A critical Examination of Alberuni’s Charges against the Copyists of the Puranas
By Bratindra Nath Mukherjee
Summary
This article critically examines the eleventh‑century scholar Alberuni’s accusation that careless copyists corrupted the Puranic texts. The cosmographic sections of the Puranas describe the world as seven concentric islands separated by seas, with Jambudvipa at the centre and Bharatavarsa as its southernmost region. These descriptions come down to us through manuscripts copied by scribes of varying competence. Alberuni complained that ill‑educated copyists often misunderstood the material they were copying; they altered, disfigured or omitted passages, and illegible handwriting compounded the problem. As successive generations of scribes reproduced manuscripts, errors multiplied. Alberuni thus concluded that it was difficult to obtain accurate texts. The article agrees that errors occurred but argues that some discrepancies in geographical lists arise from the authors’ variant imaginations rather than scribal carelessness. It compares the ninefold division of Bharatavarsa given in different Puranas: the Vamana and Garuda Puranas list Indradvipa, Kaserumat, Tamraparna, Gabbastimat, Nagadvipa, Khatabha, Simhala, Viruna and Kumaradvipa, whereas the Markandeya Purana substitutes Saumya and Gandharva for Khatabha and Simhala. Such variation may reflect the compilers’ regional knowledge rather than copyists’ errors. Similarly, while the Puranas are consistent about the six Kulaparvatas (Mount Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Suktimant, Rksa and Vindhya), they differ on the seventh mountain, naming it Paripatra or Pariyatra. The article notes that differences in lists of rivers and peoples can be emended by comparing Puranic passages with other literary and epigraphic evidence. Some manuscripts render the river Vipasa (Beas) correctly while others corrupt it as Visala. These examples show that while copyists introduced mistakes, many inconsistencies pre‑existed in the tradition. The article concludes that Alberuni’s charges were partly justified but overstated. A critical edition must consider both scribal errors and authorial variations when reconstructing the geography of ancient India.
Conclusion
By analysing Puranic lists of islands, mountains and rivers, the article shows that discrepancies are due partly to scribal mistakes, as Alberuni complained, and partly to differing conceptions held by the compilers. Errors such as corrupt renderings of river names arose in the manuscript tradition, but some variations, like the substitution of Saumya and Gandharva for Khatabha and Simhala, reflect deliberate regional preferences. The study suggests that Alberuni’s criticisms should prompt scholars to produce critical editions that account for both factors, rather than attributing all divergences to careless copyists.