How can a tribe that emerged in northern chinese province of Shanxi be Iranic? The only dispute that can take place here is that only between Turkic peoples and Mongolians.-QAZAQ
Pretty interesting while here Hephthalites are linked to Huns and at the Huns section, Huns are claimed to be Turkic origin. So, Hephthalites are Turkic origin or Indo-European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.239.74 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 27 June 2006 66.243.239.74
Also remember that this is pretty much the same area that Indo-European tribes like the Yue-Chi (Tocharians?), Massagetae, Sakas, and other tribes had dwelled only a few centuries before. It's entirely possible that some of their remnants later became the Hepthal ruling elite. And as the above editor mentioned, the Hepthalites had some elements in their coalition that included Turkic and Mongolian tribes. -- Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Off course, if there is something indisputable, it is that ruling elite is always Indo-European! Read the article you nazipedians it says quite contrary, Indo-European bulk with possibly nomadic turkic ruling elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.147 ( talk) 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I support the idea of Indo-european, but not the rulling party. its more likely that the rulling party is of Altaic origion, and the local population overwhelmingly speak Indo-europeans. although they are called the white Huns but only little relationship between these two people. The ruling party may speak a language highly related with Turk, but themselves are not of the Turk origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.105.101 ( talk) 11:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Statements with question marks in the article need to be resolved. -- Beland 09:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I am no expert but I have spent the last 15 years researching the origins and effects of the Hephthalites (I have been too busy on this to look at their fate yet). But my time is limited, so I can only do a little at a time. Also it will be difficult because people editing with a little knowledge in between my edits can be worse than people editing with no knowledge. E.G. Linguistic affiliation has no baring on physical appearance -a nation can look more mongoloid than anything else and yet speak an indo-european toungue. E.G. Info gleamed from coinage can be a good guide, assuming the coin cataloguer really knows what he/she dealing with and isn't just in it for the business and can't tell the difference between Kushan, Kidarite, Hephthalite, Alchon, Nezak, Uar, and Hunas.
This gentlman makes a good attempt to surmise. http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/huns/huns.html but is not free from mistakes and generalizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.116.86 ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 August 2005
Should this be in Category:Huns? It is now, but I'm not sure that's correct, since the White Huns were not necessarily Huns per se. -- Saforrest 15:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hazara ethnic people of Afghanistan were unknown to the world before because of Pashton suppression on them in last 200 years. and they were completly kept in dark, and they are still unkown to the world.
Hazara people has a very rich distint culture from other people in Afghanistan. They are proud, talented, hardworker and trusthworthy. There are claims that they are descendents of Gengis khan army, i beleive that is completly wrong and baseless. When Gengis khan arrived in Bamiyan in 12 century, Bamiayn locals resisted fiercley. The people of Bamiyan were like central asian as like Hazara looks at that time.
There are claims Hephthalite were Tajiks. Tajiks people distint come to existince in 10 century. How could they have been rulers in at that time. The same area were controled by Kushans. Then persian sassanid moved in and destroyed kushan empire in 2AD century. Tajiks of Tajikistan and Afghanistan are those who come in central asia with persian empire expansion over centuries.
Hazara people sites
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaghouri ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2006
Another thing you should remember when Gengis khan arrived in Bamyan, Hazaristan capital, mongol armies faced fierce resistance and Gengis Khan grandon killed there. Gengis Khan ordered the city to be completly destroyed. The residents of Bamyan had also asian looks like mongols at the time before mongol arrival. No other ethnic group inhabit there with asian look at the region except Hazara people.
visit this website to understand more about Ethnic groups sttruggle in Afghanistan in the last 250 years: http:// —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaghouri ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 August 2006
Search for Pashtuns origins on the net, you will find half historians claiming Pashtuns to be ancestors of lost tribes of Isrealets and other half of the historians claim Pashtuns to be of Aryan race. Have a throughly look at Pashtun life and culture in this day, it will give you an idea where really they come from. Iranians claim to be from Aryan race, It is hardly belevieble to accept Pashtuns and Persians as one race.
Its nonsense to link Hazara with Hephthalite, there is no evidence here. what i read is Hazara people spoke Mongolian up until the 16th century. Hephthalite have other name known as "white huns" which is a pretty good indication that they are white people whose culture are identical with Huns( only apply to the rulling party) as we know the major part of Huns moved further west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.105.101 ( talk) 11:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed some hurt feelings starting to pop up over this article because of clearly nationalistic prides being hurt. Could we all please try to step out of ourselves and our nationalistic upbringings whatever thay may have been in order to look at the truth objectively. It is not good to get uppity and dispute things just because it goes against the official line adopted by whatever political party has most sway at any one particular time. This is what caused truth to suffer under the Nazis. Reporters have to be removed from politics, otherwise we simply become part of the propaganda machines.Kaz 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The factual accuracy and neutrality are quite different issues. If there exists factual inaccuracy this should be proven first in the talk/discussion page, before putting the tag. Therefore, i'm removing the tag and replacing it with "POV-check" tag. E104421 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous debates about Hephthalite language. Most scholars believe it is Iranian for the Pei Shih states that the language of the Hephthalites differs from those of the Juan-juan (Mongoloid) and of the "various Hu" (Turkic); however there are some think the Hephthalites spoke Mongol tongues like the Hsien-pi (3rd century) and the Juan-juan (5th century) and the Avars (6th-9th century). According to the Buddhist pilgrims Sung Yun and Hui Sheng, who visited them in 520, they had no script, and the Liang shu specifically states that they have no letters but use tally sticks. At the same time there is numismatic and epigraphic evidence to show that a debased form of the Greek alphabet was used by the Hephthalites. Since the Kushan was conquested by Hephthalites, it is possible they retained many aspects of Kushan culture, including the adoption of the Greek alphabet.
Hephthalite from Encyclopædia Britannica
"also spelled Ephthalite, member of a people important in the history of India and Persia during the 5th and 6th centuries AD. According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns or Hunas. They had no cities or system of writing, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry.
In the 5th and 6th centuries the Hephthalites repeatedly invaded Persia and India. In the middle of the 6th century under the attacks of the Turks they ceased to exist as a separate people and were probably absorbed in the surrounding population. Nothing is known of their language."
Regards E104421 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
E104421, what? An anon edited the article making some claim and put in unsourced information and you backed him up. Then I reverted it to the old version while making it comform with the source, yet you still reverted. Anyone can look at the edit history, I have nothing to hide. The source listed clearly states that most scholars believe them to have spoken an Iranian language. It seems as though you are the one not reading what others are writing. The information I removed, was unsourced POV by an anon, who you obviously have some connection to. E104421 says that we are trying to push the Iranian POV, yet I clearly pointed out to him that the source of the information was not Iranian at all. E104421 false accusations and denials is clear evidence that he made a mistake and is not trying to cover it up.
Khosrow II
20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ephtalite is known as 'White Huns' in English Literature (see Columbia Encyclopedia), and 'Ak' means 'White' in Turkish language. So Ak Hun is right term. Please give up this pan-iranist vandalism.-- Karcha 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Karcha, you obviously do not have any clue as to what Ecyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam are. I suggest next time you do research before making your ludicrous claims and speeches. Khosrow II 21:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The concise scientific neutral information with references about White Huns or Hephthalites is compiled from Encyclopedias Britannica and Columbia for the introduction section.
"White Huns or Hephthalites, people of obscure origins, possibly of Tibetan or Turkish stock. They were called Ephthalites by the Greeks, and Hunas by the Indians. There is no definite evidence that they are related to the Huns Huns.
