Talk:Mlechchha dynasty

Spelling?
Why does it appear that this word has separate spellings Mlecha, Mleccha, Mlechchha, and Mlekkha? Are all of these correct? Eebster the Great (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reference, bibliography, image
don't agree with my edit. Some part may be redundant, i'm not perfect. But, Chaipau unnecessarily delete images of kamarupa map, kamakhya temple which are related to mleccha dynasty. Chaipau also delete reference and bibliography of historians who support Dimasa or Bodo or Kacharis. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Older references have been trimmed — Gait, K L Barua not needed since they are very old references and it has been decided earlier not to use Colonial/old references as much as possible. That he was a Bodo is claimed by Siniti Kumar Chaterji, and his reference is all that is needed. The Dimasas are associated with the Kechai-Khaiti tradition in the east and not with the Kamakhya tradition — so this association is suspect.  Nevertheless, such associations are appropriate in the Kachari kingdom or Dimasa people, not here.  Even more problematic is that fact Kamakhya is likely associated with Austroasiatic traditions (the Khasi people have a tradition of Ka-Mei-Kha) and not with Bodo-Kachari people traditions. Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dimasa and Bodo are related community. Bodos have Kamaika deity. (Soppit1885;P=82-83) Origin of Kamkhya deity is different and Builder of Kamakhya temple is different concept. Koch also rebuilt it. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Map of Kamarupa
does the map of Kamarupa belong here? Need your input. Chaipau (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not. The lead says "The Mlechchha dynasty (c. 650 - 900) ruled Kamarupa ... ". I don't see a reason to not indlude it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * please look at the consensus here. We have gone over the arguments on whether Shin accepts this map or not elsewhere (She accepts).  Here is the discussion: Talk:Pala_dynasty_(Kamarupa) (Kamarupa in Upper Assam).  Tagging  Chaipau (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shin accepts the map!! Shin (2017) accepts a map drawn in 1968, please go through Shin, she has published 4 journals, none of it says the map is correct!Homogenie (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The map is widely accepted in the literature—Shin (2018) attributes both Choudhury and Sircar in her footnote; and you have Acharya who created the map. Yes, she said these boundaries come without epigraphic support, but they come with with general consensus among scholars—Sircar (1990) spends some time taking a critical look at it; no pass-by mention. And this is good for Wikipedia. On the other hand, where do you have Shin trying to prove the the general consensus wrong?  In fact she concludes: "Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa."


 * Wikipedia is not for original research. It will just present what is available in reliable sources.  Your original research here is disrupting Wikipedia.


 * Chaipau (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In the quote from Shin that you have inserted here the author is referring to Mukunda Madhab Sharma. And by "in that period", Shin is referring to the period in which Kalidasa (3rd-4th century CE) wrote Raghuvaṃśa. Shin is right that this is the period of early state for Kamarupa (middle of 4th century) and the kingdom then could not have been as extensive.  This is not the boundary that is depicted in the Kamarupa map, which is based on Kalika Purana (~10th century), Yogini Tantra (~17th century) and supported by the 7th century traveller Hiuen Tsang—that Sircar, Choudhury, Boruah and even Shin agrees with and which is called the "traditional" boundary of Kamarupa.
 * The quote from Saikia is about the Assamese language and is not relevant here.
 * Chaipau (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 14:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the discussion is happening here. Without addressing the issues raised, you went ahead and reverted the edits, on yet another pretext ("please stop removing cited source, read the citation it clearly states kamarupa boundaries")  This edit summary does not address the issue that neither Shin nor Saikia is relevant here. Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shin (2020) is pretty clear about it: The nuclear area of the early state of the lower Brahmaputra valley witnessed it in the seventh century, and the spread of state formation from the lower valley to other remote areas of the northeast after the thirteenth century facilitated the dissemination of this lineage model through the agency of brahmins.Homogenie (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide page number. Witnessed what?  Also, when she mentions after the 13th century it is obviously not about Kamarupa (Kamarupa collapsed in the 12th century).  It can't be about the Ahom kingdom either, because Ahom state formation occurred in the 13th century (1228), not after the 13th century.  She is referring to the Chutia/Kachari kingdom here, which came into prominence in the 14th century.  So, why are you conflating a reference to the Chutia kingdom (14th century) with the Mlecha dynasty (7th century)? Chaipau (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * She has clearly states the state formation reaching upper assam in form of Chutia kingdom in 13th century! Please stop inserting this outdated map which is not backed by any recent scholarsHomogenie (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is outdated, where is the new one? This map is widely accepted in the literature.  A new one has to be widely accepted in the (newer) literature.  Chaipau (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

