ART.. IX.-Account of two Maps of Zannta or Yangoma. By FRANCIS HAMILTON, M. D. & F. R. S. & F. A. S. Lond. & Edin. With a Plate. Communicated by the Author.

IN the English translation of M. Malte Brun's System of Geography (vol. iii. p. 363.), this compiler is made to say, “We are totally unable to fix the locality of the kingdom of Yangoma. D'Anville's map places Yangoma near the sources of the western branch of the Meinam, or river of Siam. In other modern maps, it is left out as too uncertain to be admitted." Certainly, if we imagine Yangoma to be such a country as M. Malte Brun describes it, we shall no where find such to exist; but, as I have already mentioned (Philosophical Journal, vol. ii. p. 268.), there can be no doubt, that the Jangomas of the Universal History (London, 8vo. 1759, vol. vii. p. 135, 137.) are the same people with the Jun or Yun Shan of the Mranmas, and that their capital is the Zænmæ of the Mranmas, or Chiamay of Loubere, which, in Mr Arrowsmith's map of Asia, is called Zemee.

Soon after I had received the general map, of which I have given an account in the 2d volume of this Journal (p. 89, 262.), the same person who composed it gave me the first of the accompanying maps (See Plate III.); and as this contained no distances, he, at my request, made out the second map, in which these are given; and the manner of delineating the country is altered. In the first map, the river Saluæn, forming the western boundary, is represented by a line drawn straight by a rule; and the other rivers are made of an enormous width. In the second map, the manner of delineation is more accordant to European ideas. In the first map, the hills are represented in a kind of rude perspective, when, of course, they appear as ridges; but, in the second, the spaces occupied by mountains are surrounded by a line, as lakes are denoted in our maps. I am not sure but that this is a more accurate method than what has been adopted by many more scientific geographers; and, if it had been followed, many of what are called chains and ridges of mountains, would disappear from our maps; for I suspect, that such have sometimes originated from early attempts to delineate them in a kind of perspective, as in the first map of the slave. Thus, imaginary

ridges were produced in our maps, and obtained a name which has been continued in subsequent delineations, and Nature forced to comply with the imaginations of imperfect science. Such, for instance, is the Chain of the Grampian mountains, among which I now write, and which exists merely in the imagination of geographers, the whole of Scotland being a cluster of hills; among which narrow valleys wind in all directions.

Although, in some respects, the second of the accompanying maps is the most perfect, yet I have judged it expedient to publish both, for the following reasons.

As the first map was in my possession while the second was drawing, a comparison between the two will enable us to judge what reliance can be placed on the slave's accuracy of memory. On the whole there is a wonderful correspondence between the two maps; but yet there are essential differences, which must put us on our guard in placing an implicit reliance on his accuracy. Thus, in the first map, M. Tin is placed above the junction of the Anan, with the river of Siam; while, in the second

map, it is placed below. In the first map, we have M. Sæn as a town on the Anan; which, in the second map, is named M. Gan. This, perhaps, was owing to my mistake in copying; or, perhaps, to an error in the slave's reading, the initials of the two words in the Mranma character being much alike. In the first map, a small river, falling into the Mækhaun, is called Main Go Khiaun, because it rises near a town named M. Go; but, in the second map, it is called M. Zæn, because it passes near a town named M. Zæn. Again, in the first map Lanush, towards upper Laos, is placed on the west side of the Male; while, in the second map, it is on the east; south from thence, in the second map, we have M. Bhæ in place of M. Læ of the first, the characters being very nearly alike. M. Læ is the proper name, as I found it thus written in the original characters in the first map; while, in the second, the original character had been obliterated. In the second map, Tamat occupies the place which Mrisso does in the first, and the latter place is altogether omitted; but, in the second map, we have in the same vicinity M. Kiin, a town not mentioned in the first. There are thus two towns in both maps; but in each, one of these towns is named in a different manner, and the situation of the other differs, Khiaun Tamat

being placed west from the Main Zin river in the first map, and east from the same in the second. Finally, in the second map, Maikkhia is placed nearer Zænmæ than Naghain; while, in the first map, the reverse is the case. These differences are thus not numerous, and some of them bear an explanation, without supposing any great error in the construction.

The most essential reason, however, for publishing both maps is, that the second contains only the places near the capital; beeause it was of these only that the compiler recollected the respective distances. The whole towns, therefore, that are mentioned in the first map, towards the Saluan river, towards the frontiers of Siam and Kiainroungri, and on the east side of the Mækhaun, are omitted in the second, except M. Gain; which, as being a place of very great importance, and its distance well known, is mentioned in both.

Although, in the second map, the compiler has mentioned the distances between the respective places, he has made no attempt to lay them down by a scale. Thus, for instance Sinhoun, which is only six leagues from Zænmæ, is placed farther from this city than from Anan, which is three days' journey distant; and, on the whole, I am inclined to think, that the relative situations of the places are best represented in the first map. The essential place at the Saluan, where the lines, denoting distances, commence five days' journey from Pabaun, and which is not named in these maps, I know to be Dhanukia Zeip, said to be three days' journey east from Monæh, one of the Shanwa towns, which is nearly at an equal distance from Amarapura and Taunu, but considerably to the east of the direct line between these twocities.

