The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.
The Rashtrakuta dynasty is an important dynasty in the History of India. Their contributions to South Indian History, literature in Kannada and Sanskrit, their achievements in the realm of architecture and their imperial conquests makes this an important topic of Indian History. The article has been through several rounds of copy edit, a peer review (without any comments) and follows the correct citation and reference usage as in other recent India History related articles.Please provide constructive feedback on the format, grammar, content etc., to help make this article a FA. Dineshkannambadi 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply->The controversy about language and etnicity is about the 6th-7th century Rashtrakutas only. There is no scholar that I can quote (from all the sources I have) who deny that the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (who are the main subject of study here) were locals/had become locals of Gulbarga region and hence Kannadigas by language. (As an example, The Pallavas of Kanchi are popularly known to be immigrants from Iraq who made their way thru the subcontinent finally creating a famous kingdom from Kanchi, Tamil Nadu. Every historian considers theirs a Tamil Empire and them Tamils by language because of their patronage to Tamil language, irrespective of their ancestral origin. Similarly the Sena Dynasty of Bengal. Their inscriptions call them Karnatak Kshatriyas, indicating their Kannada origin-Kamath 2001 and Karnatas of Mithila-Thapar 2003. Yet the world and historians all accept the Senas as Bengalis because they patronised Bengali language). Indian is and has always been a dynamic country. In fact the " Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" goes into these details. Kannada according to many scholars (P.B.Desai, Kamath, Altekar, Vaidya, etc, all cited) was the popular language from Kaveri up to Godavari (Nasik region). The definition of a Kannadiga is one who is a native speaker of Kannada anyhere, not just Karnataka. In fact Several Rashtrakuta kings of this dynasty even had non-Sanskrit Kannada names from inscriptions (Krishna II and III were called Kannara, Govinda IV was called Gojjiga- Reu (1931). Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Also the terms "Rajput", "Maratha", "Reddi" denote castes, not any particular language. There are Rajputs, Marathas and Reddies in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra etc just as there are Naidus, Kurubas etc. A reading of "Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" will be well worth it. I suspect though that the scholars who call them Rajputs may have meant speakers of a contemporeneous Rajput language from the N.W. regions of India. Similarly the other ethnic groups. Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Having said this, this citation was put in at the advice of user:Nichalp in order to satisfy a user who was banned from wikipedia. So I let it be. In fact the citation is not even complete and does not provide the full page number, publication, author etc. In the larger interest of history, I am glad you brought this topic. If you want me to remove the sentence, I would be happy to oblige. I can however, quite easily replace it with a citation from one of my other sources where I can give full cited info. Nowhere in my sources is a "northern deccan language" mentioned, though. Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
More comments later. Could read only upto the end of "History". Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->No, Manyakheta was not completely destroyed. In fact Chalukya Tailapa II made it his capital from 973 untill 1040 (approx) when Somesvara I moved it to near by Basavakalyan (or Kalyani). The Paramara's (who were untill then a feudatory of Rashtrakutas) had only raided Manyakheta and did not occupy it. The vast Rashtrakuta empire split in several smaller kingdoms like it normally happens, including the W. Chalukyas in North Karnataka, Silharas in Konkan, Paramara's in Malwa, Gangas in South Karnataka. The Eastern Chalukyas in Andhra and Cholas in Tamil regions had been suppressed by the Rashtrakutas earlier on and were only too happy to see them go. But within a few decades, the western Chalukyas consolidated much of the region between Tungabhadra and Narmada rivers. The annals of South Indian and Deccan history between 1000-1150 is essentially the fight for domination between the Western Chalukyas and Cholas. Hence the only real successors of the Rashtrakuta heartland were the W.Chalukyas. Some of the Rashtrakuta families in far off extremes of their empire like Rathodas of Rajasthan etc simply became independent minor kingdoms. In fact historians feel the Rashtrakutas were very decentralised in maintaining or expecting alligiance from their far flung kith and kin. Other feudatories like the Rattas of Saundatti, Kadambas of Hanagal, Alupas, Gangas etc., all in Karnataka region became feudatories and were absorbed into the W. chalukya empire. Even the Paramara were intermittently a W.Chalukya feudatory after several victories of the W.chalukyas in the Dhara region. Dineshkannambadi 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I will correct the contradiction.thanks Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Corrected mistake. Its Rashtra-->Vishaya-->Nadu-->Grama. Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Coins. Gadyana may be another name for Gadyanka mentioned in Administration. Ctharna may be a small silver coin. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
mentioned in citation #74. Land tax here includes tax on cultivable land. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done provided citation, reduced sentence in length. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe its correct. None of the other links make sense. This area was always under Rashtrakuta control anyway. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply unfortunately that is not clarified. But I suppose the author meant Hinduism in general and I prefer not to make a guess. So I have correctd it to Hinduism. I will read Keay's book and see what he says. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Read upto religion. More comments later. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply will take a close look at this tonight. Dineshkannambadi 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
could not find this. Please indicate where this statement is. Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
DOne Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply The box is meant to recognise the Official languages as proven by epigraphy and popular literature. By the 9th century, just about every language spoken in India today was already spoken at that time. Mentioning Telugu, Tamil and Marathi just because the Rashtrakuta empire covered those areas would also require that Tulu, Konkani, Kodava (Coorgi), Various versions of Prakrit, Rajasthani, Marwari, Gondi, various dialects of commonly spoken tribal languages in MP etc, etc would also have to be mentioned, leaving no room for anything else. This is why consistantly in all the FA's I have mentioned only those languages used predominantly in Inscriptions and literature. This is how the "official languages of India" in the present day context also works. Only those languages that are official are mentioned, that too based on context. Further, none of my sources even mention the other language names in an official context.
As an example, lets consider the Chola Dynasty, which is a FA. They also conquered southern Karnataka ( and rule for ~100 years), Andhra Pradesh (ruled for ~150 years), Orissa, Bengal, parts of South east Asia and Sri Lanka. I have citations for several hundred Chola inscriptions in "Kannada" (from Nanjagud, Mysore, Kolar etc). Yet all the spoken languages in those territories they captured / governed have been left out simply using "Tamil" as their official language. The same goes for Chalukyas, Marathas, Palas, Prathiharas etc, all large empires.
