Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T23:45:45.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Notes on the Ancient Geography of India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

J. PH. Vogel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years explorations of great importance have been conducted on a Buddhist site in the Pālnād taluk of the Guntur district of the Madras Presidency, lastly under the superintendence of Mr. A. H. Longhurst, of the Archaeological Survey of India. The site in question which comprises several ancient mounds is situated in the midst of wooded hills on the right bank of the river Kistna or Kṛishṇā, the Kaṇṇapeṇṇa or Kaṇṇavaṇṇā (Skt. Kṛishṇavarṇā) of Pali literature, at a distance of some 15 miles from Macherla and on the border of the Nizam's dominions. One of those mounds is known by the name of Nāgārjunikoṇḍa. Mr. Longhurst claims it to be the most important Buddhist site hitherto discovered in Southern India.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , January 1929 , pp. 113 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 113 note 1 A preliminary account of the discovery will be found in the Annual Report on South-Indian Epigraphy for the year ending 31st March, 1926, Madras, 1926, pp. 4 and 92 f., and for the year ending 31st March, 1927, Madras, 1928, pp. 71 f. Some of the statements made here regarding the contents of the inscriptions require correction in the light of more minute study. Cf. also Annual Bibliography of Indian Archmology for the year 1926, Leyden, 1928, pp. 14–16.

page 114 note 1 According to Tibetan tradition Nāgārjuna spent the last part of his life in a monastery called Śrīparvata.

page 114 note 2 The vowel-sign over the has the appearance of an ostroke. But in these inscriptions the rendering of the vowel marks is far from accurate. Moreover, if we compare the names of other localities which occur in this passage, viz. Culadham[m]agiri, Mahadham[m]agiri, Devagiri, Pu[p]phagiri, and Puv[v]asela, there can be little doubt that the correct form must be Kaṇṭakasela, and not °sola.

page 114 note 3 Variant readings are Cantacasila, °ssilla, Canticosila, and Cantacosyla. Cf. Louis Renou, La geographie de Ptolémée.L'Inde (vii, 1–4), Paris, 1925, p. 8.]

page 115 note 1 Warmington, E. H., The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India. Cambridge, 1928, p. 107Google Scholar.

page 115 note 2 Cf. Cunningham, , Arch. Survey Report, vol. v, pp. 178 ffGoogle Scholar.; plates xliii and xliv, and Fergusson, , Hist, of Indian and Eastern Architecture, revised edition, London, 1910, vol. i, pp. 297–301Google Scholar.

page 115 note 3 Ep. Ind., vol. i, pp. 97 ff.

page 115 note 1 Evidently a misprint for -uru-.

page 116 note 1 Cf. Annual Report Arch. Survey of Indiafor the year 1905–6, pp. 17 ff., plates v and vi. The correct date of the inscriptions must be Saka 1126, corresponding to a.d. 1204.