The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians/Note (A).- Geographical

From Jatland Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Back to Index of the Book
The full text of this book has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak
The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians
Sir H. M. Elliot, Edited by John Dowson, 1867, Volume I

Appendix. Note (A).- Geographical

Kingdoms, Cities and Towns

[p.353]: [Sir H. ELLIOT in his introductory remarks on Al Bírúní's geographical chapter, observed that before the time of that writer "the whole of Upper India was a perfect terra incognita, and the Arabians knew much less of it than Pliny and Ptolemy." The geographical extracts at the beginning of this volume, fully prove the justice of this observation. Multán, Mansúra, Alor, and other places of note in the valley of the Indus, were visited by their early travellers, and the ports upon the coast, especially those about the Gulf of Cambay, were also known from the reports of their mariners. All beyond this was vague, and evidently drawn from hearsay information. Their scanty knowledge is farther shown by the identity of much that was written on the subject. Sulaimán and Ma'súdi drew their information from the same or very similar sources; and a great part of Istakhrí's and Ibn Haukal's description is verbatim the same, so that there can be no doubt that one copied from the other. In Bírúní we have ample evidence of a much wider knowledge, not always accurate, not always intelligible at the present time, but still showing that he had acquired, either by personal travel or by diligent investigation, a fair general knowledge of the topography of Hindustan, and even of parts beyond.1 Idrísí gives a full compilation from the works of his predecessors, with some additional matter from sources now lost to us, but he does not appear to have used the writings of Bírúní, and his work is blemished by many false spellings.]

[p.354]: [Sir H. Elliot endeavoured to identify and fix the position of several of the most important and interesting of the places mentioned by the early geographers and historians, and some additions have since been made, chiefly from sources unpublished at the time when his original volume appeared. The following is an index of the notes:-

Cities and Towns.


[The early Arab Geographers are unanimous in their spelling of the title "Balhará." The merchant Sulaimán says it is a title similar to the Chosroes of the Persians, and not a proper name. Ibn Khurdádba says that it signifies "King of Kings." According to Mas'údí it is a title borne by all the kings of the country, while Ibu Haukal states that it is a name derived from that of the country. Idrísí follows Ibn Khurdádba in giving to it the signification of "King of Kings," but, he adds, that the title was hereditary. Thus it seems clear that it was the general title of a dynasty, and that it must have borne some such signification as that assigned to it by Ibn Khurdádba.]

[Taking the accounts of the Arab writers, and comparing them with the Indian annals, there can be no great hesitation in identifying the "Balhará" with the dynasty settled at Ballabhi-pura, the princes of which were the founders of the Ballabhi era, and were

[p.355]: probably known as the Ballabhi or Ballabh Ráís. This identification, originally proposed by Colonel Tod, has met with tacit acquiescence, except from M. Reinaud, who considered the term "Balhará" to represent Málwá Ráí or "King of Málwá."]1

Ballabhi-pura was, according to Tod, "destroyed in the fifth century, by an irruption of the Parthians, Getes, Huns or Catti, or a mixture of these tribes,"* In another place he gives the date of this event from Jain records as A.D. 524.2 And in a further pas-sage he says, that after the destruction of Ballabhi-pura, its princes "fled eastward, eventually obtaining Chitor, when the Islands of Deo and Somnath-pattan, in the division termed Larika, became the seat of government. On its destruction, in the middle of the eighth century, Anhalwara became the metropolis, and this, as recorded, endured until the fourteenth century."4 Hwen Tsang visited Balabhi in the seventh century, and Thomas gives the date of its destruction as 802 Samvat (745 A.D.)5 The ruins of the city are well known, being situate about twenty miles west of Bhownuggur, in Kattiwar; and the name survives in that of the modern town of Wallay, which stands near them.6]

[Hindu authorities thus record the removal of the seat of government to the country of Lárike or Láta, which country Mas'údí names as being subject to the Balhará, and which the other writers describe as forming part of his dominions.]

[The capital of the Balhará is stated by Mas'údí to be "Mánkír (or Manákír) the great centre of India," and to be situated "eighty Sindí parasangs (640 miles) from the sea," a palpable exaggeration. Istakhrí and Ibn Haukal say that "Mánkír is the city in which the Balhará dwells, but they do not name it in their lists of the cities of Hind. Bírúní and Idrísí make no mention of it. The unavoidable inference is that the place had fallen to decay, and was known only by tradition in the days of these Arab writers.]

[The name Mánkír or Manákír bears a suggestive resemblance to "Minagara," a city which Ptolemy places on the Nerbadda,

Add footnotes

[p.356]: among the cities of Larike. Both are probably representatives of the Sanskrit mahá-nagara, "great city." Mánkír is said to mean "great centre," so that the word mahá (great) must be represented by the first syllable ; and the other syllables nakír or nákír are by no means a bad Arabic transcription of "Nagara," for the alpha¬bet would not allow of a closer version than nakar. In Minagara, the word nagara, "city" is unquestionable. Ptolemy mentions another Minagara on the East coast, somewhere near the Mahánadí river, and Arrian, in the Periplus, has another Minagara in the valley of the Indus. The syllable mi would therefore seem to be a common appellative, having no local or ethnological import, but corresponding with mahá or some similar word.]

[The bearings of Minagara and of some of the neighbouring places are thus stated by Ptolemy:-

There is a palpable error in these statements of Ptolemy, for he places Ujjain to the south of Nerbadda, and two degrees south of the bend of the river near Siripalla. But Ujjain lies to the north of the Nerbadda, and the river has no noticeable bend in this quarter. The river Mahí, however, has a very great bend; Ujjain lies to the south of it, and the respective bearings are more in agreement, so that the two rivers would here seem to have been confounded.]

[Tiatura may be Talner, and Xeragere may be Dhar, as Lassen supposes, for these are situated on well-known roads, and as General Cunningham forcibly observes, Ptolemy's geography must have been compiled from routes of merchants. Comparing the bearings of the various places, Minagara would seem to have been situated some-where between Dhar and Broach. Lassens identifies Minagara with Balabhi-pura, but this city was situated too far west.]

[The neighbourhood of Dhar is exactly the locality in which

[p.357]: Idrísí would at first sight seem to place Nahrwárá or Nahlwárá, which he leads us to infer was the capital of the Balhará in his time. This city, he tells us, was situated eight days' journey inland from Broach through a flat country. The towns of Hanáwal (or Janáwal) and Dulka lie between them, and Dulka is situated on the river (Nerbadda) which forms the estuary on which Broach stands, and at the foot of a chain of mountains called Undaran, lying to the north. Near Hanáwal there is another town called Asáwal. This description is inconsistent, for Asáwal is an old name of Ahmadábád, and that city lies to the north far away from the Nerbadda. Abú-l Fidá seems to rectify this, for he declares Cambay to be the port of Nahrwárá, which city he says is three days' journey from a port. He refers to Abú Ríhán as spelling the name Nahlwára, and on turning back to page 61, it will be seen that this is his orthography. The city described by Abú Ríhán and Abú-l Fidá is undoubtedly Anhalwára Pattan, and if Cambay be substituted for Broach in Idrísí's description, the account, so far as we understand it, will be consistent with itself and with the other writers. Cambay stands at the head of the bay which bears its name, between the mouths of the Sábarmatí on the west, and the Mahí on the east. Asáwal or Ahmadábád is on the left bank of the former, and the Arávallí chain of mountains lies to the north of Anhalwára. Idrísí specially mentions the bullock carriages of Nahrwára, and those of Guzerát are still famous. Lastly, no Nahrwára is known near the river Nerbadda. Thus Ptolemy and Idrísí would both seem to have confounded the river of Broach (the Nerbadda) with those of Cambay (Sábarmatí and Mahí).]

[Hwen Tsang, who travelled in India between 629 and 645 A.D., visited the kingdom of "Fa-la-pi" (Vallabhi), but his account does not help to settle the locality of the capital, for he only says that it was a journey of 1000 li (166 1/2 miles) north from Málwá. The kings were of Kshatriya race, and were connected with the sovereigns of Kanya-kubja, the reigning monarch, Dhruva Bhatta, being son-in-law either of King Siláditya or of that king's son.]

[The "Balhará" would thus seem to represent, as Tod affirmed, the Ballabh Ráís of Ballabhi-pura who were succeeded by the Bala Ráís of Anhalwára Pattan. Their territories included the ports in the country of Láta (Lárike) on the gulf of Cambay. These ports

[p.358]: were frequented by Arab trading vessels, and so the accounts given of the Balhará by their geographers, vague and meagre as they are, exceed all that is recorded by them of the other contemporary kingdoms. The extent of the Balhará's territory can only be surmised, and no doubt it underwent continual change. Mas'údí, by implication, places Tanna within his dominions, but this is farther south than would seem to be warranted. The Táptí on the south, and the Arávallí mountains on the north may perhaps represent an approximation to the real extent of the kingdom. This may appear a limited dominion for a monarch of such renown as the Arabs represent the Balhará to have been; but it must be remembered that these writers were accustomed to a simple patriarchal form of government, free from the pomp and splendour of the further east.]

[There are copper records extant showing that in the first half of the fourth century grants of land in the neighbourhood of Jambúsír were made by the Gurjjara rájas and by the Chálukyas. The latter were of a Rajput tribe, and would then appear to have been making their way southwards to the scene of their subsequent power. In 812 A.D., just before the time of the merchant Sulaimán, a grant was made by the "Láteswara," that is, "King of Láta," but the names therein recorded have not been identified with those in any of the dynastic lists. Allowing for the omissions not unusual in such grants, there is a Dhruva who may correspond with the Dhruva Bhatta of Hwen Tsang.]

Juzr or Jurz.

[Sulaimán and Ibn Khurdádba write the name "Jurz" but the Paris edition of Mas'údí has Juzr, which the editors understand as signifying Guzerat. Abú Zaid says incidentally that Kanauj is "a large country forming the empire of Jurz;"1 and relying upon this statement M. Reinaud identifies Jurz with Kanauj.2 But Mas'údí locates the Bauüra at Kanauj, and speaks of Juzr as quite a distinct kingdom. Sulaimán and Mas'údí concur in making the country border on the kingdoms of the Rahma and the Balhará, and the former says that the country is situated on a tongue of land, and is rich in camels and horses. "Juzr" closely resembles the name "Guzerát," especially in its Arabic form "Juzarát" and the other

add footnotes

[p.359]: known conditions are satisfied by this identification. Guzerát is a peninsula, it bordered on the dominions of the Balhará, and the horses of Kattiwár are still famous.]

[Hwen Tsang visited the "kingdoms of Su-la-cha or Suráshtra, and Kiu-che-lo or Gurjjara, after that of Vallabhi, but, according to his expositor, M. Vivien de St. Martin, Su-la-cha (Suráshtra) represents the modern Guzerát, and Kiu-che-lo (Gurjjara) "the country of the Gujars" between Anhalwára and the Indus. This location of the two territorial names differs from the generally received acceptation of their meaning, and rests entirely upon the expositor's interpretation of Hwen Tsang's confused statements-the only arguments adduced in its favour, being a proposed identification of Pi-lo-mo-lo, which Hwen Tsang gives as the name of the capital of Kiu-che-lo, with the modern Bálmer; and an ethnological theory that the Gujars might have given their name to this country in the course of their migrations. But no example of such an application of the name is adduced, and Hwen Tsang himself in another passage (p. 169) accurately describes this very country as being north of Kiu-che-lo, and stretching "1900 li (316 1/2 miles), a travers des plaines sauvages et des déserts dangereux" to the river Indus. The Sanskrit Suráshtra and Gurjjara survive in the modern names Surat and Guzerát, and, however the territories embraced by the old terms may have varied, it is hard to conceive that Surat was not in Suráshtra nor Guzerát in Gurjjara. All evidence goes to prove that the old and modern names applied to the same places. Thus, Ptolemy's Surastrene comprises Surat, and the grants of the "Rajas of Gurjjara" dated in the early part of the fourth century, conveyed land in the vicinity of Jambusara or "Jumbooseer."- Bírúní (supra p. 67), shows what the Muhammadans understood by Guzerát in his day, and while Guzerát answers to the "Juzr," of his predecessors, the supposed "country of the Gujars" does not, for that cannot be said to be "a tongue of land."]

