Talk:Kamarupa

Main population of Kamarupa were Bodos^[1]. Kingdom was ruled by Bodos^[2].2409:4065:D91:6E63:48A1:B249:F3FC:FFE8 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Prithu is a legendary character based on traditions. No one knows for sure when and where he ruled, considering that he existed. The Muslim chronicles and epigraphs simply mention the king of Kamrupa as Rae/ Raja of Kamrupa, not by any particular name. These speculative claims by Sarkar are outdated and based on K.L.Barua's History of Kamrupa. Kanaklal Barua has fabricated his own version of history by manipulating facts as he pleases. Have a look at the content first.21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove cited texts, or you will be reported. The citations are from Jadunath Sarkar, not from K L Barua; and they are edited by H K Barpujari. So this is as standard as one could get. Chaipau (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a source that sets in rest to the bogus claim of Prithu being a ruler of Kamrupa. Refer to the main article Raja_Prithu or read Page 4-6, New Light on History of Assam. Speculative claims based on outdated and erroneous sources should not be added in Wikipedia.Ananya Taye (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This source is Bhattasali, 1946. It is rather old, and the views are outdated. Recent scholarship (such as Boruah (2011) and Sarkar (1992)) don't even acknowledge Bhattasali. Chaipau (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The eastern border of Kamarupa still doesnot find any inscriptional evidence. Shin writes i quote "Scholars identify Dikkaravāsinī with goddess Tāmreśvarī and locate her abode in Sadiya. It is deemed the eastern limit of Kāmarūpa. And this supposition is supported by the reference of the sixteenth century Yoginītantra describing the eastern limit of Kāmarūpa as the abode of Dikkaravāsinī. Basedon these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kāmarūpais postulated. However, no inscriptional and material."Homogenie (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC) evidence confirms this conjecture.

Most of the Boundary of Kamarupa is drawn by the literal intrepretation of Kalika Purnika and Yogini Tantra, The source used for drawing the Map of Kamarupa like Dutta(2008) echo the same thing like K.L Barua. Most of these have been disproven by Shin(2018). if you what to selectively put what you like in Shin (2018) and discard the what you dont like then thats WP:POV. The map of Kamarupa shouldnt even be here if we consider Shin(2018). Dutta (2008) starts with the same debunked Ramayana and Mahabharata stories Quote :

Ancient Assam has been referred to as Pragjyotisa-Kamarupa in the early Sanskrit literature as well as in age-old inscriptions. The name Pragjyotisa is more ancient than Kamarupa. Both the early Vedic and the later Vedic literature throw important light on the gradual expansion of the Aryans to the Eastern India but the earliest mention of the city of Pragjyotisa is traced in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata the two great Indian epics. Chapter II POLITICAL BACKGROUND AND GEOGRAPHICAL EXISTENCE OF PRAGJYOTISA-KAMARUPA IN THE EARLY PERIOD

again this Quote:

The ancient Pragjyotisa came to be known as Kamarupa in the early medieval times, as Naraka established his suzerainty over the country. He puts himself in-charge of the Kamakhya temple; this led to the reorientation of the name of the kingdom in the light of new forces. Kamarupa is connected with a popular legend in which it is depicted how like a phoenix Kamadeva, the Cupid of Hindu mythology was burnt into ashes by the fiery glances of Siva

Quote:

The Kalika Purana states that Kamarupa extended to the Karatoya in the west and included Manikuta, where stood a temple of Haigrva Visnu. The same Purana and Tiksa Kalpa4 refer to Kamarupa as triangular in shape, hundred yojana in length and 30 Yojana in breadth, extending from Karatoya to Dikkaravasini in the east

This is what Shin(2018) writes about the BORDERS : Quote

Nonetheless, the spatial perceptions of Kamarupa have yet been ade-quately considered. This issue entails its own complexities since the scale of the kingdom was defined retrospectively by the colonial and nationalist historians in the early twentieth century and imposed constantly on the understanding of the modern state ofAssam. One of the underlying assumptions is that Pragjyotisa, a mythical kingdom of the Epics, corresponded to Kamarupa, and Pragjyotisha-Kamarupa occupied a Vast territory of which present Assam is a major part. A unilinear continuity is applied to not alone the temporal context of Kamarupa but its spatial context. Different terms, 'Pragjyotisa', 'Kamarupa' and 'ancient Assam' (or recently 'early Assam'), have been used as synonyms in many works on the historical geography of the region. THis tendency is evident in Ancient Geography of India written by Borooah in 1877, continues in the works of 1950s-1990s and remains in some ofthe very recent studies. p-34

About Bhutan and Koch Behar Shin(2018):

In Assam, this process began in 1871 when Cunningham ascertained that 'Kia-mo-Ieu-po' mentioned in HiuenTsang's account was 'Kamarupa', the kingdom of Bhaskaravarman, and equated it with modern Assam. For him, 'Kamarupa' is the Sanskrit name of Assam, and its extent is defined as the whole valley of the Brahmaputra River, or modern Assam, together with Koch Behar and Bhutan.' This is, however, a proposition unsup- ported by either contemporary lnstorical records or etymological explanation.p-34

About combining Kamarupa and Pragjyotishpura and create a fictional map Shin(2018) Quote:

This fact maKes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge. Although some scholars posit that the boundary of Kamarupa extended up to the Himalayas in the north in that period, it is an utterly literal interpretation. The modern concept of fixed territory cannot be applied to such an early state. What can be assumed at the mostis that the line between the places imagined and experienced seems to have blurred in the description of Kamarupa in the Raghuvamsa, thereby juxtaposing two different spatial contexts in the poetic expression. p-37-38

BORDERS Shin(2018):

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 itself never constituted a single entity.p-40

Two defination of Kamarupa in Kalika purana Shin(2018):