The White Huns were an agricultural people with a developed set of laws. They were first mentioned by the Chinese, who described them (A.D. 125) as living in Dzungaria. They displaced the Scythians and conquered Sogdiana and Khorasan before 425. They crossed (425) the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) River and invaded Persia. Held off at first by Bahram Gur, they later (483–85) succeeded in making Persia tributary. After a series of wars (503–13) they were driven out of Persia, permanently lost the offensive, and were finally (557) defeated by Khosru I. The White Huns also invaded India and succeeded in extending their domain to include the Ganges valley. They temporarily overthrew the Gupta empire but were eventually driven out of India in 528 by a Hindu coalition. Although in Persia they had little effect, in India the White Huns influenced society by altering the caste system and disrupting the hierarchy of the ruling families. Some of the White Huns remained in India as a distinct group."
"also spelled Ephthalite, member of a people important in the history of India and Persia dring the 5th and 6th centuries AD. According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns or Hunas. They had no cities or system of writing, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry.
In the 5th and 6th centuries the Hephthalites repeatedly invaded Persia and India. In the middle of the 6th century under the attacks of the Turks they ceased to exist as a separate people and were probably absorbed in the surrounding population. Nothing is known of their language."
Their original name was Hoa or Hoa-tun; subsequently they styled themselves Ye-tha-i-li-to after the name of their royal family, or more briefly Ye-tha. Before the 5th century A.D. they began to move westwards, for about 420 we find them in Transoxiana, and for the next 130 years they were a menace to Persia, which they continually and successfully invaded, though they never held it as a conquest. The Sassanid king, Bahram V., fought several campaigns with them and succeeded in keeping them at bay, but they defeated and killed Peroz (Firuz), A.D. 484. His son Kavadh I. (Kobad), being driven out of Persia, took refuge with the Ephthalites, and recovered his throne with the assistance of their khan, whose daughter he had married, but subsequently he engaged in prolonged hostilities with them. The Persians were not quit of the Ephthalites until 557 when Chosroes Anushirwan destroyed their power with the assistance of the Turks, who now make their first appearance in western Asia. (Classic Encyclopedia)-- Karcha 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"About Disputed ethnic origin of persians"
The papyri from Tebtunis record several sites in the Fayum, which appear to have been founded as ethnic communities in the third century BCE. These include the "Village of the Syrians" (Syrôn kômê), "Village of the Arabs" (Arabôn kômê) and Samareia, which contained a sizable Jewish population and was probably named after the city in Palestine.
Although ethnic designations like Boeotian, Macedonian, Syrian, Arab and Jew probably refer to geographic origin, "Persian" proves problematic. Its precise origin or significance is disputed. In the early Ptolemaic period it seems to describe people with Greek names functioning in a Greek context; although they enjoy a privileged status, they are counted separately from Greeks in tax lists. In late Ptolemaic and Roman contracts, "Persian of the epigonê" refers to the legal status of a debtor who had waived certain personal rights in order to secure the collection of a debt.
Persians 6 June 12 BCE
In this Demotic contract, summarized in Greek at the bottom, Pakemis son of Pakemis, acknowledges the loan of the dowry of his wife Tameische (Greek, Tameischis), daughter of Sokonopis, and promises to repay it. Here "Persian" does not seem to indicate descent, but describes a man with the status of a debtor. In this example, the subject has an Egyptian personal name, but "Persian of the epigonê" is just as frequently used to describe people with Greek names.
P.Tebt. II 386 ( http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu/lecture/clar_ex2.html) Read and Learn... -- Karcha 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have copied out the relevant passages here – as you will see there is still no absolute certainty on this point, but the trend in scholarship is towards assigning the Hephtahlites an Iranian origin and language. Tremblay also makes the useful point that the term “Hun” has been used for all sorts of completely unrelated nomadic confederations.
Enoki, Kazuo, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tokyo Bunko, 1959, No. 18, "On the Nationality of the Ephthalites" p56
“Let me recapitulate the foregoing. The grounds upon which the Ephthalites are assigned an Iranian tribe are : (1) that their original home was on the east frontier of Tokharestan; and (2) that their culture contained some Iranian elements. Naturally, the Ephthalites were sometimes regarded as another branch of the Kao-ch’e tribe by their contemporaries, and their manners and customs are represented as identical with those of the T’u-chueh, and it is a fact that they had several cultural elements in common with those of the nomadic Turkish tribes. Nevertheless, such similarity of manners and customs is an inevitable phenomenon arising from similarity of their environments. The Ephthalites could not be assigned as a Turkish tribe on account of this. The Ephthalites were considered by some scholars as an iranized tribe, but I would like to go further and acknowledge them as an Iranian tribe. Though my grounds, as stated above, are rather scarce, it is expected that the historical and linguistic materials concerning the Ephthalites are to be increased in the future and most of the newly-discovered materials seem the more to confirm my Iranian-tribe theory.”
Almost fifty years later, Xavier Tremblay has been able to conduct the sort of detailed analysis of Hephthalite materials which Enoki was hoping for, conducting a detailed study of those personal names which have come down to us:
Xavier Tremblay, Pour une histore de la Sérinde. Le manichéisme parmi les peoples et religions d’Asie Centrale d’apré les sources primaire, Vienna, 2001, Appendix D «Notes Sur L'Origine Des Hephtalites” , pp. 183-88
«Malgré tous les auteurs qui, depuis KLAPROTH jusqu’ ALTHEIM in SuC, p113 sq et HAUSSIG, Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse in vorislamischer Zeit, Darmstadt, 1983 (cf. n.7), ont vu dans les Hephthalites des Turcs, l’explication de leurs noms par le turc ne s’impose jamais, est parfois impossible et n’est appuyée par aucun fait historique (aucune trace de la religion turque ancienne), celle par l’iranien est toujours possible, parfois évidente, surtout dans les noms longs comme Mihirakula, Toramana ou γοβοζοκο qui sont bien plus probants qu’ αλ- en Αλχαννο. Or l’iranien des noms des Hephtalites n’est pas du bactrien et n’est donc pas imputable à leur installation en Bactriane […] Une telle accumulation de probabilités suffit à conclure que, jusqu’à preuve du contraire, les Hepthalites étaient des Iraniens orientaux, mais non des Sogdiens.»
And for those unfortunates who do not understand the language of love, here is a rough translation:
“Despite all those authors who, from KLAPROTH to ALTHEIM in SuC, p113 sq and HAUSSIG, Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse in vorislamischer Zeit, Darmstadt, 1983 (cf. note 7), have seen in the Hepthalites the Turks, the explanation of their names through Turkic is never necessary, is sometimes impossible and is not driven by any historical fact (there is no trace of the ancient Turkic religion), that from Iranian is always possible, sometimes obvious, especially in the long names such as Mihirakula, Toramana or γοβοζοκο which are much more evidential than αλ- in Αλχαννο. Furthermore the Iranian of Hephthalite names is not Bactrian and is thus not attributable to their settlement in Bactria […] Such an accumulation of probabilities suffices to conclude that, until there is proof to the contrary, the Hephthalites were eastern Iranians, but not Sogdians.” Sikandarji 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK User:E104421 - I'm sorry I described you as a "nationalist", but Tajik does have a point when he says that the Iranica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam are more reliable than the Britannica on Oriental topics, particularly if you're using an old version of the latter. I suggest you have a look here and make up your own mind about the Iranica - it has its faults, but it is not a vehicle for pan-Iranianism and some of its articles are of exceptionally high quality. Have a look at these in particular:
I work on the history of Central Asia, and I can assure you that a roll-call of Richard Frye, C.E. Bosworth, Berthold Spuler, Robert McChesney and Yuri Bregel read like a "Who's who in Central Asian History" - it's really very impressive. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, is not available online but should need no introduction - there is a Turkish translation of the first edition (Islam Ansiklopedisi, I think), the second, which was completed in 2005, is even better. It is the single most authoritative source on the entire Islamic world, and deserves to be taken seriously. Finally, I agree with you that there is no consensus over the origins of the Hephthalites, although as we see above scholarship is moving towards a theory of their Iranian origin, based on the scant available sources. Enoki's article is old: it is interesting because he writes that he hopes further research will be done and new sources uncovered, and that is precisely what Tremblay has done. As this is published (and in this case available online as a reference) this does not count as "original research" and can therefore be referred to in the article. Sikandarji 10:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Frye, citing Enoki's '59 article and another from '69, writes that the Hephthalites "were probably a mixed horde", tying in with my citation from Christian above. Thinking of these people as tribes belonging to a discrete nationality is not very helpful. Some may have spoken Turkic (Christian) - most of their names were iranian (Tremblay).
