Talk:Kamarupa/Archive 1

[Untitled]

Some historical points were corrected.

Pragjyotisha has been mentioned as both the name of the city as well as the kingdom. For example, Bhagadatta in the Mahabharata fought in the battle with "kiratas, chinas and dwellers of the eastern seas". Though in the ancient times, the sea extended much further to the north, there is no evidence that it extended to Guwahati where Pragjyotisha is located. This indicates that at the time of Bhagadatta the kingdom of Pragjyotisha was much bigger than a city. The fact that Pragjyotisha stands both for a city and a kingdom means that the political entity that began as a city state evolved into a kingdom over time. Thus the reference---the capital of Kamarupa was called Pragjyotisha---told only half the story, and so was corrected. --- Chaipau 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The western boundary is the Karatoya, and Xuanzang's account matched the eastern boundary given in Kalika Purana. I have added the eastern boundary, which has been identified as the present-day Digaru river by B K Kakati and P C Choudhury. --- Chaipau 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kamarupa kingdom officially ended in the 12th century, when the Khen dynasty moved the capital to Kamatanagara near present-day Cooch Behar, and the kings began calling themselves Kamateshwars, or the "Lord of Kamata". This title was picked up by the later Koch dynasty too. The eastern regions of the erstwhile Kamarupa kingdom was anyway not in control of the Khen and the Koch dynasties, as the Barobhuyan, the Kachari kingdom and the Chutiya kingdom came to rule in these regions. Thus we can say that the Kamarupa kingdom ended in the 12th century. Thus the portion about Naranarayana's dynasty was removed since by that time, the Kamarupa kingdom was really history! --- Chaipau 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pragjyotisha in Mahabharata

Thanks for the list of references. I have moved the references to Pragjyotisha in the Mahabharata to its own page to avoid clutter and loss of focus in the article. Chaipau 12:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Hindu Mythology Project

This page is on the history of Kamarupa and the focus should be on the history and not mythology. Chaipau 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the boundary of Kamarupa

[1]
[2]

Please discuss the boundary of Kamarupa here.

Not a problem; I wasn't sure what would be the best place to discuss this. Honestly I'd rather discuss it on the image talkpages, since that makes it easier for me to keep track of changes and discussions regarding the maps. However, this page will also work.

Tibet and India, late 700 and 800 AD

Concerns have been raised over the Tibetan Empire borders depicted in the East-Hem maps for 700 and 800 AD. Specifically regarding whether Tibet ruled large sections of northern India, including Kamarupa, Bengal, and the Gangetic plains. There are unfortunately few sources covering relations between medieval Tibet and India. Bengal and Assam are also lacking reliable sources for that time period.

Some of my sources regarding Tibet's expansion into Bengal and India:

1. Google Book's "History of Tibet" makes several mentions of Nepal as a Tibetan vassal, and also says that India's Pala Empire under Dharmapala accepted Tibetan overlordship. (Page 54)
2. The wiki-article, History of Tibet also mentions Tibetan military power extending to Bengal, in the section about Ralpacan (815-838 AD).
3. Huhai.net has a [map of Asia in 750 AD] that shows Tibet ruling Kamarupa, Bengal, and Pala.
4. DK Atlas of World History, 2000 edition, shows Tibet's borders in 800 AD, with northern India (the entire length of the Ganges, almost to the Indus river) ruled by Tibet. It's on pg. 262.

Tibet appears to have been rather active along their southern borders. We know Tibet subjugated Nanzhao twice (from 680-703, then from 750-794 AD). Nepal under the Licchavis was apparently subjugated also. This was about the same time as the collapse of the Pyu city-states in Burma, the end of the Varman Dynasty and the beginning of the Mlechchha dynasty in Kamarupa. It's possible Tibet also subjugated part of northern India. It may not have been an actual conquest; it could have been raids for plunder or marriage alliances.

(This is also being discussed on Talk:Kamarupa (History) and History of Tibet. I've posted this here to get more input. Any assistance is appreciated! I need to find out more information before I can correct the maps, if they are incorrect. Thomas Lessman (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamarupa in the Tibet kingdom becomes all the more improbable about 800CE since Harjaravarman, a major king of the Mlechchha dynasty ruled Kamarupa from about 815CE. Epigraphs are available from his reign, and they do not mention a Tibetan rule, but indicate a continuation of the dynasty from about 655CE. I do not have access to the epigraphs or the commentaries, and I shall provide details when I get them. Chaipau (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Unttiled]

This article could perhaps be a copyright infringement and may have to be rewritten. Other articles by User:Knightt [3] may have the same problem.

According to [4] Works produced before 1923 are public domain.

The dates of some of the theosophical encyclopedias are:

Thus the following encyclopedias among others could probably be used as they seem to be in public domain:

KT | Key to Theosophy - 1889 | H. P. Blavatsky (Glossary)
TG | Theosophical Glossary - 1892 | H. P. Blavatsky

The THEOSOPHICAL UNIVERSITY PRESS has granted reprint in Wakipedia under the terms that the source is identified. See below for details.

'Dear Brendan:

Thanks for your email and request to reprint in the Wikipedia some definitions from our Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary. You have our permission to do so provided that each entry identifies its source (Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary), if only to let people know its perspective.

As the ETG is a work-in progress (so mentioned at the top of each page), please be aware that some terms may reflect dated or inaccurate scholarship -- I am thinking especially of some of the Mesopotamian terms. The Sanskrit, Tibetan, Greek, Roman, and theosophical terms are all pretty good; the Egyptian may be incomplete.

We trust this will be of help -- Wikipedia is a wonderful resource.

