Talk:Huns/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

No Hunnic History post Nedao?

Why is there no mention of the post-Nedao Hunnic state? It is well known that the collapse of Hunnic control in the region of "Dacia" or the Danubian Basin was a slow and complex process that involved the transformation of their Dualist state back into the traditional East-West Senior-Junior king partnership between Attila's sons. The incoming Oghur Turkish peoples (the Oghurs, Onoghurs, etc. who were Huns of the Tiele Confederation which had collapsed) helped transform the Hun Empire into the Kutrigur and Utigur Hun (Bulgar) states in the 480's and would eventually be assimilated by the Avars (before a section of that former state would revolt after 626 and help form Old Great Bulgaria). Many Authors show this is what happened - Istvan Bona, Hyun Jin Kim, and although they don't go into much of the latter part even authors like Peter Heather and Maenchen-Helfen do show the Huns became the Utigur and Kutrigur Huns.--MMFA (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Because there was no post-Nedao Hunnic state or confederation, and Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs, Bulgars, Tiele confederation, Pannonian Avars and other Turkic tribal confederations were not tribes of the Huns - several scholars like Hyun Jin Kim wrongly mix these terms, and uncritically place the term of the Huns along the other tribes in the source (see the review of his work) like they belonged to somekind "Hunnish nation", for which there is no evidence.--Crovata (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the review of Kim's work, which is flawed and does state he likes to find Huns where their aren't. I largely agree with the review, e.g. I'm fairly certain Ardareiks (Ardaric) was not a Hun. The leading theory shows that Avars were a splinter of the Hepthaltites and therefore Hua, not Huns. However, when it comes to the Kutrigurs and Utigurs, which if you've read and accounted for the biases in the primary sources, there is evidence to show that the Kutrigur and Utigurs who are called explicitly Huns by Roman sources and probably are the Hun Empire. The fragments and more complete chronologies do show a slow retreat back into the Pontic steppes: again, this is even acknowledged by Western Historians like Peter Heather. Istvan Bona, whose work from 2002(?) is considered the most reliable and foremost work on the Huns available, largely shows the same thing.

There is evidence that these peoples (Huns, Avars, Hua/Hepthaltites, Rouran, Tiele Confederation) were all part of the Oghur branch of Turkish speaking peoples. Their names imply it and the fact that Priscus does not record Utigurs and Kutrigurs entering into Europe (well... maybe the Utigurs as he does mention "Oghurs" in general) suggests that these two states formed out of the retreating Huns and the Onoghurs, Saragurs, and Oghurs. (The Sabirs were not Huns - Kim even says that, he suggests they were Xianbei although having read that paper the Etymology is somewhat shoddy). I think Kim is probably taking into account the Fluidic nature of the Steppe - the Avars were a ruling Dynasty, the same way he treats the Attilanic Huns. I would certainly not call Old Great Bulgaria "Huns" (even if one could prove that the Bulgars Kubrat and Asparukh were descended from Attila) but the Kutrigurs and Utigurs are stated by the Romans to be from Attila's Empire (allegedly founded by sons called "Kutrigur" and "Utigur").

In short, cause this is kind of ranty, a section needs to be written. Just without the bias of whatever that guy edited the old section back in with.--MMFA (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Kutrigurs and Utigurs are not explicitly called as ethnic Huns - the name of the Huns became just a generic term for the steppe-people (nomads) and invading enemies from the East, no matter of their actual origin and identity. No one can prove that Bulgar rulers descended from Attila,r nor is mentioned that Kutrigurs and Utigurs to be from Attila's Empire; there is typical legendary narration by Procopius where Huns are mixed with Cimmerians (laughable), and were mentioned fictional king with fictional sons.--Crovata (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

But the term Hun doesn't begin to really be applied as a blanket term until the mid-7th century. The blanket term is still "Scythian" although the Strategikon calls the Huns, "Bulgars", and Avars all "Hunnish peoples". We start seeing this in the late 6th century, not the 5th. I'm not stating the Bulgar rulers were descended from Attila. "Cimmerians" may be a term for local Iranic nomads - Sidonius may use "Gelonians" to describe other Nomadic peoples in a classicizing sense when mentioning the Hun invasion of Gaul and the federates serving under Aetius.

