Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a41528d3e8448a31

Jump to content

// Workers AI · dad joke modeWhat did Ahomisation say to its date? "You're a homie.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A group of Ahom youth in traditional attire.

Ahomisation was an assimilation process in the former Ahom kingdom of Assam by which people from different ethnic groups in the region became part of what is now considered the Ahom population.[1] According to Saikia (2004), the process involved the expansion of a state-recognised Ahom status, conferred by the Swargadeo on selected men from varied social and ethnic backgrounds.[2] Saikia also describes what is known as "Ahom" as a composite socio-cultural formation, "an expression of heterogeneous communities coming together" rather than a single homogeneous community.[3]

Genetic evidence

[edit]

Modern genetic evidence is consistent with the extensive incorporation of local populations into the Ahom community, as described in historical sources. Earlier studies of paternal ancestry markers identified the East/Southeast Asian Y-chromosome haplogroup O3-M134 (O-M134 in current nomenclature) as the most frequent paternal haplogroup among modern Ahoms.[4] O-M134 and its downstream paternal lineages are particularly frequent among several Tibeto-Burman populations of Northeast India, including a number of Boro–Garo-speaking groups like Boro (Mech), Kachari, Rabha, Tripuri, etc.[a]

A 2024 genome-wide study of modern Ahoms likewise found substantial admixture with local Tibeto-Burman and other Trans-Himalayan populations. The authors inferred that the ancestral migrant population was relatively small and that extensive subsequent admixture with local populations had substantially altered its original genetic profile, resulting in the loss of much of the ancestry associated with its Southeast Asian homeland.[4] They further inferred that the Trans-Himalayan and Indian Tibeto-Burman-related components found among modern Ahoms were acquired after the population entered India.[4] The authors therefore cautioned that the paternal lineages of the original migrant population cannot be identified from the present data alone, and noted that large-scale, high-resolution analyses of Y chromosomes among modern Ahoms would be needed to identify rarer paternal haplogroups associated with their ancestral homeland; similarly expanded mitochondrial-DNA sampling would be required for maternal lineages.[4]

History

[edit]

Origins and early settlement

[edit]

As per traditional accounts, Sukaphaa was a Tai prince originally from Mong Mao, who, along with about nine thousand soldier-agriculturalists, arrived in what is now Assam in 1228.[9] After moving between different places, he finally settled in 1253 at Charaideo in eastern Assam and started forming a state. Recent scholarship has, however, questioned this chronology, arguing that the available Tai and Chinese sources may instead indicate that the Ahom polity was established in the mid-14th century.[10]

Upon settling in Assam, Sukaphaa established his early polity through a combination of military subjugation, conciliation and alliances with local ethnic groups. During his passage through the Patkai region, his forces subdued a number of Naga settlements, sometimes using severe exemplary violence against groups which resisted.[b] After reaching the Brahmaputra valley, Sukaphaa conciliated sections of the Moran and Borahi, while those who resisted his authority were subdued by force.[16][c] He later married the daughters of both Badaucha, the Moran chief, and Thakumatha, the Borahi chief, and established alliances with them. As he began establishing his domain, he also avoided regions that were heavily populated.[19][d]

Sukaphaa encouraged his Tai soldiers and members of the Tai elite to marry locally, contributing to the process later called Ahomisation.[22] The Shan-Tai settlers displayed considerable assimilative capacity. While they called themselves Tai, they came to be referred to as Āsām, Āsam and Acam by the indigenous peoples of the region;[23] the modern Assamese term Āhom was derived from Āsām or Āsam. They increasingly identified socially with the multi-ethnic population of the territory under their control, while the new name Ahom came to signify their political supremacy and leadership. The initial conquest and incorporation of sections of the Moran and Borahi populations thus produced what has been described as a "conquest society": instead of exterminating the conquered populations as a whole, the emerging polity incorporated them into its social and political structure.[e][24]

Expansion and assimilation

[edit]

The Tai settlers brought with them techniques of wet-rice cultivation and believed that they were divinely ordained to bring fallow land under the plough. They incorporated many stateless shifting cultivators of the region into their fold,[25] while remaining conscious of their numerical inferiority.[26] Ahomisation could involve intermarriage, political submission, ceremonial adoption into Ahom clans and service within the developing state.[f] As a result, the early Tai-Ahom polity absorbed people from neighbouring populations such as the Borahi, Moran and Naga.

The scale of incorporation increased with the territorial expansion of the Ahom state in the sixteenth century. Following the conquest and annexation of the Chutia kingdom and Ahom expansion into territories of the Kachari kingdom, substantial sections of the Chutia and Dimasa-Kachari populations were incorporated into the expanding Ahom political and social order.[27][g]

Ahom as a state-conferred status

[edit]

Saikia (2004) distinguishes the broad and heterogeneous subject population of the Ahom kingdom from the more restricted designation "Ahom". She emphasises that Ahom was not simply a fixed ethnic or hereditary category, but a political and administrative status conferred by the Swargadeo upon selected men serving the royal administration.[28] Saikia notes that entry into this status depended on royal appointment and favour rather than descent alone; "birth did not play a role in conferring or guaranteeing the place of an Ahom to an individual."[29] Such status could be acquired through royal service, appointment, incorporation into an official household, marriage or adoption, and could also be lost.[30]

