[1] So in Elliot, II. 74. But Jacob says there is an inscription of a Mussulman Governor in Pattan of 1297.
CHAPTER XXX.
Concerning the Kingdom of Kesmacoran.
Kesmacoran is a kingdom having a king of its own and a peculiar language. [Some of] the people are Idolaters, [but the most part are Saracens]. They live by merchandize and industry, for they are professed traders, and carry on much traffic by sea and land in all directions. Their food is rice [and corn], flesh and milk, of which they have great store. There is no more to be said about them.[{1}]
And you must know that this kingdom of Kesmacoran is the last in India as you go towards the west and north-west. You see, from Maabar on, this province is what is called the Greater India, and it is the best of all the Indies. I have now detailed to you all the kingdoms and provinces and (chief) cities of this India the Greater, that are upon the seaboard; but of those that lie in the interior I have said nothing, because that would make too long a story.[{2}]
And so now let us proceed, and I will tell you of some of the Indian Islands. And I will begin by two Islands which are called Male and Female.
[Note 1.]—Though M. Pauthier has imagined objections there is no room for doubt that Kesmacoran is the province of Mekran, known habitually all over the East as Kij-Makrán, from the combination with the name of the country of that of its chief town, just as we lately met with a converse combination in Konkan-tana. This was pointed out to Marsden by his illustrious friend Major Rennell. We find the term Kij Makrán used by Ibn Batuta (III. 47); by the Turkish Admiral Sidi ’Ali (J. As., sér. I. tom. ix. 72; and J. A. S. B. V. 463); by Sharifuddin (P. de la Croix, I. 379, II. 417–418); in the famous Sindian Romeo-and-Juliet tale of Sassi and Pannún (Elliot, I. 333); by Pietro della Valle (I. 724, II. 358); by Sir F. Goldsmid (J. R. A. S., N.S., I. 38); and see for other examples, J. A. S. B. VII. 298, 305, 308; VIII. 764; XIV. 158; XVII. pt. ii. 559: XX. 262, 263.
The argument that Mekrán was not a province of India only amounts to saying that Polo has made a mistake. But the fact is that it often was reckoned to belong to India, from ancient down to comparatively modern times. Pliny says: “Many indeed do not reckon the Indus to be the western boundary of India, but include in that term also four satrapies on this side the river, the Gedrosi, the Arachoti, the Arii, and the Parapomisadae (i.e. Mekrán, Kandahar, Herat, and Kabul) ... whilst others class all these together under the name of Ariana” (VI. 23). Arachosia, according to Isidore of Charax, was termed by the Parthians “White India.” Aelian calls Gedrosia a part of India. (Hist. Animal. XVII. 6.) In the 6th century the Nestorian Patriarch Jesujabus, as we have seen (supra, [ch. xxii. note 1]), considered all to be India from the coast of Persia, i.e. of Fars, beginning from near the Gulf. According to Ibn Khordâdhbeh, the boundary between Persia and India was seven days’ sail from Hormuz and eight from Daibul, or less than half-way from the mouth of the Gulf to the Indus. (J. As. sér. VI. tom. v. 283.) Beladhori speaks of the Arabs in early expeditions as invading Indian territory about the Lake of Sijistan; and Istakhri represents this latter country as bounded on the north and partly on the west by portions of India. Kabul was still reckoned in India. Chach, the last Hindu king of Sind but one, is related to have marched through Mekrán to a river which formed the limit between Mekrán and Kermán. On its banks he planted date-trees, and set up a monument which bore: “This was the boundary of Hind in the time of Chach, the son of Síláij, the son of Basábas.” In the Geography of Bakui we find it stated that “Hind is a great country which begins at the province of Mekrán.” (N. and E. II. 54.) In the map of Marino Sanuto India begins from Hormuz; and it is plain from what Polo says in quitting that city that he considered the next step from it south-eastward would have taken him to India (supra, i. p. 110).
[“The name Mekran has been commonly, but erroneously, derived from Mahi Khoran, i.e. the fish-eaters, or ichthyophagi, which was the title given to the inhabitants of the Beluchi coast-fringe by Arrian. But the word is a Dravidian name, and appears as Makara in the Bṛhat Sanhita of Varaha Mihira in a list of the tribes contiguous to India on the west. It is also the Μακαρήνη of Stephen of Byzantium, and the Makuran of Tabari, and Moses of Chorene. Even were it not a Dravidian name, in no old Aryan dialect could it signify fish-eaters.” (Curzon, Persia, II. p. 261, note.)