhārata.⁷ The name Vīrahotra or Varahotra is met with in the Sāñci Inscriptions of the second century B.C.

c77.143

⁵ XLV, 134; CXIII, 54.

c77.144

⁶ Harivaṁśa, XXXIV, 1895.

c77.145

⁷ LXX, 2436.

c77.146

Vindhya-Mauleyas The Matsyapurāṇa erroneously reads Vindhya-puṣikas (CXIII, 48), but the Vāyu reads Vindhyamūlikas (XLV, 126). No particular people of the name are known, but the name may mean the ‘people who live at the foot of the Vindhyas’.

c77.147

Jāṅgalas Pargiter rightly suggests that the Jāṅgalas are the same as the people of Kurujāṅgalas. Kuru-jāṅgala, that is, the waste land of the Kurus, was the eastern part of their territory and appears to have comprised the tract between the Ganges and North Pañcāla.⁸ The Jāṅgalas are mentioned with the Kurus and contiguous tribes. So Pargiter’s assumption seems to be correct, for we do not hear of any other people of this name mentioned in ancient literature or inscription.

c77.148

⁸ Rāmāyaṇa, Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa, LXXII; Mahābhārata, Sabhāparvan, XIX, pp. 793-4.

c77.149

**Bhadrakaras** It is very difficult to locate the Bhadrakaras or determine their identity. They are no doubt the same people as the Bhadrakāras¹ and the Bhadras² of the *Mahābhārata*. It is not unlikely that their habitat was near about the Kurus, the Matsyas and the Śūrasenas. It is not improbable that the Uttamabhadras known in historical times as a republican tribe were a section of the Epic and Pauranic Bhadrakas or Bhadras.

c77.150

¹ *Sabhāparvan*, XIII, 590. ² *Vanaparvan*, CCLIII, 15256. ³ *Political History of Ancient India*, 4th Ed., p. 205. ⁴ *Cambridge History of India*, Vol. I, p. 331 f.n. ⁵ *Ibid.*, Vol. I, pp. 375-6. ⁶ II, 52, 15; VII, 68, 9. ⁷ *Rāmāyaṇa Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa*, XL, III, 23. ⁸ *Mbh.*, *Virāṭaparvan*, XXX, 971; *Bhīṣmaparvan*, LXXV, 3296; *Droṇaparvan*, XVII, 691.

c77.151

**Kshudrakas** The Sudracae or Oxydrakai of the Punjab are generally held to be the same as Kshudrakas. They were settled between the Hydraotes (Rāvi) and the Hyphasis (Beas) during the age of Alexander as we learn from classical historians. According to Ray Chaudhuri³ they were probably settled in the territory included within the present Montgomery District of the Punjab. They were one of the most numerous and warlike of all the Indian tribes in the Punjab. Arrian in one passage refers to the ‘leading men of their cities and their provincial governors’, besides other eminent men. Megasthenes,⁴ as quoted by Strabo, records that the Persians got mercenary troops from India, namely, the Hydrakes, i.e. the Oxydrakai or Kshudrakas in the Punjab. The Malloi (Mālavas) and the Oxydrakai formed a grand alliance against the army of Alexander whom they opposed tooth and nail at first but finding it an impossible task they are said to have tendered their submission to the Macedonian conqueror by sending a thousand of their troops as hostages. They are alleged to have said that love of independence alone prompted them to oppose the invader.⁵ In the *Mahābhārata*⁶ we find mention of the Kshudrakas.

c77.152

**Puṣkalas** The Puṣkalas probably were the people from whom the name Puṣkalāvatī or Puṣkarāvatī,⁷ the old capital of Gandhāra, derived its name. The *Vāyu* and *Matsya Purāṇas* read Prasthalas. The Prasthalas were evidently people of Prasthala,⁸ closely connected with Trigarta and therefore located probably in the Punjab. Puṣkarāvatī or Puṣkalāvatī (Prākrit Pukkalaoti, whence the Peukelaotis of Arrian) is represented by the modern Prang and Chārsadda, 17 miles north-east of Peshawar on the Swat river.¹

c77.153

¹ Schoff, *The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea*, pp. 183-4.