Sikandarji
10:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Procopius referred to the Hepthalites as Asian, but "not ugly". I infer his meaning, in classic Graeco-Roman arrogance, to imply that they were not what the West would typically think of as Asian, i.e. Mongoloid, Chinese, etc (i.e., they were not Greek or Roman, so to him they were ugly barbarians). This does not prohibit the possibility of an Indo-Iranian ethnic origin, since the Indo-Iranians, and the later Persians, did not in appearance share a Mongoloid or Chinese ethnic connection. By saying that the Hepthalites were Asian but "not ugly", he in fact might have been describing a people of Indo-Iranian origin (they were Asian, but not "far" Asian). Let me say for the record that I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS REFERENCE TO ASIAN PEOPLE AS UGLY, so please do not attack me for making an observation about his statement. Thank you Myrddin_Wyllt7 ( talk) 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
E104421 If you've actually looked at the full list of authors, consulting editors, associate editors and editors on the Iranica website, it should be clear to you that not only is it not iranian-controlled, but that it calls upon some of the world's finest oriental scholars - being a physicist I don't imagine you know who any of them are, so perhaps you should be prepared to accept the judgment of someone who does. Instead you see a couple of Iranian names and go off on a conspiratorial rant about it being "iran based/funded" and "reflecting iranian pov". This does not speak well for your neutrality or good faith. The article on the early history of Central Asia to which I provided a link (have you bothered to read it? Thought not) is by Richard Nelson Frye, Professor Emeritus at Harvard - does this sound like an Iranian name to you? The encyclopaedia is run from Columbia University. Its neutrality is not disputed in the least. Sikandarji 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is precisely for this kind of topics that Citizendium would be useful. I am a specialist of Central Asia and your discussions are quite strange, proving only the strength of nationalism. I don't want to be rude, but studying such remote and obscure periods demands training, and knowledge of many languages, and discussions with colleagues. I have for instance recently discovered that the Tongdian, a Chinese encyclopedy published in 801, described the arrival of the Ephtalites in Central Asia. Nobody, even Enoki, noticed that. it changes many things as it proves that the Ephtalites were not a new wave of invaders, but came with the other 'hunnic' tribes of the IVth c. But you have to know Chinese for this. And Russian to read many works of archaeology, and Middle-Iranian languages to see that, since N. Sims-Williams has discovered the Bactrian language, all the previous etymologies of 'ephtalite' are false. It is and can be only the work of professional historians. Why should I bother to edit the pages, to be modified in a few days ? ~~Marchand Sogdien~~
Sorry to say that everyone here was wrong. What marchand sogdien was talking about is original research and impermissible on Wikipedia (don't know about Citizendium). The interpretation of a primary source like the one he's talking about needs a peer review, especially when it is claimed that "no expert has discovered this before". So marchand's desire to publish it on wikipedia on the basis of his own expertise couldn't be realized here. If he is a professional historian as he says, then he should start by publishing his findings and conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal or book, and only then can/should wikipedians cite them here. -- 91.148.159.4 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
guote from art: Elsewhere they were called White Huns or (Sveta) Hunas. However, there is no definite evidence that they are related to the .
The word is similar to 1svita and 2sviata. The first mean 1a 'east/morning' or (exactly the same spelling and sound) 1b'assmbly of people at court usually with attributes of richness', the second word mean '2a) world 2b) very long distance or very long time'. Svętavid is a 4 faced symbol on pillar. Possibly the first phoneme may be written as 'st' as the symbol similar to f in form solar cross. (Rounded swastika). Numerous occurrences of it( ligatured st) in saganet documents. For example is written astronomican or aristimetrican. Do You Who live in 'White Hun' areas have any connotation of the word? possible cognates or semantic analogies, or any clue?
also question adressing fragment: According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun.
Also voicer ph <> v in Heph.thalites and friction on th ?
Caucasian Avars (Avar-Hun's) according to genetic analyses (mtDNA) are very near relations of Iranian Peoples. And caucasian-avarian language had more iranian words.-- Warhunne 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who is "Akhun"? ALCHONNO is not turkic "akhun". In Ando-Tsez languages (part of Caucasian-Avarian language) haldu, haldiyu or aldiyo = white-- Warhunne 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to give some direct quotations from the sources used in the text:
From A.D.H.Bivar's article on HEPHTHALITES:
I) Procopius claims that the Hephthalites live in a prosperous territory, are the only Huns with fair complexions, do not live as nomads, acknowledge a single king, observe a well-regulated constitution, and behave justly towards neighboring states. He also describes the burial of their nobles in tumuli, accompanied by the boon-companions who had been their retainers in their lifetimes; this practice contrasts with evidence of cremation among the Chionites in Ammianus (19.2.1: post incensum corporis . . .) and with remains found by excavators for the European Huns and remains in some deposits ascribed to the Chionites in Central Asia. It is therefore assumed that the Hephthalites constituted a second Hunnish wave who entered Bactria early in the fifth century C.E., and who seem to have driven the Kidarites into Gandhara.
II) The newly-discovered Bactrian documents studied by Sims-Williams (1997, 2001) throw interesting light on Afghanistan during the Kushano-Sasanian and Hephthalite periods, containing references to a tax collected specially as tribute for the Hephthalites (Sims-Williams, 1997, No. 16). Under them, a surprisingly orderly administration is shown to have been carried on, thereby substantiating the report of Procopius above. These documents make clear that the Middle Iranian Bactrian language written in Greek script was not the native idiom of the Hephthalites, as some have claimed, but the traditional language of administration in this region from Kushan times and possibly earlier. There is, as mentioned above, some evidence of the use of Turkish language under the Hephthalites. The name Mihirakula possibly represents a Sanskritization of a Turkish designation mihr-qul "slave of Mithra," a familiar theophoric formation. The Bactrian documents also attest several Turkish royal titles, though these could also be explained by later Turkish infiltration south of the Oxus.
I hope the quotations help. Regards E104421 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I got the Hepthalite borders from the first map on its article, as well as information gathered from other sources. Basically the info I used stated that the Sassanids had been defeated and were under Hepthalite domination, and much of northern India was also overrun by Hepthalites (at least until 520 AD.) Are these borders accurate, or is there better information available? -- Thomas Lessman ( talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the information, but I need more than that. I don't have access to that book. Do you have a map that depicts the correct borders? Thomas Lessman ( talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, who can u use sources from free encyclopedias?? -- 84.59.211.39 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Hoa" and "Hoa-tun" are non-standard romanisations, and do not appear to correlate with any ethnic names in Chinese. Verification needed. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 02:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe they did have a writing system, and that fragments of it have been found at Dunhuang and Turfan. Looking for the cite. Alexwoods ( talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't anyone talking about the apparent "existence" of seven in their name in both Greek and Turkish. Their name means "people who have seven cities" or "people from seven cities": Yeti-il-li. AverageTurkishJoe ( talk) 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello All,
The map featured in this piece has a place on the black sea labeled "Albania." Albania is actually on the Adriatic Sea, next to Italy, about a fifteen hundred miles away. Makes me wonder how reliable the other information on the map is! Jatrimar ( talk) 22:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"After that, they [the Hephthalites] crossed the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) River and invaded Persia. In Persia, they were initially held off by Bahram Gur but later around AD 483–85, they succeeded in making Persia a tributary state."
Whoever (re)wrote that is off his rocker, which would be particularly true if he was one of those jokers who goes around rewriting every instance of "Iran(ian)" to "Persia(n)", but is in this case is a copyvio (with accompanying corruption) of the Columbia encyclopedia. The Hephthalites did not suddenly take wing upon crossing the Jaxartes and fly all the way to the diametrically opposite corner of the subcontinent. They invaded Sassanid-held territory over up in the north-east, but they did not even come close to the Sassanid homeland, and they certainly did not make "Persia" (whatever that might entail) a tributary state.
