Heng-Nu Jats

Author : Ch. Reyansh Singh

---

Page is being Expanded

According to Christopher P. Atwood the people mentioned in history as Hiung-nu or Xiong-nu or Hun(a) are non other but the same people, i.e. these terms are denoting or referring to the same people (with different names of different regions).

Moreover BS Dahiya wrote, Finally we come to the conclusion that the Chinese name Hiung-nu is correct, after all. These Hiung-nu were a clan dominant at that time. It was this clan which produced emperors like Touman, Maodun, Giya in the first three centuries prior to the Christian era. These Hiung-nu are still existing as a Jat clan in India and are called Heng or Henga. We must remember that the Kang Jat were named by the Chinese as Kang-nu; similarly the Heng were called Heng-nu or Hiung-nu. These were the 'Huna Mandal' rulers who fought with almost all the Indian powers, right up to 10th century A.D. Further BS Dahiya also says, "The Hiung-nu of the Chinese are the Henga Jats of Mathura. The Chinese were right in stating that the Hiung-nu were a part of the Yue-che(Guti) people."
Author's Note- Here mentioned Yueche or Guti people are the Jats.

"The Chinese author of Thung-Kiang-Nu, writes in the year 555 A.D. that the Aptal or Hephthalites were of the race of Ta-Yue-che."

Conclusions

So, it can be clearly concluded that, Hiungnu or Xiongnu are non but the Henga Jats of India. As it can be clear by the vision of Historian DS Ahlawat as he mentioned(Tr. from Hindi), that "... In chinese language the term 'Henga' is denoted as 'Hingnu'. Which is a Jat clan. ..."

Differentiative People

For The people who tries to create difference between Hiung-Nu or Hunas or Xiongnu, I have a strong material, which is taken from BS Dahiya's epic Jats the Ancient Rulers "... They had a custom of wounding themselves at the time of the funeral of their kings; and Herodotus says that the same custom was observed by the Scythians also. So the Hunas had common customs with the Sakas. Talking about the scripts of various people, the Lalitavistara an Indian work, lists 45 scripts and "Hunalipi" is entered at S. No. 23. The Chinese translated these works and the corresponding entries in the "Fo Pon hing tsi-king" of Jnanagupta (587 A.D.); the "Pou yas king" of Tchu-Fa-hun (308 A.D.), and "Fang Kouang ta Tehouang yen king" of Divakara (683 A.D.)-are Mona, Hiung-nu, and Houna respectively. These are but transcriptions of Mana, and Huna (Kshavan), i.e., the name of Jat clans. This shows that the Chinese knew that all these clans were of the same Yue-che (Gutti) stock and therefore they used the name of the race (Yue-che) or the name of the particular clan which was at that particular time well known to the Chinese authors. These various names were taken, [p.43]: as synonyms of each other. That means that there was no difference between the various clans, racially and linguistically speaking. H. Deguignes, identified the Hiung-nu of the Chinese records with the Huns of Europe, in his five volume Historic general des Huns, des Tures, des mongols, etc., des autres'. From Chinese records, the Russian scholars N.A. Aristov and K. Inostranc-Sev, proved the identity of Hiung-nu and the Hunas. Friedrich Hirth also arrived at the same conclusion as quoted by Dr Buddha Prakash, in "Kalidasa and the Hunas". ...." And Christopher P. Atwood had also proved it by a great effort in "Huns and Xiongnu; New thoughts on an old problems"

Oscar Terry Crosby mentions "It may have been preceded by an intermediate wave of Mongols -the Hueng-nu(Huns) who were the cousins and enemies of the Yue-che."

Remember, that "Otto Maenochen Helforn, in his paper 'Huns and the Hiung-Nu' shows that the Hunas of the Sanskrit works were the Hephthalites. The Chinese author of Thung-Kiang-Nu, writes in the year 555 A.D. that the Aptal or Hephthalites were of the race of Ta-Yue-che."
Author's Note- Remember that Aftal Hephtalite are the Hunas and 'Ta-Yue-Che' is a term to denote "Great Jats."

They were Jats in Origin

Their(Huns') identity has been clarifies as belonging to the Ta-Yue-Che stock of race. [Note, Ta-Yue-Che → Massagetae (or Goths) → "Great" Jats; See, below!]

• According to H.G. Wells, "the Hephthalites (Huns) were descend from the Yueche (Jat) race."
• Maenchen-Helfen also noted in his famous monography that despite the fact that the Huns were called 'Massagetae' by the Romans and Greeks.
• Chinese chronicles of "The Weishu chap. 102, p. 2278; Zhoushu chap. 50, p. 918; Beishi chap. 97, pp. 3230–31; and Suishu chap. 83, p. 1854; all wrote that the Hephtalites (Yada in the Weishu, the Zhoushu, and the Beishi Yida in the Suishu) “are a branch of the Da Yuezhi”.
• Tongdian (chinese source, dated ca.801 CE) mention about the Huna/Yada country Yidatong as under, "Yada country, Yidatong: Yada country is said to either be a division of the Gaojgu or of Da Yuezhi stock. They originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and came down south from the Jinshan mountain. They are located to the west of Khotan. To Chang’an, to the east, there are 10,100 li. To the reign of Wen(cheng) of the Late Wei (452–466), eighty or ninety years have elapsed. Their clothing is similar to that worn by other Hu barbarians, [but] with the addition of tassels. They all cut their hair. Their speech is different from that of the Ruanruan, the Gaoju, and all the other Hu. Their troops number perhaps 100,000 men. They wander in search of water and grass. Their country is without the She but has the Yu, and has many camels and horses. They apply punishments harshly and promptly; regardless of how much or how little a robber has taken, his body is severed to the waist, and even though only one has robbed, ten may be condemned. When a person dies, wealthy families pile up stones to make a [burial] vault, while the poor ones simply dig a hole in the ground and bury [the corpse]. All of the deceased’s personal effects are placed in the tomb. Brothers, again, all together marry a wife. Kangju, Yutian, Sule, Anxi and over thirty of the small countries of the Western Regions have all been subjugated by them. They are reputed to be a large country. They often sent envoys bearing tribute. In the Xiping reign period of Xiao Ming Di, Fu Zitong and Song Yun were sent as ambassadors to the Western Regions but were not able to learn much of the history or geography of the countries they traversed.
• The Chinese author of "Thung-Kiang-Nu" stated (in 555AD.) that, "The Aptal or Hephthalites were of the race of Ta-Yue-Che."
• Mihirkula - A prominent ruler of Hunas proudly calls himself as the ruler of a "Jit country" as clear by the mentioning in a (Hindi) book, "The Travels of Huen Tsang in India" by Thakur Prasad Sharma (Suresh)
• The traders introduced glassware and pottery in China in the fifth century A.D., when these traders reached the Chinese court of Tai-wee (424-451 A.D.) and informed the Chinese that the Ta-yue-chi (Great Jats) under Ki-to-lo (Kidar, their king) had occupied Peshawar, Gandhara, etc.
• Chinese work Pei-she states, "The Kidarite Hunas(Ki-to-lo) are belonged to the stock of Ta-Yue-Che (Great Jats) race."
• The Hephthalites are mentions as belonging to Ta-Yue-che race in Ma-Tuan-Lin's Encyclopedia(around, 1317 AD.) He says that "Ye-ta (Ye-tha = Hephthalites) are of the race of Ta-Yue-Che.
• Historian Zonaras of Rome, in 358 AD mentions these Hunas as "Massagetaens" whom attacked Iran between 353-358 AD (under their king Grumbates). They were Chionites(Xiyon Hunas) who attacked Emperor Shahpur II of Iran, whom were mentions as "Massagetae" by Zonaras.
• Roman historians Themistius (317-390), Claudian (370-404), and later Procopius (500-560) called the Huns as Massagetae.
• Edekon or Edica king of Sciri, (during Attila's reign) was interpreted as a Hun by Vigilas to Priscus, sources says that his son Odoacer was a Goth.
• The Huns are called Massagetae also by Ambrose (340-397), Ausonius (310-394), Synesius (373–414), Zacharias Rhetor (465-535), Belisarius (500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus (6th century) and others.
• In the Talmud, Goths are mentions as Gogs, where Magog is the country of Kanths" (Sogdian Kant), that is, the kingdom of the white Huns. i.e., Kingdom of White Huns is mentions as Magog, where Gog is rendered for Goths (Goth → Getae → Jits or Jats).
• In 531 AD, Justinian manages to get hold of intelligence through a spy who had defected from the Persians that the Massagetae had decided to ally with the Persians against the Romans and were marching into Roman territory to join up with the invading Persian army. He, however, cleverly uses this against the Persians and deceives the Persian army besieging Martyropolis into believing that these Massagetae have been won over with money by the Roman emperor. Massagetae here are clearly anachronistic references to the Huns.
• Aigan was a Hun But Procopious in Book 3 of his histories, calls Aigan, the officer in command of Belisarius’ cavalry, a 'Massagetan' by birth. i.e., A leading Hunnic chief namely, 'Aigan' is mentions as a Massagetae by Procopius.
• Christopher P. Atwood concluded that, "The Greek designation of the Ounna(Hun, in Greek), is equivalent as of "Massagetai".
• Chi-Hien of Wu Dynasty (A.D. 222-64) & Dharmaraksha of Western Tsin Dynasty(A.D. 265-313) were actully Huns. And source also states Dharmaraksha as a Yuechi i.e. A buddist monk, Dharamraksha is mentioned as a Hun as well as a Yuchi in history. Also this monk of Hunnic Yuchi origin states the Hun and Hsing-nu as one and same people.
• Classical sources also frequently use the names of older and unrelated steppe nomads instead of the name Hun, calling them Scythians and even "Massagetae"
• Jat Historian Thakur Deshraj also stated that Hingu or Hing-Nu is a branch of Yuechi people.
• The Chinese statement in later Sui-Shu(隋書) that Samarqand's Wen/'On (Hun) dynasty was of Yuezhi, 月氏 (or Jat) origin.
• Oscar Terry Crosby mentions in his book in year 1905 that, "Hueng-nu(Huns) were the cousins of the Yuh-chis."
• Author V.P.Desai in his book, "Bharat Ke Chaudhary" (Bharatna Anjana), identifies Haga(Henga clan of Jats) as Hunas.
• The Sakas, the Hunas, called themselves Jats because they were Jats and they never dreamed of changing their names. Therefore, we may say with confidence that Hunas were Indo-Europeans by race, as is supported by recent excavations in Outer-Mongolia, Central Asia and other parts of Asia and Europe.
• Calvin Kephart referring to the Ephthalites, who are called white Hunas, he says, "They were called the white Hunas by their enemies: According to the Chinese, they actually were a tribe of the Yue-chi or Getes" (p. 525 quoting Encyclopaedia Britannica, XIIIth Edn. Vol. IX, p. 679-680, and Vol. XX, p. 422). and two groups of the Massagetae sometime after 500 B.C. took their names as Yue-Chi and White Huns and their later dynastic divisions were called "Kushans".
• Prof. B. S. Dhillon agrees the view and says that Huns (or White Huns) were a branch of the Massagetae or 'great' Jats.
• J.J. Modi says, "The Goths were an offshoot of Huna People."
• Christopher Beckwith also suggested that the name "Huna" is as similar as "Saka"
• Historian BS Dahiya writes ... It is interesting to note that Majumdar and Altekar have pointed out that the so-called white Hunas may possibly be the Kusanas. Similarly Jayaswal also believes that Toraman the conqueror of north India in the beginning of the sixth century A.D., was a Kusana. Historian Fleet holds the same opinion. All these views have been given because really there was no difference between the so-called Hunas and the so-called Kusanas. They were all from the same stock, namely the Jat stock. As shown above the Chinese chronicles are consistent in stating that the so-called White Hunas or the Hephthalites as well as the Kusanas belong to the race of Ta-Yue-che, i.e., the Great Jats.
• Historian DS Ahlawat also agreed to the view, as under "we can accept that Huna and Hephthalites as descends from Jat race."
• With a numerous references and sources G.W. Bowersock distinguish Hunnic groups (tribes) as Under: "Goths, Alans, Gepids, Sciri, Sarmatians."
• Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 1980 (An International Peer-Reviewed Refereed Research Journal) agrees the statement that Henga Jats of Mathura are the Hiung-Nu of the Chinese.
• Even romans identifies them as Scythians and Avars.
• Ivan Georgiev also concluded the same result, that the Huns were descended from Yuechis.
• It is significant that these Hiung-nu (Hunas) were also of Aryan features. This is proved by the portraits of Huna soldiers being trampled under the hooves of the Chinese horses. These Huna soldiers have straight eyes, fine straight noses, and lots of hair and beard-the kind of features which are not possible in case the Hunas were Mongoloids.
• The Utigur Hunnic tribe is identified as Uti tribe clan of Yuechis. Balgur Hunnic tribe is seems to be Bal tribe.
• Author and editor of Bhārati-bhānam (1980), S. Bhaskaran Nair identified The Hiung-nu of the Chinese with present Henga clan of Mathura. he wrote, "Like the Hiung-nu of the Chinese, the present Henga clan occupying about 300 villages near Mathura."
• Author Ramvir Singh Verma postulates, (translated from Hindi) "The Henga Jats migrated from India to China and ruled their for a long time alongside the coasts of Hung-Hu River and Hingu mountains and today known as Henga or Agre or Haga, Hiung-Nu of the Chinese is transcription of term Henga. These Henga Jats named the Hung-Hu River and Hingu Hills in China. They reside in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh and have more than 360 villages there, the fear and talkings of the empire of Hing-nu people is still prevalent in China.
• A genetic study published in Human Genetics (Journal) in July 2020 which examined the remains of 52 individuals excavated from the Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu cemetery in Mongolia propose the ancestors of the Xiongnu as an admixture between Scythians and Siberians and support the idea that the Huns are their descendants.
• A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined the remains of five Xiongnu. The four samples of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroups R1, R1b, O3a and O3a3b2, while the five samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to haplogroups D4b2b4, N9a2a, G3a3, D4a6 and D4b2b2b. The examined Xiongnu were found to be of mixed East Asian and West Eurasian origin, and to have had a larger amount of East Asian ancestry than neighboring Sakas, Wusun and Kangju. The evidence suggested that the Huns emerged through westward migrations of East Asian nomads (especially Xiongnu tribal members) and subsequent admixture between them and Sakas.
• From the References cited above I, Ch. Reyansh Singh would like to write that, "The so-called Hun(a)s or Xiong-nu are a branch (Clan) of The Great Ta-Yue-Che race (Great Jats'), which have the very firstly mentions as Houng-nou or Hiung-nu in history. And in India, is still existing as a Jat clan today calls Heng or Henga."

Varients

The Huns In the texts of Known as (Variants) Sogdiana XWN or XWM Sanskrit (Indian) Hūṇa or Śvēta Hūṇa Chinese Xiōngnú Middle Persian Ẋyon Latin Hunni Greek Οὖννοι (Ounnoi) Armenian Hon/Hon-k’ Syriac Hunāyē Refrences:- Atwood's Huns and Xioungnu. In India Hunas are Recognized as Henga Jats in India.

Redirects

1. Heng-nu
2. Hiungnu
3. Hsing-nu
4. Xiong-nu
5. Hing-nu
6. Hingnu
7. Hsingnu
8. Hing-nu
9. Hingu
10. Hiung-nu
11. Hiang-nu
12. Hiyung-nu
13. Hiyang-nu
14. Huna/Hun
15. Heng/Henga
16. Hephthalites
17. Aftalites
18. Huna Jats
19. XWN
20. XWM

The Inter-relation between Hunas, Xiong-nu, Kidarites, Hephthalites and Alchons

In 1757, Joseph de Guignes first proposed a connection between the European Huns and the Xiongnu on basis of the similarity between the nomadic lifestyles of both peoples and the similarity of their names. In making this equation, de Guignes was not interested in establishing any sort of cultural, linguistic, or ethnic connection between the Xiongnu and the Huns: instead, it was the manner of political organisation that made both "Huns". The equation was then popularized by its acceptance by Edward Gibbon in his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789). David Curtis Wright derives the commonly repeated that the Great Wall of China was built to repel the Xiongnu from a passage. Gibbon argued, from his reading of de Guignes, that the Iranian ("White") and European Huns derived from two distinct divisions of the Xiongnu that survived the destruction of their nation near China. After Gibbon, this thesis quickly became widely accepted among various historians of the Huns. In the late nineteenth century, the classical historian J. B. Bury questioned de Guignes and Gibbon's identification of the Huns with the Xiongnu, arguing that they merely had similar names. He later revised this position, however, and came to accept the link. At the beginning of the twentieth century, German Sinologist Friedrich Hirth discovered passages in the Chinese annals, principally the Wei shu, which he believed proved the connection between the Huns and the Xiongnu. Hirth's work convinced many, and by the 1940s there was a general consensus among historians and archaeologists that the Xiongnu and the Huns were related.

The idea is supported by the readings of various article by various authors like, historian Étienne de la Vaissière (2005 and 2015), historian and linguist Christopher Atwood (2012), archaeologist Toshio Hayashi (2014),

Fang Xuanling's Book of Jin lists nineteen Xiongnu tribes: Tuge (屠各), Xianzhi (鮮支), Koutou (寇頭), Wutan (烏譚), Chile (赤勒), Hanzhi (捍蛭), Heilang (黑狼), Chisha (赤沙), Yugang (鬱鞞), Weisuo (萎莎), Tutong (禿童), Bomie (勃蔑), Qiangqu (羌渠), Helai (賀賴), Zhongqin (鐘跂), Dalou (大樓), Yongqu (雍屈), Zhenshu (真樹) and Lijie (力羯).

Etymologically evidences

The chief piece of evidence connecting the Xiongnu to the other Hunnic groups is the apparent similarity of their names. These are recorded in Chinese as Xiōngnú, Greek Οὖννοι (Ounnoi), Latin Hunni, Sogdian Xwn, Sanskrit Hūṇa, Middle Persian Ẋyon and Armenian Hon-k’.

• H. W. Bailey believes, "The equivalence of the meaning of Ẋyon to Hun is shown by Syriac use of Hūn to refer to the people called Ẋyon in Persian sources, while Zoroastrian texts in Persian use Ẋyon for the people called Hūṇa in Sanskrit."
• Étienne de la Vaissière has shown that Xiōngnú and the Sogdian and Sanskrit terms Xwm and Hūṇa were used to refer to the same people. He also demonstrates that the Huns who arrived in Europe are from 370 onward called themselves by the name transcribed in the Chinese as "Xiongnu". Also on the same page (p.181) he argued that if the Rhomaioi of Byzantium could claim to be the political heirs of Roman, then the Huns could equally claim to be the heirs of the "Xiongnu".
• According to Schottky Martin, "The Alchon Huns, meanwhile, identify themselves as ALXONO on their coinage, with xono representing Hun: they were identified as Hūṇa in Indian sources."
• Peter B. Golden wrote The Hephthalites identify themselves as OIONO, a version of Hun, on their coinage.
• As per Kim & Golden "the so-called "White Huns" by the Greek historian Procopius and "White Hūṇa" (Śvēta Hūṇa) by Sanskrit authors are same people."
• P. Atwood further mentiones "The Chinese Wei shu attested a title Wēnnàshā for the Kidarite rulers from Bactria who conquered Sogdia, which Christopher Atwood and Kazuo Ennoki interpret as a Chinese transcription of Onnashāh, meaning king of the Huns; the Byzantines also called these people Huns."
• Both de la Vaissière and Kim regard the apparent use of the same name by the European and Iranian Huns as "a clear indication that they regarded this link with the old steppe tradition of imperial grandeur as valuable and significant, a sign of their original identity and future ambitions no doubt".
• The Greeks states the Kidara's as Ounnoi(Hunnic variant in Greek).
• Rezakhani Khodadad, pointing to the Middle Persian apocalyptic book Zand-i Wahman yasn, argued that a name attested there, Karmīr Xyōn ("red Chionites") could represent a translation of Alkhonno, with the first element, al being a Turkic word for red and the second element representing the ethnic name "Hun".

Historical and textual evidences

• The Hephthalites were descendants "of the Gaoju or the Da Yuezhi" according to the earliest chronicles such as the Weishu and the Beishu.
• The 6th-century Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea (History of the Wars, Book I. ch. 3), related Hephthalites with the Huns of Europe.
• Both Denis Sinor and Maenchen-Helfen, meanwhile, note that Ammianus refers to the Huns having been "little known", not unknown, before they appeared in 370: they connect this with a mention of a people called the Khounoi by the geographer Ptolemy in the mid-second century.
• A Buddhist Monk, named Zhu Fahu (233-310 AD) translated the ethnonym "Huṇa" from Sanskrit into Chinese as "Xiongnu".
• In contemporaneous sources in India, the Alchons were mentioned as one of the Hūṇa peoples (or Hunas).
• Referring to this Translation by Zhu Fahu(mentioned avobe), Historian Étienne de la Vaissière argues that "the use of the name Huṇa in these texts has a precise political reference to the Xiongnu".
• A second important piece of textual evidence is the letter of a Sogdian merchant named Nanaivande, written in 313 CE; the letter describes raids by the "Xwn"(Sogdiana Huns) on cities in Northern China. Contemporary Chinese sources identify these same people as the Xiongnu.
• De la Vaissière, therefore, concludes that "'Hun/Xwm/Huṇa' were the exact transcriptions of the name that the Chinese had rendered as 'Xiongnu'".
• Another important historical document supporting the identification is the Wei shu. Scholar Friedrich Hirth (1909) believed that a passage in the Wei Shu identified the Xiongnu as conquering the Alans and the Crimea, the first conquests of the European Huns. Otto Maenchen-Helfen was able to show that Hirth's identification of the people and land conquered as the Alans and the Crimea was untenable, however: the Wei Shu instead referred to a conquest of Sogdia by a group that Maenchen-Helfen identified with the Hephthalites, and much of the text was corrupted by later interpolations from other sources.
• However, De la Vaissière notes that a Chinese encyclopedia known as the Tongdian (of 801 CE) preserves parts of the original Wei Shu, including the passage discussed by Hirth and Maenchen-Helfen: he notes that it describes the conquest of Sogdia by the Xiongnu at around 367, the same time that Persian and Armenian sources describe the Persians fighting the Chionites.
• Hyun Jin Kim also mentioned a "general consensus among Historians that the Chionites and the Huns were one and the same".
• A fifth-century Chinese geographical work, the Shi-san zhou ji by Gan Yi, notes that the Alans and Sogdians were under different rulers (the European Huns and the Chionites respectively), suggesting some believed that they had been conquered by the same people.
• Using numismatic evidence, Robert Göbl argued that there were four distinct invasions or migrations of Hunnic people into Persia.
• The people who invaded Iran, are according to Martin Schottky are directly connected to the european Hun.
• De la Vaissière has challenged this interpretation through his use of Chinese sources. He argues that all of the Hunnic groups migrated West in a single migration in the middle of the fourth-century, rather than in successive waves as other scholars have argued. He further argues that "the different groups of Huns were firmly based in Central Asia at the middle of the fourth century. Thus they bring a unity of time and place to the question of the origins of the Huns of Europe".
• Buddhist translator Dharamraksha (Ch. Zhu Fahu, 竺法護), in his translating works of Buddhist sutras namely, Tathagatacintyaguhyanirdesha-sutra (of 288 AD) and Lalitavisatara (of 308 AD) translated the term Hun into chinese as Xiongnu. According to De la Vaissière "As a man of Yuezhi ancestry working at Dunhuang, he would presumably well informed about these things(of translation).
• Around 450 CE, Procopius styled the Hephthalites as White Huns.
• de la Vaissière further notes that according to many later chronicles "the Hephthalites were descends from Yuechi people.
• The Armenian historian Faustus (5th Century) of Byzantium mentions, "Persian King Shahpur II was fighting with Chionite Huns on the eastern front in 358 CE.

Archaeology evidences

The most significant potential archaeological link between the European Huns and the Xiongnu are the similar bronze cauldrons used by the Huns and the Xiongnu. The cauldrons used by the European Huns appear to be a further development of cauldrons that had been used by the Xiongnu.

• Kim argues that these cauldrons shows that the European Huns preserved the Xiongnu cultural identity.
• Toshio Hayashi has argued that one might be able to track the westward migration of the Huns/Xiongnu by following the finds of these cauldrons.
• Heather notes that both groups made use of similar weapons.
• According to Kim, "the practices of Artificial cranial deformation is used by the Hephthalites and the European Huns, which indicates a connection between them."
• More recent archaeological finds suggest that the first-century so-called "Kenkol group" from around the Syr Darya river performed artificial cranial deformation and might be associated with the Xiongnu.

Ethnographic and Linguistic evidences

• The Xiongnu were bearded people. And the Iranian Huns are also had Beards. and these Iranian Hunas also shaves their beard as mentions in a Sankrit work, Sahitya Darpana.
• As a cultural similarity between Huns of Europe and Xiongnu, we should must remember that they both use to carry a Sword Cult namely Kenglu and "Sword of Mars" in Xiongnu and Hunnic records respectively.
• de la Vaissière considers that the Hepthalites were part of the great Hunnic migrations of the 4th century CE from the Altai region that also reached Europe, and that these Huns "were the political, and partly cultural, heirs of the Xiongnu".
• This massive migration was apparently triggered by climate change, with aridity affecting the mountain grazing grounds of the Altay Mountains during the 4th century CE.
• The Hephthalites use to appoint vassal kings in their region as inherited from Xiong-Nu, european Huns also have the similar system of ruling.

Genetics

I thought that after this, all your doubts will be clear; I hope so!

• There is a scientific Journal publishing weekly in London, namely "Nature". According to a genetic study in May 2018, published in it, " the Huns were of mixed East Asian and West Eurasian origin. The authors of the study suggested that the Huns were descended from Xiongnu who expanded westwards and mixed with Sakas."
• In November 2019, Neparáczki Endre studied on their DNA reports, and had examined the remains of three males from three separate 5th century Hunnic cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin. They were found to be carrying the paternal haplogroups Q1a2, R1b1a1b1a1a1 and R1a1a1b2a2. In modern Europe, Q1a2 is rare and has its highest frequency among the Székelys. All of the Hunnic males studied were determined to have had brown eyes and black or brown hair, and to have been of mixed European and East Asian ancestry. The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns.
• Christine Keyser found that the Xiongnu shared certain paternal and maternal haplotypes with the Huns, and suggested on this basis that the Huns were descended from Xiongnu, who they in turn suggested were descended from Scytho-Siberians.
• A genetic study published in a Journal namely, "Nature" in May 2018 examined the remains of five Xiongnu. The four samples of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroups R1, R1b, O3a and O3a3b2, while the five samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to haplogroups D4b2b4, N9a2a, G3a3, D4a6 and D4b2b2b. The examined Xiongnu were found to be of mixed East Asian and West Eurasian origin, and to have had a larger amount of East Asian ancestry than neighboring Sakas, Wusun and Kangju. The evidence suggested that the Huns emerged through westward migrations of East Asian nomads (especially Xiongnu tribal members) and subsequent admixture between them and Sakas.
• According to a genetic study published in Journal "Scientific Reports" in november 2019, the remains of three individuals buried at Hunnic cemeteries in the Carpathian Basin in the 5th century AD. The results from the study supported the theory that the Huns (of europe too), were descended from the Xiongnu.
• As per a genetic study published in Journal "Human Genetics" in July 2020 which examined the remains of 52 individuals excavated from the Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu cemetery in Mongolia propose the ancestors of the Xiongnu as an admixture between Scythians and Siberians and support the idea that the Huns are their descendants.

Conclusion

The Huns of Europe are descend from Xiongnu people and in India are known as Henga Jats.

Then Why History Illustrates an Illusion?

As we have already shown that, The Xiong-nu and Huns were one and same people, even genetically proved; but there stills a numerous varieties of characteristics variations (like, in appearance) found in between them, how could we explain this?
For example, as we have already wrote; with reference to the Sanskrit work "Sahitya Darpana" that, the Iranian Hunas have long beards but what about European Huns? And their Great leader namely "Attila"? As described by Priscus (Greek Historian, 5th Century CE) mentions that Attila had a thin beard.
As for this, I would like to recall the writings of B S Dahiya as under "The Sakas, the Hunas, called themselves Jats because they were Jats and they never dreamed of changing their names. Therefore, we may say with confidence that Hunas were Indo-Europeans by race, as is supported by recent excavations in Outer-Mongolia, Central Asia and other parts of Asia and Europe. But this does not exclude the possibility of some Mongoloid camp followers, or even mixing of blood. We know for certain that a Jat is proverbially liberal in the choice of life partners - he may take as wife a woman from almost any source. Any woman taken by a Jat is called Jatni, (Jāṭ Ke Āai, Jāṭni Kahalāi)."

Here, author Dahiya mentions a very important notice that the Inter-caste marriage or marrying in another ethnicity was not only a Jat custom but of Aryans too, due to which, when these people reaches to different places and established different Dynasties were persistently taking Queens/Wives from other tribes as their ancestral traditions; So, it's quite obvious of variation (in appearance) between the same people of different regions.

For those, that still having doubts, let me ask, does you and your brother or sister (same as your gender) looks identicles to each other? Obviously not, So for the authors which tries to differentiate between Huns, Kidar(ite)s, Hephthalites, and Xiong-nu on the basis of their appearance, I would like to ask the same question. If there is a lot of difference between Father and his own Son, then how could these people (Huns) have similar Faces? While they were consequently taking girls from other tribes as well?

Point to be noted is whether, the mother and father belongs to same ethnicity dose not matters as, if we take an example of nowadays; I would like to ask that how many people belongs to a pure stock (i.e., mother, father and even ancestors have same ethnicity), are looking similar in their appearance? This is because that the mother and father both belongs to different Sects (Gotras) of same ethnicity, i.e., of different in their clan/blood in "Jats" this is the reason that why father and his children looks so differ from each other (because, child gets heritage traits from both Father and Mother, so they looks differ from both), these variations are occurs during the process of Zygote formation, a fact well known.

Leave their appearance (looks) and have a look towards their traditions, i.e., same weapons, cauldrons, transcription by ancient people etc. So, we could finally concludes that, the Huna and Xiong-nu were one and the same people, belonging to the race of Ta-Yue-che, which means Great Jats.

Further Readings in their relation

• “The Steppe World and the Rise of the Huns,” in M. Maas (dir.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila, Cambridge, 2014, p. 175-192 by Etienne de la Vaissière
• Kim, Hyun Jin (2013). The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107009066.
• Christopher P. Atwood's "Huns and Xiongnu, New Thoughts on an old Problem"
• Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin - A genetic study.

The Xiong-Nu Empire

Xiongnu Hun Empire at it's Greatest Extend, 2nd century BC

Shanyi-yu(Chan-yu) was their Title (adopted) meaning, "The Great Chief" and Shao means King(p.31)

List of rulers

00. Touman - not a Chanyu → 01. Modu, 201-174 BC → 02. Laoshang, 174-160 BC → 03. Junchen, 160-127 BC → 04. Yizhixie, 127-114 BC → 05. Wuwei, 114-104 BC → 06. Zhanshilu, 104-102 BC → 07. Goulihu, 102-101 BC → 08. Judihou, 101-96 BC → 09. Hulugu, 96-85 BC → 10. Huyendi, 85-70 BC → 11. Xulüquanqu, 70-60 BC → 12. Woyenqudi, 60-58 BC → 13. Huhanye, 58-31 BC → 14. Zhizhi, 56-36 BC → 15. Fuzhulei Ruodi, 30-20 BC → 16. Souxie Ruodi, 20-11 BC → 17. Cheya Ruodi, 11-7 BC → 18. Wuzhuliu Ruodi, 7 BC-AD 14 → 19. Wulei Ruodi, AD 14-19 → 20. Huduershidaogao Ruodi, AD 19-47 →

Rulers of the Northern Xiongnu: 21. Punu, AD 47-84 → 22. Sanmulouzhi, AD 84-89 → 23. Yuchujian, AD 89-93 → 24. Aojianrizhuwangfenghou, AD 93-123 →

Rulers of the Southern Xiongnu: 01. Huhanye, AD 48-56 → 02. Chufuyudi, AD 56-58 → 03. Yifayuliudi, AD 58-59 → 04. Xiandongshizhuhoudi, AD 59-63 → 05. Qiuchuzhulindi, AD 63-64 → 06. Houyeshizhuhoudi, AD 64-85 → 07. Yituyuliudi, AD 85-88 → 08. Xiulanshizhuhoudi, AD 88-93 → 09. Anguo, AD 93-94 → 10. Tingdushizhuhoudi, AD 94-98 → 11. Wanshishizhuhoudi, AD 98-124 → 12. Wujihoushizhudi, AD 124-128 → 13. Chuderuoshizhuzi, AD 128-140 → 14. Cheniu, AD 140-143 → 15. Hulanruoshizhuzi, AD 143-147 → 16. Yilingshizhujiu, AD 147-172 → 17. Tuderuoshizhujiu, AD 172-178 → 18. Huzhen, AD 178-179 → 19. Qiangqiu, AD 179-188 → 20. Techishizhuhou, AD 188-195 → 21. Hushuchuan, AD 195-216 → 22. Liubao, AD 216-279 → 23. Liuyuan, AD 279-304.

Source- Article "The Xiongnu Empire" written by the author Ihsan. (2015)

Former Zhao Dynasty

Besides Liuhan, the former Zhao, later Zhao, northern Liang, and Daxia were established by Xiongnu descendants

Though Liu Yuan's own ethnicity, especially whether he was a “pureblood” Xiongnu person, is open to debate, the Former Zhao has been generally regarded as a Xiongnu regime.

Later Zhao

The founder of this dynasty was Shi Le, who according to book of Jin was a descend from multi-ethnic Xiongnu tribe known as Qiāngqú (羌渠).

Northern Liang Dynasty

It was founded by Juqu clan of Xiong-nu tribe.

Xia Kingdom

The Xia Kingdom during the rule of Sixteen Kingdoms in China was established by Helian Bobo.

The Hunnic Empire

The Hunic Empire Under Attila The Great

Flag Of The Hunnic Empire

A Huge Empire From about 370 to 469A.D. standed through over the Central Asian region of Steppe to modern Germany, although also extendedly stretched from Danube River to Baltic Sea. Ancient accounts suggest that the Huns had settled in the lands north-west of the Caspian Sea as early as the 3rd Century. By the latter half of the century, about 370, the Caspian Huns mobilized, destroying a tribe of Alans to their west. Pushing further westward the Huns ravaged and destroyed an Ostrogothic kingdom. In 395, a Hun raid across the Caucasus mountains devastated Armenia, there they captured Erzurum, besieged Edessa and Antioch, even reaching Tyre in Syria.

In 408, the Hun Uldin invaded the Eastern Roman province of Moesia but his attack was checked and Uldin was forced to retreat. The Huns were excellent archers, firing from their horses. They engaged in hand to hand combat wearing heavy, strong armor. They employed fake retreat and ambush tactics. They preferred fighting on flat grounds (steppe) where they could maneuver on their horses and fire their arrows upwards to rain down on the enemy from above, sitting low on the horse to do so. They are said to have slept and eaten on horseback.
From 420, a chieftain named Oktar began to weld the disparate Hunnic tribes under his banner. He was succeeded by his brother, Rugila who became the leader of the Hun confederation, uniting the Huns into a cohesive group with a common purpose. He lead them into a campaign in the Western Roman Empire, through an alliance with Roman General Aetius. This gave the Huns even more notoriety and power. He planned a massive invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire in the year 434, but died before his plans could come to fruition. His heirs to the throne were his nephews, Bleda and Attila, who ruled in a dual kingship. They divided the Hunnic lands between them, but still regarded the empire as a single entity.
Bleda died in 445 CE. & Attila rules the empire then till his death in 453 CE.

Kings of the Huns

List of kings and ruler of european Hunnic Empire with reigned timeline.

• Balamber/Valamir (died circa 345C.E.)
• Uldin (390-411 C.E.)
• Donatus (d 412 C.E.)
• Charato (411-430C.E.)
• Octar (d. 431 C.E.)—Shared power with Rua.
• Rua/Ruga (d. 434 C.E.)—Sole ruler in 432
• Bleda (434- 445 C.E.) Dual kingship with Attila
• Attila (434-453 C.E.)
• Ellac (453-455 C.E.)
• Dengizik (d. 469 C.E.)

Great Attila

Main article: Attila

Portrate shows, "The Great Ruler of Hunas namely Attila"

Attila(r.434-March 453A.D.) was King of the Huna Jats from 434A.D. to his death in March 453A.D. According to an accreditation he was born in 406 A.D. but in support of this, no official records are available for any justification. Hence it's just an accreditation!

His Father was Mundzuk, a brother of ruler Uldin and Octar. And Attila's elder brother was Bleda.

Attila was a great ruler, under him the Hunas had shaken over the roots of the both the Roman Empires.
According to Capt.DS Ahlawat, "Attila was descend from Jat Chief Balamir Hun and having connection with the branch of Jats to which the Indo-Scythians had connected."

Author Michael A. Babcock writes in his famous book 'The Night Attila Died' that, "Before Saddam, before Hitler, before Napoleon— there was Attila. “Born to shake the nations,” the feared and reviled leader of the Huns cut a wide and bloody swath of death and destruction across fifth-century Europe".

