374 H. Gr. Raverty— The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. [Ex. No. 
dent on Nur-pur, it separates into several channels, issues from the 
hill tracts into the open country, and turns towards the south-west. 
It soon after bends more towards the south, then towards the south¬ 
west again, passes under Kano-Wa-han, near the hunting-grounds of 
the ancient rulers of Hind, and by Rahilah, Jalal-abad, Bairo-Wal, 
and Fath-abad, and near the karyah of Loh or Loh-Wal, unites with the 
Sutlaj, when the united waters obtain the name of Machhu-Wah 
and Hariari. It is stated, that, in olden times, opposite the 
above-named karyah , at a period when the Sutlaj flowed much farther 
eastwards in its old bed, the Biah separated into two branches, one of 
which having flowed past Kasur, Kabulah, Kha’e, and the Hujrah of 
Shah Mukim, 378 passed at a distance of one knroh north and west of 
the fort of Debal-pur, and much lower down again united with the 
Hariari. This branch still retained the name of Biah. The other 
branch, flowing towards the south, united with the Sutlaj, 379 which 
878 At the time of my Survey recoi’d being made, the last deserted channel 
of the Biah passed close on the north side of the Hujrah of Shah Mukim, which it 
says, “ flowed on to Debal-pGr, and was the source of the prosperity, and once 
flourishing state of this tract of country, but which became ruined and depopulated 
when it deserted this channel and united with the Sutlaj.” 
In the last century, the town surrounding the above-mentioned Hujrah was 
of considerable size, with a bazar. In the midst is the hujrah , closet, or cell, of the 
venerated Sayyid, Shah Mukim, giving name to the place. It is surrounded by an 
enclosure built of kiln-burnt bricks with a high dome over the cell. This place 
appears in the maps as “ Hoojra,” and in the Gazetteers as “ Hujra,” which, of 
course, are meaningless as well as incorrect. 
Farther south, adjoining the kasbah, is the shrine and tomb of another Musal- 
man saint, Lai Bahlul, with a brick-built dome over. 
379 The Tarikh-i-Yamini, in the account of Sultan Mahmud’s expedition against 
Kinnauj, mentions all the rivers correctly, and the Biah and Sutladar separately. 
In the map appended to Professor Lassen’s “ Indische Alterthumskunde,” 
the Biah and Sutlaj are made to run in ancient times precisely as they now flow. 
The Ghag-ghar is certainly made to run into, or rather its course is marked to, 
the “ Sindhu ” close to Mithan Kot, while the Hakra, under the name of “ ancient 
course of the Sindhu,” which it never was, is made to leave the present channel 
just opposite Shikar-pur, to flow east of Alor and also of “ Brahmanabad,” but the 
names Mihran of Sind, Hakra, Wahindah, or CThjtang, are never mentioned, nor 
does Debal or Dewal appear in his map, and yet all modern sites almost are “ re¬ 
cognized,” or “ identified ” by him for ancient ones. The whole tract of country 
extending from Bhatnir to “ Amarakota” is styled “ Marusthala (Maraubhumi),” 
and U'chchh appears as “ TJk.” 
The errors, however, are the rule, not the exception. The Sutlaj has always 
been considered to represent the “ Hypanis,” or “ Zaradrus” or “Zadadrus”of 
the Greeks, and the Biah (vul. “ Bias ”) to be the “ Hyphasis ” of the same people ; 
nevertheless, Dr. Phillip Smith, in his “ Ancient History,” Yol. II, page 75, tells us, 
