Talk:Kamarupa

Legacy of Kamarupa

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Map

@The Black Truth: This map is unsourced, and is not supported by the D. C. Sircar reference. If you look closely at the file, it is clear that the uploader has simply drawn some random borders over an existing map, probably in MS Paint. A map like this needs reliable sources. utcursch | talk 01:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chaipau: The map given on page 281 of Anima Dutta's 2008 thesis is not at all same as this map. utcursch | talk 02:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Utcursch: The differ in only minor cartographic details, but follow the same principles. They show the same regions as being part of the kingdom (part of Bhutan, part of Arunachal Pradesh, Pundravardhana, Samatata, North Bengal, Brahmaputra valley) and having a roughly triangular shape (as mentioned in many manuscripts). I shall provide a more exact copy later. Chaipau (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are not "minor" details: if you look at the rivers, it is evident that the boundaries are way off. Also, the area is exaggerated by a lot. utcursch | talk 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please specify which rivers? The western boundary of the Kamarupa kingdom was the Karatoya river, whereas in the map here, the western boundary is shown as nearly on the Brahmaputra. So the current map shows an area which is small compared to the reference map, unlike what you claim. The lower vertex of the triangle is at the point where the Brahmaputra meets the Ganga. This is OK. The Kamarupa kingdom does not include Tripura and Manipur, which also agrees with the reference map. And as I said I shall update the map according to the reference. Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Here are the two maps on same scale, using the Brahmaputra river as reference: http://i.imgur.com/B4avCLm.png -- the blue one is from Anima Dutta's thesis; the red one is the map created by the Wikipedia user. utcursch | talk 00:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the map. The boundary is traced from the Acharya map after georeferencing. Chaipau (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a better map. utcursch | talk 03:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

North Bengal is redundant

North Bengal = Northern part of Bangladesh and West Bengal.

"Kamarupa at its height covered the entire Brahmaputra Valley, North Bengal, Bhutan and northern part of Bangladesh, and at times portions of West Bengal and Bihar."

The sentence doesn't make sense. "North Bengal" is redundant here. - Ash wki (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

North Bengal is northern part of the West Bengal, which is not in Bangladesh. At other times other portions of West Bengal, like Karnasubarna, which is not North Bengal was part of the Kamarupa control for short periods of time. Chaipau (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

user:Chaipau please provide few sources for 'Periplus of the Erythraean Sea' and 'Ptolemy's Geographia' referring to the Brahmaputra valley. In addition, some citations for Arthashastra's reference of Lauhitya by people other than Kautilya himself.Thank you.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak

The sources are in the text you keep deleting. Please read. Chaipau (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

List it.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we move this page to 'Kamarupa kingdom'?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to move this. Chaipau (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The authors that have mentioned Assam in the context of the Periplus are Casson (and other authors mentioned in his book) and Sircar. The authors that have said the identification of Lauhitya and Kamarupa come from a later commentator are Sircar and Guha. Chaipau (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The issues with the Arthashastra is mentioned in the Wikipedia article itself. Arthashastra#Authorship,_date_of_writing,_and_structure. "The authorship and date of writing are unknown, and there is evidence that the surviving manuscripts are not original and have been modified in their history but were most likely completed in the available form between 2nd-century BCE to 3rd-century CE." Chaipau (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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) 19:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Kamarupa successor

Kamarupa kingdom was succeeded by Kamata kingdom not by Ahom kingdom. Ahom kingdom is successor of Chutiya kingdom. Then they made alliance with Koch Darrang and Kachari in last phase. Stop over appreciation of Ahom. Ahom have no relation in Kamarupa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfectingNEI (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gopatha Brahmana

