200 
H. G. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
and Faklir-ucl-Dm, the Fanakati, nearly six centuries ago, read this 
name from MSS. copies of Bu-Rihan’s work as I have written it above, 
and as travellers, older by a century than he, also wrote it, I need merely 
Mansuriyah, which is one of the cities of Siw-istan, but they were defeated, and their 
leader slain.” 
From what the author has stated it is not certain whether, at the period in 
question, the city or fortified town of Mansurijmh was inhabited or not; but it would 
appear from the context that it was, notwithstanding that he seems to refer more to 
its territory than the fortified town. It can scarcely be supposed, that the earth¬ 
quake, which is said to have so suddenly destroyed Bahman-abad and its inhabitants, 
would not have affected Mansuriyah likewise, to some degree at least, seeing that it 
was only about six miles distant from it. If it was inhabited when the Khalj Turks 
appeared there, it must have been in a ruinous state, and the inhabitants probably 
very few. 
The accounts given by modern writers respecting Bahman-nih or Bahman-abad, 
are contradictory and erroneous, with few exceptions Nearly all persist in calling it 
Brahman-abad because, perhaps, the shortened form of the word Brahman happens 
to be Bahman, and this shortened form to contain the same letters as the name of 
the son of Isfandiyar, but it never occurred to them, with a single exception, that it 
was not possible for the T-rani terminations of nth and dbdd to be applied, at that 
period at least, to a Sanskrit word. Burton, who is the only exception, says (in his 
Scinde,” Yol. I., p. 200) : “Now Brahmanabad—a wrong name by the by—because 
the word is partly Sanskrit, and partly Persian ; consequently, not Scindian.” 
The Balaziri is the only old ’Arab geographer who mentions “ old Bahman-abad,” 
and he wrote about 270 H. (8S3-84 A D.), but he does not mean by that that it was 
in ruins or had been destroyed, but the contrary. He says, that “ Muhammad, son 
of Kasim, went to old Bahman-abad where the remainder of Dahir’s forces had 
rallied, and that it was situated two farsangs [little over six miles] from Mansuriyah, 
which, at that time, had not been founded, and that its site, at that period, was a 
jangal .” See also farther on, where he says Mansuriyah lay on the west side of the 
estuary of the river, and Mahfuzah on the east side. 
The Fanakati, who quotes from Bu-Rihan, says, that, “Muhammad, son of 
Kasim, after the capture of Debal, first took (Bahman-no), to which he gave 
the name of Mansuriyah, and to Multan (quoting from Bu-Rihan, apparently), the 
name of Ma’murah.” 
The error of Bu-Rihan, as to Muhammad, son of Kasim, having named Bahman- 
abad Mansuriyah, I have already noticed. 
This difference between the names Baliman-abad, Bahman-nih, and Bahman-no, 
may be easily accounted for. Nih and dbdd are of much the same significations in 
Persian, but, in the dialect of Sind, nih would become no, as in Dar-belah—Dar-belo ; 
U'barah—U'baro, Thatliah—Thatho ; Hakra or Hakrah—Hakro, and the like, and 
thus Bahman-nih became Bahman-no. 
The Tarikli-i-Tahiri says, that Bahman-abad was destroyed after Alor or Aror 
had been deserted by the Hakra through the iniquity of Dilu Ra’e, and that, at 
that period, Dilu Ra’e’s brother, Jhotah or Ohliotah, Amarani, was then dwelling at 
Bahman-abad, and that it was swallowed up in the earth—men, buildings, and all— 
the only signs of it being, in that author’s time, a mandr or tall tower. He also 
