The R-QBAM main thread

At this point I genuinely think you could compile all of this and look at submitting it to an academic journal.

Just add some conclusions at the end about the validity/usefulness of certain sources and use the 'I got an erroneous article deleted from Wikipedia' bit as a hook.
 
At this point I genuinely think you could compile all of this and look at submitting it to an academic journal.

Just add some conclusions at the end about the validity/usefulness of certain sources and use the 'I got an erroneous article deleted from Wikipedia' bit as a hook.
I just wish all of this research didn't get lost on a few pixels, this could very easily be a big and detailed map or maybe even a GIS source.
 
I just wish all of this research didn't get lost on a few pixels, this could very easily be a big and detailed map or maybe even a GIS source.
Seriously. He's uncovered stuff that I bet even the local governments don't know about or remember! I can imagine Indian historians would be quite interested in this project.
 
Last edited:
1684116884435.png

So hey, an small update on the rivers progress, as you can see a lot of WIP yet but Northern India and Nepal already have the primary rivers built, as I mentioned last time the Ghaggar-Hakra River still confuses me (idk if what I use as source is correct?) and both the coast of the Western Ghats and the Bhramputra River look like nightmares... But with patience I'll get there on them.

Also @Tanystropheus42 , about the GADM data I posted earlier, while I was drawning the Nepal rivers I notice that it didn't update their sources for the new Nepalese provinces subdivisions of 2015 and it has the previous subdivisions there, I hope that not the case in other countries but just warning to not make you confused.
 
I will, but Darfur's borders correspond with modern borders, and until those are added, I'm not touching it. This is a work in process anyways, so I there's plenty more to be added, even now. Especially theRTSchultz's patches for German colonial reservations
I think you might like this, its from 1928 but shows the native autorities of Tanganyika (former German East Africa), Leauge of Nations map collection and archives are a treasure throve, i wonder who said that Leauge of Nations were useless :)


 
1684618839180.png

Hey! Another small update on the river progress, not much to say beyond that of course still heavy WIP yet...

But an bad news about that GADM data I found before ( pinging @Tanystropheus42 to warn about it), remember last time I said the Nepal divisions didn't have updated to the current provinces borders? Oh guest what I have found: while I was doing the Godovari river I notice that the GADM data it was indicating that the border of Telangana extended further east over a small piece of Andhra Pradesh (something that happens on several maps on the internet), at the time I found this strange and went to research if there had been any exchange of territories recently or if the dataset was dated... And to my sadness and paranoia, it is dated;
Summing up, when the Telangana state was created in early 2014 the district of Khammam had the northeast of its territory ceded back to Andhra Pradesh in a vote if I'm not mistaken around July, so it was a very short time that the border of these two states became like that way; the territory was mostly transferred to the East Godavari district... However, there was a district reform in Andhra Pradesh in January 2022 that basically redesigned the 2nd level administrative divisions there (which even Google Maps is not updated to that change yet).
In conclusion: although the last GADM update was in July 2022, at least they haven't been updating India since 2014 (especially the districts) , which yiekes, a big red flag on the entire dataset now... Well, it still has its uses and you can use a reference for make modern borders, but it can cause confusion and not as reliable as I hoped it was...

Anyways, I will continue doing the river layer, so see ya guys!
 
Ok so hmm, HI! It's have been quite tiny time, well life does it's life things, literally I didn't have time to do stuff and so on... Yeah, sorry for the disapperance but...
Now without futher ado, let go to the good stuff:
1687052027556.png

Another update for the India rivers! So it's about 50% done I think? But yes, this will get done guys, hopefully without other hitaus, see ya guys
 
Last edited:
I present you the R-QBAM Repository !

All latest, up-to date patches is in there right now. I also upload every old patch into it, I'm currently at the 10th page of thread. But as i said, every latest version of those patches is already in repository so repository is up-to date as 21 June 2023. I also will update as i can when new content is shared in the thread, and I will continue to add old patches till I finish it all. I also plan adding a sources txt that links files to their original message in the forum. Also if you find an inaccuracy or have a suggestion you can just tell me and I'll look in to that.
 
Last edited:
Another patch, another stupidly long write-up detailing the border-gore and general messiness. It got to the point that getting my decisions for the final chunk of Gujarat written up was such a daunting task that I may have slightly ended up finishing most of Pakistan on the sly, then revised a few more areas on the side while procrastinating getting it done. Because of this and RL getting in the way, I ended up writing a moderately pared-down description of Gujarat, though hopefully still an instructive one.

On the plus side, the most difficult region (Gujarat) is now done, and now there's only one more patch to go; Kashmir and the North West Frontier Province. I may bundle in one or two more minor tweaks into that next patch (most notably a probable final Assam overhaul), but once it's finished I'll be considering the Raj patch done for now. The Raj won't be completely finished at that point; Bits of Arabia and the Middle East were administratively linked to the Raj and so should probably be shown in a complete map, and then there's Burma, that I haven't even added to the basemap yet. On the other hand, I've already spent three months working on a project I thought would only take a week or two, so I'll call finishing the Indian subcontinent a good enough milestone for now and move on to other things once the last patch is done. I want to get back to adding more stuff to the R-QBAM basemap, even if that does mean diving head-first into Canada.

As with last patch, I ended up having to spoiler the descriptions to avoid cluttering the thread up with a monstrous wall of text. And fair warning, its a massive wall of text this time; excluding the maps, the entire post comes out at over 13,000 words. It's stupidly long. I really, really, really hate my perfectionism at times.

EDIT; The damned thing's so bloody long the site won't let me post it in one piece, so I'm splitting it into two parts. First two spoilers here, next two spoilers plus the maps and the lists in a second post to follow.




I'll start the discussion with Rajasthan, which fortunately wasn't too troublesome. There were only two areas of contention, both iffy vassals of vassals that I ended up not showing, though it is useful to raise them. Leaving those two cases aside, basically all sources agree that there were 20 states in the territory of modern Rajasthan, then known as Rajputana. These states were pretty variable, ranging from the tiny estate of Lawa (population 2,671 in 1901) which only became a princely state following a dispute with its former feudal overlord Tonk in the 1860's, to Jodhpur (AKA Marwar), a state a little larger than modern Hungary and with an independent history stretching back to the 1220's.

Of the two problem areas the more annoying was Kushalgarh, because as far as I can tell, it was basically the most princely state-like entity that wasn't one. Kushalgarh was a feudal estate that for all intents and purposes acted as if it were a state, being in direct relations with the British government and possessing domestic autonomy, but despite this all sources describe it as a vassal of Banswara. The 1909 Gazetteer describes it as "practically independent of Banswara for all purposes other than the payment of tribute", while nevertheless stressing its vassalage to Banswara. Both the 1916 and 1939 Memoranda list Kushalgarh in their lists of states, but later both claim that it was "A feudatory of Banswara and not an independent state" (same wording in both sources). They even state that Banswara was banned from interfering in the internal affairs of Kushalgarh, period. Kushalgarh also shows up sporadically on maps, sometimes part of Banswara and sometimes its own distinct thing. Kushalgarh is annoying because it looked like a Princely State and quacked like a Princely State but nevertheless was not a Princely State according to all official sources I've found. I was extremely tempted to add it as the 21st state in Rajputana, but in the end I decided to follow the official sources, call it a vassal of a vassal and thus discount it from the map, though not without misgivings.

The other problematic vassal of a vassal (or should I say, vassals of a vassal) were the Shekhawati estates. I was first clued-in to the fact that something was amiss by the 8K-BAM 1910 map, that highlights the northern chunk of Jaipur as in some way autonomous. A bit of digging showed that it wasn't one state but several, a collection of thirty-ish small Rajput dynasties and landlords loosely confederated under the overarching control of Jaipur, paying the latter state tribute. Naturally, these states are disqualified by the 'no vassals of vassals' rule, a particularly easy decision to make considering I can't find maps showing the petty estates individually, if they are shown at all.

In a similar vein to Rajasthan, the bits of Pakistan I've done so far were relatively easy to do. These can be divided into three chunks; Pakistani Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan.

The easiest of the three was probably finishing Punjab; the external borders are largely the same as the modern Punjab province of Pakistan, and the only Princely State to add was Bahawalpur, where the southern border followed the modern India-Pakistan border and the northern one the course of a major river. I still had to tweak the borders a little from the rivers WIP @rac posed a few weeks back, as the Sutlej has meandered slightly from its course when the borders were originally set back in the 19th century, but overall it was nothing too difficult.

The other easy one was Sindh. While it would later be split off as its own province, back in 1914 Sindh was administered as part of Bombay Presidency. So far I've been trying to arrange the states by the province they were subordinate to, but considering I've already had to split off Gujarat from the rest of Bombay to quarantine the worst of the bordergore, I went ahead and made a separate category for Sindh too. As such, there was only one state to add, Khairpur, while the external borders once again mostly followed modern provincial or international borders with a few tweaks to account for the movement of the Indus

Baluchistan was the only one of the three to present some problems. The issues stem from the fact that the largest State in the province, the Khanate of Kalat, was in some form of feudal relations with all the others, which once again opened up the "is it a state, or a vassal of a vassal?" question. In the end I settled on showing two states, the aforementioned Kalat and Las Bela, while excluding two others that are sometimes listed and occasionally appear on maps; Kharan and Makran. Las Bela made the cut as although basically every source mentions that it had some loose feudal ties to Kalat, those same sources also consistently list it as a state, even when the other two are excluded. Here it is in the 1916 Memoranda, here in the 1939 Memoranda and here's its entry in the 1909 Gazetteer. Also, basically every map shows it as a distinct state while excluding the other two, most notably the massive 1914 map of Baluchistan and Sindh made by the Survey of India, downloadable here. At the other end of the scale is Makran. The 1909 Gazetteer calls it "the south-western division of the Kalat State", while further worldstatesman calls it a sub-state of Kalat and states that it only ceased to be a Kalat sub-state when it acceded to Pakistan separately in 1948. Just to hammer the point home, it appears on no lists of princely states I've been able to find. While some maps show it, in 1914 Makran wasn't even a vassal of a vassal but practically an administrative division of Kalat, hence I discounted it. On the other hand I have good evidence that Kharan existed, but that it was a vassal of Kalat and thus also not shown, though here there is some conflicting evidence. Worldstatesman states that it was a vassal of Kalat from 1884 to 1940, while the 1909 Gazetteer calls it "A quasi-independent tribal area of the Kalat State". The case isn't completely cut and dried as Kharan does get a separate listing in the 1916 Memoranda as a separate State, however as that's the only such listing I've so-far found I'm leaning towards Kharan being a vassal of a vassal and thus being excluded.

Staying on the topic of Baluchistan, I also added two autonomous tribal territories, Marri Country and Bugti Country. These areas were not princely states and were part of the directly-administered area of British India (even if some maps show otherwise), but they were rugged enough and their people stubborn enough that they were granted significant internal autonomy and largely left alone by British authorities, even as the two areas were technically administered as part of Sibi district.

The topic of autonomous tribal districts is pertinent as it feeds back into some of the significant improvements I've since made to the province of Assam. As I said at the time, I wasn't particularly happy with how Assam turned out because there was more detail I thought I could add but that I didn't have the sources for. Getting a little burnt out and wanting to move on to other things was also a factor at the time. While putting off getting this write-up done however, I decided to take another look at Assam with a fresh perspective, and see what I could improve. The new version I was able to cook up isn't perfect, but it's greatly improved from what it was, which is good enough.

Firstly I tweaked the upper course of the Brahmaputra River to make it historically accurate for 1914. When I was first doing the base geography patch, the Brahmaputra was where I ran out of steam, so I've been using the modern course as a placeholder in the previous patches. Fixing the problem seemed like the logical first step in overhauling Assam, which was doable thanks to the maps here. I was also able to dig up a few sources for the frontier districts, most notably History Of The Frontier Areas Bordering On Assam From 1883-1941 (1942) and Nagaland (1961), which confirmed a few suspicions of mine and meant I was confident enough to bash out a decent patch for the frontier districts in 1914.

There are, however, plenty of caveats. Firstly, the two northern frontier districts; in 1919 they would be renamed the Balipara Frontier Tract and the Sadiya Frontier Tract, but back in 1914 these two regions were respectively the Western Section and the Central and Eastern Section of the North East Frontier Tract. From what I can gather, these two districts functioned similarly to the aforementioned autonomous tribal regions mentioned in Baluchistan in being British territory with significant internal autonomy for the local tribes, hence the similar colouration. Most sources (e.g. wikipedia), suggest these two districts were formed at some undefined point in 1914, so I was unsure whether to add them not knowing if they were created before or after July 1914 when the map is set. Fortunately however, History of the Frontier Areas (1942) states that they were established in an extended process from 1912-1913, which, combined with some decent later maps (this one for example) showing district borders, allowed me to draw on the frontier regions knowing they existed at the time.

A further problem is that tracts of these districts were only lightly governed or not administered at all, or else were governed by external powers like Tibet. Even this beautiful CIA map from as late as 1947 (showing the situation in 1941) labels large areas of the two frontier tracts as an "uncensused area" with no data. That map probably represents the area of the frontier tracts Britain actually administered, but for now I'm showing the de-jure situation of what territory the Raj claimed. If I get time while working on the next patch I'll tweak the frontier districts to show just the area administered, but for now I'm leaving it as it is.

The other odd case is the Naga tribal area, which was in an odd legal grey area. Basically every source I've found says that the hill region between Assam Province and Burma was legally British (being surrounded by British territory), but that the colonial authorities of neither wanted to actually administer it. History of the Frontier Areas (1942) goes into great length on the subject in its section on the Naga Hills, but for a more concise summary, in its entry for the Naga Hills District (the British-administered region of modern Nagaland), the 1909 Gazetteer states that it was bounded on the east by "a line which follows for the most part the course of the Dikho and Tizu rivers, beyond which lie hills inhabited by independent tribes". Thus, there was a region of de-jure Assam with defined external borders that the Assam provincial government didn't want the hassle of administering, so they largely left it alone to its own devices. The only substantial interference from the British government into the lives of the local Naga tribes was the occasional dispatching of military expeditions to quell the region and exact tribute if said tribes started raiding British-administered territory again.

Now, in 1935 this odd situation would be resolved by creating a dedicated autonomous tribal area covering eastern Nagaland, but in 1914 the prior, much more legally opaque situation described above applied. Hell, even after 1935, the British touch remained light; that same CIA map also shows the Naga Tribal Area as "uncensused".

So to sum up, the area was de-jure British but in no way actively administered, being set aside as an unofficial de-facto tribal reserve largely out of apathy on the part of the Assam provincial government. In many ways, the territory functioned as if it were an autonomous tribal district without officially being one, so I've coloured it as such on the map, though I will note that this is a provisional choice liable to change. I'm probably going to include another Assam overhaul in the next (hopefully final) Raj patch, which would include possible changes to better reflect the status of Nagaland and to show the areas of actual control in the frontier districts.

I also made a few other minor tweaks to the existing map. I re-checked the lakes of Sri Lanka, as while a lot of those reservoirs are really bloody old, apparently some of them had fallen into disrepair since and were only restored later, while others were originally smaller but were later expanded. Stumbling on one or two reasonably detailed period maps helped in this regard.

I mentioned the Mehwas Estates before, raising them then originally deciding that they probably weren't true states and thus shouldn't be shown. I've since dug up new sources, most notably the 1916 Memoranda, that lists the six estates as if they were full states. It's also notable that they (or an equivalent area at least) show up on earlier maps but not later ones, almost as if the estates got downgraded at some point. As the 1916 citation is the latest I have that classifies them as states, I'm assuming this change happened at some point during or immediately after WW1 and that previously the six estates were considered states. I know they weren't considered states by the 1920's, as I've dug up another Memoranda from 1921 (largely a reprint of the 1916 edition) that omits them. As such, I've added them as another cumulative entity in Gujarat for 1914, with a note that their days as states were numbered.

One final note while talking about tweaks to the existing maps, I spent a couple of days two weeks ago manually checking all the colours in the ad-hoc princely states colour scheme I've been constructing to check for duplicates and change a few that were a bit too similar. It was a lot of tedious work, but I'm now pretty sure there are no duplicates and each colour represents a single state or collection of states. It's an important check to make as several states had exclaves all over the place, and two states sharing the same colour could be confused for a single state with multiple exclaves.
Before I dive headfirst into the final lengthy digression on Gujarat, I need to introduce a key dilemma that vexed me considerably; what is the difference between a State with multiple shareholders, and a Thana consisting of multiple distinct sub-estates?

