Indian Antiquary Vol 51

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 228

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ NOVEMBER, 1922
(3) That it was further to the south of Vidurbha and between Kalinga, Andhra, Kollaviri and Dandaka. These countries are now identified beyond controversy.
(4) that at that time the town known as Mâhishmati was neither on the north bank of the Narmadá, nor anywhere near the sea, nor within that portion of the country which could be identified with Anûpadeśa.
These conclusions leave no doubt whatsoever that the Mahishmati of king Nila was not the Mâhishmati of king Kartavirya.
But if anything more was required the description of Mahishmati of Nila, as given in the Mahabharata, Sabha P., would be sufficient to make its identification with the city of the Great Haihaya king impossible.
King Nila though at one place called king of Anupa (a clear case of transfer of traditional epithet) is neither a Haihaya nor a Yadava nor one reputed to have descended from some eminent founder of the families of Aryan kings. His people are not Aryans of any well known stock but Nilayudha's or Lilayudha's.10 They are a degraded people who have given up the sacred rites, 31 and whose easy morals have nothing in common with the high standard imposed by Aryan civilization.39 And therefore Mahishmati of Nils was a city of a non-Aryan people and could not be the city of the king whose righteous deeds and famous sacrifices were the admiration of posterity.
There was also a third city by name Mâhish mati founded by Muchkunda, the son of Mândhâtå, at a place where the Vindhyâ and the nksha mountains meet.33 That city appears to have disappeared altogether.
There is also no doubt that during the post-Mahâbhârata and Buddhistic times there was a town somewhere to the south of the Vindhya which was called by the name of Mahishmati or Mahêshmati. It also appears that on account of the identity of names those who have sought to locate Mahishmati have naturally found great difficulty in finding out a suitable place which can answer the description of the Mahishmati of Kartavirya, of Nila and the one mentioned in Mahávanso. Whether the two cities last mentioned were situated on the site of Mandla or of Chauli-Maheshwar or of Mandhata does not affect the question as to where Kartavîrya's capital lay.
A close examination of the events which followed the destruction of Kartavirya's power cliscloses the reason why Mâhishmati and Anûpadesa of that king disappeared. Jamadagnya Rama appears to have destroyed the power of Haihaya king, and under his lead the Bhrigus appear to have taken possession of the most important part of the dominions vanquished. The Surpâraka which Parasurama called into existence was the country which stretched from the north of Narmadá to Sopara near Bombay.34 There appears to be no doubt that the banks of the Narmadá from Broach up to the very mouth of the river : were considered sacred to Bhrigu and Jámadagnya.35 Of course we do not find the name of Bhrigukachha applied to any tract on the banks of the Narmada in the Mahdbhdrata times; brut looking to the extent of Sürp kraka it is quite clear that the tract which was
30 Min., Udyoga P., xix, 24; Bhishma P., lvi, 13.
31 Ibig., Anushåsan, xxxiii, 22. 19 Ibid., Sabha P., xxxiv.
33 Hari IT, xxxviii, 19. 31 Mh., Sabha P., XXX ; Vana P., Ixxxviii, cxviii; sånti P., xlix; An ushasan P., xxv,50; Hari II, xxxix, 28. Arch. Survey of W. India, No. 10, p. 31.
$6 Matsya P., xciii, 33–34.