White Hunnic Empire

White Hunnic Empire.

As per author Kim, "Furthermore possessed the familiar Xiongnu Hun system of appointing vassal kings (a practice also found among the European Huns), e.g. the king of Zabulistan who ruled an almost autonomous fief within the empire and was instrumental in spearheading the Hephthalite conquest of northwestern India. As in the old Xiongnu Empire collective governance of the state was practised by several high ranking aristocrats (with new titles such as yabghus (borrowed probably from either the Kangju or Kushans) and tegins). In India the Kidarites and then the Hephthalite Huns also introduced the rule of multiple rajas who held territories in ‘fief ’ to their common overlord the Hunnic supreme king or emperor. Thus a form of quasi-feudalism was introduced to India and a transformation in the administration of revenues took place. The Kidarites are known to have created conditions favourable to international trade and they maintained the monetary and economic system of the regions they conquered without disturbing them. In fact Hunnic rule of Central Asia marked the beginning of the golden age of Sogdian cities such as Samarkand, Bukhara, Paykend and Panjikent, which in many ways exposes the hollowness of the legend of Hunnic ‘destructiveness’. In Khwarezm (northwestern Uzbekistan) at sites such as Barak-tam Hunnic rulers erected two-storey castles with ceremonial halls and carpets in a style that is, according to the great Inner Asian archaeologist Tolstov who excavated the site, are distinct and different from previous local structures. The symbiosis and also dichotomy between the dominant ruling steppe pastoralist, i.e. the Huns who constituted much of the imperial army and high-ranking nobility, and the conquered sedentary local population seems to have persisted throughout the Hunnic period (both Kidarite and Hephthalite). However, the upper elite of the White Huns seems to have adapted to local conditions and traditions fairly quickly, readily absorbing elements of Kushan-Indian, Sassanian Persian and Sogdian cultures, especially in their art and architecture. Many Hephthalites, as Litvinsky has shown, were also only semi-nomadic/pastoralists as evidenced by archaeological sites such as the town of Kafyr-qala (southern Tajikistan) in which large quantiies of Hephthalite coins, sealings and even inscriptions have been discovered, clearly indicative of an extended Hephthalite presence. The famous giant Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, which tragically were destroyed by the infamous Taliban, were probably built under White Hunnic rule and these Buddhas together with other marvellous artefacts discovered in the same area are a testament to White Hunnic religious pluralism, cultural sophistication and cosmopolitanism. The coinage of the White Huns shows an astonishing multi-lingualism employing legends inscribed in Sogdian, Middle Persian, Bactrian and Brahmi. The Hephthalites are also known to have used Bactrian, Pahlavi, Kharosthi and Brahmi. Like the Hunnic-Germanic kings of Europe, Huns of Central Asia were keen to present themselves as legitimate heirs to the preceding rulers of the regions they conquered. In the case of the Kidarites in particular, as mentioned briefly above, the legacy of the Kushans seems to have been treated with particular care and attention, so much so that these Hunnic kings claimed to be the heirs to the Kushan kings. The rhetoric of the restoration of the Kushan state may have been a very clever propaganda tool employed by the Kidarite Huns to gain the loyalty of their new subjects. Just a century prior to the Hunnic arrival the Kushans had been overwhelmed by the Persian Sassanians. The propaganda suited the new Hunnic conquerors well and gave them a certain legitimacy in the eyes of the local population.
HUNNIC IMPACT ON IRAN AND INDIA
"The conquest of the White Huns had a lasting impact on the histories of both Iran and India. The Sassanian Persians suffered not only military humiliation and vassalage at the hands of the Huns, but also as a direct consequence of their defeats suffered a crisis of legitimacy. Before the Hunnic period the Sassanians had legitimated their overthrow of the preceding Parthian Arsacid dynasty and their usurpation of royal power by appealing to their record of military success against the Romans. Victory over the traditional aggressor (Rome), which had repeatedly sacked the Iranian capital of Ctesiphon in the second and third centuries AD and against whom the Arsacids had been increasingly impotent, was held up as the legitimizing standard of the new Sassanian dynasty. However, the embarrassing defeats suffered by the Sassanians at the hands of the Huns and the reality of the self-proclaimed ruler of both Iran and non-Iran, the Sassanian king, having to play second fiddle and pay tribute to his Hunnic overlord seriously shook the very foundations of Sassanian legitimacy based on the notion of being the victorious defender of a superior Iran against foreign enemies. The Sassanians had to come up with a new ideology to buttress their legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian aristocracy and people. What appeared was the ‘national’ history (or rather propagandistic pseudo-history) of Iran constructed around the mythical deeds of the legendary forebears of the Sassanians, the Kayanian kings. This legendary history was recast and reshaped to address pressing contemporary concerns. The Sassanians manipulated the traditional religion of Iran, Zoroastrianism, to reinvent themselves as the legitimate descendants of the legendary Kayanian kings, whom they argued were universal kings from whom even the Romans were ultimately derived. The eventual triumph of the Kayanians, after many hardships, in these legends over their arch enemies the Turanians (now equated with the Turkic peoples threatening Iran to the east, i.e. the Kidarite and Hephthalite Huns) helped alleviate somewhat the humiliating reality of Sassanian vassalage to the Huns and excuse the devastating defeats of the king of kings at the hands of the Huns. The reasoning being that the great holy Kayanians had to undergo a similar ordeal. What mattered was ‘legitimacy’. In India, as mentioned briefly above, the Kidarite and Hephthalite invasions led to the creation of a new political order. The enigmatic, possibly Hunnic states of western India and Afghanistan like the Turk Shahi realm of Kabul and Gandhara also effectively blocked the invasions of the Arab Muslims into India from the northwest. Although it is not certain, it also seems likely that the formidable Gurjara Pratihara regime (ruled from the seventh–eleventh centuries AD) of northern India, had a powerful White Hunnic element. The Gurjara Pratiharas who were likely created from a fusion of White Hunnic and native Indian elements ruled a vast empire in northern India and they also halted Arab Muslim expansion into India via Sind for centuries, thereby safeguarding India’s Hindu religion and cultural traditions from Islamization. The Muslims would eventually break through under the Turkic Ghaznavids when both the Shahis and the Gurjaras began to decline in the tenth century AD. However, by then the militant process of conversions of most of the Near East and the Iranian world, a characteristic feature of the early Caliphate (Rashidun and Umayyad), was a thing of the past and India’s religious and cultural universe, despite the imposition of Muslim overlords, was able to persist and survive the conquest. The Huns of India and their descendants may have contributed to the preservation of India’s Hindu civilization and culture from Islamization. Some of the Hunas (Huns) in India also seem to have been instrumental in the formation of the Rajputs.

Kidarite Huns (Red Hunas)

The Kidarites, or Kidara Huns, were a dynasty that ruled Bactria and adjoining parts of Central Asia and South Asia in the 4th and 5th centuries. From 320 to 467 C.E.

The Kidarites established the first of four major Xionite/Huna states in Central Asia, followed by the Alchon, the Hephthalites and the Nezak.

According to Priscus, the Sasanian Empire was forced to pay tribute to the Kidarites, until the rule of Yazdgird II (ruled 438–457), who refused payment.
The Kidarites based their capital in Samarkand, where they were at the center of Central Asian trade networks, in close relation with the Sogdians. The Kidarites had a powerful administration and raised taxes, rather efficiently managing their territories, in contrast to the image of barbarians bent on destruction given by Persian accounts.
Chinese sources explain however that the Kidarites are the Lesser Yuezhi, which would make them relatives of the Yuezhi, themselves ancestors of the Kushans.
The Sasanian efforts were disrupted in the early 5th-century by the Kidarites, who forced Yazdegerd I (r. 399–420), Bahram V (r. 420–438), and/or Yazdegerd II (r. 438–457) to pay them tribute. The 5th century Byzantine historian Priscus called them Kidarites Huns, or "Huns who are Kidarites"

Lists of Kidarite rulers

Yosada	c.335 CE
Kirada	c.335-345
Peroz Kidarite	c.345-350
Grumbates	c.353-359
Kidara	c.350-390 r.360-388
Brahmi Buddhatala	fl. c. 370
(Unknown)	fl. 388/400
Varhran (II)	fl. c. 425
Goboziko	fl. c. 450
Salanavira	mid 400s
Kunkhas	ca.460s
Vinayaditya	late 400s
Kandik	early 500s

The first known rulers of Kidarites was Kirada (reign. 335-345 CE) of Gandhar in Northwestern-India and Yosada/Yasada both Kidarite rulers ruled together. Altogether they form the first coin issues after the reign of the last Kushan ruler Kipunada (335CE)

Kirada was succeeded by Peroz (Kidarite)

Peroz Kidarite & Grumbates

Peroz Kidarite was preceded by Kirada as the new ruler of the Kidarite dynasty. He ruled from 345-353 CE. He minted his own coinage and used the title of Kushansha, ie "Kings of the Kushans" As per Khodadad Rezakhani suggestion, Peroz Kidarite was at the Siege of Amida (present, Diyarbekir, Turkey) in 359 CE, where a Kidarite army under Grumbates is known to have supported the Sassanian army of Shapur II in besieging the city held by the Romans. The coins of Peroz Kidarite founded up to 360 CE; i.e., before the rule of Kidara I but it has to noted that we find mentions of a Xiyon Ruler providing leadership to the Kidarites from 353 to 359 CE against the Sassanids' eastern front. And per Rezakhani Peroz Kidarite was in the siege of Amida 359 CE but those Huns/Chionites were led by Grumbates. We can clearly say that Peroz Kidarite was the rightful heir of the Kidarite throne after the their first known ruler Kirada in 350 CE, but Grumbates is the new ruler may chosen by Hunas or he may forcefully taken the leadership, however the suitable theory should be that Grumbates was chosen as a new leader in 353 and continued the coins issued by the Peroz Kidarite. As he might be more capable than Peroz Kidarite as a ruler? This theory is more relievable because we finds mentions in 359 CE they both took arms in a same battle "Siege of Amida" from same side in which the leader was Grumbates and Peroz Kidarite was part of Hunnic army. Now if Grumbates have taken the rule forcefully it is not likely to be easily accept the fact that they both fought together along with Sassanids against the Romans. Grumbates may be a descend from the Kidarite ruler Yosada (ca.335 CE). He was a king of Chionites (Huns) from 353 AD to 358/9 AD, and his tribe, that is Chionitæ said to have come from Transoxiana. As per Ammianus Marcellinus, he was the king of the Chionitae, a man of moderate strength, it is true, he has certain greatness of mind and distinguished by the glory of many victories.

This, Grumbates was a chief/king of Chionites (Huns) whom first attacked Sassanian emperor Shahpur II between 353 AD and 358 CE, the Xionites under Grumbates attacked in the eastern frontiers of Shapur II's empire along with other nomad tribes. However Xiyonites agreed to support Emperor Shahpur II against the romans at Siege of Amida 359 CE. They were first described by the Roman historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, who was in Bactria during 356–357 CE; he described the Chionitæ as living with the Kushans. Ammianus indicates that the Xionites had previously lived in Transoxiana and, after entering Bactria, became vassals of the Kushans, were influenced culturally by them and had adopted the Bactrian language. They had attacked the Sassanid Empire. Ammianus Marcellinus reports that in 356 CE, Shapur II was taking his winter quarters on his eastern borders, "repelling the hostilities of the bordering tribes" of the Xionites and the Euseni, a name often amended to Cuseni (meaning the Kushans). Later Shapur II made a treaty of alliance with the Chionites and the Gelani in 358 CE. Here Chionites or Xiyonites were a tribe of the Hunas.

Siege of Amida 359 CE

Fortress of Amida, built by roman emperor Contantious II

The siege of Amida had taken place in 359 CE, when the Sassanian Emperor Shahpur II make a decision to invade Roman territories in 359 CE. Amida is a town today known as Diyarbakır, Turkey. It was a strong Roman hold and the walls of the fortress of Amida was made by Roman emperor Contantious II (r.337-361)
Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman army officer, provided a vivid description of the siege in his work (Res Gestae). Ammianus served on the staff of Ursicinus, the Magister Equitum (master of horse) of the East, during the events of the siege. The son of Grumbates lost his life while inspecting the defences of Amida, was shot and killed with an arrow shot by the city garrison. Ammianus described how Grumbates, outraged at his son's death, demanded revenge from the Romans: he compares the death to that of Patroclus at Troy. The Sassanids began the attack with siege towers and attempted to take the city quickly, but were largely unsuccessful.

After the capture of the city, most of the Roman leaders were executed, the city was sacked, the residential areas were destroyed, and the population was deported to Khuzestan province in Persia. Autumn having arrived, the Persians could advance no further. Aside from having spent the campaign season in the reduction of a single city, Shapur II had lost as many as 30,000 in the siege, and his barbarian allies from the east deserted him due to the heavy casualties.

Kidara

Kidara was the famous and first major ruler of the Kidarite Kingdom, which replaced the Indo-Sasanians in northwestern India, in the areas of Kushanshahr, Gandhara, Kashmir and Punjab. It is thought the Kidarites had initially invaded Sogdiana and Bactria from the north circa 300 CE. Kidara invaded the Indo-Sassanian territories of Turkharistan and Gandhar. He was a Hun(a) descendent. He led the Huns from 350 to 390 CE. He ruled as a sovereign ruler from 360 to 385-90 CE. Kidara having established himself in Tukharistan and Gandhara, took the title of Kushanshah which until that time had been used by the rulers of the Indo-Sasanian kingdom. He thus founded the eponymous new dynasty of the Kidarites in northwestern India. The Kidarites also claimed to have been successors of the Kushans, possibly due to their ethnic proximity. The Kushano-Sasanian ruler Varahran (Bahram Kushashah, ca.330) during the second phase of his reign, had to introduce the Kidarite tamga in his coinage minted at Balkh in Bactria, circa 340-345. The tamgha replaced the nandipada symbol which had been in use since Vasudeva I (Kushan emperor) suggesting that the Kidarites had now taken control, first under their ruler Kirada. Then ram horns were added to the effigy of Varahran on his coinage for a brief period under the Kidarite ruler Peroz, and raised ribbons were added around the crown ball under the Kidarite ruler Kidara. In effect, Varahran has been described as a "puppet" of the Kidarites. By 365, the Kidarite ruler Kidara I was placing his name on the coinage of the region, and assumed the title of Kushanshah. In Gandhara too, the Kidarites minted silver coins in the name of Varahran, until Kidara also introduced his own name there.
Some of the Kidarites apparently became a ruling dynasty of the Kushan Empire, leading to the epithet "Little Kushans".

Kidara Successors

In their Indian territories the Kidarites also issued gold coins based on the model of the Late Kushan dinars with the name of Kanishka (III or, II if one follows Göbl). The Kidarite coins of this group bear the name of Kidara written in Brahmı script, together with the names of dependent rulers or successors of Kidara, on the obverse. The earliest coins are the early Sogdian issues with the name of Kidara (not earlier than the mid-fourth century).
The original nucleus of the Kidarite state was the territory of Tokharistan (now northern Afghanistan and southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), which was previously part of the Kushan Empire and subsequently of the Kushano-Sasanians. The capital of the Kidarites, the city of Ying-chien-shih, was probably located at the ancient capital of Bactria, near Balkh. The lands of the Kidarites were known in Armenian sources as ‘Kushan lands’.
The Pei-shih relates that Kidara, having mustered his troops, crossed the mountains and subjected Gandhara to his rule, as well as four other territories to the north of it. Thus, during Kidara’s reign, the Kidarite kingdom occupied vast territories to the north and south of the Hindu Kush. According to another passage from the Pei-shih, referring to the Lesser Yüeh-chih, the principal city of the Kidarites south of the Hindu Kush was situated near present day Peshawar and called (in its Chinese transcription) Fu-lou-sha (Ancient Chinese, pyəu-ləu-sa, which probably represents Purushapura). Its ruler was Kidara’s son, whose name is not mentioned.
Historians have found it difficult to determine the exact period of Kidara and his successors' reign, one reason being that, from the second half of the third century to the fifth century, news reaching China about events in the Western Regions was generally sporadic and patchy. Li Yennien, the author of the Pei-shih, writes that ‘from the time of the Yan-wei (386–550/557) and Chin (265–480), the dynasties of the “Western Territories” swallowed each other up and it is not possible to obtain a clear idea of events that took place there at that time’. A painstaking textual analysis enabled Enoki (and Matsuda before him) to establish that information about Kidara in the Pei-shih was based on the report of Tung Wan sent to the West in 437. From this we can infer that, although the Chinese sources do not provide any dates in connection with Kidara, the Pei-shih describes the situation as it existed in c. 437. On the other hand, Kidara’s rise to power, the founding of his state and the annexation of the territories to the south of the Hindu Kush (including Gandhara) should be dated to an earlier period, that is to say, some time between 390 and 430, but probably before 410. The Kidarites’ advance to the south-east apparently continued even in the middle of the fifth century. This is indirectly proved by Indian inscriptions depicting the events which befell the Gupta king, Kumaragupta I (413–455), when a considerable portion of central and western Panjab was under Kidarite rule. Thus, it was in the first half of the fifth century that the greatest territorial expansion of the Kidarite state occurred. However, as generally Author Dahiya again gives a beautiful account of the genealogy and successions made during this period as under, "The Chinese work Pei-She, refers to a king of Ta Yue-che (i.e., Great Jats) and called him Ki-to-lo which has been rendered by historians as Kidara, perhaps, because in the Chinese language, 't' is used for 't', 'th', 'd', etc. But, the Chinese name She-ki-lo is rendered as Sakala where both Ki and Lo are rendered as Ka and La. So, Ki-to-lo can be rendered, as Katara with equal justification. In fact the word Kedara, was taken as Ketara in Eastern India, as per Brihat-Kalpa Sutra Bhasya. Paul Pelliot supposed that they (the Kidarites) were a clan of Tukhars (Takkhars), perhaps, because they were settled in Turkharistan area. It is generally agreed that Ki-to-lo (Katara or Kidara) is a dynastic name. In fact, it is a clan name and Katariya Jats are even now found in Rohtak district, e.g., in village Samchana. This is further proved from the Chinese annals Pei She itself as it says that Ki-to-lo, the king, was attacked by Jujuan and further it says that another Ki-to-lo was pressed westwards by the Hiungnu (Hunas or Henga Jats). Again Ki-to-lo is the name of a country whose ambassador visited China in 477 A.D. according to Wei Shu. This is the same story of a clan name used for the king as well as for the people and the country over which he ruled. This thing happened, with Kasvans (Kusanas) the Gorayas, the Takkhars and so on. But the important thing is that this clan name Katara/Kidara, was used for a very long time on coins in Kashmir, by king Pravarasen II, son of Toramana and also in Punjab by kings named Bhasvan, Kusala, Prakasa, Siladitya, Kritavirya, etc., about whom nothing else is known. Only their coins show that they were Kidarites or Katariya Jats. The first Jat king called Ketara/Kidara, when pressed by another Jat tribe, named Janjuan (Jujuan of the Chinese), came to Balkh and from there attacked. India, occupying Gandhara and four other kingdoms, while his son took Purushpura, i.e., Peshawar, before 436 A.D. Altekar however, holds on numismatic evidence, that Kidarites rose to power in about 340 A.D. In 356/57 A.D. Shahpuhr II of Iran attacked them in Gandhara and the Katariya Jats sought help from Dharan Jats under Samudragupta, and in 367/68 A.D. they crushed the power of the Iranian king in a fierce battle. In 375 A.D. the first king Kidara/Kitara was succeeded by his son, named Piru, who extended his power further into India and again Piru is a Jat clan. He was succeeded by Varaharan. Barhana a village in Rohtak district, seems to have been named after him. Piru and Kedar are personal names of many Jats of today."

Tobazini

Tobazini, Gobazini or Goboziko (ca. 450 CE.) was a ruler of Kidarites in southern Central Asia. He is only known from his coinage, found in Bactria and Northern Afghanistan. The legends on his coins are in Bactrian, but they are often difficult to read: a typical legend reads t/gobazini/o šauo "King Tobazini". After Tobazini, the Hephthalites adopted the coinage of Peroz I as their model for their own coinage in Bactria, without inscribing the name of their rulers, contrary to their predecessors the Kidarites and the Alchon Huns. His coins often use a symbol, which is similar as one of the symbols of the Alchon Huns in Gandhara and Kabul (besides), but also the symbol of the Imperial Hephthalites, and is a possible indicator of the control of Samarkand, where it was used extensively in the local coinage.

King Kunkhas, Vinayaditya and Kandik

Kunkhas is a notable name to be found in names of successors of Kidara I, he is mentioned by Priscus as ruling in Balkh in 460s. As per E.V. Zeimal, in 460s "the ruler of the Kidarites was Kunkhas, whose father (the source does not name him) had earlier refused to continue to pay tribute to the Sasanians. Peroz (Sassanian emperor), however, no longer had the strength to continue the eastern campaign; in 464, according to Priscus, the envoys of Peroz turned to Byzantium for financial support to ward off invasion by the Kidarites but it was refused. In an attempt to put an end to the war, Peroz made peace overtures to King Kunkhas, offering him his sister’s hand in marriage, but sent him a woman of lowly birth instead. The deception was soon discovered and Kunkhas decided to seek revenge. He asked Peroz to send him experienced Iranian officers to lead his troops. Peroz sent 300 of these ‘military instructors’, but when they arrived Kunkhas ordered a number of them to be killed and sent the others back mutilated to Iran, with the message that this was his revenge for Peroz’s deception. The ensuing war against Kunkhas and the Kidarites ended in 467 with the capture of their capital city of ‘Balaam’. It appears that the Hephthalites were again Peroz’s allies, as they had been in his struggle with Hormizd for the throne of Iran. This put a final end to Kidarite rule in Tokharistan. After their defeat the Kidarites were probably forced to retreat to Gandhara, where, as previously mentioned, the Hephthalites again caught up with them at the end of the fifth century."

So, the history goes like, Kunkhas's father {may be lord Ularg of Samarkand, see section, Kidarite king Ularg of Samarqand (5th century CE).} refused to pay tributes to the Sassanids; the Sassanian Emperor Peroz was not strong enough to confront with Kunkhas in a single stand battle, and as resulted the envoys of Peroz turned to Byzantium for financial support to ward off invasion by the Kidarites but it was refused in order to avoid war Peroz made peace treaty with the Kidarite ruler Kunkhas in 464/5. And offers his sister's marriage with Kunkhas but sent some other woman, When Kunkhas got to know about this he asked militarry personals from Peroz to train his cavalry however the 300 men sent were mostly killed and few left alive returned with the news that Kunkhas killed rest of men in order to avenge the situation when Peroz sent some other woman by saying that she's his sister. And in 466/7 Peroz with the help of his old allies Hephthalites (a rising power) under the Hephthalite King Mahema, confronted and defeated Kunkhas in 467 CE and captured the Kidara state's capital Baalam (or Balkh) and the King Kunkhas retreated to Gandhara and then may to Kashmir, as coins of one of Kidarite successors King Vinayaditya (late 5th century CE) found in Jammu & Kashmir whose successor was King Kandik (early 5th Century CE). At one point, the Kidarites withdrew from Gandhara, and the Alchons took over their mints from the time of Khingila. By 520, Gandhara was definitely under Hephthalite (Alxono) control, according to Chinese pilgrims. In 477 the Kidarites in Gandhara had sent an embassy to China, but the Chinese pilgrim Sung Yün, who visited Gandhara in 520, noted that the Hephthalites had conquered the country and set up their own ruler. ‘Two generations then passed.’ On this basis, Marshall assumes that the invasion took place earlier (reckoning one generation to be 30 years: 520 – 60 = 460).

Alchon Hunas (White Hunas)

Empire Ruled by Alchon Hunas

Alchon Huns had established an Empire during 4th & 6th Century C.E. They were first mentioned as being located in Paropamisus, and later they expanded in south-east into the Punjab and central India, as far as Eran and Kausambi. They had Ruled about 370 or 400 to 670 CE. Khingila (c.430 CE) was recognized as the founder of the Empire! The Alchons have long been considered as a part or a sub-division of the Hephthalites, or as their eastern branch They were a branch of Hephthalites or White Hunas in the time of Toramana, the Hephthalites in India began to operate independently of the Central Asian branch, though the link between them does not seem to have been broken.

Alcono Huna rulers List

Ruler	reign
anonymous rulers	(370s - 430 CE)
Khingila	(c. 430 – 490 CE)
Ramanila	(circa. 455 - 490 CE)
Mehama	(c. 461 – 493 CE)
Javukha/Zabocho	(c. mid 5th – early 6th CE)
Lakhana Udayaditya	(c. 490's CE)
Aduman	?
Toramana	(c. 490 – 515 CE)
Mihirakula	(c. 515 – 540 CE)
Pravarasena	(c. 530 – 590 CE)
Gokarna	(c. 590/1 – 597 CE)
Narendraditya Khinkhila (Toramana II)	(c. 597 – 633 CE)
Yudhishthira	(c. 633-666 CE)

Anonymous rulers

It is believed that Hephthalites (Alkans/Alxono-s) took over Bactria around 370 CE under their anonymous chiefs or Kings, the name of these chiefs have not been inscribed in the history. They took control of Bactria from Sassanians (& Kushano-Sassanids) and Kidarites first the Kidarites took this control around 335 CE, then the Alchon Huns from around 370 CE, who would follow up with the invasion of India a century later, and lastly the Hephthalites from around 450 CE.
Through their coinage of the earlier design has yielded the name Thujana (*Thuṃjina) and is attributed to the first ruler, Tunjina. Then we find coins inscribed Shahi Javukha or Shahi Javuvla.

Khingila

Khingila I (Bactrian: χιγγιλο Khingilo, Brahmi script: Khi-ṇgi-la, Middle Chinese: 金吉剌 Jīnjílà, Persian: شنگل Shengel; c.430-490) was the founding king of the Hunnic Alchono dynasty. Another Hunnic chief/king Khushnavaz (or Akhshunwar, ca.458 CE.) was contemporary with him.
In response to the migration of the Wusun (who were hard-pressed by the Rouran) from Zhetysu to the Pamir region, Khingila united the Uars (Avars) and the Xionites (Xiyon Hunas) in 460AD, and establishing the Hepthalite dynasty.
According to the Syrian compilation of Church Historian Zacharias Rhetor (c. 465, Gaza – after 536), bishop of Mytilene, the need for new grazing land to replace that lost to the Wusun led Khingila's "Uar-Chionites" to displace the Sabirs to the west, who in turn displaced the Saragur, Ugor and Onogur, who then asked for an alliance and land from Byzantium. In his coin in the Brahmi script, Khingila uses the legend "God-King Khingila" (or Deva Shahi Khingila). Khingila is also mentioned on a Brahmi inscription, the Talagan copper scroll dated 492/3 CE; as a donator to a Buddhist reliquary stupa. Around 430 CE King Khingila, the most notable Alchon ruler, and the first one to be named and represented on his coins with the legend "χιγγιλο" (Chiggilo) in Bactrian, emerged and took control of the routes across the Hindu Kush from the Kidarites. Coins of the Alchons rulers Khingila and Mehama were found at the Buddhist monastery of Mes Aynak, southeast of Kabul, confirming the Alchon presence in this area around 450-500 CE. Khingila, under the name Shengil, was called "King of India" in the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi.

Ramanila

Ramanila (Lae-lih) (circa. 455 - 490 CE), Chinese ambassador Song Yun visited the Hephthalites/Yetha(s) and mentioned that they had conquered the Gandhar two generations ago. And Lae-lih was there first ruler thus Lae-lih have ruled in the latter half of the fifth century AD. Cunningham regards Lae-lih as the father of Toramana. Ramanila the Huna chief of Zabula is known from some of his coins. From another account we learn that the name of the king was Che-le, not Laelih The word Che-le is the Chinese transliteration of the words, T-shawl, T-shaul or Jaula (Jauvla). Author B. S. Dahiya postulated, "The Chinese sources further say that one, Laelih was made ruler of Gandhara by the Yetha. Now the name Laelih has not come down in coins or other literary works. However, the coins of a king named, Ramanila have been found and these coins are related to this very period. We know that the paramount ruling clan was the Jaula, the 'gotra' of Toramana and Mihiragula. It is also known that the ruler of Gandhara was a Tegin meaning Governor- a subordinate title. From these facts it is easy to conclude that paramount rulers had appointed Ramanila, a Jat of Lalli clan (Laelih of the Chinese) as Governor of Gandhara. Thus we find that 'Sung-yun was correct in naming the ruler of Gandhara but, as often, he gave the clan name and not the personal name of the ruler, the latter being Ramanila of the coins. This however, does not mean that Gandhara, Kabul and Gazni were not under the Jats earlier. We know that up to the first century B.C. it was continuously ruled by them and the Jaulas had only replaced the Kasvan Jats, the so-called later Kushana/Kidarites.
As per author Upendra Thakur, "There is yet another controversy regarding the identity of Toramana. The Ephthalite coins bear the name of a king, Ramanila whose portrait on the coins is depicted facing left, not right, which speaks of his independent status. Ghirsman identifies this king with Toramana but hardly advances any argument in favour of his contention. It's also suggested by another writer that probably Ramanila flourished earlier than Toramana and founded the new kingdom of Zabulistan in c. 455-56 A.D." As per Cunningham he was father of Toramana. As per scholar Buddha Prakash, "Through coins, however reveals the existence of another King Rāmānīlā who called himself Ramanila, king of Zabul, and whose bust faces the left instead of right on his coins is token of his independent status. It is likely that Rāmānīlā was a predecessor of Toramāna and founded the Jauvla empire while the Hephthalites scored victories over the Sassanids and swept into India under Hepthal II. It is also not unlikely that Rāmānīlā belonged to a family that was different from Toramāna."

Mahema, Lakhana Udayaditya & Adomano

Mehama (Bactrian: Meyam, Brahmi: Me-ha-ma), ruled c.461-493, was a king of Alchon Huns dynasty. He is little known, but the Talagan copper scroll mentions him as an active ruler making a donation to a Buddhist stupa in 492/93. Mehama is named Maha Shahi Mehama (Great Lord Mehama) in the Talagan copper scroll. Mahema ruled as a governor of Sassanian emperor Peroz I (r.459-484 AD) from year 461/2 CE this can be clarified by the a letter in the Bactrian language he wrote in 461-462 CE. The letter comes from the archives of the Kingdom of Rob (in southern Bactria, from 5th-7th century atleast), located in southern Bactria. In this letter he presents himself as, "Meyam, King of the people of Kadag, the governor of the famous and prosperous King of Kings Peroz." Kadag is Kadagstan, an area in southern Bactria, in the region of Baghlan. Significantly, he presents himself as a vassal of the Sasanian Empire king Peroz I.
Mehama (r.461-493) allied with Sasanian king Peroz I (459-484) in his victory over the Kidarites in 466 CE, and he may have also helped him in taking the throne against his (Peroz I's) brother Hormizd III. It is thought that Mehama, after being elevated to the position of Governor for Peroz, was later able to wrestle autonomy or even independence.

Mahema died in 493 CE and succeeded by Lakhana Udayaditya (r.493-?) and Aduman/Adomano (Mid-late 5th century - Early sixth century ?) in unknown dates of the sixth century CE. Adomano identify himself as the ‘Kings of the East’, a designation quite vague in geographical terms. If we consider the Gandhara region as the center of Alkhan rule, on the basis of the issues of their coins and the written sources, the ‘east’ would mean that rulers such as Zabokho or Adomano indeed ruled over the regions of northern Kashmir, including Srinagar. Kings Mahema, Javukha (Zobocho) and Adumana were sub-kings of the Hephthalite empire under their supreme lord Khingila (r.430-490 CE).

Javukha

Javukha (Brahmi: Ja-vu-kha, Bactrian: Zabocho, or Zabokho) was king of the Alchon Huns, in the 5th century CE. Javukha issued coins in the Bactrian script as well as in the Brahmi, suggesting a regnal claim to areas both north and south of the Hindu Kush, from Bactria to Northern Pakistan. He is described as such in the Talagan copper scroll inscription, where he is also said to be Maharaja ("Great King"), and the "son of Sadavikha". In the scroll he also appears to be rather contemporary with Toramana. the Khwera (Kura) inscription records the construction of the monastery from the reigns of Mahārājādhirāja Torāmaṇa and Saha Jauvlah/Shahī Javukha, showing the contemporary rule of these two authorites. Toramana's title of Mahārājādhirāja (King of Kings), harkening back to an Iranian origin, is different from the title he holds in the Schøyen copper scroll, where he is called devarāja (god-king) while Javukha is called Mahārājā (great king) in the same inscription. Zabokho, the other authority with the title of ‘the King of the East’, issued rare silver coins that were minted over a short period of time. These include a regular Alkhan type, with the king’s bust on the obverse and the fire altar (often obliterated by the ‘blind spot’) on the reverse. The philological correspondence of Bactrian Zabokho and Brahmi Javukha, showing that Javukha/Zabokho were the same authority. Zabokho identify himself as the ‘Kings of the East’, a designation quite vague in geographical terms. If we consider the Gandhara region as the centre of Alkhan rule, on the basis of the issues of their coins and the written sources, the ‘east’ would mean that rulers such as Zabokho indeed ruled over the regions of northern Kashmir, including Srinagar. As per Rezakhani, Javukha son of Sādavikhā was younger than Khingila and Mahema, and Adomano was younger than him (Javukha).

Toramana

Toramana I also called Toramana Shahi Jauvla (Gupta script: Toramāṇa, ruled circa 500-515 CE) was a king of the Alchon Huns who ruled in northern India in the late 5th and the early 6th century CE.
Toramana consolidated the Alchon power in Punjab (present-day Pakistan and northwestern India), and conquered northern and central India including Eran in Madhya Pradesh. Toramana used the title "Great King of Kings" (Mahārājadhirāja), equivalent to "Emperor", in his inscriptions, such as the Eran boar inscription. The Sanjeli (presently in Gujarat) inscription of Toramana speaks of his conquest and control over Malwa and Gujarat. His territory also included Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kashmir He probably went as far as Kausambi, where one of his seals was discovered. As per the Rīsthal inscription, discovered in 1983, the Aulikara king Prakashadharma of Malwa defeated him. In the Khurā inscription (495-500, from the Salt Range in Punjab and now in Lahore), Toramana assumes the Indian regnal titles in addition to central Asian ones: Rājādhirāja Mahārāja Toramāṇa Shahi Jauvla A seal from Kausambi associated with Toramana, bears the title 'Hūnarāja' ("Huna King"), Toramana is also described as a Huna (Hūṇā) in the Rīsthal inscription.
- In the Gwalior inscription, from northern Madhya Pradesh, India, and written in Sanskrit, Toramana is described as:

• "A ruler of [the earth], of great merit, who was renowned by the name of the glorious Tôramâna; by whom, through (his) heroism that was specially characterized by truthfulness, the earth was governed with justice."

- The Eran boar inscription, the statue contains Sanskrit inscriptions inscribed on the neck of the boar, in 8 lines in Brahmi script. It also records the building of the temple in which the current Varaha (Lord Vishnu's avatar) image stands. The first line of the inscription, made after 484/85 CE mentions the "Maharajadhiraja Toramana" ("The great king of king Toramana") and reads:

• "In year one of the reign of the King of Kings Sri-Toramana, who rules the world with splendor and radiance...."
  

