This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Xionites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The question of Chionites is not simple. On their coinage they used the inscription OIONO and were known in persia as Xiyon. They aupposedly provided the ruling Yeptal family for the Uar when they merged with them to become the Hephthalites. However The supposition of a connection with the Kidarites is widespread. The Kidarites themselves eventually came to rule the Kushans who in turn originated from the YueChi. The question of how ALChON, Nezak and Hunas fit into the picture also has to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.106.181 ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 August 2005
From http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hephthalites.html
from http://www.magyarsag.org/chh.htm
But Kidarites were a Dynasty in India were they not? Any comments? Kaz 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Xionite article should be divided into eras and the Kidarite period should be mentioned here briefly before the Alchon era. Any better suggestions? Kaz 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Your version is misleading, and your sources are not reliable. One of the links is dead [1], the other 2 are not scholarly works. I checked the following link. In no way does it favour your version that the Chionites were "Huns" (which you believe to be the same as "Turk"). In fact, it even contradicts it, based on historical sources:
So far, the quotes from Encyclopaedia Iranica are authoritative, because Iranica is a primary reference:
So, the Chionites had indeed adopted the Bactrian language. The word "Hunnic" in this article has a different meaning than the definition given in Wikipedia. Iranica makes clear:
You are - once again - purposely ignoring and rejecting major sources in favour of non-scholarly, non-reliable, and obscure web-sites like this one (which you have presented as a "major source" in the article in order to contradict scholarly sources).
Tājik 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.II by Edward Gibbon
Part 6 out of 16: "The Vertae are still unknown. It is possible that the Chionites are the same as the Huns. These people were already known; and we find from Armenian authors that they were making, at this period, incursions into Asia. They were often at war with the Persians. The name was perhaps pronounced differently in the East and in the West, and this prevents us from recognizing it."
On the Greek Sources for the History of the Turks in the Sixth Century, by Carlile Aylmer Macartney
Quotation:The nation can hardly be other than that which appears in the fourth century, under the name of Chionite, in the steppes on the north-west frontier of Persia. These Chionites were probably a branch of the Huns, the other branch of which afterwards appeared in Europe, the latter appear to have attacked and conquered by the Alans, then living between Urals and the Volga about A.D.360, while the first mention of the Chionites is dated A.D.356. In the fifth century the name is replaced by that of the Kusan or of the Kidarite Huns, who are clearly identical with the Kusan...
As clearly seen from the quotations above, it's probable that Chionites is of Hunnic origin.
It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi. Herzfeld has read. So Bailey does not say they were Huns of later times. -- alidoostzadeh 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I checked the four sources. It says: "Three divisions were distinguished: the Xyo@n with the Turks, who were mountain and desert dwellers (probably in Ku@hesta@n beyond Samarkand); the Red and White Xyo@n (karm^r and spe@d Xyo@n respectively; Bailey, 1930-32a, pp. 945-53) were included in the third group.""they may have been the people referred to as the White Huns (Leukoì Ou‚nnoi) by Procopius in the 6th century (Bellum Persicum 1.3.1). " The two other Iranica articles do not include this terminology in reference to Xionites. Note the first part of Bailey: "Xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts. It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi.". It seems that whole first sentence is OR. It seems the only place they are mentioned as "Red Xion" is in that same Pahlavi inscription. The other Iranica articles are not related. -- alidoostzadeh 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1. From W.Felix's article: ...The Red Xyo@n, whom Harold W. Bailey identified with the Kermichío@nes or Erme@chíones, are also mentioned, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (Bahman yaÞt 6.6; Anklesaria, pp. 47-48, 117; for other citations in Parthian and Middle Persian literature, see Aya@dga@r ^ Zare@ra@n, in Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, pp. 1-18; De@nkard, ed. Madan, p. 643; cf. Bailey, 1954, pp. 15-16, for parallels from Indian literature: s‚veta-hu@náa or sita-hu@náa = White Huns, hala-hu@náa = dark, or Red, Huns).
