Talk:Hephthalites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AYDOGDY KURBANOV on History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire)[edit]

A discussion to work-up (or have) whether Dr. Kurbanov is "worthy of trust" on "History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire)" has been initiated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard -> AYDOGDY KURBANOV on History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire) And, to neutrally have a firm decision on whether the source ( www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf ) can be cited in the concerned WP Articles. Please note that at the present moment, this very source ( www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf ) is cited as much as 6 times in this WP Article. Comments are Welcome :) ← Abstruce 18:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins section[edit]

This part is in shambles, at the moment. I think it would be best to, first of all state, what all the primary (anceint) sources say on the arrival of the Hephthalites, and then also then state what modern scholars favour/ interpret. I think that is the only way of dealing with what is otherwise a very mysterious origo gentis. TO be done soon . . . Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

The article on Uar should be merged into this one, becuase it should not even exist. Simply, there is no scholarly concensus that the middle Chinese translation of Hua is even Var !! Whatever the case, the Hua were a subset of the Hephthalites, and having a separate article is redundant, duplicating and pointless. The uar article is moreover mostly of a stub quality. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uar (tribe) seems to have been merged here by now, but then the article currently does not contain the term "Uar" at all. Should be at least explained somewhere. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic categorization[edit]

If right Iranian category, must right Turkic category. Erim Turukku (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not unreasonable , although there were likely many different languages spoken in this vast, diverse region Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pseudo avars, varangians, sardinians and macedonians, share the same genetic makeup of mostly paleobalcan i2a2 genome. so they cant be turkic. maybe turuk, tocharians or thracians are of macedonian origin? it is interesting because turks have indo-european genes, but their language is not indo-european. how come? 85.30.66.73 (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You .. people categorize nations with genes? How come ? Because Europoid genes came from Western Asia.. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.142.140.40 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that language classification has absolutely nothing to do with biological genetics. 104.169.35.251 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 16:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hephthalite Empire → Hephthalites – See this ngram. The people, not the empire, is what people usually speak of. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT, for conciseness per WP:CONCISE and the simple reason that Wikipedia must have a primary entry on "Hephthalites".Oppose. The article's topic is the Hepththalite Empire, not the people. So we need the complete and precise title "Hephthalite Empire" for it, just as we have an article for the preceding Empire, Kushan Empire. For the people Hephthalites, there needs to be created a new article "Hephthalites". Or alternatively, we can maybe add "Hephthalites" as a section of the present article Xionites. Or we can create larger article, for such Eastern Iranian peoples including "Hephthalites", "White Huns", Xionites, and Kidarites, etc. At present the scattered articles about similar topics are badly arranged. Khestwol (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE: Hepthalites is a typo. It should be Hephthalites. Also, the oft-cited (but incorrectly in this article) contribution by BA Litvinsky is titled The Hephthalite Empire. The ngram also looks broken and I'm not sure it's the right way to decide these things.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ngram isn't broken, it just didn't find enough results for Hephthalite Empire to even display any, although an independent Google Book search shows more than one hundred. There are almost 10,000 results for Hephthalites. I'm open to an argument that the current title is better, but the preponderance of sources prima facie favours the move. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Srnec, please fix your typo. My support iswas for "Hephthalites". Khestwol (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. That was a typo. Fixed now. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems to be the common name for these people; an article on the people can also cover their empire, while the reverse isn't necessarily true.--Cúchullain t/c 13:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Krakkos (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current title "Hephthalite Empire" is WP:PRECISE and indicates exactly the content of the article. "Hephthalites" is an entirely different topic, and an article on that topic would be merely based on the small but influential Hephthalite tribe, not on the area, peoples, and government that tribe ruled. Khestwol (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The empire ruled by the Hephthalites can just as easily be covered in an article on them, just as the Hunnic Empire is covered under our article on the Huns.--Cúchullain t/c 14:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hephthalites as a tribe (not empire or khanate) can be covered under Xionites etc. Khestwol (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a fair comparison, see Yuezhi that we have for a nomadic group from the same region, but Kushan Empire that we have for the empire founded by the Yuezhi. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just in a cursory search, I've found a number of sources that discuss the empire or kingdom founded by the Hephthalites using "Hephthalites".[1][2][3][4]. "Hephthalite Empire" as a term looks to be relatively less common.--Cúchullain t/c 15:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nomadic empire ?[edit]