c77.154

Peukelaotis represents Sanskrit Puṣkarāvatī which is mentioned in the *Bodhisattvāvadāna Kalpalatā* (32nd, p. 40). Puṣkalāvatī formed the western part of the old kingdom of Gandhāra. It lay on the road from Kabul to the Indus when Alexander invaded India. Arrian tells us that the Kabul falls into the Indus in the land called Peukelaotis. The people of the surrounding region are referred to sometimes as the ‘Astakenoi’ by classical historians. The reigning king at the time of Alexander’s invasion was Astes (Hasti or Aṣṭaka?) who was defeated and killed by Hephaestion, a general of Alexander. During the days of Aśoka, Puṣkarāvatī was the capital of Trans-Vindhyan Gandhāra. At a later age Indo-Greek kings of the house of Eukratides ruled for some time over Takṣaśilā, Puṣkarāvatī, Kāpiśa and Bactria.² Bhandarkar³ draws our attention to an interesting coin on which the term *nagara-devatā* occurs, indicating that it is a civic coin bearing the image or the symbol of the tutelary or presiding deity of the city. On the obverse is a goddess with the Kharosthī legend [*Pa*]Khalavadi-devada, which has been taken to mean the tutelary divinity of Puṣkalāvatī. Puṣkalāvatī was a Hindu city and yet we find that the goddess on this coin wears Greek dress and a mural crown which is the emblem of a Greek civic deity. Bhandarkar holds that we cannot regard it as a Greek deity because a Hindu divinity may appear in a Greek or Hellenic garb on Indo-Bactrian coins.

c77.155

² *Political History of Ancient India*, 4th Ed., p. 352.

c77.156

³ *Carmichael Lectures*, 1921, p. 34.

c77.157

In *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*⁴ the Cīnas are mentioned. In the *Mahābhārata* we find them taking part in the Bhārata war as allies of the Kurus along with the king of Prāgjyotiṣa and the Kirātas of North-Eastern India. But the reference here is probably to those Chinese people who had settled somewhere from the north-west to the east along the Indian side of the Himalayas. Thus in one place in the *Mahābhārata*⁵ they are associated with the Kāmbojas which shows that they were settled in the north-west, while in another⁶ they are mentioned among the soldiers who followed Bhagadatta, king of Prāgjyotiṣa, i.e. roughly modern Assam. Other references in the *Mahābhārata*⁷ seem to indicate that they were settled not very far from the sources of the Ganges. They appear as a well-known and highly respectable people.¹ Their country was famous for a particular breed of horses.² The *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*³ mentions the Cīnas. A people called the Apara-Cīnas (Western Cīnas) is mentioned in the *Rāmāyaṇa*.⁴

c77.158

⁴ Chap. 57, 39.

c77.159

⁵ *Bhīṣmaparvan*, IX, p. 373.

c77.160

⁶ *Udyogaparvan*, XVIII, pp. 584-5.

c77.161

⁷ *Vanaparvan*, CLXXVII, 12350; *Śāntiparvan*, CCCXXVII, 12226-9.

c77.162

¹ *Udyogaparvan*, XVIII, pp. 584-5.

c77.163

² *Ibid.*, I, XXXV, 3049.

c77.164

³ Chap. 57, 39.

c77.165

⁴ *Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa*, XLIV, p. 15.

c77.166

The Pāli Buddhist literature refers to the kingdom of the Cīnas⁵ which is situated far from the Andhakas, Muṇḍakas, Kolakas, etc. and to the China garment.⁶ According to the *Milinda-Pañho*, Cīna was as old as Ujjenī, Bharukaccha, Kośala, Magadha, Sāketa, Suraṭṭha, etc.⁷ The same text further points out that a king of China who when he wanted to charm the great ocean performed an act of truth at an interval of four months and then he entered into the great ocean on his chariot drawn by lions (*sīharathena*). In front of his chariot the mighty waves rolled back and flowed once more over the spot as soon as he left it (p. 121). The *Mahāvastu*⁸ refers to the assembly of the Cīnas who were bound by its decision.