- The presence of seals in the name of "Toramana" and "Hunaraja" in Kausambi, suggests that the city was probably sacked by the Alkhons under Toramana in 497–500 CE.
- The Jaina work of the 8th century, the Kuvalayamala (778 AD) states that Toramana lived in Pavvaiya on the bank of the Chandrabhaga (Chenab river) and enjoyed the sovereignty of the world.
- Jaina writer Somadeva (10th cen. AD) mentions a tradition that a Huna King (Toramana) conquered Citrakuta.
A few silver coins of Toramana closely followed the Gupta silver coins. The only difference in the obverse is that the king's head is turned to the left. The reverse retains the fantailed peacock and the legend is almost similar, except the change of name to Toramana Deva. In the late fifth century AD, the Hephthalites began their invasions of India during the reign of King Budhagupta of the declining Gupta Empire of India in the last quarter of the fifth century. In the early sixth century AD a Hephthalite sub-king by the name of Toramana, who was called by the Indians ‘the boundlessly famed ruler of the earth’, conquered all of western India penetrating as far east as modern day Madhya Pradesh and completely dominating Uttar Pradesh, Rajputana, Punjab, and Kashmir.
As per B. A. Litvinsky, "In the late fifth and early sixth centuries the Hephthalites in India came under the leadership of Toramana, described in one Indian inscription as the ‘renowned Toramana, the boundlessly famed ruler of the earth’. Launching an offensive from Panjab, he conquered the whole of western India and even Eran (in modern Madhya Pradesh). Numismatic evidence indicates that he ruled in Uttar Pradesh, Rajputana, Panjab and Kashmir. Many local rulers acknowledged themselves to be subjects of Toramana." As per the Jain author, Udyotana Suri, styled Kuvalayamala compiled in 777-78 A.D, that we know the name of the capital of Toramana. This capital city is named as Pavvaiya on the bank of river Chenab. This Pavvaiya or Pabiya, is the city of Pefato or Polafato of the Chinese traveller Hiuen-Tsang. Upendra Thakur who has mentioned the authority of the Jain work, mentions, "even now we are not in a position to identify this ancient place name with its exact counter-part in the Punjab. It was most probably somewhere near Sakala".
As per Upendra Thakur, "Toramana was a general of remarkable personality whose political achievements in India were no less great than those of Alexander and Menander, Rather, he outshone them in many respects. He was the first foreign conqueror in India who built up a vast empire from Central Asia to Central India and advanced right up to Pataliputra and further beyond. A ruthless follower of blood and iron, a veritable incarnation of hell and a born fighter and destroyer, he swept away everything before him like a surging storm and atlast gave the Hunas a stable home since their rout from their original home (Archeological evidences suggest Altai region). After Attila, he was the only general who re-organized the Hunas under his inspiring leadership, stirred them on to move ceaselessly in search of anew home and established an empire which lasted for about a hundred years. Indeed, the story of the rise of Toramana is the story of a nation re-born which makes a fascinating study in the history of India and forms a popular theme with many of the great contemporary writers. Like most of the great generals of history Toramana also emerged from obscurity and had no claim to high ancestry or glorious past. Like a meteor he shot up into the sky, shone brilliantly for awhile and soon consumed himself into the darkness of history, Through conflagration and death, battles and the terrors, the reck and the cries, across heaps of corpses, and to the accompaniment of the agonized curses of the innocent, dying civilians and the exultant shout of plundering soldiers rose Toramana, a new star in the political firmament of India, whose only companion was his sword and whose only love was conquest and bloodshed, Starting as an ordinary soldier he soon caught the eyes of his Ephthalite master due to his dash and courage and was appointed the Tegin or Viceroy of the newly acquired territories of Gandhara and Afghanistan on the north-western frontiers from where he directed his ferocious attacks against the mainland of India, Thus, at first subordinate to the supreme Ephthalite ruler who still continued to reside in Bactria, this official so affected and extended his conquests in India as to become one of the greatest monarchs of the age and “by his glory completely overshadowed his nominal suzerain who remained the semi-barbarous ruler of Central Asia.”!

Mihirgula

Mihirakula or Mihirgula was son of Toramana, who succeeded his father in 502 and ruled until 530 A.D. his captal was Sagala(modern Sialkot). Accoring to Historian BS Dahiya, he belonged to Jauvble or Johl clan, branch of Huna Jats. Mihirakula introduced himself as the ruler of a "Jit country" as mentioned in Hindi book "The Travels of Heun Tsang in India". Xuanzang menion in "The Record of the Western Regions" (in 7th century CE) about The Huna ruler Mihirakula that, He was of quick talent, and naturally brave. He subdued all the neighbouring provinces without exception.
His father ruled the Indian part of the Hephthalite Empire. Mihirakula ruled from his capital of Sagala (modern-day Sialkot, Pakistan). The Rajatarangini calls him cruel, "a man of violent acts and resembling kala (death)", who ruled "the land then overrun by hordes of mlecchas (foreigners)." According to the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Song Yun, Mihirakula "does not believe in any religion", the Brahmins who live in his kingdom and read their sacred texts do not like him.
Mihirakula had conquered Sindh by 520 CE, had a large elephant and cavalry-driven army. The Malwa's king Yashodharman and Gupta Empire rulers, in 528 CE, reversed Mihirakula's campaign and ended his era.
Medieval era Chinese Buddhist pilgrims depict the early 6th-century Mihirakula as a tyrant and persecutor of their religion. However, according to Jason Neelis – a scholar of Buddhist studies and religious history, all evidence including those in their travelogue suggests that, despite his rule in Punjab, Gandhara and Kashmir regions, there was "no negative impact on the growth of Buddhist monasteries" in these regions over previous centuries. Some early Indian studies, such as by D.C. Sircar, have incorrectly used coins or a questionable prashasti inscription of the Aulikaras (unrelated to Mihirakula) to declare him a Shaiva ruler, and declare him as selectively persecuting the Buddhists. The Aulikara inscription is actually referring to Shiva as the family deity of the Aulikaras, states Neelis. This has perpetuated John Marshall's incorrect conjecture that "Mihirakula destroyed Buddhism in Gandhara", wiping out the Buddhist monasteries in the northwest. Later archaeological studies affirm that the major Buddhist monastery at Harwan – near Srinagar, Kashmir – was "built" during this period. According to Shōshin Kuwayama – a Buddhist history scholar, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mihirakula destroyed Buddhism in Gandhara, there is plenty of evidence that he did not and that it continued to grow and thrive in and around northwest Indian subcontinent for many centuries after Mihirakula's death. Mihirakula was cruel, but his cruelty did not discriminate based on religion, nor did it destroy or reverse Buddhism in the northwest.
The travelogue of Xuanzang states that initially Mihirakula was interested in learning about Buddhism, and asked the monks to send him a teacher; the monks sent him a novice servant for the purpose. He felt insulted. This incident is said to have turned Mihirakula virulently anti-Buddhist. Historian Upinder Singh has raised some questions over the anti-Buddhist reputation of Mihirakula while considering these episodes of violence:- "Was this reputation based on actual religious persecution? Or was Mihirakula cast into the role of a cruel anti-Buddhist king because one of his arch political opponents, king Baladitya of Magadha (sometimes identified with a later Gupta emperor Narasimhagupta), at whose hands he apparently suffered a crushing defeat, was an ardent patron of the Buddhist sangha? The interesting thing is that ninth- and tenth-century Jaina texts describe Mihirakula as a wicked, oppressive tyrant who was anti-Jaina. Are the textual references evidence of active political persecution and violence? Or are they merely expressions of resentment at a lack of royal patronage and support? Are they recasting of political conflicts into religious molds? As per Jason Neelis, "Chinese visitor namely, "Song Yun", an official Wei envoy, visited the court of the Hephthalite (Heda) ruler in eastern Afghanistan in 519 CE with Huisheng and continued traveling to Swat and Gandhāra in 520 CE. He mentions "In contrast to the ruler of Swat, who is depicted as a diligent Buddhist vegetarian, Song Yun described the Hephthalite ruler (Mihirakula) of Gandhāra as a bloodthirsty enemy of Buddhists". But we might remember that no statement is made in any paragraph proving that the Hephthalite king killed Buddhist monks or destroyed Buddhism in Gandhāra. This also expose an another myth that claim that the Hephthalites destroyed Buddhist monasteries in Taxila or Gandhara (and elsewhere). Even totally opposite, a major Buddhist shrine at Harwan was built during this period of Hephthalite rule."
As per Kim, "The son of Toramana, Mihirakula became the ruler of virtually the whole of northern India. His capital in India seems to have been Sakala (modern Sialkot in Pakistan). His cruelty however is said to have incited the vassalized Indians to rebel against him. He somehow ended up in the custody of a certain Baladitya (possibly a Gupta ruler or magnate). In the meantime the brother of Mihirakula usurped the Hunnic throne."
As per author B. A. Litvinsky, The Gwalior Inscription of Mihirakulah inscribed "Toramana's son was called Mihirakula (in Jain sources, Caturmukha-Kalkin or Kalkiraja). He intensified his father’s efforts to conquer the whole of northern India, and in this he was highly successful. Over a century later, the Chinese pilgrim Hsüan-tsang paid particular attention to this ruler’s life and activities in the account of his travels. He writes of Mihirakula: ‘He was of quick talent and naturally brave. He subdued all the neighbouring provinces without exception.’ The account of Cosmas Indicopleustes (writing in the early sixth century) confirms that the Hephthalites in India reached the zenith of their power under Mihirakula, with their capital at Sakala (modern Sialkot). Hsüan-tsang recounts the fate of Mihirakula, he was ultimately opposed by the Gupta ruler Baladitya, who had previously been paying him tribute (this is assumed to have been Narasimhagupta I). Baladitya’s opposition stemmed from the atrocities perpetrated by the Hephthalite leader, which is also reported in the Kashmir chronicle the Rajatarangini and in Jain sources. In assembling the events of Mihirakula’s life, the Rajatarangini asserts that he was a powerful king who ruled Kashmir and Gandhara and even (this is clearly an exaggeration) conquered southern India and Ceylon. Cosmas Indicopleustes calls him ‘king of India’, though he mentions that the possessions of the Huns in India (i.e. Hunas) were divided from the other Indian kingdoms by the mighty River Phison (Indus)."
History illustrations, Kalhana and Xuanzang clearly states that Mihirakula destroyed Buddhism in Gandhar and Kashmir, and we holds that these facts are wrong, because Xuanzang mentions a king called Mihirakula to destroyed Buddhism in Kashmir/Gandhar centuries ago his visit of 7th century CE; (of 629-645 CE).
Points noted by G. C. Sankar,

1. Mihirakula son of Toramana and King of Hephthalites in sixth century CE; have not ruled many centuries before the Xuanzang's visit.
2. There's no evidence of destroying the harmony of Buddhism in Ephthalite rule, totally opposite Buddhism and Shaivism are the official religions in Hepthalite rule and many (different) Buddhist shrine and monasteries were built and funded by the Ephthalite rulers.
3. The Kura inscription of Toramana (dated about 495-500 CE), It records the erection of a vilhāra for the benefit, among others, of Rāja Mahārājā Torāmaṇa Shāhi Jaūvla and his sons and daughters. This indicates that neither Toramana nor his sons were persecutors of Buddhism.
4. Xuanzang mentions centuries ago Mihirakula destroyed Buddhism in Gandhar but Mihirakulah of Hunas was not a ruler 'ruled' centuries ago Xuanzang's visit.
5. This Mihirakula who destroyed Buddhism was different and ruled in about ca.250 CE and attacked Gandhar and destroyed Buddhism, this destroyer was son of Vasukula, he killed more than 3 crores of people and not to be identifies as Huna king Mihirakulah son of Toramana.
6. Anyhow there is nothing to show that Toramana son persecuted Buddhism. It has been argued that the words ' some centuries ago ' in Hiuen-Tsang’s account of Mihirakula might be a mistake But Waiters has proved (On Yuan Chwang's travels in India, i. 288-290) that it is not a mistake. He has cited other Chinese authorities to confirm the correctness of this statement. In Lien-hua-mien-ching (translated into Chinese in 574 A.C. ch. 2. no. 465). Mihirakula » said to have persecuted Buddhism and to have been succeeded by seven Buddhist devaputras in Kapin. These seven devaputras of Kapin are evidently the later Kushans. who ruled in Gandhara and Kapisa, and called themselves Devaputras.
7. (Son of Vasukula, destroyer) Mihirakula must therefore have been a later Kushan himself and lived seven generations before the later Kushans became extinct in c. 400 A.C. He may therefore be safely dated in ca.250 A.C. His persecution of Buddhists in Kapin is confirmed by Fu-fatsangyi-yuaneking (translated into Chinese in 472 A.c. ch. 6, no. 1540). If a work translated into Chinese in 472 A.C. mentions Mihirakula as a persecutor of Buddhists, it would be absurd to date him 50 years later in 520 A.C. The Chihyu-lu (ch. 3) gives the exact date, when Mihirakula beheaded the 23rd Buddhist patriarch Simha, as 259 AC., and this agrees with the date we already arrived at.

By these writings of G. C. Sankar (1941) it clears that the Buddhist enemy Mihirakula was son of Vasukula in 250-260 CE, and is different from Ephthalite emperor Mihirakula of Sagala of 520 CE.

Pravarsena II

Pravarsena II or Sri Pravarsena or the 'Paro Sena (II)' was a White Hunnic Alxon ruler of Kashmir from 530 up to 590 CE. His reign lasts about 60 years from 530 CE Sri Pravarasena have succeeded the Alxon Huns ruler Mihirakula in the area of Kashmir & Gandhara, and he would have been the son of Toramana. Pravarasena came to the throne soon after 530 and ruled for about 60 years. He founded a city with his own name, Pravarasenapura (identified with modern Srinagar), and adorned it with markets. Here he also built the great temple of Pravaresha. Within the city he constructed a causeway or bridge. His coins bear, on the obverse, the figure of a standing king and two figures seated below right and left, with his name Pravarasena; and on the reverse, a goddess seated on a lion with the legend Kidāra. The significance of this legend is not known.
As per Kim, "In India and Pakistan too the Hephthalites Hunnic Legacy lived on long after the destruction of Hephthalite Empire in central Asia. In Gandhara and Kashmir a white Hunnic ruler Pravarsena seems to have succeeded to the inheritance of the Hun King Mihirkula and ruled in the middle of the sixth century AD, building a city named after himself (Pravarsenapura, modern Srinagar) and the great temple of Pravaresh. He is said to have been succeeded by King Gokarna, a follower of God Shiva" Rajatarangini of Kalhana states that Toramana, a Huna ruler, had married an Ikshavaku lady and Pravarsena was the product of this union. Paro Sena was a great Hunnic ruler during his reign Kashmir developed as a powerful economy he established the modern city of Srinagar and have built the Great temple of Pravaresh there. He ruled for sixty years as a influencial King over a large stretched area from Kashmir to Gandhar. According to Kalhana, Pravarasena subdued many other kings, in lands as far as Saurashtra.
Relations with Shiladitya of Malwa:-
Shiladitya was son of Yashodharmana Virkah (Varik Jat) of Malwa of Aulikara dynasty, and succeeded him in about 530 CE. Xuanzang mentions that when a Vaisnavite (Brahmin) ruler dethroned him and acquired his rule forcibly, he took asylum in Paro Sen's (Sri Pravarsena's) Kingdom of Kashmir In 540 CE, Pravarsena II have secured his throne by defeating those Invading traits and restored his rule onto the lost throne of Malwa, Shiladitya then becomes a vassal of King Pravarsena II as per Kalhana in Rajatarangini.

-- Sri Pravarsena was succeeded by his son Gokarna in about 590/1 CE.

Gokarna

King Gokarna (circa, 590/1-597 CE) was son and successor of Pravarsena II, Gokrana's some coins have been discovered. He established the shrine of Shiva called Gokarnesvara. He hadn't ruled for a longer period but for short time and was succeeded by his prosperous son Narendraditya Khinkhila (or Toramana II) in 597 CE.

Narendraditya Khinkhila (Toramana II)

He was son of King Gokarna & succeeded to his father in 597 at Kabulistan (modern Kabul). Toramana II is also known to have consecrated a shrine to Shiva, named Bhutesvara. His reign is said to be 597-633 circa CE as per his coins obtained and Rajatarangini. After having extensively invaded the heartland of India, had withdrawn from Kashmir, Punjab and Gandhara, the Alxon Hunas retreated and going back west across the Khyber pass they resettled in Kabulistan. It seems that there was a direct confrontation between the Alchon Toramana II and the Nezaks in Kabulistan, as he made overstrikes of Nezak coins, and at the same time adopted the Nezak bull's head in his own crown in some of his coins minted in Gandhara. The legend of the coins of Toramana II were previously mistakenly read as "srī nara" and "nara", leading to suggestions that there was an Alchon Hun king named "Narana" or "Narendra". Since a 2013 study by Matthias Pfisterer, it has been recognized that the legends on these coins should be read as "srī tora" and "tora", hence the attribution to a "Toramana II". According to Michael Alram, the supposed king "Narana" or "Narendra" should be "deleted without substitution". The coins of Toramana II in Kabulistan generally have the mention ""His Excellence, King Tora" and some of them are overstrikes over Nezak coins.

"Narendraditya Khinkhila (Toramana II) is identified with a king whose name appears at the base of the stone image of Vinayaka (Ganesha), found in Kabul, but probably from Gardez. The king’s name is recorded as Parama-bhaṭṭāraka Māhārājādhīrāja Šhri Shāhi Khiṅgala Odya (tya) na-Shāhi. He also issued coins with the name either Déva Shāhi Khiṅgila or Shri Narendra. Some coins have the legend Kidara under the king’s arm. All these kings are identified as one and the same by Biswas, who maintains that Khinkhila ruled a domain stretching from Kashmir to Kabul. According to Kalhana, he ruled for some 30– 36 years, that is roughly between 597 and 633. According to Biswas, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Hsüan-tsang came to Kashmir when Khinkhila was ruling here. Regarding the extent of his empire, Biswas concludes that The empire of Kashmir included the Kabul valley, the Swat valley and the mountain regions of Kashmir proper and in the south-east extended as far as Wakala on the Chenab river. If the king of Kashmir had a hold over Swat, the Kabul valley and Bannu, it is possible that his empire extended even to Gardez. The Gardez inscription of Khingala was probably thus of the Kashmir king Khinkhila, who was also the overlord of Udyana. Durlabhavardhana father of Durlabhaka Pratapaditya (662−712) (founder of Karkota dynasty) was a subordinate king under the Huna ruler, Narendraditya Khinkhila (or Toramana II).

Yudhishthira

Huna King Yudhishthira succeeded his father Toramana II (or Narendraditya Khinkhila) in 633 CE. And he ruled for 33-34 (sources like Kalhana; said 40) years until circa 666 CE, He seem to be last great independent White Hunnic ruler of Northwestern India in Kashmir, Gandhar and Kabul. Kalhana in Rajatarangini provided the lineage of his successors whom continued to rule in sub-ordinate regions of Kashmir and other areas. These rulers, successors of Yudhishthira are subordinated under the rule of Karkota dynasty. The first ruler of the Karkota dynasty was Durlabhaka Pratapaditya, who claimed the throne after defeating Yudhishthira in 666 CE, the last independent Alxon Hun ruler of Kashmir. Kalhana gives a further line of his successors who continued to rule in subordinate positions in Kashmir and other areas. The end of the rule of Yudhishthira brought further changes in the Huna kingdom. One major consequence was the foundation of the so-called Türk Shahi dynasty in Kabul and Gandhara.
As per Rajatarangini Yudhishthira ruled 40 years, probably until circa 665 CE, but he was dethroned by Pratapaditya, son of the founder of the Karkoṭa Empire, Durlabhavardhana

Kalhana in his 12th century text, namely Rajatarangini states the successors of Yudhishthira and called them as the rulers of Second Gonanda Dynasty as subordinate ruling dynasty under the rule of Karkota dynasty, as under;

• Narendraditya I son of King Yudhishthira Kalhana assigns a regnal span of 13 years
• Ranaditya I (Tungina III) Younger brother of Narendraditya. His queen Ranarambha was an incarnation/avatar of Bhramaravasini. The Chola king Ratisena had found her among the waves, during an ocean worship ritual.
• Vikramaditya son of Ranaditya. Kalhana assigns a regnal span of 42 years.
• Baladitya, Younger brother of Vikramaditya. He subdued several enemies. Baladitya (apparently) had no male heir but a daughter Anaṅgalekhā and did not wish his territory to be annexed by in-laws. To avert such a possibility he married her to Durlabhavardhana, a low-caste employee having no royal lineage. However, after Baladitya's death, Durlabhavardhana ascended to the throne with help from a minister, and claimed descent from the mythical Naga king Karkotaka, establishing the Karkota Dynasty. Kalhana assigns a regnal span of 36 years and 8 months. This view of marriage was rejected by Biswas Atreyi in his 'The Political History of the Hūṇas in India' (1971) pub. by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. As Durlabhaka Pratapaditya defeated Huna King Yudhishthira and annexed/usurped the throne of Kashmir in 665/6 AD and established the Karkota dynasty.

Hephtalites (White Huns)

The Huna people found a Empire in Central Asia flourished to Northern & Middle India, from 440s to 560 C.E. remembered as Empire of Hephthalites or White Huns. They had also ruled around the Area of Bactria.

The Hephthalites had took great Victories over The Sassanian Empire. In 456 CE, Hephthalites sent their first embassy to Chinese court of Northern Wei dynasty. They were descendants "of the Gaoju or the Da Yuezhi" according to the earliest chronicles such as the Weishu or the Beishu.
By the second quarter of the sixth century AD the Hephthalite Hunnic Empire was probably the most extensive empire in the world. In the east it extended as far as Urumchi in modern day Xinjiang, in the south central India, in the north the steppes of Kazakhstan and in the west up to the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire via its vassals the Sassanian Persians.
The imperial Hephthalites were militarily important from 450 CE, when they defeated the Kidarites, to 560 CE, when combined forces from the First Turkic Khaganate and the Sasanian Empire defeated them. After 560 CE, they established "principalities" in the area of Tokharistan, under the suzerainty of the Western Turks (in the areas north of the Oxus) and of the Sasanian Empire (in the areas south of the Oxus). The stronghold of the Hephthalites was Tokharistan (present-day southern Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan) on the northern slopes of the Hindu Kush, and their capital was probably at Kunduz, having come from the east, possibly from the area of Badakhshan. The Imperial Hephthalites, based in Bactria, expanded eastwards to the Tarim Basin, westwards to Sogdia and southwards through Afghanistan, but they never went beyond the Hindu-Kush, which was occupied by the Alxono Hunas. By 479 the Hephthalites had conquered Sogdia and driven the Kidarites eastwards, and by 493 they had captured parts of present-day Dzungaria and the Tarim Basin (in present-day Northwest China). The Alchon Huns, formerly confused with the Hephthalites, expanded into Northern India as well.

The sources for Hephthalite history are sparse and the opinions of historians differ. There is no king-list, and historians are not sure how the group arose or what language they initially spoke. They seem to have called themselves Ebodalo (ηβοδαλο, hence Hephthal), often abbreviated as Eb (ηβ), a name they wrote in the Bactrian script on some of their coins. The origin of the name "Hephthalites" is unknown, it may stem either from a Khotanese word *Hitala meaning "Strong", from hypothetical Sogdian *Heβtalīt, plural of *Heβtalak, or from postulated Middle Persian *haft āl" An important and unique seal, held in the private collection of Professor Dr. Aman ur Rahman and published by Nicholas Sims-Williams in 2011, shows an early Hepthalite ruler with a round beardless face and slanted almond-shaped eyes, wearing a radiate crown with a single crescent, and framed by the Bactrian script legend ηβοδαλο ββγο ("The Lord [Yabghu] of the Hephthalites"). The seal is dated to the end 5th century- early 6th century CE. The ethnic name "Ebodalo", and title "Ebodalo Yabghu", have also been discovered in contemporary Bactrian documents of the Kingdom of Rob describing administrative functions under the Hephthalites.
In Chinese chronicles, the Hephthalites are called Ye-tha-i-li-to (simp. 厌带夷栗陁; trad. 厭帶夷栗陀; pinyin: Yàndàiyílìtuó), or the more usual abbreviated form Yada 嚈噠 (pinyin: Yèdā), or 滑 (pinyin: Huá). The latter name has been given various Latinised renderings, including Yeda, Ye-ta, Ye-tha; Ye-dā and Yanda. The corresponding Cantonese and Korean names Yipdaat and Yeoptal (Korean: 엽달), which preserve aspects of the Middle Chinese pronunciation (roughly yep-daht, [ʔjɛpdɑt]) better than the modern Mandarin pronunciation, are more consistent with the Greek Hephthalite. Some Chinese chroniclers suggest that the root Hephtha- (as in Ye-ta-i-li-to or Yada) was technically a title equivalent to "emperor", while Hua was the name of the dominant tribe.
They may have migrated from the Altai region, among the waves of invading Huns.
Following their westward or southward expansion, the Hephthalites settled in Bactria, and displaced the Alxon Huns, who expanded into Northern India. The Hephthalites came into contact with the Sasanian Empire, and were involved in helping militarily Peroz I to seize the Sassanian throne from his brother Hormizd III. Later, in the late 5th century, the Hephthalites expanded into vast areas of Central Asia, and occupied the Tarim Basin as far as Turfan, taking control of the area from the Ruanruans, who had been collecting heavy tribute from the oasis cities, but were now weakening under the assaults of the Chinese Wei dynasty.
The earliest Chinese source on this encounter, the near-contemporary chronicles of the Northern Wei (Weishu) as quoted in the later Tongdian, reports that they migrated southward from the Altai region circa 360 CE:

• The Hephthalites are a branch of the Gaoju (高車, "High Carts") or the Da Yuezhi, they originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and came down south from the Jinshan (Altai) mountains [...] This was 80 to 90 years before Emperor Wen (r. 440–465 CE) of the Northern Wei (i.e. circa 360 CE)

嚈噠國，或云高車之別種，或云大月氏之別種。其原出於塞北。自金山而南。[...] 至後魏 文帝時已八九十年矣

--- Extract of the Weishu chronicles as copied in Tongdian. (Written by Du You between 766 & 801 AD)

--We don't have any list of Kings available for the Hephthalites, all we know are the names of some of their rulers which I stated below with their respective history. However Shahnamah of Firdowsi mentions about many kings during the region? Which may help in constructing their kingship and genealogies. Moreover, the much more of information my hands been through is postulated below.

Hephthal II

Hephthal II is one of the first Kings or may was the first king of the Hephthalites his estimated reign should be ca. 440s to 477/8 AD. He is a powerful leader under him Hephthalite Jatts have conquered over Gandhar and Kabul in 477 AD. As per Author Dahiya, "An important dynasty under Kabul and Gandhara was founded in 477 A.D. under king Hephthal II, of Balkh. His coins have been found and show that Balkh was his capital, because the legend on the reverse of his coins, in Tokhri script, mention the name of Balkh city. In 456 A.D. the Iranian emperor Yezdegird II was still fighting with the Jats when the latter sent an embassy to the Chinese Court of Emperor Wei. This is further proof of the fact that Hephthal II was a sovereign ruler. In 457 A.D. the Jats crushed the power of Sassanid emperors and Yezdegird II was killed. It was during this period that one of their clans, the 'Jaula' occupied Gazni and adjoining areas. They conquered Gandhara in 477 A.D.; Kashmir was taken in 478 A.D.; and in 479 A.D. they occupied Sogdiana and before 500 A.D. they had taken over Turfan and Qarashahr. This date of occupation of Gandhara in 477 A.D. is further proved by the Chinese pilgrim, Sung-Yun, who stated in 520 A.D. that the Yetha had conquered Ye-Po-Lo, about two generations ago. Here the Ye-Po-Lo of the Chinese stands for Jauval/Jabul and the Yetha, of course, stands for the Jats; the Chinese Ye, giving the sound of 'J'. It is interesting to note that Hephthal III, who defeated and killed the next Iranian emperor Peroz, in a decisive battle in 484 A.D., is called Ye-ta-i-li-to meaning (Jaṭlāṭa) the king of the Jats. As shown above the Yetha/Yeta is the Chinese transliteration of the word Jat, and Lāṭa or Rāṭa is a Scythian word for king. Buddha Prakash says that it is a manifestly non-Indian name, Rata being a suffix of foreign names. The Chinese sources further say that Laelih (Ramanila) was made ruler of Gandhar by Yetha (Hephthalite Jats)." Author Upendra Thakur written "On a large number of coins their kings are referred to as Hephtal. One such coin bears the legend: Heptal shaho Hiono (“of Hephthal king Khionite”) and the other Hephtal Hiono. Some of their coins are bilingual but invariably give the name of the kings as Hephtal. The numismatic evidences leave no doubt that atleast three kings of the Ephthalites bore the name, Hephtal who had their surname, Hion. it's absolutely clear that Hephtal was their family name whereas Hion symbolized their race. Thus, Hephtal and Hion or Khiyon seem to be one and the same people.
"This conquest in north-western India (of Gandhar in 477 AD) was, of course, made possible at the expense of the Kushanas, ruled over either by Kidara, or one of his successors who had earlier been expelled from Bactria, when the Ephthalites first swept into Southern Turkistan. It is further said that they appointed a special official, a tegin (a prince or a viceroy) to rule over their Indian domain, who was subordinate to the supreme Ephthalite ruler, Hephthal II, who lived in Bactria, the headquarters of the Ephthalite kingdom. Yuan Chwang says that the territory of Hi-ma-to-lo, the king of Tu-ho-lo (Tokhara) also included Kashmir. Their supreme monarch during this period was Hephthal II who had conquered Gandhara and Kashmir. Sung-Yun who had visited Gandhara in 520 A.D. says that this country was formerly known as Ye-po-lo. It was conquered by the Ye-thas who made Laelih (Ramanila) the king of this newly acquired territory."

Akhshunwar

Akhshunwar or Khusnawaz (sometimes Hephthal III) was a powerful king of Hephthal Jats, who ruled in Tokharistan. At the zenith of his power, he ruled an empire stretching from Gorgan in the west, to Balkh in the east. He founded to be mentioned in history around 478-484 CE. In the Pahlavi source the Hephthal king is called Xǎsnawāz; in Al-Tabārī: 876 (SB VIII.002/B) his name is Akhshunwār (cf. Mās֒ūdī: SB VIII.003/B). Widengren, suggests that this ‘name’ represents Sogdian ֓x˘s ֓wnw ֓r, meaning ‘power bearer’ i.e. ‘king’. His reign seems to be 477/8-484 CE. As in the wars between Hunas and emperor Peroz of Sassanians, King Akhshunwar is mentioned in history of the second war (of three total) in 478/9 CE.
Second Hephthal-Sassano War ca.478/9 AD
Author SYVÄNNE says, "According to Ba'lami (10th cen. Persian writer), there were a great number of subjects of the Hephthalite King Khouschnewaz (Akhshunwar) who were dissatisfied with his tyrannical rule with the result that they fled to the Persian side of the border where Peroz duly granted them a place of asylum. Peroz dispatched two envoys to Khouschnewaz with the message that the Hephthalite refugees had implored his assistance so that he now demanded that Khouschnewaz would mend his ways or face the prospect of an invading Persian army. When years had passed and the number of refugees from the Hephthalite Kingdom at the Persian court had increased to a great number, Peroz finally assembled an army and declared war against the Hephthalites with the excuse that Khouschnewaz had not mended his ways. It was the presence of these dissatisfied Hephthalite refugees in the Persian court that undoubtedly encouraged Peroz to take the gamble. He must have thought that the Hephthalite Kingdom was internally divided and ripe for the taking, but in this he miscalculated badly. The Hephthalite King had still enough loyal subjects to resist the Persians. When the Persian army arrived close to the territory of Balkh, where the desert of Merv separated the Hephthalites from the Persians, the king of the Hephthalites assembled his generals, and it was then that he was advised by one of his generals to resort to a ruse, which is described Ahead, 'he [Peroz] set off with his army for Khurasan, with the aim of making war on Akhshunwar, king of the Hephthalites. When news of this reached Akhshunwar, he was stricken with terror. It is mentioned that one of Akhshunwar’s retainers offered up his life for him and told him, “Cut off my hands and feet and hurl me down in Fayruz’s [Peroz] way; but look after my children and family.” … When Fayruz passed by him, he was distressed at the man’s state, and asked him what had happened to him. The man informed him that Akhshunwar had done that to him because he had told Akhshunwar that he would be unable to stand up against the Persian troops … The man told Fayruz, that he would show him and his followers a shortcut, … Fayruz was taken by this trickery, and he and his troops set off along the route the mutilated man had told him about. They kept on floundering through one desert after another, and whenever they complained of thirst, the man would tell them that they were near water and had almost crossed the desert. Finally, when the man had brought them to a place where, he knew, they could neither go forward nor back, he revealed to them what he had done. Fayruz’s retainers said to him, ‹‹We warned you about this man, O King, but you would not be warned. Now we can only go forward until we encounter the enemy, whatever the circumstances may be.›› So they pressed ever onward, thirst killed the greater part of them, and Fayruz went on with the survivors against the enemy. When they contemplated the state to which they had been reduced, they appealed to Akhshunwar for a peace agreement. According to Balʻami (133) the Persians recognized the man because he was a great and famous general of Khouschnewaz. Balʻami (135), the Persians reached the cultivated land, the frontier of the Kingdom of Khouschnewaz, on the 23rd day, after which they rested for three days and advised the ruler to beg for peace because they were already in practise prisoners of Khouschnewaz. The king agreed. Of the 50,000 soldiers that had begun the journey only 1,000 men were left. The rest had succumbed to the thirst. Peroz with his remained associates (including his daughter, Fayruzdukht) were captured by the Hephthalite army as hostages/prisoners. This time Peroz promised 30 mule-loads loaded with drachmas (silver coins) in return for his freedom. However, the state coffers were empty thanks to the wars he had fought with the result that he was able to collect only about 20 loads. Peroz then gave his sons Kavadh/Kawad (& Valash) as a collateral/hostage for the remaining ten loads. Therefore Peroz was released. When Peroz returned back to his own country (along with his daughter), he imposed a poll-tax and got together the required ten loads of silver and got his son back. This time the Persians paid the whole ransom out of their own pocket. The destruction of the Persian elite forces had weakened their negotiating position to such an extent that the Romans saw no need to help them this time. Furthermore, it encouraged the peoples of the Caucasus region to rise against their oppressors. A peace treaty has been established on 20 mule-loaded drachmas and Kavad I as a hostage, till the rest 10 loaded mules would be paid, in which no Persian (Sassanid) should cross the borders to come in Hephthalite territory at any cost, and likewise no Hephthalite would cross the same. (Merv was the border between Hephthalite and Sassanian territories). In this battle, Peroz invaded Khushnavaz's territories, and when Peroz pursued Khushnavaz and his men to the hills, he suffered a crushing defeat, was captured and forced to surrender his daughter, his son Kavadh I, and the chief priest (mowbed) of the empire to Khushnavaz as hostages, until ransom was paid. After the payment of 20 loaded mules he took his daughter with him but his son Kavad I remained hostage, Peroz's vassal king Vakhtang I (439 or 443 – 502 CE) also participated in this war with him and both are defeated.
Third Hephthal-Sassano War ca.484 CE (at Herat)
All of the sources are unanimous regarding the reason for the war, which was Peroz’s own decision to start a war even when his advisors advised against this. The obvious reason would of course be that Peroz was a brave warrior who could not stomach the humiliation he had suffered. According to Balʻami, after three to four years had passed from the previous war and the situation had stabilized enough, Peroz could no longer bear the shame and called the Supreme Mobed (Supreme Priest) to discuss his plans to renew the war. The Mobed answered that it was not right to break the treaty and be a perjurer and that the God would not be favourable to such enterprises. Peroz answered that he would use a stratagem so that he would not be a perjurer. Mobed answered that it would not be possible to avoid perjury with a stratagem, but Peroz would not accept this answer and started preparations for a war which lasted for a year. According to Balʻami, the soldiers gave the same answer to Peroz as did the Supreme Mobed, which undoubtedly means the military leadership. Ṭabarī and Thaʿalibi give a similar account. Both state that Peroz began the campaign against the Hephthalites against the advice given by his viziers and marzbans. According to Ṭabarī, Muzdbudwadh went so far as to have his opinion placed in a sealed document as evidence of his opposition to the campaign. The opposition of the Persian leadership and in particular that of the Sparapet Bahram to the war is also mentioned by the Armenian period author Ghazar P'arpets'i and must be therefore true. Then Peroz assembled an army consisting of 100,000 men and 500 elephants. If the figure regarding the elephants is correct, then Peroz must have obtained additional elephants from his Indian allies in return for something which the sources fail to mention. The assembly point for Peroz’s army was Hyrcania/Gurgan. When the Persians then marched north-east from Gurgan and reached the column marking the border, Peroz had it drawn in front of his army by 50 elephants handled by 300 men. In this way Peroz could claim to have kept his oath not to cross the border, but according to Balʻami, the Chief Mobed still said that this meant perjury. These details are extremely silly and prove only how silly Peroz was or alternatively how silly his men were. If it was the last, then the men were really superstitious and therefore prone to be influenced by all sorts of omens and oaths. If it was the former, then this only proves how superstitious Peroz and the top leadership were – if this version is true, it is no wonder that the Hephthalites worsted the whole lot of them. When Akhshunwar/Khouschnewaz learnt of the planned campaign, he dispatched an envoy to Peroz who asked him to respect the treaty. Peroz would have none of that and challenged him to engage him in battle. Instead of this, Akhshunwar chose to fight on a locale of his own choosing and on his own terms. Therefore he had a trench, ten cubits wide and twenty deep, dug behind his army which was covered up with light branches of wood and earth to hide it from view and over which were placed bridges. When the Persians then arrived, Akhshunwar/Khouschnewaz advanced alone in front of his army and demanded that Peroz would meet him face-to-face. Akhshunwar naturally accused Peroz of faithlessness and required him to keep his oath, while Peroz said that the enemy should prepare for combat. This ploy increased the moral ascendancy of Akhshunwar both in the eyes of his own men and the enemy. The justice was on the Hephthalite side. In order to make the case even more poignant, Akhshunwar had the peace agreement placed on the tip of the lance and paraded before. the armies. According to Ṭabarī, the Persians understood that their cause was not just and were therefore suffering from poor morale. According to one version preserved by both Ṭabarī and Balʻami, the Hephthalites then withdrew one parasang behind the trench during the night with the result that the Persians started a reckless pursuit in the morning. I would suggest that this tells only the first part of the story and that Thaʿalibi and Procopius preserve the feigned flight part missing from these and which can therefore be used to add detail missing from the others. At the same time we should still keep in mind that the above discussion includes also material that is missing from Procopius, but is still likely to be true. In the plain where the Persians were to begin their invasion of the Hephthalite lands, he marked off an extensive tract of land and dug a deep trench of sufficient width; however in the centre he left a small portion of the ground untouched to serve as a causeway wide enough for ten horses. He placed reeds over the trench, and covered the reeds with earth, and thereby concealed the trench. He then instructed the Hunnic forces that, when they would retire behind the trench, they were to array themselves together into a narrow column after which they were to pass slowly across the trench by using the causeway while taking great care not to fall into the trench. Then he hung from the top of the royal banner the salt over which Peroz had formerly sworn the oath that he had betrayed by attacking the Huns.

