Incorrect Mapping of Ganga Basin 1792

Cartography has evolved over time, and so has the European mapping of non-European territories. Especially in the pre-1800s, maps were filled with incorrect markings of places, misspellings, mispronunciations, and even fictional areas. This was due to the fact that surveyors often couldn't reach inaccessible areas. What makes these maps interesting is that they provide insight into how much colonists knew about their colonies. In the 18th century, India wasn't exactly a British colony; instead, it was still part of the mammoth Mughal Empire with autonomous regions, kingdoms, and European trade posts sprouting on the coast. 

Here's a description of a rather intriguing map dated 1792 by Jan Barend Elwe, a Dutch cartographer who lived between 1746 and 1816. The most noticeable error on the map is the depiction of the course of the Ganga or Ganges river, which is shown vertically, rather than in its actual horizontal orientation. This map represents a portion of the Bengal-Bihar region in northern India, bordering Nepal and the Himalayas. It is one of the most fertile river basins on the subcontinent. Additionally, the settlements of Patna and Benares (Varanasi) were major trade and grain hubs in 18th century North India. They were significant to the extent that they housed European trade factories established by major European colonists such as the Dutch, French, and the English. While mapping this region, we come across the following provinces:

• Bengale
• Iesvat
• Patna
• Prurop
• Mongeer
• Mevat
• Behaar
• Narvar
• Sanbal
• Bacar
• Comao
• Varal
• Jamba
• Dehly

The provinces of Berar, Malwa, Narvar, and Orixa (Orissa or Odisha) are shown adjacent to Bengale (Bengal), which is highly incorrect. Central India is completely missing in this map. In fact, a portion of Delhi is shown as touching the boundary of Bihar, which amuses the reader as to how incorrect the maps were drafted back then.

The spellings of towns and establishments on the map are quite fascinating. Some names are directly understandable, such as Patna, Benares (Banaras or Varanasi), Nadia, Hugli, Kumaun, Dhaka, Balasore, and Rajmahal. However, some names require a deeper understanding to grasp their actual meaning, such as Gor for Garhwal, Helabas for Allahabad or Prayagraj, Moxudabath for Murshidabad, Adgipoer for Hajipur, etc.

But this is not entirely odd, as if the whole map of India by this cartographer is observed, the majority of areas are decently accurate according to the cartography tools and navigation available in the 18th century. Even the maps of Africa and other parts of Asia sketched by the same cartographer are also similar to what they are today, with places and territories having familiar names. However, this particular stretch of the Ganga River, with Bihar and Patna marked as different provinces with Munger in between, raises a lot of questions.

The map mentions a certain Raja Rudorow, which could correspond to King Rudra Chand of Almora, after whom the city Rudrapur is named. However, he was a king in the 16th century. Perhaps the cartographer misspelled Garhwal as Gor Varal, or maybe they understood it incorrectly. In any case, the geography of Garhwal corresponds to the kingdoms of Gor and Varal on this map.

Mevat is marked between Bihar and Morang, which is in Nepal. A certain Pattena is marked, which is today's Patan city in the Bagmati Province of Nepal, now known as Lalitpur. So it is confirmed that from this point, Nepal begins, and Mevat could be some part of Nepal. However, a certain Minapur (written as Minapour) further confuses the issue, as it is a small settlement in the Muzaffarpur district of Bihar. In any case, the geography of Mevat is not clear here. Also, the current Mewat is a district in Haryana, which is also known as Nuh.

Prurop could be today's Purulia, as it has the settlement of Ragiamahol or Rajmahal, which is in today's Sahibganj district of Jharkhand, and Purulia is close to Sahibganj. However, the problem with the map arises from this point, as the neighboring territories of Bengal are Berar and Malwa to the west, which is not geographically correct at all. It is also interesting that another map published just two years later in 1794 by William Fades correctly mentions the strip of lands between Bengal and Berar as the 'Dominions of the Mahrattas' or Marathas. So this might be a really incomplete source for the cartographer.

But perhaps this cartographer was trying to convey something. Maybe he wanted us to consider the limitations of his research and be amused by the existence of such maps, all part of the evolving cartography of India. Or maybe there did exist a Bikaner near Delhi or a Mevat in the Nepal-Bihar region. Perhaps they had different names, or maybe cartography improved after years of surveying and research. In any case, the cartographical improvement of Indian maps is a must-study for every historian and geographer.