Text of the Puranic List of Peoples
By Dineshchandra Sircar
Summary
In this extensive article the author collates and analyses lists of tribes and regions (janapadas) preserved in several Purāṇas. The study builds on F. E. Pargiter’s observation that the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa was the first to give a systematic account of dynasties and that other Purāṇas borrowed and revised these accountsfile:///home/oai/share/563021_compressed-273-356.pdf#:~:text=however%20that%20even%20the%20late,also%20contains%20the%20same%20r%C3%A9rerence. The article notes that metrical accounts of North Indian dynasties were originally composed in a literary Prakrit and recited by bards; after the introduction of writing they were transcribed into Sanskrit and continually revised with new inclusionsfile:///home/oai/share/563021_compressed-273-356.pdf#:~:text=298%20Text%20%E0%AB%A6%2F%20the%20Puranic,The. After summarising Pargiter’s thesis, the author presents long lists of names extracted from the Matsya, Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, Mārkaṇḍeya and other Purāṇas. The names, transliterated into Roman script, are arranged alphabetically. For each, the author compares variants across manuscripts and identifies possible cognates in other texts. For example, under the letter A the Matsya list includes Angas, Aṅguttarāpa and Aśmakas, while the Vāyu includes Alindas and Audumbaras. Each entry is annotated with abbreviations indicating which Purāṇa contains itfile:///home/oai/share/563021_compressed-273-356.pdf. The article analyses differences among the lists and notes that some names refer to peoples, others to territories or dynasties. It discusses textual corruptions, scribal omissions and additions. The author emphasises that the lists were not fixed; they were expanded to incorporate contemporary tribes such as the Āndhras (Sātavāhanas) and Kāśmīras. He suggests that by comparing Purāṇic lists with epigraphic records and Buddhist chronicles we can reconstruct the ethnography of early India. Later sections provide more lists under different letters and discuss regional groupings such as the Mahān, Nāgas, Pulindas, Śabaras and Yavanas. The author points out that some names appear to be synonyms or variant spellings (e.g., Bhārgavas/Bhārgulas)file:///home/oai/share/563021_compressed-273-356.pdf#:~:text=11a,Q%2C%20DECEMBER%2C%201945%208, while others reveal the assimilation of tribal names into territorial designationsfile:///home/oai/share/563021_compressed-273-356.pdf#:~:text=%E0%AA%9B%E0%AA%BE%E0%AA%82%2C%20Tist%20of%20Rivers%2C%20x,the%20same%20people%20is%20also. Overall, the article is primarily a philological compilation. It demonstrates the diversity of peoples recognised in Purāṇic literature and highlights the fluidity of these ethnographic lists.
Conclusion
The author concludes that Purāṇic lists of peoples are valuable historical sources when handled critically. They originated as bardic catalogues of tribes and were later Sanskritised and updated. Because the lists were revised to reflect changing political realities, no single Purāṇa preserves an ‘original’ version. Careful comparison of variant readings, coupled with evidence from inscriptions and other texts, can illuminate the distribution of tribes and the expansion of kingdoms in early India. The study thus encourages historians to use Purāṇic ethnography alongside archaeological and epigraphic data to reconstruct the subcontinent’s ancient cultural geography.