Talk:Zabulistan

Article

Lots of questionable stuff being added to this article, I'll do some expanding on this article later. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello HoI, please list the questions you have below so that we can address them.

Anang192 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran, you've removed a lot of cited information from this article. [1] I'm pinging User:Highpeaks35 who might be able to address this questionable edit as they regularly edit on India-related topics. desmay (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@My Lord and Kautilya3: sorry to ping to in this. I agree with Desmay, Greater India in Zabulistan is acceptable. The Greater India article does make this region of modern-day Afghanistan part of Greater India in historical terms. I am highly uncomfortable with this reversal. Look forward to hearing back from you. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

Well, that is how it is on Wikipedia. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. So you need to argue your case. Present sources, resolve any disagreements etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like HistoryofIran deleted stuff claiming there was talk page discussion that supported the deletion. But obviously there isn't. So I reinstated it.

I see a lot of use of primary sources, such as Huddud al-Alam, dictionaries and random web sites. The article needs to be cleaned up using WP:HISTRS. No disputes can be settled without proper sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Grouping Zabulistan under 'Greater India' is silly and smells of nationalistic vibes. You don't see other regions being grouped under 'Greater Israel/Iran/Indonesia/Russia/China' etc. If I'm being honest I don't even think Zabulistan is part of Khorasan either, that is if I remember correctly. Also, we don't tend to add the 25 variants of the name of a person/region/etc in the lead. Zabulistan is by a significant margin known as Zabulistan and that's it. The other variants should be added in the name section, which it already is. Imho the edit honestly looks like an attempt of pov-pushing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok that is reasonable. But note that three editors have expressed concerns about your deletions. So there must be something you are doing wrong. Your edit summary didn't give an adequate justification of your deletions and neither did you write anything here.

Getting to the points, if Greater India is problematic, why isn't Greater Khorasan problematic too? Do any of the cited source support the claim? You need to be using the same yardstick to both the claims!

Secondly, there was a lot of sourced content and sources themselves that you have deleted, without a word of explanation.

If you were reverting the content added by some one, you need to state that in the edit summary, or perhaps here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Khorasan is not a country, it's a historical term used by both medieval and modern sources to describe a historical region. And as I said, I don't even think Zabulistan was a part of Khorasan, feel free to remove it (btw I wasn't the one who added Khorasan to the lead :p). And yes, there was seemingly some sourced stuff added as well, you're free to add the non-controvertial parts back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Greater India" is not a country either, it is a cultural sphere. Here is a direct quote from Andre Wink:

It is clear however that in the seventh to ninth centuries the Zunbils and their kinsmen the Kabulshahs ruled over a predominantly Indian rather than a Persianate realm. The Arab geographers, in effect, commonly speak of 'that king of al-Hind ... (who) bore the title of Zunbil'.

and a paragraph written by somebody in Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent:

The kingdoms of Kapisa-Gandhara in modern-day Afghanistan, Zabulistan and Sindh (which then held Makran) in modern-day Pakistan, all of which were culturally and politically part of India since ancient times, were known as "The Frontier of Al Hind".

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, doesn't change the fact that it's silly/irrelevant to add to the article. It's no different than grouping a historical northern Indian region under Greater China or Sindh/Gandhara under Greater Iran (maybe not the best examples, but you get the idea). --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Zabulistan being part of "Greater India", this is POV pushing to try to claim such a theory without proper sources supporting it. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• HistoryofIran, your revision removed the words "Buddhist and Hindu Shahi period" and replaced it with a generic "Pre-Islamic Period". In doing so, you also removed several references that cited Sakawand as a major centre of Hindu pilgrimage. This censorship only makes sense if one was trying to hide the fact that the region was part of India. ML ⁹¹¹ 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

'Generic', lol. It's a much more accurate term when kingdoms such as the Nezaks, Alkhans etc are mentioned. Also, in case that some of you guys aren't aware, Buddhist =/= Indian. Also I wasn't trying to 'censor' anything, my aim with my revert was to remove the massive pov-pushing mainly in the lead, so keep your accusations for yourself, thanks. I even said that you're welcome to re-add the non-controversial stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think both the terms "Greater Khorasan" and "Greater India" should be left out for the time being, and we should investigate the facts first. There seems to be disagreements among scholars about whether Zunbils were Hephthalites or Turks. This needs to be sorted out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Imho neither of them should be added back, since Zabulistan was like Sistan not considered part of Khorasan, and using Greater India is just pov-pushing and historical revisionism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if treating this region as a historical island is better than refering to these semi-historical constructs all at once. If we can all agree that it's a frontier region bordering X and Y we should refer to it as such? For what it's worth, I'd also like to add that I'm personally neither Indian nor care very much whether the terms are used or not, but I simply thought that some kind of contextual categorization can be helpful to layman readers of the subject. The reason why I added that term and presented the Name section as I did to begin with was because of the understanding I got at the time from reading the sources that I added back in December (mainly Li, Minorsky and Rezakhani), however if that understanding was wrong it should be corrected with *clarification. Li, translating a 7th century Chinese text, refers to "India" as a section of his book starting from Laghman eastwards, and Idk if that's a historically accurate translation/categorization on his part or not. As I would assume that HoI would agree with me on, Zabul is not explicitly mentioned anywhere as either part of India or Khorasan but as a frontier region of both (and as stated previously, time makes a difference on this point). Most of these books are unfortunately inaccessible online, however I therefore made sure to add page numbers, and so anyone's free to double-check them. While primary sources such as the Hudud al-'Alam and the Record of the Western Regions are cited, they are modern translations which are quite easy to get hold of with footnotes for context. I'm quite new to Wikipedia so it's very likely that I have made mistakes when making my additions and will naturally take responsibility for them. Regards,

