![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in India or Myanmar may be able to help! |
Kamrupi people are minority they do not have a State in India, their treasures shall not be plowed through Wikipedia by any much stronger powerful group such as Ahom
In Wikipedia who do I formally complaint and where can I find complaint form?
Kurmaa ( talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa ( talk) 23:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is just a curtsy reminder for Chaipau:
Kurmaa ( talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Just another curtsy reminder:
Kurmaa ( talk) 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
User Lachitbarphukan wrote, "If the Ahom have not ruled Lower Assam then how come the battle of Saraighat occured in Guwahati in which the Ahoms defeated the great Mughals under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan."
I have been visiting Wikipedia on and off almost from the year it was founded. I found it pretty useful.
However, I would like to know exactly how many women that Ahom gave away at the end of the battle of Saraighat to great Mughal along with Lachit Barphukan's niece.
I would also like to understand being victorious (as per user Lachitbarphukan) what prompt Ahom to give away that many women to great Mughal.
Pranjitb ( talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
So a kind request to Pranjitb, Little knowledge is very dangerous. Its good that the user has atleast some knowledge of history, but sadly it is half knowledge. One should not be emotional when writing something on historical events, because such emotion is no good if it is not supported by Historical records. I request the user to kindly read the chapters of History Completely. I hope the user have seen the difference of years between 1663, giving away Ahom princess to Mughal Prince Azam and 1671, in which the famous Battle of Saraighat occured. I hope the information which i have provided will open the User's mind to those chapters of history which the User Choose to Skip. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu.
According to another source, "A contingent of women slaves accompanied the princess to Delhi."
So user Lachitbarphukan in total how many women were given to Mughal to avoid Mughal's Ahom occupation?
Pranjitb ( talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, I would like to understand as well - since Kamrupi people views Lower Assam a derogatory term why Ahom people do not use Kamarupa or Kamrup instead of Lower Assam.
Pranjitb ( talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The British used "lower" and "upper" in many places, not just in Assam---for example "Upper Burma" and "Lower Burma". The "Upper" and "Lower" terms refer to the reaches of the Brahmaputra river. Chaipau ( talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa ( talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
But truth is truth and all the historical documents support the statement that the undivided Kamrup district was under Ahom rule till 1826 CE. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa ( talk) 20:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Therefore after the final victory of Ahoms over Mughal in 1682 CE, the undivided Kamrup district remained a part of Ahom kingdom till the termination of Ahom rule in 1826 CE. I hope the above answer satisfy the question aksed by User Kurmaa. If the user need any more information or got any doubts he can check some books on Assam History, authored by E.A. Gaits, Surya Kumar Bhuyan, Hiteswar Barbaruah, Padmanath Gohain Barua. Also there are many books written by many notable writers. All documents can authenticate the above information. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm whether the answer is 1682 CE. - Kurmaa ( talk) 12:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
User Lachitbarphukan wrote, From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE ....
Kurmaa ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Kingdom of Assam simply means Assam Kingdom. He was Englishman, so he had written that way. But now you're trying make it status in cunning way. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
So according to user Lachitbarphukan, Ahom built temples in Kamrup.
Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others.
Can you complete the list with names for "many others" as well?
There are temples in Hajo and Nalbari district which are constructed by Ahom Kings.
'Here too can you complete the list of temples with names as well?
Pranjitb ( talk) 06:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm
Hope the user Pranjitb will be satisfied with the list. If not, he can try some other links himself.
The names of the temples which i have already shown are standing monuments which proved the historical facts that the Ahom Swargadeos have ruled the undivided Kamrup and the undivided Kamrup was part of Ahom kingdom. Its all recorded in every historical documents, which will remind us about the glorious Ahom rule in undivided Kamrup district as well as in Assam. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others.
As claimed by user Lachitbarphukan, Ahoms did not build above temples in Kamarupa or Kamrup.
Ahoms claimed those temples after occupation of Kamarupa or Kamrup.
