EARLY INDIA

23

without reference to the strange wild hinterland which
has exercised such a profound influence on its destinies
through all past ages.

A comprehensive and up-to-date compilation of existing records of
Early Indian geography is very much wanted. M‘Crindle’s excellent
series of translations from classical authors (especially his “ Periplus of
‘he Erythreean Sea” and his “Ancient India as described by Megasthenes
 and Arrian ”) are most useful books for reference. In Elliott’s
“ History of India” (first chapter) exists a valuable comparison of all
existing evidence derived from the accounts of the medieval Arab geographers.
 From that source has been taken the illustration of Ibn
Haukel’s map of Sind and Makr4n. The works of Yule, Smith, and
Cunningham are, of course, standard references for all time, but there
las been a great deal of recent geographical evidence lately col-‘ected
 by members of the Indian Survey department which has yet
to be published. For geological history I am chiefly indebted to
the paper by R. D. Oldham, which is to be found in the third volume
of the Geographical Journal for 1894—perhaps the best contribution
 to the history of Indian geological evolution that can be found
in a small compass. Another useful authority on the subject of the
ancient geographical conformation of the Indus delta is Major-General
M. R. Haig, whose “Indus Delta Country” explains many doubtful
joints besetting the histories of Alexander and Nearkhos. Maps of
Early India which thoroughly illustrate the geography of the country
n medieval times when India first began to attract the attention qf
¥estern commercial enterprise are not to be found. The Ptolemaic
conceptions of India are interesting, but hardly instructive. Smith's
Ancient Atlas is still our best authority, but it requires considerable
revision to bring it up to modern requirements.