[The fact is that there is great confusion in this part of Hwen Tsang's itinerary, and his bearings are altogether untrustworthy. In the first volume he says, "Du cote de l' ouest ce royaume (Suráshtra) touche à la rivière Mahí;" but in vol. ii. p. 165, he says "La capitale touche du côté de l'ouest à la rivière Mo-hi (Mahí)." A very material difference. The first statement is quite in agreement with the true

[p.360]: position of Suráshtra. Hwen Tsang represents his route to have proceeded north from Kach to Vallabhi. This error, M. Vivien de Saint-Martin observes, renders it necessary to reverse the direction, and he adds, "Ceci est une correction capitale qui affecte et rectifie toute la suite de l'itinéraire." If it is thus necessary to reverse the north and south, may it not be also necessary to do the same with the east and west? No such general correction, however, will set matters right; for Hwen Tsang says correctly that he proceeded south-east from Gurjjara to Ujjain. It is curious, moreover, that M. V. de Saint-Martin does not adhere to his "correction capitale," for Hwen Tsang states that he went north from Vallabhi to Gurjjara and his expositor, places Gurjjara to the north, while according to his own canon it ought to be south.*]


[Sulaimán writes the name "Táfak;" Ibn Khurdádba and Mas'údí have "Táfan." Reinaud cites also the variations "Tákan" and "Tában." Founding his opinion on the statement as to the beauty of the women, whom he supposes to be Mahrattas, Reinaud places this country in the neighbourhood of Aurangábád.2 His argument is amusing, but is untenable, for it is inconsistent with the account given of the country by the Arab writers. Mas'údí says, "Some kings have their territory in the mountains away from the sea, like the king of Kashmír, the king of Táfan, and others;" and again, "the Míhrán (Indus) comes from well-known sources in the highlands of Sind, from the country belonging to Kanauj in the kingdom of Bauüra, and from Kashmír, Kandahár and Táfan." Sulaiman says that "Táfak" lies by the side of the kingdom of Juzr, and this is inconsistent with Reinaud's view of Juzr being Kanauj and Táfak being Aurangábád; for if Juzr be Guzerát, Táfak must be placed to the north of it, as the dominions of the Balhará were on the south-east. The mountains in this direction are, first, the Árávalí mountains; next, the Salt-range, and lastly, the Himalayas. In Kazwíní there is a notice of the fort of "Taifand," subdued by Mahmúd of Ghazní, in the year 1023 A.D.3 This fort he represents as being on the summit of a mountain, to which there was only one way of access, and when taken, there were 500 elephants in the place. The names are sufficiently similar, and the descriptions point to the same locality. In the absence of more definite information, the Salt-range seems to comply most closely with what we are told about the position of Táfand.]

Rahma or Ruhmí.


[According to Sulaimán, this State is bordered by those of Balhará, Jurz and Táfand, and is constantly at war with the two former. Mas'údí says it stretches along the sea and continent, and is bounded inland by a kingdom called Káman. He adds that Rahma is the title of their kings, and generally their name also. They had great strength in troops, elephants, and horses. Reinaud says it "appears to correspond with the ancient kingdom of Visapour,"1 but it is difficult to fix the locality of this kingdom. The name is probably the Sanskrit Ráma. The use of kaurís for money, the extremely fine cotton fabrics, and the existence of the rhinoceros in the country, would point to a locality on the Bay of Bengal about Dacca and Arracan. If the neighbouring kingdom, which Mas'údí calls Káman, is the same as that which Ibn Khurdádba calls Kámrún and places on the borders of China, there can be no doubt that Kámrúp or Assam is intended, and this identification, which is exceedingly probable, will confirm the locality of Dacca as the probable site of the kingdom of Rahma. The accounts of this kingdom and of Kámrúp were probably gathered by the Arab writers from mariners who had visited the ports in the Bay of Bengal, and their ignorance of the interior of the country, led them to infer that the territories of the Balhará on the western coast were conterminous with those of Rahma on the eastern side.]


[Tod identifies Káshbín with Kach Bhúj, while Reinaud supposes it to be Mysore.1 All the description given of it is that it is an inland country, so that in the absence of any closely resembling Indian name, its locality is a mere matter of guess.]

Agham.-The Lohánas.

[p.362]: Agham, or Agham-kot, lies about thirty miles south-east from Haidarábád, and though now almost forgotten, it was formerly a place of some consequence. Its position is not very easily identified, and the name is rarely introduced into the maps. In Lt. Burton's it seems to be entered under the name of "Angoomanoo," and in the Quartermaster-General's map of 1850, under that of "Aghamama." The Beg-Lar Náma says it is on the Rain. The Tuhfatu-l Kirám mentions it among the towns on the Sánkra. Capt. McMurdo says it is on the Lohána Daryá; but he strangely fixes its site at Kalákot, seven miles to the west of Thatta, observing erroneously that it is not mentioned till long after the Arab conquest. Its position may be indicated at present as lying between the Gúní and the Rain; but it does not follow that it will answer to that description next year, as the course of these streams is constantly shifting.

It is also called Agham Lohána. In the Chach-náma, we find frequent mention of a chief under that name, who was governor of Brahmanábád in the time of Chach. Lohána is the designation of a powerful tribe, which at that period, under an apparent confusion of terms, is said to have included both the Samma and Lákha clans. It can merely mean that they were then in a position of comparative subordination. Under all the vicissitudes the Lohánas have undergone, they still retain their credit, as well as their religion, and constitute the most influential tribe in Sind, whether regarded as merchants or officials. But, not confined within that narrow province, they have spread their ramifications beyond the western borders of India, and are found dispersed throughout Afghánistán, Buluchistán, and Arabia, exposed to inconveniences, insults, and dangers of no ordinary kind, in pursuit of their darling object of wealth, and final return to their native soil to enjoy the fruits of their industry.

The Lohánas derive their name and origin from Lohanpúr in Multán. The date of their emigration must have been very early, and even their own traditions do not attempt to fix it. Their subdivisions are said to amount at least to fifty, the chief of them being the Khudábádí and Sihwání. They all of them wear the Janeo, or

[p.363]: Brahmanical thread. Though, for the most part, they worship the Hindu deities, a few have adopted the faith of Bábá Nának. They are described, by an accurate observer, as eating meat, addicted to spirituous liquors, not objecting to fish and onions, drinking water from the hand of their inferiors as well as superiors in caste, and being neither frequent nor regular in their devotions.

As the town of Agham is mentioned as early as the time of Muhammad Kásim, we may presume that it derived its name from the Lohána chieftain above-mentioned, who was the contemporary and opponent of Chach.1


[This name is found in various forms-Mas'údí (p. 23) calls it Al Rúr; Ibn Khurdádba writes Al Daur (p. 14); Istakhrí has Al Rúz (p. 27), and Al Rúr (p. 28). The Ashkalu-l Bilád has Aldúr (p. 34), and Alrúr (p. 37); Gildemeister makes Ibn Haukal's version to be Rúz and Alrúz; Bírúní's spelling is ambiguous (see p. 48); Idrísí has Dúr (p. 79). The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has Al Rúr.] The ruins of the town lie between Bhakkar and Khairpur, and are known by the name of Alor. Lieut. Maclagan says that it is also called Aror and that the band spoken of by Burnes is really an arched bridge. [There can be little doubt of the first syllable being the Arabic al, and the real name Rúr, as it survives in the modern town of Rorí, which stands close by the ruins of Alor.]

Amhal, Fámhal, Kámhal, or Mámhal.

[The name of the border town between Sind and Hind appears in many forms. Istakhrí has Amhal, Fámhal, and Kámhal; the Askálu-l Bilád has Fámhal in the text, but Kámhal in the map. Gildemeister's Ibn Haukal has Kámuhul. Idrísí has Mámhal; Abú-l Fída has Kámhal, but a note states that a MS. of Ibn Haukal gives the name as Fámhal. The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has both Kámhal and Mámhal, giving Biládurí as authority for the latter. Careless writing and the omission of sometimes of one, sometimes of two points, will account for the various readings of Fámhal, Kámhal, and Mámhal, and taking this view of the question, Kámhal would

add fotnote

[p.364]: appear to be the best reading. Looking, however, at its reported position, at two-thirds of the distance between Mansúra and Kam-báya, it would appear to answer to Anhalwára, and, if so, Istakhrí's solitary reading "Amhal" is right. Wára is a common noun, signifying "field."1


The name of this place frequently occurs during the early period of Arab connection with Sind; but neither its orthography nor position can be established with certainty. The Chach-náma, in different passages, calls it Armáel, Armaná-bíl, Armapilla, and Armábel (p. 157). The Futúhu-l buldán has Armáíl; which M. Reinaud reads Armâyl, but considers the true reading to be Armâ-byl, for the reason given in the note.2 Ibn Khurdádba and Istakhri write Armábíl (pp. 14, 29); Ibn Haukal according to the Ashkálu-l Bilád has Armáil (p. 34), and Armábíl (p. 38), Gildemeister, his translator, reads it as Armâil, and suggests Armâbil as preferable.3 The Nubian Geographer has Armíyáel and Armáyíl, which his trans¬lator gives as Ermaiil (p. 77 note). The translator of Idrísí has the same (pp. 77 and 80). Abú-l Fídá, with his usual pretensions to accuracy, pronounces it Armábíl. The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has Armá-íl. Ouseley prefers Armaiel. An old and rare Persian lexicon writes it as Armábal.4 The Tuhfatu-l Kirám has Armanbíla, Armanpela, or some similar name. It is not entered in any modern map which I have seen, except that in Rees' Cyclopœdia, where it receives the name of Ermajil, evidently derived from the map in the French or Dutch edition of Abbé Prévost's Histoire Générale des Voyages, Vol. xv., where it bears the same name, and is apparently set down from the statement of the Nubian Geographer. It is not in Ouseley's small map, prefixed to his Epitome of the Ancient History of Persia, which, however, includes some other names given only by the Arab geographers.

add footnotes

[p.365]: With respect to its locality, we read of Chach's going to it on his way from the Indus to Makrán, and his finding there a governor on the part of the late ruler of Sind; and we also read of Muhammad Kásim capturing it on his way from Makrán to Debal (pp. 119, 151 and 157). Istakhrí and Ibn Haukal speak of it as being in the province of Makrán, and six days' journey from Kíz, our modern Kedge. The other Arab geographers, as usual, follow these authorities.

Combining all these several names and statements together, I am disposed to consider that Armá-bel is the ancient and correct reading; and that its name is partly preserved in, while its position corresponds with, the modern Bela, the capital of the province of Las. It is placed on a considerable eminence-a strong and rocky site on the northern bank of the Purálí (the Arabis of the ancients); and, though it is now partly surrounded by a sorry mud wall, and contains only about 300 houses, there are old Muhammadan sepulchres and other vestages of antiquity in its neighbourhood, especially about five miles to the westward, which seem to indicate its greater importance at some former period. Coins, trinkets, and funereal jars are occasionally found there; and in the nearest point of the contiguous hills, separating the province of Las from the old town of Jhow, numerous caves and rock-temples exist, ascribed by tradition to Farhád and the fairies, but which have been considered by an observant traveller to be the earthly resting abodes of the former chiefs, or governors, of the province.1

What adds much to the probability of this identification is, that Bela is mentioned in the native histories, not simply as Bela, but as Kárá-Bela; showing that it has been usual to prefix another name, which is now dropped in ordinary converse.