The key problem is that, unlike what you'd expect, for a lot of the small states in Gujarat there wasn't one single Chief or petty landholder ruling each state. In many cases these started as one state, but as time went on portions of the estate were allotted to different branches of the family tree as it bifurcated over time. In some cases, such as the Jetpur States or the Bantwa States, this resulted in multiple successor lines that were all in time recognised as full states, but in a few cases the ancestral estate was never split. Instead, different branches would administer different chunks of the estate as sub-estates or as if they were independent while only being represented as one state in relations with higher authorities. A good example is the petty state of Kotda Pitha (more on that below), which by the 20th century had no less than five distinct shareholders all descended from the same founder, that were nevertheless grouped into a single state.

This is also another possible solution to the Vankia/Khambhala problem by the way, as most sources I've seen that list such things say that the state (under whatever name that source used) had as many as three shareholders. A tussle over priority between two larger shareholders based in different towns could account for the apparent name-changes as the two centres of power in the state waxed and waned in influence over time.

While this gets really annoying discussing northern Gujarat in general and the Palanpur Agency in particular (see below), it first allows me to clear up a few of the iffier judgements I had to make when compiling the Kathiawar list for the last patch, as I think some entries I listed as states were in fact sub-estates within wider states with multiple shareholders.

Firstly, the two Dedan states. As I said at the time, a few sources (but by no means all), list two states, or sub-estates, but only two sources describe these states in any detail more that an entry in a list; the 1880 Gazetteer and Leading Princes (1928), and, as mentioned previously, Leading Princes is a less than helpful source. In the edition that was digitised, the original entry for the second Dedan line was mostly overwritten by lazy re-edits, making it largely useless in figuring out if it was a state or not, but does at least provide further proof of existence. On the other hand, later in that same source in the list of states at the end, it only lists Dedan as a state once but lists two shareholders under the state. The 1880 Gazetteer on the other hand makes no mention of a second line at all, just describing it as a single state. Further sources missing the extra Dedan are both the 1911 and 1916 Memoranda's, the 1909 Gazetteer and literally every map I have so far found - even the best hisatlas map, practically my only source for some areas of the Palanpur Agency - doesn't split Dedan.

The 1939 Memoranda lists two distinct Dedan states in two separate tables but does not elaborate. On the other hand, I've already found a few cases where the 1939 Memoranda apparently double-counts states, for example in listing six Bagasra states when there should be four (I think the main state Bagasra Majmu had three sub-estates, which the Memoranda apparently counts separately), or the apparent extra Lodhika line. It is thus entirely possible that the 1939 Memoranda is counting a sub-estate (that otherwise appears only sporadically in the sources) as a state, a mistake worldstatesman apparently inherited as I suspect it used a version of the Memoranda as a primary source. Based on this re-assessment, I'm revising the number of Dedan states down from two to one, assuming one of those mentioned in some sources was a sub-estate. The icing on the cake is that the 1916 Memoranda states that Dedan (listed only once) had no less than four shareholders, providing further evidence for my conjecture.

The second state I've removed from the list is Zainabad, the apparent second state in Dasada Thana. I only added it as I've found later sources claiming it was elevated to a full state in the 1920's and assuming that meant that previously it was a sub-state of Dasada Thana, but I think I may have been off on this one. While I know it was regarded as a state by the 1930's (see the 1939 Memoranda), I had no sources providing evidence for an independent existence prior to the 1920's, almost as if Zainabad appeared spontaneously during that decade. It isn't mentioned at all by the 1916 Memoranda (that lists Dadasa as the only state in the eponymous Thana), or in the 1909 Gazetteer, or by the 1880 Gazetteer, which I found highly suspicious.

I also for a long time couldn't find it in Leading Princes (1928), which was rather concerning considering it was published after Zainabad was apparently elevated to full state. However, as I've complained about before, transliterating place-names from the local Indian languages into English was for a long time an imprecise art, leading to a tonne of variant spellings of state names appearing in earlier sources before a consensus was eventually reached. It was only once I'd gotten used to some of the patterns that I noticed an entry for 'Jainabad' and figured that it was Zainabad state under a different name. That entry confirms things, giving a history section that largely re-tells the history of Dasada taluka laid out in other sources (oddly, Dasada isn't mentioned distinctly in Leading Princes, but does get name-dropped in other articles), before stating that "This Taluka which was joint with the Dasada Taluka became a separate entity only in the time of Malek Shri Zamkhanji [the previous" chief]". I already suspected that what would become Zainabad state was back in 1914 a sub-estate of Dasada taluka, that was in the 1920's elevated from sub-estate to full state, but this apparently confirms things. Other evidence comes from the 1916 Memoranda, that states there were six shareholders of Dasada taluka, and the 1880 Gazetteer, which further mentions multiple shareholders. Oh, and maps consistently either don't show it distinctly (notably, maps from before 1921 label what would become the capital town Zainabad as 'Kalara', suggesting a name change in parallel with the elevation) or show it as part of Dasada Thana but only after the elevation (e.g. both hisatlas maps). All things considered, in 1914 Zainabad wasn't a state yet. It would later be elevated from sub-estate to full state, but that hadn't happened yet, and wouldn't for nearly a decade.

The final state I removed from the list was Rozwa. I had some circumstantial evidence to support this one being a state, but nothing concrete. It does show up in more modern resources, for example hisatlas and worldstatesman, but I struggled to find a period citation naming Rozwa as a state. The only mentions I've found are as a sub-estate of Jhinjuvada in Leading Princes (1928), with a footnote that states "Added as per Agency No. 3990, dated the 28th November 1905", this report from 1939 and a mention in the 1909 Gazetteer, that has an entry for "Jhinjhuvada including Rozva" in its list of states in Kathiawar. While the report apparently confirms that it was a non-jurisdictional estate, the fact I've been able to find it nowhere else in the literature is, I feel, telling. Major sources like the 1916 Memoranda, the 1921 Memoranda and the 1939 Memoranda make no mention of Rozwa, instead listing Jhinjuvada as the sole taluka in the eponymous Thana.

What about maps? Well unfortunately, period maps are even more annoyingly ambiguous. I have so far only seen Rozwa marked as a distinct state in the two hisatlas maps, with every period map I've found so far allotting its territory to either Jhinjuvada or Radhanpur. The earliest good one I've found from this series is Sheet 41/M Radhanpur (1889) that shows Rozwa (named Rojwa on the map), as part of Radhanpur. Sheet 41/M Radhanpur (1921) is a reprint of the 1889 map "with additions & corrections" and as such also shows Rozwa as part of Radhanpur, while Sheet 41/M Radhanpur (1948) shows the town (now called Rojva) as part of Jhinjuvada. This map further shows it as part of Radhanpur. All maps mentioned above downloadable here.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this tangled web of citations, but I think that Rozwa was a vassal or sub estate of Radhanpur that was transferred to Jhinjuvada in 1905, a supposition made thanks to the footnote in Leading Princes. I'm assuming the maps are wrong as nobody noticed the subtle change though multiple re-prints of maps from the 1880's until the 1940's. Due to the almost complete absence of Rozwa from major sources, including all of the editions of the Memoranda that I've looked at, I've come to think that instead of becoming a state however, Rozwa instead became a sub-estate in Jhinjuvada taluka as seen in Leading Princes. This conjecture is, I'll admit, a little flimsy, but it's the best I've been able to come up with to explain the scant and often contradictory evidence.

The other change that I made to Kathiawar was merging Kotda Pitha into Babra Thana. I'm annoyed that I didn't spot this first time, but I think that it was originally part of Babra Thana, as proven by multiple earlier sources saying as such, before being detached from the Thana and elevated to a full State at some point during the interwar era, as shown by later sources listing it distinctly. The very fact that the entry for the second Dedan line has apparently been overwritten by an article for Kotda Pitha in Leading Princes (1928) is itself strongly suggestive, implying that Kotda Pitha was only important enough to get a distinct article after the original publication date, which fits with the idea that it was a Thana estate elevated to a distinct semi-jurisdictional state during the intervening time. The annoying thing is I was so close to spotting this in the last patch but didn't quite put the pieces together, instead assuming inconsistent sources. As this means that in 1914 Kotda Pitha would have been part of Babra Thana, I've tweaked the borders in that part of Kathiawar to remove Kotda Pitha as a distinct state and change a few surrounding borders to make things a little more accurate.

Discounting the three states discussed above brings my tally of Kathiawar states down to 217. Adding in the removal of Kotda Pitha from Babra Thana that I didn't account for in the original list, and the list of Kathiawar states I posted a month ago is a little outdated, so I've attached a slightly modded replacement to the end of this post, in addition to a few other lists.

Another one of the lists I added relates to the final changes I want to mention before moving on to the new stuff in Gujarat; double-checking all the states of western Gujarat to see if anything had slipped through the net, and fortunately it looks like I'm all clear. Most of the states in the area were under the Aegis of the Rewa Kantha Agency, but there was also the Surat Agency covering Dharampur, Bansda, Sachin and the Dangs, plus three other agencies that each covered the affairs of a single state in addition to the territories of Baroda, that was in direct relations with the British government. Compiling the lists for the disparate agencies and comparing them with later sources such as hisatlas and worldstatesman, aside from a tonne of variant spellings, I only found one discrepancy, and fortunately it was an explainable one.

The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency Vol. VI; Rewa Kantha, Narukot, Cambay, and Surat States (1880) is from the same series as the Kathiawar Gazetteer I've linked to previously, covering most of the states in the area in question; the only two states it's missing are Surgana the only state of the Nasik Agency, and Jawhar, the sole state of the Thana Agency. This source is notable as it produces the only major discrepancy between lists, listing an extra state in the Sankheda Mewas.

Depending on the source (or even within the same source; as I've said before, a lot of these sources are internally inconsistent) this entity is named either Devalia or Devlia, and I was initially worried I'd be drawn down another deep research rabbit hole trying to prove or disprove it as it shows up on both hisatlas maps. In the end however it was actually pretty easy to disprove. The entire description it gets in the 1880 Gazetteer is "Devalia, one mile in extent, held by a cadet of the Agar house, pays no tribute", which is an incredibly sparse citation. The day was saved by another search of old Indian govt records, that recovers a trio of records that apparently document the pleas by the former ruler of Devlia against the British decision to annex his state to Uchad from 1911 and 1912, pleas that were ultimately rejected. Further proof that Devlia was a state but that it got annexed to Uchad comes from the 1916 Memoranda, that unusually lists Devlia separately, but calls it "Devalia (included in Uchad)". Taken together, it appears that Devlia/Devalia probably was a state, but it got annexed to Uchad around 1910 and so doesn't count as a state by 1914.

The other discrepancies were all minor; hisatlas bifurcates the states of Bhilodia and Pantalavdi into two states each, while other sources confirm each was just one state with multiple shareholders. Also, Vanmala in the Sankheda Mewas apparently changed its name, but unlike the Vankia/Khambhala problem most sources clearly identify the different names. To give just one example, the 1939 Memoranda table lists it as state no. 21 "Dhamasia alias Vanmala". I have plenty of other examples I won't care to mention here, but it should be noted that all sources are pretty clear that these are two variant names for one state, but just can't decide what the primary name is, which is annoying but manageable.

Aside from that, all the states of the Pandu Mewas and the Dangs lined up perfectly with what I had already figured out, excepting a tonne of variant spellings, a pattern that also held true for the states in this area not under a Thana, which was a pleasant discovery. With what I had already done of Gujarat now suitably double-checked and revised, I can move on to the new stuff I had to add to finish off by far the worst area of the Raj.
 
As promised, the second part to this absolutely monstrous wall of text, detailing how I added the final chunk of Gujarat in addition to the updated maps and lists,

As I've said many times already, of all the regions of the British Raj, Gujarat was by far the worst. The border-gore was horrible, the states were practically fractal and the sources wildly inconsistent. Across multiple sources, the British authorities were apparently never able to compile a complete list of states, as without fail either one or two petty states slipped through the cracks and were missed or a handful of state-like entities were listed when they shouldn't've been. I have so far tried my hardest to compile my own, as-complete-as-possible list of Princely States, comparing and contrasting multiple often-contradictory sources and making educated guesses in cases where said sources are too sparse or contradictory.

However, even I have a limit to how far I can go, and that limit was apparently the Palanpur Agency.

But before I delve into that utter hell, I first need to walk you through my decisions behind the fiendish but at least somewhat surmountable Mahi Kantha Agency. In 1914, this Agency occupied the north-eastern chunk of OTL Gujarat, on the border with Rajputana. There were three major states, Idar, Danta and Pol (that would change its name to Vijaynagar in 1934), plus a tonne of smaller but still notable states that mostly nevertheless check out across all sources that I've seen. One final such source I need to raise in regards to this area is another Volume of the Bombay Gazetteer; Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. V, Cutch, Palanpur and Mahi Kantha (1880). This covers a few areas of northern Gujarat, and alas the versions I've found online digitised aren't of the best quality (the one I've linked to is the least crap one). It does however provide a list of states, one which tallies pretty closely with other sources, at least regarding the jurisdictional and semi-jurisdictional states.

Before I dive into the nitty-gritty of accounting for the Thana states, there is one notable discrepancy to raise, concerning a "state" listed by some sources that I think was created by mis-readings of the 1909 Gazetteer. Right at the end of the table provided here is an entry for what appears to be a state called Sadra Bazaar. I'm pretty certain that this wasn't a state, as I have not been able to find references to a state called either Sadra or Sadra Bazaar in any period sources and lists. What I think happened is that the Gazetteer listed a notable town, Sadra, headquarters of the Mahi Kantha Agency, distinctly due to its administrative importance without clarifying that it was not a full state. This wouldn't be an isolated incident either, as other tables in the Gazetteer also list civil stations and small British exclaves in the same tables as full states. This is because the tables in question are listing statistics for entities under the Agency in question, and while that mostly means Princely States, there were a few cases of British exclaves or British-administered land falling under the administrative aegis of an Agency too. Other researchers looking at the Gazetteer tables apparently didn't realise this fact, mis-interpreting Sadra-Bazaar as a full state. While worldstatesman avoids the trap, the old hisatlas map has apparently fallen for the misconception, showing an uncertain state of Sadra Bazaar on the territory of the small state of Vasna. I'm pretty sure this map on Wikipedia for example inherited the mistake, as it and associated maps are basically svg copies of the old hisatlas map. The uncertainty around Sadra Bazaar aside, the main problems came, once again, from trying to figure out how many states there were in each Thana.

The first Thana was blessedly easy; Sabar Kantha Thana, that grouped together about a dozen small estates bordering on the semi-jurisdictional state of Ilol. In it's list of states, the 1880 Bombay Gazetteer assigns about a dozen petty estates to Sabar Kantha Thana (for example here, while describing Prempur), while the Thana also appears in an incomplete form in this table in the 1909 Gazetteer. There are some discrepancies between the two sources; for example, at some point between 1880 and 1909 the two nearby semi-jurisdictional states of Rupal and Dadhalia lost their jurisdictional powers due to mismanagement and were lumped in with Sabar Kantha Thana (see a footnote in this table from the 1909 Gazetteer). According to worldstatesman, this Thana was abolished in the 1920's and its constituent states were elevated to being in direct relations with the British government, which would be impossible to accurately map at the scale of the R-QBAM, considering all 12 states fit into just two pixels on the map. In 1914 however it was still around, simplifying things considerably. It was a little fiddly to get the two lists to align; as mentioned the 1880 Gazetteer considers Dadhalia and Rupal full states, while the table in the 1909 Gazetteer isn't entirely clear, with a few states listed outside Sabar Kantha Thana but assigned to it by footnotes here. Acconting for those discrepancies, both sources line up perfectly, both with each other, and with the states highlighted as formerly part of Sabar Kantha by worldstatesman here.

