Talk:Chutia Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sutiya Kingdom)

Question[edit]

Is this where all the chutias come from? Are they the same as chutiyas?

Homonym[edit]

The title of the article being a homonym of a Hindi expletive is attracting quite a number of vandals. The article should be closely watched for changes. If the amount of vandalism increases, protection should be sought. Kenfyre 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to discuss this before Edit , Sutiya may be Homonym for Chutiya but point is why spelling in Article should be totally altered pandering to vandals ? I searched for 'Chutiya' in Wikipedia because I came across the word in a printed article and wanted to know about it being native Hindi speaker I know there is an explitive which is homonym in roman script but there are so many such words like. Chutiya with t as in tomato meaning a braid which is homonym with explitive in Roman script. Should all these words alter the spelling just because some one may vandalize ?

Would it not be better to put title as " Chutiya ( Pronounced Sutiya)" and protect the article instead of removing all references to the original spelling ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somuji (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is chutiya indeed. just because it is an explitive in a language is not terms for change. This is rather silly. Please change back 117.198.56.28 (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is utterly ridiculous to rename a kingdom just because it means something profane in another language. Going this way, a thousand articles may need to be renamed. All historic documents recorded refer them as Chutiyas and not Sutiyas. If the 'ch' at the beginning is an alveolar affricate, please use 'Tsutiya' instead. There are a great number of Assamese still with this surname in India, should they change their names as well. If the article is target to vandalism, put it in protected mode instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.75.86 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I propose to merge Sutiya dynasty into this article since its mere 1 line. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the view.--MahenSingha (Talk) 20:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and merged.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus was that the proposed move was to the common name. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sutiya Kingdom → Chutiya Kingdom – Chutiya Kingdom is the spelling preferred by reliable sources. The original spelling of this article (created in 2006) was Chutiya Kingdom. The page was moved to Sutiya Kingdom on 17 October 2011 with the edit summary, "Chutiya is derogatory term in Hindi. The local pronunciation is "Sutiya" not Chutiya. The revised title is in more sync as it conforms to the local pronunciation.". All mentions of Chutiya have been removed since including in a 27 April 2016 edit with the summary, "The correct Assamese pronunciation is 'Sutiya', although a few might right 'Chutiya' in English. 'Chutiya' is a derogatory word in Hindi and should be avoided. All earlier references to Chutiya have been moved to 'Sutiya' to respect sentiments!" I moved the page back to its original title earlier today and have been reverted with the edit summary, "The Assamese pronunciation of the word begins with Alveolar consonant 'S' with Close Vowel 'U', refer corres. page in Assamese. Surnames (proper nouns) spelt differently can't be a reference point."

The reasons provided are, IMO, either spurious or irrelevant to English Wikipedia.

According to (all) the sources cited in this article,

  • Gait, Edward (p. 37): "Chutiya kingdom at the time when the Ahoms entered Assam ..."
  • Prakash, Col. Ved (p. 170): "War with the Chutiyas The very next year (1513), the Chutiya Raja ..."
  • Pathak, Guptajit (p. 108): "The Chutiya King Dhirnarayan attacked the Ahom Kingdom both ..."
  • Bhushan, Chandra (p. 30): "In 1523, Ahom king Chuhung-Mung attacked on the kingdom of Chutia and succeeded in subjugating their empire. The Chutia Empire became a part of Ahom Empire ..."
  • I do not see Punyadhar Gogoi's book available on the Internet.

Besides Edward Gait above, the other authors who I've seen frequently cited in Assamese history articles are Kanaklal Barua and Yasmin Saikia.

  • Early History of Kamarupa (p. XIV): "The Chutia Kingdom, in the extreme north-east of Kamarupa ..."
  • Saikia, Yasmin (2004). Fragmented memories: struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India. Duke University Press. (p. 6): "The other center of writing was Sadiya, capital of the Chutia kingdom in eastern Assam ..."

Other sources:

... and lots more on Google Books.

While I had initially assumed that this was a case of editorial bowdlerisation, there are some reliable sources which do prefer Sutiya. However, I could only find 3 such examples in total on Google Books of which only 2 are of interest here:

Search results comparison on JSTOR (collocated with Ahom to reduce false positives):

  1. Chutiya Ahom: 22 results
  2. Chutia Ahom: 17 results (with some false positives)
  3. Sutiya Ahom: 0 results
  4. Sutia Ahom: 1 false positive

The Ngram confirms this even when allowing for false positives.

All in all, Chutiya Kingdom is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. Chutia Kingdom is not too far away. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Thanks for the commentary justifying why the article should be named as 'Chutiya' as opposed to 'Sutiya', however, it doesn't take away the fact that the actual pronunciation of the word in the Assamese language doesn't have any Plosive consonant "C" to read as "Cha /Cʰ", in fact the Assamese language lacks "Cha /Cʰ" Plosives completely, in general (the reason that was cited above).
While I completely agree that there is substantial literature that's been used as references at multiple occasions having the word 'Chutiya' but it has to be noted that the most of these English sources have the anglicised version of the word and it would be incorrect to name the page referring that version as the actual word starts with Alveolar consonant 'S' with a Close vowel 'U', and hence doesn't align at all to the actual pronunciation. Someone who speaks Assamese and understands the local culture, in addition to knowing English will be able to provide that distinction and the perspective in relation to this subject.
Would we refer the Chinese Han dynasty with an anglicised version of a word (if it exists) that wouldn't conform to the actual name?
The same logic can also applied for India related articles for the cities of Mumbai, Kolkata etc., where the anglicised versions of the names, Bombay and Calcutta were used previously. One may still find multiple sources having these anglicised names, and although such sources (primarily documented English literature globally and other foreign language literature) may still outdo in numbers (as these versions have lived through history and the newly revised names are relatively young), and could be cited on various occasions, we would still not make them the reference points to determine the name. It would simply be an misalignment from the actual pronunciation used locally. And if the sources and searches alone would determine the name of a page, then by that logic, hypothetically speaking, the pages mentioned above could also be debated for a move in future, as one may still find enough material esp., in the western world using those anglicised names, such as this article dated 25 January 2015, this article dated 25 February 2016, among others.
The point is, the page is about a historical kingdom linking one of communities of Assam, where they're known as Sutiya (Assamese: চুতীয়া) and not 'Chutiya' (irrelevant from the local cultural context perspective), and hence should be named based on its actual pronunciation and not by any anglicised versions (Proper noun combinations) that's been used on the sources cited above. AnjanBorah (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But we need to go by what the reliable sources use and I see Assamese authors preferring Chutiya/Chutia as well. We can prominently display Sutiya as an alternate pronunciation in the lede as it is used by some reliable sources. Re: logic of place names, note that Wikipedia still uses Bangalore rather than Bengaluru. The page will be moved only once Bengaluru becomes the WP:COMMONNAME. See also, Ganges, Adam's Bridge, etc. for other cases.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A problem we faced when this article was called "Chutiya kingdom" was a very high rate of vandalism. After the move to "Sutiya kingdom" the rate of vandalism went down considerably. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sutiya_Kingdom&type=revision&diff=456000440&oldid=455897391) Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An example of vandalism: [1]. Chaipau (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason to mangle the title of an article. As noted in discussions above, if there's a high rate of vandalism, then we can protect the page. The page can be protected permanently if need be as has been done with Sex or Fuck.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting it could be a solution. Yes. Chaipau (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is on reliable/notable sources, there're quite a few recent English journals/books (including a book published by the Government of India) mentioning the word aligning with the actual pronunciation:
Dutta, Nandana (2016). Communities of Women in Assam: Being, Doing and Thinking Together. Routledge. ISBN 9781138100466. (p. 22): "...and a host of tribal and cast associations such as Assam Sutia Sanmilan..."
Cohn, Ronald; Russel, Jesse (2012). Kachari Kingdom. Book on Demand. ISBN 9785512819180. "The Kachari Kingdom along with others kingdoms (Kamata, Sutiya), are examples of state formations among the Bodo-Kachari ethnic groups that developed in medieval Assam in the wake of the ancient Kamarupa Kingdom."
Prasad, Bal Ram (1991). Mising Grammar. Central Institute of Indian Languages, Government of India. (p. 5): "Most probably the first group of Adis entered the plains of upper Assam when the Sutiya kings were the rulers of Sadiya"
David, Hilda; Jarman, Francis (2017). India Diversity. Om Books International. ISBN 9789386316974. (p. 1982): "The Sutiya Kingdom ruled all the regions of the on the north bank of the Brahmaputra while the Kacharis Central and Southern Assam"
Roychoudhury, HP (2013). My Journey & Sovereign United Bengal. Partridge Publishing. ISBN 9781482812015. (p. 236): "The The first major expansion was at the cost of the Sutiya Kingdom, which was annexed in 1522..."
Bhagat, Baban (2017). The Ran Away Hostel Warden: An Innocent Teacher and Inhospitable World. Educreation Publishing. (p. 16): "Dibrugarh has derived its name from Dibarumukh as a renowned encampment of Ahoms during the Ahom-Suitya War"
Minahan, James B (2016). Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups around the World, 2nd Edition: Ethnic and National Groups around the World. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781610699549. (p.514): "TAI AHOM: All Assam Sutiya Students Union (AASSU)..."
Michaud, Meenaxi; Swain, Margaret Byrne; Barkataki-Ruscheweyh (2016). Historical Dictionary of the Peoples of the Southeast Asian Massif. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442272798. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_first1= ignored (help) (p.203): "Historically, some of these ethnic groups established powerful kingdoms (for example, the Dimasa, Sutiya and Tripuri groups)."
And others...
Furthermore, a very old source, such as the one by Edward Gait that dates back to 1906 can't be a popular choice to refer the word itself, which is totally incorrect as it simply starts with a plosive consonant "C" to read as "Cha /Cʰ" that is irrelevant, as stated previously.
Bangalore is a name change, and that is to a very recent one, so I completely agree that the page should be 'Bangalore' as per WP:COMMONNAME. For Ganges and Adam's Bridge, there could be enough reliable sources in English with the actual names as well (primarily, from the perspective of Indian English literature), however, it just requires challenging to present a constructive discussion. AnjanBorah (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to add on, for both Ganges and Ganga, the essence of the river name is intact as the both versions have the same starting phonology, i.e., 'Ga', which isn't the case with this one as Chu ≠ Su, and that's the thing I am challenging. Changing the word to begin with 'Chu' would be like changing the word 'Ganges' to 'Janges', which is completely different and not even a nearest phonetic approximation. AnjanBorah (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that in the sources you've listed (where Sutiya is constrained by the term Assam rather than Ahom which would have restricted results to history-related results), 3 are self-published, 2 talk about associations with Sutia/Sutiya in their names and 1 also uses Chutiya. From what I can see, the two associations named are actually more commonly spelt with Chutia. In any event, I am sure that you will find that the volume of reliable hits for Sutiya + Assam pales in comparison to Chutiya + Assam or Chutia + Assam. All that is beside the fact that most and very likely all of the sources (including Gait) cited in this article prefer Chutiya or Chutia. This is also true of journal hits on JSTOR and more or less true on Google Books. I don't believe there's a common name argument to be made for Sutiya here. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Asambhinna[edit]