Peroz took his 30 (atleast 7) sons with him, 1 lakh of soldiers, all of whom perished with him. Hephthalite Jats under King Khusnawaz had defeated and killed Sassanian emperor Peroz in 484 CE (at Herat) with whole of his army. The same year Khusnawaz was succeeded by King Kun-khi, his son (in all possibility) to the throne of Hephthalites. Their capital should be Balkh (or Ba'alam) during this time. The Hephthalite prince Kun-khi also participated in the war with his father and led a small army on his own. Actually it was this small army which defeated and killed Peroz I at Herat and for the next two years the Hephthalites plundered and controlled the eastern part of the Sasanian Empire. As per, Aydogdy Kurbanov "G. Grum-Grzhimailo considers the Hephthalites were a branch of the Yuezhi, of whom a part left the Altai, was united with the Dinglings and in the 5th century AD, destroyed the Yuebans and moved into Tokharistan. According to Grum Grzhimailo, the native lands of the Hephthalites were the Altai mountains and they, were named by the name of their king Akhshunwar Eftalan."
Akhshunwar died in 488 CE (as per Shahnamah) and was succeeded by King Kun-khi in 484 CE, as after the defeat and killing of Peroz I we found mentons about King Kun-khi as the ruler of Hephthalite Kingdom.
Misconceptions of Akhshunwar & Hephthal II
Hephthal II and Akhshunwar both were ferocious and great Hephthalite kings as we have seen above, but due to lakh of evidences and research in the writings of some authors (mostly modern ones), which combines the histories of King Hephthal II with that of King Akhshunwar, while Hephthal II founded the Hephthalite/Yetha dynasty at Balkh in 477 CE, he conquered Kabul & Gandhar. What about Akhshunwar ? When we reads throughout the Sassanian history, we doesn't found the name mention until 478/9 CE, as out of three Hephthalite war of Sassanian monarch Peroz I, King Akhshunwar is mentioned only in the last two wars of 478/9 and 484 CE respectively and had not mentioned in the first war of 474/5 CE. While Author Dahiya in his "Jats the Ancient Rulers" (1980, Sterling publishers; pp.221-222) said, that Hephthal II founded this dynasty in 477 CE by capturing Kabul & Gandhar and he {Hephthal II} made Laelih (Ramanila) as the king of the newly acquired territories. While Hephthal III killed the Sassanian emperor Peroz in 484 CE. Thus, this clearly distinguish the conqueror of Gandhar and Kabul (Hephthal II) from the assassin of Peroz I, Hephthal III or Akhshunwar. This corressponds to our written sources as till 477/8 CE we find Hephthal II as the ruler of the Hephthalites and recall that we finds about mention of King Akhshunwar from 478/9 as the King to fought against Peroz I who later killed him in 484 CE, which mentions as Hephthal III by Dahiya to distinguish him {Akhshunwar} from Hephthal II, his predecessor.
Still many historians did this mistake in their writings, this can be because as Akhshunwar was a personal name of a Hephthalite King (ca.478/9-488 CE) but also a title given to Hepthalite kings.
We concludes that Akhshunwar was a king of Hephthalites who reigned from 478/9 to 484 CE and killed Sassanian monarch Peroz I in 484 CE and died in 488 CE. And any reference of king Khushnawaz before 478/9 is a reference of King Hephthal II who was called Ebodalo by medievel writers.

Kun-khi

Kun-khi was King of the Hephthalites in late 5th century AD with his capital at Ba'alam (Balkh) as he participated in Third Hephthal war with Peroz I Sassanian at Herat in 484 CE. Under the leadership of King Akhshunwar, after the decisive victory of Hephthalites over the Sassanians in the battlefield when Peroz I (Sassanian monarch) was killed, his daughter Firuzdukht was captured and and became a lady as in Hephthalite court, later taken as a wife to King Kun-khi to whom a girl took birth, this girl later married to her uncle Kavad I who was once a hostage in Hephthalite court of King Akhshunwar. Some authors say that Akhshunwar & Kun-khi may be same; if we reads throughout the central Asian history we finds that the name Kun-khi only mentioned between 484 CE to the early sixth century CE. How can a ruler says by different names in their different years/reigns? I mean the time they were known in different years? Why not simultaneously if they are same? Was the king a female? Who was changing her names along with her grooms? Obviously not, and thus Akhshunwar was also a title and a personal name, this could be the reason of this misconception as Kun-khi was also mentioned as Akhshunwar in history; actually most of the references after year 484 CE (Kun-khi's coronation year) of Akhshunwar refers to king Kun-khi.
Relations with Kavad I
Kavad I or Kawadh I was son of Sassanian monarch Peroz I, in Second Hephthal-Sassano War ca.478/9 AD he fought with bravery but after the forces of his father defeated by Hephthalite king Akhshunwar (r. 477/8-484 CE), he remained as a hostage in the Hephthalite court, in 488 CE he was crowned by the nobles to replace his deposed and unpopular uncle Balash (r. 484–488) who usurped the throne after the death of Kavad's father's death in 484 CE at the hands of Hephthalites. In 496 his brother Jamasp replaced him as the king of the Sassanian throne and Kavad fled to the Hephthalite court of Balkh of King Kun-khi for seeking asylum and help, as Kun-khi is also the husband of Kavad's sister Firuzdukht, he gave asylum to him for 4 years till 499 CE. And in 499 CE the Hephthalite king provided a army to him and he managed to recaptured his rule from his brother, after this region Kun-khi's daughter (unnamed, from Sassanian princess Firuzdukht) was married to her uncle Kawad. Kavad then ruled till 531 and succeeded by his son Khosrow I following his death the same year.

Sartu & Hwade-gang

Sartu was a ruling king of the Hephthalites in early 6th century CE. However history doesn't gave proper accounts of dates of successions during this period. But subsequently, when the taxes had been increased by the Hephthalite court, a contemporary Kingdom of Rob mentions about some details which sheds a new light to reconstruct the kingship and the lists of the rulers of Hephthalites.

Details obtained from Kingdom of Rob

The Kingdom of Rob (Bactrian: Ροβ, Rōb) was a small kingdom in Central Asia, in southern Bactria. It corresponds to the modern Rui in the Province of Samangan, modern Afghanistan. Numerous documents in the Bactrian language in the Bactrian script (a variation of the Greek script dating back to the rule of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the area) have been found from the archives of the Kingdom of Rob.

From the archives of the Kingdom of Rob.

• A letter from the Alxon Huna ruler Mahema of Kadag have found in their archives, in which he addresses himself as a governor of Sassanian monarch Peroz I, written in circa. 461/2 CE.
• In 484 CE Peroz was vanquished and killed by the Hephthalites, and Bactria came under Hephthalite rule from that time. A contract in the Bactrian language from the archive of the kingdom of Rob, has been found, which mentions about the taxes from the Hephthalites, requires the sale of land in order to pay these taxes. It is dated to 483/484 CE.
• Two other documents also found, dated the period from 492 to 527. States that the taxes had been paid to the Hephthalite ruler. They have found among another (differ from these all above) undated document which is listed below
• Another, undated document, mentions:

Sartu, the son of Hwade-gang, the prosperous Yabghu of the Hephthalite people (ebodalo shabgo); Haru Rob, the scribe of the Hephthalite ruler (ebodalo eoaggo), the judge of Tokharistan and Gharchistan.

—— Document of the Rob Kingdom.

--This document (Last one) of the Rob kingdom states that Sartu was the Yabghu (Lord, King) of the Hephthalites and ruler of Tokharistan and Gharchistan and was son of King Hwade-gang, Haru Rob of Rob Kingdom was a scribe of the Hephthalite ruler. It seems like this document is written around the dates of other two (in 492 to 527 ?) as this was the period of contact between the two dynasties (Hephthalites and Rob Kingdom) i.e., in late fifth century or early sixth century CE but before of 515 CE as that time another ruler Yilituo Yandai was ruling over hephthalite throne. If this accreditation is true, it is likely to be said and can be say that Sartu was predeceased by Hwade-gang (his father, have ruled before him) and he {Sartu} was succeeded by Yilituo Yandai around 515 CE, as Yilituo Yandai have sent many of his embassies in China's courts but his first was in 516 CE, this can be seen that a diplomatically peace loving king started sending embassies to other nations to hold his holdings more knowingly and to have friendly relations with those nations in order to make a long hold.

Yilituo Yandai

Yilituo Yandai, circa 516 - 526? CE (only known from his Chinese name 厭帶夷栗陁) was mentioned as a Hephthalite king in Chinese sources. An illustrated account of a Hephthalite (滑, Hua) embassy to the Chinese court of the Southern Liang in the capital Jingzhou in 516–526 CE is given in Portraits of Periodical Offering of Liang, originally painted/written by Pei Ziye and the future Emperor Yuan of Liang while he was a Governor of the Province of Jingzhou as a young man between 526 and 539 CE, and of which an 11th-century Song copy is preserved. The text explains how small the country of the Hua was when they were still vassals of the Rouran Khaganate, and how they later moved to "Moxian", possibly referring to their occupation of Sogdia, and then conquered numerous neighbouring country, including the Sasanian Empire:

• When the Suolu (Northern Wei) entered (the Chinese frontier) and settled in the (valley of the river) Sanggan (i.e. in the period 398–494 CE), the Hua was still a small country and under the rule of the Ruirui (Rouran Khaganate). In the Qi period (479–502 CE), they left (their original area) for the first time and shifted to Moxian (possibly Samarkand, where they settled). Growing more and more powerful in the course of time, the Hua succeeded in conquering the neighbouring countries such as Bosi (Sasanid Persia), Panpan (Tashkurgan?), Jibin (Kashmir), Wuchang (Uddiyana or Khorasan), Qiuci (Kucha), Shule (Kashgar), Yutian (Khotan) and Goupan (Karghalik), and expanded their territory by a thousand li...

—— "Hua" paragraph in "Portraits of Periodical Offering of Liang"

The Portraits of Periodical Offering of Liang mentions that no envoys from the Hephthalites came before 516 to the southern court, and it was only in that year that a Hephthalite King named Yilituo Yandai (姓厭帶名夷栗陁) sent an ambassador named Puduoda (蒲多达, possibly a Buddhist name "Buddhadatta" or "Buddhadāsa"). In 520, another ambassador named Fuheliaoliao (富何了了) visited the Liang court, bringing a yellow lion, a white marten fur coat and Persian brocade as present. Another ambassador named Kang Fuzhen (康符真), followed with presents as well (in 526 CE according to the Liangshu). Their language had to be translated by the Tuyuhun (an interpreter). In Portraits of Periodical Offering of Liang, the Hephthalites are treated as the most important foreign state, as they occupy the leading position, at the front of the column of foreign ambassadors, and have by far the largest descriptive text. The Hephthalites were, according to the Liangshu (Chap.54), accompanied in their embassy by three states: Humidan (胡蜜丹), Yarkand (周古柯, Khargalik) and Kabadiyan (呵跋檀). Overall, Chinese chronicles recorded twenty-four Hephthalite embassies: the first embassy in 456, and the others from 507 to 558 CE (including fifteen to the Northern Wei until the end of this dynasty in 535, and five to the Southern Liang in 516–541) The last three are mentioned in the Zhoushu, which records that the Hephthalites had conquered Anxi, Yutian (Hotan region in Xinjiang) and more than twenty other countries, and that they sent embassies to the Chinese court of the Western Wei and Northern Zhou in 546, 553 and 558 CE respectively, after what the Hephthalites were "crushed by the Turks" and embassies stopped. The Hephthalites also requested and obtained a Christian bishop from the Patriarch of the Church of the East Mar Aba I circa 550 CE.

Gatfar/Varaz

Ghadfar/Ghatifar, was a Hephthalite king in mid-sixth century CE, according to Firdausi, he was a grandson of Akhshunwar during the region of Khusrau I (r.531-579 AD), emperor of Sassanian empire. This name is given by Persian writers while the name of the king was Varz/Waraz, which reads as Varāz in the coinage. He is known to have confronted the combined forces of Sassanians and Turks under Khusrau I and Istami (circa. 552 CE) respectively at Gol-Zarriun, near Bukhara, Sogdia (present day Uzbekistan). As per B. I. Marshak and N. N. Negmatov a clash took place in Chach (Sindh) as well between the forces of Gadfar and Khusrau I. They wrote, "In the 560s, Chach was the arena of the ruinous wars of the Türk kaghan and the Sasanian king Khusrau I against the Hephthalite king Gatfar. One episode of this war ended in the capture of Chach, the Parak (Chirchik) region and the bank of the Syr Darya by the Türk kaghan. In the seventh century, part of the nomadic Türgesh people settled in Chach. According to Firdausi (author of Shahnamah), the Hephthalites were led by a king called Gatfar during their struggle against the Türks, which ended in their defeat at the battle near Bukhara. It is possible that the kings were chosen in peacetime as well as in exceptional circumstances but it is not known who chose them, perhaps the élite. One Chinese account states that the throne of the Hephthalites ‘was not transmitted by inheritance but awarded to the most capable kinsman’.
Battle of Gol-Zarriun
An epic battle took place at Gol-Zurrain near Bukhara, Sogdia in 560s, the Hephthalites of Central Asia found themselves squeezed between Sasanian Iran, whose power had increased tremendously under Khusrau I, and the Türks, who had conquered much of the north-east of Central Asia. The opponents of the Hephthalites entered into diplomatic negotiations with one another, but when the kaghan of the Türks dispatched ambassadors to Iran, they were killed in Hephthalite territory at the command of the Hephthalite king. The kaghan moved his forces and seized Chach (modern Tashkent) and continued to the Syr Darya (Jaxartes). The forces of the Hephthalites gathered in the region of Bukhara, towards which Hephthalite detachments marched from Termez, southern Tajikistan and even the Pamirs. An eight-day battle was fought in the Bukhara area, in the course of which the Hephthalites were routed. Their troops fled south.
As per author Farrokh, The Hephthalites were a strong military power but they lacked the organization to fight on multiple fronts. Even with the growth of Iranian military power under Khosrow's reforms, the Sasanians were still uneasy at the prospect of attacking the Hephthalite on their own and began to seek allies. Their answer came in the form of Turkic incursions into Central Asia. The movement of Turkic people into Central Asia very quickly made them natural enemies and competitors to the Hephthalites. The Sasanians and the First Turkic Khaganate made an alliance and launched a two pronged attack on the Hephthalites, taking advantage of their disorganization and disunity. However, Hephthalites fought a lot, the battle lasted even the 8th day but that day belonged to the Sassano-Turks. The Hephthalites were defeated and retreated to south of Sassanian territory and took refuse there. Meanwhile, the Turkic Khagan Sinjibu (Istami) reached an agreement with the Hephthalite nobility, and appointed Faghanish, the ruler of Chaghaniyan, as the new Hephthalite king.
After the battle and Ghadfar's defeat, individual semi-independent Hephthalite principalities continued to exist in the Zerafshan valley, paying tribute to the Türks. The situation was similar in the south, except that here the Hephthalites paid tribute to the Sasanians. Khusrau I found a pretext to cross the Amu Darya (Oxus). Power over the littoral of the Amu Darya later passed to the Türks, who then occupied all the territory of Afghanistan. Small Hephthalite principalities continued to exist in southern Tajikistan and Afghanistan for a long time; some of them (in particular Kabul, The Kabul Shahis) remained independent. Friendly relations between Turks and Sasanians quickly deteriorated after that. Both Turks and Iranians wanted to dominate the Silk Road and the trade industry between the west and the far east. In 568, a Turkish ambassador was sent to the Byzantine Empire to propose an alliance and a two-pronged attack on the Sassanian Empire, but nothing came of this.
As per Aydogdy Kurbanov, "The Hephthalites, tried to renew their relations with China, but without any success. A councilor of the Hephthalite king Gatfar was named Katulf. Katulf kept the king from beginning military action, arguing that tit would be better in their own land, where they were stronger than the enemy. However, insulted by Gatfar, he betrayed his country and fled to Khusrow I. In AD 558 yabghu-kaghan Istemi, attacked the Hephthalites from the north in alliance with Khusrow I. The reason was given by the Hephthalites themselves. Trying to prevent the alliance between the shahinshah and the kaghan, hephthalites killed the Turkic embassy (on Gadfar's instructions), moving through the Sogd, except for one man escaped and brought the message to the kaghan. War became inevitable. Mobilizing troops, the Turks invaded the Hephthalite state. First they conquered Chach (Tashkent), then crossed the river Chirchik and the Turkic troops stayed in Maimurg (principality in the Samarqand region, south of the Zarafshan). Gatfar had already begun to gather troops. In the region of Bukhara the troops from Balkh, Shugnan, Vashgird, Termez, Amul, Zemm and other areas of the state concentrated. The Hephthalite king decided not to take the battle on the plain, where the cavalry of the Turks had more advantages. He retreated to the mountains and fought at Nesef (Karshi). The battle lasted for eight days and ended with victory for the Turks. The date of this event is placed by some researchers ad AD 557 (Droin), AD 558 (Frye), AD 563 (Saint-Martin), AD 565 (Grousset), while Chavannes believes it was between AD 563-567." King Gatfar was fallen in this battle and remained Hephthalites moved south where a new ruler Faghanish was chosen as the new King, was a Hephthalite in origin.

The description of the battle is found in Firdausi’s work:

• ——“Bukhárá, Was all fulfilled with mace and axe, for there The {people ?} of the Haitálians was encamped. Ghátkár had come forth with a mighty host, And gathered all the native chiefs. The troops Troops rushed to both sides, Advanced from every quarter to the war, And left the wind no way…………………Upon the eighth day, against Ghátkár the world Was all bedarkened like night azure-dim, The Haitálians were overthrown irreparably For years, the wounded scattered everywhere, And all the march was full of slain and captives”.

The date of this battle? :- Some authors say 560? some says 576 and more else. But, Menander Protector mentions that when in AD 568 the Turkic ambassadors arrived in Constantinople, Emperor Justin II asked them: “You have subjected all the power of the Hephthalites?” – “All” - answered the ambassadors. Thus, we see that in AD 568 the Hephthalite state was already broken up and we could agree with the conclusions of Chavannes, which are based on the idea that the defeat of the Hephthalite state was between 563 and 567. As late as AD 598, a letter from Dyangu (or Tardu) kaghan (son of Istemi) to the Byzantine Emperor Mauritius (592-602), as reported by Theophilaktos Simocattes, said: “Having defeated the leader of the Abdels (i.e., Hephthalites), the Kaghan conquered them and has obtained power over them”.

After the defeat and death of Gatfar, the Turks and Sassanians claimed to took over their region, however Khusrow I was actually unable to establish his authority in the territory of Arachosia and Zabulistan so that there the Hephthalite king continued to rule, as well as in Badghis and Herat. Harmatta presumed that Huttal and Kabul were not included in the conquest of Turks or Sassanians. These provinces could preserve their independence after the fall of the Hephthalite empire. But Litvinsky and M. H. Zamir Safi said that the battle probably took place in 563 AD.

After Ghatifar, another Hephthal descend king Faghanish ruled over Chaghaniyan. (Stated in section, Faghanish)

Huns and the Sassanids

Sassanids refers to the emperors of The Sassanian Empire In 395 the Huns, led by commanders Basiq and Kursich, crossed the Don and turning southeast crossed the Caucasus. Initially, the Huns invaded the Roman regions of Sophene, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, capturing and enslaving Roman subjects. The Huns then besieged the Roman fortress of Ziatha, burning it and killing and enslaving its inhabitants. The two contingents then proceeded into Persia proper.Template:Sfn Basiq and Kursich led two detachments down the Euphrates, threatening the capital Ctesiphon. Upon hearing that the Sasanian army was marching against them, the Huns retreated. However, one group was overtaken, and some were killed. The other group of Huns successfully retreated through the Derbent Pass.

The three sections below were taken from The Three Hephthalite Wars of Peroz 474/5-484

They are Non-Proudful Rulers for India

There is an amazing myth among the historians including Indian too, according to this myth the White Hunas or Hephthalites were actually attackers and proved to be destroyers for India, they looted, they ruin, they destroys etc. Let me ask what about Saka(e) or Scythians? Were not they destroyers? The answer is simple, the one, who have power would rule allover it's extends/zenith. Let me remind you that when the Golden Age of India had finished it's rule, the residential people of India are celebrating and are happy that the so-called Gupta Dynasty had perished as also mentioned by Alberuni.

The Jat people were always equalize each other in behavior whether they are victorious or even defeated, this is the reason why Mihirakula leaved alive after the defeat by Yashodharman (or Gupta rulers of Dharan Jat clan).

These kind of historians one sided Proud on Gupta Dynasty and dosen't told the truth that, the Gupta King Baladitya considers Mihirakula as his Sovereign. Author B S Dahiya further postulated, with reference to a hindi book, namely 'The Travels of Huen Tsang In India' by Thakur Prasad Sharma (Suresh) that, "facts are not mentioned by historians who give this story and base their story of defeat of Mihirakula by Baladitya, who is even raised to the status of a national hero! Huen Tsang clearly says that Baladitya of Magadha was under the sovereignty of Mihirakula and after the attempted declaration of independence, was obliged to marry his daughter to his sovereign. Emperor, Mihirakula was succeeded at Pataliputra by his son, Ajitanjaya, as per Jain chronicles. Thus, Toramana, Mihirakula and Ajitanjaya are the Hari (follower of Vaishanavism), Kara (follower of Shiva) and Ajit, respectively of 'Arya Manjusri Mula Kalpa (K.P. Jayaswal). In Imperial History of India' And it was during the reign of Ajit that the Indian empire of Johl (Jauvala) clan of the Jats disintegrated."

Nowadays, Jats considers Shiva as an ancestor, again let me ask had not the Huna ruler Toramana and Mihirakula maded a great temple of Shiv at Multan?
The Saktisamgha(Ancient Indian Sanskrit work) mentions these Hunas as Heroes (or Nayakas, in Sanskrit). While the famous Bhitari Pillar Inscription of Emperor Skandagupta mentions them as the warriors by whose arrival in battlefield, the very earth shrived and starts shakings.(See, Section - In Authors Said? for reference!)

As the Malwa Kingdom of Virkas extended, it comes in conflicts with the ruler of Northern India, Emperor Mihirakula who ruled from Samarqand to Patliputra, and as the rising power of Yasodharman, he conqueror the battle in 528 CE (at Sondani). But the historians forgets about the relation between Mihirakula's brother namely "Sri Pravarsena" (or Pravarsena II) and Yashodharman's son Shiladitya, when he was driven out of his territory by a Vaisnavite King, he took asylum in Pravarsena's Kingdom, and later Paro Sen (Pravarsena) took him back on his throne, by defeating those invading traits (around 540 CE) as mentioned by Chinese Pilgrim Huen Tsang. This is an another example of equalize treatings within Jat community. While historian Jason Neelis mentions, "Yaśodharman, who apparently succeeded Prakāśadharman, also claims to have subjugated Mihirakula, “whose forehead was pained through being bent low down by the strength of [Yaśodharman’s] arm in obeisance” (Fleet 1888: 148). In this praśasti to Yaśodharman’s superiority over Mihirakula, the poet Vāsula remarks that Mihirakula did not render homage to anyone else except Śiva (Sthāṇu)."

I hadn't understood that why people use to depicts Hunas as wrong as there nothing mentions in history as such? For e.g., Chinese visitor namely, "Song Yun", an official Wei envoy, visited the court of the Hephthalite (Heda) ruler in eastern Afghanistan in 519 CE with Huisheng and continued traveling to Swat and Gandhāra in 520 CE. He mentions "In contrast to the ruler of Swat, who is depicted as a diligent Buddhist vegetarian, Song Yun described the Hephthalite ruler (Mihirakula) of Gandhāra as a bloodthirsty enemy of Buddhists". But we might remember that no statement is made in any paragraph proving that the Hephthalite king killed Buddhist monks or destroyed Buddhism in Gandhāra. This also expose an another myth that claim that the Hephthalites destroyed Buddhist monasteries in Taxila or Gandhara and elsewhere. Even totally opposite, a major Buddhist shrine at Harwan was built during this period of Hephthalite rule.

Author Hyun Jin Kim, in his famous book "The Huns" mentions, "The Kidarite Huns are known to have created conditions favourable to international trade and they maintained the monetary and economic system of the regions they conquered without disturbing them. In fact Hunnic rule of Central Asia marked the beginning of the golden age of Sogdian cities such as Samarkand, Bukhara, Paykend and Panjikent, which in many ways exposes the hollowness of the legend of Hunnic ‘destructiveness’."

Author E. V. Zeimal wrote, the Kidarite (Chionite Huns) monetary system did not disturb the economic life of the regions that came under their rule but, on the contrary, created favourable conditions for maintaining the established traditions in local trade. The numerous discoveries of imported articles in strata of the Kidarite period are proof of the existence of a flourishing international trade network and wide trading links between the various regions of the Kidarite state.

As per authors A. H. Dani & B. A. Litvinsky, "The archaeological evidence from Taxila led Marshall to speak of the great destruction caused by the Huns and the consequent disruption of the economic and cultural progress of the countries where they ruled. This conclusion has been contradicted by Dani, who believes that urban life continued in Taxila and the monasteries were maintained, as attested by Hsüan-tsang during his visit in the seventh century. New evidence from along the Karakorum highway reveals a brisk trade and commercial relations between Gandhara, China and the trans-Pamir region. Although the Silk Route was disrupted because of new imperial alignments, trade was deflected southward. The Huns were fervent worshippers of the sun god and of Shiva and a number of Shiva temples were built in Kashmir. In the Gilgit region, Buddhism flourished and developed a new form. The most important piece of evidence comes from the Buddhist creations at Bamiyan, where tall Buddha figures, cave paintings and monasteries attest the progress of art in this region. Hsüan-tsang has left a detailed description of the Buddhist centres and monastic life in the period of the Huns, waxing lyrical when he visits Bamiyan. From a cultural point of view, his most valuable observation is the following:-

• -These people are remarkable, among all their neighbours, for a love of religion (a heart of pure faith); from the highest form of worship to the three jewels, down to the worship of the hundred (i.e. different) spirits, there is not the least absence (decrease) of earnestness and the utmost devotion of heart. The merchants, in arranging their prices as they come and go, fall in with the signs afforded by the spirits. If good, they act accordingly; if evil, they seek to propitiate the powers. There are ten convents and about 1000 priests. They belong to the Little Vehicle, and the school of the Lokottaravadins.

The description of Kapisa is no less instructive in its picture of the economy and culture: (under Huna rule)

• -It produces cereals of all sorts, and many kinds of fruit-trees. The shen horses are bred here, and there is also the scent (scented root) called Yu-kin. Here also are found objects of merchandise from all parts . . . In commerce they use gold and silver coins, and also little copper coins . . . The king is a Kshattriya by caste. He is of a shrewd character (nature), and being brave and determined, he has brought into subjection the neighbouring countries, some ten of which he rules.

Hsüan-tsang’s descriptions of the capital cities of Kapisa, Gandhara and Taxila leave no doubt that these centres continued to maintain their urban nature in this period, although some were no longer royal seats of government. On the other hand, the foundation of new cities in Kashmir by the later Huna kings, as noted by Kalhana, speaks highly of the patronage they exercised. Under their rule Shaivism and the worship of the sun god were encouraged (many images of the sun god have been found in Gandhara). Only in the case of Taxila do new studies of the earlier finds suggest that the fortifications at the site of Giri belonged to the Huna period. On the other hand, Huei-ch’ao’s visit to Purushapura in 726 and his description of the Kanishka vihara there provide ample proof of the continued existence of the Buddhist centre."

Just the last question, had not the rulers of Zabulistan of Johl clan (descends of Hephthalites) were the Protectors of India at Khyber Pass, they fought and repulsed the Arab Invaders for many centuries, and dosen't let them to invade India. Their fort was known as Jauhla Fort and their land was called Zabulistan.

Their History is glorious and full of proudly moments, just read the real history and not the created one. They were the rulers from Kabul to Gandhar & from Kashmir and Samarqand to Kausambi and Eran (If we talk about, India only).

The Hunnic Revolts Against Arab Invaders:-

The Hunas were Protectors of Indian Subcontinent in,

1. Tokharistan - Around 719 AD a Hephthalite King by the name of Tish the 'One-Eyed' had established control over most of the Tokharistan (corresponds to roughly northern Afghanistan) and declared himself as the King of much of Northern Afghanistan and parts of Tajikistan with the title of 'Yabghu'. These presumably Hephthalite Kings (or Western Turkish rulers claiming the heritage of the Hephthalites and over former Hephthalites Huns) would continued to rule in this region until mid of eighth century AD. In 729 AD a king whose name seems to have been Qutlugh Ton Tardu sent as embassy to the Tang Court in Changan to solicit aid against the Arabs. In 758 AD the last 'Hephthalite' king of Tokharistan whose name is known to history, a certain Wu-na-tu.
2. The Hephthalites Hunnic struggle against the Arabs took place further west. The Arabs had defeated the surviving Hephthalites in the Herat region of western Afghanistan in the second half of seventh century AD.
3. However, a Hunnic (or Hunnified Western Turkish) ruler namely Nizak (or Tirek) with the title 'Tarkha' led the Huns and other groups against the new conquerors(Arab invaders) in the early eighth century AD in the Herat and Badhghis regions. After this resistance had been crused by the Arabs and the presumably Hunnic Kings of Tokharistan also vanquished. Arab Supremacy, in northern and western Afghanistan became uncontested.
4. However, the famous Khalaj Tribe of Afghanistan is according to some scholars (like Josef Markwart) were descends of these vanquished Hunnic Kings.
5. The Turk Shahi dynasty, descend from Hephthalites and Western Turks, had fought with Arabs; when the Arabs in 650s after the conquest of Sistan, they started in-roads in the Hunnic Shahi territory, Kabul soon fell into their onslaught. However, The Hunnic Shahi People counter-attacked and immediately drove out the Arabs out of not only Kabul, but also Zabulistan (the area around Ghazni) and ancient Arachosia (Kandahar).
6. In the second conflict of Hunnic/Turkic Shahis and Arabs in 697-8 AD, the Arab general Yazid b. Ziyad was killed while he was trying again to capture Zabulistan.
7. Arab Invasion of Kabul in 697-8 AD was successfully repulsed, and Huna Jats had saved the cities of Kabul and Zabulistan from the Afghani Invaders.
8. The Nezak Shahs (descend from, Hephthalites) had also contributed in this rebellious field, in 709-710 AD. Arab General Qutaiba attacked them with a large force, and in this gruesome battle, the Nezakian Shahs suffer a defeat and even totally perished.
9. The Kings of Zabul and Kabul would continue to defy the Arabs thereafter.
10. The Pratihara Vansha of Gurjara dynasty (contains a major White Hunnic element), ruled over a vast region of Northern India. They had also contributes in the protection of Indian Subcontinent (from 7-11th cen. AD). (also see, Section, 'Gurjara People').

• Point to remember- The Turk Shahis of Kabul and Gandhara were themselves created by the fusion of Hephthalites. And the rulers of Zabulistan were Johla Jats of Hunnic origin.
  

For reference of this section, See Author Hyun Jin Kim's Book "The Huns" (2015) [Ch.3].

Note - In 726 AD, The Korean pilgrim Huei-ch’ao visited Turk Shahi empire of ruler namely 'Tegin Shah' and mentions that he was the Uncle of Zabulistan's Ruler 'Iltäbär'

As per Rezakhani, The rulers of Tokharistan and Nezak Huns were closely related to each other.

Later/Other Hunnish Principalities

Nezak Huns

The Nezak kings, with their characteristic gold bull's-head crown, ruled from Ghazni and Kapisa. While their history is obscured, the Nezak's left significant coinage documenting their polity's prosperity. They are called Nezak because of the inscriptions on their coins, which often bear the mention "Nezak Shah".
As according to Harmatta the term Nezak is comes from Saka(n) language's term ' näjsuka ', which means "a fighter or a warrior"
The Nezak Huns ruled over the State of Jibin, which is also referred to as Kapisi (formerly Cao) by contemporaneous Buddhist pilgrims. Kapisi composed eleven vassal-principalities during Xuanzang's visit in c. 630, including Lampā, Varṇu, Nagarahāra, and Gandhara; where Taxila had been only recently lost to Kashmir.
The earliest mention of Kapisi is from Jñānagupta, a Buddhist pilgrim; he stayed there in 554 CE while travelling to Tokharistan. Dharmagupta, a South-Indian Buddhist monk, would visit the polity in the early seventh century, but his biography by Yan Cong is not extant. The contemporary Chinese Buddhist monk Xuanzang, who visited Kapisi in about 630, provides the most detailed description of Kapisi under the Nezaks, even though he never mentions the name of the ruling dynasty. Xuanzang met the king in Udabhandapura and then traveled with him to Ghazni and Kabul. The king is described as a fierce and intelligent warrior, belonging to the shali (刹利) / suli (窣利) race (Kshatriya ?) and commanding rude subjects.
The Cefu Yuangui (an 11th-century Chinese encyclopedia) and Old Book of Tang (a 10th-century Chinese history) record thirteen missions from Jibin to the Tang Court from 619 to 665; (These missions were in the years 619, 629, 637, 640, 642, 647, 648, 651, 652, 653, 654, 658, and 665). While neither of them mentions the name of the ruling dynasty, historians assume a reference to the Nezaks. The most-comprehensive listing among them, dating from 658, is the record of the thirteenth mission, which declared Jibin as the "Xiuxian Area Command" (means, Protectorate General to Pacify the West) and gave an account of a local dynasty of twelve rulers starting from Xinnie and ending with Hexiezi.

• In the third year of the Xianqing reign [658 CE], when [Tang envoys] investigated the customs of this state {Jibin}, people said: "From Xinnie, the founder of the royal house, up to the present [King] Hexiezi, the throne has been passed from father to son, [and by now] there have been twelve generations." In the same year, the city was established as Xiuxian Area Command.

— Old Book of Tang, 198.

The last mention of the dynasty is in 661 or 662 when the chronicles record the king of Jibin received a formal investiture from the Chinese court as Military Administrator and Commander-in-Chief of Xiuxian Area and eleven prefectures. Various compilations of the Tang dynasty would continue to mention the kings of Jibin, emphasizing that they wore a bull-head crown.

Here 12 generations back Xinnie founded the dynasty, as per Old Book of Tang. Only mentioned in Chinese chronicles of the thirteenth diplomatic mission (658 AD) as Xinnie—which has since been reconstructed as "Khingal"— that's may be Khingila (430-495 CE) the Alxon Huna ruler. We can confidently say that this dynasty was originated from Khingila as in year 658 CE it is mentioned 12 generations back Khingila (or Xinnie) was their founder assuming 20 years as one generation's average ruling period the time period appears to be 418 AD (658 - 20 X 12 = 658 - 240). That roughly corresponds to the ruling time of Khingila and if we exclude the time of newly (present, 658 CE) ruler Hexiezi (as he hadn't completed his ruling period, assumed 20 years), we get the years to be 438 CE (658 - (240 - 20)) and we took 5-5 years as range to 433 - 443 CE, Taking a king to be ruled 20 years it is quite possible that 12 generations back as claimed, Khingila was the founder of the dynasty in about 433 or between till 443 AD. This can be confirms by the affirmative reference of Shahi their common titles, Nezakian coinage mentions Shahi as a title in their Kings' name. And Toramana I recognized himself as the Shahi Jaubla in many of his inscriptions and coins.