According to Procopius of Caesarea, Hephthalites lifed in cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.244.39.199 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hephthalite Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

Dont remove Afghanistan tempalte. Infact the only related template is the Afgghan one. Why would you remove that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.199.161 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'll need some very reliable sources to support a claim like that, i.e. that the only modern day country related to the Hephthalite Empire is Afghanistan... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed. Clear consensus with only one outlier objection that was countered and the counter was not refuted. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 18:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hephthalite Empire → Hephthalites – The name of this article is innaccurate, not to mention less common [5] (Hephthalites also has over 6000-7000 results than Hephthalite Empire in google books); the Hephthalite state was split into several minor kingdoms after the Battle of Bukhara in 557, which makes the term 'Hephthalites' much more accurate, since it wasn't a single entity all of its history. This is mentioned in several academic sources, such as Iranica and History of Civilizations of Central Asia, who favours the term 'Hephthalites' as well;

"Yet, though the power of the Hephthalites was destroyed in Transoxania, Hephthalite kingdoms remained in Afghanistan, of which fragments survived for some time even after the Arab invasions." [6]

"Small Hephthalite principalities continued to exist in southern Tajikistan and Afghanistan for a long time; some of them (in particular Kabul) remained independent" [7] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Wikipedia has a bad habit of making up "state names" for ancient ethnic groups, which is anachronistic and often completely inaccurate. It's far better to call such peoples just by their ethnic name.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per some arguments present in the previous move request which failed. The article's topic is the Hepththalite Empire, not the people. So we need the complete and precise title "Hephthalite Empire" for it, just as we have an article for the preceding Empire, Kushan Empire. For the people Hephthalites, if any user want they can create a separate article "Hephthalites". Khestwol (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid argument though, since the article's topic is literally not only about the Hephthalite Empire, which only lasted for some 100 years. Everyone can see easily see that by simply reading the article. You said something alike that regarding the Sakastan article as well, where you stated that the topic of the article is not about the Sasanians only [8], which it literally is. Making a article called 'Hephthalites' would be silly, confusing and unnecessary, they're same thing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article's focus is the empire (not the ethnic group) - as reflected in the infobox. The Hephthalite Empire is an important topic in the history of the region and a separate Wikipedia article is warranted for it. So the current title is fine I think. Khestwol (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself won't make your argument less incorrect. So.. because there is a infobox, the article's focus on the empire? lel, the hephthalites as an empire ended in 557, not the 710s. Also, the infobox is not gonna get removed even if this article gets moved. The article literally contradicts you. How would you even make two different articles for the Hephthalites? Care to explain? Majority of the information in the articles would be the same/a silly copypaste. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, B. A. Litvinsky in the History of Civilizations of Central Asia quoted above does title his overall chapter as ‘The Hephthalite Empire’.

Frantz Grenet, who also specializes in pre-Islamic Central Asian history, also refers to the polity under the Hephthalites as an empire:

“Earlier still, in the fifth century, the empire of the Hephthalite Huns whose aristocracy...” (Refocusing Central Asia, F. Grenet, Inaugural Lecture delivered on Thursday 7 November 2013)

