10 stadia are equal to 6066 72 feet, or just 4000 hastas, or cubits, which, according to the 'Lalita Vistara,' was the actual value of the krosa of Magadha. The longer measure of 8000 hastas, or cubits, is given by Bhaskara in the 'Lilâvati,' and by other native authorities.

To determine the exact value of these measures we must have recourse to the unit from which they were raised. This is the angula, or 'finger,' which in India is somewhat under three-quarters of an inch. By my measurement of 42 copper coins of Sikandar Ludi, which we know to have been adjusted to fingers' breadths, the angula is ·72976 of an inch. Mr. Thomas makes it slightly less, or 72289. The mean of our measurements is 72632 of an inch, which may be adopted as the real value of the Indian finger, or angula, as I found the actual measure of many native fingers to be invariably under three-quarters of an inch. According to this value the hasta, or cubit, of 24 angulas would be equal to 17.43168 inches, and the dhanu, or "bow," of 96 angulas would be 5.81 feet. But as 100 dhanus make one nalwa, and 100 nalwas make one krosa or kos, it seems probable that the dhanu must have contained 100 angulas to preserve the centenary scale.* According to this view the hasta, or cubit, would have contained 25 fingers instead of 24, and its value would have been 18.158 inches, which is still below the value of many of the existing hastas, or cubits of the Indian Bâzârs. Adopting this value of the hasta, the higher measures would be :

Feet.

4 hastas, or 100 angulas =6·0521 dhanu.

As this value of the krosa or kos is within 15 feet of that derived from the statement of Megasthenes, I think that it

*The same confusion of the numbers 96 and 100 exists in the monetary scale, in which we have 2 bâraganis, or 'twelvers,' equal to 1 panchi, or twenty-fiver.'

may be accepted as a very near approximation to the actual value of the ancient krosa of Magadha.

The larger kos of the Gangetic provinces, which measured 8000 hastas, would be just double the above, or 12104 feet, or rather more than 24 miles.

In later times several of the Muhammadan kings established other values of the kos, founded on various multiples of different gaz, which they had called after their own names. Our information on this subject is chiefly derived from Abul Fazl, the minister of Akbar.* According to him, Shir Khan fixed the kroh, or kos, at 60 jarîbs, each containing 60 Sikandari gaz, of 41 Sikandaris, which was still in use about Delhi when Abul Fazl wrote. This kos would be equal to 9042.66 feet, or rather less than 1 mile. Another kos was established by Akbar, composed of 5000 Ilâhi gaz, the value of which is said to be equal to 41 Sikandaris. But this is certainly a mistake, as the existing Ilâhi gaz measures vary from 32 to 33 inches, and are therefore equal to 44 or 45 Sikandaris. Sir Henry Elliot has attempted to ascertain the value of this kos from the measurements of distances between the existing kos minars on the royal road "from Agra to Lahor of Great Mogul." But as the people generally attribute the erection of the present kos minûrs to Shah Jahân, who had established another gaz of his own, no dependence can be placed on his value of the Akbari kos. Sir Henry has also given undue prominence to this kos, as if it had superseded all others. That this was not the case is quite certain, as Akbar's own minister, Abul Fazl, uses the short kos throughout his descriptions of the provinces of his master's empire, Even Akabar's son, Jahângîr, has discarded the Akbari kos in his autobiography, where he mentions that he ordered a Sarai to be built at every 8 kos between Lahor and Agra.†

+ Memoirs of Jahângir,' p. 90. The distances between the Sarais vary from 9 to 13 miles.

APPENDIX C.

CORRECTION OF PTOLEMY'S EASTERN LONGITUDES.

PTOLEMY'S longitudes are so manifestly in excess of the truth that various methods of rectification have been suggested by different geographers. That of M. Gossellin was to take five-sevenths of Ptolemy's measures, but his system was based upon the assumption that Ptolemy had made an erroneous estimate of the value of the degree both of the equinoctial and Rhodian diaphragms, as detailed by Eratosthenes. But for the geography of Asia, Ptolemy seems to have depended altogether upon the authority of Marinus, the Tyrian geographer, and of Titianus or Maës, a Macedonian merchant. M. Gossellin's method was probably founded upon the average of Ptolemy's errors, deduced from the longitudinal excess of many well-known places. It is in fact an empirical correction of Ptolemy's errors, of the cause of which his theory offers nothing more than a mere guess. The true sources of Ptolemy's errors of longitude have been pointed out so clearly by Sir Henry Rawlinson that I cannot do better than repeat his explanation of them.*

1st. Upon a line drawn from Hierapolis on the Euphrates to the stone tower he converted road distance into measurement upon the map at a uniform reduction of 1 in 11 instead of 1 in 8, or perhaps, which would be more accurate upon so long a line, of 1 in 7.

2nd. He computed an equatorial degree at 500 instead of 600 Olympic stadia, and thus upon the line of the Itinerary, which he assumed to be about the parallel of Rhodes, he allowed only 400 stadia to a degree, while the true measurewas 480.

converting the schoni of the Itinerary into he assumed their uniform identity with the

Aenian Ecbatana,' p. 122.

Persian parasang of 3 Roman miles, whereas Sir Henry believes the schanus to have been the natural measure of one hour employed by all caravans, both in ancient and modern times, to regulate their daily march, and to have averaged as nearly as possible a distance of 3 British miles.

The different corrections to be applied to Ptolemy's eastern longitudes on account of these three errors have been calculated by Sir Henry Rawlinson to amount to threetenths, which is within one-seventieth part of the empirical correction used by M. Gossellin.

To show the accuracy of the correction here proposed, I need only refer to the difference of longitude between Taxila and Palibothra, which has been given at p. 9 of this work.

INDEX.