Note 2 — WESTERN INDIA AS KNOWN TO THE GREEKS AND ROMANS.1

Appendix VI. Early Greeks and Romans. Periplus. The only choice lies between the view of Müller and that of Reinaud. Müller argues for a date between a.d. 80 and a.d. 89, because the Periplus knows no more than Pliny of India beyond the Ganges, whereas Ptolemy’s knowledge is much greater: because the Periplus calls Ceylon Palaisimoundou, which is to Ptolemy (VII. iv. 1) an old name: because the Nabathæan kingdom, which was destroyed a.d. 105, was still in existence at the time of the Periplus: because the Periplus account of Hippalos shows it to be later than Pliny: and because the Periplus mentions king Zôskalês, who must be the Za Hakalê of the Abyssinian lists who reigned a.d. 77–89. It may be replied that the Periplus is not a geography of Eastern Asia, but a guide book for traders with certain ports only: that Ptolemy must have found in his lists three names for Ceylon, Taprobanê, Palaisimoundou, and Salikê, and that he has wrongly separated Palai from Simoundou, taking it to mean “formerly” and therefore entered Simoundou as the old and Salikê as the modern name,2 whereas all three names were in use together: that the Nabathæan king Malikhas was simply the Sheikh of the tribe (Reinaud), and points to no definite date: that the Periplus’ account of Hippalos is certainly later than Pliny: and that the Zôskalês of the Periplus is the Za Sâgal or Za Asgal of the Abyssinian lists, who reigned a.d. 246–47 (Reinaud).