________________
32
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
commenced much earlier than the eighth century A.D. For if we accept Dr. Bühler's opinion 114 that there was maritime intercourse becween India and Mesopotamia in the eighth century B.O., we can well assume that Prabhasa [which is already shown to be a very old town] may have been serving as a shipping station since that early time. For what port is more convenient for such purpose for ships trading between Basra and Bharoch?
[JUNE, 1926
Next we have to consider the question whether the city was ever the capital of Gujarat or Kathiawad. We have already shown that Girinagar was the capital of Saurashtra from very early times to the sixth century, when it was shifted to Valabhi by Bhattaraka. Till the fall of Valabhi, Girinagara belonged to that Empire. Prabhasa then could not have been till then the capital of Kathiawad; it might have been at most the capital of a petty local principality. Nor can we accept Ferishta's statement that at the time of the invasion of Soman&tha, it was the capital of Gujarat, Nahrwala [Anahilapattana] being then only its frontier city. For tradition is unanimous in affirming that Anahilapattana was the capital of Gujarat under the Châvotaka and Solanki dynasties. Elliot further informs us 126 that at the time of Mahmud's invasion, Bhîmadeva I, unprepared to meet him, abandoned his capital Anahilapattana and retreated to Cutch. As a matter of fact Somanâtha did not then even form part of the Gurjara kingdom; the pilgrim tax on the Somanâtha pilgrims levied at Bahuloḍa shows that the peninsula did not form its part. It was only during the reign of Siddharaja Jayasimha that the peninsula was annexed to the Solanki empire, and even then the seat of the viceroy was not at Prabhâsa but at Girinagara. At the time of Mahmud's invasion Prabhasa was the seat of some local chief; hence the suffix Pattana 126 attached to its name; hence also Ferishta's confusion.
Well known is the account of the destruction of the Siva temple by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024, but what is not equally well known is the bravery of the Hindu defence. The issue of the battle was hanging in the balance for three days; when a breach was effected in the ramparts, a street-to-street fight ensued; 50,000 Hindus had laid down their lives before the Idolbreaker could enter the temple. -
The work of restoration was however undertaken within thirty years by king Kumarapala, who appointed a 'pañchakula ' or committee under the presidency of his local governor, Gandabhava Brhaspati, and entrusted the work to its supervision. The work was completed within two years, and at its completion the king came down to Pattana to pay his obeisance to the Lord.17 The style of sculpture and architecture of the present battered seashoro temple of Somanâtha, which has been converted into a mosque, shows that it is the same as was built by Kumarapala; for the style of construction is in complete agreement with that of other buildings of Kumarapala.
Within 150 years of this restoration, the town again suffered from a Muhammadan inva. sion; for after the capture of Anahilapattana and Cambay, Alaf Khan passed on to Kathiawad and destroyed the temple of Somanâtha about 1300 A.D. When Alaf Khan returned, the work of restoration was again undertaken under the patronage of Khengar IV [1279-1333 A.D.], the Chudashama king of Junagad, as his Girnar inscription clearly shows.118 But the restored temple was not destined to endure long; for the town suffered from three more Moslem invasions; first from the invasion of Mozzafar in 1390, then from that of Mahmud Begada about 1490, and lastly from that of Mozzar II about 1530. It was the last invader who committed the sacrilege of converting the temple into a mosque.
125 P. 98.
124 Indian Palæography, p. 84.
120 पत्तनं यत्र राजधानी स्थिता com. on Kama Sura, I. 4. 2. 137 Pbo., p. 130.
138 श्रीप्रभारी सोमनाथप्रासारकृत् ।