@Username:HistoryofIran @Username:Kautilya3 -- Anang192 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it can be easily described as an Indo–Iranian frontier zone. I see that many scholars are quick to jump to the conclusion that there was a lot of Indian culture there, but there could also have been a lot of Iranian culture. The region was first part of the Achaemenid empire (ignoring the earlier Indo-Aryan transition zone), then became part of the Mauryan empire, then Indo-Greeks, then Kushanas. All this background would imply an Indo-Iranian mixed culture. Here is an inscription of Toramana found somewhere near the vicinity of Kabul:

Rājādhirāja Mahārāja Toramāna Shāhi Javula

I think Toramana is declaring himself to be a Zabulistani (not Indian, though he might have adopted an Indian home after his conquests). But note that he wants to call himself Shahi (an Iranian background). Here is a brilliant passage:

Both lands had rich cultural traditions, and well-developed agriculture based on irrigation and supplemented by nomadic animal husbandry. The population consisted of eastern Iranians, Persians, Turks, Indians, Dards and Kafirs. The most important written languages were Bactrian, Middle Persian and Sanskrit, and the Pahlavi, Bactrian and Brahmi scripts were widely used. The cultural tradition comprised equally Bactrian, Persian, Hephthalite. Turkic and Indian elements, manifested in the royal ideology. The same great variety characterized the religious life. Beside the great religions Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism and Brahmanism, many local beliefs existed. The same syncretism manifests itself in time-reckoning. The dates were indicated in regnal years, in the Late Kushan Era or in the Post-Yazdgird Era, the first stressing independence, the second referring to ancient local traditions and the third indicating relations to the Sasanian dynasty.

This place was a mini-Switzerland. And to think this is where the Mahmud of Ghazni came from! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

See now I agree with you two guys. Indeed there is no denying that the region was impacted by more than one culture, I'm content if the focus on the article is on that rather than being explicitly Iranian or Indian etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3, Anang192, My Lord, and Desmay:, I put back mention of the Hindu Shahis, Sanskrit and expanded the section here. I will also use some of K3's sources above to develop this article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC))

Not clear why you have to add Hindu Shahis, and why the history of Kabul has been inserted here, including its invasion of Ghazni, which should be really the subject of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@Username:HistoryofIran I agree with that as the focus of the article going forward, and appreciate your change to the infobox. @Username:Highpeaks35 The latest literature on the subject (from c. 2015-18, mainly covering numismatics) hold a certain order and naming practice to the dynasties which I think we should stay to in this article (see External link: The Countenence of the Other, Rezakhani, work by Vondrovec etc.). As I'm writing this, there is now a time jump between the Nezaks and the Kabul Shahis in the article, skiping the "Alkhan-Nezak Crossover", the Turk Shahi and the Rutbels/Zunbels overlapping with the Kabul Shahi. The addition of the Kabul Shahis with their own header is highly questionable, as they were at best suzerains of Zabuli dynasties, which ended with the Lawiks (of whom we know exteremly little) and possibly the Zunbils (unless the last two were not in fact the same). While the work of Andre Wink is an important addition to the article, we should take into account that there is far from a scholarly concensus if "Zunbil" was in fact the name of the dynasty or not, and I've noticed that all the recent works written on the subject have joined Minorsky in using "Rutbil" instead. Given its probable link to the Turkic "itibäär", Rutbul sounds more plausible, and when I have time (probably some time in June) I'll see what additional work has been done on them to expand that section. In terms of the Intro, I'm happy with how it stands right now, historical names etc. should be restricted to below their dedicated headers, which need more attention going forward. Appriciate everyones participation in building up this article, Anang192 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Javukha