c77.167

⁵ *Cīnaṭṭhā*, *Apadāna*, II, p. 359.

c77.168

⁶ *Cīṇapaṭṭuṇṇā*, *Apadāna*, I, p. 2.

c77.169

⁷ Trenckner Ed., pp. 327-8, 331.

c77.170

⁸ Vol. I, p. 171.

c77.171

The Tukhāras are mentioned in the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* (LVII, 39) along with the Kāmbojas, Daradas, Barbaras and Cīnas, all of whom are described as ‘races of men outside’ (*vāhyato narāḥ*). The *Vāyupurāṇa* (XIV, 118) reads Tuṣāras instead, meaning of course the same people. They are mentioned in the *Mahābhārata* both as Tukhāras⁹ as well as Tuṣāras.¹⁰ The Tukhāras are also mentioned in the *Rāmāyaṇa*.¹¹ From the *Vanaparvan* of the *Mahābhārata* the Tukhāras seem to have been an outside northern race bordering on the Himalayas. The *Harivaṃśa* groups them along with the Śakas, Pahlavas, Daradas and others who are all branded as Mlecchas and Dasyus. Strabo (XI, 515) says: ‘The best known of the nomad tribes are those who drove the Greeks out of Bactria,—the Asii, the Pasiani, the Tochari, and the Sacarauli, who came from the country on the other side of the Jaxartes, over against the Sacae and Sogdiani, which country was also in occupation of the Sacae.’ Lassen identifies the Tukhāras with this Tochari tribe and locates them on the north of the Hindu Kush.¹² The geographer Ptolemy mentions the Tokeroi, who are doubtless identical with the Tukhāras as an important element of the Bactrian population. The *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea* seems to point to the same people when it speaks of ‘the warlike nations of the Bactrians’. The Tukhāras continued as a tribe till the ninth and tenth centuries of the Christian era when they seem to have played an important part in the history of Kashmir.

c77.172

⁹ *Sabhāparvan*, I, 1850.

c77.173

¹⁰ *Vanaparvan*, I, I, 1991; *Śāntiparvan*, LXV, 2429.

c77.174

¹¹ *Kiṣkindhyā Kāṇḍa*, XLIV, 15.

c77.175

¹² *Ind. Alt.* Map.

c77.176

Sārasvatas The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Sahasas and Sāśvatas instead (XLV, 130); but these names are not identifiable. The Sārasvatas are of course the people dwelling along the Sarasvatī, the river that flows into the sea past Prabhāsa, i.e. modern Somnath.¹

c77.177

¹ *Vanaparvan*, I,XXXII, 5002-4; *Śalyaparvan*, XXXVI, 2048-51.

c77.178

Aśvakūṭas The *Aśvakūṭas*, as it is given in the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* (p. 57, 32), is obviously a misreading, for the *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Kisaṣṇas, Kisaṣṭas or Kisadyas instead (XLV, 110), while the *Matsya* (CXIII, 35) reads Kirātas. We have, however, no other evidence to show that the Kirātas were in the Madhyadeśa. Epic and Pauranic tradition places them in the eastern region.

c77.179

Kulyas Particulars of the tribe called Kulyas are not known. It may be possible that they were the same people as the Kulutas, a republican community, who are mentioned in inscriptions of about the first century A.D. The Kulutas dwelt in the Punjab with such tribes as the Mālavas, Yaudheyas, Ārjunāyanas, Udumbaras, Kunindas and others.

c77.180

Malakas The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Magadhas and the *Matsya* reads Mūkas. Both are evidently misreadings, for the Magadhas are mentioned as an eastern people in the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa* (Chap. 57, verse 44). Pargiter² suggests that the reading should be Malajas. The Malajas are mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*³ and in the *Rāmāyaṇa*.⁴ The course of the journey taken by Viśvāmitra and Rāma, as described in the *Rāmāyaṇa*, seems to show that they were neighbours of the Kārūṣas and occupied the district of Shahabad, west of the Sone.⁵

c77.181

² *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, p. 309.

c77.182

³ *Bhīṣmaparvan*, IX, 357.

c77.183

⁴ *Ādi Kāṇḍa*, XXVII, 16-23.

