The Ancient Geography of India/General Description

Wikified by:Laxman Burdak, IFS (Retd.)

Back to Index of the Book The Ancient Geography of India: I. The Buddhist Period, Including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang Sir Alexander Cunningham Trübner and Company, 1871 - India

---

Ancient Indians' accurate knowledge of native land

[p.1]:From the accounts of the Greeks it would appear that the ancient Indians had a very accurate knowledge of the true shape and size of their country. According to Strabo, Alexander " caused the whole country to be described by men well acquainted with it ;" and this account was afterwards lent to Patrokles by Xenokles, the treasurer of the Syrian kings. Patrokles himself held the government of the north-east satrapies of the Syrian empire under Seleukus Nikator and Antiochus Soter, and the information which he collected regarding India and the Eastern provinces, has received the approbation of Eratosthenes and Strabo for its accuracy. Another account of India was derived from the register of the Stathmi, or "Marches" from place to place, which was prepared by the Macedonian

---

---

[p.2]: Amyntas, and which was confirmed by the testimony of Megasthenes, who had actually visited Palibothra as the ambassador of Seleukus Nikator. On the authority of these documents, Eratosthenes and other writers have described India as a rhomhoid, or unequal quadrilateral, in shape, with the Indus on the west, the mountains on the north, and the sea on the east and south. The shortest side was on the west, which Patrokles estimated at 12,000 stadia, and Eratosthenes at 13,000 stadia. All the accounts agree that the course of the Indus from Alexander's Bridge to the sea was 10,000 stadia, or 1149 British miles ; and they differ only as to the estimated distance of the snowy mountains of Caucasus or Paropamisus above the bridge. The length of the country was reckoned from west to east, of which the part extending from the Indus to Palibothra had been measured by schoeni along the royal road, and was 10,000 stadia, or 1149 British miles in length. From Palibothra to the sea the distance was estimated at 6000 stadia, or 689 British miles ; thus making the whole distance from the Indus to the mouth of the Ganges 16,000 stadia, or 1838 British miles. According to Pliny, the distance of Palibothra from the mouth of the Ganges was only 637.5 Roman miles; but his numbers are so corrupt that very little dependence can be placed upon them. I would, therefore, increase his distance to 737.5

---

---

[p.3]: Roman miles, which are equal to 678 British miles. The eastern coast from the mouth of the Ganges to Cape Comorin was reckoned at 16,000 stadia, or 1838 British miles ; and the southern (or south-western) coast, from Cape Comorin to the mouth of the Indus at 3000 stadia more than the northern side, or 19,000 stadia, equivalent to 2183 British miles.

The close agreement of these dimensions, given by Alexander's informants, with the actual size of the country is very remarkable, and shows that the Indians, even at that early date in their history, had a very accurate knowledge of the form and extent of their native land.

On the west, the course of the Indus from Ohind, above Attok, to the sea is 950 miles by land, or about 1200 miles by water. On the north, the distance from the banks of the Indus to Patna, by our military route books, is 1143 miles, or only 6 miles less than the measurement of the royal road from the Indus to Palibothra, as given by Strabo on the authority of Megasthenes. Beyond this, the distance was estimated by the voyages of vessels on the Ganges at 6000 stadia, or 689 British miles, which is only 9 miles in excess of the actual length of the river route. From the mouth of the Ganges to Cape Comorin the distance, measured on the map, is 1600 miles, but taking into account the numerous indentations of the coast-line, the length should probably be increased in the same proportion as road distance by one-sixth. This would make the actual length 1866 miles. From Cape Comorin to the mouth of the Indus there is a

---

---

[p.4]: considerable discrepancy of about 3000 stadia, or nearly 350 miles, between the stated distance and the actual measurement on the map. It is probable that the difference was caused by including in the estimate the deep indentations of the two great gulfs of Khambay and Kachh, which alone would be sufficient to account for the whole, or at least the greater part, of the discrepancy.