On the line from an inscription I quoted above, the current interpretation seems to be that Maharaja Toramana and Shahi Javula (whose name is now corrected as Shahi Javukha) were two different people. They were mentioned together in an inscription at Kura (in the Salt Range). They were both Alkhans. So it is possible that one of them was the ruler of Kabulistan and the other that of Zabulistan. But the scholars are not entering this direction yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"The few finds show that all the coinage mentioned were produced south of the Hindu Kush, in the geographic area stretching from Kabulistan and Zabulistan across Gandhara and Uddiyana and into eastern Punjab. The kings ruled, sometimes concurrently and as neighbors, in different areas where they struck their coins. In certain phases it seems that the dies for Khingila, Mehama, Javukha and Lakhana (showcase 9, No. 1) were even centrally produced or that the coins were struck at a common mint altogether. At certain points one can observe typologically coordinated and parallel production between Mehama und Javukha at two mints. In all, the findings show that the Alkhan state was controlled at times by four different rulers, who were on good terms with each other. The numismatic evidence is confirmed by a recently discovered inscription (Fig. A) dated to the year 492/3 CE which names the kings Khingila, Toramana (showcase 9), Mehama and Javukha as patrons of a Buddhist stupa. It is still debated whether the monument mentioned in this inscription was built near Qunduz in Tokharistan (North Afghanistan) or if it refers to a place in the so-called Salt Range in Punjab (Pakistan)." The above seem relevant. Toramana's coins are dated begining from the end of the reigns of the other four rulers (incluing Javukha) in the 490s CE. It does indeed seem confirmed that the "Javula"-interpretation is outdated. While some Alkhan presence in Zabul at this time seem likely (although most coins have been found in Kapisa, Gandhara and the Punjab), Khingila is the only Alkhan ruler that I know of being particularly associatied with Zabulistan. Anang192 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am always wary of numismatists posing as historians. History is a social science, and numismatics is not.

• It is perfectly possible that there were three subordinate rulers in different regions, or equally four autonomous rulers among whom one was a super-chief.
• I am open to the possibility that Khingila was a word or a title, similar to "King", rather than a proper name. There is some evidence to that effect in later times. If so, Javukha could be a -kha suffix added to Javu- with the interpretation "king of Zabul".
• "Lakhana" is clearly a misreading of alakhāna.
• "Mehama" could have been female.

I am still studying all the material. We need more information on the Javukha rulers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting takes. Khingila (meaning: sword(-sman)?) and Javukha being titles is possible, although I think it's a hard sell as they seem to consistently refer to specific characters without the names overlapping, there is no Javukha Khingila or Javukha Mehama for ex. It's more likely that these guys became famous for their conquests and their names becoming more commonly used among their related peoples for that very reason. Kings taking the royal name of a previous great king is an established practice both with the preceding Kushans (Kanishka and Vasudeva being reoccuring personal names in that dynasty) and with the contemporary Sassanians (Ardeshir, Bahram, Peroz being a few). Some of these Alkhan names have also popped up as male personal names in Bactrian documents confirming them as personal names in Tokharistan, one which attests to a Meyam/Meham recieving a payment in the kingdom of Guzgan . For Lakhana to be a misreading, I take it that it will have to have been misread on multiple sources on which it is spelled differently than the standard αλχοννο, if that's indeed what the name is based on, why then would only this king alone not be stated by name on a collective memorial? Given that Javukha is written Zabukh in Bactrian, it seems like more of a coincidence that the first part of the name lines up with Zabul/Jawul, and why would the final syllable be dropped and replaced with only -kh? As we already have an attested Alkhan (Khingila) calling himself the king of Zabul, it seems likely that his contemporaries would refer to themselves as such in a similar manner. Best of luck! Anang192 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily coincidence, because Javukha/Zabokho's father (see below) would have already been a ruler of Zabul. So he could have named his son as something like "Zabul Khan" or "Zabul Khing". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Lakhana" is a misreading in the sense that it was a bad parsing of Sanskrit rājālakhāna. Alemany gives us the original phrase as well as its correct parsing. It is a bit irritating that people like Hans Bakker who could have corrected it didn't bother. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now, yes a misreading makes sense. Not sold on the Javukha hypothesis, however it is an interesting idea. The syllable mixing doesn't seem to make much sense and we don't seem to have any indication at present even pointing to Javukha and his father in particular being kings of Zabulistan, not saying they weren't, but the theory is based on multiple assumptions at this point. The consistency in translation between Javukha and Zabukh is expected since it's consistent with the syllable changes known to occur in translation between Greco-Bactrian and Brahmi-Prakrit. Anang192 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple more interesting points now.