Emperor Ashoka ruled most of India and historians have discovered several Kannada words in Ashokan inscriptions from the Karnataka region indicating Kannada was a fully spoken language in the 2nd c. BCE. Yet historians only account for "Prakrit" as their official language. Same with the later Satavahanas. If we start recording spoken languages, there is not end to it. Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Apart from Spoken languages, there is no shortage of citations for Maratha inscriptions in Kannada, Tamil and Telugu. Similarly Eastern Chalukyas (of Andhra) in Kannada and Tamil, Pallava inscriptions in Kannada and Telugu. What I am trying to get at is , going into spoken languages or even minor inscriptional languages will open up a bee-hive of edit wars and contradictions for many many articles with no end to it. Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
In fact the box should be modified to say "official languages" to avoid conflict. In my two years on wikipedia, no issue has been more contentious than the language issue. The more clear we are about what we are conveying, the better. Dineshkannambadi 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it is a good article, but several vague statements are made to give the impression that it is an empire under one dyansty and that it is a Kannadiga dynasty. If this is the case I would be quite happy to accept it, but the evidences are not there, I'm afarid. Can somebody explain the first para in the history?! What is that reference to Asoka ??-- Aadal 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply:Aadal, Your objections seem to be a bit vague. Please pin point where there is ambiguity and I will be happy to explain. subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty explains about the possible connection to ancestors during Ashoka's time as explained by some historians. Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Regarding the tags you have added to the article, all the info is cited elsewhere in the article if you read the article in its entirety. Please dont put tags in the LEAD section because per wiki FA standards, I am not supposed to provide citations in the LEAD section. Also you have tagged those sentences that have been cited multiple times in the immedietly following sentence. Dineshkannambadi 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Citations that satisfy Aadals tag
1. Scholars however concur that the kings of the imperial dynasty in the eighth to tenth century made the Kannada language as important citation needed as Sanskrit -->citation #14,15,16,17,18 19, 120, 121, 143, 145, 146. I can provide more if necessary. If any more info needs clarification, please feel free to ask on the FAC page. Dineshkannambadi 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2.There is uncertainty about the location of the early capital of the Rashtrakutas at this time. [1] [2] [3] citation needed
Reply-->You can tag an uncited statement, not a citation itself. Please remove the tag. However, citations 30 (itself), 35, 36, 37 provide the needed verification. Dineshkannambadi 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
dinesh has addressed the rest below.
Reply-->The overlap area is the Kannauj Triangle, if you study the history of Rashtrakuta in the 9th-10th century. This is the area that the three empires - Rashtrakutas, Palas and Pratiharas fought over. This is why it overlaps. The map simply shows the peak territories of the three empires at different times in the 9th-10th century when the three empires were warring with each other. None of the three empires held Kannauj permanently as explained in the history section. The "great" Chola expansion happened from the very end of the 10th century, after the fall of the Rashtrkutas and begining of the 11th century with the defeat of the Western Ganga Dynasty, a Rashtrakuta subordinate at the hands of the Cholas. Dont mix up dates. The Cholas were not such a "great" empire in the 9th and 10th century. Please read up on the Chola history carefully. By Chalukyas, if you mean the Eastern Chalukyas, they were constantly at strife with the Rashtrakutas, coming under their control periodically, but gaining freedom often like under Gunaga Vijayaditya in the middle of 9th century when Amoghavarsha treated him as an ally. I can provide more details if you wish. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The map is where it should be as in the case of all other FA's. I have commented on how the map could be redrawn, without changing the Rashtrakuta territory. Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->None of the claims are wild. All dates if reign are accurate. Dravidian architecture is not a term that is limited to Cholas. Please dont make your views so "Chola Centric". The authors here are well known historians like Kamath, Percy Brown, James Fergusseon, John Keay, Soundar Rajan etc. Are you claiming these scholars are confused? If you notice the very first paragraph, even a mention of Pandyan influence is mentioned. The Kailasanatha temple was modelled after the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal, which itself is in Dravidian style. This is the view of historians, not mine. The word "Peak" is a relative term. No where is it claimed that the Dravidian architecture went further than or lesser than Chola architecture.Its is only a relative term. The Rashtrakutas were masters of rock cut architecture, the Cholas of stand alone architecture. There are several terms used in architecture and one must not confuse these terms. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->All these statements come with citations. If you have counter evidence to disprove my citations we can examine it. All ISBN's/OCLC's are at the bottom in the reference section. The Rashtrakutas like all other large empires had many feudatories or subordinates who owed them nominal support in times of war, distress etc and frequently paid tribute. There is no surprise here. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply The History section clearly says that Govinda III is compared to Alexander the great and Arjuna. Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I have more than 3 books to prove this statement, covering roughly the same area. Dineshkannambadi 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply -->This statement is cited. If you are claiming the sentnce is wrong, please find a citation as a counter argument to disprove it. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply -->nothing is overblown. All citations are open to examination. Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The economy section is a reduced version of the subarticle. The intention is to create subarticles that can later be enlarged if necessary. This is consistant with other India History related articles. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->Firstly I think the objections are vague and not clear what the reviewer wants clarified. These are citations from books by Reu, Kamath, Altekar etc. Statements coming from scholars are not speculative, especially when the matter appears in publised books and are generally accepted by historians. If you think these are speculative, please find other authors who call it speculative or argue against it. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
History is certianly not an exact science. But then the same would hold good for all history articles. All statements from historians could be called Weasel statements though they come from examination of inscriptions and other epigraphal material. We have to believe our historians, or we have to believe none. Dineshkannambadi 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The northern portion of Tamil Country was firmly under Rashtrakuta rule. Even the Pandyas of deep south and Kings of Ceylon paid tribute at times. I am only reporting what I read. If you dont like the statement, please find a counter citation that disproves it. Even if the recorded names of these towns are from 16th century, I am sure these towns had some name in the 9th century. The author may have been just using the most recent name. Again this is a cited sentence. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The society and customs in the Rashtrakuta kingdom in many ways was no different from its neighbours. There are bound to be overlaps in customs. No surprise here. Any historian with knowledge will attest to this. Again, I am reporting what I am reading. If you feel its incorrect, please find citations that disprove mine, then we can add it as counter arguement. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->again I am writing what I read. If you have a citation that says "Sati was not voluntary but forced" in the Rashtrakuta empire, bring it to the table and we can include it. Let us not be the ones to decide how sati was voluntary but not arranged marraige. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Lets give an opportunity to the historians to decide which language is the grandmother, which is the mother and which is the daughter. They need to earn their living too, right? If you have a verifiable citation(s) to prove your claim, bring it to the table and we can examine it. If you can prove that Kannada was not their language of administration or literature, we can surely include it as a counter argument. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I think both the question and answer are irrelevant in this topic. Dineshkannambadi 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Both. Please read the History section and Language section. Again I am reporting what I read. If you can prove with citations that Kannada was not their official language, bring it to the table and we can examine it. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply We are not experts to decide which inscription is valid and which is not. Let us allow our historians to decide that. You have not indicated which claims are contradictory. please be more specific. Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply This is a relative statement. There is no black and white here. All trends wane away slowly. The Prakrit era was defnitely true, though Sanskrit epics tottered to a close during this time and perhaps a few centuries later. Again this statement comes with a citation. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Good Question. I have explained very explicitly in the first few paragraphs of "History" and also in the subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty how the early medieval Rashtrakuta kingdoms prior to 8th century eventually resulted in the Rashtrakuta Empire from Manyakheta and then their northern Expansion in the 9th and 10th century creating more kingdoms there. The Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta were a Deccan Empire who brought together many facets of Southern and Northern regions and culture. This is exactly what the Deccan culture is, be it in architecture, literature, sculpture. I can suggest some books for more reading. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Feel free to bring in more scrutiny. I have the books to prove myself though, if you are interested. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I have replied below in Aadal's comments and DK's replies
DK's Answers to Anwar's tags-->I have removed your tags for the following reasons. 1. citations should not be in the LEAD. 2. I have the citations for your tags. Please place them elsewhere in the article and I shall provide the citations.
citation needed regarding Hinduism and Jainism.-->Citations #88/89. I can provide more if you like.
citation needed regarding Earliest inscription-->Reu (1933), p47
citation needed regarding Dravidian (South Indian) architecture-->
This article should be made an FA, but it should be improved and in many places toned down. My first questions are about the nature of the 'dynasty' (whether it is one - or whether it is a commonwealth type of arrangement); the extent of the control.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Dk's reply
Done map is less confusing. Shows territories "conquered and held" by Rashtrakutas. Dineshkannambadi 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added some 20 citations, mostly in the History section, to further strengthen the contents of this article. If anyone has any doubts about the citations or the claims made by historians, please feel free to accurately list the citations which are of concern (without combining multiple issues into one) with clarity and I shall make the page available for study by a neutral party(s). If not, please delete the objections so the FAC can proceed smoothly. Dineshkannambadi 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments
Overall a very well written article with an impressive research work from several sources. However, some quick comments.
Reply-->Done. Kannauj is the spelling in wiki. So I made it consistant. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
“ | The origin of Rashtrakuta dynasty has been a controversial topic with such unresolved issues regarding the origins of the earliest ancestors of the Rashtrakutas during the time of Emperor Ashoka in the second century BCE, [4] the connection between the several different Rashtrakuta dynasties that ruled small kingdoms in northern and central India and the Deccan between the sixth and seventh centuries, and the relationship of these medieval Rashtrakutas to the most famous dynasty, the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (present day Malkhed in the Gulbarga district, Karnataka state), who ruled between the eighth and tenth centuries. [5] [6] [7] | ” |
Reply-->Done. chopped it into three sentence for easy reading. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Would be more appropriate to link Kannada literature as it exists.
Done linked to Kannada literature. Dineshkannambadi 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
For example, in History section words such as
Karnataka,
Maharashtra are linked more than once. Some other common words to be looked into are, Kannada, Sanskrit, Manyakheta.
Done Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
corrected. Its spelled Amravati district in Maharashtra. There are multiple districts in India with that name but slightly different spelling. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Two his referring to two different persons? Flow doesn't seem proper. Also, since this sentence being the first in the paragraph, the first "His" should be replaced with the proper noun, that is, the name.
Done corrected sentence begining. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
What are the other records? If it can be mentioned in the article its fine, even otherwise it is fine by me. But I'm just curious. Could be Coins? or some other form of literature?
Done-->Literary documents Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Should be UNESCO, and probably linked to
UNESCO. -
KNM
Talk 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Done. I dont see the phrase in italics anywhere. Also linked UNESCO. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Reduced by atleast 6-8 lines overall in the History section, especially in the first 5 paras for clarity. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I have removed the architecture part. Let me justify why I have maintained the language/literature part and hopefully you wont mind. The earlier statement says that the early Rashtrakutas may have belonged to one of several ethnic groups (Rajput, Kannadiga, Reddi...). When an impatient reader sees this (and does not see the succeeding para explaining that the 8th-10th century kings gave importance to Kannada and Sanskrit), the first question that would come to his mind when he gets to the literature and Language section is "who can believe that Rajputs or Marathas or Reddies or Punjabis would give importance to Kannada/Sanskrit literature. This is incorrect info". He/She may simply not have the patience to understand that irrespective of what the kings spoke or gave importance to in the 6th century, they could change to other languages in the 8-10th century. Most readers who read Indian history, see history from todays point of view. Even this morning, after your comment, a vandal created a "single use account" and tagged the language section as "advertisement" and added the word "Marathi" in choice places to his convinience with scant regard for the historical information and citations. He also tried to disrupt this FAC by using abuse (which was later deleted by another user). This is why I request that these few lines on language and literature be maintained to give continuity. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->done
Reply_->done and reduced. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->done and reduced Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Some of this examples may seem nitpicking. However, this would probably make the article easier to read. In fact, most of the article is easier to read than the previous few Indian history FAs. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I deeply appreciate your keen interest in these articles. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply corrected meaning. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->I will take a close look at these issue tonight.Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support - Well sourced and well written article - Naveen ( talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support - Very nice job at tackling a challenging project. I particularly like how the early origin parts is written. Thumbs up. -- Blacksun 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support- Excellent article, with all the issues addressed this should become a FA. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Meets criteria. Issues raised were satisfactorily addressed. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support. - Well written article with lot of information. Gnanapiti 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The origin of Rastrakutas is debatable. This is clearly written in second para of history section. I quote
But this information is changed in third para to assert that Rastrakutas are 'Kannadigas' (Kannads). I quote
Could anybody explain this? thanks Praveen 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please take time to read about Origin of Rashtrakutas article which is attached because this will help a lot. Let me give a brief idea what the debate is all about.
