Map 5 India Compiled by M.U. Erdosy, 1995 Introduction The map spans territories that form the modern states of India (minus the Punjab), Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka. It overlaps with Map 6 in several areas. All of these are treated here, with the exception of southern Sindh and Baluchistan, which enjoy much stronger geographical and historical links to the regions of Map 6, and the Himalayan regions, which feature far more extensively on Map 6. The territories spanned by Map 5 experienced only limited contacts with the classical world, and represent the easternmost reaches of reliable Greek and Roman geographical knowledge. Until the first century A.D., they were known almost exclusively through the account of Megasthenes, a Seleucid envoy to the Mauryan imperial court. Even at the peak of commercial contacts with the West, they showed few traces of Greek or Roman settlement, and– with the exception of Menander’s brief foray into the Ganges Valley c. 175 B.C.–none of conquest. Moreover, by the second century A.D. Western knowledge of their geography reached its zenith, since later works neither added new information nor even reproduced more than a fraction of the knowledge previously accumulated. By the third century, to judge by this trend as well as by the pattern of coin finds, contacts were declining in step with the fortunes of the Roman empire; by the fourth century, contact appears to have been confined largely to Sri Lanka. Conversely, it should be stressed that while contacts with the West may have contributed to the first flowering of civilization in South India during the first century A.D., their overall impact on the cultural and political evolution of the subcontinent appears to have been minimal. This applies particularly to the kingdoms of the Ganges Valley, which enjoyed their peak periods of power and prosperity precisely at times (such as A.D. 300-450) when contacts with the West were at their lowest ebb. So it is hardly surprising that many of the great cities of Northern India (Śrāvastī, for example) are either totally absent from, or seriously misplaced by, even Ptolemy’s Geography. Such unique historical circumstances pose challenges for the compilation of the map. First, I have interpreted chronological attribution strictly in terms of the period during which a place was known to Greeks and Romans, regardless of its longer history. For example, even though the city of Ujjain (ancient Ozene) has been occupied since the eighth century B.C. (EIA 447-49), its relevance to the classical world stems from its role as an important inland emporium mentioned in PME and Ptolemy’s Geography; consequently, it is assigned only to the Roman period. The Directory does, however, include references that touch on the longer history of such sites. In addition, the map marks major kingdoms and their capitals of the Hellenistic, Roman and Late Antique periods, even if they are never mentioned in classical sources. Exceptionally, the map marks all findspots of Greek and Roman artifacts, principally coins, terra sigillata, amphorae and occasional sculpture. While toponyms recorded by classical sources show a distinct bias in favor of coastal sites, findspots of Greek and Roman artifacts coincide to a significant degree with important trade routes in the interior, where most of the larger cities are located. Consequently the findspots do more to convey the impact of contacts with the West. Tracing the actual trade routes, however, lies beyond the scope of the map. Despite some fine studies of the epigraphic, historical and archaeological evidence (note Chandra 1977), our knowledge rarely extends beyond recognition that there were long-established routes between certain places. Sites yielding objects produced under classical influence, such as Rouletted Ware, are omitted because of their tenuous connection to the overseas trade of South Asia. The references given in the Directory to Greek and Latin toponyms and ethnonyms normally include an ancient source in order to present information that is not always easily accessible, as no complete catalog of this kind has been published before (the closest comparable works to date are Renou 1925, 75-89 and André 1986, 429-53). Where possible, the modern treatments cited are ones that explicitly link ancient names to modern locations, discuss alternative solutions, and provide additional bibliographic references. It is a further advantage if they also take MAP 5 INDIA 59 account of archaeological evidence, since historical references in indigenous textual sources are trivial at best, as well as difficult to date (Erdosy 1988). Fortunately, there are several excellent works of reference for archaeological, historical and topographical data (Law 1976; Casson 1989; Pollet 1990; EIA). Several translations of the relevant classics are also copiously annotated, and these are cited whenever reference works fail to provide adequate information. In general, given the way in which South Asian