EdenKZD (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's in the fifth century, they aren't a empire after 557 (which has kinda been my point..), but several entities. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand they were eventually defeated, but the entity before this is described as a Hephthalite empire by specialists in the field. The date of defeat in AD 560 can always be clarified in the infobox. What followed after their defeat, such as the remaining Hephthalite kingdoms in southern Tokharistan you’re referring to, could be a subsection of this article.
I’d suggest perhaps improving the content of the article instead of changing the title. The section on origins and ethnicity could be combined, and there is potential to furnish the article with further information on the political and socio-cultural world under their empire, as well as their legacy in the region.
EdenKZD (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but imagine the reader reading about the Hephthalite kingdom in Bagdhis under Nizak in the 700s and then get redirected to a article called the 'Hephthalite empire'. After 557 the southern Hephthalite kingdoms were under Sasanian suzerainty whilst the northern ones were under Turkic suzerainty [9]. It's just gonna get confusing/messy/anachronistic in the long run. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I guess if this particular article is supposed to be about the people, a separate page for the empire/kingdom could work too. EdenKZD (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ermenrich and nom. Jstor search: "Hephthalite Empire" gets 175 hits, "Hephthalites" gets 344. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your search results seem to support the current title because I am sure that many of the sources using "Hephthalites" also use "Hephthalite Empire" within the same document. As User:EdenKZD said above: "Litvinsky in the History of Civilizations of Central Asia quoted above does title his overall chapter as ‘The Hephthalite Empire’." Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 'Hephthalites' is the broader topic we should be (and are) covering. Srnec (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This articles is about an ancient people and not just a dynasty, kingdom, or empire. We have Yuezhi (people) and Kushan Empire, Saka (people) and Kingdom of Khotan and Shule Kingdom, and many other similar cases. So move this article to Hephthalites. Hephthalite Empire can have its own separate article. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah I guess in that sense it could also work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questionable categories[edit]

  • Category:Huns
    • Article says: "... All of these peoples have often been linked to the Huns who invaded Eastern Europe during the same period, and/or have been referred to as "Huns", but there is no consensus among scholars about such a connection." Is it right to call Hephthalites Huns?
  • Category:Iranian empires | Category:Historical Iranian peoples | Category:Iranian nomads
    • When the origin of Hephthalites is uncertain, should we us such categories?
  • Category:Sogdians
    • Is there any source that calls Hephthalites Sogdian? How they fit in "Sogdians" category? Per what?