The original king Asambhinna is mentioned by N Elias in his book 'Introductory Sketch of of Shans from Upper Burma and western Yunan' (1876). He sources it from an Assamese book, now with the Burmese. He chronicles the contents of the document, but he makes a couple of critical comments:

  • "The names of these kings are given and are mostly of a Hindoo type, but as no dates or events of importance are recorded, these are themselves of no value"
  • "...that therefore, the whole story might be a local Hindoo invention for fabricating pedigrees for these castes..."

Since no dates are given and no important events are mentioned, it is not possible to beyond speculative reconstructions. This does not warrant a historical treatment.

Chaipau (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assamese link[edit]

please change ((Assamese)) to ((Assamese language|Assamese))

 Done Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chutia or Sutiya ?[edit]

Shouldn't the name be Sutiya instead of using "Ch" ? চুতীয়া actually transliterates to Sutiya, not Chutiya. There is no 'Ch' sound in Assamese language now. Tizen03 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizen03: We have gone over this before. The standard spelling is "Chutia". People use it in their names as well. Chaipau (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extent in lead[edit]

@SashankaChutia: please leave the Shin citation in the lead. It is a more recent reference and is more reliable. The extended kingdom including other districts is suspect and not reliable. Chaipau (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shin has clearly mentioned Darrang. Land grants indicate only the region with an Aryan population. Epigraphical record in the form of common mason marks show architectural continuity from Sadiya till Burai. The extension of territories of South bank till Dihing is present in Assam Buranji(SM). I believe all these are reliable sources. SashankaChutia (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Buranji's, being primary sources, are not reliable. The policy is given here: WP:RSPRIMARY "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
Specifically, in this case, the Buranjis have been questioned and they have been sourced to 19th-century concoctions. Look at Chutia_Kingdom#CITEREFNeog1977 "There are various accounts and succession lists of the rulers of the Chutiyas (I do not call them Chutiya kings precisely because in these accounts they are not described as Chutiyas except the last one of them) with dates also assigned to their reign; but these accounts are too much at variance with one another to deserve serious consideration as being of proper historical value. Some of these accounts have been reproduced in W. B. Brown's An Outline Grammar of the Deori Chutiya Language spoken in Assam, Shillong, 1895, embodying in an appendix the remarks of H. J. Kellner on certain papers of Lt. E. T. Dalton concerning these accounts; in Sir Edward Gait's A History of Assam , ed. 2, Calcutta-Simla, 1926, and his Report on Historical Research in Assam ; in Deodhai Asam Buravji , Gauhati, 1932, and Satsari Asam Buranji, Gauhati, 1958, compiled and edited by Professor S. K Bhuyan ; in 44 Chutiyã Rajãr Buranjî", edited by Lila Gogoi on the pages of Manidipa, Gauhati, Vol. II, No. ii, January 1962, and Chota Kowarar Buranji, brought out by Koseswar Barua, Hawajan, 1880 Saka."
As to the extent of the kingdom this is what Neog says: "We are not definite about the extent of the domain of these rulers ; but we can very well be certain that the present-day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find-sites of the Dhenukhana, Ghilãmarã, and Barmurtiyã-bil epigraphs as well as the Hãbunga-desa of the Sadiyã-Chepãkhowã plate (the Häbung principality of later times ), formed a part of of their domain." Shin agrees to these assertions and says "Though the geographical extent of these rulers’ power is not yet known in detail, according to Neog, the present day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find sites of most inscriptions, perhaps formed a part of their political dominion."
Thus the extent, as you are trying to assert, has no historical basis. I suggest you restore the text and Shin citation.
Chaipau (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify some things here.

1. Primary sources are not disallowed in Wikipedia. It is not explicitly mentioned that primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. I quote," Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.". In this case, certain facts have been directly taken from Buranjis, due to the absence of secondary sources which doesn't go against Wikipedia policy.

2. The paragraph you are quoting about Buranjis is about "Chutia Buranji" which is surely filled with some fictitious material like the mention of Kuber and many more as pointed out by Shin. The Buranjis I have quoted here are Ahom Buranjis(written in Tai and Assamese) which are a very accurate tool of historical studies. Most of what we know about medieval Assam history comes from these manuscripts. All the Buranjis I have used here are published by the "Department of Historical and Antiquity Studies, Government of Assam". There is nothing to doubt here.

3. Shin has well mentioned about the architectural continuity of the Burai ruins with that of the Sadiya ones. I quote, "If architectural continuity is admitted between the fortifications in the Sadiya region and the Burai river ruin site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of Darrang district, in the western most extent of which Ahom conquerors settled the vanquished Chutiyas in the early part of the sixteenth century." This architectural continuity is in the form of unique common mason marks found in the stone walls of Burai fort, with that of Tamreswari temple as well as many brick tanks of Sadiya region. Neog didn't know about this, and hence he didn't mention it.

4. Moreover, your edit well ignores the south bank. The Buranjis(Ahom) well establish the fact that the Dihing river formed the Chutia-Ahom borders. The area north and west of Dihing was under Chutia jurisdiction. Creating new offices in the province of Dihing and Tiphau backs the facts very well. Are these not informations with "historical basis"? As I have already mentioned land grants are signs of Aryan population, they cannot be used to mark borders of a kingdom. There are other sources like Buranjis(Ahom) and epigraphical records for that. SashankaChutia (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SashankaChutia: replies to numbered paragraphs:
  1. Neog and Shin clearly disputes the Buranjis. You cannot use WP:PRIMARY when there is a need for interpretation, as you are doing here. Your interpretation in WP:OR (they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research).
  2. Neog has not made any specific reference to Chutiya Buranji. He is looking at the issues anew and discounting the claims of the Buranjis. Shin agrees with him.
  3. Shin's claim is based on Neog's. The extent is limited to Lakhimpur. Your claim that "Neog didn't know about this..." is your WP:OR unless you provide verifiable WP:RS.
  4. Again, WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
Chaipau (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau:

1. Kindly read the above points clearly. Understand the difference between "Chutia Buranji" and "Ahom Buranji". Neog talks only of the section in Buranjis about Chutia origin. He is doubtful because the Chutias didnot have any tradition of writing their own Buranjis in the past. This is not true for Ahom Buranjis. I have nowhere used the texts of Buranjis, which you have quoted above, as sources for the text here. Hence, there is no question of "used with caution to avoid original research"

2. Kindly go through the sources which Neog as termed as of no "historical value". He clearly refers to the section about the origin of Chutias. I quote, "There are various accounts and succession lists of the rulers of the Chutiyas (I do not call them Chutiya kings precisely because in these accounts they are not described as Chutiyas except the last one of them) with dates also assigned to their reign; but these accounts are too much at variance with one another to deserve serious consideration as being of proper historical value. Some of these accounts have been reproduced in W. B. Brown's An Outline Grammar of the Deori Chutiya Language spoken in Assam, Shillong, 1895,...."

3. Although Neog merely states about the Burai fort ruins, Shin continues to say "If architectural continuity is admitted between the fortifications in the Sadiya region and the Burai river ruin site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of Darrang district, in the western most extent of which Ahom conquerors settled the vanquished Chutiyas in the early part of the sixteenth century.". Shin is the modern authority in this topic here. You have agreed on it as well. I quote"please leave the Shin citation in the lead. It is a more recent reference and is more reliable."

4. I don't think Buranjis are considered as "original research". The references have been used as it is. Dihing being the border and the creation of offices in Dihing, Tiphao are directly sourced from Ahom Burranjis. SashankaChutia (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not themselves WP:OR. The use of primary sources, as you are doing here, is leading to WP:OR.
Shin has clearly not endorsed the Burai fort claim. She has left it open to further findings. Chaipau (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau:

1. Primary sources can be used to directly state facts, which I have done here. Dihing being the borders is not something I have concluded myself indirectly. It is what is directly mentioned in the Buranji. The territories of Baro-Bhuyans are also well mentioned as Rowta-Temani in Buranjis. The provinces of Dihing and Tiphao are also directly mentioned. These clearly indicate territorial extent without any external input from my end.

