Talk:Xionites

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge with Alchon

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

Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tājik 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To Pejman47, again. Please read the discussion above again. I just restored the deleted sources, i provided above. If you have any objection, please state here before reverting blindly. Regards. E104421 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a dead link to a website. Also Gibbon is from around 200 years ago! So I removed him as well as it is outdated source. We should follow modern sources. The other two sources need to be cited more properly with date and pages. I am wondering what Bailey says (he is a good source). Also "white Huns", "red Huns" and etc. as Tajik pointed are just ancient designations but not necessarily the modern scholarly perspective. The designation Hun used by ancient Greek authors is too general and it is up to modern scholars to discuss and examine the sources. The coinage is one of the best sources we now posses from around that era. Note one of the sources: According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. So this source is more up to date than Carlile Aylmer Macartney. That just leaves Bailey and it would be good to have the exact quote. If you have any sources from the last 20 years from a scholarly perspective, please bring it. That is the source should examine the origin and not be interpreted. That is wikipedia guidelines allows only scholars to for example interpret Greek sources and not any Wiki-users. I'll await the Bailey quote and the other quote. Note the ancient Greek designation should be put in another sentence.--alidoostzadeh 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also removed the connection with Hephatlite since it was based on much older writing of Frye while Frye in 1991 has considered the two groups separate. The reason is given by Professor Wolfgang Felix [2]. I think the article should reflect the modern assessment of Wolfgang Felix. --alidoostzadeh 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, i checked the Bailey link and its working, if you have question, i'll make direct quotation on Monday. The Ephtalites connection is an open question, cause not much known on the languages of Chionites and Ephtalites. For this reason, better to put the leading sentence again. I still in favor of mentioning all the sources, cause each source has a value. Surely, upto date ones are better, but without any falsification, keeping one in favor of the other is not an academical way. I'll reply in detail soon. Regards. E104421 12:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We had this discussion before in Hephatiles if you recall. Sekandarjee put his input. If you look at the modern source they are not 100% but they do say "probably" or "most probably" with regards to Chionies and Hephtalies. One of the results of that discussion was to have modern sources and I mean modern from at least the last 20 years or so. Actually Bailey (which is an old source) works only if you are in the university. You can e-mail me the file if you wish or I can look at the article. We can not keep a source from 200 years ago. That is unacceptable for any encyclopedia when modern references have much more updated research with regards to a topic. I await the Bailey quote. Macartney is also outdated it seems because recent scholars dismiss any connection with European huns. It is from 1944. Much research has been done since then. The only reason I am keeping her is because of Bailey. But Bailey is from 1933. He seems to be describing the Bahman Yasht. Note that in general the non-Zoroastrian Iranian tribes were not considered Iranians but were considered Turanians (weather they were Iranian speaking or not). Bahman Yasht is a old Pahlavi manuscript written down somewhere rom the 9th-10 century. We can not put our interpretation of ancient sources in Wikipedia. The only connection of the Chionites with Huns (a general designation for many nomadic groups in Greek sources) is simply the designation. But we need to take scholars of the last 20 years seriously and give them precedence and the lead sentence. And again 200 years ago (Gibbon) is absolutely not acceptable. Bailey (1932) and Macartney (1944) are not really acceptable sources. The article from Wolfgang Felix is from 2004 and that of Frye is from 1991. The article from Wolfgang Felix specially updates many of the facts that were not known 200 years ago, and even 60 years ago. It is the only article right now that is devoted to the Xionites. That is the Xionites are not a footnote of his article/book. It is also updated (2004). So please provided some modern references. For now I am r.v.'ing back to my edit and the 200 year ago source had to go. But if we can not get anything from 20 years ago about them being related to the huns (hunnic origin)(European Huns) with the exception of the Greek designation (which we can mention that the Greek authors gave them the designation Huns in their work), then the scholars that of modern times should have their ideas inserted. See the part about the coin reading.