204 H. G. Raverty —The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
Khilafat until some forty-two years after the death of Muhammad, son 
of Kasim, the conqueror of Sind. 
At page 312, we have “The great Pviar [Pramarah] sovereignty, of which 
Arore or the insular Bekher [they are all one to him], was the capital, when Alexan¬ 
der passed down the Indus.” Again, at page 332, we have: “ On the island of Bekher 
there are the remains of the ancient fortress of Mansoora named in honour of the 
Caliph A1 Mansoor, whose lieutenants made it the capital of Sind on the opening of 
their conquests [it was “ Omar” at page 229, but A1 Walid at page 233).” At page 
243, he says, that, “ on the final conquest of Sinde the name of its capital, Arore f 
was changed for Mansoora; ” while .at page 449 of the same volume we have the 
following. Referring to abandonment of Sinde by the lord of Barnuni, he says, 
in a note, “ ‘ the lord of Barnuni,’ in other places called Bahmanivasso, must apply to 
the ancient Brahminabad, or Dewnl , on whose site the modern Tatta is built.” 
In vol. I. p. 217, he had previously stated, that, “ Sinde being conquered by 
Omar, general of the Caliph A1 Mansoor, the name Min a gar a was changed to Man¬ 
soora but, after that again, at page 243, he says : “ I had little doubt that Mina- 
gara was the Saminagara of the Yadu Jharejahs. # # # On every consideration I 
am inclined to place it on the site of Sehwan.” 
Here are no less than nine or ten statements respecting Mansuriyah, all differ¬ 
ent, and all totally incorrect; but see note 111 for still greater errors. 
McMurdo is the only European writer who. before the discovery of the actual 
site of Bahman-no or Bahman abad, nearly fixed on its right position. He placed it 
on the “Puran” \jmrdnah signifies ‘old,’ ‘ancient,’ etc.] afterwards called the 
Lohano Dhoro, but he calls it, in error, the “ Lohana Darya,” which was “ at a 
short distance from where it separates from the Puran.” 
He was mistaken, however, respecting the period of the destruction of Bahman- 
abad or Bahman-no in supposing it to have occurred about 140 H. (757-58 A. D.). 
The most pertinent observations on the subject of Bahman-abad are those of the 
Sayyid, Sadr ’All Shall of Thathah, who was consulted by Bellasis respecting the 
period of its destruction. He says, that “the city of Bahman-abad appears to have 
been founded before the Hindu dynasty of the Brahmans [yes: a very long time 
before], which commenced in the first year of the Hijri or A. D. 622, [this is in¬ 
correct : Sihras Ila’e fell in battle with the ’Arabs at the close of 23 H.—October, 644 
A. D.]. * * * and that Ohach, the first of the Brahman kings, subdued among 
others, “Agher [Akham, the Lohanah of the Ohach Namah], chief of Bahman- 
abad ” 
This is the Agham, Lohana of Elliot. The Lohano Hindu race—called “ Lohanah 
Jats in the Ohach Namah—“are,” he says, “the most influential tribe in Sind, 
and all wear the Brahminical thread.” (Vol. I, p. 362). To suit certain other 
incorrect theories, he afterwards turns these Lohano Jats into “ Lohanl Afghans” ? 
It is only since the time of Aurang-zeb-i-’Alam-gir Badshah, when considerable 
changes were made in the mode of writing, that the initial letter of their name, 
which is, correctly, Nuharni, they being descendants of Nuh, son of Isma’il, began 
to be written by Hindustani writers, Luharni, with ‘ If for ‘ nf and by those who 
did not understand the Pus’lito letter ‘ rnf Luhani; and they do not “ wear the 
Brahminical thread.” The Lohanah (or Lohano as the Sindis write and say) Banit/ds 
till flourish in Sind, but they have not, even yet, grown into Nuharni Af gh ans. 
