The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c6.s1.t6: Bráhmana, or Bráhmanábád.

The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist Period, including the Campaigns of Alexander, and the Travels of Hwen-Thsang c6.s1.t6

Language: English

Bráhmana, or Bráhmanábád.

c6.s1.t6.1

From Sindomana Alexander “marched back to the river, where he had ordered his fleet to wait for him. Thence, descending the stream, he came on the fourth day to a town through which was a road to the kingdom of Sabus.”* When Alexander quitted his fleet at Alor (the capital of Musikanus) to march against Oxykanus, he had no intention of going to Sindomana, as Raja Sambus, having tendered his submission, had been appointed satrap of the hilly districts on the Indus.† He must therefore have ordered his fleet to wait for him at some point on the river not far from the capital of Oxykanus. This point I would fix somewhere about *Marija Dand*, on the old *Nára*, below Kator and Tajal, as Mahorta, which I have identified with the chief city of Oxykanus, is about equidistant from Alor and Kator. Thence, descending the stream, he came on the fourth day to a town, through which there was a road to the kingdom of Sambus. From Marija Dand, the point where I suppose that Alexander rejoined his fleet, the distance to the ruined city of Brâhmana, or Brâhmanâbâd, is 60 miles in a direct line by land, or 90 miles by water. As this distance could have been accomplished with ease in four days, I conclude that Brâhmana was the actual city of Brahmans which is described by Alexander’s historians. The king of this city had previously submitted, but the citizens withheld their allegiance, and shut their gates. By a stratagem they were induced to come out, and a conflict ensued, in which Ptolemy was seriously wounded in the shoulder by a poisoned sword.* The mention of Ptolemy’s wound enables us to identify this city with that of Harmatelia, which Diodorus describes as the “last town of the Brâhmans on the river.”† Now, Harmatelia is only a softer pronunciation of Brâhma-thala, or Brahmana-sthala, just as Hermes, the phallic god of the Greeks, is the same as Brahmâ, the original phallic god of the Indians. But Brâhmana was the old Hindu name of the city which the Muhammadans called Brâhmanâbâd; hence I conclude that the town of Brahmans captured by Alexander corresponds both in name and position with the great city of Brâhmanâbâd.

c6.s1.t6.2

∗ Curtius, Vita Alex., ix.

c6.s1.t6.3

⁸ “Alexander. . . rursus amnem, in quo classem exspectare se jusserat, repetit. Quarto deinde die, secundo amne, pervenit ad oppidum, quâ iter in regnum erat Sabi.” † Arrian, ‘Anabasis,’ vi. 16: τῶν ὁρίων Ἰνδων σατράπην.

c6.s1.t6.4

The narrative of Arrian after the capitulation of Sindomana is unfortunately very brief. His words are, “he attacked and won a city which had revolted from him, and put to death as many of the Brahmans as fell into his hands, having charged them with being the authors of the rebellion.”‡ This agrees with the statement of Diodorus, who mentions that Alexander "was satisfied with punishing those who advised the resistance, and pardoned all the others." From a comparison of the three narratives, I infer that Harmatelia, or Bráhmana, was in the dominions of Musikanus; for Curtius states that the king of this city had previously submitted to Alexander, while Arrian says that he had revolted, and Diodorus adds* that Alexander punished the advisers of the rebellion. Now, all these facts apply to Musikanus, who had at first submitted, and then revolted, and was at last crucified, "and with him as many of the Brahmans as had instigated him to revolt." This identification is of some importance, as it shows that the dominions of Musikanus must have embraced the whole of the valley of the Indus down to the head of the Delta, with the exception of the two outlying districts of Oxykanus and Sambus, under the western mountains. This extension of his dominions explains the report which Alexander had previously received from the people, that the kingdom of Musikanus "was the richest and most populous throughout all India." It also explains how Sambus was at enmity with Musikanus, as the southern territories of the latter were bounded on the west by those of the former. The king of this city, where Ptolemy was wounded by a poisoned arrow, is called Ambiger by Justin,† which was probably the true name of Musikanus, the chief of the Musikani, in whose territory Brahmana was situated.

c6.s1.t6.5

∗ Curtius, Vita Alex., ix. 8. † Hist. Univers., xvii. 56. ‡ ‘Anabasis,’ vi.

c6.s1.t6.6

¹⁶ ‘Ὁ δὲ καὶ ἄλλην πόλιν ἐν τούτῳ ἀποστᾶσαν εἷλε, καὶ τῶν Βραχμάνων . . ὅσοι αἴτιοι τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἐγένοντο, ἀπέκτεινεν.