Once Ahom status had been acquired, however, some of those elevated to the aristocratic class attempted to represent their newly acquired position as an inherited one. Saikia notes that such nobles constructed prestigious family genealogies to legitimise their status and tended to suppress memories of their humbler origins.[31] By the late eighteenth century, she argues, the buranjis reflected a distinction between the wider subject population and a gentrified class of Ahom officers, many of whom had themselves risen from the former; after attaining this elevated position, these officers sought to downplay their earlier backgrounds.[32]

This process also involved intermarriage and the incorporation of local groups. Saikia (2004) notes that initially the male followers of Sukaphaa married Barahi women, producing a group called the Kadami Ahoms, while Morans, Barahis and other groups were designated aniyamar, or "irregular Ahoms".[33] Later, many Morans and Barahis were "upgraded and designated as Ahoms".[34]

During the pre-colonial period of Assam, the Ahoms were not an ethnic community as they are considered now; rather, they were a relatively open status group. Any community coming into the socio-economic fold of the Ahom state could claim the Ahom status with the active consent of the king.[h]

Incorporation into clans and offices

[edit]

Many indigenous people from various ethnic groups were ceremonially adopted into Ahom clans, as recorded in the chronicles known as Buranjis. The Miri-Handique lineage, for example, traced its origin to a Miri (Mising) boy adopted by Burhagohain Bhukula Gohain; his descendants subsequently became known by that name.[41] Those incorporated into Ahom society could, if considered capable, also rise to important administrative positions. The second Borphukan, who served as governor of Lower Assam, was the son of a Naga of the Banferra clan; Queen Phuleswari, during the reign of Siva Singha (1714–1744), appointed a Bhutanese youth as her page; and Kancheng, the first Barpatra Gohain, was born and brought up in a Naga family.[26] This was true even for the priestly clans: Naga-Bailung, Miri-bailung, Nara-Bailung,[42] Chutia-Chiring[43], Som-Chiring (Chutia origin)[44] and Bar-Chiring (Naga origin).[45] In this manner, numerous groups from both the plains and the surrounding hills were incorporated into the population identified as "Ahom".

Morans and Nagas

[edit]

Several Buranji traditions describe the incorporation of Morans into Ahom lineages and offices. A Moran who had presented Sukaphaa with brinjals and later fought the Nagas in defence of the Tai-Ahom settlers was rewarded, placed under Kangan Bar Gohain and renamed Lanmakhru, thereby founding the Lanmakhru lineage.[46] Saikia also records that the descendants of a Moran named Khingkhing entered the Burhagohain's faid during the reign of Sukhampha; they were designated Tingkhamiya Hatisarat and "became Aaham".[47] Moran-Patar similarly represented Patar families drawn from the Moran community.[48][49] Other families of Moran origin included Lanmakhru Chetia, Lekai Chetia, Khimtar Patar, Sitpatar, Chalihar Deka, Phul Barua and Khimtar Khengaru.[50]

Similar incorporation occurred among Naga groups. One Buranji account concerns a Banpha Naga boy adopted by Lahar, a Barahi belonging to the Bar Patra Phukan's khel; after serving as Liksawan Bora, he was appointed Borphukan by the Swargadeo.[51] Families identified as being of Naga origin included Japarjal Chetia, Luthuri Chetia, Ghura Konwar, Chounapam, Foidia Gohain, Lephera Deka, Moupia Deka and Tangshu Deka.[52] Incorporation extended even to the priestly clans, with names such as Naga-Bailung, Miri-Bailung and Nara-Bailung,[42] as well as Bar-Chiring, identified as being of Naga origin.[53]

Kacharis and the Handique designation

[edit]

Individuals of Kachari origin likewise entered Ahom clans and the nobility. Saikia cites the case of Lai Handique, whose Kachari mother had been brought to Lepati Gohain's household; the child and his family were later recognised as Lai Handique and granted a high office.[54]

The "Handique" designation was also used to incorporate persons of particular birth status into Ahom society. During the reign of Suhungmung, the Satsari Assam Buranji records that, when the sons and grandsons of former chiefs were brought before the king and assigned units to command, those born outside wedlock were designated as Handique. Although barred from becoming princes, they could socialise and dine with Ahoms, who were forbidden from abusing or ridiculing them.[55][i]

Chutias and Borahis

[edit]

