Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c17.4

c17.4

The genealogies considered singly, however, are of little chronological value, because we have no data for providing a definite historical setting for individual kings, and because, though they aim at fullness, yet admittedly they do not record the name of every king (chapter IX), so that their length or brevity does not fix the chronological durations of the dynasties. A clear illustration of this appears on comparing the Ayodhyā and Vaiśāla lines, for both start from Manu, and Daśaratha of the former was contemporary with Pramati of the latter according to the Rāmāyaṇa, yet the lists of the latter line contain only about half as many names as the lists of the former to that point. But the genealogies would become of relative historical value if they can be connected together so as to supplement one another and form a combined and consistent scheme, in which each checks and elucidates the others, so that all settle into an arrangement relatively harmonious. The genealogies are, for the most part, separate and independent, each pursuing its own course without concerning itself with others, yet co-ordinate allusions do occur incidentally sometimes. If points of contact can be discovered either in them or elsewhere, which bring kings in two or more lines into connexion, they help towards the construction of a combined genealogical scheme; and since such points generally occur incidentally, co-ordination not being the intention of the genealogists, the co-ordination gains a definite probability of being real and true. The more numerous such points, the more abundant become the means of constructing and testing the combined framework and the greater the probability of historical trustworthiness. That is, we must seek for synchronisms.