The Nezak Shahs mentioned in history as rulers of Jibin (south of Hindu Kush), they took control over Zabulistan after the defeat and eventual death of Sassanian Emperor Peroz I (r. 459–484) by the Hephthalite King Akhshunwar (Hephthal III) It can be clearly say that after the death of Peroz I, Nezaks established their rule in south of Hindu Kush region in 484 CE remember that Khingila was a ruling King that time, thus it makes the claim more strong that Nezak Huns are descended from Khingila I ruler of Alxono Huns.
In words of Khodadad Rezakhani, "The local rulers of the region of Kabul and the neighbouring region of Zabul (Zawul; Zawulestan) had already emerged as autonomous powers in the second half of the fifth century. Known from their distinctive, and highly innovative coinage, the Nēzak Shah dynasty is classified by Göbl as one of the four major groupings of the Iranian Huns, largely on the basis of numismatic considerations. The dynasty, if indeed the issuing authorities of the Nēzak coins series can be grouped together as such, dominated the region of Kabul and beyond until the seventh century, when their waning power was replaced by a Turkic dynasty of Kabul Shahs, although their Zabuli branch may have survived for over a century, if we consider the Rutbil mentioned in the Islamic sources to have been a Nēzak authority of Zabul. The relation between the Nēzak Shahs of Kabul and Zabul and the Nēzak Tarkhāns of Tokharistan, known from the Islamic sources, provides historians with many prompts for speculation and has been largely undetermined in the discussion of their connections. The Nēzak dynasty, so called from the name Nēzak Shah read on an extensive series of silver and copper coins mostly from the region of Zabul and Kapiśa/Kabul, is known mainly through its coinage. In textual sources, little reference is made to the Nēzak Shahs of Kabul, except in Chinese sources, where the word Nisai or sometimes Nishu is used to refer to them. Their coins, long known as the most elaborately designed of the ‘Iranian Huns’’ emissions, carry a legend that reads nycky MLK ‘nēzak šāh’ in Pahlavi script. The title might be related to Middle Persian nēzag ‘spear’, while it might also be a title used for tribal leaders of the Western Turks. The fact that they use neither Bactrian nor Brahmi for the legends of their coins could be, more than anything, a political statement separating them from the sphere of influence of their immediate neighbours, and says very little about their actual ethnic identity. It might, on the other hand, say something about the political status of the Persian language as a political language in the east, or be a sign of increasing Sasanian influence and prestige in the areas dominated by the Hunnic overlords. Indeed, Middle Persian appears to have been the most commonly used language in the areas of Zabulistan and Kabulistan during this period.
The most famous Chinese reference to the Nēzak Shahs is the account in the Sui Shu, which says that the king of Kabul wore a crown topped by a bull’s head, a detail that has been interpreted as referring to the buffalo skull appearing on top of the crown of the Nēzak Shahs on their coinage. This has basically meant that the Chinese references to Nisai are taken as narratives of the Nēzak Shah."
The Hephthalites, by concentrating their efforts in Tokharistan and Transoxiana, left Kabul and Zabul alone, as Kuwayama so vehemently argues, and the Alkhans, after initially issuing coins in Kabul, eventually attempted to cross into Gandhara, thus leaving the Nēzak Shah in charge. It is suggested by Vondrovec that the Alkhan–Nēzak ‘Crossover’ series can be assigned to the dynasty of the Khingal, a possibility that would strengthen the idea that a branch of the Imperial Nēzak survived in Zabulistan, continuing the issue of the Late Nēzak series. At the same time, the increased Sasanian presence in East Iran, after their success in AD 560 and before their defeat by the Turks in 590, may also be a further sign of the influence of Sasanian cultural elements, including the proliferation of Pahlavi legends on coins, in the Zabulistan region. The Nēzak Shah survived independently until at least 661 CE. Their capital was at modern-day Bagram (Afghanistan).

Ghar-ilchi

Ghar-ilchi (Chinese: 曷撷支 Hexiezhi, also transliterated as Ko-chieh-chih, 653-665 CE) was, according to Chinese and Arab sources, a local of Kapisi and the twelfth and last known ruler of the Nezak Huns. Ghar-ilchi was the last member of a local "Khingal dynasty" founded by Khingila, the Alchon Hun ruler.
In the Chinese annals of 658 CE Ghar-ilchi appears as "Hexiezhi" (Chinese: 曷撷支, reconstructed from Old Chinese: *γarγär-tśiě < *ghar-ilči), reconstructed as the Turkic "Ghar-ilchi" (*Qarγïlacï, 653-c.665 CE), 12th king of his dynasty from the founder "Xinnie" (馨孽, reconstructed from Old Chinese: *xäŋ-ŋär < *henger < Khingar/ Khingal) Ghar-ilchi was formally installed as king of Jibin (former Kapisi/Kabulistan) by the Chinese Tang dynasty emperor in 653 CE, and again as Governor of Jibin under the newly formed Chinese Anxi Protectorate, the "Protectorate of the Western Regions", in 661 CE.

As per Tang Shu, In 661 CE Hejiezhi was the 12th ruler of the Nezak dynasty, reign over Jibin or Kabul & The Nēzak branch ruling over Zabulistan (Zunbils of Johl clan) probably also survived to the same period, issuing coins of the -ā series as the Late Nēzak before these were replaced by new series under the Turkic rule.
In 654, an army of around 6,000 Arabs led by Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura of the Rashidun caliphate attacked Zabul and laid seize to Rukhkhaj and Zamindawar, eventually conquering Bost and Zabulistan—while records do not mention the names and dynastic affiliations of the subdued rulers, it is plausible that the Nezaks suffered severe territorial losses. In 661, an unnamed ruler—possibly, Ghar-ilchi—was confirmed as Governor of Jibin under the newly formed Chinese Anxi Protectorate, and would broker a peace treaty with the Arabs, who were reeling from the First Fitna and lost their gains. In 665, Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura occupied Kabul after a months-long siege but was soon ousted; the city was reoccupied after another year-long siege. The Nezaks were mortally weakened though their ruler—who is not named in sources but might have been Ghar-ilchi—was spared upon converting to Islam. As per Dániel Balogh, "If Xinnie, the ancestor and founder of Hexiezhi's family, is identical with Khiṅgila on the Alkhan coins, or with Khiṅgila on the copper scroll, then this may be explained as a sequel to an event which may have produced the coins of Alkhan–Nezak crossover, that is, certain people of the Alkhan group returned west of the Khyber Pass and conquered or merged with the local dynasty which had been issuing Nezak coins.

In 665 CE, Arab general Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura launched an expedition to Arachosia and Zabulistan, capturing Bost and other cities. Kabul was occupied in 665 CE after a siege of a few months. Kabul soon revolted but was reoccupied after a month-long siege. Abd al-Rahman's capture and plunder of Kabul mortally weakened the rule of Ghar-ilchi.
Islam ? Acceptance ? History is well known for illustrations, Ghar-ilchi was from same clan of same race that Gokul Jat Haga belonged to who was killed by executioners of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb on his farmān (order) by cutting Gokul Jat limb by limb (then, inch by inch), poured hot oil & Chili's powder (spice) in his eyes as he refused to accept Islam after defeated and captured. If Ghar-ilchi converted to Islam then why Chinese sources doesn't mentions this fact? Or why only the Arab sources say this? The reason is clear to depict their suzerainty over the ruler of Kapisa, they written wrong facts to glorifies their conquest and history, as no Jat converted to Islam forcibly on the sharpness of swords, as they never feared one. And if this fact is truth then Ghar-ilchi's superiors or Chinese emperor's sources should have mention this fact? As Ghar-ilchi was the Anxi Protectorate, the "Protectorate of the Western Regions" (appointed by Tang dynasty in 661 CE) and was defeated in 665 CE by Arabs, this fact is totally a act of lie in order to manipulate the history accordingly in the favour of Arab valour by them (or their writers).

In 665 CE, Ghar-ilchi was killed by Barha Tegin who founded the Turk Shahi dynasty at Kabul. Which has been stated in Section - Turk Shahis.

Nezak Tarkhan

Nizak Tarkhan or Tirek Tarkhan was a Hephthalite ruler of Tokharistan from Badghis from 651 to 710 CE. He was descended from Nezak Shahs Nezak Tarkhan is first mentioned in 651 CE as the Hephthalite ruler of Badghis, when he allied with the marzban of Merv against the Sasanian ruler Yazdegerd III (r.632-651 CE). Yazdegerd III was defeated and barely escaped with his life, but he was murdered in the vicinity of Merv soon after, and the Arabs managed to capture the city of Merv the same year. Turk Shahis also provided him aid against the Umayyad Caliphate.

In 659, Chinese chronicles still mentioned the "Hephtalite Tarkhans" (悒達太汗 Yida Taihan, probably related to "Nezak Tarkhan"), as some of the rulers in Tokharistan who remained theoretically subjects to the Chinese Empire, and whose main city was Huolu 活路 (modern Mazār-e Sherif, Afghanistan). Yaqut al-Hamawi (12th century Muslim scholar) called Badghis "the headquarters of the Hephthalites" (dār mamlakat al-Hayāṭela). Thâbit and Hurayth ibn Qutba, who were brothers and leaders of the merchant community of Merv, allied with Arab rebel and ruler of Termez, Musa ibn Abd Allah ibn Khazim, who was the son of the Zubayrid governor of Khurasan Abd Allah ibn Khazim al-Sulami, against the forces of the Umayyad Caliphate. This alliance expanded to include Nezak Shahs, as well as the Hepthalite princes of Transoxiania and Tukharistan. They rebelled and Musa drove out the Umayyads from Transoxiania. While Musa's allies suggested to him to conquer all of Khorasan, his Arab allies told him to only take over Transoxiana, which he achieved. The Umayyad forces under Yazid ibn al-Muhallab however defeated this alliance, defeating Nezak Shahs in Badghis in 703 and capturing Termez from Musa in 704.
Nezak Tarkhan, the ruler of the Hephthalites of Badghis, led a new revolt in 709 AD with the support of other principalities as well as his nominal ruler, the Yabghu of Tokharistan. Fighting for about a year in 710 AD, the Umayyad general Qutaiba ibn Muslim was able to re-establish Muslim control over Tokharistan and captured Nizak Tarkhan, who was executed on the orders of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, despite promises of pardon, while the Yabghu was exiled to Damascus (Arab capital) and kept there as a hostage. He formed alliance with the ruler of Changhiyan, Tish and fought and resisted Arabs for a year. Later his head along with the heads of his family, including his nephews and wife and many other members, sent to al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.

Tirek Tarkhan was a ruler of Hephthalite Jats of Badghis and Herat region from 651 to 710 AD, he was a descend from Nezakian Shahs of Kabul. He revolted against the Umayyad Caliphate in 709 AD after struggling for almost a year he was captured and brutally executed.
I, Ch. Reyansh Singh would like to have his name with the same honour I takes the name of great rebel martyr Hanga Vir Gokula Jat (d.1670 CE) of Tilhu, Sadabad (Hathras).

Tokhara Yabghus

[9] 625-758 CE The Tokhara Yabghus or Yabghus of Tokharistan (simplified Chinese: 吐火罗叶护; traditional Chinese: 吐火羅葉護; pinyin: Tǔhuǒluó Yèhù) were a dynasty of Western Turk–Hephtalite sub-kings with the title "Yabghus", who ruled from 625 CE in the area of Tokharistan north and south of the Oxus River, with some smaller remnants surviving in the area of Badakhshan until 758 CE. In 569–570, the Turks launched an offensive against the Sasanian Empire, and conquered the Hephthalite principalities south of the Oxus belonging to the Sasanian Empire. At that time the Sasanian Empire was embroiled in a war in the west, with the Byzantine Empire. It seems the Turks reached the Kabul–Gandhara area in 570. The principalities of the Hephthalites, formerly vassals of the Sasanian Empire, accepted Turk supremacy and became vassals of the Western Turk qaghan, and the Alchon Huns continued to rule in Kabul and Gandhara, but the Turks apparently did not permanently occupy the territory south of the Oxus. The Hephthalites aspired to independence from the Turks, and in 581 or 582 CE, they revolted in alliance with the Sasanians against the Turk Kaghan Tardu.

Chaghan Khudah Rule

[10][11][12] The principality of Chaghaniyan or the Chaghan Khudah rule (of later chronicles) was a dynasty of pure Hephthalite origin, the first ruler was Faghanish, a Hephthalite by origin who was a descend of powerful king Akhshunwar (477/8-488 CE) who defeated and killed Sassanian monarch Peroz I in the battle of Herat ca. 484, (this has been already discussed in headline Faghanish of section, 'Hephthalites (White Huns)').
The Hephthalite Empire fragmented in 560s under the assault of the Western Turks and the Sassanian Empire. After this time, the area around the Oxus in Bactria contained numerous Hephthalites principalities, remnants of the great Hephthalite Empire. They are reported in the Zarafshan valley, Chaghaniyan, Khuttal, Termez, Balkh, Badghis, Herat and Kabul. Al-Biruni writes in his al-Qanun al-Mascudi that Tokharistan ‘in the days of old was the country of the al-Hayatila {Hephthalites}’. According to modern researchers, the Islamic geographic term Haital (Hephthalite) ‘was for long synonymous with the regions of Tuxaristan and Badaxsan to the south of the upper Oxus and those of Chaganian, Qubadiyan, Xuttal and Waxs to the north of it’. In words of Litvinsky, "Central control in the Hephthalite state was weak and local dynasties continued to rule in a number of regions. Such was the case in Chaganiyan, on the upper and middle reaches of the Surkhan Darya. One of the rulers of this dynasty was Faganish, whose name is known from written sources; the names of other rulers appear on Chaganiyan-Hephthalite coins. The name of another Chaganiyan ruler, Turantash, appears on a long inscription at Afrasiab. In the first quarter of the eighth century, Chaganiyan was ruled by Tish, the ‘One-Eyed’ (in the Sogdian language, Tish is the name of the star Sirius). The Manichaean religion was widespread in Chaganiyan together with Buddhism."
Further authors Litvinsky & M. H. Zamir Safi added about the Principality of Chaghaniyan that, "Chaganiyan, lies in the upper and central valley of the Surkhan Darya river. It is certain that a Hephthalite dynasty – which may have been descended from the Faganish mentioned above – ruled in Chaganiyan. The coinage in circulation was mainly that of Khusrau I Anushirvan: at first, this was the genuine currency of the shahanshah, but imitations later appeared with the name of the local rulers, ‘σαρρο χδηο, ζαρινο χδηο’. Finally, coins appeared stamped like those of Khusrau I but with the name of the local ruler, ‘ποινοιο χδηο’, on the reverse, on either side of an altar; while the obverse bears no inscription. The local ruling dynasty, whose representatives bore the title of Chaghan Khudāt, continued to exist in the pre-Arab period. Several of the rulers are known to us by (this) name." However this Chagan can also be identified with the Jat clan namely Changa/Chang or Chahang/Chahung, which is found in Sindh province of Pakistan, Himachal Pradesh and in Uttar Pradesh in India. It also founded in Afghanistan This modern Changa clan inhabited in the regions where these Chaghan-Khudas had impactfully ruled, likewise in Sindh and Afghanistan (Tish ruled all of Tokharistan for about 2-3 decades, 8th cen. CE), this suggests that this clan is descended from them, which says that this clan has a Hephthal origin. In Punjab Changan is still the plural name by which these Changa Jats known today. Likewise the Muhtajids rulers which preserved this clan in 10th and 11th century CE. (This has been discussed in section Muhtajids)
The word χδηο :- The coinage of these Chaghan Khudas mentions χδηο after the names of the rulers/lords of Chaghaniyan, this word is very similar to the word χοννο found inscribed on the coins of Alkhan Huns whom ruled over vast empires in the Northwestern and Central Indian subcontinent. The word "Alchono" (αλχοννο) in Greek (Greco-Bactrian cursive script), is inscribed on the coins of Khingila (ca. 430-490 CE) ruler of Alkhan Hunas. Hans T. Bakker argues that the second spelling -khan- makes it unlikely that the term contains the ethnic name "Hun", as the Bactrian word for "Hun" is *uono (plural uonono). And this ethnic name has been used as a personal name (by different kings of Hephthalites). Here the word χδηο can be a (mistake) degeneration (or modification) of the word Ounno or Khonnoi; i.e. a resemblance of Hun. The list of rulers and exact genealogy can't be obtained but still, what I found is postulated below.

Faghanish

Faghanish was a descendant of the powerful Hephthalite king Akhshunwar (Khushnavaz), who had defeated and killed the Sassanian king (shah) Peroz I in 484. He ruled and was the founder of Principality of Chaghaniyan in 563 CE. Before 560 CE, he served for Hephthalite superiors as their chief governor but the defeat of the Hephthalites by the combined forces of Turks and Sassanids at Battle of Gol-Zurriun in 560s led the destruction of the Hephthalite forces and administration. He therefore, succeeded to the Haphthal throne (of Chaghaniyan) after death of Gatfar in 563 AD. When the forces of Gadfar retreated to south, there they elected a new king Faghanish, then Turkic Yabgu Istemi reached an agreement with the Hephthalite nobility, and accepted Faghanish as the new Hephthalite king. This was much to the dislike of the Sasanian shah Khosrow I Anushirvan (r. 531–579), who considered the Turkic collaboration with the Hephthalites to pose a danger for his rule in the east, and thus marched towards the Sasanian-Turkic border in Gurgan. When he reached the place, he was met by a Turkic delegate of Istemi that presented him gifts. There Khosrow asserted his authority and military potency, and persuaded the Turks to make an alliance with him. The alliance contained a treaty that made it obligatory for Faghanish to be sent to the Sasanian court in Ctesiphon and gain the approval of Khosrow for his status as Hephthalite king. The Prinicipality of Changhiyan was descended from Faghanish which produced many kings/rulers later, this has been listed in the Section - Chaghan Khudah Rule. Tish Chaghan Khudah was a powerful ruler among them.
As per Aydogdy Kurbanov, "After the death of king Gatfar in the battle against Sassano-Turks at Gol-Zurriun (Balkh) the Hephthalites took refuse to the south of Sassanian territories where they choose Faghanish as their new King, his capital was Changhiyan, he was a Hephthalite by origin, who hurried to comply with the Sasanians in order to avoid full defeat from the Turks. Khusrow I had attacked simultaneously with the Turks against the Hephthalites and occupied some of the areas south of the Amu Darya."

Turantash

Figure no.	From the murals of Afrasiyab
1)		Inscription of Afrasiyab dated between 648-651 CE; mentions Turantash as lord of Chaghanian and his dapirpat Pukarzate. (described below)
2)		Ambassadors from Chaganian (central figure), and Chach (modern Tashkent) to king Varkhuman of Samarkand. 648-651 CE, Afrasiyab murals, Samarkand.
Notice -	In early 2014, France' government declared that it would finance the restoration of the Afrasiab painting and funded for it in April, same year.
3)		Restored paintings of Ambassadors from Chaganian (central figure), and Chach (modern Tashkent) to king Varkhuman of Samarkand. 648-651 CE, Afrasiyab murals, Samarkand. The delegate to the right has a Simurgh design on his dress.

Turantash was a ruler of principality of Chaghaniyan in mid-seventh century CE. He was a descend of Hephthalite king Faghanish, in circa 648-651 CE, the ruler of Chaghaniyan Turantash, sent an embassy under his chancellor Pukarzate to Varkhuman, the Sogdian king of Samarkand.
The visit is mentioned in the murals of Afrasiyab, written in Sogdian:

When King Varkhuman Unash came to him [the ambassador] opened his mouth [and said thus]: "I am Pukarzate, the dapirpat (chancellor) of Chaganian. I arrived here from Turantash, the lord of Chaganian, to Samarkand, to the king, and with respect [to] the king [now] I am [here]. And with regard to me do not have any misgivings: about the gods of Samarkand, as well as about the writing of Samarkand I am keenly aware, and I also have not done any harm to the king. Let you be quite fortunate!" And King Varkhuman Unash took leave [of him]. And [then] the dapirpat (chancellor) of Chach opened his mouth.

-- Inscription on an ambassador's robe in Afrasiyab murals 648-651 CE. See Figure (1) above.

As per Edward A. Allworth, Turantash may was a Hephthalite descend. In words of B. A. Litvinsky & M. H. Zamir Safi, "an Afrasiab inscription states that emissaries arrived in Samarkand from the Chaganiyan ruler, Turantash. The above-mentioned emissaries from Chaganiyan were led by the dapirpat, the chief scribe or head of chancellery."

Yabghu Tish

Tish (704-737 CE) was a ruler of Chaghaniyan in early eighth century CE. In words of B. A. Litvinsky & M. H. Zamir Safi, "In the first quarter of the eighth century, the ruler of Chaganiyan was Tish (the Bactrian name for the star Sirius) the ‘One-Eyed’, who also ruled the whole of Tokharistan with the title of yabghu." And as per Kim, "Around 719 AD a possibly Hephthalite king by the name of Tish the ‘One-eyed’, taking advantage of the Arab invasion of Central Asia which had weakened the authority of the Turk yabghu (ruler) of Tokharistan (corresponding to roughly northern Afghanistan), established control over most of Tokharistan and declared himself king of much of northern Afganistan and parts of Tajikistan with the title of Yabghu. These presumably Hephthalite kings (or Western Turkish rulers claiming the heritage of the Hephthalites and ruling over former Hephthalite Huns) would continue to rule in this region until the middle of the eighth century AD. In 729 AD a king whose name seems to have been Qutlugh Ton Tardu sent an embassy to the Tang court in Changan to solicit aid against the Arabs. In 758 AD the last ‘Hephthalite’ king of Tokharistan whose name is known to history, a certain Wu-na-to, arrived at the Chinese capital."
The Chaghan-Khudah probably co-operated in 85/704 with the Arab army in an attack on Tirmidh launched by al-Mufaddal b. al-Muhallab, the newly-appointed governor in Khurasan, for in this same year al-Mufaddal turned northwards from a campaign in Badghis and led a raid into Shuman and Akharfin. In the following year, 86/705, Qutaiba came from Merv to Talaqan in Tukharistan and then to Chaghaniyan, and received the submission of both the Chaghan-Khuda and the prince of Shuman and Akharun (the latter given by Tabari the typically Iranian name of Gushtasban, whilst the Chaghin-Khuda is named as "Tish/Bish the one-eyed"). The motive for the Chaghan-Khuda's submission to the Arabs is made especially clear by Baladhuri's words, "Then when he [sc. Qutaiba] crossed the river, there came to him the king of Saghaniyan with gifts and a golden key, giving him his obedience and inviting him to establish himself in the king's land. The king of Akharun and Shuman had been pressing hard on the king of Saghaniyan and raiding him, so because of that, the latter handed over those presents to Qutaiba and gave him that invitation." The real reason for Tish's submission, however, was to gain aid in defeating the local rulers of Akharun and Shuman in northern Tokharistan, who had been making incursions against him. Qutayba ibn Muslim & Tish shortly defeated the two rulers. In 718, Tish, along with Gurak, the king of Samarkand, Narayana, the king of Kumadh, and Tughshada, the Bukhar Khudah of Bukhara, sent an embassy to the Tang dynasty of China, where they asked for aid against the Arabs. Yabghu Tish in September 737 CE, the Chagan Khudah decided to fought along the Umayyads against the Turgesh generals (invading trait, that time) by acknowledging this Turgesh generals took another Hephthal principality along their side, Principality of Khuttal; fighting with great bravery the Chaghan-Khudah penetrating the enemy's army; when he was surrounded by those enemy troops (enlarged in numbers), killed him. He fell and attained martyrdom in year 737 September last week CE. He seems to have been succeeded by king Wu-na-to, who ruled till 758 AD.

Other Chaghan Khudas

ποινοιο χδηο was the Chaghan Khudah during the later reign of Khusrau I, i.e. After the rule of Faghanish, ποινοιο χδηο ruled there i.e. in about late sixth century AD. Then in 650s Turantash was the ruling Chaghan-Khudah, then we find Yabghu Tish (r.704-737 CE) who ruled all over of Tokharistan attained martyrdom in 737 CE and succeeded by king Wu-na-to who ruled till 758 CE atleast. Then rulers like σαρρο χδηο, ζαρινο χδηο also founded to be inscribed on the coinage of the Chaghan Khudas as the local rulers under various powers. All these rulers were descended from Faghanish, {who was a descend of Hephthalite king Akhshunwar (r. 477/8-484 CE, d.488 CE)} and founded the Principality of Chaghaniyan and took the title as 'Chaghan Khudah' (Lord of Chaghan) in 560s CE. Later this leads to the formation of the Jat clan, Changa/Changg. (read the whole section Chaghan Khudah Rule, & you don't need any reference(s) here). And then in 10th-11th century the Muhtajids also bore Changa/Chaghan as their gotra/clan (discussed already; & detailed in section Muhtajids).

Principality of Ushrusana

[13] 600s to 892/3 CE. descended from Kidarite ruler Ularg.
Principality of Ushrusana was a dynasty ruling in Ushrusana (in northern area of modern Tajikistan) that ruled from about 600s CE to 892 CE. Vladimir Minorsky noted the principality of Ushrusana (between Samarqand and the Jaxartes), for its stubborn opposition to the Arabs. Ushrusana, just like Ferghana, did not belong to Sogdia proper, but its inhabitants wrote in Sogdian, and may have spoken the Sogdian language as well. The rulers of the principality were known by their title of Afshin.

Kidarite king Ularg of Samarqand
(5th century CE).

As per Richard Payne, "The Kidarite king in Samarkand in the 450s or 460s made the supersession of Iranian rule explicit in the Bactrian version of his official title: “Lord Ularg, the king of the Huns, the great king of the Kushans, the afshiyan of Samarkand.” Here, afshiyan king Ularg independently ruled over Samarqand, which was previously possessed by the Sassanians in 450s to early 460s & before 464 CE as in 464 CE, Priscus mentions king Kunkhas as the ruling king of Kidarites. Ularg was succeeded by Kunkhas as the king who in 467 CE retreated to Gandhar. Priscus says (in about 463/4) that Kunkhas' father few years ago refused to pay any kind of tributes to Yazdegird II, (Peroz Sassanian's father). If one see that Ularg made Samarkand free from the rule of Yazdegird II (438–457; i.e., Sassanian Shah/king in 450s), this may clearly say that Ularg was the father of Kunkhas, who just before his rule denied for paying tributes to the Sassanian Shah Yazdegird II. And ruled a large territory over Samarkand and Balkh.
Author Rezakhani Khodadad says, "a Kidarite kingdom may have survived in Sogdiana, possibly in the area of Ustrushana. As mentioned before, a coin type, part of the normal archer type of Samarkand, and published by Zeimal bears the Sogdian legend kyδr, which is dated to the fifth century and appears to refer to Kidara. Zeimal points out that out of 200 coins in the hoard, only seven bear this inscription, showing the short period of Kidarite control of Samarkand. However, the presence of a seal, showing a Hunnic ruler with the title of Kushanshah, may possibly point to a longer period of Kidarite presence in Sogdiana:

• βαγο ολαργο υονανο ϸαο οαζαρκο κοϸανοϸαο σαμαρκανδο αφϸιιανο

Lord Ularg the King of the Huns, the Great Kushan Shah, the Afshiyan of Samarkand.

The seal suggests that the ruler of Samarkand was known as the Great Kushan Shah, a title used by the Kidarites on their coins. He was additionally the king of the Huns, showing his connection to the wave of Chionite conquests. The title of Afshiyan is a rendition of the well-known Islamic title of Afshin, for kings of Ustrushana is akin to other titles from the region originating from Old Iranian *xšaitā, which also renders MP Šāh. The seal thus shows the position of a king of the Huns, with claims to the position of Kushanshah, living in Samarkand, a situation that matches well our other evidence for the presence of the Kidarites in Sogdiana.
However, we should not assume that the Kidarite presence in eastern Sogdiana disappeared quickly after their demise in Tokharistan. Indeed, centuries later, in the early ninth century, the local king of Ustrushana and the Abbasid general Al-Afshin bore the personal name of Khydhar, which was sometimes written wrongly as (Arabic) Haydar but was specified as Khydhar by later writers as well, while at least one source has the form Kydr. The name Kydr seems to have indeed been a popular one among the people of Ustrushana, as several characters bearing it, including a certain Kydr b. Abdullah al-Ustrushani, are mentioned in the Islamic sources. This might also be related to the Afšun, Khuv of Khākhsar who is mentioned on one of the documents from the Mugh Mountain as the addressee of a rather unhappy letter from ad 722 by Dewashtich, the ruler of Samarkand and the last opponent of the Muslim conquest of Sogdiana."
This Principality of Ushrusana was descended from king Ularg who seems to appear as a predecessor of king Kunkhas, however sources say (see, section Kunkhas) that Kunkhas' father who ruled before him, refused to pay tributes to Sassanian emperor Yazdegerd II, which means his father ruled just before him was a powerful ruler of Kidarite empire. Thus just before Kunkhas, Ularg was the powerful ruler of Kidarites; Kunkhas was his son succeeded him in mid-460s. This connection may be apparent from the analysis of the coinage, and in the names of some Ushrusana rulers such as Khaydhar ibn Kawus al-Afshin, whose personal name is attested as "Khydhar", and was sometimes written wrongly as "Haydar" in Arabic. In effect, the name "Kydr" was quite popular in Usrushana, and is attested in many contemporary sources. The title Afshin used by the rulers of Usrushana is also attested in the Kidarite ruler of Samarkand of the 5th century named Ularg, who bore the similar title "Afshiyan" (Bactrian script: αφϸιιανο). There's a theory, in 450s and (early) 460s Ularg was the ruler of Kidarites ruled vast territories of Samarqand and Balkh, succeeded by his son Kunkhas, who in 467 CE defeated by Sassanian ruler Peroz (along with the help of Hephthalites), who then retreated to Gandhar. May be a branch of his descendants survived in Usrushana as assumed by Rezakhani Khodadad.

Chronology of rulers

Independent rulers (c. 600-720 CE)

The list of rulers, who ruled as the mighty sovereigns over Ushrusana, from 600 to 720 CE until the last phases of the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana. Its rulers were in order: Chirdmish, Satachari I, Rakhanch I, Satachari II, Satachari III, Rakhanch II, Rakhanch III. They are especially known from their coinage.
Here Rakhanch I ruled in 7th century CE, who was an Afshin (ruler) of the Principality of Ushrusana, modern Tajikistan. Some of his coins, discovered in the ruins of the Palace of Kala-i Kakhkakha in Bunjikat, are now in the National Museum of Antiquities of Tajikistan. Some of his coins, in some cases bearing the symbol of a Christian equilateral cross, were also found in the area of Chach, together with of another ruler named Satachari of same dynasty.

After 720s

"The chronology of rulers of Ushrusana after 720 CE is as under; Kharabugra (720-738), Hanahara (Kharakhuruh) (738-800), Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh (800-825), Haydar (al-Afshin) (825-840), Hassan (840-860), Abdallah (860-880), Sayyar ibn 'Abdallah (Sayr) (880-893/4)."

Kharabugra & Kharakhuruh

Kharabugra was an Afshin who ruled after 720 CE, he was descended from Chirdmish of early 7th century, one of the first known rulers of Ushrusana, he ruled till 738 and was succeded by his son Kharakhuruh who likewise his father was also a powerful ruler. It was him, (Kharakhuruh) due to which the principality remained independent during the reign of Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775-785 CE), which is the main period when most of the other principalities already submitted to the Caliph, Ushrusana remained undisputed & independent because of it's rulers. However during Harun al-Rashid's reign in 794-95 that al-Fadl ibn Yahya al-Barmaki led an expedition into Transoxania and received the submission of Afshin Kharākana (Kharakhuruh), the ruling Akin (king).

Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh

Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh (800-825 CE) was a ruler/Afshin of Ushrusana who succeeded his father Kharakhuruh/Hanahara (738-800) in around 800 CE; Kawus is first mentioned in ca.802, when the Abbasid prince al-Ma'mun made several campaigns against Osrushana in order to ensure that Kawus stayed loyal to him. However, when al-Ma'mun ascended the Abbasid throne in 813, Kawus declared independence from the Abbasid Caliphate. In ca.818, a civil war ensued in Osrushana between several princes. Kawus managed to emerge victorious, while his son Khaydar fled to the Abbasid court in Baghdad, in the reign of al-Mahdi, third Abbasid Caliph, the Ashin of Ushrusana submitted to Caliph as per Yu'qubi. (died 897/8) but these appear to have been nominal acts. and the people of the region continued to resist Muslim rule. For example, joining Rafi' ibn Layth's rebellion and reneging on tribute agreements. Ushrusana was more firmly brought under Abbasid control following a quarrel that broke out within the ruling dynasty, during the caliphate of al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833). In 822, a Muslim army under Ahmad ibn Abi Khalid al-Ahwal conquered Ushrusana and captured its ruler Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh; he was sent to Baghdad, where he submitted to the caliph. From this point on, Osrushana was generally considered to be part of the Abbasid state, although the afshīns were allowed to retain their control over the country as subjects of the caliph. Kawus died sometime later, and was succeeded by his son Khaydar in about 825 CE.

Khaydhar ibn Kawus al-Afshin

Ḥaydar ibn Kāwūs (Arabic: حيدر بن كاوس, Persian: خِیذَر اِبنِ کاووس, romanized: Kheyzar ebn-e Kāvus), better known by his hereditary title of al-Afshīn (Arabic: الأفشين, Persian: اَفشین, romanized: Afshin) son of Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh. In 822 CE, when the Ushrusaniyan civil war broke out in which Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh emerged victorious his son al-Afshin fled to the Umayyad court, and started serving in Umayyad forces as a general. Around 825 CE his father Kawus ibn Kharakhuruh died and his son al-Afshin succeeded him to the throne of the principality, who remained under the Umayyad forces as a general; & as the king of Ushrusana as well. He was not only brave enough (of course, as a Jat-Kidarite descend) but was filled with gallantry valour too. However, in early 840 CE Caliph founded him guilty as an Umayyad traitor and ordered him life-imprisoned.
He decided to enter the service of the Abbasids after 822 CE, and made his way to al-Ma'mun's court. There he embarked on a military career, and became a commander in the caliphal army. With Afshin came a number of his followers, a number of whom were fellow natives of Ushrusana. These men were integrated into the army and, serving under their prince al-Afshin, became known as the Ushrusaniyya. However, Afshin later tried to gain control over all of Khurasan and Transoxiana from the Persian Tahirid dynasty. He even secretly supported Mazyar, the Karenid ruler of Tabaristan, who had rebelled against the Abbasids. The rebellion, however, was soon suppressed, and Afshin's ambitions were revealed by the Abbasids. Furthermore, Afshin was accused of being a Zoroastrian, and he was soon imprisoned and died in June 841 CE in Samarra. However, Al-Mu'tasim had a special prison built for Afshin. It was known as "The Pearl" and was in the shape of a minaret. There he spent the final nine months of his life and there he died in May–June 841. The Tigris river was used as a dumping ground for his cremated remains. A single location was used for the crucifixion of Afshin, Maziyar, and Babak's corpses. Until he was alive, no temple was demolished in Ushrusana, it was only after his death that the whole Ushrusana was Islamized and the religious sculptures/monuments demolition occurred. the Afshin family continued to rule Ushrusana until 892, when the Samanid ruler Isma'il ibn Ahmad incorporated Ushrusana into his Empire and killed its ruler, Sayyar ibn 'Abdallah.
Some of his gallantry moments includes:- "After joining the caliphal court, al-Afshin quickly became one of the leading figures in the Abbasid military establishment. During the caliphate of al-Ma'mun, he was sent to Barqa and, in 831, to Egypt, in order to suppress rebel activity in those provinces. After al-Mu'tasim became caliph, he was given a major command as the leader of the war against Babak al-Khurrami in Adharbayjan, and after a two-year campaign (835–837) he succeeded in destroying the rebellion and capturing its leader. Following this, he was put in charge of part of the Muslim army during al-Mu'tasim's 838 expedition against the Byzantines, and he played a leading role during the siege of Amorium. The exact composition of his forces during these campaigns is unknown, but it appears that both Ushrusani and non-Ushrusani officers were serving under him by the mid-830s." He played the leading role in (as a general) in the battle of Anzen (Dazimon) of 22nd July 838 CE, where he defeated the armies of Byzantium empire and also in siege of Amorium circa August 838 CE.

Turk Shahis

Turk Shahis or Kabul Shahis was a dynasty originated from Western Turkic Hephthalite origin founded by Barha Tegin in 665 CE at Kabul.
In the battle with Arabs they took-up arms against them alongside with the Johl Jats (Zunbils of Hunnic origin, then ruling at Zabulistan) in 683/4 AD in this battle the Arab general namely, Yazid b. Ziyad had been killed and his evil plans to capturing over Kabul & Zabulistan had been wrecked by the Rulers of these two dynasties of Hunnic Origin, namely The Turk Shahi dynasty and Zabulistan's Kingdom of Johl Jats. (Will discuss) Turk Shahis were sometimes designates as originated from Western Turks/Khaganates, we might remember that the Turkic Khaganates were established by Ashina clan (Gokturks) of Tiele confederation, and they were descends from Xiong-nu tribe. So, somehow they were the brothers of Huns; as both descends from Xiongnu. (already discussed!)
The Turk Shahis arose at a time when the Sasanian Empire had already been conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate. The Turk Shahis then resisted for more than 250 years to the eastward expansion of the Abbasid Caliphate, until they fell to the Persian Saffarids in the 9th century AD. Kabulistan was the heartland of the Turk Shahi domain, which at times included Zabulistan and Gandhara. The Gandhara territory had been bordering the Kashmir kingdom and the Kanauj kingdom to the east. The Turk Shahi capital of Gandhara, which possibly functioned as a winter capital alternating with the summer capital of Kabul, was Udabhandapura.

In words of Kim, "The Shahi kingdom in 719 AD was ruled by a certain Tegin Shah. Around 739 AD Tegin abdicated the throne in favour of his son Fromo Kesaro, This ruler reigned from 739 AD to 746 AD, and is recognized as the conqueror over the invading traits of Arabs and he was even collecting 'taxes' from these Arabs. It is speculate by scholars that the story of Kesaro's heroic and victories over the Arabs may have contributing to the forging of the famous Tibetan legend of King Phrom Ge-sar, whose exploits were celebrated in a massive epic poem. The Shahi Kingdom of eastern Afghanistan would however eventually fall to the Arabs in the late 9th century BC. Kabul, Zabul and Kandahar were all lost to the Arabs, while Gandhara came under the rule of a possibly new dynasty that would be called Hindu Shahi, rather than Turk Shahi. The later Hephthalites and their descendants were gradually Indianized and Pashtunized, so that by the time of the Shahi these formerly Turkic Huns of Afghanistan and Pakistan were able to present themselves to their subjects as de facto native rulers of the regions they controlled."

