________________
NOVEMBER, 1884.]
PTOLEMY'S GEOG. BK. VII, CHAP. 1, $ 27.
341
Satlaj, before joining the Indus, receives the Chenåb, and so all the waters of the Pafichanada.
With regard to the nomenclature and relative importance of the rivers of the Panjab the following remarks of V. de Saint-Martin may be cited :
"As regards the Hyphasis, or more correctly the Hypasis, the extended application of this name till the stream approaches the Indus, is contrary to the notions which we draw from Sanskrit sources, according to which the Vipasa loses its name in the Satadru (Satlaj), a river which is otherwise of greater importance than the Vipaså. Nevertheless the assertion of our author by itself points to a local notion which is confirmed by a passage in the chronicles of Sindh, where the name of the Beiah which is the form of the Sanskrit Vipåsk in Musalman authors and in actual use, is equally applied to the lower course of the Satlaj till it unites with the Chenab not far from the Indus. Arrian, more exact here, or at least more circumstantial than Strabo and the other geographers, informs us that of all the group of the Indus affluents the Akesinês was the most considerable. It was the Akesinês which carried to the Indus the combined waters of the Hydaspês of the Hydraðtes and of the Hyphasis, and each of these streams lost its name in uniting with the Akesinês (Arr. Anab. lib. VI, c. v). This view of the general hydrography of the Panjab is in entire agreement with facts, and with the actual nomenclature. It is correctly recognized that the Chenab is in effect the most considerable stream of the Panjab, and its name successively absorbs the names of the Jhelam, the Råvi, and the Gharra or lower Satlai, before its junction with the Indus opposite Mittankot. Ptolemy here differs from Arrian and the current ideas on the subject. With him it is not the Akesinês (or, as he calls it, the Sandabala for Sandabaga) which carries to the Indus the waters of the Panjab. It is the Bidaspês (Vitast). Ptolemy departs again in another point from the nomenclature of the historians who preceded him in applying to the Gharra or lower Satlaj the name of Zaradros, and not, as did Arrian that of Hy. pasis. Zadadros is the Sutudri or Satadru of the Sanskrit nomenclature, a name which com. mon usage since the Musalman ascendancy has strangely disfigured into Satlaj. No mention is made of this river in the memoirs relating to the expedition of Alexander, and Megasthenes, it would appear, was the first who made its existence known. The application moreover of the two names of Zadadros and Bibasis to the united current of the Satadru and the Vipåsk is justified by the usage equally variable of the natives along
the banks, while in the ancient Sanskrit writings the Satadru goes, as in Ptolemy, to join the Indus. It may be added that certain particularities in the texts of Arrian and Ptolemy suggest the idea that formerly several arms of the Hyphasis existed which went to join, it may be, the Hydraðtês, or, it may be, the lower Akesinês above the principal confluent of the Hyphasis, an idea which the actual examination of the locality appears to confirm. This point merits attention because the obscurities or apparent contradictions in the text of the two authors would here find an easy explanation" (pp. 129-131, also pp. 396-402).
Junction of the Kôa and Indus Ptolemy fixes the point of junction in latitude 31°, but the real latitude is 33° 54'. Here the Indus is 872 miles distant from its source, and 942 miles from the sea. The confluence takes place amidst numerous rocks and is therefore turbulent and attended with great noise.
Junction of the Zara dros and Indus: Ptolemy fixes this great junction in latitude 30o, the real latitude being however 28° 55'. It takes place about 3 miles below Mitankót, at a distance of about 490 miles below the junction with the Kábul River.
Divarication of the Indus towards Mt. Vindion:-The Indus below its junction with the Kabul river frequently throws out branches (e.g. the Nara) which join it again before reaching the sea, and to such branches Ptolemy gives the name oféktpomai. "Itis doubtful," Saint-Martin observes, " whether Ptolemy had formed quite a clear idea of this configuration of the valley, and had always distinguished properly the affluents from the branches. Thus one does not quite precisely see what he means by the expression which he frequently employs yn Tils der porns. What he designates thereby must be undoubtedly the streams or currents which descend from the lateral region, and which come to lose themselves in the branches of the river. But the expression, which is familiar to him, is not the less ambiguous and altogether improper "-(p. 235 n.) The branch here mentioned, Lassen (Ind. Alt. vol. III, pp. 121, 129) takes to be the Lavani River. “Ptolemy," he says, "in contradiction to fact makes a tribu. tary flow to it from the Vindhya Mountains. His error is without doubt occasioned by this, that the Lavani River, which has its source in the Arlivalt chain falls into the salt lake, the Rm or Iriņa, into which also the eastern arm of the Indus discharges."
Divarication of the Indus into A ra khôøia:Lassen (vol. III, p. 128), takes this to be the Gomal rather than the Korum River. These rivers are both mentioned in the Vedic hymn,
