315 
1892.] H. G. ftaverty —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 
and prevented from encroaching farther westwards, through the rise 
of the country in that direction towards the Kahtar range, and also by 
the rocky nature of the country, the lower skirts of the Lakhhi moun¬ 
tains. This rocky barrier intervened from Siw-istan Haweli, the 
Sindu-stan, Sliarusan. and Siw-istan of the old geographers and the 
A’in-i-Akbari—the modern Sihwan—down to within a few miles of 
Thathah, north and west of which it once flowed. 814 Even this rocky 
name is not written “ Sewistan,” but Siw-istan] as a modern innovation of the 
Hindas, to connect the place with the name of the god Siva, etc., etc. 
It would have been passing strange if Ptolemy had mentioned it under the name 
of “ Sehwan,” since it was not known by the name of Sihwan for ages after Ptolemy. 
I, however, beg to say, that the name Siw-istan, is perfectly correct. It was so 
called when the ’Arabs conquered Sind,, and the Chach Namah shows that it was 
so called before that time ; while the statements of early Muhammadan geographers 
show, that it continued to be so oalled, and likewise Sharu-san and Sindu-stan, for 
the first three centuries of the Muhammadan era. That such was the fact, every 
native writer, (including the historians of Sind), from the earliest time that Sind 
is mentioned in history, shows, as all may see who can read the originals for them¬ 
selves. The author of the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri,” who wrote in 1260 A. D., was not a 
Hindu, yet he calls it Siw-istan and Sindu-stan (pages 532 and 539) ; and Ibn 
Batutah, who likewise, was not a Hindu, calls it Siw-istan. It was still best known by 
that name in Abu-l-Fazl’s time, and the province also. It is not surprising, therefore, 
that “ Hwen Thsaug does not notice Sehwan,” it would have been surprising if he 
had, because it was not known as Sihwan in his day any more than in Ptolemy’s. 
Another modern writer—Tod—in his “ Rajas’tlian ” (Vol. IT, page 230), on 
the other hand, mistakes Siw-istan for “ Seistan , region of cold—* sei ’—cold,” but 
in what language he does not say, and he places it “ on both sides of the Indus.” 
Sistan is hot enough, but it does not lie on both sides of the Indus ; but then Tod’s 
geographical, like his historical statements, are often of the wildest. 
The most serious error made respecting Siw-istan is by a Government official. 
Surgeon-Major O. T. Duke, formerly assistant to the Governor-General’s Agent in 
Baluchistan, in a very lengthy “ Report ” to Government on Sim (which he calls 
“ Sewi”), and other Afghan districts, some three degrees farther north than Siw-istan 
or Sihivdn, (taken, apparently, from some incorrect extract from the A’in-i-Akbari) 
bases all his theories, and even calculates the revenue settlements on this, the chief 
town of Wicholo or middle Sind, also giving name to a large province, being Siwi in 
southern Afghanistan which, of course, it is not. See my “Notes on Afghanistan/’ 
page 553, and Erratum. 
314 There is no doubt whatever that, in comparatively modern times, the main 
channel of the Ab-i-Sind, leaving the great ran or “ Sind Hollow,” took a more 
directly southern course than at present, from a point a little west of Darbelo. 
In the account of the campaign against Mirza Jani Beg, the Tar-lchan. the last in¬ 
dependent ruler of the territory dependent on Thathah, Mir Ma’sum of Bakhar. 
who was present in that expedition, says, that “ the Ab-i-Sind is six huroh [about 
eleven miles] from Siw-istan, or Sihwan, and that Jani Beg arrived in the river 
from Lar, or lower Sind, with a fleet of Ghurdbs ,” thus showing that there must have 
been plenty of water in that branch, even at that comparatively modern period, 
namely, 994 H. (1585 A D.) Soe pages 112 and 229. 