These temples are also not listed in the link that user Lachitbarphukan cited http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm
Pranjitb ( talk) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Primarily a linguistic study, comparing and contrasting Ahom terms as used in the article, with similar terms in Shan and Siamese.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help)-- Pawyilee ( talk) 13:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For us newcomers, why isn't "kingdom" capitalised when "Ahom Kingdom" is used together as a title? Someone deliberately moved it but don't see discussion. Student7 ( talk) 19:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Ahom kingdom moved away from its Tai roots in the 16th century beginning with Suhungmung. At this point the Ahom peoples constituted a mere 10% of the Ahom kingdom. The court language stopped being the Ahom language in the beginning of the 17th century during Pratap Singha's time. The Ahom language has been dead since the 18th century, with the last native speakers in the early 19th century. So the native language for the Ahom kingdom is not Ahom language. Chaipau ( talk) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If Ahom are so interested to call their kngdom as Kingdom of Assam then move this page to kingdom of assam because 18th century's Assam is very different from today's Assam. You should't confuse people that Assam have only Ahom kingdom. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 14:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The territorial map till 1522 AD is a essential historical map. I don't see any reason for removing it here. The dramatic increase in territories should be known to all. Don't forget that the map shows the terriptial limits of Ahom kingdom for half of its 600 years rule(1228-1522). SashankaChutia ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Ahom kingdom → Ahom Kingdom – Fix the lettercase. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: could you please list why you keep removing this Guha reference [2]. The edit summaries you have provided are not good enough to remove a WP:RS
Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for additional comments. Chaipau ( talk) 16:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk:: Should this line [5] be added, is this sentence even true with history, The Ahom reached Karatoya River and looked themselves as heir of Kamarupa in the 16th century!! The earliest information about Kamarupa was obtained in the 20th century with the help of the book by Xuanzang, then inscription were gathered and published between 1900-2000 and a systematic picture of kamarupa was formed. How did Ahom knew about ancient kamarupa when we just came to know about it from the early 20th century. This is equivalent to said that Babur of Mughal Empire of the 1400s knew about Ashoka of Maurya Empire which ended in 184 BCE Homogenie ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The Ahom statesmen and chroniclers wishfully looked forward to the Karatoya as their natural western frontier. They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuous their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier.is just ahistorical. They saw Karatoya as their frontier but never in their rule 600 years of rule did they acknowledge the existence of ancient Kamarupa. No one knew about the existence of ancient Kamarupa in Assam till the 20th century, Shin (2018) is pretty clear about it, just as nobody knew about Harappan civilisation till the 1900s Homogenie ( talk) 17:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
No one knew about the existence of ancient Kamarupa in Assam till the 20th century← Can you prove that no one knew about that?
never in their rule 600 years of rule did they acknowledge the existence of ancient Kamarupa← Specific quotations in support of the statement?
When the Ahom past drew great attention, the early history of the Brahmaputra valley prior to the advent of the Ahoms was almost unknown to the scholars. It consisted largely of fragmentary references found in the Epics, the Purāṇas, the Tantras, local legends and some dubious medieval chronicles. For instance, a brief reference to Kamrup of Hamilton’s Account of Assam was probably gathered from some local brāhmaṇas who had knowledge of the Mahābhārata and the Kālikā Purāṇa
In this situation, the discovery and decipherment of inscriptional records by the colonial officer-scholars brought about a significant change to the study of the early history of the Brahmaputra valley. The first publication of Kāmarūpa inscription appeared in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1840
The Ahom entered the Brahmaputra Valley just a century after the decline of Kamarupa. It is grotesque to assume that 13th century Ahoms had just as little knowledge about the recent past of their predecessors (and neighbors of the Tai-Ahom elite prior to their entry into Assam) as 19th century scholars from abroad. The analogy with Babur about knowing or not knowing about Asoka is totally flawed. We may have reasonable doubts about statements in a reliable source, which can render an inclusion in WP undue, but NB reasonable doubts, not ones based on bad reasoning. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: How is the Chutia kingdom a predecessor of the Ahom kingdom? (Your repeated edits [6]). The earliest accounts of the Chutia kingdom come from the 14th century—from epigraphic records and from the Ahom account of an incident from the time of Sutuphaa (1369-1379). There is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom before the second half of the 14th century. OTOH the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228. How can a 14th century kingdom be the predecessor of a 13th century kingdom. Also, the Chutia kingdom was in existence in the 16th century, when it was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom!
Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for additional comments, because discussions with Homogenie never ends.
Chaipau ( talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: Why is Ming Shilu mentioned here]? How is it relevant to the history of the Ahom kingdom? What information do we get from this? Chaipau ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems liitle doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam.The author is just speculating here that Dagula is Ahom kingdom, nothing more. Not only is the author not saying anything about relationships, he seems to be merely putting forward a speculative interpretation, which is WP:FRINGE. Most modern scholars seem to think Dagula is Pegu ( In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu. So the claim that this document shows a relationship with some eastern power is WP:OR based on a speculative WP:FRINGE. This does not belong here. Chaipau ( talk) 23:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems little doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's AssamWade 1994, p.243
@ Homogenie: yes, it is clear that this author claims Dagula is an Ahom polity. So the author is claiming that the Ahom kingdom attacked its own capital (Bakata) and its own province (Tipam) carried off their people? This is just strange. It is obviously a fringe theory and the rest of scholarship identifies Dagula with Pegu.
Furthermore, if where does this show the relationship between the east and the Ahom kingdom? It shows the relationship between the Ahom kingdom (Dagula) and its capital (Ba-jia-ta), which is oddly adversarial!
Chaipau ( talk) 02:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems little doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam."
It appears that the second capital Bakata finds mention in the Chinese chronicle Ming Shilu and is referred to as Bajiata. The Ming Shilu describes it as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la, an unidentified polity located in what is present-day Upper Myanmar or Assam.