The other easy Thana was Katosan Thana, where there was one notable discrepancy that needed looking into, though fortunately it turned out to be inconsequential. While checking list of states in Katosan Thana against the new hisatlas map, I noticed something a little off with the small state of Ijpura; hisatlas presents two states, Ijpura-Barotna and Ijpura-Jethaji, in marked contrast with the primary literature. The 1880 Gazetteer lists just Ijpura, as does every other source I've found (e.g., the 1939 Memoranda, worldsatesman, the 1909 Gazetteer, indianroyalty ect). The most logical solution was that it was indeed just one state, but that hisatlas split it for whatever reason (as it does on occasion), however in this case, I was able to come up with an alternative hypothesis that would also fit the data. The 1880 Gazetteer notably states that Ijpura didn't follow primogeniture, and I've found a record from 1894 on the "Death of Thakur Gobarsingji Becharji, of Ijpura, and the succession of his two sons Jethi Sing and Umed Sing" among the ever-useful old Indian government records. Taken together, it's possible that Ijpura was split between two sons in 1894, but every other later source missed that and instead referred back to the 1880 Gazetteer entry made while the state was whole, erroneously listing one state instead of two. However, both the 1916 Memoranda and the 1939 Memoranda state that Ijpura taluka had multiple shareholders, providing an alternate explanation for the split inheritances. For now, I'll call it just one state, but note that there is a mild question mark attached to that conclusion. Aside from Ijpura, there were no major discrepancies regarding Katosan Thana. The 1909 Gazetteer lists three additional entities, but in the footnotes states that these were not full states but co-shared villages. Every other source I've seen states that there were only 10 states in Katosan Thana (assuming Ijpura was whole), so I'm disregarding them.

Next up are two related cases; Vatrak Kantha Thana and Bawishi Thana. These two are notable as they land squarely in the grey area between "Thana containing multiple constituent states" and "Single state with multiple sub-estates". Both of these entities were called Thanas, but where they are mentioned at all, they are (usually) treated as if they were single states, with their constituent components elaborated on little. Unfortunately, in both cases, mentions in the primary literature are scant to non-existent, which makes figuring out their true nature incredibly problematic. What follows is my best attempt to parse how these entities were governed from the less-than-helpful literature.

I'll start with Bawishi Thana, often alternately spelled Bavishi Thana. I've not been able to find much, but here's what I have. The 1880 Gazetteer lists it as one of the territorial divisions of Mahi Kantha and describes it as "Bavisi including the Rajput district of Vasna and a large number of Koli villages, formerly part of the Gaikwar district of Dehgam which were handed over to the Agency on account of the unruly character of its people". "Bavisi Thana" is listed on the second page of the Mahi Kantha table in the 1909 Gazetteer, which lists several statistics (population, area, tribute paid and who to) for the Thana collectively. There is a further footnote that states; "[It] Is constituted of 24 Chief matadari villages and 72 sub-villages, including Barmuada". That same source separately lists it as "Bavisi Thana - Petty State in Mahi Kantha, Bombay". It is not mentioned at all by the 1916 Memoranda. Trust me, I've checked, there's nothing in the index, and I haven't been able to find anything reading through the tables and entries under the Mahi Kantha Agency. It gets a cursory mention in the 1939 Memoranda; an entry in the final table listing Talukas by Thana, which lists it as entry no. 9; "Bawishi Thana", saying literally nothing else. Interestingly, five states that Hisatlas shows as part of Bawishi Thana are listed under "Vakhtapur Thana", entry no. 7 in the aforementioned list of Thanas.

That is the sum total of information I was able to find on Bawishi Thana from perusing the primary sources, and as you can see, it isn't much to go on. There is a little more agreement from modern sources; worldstatesman claims there were 25 states in Bawishi Thana, which is apparently corroborated by hisatlas, that shows 25 labelled entities as part of the Thana. A figure of 25 is also remarkably close to the "24 Chief Matadari villages" claimed by the 1909 Gazetteer. No other source I've so far found mentions Bawisi Thana at all.

First question, what exactly was a matadari village? The answer is provided by the Palanpur Agency Directory (more on that source below) - a matadari village was a village without a hereditary chief. Instead a leader was appointed from among the villagers, usually by the British authorities, to collect taxes and perform administrative duties, in effect functioning as an appointed-dictatorial village republic. There were a tonne of states like this in the Palanpur Agency (part of the reason that region was such an enigma), but it appears that the villages of Bawishi Thana functioned in the same way too.

But here's the key problem - how were these villages governed? Modern sources (hisatlas, worldstatesman), imply that it was a true Thana consisting of 25 petty states. From the scant references in the primary sources however, I'm going to go against the more modern sources and assume that Bawishi Thana functioned as a sort of loose confederation of about a hundred local village dictatorships, all under the overarching dominance of the British government. I'm making this assumption as every time Bawishi Thana is mentioned, it is as a single political unit, treated as if it were just one state. That the 1909 Gazetteer treats it collectively as a petty state here is, I believe, pretty telling. Individual sub-states are almost never mentioned individually and appear in basically no lists of states I have found, with the notable exception of the seven states singled out by the 1939 Memoranda as part of Vakhtapur Thana that hisatlas still assigns to Bawishi Thana. As I've found no lists of states in the primary literature, it is plausible that five geographically distinct villages originally in Bawishi were split off to be governed separately under a new Thana at some point between 1909 and 1939, gaining the state-like recognition in the process, however this conjecture remains unproven.

While this was a difficult decision to make, I eventually decided to class Bawishi Thana as just one state-level entity rather than as a Thana of dozens of states as more modern sources imply. It is thus also provided with only one listing in my own list of Princely States, though as ever this contentious decision is marked by an asterisk.

It's a similar story for Vatrak Kantha Thana. The 1880 Gazetteer lists it as; "Vatrak Kantha, the Koli possessions on both sides of the Vatrak River". The 1909 Gazetteer lists it as a Thana, and even mentions two sub-states by name (Nirmali and Jher). However it also states in a footnote that "Nirmali and Jher are shared by the Gaikwar and the Miyan of Mandwa, and are administered by the Political Agent, Mahi Kantha", implying some kind of co-ownership between Baroda (The Gaekwar dynasty was theruling family of Baroda, and the family name is often used as a shorthand for Baroda State in period sources) and an unknown second party (the "Miyan of Mandwa", whoever that was). Just as with Bawishi Thana, the 1916 Memoranda also doesn't mention Vatrak Kantha Thana at all, and it gets a similarly dismissive short entry in the 1939 Memoranda, again without any sub-states listed separately.

From these scant references, I'm going to assume that Vatrak Kantha Thana was governed similarly to Bawishi Thana - a loose collection of matadari villages and co-dominions under the separate political supervision of the local Political Agent. As such, as with Bawishi Thana, I'll be counting Vatrak Kantha as one de-facto state, even though in this case I have at least one source that distinctly names some sub-states, however with caveats. As mentioned, both the modern sources claim a very similar number of states for both problematic Thanas, but worldstatesman doesn't provide a list, and I haven't been able to find enough primary sources listing sub-states for me to be confident in that they were governed distinctly as opposed to collectively as I suspect. It is also possible that worldstatesman is using hisatlas as a primary source, in which case it isn't two sources independently backing each other up but one source re-citing another. My decisions could change if I dig up better primary sources (or any sources really), but for now I'm going with 'collective entity called but not functioning as a Thana' for both cases.

Finally, there's Gadhwada Thana, which is, frankly, an indecipherable mess. The annoying thing is, there are just enough sources available that I figured it would be possible to piece something together, however when I looked into it those sources turned out to be too spotty and inconsistent for me to be certain on much at all. I was able to cobble together a best-guess consensus list, but there isn't much there that I'm particularly certain on. On the plus side, in contrast with Bawishi Thana and Vatrak Kantha Thana, its states were often listed distinctly as full states. That is where the good news ends however, as on the other hand most of those lists are laughably incomplete, and some wildly-divergent transliterations for local names only confuse things further.

The majority of sources list six states consistently; Hadol, Satlasna, Bhalusna, Timba, Umari and Mota Kotarna, though it should be noted that accounting for theses states in the 1880 Gazetteer is a little uncertain. Firstly, the 1880 Gazetteer uses some rather different transliterations for the names of the states that it mentions, in some cases different enough that I'm not 100% certain that these are the same states; Satlasan is apparently an early name for Satlasna, Umadi is I think an alternate name for Umri/Umari, while Motakotarna (called Mota Kotarna by the 1909 Gazetteer), and is I think equivalent to Mota Kothasna of later sources. The 1880 Gazetter also in some cases doesn't explicitly say that the states mentioned were under Gadhwada Thana (see here for an example featuring Hadol, Satlasan and Bhalasna, the three semi-jurisdictional states in the Thana). The 1909 Gazetteer lists these six states under their more recognisable names, in addition to Chandap, where a footnote helpfully informs us that "Chandap is a matadari village and has no chief". While I think, based on my reading of admittedly incredibly spotty primary sources, that the matadari villages of Bawishi Thana and Vatrak Kantha Thana were governed collectively, other sources appear to imply that petty matadari villages elsewhere, such as in Gadhwada Thana and the Palanpur Agency, were indeed treated as full states alongside the petty hereditary holdings of more traditional states. Thus I'm including Chandap as a state of Gadhwada Thana. The 1916 Memoranda is rather confused. In its entry for Gadhwada Thana it lists nine states; the aforementioned seven, plus Mohur and Gajipur (listed as Ghazipur by worldstatesman and hisatlas). On the other hand, its list of states in the Mahi Kantha Agency as a whole only mentions the first six without mentioning Mohur, Gajipur or Chandap, I suspect because the latter three were matadari villages and, in common with other sources, these were apparently treated somewhat separately. I'll be counting them here, but it bears mentioning that not all sources do likewise. The 1939 Memoranda is a little different, as by then the Mahi Kantha and Palanpur Agencies had been merged into one unified Sabar Kantha Agency, and checking the lists of semi-jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional states for this Agency shows that it is apparently even more exclusive than the other sources, listing only five states; the classic six minus Mota Kotarna.

So, we have six full states mentioned in basically every source, plus what appear to be three matadari villages that have a spottier record but that do show up sporadically in period sources, for a total of nine states. This is the hard floor for how many states there were in the Thana, as I have period citations for all of them.

Digging deeper however only dredges up further confusion, particularly when looking to more modern resources for answers. Both worldstatesman and hisatlas list 15 states in Gadhwada Thana, and they almost exactly agree. Worldstatesman lists the 15 states as; "Includes 15 talukas: Ambavada, Bhalusna (1), Chandup, Dedasan, Ghazipur, Hadal (1), Mohur#, Mota Kothasna, Nana Kothasna, Nedardi, Satlasna (6), Timba, Udni, Umri, Vinchhi". Hisatlas is different however because of course it is. It shows a tonne of small states not shown or mentioned elsewhere which is, understandably, problematic. On the other hand, the new hisatlas map provides a brief description of the Thana and its component states, something it doesn't usually do; "GADHWADA THANA (Under the jurisdiction of the Gadhwada Thana, there were 3 jurisdictional talukas, namely Satlasna, Bhalusna and Hadol. It also incorporated 7 non jurisdictional estates, including Umbri, Udni, Timba, Nedardi, Nana Kothasna and Dedasan, and 2 matadari estates of Ghazipur and Chandap. The Thana also consisted of the co-shared villages of Vinchhi, Ambavada and Mohor.)"

Notice anything off? Yeah, it states there were seven non-jurisdictional states but only mentions six, for a total of 14 named states. To hammer home a point I've made before, the states of Gujarat were so complex and fractal that even the best of sources make mistakes every now and again, to say nothing of the less reliable sources. If I had to guess, Mota Kothasna is the missing one, as it's listed by basically every other source and appears on the map as a labelled state. I think this is just a simple cock-up, where the map-maker accidentally missed a state when typing up the description. Aside from that explainable discrepancy, the list tallies rather well with that provided by worldstatesman, with the notable exception of the small states only shown on hisatlas.

To solve that little problem, I had to search even deeper. So I made a search for the term "Gadhwada" in the online Indian government records site, and made an interesting discovery; almost all the states and entities shown in Gadhwada Thana by hisatlas had distinct accession agreements with the Indian govt, even those that do not show up in other sources. This is important as it apparently confirms the existence of a lot of the questionable states, although this also comes with caveats as several states claimed by hisatlas and worldstatesman do not show up in that list of records. The second way I tried to solve the problem was much more slapdash, but was still useful to do. I've previously sung the praises of the Survey of India and the literally thousands of maps they produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries extensively. However, the details of Gadhwada Thana are apparently beyond the level of resolution provided by these maps, and as such there are basically no good maps of Gadhwada Thana besides the new hisatlas map. I was able to cobble-together a collated map from four sheets of the Survey of India's most detailed series (downloadable here and here), but that still leaves a lot to be desired; even at this resolution only Hadol is shown distinctly from the rest of the Thana. Between these two sources I was able to come up with some incredibly sketchy explanations for each of the questionable states listed by worldstatesman and shown on the new hisatlas map.

Firstly, five of the extra states presented by the new hisatlas map (Kanedia, Dharavania, Kevdasan, Vavdi and Fatehpura) were almost certainly vassals of Hadol. Other maps (e.g. the collated map) assign their territory to Hadol, and while all five states get a separate accession agreement (see above), in all cases those agreements note that the state in question was "(under Hadol)". Taken together, this evidence strongly implies that these states were indeed Hadol vassals and can thus be discarded. Of note, the sub-maps of the collated map of Gadhwada Thana list what I think are the populations of labelled villages; Kevdasan apparently had a population of just 25 people in 1946. That's how insignificant it was.

Next up, two states that also occupied territory often allotted to Hadol, but where there is more evidence they were full states. Udni and Dedasan both get a mention among the old records, but appear on territory that maps commonly ascribe to Hadol. I suspect that they were previously Hadol vassals like the aforementioned states (hence why they don't appear in sources or on maps), but that these two later got upgraded to full states. I can't prove this was the case, but in the case of Udni I have some pretty good evidence in favour of a later upgrade in status; this "Grant of Judicial powers to the Thakur of Undani" from 1933. The name is different, but as I've complained before, there were often multiple variant transliterations of state names in use among the sources, and this is close enough that I think it's a match. That report implies that Udni/Undani was only elevated in 1933. Based on my previous assertions, I think it is reasonable to assume that it was previously a Hadol vassal like the other five, so I have provisionally discounted it from the 1914 list. In contrast, in the case of Dedasan in the absence of evidence in favour of my hypothesis I'll instead be assuming with heavy reservations that it was indeed a distinct state in 1914, but that other sources simply missed it (as they apparently missed other states).

I will also be adding two more states to my list; Nedardi and Nana Kothasna. They are mentioned by both worldstatesman and hisatlas (hisatlas confirms they were non-jurisdictional states) and get distinct accession agreements. I haven't seen them mentioned in the primary sources, and there is always the possibility that they were later creations that didn't exist in 1914, but all the modern sources agree on them, so I'm counting them for now.

There are three more edge-cases; Ambavada, Bhatvas and Vinchhi. These are, it should be mentioned, edge-cases of edge-cases, so I've discarded all three of them, but the reasons differ for each.

First up, Vinchhi. It's mentioned by hisatlas and worldstatesman, but I can't for the life of me find a town of that name anywhere on the composite map. Hisatlas puts it way off to the side on the border between Idar and Dungarpur, but I've not seen an exclave, or any state really in that position in any period map I've seen, and even hisatlas isn't fully sure (it's labelled with a question mark). For the other states, even if borders aren't marked on the Inch-per-mile maps, I can at least see the capital towns in the right place. Not so with Vinchhi, so it gets disqualified.

Next, Ambavada; like Vinchhi, it is listed by worldstatesman and hisatlas and gets a separate accession agreement, but on my composite map it's purported territory is shown as part of Idar. I think this is because Ambavada (AKA Ambawada) was a co-dominion (as implied by the hisatlas caption) where Idar State owned a plurality of majority of the shares. This would, I think, be enough for the Survey to consistently plot the estate as part of Idar, as as a co-dominion between petty landholders and a larger jurisdictional state, it de-facto functioned like a vassal of a vassal and would be discounted; as I've said before, I think the Survey is using some variation on the 'no vassals of vassals' rule I'm employing to make this project simpler.

