Talk:Ahom kingdom

False Misleading Information and Plagiarism

• Ahom Kingdom area highlighted in the map is not correct.
• The name was not kingdom of assam either.
• Current Assam was not Ahom kingdom, but current eastern past of Assam was Ahom kingdom - Tai-Ahom ruled Ahom Kingdom.
• Ahom people are broadly Dravidian & Mongoloid, while Tai-Ahom is a branch of Mongoloid Ahom.
• Do not include any area from greater undivided Kamrup that Tai-Ahom rulers had never ruled. Do not use derogatory term like Lower Assam to represent greater undivided Kamrup - all pages that has this term Lower Assam must go.
• Any who had done it please make sure you correct the same - Ahom ethnocentrism behaviour is a humiliation for Wikipedia.

Kamrupi people are minority they do not have a State in India, their treasures shall not be plowed through Wikipedia by any much stronger powerful group such as Ahom

In Wikipedia who do I formally complaint and where can I find complaint form?

Kurmaa (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• References (Wade, 1805) are given, for "Kingdom of Assam".
• The western-most trading post of the kingdom, "Khandar Chokey" is clearly mentioned in the same reference.
• The map is based on Fig 1.1, "Geography of Assam", page 3. The reference is given in the media page.

Chaipau (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you post a link to this reference (Wade, 1805) with complete title as well as publisher?

Kurmaa (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The link is given in the article itself. But here it is: http://books.google.com/books?id=WItJAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

Chaipau (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you post publisher information as well as year of publication for this "Geography of Assam"?
• Do you have a link for this as well?

Kurmaa (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The complete publisher information for "Geography of Assam" is given in the media page itself. Chaipau (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see a map reference, but it has a note "self-made"
• Who is the author or who is this "self-made" individual?
• What year and month it was "self-made"?

Kurmaa (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look further down under "References". Chaipau (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any reference that show author/source for this map - this information I want to see. Please make it available. You can see this "self-made" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Ahom-kingdom-c1826p.png
• You do not have a reference to support "self-made". Am I missing something?

130.65.161.59 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you go down and look under the section "References" you will see the complete reference for the book (I leave this as an exercise for you). The map is based on Fig 1.1 of that book. The map is self-made, which means I created it. I used the relevant software to create a map. But it is based on the map given in Fig 1.1 of that book. Chaipau (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think Wikipedia should use any "self-made" stuff as reference based on any un-reviewed document.
• Are you a Ahom as well?
• If so are you a Mongoloid Ahom especially Tai-Mongoloid?

Kurmaa (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The compilation "Geography of Assam" is an edited work, so is reviewed. Chaipau (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• No there is no Kingdom of Assam (Kingdom of Ahom) in "Geography of Assam".

• What is the formal method to register a complaint in Wikipedia for an investigation?

Kurmaa (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very much surprised that the user Kurmaa denies the very fact that the Ahom ruled the Lower Assam as Manas river was the western boundary of Ahom Kingdom. I advice him to read the history the Assam and then consider to argue on this topic. If the Ahom have not ruled Lower Assam then how come the battle of Saraighat occured in Guwahati in which the Ahoms defeated the great Mughals under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan. If user Kurmaa denies the sacrifices made by Lachit Borphukan and the Ahoms to protect Assam as well as the old undivided Kamrup district from Mughal invaders then i am sure that he is neither Assamese nor a Kamrupi. Why there are so many temples built by Ahom kings in the Kamrup district itself like Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others. There are temples in Hajo and Nalbari district which are constructed by Ahom Kings. There are records of land grants to Brahmin families in Lower Assam by Ahom Dynasty. If you visit the famous Kamakhya temple, you will observe inscriptions inside the walls of the temple by Ahom kings Rajeswar Singha and Gaurinath Singha in the late 18th century, which shows the authentication that the Ahom have ruled the undivided Kamrup district till 1826 CE. Go and check every history of Assam or ask any historian. I am sure they will clear your doubts and wrong beliefs.

The map provided in this article is correct and if you want prove then read A History of Assam by Sir Edward Gait, chapter VII The Climacteric of Ahom Rule, Gadadhar Singha. All your doubts will be clear. Read those books, enrich your knowledge level and then come to argue. From your reactions one can clearly see that you lack even the basic knowledge of Assam History and you are driven by Lower Assam sentiments and dislike for Ahoms. But truth is truth and all the historical documents support the statement that the undivided Kamrup district was under Ahom rule till 1826 CE.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a curtsy reminder

This is just a curtsy reminder for Chaipau:

• What is the formal method to register a complaint in Wikipedia for an investigation?
• Also is this map in question approved by Wikipedia?

Kurmaa (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. Chaipau (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This link does not have answer to question in first bullet. This link does not indicate either that any user can use Wikipedia resources in order to publish false misleading information and demonstrate plagiarism. Kurmaa (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have cited the work from which this map is derived. I do not know how this is plagiarism. I have no idea how to complain against plagiarism of maps, so I cannot help you. Chaipau (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you this "self-made" individual in the map?

Kurmaa (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a curtsy reminder:

• Are you this "self-made" individual in the map?
• What year and month it was "self-made"?

Kurmaa (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just another curtsy reminder

Just another curtsy reminder:

• Are you this "self-made" individual in the map?
• What year and month it was "self-made"?

Kurmaa (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just another curtsy reminder:

• Are you this "self-made" individual in the map?
• What year and month it was "self-made"?

Kurmaa (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahom and Mughal Battled to occupy Kamrup

Battle of Saraighat

User Lachitbarphukan wrote, "If the Ahom have not ruled Lower Assam then how come the battle of Saraighat occured in Guwahati in which the Ahoms defeated the great Mughals under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan."

I have been visiting Wikipedia on and off almost from the year it was founded. I found it pretty useful.

However, I would like to know exactly how many women that Ahom gave away at the end of the battle of Saraighat to great Mughal along with Lachit Barphukan's niece.

I would also like to understand being victorious (as per user Lachitbarphukan) what prompt Ahom to give away that many women to great Mughal.

Pranjitb (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The event which Pranjitb mentioned regarding giving away Lachit Barphukan's neice to Mughal happened long before the Battle of Saraighat. It happened during Mirjumla invasion of Assam. According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu. She was the daughter of Swargadeo Jaydhwaj Singha and she was also the neice of Ahom general Lachit Borphukan. She later married Mughal prince Azam, the son of Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb. But in 1667, during the reign of Ahom king Chakradwaj Singha, the Ahom army under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan captured Guwahati from Mughals. Its a perfect example how Ahoms bounce back in action. The famous Battle of Saraighat occured during the reign of Swargadeo Udayaditya Singha, in 1671, under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan, in which the Ahoms decisively beat the Mughal army under Ram Singh I of Amber, and protected Assam including undivided Kamrup district from Mughal domination.

So a kind request to Pranjitb, Little knowledge is very dangerous. Its good that the user has atleast some knowledge of history, but sadly it is half knowledge. One should not be emotional when writing something on historical events, because such emotion is no good if it is not supported by Historical records. I request the user to kindly read the chapters of History Completely. I hope the user have seen the difference of years between 1663, giving away Ahom princess to Mughal Prince Azam and 1671, in which the famous Battle of Saraighat occured. I hope the information which i have provided will open the User's mind to those chapters of history which the User Choose to Skip.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mirjumla's Ahom occupation -treaty included women

According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu.

According to another source, "A contingent of women slaves accompanied the princess to Delhi."

So user Lachitbarphukan in total how many women were given to Mughal to avoid Mughal's Ahom occupation?

Pranjitb (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User Pranjitb, why dont you ask your source which have given you this information.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Ahom do not use Kamarupa or Kamrup instead of Lower Assam?

Again, I would like to understand as well - since Kamrupi people views Lower Assam a derogatory term why Ahom people do not use Kamarupa or Kamrup instead of Lower Assam.

Pranjitb (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum (see WP:FORUM). Also, whatever the origin of the term, it was the British who popularized the term. And it is universally used today in newspapers and even academic articles ([1]). The British used "lower" and "upper" in many places, not just in Assam---for example "Upper Burma" and "Lower Burma". The "Upper" and "Lower" terms refer to the reaches of the Brahmaputra river. Chaipau (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

British Supremacy to Ahom Supremacy over Kamrup

The British used "lower" and "upper" in many places, not just in Assam---for example "Upper Burma" and "Lower Burma". The "Upper" and "Lower" terms refer to the reaches of the Brahmaputra river. Chaipau (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lot of internationally accepted British terms in India vanished, e.g., Calcutta, Bombay, Bangalor, Orissa, ...
• Local media and newspapers in Assam have been Ahom led exhibiting both Ahom ethnocentrism and Ahom supremacy.
• Why use Wikipedia to propagate Ahom ethnocentrism and Ahom supremacy ?

Kurmaa (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From what year till 1826 CE Ahom occupied greater Kamarupa / Kamrup?

But truth is truth and all the historical documents support the statement that the undivided Kamrup district was under Ahom rule till 1826 CE.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• From what year till 1826 CE Ahom occupied greater Kamarupa / Kamrup?