That being said, I think the best way to handle it is to simply put a "controversy" box around it, and state that sources are conflicting about the relationship between the Huns and the Kutrigur and Utigur Bulgars. Write the section in two halves: the argument for and against the Kutrigurs and Utigurs being a continuation of Attila's Empire.--MMFA (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

entirely wrong, biased and deceitful answer. There was such section on the article, it was Crovata job to remove it. [1] VANDAL work ? Only turkic editors believe that Huns came from Nowhere and after century defeating both Roman empires they disappeared back into Nowhere. It is not in their interest to delve deeper who were the Huns, the only thing that these guys are interested is WP articles to state they were Turks, or at least - of turkish extraction.--95.129.41.112 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Typical sock-puppet reply by User:PavelStaykov, doesn't know what WP:VANDAL mean, does not want to accept the reality of the tribal confederations, for PavelStaykov Huns (and other Turkis-speaking tribes from the Pontic steppe and Pannonia) were not even Turkic-speaking or semi-Turkic speaking people, there were anything else but Turkic people because he has an anti-Turkic sentiment, and personally attacks other editors because of it. He edited the same wall of text which already tried to paste on other articles. Just ignore him and the pathological case will be once again reported.--Crovata (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the article history quickly but I can't see when this content was originally added and removed but the fact that it has been removed before, presumably a long time ago, and that we have been without it since then with no complaints, has encouraged me to revert it. I have not looked into the content itself deeply. Do any uninvolved editors think it is valid? If so, I'd be happy to bring it back. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No matter when it was added and deleted, it is not good for WP not to have it - the section is supported by 22 books, at least 20-30 more books on this topic are available on Google Books and readers interested in this topic (what happened to the huns after Attila) will discover them. Maybe the section is not well written, but when it is on the article gradually it will be improved. If it is not on the article - not good for WP. --95.129.41.112 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter Golden's book is freely available online and is more or less the definitive basic guide to Steppe History. It is very, very well sourced and he shows connections between the Huns and Oghurs, although he does not explicitly state the Kutrigurs and Utigurs formed out of the Hunnic state.

https://www.academia.edu/9609971/Studies_on_the_Peoples_and_Cultures_of_the_Eurasian_Steppes.--MMFA (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you NOT to start with Golden. Start with the mainstream scholars: Omeljan Pritsak [2], [3], Edwin G. Pulleyblank (paste in your browser hrcak.srce.hr/file/161177 - very good work), David Marshall Lang [4], René Grousset [5], Steven Runciman [6], Sanping Chen [7], [8] Of course Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen is mandatory. Some of these (and others) can be downloaded with emule [9] ( which is illegal :) ) --95.87.248.121 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

After that you can read a little bit Lev Gumilyov in order to see how the science SHOULD NOT be done and practice - if this is science at all, better to say sci-fi. Not only he is the worst historian of all time, but also he is a MANIAC - he claims that in his veins flows the blood of Turkic Jochi Khan, the founder of the Golden Horde !!! [10] No other guy have done more harm on the historical study of the Huns than Lev Gumilyov. Peter Golden is a mild, a little bit more scientific version of Gumilyov. --95.87.248.121 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of Pritsak and Pulleyblank and have read all of Otto-Maenchen Helfen's outdated (but still enjoyable) work. I fail to see how Peter Golden is considered a mild version of Gumilyov - he states explicitly where things are considered controversial or subject to interpretation and treats his sources critically. His suggestions fall in the mainstream line of scholarship regarding early Turkish history. His book on Peoples and Cultures of the Steppes has almost become the standard by which other works are judged, because of its quality. He is a man that makes no assertions, like some of the authors you have posted (some of whom show clear bias). Then again... I in large part don't trust Eastern European scholarship because of the nationalism that pervades their educational system and academia. Istvan Bona is a nice exception.--MMFA (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