Finally, the most annoying one, Bhatvas. This is an incredibly odd edge-case, as it only appears on the new hisatlas map; it isn't mentioned by the description of the Thana provided by that map quoted above, or by worldstatesman. Confusingly however, it does have a separate accession agreement. But here's the really interesting thing; on my composite map, a chunk of Gadhwada Thana in about the right place is instead labelled as an exclave of Palanpur. Now for the caveats. There is a town labelled "Bhatuas" in the right place, but while it's fairly certain that this is indeed Bhatvas (right location) the labelling isn't entirely clear whether the town is in the Palanpur exclave or not. In addition, the shape and territory of the exclave on the Survey of India maps doesn't line up with the territory of Bhatvas claimed by the new hisatlas map. If those caveats are discarded however, then that scenario would handily explain the situation; Bhatvas was an exclave of Palanpur, probably an incredibly petty vassal state, that was also simultaneously under Gadhwada Thana. It should also be noted that the two sheets showing the Palanpur exclave (45/D/16 Danta State (1946) and 45/D/12 Danta State (1946)) are both re-prints of older maps from the 1880's, the originals of which are not available from the site I've been linking to. The other two sheets (46/A/09 Mehsana District (1946) and 46/A/13 Mehsana District (1946)), which appear to have been compiled later, do not show the bits of Palanpur that would be expected to peek into the frame of view if it were still there based on the former two maps, so again, there is some discrepancy here. However as a counterpoint, on the first two maps those exclaves are labelled as "Palanpur, Rajputana", which is notable as Palanpur and Danta states would only be transferred under the Aegis of the Rajputana Agency in 1933 (as seen here in the 1939 Memoranda, listing Palanpur and Danta in Rajputana), long after the original versions of the maps were published, providing evidence that those maps were indeed updated and revised with the re-prints. In addition, I also have some tenuous evidence that Palanpur exercised authority and jurisdiction over some parts of Gadhwada Thana, in the form of a handful of vaguely-worded reports here. Taken together, with the somewhat contradictory cartographic clues discussed above, I have come to the tentative conclusion that Bhatvas was a petty vassal of Palanpur governed under the Aegis of Gadhwada Thana. As such, it can be discounted from the final list.

In all, Gadhwada Thana was incredibly annoying. The uncertainties surrounding the validity of states and the incompleteness of sources was second only to the Palanpur Agency (detailed at length below). In this case however, there was just enough material for me to cobble together and present an incredibly uncertain consensus list, in contrast with the Palanpur Agency where I honestly hit a brick wall.

With Gadhwada Thana summarised however, we can move onto that other fiendishly complicated area - the Palanpur Agency - shortly, as it finishes out the Mahi Kantha Agency. As one final point of order however, when mapping the states onto the R-QBAM, a few modest mergers had to take place. Katosan, a semi-jurisdictional state surrounded by the states of Katosan Thana but not a part of it, was merged in with Katosan Thana (I honestly don't know why the British government didn't just add it to the Thana - there are plenty of cases of semi-jurisdictional states that were also part of a Thana, why not simplify things). Aside from that, Varsoda was merged into Mansa, Vasna was merged into Pethapur, Ramas was amalgamated with Dabha, while Ranasan was merged with Mohanpur (for at least basic info on all of those states, the states list in the 1880 Gazetteer is your bes bet). The Thanas were of course shown cumulatively.
With Mahi Kantha belatedly done, I must move on to the other half of the odyssey that finishing Gujarat has become, the apparently impenetrable Palanpur Agency.

As far as I am aware, the Palanpur Agency is simply impossible to reconstruct at the state level. I was able to cobble-together a best-guess consensus list for the other areas of Gujarat (see below) as I had multiple sources to compare and contrast. For the Palanpur Agency however, good sources are few and far between. While plenty of sources mention the Agency, very few delve into the minutiae of sub-states within Thanas, with basically every source instead focusing on the few major states while for the most part ignoring the rest of the Thana estates altogether.

Two states get a lot of airtime, Radhanpur and the eponymous Palanpur, largely as they were fully-jurisdictional first-class states, and as such little needs to be said about them here. One more semi-jurisdictional state not under a Thana is often mentioned; Tharad (sometimes Tharad-Morvada, e.g. here) a fourth-class state occupying a good chunk of the north of the Agency. After those three states however, things get extremely fuzzy indeed. This is largely as most sources will pull one or two of the more notable states in each Thana out for separate discussion while disregarding the other small states and the rest of the Thana, leaving an awful lot of ambiguity. Sometimes it will not even be mentioned that a state under discussion is even under a Thana, which greatly confounds the confusion. This is probably because most sources weren't themselves sure how many sub-estates there were, or how they were governed in relations with the British authorities, so elected to only mention the notable ones and disregard the rest. Some variant of this cop-out is done by the 1880 Gazetteer Vol V (that lists Thanas like they were states), the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer, every copy of the Memoranda I've so far seen (for example the 1916 edition here) and even the otherwise excellent worldstatesman, which only lists the numbers of states in each Thana without providing names.

Figuring out the administrative history from such a tangled mess of sources was fairly challenging, but fortunately as I'm only showing Thanas not sub-states, it was at least doable with some work. As far as I can tell, in 1914, there were 5 Thana's; Wao Thana (alternately spelled Vav, Vao, or Wai), including at the time what would later become Suigam sub-Thana, Kankrej Thana, Deodar Thana, Varahi Thana(?) and Santalpur Thana. Thus, eight entities made it on to the final map, the three full states and the five Thanas as I think they stood in 1914. As for compiling a full list of states, I eventually concluded (after a lot of effort) that the sources I had were too incomplete and contradictory for this to be possible.

For four of the five Thanas, I was only able to dig up two sources. The first is one we've met quite a lot before, the new hisatlas map, by far the best cartographic resource covering this area, and also the only map I've so far found that attempts to show the Thana sub-estates. Indirectly, this also provides a list of states as determined by the author of that map based on what is shown and what isn't. The second source is a new one, the Palanpur Agency Directory Vol I (1908). Produced by a local Indian clerk, the volume, written in both English and Gujarati, acts as the introduction for Vol II, which collated a trove of administrative documents regarding the states and estates of the Agency (which, incidentally, I haven't been able to find digitised online). However as part of this introduction, the source walks through each of the Thanas and their constituent states in reasonable detail.

The problems with the latter source are fourfold. Firstly, it rarely ever provides a single list of states per Thana (when it does provide lists, those lists are usually incomplete), forcing you to instead read the whole article and note down whenever a state is name-dropped in the text to compile a consensus list. The second key flaw is that large sections of the text and some sub-tables appear to have been themselves compiled from multiple different contradictory sources, making this task extra confusing. In some cases, a single state will be referred to using two variant spellings within paragraphs (for example, Un versus Oon, a moderately large state in Kankrej Thana), almost as if the different paragraphs and tables were copied from different sources and pasted together without correcting for differences. Oh, and at times it doesn't even mention every state by name. For Deodar Thana for example it states that there were 43 talukas but only mentions 27 by name through the text, and that's after I split both Deodar and Bhabhar into two separate branches, something the Directory doesn't explicitly do even though the two branches are otherwise treated as separate. The final problem is however the killer one; in many respects, it is wildly inconsistent with regards to the only other source I have for these petty states, hisatlas. The 1908 Directory is infuriating on so many levels, as it is the only period source that actually lists the states within each Thana, but it doesn't mention all of them, and many of the ones it does talk about don't match with those described by hisatlas. It's maddening.

The only exception to this is Kankrej Thana, as near-miraculously I have a third source listing sub-states; a list of states provided at the very end of Leading Princes (1928). That list itself doesn't completely align with either of the others, but matches up enough with them to prove a fair amount of continuity. On the other hand, this is Leading Princes we're talking about, so predictably part of the list has been lazily re-edited in a way that overwrites one of the entries. I've come to intensely dislike whoever that lazy clerk was who re-edited that copy of the book nearly a century ago, because they've made my life a whole lot more annoying than if they'd just left it as it was.

In the end, I concluded that it was an impossible task trying to get those sources to mesh together properly and produce a reasonably definitive list, so after a couple of days trying to reconcile them with no luck I belatedly threw in the towel. I could've done it, or at least made a much more concerted effort to do it, if I'd had more sources to compare with, but alas, the above three were the only ones I had on hand that went into enough detail. I won't talk you through every problem I encountered trying to make sense of such discordant sources, but I will raise a few highlights, working through the Thana's in no particular order.

Firstly, Wao Thana as described by the Directory wouldn't last long, as in April 1917, Wao State was elevated and removed from the Thana, taking most of the small estates with it as vassals of vassals. This left behind approximately ten petty estates, the largest of which was Suigam, which were then appended to Deodar as a sub-Thana. This change is seen clearly on period maps pre and post-dating the change, as early maps show later Wao state and Suigam sub-Thana as one entity, while later maps (for example hisatlas, set in 1947) split them. This also explains why the Directory states that there were "25 Sub Talukas" in Wao Thana when there were only about ten left in Suigam sub-Thana by 1947.

Secondly we have Kankrej Thana, the one I have the most complete sources for. It's also the only one where I'm fairly sure I know the right number of states; 37. Worldstatesman claims there were only 36, but 37 appear on the new hisatlas map, Leading Princes lists 37, and 37 states are directly named in the Directory. Even better, most states line-up pretty well between the three lists once you account for spelling variation. But alas there are still discrepancies. While I'm confident that there were 37 states and that I know the names of most of them, there are enough uncertainties and edge-cases that I wouldn't be confident compiling a full list, and remember, Kankrej Thana is the one I have the best information on. Some states do not appear in one or more sources, and there is considerable confusion over whether to count a branch dynasty of Thara (the most important state in the Thana) as its own distinct state or as a sub-estate of Thara. This is a pattern that repeats a lot.

Deodar Thana was also annoying. The Directory states that there were 43 talukas in Deodar Thana, which is at odds with worldstatesman, that states there were only 32, but is closer to hisatlas, which shows 37 states as part of Deodar Thana, 38 if you include Tervada, not explicitly presented as being part of Deodar Thana on the map. Tervada was one of the more problematic states, as it was one of the larger sub-estates and as such is often singled out for mention by less comprehensive sources, not all of which clearly state that it was under Deodar Thana. A similar case is Bhabhar, also often mentioned separately, with the caveat that by the 20th century the ancestral state had been partitioned multiple times into a mess of minor successor estates and appenages; besides naming the two Bhabhar main lines, the Directory also states that "The village lands are parcelled among a large body of cadets". Some sources group the fragments together and discuss them as a unit, annoyingly sometimes without clarifying that. The majority of these branch lines are not listed separately in full by any source I've found, so I'm assuming that most of the discrepancies between counts of states in the Thana come from the uncertain number of Bhabhar fragments and how many were counted by each source. As the icing on the cake, the 1908 Directory does not list the two Deodar states separately while other sources do. The main plus-side is that even though the Directory only explicitly names 27 states, all the states it names have counterparts among the 37 states presented by the new hisatlas map, offering a decent degree of corroboration.

Varahi Thana (often alternately spelled Warahi) offers an annoyingly different tranche of problems. All the estates in this Thana were descended from a common ancestor, producing about 20 collateral lines from the original Varahi State. Both worldstatesman and hisatlas claim there were 21 states in the Thana, so we're off to a good start. However the Directory, in a particularly blatant cock-up, states that there were 18 states in the Thana then lists 19 states literally in the same sentence, twice contradicting the two modern sources. Then there are a few marginal cases that get a mention in the Directory, such as Zandada, claimed as being partially co-owned by a distinct shareholder to the rest of the estates, which is also presented as a state by hisatlas. Was it a state, or should it be discounted as it was only partially co-owned by distinct shareholders? Adding to the confusion, I'm not entirely sure how many branches of the Varahi mainline were considered states. Plenty of sources separate a Varahi Senior Line and a Varahi Junior Line as distinct entities and discuss them separately, (for example, the 1909 Gazetteer, the 1908 Directory), but I'm not sure whether this means there were two Varahi states, or just one state comprised of two co-estates. While the split is strongly implied by many sources such as the Directory, none directly confirm that the two estates were territorially distinct, even though the Directory outright states that they were administered differently. Hisatlas on the other hand just has one Varahi state, and labels it to heavily imply that both estates of the main line are represented by this single state. Again, were there two Varahi states, or just the one? I'm not entirely sure of the answer due to the contradictory and unclear nature of the sources, so this question just adds another layer of uncertainty. And just to compound everything, the Directory refers to the Varahi estates collectively as either a Thana or a Taluka interchangeably and the component parts as either states or sub-estates. It's almost like the author himself didn't know whether it was a taluka with about 20 sub-estates or a Thana containing about 20 states, which is particularly maddening.

Lastly, Santalpur Thana. On first glance this appears to be an easy one, as the Directory provides a list of 23 Talukas that made up the Thana here. As is becoming a pattern however, this doesn't line up with the rest of the text, as by my count 29 states are named through that subsection. The latter figure is probably closer to the truth, as this is exactly the number of states presented in the Thana as per hisatlas, while being only one state shy of the 30 states claimed by worldstatesman. But, as ever, there are many layers of complexity that act to throw these counts off. For example, it appears that the state of Uchosan was transferred between Thanas at some point, as the Directory states at multiple points that it was part of Santalpur Thana while hisatlas labels it as part of Varahi Thana. There's also confusion around Morwada, which the Directory claims was under Santalpur Thana while other sources say it was part of Tharad. It is of course possible that both things were true at the same time; that Morvada was a part of Tharad and also under Santalpur Thana. The presence of these two states inflates the Directory list, as hisatlas shows neither as part of Santalpur Thana, indicating further misalignment. Oh, and even hisatlas, one of the best sources I have, puts a question mark alongside some of its claimed states indicating some level of uncertainty in even the best of sources. As with the other Thanas, the list of states lines up pretty well between Talukas mentioned by the Directory and shown on the new hisatlas map, but there are still a tonne of outliers - way too many for me to be confident producing a single consensus list.

As I have tried to outline in the paragraphs above, the only two detailed sources I have are way too mutually contradictory to try and reconcile into a consensus list. Unlike the rest of Gujarat, where compiling a full list was a horrible but at least surmountable task with enough clarifications and caveats, I was unable to produce a list for the states and Thana-estates of the Palanpur Agency. Hell, for most of the Thanas I can't even be sure how many states they contained, forcing me to approximate to the nearest multiple of ten when listing four of the five problematic Thanas in the colour key (as I said earlier, I'm fairly confident there were 37 states in Kankrej Thana as multiple sources apparently independently confirm that number), which is a deeply unsatisfactory compromise.

I'll be including several lists as text documents attached to this post as extra resources; a revised list of Kathiawar states, a list of Mahi Kantha states, a list of the states of western Gujarat (mostly the Rewa Kantha Agency) and a full list of Gujarat states. The final list shall collate the contents of the first three in addition to the three states and five Thanas of the Palanpur Agency plus a few more odds and ends, with the sub-estates of the Palanpur Agency omitted and counts of states approximated due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

As a final aside, the many problems I encountered trying to make some sense of the mess in the Palanpur Agency means that most estimates of how many Princely States there were are probably wrong.

The most common figure for how many Princely states there were I've seen floating around on the internet is the one you get by just googling the question; 562, which I think stems from this 1929 British government report. Wikipedia however states that there were 565, without providing a full list, but with citations from the later literature. I've said many times before, but the incompleteness is largely due to Gujarat being fractal hell of petty states, with the best partial lists on wikipedia being found here and here (annoyingly, the former sources still features the debunked hoax "Nimsod State", and there are still a few other wikipedia articles that haven't yet been cleaned up as well). Worldstatesman on the other hand claims there were "roughly 584 states" when India gained independence, though I'm not sure whether that figure excludes the Pakistani Princely States or not (listed separately here). Looking at the primary sources leads to even higher figures - adding up all the states listed by province in abbreviated tables starting here, the 1909 Gazetteer claims there were a grand total of 693 states. As we've discussed already, that figure has been inflated by at least 100 by all the non-territorial estates and vassals of vassals sometimes counted as states in the Central India Agency which I excluded. Unlike the other sources mentioned, this figure also includes the 50 or so Shan states of Burma, which was administered as part of the Raj when it was written back in 1909. Other sources exclude the Shan States as Burma would be split from the Raj in 1937. I will admit that I haven't, for the purposes of this tangent, counted up the numbers of states listed in each of the copies of the Memoranda I've found digitised, but I would expect even more discontinuities and discrepancies were I to do so.

I can't say myself how many states there were according to my own research yet, as I've still got to finish Pakistan and, at some later point, add Burma/Myanmar, but I have no doubt that it was the incredibly messy administration in Gujarat that skews every figure thus far compiled. From what I can tell, even the British authorities weren't sure how many states there were there, largely due to the uncertainty over what constituted a state in general and the constant minor errors and typos that crept into every period list I've seen.

While I expect to eventually produce my of figure for how many Princely States there were in 1914, that figure will only be a ballpark estimate that comes with a massive dollop of uncertainty and caveats.

With all that out of the way, on to the maps.