Kabul Shahi Rulers List

Kabul Shahi rulers
Name	Reign
Barha Tegin	(665–680 CE)
Tegin Shah	(680–739 CE)
Fromo Kesaro	(739–745 CE)
Bo Fuzhun	(745–775? CE)
Khingala	(775–785s CE)
Pati Dumi	(785s–815 CE)
Lagaturman	(815–822 CE)

Barha Tegin

Barha Tegin (665 - 680 CE a.k.a. Vahi Tegin or Vrahi Tegin in Chinese sources) was the founding ruler of the Turk Shahi dynasty, he appears in history following the capture of Kabul by the Arabs under Abdur Rahman bin Samara circa 665 CE. The ruler of Kabul at that time was Ghar-ilchi of the Nezak Huns. The Arab attacks mortally weakened the Nezak Dynasty. They then mounted a full counter-offensive attack and repulsed the Arabs, taking back lost territory as far as the region of Arachosia and Kandahar. Some authors attribute the rise of Barha Tegin precisely to the weakening of the last Nezak Hun ruler Ghar-ilchi, after the Arab invasion of Kabul under Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura. Barha Tegin also moved the capital from Kapisa to Kabul. Barha Tegin killed the last Hunnic ruler of Nazek Shahs, Ghar-ilchi in 665 CE and usurped the throne of Kabul. (stated under title, Ghar-ilchi in the Section Nezak Huns).
In 655 CE, Arab took control over Kabul, however Turk Shahis (under Barha Tegin) countered attacked and re-captured Kabul and repulsed the Arabs and also occupied, Zabulistan (around Ghazni), as well as the region of Arachosia as far as Kandahar. According to the 726 CE account of the Korean monk Hyecho who visited the region, Barha Tegin was a former ally of the ruler of Kabul, who then usurped the throne:

• From Kashmir I travelled further northwest. After one month's journey across the mountains I arrived at the country of Gandhara. The king and military personnel are all Turks. The natives are Hu people; there are Brahmins. The country was formerly under the influence of the king of Kapisa. A-yeh (阿耶), the Turkish prince, (Barha Tegin) took a defeated cavalry and allied himself to the king of Kapisa. Later, when the Turkish force was strong, the prince assassinated the king of Kapisa (Ghar-ilchi) and declared himself king. Thereafter, the territory from this country to the north was all ruled by the Turkish king, who also resided in the country.

— Hyecho on Gandhara, "An account of travel to the five Indian kingdoms".

According to Shōshin Kuwayama, the "A-yeh" (阿耶) in the text is not a personal name but means "father", implying that the leader of the cavalry described by Hiecho was "the father of the (current) Turkish King" (突厥王阿耶). Since the Hephthal-Turkish king at the time of Hyecho was Tegin Shah (680-739 CE), it is indeed his father Barha Tegin who led the "cavalry and allied himself to the king of Kapisa" before assassinating him. Regarding the description of the troops led by Barha Tegin, Kuwayama differs from the above translation ("he took a defeated cavalry"...), and gives: "he led an army and a tribe...", while Fuchs translates "with the troops of his entire tribe..."

Al-Biruni, writing his Tārīkh al-Hind ("History of India") in the 11th century, attributes the story of Barha Tegin's rise to a stratagem:

• The Hindus had kings residing in Kabul, Turks who were said to be of Tibetan origin. The first of them, Barhatakin, came into the country and entered a cave in Kabul, which none could enter except by creeping on hands and knees. [...] Some days after he had entered the cave, he began to creep out of it in the presence of the people, who looked on him as a newborn baby. He wore Turkish dress, a short tunic open in front, a high hat, boots and arms. Now people honoured him as a being of miraculous origin, who had been destined to be king, and in fact he brought those countries under his sway and ruled them under the title of a Shahiya of Kabul. The rule remained among his descendants for generations, the number of which is said to be about sixty. [...] The last king of this race was Lagatarman, and his Vizir was Kallar, a Brahman.

— Al-Biruni,Tārīkh al-Hind ("History of India")

According to Shōshin Kuwayama the two accounts can be seen as a coherent whole, in which Hyecho's account describes first how Barha Tegin brought his military support and finally toppled the king in the ancient capital of Kapisi, and al-Biruni's account describes how Barha Tegin then took control of Kabul and became "Kabul Shah"

Barha Tegin (665–680 CE) Founded Kabul Shahi dynasty. Tegin Shah (680–739 CE) Khuras Rutbil (666-686/7 CE) Founded Zunbil dynasty. Fromo Kesaro (739–745 CE) Rutbil II (r.686/7-693/4 CE) Alkhis (r.693/4-726 CE) Rutbil Shiquer (720-738 CE) Bo Fuzhun Vasudeva (745–775? CE) Khingala (775-785 CE) Rutbil Jumofuta (738-760s CE) Pati Dumi (785–815 CE) Iltabar Retpeil Hega (ca. 697/8 AD) Rutbil Zunbil (760s-820s CE) Lagaturman (815-822 CE) Rutbil Zigil (820s-871 CE)

Barha Tegin died in 680 CE and was succeeded by his son Tegin Shah at Kapisi/Kabul and Khuras Rutbil (his another son) succeeded him at Zabulistan.

Tegin Shah

Shahi Tegin, Tegin Shah or Sri Shahi (ruled 680–739 CE, known to the Chinese as 烏散特勤灑 Wusan Teqin Sa "Tegin Shah of Khorasan") was son of Barha Tegin and succeeded his father in 680 CE as the king of the Turk Shahis, at Kabul. His title was "Khorasan Tegin Shah" (meaning "Tegin, King of the East"), and he was known in Chinese sources as Wusan teqin sa. His grand title referred to his resistance to the peril of the Umayyad caliph from the west. Tegin Shah founded the city of Teginābād (near Kandahar).
In 697-698 AD the Arabs (Umayyad Caliphate) again tried to capture Kabul and Zabulistan but were badly beaten and defeated and their leading General Yazid b. Ziyad was already killed by the Jats. And another general Ubhayd Allah ibn Ziyad (Yazid's brother) was captured alive. This battle was fought at Ganza/Gazni Commander Rath Pal Henga of the Zunbil state of Jats played an important role in this battle which has been discussed in section Zunbils
In 719/20 CE, the Tegin of Kabulistan (Tegin Shah) and the Iltäbär of Zabulistan sent a combined embassy to the Chinese emperor of the Tang dynasty in Xi'an to obtain confirmation of their thrones. The Chinese emperor signed an investiture decree, which was returned to the Turk rulers,

• In the seventh year of the Kaiyuan reign [719 CE], (Jibin dispatched) envoys to the [Tang] court, who offered up a book of an astrological text, secret medical recipes, together with foreign medicines and other things. An imperial edict was issued to bestow on the king [of Jibin] the title Geluodazhi Tele [for "Tegin"].

— Old Book of Tang, Book 198.

The word "Geluodazhi" in this extract (Chinese: 葛罗达支, pronounced in Early Middle Chinese: kat-la-dat-tcǐe). This title also appears on his coinage in Gupta script, where he is named "hitivira kharalāča" In 720 CE, the ruler of Zabulistan (謝䫻, xieyu) also received the title Gedaluozhi Xielifa (Chinese: 葛達羅支頡利發), Xielifa being the known Chinese transcription of the Turkish "Iltäbär" Some author say that the Gedaluozhi as an trancription of Khajal tribe.
Tegin Shah abdicated the throne in 739 CE in favour of his son Fromo Kesaro and sent an embassy through Central Asia in 719 CE.

Fromo Kesaro

Fromo Kesaro or Phromo Kesaro (Bactrian script: ϕρoµo κησαρo, phonetical transcription of "Rome Caesar") was a king of the Kabul Shahis and was son of Tegin Shah. In Chinese sources "Fromo Kesaro" was transcribed 拂菻罽娑 (pinyin: Fulin Jisuo), "Fulin" (拂菻) being the standard Tang dynasty name for "Byzantine Empire".
Fromo Kesaro succeeded his father Tegin Shah in 739 AD, as per Chinese chronicles,

• In the 27th year [of Kaiyuan, ie 739 AD], the king Wusan Tela Sa (for Khorasan's Tegin Shah) submitted a memorial requesting that due to his old age, his son Fulin Jisuo may succeed him on the throne. The emperor agreed and dispatched an envoy in order to confer the king's title on him through an imperial edict.

— Old Book of Tang, Book 198.

Fromo Kesaro appears to have fought vigorously against the Arabs. The Arabs are known to have been forced to pay tribute to Fromo Kesaro, since Sasanian coins and coins of Arab governors were overstruck on the rim with the following text in the Bactrian script describing his victory over the Arabs. The victories of Fromo Kesaro against the Arabs have forged the Tibetan epic legend of King Phrom Ge-sar.
Fromo Kesaro appears to have successfully fought against the Arabs. His coinage suggests that the Arabs were defeated and forced to pay tribute to Fromo Kesaro, since Sasanian coins and coins of Arab governors were overstruck by him on the rim with the following text in the Bactrian script:

Coin with victory inscription of Phromo Kesaro over Arabs and imposing and plucking taxes from them.

• Obverse: ϕρoµo κησαρo βαγo χoαδηo κιδo βo ταzικανo χoργo

Reverse: oδo σαo βo σαβαγo ατo ι µo βo γαινδo

Fromo Kesaro, the Majestic Sovereign, [is] who defeated the Arabs and laid a tax [on them]. Thus they sent it.

— Rim legend of Sasanian and Arab coins overstruck by Fromo Kesaro.

His daughter was married to the king Viśa' Sheng (r.745-764 CE) of Kingdom of Khotan in middle of the 8th century CE it was a Sakae (of Scythic Jat origin) Buddhist kingdom in Khotan (c. 300 BC–1006 CE). As per Harmatta, "The success of the Turk Fromo Kesaro, whose name is a Persian pronunciation of "Rome (Byzantium) Caesar", in overwhelming an intrusive Arab army in Gandhara sometime between 739 and 745, may have formed the historic core behind the Gesar epic in Tibet." In the records of the earliest rulers of Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit, whose countries were later overrun by incursive Tibetans, their royal ancestry is connected to the Bactrian Gesar. he was simultaneously conferred with the Tang title "General of the Left", which probably alludes to a strategic relationship between the Chinese and the Turk Shahis, in the context of expanding Islamic frontiers.

Fromo Ge-saro was succeeded by his son Bo Fuzhun Vasudeva in 745 CE.

Bo Fuzhun Vasudeva

Bo Fuzhun, also Bofuzhun (Chinese language: 勃匐準 Bo-fu-zhun) was son of Phromo Kesaro and succeeded his father in 745 CE as the king of the Turk Shahi dynasty of Hephthal-Turk origin. He is only known in name from Chinese imperial accounts. Bo Fuzhun appears in the Chinese annals of the Old Book of Tang, which record many dynastic events and ethnological information about the polities of Central and Southern Asia in the 6th-8th century, which were nominally under Chinese suzerainty and part of the Protectorate General to Pacify the West. According to the Old Book of Tang, in 745 CE, Fromo Kesaro, king of the Turk Shahis, sent a request to the Chinese court in order to abdicate in favour of his son Bo Fuzun (勃匐準). These events are again recorded in the Chinese annals Jiu Tangshu and Tang Huiyao.

• 天寶四年，又冊其子勃匐準為襲罽賓及烏萇國王，仍授左驍衛將軍

In the 4th year of the Tianbao [Tianbao (天寶, 742–756), era name used by Emperor Xuanzong of Tang] reign [i.e. 745 CE] another imperial edict was issued to make his [i.e. Fromo Kesaro's] son Bo Fuzun succeed him on the throne as the King of Jibin and Uddiyana. He was conferred the title of "General of Left Stalwart Guard".

— Old Book of Tang, Book 198.

According to Kuwayama "the coinage of Bo Fuzhun corresponds to the late Turk Shahi coinage marked "Śrī Vāsudeva", and designed in the style of the coinage of the Sasanian Emperor Khosrow II. These coins follow the design of the coin of Khosrow II (ruled 590-628) issued in his regnal years 26,27,36 and 37. "Vāsudeva" would be a regnal name that he adopted as he obtained the throne of Uddiyana (烏萇國).
--Bo Fuzhun Vasudeva was succeeded by King Khingal of the same dynasty in about 775 CE.

Khingal

Khingala, also transliterated Khinkhil, Khinjil or Khinjal, (Sharada script: khiṃ-gā-la; ruled circa 775-785 CE) was a ruler of the Turk Shahis. He probably succeeded the throne of King Bo Fuzhun Vasudeva around 775 CE. He is only known in name from the accounts of the Muslim historian Ya'qubi and from an epigraphical source, the Gardez Ganesha.
Muslim historian Ya'qubi (died 897/8) in his Ta'rikh ("History"), recounts that the third Abbasid Caliph Al-Mahdi (around ca.780 CE) asked for, and apparently obtained, the submission of various Central Asian rulers, including that of the Kabul Shah. Al-yaqubi seems to give the name of the Kabul Shah as "Ḥanḥal", but the reading is uncertain. And a later handwritten copy of the book is known to transcribe the name as "Khanjal".
The original account by Ya'qubi reads as under,

• Al-Mahdī sent messengers to the kings, calling on them to submit, and most of them submitted to him. Among them were the king of Kābul Shāh, whose name was Ḥanḥal; the king of Ṭabaristān, the Iṣbahbadh; the king of Soghdia, the Ikhshīd; the king of Tukhāristān, Sharwin; the king of Bamiyan, the Shīr; the king of Farghana, ------ ; the king of Usrūshana, Afshīn; the king of the Kharlukhiyya, Jabghūya; the king of Sijistān, Zunbīl; the king of Turks, Tarkhan; the king of Tibet, Ḥ-h-w-r-n; the king of Sind, al-Rāy; the king of China, Baghbür; the king of India and Atrāḥ, Wahūfūr; and the king of the Tughuz-ghuz, Khāqān.

— Ya'qubi (d.897/8), Ta'rikh ("History")

The name "Khanjal" has been variously reconstructed as "Khinkhil", "Khinjil" or "Khinjal", and is very similar to the name of an earlier Alchon Hun ruler named Khingila (5th century CE). According to historian Rezakhani, the name mentioned by Ya'qubi is "obviously a namesake" of Khingila.

Gardez Ganesha statue dated ca. 6-8th century CE, Afghanistan.

Gardez Ganesha
The Gardez Ganesha is a statue of the Hindu god Ganesha, discovered in Gardez, near Kabul in Afghanistan. It is considered as "a typical product of the Indo-Afghan school". A dedicatory inscription appears on the base of the statue. It is written in the Siddhamatrika script, a development of the Brahmi script. An analysis of the writing suggests a date from the 6th or 8th century CE.

Picture-Gardez Ganesha foot Inscription. (Gardez, Kabul, Afghanistan) 6-8th cen. CE

Lines from foot inscription of Gardez Ganesha inscription of shown in Picture-Gardez Ganesha foot Inscription. at left, these lines reads as under,

• (1^st line). sarṃvatsare aṣṭatame saṃ 8 jyeṣṭha-māsa-śukla-pakṣa-tithau ttrayodaśyāṃ śu di 10-3 rikṣe viśākhe śubhe siṃhe[citra-]
• (2^nd line). [-ke] mahat pratiṣṭhāpitam idaṃ māha-vināyaka paramabhaṭṭeraka mahārājādhirāja-śri-ṣāhi-khiṃgālauḍyāna-ṣāhi-pādaiḥ.

(Translation) On the thirteenth day of the bright half of the month of yestha, the [lunar] mansion being the Visakha, at the auspicious time when the zodiacal sign Lion was bright on the horizon (lagna), in the year eight, this great [image] of the Mahavinayaka was consecrated by the supreme lord, the great king, the king of the kings, the Sri Shahi Khiṃgāla, the king of Odyana.

Khingala succeeded by Pati Dhumi to the throne of Kabul Shahis in unknown dates of late eighth century CE (around 785/6 CE).

Pati Dhumi

Pati Dhumi was successor of king Khingala on the throne of Kabul Shahis, He was a brave ruler. He succeeded him in unknown dates of late eighth century CE; probably in 785 CE or after it.
That was the ending period of Shahi dynasty of Kabul, meanwhile the struggle between the Arabs and the Kabul Shahis continued to the 9th century AD. Pati Dhumi attacked the Abbasid Caliphate during the Great Abbasid Civil War (811-819 AD), sacked and invaded parts of Khorasan The Turko-Hephthalite forces under Pati Dhumi and Abbasid forces of Caliph Al Ma'mun (r.813-833 CE) confronted in Khorasan for almost a year in 814-815 CE. After the gruesome battle, Turko-Hephthals retreated to Gandhara. He said to accepted Islam after the battle.

Pati Dhumi died in 815 CE and was succeeded by his son Lagaturman, same year. We can say that Pati Dhami died due to the injuries abdicated in the war with Arabs.

Lagaturma

Lagaturman was the last ruler of Kabul Shahi dynasty of Turko-Hephthalite origin. He was son of King Pati Dhumi; Pati Dhumi fought against the Arabs in battle of Khorasan 814/5 CE, the territories of Khorasan were lost and Turko-Haphthals retreated to Gandhar where the King Pati Dhumi died and was succeeded by his son Lagaturman in 815 CE who ruled till 822 CE and continued to defy the Arabs after his father for 7-8 years. It is said that Islam has taken over as the new religion after the defeat of Khorasan in 814/5 CE. As per Al-beruni, Lagaturman was the last King of Kabul Shahis, whose throne was usurped by one of his ministers namely Kallar who first imprisoned him and then killed him in 822 CE.

Lagaturman was killed by his minister Kallar who founded the Hindu Shahi dynasty in 822 CE at Kabul & Kapisi. (Stated in section, Hindu Shahis)

Zunbils

Zunbil, also written as Zhunbil, or Rutbils of Zabulistan, was a royal dynasty in south of the Hindu Kush in present southern Afghanistan region. They ruled from circa 680 AD until the Saffarid conquest in 871 AD. As per Andre Wink, "The Zunbils of the early Islamic period and the Kabulshahs were almost certainly epigoni of the southern-Hephthalite rulers of Zabul." The Zunbils are described as having Turkish troops in their service by Arabic sources like Tarikh al-Tabari and Tarikh-i Sistan. According to the interpretation of Chinese sources by Marquarts and de Groots in 1915, the king of Ts'ao is said to have worn a crown with a golden fish head and was related to the Sogdians. The Temple of the Zun was recognizable by a large fish skeleton on display; this would indicate a related merchantry deity. In addition to that Marquarts states the Zunbils to have worshipped a solar deity which might have been connected to Aditya (Surya). However, according to Shōshin Kuwayama there was a clear dichotomy between worshipers of the Hindu god Surya and followers of Zhun. This is exemplified by the conflict between Surya and Zhun followers, which lead to the followers of Zhun migrating southwards towards Zabulistan from Kapisa. According to André Wink the god Zhun was primarily Hindu, though parallels have also been noted with pre-Buddhist religious and monarchy practices in Tibet and had Zoroastrian influence in its ritual. Other scholars such as H. Schaeder and N. Sims-William have connected it with the Zoroastrian deity of time. The title Zunbil can be traced back to the Middle-Persian original Zūn-dātbar, 'Zun the Justice-giver'. The geographical name Zamindawar would also reflect this, from Middle Persian 'Zamin-i dātbar' (Land of the Justice-giver). The Zunbils in the pre-Saffarid (before 870 CE) period ruled in Zabulistan and Zamindawar, stretching between Ghazni and Bost, and had acted as a barrier against Muslim expansion for a long time. Zamindawar is known to have a shrine dedicated to the god Zun. It has been linked with the Hindu god Aditya at Multan, pre-Buddhist religious and kingship practices of Tibet, as well as Shaivism. The followers of the Zunbils were called Turks by the Arabic sources, however they applied the name to all their enemies in eastern fringes of Iran. As per J. Harmatta & B. A. Litvinsky, "They were able to preserve their ethnic and cultural identity and successfully fought for independence against the Arab conquerors. Arab rule was firmly established in Seistan, Badhghis, Gozgan, Tokharistan and Transoxania and even in Sind by the beginning of the eighth century. Nevertheless, and in spite of Qutaiba b. Muslim’s tax-collecting expedition against Zabulistan in 710–711, both Zabulistan and Kapisa–Gandhara stood as islands in the sea of Arab predatory raids. It was only towards the end of the eighth century that both lands formally acknowledged the supremacy of the Umayyad caliph al-Mahdi and the true conquest of Kabul did not take place until the end of the ninth century.
In words of other authors-

• (Original, Hindi) जौहला जाटों का देश जुबलिस्तान कहलाता था जो कि हिन्दुकुश पर्वत के दक्षिण में था, जिसमें काबुल, गज़नी एवं उनके साथ वाले क्षेत्र सम्मिलित थे। इन जाटों ने पेशावर के निकट अपने गोत्र के नाम पर जौहला किला बनवाया था जो कि दिल्ली के लाल किले के समान है। यह किला आज भी इसी नाम से विद्यमान है। जौहला जाट खैबर घाटी पर भारत देश के रक्षक थे, जिन्होंने काबुल की ओर से आने वाले अरब आक्रमणकारियों को कई शताब्दियों तक रोके रखा।

(Translation) The country of the Jauhla Jats was called Jublistan, which was south of the Hindu Kush mountains, which included Kabul, Ghazni and their adjacent areas. These Jats built the Jauhla Fort near Peshawar in the name of their tribe, which is similar to the Red Fort of Delhi. This fort still exists by the same name. The Jauhla Jats were the protectors of India on the Khyber Valley, who stopped the Arab invaders coming from Kabul for many centuries.

-- जाट वीरों का इतिहास: दलीप सिंह अहलावत (Jat Viro ka Itihas)

In words of Prof. B.S. Dhillon, "White Huns, a division of the Massagetae, invaded Punjab during A.D. 460-470. Thomas Watters (British Acting Consul General in Korea from (1887-1888) writes "country (North-West of India) was conquered by the Yeta (White Huns), i.e. the Yets or Gats apparently near the end of our fifth century. The Yeta, who were a powerful people in Central Asia, in the fifth century, are also said to have been of the Yue-Chi (Kushan) stock". The leader of the White Huns called "Toramana" was throned in A.D. 495. According to Inscriptions, the full name of the king was Maharaja ('Great King') Toramana Shaha JAUVLA. In A.D. 510 Mihiragula succeeded his father as the "Great" king. Sir Cunningham says Jauvla was the name of their tribe or clan. According to him, the name of the Jabuli tribe of the White Huns is still preserved in Zabulistan (land of Jauvla) and their language called "Zauli" also still existed in the tenth century A.D. It is interesting to note here that many Jat clans claim their land of ancestors in Zabulistan (some areas in modern Afghanistan). In fact, Johal is an important clan of the Jats who belong to the Sikh faith. Jat Sikhs called Johal could be found in several western countries, today. In A.D. 520 Mihiragula succeeded his father Toramana Jauvla. In turn Mihiragula was succeeded by his son called Ajitanjaya and after the disintegration of their Indian empire the Jauvala or Johals secured for themselves Zabulistan or Jabulistan. It is interesting to note the remarks of Sir Cunningham concerning the reading of a coin of White Huns "But in the two Pahlavi legends of the reverse I read on the left and to the right Zaulistan (Jaulistan)". This says it very well that the actual name is "Jaulistan" (land of Jauls or Johals) instead of "Zabulistan".
Author Upendra Thakur, (on Jauvla), says that it stands for a section of the Hunas who on their way to India first settled in a land called Zabulistan to the south of the Hindukush (i.e., Afghanistan). Hiuen Tsang, the Chinese traveller noted in the seventh century A.D. that the king of Jabulistan had succeeded a long line of kings and he was a follower of the cult of sun or Ksun. The word Jabulistan is the Arabic version of the original Jauvlistan/Jaullasthan and it comprised the area of Kabul-Gazni and adjoining parts. It is significant that when the Arabs invaded Jabulistan in 654-55 A.D., a decade after the visit of the Chinese traveller, they mentioned only Zunbil as the title of the king and they do not associate them with the Turks. This word Zunbil is again a derivative of Jabul/Jauvla, which was the name of the ruling Jat clan.
By the readings of these authors (including Sir A. Cunningham, Prof. B. S. Dhillon, Capt. D. S. Ahlawat, one may also look through the BS Dahiya's Jats the Ancient rulers for the origin of Zunbils), one may conclude that these rulers were descended from Toramana and Mihiragula, the Jauvlas of early sixth century CE.

Stupa at Tang-i Safedak

Inscription of Tang-i Safedak dated 714/5 CE.

In 714/5 CE, a Buddhist stupa dedicated by son of Khuras, King Alkhis lord of Gazan/Ghazni. This has been inscribed on the Bactrian inscription found at Tang-i Safedak. Alkhis is considered as the patron of the second period of florescence of the Buddhist sanctuary of Tapa Sardar, characterized in this period by the creation of hybrid Sinicized-Indian Buddhist art.

• "(It was) the year 492 (714/5 CE), the month Sbol, when I, Alkhis son of Khuras, lord of Gazan, established this stupa (as) a (pious) foundation(?) in Ragzamagan(?). (At that time) when there was a Turkish ruler and an Arab ruler, the deyadharma (meritorious gifts) made by me were kept . . . , and afterwards I made this Zinaiaka-deyadharma in the willing belief which I had towards the buddha-sastra and in great faith (Sraddha) and in ... Whatever merit (punya) may arise hereby, now and (in) the future, may I, Alkhis, and my parents and wife and brothers (and) sons and (other) relatives too-may each (and) every one (of us) attain (his) own desire. Homage to the buddhas."

— Bactrian inscription of Tang-i Safedak. translation by Nicholas Sims-Williams.

Notes:- This stupa mentions that it was established by King Alkhis of Gazan (Ghazni) in 714/5 CE, that time Ghazni was the capital of Zunbil dynasty, thus Alkhis and his father Khuras were kings of Zunbils. No other dynasty fits his ruling time (8th cen. CE.) and place (Ghazni). It can be clearly say that these lord(s) of Ghazni were members of the Zunbil dynasty. There's a vacuum of a ruler between Rutbil II (r.686/7-693/4 CE) and Iltäbär Shiqu'er (r.724-738 CE) of late 7th and early 8th century CE. Which was the ruing time of king Alkhis and hence we can safely place him and his rule between 693/4 CE to 724 CE which his stupa at Tang-i Safedak clearly says. Alkhis was a follower of Buddhism which again corresponds to the religion of the Zunbils and the Kabul Shahis or his former Hephthalite rulers.

Khuras (Rutbil I)

Khuras Rutbil I (or RTBYL I ca. 666-686/7 CE) was son of Barha Tegin in 680 CE, his name appears to be king Khuras from the Buddhist stupa of his son Alkhis of Tang-i Safedak dated 714/5 CE. After the death of Barha Tegin, Khuras Rutbil (RTBYL I) separately ruled from his younger brother Tegin Shah and established the dynasty of Zunbils in Zabulistan (modern Zabul province in Afghanistan). Khuras Rutbil was elder brother of Tegin Shah who ruled over Hephthalite kingdom from his capital in Kabul. He was first mentioned in history in 666 CE. And may have been appointed as the governor in Zabulistan by Barha Tegin after he conquered the region from the Nezak Shah, Ghar-ilchi. Rutbil and the king of Kabul campaigned together against the Arabs after Abdur Rahman ibn Samura was replaced as the governor of Sistan. Rabi ibn Ziyad al-Harithi upon assuming governorship in 671 CE attacked Khuras Rutbil at Bost, and drove him to al-Rukhkhaj. Rabi's successor Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Bakra continued the war upon being appointed in 673 CE, leading Khuras Rutbil to negotiate a peace treaty for both Kabul and Zabul, in which the governor of Sistan acknowledged control of these territories by Khuras Rutbil and the King of Kabul. In 681, Salm b. Ziyad was appointed the governor of Khorasan and Sistan by Yazid I (Caliph of Umayyads). Salm appointed his brother Yazid b. Ziyad, apparently to lead a military expedition against the Zunbil of Zabulistan in 683/4 AD. The expedition however was disastrous, with Yazid being killed, his another brother Abu-'Ubayda captured, while Arabs received heavy casualties. Salm sent an expedition by Talha b. 'Abdillah al-Khuzai to rescue his brother(s) and pacify the region. The Arab captives were ransomed for half million dirhams and the region was pacified more through diplomacy than force. i.e., in 683/4 CE Arabs again rose against the Hephthal descended Jats, when Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad and Yazid ibn Ziyad led campaign against the Kabul Shahis and Zunbils, There a gruesome battle took place and Arab forces were routed and Yazid was slain, while Abu Ubayda was captured, who was later released on a payment of half million Arabic dirhams.
Khuras Rutbil was son of Barha Tegin and had defy Arabs throughout his lifetime in 671 CE, Khuras Rutbil fought against Rabi ibn Ziyad al-Harithi and lost Bost and retreated to al-Rukhkhaj, the war continued and in 673 CE Khuras Rutbil managed to have a peace treaty with Rabi's successor Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Bakra, for both Kabul and Zabul, in which the governor of Sistan acknowledged control of these territories by the King of Kabul (Tegin Shah) and Khuras Rutbil respectively. In 683/4 CE, Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad and Yazid ibn Ziyad led campaigns against their territories however Yazid ibn Ziyad was killed and Ubayd Allah Abi Bakra was captured. al-Baladhuri (d.892 AD) says that the Khuras Rutbil attained martyrdom in battlefield against Abu al-'Afra (wali of Sistan) in 686/687. He was succeeded by his son Rutbil II in 686/7 CE.

Rutbil II

Iltabar Rutbil II (r.686/7-693/4 CE) was son and successor of Khuras Rutbil, (He can't be a son of Barha Tegin, as Barha Tegin known to have only two sons, Khuras Rutbil and Shahi Tegin) after the martyrdom of his father while confronting Arabs in 686/7 CE, his son became the crowned king of Zabulistan and continues to defy the Arabs. Iltabar Rutbil II hadn't ruled for a long period as in 693/4 he is mentioned to have fought a battle against Abd Allah b. Umayya by al-Baladhuri (9th century Persian historian) whereas Ya'qubi mentioned that Iltabar Rutbil II attain martyrdom in battlefield against his Arab opponent and was killed by Abd Allah b. Umayya in 693/4 CE. Abdalmalik (fifth Umayad Caliph) appointed Umayya ibn Abdallah ibn Khalid ibn Asid as governor of Khorasan in 74 AH (693-4 AD), with Sistan included under his governorship. Umayya sent his son Abdullah as head of the expedition in Sistan. Though initially successful, the new Zunbil {Iltabar Rutbil II} was able to defeat them. Sources say, general Abdullah (Umayya's son who led the Arab army) was killed. Umayya was dismissed and Sistan was added to the governorship of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. Iltabar Rutbil II was probably succeeded by his younger brother Alkhis following his martyrdom the same year.

King Alkhis

Alkhis (r.693/4-726 CE) was a king of Zunbils with his capital at Gazan (Ghazni) in Afghanistan in the early decades of the 8th century CE. He was the son of King Khuras. He expanded his territory as far north of the region of Band-e Amir in 724 CE, west of Bamiyan. Alkhis is known to have sent a message to the Tang dynasty emperor in 724 CE. Alkhis is considered as the patron of the second period of florescence of the Buddhist sanctuary of Tapa Sardar, characterized in this period by the creation of hybrid Sinicized-Indian Buddhist art.
Genealogy? Alkhis was succeeded by Eltäbär Shiqu'er in 724 CE who was grandson of Barha Tegin and nephew of Shah Tegin and Alkhis's father was Khuras whom can't be assumed as Rutbil II as this will shift Alkhis as a great-grandson of Barha Tegin which defies the Chinese statements of 726 CE, if we assume this Khuras as Rutbil I it satisfies that he and his successor Eltäbär Shiqu'er was grandsons of Barha Tegin as claimed in Chinese sources. Thus we concludes that Rutbil I was Khuras who had three sons, one {Rutbil II} lost his life while fighting Abd Allah b. Umayya in 693/4 CE. Second was Alkhis who ruled from 693/4 to 726 CE who in 714/5 CE known to have dedicated a Buddist stupa at Tang-i Safedak which helps us to maintain the genealogies of the Zunbils of Johl Jat origin, and he seems to rule altogether with his younger brother Iltäbär Shiqu'er (who seems to be the third son of Khuras Rutbil) from 720 to 726 CE while Iltäbär Shiqu'er ruled alone from 726 to 738 CE. This accreditation of genealogy based on historical evidences of Chinese sources and reign of rulers and Alkhis's stupa of 714/5 CE that perfectly shaped the genealogy of the Zunbils.
History:- In 697/8 CE, Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Bakra, governor of Sijistan and a military commander of the Umayyad Caliphate, dispatched by al-Hajjaj to led an 'Army of Destruction' of 20000 Arab soldiers, against the Zunbils. His mission was to raid eastern Afghanistan, and restore the payment of tribute by the Zunbils. Trapped in the mountains, he was defeated through starvation and Zunbil attacks, and was forced to offer a large tribute (Seven hundred thousand dirhams), give hostages, including three of his sons, and take an oath not to invade Zunbil again. He then retreated, with 5,000 of his men remaining, to the city of Bust where he died. Commander Retpeil Hega (Rath Pal Henga) was a commander/Iltabar of King Alkhis who played an important role in the Arab-Zunbil War of Gazna in 697/8 AD. Author B. S. Dahiya mentions, "artfully retiring, drew the Mohammedan army into the defiles, and blocking up the rear, cut off their retreat, and Obaidullah (Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Bakra) was compelled to purchase his liberation by the payment of seven hundred thousand dirhams". This Rath Pal Hanga may be a successor of King Alkhis, as he is said Iltabar in Persian sources.
Al-Hajjaj prepared another expedition in 699, reportedly of 40,000 troops from Kufa and Basra under Abdurrahman b. Muhammad b. al-Ash'ath. Though disguised as a military expedition, it was actually a forced migration of the elements from the two Iraqi cities troublesome to Hajjaj. It was equipped to the best standards and was called the "Army of Peacocks" because of the men included in its ranks. It included the proudest and most distinguished leaders of Iraq led by Ibn al-Ash'ath, grandson of Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays. It also included distinguished elders who served in the first armies of conquest as well as those who fought at Battle of Siffin. This Arab army arrived in Sistan in the spring of 699. The Arabs advanced east into Zabulistan and won several victories. However the troops did not want to fight in this inhospitable region and started becoming restive. Al-Hajjaj instructed them to continue the advance into Zabulistan's heart no matter what it took, making it clear to them he wanted them to return to their homes. The troops mutinied against Hajjaj's enforced emigration and returned to Iraq but were crushed by the Syrian troops. They fled back to the east while Ibn al-Ash'ath fled to Sistan where he died in 704 AD. In 699/700 CE, Ibn al-Ash'ath also made an agreement with the Zunbils, that no tribute would be demanded if he won and in case he lost, he would be sheltered to protect him from Al-Hajjaj.
Chinese Sources of 718 CE
In 718 AD, Puluo brother of Yabghu Pantu Nili of Tokharistan reached Tang court of Xi'an and gave a description and mentions,

• 冊府元龜 (四庫全書本)/卷0964, "九月遣使冊葛達羅支頡利發誓屈爾為謝䫻國王葛達羅支特勒為𦋺賔國王"

simlified Chinese "九月遣使册葛达罗支颉利发誓屈尔为谢䫻国王葛达罗支特勒为𦋺賔国王"

--In Cefu Yuangui, book 0964

As per Shoshin Kuwayama,

• On the Dingwei day of the eleventh month in the sixth year of the Kaiyuan era, Ashi Tegin Puluo writes to the emperor: Tokhara Yabghu, his elder brother, is controlling as his subordinates two hundred and twelve persons, such as the local kings of various states, dudu (Governors-General), and cishi (heads of regional governments). The king of Zabul (Alkhis that time) rules two hundred thousand soldiers and horses, the king of Kabul two hundred thousand, each king of Khuttal, Chaghanian, Jiesu, Shughnan, Evdal, Kumedha Wa'khan, Guzganan, Bamiyan, Lieyuedejian, and Badakhshan fifty thousand."

— Cefu Yuangui 3.5. Fanyan in Vol. 999 (Claims, Foreign Subjects), 718 AD.

-King Alkhis son of Khuras Rutbil ruled from 693/4 CE to 726 CE of which, the last six years (from 720 to 726 CE) ruled altogether with his younger brother Iltäbär Shiqu'er (Just same as the Huns' kings Attila & Bleda of fifth century Europe) and was died in 726 CE and apparently succeeded by Iltäbär Shiqu'er in 726 CE.