MMFA, Peter Golden is a mainstream scholarship authority when it comes to the Turkic peoples history and ethnogenesis, but according to the IP 95.87.248.121 (ie. sock-puppets by PavelStaykov) he is unreliable because of his national-ethnic origin, and so more correct are outdated scholars with minority considerations who relate all the Turkic tribes with the Huns, and from then the sock-puppets change the story and mix in WP:SYNTH that the "Hunnish nation" was not of Turkic origin, but Yuezhi and so on. I many times mentioned there is no need for no inclusion of the information or scientific debate, but it needs to be done critically and neutrally, and not like the sock-puppets undue weight. I will read these days the sources to find on the initial discussion subject. --Crovata (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter Golden is NOT mainstream scholar because he believes in fairy tales. According to this fairy tale Huns disappeared after Nedao (where we shouldn't ask) and exactly at the same time some Oghur Turkic Bulgars appeared at exactly the same place. From where they have come we shouldn't ask. Nowhere in history of Asia are documented such Oghurs. But for Golden this is not an obstacle. Nowhere in the sources such migration of Oghurs is documented. This is an intentional deception. These sources have been studied more than 2 centuries by hundred scientists and before 1970 there were no Oghurs. Also if you have read the Bailey’s essay on the name "Gara" you should know that the proper names are actually ending on Khotan-Saka gara : uti-gari, kutri-gari and so on. That's why Encyclopedia Britanica is not using the term Oghur - neither for people nor for language. That's why you have to support your article Bulgars by stupid books written by rock musicians and business administrators. When are you going to remove these books from the article Bulgars? It is against the rules of WP and it is a skulduggery! Since when Turks are Indo-Europeans? The source is very clear about this:

Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations. Early Bulgars inhabited the European steppe west of the Volga River from about 370 ce. Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov.[11]

Do you understand the meaning of the word "Although" in English? If Golden was a mainstream scientist why you can't find books written by professionals to support him? Because Golden is not a mainstream scientist, he is a trickster. Mainstream scientists accept that Bulgars entered Europe together with the Huns and that the so called "Huns" were actually two groups of people with different ethnic origin. And thanks God that the Bulgars were not Huns - only idiots can claim that their nation may have something to do with the Huns - the Huns were brigands and marauders. The Chinese name for the people from whom western Huns originated was "Robbers". Indeed it is not easy to distinguish between Huns and Bulgars, many scholars tend to equate them:

" (2) the data are insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another;"[12] (Umea University, 2009)

" And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kotrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion",[13] (Eduard Gibbon, 1781)

How is that possible that all the scientists between 1781 and 2009 haven't seen some Ogurs who met the Huns in the Pontic-Kuban steppe and merged with them? Why this knowledge is preserved only to Peter Golden? Because the mainstream scientists do not think that all Roman, Greek, Byzantine and Armenian historians from 5th up to 7th century AD were idiots and that they continued to call Huns every new tribe. Let's not pretend that the following books do not exist:

O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language. ", [14]

The Huns of Justinian: Byzantium, Utigur and Kutrigur, Joseph Ricci (2013) [15]

"Great Walls and Linear Barriers", Peter Spring, " In 460 the Huns split into the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs.", page 199 [16]

Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire, Jennifer Lawler, " Utigurs - Hunnic tribe that lived on the east steppes of Don, related to the Bulgars", page 296 [17]

"History of the Later Roman Empire", J.B. Bury: " The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formidable people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for the Danubian provinces. As his policy on the Danube was to use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids, so his policy in Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don, on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their friendship by yearly gifts. " [18]

Byzantium in the Seventh Century, J. F. Haldon, page 47 : "...the Onogur Huns or Bulgars..." [19]

Early Medieval Europe, Roger Collins, (1991) page 206: "...Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars... ", [20]

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1971, Volume 3, page 459 : "... Utigur and Unnugari are used as common synonyms for the same tribe. Again, the Unnugari are also called Unugunduri and Unungunduri." [21]

