History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28.s1.7

v2.c28.s1.7

But the most convincing proof why these three cannot be included in the 36 is that these were never the names of any clans in the sense the other names are. For the chief importance of these clan names is that they are practically for Rajputs what gotras are for Brahmins in respect of marriage. No Kula or clan out of the 36 can marry in the same clan. A Chālukka cannot marry a Chālukka and a Chohan cannot marry a Chohan. Ravi, Śaśi and Jādhava, especially the first two are not clan names in this sense. They are the names of races in which the 36 clans may be grouped. The Sūryavamśa, the Chandravamśa and the Yaduvamśa are the famous Vamśas of the Purāṇas and they do not indicate clans for purposes of marriage. There is no objectoin for a Sūryavamśī to marry a Sūryavamśī. As a matter of fact the Guhilots of Udepur and the Kachhavāhas of Jaipur are both Sūryavamśīs but they do intermarry. The Purāṇas also do not show that Sūryavamśa or Chandravamśa was prohibitive of marriage within itself. Rāma and Sītā were both Suryavamśī and so were Arjuna and Draupadī both Chandravamśī. In Purāṇic times the Kshatriyas were observers of gotras only and Rāma being of Vaśiṣṭha gotra and Sītā of Gautama gotra could marry. In modern times the Kshatriyas have adopted the clan system to determine who cannot marry whom, and as we have already shown, it practically fulfils the gotra law of the Smṛitis. The argument why Ravi, Śaśi and Jādhava cannot be treated as clans like the other names will, therefore, be clear and we are certain that Chand merely indicates here the three great vamśas or races in which all the following 36 were to be grouped. The word vamśa used here only is of importance and has a meaning different from the same word used at the end (वरने वंस छतीस).