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

Rennell's of 1782, more than hundred years later. On Kircher's map the sources
of the Indus are more correct than those of the Ganges.
At some distance south of this big lake, the Manasarovar, there is another from
which two rivers take their origin. The eastern one is obviously meant to be the
Jumna, as Agra is situated on it and »Delli» not far from it. It does not join the
Ganges but goes its own way to the sea. There can hardly be a doubt that
the western river is meant to be the Satlej. Both the Satlej and the Jumna have
two head branches on the map. The lake from which the two rivers issue has
no name, but on Andrade's route west of it is Caparangue, as the cartographer did
not know that this town was situated on the very river. The name of the river is
Kauc flu., i. e. the river of Kauc or Guge (?). That the river is the Satlej is obvious
from its running S.W. and its joining the Indus far below Attock. The hydrography
of Panjab is of course far more absurd than on any contemporary map. The river
comes from a lake which is situated south of the Manasarovar instead of west, just
as in the case of the two lakes at the origin of the Hwang-ho on the same map.¹
This second lake is the Rakas-tal. It is no wonder if the cartographer was a little
bewildered by the information in the narratives of Andrade and by those brought
home by Henri Roth and Joseph. Andrade's route is marked on the map, though
it does not harmonize very well with the physical geography of the same map. But
the map shows that, in Kircher's opinion, Andrade passed through »Sgrinegar» in
Garhwal and Caparangue, that he crossed the Satlej and went close west of the
Rakas-tal and the Manasarovar and of Kailas, that he crossed the Transhimalayan
mountains to Radoc (Rudok), by which the cartographer has made the mistake to
let the road turn east instead of west. From Rudok he has returned to India the
same way. This is what Kircher believed! But in reality Andrade never went
beyond Tsaparang.
Comparing Kircher's text with his map, and comparing both with Andrade's
narrative, the whole situation becomes perfectly clear. On the map as in the text
the two lakes dominate the hydrographical system, just as in the mythical poetry
and the belief of the Hindus. Andrade cannot be made responsible for the hydro-
graphy of the map. For he only saw one pool, from which the Ganges went to
the south and another river, irrigating Tibet, to the north. And this does not at
all agree with Kircher's map. This is the first time a European has made the
Ganges take its origin from the Manasarovar. The informant, whosoever he may
have been, probably a native who explained matters to Joseph or Roth, has certainly
seen a river leaving the Manasarovar and believed it was the Ganges, and not
simply the channel to Rakas-tal. He, or some other informant, has seen the Satlej
leaving the Rakas-tal, just as the map represents it. He was, so far as we know,