Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/64

 48 INDIA. llie Erannoboas (^HiranjdvaJici) and the Ganpies; with some smaller states, as the Surasenae, and the towns Methoi-a and Clisobra, which were subject to the Prasii. Southward from Palibothra, in the in- terior of the plain country, dwelt the Coccoiiagae, on the banks of the Adamas, the Sabarae, the Sala- ceni, the Drillophyllitae, the Adeisathri, with their capital Sagida (probably the present Sohagpur), si- tuated on the northern spurs of the Vindhya, at no great distance from the sources of the Sonus. Be- tween the Sonus and the Ganges were the Bolin- gae. In a NV. direction, beyond the Sonus and the Vindhya, we find a territory called Sandrabatis, and the Gynmosophistae, who appear to have oc- cupied the country now called Sirhind, as far as the river Sutkdge. The Caspeiraei (at least in the time of Ptolemy; see Ptol. vii. 1. § 47) seem to Lave extended over a considerable breadth of coun- try, as their sacred town Modura (Mo'Soupa ^ tQv Steoov') was situated, apparently, at no great distance from the Nerhudda, though its exact position has not been identified. The difficulty of identification is much, indeed, increased by the error of reckoning which prevails throughout Ptolemy, who held that the coast of India towards the Indian Ocean was in a straight line E. and W. from Taprobane and the Indus, thereby placing Nanaguna and the N;tmadus in the same parallel of latitude. On the southern spurs of the Vindhya, between the Namadus and Nanaguna, on the edge of the Deccan, were the Phyllitae and Gondali; and to the E. of them, be- tween the BittigoM.and the river Chaberus (Criren'), the nomad Sorae (Stopat vuiia^is), with a chief town Sora, at the eastern end of M. Bittigo. To the southward of these, on the Chaberus and Solen, were several smaller tribes, the Brachmani IMagi, the Ain- bastae, Bettigi or Bitti, and the Tabassi. All the above-mentioned districts and towns of any importance are more fully described under their respective names. The ancients appear to have known but little of the islands which are now considered to form part of the East Indies, with the exception of Taprobane or Ceylon, of which Pliny and Ptolemy have left some considerable notices. The reason is, that it was not till a much later period of the world's his- tory that the Indian Archipelago was fully opened out by its commercial resources to scientific imjuiry. Besides Ceylon, however, Ptolemy mentions, in its neighbourhood, a remarkable cluster of small islands, doubtless (as we have remarked before) those now known as the Laccadioes and Maldives ; the island of labadius (Java), below the Chersonesus Aurea; and the Satyrorum Insulae, on the same parallel •with the S. end of this Chersonesus, which may perhaps answer to the Anamha or Natuna islands. Of the government of India, considered as a whole, comparatively little was known to the Greek wi'iters; indeed, with the exception of occasional names of kings, it may be asserted that they knew nothing E. of Palibothra. Nor is this strange ; direct connec- tion with the interior of the country ceased with the fall of the Graeco-Bactrian empire; from that period almost all the information about India which found its way to the nations of the West was derived from the merchants and others, who made voy- ages to the dift'erent out-ports of the country. It may be worth while to state briefly here some of the principal rulers mentioned by the Greek and Boman writers ; premising that, previous to the ad- vance of Alexander, history is on these subjects INDIA. silent. Previous, indeed, to Alexander, we have nothing on which we can rely. There is no evidence that Darius himself invaded any part of India, though a portion of the NW. provinces of Bactria may ha'e paid him tribute, as stated by Herodotus. The ex- peditions of Dionysus and Hercules, and the wars of Sesostris and Semiramis in India, can be considered as nothing more than fables too credulously recorded by Ctesias. At the time of the invasion of Alex- ander the Great, there can be no doubt that there was a settled monarchy in the western part of India, and his dealings with it are very clearly to be made out. In the north of the Punjab was the town or district Taxila (probably Manikydla, or very near it), which was ruled by a king named Taxiles ; it being a frequent Indian custom to name the king from the place he ruled over. His name in Dio- dorus is Mophis (xvii. 86), and in Curtius, Omphis (viii. 12), which was probably the real one, and is itself of Indian origin. It appears that Alexander left his country as he found it. (Strab. xv. pp. 698, 699, 716.) The name of Taxiles is not mentioned in any Indian author. The next ruler Alexander met with was Porus (probably Paurava Sanscr., a change which Strabo indicates in that of Aapiavw into AapCtov), with whom Taxiles had been at war. (Arrian, v. 21.) Alexander appears to have suc- ceeded in reconciling them, and to have increased the empire of Porus, so as to make his rule compre- hend the whole country between the Ilydaspes and Acesines. (Arrian, v. 20, 21, 29.) His country is not named in any Indian writer. Shortly afterwards, Alexander received an emb.assy and presents from Abisaris (no doubt A bhisdra), whose territory, as has been shown by Prof. Wilson from the Annals of Cashmir, must have been in the mountains in the southern part of that province. (^Asiat. Pes. vol. XV. p. 116.) There had been previously a war be- tween this ruler and the Malli, Oxydracae, and the people of the Lower Panjdh, which had ended in notliing. Alexander continued Abisaris in the pos- .session of liis own territory, made Philip satrap of the Slalli and Oxydracae, and Pytho of the land be- tween the confluence of the Indus and Acesines and the sea (Arrian, vi. 15) ; placing, at the same time, Oxyarces over the Paropamisadae. (jVrr. vi. 15.) It may be obser-ed that, in the time of Ptolemy, the Cashmirians appear to have held the whole of the Punjab, so far as the Vindhya mountains, a portion of the southern country being, however, in the hands of the Main and Cathaei. The same state of things prevailed for some time after the -death of Alexander, as appears by a decree of Perdiccas, mentioned in Diodorus (xviii. 3), and with httle material change under Anti- pater. (Diod. xviii. 39.) Indeed, the provinces remained true to the Macedonians till the com- mencement of the rule of the Prasii, when San- drocottus took up arms against the Macedonian governors. (Justin, xv. 4.) The origin of this re- bellion is clearly traceable. Porus was slain by Eu- damus about B.C. 317 (Diod. six. 14) ; hence San- drocottus must have been on the throne about the time that Seleucus took Babylon. B.C. 312. The attempt of the Indians to recover their freedom was probably aided by the fact that Porus had been slain by a Greek. Sandrocottus, as king of the Prasii (Sansc. PracJiya) and of the nations on the Ganges, made war with Seleucus Nicator, who penetrated far into India. Plutarch says he ruled over all India, but this is not hkely. (Plut. Akx. 62.) It appeai-s