Talk:History of Manipur

Partial narration of Manipur history:

The article dose not cover the history of the hilly region of the State. Dates and places mentioned are only about the Meitei or the valley people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.79.cxvcxxvcxvcx227 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

59.177.79.cxvcxxvcxvcx227 (talk you are free to add more info about Manipur hills with reliable source,Luwanglinux (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Annexation of Manipur to India

India's ouster of the Maharaja and military annexation of Manipur.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KvrOV2XDuGIC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YdqWG2WWQH0C&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Large removal of content

To restore any of the removed content, please follow WP:HISTRS and WP:PROVEIT. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sharma, Manorama (2004). "Socio-Economic History in Pre-Colonial North-East India: Trends, Problems, and Possibilities". In Momin, Mignonette; Mawlong, Cecile A. (eds.). Society and Economy in North-East India. Regency Publications. ISBN 978-81-87498-83-4. discusses the absolutely poor state of historiography of Manipur and adjoining territories.

Ray, Sohini (2015). "Boundaries Blurred? Folklore, Mythology, History and the Quest for an Alternative Genealogy in North-east India". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 25 (2): 247–267. ISSN 1356-1863. also makes it clear that Manipuri history is a contested domain.

I have also ordered a copy of Kabui, Gangmumei (2006). On history and historiography of Manipur. New Delhi: Akansha Pub. House. ISBN 81-8370-059-4. from my local library. Hoping that it contains relevant discussions.TrangaBellam (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Puya Meithaba

TrangaBellam Is Puya Meithaba a fake event? what are you trying to say here? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I hope you read history of Manipur very well first also why do you remove puya meithaba section? Is that a fake event? Are the sources I added not WP:RS 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sohini Ray writes, Varying but detailed accounts regarding how the manuscripts were burned at the time of the Hindu conversion can be elicited from local scholars in the community. One legend has it that the puyas were too sacred to be burned and actually flew away from the fire, while others note there were a number of scholars who had many copies of the same text, so even though some copies of the puyas were burned, others remained. Yet another interpretation of the legend is that the puyas were taken outside the Valley to save them from the king's wrath. I have also heard that the puyas were written in water-resistant ink on similarly protected paper and were hidden underwater. No matter what happened, the puyas in Meitei script are all found in Manipur today.

As is obvious, the burning is one particular strand of a legend whose central motif is the attempted purge of ancient literature by the converted King.

One of your sources is some journal of computer science. Another is a poem over a journal of literature. Yet another is some non-indexed university journal from Pakistan. The last source (Ratna Mutum) is reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Had all puya not been burned historical records since King Kangba creator of modern polo which reign is believed to be from BC period will exist. It was only a few puya that can be saved or copied. There are even fake puya 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your assertion over this talk-page doesn't satisfy WP:HISTRS. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing well referenced well cited section make me believe you revert any edit which are not presented in your expectation. Aren't you too biased to depend only on one writer[ Sohini Ray] ignoring all other writers book or journal 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Biased for a trained anthropologist (and a professor) over some computer-scientist? Over some poet? Over some hardly-popular scholar of literature? I guess, yes. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Brandt, Carmen (2017-12-05). "Writing off domination: the Chakma and Meitei script movements". South Asian History and Culture: 126–127. ISSN 1947-2498. notes more interesting details about the construction of the event and historicity. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing again, historical facts can't be removed nor distorted at will. hope you read Manipur History by Gangmumei Kamei bye I am so tired of countless debate with you and Kautilya. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

talk notes more interesting details about the construction of the event and historicity. what do you mean by these line are you saying meitei script also known as Meetei Mayek which is the script used in Puya as some cooked up not historical texts? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is from a peer reviewed Journal published by an academic institution of India.(Dept. ofBengali, KarimganjCollege, Karimganj, Assam, India) Here is the quoted line

The „Cheitharol Kumbaba‟, the royal chronicle mentioned the incident of „Puya Meithaba‟ (burning of Ancient books of Manipuri Scriptures). The first reference to the burning of Ancient books were made by Khumanthem Kaomacha who was ballad singer turned historian in his „Manipur Ittibritti‟(1934) and the names of 123 books in manuscripts which were burnt are listed in this work.23More than 123 Meitei Puyas had been consigned at Kangla Uttra to flames at around 9–10 a.m. Sunday the 17th day of Mera (21st October in 1729). Of the 123 manuscripts, the ancient chingoirons which were also burnt in this unethical and condemnable act namely, Langmaiching Chingoiron, KoubruChingoiron, Loijing Chingoiron.

and the source for verification [1] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not meaning anything. I am saying what Sohini Ray, an anthropologist and Carmen Brandt, a faculty of contemporary South Asian Studies at University of Bonn have discussed in their articles.