2. Neog never mentioned the territorial borders explicitly anywhere. He merely stated that based on the inscriptions, Lakhimpur district can be well stated to be under Chutia rule. I quote"but we can very well be certain that the present-day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find-sites of the Dhenukhana, Ghilãmarã, and Barmurtiyã-bil epigraphs as well as the Hãbunga-desa of the Sadiyã-Chepãkhowã plate (the Häbung principality of later times ), formed a part of of their domain." He doesn't comment about the borders. Shin also doesn't directly restrict the borders in Lakhimpur. That will be WP:OR from your end. SashankaChutia (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shin and Neog have rejected the earlier accounts for various reasons. They agree that the kingdom's domain was in the Lakhimpur area, centered around Sadiya. That is what Wikipedia should reflect. Also, the concept of "boundaries" is a concept that became prevalent in recent times. Chaipau (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Lakhimpur "formed a part of their domain" doesn't essentially mean it was the bordering domain. Habung, spread till Sessa river was an area of Aryan settlement, hence there is inscription evidence for this region. Other regions didnot have Brahman population, hence there are no inscriptions. But, one can easily refer to Ahom Buranjis for those regions(Tiphao, Dihing, Banlung). You should also know that there wasn't any Majuli at that period. Dihing and Brahmaputra later joined to form the island. After the Dikhoumukh war of 1513 AD, Ahoms built their fort at Dihingmukh. The Chutia-Ahom wars of Dihingmukh took place near Biswanath only(western border of present-day Majuli) which indicates that those regions were contested between Chutias and Ahoms. SashankaChutia (talk)

@Chaipau: Moreover, Shin and Neog never rejected Ahom Buranjis. They rejected the origin story of Chutias mentioned in the Chutia Buranji as it is believed to be a later fabrication. Please donot confuse between the two distinct cases everytime. I have nowhere used those references as sources in this section.SashankaChutia (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SashankaChutia: Again, let me be clear. You cannot use primary sources because you need to reconcile different sources which is WP:SYNTHESIS and is a form of WP:OR. Please read these policies critically is all I can suggest. Your POV in promoting a subject is prettry clear from your history of edits. So you are falling afoul of NPOV issues as well.
As far as Shin and Neog are concerned, their reliability is high since they are critical authors. If they have explicitly left open an issue (like Shin has explicitly said so regarding Burai, I think this shows that there is no consensus in the academic world of the identification you are so eager to make. This is not allowed in Wikipedia.
Chaipau (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: 1. I quote from Wikipedia policy, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." This clearly shows that WP:OR is applicable for material with unpublished sources. As far as I know Buranjis are published by the DHAS department. Dihing river forming border on the south bank is directly stated in the source. The creation of new offices at Dihing, Tiphao, Banlung, Sadiya and Habung in 1525(after defeating Chutias) is also clearly stated in Buranjis.


2. Wikipedia says about WP:SYNTHESIS as "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." How have my edits violated this in anyway?? I have not derived anything from Buranjis. The Buranjis itself mention the borders very clearly i.e. Dihing river. I have not combined any A with B. As for other territories, the creation of new offices in those provinces after defeating Chutias (including Sadiya, Tiphao, Habung, Dihing) are clearly stated in the Buranjis. If you find any contradictory sources negating the Buranjis, kindly add it.

3. I have not added a single sentence without giving reliable sources. I have provided texts with references only. How can referenced data be termed as POV? If you see any POV issue, kindly highlight it.

4. Shin or Neog have not rejected either. They haven't stated Lakhimpur to be the bordering domain anywhere. Historians like S.L.Barua, P. Saikia, K.L.Barua, and Robinson have even accepted Biswanath to form the borders. Removing these sources can be termed as disruptive editing, or POV. SashankaChutia (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all secondary sources are equal. K L Barua and Robinson are not reliable as they are very old sources. S L Barua in fact agrees with Shin and Neog. She writes: "The Chutiyas ruled in the country bounded on the west by the river Sisi, a tributary of the Suvansiri...". So we have now three agreements. You are pushing too hard with your POV. Chaipau (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: No SL Barua clearly mentions Dikarai as the western borders. Read page 193. Also, Neog and Shin never mentioned Lakhimpur as a border. This is WP: SYNTHESIS from your end. SashankaChutia (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify your claim. I am taking the quote from page 183 from the section called "The Chutiyas and their kingdom". She does mention what I have quoted as accepted fact. She does mention that there are other sources. But she too is clear about claiming the Buranjis are unreliable. "The name of Satyanarayana occurs in the list of the Chutiya kings also in an account of the Chutiyas, incorporated in the published Deodhai Asam Buranji but the list appears to have missing links and the dates given are also not dependable." So Buranjis are in generally not dependable on their own and we need professional historians to accept or reject these. We cannot do it on our own in Wikipedia, no matter how reasonable it might seem like. Doing so in WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau:

1. Can you mention a link where the above quoted fact is stated? As far as I know, Chutias did not have a written tradition and no Ahom Buranji mentions Sissi as a border. So, what is the primary source of this?? You should know that Sissi river is primary located in Dhemaji district and most of the copper plates and their land grants have been discovered in the area north and west of this river. The Lakshminarayan land grant of 1402 was made west of the Subansiri. Subansiri infact formed the eastern border of the land grant. Even Habung was spread till Sessa river (west of Narayanpur) as per Ratnapala plates. Panbari(west of Subansiri) was a part of Habung as per Buranjis. If you can verify the Sissi quote, you should be able to look at page 193 as well.

2. Again you are making the same argument. All these unreliable Buranjis are the ones with the Chutia origins. Ahom Buranjis are a totally different case. I feel you are intensionally trying to put both in the same box.SashankaChutia (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Have a look at this reference: A Comprehensive History of Assam, p.183. It states that SL Barua has contented Biswanath to be the western borders of the kingdom. This contradicts your claim.SashankaChutia (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now see what you have been doing - WP:CHERRYPICK.
The link you have provided me points to Jahnavi Gogoi's book, where she says S L Barua contends that the western border was Biswanath. That comes from a foot note. We will get to that—but first let us see what Gogoi says in the main text: "Their kingdom called Sadiya extended in the north over the entire region from the Sisi in the west to the Brahmaputra in the east. The hills and the river Buri Dihing formed its norther and southern boundaries respectively. Thus the Chutiya territory extended over almost the entire region of present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia and some parts of Dibrugarh." So Gogoi too agrees with Shin and Neog. In fact this is the clearest statement of the consensus on the domain on the Chutia kingdom.
As far as S L Barua is concerned, she too mentions Sisi river as the western boundaries (as I have quoted above), but qualifies it with the following: "However, from the similarity of names Sadhaya and Swadhaya with Sadiya or of Lakshminarayan, Jasanarayan etc. with other Chutiya kings, whose names ended with the suffic 'Narayana' and also from the dates and the location of the land-grants, it can be concluded that the king-donors of the grants, under reference, were Chutiyas and that the Chutiya kingdom extended in the west beyond the Suvansiri." So S L Barua here is making a new claim, a contention. That Gogoi gives this contention in the footnote and not the main body of her text means that this is just a contention for now, not widely accepted yet.
I see that you have been mixing up references as well. This calls for a greater cleanup.
Chaipau (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau:

1. Gogoi didn't herself claim Sissi river to be the border. She used SL Baruah's reference.

2. Now, SL Baruah's note is not a new contention or a claim. You very well know it. She merely refers to the copperplate grants which are already mentioned by Neog and Shin. Before the discovery of these plates, the western extent of the territories was not known. Out of these grants, the one by Lakshminarayan in 1402 was made west of Subansiri. Subansiri formed the eastern boundary of the grant which confirms the extension beyond Subansiri. There is no text explicitly stating the western border in the north bank. Habunga province was already spread well beyond the Subansiri(till Sessa) as per Ratnapala's land grant. Panbari, west of Subansiri was part of Habunga province. Moreover as per reference in Gogoi's book, SL Barua contented that the kingdom extended to the west as far as Biswanath, not just beyond the Subansiri.

2. If you are so critical of sources, then what is the primary source of the Sissi river statement. Find that out. Otherwise, that too is unreliable. You should know that Sissi river is primary located in Dhemaji district and most of the copper plates and their land grants have been discovered in the area north and west of this river. It is all about reliable and non reliable sources. Sources without any reasonable and logical explanations should not be preferred.

3. Gogoi's statement is self-contradictory. On one hand, she states that "Their kingdom called Sadiya extended in the north over the entire region from the Sisi in the west to the Brahmaputra in the east. The hills and the river Buri Dihing formed its norther and southern boundaries respectively." and on the other hand, she states that "Thus the Chutiya territory extended over almost the entire region of present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia and some parts of Dibrugarh." How can a kingdom bordered by the Sissi include entire district of Lakhimpur? Major portion of Lakhimpur is to the west of Sissi. The Sissi joins the Korha river and meets with Subansiri. Check the map for yourself.

4. As you have stated here, Burihing infact formed the borders on the south bank, which would mean than certain parts of Sibsagar district fell under the Chutia rule. For that, you can refer to papers related to the formation of Majuli and the Ahom Buranjis, where Charaguwa, Bakata and Abhoipur(Moran) are said to be located on the banks of the Buridihing.

