The Askalanda, Asal-kanda, and Askalandra of the Chach-náma is the same as the Askaland and 'Askaland-Úsa of the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh, and the Askandra and Askanda of the Tuhfatu-l Kirám. The close correspondence of name, especially in the last instance, induces us at once to recognise it as identical with the Alexandria built at the confluence of the Acesines with the Indus; but a little examination will show this resemblance to be more specious than real.*
The ancient kingdom of Sind was divided in four Satrapies, of which the third (v. supra, p. 138) comprised the fort of Askalanda and Máíbar,* “which are also called Talwára and Chachpúr.” It is evident, from the description of the other Satrapies, that this one contained the whole tract north-east of Alor, and south-east of the Panjnad and Ghara; almost precisely the same, in short, as the present Dáúdpútra country. Now Máíbar and Chachpúr still exist, under the modernised names of Mírbar and Cháchar, close together at the very junction of the Acesines and Indus, on the eastern side of the river, opposite to Mittankot; and in them, therefore, we should have to look for Alexandria, if, which is not probable, it was on the left bank of the Indus. Consequently, Askalanda must have been higher up the river, as subsequent passages will show.
In the time of Chach (p. 141), the governor of Pábiya “south of
the river Bíás,” fled to Askalanda, which, therefore, was not likely
to have been far from, or across, that river. Again, some years
after, (pp. 202, 203), we find Muhammad Kásim breaking up his
camp at Pábiya,*
“on the southern bank of the Bíás,” to go to Aska-
Its proximity to the Bíás and its name of Askaland-Úsa* lead us to regard it as the Úchh of more modern times. That place bears marks of the most undoubted antiquity, and the absence of all mention of it in the Chach-náma where we are, both in the time of Chach and Muhammad Kásim, introduced to many transactions in its neighbourhood, can only be accounted for on the supposition that it is disguised under some other appellation.
It has been supposed, indeed, that the name of the Oxydracæ is derived from this old town of Úchh, but their position, according to Strabo and Arrian, appears rather to have been on the western side of the Acesines; and it is a curious coincidence that, in that direction also, there is another ancient Úchh, now in ruins, near the junction of the Hydaspes with that river, which offers a far more probable identification, and allows us, moreover, to assign to the Ossadii, instead of the Oxydracæ, the Úchh, or Askaland-Úsa, near the junction of the Hyphasis with the Acesines. The name of the Oxydracæ assumes various forms in different authors.—Hydracœ in Strabo, Syracousœ in Diodorus, Scydroi, Scothroi, and Scythroi in Dionysius, Sydraci in Pliny, Sygambri in Justin, and Oxydracœ in Strabo, Arrian, Curtius, Stephanus, and others; but in no author are they confounded with the Ossadii, which constituted a separate tribe, acting entirely independent of the Oxydracœ.
It is certain that neither the upper nor lower Alexandria was built near the present Úchh. So cursorily, indeed, does Arrian notice the confluence near that spot, that Major Rennell and Dr. Vincent carry the Hyphasis direct into the Indus, without bringing it first into the Acesines. Nevertheless, although Alexander may himself have raised no city there, we might still be disposed to admit that the celebrity of his power and conquests may have given rise to the name of Askaland, or Askandra, did we not reflect that, if we are to put any trust in the chronology of the Mujmalu-t Tawáríkh , the name must have preceded the invasion of the Grecian conqueror, and cannot therefore, independent of the other reasons above mentioned, be connected with it.*