![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Why does it appear that this word has separate spellings Mlecha, Mleccha, Mlechchha, and Mlekkha? Are all of these correct? Eebster the Great ( talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: don't agree with my edit. Some part may be redundant, i'm not perfect. But, Chaipau unnecessarily delete images of kamarupa map, kamakhya temple which are related to mleccha dynasty. Chaipau also delete reference and bibliography of historians who support Dimasa or Bodo or Kacharis . Dhruv Hojai ( talk) 07:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier: does the map of Kamarupa belong here? Need your input. Chaipau ( talk) 14:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
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.Homogenie ( talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: which new source says it is the correct one, do show??!! Homogenie ( talk) 15:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kamarupa is postulated.107The footnote 107 cites
Sircar, Pragjyotisha-Kamarupa, pp. 63-64.Sircar has set the eastern point at Dikkaravasini in these citations Kamarupa#cite_note-36, Kamarupa#cite_note-38.
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 Dikkaravasiniand she asks
Which one was the eastern end of Kamarupa?She provides an explanation for the boundary at Lalitakanta and avers:
Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa.In other words, the region from the Karatoya to Lalitakanta as well as the region from Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini are both within Kamarupa. Thus, she not only did not question the traditional boundary which was described by Sircar, but she explained away a possible confusion in the Kalikapurana itself. This is the complete opposite of what you are claiming!
Both the are as 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. This was probably due to the low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the regionp.40
Such different spatial views may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahman settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence. This was probably due to the low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the regionHere it is, it is the migration of Brahmins who wrote the text, who viewed the both area as Kamarupa, again Shin (2020)
The nuclear area of the early state of thelower 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.51 I think we are clear
@ Homogenie: you have not been able to show where Shin (2018) disputed the eastern boundary even after been asked for it. This is because Shin does not dispute the eastern boundary at all in this article—Shin (2018), OTOH, reinforces the boundary by explaining away a confusing reference to Lalitakanta in the Kalikapurana.
Now, since you want to pivot to Shin (2020), here is the full quote from the abstract from which you are quoting:
One of the most interesting features of political tradition of pre-modern Northeast India was the presence of local powers tracing their descent from demonic beings. Historical evidence suggests that the demonic royal genealogy was proclaimed at a juncture of transition from pre-state to state society, though the time of transition varied according to the area where it occurred. 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
This passage asserts that the pattern of creating demonic royal genealogy that occurred in Kamarupa continued during the formation of Chutia kingdom and the Dimasa kingdom. This passage has nothing to say about the boundary of Kamarupa. Please state here where in the rest of the article the Kamarupa boundary is mentioned and where Shin refutes the traditional boundary of Kamarupa. Chaipau ( talk) 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This line , are we playing some silly games here??!! Homogenie ( talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)One of the most interesting features of political tradition of pre-modern Northeast India was the presence of local powers tracing their descent from demonic beings. Historical evidence suggests that the demonic royal genealogy was proclaimed at a juncture of transition from pre-state to state society, though the time of transition varied according to the area where it occurred. 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
I came here via WP:3O, where I have recently posted a request and thought I would clear the backlog. Before I give an opinion I have a coupleof points to make:
Now to the issue. Borders between states in the pre-modern (and in some cases modern periods eg India and China today) can be difficult to find, due to lack of sources, or if primary sources disagree). In Europe, including in Britain, medieval states had counties governed by a count or the equivelent, and marches governed by marshals (or equivalent). Counties covered the territory under the firm control of the state. Marshes, areas under questionable control close to the frontier with another state. Where exactly the border was, was often not clear and was open to interpretation. Often the marshals had a lot of autonomy and, with inter-marrige across the frontier common, questionable loyalty to the central power. See for example the article " Anglo-Scottish border" and its links to more detailed articles.
So in most cases maps of pre-modern states tend to based on the informed guesswork of historians, and like all such academic work there may well be dissagreement as to the precise borders a state has. Having read the back and forth above and looking at the edit history of the article this is what appears to be happening, or possibly it is a misreading of the secondary sources by one or both parties to the dispute above. I am not sure.
I think that the best compromise and solution, is to keep the map,but add a footnote containing any information by reliable sources that provide an alternative prospective. Here is an example of a Wikipedia article dealing with a binary choice between two reliable sources: the text states one thing with a reliable source cited inline, followed by footnote to another ( Führerbunker#cite note-will and marriage-42). The relaible source used to support the text was just as reliable as that in the footnote, but was a more recent historical work, where the historian would have been aware of the earlier work.