• Apparently the "early anonymous series" of coins include those bearing the legend Shaho Zaobl Alkhano (‘King of Zabul Alkhan’). So, Zabul was under the control of the Alkhans even before Khingila I).
• Javukha also issued coins with the Bactrian Greek legend Zabokho. This shows the correspondence between Zabo- and Javu-.
• The Schøyen collection copper scroll, dated to 492 CE, describes Javukha as the son of Sadavikha. He is the only one mentioned along with a father's name, which leads Rezakhani to postulate that he must have been a young ruler at that time, who was not well-known. We can note that the -kha ending might also run in the family. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

p1:Unless there's an overlap between the "early anonymous series" and the earliest named legends: Khingila, Mehama and Avamazha, which seems likely, as postulated by Rezakhani in said reference p. 115. If my memory doesn¨t fail me, I think there exist a dated Bactrian document in Book II of Sims-Williams series with a named Alkhan ruler cited as "king of the Afghans", who were roughly located between Gardiz and Bannu, and so fall under the sovreignity of the king of Zabul. The dating and name of that king might help to shed some light at this point. I'll look into it further when I get the chance, including if Sims-Williams have suggested any etymologies for Javukha and Lakhana. Anang192 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A short follow-up:

• Document eh in Sims-Williams's Bactrian Documents II (p. 122-123) mentions: "[To Ormuzd Bunukan,...greetings and homage from...], the yabghu of the [Heph]thal, the [sot]ang? of Parpaz, the chief...of the Afghans, the judge of Tukharistan and Gharchistan." Since I said that I'd look this up I include it here, however since it didn't concern the Alkhan and seems to associate "Afghans" with the north rather than traditional Afghanistan and Zabulistan, it's not really relevant to the discussion.
• In Sims-Williams (2010) Iranisches Personennamenbuch: Bactrian Personal Names, the etymology for Javūkha/Jaūẖkha (ζαβοχο) is regarded as unclear, however probably non-Iranian, p. 60. Nothing on Lakhana. Meyam/Mehama (μηυαμο) is certainly a male PN as it's attested as such on multible seals and letters with varrying spellings. The Meyam discussed above was probably the very same as "Meyam (fl. 461/2 to 475 [or 465 CE]), king of the Kadagan people (around modern Baghlan) and governor (καδαγοβιδο) on behalf of Peroz (377, v) sender of two letters.", possibly derived from Iranian *maiθmā = guest, p. 85-87. The PN suffix -ila (as in Khingil, Eškingil, Mawil) are regarded by Sims-Williams as a hypocoristic of Indian origin, with non-Indian bases, p. 7. In regards to Khingila (χιγγιλο), the base for his name khing- has been compaired by TREMBLAY 2001, 183-4 with Xiongnu kenglu "sword" and Sogd. xnyr, p. 148. Anang192 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

• Alemany, Agustí (2000), Sources on the Alans: A Critical Compilation, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-11442-4
• Bakker, Hans (2017), Monuments of Hope, Gloom and Glory in the Age of the Hunnic Wars: 50 years that changed India (484–534), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, ISBN 978-90-6984-715-3
• Frye, Richard Nelson (1984), "Eastern Iran and Central Asia", The History of Ancient Iran, C.H.Beck, ISBN 978-3-406-09397-5
• Neelis, Jason (2010), Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-18159-8
• Rezakhani, Khodadad (2017), ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-1-4744-0030-5
• Sims-Williams, Nicholas (2001), Bactrian Legal Documents from 7th- and 8th-Century Guzgan, Bulletin of the Asia Institute
• Kurbanov, Aydogdy (2010), The Hephthalites: Archaeological and Historical Analysis (PDF), Department of History and Cultural Studies at Free Univeristy

Distinguishing pre-Islamic and post-Islamic

One central issue worth discussing here is the how the distinguishing of pre-/ and post-Islamic Zabul should be presented in the article, esp. in intro and infobox, since the two periods carry very different associations and character. Sources describing pre-Islamic Zabul such as The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions as well as archeological evidence (see Tapa Sardar for ex.) suggest a strong at the least partly Indian character to the county (early Arab accounts shall have witnessed the same), where both Mahayana Buddhism and Shaivism were practiced as well as some variety of Pali being spoken as at least a second-language by a significant number of the population. After the Ghaznavids, the Iranian character (which must've surely have been there in pre-Islaimic times as well) is enforced with the inclusion of Zabul into the region of Sistan in the Tarikh-e Sistan, as well as the stories of Rostam of Zabul being included in the Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, and New Persian becoming the court language of the region. While not ever being part of Khorasan proper by any historical account, Zabul is viewed as part of the Khorasan marches and Sistan in 10th century accounts onwards. This creates a dicotomy of preislamic Jaguda/Zabul, argubly having stronger ties to Hindu-Buddhist Kabul and Kashmir, and islamic Zabulistan/Ghaznin, which argubly becomes and extention of the Sistan region and a center of Persian culture. It is neither clear to me exactly when we should regard this "province" to have siezed, as it keeps being mentioned in obscure non-official terms even in Mughal accounts. These points needs to be presented in the into and infobox in a clear and substantiated manner which can then be built upon in the following headings. Suggestions for improvements are appriciated. Anang192 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)