The Askalanda, Asal-kanda, and Askalandra of the Chach-náma is the same as the Askaland and 'Askaland-Úsa of the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh, and the Askandra and Askanda of the Tuhfatu-l Kirám. The close correspondence of name, especially in the last instance, induces us at once to recognise it as identical with the Alexandria built at the confluence of the Acesines with the Indus; but a little

add footnote

examination will show this resemblance to be more specious than real.1

The ancient kingdom of Sind was divided in four Satrapies, of which the third (v. supra, p. 138) comprised the fort of Askalanda and Máíbar,2 "which are also called Talwára and Chachpúr." It is evident, from the description of the other Satrapies, that this one contained the whole tract north-east of Alor, and south-east of the Panjnad and Ghara; almost precisely the same, in short, as the present Dáúdpútra country. Now Máíbar and Chachpúr still exist, under the modernised names of Mírbar and Cháchar, close together at the very junction of the Acesines and Indus, on the eastern side of the river, opposite to Mittankot; and in them, therefore, we should have to look for Alexandria, if, which is not probable, it was on the left bank of the Indus. Consequently, Askalanda must have been higher up the river, as subsequent passages will show.

In the time of Chach (p. 141), the governor of Pábiya "south of the river Bíás," fled to Askalanda, which, therefore, was not likely to have been far from, or across, that river. Again, some years after, (pp. 202, 203), we find Muhammad Kásim breaking up his camp at Pábiya,3 "on the southern bank of the Bíás," to go to Aska-landa. It is not expressly mentioned that he crossed that river, and we may presume, therefore, that he did not. Nowhere else do we find any indication of its position; but, as will be seen in the note upon the Meds, it was the capital when Jayadratha and Dassál ruled in Sind.

Its proximity to the Bíás and its name of Askaland-Úsa4 lead us to regard it as the Úchh of more modern times. That place bears marks of the most undoubted antiquity, and the absence of all mention of it in the Chach-náma where we are, both in the time of Chach and Muhammad Kásim, introduced to many transactions in its

add footnotes

[p.367]: neighbourhood, can only be accounted for on the supposition that it is disguised under some other appellation.

It has been supposed, indeed, that the name of the Oxydracæ is derived from this old town of Úchh, but their position, according to Strabo and Arrian, appears rather to have been on the western side of the Acesines; and it is a curious coincidence that, in that direction also, there is another ancient Úchh, now in ruins, near the junction of the Hydaspes with that river, which offers a far more probable identification, and allows us, moreover, to assign to the Ossadii, instead of the Oxydracæ, the Úchh, or Askaland-Úsa, near the junction of the Hyphasis with the Acesines. The name of the Oxydracæ assumes various forms in different authors.-Hydracœ in Strabo, Syracousœ in Diodorus, Scydroi, Scothroi, and Scythroi in Dionysius, Sydraci in Pliny, Sygambri in Justin, and Oxydracœ in Strabo, Arrian, Curtius, Stephanus, and others; but in no author are they confounded with the Ossadii, which constituted a separate tribe, acting entirely independent of the Oxydracœ.

It is certain that neither the upper nor lower Alexandria was built near the present Úchh. So cursorily, indeed, does Arrian notice the confluence near that spot, that Major Rennell and Dr. Vincent carry the Hyphasis direct into the Indus, without bringing it first into the Acesines. Nevertheless, although Alexander may himself have raised no city there, we might still be disposed to admit that the celebrity of his power and conquests may have given rise to the name of Askaland, or Askandra, did we not reflect that, if we are to put any trust in the chronology of the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh , the name must have preceded the invasion of the Grecian conqueror, and cannot therefore, independent of the other reasons above mentioned, be connected with it.1

["Maibar" is the reading of Sir H. Elliot's MS. in this passage, but "Pábiya" is the more general spelling. See supra, p. 138, 140.]


[This name occurs in the list of the cities of Sind as given by

add footnote

[p.368]: Istakhrí (p. 27), and the Ashkalu-l Bilád of Ibn Haukal (p. 34), but no description is given of the place. Idrísí says that it is a small but pleasant place, about three days' journey from Mansúra on the road to Mámhal, and so it is laid down in the maps of Istakhrí and the Ashkálu-l Bilád. It is not mentioned by Abu-l Fidá, nor in the Marasidu-l Ittilá'. The Bhátí mentioned by Bírúní at page 61, and the Bátiya in the Chach-náma (p. 174), are probably variant spellings of the same name.]


[p.368]: Bhambúra, or Bhambúr, is not named in our oldest works on Sind; but it is mentioned in a modern native historian as having been captured during the Khalifat of Hárúnu-r Rashíd. It is the scene of many legendary stories of Sind; and, according to one of them, owes its destruction in a single night to the divine wrath which its ruler's sins drew down upon it. Its ruins skirt the water's edge for about a quarter of a mile, and cover a low hill almost surrounded by a plain of sand, a little to the right of the road from Karáchí to Ghára, and about two miles from the latter place. There are evident marks of its having been at one time flourishing and populous; and even now, after heavy rains, coins, ornaments, and broken vessels are found among the debris of the fort.

Coupling these manifest signs of antiquity, with the fact that the natives commonly considered Bhambúr as the oldest port in Sind, and that the legend at page 332, proves its connection with the main stream of the Indus, it may possibly represent the Barbarik Emporium of the Periplus, and the Barbari of Ptolemy; the easy conversion from the native Bhambúr into the more familiar Barbari being a highly probable result of the wanton mispronunciation to which the Greeks were so much addicted. But opposed to this is the statement of Arrian, that Barbarike was on the centre stream of the Delta, which would make Láhorí-bandar its more likely representative. Perhaps in Arrian's time there may have been direct communication between the main channel and Bhambúr.1

add footnote


[p.369]: In the time of the native dynasties which preceded the Arabs, the capital of Lower Sind was Bráhmanábád.

[The old name of the place, according to Bírúní, was Bahmanu or Bahmanwá. The Ashkálu-l Bílád calls it Bámíwán (p. 34), but Ibn Haukal gives the name as "Támírámán" according to Gilde-meister, and "Mámíwán" according to Major Anderson. Idrísí has Mírmán (p. 78), but this is obviously a blunder. In the Chach-náma, the name is written Báín-wáh, and in the Táríkh-i Táhiri, Páín-wáh. It is probably the Bhámbaráwáh of the Tuhfatu-l Kirám (p. 332). Captain McMurdo writes it Báhmana, and Briggs "Bamunwasy."1]

Under its immediate government were included Nírún, Debal, the country of the Lohánas, the Lákhas, and the Sammas, and the whole southern coast. Its position, therefore, was one of great importance, and as its ruin is comparatively modern, it is surprising that so much doubt should exist with respect to its locality.

Various positions have been assigned to Bráhmanábád. The Áyín-i Akbarí says the fort had 1400 bastions, and that "to this day there are considerable vestiges of this fortification;"2 but it is not said in what direction, or on which side of the river, it lay; but the mention of the bastions would seem to point out that Kalákot was probably indicated. In a passage in the Beg-Lár-náma, mention is made of "a place called Matáhila, near the fortress of Bráhmanábád, twenty kos distant from Nasrpúr" (MS. p. 80). Dr. Vincent says it was within four miles of Thatta, and corresponded with Pattala,3 concurring in this with D'Anville and Rennell.

Capt. McMurdo fixes it on the Púrán, afterwards called Lohána Daryá, but it is not quite plain what he means by the Lohána Daryá.4 He, at any rate, altogether repudiates Thatta and Kalákot, and we must look for his Bráhmanábád near Nasrpúr. "It was situated on the Lohána Daryá, at a short distance from where it separates from the Púrán." Again, "On or near the Púrán river, in what was subsequently

add footnotes

[p.370]: called the Shahdadpúr Pergana. Báhmana was afterwards called Díbal Kángara."1 Dr. Burnes fixes it at Kalákot,* and so does Sir A. Burnes.2 Capt. Postans says Bhambúra, mentioning at the same time native tradition in favour of Khudábád, a little above Haidarábád.4

There seems no reason to conclude that the Bráhmanábád, or Bahmanábád, of which we are treating, was founded by the Persian king, Bahman, upon his invasion of Sind. His city is expressly said to have been built in the province of Budha,5 which never extended so far as the Indus. Nor is it probable that, had he built a city on the Indus, he would have done so on the eastern, rather than on the western, bank of that river. The fact is, that Bahmaná-bád is a mere abbreviated form of Bráhmanábád; and is still a very common mode of elision throughout Western India and the Dekhin, where Bráhman, in common parlance, is usually converted into Bahman.

Though the Chach-náma does not anywhere expressly point out where Bráhmanábád was situated, we are at any rate assured, from several passages, that it was on the eastern side of the Indus, and this alone is sufficient to show that the speculations which have been raised, respecting the identity of Kalákot and Thatta with that old capital, rest upon no solid foundation.

We may fairly consider, in general terms, that Bráhmanábád, after being intermediately succeeded by the Arab capital Mansúra, is now represented by the modern Haidarábád; and although it may not have been upon the identical spot occupied by the modern capital, it was at least within the island, or peninsula, formed by the Falailí and the main stream of the Indus, from which the former seems to have diverged in old days at a point higher than at present. Matárí, indeed, would seem to be the most probable site of the city, with reference to the quotation given above from the Beg-Lar-náma. To fix it higher up, as at Khudábád or Hála, would take it too far from Mansúra, which we have next to consider.

Biládurí tells us that old Bráhmanábád was about two parasangs distant from Mansúra, which, in the time of Muhammad Kásim, was

add footnotes

[p.371]: occupied by a forest1 (p. 122). When we consider the space which is always covered by the sites of old Indian towns, from the straggling mode of their erection, we are authorized to conclude that a large portion of Bráhmanábád was included in Mansúra, and that, in point of fact, the two sites are identical. The position of Haida-rábád, upon a ridge of limestone hills about eighty feet high, must, from the first, have pointed out that site as a commanding one for a capital, and it has probably ever been thus occupied, by successive towns, from the first dawn of Sindian civilization. It is, indeed, on the site of Bráhmanábád that D'Anville would place the earlier Minagara, in which he is followed by Reinaud.2

The 'Ajáíbu-l Makhlúkát says that Nasrpúr was built on the site of Mansúra, and the same opinion is expressed by D'Anville,3 and accredited by the local information of Capt. McMurdo. Tieffen-thaler,4 Vincent,5 Rennell,6 Tod,7 and Gildemeister,8 misled by the mistake of Abú-l Fazl,* fix Mansúra at Bhakkar. M. Reinaud considers the testimony of Biládurí, Mas'údí, Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal, and Al Birúní to bear out D'Anville entirely in his position of Nasrpúr; but the mere fact that all the geographers agree in representing a branch of the Indus as flowing by Mansúra, is quite sufficient to dislodge Nasrpúr, which is twelve miles from the nearest point of the river.

Biládurí tells us that, after Hakim had built Mahfúza on the Indian side of the lake,-or body of water, whatever it may have been,10 -his successor 'Amrú built Mansúra on this (the western) side, and established it as the capital. M. Reinaud says, "Mahfúza was built in the neighbourhood of the capital (Bráhmanábád), on the other side of a lake fed by the waters of the Indus." I do not find on what authority this is stated. Mansúra was, indeed, two

add footnotes

[p.372]: parasangs from Bráhmanábád, and M. Reinaud is right in stating that these two latter names were often used the one for the other,1 - for they are so combined and converted both by Ibn Haukal and Bírúní;2 but beyond the announcement that Mahfúza was on the eastern side of the bahaira (lake, marsh, or inundation of the Indus), and Mansúra on the western, we have nothing which indicates the true position of Mahfúza.

It appears to me that Mahfúza, and not Mansúra, is represented by Nasrpúr. Indeed, independent of the position with reference to the eastern and western side of the stream above mentioned, it is worthy of remark, that the meaning of the two names is the same- both signifying "the protected, the abode of refuge." The identity, or resemblance of name, therefore, would be as much in favour of Mahfúza as Mansúra.

