Talk:Katyuri dynasty

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Page title

Should this page retitled as Katyuri Kingdom, in line with the infobox? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Exactly, the page should be titled about Katyuri Kingdom. The ancient terminology for that Kingdom was "Karttikeyapuri/Karttikeyapura Kingdom" (meaning: city of Karttikeya; Nepali/Kumaoni: कर्तिकेयपुरी) which was dumbed down into more easier sounding "Katyuri/Katyur Kingdom". Dedicated to son of Shiva, the Karttikeya, the patron deity of Kumaon and West Nepal from the cultural aspect- it was a Shaivite Kingdom with Baijnath, Bageshwar temple complexes. Karttikeya is still worshipped and is referred by the name "Karttikeya", "Mohanyal" in both Kumaon and Farwest Nepal. There's a city in Nepal named "Mohanyal" dedicated to this ancient Kingdom Mohanyal_Rural_Municipality.

It holds true that it was a pan Shaivite Hindu Kingdom that ruled over both West Nepal and Kumaon, so it's not just a dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:1A00:B010:13EA:6C35:194F:9D72:7CB9 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

katyuri Kingdom

katyuri kingdam exixt before 4 centuary according to incription of Samudragupta. Katyuri and Kudinda might be from the same dynasty as the date gets closer to eachother who ruled in the same region. (Lines 22–23) (Samudragupta, whose) formidable rule was propitiated with the payment of all tributes, execution of orders and visits (to his court) for obeisance by such frontier rulers as those of Samataṭa, Ḍavāka, Kāmarūpa, Nēpāla, and Kartṛipura, and, by the Mālavas, Ārjunāyanas, Yaudhēyas, Mādrakas, Ābhīras, Prārjunas, Sanakānīkas, Kākas, Kharaparikas and other (tribes)."

— Lines 22–23 of the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta (r.c.350-375 CE)

protect edit

some anonymous people edited articles and fill Miss information kindly lock article as it is currently Shivamsuryavanshi3000 (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

protect this article

some anti social elements spamer spam the article with khas and try steal history while katyuris are Suryavanshis of Ayodhya it's my request to adminstration to protect this article. Shivamsuryavanshi3000 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your changes, rather than attacking other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred where I can provide Shivamsuryavanshi3000 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shivamsuryavanshi3000 Right here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred katyuris have proper ancestory from kush decendent shalivahan that prove that they are suryavanshi kshatriya not khas. katyuris language used sanskrit language that used by suryavanshi kings in ancient time they build sun temple that belongs to their ancestors suryadev. while khas are tribals there language and culture are seperate from katyuris. All these points prove that they are suryavanshi not khas and historians like BD pandey also mentioned katyuris as suryavanshi. Inscription of katyuris like padukeshwar inscription mention katyuri as kushvatansh means decendent of suryavanshi king kush. so please don't block me and edit this article and give right information that katyuris are suryavanshi not kush. Shivamsuryavanshi3000 (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• that katyuris are suryavanshi not khas

Shivamsuryavanshi3000 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Per what published reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

(Lines 22–23) (Samudragupta, whose) formidable rule was propitiated with the payment of all tributes, execution of orders and visits (to his court) for obeisance by such frontier rulers as those of Samataṭa, Ḍavāka, Kāmarūpa, Nēpāla, and Kartṛipura, and, by the Mālavas, Ārjunāyanas, Yaudhēyas, Mādrakas, Ābhīras, Prārjunas, Sanakānīkas, Kākas, Kharaparikas and other (tribes)."

— Lines 22–23 of the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta (r.c.350-375 CE) ~2026-29262 (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Greek Geographer Ptolemy contended that the country of Khasas (referred to as 'Khasia') was located near the Trans-Himalayan range of Northwest India. Roman Geographer Pliny noted that

The mountain races between the Indus and the Jomanes are the Cesi, the Catriboni who dwell in the forest.