Kurmaa (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets throw some light on some historical events which prompted the Ahom kings to expand their kingdom towards Kamrupa. In 1613 CE, Parikshit Narayan, the ruler of Koch Hajo, was defeated by the Mughals. He was taken prisoner and was escorted to Delhi where he had an audience with Mughal Emperor Jahangir. On acknowledging Mughal Supremacy and on the agreement of annual tribute of four lakhs rupees, the Emperor returned his kingdom. While on his way back, Parikshit Narayan fell ill and died. On his death, the Mughals annexed his kingdom and set up Hajo as their head-quarters in Assam. Bijit Narayan, the young son of Parikshit Narayan was set up as a tributary king of a small state, named after him, called Bijni. On the defeat of Parikshit Narayan, his two brothers Balinarayan and Gaj Narayan, fled to the Ahom Kingdom and sought refuge from Ahom King Swargadeo Pratap Singha. Swargadeo Pratap Singha had married the daughter of Parikshit Narayan, Mangaldohi, and later set up the Mangaldoi town on her respect. Owing to this matrimonial alliance, Swargadeo Pratap Singha granted refuge to these Koch princes. Meanwhile, the Mughal Governor demanded their extradition, which Swargadeo Pratap Singha refused. This and other causes of offence led the Mughal Governor to decide on the invasion of the Ahom Kingdom, leading to Ahom-Mughal conflict. The invading Mughal forces were defeated and driven back to their own territory. After this victory, in 1615 CE Swargadeo Pratap Singha installed Balinarayan as the tributary ruler of Darrang and renamed him as Dharmanarayan, while his brother Gaj Narayan was set up as a tributary ruler in Beltola. In 1640 CE, a treaty was signed between the Ahoms and Mughals, under which the Barnadi river, on the North bank of Brahmaputra, and Asura Ali, on the south bank of Brahmaputra were fixed as the boundary between Ahom kingdom and Mughal Empire. Kamrup came under Mughal dominion. In 1658 CE, the war of succession occured between the sons of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, due to which Mughal authority in Kamrup became weak. Taking opportunity, the Ahom king Jaydwaj Singha drove the Mughals out of Kamrup and occupied the territory till Sankosh river, the present day boundary between Assam and West Bengal. For three years, the Ahoms occupied these territories. In 1662 CE, Mughal Emperor, Aurangazeb sent Nawab Mirjumla to recover Kamrup from Ahoms. Mirjumla defeated the Ahoms but owing to difficulties that arose due to rainy season of Assam, he signed a treaty with Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha in January 1663 CE, according to which the daughter of Jaydhwaj Singha was given in marriage to Mughal prince Azam, son of Aurangazeb and Kamrup again comes under Mughal rule. During the reign of next Ahom king Chakradwaj Singha, the Ahoms under Lachit Borphukan freed Kamrup and Guwahati from Mughal rule, in 1667 CE. The Mughal Emperor sent Ram Singh I of Amber to recover Kamrup, but he was defeated in the Battle of Saraighat by Ahoms led by Lachit Borphukan. In 1679 CE, Laluk Sola Borphukan betrayed Ahom king Sudaipha, and surrendered Kamrup and Guwahati to Mughals. Later in 1682 CE, during the reign of Swargadeo Gadadhar Singha, the Ahoms defeated the Mughals in the battle of Itakhuli and freed Kamrup from Mughal rule. The Manas river became the western boundary of Ahom kingdom and it remained till the termination of Ahom rule in Assam.

Therefore after the final victory of Ahoms over Mughal in 1682 CE, the undivided Kamrup district remained a part of Ahom kingdom till the termination of Ahom rule in 1826 CE. I hope the above answer satisfy the question aksed by User Kurmaa. If the user need any more information or got any doubts he can check some books on Assam History, authored by E.A. Gaits, Surya Kumar Bhuyan, Hiteswar Barbaruah, Padmanath Gohain Barua. Also there are many books written by many notable writers. All documents can authenticate the above information.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the answer 1682 CE?

Please confirm whether the answer is 1682 CE. -Kurmaa (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer should be 1617 CE, when the Ahoms captured Guwahati from Mughals for first time, during the reign of Swargadeo Pratap Singha. It marked the beginning of Ahom rule in Kamrup and the Ahom kings considered Kamrup as a part of their kingdom. The official post of Borphukan, the Ahom viceroy of Kamrup and the region west of Koliabar was also created during that time. From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE, and Kamrup remains as a permanent part of Ahom kingdom till 1826 CE.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why answer 1617 CE as Ahom and Mughal battled until 1682 CE to occupy Kamrup

User Lachitbarphukan wrote, From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE ....

• Since Ahom and Mughal battled until 1682 CE to occupy Kamrup, what motivated user Lachitbarphukan to claim that Ahom have been occupying Kamrup from 1617 CE?

Kurmaa (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already shared much facts and knowledge on Assam history regarding this topic. I request the user " Kurmaa" to do some self study on Assam History. My purpose was to prove the historical truth that the Ahoms had ruled the undivided Kamrup, which i have proved with all those facts which i have showed. I request user "Kurmaa" to admit this historical truth.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Assam simply means Assam Kingdom. He was Englishman, so he had written that way. But now you're trying make it status in cunning way. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Temples in Undivided Kamrup that Ahom Built

So according to user Lachitbarphukan, Ahom built temples in Kamrup.

Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others.

Can you complete the list with names for "many others" as well?

There are temples in Hajo and Nalbari district which are constructed by Ahom Kings.

'Here too can you complete the list of temples with names as well?

Pranjitb (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I request user "Pranjitb" to find those names himself if it is so much concern for him. He can visit the following link to find the names of the temples.

http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm

Hajo

Hope the user Pranjitb will be satisfied with the list. If not, he can try some other links himself.

The names of the temples which i have already shown are standing monuments which proved the historical facts that the Ahom Swargadeos have ruled the undivided Kamrup and the undivided Kamrup was part of Ahom kingdom. Its all recorded in every historical documents, which will remind us about the glorious Ahom rule in undivided Kamrup district as well as in Assam. Lachitbarphukan (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Lachitbarphukan writing truth? Did Ahoms build temples in Kamrup? Or did they claim after occupation?

Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others.

As claimed by user Lachitbarphukan, Ahoms did not build above temples in Kamarupa or Kamrup.

Ahoms claimed those temples after occupation of Kamarupa or Kamrup.

These temples are also not listed in the link that user Lachitbarphukan cited http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm

Pranjitb (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User Pranjitb, the link http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm shows those temples which the Ahom Swargadeos have built in Nalbari district. I have a bundle of historical records to prove Ahom rule in Undivided Kamrup District. All historians will support this truth. The user Pranjitb must understand without proper historical records and evidence, all his claims are just bubbles in water, making him a object of mockery. Till now the user cannot even narrate a single evidence in his support. Unfortunately he also got no guts to accept the truth. But Truth Always Prevail, that is the motto of Indian Emblem, "Satya Meva Jayate". Anyways, i already have shared lots of historical records to convince him. From his post and comments i am sure all my efforts gone in vain and he has proved how much lonely and desparate he is, how he refuse to see any reason. I feel sorry for him. From now all his comments will neglected. I wish him Good Luck.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional reference

Primarily a linguistic study, comparing and contrasting Ahom terms as used in the article, with similar terms in Shan and Siamese.

• Terwiel, Barend Jan (1983). "Ahom and the study of early Tai society" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. Vol. 71. Siam Society Heritage Trust: pp. 42−62. Retrieved February 25, 2013. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

--Pawyilee (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not Ahom Kingdom?

For us newcomers, why isn't "kingdom" capitalised when "Ahom Kingdom" is used together as a title? Someone deliberately moved it but don't see discussion. Student7 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia community. This is a Wikipedia policy: WP:NCCAPS. Chaipau (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I still don't see. We have Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain, Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Ava, Kingdom of Siam, which are mostly shortened in real life to "Japanese Empire" etc. For Ahom, capital "K" shows up on the web as well as small "k". Student7 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Kingdom of Assam, which is what the Ahom kingdom was called in English when the kingdom existed. Chaipau (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the title be the most common one in English? We have Rome not Roma, Naples, not Napoli, Austria not Oestereich, etc. Even more so since the latter examples are from European languages. There is likely no conflict/agreement between Assamese and English. See, for example WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this either. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of Ahom language spellings

The Ahom kingdom moved away from its Tai roots in the 16th century beginning with Suhungmung. At this point the Ahom peoples constituted a mere 10% of the Ahom kingdom. The court language stopped being the Ahom language in the beginning of the 17th century during Pratap Singha's time. The Ahom language has been dead since the 18th century, with the last native speakers in the early 19th century. So the native language for the Ahom kingdom is not Ahom language. Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom of Assam

If Ahom are so interested to call their kngdom as Kingdom of Assam then move this page to kingdom of assam because 18th century's Assam is very different from today's Assam. You should't confuse people that Assam have only Ahom kingdom. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The name "Kingdom of Assam" is cited and referenced. No one called the Ahom kingdom as "Ahom kingdom" in the 18th century. It was called Assam. That is how the state got its name. Now the standard historical name is "Ahom kingdom". Bengal got its name from Vanga, though it was known as Gaur for long. Nothing to get too worked out about. Chaipau (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Intermediate Territorial Map

