Talk:Pala dynasty (Kamarupa)

Kamarupa in upper Assam

@Homogenie: sorry, Shin argues very clearly that Upper Assam was a part of Kamarupa. You trying to deny it, as you did in your edit summary here just shows your bias. Picking and choosing sentences in from Shin in this thread is a display of your confirmation bias. We settled the issue there—there is no need to resurrect the issue here again.

In summary, Shin points to the two different account of Kamarupa in Kalika purana and asks a question:

As the Kalikapurana describes, Kamarupa covered the area between the Karatoya to the west and Lalitakanta to the east, but its eastern border was again defined as Dikkaravasini. Which one was the eastern end of Kamarupa? (emphasis mine)

And after examining the legend of Narakasura she answers the question here:

The contrast between the area from Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini and that from the Karatoya to Lalitakanta is clear. The former was perceived as the place in which the Kiratas dwelt, while the latter denoted the place where brahmanas, sages and people of the varna order lived in. In other words, the former represented the realm of the tribal non-sedentary society, covering a vast area in the middle and upper Brahmaputra Valley, and the latter that of the Brahmanical sedentary society, occupying a small part of the region, probably limited to the present city of Guwahati and its environs. Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa. (emphasis mine)

So please do not keep inserting your bias in this matter and disrupting Wikipedia as you have continued to do.

Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 11:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: instead of edit warring, could you please discuss here what your objections are. In response to your edit summary], Shin is talking about state formation of the Chutia and Kachari kingdoms which occurred in the 14th century. This obviously followed the Kamarupa state, which collapsed in the early 12th century. The Kamata kingdom began in 1257, whereas the Ahom kingdom came into being in 1228. So why do you object to Ahom kingdom being included in the succeeding states but not Kamata? It is well known that after Kamarupa collapsed, there was a period of a few centuries when no strong state emerged.

Also, that you have remained silent to the quotes from Shin above, and your edit summary claiming (now) that the boundaries are not important since they were not well defined in the 7th century (?? Palas came into power in 9th century, during the time Kalikapurana was composed) means you have now understand your claim earlier was wrong.

Chaipau (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• That the Chutia and Dimasa states emerged in the 14th century shows that they emerged after Kamarupa.
• It is already established that the eastern boundary of Kamarupa was at Sadiya (Dikkaravasini). See above.
• If Kamata (estd 1257) is a successor state, then Ahom kingdom (1228) definitely is.

Chaipau (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: : No, Shin (2017) doesnot even consider kamarupa to be a single kingdom:

The making of the ancient historical narrative of Kamarupa including Naraka-Bhagadatta displays a strong tendency

to 'dynasticize' is not unique to Assam but 'evident in most attempts to deal with genealogies fOlmd inepigraphs of India'. What such attempts manifest is the practice of rationalising the inscriptions of a number of rulers of uncertain date and lineage into dynastic superstructure, thereby conferring both temporal and genetic relationships on them where the data provide neither'and further, the evenmore, widepractice of juxtaposing and concatenating short genealogies and grafting them into an impressive whole which is truly greater than the sum of its parts.p.29

For him, Kamarupa, the kingdom of Kamrupa is the Sanskrit name of Assam and its extend is defined as a whole valley of the Brahmaputra river or modern Assam, together with Koch Behar and Bhutan.This is however, a proposition unsupported by either comtemporary historical records or etymological explanation.p.34

in Shin (2020) it is clearly written :

The nuclear area of the early state of the lower Brahmaputra valley witnessed it in the seventh century, and the spread of state formation from the lower valley to other remote areas of the northeast after the thirteenth century facilitated the dissemination of this lineage model through the agency of brahmins. p.49

Homogenie (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Where does Shin say Kamarupa is not a single country? The quote you have provided just says that the boundary is not supported by contemporary historical records (which, in fact, is not true. Hieun Tsang gives the boundaries from the 7th century, which agrees with the Kalikapurana).

