Indian Antiquary Vol 50

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 48

42
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ FEB., 1921
the country of the Gangrides of Megasthenes and Ptolemy, and Gangarides is evidently a corruption of Gangâ-Râdi. According to Megasthenes, who was an ambassador in the court of Chandragupta in the fourth century B.C., the river Ganges formed the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, and their capital was Parthalis, 103 which is evidently Purvasthali, a very old and large village situated on the Ganges in the district of Burdwan. According to Ptolemy, the capital of the Gangarides was Gange. 103 Mr. Schoff in his translation of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea says that by Gange is meant the port of the Ganges as well as the country, 104 Mr. Schoff appears to have been correct in his statement that the name applied both to the country and to its principal town on the Ganges. But the "country" of Gange was not Bengal as stated by him, but Râdha (which now indeed forms a part of Bengal under the British rule); for it appears from the Karhad Plate Inscription 105 of Krishua III and also from the Harihar and Belur Inscriptions 106 that Ganga was the name of a country, and in the first mentioned inscription, Gâiga has been placed between Kalinga and Magadha. 107 Perhaps Gânga was the country of Ganga or Gâigya of the Kaushitaki Upanishad, the king of which was Chitra, who was also called Gangyayani or Gangayani. 108 The Gånga dynasty ruled over the south of Mysore and Coorg, etc., from the second to the ninth century A.D., and a branch of the family ruling over Orissa in the 12th century conquered Radha.109 As regards the town of Gange, its proper identification depends upon three circumstances: it must be in the country of Radha; it must be on the Ganges; and it must have been an emporium of commerce as described in Ptolemy's Geography and in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Mr. Schoff suggests Tamluk (ancient Tâmralipta) as the "town of Ganges."110 Tamluk, however, was a maritime port and not a port of the Ganges in the second century A.D. Gange has been variously identified with Sonargaon, Chittagong, Jessore, etc. 111 Mr. Irving says, "The town of Ganges situated at no great distance from Calcutta was a grand emporium for Bengal," but he does not specify any place. 11 Saptagrama, now called Sâtgâon, situated at a distance of two miles to the north of the town of Hughli, conforms to the three conditions above stated. It was situated on the Ganges at the point from which the Sarasvati and the Yamuna branched off towards the south and the east; so that its position was eminently suited for being a trade distributary, and an emporium of commerce. It was in a flourishing condition from the beginning of the Christian era to the 16th century. 113 Triveni was the eastern quarter of Saptagrâma. 114 Pliny, who flourished in the first century A.D., mentions it as a great commercial centre. 115 Frederike, who visited Satgaon in 1570, says, " In the port of Satgaon every year, they lade 30 or 35 ships, great and small, with rice, cloth of bombast of divers sort, lacca, great abundance of sugar, pepper, oil, zerzeline and other sorts of merchandise." Kavikaikana, the author of the Chands, spoke of it in glowing terms that merchants
102 McCrindle's Megasthenes and Arrian, pp. 32, 135.
103 McCrindle's Ptolemy, p. 172.
104 Schoff's Periplus, pp. 47, 255; McCrindle's Commerce and Navigation of the Erythraean Sea, p. 146. 106 Epigraphia Indica, vol. IV, p. 278. 106 Rice's Mysore Inscriptions, pp. 70, 223.
107 Epigraphia Indica, vol. IV, pp. 278-290, v. 10:
Dvarasthänga vanga-kalinga-garga-magadhai-varchchitattaéchiram, etc. 108 Kaushitaki Upanishad, I, 1.
110' Schoff's Periplus of the Erythræan Sea, p. 255. 113 Irving's Commerce of India, p. 84.
113 JASB., 1910, pp. 613-615.-My Notes on the History of the District of Hughli or the Ancient Rada.
114 Kavikankana-Chandi, pp. 228, 229
116 Pliny's Natural History, Bk. VI, ch, 19, translated by Philemon Holland (1801).
109 JASB., 1895, p. 139 note; 1896, p. 241. 111 McCrindle's Ptolemy, pp. 174, 175.