"It is clear from what has been discussed above that Indian tradition, Vedic or Puranic, is not likely to help much in the interpretation of archaeological data. The theories proposed by reputed archaeolo­gists are laboured ones and based on preconceived notions. Most scholars have twisted the traditional accounts or invented their own legends to suit their interpretations because it is utterly difficult to apply the tradition as a whole to the field of pure archaeology involving one or more material cultures ... [the] majority of Indian traditions are unhistoric and coloured and therefore none of their archaeological interpretations would prove to be free from subjectivity. The Rämäyana and the Mahäbhärata were not written for the simple aim of recording past happenings, but these were composed with the specific purpose of expounding the message of dharma through the stories, in the tradition of the A£okan dharma which itself was the outcome of the problems growing out of the Iron Age urbanisation. Even the later and secular Indian tradition connected with Vikramaditya or Alha-Udal cannot be explained in archaeological terms. Hence tradition and archaeology cannot be mixed together in any form at least as far as Indian protohistory is concerned."