________________
202
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
( NOVEMBER, 1926
Aratta, BAlhika and Vandyu, Tampra parni and PandyakavAta, Suvarnakudya and Suvarnabhumi, China and Nepåla. Let us see how far this argument is sustainable. Of these geogra. phical terins BAlhika is mentioned in the Atharva Veda.26 K Apiša is mentioned not only in Påņini, but according to Pliny26 it had been attacked by Cyrus, the founder of the Achæme. nian empire. Kambhoja is mentioned, not only in the Anguttara Nikdya, but also in Y Aska's Nirukta (II. 2) and in the inscriptions of Asoka, even if we omit the somewhat doubtful reference to it in the early Persian Inscriptions.27 Tamra parni and Pandya are referred to both in the Indica of Megasthenes and the Inscriptions of Asoka 28 Suvarnabhůmi is mentioned in early PAli literature, which, according to many eminent scholars, looks back upon the PreMaurya period.39 The Arattas are referred to by the author of the Periplus in the first century A.D.80 and that they lived in India two or three centuries before that, is proved by the evidence of the Baudhayana Dharmasiilras. In fact, Mr.K.P. Jayaswal has already started a plausible theory about the conquering campaigns of Chandragupta with the help of the Arattas 31 Vankyu is taken by Dr. Någ in the doubtful sense of Arabia. But unless he can show that the term Vanàyu came into vogue in the Post-Mauryan period, the mention of it is no evidence in his favour. For it was not at all impossible for a Mauryan statesman to know about Arabis, if he was in constant contact with the rulers of the whole region between the Aegean sea and the Hindukush. But the mention of China surely would have become a piece of valuable evidence in Dr. Nâg's favour, if it could be conclusively proved that it is deriv. ed from the 1st Tsin dynasty, which was founded by the Duke of Tsin in c. 221 B.C. Un. fortunately the derivation is not accepted by all.39 Mr. Giles, for instance, remarks that the constant coupling of the word China with the Daradas, still surviving as the people of Dardistan on the Indus, suggests it as more probable that those Chinas were a kindred race of mountaineers, whose name as Shinas in fact likewise remains applied to a branch of the Dard race. Again it is not entirely impossible that the word is an interpolation, as Dr. Keith suggests.83 The mention of the words Nepala and Suvarna-kudya cannot be conclusive, because we do not know as yet when and how the words originated. But the occurrence of the word HArahara presente some difficulty. It occurs in the following passage :
Mrdvikaraso madhu. tasya svadešo vyakhyanan ka pisayanan harahirakamiti.34
Now what does harahüraka mean? Does it refer to the country of Harakūras ? The more correct form of the name that has been accepted by scholars is HArahna, the White Epthalites. Supposing, however, for the moment that the correct name is Hårahůra and not H&rahana, where is the ovidence that there was any country near India where this nomadic tribe was settled? We know of no portion of India which was named after them, as portions of the Punjab, Rajputana and Kathiawar were no doubt named after the Gurjaras. Then, again, supposing that a country of the Hårahůras existed and Kautilya was referring to that country, we should naturally expect a cha after hårahúrakam. According to Dr. Taraporewala, 'Harahürakam is evidently a loan word.' The word might be a Persian word. 'Hura' has been used in the Avesta to mean wine, and in Middle Persian to mean an intoxicating drink made of mare's milk (vide Bartholmae, Iranisches Wörterbuch). Hence, according to him, the
26 Vedic Index, Vol. II, p. 63. 36 VI, 23 (25); Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 555.
37 Carmichael Lectures, 1918, p. 48 and pp. 57-56. Asoka's Rock Edicts V and XIII; Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 334.
28 Indian Antiquary, Vol. VI, 129; Rock Edict XIII. 29 Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, p. 213. 30 Schoff (ed.). Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, p. 41.
31 Indian Antiquary, 1914, p. 124. The Årattas aro mentioned in the Dharma Sutras. According to.Dr. Keith 'the age to which the Satras may be assigned cannot be earlier than the seventh or later than the second century B.C.' Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, pp. 242 and 259, Raudhayang Dharma Satra, 1, 1, 2, 9.
33. The Encyclopaedia Britanica, XIth ed., Vol. VI. 23 JRAS., 1916, January, p. 136.
34 Arthajdstra, p. 120.