--alidoostzadeh 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, you not only deleted the cited references but also the direct quation from R.N.Frye. Your version is just reflecting the half of his sentence and misrepresenting his statement. For this reason, i quoted directly in his own words on Chionites. For the Gibbons reference, alright, it's rather old. I just cited it, cause it's a famous book and available on the internet. On the other hand, i'm still wondering your recentliness issue. If a statement is not falsified, it preserves it's validity. This is the academical way. You cannot prove anything by claiming that the other is not recent. In addition, my latest version (except the accidentally added Gibbons) is neutral and informative, cause it's directly reflects R.N.Frye's opinion on the subject. Regards. E104421 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement is false (from 200 years ago) and contradicts modern sources. Also you misquoted Bailey. Bailey says: 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. Herzfeld has read. So Bailey does not say they were Huns of later times. --alidoostzadeh 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay my friend. I was left with no choice but to state the statements as the sources have it and in chronological order (given the wide gap between 2004 and 1944 of course 2004 should take precedence). Bailey does not say they were Hunish, he is saying their name was adopted by later Huns. Also Macartney seems to be trying to connect Kermichiones in Greek sources with the Pahlavi word. But nothing about origin. Thus I do not consider these sources as saying they were related to later Hunnic waves. I also removed the statement about them and Ephtalites being the same(this was an earlier mistake by some scholars) but since Frye in 1991 seems to have been aware that they were different. I still think the 1944 Macartney article is irrelavent given the 2004 article of Wolfgang Felix. We are talking about 60 years of progress in scholarship and this should be reflected. Thus for now I left the dates of article so that the average user is aware of this progress (and this progress occured because of better reading of some coins from the era although we do not have any coins from Chionites themselves as of yet). --alidoostzadeh 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I expanded the quotations and added an introduction paragraph to the origins section. I hope that's alright for that section. On the other hand, the W. Felix article was dated 1992 not 2004. That's probably because the Encyclopedia Iranica publishes still the same versions of the articles in later editions. So, the upto-date-ness of Iranica is not correct, since the newest editions are just the reproduction of the older ones just as in the W. Felix article. Regards. E104421 11:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay will have to check date. But :Many theories discussed, the Iranic, Hunnic and Turkic theories are the most prominent ones. is OR. I think the sources will let the discussion flow, since Hun is a general name.. --alidoostzadeh 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Huns are a confederation, a general name. On the other hand, the sources indicates these links, so they are not OR. Regards. E104421 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually none of the sources say they were Turkic. It is just Bahman Yasht (which is written somewhere in the 9th century ad) which identifies three groups of Xyons."Diviosions of this people seem to be recognized, the Xyon with the Turks, the Karmir Xyon, and the White Xyon." Thus that is not Bailey's opinion (we need modern scholarly opinion) but just his interpretation of Bahman Yasht and he mentions that the name was transfered. The other source about Hun is also old (1944) and is not direct. Thus we are left with Frye and Felix. That is why we can not have equal weight for all three theories since the more trend seems to be identifying these groups with Iranians and that is why Felix says "probably Iranian" and Frye says "Bulk was Iranian". So I think we should not add our statement and it is up to scholars to give their weight on the matter. In this case while Felix acknowledges the complexity of the issue, he goes with probably Iranian. So if anything, if we are to synthetize a sentence we should mention this. --alidoostzadeh 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