5. If you see any mix-ups, point it out. I will be very grateful to correct it.SashankaChutia (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: How is Gogoi's statement about the Chutia territories being restricted to Sissi complementary to Shin or Neog in anyway?? Shin and Neog both use the references of copperplates to include the Lakhimpur district as a part of Chutia domain. But, on the other hand, Gogoi's statement restricts it to Sissi river. Majority of the Lakhimpur district including the areas of landgrants is well to the west and north of the Sissi-Korha river. You can verify it using Google maps. Just because Gogoi mentions Sissi as a tributary of Subansiri(falling under Lakhimpur district) doesn't automatically mean that Gogoi's statement is the same as that of Shin and Neog. Shin and Neog's works are recent and backed by inscription data. Shin even mentions about the epigraphical evidence of the Burai fort. Kindly, donot insert outdated data which doesn't have any "historical basis" in the light of the new evidences and accounts by writers like Shin and Neog.SashankaChutia (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnavi Gogoi did her PhD under S L Baruah, and the thesis became the book. So the fact that Gogoi put S L Baruah's claim in a footnote is significant. It means that even S L Baruah is claiming the contention is now standard. Sorry, you cannot just reject a reference just because it does not agree with your point of view. Chaipau (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Shin and Neog are latest authorities on the subject. As for Gogoi, her book clearly mentions that SL Barua contented the territories to be spread to the west till Biswanath. Sorry, you cannot insert an old reference in the presence of new peer reviewed research work(Shin) just because it doesn't agree with your point of view. Besides, the statement of Gogoi is self-contradictory as well which is already explained before.SashankaChutia (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please put down the reference which gives these districts you are claiming. No WP:OR, just the names of the districts. Chaipau (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extent according to different authors[edit]

Here are the findings on what different authors have put down:

We are not definite about the extent of the domain of these rulers ; but we can very well be certain that the present-day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find-sites of the Dhenukhanã, Ghilãmarã, and Barmurtiyã-bil epigraphs as well as the Hãbunga-desa of the Sadiyã-Chepãkhowã plate (the Häbung principality of later times), formed a part of their dominions. If a community of architecture is admitted between fortifications in the Sadiyã region and the Burai river ruins site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of the Darrang district, in the westernmost extent of which the Ãhom conquerors settled the vanquished Chutiyãs in the early part of the 16th century.

— M Neog 1977

The Chutiyas ruled in the country bounded on the west by the river Sisi, a tributary of the Suvansiri, on the east by the Brahmakunda, on the north by the hills and on the south by the river Buridihing.

caveat:

However, from the similarity of names Sadhaya or Swadhaya with Sadiya or of Lakshminarayana, Jasanarayan etc. with other Chutiya kings, whose names ended with the suffix 'Narayan' and also from the dates and location of the land-grants, it can be concluded that the king-donors of the grants, under reference, were Chutiyas and that the Chutiya kingdom extended in the west beyond the river Suvansiri.

— S L Barua, 1985

Their kingdom called Sadiya extended in the north over the entire region from the Sisi in the west to the Brahmaputra in the east. The hills and the river Buri Dihing formed its norther and southern boundaries respectively. Thus the Chutiya territory extended over almost the entire region of present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia and some parts of Dibrugarh.

In footnote:

On the basis of land grants of 1392 and 1403 S L Barua had contented that this kingdom extended to the west as far as Biswanath in present Sonitpur district of Assam.

— Jahnavi Gogoi, 2002

Though the geographical extent of these rulers’ power is not yet known in detail, according to Neog, the present day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find sites of most inscriptions, perhaps formed a part of their political dominion. If architectural continuity is admitted between the fortifications in the Sadiya region and the Burai river ruin site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of Darrang district, in the westernmost extent of which Ahom conquerors settled the vanquished Chutiyas in the early part of the sixteenth century

— Jae-Eun Shin 2020

The four authors are pretty much making the same statement. They have each given an extent of the kingdom, but extends the western boundary to Biswanath tentatively. The language of Shin is exactly the same as Neog, and says: "If architectural continuity is admitted between the fortifications in the Sadiya region and the Burai river ruin site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of Darrang district." (emphasis mine).

The current extent:

It extended over the present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Majuli, parts of Sibsagar, Biswanath in Assam and the lower hills of East Siang, Subansiri, Lower Dibang, Lohit districts in Arunachal Pradesh.

This is clearly wrong because this includes Sibsagar, which is to the south of Buridihing river, and Buridihing was the southern boundary according to both S L Baruah and Jahnavi Gogoi; and neither do Neog or Shin add mention it.

The alternative NPOV-ized text should be, based on these four sources:

It extended from the Sisi river in the west to the Brahmaputra in the east, and from eastern Himalayan foothills in the north to the Buridihing river in the south, that includes the present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia, and parts of Dibrugarh in Assam, though it is possible the western boundary extended up to Biswanath in Sonitpur district.

Chaipau (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau:

1. You are merely copying the same source twice. Jahnabi Gogoi and Swarnalata Barua are essentially the same source. The sources of Shin and Neog are in no way the same as that of SL Barua. Go and check the route of Sissi river first. Majority of the area within Lakhimpur district is well beyond the river Sissi. Neog mentions that the entire Lakhimpur district was part of the kingdom, while Shin has given the possibility of it extending till Vishwanath based on epigraphical records. These contradict the S.L Barua's source. A Copper plate of a land grant made in present-day North-Lakhimpur town area(west of Subansiri) was discovered. Ahom Buranjis mention Panbari(west of Subansiri) to be a part of Habung province.[1][2] Moreover, the Sessa river(present-day western border of Lakhimpur district) formed the western border of Habunga province of Ratnapala as well.[3][4] SL Barua's quote containing Sissi is thus clearly an outdated one. As for Shin's reference, I have already mentioned it in the Geography section.

2. The present route of Buridihing is not the same as that 400-500 years ago. At that time, there was no Majuli. Dihing flowed till the western end of Majuli. Kindly refer to papers on the formation of Majuli or Ahom Buranjis which state Charagua, Bakata to be located on the banks of Buridihing. Sukapha rowed down the Buridihing to reach Abhoipur(present-day Moranhat). From these facts, it can be concluded that some parts of northwestern Sibsagar like Dimow, Gamiri, Moranhat were on the west of Buridihing (part of Chutia kingdom).

The accurate text based on the latest source i.e. Shin(for the north bank) and Assam buranji(for the south bank):

It extended over the present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Majuli and parts of Sibsagar, though architectural continuity suggests that the western boundary extended up to Biswanath district. It also included the lower hills of East Siang, Subansiri, Lower Dibang, Lohit districts in Arunachal Pradesh.

SashankaChutia (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goswami,Hemchandra, Purani Asam Buranji, p.40.
  2. ^ Bhuyan, Surjya Kumar, Deodhai Buranji, p.16.
  3. ^ The mention of Dibbaisa river forming southern boundary and Saica the south-western boundary led P.C. Choudhury to identify the Havranga visaya with Habung country lying to east of the river Suvansiri during the 10th-11th century A.D. Habung, comprising present Dhakuakhana region was for centuries a centre of Aryan culture
  4. ^ " Habung was an ancient Brahmin settlement (Havrnga-Vishaya) situated near the mouth of the Dihing river." (Guha 1983:19)

First reply to SashankaChutia[edit]

@SashankaChutia: Your text fails a cardinal Wikipedia policy: WP:OR.

  • Both "Puroni Asam Buranji" and the "Deodhai Buranji" are WP:PRIMARY sources and their uses are restricted in Wikipedia. Specifically this part of the policy applies here: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." From your arguments it is clear you have analyzed, evaluated, interpreted and synthesized these two Buranjis.
  • Furthermore, both the Buranjis are in Assamese and inaccessible to most English users WP:V. The specific policy is WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." Better English sources are already available (the four sources above are in English and they are secondary sources).
  • You are using this link [2] to make WP:OR arguments. This chapter of a PhD thesis deals with inscriptions from Assam and that too from the 5th century and it has nothing specific to say about the Chutia kingdom. Whatever you have derived from this source are your interpretations and original research. Your original research is not relevant in Wikipedia.
  • Guha too talks about Habung in the context of the Ahom kingdom: "Habung was an ancient Brahmin settlement (Havanga-Vishaya) situated near the mouth of the Dihing river. Sudangpha's choice of Chargua on the Dihing as his new capital, his setting up of a Habung Brahmins' colony near his capital and his giving posts of importance to his Brahmin benefactor's sons on the frontier - all these were significant." has nothing to say about the Chutia kingdom. Whatever you have derived from this are the product of your own research, and are not acceptable here.
  • Shin does not mention any other district other than Lakhimpur (the undivided Lakhimpur district that included present-day Dibrugarh in the southbank). So your text is using Shin selectively for the northbank, based on your own POV. The list of districts you have provided is your own, not found in any WP:RS; it is nothing but a product of your own research. It may be relevant in a research journal, but not in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First reply to Chaipau[edit]

@Chaipau:

1. Nobody has asked you to add these sources in the article. These are just to show the extent of Habunga. Your accusations will be validated only if I use these sources in the article which I haven't.

2. The Buranjis mention Panbari(west of Subansiri) as a part of Habung. These are stated historical facts. Nobody is using these to synthesis anything here. It is just to give an idea of Habung province.

3. Your point about using English sources is not valid here. The two Buranjis state the extent of Habung. The four English sources are about Chutia kingdom, not Habung. Find a better secondary English source stating the same as Buranjis first, then talk about replacing.

4. The PhD article states about a 10th century plate which mentions the territorial extent of Habunga during that period. Why do you expect Chutia kingdom to be referred in an article about the Kamrupa period? This was just used as a point of discussion, not something to be added in the article. As we all know, Habung did become a part of Chutia territories after the fall of Kamrupa rule.

5. I guess you haven't read Guha's book or you are trying to avoid it here. He has clearly talked about Chutias while writing about Habung. I quote from page 73,"Habung was a Chutiya dependency; that still earlier it was an autonomous principality of Brahmins; and that the latter's origins could be traced back to a circa 10th-century copper-plate and grant issued by king Ratnapala". Again in page 20, "It appears that the novel designation of Barpatragohain was borrowed from the civil list of Habung, where the local ruler, a dependent of the Chutia king, had the title Vrihatpatra" As for Sudanpha, his paper is about the "Ahom polity", what else do you expect?