Nasrpúr, which modern authorities universally spell as Násirpúr, was built, or rather re-constructed, on the river Sánkra, by Amír Nasr, who was detached by Sultán Fíroz Sháh for that purpose, with a thousand cavalry, in 751 A.H., 1350 A.D. Nasrpúr was subsequently the favourite residence of the Tarkháns, and was greatly embellished by them during their brief rule.3

It being shown above that Mansúra is nearly identical with Bráhmanábád, it remains to prove that both are not far distant from the modern capital of Haidarábád.

Among the reasons for considering Mansúra to be identical with Haidarábád, is the position assigned to it by Istakhri and Ibn Haukal, who describe it as being "a mile long and a mile broad, and surrounded by a branch of the Indus." This is the mode in which it is also described by Kazwíní. Notwithstanding this, it is laid down in the map of the Ashkálu-l Bilád.4 as being situated on the main stream. Istakhrí's map rightly locates it on the branch, but Ibn Haukals' map, as printed by Major Anderson,5 places it about midway between the two. The island, to be sure, is out of all proportion

add notes

[p.373]: large, but its position necessarily identifies it with that which is formed by the Falailí and the Indus,-and the space which the town is represented to have occupied is exactly that which constitutes the limestone ridge on which Haidarábád is built.

The distances laid down also by Ibn Haukal are, with one exception sufficiently correct. Thus, from Mansúra to Debal is six days' journey, which is exact,-on the supposition that Debal, as elsewhere shown, is Karáchí. From Mansúra to Túrán is fifteen days' journey, which also agrees well enough with Haidarábád. From Mansúra to Kandábel (Gandáva) is eight days' journey, which also agrees very well.-"He who travels from Mansúra to Budha must go along the banks of the Indus as far as Sihwán,"-which shows Mansúra to be close on the Indus, as, indeed, it is elsewhere expressly declared to be, and not so far removed as Nasrpúr. From Mansúra to Cambay is twelve days' journey. Here the distances are long, but the desert must have made continuous travelling indispensable, as the halting places were necessarily reduced to the smallest possible number.

The widest departure from the ordinary distance is that between Mansúra and Multán, which is set down by Ibn Haukal at only twelve days' journey. This is very rapid, considering that about four hundred miles separate them, requiring an average of thirty-three miles a day. But though the average be high, it is certainly not beyond the means of conveyance where camels are abundant, as in Sind.

Bírúní lays down the distance at fifteen parasangs from Multán to Bhátí, another fifteen from Bhátí to Alor, and twenty from Alor to Mansúra-making the entire distance only fifty parasangs from Multán to Mansúra; while, at the same time, he gives it as thirty parasangs from Mansúra to Loharání Bandar (p. 61). There is here also a surprising abridgment of the former distance, which, may perhaps be accounted for by considering the frontier to be reckoned from in one instance, and the capital in the other. Still, such an error or inconsistency in a space so frequently traversed, is not easily accounted for, occurring as it does in two such trustworthy authorities as Ibn Haukal and Birúní; and it would have been satisfactory to find some more plausible solution. Mas'údí, with a much nearer approach to correctness, gives the distance as seventy-five

[p.374]: parasangs between Multán and Mansúra, and his statement may be considered a sufficient corrective of the other geographers (p. 24).

It may be proper to add, that none of these ancient places, mentioned in this and other Notes, have sites assigned to them in any modern maps. Burnes, Wieland, Vivien de St. Martin, Berghaus, Zimmermann, all reject them. D'Avezac enters some, but all erroneously, except Debal,-at least, according to the principles above enunciated. Even Kiepert, in his valuable Karte von Alt-Indien , Berlin, 1853, drawn up for the illustration of Professor Lassen's Indische Alterthumskunde, enters only Bráhmanábád; and that he places on the right bank of the presumed ancient course of the Sindhu, which he has laid down as flowing far to the eastward of the present Indus. As he has admitted other names more modern than these, he should not have ignored them all.

[Since the death of Sir H. Elliot the remains of a buried city, supposed to be the ancient Bráhmanábád, have been discovered and explored by Mr. A. F. Bellasis, of the Bombay Civil Service. The exact position of the ruins is stated to be forty-seven miles northeast of Haidarábád, and if their investigator is right in believing them to be the ruins of Bráhmanábád, the question of the position of that city is put at rest. The identification has presumption in its favour, though it has not yet been satisfactorily proved; and one circumstance is strongly against it:-Large numbers of coins were discovered among the ruins; but the great bulk of these were Muhammadan, and the few Hindu coins that were brought to light "seem to be casual contributions from other provinces, of no very marked uniformity or striking age." Were the ruins those of an old Hindu city, Hindu coins of a distinct character would probably have been found. The coins discovered were those of Mansúr bin Jamhúr, Abdu-r Rahmán, Muhammad 'Abdu-lláh and Umar (see supra, p. 127).1]

Debal.-Karáchí.-Thatta.-Láhorí Bandar.

It is strange that the site of a port once so noted as Debal should now be left to vague conjecture; but amongst the fluctuating channels of the Sindian Delta we must rest content with mere surmises.

add notes


Some of the various opinions entertained upon the question of its locality may be here noticed. Native authorities seem decidedly in favour of considering Thatta to represent Debal, following generally the text of Firishta.1 Mír Ma'súm ignorantly observes that Debal is Thatta and Láhorí Bandar.2 Abú-l Fazl is equally inexact, or rather more so.3 Idrísí (supra, p. 77) and the Arabian geographers having determined that Debal was six stations from the mouth of the Indus, Thatta was necessarily the only site which could be selected.

Modern authors have also for the most part inclined to Thatta, including De la Rochette and Rennell. Capt. McMurdo, while he says that Thatta is still known to the Arabs by the name of Debal alone, shows that the latter must have been a seaport.4 Sir A. Burnes says, also, that Thatta is called by the Arabs Dewal Sindy,5 and himself assigns Kalánkot as its position.6 Lieut. Burton says, we are certain that the modern Thatta occupies the ground of the ancient Dewal, as the Arabs and Persians know it by no other name,-Shál-i Debalí still being used to mean a shawl of Thatta manufacture.7

D'Anville more correctly establishes it on one of the mouths of the Indus;8 and some others, resigning Thatta, have assigned other localities to Debal. M. Reinaud inclines to the neighbourhood of Karáchí;9 and so does Elphinstone.10 Dr. Burnes says it occupied a site between Karáchí and Thatta, in which he follows Mr. Nathaniel Crow,11 one of the first of our modern enquirers in Sind, who combined much discrimination with ample opportunities of local knowledge.

But there can be no question that Debal was on, or close to, the sea-coast; with which the distant inland position of Thatta is by no means correspondent. For my own part, I entertain little doubt that Karáchí itself represents the site of Debal. The very name of

add notes

[p.376]: Debal, or rather Dewal, "the temple," was doubtless acquired from the conspicuous position which that object must have occupied from the sea; where it was calculated to attract the gaze and reverence of the passing mariner, like its fellow shrines of Dwáraka and Somnát; and as there is no other so eligible and commanding a spot along the whole coast of Sind, from Cape Monze to Kotesar, it is highly probable that the promontory on which fort Manora now stands is the identical site occupied by the celebrated temple which gave name to the port of Debal,1 and which, as being the Palladium of its security, was the chief object of attack to the catapults which had been brought round by the sea to effect its destruction.2

The following may be mentioned amongst the reasons why Debal cannot possibly have been Thatta, and which incline us to view Karáchí with favour:-

The Sarandíp vessels were, in their distress, driven to "the shore of Debal" (p. 118).3 It could not, therefore, have been an inland town like Thatta, fifty miles from the nearest point of the sea, and one hundred miles by any of the tortuous channels of the Delta.

The pirates who attacked them were "dwellers at Debal, of the tribe which they call Tangámara." Now, these Tangámaras we know to have occupied the sea-coast from Karáchí to Láhorí Bandar, and to be the popular heroes of several local tales-especially their Ráná 'Ubaid, who lived even as late as the year 1000 A.H. (1591 A.D.).4

Biládurí also speaks of "the Bay of Debal" (p. 116), and of the ships which had been despatched from the Persian Gulf, arriving at Debal with soldiers and mangonels (p. 120). Elphinstone considers this latter fact as decisive against Thatta;5 but too much may be built on this argument, for, subsequently, we find these same mangonels carried by water even to Nairún.

Ibn Haukal says, Debal is a "large port on the shore of the sea,

add notes

[p.377]: the emporium of this and the neighbouring regions. It lies to the west of the Mihrán,1 and has no large trees or date-palms" (p. 37). It is indeed a place of great sterility, and only occupied on account of its trade. Nothing can be more decisive against the fertile Thatta, and in favour of the barren Karáchí.

Again, from Debal to Mansúra is six stages, which, on the supposition that the latter, as elsewhere shown, is Haidarábád, would not suit Thatta in any respect, but exactly suits Karáchí.

The Marásidu-l Ittilá says Debal or Daibul, as it writes the name in Arabic fashion, is a celebrated city "on the shore of the sea of Hind, an emporium where the rivers of Lahore and Multán discharge themselves into the salt sea.2

Further quotations need not be added to show that Debal was on the sea-coast, and could not have been so far inland as Thatta, or even Láhorí Bandar, which, however, is the next most probable site after Karáchí.

Láhorí Bandar, or Lárí Bandar, succeeded Debal as the sea-port of the Indus, and is first named by Bírúní; but Debal had evidently maintained its position down to the time of Jalálu-d dín's incursion into Sind, in 1221 A.D. It will appear, afterwards, from the extracts taken from the Jahán-kusháí, that the Sultán conducted himself with the greatest severity towards the people of that port, for he plundered the country, and as he erected a mosque opposite to a Hindú temple, during his short stay there, it is evident that the place was considered then to be of sufficient consequence to be insulted in the wantonness of his fanaticism.

In Ibn Batúta's time, about a century latter (1333 A.D.), we have no mention of Debal, which seems then to have been superseded entirely by Láhorí Bandar.

Láhorí has itself been taken to be Debal. The Tuhfatu-l kirám, indeed, distinctly asserts that "what is now Bandar Láhorí was in former times called Bandar Debal:"-but its authority is not to be rated high in such matters,3 and while, confessedly, there are some

add notes

[p.378]: points slightly in favour of its being Debal, there are others which are decisive against it. It is itself fifteen miles from the shore of the sea: it has no bay: and a passage in Bírúní is very conclusive:- where, after saying that the gulf of Túrán (the present bay of Súnmíání) lies between Tíz and Debal, he adds, that beyond the gulf of Túrán are the small and great mouths (of the Indus), the one near the town of Loharáni, the other to the east, on the borders of Kachh. The country (between them) bears the name of Sind Ságara, or the sea of Sind (pp. 49. 65).1 Loharání (Láhorí) is here mentioned as quite distinct from Debal, and was then evidently only just rising into importance, Ibn Batúta calls the place "Láhiríya" or "Láhari"2 -but it generally goes now by the name of Láhorí, probably from its presumed connection with Lahore. Its ruin and abandonment have now given a greater prominence to the port of Dhárája, which lies a little to the east of Láhorí.

The original name was most likely Lárí, being so called after Lár, the local name of the southern portion of the province of Sind.

The name of Lár had once a very great extension on these southern coasts,-for Ptolemy and the Periplus both mention Guzerát under the name of Larice;3 and Bírúní and Abú-l Fidá place Somnát, and even Tána, in or on the borders of the province of Lár (supra, p. 61).4 The merchant Sulaimán, also, calls the gulf of Cambay and the waters which wash the Malabar coast "the seas of Lár:"5 and Mas'údí says, that "at Saimúr, Subára, Tána and other towns a language called Láriya is spoken," so that, it seems not unreason¬able to suppose that Lárí Bandar was the original form under which this port was first known.6

add notes

Hála-kandí.-The Hellenes.-Pindus.