What the Hephthalites did do was seize and held the king and commanders for ransom, which is (presumably) what the Columbia hoped to say with "tributary", but which in the article makes the Sassanid homeland a vassal of the Hephthalites. Actually (and just like when it happens here on WP), the unscientific use of "Persia" should have tipped off every smart person that that Columbia article is anno 1935 crock. And one copyvio doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from more verbatim pasting (and not just from the Columbia either).
Their "origin" section (as also the previous talk here) is a farce. Other than to negate "unknown", the opinions do not contradict each other, even if they may superficially appear to do so. And this "origin" section that does not unambiguously state "unknown" is false.
The "etymology" section is not -- it seems -- about etymology. Besides the fact that I can't understand what many of the sentences are saying, "Hepthalite" is from Greek, and none of those notions presented in the section even mentions Greek. "Etymology of names" is out of context.
The "Hephthalites in South Asia" section is contextually wierd. Not only is there no other "Hephthalites in ..." section, it also suggests that "South Asia" can be distinguished from Central Asia or Iran with a ruler (note also: the article's images -- which are correct -- say quite something else). But as far as this article need be concerned, the Hephthalites are folk that Bahram Gur held off, and who took away a piece of the Sassanid pie only a little while later, who subsequently held onto that piece for three centuries, during which time they absorbed local culture and traditions, and who from their new home subsequently extended their domain in all directions, and who finally vanished after being chewed up by Sassanids and Caliphate. The chronology of events does not warrant a distinction (if at all one existed) between different "kinds" of Hephthalites.
Come on people! You can surely do better than this. -- Fullstop ( talk) 06:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
We're talking two different (but related) political entities here. The Hephthalites were from the early 400s to late-mid 500s, and their successors, the Kushano-Hephthalites, from the late-mid 500s to 870 AD. While I can accept them possibly being integrated into one article (albiet a rather long article!), it is NOT right that the original Kushano-Hephthalite article was deleted in favor of this redirect, leading to the total loss of all information in the Kushano-Hephthalite article, without any discussion. Please restore the Kushano-Hephthalite article, at least until it's information can be integrated into this Hephthalite article. At the very least, there needs to be a discussion before such information is deleted. Sincerely, Thomas Lessman ( talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually do care about accuracy and readability, Fullstop. And I agree with you that the articles are need serious improvements. You're also right about the inaccuracy of "Kushano-Hephthalite" as an article. You seem to have a good understanding of the elements involved (Hephthalites, Hunas, Zabul, Nezaks, etc). I got frustrated trying to "fix" the article due to the many errors and grammatical problems. I bet you could improve the article quite a bit, if you are interested in doing so.
I'm actually working on some maps right now that could be modified easily enough to include in this article (to replace the existing maps, which are inaccurate according to existing info. Seriously Fullstop, if you can improve the article, you have my support! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman ( talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried a little clean up in the intro. But there is still much work to do. Tājik ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
On what three stars? What for imaginations? This three stars as a flag are taken from false panturkist the brochures published in Turkey! The Panturkists come here and spoil the Ridiculous editings. They wish to alter by any all in Turkic chauvinistic spirit. Scientists when write all about Hepthalites, on the first place put the Iranians as the basic version. And in general everywhere it is told, that they were mainly IRANIANS! All turkish books and textbooks are lie and panturkist propagation. In them there are no references to resources. These pseudo-scientists do not know the Iranian and Chinese languages and in general know nothing. They are visionaries. Take any solid literature about the Hepthalites and solid monographies, there everywhere it is told, that they were mainly Iranians. Probably with a small impurity Protomongols. What else Tibetans and Turks? What for a nonsense? By what right you, Turks, climb here with fantastic "Three Stars of Hephthalithes"? Whence you have taken this bosh? From your "fuehrer" Alparslan Turkesh that-whether? ALL THAT YOU HERE WRITE THERE IS A SHAMELESS LIE, PANTURKIST IMAGINATION. Hey, MARDOM-E ARYAYI, chera to jevab namikoni? Dar tamam-e ketabha "Hepthalithes" mardom-e Aryayi, mardom-e Iran, Tajikistan ve Afganistan hastand. Azeri/qirqiz/qazaq/ozbek haqiqaten Hunhaye sefid hastand? Haqiqaten hunhaye Aryayi hastand? Doruq-e panturkist!
Can someone explain what Sveta Huna actually means and where it is attested in Indian literature and tradition? They did not make any difference between Huns and Huns (Hephtalithes). Vihirmihira was the first one who used the term Hun and Hephtalithe scattered in one sentence. Indians knew Hephtalites just as Huns, not as Sveta Huns (White Huns) which some claim here. Hephtalithes had a large Turkish population among themself. I do not say they were predominantly Turks but Turks played an important role among them and possibly made half of them. Such Hephtalithe tribes that were of Turkish origine were the Chionites and Khalaj Turks and many other Turkish tribes that ruled later India and Pakistan. Read Turks in Transoxiana by Richard N. And who the hell are Gangkovsky, Ahmad Dani and the rest of the self-claimed scholars who still serve the old backward school? G. claim one time Hephtalithes as Turks and another time as Iranians. He has no relation to the Hephtalithes as other scholars have-- 188.97.15.164 ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
One point more, the traditions about the Hephtalithes we have from chinese and indian chroniclers are in conflict with eachother. While some of them tell us the Hephtalithes were settlers and living all the regions south- and north of Oxus and even much further in the region of modern Armenia and Azerbaidjan and have a writing system and follow some beliefes, other tell us they live in tents, have no common kings and rulers, do not follow any regional belief and have no a written system.-- 188.97.15.164 ( talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think someone got a little lazy in analyzing the Korean reading of those characters to support the "Hephthal-" name used in Greek. Final -t's became -l's for the readings of all Chinese characters in Korean, so 엽달 (Yeoptal) for 嚈噠 would reflect an earlier name of something like "Yiptat" in Old Chinese. This is confirmed by the Cantonese reading of yip3 daat6 and the Japanese reading of you-tatu (which in old kana usage would've been yafu-tatu which would reflect the -p in the first character). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.113.158 ( talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few years that the correct reading of npky MLK' (as in the caption of the Bilon coin) has been corrected to Nezak Shah (ncky MLK')... why is this sooooooooooo outdated? -- Khodadad ( talk) 08:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I deleted his assumption based on nothing from introduction section, put it under another section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
proven which language they spoke. Torebay ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about the Hephthalites, yet it starts with remarks on the names of Khingila and Mihirakula who are NOT Hephthalites, rather the kings of another Iranian Hunnic group (according to Goebl 1967 and Alram 2004/2009) called the Alchon/Alkhans. They are all related groups, but have seperate identities. This needs to be totally cleaned out...-- Khodadad ( talk) 04:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted source-falsifications by an IP. Tajik ( talk) 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The Ephthalites are neither Iranian speakers nor Turkish speakers, but more likely to communicate in a Mongolic language. In the Chinese book 《梁书》, our ancestor has described the (Hua)"滑国者,其言语待河南人译而后通" meaning the language of Hua could be translated by the ”河南人“ which in that time refers to the Xian bei(鲜卑) people of Tuyuhun kingdom(吐谷浑). the Xian bei language were considered to be the ancestor of Mongolic language. This theory was first mentioned by ”Edwin George Pulleyblank" in his book <The Consonantal System of Old Chinese>(上古汉语的辅音系统). Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinscky ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The link "Hephthalite History and Coins of the Kashmir Smast Kingdom- Waleed Ziad" at the bottom of the page leads to a site that is either under construction or largely removed. Only the main pages are still available. Peterk2 ( talk) 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How can a tribe that emerged in northern chinese province of Shanxi be Iranic? The only dispute that can take place here is that only between Turkic peoples and Mongolians.-QAZAQ
Pretty interesting while here Hephthalites are linked to Huns and at the Huns section, Huns are claimed to be Turkic origin. So, Hephthalites are Turkic origin or Indo-European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.239.74 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 27 June 2006 66.243.239.74
Also remember that this is pretty much the same area that Indo-European tribes like the Yue-Chi (Tocharians?), Massagetae, Sakas, and other tribes had dwelled only a few centuries before. It's entirely possible that some of their remnants later became the Hepthal ruling elite. And as the above editor mentioned, the Hepthalites had some elements in their coalition that included Turkic and Mongolian tribes. -- Thomas Lessman ( talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Off course, if there is something indisputable, it is that ruling elite is always Indo-European! Read the article you nazipedians it says quite contrary, Indo-European bulk with possibly nomadic turkic ruling elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.147 ( talk) 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I support the idea of Indo-european, but not the rulling party. its more likely that the rulling party is of Altaic origion, and the local population overwhelmingly speak Indo-europeans. although they are called the white Huns but only little relationship between these two people. The ruling party may speak a language highly related with Turk, but themselves are not of the Turk origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.105.101 ( talk) 11:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Statements with question marks in the article need to be resolved. -- Beland 09:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I am no expert but I have spent the last 15 years researching the origins and effects of the Hephthalites (I have been too busy on this to look at their fate yet). But my time is limited, so I can only do a little at a time. Also it will be difficult because people editing with a little knowledge in between my edits can be worse than people editing with no knowledge. E.G. Linguistic affiliation has no baring on physical appearance -a nation can look more mongoloid than anything else and yet speak an indo-european toungue. E.G. Info gleamed from coinage can be a good guide, assuming the coin cataloguer really knows what he/she dealing with and isn't just in it for the business and can't tell the difference between Kushan, Kidarite, Hephthalite, Alchon, Nezak, Uar, and Hunas.