6. Shin's paper deals with inscriptions. She has used the inscriptions to show the areas which for certain fell under the Chutia domain. I quote "With the current dearth of early sources of the Chutiyas, the epigraphic records found in Sadiya and North Lakhimpur district are crucially important." She has nowhere used Lakhimpur to define the undivided district. She writes, "Though the geographical extent of these rulers’ power is not yet known in detail, according to Neog, the present day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find sites of most inscriptions, perhaps formed a part of their political dominion. If architectural continuity is admitted between the fortifications in the Sadiya region and the Burai river ruin site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of Darrang district." Here North-Lakhimpur clearly means present-day Lakhimpur district.

5. Neither Shin nor Neog, explicitly state the extent of the kingdom. They have just mentioned Lakhimpur district to be a part of Chutia domain. They have not restricted to present-day Lakhimpur district in anyway. I quote from Neog, "We are not definite about the extent of the domain of these rulers ; but we can very well be certain that the present-day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find-sites of the Dhenukhanã, Ghilãmarã, and Barmurtiyã-bil epigraphs as well as the Hãbunga-desa of the Sadiyã-Chepãkhowã plate (the Häbung principality of later times), formed a part of their dominions.". This shows that they have clearly no interest in defining the territorial extent, but are certain that North-Lakhimpur district(present day Lakhimpur district) formed a part of the domain with reference to inscriptions.

6. Shin and Neog have talked about the extent of the kingdom in the western direction. As far as eastern regions are concerned, a large portion of Sadiya frontier tract was indeed part of the Chutia territories. Infact, most of the ruins of the Chutia capital are located in the Sadiya Frontier tract.

SashankaChutia (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second reply to SashankChutia[edit]

  • Please give the reference from which you got the district names in your recommended text. Chaipau (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second reply to Chaipau[edit]

@Chaipau:

1. North-West

The north western borders have already being discussed. I believe we have come to a consensus on that point. It is known that the Lakhimpur district formed a part of the domain, though architectural continuity suggests that the western boundary extended up to Biswanath district.

2. South-west

The south western borders were restricted till the banks of Dihing or specifically Dihingmukh. Barua and Assam Buranji(SM) also states the same. As for the route of Dihing, although there are Buranji references to point the route. But, as you say, it will be synthesis. So, we could avoid that and mention Dibrugarh district instead of Sibsagar.

3. Northern

For the northern borders, Barua mentions," ..on the east by the Brahmakunda, on the north by the hills and on the south by the river Buridihing.". Besides these, there are ample ruins in the lower hills of Siang, Dibang, Lohit districts including Bhismaknagar(Lohit), Rukmininagar(Dibang), as well as the plains including Gomsi(Siang), Padum pukhuri(Dibang), Tezu fort(Lohit). Barua's reference and all the archeological ruins point to the fact that the plains and lower hills of northern Arunachal Pradesh formed the northern borders. SashankaChutia (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SashankaChutia: These are obviously your interpretations, which is WP:OR. Please provide a reference that names the districts as given in your recommended texts. If you don't have it, please state it now. Chaipau (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third reply to Chaipau[edit]

@Chaipau: Please refrain from accusing of WP:OR without proof. I have directly written as per the sources.

1. The northwestern and southwestern borders are stated as per Shin's and Barua's references.

Though the geographical extent of these rulers’ power is not yet known in detail, according to Neog, the present day North Lakhimpur district of Assam, which covers the find sites of most inscriptions, perhaps formed a part of their political dominion. If architectural continuity is admitted between the fortifications in the Sadiya region and the Burai river ruin site, it would be possible to believe that the kingdom of these rulers extended as far as the outer limit of Darrang district.

— Jae-eun-Shin

Shin is the latest authority in this regard. I have written,"It is known that the Lakhimpur district formed a part of the domain, though architectural continuity suggests that the western boundary extended up to Biswanath district." which is directly implied from the above source.


2. Shin's source although is the latest authority, but it doesn't mention anything about the southern borders. We get that Barua's source.

...on the east by the Brahmakunda, on the north by the hills and on the south by the river Buridihing.

— SL Barua

I have written,"The south western borders were restricted till the banks of Dihing or specifically Dihingmukh... So, we could avoid that and mention Dibrugarh district instead of Sibsagar. This is also a directly implied from the source.


3. The northern borders are not mentioned in any source that I know of, except Barua and Gogoi.

...on the east by the Brahmakunda, on the north by the hills and on the south by the river Buridihing.

— SL Barua

The hills and the river Buri Dihing formed its norther and southern boundaries respectively.

— Jahnabi Gogoi

Where is Brahmakunda located today?? Isn't it in the Lohit district?? Which hills does Barua mention by the phrase "northern hills"?? Isn't it the hills of northern Arunachal?? You do know the districts of Siang, Dibang and Lohit covers a large plain area too, don't you?

SashankaChutia (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have to point out to you that assigning districts to these historical markers (even if they are right--actually some of them are themselves WP:OR) is an interpretation and synthesis. You are making interpretations about the course of rivers from 500 years ago. And you are synthesizing this information with current district boundaries. This flies in the face of WP:SECONDARY, and thus is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth reply to Chaipau[edit]

@Chaipau:

There are just two historical markers used here. Brahmakunda and Dihing.

1. Brahmakunda is from where the Lohit river originated as per the Kalika Purana[1] It is the Parashuram Kunda of today's time. Parashuram Kunda is located in the foothills of Lohit district. So, as per Barua's references, the Chutia kingdom was indeed spread till the foothills of the Lohit district (Brahmakunda).

2. As for Dihing, well, I have already suggested that we do not include Sibsagar district, as there are no secondary sources implying the historical route. I had said previously, "As for the route of Dihing, although there are Buranji references to point the route. But, as you say, it will be synthesis. So, we could avoid that and mention Dibrugarh district instead of Sibsagar." You must be aware that, today's Dihing flows through the Dibrugarh district.

SashankaChutia (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "According to the Kalika Purana, Parashuram caused the Lauhitya to flow out from a hill after he had filled it from the water of the Brahmakund."

WP:HUH. I asked for references for district names. Chaipau (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau:

Natural Landmarks are showing the frontier or border extent here. As per Barua, Brahmakunda and Dihing formed the southern and eastern borders of the kingdom. As the landmarks are still present in the respective districts, it is definite that these districts formed a part of the Chutia domain. There is nothing to synthesize here. If you feel it is insufficient, find a better source explaining the proper territorial extent. SashankaChutia (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SashankaChutia: I have given the alternative text based on secondary sources. That version (above) has no original research. Chaipau (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: The reference to Sissi being a border can be well stated to be outdated, in light to latest sources like Shin and Neog. Besides that Sibsagar has been removed. SashankaChutia (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no contradiction between the Baruah/Gogoi and the Shin/Neog boundaries. Note that Baruah's book "Comprehensive History of Assam" was published in 1985 whereas Neog published his article in 1977. So Baruah's boundary is not outdated. Shin's boundary is attributed to Neog specifically and she repeats him in toto. So Shin's boundary is no later than Neog's. Shin's focus in her paper is not new evidence but the interpretation of the 'Asura' and the process of legitimization of the non-Indo-Aryan Chutia king. Chaipau (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chutia kings[edit]

The list of Chutia kings, as it stands now, is not at all historical. This is what Neog says about the various lists that are available:

There are various accounts and succession lists of the rulers of the Chutiyãs (I do not call them Chutiyã kings precisely because in these accounts they are not described as Chutiyãs except the last one of them) with dates also assigned to their reign ; but these accounts are too much at variance with one another to deserve serious consideration as being of proper historical value.

— Neog 1977

Nevertheless, he puts up a list of kings with their dates, and he remarks thus:

The following list of rulers of the Chutiyãs is given in one of the two short chronicles of them incorporated by Dr. S. K. Bhuyan in his Deodhäi Asam Burañji from an old manuscript published by William Robinson in the Baptist journal, Orunodoi, December, 1850. It very nearly corroborates a similar list in the vamsävali obtained by Kellner from Amrtanãrãyana of a Chutiyã princely family. Even Kellner considered this chronology apocryphal (Brown, op. cit., p. 83 ). It is not yet known for certain when at all such lists were prepared; but at the moment it is not possible to ascribe them to a date earlier than the 19th century. The dates given in the lists do not thus have historical moorings.

— Neog 1977

Thus the list originally came from two persons in the 19th century: Robin Williams and H L Kellner. The two lists were then compiled into one by S K Bhuyan. The point to note—one of the sources, Kellner, called this list "apocryphal", even he did not stand by this list. Because this list has no real historical value, the table in the article does not deserve a place in Wikipedia.

But this list may be presented not as a historical list, but a legendary one along with the caveats by removing the dates.