1. A few historians (like Hultsczh, Fleet) propose some tribes (it is not clear whether they were aryan or non-aryan and this is specified) were the ancestors of the medieval Rashtrakutas (6th-7th century). These are only theories based on a few words in inscriptions (such as Rathika, Ristika (Rashtrika) or Lathika) from Emperor Ashoka's time (2nd century BC). Most modern books dont bother to discuss this as the theory drags the history back to a very early period with no clarity. It was added for historical completion.
2. The history of the medieval Rashtrakutas becomes more clear from 6th-7th century, when they ruled as minor kingdoms with the availability of a few inscriptions. The Elichpur family (Berar) was a feudatory to the Badami Chalukyas (Kamath, Altekar, Reu....). This is attested to by inscriptions. It is not clear if the Manpur family and Kannauj family were feudatories too or not. The relationship between these medieval Rashtrakuta families and whether they were natives of central India or arrived there from the north or south is debated. Consequently Scholars have also debated whether their ancestors were originally Rajputs, Marathas, Reddies, Kannadigas or residents of Punjab region going back several centuries. However some scholars (Altekar, Karmakar, Kamath, Desai etc) claim the Elichpur family were Kannadigas and not natives of Central India (Berar) or north India, but natives of Karnataka region as mentioned in the Origin... article. This is because right from the begining of their independent rule (after overthrowing the Chalukyas in 753) they encouraged Kannada in administration, literature. Also, many of their inscriptions in central India are signed in Kannada even as far as Gujarat. So it is claimed that Kannada speaking commanders were despatched to rule the far corners of the Chalukya empire and later overcame their own overlords in Badami. Similarly, It is also known that the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi were from the Badami family.
3. Irrespective of who the early Rashtrakutas were or where they came from, Dantidurga's family from Elichpur (who became the Manyakheta family of the 8-10th centuries) were ardent supporters of Kannada language. There is not a single scholar that I know of who denies this. So irrespective of their early lineage (which has been added for historical completeness), the Manyakheta family encouraged Kannada. In fact Altekar (who is a Maharashtrian) claims there is proof that the locality where the Elichpur family lived in the 6-7th century was a Kannada speaking locality based on inscriptions. He is one of the ardent supporters of their Kannadiga origin. Karmarkar further claims they were Dravidian Kannadigas originally.
I am not surprised that this question came up. Generally we tend to see history from todays point of view. We see Kannada spoken in Karnataka, Marathi spoken in Maharashtra and so on. But these linguistic boundaries are present day boundaries. Language distributions were quite different in the medieval times and have been constantly changing and will continue to change. Even if the early Rashtrakutas were not Kannadigas in the 6-7th century time frame (no scholar that I know of has claimed they were not Kannadigas), it does not mean they cannot become Kannadigas in the later centuries by migration and settlement. The citations are from historians who claim they were originally Kannadigas.
I have included all these three tiers of their history for completeness and historical fairness. If the article were titled Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta, I would not have bothered to write about the early medieval Rashtrakutas or the earliest "proposed" ancestors. But when you say Rashtrakutas, one normally means Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta as they are the most famous. I have not come across any books written specifically about their direct ancestors and other Rashtrakuta minor familes as they were petty kingdoms.
I hope this answers your question. Dineshkannambadi 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Praveen, I have provided 3 citations from historians to attest the Rashtrakutas were originally Kannadigas. I am not sure why it has to be reworded to an ambiguous "support". In history, we its important not to "split hairs". Even People who support Kannada to such a large extent (literature/administration) are Kannadigas. Your comment "After 200 years, an Indian family settled in US does not become ethnic Americans" is passing your own view. We should leave it to the concerned family to decide that. As another example, today you are Tamil and I a Kannadiga. What conclusive evidence can we give that our own ancestors were Tamils and Kannadigas respectively 200 years back? Yet you consider yourself a Tamilian and I a Kannadiga. Even the word "ethnic" is flexible in Indian history. What surety can a historian give that the Cholas were Tamils in 300BC? Maybe they were aryans who took up Tamil?. This is the reason I have not tried to emphasise (on the main article) what language the Rashtrakutas spoke prior to the 8th century, just to be fair. This is the reason I have specifically written "Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas"(with citations). I have tried not to inflict myself on other earlier Rashtrakutas for fairness. There is no barrier as to when someone becomes a Kannadiga and upto when one remains outside its realm. Hope this helps. Dineshkannambadi 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I have changed the wording to match your web page citation exactly. However, one needs to understand the content in context of Geography. The sentence "They spoke Kannada but also knew the northern Deccan language" in the web page indicates the nature of the culture in the transition zone between Dravidian and Aryan languages. Knowing a northern deccan language does not make them any less Kannadiga.Thanks Dineshkannambadi 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Praveen, the ambiguity in para 2 has little to do with your web citation. Its the Geography. Since Manyakheta is generally at the transition zone of Aryan and Dravidian languages, they were conversant with another language in addition to their native tongue Kannada, Just like todays people in Karnataka bordering Tamil Nadu call Kannada their native language, but may also be conversant in Tamil. web citation or not, their historical patronage for Kannada language and literature cant be altered. This is what the world sees at large. Dineshkannambadi 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, the web page may not say Kannadiga (just spoke Kannada) but my three authors do. Its a waste of time fishing around. Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
study1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The article was promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.