2. From A.D.H.Bivar's article: ...It is not entirely clear what relationship had existed between these Hephthalite principalities in Transoxania and those which grew up in Afghanistan and impinged on the kingdoms of India. These last may have derived from the Central Asian Hunnish states, but more probably were separate and independent. Indian sources do not distinguish precisely between the Kidarites and the Hephthalites, designating the invader merely as Hunáas, though there are allusions to the S´veta Hunáa "White Huns" (evidently the Hephthalites). There is also possible mention of "Red Huns" and "Black Huns" (Bailey, 1954). The Gupta emperor Kuma@ragupta in his final year, 454-55 C.E., faced a Hunnish invasion, which was repelled by his crown prince Skandagupta, who then succeeded, but had to encounter several later attacks, with varied success.
3. The Bailey's article.
So, Let's re-write the indroduction. Btw, you removed my other edits from the history section. The "(red)" should be removed form the Bailey's direct quation, cause Bailey's paragraph does not include "(red)". It's originally as follows: Xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts. It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi. In the present passage (a passage from the Pahlavi book of Bahman Yasht) three divisions of this people seem to be recognized, the Xyon with the Turks, the Karmir Xyon, and the White Xyon. Tajik added "Karmir (red) Xyon" into the quotation. Regards.
E104421
16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
1. From W.Felix's article: ...The Red Xyo@n, whom Harold W. Bailey identified with the Kermichío@nes or Erme@chíones, are also mentioned, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (Bahman yaÞt 6.6; Anklesaria, pp. 47-48, 117; for other citations in Parthian and Middle Persian literature, see Aya@dga@r ^ Zare@ra@n, in Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, pp. 1-18; De@nkard, ed. Madan, p. 643; cf. Bailey, 1954, pp. 15-16, for parallels from Indian literature: s‚veta-hu@náa or sita-hu@náa = White Huns, hala-hu@náa = dark, or Red, Huns).
2. From A.D.H.Bivar's article: ...It is not entirely clear what relationship had existed between these Hephthalite principalities in Transoxania and those which grew up in Afghanistan and impinged on the kingdoms of India. These last may have derived from the Central Asian Hunnish states, but more probably were separate and independent. Indian sources do not distinguish precisely between the Kidarites and the Hephthalites, designating the invader merely as Hunáas, though there are allusions to the S´veta Hunáa "White Huns" (evidently the Hephthalites). There is also possible mention of "Red Huns" and "Black Huns" (Bailey, 1954). The Gupta emperor Kuma@ragupta in his final year, 454-55 C.E., faced a Hunnish invasion, which was repelled by his crown prince Skandagupta, who then succeeded, but had to encounter several later attacks, with varied success.
3. From Bailey's article: "xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts. It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi." ... "three divisions of this people seem to be recognized, the Xyon with the Turks, the Karmir Xyon, and the White Xyon .... "Kamir xyon ... but apart from the somewhat unusual position for an epithet, the Byzantines knew of Turks from the Altai and Oxus regions whom they called Κερμιχίωνες and Eρμηχίονες (s.v. Chionitae)."
Chionites, Chionitae or Xionites ( Chinese: Xiōng (匈) or Xīyung4 (西戎) meaning "Western Barbarians", Middle Persian: Xiyon, (Hiun/Hion)) were a nomadic tribe prominent in Transoxania and Bactria. They were also identified as Red Xyon, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (W.FELIX) and with the name Xyon later transferred to Huns as Red Huns (BAILEY).
In the Avestan tradition (Yts. 9.30-31, 19.87), the Xiiaona were characterized as enemies of Vishtaspa, the patron of Zoroaster. In the later Pahlavi tradition (7th A.D.), the Red Xyon and White Xyon are mentioned. The Red Xyon of the Pahlavi tradition has been identified by Harold Walter Bailey as the Kermichiones or Ermechiones (Ali's edit), together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (W.FELIX). According to Bailey, the name Xyon was transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi (BAILEY) tradition, but apart from the somewhat unusual position for an epithet, the Byzantines knew of Turks from the Altai and Oxus regions whom they called Κερμιχίωνες and Eρμηχίονες (s.v. Chionitae) (BAILEY).