Chaipau (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: I have added two more kings to the geneology as mentioned by SL Barua in Chutia Jatir Buranji(2007). The names Dhirnarayan, Purandar Narayan and Yashnarayan(common with other plates) were found in the Dhakuakhana Konwargaon inscription of Dhirnarayan (1522) discovered in the year 2002. As it is a later discovery, Neog's geneology doesn't mention it. Kindly, donot remove the names. We are here to make constructive edits and expand the page with proper cited material, aren't we? Ballav saikia (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the territorial extend[edit]

@Chaipau:

Kindly, do not remove sources from the article. Both sources are to be inserted. If you seriously want to contribute to the article in a progressive manner, do not remove any referenced material and try to look from a non-biased POV purely based on concrete evidences. Critical study of Epigraphical records are in fact more significant compared to an educational guess made by an author about 35 years ago. I call it "an educational guess" because there is no source stated for the same by the author. This greatly reduces the reliability of the reference. Even Shin in here latest journal has avoided using Barua's source for the territorial extent, although she has used her book(A comprehensive history of Assam) in several other accounts. You could have a look at the reference section of Shin's journal. If you find any particular historical text or any other secondary source highlighting the primary source from where the Sissi reference has been derived, kindly insert it in the article to clarify the subject. Bodo53.cn (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gave my reply the very same query from SashankaChutia. Please read the reply above. Chaipau (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions on Rebellions[edit]

The reference Khanikar, Surjya kanta (2003) Chutia_Kingdom#CITEREFKhanikar2003 is not WP:RS. Authored by an untrained historian, a retired engineer, H K Barpujari writes in his note: "Due to the dearth of primary sources it is not possible to agree with many issues discussed in this book." (translated from Assamese). The rebellion section as it has been recently added by Ballav saikia is not supported by WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section on rebellions in his book is well referenced from primary sources i.e. Buranjis. Have a look once. Pujari seems to be talking about the parts(for instance, the culture section) added without any primary sources. Besides, Khanikar is not the only source used for the section. There are two more sources i.e. Chutia Jatir Buranji(by SL Barua) and Ahom Buranji(GC Barua) that have been used. I am trying to expand the article here, by using authentic information. The text is well cited from the sources. Kindly, refrain from making disruptive edits.Ballav saikia (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New sources for territorial extent[edit]

I have added two more sources(Padmeswar Gogoi and Ramesh Buragohain) in the section on the territorial extend. It seems that the remark of SL Barua(and J Gogoi) about Sisi river being the western borders was taken from Padmeswar Gogoi's book(Tai and Tai kingdoms). The author explicitly mentions the data to depict the territorial extent of the kingdoms at the time of arrived of Sukapha (early 13th century). However, Ramesh Buragohain(2013) calls the manuscript from which it has been derived as a weak source. Nonetheless, I have basically added the sources as it is, while keeping the previously discussed portion intact. @Chaipau: Kindly, have a look at the sources before removing the sourced content.Ballav saikia (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but Burhagohain is no better, because he just imagines it expanded. In fact, Habung was mostly independent for most of the time, outside the core Chutia domain. If Sisi river is not the western boundary then we will go with Shin, which is Lakhimpur, and included in Gogoi. Chaipau (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau:He used the Bormurtia copperplates as proof, nothing to imagine there. I agree that the Brahman colony in Habung may have been sort of semi-independent. That remained the same during the Ahom reign too. There were Brahman cheifs in the region. Infact, a large portion of the Ahom territories was ruled by tribal cheifs like Rani, Gobha, Darrang, etc. Does that mean we avoid Habung or the other regions from the Ahom map/territories?? Same case applies for both kingdoms. You should know that there were Chutia settlements as well in the region. Habungadhipati Vrihatpatra was placed at Habung by the Chutia king. The Ahoms replaced him with the Bhatialia Gohain. Land grants were made by the Chutia king up until 1522. For granting lands, you have to own it. This means the lands were under Chutia domain. I have not removed any of the content, be it Shin or Gogoi. Instead I have added the original source (Padmeswar Gogoi). The source clearly mentions Sukaphaa time. Thus, I have included "early 13th century". Ballav saikia (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming SL Barua took the Sisi river boundary from Gogoi 1968 is WP:OR since SL Barua has not specified it. But Buragohain has not done anything beyond saying Gogoi's source is suspect. Everything else he has said is not a historical fact. Of course, the kingdom could have expanded—and contracted—a number of times in the course of history. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to further argue with this issue anymore. I think we have come to a consensus here. The latest edit is not mine. Pointlessly stretching the same arguement will do no good for the article.

As for your point here, I would like to highlight that the territorial extent stated by SL Barua is exactly same as that mentioned in Buragohain's article. Padmeswar Gogoi(mentioned by Buragohain) clearly states in his book Tai and Tai kingdoms that he derived it from the Borgohain Vamsavali. As Borgohain Vamsavali is a primary source, it is evident that SL Barua used the same source either directly or indirectly(through Padmeswar Gogoi's Tai and Tai kingdom). If you think there is some other alternate primary source, kindly find it out. Moreover, Buragohain's source is not second to any other source. We cannot decide whose opinion counts and whose not. Can we? It will be violating the wiki. policy.

Besides, Habung was definitely part of the Chutia dominion atleast from the mid of 14th century as evident from plates(issued in thebyears 1392, 1401, 1428 and 1522). Guha also states the same in his article, where he calls it a Chutia dependency. He also mentions that "He(Suhungmung) first annexed Habung in 1512 and later also the rest of the Hinduised Chutia kingdom". Now, as I can see, in the case of Ahom kingdom, the territorial extent is shown for the later years(after defeating the Mughals). Therefore, it is sensible that we apply the same for the Chutia kingdom as well.Ballav saikia (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

→== WP:PRIMARY ==

The use of primary sources is grossly problematic in the case of Chutia kingdom because fabricated accounts have entered these very sources and all of them are in disagreement with each other. This has been stated explicitly by most historians such as Mahashwar Neog (1977), D Nath (2013) and even S L Baruah (2007). Baruah (2007) says so explicitly in page 106, even as she proposes an "experimental" list in page 107. As a result, primary sources can not be used at all since even basic facts have been fabricated. One part of the cleaning of this article will have to involve removing all primary sources. Chaipau (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all primary sources are problematic. It is only the traditional accounts that seem to be fabricated, as stated by Neog or others. Ahom Buranjis are pretty reliable sources, used by almost all modern writers.

The so-called "experimental list" has not been added in the article. It is only the names of the last three rulers(derived from the Konwargaon plate, Chutia Jatir Buranji, p. 590.) mentioned in p. 107, which have been added. It is just an extension of Neog's list. None of the names mentioned in the Chutia traditional accounts have been included. It is only the names found in the epigraphical evidence which have been included. Epigraphical records are not fabrications. I am here to do constructive edits. I believe you are here for the same. Ballav saikia (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:OR. You cannot pick and choose what to use from a given table. Chaipau (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to pick and choose here. It is pretty clear that there are two sources for the names. One derived from epigraphical records and another from traditional accounts. Neog considers the list derived from epigraphical records, avoiding the traditional accounts. The only reason he didnot include the later names was because the Konwargaon plate(from where the last three names have been derived) wasn't available at that time. Had it been available, he would have included those names(Dhirnarayan, Purandar Narayan, Yashnarayan) too. While writing the Chutia jatir Buranji in 2007, SL Barua had knowledge of that plate, therefore she included the names. I have merely extended Neog's list(from SL Barua's update), by avoiding the traditional accounts and keeping only those names which were derived from epigraphical records(along with the location and dates of the land grants), just as Neog had done. This is a constructive edit to improve the article. Hope you understand.Ballav saikia (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed WP:V. The cited reference (page 107) does not mention epigraphs. Please point to proper source. Reading names from a given table and picking one or two is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check page 590-591. The list mentioned in the article is not a geneological list at all. It is just a list stating only the names of the rulers derived from epigraphical records, without any dates of accession or death. The names are ordered according to the dates of the inscriptions. Thus, all names derived from epigraphical records ought to be mentioned, including the latest ones.Ballav saikia (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the correct page numbers. If the references are unverifiable (WP:V), weakly references (WP:RS) or are using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) they will be removed. The article is full of speculative stuff right now. Chaipau (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the pages 590-591 as cited. These are the inscription texts in Sanskrit and their Assamese translations. These are primary sources and thus not good references for the purpose of Wikipedia. Please check WP:PRIMARY properly. You cannot yourself interpret a primary document and then write what you think it says in Wikipedia. Please provide a secondary source that critically examines the primary source. Chaipau (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list given here in the article is not a "geneological account".There is no date of accession or death that we know of. It is just a record of names with epigraphical records. Therefore I have mentioned the source(inscription) in the third column of the table. Neog's list of rulers is not a geneological account either. It is merely a collection of names from the inscriptions. Whatever names he mentioned were directly derived from inscriptions. I have extended/updated his list with the help of SL Barua's reference/list. In his article, Neog simple states that, "we may perhaps place the names of the kings in the following tentative order". S.L. Barua has already mentioned the names derived from the inscriptions in her tentative list(p.107). The fact that she uses the names from the inscriptions in her list makes the list a secondary source. As for page numbers, those have been replaced already.

We are here to make constructive edits and improve the article, so that sourced facts can be revealed. When there is latest updated sourced content available, why not add it? I don't see any problem here. This is just a list of rulers with inscriptions. Had it been a geneological account, the case would be different. Removing names of kings already included in a tentative list(derived from a primary source) just for the sake of it, doesn't help in anyway. Ballav saikia (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to this is not whether it is a geneological list or not. The other kings listed do not have specific dates either. S L Barua has given an "experimental" list, not a tentative one and it includes many kings. You cannot use these pick and choose from these kings (WP:OR). You cannot used names from 590 because this is WP:PRIMARY. Shin 2020, which is a secondary source, did not take note of these new kings. We need secondary sources, or we cannot put up these names. Chaipau (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of secondary sources, primary sources can be added. There is no other secondary sources available for the three rulers, thus primary sources has been added. Read WP:PRIMARY for the rules. You cannot remove any material just because there isn't any other secondary sources available. As for Shin, her article did not focus on the list of rulers. It was mainly about the origins and geneological claims made by the rulers. There was Dimasa kingdom mentioned as well. Did she mention all the kings of the Dimasa dynasty?? Clearly she used Neog's old reference here. It is pretty obvious that a foreign writer will not have access to a source in native language, such as the CJB.

