192 Report of the Archeological Survey. [No. 3, 






















Its highest point is 44 feet 9 inches, which, if my identification is 
correct, should be the ruins of the great Stwpa of Asoka, upwards of 
100 feet in height, as this lofty tower is said to have been situated 
inside a monastery in the middle of the town. Outside the town there 
were two other monasteries, inhabited by 300 monks. These may 
perhaps be represented by two small mounds which still exist on the 
east side of the Great Khera. To the south there is a third mound, 
165 feet in length by 105 feet in breadth, which may possibly be the 
remains of one or more of the five Brahmanical temples described by 
Hwen Thsang. 
232. Atranji-Khera had two gates, one to the east, towards the Kali 
Nadi, and the other to the south. The foundation of the place is attri- — 
buted to Raja Vena Chakravartti. The mound is covered with broken 
bricks of large size and fragments of statues, and old coins are said to 
be frequently found. All the existing fragments of statues are said to 
be Brahmanical. There is a temple of Mahadeo on the mound, and 
there are five lingams in different places, of which one is 6 feet in height, 
The principal statue is that of a four-armed female called Debi, but 
which, as she is represented treading upon a prostrate figure, is most — 
probably Durga. 
233. The only objection to the identification of Atranji with Pi- 
loshanna is the difference between the distance of 200 i, or 33 miles, 
as stated by Hwen Thsang, and the actual distance of 43 miles direct, 
or about 48 or 50 miles by road. I have already suggested the pos- 
sibility of there being some mistake in the recorded distance of Hwen 
Thsang, but perhaps an equally probable explanation may be found in 
the difference of the length of the yojana. Hwen Thsang states that 
he allowed 40 Chinese Ui to the Yojana ; but if the old yojana of 
Rohilkhand differed from that of the Central Doab as much as the hos 
of these districts now differ, his distances would have varied by half a 
mile in every kos, or by two miles in very yojana, as the Rohilkhand 
kos is only 13 mile, while that of the Doab is two miles; the latter” 
being one-third greater. Now, if we apply this difference to Hwen 
Thsang’s measurement of 200 U’, or 33 miles, we increase the distance 
at once to 44 miles, which agrees with the direct measured distance on 
the map. I confess, however, that I am rather inclined to believe in. 
the possibility of there being a mistake in Hwen Thsang’s recorded 