This gentlman makes a good attempt to surmise. http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/huns/huns.html but is not free from mistakes and generalizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.116.86 ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 August 2005
Should this be in Category:Huns? It is now, but I'm not sure that's correct, since the White Huns were not necessarily Huns per se. -- Saforrest 15:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hazara ethnic people of Afghanistan were unknown to the world before because of Pashton suppression on them in last 200 years. and they were completly kept in dark, and they are still unkown to the world.
Hazara people has a very rich distint culture from other people in Afghanistan. They are proud, talented, hardworker and trusthworthy. There are claims that they are descendents of Gengis khan army, i beleive that is completly wrong and baseless. When Gengis khan arrived in Bamiyan in 12 century, Bamiayn locals resisted fiercley. The people of Bamiyan were like central asian as like Hazara looks at that time.
There are claims Hephthalite were Tajiks. Tajiks people distint come to existince in 10 century. How could they have been rulers in at that time. The same area were controled by Kushans. Then persian sassanid moved in and destroyed kushan empire in 2AD century. Tajiks of Tajikistan and Afghanistan are those who come in central asia with persian empire expansion over centuries.
Hazara people sites
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaghouri ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2006
Another thing you should remember when Gengis khan arrived in Bamyan, Hazaristan capital, mongol armies faced fierce resistance and Gengis Khan grandon killed there. Gengis Khan ordered the city to be completly destroyed. The residents of Bamyan had also asian looks like mongols at the time before mongol arrival. No other ethnic group inhabit there with asian look at the region except Hazara people.
visit this website to understand more about Ethnic groups sttruggle in Afghanistan in the last 250 years: http:// —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaghouri ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 August 2006
Search for Pashtuns origins on the net, you will find half historians claiming Pashtuns to be ancestors of lost tribes of Isrealets and other half of the historians claim Pashtuns to be of Aryan race. Have a throughly look at Pashtun life and culture in this day, it will give you an idea where really they come from. Iranians claim to be from Aryan race, It is hardly belevieble to accept Pashtuns and Persians as one race.
Its nonsense to link Hazara with Hephthalite, there is no evidence here. what i read is Hazara people spoke Mongolian up until the 16th century. Hephthalite have other name known as "white huns" which is a pretty good indication that they are white people whose culture are identical with Huns( only apply to the rulling party) as we know the major part of Huns moved further west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.105.101 ( talk) 11:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed some hurt feelings starting to pop up over this article because of clearly nationalistic prides being hurt. Could we all please try to step out of ourselves and our nationalistic upbringings whatever thay may have been in order to look at the truth objectively. It is not good to get uppity and dispute things just because it goes against the official line adopted by whatever political party has most sway at any one particular time. This is what caused truth to suffer under the Nazis. Reporters have to be removed from politics, otherwise we simply become part of the propaganda machines.Kaz 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The factual accuracy and neutrality are quite different issues. If there exists factual inaccuracy this should be proven first in the talk/discussion page, before putting the tag. Therefore, i'm removing the tag and replacing it with "POV-check" tag. E104421 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous debates about Hephthalite language. Most scholars believe it is Iranian for the Pei Shih states that the language of the Hephthalites differs from those of the Juan-juan (Mongoloid) and of the "various Hu" (Turkic); however there are some think the Hephthalites spoke Mongol tongues like the Hsien-pi (3rd century) and the Juan-juan (5th century) and the Avars (6th-9th century). According to the Buddhist pilgrims Sung Yun and Hui Sheng, who visited them in 520, they had no script, and the Liang shu specifically states that they have no letters but use tally sticks. At the same time there is numismatic and epigraphic evidence to show that a debased form of the Greek alphabet was used by the Hephthalites. Since the Kushan was conquested by Hephthalites, it is possible they retained many aspects of Kushan culture, including the adoption of the Greek alphabet.
Hephthalite from Encyclopædia Britannica
"also spelled Ephthalite, member of a people important in the history of India and Persia during the 5th and 6th centuries AD. According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns or Hunas. They had no cities or system of writing, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry.
In the 5th and 6th centuries the Hephthalites repeatedly invaded Persia and India. In the middle of the 6th century under the attacks of the Turks they ceased to exist as a separate people and were probably absorbed in the surrounding population. Nothing is known of their language."
Regards E104421 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
E104421, what? An anon edited the article making some claim and put in unsourced information and you backed him up. Then I reverted it to the old version while making it comform with the source, yet you still reverted. Anyone can look at the edit history, I have nothing to hide. The source listed clearly states that most scholars believe them to have spoken an Iranian language. It seems as though you are the one not reading what others are writing. The information I removed, was unsourced POV by an anon, who you obviously have some connection to. E104421 says that we are trying to push the Iranian POV, yet I clearly pointed out to him that the source of the information was not Iranian at all. E104421 false accusations and denials is clear evidence that he made a mistake and is not trying to cover it up.
Khosrow II
20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ephtalite is known as 'White Huns' in English Literature (see Columbia Encyclopedia), and 'Ak' means 'White' in Turkish language. So Ak Hun is right term. Please give up this pan-iranist vandalism.-- Karcha 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Karcha, you obviously do not have any clue as to what Ecyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam are. I suggest next time you do research before making your ludicrous claims and speeches. Khosrow II 21:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The concise scientific neutral information with references about White Huns or Hephthalites is compiled from Encyclopedias Britannica and Columbia for the introduction section.
"White Huns or Hephthalites, people of obscure origins, possibly of Tibetan or Turkish stock. They were called Ephthalites by the Greeks, and Hunas by the Indians. There is no definite evidence that they are related to the Huns Huns.
The White Huns were an agricultural people with a developed set of laws. They were first mentioned by the Chinese, who described them (A.D. 125) as living in Dzungaria. They displaced the Scythians and conquered Sogdiana and Khorasan before 425. They crossed (425) the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) River and invaded Persia. Held off at first by Bahram Gur, they later (483–85) succeeded in making Persia tributary. After a series of wars (503–13) they were driven out of Persia, permanently lost the offensive, and were finally (557) defeated by Khosru I. The White Huns also invaded India and succeeded in extending their domain to include the Ganges valley. They temporarily overthrew the Gupta empire but were eventually driven out of India in 528 by a Hindu coalition. Although in Persia they had little effect, in India the White Huns influenced society by altering the caste system and disrupting the hierarchy of the ruling families. Some of the White Huns remained in India as a distinct group."
