III.A.1, Map (b). India as Revealed in the Rāmāyana

This map shifts our focus from the Kuru-Pañcāla region in the upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab, which looms so large in the context of the Vedas, to Kosala, with its celebrated capital of Ayodhyā. Kosala constituted one of the important cores of Aryan culture, dating from the time of the &Rtod;g Veda, which mentions the Sarayu River and an Aryan settlement on its bank. Kosala and its eastern neighbor Videha were probably included in the "Middle Region," although they were accorded relatively minor importance until the 7th or 6th century B.C. The Rāmāya&ntod;a and other traditional sources would, however, lead one to believe in the glorious past of Kosala under the rule of the illustrious Ik&stod;vāku dynasty, which has provided In- dian culture with a galaxy of heroes. The most outstanding of those was Rāma, the hero of numerous versions of the epic, in both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. Unlike the Mahā- bhārata, the Rāmāya&ntod;a, except for the first and the last of its seven sections, seems to be the work of a single poet, Vālmīki, who versified the traditional account, probably in the 2d cen- tury B.C.

This map depicts the identifiable peoples, places, kingdoms, and physical features derived primarily from books IV and VI of the critical (Baroda) edition of the Vālmīkīya Rāmāya&ntod;a, from T. H. Griffith's translation, and from a study of second- ary research works by Pargiter, Paramasiva Iyer, and other scholars.

Despite the admitted lateness of its final composition, the cultural and ecological milieu of the kernel of Rāma's story is projected by the epic poet to the times of early Aryan expan- sion. This is especially true in the mention of a great many forests and forest tribes, particularly in the regions south of Prayāga. Of special note are the vast stretch of jungle named Da&ntod;&dtod;akāra&ntod;ya and a number of hermitages of the Brahman priestly and ascetic "frontiersmen." Shorn of its epic narrative details, the Rāmāya&ntod;a may provide an insight into the contin- uing process of Aryan penetration of the tribal and forested regions of central and south India. This involved, according to the epic story, a cooperative venture between the priestly vanguard and the warrior followers for protecting the Brah- manic hermitages from non-Aryan harassment. Herein we have a pattern of colonization of tribal areas analogous to that revealed by many other sources, including inscriptions, down to the 13th century A.D.

The reconstruction of "Rāma's Route of Exile" is an impor- tant aspect of this map. Two assumptions are implicit in mak- ing any such reconstruction: first, that the legendary Rāma did in fact exist in the prehistoric period and, second, that he ac- tually did undertake an extended journey related to that de- scribed in the Rāmāya&ntod;a. Of the validity of the first assumption we are reasonably confident. The second assumption is more dubious; but our reconstructions are addressed to those who do accept its validity. Among the factors that complicate the task of reconstructing Rāma's route, two presented extreme difficulties. First, there are many modern places with names identical to those mentioned in the text in association with Rāma's exploits. Second, since the 19th century a controversy has raged among scholars over the location of Rāma's route. Of pivotal importance is the identification of La&ndot;kā, the capi- tal of the villain Rāva&ntod;a, the abductor of Rāma's consort. The abduction carries the narration forward to the Brahmanic her- mitages in the Vindhyan forests, beyond Rāma's reach. Our two reconstructions preserve the points of view both of those who believe in Rāma's march across the ocean to La&ndot;kā (mod- ern Sri Lanka) and also of scholars who restrict his march to areas of Madhya Pradesh and place La&ndot;kā in the Vindhyan region. Of these two views, we favor the latter. Nevertheless, the possibility that future scholarship will lend support to yet another alternative cannot be ruled out.

Another aspect of this map involves Aryan penetration southward as far as Sri Lanka. It is historically certain that the Aryans had knowledge of that island by the 3d century B.C., which makes plausible Vālmiki's identification of La&ndot;kā in the epic with it. The same, however, cannot be maintained for the Aryans of the Vedic period, whose certain knowledge did not extend beyond the regions and the peoples known from the Later Vedic texts as shown on map (a). Knowledge of areas up to the La&ndot;kā we have indicated in modern Madhya Pradesh was certain; and that of areas of Daksi&ntod;ā-Padā (the Southern Region) extending up to parts of present-day Maha- rashtra was probable.

Sources (in addition to those in the General Bibliography)

Primary Sources

Vālmīki.

Other Works

T. P. Iyer (1940); H. G. Jacobi (1960); M. V. Kibe (1939); B. A. Pargiter (1894); V. Pathak (1963); S. N. Vyas (1967).

N.B. Many of the works cited in the bibliography for map III.A.1 (a) also have relevance for map III.A.1 (b).

