Related on Lably
Through Assam, Tibet and Sanskritisation
The Chutia kingdom, believed to be founded in the early 13th century around Sadiya and contiguous areas, was one among several rudimentary states (Ahom, Dimasa, Koch, Jaintia etc.) that emerged from tribal political formations in the region after the fall of Kamarupa kingdom, between the 13th and the 16th century. Among these, the Chutia state was the most advanced, with its rural industries, trade, surplus economy and advanced Sanskritisation. It is not exactly known as to the system of agriculture adopted by the Chutias, but it is believed that they were settled cultivators. After the Ahoms annexed the kingdom in 1523-24, the Chutia state & its population was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom through Ahomisation — the nobility and the professional classes were given important positions in the Ahom officialdom and the land was resettled for wet rice cultivation.
Foundation and Polity
Though there is no doubt about the Chutia polity, the origins of this kingdom are obscure. It is generally held that the Chutias, a grouping of different Bodo-Kachari cognate groups, established a state in the plains around Sadiya before the advent of the Ahoms in 1228. Although Buranjis, the Ahom chronicles, indicate the presence of a Chutia state, Nath argues that the evidence is scarce that it was of any significance before the second half of the 14th century. He notes that the chronicles describing Sukaphaa’s migration and search for a settlement in Upper Assam between 1228 and 1253 record no resistance from a Chutia state, and interprets this silence as evidence of its insignificance until at least the mid-14th century, when the first hostile confrontation is recorded. Other scholars, however, offer different assessments of the early political situation. Saikia describes the Chutias in the thirteenth century as "by far the most powerful group in the upper Lauhitya valley", possessing a king and capital at Sadiya. She further notes that, faced with significant political opposition from the Kacharis, the early Tai-Ahoms sought friendship with the Chutias, although an attempt to establish such relations in the mid-fourteenth century was unsuccessful and was followed by a lull of nearly a century. The Satsari Assam Buranji further states that alliance and cordial relations with the Chutia king had existed from the time of one of Sukaphaa's sons, while Saikia's translation of another Satsari chronicle records Chutias among the peoples encountered during Sukapha's migration. Scholars have alternatively suggested that the limited interaction between the early Ahoms and established neighbouring populations such as the Chutias was partly a consequence of the small and precarious character of the early Ahom polity, whose rulers generally avoided confrontation with larger population concentrations and well-established regional powers. This has also been suggested as an explanation for the long maintenance of the Namdang as a frontier and the limited early territorial expansion of the Ahoms.
Among the Chutia rulers known from epigraphic records, the earliest securely attested is Nandin or Nandisvara, who ruled Sadhayāpura in the latter half of the 14th century. The damaged genealogical passage of the Dhenukhana copper-plate inscription traces Nandisvara's descent through his mother to an earlier figure whose name is illegible in the surviving text; Maheswar Neog identifies Nandi, Nandisara or Nandisvara as the ruler of Sadhayapura and Satyanarayana as his son. Nandisvara is described in the same inscription as the lord of Sadhayāpura (sadhayāpurīśa), while his son Satyanarayana is described as drawing his royal lineage from the Asuras, the "enemies of the gods". The mention of Satyanarayana as having the shape of his maternal uncle (which is also an indirect reference to the same Asura/Daitya lineage) may also constitute evidence of matrilineality of the Chutia ruling family, or that their system was not exclusively patrilineal. On the other hand, a later king Durlabhnarayana mentions that his grandfather Ratnanarayana (identified with Satyanarayana) was the king of Kamatapura which might indicate that the eastern region of Sadhaya was politically connected to the western region of Kamata.
In these early inscriptions, the kings are said to be seated in Sadhyapura, identified with the present-day Sadiya; which is why the kingdom is also called Sadiya. The Buranjis written in the Ahom language called the kingdom Tiora whereas those written in the Assamese language called it Chutia.