Regarding your quote from Shin (2020), the author is definitely not referring to Kamarupa when she writes after the 13th century, because Kamarupa had ceased to exist by the 11th/12th century. She was referring to the Chutia kingdom, which came into being in the 14th century. The royal family too created a myth for themselves just as Bhaskarvarman did in 7th century.

Chaipau (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:::Where does Shin say Kamarupa is not a single country?

• Here ——

  What were the reasons for the discrepancy between the static economy and the dynamic politics? This point remained unanswered in her work. Besides, ‘a remarkable continuity of a particular political tradition’ was deemed to be a peculiar feature of Kāmarūpa history. It reminds us of the nationalistic discourse of early twentieth century. Does the fact, that three ruling dynasties traced their descent from Naraka, indicates political continuity of Kāmarūpa? Certainly not. From a close reading of the royal genealogy, it is apparent that there was no unilineal development of dynasties and definite connection among them. In fact, the Mlecchas and the Pālas denied the validity of previous dynasty for claiming their own legitimacy and the character and identity of progenitor, Naraka, were continuously re-formulated according to the socio-political changes. The seemingly continuous political tradition of Kāmarūpa was, in my view, a conceptual device which enabled each ruling power to legitimize its presence (Shin 201: 173-183)

  Searching for Kāmarūpa: Historiography of the Early Brahmaputra Valley in the Colonial and Post-Colonial Period p.127

• And Hieun Tsang is primary source WP:PRIMARY Homogenie (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your highlighted text speaks about different dynasties not being related to each other. That does not mean Kamarupa was not a single kingdom at any given time.

You cannot use WP:PRIMARY as a reference and cite it in an article, but you can use it in talk pages. This caveat is given in WP:OR in the lead: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Chaipau (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau::: the citation you just removed clearly points that Pala dynasty didnot call itself Kamarupa in any of its records, instead it used prajyotisha, similarly mlecchla dynasty didnot recognise varman dynasty, if these three dynasties exchanged power wont they mention the other in the inscription.

Here::

The nuclear area of the early state of the lower Brahmaputra valley witnessed it in the seventh century, and the spread of state formation from the lower valley to other remote areas of the northeast after the thirteenth century facilitated the dissemination of this lineage model through the agency of brahmins.

Shin (2020) p.49

As to the spatial extent of Kamarupa, it is futile to project any fixed boundary on it. The sphere of its political influence constanly changed, and the kingdom it self never constituted a single entity.

Shin(2017) p.40

It is deemed the eastern limit of Kamarupa.And this supposition is supported by the reference of the sixteenth century Yoginitantra

describing the eastern limit of Kamarupa as the abode of Dikkaravasini. Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kamarupa

is postulated. However, no inscriptional and material evidence confirms this conjecture.

Shin(2017) p.40

also Hieun Tsang is WP:PRIMARY, you cannot read through a primary text and interpret it and make your own history. that will be WP:OR Homogenie (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Refocus

@Homogenie: you are repeating yourself without engaging any of the issues. Even when evidence is shown against your claim, you move on without addressing it; and then you come back to it later repeating the same thing completely ignoring the fact that you have been shown as wrong. So let us go at the issues one by one.

• Your claim: Shin very clearly did not consider Upper Assam as part of Kamarupa.
• Actual evidence: "Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa".

Are we agreed now that Shin considered Upper Assam as part of Kamarupa? Chaipau (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 01:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: No, these sentence that Shin reads is from the Kalika purana, She interprets it that the author of the Kalika purana viewed both area as Kamarupa, it is similar to a Brahmin migrating to a certain place where he writes a religious text and views the place in his own way, that doesnot define boundaries, instead what defines boundaries are accurate historical text like buranji or inscriptions, as she clears it here

Scholars identify Dikkaravasini with goddess Tamresvari and locate her abode in Sadiya. It is deemed the eastern limit of Kamarupa. And this supposition is supported by the reference of the sixteenth century Yoginitantra describing the eastern limit of Kamarupa as the abode of Dikkaravasini. Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kamarupa is postulated. However, no inscriptional and material evidence confirms this conjecture.

Also the full sentence

Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa. Such different spatial views may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahman settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence

So it is clear it is the view of the author of the Kalika purana not necessarily an actual boundary based on historical text or inscriptions.

