1892.] C. R. Wilson —Topography of the Hugli in the 1 6th century. 115 
opposite the mouth of the Damodar, because “ we rather expect a place 
a little further down,” I reply that the identification is unsatisfactory, 
because we expect a place a little further up. In fact if, as I think, the 
scale of the map is 1 in. = 30 miles, Pacuculij is 13 or 14 miles above 
Pichuldoho and must therefore be somewhere opposite Ulubaria. Be¬ 
sides Penchakuli is undoubtedly the modern representative of Pisacoly; 
for (a) Penchakuli in 1760 was written Pichacooley*, and this, if 4 ch ’ 
be pronounced soft, is the exact equivalent of Pisacoly; and again (6) 
Pisacoly is 5 or 6 miles above Pisolta, which is about the distance of 
Penchakuli from Pichuldoho. It is true that Pisacoly is on the west 
side of the river while Penchakuli is a fiscal division on the east side ; 
but this does not avail against the general argument. Either, as is 
quite possible, Pisacoly, like Baranagar, has been misplaced, or, as is 
more probable, Pisacoly once extended to both sides of the river, the 
town being on the west side, and the disappearance of the town is due 
to a change in the course of the river Damodar. Pacuculij must have 
stood somewhere near Royapore, where also stood Calcula in the 17th 
century, according to Sir Henry Yule; but unfortunately the names 
4 Pacuculij ’ and 4 Calcula ’ seem to have altogether disappeared. 
Having dealt as well as I can with the places along the side of the 
river from Betor to the sea, I must add a few words as to the meaning 
of the various tributary streams shown in the map. There can be no 
doubt about the two western tributaries. One is the Damodar which en¬ 
ters the Granges, ( i . e., the Hugli) by three mouths somewhere near Ulu¬ 
baria : in fact, if we reckon 1 in. = 30 miles, the middle mouth will be 
16 miles above Pichuldoho is exactly at Ulubaria. The other river, the 
Ganga, is meant for the Rupnaiayan. It has two mouths. The upper 
one is perhaps 5 or 6 miles below the present mouth of the Rupnarayan, 
the lower one seems to correspond to the Haldi river. The two eastern 
tributaries are not so easily identified. The lower one is probably the 
Rogue’s River of which we read in the 17th and 18th centuries, and 
which is identified by Sir Henry Yule with the Kalpi Creek. The 
upper tributary joins the Hugli at a point north of Pacuculij, or Roya¬ 
pore, which seems to preclude us from identifying it with the river of 
Calcula. It may perhaps be the 44 Bangala river ” which Sir Henry Yule 
considers to be the same as 44 the Loonghee Bungla Khali of modern 
charts, just below Jarmaker’s Reach.” 
III. I now come to my third and last point: how far we may trust 
De Barros’ map as an accurate picture of the river at the beginning of 
the 16th century. This question has, of course, been partially answered 
by what has been already said, but it is as well to deal with it separately. 
# Long’s S'elections from Unpublished Records , p. 205, 
