Talk:Kingdom of Khotan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingdom of Khotan. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huaxia-ng.com/web/?action-viewnews-itemid-1058
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206060414/http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf to http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingdom of Khotan. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3yysAsLqccYJ:www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20160909231531/http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf on http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907144621/http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/weilue/weilue.html to http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/weilue/weilue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

South Asian

@69.143.174.241: Could you discuss your edits here? Providing your rationale and WP:RS materials that support your claims. Mann Mann (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The 16 Primary academic sources that were painstakingly researched are the rationale. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please let me know what other evidence you need. Khotan was a South Asian kingdom according to all the evidence provided by both Tibetan, Indian, Chinese and even Iranic sources (I have included citations from two Iranic sources that are authoritative). The language, religion, culture, founding stories, history, titles and names of rulers/kings, trade relations, administration, rulers, and immigrants were all South Asian in nature. Even this very article talks about this at length, in addition to all other articles on Wikipedia that pertain to Khotan and Buddhism in Khotan. All the primary and secondary sources Ive cited also corroborate this claim. Please let me know what else there is to understand. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

These are the sources:

69.143.174.241 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added my sources there as well. Also please explain to me why HISTORYOFIRAN was not warned for reverting three of my edits in succession within 24 hours, without any rationale or sources cited for his claims. He also hasnt explained how it is consistent to claim that Khotan is "Iranian" without any citations for the claim or discussion of the same claim on this and other articles. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources say that it was an Indian kingdom. The founding legend is discussed in detail in the text. Many sources also mentioned Chinese presence, that doesn't mean that it was a Chinese kingdom. I have removed the Iranian and Saka part until the dispute is resolved. Hzh (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but your claim is intellectually dishonest. Plenty of sources cited explicitly mention that it is an Indian kingdom, founded by Indians and colonized by Indians, with an Indian faith like Buddhism and an Indian language. It even corroborates the historical texts and traditions of the Chinese, Tibetans and the Indians that claim that Khotan was founded by and colonized by Indians. But South Asia doesnt just mean India, it also means Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan and other nation states, all of which were part of Ancient India/Bharata historically, be it the Mauryan empire, the Kushana Empire, the Gupta Empire and many other empires of Ancient India/South Asia. A Chinese and Tibetan presence is attested much later, but it does not preclude the fundamentally South Asian origin and essence of the kingdom, nor does it mean that South Asians/Indians were not integral parts of the population of Khotan. Please re-read all of the sources in their entirety and understand them before making such claims. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your are essentially using the founding legend to support your claim. The founding legend is discussed in the text already, some sources even described the legend as a myth designed to explain the presence of Indian and Chinese influence during the Tang dynasty. Even the source you cited - [1] (you appeared not to have read that when you cited it). As mentioned, the presence of Chinese there doesn't mean it was Chinese, same for South Asians. Hzh (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but I disagree. The same source you bring up mentions that the legends are only meant to corroborate the "Fact" of the Indian origin of the kingdom. In other words, the legends are merely further proof of the accepted fact that Khotan was South Asian in origin. Whereas the other sources much more clearly state exactly why Khotan is considered to have South Asian origins, including the discovery of numismatic, literary, archaeological and historical evidence, that only solidify the South Asian origins surrounding the kingdom. They have found statues of the Lord Ganesha, epigraphical evidence, texts, archaeological artifacts, that clearly indicate the South Asian origin and colonization of Khotan prior to any later Chinese and Tibetan influence. It can best be described as a kingdom with clear South Asian origins and essence, with later Chinese and Saka syncretic synthesis and influence. Please also refer to the UChicago source that includes Khotan explicitly as a kingdom of the Mauryan empire, as well as the other sources that explicitly indicate Khotan being an Indian oasis city under the administration of Ashoka and later, under Kanishka/the Kushans. Plenty of sources explicitly state the expert opinion of researchers and archaeologists and historians who state that Khotan was a South Asian kingdom. I encourage you to read them for more information. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Your indiscriminate addition of sources doesn't really support your case, in fact damage it, especially when you include sources that say the founding legend may be "mythological" and that Asoka could not have extended his rule to the Tarim. The fact that Hindu/South Asian artefacts were found may just show influence, just as the fact that Hellenisitic artefacts have been found in the region. The UChicago source in fact says "allegedly" colonised (it refers to the founding legend). I see only one source that says Indians colonised the oasis. Whether that made it South Asians kingdom is debatable, and I would would put that in the body of the article rather than state it as a fact in the lede. If you want to support your case, use fewer sources that are to the point. Hzh (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly multiple sources that clearly state Indians colonized the Oasis. I will make sure to only put those sources that explicitly claim this next time. The UChicago source includes Khotan explicitly in a map of the Mauryan empire, this means there is no ambiguity about whether Khotan was South Asian or not. Comparisons of Hellenic artifacts are moot, because the very name and founding/colonizing of Khotan was South Asian in nature, not to mention the fact that Buddhism, the use of Indian languages, Indian numismatic and archaeological artifacts, the "purely Indian" names of the Kings, both of Khotan, and of the Kushan and Mauryan empire under which it was administered, all prove that Khotan was South Asian without a doubt. This has no parallel in Hellenic spheres. I will prune the sources to make the case clearer, but the sources do not contradict each other -- on the contrary, multiple sources are added for the benefit of the reader to provide a complete picture -- all sources show the deep South Asian influence on Khotan from its inception, but not one source states that there was a complete lack of South Asian influence or that South Asian origins and deep influence was merely mythological. Some sources speculate that Ashoka himself might not have been to Khotan in person, but all certainly accept that multiple Mauryan missions were sent to Khotan and that lots of evidence supports this and other South Asian migrations to the region. Brevity is a virtue, but the other user here seemed intent on ensuring that isnt the case. I will edit the article in a few with fewer sources to make it clear that Khotan was South Asian. BTW, there was absolutely no reason to state that Khotan was "Iranian" as the article state before -- there were zero citations - and curiously, not one person cared to edit the article to reflect this fact -- this makes me believe that both user MannMann and HistoryofIran are simply trying to push a chauvinisitic Iranian narrative to suit their agenda, especially since both have a long history of editing Iran related articles from the inception of their accounts. Such bias is regrettable and intellectually dishonest. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently almost every source states that the Kingdom of Khotan was South Asian, yet you can't post a single source that says this? Also, the lede does not mention anything about Khotan being "Iranian" anymore, so there goes your conspiracy theory. If you continue attacking other editors you will lose the rest of your editing privileges per WP:NPA, WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, kindly see WP:TEXTWALL. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is "attacking" anyone, nor is there any conspiracy theory, simply pointing out past trends and facts like unsourced claims made in the article related to Khotan being Iranian (which was recently removed by another user, before then it simply was a part of the article without any citations and yet it was never removed by other editors). There is ample evidence for this. You accuse me of not posting a single source that states the Kingdom of Khotan was South Asian, when multiple sources cited clearly state that Khotan was an Indian kingdom founded by and colonized by ancient Indians, and provides substantial evidence for the same. The journals/books/sources referenced include multiple South Asian and Indian related journals. I wonder where ancient India and the Indian subcontinent is located? Anyway, I will ensure the sources explicitly state the Indian origins of and the substantial South Asian influence on Khotan so there is no ambiguity whatsoever. There are additional clear sources that would help readers learn more about its South Asian heritage. I am not interested in engaging in edit warring or continuing this discussion with regard to arbitrary accusations. The sources will speak for themselves. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yawn, WP:REHASH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You need explicit statement that Khotan was a South Asian or Indian kingdom, which I doubt you will find in WP:RS. Otherwise you will be in the same situation again, because stating it without sources saying it is so would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. The founding legend also suggests that there may be people from China, but you cannot state that it was a Chinese kingdom, same for Indian/South Asian. Your addition was disputed, so it was removed, and the part about Iranian wasn't removed until it was disputed (by you), so I removed both even though there are sources that says the language of the people may be Iranian-related. It may be restored if sources can be provided that explicitly state it was an Iranian kingdom. I would however suggest that rather than adding to the opening sentence, any further information be added to the main body of the article (perhaps in the founding legend section), so that it may be more clearly discussed. Hzh (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oliver Nicholson (2018). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. p. 863. "Khotanese language and literature - Eastern Middle Iranian language spoken in the Saka kingdom of Khotan (on the Tarim Basin), extant in two dialects: Khotanese and Tumshquese."

