To the passage at p. 219 suprà, where it is said that the elephant of the Hindú prince became unruly from the effect of the naphtha balls, Major-General Briggs adds the following note:

“This passage is differently written in the various manuscripts I have seen; and, in some, the word tope (gun) has been written for nupth (naphtha), and toofung (musket) for khudung (arrow). But no Persian or Arabic history speaks of gunpowder before the time usually assigned for its invention, A.D. 1317, long after which it was first applied to the purpose of war. It appears likely also, that Bábar was the first invader who introduced great guns into Upper India, in 1526, so that the words tope and toofung have been prob­ably introduced by ignorant transcribers of the modern copies of this work, which are, in general, very faulty throughout. It is a remarkable fact, that the words guns and muskets occur in the India House manuscript, which was copied in 1648, and it may, therefore, probably be no error of the transcriber; the fact, however, appears impossible.”

A confirmation of this reading of tope and tufang is given by Wilken, who observes, that the two copies which he consulted have the same words, and that even the roar of the cannon is spoken of. He considers it not improbable that Greek-fire was used by Mahmúd. Dow boldly translates the word as guns.*

It does not appear on what authority Firishta rests his statement. The Táríkh-i Yamíní, the Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh of Rashídu-d dín, the Táríkh-i Guzída, Abú-l Fidá, the Tabakát-i Násirí, the Rauzatu-s Safá, the Táríkh-i Alfí, and the Tabakát-i Akbarí, though almost all of them notice this important engagement, in A.D. 1008, between the Hindús and Muhammadans, and mention the capture of thirty elephants, yet none of them speak of either naft or tope.

But, ten years after this, we find express mention made of the use of naphtha in a naval action near Multán, between Mahmúd and the Jats of the Júd Hills. On this occasion Mahmúd built 1400 boats, each of which was armed with six iron spikes, to prevent the enemy boarding, and in each were twenty archers and five naphtha-men, to attack and set fire to the enemy's flotilla. The Jats opposed him in 4000 boats, but were completely defeated, many of their vessels being set on fire by the naphtha.*

We may therefore conclude that, if any combustibles were used in action near Pesháwar, they were composed of naphtha, and that it must be an error to read either tope or tufang in the passage under consideration. This probability is greatly increased by the fact, that the country where both these transactions are recorded to have taken place abounds with naphtha. Near Mukeya Ghát, on the Indus, it oozes out from parts of the Khyssore range. The natives are ignorant of its commercial value, and use it only as a cure for sores on their camels' backs; and at Kohát, thirty miles from Pesháwar, it is also abundant.*

“Amír Khán sent into the mountains for some mineral liquor, which he told me was collected by dipping cotton into places where it oozed through the ground.”*

At Narr Topa, near Khánpúr, there is a copious spring of asphaltum.* I have seen petroleum near Jabba, about ten miles east of the Indus. It exudes from the rocks at the head of the Kathá-nadi, which falls into the Indus a few miles below Márí, and floats on the surface of the water. The natives call it sulphur-oil, and burn it in their lamps. They also apply it medicinally in diseases of cattle. They would not acknowledge the name, but called it lalírá and kálá-pání. It is chiefly used for dissolving resins, caoutchouc, etc., by virtue of the naphtha it contains, which it yields by distillation.*

In the Yúsufzáí country there is a basin situated to the east of Dhyr, where a fire has burned from time immemorial, and is at present maintained under a cupola in charge of a Guebrian woman.* Sulphur is found in Sind.*

When Sikandar, the Iconoclast, who subverted the Hindú religion in Kashmír, ordered all the places of worship throughout the king­dom to be razed, a temple to Jag Deo, in the Panj-hazára district, on being levelled with the ground, emitted from its foundations volumes of fire and smoke, which the Hindús declared to be an emblem of the wrath of the deity,—but which more sober inquirers may safely attribute to an asphaltine fire-pit.