words have been garbled, it is not surprising that several Greek and Roman names remain totally unidentifiable, while serious disagreement persists about numerous others. In listing variant toponyms and ethnonyms, I have attempted to give precedence to the one which is closest to its presumed indigenous source (usually Sanskrit, Prakrit or Tamil). In spite of its vast size, the subcontinent was frequently fragmented, and thus no settlement matches the Mauryan (and later Gupta) capital of Pātaliputra (Palibothra) in significance; it was the only city with imperial pretensions until the advent of the Mughals. Sites of the second rank include ancient regional capitals, which formed the principal nodes of the settlement lattice between c. 500 B.C. and A.D. 300, as well as major trading posts, whose economic strength and overseas contacts made up for their lack of political power. Sites of the third rank include the capitals of lesser communities, as well as trading stations that may have mattered to Greeks and Romans but had no indigenous political significance. As for lesser sites, given the sorry state of historical archaeology in India, the classical texts are often the only source of information. In such instances, sites described as “emporium,” “harbor” or “metropolis” are assigned the fourth rank, and the rest are given the fifth (lowest) ranking. It may be objected that places finding their way into classical sources had to be more than just ordinary villages; the fact is, however, that much Greek and Roman geographic information came from traders who simply listed stopping-places on major routes without concern for their importance (Vogel 1952a). In general, the authors of relevant classical texts fall firmly into the Hellenistic or Roman period. In spite of the danger of interpolation by later authors, any passage that can be attributed to the Seleucid envoy Megasthenes (whose account survives only in quotations) is treated as belonging to the Hellenistic period. A full list of such quotations was compiled by E. Schwanbeck in the mid-nineteenth century (cf. McCrindle 1926), and these afford us our earliest glimpses of the world that fell just beyond the grasp of Alexander. Changes to the physiognomy of the South Asian subcontinent have affected coastal areas and river courses above all. Both the gradual extension of river deltas (especially those of the Ganges, Mahanadi, KṛaandGodāvarī; Spate 1954, 9) and subsidence (Spate 1954, 256) have been noted, although little precise information exists on the ancient coastline of South Asia. I have therefore followed Schwartzberg (1992) in altering the coastline only in the Indus and Ganges deltas, since historical information about their ancient aspect is available. As for river courses, while those in peninsular South Asia are generally stable, the same cannot be said of those in the North. The Ganges itself appears to have shifted gradually southward, leaving several oxbow lakes in its wake, whose banks were seasonally inhabited from at least the third millennium B.C. onward (Sharma 1973). By the Early Historic period, however, the Ganges had stabilized within a band of about three to five miles, since ancient settlements can be located all along prominent bluffs marking the limits of its movement (Erdosy 1988, 29-33). The same is true of the Jumna (ancient Iomanes), whose movements were even more constricted. Lesser rivers, however, have behaved far less predictably, in particular the Son (Erannoboas), Ghaggar (Sarabos), and Kosi (Casuagus) (Spate 1954, 197, 133, 195 respectively). Once again, given all the uncertainties surrounding the precise courses of these rivers, I have not adjusted them except for the Son; according to both historical and archaeological sources, in Megasthenes’ time it clearly flowed by the city of Paṭaliputra (Palibothra). For discussion of the Indus and its tributaries, see the Introduction to Map 6. 60 MAP 5 INDIA Directory All place names are in India unless otherwise noted Abbreviations CosmasInd Cosmas Indicopleustes, in W. Wolska-Conus (ed.), Topographie Chrétienne,3vols.,Paris, 1968-73. EIA A. Ghosh (ed.), An encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology. Volume 2: a gazetteer of explored and excavated sites in India, New Delhi, 1989 IAR Indian archaeology: a review (Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India) Skt. Sanskrit Note: For commentary on Arrian references, see Bosworth 1980 (Books 1-3); 1995 (Books 4-5); and Hinüber 1985 (Book 8). For commentary on PME references, see Casson 1989. Names Grid Name Period Modern Name / Location Reference E2 Abali See Map 6 B1 Aberia PAK See Map 6 C2 Abiria See Map 6 D4 Abour R Vaḷuvur? (contra Ptol. 7.1.91 Schwartzberg 1992, 330 Ambur) D2 Adam R Turner 1989, 46 F2 Adamas? fl. See Map 6 C3 Adisathron M. R Sahyādri hills Ptol. 7.1.23, 35, 68, 75; Law 1943, 379 F2 Aganagara? See Map 6 F2 Agoranis fl. BAN See Map 6 C3 Aigidioi R Goa region PME 53; Casson 1989, 294-99 C3 Aigidion Nesos R Goa Ptol.