Iranica - In the 1st century b.c.e., after the Chinese had succeeded in displacing the nomadic Hsiung-­nu as overlords of the Tarim basin, the easternmost Iranian city-states, Khotan (Yü-t’ien/Yu-tian), Kashgar (Shu-le/Shu-le), and Yarkand (So-chü/Suo-ju; see chinese turkestan i. in pre-islamic times), enjoyed particularly close contacts with China. These relations were inter­rupted during the civil wars toward the end of the Former Han Dynasty, at the beginning of the 1st century c.e., but were restored a few years later

Took me less than 5 minutes to find. I guess these sources must be chauvinisitic as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A brand Iranica new article about Khotan just released today [2]. It says "Buddhist Saka kingdom of Khotan". I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we can probably say Buddhist Saka kingdom using academic sources - [3][4]. I would say leave Iranian for now unless you can find non-Iranian academic sources to avoid perception of any kind of bias. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Saka and South Asian are most definitely not mutually exclusive. Sakas are an Eastern branch of the Scythian peoples that migrated into South Asia and later Iran. The Indo-Sakas/Indo-Scythians in Southern Asia spoke South Asian languages and practiced South Asian religions and form an integral part of the history of India and South Asia. Even the Lord Gautama Buddha has been hypothesized to be possibly of Indo-Saka origin, as the Shakya clan of Northern India was thought to be of Indo-Saka descent. Are you going to tell me that Buddha wasnt Indian or South Asian now? The inhabitants of Khotan can be both Saka and South Asian, without these facts contradicting each other, unless the fact of the Buddha being both South Asian/Indian and most likely of Indo-Saka origins contradicts as well. South Asia itself has been the recipient of a multitude of invasions since antiquity, and each invasion brought with it a new wave of peoples, one of which included the Eastern Scythians/Indo-Sakas/Indo-Scythians, who not only are considered bonafide South Asians and have living descendants today, but also greatly shaped the history of the region. Therefore, this article stating it is a Saka kingdom doesnt contradict its South Asian connections, origins or deep influences. It only supports it. I see no issue with stating that it is a Saka kingdom. I will try to update the article with direct quotes further proving its South Asian connections and origins. I rest my case. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The sources I listed say Saka, not Indo-Saka (which aren't referred to as 'South Asian' either), not South Asian, not Indian. This is just more WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Feel free to add information actually supported by (reliable) sources to the article, but kindly don't repeat the same stuff you did earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point. Saka is another term to indicate Eastern Scythians, of which one branch ruled India/South Asia. Indo-Saka is just another term to label the Sakas in South Asia. The sources leave out the identity of the Saka peoples that were in Khotan, which indicates a possibility that they could have been the same Sakas that inhabited and ruled South Asia. Lord Buddha was possibly of Saka descent as well. He was also South Asian. Therefore, Saka and South Asian are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, I will update with sources later for the South Asian origins. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you aren't listening to what me or anyone else says. This is just starting to sound WP:TENDENTIOUS at this rate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly not understanding what I wrote, despite multiple attempts to make you comprehend it. Last I checked, there have been no edits made to the article recently either. You are free to make baseless accusations as usual however. I have no time to waste on debating irrelevant claims. The sources, once updated will serve as the evidence. Feel free to make of them what you will. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently no one understood either you when you were edit warring against several users, which led to your block. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice non sequitur and attempt to change the topic. This discussion of Sakas and South Asia has nothing to do with edit warring, which was started by you when you reverted three of my edits in 24 hours. Interestingly, there were also no citations for other claims made in the lede which weren't reverted by you, but by myself and were ultimately kept by other users as well. In the end, we now have a more accurate and balanced article. This exercise has only improved this article further and my temporary block on editing this sole article in Wikipedia will expire in less than 72 hours. My sources regarding South Asian origins and influence when added, will only enhance this article further. Unfortunately, I understand why this might be difficult to understand for some individuals. Fortunately, the sources speak for themselves. I encourage you to improve your reading comprehension and debating skills otherwise. 69.143.174.241 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt Mauro Maggi is an Iranian academic. That appears to be the author of that particular section of the Khotan article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Mauro Maggi wrote "Buddhist Saka kingdom" (which is I what I proposed we give in the opening sentence), so I'm not quite sure what is being talked about. If there are explicit statements that it was an Iranian kingdom, then we can consider adding that as well (although the Sakas are considered an Iranian people, so it may not be necessary to say it). Hzh (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Tbh I think "Iranian" is used by some of these sources to explain what cultural/ethnical background the Saka belonged to, as a lot of readers aren't going to know what a "Saka" is. The question is whether we should do that here or not, which I'm frankly indifferent about. Btw, the name "Iranica" might come off as sounding questioable in term of neutrality, but its really only named that because its dedicated to Iranian studies. A ton of prominent historians have edited under Iranica, be it Iranians, Americans, Armenians, Turks, etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think using descriptions as used by academics is the best way to go. There is always a problem of how a reader may understand it however you write it, for example, a casual reader may understand "Iranian" as being about the people of the current state of Iran, when the term may be used to refer to a larger grouping of peoples. The term Saka is linked, so those who want to know more can always look into it. Hzh (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection. Adding it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References