The territorial map till 1522 AD is a essential historical map. I don't see any reason for removing it here. The dramatic increase in territories should be known to all. Don't forget that the map shows the terriptial limits of Ahom kingdom for half of its 600 years rule(1228-1522). SashankaChutia (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashankaChutia: You may discuss it in the context of territory of the Ahom kingdom, but it cannot be the primary map. The territorial history starts with temporary settlements before growing roots in the Charaideo region. There were many intermediate territorial holding before then, and many after 1522. Some regions were directly controlled, whereas some were via other mechanisms. So 1522 is not the only intermediate map that is possible. Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If you really want to show the territories that were added in 1522 and other years under Suhungmung, then show these territories explicitly in the map. Your map does not show it. The only other map shows the Ahom kingdom in the 18th century, and there were territorial gains in the 17th century. So comparing the 1522 map with the 18th century map gives a misleading idea about when specific territories were added and when. The 1522 AD map is not useful on its own. Chaipau (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

All the territorial holding directly controlled or indirectly controlled are included in the map. The map shows the extent of territories till 1522, thats what the title mentions. Expansions between 1228-1522 are well intrigrated in it. Dihing and Namdang formed the boundaries with the other two kingdoms. Moreover, 1522 is almost the midpoint of the reign with major expansions happening only after that period. So, this map is crutial.SashankaChutia (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@SashankaChutia: Yes, but should this article have two maps? This is most irregular. If you put in 1522 map, you should put in the other maps as well, which makes no sense. I am removing the map, since this disruptive editing. Chaipau (talk)

I am adding in the other section. I will later add other major expansion maps as well. SashankaChutia (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW. How is it disruptive?? There is nothing disruptive here. I am not deleting any info or changing anything. I am adding a visual representation of whatever is written in the text.SashankaChutia (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, adding it in another section is OK. But if you do create the other maps, this probably will require a different article: Territorial history of Ahom kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It is disruptive because you are inserting multiple maps into the infobox (WP:TE). Chaipau (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Ahom kingdom → Ahom Kingdom – Fix the lettercase. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• See Talk:Ahom kingdom#Not Ahom Kingdom? above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ahom and Kamarupa

@Homogenie: could you please list why you keep removing this Guha reference [2]. The edit summaries you have provided are not good enough to remove a WP:RS

• [3]: "Is that journal correct when we take it with recent scholarship, most of the views in that journal are in contradiction with recent journals , besides the line is ahistorical , claiming that ahom reached karatoya river and announced themselves as heir of kamarupa , when no one knew about kamarupa till the 20th century , it is equivalent to say that Babur knew about Ashoka when he attacked in 1500"
• [4]: "Guha is 30 years old , most of the views written in the journal are no longer tenable with modern day studies like shin, also ahom claiming to themsleves to replicate the glory of kamarupa in th 16th century is ahistorical , ahom didnot knew about kamarupa in the 16th century so please donot add this line even it is from a established author,"
• etc.

Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for additional comments. Chaipau (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• No reason removing RS source. '30 years old' is not a valid argument. If the newer studies are refuting the claim then mention both, the older one and why it is being refuted by the newer studies. We do it to maintain WP:BALANCE in all such situations. Denying other theories from RS sources just because they are older and doesn't fit one user's viewpoint is simple WP:Cherrypicking. Moreover Homogenie should follow WP:BRD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk:: Should this line [5] be added, is this sentence even true with history, The Ahom reached Karatoya River and looked themselves as heir of Kamarupa in the 16th century!! The earliest information about Kamarupa was obtained in the 20th century with the help of the book by Xuanzang, then inscription were gathered and published between 1900-2000 and a systematic picture of kamarupa was formed. How did Ahom knew about ancient kamarupa when we just came to know about it from the early 20th century. This is equivalent to said that Babur of Mughal Empire of the 1400s knew about Ashoka of Maurya Empire which ended in 184 BCE Homogenie (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: You don't need to reach a land to know about it. Tai people have been living quite closer to the present borders of northeast India, even before they migrated as Ahoms. Second, it is not Kamrup, a lot of information about other Indian empires, dynasties and historical places were compiled from Hiuen Tsang's travelogues and he lived far away in eastern China. There is a gap of 6 centuries betwwen the time Hiuen Tsang lived and the start date of the Ahom kingdom, that is ample time for Ahoms to know and understand Kamarup before even setting foot in its border. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Ahom knew about Kamarupa!! Nowhere do we find Ahom knew about Kamrupa except this sentence by Guha! Nor Ahom recognised themselves as poitical heir of Kamarupa in anytime of their rule between 1228-1826! This sentence The Ahom statesmen and chroniclers wishfully looked forward to the Karatoya as their natural western frontier. They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuous their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier. is just ahistorical. They saw Karatoya as their frontier but never in their rule 600 years of rule did they acknowledge the existence of ancient Kamarupa. No one knew about the existence of ancient Kamarupa in Assam till the 20th century, Shin (2018) is pretty clear about it, just as nobody knew about Harappan civilisation till the 1900s Homogenie (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: you need to show that the Ahoms did not know about Kamarupa. You are making a very specific claim without any evidence, and against a very very specific statement made by Guha, a well-known historian. Your personal claims are not enough. You need to show a specific WP:RS that specifically challenges this particular claim by Guha. Chaipau (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Homogenie, No one knew about the existence of ancient Kamarupa in Assam till the 20th century ← Can you prove that no one knew about that?

never in their rule 600 years of rule did they acknowledge the existence of ancient Kamarupa ← Specific quotations in support of the statement?

Just because those were excavated in recent history and modern archaeologist had given specific names to them doesn't mean people didn't know about those in the past and/or were written in somewhere with a different name. Note that Rig Ved mentions 'Hariyupia' which is Harappa. It covered a wide region, we do not know what were the native names each urban IVC settlement. Xuanzang also ssem to have mentioned IVC. Can't expect it, when foreign rule literally changed the education system in India. Mesopotamia was discovered in 1840 and only knowledge of it they could get were from Bible and Greek sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: It is clear in Shin (2016) "Searching for Kāmarūpa: Historiography of the Early Brahmaputra Valley in the Colonial and Post-Colonial Period, Puravritta: Journal of the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Government of West Bengal" p=116,118

When the Ahom past drew great attention, the early history of the Brahmaputra valley prior to the advent of the Ahoms was almost unknown to the scholars. It consisted largely of fragmentary references found in the Epics, the Purāṇas, the Tantras, local legends and some dubious medieval chronicles. For instance, a brief reference to Kamrup of Hamilton’s Account of Assam was probably gathered from some local brāhmaṇas who had knowledge of the Mahābhārata and the Kālikā Purāṇa

In this situation, the discovery and decipherment of inscriptional records by the colonial officer-scholars brought about a significant change to the study of the early history of the Brahmaputra valley. The first publication of Kāmarūpa inscription appeared in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1840

That there was very limited idea about Kamrupa and Ahom didnot know about it Homogenie (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Shin's quote says the scholars did not know about Kamarupa. It does not say the historical Ahoms did not know about it. Chaipau (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Ahom entered the Brahmaputra Valley just a century after the decline of Kamarupa. It is grotesque to assume that 13th century Ahoms had just as little knowledge about the recent past of their predecessors (and neighbors of the Tai-Ahom elite prior to their entry into Assam) as 19th century scholars from abroad. The analogy with Babur about knowing or not knowing about Asoka is totally flawed. We may have reasonable doubts about statements in a reliable source, which can render an inclusion in WP undue, but NB reasonable doubts, not ones based on bad reasoning. –Austronesier (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Predecessor state

@Homogenie: How is the Chutia kingdom a predecessor of the Ahom kingdom? (Your repeated edits [6]). The earliest accounts of the Chutia kingdom come from the 14th century—from epigraphic records and from the Ahom account of an incident from the time of Sutuphaa (1369-1379). There is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom before the second half of the 14th century. OTOH the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228. How can a 14th century kingdom be the predecessor of a 13th century kingdom. Also, the Chutia kingdom was in existence in the 16th century, when it was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom!

Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Austronesier for additional comments, because discussions with Homogenie never ends.

Chaipau (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: It is in Borgohain Vamsavali of Ahom kingdom Sukaphaa Homogenie (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Borgohain vamsavali has been shown to be not reliable. Is that all? Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC) (edited) 14:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Ming Shilu

@Homogenie: Why is Ming Shilu mentioned here]? How is it relevant to the history of the Ahom kingdom? What information do we get from this? Chaipau (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It shows the political between the two states, why is this not important?? Homogenie (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a mention does not imply a political connection. It could be trade or diplomatic. Please provide a direct quote from a reliable secondary source. And if it was political, what kind was it—friendly, adversarial, or subordinate? Otherwise it is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Secondary sources dont provide quotes, instead they interpret it, besides this is a secondary source and a reliable one, it could be trade or diplomatic or anything else, but what it provides is that it (Ahom kingdom) did have historical links with the east even after their migration in 1228! Homogenie (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Ahom history has sufficient evidence of their relationship with the east and south. So why is this significant? Furthermore, where is the author claiming a relationship? Here is the quote: The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems liitle doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam. The author is just speculating here that Dagula is Ahom kingdom, nothing more. Not only is the author not saying anything about relationships, he seems to be merely putting forward a speculative interpretation, which is WP:FRINGE. Most modern scholars seem to think Dagula is Pegu (In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu. So the claim that this document shows a relationship with some eastern power is WP:OR based on a speculative WP:FRINGE. This does not belong here. Chaipau (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: read the full quote!! The author clarifiesHomogenie (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: please provide the quote, the source and the precise argument you are making. Chaipau (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Quote: The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems little doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam Wade 1994, p.243

Same author further clarifies that it ( Dagula) was not Pegu but a polity in Brahmaputra valley

(I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam. The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers. Homogenie (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: yes, it is clear that this author claims Dagula is an Ahom polity. So the author is claiming that the Ahom kingdom attacked its own capital (Bakata) and its own province (Tipam) carried off their people? This is just strange. It is obviously a fringe theory and the rest of scholarship identifies Dagula with Pegu.