Harold W. Bailey identified with the Kermichío@nes or Erme@chíones, are also mentioned, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (Bahman yaÞt 6.6; Anklesaria, pp. 47-48, 117
In Bahman yaÞt (q.v.; 4.58; ed. Anklesaria, pp. 34-35, 112) they are mentioned, along with the Turks, Khazars (see Bailey, 1943-46, pp. 1-2), and Tibetans, among the peoples destined to conquer Iran (cf. BundahiÞn [TD 2], pp. 216-17; tr. Anklesaria, pp. 278-79; Bailey, 1954, pp. 13-14).
the reason is that we have white Huns (Hephtalites), Chionites (possibly red huns), European Huns (These were Atila and mainly Altaic), Xiongu. I got the UNESCO book, but they do not discuss origin of Chionites/Hephtalites and say it is uncertain. -- alidoostzadeh 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree a disambiguation page would be good, but it must not confound the issue more by making assumptions about Red Hund and Chionites, White Huns and Hephthalites etc.. All readers really want to see is what the original term is, what the original term means, where the original term occurs, what was said about the original term. After this readers will be interested to know which academics first equated which original terms and why, and which academics built upon such equations. This is what reportage is about and avoids deviation into original research. It might be that a project page is needed instead. 82.6.29.26 ( talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Chionites the more common orthography? Most quoted sources use Chionites, making the article a bit awkward to read. Why not change it to Chionites?-- Joostik ( talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rong_people the same people? Böri ( talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Here no problems are present except for Pan-Turkstic. All time one and too. Iranians do fine pages, Turks come and they Turks " finish to available clauses " were, they are Turks " and refer to the terminated idiots. Whom do they wish to deceive?To that to these Turks of Anatolia to not undertake хза the valid interesting employment - once and for all having refused from Turks to recognize itself as Hurrians. Turks actually passed to Turkic language Hurrians and Hattians-- 89.221.200.219 ( talk) 02:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This article and the related articles on the Kidarites (which is marginally better) and the Hephthalites are total disasters. Some information go back to the 1930's, and then a set of quite unsubstantiated modern claims. The study of the "Iranische Hunnen" (as Goebl called them) is now quite a bit more advanced thanks to numismatics, archaeology, epigraphy, and the publication of the newly discovered Bactrian documents. The whole thing needs to be wiped off and re-written. I am working on this period for my PhD dissertation and I just thought of checking to see what is out there, and I am getting a headache! This is my field, but I will not call myself an expert, but if someone wants to start writing a proper entry, I can point them out to some sources and new articles. -- Khodadad ( talk) 10:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
12.28.106.195 ( talk)I would agree with this view that all hunnic articles are overall disasters. To rely on older material in this field is to ignore the great strides made both in Russia and worldwide studies. No conclusions dated prior to the 70's is really valid anymore. I am not writing a PhD dissertation, but just a paper for numismatists, and every single point in these articles are at odds to modern scholarship. UNESCO, The British Museum, and most Russian authors disagree with all of these assertions, just to begin the list. Chris Freeman 29 January 2013
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Xionites. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and PericlesofAthens: per "Origins" section, [6] [7] and WP:WEIGHT, should we replace "were a tribe of probable Iranian origin..." with "were a nomadic tribe" or other similar sentences? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 02:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@ पाटलिपुत्र: OK. I remove the origin from the lead section (introduction part). Feel free to improve the "Origins" section or write a lead section like Xiongnu. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This entire section ("Alchon") is WP:Dubious and WP:Fringe. There is some evidence suggesting that the Avars or Varchonites (of Eastern Europe) resulted from merger of the Uar and Xionites.
But there is no consensus or compelling evidence (in terms of WP:RS) that I can see for the following assertions:
to name but a few issues.