This explanation would seem to be confirmed by the computations of Megasthenes, who " estimated the distance from the southern sea to the Caucasus at 20,000 stadia," or 2298 British miles. By direct measurement on the map the distance from Cape Comorin to the Hindu Kush is about 1950 miles, which, converted into road distance by the addition of one-sixth, is equal to 2275 miles, or within a few miles of the computation of Megasthenes. But as this distance is only 1000 stadia greater than the length of the coast-line from Cape Comorin to the mouth of the Indus, as stated by Strabo, it seems certain that there must be some mistake in the length assigned to the southern (or south-western) coast. The error would be fully corrected by making the two coast-lines of equal length, as the mouths of the Ganges and Indus are about equidistant from Cape Comorin. According to this view, the whole circuit of India would be 61,000 stadia; and this is, perhaps, what is intended by Diodorus, who says that "the whole extent of

---

---

[p.5]: India from east to west is 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000 stadia," or 60,000 stadia altogether.

India described in the Mahabharata

At a somewhat later date the shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned ; but, in fig. 2 of the small maps of India in the accompanying plate, I have drawn a small equilateral triangle on the line between Dwaraka, in Gujarat, and Ganjam on the eastern coast. By repeating this small triangle on each of its three sides, to the north-west, to the north-east, and to the south, we obtain the four divisions of India in one large equilateral triangle. The shape corresponds very well with the general form of the country, if we extend the limits of India to Ghazni on the north-west, and fix the other two points of the triangle at Cape Comorin, and Sadiya in Assam.

At the presumed date of the composition of the ' Mahabharata,' in the first century A.D., the countries immediately to the west of the Indus belonged to the Indo-Scythians, and therefore may be included very properly within the actual boundaries of India.

Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time, and was after-

---

---

[p.6]: wards adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Panchala was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Harahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is there assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. This mistake is certainly as old as the eleventh century, as Abu Rihan has preserved the names of Varaha's abstract in the same order as they now stand in the ' Brihat-Sanhita.' These details are also supported by the ' Markandeya Purana,' which assigns both Sindhu-Sauvira and Anarta to the south-west.

I have compared the detailed lists of the ' Brihat-Sanhita ' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas ; and I find that, although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as many various readings, yet

---

---

[p.7]: all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions ; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya- Puranas agree with the ' Mahabharata ' in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points.

The names of the Nine Divisions given in the ' Mahabharata ' and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Varaha-Mihira ; but they agree with those of the famous astronomer Bhaskaracharya. They follow the same order in all ; namely, Indra, Kaserumat, Tamraparna, Gabhastimat, Kumarika, Naga, Saumya, Varuna, Gandharva. No clue is given to the identification of these names, but they certainly follow a different order from that of Varaha's Nine Divisions, as Indra is the east, Varuna the west, and Kumarika the middle, while Kaseru must be the north, as the name is found in the detailed lists of the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas.

The division of India into five great provinces would appear to have been the most popular one during the early centuries of the Christian era, as it was adopted by the Chinese pilgrims, and from them by all Chinese writers. According to the Vishnu Purana, the centre

---

---

[p.8]: was occupied by the Kurus and Panchalas ; in the east was Kamarupa, or Assam ; in the south were the Pundras, Kalingas, and Magadhas ; in the west were the Surashtras, Suras, Abhiras, Arbudas, Karushas, Malavas, Sauviras, and Saindhavas ; and in the north the Hunas, Salwas, Sakalas, Ramas, Ambashtas, and Parasikas.

India's Geography of Ptolemy

In the Geography of Ptolemy the true shape of India is completely distorted, and its most striking feature, the acute angle formed by the meeting of the two coasts of the Peninsula at Cape Comorin is changed to a single coast-line, running almost straight from the mouth of the Indus to the mouth of the Ganges. The cause of this mistake is partly due to the erroneous value of 500, instead of 600, Olympic stadia, which Ptolemy assigned to an equatorial degree, partly to an over-estimate in converting road-distance into map- measurement, but chiefly to the excess which he allowed for the distances of land journeys over those of sea voyages.

