On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v2.c26.s2: II. In India
On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v2.c26.s2
- Language
- English
II. In India
v2.c26.s2.1
From October 630 A. D. to July 644 A. D.
v2.c26.s2.2
Cunningham's approximate 'Chronology of Hwen Thsang's Travels' (Anc. Geogr. of India, App. A) errs in attempting an unattainable precision of detail. But the devious journeyings of the pilgrim in India may be arranged roughly in chronological order, although it is absurd to profess to indicate his exact position in each month of fourteen years. If we remember that Yuan-chwang, as a Buddhist monk, was bound to observe the 'rest' or 'retreat' during the rainy season, with a certain amount of latitude as to the exact time of the observance (Watters, I, 145), and if we note the longer halts as recorded, we obtain, as an approximately correct outline of his Indian travels in order of time, the following table:—
v2.c26.s2.3
| Rains, | 630 | A. D., | at Sha-lo-ka monastery in Kapisa, ('The Master kept the Rain-rest in this temple' Life, p. 56); |
| " | 631 | " | in Kasmir (stayed two years, Life, p. 72; say from |
| " | 632 | " | May 631 to April 633); |
| " | 633 | " | at Chinabhukti in Eastern Panjab (stayed fourteen months, Life, p. 76); |
| " | 634 | " | at Julandhara (four months' stay, Life, p. 77); |
| " | 635 | " | at Matipura in Bijnor District (stayed for half the spring and the summer following, Life, p. 81); |
| " | 636 | " | at Kanauj (stayed at the Bhadra-vihara for three months, Life, p. 84; and, after leaving, was attacked by the river pirates 'in the autumn'); |
| " | 637 | " | at Nalanda in Bihar (stayed for some time, Life p. 113; returned, ibid. p. 120; and then stayed for fifteen months, ibid. p. 121. Counting his subsequent visit at the end of 642 A. D., his total residence at Nalanda amounted to about two years, Life, p 154); |
| " | 638 | " | in Irina country (Mungir), where he stayed for a year 'Life, p. 127); |
| " | 639 | " | at either Amaravati or Bezvada on the Krishna, where he resided for several months (Life, p. 137); |
| " | 640 | " | at Kanchi probably, the most southern point attained, where he halted evidently for a considerable time, hoping to visit Ceylon, Life, p. 139); |
v2.c26.s2.4
Rains, 641 A. D., perhaps at the capital of Pulakēśin II (who was dethroned in 642), supposed by Dr. Fleet to have been Nāsik at that time; see *Life*, p. 146;
v2.c26.s2.5
” 642 ” in the Po-fa-to country, probably Jamū in south of modern Kaśmīr State, where he stopped for two months, according to Julien. Beal’s version ‘two years’ (*Life*, p. 152 and Watters, II, 256) is difficult of acceptance: Yuan-chwang was at Nālandā ‘in the beginning of the first month’, equivalent to the end of January, 643 (*Life*, p. 156).
v2.c26.s2.6
” 643 ” at Pi-lo-shan-na, probably Bilsar in the Ītā (Etah) District of the United Provinces, where he halted for two months (*Life*, p. 190). The early months of 643 were spent in attendance on king Harsha Śīlāditya; whom he quitted apparently in April; and he must have reached the Indus (*Life*, p. 191) about the beginning of 644;
v2.c26.s2.7
” 644 ” perhaps at Khotan, somewhat later than the normal time. Yuan-chwang spent seven or eight months at Khotan (*Life*, p. 210) awaiting his sovereign’s permission to return, and, as he reached Ch‘ang-an in the spring of 645 (April), he must have arrived at Khotan in September 644. Probably he had crossed the Hindū Kush early in July.
v2.c26.s2.8
This outline cannot be far wrong, and all the pilgrim’s various expeditions in different directions must be fitted into the intervals. There is no need to follow him now through his complicated wanderings, but a few notes are required to justify the entries in the map.
