220 H. G. Raverty— The Jtfihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 3, 
I have entered here just what he says, hut there is evidently great 
confusion; for we know that the Biah—if it is here referred to—never 
united with the Ohin-ab and its tributaries before or above the Rawi, as 
is here stated. Moreover, the mention of “ Sutlad ” rather shows that 
the copyist wrote the names as he knew them best. Indeed, with regard 
to all the extracts from Bu-Rihan contained in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh. 
it is difficult to decide which are actually his, and which Rashid-ud- 
Din’s (the author), because, especially in reference to the river reaching 
the sea by two channels, which, in those early days it did not do, as I 
shall presently show, the latter mentions events as if stated by Bu-Rihan 
which occurred three centuries after his death. I shall also prove that 
no “ Sutlad ”—Shuttlaj or Sutlaj—flowed in the direction here indicated, 
even at the time that Atnir Timur, the Gurgau, invaded these parts 
more than four centuries after Bu-Rilian wrote. 161 
To continue his account, however, he states, that, “ After this, the 
united streams become a vast river, and during the season of inundation, 
the waters spread out to the extent of ten farsangs in breadth, and 
swallow up all the other great streams, and the refuse brought down by 
no claim whatever to this title, which Barns justly observes (Travels III—287) is 
unknoion upon its banks. The “Panjnad” or “ Panjab ” is the Indus itself. The 
application of the term to any one river appears to be of late date.” 
All this is contrary to fact. All those who have dwelt in, and are acquainted 
with the geography of this part, know, and as the best maps show, that the rivers 
which unite above Uchchh, l'eceive the name of Panch-Nad, as Bu-Rihan, here relates, 
and as does Abu-1 Fazl likewise ; and it is only after the united streams join the 
Ab-i-Sind or Indus, that they cease to be styled the Panch Nad or Five Rivers, and 
when all have united they are known, even to the present day, as the “ Sapt ” or “ Sat 
Nad,” or Seven Rivers. I believe that what has been read as — Shutlad —was 
really meant by Bu-Rihan for “ Sapt Nad” or “ Sat Nad” —See note 139. 
It should be borne in mind, when comparing statements contained in Mas’udi, 
the Masalik wa Mamalik, and Ibn Haukal, that those writers visited Sind as well as 
Multan and other places, while Bu-Rihan never went farther south than Multan or 
farther east than Lahor. 
It is beyond a doubt, that, until the Biah and the Sutlaj both left their re¬ 
spective beds to unite and flow in one channel, when they lost those names, 
the Sutlaj was a tributary of the Hakra, but, after that, the united rivers, under the 
name of Hariari, Gharah, etc., became tributary to the Ab-i-Sind or Indus. These 
facts ought not to be overlooked; and yet we find recent authors writing of “ Per- 
dikkas carrying the Greek arms to Ajudan on the banks of the Sutlej, ages before 
the Sutlaj and Biah uniting approached within twenty-five miles of Ajuddhan.” Who 
shall say that Ajuddhan was in existence even ten centuries after the time of 
Alexander the Macedonian ? It is nearer to the Sutlaj at the present time than it 
ever was before, and the distance is eight miles and a half. In the last century it 
was twenty-five miles distant. See note farther on. 
