



xiv Report of the Archaeological Survey. 



26. In A. H. 303, or A. D. 915, India was visited by the well 

 known Geographer Masudi, who records that " the King of Kanoj, 

 who is one of the kings of es-Sind, is Budah ; this is a title general 

 to all kings of el-Kanoj." # The name which in the above extract 

 is read as Budah by Sir Henry Elliot, is said by Grildem. Meisterf to 

 be written Bovarah, Xjjj*, in the original, for which he proposes to 

 read Poravah, XjjtJ for the well known Paurava. From the king of 

 Oudh's Dictionary two different spellings are quoted, as Poran, c>^J 

 and Mr an, u)\jy* while in Ferishta the name is either Xorrah, as 

 written by Dow, or Kuwar, as written by Briggs. In Abulfeda the 

 name is JSTodah, XdjK Now, as the name, of which so many readings 

 have just been given, was that of the king's family or tribe, I believe 

 that we may almost certainly adopt Tovarah, s^y, as the true reading 

 according to one spelling, and Torah, Xjy, according to the other. In 

 the Sanskrit inscriptions of the Gwalior dynasty of this name, the 

 word is invariably spelt Tomara, W^T. Kharg Eai writes Tomar, 

 Wl^T, which is much the same as Colonel Tod's Tuar, and the Tuvdr, 

 <g"3TTT, of the Kurn aon and Grarhwal manuscripts. Lastly, in Glad- 

 win's Ayin Akbari I find Tenore and Toonoor, for which I presume 

 that the original has jyy 7 Tunwar, and ;y^ Tanwar. From a com- 

 parison of all these various readings, I conclude that the family name 

 of the Eaja of Kanoj in A. D. 915, when Masudi visited India, and 

 again in A. D. 1017 and 1021, when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded 

 India, was in all probability Tovar or Tomar. In favour of this con- 

 clusion there is the further testimony of Masudi that in A. D. 915 

 the four great kings of India known to the Musalmans, were, 1st, the 

 Balhard, who lived in Mdnkir ; 2nd, the king of Kanoj ; 3rd, the 

 king of Kashmir ; and 4th, the king of Sind. As no king of Dilli 

 is mentioned, it seems only reasonable to infer that at that time, in 

 A. D. 915, the powerful Tomars most probably held their Court at 

 Kanoj. 



27. If I am correct in the above identification, then the name of 

 the king at the time of Mahmud's invasion should correspond with 

 that of the Tomar Eaja, who, according to the genealogical lists, was 

 reigning at that particular period. According to Otbi% the name of 



# Sir H. M. Elliot— Historians of India, I. 57. 

 f Scriptorum Arab, de rebus Indicis, p. 160. 

 % Reinaud Fragments Arabes, p. 263. 