"also spelled Ephthalite, member of a people important in the history of India and Persia dring the 5th and 6th centuries AD. According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns or Hunas. They had no cities or system of writing, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry.
In the 5th and 6th centuries the Hephthalites repeatedly invaded Persia and India. In the middle of the 6th century under the attacks of the Turks they ceased to exist as a separate people and were probably absorbed in the surrounding population. Nothing is known of their language."
Their original name was Hoa or Hoa-tun; subsequently they styled themselves Ye-tha-i-li-to after the name of their royal family, or more briefly Ye-tha. Before the 5th century A.D. they began to move westwards, for about 420 we find them in Transoxiana, and for the next 130 years they were a menace to Persia, which they continually and successfully invaded, though they never held it as a conquest. The Sassanid king, Bahram V., fought several campaigns with them and succeeded in keeping them at bay, but they defeated and killed Peroz (Firuz), A.D. 484. His son Kavadh I. (Kobad), being driven out of Persia, took refuge with the Ephthalites, and recovered his throne with the assistance of their khan, whose daughter he had married, but subsequently he engaged in prolonged hostilities with them. The Persians were not quit of the Ephthalites until 557 when Chosroes Anushirwan destroyed their power with the assistance of the Turks, who now make their first appearance in western Asia. (Classic Encyclopedia)-- Karcha 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"About Disputed ethnic origin of persians"
The papyri from Tebtunis record several sites in the Fayum, which appear to have been founded as ethnic communities in the third century BCE. These include the "Village of the Syrians" (Syrôn kômê), "Village of the Arabs" (Arabôn kômê) and Samareia, which contained a sizable Jewish population and was probably named after the city in Palestine.
Although ethnic designations like Boeotian, Macedonian, Syrian, Arab and Jew probably refer to geographic origin, "Persian" proves problematic. Its precise origin or significance is disputed. In the early Ptolemaic period it seems to describe people with Greek names functioning in a Greek context; although they enjoy a privileged status, they are counted separately from Greeks in tax lists. In late Ptolemaic and Roman contracts, "Persian of the epigonê" refers to the legal status of a debtor who had waived certain personal rights in order to secure the collection of a debt.
Persians 6 June 12 BCE
In this Demotic contract, summarized in Greek at the bottom, Pakemis son of Pakemis, acknowledges the loan of the dowry of his wife Tameische (Greek, Tameischis), daughter of Sokonopis, and promises to repay it. Here "Persian" does not seem to indicate descent, but describes a man with the status of a debtor. In this example, the subject has an Egyptian personal name, but "Persian of the epigonê" is just as frequently used to describe people with Greek names.
P.Tebt. II 386 ( http://tebtunis.berkeley.edu/lecture/clar_ex2.html) Read and Learn... -- Karcha 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have copied out the relevant passages here – as you will see there is still no absolute certainty on this point, but the trend in scholarship is towards assigning the Hephtahlites an Iranian origin and language. Tremblay also makes the useful point that the term “Hun” has been used for all sorts of completely unrelated nomadic confederations.
Enoki, Kazuo, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Tokyo Bunko, 1959, No. 18, "On the Nationality of the Ephthalites" p56
“Let me recapitulate the foregoing. The grounds upon which the Ephthalites are assigned an Iranian tribe are : (1) that their original home was on the east frontier of Tokharestan; and (2) that their culture contained some Iranian elements. Naturally, the Ephthalites were sometimes regarded as another branch of the Kao-ch’e tribe by their contemporaries, and their manners and customs are represented as identical with those of the T’u-chueh, and it is a fact that they had several cultural elements in common with those of the nomadic Turkish tribes. Nevertheless, such similarity of manners and customs is an inevitable phenomenon arising from similarity of their environments. The Ephthalites could not be assigned as a Turkish tribe on account of this. The Ephthalites were considered by some scholars as an iranized tribe, but I would like to go further and acknowledge them as an Iranian tribe. Though my grounds, as stated above, are rather scarce, it is expected that the historical and linguistic materials concerning the Ephthalites are to be increased in the future and most of the newly-discovered materials seem the more to confirm my Iranian-tribe theory.”
Almost fifty years later, Xavier Tremblay has been able to conduct the sort of detailed analysis of Hephthalite materials which Enoki was hoping for, conducting a detailed study of those personal names which have come down to us:
Xavier Tremblay, Pour une histore de la Sérinde. Le manichéisme parmi les peoples et religions d’Asie Centrale d’apré les sources primaire, Vienna, 2001, Appendix D «Notes Sur L'Origine Des Hephtalites” , pp. 183-88
«Malgré tous les auteurs qui, depuis KLAPROTH jusqu’ ALTHEIM in SuC, p113 sq et HAUSSIG, Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse in vorislamischer Zeit, Darmstadt, 1983 (cf. n.7), ont vu dans les Hephthalites des Turcs, l’explication de leurs noms par le turc ne s’impose jamais, est parfois impossible et n’est appuyée par aucun fait historique (aucune trace de la religion turque ancienne), celle par l’iranien est toujours possible, parfois évidente, surtout dans les noms longs comme Mihirakula, Toramana ou γοβοζοκο qui sont bien plus probants qu’ αλ- en Αλχαννο. Or l’iranien des noms des Hephtalites n’est pas du bactrien et n’est donc pas imputable à leur installation en Bactriane […] Une telle accumulation de probabilités suffit à conclure que, jusqu’à preuve du contraire, les Hepthalites étaient des Iraniens orientaux, mais non des Sogdiens.»
And for those unfortunates who do not understand the language of love, here is a rough translation:
“Despite all those authors who, from KLAPROTH to ALTHEIM in SuC, p113 sq and HAUSSIG, Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse in vorislamischer Zeit, Darmstadt, 1983 (cf. note 7), have seen in the Hepthalites the Turks, the explanation of their names through Turkic is never necessary, is sometimes impossible and is not driven by any historical fact (there is no trace of the ancient Turkic religion), that from Iranian is always possible, sometimes obvious, especially in the long names such as Mihirakula, Toramana or γοβοζοκο which are much more evidential than αλ- in Αλχαννο. Furthermore the Iranian of Hephthalite names is not Bactrian and is thus not attributable to their settlement in Bactria […] Such an accumulation of probabilities suffices to conclude that, until there is proof to the contrary, the Hephthalites were eastern Iranians, but not Sogdians.” Sikandarji 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK User:E104421 - I'm sorry I described you as a "nationalist", but Tajik does have a point when he says that the Iranica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam are more reliable than the Britannica on Oriental topics, particularly if you're using an old version of the latter. I suggest you have a look here and make up your own mind about the Iranica - it has its faults, but it is not a vehicle for pan-Iranianism and some of its articles are of exceptionally high quality. Have a look at these in particular:
I work on the history of Central Asia, and I can assure you that a roll-call of Richard Frye, C.E. Bosworth, Berthold Spuler, Robert McChesney and Yuri Bregel read like a "Who's who in Central Asian History" - it's really very impressive. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, is not available online but should need no introduction - there is a Turkish translation of the first edition (Islam Ansiklopedisi, I think), the second, which was completed in 2005, is even better. It is the single most authoritative source on the entire Islamic world, and deserves to be taken seriously. Finally, I agree with you that there is no consensus over the origins of the Hephthalites, although as we see above scholarship is moving towards a theory of their Iranian origin, based on the scant available sources. Enoki's article is old: it is interesting because he writes that he hopes further research will be done and new sources uncovered, and that is precisely what Tremblay has done. As this is published (and in this case available online as a reference) this does not count as "original research" and can therefore be referred to in the article. Sikandarji 10:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Frye, citing Enoki's '59 article and another from '69, writes that the Hephthalites "were probably a mixed horde", tying in with my citation from Christian above. Thinking of these people as tribes belonging to a discrete nationality is not very helpful. Some may have spoken Turkic (Christian) - most of their names were iranian (Tremblay).