red and white

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)

Gibbon is outdated and can not be used if there are new sources contradicting his assertion. But I would like to know where he has identified xionites with red huns (exact page and statement). Finally a website with no academic basis is not a valid Wiki source. Bailey says the name Xionites was transferred later to Huns. So he is not calling them red huns. He is saying the two are not the same. Just like Tur (non-Turkic tribe) was adapted to Turks in Pahlavi literature (not in Avesta). Please read the sources carefully. --alidoostzadeh 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, for missing your comment here. I also checked the references again. Yes, only there of the articles and the web-link gives the Red Huns identification.

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)

• I wrote a new introduction section based on W.Felix: 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). I hope this would solve the terminology part. Regards. E104421 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bivar does not talk about Xionites being identified with red huns. He just mentions Bailey and red Xyon. Felix is quoting Bailey and red Xyon. So finally we are left with Bailey, since both sources refer to Bailey and we should examine it. Bailey is himself quoting the Bahman Yasht. We already have Bailey's statement and he is actually indicating that the Pahlavi sources are wrong (just like he says the identification of Tur with Turk is wrong). He is saying that according to the Bahman Yasht there were different divisions of Xyon (one being red). Then he says the name was transferred to the Huns. We can not put a source like Bahman Yasht in the intro. If anything we should be putting the statement of Felix in the intro. But again what Bailey is saying is that in the Bahman Yasht (which you omitted from the intro), there are three groups mention Turks, White Xyon and Red Xyon. Then he comments that the name Xyon was later on transferred to the Hun. All of it is already in the origin section. So I think we should leave it in that section since Felix which is a much later source , if anything, should be in the first sentence of the article. But we did not do so. You can put anything with regards to origin in the origin section. It is already there in full: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 (Red) Xyon, and the White Xyon.. It is just about a book Pahlavi book called Bahman Yasht where the red Xyon, white Xyon and Turks are mentioned. Not necessarily the modern scholarly opinion or even Bailey's opinion. Thanks --alidoostzadeh 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is controversial. However, both W.Felix and Bivar cites Bailey as stated (i bolded those parts in the direct quotations) above. For this reason, it's suitable at the introduction section to give the identification with Red Huns; the Red Hun terminology. All these works are of course based on ancient writings. Bailey reference is not only important for the linguistic analysis but also provides good sources. I'm in favor of working on the previous version, instead of deleting the direct statement from W.Felix's article. Regards. E104421 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial here. Felix and Bivar mention the Pahlavi Bahman Yasht article of Bailey. And Bailey says that according to the Bahman Yasht (a document at least 1000 years after the Avesta), there were three divisions of Xyon. What you wrote is totally different than what Bailey is saying (that is why we use direct quotes). What Bailey has said is quoted Verbatim in the origin section. I don't see the need to mention it twice in the leading paragraph, given that Bailey's article is also outdated relative to Felix's article. Anything you have a problem with, just quote it in the origins section. We can't really give supremacy to the Bahman Yasht (it is at least one thousand year after Avesta) and Bailey himself mentions this (wrong association of Tur with Turks). The other two authors also look at the history of theories and mention Bailey's article. They also mention the Pahlavi tradition. Note Felix: In the Pahlavi tradition the Xyo@n were among the enemies of Pe@ro@z. So this is the Pahlavi tradition, and should not be stated as a fact without mentioning it as the Pahlavi tradition. Any article would do that. It does not mean they accept Bailey's statement or not, but they just quote. So I think the solution is simply to quote anything verbatim. But I don't see the reason to quote Bailey twice (both because it is outdated and also because the text of Bahman Yasht should be in the origin section) and also because the Pahlavi tradition of Bahman Yasht should not be stated as fact, but something that scholars should examine (which they do in the origin section).--alidoostzadeh 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC).

