Juzr or Jurz.

[Sulaimán and Ibn Khurdádba write the name “Jurz” but the Paris edition of Mas'údí has Juzr, which the editors understand as signifying Guzerat. Abú Zaid says incidentally that Kanauj is “a large country forming the empire of Jurz;”* and relying upon this statement M. Reinaud identifies Jurz with Kanauj.* But Mas'údí locates the Bauüra at Kanauj, and speaks of Juzr as quite a distinct kingdom. Sulaimán and Mas'údí concur in making the country border on the kingdoms of the Rahma and the Balhará, and the former says that the country is situated on a tongue of land, and is rich in camels and horses. “Juzr” closely resembles the name “Guzerát,” especially in its Arabic form “Juzarát” and the other known conditions are satisfied by this identification. Guzerát is a peninsula, it bordered on the dominions of the Balhará, and the horses of Kattiwár are still famous.]

[Hwen Tsang visited the “kingdoms of Su-la-cha or Suráshtra, and Kiu-che-lo or Gurjjara, after that of Vallabhi, but, according to his expositor, M. Vivien de St. Martin, Su-la-cha (Suráshtra) represents the modern Guzerát, and Kiu-che-lo (Gurjjara) “the country of the Gujars” between Anhalwára and the Indus. This location of the two territorial names differs from the generally received acceptation of their meaning, and rests entirely upon the expositor's interpretation of Hwen Tsang's confused statements—the only arguments adduced in its favour, being a proposed identification of Pi-lo-mo-lo, which Hwen Tsang gives as the name of the capital of Kiu-che-lo, with the modern Bálmer; and an ethnological theory that the Gujars might have given their name to this country in the course of their migrations. But no example of such an application of the name is adduced, and Hwen Tsang himself in another passage (p. 169) accurately describes this very country as being north of Kiu-che-lo, and stretching “1900 li (316 1/2 miles), a travers des plaines sauvages et des déserts dangereux” to the river Indus. The Sanskrit Suráshtra and Gurjjara survive in the modern names Surat and Guzerát, and, however the territories embraced by the old terms may have varied, it is hard to conceive that Surat was not in Suráshtra nor Guzerát in Gurjjara. All evidence goes to prove that the old and modern names applied to the same places. Thus, Ptolemy's Surastrene comprises Surat, and the grants of the “Rajas of Gurjjara” dated in the early part of the fourth century, conveyed land in the vicinity of Jambusara or “Jumbooseer.”— Bírúní (supra p. 67), shows what the Muhammadans understood by Guzerát in his day, and while Guzerát answers to the “Juzr,” of his predecessors, the supposed “country of the Gujars” does not, for that cannot be said to be “a tongue of land.”]

[The fact is that there is great confusion in this part of Hwen Tsang's itinerary, and his bearings are altogether untrustworthy. In the first volume he says, “Du cote de l' ouest ce royaume (Suráshtra) touche à la rivière Mahí;” but in vol. ii. p. 165, he says “La capitale touche du côté de l'ouest à la rivière Mo-hi (Mahí).” A very material difference. The first statement is quite in agreement with the true position of Suráshtra. Hwen Tsang represents his route to have pro­ceeded north from Kach to Vallabhi. This error, M. Vivien de Saint-Martin observes, renders it necessary to reverse the direction, and he adds, “Ceci est une correction capitale qui affecte et rectifie toute la suite de l'itinéraire.” If it is thus necessary to reverse the north and south, may it not be also necessary to do the same with the east and west? No such general correction, however, will set matters right; for Hwen Tsang says correctly that he proceeded south-east from Gurjjara to Ujjain. It is curious, moreover, that M. V. de Saint-Martin does not adhere to his “correction capitale,” for Hwen Tsang states that he went north from Vallabhi to Gurjjara and his expositor, places Gurjjara to the north, while according to his own canon it ought to be south.*]