Furthermore, if where does this show the relationship between the east and the Ahom kingdom? It shows the relationship between the Ahom kingdom (Dagula) and its capital (Ba-jia-ta), which is oddly adversarial!

Chaipau (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: (It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers. Dagula might not be Ahoms, Dagula ruler used Narayan, Ahoms never used Narayan rather they used Singha, the author clarifies it is not Ahom but some other state with Narayan as their title Homogenie (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: if Dagula is not the Ahom kingdom, why is it here? Chaipau (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: because Dagula captured bakata which later became the Ahom capital, read the citationHomogenie (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended discussion

@Fylindfotberserk, Kautilya3, and TrangaBellam: could you please comment on whether this particular source and interpretation is WP:RS, or should we go to the notice boards? This issue inflicts, in addition to this, Tripura kingdom and Bakata as well and probably others. Chaipau (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In short, an author reads through the Ming Shilu and reassigns some names to political formations in Assam. For example, the author at first claimed that Dagula could be an Ahom polity and then says it could be something else. And none of these new assignments make any sense in light of the known history of the Ahom kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The quote in the source says:-

The MSL refers to Ba-jia-ta as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la. Given the likelihood that Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom (or other Assam) polity, there seems little doubt that Ba-jia-ta is the Chinese name for Bakata, which became the Ahom capital, located in today's Assam."

@Chaipau: The interpretation in the article is →

It appears that the second capital Bakata finds mention in the Chinese chronicle Ming Shilu and is referred to as Bajiata. The Ming Shilu describes it as a polity subordinate to Da Gu-la, an unidentified polity located in what is present-day Upper Myanmar or Assam.

1 ) The author makes an assumption that "Da Gu-la may be the Ahom". And based on that assumption, it is assumed that Ba-jia-ta is Bakata. First we need to verify whether Da Gu-la was indeed the Ahom, that is through reliable sources. Otherwise all of it is original research by the author.

2 ) The interpretation of the above source is different in the Wikipedia article text. I don't see no Myanmar in the source quote. Secondly, if Da Gu-la indicates the Ahom per the author then why would we have to write "Da Gu-la, an unidentified polity located in what is present-day Upper Myanmar or Assam". Seems like an original research of a source which itself is based on original research.

3 ) Is Ming Shilu reliable in the first place?

- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I am answering your questions in a different order:

3 ) Ming Shilu is a historical chronicle. So it is a WP:PRIMARY source—and by itself it is not reliable. For one, we don't know what Dagula is.

1 ) Yes, the author is making some new interpretations. Apparently, other scholars consider Dagula to be Pegu Here is the open access link. The current author says this explicitly: "In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. (I am not sure if Ming Shi is the same as Ming Shilu.) This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu..." At this point, the current author is making a new proposition—Dagula is not Pegu, but is derived from "Dakshina-kula", so must refer to some polity in in the southbank of Brahmaputra. But if Ming Shi is itself Ming Shilu or if it is another historical document close to Ming Shilu, it makes no sense for the new interpretation.

2 ) Yes. It is unidentified still. And as a result we have WP:PRIMARY->WP:FRINGE interpretation by new author->New claim in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Agreed. I believe it should be removed per above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:

• I dont see why it should be removed, there is a literal chinese metal plate found in Jorhat, it is in page.130 (Wade 1994), it shows the relation between Ming and Dimasa, and this is not a new history of Ahoms but a history from the interpretation of Ming Shilu, most of the places here are accurate!! And this is a reliable source!
• Dagula is not Pegu nor Ahom , the ruler of Dagula used "Narayan" as title , Ahom and Pegu never did, moreover Pegu was to south of Burma ,

• "Dimasa" is said to be subordinate of Dagula, Dimasa is here confirmed by the metal plate found in Jorhat to be the Dimasa kingdom, if Dimasa here by the text (Ming Shilu) and by the chinese plate is found to be in Assam, Da gula with its "Narayan" might be in Upper burma or Eastern Assam, not in South Burma near the sea, Wade (1994) puts a clear argument about it.
• And here we are not using Ming Shilu, which is a primary source but Wade (1994) which is a secondary source. Homogenie (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (responding to ping) Ming Shilu is a WP:PRIMARY source. But it is not clear what Geoffrey Wade's work is. Is it a book or an electronic resource? Who is the publisher? etc. I found this review when I didn a web search. In either case, it would seem to be a modern commentary on the text and so would count as a WP:SECONDARY source, and can be cited. I will leave it to you guys to sort out whether it is WP:DUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: yes. And WP:DUE is rather clear—Wade himself says that everyone else thinks Dagula is Pegu (see above). Following Jimbo Wales' 3rd point from 2003 ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.") the view that Dagula is in Assam is in a minority of one.

Dagula cannot be Dimasa and Bajiata cannot be Bakata at the same time, unlike what Wade is claiming. Bakata was the capital of Suhungmung and Suhungmung is the same Ahom king who occupied the Chutia kingdom, uprooted the Dimasa kingdom and accepted Koch Biswa Singha's tribute in his own court. Wade's claim that Dagula occupied Bakata puts history on its head. Wade's claims are not just in a minority, it is also false.

Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It seems Chaipau likes to twist his argument,

• Here Chaipau claims "Dagula cannot be Dimasa", nobody ever claimed Dagula to be Dimasa, Dimasa here is the Dimasa kingdom, it is proven as a hard fact by Wade (1994) in p130 that Dimasa kingdom were recognised by the Chinese state in 1407/08 and a chinese plate is found in Jorhat to confirm it, it is in page 130, The quote says

A verification tally issued in the fifth year of the Yong-le reign (1407/08) to the "Di-ma-sa Pacification Superintendency" The tally served the dual purpose of confirming the ruler's recognition by the Chinese state, and providing a tool by which to verify the status of court envoys Wade1994p130

• Wade (1994) never claimed Bakata to be Ahom capital before Suhungmung, what he claims is Bakata was a seperate polity which was ocuupied by DaGula, later in the early 16th century, Suhunmung made that place (Bakata) his capital
• Dagula - Here Dagula is claimed to a powerful polity located in what is Upper burma or Assam, Subordinate to it is Dimasa kingdom, which is located in present Assam Quote This Ming push towards more distant mainland polities as also reflected in the arrival at the court in Nan-jing of the envoy from an entity named in the MSL as Da Gu-la, an obviously quite powerful polity which seems to have been located in either present-day Northern Burma or Assam. The entities subordinate to it were noted as Xiao Gu-la (Lesser Gu-la), Di-ma-sa (which almost certainly refers to the Hill Kachari of Assam), Cha-shan (in the Upper Irraaddy Valley), Di-ban (probably Tipam in Assam) and Ba-jia-ta (which undoubtedly refers to Bakata in Assam, which as to become the Ahom capital at the end of the 15th Century) (Tai-zong 55.3a-b)."Wade1994p220

Wade argues that Dagula is not Pegu, because the ruler of Dagula uses Narayan as their title, the rulers of Pegu never ever used it, Beside Dimasa is surbordinate to Da gula, which was located in today's Jorhat, Pegu was located in South Burma near the sea, Wade argues Quote (I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam. The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, "as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers." Wade suggest Dagula to be Kachari or Koch , not Pegu, the title is Narayan, Wade argument is more convincing

• Metal plate of recognition of Dimasa kingdom by Chinese State in today's Jorhat.
• Dimasa kingdom (located in today Assam) subordinate to Dagula.
• Da-gula used Narayan, the rulers of Pegu never did

Wade is correct in his assessment that Dagula is located in today Assam, not in South burma, Dagula might belong to any of the Kachari ruler as Wade argues given the fact that they used Narayan as their epithet Homogenie (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk and Kautilya3: I have read the u:Homogenie's comments above carefully, but find that he has not addressed Jimbo Wales' 3rd point under WP:DUE. Furthermore, I would like to record here that Wade has himself not given any definite identification of places, but mere suggestions.