In the Kalikapurana, Kamarupa was defined as a region extending from the Karatoya in the west up to that place in the east Ganga, where goddess Lalitakanta resided. The location of Lalitakanta is roughly identified with the hill-streams Sandhya, which is not far from present Guwahati. At the same time, the Kalikapurana gives us a different reference elsewhere that Kamatiipa was triangular in shape and also 100 yojanas in length from the Karatoya to DikaravasinI and thirty yojanasin breadth from the north to the south. It was black in colour and interspersed with innumerable hills and hundreds ofrivers. Scholars identify DikaravasinI with goddess Tamreswari 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 Yogini tantra describing the eastern limit of Kamarupa as the abode of Dikaravasini. Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kamarupa is postulated. However, no inscriptional and material evidence confirms this conjecture.p-40

Also Dutta(2008) Chapter IV VARIOUS PLACES OF IMPORTANCE puts Dikkaravasini as (Dikrong River) Quote:

The eastern boundary of Assam on whose border flows the Svarnadf (Prante dikkaravasinyah sada vahati svarnadi; also Lauhitya-nada-rajasca Pranta-dikkaravasini) (K.P. 64). Naraka drove the Kiratas from its banks (K.P. 38), generally identified with the modern Dikrang. There are however, two rivers of the name Dikrang; one flowing on the east of Narayanpur in North Lakhimpur and the other in Sadiya. Dikkaravasini is perhaps the Dikrang river. p -181

Most of these borders are wild guess which are being repeatedly produced in academic circles without any improvement , most of these are debunked by Shin (2018). THERE IS NO FIXED BORDER OF KAMARUPA. THE MAP SHOULDNT EXISTHomogenie (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere does Shin argue that the eastern boundary as given by all are wrong. In fact she finds support in other areas. 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. Shin interprets the mention of Lalitakanta to denote the eastern boundary of Indo-Aryan settlements beyond which was the settlement of Kiratas. Yet, Shin avers that both the regions (Karatoya to Lalitakanta and Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini) were part of Kamrupa: 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. This setting down of a boundary could be right, as Naranarayan did many centuries later when he used the Gohain kamal Ali to demarcate the brahmanical (south) and the non-Brahminical parts (north) of his kingdom. But this could be right only in the initial stages of Kamarupa, and not later, since a later king Kamarupa king of the 10th century had established a brahmin colony in Habung/Ha-Vranga. Chaipau (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but Shin clearly doubts the Borders

In the Kalikapurana,

Kamarupa was defined as a region extending from the Karatoya in the west up to that place in the east Ganga, where goddess Lalitakanta resided. The location of Lalitakanta is roughly identified with the hill-streams Sandhya, which is not far from present Guwahati. At the same time, the Kalikapurana gives us a different reference elsewhere that Kamarupa was triangular in shape and also 100 yojanas in length from the Karatoya to Dilkaravasini and thirty yojanas in breadth from the north to the south. It was black in colour and interspersed with innumerable hills and hundreds of rivers. Scholars identify Dilkaravasini with goddess Tamreswari and locate her abode in

Sadiya. los 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 Shin (2020) about borders

This fact makes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge. Although some scholars posit that the boundary of Kamarupa extended up to the Himalayas in the north in that period, it is an utterly literal interpretation. The modern concept of fixed territory cannot be applied to such an early state. What can be assumed at the most is that the line between the places imagined and experienced seems to have blurred in the description of Kamarupa in the Raghuvamsa, thereby juxtaposing two different spatial contexts in the poetic expression.

Also Shin in Descending from Demons, Ascending to Kshatriyas: Genealogical Claims and Political Process in Pre-modern Northeast India, The Chutiyas and the Dimasas clearly mentions

These records suggest the penetration of Vaiṣṇava tradition in the eastern extremity of present Assam between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Its growing influence was felt in the area after the sixteenth century with the advent of the neo-Vaiṣṇava movement of Sankaradeva which brought about a profound change in the cultural and historical consciousness of the local population, including the Chutiyas.

Also in the same journal, she writes

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.

So here Shin doesnot talks about Hindu influence in Upper Assam before the 14th century, and also clearly disregard Habung Settlement. Also Gohain Kamal Ali road page clearly states about the Brahminised side and Non-Brahminised side, it shares the informantion in the page, there is no point in disregarding what Shin writes about the two different region of Kamarupa until and unless there is some other cause.

Also Koch dyansty has seperate sections for Koch dynasty- Koch dynasty#Rulers of Koch Bihar and Koch dynasty#Rulers of Koch Hajo. Also there is seperate page for Cooch Behar State and Koch Hajo. It is separated because it represented two different things which have DIFFERENCES. When there are DIFFERENCES, it deserves to be shown. Calling karatoya river to Dikkarsavini as the singular bourdary would be flawed as it tries to potray the region as a singular culture which is not true, hence it needs to be shown the two different region mentioned in Kalikapurana of which Shin writes.

Also Kalikapurana is not some historical accurate book to draw maps, Kalikapurana contains legends of Narakasura and Bhagadutta, which were deemed true when you literally interpret the Kalikapurana. Most of these have been turned false by modern scholars, so are the borders and area of influence of Kamarupa has been challenged. you added Shin reference here Kamarupa#Antecedents in 2018 and you completely discarded Shin reference here Kamarupa#Boundaries, it seems you are avoiding it. Popular scholars views doesnot fall under WP:UNDUE.

And also it is written "In whole the western boundary..."

We should not WP:CHERRYPICKING from Shin(2018) Homogenie (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not cherry picking. What I have quoted above are the final concluding statements that Shin has made regarding her interpretations. You cannot pick out individual statements she made while framing her arguments in the initial part of her writing, ignore her conclusive statements and come to your own conclusions. She concludes explicitly: Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa.. Your are inserting your WP:POV here. This is WP:OR, not just WP:DUE. The major contribution of Shin in that article was finding non-Indo-Aryan domains within Kamarupa, not outside Kamarupa. Chaipau (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well by saying a singular border from Karatoya to Dikkaravsini, you are trying to potray a singular culture of Kamarupa, which is not true, also Shin clearly writes it has no innscriptional records of eastern bourdary. Also you are very carefully trying to manipulate the border by picking certain parts of the journal and discarding the other parts. This is not how wikiepdia should run. Inserting all the facts written in the journal should not be a problem until and unless it a political issue. You didnt insert Shin citation for 2 years, it certainly says you dont want to put what is written in the journal in wikipedia. My response prior gives answer to all of these and these is not Original research as i have not claimed this, this is Shin Homogenie (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Shin frames are questions with the quotes you are using, but you are ignoring her conclusions and inserting your own conclusions (WP:OR). In the boundary section, we are discussing not cultural regions, but the political entity that was Kamarupa. No author today claims that Kamarupa was a single cultural region. Nearly all authors, historians as well as linguists, believe that Kamarupa consisted of small "urban" settlements with prevalence of Indo-Aryan culture surrounded by non-Indo-Aryan culture.