For a listing of works bearing on the cosmological view pre- sented in the lower right corner of plate III.A.1, see sources for plate III.D.3.

III.A.2. India as Revealed in the Mahābhārata

The Mahābhārata, the world's longest epic poem (tradi- tionally running to 100,000 couplets), can be used neither as a treatise on historical geography nor as a sourcebook of ob- jective history. No single author nor any single date can be assigned to this vast encyclopedic Sanskrit work; nor, for that matter, can we declare with certitude that its alleged battle of annihilation on the plain of Kuruk&stod;etra really took place. Nev- ertheless the Mahābhārata, aptly called "the National Epic of India," contains a remarkable diversity of toponymic and ethnographic materials, to which our three cartographic re- constructions hardly do justice. Generations of pundits and indologists have studied, commented on, and written about various aspects of the Mahābhārata, including its ethnography and geography. Our treatment is therefore significant only in- sofar as it succeeds in reconciling divergent views of modern scholarship over significant portions of the toponymic and ethnographic data of the epic and in providing most probable locations of important peoples, places, kingdoms, capitals, and natural features mentioned therein.

The methodology employed in preparing plate III.A.2 is similar to that of notable modern scholars, involving collec- tion and evaluation of data from the Sanskrit texts and sec- ondary sources and comparison of those data with historically known evidence for identifying peoples and places in their earliest possible locales. The only noteworthy difference in our approach is that we have attempted to plot the available data in the light of textual references to ecological conditions and have made inferences about conditions prevailing at the time. The sequence, proximity, and situational factors of the epic's descriptions have normally determined our preferred identifi- cations. With the exception of Shafer's Ethnography of An- cient India (1954), which could not incorporate geographical data furnished by the section of the itinerary of the sacrificial horse (explained in the text for plate III.A.1, map (a)), ours is the first cartographic reconstruction, so far as we are aware, to be based on the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata.

The Mahābhārata is the first among the Sanskrit literary sources utilized for this atlas that has a separate section de- scribing the geography of the Indian subcontinent and its adja- cent countries in Central Asia. This section, the Jambukha&ntod;&dtod;a- nirmā&ntod;a-Parva, begins with the major mountain systems of India, is followed by a catalog of rivers, and concludes with an even more detailed enumeration of the janapadas (people's domains). In addition to representing data from this section, our maps portray materials from the descriptions of dig-vijayas ("campaign of conquests of quarters," i.e., the four parts of the Indian world) described in various books and chapters of the Mahābhārata, notably the campaigns of Pa&ntod;&dtod;u in the Ādi- Parva (The Book of the Beginning), of Arjuna in the Sabha- Parva (The Book of the Assembly), and of Kar&ntod;a in the Āra&ntod;yaka-Parva (The Book of the Forest), as well as the "itin- erary of the sacrificial horse," the Aśvamedhika-Parva, and the Tirthayātra-Parva, a book dealing with pilgrimage. Of all these divisions of the text, the Tīrthayātra-Parva is the best orga- nized, providing us with an orderly description of sacred places in a broad clockwise sequence, which immensely helps in their identification.

In addition to the introductions of various editors of the Critical Edition of the Mahābhārata, Sörensen's Index to the Names in the Mahābhārata, and numerous critical studies noted under sources, below, were used frequently and were most valuable in the preparation of our maps.

Although it would be futile to argue for a specific temporal framework for the mapped materials, we have taken the be- ginning date of the Mahābhārata story to be about the 9th century B.C. and the date of the final redaction of the text, as established by the editors of the Critical Edition, to be about the beginning of the 5th century A.D. A Mahābhārata of 24,000 couplets was probably redacted in the 2d century B.C. and sub- sequently enlarged to its traditional 100,000 couplets. We have taken the 5th century as the commencement of "The Book of the Beginning." The time of Lomahar&stod;a&ntod;a (he of the hair- raising tale), the inaugurator of the recitation of Ancient Lore (Purā&ntod;a), and his son Ugraśrava (he of the awesome voice), the first public recitor of the Bhārata, is taken to be the 8th century B.C.

Apart from the obvious concern for cartographic clarity, the presentation of the physical and human geographic data of the Mahābhārata on three different maps is justified by the enormous importance of the work. The spatial distribution of the protagonists and antagonists in the "Great Battle" assumed increasing significance over the centuries because of the politi- cal and social use to which the epic traditions were put by Indi- ans within and outside South Asia, particularly in legitimizing the rule of rājanyas ("those fit to rule") through genealogies, generally fabricated, linking them to peoples and specific he- roes of the epic. The spatial and ethnological relationships are of particular relevance for understanding the later evolution of specific regions when it is possible to correlate the epic data with archaeological and other historical sources. Many of the regional patterns revealed in the Mahābhārata persisted throughout history, and a knowledge of them will facilitate analysis of such sociological processes as the acculturation of indigenous peoples.

