176 ON THE ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY 
by recent discoveries in the north and north-west of India. 
These appear to have not only furnished new materials for the 
solution ef the question, but to have laid open radical errors, 
which have hitherto darkened the view of modern inquirers. 
When these are removed, I am persuaded that the reports of 
the ancient writers will be found clear, consistent, and satisfac- 
tory, to a degree beyond what has yet been suspected. 
The principle hitherto proceeded upon, by all modern geo- 
graphers, is, that provided their system appears to be support- 
ed by a few names and particulars found in Proremy, they are 
at perfect liberty to impute to him any errors, however enor- 
mous, which may be necessary to fill up their hypothesis. M. 
Gossein broadly lays down the maxim, that all precise know- 
ledge, on the part of the ancients, terminated with the range of 
the Beloor ; and D’ Axvitie repeatedly warns his readers against 
expecting more than a very vague and general coincidence 
between the actual features of the country and Proiemy’s de- 
scription of them. This last, he observes, must be corrected 
by the more copious and accurate information of modern 
times. My own researches, on the contrary, have led to a 
pretty decided conviction, that the ancients knew more respec- 
ting these regions, than has been, or is still known to the mo- 
derns ; that they knew more consequently than those very emi- 
nent geographers who have treated their authority so lightly. 
I believe, if the statements of Prozemy be taken simply as they 
stand, and be carefully collected and: arranged, they will be 
found to exhibit correctly all the grand outlines of Central and 
Eastern Asia. 
Considering the subject in this view, it may be advantageous, 
before entering upon the proposed analysis, to notice some 
preliminary facts, which may throw light on the general degree 
of knowledge possessed by the ancient writers respecting this 
part 