Capt. A. Cunningham has gone further than this, and in his valuable paper on Arian Architecture in the Asiatic Society's Journal, has considered that Sikandar must have used gunpowder in the progress of his demolition. He observes:

“Most of the Kashmirian temples are more or less injured, but more particularly those at Wantipur, which are mere heaps of ruins. Speaking of these temples, Trebeck* says: ‘It is scarcely possible to imagine that the state of ruin to which they have been reduced has been the work of time or even of man, as their solidity is fully equal to that of the most massive monuments of Egypt; earth­quakes must have been the chief agents in their overthrow.’ I have quoted this passage to show the utter confusion that characterizes the ruins of the Avantipura temples. In my opinion their overthrow is too complete to have been the result of an earthquake, which would have simply prostrated the buildings in large masses. But the whole of the superstructure of these temples is now lying in one confused heap of stones totally disjointed from one another. I believe therefore that I am fully justified in saying, from my own experience, that such a complete and disruptive overturn could only have been produced by gunpowder. I have myself blown up a fort, besides several buildings both of stone and of brick; and I have observed that the result has always been the entire sundering of all parts, one from another, and the capsizing or bouleversement of many of them. Neither of these effects can be produced by an earth­quake. It seems also that Trebeck and Moorcroft would most likely have attributed their destruction to the same agency, had they not believed that the use of gunpowder was unknown at that time: for, in speaking of a traditional attempt made by Sháh Hamadán to destroy Martand, they say, ‘It is fortunate he was not acquainted with the use of gunpowder.’ I admit that this destructive agent was most probably unheard of in Kashmír so early as the reign of Sháh Mír Sháh, of Hamadán; but the destruction of the Kashmirian temples is universally attributed both by history and by tradition to the bigoted Sikandar, whose idol-breaking zeal procured him the title of But-shikan or ‘Ikonoklastes.’ He was reigning at the period of Tímúr's invasion of India, with whom he exchanged friendly presents, and from whom I suppose that he may have received a present of the ‘villainous saltpetre.’ This is not at all unlikely, for the furious Tamerlane was as great an idol-breaker as Sikandar himself. Gibbon, it is true, denies that either the Mughals or the Ottomans in 1402 were acquainted with gunpowder; but as he points out that the Turks had metal cannon at the siege of Constan­tinople in A.D. 1422,* I think it is no great stretch of probability to suppose that gunpowder itself had been carried into the East, even as far as Kashmír, at least ten or twenty years earlier, that is about A.D. 1400 to 1420, or certainly during the reign of Sikandar, who died in 1416.*

“Even if this be not admitted, I shall still adhere to my opinion that the complete ruin of the Avantipura temples could only have been effected by gunpowder, and I would then ascribe their over­throw to the bigoted Aurangzeb. Firishta* attributes to Sikandar the demolition of all the Kashmirian temples save one, which was dedicated to Mahadeva, and which only escaped ‘in consequence of its foundation being below the surface of the neighbouring water.’ In A.D. 1380-90, however, Abú-l Fazl* mentions that some of the idolatrous temples were in ‘perfect preservation;’ and Firishta himself describes many of these edifices as being in existence in his own time, or about A.D. 1600.* Besides, as several of them are still standing, although more or less injured, it is certain that Sikandar could not have destroyed them all. He most likely gave orders that they should all be overturned; and I have no doubt that many of the principal temples were thrown down during his reign. For instance, the tomb of his own Queen in Srinagur is built upon the foundation, and with the materials of a Hindú temple; likewise the wall which surrounds the tomb of his son Zeinu-l Abidin was once the inclosure of a Hindú temple; and lastly the entrance of a masjid in Nowa-Shehra of Srinagur, which, according to its inscription, was built during the reign of his son Zeinu-l Abidin, is formed of two fluted pillars of a Hindú peristyle. These instances prove that at least three different temples in the capital alone must have been overthrown either by Sikandar or by one of his predecessors. But as the demolition of idol-temples is not attributed to any one of the earlier kings, we may safely ascribe the destruction of the three above mentioned to Sikandar himself.”