The Rashtrakuta dynasty is an important dynasty in the History of India. Their contributions to South Indian History, literature in Kannada and Sanskrit, their achievements in the realm of architecture and their imperial conquests makes this an important topic of Indian History. The article has been through several rounds of copy edit, a peer review (without any comments) and follows the correct citation and reference usage as in other recent India History related articles.Please provide constructive feedback on the format, grammar, content etc., to help make this article a FA. Dineshkannambadi 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply->The controversy about language and etnicity is about the 6th-7th century Rashtrakutas only. There is no scholar that I can quote (from all the sources I have) who deny that the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (who are the main subject of study here) were locals/had become locals of Gulbarga region and hence Kannadigas by language. (As an example, The Pallavas of Kanchi are popularly known to be immigrants from Iraq who made their way thru the subcontinent finally creating a famous kingdom from Kanchi, Tamil Nadu. Every historian considers theirs a Tamil Empire and them Tamils by language because of their patronage to Tamil language, irrespective of their ancestral origin. Similarly the Sena Dynasty of Bengal. Their inscriptions call them Karnatak Kshatriyas, indicating their Kannada origin-Kamath 2001 and Karnatas of Mithila-Thapar 2003. Yet the world and historians all accept the Senas as Bengalis because they patronised Bengali language). Indian is and has always been a dynamic country. In fact the " Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" goes into these details. Kannada according to many scholars (P.B.Desai, Kamath, Altekar, Vaidya, etc, all cited) was the popular language from Kaveri up to Godavari (Nasik region). The definition of a Kannadiga is one who is a native speaker of Kannada anyhere, not just Karnataka. In fact Several Rashtrakuta kings of this dynasty even had non-Sanskrit Kannada names from inscriptions (Krishna II and III were called Kannara, Govinda IV was called Gojjiga- Reu (1931). Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Also the terms "Rajput", "Maratha", "Reddi" denote castes, not any particular language. There are Rajputs, Marathas and Reddies in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra etc just as there are Naidus, Kurubas etc. A reading of "Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" will be well worth it. I suspect though that the scholars who call them Rajputs may have meant speakers of a contemporeneous Rajput language from the N.W. regions of India. Similarly the other ethnic groups. Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Having said this, this citation was put in at the advice of user:Nichalp in order to satisfy a user who was banned from wikipedia. So I let it be. In fact the citation is not even complete and does not provide the full page number, publication, author etc. In the larger interest of history, I am glad you brought this topic. If you want me to remove the sentence, I would be happy to oblige. I can however, quite easily replace it with a citation from one of my other sources where I can give full cited info. Nowhere in my sources is a "northern deccan language" mentioned, though. Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
More comments later. Could read only upto the end of "History". Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->No, Manyakheta was not completely destroyed. In fact Chalukya Tailapa II made it his capital from 973 untill 1040 (approx) when Somesvara I moved it to near by Basavakalyan (or Kalyani). The Paramara's (who were untill then a feudatory of Rashtrakutas) had only raided Manyakheta and did not occupy it. The vast Rashtrakuta empire split in several smaller kingdoms like it normally happens, including the W. Chalukyas in North Karnataka, Silharas in Konkan, Paramara's in Malwa, Gangas in South Karnataka. The Eastern Chalukyas in Andhra and Cholas in Tamil regions had been suppressed by the Rashtrakutas earlier on and were only too happy to see them go. But within a few decades, the western Chalukyas consolidated much of the region between Tungabhadra and Narmada rivers. The annals of South Indian and Deccan history between 1000-1150 is essentially the fight for domination between the Western Chalukyas and Cholas. Hence the only real successors of the Rashtrakuta heartland were the W.Chalukyas. Some of the Rashtrakuta families in far off extremes of their empire like Rathodas of Rajasthan etc simply became independent minor kingdoms. In fact historians feel the Rashtrakutas were very decentralised in maintaining or expecting alligiance from their far flung kith and kin. Other feudatories like the Rattas of Saundatti, Kadambas of Hanagal, Alupas, Gangas etc., all in Karnataka region became feudatories and were absorbed into the W. chalukya empire. Even the Paramara were intermittently a W.Chalukya feudatory after several victories of the W.chalukyas in the Dhara region. Dineshkannambadi 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I will correct the contradiction.thanks Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Corrected mistake. Its Rashtra-->Vishaya-->Nadu-->Grama. Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Coins. Gadyana may be another name for Gadyanka mentioned in Administration. Ctharna may be a small silver coin. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
mentioned in citation #74. Land tax here includes tax on cultivable land. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done provided citation, reduced sentence in length. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe its correct. None of the other links make sense. This area was always under Rashtrakuta control anyway. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply unfortunately that is not clarified. But I suppose the author meant Hinduism in general and I prefer not to make a guess. So I have correctd it to Hinduism. I will read Keay's book and see what he says. Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Read upto religion. More comments later. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply will take a close look at this tonight. Dineshkannambadi 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
could not find this. Please indicate where this statement is. Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
DOne Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Done Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply The box is meant to recognise the Official languages as proven by epigraphy and popular literature. By the 9th century, just about every language spoken in India today was already spoken at that time. Mentioning Telugu, Tamil and Marathi just because the Rashtrakuta empire covered those areas would also require that Tulu, Konkani, Kodava (Coorgi), Various versions of Prakrit, Rajasthani, Marwari, Gondi, various dialects of commonly spoken tribal languages in MP etc, etc would also have to be mentioned, leaving no room for anything else. This is why consistantly in all the FA's I have mentioned only those languages used predominantly in Inscriptions and literature. This is how the "official languages of India" in the present day context also works. Only those languages that are official are mentioned, that too based on context. Further, none of my sources even mention the other language names in an official context.
As an example, lets consider the Chola Dynasty, which is a FA. They also conquered southern Karnataka ( and rule for ~100 years), Andhra Pradesh (ruled for ~150 years), Orissa, Bengal, parts of South east Asia and Sri Lanka. I have citations for several hundred Chola inscriptions in "Kannada" (from Nanjagud, Mysore, Kolar etc). Yet all the spoken languages in those territories they captured / governed have been left out simply using "Tamil" as their official language. The same goes for Chalukyas, Marathas, Palas, Prathiharas etc, all large empires.