E.T. Atkinson speculated that Pliny referred to the terms, Cesi and Catriboni in the above quotations to Khasa and Kshatriya. Irish linguist Sir George Abraham Grierson in his work Linguistic Survey of India (Volume 9 Part 4) mentions the remarks by the Roman Geographer Pliny on the Khasa (referred as 'Casiri') tribe with the imputations of cannabalism. Pliny further stated them as "an Indian people":

Latin Source (Gabriel Brotier edition):

Ab Attacoris gentes Phruri, et Tochari: et jam Indorum Casiri, introrsus ad Scythas versi, humanis corporibus vescuntur.

English Translation:

"Next to the Attacori [ Uttarakuru ] are the nations of the Thuni and the Forcari; then come the Casiri [Khasiras], an Indian people who look towards the Scythians and feed on human flesh."

Indian sociologist R.N. Saksena explains that this imputation was due to the existing suspicion towards Khasas by the Vedic Aryans, though he regards them as the earlier wave of the same 'Aryan settler' group.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR KHAS TO BE WELL RESPECTED KSHATRIYA IN 200 YEARS as attacori mention khas are mellach in 2nd century . katyuri are pure kshatriya as kuninda . they can be a branch of kuninda but not khas. ~2026-29262 (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Shankaracharya's alleged wars against Buddhists

The idea that Shankaracharya violently expelled Buddhists from the Himalayan tier is, on the face of it, absurd, and has been definitively refuted by Potter and by Sax. While ruling in Joshimath, the Katyuris supported both Hindu and Buddhist temples (probably because the difference between these two paths was not so absolute as it is today).

Kaplan, Stephen. "Authorial Authenticity or Theological Polemics? Discerning the Implications of Śaṅkara's Battle with the Buddhists." International Journal of Hindu Studies 17.1 (2013): 1-36.Asian studies 52, 2: 261-97.

Potter, Karl H. 1982. Shankaracharya: The myth and the man. In Michael A. Williams, ed., Charisma and sacred biography, 111-25. Chico: Scholars Press.

Sax, William. 2000. Conquering the Quarters: Religion and Politics in Hinduism. International Journal of Hindu Studies 4(1): 39-60. 176.199.209.117 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

about origin of Katyuri Kings

katyuri were not khasas they are Suryavanshi Kshatriyas they mentioned themselves as rajputra, thakur in their inscription such as lalitsurdev pandukeshwar inscription. king Padmatdev mentioning his ancestors from Suryavanshi king like Dilip, bhagirath, dhundhumar, mandhata, sagar in their inscription also katyuri kings used sanskrit language that are different from khasas culture that all indicates their Suryavanshi Kshatriyas origin so please correct it. Shinchannn (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Please share reliable and verifiable sources supporting your claim; read WP:V; no WP:OR please! Ekdalian (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian

Shinchannn (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Shinchannn (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Shinchannn (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian

Shinchannn (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian please update the sources and correct the information as suryavanshi Kshatriyas. Shinchannn (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian

Shinchannn (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered as a reliable source; the other source is unreliable as well. You need to share modern scholarly work by reliable author clearly supporting your claim! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian </ref> while the modern work Sūryavaṃśa Kārtikeypur Samrājya (pp. 45–48) similarly traces the Katyuris’ origin to the solar dynasty. Shinchannn (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Who is the reliable author? What are their academic qualifications? We need these details first! Ekdalian (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian

</ref> while the modern work Sūryavaṃśa Kārtikeypur Samrājya (pp. 45–48) similarly traces the Katyuris’ origin to the solar dynasty. Shinchannn (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian

• Pandey, Badri Dutt (1937). Kumaon Ka Itihas. Almora: U.P. Government Press.
• Dobhal, D. D. (1997). Stratification of Kumaon: A Socio-Historical Study. Almora: Shree Almora Book Depot.
• Shivam Pal Suryavanshi (2025). Sūryavaṃśa Kārtikeypur Samrājya. Blue Rose Publishers. pp. 45–48.

