
1865. ] Report of the Archeological 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 Atranjt 
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 300 Zz, or 50 miles, instead of 200 7 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 i ; 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 wp to 300 17, 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 Kana} 
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 Alranji is the site of the ancient 
Piloshanna. 
(To be concluded.) 