Ahom Chutias formed a major sub-division of Ahoms. They were termed as such as they intermarried with the already mixed Ahoms. Most of them have been absorbed into the Ahom fold over time.[57] They held various positions in the Ahom kingdom's administration as seen with Langi Panisiya Borphukan,[58] Rupchandra Borbarua,[59] Kirti Chandra Borbarua, Piksai Chetia Borphukan[60], Piyoli Borphukan, Badanchandra Borphukan, Phrasenmung Borgohain (during Suhungmung's reign)[61], Thumlung Borgohain (during Rudra Singha's reign)[62], Kalibar Buragohain (during Sudingpha's reign)[63], Banrukia Gohain (during Susenpha's reign)[64], Banlungia Gohain (during Rudra Singha's reign)[65] and many more. Buranji traditions also associate figures such as Som-Chiring[66] and Changsai[67] with Chutia origins during Sukaphaa's reign. Majority of Ahoms of the Chetia clan as well as the Lahon clan originated from the Chutia community.[68] Other important families from Chutias include Halahal Patar, Lachitor Deka, Langir Deka, Bhandari Gohain, Gargaya Tukoria, Bhubul, Kantap, Ghurachowa, Hahpania, Revatigoya[69], Charingia Nowboicha, Sensuwa[70], Hiloidari[71][72], etc; while those from Borahis include Borpani, Changrung, Chawrok, Changmai, Likson, Bez Bharali[73], Borahi Bamun[74], etc. Between the 16th and 18th centuries, members of several of these families held important administrative offices, including those of Phukan, Rajkhowa and Barua.

The extent to which incorporated families entered the higher administration is also reflected in later office-holding traditions. As per Hiteswar Barbarua's book Ahomar Din (1981), of the 46 Borphukans [j], 15 were of Chutia origin (10 Rangachila Duara[k], 2 Piksai[80] and Burha Chetia, 1 Lahon[81], 1 Bakatial Buruk Chutia[82][83][84], 1 Langi[85]), 4 were of Moran origin (Lanmakhru)[86], and 1 was of Naga origin (Ghura-Konwar[87])[88]; while of the 41 Borboruas, 14 were of Chutia origin (6 Bakatial Buruk Chutia[89][90][91], 4 Rangachila Duara[l], 3 Lahon[97], 1 Patal[m]), 2 were of Naga origin (Ghura-konwar[100]), and 1 was of Moran origin.[101]

Language and cultural change

[edit]

The modern Ahom people and their culture are a syncretism of the original Tai and their culture[102] and local Tibeto-Burman peoples and their cultures they absorbed in Assam. After the initial contact of the Tai-Ahoms with the local people of the region, the Tai speakers learnt the local language and culture. With better communication and proper running of the Ahom administration, they learnt the local Assamese language. The adoption of the Assamese language also changed the language of Chronicle writings, the Buranji(s), where they wrote all their events. Even though the already mixed group known as 'Ahom' made up a relatively very small portion of the kingdom's population,[27] they still maintained their original Tai-Ahom language alongside Assamese and practised their traditional religion until the 16th century, when the Ahom court completely adopted the local language of the region, the Assamese language.[103]

Hinduisation and Sanskritisation

[edit]

Transition from Ahomisation

[edit]

This process of Ahomisation continued until the mid-16th century, when the mixed Ahom society itself came under direct Hindu influence.[104] While conquered populations typically adopt the language and customs of their conquerors, the Ahom expansion in Assam followed a unique trajectory. Recognising that complete political dominance over an increasingly diverse population was unsustainable through cultural imposition alone, the Ahom kings adapted. As the kingdom expanded, a reverse cultural process took place, forcing the conquerors to officially sanction the language and culture of the subjugated majority to maintain imperial cohesion.[24]

Following the subjugation of the Chutia Kingdom, the trend of Ahomisation gradually yielded to Sanskritisation (Hinduisation). This cultural shift intensified during the 16th and 17th centuries as the Ahom kingdom expanded westward, absorbing a vast number of Hindu subjects.[105]

Early Hindu influences at court

[edit]

Hindu cultural elements first entered the Ahom court during the reign of Sukhaangphaa (1293–1332), who married a princess from the Kamata Kingdom to seal a peace treaty between the two realms.[106] As the first recorded marriage between an Ahom monarch and a non-Ahom Hindu princess, this union introduced Hindu traditions into the royal household. Later, following the annexation of the Chutia and Kachari kingdoms alongside the Baro-Bhuyan territories, the Ahoms deeply integrated these populations. By appointing Chutias to administrative offices and encouraging intermarriage, the Ahom royalty fostered a deep cultural assimilation that permanently altered the social structure, beliefs, and practices of Ahom society.

Royal adoption of Hindu forms

[edit]

Gradually, the Ahom royalty accepted the influence of Hinduisation, which led to the Hindu religion's entry into the Ahom royal palace during the reign of Sudangphaa, also known as Bamuni Konwar (reign: 1397–1407). Sudangphaa also appointed a Brahmana as an advisor in the Ahom royal court, and he was the first Ahom king to adopt the coronation of Singarigharutha. Singarigharutha was the traditional coronation ceremony of an Ahom king. It was believed that even though an Ahom prince became a king, he could not attain the status of a full-fledged monarch until his Singarigharutha ceremony was completely performed. Therefore, each Ahom ruler after their accession to the throne tried to organise the ceremony as soon as possible.

Suhungmung (reign: 1497–1539) was the first Ahom king to adopt the Hindu title Swarga-Narayan, a Sanskrit equivalent of Tai-Ahom's Chao-Pha. After the reign of Suhungmung, the Ahom king preferred to use their Hindu names in the official records.[107] The kings who were traditionally known by the title of Chao-Pha were replaced by the title of Swargadeo, and since then Ahom kings came to be known as the 'Swargadeo'.