Grant | Talk 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Ermenrich and Erminwin: Could you find any source about the name/etymology of Xionites? The current lead mention some stuff but it's a bit confusing and messy in my opinion. Some cleanup and additions, expanding the article, and rewriting the lead section would be helpful. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 15:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The etymology of Hun is unclear. Various proposed etymologies generally assume at least that the names of the various Eurasian groups known as Huns are related. There have been a number of proposed Turkic etymologies, deriving the name variously from Turkic ön, öna (to grow), qun (glutton), kün, gün, a plural suffix "supposedly meaning 'people'", [1] qun (force), and hün (ferocious). [1] Otto Maenchen-Helfen dismisses all of these Turkic etymologies as "mere guesses". [2] Maenchen-Helfen himself proposes an Iranian etymology, from a word akin to Avestan hūnarā (skill), hūnaravant- (skillful), and suggests that it may originally have designated a rank rather than an ethnicity. [3] Robert Werner has suggested an etymology from Tocharian ku (dog), suggesting based on the fact that the Chinese called the Xiongnu dogs that the dog was the totem animal of the Hunnic tribe. He also compares the name Massagetae, noting that the element saka in that name means dog. [4] Others such as Harold Bailey, S. Parlato, and Jamsheed Choksy have argued that the name derives from an Iranian word akin to Avestan Ẋyaona, and was a generalized term meaning "hostiles, opponents". [5] Christopher Atwood dismisses this possibility on phonological and chronological grounds. [6] While not arriving at an etymology per se, Atwood derives the name from the Ongi River in Mongolia, which was pronounced the same or similar to the name Xiongnu, and suggests that it was originally a dynastic name rather than an ethnic name. [7]
Scholars such as H.W. Bailey and Denis Sinor have argued that the name Hun may have been a generic name for steppe nomads, deriving from the Iranian word Ẋyon, meaning enemies. [8] De la Vaissière, Christopher Atwood, and Kim all reject this etymology, however. [9] [10] [11]
Why have this disastrous article alongside Hunas? TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Xionites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The question of Chionites is not simple. On their coinage they used the inscription OIONO and were known in persia as Xiyon. They aupposedly provided the ruling Yeptal family for the Uar when they merged with them to become the Hephthalites. However The supposition of a connection with the Kidarites is widespread. The Kidarites themselves eventually came to rule the Kushans who in turn originated from the YueChi. The question of how ALChON, Nezak and Hunas fit into the picture also has to be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.106.181 ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 August 2005
From http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/hephthalites.html
from http://www.magyarsag.org/chh.htm
But Kidarites were a Dynasty in India were they not? Any comments? Kaz 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Xionite article should be divided into eras and the Kidarite period should be mentioned here briefly before the Alchon era. Any better suggestions? Kaz 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Your version is misleading, and your sources are not reliable. One of the links is dead [1], the other 2 are not scholarly works. I checked the following link. In no way does it favour your version that the Chionites were "Huns" (which you believe to be the same as "Turk"). In fact, it even contradicts it, based on historical sources:
So far, the quotes from Encyclopaedia Iranica are authoritative, because Iranica is a primary reference:
So, the Chionites had indeed adopted the Bactrian language. The word "Hunnic" in this article has a different meaning than the definition given in Wikipedia. Iranica makes clear:
You are - once again - purposely ignoring and rejecting major sources in favour of non-scholarly, non-reliable, and obscure web-sites like this one (which you have presented as a "major source" in the article in order to contradict scholarly sources).
Tājik 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.II by Edward Gibbon
Part 6 out of 16: "The Vertae are still unknown. It is possible that the Chionites are the same as the Huns. These people were already known; and we find from Armenian authors that they were making, at this period, incursions into Asia. They were often at war with the Persians. The name was perhaps pronounced differently in the East and in the West, and this prevents us from recognizing it."
On the Greek Sources for the History of the Turks in the Sixth Century, by Carlile Aylmer Macartney
Quotation:The nation can hardly be other than that which appears in the fourth century, under the name of Chionite, in the steppes on the north-west frontier of Persia. These Chionites were probably a branch of the Huns, the other branch of which afterwards appeared in Europe, the latter appear to have attacked and conquered by the Alans, then living between Urals and the Volga about A.D.360, while the first mention of the Chionites is dated A.D.356. In the fifth century the name is replaced by that of the Kusan or of the Kidarite Huns, who are clearly identical with the Kusan...