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Gopatha Brahmana is an old text, written before the Christian era. It does not explain a kingdom from the 4th century. Please do not insert wrong information, just because it has been published. Chaipau (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kamrup/Kamarupa is disambiguation page, thus it has multiple meanings (ancient region, kingdom, district etc). Here, we are concerned about its origins (of Kamarupa word), so i request you not to remove academic viewpoints on this.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupa is not a disambiguation page. Please, no WP:GAME on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This debate over Kamrup/Kamarupa already done before, also consider Kamarupa kingdom as title, see "Early History of Kamarupa: from the Earliest Times to the End of the Sixteenth Century", Kamarupa kingdom period is 4th to 12th century; so i don't think it is a matter of debate ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I again request you to gain consensus here before removal of academic viewpoints from this article, edit warring is not useful.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, I request you to get consensus here before inserting irrelevant materials. Chaipau (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You arrogantly overlooked my request and forcefully removed the cited content.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Modern authors that do not examine primary sources critically should not be used, especially those relating legendary stories. Mythologies and legends should not be construed as history. Chaipau (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Issue here is not of history, but of early references to name 'Kamarupa' (Kalika Purana is used too). I am facing this issue (forcefully removing reliable sources) since 2012. The removal of academic viewpoints such way is not acceptable just because one editor believes its unreliable (wp:own).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The references to these in ancient texts have been shown to be fabrications (See Sircar 1990). That these are fabricated legends are well known and reported in the recent professional academic literature (See Das, Boruah and others in the reference sections). These have to be reported critically, in the context of Sanskritization and Legitimization. You cannot report these legends and myths literally. Because, really, do you think a god regaining a form is historical and real? Chaipau (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Its not like that, when we are reporting etymology of an subject, we are suppose to include its early references, as reported by secondary sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Then we do not need Etymology because Etymology is speculative. Chaipau (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are secondary sources, then it is not case. The Kamadeva association is standard now, i have previously given you official website links. I request you to allow other editors (me and others) to edit this article.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Guptajit Pathak's book is terrible. He is peddling stuff that has been refuted. And his claims have no references or citations. How are we expected to follow his claims? If you have issues, take it to WP:RSN. Chaipau (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pathak's work is considered standard modern work, which is based on earlier works of P.C Choudhury and others, plus his own research. The "Kamarupa name origin in Gopatha Brahmana" is not a minority viewpoint, so if you have objection on this, do you agree to take it to DRN ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Pathak's work is considered standard modern work? P C Choudury's claims on these have been rejected in professional academic journals. Chaipau (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am interested to see them.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Search for Gopatha brahmana and kamarupa, and get this link: [2] The passage is profusely referenced, unlike Guptajit Pathak, who relies on old works. Chaipau (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The link is a essay (1994) which cites Mukunda Madhava Sharma (1978). Other and more recent works rejects it and agrees that Gopatha Brahmana is the source, consider including both sides. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Show me where they have rejected MMSharma. Chaipau (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As you provided link from Google books, the casual search there shows support and opposition to the theory, we need to report both, instead of taking side.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That was a good faith reply to you. I looked for a reference that you will be able to read and provided a link. There are other references as well that quotes M M Sharma in mainstream journals that you may not be able to access right now. But really, if you do really want to continue to play this game we shall have to head back to WP:ANI or WP:DRN. Please make an effort and not provide below par references. You are stalling the development of this article. Chaipau (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, threat is not useful to make a point when building consensus. As you are edit warring, creating own standards of reliability, it cannot go on like this. Are you willing to accept RSN findings, if i take it there ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom word should be tagged

It was a Kingdom . So, kingdom word should be tagged. Otherwise there may be arbitrarily many kamarupa words in the world. PerfectingNEI (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It has been doing fine without it for many years. Let it be. We will cross the bridge when we come to it. Chaipau (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Chaipau. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

Eastern boundary of Kamarupa

The citation/reference is from Dineshchandra Sircar, and from his entry in Wikipedia, "He was the Chief Epigraphist of the Archaeological Survey of India (1949-1962), Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture at the University of Calcutta (1962–1972) and the General President of the Indian History Congress." The claims appeared in an edited collection. So this is WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This note is related to these tags: [3], which I have removed. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahom weren't successor of Kamarupa

Lot's of POV push related to Ahom kingdom. Ahom were able to rule some part of kamarupa after defeating chutiya and dimasa. but Ahom weren't successor of Kamarupa. ReliableAssam (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)