• The problem here is not the quations but the Red Huns naming. It's worth mentioning at the beginning section. I'm in favor of reflecting the sourced information not the pov. If they quote Bailey, they find it worthnoting. They are not falsifying Bailey but regard his work important. That's fairly trivial. My last version was just directly form W.Felix. Whenever something related with Huns, Turkic, or Altaic people mentioned, you're either trying to ignore the sources or find the information useless. (P/s: Shapur Shahbazi's article "Sasanian Dynasty" in Encyclopedia Iranica does mention Chionites as ...On the northeastern front, the Chionites (q.v.), a Hunnic people who by the early fourth century had mixed with north Iranian elements in Transoxiana and adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language, threatened Persia.) Regards. E104421 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add the Shapur Shahbazi in the origin section. The red Xyon is in the Pahlavi tradition only and Bailey mentions it in accordance to the Pahlavi Bahman Yasht. His identification needs to be in the origin section. Felix and Bivar mention Bailey's article and the Pahlavi tradition. You can't omit the Pahlavi tradition, and naming it, and not naming the Bahman Yasht part and just take half the sentence and insert it in the first line. Since Bahman Yasht is from 1000+ year ago, it is up to scholars to summarize it and that is what has happened in the origin section. So basically you are omitting that the Red Xyon are mentioned in the Pahlavi tradition. It is very important that the Pahlavi tradition be mentioned. You can't just say:"They were also identified as Red Xyon,... You have to mention that this identification is in the Bahman Yasht. That is why it can not be in the second sentence since the Bahman Yasht is one of the many sources. We have mentioned the Bahman Yasht under Bailey's quote. You can not take part of the Bahman Yasht out and not mention the Bahman Yasht. The Bahman Yasht is indeed a book of eschatological events. The other two authors mention Bailey's hypothesis but they do not confirm or oppose it. So basically the stuff should be in the origin section as it is already. No need to repeat it twice and out of all the sources, just quote Bahman Yasht (and not even mention the book verbatim) in the second sentence. Also Kushan-Bactrian language as you know is a Eastern Iranian language. You can make a subsection perhaps after the origin section with ==Red Xyon== . But not to quote all of the Bahman Yasht and not to even mention the book makes it seem that the Bahman Yasht is 100% valid source where-as it is not (it is written centuries if not 1000 years after Xionites)--alidoostzadeh 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Admittingly our knowledge of Xionites are very little. So that is why anything about origin should be in its own section. But more importantly if we are to mention something, we should mention the source (Bahman Yasht in this case). That is why I removed it and it is better to have a section on Bahman Yasht, but Bailey's quote already takes care of the Bahman Yasht and his association is due to Bahman Yasht. (already mentioned) --alidoostzadeh 04:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Red Huns identification is a valid and commonly used terminology. Just as the Chineese and Middle Persian naming given at the very beginning, it should also be mentioned there. The main sources used by scholars is of course from ancient times, we're searching 4th century's history. If we're to work on the article, you should respect other users edits. Pushing the same version which neglects the commonly used terminology in favor of yours, is just historiography/pseudo-science or whatever you call it. Try to be neutral. You at the beginning removed the Hunnic relation, you quoted R.N.Fyre but partially. After that I added the full quotation, then you claimed that the sources were older than yours. Now, after reading the sources carefully, it was revealed that your sources also mentions and cites the Red Huns identification. Now, you're claiming that the sources used by Bailey is old. This is just ignorance. You said yourself above and put into the article the Red Xyon - Red Huns identification [3]. After i made direct edits from W.Felix, you changed your mind. You're using the sources partially, keeping the parts you like, ignoring the parts you do not like. Please do not revert my edits. We can re-write the article from the beginning, but please be respectful to other users. In wikipedia we are not seaching for the truth but verifiability. All the historians mentioned above cites the Red Huns naming. You're also removing the cited references, wikifications and also other edits done in other sections. I'll add the information back its place. Sorry for doing that way. Regards. E104421 14:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that we have "Red Huns" page in wikipedia, which redirects to Chionites. So, interested user should see the naming at the very beginning. Regards. E104421 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you note you have committed massive ommission and OR. For example right now you did not make a mention of the Kushano-Bactrian language that was adopted by the Chionites (according to Shahbazi), neither did you mention that Shahbazi references the article of Felix. So the Huns in question could have been Iranian Huns of Goebels and so it should not be linked to the European Huns. Or for example before you had referenced Gibbon (300 year old source and outdated) and then asked I you for his exact statement. Anyways I think we can start fresh here.

Let us examine the statement you have:They were also identified as Red Xyon, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events and with the name Xyon later transferred to Huns as Red Huns.[1][2][3]

Now this is not complete at all and is actually synthesis. The first source by Bivar says: ". 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.". There is no mention of Chionites . There is also no mention of Chionites being red Huns. The Bailey article is from 1954 and not even the same article. So he is not saying the Chionites are called Red Huns. Neither is Bailey in 1954 (unless you show the article). And finally he says : There is also a possible mention (although he does not identify it with Xionites). So you are creating OR here. This source has nothing to do with the claim you made.