• Wade suggests that Dagalu is Ahom polity, in the face of conventional knowledge that it is Pegu:

  I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam.

  paragraph 1
• Wade then suggests alternatively that Dagalu could be pre-Ahom:

  It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers.

  paragraph 2
• Finally, Wade merely suggests that future researchers should look at Dakshinkula as an origin of the Chinese name, irrespective of whether Dagula was Ahom or pre-Ahom:

  ...the northern administrative division was termed "Uttara-kula" (northern bank), while the southern administrative division was named "Dakshina-kula" (southern bank). I feel that it is in these terms that we should seek the origin of the Chinese names Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la. Regardless of whether these were Ahom or pre-Ahom polities,...

  paragraph 3

Since these are mere speculations and suggestions for future research, they do not deserve a place in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Wade claims Dagula to be pre Ahom polity in Assam with Narayan as title, they are not speculation because Chinese metal plate is found in Jorhat,

Here, Da Gula is located near Dimasa kingdom which got recognition from Ming is proven through a metal plate found in Jorhat. Wade doesnot make specualtion , but says these are pre Ahom polities. Here we are sure that Di-ma-sa in Ming Shilu is Dimasa kingdom. It is proven fact with a recognition from Ming China. Now lets identity Da-gula, Da-gula is said to be located near Dimasa kingdom. Dimasa Kingdom was located near eastern Assam in 14th century, so Da gula as Wade argues cannot be Pegu as it is located almost far far south near the Bay of Bengal so Wade argument is accurate Dagula is in eastern Assam. Further Dagula as repeated above, the rulers of Dagula used Narayan, the rulers of Pegu never did used this title. Further the polities surrouding Da-gula points to it locating in Assam, the full quote

• The fact that, in 1408, Da Gu-la attacked Meng-lun (in today's Northern Burma), Di-ban (Tipam) and Ba-jia-ta (Bakata) and carried off their people (Tai-zong shi-lu, juan 82.1a-b), suggests that this was an Ahom polity rather than any polity centered on Pegu. The text quoted under Ba-bai/Da-dian above, which noted that Da Gu-la lay to the west of Lanna, also supports this proposition. It may even be the case that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the pre-Ahom polities, as the name of the Da Gu-la ruler recorded in the MSL -- Po-di-na-lang-- suggests "....narayan", a very common epithet among the Koch and Kachari rulers.

The full quote represented by Chaipau

• Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la (Lesser Gu-la) seem to have derived their names from the banks of the Brahmaputra they occupied. In a study of pre-Ahom Assam, Lahiri (1991; 133, 138, 144, 147) notes how from the 9th century until at least the 11th century, the northern administrative division was termed "Uttara-kula" (northern bank), while the southern administrative division was named "Dakshina-kula" (southern bank). I feel that it is in these terms that we should seek the origin of the Chinese names Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la. "Regardless of whether these were Ahom or pre-Ahom polities, the obvious links between the Ahom and the Möng Mao polity of Lu-chuan need to be studied far more deeply. The marked similarity of the list of Ahom rulers with those of the Tai Mao cannot be coincidental.

Not only Wade confirms it, but says there is much deeper links between these polities and Mong Mao

If Chaipau could present with another author who have written a journal or Phd (a secondary source) of Ming shilu, then maybe we could compare the work of Wade (1994) with it. Chaipau doesnot seems to provide any alternate work and disprove this in face of overwhelming evidence. Homogenie (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: two points:

• The onus is on you to provide evidence that these specific claims are made by authors other than Wade. I don't need to give references for other interpretations of Ming Shilu since Wade himself does it. He writes:

  In the seventh chapter on "Geography" in the Ming Shi, it is noted that Da Gu-la was Pegu. This identification has been followed by most modern scholars, including Chen, Xie and Lu (1986; 139). Chen Ru-xing (1992) also considers Da Gu-la to have been Pegu...

• Wade does not make a specific identification, but speculates Dagula could be (1) Ahom, (2) Pre-Ahom, or (3) Neither

Furthermore, there is no evidence of kings with the name Narayana in the pre-Ahom (before 1228) era.

Chaipau (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Wade talks about late 14th century when Da gula attacks it surrounding polity, i have provideda reliable secondary source, please provide another source which discredits the present one! Homogenie (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Which evidence have you provided? If you are providing evidence from Wade, it does not count since we are discussing Wade.

Also, if the evidence is from the 14th century, then please note that it is not pre-Ahom.

Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: my bad, it is from 1407/08 according to the date, so it is early 15th century when Dimasa got recognition from Ming dynasty and is subordinate to Dagula, the rulers of this polity used Narayan, the location of this polity was near Dimasa, rather than somewhere else in Lower Myanmar. The polity might have started before the Ahoms, it is a speculation by Wade not that it didnot existed in eastern Assam in the 14th century. It was not Pegu which was to South Burma , this polity was located near Dimasa in Upper burma or Eastern Assam, and why is Wade evidence not counted , it is a reliable source besides it is not the only Phd he has published in Ming Shilu, there are numerous others, do you have any more authors who have published a research on Ming Shilu and has done something similar to Wade, if you have we can compare the two and see if it contradicts Wade's argument Homogenie (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: if you want to make a point by looking at journals, and theses, please do so. I have already showed twice that the general consensus among scholars and historical documents is that Dagula is Pegu. Chaipau (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have already discussed the points extensively that Dagula is located in today Assam, Dagula was located near Dimasa kingdom in today's Jorhat.

Second it used Narayan as title, Pegu neither was located near Dimasa nor they ever used Narayan as their epithet as Wade gives clear explanation to it, now please provide a alternate source to prove these facts wrong Homogenie (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Fylindfotberserk: could you please advise on how to go about determining WP:DUE (or whether we already have all evidence). We seem to be going around in circles. Chaipau (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 21:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

First, summarising the dispute as I understand it. Homogenie proposed an addition, which claimed a supposed identity of "Dagula" in the Ming Shilu with the Ahom kingdom. The only known scholar who made this identification is Geoffrey Wade, and he only states it as "likel"y. Most other scholars identify Dagula with Pegu.

On this basis, I agree that the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is not met. The issue needs to be resolved in the scholarly domain. Not Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Fylindfotberserk: thank you for your comments. I believe we are in agreement that Wade's speculations fail WP:DUE as they are not supported by other authors. I am removing the references and claims made in this and other articles. Chaipau (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Dont see why Chaipau removes the reference from Dimasa kingdom, it is proven to be a hard fact, do look into Wade 1994 p=130 , and notice the chinese metal plate recognition of Dimasa kingdom! and Dagula is identified to be a Koch or Kachari kingdom as it contains Narayan as title, Wade is a highly recognised author and this views are hold now to be true! Homogenie (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Welcome. Good that it has been removed from this page, when the only source is based on "likelihood", not enough to pass Wikipedia criteria. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Post Liachen (2000)

@Chaipau: It seems Bakata have been confirmed by Laichen (2000) :::Most of these places have been succcessfully identified but locations of places such as Dagula, Xiao Gula, Dimasa, Diban, Menglun, Bajiata, Diwula were been wrongly put in modern Burma especially by Chinese scholars. As a matter of fact these places were located in western Northern Mainland Southeast Asia, with Greater and Lesser Gula on northern and southern bank of the Brahmaputra valley respectively p.78 Homogenie (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: no it does not confirm Wade's speculations. Laichen (2000) is also a PhD thesis, and it suffers the same flaws as Wade's. For Wade's speculations to be part of the Wikipedia historians should critically examine these claims because these are major claims. This has not happened and, therefore, these speculations are WP:FRINGE. Neither Wade nor Liachen are historians that specialize in Assam. The reason we need professional historians to weigh in is because of the following discrepancies.

• The Ahoms used the somdeo as a symbol of legitimacy which they acquired from their original land. The plaque that was acquired and reported by P R Gurdon (early 20th century) was used to place the somdeo on it and it had the word Dimasa in it. Why would the Ahoms use a plaque from their neighbor in the Brahmaputra valley (Dimasas were in Brahmaputra valley in the 15th century) to make a claim that their king hailed from Myanmar/China?
• The war around 1400 between the Ahoms and Mogaung actually made the Ahoms an independent kingdom. Till then, the Ahoms paid tribute to Mogaung. The war happened during the reign of Sudangphaa between the Ahoms and those at Mogaung. At the end of the war, a treaty established the boundary at Patkai hills (which is named after this treaty), and the Ahoms established their independence. Liachen claims that following the war, Da Gula and others sent their representatives to the Ming court. Why would the Ahoms send their representatives to reestablish their suzerainty after having established their sovereignty?
• Laichen claims the king of the Ahoms, Da Gu-la, at this time was Podinalang,(p87) which Wade identifies as a name that ends in Narayan. The Ahoms had not yet taken the name 'Narayan'. The first and only evidence of of the use of Narayan is when Suhungmung acquired the Sanskrit title Swarganarayan (15/16th century), the literal translation of Chao Pha, the "lord of heaven". Even if the name Narayan was prevalent in the 15th century among the Ahom kings, why would the Ming dynasty use a Sanskrit title instead of a Tai name for the king?

So, there are many problems with these identifications made by Wade. Liachen's use of these in a PhD thesis does not mean they have been accepted as standard history that can be used in an encyclopedic article such as in Wikipedia.

@Fylindfotberserk, Kautilya3, and Austronesier: hope you could add your comments.