Continuities of Tai-Ahom practice

[edit]

The priestly classes of the Ahom, like the Mohan, Deodhai and Bailung, mostly remained outside the purview of mainstream Hinduism and continued to express their unwillingness to come into the fold of the Brahmin Hindus.[citation needed] However, the traditions of Tai culture and religion can be found to be preserved by some priestly classes in rituals, marriages and festivals which today reflect the Ahom style of living.

Colonial and postcolonial redefinition

[edit]

According to Saikia (1997), the colonial period brought a fundamental change in the meaning of "Ahom". She argues that after the British assumed control of Assam, the Ahoms were reduced to a census category and absorbed within the broader category of Assamese, while colonial scholarship simultaneously produced a monolithic image of the Tai-Ahoms as a single community possessing a common culture and society.[108] In her later study, Saikia describes this process as the transformation of a fluid pre-colonial political and administrative status into a collective ethnic identity, with "Ahom" increasingly understood as a hereditary community.[109]

The modern identification of the community specifically as "Tai-Ahom" developed further during the twentieth century. Saikia (2004) associates an important stage in this process with Padmeswar Gogoi, whose 1968 work The Tai and the Tai-Ahom Kingdom of the Brahmaputra Valley connected the Ahoms with the wider Tai world and helped establish the Ahoms as a Tai community in academic discourse.[110] She argues that from the 1960s the adoption of the term "Tai-Ahom" narrowed the previously fluid meaning of Ahom and connected it with the Tai peoples of Southeast Asia, while political organisations increasingly sought to constitute Tai-Ahom as a distinct ethnic community and obtain Scheduled Tribe status.[111] During the revival movement of the 1980s, organisations such as the Ban Ok sought to give this community distinctive historical, religious and linguistic markers; Saikia notes that its organisers initially brought together people identified as "Assamese Ahom" with members of several Tai-speaking communities under the Tai-Ahom designation.[112]

