No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
From the beginning of Indian studies in Europe Sūrat and Soraṭhh have been constantly confused. Denison Ross continues this confusion (Arabic History of Gujarat, vol. i, p. x): Surat is spelt indifferently 
and 
although the two places are distinguished in the index and in chapter 13, CHI, vol. iii. Elliott and Dowson (History of India told by its own historians, v, 350, n. 4) distinguish the places, but derive both names from the Sanskrit Saurāsṭra, which is absurd. More recently the authors of the Advanced History of India, R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri, and K. Datta, uniformly spell the first name as Surāt; and Jules Bloch, Les Inscriptions d'Asoka, 103, n. 9, equates with Saurāṣṭra with Surate.