"The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", 2013, Hyun Jin Kim, page 140 :" The same is likely to have been the case among the Utigurs and Kutrigurs who under Attilid rule had even more justification for claiming the imperial mantle of the Huns of Europe." [22]

Runciman (Book I THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS) 1930, p. 4: "Attila was proudly called cousin, if not grandfather, by them all. Of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars’ is the best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs." [23]

The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, David Marshall Lang, page 49 : "Then came Sevar, who ruled until 740 and was the last of the great house of Dulo to occupy the throne, with him died out the lineage of Attila the Hun" [24]

SO - THE HUNS DIDN'T DISAPPEAR AFTER NEDAO - THEY WERE INCORPORATED INTO BULGAR'S TRIBES(PARTIALLY OF COURSE) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxiLmMiwX-s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.110.156.205 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the Ethno-nationalism of the user above, I have plenty of academic papers and books on the Huns with which I could write a reasonable conjecture section about the continuation as the Kutrigur/Utigurs.--MMFA (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good idea ! --200.110.156.205 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some hints for you, I hope it will help:

1. pay attention that actually Utigurs were not Huns, they were Massagetae. The "real" Huns were Kutrigurs and Sabirs.

  Maenchen-Helfen, page 6: "despite the fact that Romans called the Huns Massagetae, the Huns and not the Massagetae, attacked the Alans, who threw themselves upon the Goths" -- western Huns were two groups of tribes with different ethnic origin(Pulleyblank): Huns   Massagetae

2. the following equation is important : Unogundurs = Utigurs Onogurs

3. There are many differences between Kutrigurs and Utigurs: e.g. orientation of burials is north for Utigurs, west for Kutrigurs; utigurs inhumated the dead people while Kutrigurs burned them. This link may help : http://www.protobulgarians.com/English translations/History of the Proto-Bulgarians.pdf

4. Buluoji Bulgars of China were not Bulgars, they were Huns. --200.110.156.205 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Peter golden discusses the Buluoji and there is no connection to the Bulgars or Huns, period. Again, ethno-nationalistic history. The Kutrigur and Utigur burials are best conserved for the pages on them. "Unogundurs" along with other variations are Greek transliterations of "Onoghur". Finally, there is no evidence the Massagetae and Huns were related. Just like Hun would later be, Massagetae was a term used by later authors as a classicization applied to all steppe peoples. The original Massagetae of Herodotus were Scythian and may have been related to the Sarmatians, IIRC.

MMFA (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Hunnic ethno-political continuation is a nonsense - the Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs, Bulgars and other Turkic nomadic tribes from the steppe were not Huns. For God's sake even Britannica is clear about it "In 453 Attila died; his many sons divided up his empire and at once began quarreling among themselves. They then began a series of costly struggles with their subjects, who had revolted, and were finally routed in 455 by a combination of Gepidae, Ostrogoths, Heruli, and others in a great battle on the unidentified river Nedao in Pannonia. The Eastern Roman government thereupon closed the frontier to the Huns, who ceased to play any significant part in history, gradually disintegrating as a social and political unit" - they did not disintegrate if the listed tribes were Huns, but the fact is they were not Huns, they were separate tribes. There is no doubt that some Hunnic elites or tribes who were pushed out of Pannonia were incorporated by the Oghuric tribes, however that fact doesn't make other tribes Hunnic. Some scholars (who neither approach critically the topic neither discuss the issue), and especially the sock-puppets of User:PavelStaykov, are having hard time to understand that.--Crovata (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

But I'm afraid Crovata that that is a consensus becoming less and less prominent among historians. We have accounts of what happened to the sons of Attila like Dengzich, who most scholars believe was leader of the Kutrigurs. Kim's arguments that Ardaric and Valamir were Huns is nonsense, but even Heather acknowledges that after Nedao the Huns had a significant amount of control in the Carpathian region. Heather, in fact, is the one who even shows that the Battle of Nedao wasn't a battle of nations but rather one of several battles over the course of a few decades that shook of Hun domination. Nedao was primarily the independence of the Gepids. The Amali Goths broke away after the Gepids did. However many Gothic groups, Scirii, etc. remained under Hun domination.