The journal (whose article is cited by you) is indexed in which database? UGC Care (which appears to be India Government's attempt at Beall's List) doesn't feature it either. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here ia the detail of the database for the journal I cited " PratidhwanitheEcho APeer-Reviewed InternationalJournalof Humanities&SocialScienceISSN: 2278-5264(Online)2321-9319(Print)Impact Factor: 6.28(Index Copernicus International)Volume-VI, Issue-III, January2018,PageNo. 269-280PublishedbyDept. ofBengali, KarimganjCollege, Karimganj, Assam, IndiaWebsite:http://www.thecho.in " 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This journal looks like a predatory journal. Articles in predatory journals are deemed self-published (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and therefore have restricted use in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable_use_of_self-published_works). I don't think this source satisfies the exception required. We should jut avoid predatory journals. Chaipau (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau I thought this journal would satisfy WP:HISTRS as it was published by an academic institution anyway historicity of Puya Meithaba is undeniable although there may be controversy of the events among different scholars. This event led to banishing and lost of Meitei script for a long time 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The event happened in Manipur, I think consideration of Manipur historians will be needed.If every work of Manipur historian is projected as predatory publishing, it will mean Manipur royal chronicle like Cheitharol Kumbaba is considered some some local folk tale and have no place in historicity of events. please read history of Manipur by Gangmumei Kamei (A professor) even he analyze this event in that book.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody stops the Manipur historians from publishing in international journals like the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society. So the idea that we are banishing "Manipur historians" doesn't hold any water. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Regretting the burning of the puya, Leishemba Sanajaoba said it is a great loss.

[ http://www.manipur.org/news/tag/kanglaonline-2/page/541/] This is from present titular king of Manipur Leishemba Sanajaoba 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You are arguing that the present titular king of Manipur is a historian? That's possible but strange. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying he is a historian but he is royal blood line, Puya Meithaba took place in royal palace Kangla.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 14:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I won't bother engaging with you, anymore. Interested audience can read Singh, Aheibam Koireng; Singh, Sanasam Amal (2014). Bonfire of Books: Cataclysmic Rupture in the Early 18th Century Manipur. Centre for Manipur Studies, Manipur University. ISBN 978-81-8334-057-1. for further details (and debates) on the contested nature of this event in Manipuri history. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Pong Chronicles

Grierson's LSI noted the Shan Chronicles to mention of Manipuris, as early as 777 AD. Somebody, who can provide the exact context? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Parratt writes There is no clear comparative dating evidence from elsewhere to assign likely dates in the pre-Kyampa era. The only event during this period for which we have any outside evidence is a visit to Manipur by Samlong, a prince of the kingdom of Pong, dated in the Ch.K. as 678 CE and by the Pong chronicle referred to by Pemberton as 777 CE. We have no means of knowing which source (if either) is correct...The chronicle of the kings of Pong seems no longer to be in existence, but it is quoted at length in Pemberton’s book on the north-eastern frontier of India, published in 1835. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, Pemberton notes a gap of 60 years between PC and Ch.K. It is 100, per Parratt. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, trying to find out what happened to this "Pong chronicle". Maybe some kind of interesting trivia (cf. Hasan Shah's translation of Ratnakara Purana) awaits us. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wright, Arnold (1910). Twentieth century impressions of Burma : its history, people, commerce, industries, and resources. Lloyd's Greater Britain Pub. Co. p. 408. states, It was also referred to in a Shan chronicle discovered by Major Pemberton in 1835. The manuscript unfortunately disappeared immediately after being translated.