References

[edit]
  1. ↑ "There, the Ahoms assimilated some of their Naga, Moran and Barahi neighbours and later, also large sections of the Chutiya and Kachari tribes. This Ahomisation process went on until the expanded Ahom society itself began to be Hinduised from the mid-16th century onward." (Guha 1983:12)
  2. ↑ "From the very beginning until the end of the Swargadeo's rule in the nineteenth century, Ahoms were created from the different groups constituting the 'us' community."(Saikia 2004:135)
  3. ↑ "This unique perception and representation is the crux of what we know and call 'Ahom'. This complex mix cannot be reduced to a single community, nor to one dramatic event. … It was an expression of heterogeneous communities coming together in a process of 'becoming' a socio-cultural entity manifested in a riverine polity."(Saikia 1997:181)
  4. 1 2 3 4 Kumar, Sachin; Singh, Prajjval Pratap; Pasupuleti, Nagarjuna; Tripathy, Veena Mushrif; Chauley, Milan Kumar; Chaubey, Gyaneshwer; Rai, Niraj (2024). "The genetic admixture and assimilation of Ahom: a historic migrant from Thailand to India". Human Molecular Genetics. 33 (11): 1015–1019. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddae054.
  5. 1 2 Cordaux, Richard; Weiss, Gunter; Saha, Nilmani; Stoneking, Mark (2004). "The Northeast Indian Passageway: A Barrier or Corridor for Human Migrations?". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 21 (8): 1525–1533. doi:10.1093/molbev/msh151.
  6. ↑ Debnath, Monojit; Palanichamy, Malliya G.; Mitra, Bikash; Jin, Jie-Qiong; Chaudhuri, Tapas K.; Zhang, Ya-Ping (2011). "Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in the sub-Himalayan Terai and Duars populations of East India". Journal of Human Genetics. 56: 765–771. doi:10.1038/jhg.2011.98.
  7. ↑ Sengupta, Sanghamitra; Zhivotovsky, Lev A.; King, Roy; Mehdi, S. Q.; Edmonds, Christopher A.; Chow, Cheryl-Emiliane T.; Lin, Alice A.; Mitra, Mitashree; Sil, Samir K.; Ramesh, A.; Usha Rani, M. V.; Thakur, Chitra M.; Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Majumder, Partha P.; Underhill, Peter A. (2006). "Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists". American Journal of Human Genetics. 78 (2): 202–221. doi:10.1086/499411.
  8. ↑ Reddy, B. Mohan; Langstieh, B. T.; Kumar, Vikrant; Nagaraja, T.; Reddy, A. N. S. (2007). "Austro-Asiatic Tribes of Northeast India Provide Hitherto Missing Genetic Link between South and Southeast Asia". PLOS ONE. 2 (11): e1141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001141.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  9. ↑ "Shodhganga: a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET" (PDF). Retrieved 16 April 2023.
  10. ↑ (Daniels 2023:30–47)
  11. ↑ Bhuyan 1960, pp. 45–46.
  12. ↑ Saikia 1997, p. 42.
  13. ↑ Gait 1906, p. 75.
  14. ↑ (Barua 1930:45)
  15. ↑ Saikia 1997, p. 4.
  16. 1 2 Baruah 1986, p. 222.
  17. ↑ Bhuyan, Suryya Kumar, ed. (1945). Assam Buranji (1st ed.). Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Assam. p. 5.
  18. ↑ Dutta 1985, p. 24.
  19. ↑ Gogoi 1968, p. 264.
  20. ↑ Phukan 1992, p. 53.
  21. ↑ Saikia 1997, p. 43.
  22. ↑ "The Ahom kingdom's establishment, traditionally dated at 1228, was done by a group migrating from the southeast, large numbers of whom were male army members, who would have taken local non-Tai-speaking wives." Morey 2014, pp. 51–52
  23. ↑ Neog 1962, p. 1.
  24. 1 2 Buragohain, Romesh (13 February 2013). "The ahomisation process in early mediaeval Assam".
  25. ↑ Guha 1983, pp. 11–12.
  26. 1 2 Baruah 1977, p. 251.
  27. 1 2 "Ahoms were never numerically dominant in the state they built and, at the time of the 1872 and 1881 Censuses, they formed hardly one-tenth of the populations relevant to the erstwhile Ahom territory (i.e, by and large, the Brahmaputra Valley without the Goalpara district.)" Guha 1983, p. 9
  28. ↑ "It was neither an ethnic community nor a family inheritance, but rather an identity marker, something to which many aspired but was achieved only by those whom the reigning swargadeo favored to induct into the clique."(Saikia 2004:130)
  29. ↑ "Birth did not play a role in conferring or guaranteeing the place of an Ahom to an individual."(Saikia 2004:136)
  30. ↑ "Being Ahom was an acquired status. It was not a birth condition but a situation, a placement within the higher echelons of society that was acquired through services and favors." "Identity … was elastic and temporary."(Saikia 2004:137–138)
  31. ↑ (Saikia 2004:137)
  32. ↑ (Saikia 2004:137)
  33. ↑ "All of these men, in the course of migration, espoused Barahi women, and a new group called Kadami Ahoms emerged from these unions." "The Moran, Barahis, and many other groups were designated as aniyamar, or irregular Ahoms."(Saikia 2004:131)
  34. ↑ "In the reign of the later Swargadeos many of the Morans and Barahis were upgraded and designated as Ahoms."(Saikia 1997:184)
  35. ↑ (Saikia 2004:137)
  36. ↑ (Saikia 2004:136–140)
  37. ↑ (Saikia 2004:139)
  38. ↑ (Saikia 2004:140)
  39. ↑ (Saikia 2004:138, 141)
  40. ↑ (Saikia 2004:142)
  41. ↑ "In the reign of Pratap Singha, Bhukula Gohain was re-settled in Dihing. He adopted a Miri boy and named him Miri Handique. Thus his progeny was referred to by this name."(Saikia 1997:86)
  42. 1 2 Gogoi 2006, p. 9.
  43. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 587
  44. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 577
  45. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 587
  46. ↑ "This same Moran fought against the Nagas to defend the Tai-Ahom settlers. He was rewarded for his service and placed under Kangan Bar Gohain and re-named Lanmakhru. He started the lineage known as Lanmakhru."(Saikia 1997:91)
  47. ↑ "His family joined the Buragohain's faid, and they were designated as Tingkhamiya Hatisarat. They became Aaham."(Saikia 2004:136–137)
  48. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, Ahomar Din, p. 584.
  49. ↑ "For instance, the Miri-Sandikoi and Moran Patar were the offices drawn from the Miris and the Morans" Gogoi 2006, p. 9
  50. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, Ahomar Din, pp. 577–591.
  51. ↑ "When Lahar Barahi died, his son was appointed as Liksawan Bora [in charge of slaves] ... Swargadeo was pleased with his performance and the Naga boy was made the new Bar Phukan."(Saikia 2004:137)