@ Chaipau:
@ Chaipau: It seems Chaipau likes to twist his argument,
A verification tally issued in the fifth year of the Yong-le reign (1407/08) to the "Di-ma-sa Pacification
Superintendency" The tally served the dual purpose of confirming the ruler's recognition by the Chinese state, and providing a tool by which to verify the status of court envoys Wade1994p130
This Ming push towards more distant mainland polities as also reflected in the arrival at the court in Nan-jing of the envoy from an entity named in the MSL as Da Gu-la, an obviously quite powerful polity which seems to have been located in either present-day Northern Burma or Assam. The entities subordinate to it were noted as Xiao Gu-la (Lesser Gu-la), Di-ma-sa (which almost certainly refers to the Hill Kachari of Assam), Cha-shan (in the Upper Irraaddy Valley), Di-ban (probably Tipam in Assam) and Ba-jia-ta (which undoubtedly refers to Bakata in Assam, which as to become the Ahom capital at the end of the 15th Century) (Tai-zong 55.3a-b)."Wade1994p220
Wade argues that Dagula is not Pegu, because the ruler of Dagula uses Narayan as their title, the rulers of Pegu never ever used it, Beside Dimasa is surbordinate to Da gula, which was located in today's Jorhat, Pegu was located in South Burma near the sea, Wade argues Quote ( I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam. The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, "as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers." Wade suggest Dagula to be Kachari or Koch , not Pegu, the title is Narayan, Wade argument is more convincing
Wade is correct in his assessment that Dagula is located in today Assam, not in South burma, Dagula might belong to any of the Kachari ruler as Wade argues given the fact that they used Narayan as their epithet Homogenie ( talk) 05:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
paragraph 1I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam.
paragraph 2It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers.
paragraph 3...the northern administrative division was termed "Uttara-kula" (northern bank), while the southern administrative division was named "Dakshina-kula" (southern bank). I feel that it is in these terms that we should seek the origin of the Chinese names Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la. Regardless of whether these were Ahom or pre-Ahom polities,...
Here, Da Gula is located near Dimasa kingdom which got recognition from Ming is proven through a metal plate found in Jorhat. Wade doesnot make specualtion , but says these are pre Ahom polities. Here we are sure that Di-ma-sa in Ming Shilu is Dimasa kingdom. It is proven fact with a recognition from Ming China. Now lets identity Da-gula, Da-gula is said to be located near Dimasa kingdom. Dimasa Kingdom was located near eastern Assam in 14th century, so Da gula as Wade argues cannot be Pegu as it is located almost far far south near the Bay of Bengal so Wade argument is accurate Dagula is in eastern Assam. Further Dagula as repeated above, the rulers of Dagula used Narayan, the rulers of Pegu never did used this title. Further the polities surrouding Da-gula points to it locating in Assam, the full quote
The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers.
Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la (Lesser Gu-la) seem to have derived their names from the banks of the Brahmaputra they occupied. In a study of pre-Ahom Assam, Lahiri (1991; 133, 138, 144, 147) notes how from the 9th century until at least the 11th century, the northern administrative division was termed "Uttara-kula" (northern bank), while the southern administrative division was named "Dakshina-kula" (southern bank). I feel that it is in these terms that we should seek the origin of the Chinese names Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la. "Regardless of whether these were Ahom or pre-Ahom polities, the obvious links between the Ahom and the Möng Mao polity of Lu-chuan need to be studied far more deeply. The marked similarity of the list of Ahom rulers with those of the Tai Mao cannot be coincidental.
In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu...
First, summarising the dispute as I understand it. Homogenie proposed an addition, which claimed a supposed identity of "Dagula" in the Ming Shilu with the Ahom kingdom. The only known scholar who made this identification is Geoffrey Wade, and he only states it as "likel"y. Most other scholars identify Dagula with Pegu.
On this basis, I agree that the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is not met. The issue needs to be resolved in the scholarly domain. Not Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Dont see why Chaipau removes the reference from Dimasa kingdom, it is proven to be a hard fact, do look into Wade 1994 p=130 , and notice the chinese metal plate recognition of Dimasa kingdom! and Dagula is identified to be a Koch or Kachari kingdom as it contains Narayan as title, Wade is a highly recognised author and this views are hold now to be true! Homogenie ( talk) 10:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Most of these places have been succcessfully identified but locations of places such as Dagula, Xiao Gula, Dimasa, Diban, Menglun, Bajiata, Diwula were been wrongly put in modern Burma especially by Chinese scholars. As a matter of fact these places were located in western Northern Mainland Southeast Asia, with Greater and Lesser Gula on northern and southern bank of the Brahmaputra valley respectively p.78Homogenie ( talk) 10:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam.[7]
Chandra Narayan Singh informed me that this metal plaque was used as the altar or pedestal upon which the Ahom god, Somdeo, was placed. He states that Ratneshwari, the widow of the late Kandarpeshwar Singh, who was the nephew of the late Raja Purandar Singh, gave it to him in 1893 The actual god, Somdeo, is said by him to have been a diamond or some other precious stone, set, from his description, in a kind of cylinder. Kandarpeshwar Singh, according to my informant, sold the precious stone in Calcutta when he was in difficulties. The jewel and the altar or plaque used to be enclosed according to Chandra Narayan, in seven golden boxes, one box containing the other. None of these boxes are in his possession now, all having been sold at one time or other. Chandra Narayan says that the hole at the top of the plaque was used to attach the plaque to the neck of the Ahom king at the time of the Coronation ceremony.
The meaning of the inscription on the obverse face of Plate A is : "Letter patent dated the fifth year of Yung Lo (1408 AD)"
The left side of Plate B reads "Be faithful", while the right side reads "Let the rescript have effect. The Royal Commissioner for Conciliation, Timasa"
This I consider clinches the arguments contained on p. 20 of Milne and Cochran book on the Shans, and the fact that the plaque with th Chinese inscriptions engraven thereon was found in the possession of a member of the Ahom royal family, coupled with the previous history of the object, goes far to show connexion between the Ahoms and the people of Timasa or Chieng-Mai. This, coupled with the fact that the Ahom Buranji mentions Mung-ri-Mung-rang (probabl Mung-hi-Mung-ham of the Shan Chronicle) as having been the first kingdom of the Ahoms on earth, is strong evidence that the Ahoms are Mao Shans who inhabited at one time a portion of Northern Siam
Here: [8].