So user:Fylindfotberserk, User:Chaipau and myself user:PBS all think the map should remain on the page. User:Homogenie does not. I suggest (as an involved editor and not an administrator) User:Homogenie you accept the consensus and work on a brief footnote explaining what the criticisms are in reliable sources to the map. — PBS ( talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Why does it appear that this word has separate spellings Mlecha, Mleccha, Mlechchha, and Mlekkha? Are all of these correct? Eebster the Great ( talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: don't agree with my edit. Some part may be redundant, i'm not perfect. But, Chaipau unnecessarily delete images of kamarupa map, kamakhya temple which are related to mleccha dynasty. Chaipau also delete reference and bibliography of historians who support Dimasa or Bodo or Kacharis . Dhruv Hojai ( talk) 07:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier: does the map of Kamarupa belong here? Need your input. Chaipau ( talk) 14:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
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.Homogenie ( talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Chaipau: which new source says it is the correct one, do show??!! Homogenie ( talk) 15:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kamarupa is postulated.107The footnote 107 cites
Sircar, Pragjyotisha-Kamarupa, pp. 63-64.Sircar has set the eastern point at Dikkaravasini in these citations Kamarupa#cite_note-36, Kamarupa#cite_note-38.
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 Dikkaravasiniand she asks
Which one was the eastern end of Kamarupa?She provides an explanation for the boundary at Lalitakanta and avers:
Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa.In other words, the region from the Karatoya to Lalitakanta as well as the region from Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini are both within Kamarupa. Thus, she not only did not question the traditional boundary which was described by Sircar, but she explained away a possible confusion in the Kalikapurana itself. This is the complete opposite of what you are claiming!
Both the are as 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. This was probably due to the low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the regionp.40
Such different spatial views may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahman settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence. This was probably due to the low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the regionHere it is, it is the migration of Brahmins who wrote the text, who viewed the both area as Kamarupa, again Shin (2020)
The nuclear area of the early state of thelower 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.51 I think we are clear
@ Homogenie: you have not been able to show where Shin (2018) disputed the eastern boundary even after been asked for it. This is because Shin does not dispute the eastern boundary at all in this article—Shin (2018), OTOH, reinforces the boundary by explaining away a confusing reference to Lalitakanta in the Kalikapurana.
Now, since you want to pivot to Shin (2020), here is the full quote from the abstract from which you are quoting:
One of the most interesting features of political tradition of pre-modern Northeast India was the presence of local powers tracing their descent from demonic beings. Historical evidence suggests that the demonic royal genealogy was proclaimed at a juncture of transition from pre-state to state society, though the time of transition varied according to the area where it occurred. 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
This passage asserts that the pattern of creating demonic royal genealogy that occurred in Kamarupa continued during the formation of Chutia kingdom and the Dimasa kingdom. This passage has nothing to say about the boundary of Kamarupa. Please state here where in the rest of the article the Kamarupa boundary is mentioned and where Shin refutes the traditional boundary of Kamarupa. Chaipau ( talk) 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This line , are we playing some silly games here??!! Homogenie ( talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)One of the most interesting features of political tradition of pre-modern Northeast India was the presence of local powers tracing their descent from demonic beings. Historical evidence suggests that the demonic royal genealogy was proclaimed at a juncture of transition from pre-state to state society, though the time of transition varied according to the area where it occurred. 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
I came here via WP:3O, where I have recently posted a request and thought I would clear the backlog. Before I give an opinion I have a coupleof points to make:
Now to the issue. Borders between states in the pre-modern (and in some cases modern periods eg India and China today) can be difficult to find, due to lack of sources, or if primary sources disagree). In Europe, including in Britain, medieval states had counties governed by a count or the equivelent, and marches governed by marshals (or equivalent). Counties covered the territory under the firm control of the state. Marshes, areas under questionable control close to the frontier with another state. Where exactly the border was, was often not clear and was open to interpretation. Often the marshals had a lot of autonomy and, with inter-marrige across the frontier common, questionable loyalty to the central power. See for example the article " Anglo-Scottish border" and its links to more detailed articles.
So in most cases maps of pre-modern states tend to based on the informed guesswork of historians, and like all such academic work there may well be dissagreement as to the precise borders a state has. Having read the back and forth above and looking at the edit history of the article this is what appears to be happening, or possibly it is a misreading of the secondary sources by one or both parties to the dispute above. I am not sure.
I think that the best compromise and solution, is to keep the map,but add a footnote containing any information by reliable sources that provide an alternative prospective. Here is an example of a Wikipedia article dealing with a binary choice between two reliable sources: the text states one thing with a reliable source cited inline, followed by footnote to another ( Führerbunker#cite note-will and marriage-42). The relaible source used to support the text was just as reliable as that in the footnote, but was a more recent historical work, where the historian would have been aware of the earlier work.
So user:Fylindfotberserk, User:Chaipau and myself user:PBS all think the map should remain on the page. User:Homogenie does not. I suggest (as an involved editor and not an administrator) User:Homogenie you accept the consensus and work on a brief footnote explaining what the criticisms are in reliable sources to the map. — PBS ( talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)