  52. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, Ahomar Din, pp. 579–592.
  53. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, Ahomar Din, p. 587.
  54. ↑ "Henceforth, the slave boy and his family were recognised as Lai Handique and given a high office."(Saikia 2004:134)
  55. ↑ (Saikia 2004:132)
  56. ↑ Saikia 1997, pp. 12–13.
  57. ↑ "Census of India, 1901". Bombay : Govt. Central Press. 23 June 1901 – via Internet Archive.
  58. ↑ "Langi Panisiya, the first Borphukan, was a Chutiya by caste"(Dutta 1985:30)
  59. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, Ahom Buranji, p.32.
  60. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",p.579
  61. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, Ahom Buranji, p.31, "Phrasenmung con tun cham pai luk Tiura"
  62. ↑ "Chao-Thumlung Borgohain of a Tiura(Tai word for Chutia) family.". Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
  63. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 314
  64. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, Ahom Buranji, p.29.
  65. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, Ahom Buranji, p.32.,"Thaomung Banlung cham pai luk Tiora"
  66. ↑ (Goswami 1922:23–24)
  67. ↑ (Goswami 1922:26)
  68. ↑ Dutta, Shristidhar (1985). "Dutta, Shristidhar, "The Mataks and their Kingdom", p.30" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  69. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",pp.584-594
  70. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",pp.598-600
  71. ↑ Naoboicha Phukanar Buranji, p.55
  72. ↑ Census of India 1891, p. 17
  73. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",pp.586-594
  74. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",p.606
  75. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, "Ahom Buranji, p. 106
  76. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, "Ahom Buranji", p.37, "Burha raja (Chao-pha Su-sheng) made his younger grandson(La-ngi) Borphukan(Phu-kan-lung). In the older times(jim-mu), they were members(man) of a Chutia(Tiu-ra) prisoner(to-ao-pe) family(kan-tun)."
  77. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, "Ahom Buranji", p.36, "Formerly(poi-an mu) during the days (ban) of King Sudangpha(chao-su-dang-pha),.. Then(pu-nai) the king named(chu pin) the family(man ren) Rangachila(ngeu-ding)."
  78. ↑ Goswami, Hemchandra, "Purani Assam Buranji", p.23
  79. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 131
  80. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 579
  81. ↑ (Dutta 1985:30)
  82. ↑ Goswami Hemchandra, Purani Assam Buranji,p.26. ,"পূৰ্বে চুকাফা মহাৰাজৰ দিনত চুটিয়াৰ গাঁঞো মাৰি এটা মানুহ আনিলে, সি‌ ঝলম বাটিব পাৰে। পাচে মহাৰাজা ঝলম বটা দেখি স্বৰ্গদেৱৰ ঘৰত চয়জৰি বটাকৈ দিলে। চাঙ্গচাই নাম দি আহামৰ লগত থাকিব দিলে।"
  83. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",p. 26,"বাটত আহোঁতে পূৰ্বে চুকাফা দেৱে "গৰীয়া" বোলা পলৰীয়া মানুহ এঘৰ পাই আনিছিল। তাৰে সতি-সন্ততিক পাই এইজনা(চুবিনফা) ৰজাদেৱে 'চইজৰি বটাকৈ' দিলে, নাম থলে "চেঙ্গচাই"; বেজিৰ কামো কৰিবলৈ দিলে। পাছে সেই ঘৰকে পাছলৈ 'বকতিয়াল' বুলিলে।"
  84. ↑ "Rupchandra Barbarua of Bakatial Ahom was the son of a rope maker in the employ of a Musalman. Supatpha, the great, emancipated his father from the servitude of the Musalman. He was of the family of Buruk-Chutia."(Barua 1930:32)
  85. ↑ "Langi Panisiya, the first Borphukan, was a Chutiya by caste."(Dutta 1985:30)
  86. ↑ "This same Moran fought against the Nagas to defend the Tai-Ahom settlers. He was rewarded for his service and placed under Kangan Bar Gohain and re-named Lanmakhru. He started the lineage known as Lanmakhru."(Saikia 1997:91)
  87. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 590
  88. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 532
  89. ↑ Goswami Hemchandra, Purani Assam Buranji,p.26. ,"পূৰ্বে চুকাফা মহাৰাজৰ দিনত চুটিয়াৰ গাঁঞো মাৰি এটা মানুহ আনিলে, সি‌ ঝলম বাটিব পাৰে। পাচে মহাৰাজা ঝলম বটা দেখি স্বৰ্গদেৱৰ ঘৰত চয়জৰি বটাকৈ দিলে। চাঙ্গচাই নাম দি আহামৰ লগত থাকিব দিলে।"
  90. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din",p. 26,"বাটত আহোঁতে পূৰ্বে চুকাফা দেৱে "গৰীয়া" বোলা পলৰীয়া মানুহ এঘৰ পাই আনিছিল। তাৰে সতি-সন্ততিক পাই এইজনা(চুবিনফা) ৰজাদেৱে 'চইজৰি বটাকৈ' দিলে, নাম থলে "চেঙ্গচাই"; বেজিৰ কামো কৰিবলৈ দিলে। পাছে সেই ঘৰকে পাছলৈ 'বকতিয়াল' বুলিলে।"
  91. ↑ "Rupchandra Barbarua of Bakatial Ahom was the son of a rope maker in the employ of a Musalman. Supatpha, the great, emancipated his father from the servitude of the Musalman. He was of the family of Buruk-Chutia."(Barua 1930:32)
  92. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, "Ahom Buranji", p. 106
  93. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, "Ahom Buranji", p.37, "Burha raja (Chao-pha Su-sheng) made his younger grandson(La-ngi) Borphukan(Phu-kan-lung). In the older times(jim-mu), they were members(man) of a Chutia(Tiu-ra) prisoner(to-ao-pe) family(kan-tun)."
  94. ↑ Barua, Gopal Chandra, "Ahom Buranji", p.36, "Formerly(poi-an mu) during the days (ban) of King Sudangpha(chao-su-dang-pha),.. Then(pu-nai) the king named(chu pin) the family(man ren) Rangachila(ngeu-ding)."
  95. ↑ Goswami, Hemchandra, "Purani Assam Buranji", p.23
  96. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 131
  97. ↑ (Dutta 1985:30)
  98. ↑ (Barua 1930:383)
  99. ↑ (Barua 1930:89)
  100. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 590
  101. ↑ Barbarua, Hiteswar, "Ahomar Din", p. 532
  102. ↑ "Shodhganga: a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET" (PDF). Retrieved 16 April 2023.
  103. ↑ "The Ahom language and Ahom script were relegated to the religious sphere, where they were used only by some members of the traditional priestly clans, while Assamese speech and writing took over in day-to-day life." Terwiel 1996, p. 276
  104. ↑ Guha 1983, p. 12.
  105. ↑ Sharma (2009), p. 357: "Hinduisation, however, struck strong roots in upper Assam mainly after the Ahom royalty embraced Hinduism and offered patronage to it from the early 16th century, especially as a result of the expansion of the Ahom territory westward which subsumed many Hindu 'Assamese'-speaking subjects, most of whom were actually already Hinduized autochthons."
  106. ↑ Boruah 2007.
  107. ↑ Gait 1906.
  108. ↑ (Saikia 1997:208)
  109. ↑ (Saikia 2004:141–142)
  110. ↑ (Saikia 2004:75)
  111. ↑ (Saikia 2004:168–170)
  112. ↑ (Saikia 2004:183–185)