@Ermenrich, HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, KIENGIR, LouisAragon, PericlesofAthens, and Wikaviani: Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @MMFA:. I think saying "there is no consensus among scholars about such a connection" is incorrect. At the very least, almost everyone seems to agree that all these groups used the name Hun. Whether they were "genetically" related is another, and, frankly, somewhat old-fashioned and racialist way of looking at things. I can't speak to the Sogdians bit though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is Category:Huns = Huns (only Attila's Huns) OR Category:Huns = Any historical group that named Hun. If you remember, this was the reason why I excluded the other Huns (XYZ Huns) from Template:Huns. Can we say Hun is an umbrella term like Scythian? For the Iranian categories, I'm neutral about them. But when we add such categories to people with uncertain origins, stuff like this happens.[10] That user is a sockpoppet of User:Joohnny braavoo1 and that sockmaster is well-known for his "make everything Turkic" quest/agenda (He always tries to represent non-Turkic peoples as Turkic). But another editor may come here and tries to add Turkic-related categories per current cited references. For the Sogdians category, I suggest removing it. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ermenrich, if we really do not go into debates of genetic origin, they belonged to the Huns, I'd tend to support it as an umbrella category, nevertheless I don't agree of the removal of it. The connection to Sogdians is only that the Hephtalites conquered their land, thus that category should be deleted, along with the Iranian categories that are widely put openly to such groups/peoples of uncertain origin or heritage in case their ancient history overlaps of the territory of the present-day or historically undoubtful Iranian/Persian countries/entities.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I don't care about outdated racial classifications. And genetic data have their own story but they have nothing to do with this discussion/topic. As I said, my main concern is about the usage of term Hun/Huns. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Huns seems legit in my humble opinion. I stand by how Encyclopedia Iranica defines them : "HUNS, collective term for horsemen of various origins leading a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle.". I assume that Cathegory:Huns = any historical group that named as such. We have here the same kind of situation that we had about Scythians/Sarmatians.
  • While the origin of the Hephtalites may be controversial, i would say that the mainstream of sources still list them as "Iranian". Encyclopedia Iranica calls them "Iranian Huns". Even if their origins seem to be mixed, their language and elite were Iranian : "Iranian Huns. The term “Huns” was also used for several tribes who posed a continuous threat to northeastern Iran and northwestern India from the 4th century C.E. Earlier research attempted to establish a connection between the different tribes mentioned in the sources, and to consider them all as Hephthalites (cf. Ghirshman, pp. 69-134). Altheim (III, 1961, p. 7) viewed the Hephthalites as the original tribe of the Huns, from which the European Huns had split off. In addition, he also assumed a Turkish origin for all these tribes (Altheim, I, 1959, pp. 45 ff.). However, this far too simplistic perspective has been succeeded by a more discriminating view based on Robert Göbl’s research. 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)." Again, same kind of situation that we had with the Scythians/Sarmatians.
  • Category:Sogdians is irrelevant and i have not found any source supporting it. Thus, it has been legitimately removed by Wario-Man.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wikaviani. I'd also like to note that there is at least a slight difference in the usage of Huns vs. Scythians/Sarmatian: whereas (ancient) people tended to call unrelated groups by that name, Hun appears likely to have been an endonym used by the ruling elites of these tribal groupings themselves (although I guess that's not a universally held belief). This excludes people like the Sabirs and basically anyone called a Hun after the fiftth century though, except maybe the North Caucasian Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So should we add these XYZ Huns to Template:Huns? If the answer is yes, what label do you suggest for "group" (parameter)? I think "Other Huns" or "Other Hunnic peoples" is a good choice. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Other Hunnic Peoples" would be a good choice, though I'm sure we'll have to police it to keep people from adding Bulgars and Sabirs, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have been Iranized (Bactrianized?) Turks who immigrated from the Altaic Mountains to Bactria/Tokharistan, that is at least per the excellent, new and detailed information that ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity gives regarding them. The source also goes in depth about their relations with the Huns, and that unlike the traditional nomadic Huns, they seem to have been a generally settled people (or at least semi-nomadic). There is much more than that, but this article ultimately needs a heavy rewriting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wario-Man, it's relevant to add these Huns to Template:Huns, per the above comments. Any of your two proposals sounds good. However, an exclusive Turk origin is dismissed by Encyclopedia Iranica. Rather, it seems that they were of mixed origins while being culturally Iranians.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked the leading theory was that the Hepthaltites were most likely related to a former vassal of the Rouran called the Hua, not the Xiongnu. The Kidarites were Xiongnu. And certainly there were Xiongnu in the Hepthaltites, but their ruling body was different.MMFA (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermenrich, HistoryofIran, and MMFA: Rewriting this article and especially rewriting and summarizing Hephthalites#Origins will be very helpful for our readers. Current revision looks like a mess and it is confusing. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that they are descents of the israelite tribe of Naftali? Ilanohsky (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hephtalites = Naftali ?[edit]

In hebrew Naftali is also pronounced with an 'E' instead of an 'A', they are belived to have become a tribe in central asia, they were talking aramaic and iranian languages, as modern hebrew back then was aramaic and it fits with their culture and differences. Any scientific opinion on this. Ilanohsky (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We better remove these categories[edit]

  • Category:Iranian countries and territories, Category:Historical Iranian peoples, Category:Iranian nomads

Should be neutralized just like Huns and some other similar articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Controversial edit warring by Kami2018[edit]