[p.379]: The ruins of old Hála, or Hála-kandi, on the Indus, thirty miles above Haidarábád, lie to the south-east of the present site. Had its name appeared in the Chach-náma, we might have ascribed its foundation to the Rájá Hál, mentioned in p. 106. Tod names a later prince of the Samma family as the founder.1

It is probable that the designation of the Hála range of mountains has a similar origin, for we nowhere find them mentioned in any early work; but such a very modern attribution would scarcely satisfy a late writer, who sees in them the cradle of the great Hellenic race:-

"The land of Hellas, a name so dear to civilization and the arts, was so called from the magnificent range of heights situated in Beloochistan, styled the 'Hela' mountains. * * * The chiefs of this country were called 'Helaines,' or the 'chiefs of the Hela.'"2

He gives as a motto to this fanciful chapter on the Hellenes, the following lines from the fragments of Hesiod:-

Chiefs of the war-car, guards of holy Right,
Dorus and Æolus, and Zuthus' might
From HELLEN sprang.

As he conceives Æolus to represent the Haiya tribe of Rájpúts, it is surprising that he disregards the more obvious resemblance of Dorus and Zuthus to the mighty Dors and the energetic Zats;-the former now nearly extinct, the latter now better known as the wide-spread Jats.

Another mountain range in the same neighbourhood is even still more unduly exalted, in a mode which sets all true relations of time, space, position, and language, at complete defiance.

"I would now direct the reader's attention to the most salient feature in the land of Hellas. The mountain chain of PINDUS, traversing a considerable portion of Greece, and forming the boundary between Thessaly and Epirus, takes its name from the PIND. Its present name is Pind Dadun Khan * * * * whence the Pind or "Salt Range" of Afghanistan was naturally transferred to a corresponding

1. Travels in Western India,p. 474, Halar in Gujarat is called after Jareja Prince of the same name.
2. E. Pococke, India in Greece,p.48. This is an unfair contortion in order to suit the etymology: the realm spelling being Hala, or more correctly Hara, so that we have, unfortunately, nothing but the simple initial aspirate to support the grand Hellenic hypothesis,-see the Tuhfatu-l Kiram, MS, pp.130,164.

[p.380]: remarkable feature in Greece. It is not a little remarkable, that in the latter country the true Pindus * * * should give nearly the corresponding length of the Pind in Afghanistan, viz., a distance of about sixty miles."1

This elaborate super-structure is based on an utterly false assumption. The salt range is not, and never was, called the Pind. Pind is a common word in the Upper Panjáb, signifying simply "a village," and recurs a hundred times over in that locality-as Pind Bhattiyan, Pind Malik Aulyá, Pindi Ghaib, Rawal Pindi, etc., etc.- and so, Pind Dádan Khán merely means the "village of Dádan Khán," and one, moreover, of modern erection. The word "Pind," indeed, has only lately been introduced into the Panjáb-long even after the name of the celebrated Grecian mountain was itself con-verted into the modern Agrapha.

The whole of this arrogant and dogmatical work is replete with similar absurdities; and yet the only notices it has received from our Reviewers are of a laudatory character. It is to be feared that no English publication of late years will go so far as this to damage our literary reputation in the eyes of continental scholars; and it is therefore to be regretted that it has not yet received the castigation due to its ignorance and presumption.*


[About a mile, or half a parasang, from Multan was the castle or fortified residence of the governor, which Istakhrí calls Jandrúd. The Ashkálu-l Bilad, according to Sir H. Elliot, reads Chandráwar, but the initial ch is at best suspicious in an Arabic work; the map has Jandrúd. Gildemeister's Ibn Haukal has Jandrár, Jandar, and Jandaruz; and Idrísí says Jandúr. Ibn Haukal helps us to the right reading when he says, the Jandarúz is a river, and the city of Jandarúz stands on its banks. Immediately before this he had been speaking of the river Sandarúz, which is evidently the Sind-rúd, so that we may at once conclude that the final syllable is the Persian rúd (river). Sir H. Elliot, in a subsequent passage, supposes it to

[p.381]: derive its first syllable from the Arabic word Jand, a cantonment or military colony,-in which case the name would signify the "cantonment on the river." But Háfiz Ábrú, in an extract which will appear in Vol. II., informs us that the river Chináb was called "Jamd;" the name of the place, therefore, may have been Jamd-rúd. Multán itself is situated about three miles from the Chináb, so that Jandrúd, or Jamdrúd, must have been its port on that river.]


This name appears under the various aspects of Kaikánán, Kíkán, Kaikán, Kízkánan, Kabarkánán and Kírkáyán,-the first being of most frequent occurrence. Though so often mentioned, we can form but a very general idea of its position.

The Chach-náma tells us that, under the Ráí dynasty, the Sindian territory extended "as far to the north as the mountains of Kirdán1 and Kaikánán" (p. 138). Again, the Arabs "marched in A.H. 38 to Kaikánán, by way of Bahraj and Koh-páya," where, after some partial successes, their progress was intercepted by the mountaineers in their difficult defiles, and in the end the Arabs sustained a complete defeat. One of the objects of these expeditions to Kaikánán, which lasted for about twenty years, was to obtain horses from that province, as they are represented to have been celebrated for their strength and proportions. The tract of Budh was reached during one of these incursions, and we find one of the Arab armies returning from another incursion by way of Síwistán.2

Biládurí also mentions these expeditions, with some slight variations in the details; and is the only author who adopts the spelling of the Arabic káf, and omits the last syllable,-representing the name as "Kíkán," or "Kaikán" (p. 116),-whereas the Chach-náma prefers Kaikánán (p. 138). He says "it forms a portion of Sind in the direction of Khurásán," and he speaks of "Turks" as its inhabitants. In an important expedition directed against a tract of country lying between Multán and Kábul, in A.H. 44, "Turks are encountered in the country of Kaikán." In another, 'Abd-ulla sends to Muá'wiya the "horses of Kaikán" (p. 117), which he had

add notes

[p.382]: taken amongst other spoil. In another, Asad attacks the Meds, after warring against Kaikán (p. 117). In the year 221 H. Biládurí speaks of a portion of Kaikán as occupied by Jats, whom 'Amrán defeated, and then established within their country the military colony of Baizá (p. 128). On this occasion, the country was attacked from the side of Sind, not from Makrán, which will account for the mention of the "Jats," instead of "Turks."

It may also be doubted if the Kabákánán (p. 39) or Kízkánán of Ibn Haukal refers to this tract,-and yet it would be more difficult to account for its total omission, if it do not. According to them, Kaikánán was in the district of Túrán, and a city in which the governor of Kusdár resided. This apparent discrepancy can only be reconciled by supposing that there was both a province and town of that name. They give us no further indication of its position, except that the district of Atal is said to lie between Kaikánán and Kandábel,-which, of itself, attributes to it a much greater extension to the north, than if it were a mere portion of Túrán.1

The later Arab geographers follow these authorities, and add nothing further to our information.

Abú-l Fazl Baihakí mentions Kaikahán amongst the other provinces under the authority of Mas'úd, the Ghaznivide; and as Hind, Sind, Nímroz, Zábulistán, Kasdár, Makrán, and Dánistán are noticed separately, it shows that Kaikáhán was then considered a distinct jurisdiction.2

In Hwen Tsang's travels we have mention of the country of Kikan, situated to the south of Kábul, which is evidently no other than the province of which we are treating.3

From this time forward, we lose sight of the name, and are left to conjecture where Kaikánán was. Under all the circumstances of the case, we may be justified in considering it so far to the east as to include the Sulaimání range, which had not, up to a comparatively late period, been dignified with that name. As with respect to Asia, and many other names of countries, so with respect to Kaikánán, the boundaries seem to have receded with the progress of discovery; and though, on its first mention, it does not appear to have extended

add notes

[p.383]: beyond Shál and Mustúng, yet, by the time of the Ghaznivides, we are authorised to conclude that it reached, on the east, to the frontier of Multán, and, on the south, to the hilly tract of Síwistán, above the plains of Sind.

Under the present condition of Afghanistan it may be considered, in general terms, as including the whole of the country occupied by the Kákars. The expedition of A.H. 44 to the country between Multán and Kábul certainly shows that Kaikánán must have comprised the Sulaimání range to the south of the Gúmal; and the celebrity of its horses would appear to point to a tract further to the west, including Saháráwán and Múshkí, where horses, especially those used on the plain of Mangachar, are still in great demand, and whence they are often sent for shipment to the coast.

There is no place extant which recalls the name of the old province, except it be Káhán, which was perhaps included within its south-eastern frontier. It is barely possible, also, that there may be some connection between the name of the Kákars and that of the ancient province which they occupy. It will be observed above, that Baihakí mentions a district of Dánistán, and the order in which it occurs is "Kusdár, and Makrán, and Dánistán, and Kaikáhán." This implies contiguity between the several places thus named, and it is, therefore, worthy of remark, that Dání is entered in all the genealogical lists of the Afgháns as the eldest son of Gharghasht, the son of their great progenitor, Kais 'Abdu-r Rashíd Pathán; and that Kákar, from whom the powerful tribe of that name is descended, was himself the eldest son of Dání. Names change in the course of ages, especially among people in a low stage of civilization; and it may perhaps be conceded that "Kákarán" and "Kaikáhán" would, under such circumstances, be no very violent and improbable metathesis.

Kajuráha, Capital of Jajáhoti.

[Extract of General Cunningham's Archœological Report for 1864-5,-Page 68.]

["The ancient city of Khajuráho, the capital of the Chandel Rajputs, is situated thirty-four miles to the south of Mahoba, twenty-seven miles to the east of Chhatarpur, and twenty-five miles to the

[p.384]: north-west of Panna ... The earliest mention of this capital is by Abú Ríhán, who accompanied Mahmúd in his campaign against Kalinjar in A.D. 1022. He calls it Kajuráha, the capital of Jajáhoti, and places it at thirty parasangs, or about ninety miles, to the southeast of Kanauj. The true direction, however, is almost due south, and the distance about twice thirty parasangs, or one hundred and eighty miles. The next mention of Khajuráho is by Ibn Batúta, who visited it about A.D. 1335.-He calls it Kajúra ... The earliest mention of the province is by Hwen Tsang, in A.D. 641.-He calls it Chi-chi-to, or Jajhoti ... From the accounts of Hwen Tsang, and Abú Ríhán, it is evident that the Province of Jajáhoti corresponded with the modern district of Bundelkhand in its widest extent."]

Kállarí.-Annarí.-and Ballarí.

[Such seems to be the correct spelling of three names, which appear in a great variety of forms.-Istakhrí has Kálwí, Annarí, and Balwí, but the first takes the form of Kaladi or Kalarí in his map. In the printed extract of the Ashkálu-l Bilád the names appear as Falid, Abri, and Balzí; also, as Abri, Labi, and Maildí, some of which divergences may be credited to bad copy and misprints. Gildemeister's Ibn Haukal gives them as Ayará, Válará, and Balrá; Idrisi has Atri and Kálarí; Abú-l Fidá has Kállarí, Annarí, and Ballarí, and these agree with the names as they appear in the map of the Ashkálu-l Bilád. They were three neighbouring towns on the road from Alor to Mansúra, Annarí standing first, Kállarí next, and Ballarí last in Istakhri's map, and in that of the Ashkálu-l Bilád. The termination rí or arí would seem to be a common noun, and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám writes it with the Hindí re. Idrísí says Annarí is four days journey from Alor, and Kállarí two days from Annarí, and Mansúra only one day from Kállarí. Ibn Haukal places Annarí and Kállarí on the east of the Mihran, but Idrísí says, that it stands on the western bank (p. 79); and enters into details which show pretty clearly its relative position to Mansúra. There is a "Bulrey," marked in Allen's map of Sind, about thirty miles south of Haidarábád, but this position does not correspond with the above description.]