Santasombat, Yos (2008). Introduction. ANU Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-921536-38-0. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) states, For example, the kingdom of Pong appears in the translation of a Tai Yai chronicle obtained in Manipur by Captain Pemberton in 1895. (Got the year wrong?) TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Aung-Thwin, Michael (1996). "The Myth of the "Three Shan Brothers" and the Ava Period in Burmese History". The Journal of Asian Studies. 55 (4): 884. doi:10.2307/2646527. ISSN 0021-9118. states, Among his [Phayre (1883)] sources was a recently discovered Shan chronicle obtained from a Captain R. D. Pemberton who had apparently found it around 1835. It is a confusing narrative of fact and fiction, didactic and straightforward, religious and secular material, and may have convinced Phayre that his Shan thesis had some basis. Among other things, the chronicle duplicated individuals and events two centuries apart, so that, for example, a real attack of Ava by Shan chieftain Thohanbwa in 1527 was repeated in an account of the 1330s...

So, Arnold Wright was obviously wrong about the manuscript disappearing immediately after Pemberton's translation of it into Meitei (by scribes). TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

E.H. Parker, whom Michael Aung-Thwin credits with taking Phayre's use of and reliance on Pemberton's Shan chronicle to task, notes after analyzing an entirely different event (wrt Chinese sources, which have been since noted to be very accurate), The fact is the Manipur chronicle is exactly a century wrong [early]. An event of 1432-50 is mentioned by the chronicle as having happened in 1332.

In light of this error (which derives either from the manuscript itself or the translation), it is expected that the event with Manipuris took place 100 years later i.e. in 877. But, Ch.K. noted the event to be 100 years earlier than the manuscript i.e. in 678 AD! A net gap of ~200 years now persists.

Michael Aung-Thwin notes (p. 887) about an event in the sixteenth century [to be] confused by Pemberton's Shan chronicle for the fourteenth. 163 years, to be precise. Again, the chronicle is early. Not late. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sao Saimong (The Shan States and the British annexation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Dept. of Asian Studies, Cornell University. 1965. p. 34.) comments that Pemberton's report of Pong reached the compilers in English after having passed through two or three hands and as many languages. It is natural, therefore, that there should be mistakes in Shan sounds and dates after such treatment. I suspect that the original Shan source of both works was Mao Shan. It is evident that he did not have access to the manuscript. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe User:瑞丽江的河水 can add something of interest. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: As Sao Saimong said, the story of Kingdom of Pong that Pemberton recorded was a combination of legends of Mong Mao and Mongkawng, "Kingdom of Pong" is not an exist historical country. My interest focus on Mong Mao, I don't know what I can say, just offer something related you may interest in.