If the measures of distance by sea had been increased in the same proportion, or had been estimated at the same value, as the measures of distance by land, all the places would have retained the same relative positions. But the consequence of Ptolemy's unequal estimate of the value of land and sea distances was to

---

---

[p.9]: throw all the places determined by land measurement too far to the east ; and as this error went on increasing the further he advanced, his eastern geography is completely vitiated by it. Thus Taxila, which is almost due north of Barygaza, is placed 11° to the east of it ; and the mouth of the Ganges, which was fixed by land measurement from Taxila and Palibothra, is placed 38° to the east of the mouth of the Indus, the true difference being only 20°. In fig. 4 of the accompanying plate of small maps I have given an outline of Ptolemy's ' Geography of India.' By referring to this it will be seen at a glance that, if the distance between the mouths of the Indus and Ganges were reduced from 38° to 20°, the point of Cape Comorin would be thrown far to the south, and would form an acute angle very nearly in its true position. The amount of error in Ptolemy's value of land distances is well shown in the difference of longitude between Taxila and Palibothra. The former he places in 125° and the latter in 143°, the difference being 18°, which is nearly one-third too much, as the actual difference between Shah-Dheri in 72° 53' and Patna in 85° 17' is only 12° 24'. By applying the correction of three-tenths, as proposed by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Ptolemy's 18° will be reduced to 12° 36', which is within 12' of the true difference of longitude.

India as known to the Chinese

India was first known to the Chinese in the time of the Emperor Wuti, of the later Han dynasty, in the second century before Christ. It was then called Yuan-tu or Yin-tu, that is Hindu, and Shin-tu, or Sindhu. At a later date it was named Thian-tu ;

---

---

[p.10]: and this is the form which the historian Matwanlin has adopted. In the official records of the Thang dynasty in the seventh century, India is described as consisting of " Five Divisions," called the East, West, North, South, and Central, which are usually styled the " Five Indies." I have not been able to discover when this system of the " Five Divisions " was first adopted ; but the earliest notice of it that I can find is in the year 477 A.D., when the king of Western India sent an ambassador to China, and again only a few years later, in A.D. 503 and 504, when the kings of Northern and Southern India are mentioned as having followed his example, No divisions are alluded to in any of the earlier Chinese notices of India; but the different provinces are described by name, and not by position. Thus we have mention of Yue-gai, king of Kapila, in A.D. 428, and of the king of Gandhara in A.D. 455. It would appear also that previous to this time India was sometimes called Magadha, after the name of its best known and richest province ; and sometimes the " kingdom of Brahmans," after the name of its principal inhabitants. The first of these names I would refer to the second and third centuries after Christ, when the powerful Guptas of Magadha ruled over the greater part of India.

The same division of five great provinces was adopted by the Chinese pilgrim Hwen Thsang in the seventh century, who names them in the same manner,

---

---

[p.11]: as North, South, East, West, and Central, according to their relative positions. He compares the shape of the country to a half-moon, with the diameter or broad side to the north, and the narrow end to the south. This is not unlike the configuration of India in Ptolemy's Geography ; but a much more accurate description is given by the Chinese author of the Fah-kai-lih-to, who says, "this country in shape is narrow towards the south and broad towards the north;" to which he humorously adds, that "the people's faces are the same shape as the country."

Hwen Thsang makes the circumference of India 90,000 li, which is more than double the truth. But in the Chinese official records, the circuit of India is said to be only 30,000 li ; which is too small, if we reckon 6 li to the British mile, according to the usual road distance of the Chinese pilgrims. But if, as was probably the case, the measurement was made on a map, the li may be reckoned at the full value of 1079.12 feet which it possessed in the eighth century ; then the 30,000 li will be equal to 6130 British miles, which is only 764 miles short of the dimensions recorded by Strabo on the authority of Alexander's papers, and the published works of Megasthenes and Patrokles.

The Five Divisions of India by the Chinese

The Five Divisions of India, or the " Five Indies," as they are usually called by the Chinese, are as follows (see No. I. Map) : —

---

---

[p.12]:

I. Northern India comprised the Panjab proper, including Kashmir and the adjoining hill states, with the whole of eastern Afghanistan beyond the Indus, and the present Cis-Satlej States to the west of the Saraswati river.

