Talk:Zuṭṭ

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zuṭṭ article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Regarding the recent revert

Hi @Sutyarashi!

The source meets WP:RS. The Indian History Congress is reputable. It is the largest academic body of India with over 35,000 professionals. The journal has been cited more than 92 times which is more than enough. It is published and is distributed by a reputable party (JSTOR). Also, according to Wikipedia, a Journal which has not been peer-reviewed can still be added to represent the viewpoint. We should add a peer-reviewed journal when available. However, recent scholarly sources also add value. Per wiki, journals by "respected publishing houses" are still considered reliable even if not peer reviewed.

Now to address your point regarding primary source, the source is not primary. The primary source is Lisan-al-arab which the author interprets, reviews and discusses and not a WP editor. And even goes as far as to cite an additional source "Majma-e-Bahaar-ul-Anwar" which itself is already a secondary source regarding Zutts of Sindh. So it is sufficient to represent a viewpoint. If we go by your definition of primary sources. Then the whole article will fall apart because Nizami and Wink cite primary arabic texts. But we are aware that this is what we call a "secondary" source. Because the source has been interpreted by a recent author. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the author essentially repeated what the primary account stated, without addressing the inaccuracies in it.

For instance it claims that Asawira were from Sindh while it is known that it was not the case, and the author didn't make any attempt to address this apparent contradiction. Also Zutt/Jats didn't live just in Sindh; they were mainly native to Makran and surrounding areas. Given that it's already mentioned that Zutt were originally from region between Mansura in Sindh and Makran in the lower Indus valley, it is unnecessary reiteration of what is stated earlier, and not a correct one. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though our main topic of discussion is not Asawira but here's a quote from another ref which is not limited to Lisan-al-arab: (a) Tribesmen of Sind Islamized. Prior to Islām a contingent of the Indian soldiers recruited from the formidable Jāts (al-Zuṭṭ), the Sayābija and the Asāwira served in the Persian army.^[1] You can access the source here. Check out pages 191 & 194 and their notes. It is also useful if you wish to expand the current article regarding Zutts.

Now about the concern of repetition, the author does not word for word repeat it, he breaks down the 7 different groups and also adds additional information where he finds suitable (like in the 1st & 7th point), this implies he supports the view that these groups resided in Sindh and does not deem it necessary to add alternative viewpoints about Asawira as his main study is literally about "Indian Impact on Arabian society". Similarly, Andre Wink repeats what the primary source states and writes Abu Hanifa a Jat freeman without addressing other significantly different viewpoints. He does not even write "according to x source" and instead just directly mentions the pg of the primary arabic texts in the citations. Why? Because his book is not some critical edition where he argues about different viewpoints. Does this mean its unreliable? Of course not. It's true Zutt/Jats were not limited to Sindh. I'm not denying that at all. Makran was under Sindh at some point though. Which Wink also states in his book. And Mansura is pretty central in Sindh if you've seen the map. Therefore, Hasan is not incorrect about Sindh and Kirman. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source seems good. What statement you want to add in the article? Sutyarashi (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, please self-revert.

And from this source I wanted to add a statement about this. But I see that some of it already exists in the article. So I think you should add about the Zutt village on the River Ṭab and about where Hajjaj settled them and their families. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you why the previous statement is not appropriate (Zutt being native of Sindh and Kerman). If your concerns are just about adding mention of Sindh somehow, you can add it without any reversion. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already established why it is well appropriate. The edit that got reverted was this According to Lisan al Arab, Jats originally belonged to the regions of Sindh and Kirman.

You can add "Makran" separately here if you want. But its very clear the author has included it in Sindh. Wink also supports those borders. So it is definitely appropriate considering they are scholars, and us WP editors are not. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Jats were native of Kirman (A claim which I have not gone through in any other source) and Sindh goes against other several references cited in the article, according to which they inhabited much larger region. Even in Sindh they were limited to the west bank of Indus. The present section is better as it is, but if you insist so it can be rephrased as Zutt (Jats) dominated regions of Makran and Turan (including Qiqan, modern Kalat), as well as land as far as west bank of Indus river in Sindh...The region from Makran to Mansura in Sindh was mainly populated by Jats. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kirman, you can effortlessly find many sources simply by writing "Zutts kirman" in google books, which I just did. Ibn Haukal mentions "From Mansura to Makran" while Khurdabah says Jats safeguarded the region from "Kirman to Mansura". Here's a cit "Abdulla, A. (1973). The Historical Background of Pakistan and Its People. pgs.98-99".

And regarding Sindh, your own references support it. One of them being "Zakeri 1995, pgs. 120-121". It literally calls Sindh their original territory. With not just one reference but many, including those of modern scholars. Other than that it even mentions the presence of Zutts in Iran from the fifth century B.C. And lastly, we are not concerned with what you haven't "gone through". If we find good refs, we add them on wiki after verifying that the reference supports the text. Here, it clearly does. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you can rephrased the lead sentence of the section as At the time of Umayyad conquest of Sindh in the early 8th century, Zutt (Jats) dominated regions of Makran and Turan (including Qiqan, modern Kalat) as well as Sindh and Kirman. That would end the dispute. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a dispute since sources support it but if you believe there is a dispute then I am going to avoid the mention of "Kirman". And will use your own added citation to support the text. The word "dominated" doesn't seem natural. But I am going to leave your text as it is and will instead add something straightforward at the bottom. Sir Calculus (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ M, Isḥāq (1976). India's Contribution to the Study of Hadith Literature: A Survey of the Growth and Development of Hadith Literature in the Sub-continent Now Comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh from the Earliest Time Down to the Nineteenth Century. Bangladesh: University of Dacca. pp. 191, 194.

