[35] Mahmúd seems to have crossed the desert from Multán and Baháwalpur to Bikánír and thence to Ajmír. [↑]
[36] Apparently Delváda near Uná. Mahmúd’s route seems to have been from Aṇahilaváḍa to Modhera and Mándal, thence by the Little Ran near Pátri and Bajána, and thence by Jháláváḍ Gohelváḍ and Bábriaváḍ to Delvádá. [↑]
[37] The waves still beat against the walls of the ruined fort of Somanátha. [↑]
[38] This shows that the temple was a building of brick and wood. According to Alberuni (Sachau, II. 105) the temple was built about a hundred years before Mahmúd’s invasion. An inscription at Patan states that Bhímadeva I. (a.d. 1022–1072) rebuilt the Somanátha temple of stone. In Dr. Bhagvánlál’s opinion the first dynasty in Gujarát to make stone buildings were the Solaṅkis. Before them buildings and temples were of wood and brick. [↑]
[39] Of the fate of the great Liṅga Alberuni (Sachau, II. 103) writes: Prince Mahmúd ordered the upper part to be broken. The rest with all its coverings and trappings of gold jewels and embroidered garments he transported to Ghazni. Part of it together with the brass Chakravarti or Vishṇu of Thánesvar has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town: part lies before the mosque for people to rub their feet on. [↑]
[40] The next paragraph relating to Mahmúd’s return will be found on page 249 of the same volume of Sir H. Elliott’s work. [↑]
[41] Khandahat which must have been on the coast has not been identified. The description suggests some coast island in the gulf of Kacch. By the Girnár route forty parasangs that is 240 miles would reach the Kacch coast. Kanthkot in Vágad in east Kacch suits well in sound and is known to have been a favourite resort of the Solaṅkis. But the ebb and flow of the tide close to it are difficult to explain. The identification with Kanthkot is favoured by Dr. Bühler. Colonel Watson (Káthiáwár Gazetteer, 80) prefers Gándhvi on the Káthiáváḍa coast a few miles north-east of Miáni. M. Reinaud and Dr. Weil suggest Gandhár in Broach on the left bank of the mouth of the Dhádhar river. Sir H. Elliot (I. 445 and II. 473) prefers Khandadár at the north-west angle of Káthiáváḍa. [↑]
[42] According to Ferishta (Bombay Persian Ed. I. 57, Briggs’ Translation, I. 74) Mahmúd stayed and meant to make his capital at Aṇahilaváḍa not at Somanátha. That Mahmúd did stay at Aṇahilaváḍa the Martyr’s Mound and the Ghazni Mosque in Patan are evidence. Still the mound was probably raised and the mosque may at least have been begun in honour of the capture of Aṇahilaváḍa on the journey south. Traces of a second mosque which is said to have had a tablet recording Mahmúd of Ghazni as the builder have recently (1878) been found at Munjpur about twenty-five miles south-east of Rádhanpur. [↑]
[43] Briggs’ Ferishta, I. 75. This account of the Dábshilíms reads more like a tradition than an historical record. It is to be noted that the authors both of the Áin-i-Akbari (a.d. 1583) and of the Mirat-i-Ahmadí (a.d. 1762) give Chámuṇḍa as king at the time of Mahmúd’s invasion. Their statements cannot weigh against Ibn Asír’s account. Compare Dr. Bühler’s remarks in Ind. Ant. VI. 184. Of Mahmúd’s return to Ghazni (a.d. 1026) the Tabakát-i-Akbari says: ‘When Mahmúd resolved to return from Somanátha he learned that Parama Dev, one of the greatest Rájás of Hindustán, was preparing to intercept him. The Sultán, not deeming it advisable to contend with this chief, went towards Multán through Sindh. In this journey his men suffered much in some places from scarcity of water in others from want of forage. After enduring great difficulties he arrived at Ghazni in a.d. 1029 (H. 417).’ This Parama Dev would seem to be the Parmára king of Ábu who could well block the Ajmir-Gujarát route. The route taken by Mahmúd must have passed by Mansúra near Bráhmanábád, Bhátia, and Multán. It must have been in the crossing of the great desert that he suffered so severely from scarcity of water and forage. Ferishta (Briggs, I. 75) says that many of Mahmúd’s troops died raging mad from the intolerable heat and thirst. The historian Muhammad Ufi (a.d. 1200) alleges (Elliot, II. 192) that two Hindus disguised as countrymen offered themselves as guides and led the army three days’ march out of the right course, where they were saved only by Mahmúd’s miraculous discovery of a pool of sweet water. [This tale of the self-sacrificing Bráhman or priest and the miraculous find of water has gathered round Mahmúd as the latest of myth centres. It is Herodotus’ (Book III. 154–158) old Zopyrus tale (Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 318); it is revived in honour of the Great Kushán Kanishka, a.d. 78 (Beruni in Elliot, II. 11), of the Sassanian Firoz a.d. 457–483 (Rawlinson’s Seventh Monarchy, 318), and of a certain king of Zábulistán or Ghazni of uncertain date (Elliot II. 170). Similarly the puzzling Dabshilím tale seems to be peculiar neither to Gujarát nor to Mahmúd of Ghazni. It seems a repetition of the tale of Dabshilím the man of the royal race, who, according to the Panchatantra or Fables of Pilpai, was chosen successor of Porus after Alexander the Great’s Viceroy had been driven out. [Compare Reinaud’s Mémoire Sur l’Inde, 127–128.] The Tabakát-i-Násirí (a.d. 1227) adds (Elliot, II. 475) that the guide devoted his life for the sake of Somanátha and this account is adopted by Ferishta, Briggs’ Translation, I. 78. [↑]
[44] Vasahiis Prákrit for Vasati that is residence. The word is used to mean a group of temples. [↑]