User:Kami2018 I have given you clear reasons for the removal, your edit wars wont bring you anywhere. The part which I removed was a part about Rajputs having Hephtalite origins, however the basis for that theory, per the sources and per basic knowledge which is required if you are edit warring on a article like this, is that Nezaks are Hephtalites, as we know that view is outdated, the Nezaks and Hephtalites are not the same, hope User:पाटलिपुत्र can confirm this --Xerxes931 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kami2018:@Xerxes931: The Rajput origin theory is already mentioned in the page about the Alchon Huns, who were previously (until recently) thought to be part of the Hephthalites. It is also my understanding that this is the source of the confusion, and, as far as I know, the Rajputs have no relations to the Imperial Hepthalites, and it is probably better to leave them out of this article. Thanks पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sorry for taking your time for something clear like this, but it was necessary . --Xerxes931 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolic or Para-Mongolic language(s) possibly used by some Hephthalites[edit]

According to I.072/A (Liangshu), I.072/B (Liang zhigongtu) (quoted and translated in Balogh, ed. (2020)Hunnic Peoples in Central and South Asia: Sources for their Origin and History) the Hephthalites' language had to be translated by Tuyuhun, whose language has been identified by Vovin (2015) as one of the Para-Mongolic languages.("Some notes on the Tuyuhun (吐谷渾) language: in the footsteps of Paul Pelliot". In Journal of Sino-Western Communications, Volume 7, Issue 2 (December 2015).). Also, on page 260 of his 1962 article "The Consonantal System of Old Chinese. Part II", linguist & Sinologist Pulleyblank wrote:

  • We are told that in the Liang-shu that the people of Hua (i.e. the Hephthalites) were illiterate and their language could only be understood when interpreted by the men of Ho-nan, (i.e. the T'u-yü-hun). This statement can be most easily understood if we suppose that the Hephthalites spoke a language which was the same as that of the T'u-yü-hun, or closely akin to it, therefore a Mongolian dialect (see Pelliot 1921).

Notwithstanding the connection among the Hephthalites, the Pannonian Avars, the Rouran, and the Wuhuan hypothesized by Pulleyblank, the thesis that at least some Hephthalites spoke a Para-Mongolic language, imho, is parsimonious: it requires the fewest assumptions (compared to, for example, the alternative thesis -that the Hephthalites spoke a Turkic lect- which requires one more assumption that the Tuyuhun interpreters, whose 1st language was a para-Monglic one, also spoke and understood a Turkic lect used by the Hephthalites so as to interpret for the latter).

What are your thoughts, User:पाटलिपुत्र, User:Xerxes931, User:HistoryofIran, User:Mann Mann, etc.? Erminwin (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but as far as I am concerned, I prefer to defer to recent sedondary sources, especially de la Vaissière (2007), who based on a recent reappraisal of the Chinese sources, suggest that the Hephthalites were initially of Turkic origin, and later adopted the Bactrian language, first for administrative purposes, and possibly later as a native language, and Khodadad Rezakhani (2017), according to whom this thesis is seemingly the "most prominent at present" ("The suggestion that the Hephthalites were originally of Turkic origin and only later adopted Bactrian as their administrative, and possibly native, language (de la Vaissière 2007: 122) seems to be most prominent at present." [11].पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? In the "common languages" square, I will add "Para-Mongolic (possibly )", and cite Liangshu, Pulleyblank, and Vovin? Since nomadic confederations were political entities which were, at least in the beginning, ethnically and linguistically diverse, so (1) that some Hephthalites spoke Para-Mongolic and (2) some Hephthalites spoke Turkic are actually not mutually exclusive? Regards! Erminwin (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the only secondary source we have for this dates back to 1962 (if I'm not mistaken, the 2020 Balogh mainly provides translations [12], and is therefore more akin to a primary source) then I'm afraid we'd be wiser to leave it out. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र: Alright, for the time being I leave Pulleyblank's proposal out. Yu Taishan (2011) (on page 081 of pdf) proposes that:

the language spoken by the Yeda people was unique [...] there is a possibility that that the language of the Yeda [i.e. Hephthalites] was a hybrid or mixed language formed from frequent contact with languages such as Koguryo and Xianbei languages.

