240 
H. G. Raverty —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. [No. 4, 
Dabir’s forces had rallied; and in the operations which ensned before 
that place fell, 26,000 men were slain on the part of the defenders. 189 
189 Mir Ma’sum here is quite at variance with the historians who wrote several 
centuries before him, and one of whom wrote not much more than a century after the 
events he records. Mir Ma’sum is brief, doubles up events, and thereby con¬ 
fuses them. He makes Muhammad, son of Kasim, after the fall of Siw-istan and 
Salim, reject the advice given him to attack Bahman-abad first, and makes him 
march direct from Siw-istan to Alor or Aror, which he did not do. He says he 
crossed “ the river” to the mauza ’ of Tahl-ti——which, in two other copies of 
his work, is written and —three or four kuroh from Siw-istan. The first 
name, however, is correct. “The river” here cannot refer to “the Mihran of 
Sind” (nor even to the branch which flowed towards it from Kalari), which passed 
upwards of forty miles farther east at the period in question, in which direction 
Kalari lay, but to what is called the Kunbh in the Chach Namah. There is still a 
mauza’ called Tahl-ti about seven miles north of Siw-istan or modern Sihwan, on the 
east side of the river which we call the “ Western Nara,” whose channel, in former 
times, was, no doubt, a branch of the Sindhu or Ab-i-Sind; and at that period, it 
may have been known as the Kumbh or Kunbh, or river of the Kumbh or Kunbh. 
These words, or , signify, ‘ a water-pot,’ or ‘ vessel,’ in Sanskrit; and 
whether we can connect those meanings with the Lake Manchhar which, in its 
centre, is somewhat in the form of a pot or water vessel, being very deep, with steep, 
rocky sides, is rather doubtful, but the idea crossed my mind. The words cannot be 
intended for the Sanskrit word for a spring etc., for that is — Jcund. The ’Arab 
writers do not allude in the slightest degree to this at present great lake, which seems 
hardly to have existed as a lake in those days. Perhaps at the period in question 
only the deep portion contained water, and hence its similarity to a gigantic kunbh. 
With respect to Tahl-ti, I do not presume to say that the present mauza ’—the 
“ Talti” and “ Tultee” of the maps—is the identical place referred to by Mir 
Ma’sum, for a thousand changes may have occurred since that time. I merely men¬ 
tion the fact of such a place existing under that name in the exact locality mentioned 
and where also is a Tahl-ti dhand or lake. That Muhammad first reduced Bahman- 
abad, and then moved to Aror, there is no doubt whatever. Mir Ma’sum says, that 
Ra’e Dahir, finding that Muhammad had crossed to Tahl-ti, despatched a force to 
oppose his advance to the kol-i-db or lake of iSJ^ —Kinjri—or —Kingri 
(about twenty miles west of the ruins of Aror), upon which, the ’Arab commander 
marched on —Radian—(in other copies of the original and There 
is a Rafi Dero ferry south-west of Kingri), and detached part of his troops to en¬ 
counter Ra’e Dahir’s forces, and overthrew them. This lake is said, in Mir Ma’sum’s 
work, to have been crossed by the ’Arab army by means of one boat, which took 
three men at a time, which, of course, is absurd. 
After this, according to the same writer, Muhammad moved with his whole 
force against Aror; and, in an engagement, which took place on the 10th Ramazan, 
93 H., near that city, Dahir was defeated and slain. 
From this it will be noticed that he leaves out nearly every thing that occurred 
at Bahman-abad during six months, and all the events which took place on the banks 
of the Mihran before that, including Dahir’s death, and has transferred them to Aror 
instead ; and, consequently, has shown, that, for the early history of Sind, he is not 
