________________
180
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XIII.
(A.D. 972-73). "Wher Mannakhoda had been plundered in an assault by the king of Mälava" (probably Våkpati). And the city was known as Mankir (? rather Mankēr) to the Arab writers of the tenth century, who, however, seem to have had a rather vague idea as to its situation. It has been supposed that it is mentioned as simply Khőtaka in a record of A.D. 930, and as Khëdaga in the Chamundarāy a-Purāna :* but it seems more likely that these references are to some place the name of which was Khotaka and nothing more, and probably to Kaira in Gajarät, because the mention of the “Khodaga war" is in connection with Chåmandariya, an officer of the Ganga prince Nolambántaka-Mārasimha, and the lastmentioned acquired the title “ king of the Gurjaras" by subduing the northern parts of Western India for his sovereign Kțishna III.
For a long time past Mânyakhēta has been identified with a town Malkhēd or Mālkhēd, in the Gulbarga District of the Nizam's territory, which is entered as "Mulkair" in Thornton's Gazetteer of India, vol. 3 (1854), p. 547, and is shown as "Mulkaid " in the Indian Atlas sheet 57 (1854), in lat. 17° 11', long. 77° 13', and as “Malkhed" in the Hyderabad maps of 1883 and 1908. This town is about ninety miles east-south-east from Sholāpår in the Bombay Presidency, about the same distance east-by-north from Bijäpitr, about eighty-five miles west-by-south from Hyderabad, and between twenty-two and twenty-three miles towards east-south-east from Gulbarga. It is situated on the south bank of a river, apparently knowa as the Tāndûr river, which is a considerable tributary of the Bhimă, flowing into the latter at a point about nineteen miles towards south-west-by-west from the town. And it gives its name to a station known as "Mulkaid Gate" on the Nizam's State Railway betweon Wadi Junction and Hyderabad. The identification seems to have been made, in 1835, either by Wathen, who, in bringing to notice the record of Kakka II on the Kharda plates dated in A.D. 972, said that Mänyakhota "seoms to be the present Mandkhera, and must have been situated in the Hyderabad territory;"&or else by Wilson, who remarked that the place was supposed, with great probability, to be Man-khéra in the Hyderabad country." 7 It was recognized in 1872 by Sh. P. Pandit, who wrote the modern name as "Mal-Khed 8 And it was ratified in 1877 by Bühler, who wrote the name as "Malkhed". As regards the exact spelling of the modern name, the forms presented by Wathen and Wilson perhaps suggest that the n in the first part of the ancient name had not been altogether supplanted by the l even as late as in their time: but the source of these forms cannot be traced ; and it is not impossible that these two writers put forward what they thought should be the modern name, rather than any form of it actually found by them. As to the quantity of the vowel in the first syllable, Thornton's "Mulkair" and the "Mulkaid” of the Indian Atlas suggest the short a ; and this is supported more or less by the Prakrit forms Mannakhēda, Mannekhēda. On the other hand, the long a is suggested by the Mānkir (? Mānker) of the Arab geographers, and is equally likely to be right. In any case, this latter form, Málkhēd, was adopted by Bühler, and so became fixed.11
1 This was in the course of the events which ended in the overthrow of the Rashtrakūtas and transferred their kingdom to the Western Chilukyas under Taila II (A.D. 978-96), who drove ont the Malava inyadors. See Elliot's History of India, vol. 1, pp. 21, 27, 34.
* Vol. 7 above, p. 29. • Vol. 5 above, p. 172, note 1.
Vol. 7 above, pp. 170, 179. • Journ. R. 4.. Soc., first series, vol. 2, p. 379. The d in Wathen's form of the present name seems due to his mistreatment of the ancient name: the correct reading Manyakhifa in l. 46 of the record mentioned above Wan given to him (JRAS, first series, vol. 3, p. 98); but his translation transformed the name into " Mandya-Khétapurs" (p. 104), for which, in the place from which I have quoted him, he further substituted "Mandya-Cheta. purs". Ibid., p. 393.
* Ind. Ant., vol. 1, p. 207. Ind. Ant., vol. 6, p. 64, 10 Probably they recognized the place as the "Malquer" of Manucci (nee farther on): and they perhaps thought that they might improve on his presentation of it. As regards the d in Wathen's form, neo note 6 above.
11 I have never been able to get any local certificate as to the spelling of the name,