[p.385]: It is essential to a right understanding of ancient Sindian geography to ascertain where Kandábel, of which there is such frequent mention, was situated. We can only do this by implication, and by comparison of the various passages in which the name occurs.

The Chach-náma1 mentions it in three different passages, at least, if Kandhála in the last reference be meant, as seems probable, for that place. If we are to put faith in the first passage (p. 152), there would be no need for further enquiry, as it is distinctly mentioned thus:-"Kandábel, that is, Kandahár." But it may be shown that this identification cannot possibly be admitted, for Chach reaches the place through the desert of Túrán (a province of which Kusdár was the capital),2 on his return from Armá-bel to Alor. He straitened the garrison by encamping on the river Síní, or Sibí, and compelled them to agree to the payment of one hundred horses from the hill country, and a tribute of 100,000 dirhams. Here the name of the river, and the position, put Kandahár out of the question, and we can only regard the passage as the conjecture of some transcriber, interpolated by mistake from the margin into the text.

The real fact is, that Kandábel3 can scarcely be any other place than the modern Gandáva, and we shall find, with this single exception, that all the other passages where its name occurs sufficiently indicate that as the position. Indeed, it is probable that this very instance lends confirmation to this view, for the Síní river seems to be no other than the Síbí, now called the Nárí, but flowing under the town of Síbí, and, during the floods, joining the Bolán river, into which the hill-streams, which surround and insulate Gandáva, disembogue themselves. The river which runs nearest to Gandáva is now called the Bádra.

add notes


The Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh tells us that Kandábel was founded by the Persian king, Bahman, "between the confines of the Hindus and the Turks"* (p. 106). Biládurí frequently mentions it, and speaks of Kandahár as entirely separate and distinct (pp. 117, 118, 125, 127). He tells us it was situated on a hill or elevated site, and that 'Amrán, after taking the town, transferred the principal inhabitants to Kusdár (p. 128), from which place it was situated at the distance of five parasangs.2

According to Ibn Haukal, and the corresponding passages in Istakhrí (p. 29), Ouseley's Oriental Geography, and the Ashkálu-l Bilád, Kandábel was the capital of Budha, and a large place of commercial traffic, deficient in the produce of the date-palm, and situated in a desert, eight stages from Mansúra, and ten through the desert from Multán.3

All these descriptions make Kandábel correspond sufficiently with the modern Gandáva, to leave no doubt of their identity. Later historians speak of it as being on the borders of Kirmán,4 but their notions of that province were very indefinite, and any place on the eastern confines of Sind would equally answer their loose mode of delineation. Gandáva, which is the capital of the province of Kachh Gandáva, is surrounded by a wall, and is still one of the most important places between Kelát and Shikárpúr, though greatly declined from its former state. Indeed, Bágh is a much larger, as well as more commercial town, but the credit of antiquity cleaves to Gandáva.

Kandábel, it will be observed, is represented as the capital of Budha, which, therefore, next demands our attention, This is evidently the same province as the Búdhpúr, Búdhiya, and Budápúr (p. 145) of the Chach-náma.

Under the Ráí dynasty, the second satrapy of Sind comprised, besides the town of Siwistán, which was the capital,5 "Búdhpúr,

add notes

[p.387]: and Jankán (Jangár), and the skirts of the hills of Rújhán, as far as the borders of Makrán (p. 138)." Again, "Chach marched towards the fortress of Budápúr and Siwistán." After crossing the Indus "he went to Búdhiya, the capital of which tract was Nánáráj Kákáráj), and the inhabitants of the place called it Sawís." ... "After taking the fort of the Sawís, he moved towards Siwistán" (p. 145).

When Siwistán was attacked by Muhammad Kásim, the governor fled to Búdhiya, where was "a fortress called Sísam,1 on the banks of the Kumbh," whither he was pursued by the Arab general, who encamped with a portion of his army at "Nílhán on the Kumbh." Here, the chiefs of Búdhiya determined to make a night attack upon his camp. These chiefs of Búdhiya, who were of the same family as the ruler of Sísam, are subsequently shown to be Jats;2 whose origin was derived from a place on the banks of the Gang, which they call Áúndhár."3 After failing in this expedition, they voluntarily surrendered themselves, as they had "found from the books of the Buddhists that Hindústán was destined to be conquered by the army of Islám," and then turned their arms vigorously against their former comrades. On Muhammad's advancing to Sísam, "some of the idolaters fled to Búdhya, higher up: some to the fort of Bahítlúr, between Sálúj and Kandhábel" (p. 162); and there sued for peace, and after agreeing to pay tribute, sent their hostages to Siwistán.

In the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh we read that Bahman, the Persian king, "built in the country of Budh a town called Bahmanábád, which according to some is Mansúra" (p. 106).

[Biládurí mentions this tract as the scene of the slaughter of Budail (p. 119), and it is, perhaps, disguised under the name of Basea in p. 123.] In Istakhrí (p. 29), and in Ibn Haukal, it assumes the form of Budh, or Budha. "The infidel inhabitants within the borders of Sind are called Budha and Mand. They reside in the tract between

add notes

[p.388]: Túrán, Multán, and Mansúra, on the western bank of the Mihrán. They live in huts made of reeds and grass" (p. 38). Again, "Atal is inhabited by Musulmáns and infidel Budhas."1 ... "From Mansúra to the first borders of Budha is fifteen stages2 (p. 39), and any one who travels that road must go along the banks of the Mihrán until he reaches Sadústán (Sihwán)."

"Nadha," or "Nudha," seems to be the reading preferred by Idrísí (p. 83), and the Nubian geographer. Kazwíní describes the country as having a population resembling the Zat, and yielding plenty of rice and cocoa-nuts. It also produces camels with double humps, which being rarely found elsewhere, were in great demand in Khurásán and Persia.3 Ibn Haukal also remarks upon the excellence of its breed of camels. The Marásidu-l Ittilá'4 likewise approves of the initial N, instead of B; but these later authorities are of no value, when arrayed against the repeated instances to the contrary from the Chach-náma, and the great majority of the readings in Ibn Haukal and Istakhrí.5

From a comparison of all these statements, it would appear that the old tract of Budh, or Búdhiya, very closely corresponds with the modern province of Kachh Gandáva, on all four sides except the northern, where it seems to have acquired a greater extension, of which it is impossible to define the precise limits. It is worthy of remark that, in the very centre of Kachh Gandáva, there is still a place called Budha on the Nárí river, and it is possible that the name is also preserved in the Kákar tract of Borí, or Búra, forming

add notes


part of the Afghán province of Síwistán.1 In the Ayín-i Akbarí the town of Budhyán is mentioned as being on the northern frontier of Sirkár Thatta, one hundred kos from Bandar Láhorí.

It is impossible to assent to an hypothesis lately started in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, quoted above, that this tract was designated after the present Burohees, or Bráhúís. Their name itself is too modern,-besides being belied by the usual meaning ascribed to it, of "mountaineer;"-and even their partial occupation of this low eastern tract is not yet a century old. From time immemorial it has been held by the Jats, who still constitute the majority of the population, and the Bráhúís are a mere intrusive stock from the provinces of Múshkí and Jhow, and the rugged highlands of Sahá-rawán, which abut Kachh Gandáva on the westward. It has been surmised, also, that these Budhiyas were the Bhodya and Bhoja of the Puránic legends, and even the Bhotyas of Tibet. This is treading upon still more dangerous ground.2 It is far more probable that, if the name had any significant origin at all, it was derived from the possession of the Buddhist religion in its purity by the inhabitants of that remote tract, at the time when Bráhmanism was making its quiet but steady inroads by the more open and accessible course of the river Indus. [See post, Note on the Meds.]


[Omission and misplacing of the dots have caused this name to assume a very varying form in Roman characters. Ibn Khurdádba (p. 14) calls it "Kinnazbún," and Istakhrí's version (p. 29) may be so read. The Ashkálu-l Bilád (p. 34) has "Kabryún;" Gilde-meister's version of Ibn Haukal makes it "Kannazbúr;" Idrísí writes "Fírabúz," but "Kírbúz" sometimes occurs. The Marásidu-l Ittilá' has "Kírbún," but Juynboll, the editor, says this is a false reading for Kannazbúr. Biládurí (p. 119) agrees in this last spelling, and the Chach-náma has "Kannazpúr," and "Kínarbúr." The position of the place appears to correspond with that of the modern Punjgoor in Makrán.]


[p.390]: It is difficult to fix the position of Mandal, one of the places to which Junaid despatched an expedition.

The name of Mandal, or Mandalam, being applied generally to signify "a region," in Sanskrit, adds to our doubts upon this occasion. Thus we have Tonda-Mandalam, Pándú-Mandalam, Chola-Man-dalam, and many others. [Almost, or entirely, all of them being situated in the South.] The most noted Mandal of the Arab geographers was that whence Mandalí aloe-wood was derived; hence agallochum was frequently called "Mandal;" but no one seems to have known where it was situated. Kazwíní says no one can penetrate to it, because it lies beyond the equinoctial line: but he calls it a city of India, taking that word in its enlarged sense of East Indies. [The Marásidu-l Ittilá' calls it a city of Hind, but gives no indication of its locality. Abú-l Fidá has no notice of it.] Avicenna, in his Kánún, says that, according to some, it is in the middle of the land of Hind. The place here alluded to, is probably the coast of Coromandel, whence the agallochum, brought from the eastern islands, was distributed to the marts and countries of the west.

Avicenna's description might be made to apply to Mandala upon the Nerbadda, which in the second century of our era was the seat of the Haihaya dynasty of Gondwána;1 but this is, of course, too far for any Arab expedition, notwithstanding that M. Reinaud considers Ujjain and Malwa2 to have been attacked at the same period, under the orders of Junaid (p. 126). But Málabár would have been a more probable object of attack than Málwa, in the heart of India. As we proceed, we shall find other expeditions almost all directed to different points in the Guzerat peninsula,-as, indeed, was the case, even from the time of the conquest of Sind, when the inhabitants of Basra were engaged in a warfare with the Meds of Surashtra.

add notes

[p.391]: It is evident that we must seek, also, no very distant site for Mandal. Even Mandaleswara (Mandlaisar), on the Nerbadda, would be too remote. Mandor in Rájpútána, the ancient capital of the Parihárs, or Mandra in Kachh, or Mandal in Jhalawar, would be better, or the famous Mandavi, had not its ancient site been known by another name,-Ráen. Altogether, Mandal in Guzerát, better known as Oká-Mandal, offers, from its antiquity and its position as the western district of that peninsula, the most probable site for the Mandal of Junaid.

From the expression of the historian Tabarí, that the Arabs never recovered possession of Kíraj and Mandal, there would seem to be an implication that these places lay beyond the province of Sind, and that they were at no great distance from one another. They are also mentioned together in the passage under consideration. The "Kíraj" of Tabarí and the Futúhu-l Buldán seems to be the same place as the "Kaj" of Birúní. The name occurs again as "Kíraj" and "Kúraj" in the Chach-náma (pp. 189, 197), and was probably situate in, if not named from, Kachh, though the exact site of the town cannot now be established.

The position of Oká-Mandal on the opposite coast is a sufficient reason why it should be mentioned in connection with Kíraj, supposing that place to have been in Kachh; and, in the absence of more certain information, I should, for this, as well as the other reasons above given, feel disposed to consider it as the Mandal noticed by the Arab historians of the Sindian conquest.1


[Such appears to be the preferable mode of spelling the name which appears in Istakhrí as Manhánarí (p. 27), in Ibn Haukal as Manhatara, and in Idrísí as Manábarí (p. 77). It is described as being on the west of the river, three days' journey south from Sadusán (Sihwan), and two days short of Debal,-the two maps agree with this account. The route from Mansúra to Debal crosses the river at this place. It has been supposed to be the Minnagara of the ancients.-See the next article "Minnagara."]