Emperor Ashoka ruled most of India and historians have discovered several Kannada words in Ashokan inscriptions from the Karnataka region indicating Kannada was a fully spoken language in the 2nd c. BCE. Yet historians only account for "Prakrit" as their official language. Same with the later Satavahanas. If we start recording spoken languages, there is not end to it. Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Apart from Spoken languages, there is no shortage of citations for Maratha inscriptions in Kannada, Tamil and Telugu. Similarly Eastern Chalukyas (of Andhra) in Kannada and Tamil, Pallava inscriptions in Kannada and Telugu. What I am trying to get at is , going into spoken languages or even minor inscriptional languages will open up a bee-hive of edit wars and contradictions for many many articles with no end to it. Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
In fact the box should be modified to say "official languages" to avoid conflict. In my two years on wikipedia, no issue has been more contentious than the language issue. The more clear we are about what we are conveying, the better. Dineshkannambadi 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it is a good article, but several vague statements are made to give the impression that it is an empire under one dyansty and that it is a Kannadiga dynasty. If this is the case I would be quite happy to accept it, but the evidences are not there, I'm afarid. Can somebody explain the first para in the history?! What is that reference to Asoka ??-- Aadal 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply:Aadal, Your objections seem to be a bit vague. Please pin point where there is ambiguity and I will be happy to explain. subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty explains about the possible connection to ancestors during Ashoka's time as explained by some historians. Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Regarding the tags you have added to the article, all the info is cited elsewhere in the article if you read the article in its entirety. Please dont put tags in the LEAD section because per wiki FA standards, I am not supposed to provide citations in the LEAD section. Also you have tagged those sentences that have been cited multiple times in the immedietly following sentence. Dineshkannambadi 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Citations that satisfy Aadals tag
1. Scholars however concur that the kings of the imperial dynasty in the eighth to tenth century made the Kannada language as important citation needed as Sanskrit -->citation #14,15,16,17,18 19, 120, 121, 143, 145, 146. I can provide more if necessary. If any more info needs clarification, please feel free to ask on the FAC page. Dineshkannambadi 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2.There is uncertainty about the location of the early capital of the Rashtrakutas at this time. [1] [2] [3] citation needed
Reply-->You can tag an uncited statement, not a citation itself. Please remove the tag. However, citations 30 (itself), 35, 36, 37 provide the needed verification. Dineshkannambadi 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
dinesh has addressed the rest below.
Reply-->The overlap area is the Kannauj Triangle, if you study the history of Rashtrakuta in the 9th-10th century. This is the area that the three empires - Rashtrakutas, Palas and Pratiharas fought over. This is why it overlaps. The map simply shows the peak territories of the three empires at different times in the 9th-10th century when the three empires were warring with each other. None of the three empires held Kannauj permanently as explained in the history section. The "great" Chola expansion happened from the very end of the 10th century, after the fall of the Rashtrkutas and begining of the 11th century with the defeat of the Western Ganga Dynasty, a Rashtrakuta subordinate at the hands of the Cholas. Dont mix up dates. The Cholas were not such a "great" empire in the 9th and 10th century. Please read up on the Chola history carefully. By Chalukyas, if you mean the Eastern Chalukyas, they were constantly at strife with the Rashtrakutas, coming under their control periodically, but gaining freedom often like under Gunaga Vijayaditya in the middle of 9th century when Amoghavarsha treated him as an ally. I can provide more details if you wish. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The map is where it should be as in the case of all other FA's. I have commented on how the map could be redrawn, without changing the Rashtrakuta territory. Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->None of the claims are wild. All dates if reign are accurate. Dravidian architecture is not a term that is limited to Cholas. Please dont make your views so "Chola Centric". The authors here are well known historians like Kamath, Percy Brown, James Fergusseon, John Keay, Soundar Rajan etc. Are you claiming these scholars are confused? If you notice the very first paragraph, even a mention of Pandyan influence is mentioned. The Kailasanatha temple was modelled after the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal, which itself is in Dravidian style. This is the view of historians, not mine. The word "Peak" is a relative term. No where is it claimed that the Dravidian architecture went further than or lesser than Chola architecture.Its is only a relative term. The Rashtrakutas were masters of rock cut architecture, the Cholas of stand alone architecture. There are several terms used in architecture and one must not confuse these terms. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->All these statements come with citations. If you have counter evidence to disprove my citations we can examine it. All ISBN's/OCLC's are at the bottom in the reference section. The Rashtrakutas like all other large empires had many feudatories or subordinates who owed them nominal support in times of war, distress etc and frequently paid tribute. There is no surprise here. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply The History section clearly says that Govinda III is compared to Alexander the great and Arjuna. Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I have more than 3 books to prove this statement, covering roughly the same area. Dineshkannambadi 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply -->This statement is cited. If you are claiming the sentnce is wrong, please find a citation as a counter argument to disprove it. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply -->nothing is overblown. All citations are open to examination. Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The economy section is a reduced version of the subarticle. The intention is to create subarticles that can later be enlarged if necessary. This is consistant with other India History related articles. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->Firstly I think the objections are vague and not clear what the reviewer wants clarified. These are citations from books by Reu, Kamath, Altekar etc. Statements coming from scholars are not speculative, especially when the matter appears in publised books and are generally accepted by historians. If you think these are speculative, please find other authors who call it speculative or argue against it. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
History is certianly not an exact science. But then the same would hold good for all history articles. All statements from historians could be called Weasel statements though they come from examination of inscriptions and other epigraphal material. We have to believe our historians, or we have to believe none. Dineshkannambadi 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The northern portion of Tamil Country was firmly under Rashtrakuta rule. Even the Pandyas of deep south and Kings of Ceylon paid tribute at times. I am only reporting what I read. If you dont like the statement, please find a counter citation that disproves it. Even if the recorded names of these towns are from 16th century, I am sure these towns had some name in the 9th century. The author may have been just using the most recent name. Again this is a cited sentence. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->The society and customs in the Rashtrakuta kingdom in many ways was no different from its neighbours. There are bound to be overlaps in customs. No surprise here. Any historian with knowledge will attest to this. Again, I am reporting what I am reading. If you feel its incorrect, please find citations that disprove mine, then we can add it as counter arguement. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->again I am writing what I read. If you have a citation that says "Sati was not voluntary but forced" in the Rashtrakuta empire, bring it to the table and we can include it. Let us not be the ones to decide how sati was voluntary but not arranged marraige. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Lets give an opportunity to the historians to decide which language is the grandmother, which is the mother and which is the daughter. They need to earn their living too, right? If you have a verifiable citation(s) to prove your claim, bring it to the table and we can examine it. If you can prove that Kannada was not their language of administration or literature, we can surely include it as a counter argument. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I think both the question and answer are irrelevant in this topic. Dineshkannambadi 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Both. Please read the History section and Language section. Again I am reporting what I read. If you can prove with citations that Kannada was not their official language, bring it to the table and we can examine it. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply We are not experts to decide which inscription is valid and which is not. Let us allow our historians to decide that. You have not indicated which claims are contradictory. please be more specific. Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply This is a relative statement. There is no black and white here. All trends wane away slowly. The Prakrit era was defnitely true, though Sanskrit epics tottered to a close during this time and perhaps a few centuries later. Again this statement comes with a citation. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Good Question. I have explained very explicitly in the first few paragraphs of "History" and also in the subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty how the early medieval Rashtrakuta kingdoms prior to 8th century eventually resulted in the Rashtrakuta Empire from Manyakheta and then their northern Expansion in the 9th and 10th century creating more kingdoms there. The Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta were a Deccan Empire who brought together many facets of Southern and Northern regions and culture. This is exactly what the Deccan culture is, be it in architecture, literature, sculpture. I can suggest some books for more reading. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Feel free to bring in more scrutiny. I have the books to prove myself though, if you are interested. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I have replied below in Aadal's comments and DK's replies
DK's Answers to Anwar's tags-->I have removed your tags for the following reasons. 1. citations should not be in the LEAD. 2. I have the citations for your tags. Please place them elsewhere in the article and I shall provide the citations.
citation needed regarding Hinduism and Jainism.-->Citations #88/89. I can provide more if you like.
citation needed regarding Earliest inscription-->Reu (1933), p47
citation needed regarding Dravidian (South Indian) architecture-->
This article should be made an FA, but it should be improved and in many places toned down. My first questions are about the nature of the 'dynasty' (whether it is one - or whether it is a commonwealth type of arrangement); the extent of the control.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Dk's reply
Done map is less confusing. Shows territories "conquered and held" by Rashtrakutas. Dineshkannambadi 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added some 20 citations, mostly in the History section, to further strengthen the contents of this article. If anyone has any doubts about the citations or the claims made by historians, please feel free to accurately list the citations which are of concern (without combining multiple issues into one) with clarity and I shall make the page available for study by a neutral party(s). If not, please delete the objections so the FAC can proceed smoothly. Dineshkannambadi 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments
Overall a very well written article with an impressive research work from several sources. However, some quick comments.
Reply-->Done. Kannauj is the spelling in wiki. So I made it consistant. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
“ | The origin of Rashtrakuta dynasty has been a controversial topic with such unresolved issues regarding the origins of the earliest ancestors of the Rashtrakutas during the time of Emperor Ashoka in the second century BCE, [4] the connection between the several different Rashtrakuta dynasties that ruled small kingdoms in northern and central India and the Deccan between the sixth and seventh centuries, and the relationship of these medieval Rashtrakutas to the most famous dynasty, the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (present day Malkhed in the Gulbarga district, Karnataka state), who ruled between the eighth and tenth centuries. [5] [6] [7] | ” |
Reply-->Done. chopped it into three sentence for easy reading. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Would be more appropriate to link Kannada literature as it exists.
Done linked to Kannada literature. Dineshkannambadi 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
For example, in History section words such as
Karnataka,
Maharashtra are linked more than once. Some other common words to be looked into are, Kannada, Sanskrit, Manyakheta.
Done Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
corrected. Its spelled Amravati district in Maharashtra. There are multiple districts in India with that name but slightly different spelling. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Two his referring to two different persons? Flow doesn't seem proper. Also, since this sentence being the first in the paragraph, the first "His" should be replaced with the proper noun, that is, the name.
Done corrected sentence begining. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
What are the other records? If it can be mentioned in the article its fine, even otherwise it is fine by me. But I'm just curious. Could be Coins? or some other form of literature?
Done-->Literary documents Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Should be UNESCO, and probably linked to
UNESCO. -
KNM
Talk 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Done. I dont see the phrase in italics anywhere. Also linked UNESCO. Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply Reduced by atleast 6-8 lines overall in the History section, especially in the first 5 paras for clarity. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I have removed the architecture part. Let me justify why I have maintained the language/literature part and hopefully you wont mind. The earlier statement says that the early Rashtrakutas may have belonged to one of several ethnic groups (Rajput, Kannadiga, Reddi...). When an impatient reader sees this (and does not see the succeeding para explaining that the 8th-10th century kings gave importance to Kannada and Sanskrit), the first question that would come to his mind when he gets to the literature and Language section is "who can believe that Rajputs or Marathas or Reddies or Punjabis would give importance to Kannada/Sanskrit literature. This is incorrect info". He/She may simply not have the patience to understand that irrespective of what the kings spoke or gave importance to in the 6th century, they could change to other languages in the 8-10th century. Most readers who read Indian history, see history from todays point of view. Even this morning, after your comment, a vandal created a "single use account" and tagged the language section as "advertisement" and added the word "Marathi" in choice places to his convinience with scant regard for the historical information and citations. He also tried to disrupt this FAC by using abuse (which was later deleted by another user). This is why I request that these few lines on language and literature be maintained to give continuity. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->done
Reply_->done and reduced. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->done and reduced Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Some of this examples may seem nitpicking. However, this would probably make the article easier to read. In fact, most of the article is easier to read than the previous few Indian history FAs. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply I deeply appreciate your keen interest in these articles. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply corrected meaning. Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Reply-->I will take a close look at these issue tonight.Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support - Well sourced and well written article - Naveen ( talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support - Very nice job at tackling a challenging project. I particularly like how the early origin parts is written. Thumbs up. -- Blacksun 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support- Excellent article, with all the issues addressed this should become a FA. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Support Meets criteria. Issues raised were satisfactorily addressed. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Support. - Well written article with lot of information. Gnanapiti 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The origin of Rastrakutas is debatable. This is clearly written in second para of history section. I quote
But this information is changed in third para to assert that Rastrakutas are 'Kannadigas' (Kannads). I quote
Could anybody explain this? thanks Praveen 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please take time to read about Origin of Rashtrakutas article which is attached because this will help a lot. Let me give a brief idea what the debate is all about.