As clearly seen from the quotations above, it's probable that Chionites is of Hunnic origin.
It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi. Herzfeld has read. So Bailey does not say they were Huns of later times. -- alidoostzadeh 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I checked the four sources. It says: "Three divisions were distinguished: the Xyo@n with the Turks, who were mountain and desert dwellers (probably in Ku@hesta@n beyond Samarkand); the Red and White Xyo@n (karm^r and spe@d Xyo@n respectively; Bailey, 1930-32a, pp. 945-53) were included in the third group.""they may have been the people referred to as the White Huns (Leukoì Ou‚nnoi) by Procopius in the 6th century (Bellum Persicum 1.3.1). " The two other Iranica articles do not include this terminology in reference to Xionites. Note the first part of Bailey: "Xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts. It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi.". It seems that whole first sentence is OR. It seems the only place they are mentioned as "Red Xion" is in that same Pahlavi inscription. The other Iranica articles are not related. -- alidoostzadeh 13:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1. From W.Felix's article: ...The Red Xyo@n, whom Harold W. Bailey identified with the Kermichío@nes or Erme@chíones, are also mentioned, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (Bahman yaÞt 6.6; Anklesaria, pp. 47-48, 117; for other citations in Parthian and Middle Persian literature, see Aya@dga@r ^ Zare@ra@n, in Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, pp. 1-18; De@nkard, ed. Madan, p. 643; cf. Bailey, 1954, pp. 15-16, for parallels from Indian literature: s‚veta-hu@náa or sita-hu@náa = White Huns, hala-hu@náa = dark, or Red, Huns).
2. From A.D.H.Bivar's article: ...It is not entirely clear what relationship had existed between these Hephthalite principalities in Transoxania and those which grew up in Afghanistan and impinged on the kingdoms of India. These last may have derived from the Central Asian Hunnish states, but more probably were separate and independent. Indian sources do not distinguish precisely between the Kidarites and the Hephthalites, designating the invader merely as Hunáas, though there are allusions to the S´veta Hunáa "White Huns" (evidently the Hephthalites). There is also possible mention of "Red Huns" and "Black Huns" (Bailey, 1954). The Gupta emperor Kuma@ragupta in his final year, 454-55 C.E., faced a Hunnish invasion, which was repelled by his crown prince Skandagupta, who then succeeded, but had to encounter several later attacks, with varied success.
3. The Bailey's article.
So, Let's re-write the indroduction. Btw, you removed my other edits from the history section. The "(red)" should be removed form the Bailey's direct quation, cause Bailey's paragraph does not include "(red)". It's originally as follows: Xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts. It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi. In the present passage (a passage from the Pahlavi book of Bahman Yasht) three divisions of this people seem to be recognized, the Xyon with the Turks, the Karmir Xyon, and the White Xyon. Tajik added "Karmir (red) Xyon" into the quotation. Regards.
E104421
16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
1. From W.Felix's article: ...The Red Xyo@n, whom Harold W. Bailey identified with the Kermichío@nes or Erme@chíones, are also mentioned, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (Bahman yaÞt 6.6; Anklesaria, pp. 47-48, 117; for other citations in Parthian and Middle Persian literature, see Aya@dga@r ^ Zare@ra@n, in Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, pp. 1-18; De@nkard, ed. Madan, p. 643; cf. Bailey, 1954, pp. 15-16, for parallels from Indian literature: s‚veta-hu@náa or sita-hu@náa = White Huns, hala-hu@náa = dark, or Red, Huns).