[p.392]: Vincent thinks that the Minnagara of Ptolemy, and of the Periplus usually ascribed to Arrian, is the Manjábarí of the Arab geographers. D'Anville supposes Minnagara to be the same as Mansúra. C. Ritter says it is Tatta, so does Alex. Burnes, because Tatta is now called Sa-Minagur, and Mannert says, Binagara should be read for Minna-gara. These high authorities place it on the Indus. But although goods were landed at Barbarice, the port of the Indus, and conveyed to Minnagara "by the river," there is no reason why Minnagara should have been on that river.

The Periplus merely says, "Minnagara is inland." μεσόΎειος ή μετρόπολις αντής τής Σκνθίας ΜινναΎαρ. Again, the Periplus says, the "Metropolis of the whole country, is Minnagara, whence great quantities of cotton goods are carried down to Barygaza," or Broach, which could scarcely have been the place of export, if Minnagara had been on the Indus. But even allowing it to have been on the Indus, there is every reason to suppose it was on the eastern bank, whereas Manjábarí is plainly stated to be on the western.

Lassen derives the name of this capital of Indo-Scythia from the Sanskrit Nagara, a town, and Min, which he shows from Isidorus Characenus to be the name of a Scythian city. The Sindomana of Arrian may, therefore, owe its origin to this source. C. Ritter says Min is a name of the Sacas; if so, there can be little doubt that we have their representatives in the wild Minas of Rájputána, who have been driven but little to the eastward of their former haunts.

Minnagara is, according to Ptolemy, in Long. 115. 15. Lat. 19. 30, and he places it on the Nerbadda, so that his Minnagara, as well as that of the second quotation from the Periplus, may possibly be the famous Mándúgarh (not far from the river), and the Mánkír which the early Arab Geographers represent as the capital of the Balhará. [See the article "Balhará."]

The fact appears to be that there were two Minnagaras-one on, or near, the Indus; another on the Nerbadda (Narmada). Ptolemy's assertion cannot be gainsaid, and establishes the existence of the latter on the Nerbadda, [and this must have been the Minnagara of

[p.393]: which the Periplus represents Broach to be the port]. The one on, or near, the Indus was the capital of Indo-Scythia, and the Bina-gara, or Agrinagara, of Ptolemy. We learn from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám that in the twelfth century Minagár was one of the cities dependent on Múltán, and was in the possession of a chief, by caste an Agri, descended from Alexander. When we remember that Arrian informs us that Alexander left some of his troops, (including, no doubt, Agrians), as a garrison for the town at the junction of the Indus and Acesines, this affords a highly curious coincidence, which cannot, however, be further dilated upon in this place.1


[Extract of General Cunningham's Archœological Report for 1864-5,-Page 1.]

"In his account of the geography of Northern India, the celebrated Abú Ríhán makes the city of Narain the starting point of three different itineraries to the south, the south-west, and the west. This place has not been identified by M. Reinaud, the learned historian of ancient India, but its true locality has been accurately assigned to the neighbourhood of Jaipur. Its position also puzzled Sir H. Elliot, who says, however, that with one exception "Narwar satisfies all the requisite conditions." But this position is quite untenable, as will be seen by the proofs which I am now about to bring forward in support of its identification with Náráyan, the capital of Bairat, or Matsya.

According to the Chinese pilgrim, Hwen Tsang, the capital of the kingdom of Po-li-ye-to-lo, which M. Reinaud has identified with Páryátra, or Bairat, was situated at 500 li, or 83 2/3 miles, to the west of Mathura, and about 800 li, or 133 2/3 miles, to the south-west (read south-east) of the kingdom of She-to-tu-lo, that is, of Satadru, on the Sutlej-The bearing and distance from Mathura point unequivocally to Bairat, the ancient capital of Matsya, as the city of

add notes

[p.394]: Hwen Tsang's narrative; and this being fixed, we may identify the capital of Satadru, or the Sutlej Provinces, with the famous Fort of Hansi, which successfully resisted the arms of Mahmúd of Ghazní. According to the Tabakát-i Násirí, Hansi was the ancient capital of the Province of Siwálik, and up to the time of its capture by Mas'úd had been considered by the Hindus as impregnable.

Abú Ríhán, the contemporary of Mahmúd, places Narána, the capital of Karzát, at twenty-eight parasangs to the west of Mathura, which, taking the parasang at three and a half miles, would make the distance ninety-eight miles, or fourteen miles in excess of the measurement of Hwen Tsang. But as the narratives of the different Muhammadan historians leave no doubt of the identity of Narána, the capital of Kárzát, with Náráyana, the capital of Bairát, this difference in the recorded distance from Mathura is of little moment. According to Abú Ríhán, Narána, or Bazána,1 was called Náráyan <arabic> by the Musulmans, a name which still exists in Náráyanpur, a town situated at ten miles to the north-east of Bairat itself. From Kanauj to Narána, Abú Ríhán gives two distinct routes:-the first direct, via Mathura, being fifty-six parasangs, or 196 miles, and the other to the south of the Jumna being eighty-eight parasangs, or 308 miles. The intermediate stages of the latter route are, 1st., Asi, 18 parasangs, or 63 miles; 2nd., Sahina, 17 parasangs, or 59 1/2 miles; 3rd., Jandara (Chandrá), 18 parasangs, or 63 miles; 4th., Rajauri, either 15 or 17 parasangs, 54 or 59 1/2 miles; and 5th., Bazána, or Narána, 20 parasangs, or 70 miles. As the direction of the first stage is especially recorded to have been to the south-west of Kanauj, it may be at once identified with the Assai Ghát on the Jumna, six miles to the south of Etawa, and about sixty miles to the south-west of Kanauj. The name of the second stage is written Sahina, <arabic>, for which, by the simple shifting of the diacritical points, I propose to read Sahania, <arabic>, which is the name of a very large and famous ruined town, situated twenty-five miles to the north of Gwalior, of which some account will be given in the present report. Its distance from the Assai Ghát is about fifty-six miles. The third stage named Jandara by M. Reinaud, and Chandra by Sir Henry Elliot, I take to be Hindon, reading <arabic>. Its distance from Sahaniya by the Khetri Ghát on the Chambal river is

add notes

[p.395]: about seventy miles. The fourth stage, named Rajori, still exists under the same name, twelve miles to the south of Mácheri, and about fifty miles to the north-west of Hindon. From thence to Narainpur and Bairát, the road lies altogether through the hills of Alwar or Mácheri, which makes it difficult to ascertain the exact distance. By measurements on the lithographed map of eight miles to the inch, I make the distance to be about sixty miles, which is sufficiently near the twenty parasangs, or seventy miles of Abú Ríhán's account.

According to the other itineraries of Abú Ríhán, Narána was twenty-five parasangs to the north of Chitor in Mewár, fifty para¬sangs to the east of Multán, and sixty parasangs to the north-east of Anhalwára. The bearings of these places from Bairát are all sufficiently exact, but the measurements are more than one-half too short. For the first distance of twenty-five parasangs to Chitor, I would propose to read sixty-five parasangs, or 227 miles, the actual distance by the measured routes of the Quarter-Master General being 217 3/4. As the distance of Chitor is omitted in the extract from Abú Ríhán, which is given by Rashídu-d Dín,1 it is probable that there may have been some omission or confusion in the original of the Táríkh-i Hind from which he copied. The erroneous measurement of fifty parasangs to Multán is, perhaps, excusable on the ground that the direct route through the desert being quite impassable for an army, the distance must have been estimated. The error in the distance of Anhalwára I would explain by referring the measurement of sixty parasangs to Chitor, which lies about midway between Bairát and Anhalwára. From a comparison of all these different itineraries, I have no hesitation whatever in identifying Bazána or Narána, the capital of Karzát or Guzrat,2 with Náráyanpur, the capital of Bairát or Vairát. In Firishta the name is written either Kibrát, <arabic> as in Dow, or Kairát, <arabic> as in Briggs, both of which names are an easy misreading of <arabic> Wairát or Virát, as it would have been written by the Muhammadans.

* * * * * * *

According to Abú Ríhán the town was destroyed, and the people retired far into the interior. By Firishta this invasion is assigned to the year A.H. 413, or A.D. 1022, when the king (Mahmúd), hearing that the inhabitants of two hilly tracts named Kairát and Nárdin (or Bairát and Naráyan) still continued the worship of idols (or lions in some manuscripts), resolved to compel them to embrace the Muhammadan faith. The place was taken and plundered by Amír 'Alí."]


Amongst the many places of which it is difficult to establish the true position in ancient Sind, Nírún or Nairún is one of the most perplexing, for several reasons. Its first syllable, even, is a controverted point, and while all the French authors uniformly write it Byroun, after Abú-l Fidá,1 the English equally persist in following Idrísí2 (p. 78), and writing it Nírún and Nerún. What imparts a presumptive correctness to the French reading is, that it is set down as the birthplace of the celebrated Abú Ríhán al Birúní. But here, in limine, several strong objections may be raised,-that Abú Ríhán was a Khwárizmian, and is so called by the best authorities,-that throughout his descriptive geography of India, he is more deficient in his account of Sind than in any other part,-that he nowhere mentions it as his birthplace,-and that no one ever heard of any Bírún in Sind, though many local traditions speak of a Nírún, and concur in fixing its locality. Abú-l Fidá certainly writes it Bírún, but there is often an assumption of accuracy about him which has been far too readily conceded by the moderns; for he was merely a distant foreigner, who never left Syria except to go to Mecca and Egypt, and he was therefore compelled to copy and rely on the defective information of others. Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal, and the Ashkálu-l Bilád are not quite determinate in their reading, but the Chach-náma and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám never write it in any other form than with the initial N, followed by yá, which leaves us still in doubt whether the word be Nairún, Nírún, or Nerún; but it is certainly neither Birun, nor Bírún, nor Bairún, nor Byroun.

Other considerations with respect to the name of Abú Ríhán, will be found in the Note devoted to that philosopher, in the second volume of this work.

add notes

[p.397]: Under the dynasty of the Ráís, Nírún was included within the government of Bráhmanábád (p. 158). The inhabitants of Nírún solicited from the Arabs a cartel of protection, as their city was "on the very road of the Arabs to Sind" (p. 157). After the conquest of Debal, "Md. Kásim directed that the catapults should be sent by boat towards the fort of Nírún (p. 47), and the boats went up the stream called Sindh Ságara,1 while he himself advanced by way of Sisám"2 (p. 157). When Md. Kásim went from Debal "to the fortress of Nírún, which is twenty-five parasangs distant, he marched for six days, and on the seventh arrived at Nírún, where there is a meadow which they call Balhár, situated on the land of Barúzí,3 which the inundations of the Indus had not yet reached (p. 158), and the army consequently complained of being oppressed by thirst. This drought was seasonably relieved through the efficacy of the general's prayers,-"when all the pools and lakes which were round that city were replenished with water." He then "moved towards Síwistán (Síhwán) by several marches, until he reached Bahraj or Mauj,4 thirty parasangs from Nírún" (p. 158). After his expedition to Síwistán and Búdhiya, he was directed by Hajjáj to return to Nírún, and make preparations for crossing the Indus (p. 163). He accordingly

add notes

[p.398]: moved back by several difficult marches "to the fort which is on the hill of Nírún,"1 where there was a beautiful lake and charming grove (p. 163). This fort was the nearest point to the capital of the Khalif. After crossing the Indus, a garrison was left at Nírún, to keep open the communications in the rear and protect the con¬voys (p. 144).

