Page:History of India Vol 2.djvu/333

 THE NAME HUN 291 the sixth century changed the situation completely. The Turkish tribes, having vanquished a rival horde called Joan- joan, made 'an alliance with Khusru Anu- shirvan, King of Persia, grandson of Firoz, who had been killed by the Huns in 484 A. D., and at some date between 563 and 567 the allies destroyed the White Huns. For a short time the Persians held Balkh and other portions of the Hun territory, but the gradual weakening of the Sasanian power soon enabled the Turks to extend their authority toward the south as far as Kapisa and to annex the whole of the countries which had been included in the Hun empire. In later Sanskrit literature the term " Hun " (Huna) is employed in a very indeterminate sense to denote a foreigner from the northwest, in the same way as the Yavana had been employed in ancient times, and as Wilayati is now understood. One of the thirty- six so-called " royal " Rajput clans was actually given the name of Huna. This vagueness of connotation raises some doubt as to the exact meaning of the term Huna as applied to the clans on the northwestern fron- tier against whom Harsha of Thanesar and his father waged incessant war at the close of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh century. But it is unlikely that within fifty years of Mihiragula's defeat the true meaning of Huna should have been forgotten, and the opponents of Harsha may be regarded as having been outlying colonies of real Huns, who had settled among the hills on the frontier. After Harsha 's time they are not again heard of, and were presumably either