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

> > > >
カラー New!IIIFカラー高解像度 白黒高解像度 PDF   日本語 English
0062 Archaeological Reconnaissances in North-Western India and South-Eastern Īrān : vol.1
西北インドと南東イランにおける考古学的調査 : vol.1
Archaeological Reconnaissances in North-Western India and South-Eastern Īrān : vol.1 / 62 ページ(カラー画像)

New!引用情報

doi: 10.20676/00000189
引用形式選択: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR読み取り結果

Boukephala, the town founded by Alexander on the right bank. Since Strabo
distinctly places it at the point where Alexander embarked for his passage, and
Arrian's reference is compatible with the same interpretation, we may safely
locate it at Jalālpur.¹⁵ In support of this it may be noted that coins found at
Jalālpur include issues of the Greek kings who ruled in parts of Afghanistan and
in the north-west of the Panjāb. As already noted by General Cunningham, the
numismatic evidence afforded by these coins and the still more frequent ones
dating from Indo-Scythian rule clearly proves occupation of the site during the
centuries immediately before and after the beginning of the Christian era.¹⁶

Jalālpur in former times enjoyed a considerable share in the flourishing trade
of timber which is brought down by the river from the great conifer forests of
Kashmīr and the adjacent high valleys. Since the construction of the Grand
Trunk Road, and still more since the advent of the railway, this timber trade has
for the most part become concentrated at Jhēlum town. The convenient supply
of timber obtainable at Jalālpur accounts for the mention which Curtius and
Diodoros make in connexion with the site of the shipbuilding operations carried
on at Boukephala in preparation for the subsequent voyage down to the mouth
of the Indus.¹⁷ The mention made of Boukephala by Ptolemy and Pliny and in the
Periplus maris Erythraei points to the place having retained its local importance
for centuries.¹⁸

At this point my observations concerning the scene of Alexander's great
exploit might have been brought to conclusion were it not that some remarks
seem called for with regard to the comments to which Professor Breloer, in a
supplement to his work Alexanders Kampf gegen Porus,¹⁹ has subjected my views
as first set forth in my paper published in the Geographical Journal of July, 1932.
I can consider the length of these comments only as an acknowledgement of the
weight which the result of my investigations, if accepted, must carry against the