I am making it clear again, this is just a list of rulers with epigraphical evidence. Any name of ruler mentioned in copper plates are to be included, be it using an outdated secondary source(like Neog) or an updated primary source as SL Barua. That is why, there is a third column mentioning the place and date of the inscriptions(derived from primary sources). Do not remove data for which sources are already available, be it primary or otherwise.Ballav saikia (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot use primary sources: Deodhai Asam Buranji and Satsari Asam Buranji[edit]

Neog writes:

There are various accounts and succession lists of the rulers of the Chutiyãs ( I do not call them Chutiyã kings precisely because in these accounts they are not described as Chutiyãs except the last one of them ) with dates also assigned to their reign ; but these accounts are too much at variance with one another to deserve serious consideration as being of proper historical value. Some of these accounts have been reproduced in W. B. Brown's An Outline Grammar of the Deori Chutiya Language spoken in Assam , Shillong, 1895, embodying in an appendix the remarks of H. J. Kellner on certain papers of Lt. E. T. Dalton concerning these accounts ; in Sir Edward Gait's A History of Assam , ed. 2, Calcutta-Simla, 1926, and his Report on Historical Research in Assam ; in Deodhãi Asam Buravji , Gauhati, 1932, and Sãtsarl Asam Buravji , Gauhati, 1958, compiled and edited by Professor S. K. Bhuyan ; in 44 Chutiyã Rajãr Buranjî", edited by Lila Gogoi on the pages of Manidlpa, Gauhati, Vol. II, No. ii, January 1962, and Chota Kõwarar Burañji, brought out by Koseswar Barua, Hawajan, 1880

Since the Deodhai Asam Buranji (DAB) and Satsari Asam Buranji, though by themselves are genuine Buranjis, the published versions have these spurious accounts added to them. S L Baruah in "The Comprehensive History of Assam" (1986) also mentions this—that the Chutiyar Katha has been incorporated in the DAB (page=228ff) and that the account in the Chutiyar Katha does not agree with the rest of DAB and the Ahom Buranji (page=229ff) Therefore, these sources cannot be used since they both primary (WP:PRIMARY), and also because they have spurious accounts added to them in their modern published versions. In fact other primary sources cannot be used either, following the discrepancies in some finer details (page=229ff).

Chaipau (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chutiya Kingdom had both Animist beliefs and Hindu beliefs[edit]

Kechai khaiti was a tribal goddess and Burha Buri were tribal god and goddess . The temple dedicated to these gods were built during Chutia king reign which means Chutia kingdom had animistic beliefs. Clearly written here i quote The Primodial female diety was called by the Kacharis as Ai-Deo, Kamakhi, Kamlakhi, etc and by the Chutiyas as Pisha-si, Kechaikhati etc The Chutiyas for example worshipped the primodial parents Gira-Girasi or Bura Buri, which were later hinduised as Shiva and Sakti, Mataks and their kingdom, p-49 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogenie (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kechai Khaiti was a non-Brahminical goddess, first noted in the Kalika Purana. It has remained non-Brahminical throughout history. That it is associated with the Chutia kingdom is well established. But the Burha Buri and other gods and goddesses that find mention from after the fall of Chutia kingdom cannot be projected back to the Chutia kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A mother goddess system is not animistic. They have emerge in society differently. You need to provide a source that says the Chutia kingdom was animistic. You cannot project a comment by an author that the Chutia and other peoples were animistic and so the Chutia kingdom must have been animistic. This is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

viyutsva-kula[edit]

@Homogenie: what does viyutsva-kula mean and why is it significant here? The Kamarupa dynasties called themselves avani-kula, for instance, which meant they were descendants of Naraka. This they did by way of acquiring legitimacy to rule, fitted out by the brahmin priests in their employ. How is viyutsva-kula important for the Chutia dynasty? Chaipau (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern border of Kamarupa[edit]

The eastern border of Kamrupa doesnot find inscriptional evidence. This is what Shin writes "Scholars identify Dikkaravāsinī with goddess Tāmreśvarī and locate her abode in Sadiya.105 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. Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kāmarūpa is postulated.107 However, no inscriptional and material evidence confirms this conjecture."

So claiming Chutia kingdom rose on the decay of the eastern border of Kamarupa would be mistake as there is no archaelogical evidence to support this claim. Rather write "The chuti kingdom rose on the eastern most extent of present Assam."Homogenie (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no archaeological evidence of the Chutia kingdom before the 14th century. The Kamarupa kingdom ended in the 12th century, more than two hundred years earlier. So it is irrelevant whether there is any archaeological evidence of the eastern boundary of Kamarupa in this context. Chaipau (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed logic really, read Shin(2018) There is NO fixed boundary of Kamarupa, most of the BOUNDARIES draw are from Dutta(2018) are based on Kalika purana which itself is HALF TRUTH AND HALF DIVINE, and boundary of kamrupa are not based on a archaelogical evidence but the literal intrepretation of Kalika purana, You cannot draw a map of india by literal intrepretation of Mahabharata and other mythogical books, can you. Saying kamrupa extended till Sadiya just based on a mythological book not on archaelogical facts is downright foolish. MOREOVER Shin(2018) debunks all of this. And dikkarvasini according to Kalika purana somethings refers to Dikrong River. Whatever may be the case Kalika Purana shouldnt be taken at face value which is mythological book, refer to Shin(2018) instead. Chutia kingdom rose on Dikkar Basini, the eastern border of Kamarupa would be flawed as it comes from the literal interpretation of Kalika purana and provides no archaelogical evidence. Shin disagrees with all of this Homogenie (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Sutiya kingdom ?[edit]

Is the map even correct ? Because it doesn't even include places like Itanagar, Roing, Dihang, Dibang etc. Itanagar has literally been named after the Ita Fort, but yet this map doesn't even include Itanagar. Tizen03 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizen03: the map is wrong. It is hugely WP:OR and has not been published before. Chaipau (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Map[edit]

I fail to make much sense about how the particular map (p. 54-55) can be relied upon as an accurate map of Chutias. None of the sources which were used in the preparation of the map (p. 87) covers the Chutias. Even if they had, they couldn't have taken recent scholarship into account.

Those in support of inclusion ought to explain about how a 90 year old map of Ming dynasty's extents is expected to be accurate in demarcating the territories of Chutias (or by extension, Qara Qoyunlus or Bahmanis). TrangaBellam (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: This map is not included for demarcation of Chutia territories by any means. It has just been added by @Homogenie: to show the presence of the Chutia state as a political entity during the start of the 15th century. As for the accuracy of the shown territory, there is no use of lines or colors to depict any demarcation. The map merely uses the word "Chutiya" to indicate a rough estimate of the territories. If you would have read the section of the article mentioning the territorial extent and compare it with the said map, you would find that the map more or less fits the description. That is, it includes the Subansiri, Dihing, Lohit and Upper Brahmaputra valleys. In the absence of any other proper published map, this is the second best thing to depict the relative position and geopolitical scenario of the region, during that period. Besides, the historical texts describing Chutia domain were well available in the 1930s. In fact, later archeological and epigraphical evidence has indicated a larger dominion for the Chutia rule than that indicated in this map.Ananya Taye (talk)
The map is wrong for Assam. It shows Kamarupa in the 15th century—which had disappeared some 2 to 3 hundred years earlier, and it shows the Ahoms without any territory. Just because a map does not exist for the Chutia kingdom does not mean we can grab anything and display it here. Chaipau (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the map shows chutia state as a regional power, it is ofcourse not correct in size doesnot means it deserves to be removed, it is not based on size rather the motive is to show the different political powers that existed in the 15th century and looking at it ,it has correctly stated all the powers, the map is not given to show the actual size of the kingdoms but to show that the kingdom exist, also kamarupa as said have been believed to be dissolved in 13th century, but if someone observed that Yogini Tantra which has been written in 16th century Assam , still refer to the region as Kamarupa, it seems the people who wrote it still called parts of Assam as Kamarupa moreover kamarupa borders by shin is said to be till central assam which is accurately matching with its representation in the map, it also seems that the people who wrote yogini tantra tried to called the chutia kingdom as Kamarupa, the same reason they referred to the region as Kamarupa in the 16th century, further Sukaphaa who visited Habung in early part of 13th century didnt find any trace of Kamarupa nor did he find any brahmins settlement in Habung, how is it that such a big political power which got dissolved was not traceble by Sukaphaa?? the Hindu influence was first observed among the Ahoms under Sudangphaa who was raised in a Brahmin household in Habung , the same time Chutias started to settled Brahmins in Habung according to Momim (2006), SL.Baruah (2007) and Shin (2020) Homogenie (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dispute that Chutia was a power in the 15th century. But this map is wrong. You cannot prove something by using wrong evidence. Also, please do not use whataboutism arguments or raise unrelated issues. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(+1) to Chaipau. A map serves certain purposes for an average reader: this is wrong on most counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As i said in the map is there to show the chutia kingdom as a regional power, i am not trying to potray the size of the kingdom , that is written in the domain section, also as stated yogini tantra in the 16th cnetury called religion of Assam as kamrupa, so why is it went the kamarupa is believed to dissolved in 13th century is still referred in the 16th century, if you have read shin (2018) , you know the idea of kamarupa is challenged a bit Homogenie (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are making your case weaker by using a wrong map. If you pluck down anything that has the word "Chutiya" from the web and try to adorn this article, then this article will become a hoax. Without the map the article is solid and there is no doubt that the Chutia kingdom was a regional power till early 16th century. Furthermore, the subsequent Ahom kingdom absorbed the Chutia kingdom, and some vestiges of the Chutia kingdom lived on in the Ahom kingdom. You do not need this wrong map to prove anything. Chaipau (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without the map the article is solid, it is the opposite, with the map the article get more credentials as it is published by a highly reliable source, also this maps actually to some extent gives a fresher look at Kamarupa , might be the reason why people are so eager to remove the map Homogenie (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at TrangaBellam's comment. The peripheral boundaries of this map are not at all reliable. Not just Chutia, but also Bahmani for instance. Again, I ask you to not raise unrelated issues. At one point you cited Shin to challenge the idea of Kamarupa and on the other you want to extend Kamarupa to continue its existence till the 15th century. Chaipau (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to potray the size of the kingdom , it is as i said used to show the different states of the 15th century, go look the atlas , you will find the states that are mention are accurate not the size of the states though. , and i never claimed kamarupa to extend till sixteenth century what i convey was that yogini tantra still refer to the place as kamrupa in th 16th century Homogenie (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You want to prove the power of the Chutia kingdom with a hoax of a map? It shows Kamarupa, a kingdom that disappeared in the 12th century, and the Ahom kingdom as part of Bengal of the 15th century! Chaipau (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well look at Kamarupa, look at the first few sentences, this is what is written Quote:

Though the historical kingdom disappeared by the 12th century to be replaced by smaller political entities, the notion of Kamarupa persisted and ancient and medieval chroniclers continued to call this region by this name.

