[These three towns were all south of Kambáya, and the first two were ports. Saimúr, though a place of trade, is not distinctly said to be a port, but it is laid down on the sea-shore in the map. Abú-l Fidá says that Sindán was also called Sindábúr, but this is hardly in accordance with Al Bírúní and Rashídu-d dín (pp. 66, 68). He also notices the variant forms of Súfára and Súfála for Súbára. The route as given by Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal and Idrísí is—
Kambáya to Surabáya, four days;
Súrabáya to Sindán, five days;
Sindán to Saimúr five days;
And the first two add, Saimúr to Sarandíb, 15 days.
Idrísí also states Broach to be two days from Saimúr. Al Birúní makes the distance from Broach to Sindán fifty parasangs, and from Sindán to Súfára six parasangs. Abú-l Fida says that Sindán was the last city of Guzerát, and the first of Maníbár (Malabár), three days' journey from Tana. It is hardly possible to reconcile all these statements, but there seems to be sufficient evidence for making Sindán the most southerly. It was on a bay or estuary a mile and a-half from the sea, and the modern Damán is probably its present representative. Súbára was similarly situated at the same distance from the sea, and finds a likely successor in Surát. Istakhrí's statement would make Saimúr the most southerly, but this is at variance with Mas'údi and Al Bírúní, who say that it was in Lár (the country round Broach), and with Idrísí's statement of its being at only two days' journey from Broach. But it is not easy to see how it could have been only two days from Broach and yet five from Sindán. Notwithstanding the incongruity of these statements, it must have been a place of considerable size and importance. It is the only one of these three towns that has received notice by Kazwíní. His account of the place is given in page 97 supra, but it supplies no data on which to fix the locality. Abú-l Fidá does not mention it, and the Marásidu-i Ittilá' affords no help, for it merely describes it as a city of Hind, bordering on Sind near to Debal.]