II. Western India - comprised Sindh and Western Rajasthan, with Kachh and Gujarat, and a portion of the adjoining coast on the lower course of the Narbada river.

III. Central India- comprised the whole of the Gangetic provinces from Thanesar to the head of the Delta, and from the Himalaya mountains to the banks of the Narbada.

IV. Eastern India - comprised Assam and Bengal proper, including the whole of the Delta of the Ganges, together with Sambhalpur, Orissa, and Ganjam.

V. Southern India - comprised the whole of the peninsula from Nasik on the west and Ganjam on the east, to Cape Kumari (Comorin) on the south, including the modern districts of Berar and Telingana, Maharashtra and the Konkan, with the separate states of Haidarabad, Mysore, and Travancore, or very nearly the whole of the peninsula to the south of the Narbada and Mahanadi rivers.

Nine Divisions of India by Varaha-Mihira

Nine Divisions of India by Varaha-Mihira: Although the Chinese division of India into five great provinces is simpler than the well-known native arrangement of nine divisions, as described by Varaha-Mihira and the Puranas, yet there can be little doubt that they borrowed their system from the Hindus, who likened their native country to the lotus-flower, the middle being Central India, and the eight surrounding petals being the other divisions, which were

---

[p.13]: named after the eight chief points of the compass. In the Chinese arrangement, the middle and the four primary divisions only are retained ; and as this division is much simpler, and also more easily remembered, I -will adopt it in the present description.

Divisions at the time of Hwen Thsang's visit

At the time of Hwen Thsang's visit, in the seventh century, India was divided into eighty kingdoms, each of which would appear to have had its separate ruler, although most of them were tributary to a few of the greater states.

Thus, in Northern India, the districts of Kabul, Jalalabad, Peshawar, Ghazni, and Banu were all subject to the ruler of Kapisa, whose capital was most probably at Charikar, or Alexandria ad Caucasum.

In the Panjab proper the hilly districts of Taxila, Singhapura, Urasa, Punach, and Rajaori, were subject to the Raja of Kashmir ;

while the whole of the plains, including Multan and Shorkot, were dependent on the ruler of Taki, or Sangala, near Lahor.

In Western India the provinces were divided between the kings of Sindh, Balabhi, and Gurjjara.

In Central and Eastern India, the whole of the different states, from the famous city of Sthaneswara to the mouth of the Ganges, and from the Himalaya mountains to the banks of the Narbada and Mahanadi rivers, were subject to Harsha Varddhana, the great King of Kanoj. Jalandhara, the most easterly district of the Panjab, was also subject to him ; and it is highly probable that the ruler of Taki, or the plains of the Panjab, must likewise have been a dependent of

---

---

[p.14]:Kanoj, as we are informed by the Chinese pilgrim that Harsha Varddhana advanced through his territory to the foot of the Kashmir hills, for the purpose of coercing the ruler of that country to deliver up to him a much-venerated tooth of Buddha. The Rajput king of Maharashtra, in Southern India, was the only sovereign who had successfully resisted the armies of Kanoj. This statement of the Chinese pilgrim is corroborated by several inscriptions of the Chalukya princes of Maharashtra, who make a proud boast of their ancestor's discomfiture of the great King Harsha Varddhana. This powerful prince was the paramount sovereign of thirty-six different States, comprising nearly one-half of India in extent, and including all its richest and most fertile provinces. The substantial reality of his power may be gathered from the fact that no less than eighteen, or just one-half, of these tributary princes attended on their suzerain lord during his great religious procession from Pataliputra to Kanoj, in A.D. 643. The extent of his dominions is clearly indicated by the names of the countries against which he directed his latest campaigns, namely, Kashmir in the north-west, Maharashtra in the south-west, and Ganjam in the south-east. Within these boundaries he was the paramount ruler of the continent of India during the first half of

---

---

Back to Index of the Book