Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India c14.17

c14.17

It should, however, be pointed out that Śrīhaṭṭa or Sylhet as the name of an important territory is not usually found in early records, while the district round Sylhet is mentioned in the Chittagong plate (about the ninth century A.D.) of king Kāntideva as the Harikela (sometimes called Harikeli or Harikelā) *maṇḍala* (province). Moreover, both Bang and Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt appear to have formed a part of the dominions of Lakṣmaṇasena while there is hardly any evidence in favour of the inclusion of Sylhet in the Sena kingdom. Viewed from this angle, the identification of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt with Sylhet does not appear to be entirely beyond doubt. On the other hand, there was another territory near Bang (Vaṅga), which was not only well-known in Indian literature between the fourth and the thirteenth century A.D. but also probably formed a part of Lakṣmaṇasena’s kingdom. Its name again may be regarded as the origin of Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt of the Perso-Arabic script with equal plausibility as Silhaṭ (Sylhet) if not with more justification. This is the country of Samaṭaṭa which was the name of the Tippera-Noakhali region of South-East Bengal as late as the thirteenth century when the *Tabaqāt-i-Nāsiri* was composed. It has to be remembered that Samaṭaṭa as a territory near Vaṅga was considerably more important than Śrīhaṭṭa or Sylhet. The intended reading for Minhājuddīn’s Saknāt-Sankāt-Sanknāt thus appears to have been Samṭaṭ or Sanṭaṭ.