Newest Patch;
1687489571042.png


Territorial;
1687489613261.png


Colour key;
1687489622171.png


ADDENDUM 1; lists of states.
 

Attachments

  • Gujarat full.txt
    7.8 KB · Views: 122
  • Kathiawar.txt
    4.5 KB · Views: 98
  • Mahi Kantha.txt
    1.2 KB · Views: 116
  • Rewa Kantha et al..txt
    2.1 KB · Views: 115
As promised, the second part to this absolutely monstrous wall of text, detailing how I added the final chunk of Gujarat in addition to the updated maps and lists,

As I've said many times already, of all the regions of the British Raj, Gujarat was by far the worst. The border-gore was horrible, the states were practically fractal and the sources wildly inconsistent. Across multiple sources, the British authorities were apparently never able to compile a complete list of states, as without fail either one or two petty states slipped through the cracks and were missed or a handful of state-like entities were listed when they shouldn't've been. I have so far tried my hardest to compile my own, as-complete-as-possible list of Princely States, comparing and contrasting multiple often-contradictory sources and making educated guesses in cases where said sources are too sparse or contradictory.

However, even I have a limit to how far I can go, and that limit was apparently the Palanpur Agency.

But before I delve into that utter hell, I first need to walk you through my decisions behind the fiendish but at least somewhat surmountable Mahi Kantha Agency. In 1914, this Agency occupied the north-eastern chunk of OTL Gujarat, on the border with Rajputana. There were three major states, Idar, Danta and Pol (that would change its name to Vijaynagar in 1934), plus a tonne of smaller but still notable states that mostly nevertheless check out across all sources that I've seen. One final such source I need to raise in regards to this area is another Volume of the Bombay Gazetteer; Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. V, Cutch, Palanpur and Mahi Kantha (1880). This covers a few areas of northern Gujarat, and alas the versions I've found online digitised aren't of the best quality (the one I've linked to is the least crap one). It does however provide a list of states, one which tallies pretty closely with other sources, at least regarding the jurisdictional and semi-jurisdictional states.

Before I dive into the nitty-gritty of accounting for the Thana states, there is one notable discrepancy to raise, concerning a "state" listed by some sources that I think was created by mis-readings of the 1909 Gazetteer. Right at the end of the table provided here is an entry for what appears to be a state called Sadra Bazaar. I'm pretty certain that this wasn't a state, as I have not been able to find references to a state called either Sadra or Sadra Bazaar in any period sources and lists. What I think happened is that the Gazetteer listed a notable town, Sadra, headquarters of the Mahi Kantha Agency, distinctly due to its administrative importance without clarifying that it was not a full state. This wouldn't be an isolated incident either, as other tables in the Gazetteer also list civil stations and small British exclaves in the same tables as full states. This is because the tables in question are listing statistics for entities under the Agency in question, and while that mostly means Princely States, there were a few cases of British exclaves or British-administered land falling under the administrative aegis of an Agency too. Other researchers looking at the Gazetteer tables apparently didn't realise this fact, mis-interpreting Sadra-Bazaar as a full state. While worldstatesman avoids the trap, the old hisatlas map has apparently fallen for the misconception, showing an uncertain state of Sadra Bazaar on the territory of the small state of Vasna. I'm pretty sure this map on Wikipedia for example inherited the mistake, as it and associated maps are basically svg copies of the old hisatlas map. The uncertainty around Sadra Bazaar aside, the main problems came, once again, from trying to figure out how many states there were in each Thana.

The first Thana was blessedly easy; Sabar Kantha Thana, that grouped together about a dozen small estates bordering on the semi-jurisdictional state of Ilol. In it's list of states, the 1880 Bombay Gazetteer assigns about a dozen petty estates to Sabar Kantha Thana (for example here, while describing Prempur), while the Thana also appears in an incomplete form in this table in the 1909 Gazetteer. There are some discrepancies between the two sources; for example, at some point between 1880 and 1909 the two nearby semi-jurisdictional states of Rupal and Dadhalia lost their jurisdictional powers due to mismanagement and were lumped in with Sabar Kantha Thana (see a footnote in this table from the 1909 Gazetteer). According to worldstatesman, this Thana was abolished in the 1920's and its constituent states were elevated to being in direct relations with the British government, which would be impossible to accurately map at the scale of the R-QBAM, considering all 12 states fit into just two pixels on the map. In 1914 however it was still around, simplifying things considerably. It was a little fiddly to get the two lists to align; as mentioned the 1880 Gazetteer considers Dadhalia and Rupal full states, while the table in the 1909 Gazetteer isn't entirely clear, with a few states listed outside Sabar Kantha Thana but assigned to it by footnotes here. Acconting for those discrepancies, both sources line up perfectly, both with each other, and with the states highlighted as formerly part of Sabar Kantha by worldstatesman here.

The other easy Thana was Katosan Thana, where there was one notable discrepancy that needed looking into, though fortunately it turned out to be inconsequential. While checking list of states in Katosan Thana against the new hisatlas map, I noticed something a little off with the small state of Ijpura; hisatlas presents two states, Ijpura-Barotna and Ijpura-Jethaji, in marked contrast with the primary literature. The 1880 Gazetteer lists just Ijpura, as does every other source I've found (e.g., the 1939 Memoranda, worldsatesman, the 1909 Gazetteer, indianroyalty ect). The most logical solution was that it was indeed just one state, but that hisatlas split it for whatever reason (as it does on occasion), however in this case, I was able to come up with an alternative hypothesis that would also fit the data. The 1880 Gazetteer notably states that Ijpura didn't follow primogeniture, and I've found a record from 1894 on the "Death of Thakur Gobarsingji Becharji, of Ijpura, and the succession of his two sons Jethi Sing and Umed Sing" among the ever-useful old Indian government records. Taken together, it's possible that Ijpura was split between two sons in 1894, but every other later source missed that and instead referred back to the 1880 Gazetteer entry made while the state was whole, erroneously listing one state instead of two. However, both the 1916 Memoranda and the 1939 Memoranda state that Ijpura taluka had multiple shareholders, providing an alternate explanation for the split inheritances. For now, I'll call it just one state, but note that there is a mild question mark attached to that conclusion. Aside from Ijpura, there were no major discrepancies regarding Katosan Thana. The 1909 Gazetteer lists three additional entities, but in the footnotes states that these were not full states but co-shared villages. Every other source I've seen states that there were only 10 states in Katosan Thana (assuming Ijpura was whole), so I'm disregarding them.

Next up are two related cases; Vatrak Kantha Thana and Bawishi Thana. These two are notable as they land squarely in the grey area between "Thana containing multiple constituent states" and "Single state with multiple sub-estates". Both of these entities were called Thanas, but where they are mentioned at all, they are (usually) treated as if they were single states, with their constituent components elaborated on little. Unfortunately, in both cases, mentions in the primary literature are scant to non-existent, which makes figuring out their true nature incredibly problematic. What follows is my best attempt to parse how these entities were governed from the less-than-helpful literature.

I'll start with Bawishi Thana, often alternately spelled Bavishi Thana. I've not been able to find much, but here's what I have. The 1880 Gazetteer lists it as one of the territorial divisions of Mahi Kantha and describes it as "Bavisi including the Rajput district of Vasna and a large number of Koli villages, formerly part of the Gaikwar district of Dehgam which were handed over to the Agency on account of the unruly character of its people". "Bavisi Thana" is listed on the second page of the Mahi Kantha table in the 1909 Gazetteer, which lists several statistics (population, area, tribute paid and who to) for the Thana collectively. There is a further footnote that states; "[It] Is constituted of 24 Chief matadari villages and 72 sub-villages, including Barmuada". That same source separately lists it as "Bavisi Thana - Petty State in Mahi Kantha, Bombay". It is not mentioned at all by the 1916 Memoranda. Trust me, I've checked, there's nothing in the index, and I haven't been able to find anything reading through the tables and entries under the Mahi Kantha Agency. It gets a cursory mention in the 1939 Memoranda; an entry in the final table listing Talukas by Thana, which lists it as entry no. 9; "Bawishi Thana", saying literally nothing else. Interestingly, five states that Hisatlas shows as part of Bawishi Thana are listed under "Vakhtapur Thana", entry no. 7 in the aforementioned list of Thanas.

That is the sum total of information I was able to find on Bawishi Thana from perusing the primary sources, and as you can see, it isn't much to go on. There is a little more agreement from modern sources; worldstatesman claims there were 25 states in Bawishi Thana, which is apparently corroborated by hisatlas, that shows 25 labelled entities as part of the Thana. A figure of 25 is also remarkably close to the "24 Chief Matadari villages" claimed by the 1909 Gazetteer. No other source I've so far found mentions Bawisi Thana at all.

First question, what exactly was a matadari village? The answer is provided by the Palanpur Agency Directory (more on that source below) - a matadari village was a village without a hereditary chief. Instead a leader was appointed from among the villagers, usually by the British authorities, to collect taxes and perform administrative duties, in effect functioning as an appointed-dictatorial village republic. There were a tonne of states like this in the Palanpur Agency (part of the reason that region was such an enigma), but it appears that the villages of Bawishi Thana functioned in the same way too.

But here's the key problem - how were these villages governed? Modern sources (hisatlas, worldstatesman), imply that it was a true Thana consisting of 25 petty states. From the scant references in the primary sources however, I'm going to go against the more modern sources and assume that Bawishi Thana functioned as a sort of loose confederation of about a hundred local village dictatorships, all under the overarching dominance of the British government. I'm making this assumption as every time Bawishi Thana is mentioned, it is as a single political unit, treated as if it were just one state. That the 1909 Gazetteer treats it collectively as a petty state here is, I believe, pretty telling. Individual sub-states are almost never mentioned individually and appear in basically no lists of states I have found, with the notable exception of the seven states singled out by the 1939 Memoranda as part of Vakhtapur Thana that hisatlas still assigns to Bawishi Thana. As I've found no lists of states in the primary literature, it is plausible that five geographically distinct villages originally in Bawishi were split off to be governed separately under a new Thana at some point between 1909 and 1939, gaining the state-like recognition in the process, however this conjecture remains unproven.

While this was a difficult decision to make, I eventually decided to class Bawishi Thana as just one state-level entity rather than as a Thana of dozens of states as more modern sources imply. It is thus also provided with only one listing in my own list of Princely States, though as ever this contentious decision is marked by an asterisk.

It's a similar story for Vatrak Kantha Thana. The 1880 Gazetteer lists it as; "Vatrak Kantha, the Koli possessions on both sides of the Vatrak River". The 1909 Gazetteer lists it as a Thana, and even mentions two sub-states by name (Nirmali and Jher). However it also states in a footnote that "Nirmali and Jher are shared by the Gaikwar and the Miyan of Mandwa, and are administered by the Political Agent, Mahi Kantha", implying some kind of co-ownership between Baroda (The Gaekwar dynasty was theruling family of Baroda, and the family name is often used as a shorthand for Baroda State in period sources) and an unknown second party (the "Miyan of Mandwa", whoever that was). Just as with Bawishi Thana, the 1916 Memoranda also doesn't mention Vatrak Kantha Thana at all, and it gets a similarly dismissive short entry in the 1939 Memoranda, again without any sub-states listed separately.

From these scant references, I'm going to assume that Vatrak Kantha Thana was governed similarly to Bawishi Thana - a loose collection of matadari villages and co-dominions under the separate political supervision of the local Political Agent. As such, as with Bawishi Thana, I'll be counting Vatrak Kantha as one de-facto state, even though in this case I have at least one source that distinctly names some sub-states, however with caveats. As mentioned, both the modern sources claim a very similar number of states for both problematic Thanas, but worldstatesman doesn't provide a list, and I haven't been able to find enough primary sources listing sub-states for me to be confident in that they were governed distinctly as opposed to collectively as I suspect. It is also possible that worldstatesman is using hisatlas as a primary source, in which case it isn't two sources independently backing each other up but one source re-citing another. My decisions could change if I dig up better primary sources (or any sources really), but for now I'm going with 'collective entity called but not functioning as a Thana' for both cases.

Finally, there's Gadhwada Thana, which is, frankly, an indecipherable mess. The annoying thing is, there are just enough sources available that I figured it would be possible to piece something together, however when I looked into it those sources turned out to be too spotty and inconsistent for me to be certain on much at all. I was able to cobble together a best-guess consensus list, but there isn't much there that I'm particularly certain on. On the plus side, in contrast with Bawishi Thana and Vatrak Kantha Thana, its states were often listed distinctly as full states. That is where the good news ends however, as on the other hand most of those lists are laughably incomplete, and some wildly-divergent transliterations for local names only confuse things further.

The majority of sources list six states consistently; Hadol, Satlasna, Bhalusna, Timba, Umari and Mota Kotarna, though it should be noted that accounting for theses states in the 1880 Gazetteer is a little uncertain. Firstly, the 1880 Gazetteer uses some rather different transliterations for the names of the states that it mentions, in some cases different enough that I'm not 100% certain that these are the same states; Satlasan is apparently an early name for Satlasna, Umadi is I think an alternate name for Umri/Umari, while Motakotarna (called Mota Kotarna by the 1909 Gazetteer), and is I think equivalent to Mota Kothasna of later sources. The 1880 Gazetter also in some cases doesn't explicitly say that the states mentioned were under Gadhwada Thana (see here for an example featuring Hadol, Satlasan and Bhalasna, the three semi-jurisdictional states in the Thana). The 1909 Gazetteer lists these six states under their more recognisable names, in addition to Chandap, where a footnote helpfully informs us that "Chandap is a matadari village and has no chief". While I think, based on my reading of admittedly incredibly spotty primary sources, that the matadari villages of Bawishi Thana and Vatrak Kantha Thana were governed collectively, other sources appear to imply that petty matadari villages elsewhere, such as in Gadhwada Thana and the Palanpur Agency, were indeed treated as full states alongside the petty hereditary holdings of more traditional states. Thus I'm including Chandap as a state of Gadhwada Thana. The 1916 Memoranda is rather confused. In its entry for Gadhwada Thana it lists nine states; the aforementioned seven, plus Mohur and Gajipur (listed as Ghazipur by worldstatesman and hisatlas). On the other hand, its list of states in the Mahi Kantha Agency as a whole only mentions the first six without mentioning Mohur, Gajipur or Chandap, I suspect because the latter three were matadari villages and, in common with other sources, these were apparently treated somewhat separately. I'll be counting them here, but it bears mentioning that not all sources do likewise. The 1939 Memoranda is a little different, as by then the Mahi Kantha and Palanpur Agencies had been merged into one unified Sabar Kantha Agency, and checking the lists of semi-jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional states for this Agency shows that it is apparently even more exclusive than the other sources, listing only five states; the classic six minus Mota Kotarna.

So, we have six full states mentioned in basically every source, plus what appear to be three matadari villages that have a spottier record but that do show up sporadically in period sources, for a total of nine states. This is the hard floor for how many states there were in the Thana, as I have period citations for all of them.

Digging deeper however only dredges up further confusion, particularly when looking to more modern resources for answers. Both worldstatesman and hisatlas list 15 states in Gadhwada Thana, and they almost exactly agree. Worldstatesman lists the 15 states as; "Includes 15 talukas: Ambavada, Bhalusna (1), Chandup, Dedasan, Ghazipur, Hadal (1), Mohur#, Mota Kothasna, Nana Kothasna, Nedardi, Satlasna (6), Timba, Udni, Umri, Vinchhi". Hisatlas is different however because of course it is. It shows a tonne of small states not shown or mentioned elsewhere which is, understandably, problematic. On the other hand, the new hisatlas map provides a brief description of the Thana and its component states, something it doesn't usually do; "GADHWADA THANA (Under the jurisdiction of the Gadhwada Thana, there were 3 jurisdictional talukas, namely Satlasna, Bhalusna and Hadol. It also incorporated 7 non jurisdictional estates, including Umbri, Udni, Timba, Nedardi, Nana Kothasna and Dedasan, and 2 matadari estates of Ghazipur and Chandap. The Thana also consisted of the co-shared villages of Vinchhi, Ambavada and Mohor.)"

Notice anything off? Yeah, it states there were seven non-jurisdictional states but only mentions six, for a total of 14 named states. To hammer home a point I've made before, the states of Gujarat were so complex and fractal that even the best of sources make mistakes every now and again, to say nothing of the less reliable sources. If I had to guess, Mota Kothasna is the missing one, as it's listed by basically every other source and appears on the map as a labelled state. I think this is just a simple cock-up, where the map-maker accidentally missed a state when typing up the description. Aside from that explainable discrepancy, the list tallies rather well with that provided by worldstatesman, with the notable exception of the small states only shown on hisatlas.

