The Antiquity of Kōnkaṇ

If Coniaci is a reference to Kōnkaṇ, then Strabo’s Geographica (1st century BC) would be the first historical text to mention Kōnkaṇ. [Hamilton, 1857 :The Geography of Strabo, Ch. I, Bk. XV, 80] The next could possibly be that of Pliny (1st century CE). Pliny describes India in Chapter 23 of his encyclopedia titled Naturalis Historia: “After these we come to the nation of the Pandæ, the only one throughout all India which is ruled by women. … After passing through this list of three hundred towns, we come to the Darangæ, the Posingæ, the Butæ, the Gogaræ, the Umbræ, the Nereæ, the Brancosi, the Nobundæ, the Cocondæ, the Nesei, the Palatitæ, the Salobriasæ, and the Orostræ, … .” [Bostock& Riley, 1755 :The Natural History of Pliny, 48] Could Cocondæ be a reference to Kōnkaṇ ? Prima facie it does not seem to fit the geographical position of Kōnkaṇ. Before coming to the ‘nation of Pandæ’, Pliny describes the Nareæ. Jean Hardouin who edited Pliny’s Natural History in late 17th century identifies Nareæ as probably the people occupying the southern part of the peninsula or the Deccan, with the Malabar and Coromandel coasts. After several more ‘nations’, Pliny comes to the Pandæ, whom Hardouin identifies as the people inhabiting the Peninsula of Gujarat. From here Pliny passes to River Indus. Pliny’s Cocondæ, therefore appears to lie somewhere between Gujarat and Sind. The location of Cocondæ according to Pliny would fit Kōnkaṇa only if his Pandæ refers to the Pandyan Kingdom (with Madurai as its capital) that covered parts of South India between 600 BCE and 13th century CE. The northern tip of the Pandyan kingdom is believed to have touched Mangaluru. Then Pliny’s sequence of places - Pandæ =>Cocondæ - seems to be appropriate.