Shinchannn (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Sources

• Kielhorn, F. (1896). "The Pāndukesvara Plate of Lalitasuradeva". Indian Antiquary. 25: 177–184.
• Sircar, D. C. (1955–1956). "Three Plates from Pandukesvar". Epigraphia Indica. 31: 1–15.
• Atkinson, E. T. (1881–1886). The Himalayan Gazetteer. Vol. I–III. Allahabad: Government Press.
• Almora: A Gazetteer. Allahabad: United Provinces Government. 1911.
• Oudh Gazetteer. Lucknow: Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh. 1877–1878.
• Basti: A Gazetteer. Allahabad: United Provinces Government. 1907.
• Pandey, Badri Dutt (1937). Kumaon Ka Itihas. Almora: U.P. Government Press.
• Dobhal, D. D. (1997). Stratification of Kumaon: A Socio-Historical Study. Almora: Shree Almora Book Depot.
• Shivam Pal Suryavanshi (2025). Sūryavaṃśa Kārtikeypur Samrājya. Blue Rose Publishers. pp. 45–48.

Shinchannn (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Update the sources and information katyuris are Suryavanshi Kshatriyas and here the sources

Several copper-plate inscriptions from Pandukeshwar in Garhwal are associated with the Katyuri rulers. The Pandukesvara plate of Lalitasuradeva (published by Kielhorn in Indian Antiquary, 1896) styles the donor with Kṣatriya titles such as rājaputra and thakkura. Another record, the plate of Padmaṭadeva (edited by D. C. Sircar in Epigraphia Indica, 1955–56), contains a praśasti tracing his descent from the Ikṣvāku (Sūryavaṃśa/solar) lineage, invoking legendary kings such as Dilip, Sagara, Mandhātā and Dhundhumāra. These dynastic claims were echoed in both colonial and modern descriptions: E. T. Atkinson’s Himalayan Gazetteer (1881–86), the Almora Gazetteer (1911), the Oudh Gazetteer (1877–78), and the Basti Gazetteer (1907) all described the Katyuris as Sūryavaṃśī Kṣatriyas (Rajputs), while the modern work * Pandey, Badri Dutt (1937). Kumaon Ka Itihas. Almora: U.P. Government Press.

• Dobhal, D. D. (1997). Stratification of Kumaon: A Socio-Historical Study. Almora: Shree Almora Book Depot.
• Shivam Pal Suryavanshi (2025). Sūryavaṃśa Kārtikeypur Samrājya. Blue Rose Publishers. pp. 45–48.

WarriorsofIndia (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of your sources are Raj era ones, which cannot be cited; read WP:RAJ. Sūryavaṃśa Kārtikeypur Samrājya seems to be an unreliable source! As far as the source by Dobhal is concerned, can you share a link so that your claim may be verified per WP:V! Otherwise, you can share the academic qualifications of the author, relevant quotes and respective page numbers; we may verify later, though we need to figure out if it's a reliable source! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, all the books you mentioned are from the Raj era. Moreover, many of those books were written by individuals who were not scholars or historians. Just because a random person publishes a book does not make their claims true. The Katyuris are clearly identified as Khas in gazetteers, Indian census records, government publications, and by more than ten scholars from Bengal and other parts of India. This is well-documented and accepted, so please don’t try to alter the history of the Katyuri Empire.

1. Central HimalayasAn Archaeological, Linguistic, and Cultural Synthesis

By Dharma Pal Agrawal, J. S. Kharakwal · 1998[]

2.Even 90% of garhwali are khasiya ( written in martial caste book of india []

and in kumaon 60% of rajput are khas []

and you saying kattyuri are rajput ? pls leave this platform if u aint have enough brain from wikipedia stop claiming every caste as rajput

only thul-jat (thul=high, jat=caste) rajput like , chand, gusain, parmar, chauhan

and title like "Puraniya negi" "Lovhan Negi" "Pundir Negi" "Paydar bisht" "Padyar rawat"[] title wich has rajput origin are rajput

rather all negi rawat bisht without aany origin are khasiya

End of Disscusion Yash | ياش | यशः 01:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

References