1899.] 
THE KAS'MIR CHRONICLES. 
37 
mentioned in the same neighbourhood became possible only, as Note 
E, iv. 177, shows, 1 * 3 through the indications contained in Kalhana’s 
description of the several sieges which this mountain fastness underwent 
in his own time. Similar instances are the identifications of the 
Gopadri hill (the present Takht-i Sulaiman), and of the streams 
Mahasarit and Ksiptika (Mar and Kut^kul). Though prominent 
features in the topography of the capital itself, they could not have 
been correctly located but for the evidence supplied by the narrative 
of the last Book. 8 The same is the case, e.g., with the name of the 
district Holada (Vular) and the important ethnic designation of Khasa . s 
21. It is impossible to read attentively Kalhana’s Chronicle and 
in particular those portions which give fuller 
occasion for the notice of localities, without 
being struck with the exactness of his state¬ 
ments regarding the latter and with, what I 
may call, his eye for matters topographical. 
We must appreciate these qualities all the more if we compare 
Kalhana’s local references with that vague and loose treatment which 
topographical points receive at the hands of Sanskrit authors gener¬ 
ally. 4 * * * If it has been possible to trace with accuracy the great majority 
of localities mentioned in the Chronicle, this is largely due to the 
precision which Kalhana displays in his topographical terminology. It 
is evident that he had taken care to acquaint himself with the localities 
which formed the scene of the events he described. Here too I may 
refer for more detailed evidence to my translation of the work and the 
notes which accompany it. A few characteristic points may, however, 
be specified as examples. 
Striking evidence for the care with which Kalhana indicates topo- 
1 Compare also my paper on the ‘ Castle of Lohara,’ Ind Ant. 1897, p. 225 sqq. 
below, § 49. 
3 Compare for Gopadri, notes i. 341 ; viii. 1104-10; for the Mahasarit, note 
iii. 339-349 ; for the Ksiptika, note viii. 732. 
S See notes i. 306 and i. 317. 
4 Nor should we forget the difficulty which Kalhana had to face by writing in 
metrical form. True indeed it is what Alberuni says of this form as adopted by 
Hindu scientific writers : “ Now it is well-known that in all metrical compositions 
there is much misty and constrained phraseology merely intended to fill up the 
metre and serving as a kind of patchwork, and this necessitates a certain kind of 
verbosity. This is also one of the reasons why a word has sometimes one meaning 
and sometimes another” ( India, i. p. 19). 
Fortunately Kalhana has managed to escape these dangers as far as the topogra¬ 
phical notices of his work are concerned. We find in his local terminology neither 
that mistiness nor multiplicity of meaning Alberuni so justly complains of. 
Accuracy of 
Kalhana’s 
topograhy. 