Even if not all of the Oghur peoples could be called Huns (which they arguably can and can't), it is rather frequently accepted that the Hunnic ruling house of Attila was the ruling house of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs. And the interpretations of the sources do show quite a bit of support for that. However, like I said I would be writing this section as a conjecture, not as definitive fact.

AS for the Huns being a loose confederation, that has long been disproven. Modern research shows the Huns used the traditional and highly organized Dualist state system most earlier and later Steppe Empires used. The peoples they brought under their control were their vassals. In fact it seems very akin to the Roman "Foedus and Foederati".--MMFA (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

MMFA Problem is that some scholars, old or modern, does and doesn't consider such interpretation of the historical sources. The thing about the Utigurs and Kutrigurs is not a "frequently" accepted theory, that's "some" scholars consideration, some like Kim's source are overall alright, but have many issues (due to scholars own POW - see), also that's Heather own personal consideration - which once again, some scholars mention it (like a copy-paste format), while other analyze the historical sources and show different interpretation and connection of the events.--Crovata (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dulo was initially ruling dynasty of Kutrigurs, after that they became the ruling clan of Utigurs. The Huns did not disappear after Nedao - this is not the sugar that you put into your coffee in the morning, they simply lost their political unity they had under Attila and stopped playing significant historical role. None of the tribes that "appear" after that were Turks, even the core Hunnic tribes were not Turks and there is not even a single shred of evidence for this connection. Historical Turks are 3-4 tribes from south Siberia(and not Altai) and there is no evidence for migration of these tribes before the 6th century. On the contrary, there is evidence of migrations of people from north China toward Kazakhstan, the migration happened in two stages, the first group ( to which Bulgars belonged) was almost entirely europoid as race, the second group (Huns and Avars) had significant mongoloid admixture. How this "significant" is estimated is hard question, but in general in mid 20 century it was accepted about 30%, while in more recent studies I have met the number 7%, which of course is too exact number, but probably 10 % is about close to the truth. I will not do this research for you, do it yourself. Once again - none of these tribes were Turks, not even Avars who actually were trying to escape from the Turks. If they were Turks, then why they didn't happily join the Turks, instead of trying to flee away from them? Britannica doesn't say that Huns disappear, it says that they stopped playing "significant part in history", which is sth different. Only Peter Golden thinks that Huns disappeared and some Turks(Oghurs) appeared on their place exactly at the same time( 460's). There is no evidence that some people (no matter Turks, Mongols, Brazilians or sth else) had entered Europe during 460's. This is an intentional deception. We are told only that Avars attacked Sabirs and Utigurs defended Sabirs against Avars. No information for any migration during this period. If you accept Golden's point of view, it means that all mainstream scholars are idiots:

Omeljan Pritsak : connects the name Dulo with the name of the Xiongnu ruling dynasty Tu-ko (EMC d'uo'klo) by suggesting that the name Vihtun from the Nominalia of Bulgarian khans is Xiongnu emperor Modun - page 59- [25]

David Marshall Lang : with Sevar(of Bulgaria) died out the lineage of Attila the Hun -- page 49-[26]

Steven Runciman : "There then followed the Khan Sevar, till 739; but of him we know nothing, save that, like his predecessors, he was of the family of Dulo. In him this great house, the House of Attila, died out." -- page 35 - [27]

Are you going to hide this information from the readers and impose Golden's(who is a turk) nationalistic views on WP ? People are not weak-minded-they will find these books on Google. Also to be skeptical about Chen equation Buluoji=Bulgars there is nothing nationalistic : Buluoji were not Bulgars, they were Huns and they are connected to the Western Huns. Indeed this is the long south equation Xiongnu - Huns. When the Chinese recorded Buluoji at the beginning of the 4th century Bulgars were already in Europe, they are not the same people.