Brahmanical influence in the form of Vaishnavism reached the Chutia polity in the eastern extremity of present-day Assam during the late fourteenth century. The copperplate grant of Chutia kings begin with salutations to Ganesha. Vaishnava Brahmins created lineages for the rulers with references to Krishna legends but placed them lower in the Brahminical social hierarchy because of their autochthonous origins. Though asura lineage of the Chutia rulers have similarities with the Narakasura lineage created for the three Kamarupa dynasties, the precise historical connection is not clear. Although a majority of the Brahmin donees of the royal grants were Vaishnavas, the rulers patronized the non-brahmanised Dikkaravasini (also Tamresvari or Kechai-khati), which was either a powerful tribal deity, or a form of the Buddhist deity Tara adopted for tribal worship. This deity, noticed in the 10th century Kalika Purana well before the establishment of the Chutia kingdom, continued to be presided by a Deori priesthood well into the Ahom rule and outside Brahminical influence.
Genealogical traditions and accounts
Several later Assamese genealogical accounts preserve traditions concerning the origin, lineage and succession of the Chutia rulers. Their dates of composition, chronology and relationship to the securely dated inscriptional record, however, remain uncertain. Neog (1977) considered the different succession lists too inconsistent to be used straightforwardly as historical chronology, while Buragohain (2013) regarded the origin legends as lacking firm historical foundations. The written genealogies seem to be based on oral traditions through which parts of the Chutia past continued to circulate. Writing in 1895, W. B. Brown recorded that traditions concerning the Chutias, including the story of the Chutia princess Sadhani and Nityapal, were preserved in modified forms among the Deoris, the Miris, and some Hindu Chutias and suggested that the written chronicle available to him may itself have been compiled from such traditions. This indicates that some narrative elements associated with the chronicles circulated within a wider Chutia oral tradition.
One such account is the Chutiyar Rajar Vamsavali, first published in Orunodoi in 1850 and later reprinted in the Deodhai Asam Buranji. It relates the legend of Birpal and provides a succession list beginning with Gaurinarayana or Ratnadhvajapala. Another Assamese account, obtained by Ney Elias from Burmese sources, preserves an alternative origin narrative centred on Asambhinna. Nath has suggested that the Chutiyar Rajar Vamsavali may have been composed in the early nineteenth century, possibly in connection with claims advanced during the establishment of the Matak rajya or after the end of Ahom rule. Shin notes that Neog could not securely date these accounts before the nineteenth century and that their succession lists cannot be consistently reconciled with the epigraphic record. She nevertheless cautions that this lack of correspondence does not entirely rule out the possibility that some names preserve alternative names or memories of different ruling houses. In her interpretation, the changing genealogies are historically significant because they reveal successive attempts to construct Chutia political identity, including the later replacement of the asura lineage recorded in fourteenth-century inscriptions with the Bhismaka–Kubera narrative.
Sign in to keep reading
5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.
Domain
The extent of the Chutia kings' political authority is not known in detail. Modern reconstructions generally place the main territory of the kingdom along the Brahmaputra and its tributary valleys in eastern and northern Upper Assam and the adjoining plains and foothills of present-day Arunachal Pradesh, extending from the Parshuram Kund region in the east westward across the present-day districts of Tinsukia, Dhemaji and Lakhimpur and parts of Dibrugarh, with the Burhi Dihing frequently given as its southern limit in Assam, along with the plains and foothills of Arunachal Pradesh. Some scholars have suggested that the Chutia authority extended westward as far as the Viswanath area, in present-day Biswanath district of Assam. Historian Nityananda Gogoi gives a similarly wider reconstruction. He states that under the successors of the early rulers the kingdom "at times" included part of the hilly region of present-day Arunachal Pradesh, including the Itanagar area, together with adjoining territories of the Brahmaputra valley extending westward as far as the Borgang River near Biswanath. Gogoi cited similar marks on stones found among the archaeological remains at Sadiya, on the Buroi River, and at Naxapahar, situated at the confluence of the Bargang and Dikal rivers, as supporting this reconstruction. He further argued that the Dhenukhana, Barmutiya Bil, Ghilamara, Chepakhowa and Paya-Tamreswari inscriptions confirm that the dynasty, with its capital at Sadiya or Sadhayapur, ruled an "extensive country" comprising parts of Upper Assam and Arunachal Pradesh during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Nath (2013), however, characterises the kingdom's principal area as comprising the river valleys of the Subansiri, Brahmaputra, Lohit and Dihing, and argues that, even at its zenith, its authority extended only marginally into the surrounding hills. Evidence of a wider, possibly temporary political connection farther west has been inferred from the 1428 Sadiya copperplate grant of Durlabhnarayana, which states that his grandfather Ratnanarayana became king of Kamatapur. Maheswar Neog identified Ratnanarayana with Satyanarayana, the ruler of Sadhayapura, and proposed that Sadiya and Kamatapur may at one time have been politically connected under the same dynasty.