Iltabar Rutbil Shiquer

Qaradachi Eltäbär Shiqu'er (Chinese:誓屈爾 Shìqū'ér; may constructed as 'Rutbil Shikhar' in Hindi) was the king of Zunbil dynasty from 720 CE to 738 CE. He was son of Khuras Rutbil and nephew of Kabul Shah Tegin.
A Chinese account from the Tangshu mentions how Zabulistan (Chinese: 誓䫻 Shìyù) was a vassal to the Kabul Shahs around 710-720 CE, and how the Zunbil ruler, named "Shiquer", was recognized by the Tang court in 720 CE. King Shiquer received the title of Gedaluozhi Xielifa (Chinese: 葛達羅支頡利發). Xielifa is the known Chinese transcription of the Turkish "Iltäbär"

• (Original Chinese) "谢䫻居吐火罗西南本曰漕矩吒或曰漕矩显庆时谓诃达罗支武后改今号东距罽賔东北帆延皆四百里南婆罗门西波斯北护时健其王居鹤悉那城地七千里亦治阿娑你城多郁金瞿草瀵泉灌田国中有突厥罽賔吐火罗种人𮦀居罽賔取其子弟持兵以御大食景云初遣使朝贡后遂臣罽賔开元八年天子册葛达罗支颉利发誓屈尔为王至天宝中数朝献"

(Translation) The people from Tujue, Jibin (Kabul), and Tuhuoluo (Tokharistan) live together in this country (Zabulistan). Jibin recruits from among them young men to defend against Dashi (Arabs). They sent an envoy to the Tang in the first year of Jingyun (710) to present gifts. Later, they subjugated themselves to Jibin. In the eighth year of Kaiyuan (720), the Emperor approved the enthronement of Gedalouzhi Xielifa ("Iltäbär") Shiquer. Their envoys came to the royal court several times until the Tianbao era (742–756).

— Old Book of Tang, Book 221: account of Zabulistan (谢䫻 Xiėyù).

In 726 CE Korean monk Hyecho visited Zabulistan and mentions that the ruler of Kabul (Tagin Shah that time) was uncle of the ruler of Zabul (Iltabar Shiquer that time).

• (Original) 又從此罽賓國西行至七日謝䫻國。彼自呼云社護羅薩他那。土人是胡。王及兵馬。即是突厥。其王即是罽賓王姪兒。自把部落兵馬住此於國。不屬餘國。亦不屬阿叔。此王及首領。雖是突厥。極敬三寶。足寺足僧。行大乘法。有一大突厥首領。名娑鐸幹。每年一迴。設金銀無數。多於彼王。衣著人風。土地所出。與罽賓王相似。言音各別。

(Translation) From Kapisa I travelled further west and after seven days arrived at the country of Zabulistan which its people call She-hu-lo-sa-t'a-na. The native are Hu people; the king and cavalry are Turks. The king, a nephew of the king of Kapisa, himself controls his tribe and the cavalry stationed in this country. It is not subject to other countries, not even his own uncle. Though the king and the chiefs are Turks, they highly revere the Three Jewels. There are many monasteries and monks. Mahayana Buddhism is practiced. There is a great Turkish chief called Sha-tuo-kan (Shah Tegin ?), who once a year lays out his gold and silver, which is much more than the king possesses. The dress, customs, and products of this land are similar to those of Kapisa, but the languages are different.

— Hyecho on Zabulistan, "An account of travel to the five Indian kingdoms".

This statement lead us to think that Iltabar Shiquer is a grandson of Barha Tegin which clearly means that Iltabar Shiquer might be the third son of Khuras Rutbil then only this statement is satisfied. His last mention was find in year 738 CE as the ruling king of the Zunbil dynasty. Iltabar Shiquer ruled from Zamindawar/Zabulistan while his brother Alkhis ruled from Ghazni.
As per Litvinsky & J. Harmatta, "Rutbil Shiquer (or Zibil) also mentioned as Shih-yü and Shih-k’ü in Chinese sources and both spellings represent variants of the same title and name. Zibil Shih-yü (North-Western T’ang, *Zi-ivyk) reflects the form Zibil ~ Zivil, also attested by the Arabic sources, while Shih-k’ü (North-Western T’ang Zi-kivyk) represents a form *Zigil, being the Hephthalite development of Zivil. He created an effigy based on Sasanian traditions and on the coinage of the Arab governors, a phenomenon which reflects the fact that his interests lay towards the west, while his Indian links are only represented by a short legend in Brahmi. The legend of his coins runs as follows, King Jibul, [his] glory increased! In the name of god, Jibul, the Majestic Lord [is] King of brave men – His Highness the Majestic Lord – [minted in his] 15th [regnal year in] Zavulistan, by the order of the gods. His coin issues are so far known from his 2nd, 9th, 10th and 15th regnal years. It is very likely that he died shortly after his 15th regnal year (corresponding to 735 AD) because his son Ju-mo-fu-ta ascended the throne in 738 CE."

Rutbil Jumofuta

Pirdar Rutbil Jumofuta (738 to 760s CE) was son of Iltabar Shiquer and ascended the throne of Zabulistan in 738 AD. This name Ju-mo-fu-ta of Chinese sources can be reconstructed as Zampat or Jambant ? He ruled all along with dignity and justice, in fact Zabulistan is considered to be the land of justice those days. He is also known as Jibul/Zibul in Chinese sources (stands for Johl(a) their clan name) his father and predecessor Iltabar Shiquer also known by this name in Chinese sources. Further "In spite of the apparently entirely different form of his name in Chinese spelling, the new king of Zabulistan again bore the name or title Jibul. The North-Western T’ang form of Ju-mo-fu-ta was Ji-mbui pfvλk-d’âλ, which clearly reflects a foreign prototype of *jibul Pirdar (Elder Jibul), probably to be distinguished from a ‘Junior Jibul’.
In words of Author E. Chavannes,

• (French) "La vingt-sixième k'ai-yuen (738), le dixième mois, un édit fut rendu: le roi du royaume de K'ang (Samarkand), Ou-le (Ghourek), étant mort, on nomma son fils Tou-ho son successeur. Le roi de Sie-yu (Zâboulistân), Ghe-yu , étant mort, on nomma son fils Jou-mo-fou-ta son successeur. Le roi du royaume de Ts'ao (Kaboûdban?), Mo-sien, étant mort, on nomma son frère cadet Sou-tou-pou-lo son successeur. Le roi du roy¬ aume de Ghe (Kesch), Yen-t'oen , étant mort, on nomma son fils Hou-po son successeur. Toutes ces morts avaient eu lieu dans des années diffé¬ rentes; maintenant, c’est à la suite (de la mort de Ghourek) qu’on en donna avis (à l’empereur)"

(Translation) "On the twenty-sixth k'ai-yuen (738), the tenth month, an edict was issued: the king of the kingdom of K'ang (Samarkand), Ou-le (Ghourek), having died, his son was named Tou- ho his successor. The king of Sie-yu (Zâboulistân), Che-yu (Iltabar Shiquer), having died, his son Jou-mo-fou-ta was named his successor. The king of the kingdom of Ts'ao (Kaboûdban?), Mo-sien, having died, his younger brother Sou-tou-pou-lo was named his successor. The king of the kingdom of Ghe (Kesch), Yen-t'oen, having died, his son Hou-po was named his successor. All these deaths had taken place in different years; now, it was following (the death of Ghourek) that notice was given (to the emperor)."

As per author Vasiliĭ Vladimirovich Bartolʹd

• (French) Les rois du Zâboulistân avaient le titre de Zambil ; Marquart ( Êrâušahr, p. 250 et suiv.) a réuni et expliqué les textes arabes qui les concernent. Dans le Tch'e fou yuen koei, nous trouvons les renseignements suivants : ( chap. 964, p. 15 r°) la huitième année k'ai-yuen (720) , le neuvième mois, l'empereur envoya un ambassadeur conférer par brevet « le titre de roi du royaume de Sie- yu (Zâboulistân) à Tche-k'iu- eul, hie-li-fa du Ko- ta- lo-tche (Arokhadj) , et le titre de roi du royaume de Ki-pin (Kapiça) au tegin du Ko-ta- lo - tche (Arokhadj) Ce texte nous permet de rectifier le passage erronné du T'ang chou dans lequel il est dit que la cour de Chine conféra au roi du Kapiça le titre de tegin de l'Arokhadj (cf. p. 132, n. 1) . Il faut dire, au contraire, que le tegin de l'Arokhadj reçut le titre de roi du Kapiça. Par cette investiture , le gouvernement impérial reconnaissait officiellement les récentes conquêtes du Zâboulistân ; il paraît résulter en effet du texte précité que, après s'être emparé du Kapiça, le roi du Zâboulistân avait mis à la tête de cet état un de ses frères ou un de ses fils ayant le titre de tegin; quant au titre de hie- li-fa que portait le roi du Zâboulistân, il s'explique tout naturellement si on se rappelle que ce titre turc avait été décerné par les Tou-kiue occidentaux à tous les princes qui reconnaissaient leur suzeraineté (cf. p. 52 , ligne 12) . Il est à remarquer cependant que, dans la requête adressée en 724 à l'empereur de Chine, le roi du Sie - yu ( Zâboulistân) se donne le titre de tegin (voyez plus loin les Extraits du Tch'e fou yuen koei, à la date de 724). Tche-k'iu-eul , roi de Sie-yu (Zâboulistân), qui reçut l'investiture en 720, est vraisemblablement le même personnage que Tche-yu , roi de Sie- yu (Zâboulistân), qui eut pour successeur, en 738 ou peu d'années avant, son fils Jou- mo-fou-ta (voyez plus loin les Extraits du Tch'e fou yuen koei, à la date de 738) ."

(Translation) The kings of Zâboulistân had the title of Zambil; Marquart (Êrâušahr, p. 250 and following.) gathered and explained the Arabic texts which concern them. In the Tch'e fou yuen koei, we find the following information: (chap. 964, p. 15 r°) the eighth year k'ai-yuen (720), in the ninth month, the emperor sent an ambassador to confer by patent "the title of king from the kingdom of Sie-yu (Zâboulistân) to Tche-k'iu-eul, hie-li-fa (Xeilifa, Iltabar) of Kota-lo-tche (Arokhadj), and the title of king of the kingdom of Ki-pin (Kapiça) to the tegin of Ko-talo-tche (Arokhadj). This text allows us to correct the erroneous passage of T'ang chou in which it is said that the court of China conferred on the king of Kapiça the title of tegin of Arokhadj (cf. p. 132, n. 1). It must be said, on the contrary, that the tegin of Arokhadj received the title of king of Kapiça. By this investiture, the imperial government recognized officially the recent conquests of Zâboulistân; it appears to result in fact from the aforementioned text that, after seizing Kapiça, the king of Zâboulistân had placed at the head of this state one of his brothers or one of his sons having the title of tegin; as for the title of hie-li-fa (Xeilifa) that the king bore of Zâboulistân, it is explained quite naturally if we remember that this Turkish title had been awarded by the Western Tou-kiue to all princes who recognized their suzerainty (see p. 52, line 12). It should be noted, however, that in the request addressed in 724 to the Emperor of China, the king of Sie-yu (Zâboulistân) gave himself the title of tegin (see further the Extracts from the Tch'e fou yuen koei, dated 724). Tche-k'iu-eul (Iltabar Shiquer), king of Sie-yu (Zâboulistân), who received investiture in 720, is probably the same character as Tche-yu, king of Sie-yu (Zâboulistân), who had as successor, in 738 or a few years before, his son Jou-mo-fou-ta."

Further author Vasiliĭ Vladimirovich Bartolʹd added,

• Pendant que la Chine proclamait ainsi sa suzeraineté tout le long des territoires qui s'étendent au nord des Monts Célestes pour redescendre sur la Transoxane et aller à l'ouest jusqu'aux rives de la mer Caspienne, elle exerçait sa vigilance sur le parcours de la route plus méridionale qui , traversant la Kachgarie, pénètre dans les Pamirs et, par les vallées soit de Gilghit soit de Tchitrâl , aboutit au bassin de l'Indus. En 728, elle confère l'investiture aux rois de Khoten et de Kachgar; en 733, elle nomme roi de Cachemire Mouktâpîḍa, frère de ce Tchandrâpîḍa qui, en 720, avait luimême reçu un brevet de l'empereur; en 738, Hiuen-tsong reconnait Jou-mo-fou-ta comme successeur légitime de son père, le roi défunt du Zâboulistân; en 745, il nomme Pou-fou-tchoen roi du Kapiça et roi de l'Oudyâna, ces deux pays étant alors politiquement réunis.

(Translation) While China thus proclaimed its suzerainty throughout the territories which extend north of the Celestial Mountains to descend to the Transoxana and go west to the shores of the Caspian Sea, it exercised vigilance on the route of the more southern road which, crossing Kashgaria, enters the Pamirs and, through the valleys of Gilghit or from Tchitrâl, leads to the Indus basin. In 728, elle conferred investiture on the kings of Khotan and Kashgar; in 733, elle named king of Kashmir [as] Mouktâpîḍa (Muktapida), brother of Tchandrâpîḍa (Chandrapida) who, in 720, had himself received a patent from the emperor; in 738, Hiuen-tsong recognized Jou-mo-fou-ta as legitimate successor of his father, the late king of Zâboulistân; in 745, he named Pou-fou-tchoen (Bo Fu-t-zen, ca. 745-775 CE) king of Kapiça and king of Oudyâna, these two countries then being politically united.‍‌‌‌‌‍

King Jou-mo-fou-ta seems to be one of the fierce ruler of Zunbil dynasty. These rulers belongs to the Johla or Jabula clan of Jats of Hunnic origin, the same clan which Toramana I and Mihirakulah (lords of earth) bore across early sixth century CE in Indian subcontinent..

--Rutbil Jomufuta was ascended to the throne by his son Rutbil Zunbil in unknown dates of 760s.

Rutbil Zunbil

Rutbil Zunbil (his name is rendered from the mentions of al-Ya'qubi), seems to be the successor of Iltabar Jomufuta in unknown dates around 760s. He was the son of Iltabar Jomufuta. For more than 50 years Arabs doesn't even tried to raise eyes over Zabul territories and if then were defeated by the Jats. But in 769 CE, the Arabs with huge forces under Ma'n b. Za'ida al-Shaybanl defeated him near Ghazni. There's little known about him, but he is mentioned by al-Ya'qubi, he was a brave ruler as he opposed the raising strength of Arabs and fought against one of their huge forces without hesitation. Arabic sources recount that, after the Abbasids came to power, the Zunbils made submissions to the third Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775–785), (as their King Rutbil Zunbil faces a defeat in 769 CE) but still these are just nominal acts, and the people of the region continued to resist Arab rule. For example, joining Rafi' ibn Layth's rebellion and reneging on tribute agreements. He is mentioned as the king of Sijistan/Sakasthan (a province in Sindh, modern Pakistan), which suggests that Sakasthan was the capital during his reign.
The original account by Ya'qubi reads:

Al-Mahdī sent messengers to the kings, calling on them to submit, and most of them submitted to him. Among them were the king of Kābul Shāh, whose name was Ḥanḥal; the king of Ṭabaristān, the Iṣbahbadh; the king of Soghdia, the Ikhshīd; the king of Tukhāristān, Sharwin; the king of Bamiyan, the Shīr; the king of Farghana, ------ ; the king of Usrūshana, Afshīn; the king of the Kharlukhiyya, Jabghūya; the king of Sijistān, Zunbīl; the king of Turks, Tarkhan; the king of Tibet, Ḥ-h-w-r-n; the king of Sind, al-Rāy; the king of China, Baghbür; the king of India and Atrāḥ, Wahūfūr; and the king of the Tughuz-ghuz, Khāqān.

— Ya'qubi (died 897/8), Ta'rikh ("History")

--Rutbil Zunbil seems to be succeeded by Rutbil Zigil in early ninth century AD.

Rutbil Zigil

Rutbil Zigil was succeeded to the throne of Johla Fort of Zabulistan in probably around 820s. Zigil is not only a personal name but a dynastic name as his predecessors (Iltabar Shiquer & Rutbil Zunbil also mentioned as Zigil/Zibil/Jibul in Chinese sources). This Zigil (or Jibul) is nothing but stands for Jobal or Johl the present Jat tribe of Hunnic origin. As per Litvinsky & J. Harmatta, "Zigil, being the Hephthalite development of Zivil." According to Anthony McNicoll, "the Zunbils ruled in the Kandahar area for nearly 250 years until the late 9th century AD". Their main capital Zamindawar was located in the present-day Helmand Province of Afghanistan. The shrine of Zoon was located about three miles south of Musa Qala in Helmand, which may still be traced today. Some believe that the Sunagir temple mentioned by the famous Chinese traveler Xuanzang in 640 AD pertains to this exact house of worship. The Zunbils under their king Rutbil Zigil ruled peacefully throughout his region at Zamindawar and Zabulistan until 871 AD when Yaqub bin Laith al-Saffar (r.861–879 AD) treacherously killed Rutbil Zigil and captured the Johla Fort. Author Dahiya said, "In 870/71 A.D. the Arab General, Yaqubb-ibn-Laith overthrew this kingdom of Kabul (Zabulistan) by treachery. The Persian work, Jama-al-hikayat-wa-lawama-al-Rawayat of 1232 A.D., states that when Yaqub found that his army was of no match for that of the Jats of Jabulistan, and could not defeat them in a field of battle, Yaqub invited the latter to meet him as a friend. At the meeting however, Yaqub resorted to Taqia and treacherously killed the king. Thus Kabul (Zabulistan) was lost by 871 A.D. Gandhara and Peshawar area, however, still remained with them (Jats of Hindu Shahi dynasty) till 1021 A.D. It does not mean that heroic efforts were not made to take back Kabul and Ghazni. Babar, relates a story of an attack on Ghazni by "The Rai of Hind" at the time of Subaktegin, when the latter put dead flesh (obviously cows) and impurities into their water supply and the "Rai" withdrew. In 870 CE, (as an expansion of his empire) Yaqub attacked Rutbil Zigil somewhere about Zamindawar but his huge forces were not only defeated but their dreams were perished into soils as well, and when Yaqub realizes that his Saffarid army can't be even able to touch those lands, governed by Johl Jats, he invited Rutbil Zigil to meet as a friend in 871 CE and resorted to Taqia and treacherously killed the king. Thus Zabulistan was lost in 871 CE.

Rutbil Zigil was treacherously killed by Yaqub-ibn-Laith (who founded the Saffarid dynasty) in 871 CE. Then Rutbil Zigil's successors said to have been retreated eastwards.

Hindu Shahis

822–1026 AD [14]

Muhtajids

10th cen-early 11th cen. [15]

Rouran Khaganate

The powerful Rouran Khaganate of Mongolia which was itself created by the fusion of Xiongnu Hun remnants with the Xianbei and perhaps also the Wuhuan.

The Xianbei people

The Xianbei and Xiong-nu people are people belonging to same ethnicity as mentioned by Historian Nikita Bichurin The Touba Xianbei people were originated from Old Xiongnu empire.

Tiele People & Ashina tribe

Tiele People

The Tiele (Chinese: 鐵勒; pinyin: Tiělè, Turkic *Tegreg "[People of the] Carts"), also transliterated as Dili (Chinese: 狄歷), Chile (Chinese: 敕勒), Zhile (Chinese: 直勒), Tele (Chinese: 特勒), also named Gaoche or Gaoju (Chinese: 高車, "High Carts") living to the north of China and in Central Asia, emerging after the disintegration of the confederacy of the Xiongnu.

• Tiele are originally Xiongnu's splinter stocks. As Tujue are strong and prosperous, all Tiele districts (郡) are divided and scattered, the masses gradually dwindled and weakened. Until the beginning of Wude [era], there have been Xueyantuo, Qibi, Huihe, Dubo, Guligan, Duolange, Pugu, Bayegu, Tongluo, Hun, Sijie, Huxue, Xijie, Adie, Baixi, etc. scattered north of the [Gobi] desert.

— Jiu Tangshu, 199, lower.

• Chinese sources link the Tiele people and Ashina to the Xiongnu, According to the Book of Zhou and the History of the Northern Dynasties, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation.
• Weishu mentions, "The Gaoche are probably remnants of the ancient Red Di. Initially they had been called Dili. Northerners take them as Chile. Chinese take them as Gaoche Dingling. Their language, in brief, and Xiongnu [language] are the same yet occasionally there are small differences. Or one may say that they [Gaoche] are the junior relatives of the Xiongnu in former times."

Ashina Tribe (Gokturks)

According to the Book of Zhou, History of the Northern Dynasties, and New Book of Tang, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation.
According to some researchers (Duan, Xue, Tang, Lung, Onogawa, etc.) the Ashina tribe were descended from the Tiele confederation, who were likewise associated with the Xiongnu.

According to Carter V. Findley the name "Ashina" comes from one of the Saka languages of central Asia and means "blue" (gök in Turkic).

They are descends from Xiongnu people as mentions the 7th-century Chinese "Beishu (A.K.A. History of the Northern Dynasties)" and the "Book of Zhou" and an inscription in the Sogdian language, report the Göktürks to be a subgroup of the Xiongnu.

Uyghur Khaganate

According to Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler.

In Traditions of Indian Subcontinent

As we had already discussed that the so-called Hiung-nu or Hunas are non, but the Henga Jats in India.
But in India as well, these people mentions with dozens of name in History. Note here we are talking about Henga Jats.

they are also known as Hunga/Hanga, Heng, Haga, Ag(a), Agha, Agach, Agha, Agre etc.

Why dozens of name?

It's quite obvious that those people who ruled alongside almost all over the Asia and Europe, have many descended tribes, those tribes must having different names; as per different regions. They were these people(Henga Jats) whom still known as "Hun" in Gujarat region.

As we know that, the people were firstly mentions Hiong-nu in History, and in Indian literature(of Sankrit) they are Hunas.

Henga, Haga, Agha, Agre

Henga Jats later known as Haga Clan (in Dehati Brij Bhasha {or Desi Brij dialect, see V.P. Desai's book 'Bharat Ke Chaudhary'), were also recognized as Agha or Agre, as under, "Many words having initial starts with letter 'h' (in writing format) would pronounce with excluding that 'h'. For example the word 'Historical(ly)' is pronounce as 'istorical or istorically' and another word is 'Hour' which pronounce as 'oww-er' with excluding of that initial 'h' of it's writing format." Even there mentions a people in history as 'Alans' were sometimes styled as 'Halan(i),' the Heracle people were also known as Erakilo. And what about Hephthalites they even recognized as 'Ephthalites'. And Ernakh, son of Attila also known as Hernak.
So, it's quite clear that the initial 'h' is excluded here, which turns this Haga into, Aga or Agha. What about "Agre," it's the Sanskrit form of Ag(h)a. With an suffix "-ya (य)" it becomes "Agreya" name of a Mahajanpada exists from Mahabharata period(will study ahead!).
However other mentionable references may include H. A. Bingley who mentions Haga as a principal Clan in Mathura in year 1978. Shri Ram Pande mentions Haga as an "important clan" in Bharatpur region in 1974. And also in "A Gazetteer of Eastern Rajputana Comprising the Native States of Bharatpur, Dholpur, & Karauli", H. E. Drake-Brockman mentions Haga as an important Jat clan in 1905. And Brij Kishore Sharma says that Haga is one of the principal clans of Jats in Mathura district.

In Puranic Literature

• Ramayana - We finds it mentioning in Ramayana in Kishkindha Kand Sarga 41 as under:

तस्य आसीनम् नगस्य अग्रे मलयस्य' महोजसम्

द्रक्ष्यथ आदित्य संकाशम् अगस्त्यम् ऋषि सत्तमम् । ॥४-४१-१५॥

• Mahabharata - Mahabharata mentions a people conqueror by Karna in his conquest.

Agreya (अग्रेय) - A janapada conquered by Karna (III. 241.67). Possibly in Hisar region or near Agra.

Author Harit Khan Ji mentions, "The Agreya Janpada was ruling in central India at that time, it is established by Agrasen Ji Maharaj, it belongs to Agre clan of Jats; As confirmed by the reading of their coins as under, "Agach Akodaka".

• Bhagwata Purana - Mentions Agha people as in alliances with Kamsa also, mentions their Nagavanshi Ruler Aghasura who was a Demon (Asura) as a commanding chief of Kamsa.

As per Author Harit Khan, Aghapura in Bharatpur(Rajs.) is named after Aghasura, a demon depicted in Bhagwata Puran. He further wrote that the Aghasura is recognized as the originator of Aghariya Kshatriyas or the modern Agharia Jats.

The Agreya Ganarajya

It was an ancient Ganarajya(tribal kingdom) during the region of Mahabharata period. This Ancient Gana(rajya) (or Janapada) was established by Samrat Agrasena, who was a descend from Lord Rama. Their coinage mentions, 'Agodaka Agācha janapada" we had already discussed that Agach is an another name to denote Agre Jats in Indian subcontinent (mainly in Mathura side). I had wrote an article regarding this study in details (in Hindi), you could see here - Article "Shri Agrasen Ji Maharaja".

Agrasen Maharaj's Queen namely Madhavidevi was a princess of Nagavansha(descend from Naga people), we might remember that Nag or Naga is an another term to denotes Jat tribe or Jat community in ancient times. And Naga is itself a Jat gotra too.

The modern city of Agra was established by Shri Agrasen Ji Maharaj But we might remember that, 'it was named after the Agre clan of Jats'. A question arises that why should Agrasen Ji Maharaj named the city of modern Agra after the Agre clan of Jats? Now, what does this mean? What does it depicts?

Clans were designated with an suffix '-ya (य)' or '-ka (क)' in Puranic Literature(in Panini's literature too). Remember, the name 'Agreya' comes mentioning in Mahabharata, a Purana(epic) of Hinduism.
If we excludes this suffix will get 'Agre' or 'Agre-a' which is a Jat clan, we might also remember that a Gana(rajya)s' name is named after their Kul(ah) (e.i. Clan). and In early India, Janapada names can be commonly interchangeable with the tribal name. As from this view Agre was their Kula-name (Gotra or Clan), which is a Jat clan also known as 'Henga' (already discussed!)

Their coinage mentions (in Brahmalipi) "Agodaka Agācha janapada" which means that, the coins belongs to the Janapada namely, 'Agāch'

Now, note that Agach is the name of the Janapada on the coinage, and it is also recognized as 'Agreya' Janapada in Sanskrit literature.

Points to be noted - Agach is a Jat clan which a.k.a. Agre, by adding the suffix '-ya' it becomes Agreya. Both names are found a (same) Jat clan's name, and also the name of their Janapada. While remembering that Gana's or Janapad's name is named after the Kula(h) or clan.
Now, what does these three statements indicate (above). Of course, that the Agreya or Agach Janpada is named after Agre or Agach clan, and in Jats the both names were referred to a same clan.

Regarding the term 'Agreya' Author Damodar Mahto says that it itself originated from the term Agre.

And what about Agrasen?
Maharaja was later named as Agrasen but before of it he was recognized as 'Raja Agra' i.e. Agrasen is not a name but a title.
Now what it actually means? Just similarly as Agravana means 'Vana (i.e. forest) of Agre people', existed during Mahabharata period(further discuss), contemporary of Agrasen Maharaj. And Agrapala meant by Pala (i.e. Khap) of Agre clan of Jats, still existing. Similarly Agrasena would mean Sen(a) of Agre people. In Sanskrit(or Hindi), the term 'Sen' is generally used to abbreviatedly denotes 'Senapti' which means by a 'Commander' i.e. Agrasen means, "commander/Sen(apti) of Agre people".

Shri Agrasen Ji Maharaja was a descend from Lord Rama. We might remember that Rama was himself a Jat of Kak Vansha.

We might also note that the people recognized themselves as belonging to 'Agach' clan as mentioned in their coinage, What about Agreya? It's Puranic Form of Agre and hence, it contains a Kullik suffix (Kullik → tribal; 'of Clan'). It is the reason that the Janapada is mentions as 'Agreya' in Puranic Literature only. And the native people calls themselves as belonging to Agach clan.

Author Harit Khan mentions "Gana Pravarti is proposed in the society by Jats, the Yaudheyas were Yodha/Jaudha(or Johiya) Malwi Gana was governed by Mallav Jats, The Bhadras were Bhadoo Jats of present day, Arjunayanas are Khuntele(or Kuntala Tomar) Jats and just likely the same the Agreya Gana was under the possession of Agre or Agr Jats of present day."

While, Author Mangal Sen Jindal in his book namely, "History of Origin of Some Clans in India (With special references to the Jats)" dedicated five chapters to this discussion, which the reader can further read. Namely 'Vaish' (ch.2, p.109) and 'Agroha, Capital of "Agarya Ganrajya" Up to its Destruction' (ch.3, p.115) and 'Vaish Agarwal' (ch.4 p.137) and 'Vaish Agarwal Gindodia' (ch.5, p.123) and 'Vaish Agarwal Rajbanshi' (ch.6, p.127).

Mathura Kshatraps

The area Ruled by Mathura Kshatraps

The Mathura Kshatraps/Satraps (or Governors) was an Indo-Scythian Dynasty ruled from 1st cen. BC to 2nd cen. CE including a large part of Northern India beneath their claws hence, sometimes also recognized as The Northern Kshatraps, the first of their known rulers were Hangamasha (1st cen. BC) and his brother Hagana. As per R S Joon, Hangamas was a General of the Kushan, Yuechi or Tushar kings. Hanga is very well known in history. He was appointed as the Governor of Mathura. His descendants came to be called Hanga. They have about 80 villages in district of Mathura. Also Historian Dharmchandra Vidyalankar's writings supports this view as under, (Tr.) "The Agre/Hunga clan has been descended from Hangamasha" And Historian Capt. D S Ahlawat also holds the same view. Now, it would be clear that Hangamasha an Indo-Scythian Kshatrap of Mathura was an ancestor of the Henga or Haga Jats. However, it also establish the same thing that the Sakas (Scythians) were non but Jats of present day. While some historians also traces the ancestry of Hagamasha to belonging to Tushar or Yuechi clan, but we should remember that even Chinese sources stated him as a Hiungnu. Again a question arises that why then history illustrates an illusion? The answer is simple the Tocharians and Huns are closely related to each other, Tushars are the ancestors of Tomar clan and Huns are of Henga Jats respectively. (Discussed already!)

Kalachuri Era

Inscriptions here,

1) [लभिपतिपरीत्राणोप*] जात भ्रमददभ्रशु भ्राभ्रविभ्रमयशो वितान[ः*] श्रीदद्दस्तस्य सू[नुरशङ्किता]गतप्रणयि (CII Vol. 4 P(1), p. 105.)

2) रिवारणघ[टा]कोटिकुद्दा(ट्टा) कदोर्द्दण्डश्चतूर्व्विविद्या [धिग]मोप[बृ]ङ्हितप्रज्ञातिशयसम्यकष्न् (क्प्र) व[र्त्ति]तनीतिमार्ग्गानु[रं]जित (ibdi)

3) [रं*]जितपादपं[क]जः समधिगतपञ्चमहाशब्द महासामन्ताधिपतिश्रीजयभटः कुशली सर्व्वानेव राजसा- (ibid, p. 106)

4) Jāṭa (जाट) an officer under Karna (pp. 347-8)

5) Jātū (जातू) an engraver. (p. 345)

6) Jātavarman, (जातवर्मन) Varman King of Bengal. (xciii)

7) Jateshwara (जटेश्वर) King

8) श्रीजाटनामा विषये नियुक्तो वाचस्पतिः [स]र्व्व[गुणै]रिवाभूत् ।। [७।।] धर्म्मध्वजानां धुरमत्र गुर्व्वीम्बिश्राणनेना बहतो द्विजेभ्यः । यस्यैव वा (बा) ह्बोर[पि] पौरुषे[ण] श्रीकर्ण्णदेवो जितवाच्रिपूंश्च ।।[८।।] तस्माद्गयाकर्ण्णमहीशभक्तो मन्त्रस्य गोप्ता भुवि वन्दिजीवः। जज्ञे यशःपाल इति प्रतितस्तारात्मजः (p350)

9) ... सिंहजात् ... (p. 352)

10) परिहीणो जातः (p. 353)

1) जटाम्ब्र-पल्लव (CII Vol.4 P(2), p.513 & 515)

2) जित (p. 379)

3) जटाधर (p. 571)

4) सर्वजितनाम & जितः (p. 572)

Glories of Mahavana

During the Muhammadan Invasion of India. The Henga Jats are in sovereign possession of Mathura and near by area (including present day Mathura, Hathras, Aligarh, Agra and more) with their capitals at Mahavana (till 1018 CE) and then divided further in many small states will discuss ahead. These rulers are surely the descends from Hagamasha.
Mahavana Samrat Maharaja Kulchand Hanga was the ruling Henga Leader during the ninth invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni in 1017 AD. Raja Kulchand was preceded by his father Raja Foolchandra Hanga, Kulchandra had 3 sons Raja Baramal Hanga, Yuvraj Haramal Singh (Harchandra) and Raja Shivdatta Hanga (Shiv Pala). The Ruins of Kulchand Fort are still present in Mahavana.
It was 2nd December 1018 AD, when Mahmud Of Ghazni attacked Bulandshahr and the king there namely Hardatta surrendered and accepted Islam, after some rest Sultan Mahmud marched for Mathura. At Mahavan, when Maharaj Kulchand got to know about Ghaznavi and his evils' he starts preparing for a battle, and finally in the battlefields of Mahavana fighting with a great bravery when Kulchand got to know that he can't being able to conquer over that such a huge muhammadan army, he desperately took out his sword and drove it first in his beautiful Queen Maharani Jayadevi then committed suicide by himself. In this battle Yuvraj Haramal Singh lost his life while fighting with the invading army, said that he was of only 12 that time. More than 50 thousand men were killed. Author Rakesh Kumar Arya mentions Samrat Kulchand as "Mathura Naresh" and "Veer Kul Shiromani Shashak" he further wrote, "In the end, the hour came and raja kulchand, the protector of the religion, was confronted with the foreign invader. There was a great war. The king's great army was sacrificed on the nation. The king fought with great bravery. Along with him, his queen was also at war in the battlefield, when kulchand saw that huge part of his army has lost their lives in the battlefield and at any random instinct they could be caught and made slaves by the muhammadan army, they end up their lives." While writer Ranghey Raghav states, "Warriors fought a lot, the river (Yamuna) turns red by blood. The Mahavana's King Kulchand has fought till death and when he sees more than 50 thousands of men died and he must be loose the war, he desperately killed himself and his queen. As per Meenakshi Jain, to avoid capturing by the enemy Raja Kulchand killed himself and his family.
I, Ch. Reyansh Singh would like to write, 'Mathura Naresh Kulchandra Samrat was such a brave Jat ruler who not only decided to confront with Mahmud of Ghazni but fought till death too, and the truth is he would like to end up his life rather than to become the slave of Mahmud. Hail to Jat Raja."

After the death of Maharaja Kulchandra, his surviving sons gain power in 1019 AD, Maharaj Baramal Singh re-established his power alongwith Maharaj Shivdatta Hanga at Baramai
In 1020 AD, Maharaja Baramal Hanga challenged the Kerar Ruler Nadina in Mathura and re-establised his power in the region with his capital at Baramai. It was said that he took off the head of the Kerar Ruler and hanged it at the very entrance of his kingdom.
He then, rebuilt every Temple and monument in his region which was excavated and destroyed by Mahmud. He ruled for very short time till his son Maharaja Mahi Pal (see, Pillar Inscription of Kama (Bharatpur) dated 11 cen. CE) succeeded him in the first half of 11 cen. CE.

The Geneology of Henga Jat Rulers of Mahavana is found to be inscribed on an inscription found in 1987 AD inside a well-hole in Unchagaon Hathras preserved in "Shani Dev Mandir" of Bisawar (Hathras), dated 14 cen. CE. mentioned by author H K Deshwal in his 'Zato Qo Itihas (Urdu, 1988)' and also the Pillar Inscription of Kama (Bharatpur) dated 11 cen. CE mentions about some kings of this Hunnic dynasty. 7 generations of Henga Jats ruled over the area even after the Muslim rule. The area of their rule included Mathura, the eastern area on the bank of Yamuna in Agra, present Firozabad, upto Koel (Aligarh) and part of Etah district. The Mahaban line of rulers 11-13th century AD is:- Mahi Pal, Vijay Pal, Ajay Pal, Hari Pal, Dig Pal and other 3 rulers. The daughter of Raja Dig Pal was married to Kant Kunwar; the son of Rana of Katira in Mewar who had taken refuge with Raja Dig Pal after having been driven out of Mewar by Muslims. As per one story Kant Kunwar overthrew his father-in-law and constructed a small fort in Mahaban which was soon captured by Muslims.
These rulers are from Henga clan, and Pala was their title adopted, after the Tomara Jat Rulers of Delhi(ka), as these Henga Rulers were accepted their rule at once (as Maharaja Kulchandra contemporary with the Jhajhan Pala Tomar Maharaj of Delhi).

And after this region of time, The Hanga Jat Empire of Mathura was further divided into four sub-territories. While Raja Ramsena ruled at Bisawar, Raja Aratha Singh at Arontha (Hathras), Raja Susen Singh at Susayen (present day Unchagaon Hathras) and Choudhary Uday Singh at Naugawan (Hathras).

