This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pala dynasty (Kamarupa) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
@ 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)
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
Homogenie ( talk) 04:19, 7 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. p.49
@ Chaipau:::Where does Shin say Kamarupa is not a single country?
Searching for Kāmarūpa: Historiography of the Early Brahmaputra Valley in the Colonial and Post-Colonial Period p.127What 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)
@ 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)
@ 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.
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)
Thanks, Coppertwig for looking into this more depth! Let me go over the issues one at a time.
Chaipau ( talk) 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Discuss the proposed merger from Kamarupa_–_Late_to_end_period. Chaipau ( talk) 20:02, 11 March 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) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pala dynasty (Kamarupa) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
@ 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)
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
Homogenie ( talk) 04:19, 7 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. p.49
@ Chaipau:::Where does Shin say Kamarupa is not a single country?
Searching for Kāmarūpa: Historiography of the Early Brahmaputra Valley in the Colonial and Post-Colonial Period p.127What 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)
@ 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)
@ 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.
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)
Thanks, Coppertwig for looking into this more depth! Let me go over the issues one at a time.
Chaipau ( talk) 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Discuss the proposed merger from Kamarupa_–_Late_to_end_period. Chaipau ( talk) 20:02, 11 March 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) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)