Economy and trade
The precise agricultural system followed in the Chutia kingdom is not known, although the relatively early development of the Chutia state has been interpreted as indicating the existence of an economic surplus. Scholars regard the Chutia state as the most developed among the tribal political formations of Northeast India by the fifteenth century. Agriculture was nevertheless the principal occupation of the population. Archaeological remains in the Lower Dibang Valley indicate the existence of irrigation works during the historical period. Chattopadhyay noted that the brick tanks in the region and surviving portions of artificial canals near Bolung can be interpreted as forming part of a historical irrigation system. Rice formed the principal crop, alongside pulses and oilseeds, while sugarcane, jute, spices, vegetables, fruits and betel were also cultivated. Plough cultivation using cattle and buffaloes was practised in the plains, although shifting cultivation probably continued among some communities in the peripheral areas. The royal copper-plate grants provide evidence for the organisation of land and rural settlement under the Chutia rulers. The surviving charters record grants at Ludumimari and Vyaghramari in Satyanarayana's Dhenukhana grant of 1392, Bakhana in Lakshminarayana's Ghilamara grant of 1401, and an entire village in a North Lakhimpur grant of 1402. Guha interprets such grants of inhabited villages and cultivable land in sparsely populated medieval Assam as a means of securing agricultural labour, involving the transfer to grantees of some royal rights over the inhabitants.
Royal revenue was derived from several sources, including taxation on land, income from trade and natural resources, tribute from subordinate chiefs and rulers, and property acquired through warfare. Occupational groups exploiting natural resources were also subject to fiscal obligations; gold-washers and salt producers are described as rendering a portion of their production to the state. Such obligations could also take the form of specialised service. The Buranjis record that a group of Miris living near the Dikrong River in present-day Lakhimpur district had formerly been subjects of the Chutia kingdom and were required under the Chutia kings to serve as Hatighahis, supplying grass for the royal elephants. The importance of elephants within the royal establishment is also reflected in Chutia royal titulature: the Sadiya-Chepakhowa inscription uses the epithet Gajapati ("lord of elephants") for a ruler, which Neog (1977) interpreted as probably referring to the possession of a herd of elephants. Royal provisioning also appears to have involved specialised storehouses; Buranjis record a Chutia-period bharal for storing dried meat under the charge of a Bharali official.
The Chutia rulers also possessed both elephants and horses. The Buranjis record that, following the conquest of the kingdom, the Ahoms obtained elephants and horses among the possessions of the Chutia ruler. Horses are additionally represented in the archaeological remains associated with the Tamreswari Temple, where one of the recovered terracotta plaques depicts a horse equipped with a saddle and bridle.
The growth of specialised occupations also points to the development of rural industries: references to tanti (weavers), kamar (blacksmiths), sonari (goldsmiths), kahar (bell-metal workers), khanikar (artisans), kumar (potter), barhoi (carpenters), etc. have been interpreted as evidence of craft specialisation within the kingdom. The scale of ironworking is suggested by a tradition that, after the annexation of the kingdom, Suhungmung transferred about 3,000 blacksmiths from the former Chutia territories and settled them in different parts of the Ahom kingdom. They manufactured agricultural implements such as ploughshares, hoes and sickles, as well as axes, several forms of knives, needles, fish-hooks and other implements used in everyday life. Gold-washing and precious-metal working were also practised; goldsmiths worked in gold and silver and manufactured ornaments and other objects. Goldsmithing is directly attested in the Sadiya-Chepakhowa copper-plate grant of 1428, which names a goldsmith (svarṇakāra) called Krishna Sadhu as the skilled craftsman who inscribed the charter on the king's order. Other crafts included the manufacture of metal vessels, pottery, leather making, stone carving and the production of household implements from wood, bamboo and cane. Archaeological finds from Bhismaknagar and Tamreswari Temple provide material evidence for some of these industries: excavations have yielded large quantities of pottery and terracotta objects as well as copper artefacts.