During Mughal Rule

Moghuls in India had established a great regime and empire from 1526 to 1857 AD. Time by time, there were new laws were introduced in their rule, which somehow beneficial for someone and not-good for someone as well thus, this leads to some of the greatest rebellions in the Indian history. These Mogul rulers awarded the Henga Jats as 'Chowdhari' and still, we people are known as 'Chowdhary' in our custom and locals, however these days a major part of Jat people recognized themselves as 'Chowdhary' nowadays it's being a great title as well.

Braj Warrior Gokul Jat

The soil of Braj (region) is the proof in itself of the bravery of it's native people, while neither a single Jat from this nativity paid any kind of tax to the Mughals, while Aurangzeb took the Jats very lightly and have to paid for it. The warrior of Tilpat, Choudhary Gokul was a chief of people of Braj region. He was son of Choudhary Madu Singh, his elder brother was also a brave Jat, Sindhuraj Hanga who attain martyrdom in 1651 CE fighting Mughal's general Rajput raja Jai Singh I in battle of Ghirsa. In late 1660s he took the leadership of Jats and other agricultural peasant communities against Mughol emperor. In 1665 AD Guru Ramdas come to Haryana and Braj to awake people against the Mughal rule, he was also the Guru/teacher of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj (the Maratha warrior). In January 1666 AD, Guru Ramdas gives a strong speech at Issapoore (Muzzafarnagar dist. UP) in which he said, "Agra and Delhi are the two legs of the Mughal Empire, which need to be broken. I have planted ammo all over India against Aurangzeb's atrocities, which needs a Jat son to spark because the Rajput kings have accepted their subjugation by giving the Mughal emperors their daughters' buckets. There was no life left among the Rajputs. I have come to the effect that only Jats can do this great work. He said that the true son of the mother, who can make a revolution in the areas between Delhi and Agra, should come forward for the examination" After listening this Jat Gokul and his associates came forward, Guru ji Ramdas asked them whether if 'not to retreat or being hesitated ahead, Gokula put his sword in Guru's legs and swears to being get killed before retreat ahead, thus it was the beginning of Gokula's revolutionary career against the Mughal emperor. Thus, Jat people under the leadership of Gokula refuged to pay any kind of Jazia Karr (Tax), due to of which Aurangzeb appointed Abbdunavi Khan as the governor of Mathura, who was later killed in the battle of Sihora (on 12 May 1669 AD) by the Jats under Gokul Singh Jat. After Abbdunnavi's death, Gokul Singh sacked Sadabad Paragana and burnt it, so that the Mughals would watch that fire, Sadabad was a Mughal camp from the time of Shahajahan govenred by Mughal general Sabdulla Khan and later being controlled by the Jats. It's a glorious victory of a Jat farmer over the Mughal regime. Aurangzeb's new orders came from Delhi on 09 April 1669 AD, to destroys the Temples and of course for loot in Mathura and Braj region.
Now let me clear a myth, about the Anti-Hindu Mughal rulers, first of all Hinduism is not so popular at that time as shown today and Mughals had not only destroyed and looted Hindu monuments but Islamic as well, The Jama Mazjid of Koel (Aligarh) is an example here, which was destroyed during the region of Aurangzeb by the Mughal Army and is still ruined there. The fact is, they are just looters and want the loot for which they can cross any limit, which turned to be rebellious in the Jat dominated areas.

And the battle continued for several months (about at least 5) meanwhile Mughal general Saf Shikan Khan have desperately sent a treaty proposal (in September 1669) to Gokula Jat, in which

• Emperor Aurangzeb would forgive them if they apologize and
• Returns all the goods they had looted from Mughols
• And promises to not to be rebel again in future.

In returns Gokul Singh asked about what's his crime? And asked him to ask the emperor to came and apologize for the destruction of temples and to take back the statement of plucking extra taxes from the farmers. Till that, Gokul Singh would remain a Rebel.

When all the tricks failed Emperor Aurangzeb have to marched himself for Mathura on 27 November 1669. Point to remember, to fought with Maharana Pratap, former ruler of Mewat at Haldighati (18 June 1576) Emperor Akbar had not himself went to the battlefields but sent his General Rajput Raja Maan Singh Kachwaha of Jaipur to confront with Maharana Pratap, but to fought with Gokula, a farmer, the Mughal emperor had to come himself to confront with. That's the difference which makes the history of Jats much glorious from rest of the people.
On one hand, a huge Mughal army along supported from Rajputs under Brahmadev Sisodiya and the other side Jat Veer Gokul Deo, a farmer along with 20,000 other farmers from various communities with no advance weapons, only agricultural related tools they had to fight with. But another thing alongside them is the courage in their blood to stay independent as their forefathers were from Jat community, they decided to fight till death for their honour and pride, attaining Martyrdom in Jat people is considered prestigious from generations, which encourages them to fight with that such an enlarged trained Army of Mughal regimes.

In the last week of December 1669 the battle between Gokula's farmers/soldiers and the Shahi/Royal Mughal Army took place in Tilpat, the all three battle of Panipat ended not even a day, the conclusion of Haldighati's battle (18 June 1576) is clear in just two or three hours. While Gokula's struggle endless till 5 months and this last battle (of Tilpat, December 1669) was standed till the fourth day where at the very end 7,000 soldiers stands the ground from Gokula's side. Only on the basis of 20,000 farmer soldiers the battle standed for four days, Author Narendra Singh Verma in his "Virvar Amar Jyoti Gokul Singh" (Hindi, Publishers- Sankalpa Prakashana) proudly stated about Gokula's struggle and the standing battle of four days in front of Mughal Emperor, and I would like to thank him to contributed us by authorized his book in 1986. Some sources states that battle was standed three days while some says four.

It was night of 28 December 1669 AD when Gokul Singh, his uncle Uday Singh Jat along with 7,000 rebellious farmers were arrested and next day taken to Agra Red Fort. Now if estimate four days before 29 December, it turned out to be 25 December 1669 when the battle begins? However no historian had pointed out this before. Then at Agra Red Fort these Jat rebels were presented in front of Emperor while being tied from up to down in heavy chains including their neck, shoulders, hands, belly and legs.
Aurangzeb asked Gokula to drop the idea of rebellion, and join him or starts living a new life. Gokula replied 'I am a warrior Jat and would like to die before this happens, and if I survived, I will not only continue the rebellion but took it to the next level as well.' Emperor again gave them a chance and ask if they accepts Islam they would leave freely? The Jat denied and receives death sentence in return. On 1 January 1760 AD at Kotwali Agra (in front of Red Fort) Gokula and Uday Singh Jat was put to death by cutting themselves limb by limb, while cruel snatched the skin of Madu Singh Jat (Gokula's father) from his body. And then the bloodbath begun and the remaining imprisoners, rebels in Mughal captivity around 7,000 men were put to death one by one in the same way (limb by limb). The place (Kotwali) where this all happened were also named as "Fawwara Chauk" (i.e. Fountain Quadrangle) as the blood of these warriors shred all over there like a fountain. Thus, it was the end of Gokul Singh Jat, All hail Jattizm!

Gokula's sacrifice and blood did not flow in vain; it watered the newly-sprouted seedling of liberty in the heart of Jats.

He was a Henga Warrior and not a Sinsinwar

As we know history is well known for the illustrations of the illusions. As per an amazing illusion of history, Gokul Singh was a warrior of Sinsinwar clan of Jats and he is not a Henga Jat.
I remembers from the very young age, the people of my clan told me about the great Henga Leader, The Braj Warrior, even my father proudly tells about his glory and feels overwhelmed, and now it becomes a matter of discussion. In which I decided to convey a study and presenting it here, so all the doubts of people would be clear.
At the beginning in this case, I have talked to some reputed historians like Dr. Atal Singh Khonkhar, Th. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Manvendra Singh Tomar, Baba Parmendra Arya and Krishana Pal Singh Tewatia whom agrees that Gokula was a Henga Jat and not a Sinsinwar. And I started collecting various evidences.

As we know historians stated him as a Sinsinwar chief, so it's difficult to find out about the truth but as a freshy when I don't have any strong evidence or reference, I began to pursue the references of other renowned historians, who claims about the theory of Sinsinwar chief. As far as I have studied Thakur Deshraj was the very first historian to claim this by referring to "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara", when I pursued this, I found that in an another book (by same author, i.e. Deshraj), he turned down the quoting of the same reference "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara".

Proofs

1. False references - As we have already discussed Deshraj is the first historian to connect Gokula with Bharatpur and Sinsini by referring "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" while in an another book by the same author "Jat Itihas (Utpatti Aur Gaurav Khand)" on page 128-9 he mentions that "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" stated the Jats to be originated from Rajputs while he turned down this statement mentioned in "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara".
2. Article "Samar Veer Gokula Jat Ji Kay Balidan Divas par koti koti namn" writen by author Baba Parmendra Arya published by 'Surya Bulletin News' dated 31 December 2019, another article by Dr. Krashna Pal Teotia namely, "Parakrami, Yuddh Veer Shri Gokul Singh Jat Balidan Divas par Bhavpurna Shraddhanjli" dated 1 January 2021 published by 'Tejal Gyaan Patrika Mathura' and author H K Deshwal also mentions in his 'Jato Qo Itihas (Urdu, 1988)' as he was also from Mahavana where still Gokula got recognized as a Henga warrior.
3. Historians connect Gokul Singh with Sinsini, which is a rubbish joke, let me remind them, a Jat should get landholding in his own village? Isn't? Of course, it's the Jat tradition, in Jagir/waziyat (heritage) Jats receives the land of their forefathers which lies in their "paternal village" only. As from this view Gokula's village should be Tilpat and not Sinsini. As he got his paternal land-holds in Tilpat, a fact well known. Conclusion - Gokula's ancestral/paternal village was Tilpat.
4. A question arises, history also exists before Deshraj? But no historian before him pointed this out? I mean, historians before him, states and connects Gokula only to Tilpat and there's no mention for Sinsini or Sinsinwar? No historian in world history connects Gokula with Sinsini or Sinsinwar before him, and he also just on the basis of "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" wrote Gokula's name was "Kahnadeo Sinsinwar" and mentions about Tilpat and not the Sinsini. While we should remember Author Kanwarpal Singh mentions Gokula as a Jat of Mahavana (Mathura), where stills the castle ruins of Hanga Jats can be seen even today.
5. Even by reading the writings of many modern writers like Kunwar Natwar Singh's (Maharaja Surajmal 2013, pp.30-31), we can not connects them but only conclude that Rajaram was a qualified leader and that's why he was the leader next to Gokula. We can also read the writings of Dr. Mohan Lal Gupta which provides us a great information about the Jat revolts but didn't mentions any connection between the revolts of Sinsinwars of Sinsini/Bharatpur and Gokula of Mahavana/Mathura.
6. The very myth clears by some historically writings, as per Kunwar Natwar Singh after the death of Gokul Singh, a man Khanchand(Sinsinwar) was chosen as the Sardar/chief of Jats of Sinsini, his sons were Bhajja Singh and Braj Raj, Rajaram was the son of Bhajja Singh (Sinsinwar). We should remember that there was a difference of 15 years between the rebellions of Gokula and Rajaram then how could anyone say that Rajaram was the successor of Gokula while both having different zamindaris.
7. As per another Jat tradition, the holds of one would be equally divided in his successors after him, i.e. the rule/property of the one would be equally divided in his sons or overcoming successors equally. By this view (if) Rajaram (or Khanchand) would get the zagir/heritage of Gokula? (which lies in Tilpat), but as we all know there is no relation mentioned in history between Sinsinwar Jats and Tilpat. And another point to denote is, as per Natwar Singh after Gokula, Khanchand has been chosen as the new leader of Jats in Sinsini if Gokula was succeeded by Khanchand and Gokula's father was a chief of Sinsini then why should he being chosen? I mean he should have got received the jagirdari of Sinsini in heritage, as per Jat traditions but, he's chosen so? Why?
8. As per various historians Rajaram Sinsinwar was the successor of Gokula, there is about a 15 years gap between the revolts of both rebels. No mentions of Gokula's relation with Sinsinwars before "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" which is seems to be totally based on the ground reports (said and listens have been written in it, already discussed). And another question is even Poet Sudan dosen't mention any kind of such relation. And if there's something like that then why should not any reputed historian before Deshraj mentions this? While the references of Deshraj of "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" have been already discussed.
9. Niccolao Manucci (19 April 1638–1717) was an Italian born writer mentions a much about the Mughal period in India. Actually, he's considered to be the only contemporary historian who mentions about Gokula's revolt and his accounts also states about Rajaram's revolt and too mentions that to avenge the brutal execution of Gokula of Tilpat, Jats (under Rajaram) sacked Emperor Akbar's tomb/mausoleum at Sikandra and burnt his remains. But even he hadn't mentioned any connection between the two warriors, likewise he was the one who mentions all the happens but neither connects Gokula with Sinsini, suspicious and doubtable? Isn't?
10. If Gokula was originally from Sinsini, then after himself his remaining family should have return to Sinsini there paternal lands? But we got to know that the Baisakhi Day 1670 in months of "Shravana" Gokula's sister Bhanwar Kaur attained martyrdom in Tilpat while facing against Mogul General Saf Shikan Khan, in this battle 11 women and 17 Mughal soldiers were killed. A question arises after the death of Gokula, what's his sister doing in Tilpat or for whom does she waiting for? I mean, she should returns to Sinsini her so-called paternal village, after her brother/family? Isn't? This argeument also strongly holds that Gokula's village was Tilpat and not the Sinsini.
11. The authors under the association of "Disha Experts" postulated many books on the study of history for UPSC, Book Guide to UPSC CAPF Assistant Commandant Paper I & II (2021) ISBN:9789391025717, 9391025714 p.A-73 and 10 Years UPSC CAPF Assistant Commandant (2021 - 2012) ISBN:9789391025793, 939102579X p."2021-11" -page-note.34 (a)'. These reputed authors clearly mentions that Gokula Jat was a Henga warrior.
12. People tries to connect Gokula's revolt with those of Rajaram and other Sinsinwar chiefs, 'a 15 years gap exposes the hollowness of the claim' and we should remember that as per author Edgar Thorya and Shovik Thorya, The revolt of Gokula was differ from that of Rajaram whereas Gokula was a chieftain of Tilpat, Rajaram was of Sinsini, these historians mentions both the revolts as different from each other.
13. During this region of 15 years, an another Jat rebel lost his life while fighting from the Mughals, namely Veer Kanha Rawat of village Bahin (in Haryana).
14. Author Singh mentions "The Jat uprisings in 17th century under the leadership of Gokla (the zamindar of Tilpat) in 1669 and the second under Rajaram and Ram Chehra, the zamindars of Sinsani and Sogar in 1685.
15. In this confusion, I personally visited the village of Tilpat (The modern Tilhu-Chhihattar of Sadabad) in august 2020, and as per their residencial people and Khap records, Gokula's village was Tilpat and he belongs to Hanga clan of Jats.

Conclusion - As we have already discussed, Gokula's village was Tilpat and he had no connection mentions with Sinsinwar Jats or Bharatpur/Sinsini. But as we all discussed, it seems that the authors of "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" have been mistaken and other historians followed them blindly.
On dated October 1, 2022 a statue of Gokul Singh was installed near Red Fort of Agra, while giving speech Minister of Law and Justice Prof. M.P. Singh Baghel said, that Gokul belongs to Agha clan and Tilhu village.
The descendants of Gokul Jat are still present in village Tilhu, Chaudhary Tulsiram son of Late Choudhary Rajendra Singh is the direct descend of Jat Gokula and belongs to Henga Got. He is professionally a farmer in village Tilhu.

Now why would the author of "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara" mentions Gokula as Kahnadeo Sinsinwar? For this we would have to go back in history in 1650-51 AD, when Gokula's father Madu Singh Jat was chief of fort of Ghirsa and fighting Mirza Raja Jai Singh against the Mughals in which Jats faced a defeat and they leave Ghirsa and settled down towards Braj region where Jat Gangadeo (Sinsinwar) of village Pannah near Mahavana and his successors have helped them and provides them a shelter in such emergencies. This may be the reason of writing Gokula as Sinsinwar in "Brajendra Vansha Bhasakara". We should remember that Sikh Leader Baghel Singh Dhaliwal was born in a Dhillon Jat family of Majha, but was raised up by Dhaliwal Jats and hence his name in history still preserves this title. And what about Lord Krishna? As he was raised by Nand Baba (a Ahir), he still recognized as a Ahir in many sahityas. So, this could be the reason of this misconception.

In British Period

The British period or rule in Indian subcontinent is often refers to as 'The British Raj' that lasts from 1858 to 1947 CE. The formation of the great Jat Regiment took place in this rule, it was this period which gave us warriors like Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Maharaja Ranjit Singh. It's quite obvious to say that Jats have a rebellious blood and can't bear anything happening wrong, then how could be the brutality of Britishers tolerated in Jat areas? Where every gotra (sect) can have a separate book on it's history during British Raj.

Ch. Deokaran Hanga

Main article: Deokaran Singh Hanga

One of the fierce rebel born in the Agre clan was Deokaran Jat. The rebel took birth in Chaudhary Girdharipratap Singh's home during British rule in India in his village Kursanda (present day Kurkanda of Hathras U.P., Sadabad) in a nobel Jat family of Hanga/Agre clan.

As he was born in a Zamindar/landlord family, he doesn't faced any un-sufficiency of any required thing at that time i.e., he has fully filled every requirement of that time but still he chosen to be rebellious to the British rule over India. In 1857 when the great struggle for independence begin, various people from various places on various dates revolted and declared themselves to be independent of Britishers or any other power.
As Jats in Baghpat under Shahmal Jat revolted against Britishers in 1857 when Shahmal attained martyrdom fighting them on 21st of July (at Barout). Then how could these rebels can stay silent? More then 350 people accumulated under his flag to contribute in the great rebellion of 1857. And in the last week of october month, these rebels revolted and declared themselves as sovereign and independent under the influencing leadership of zamindar Ch Deokaran. Firstly they have looted the 'thana' (police station, under British) of Sadabad pargana/tahsil and crushed and then burnt it, when British officials in Agra got this news they immediately sent reinforce and arrested Deokaran Jat with his associate Zalim Singh Jat of same village. Deokaran was alleged by British as the Rebel leader in Sadabad and Zalim Singh Jat (Agre) was accused to have manipulated local inhabitants of Sadabad against the British rule. Hence both were ordered to be hanged. Before hanging, some officers asked Deokaran to drop the idea of rebellion and offer to rule Sadabad in return as a British subedar, which he rejects and received death sentence in return. When Subedar Hira Singh Jat (he was one from 350 rebels and serving for Britishers as an anti-British person, which Britishers has no idea about) got to know about this, he immediately took this news to the Kursanda village where again rebels accumulated to rescue Ch Devkaran. However, Britishers seen that crowd coming and took Deokaran to village Khadouli (near Mathura) and hanged him along with Ch. Zalim Singh on dated 1st of November 1857.
Britishers successfully suppressed the great rebellion of 1857 for independence. This martyr have been placed in the pages of golden words for forever. It has to be highlight that totally 7 rebels lost their lives in this 'moment at Sadabad.'

Gurjara People

Whom actually these Gurjaras were? Nowadays, it's an enthnic group of people as well as a Jat clan. Late Dr. Hema Ram was a notable person from this Gujar clan of Jats, belongs to vill. Berathal Kalan (Nagaur), who was a Social Worker in Nagaur(Rajs.) his great great grandson Shri Nirmal Singh Gurjar (M. +91 9460617918) is GSI Director in Jaipur.

As per Historian R S Joon, about 70+ Jat gotras (clans) merged within Gurjar forces (confederacy) and started calling themselves as Goojar.

In Sanskrit texts, the ethnonym has sometimes been interpreted as "destroyer of the enemy": gur meaning "enemy" and ujjar meaning "destroyer").

In early India, Janapada names can be commonly interchangeable with the tribal name. From this view Gurjara becomes their tribal or Clan name, not their racial name or ethnicity.
It has been suggested by several historians that Gurjara was initially the name of a tribe or clan which later evolved into a geographical and ethnic identity following the establishment of a janapada (tribal kingdom) called 'Gurjara'.
So, it could be clear that the name of the dynasty as "Gurjara Pratihara" is referred to as that Gurjara was their Tribal name (Clan) and not their ethnicity, as the Term 'Gurjara' does not refers to a racial/ethnic name until 9th cen. AD.

Conclusion - As the term 'Gurjara' was not an ethnic name at all (at least until 9th cen. AD), it might be considered as a Title for sure, and it use to denotes 'Destroyer of the Enemy', Now let us connect them with the Huns.(below!)

They were Hunnic in Origin

As per General Sir A Cunningham, the author of Gujar and Rajputs history, the rulers of Kanauj were Gujars (History of Gujars P-213 to 218). Their Gotra was Pratihar and they are the Descendants of Hun Chief Torman.

Even historians belongs to Gurjar ethnicity, like Dr. Shusil Bhati traced origin of Gurjara community from Hunas.

The Hathwal clan of Gurjaras is found in Saharanpur and Haryana The clan name seems to be the Indian version of Haftal/ Hephtelite, the another name of white Hunas. It may also be identifies as Harchatwal clan of Jats.

It is a well known fact, as many renowned historian (almost every), concludes the same result.(like, A. M. T. Jackson, Buhler, Hornle, V. A. Smith and William crook Consider the Gurjaras to be of Huna stock)!
Sushil Bhati writes that, 'The way in which inscriptions and literature records frequently bracket Gurjaras with the Hunas suggests that the two races were closely connected. There are evidences that the Gurjaras were originally a horde of pastoral nomads from the Central Asia whose many clans have Huna origin.' And Mihira was there common title.

The Gurjara-Pratiharas suddenly emerged as a political power in north India around sixth century CE, shortly after the Hunas invasion of that region. The Gujara-Pratihara were "likely" formed from a fusion of the Alchon Huns ("White Huns") and native Indian elements, and can probably be considered as a Hunnic state In Bana's Harshacharita (7th century CE), the Gurjaras are associated with the Hunas.

So, we could simply says that the modern day Gurjaras were the descend from the Huna people.

Monuments

Author tried to create a list of Monuments or memorable structures/places which are stands(or maded) after these Huna or Heng-nu Jats

• Great wall of China - According to Ai Jing, "Great wall were used to defend against the Hunas." While Haraprasad Ray's view said "The fear of the Hun compelled the different states of China to build the Great Wall of China."

So, it can be clearly said that, The Great Wall of China had made after the Huna(Henga) Jats, Can also confirmed by the sight of Historian Bonnie Harvey

• Hungary Country - According to BS Dahiya, name of the country Hungary is after the Henga or Huna Clan of Jats.

• Hingu Mountain & Hung-hu River - Hingu mountain alongwith Hung-hu River in China is named after Henga Jats of Mathura as mentioned by Historian DS Ahlawat.

• The city of Agra - The city of Agra was named after the Agre clan of Jats. Author Harit Khan mentions (on same page, p.43), "Agra was founded by Agre or Agr clan of Jats and was known as Agravan or Agrevaṇa (अग्रवन or अग्रेवण) in Mahabharata period, meaning forests of Agre Jats, because they are the inhabitants there."

Also, "We should might remember that anything relatable with Agre Jats is named like Agr____. For example, their inhabited area namely Agravana; their Senadhyaksha (commander) is named as Agrasen as already discussed; and their Khap Vyavastha/system Known as Agrapala Khap Panchayata."

• Srinagar - The modern Srinagar is named after Sri Pravarsena (or Pravarsena II, a ruler of Hunas), he ruled from Kashmir to Gandhara, in his ruling time of ca. 530-590 CE, his capital was named as 'Pravarasenapura' (or modern 'Srinagar').

• River Ganges - Sir A. Cunningham wrote that, Fa-Hian states that the city of Kanoj touched the river Heng, or Ganges, when he visited it in A.D. 400.
  

So, here River Ganges is mentioned as river heng, probably derives from the Heng/Henga clan. As for far as in my knowledge If we apply Grimm's Law to the word 'Heng' so it would become 'Genge or Gange' as the law changes the Sanskrit 'H' into 'G'

• Gujarat region (or Gujratra/Gurjarashtra) is named after Gurjara people. Branch of Huna clan. (already discussed) It's currently a state in North-Western India.

Note-This list will never gonna to end!(will be Expand Further-Author)

Clans Originations

List of Jat Clans originated from Huna(or Henga) clan. Name of Clan Origination Notable Person(s) Pannu Originated from Hunnic Emperor Poanu of 46 AD. Taapsee Pannu, an India Actress Ghangas A King of White Huns namely, Kungkhas is remembered as the originator of the so-called Ganghas clan. Ruler Jatu's descends found many villages Juna/Yona Meanwhile H. W. Bellew writes that Muhammadan name appears among the sections of many of the Afghan's tribes, especially in those inhabiting the Indus Valley about the Peshawar district, which was one of the principal seats of the Greek dominion. But in the Sanskrit writings the name Ionian appears in the form of Yona or Yavana, and Jona or Javana. Historian Ram Swaroop Joon- Great historian, who was recognized as the author of Book, "History of the Jats" (Tr. in 1967) Originated from Yaunas/Yavnas(Sanskritised of Juna). According to KP Jaiswal, Yavanas is a mistake for 'Yaunas'-a name of the Hunas. Major Rajiv- Ashoka Chakra, martyr in 1995 Even Hukum Singh Panwar (Pauria) stated Joon as a Hunnic tribe. Major Risal Singh- Military Cross, martyrdom 21 June 1940 Hunsawat Hunsawata clan is more likely to be descents from Hunas Johl Johal name is said to be derived from Huna's title Jaubla. Prof. Sardara Singh Johl: Padma Bhushan 2004, Punjab, Science & Social Service Piru They are representatives of the Kedar Successor King Piru Jaria/Juria They were a Hunnic tribe. Hala/Hele They were a Huna tribe. Chandraram Hala- A great Ruler in Sindh They are mentioned as, "Hala-Hūṇān" in Brihat Samhita Ram Lal Hala, wrote book "Jat Kshatriye Itihas" Dod They are a branch of Hala Jats Rulers of Garhmukteshwar Bhatti They are originated from Original Hele Jats. Dulchand Jat(Bhatti)- ruler of Bhatner fort. Siddhu They are designated as Hunas in Vishnu Purana as under, "सौवीरा सैन्धवा हूणा:" The Ruling dynasties of Phulkiyan state. Kataria They are originated from the Kidarite Hunas. Daffadar Keshoram Kataria- Martyr of WW1 Alani/Halani They were a Hunnic tribe. Haihaya We might suspect that the Hayas and Haihayas of the Hindus had some connexion with the Hia, Hoiei-ke, Hoiei-hu, and similarly denominated Hun or Turk tribes, who make a figure in Chinese history. Colonel Tod speculates that "The Hihya [Haihaya] race, of the line of Boodha, may claim affinity with the Chinese race which first gave monarchs to China." Haihaya = Hun (Hiao-Hui) As per Robert Vane Russell, Huns, Haihayas, Tak or Takshak and Scythians have same origin. Hinia clan is descend from them Tatar According to "Liangshu"(ca. 635), they belongs to a constituted branch of Xiongnu (Huns) Jai Singh - MLC & Film producer.

Hunnic Empires in Eurasia

Hunnic States in Eurasia East Asia Central Asia West Asia Europe Xiongnu Empire (3rd century BC-1st century AD Mongolia, Northern and western China, Southern Siberia) Northern Xiongnu (1st cen. AD-4th cen. AD in the Altai region and Kazakhastan.) Kidarite-Hephthalite White Hunnic Empire (5th cen. AD-7th cen. AD) Hunnic Empire (4th cen. AD-5th cen. AD in Eastern and Central Europe) Southern Xiongnu (1st cen. AD-4th cen. AD in Northern China) Yueban Xiongnu (4th cen. AD-5th cen. AD in Kazakhastan) Turk Shahi Empire (7th cen. AD-9 cen. AD in Afghanistan and Pakistan governed by an elite which was possibly an Hephthalite Hunnic in origin or Western Turks heavily influenced by the Hephthalites.) Utigur-Kutrigur Bulgar Huns (4th cen. AD-5th cen. AD in Ukraine and southern Russia) Han Zhao Empire (4th century AD in Northern China) Kidarite-Hephthalite White Hunnic Empire (4th cen. AD-6th cen. AD in western and eastern Turkestan, wider Iran and northwestern India) Gurjara Pratihara Dynasty (7th cen. AD-11th cen. AD, origin unclear, but through to contain a strong Hephthalite Hunnic component) Later Bulgarian states S. No. Name of the State 1 Great Bulgaria (7th cen. AD in Ukraine and southern Russia) 2 Danubian Bulgarian Empire (7th cen. AD-11th cen. AD in Balkans) 3 Volga Bulgaria (7th cen. AD-13th cen. AD in central Russia) Xia Empire (5th cen. AD in northern China) Hephthalites remnant states (6th cen. AD-8th cen. AD in Afghanistan) Caucasian Huns (6th cen. AD-? in Dagestan) References Hyun Kim Jin's book "The Huns"

In Authors Said?

The list of Authors/Historians and Inscriptional statings about Huna clan(Hiung-nu/Henga) is postulated below.

• As per Alberuni, "Born believers in blood and iron, the Hunas swooped down upon the smiling plains of Asia and Europe and carried death and devastation with them. They ascended and came like a storm, like a cloud to cover the different lands, riding upon horses, a great company and a mighty army. Their violent outburst resembled something like volcanic eruption in the history of the human race and like a veritable strain of lava they issued forth from their homelands and spread over Europe and Asia. Their fierce yells spread terror wherever they were heard and they engaged all the civilized peoples of the world in fearful cataclysmic wars."
• James Tod places them in the list of Thirty Six Royal Races. By the name of Hun or Hoon!
• The famoust Bhitari Pillar Inscription (of 455/467 A.D) of Emperor Skandagupta mentions Hunas as, "by whose(Huns) arrival in the battlefield, the very earth shivered or (हुणैरस्य समागतस्य समरे दोर्भ्यांम् धरा कम्पिता).
• Allison Hailey Hahn - "The Hun are among the most famous nomadic pastoralists. They are best known for their King Attila the Hun (374?-453), who attacked the Roman Empire in 434 CE. The Hun were a strong group of warriors and nomadic pastoralists."
• According to Capt. DS Ahlawat(Great historian), "Henga is denoted as 'Hingnu' in chinese variant, These Henga Jats had ruled over the Hingu mountains, alongside on the coasts of Hung-hu River in China for a very long period of time. The fear of these Hingu people and the discussion of their state is still prevalent in China.
• Henrietta Elizabeth Marshall wrote "The Huns were a warrior race coming from out the wastes of Asia."
• BS Dahiya - "Finally we come to the conclusion that the Chinese name Hiung-nu is correct, after all. These Hiung-nu were a clan dominant at that time. It was this clan which produced emperors like Touman, Maodun, Giya in the first three centuries prior to the Christian era. These Hiung-nu are still existing as a Jat clan in India and are called Heng or Henga. We must remember that the Kang Jat were named by the Chinese as Kang-nu; similarly the Heng were called Heng-nu or Hiung-nu. These were the 'Huna Mandal' rulers who fought with almost all the Indian powers, right up to 10th century A.D. They have now 360 villages in Mathura district of U.P. The late Har Prasad Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax, was a Henga Jat. As for the word 'Huna' itself, it may be a war cry of these people. In Punjab, it is used in the sense of 'now', i.e., the time for the attack and final kill. Again, Otto Macnchen-Helfen may be right when he says that Hun is a Proto-Germanic adjective, signifying 'High'. As already stated, all the Jat clan names mean 'high' or 'top' or 'head', 'crown' or 'king'. He also writes about Henga clan of Jats that, "they are the Hing-nu of the Chinese. In Puranic literature, "Hinga' means Bahlika or vice versa, showing their connection with Central Asia."
• In Śaktisamgama Tantra bk III, chap.VII, verse 43-44, we find the Hunas as heroes, living in the north of Rajasthan desert and by the side of Kamagiri mountains. This means the Punjab lands. Here the Hunas are mentioned along with the Kuntals, to be identified with Khuntal or Kuntel Jats. They are again mentioned together by Sirkar, as Kuntalahuna.
• Glen Warren Bowersock - "The Huns who come to Europe in ca.375 were a confederation of warrior bands whose success was based on their willingness to integrate others. Thus, the armies of Attila eventually consisted several more or less distinguishable Hunnic groups: Goths, Alans, Gepids, Sciri, Rugians, Sarmatians, others. The archaeologically evidence proves that these warriors, shared a common symbolic language and material culture, little of which was clearly of central Asian origin (such as the large bronze cauldrons). Often the Romans called Hun, Scythians and Avars as Huns. It is therefore futile to speculate about identity and blood-relation between Huns H(s)ing-nu, Hephthalites, and Attila's Huns for instance. All we can safely say is that the name Huns, in late antiquity, described prestigious ruling groups of steppe warriors."
• Author R S Joon - "Hangamas was a General of the Kushan,Yuechi or Tushar kings. Hanga is very well known in history. He belonged to Tushar or Kasvan dynasty and was appointed as the Governor of Mathura. His descendants came to be called Hanga."
• Author H K Deswal - The history of Agre or Huna clan of Jats has been very glorious, the only thing remains is 'to scrape' it out from the pages of Golden Words.
• Thakur Deshraj - Not only in India, Hunnic Invasions are famous overly worldwide. They had created turmoil both in Europe and Asia.
• Author Ramvir Singh Verma postulates, (translated from Hindi) "The Henga Jats migrated from India to China and ruled their for a long time alongside the coasts of Hung-Hu River and Hingu mountains and today known as Henga or Agre or Haga, Hiung-Nu of the Chinese is transcription of term Henga. These Henga Jats named the Hung-Hu River and Hingu Hills in China. They reside in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh and have more than 360 villages there, the fear and talkings of the empire of Hing-nu people is still prevalent in China.
• Ammianus Marcellinus (Roman historian, ca.330-400s) describes the Hun invasion (of 359) in the following terms: "This race of untamed men, without encumbrances, aflame with an inhuman desire for plundering others’ (enemy's) property, made their violent way amid the rapine and slaughter of the neighbouring peoples (their enemies)."
• Author L. R. Kyzlasov, "Nevertheless, we can deduce from his (Ammianus Marcellinus') information that the Hun army was well organized and presented a formidable threat. Their forces were generally victorious and nothing could stem their advance. There are grounds for presuming that the Western Huns, like the Hsiungnu of Central Asia, had a clear-cut military and administrative system, with subdivisions into groups of tens, hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands. This warrior people had hereditary rulers."
• Ujagir Singh Mahal says, "It was against the attacks of these Jats (Ephthalite Jats) that the Chinese emperor She-Hwang-ti accomplished the feat of building the Great Wall of China in 246 B.C. More facts will be known about these Jats when research is held in the Chinese literature of that time."

Notable Persons

Here is a partial list of Notable People from this Clan, below!

• Modu Chanyu - Moudun was a Shanyu of Xiongnu Empire.
• Attila the Hun - Great ruler of Huns
• Dharmaraksha - A monk of Hunnic Yuchi origin.
• Mihirakula - A prominent ruler of Hun(a)s.
• Sunicas - A leading Hunnic Chief, who fought in Battle of Dara.
• Peter Agre - Noble price recipient.(In Chemistry, 2003)
• [[]] -

Also see

• Chaudharies of Nogawan.
• Henga
• Huns
• Coinage of the Nezak
• Hyun Kim Jin's 2013 "The Huns, Rome and birth of Europe."
• 'The Huns' book by Hyun Kim Jin, 2015
• Huns Dateline.
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• Cap Mahtab Singh Ji Agre

Quotes under research

After the death of Attila’s sons, remnants of the Hunnic Empire dissolved into other regional states, such as the Khazar kingdom in the Caucasus and a union of Bulgars along the Danube River. The demise of the Huns is as shrouded and mysterious as their initial emergence off the Eurasian steppes.

The year after Attila's death, the Huns were defeated by the Gepids in the Battle of Nedao. In 469, Dengizik, the last Hunnic King and successor of Ellak, died. This date is seen as the end of the Hunnic Empire. It is believed by some historians that descendants of the Huns formed the Bulgarian Empire, which stretched over the Balkans, Pannonia and Scythia. The Hungarian Árpád dynasty trace their lineage from Attila.

Priscus, a Roman historian who visited the court of Attila in 448, wrote: "For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or—as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans—Latin." J.B. Bury, History of the later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene. Volume I (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1889), 218.

Around 500 AD, Hunas under a chieftain Ramanila is known to have conquered Gandhara. About Ramanila, we know only through his coins. Later, the Huna Power in Punjab regions is known to have consolidated under Toramana.

Hagamasa coins depict Horse And Haihayavanshis stands for Horse race.

They were a branch of Hephthalites or White Hunas in the time of Toramana, the Hephthalites in India began to operate independently of the Central Asian branch, though the link between them does not seem to have been broken. The old name of Hunas, as per Herodotus, is Arimaspa, which means Arima = first + Asp. =Horse, i.e. the "First Horse".

Note

Note-The work is Under Development, i.e. the changes would have to be made in this text(-Author!)

References

List of References

---

|| Thank You for Visiting. ||

---

---