Reviews
Summary
The review critically examines Rai Babadur K. I Barua’s *Early History of Kamaripa* (1933), noting both strengths and discrepancies. While praising the work’s thorough research, the reviewer disputes several points: the identification of Dharmapala’s plates (arguing they belong to Ratnapala, not Dharmapala, based on the *Sandvaldi* and *Nidhanpur* inscriptions); the claim that the Khasa tribe is Nepalese; and the confusion between *Kamaripa Sadsongvaliy* and *Kamaripa Rajavali* in footnotes. The reviewer also challenges Barua’s interpretation of the Karatoyi River’s geography, citing the *Nalika Purana* and Renaissance maps, and questions the timeline of land grants by Bhativarman and Harsha. Additionally, the review reasserts Supratisthitavarman’s brief but valid reign in Kamaripa, supported by a Nalanda seal, and disputes the claim that Bhaskara transferred his capital to Karnasuvarna, emphasizing his likely temporary occupation during Harsha’s reign. The reviewer concludes that Bhaskara retained sovereignty over Kamaripa and only held Karnasuvarna until Harsha’s death, rejecting the vassalage theory. The analysis underscores the complexity of Kamaripa’s historical narrative and the need for careful source evaluation.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This review critically examines Barua's *Early History of Kamarupa*, highlighting both its valuable contributions and notable discrepancies. While acknowledging the author's meticulous research, the reviewer identifies several points of contention, such as misinterpretations of historical records, geographical inaccuracies regarding river systems, and questionable attributions of royal successions. The analysis underscores the complexity of Kamarupa's historical narrative, emphasizing the need for further scholarly scrutiny to clarify ambiguities and reconcile conflicting evidence. Despite its flaws, the work remains a significant foundational study, prompting ongoing dialogue about the region's early history and its intricate political dynamics. The reviewer's detailed critiques, supported by textual references, aim to refine future historical inquiry and ensure greater accuracy in interpreting Kamarupa's past.