Salt and riverine gold were among the valuable extractive resources of the kingdom. Gold was washed from river sands, while the kingdom possessed several salt springs, including those at Sadiya and Borhat, which passed under Ahom control following the annexation. The importance of gold is also reflected in royal possessions and diplomatic gifts; during the last Chutia king's reign, three gold piras were sent to the Ahom ruler, while the Chutia royal throne and several other objects are described as having been made of gold. The wider Sadiya region also formed part of an old salt-producing zone extending along the Naga–Patkai foothills. Weaving was another important household industry, with cotton as well as eri, muga and pat silk used for textile production. As per the Naoboicha Phukanar Buranji, Ahom kings employed a thousand Muga producers and weavers from the Chutia community to weave royal garments in the capital.
The geographical position of Sadiya at the eastern end of the Brahmaputra valley also gave the kingdom access to routes through the eastern Himalayas and the ranges separating Assam from Upper Burma. The Chutia rulers exercised power partly through the regulation of eastward trade and the movement of people between Assam, Tibet and southern China. Rivers formed important channels of communication, transport and military movement. Several types of boats were manufactured in the kingdom and were probably employed both in internal transport and in trade westwards towards Kamrup-Kamata. The importance of water transport is also reflected in the royal land grants: a copper-plate grant of Satyanarayana included, in addition to agricultural and homestead land, a separate tract of land specifically for keeping boats, indicating the maintenance of dedicated dockyards. The Chutias also maintained armed riverboats. Among the booty recorded as having been obtained by the Ahoms following the conquest of the Chutia kingdom were hiloi-tula-chara-nao, or boats carrying mounted cannon.
Archaeological evidence indicates that some of these eastern routes were strategically important during the period of Chutia rule. A fortified earthen enclosure at Tindolong near Tezu, assigned approximately to the fourteenth–fifteenth century, stood on the principal route leading from Sadiya and Bhismaknagar towards Parshuram Kund along the Lohit River. Its position and defensive features have been interpreted as indicating that it served as a post for maintaining vigilance along the route. Archaeological finds at Bhismaknagar also point to wider eastern contacts. Kaolin (China clay) pottery recovered from the site has been interpreted as evidence of early cultural contact with China and the transmission of ceramic ideas into Northeast India.
Sadiya was also connected southeastwards with Upper Burma and, through it, Yunnan. Pachuau records a route running from Sadiya through Bisa and across the Patkai range into the Hukawng Valley, proceeding to Munkong (Mogaung) and then towards Yunnan. The route was said to have been in use between the seventh and eighteenth centuries, although such connections did not develop into major commercial axes. Laichen Sun similarly reconstructs the western extension of the Yunnan–Upper Burma route through Bhamo, Mogaung and the Hukawng Valley, across the Patkai to Bisa and Sadiya. Trade through the eastern Himalayan uplands was probably conducted largely through intermediary communities rather than by merchants traversing the entire route; Hilaly describes these exchanges as a series of local and short-haul networks in which communities nearest the frontiers of Tibet, Burma and Assam acted as intermediaries.
External contacts and downfall
With Bengal and Kamatapura
A tradition associated with Gharmora Satra links the Chutia royal family with Nabadwip in Bengal. According to the tradition, preserved by the custodians of the Satra, two Chutia princes received their education at Nabadwip, where they met Sankarshan, a Brahmin from Kannauj. After returning to Sadiya, the elder prince succeeded to the throne and brought Sankarshan, along with families of different occupational groups, to establish a religious institution on the bank of the Gharmora River; the king is also said to have granted it land, dependants and an image of Vishnu.
Another western political connection with Kamatapura is also suggested by the Sadiya–Chepakhowa copper-plate grant of 1428, which describes Durlabhanarayana as the son of Dharmanarayana and grandson of Ratnanarayana, styled king of Kamatapura. Maheswar Neog proposed that Ratnanarayana was identical with Satyanarayana of the Sadhayapura grants, whose son is named Dharmanarayana in the Bormurtiya inscription. On this interpretation, the records indicate a dynastic link between Sadhaya and Kamatapura, although the identification and the nature of the connection is not known clearly.