Notes

[edit]
  1. ↑ Earlier studies reported O-M134 in 85% of sampled Kachari males and 76% of Rabha males.[5] Higher-resolution Y-chromosome analysis subsequently found the downstream O-M117 (subgroup of O-M134) lineage in 57.7% of sampled Rabha males and 47.4% of Mech males.[6] High frequencies of O-M134 have also been reported among the Boro–Garo-speaking Tripuri (17 of 21 males; 81.0%) and Jamatia (22 of 30; 73.3%) samples from Tripura.[7] The lineage is likewise frequent among other Tibeto-Burman populations of Northeast India: Cordaux et al. (2004) found O-M134 in 85.5% of a combined sample of Adi, Apatani, Nishi and Naga males, with frequencies ranging from 76% to 94% among the individual populations.[5] Among the Garo, O-M134 was reported in 23% of sampled males, together with the related downstream O-M133 lineage.[8]
  2. ↑ According to the Satsari Assam Buranji, Sukaphaa's passage through the Patkai involved repeated attacks on Naga villages. Several villages surrendered or were abandoned following attacks, while resistant Nagas were subjected to severe exemplary punishments. One account states that captives were killed and their relatives compelled to eat their flesh; the Ahom Buranji similarly records that several villages submitted while others resisted or were destroyed, and that neighbouring villages subsequently submitted after witnessing this treatment.[11][12][13][14] The migrating group also expanded by capturing people along its route, whom Saikia identifies as Chutias, Morans and Borahis.[15]
  3. ↑ The Assam Buranji records that some Moran families refused to recognise Sukaphaa as king; their headmen were killed, after which the others submitted and acknowledged him as king.[17] The Purani Assam Buranji similarly states that the headmen of the resistant families were invited to a feast, made intoxicated and killed by Sukaphaa's men.[18] Baruah consequently describes Sukaphaa as winning over the Morans and Borahis by "peace and conciliation", while those who challenged him were "ruthlessly killed".[16]
  4. ↑ The chronicles portray this expansion as strategically selective. At Simaluguri, Sukaphaa learned of a heavy concentration of population around the Namdang and moved away rather than attempt to reduce them to submission. One Ahom Buranji account refers to about 3,300 watering ghats on the Namdang and says that Sukaphaa, "being a little afraid", moved on, while the Satsari Assam Buranji describes his followers as "feeling uncomfortable" after finding nearly 3,000 ghats there. Phukan interprets these accounts as Sukaphaa deciding that it was not worthwhile to attempt their subjugation.[20][21]
  5. ↑ Such incorporation could follow military submission as well as alliance and intermarriage. The early polity therefore developed through a combination of settlement, conquest, political submission, conciliation and incorporation rather than through either wholly peaceful assimilation or indiscriminate conquest.
  6. ↑ The process did not necessarily eliminate the separate identities of incorporated groups. The Borahis were eventually largely absorbed into the Ahom population, whereas the Morans continued to retain a distinct identity. Many indigenous families were also ceremonially adopted into Ahom clans.
  7. ↑ The incorporation of these populations occurred within the wider process of Ahom state formation and could involve conquered elites, soldiers, artisans, professional groups and other subjects being incorporated into Ahom clans and administrative organisations. The Chutia kingdom was annexed to the Ahom state, whereas Ahom expansion against the Kachari kingdom did not amount to the permanent annexation of the entire Dimasa polity.
  8. ↑ Saikia argues that in pre-colonial Assam, being Ahom was an acquired status rather than a condition fixed by birth.[35] She notes that individuals of non-Ahom backgrounds could enter the Ahom administrative elite through service, appointment and royal favour.[36] In her reading, ethnicity was not the determining factor in becoming Ahom; rather, the favour of the swargadeo was decisive, and the composition of the Ahom nobility consequently varied under different rulers.[37] She describes the Ahom officials as a heterogeneous body selected and brought together by royal mandate to assist in governing the kingdom.[38] Ahom status was also not necessarily permanent, since the swargadeo could elevate or demote individuals and thereby alter their social identity.[39] Saikia contrasts this fluid pre-colonial category with the colonial period, when "Ahom" was transformed from what she calls a "fluid, official position" into a hereditary group identity and ethnicity.[40]
  9. ↑ Saikia notes that an oral tradition regarded the Handiques as one of the original clans accompanying Sukaphaa, but that over time other people received the Handique designation or were incorporated into the clan, making the original families difficult to trace.[56]
  10. ↑ 1 Lahon and 1 Bakatial were missing from the list. Langi Panisiya is counted separately from the rest of the 10 Rangachila Borphukans.
  11. ↑ Langi Panisiya is known to be the first of the Borphukans of the Rangachila lineage. The Ahom Buranji mentions Langi Panisiya Barphukan as "Rangachila" in 1620[75] and also belonging to the Chutia lineage[76]. The Rangachila lineage originated during the reign of Sudangphaa (r. 1397–1407), when its ancestor was given the name Rangachila.[77] The Purani Assam Buranji, however, mistakenly renders Sudangphaa as Suramphaa (r. 1641–1644)[78], an error subsequently repeated in Ahomar Din.[79]
  12. ↑ Langi Panisiya is known to be the first of the Borphukans of the Rangachila lineage. The Ahom Buranji mentions Langi Panisiya Barphukan as Rangachila in 1620[92] and also belonging to the Chutia lineage[93]. The Rangachila lineage originated during the reign of Sudangphaa (r. 1397–1407), when its ancestor was given the name Rangachila.[94] The Purani Assam Buranji, however, mistakenly renders Sudangphaa as Suramphaa (r. 1641–1644)[95], an error subsequently repeated in Ahomar Din.[96]
  13. ↑ Patal is mentioned as Chutia in Ahom Buranji[98] and Kheremial Kachari in the Assam Buranji (written by Kasinath Tamuli Phukan in the 19th century). Such terminology was, however, not always consistent: the 19th-century Naoboicha Phukanar Buranji, for example, refers to the Chutias as Chutia-Kachari. Chutia settlements are also recorded in the Namrup and Kheram regions,[99] which may explain the differing descriptions.

