1865.] Report of the Archaeological Survey . 193 



distance, as I find exactly the same measurement of 200 li given as the 

 distance between Sankisa and Kanoj. Now, the two distances are pre- 

 cisely the same — that is, Sankisa is exactly midway between Atranji 

 and Kanoj ; and as the latter distance is just 50 miles by my measure- 

 ment along the high road, the former must also be the same. I would 

 therefore suggest the probability that both of these distances should 

 be 800 li, or 50 miles, instead of 200 li as recorded in the text. In 

 favour of this proposed correction I may cite the testimony of the ear- 

 lier Chinese pilgrim Fa Hian, who makes the distance from Sankisa 

 to Kanoj 7 yojanas, or 49 miles. At Hwen Thsang's own valuation 

 of 40 li to the yojana, this measurement would give 280 li ; and as Fa 

 Hian does not record half yojanas, we may increase the distance by half 

 a yojana, or 20 li, which brings the total up to 300 li, or exactly 50 

 miles. 



234. But whatever may be the true explanation of the difference 

 between the actual distances and those recorded by Hwen Thsang, there 

 still remains the important fact that Sankisa was exactly midway be- 

 tween Kanoj and - Piloshanna, just as it now is midway between Kanoj 

 and Atranji. If we couple this absolute identity of position with the 

 fact that Atranji is the only old place in the part of the country indi- 

 cated by Hwen Thsang, we can scarcely arrive at any other conclusion 

 than that the great ruined mound of Atranji is the site of the ancient 

 Piloshanna. 



(To be concluded.) 