Let us go to the second source:In the Avestan tradition (Yts. 9.30-31, 19.87) the X'iiaona were characterized as enemies of ViÞta@spa, the patron of Zoroaster, but it is not certain that they were the ones who are said to have worn pointed caps and helmets (uruui-xao'a uruui.v™r™ƒra, both hapaxes) like those of the Sacae (Saka@ tigraxauda@ in the Achaemenid inscriptions), as assumed by Franz Altheim (I, pp. 52-53). Altheim also identified them with the Sacae, though Ammianus clearly distin­guished them in his report on the siege of Amida (19.2.3). The practice of cremation alone would, of course, have been sufficient to win them the hostility of Zoroastrians. In the Pahlavi tradition the Xyo@n were among the enemies of Pe@ro@z (459-84) in his struggle against the Hephthalites in the later 5th century (Bailey, 1954, p. 20; Klíma, pp. 119-20, 122-23). 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). 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. In other Zoroastrian Pahlavi texts the White Xyo@n are named among the enemies of WiÞta@sp who are doomed to final destruction because of their wickedness (Aya@dga@r ^ èa@ma@sp^g [q.v.], chap. 96; cf. Bailey, 1930-32b, pp. 585-86, 591); 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 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)..

Now as you can see, the author is mentioning various theories. One of them being Bailey and Pahlavi tradition. why are you omitting the Avesta tradition? Why are you omitting the mention of Pahlavi tradition? Why are you trying to put Bailey's theory into this authors Mouth? He is giving overview of the scholarly tadition. Not necessarily taking position. He is explicit: In other Zoroastrian Pahlavi texts the White Xyo@n are named among the enemies of WiÞta@sp who are doomed to final destruction because of their wickedness (Aya@dga@r ^ èa@ma@sp^g [q.v.], chap. 96; cf. Bailey, 1930-32b, pp. 585-86, 591); 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 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). This is not what the beginning statement says. And the beginning statement is not what this author is saying. The author is clear. He is saying the Red Xyon are mentioned in the Pahlavi tradition together with the Turks in connection with eschatological event. So why are you omitting the Pahlavi tradition? Or the Avesta tradition? Finally there is the statement of Bailey. What we can say in the introduction is that Harold Bailey after examining the Pahlavi tradition has identified the Red Xyon with the Kermichíones or Ermechíones. And he says that the name Red Xyon was later transfered unto the red Huns. But since the two more recent authors have not necessarily taken this position, this detail should be in the origin section. Felix is just over-viewing various articles in the field. And he is mentioning Bailey's theory. You can't just skip over the fact of Avesta and Pahlavi and Bailey and then mention a statement that is not in one article at all and totally misquoted from the other article. For now I put a dispute tag until I see a response. Thanks --alidoostzadeh 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have a good article on Xyon soon from Sundermann published by UNESCO. Actually the xyon (original ones) are probably not ehs ame as Chionites but the article should make it clear. For now I await your response. --alidoostzadeh 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ali, thank you for your response. First of all, as i said before, Edward Gibbon quotaion was already given above (at the controversy section of the talk page. there is a link to the second volume of his book, too). I was planning to add the Bailey sources related with the "traditions" in a new section, but i did not have much time yesterday. The statement "the name Red Xyon was later transfered to the red Huns" is ok, since none of the cited authors neither falsied nor critisized the Bailey's statement. There is no dispute on this. You know Bailey was also an expert on Iranian languages. The statement done by a linguist on the naming is more relevant. For this reason, i just wanted to give the summary at the beginning and then expand it in a new section such as Red Huns identification, then add the issue in detail there. One sentence summary of the issue for the introduction is "they were also identified as Red Xyon, together with the Turks, in connection with eschatological events and with the name Xyon later transferred to Huns as Red Huns." That's it. We can add in paranthesis (see also "the new section" below) after this sentence to make it brief in the intro. On the other hand, i did not omited "the Kushano-Bactrian language that was adopted by the Chionites", but generalized this as "they had influenced by the Kushan and Bactrian culture", since "language" is a part of the "culture". Culture has a more general meaning. By the way, i think the section of the UNESCO book you mentioned is the "Origin and rise of the Chionites/Xyon/Huns by Werner Sundermann"? I, unfortunately, do not have the book now, but the name again suggests the Hunnic relation, isn't it? Regards. E104421 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I moved Avestan and Pahlavi traditions along with the Red Huns identification into a new section. I also quoted Bailey text about Byzantines. Regards. E104421 12:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources say "Turk" and yet you added it. Even in the Yasht, Bailey says Red Xyon is mentioned along with. All the sources say Turks came later on. Also I gave a comprehensive response above. The other authors mention Bailey's article without accepting/rejecting it. They also cite other articles that goes against their own theories. Gibbon is also too old. You can not mention a statement without mentioning the Pahlavi tradition. Either it will be removed or added into the new seciton as is. Adopting a language is different than influencing a culture. You know that as well. For now I have r.v.'ed back to myself, since the sources are given in more detail and we will let the sources do the talking, since we do not agree. You can not synthesize quotes without quoting the whole thing as it is. In this case, very important to mention Pahlavi. I'll try to obtain the UNESCO article, but fow now I have restored to my full version. Again we can not synthesize based on articles, specially if there is a disagreement. We need to quote it as it is. That is the only we the problems will be solved as it is in the origin section. I do not want to see a statement of yours/mine in there unless we both agree with it. If we don't agree with it, we should quote it from the source. This way there won't be a dispute. Best Regards --alidoostzadeh 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, i'll give the direct quotations here again:

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)."

• Let's compare the introduction of the version prior to your revert with these sources:

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).

• Let's compare the new section "Red Huns identification" with these sources:

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).

• Now, you see my edits are directly from the sources. If you want sources talk, then do not revert the article into your edition, since they're already talking. I added the sentences directly from the sources, and added the citation next to each sentence. In wikipedia, verifiability is of importance. The new section is contaning your edits and the direct quotations from Bailey and Felix. These quotation are both reliable and verifiable. There is no dispute about this. Everbody can go and check the sources. I'm not adding any synthesis. In addition, i'm not removing any of your edits but adding the parts you missed next to yours from the same sources. On the other hand, you're just deleting my edits and reverting to your version. I'm trying to be constructive and neutral. I'm in favor of a revert here, since you removed the sourced information. Regards. E104421 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are omitting the Pahlavi sources. Very important. The third source (Bivar) does not connect Red hunas with Chionites. He is not even referring to the same Bailey article. Check the date it is 1954! So that is your own synthtesis and that is why it is unacceptable. We can add the full information into the nomeclature section. Wikipedia is against synthesis by non-scholars. Add the part that you feel is missing in full in cquote in the nomcelature section. I think the best way is just to add those two (felix/Bailey) in cquote. That way we would not have this problem. Also do not remove hyperlink to Bactrian. And since none of these scholars affiniate Xyon with Turks, don't add the statement. Note primary sources (pahlavi/byzantine) can only be summarized by scholars in Wikipedia. And none of these scholars identify them with that group. Also it is Red Xyon (Felix and Bailey) which was later transfered to Red Huns. So just add both statements in full (what you think is missing) directly from the sources. No synthesis. Bivar is not identifying Chionites with red Hunas. And you are omitting Pahlavi source (very important). Thanks--alidoostzadeh 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not omitting Pahlavi sources, in addition, in the last version [4], i actually added from W.Felix's article for Bahman Yasht / Pahlavi text but you probably never read it. These are not a synthesis but direct statements from the cited references. You're deleting the sourced information. Just go to the references, as i quoted above and compare! That's it! Yours is just ignorance. I'm not removing/deleting your edits (Bactrian hyperling is at the second paragraph of the introduction), but you're just pushing your own version blindly. Regards. E104421 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again where does Bivar make a connection with Chionites. See that is synthesis and ignorance as you say. He is also referencing a 1958 article of Bailey which could be very different stuff. Or for example your omission of adoption of Bactrian language.. or in the last version, it did not say red xyon is mentioned in the Pahlavi sources in the intro. You can't take the statement out of the book it is mentioned. You have to mention the statement alongside with the book. Not just mention the book in a later section. That is taking things out of reference. Also the hyperlink is for the Bactrian language (language used by Kushans) not just Bactrian culture. Anyways let us stop the back and forth game. You can add the full statements in the nomenclature section from Bailey and Felix. If you think they are saying what you are saying, then there should not be a problem. I have no problem with that. You can expand on the quotes I have or just quote them in full. But the statement about chionites being Turkic is not made by any of these scholars. Also Bivar does not make the connection with Chionites. Felix just quotes Bailey and we can quote Felix about Bailey. So that is a synthesis that should not be there. Let the readers judge themselves but quoting these scholars directly and full. Thanks again and I hope we can improve other aspects of the article. --alidoostzadeh 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Surely. The article improved a lot in the last few days. In my last version, i added the sentences from Bailey and Felix, not from Bivar. I wrote above from Bivar in the talk page to show you that he's also mentioning Hunnic relation. Turkic is from Bailey and Felix. The introduction should be concise, i agree with you. I'll add the parts from my last version's Red Huns identification, and also the quotation from Gibbons. Of course, the readers judge, they should decide whether it's of importance or not. Thanks for your comments and valuable contributions. Regards. E104421 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Right Bivar is mentioning red and white Hunas in Indian sources but he is not identifying them with Chionites. I think part of the confusion of this article is that the same name is referencing different people at different stages (hence the Byzantium source for example). I'll send you the UNESCO article once I get it. I am not sure what it has, but for me the truth is the most important and if it says they are not this or they are that, I don't care, as long as we do not intrepret the scholars (which was the main problem with you and tajik's edit before). In order to be clear we should just quote these authors in full, since our knowledge about these people are not sufficient. Maybe some expert later on will come and summarize it neutraly. But right now my take is different than yours on these quotes. Note Felix/Bailey do not call them Turkic either. Felix says probable Iranian. Bailey is examinaning a Pahlavi Yasht and Byzantium source and says they are mentioned along with the Turks in the Yasht (two different grouping). I think since we have differing opinions on the same quotes, the formula applied to the origin section should apply here. As you can see the scholars have differing opinions. So to present the idea of one or two scholars without mentioning them and the sources they are referring to is not the right way to proceed. That is why I believe if scholars are giving different opinions, then we should mention the scholar by name. I think this way is the best and you can agree is the most neutral. Overall, I do not mind Gibbon either since we have mentioned the date of source. Thanks a lot and happy eid. Take care. --alidoostzadeh 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I also ordered the History of Humanity series (7 volumes), not just because Chionites but to have a good reference :). Actually, the third volume will help both Chionites and Ephtalites articles along with the others such as Alchon, Kidarites, and Hunas. Of course, the new direct quation method will be applied in case of diffent opinions. Now, i'll add here two direct quotations from W.Felix:

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).

• Actually, i learned a lot on this period during our work on the Chionites article. In my opinion, the nomades from Tibetan and Siberian stock (perhaps Dingling) came with the Hunnic migration wave into to the region between Afghanistan, Iran and India and mixed with the local people there, then builded up new empires to overthrow the former ones. This sythesised a new culture or mixture of different cultures (Iranic-Turkic).On the other hand, Xyon/Xion identifiction with "Hun" is also important for the Xiongnu, since the northern Xiongnu becomes Huns. My curiosity is at least doubled. Thanks for all. Cordial regards. E104421 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think the diversity opinion necessiates the direct quote method and really not summarization by users. If there was no disagreement on the subject, then we could summarize it. Like the parts that don't have to do with origin. The 7 volume seems like a great book..I'll take a look to this weekend when I go the library. It is definitely good to have good reference. No hard feelings. --alidoostzadeh 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

we need DA page

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)

• Yes, you're certainly right. We should also add Kidarites into the list, since they are also related with Chionites and Ephtalites. The UNESCO volumes hasn't reached me yet, but i got Jean-Paul Roux's "Historie des Turks - Deux mille ans du Pacifique á la Méditerranée". We can discuss the issue here and then do the necessary edits. Best wishes. E104421 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I made some changes to [5]. If you have hard time getting the UNESCO let me know..I have scanned few pages on Sassanid, Hephtalites, Chionites and Seljuqs as well. You can if you want send me an E-mail and I'll send it to you. Take care--alidoostzadeh 23:17, 29 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)