v2.c26.s2.9
Mr. Watters’ inveterate scepticism carried him too far when it induced him to treat as ‘doubtful’ (I, 223) the identification of Wu-to-ka-han-t‘u (or ch‘a), the U-to-kia-han-ch‘a of Beal, with Ohind (Waihand or Und) on the Indus. The proofs of the identity are conclusive (Stein, *Rajat. transl.*, Vol. II, p. 337).
v2.c26.s2.10
Nothwithstanding Mr. Watters’ sarcastic criticism that certain discrepancies in distances and bearings are ‘not insuperable difficulties to an enthusiastic Indian archaeologist’ (I, 249) desirous of identifying the Salt Range region with the pilgrim’s kingdom of Simhapura, I am convinced that Cunningham and Stein were right in making the identification. Simhapura is described as ‘a network of mountain defiles’ lying midway, as measured by the number of marches, between Jālandhara and Taxila (Beal, *Life*, p. 191); and this description can apply only to the Salt Range.
v2.c26.s2.11
The country named Wu-la-shih (Wu-la-cha) by Yuan-chwang is undoubtedly roughly equivalent to the Hazāra or Abbottābād District (= Uraśa), of which the northern portion lies to the north-west of the capital of Kaśmīr. The observations of Stein (*op. cit.*
v2.c26.s2.12
Vol. I, p. 215 n.) are sufficient to show that no adequate reason exists for the doubts hinted at by Mr. Watters (I, 257).
v2.c26.s2.13
Sākala (I, 290), which Mr. Rodgers believed to be represented by either Chiniōṭ or Shāhkōṭ in the Jhang District (E. Hist. India, p. 274 n.), is supposed by Dr. Fleet and Mr. H. A. Rose to be Siālkōṭ.
v2.c26.s2.14
The district of Chinabhukti or Chīnabhukti, the name of which used to be transcribed erroneously as Chinapati (I, 292), must have lain near Firōzpur. The Life is right in placing Tamasāvana (I, 292) at the distance of only 50 *li* to the south-east of Chinabhukti town.
v2.c26.s2.15
Ku-lu-to (I, 298) evidently is identified rightly with Kulu, N. N. W. of Simla, in the basin of the upper waters of the Biās, which must be the ‘great river’ crossed by the pilgrim when he turned south. Mr. Watters admits that the designation, She-lō-t‘u-lu, of the country next visited may represent Śatadru. The region so named, which was bounded on the west by a ‘large river’, the Sutlaj or Śatadru, may be taken as comprising the western portion of the Ambāla (Umballa) District, as well as the Sahrind (Sarhind), and Ludīāna Districts, with the Patiāla State, or part of it.
v2.c26.s2.16
The bearing S. W., that is to say, west of south, to the next place, named Po-li-ye-ta-lo, or Pāryātra, now represented by Bairāt in Rājputāna, situated N. N. E. of Jaypur, indicates that the pilgrim visited the eastern part of the Śatadru country, equivalent to the western side of the Ambāla District. The distance between Śatadru and Pāryātra is obviously understated as being ‘over 800 *li*’, and Cunningham’s proposal to read ‘1800’ is reasonable.
v2.c26.s2.17
The distance eastward from Bairāt to Mathurā (Mo-t‘u-lo), which is about 95 miles, as measured on the map, agrees well with the pilgrim’s estimate of ‘above 500 *li*’. In easy country the *li* may be reckoned as 3/16 ths of a mile, or somewhere between one fifth and one sixth.
v2.c26.s2.18
The identification of Mo-t‘u-lo with Mathurā appears to be certain, and that of Sa-ta-ni-ssŭ-fa-lo with Sthāneśvara (Sthānvīśvara, Bāṇa) or Thānēsar is equally free from doubt. But the distance and bearing given in the text (Life, p. 78; Records, I, 183) are erroneous. Thānēsar is described as being situated more than 500 *li* to the N. E. of Mathurā, whereas it really lies N. N. W. of that city, at about double the distance stated. A good many errors in figures have crept into certain parts of the MSS. of Yuan-chwang’s travels.
