TRACING VEDIC DIALECTS - People.fas.harvard.edu

The boundaries of various school territories are, of course, approximate.
Note, however, that the great rivers usually function as boundaries, as, for
example, the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā. It is, however, important to keep in
mind that the rivers have changed their courses frequently since antiquity.
Especially in the Panjab and in Bihar, many rivers had a more Eastern course
than nowadays. Therefore, the river (e.g., Beas) may be the same, but its
actual course, and, therefore, the dialect boundary referred to in Pāṇini,
would lie somewhat further towards the East. This is especially visible in
Bihar; the whole of Videha should be placed a few hundred km further
towards the East, as both the Kosi and the "Sadānīrā" have changed their
courses considerably. 36
These restrictions applied, one can, in many cases, be fairly certain about the
actual boundaries of the tribes, cf. the statement of ŚB about the Sadānīrā as
the boundary of the Kuru-Pañcāla and Kosala-Videha (ŚBK), viz. that of the
Kosalas and Videhas (ŚBM). The territory of a Vedic school mostly coincides
with that of a particular tribe; this is a point not really noticed so far. (It helps
to explain the confusion in Arrian about the Indian "tribes ," the
Kambistoloi, Madyandinoi of the Indike and the Kathaioi of the Anabasis.)
The boundaries on the maps thus are fairly authentic.
In a few cases, we simply do not know. For example, the exact boundary
between the Kurus and Pañcālas cannot be established on the basis of the
Vedic texts alone. Again, the boundary between the Kaṭha and the Taitt.
territory is not clear at all; it should coincide more or less with the boundary
between the Kuru and the Pañcāla, which in itself is unknown. The same
applies to the Taitt./Vājasaneyi border; most probably it was formed by the
Sadānīrā river which divided the Kuru-Pañcālas from the Kosala-Videhas
(acc. to ŚBK) or the Kosalas from the Videhas (acc. to ŚBM). The river itself
has not been identified with certainty. 37 The solution depends on which one of
the ŚB versions is to be taken as authorative. Again, the Eastern border of
the Jaim. territory is unclear; probably the jungle territories of N. Madhya
Pradesh should be excluded, thus a large part of the land to the South of the
Ganges and to the East of the Chambal (=Hvṛṇinī?), i.e., the area inhabited
by Śaphala and Cedi (modern Bundelkhaṇḍ, Baghelkhaṇḍ).
36 See R.L. Singh, India: A Regional Geography, Varanasi 1971, 194-195; N.D. Guhati, in
B.C. Law, Mountains and Rivers, Calcutta 1968, p.348 sqq., cf. O.v. Hinüber, Arrian, p.
1098.
37 See R. Salomon, Adyar Libr. Bull. 42, 1978, p.32 sqq.; he regards the Gaṇḍakībāhu
(Chotī Gaṇḍak) as the original Sadānīrā, (on the basis of the ŚBM passage)
17