Last but not least, you should NOT assume that when ancient historians used some particular names to designate particular people, they had done this loosely or carelessly. This is a speculation. When we are told Massagetae, we should assume that they meant indeed Massagetae, and not something else. But why Massagetae ? There were no Massagetae in the 4-5th centuries, as Maenchen-Helfen had pointed out. Why then? This is not an easy question. It requires Original Research :

A) Massagetae disappeared from central Asia in the 5th century BC; Yuezhi appeared in the Chinese records.

B) The custom of artificial cranial deformation disappeared from central Asia(Kazakhstan) around 5 century BC (Yablonsky) ; Yuezhi practiced artificial cranial deformation (of circular type)

C)we have the academic identification : Da Yuezhi -> Ta-Yue-ti (Great Lunar Race) -> Ta-Gweti -> Massa-Getae ( Alexander Cunningham, Dahia, Edgar Knobloch, J. P. Mallory, Victor H. Mair and others)

D)In the 1st century BC Yuezhi migrated to Kazakhstan expelled by the Xiongnu, the custom of artificial cranial deformation reappeared in Kazakhstan. According to Maenchen-Helfen some of their groups migrated far to the west and were present in the steppes north of the Caucasus and on the shores of the Black Sea as early as 1st century BC. According to Yablonsky : "Circular modification (re)appeared in Central Asia in the last centuries BC as an ethnic attribute of the early Huns. The distribution of the skulls parallels the movement of the Huns" [http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/65_Craniology/YablonskyTracingHunsEn.htm]

E) Yury Zuev included the Yuezhi (Uechji) among the tribes of early Turks. He wrote that " in the Northern Caucasus they spoke East - Iranian language, and in the Kangju they spoke in Türkic."[http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly6En.htm] It is well documented that some of the Hunnic names were Iranian.

F) Edwin G. Pulleyblank : " the Utigurs of Menander are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti." [28] Also in Zuev [http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly1En.htm] It is well documented that Utigurs were called (and considered) Huns by Romans, Greeks, Byzantines and Armenians.

I think that the conclusions are obvious even for small children: we have found the indo-european "part" of the Huns:

Absence of information about historical migration of Xiongnu-Huns to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns participated also other tribes, and first of all Yuezhi-Massagetae.

Who were the "mongoloid part" of the Huns requires additional research, this group of people ( they were at least 2 tribes) are related to the Buluoji (and Jie/Chieh). With all this information it should not be very difficult to find them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.110.156.205 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The amount of bloody awful etymology and scholarship is astonishing.

The Yue-Zhi were the Alans. There is much stronger evidence for a linguistic connection between the names Yue-Zhi (EMC) and Aorsi (Latin) then there is for... that...

The "Mongoloid component" of the Huns was the Tiele confederation they absorbed for a while in the 3rd-early 4th centuries AD. A.k.a the Dingling/Tingling, a.k.a. the proto-Oghur speaking peoples. Or at least that is the current consensus of modern, mainstream research. No the Huns and Oghurs did not use the ethnonym "Turk" and neither are they connected to the Buluoji. The simple fact is that the Ethnonym Bulgar appears with the arrival of the Oghur peoples in the late 5th century which also became connected with the Hunnic ruling house of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs.

Do you even read modern Scholarship? Half these works are from the 70's and the other half are fringe scholars who have no clue what the hell they're even talking about.--MMFA (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@MMFA, this references were already discussed in related articles. That's typical example of WP:SYNTH. One more wall of the same text of references and this discussions are going to archive. Of course, our discussion on the article editing, without the IP, can continue.--Crovata (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think maybe a good thing to do would be to do a section on "the Division of Attila's Empire" and then write what happened to the different known Hunnic sections. Then write a conjecture that there might have been a continuity between the Huns of Dengzich and Ernak, and the Kutrigurs and Utigurs. But it should also be noted that these empires were a Hun ruling body over a predominately Oghur Bulgar base, that adopted the ethnonym Bulgar. Similar to how the Huns also ruled over a predominately Germanic body in the 4th-5th centuries.--MMFA (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:SYNTH - what Hunnic sections; what continuity between the Huns and the Kutrigurs and Utigurs; what "empires"; there is no clear evidence that a Hunnic elite ruled over Oghur Bulgar base. If we're talking about facts, then historical sources lack to mention and support this kind of factual interpretation.--Crovata (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