v2.c26.s2.19
From Thānēsar Yuan-chwang travelled more than 400 *li* N. E. to Su-lu-k‘in-na or Srughna. The position of this country is fixed unmistakably by the specification that it was bounded on the north by high mountains, and on the east by the Ganges, while the Jumna flowed through the midst of it. It must have corresponded to the Dehra District, and the north-eastern portion of the Ambāla District, with probably a part of the Sahāranpur District, and some of the Hill States abutting on Dehra.
v2.c26.s2.20
∗ Y
v2.c26.s2.21
The distance from the Jumna to the Ganges is greatly overstated in the text (I, 319) as being above 800 *li*. In reality it does not exceed 50 or 60 miles, or 300 *li* at the outside. Mo-ti-pu-lo, or Matipur, is represented by the Bijnōr District, or the eastern part of it; but Mr. Watters is right (I, 322) in rejecting Cunningham's identification of the capital with Mandāwar.
v2.c26.s2.22
Mo-yü-lo, or Mayūra city, clearly was close to Hardwār, although not exactly identical with it, being on the other side of the river (I, 328).
v2.c26.s2.23
The P'o-lo-hih-mo-pu-lo, or Brahmapura, country is unmistakeably Garhwāl, which lies north of Matipur (I, 330). The modern capital is Śrīnagar, N. lat. 30° 14', E. long. 78° 37'.
v2.c26.s2.24
There is no reason whatever to doubt the identity of Ngo (or O)-hi-ch'i-ta-lo with Ahikshetra, or Ahichatra, the modern Rāmnagar near Aonlā in the Barēli (Bareilly) District (I, 332).
v2.c26.s2.25
Cunningham's later identification (Reports, XI, 15, not cited by Mr. Watters) of Bilsar in the Ītā (Etah) District with the capital of Pi-lo-shan-na (I, 332) may be accepted.
v2.c26.s2.26
I do not believe in Cunningham's identification of the little village called Sankisa in the Farrukhābād District with Kapitha or Sankāśya (Sêng-ka-she) (I, 335). Space will not permit of detailed discussion, and I confine myself to the remarks that the position is determined by the fixed points Ahichatra and Kanauj, and that the 'elephant-pillar' at Sankisa cannot be the 'lion-pillar' seen at Kapitha by Yuan-chwang. I should look for Kapitha-Sankāśya in the N. E. corner of the Ītā District not many miles from Patiālī.
v2.c26.s2.27
Mr. Watters (I, 354), like Cunningham, has been misled by the apparent similarity of the names A-yü-t'ê and Ayōdhya. Detailed examination of the question would require many pages, and I can only note that in my opinion the A-yü-t'ê country should be sought in the Fatehpur District. Aphui, 29 miles S. E. of Fatehpur may be taken as the approximate site of the capital (See Führer, Monumental Antiquities of N. W. P. and Oudh, p. 157). Aphui was one of the stages on the old road from Kanauj to Prayāga (Allāhābād), along which the pilgrim was travelling.
v2.c26.s2.28
The A-ye-mu-k'a country (I, 359) seems to correspond to the Partābgarh and Rāi Barēli Districts in Oudh, or parts of those Districts. The distance of more than 700 *li* from A-ye-mu-k'a to Prayāga (I, 361) is an obvious blunder. Mr. Watters was mistaken, I am convinced, in supposing (I, 360) that Yuan-chwang erroneously applied the name Ganges to some other river. Although errors in the statements of distances undoubtedly exist in the pilgrim's text, as we possess it, the bearings and names are generally correct, and must not be tampered with lightly.
