Talk:Bhauma dynasty

Naraka's origins

Paromita Das is not mainstream historian, her views are not accepted in academic circles. So, i have removed her speculative comment, which is not supported by any major scholar. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Paromita Das is on the faculty of Gauhati University, with a PhD. Which means she is a professional historian, a mainstream. Her specialization is Ancient India. The article is published in a the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress and published by Indian History Congress, which is the largest body of Indian historians. Which means her views are accepted in academic circles. The paper was read in one of the Congress' sessions. I suggest you remove your comment. Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if she is actually the same person you mentioned, a PhD, and be a faculty of Gauhati University does not automatically make her a mainstream historian, can you refer me few books authored by her. Indian History Congress sometimes publishes speculative works of newbies.Her comment on 'Naraka' is not supported by any reputed historian, if any, i am happy to see it. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It is accepted that Naraka is a mythical figure. The myth that he is from Mithila was created in the 9th- 10th-century, in the Kalika Purana. according to the myth, Naraka lived 3500 years before that. Please do not pass of myth as history. Chaipau (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you are inventing your own standards of reliability here. The reliability standards are given in Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship Here are a few additional points regarding the reliability of Das2005.

• The article was published in the Proceedings of the IHC, which is a mainstream professional publication. IHC is a professional group, and membership is restricted to invitations.
• The article is a secondary source.
• Since it has appeared in a reputed professional proceeding, thus it has been vetted by the an editorial board, presented to a general audience, and then edited professionally for publication.

Kalika Purana, the source of Naraka according to you, do mentioned his Videha origins. By looking for his ethnicity, you yourself making him a historical figure. Please read the point 'isolated studies' in the link provided by you, also WP:ONESOURCE is helpful. IHC journal's do have history of publishing isolated studies. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:ONESOURCE does not apply here because this article has more than one sources, and opposing view points are presented here---some claim he was from Videha and others claim he was not. What is very well known is the fact that divine origins of non-Indo-Aryan kings are fabricated. It has happened with the Koch kingdom as well as the Ahom kingdom and all the dynasties of Assam. Chaipau (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, please read carefully what is being claimed here: "The development of the details of the Naraka story are considered as myths though historically he was more likely a Kirata chief." In other words, the Naraka story is a myth, though Naraka himself could have been a historical figure, if at all. Chaipau (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can i know how many other authors are supporting her (WP:ONESOURCE of a theory ?), the academic consensus is he was not a native of land, his origins in Mithila (Videha), irrespective of he is 'Aryan', 'Dravidian' or fathered by Dravidian father with Aryan mother, nevertheless he is prototype of early person from 'Gangetic plains' in Brahmaputra Valley. If you can give few reliable sources, its will be a good idea to include it alongside. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There are other theories as well. I shall add them. But please do not keep reverting. Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Kindly do not use lax isolated works. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the reference, please take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Please stop rejecting peer-reviewed articles. Chaipau (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The comment by one non-expert cannot change consensus that Naraka is from Mithila, you failed to provide others sources for same. Thus, there is no consensus. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In its next volume i.e.Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 67,p.164, it states otherwise which is academic consensus. It reads as "Inscriptional evidences show that Pragjyotisapura was the capital city of Naraka, considered a mytho- historical figure who came from Videha to Pragjyotisa as a political adventurer in pre-Bharata war period before the commencement of the of Kali-Yuga or Iron-Age and after having inflicted a crushing defeat on the Kiratas in a fierce battle, conquered the land, installed himself on the throne of Pragjyotisha (later known as Kamarupa), proclaimed his political supremacy, laid the foundation of first Aryan kingdom and paved the way for the spread of Aryan culture which gradually led to the evolution of synthesis of the Aryan and non-Aryan culture in North East India". So, i don't think 'Indian History Congress' legitimise the contribution of its contributors or takes any stand through it, unlike you claim. I again request you to remove said lax work. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

These isolated quotes do not help. The source of the myth that Naraka came to Assam and created Pragjyotisha is 9-10th century Kalika Purana. Obviously a fabrication, as clearly stated by Sircar. Earliest references of Pragjyotisha come from Ramayana and Mahabharata, who have placed Pragjyotisha in either Eastern India, Northern India or even Northwest India. And these references cannot be pushed back much beyond the first few centuries of the common era. Thus, leave alone academic consensus, there is no evidence of a historical Naraka who originates in Videha. Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My point is contribution to Indian History Congress journals are not always reliable, if isolated should not used in wikipedia. I ask you to remove Das (2005). भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with your claim. Please take this to the relevant notice board, or initiate 3O process. Chaipau (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometime ago i had taken this matter to Reliable sources/Noticeboard, it opined that single sources are not reliable as they are prone to biases. Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have read the section. What you are saying is the complete opposite of what was said there. Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Better context

Maybe, this page can be merged to Pragjyotisha for better context? I will propose same for Danava dynasty. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not agree. Let these remain as they are. Progjyotisha is based mostly on sources like Mahabharata and Ramayana. Not all references in these texts place Pragjyotisha in northeast India. This and Danava dynasties are mentioned in the Kalika purana, which was composed in northeast India. They should not be placed together. Chaipau (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, these Danava dynasty was the pre-Pragjyotisha state (though legendary). So makes no sense to include it in Pragjyotisha. Chaipau (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)