2. From A.D.H.Bivar's article: ...It is not entirely clear what relationship had existed between these Hephthalite principalities in Transoxania and those which grew up in Afghanistan and impinged on the kingdoms of India. These last may have derived from the Central Asian Hunnish states, but more probably were separate and independent. Indian sources do not distinguish precisely between the Kidarites and the Hephthalites, designating the invader merely as Hunáas, though there are allusions to the S´veta Hunáa "White Huns" (evidently the Hephthalites). There is also possible mention of "Red Huns" and "Black Huns" (Bailey, 1954). The Gupta emperor Kuma@ragupta in his final year, 454-55 C.E., faced a Hunnish invasion, which was repelled by his crown prince Skandagupta, who then succeeded, but had to encounter several later attacks, with varied success.
3. From Bailey's article: "xyon. This name is familiar in Pahlavi and Avestan texts. It would appear to be a name of an enemy of the Iranian people in Avestan times, transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi." ... "three divisions of this people seem to be recognized, the Xyon with the Turks, the Karmir Xyon, and the White Xyon .... "Kamir xyon ... but apart from the somewhat unusual position for an epithet, the Byzantines knew of Turks from the Altai and Oxus regions whom they called Κερμιχίωνες and Eρμηχίονες (s.v. Chionitae)."
Chionites, Chionitae or Xionites ( Chinese: Xiōng (匈) or Xīyung4 (西戎) meaning "Western Barbarians", Middle Persian: Xiyon, (Hiun/Hion)) were a nomadic tribe prominent in Transoxania and Bactria. They were also identified as Red Xyon, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (W.FELIX) and with the name Xyon later transferred to Huns as Red Huns (BAILEY).
In the Avestan tradition (Yts. 9.30-31, 19.87), the Xiiaona were characterized as enemies of Vishtaspa, the patron of Zoroaster. In the later Pahlavi tradition (7th A.D.), the Red Xyon and White Xyon are mentioned. The Red Xyon of the Pahlavi tradition has been identified by Harold Walter Bailey as the Kermichiones or Ermechiones (Ali's edit), together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (W.FELIX). According to Bailey, the name Xyon was transferred later to the Huns owing to similarity of sound, as Tur was adapted to Turk in Pahlavi (BAILEY) tradition, but apart from the somewhat unusual position for an epithet, the Byzantines knew of Turks from the Altai and Oxus regions whom they called Κερμιχίωνες and Eρμηχίονες (s.v. Chionitae) (BAILEY).
Harold W. Bailey identified with the Kermichío@nes or Erme@chíones, are also mentioned, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events (Bahman yaÞt 6.6; Anklesaria, pp. 47-48, 117
In Bahman yaÞt (q.v.; 4.58; ed. Anklesaria, pp. 34-35, 112) they are mentioned, along with the Turks, Khazars (see Bailey, 1943-46, pp. 1-2), and Tibetans, among the peoples destined to conquer Iran (cf. BundahiÞn [TD 2], pp. 216-17; tr. Anklesaria, pp. 278-79; Bailey, 1954, pp. 13-14).
