Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c14.14

c14.14

In Volume II of the above work, K. R. Qanungo says, “The region to which Rāi Lakhmanīa fled from Nadīā is named in the *T.N.* as Bang wa *S-n-k-n-āt*. Bang means East Bengal and the second place-name is a copyist’s error for Sil-hāṭ, i.e. Sylhet. The invariable practice of Persian writers is to designate a district by joining together two well-known places in it, which might be even 50 miles apart; *e.g.* Sultanpur-Nandurbar, Vani-Dindori, Trimbak-Nasik, Dholpur-Bari, Kora-Jahanabad, Kara-Manikpur.”² Of all the identifications of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* proposed by scholars and discussed above, Qanungo’s suggestion appears to be the least objectionable, as Sylhet may be regarded as a district adjacent to Bang. But the statement that Bang and Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt have been mentioned jointly to indicate a district like Sultanpur-Nandurbar is clearly wrong. The passage ‘to the country of Saknāt-Sankāt- Sanknāt and to the cities of Bang and Kāmrup’ quoted above from Elliot’s and Dowson’s translation of the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāsiri* shows beyond doubt that Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt did not form an integral part of Bang. The other passage quoted from the same work, however, suggests that this territory lay adjacent to Bang, and the Sylhet District no doubt suits this position. As regards the possibility of scribal errors in the transliteration of Sil-haṭ (acutually Silhaṭ from Śrīhaṭṭa or Śrīhaṭa) as Saknāt, Sankāt or Sanknāt in the Perso-Arabic script, we may cite many other instances of the type.¹