Talk:Ikhshid

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Ikhshid is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

One dynasty

@पाटलिपुत्र: Per EI2, the title of 'ikhshid' was used by various kind of local dynasties in Central Asia. Why has various local Central Asian dynasties been put together to appear as a single dynasty called 'Ikhshids'? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: It has been my understanding that the "Ikkhshids" generally refer to this line of rulers. I may be wrong. Do you know of examples of other rulers called "Ikhshid"? If so, we could retitle this article "Ikhshids of Samarkand", as also seen in the sources, and keep an article just for the nobility title, with disambiguation... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides the rulers of Soḡd and Farḡāna, the only other eḵšīd referred to in pre-Islamic documents from Western Turkestan is a certain βγtyk or βxtyk MLKʾ. This title is borne by a ruler of Panjikent at the beginning of the 8th century; according to Livshits (1979, pp. 58-60), it may originally have related to the Baḡdān district to the north of Panjikent, while Yoshida (1993, p. 254) understands it as indicating a ruler nominated by the Chinese emperor. (cf. also Bactr. bagddiggo kagano on some Hephthalite coins (Davary, pp. 170-71), where eḵšīd seems to have been replaced by the Turkish royal title ḵāqān). Later Sogdian texts from Eastern Turkestan show that the title eḵšīd was, or had become, widespread, being applied both to famous kings of the past such as Alexander and Aśoka (nksyntr MLKʾ, šwkʾ MLKy; Henning, p. 138, ll. 26-27, 30) and to contemporary petty rulers (kʾšy xšyδ “king of Kāšḡar,” Müller, p. 11, l. 75; tmʾr xwš xšyδ “king Tämär Quš,” possibly a chief of the so-called “dragon clans,” cf. Sims-Williams and Hamilton, pp. 68-69). Finally, in the 4th/10th century, the title was revived in Egypt by Muḥammad b. Toḡj, founder of the Ekhshidid dynasty, whose ancestors had come from Farḡāna."

"Ik̲h̲s̲h̲īd, the title given to local Iranian rulers of Sog̲h̲dia and Farg̲h̲āna in the pre-Islamic and early Islamic period."

Agree with retitling this article, but I don't think the nobility title should be a disambiguation, the original version was good [1]. That would be the equivalent of make other nobility titles a disambiguation (shah, king of kings, etc) as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with that. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@पाटलिपुत्र: Wasn't the agreement 'Ikhshids of Samarkand'? 'Ikhshids of Sogdia' still pose the same issue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Many sources do have "Ikhshids of Sogdia", which seems more logical, their capital being in Samarkand. Why do you think it creates an issue? (I am under the impression that Ferghana is not a part of Sogdia...).पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they ruled all of Sogdia fair enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]