114 C. R. Wilson —Topography of the Jlugli in the 1 6th century. [No. 2, 
I. ( Resumed ) I shall now return to my first point, and shall try to 
identify Pacuculij and Pisacoly. Blochmann* * * § says :— 
“ Pacuculij has hitherto defied all attempts at identification, and the 
same may be said of the places Pisaculy and Pisolta, marked by De Barros 
as lying in Hijili.f Van den Broucke throws a doubt on the correctness 
of these three names, inasmuch as he leaves out Pisaculy and Pisolta, and 
only gives Pacuculi, ‘on the authority of Portuguese maps.’ In position, 
but only faintly resembling in sound, Pisaculy corresponds to Mahishadal, 
the form given in the Ain ; and Pacuculi corresponds in sound, and almost 
in position, with the old pargand Penchakuli, or Pencilakoly, which 
lies just opposite to the present mouth of the Damodar, and opposite to 
the ‘ James and Mary Sands.’ But we rather expect a place a little fur¬ 
ther doivn.X I am, however, not satisfied ’with this identification, because 
Penchakuli is after all the name of a pargand , and not of a place,§ at least 
at present, and I am rather inclined to avail myself of a conjecture pro¬ 
posed by Colonel Gastrell, and take the word to be a misprint for Pa- 
cucuti, with a t instead of an 7,—which would clearly be a corruption of 
pakka kuthi , or ‘ brick-house,’ and may refer to a pucca house, or 4 logie,’ 
built by the Portuguese at the entrance of the Hiigli. Such houses, 
belonging to various human beings, are, or were, quite common on the 
banks of the Hiigli; they served as depots or retreats, and, when sur¬ 
rounded by a ditch, were even dignified with the name of 4 forts.’ ” A 
little before this Blochmann refering to the three mouths of the Damo¬ 
dar, says that they 44 stand for the Saraswati, the Damodar, and the 
Rupnarayan and further that “ Pacaculi is placed opposite to the 
mouth of the river which we have identified with the Rupnarayan.” 
From all this it appears that Blochmann’s TrpwTov i^eDSos was the iden¬ 
tification of the Rupnarayan with one of the mouths of the Damodar, and 
that this caused him to miss Pichuldoho and brought him into the great¬ 
est difficulties with regard to Pisacoly and Pacuculij. Sir Henry Yule’s 
correct identification of the Rupnarayan with the Ganga has led at once 
to the discovery of Pichuldoho, and entirely does away with Bloch¬ 
mann’s arguments about Pisacoly and Pacuculij. Accordingly when 
Blochmann argues that we cannot identify Pacuculij with Penchakuli 
* Geographical and Historical Notes on the Bardivan and Vresidency Divisions, at 
the end of Huntei’’s Statistical Account of the 24 P arganas, p. 384. 
f This is a mistake. De Barros says that the Ganga enters the Ganges between 
Hijili and Picholda, consequently Picholda, or Pisolta, could not here been in Hijili. 
X The italics are mine. 
§ Blochmann seems to think that Pacuculij is the name of a place only, and 
not of a region; but Do Barros distinctly says that it is the name of an island, i. e., 
of a region. 
