part 4.] Theobald: Antiquity of the Human race in India. 
143 
the mythological notion of the tortoise was derived, as a symbol of strength, from some one 
of those small species which are now known to exist in India, this congruity of ideas—this 
harmony of representation, would be at once violated; it would he as legitimate to talk of 
a rat or a mouse contending with an elephant as of any known Indian tortoise to do the 
same in the case of the fable of Garuda. The fancy would scout the image as incongruous, 
and the weight even of Mythology would not he strong enough to enforce it on the faith 
of the most superstitious epoch of the human race.”—Page 575. 
The above argument is plausible, if it may not be termed forcible; but since it was 
written, additional light has been thrown on the subject, and it has been ascertained that the 
Fauna, habitually referred to by Falconer as the Sivalik, in reality comprised two Faunas, 
derived from two perfectly distinct groups, which were first discriminated by Mr. Medlicott 
(vide Memoirs, Geological Survey, Yol. III.) under the names of Naban and Sivalik, in 1864. 
Now, the co-existence of man with some, at least, of the extinct members of the Sivalik Fauna,' 
though not as yet established, is what the discoveries of any day may put beyond question ; 
and were the Colossoehelys a member of the more recent, Sivalik, fauna, Falconer’s argument, 
quoted above, would, in my opinion, have great weight: but we now know that Colossoehelys 
was not a Sivalik species but a member of the older Nahan fauna, no species of which is 
certainly known to have survived to Sivalik times. Colossoehelys was among the fossils for¬ 
warded by Colonel Burney from Ava, where it was associated with Mastodon latidens, Clift, 
and Elephas Cliftii, Fal. ( Mastodon elephantoid.es, Clift, in part). Now, both these mammals 
are Nahan species, and during the last season a superb palate specimen of E. Cliftii, Fal., 
was procured by myself from Nahan strata, near Talowra, on the Sutlej; whilst Mastodon 
latidens, Clift, was recently procured near Lehri, not far from Jhelum, by Mr. Wynne, accom¬ 
panied by Sits hysudricus, Fal., both fossils differing considerably from Sivalik remains in aspect 
and mineralization. I have not visited Lehri, but I have good grounds for believing the 
fossils from it to be all of Nahan age, though this I need not enter on here. I have also 
myself procured during the last season specimens of Colossoehelys from Nahan beds near 
Deyra or the Bias, so that the evidence of the geological age of this remarkable form is 
tolerably complete. This being so, any arguments short of direct proof of the co-existence 
of man and the Colossoehelys are vain; since, with the enormous gap intervening between 
the groups, it is far more unlikely that remains of man will be ever found in the older, than 
it is probable that they may be discovered in the younger. 
The second argument I would refer to is contained in a paper by Falconer, published 
posthumously in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society for November 1865, and 
reproduced in the Falconer Memoirs, Vol. II., p. 632. I cannot do better than give the 
passage as it stands: “ The third fossil species (Hippopotamus Paheindi.eus) is perhaps the 
most important in its indications. A quadruped, so remarkable for its size, form, and habits, 
must everywhere have forcibly impressed itself on the attention of mankind, and struck 
with the close resemblance of the Nurbuda fossil buffalo to the existing species, the 
question arose with me: ‘ May not this extinct hippopotamus have been a contemporary 
of man? and may not some reflection of its former existence be detected in the extinct 
languages or ancient traditions of India, as in the case of the gigantic tortoise?' Following 
up the enquiry, I ascertained from the profound Sanskrit scholar, Rajah Radhakanta 
Deva, that the hippopotamus of India is referred to under different Sanskrit names of 
great antiquity, significant of ‘jala hasti,’ or ‘water elephant,’ in the ‘Amarakosha’ and 
‘ Subda-ratnavali.’ This view is confirmed by the opinion of two great Sanskrit scholars, 
Henry Colebrooke and H. H. Wilson. The former in his annotations on the ‘ Amarakosha' 
interprets the words‘Graha’ and‘Avahara’ as meaning hippopotamus; and the latter not 
only follows this version, but gives two other words, ‘ Kariyadus’ and ‘ Vidoo,’ which he 
supposes to signify the same animal. It is therefore in the highest degree probable that the 
