Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c9.s2.45

c9.s2.45

Pargiter, unlike Keith, is inclined to give more weight to Purāṇic tradition than to Vedic evidence, and his conclusions have apparently been accepted by Dr. Barnett.¹ It has eloquently been urged by the former² that Vedic literature "*lacks* the historical sense" and "*is not always to be trusted*." But do the *Purāṇas* which represent Śākya as one individual, include Abhimanyu and Siddhārtha in lists of kings, make Prasenajit the immediate lineal successor of Rāhula, place Pradyota several generations before Bimbisāra, dismiss Aśoka with one sentence, make no mention of the dynastic name Sātavāhana, and omit from the list of the so-called "Andhras," princes like Siri-Kubha (Śrī-Kumbha) Sātakaṇi whose existence is proved by the incontestable evidence of coins³, possess the historical sense in a remarkable degree, and are "*always to be trusted*"? Pargiter himself, not unoften, rejects Epic and Purāṇic evidence⁴ when it is opposed to certain theories. In this connection it will not be quite out of place to quote the following observations of Mr. V. Gordon Childe.⁵ "*The Kṣatriya tradition (i.e., Epic and Purāṇic tradition)......is hardly an unpolluted source of history. The orthodox view is not really based on the priestly tradition, as embodied in* epexegetical works, but rather on the internal evidence of the Veda itself. The latter carries conviction precisely because the historical and geographical references in the hymns are introduced only incidentally and in a thoroughly ingenuous manner...The same cannot be said of Kṣatriya tradition, which in its recorded form dates from an age (perhaps as late as 200 A.D.) when myth-making had had many centuries to work in, and which might serve dynastic ends." Priority of date and comparative freedom from textual corruption are two strong points in favour of Vedic literature.