To back up his opinion, Yu cited Weishu (fasc. 102) & Liangshu (fasc. 54)
Yu's opinion was seconded by Rachel Lung (who in 2011 was an Assistant Professor in the Dept of Translation at Lingnan University [13]), who wrote on page 32 of her 2011 book Interpreters in Early Imperial China that

Yu suggests that the spoken language of the Hephthalites was unique and might have been a mixed variety of the Xianbei language and the Koguryǒ (高句麗) vernacular, considering their close proximity

Do you think that that "mixed Xianbei-Koguryǒ vernacular (possibly)" is good to include? Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Yu Taishan's opinion in the article, so that's probably sufficient. We cannot cram the infobox with every single language theory: in my opinion only the mainstream ones should appear there. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erminwin: Adding to Infobox: No, because it's not mainstream. Expanding/Adding to the relevant section: Yes. In my opinion, this articles needs a "Language" section just like many similar articles. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

iranian huns[edit]

The name of the Iranian Huns mentioned on this page is not mentioned in any historical article. While Huns is a general name given to nomadic peoples in the past, Iran is a geographical name and the geography of Iran has nothing to do with the hephthalite government. For this reason, the word Iranian Huns should be deleted. I tried to delete it but I encountered illogical behavior of Iranian History account. Atrmiles (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Iranian Huns mentioned on this page is not mentioned in any historical article. While Huns is a general name given to nomadic peoples in the past, Iran is a geographical name and the geography of Iran has nothing to do with the hephthalite government. For this reason, the word Iranian Huns should be deleted.
Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal feelings. Iranian Huns is literally an article, yet not only did you change it, you changed it to "Turkic Huns" (doesn't even exist as an article) for some reason, completely disregarding the cited WP:RS (both open access), which both mentions the Iranian Huns.
I tried to delete it but I encountered illogical behavior of Iranian History account.
Don't make random attacks, especially when you can't back it up. I also have a username. Read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS HistoryofIran (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran Dear History of Iran existence of an article does not particularly mean that every information given and linked to that article is correct and in the other hand whenever an article does not exist, it doesn't mean that any information containing that name is false. Huns are widely known as Turkic people all over the world the misuse of the term "Turkic Huns" is quite normal and considering what Atrmiles mentioned up above the term "Iranian" mentions the people or group from the geographical area of "Iran" and does not confirm any connection between Dynasties containing Iran as a land of they're with the Indo Iranian dynasties that were mainly known as Persian (including Achaemenids and Sassanids) however arguing over a name that mentions a geographical region is meaningless I tried to cool down the beef going on between you. IlyaSurkhayovic (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran What I say is not about personal feeling. It is a fact accepted in many places, including Wikipedia, that the Huns are generally related to the Turkic people. Secondly, why should there be an article called (turkic huns)? Iran is a geographical name and it makes sense that the Huns in that geography have a certain page. Also, I haven't seen the Iranian Huns page before. That page seems to have gone beyond the facts and was even written solely for Iranian nationalist interests. Iran is a geography and has certain borders. It is a terrible mistake to associate people who are not in the Iranian geography (e.g. the Huns in our topic) with Iran. What do you call (random attack)? Since when is correcting mistakes considered an attack? Finally, even the name on the account is biased, how do you claim to be writing an unbiased article??? Atrmiles (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran Atrmiles has a point in the second reply. Since Iran is a geographical region using the term Iranian Huns is accurate just like European Huns and etc. But this doesn't mean specifically that Huns were Iranian. IlyaSurkhayovic (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal feelings.
Try reading this a few times.
"Finally, even the name on the account is biased, how do you claim to be writing an unbiased article???"
Keep up the attacks and I'll report you. I didn't write this article either, and if I did, there is nothing wrong with that. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hephthalites&oldid=1195304372"