1892.] H. G. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries . 245 
moved towards Multan and invested it, first defeating the infidels out- 
at ’Askaland and Sail ? or may not the last word signify—and three (depen¬ 
dencies) p” Yes, if “ sah” meant three in Persian, only it does not. 
Such are some of the foundations on which are based the identification of the 
Oxydracce with Uja, Uch, or Uk. Very solid foundations, truly ! 
At page 104 of the same volume, relating as far back as the traditionary period 
of the fall of the Panclus, where this supposed same place is mentioned as Askal- 
and, but where neither Uja, nor Uch are mentioned, we are referred to Ap¬ 
pendix X, which (p. 365) states, that, “ The Askalanda, Asal-kanda, and Askalandra 
of the Chach-nama, is the same as the Askaland, and Askaland-LTsa, [leaving out, of 
course, all reference to the ’Arab letters in the word] of the Mujmalu-t Tawarikh, 
and the Askandara and Askanda of the Tuhfatu-l Kiram. The close correspond¬ 
ence of the name, especially in the last instance, induces us at once to recognize it 
as identical with the Alexandria built at the confluence of the Acesines with the 
Indus; but a little examination will show the resemblance to be more specious than 
real. # # * The ancient kingdom of Sind was divided into four Satrapies of which 
the third (p. 138) comprised the fort of Askalanda and Maibar. Now Mdibar 
and Chachpur still exist [the same since the time of the Pandus, probably ?] 
under the modernized names of Mirbar and Chdchar, close together at the very 
junction of the Acesines and the Indus. Consequently, Askalauda must have been 
higher up the river, as subsequent passages will show.” In a foot-note to the 
name Maibar the Editor says, “ The text has Ydhiba, but Pabiya is the more 
general spelling,” but, in the extract at page 138, he has “ Askalanda and Pabiya, 
which are called Talwdra and Chachpur ; ” and in another foot-note, he says that 
“ the name is written Pdya and Bdya, Pabiya, and Pabiya : the last seems the pre¬ 
ferable form 
I may mention that the C ha char here referred to, some forty years ago, was six 
miles below the junction of the Panch Nad, or Panj Ab with the Indus. Mitlian da 
Kot wag then three miles and a half below the junction ; and about ten years since, 
Mitlian da Kot was eleven miles below the junction, such are the continual altera¬ 
tions. There is no Mirbar now, but there is a Juja fourteen miles south-east 
of Chachar. Why not have pressed that into service ? Further I may mention, 
that it is only within the last century that the junction of the Panch Nad with the 
Indus has taken place within twenty-four miles north-east of Chachar and Mithan 
da Kot, and how far off it was before who shall say. Where it was in the last 
century will be found farther on. 
After all this, supposing that the courses of the rivers have remained precisely 
the same for over two thousand years, although we find so much change in forty, 
he says : “ Its [’Askalanda’s] proximity to the Buis, and its name of Askaland- 
Usa ”—about which, at page 109, he was doubtful whether it was part of the name 
or not—“lead us to regard it as Rclih of more modern times.” Yet he adds that, 
“ That place bears marks of most undoubted antiquity, and the absence of all men¬ 
tion of it in the Chach-nama, where we are, both in the time of C'hach and Muham¬ 
mad Kasim ”—here the father’s name is again brought in as that of the son—“intro¬ 
duced to many transactions in its neighbourhood, can only be accounted for that it 
is disguised under some other appellation.” 
It certainly seems strange that LT chch h should not be mentioned in the Qhach 
Namah, and in the earlier works on Sind, because we know from the Tuhfat-ul- 
F F 
