国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

Here Masudi gives us the interesting news that in his days, as during clas-
sical antiquity and Alexander's time, geographers were searching for the sources
of the most famous rivers, amongst them the Indus and the Ganges. In a some-
what new form we again meet the extraordinary theory of the connection between
the Nile and the Indus. But while Alexander, according to Arrian, supposed
the Indus were the source of the Nile, EL-DJAHEZ suggests that the Nile is the
source of the Indus. ¹ In both cases the crocodiles are responsible for this most
curious mistake. Masudi knows the absurdity of the theory, but is himself very
vague in placing the source of the Indus, in spite of his asserting the situation of
the sources to be well known. He locates them over a very considerable area,
from Kandahar in the west, which refers to the Kabul river, indeed a tributary of
the Indus, to the territory of Kanauj in the east, which is absurd, as Kanauj
falls within the drainage area of the Ganges. If he had satisfied himself with the
assertion that the sources were situated in the high region of Sind, he would have
been nearer the truth. Masudi does not point out one principal source but thinks
of the source of every separate tributary in the Panjab; in Kashmir for instance he
has one source, referring to the Jehlum, and in this case he is right.
But what does he mean by the »great freshwater sea that should not be con-
founded with the ocean»? As he specially points out this distinction he can only
mean a lake in the interior of the continent. The Caspian and Lake Aral are a
priori excluded, for Masudi knew them and they contain salt water. During his
journeys in India he may easily have heard that the Indus and the Ganges and two
other rivers came from a great fresh-water lake in the north, and with the usual
exaggeration of his time he has changed the information to embrace all rivers. It
is difficult to see what else his fresh-water sea could be than our old Manasarovar.
Unfortunately he does not mention the name, and therefore, as in so many other
cases, we are confined to conjecture. ²
Further on he again touches the question of the source of the Oxus and its
connection with the Indus:

La ville de Balkh possède un poste (ribat) nommé el-Akhcheban, et situé à vingt jours
de marche environ. En face vivent deux tribus de Turcs infidèles, les Oukhan et les Tibétains
et à leur droite d'autres Turcs nommés Igan. C'est dans le territoire de ceux-ci qu'est la
source d'un grand fleuve nommé aussi fleuve d'Igan. Plusieurs personnes instruites prennent ce
fleuve pour le commencement du Djeihoun, ou fleuve de Balkh. Le Djeihoun a un parcours
de cent cinquante parasanges, selon les uns, et de quatre cent parasanges selon ceux qui le
confondent avec le fleuve des Turcs ou Igan. Quant aux auteurs qui avancent que le Djeihoun
se jette dans le Mehran (Indus), ils sont dans l'erreur.