Also Bhuyan and Kamata both cannot succeed pala dyansty, Bhuyan were one of the rulers of Kamata kingdom Homogenie (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

3O opinion

Hi! I saw this listed at WP:3O. I am not providing an opinion yet. I'm asking for information. Remember, I'm not familiar with this topic, so explain as if I'm just beginning to learn. I see in the article it says "The Pala dynasty came to an end when Kamarupa was invaded by the Gaur king Ramapala (c. 1072-1126)." The page Ramapala says "He brought Kamarupa and Rar under his control". Now, would you each please provide a short (one or two paragraph) answer to these questions, without including in your answer any accusations against the other editor (no mention of editwarring, bias etc.): What exactly is the edit you're discussing? What do the two different versions imply about the boundaries or dynasties? What are the territories involved before and after the end of the dynasty? How do the two quotes I've just mentioned figure into the situation? I'll try to come back later to see your answers. If I'm not back, someone else might benefit from your clear explanations. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: thank you for taking an interest in this esoteric subject. Let me attempt the answers:

• The edit we are discussing is this. The dispute is whether the state (Ahom kingdom, Chutia kingdom, Kachari kingdom) and the Baro-Bhuyan confederations are succeeding states/dynasties of the Palas or not.
• The version which includes the state formations mentioned above as succeeding states follow from both the traditional boundary of Kamarupa (4th century to 12th century) as well as the chronology of states. Territorially these later states/confederates fall within the traditional boundary of the erstwhile Kamarupa state. Furthermore, all of them emerged after the collapse of the Kamarupa in the 12th century—Ahom kingdom in 1228, Kamata kingdom in 1257, Kachari kingdom in 13th century and the Baro-Bhuyans in the 13th century. Any of these states could be said to not succeed Kamarupa only if they are shown to have emerged outside the boundary or shown to have existed when the Palas were ruling.
• The two statements together agree with each other determine the time when the Pala dynasty came to an end. Since Ramapala's rule ended in 1126, the Pala dynasty of Kamarupa must have ended before 1126—the generally accepted date is 1100 CE. This time is about a hundred years before the first of the succeeding states—Ahom kingdom—emerged in 1228.
• The boundary of the traditional Kamarupa kingdom is given here. The boundary of the Chutia kingdom is not available but was conquered by the Ahom kingdom in the 16th century—and the boundary of the Ahom kingdom is given here. The Ahom kingdom is within the boundary of the erstwhile Kamarupa, with the eastern limit being coterminous.

If you have further questions, we will gladly provide you with the answers.

Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 11:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: I have added citations here: [1]. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: You are using Boruah 1986 against recent scholarship like Shin 2016,2017, 2020. It is similar to using Dutta (1985) to claim Deori language as Chutia language infront of Jacquesson (2008). If using of old journal against new journal is done in this page, then this should be eligible for other pages too!! Homogenie (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: It seems that you like to use old source instead of new recent source!!Homogenie (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Coppertwig has asked us not to address each other's biases. Just provide your replies to the four questions. Chaipau (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia does dynasty pages or country infoboxes. However, in my opinion, the succeeding dynasty should be only the dynasty that took over immediately when the Pala dynasty ended (or after a few years of unrest with no dynasty present). Dynasties that emerged many years later would not be considered succeeding dynasties in my opinion. If the kingdom split into more than one region when the Pala dynasty ended, then I suggest putting words in the text of the article that make that clear. (Perhaps discuss the words on the talk page first before editing, to avoid edit wars.) Currently I don't see anything in the article saying that it split into more than one region when the dynasty ended. Also, if a small part of this kingdom became a small part of some other kingdom, I think it wouldn't need to be mentioned in the infobox as a succeeding dynasty. So my weak opinion at this point in time is to have only one dynasty mentioned as succeeding dynasty in the infobox. If someone does a new edit and someone else reverts, don't put your edit back but discuss on the talk page, try to compromise if possible, and use dispute resolution if necessary. Thanks for editing Wikipedia! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: Thanks for your comment. Here are some facts to address the situations you have mentioned.