the reason is that we have white Huns (Hephtalites), Chionites (possibly red huns), European Huns (These were Atila and mainly Altaic), Xiongu. I got the UNESCO book, but they do not discuss origin of Chionites/Hephtalites and say it is uncertain. -- alidoostzadeh 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree a disambiguation page would be good, but it must not confound the issue more by making assumptions about Red Hund and Chionites, White Huns and Hephthalites etc.. All readers really want to see is what the original term is, what the original term means, where the original term occurs, what was said about the original term. After this readers will be interested to know which academics first equated which original terms and why, and which academics built upon such equations. This is what reportage is about and avoids deviation into original research. It might be that a project page is needed instead. 82.6.29.26 ( talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Chionites the more common orthography? Most quoted sources use Chionites, making the article a bit awkward to read. Why not change it to Chionites?-- Joostik ( talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rong_people the same people? Böri ( talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Here no problems are present except for Pan-Turkstic. All time one and too. Iranians do fine pages, Turks come and they Turks " finish to available clauses " were, they are Turks " and refer to the terminated idiots. Whom do they wish to deceive?To that to these Turks of Anatolia to not undertake хза the valid interesting employment - once and for all having refused from Turks to recognize itself as Hurrians. Turks actually passed to Turkic language Hurrians and Hattians-- 89.221.200.219 ( talk) 02:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This article and the related articles on the Kidarites (which is marginally better) and the Hephthalites are total disasters. Some information go back to the 1930's, and then a set of quite unsubstantiated modern claims. The study of the "Iranische Hunnen" (as Goebl called them) is now quite a bit more advanced thanks to numismatics, archaeology, epigraphy, and the publication of the newly discovered Bactrian documents. The whole thing needs to be wiped off and re-written. I am working on this period for my PhD dissertation and I just thought of checking to see what is out there, and I am getting a headache! This is my field, but I will not call myself an expert, but if someone wants to start writing a proper entry, I can point them out to some sources and new articles. -- Khodadad ( talk) 10:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
12.28.106.195 ( talk)I would agree with this view that all hunnic articles are overall disasters. To rely on older material in this field is to ignore the great strides made both in Russia and worldwide studies. No conclusions dated prior to the 70's is really valid anymore. I am not writing a PhD dissertation, but just a paper for numismatists, and every single point in these articles are at odds to modern scholarship. UNESCO, The British Museum, and most Russian authors disagree with all of these assertions, just to begin the list. Chris Freeman 29 January 2013
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Xionites. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and PericlesofAthens: per "Origins" section, [6] [7] and WP:WEIGHT, should we replace "were a tribe of probable Iranian origin..." with "were a nomadic tribe" or other similar sentences? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 02:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@ पाटलिपुत्र: OK. I remove the origin from the lead section (introduction part). Feel free to improve the "Origins" section or write a lead section like Xiongnu. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 02:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This entire section ("Alchon") is WP:Dubious and WP:Fringe. There is some evidence suggesting that the Avars or Varchonites (of Eastern Europe) resulted from merger of the Uar and Xionites.
But there is no consensus or compelling evidence (in terms of WP:RS) that I can see for the following assertions:
to name but a few issues.
Grant | Talk 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Ermenrich and Erminwin: Could you find any source about the name/etymology of Xionites? The current lead mention some stuff but it's a bit confusing and messy in my opinion. Some cleanup and additions, expanding the article, and rewriting the lead section would be helpful. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 15:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The etymology of Hun is unclear. Various proposed etymologies generally assume at least that the names of the various Eurasian groups known as Huns are related. There have been a number of proposed Turkic etymologies, deriving the name variously from Turkic ön, öna (to grow), qun (glutton), kün, gün, a plural suffix "supposedly meaning 'people'", [1] qun (force), and hün (ferocious). [1] Otto Maenchen-Helfen dismisses all of these Turkic etymologies as "mere guesses". [2] Maenchen-Helfen himself proposes an Iranian etymology, from a word akin to Avestan hūnarā (skill), hūnaravant- (skillful), and suggests that it may originally have designated a rank rather than an ethnicity. [3] Robert Werner has suggested an etymology from Tocharian ku (dog), suggesting based on the fact that the Chinese called the Xiongnu dogs that the dog was the totem animal of the Hunnic tribe. He also compares the name Massagetae, noting that the element saka in that name means dog. [4] Others such as Harold Bailey, S. Parlato, and Jamsheed Choksy have argued that the name derives from an Iranian word akin to Avestan Ẋyaona, and was a generalized term meaning "hostiles, opponents". [5] Christopher Atwood dismisses this possibility on phonological and chronological grounds. [6] While not arriving at an etymology per se, Atwood derives the name from the Ongi River in Mongolia, which was pronounced the same or similar to the name Xiongnu, and suggests that it was originally a dynastic name rather than an ethnic name. [7]
Scholars such as H.W. Bailey and Denis Sinor have argued that the name Hun may have been a generic name for steppe nomads, deriving from the Iranian word Ẋyon, meaning enemies. [8] De la Vaissière, Christopher Atwood, and Kim all reject this etymology, however. [9] [10] [11]
Why have this disastrous article alongside Hunas? TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)