1. A few historians (like Hultsczh, Fleet) propose some tribes (it is not clear whether they were aryan or non-aryan and this is specified) were the ancestors of the medieval Rashtrakutas (6th-7th century). These are only theories based on a few words in inscriptions (such as Rathika, Ristika (Rashtrika) or Lathika) from Emperor Ashoka's time (2nd century BC). Most modern books dont bother to discuss this as the theory drags the history back to a very early period with no clarity. It was added for historical completion.
2. The history of the medieval Rashtrakutas becomes more clear from 6th-7th century, when they ruled as minor kingdoms with the availability of a few inscriptions. The Elichpur family (Berar) was a feudatory to the Badami Chalukyas (Kamath, Altekar, Reu....). This is attested to by inscriptions. It is not clear if the Manpur family and Kannauj family were feudatories too or not. The relationship between these medieval Rashtrakuta families and whether they were natives of central India or arrived there from the north or south is debated. Consequently Scholars have also debated whether their ancestors were originally Rajputs, Marathas, Reddies, Kannadigas or residents of Punjab region going back several centuries. However some scholars (Altekar, Karmakar, Kamath, Desai etc) claim the Elichpur family were Kannadigas and not natives of Central India (Berar) or north India, but natives of Karnataka region as mentioned in the Origin... article. This is because right from the begining of their independent rule (after overthrowing the Chalukyas in 753) they encouraged Kannada in administration, literature. Also, many of their inscriptions in central India are signed in Kannada even as far as Gujarat. So it is claimed that Kannada speaking commanders were despatched to rule the far corners of the Chalukya empire and later overcame their own overlords in Badami. Similarly, It is also known that the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi were from the Badami family.
3. Irrespective of who the early Rashtrakutas were or where they came from, Dantidurga's family from Elichpur (who became the Manyakheta family of the 8-10th centuries) were ardent supporters of Kannada language. There is not a single scholar that I know of who denies this. So irrespective of their early lineage (which has been added for historical completeness), the Manyakheta family encouraged Kannada. In fact Altekar (who is a Maharashtrian) claims there is proof that the locality where the Elichpur family lived in the 6-7th century was a Kannada speaking locality based on inscriptions. He is one of the ardent supporters of their Kannadiga origin. Karmarkar further claims they were Dravidian Kannadigas originally.
I am not surprised that this question came up. Generally we tend to see history from todays point of view. We see Kannada spoken in Karnataka, Marathi spoken in Maharashtra and so on. But these linguistic boundaries are present day boundaries. Language distributions were quite different in the medieval times and have been constantly changing and will continue to change. Even if the early Rashtrakutas were not Kannadigas in the 6-7th century time frame (no scholar that I know of has claimed they were not Kannadigas), it does not mean they cannot become Kannadigas in the later centuries by migration and settlement. The citations are from historians who claim they were originally Kannadigas.
I have included all these three tiers of their history for completeness and historical fairness. If the article were titled Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta, I would not have bothered to write about the early medieval Rashtrakutas or the earliest "proposed" ancestors. But when you say Rashtrakutas, one normally means Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta as they are the most famous. I have not come across any books written specifically about their direct ancestors and other Rashtrakuta minor familes as they were petty kingdoms.
I hope this answers your question. Dineshkannambadi 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Praveen, I have provided 3 citations from historians to attest the Rashtrakutas were originally Kannadigas. I am not sure why it has to be reworded to an ambiguous "support". In history, we its important not to "split hairs". Even People who support Kannada to such a large extent (literature/administration) are Kannadigas. Your comment "After 200 years, an Indian family settled in US does not become ethnic Americans" is passing your own view. We should leave it to the concerned family to decide that. As another example, today you are Tamil and I a Kannadiga. What conclusive evidence can we give that our own ancestors were Tamils and Kannadigas respectively 200 years back? Yet you consider yourself a Tamilian and I a Kannadiga. Even the word "ethnic" is flexible in Indian history. What surety can a historian give that the Cholas were Tamils in 300BC? Maybe they were aryans who took up Tamil?. This is the reason I have not tried to emphasise (on the main article) what language the Rashtrakutas spoke prior to the 8th century, just to be fair. This is the reason I have specifically written "Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas"(with citations). I have tried not to inflict myself on other earlier Rashtrakutas for fairness. There is no barrier as to when someone becomes a Kannadiga and upto when one remains outside its realm. Hope this helps. Dineshkannambadi 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I have changed the wording to match your web page citation exactly. However, one needs to understand the content in context of Geography. The sentence "They spoke Kannada but also knew the northern Deccan language" in the web page indicates the nature of the culture in the transition zone between Dravidian and Aryan languages. Knowing a northern deccan language does not make them any less Kannadiga.Thanks Dineshkannambadi 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Praveen, the ambiguity in para 2 has little to do with your web citation. Its the Geography. Since Manyakheta is generally at the transition zone of Aryan and Dravidian languages, they were conversant with another language in addition to their native tongue Kannada, Just like todays people in Karnataka bordering Tamil Nadu call Kannada their native language, but may also be conversant in Tamil. web citation or not, their historical patronage for Kannada language and literature cant be altered. This is what the world sees at large. Dineshkannambadi 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, the web page may not say Kannadiga (just spoke Kannada) but my three authors do. Its a waste of time fishing around. Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
study1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).