Talk:Xionites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Xionites is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Afghanistan-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xionites article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The question of Chionites is not simple. On their coinage they used the inscription OIONO and were known in persia as Xiyon. They aupposedly provided the ruling Yeptal family for the Uar when they merged with them to become the Hephthalites. However The supposition of a connection with the Kidarites is widespread. The Kidarites themselves eventually came to rule the Kushans who in turn originated from the YueChi. The question of how ALChON, Nezak and Hunas fit into the picture also has to be clarified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.106.181 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 August 2005.

"ALChON" and "White" Hunas were synonymous, and they both derived from the Chionite "Red" Huns who were at least in part ruled by the "Ki" clan. Kaz 01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hephthalites.html

473-479 Ephthalites conquer Sogdiana, driving the Kidarites westwards. Next conquering Khotan and Kashgar (in the Tarim Basin).

484 Firuz initiates new war against the Ephthalites which fails miserably.

486 Firuz's heir Kubad takes refuge with Ephthalites following a coup.

from http://www.magyarsag.org/chh.htm

484 North east Persia. War between the Huns and Persians during the rule of Sufra.

485 The Avar Huns moves west after growing pressure from Persian and Turks.

But Kidarites were a Dynasty in India were they not? Any comments? Kaz 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Alchon

The Xionite article should be divided into eras and the Kidarite period should be mentioned here briefly before the Alchon era. Any better suggestions? Kaz 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Your version is misleading, and your sources are not reliable. One of the links is dead [1], the other 2 are not scholarly works. I checked the following link. In no way does it favour your version that the Chionites were "Huns" (which you believe to be the same as "Turk"). In fact, it even contradicts it, based on historical sources:

• "... We are ignorant of the situation of the Vertae and Chionites, but I am inclined to place them (at least the latter) towards the confines of India and Scythia ..."Ammian. xvi. 9, quoted by Edward Gibbon

So far, the quotes from Encyclopaedia Iranica are authoritative, because Iranica is a primary reference:

• "... On the northeastern front, the Chionites (q.v.), a Hunnic people who by the early fourth century had mixed with north Iranian elements in Transoxiana and adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language, threatened Persia. ..." Iranica

So, the Chionites had indeed adopted the Bactrian language. The word "Hunnic" in this article has a different meaning than the definition given in Wikipedia. Iranica makes clear:

• "... According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. A prominent characteristic, which they shared with all other Central Asian power constellations, was their ethnic mixture, among which the elite was said to be Iranian, or at least expressed itself as such through its coinage (Göbl, 1978, p. 107). It is noteworthy that the tribes in question deliberately called themselves "Huns" in order to frighten their enemies (Frye, pp. 345-46) ...". Iranica

You are - once again - purposely ignoring and rejecting major sources in favour of non-scholarly, non-reliable, and obscure web-sites like this one (which you have presented as a "major source" in the article in order to contradict scholarly sources).

Tājik 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The claims above are simply not correct. Especially, the authoritativeness of iranica is not true. It's not a holly book. The Euroasian nomads related topics are generally controversial, one cannot push a view such as "...there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars...". This is just a POV push. If there exists a consensus why different sources claiming different views? or Who are the modern scholars? What is the definition of a modern scholar? According to Tajik, the ones supporting his pov are modern scholars and the others are pan-x-ists. The links are working, anyways, i'll make some direct quations from the sources below.

The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.II by Edward Gibbon

Part 6 out of 16: "The Vertae are still unknown. It is possible that the Chionites are the same as the Huns. These people were already known; and we find from Armenian authors that they were making, at this period, incursions into Asia. They were often at war with the Persians. The name was perhaps pronounced differently in the East and in the West, and this prevents us from recognizing it."

On the Greek Sources for the History of the Turks in the Sixth Century, by Carlile Aylmer Macartney

Quotation:The nation can hardly be other than that which appears in the fourth century, under the name of Chionite, in the steppes on the north-west frontier of Persia. These Chionites were probably a branch of the Huns, the other branch of which afterwards appeared in Europe, the latter appear to have attacked and conquered by the Alans, then living between Urals and the Volga about A.D.360, while the first mention of the Chionites is dated A.D.356. In the fifth century the name is replaced by that of the Kusan or of the Kidarite Huns, who are clearly identical with the Kusan...

As clearly seen from the quotations above, it's probable that Chionites is of Hunnic origin.

• Tajik is misrepresenting the issue, ignoring the ones in any case countering his pov, calling them as being nonsense. As he already confessed above, even the terminology of iranica is confusing. Sorry, Tajik, it's impossible to accept iranica as a holly book. It's a good reference but not the only one. Regards. E104421 11:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What you misunderstand and misinterprete is the term "Hunnic". It is not a name given to a specific ethnic group, it is a general term for a whole bunch of unrelated peoples who appeared to have the same way of life. The "Huns" were conglomeration of different peoples - Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, even Chinese - who were nomadic horsemen and posed a continious threat to settled populations of the "civilized" Persian, Chinese, and European worlds. So, saying that the Chionetes were "Hunnic" does in no means contradict the statement that they were most likely (and this is what modern scholars believe) of East Iranian origin (at least their ruling and dominant elite). Tājik 11:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tajik, please do not remove the sources given. You may object their content (actually there are references from your favorite source iranica), but, in my opinion, you're misinterpreting/misrepresenting their contents. Let's try to discuss the issue here. Regards. E104421 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ao, please up to reaching a compromise, do not revert the article. --Pejman47 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pejman47, please check the references i provided. They are from your favorite source iranica. Regards. E104421 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)