v2.c26.s2.29
The question concerning the position of Yuan-chwang's Kośāmbī is a very difficult one (I, 366), and the materials now available do not justify any positive identification. I adhere to the view that the famous Buddhist town was somewhere on an arc distant about 90 miles, more or less, from Allāhābād in a direction between south and west, and am now rather disposed to search for the site at the extremity of the Bandā District to the N. E. of Ajaigarh. The statements of the Records and Life on the subject are specially detailed and precise, and cannot be ignored.
v2.c26.s2.30
Guesses as to the exact position of P'i-sho-ka (? = Vīśoka) (I, 373) and Kāśapura must also be unsatisfactory at present; but, after renewed study of the question, I should not be surprised, if the ancient site Nimkhār or Nimsār, 20 miles S. of Sītāpur, turned out to be P'i-sho-ka. If this be so, Kāśapura would be somewhere in the Unāo District. The country is full of old sites; and some lucky discovery is needed to give precision to topographical guesses, which alone can never solve the problem.¹
v2.c26.s2.31
¹ Major Vost offers fresh conjectures, more or less plausible, in J. R. A. S., 1905, p. 437.
v2.c26.s2.32
As to the position of Śrāvastī (I, 379) I have no doubt that the ruins lie on the upper course of the Rāptī in Nepalese territory, near the point where the river emerges from the hills. The Achiravatī river, which flowed past the city, seems to be the Airāvatī, or Rāptī (p. 398). Similarly, the river at Kuśinagara is called both Ajitavatī and Airāvatī (II, 28), and that river is the Little Rāptī.
v2.c26.s2.33
Mr. Watters' descriptions of the mountains, caves, and hill at Śrāvastī (III, 398, 401) offer additional proof that the city lay close to the foot of the Himālaya.
v2.c26.s2.34
Concerning Kapilavastu I still hold the opinion that the remains at Piprāwā were shown to Fa-hsien as those of Kapilavastu, while the guides of Yuan-chwang identified the town with the walled city now known as Tilaura-Kōṭ. The reasons for this opinion will be found in my Prefatory Note to Mukherji's Report on the Antiquities in the Tarāi, Nepāl (Archaeol. Surv. Rep. No. XXVI, Part I, Calcutta, 1901).
v2.c26.s2.35
Mr. Watters' remarks on the Lumbinī Garden (II, 17, 18) are not quite up to date, and require some correction.
v2.c26.s2.36
The site of Rāmagrāma (II, 20) certainly must be sought near Dharmauli (Dharmapuri) on the frontier of Nepāl and Gōrakhpur, in approximately N. lat. 27° 26', and E. long. 83° 52' (J. R. A. S., 1902, p. 151).
v2.c26.s2.37
The best indication of the site of Kuśinagara is that given by General H. H. Prince Khadga Shamshēr Jang, Rāna Bahādur, late Governor of Western Nepāl, who places it at the confluence of the Little Rāptī (which he calls Achiravatī) with the Gandak or Hiraṇyavatī, near Bhavasār Ghāṭ (*Pioneer Mail*, 26 Feb., 1904). Mr. Watters erroneously supposed (II, 29) that the names Hiraṇyavatī and Airāvatī (Ajitavatī, Achiravatī) referred to one stream.
v2.c26.s2.38
Ghāzīpur must undoubtedly be the approximate representative of the capital of the Chan-chu country (II, 59).
v2.c26.s2.39
For discussion of identity of Basār with Vaisāli see *J. R. A. S.*, 1902, p. 267 (II, 63).
v2.c26.s2.40
The Vṛiji (*Fu-li-chih*) country (II, 81) evidently is roughly equivalent to the northern part of the Darbhanga District and the adjacent Nepalese Tarāi. A possible site for the capital is offered by the ruins at Balīgaṛh or Kshēmāgaṛh, some 16 miles north of Madhubani, which are miscalled ‘Burdras’ on the map, and ‘Bindras’ in the official *List of Ancient Monuments in Bengal*. I am indebted to the Magistrate of Darbhanga for the real name of the place. The ramparts are said to be ten feet high and in an excellent state of preservation.
