Renaming "Kingdom of Samarqand" to "Ikhshids of Samarqand" [solved]

Hello, and I hope you are well!

I am requesting the renaming of the issuer “Kingdom of Samarqand” to “Ikhshids of Samarqand”. My justifications are as follows:

1. Samarqand was not a kingdom in the traditional sense, acting much more similarly to the ancient Greek Poleis. Samarqand followed the same trend as the rest of Sogdiana at the time: city-states that either exerted control over smaller city-states, or city-states that were vassals to larger city-states. Calling it a kingdom within the catalog is misleading and overly simplifies the complicated history of the rise and fall of Samarqandian dynasties.

2. Within the city-state society of pre-Islamic Sogdiana and Central Asia, the concept of dynasties and ruling families were very significant, and is how most Central Asian issuers are divided within Numista and beyond (See the “Arslanid Dynasty”, the “Afrighid dynasty”, the “Bukhar Khudat Dynasty”, the “Yaghlaqar clan”, etc). By reflecting this in the name of this issuer, we can better ensure the organization of the Central Asian catalog.

3. Even in the event that an agreement regarding Samarqand's status as a “kingdom” is not reached, there were other distinct ruling dynasties centered around Samarqand in late antiquity/early medieval times. By renaming the “Kingdom of Samarqand” to the “Ikhshids of Samarqand”, it helps draw a clearer line between the Ikhshids and the Hwabs for example; two extremely distinct ruling dynasties that are not to be conflated.

Thank you, and have a wonderful day!

The English title of the issuer is supposed to be in English. I checked dictionary.com and oed.com and nether have definitions for “Ikhshids” or “Ikhshid”.

The Wikipedia entry for Ikhshid says it derives from shining or king, so Kingdom seems like a reasonable translation to me.

bjherbison

The English title of the issuer is supposed to be in English. I checked dictionary.com and oed.com and nether have definitions for “Ikhshids” or “Ikhshid”.

 

The Wikipedia entry for Ikhshid says it derives from shining or king, so Kingdom seems like a reasonable translation to me.

The Ikhshids were a dynastic name for Sogdia, and on Numista (specifically with Islamic and Central Asian states), it is common to use the dynastic names to differenciate geographical locations. With that being said, I think “Ikhshids of Samarqand” is perfectly reasonable.

Does it make more sense for Ikhshids to be a period or ruler group of Samarkand rather than a sub-issuer?

We use issuer / sub-issuer hierarchy for geography.  We use period / Ruler group / ruling authority for different slices of time in the same (or similar) geography.

tdziemia

Does it make more sense for Ikhshids to be a period or ruler group of Samarkand rather than a sub-issuer?

 

We use issuer / sub-issuer hierarchy for geography.  We use period / Ruler group / ruling authority for different slices of time in the same (or similar) geography.

There are a few issues with that in my opinion, particularly when it comes to Central Asian coinage.

For one, the main reason I am requesting this renaming is to help differentiate the Ikhshids from the Hwabs of Samarqand. By naming the issuer “Kingdom of Samarqand”, it implies that the issuer is all of Samarqand, which it is not. Samarqand is currently split between the “Kingdom of Samarqand” and “Samarqand (ancient)”. This makes sense, as these ruling dynasties differed greatly, and a distinction must be made. Therefore, I think that just making the Ikhshids a period WITHIN the "Kingdom of Samarqand" is redundant, as the only coins within this issuer in the first place are Ikhshid issues anyway.

Additionally, the “Kingdom of Samarqand” is not a term frequently used in the research of Central Asian history. In this field of numismatics, as Sulfur said above, it is common to use the dynastic names as opposed to grouping extremely different rulers under the same banner. Having pre-Hunnic Samarqand coins, Hwab coins, and Ikhshid coins under the same issuer is akin to having the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Empire under the same issuer. As per Numista's issuer guidelines, “Only when the territory of an issuer suffers a sudden, significant, and long-term change, resulting in a discontinuity of its currency, then the change result in a different issuer”. The transfer of power from the Hwabs to the Ikhshids was extremely sudden, significant, was a long term change, and resulted in an immediate discontinuity of its currency. While the territories of the Hwabs and Ikhshids were similar, they were not identical. The Hwabs fled to smaller vassal city-states to the east of Samarqand proper, and continued to rule from there after the Ikhshids took power.

bjherbison

The English title of the issuer is supposed to be in English. I checked dictionary.com and oed.com and nether have definitions for “Ikhshids” or “Ikhshid”.

 

The Wikipedia entry for Ikhshid says it derives from shining or king, so Kingdom seems like a reasonable translation to me.

I would also like to point out that the last claim is not really true. While scholars believe the word MAY have been derived from khshāyathiya ("Ruler" or “king”), that is not unanimously accepted. Additionally, Ikhshid does not translate to “king” in English. That excerpt you mentioned explains the etymology of the word, not its direct translation. “Ikhshid” is the English name for the Sogdian word xšyδ, xšēd/the Persian word اخشید.

And as I said previously, Samarqand in the early-medieval period is not traditionally considered or called a kingdom by the standards of both modern historians and numismatists who specialize in Pre-Islamic Central Asia.

bjherbison

The English title of the issuer is supposed to be in English. I checked dictionary.com and oed.com and nether have definitions for “Ikhshids” or “Ikhshid”.

 

The Wikipedia entry for Ikhshid says it derives from shining or king, so Kingdom seems like a reasonable translation to me.

Of course if you cherrypick sources that don’t have it you won’t find any, wikitionary and Encyclopedia Britannica both list it as a term used in English to describe a very particular type of ruler that doesn’t fit the flat definition of another English word like king or emperor. 
 

By this logic you should mass request the change of every one of the Caliphates, Khanates, and sultanates to a more “proper” English name. 

The name has been modified as requested.  Thanks to all for the inputs.  As pointed out by Sulfur, we do use dynastic names for issuers in certail places/periods.