As far as I can see Phukan, Sarkar, and others have not used Ming Shilu as a source or used any other these identifications. Your use of Ming Shilu as a source (actually Wade's speculations) would be a major contribution to Assam's historiography, which I am sure Wikipedia does not support. Chaipau ( talk) 16:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It is better to add the kingdom map when it was at its peak... Its is better to show or to say it feels good when you are at your peak not your downfall... So I think that there a people who can make a rough map during the time of its peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: you have inserted Chutia kingdom as a predecessor state thereby removing Kamarupa as well as the citation/reference here. You have cited no reference beyond an edit summary that says a 1986 source against a much more improved source of Shin 2017, 2018, Kamarupa in upper Assam is no longer tenable, no evidence state it existed there, repeating views that have been shown to be not supported ( Talk:Pala_dynasty_(Kamarupa)#3O opinion and Talk:Mlechchha_dynasty#Map_of_Kamarupa_(break)). Could you please explain this removal?
Please note that the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 and there is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom at that time. Chutia kingdom was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom as late as in the 16th century.
Pinging Fylindfotberserk and Kautilya3 for visibility.
Chaipau ( talk) 11:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC) (added paragraph) 11:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The first confrontation between the Ahoms and the Chutiyas as a political power is mentioned in some chronicles such as the Deodhai Asam Buranji only during the reign of Ahom king Sutupha (1369–76), about a hundred years after the death of Sukapha. It is more likely that if there was a Chutiya state at this time, it was of little significance until the second half of the fourteenth century.
Whereas the rulers of Kamarupa were losing their hold and authority over their possessions owing to the internal dissenssion, they were finally overtaken by a small group of Tai-Shans who later became the lord of the land also became one with the indigenous people in their fight against invaders from the west
There seems no serious interaction between the Ahoms and old settled people of the neighbourhood including the Chutiyas until the fourteenth century as both the Ahom territory and its population remained precariously small.p.51
There seems no serious interaction between the Ahoms and old settled people of the neighbourhood including the Chutiyas until the fourteenth century as both the Ahom territory and its population remained precariously small.p.51Homogenie ( talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Homogenie: Kamarupa Kingdom legacy was carried out by Ahom kingdom... How did chutia kingdom become ahom kingdom Predecessor... I think some people forgot the meaning of predecessor(A predecessor is something that came before the current version)... Its ahom kingdom which reached the greatest height after kamarupa kingdom..
They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuously their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier." (Guha 1983:24). 'An Ahom force reached the banks of the Karatoya in hot pursuit of an invading Turko-Afghan army in the 1530s. Since then "the washing of the sword in the Karatoya" became a symbol of the Assamese aspirations, repeatedly evoked in the Bar-Mels and mentioned in the chronicles." (Guha 1983:33) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonardondishant: please do not add information directly from the Buranjis. They are WP:PRIMARY sources and one should be careful using primary sources, according to Wikipedia policies. The trouble with using Buranjis as sources stems from the fact that very often different Buranjis record the same events differently. Therefore, we require reliable secondary sources in these articles. Chaipau ( talk) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonardondishant: I have removed the Baruah 1987 map. This contributes to no additional value to the article and furthermore it is of poor quality. Even a good quality reproduction is confusing unless the slight differences are significant enough that they are worth pointing out. The slight differences, as it exists now, without explanation, adds to confusion. Please do not reinsert this map without discussing here. Chaipau ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonardondishant: There is no need to qualify Ekasarana and Saktism as majority/royal. This is because over the course of the 600-year history the situation had changed. For example, Ekasarana became a religion in the 15th/16th century, whereas Ahom kingdom had been in existence since 13th entury. The Ahom kings had converted to Ekasarana (17th century) before they were initiated into Saktism (18th century). I am removing these qualifications, please don't change them again. Pinging Fylindfotberserk for visibility. Chaipau ( talk) 10:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Vishwanath2008: Could you please move the detailed population figures away from the infobox. They make no sense because the numbers before 1681 could cover different sizes. It makes more sense to only report numbers after 1681 in the infobox. Chaipau ( talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Other pages have given the time frame. I have given a time frame as (1750s), will it be to be a problem? Vishwanath2008 ( talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Are the eastern boundaries of medieval Assam marked by the fortifications? Here [9] to see ComparingQuantities ( talk) 06:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@ ChaipauWhy did you remove the native Name from infobox?? 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 ( talk) 12:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Chaipau We know the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 not 1400 so the native name is also Mong Dun Shun Kham. You're Cherrypicking from Buragohain 1988. Meanwhile, applying WP:DUE WEIGHT have to consider that most of the references consider Mong Dun Shun Kham as the Native Name. So please stop pushing your own POV because it's a Tai name. Some other sources:-
47.29.169.120 ( talk) 03:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in India or Myanmar may be able to help! |
Kamrupi people are minority they do not have a State in India, their treasures shall not be plowed through Wikipedia by any much stronger powerful group such as Ahom
In Wikipedia who do I formally complaint and where can I find complaint form?
