1865.] Report of the Archeological Survey. 201 
distances of most of the chief placesof Buddhist veneration, but in 
describing Sankisa he has given only one bearing and not a single 
distance. The tank of the Ndga 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 Sankisa, 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 :—lIst, 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 9 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 521 feet 
as the probable height of the Sankisa Pillar. 3rd, as the trunk of the 
elephant has long been lost, it is possiblethat 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 
~ Ican account for the mistake about the animal. Buit, 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 Srdvast? pillars, 