c77.184

⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 8-16.

c77.185

Bodhas The Bodhas are mentioned in the *Mahābhārata*⁶ and perhaps also in the *Rāmāyaṇa*⁷ as Bodhis. These people were probably located somewhere in the eastern districts of the Punjab.

c77.186

⁶ *Sabhāparvan*, XIII, 590 and *Bhīṣmaparvan*, IX, 347.

c77.187

⁷ *Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa*, LXX, 15.

c77.188

The reading Bāhyas of the *Matsyapurāṇa* seems to be wrong, for this name is not found elsewhere unless we take them as identical with the Bāhīkas.

c77.189

Daśamālikas The *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Daśamānikas (XLV, 117) while the *Matsya* reads Daśanāmakas (CXIII, 42). The *Bhīṣmaparvan* list, however, agrees with the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa in giving the above reading. We cannot, however, identify or locate the people.

c77.190

The Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa gives a list of peoples (Vāhyatonarāḥ) who evidently dwelt on the borders of India. Among these mention is made of the Kāmbojas, Daradas, Barbaras, Harṣavardhanas, Cīnas and Tukhāras. Instead of Harṣavardhanas, the Vāyupurāṇa reads Priya-laukikas. But there is no clue whatsoever to the identification of these names.

c77.191

The Vāyupurāṇa reads Kaśerukas and Matsya Daserakas instead. But none of them can be identified satisfactorily. Daserakas are, however, mentioned in the Mahābhārata¹ as taking part in the Kurukṣetra war.

c77.192

¹ Bhīṣmaparvan, L, 2080; CXVIII, 5483; Droṇaparvan, XI, 397; XX, 798.

c77.193

The Haṃsamārgas are mentioned in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa as also in the Bhīṣmaparvan list of the Mahābhārata. According to the Matsyapurāṇa, the river Paosni flowed through the countries inhabited by Tamaras and Haṃsamārgas. The description of the Matsyapurāṇa seems to locate the two tribes in the region east of Tibet.

c77.194

The Vāyupurāṇa reads Ahukas or Āhūkas instead. They may be the same as the Kurus of the Matsyapurāṇa who are said to have dwelt on the Indus (CXX, 46-8).

c77.195

The name Śatapatha is unintelligible and obviously erroneous. Paṭaccara is indeed a better reading, for a people of this name is found in the Mahābhārata.²

c77.196

² Sabhāparvan, XIII, 590-91; XXX, 1108; Virāṭaparvan, I, 11-2.

c77.197

The Matsyapurāṇa reads Ātta-khaṇḍikas or Cātta-khaṇḍikas and the Bhīṣmaparvan list of the Mahābhārata (IX, 355) Carmamaṇḍalas instead. These names are not identifiable. Pargiter’s suggestion of its identification with Samarkand is interesting.

c77.198

For Gabalas, the Vāyu and Matsya Purāṇas read Yavanas, which undoubtedly is the correct reading (for details see Yonas or Yavanas).

c77.199

The Śatadrujas are the people who dwelt along the river Sutlej. The Vāyupurāṇa reads Śakas and Hradas (XLV, 116), the Matsya reads Śakas and Druhyas instead. The Śakas were a well-known people who left their traces on Indian history. They were at first a northern or north-western people but later on they extended their dominions to the south, east and west. They are known to have established royal families as far east as Mathurā (Muttra) and as far south and west as Ujjain and Surāṣṭra (Kathiawar). The Hradas cannot be identified. The Druhyas were undoubtedly an ancient people being mentioned as Druhyus in the *Rgveda* along with the Anus.

c77.200

**Urṇas** For the Urṇas, the *Vāyupurāṇa* reads Purāṇas. None of these names can, however, be identified with any amount of precision unless we find in the Urṇas a people inhabiting the Urṇadeśa which Lassen places on the Sutlej near Garhwal (*Ind. Alt. Map*).

c77.201

**Darvas** The *Mahābhārata* associates the Darvas with the Trigarttas, the Daradas and other northern tribes to the north of the Punjab.¹

First 200 of 218 passages. Read on

Linked texts (33)