• The Kamarupa kingdom collapsed with the collapse of the Pala dynasty.
• There was no known dynasty that is known to succeed the Palas, even for a smaller region within Kamarupa, though there are hints that Kamarupa broke up into many different units.
• I do agree that there was a gap from the time the Palas collapsed and the time the new states emerged. That these are succeeding states is accepted in the literature (I had given references, but there were removed).

Thus, I think it best not to list any succeeding states in the info box. But I shall make a note in the lead as you have suggested.

Chaipau (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If they are accepted in the literature as succeeding states, then I suppose it's OK to list them in the infobox as such. I'm sorry if you had mentioned your references in the discussion above and I had missed that. Perhaps you can search the page history and find the references. (By the way, that's one reason to avoid editwarring: keep the page history short so people can find things.) Wait to see whether there's consensus: maybe list the references here on the talk page first. Homogenie: do you agree that there are references that accept them as succeeding states, and in that case is it OK with you to add them, or do you have good arguments not to? (Again, I'm sorry if that was in the above discussion and I missed it.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, would everyone please be careful not to just delete references from Wikipedia articles. I'd suggest that when you do an edit that deletes references, you put a diff of your edit on the talk page and mention that you've deleted references. This will make it easier for others to find the information; for example, they might want to put the information on another page (or re-add it to the current page).

Here are some things I'm confused about. You can explain to me if you want, or not; and you also might want to think about how to edit the article and related articles to make these things clear to other readers. In this article it says: "which probably explains the name of this dynasty "Pala"". This makes no sense to me at all. Is Pala a Hindu word meaning "elected"? If so, that would explain it. Perhaps whatever relevant fact makes this statement make sense could be added to the article. Or does it mean the name comes from a nearby empire called Pala? I'm confused about whether Ramapala was part of the Pala dynasty or not. I think I'm just starting to understand now: perhaps Ramapala was from a different state which was called Pala, and was not part of the Pala dynasty of Kamarupa. Is that right? Again, the wording of this and related articles could be changed to make this clearer.

In the discussion above you were talking about two territories, but I didn't know what these were or how they fit into the discussion. I thought if you wanted four succeeding dynasties you would have to talk about four territories, which I didn't see in the discussion. It's becoming clearer to me now.

If there was a period of time with no dynasty, then I think that should be mentioned either in the article about this dynasty, or in the article(s) about the succeeding dynast(y)(ies), or both.

Note that the page Kamarupa has a small section on the Pala dynasty which contains one or more pieces of information that are not mentioned on this page. Would someone be willing to copy that information and include it in this page? This page should be longer and contain more information than that section, so I think it should include everything mentioned there. For example, mentioning the capital city Hadapeshvara.

The article says "Timgyadeva threw off the yoke of the Pala king". Was the Pala king part of the Pala dynasty of Kamarupa? If not, I think more words are needed in the article to make this clear. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig for looking into this more depth! Let me go over the issues one at a time.

• There were the references cited [2]. I am adding them back now [3]. I have not updated the list of succeeding states in the infobox yet. (BTW, deletion of references and citations has been an issue, and hopefully this will be the beginning of editors taking this seriously in Wikipedia)
• Pala/Ramapala confusion - yes! You seem to have figured it now. What you suggest is definitely a TODO.
• I think the other editor is primarily interested in the two territory division (Upper Assam/ Lower Assam), whereas four major known dynasties/states/confederations emerged. The situation was probably a lot more complicated and not very well understood.
• I agree that this article should contain much more information than given here, and it should be a superset of the section in Kamarupa. Unfortunately, we spend too much time editwarring and less time collaborating on ferreting out information. Sigh. Nevertheless your comments are very helpful and I hope you will continue to engage here.

Chaipau (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Discuss the proposed merger from Kamarupa_–_Late_to_end_period. Chaipau (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given that no case was made and there has been no support. Klbrain (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Which language was spoken?

In an effort to be properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention in this article which language was spoken in this kingdom? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)