• Georges Maspero said Manipur was annexed by Mong Mao around mid 13 century, in La géographie politique de l'Indochine aux environs de 960 A.D., I don't have origin text, only read Chinese translated version. But I have other evidence. In a 15th century Burmese inscription found in Pagan:
  On Tuesday the waxing of Tagu he captured the capital of Suiw Khut called Kale. On Thursday the 7 waxing of the month he captured the Mo king Suiw Nam Phwa (should be ᥔᥫᥴ ᥒᥛᥰ ᥜᥣᥳ (/sə³⁵ ŋam⁵⁵ fa⁵³/) in Tai Nuea language or Si Renfa (思任法) in Chinese, the king of Mong Mao, failed in Luchuan-Pingmian campaigns fled to Burma and captured by Burmese) own grandson of the Lord of Nine Hundred Thousand, Suiw Khan Phwa (should be ᥔᥫᥴ ᥑᥣᥢᥱ ᥜᥣᥳ (/sə³⁵ xaːn¹¹ fa⁵³/) in Tai Nuea language or Si Kefa (思可法) in Chinese, the king of Mong Mao) ruler of the 21 Umbrellas:- Muiṅ Mo; Muiṅ Ñaṅ; the ocean-bordered, anklet-wearing Kulā (Indians) and Tiḿmasā (Hill Kacharis); Muiṅ Kālé; Kasañ (Manipur)…… This content is come from A 15th Century Inscription and Library at Pagán, Burma, by Gordon Luce and Tin Htway in Malalasekera Commemoration Volume, page 214. I give you a photograph of the paper, a friend of my friend took from Kyoto University😂. [2]
  And an inscription that translated by Taw Sein Ko also mentioned that Manipur was a principality of the Mong Mao [3]. These two inscriptions are very similar, I suspect they were the same one.
• Secondly, both Pemberton and Cheitharol Kumbaba are exaggerations on time. Pemberton page 109, In the year 777 A. D., Murgnow died, leaving two sons, called Sookampha and Samlongpha, of whom the eldest Sookampha succeeded to the throne of Pong, and in his reign we find the first traces of a connexion with the more western countries……. Cheitharol Kumbaba (Parratt) page 29 Sakabda 585 (663 CE). Naothingkhong became king. In Sakabda 620 (698 CE) Samlung, the younger brother of Sukanpha, the king of Pong, after having annexed to his kingdom all the lands up to Pasa…… Sookampha / Sukanpha is Si Kefa, his Tai Nuea name is ᥔᥫᥴ ᥑᥣᥢᥱ ᥜᥣᥳ (/sə35 xaːn11 fa53/). He lives in the 13 to 14 century. His throne time, Fang Guoyu said was 1340 (calculate based on Baiyi Zhuan), and Christian Daniels said 1335 (calculate based on Baiyi Zhuan and Dehong Dai chronicle). So, Samlongpha or Samlung should live in the 13 to 14 century as well. Based on Dehong Dai chronicle 银云瑞雾的勐果占璧简史, Mong Mao annexed the surrounding area first, and have war with the Yuan dynasty, and then continue to annexed the surrounding area, after the war at the southeastern finish, Si Kefa commands his brother Samlongpha to attack Mong Wesali (Assam). According to Yuanshi, Mong Mao has warred with the Yuan dynasty in the years 1346, 1347, and 1348. So Samlongpha attack Assam should later than 1348 at least. Georges Maspero said Manipur was annexed by Mong Mao around mid 13 century, he said he read Kosambi (classical name of Mong Mao) Chronicle and Ahom Chronicle and get the conclusion. A very very interesting thing is that many of Dai-Shan's chronicle has a time confuse on 12 to 14 century, they record 13-century events as 12 century, and 14-century events as 13 century, example: Introductory Sketch of the History of the Shans in Upper Burma and Western Yunnan, Hsenwi State Chronicle, 孟定土司源流 (Mengding Tusi Chronicle), etc. So, I have a bold conjecture that the chronicle that Georges Maspero gets, is also confused on the 12 to 14 century time record. Probably Assam and Manipur were annexed by Mong Mao after 1348, not in the 13 century.--Xiliuheshui · chat 14:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful about what the state structures were and what the relationships were. Annexed is too strong a relationship. At least in Assam, the Tai prince who came to Assam actually settled down and ruled independently. But he and some of his descendants sent tributes to Mong Mao. The tributes eventually stopped and in 1400 there was a war and they settled their relationship finally. A similar situation is possible in Manipur. Chaipau (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau I think so too, according to Manipur written records as well as oral and historical evidence there is still Pong engkhol which mean pong area or home land(engkhol), Pong lambi(road) and it is said that Pong and Manipur had allied relation. King Kyampa with allience of Pong king jointly conquered Kabaw (Kale). 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the word annex is not suiting here, forgive my poor English. In 银云瑞雾的勐果占璧简史, Mong Wesali sent tributes to Mong Mao after Samlongpha's attack. Tribute is a major part of the political structure in Mong Mao. Mongmit, Hsenwi, Mongyawng also execute this pattern. @Chaipau: Could you please offer some literature about The tributes eventually stopped and in 1400 there was a war and they settled their relationship finally? I'm interested in it. I'm still puzzled about the relationship between Ahom and Mong Mao, Buranji said Sukaphaa is a prince from Mong Mao, but China and Burma Dai chronicle never mentioned the name or events about Sukaphaa. And I found an interesting thing in Buranji:

Rai Sahib Golap Chandra Barua translated Ahom-Buranji page 43 and 44 mentioned a person named Shukhanpha, he is the son of Pameoplung, his mother gets pregnant after intercourse with a grandson of the god, and Shukhanpha became king of Maolung (Mong Mao also called Mong Mao Long) finally. I think Shukhanpha is Si Kefa. Reason: 1.Name similar, Shukhanpha and ᥔᥫᥴ ᥑᥣᥢᥱ ᥜᥣᥳ (/sə35 xaːn11 fa53/), Tai Nuea name of Si Kefa. 2.The birth, Si Kefa is also the son of a Mong Mao king, but the king's name is 混芳罕（Khun Hpang Hkam）, and his mother has intercourse with a god, the story can be found in 银云瑞雾的勐果占璧简史 and Hsenwi State Chronicle. 3.The father of Pameoplung named Chao-Taiplung, the name is also recorded in 银云瑞雾的勐果占璧简史 (傣蚌, ᥖᥭᥰ ᥙᥨᥒ) and Hsenwi State Chronicle (Tai Pong), in this two literature, Tai Pong is the father of Khun Hpang Hkam. If this conjecture holds, Shukhanpha is Si Kefa, then Sukaphaa should live in 14 century with the same period of Si Kefa.--Xiliuheshui · chat 16:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: You mentioned the king Choupha Khekkhompa who allied with King Kyampa, I think he is the 思洪发 (Si Hongfa) in Mingshilu, he is the king of Mongyawng. Si's family failed in Luchuan-Pingmian campaigns lost Mong Mao core region and retreat to Mongyawng. Cheitharol Kumbaba said the time they allies is Sakabda 1392 (1470 CE). The Mingshilu recorded Si Hongfa reign approximately between 1461 and 1480. Not only the name similar, the time also can be matched. But I don't know what is Khe means here, some books said Khe is "China" in the Ahom language.--Xiliuheshui · chat 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xiliuheshui: according to the historians of Assam Sukaphaa was the not the son but the nephew of Pao Meo Pung. Sukaphaa's mother was Pao Meo Pung's sister. Pao Meo Pung was without issue, and Sukaphaa was the "crown prince." But a son born late to Pao Meo Pung (Shukhangpha) meant Sukaphaa was no longer the direct heir, and he decided to establish his own domain—and journeyed out reaching Assam many years later. Chaipau (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yeah, I have no doubt that Sukaphaa is the nephew of Pao Meo Pung. In Rai Sahib Golap Chandra Barua translated Ahom-Buranji page 42 - 43: Chao-Taiplung had three sons. The eldest was Tailung, the youngest Pameoplung and the second Lengsham Phuchangkhang. The latter was an adopted one. They were in all three brothers. Then Chao-Taiplung divided his countries between his sons. He gave Tailung, the eldest, the rule of Mungjin, Pameoplung, the youngest, the rule of the country, Maolung and Phuchangkhang, the rule of the country, Kupklingdao.……In Lakni, Raishinga, Blakkhamdeng, the grandson of the Lord of heaven (Indra) came down to have a bath in a river and the queen of Pameoplung also went there. There Blakkhamdeng had an intercourse with her and she became pregnant. She was putting up with her father, Thaokhenlung. In Lakni, Mungmut Shukhanpha the great was born. Shukhanpha remained with Thaokhenlung.Then the king, Chao-Changnyeu died. Pameoplung, also committed suicide by cutting his throat with a knife. In Lakni, Katrao, Shukhampha became king. What I said previously is about this paragraph.--Xiliuheshui · chat 19:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Xiliuheshui Can you tell in brief during which period did Tai Pong rule or which era he lived, there is something intersting here in Meitei Tai Pong Pan(Panba which mean reign) means the human world some even believed it to be mythical or legendary term, recently I came across Houtong cat village article on wikipedia, Houtong means cat in Meitei too..🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

...deleted irrelevant text...--Xiliuheshui · chat 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xiliuheshui: I was asking you about the brief story of Tai Pong father of Khun Hpang Hkam which you mentioned specifically in which era he lived?.. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstand the "Tai Pong". The person "Tai Pong" (zh:傣蚌) lives in the 13 to 14 century. The names in the following text are translated by me and are for easy reading only.