Xionites or Chionites

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)

Rong (Jung)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rong_people the same people? Böri (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Panturkistic Problems

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)

Over-all disaster

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013231126/http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/siberia.html to http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/siberia.html

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead section

@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)

Today, Wikipedia says in the introduction of the article that the Chionites "were a tribe of probable Iranian origin" (taking a bit out of context a sentence from The Encyclopædia Iranica Online [8]). That seems a bit radical and unbalanced. For example:

• Werner Sundermann, well known German Iranist, says of the Chionites "Their ethnic affiliation (Iranian, Turkish, mixed etc..) is as unclear as their language is" ( in History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D., Sigfried J. de Laet, Joachim Herrmann UNESCO, 1996 p.73)
• Canfield explains the leaders probably spoke Turkish, and the bulk of the people in the Confederation an Iranian language (in Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, Robert L. Canfield, Cambridge University Press, 2002 p.49)
  
• Kim argues in favour of a mix of Turkish and Iranian ethnicity (in The Huns Hyun Jin Kim, Routledge, 2015 p.55 sq)
• Molinos describes a melting pot of Turkish and Iranian people (First Peoples of Europe, Manuel Molinos, Andrea Zifferero, All’Insegna del Giglio, 2002 p.50)

In view of the sources, and in order to maintain balance and neutrality on this apparently unresolved and difficult question, I would therefore suggest that we rather introduce the Chionites as: "were a tribe of probable Turkish or Iranian ethnicity". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Cpt.a.haddock and Alx bio: opinions welcome.

I would go with the Hun article opening, "...were a nomadic people/tribe who...", with a section devoted to their origin(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go with Kansas Bear's suggestion. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In light of the scholarly sources and academic arguments laid out here by User:पाटलिपुत्र, I'd say it's fairly necessary to follow Kansas Bear's advice here about leaving ethnic origins out of the first sentence of the intro at the very least. It would be preferable to explain the ambiguities of their ethnic affiliation. In fact, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, we should properly summarize this "Origins" section in the lead section, covering the major points. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:32, 28 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)

Section on Alchon is WP:Dubious

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:

• "Khingila I united the Uar with the Xionites"
• Khingila led a "Hephthalite ruling élite"
• Alchon = Uar
• Alchon = Xionites
• the Alchon or Xionites were closely connected to the Pannonian Avars

to name but a few issues.

Grant | Talk 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Name/Etymology

@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)

• @Wario-Man: H.W.Bailey (Khotanese Texts, VII.8 "Huna") gave, not only for Khionites, but also for Xiongnu and Huns, an Iranian etymology, from hyaona < hyauna, cognate with Vedic Sanskrit syona- "possessor, lord". This etmyology is included in Golden's 1992 work An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (pp. 57-58).I have not included it yet because I'm aware of the scholarly objection that Khionites, Huns, and Xiongnu do not necesarily denote one same macro ethnolinguistic group.

Wario-Man, I'd suggest looking at the Huns#Name and etymology and Origins of the Huns#Etymological evidence, both of which I wrote sometime a year or two ago and are very thoroughly sourced. From Huns:

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'", qun (force), and hün (ferocious). Otto Maenchen-Helfen dismisses all of these Turkic etymologies as "mere guesses". 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. 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. 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". Christopher Atwood dismisses this possibility on phonological and chronological grounds. 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.

I won't bother quoting from Origin of the Huns since it's too detailed and not really about the etymology of the name per se, although this is relevant:

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. De la Vaissière, Christopher Atwood, and Kim all reject this etymology, however.

I haven't looked to see what's already here, but we can see 1) there isn't really agreement on the meaning, and 2) most scholars now agree that Xion, Hun, and Xiongnu are the same name.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Why have this disastrous article alongside Hunas? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wdym? This article needs some love indeed, but Xionites/Chionites appear in a lot of sources. Some good sources to start with would be ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity and Chionite Rulers of Chach in the Middle of the Fourth to the Beginning of the Seventh Century (According to the Data of Numismatics). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)