To solve that little problem, I had to search even deeper. So I made a search for the term "Gadhwada" in the online Indian government records site, and made an interesting discovery; almost all the states and entities shown in Gadhwada Thana by hisatlas had distinct accession agreements with the Indian govt, even those that do not show up in other sources. This is important as it apparently confirms the existence of a lot of the questionable states, although this also comes with caveats as several states claimed by hisatlas and worldstatesman do not show up in that list of records. The second way I tried to solve the problem was much more slapdash, but was still useful to do. I've previously sung the praises of the Survey of India and the literally thousands of maps they produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries extensively. However, the details of Gadhwada Thana are apparently beyond the level of resolution provided by these maps, and as such there are basically no good maps of Gadhwada Thana besides the new hisatlas map. I was able to cobble-together a collated map from four sheets of the Survey of India's most detailed series (downloadable here and here), but that still leaves a lot to be desired; even at this resolution only Hadol is shown distinctly from the rest of the Thana. Between these two sources I was able to come up with some incredibly sketchy explanations for each of the questionable states listed by worldstatesman and shown on the new hisatlas map.

Firstly, five of the extra states presented by the new hisatlas map (Kanedia, Dharavania, Kevdasan, Vavdi and Fatehpura) were almost certainly vassals of Hadol. Other maps (e.g. the collated map) assign their territory to Hadol, and while all five states get a separate accession agreement (see above), in all cases those agreements note that the state in question was "(under Hadol)". Taken together, this evidence strongly implies that these states were indeed Hadol vassals and can thus be discarded. Of note, the sub-maps of the collated map of Gadhwada Thana list what I think are the populations of labelled villages; Kevdasan apparently had a population of just 25 people in 1946. That's how insignificant it was.

Next up, two states that also occupied territory often allotted to Hadol, but where there is more evidence they were full states. Udni and Dedasan both get a mention among the old records, but appear on territory that maps commonly ascribe to Hadol. I suspect that they were previously Hadol vassals like the aforementioned states (hence why they don't appear in sources or on maps), but that these two later got upgraded to full states. I can't prove this was the case, but in the case of Udni I have some pretty good evidence in favour of a later upgrade in status; this "Grant of Judicial powers to the Thakur of Undani" from 1933. The name is different, but as I've complained before, there were often multiple variant transliterations of state names in use among the sources, and this is close enough that I think it's a match. That report implies that Udni/Undani was only elevated in 1933. Based on my previous assertions, I think it is reasonable to assume that it was previously a Hadol vassal like the other five, so I have provisionally discounted it from the 1914 list. In contrast, in the case of Dedasan in the absence of evidence in favour of my hypothesis I'll instead be assuming with heavy reservations that it was indeed a distinct state in 1914, but that other sources simply missed it (as they apparently missed other states).

I will also be adding two more states to my list; Nedardi and Nana Kothasna. They are mentioned by both worldstatesman and hisatlas (hisatlas confirms they were non-jurisdictional states) and get distinct accession agreements. I haven't seen them mentioned in the primary sources, and there is always the possibility that they were later creations that didn't exist in 1914, but all the modern sources agree on them, so I'm counting them for now.

There are three more edge-cases; Ambavada, Bhatvas and Vinchhi. These are, it should be mentioned, edge-cases of edge-cases, so I've discarded all three of them, but the reasons differ for each.

First up, Vinchhi. It's mentioned by hisatlas and worldstatesman, but I can't for the life of me find a town of that name anywhere on the composite map. Hisatlas puts it way off to the side on the border between Idar and Dungarpur, but I've not seen an exclave, or any state really in that position in any period map I've seen, and even hisatlas isn't fully sure (it's labelled with a question mark). For the other states, even if borders aren't marked on the Inch-per-mile maps, I can at least see the capital towns in the right place. Not so with Vinchhi, so it gets disqualified.

Next, Ambavada; like Vinchhi, it is listed by worldstatesman and hisatlas and gets a separate accession agreement, but on my composite map it's purported territory is shown as part of Idar. I think this is because Ambavada (AKA Ambawada) was a co-dominion (as implied by the hisatlas caption) where Idar State owned a plurality of majority of the shares. This would, I think, be enough for the Survey to consistently plot the estate as part of Idar, as as a co-dominion between petty landholders and a larger jurisdictional state, it de-facto functioned like a vassal of a vassal and would be discounted; as I've said before, I think the Survey is using some variation on the 'no vassals of vassals' rule I'm employing to make this project simpler.

Finally, the most annoying one, Bhatvas. This is an incredibly odd edge-case, as it only appears on the new hisatlas map; it isn't mentioned by the description of the Thana provided by that map quoted above, or by worldstatesman. Confusingly however, it does have a separate accession agreement. But here's the really interesting thing; on my composite map, a chunk of Gadhwada Thana in about the right place is instead labelled as an exclave of Palanpur. Now for the caveats. There is a town labelled "Bhatuas" in the right place, but while it's fairly certain that this is indeed Bhatvas (right location) the labelling isn't entirely clear whether the town is in the Palanpur exclave or not. In addition, the shape and territory of the exclave on the Survey of India maps doesn't line up with the territory of Bhatvas claimed by the new hisatlas map. If those caveats are discarded however, then that scenario would handily explain the situation; Bhatvas was an exclave of Palanpur, probably an incredibly petty vassal state, that was also simultaneously under Gadhwada Thana. It should also be noted that the two sheets showing the Palanpur exclave (45/D/16 Danta State (1946) and 45/D/12 Danta State (1946)) are both re-prints of older maps from the 1880's, the originals of which are not available from the site I've been linking to. The other two sheets (46/A/09 Mehsana District (1946) and 46/A/13 Mehsana District (1946)), which appear to have been compiled later, do not show the bits of Palanpur that would be expected to peek into the frame of view if it were still there based on the former two maps, so again, there is some discrepancy here. However as a counterpoint, on the first two maps those exclaves are labelled as "Palanpur, Rajputana", which is notable as Palanpur and Danta states would only be transferred under the Aegis of the Rajputana Agency in 1933 (as seen here in the 1939 Memoranda, listing Palanpur and Danta in Rajputana), long after the original versions of the maps were published, providing evidence that those maps were indeed updated and revised with the re-prints. In addition, I also have some tenuous evidence that Palanpur exercised authority and jurisdiction over some parts of Gadhwada Thana, in the form of a handful of vaguely-worded reports here. Taken together, with the somewhat contradictory cartographic clues discussed above, I have come to the tentative conclusion that Bhatvas was a petty vassal of Palanpur governed under the Aegis of Gadhwada Thana. As such, it can be discounted from the final list.

In all, Gadhwada Thana was incredibly annoying. The uncertainties surrounding the validity of states and the incompleteness of sources was second only to the Palanpur Agency (detailed at length below). In this case however, there was just enough material for me to cobble together and present an incredibly uncertain consensus list, in contrast with the Palanpur Agency where I honestly hit a brick wall.

With Gadhwada Thana summarised however, we can move onto that other fiendishly complicated area - the Palanpur Agency - shortly, as it finishes out the Mahi Kantha Agency. As one final point of order however, when mapping the states onto the R-QBAM, a few modest mergers had to take place. Katosan, a semi-jurisdictional state surrounded by the states of Katosan Thana but not a part of it, was merged in with Katosan Thana (I honestly don't know why the British government didn't just add it to the Thana - there are plenty of cases of semi-jurisdictional states that were also part of a Thana, why not simplify things). Aside from that, Varsoda was merged into Mansa, Vasna was merged into Pethapur, Ramas was amalgamated with Dabha, while Ranasan was merged with Mohanpur (for at least basic info on all of those states, the states list in the 1880 Gazetteer is your bes bet). The Thanas were of course shown cumulatively.
With Mahi Kantha belatedly done, I must move on to the other half of the odyssey that finishing Gujarat has become, the apparently impenetrable Palanpur Agency.

As far as I am aware, the Palanpur Agency is simply impossible to reconstruct at the state level. I was able to cobble-together a best-guess consensus list for the other areas of Gujarat (see below) as I had multiple sources to compare and contrast. For the Palanpur Agency however, good sources are few and far between. While plenty of sources mention the Agency, very few delve into the minutiae of sub-states within Thanas, with basically every source instead focusing on the few major states while for the most part ignoring the rest of the Thana estates altogether.

Two states get a lot of airtime, Radhanpur and the eponymous Palanpur, largely as they were fully-jurisdictional first-class states, and as such little needs to be said about them here. One more semi-jurisdictional state not under a Thana is often mentioned; Tharad (sometimes Tharad-Morvada, e.g. here) a fourth-class state occupying a good chunk of the north of the Agency. After those three states however, things get extremely fuzzy indeed. This is largely as most sources will pull one or two of the more notable states in each Thana out for separate discussion while disregarding the other small states and the rest of the Thana, leaving an awful lot of ambiguity. Sometimes it will not even be mentioned that a state under discussion is even under a Thana, which greatly confounds the confusion. This is probably because most sources weren't themselves sure how many sub-estates there were, or how they were governed in relations with the British authorities, so elected to only mention the notable ones and disregard the rest. Some variant of this cop-out is done by the 1880 Gazetteer Vol V (that lists Thanas like they were states), the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer, every copy of the Memoranda I've so far seen (for example the 1916 edition here) and even the otherwise excellent worldstatesman, which only lists the numbers of states in each Thana without providing names.

Figuring out the administrative history from such a tangled mess of sources was fairly challenging, but fortunately as I'm only showing Thanas not sub-states, it was at least doable with some work. As far as I can tell, in 1914, there were 5 Thana's; Wao Thana (alternately spelled Vav, Vao, or Wai), including at the time what would later become Suigam sub-Thana, Kankrej Thana, Deodar Thana, Varahi Thana(?) and Santalpur Thana. Thus, eight entities made it on to the final map, the three full states and the five Thanas as I think they stood in 1914. As for compiling a full list of states, I eventually concluded (after a lot of effort) that the sources I had were too incomplete and contradictory for this to be possible.

For four of the five Thanas, I was only able to dig up two sources. The first is one we've met quite a lot before, the new hisatlas map, by far the best cartographic resource covering this area, and also the only map I've so far found that attempts to show the Thana sub-estates. Indirectly, this also provides a list of states as determined by the author of that map based on what is shown and what isn't. The second source is a new one, the Palanpur Agency Directory Vol I (1908). Produced by a local Indian clerk, the volume, written in both English and Gujarati, acts as the introduction for Vol II, which collated a trove of administrative documents regarding the states and estates of the Agency (which, incidentally, I haven't been able to find digitised online). However as part of this introduction, the source walks through each of the Thanas and their constituent states in reasonable detail.

The problems with the latter source are fourfold. Firstly, it rarely ever provides a single list of states per Thana (when it does provide lists, those lists are usually incomplete), forcing you to instead read the whole article and note down whenever a state is name-dropped in the text to compile a consensus list. The second key flaw is that large sections of the text and some sub-tables appear to have been themselves compiled from multiple different contradictory sources, making this task extra confusing. In some cases, a single state will be referred to using two variant spellings within paragraphs (for example, Un versus Oon, a moderately large state in Kankrej Thana), almost as if the different paragraphs and tables were copied from different sources and pasted together without correcting for differences. Oh, and at times it doesn't even mention every state by name. For Deodar Thana for example it states that there were 43 talukas but only mentions 27 by name through the text, and that's after I split both Deodar and Bhabhar into two separate branches, something the Directory doesn't explicitly do even though the two branches are otherwise treated as separate. The final problem is however the killer one; in many respects, it is wildly inconsistent with regards to the only other source I have for these petty states, hisatlas. The 1908 Directory is infuriating on so many levels, as it is the only period source that actually lists the states within each Thana, but it doesn't mention all of them, and many of the ones it does talk about don't match with those described by hisatlas. It's maddening.

The only exception to this is Kankrej Thana, as near-miraculously I have a third source listing sub-states; a list of states provided at the very end of Leading Princes (1928). That list itself doesn't completely align with either of the others, but matches up enough with them to prove a fair amount of continuity. On the other hand, this is Leading Princes we're talking about, so predictably part of the list has been lazily re-edited in a way that overwrites one of the entries. I've come to intensely dislike whoever that lazy clerk was who re-edited that copy of the book nearly a century ago, because they've made my life a whole lot more annoying than if they'd just left it as it was.

In the end, I concluded that it was an impossible task trying to get those sources to mesh together properly and produce a reasonably definitive list, so after a couple of days trying to reconcile them with no luck I belatedly threw in the towel. I could've done it, or at least made a much more concerted effort to do it, if I'd had more sources to compare with, but alas, the above three were the only ones I had on hand that went into enough detail. I won't talk you through every problem I encountered trying to make sense of such discordant sources, but I will raise a few highlights, working through the Thana's in no particular order.

Firstly, Wao Thana as described by the Directory wouldn't last long, as in April 1917, Wao State was elevated and removed from the Thana, taking most of the small estates with it as vassals of vassals. This left behind approximately ten petty estates, the largest of which was Suigam, which were then appended to Deodar as a sub-Thana. This change is seen clearly on period maps pre and post-dating the change, as early maps show later Wao state and Suigam sub-Thana as one entity, while later maps (for example hisatlas, set in 1947) split them. This also explains why the Directory states that there were "25 Sub Talukas" in Wao Thana when there were only about ten left in Suigam sub-Thana by 1947.

Secondly we have Kankrej Thana, the one I have the most complete sources for. It's also the only one where I'm fairly sure I know the right number of states; 37. Worldstatesman claims there were only 36, but 37 appear on the new hisatlas map, Leading Princes lists 37, and 37 states are directly named in the Directory. Even better, most states line-up pretty well between the three lists once you account for spelling variation. But alas there are still discrepancies. While I'm confident that there were 37 states and that I know the names of most of them, there are enough uncertainties and edge-cases that I wouldn't be confident compiling a full list, and remember, Kankrej Thana is the one I have the best information on. Some states do not appear in one or more sources, and there is considerable confusion over whether to count a branch dynasty of Thara (the most important state in the Thana) as its own distinct state or as a sub-estate of Thara. This is a pattern that repeats a lot.

Deodar Thana was also annoying. The Directory states that there were 43 talukas in Deodar Thana, which is at odds with worldstatesman, that states there were only 32, but is closer to hisatlas, which shows 37 states as part of Deodar Thana, 38 if you include Tervada, not explicitly presented as being part of Deodar Thana on the map. Tervada was one of the more problematic states, as it was one of the larger sub-estates and as such is often singled out for mention by less comprehensive sources, not all of which clearly state that it was under Deodar Thana. A similar case is Bhabhar, also often mentioned separately, with the caveat that by the 20th century the ancestral state had been partitioned multiple times into a mess of minor successor estates and appenages; besides naming the two Bhabhar main lines, the Directory also states that "The village lands are parcelled among a large body of cadets". Some sources group the fragments together and discuss them as a unit, annoyingly sometimes without clarifying that. The majority of these branch lines are not listed separately in full by any source I've found, so I'm assuming that most of the discrepancies between counts of states in the Thana come from the uncertain number of Bhabhar fragments and how many were counted by each source. As the icing on the cake, the 1908 Directory does not list the two Deodar states separately while other sources do. The main plus-side is that even though the Directory only explicitly names 27 states, all the states it names have counterparts among the 37 states presented by the new hisatlas map, offering a decent degree of corroboration.

Varahi Thana (often alternately spelled Warahi) offers an annoyingly different tranche of problems. All the estates in this Thana were descended from a common ancestor, producing about 20 collateral lines from the original Varahi State. Both worldstatesman and hisatlas claim there were 21 states in the Thana, so we're off to a good start. However the Directory, in a particularly blatant cock-up, states that there were 18 states in the Thana then lists 19 states literally in the same sentence, twice contradicting the two modern sources. Then there are a few marginal cases that get a mention in the Directory, such as Zandada, claimed as being partially co-owned by a distinct shareholder to the rest of the estates, which is also presented as a state by hisatlas. Was it a state, or should it be discounted as it was only partially co-owned by distinct shareholders? Adding to the confusion, I'm not entirely sure how many branches of the Varahi mainline were considered states. Plenty of sources separate a Varahi Senior Line and a Varahi Junior Line as distinct entities and discuss them separately, (for example, the 1909 Gazetteer, the 1908 Directory), but I'm not sure whether this means there were two Varahi states, or just one state comprised of two co-estates. While the split is strongly implied by many sources such as the Directory, none directly confirm that the two estates were territorially distinct, even though the Directory outright states that they were administered differently. Hisatlas on the other hand just has one Varahi state, and labels it to heavily imply that both estates of the main line are represented by this single state. Again, were there two Varahi states, or just the one? I'm not entirely sure of the answer due to the contradictory and unclear nature of the sources, so this question just adds another layer of uncertainty. And just to compound everything, the Directory refers to the Varahi estates collectively as either a Thana or a Taluka interchangeably and the component parts as either states or sub-estates. It's almost like the author himself didn't know whether it was a taluka with about 20 sub-estates or a Thana containing about 20 states, which is particularly maddening.