Kurmaa ( talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa ( talk) 23:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is just a curtsy reminder for Chaipau:
Kurmaa ( talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Just another curtsy reminder:
Kurmaa ( talk) 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
User Lachitbarphukan wrote, "If the Ahom have not ruled Lower Assam then how come the battle of Saraighat occured in Guwahati in which the Ahoms defeated the great Mughals under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan."
I have been visiting Wikipedia on and off almost from the year it was founded. I found it pretty useful.
However, I would like to know exactly how many women that Ahom gave away at the end of the battle of Saraighat to great Mughal along with Lachit Barphukan's niece.
I would also like to understand being victorious (as per user Lachitbarphukan) what prompt Ahom to give away that many women to great Mughal.
Pranjitb ( talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
So a kind request to Pranjitb, Little knowledge is very dangerous. Its good that the user has atleast some knowledge of history, but sadly it is half knowledge. One should not be emotional when writing something on historical events, because such emotion is no good if it is not supported by Historical records. I request the user to kindly read the chapters of History Completely. I hope the user have seen the difference of years between 1663, giving away Ahom princess to Mughal Prince Azam and 1671, in which the famous Battle of Saraighat occured. I hope the information which i have provided will open the User's mind to those chapters of history which the User Choose to Skip. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu.
According to another source, "A contingent of women slaves accompanied the princess to Delhi."
So user Lachitbarphukan in total how many women were given to Mughal to avoid Mughal's Ahom occupation?
Pranjitb ( talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, I would like to understand as well - since Kamrupi people views Lower Assam a derogatory term why Ahom people do not use Kamarupa or Kamrup instead of Lower Assam.
Pranjitb ( talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The British used "lower" and "upper" in many places, not just in Assam---for example "Upper Burma" and "Lower Burma". The "Upper" and "Lower" terms refer to the reaches of the Brahmaputra river. Chaipau ( talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa ( talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
But truth is truth and all the historical documents support the statement that the undivided Kamrup district was under Ahom rule till 1826 CE. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa ( talk) 20:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Therefore after the final victory of Ahoms over Mughal in 1682 CE, the undivided Kamrup district remained a part of Ahom kingdom till the termination of Ahom rule in 1826 CE. I hope the above answer satisfy the question aksed by User Kurmaa. If the user need any more information or got any doubts he can check some books on Assam History, authored by E.A. Gaits, Surya Kumar Bhuyan, Hiteswar Barbaruah, Padmanath Gohain Barua. Also there are many books written by many notable writers. All documents can authenticate the above information. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Please confirm whether the answer is 1682 CE. - Kurmaa ( talk) 12:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
User Lachitbarphukan wrote, From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE ....
Kurmaa ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Kingdom of Assam simply means Assam Kingdom. He was Englishman, so he had written that way. But now you're trying make it status in cunning way. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 17:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
So according to user Lachitbarphukan, Ahom built temples in Kamrup.
Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others.
Can you complete the list with names for "many others" as well?
There are temples in Hajo and Nalbari district which are constructed by Ahom Kings.
'Here too can you complete the list of temples with names as well?
Pranjitb ( talk) 06:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm
Hope the user Pranjitb will be satisfied with the list. If not, he can try some other links himself.
The names of the temples which i have already shown are standing monuments which proved the historical facts that the Ahom Swargadeos have ruled the undivided Kamrup and the undivided Kamrup was part of Ahom kingdom. Its all recorded in every historical documents, which will remind us about the glorious Ahom rule in undivided Kamrup district as well as in Assam. Lachitbarphukan ( talk) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others.
As claimed by user Lachitbarphukan, Ahoms did not build above temples in Kamarupa or Kamrup.
Ahoms claimed those temples after occupation of Kamarupa or Kamrup.