So yes the name kamarupa was still referred in the medieval chronicles, not only till 13th century but after that too, you have added the citation i presume, morever if you go through different maps in the Historical and commercial atlas of China, it actually depicts all the major powers precisely, the only miscalculation is the size, did the authors only miscalculated kamarupa out of all other states, Kamarupa is the ODD one here, also Kamarupa map, is taken from Dutta(2008), while Shin (2018) , Momin (2006), SL Baruah (2006) , Shin (2020) all claimed hindu influence in upper assam during late 14th century, someone has to be wrong in their estimates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogenie (talk • contribs)

  • Each and every aspect of the map as far as Assam is concerned is wrong. The Ahoms are shown as straddling the Chutia kingdom and Bengal, which is wrong. Kamarupa is shown as part of Bengal, which again is wrong. The Chutia's are shown with a boundary with Bengal, which is wrong. Never in history has this formation ever happened.
  • The Kamarupa map is taken from Dutta 2008, which is sourced to N N Acharya and which agrees with the traditional boundary as described by both Sircar and Shin. Shin considers the limit at Lalitakanta as an internal division within Kamarupa, and not an external boundary.
  • Eastern India had Indo-Aryan influence from the 5th century (Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription) and in Habung by the 10th century. Guha 1983: "According to tradition, Habung was a petty medieval principality governed by its Brahmin settlers themselves. It now appears from a recently-found copper plate inscription that it was the same as the Ha-Vrnga Visaya where a Brahmin was given land by King Ratnapala (c.10th century)"
This map adds no useful information, because it lacks any. It may be used in Ming dynasty. If you want to use it only for the name, then please note that the name is from Assamese Buranjis. If the name used in the Ming chronicles were used here, then that would have been more meaningful.
Chaipau (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC) (edited) 17:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: This map is grossly wrong for the purpose it is being used here, as you have pointed out. What next? It seems there is an editor who insists on keeping it here. Chaipau (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93: Your opinions will be welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the first place, WP:CONSENSUS is always needed for the inclusion of any images. Images that are contrary to the text content or completely irrelevant to the text do not need to be included even if they come from authoritative sources. Coming closer to the point, I agree that a map made to illustrate Ming dynasty may not be authentic for the surrounding regions. So I suggest it be removed. We have enough tools now to make our own maps: Location map+, OSM Location map, mapframe etc. See for example Gurjaradesa. The map was originally made with Location map+ and later converted to mapframe. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam: thanks! I have removed the map. Chaipau (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: : The map is not represented as a primary map but as a secondary map, the actual location of the kingdom is represented in the infobox, the map is just used to show the polity existed in 1415 so dont understand why it is being removed. This has been discussed before Homogenie (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

I have removed the primary sources and the content here: [3]. The Buranjis are chronicles and are primary sources. The chronicles were pre-modern and could not have called them a "state (polity)" because the concept of state did not exist when the Buranjis were written. To call them "states" is definitely WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added the word Cheifdom along with states. This is no excuse to remove cited material. Kha was used for Morans, Borahis and Nagas alone. These were the tribes which practised shifting cultivation and had cheiftains ruling them instead of kings. Infact, any tribe without a state has to have a tribal chief ruling them. Guha(1983) and Shin(2020) which are secondary sources clearly state that Kamata, Chutia and Kachari weren't denoted by Kha, hence were neither stateless nor solely shifting cultivators.
This citation is important as it shows the major political units(be it cheifdoms or states) present in Assam at that period. The other sources(Nath, Gogoi, Sarkar, etc.) don't explicitly show any evidence of the existence of these states/cheifdoms during the 13th century. Infact, the Sarkar(1992) source that you are so determined to insert in order to push your POV is itself based on the Gait's assumption of Subansiri and Disang being the eastern borders of the kingdom at that period, which was again a merely speculation. It is this very source that concretely states the fact. Besides, Ahomar Din is no primary source. It is a secondary source written by Hiteswar Barbarua in the 20th century by compiling data from other known Buranjis like Satsari, Purani Assam, Deodhai, Assam Buranji(SK), etc. The primary source for this information is the Purani Assam Buranji and the Ahom Buranji(written in Tai). Go through these sources to verify if necessary.
Please stop with your WP:OWN everytime someone tries to add constructively. This is a public platform which accepts cited material, whether you like it or not.Ananya Taye (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you claiming you are making constructive edits even as you are using non-reliable sources? Buranjis are full of contradictions and they need to be reconciled using historiographic methodologies. Direct citations from Buranjis here lower the quality of the article. So before you claim you are making constructive contributions, you need to consider this. I have mentioned this earlier (WP:IDNH).
  • For the claim that the Chutia were not kha people (that is they were not shifting cultivators) was an observation made by the Ahoms, and you could easily source this claim to Shin. Instead you are choosing to use a low quality reference.
  • There is no need to mention the others who are kha because these people were observed by the Ahoms and in their context. The Chutia kingdom is silent about these people. What you are attempting to do here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
  • Ahomor Din is written in Assamese, is not accessible to most users of the English Wikipedia, and it is not a product of modern scholarship. Hiteshwar Bobarua began writing book in 1915—a compilation of facts from different Buranjis and memory by a person untrained in historical methodologies. If you want to source Buranjis, the closest you could get is Padmeshwar Gogoi's "The Tai and the Tai Kingdoms: With a Fuller Treatment of the Tai-Ahom Kingdom in the Brahmaputra Valley". There will be less objection to the use of Gogoi's book in Wikipedia.
Chaipau (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saikia 2004, 115[edit]

The use of this citation has serious problems:

  • The quote used—"Along the way, a number of people were captured. They were either Chutias, Morans or Borahis...given names according to the tasks they performed."—is not something Saikia has written, but it is part of a direct quote from the Satsari Buranji that spans two pages. So this amounts to quoting a primary source. Furthermore, Saikia says it "strings together a series of fragmentary episodes" (p115) and calls it a "myth" (p116). So, obviously, this cannot be used for fact.
  • The quote is regarding captured "Chutias, Morans and Borahis", and that does not indicate states. The Morans and the Borahis were kha people. At this stage, the captured Chutias are not considered any different. There is no sign, in Saikia's translation, of a Chutia state— except for some captured Chutia people.

Chaipau (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiora[edit]

Tiora is a name used for the Chutia kingdom in the Buranjis written in the Ahom language. The Ahom language is dead and the name Tiora is not current. The name Tiora should not be used in the lead on the basis of WP:AKA and WP:MOSIS in the English Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chutia kingdom ruled by a Tai prince[edit]

I have removed the claim that the Chutia kingdom was the "most powerful kingdom" [4] for the following reasons:

  • Wrong representation. The full quote says "This kingdom was then the vassal of the Chutiya (the most important kingdom in upper Assam), which was under the control of a Tai prince named Samlonhpha." Chutia kingdom under a Tai ruler is not really a Chutia kingdom.
  • This is a passing reference in an article on the Khamtis. Such early evidence of this kingdom cannot be established from passing references.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

@Chaipau: Is there any wikipedia policy that we cannot use images uploaded by a blocked user??!! are the images a part of vandalism Homogenie (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Can these images be added?? is there a policy regarding it Homogenie (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Homogenie: material by blocked users can be removed under the rules of WP:BE. Reinsertion of material that blocked editors had originally inserted may be considered proxy editing.
Furthermore, the images are particularly unimpressive, unverifiable, and they add nothing to the article or our knowledge of the Chutia kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Not necessarily!! also is the image of Ahom couple verifiable, how do you know that they are Ahoms?? They are not verifiable are they??Homogenie (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ahom couple picture should also be removed because it is by a blocked editor. Chaipau (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), no in all cases Homogenie (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should not use unreliable sources. Blocked editors are unreliable and verified to have not worked in the best interest of Wikipedia. Material based on unreliable sources weaken article quality. Wikipedia should not be used for WP:PROMOTION of its subject, nor is it an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of factoids. Chaipau (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early contacts[edit]

@Safe haven123, please discuss here the issue of early contacts. Chaipau (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it can't be added Safe haven123 (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is an isolated observation sourced only to one primary source. There are many such isolated incidents mentioned in real and/or spurious documents. These should be critically examined by historians before they can make it to an encyclopedia. Chaipau (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Nath and Neog, who have individually studied and reported on the Chutia kingdom, have specifically disparaged some of the spurious reports, even as they took cognizance of their existences. But neither of them have anything to say on these early contacts. So, sorry, this is WP:FRINGE, and most likely dubious. Chaipau (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
did they actually study about mao conquest of upper assam in their report?? Safe haven123 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chutia_Kingdom&oldid=1208201670"