June 2024

@AngelicDevil29: that's what André Wink source says "At the time of (and before) the Arab conquest, Makrān or Kīj-Makrān held a substantial population of Zutt or 'Jat' dromedary-men. These Zutt appear to have moved eastward into Sind in the following two or three centuries."

Where do you think it's implied that Makran was a part of Sind or present-day Sindh province is what being talked about? Sutyarashi (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not present day Sindh, but it's quite obvious that during Brahman dynasty of Sindh it's boundary was till tiz (chahbahar) which is today in Iranian makran. It's important to mention that when Arabs conquest took place makran was part of Sindh. Otherwise readers would assume present day province of Sindh. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, the Indian part was indeed under control of Brahman dynasty at various times, but not the Persian. Source doesn't clarify whether Zutt moved from mere Indian Makran or the wider region. Indeed, Zutt inhabited a much larger region than Makran or Sind; they were present till what is now Iraq. It's best to avoid adding any OR material and stick to what references say.

But perhaps clarification should be added regarding the territorial extent of Sind as referred in the historical sources for Zutt. As André Wink says at pp. 145–146: The Arabic literature often conflates ‘Sind’ with ‘Hind’ into a single term but also refers to ‘Sind and Hind’, to distinguish the two. Sind, in point of fact, while vaguely defined territorially, overlaps rather well with what is currently Pakistan. It definitely did extend beyond the present province of Sind and Makran; the whole of Baluchistan was included, a part of the Panjab, and the North-West Frontier Province. Sind derived its name and identity from the river which in Sanskrit was called Sindhu (meaning literally ‘river’ or ‘stream’), i.e. the ‘Indus’ of the Greeks and Romans, the Mihran of the Arabs. ‘The land of Sind’ designated the alluvial plains created by the river on both sides in its middle and lower course, from Attock to the coast, with varying portions of the rocky uplands (Kuhistan) adjoining Baluchistan and of the sandhills of the Thar.

It should be clarified that Sind here does not mean the modern province, but the wider region where river Indus flows (Indus valley). In this way, your concern about readers being confused would also end. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not only Indian part of makran but the Persian makran was also under the Brahman dynasty of Sindh till chabahar port (tiz) Alberuni wrote that the sea coast of India commences with Tis).

The presence of zutts in Iraq is later happening, and almost all of them where originally from Sindh, who migrated westeards. And its not OR, its historical fact, which can easily be verified, there's no confusion in it.

The earlier arabic sources called almost whole present day Pakistan as Sind, but the statement is specifically about the period of Brahman dynasty when Arabs invaded Sindh. When makran and multan are mentioned as part of Sindh.

so it's better to revert to my previous edit, the Zutts migration from makran into eastward and northwards was due to invasion of Arabs, the Zutts (jats) moved as far as into punjab and modern north India (mostly hindus jats). AngelicDevil29 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makran extends further than Tiz, see its main article. Or you have sources saying that Brahman dynasty controlled western part as well? The migration of Zutt is not relevant, your concern was to add that Makran as a whole was part of Sindh, which is not supported by the citations.

Your claim that Zutt were originally from Sindh, which is to say from the modern province, is not correct as Sind here refers to the Sind/Indus valley, not just the lower part, as clarified by the quote above. The Encyclopedia of Islam calls Zutt simply as north western Indian people.^[1]

Now as for readers being confused, in my opinion you can add this line: The region of Makran, the eastern part of which was under control of Brahman dynasty at various times, had a significant number of Zutt at the time (or before) the Muslim conquest who had moved eastward into Sindh as well in the following centuries. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bosworth, C. E. (2002). "Zuṭṭ". In Bearman, P. J.; Bianquis, Th.; Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. & Heinrichs, W. P. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume XI: W–Z. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12756-2.

False equivocation of Zutt and Jatt

"Zutt" is likely a generic term for Indus pastoralists (and in the article itself, it mentions how Arabs sometimes included seemingly separate groups like Andaghars, Sayabijas, Qufs, Jadgals, al-Qayqaniyya, and others... and sometimes they did not). "Zutt" is most likely similar to the term "Firanj/Farang" (Frank). You should take this into account.

Also, as stated in this article, if "Zutt" is derived from "Jit", then the Sindhi origin theory does not make sense on account of the archeological discovery of the Kanswa Inscription, which mentions the 5th century "Jit" ruler (Raja Shalinder) in Shalpur (Sialkot), which is well before the proposed Zutt migrations of 11th-16th centuries.

In short, this article needs to be revised! KhandaEnjoyer03 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] M, Isḥāq (1976). India's Contribution to the Study of Hadith Literature: A Survey of the Growth and Development of Hadith Literature in the Sub-continent Now Comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh from the Earliest Time Down to the Nineteenth Century. Bangladesh: University of Dacca. pp. 191, 194.

[2] Bosworth, C. E. (2002). "Zuṭṭ". In Bearman, P. J.; Bianquis, Th.; Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. & Heinrichs, W. P. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume XI: W–Z. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12756-2.

[1]

[1]