c6.s1.t6.7

† Justin, Hist., xii. 10.

c6.s1.t6.8

It is much to be regretted that none of the names preserved by Ptolemy can be certainly identified with this city of the Brahmans. Parabali corresponds with it in position, and partly also in name, as the first two syllables, *Parab*, are not very different from *Baram*, and the termination, *ali*, may represent *thala* of *Brah-mathala*, or *Harmatelia*. After Ptolemy’s time we know nothing of Brâhmana until the Muhammadan conquest, a period of nearly six centuries. From the native histories, however, we learn that Brahmana was the chief city of one of the four governments* into which Sindh was divided during the rule of the Rais dynasty, or from A.D. 507 to 642, and that it continued to be so until the accession of Dâhir in A.D. 680, who made it the capital of the kingdom, after the destruction of Alor by the Indus. In A.D. 641 Sindh was visited by Hwen Thsang, whose account has already been noticed. He found the kingdom divided into the four districts, which for greater distinctness I have named Upper Sindh, Middle Sindh, Lower Sindh, and Kachh. The first has already been described in my account of Alor. The second, *O-fan-cha*, I have just identified with *Brâhmanâbâd*. M. Stanislas Julien transcribes the Chinese syllables as *Avaṇḍa*, for which it is difficult to find an exact equivalent. But I have a strong suspicion that it is only a variation of the name of *Brâhmana*, which was pronounced in many different ways, as Bâhmana, Bahmana, Bâbhana, Babhana, Bambhana.† Speaking of Mansura, which we know was quite close to Brâhmanâbâd, Ibn Haukal adds that the Sindhians call it *Bâmiwân*,‡ which Edrisi alters to *Mirmân*.§ But in his list of places in Sindh, Edrisi adds after Mansura the name of *Wándán*, or *Kándán*,* which I take to be only a various reading of Bâmanwâ, or, as the Sindhians would have pronounced it, *Vámanwá*, and *Vánwá*. The Chinese syllable *fan*, which is the well-known transcript of *Brahma*, is a notable example of this very contraction, and tends to confirm the opinion that *Avanda* is but a slight variation of *Báhmanwá*, or *Bráhmanábád*.

c6.s1.t6.9

∗ Hist. Univers., xvii. 56.

c6.s1.t6.10

∗ Postans, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1838, pp. 93-96.

c6.s1.t6.11

† See Dhauli inscription of Asoka for Bâbhano, Babhana, and Bambhana: edicts iii. iv. viii. ix., in Journ. Royal Asiat. Soc., vol. xii.

c6.s1.t6.12

‡ Sir Henry Elliot, ‘Muhammadan Historians of India,’ p. 63.

c6.s1.t6.13

§ Jaubert’s ‘Edrisi,’ i. 162.

c6.s1.t6.14

Shortly after the Muhammadan conquest *Bráhmana* was supplanted by *Mansura*, which, according to Biladuri, was founded by Amru, the son of Muhammad bin Kâsim, the conqueror of Sindh,† and named after the second Abasside Khalif Al *Mansúr*, who reigned from A.D. 753 to 774. But according to Masudi,‡ it was founded by Jamhur, the governor of Sindh, under the last Omnicad Khalif, A.D. 744 to 749, who named it after his own father *Mansúr*. The new city was built so close to Brâhmanâbâd that Ibn Haukal, Abu Rihân, and Edrisi, all describe it as the same place. Ibn Haukal's words are, "Mansura, which in the Sind language is called Bâmiwân."§ Abu Rihân states that it was originally called *Ba-manhwá*, and afterwards *Hamanábád*, for which we may read *Bahmanabad*, by simply adding an initial B, which must have been accidentally dropped. It was situated on the eastern branch of the Mihrân, or Indus, and was 1 mile in length, and the same in breadth, or just 4 miles in circuit. Its position is approximately fixed in the neighbourhood of Hâla, by the number of days' journey in the routes to different places. It was 12 days from Multan, 8 from Kandâbil, viâ Sehwân, and 6 days from Debal, viâ Manhâbari, which was itself 4 days from Mansura. It was therefore at two-thirds of the distance from Multan to the mouth of the Indus, or very nearly in the same parallel as Hâla.

