86 Mr. Bell’s Remarks on the 
tudes and latitudes belonging to Lesser Bucharia, taken by obser- 
vation, not by routes. He seems also to have been ignorant of the 
great Chinese map, quoted in this discussion. Had he seen and 
consulted these when determining the comparative merits of Nas-: 
roddin, Abulfeda, and Ulugh Beigh, with the Chinese and Tarta- 
rian geography, he would not have passed so severe a censure on. 
the maps of Du Halde. He would have seen, that though the wes- 
tern Imaus is removed several degrees farther W. in that map 
than in the Jesuits’ map of Tibet in Du Halde, and therefore: 
that this position of that range so far agrees with his own opi- 
nion; yet it is still 2° farther E. at least, than it is placed im 
his map, and that the positions of Tashkunt, Namagan, Aukseo, 
Outchiferman, Cashgar, Yarkund, Khotan, Badakshan, are all 
several degrees further E. and more S. than in the Oriental Ta- 
bles he commends so much, and therefore so far annihilates. alk 
dependency upon them; and consequently, what reliance can be 
placed on the positions in Mawalnahar and Western Toorkistaun, 
when these tables are so much out in the Lesser Bucharia? This 
great Chinese map, therefore, completely overthrows his: opmion, 
that the capital of Cashgar ought to be removed, along with the 
range to the north of it, at least several degrees to the N. W. in 
conformity to the authority of Strahlenberg and Shahnavaz Khan, 
neither of whom ever saw Cashgar, but knew it only from report. 
This much must be said in favour of Abulfeda, however, that-he 
was an honest, laborious compiler, and never states a latitude or 
longitude without adducing his authority ; and therefore whatever 
errors are in his tables, are not so properly his own, as those of his 
informants. He could not do otherwise. It would be wise if mo- 
dern geographers, in giving us lists of longitudes and latitudes, 
would, in this respect, follow his example in giving us their autho- 
rities, and by what means these were taken, that we may not con- 
found such as are taken by observation with those that are given 
on the basis of itineraries, or which rest on conjecture and uncer- 
tain calculations. 
We have another notable instance of oriental ignorance in their ac- 
count of Tibet, called by them Tobbot. According to them it reaches 
from Khorasan to China, having part of India on the south. Yet 
it contains only 10° of longitude, reaching from 100 to 110°. Con- 
sequently the western extremity of China is only 10° E. of Kho- 
rasan. They make its breadth equal to its length, thus making 
Tibet a perfect square. Ibn-al-Wardi tells us, that the capital of 
Tibet has the same name as the country, and that Tibet makes 
part of the country of the Turks. The Turks and Tibetians are 
of course the same people. In this Ibn-al-Wardi agrees with Ed- 
risi, who makes Tobbot a part of Toorkistaun, and its capital city of 
the same name. In fact, what the oriental geographers call Tob- 
bot or Tibet, is not the country properly so called, but the tract 
between Cashmere and Cashgar, including Ladauk, and the course 
of the upper Indus, for of Great Tibet they had no knowledge. 