This is Shin's concluding paragraph in its full glory:

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. Such different spatial views may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahmana settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence. It was probably due to 'low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the region'. It is worth noting that pitha (the abode of a goddess) signified the extent of Kamarupa, that is Lalitakanta pitha and Dikkaravasini pitha. The sacred territoriality of goddess constituted the spatial cognition of the region and it became a significant symbol of the regional identity in the course of time.

The conclusions are very clear.

• Kamarupa consisted of two areas in the Brahmaputra valley: Karatoya to Lalitakanta (Area 1) and Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini (Area 2).
• Area 1 - the domain of Brahmanical sedentary society
• Area 2 - the domain of tribal non-sedentary society
• Bother these areas are in Kamarupa ("Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa")

Shin therefore concludes not by redefining the eastern boundary, as you are claiming, but by defining two domains—one brahmanical and the other tribal—within Kamarupa. She explains these two areas as due to the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence/settlements into a strong tribal substratum. When she talks about a tribal substratum, she is obviously referring to a slow conversion of tribal non-sedentary society (jhum agriculture) into brahmanical sedentary society (wet rice cultivation), not the physical expansion of brahman settlements.

Chaipau (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well i am not ignoring her conclusion, i clearly wrote " On the whole the western boundary is ...". Also it is necessary to give the two region as it gives the impression that Kamarupa is one culture which is not correct , hence i added the two region and then i added " On the whole ..." Also you said Shin writes that there are two parts of Kamarupa one tribal and the other non-tribal in the ending (conclusion). So thats what she exactly wrote in the conclusion and then wrote the two part were deemed KAMARUPA in the KALIKA PURANA. I dont see a reason why we should pick up just a small part of her (Shin) conclusion as writing the full conclusion gives the reader a better understanding of the content Homogenie (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The section is about the boundary of the Kamarupa kingdom, primarily the political boundary. The issue of cultural regions within the kingdom is out of scope in the section.

As far as internal cultural divisions are concerned, Shin's versions of a two-way division, one region in the east and the other in the west, each defined as the domain of a goddess, is a novel (and speculative) division, and it is one among other models. The traditional divisions are not two-way but four-way (see Kamarupa Pithas) which are not accepted as true divisions by scholars but fabricated divisions (see Sircar). The more prevalent model, the one accepted by historians and linguists (see Lahiri, Guha, DeLancey etc.), describe various Indo-Aryan centers of influence in a sea of non-Indo-Aryan culture. One of the capitals itself of the Kamarupa kings, Haddapeshwar (modern-day Tezpur), is in Shin's tribal domain, leave alone the Ha-Vranga brahman settlement further to the east.

Therefore,

• Shin's internal division is out of scope in the section on boundaries.
• Shin's division scheme is not the prevalent model of the Indo-Aryan/non-Indo-Aryan divide and interactions. Internal composition deserves a different section dedicated to it. But even in such a section Shin's divisions is WP:UNDUE because it is not the model accepted by all scholars. It is a new and speculative division that arises from the mention of Lalitakanta in the Kalika Purana.

Chaipau (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

KPAhmed, I know you are busy and don't want to waste precious time . But before we go to 3O, we need to put in our arguments here. Could you please explain here, how Alauddin Husain Shah's invasion of the medieval Kamata kingdom in 1498 is relevant enough to belong in the lead section of this article that describes a kingdom that ceased to exist in the middle of the 12th century? What you have argued so far is that since the lead section mentions the Ahoms it should also mention Alauddin Hussein Shah . Why should not Alauddin Hussein Shah's invasion belong to the section that lists all the other Muslim invasions after the demise of the Kamarupa kingdom? What makes Alauddin Hussein Shah's invasion any different from that of Bakhtiyar Khalji's, or Ghiyasuddin Iwaj Shah or even the Mughals? The Mughals ruled Kamrup (a very small part of Kamarupa) for close to 60 years, compared to Alauddin, who ruled it for about just 15 years? Why is this special? WP:EVERYTHING. Chaipau (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau Most of your questions are out of context. My point isn't about any invasion. My point is about persistence of notion of kamarupa and Alauddin's coins clearly prove the persistence of notion of kamarupa. I'm not sure if other muslim rulers issued such coins , also i am unable to find such proof for Ahom. There is separate article Ahom Kingdom for writing about their assumption and aspiration which you highlighted in Kamarupa.

That was my one line edit. I don't think we need long discussion and i don't think my edit was disruptive but i got warning from you in my talk page.

KPAhmed (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If it is just a one line edit, why are you so adamant on retaining it?

The coins of Alauddin Husain Shah referred to "Kamru and Kamata", which in the 15th century is Kamata kingdom and not the Kamarupa kingdom that ceased to exist in the 12th century. A king from Kamarupanagara moved his capital to Kamatapur and called himself the king of Kamata: Thenceforth, the Kamarupa king assumed the title Kamataswara or Kameswara and his kingdom came to be known as Kamata or Kamrup-Kamata (Baruah 1983, p176). According to Sarkar 1992: In the 15th century 'Kamrup' comprised not only the areas now included in Koch Bihar, Darrang and Kamrup districts but also as Stapleton says, of Northern Mymensing, north and west of the Brahmaputra. And so, this is the kingdom that Husain Shah referred to—the 15th century Kamrup-Kamata which he called Kamru and Kamata. His coins did not refer to Kamarupa.