Chaipau (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau::why do you twist your arguments nobody ever claim Dagula to be Ahom, what is claimed is that these places were wrongly identified by Chinese scholars, but the Dimasa metal plate and the fact that these places were near dimasa proves it to be in Assam, this has been accepted, you cant go on neglecting source after source till you achieve your desired views! The rulers of Pegu never used Nararayan as their title. Homogenie (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie:

• Here is Wade making a claim that Da Gu-la is Ahom: I would suggest that the identification of Da Gu-la with Pegu is entirely erroneous and that Da Gu-la and Xiao Gu-la were the polities of the Ahom, located in the Brahmaputra Valley in today's Assam.[7]
• The claim that Wade is right and the Chinese are wrong is made by Liachen in page 78. He does not quote another historian or historians, it is an original statement made by Liachen in his PhD thesis. Where has it been accepted that the "Dimasa" in the metal plate is referring to Dimasa kingdom. It has been suggested, but not accepted. Historically, it is more likely it is associated with Mogaung.

Chaipau (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: because the metal plate is found in Jorhat the place where Dimasa kingdom existed before Ahom pushed them eastward, does Ming Shilu mention two Dimasa in it?? And why would the the Metal plate called Mogaung as Dimasa, Mogaugmng is referred to as Menygang in Ming shilu Homogenie (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: The metal plate was not found in situ in Jorhat, but with Chandra Narayan Singha, a descendant of Purandar Singha the last Ahom king. This is Gurdon's description:

Chandra Narayan Singh informed me that this metal plaque was used as the altar or pedestal upon which the Ahom god, Somdeo, was placed. He states that Ratneshwari, the widow of the late Kandarpeshwar Singh, who was the nephew of the late Raja Purandar Singh, gave it to him in 1893 The actual god, Somdeo, is said by him to have been a diamond or some other precious stone, set, from his description, in a kind of cylinder. Kandarpeshwar Singh, according to my informant, sold the precious stone in Calcutta when he was in difficulties. The jewel and the altar or plaque used to be enclosed according to Chandra Narayan, in seven golden boxes, one box containing the other. None of these boxes are in his possession now, all having been sold at one time or other. Chandra Narayan says that the hole at the top of the plaque was used to attach the plaque to the neck of the Ahom king at the time of the Coronation ceremony.

This is the translation that Gurdon obtained (The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland , Apr. 1913, (Apr., 1913), pp. 283-287):

The meaning of the inscription on the obverse face of Plate A is : "Letter patent dated the fifth year of Yung Lo (1408 AD)"

The left side of Plate B reads "Be faithful", while the right side reads "Let the rescript have effect. The Royal Commissioner for Conciliation, Timasa"

Gurdon concludes that this shows ties to Chiang Mai, which has been identified with "Timasa":

This I consider clinches the arguments contained on p. 20 of Milne and Cochran book on the Shans, and the fact that the plaque with th Chinese inscriptions engraven thereon was found in the possession of a member of the Ahom royal family, coupled with the previous history of the object, goes far to show connexion between the Ahoms and the people of Timasa or Chieng-Mai. This, coupled with the fact that the Ahom Buranji mentions Mung-ri-Mung-rang (probabl Mung-hi-Mung-ham of the Shan Chronicle) as having been the first kingdom of the Ahoms on earth, is strong evidence that the Ahoms are Mao Shans who inhabited at one time a portion of Northern Siam

Gurdon himself is not good source for quoting directly in Wikipedia, but the works of J N Phukan (from the Buranjis), J N Sarkar and others support this association of the Ahoms with Southeast Asia (though maybe not in all detail) and this part of the history is now "standard". What you are trying to prove is a major revision of history and the origin of the Ahoms. You will need more than mere speculations in PhD theses for that.

Chaipau (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: The captured image of the metal plate is in page 130 Wade (1994), so you can stop thisHomogenie (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The captured image is given in Gurdon too (reference above). So what are you trying to say? Chaipau (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please dont interpret it on your own way i.e WP:OR, also where is this other Dimasa that you are refering to , Ming shilu have only one Dimasa, provide a secondary source Homogenie (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Here: [8].

• Gurdon (1913) identifies it with Chiang Mai, with the help of Cochrane and others.
• Gerini (1913) identifies it with Dimasa kingdom.
• Gong Yin (1988) calls it a Mon polity
• Fang Guo-yu (1987), Chen, Xie and Lu (1986) identifies Da Gu-la with Pegu.

As far as I can see Phukan, Sarkar, and others have not used Ming Shilu as a source or used any other these identifications. Your use of Ming Shilu as a source (actually Wade's speculations) would be a major contribution to Assam's historiography, which I am sure Wikipedia does not support. Chaipau (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you push back to older source, then it should be done with all the articles , you added a new citation to claim Deori langauge not to be the language of the Chutias, in similar manner should we bring back old source and state that pragjyotisha kingdom exist and discard Shin (2017). Here it seems you dont want to get updated to a new source which state all these polities are located at nothern Myanmar and eastern Assam. Dimasa kingdom dont new any verification, as it is now backed by a metal plate, there are not hundreds of Dimasa in Ming shilu, there is just one. If you want to downgrade yourself, then it should be done with all the articles, and put back the older source Homogenie (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please focus here on developing this article. Chaipau (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly update the source no need to go back to 1913, it is similar to going back to 1933 K.L Baruah to write the history of Kamarupa! Homogenie (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There are no such cutoffs in Wikipedia. Wade's and Liachen's are speculations mentioned in PhD theses—PhD theses could be anywhere between a reliable source to a self-published source. The critical point here is acceptance in "recent" scholarship. These claims by Wade and Liachen have not been accepted in scholarship yet. The recent scholarship is based on such works as the "comprehensive histories" from H K Barpujari and Baruah (1986) and after—works that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and books. I have listed above the problems associated with accepting Wade and Liachen in toto. A fair amount of critical work is needed to get them be accepted/rejected in scholarship before they can make their way into Wikipedia. All these are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. Currently, you don't have consensus on your inclusions, as seen from the others' comments above.

Chaipau (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Wade has identified this places were wrongly put in by the Chinese scholars, it seems this is the first wikipedia article where information dont wants to get updated. Also Liachen (2000) has accepted Wade (1994) Homogenie (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not adding the map of Ahom kingdom when it was in the peak. (1707)

It is better to add the kingdom map when it was at its peak... Its is better to show or to say it feels good when you are at your peak not your downfall... So I think that there a people who can make a rough map during the time of its peak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonardondishant: this is the "official" map of the Ahom kingdom (mature) as given in the "Geography of Assam". This is also in good agreement with the one provided by S L Barua. Chaipau (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Predecessor state - Chutia kingdom

@Homogenie: you have inserted Chutia kingdom as a predecessor state thereby removing Kamarupa as well as the citation/reference here. You have cited no reference beyond an edit summary that says a 1986 source against a much more improved source of Shin 2017, 2018, Kamarupa in upper Assam is no longer tenable, no evidence state it existed there, repeating views that have been shown to be not supported (Talk:Pala_dynasty_(Kamarupa)#3O opinion and Talk:Mlechchha_dynasty#Map_of_Kamarupa_(break)). Could you please explain this removal?

Please note that the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 and there is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom at that time. Chutia kingdom was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom as late as in the 16th century.

Pinging Fylindfotberserk and Kautilya3 for visibility.

Chaipau (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC) (added paragraph) 11:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you have cited Shin 2017, 2018—here is a quote from Shin 2020:

The first confrontation between the Ahoms and the Chutiyas as a political power is mentioned in some chronicles such as the Deodhai Asam Buranji only during the reign of Ahom king Sutupha (1369–76), about a hundred years after the death of Sukapha. It is more likely that if there was a Chutiya state at this time, it was of little significance until the second half of the fourteenth century.

How could a kingdom that came into prominence in the 14th century precede a kingdom that was was established more than a hundred years earlier?

Chaipau (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: Here is evidence from Shin. She thinks the Chutia kingdom did not even exist in the 13th century. And even if it did, it was of no significance. So stop making the Chutia kingdom the predecessor of the Ahom kingdom.

Furthermore this is from Baruah 1986:172:

Whereas the rulers of Kamarupa were losing their hold and authority over their possessions owing to the internal dissenssion, they were finally overtaken by a small group of Tai-Shans who later became the lord of the land also became one with the indigenous people in their fight against invaders from the west

So you now have a quote (1) that directly connects Ahom kingdom with the remnant of Kamarupa in the 13th century, and (2) another (that too from Shin!) that seriously doubts the existence of the Chutia kingdom before the 14th century.

Chaipau (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Baruah (1986) is written in 1986, 30 years later we has new research, Shin (2018) talks about state formation in lower Assam in 10th-11th century and Upper Assam in 14th century There seems no serious interaction between the Ahoms and old settled people of the neighbourhood including the Chutiyas until the fourteenth century as both the Ahom territory and its population remained precariously small.p.51

Further Ahom settled between the track of Dimasa kingdom and Chutiya Kingdom, in a region inhabited by Borahi and Moran tribe - The Ahoms had settled into the track between the Chutiya and the Dimasa Kingdoms that was inhabited by the Borahi and Moran people when they arrived in the Brahmaputra valley in the early 13th century.

Before 14th century Ahoms were engaged with people mostly with the east not west, and its polity was small. It is by early 15th century when Ahom went defeated the Kacharis/Chutias and expanded west. Borgohain Vamsali says the same, Ahom extended by defeating the Kachari and Chutias in early 15th century. Even till 1404 Dimasa were present in Jorhat, the same reason we find the Chinese Metal plate. Further Shin (2017) talks about how Kamrupa dynasties has not dynastic relation among them, the territory of Kamarupa is much smaller than is really shown. Homogenie (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie:

• Why are you ignoring Shin (2020) where she says specifically that their is no evidence of the Chutia kingdom before the 14th century? Shin (2020) is newer than Shin (2018), btw.