Bibliography

[edit]
  • Boruah, Nirode (2007), Early Assam, Guwahati, Delhi: Spectrum Publications
  • Gait, Edward (1906), A History of Assam, Thacker, Spink & Co, Calcutta
  • Guha, Amalendu (December 1983), "The Ahom Political System: An Enquiry into the State Formation Process in Medieval Assam (1228–1714)", Social Scientist, 11 (12): 3–34, doi:10.2307/3516963, JSTOR 3516963, archived from the original on 6 July 2023, retrieved 29 July 2020
  • Neog, Dimbeswar (1962), New Light on History of Asamiya Literature, Gauhati{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Morey, Stephen (2014), "Ahom and Tangsa: Case studies of language maintenance and loss in North East India", in Cardoso, Hugo C. (ed.), Language Endangerment and Preservation in South Asia, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 46–77
  • Baruah, S. L. (1977). "Ahom Policy Towards the Neighbouring Hill Tribes". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 38: 249–256. ISSN 2249-1937. JSTOR 44139078.
  • Gogoi, Padmeshwar (1968), The Tai and the Tai Kingdoms, Guwahati: Gauhati University
  • Bhuyan, Suryya Kumar, ed. (1945), Assam Buranji (1st ed.), Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Assam
  • Baruah, S. L. (1986), A Comprehensive History of Assam, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
  • Bhuyan, Suryya Kumar (1960), Satsari Asam Buranji, Gauhati: Gauhati University
  • Phukan, J. N. (1992), "The Tai-Ahom Power in Assam", in Barpujari, H. K. (ed.), The Comprehensive History of Assam, vol. 2, Guwahati: Publication Board, Assam, pp. 49–60
  • Saikia, Yasmin (1997), In the Meadows of Gold: Telling Tales of the Swargadeos at the Crossroads of Assam, Guwahati: Spectrum Publications, ISBN 81-85319-61-8
  • Gogoi, Nitul Kumar (2006), Continuity and Change among the Ahoms, Concept Publishing Company, Delhi
  • Saikia, Yasmin (2004). Fragmented Memories. Duke University. ISBN 978-0-8223-3373-9.
  • Buragohain, Romesh (2013), The ahomisation process in early mediaeval Assam
  • Terwiel, B.J. (1996). "Recreating the Past: Revivalism in Northeastern India". Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. 152 (2): 275–92. doi:10.1163/22134379-90003014. JSTOR 27864746.
  • Sharma, Chandan Kumar (2009), "Tribe Caste Continuum and the Formation of Assamese Identity", in Medhi, B.K (ed.), Tribes of North-East India: Issues and Challenges, Delhi: Omsons Publications, pp. 354–366
  • Goswami, Hemchandra (1922). Purani Asam Buranji. Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies.
  • Daniels, Christian (October 2023). "When did the Ahom Migrate to Assam?". Indian Journal of Tai Studies. XXIII. Institute of Tai Studies and Research.
  • Barua, Golap Chandra (1930). Ahom Buranji: With Parallel English Translation from the Earliest Time to the End of Ahom Rule. Published under the Authority of the Assam Administration.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahomisation&oldid=1376700260"