Alauddin's claim is outside the context of Kamarupa and does not belong here at all, under the WP:LEAD and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because Alauddin's coin mentions Kamrup does not mean that line belongs here. Your argument on "notion" and "persistence" are WP:OR since they are not explicitly stated nor cited. The Ahom claim is explicitly cited (Guha).

Chaipau (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC) (edited) 11:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Original word was in persian. Kamru was used for kamarupa word (See DC sarkar), for example Jia-mo-lu-po was by the famous Huen Chang. I thank you for your lesson on WP:OR but I've not combined statements to conclude anything in the article. My edit is very much in agreement with notion of kamarupa by J N Sarkar. But why do you want to remove it and keep only about Ahom's assumption and aspiration ? Does this even belong to Kamarupa WP:LEAD ? I'm ready to accept any comment from third editor or administrator. I mayn't be able to reply any time soon. Thanks KPAhmed (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you need a reference that clearly says those coins referred to Kamarupa and not Kamrup-Kamata. It is clear from J N Sarkar's writing that he makes a distinction between Kamarupa and Kamrup-Kamata. "[Kamarupa] was reorganised as a new state. 'Kamata' by name with Kamatapur as capital. The exact time when the change was made is uncertain. It is possible it had been made by Sandhya as a safeguard against mounting dangers from the east and the west. Its control on the eastern regions beyond the Manah was lax. Beyond the Barnadi the Ahoms have been consolidating since 1228." (Sarkar 1992, pp40/41)

If you cannot provide a reliable reference that specifically associates the Kamrup in Alauddin Shah's coin to Kamarupa we will have to remove that line. Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Alauddin Husain Shah from the lede and put it in the post Kamarupa period. I don't see why this should be important at all, given that this invasion occurred some 300/400 years after the end Kamarupa. Also, at the time Kamarupa ended, Islam had't reached Bengal even, let alone Kamarupa. Chaipau (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Homogenie: I wonder why you are trying to use creative readings of academic writings to push your POV. As I have shown here , you have tried to push a speculative internal boundary of Kamarupa to claim that it was the eastern boundary of the kingdom..

And now you want to remove Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription on yet another speculative claim., , Please note the following.

• The Varmans (4th-7th century) were ruling in Kamarupa when the Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription is tentatively dated (5th century).
• The NKGRI does not carry a date, it is dated based on the script in use.
• It is speculated that it is earlier than the Umachal rock inscription based on the use of a letter and the absence of Prakritism.
• There is no explicit connection between the NKGRI and the Doiyang Dhansiri Valley (DDV).
• It is not established that DDV was a kingdom.

All these have been clearly stated in Shin. You claim is thus based on a misconception (that NKGI is pre-Varman) and three additional speculations.

So please revert your changes.

Chaipau (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (edited) 20:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Please enlighten as to where Shin (2018) has wrote about Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription belonging to Varman dynasty

Shin (2018) page 28-29:

One cannot completely rule out the possibility of several simultaneous political powers in different sub-regional levels of north-eastern India around or even before the fourth century. For instance, the archaeological discovery in the Doiyang-Dhansiri Valley reveals that early state formation in the region may have begun before the second century. Some stone inscriptions assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries refer to the four names of kings who have possibly ruled over this area. The date of the Nagajari-Khanikargaon fragmentary stone inscription is considered to be earlier than that of the Umachal inscription of Varmans. It is, nevertheless, too early to make any definite conclusion as the archaeological and inscriptional evidences are still limited to date. Furthermore, the absence of large-scale archaeological excavations in the region prevents us from tracing a detailed picture of society in the earlier period.

Where has she claimed that Khanikargaon inscription belongs to Varman dynasty, the inscription is basically said to be pre-Varman period and nothing more is known about it, i dont see why a speculative claim which doesnot have much evidence as to which dynasty it belongs to should be inserted into the Varman section as a fact! Homogenie (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that she begins with the default position that NKGI belongs to Kamarupa (this is the conventional understanding), examines the possibility that there there was another state to which NKGI probably belonged and then concludes that we do not have sufficient evidence to make that conclusion. Implicitly this brings her to the default position—NKGI belongs to Kamarupa.

But let us look at her evidence step-by-step.

• One cannot completely rule out the possibility of several simultaneous political powers in different sub-regional levels of north-eastern India around or even before the fourth century. For instance, the archaeological discovery in the Doiyang-Dhansiri Valley reveals that early state formation in the region may have begun before the second century. I am not certain why Shin says: One cannot completely rule out the possibility. We know for certain that in the 4th-century there were at least two early states—Kamarupa and Davaka. Also note that this is the situation in the 4th century and earlier, and places Doiyang-Dhansiri as early as the 2nd century.
• Some stone inscriptions assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries refer to the four names of kings who have possibly ruled over this area. The date of the Nagajari-Khanikargaon fragmentary stone inscription is considered to be earlier than that of the Umachal inscription of the Varmans. Here she is speculating whether NKGI could have belonged to this state that was formed around the four kings. What is implicit here is the default position given here, that regions east to Davaka were absorbed into Kamarupa by Mahendravarman (470–494), who, by the way, issued the Umachal inscription. So Shin is effectively speculating here whether NKGI could have been issued by someone else before Mahendravarman occupied Doyang-Dhansiri.
• It is, nevertheless, too early to make any definite conclusion as the archaeological and inscriptional evidences are still limited to date. Furthermore, the absence of large-scale archaeological excavations in the region prevents us from tracing a detailed picture of society in the earlier period. Here Shin concludes that the evidence isn't there to support that speculation. Which effectively brings us back to the default position—that NKGI was issued by Kamarupa, just as all other land grants in the region.

In other words, Shin concludes that there is no evidence yet to support what you are claiming. According to her, we don't know either way.

So how is this different from the the NPOV text that you have deleted here:

"The Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription of 5th century found in Sarupathar in Golaghat district of Assam adduces the fact that the Sanskritisation spread to the east very quickly, though it is not clear whether this belonged to a different state formation."

The text above accurately represents what Shin has said above and should be restored.