Chaipau (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the quote was from Shin (2020), not Shin (2017) There seems no serious interaction between the Ahoms and old settled people of the neighbourhood including the Chutiyas until the fourteenth century as both the Ahom territory and its population remained precariously small.p.51 Homogenie (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: That clearly proves that there is really no evidence of the Chutia kingdom before the 14th century. Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

read the line, Ahoms had no interaction with the old settled population incluuding the Chutiyas Homogenie (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Homogenie: A "settled population" is not a kingdom. Here, settled population means "not shifting cultivators."Chaipau (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (edited) 13:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahom kingdom was succesor of Kamarupa Kingdom

@Homogenie: Kamarupa Kingdom legacy was carried out by Ahom kingdom... How did chutia kingdom become ahom kingdom Predecessor... I think some people forgot the meaning of predecessor(A predecessor is something that came before the current version)... Its ahom kingdom which reached the greatest height after kamarupa kingdom..

They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuously their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier." (Guha 1983:24). 'An Ahom force reached the banks of the Karatoya in hot pursuit of an invading Turko-Afghan army in the 1530s. Since then "the washing of the sword in the Karatoya" became a symbol of the Assamese aspirations, repeatedly evoked in the Bar-Mels and mentioned in the chronicles." (Guha 1983:33) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Tungkhungiya Buranji

@Jonardondishant: please do not add information directly from the Buranjis. They are WP:PRIMARY sources and one should be careful using primary sources, according to Wikipedia policies. The trouble with using Buranjis as sources stems from the fact that very often different Buranjis record the same events differently. Therefore, we require reliable secondary sources in these articles. Chaipau (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau I replied to you but didn't got response, well I am saying this again Jonardondishant (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau Can I add according to that (particular buranji)...If a other buranji has a other version of it... then I can also add it, why did you delete the state religion part its undoubtedly a fact, i'hve also mentioned the date...

Also why did you delete the vassals state?? Jonardondishant (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonardondishant: please find a secondary source to say what you have to say. Please do not synthesize anything on your own. The vassal states are also sourced to TB, so were deleted. Also, please do not use Gait. Gait is not considered WP:RS for Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Scanned map from Baruah

@Jonardondishant: I have removed the Baruah 1987 map. This contributes to no additional value to the article and furthermore it is of poor quality. Even a good quality reproduction is confusing unless the slight differences are significant enough that they are worth pointing out. The slight differences, as it exists now, without explanation, adds to confusion. Please do not reinsert this map without discussing here. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A map is a map, it's of a different time period and shows the boundaries before the moamoriya rebellion.... Second of all I am not a professional in editing and in using software's, hence Idk how to digitize it... it will be better if you digitize and add it again. Jonardondishant (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We agree that we will not have this map up unless we have a better quality reproduction and we are able to point out the difference between the two maps and the differences are significant enough to add value to the article. Chaipau (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau I hve got a pretty good quality digitized map of ahom kingdom, it will be better to add it, as it is much more detailed it will add more value Jonardondishant (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jonardondishant: Sorry. I don't see the need to replace the map that comes from professionals in cartography. For one, Baruah's map includes Karbi hills which the Ahoms did not occupy. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. This is not a blog. You have created enough work for others to clean up. Chaipau (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

sorry that I caused troubles. The previous map didn't have the Karbi hills. The current map misses the widening of the upper regions, and upper eastern-boundary was Patkai hills which is in Myanmar, which the current map clearly misses and there is a huge gap between this map and Myanmar, and also I don't think so that SL Barua had entirely had made that map with her own hands.... The kingdom was 500(804 km) miles long in average and 60(96 km) miles in breadth, Jonardondishant (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The hills were never part of any Ahom territory. The Ahoms were rice cultivators and were valley dwellers. The current map is correct and it comes from a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau what's the relation between rice cultivators and were valley dwellers and this map? which source does it come from, Western boundary remained same not of all, the entire valley in not in the map but a portion, The previous Sk bhuyan one didn't had karbi hills but it was of low quality, The british sources says the lenght was 700 miles and the Indian one says 500 miles, Is there even any book which is to considered as totally reliable? And what about the huge gap between Assam and Myanmar, was Patkai not the eastern boundry? Jonardondishant (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Very simple, the amount of resources you can extract and the cost to maintain control. Even in the plains, the Ahoms shared the regions close to the hills. The Naga khats in the east, the datiyaliya gohains in the middle and the duars in the east (both in the south and the north). These are well known facts. Please go by reliable source if you do not know Ahom history well enough. Just a treaty from the early 1400s does not define boundaries for the next 400 years. In this case the RS is the map from the "Geography of Assam", which is a fantastic work. Chaipau (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, after all this what can be called as a reliable source? Nagas were in the lower eastern area, Ahom govt gave them fertile lands in the pains and were managed by a class of officers called Naga-Katakis, how does this define the boundaries? And was Patkai hills in Ahom territory Jonardondishant (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

These are soft boundaries and are a special arrangement that the Ahoms created with nearly all hill peoples. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss soft boundaries WP:NOTFORUM. The RS in this case is "Geography of Assam" and we are using the map from this source. Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

@Jonardondishant: There is no need to qualify Ekasarana and Saktism as majority/royal. This is because over the course of the 600-year history the situation had changed. For example, Ekasarana became a religion in the 15th/16th century, whereas Ahom kingdom had been in existence since 13th entury. The Ahom kings had converted to Ekasarana (17th century) before they were initiated into Saktism (18th century). I am removing these qualifications, please don't change them again. Pinging Fylindfotberserk for visibility. Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Secondly, mentioning these qualifiers gives a sense of exclusiveness, which might not be the case. For example mentioning Royal family next to Shaktism implies that only they adhered to it, while it might not have been the case in reality. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Gold mohur of Rajeswar Singha.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Siva Singha silver 1 rupee.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Population

@Vishwanath2008: Could you please move the detailed population figures away from the infobox. They make no sense because the numbers before 1681 could cover different sizes. It makes more sense to only report numbers after 1681 in the infobox. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The population is defined to a certain year, I don't seem it to be problematic. However a whole section can be created on the demography in details, where it will be appropriate to add all that. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You have recently changed the figures to 2-3 million without giving a time frame, which might not always be the case. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

See* 1st reply Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The time frame is given in the cited text. This is reasonable, because the infobox is supposed to give a representative and succinct information. Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Other pages have given the time frame. I have given a time frame as (1750s), will it be to be a problem? Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Hastividyarnava of Auniati Satra.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Fortifications in forming boundaries

Are the eastern boundaries of medieval Assam marked by the fortifications? Here [9] to see ComparingQuantities (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Native Name

@ChaipauWhy did you remove the native Name from infobox?? 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It was known a Mong Dun Shun Kham only between 1228-1401. Read it here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ahom_kingdom#Mong_Dun_Shun_Kham_(1228%E2%80%931401) Chaipau (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau@Chaipau First of all the term Native itself means At birth so Mong Dun Shun Kham is undoubtedly the name during the birth of the Kingdom. But even if you argue that Mong Dun Shun Kham was replaced by Assam we have clear record of using Mong Dun Shun Kham and Assam together in the Ahom Buranji page 375 of GC Baruah clearly using Mong Dun Shun Kham and Assam alternatively in 1810:-- "...In lakni Plekshan (i.e., in 1810 A.D.), one Mungklang, one Hingjepi- mung, one Hingkak, one Phake Phukan, and one our Shengphaduigām, Nara Katakis, arrived in MUNGDUNSHUNKHĀM (ASSAM). They brought with them two letters and..", also during Burmese Invasion they wrote a book Baishali Mong Dun Shun Kham refering Assam. We have lots of sources using both Mong Dun Shun Kham and Assam alternatively even towards the end of the Kingdom. So, stating Mong Dun Shun Kham was used only between 1228-1401 isn't correct at all. 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It was probably used sporadically, but that was obviously not what they used natively. Buranjis themselves are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, since they are full of internal contradictions. And they are not true histories, just chronicles that served a particular purpose.

A better claim on the issue is this: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ahom_kingdom#cite_note-rbphd-mdsk2assam-12.

Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau do you have any source stating Mong Dun Shun Kham was used sporadically?? However still it's the native name. Your point of removing Mong Dun Shun Kham from infobox doesn't make any sense. Regarding Reliability GC Barua is widely used in Wikipedia as a source and it's a published source so not an OR. I hope you'll trust the source instead of pushing your own Point of view. Buragohain 1988 stated it automatically disappeared after 14s, but we can still see the use of Mong Dun Shun Kham by Burmese and Ahom Scholars during 18s. So, we gotta follow the sources instead of dismissing a widely used source in Wikipedia. Removing Mong Dun Shun Kham for just one author's statement while we have whole records of uses doesn't make sense at all. While it's still the Native Name because it's named during the birth of the Kingdom. 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The Borgohain source is good enough. Please look up the policies on WP:OR.