which new source says it is the correct one, do show??!!Homogenie (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming there is a new one, you are. The onus is on you to prove your claim.  Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming i have a new map, but this map is incompatible with  recent studies so please stop inserting this map, and update it based on the new research that we have.Homogenie (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you have not shown that this map has been refuted by scholarship in general. Chaipau (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * please read my above comments and realise that i have!Homogenie (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All your concerns have been addressed. Shin accepts the traditional boundary.  She accepts and extent of the Kamarupa kingdom up to Dikkaravasini and uses that to explain the internal division at Lalitakanta.  I have pointed this out to you a number of times, but you have ignored it. Chaipau (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Shin 2020 is very clear about it that the state formation reached upper assam in late 14th century. Shin 2018 states Kamarupa was limited to Lower Assam, you have not addressed any of the my concerns, rather you are twisting the argument as you always do!Homogenie (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Before we get to Shin 2020, I want you to address Shin 2018 raised above.
 * So we agree that Shin accepts the traditional eastern boundary at Dikkaravasini, as stated by Sircar? Shin 2018 refers to the traditional boundary: Based on these textual references, the so-called traditional boundary of Kamarupa is postulated.107 The footnote 107 cites Sircar, Pragjyotisha-Kamarupa, pp. 63-64. Sircar has set the eastern point at Dikkaravasini in these citations Kamarupa, Kamarupa.
 * If Shin 2018 did reject these boundaries, where in the article could we find it? Yes, she makes it clear that these traditional boundaries are taken from the Kalika Purana, but that is not rejecting the traditional boundary.
 * In fact she points out there are two boundaries mentioned in the Kalikapurana As the Kalikapurana describes, Kamarupa covered the area between the Karatoya to the west and Lalitakanta to the east, but its eastern border was again defined as Dikkaravasini and she asks Which one was the eastern end of Kamarupa? She provides an explanation for the boundary at Lalitakanta and avers: Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa. In other words, the region from the Karatoya to Lalitakanta as well as the region from Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini are both within Kamarupa.  Thus, she not only did not question the traditional boundary which was described by Sircar, but she explained away a possible confusion in the Kalikapurana itself.  This is the complete opposite of what you are claiming!
 * I want you to address this before we move further with this discussion. Chaipau (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 03:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the are as were deemed Kamarupa. Such different spatial views may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahman settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence. This was probably due to the low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the region p.40
 * please read the full paragraph, Shin here discusses the views of the writer of the Kalika Purana, a religious text, both region were deemed Kamarupa by the author of Kalika Purana, this view in Kalika Purana was held by the migrant Brahmins, this is not necessarily the boundaries, it is the views of the Brahmins, this is what Shin discusses.Homogenie (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the passage you quoted describes the diffusion of culture not a boundary of a kingdom. ("...may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahman settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence.") Where in that paragraph does Shin claim that the eastern boundary was Lalitakanta and not Dikkaravasini?  Note that placing the eastern boundary at Lalitakanta would mean that the capital of the Mlechchha dynasty and the first capital of the Palas (in present-day Tezpur) was outside their own kingdom! Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Such different spatial views may reflect the partial expansion of sedentary agriculture and brahman settlements and the slow diffusion of Brahmanical influence. This was probably due to the low density of population in isolated rural settlements and a strong tribal substratum in the region''' Here it is, it is the migration of Brahmins who wrote the text, who viewed the both area as Kamarupa, again Shin (2020) The nuclear area of the early state of the lower Brahmaputra valley witnessed it in the seventh century, and the spread of state formation from the lower valley to other remote areas of the northeast after the thirteenth century facilitated the dissemination of this lineage model through the agency of brahmins. p.51 I think we are clear


 * Besides did Kamarupa went till Bhutan or Nagaland, what is the evidence?? copperplate or buranji?? Nothing that is drawn from nothing, no source, just a assumption. A kingdom went up till Tibet border, but it is not backed by any records?? Dont see why this map should be inserted Homogenie (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems you are unable to show where Shin (2018) is claiming that the border at Dikkaravasini is wrong. It is your WP:OR here that the migration of Brahmins denote the border of Kamarupa.  Chaipau (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

you have not been able to show where Shin (2018) disputed the eastern boundary even after been asked for it. This is because Shin does not dispute the eastern boundary at all in this article—Shin (2018), OTOH, reinforces the boundary by explaining away a confusing reference to Lalitakanta in the Kalikapurana.