Best regards of the holidays and new year,

THEOSOPHICAL UNIVERSITY PRESS'

Legacy of Kamarupa

Boundaries of Kamarupa should be properly verified before claiming legacy. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 19:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the Ahom Kingdom was not as big as the Kamarupa. But the Ahom kingdom claimed legacy, as has been noted by Guha. That is significant, because they were the most powerful and enduring of the sovereign medieval kingdoms in the region. Chaipau (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamarupa Kingdom's was more national kingdom than regional; politically, geographically, culturally and it had signficant areas outside the region. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only source provided read Guha writes that from the 1530s when Tonkham, an Ahom general, pursued the defeated Turko-Afghan adventurers of Turbak to the Karatoya river, the traditional western boundary of the Kamarupa kingdom, '"the washing of the sword in the Karatoya" became a symbol of the Assamese aspiration, repeatedly evoked in the Bar-mels and mentioned in the chronicles. Its does not mention how long it hold the traditional western limit, after reaching there after chase, as the Western Assam specifically Goalpara was continued to be under Koch and Turkish. So, i ask you to remove the baseless claim. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amalendu Guha is a well known and accomplished historian. He was an executive member of the India History Congress, president of North East History Association, president of Indian History Congress Modern India Session etc. So he is an expert and authority in his area of study. Besides, the work that has been referred to has been published in a widely recognized, edited scholarly journal, the Social Scientist [5]. Therefore, the citation is used here as a secondary source with considerable weight. When he says "repeatedly evoked in the Bar-mels and mentioned in the chronicles", he is referring to the many times the Kamarupa kingdom has been invoked and recorded in the Buranjis (chronicles). The fact that the Ahoms invoked the Kamarupa kingdom is an example of the weight of the Kamarupa legacy, and used here to emphasize the enduring notability of Kamarupa. I do not see why this reference should be removed. Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know, Guha was not a Kamrup historian, nor he is saying what you claiming.Yes, for inspiration it indeed inspired later political identities but an single entity alone cannot claim legacy without reaching even half of its glory. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the panegyric text. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work on diktat. Please take it to dispute resolution. Chaipau (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early sources

Periplus and Geographia are widely quoted in most history texts on Kamarupa/Assam. For example, P C Choudhury discusses these sources in great detail in his History of the People of Assam. I am removing the tag. Chaipau (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-kingdom subject matter are outside the scope of this article, which needs its own article; look for it. P.C Choudhry refers to ancient Kamrup when he made references of previous sources, first sources for kingdom found from 4th century and later. Please don't remove tags without properly addressing the issues. Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how history is written or read. Puri has used the absence of any Mauryan record on Kamarupa to derive information about the Kamarupa. Your style is disruptive editing (WP:DE) You have been doing this in many articles related to Kamrup/Kamarupa. Chaipau (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well instead of mud slinging, you should address issue on hand. Gupta sources are available for the Kamrup kingdom. Rajtarangini and Raghuvamsa are important sources too, and are within the scope of this article. Tag is placed for superfluous text. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only Gupta source, Samudragupta's pillar, is already mentioned. The Rajatarangini (12th century) and Kalidasa's Raghuvamsha (5th century) are late texts. If the information there are important, you should definitely quote secondary texts (not them directly). Chaipau (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to look for some more books on Kamrup, then maybe we can discuss how Kamrup kingdom information were reconstructed. Now, point here is non inclusion of unrelated information in this article, as it is confusing for readers and depicts wrong picture of the kingdom. Finally, i request you to find middle ways than unproductive arguments every time.Peace. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that the information is unrelated. On the other hand, the reference I have quoted is from D C Sircar, a well known historian (General President of Indian History Congress), who thought it was relevant! And I have quoted from a book that has been edited by another historian, H K Borpujari. So I am quoting a tertiary source from a well known expert that has been vetted by another well known expert. So I am in very good standing here, despite what you write above. Chaipau (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You discussing in circles, all they are referring to an ancient land not 350-1140 political entity. If you keen to include older sources, then do it in appropriate article. As we discussed earlier, related sources here are Raghuvaṃśa, Rajtarangini, Harshacharita and others. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my argument is confusing you. I have provided authoritative secondary/tertiary sources which too had had Kamarupa as their primary subject. I am not quoting sources that are making tangential remarks on the subject. The experts do think that they provide historical context and have cited them. Your argument, that sources dated between 350-1140 be used, makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You now just repeating your earlier position, Your argument, that sources dated between 350-1140 be used, makes no sense it is the case of misinterpretation, i said sources which deals with 350-1140 political entity should be used. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to make rules at whim here. These references give historical context to Kamarupa in Wikipedia, just as they are doing in expert monographs. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamarupa is an ambiguous term, it means different things in different times. No, point in reinstating your position in every line. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your position now? भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Importance-Section tag removed

This section Kamarupa#Sources cites from secondary/tertiary sources that discuss Kamarupa as the primary subject (Puri 1968, Sircar 1990, Sharma 1978). This section is important since it places Kamarupa in the proper historical context. The specific points that it makes are as follows:

The absence of any mention in the Mauryan inscriptions indicates that this region had very little significance to the first major Empire in the Indian subcontinent. The later Kamarupa kingdom came into being outside the expansive boundary of the Mauryan kingdom.
The mention of the Kirrhadia people, and the association with the Kirata people indicates that in the first century the region that later became the Kamarupa kingdom was inhabited but that existed no discernible state structure.
That Indian traders would come in and take possession of the malabathrum at the boundary indicates that the contact with the people of the region was not at all intimate and the contact was of a kind that was not based on a barter system, not even a primitive form.

Therefore I am removing the notice.

Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article needs rewriting, citing correctly and not synthesising stuff. It all seems very speculative. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the speculation? The article is extensively cited. Please do not remove citations and then call it speculative. Chaipau (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Kamarupa map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]