I now proceed to compare these draughts with the general map, of which an account was given in the second volume of this Journal. By this means, we shall be able to form some judgment concerning the extent, which the Jun Shan occupied in 1795, when the map was drawn.

We are

In the general map, as well as in both the particular ones, the western boundary of the Jun Shan is the river Saluæn. told by M. Malte Brun, (English translation, t. iii. p. 332.), that M. d'Anville considers the rivers of Martaban and Pegu as two mouths of one great river; that modern English travellers tell us,

that the river of Pegu is small, and rises but a short way from the sea; from which he concludes, that these travellers undoubtedly mean some small stream which falls into the Pegu river of d'Anville. Farther, we are informed, that M. d'Anville, in assigning the course of the Nookian (Loukiang), which comes from Thibet through China, to the river of Pegu, and I, in giving that course to the Saluæn (Thaluæn), or river of Martaban, have told precisely the same thing. No person has a greater respect for the authority of M. d'Anville than the author. I look upon him as the greatest of geographers, and am happy to shelter myself under his authority, in bringing the Nookian of Thibet to the sea at Martaban; and it is to be regretted, that M. Malte Brun should have ventured on departing altogether from M. d'Anville's opinion, and have carried the Nookian to Siam (1. i. p. 333). If this compiler had taken the pains to read the account of C. Symes, he would have seen, that, from Rangoun, on a branch of the river of Ava, the British Embassy proceeded up the river of Pegu to that city, and that, therefore, the river of Pegu falls into the river of Ava, while a very large river, the Zittaun or Paunlaun, is interposed between it and the Salusen at Martaban. Even if the river, passing Pegu, had fallen into the Saluæn, it would have been a strange kind of nomenclature to have called the latter the river of Pegu. What would M. Malte Brun think of an Englishman, who chose to call the Loire the river of Poictiers, because this city stands on one of its small branches? To be sure, the calling the Saluæn the river of Pegu is still more extraordinary, and could only be equalled by any one who should choose to call the Loire the river of Paris, because the river passes through the dominions of a Prince who resides in that city. M. d'Anville would never have imagined such a nomenclature, and was led into the mistake by supposing, from the imperfect materials in his possession, that the Nookian divided into two branches; on one of which stood Pegu, and on the other Martaban. But this is entirely contradicted by every information that I received in Ava. It must be farther observed, that this error, respecting the river of Pegu, did not originate with M. d'Anville, but was that then commonly received; especially by the very learned compilers of the Universal History, as I have mentioned in this Journal, (vol. v. p. 80).

2

In Mr Arrowsmith's map of Asia, the Saluan, I suspect, is placed too far to the west, leaving thus too little room for the Shanwas, and enlarging too much the territory of the Jun Shan. There is reason to think, as I have mentioned (vol. v. p. 82), that Martaban has been placed by Mr Arrowsmith too far to the west, and I see no authority for giving the Saluæn the great bend to the west, between the 22d and 23d degrees of latitude. On the contrary, all the authorities which I received made it run, without any considerable bend, until it approached the sea, where it turns towards the west for 30 or 40 miles, before it enters the Gulph of Martaban. We may, therefore, I am persuaded, place the course of this river downwards, from between the 22d and 23d degrees of latitude, half a degree farther east than Mr Arrowsmith has done; and thus the Saluæn, in Lat. 20° N., near the centre of the Jun Shan territory, should be in Long. 98° 27′ E. from Greenwich, in place of 97° 57′, where it is placed in Mr Arrowsmith's map.

It is not only, however, the Saluæn that must be carried farther east, than Mr Arrowsmith has done; but Zænmæ must be moved at least as far in the same direction; and, of course, it must be followed by that part of the river of Siam on which it stands, thus giving the lower part a direction nearly north and south. I have already mentioned the surmises of M. Malte Brun concerning the identity of this river with the Nookian of Thibet, or Loukiang of China; but, as these surmises rest merely on the size of the river of Siam in the lower part of its course, they have no weight; for, below Zænmæ, it receives by the Anan a considerable proportion of the waters of the Mækhaun, one of the largest rivers of Asia. The identity of the Loukiang and Saluæn, in my opinion, is fully demonstrated by the journey of the Bhanmo prince (see this Journal, vol. iii. p. 35), and by the general map of the slave (vol. ii. of this Journal). The source of the river of Siam is, I think, ascertained to be situate on the southern boundary of the Chinese province of Yunnan, where a large portion of country, between the Loukiang or Saluæn, and the Kioulong Kiang or Mækhaun, is occupied by what are called wild Lawas or Lolos, extending probably from about the 22d to the 24th degree of latitude, with a breadth, along the Tropic, of two degrees of longitude; but, measuring along the