Lastly, Santalpur Thana. On first glance this appears to be an easy one, as the Directory provides a list of 23 Talukas that made up the Thana here. As is becoming a pattern however, this doesn't line up with the rest of the text, as by my count 29 states are named through that subsection. The latter figure is probably closer to the truth, as this is exactly the number of states presented in the Thana as per hisatlas, while being only one state shy of the 30 states claimed by worldstatesman. But, as ever, there are many layers of complexity that act to throw these counts off. For example, it appears that the state of Uchosan was transferred between Thanas at some point, as the Directory states at multiple points that it was part of Santalpur Thana while hisatlas labels it as part of Varahi Thana. There's also confusion around Morwada, which the Directory claims was under Santalpur Thana while other sources say it was part of Tharad. It is of course possible that both things were true at the same time; that Morvada was a part of Tharad and also under Santalpur Thana. The presence of these two states inflates the Directory list, as hisatlas shows neither as part of Santalpur Thana, indicating further misalignment. Oh, and even hisatlas, one of the best sources I have, puts a question mark alongside some of its claimed states indicating some level of uncertainty in even the best of sources. As with the other Thanas, the list of states lines up pretty well between Talukas mentioned by the Directory and shown on the new hisatlas map, but there are still a tonne of outliers - way too many for me to be confident producing a single consensus list.

As I have tried to outline in the paragraphs above, the only two detailed sources I have are way too mutually contradictory to try and reconcile into a consensus list. Unlike the rest of Gujarat, where compiling a full list was a horrible but at least surmountable task with enough clarifications and caveats, I was unable to produce a list for the states and Thana-estates of the Palanpur Agency. Hell, for most of the Thanas I can't even be sure how many states they contained, forcing me to approximate to the nearest multiple of ten when listing four of the five problematic Thanas in the colour key (as I said earlier, I'm fairly confident there were 37 states in Kankrej Thana as multiple sources apparently independently confirm that number), which is a deeply unsatisfactory compromise.

I'll be including several lists as text documents attached to this post as extra resources; a revised list of Kathiawar states, a list of Mahi Kantha states, a list of the states of western Gujarat (mostly the Rewa Kantha Agency) and a full list of Gujarat states. The final list shall collate the contents of the first three in addition to the three states and five Thanas of the Palanpur Agency plus a few more odds and ends, with the sub-estates of the Palanpur Agency omitted and counts of states approximated due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

As a final aside, the many problems I encountered trying to make some sense of the mess in the Palanpur Agency means that most estimates of how many Princely States there were are probably wrong.

The most common figure for how many Princely states there were I've seen floating around on the internet is the one you get by just googling the question; 562, which I think stems from this 1929 British government report. Wikipedia however states that there were 565, without providing a full list, but with citations from the later literature. I've said many times before, but the incompleteness is largely due to Gujarat being fractal hell of petty states, with the best partial lists on wikipedia being found here and here (annoyingly, the former sources still features the debunked hoax "Nimsod State", and there are still a few other wikipedia articles that haven't yet been cleaned up as well). Worldstatesman on the other hand claims there were "roughly 584 states" when India gained independence, though I'm not sure whether that figure excludes the Pakistani Princely States or not (listed separately here). Looking at the primary sources leads to even higher figures - adding up all the states listed by province in abbreviated tables starting here, the 1909 Gazetteer claims there were a grand total of 693 states. As we've discussed already, that figure has been inflated by at least 100 by all the non-territorial estates and vassals of vassals sometimes counted as states in the Central India Agency which I excluded. Unlike the other sources mentioned, this figure also includes the 50 or so Shan states of Burma, which was administered as part of the Raj when it was written back in 1909. Other sources exclude the Shan States as Burma would be split from the Raj in 1937. I will admit that I haven't, for the purposes of this tangent, counted up the numbers of states listed in each of the copies of the Memoranda I've found digitised, but I would expect even more discontinuities and discrepancies were I to do so.

I can't say myself how many states there were according to my own research yet, as I've still got to finish Pakistan and, at some later point, add Burma/Myanmar, but I have no doubt that it was the incredibly messy administration in Gujarat that skews every figure thus far compiled. From what I can tell, even the British authorities weren't sure how many states there were there, largely due to the uncertainty over what constituted a state in general and the constant minor errors and typos that crept into every period list I've seen.

While I expect to eventually produce my of figure for how many Princely States there were in 1914, that figure will only be a ballpark estimate that comes with a massive dollop of uncertainty and caveats.

With all that out of the way, on to the maps.




Newest Patch;
View attachment 839479

Territorial;
View attachment 839480

Colour key;
View attachment 839481

ADDENDUM 1; lists of states.
You absolute fucking madlad.

This deserves a goddamn Turtledove for all the effort put into it.
 
Another patch, another stupidly long write-up detailing the border-gore and general messiness. It got to the point that getting my decisions for the final chunk of Gujarat written up was such a daunting task that I may have slightly ended up finishing most of Pakistan on the sly, then revised a few more areas on the side while procrastinating getting it done. Because of this and RL getting in the way, I ended up writing a moderately pared-down description of Gujarat, though hopefully still an instructive one.

On the plus side, the most difficult region (Gujarat) is now done, and now there's only one more patch to go; Kashmir and the North West Frontier Province. I may bundle in one or two more minor tweaks into that next patch (most notably a probable final Assam overhaul), but once it's finished I'll be considering the Raj patch done for now. The Raj won't be completely finished at that point; Bits of Arabia and the Middle East were administratively linked to the Raj and so should probably be shown in a complete map, and then there's Burma, that I haven't even added to the basemap yet. On the other hand, I've already spent three months working on a project I thought would only take a week or two, so I'll call finishing the Indian subcontinent a good enough milestone for now and move on to other things once the last patch is done. I want to get back to adding more stuff to the R-QBAM basemap, even if that does mean diving head-first into Canada.

As with last patch, I ended up having to spoiler the descriptions to avoid cluttering the thread up with a monstrous wall of text. And fair warning, its a massive wall of text this time; excluding the maps, the entire post comes out at over 13,000 words. It's stupidly long. I really, really, really hate my perfectionism at times.

EDIT; The damned thing's so bloody long the site won't let me post it in one piece, so I'm splitting it into two parts. First two spoilers here, next two spoilers plus the maps and the lists in a second post to follow.




I'll start the discussion with Rajasthan, which fortunately wasn't too troublesome. There were only two areas of contention, both iffy vassals of vassals that I ended up not showing, though it is useful to raise them. Leaving those two cases aside, basically all sources agree that there were 20 states in the territory of modern Rajasthan, then known as Rajputana. These states were pretty variable, ranging from the tiny estate of Lawa (population 2,671 in 1901) which only became a princely state following a dispute with its former feudal overlord Tonk in the 1860's, to Jodhpur (AKA Marwar), a state a little larger than modern Hungary and with an independent history stretching back to the 1220's.

Of the two problem areas the more annoying was Kushalgarh, because as far as I can tell, it was basically the most princely state-like entity that wasn't one. Kushalgarh was a feudal estate that for all intents and purposes acted as if it were a state, being in direct relations with the British government and possessing domestic autonomy, but despite this all sources describe it as a vassal of Banswara. The 1909 Gazetteer describes it as "practically independent of Banswara for all purposes other than the payment of tribute", while nevertheless stressing its vassalage to Banswara. Both the 1916 and 1939 Memoranda list Kushalgarh in their lists of states, but later both claim that it was "A feudatory of Banswara and not an independent state" (same wording in both sources). They even state that Banswara was banned from interfering in the internal affairs of Kushalgarh, period. Kushalgarh also shows up sporadically on maps, sometimes part of Banswara and sometimes its own distinct thing. Kushalgarh is annoying because it looked like a Princely State and quacked like a Princely State but nevertheless was not a Princely State according to all official sources I've found. I was extremely tempted to add it as the 21st state in Rajputana, but in the end I decided to follow the official sources, call it a vassal of a vassal and thus discount it from the map, though not without misgivings.

The other problematic vassal of a vassal (or should I say, vassals of a vassal) were the Shekhawati estates. I was first clued-in to the fact that something was amiss by the 8K-BAM 1910 map, that highlights the northern chunk of Jaipur as in some way autonomous. A bit of digging showed that it wasn't one state but several, a collection of thirty-ish small Rajput dynasties and landlords loosely confederated under the overarching control of Jaipur, paying the latter state tribute. Naturally, these states are disqualified by the 'no vassals of vassals' rule, a particularly easy decision to make considering I can't find maps showing the petty estates individually, if they are shown at all.

In a similar vein to Rajasthan, the bits of Pakistan I've done so far were relatively easy to do. These can be divided into three chunks; Pakistani Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan.

The easiest of the three was probably finishing Punjab; the external borders are largely the same as the modern Punjab province of Pakistan, and the only Princely State to add was Bahawalpur, where the southern border followed the modern India-Pakistan border and the northern one the course of a major river. I still had to tweak the borders a little from the rivers WIP @rac posed a few weeks back, as the Sutlej has meandered slightly from its course when the borders were originally set back in the 19th century, but overall it was nothing too difficult.

The other easy one was Sindh. While it would later be split off as its own province, back in 1914 Sindh was administered as part of Bombay Presidency. So far I've been trying to arrange the states by the province they were subordinate to, but considering I've already had to split off Gujarat from the rest of Bombay to quarantine the worst of the bordergore, I went ahead and made a separate category for Sindh too. As such, there was only one state to add, Khairpur, while the external borders once again mostly followed modern provincial or international borders with a few tweaks to account for the movement of the Indus

Baluchistan was the only one of the three to present some problems. The issues stem from the fact that the largest State in the province, the Khanate of Kalat, was in some form of feudal relations with all the others, which once again opened up the "is it a state, or a vassal of a vassal?" question. In the end I settled on showing two states, the aforementioned Kalat and Las Bela, while excluding two others that are sometimes listed and occasionally appear on maps; Kharan and Makran. Las Bela made the cut as although basically every source mentions that it had some loose feudal ties to Kalat, those same sources also consistently list it as a state, even when the other two are excluded. Here it is in the 1916 Memoranda, here in the 1939 Memoranda and here's its entry in the 1909 Gazetteer. Also, basically every map shows it as a distinct state while excluding the other two, most notably the massive 1914 map of Baluchistan and Sindh made by the Survey of India, downloadable here. At the other end of the scale is Makran. The 1909 Gazetteer calls it "the south-western division of the Kalat State", while further worldstatesman calls it a sub-state of Kalat and states that it only ceased to be a Kalat sub-state when it acceded to Pakistan separately in 1948. Just to hammer the point home, it appears on no lists of princely states I've been able to find. While some maps show it, in 1914 Makran wasn't even a vassal of a vassal but practically an administrative division of Kalat, hence I discounted it. On the other hand I have good evidence that Kharan existed, but that it was a vassal of Kalat and thus also not shown, though here there is some conflicting evidence. Worldstatesman states that it was a vassal of Kalat from 1884 to 1940, while the 1909 Gazetteer calls it "A quasi-independent tribal area of the Kalat State". The case isn't completely cut and dried as Kharan does get a separate listing in the 1916 Memoranda as a separate State, however as that's the only such listing I've so-far found I'm leaning towards Kharan being a vassal of a vassal and thus being excluded.

Staying on the topic of Baluchistan, I also added two autonomous tribal territories, Marri Country and Bugti Country. These areas were not princely states and were part of the directly-administered area of British India (even if some maps show otherwise), but they were rugged enough and their people stubborn enough that they were granted significant internal autonomy and largely left alone by British authorities, even as the two areas were technically administered as part of Sibi district.

The topic of autonomous tribal districts is pertinent as it feeds back into some of the significant improvements I've since made to the province of Assam. As I said at the time, I wasn't particularly happy with how Assam turned out because there was more detail I thought I could add but that I didn't have the sources for. Getting a little burnt out and wanting to move on to other things was also a factor at the time. While putting off getting this write-up done however, I decided to take another look at Assam with a fresh perspective, and see what I could improve. The new version I was able to cook up isn't perfect, but it's greatly improved from what it was, which is good enough.

Firstly I tweaked the upper course of the Brahmaputra River to make it historically accurate for 1914. When I was first doing the base geography patch, the Brahmaputra was where I ran out of steam, so I've been using the modern course as a placeholder in the previous patches. Fixing the problem seemed like the logical first step in overhauling Assam, which was doable thanks to the maps here. I was also able to dig up a few sources for the frontier districts, most notably History Of The Frontier Areas Bordering On Assam From 1883-1941 (1942) and Nagaland (1961), which confirmed a few suspicions of mine and meant I was confident enough to bash out a decent patch for the frontier districts in 1914.

There are, however, plenty of caveats. Firstly, the two northern frontier districts; in 1919 they would be renamed the Balipara Frontier Tract and the Sadiya Frontier Tract, but back in 1914 these two regions were respectively the Western Section and the Central and Eastern Section of the North East Frontier Tract. From what I can gather, these two districts functioned similarly to the aforementioned autonomous tribal regions mentioned in Baluchistan in being British territory with significant internal autonomy for the local tribes, hence the similar colouration. Most sources (e.g. wikipedia), suggest these two districts were formed at some undefined point in 1914, so I was unsure whether to add them not knowing if they were created before or after July 1914 when the map is set. Fortunately however, History of the Frontier Areas (1942) states that they were established in an extended process from 1912-1913, which, combined with some decent later maps (this one for example) showing district borders, allowed me to draw on the frontier regions knowing they existed at the time.

A further problem is that tracts of these districts were only lightly governed or not administered at all, or else were governed by external powers like Tibet. Even this beautiful CIA map from as late as 1947 (showing the situation in 1941) labels large areas of the two frontier tracts as an "uncensused area" with no data. That map probably represents the area of the frontier tracts Britain actually administered, but for now I'm showing the de-jure situation of what territory the Raj claimed. If I get time while working on the next patch I'll tweak the frontier districts to show just the area administered, but for now I'm leaving it as it is.

The other odd case is the Naga tribal area, which was in an odd legal grey area. Basically every source I've found says that the hill region between Assam Province and Burma was legally British (being surrounded by British territory), but that the colonial authorities of neither wanted to actually administer it. History of the Frontier Areas (1942) goes into great length on the subject in its section on the Naga Hills, but for a more concise summary, in its entry for the Naga Hills District (the British-administered region of modern Nagaland), the 1909 Gazetteer states that it was bounded on the east by "a line which follows for the most part the course of the Dikho and Tizu rivers, beyond which lie hills inhabited by independent tribes". Thus, there was a region of de-jure Assam with defined external borders that the Assam provincial government didn't want the hassle of administering, so they largely left it alone to its own devices. The only substantial interference from the British government into the lives of the local Naga tribes was the occasional dispatching of military expeditions to quell the region and exact tribute if said tribes started raiding British-administered territory again.

Now, in 1935 this odd situation would be resolved by creating a dedicated autonomous tribal area covering eastern Nagaland, but in 1914 the prior, much more legally opaque situation described above applied. Hell, even after 1935, the British touch remained light; that same CIA map also shows the Naga Tribal Area as "uncensused".

So to sum up, the area was de-jure British but in no way actively administered, being set aside as an unofficial de-facto tribal reserve largely out of apathy on the part of the Assam provincial government. In many ways, the territory functioned as if it were an autonomous tribal district without officially being one, so I've coloured it as such on the map, though I will note that this is a provisional choice liable to change. I'm probably going to include another Assam overhaul in the next (hopefully final) Raj patch, which would include possible changes to better reflect the status of Nagaland and to show the areas of actual control in the frontier districts.