The grant includes a verse concerning Ratnanarayana, which was deciphered by Maheswar Neog with the assistance of Sanskrit scholars:
- Ekuha bhūt Kamatāpure narapati bhūpāla-varārcitaḥ
Kandarpa-pratipakṣa-lakṣa-vijayī Śrī Ratnanārāyaṇaḥ.
The Assamese translation published in Chutia Jatir Buranji (2007) renders the verse as: “There became a king in Kamatapura, one who was worshipped by kings, victorious over 1 lakh enemies of Kandarpa(another name for Kamdeva), Śrī Ratnanarayana.”
During the Koch-Kamata campaign against the Ahom kingdom, some descendants of the former Chutia royalty sought Nara Narayan's protection. According to the Darrang Raj Vamsavali, the Chutia princes and their descendants who had fled following the Ahom conquest approached the Koch king, who granted them a settlement at a village called Bihbari (identified as Basnbari in present-day Darrang). They subsequently became allies of Nara Narayan. An apparently related tradition concerns the Chutia Kunwar estate in Darrang. Gogoi (1994) states that the estate originated when the Ahom king Suhungmung established the Chutia prince Sadhaknarayan in the Rowta–Pakariguri region following the conquest of the Chutia kingdom. The area subsequently came to be known after the Chutia prince, and its chief is said to have submitted to Nara Narayan during the Koch invasion of Assam. Gogoi identifies the medieval estate broadly with the present-day Dalgaon revenue circle.
Shan incursions (14th century)
According to Tai and Shan chronicle traditions, Sam Long Hpa (Samlonhpha), ruler of Mong Kawng, led a westward campaign into Upper Assam, referred to in the chronicles as Mong Wehsali Long. One version preserved in the Mogaung chronicles states that he conquered much of the territory then under the sway of the Chutia (Sutya) kings, while another recounts the submission of Wehsali and the arrangement of tribute payments. The chronicle account does not state whether the promised tribute was subsequently remitted. In a later episode of the Hsenwi chronicle tradition, Sam Long Hpa was said to have been poisoned after his return to Mong Kawng, although another version reported that he escaped to China.
Although traditional chronologies place these events in the early 13th century, modern scholarship generally associates them with the mid-14th century, possibly around 1350 CE. Christian Daniels dates the emergence of Möng Mao (Mäng Maaw) and Mong Kawng under Sam Long Hpa, as major Tai political confederations, to the mid-14th century, and argues that these expansions are best understood in the context of the political transformations of the Yuan period. Likewise, Sai Aung Tun, drawing upon Shan chronicles, places the zenith of Mao power under Hso Hkan Hpa and Sam Long Hpa in the 14th century and associates their expansion with campaigns extending westward into Assam. Geoff Wade has further argued that the chronology preserved in later Shan chronicles is substantially inflated and that events attributed to Sam Long Hpa likely belong to a considerably later period than traditionally supposed.
Möng Mao's early expansion did not result in a lasting hegemonic order. After Si Ke-fa's death, power seems to have passed to Mong Kawng (Mong Yang) for an interval from the 1370s to the 1390s. Following the Ming conquest of Yunnan, Si Lun-fa of Möng Mao submitted to the Ming in 1382 and ruled thereafter under Ming patronage. By the end of the 14th century, the strength of Möng Mao waned, and principalities previously under its rule became independent. The Ming court took advantage of this situation by establishing 13 separate native jurisdictions under its authority, including Mengyang (the Chinese name for Mong Kawng) Mong Mao, however, remained an important Tai power and renewed its expansion during the 1420s and 1430s. Its political centre was only decisively broken up after the Ming's Luchuan–Pingmian campaigns of 1438–1454, which dispersed its ruling elite and shifted the focus of Tai power westwards towards Mong Kawng.
With Ahoms (14th century)
The Buranji contains an earlier tradition of contact between Sukaphaa's migrating group and local communities, including the Chutias. In this account, the migrating group captured villages during its movement into Assam, and among the people taken along the way were Chutias, Morans and Barahis, who were then assigned names according to the tasks they performed.
