________________
Dynastic Lists and Genealogical Accounts
105
and Kurudamsa, which are reported to have received their respective names froin Adityaj aśa, 88, son of Bharata, Ikşuahu's eldest son, from Somayasas, also called Somaprabha, son of Bahubalıns, another son of Ihşvahu and from Kuru,90 said to have been a son of the same patriarch of these three, the Somavamsa is said to have got divided into sevcral sub-lines 91 But we have seen in the genealogical section of the TSPC that both the liuruvamsa and Somavamsa are treated as collateral lines said to have descended from the Ihşudhu race This being the case, then, the term Ikşvāku must be treated as generic in nature and, therefore, comprehensive of all the derivative lines thereof. Hence a separate mention of the Kuruvamsa besides the Ikşvāku in the list of the Játy aryas shows its redundance and creates an impression that the author takes thc Kuruvamsa as unconnected with the Ikşvaku race For, it is clear from the list that the Somavamsa has not been separately mentioned thercin for obvious reason of its having been derived from Ikşdaku. Under the circumstances, it is strange that the author should not have kept to that common place principle with regard to the Kuruvamsa which, according to his representauon, was related to Ikşvalıı more closely 02 than the Somavañía Moreover, the recekoning of the Videhas and the Hans separately among the noble families, is, likewise, inconsistent with the dynastic account wherein the former are represented as the offshoots of the latter
A perusal of the dynastic records as set forth in the foregoing pages reveals that the Purānas under investigation do not represent a unified tradition Now, so far as the representation of the Ikşvāku dynasty is concerned the unanimity is
88 Ibid 1 6 746 89 Ibid 15 754-56, 1 3 244, 247, 333 90 Ibid (Eng trans by H M Johnson) Vol VP 197 91 तदादि सोमवशोऽभूच्छाखाशतसमाकुल । तत्तत्पुरुषरलानामेकमुन्पत्तिकारणम् ॥
Ibid 18 766 02. As it was derived from Ikşoaku's 100 ; TSPC, vol. V P 107,