I also made a few other minor tweaks to the existing map. I re-checked the lakes of Sri Lanka, as while a lot of those reservoirs are really bloody old, apparently some of them had fallen into disrepair since and were only restored later, while others were originally smaller but were later expanded. Stumbling on one or two reasonably detailed period maps helped in this regard.

I mentioned the Mehwas Estates before, raising them then originally deciding that they probably weren't true states and thus shouldn't be shown. I've since dug up new sources, most notably the 1916 Memoranda, that lists the six estates as if they were full states. It's also notable that they (or an equivalent area at least) show up on earlier maps but not later ones, almost as if the estates got downgraded at some point. As the 1916 citation is the latest I have that classifies them as states, I'm assuming this change happened at some point during or immediately after WW1 and that previously the six estates were considered states. I know they weren't considered states by the 1920's, as I've dug up another Memoranda from 1921 (largely a reprint of the 1916 edition) that omits them. As such, I've added them as another cumulative entity in Gujarat for 1914, with a note that their days as states were numbered.

One final note while talking about tweaks to the existing maps, I spent a couple of days two weeks ago manually checking all the colours in the ad-hoc princely states colour scheme I've been constructing to check for duplicates and change a few that were a bit too similar. It was a lot of tedious work, but I'm now pretty sure there are no duplicates and each colour represents a single state or collection of states. It's an important check to make as several states had exclaves all over the place, and two states sharing the same colour could be confused for a single state with multiple exclaves.
Before I dive headfirst into the final lengthy digression on Gujarat, I need to introduce a key dilemma that vexed me considerably; what is the difference between a State with multiple shareholders, and a Thana consisting of multiple distinct sub-estates?

The key problem is that, unlike what you'd expect, for a lot of the small states in Gujarat there wasn't one single Chief or petty landholder ruling each state. In many cases these started as one state, but as time went on portions of the estate were allotted to different branches of the family tree as it bifurcated over time. In some cases, such as the Jetpur States or the Bantwa States, this resulted in multiple successor lines that were all in time recognised as full states, but in a few cases the ancestral estate was never split. Instead, different branches would administer different chunks of the estate as sub-estates or as if they were independent while only being represented as one state in relations with higher authorities. A good example is the petty state of Kotda Pitha (more on that below), which by the 20th century had no less than five distinct shareholders all descended from the same founder, that were nevertheless grouped into a single state.

This is also another possible solution to the Vankia/Khambhala problem by the way, as most sources I've seen that list such things say that the state (under whatever name that source used) had as many as three shareholders. A tussle over priority between two larger shareholders based in different towns could account for the apparent name-changes as the two centres of power in the state waxed and waned in influence over time.

While this gets really annoying discussing northern Gujarat in general and the Palanpur Agency in particular (see below), it first allows me to clear up a few of the iffier judgements I had to make when compiling the Kathiawar list for the last patch, as I think some entries I listed as states were in fact sub-estates within wider states with multiple shareholders.

Firstly, the two Dedan states. As I said at the time, a few sources (but by no means all), list two states, or sub-estates, but only two sources describe these states in any detail more that an entry in a list; the 1880 Gazetteer and Leading Princes (1928), and, as mentioned previously, Leading Princes is a less than helpful source. In the edition that was digitised, the original entry for the second Dedan line was mostly overwritten by lazy re-edits, making it largely useless in figuring out if it was a state or not, but does at least provide further proof of existence. On the other hand, later in that same source in the list of states at the end, it only lists Dedan as a state once but lists two shareholders under the state. The 1880 Gazetteer on the other hand makes no mention of a second line at all, just describing it as a single state. Further sources missing the extra Dedan are both the 1911 and 1916 Memoranda's, the 1909 Gazetteer and literally every map I have so far found - even the best hisatlas map, practically my only source for some areas of the Palanpur Agency - doesn't split Dedan.

The 1939 Memoranda lists two distinct Dedan states in two separate tables but does not elaborate. On the other hand, I've already found a few cases where the 1939 Memoranda apparently double-counts states, for example in listing six Bagasra states when there should be four (I think the main state Bagasra Majmu had three sub-estates, which the Memoranda apparently counts separately), or the apparent extra Lodhika line. It is thus entirely possible that the 1939 Memoranda is counting a sub-estate (that otherwise appears only sporadically in the sources) as a state, a mistake worldstatesman apparently inherited as I suspect it used a version of the Memoranda as a primary source. Based on this re-assessment, I'm revising the number of Dedan states down from two to one, assuming one of those mentioned in some sources was a sub-estate. The icing on the cake is that the 1916 Memoranda states that Dedan (listed only once) had no less than four shareholders, providing further evidence for my conjecture.

The second state I've removed from the list is Zainabad, the apparent second state in Dasada Thana. I only added it as I've found later sources claiming it was elevated to a full state in the 1920's and assuming that meant that previously it was a sub-state of Dasada Thana, but I think I may have been off on this one. While I know it was regarded as a state by the 1930's (see the 1939 Memoranda), I had no sources providing evidence for an independent existence prior to the 1920's, almost as if Zainabad appeared spontaneously during that decade. It isn't mentioned at all by the 1916 Memoranda (that lists Dadasa as the only state in the eponymous Thana), or in the 1909 Gazetteer, or by the 1880 Gazetteer, which I found highly suspicious.

I also for a long time couldn't find it in Leading Princes (1928), which was rather concerning considering it was published after Zainabad was apparently elevated to full state. However, as I've complained about before, transliterating place-names from the local Indian languages into English was for a long time an imprecise art, leading to a tonne of variant spellings of state names appearing in earlier sources before a consensus was eventually reached. It was only once I'd gotten used to some of the patterns that I noticed an entry for 'Jainabad' and figured that it was Zainabad state under a different name. That entry confirms things, giving a history section that largely re-tells the history of Dasada taluka laid out in other sources (oddly, Dasada isn't mentioned distinctly in Leading Princes, but does get name-dropped in other articles), before stating that "This Taluka which was joint with the Dasada Taluka became a separate entity only in the time of Malek Shri Zamkhanji [the previous" chief]". I already suspected that what would become Zainabad state was back in 1914 a sub-estate of Dasada taluka, that was in the 1920's elevated from sub-estate to full state, but this apparently confirms things. Other evidence comes from the 1916 Memoranda, that states there were six shareholders of Dasada taluka, and the 1880 Gazetteer, which further mentions multiple shareholders. Oh, and maps consistently either don't show it distinctly (notably, maps from before 1921 label what would become the capital town Zainabad as 'Kalara', suggesting a name change in parallel with the elevation) or show it as part of Dasada Thana but only after the elevation (e.g. both hisatlas maps). All things considered, in 1914 Zainabad wasn't a state yet. It would later be elevated from sub-estate to full state, but that hadn't happened yet, and wouldn't for nearly a decade.

The final state I removed from the list was Rozwa. I had some circumstantial evidence to support this one being a state, but nothing concrete. It does show up in more modern resources, for example hisatlas and worldstatesman, but I struggled to find a period citation naming Rozwa as a state. The only mentions I've found are as a sub-estate of Jhinjuvada in Leading Princes (1928), with a footnote that states "Added as per Agency No. 3990, dated the 28th November 1905", this report from 1939 and a mention in the 1909 Gazetteer, that has an entry for "Jhinjhuvada including Rozva" in its list of states in Kathiawar. While the report apparently confirms that it was a non-jurisdictional estate, the fact I've been able to find it nowhere else in the literature is, I feel, telling. Major sources like the 1916 Memoranda, the 1921 Memoranda and the 1939 Memoranda make no mention of Rozwa, instead listing Jhinjuvada as the sole taluka in the eponymous Thana.

What about maps? Well unfortunately, period maps are even more annoyingly ambiguous. I have so far only seen Rozwa marked as a distinct state in the two hisatlas maps, with every period map I've found so far allotting its territory to either Jhinjuvada or Radhanpur. The earliest good one I've found from this series is Sheet 41/M Radhanpur (1889) that shows Rozwa (named Rojwa on the map), as part of Radhanpur. Sheet 41/M Radhanpur (1921) is a reprint of the 1889 map "with additions & corrections" and as such also shows Rozwa as part of Radhanpur, while Sheet 41/M Radhanpur (1948) shows the town (now called Rojva) as part of Jhinjuvada. This map further shows it as part of Radhanpur. All maps mentioned above downloadable here.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this tangled web of citations, but I think that Rozwa was a vassal or sub estate of Radhanpur that was transferred to Jhinjuvada in 1905, a supposition made thanks to the footnote in Leading Princes. I'm assuming the maps are wrong as nobody noticed the subtle change though multiple re-prints of maps from the 1880's until the 1940's. Due to the almost complete absence of Rozwa from major sources, including all of the editions of the Memoranda that I've looked at, I've come to think that instead of becoming a state however, Rozwa instead became a sub-estate in Jhinjuvada taluka as seen in Leading Princes. This conjecture is, I'll admit, a little flimsy, but it's the best I've been able to come up with to explain the scant and often contradictory evidence.

The other change that I made to Kathiawar was merging Kotda Pitha into Babra Thana. I'm annoyed that I didn't spot this first time, but I think that it was originally part of Babra Thana, as proven by multiple earlier sources saying as such, before being detached from the Thana and elevated to a full State at some point during the interwar era, as shown by later sources listing it distinctly. The very fact that the entry for the second Dedan line has apparently been overwritten by an article for Kotda Pitha in Leading Princes (1928) is itself strongly suggestive, implying that Kotda Pitha was only important enough to get a distinct article after the original publication date, which fits with the idea that it was a Thana estate elevated to a distinct semi-jurisdictional state during the intervening time. The annoying thing is I was so close to spotting this in the last patch but didn't quite put the pieces together, instead assuming inconsistent sources. As this means that in 1914 Kotda Pitha would have been part of Babra Thana, I've tweaked the borders in that part of Kathiawar to remove Kotda Pitha as a distinct state and change a few surrounding borders to make things a little more accurate.

Discounting the three states discussed above brings my tally of Kathiawar states down to 217. Adding in the removal of Kotda Pitha from Babra Thana that I didn't account for in the original list, and the list of Kathiawar states I posted a month ago is a little outdated, so I've attached a slightly modded replacement to the end of this post, in addition to a few other lists.

Another one of the lists I added relates to the final changes I want to mention before moving on to the new stuff in Gujarat; double-checking all the states of western Gujarat to see if anything had slipped through the net, and fortunately it looks like I'm all clear. Most of the states in the area were under the Aegis of the Rewa Kantha Agency, but there was also the Surat Agency covering Dharampur, Bansda, Sachin and the Dangs, plus three other agencies that each covered the affairs of a single state in addition to the territories of Baroda, that was in direct relations with the British government. Compiling the lists for the disparate agencies and comparing them with later sources such as hisatlas and worldstatesman, aside from a tonne of variant spellings, I only found one discrepancy, and fortunately it was an explainable one.

The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency Vol. VI; Rewa Kantha, Narukot, Cambay, and Surat States (1880) is from the same series as the Kathiawar Gazetteer I've linked to previously, covering most of the states in the area in question; the only two states it's missing are Surgana the only state of the Nasik Agency, and Jawhar, the sole state of the Thana Agency. This source is notable as it produces the only major discrepancy between lists, listing an extra state in the Sankheda Mewas.

Depending on the source (or even within the same source; as I've said before, a lot of these sources are internally inconsistent) this entity is named either Devalia or Devlia, and I was initially worried I'd be drawn down another deep research rabbit hole trying to prove or disprove it as it shows up on both hisatlas maps. In the end however it was actually pretty easy to disprove. The entire description it gets in the 1880 Gazetteer is "Devalia, one mile in extent, held by a cadet of the Agar house, pays no tribute", which is an incredibly sparse citation. The day was saved by another search of old Indian govt records, that recovers a trio of records that apparently document the pleas by the former ruler of Devlia against the British decision to annex his state to Uchad from 1911 and 1912, pleas that were ultimately rejected. Further proof that Devlia was a state but that it got annexed to Uchad comes from the 1916 Memoranda, that unusually lists Devlia separately, but calls it "Devalia (included in Uchad)". Taken together, it appears that Devlia/Devalia probably was a state, but it got annexed to Uchad around 1910 and so doesn't count as a state by 1914.

The other discrepancies were all minor; hisatlas bifurcates the states of Bhilodia and Pantalavdi into two states each, while other sources confirm each was just one state with multiple shareholders. Also, Vanmala in the Sankheda Mewas apparently changed its name, but unlike the Vankia/Khambhala problem most sources clearly identify the different names. To give just one example, the 1939 Memoranda table lists it as state no. 21 "Dhamasia alias Vanmala". I have plenty of other examples I won't care to mention here, but it should be noted that all sources are pretty clear that these are two variant names for one state, but just can't decide what the primary name is, which is annoying but manageable.

Aside from that, all the states of the Pandu Mewas and the Dangs lined up perfectly with what I had already figured out, excepting a tonne of variant spellings, a pattern that also held true for the states in this area not under a Thana, which was a pleasant discovery. With what I had already done of Gujarat now suitably double-checked and revised, I can move on to the new stuff I had to add to finish off by far the worst area of the Raj.
Holy fuck dude, I seriously don't know how you have the patience to do this stuff, I would've given up a looong time ago. Massive props to you for all the effort you've been putting into these projects!
 
Incredible work, I especially liked this hidden gem:
Screenshot 2023-06-23 at 08-34-15 Imperial Gazetteer2 of India Volume 14 page 182 -- Imperial ...png

I think everywhere on earth has some version of this saying. It seems we all want to one-up each other when it comes to how extreme our local weather is.
 
Last edited:
I've said many times before, but the incompleteness is largely due to Gujarat being fractal hell of petty states, with the best partial lists on wikipedia being found here and here (annoyingly, the former sources still features the debunked hoax "Nimsod State", and there are still a few other wikipedia articles that haven't yet been cleaned up as well).

Well, there's as good a reason as any to revive my long-dormant Wikipedia account. Thankfully the successful article for deletion provides a pretty easy shorthand reference for the edit rather than having to justify it.

I believe there are now only 2 pages where a reference to some sort of Nimsod State-

It appears in a list of Talukas of Subha Prant Khatao in the article on Lalgun - which I'd appreciate clarification on whether this is correct, incorrect or one of these 'oh god we've got to go through the process of sourcing why that's incorrect' edits. Though that doesn't list a Raja of Nimsod anyway.

There's also an article on the hillfort at Bhushangad which I'm looking at atm and... well just removing the Nimsod Rajas is easy but the whole article seems to be full of suspect information. Which is impressive when I think you've written more words on summarising the difficulties of enumerating the total number of Princely States just there than are in the article.

There's also a fair number of references still to Gharge-Desai Deshmukh which refer to an article created by the guy who created the one on Nimsod State, but I'm honestly not sure if that isn't the 'one actual bit of history' the rest was built on.
 
Writing up that last explanation for the hellish small states of Gujarat burned me out a little. Normally, what I'd do to get past that is dive into mapping a different, easier area to break up the monotony, but for the Raj patch this wasn't really possible. There is one area left that needs doing, covering the Northwest Frontier Province and Kashmir, that, for reasons I won't be getting into here, was a bit of a confusing, convoluted mess that would likely take a while to do.

So rather than diving headfirst into that, I instead took a break from working on the R-QBAM for a week or so, then when I got started again, decided to focus on something completely different - the first basemap expansion in months. I've been saying it for a while, but Canada is the next country up on the schedule, largely because its geography is horrible and I want to get it over and done with. Fortunately for me, the first area I was planning to add was the relatively easy Newfoundland (it's no walk in the park, but it isn't too bad compared to much of the rest of the country), and that went well enough that I went ahead and included a chunk of Quebec as well.

As I said, today's patch is a bit of an aberration. I wanted a bit of a palette-cleanser after dealing with the fractal petty states of Gujarat, so after today's brief tangent the next patch will be diving back into the Raj to belatedly get it done. As mentioned, the area I have left isn't exactly simple, so it may take a fortnight or so to finish off, but after that it's back to geographical patches full-time, starting with the rest of Quebec.

One final point, I've built up a bit of a back-log of messages I've been meaning to reply to, but considering I'll be eating dinner in a sec I can't really reply right away, so I'll see what I can do tomorrow.




Patch 92 - Oh, Canada 1 (Newfoundland);
- Added Newfoundland
- Added Quebec south of the St. Lawrence River
- Added Saint Pierre and Miquelon (to France)

1688420605384.png
 
Top