Chaipau (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Complete WP:OR, Shin doesnot even claim that Khanikargoan inscription belongs to Varman dynasty, please do show the exact sentence where it written in the journal!! Khanikargoan is pre-varman as pointed out in the journal , also it has too less evidence to really point out to which dynasty it actually belonged to, so please dont try to pass off a claim as a fact Homogenie (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The text you have removed does not claim that NKGRI is Kamarupa. What is your problem with that text?

NKGRI is not pre-Varman, but possibly pre-Umachal. Shin writes earlier than that of the Umachal inscription, and this is from Sharma. Chaipau (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau::: Shin(2018)

The date of the Nagajari-Khanikargaon fragmentary stone inscription is considered to be earlier than that of the Umachal inscription of the Varmans.

Read the line, earlier than umachal inscription of the Varmans

Also

It is, nevertheless, too early to make any definite conclusion as the archaeological and inscriptional evidences are still limited to date. Furthermore, the absence of large-scale archaeological excavations in the region prevents us from tracing a detailed picture of society in the earlier period.

i dont find the pre-Umachal sentence and this The text you have removed does not claim that NKGRI is Kamarupa. What is your problem with that text? so you agree that NKGRI is not Kamarupa?? Homogenie (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Nagajari-Khanikargaon fragmentary stone inscription is considered to be earlier than that of the Umachal inscription of the Varmans." means pre-Umachal, where Umachal inscriptions belonged to the Varmans. For NKGRI to be pre-Varman, it has to be pre-4th century. Where does Shin claim it is pre-4th century?
• No. Shin and everyone else is uncertain whether NKGRI belongs to Kamarupa or some others. But the some other is not established yet. Irrespective of who it belongs to, NKGRI demonstrates that Indo-Aryan culture had reached Golaghat by the 5th century. If you consider the Doyang-Dhansiri to be Indo-Aryan as well, then Indo-Aryan culture had reached that region by the 2nd century.

Chaipau (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: regardless of indo aryan culture reaching golaghat from west or east , still it doesnot have evidence that it belongs to varman dynasty, so i dont see why it should inserted into varman section Homogenie (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is the statement that NKGRI is not Varman? At this point of time, none of the scholars can say who this belonged to. Chaipau (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: please show the statement where it states thart the inscription belongs to the Varman, then you can happily add it. Also Do read your own line At this point of time, none of the scholars can say who this belonged to. So the scholars agree that the agree that they are unsure to which dynasty it belongs to?? so why are you inserting this in varman dynasty Homogenie (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Chaipau's sentence seems accurate and NPOV, though I would amend it slightly to read "The fragmentary Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription, probably a land grant and written in Sanskrit, is dated to approximately the 5th century. It was found in Sarupathar in Golaghat district of Assam. It supports the idea that Sanskritisation spread to the east very quickly, though it is not clear what state formation issued the grant." I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: thank you! Your phrasing is a vast improvement and I agree to it. Chaipau (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: : The point is not whether sankritisation reached east in the 5th century but to which dynasty it belongs. Scholars claim that the inscription is pre-Varman and doesnot have much evidence to put it under the section of any ruling dynasty. Chaipau likes to push his POV to claim that the inscription belongs to Varman dynasty. The journal Region Formed and Imagined: Reconsidering temporal, spatial and social context of Kamarupa Shin(2018) p.28-29 claims the opposite. Do look into it Homogenie (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is not what my POV is but the text and whether it is supported by WP:RS and WP:DUE.

• The text does not claim the inscription is Kamarupa—it clearly says "it is not clear what state formation issued the grant".
• The sentence "The date of the Nagajari-Khanikargaon fragmentary stone inscription is considered to be earlier than that of the Umachal inscription of Varmans" cannot be read as "pre-Varman". The sentence means that the inscription is possibly older than the Umachal inscription. The Varman's began their reign in the 4th century but their earliest inscription, Umachal, is from the 5th. Nagajari is also from the 5th. If the sentence is made to mean "pre-Varman" as Homogenie is claiming, then it would mean the 5th century came before the 4th!

Chaipau (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau::: The text says it is unsure of which dynasty the inscription belongs to, if you want to show Sankritisation spreaded till the east in the 5th centurt, then create a seperate article Sankritisation in Assam and put it there. You cannot put this into varman dynasty as this record is speculative and unassigned to any of the previous ruling dynasties.Homogenie (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nagajari is about land grants, a specific type of Sanskritisation. The agency that does this are kings. There are other types of Sanskritisation which do not involve land grants. So Nagajari is relevant in the context of Kamarupa. Especially, given that all other land grants that are associated from the region are from Kamarupa. You do realise, I hope, that Shin herself is writing about Kamarupa when she mentioned Nagajari. The title of her paper is Region Formed and Imagined: Reconsidering temporal, spatial and social context of Kamarupa Chaipau (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) (edited) 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Homogenie, the guessed date of the Nagajari-Khanikargaon inscription coincides with the dates, also approximate, of the Varman dynasty. This alone is enough to allow us to insert the inscription in the Varman section. The suggested text disclaims any positive identification of the ruler / kingdom who issued the grant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: is the inscription considered part of the Varman dynasty, please do show the sentence, the author clearly state it is uncertain. How can you put that as a fact in the Varman section?? Do realise the inscription does not have the name of any ruler. The journal reads One cannot completely rule out the possibility of several simultaneous political powers in different sub-regional levels of north-eastern India around or even before the fourth century. For instance, the archaeological discovery in the Doiyang-Dhansiri Valley reveals that early state formation in the region may have begun before the second century. Some stone inscriptions assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries refer to the four names of kings who have possibly ruled over this area. The date of the Nagajari-Khanikargaon fragmentary stone inscription is considered to be earlier than that of the Umachal inscription of Varmans. It is, nevertheless, too early to make any definite conclusion as the archaeological and inscriptional evidences are still limited to date.} It doesnot tell it to be of varman but is unassigned, the inscription doesnot even have the name of the ruler, how can you put a on speculative claim, also do read the journal it even questions whether the three dynasty of kamarupa had any connection at all between them Homogenie (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Each and every concern of yours has been addressed above with WP:GOODFAITH. You are now repeating. Please note that WP:IDNHT is WP:DE. Chaipau (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC) (edited) 07:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: :Add the citation which says Khanikargoan inscription is Varman dynasty, just add the citation Homogenie (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? That is not what is claimed. Chaipau (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: You cannot insert a unassigned inscription into Varman dynasty, please just provide the citation which says its belongs to Varman dynasty , The inscription is unassigned to any ruler. It is simple as that, it is unassigned. If you do have proper source than go ahead and add it. Homogenie (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that this violates? Shin has included a mention of the inscription in her paper on Kamarupa. If not, please take it to the next level of WP:DR. Chaipau (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have inserted the current recommended text. Chaipau (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This was reverted. At this edit I have inserted a revised version of the paragraph, this time under "Antecedents" rather than the section on the Varman dynasty. I do hope that this settles this issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: thanks! This is awesome! Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:::Where is this Lauhitya river?? is this in the mythical Pragjyotisha of Epics or Kamarupa of Assam? is Lauhitya the Brahmaputra river? Shin (2017) describes this:

1.It should be remembered in this connection that the north-eastern region was outside the Maurya Empire. Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the Geography of Ptolemy and other early literary works only spealc of economic pursuits of the tribal belt of the north-eastern region:Kautilya refers to the commodities originating from various places around the Lauhitya, though the region was still divided into tribal pockets and perhaps no common name till then.The author of the Periplus and Ptolemy knew the Kiratas and other tribes, but had nothing to say about their kingdoms. p.28

Here, Lauhitya is the river related to Prajyotisha. This is confirmed by the second statement.

2.Considering the fact that the name Kamarupa is no where mentioned in an early literature including the Vedic corpus, the early Buddhist/Jain works and the Arthasastra, it is not surprising that the Epic is silent on Kamarupa. Its absence is deemed' remarkable' because some scholars take the ancient presence of Kamarupa for granted.p.34-35

3.In the following verses, the king of Pragjyotisha is mentioned as the lord of Kamarupa twice (isah kamarupanam and kamarupesvara).It is worth noting that Pragjyotisha was recognised as a kingdom beyond the Lauhitya, the old name of the Brahmaputra, but nonetheless, it was categorised as one of the countries in the north, not the east. This fact makes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge.p.37

4.Considering the historical context of the seventh century Kamarupa, especially during the reign of Bhaskara varman when the Varmans was ascending to one of the important powers in north India, it appears that they projected Kamarupa on a larger geopolitical map by combining it with pragjyotisha the Epic kingdom. In other words, pragjyotisha was retrieved from the ancient Epic past by the aspirant local kingship to over come its peripherality. An elusive mythical space was brought into the actual geography of Kamarupa.p.38

Arthashastra talks about Lauhitya of Pragjyotisha in 3rd century BCE not Kamarupa This clear is clear from the first two statement, whereas Pragjyotisha is attached to Kamarupa only in the 7th century CE. and it is in this copper plates where Vaskar Barman is given divine origin from pragjyotisha and it is this time (7th century) when Lautiya the mythical river of pragjyotisha is attached to Kamarupa.

So, Arthasastra was not mentioning Kamarupa but Pragjyotisha and the same reason why Kamarupa finds no mention in Buddhist,Jain and Arthasashtra text.

That sentence that Kamarupa is mentioned in Arthasastra along with the river Lauhitya must be removed! Homogenie (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Please look at WP:NOTFORUM. Also, WP:OR. Sircar has discussed this thoroughly. Shin has accepted it and points out that these early references are with regard to trade, not states. Nearly every one mentions this in the context of Kamarupa. It should remain and should reflect the major critical consensus in the historical literature. Chaipau (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: It is not even WP:OR, What is mention in Arthashastra (3rd BCE) is Pragjyotisha not Kamarupa, if the kingdom of Pragjyotisha is in the west will the river attached to it "Lauhitya" stay in the east!! Shin discusses it completely in the journal, do you still think it should stay?? Kamarupa came to be linked with Pragjyotisha along with Lauhitya in the 7th century!!Homogenie (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please cite references to back up your argument. For one, Arthashastra is not dated to 3rd BCE, though it is attributed to Kautilya. Chaipau (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Arthashastra publication date is 3rd century BCE, also we need to provide summary after reading the entire journal, what is the summary?? Arthasashatra refers to Pragjyotisha with Lautiya in 3rd century BCE not Kamarupa , it was attached to Kamarupa in 7th century CE under Bhaskarvarman!!Homogenie (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: The Arthashastra was not published in the 3rd century—it is dated to much later. And what is the journal here? There are three authors associated with this text—Sircar, who dates the text, Guha who identifies when the association was made, and Shin who interprets these observations. The point Shin makes is that this early text is that the Sanskritized world was aware of the region but did not record the presence of a kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: The sankritised world was aware of Pragjyotisha not Kamrupa, Prajyotisha was to the north west of the subcontinent not east, Pragjyotisha was attached to Kamarupa in 7th century CE.Homogenie (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: the evidence from Sircar, Guha and Shin is clear that they knew of the Brahmaputra valley before it came to be called Kamarupa. And they have not used the name Pragjyotisha, but Lauhitya for that region. Others have used other names—Kirrhadia for instance. Chaipau (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2022

@Chaipau: Lauhitya is related to Pragjyotisha not Kamarupa besides these legendary places has been reproduced all over the subcontinent stretching from northwest India to Southeast Asia. Do you really believe that Bhagadatta, an epic god jumped over Lauhitya i.e Brahmaputra is real??!! and Kirrhadia is irrelevant here as we are discussing about places in Arthashastra not Periplus of the Erythraean Sea or Geographia.Homogenie (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: please provide a source that claims Lauhitya is associated with Pragjyotisha. The references cited (Sircar, Guha and Shin) have discussed the Lauhitya in the context of Kamarupa and the Brahmaputra valley. Fylindfotberserk could you please help us out here? Chaipau (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from Shin (2018):

Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the Geography of Ptolemy and other early literary works only speak of economic pursuits of the tribal belt of the north-eastern region: Kautilya refers to the commodities originating from various places around the Lauhitya, though the region was still divided into tribal pockets and perhaps no common name till then. The author of the Periplus and Ptolemy knew the Kiriitas and other tribes, but had nothing to say about their kingdoms.