For reasons already indicated, a historical analysis of the maps of the Mahābhārata is not warranted. However, com- paring them with those represented on the preceding and sub- sequent map plates (III.A.1 and III.B.2) reveals certain cor- respondences as well as divergences. The correspondences assume analytic value insofar as the Mahābhārata provides an abundance of identifiable names of peoples and places within and in the general vicinity of the earlier-known Vedic regions. The textual descriptions suggest that the core areas of those preexisting regions were situated amid broad forested tracts inhabited by non-Aryan tribes, not only on the fertile Malwa and Deccan Plateaus, but also in the central Ganga Plain, where Aryan domination had been established by the 8th to 7th century B.C. The Mahābhārata's enumeration of tribes, many of which are represented on maps (a) and (b), provides an insight into the character and makeup of regions unknown from any other single source. With respect to the divergences, we may note that the geographic perspective of the Epics is substantially broader than that of the Vedas, being comparable in extent to that of the early Buddhist sources.

Our cartographic reconstruction, however, often fails to re- veal whether the tribal groups indicated are indigenous or Ar- yan because it designates them by the names of their janapadas (peoples' domains/realms) when evidence suggests the pres- ence of a sufficiently developed polity. Where textual refer- ences refer to proper names without imparting any ethnologi- cal character (e.g., "Maru"), such names have been shown on map (a) as "other regions." Further, ascertaining the spatial extent of peoples poses additional problems, and our depiction is at best suggestive. Certain non-Aryan tribal names referred to in the Mahābhārata have been presumed to be no more than generic terms and have accordingly not been plotted on our map. The Nāgas, who at one time roamed over vast stretches of forest south of the Yamuna River, afford one such example.

Map III.A.2 (b) depicts the opposing forces in the Mahā- bhārata war on the battlefield of Kuruk&stod;etra, which, according to the epic, lasted for eighteen days. It is intended to highlight the areas of origin of the combatants of the sides of the Kau- ravas and the Pā&ntod;&dtod;avas, who allegedly were drawn from the whole of Jambudvīpa (greater India). At each redaction of the epic, it seems to have been necessary to perpetuate the legend of the subcontinental participation in the great war by adding or substituting contemporary peoples, kings, and re- gions. Unlike the Vedic scriptures, the content of which was sacrosanct, the Mahābhārata was subject to frequent interpola- tions. This may explain the occurrence in the Mahābhārata of the names of several peoples and regions, especially in western India, whose existence cannot be historically vouched for ear- lier than the 2d century B.C. or in a few cases until A.D. 400. These and other additions vitiate the historical value of the epic narrative and have frustrated the attempts of the editors of the Critical Edition to reconstruct an Ur-epic. In passing, we may note that the great battle allegedly provided the occa- sion for the delivery of the message of the sacred Bhagavad Gītā by Lord K&rtod;&stod;&ntod;a to the Pā&ntod;&dtod;ava general Arjuna.

A comparison of map (c), depicting natural features and sacred places mentioned in the Mahābhārata, with both the preceding maps, as well as with subsequent ones in section III, demonstrates a striking development in geographic ideas from the Later Vedic concept of p&rtod;thvī ("earth" or "landmass") to the epic perception of the nature of Jambudvīpa or Bhā- ratavar&stod;a, which included South Asia and adjacent areas. Ac- cording to the early Sanskrit and Prakrit-Pali sources, includ- ing Aśokan inscriptions, both terms, p&rtod;thvī and jambudvīpa, designated the temporal and spiritual sphere of an imperial ruler as well as of the promoters of religion and culture. This map, however, focuses on the physical and religious character of Jambudvīpa, within which area numerous places of pil- grimage arose. The sanctity of certain of these places is of pre-Aryan origin, as is the concept of pilgrimage itself. The Mahābhārata not only reflects and advances the continuity of the Aryan approach to pilgrimage, but also incorporates non- Aryan views. The significance of the holy sites lay largely in their promoting religious and cultural interaction and foster- ing a commonality of beliefs and practices. Our map, however, depicts relatively few identifiable sacred sites and objects from among the many found in the Mahābhārata. Those we do show are largely associated with water. (The term for place of pil- grimage, tīrtha, literally means "ford," while tīrthayātrā, or