chapter 53

) which has been satisfactorily identified with Mandangad to the south of the Bânkot creek.

Byzantion, which, as Dr. Bhândârkar first pointed out, is the Vaijayantî of inscriptions may be placed either at Chiplun or at Dábhol at the mouth of the Vâsishthî river. Chiplun is the only town of great antiquity in this part of the Konkan, and if it is not Vaijayantî Ptolemy has passed over it altogether. The similarity of the names has suggested the identification of Byzantion with Jaygad (Bhândârkar) or Vijayadrug (Vincent), but both these places are comparatively modern. There are indeed no very ancient towns in the Konkan between Sangamêshvar and the Sâvantvâdi border.

Khersonêsos is generally admitted to be the peninsula of Goa.

Armagara is placed a little to the north of the river Nanagouna and may be represented by Cape Ramas in Portuguese territory.

The river Nanagouna here is generally supposed to be the Kâlînadî, though in its upper course it seems to represent the Taptî, and a confusion with the Nânâ pass led Ptolemy to bring it into connection with the rivers Goaris and Bênda (Campbell).

Nitra, the southernmost mart on the pirate coast, is the Nitrias of Pliny, and has been satisfactorily identified by Yule with Mangalor on the Nêtravatî.

The inland cities of the Pirates are Olokhoira and Mousopallê the capital, both of which must be sought for in the rugged country about the sources of the Krishna and may provisionally be identified with the ancient towns of Karâd and Karvîr (Kolhápur) respectively. To complete Ptolemy's account of this coast it is only necessary to mention the islands of Heptanêsia (Burnt Islands ?) Trikadiba and Peperinê. We are not here concerned with his account of the rest of India.

[Bardesanês.] Bardesanês met at Babylon certain envoys sent from India to the emperor Antoninus Pius (A.D. 154-181) and received from Damadamis and Sandanês, who were of their number, accounts of the customs of the Brâhmans and of a rock temple containing a statue of Siva in the Ardhanârî form. Lassen (III. 62 and 348) connects Sandanês with the Sadinoi and places the temple in Western India, but neither of these conclusions is necessary. The object of the embassy is unknown.

[Periplus.] The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, formerly though wrongly attributed to Arrian (150 A.D.), is an account of the Egyptian trade with East Africa and India, written by a merchant of Alexandria for the use of his fellows. It is preserved in a single manuscript which in some places is very corrupt. The age of this work has been much disputed: the chief views as to this matter are,

(i) that the Periplus was written before Pliny and made use of by him (Vincent, Schwanbeck, and Glaser). The arguments of Vincent and Schwanbeck are refuted by Müller (Geogr. Gr. Min. I. xcviii.) Glaser's case is (Ausland 1891, page 45) that the Malikhas of the Periplus is Malchos III. of Nabathæa (A.D. 49-71), that the Periplus knows Meroê as capital of Ethiopia, while at the time of Nero's expedition to East Africa (A.D. 68), it had almost vanished, and lastly that the author of the Periplus is Basilis or Basilês, whom Pliny names as an authority for his Book VI. It may be replied that Malikhas is the title Malik and may have been applied to any Arab Sheikh (Reinaud): that the Periplus does not with certainty mention Meroê at all: and that Basilis whether or not a contemporary of Ptolemy Philadelphos was at any rate earlier than Agatharkhidês (c. 200 B.C.), who quotes him (Geog. Gr. Min. I. 156); (ii) that the Periplus was written at the same time as Pliny's work, but neither used the other (Salmasius). This view is refuted by Müller (op. cit. page 155); (iii) that the Periplus was written after 161 A.D. (Dodwell); Müller has shown (ibid.) that Dodwell's arguments are inconclusive; (iv) the received view that the Periplus was written between A.D. 80 and A.D. 89 (Müller); (v) that the Periplus was written about the middle of the third century (Reinaud Mém. de l'Ac. des Inscr. XXIV. Pt. ii. translated in I. A. VIII. pages 330ff).

The only choice lies between the view of Müller and that of Reinaud. Müller argues for a date between A.D. 80 and A.D. 89, because the Periplus knows no more than Pliny of India beyond the Ganges, whereas Ptolemy's knowledge is much greater: because the Periplus calls Ceylon Palaisimoundou, which is to Ptolemy (VII. iv. 1) an old name: because the Nabathæan kingdom, which was destroyed A.D. 105, was still in existence at the time of the Periplus: because the Periplus account of Hippalos shows it to be later than Pliny: and because the Periplus mentions king Zôskalês, who must be the Za Hakalê of the Abyssinian lists who reigned A.D. 77-89. It may be replied that the Periplus is not a geography of Eastern Asia, but a guide book for traders with certain ports only: that Ptolemy must have found in his lists three names for Ceylon, Taprobanê, Palaisimoundou, and Salikê, and that he has wrongly separated Palai from Simoundou, taking it to mean "formerly" and therefore entered Simoundou as the old and Salikê as the modern name, [1467] whereas all three names were in use together: that the Nabathæan king Malikhas was simply the Sheikh of the tribe (Reinaud), and points to no definite date: that the Periplus' account of Hippalos is certainly later than Pliny: and that the Zôskalês of the Periplus is the Za Sâgal or Za Asgal of the Abyssinian lists, who reigned A.D. 246-47 (Reinaud).

It follows that Reinaud's date for the Periplus (A.D. 250) is the only one consistent with the facts and especially with the Indian facts. As will appear below, the growth of the Hippalos legend since Pliny's time, the rival Parthians in Sindh, the mention of Mambaros and the supplanting of Ozênê by Minnagara as his capital since Ptolemy's time, the independence of Baktria, and the notices of Saraganês and Sandanês, are all points strongly in favour of Reinaud's date.

In the time of the Periplus the ships carrying on the Indian trade started from Myos Hormos (near Ras Abu Somer) or Berenikê (in Foul Bay) and sailed down the Red Sea to Mouza (Musa twenty-five miles north of Mokhâ), and thence to the watering place Okêlis (Ghalla) at the Straits. They then followed the Arabian coast as far as Kanê (Hisn Ghurâb in Hadramaut) passing on the way Eudaimôn Arabia (Aden) once a great mart for Indian traders, but lately destroyed by king Elisar (Müller's conjecture for KAISAR of the MS.) From Kanê the routes to India diverge, some ships sailing to the Indus and on to Barygaza, and others direct to the ports of Limyrikê (Malabár Coast). There was also another route to Limyrikê, starting from Arômata (Cape Guardafui). In all three voyages the ships made use of the monsoon, starting from Egypt in July. The monsoon was called Hippalos, according to the Periplus (