There is one other problem with the term mung. It specifies a specific state structures based on extended family-based ban or villages, and a number of bans forming a mung and the chaopha is the king who governed over one or many mungs. This is an old Tai political system.

It is clear that there were many such mungs before Sudangphaa, and Mung Dun Shun Kham was one of them. Sudangphaa removed the colonial relationship Mung Dun Shun Kham had with the Nara kingdom (Mogaung), suppressed the rebellions of other Mungs in the region, and introduced Vishnu into the Swargadeo's pantheon of gods, adopted the Hindu rituals of regal anointment (Singarigharutha). There was a definite break with the past in 1401---the Ahom kingdom was no longer a Mung.

Borgohain says it correctly, that the use of the Mung Dun Shun Kham decreased after 1401. Yes, Mung Dun Shun Kham was the native name for the polity before 1401, but definitely not after 1401.

I know this is the climate of Ahom revivalism. Best wishes, but Wikipedia cannot take part in its promotions.

Chaipau (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau The meaning of Native Name means the name that was given at the formation which is Mong Dun Sun Kham. You can't argue that Maharashtra is a Rastra (Country) and not a Rajya (State) likewise you can't argue that because it's a Mueang it can't be the Native Name. instead of giving your unsourced thoughts about naming give proper source that stated Mong Dun Sun Kham isn't the Native Name. Revivalism has nothing to do with facts. Buragohain is clearly proved wrong telling it automatically disappeared and still we can see it in 18s. And again concept of Mong and Usage has nothing to do with the Mong Dun Sun Kham being the Native Name. If you can't provide a solid source that shows we have any other Native Name we have to trust the sources. Instead of diverting the topic please come to the point if not Mong Dun Sun Kham what's the native name? And why it's been used in the 18s if it's disappeared in 14s according to Buragohain? 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed all these issues above.

• Buranjis are WP:PRIMARY, full of contradictions. They cannot be used directly in Wikipedia. WP:SECONDARY (like Borgohain) are given more WP:WEIGHT.
• No second guessing WP:RS, in other words, no WP:OR. If there is a conflict in WP:RS, WP:DUE applies.
• The mung is a particular polity based on tribal alliances. Sudangphaa dismantled it after 1401.

Chaipau (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

we're talking about Native name not names after wards. And both the sources stated that Mueang Dun Sun Kham was the name initially which literally means it's the Native Name. Native Name means the name that's given during the formation. And you're just diverting the topic to later periods. We have tons of WP:RS stating that Mong Dun Sun kham was the early name or Native Name or Name given at Birth. And you removed it stating that later on the name Assam was adopted which literally makes no sense. We're talking about Native Name part of the Infobox not changing the Title. Let's native name be the native name. Why bring Assam or Ahom kingdom? While all sources agree that Siu-Ka-Pha established with name Mong Dun Sun Kham which is the native name. Later on whether we call it Assam , Kingdom of Assam or Ahom kingdom the Native name is Mong Dun Sun kham. There's no conflict with it. 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau for example Manipur (princely state) page is using Meetei Leipak as Native Name and India is using Bhārat Gaṇarājya. While these were the Native names no one would argue there that these names were later adopted with newer names. Native Name means the name that's given at the formation. And all sources agree that. You're just complicating the matter giving names that are later adopted which are literally not Native Names. 2409:4065:CC7:982:0:0:628B:7E10 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a better link: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ahom_kingdom#cite_note-rbphd-mdsk2assam-12

Firstly, "Mong Dun Sun Kham" seems like an epithet, a nickname since it means - "a country of golden gardens" and not the same as older official name of the administrative region, hence cannot be used in the native name parameter. Secondly, it seems like the name is of a smaller territory which later was a part of the much bigger kingdom, hence unwise to use it. We do not use the terms Videha as a 'native name' for the state of Bihar. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk I don't think that it's a smaller colony because the record shows Patkai hills being the boarder between Mong Dun Sun Kham and Mong kawng. Also, I will trust the sources that used the term Mong Dun Sun Kham for the bigger administrative regions even in the 19th century by both Burmese and Ahom Scholars. So, Mong Dun Sun Kham being a primitive colony isn't accurate at all ofcourse every kingdom grows from a smaller region. I think we all should maintain a neutral point of view and trust the multiple sources instead of just highlighting one single paragraph of one specific source that even proved wrong above by showing 19th century uses. 2409:4065:387:931D:0:0:B98:F8B1 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

1400 vs. 1228

@Chaipau We know the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 not 1400 so the native name is also Mong Dun Shun Kham. You're Cherrypicking from Buragohain 1988. Meanwhile, applying WP:DUE WEIGHT have to consider that most of the references consider Mong Dun Shun Kham as the Native Name. So please stop pushing your own POV because it's a Tai name. Some other sources:-

1. "...eulogizing the migration of Sukap and his men to Mung-dun-sun-kham (Assam)...."Fragmented Memories Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India By Yasmin Saikia · 2004 , Page 187
2. "...established Mung Dun Sun Kham, nowadays called Assam (India), in 1228 A.D.." Abstracts: The International Conference on Tai Studies, July 29-31, 1998, Royal River, Bangkok 1998 Page 13
3. "...establishing a kingdom and landed in the fertile valley, which they named Mung-Dun-Sun-Kham (in Tai, Land of Golden Gardens)..." South Asia Politics Volume 6 2007 , Page 7
4. "...Sukapha and his men to Mung-dun- sun-kham (Assam)…" A Name Without a People Searching to be Tai-Ahom in Modern India, Volume 2 By Yasmin Saikia · 1999
5. "...foreign invaders called this land Mung-dun- sun -kham (-country-full-garden-gold) in their own tongue…" New Light on History of Asamīyā Literature from the Earliest Until Recent Times Including an Account of Its AAntecedents by Dimbeswar Neog · 1962 Page 24

47.29.169.120 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Mung in Mong Dun Shun Kham stands for Mueang, a specific form of city-state type political formation, and it is not a name of an amorphous polity. Sukaphaa indeed established a mueang, and there were other independent political formations in the Brahmaputra valley over which he had some influence but he accepted the overall suzerainty of powers beyond the Brahmaputra valley. Mong Dun Shun Kham was not an entirely independent state formation. Sudangphaa centralized his rule over these other city states and removed the overlordship of Mong Kwang which was in Myanmar. So Mong Dun Shun Kham ended in around 1400.

None of the five references you cite above dispute what Buragohain (1988) and Guha (1983) cited in the article claims--- Sukaphaa's domain indeed started as a Mueang called Mong Dun Shun Kham. What Guha and Buragohain establishes is that after 1400 or Mong Dun Shun Kham was no longer a city-state---it was no longer a Mueang---and that it had become independent of Mong Kwang and adopted the name Assam instead. The name it had adopted, Assam, continued to be used till the end---1826. This article uses the modern name for that kingdom and covers both the periods.

Chaipau (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau If Ahom kingdom was established in 1228 and by Siu-Ka-Pha than ofcourse the native name of Ahom Kingdom is also Mong Dun. Just removing the Tai name and letting the Establisher and Establishing Date is a Cherrypicking approach. If you wanna seperate the Mueang Dun from Ahom kingdom do it fully. But it's a POV push to remove the establishing name and letting the Establisher and Establishing date. Moreover most of the sources use Mong Dun and Ahom kingdom interchangeably so it's not a minority or WP:OR it has it's WP:DUE weight. And according to WP:DUE we have to mention both in case anything contradictory between reliable sources. Remember Native Name doesn't care about usage or replacement it's just the name given during the birth and the establishing date is clearly 1228 in most sources. We're talking about the establishment not the later expansion. 47.29.174.60 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You will have to establish with WP:RS that Mong Dun Shun Kham is used interchangeably with Ahom kingdom. The Ahom kingdom is a modern name. It was called Kingdom of Assam (or Acham) by contemporary accounts (Mughal, British, etc.). Native Buranjis too called it Assam. Chaipau (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau again it doesn't matter whether it's used later or not a native name is the establishing name. Which is clearly Mong Dun Shun Kham no doubt regarding this. Kingdom of Assam and Ahom kingdom both aren't the Birthname. So how can we put them in the Native Name section?? 47.29.174.60 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Native Name element in the infobox. Chaipau (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau That's why I was filling it. Now, you're talking nonsensical I hope you'll not remove Mong Dun Shun Kham again. Like you haven't remove 1228 and Siu-Ka-Pha. 47.29.174.60 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add here without WP:CONSENSUS. The native name of the kingdom has been explicitly stated as "Assam", or "Axam", "Oxom", etc. in the Buranjis (Kamrupar Buranji - S K Bhuyan in Publisher's Note, in Assamese). This is not up for WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chaipau Not a new fact, Buragohain 1988 already explained about Asom (Assam). It's a Later adoption and neither the Birth Name (according to dictionary) nor Native Language name (according to Wikipedia's Template:Infobox country). You're completely ignoring the dictionary and Wikipedia's definition of Native. Although we can add both Mong Dun Shun Kham (Ahom) Asom (Assamese) but still Asom is neither a Birth Name nor a Native Language name in Ahom language, and definitely not a replacement for Mong Dun. Sources given at the beginning agree that Mong Dun Sun Kham is the Birthname and Native Language Name.47.29.169.174 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)