Sikandarji
10:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Procopius referred to the Hepthalites as Asian, but "not ugly". I infer his meaning, in classic Graeco-Roman arrogance, to imply that they were not what the West would typically think of as Asian, i.e. Mongoloid, Chinese, etc (i.e., they were not Greek or Roman, so to him they were ugly barbarians). This does not prohibit the possibility of an Indo-Iranian ethnic origin, since the Indo-Iranians, and the later Persians, did not in appearance share a Mongoloid or Chinese ethnic connection. By saying that the Hepthalites were Asian but "not ugly", he in fact might have been describing a people of Indo-Iranian origin (they were Asian, but not "far" Asian). Let me say for the record that I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS REFERENCE TO ASIAN PEOPLE AS UGLY, so please do not attack me for making an observation about his statement. Thank you Myrddin_Wyllt7 ( talk) 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
E104421 If you've actually looked at the full list of authors, consulting editors, associate editors and editors on the Iranica website, it should be clear to you that not only is it not iranian-controlled, but that it calls upon some of the world's finest oriental scholars - being a physicist I don't imagine you know who any of them are, so perhaps you should be prepared to accept the judgment of someone who does. Instead you see a couple of Iranian names and go off on a conspiratorial rant about it being "iran based/funded" and "reflecting iranian pov". This does not speak well for your neutrality or good faith. The article on the early history of Central Asia to which I provided a link (have you bothered to read it? Thought not) is by Richard Nelson Frye, Professor Emeritus at Harvard - does this sound like an Iranian name to you? The encyclopaedia is run from Columbia University. Its neutrality is not disputed in the least. Sikandarji 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is precisely for this kind of topics that Citizendium would be useful. I am a specialist of Central Asia and your discussions are quite strange, proving only the strength of nationalism. I don't want to be rude, but studying such remote and obscure periods demands training, and knowledge of many languages, and discussions with colleagues. I have for instance recently discovered that the Tongdian, a Chinese encyclopedy published in 801, described the arrival of the Ephtalites in Central Asia. Nobody, even Enoki, noticed that. it changes many things as it proves that the Ephtalites were not a new wave of invaders, but came with the other 'hunnic' tribes of the IVth c. But you have to know Chinese for this. And Russian to read many works of archaeology, and Middle-Iranian languages to see that, since N. Sims-Williams has discovered the Bactrian language, all the previous etymologies of 'ephtalite' are false. It is and can be only the work of professional historians. Why should I bother to edit the pages, to be modified in a few days ? ~~Marchand Sogdien~~
Sorry to say that everyone here was wrong. What marchand sogdien was talking about is original research and impermissible on Wikipedia (don't know about Citizendium). The interpretation of a primary source like the one he's talking about needs a peer review, especially when it is claimed that "no expert has discovered this before". So marchand's desire to publish it on wikipedia on the basis of his own expertise couldn't be realized here. If he is a professional historian as he says, then he should start by publishing his findings and conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal or book, and only then can/should wikipedians cite them here. -- 91.148.159.4 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
guote from art: Elsewhere they were called White Huns or (Sveta) Hunas. However, there is no definite evidence that they are related to the .
The word is similar to 1svita and 2sviata. The first mean 1a 'east/morning' or (exactly the same spelling and sound) 1b'assmbly of people at court usually with attributes of richness', the second word mean '2a) world 2b) very long distance or very long time'. Svętavid is a 4 faced symbol on pillar. Possibly the first phoneme may be written as 'st' as the symbol similar to f in form solar cross. (Rounded swastika). Numerous occurrences of it( ligatured st) in saganet documents. For example is written astronomican or aristimetrican. Do You Who live in 'White Hun' areas have any connotation of the word? possible cognates or semantic analogies, or any clue?
also question adressing fragment: According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun.
Also voicer ph <> v in Heph.thalites and friction on th ?
Caucasian Avars (Avar-Hun's) according to genetic analyses (mtDNA) are very near relations of Iranian Peoples. And caucasian-avarian language had more iranian words.-- Warhunne 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who is "Akhun"? ALCHONNO is not turkic "akhun". In Ando-Tsez languages (part of Caucasian-Avarian language) haldu, haldiyu or aldiyo = white-- Warhunne 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to give some direct quotations from the sources used in the text:
From A.D.H.Bivar's article on HEPHTHALITES:
I) Procopius claims that the Hephthalites live in a prosperous territory, are the only Huns with fair complexions, do not live as nomads, acknowledge a single king, observe a well-regulated constitution, and behave justly towards neighboring states. He also describes the burial of their nobles in tumuli, accompanied by the boon-companions who had been their retainers in their lifetimes; this practice contrasts with evidence of cremation among the Chionites in Ammianus (19.2.1: post incensum corporis . . .) and with remains found by excavators for the European Huns and remains in some deposits ascribed to the Chionites in Central Asia. It is therefore assumed that the Hephthalites constituted a second Hunnish wave who entered Bactria early in the fifth century C.E., and who seem to have driven the Kidarites into Gandhara.
II) The newly-discovered Bactrian documents studied by Sims-Williams (1997, 2001) throw interesting light on Afghanistan during the Kushano-Sasanian and Hephthalite periods, containing references to a tax collected specially as tribute for the Hephthalites (Sims-Williams, 1997, No. 16). Under them, a surprisingly orderly administration is shown to have been carried on, thereby substantiating the report of Procopius above. These documents make clear that the Middle Iranian Bactrian language written in Greek script was not the native idiom of the Hephthalites, as some have claimed, but the traditional language of administration in this region from Kushan times and possibly earlier. There is, as mentioned above, some evidence of the use of Turkish language under the Hephthalites. The name Mihirakula possibly represents a Sanskritization of a Turkish designation mihr-qul "slave of Mithra," a familiar theophoric formation. The Bactrian documents also attest several Turkish royal titles, though these could also be explained by later Turkish infiltration south of the Oxus.
I hope the quotations help. Regards E104421 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I got the Hepthalite borders from the first map on its article, as well as information gathered from other sources. Basically the info I used stated that the Sassanids had been defeated and were under Hepthalite domination, and much of northern India was also overrun by Hepthalites (at least until 520 AD.) Are these borders accurate, or is there better information available? -- Thomas Lessman ( talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the information, but I need more than that. I don't have access to that book. Do you have a map that depicts the correct borders? Thomas Lessman ( talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, who can u use sources from free encyclopedias?? -- 84.59.211.39 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Hoa" and "Hoa-tun" are non-standard romanisations, and do not appear to correlate with any ethnic names in Chinese. Verification needed. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 02:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe they did have a writing system, and that fragments of it have been found at Dunhuang and Turfan. Looking for the cite. Alexwoods ( talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't anyone talking about the apparent "existence" of seven in their name in both Greek and Turkish. Their name means "people who have seven cities" or "people from seven cities": Yeti-il-li. AverageTurkishJoe ( talk) 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello All,
The map featured in this piece has a place on the black sea labeled "Albania." Albania is actually on the Adriatic Sea, next to Italy, about a fifteen hundred miles away. Makes me wonder how reliable the other information on the map is! Jatrimar ( talk) 22:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"After that, they [the Hephthalites] crossed the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) River and invaded Persia. In Persia, they were initially held off by Bahram Gur but later around AD 483–85, they succeeded in making Persia a tributary state."
