Munda and naga kings from vedic times

[Guest guest]

PL Bhargava notes (2001, India in the Vedic Age, A history of aryan

expansion in India, DK Print World, Delhi): "...so far as the list

of kings is concerned, whenever there is an independent evidence it

supports the Pura_n.a-s and not the Sri Lankan chronicles. To

explain this we may divide Bimbisa_ra and his descendants into two

groups, the first headed by Bimbisa_ra and the second by Udayin...In

the second group the Pura_n.a-s mention only three kings, viz.,

Uda_yin and his son and grandson (called Nandivardhana and

Maha_nandin by Pura_n.a-s and Anuruddha and Mun.d.a by Buddhists),

but the maha_vams'a adds a fourth king named Na_gada_saka..." (p.

244).

 

In a table of important dynasties of the post-vedic and post-nanda

period, four categories of regions are shown: avanti_ (pradyota),

kuru (bha_rata), kos'ala (Aiks.va_ku) and magadha (bha_rata). In the

magadha category, the list starts with Soma_dhi and the 29th king of

Magadha (haryana is shown as Nandivardhana (Anuruddha) and the 30th

king as Maha_nandin (Mun.d.a), the 31st as Magadha (Sais'una_ga).

 

We are aware of names like Trasadasyu, Dasyavevr.ka, Ili_bi_s'a,

Dhuni, Cumuri, Pipru, Varcin, S'ambara, S'imyu, Ki_kat.a, Aja,

S'igru, Yaks.u, Ra_ks.asa, Pan.i, Pramagandha (magadha?), Nis.a_da,

S'abara, Pun.d.ra, Pulinda, Mu_tiba, Andhra, Kas'yapa. It is likely

that most of these are mun.d.a and na_ga.

 

My question is: how many such names of kings are listed in the

Pura_n.a who are of the Mun.d.a or Na_ga lineage? These are likely

to denote the integration of mun.d.a and na_ga in the polity and

their contributions to nurture the bharatiya culture and hindu

civilization, right through the ages starting from vedic times and

through the metals age of the Saptasindhu and Ganga river basins --

a phenomenon which should also have been replicated in other parts

of Bharat, south of the Vindhyas, west of Sindhu and east of Lohitya

(Brahmaputra).

 

Kalyanaraman