Now, since you want to pivot to Shin (2020), here is the full quote from the abstract from which you are quoting: "One of the most interesting features of political tradition of pre-modern Northeast India was the presence of local powers tracing their descent from demonic beings. Historical evidence suggests that the demonic royal genealogy was proclaimed at a juncture of transition from pre-state to state society, though the time of transition varied according to the area where it occurred. The nuclear area of the early state of the lower Brahmaputra valley witnessed it in the seventh century, and the spread of state formation from the lower valley to other remote areas of the northeast after the thirteenth century facilitated the dissemination of this lineage model through the agency of brahmins" This passage asserts that the pattern of creating demonic royal genealogy that occurred in Kamarupa continued during the formation of Chutia kingdom and the Dimasa kingdom. This passage has nothing to say about the boundary of Kamarupa. Please state here where in the rest of the article the Kamarupa boundary is mentioned and where Shin refutes the traditional boundary of Kamarupa. Chaipau (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This line, are we playing some silly games here??!! Homogenie (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "One of the most interesting features of political tradition of pre-modern Northeast India was the presence of local powers tracing their descent from demonic beings. Historical evidence suggests that the demonic royal genealogy was proclaimed at a juncture of transition from pre-state to state society, though the time of transition varied according to the area where it occurred. The nuclear area of the early state of the lower Brahmaputra valley witnessed it in the seventh century, and the spread of state formation from the lower valley to other remote areas of the northeast after the thirteenth century facilitated the dissemination of this lineage model through the agency of brahmins"
 * It seems you are again unable to show where Shin refutes the Kamarupa map. You can only pass off a reference to the "nuclear area" of an early state to mean the boundary of a kingdom (nuclear area of Roman Empire is not the boundary of the Roman Empire).  All you have are original research and your own synthesis of history.
 * Please stop removing the map of Kamarupa in this and other pages.
 * Chaipau (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of Kamarupa (break)
I came here via WP:3O, where I have recently posted a request and thought I would clear the backlog. Before I give an opinion I have a coupleof points to make:
 * 1) there were more than two opinions expressed in this section before the 3O was requested, so although I will give an opinion it is not a third opinion and as such it is out of process.
 * 2) From the ad hominem comments it is clear that User:Chaipau and User:Homogenie have an  interaction history that is not always collegial. With my administrators hat on: be aware that the history of this article indicates that you are both engaged in a slow edit-war over this issue and could be sanctioned for it.

Now to the issue. Borders between states in the pre-modern (and in some cases modern periods eg India and China today) can be difficult to find, due to lack of sources, or if primary sources disagree). In Europe, including in Britain, medieval states had counties governed by a count or the equivelent, and marches governed by marshals (or equivalent). Counties covered the territory under the firm control of the state. Marshes, areas under questionable control close to the frontier with another state. Where exactly the border was, was often not clear and was open to interpretation. Often the marshals had a lot of autonomy and, with inter-marrige across the frontier common, questionable loyalty to the central power. See for example the article "Anglo-Scottish border" and its links to more detailed articles.

So in most cases maps of pre-modern states tend to based on the informed guesswork of historians, and like all such academic work there may well be dissagreement as to the precise borders a state has. Having read the back and forth above and looking at the edit history of the article this is what appears to be happening, or possibly it is a misreading of the secondary sources by one or both parties to the dispute above. I am not sure.

I think that the best compromise and solution, is to keep the map,but add a footnote containing any information by reliable sources that provide an alternative prospective. Here is an example of a Wikipedia article dealing with a binary choice between two reliable sources: the text states one thing with a reliable source cited inline, followed by footnote to another (Führerbunker). The relaible source used to support the text was just as reliable as that in the footnote, but was a more recent historical work, where the historian would have been aware of the earlier work.

So user:Fylindfotberserk, User:Chaipau and myself user:PBS all think the map should remain on the page. User:Homogenie does not. I suggest (as an involved editor and not an administrator) User:Homogenie you accept the consensus and work on a brief footnote explaining what the criticisms are in reliable sources to the map. — PBS (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for going through this wall of text and providing your 3O. I would request you to please stay engaged and comment on which criticisms to the map are relevant, when they appear.  Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Add me in support of the map. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion started in Talk:Kamarupa. I have left a note there about the resolution here: Talk:Kamarupa. Chaipau (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 14:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is this map not removed when citation is provided that it extended till Central Assam Homogenie (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Which language was spoken?
In an effort to be properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention in this article which language was spoken in this kingdom? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)