v2.c26.s2.41
The villages Nataka (*Na-t’ê*) and Koṭi (*Kou-li*) between Vaisāli and Pāṭaliputra (II, 86) perhaps may be identified by local enquiry.
v2.c26.s2.42
Mr. Watters’ sceptical remarks (II, 107) fail to shake my belief that the identification of the Ti-lo-shi-ka monastery with the ruins at Tilāḍha (or whatever may be the proper spelling) is well-established (Cunningham, *Reports*, VIII, 34; XI, 165).
v2.c26.s2.43
Mr. Watters corrects Julien’s transliteration of I-lan-na-po-fato as Hiraṇyaparvata, and suggests that the first element in the name is the Sanskrit *īraṇa*, meaning ‘a piece of wild or barren land’. This may be substantially right, but the dictionaries give the word as *iriṇa* or *īriṇa*. Whatever be the accurate form of the name, the locality indicated certainly is Monghyr (Mungīr). (Watters, II, 180).
v2.c26.s2.44
Kajangala (II, 183) is an improvement on Julien’s Kajughira as the transliteration of the Chinese name, which is said to be properly Ka-chu-wen-k’i-lo. The region so designated is the Rājmahāl District.
v2.c26.s2.45
The capital of Karṇa-suvarṇa was Rattamattikā (Rangāmaṭṭī, Rungamutty), some twelve miles to the south of Murshidābād (*J.A.S.B.* 1853; and *ibid.*, Part I, Vol. LXIII, p. 172). The Pundra-vardhana country lay to the north of Karṇa-suvarṇa, and Samataṭa, the delta of the Ganges, lay to the south. As Mr. Watters points out (II, 190), there is no reason to doubt the identity of the ancient port Tāmralipti with the modern Tamlūk. Mr. Watters’ identification of Śrīkshetra with the Tipperah District (II, 189) seems to be correct.
v2.c26.s2.46
Colonel Waddell and Mr. Watters agree in placing, at least provisionally, the ancient capital of Orissa near the village named Nendra, a few miles below Cuttack (Kaṭak), on the Mahānadī (II, 195).
v2.c26.s2.47
The province which Yuan-chwang calls Kung-yü-t'o is the Gañjām coast, the Koṅgōdamaṇḍala of inscriptions (*Ep. Ind.*, VI, 136).
v2.c26.s2.48
The capital of Kalinga in Yuan-chwang's time (II, 198) apparently was Kalinganagaram, the modern Mukhalingam in the Gañjām District (see references in *E. Hist. of India*, p. 356, n.).
v2.c26.s2.49
I accept the identification of T'e-na-ka-che-ka or Dhanakaṭaka with Bezvāḍa (II, 216). The pilgrim's notes of distances in this part of his travels are largely in excess.
v2.c26.s2.50
I am still of opinion that the Chola (Chu-li-ya) country of Yuan-chwang was substantially the modern Cuddapah District (II, 224; *E. Hist. of India*, p. 344 and *G. O., Madras, Public*, No. 518, dated 18 July, 1905).
v2.c26.s2.51
The cave-temples seen by the pilgrim in Mahārāshṭra undoubtedly were those of Ajaṇṭā (Ajiṇṭhā) (II, 240).
v2.c26.s2.52
Nobody doubts that the Chinese Po-lu-ka-che-p'o represents Bharōch (Bharōc, Broach, etc.), the town near the mouth of the Narmadā or Narbadā river (II, 241); but considerable misunderstanding has arisen concerning the identity of the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o, which Mr. Beal and most other commentators have wrongly identified with Mālava, or Mālwā, the country of which Ujjain was the capital. In my essay entitled 'The Indian kings named Śīlāditya, and the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o' (*Z. D. M. G.*, 1904, p. 787) I have shown that Mo-la-p'o was a kingdom of Western India lying between Bharukaccha or Bharōch, Kaccha (Cutch), Valabhī, and Ānandapura (Vaḍnagar). It corresponded roughly with the modern Districts of Kheḍā (Kaira) and Aḥmadābād of the Bombay Presidency, together with parts of the Baroda State and some adjoining territory. The identity of Ānandapura (Watters, II, 24) with Vaḍnagar is demonstrated in the same essay (p. 792) on evidence presented by Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar.
