453 H. Gr. Raverty— The Mihran of Sind and its Tributaries . [Ex. No, 
The other, or westernmost of the two channels which separated 
near Kalari, made a bend towards the north-east, and then gradually 
referred to really] on which are situated the towns of Wangah and Rahim-ki-Bazar, 
is called Puran, or ancient stream [ purdnah, not puran, means anything ancient, and 
is the right word here], and the time doubtless was when the Indus [never : the 
Hakra here again is mistaken for the Indus] by a more easterly channel than the 
present, supplied sufficient water to make a portion at least of the Rann fertile and 
productive.” 
It will bo seen that the writer has mistaken the tract altogether. The great 
ran or marsh of Kachchh was once an estuary. 
When he comes to page 137, however, we have several “ ancient streams,” not 
one only. Referring to the channel of the Hakra, which he here calls the “ Nara 
he says : “ Another striking feature of this valley [which part of the country, 
he says, is little known] is, that along its whole length you can trace the dry bed of 
a large river. This main stream I take to have been the Eastern Hard, which flowing 
past Umarkot and through [ ! ] Kachh, found an outlet into the Gulf of Kachh, or 
perhaps at Lakhpat [he is not quite certain about it seemingly], and in modern 
times lost itself in the vast lagoon the Rann. This main stream threw off in its 
course several branches, the Dhoras or Purans,” etc., etc. 
At page 267 he says: “ The Kori mouth of the Indus, separating Sind from 
Kachh, once formed, it is supposed, the lower part of either the Fuleli river or the 
eastern Nara .; ” and farther on, at page 729, he writes : “ The Kori or eastern 
branch of the Indus, separating Sind from Kachh, once formed the lower part of 
the Fuleli . and it also received the waters of a large branch thrown off by the main 
river during the inundations near Bukkur.” This is what he previously styled 
“ the eastern Nara.” 
In another place (page 844), respecting the district of “ Parkar,” he again 
mistakes the Hakra for the Indus. He says: “In many parts of this Political 
tSuperintendancy numerous beds of rivers long dried up are found intersecting the 
arid tract of the Thar [the thal or thar, ‘ l* and ‘ r ’ being interchangeable, signifying 
‘desert’]; and these would seem to show [What a delightful air of uncertainty 
pervades his statements !] that the waters of the Indus, or some of its branches , 
once flowed through it, fertilizing what is now a wilderness, and finding their way 
to the sea by either one of the eastern mouths, or through the Rann, or great salt 
marsh of Kachh.” 
On the very next page, reverting to the same subject, he says : “ There being 
no torrents, floods, canals, or rivers in the Thar and Parkar proper, the water system 
comprises, in the first place, the Eastern Ndrd, previously described as being a 
natural channel, and most probably at some remote period the outlet to the sea of 
the waters of some great river like the Indus, together ivith its branches the Thar, Chor , 
and TImarkotf Were there ever such contradictions and suppositions about one 
river? I may add that there are no rivers called by such names. 
MacMurdo was much more correct in his suppositions half a century before, 
but then he was not a compiler. He says, under “ Thull or Dhat, and Catch,” as he 
spells the words : “ I have been informed that there are streams of water through¬ 
out this tract during the rains, some of which descending from the hills in Marwar, 
empty themselves into the desert, where they are lost, or find a drain in the run 
[ran] north of Catch. Others on the west border are branches of the Pooran [the 