These temples are also not listed in the link that user Lachitbarphukan cited http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm
Pranjitb ( talk) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Primarily a linguistic study, comparing and contrasting Ahom terms as used in the article, with similar terms in Shan and Siamese.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help)-- Pawyilee ( talk) 13:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For us newcomers, why isn't "kingdom" capitalised when "Ahom Kingdom" is used together as a title? Someone deliberately moved it but don't see discussion. Student7 ( talk) 19:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Ahom kingdom moved away from its Tai roots in the 16th century beginning with Suhungmung. At this point the Ahom peoples constituted a mere 10% of the Ahom kingdom. The court language stopped being the Ahom language in the beginning of the 17th century during Pratap Singha's time. The Ahom language has been dead since the 18th century, with the last native speakers in the early 19th century. So the native language for the Ahom kingdom is not Ahom language. Chaipau ( talk) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If Ahom are so interested to call their kngdom as Kingdom of Assam then move this page to kingdom of assam because 18th century's Assam is very different from today's Assam. You should't confuse people that Assam have only Ahom kingdom. Logical Man 2000 ( talk) 14:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The territorial map till 1522 AD is a essential historical map. I don't see any reason for removing it here. The dramatic increase in territories should be known to all. Don't forget that the map shows the terriptial limits of Ahom kingdom for half of its 600 years rule(1228-1522). SashankaChutia ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Ahom kingdom → Ahom Kingdom – Fix the lettercase. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: could you please list why you keep removing this Guha reference [2]. The edit summaries you have provided are not good enough to remove a WP:RS
Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for additional comments. Chaipau ( talk) 16:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk:: Should this line [5] be added, is this sentence even true with history, The Ahom reached Karatoya River and looked themselves as heir of Kamarupa in the 16th century!! The earliest information about Kamarupa was obtained in the 20th century with the help of the book by Xuanzang, then inscription were gathered and published between 1900-2000 and a systematic picture of kamarupa was formed. How did Ahom knew about ancient kamarupa when we just came to know about it from the early 20th century. This is equivalent to said that Babur of Mughal Empire of the 1400s knew about Ashoka of Maurya Empire which ended in 184 BCE Homogenie ( talk) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The Ahom statesmen and chroniclers wishfully looked forward to the Karatoya as their natural western frontier. They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuous their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier.is just ahistorical. They saw Karatoya as their frontier but never in their rule 600 years of rule did they acknowledge the existence of ancient Kamarupa. No one knew about the existence of ancient Kamarupa in Assam till the 20th century, Shin (2018) is pretty clear about it, just as nobody knew about Harappan civilisation till the 1900s Homogenie ( talk) 17:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
No one knew about the existence of ancient Kamarupa in Assam till the 20th century← Can you prove that no one knew about that?
never in their rule 600 years of rule did they acknowledge the existence of ancient Kamarupa← Specific quotations in support of the statement?
When the Ahom past drew great attention, the early history of the Brahmaputra valley prior to the advent of the Ahoms was almost unknown to the scholars. It consisted largely of fragmentary references found in the Epics, the Purāṇas, the Tantras, local legends and some dubious medieval chronicles. For instance, a brief reference to Kamrup of Hamilton’s Account of Assam was probably gathered from some local brāhmaṇas who had knowledge of the Mahābhārata and the Kālikā Purāṇa
In this situation, the discovery and decipherment of inscriptional records by the colonial officer-scholars brought about a significant change to the study of the early history of the Brahmaputra valley. The first publication of Kāmarūpa inscription appeared in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1840
The Ahom entered the Brahmaputra Valley just a century after the decline of Kamarupa. It is grotesque to assume that 13th century Ahoms had just as little knowledge about the recent past of their predecessors (and neighbors of the Tai-Ahom elite prior to their entry into Assam) as 19th century scholars from abroad. The analogy with Babur about knowing or not knowing about Asoka is totally flawed. We may have reasonable doubts about statements in a reliable source, which can render an inclusion in WP undue, but NB reasonable doubts, not ones based on bad reasoning. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: How is the Chutia kingdom a predecessor of the Ahom kingdom? (Your repeated edits [6]). The earliest accounts of the Chutia kingdom come from the 14th century—from epigraphic records and from the Ahom account of an incident from the time of Sutuphaa (1369-1379). There is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom before the second half of the 14th century. OTOH the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228. How can a 14th century kingdom be the predecessor of a 13th century kingdom. Also, the Chutia kingdom was in existence in the 16th century, when it was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom!
Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for additional comments, because discussions with Homogenie never ends.
Chaipau ( talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: Why is Ming Shilu mentioned here]? How is it relevant to the history of the Ahom kingdom? What information do we get from this? Chaipau ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems liitle doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam.The author is just speculating here that Dagula is Ahom kingdom, nothing more. Not only is the author not saying anything about relationships, he seems to be merely putting forward a speculative interpretation, which is WP:FRINGE. Most modern scholars seem to think Dagula is Pegu ( In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu. So the claim that this document shows a relationship with some eastern power is WP:OR based on a speculative WP:FRINGE. This does not belong here. Chaipau ( talk) 23:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems little doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's AssamWade 1994, p.243
@ Homogenie: yes, it is clear that this author claims Dagula is an Ahom polity. So the author is claiming that the Ahom kingdom attacked its own capital (Bakata) and its own province (Tipam) carried off their people? This is just strange. It is obviously a fringe theory and the rest of scholarship identifies Dagula with Pegu.
Furthermore, if where does this show the relationship between the east and the Ahom kingdom? It shows the relationship between the Ahom kingdom (Dagula) and its capital (Ba-jia-ta), which is oddly adversarial!
Chaipau ( talk) 02:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems little doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam."
It appears that the second capital Bakata finds mention in the Chinese chronicle Ming Shilu and is referred to as Bajiata. The Ming Shilu describes it as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la, an unidentified polity located in what is present-day Upper Myanmar or Assam.