v2.c26.s2.53
It is not possible to locate precisely the country called A-t'a-li or A-ch'a-li (p. 243); but there is no reason to doubt that Kaccha (Cutch) is designated by the name K'i-ch'a or Ki-t'a (p. 245).
v2.c26.s2.54
Mr. Watters was needlessly doubtful about the exact position of Valabhī (Fa-la-p'i, p. 246), which is quite certainly represented by the ruins at Walā, eighteen miles north-west of Bhāonagar (*Arch. S. W. I.*, Vol. II, p. 80; etc.). This identification has never been doubted by any archæologist except, apparently, Mr. Fergusson.
v2.c26.s2.55
Kü-che-lo (p. 250) with equal certainty is a transcription of Gurjara or Gurjjarā, an important kingdom, the history of which has been investigated recently by Mr. Bhandarkar, Dr. Hoernle, and other writers. The capital, P'i-lo-mo-lo, has not been successfully identified. Vivien de Saint-Martin's guess, mentioned by Mr. Watters, appears to be erroneous. The country was equivalent to Central and Northern Rājputāna.¹
v2.c26.s2.56
¹ 'Gūrjaras', by D. R. Bhandarkar, in J. Bo. Br. R. A. S., read 13th Nov. 1902; Hoernle and Stark, History of India, pp. 62, 64.
v2.c26.s2.57
Wu-shê-yen-na (p. 250) is undoubtedly Ujjain or Ujjayinī; and Chih-chi-t'o (p. 251) was understood rightly by Cunningham to represent Jijhoti, or Jejāka-bhukti, the modern Bundēlkhaṇḍ. The suggestion that Chitore (Chitaur) should be considered the equivalent of Chih-chi-t'o is quite out of the question. Careful examination of the map and bearings makes it plain that Maheśvarapura (Mo-hi-ssŭ-fa-lo-pu-lo, p. 251) is the modern Gwalior (Gwāliyar).
v2.c26.s2.58
The precise limits of the pilgrim's kingdom of Sind (Sin-tu, p. 252) cannot be determined.
v2.c26.s2.59
Notwithstanding Mr. Watters' criticisms (p. 254), I am still inclined to believe that Mou-san-pu-lu was intended to be a transcription of Mūlasthānapura, the modern Mūltān, although inaccurately written. Po-fa-to (p. 255) seems to indicate the region of Jamū (Jummoo), in the south of the Kaśmīr State as present constituted.
v2.c26.s2.60
A-tien-p'o-chih-lo, whatever the Sanskrit phonetic equivalent may have been, clearly designates the delta of the Indus (p. 256).
v2.c26.s2.61
The countries in the Indus valley, Pi-to-shih-lo and others (II, 258 foll.) cannot be identified with precision. Their approximate relative positions are indicated on the map. Fa-la-na seems to be rightly identified with the valley of the Gūmal (Gumul) river (II, 263).
v2.c26.s2.62
Everybody is agreed that Ghaznī is either on or near the site of Ho-si-na, the ancient capital of Tsao-ku-t'a, or Arachosia. Mr. Watters' suggestion (II, 266) that Tsao-ku-t'a is a transcription of jāguḍa, said to mean 'saffron', is novel.
v2.c26.s2.63
Hu-pi-na, the capital of Fu-li-shih-sa-t'ang-na (II, 267) should certainly be identified, I think, with Hupiān or Opiān, near Chārikar, some thirty miles distant from Kābul in a northerly direction.