c6.s1.t6.15

∗ Jaubert's 'Edrisi,' i. 160. † Renaud, 'Fragments Arabes;' and Jaubert's 'Edrisi,' i. 162. ‡ Sir Henry Elliot's 'Muhammadan Historians of India,' p. 57. § Sir Henry Elliot's 'Muhammadan Historians of India,' Dowson's edition, p. 34; and Jaubert's 'Edrisi,' i.

c6.s1.t6.16

¹⁶² "Le nom de la ville (Mansura) est en Indien *Mirimân*." In Gildemeister's 'Ibn Haukal,' this name is *Tâmirman*, which is an obvious mistake for *Bâmiwân*, or *Bâmanwâs*.

c6.s1.t6.17

† Journ. Asiat. Soc., Bombay, v. 413; and Thomas's Prinsep, ii.

c6.s1.t6.18

Now in this very position the ruins of a large city have been discovered by Mr. Bellasis, to whose zeal and energy we are indebted for our knowledge of this interesting place. The ruins are situated near an old bed of the Indus, at 47 miles to the north-east of Haidarâbâd, 28 miles to the east or east-north-east of Hâla, and 20 miles to the west of the eastern Nâra.* The place is known as Bambhra-ka-thúl, or "the Ruined Tower," from a broken brick tower which is the only building now standing. The present appearance of the site, as described by its discoverer, is "one vast mass of ruins, varying in size according to the size of the original houses." Its circumference, measured by a perambulator, is within a few yards of 4 miles. But besides the great mound of Bambhra-ka-thúl, there is, at a distance of about 1½ mile, "the distinct and ruined city of Dolora, the residence of its last king, and 5 miles in another direction is the ruined city of Depur, the residence of his Prime Minister, and between these cities are the ruins of suburbs extending for miles far and wide into the open country.” The great mound of *Bambhraka-thúl* is “entirely surrounded with a rampart, mounted with numerous turrets and bastions.” In the time of Akbar there were “considerable vestiges of this fortification,” which Abul Fazl* says “had 140 bastions, one *tanáb* distant from each other.” The *tanáb* was a measuring rope, which the emperor Akbar ordered to be changed for bambus joined by iron links. Its length was 60 *Iláhi gaz*, which, at 30 inches each, give 150 feet for the *tanáb*; and this multiplied by 140, makes the circuit of the city 21,000 feet, or very nearly 4 miles. Now it will be remembered that Ibn Haukal describes Mansura as being 1 mile square, or 4 miles in circuit, and that Mr. Bellasis’s measure of the circumference of the ruined mound of *Bambhraka thúl* was within a few yards of 4 miles. From this absolute correspondence of size, coupled with the close agreement of position, which has already been pointed out, I conclude that the great mound of *Bambhra ka thúl* represents the ruined city of Mansura, the capital of the Arab governors of Sindh. The Hindu city of Brâhmana, or Brâhmânâbad, must therefore be looked for in the neighbouring mound of ruins now called Dilura, which is only 1½ mile distant from the larger mound.

c6.s1.t6.19

¹¹⁹ Eastwick's ‘Handbook for Bombay,’ p. 490.

c6.s1.t6.20

Mr. Bellasis, the discoverer of these ruins, has identified the great mound with Brâhmanâbâd itself;

c6.s1.t6.21

∗ ‘Ayin Akbari,’ ii.

c6.s1.t6.22

¹¹⁵ Gladwyn’s translation has 1400 bastions, which would give to the city a circuit of 40 miles; the MSS. have 140. The Ilâhi gaz contained 41½ Sikandari tangkas, and as the average breadth of 62 Sikandaris in my collection is ·7234 inches, the length of the Ilâhi gaz will be 30·0211 inches. Mr. Thomas, ii. 123, found exactly 30 inches.

c6.s1.t6.23

but to this it has been justly objected by Mr. Thomas* that amongst the multitudes of mediæval coins found during the excavations, "the number of Hindu pieces was very limited, and that even these seem to be casual contributions from other provinces, of no very marked uniformity or striking age." The local coins consist exclusively of specimens of the Arab governors of Sindh, with the name of Mansura in the margin; and so far as I am aware, there is not a single piece that can be attributed to any of the Hindu rajas of Sindh. It is therefore to be regretted that Mr. Bellasis did not make more extensive excavations in the smaller mound of Dilura, which would probably have yielded some satisfactory evidence of its superior antiquity.