Whoever (re)wrote that is off his rocker, which would be particularly true if he was one of those jokers who goes around rewriting every instance of "Iran(ian)" to "Persia(n)", but is in this case is a copyvio (with accompanying corruption) of the Columbia encyclopedia. The Hephthalites did not suddenly take wing upon crossing the Jaxartes and fly all the way to the diametrically opposite corner of the subcontinent. They invaded Sassanid-held territory over up in the north-east, but they did not even come close to the Sassanid homeland, and they certainly did not make "Persia" (whatever that might entail) a tributary state.
What the Hephthalites did do was seize and held the king and commanders for ransom, which is (presumably) what the Columbia hoped to say with "tributary", but which in the article makes the Sassanid homeland a vassal of the Hephthalites. Actually (and just like when it happens here on WP), the unscientific use of "Persia" should have tipped off every smart person that that Columbia article is anno 1935 crock. And one copyvio doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from more verbatim pasting (and not just from the Columbia either).
Their "origin" section (as also the previous talk here) is a farce. Other than to negate "unknown", the opinions do not contradict each other, even if they may superficially appear to do so. And this "origin" section that does not unambiguously state "unknown" is false.
The "etymology" section is not -- it seems -- about etymology. Besides the fact that I can't understand what many of the sentences are saying, "Hepthalite" is from Greek, and none of those notions presented in the section even mentions Greek. "Etymology of names" is out of context.
The "Hephthalites in South Asia" section is contextually wierd. Not only is there no other "Hephthalites in ..." section, it also suggests that "South Asia" can be distinguished from Central Asia or Iran with a ruler (note also: the article's images -- which are correct -- say quite something else). But as far as this article need be concerned, the Hephthalites are folk that Bahram Gur held off, and who took away a piece of the Sassanid pie only a little while later, who subsequently held onto that piece for three centuries, during which time they absorbed local culture and traditions, and who from their new home subsequently extended their domain in all directions, and who finally vanished after being chewed up by Sassanids and Caliphate. The chronology of events does not warrant a distinction (if at all one existed) between different "kinds" of Hephthalites.
Come on people! You can surely do better than this. -- Fullstop ( talk) 06:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
We're talking two different (but related) political entities here. The Hephthalites were from the early 400s to late-mid 500s, and their successors, the Kushano-Hephthalites, from the late-mid 500s to 870 AD. While I can accept them possibly being integrated into one article (albiet a rather long article!), it is NOT right that the original Kushano-Hephthalite article was deleted in favor of this redirect, leading to the total loss of all information in the Kushano-Hephthalite article, without any discussion. Please restore the Kushano-Hephthalite article, at least until it's information can be integrated into this Hephthalite article. At the very least, there needs to be a discussion before such information is deleted. Sincerely, Thomas Lessman ( talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually do care about accuracy and readability, Fullstop. And I agree with you that the articles are need serious improvements. You're also right about the inaccuracy of "Kushano-Hephthalite" as an article. You seem to have a good understanding of the elements involved (Hephthalites, Hunas, Zabul, Nezaks, etc). I got frustrated trying to "fix" the article due to the many errors and grammatical problems. I bet you could improve the article quite a bit, if you are interested in doing so.
I'm actually working on some maps right now that could be modified easily enough to include in this article (to replace the existing maps, which are inaccurate according to existing info. Seriously Fullstop, if you can improve the article, you have my support! Respectfully, Thomas Lessman ( talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried a little clean up in the intro. But there is still much work to do. Tājik ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
On what three stars? What for imaginations? This three stars as a flag are taken from false panturkist the brochures published in Turkey! The Panturkists come here and spoil the Ridiculous editings. They wish to alter by any all in Turkic chauvinistic spirit. Scientists when write all about Hepthalites, on the first place put the Iranians as the basic version. And in general everywhere it is told, that they were mainly IRANIANS! All turkish books and textbooks are lie and panturkist propagation. In them there are no references to resources. These pseudo-scientists do not know the Iranian and Chinese languages and in general know nothing. They are visionaries. Take any solid literature about the Hepthalites and solid monographies, there everywhere it is told, that they were mainly Iranians. Probably with a small impurity Protomongols. What else Tibetans and Turks? What for a nonsense? By what right you, Turks, climb here with fantastic "Three Stars of Hephthalithes"? Whence you have taken this bosh? From your "fuehrer" Alparslan Turkesh that-whether? ALL THAT YOU HERE WRITE THERE IS A SHAMELESS LIE, PANTURKIST IMAGINATION. Hey, MARDOM-E ARYAYI, chera to jevab namikoni? Dar tamam-e ketabha "Hepthalithes" mardom-e Aryayi, mardom-e Iran, Tajikistan ve Afganistan hastand. Azeri/qirqiz/qazaq/ozbek haqiqaten Hunhaye sefid hastand? Haqiqaten hunhaye Aryayi hastand? Doruq-e panturkist!
Can someone explain what Sveta Huna actually means and where it is attested in Indian literature and tradition? They did not make any difference between Huns and Huns (Hephtalithes). Vihirmihira was the first one who used the term Hun and Hephtalithe scattered in one sentence. Indians knew Hephtalites just as Huns, not as Sveta Huns (White Huns) which some claim here. Hephtalithes had a large Turkish population among themself. I do not say they were predominantly Turks but Turks played an important role among them and possibly made half of them. Such Hephtalithe tribes that were of Turkish origine were the Chionites and Khalaj Turks and many other Turkish tribes that ruled later India and Pakistan. Read Turks in Transoxiana by Richard N. And who the hell are Gangkovsky, Ahmad Dani and the rest of the self-claimed scholars who still serve the old backward school? G. claim one time Hephtalithes as Turks and another time as Iranians. He has no relation to the Hephtalithes as other scholars have-- 188.97.15.164 ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
One point more, the traditions about the Hephtalithes we have from chinese and indian chroniclers are in conflict with eachother. While some of them tell us the Hephtalithes were settlers and living all the regions south- and north of Oxus and even much further in the region of modern Armenia and Azerbaidjan and have a writing system and follow some beliefes, other tell us they live in tents, have no common kings and rulers, do not follow any regional belief and have no a written system.-- 188.97.15.164 ( talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think someone got a little lazy in analyzing the Korean reading of those characters to support the "Hephthal-" name used in Greek. Final -t's became -l's for the readings of all Chinese characters in Korean, so 엽달 (Yeoptal) for 嚈噠 would reflect an earlier name of something like "Yiptat" in Old Chinese. This is confirmed by the Cantonese reading of yip3 daat6 and the Japanese reading of you-tatu (which in old kana usage would've been yafu-tatu which would reflect the -p in the first character). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.113.158 ( talk) 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few years that the correct reading of npky MLK' (as in the caption of the Bilon coin) has been corrected to Nezak Shah (ncky MLK')... why is this sooooooooooo outdated? -- Khodadad ( talk) 08:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I deleted his assumption based on nothing from introduction section, put it under another section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
proven which language they spoke. Torebay ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about the Hephthalites, yet it starts with remarks on the names of Khingila and Mihirakula who are NOT Hephthalites, rather the kings of another Iranian Hunnic group (according to Goebl 1967 and Alram 2004/2009) called the Alchon/Alkhans. They are all related groups, but have seperate identities. This needs to be totally cleaned out...-- Khodadad ( talk) 04:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted source-falsifications by an IP. Tajik ( talk) 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The Ephthalites are neither Iranian speakers nor Turkish speakers, but more likely to communicate in a Mongolic language. In the Chinese book 《梁书》, our ancestor has described the (Hua)"滑国者,其言语待河南人译而后通" meaning the language of Hua could be translated by the ”河南人“ which in that time refers to the Xian bei(鲜卑) people of Tuyuhun kingdom(吐谷浑). the Xian bei language were considered to be the ancestor of Mongolic language. This theory was first mentioned by ”Edwin George Pulleyblank" in his book <The Consonantal System of Old Chinese>(上古汉语的辅音系统). Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinscky ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The link "Hephthalite History and Coins of the Kashmir Smast Kingdom- Waleed Ziad" at the bottom of the page leads to a site that is either under construction or largely removed. Only the main pages are still available. Peterk2 ( talk) 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)