« PreviousContinue »
XLII (A. D. 17412-3), we read of “many Gentlemen, who had seen those Creatures in Persia, and other Parts of the East.” Can this reference to Persia be a mistake? Or were such animals, at little more than a century ago, occasionally conveyed (when young) from the Indus to the Persian Gulf? Rather than from the eastward of Cape Comorin? Were it not for the locality assigned, I should have been inclined to suspect that Parsons’s figures were intended for RH. sorrDAICUS, from the somewhat greater elevation of the limbs, the more evenly (though too coarsely) tuberculated hide, and especially the delineation of the nape region, as compared with the figures by Edwards, Buffon, and Cuvier and Geoffrey. At the same time, I have already noticed, that the hide of the Lesser One-horned Rhinoceros of Bengal is by no means so neatly tessellated in appearance as is shewn by Dr. S. Muller’s figure of the Javanese Rhinoceros.
I find that I was wrong, in p. 163 antea, in stating that our Rhinoceros-skeleton was presented by a late Nawzib Nazim of Bengal. Three skeletons, those of Elephant, Camel, and Tiger (the last now replaced by a much finer one), were presented in 1839, by His late Majesty of Oudh, Nussir-ud-Dowlah, J. A. S. VIII, 688. For the history of our Rhinoceros-skeleton, vide J. A. S. III, 1412, IX, 518, X, 928. The animal was killed in the J essore district.
In February, 1861, Capt. Stubbs, of the Artillery, forwarded to the Asiatic Society, through Col. J. Abbott, draughts of certain interesting relics found in a field 23 miles to the north-west of Rziwal Pindi, and between the villages of Shah ke Deri and Osman Khatur. The place is said to be rocky and covered for many miles with fragments of dressed stones and ruined buildings which ha.ve, in some spots, formed mounds of considerable height, overgrown with jungle. Traces remain of some of the buildings having been made of quayried stones with lime mortar. Copper coins and fragments of statuary are also met with. The relics under notice were exhumed by two zemindars of the place while digging among some mounds in quest of treasure. They had been evidently deposited in the centre of a
masonry building, the foundation of which was met with at the
depth of 2 or 3 cubits from the surface of the ground. Mr. G. D. \/Vestropp, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Rawal Pindi, to whom they were made over by the discoverers, states that they consist of—
“ 1st, a circular stone trough about one foot in diameter and three inches in depth, beautifully turned and polished. Its outer resemblance is that of a large cone cut away at 3% or 44 inches above its base. The trough hasthree grooved circles diverging from the base of a small cone which rises about 1% inches from its centre. The rim, sides and bottom of the vessel are not more -than § an inch in thickness. The stone is of a dark green colour, interspersed with white spots, and from this circumstance, as well as from its hardness, I am led to conclude that it is either porphyry or some other descrip. tion of granite. It is remarkably free from flaws and defects.”
“ 2nd, a crystal figure which was inverted on the small centre cone described above. The figure represents the shape, wings and tail of a duck with the head of a. turtle. It is delicately carved, and in a state of good preservation.
“ 3rd, a piece of gold leaf about three inches long, by one broad, bearing an inscription in some unknown character. The letters are i_n relief and perfectly clear and distinct.”
Fig. 8 of the accompanying plate represents a reduced sketch of the trough. It differs from the Manikya-la and other Buddhist vases in being the segment of a cone and not of a cylinder, and in having the peculiar conical projection in the centre, the counterpart of which has nowhere else been noticed. Neither Mr. Westropp nor Col. Abbott makes any mention of a cover for this trough, but judging from the perfect state of preservation of the crystal figure and the gold leaf, and also from the circumstance of all the memorial troughs or basins hitherto discovered having been supplied with lids, I believe this too had one which was probably destroyed in the act of exhumation. Its exact dimensions are, upper diameter 11 inches, lower do. 12—-7; depth within 1--85; depth outside 2-41. It probably contained the ashes or some other mortuary remains of the saint whose name is recorded on the gold leaf.
The crystal figure is a well formed round cup bearing the head and tail of a duck, with the wings indicated by cross lines on the sides. It measures 41 inches in length and 247 in breadth, the height being 1-8. The interior diameter of the cup is 1-8 and its depth 1-2. Fig.
9 is a reduced sketch of its side view, and Fig. 10 of its under surface. The places of the feet are indicated by two holes on each side, and at the centre of the tail there is a small perforation : the cup has a flaw under the neck.
As a funeral or Buddhist emblem I have never noticed a duck; and among the figures published by Mr, B. H. Hodgson in the Transactions and Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of London,* the peacock and the hawk are given as Buddhist signs, but no anserine animal of any kind. A story is current, however, that when S'akya shed his top-knot at Benares, his hairs assumed the form of a flock of geese, which flew away towards the north, and it is possible that the figure under notice, was designed to commemorate that event in the life of the founder of Buddhism. But the inscription is entirely silent on the subject. It records the death of a saint who, notwithstanding the distinctive epithet of Bhagava, was evidently not S’akya himself, and it would not be consistent to suppose that the record and the emblem allude to two different individuals. I feel disposed to think, that they refer to the same person. This idea gains strength from the circum
stance of superior intelligence having been assigned to the duck
under the name of hmisa in the Hindu Shastras. The Chhzindogya
Upanishad gives an anecdote of two geese, one of which, while flying
over a palace, warned its companion to keep clear of the majesty of the king below. The Ramayana and the Mahabh./irata, have-likewise several anecdotes in which_ hafisar are alluded to. In a curious work on omens by Vasantaraja (8th section) it is said that “the sight of a luziisa in any direction, when proceeding on an expedition, isa sure augury of success. The hearing of its cackle is likewise eificacious, while its name is destructive of all sin.”1' In another place it is said, that “ the cackle of a duck (if heard by a man only once when proceeding on an expedition) is an augury of thicves in the Way; if heard twice, of gain; if thrice, of danger; if four times, of