1865.] Report of the Archaeological Survey. 201 



distances of most of the chief places of Buddhist veneration, but in 

 describing Sanhisa he has given only one bearing and not a single 

 distance. The tank of the Nag a is the one solitary spot that can be 

 identified with certainty, the sites of all the rest being only guesses 

 of more or less probability. 



246. But the difficulty regarding the identification of the Asoka 

 Pillar is of a different kind. Both of the Chinese pilgrims make 

 mention of only one pillar at Sanhisa, which was crowned with the 

 figure of a lion, and Fa Hian records a silly legend which refers to the 

 miraculous roar of this lion statue. Now, the only piece of an Asoka 

 Pillar at present existing is the elephant capital, which I have already 

 described, and which, however absurd it may seem, I think may possi- 

 bly be the lion pillar of the Chinese pilgrims. The reasons which 

 induce me to think so are the following : — 1st, the elephant capital is 

 undoubtedly much older than the date of either of the pilgrims, and 

 yet, if it is not the same as the lion capital, it has been left altogether 

 undescribed by them, although its great size could scarcely have allowed 

 it to remain unnoticed ; 2nd, the height of the elephant pillar would 

 seem to correspond very closely with that of the lion pillar, as recorded 

 by Fa Hian, who calls it 30 cubits, or from 45 to 60 feet according to 

 the value of the Chinese chhi. Now, the diameter of the neck of the ele- 

 phant pillar is 2 feet 9J inches, which, compared with the dimensions 

 of the Allahabad pillar, 2 feet 2 inches neck diameter, to 35 feet of 

 height, gives a total for the shaft of the Sankisa Pillar of 44 feet 3 

 inches. By adding to this the height of the capital, we obtain 52J feet 

 as the probable height of the Sankisa Pillar. 3rd, as the trunk of the 

 elephant has long been lost, it is possible that it was missing before the 

 time of the Chinese pilgrims, and if so, the nature of the animal might 

 easily have been mistaken at a height of 50 feet above the ground. 

 Indeed, supposing the pillar to be the same, this is the only way in which 

 I can account for the mistake about the animal. But, if the pillar is 

 not the same, the silence of both pilgrims regarding this magnificent ele- 

 phant pillar seems to me quite unaccountable. On the whole, therefore, 

 I am inclined to believe that the elephant's trunk having been long lost, 

 the nature of the animal was mistaken when viewed from a distance of 

 50 feet beneath. This is confirmed by the discrepancy in the statements 

 of the two pilgrims regarding the capital of one of the Srdvasti pillars, 