Shin clearly says Lauhitya in Kautilya's Arthashastra refers to Northeast India. Very specifically. There is not need to interpret this further. Homogenie stop removing the mention of Arthashastra as you have done here: , , , . Chaipau (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 15:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Lauhitya is not Brahmaputra?? It is worth noting that Pragjyotisha was recognised as a kingdom beyond the Lauhitya, the old name of the Brahmaputra, but nonetheless, it (Pragjyotisha) was categorised as one of the countries in the north, not the east. This fact makes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge Shin 2017 p.37

• It is clear that Lauhitya was the river of Pragjyotisha in the North; by the 7th century AD, the Brahmins who legitimised the kings of Kamarupa attached the mythical kingdom of Pragjyotisha along with river Lauhitya to the historical kingdom of Kamarupa Homogenie (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: read the passage about Kautilya's Lauhitya carefully. Shin says Kautilya refers to the commodities originating from various places around the Lauhitya, though the region was still divided into tribal pockets and perhaps no common name till then. . The author ofthe Periplus and Ptolemy knew the Kiratas and other tribes, but had nothing to say about their kingdoms. (p28) In other words, since the places around Lauhitya did not have names, according to Shin, Kautilya is using the name Lauhitya (probably the name of the river) to refer to the place. Shin (2017) calls Lauhitya the older name, because obviously, the name Lauhitya appears before the name Brahmaputra appears in any form. The point Shin is making here is that in Kautilya's time, there was no political entity. Even Periplus and others did not name the land, but calls it after the name of the tribes (Kirata). Periplus in fact describes an eye-witness account of how the "trade" actually happened. Please try to listen to what the author is saying instead of looking for quotes that supports your POV. Chaipau (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It is worth noting that Pragjyotisha was recognised as a kingdom beyond the Lauhitya, the old name of the Brahmaputra, but nonetheless, it was categorised as one of the countries in the north, not the east.

• Lauhitya was associated with Pragjyotisha later on, and Pragjyotisha was to the north not to the east
• Again Kirata as a term was used for various tribes in northwest, this terms are not location specific! Homogenie (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot help that you are confused. The text in the article are adequately cited and are very clear with how the names came about. In you have problems with the authors, you will have to publish your own article (but I am not sure whether you can then cite it here). Chaipau (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Lauhitya was the river in the Pragjyotisha, which was a country to the north, it is very clear from the text. Brahmaputra was not Lauhitya. The same reason Kamarupa was not found in Arthasastra, what was found to in Arthasastra was Pragjyotisha along with river Lauhitya which the Assam historian attached the Brahmaputra with, when they found the inscription of Pragjyotisa in Kamarupa inscription, it is clear that the legendary place of Pragjyotisha along with the river Lauhitya was reproduced in Assam or Syhlet in 7th A.D Homogenie (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry.

• Lauhitya is the name found in Kautilya's Arthashastra (early common era) which was later identified as Brahmaputra valley by later commentator called Bhattaswamin (not from Assam) This is accepted by Sircar and Shin are not from Assam, and Guha who is definitely not a "nationalist" historian - he was just the opposite.
• Kamarupa is the name from the 4th century (Sircar)
• Pragjyotisha became associated with Kamarupa in the 7th century because of Bhaskarvarman (Shin)

All the above three points are cited/referenced in the text.

Chaipau (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Lautitya was found in Arthashastra which was later noted to be the river in the kingdom of Pragjyotisha, this was the kingdom the to the north not east.
• When in 7th century, the kings of Kamarupa were legitimised, the mythical kingdom was attached to it,
• When the historian of Assam went through the Vedic literature they didnot find the term Kamarupa in it Considering the fact that the name Kamarupa is no where mentioned in an early literature including the Vedic corpus, the early Buddhist/Jain works and the Arthasastra, it is not surprising that the Epic is silent on Kamarupa. Its absence is deemed' remarkable' because some scholars take the ancient presence of Kamarupa for granted. Shin 2017 p.34-35
• Suprisingly they found the name Pragjyotisha along with the river Lauhitya in it (Puranic literature) that was found in these Kamarupa inscriptions reproduced by the brahmins ofcourse! and claimed that as the Pragjyotisha was also know as Kamarupa (well it was just legimitisation) the mythical river Lauhitya in the Vedic text was attached to the Brahmaputra! a complete misinterpretation! Homogenie (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your interpretations. They are indeed quite revealing and original. Unfortunately, they cannot be accepted here under WP:OR. Also, please do refer to WP:TALK, especially to this sentence: There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.. Chaipau (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

These are not my thought! This from Shin (2017), i have just read it out! Lauhitya is not Brahmaputra Homogenie (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Two points:

• Shin says This fact makes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge. So she is doubting the location of Pragjyotisha, not Lauhitya.
• Also To my knowledge, the first literary evidence is Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa, which describes Kamarupa as the last country to be subdued by Raghu in his northern expedition. Shin here is discussing Kalidasa's Raghuvamsha, not Kautilya's Arthashastra.

I hope this concludes this discussion. Please do take care to read what the author is trying to say instead of projecting your POV onto the text.

