History of Manipur
Bhagyachandra and his successors issued coins engraved with the title of Manipureshwar, or lord of Manipur and the name Meckley was discarded.
[10] Archaeological research in Northeast India is severely scarce, mostly limited to surface explorations, and lacking in state-of-the-art methods.
[12] This is however disputed and Northeast Corridors are proposed by some scholars to have played a defining role in early hominid migrations and peopling of India.
[14] However, Manjil Hazarika, in his 2017 survey of prehistory of Northeast India, rejects that there exists any plausible ground to deny presence of Paleolithic culture in Manipur.
[17] Multiple neolithic sites have been identified in Manipur; they include Nongpok Keithelmanbi, Napachik, Laimenai, Naran Siena, and Phunan.
[18] Considered to be part of a larger Southeast Asian complex, the identifications are primarily accorded on the basis of stone tools and pottery (esp.
[21] Hazarika notes the Manipuri sites to have an abundance of three-legged pottery and cord-impressed ware, very similar to the ones found in Southern China and Thailand, and hypothesizes that Manipur might have been the melting pot of Neolithic impulses from adjoining regions.
[22] Roger Blench, in agreement with George van Driem's reconstructions of archeo-linguistic history of Southeast Asia, proposes that Northeast India accommodated a diverse group of foragers since neolithic age, who learned agriculture and animal rearing c. 4000 B.C before migrating eastwards and establishing the Tibeto-Burman (TB) phylum.
[25] Sometime before the Christian era, the valley got inhabited by distinct yeks (clans), who had probably migrated from Southern China during the late Iron Age.
[26] There has been a marked absence of historical evidence especially written records governing the span between Iron Age and the first millennium in North East India.
[32] Saroj Nalili Parratt hypothesizes that many of these monarchs were probably borrowed from the cultural pantheon and interspersed with religious myths to fit into their collective memory of intra-clan conquests and legitimize the current rule by the Meitei.
Parratt as well as Gangmumei Kamei suspect that the initiation date of 33 CE was arrived upon by the scribes via astrological calculations.
This tendency has been criticized by Parratt and others; none of these texts are yet dated by professional historians or subject to serious textual-critical scrutiny, and hence are not suitable for purposes other than commenting on Meitei traditions.
[36][37][a] Scholars have also found Puyas to have been (potentially) forged by Meitei Nationalists in support of their reinvention of history and tradition.
K. – Pakhangpa, Tompok, Taothingmang, Khui Ningngongpa, Pengsipa, Kaokhongpa and Naokhampa – allegedly ruled until 411 CE.
Parratt notes that there's not even any evidence of these seven rulers belonging to the same dynasty, and in all probabilities they were reconstructed from oral legends of varying origins.
He was succeeded by Loitongpa, who emerged successful in some undescribed battles on the eastern fronts, probably waged over autochthonous ethnic groups.
Under Yiwanthapa, who reigned for thirty two years, a successful war was waged on the Khumans and their chief queen was murdered.
Puranthapa, the next king, re-defeated the Khumans at Pairou, consolidated the territories of Koupa Koutai, and conquered the Chakpas.
Thangpi Lanthapa ruled for twenty two years and trounced the Moirangs as well as the Loipi Haos; Tengkongbi and Marem Namngapa were captured.
Then, Tapungpa ascended to the throne and waged successful warfare against the Loipi Marems, before being assassinated by Khamlangpa, the king of Chingsong, after thirty five years of rule.
During the reign of emperor Gharib Niwaz (born Pumbeitha, 1709–1748), the name of the kingdom was changed from Kangleipak to Manipura.