c6.s1.t6.24

According to the native histories and traditions of the people, Brâhmanâbâd was destroyed by an earthquake, in consequence of the wickedness of its ruler, named Dilu Rai. The date of this prince is doubtful. M'Murdo has assigned A.H. 140, or A.D. 757,† as the year in which Chota, the brother of Dilu, returned from his pilgrimage to Mekka; but as Mansura was still a flourishing city in the beginning of the tenth century, when visited by Masudi and Ibn Haukal, it is clear that the earthquake cannot have happened earlier than A.D. 950. Dilu and Chota are said to have been the sons of Amir, the Rai or ruler of Brâhmanâbâd. But it is difficult to believe that there were any Hindu chiefs in Brâhmana during the rule of the Arabs in Mansura. The fact is that the same stereotyped legend is told of all the old cities in the Panjâb, as well as of those in Sindh. Shorkot, Harapa, and Atâri, are all said to have been destroyed on account of the sins of their rulers, as well as Alor, Brâhmana, and Bambhura. But the same story is also told of Tulamba, which we know to be false, as I have been able to trace its downfall to its desertion by the Râvi, at a very recent date. The excavations of Mr. Bellasis have shown conclusively that Brâhmana was overwhelmed by an earthquake. The human bones “were chiefly found in doorways, as if the people were attempting to escape; others in the corners of the rooms; some upright, some recumbent, with their faces down, and some crouched in a sitting posture.”* The city was certainly not destroyed by fire, as Mr. Richardson notes that he found no remains of charcoal or burnt wood, and that the old walls bore no traces of fire. On the contrary, he also found the human remains crushed in the corners of the rooms, as if the terror-stricken inhabitants, finding their houses falling about them, had crouched in the corners and been buried by the falling material.† Mr. Richardson also picked up a brick which had “entered cornerways into a skull, and which, when taken out, had a portion of the bone adhering to it.” His conclusion is the same as that of Mr. Bellasis, “that the city was destroyed by some terrible convulsion of nature.”

c6.s1.t6.25

∗ Prinsep's 'Essays,' vol. ii. p. 121, where all the local coins are most carefully described and attributed.

c6.s1.t6.26

† Ibid., v. 423.

c6.s1.t6.27

The local coins found in the ruins of Bambhra katul belong to the Arab governors of Mansura, from the time of Jamhur, son of Mansúr, the reputed founder of the city, down to Umar, the contemporary of Masudi.* It was therefore in existence during the whole of that time, or from A.D. 750 to 940, or even later.

c6.s1.t6.28

∗ Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bombay, v. 417.

c6.s1.t6.29

This agrees exactly with what I have already noted, that the city was still flourishing when visited by Masudi and Ibn Haukal in the first half of the tenth century; and I would therefore assign its destruction to the latter half of that century, and not earlier than A.D. 970. It is true that Mansura is mentioned by Abu Rihân in the beginning of the next century, and at a still later period by Edrisi, Kazvini, and Rashid-ud-din; but the last three were mere compilers, and their statements accordingly belong to an earlier age. Abu Rihân, however, is entirely original, and as his knowledge of the Indian language gave him special facilities for obtaining accurate information, his evidence is sufficient to prove that Mansura was still existing in his time. In speaking of the itinerary of Sindh, he says,† “From Aror to Bâhmanwâ, also named el Mansura, is reckoned 20 parasangs; from thence to Loharâni, at the mouth of the river, 30 parasangs.” Mansura therefore still existed when Abu Rihân wrote his work, about A.D. 1031; but as it is mentioned by only one author in the campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, it is almost certain that it no longer existed as a great fortress, the capital of the country, otherwise its wealth would have attracted the cupidity of that rapacious conqueror. I conclude, therefore, that Mansura was already very much decayed before the accession of Mahmud, and that the earthquake which levelled its walls and overthrew its houses, must have happened some time before the beginning of the eleventh century. It is probable that most of the inhabitants who escaped the great catastrophe would have returned to the ruined city to look after their buried property, and that many of them again reared their houses on the old sites. But the walls of the city were fallen, and there was no security; the river was gradually failing, and there was a scarcity of water; and the place was altogether so much decayed, that even in A.H. 416, or A.D. 1025, when the conqueror of Somnâth returned through Sindh, the plunder of Mansura was not sufficient to tempt him out of his direct march; so he passed on by Sehwân to Ghazni, leaving the old capital unvisited, and even unnoticed, unless we accept the solitary statement of Ibn Athir, that Mahmud on this occasion appointed a Muhammadan governor to Mansura.