Chaipau (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:

Just two point:

• Shin says In the following verses, the king of Pragjyotisha is mentioned as the lord of Kamarupa twice (isah kamarupanam and kamarupesvara) It is worth noting that Pragjyotisha was recognised as a kingdom beyond the river Lauhitya, the old name of the Brahmaputra, but nonetheless, it was categorised as one of the countries in the north, not the east. This fact makes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge. p.37 Shin 2017

Shin doubts the location of Pragjyotisa which was located beyond the Lauhitya, Pragjyotisha here is located to the north not east. So the river is to the north as the kingdom attached to it is to the north

• Also the Nidhanpur copperplate inscription In the inscriptional records of the Varmans, the two words pragjyotisha and Kamarupa, came to be used almost interchangeably The kingdom was also called Kamarupa in the Nidhanpur plates.The king pusyavarman was called the lord of pragjyotisa (pragyotisendrapusyavarmma) in the seal attached to the Dubi plates and the Nalanda clay seals.In the Harsacarita of Bana, Bhaskaravarman was described as the lord of pragjyotisa (pragjyotisendrapusyavarma) as well as Kamarupa (kamarupadhipati). Considering the historical content of the seventh century Kāmarūpa, especially during the reign of Bhāskarvarman when the Varmans was ascending to one of the important powers in north India, it appears that they projected Kāmarūpa on a larger geopolitical map by combining it with Prājyotisa, the Epic kingdom. In other words, Prājyotisa was retrieved from the ancient Epic past by the aspirant local kingship to overcome this peripherality. An elusive mythical space was brought into the actual geography of Kāmarūpa" p.37Shin 2017

So from the above sentence it is clear that Pragjyotisha along with river was attached to the kingdom of Kamarupa during the reign of Bhaskarvarman. Pragjyotisha kingdom was to the north not east.

I hope this ends the discussion! Homogenie (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

For your first point, you have inferred the opposite of what Shin has explicitly said. She doubts the position of Pragjotisha of in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsha, not the position of Lauhitya. Since I have repeated this a number of times, I shall not address this again. I don't see how the second point is saying anything other than what is already known and cited in the article. Chaipau (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Shin doubts the position of Pragjyotisa along with the river Lauhitya

It is worth noting that Pragjyotisha was recognised as a kingdom beyond the river Lauhitya, the old name of the Brahmaputra, but nonetheless, it was categorised as one of the countries in the north, not the east. This fact makes us doubt whether the description of Pragjyotisha was based on actual geographical knowledge. p.37 Shin 2017

The kingdom Pragjyotisha along with the river Lautiya was to the north not east!

Bhaskarvarman took legitimicy by claiming descent from the mythical kingdom of Pragjyotisha in the 7th century

Bhaskaravarman was described as the lord of pragjyotisa (pragjyotisendrapusyavarma) as well as Kamarupa (kamarupadhipati). Considering the historical content of the seventh century Kāmarūpa, especially during the reign of Bhāskarvarman when the Varmans was ascending to one of the important powers in north India, it appears that they projected Kāmarūpa on a larger geopolitical map by combining it with Prājyotisa, the Epic kingdom. In other words, Prājyotisa was retrieved from the ancient Epic past by the aspirant local kingship to overcome this peripherality. An elusive mythical space was brought into the actual geography of Kāmarūpa" p.37Shin 2017

So it is pretty clear the mythical kingdom along with the river was attached to Kamarupa in 7th century A.D Homogenie (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, your convoluted logic does not make sense.

• Shin has explicitly doubted the position of Pragjyotisha in Raghuvamsha. As a result, she discounts it as a reliable source for the geographical position of Pragjyotisha or Lauhitya.
• You will need a explicit citation to make a claim that the position of Lauhitya was created in 7th century. Shin has made no such claim.
• Shin has, instead, explicitly placed the Lauhitya in Northeast India: Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the Geography of Ptolemy and other early literary works only speak of economic pursuits of the tribal belt of the north-eastern region: Kautilya refers to the commodities originating from various places around the Lauhitya...

Chaipau (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the Geography of Ptolemy and other early literary works only speak of economic pursuits of the tribal belt of the north-eastern region: Kautilya refers to the commodities originating from various places around the Lauhitya...

This is Shin reading through the text, she doesnot provide a summary here, Here Shin describes

• It is worth noting that Pragjyotisha was recognised as a kingdom beyond the Lauhitya, the old name of the Brahmaputra, but nonetheless, it was categorised as one of the countries in the north, not the east.

Pragjyotisha is related to Lauhitya

• On the other hand, Arjuna is said to fight with the powers in the northern division including Bhagadatta, the king of Pragjyotisha. The northern division called 'Udicya or Uttarapatha comprising the region between the eastern Punjab and the Oxus in the north-west as well as the entire Himalayan region.Shin2017 p.36

Well Shin refers to Mahabharata and it has shown that Lauhitya with Pragjyotisha is to the northwest!

It is just the historians of Assam have time and again maintained that Pragjyotisha is synonymous with Assam which is false and in the same context claimed that the river Lauhitya in Pragjyotisha was Brahmaputra.

So Lauhitya is not Brahmaputra! Homogenie (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Each and every point you made in your last post has been refuted multiple times in the discussion above. All it does is lay bare your point of view. I am pinging Fylindfotberserk and Abecedare here for visibility. I wonder if this discussion is worth keeping here. Chaipau (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is, it is well known now that Lauhitya is not Brahmaputra, Lauhitya was the river near Pragjyotisha, In puranic text, Pragjyotisha was located to the northwest in present-day pakistan. It came to be related with Kamarupa in 7th century A.D in Syhlet not in Brahmaputra Valley Homogenie (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This page is under attack with cherry-picked sentences from Shin yet again.(, , ) We have a history of this happening to this and some other pages in Wikipedia. Pinging Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only cherry-picked but misinterpreted. I don't know if this is block evasion but it's certainly not in the interest of building an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Any discussion on this will likely be WP:FORUMy and unending. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Please read the article. Rulers didn't connect to the demonic side of Naraka. Therefore something new was invented in epigraphic records and Kalika Puran e.g. (Naraka as the progenitor of the Varmans is far from Naraka as an asura notorious for his evil deeds in epic-puranic traditions. The epigraphic records of Bhāskaravarman neither apply any terms denoting demonic beings (asura, dānava, daitya, etc.) to Naraka nor describe his acts in a negative way. page=591) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D98:997:9C6A:4927:7AD5:37CF (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Require page protection. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong allegation. If you think my edits were incorrect, update them according to your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D98:997:9C6A:4927:7AD5:37CF (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)