102 
F. E. Pargiter —Ancient Countries in 'Eastern India. [No. 2, 
From their name, the Paundras were presumably an offshoot of the 
Pundras; hence it would seem probable that, after the Pundras estab¬ 
lished themselves in the above-mentioned region north of the Ganges, 
a branch of them must have crossed that river, pushed their way into 
the hilly tract of the Santal Parganas and its outskirts, and formed a 
sister kingdom under the name of Paundras. 
SUHMA AND TaMALIPTA. 
The last of the five kindred nations was Suhma. It is mentioned 
last, but was well-known and was grouped oftenest with Pundra. 
The evidence to fix its position is clear. 
In the account of Bhima’s Eastern conquests (Sabha-p., xxix) which 
has been often cited above, the Suhmas and Pra-suhmas are mentioned 
between Videlia and Magadha (1089-91), and again Tamra-lipta, 
Karvata., Suhma and the sea-coast are named in close succession after 
Vaijga (1097-99). In the account of Raghu’s conquests it is said— 
“ marching east and subduing various countries, Raghu reached the 
neighbourhood of the sea which was dark with forests of tallier palms 
( tali-vana), and the Suhmas submitted to him ” (Raghu- V., iv. 34-35). 
Lastly it is stated plainly in the Da^a-kumara-carita that Damalipta is 
a city among the Suhmas (Story of Mitra-gupta). 
Damalipta is the same as Tamalipta. The Tamaliptas were a 
well-known people and are often mentioned. This name is written in 
various ways, viz., Tamra-lipta, Tamra-liptaka, Tamolipti, Tamalika, 
and Tamalini. Prof. Sir M. Monier-Williams treats Tama-lipta (q. v.) 
as the proper form of the name, and the others as variations, which 
seemingly sought to read meanings into it. Tamra-lipta is, I believe, 
the form most commonly met with in Sanskrit writings. Their capital 
was called Tamra-lipta, Tamra-lipti, or Tamra-liptika, and this name 
has been corrupted into the modern Tamluk, which is a well-known 
town near the mouth of the R. Rupnarayan in Midnapur. 
From these data it appears that Suhma must have comprised the 
modern districts of Hooghly, Howrah, Bankura and Bardhwan, and the 
eastern portion of Midnapur. The first of the above allusions to the 
Suhmas and Pra-suhmas seems to be an error, for there do not appear 
to be any other references to such people close to Videha and Magadha. 
Perhaps the reading should be £onas and Pra-c5nas, which would mean 
people living near the river £ona, the modern Sone; and this suggestion 
may be compared with the name Canavatyas which occurs along with 
Aqgas, Vai 3 gas, Pundras and Gayas (Sabha-p., li. 1872), and which 
seems to be a mistake for fonavatyas, as it is not in the dictionary and 
I have not met with it elsewhere. 