The earliest mention of a Chutia king is found in the Buranjis that describe a friendly contact during the reign of Sutuphaa (1369–1379), in which the Ahom king was killed. The Satsari Buranji states that the Ahoms maintained cordial relations with the Chutia kingdom from the time of Sukapha’s sons until Sutuphaa’s death. Saikia (1997) argues that, facing political opposition from the Kacharis, the Ahoms in the early days, sought friendship with the Chutias, whose established royal court and commercial links with neighbouring regions made them an attractive ally. However, Sutuphaa’s death led to the failure of this early effort and contributed to a change in the Ahom attitude towards the Chutias. To avenge the death, the next Ahom ruler Tyaokhamti (1380–1387) led an expedition against the Chutia kingdom but returned with no success.
Chutia-Ahom conflicts (1512–1523)
Suhungmung, the Ahom king, followed an expansionist policy and annexed Panbari of Habung in 1512, which, according to Amalendu Guha, was a Chutia dependency. In 1513 a border conflict triggered the Chutia king Dhirnarayan to advance to Dikhowmukh and build a stockade of banana trees (Posola-garh). This fort was attacked by a force led by the Ahom king himself leading to a rout of the Chutia soldiers. This was followed by the Ahoms erecting a fort at Mungkhrang (located at the mouth of the Dihing river), which fell within the Chutia territory.
In 1520, the Chutias attacked the Ahom fort Mungkhrang twice and in the second killed the commander and occupied it. Towards the end of 1522, the Ahoms, led by Phrasengmung Borgohain and King-lung Buragohain attacked it by land and water, recovered it and erected an offensive fort on the banks of the Dibru River. In 1523 the Chutia king attacked the fort at Dibru but was routed. The Ahom king hotly pursued the retreating Chutia king who sued for peace. The peace overtures failed and the king finally fell to Ahom forces, bringing an end to the Chutia kingdom. Though some late spurious manuscripts mention the fallen king as Nitipal (or Chandranarayan) the extant records from the Buranjis such as the Ahom Buranji and the Deodhai Ahom Buranji do not mention him; rather they mention that the king and his son were killed. S. L. Baruah interprets these passages as referring to Dhirnarayan and his son. Nagendra Nath Acharyya, combining the chronicle traditions, instead describes Dhirnarayan and his son-in-law Nityapal as having been killed in the final battle and Sadhak Narayan, Dhirnarayan's young son, as having survived.
Legacy
The Ahoms took complete possession of the royal insignia and other assets of the erstwhile kingdom. The former royal family was dispersed, its old noble establishment was disbanded, and the capital region was placed under the newly created office of the Sadiyakhowa Gohain. At the same time, sections of the Chutia population, including nobles, commanders, warriors, professional groups and artisans, were incorporated into the expanding Ahom state. Many Brahmins, Kayasthas, Kalitas and Daivajnas/Ganaks (the caste Hindus), together with bell-metal workers, goldsmiths, blacksmiths and other artisans, were moved to the Ahom capital; this movement increased the admixture of Chutia and Ahom populations. Guha argues that the incorporation of the Chutia kingdom made a wider range of artisan skills available to the Ahom state and enlarged the scope for division of labour within it. Some Chutia groups were also resettled in other parts of Upper Assam, including towards the western limits of Darrang.
The annexation of the Chutia kingdom marked a major stage in the expansion of the Ahom state. Laichen Sun characterises the conquest as a significant step in its territorial expansion, noting that Ahom territory and population had remained comparatively small until the end of the fifteenth century. After the annexation, the Ahoms created or reorganised frontier offices for the newly acquired eastern regions, including Thao-mung Mung-teu (Bhatialia Gohain) with headquarters at Habung (Lakhimpur), Thao-mung Ban-lung (Banlungia Gohain) at Banlung (Dhemaji), Thao-mung Mung-klang (Dihingia gohain) at Dihing (Dibrugarh, Majuli and northern Sibsagar), Chaolung Shulung at Tiphao (northern Dibrugarh). The administrative reorganisation also involved institutional borrowing. In 1527, Suhungmung created the office of the Borpatrogohain, apparently deriving its designation from the Chutia Vrhat-patra of Habung and Klangseng (previously posted as Bhatialia Gohain) was given charge. The addition of a third Gohain counsellor strengthened the king's position relative to the older two Gohain offices while meeting the requirements of an enlarged administration. The acquisition of the Chutia territories brought the Ahoms into direct contact with hill peoples such as the Miris, Abors, Mishmis and Daflas. According to Laichen Sun, these connections provided access to metals such as copper and silver coming from China, while the conquest also brought the brine springs of Sadiya under Ahom control. Sun further argues that the spoils obtained in the conquest enriched the Ahom treasury and strengthened its armed forces, which "was of immense help in their subsequent wars with the Muslims".