• According to 银云瑞雾的勐果占璧简史 (Brief History of Misty Mong Kosambi): A descendant of Khun Lung named Khun Tai Kham (混傣翰, ᥑᥧᥢᥴ ᥖᥭᥰ ᥑᥣᥢᥴ), he is the chaopha of Hsenwi State, he built the "Ven Siam Che"(允线遮) city. Khun Tai Kham has three sons, and the third son named Tao Khun Yun (岛混韵, ᥖᥝᥲ ᥑᥧᥢᥴ ᥝᥦᥢ), who be canonized the chaopha of Mong Ying (勐英, a place in Hsenwi). After Tao Khun Yun dead, his son Tao Pha Pong (岛法崩, ᥖᥝᥳ ᥜᥣᥳ ᥙᥨᥒ) succession to the throne. Tao Pha Pong has three sons: eldest son Po Chang Kham (珀章翰, ᥚᥫᥱ ᥓᥣᥒᥱ ᥑᥣᥒᥱ), second son Khun Tai Pong (傣蚌, ᥖᥭᥰ ᥙᥨᥒ), and the third son Hpang Hkam (芳罕, ᥜᥣᥒᥴ ᥑᥛᥰ). After Khun Tai Kham died, nobody succession the throne. The minister invites Tao Pha Pong to be the chaopha of Hsenwi. But Tao Pha Pong refused, and he recommends Khun Tai Pong to succession the Hsenwi throne, and let Po Chang Kham and Hpang Hkam go to assist Khun Tai Pong. In Dai calendar 429 year (1066 AD), Khun Tai Pong succession the chaopha of Hsenwi. In Dai calendar 539 year (1176) the Mong Mao chaopha died, ministers went to "Ven Siam Che" to ask for a leader, Khun Tai Pong (might be the mistake of Tao Pha Pong, or Tai Pong has a third son with the same name as his brother) let his third son Hpang Hkam to succession the chaopha of Mong Mao. In Dai calendar 540 year, the year is 辛酉 (Sexagenary cycle, I don't know how to translate. Dai calendar 540 year should be 1177 AD, but 辛酉 in Dai calendar is 1167 AD, time confusing.), Hpang Hkam arrived Mong Mao and became the chaopha. In Dai calendar 639 year (1276), Chao Tai Pong participated First Mongol invasion of Burma. Above story is also recorded in Hsenwi State Chronicle.
• According to 嘿勐咕勐——勐卯古代诸王史 (History of Kings in Ancient Mong Mao): In the Dai people region at the bank of Nam Kiu (Irrawaddy River), a king named Tai Pong, he is a respected and prestigious king. He has three sons: eldest son Ai Pu (艾补), second son Chao Yi (召伊), third son Sam Long (三弄). On the 9th day of December, Dai calendar 己酉 year (1335 AD), Tai Pong died. The next year January, Chao Yi and Sam Long lead the army march to Mong Mao. Mong Mao previous king Lang Ka (朗戛, ᥘᥣᥒᥰ ᥐᥣ) abdicate the chaopha to Chao Yi. Chao Yi then rename to Hso Hkan Hpa (思翰法, ᥔᥫᥴ ᥑᥣᥢᥱ ᥜᥣᥳ, Tai Nuea name of Si Kefa).
• According to Yuanshi: (Volume 26, Basic Annals of Renzong): （延祐六年）十一月辛卯，……木邦路带邦为寇，敕云南省招捕之. On the 辛卯 day of November in Yanyou 6 year (Chinese calendar, 1319-12-22 in CE), Hsenwi Tai Pong rebelled, imperial order Yunnan provincial agency to arrest him. (Volume 27, Basic Annals of Yingzong): （延祐七年九月）甲辰，云南木邦路土官绐邦子忙兀等入贡，赐币有差. On the 甲辰 day of September in Yanyou 7 year (Chinese calendar, 1320-10-20 in CE), Mang-wu, the son of Tai Pong, chiefdom of Hsenwi, take tribute, give some gifts back.--Xiliuheshui · chat 20:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks this is what I wanted to know. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Seven Years Devastation of Manipur into History of Manipur

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, but rather to improve the important Seven Years Devastation of Manipur article. Klbrain (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Minimally differentiated moment, that should be better covered in the main article Sadads (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No, let Seven Years Devastation of Manipur be there as a separate article. It is one of the most important period ever happen in Manipur. Simon0117 (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support merge. Agree with nom. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Support merge. Per nominator. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. (Changed my mind) The Burmese occupation of Manipur is a significant event in the history of Manipur. It brought the British into the picture, and helped paved the way for the modernisation of Manipur. I made an alternative proposal for cleaning up the "Seven Years Devasation" page at Talk:Seven Years Devastation of Manipur page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2024 (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.