@ Chaipau:
@ Chaipau: It seems Chaipau likes to twist his argument,
A verification tally issued in the fifth year of the Yong-le reign (1407/08) to the "Di-ma-sa Pacification
Superintendency" The tally served the dual purpose of confirming the ruler's recognition by the Chinese state, and providing a tool by which to verify the status of court envoys Wade1994p130
This Ming push towards more distant mainland polities as also reflected in the arrival at the court in Nan-jing of the envoy from an entity named in the MSL as Da Gu-la, an obviously quite powerful polity which seems to have been located in either present-day Northern Burma or Assam. The entities subordinate to it were noted as Xiao Gu-la (Lesser Gu-la), Di-ma-sa (which almost certainly refers to the Hill Kachari of Assam), Cha-shan (in the Upper Irraaddy Valley), Di-ban (probably Tipam in Assam) and Ba-jia-ta (which undoubtedly refers to Bakata in Assam, which as to become the Ahom capital at the end of the 15th Century) (Tai-zong 55.3a-b)."Wade1994p220
Wade argues that Dagula is not Pegu, because the ruler of Dagula uses Narayan as their title, the rulers of Pegu never ever used it, Beside Dimasa is surbordinate to Da gula, which was located in today's Jorhat, Pegu was located in South Burma near the sea, Wade argues Quote ( I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam. The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, "as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers." Wade suggest Dagula to be Kachari or Koch , not Pegu, the title is Narayan, Wade argument is more convincing
Wade is correct in his assessment that Dagula is located in today Assam, not in South burma, Dagula might belong to any of the Kachari ruler as Wade argues given the fact that they used Narayan as their epithet Homogenie ( talk) 05:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
paragraph 1I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam.
paragraph 2It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers.
paragraph 3...the northern administrative division was termed "Uttara-kula" (northern bank), while the southern administrative division was named "Dakshina-kula" (southern bank). I feel that it is in these terms that we should seek the origin of the Chinese names Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la. Regardless of whether these were Ahom or pre-Ahom polities,...
Here, Da Gula is located near Dimasa kingdom which got recognition from Ming is proven through a metal plate found in Jorhat. Wade doesnot make specualtion , but says these are pre Ahom polities. Here we are sure that Di-ma-sa in Ming Shilu is Dimasa kingdom. It is proven fact with a recognition from Ming China. Now lets identity Da-gula, Da-gula is said to be located near Dimasa kingdom. Dimasa Kingdom was located near eastern Assam in 14th century, so Da gula as Wade argues cannot be Pegu as it is located almost far far south near the Bay of Bengal so Wade argument is accurate Dagula is in eastern Assam. Further Dagula as repeated above, the rulers of Dagula used Narayan, the rulers of Pegu never did used this title. Further the polities surrouding Da-gula points to it locating in Assam, the full quote
The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers.
Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la (Lesser Gu-la) seem to have derived their names from the banks of the Brahmaputra they occupied. In a study of pre-Ahom Assam, Lahiri (1991; 133, 138, 144, 147) notes how from the 9th century until at least the 11th century, the northern administrative division was termed "Uttara-kula" (northern bank), while the southern administrative division was named "Dakshina-kula" (southern bank). I feel that it is in these terms that we should seek the origin of the Chinese names Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la. "Regardless of whether these were Ahom or pre-Ahom polities, the obvious links between the Ahom and the Möng Mao polity of Lu-chuan need to be studied far more deeply. The marked similarity of the list of Ahom rulers with those of the Tai Mao cannot be coincidental.
In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu...
First, summarising the dispute as I understand it. Homogenie proposed an addition, which claimed a supposed identity of "Dagula" in the Ming Shilu with the Ahom kingdom. The only known scholar who made this identification is Geoffrey Wade, and he only states it as "likel"y. Most other scholars identify Dagula with Pegu.
On this basis, I agree that the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is not met. The issue needs to be resolved in the scholarly domain. Not Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Dont see why Chaipau removes the reference from Dimasa kingdom, it is proven to be a hard fact, do look into Wade 1994 p=130 , and notice the chinese metal plate recognition of Dimasa kingdom! and Dagula is identified to be a Koch or Kachari kingdom as it contains Narayan as title, Wade is a highly recognised author and this views are hold now to be true! Homogenie ( talk) 10:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Most of these places have been succcessfully identified but locations of places such as Dagula, Xiao Gula, Dimasa, Diban, Menglun, Bajiata, Diwula were been wrongly put in modern Burma especially by Chinese scholars. As a matter of fact these places were located in western Northern Mainland Southeast Asia, with Greater and Lesser Gula on northern and southern bank of the Brahmaputra valley respectively p.78Homogenie ( talk) 10:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam.[7]
Chandra Narayan Singh informed me that this metal plaque was used as the altar or pedestal upon which the Ahom god, Somdeo, was placed. He states that Ratneshwari, the widow of the late Kandarpeshwar Singh, who was the nephew of the late Raja Purandar Singh, gave it to him in 1893 The actual god, Somdeo, is said by him to have been a diamond or some other precious stone, set, from his description, in a kind of cylinder. Kandarpeshwar Singh, according to my informant, sold the precious stone in Calcutta when he was in difficulties. The jewel and the altar or plaque used to be enclosed according to Chandra Narayan, in seven golden boxes, one box containing the other. None of these boxes are in his possession now, all having been sold at one time or other. Chandra Narayan says that the hole at the top of the plaque was used to attach the plaque to the neck of the Ahom king at the time of the Coronation ceremony.