Istakhrí (p. 28) and Ibn Haukal tell us that "Nírún lies between Debal and Mansúra, but nearer to the latter, and that any traveller who wishes to go to Mansúra, must cross the river Indus at Manjá-barí, which is on the western bank, and stands opposite to Mansúra" (p. 37). The subsequent geographers copy these authors, as usual, adding little further information. Idrísí places it distinctly on the western bank (p. 78). Abú-l Fidá says it is fifteen para¬sangs from Mansúra, and fixes it in latitude 26° 40', on the authority of the Kánún of Birúní.2

The name of Sákara or Ságara, which is mentioned above, requires a few words of notice. The Chach-náma merely mentions that "the fleet of Md. Kásim came to anchor in the lake of Ságara;" but the Tuhfatu-l Kirám says, "having placed his manjaníks on boats, he sent them to the fort of Nírún, by way of the water of Sakúra, while he himself marched by land."3 Elsewhere, we are informed in the same work, that "Debal, now called Thatta, was in the land of Sákúra."4 Again, Tharra, which was a strong fort near Thatta, was "in the land of Sákúra."5 Again, Dewal, Bhambúr, Bagár, and Tharra were each "excellent cities in the land of Sákúra."

In the Áyín-i Akbarí Sákúra is entered as a Pergana in Sirkár Thatta; and in the Tárikh-i Táhirí it is also spoken of as a Per-gana, lying under the Makalí hills, in which Thatta itself was included6 (p. 257). Mas'údí speaks of a Ságara or Shákira (p. 24), two days' journey from the town of Debal; and it is added that both branches of the Indus disembogue into the sea at that place. It does not seem improbable that we have the same word in the Sagapa

add notes

[p.399]: of Ptolemy and Marcianus Heracleotes, for they call it "the first and most westerly mouth of the river Indus."1

We may consider the stream of Sákúra to correspond with the prolongation of the Gisrí or Ghárá creek, which at no very distant time must have communicated with the Indus above Thatta. Indeed, Mr. N. Crow, writing in the year 1800, says, "By a strange turn that the river has taken within these five and twenty years, just above Tatta, that city is flung out of the angle of the inferior Delta, in which it formerly stood, on the main land towards the hills of Buluchistán."2

The position here assigned to the Sákúra, points out the direction where we are to look for Nírún, to which, by means of that stream, there seems to have been a water communication-at least approximate, if not direct.

It is quite evident that Nírún was on the western bank of the Indus. Not only do we find Muhammad Kásim going there in order to make due preparations for "crossing" that river, not only do we find Dáhir, on receiving the intelligence of the capture of Debal, directing Jaisiya to "cross over" from Nírún to Bráhmanábád without delay (MS. p. 102), but it is also so represented both in the text, and on the maps, of Istakhrí and the Ashkálu-l Bilád. Nevertheless, M. D'Avezac, in the map prefixed to the Memoire sur l'Inde, places it on the eastern bank. His authority stands deservedly high, but can be of no value against the positive testimony here adduced to the contrary.

How then it came in modern times to be considered identical with Haidarábád it is impossible to say, but so it is laid down unhesitatingly from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, down to the latest English tourist.3 Even if it could be accounted for by supposing that the Falailí then constituted the main stream of the Indus, we should nevertheless find that the distances assigned to Nírún from various places named would not make it correspond in position with Haidarábád.

add notes

[p.400]: And here it is obvious to remark, that the establishment of its locality depends chiefly upon the sites which are assigned to other disputed cities, more especially to Debal and Mansúra. I have elsewhere stated my reasons for considering Debal to be represented by Karáchí, and Mansúra by Haidarábád. Much also depends on the real value of the farsang,1 which greatly varied in different places, even in neighbouring provinces. As it was probably modified in Sind by the local kos, we may ascribe to it the small standard of two miles and a half, which we know it to have had upon the Tigris, according to the latest and most accurate investigations. Or, without assigning to these roughly estimated distances an accuracy which they were never intended to bear, we may consider the Sindian parasang to vary from two to three miles, so as in no instance to be less than the one, or more than the other. It is usual, and doubtless more correct, to fix the standard at a higher value than even three English miles; but this is evidently quite inapplicable in Sind, and would be even more decisive against the identity of Debal and Thatta, than the present hypothesis.2

Guided by all these considerations, I am disposed to place Nírún at Heláí, or Heláya, a little below Jarak, on the high road from Thatta to Haidarábád. The correspondences in other respects appear exact, in every instance of comparison.

It has a direct communication by a road over the hills with Bela and would be the first place in the valley of the Indus which the Arabs could reach by land, and therefore nearest to the capital of the Khiláfat.

Lakes abound in the neighbourhood, and are large enough, especially the Kinjar, to have admitted Muhammad Kásim's fleet.

add notes

[p.401]: Nírún is represented as twenty-five parasangs from Debal. (The real distance is seventy British statute miles between Heláí and Karáchí.) Nírún was situated on a hill, which would admit of its being identified with very few other places of note near the Indus. It lay between Debal and Mansúra, but was nearer to the latter. (This position also corresponds with that of Heláí). It was fifteen parasangs from Mansúra. (Thirty-five miles is the distance between Heláí and Haidarábád.) We need scarcely pursue the comparison farther. We may rest assured that Nírún was, if not at Heláí, at least at no great distance from it, and was certainly not Haidarábád. It is worthy of remark that Heláí itself is a place of undoubted antiquity, and there are two remarkable hills in its neighbourhood covered with ruins, repre¬senting perhaps the Hyala of Diodorus.* Next to Heláí, Jarak offers many points of probability. It is only twelve miles from Heláí, and therefore the distances already laid down, with no great profession of exactness, would answer nearly equally well. Its commanding position, on a ledge of rock over¬hanging the Indus, necessarily denotes it to have been always a site of importance, and this is confirmed by the evidence afforded by several substantial remains of masonry on the banks of the river, which still arrest the observation of the traveller at that place.


The Táríkh-i Alfí, in a passage relating to Sultán Jalálu-d dín's proceedings on the Indus, mentions that Sadúsán was subsequently called Sístán. Though the writer here commits the common error of confounding Sístán with Sihwán, or Siwistán, on the Indus, yet he leaves us in no doubt what correction to apply, and we thus derive from him an interesting piece of information; for the position of Sadúsán, which is so frequently mentioned in the Arab accounts of Sind, has not hitherto been ascertained.


Sámúí deserves notice from the attempt which has been made to establish it as the celebrated Minnagara of the ancient geographers. It was the capital of the Jáms of the Samma dynasty, and, according

add notes

[p.402]: to the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, it was founded by Jám Pániya,1 under the Makalí hills, about three miles north-west of Thatta.

Subsequently, the fort of Tughlikábád was built by Jám Taghúr or Tughlik, on the site of the older Kalá-kot, about two miles south of Thatta; but that, as well as its predecessor, was left unfinished by its founder (p. 272). By a strange vicissitude, the name of Tughlikábád is now comparatively forgotten, and that of Kalá-kot erroneously called Kalán-kot (the great fort), though for a time superseded, has restored the just claims of Rájá Kalá, and still attracts the attention of the traveller. Lt. Burton calls it Kallián-kot. I fear to differ from so good a local authority, but believe Kalá-kot to be more strictly correct.

The ruins of Sámúí, Samúiya, or Samma-nagar, "the city of the Sammas," are to be traced near Thatta; and, under the wrong and deceptive spelling of Sa-minagar, have induced Col. Tod, Sir A. Burnes, and many who have too readily followed them-including even Ritter, who considers the question settled "incontestably,"- to recognise in that name the more ancient and more famous Minna-gara. The easy, but totally unwarrantable, elision of the first and only important syllable has led to this fanciful identification.2

Sindán, Súbára or Súrabáya, and Saimúr.

[These three towns were all south of Kambáya, and the first two were ports. Saimúr, though a place of trade, is not distinctly said to be a port, but it is laid down on the sea-shore in the map. Abú-l Fidá says that Sindán was also called Sindábúr, but this is hardly in accordance with Al Bírúní and Rashídu-d dín (pp. 66, 68). He also notices the variant forms of Súfára and Súfála for Súbára. The route as given by Istakhrí, Ibn :Haukal and Idrísí is-

Kambáya to Surabáya, four days;
Súrabáya to Sindán, five days;
Sindán to Saimúr five days;
And the first two add, Saimúr to Sarandíb, 15 days.

Idrísí also states Broach to be two days from Saimúr. Al Birúní

add notes

[p.403]: makes the distance from Broach to Sindán fifty parasangs, and from Sindán to Súfára six parasangs. Abú-l Fida says that Sindán was the last city of Guzerat, and the first of Maníbár (Malabár), three days' journey from Tana. It is hardly possible to reconcile all these statements, but there seems to be sufficient evidence for making Sindán the most southerly. It was on a bay or estuary a mile and a-half from the sea, and the modern Damán is probably its present representative. Súbára was similarly situated at the same distance from the sea, and finds a likely successor in Surát. Istakhrí's state¬ment would make Saimúr the most southerly, but this is at variance with Mas'údi and Al Bírúní, who say that it was in Lár (the country round Broach), and with Idrísí's statement of its being at only two days' journey from Broach. But it is not easy to see how it could have been only two days from Broach and yet five from Sindán. Notwithstanding the incongruity of these statements, it must have been a place of considerable size and importance. It is the only one of these three towns that has received notice by Kazwíní. His account of the place is given in page 97 supra, but it supplies no data on which to fix the locality. Abú-l Fidá does not mention it, and the Marásidu-i Ittilá' affords no help, for it merely describes it as a city of Hind, bordering on Sind near to Debal.]


Túr was the ancient capital of the Súmra dynasty, called also by the name of Mehmetúr, and written by the local historians as Muha-tampúr and Muhammad-Túr. It was situated in the Pargana of Dirak, and its destruction has been mentioned in the Extracts from the Táríkh-i Táhirí (p. 256). But its real ruin dates only from 'Aláu-d dín's invasion of Sind.

The ancient Pargana of Dirak is represented by the modern divisions of Cháchagám and Badban on the borders of the Tharr, or sandy desert between Parkar and Wanga Bázár. There is a Pargana of Dirak still included in Thatta, which may be a portion of the older district of that name.

Another capital of the Súmras is said to have been Vijeh-kot, Wageh-kot, or Vigo-gad (for it is spelt in these various forms), five miles to the east of the Púrán river, above the Allah-band.

The site of Túr has been considered to be occupied by the modern

[p.404]: Tharri, near Budína, on the Gúngrú river. There are, to be sure, the remains of an old town to the west of that place; nevertheless, the real position of Túr is not to be looked for there, but at Sháka-púr, a populous village about ten miles south of Mírpúr. Near that village, the fort and palace of the last of the Súmras is pointed out, whence bricks are still extracted of very large dimensions, measuring no less than twenty inches by eight.1 Other fine ruins are scattered about the neighbourhood, and carved tomb-stones are very numerous. Fragments of pearls and other precious stones are occasionally picked up, which have all apparently been exposed to the action of fire. The people themselves call this ruined site by the name of Mehmetúr, so that both the name and position serve to verify it, beyond all doubt, as the ancient capital of the Súmras.

The curious combination of Muhammad-Túr, is an infallible indication that "Mehmet" and "Muhatam" are merely corruptions of "Muhammad," for this name is wretchedly pronounced in Sind. The present mode is Mammet-our own old English word for an image, or puppet, when in our ignorance we believed Mawmetrie, or the religion of the false prophet, to be synonymous with idolatry, and Mahound with the Devil. So Shakespere, in Romeo and Juliet, says-

"A whining mammet, in her fortune's tender."

And Spenser, in his Faerie Queene-

"And oftentimes by Termagant and Mahound swore."

The still grosser corruption of Muhammad into "Baphomet," or "Baffomet," is not to be laid to the charge of our nation. This was the name of the idol, or head, which the Templars are falsely alleged to have worshipped,-quoddam caput cum barbâ quod adorant et vocant salvatorem suum. Raynouard argues that this word originates from a misprint, or mispronunciation, of Muhammad; but Von Hammer and Michelet lean to a Gnostic origin, which we need not stay to consider, being satisfied that "Baffomet" is only another, and still more extravagant disguise, under which Europeans have exhibited the name of Muhammad.2

add notes


Back to Index of the Book