202 H. G. Ravcvty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
because we know of a certainty, that Mansuriyah was not in existence 
when Muhammad was recalled from Sind, but was subsequently founded 
near 13ahman-no ; and some state that it was even founded by his own 
were Sadusan [what of Ptolemy ? See his “ Ancient India ” page 266], Brahmana 
or Bahmanwa, and Nirunkot. * * * Close to Brahmanwa, the early Muhammadans 
founded Mansnra.” 
He and some others say, that “ Nirunkot” is “ Haidarabad,” meaning, possibly, 
that it was founded on the site of the first named place. 
In another place (pp. 272-273) the same writer says: “ Mr. Bellasis’s measure¬ 
ment of Bambhraka-thul [sic] was within a few yards of four miles. # * # 1 con¬ 
clude that the great mound of Bambhraka-thul represents the ruined city of Mansnra, 
the capital of the ’Arab governors of Sindh. The Hindu city of Brahmana or Brah¬ 
manabad must therefore be looked for in the neighbouring mound of ruins now called 
Dilura, which is only 1| mile distant from the larger mound.” This may be reversed, 
I think ; for the ’Arabs are more likely to have had a small and compact fortified 
town than one with four miles of wall to defend. But we are plainly told by the 
Balaziri, quoted farther on, that Mansuriyah was built two farsakhs distant from 
“ old Bahman-abad,” which is equal to over six miles. What is referred to as “ the 
ruined city of Depur, 5 miles in another direction,” is more likely to be the site. It 
lies to the north-eastwards of Mansuriyah. 
Major-General C. It. Haig, for many years in the Survey Department in Sind, 
in an article on “ Brahmanabad,” in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1874, 
says: “Cunningham thinks O-fan-cha of Hwen Thsang (which Stan. Julien renders 
Avanda) to be Brahmanabad, but a Budhist would avoid Brahman abominations.” 
This last is assumed, of course, on account of the supposed ‘ r ’ in the name which 
is entirely a modern addition. If Budhists would avoid “ Brahman abominations ” 
they would probably avoid a Brahman name also for their city. 
This same word, “ avanda ,” is also mentioned in the extracts from the “ Si-yu- 
ki” xvi, by the Revd. Prof. Beal, contained in the same volume of the Journal above 
mentioned. 
Cunningham further adds, that “ the date of Dilu Rai is doubtful. M’Murdo 
has assigned A H. 140, or A. D. 757, as the year in which Qhhota, the brother of Dilu, 
returned from Mekka, but as Mansnra was a flourishing city in the beginning of the 
tenth century, when visited by Masudi and Ibn Haukal, it is clear that the earth¬ 
quake cannot have happened earlier than A. D. 950 [here be is near the mark : 
339 H. is 950 A. D.]. * * # But it is difficult to believe that there were any Hindu 
chiefs in Bdmana during the rule of the ’Arabs in Mansnra [See what the “ Masalik 
wa Mamalik’’ says on this, page 196]. * # * Mansnra must have been founded on 
the site of Brahman-abad, which must have been destroyed by an earthquake.” 
This too is stated after what the Balaziri has chronicled, and after, himself, say¬ 
ing that Mansnra must be looked for at Dilura a mile and a half away from it. I 
may also mention that, even in the time of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, 607-625 H. 
(1210-28 A. D.), there were no less than seven Hindu Ranahs who were only tribu¬ 
taries to him, as in the time of the ’Arabs without doubt, and that one of them is 
named “ Jasodhan Akrah or Akarah of Min Nagar in the district of Bambarwa,” and 
another “Chanisarof Dewal,” or Lar—Lower Sind. See “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri also, 
page 614. 
Rennell, D’Anville, and Vincent, all three, placed Bahman-abad within four 