The annexation of the Chutia kingdom had consequences beyond territorial acquisition. Saikia identifies the defeat of the Chutias as a turning point in the political evolution of the Ahoms, arguing that it supplied them with a more developed royal ceremonial order. She further argues that the Ahoms appropriated from the Chutias a ready-made royal culture and personnel needed for a developing administrative system. Saikia further argues that encounters and conflicts with other communities, particularly the Chutias, reshaped Ahom identity during this period. In her interpretation, food, dress and dwelling were used to present the Ahoms as a distinct and socially elevated ruling community of the riverine domain. The conquest also marked an important stage in the Brahmanisation of the Ahom court. Although Brahmins had entered royal service under Sudangphaa, their role had remained limited for roughly a century; after the Chutia conquest they became more prominent as advisers in statecraft and officiants at royal installations, reservoir and dam consecrations, marriages, sacrifices and festivals.
Firearms
The first specific mentions of extensive use of firearms in Ahom Buranjis are from the reign of Suhungmung; leading some authors to suggest that the Ahoms acquired the art of using cannons from the Chutias, after the defeat of the Chutias by king Suhungmung. Others have suggested that whereas other powers in Assam and Northeast India acquired gunpowder technology from Burma or China, the Chutias may have acquired gunpowder technology from mainland India or Tibet as well, though the Tibetans are known to have used matchlocks only from the beginning of the seventeenth century, a century after the end of the Chutia kingdom. Some author speculate that the Ahom kingdom, who trace their roots to Tai people of Southeast Asia, may have received Chinese gunpowder technology from that region; and that it already had that technology before their confrontation with the Chutia royal house. Besides the Chutias, Kacharis are also known to have possessed firearms at that time. There are occasional mentions of the Ahom state receiving firearms from the Kacharis at later periods.
Nevertheless, it can be presumed that the Chutia's had the know-how and the materials required for their manufacture. When the Ahoms annexed Sadiya, they recovered hand-cannons called Hiloi as well as large cannons called Bor-top, Mithahulang being one of them.The Mithahulung was the finest of the firearms brought from the Chutias; its exterior was brass-coated and decorated with enamel work and gold inlay. As per Maniram Dewan, the Ahom king Suhungmung received around three thousand blacksmiths after defeating the Chutias. These people were settled in the Bosa (Doyang) and Ujoni regions and asked to build iron implements like knives, daggers, swords as well as guns and cannons. Most of the Hiloi-Khanikars (gunmakers) in the Ahom khels belonged to the Chutia community. There also existed a class of gunmen in the Ahom army called Sutiya-Hiloidari.
Rulers
Only a few recently compiled Buranjis provide the history of the Chutia kingdom; though some sections of these compilations are old, the sections that contain the list of Chutiya rulers cannot be traced to earlier than 19th century. Some scholars, therefore, questioned the accuracy of the historical information in these accounts and showed great disdain for the related legends.
Neog (1977) compiled a known list of rulers from epigraphic records based crucially on identifying the donor-ruler named Dharmanarayan, mentioned as the son of Satyanarayana in the Bormurtiya grant with the Dharmanarayan, the father of the donor-ruler Durlabhnarayana of the Chepakhowa grant. This effectively results in identifying Satyanarayana with Ratnanarayana.
A late discovery of an inscription, published in a 2002 souvenir of the All Assam Chutiya Sanmilan seems to genealogically connect the last historically known king, Dhirnarayan with Neog's list above.
Though it is accepted that the rule of the Chutia rulers ended in 1523-24, different sources give different accounts. The extant Ahom Buranji and the Deodhai Asam Buranji mention that in the final battles and the aftermath both the king and his son; whereas Ahom Buranji-Harakanta Barua mentions that the remnant of the royal family was deported to Pakariguri, Darrang.