The meaning of the inscription on the obverse face of Plate A is : "Letter patent dated the fifth year of Yung Lo (1408 AD)"
The left side of Plate B reads "Be faithful", while the right side reads "Let the rescript have effect. The Royal Commissioner for Conciliation, Timasa"
This I consider clinches the arguments contained on p. 20 of Milne and Cochran book on the Shans, and the fact that the plaque with th Chinese inscriptions engraven thereon was found in the possession of a member of the Ahom royal family, coupled with the previous history of the object, goes far to show connexion between the Ahoms and the people of Timasa or Chieng-Mai. This, coupled with the fact that the Ahom Buranji mentions Mung-ri-Mung-rang (probabl Mung-hi-Mung-ham of the Shan Chronicle) as having been the first kingdom of the Ahoms on earth, is strong evidence that the Ahoms are Mao Shans who inhabited at one time a portion of Northern Siam
Here: [8].
As far as I can see Phukan, Sarkar, and others have not used Ming Shilu as a source or used any other these identifications. Your use of Ming Shilu as a source (actually Wade's speculations) would be a major contribution to Assam's historiography, which I am sure Wikipedia does not support. Chaipau ( talk) 16:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It is better to add the kingdom map when it was at its peak... Its is better to show or to say it feels good when you are at your peak not your downfall... So I think that there a people who can make a rough map during the time of its peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Homogenie: you have inserted Chutia kingdom as a predecessor state thereby removing Kamarupa as well as the citation/reference here. You have cited no reference beyond an edit summary that says a 1986 source against a much more improved source of Shin 2017, 2018, Kamarupa in upper Assam is no longer tenable, no evidence state it existed there, repeating views that have been shown to be not supported ( Talk:Pala_dynasty_(Kamarupa)#3O opinion and Talk:Mlechchha_dynasty#Map_of_Kamarupa_(break)). Could you please explain this removal?
Please note that the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 and there is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom at that time. Chutia kingdom was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom as late as in the 16th century.
Pinging Fylindfotberserk and Kautilya3 for visibility.
Chaipau ( talk) 11:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC) (added paragraph) 11:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The first confrontation between the Ahoms and the Chutiyas as a political power is mentioned in some chronicles such as the Deodhai Asam Buranji only during the reign of Ahom king Sutupha (1369–76), about a hundred years after the death of Sukapha. It is more likely that if there was a Chutiya state at this time, it was of little significance until the second half of the fourteenth century.
Whereas the rulers of Kamarupa were losing their hold and authority over their possessions owing to the internal dissenssion, they were finally overtaken by a small group of Tai-Shans who later became the lord of the land also became one with the indigenous people in their fight against invaders from the west
There seems no serious interaction between the Ahoms and old settled people of the neighbourhood including the Chutiyas until the fourteenth century as both the Ahom territory and its population remained precariously small.p.51
There seems no serious interaction between the Ahoms and old settled people of the neighbourhood including the Chutiyas until the fourteenth century as both the Ahom territory and its population remained precariously small.p.51Homogenie ( talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Homogenie: Kamarupa Kingdom legacy was carried out by Ahom kingdom... How did chutia kingdom become ahom kingdom Predecessor... I think some people forgot the meaning of predecessor(A predecessor is something that came before the current version)... Its ahom kingdom which reached the greatest height after kamarupa kingdom..
They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuously their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier." (Guha 1983:24). 'An Ahom force reached the banks of the Karatoya in hot pursuit of an invading Turko-Afghan army in the 1530s. Since then "the washing of the sword in the Karatoya" became a symbol of the Assamese aspirations, repeatedly evoked in the Bar-Mels and mentioned in the chronicles." (Guha 1983:33) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonardondishant: please do not add information directly from the Buranjis. They are WP:PRIMARY sources and one should be careful using primary sources, according to Wikipedia policies. The trouble with using Buranjis as sources stems from the fact that very often different Buranjis record the same events differently. Therefore, we require reliable secondary sources in these articles. Chaipau ( talk) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonardondishant: I have removed the Baruah 1987 map. This contributes to no additional value to the article and furthermore it is of poor quality. Even a good quality reproduction is confusing unless the slight differences are significant enough that they are worth pointing out. The slight differences, as it exists now, without explanation, adds to confusion. Please do not reinsert this map without discussing here. Chaipau ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonardondishant: There is no need to qualify Ekasarana and Saktism as majority/royal. This is because over the course of the 600-year history the situation had changed. For example, Ekasarana became a religion in the 15th/16th century, whereas Ahom kingdom had been in existence since 13th entury. The Ahom kings had converted to Ekasarana (17th century) before they were initiated into Saktism (18th century). I am removing these qualifications, please don't change them again. Pinging Fylindfotberserk for visibility. Chaipau ( talk) 10:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Vishwanath2008: Could you please move the detailed population figures away from the infobox. They make no sense because the numbers before 1681 could cover different sizes. It makes more sense to only report numbers after 1681 in the infobox. Chaipau ( talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Other pages have given the time frame. I have given a time frame as (1750s), will it be to be a problem? Vishwanath2008 ( talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Are the eastern boundaries of medieval Assam marked by the fortifications? Here [9] to see ComparingQuantities ( talk) 06:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@ ChaipauWhy did you remove the native Name from infobox?? 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 ( talk) 12:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Chaipau We know the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 not 1400 so the native name is also Mong Dun Shun Kham. You're Cherrypicking from Buragohain 1988. Meanwhile, applying WP:DUE WEIGHT have to consider that most of the references consider Mong Dun Shun Kham as the Native Name. So please stop pushing your own POV because it's a Tai name. Some other sources:-
47.29.169.120 ( talk) 03:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)