here is the email of Pulleyblank - [email protected] - write him personal letter and explain him that Utigurs cannot be Yuezhi because the latter were Alans - probably he doesn't know this. Ask him why he is a fringe scholar. After that you can write the history editorial board of Encyclopædia Britannica and advice them to start using the term Oghur - because they are not using it neither for people nor for language. May be they are also fringe scholars? (1/4 of them are Nobel Prize winners)--200.110.156.205 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pulleyblank isn't a fringe scholar but some of the others are. Oxford is probably outdated, not sure when it was written. Being a scholar of any quality doesn't excuse shoddy etymology. And it's long been known the Yue-Zhi were of Iranic stock, not Altaic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuezhi The article does not discuss a link to the Alans, that etymology is still debatable but is still far more solid than any etymology connecting Yue-Zhi to Utigur, which are two totally different dialects pronounced differently.

MMFA (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I will write this section, don't bother yourself about it. --200.110.156.205 (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And we will remove it because we don't need pseudo-history on this page. Mainstream scholars connect the Yue-Zhi to the Kushans (Great Yue Zhi or Da Yue-Zhi transliterates to Massagetae of Herodotus, the lesser Yue-Zhi to the Thyssagetae) before the Huns had even established an Ethnic identity under the Xiongnu dynasty in the 3rd century BC, let alone adopted an Oghur dialect in the 1st-3rd centuries AD. It's possible the Alans are etymologically related as well (which is debatable). Furthermore the primary sources distinctify the Huns (Ounna/Huna/Huni/Xwn/Ywn/Khon/Khonai/Xiongnu (pronounced Hon-na)) quite clearly from the Iranic speakers including the Da Yue-Zhi (then known as the Kushanshahs) according to Christopher Atwood, who shows how the Indian sources make it clear the Huns are a whole different language group. You do know what Utigur even means right? It means "Thirty Oghurs" and an indication it was the Eastern (And therefore greater) half of the Dualist Kutrigur-Utigur state (Kim proposes the lesser Western portion were the Akatirs and the lesser Eastern portion were the Onogurs but that's subject to a lot of interpretation).MMFA (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody should write anything about this. We should make a request to Wikipedia for a professional evaluation of the page by an accredited expert. Said professor with said Doctorate in Late Antiquity can write a post-Nedao Hunnic history. MMFA (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That's no how Wikipedia is edited. We, the editors, cite realiable sources, however with appropriate weight, balance and neutrality. Only thing that should be done about the issue is to write a better "After Attila" section, where will be mentioned (previously listed) "some scholars considerations" about the vague relation of the Huns with the other nomadic tribes, ruling elite, that the Hunnic name became a generic term and so on. I will do it in my sandbox page, when finished I will ping you for the review.--Crovata (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I recall there used to be a feature where you could request a review of a page though. I know the Chalons page still has on the talk section a box that says "this article requires attention by a classicist."

I'm busy writing my own chapter on the Huns for my book on the Battle of Chalons (no, I do not use any original research when I edit wikipedia pages.) The etymology is fun, to say the least. Seriously it's insanely difficult but really enjoyable. I'm not dealing with the Huns after Attila more than about the death of Dengzich in 469, but am more than willing to help out. I look forward to what you write.MMFA (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that we don't know what is going on here on Wikipedia. Everyone knows. No serious specialist will ever engage in these edit wars here - the idea is good but impractical. If we have to be honest (and conducive to WP) this section "Post Attila" should be divided into two parts: 1) huns disappeared and the term huns became generic after that 2) some hun tribes indeed survived and the term was not used in this simplified "generic sense". It SHOULD NOT be decided in advance which sub-section have to prevail - both should be kept on article. Let't readers have the opportunity to read both of them and decide themselves which one to believe. Wanna make an experiment ? I'll post tentatively this section - let's see what will happened. --200.110.156.205 (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I said. A conjecture. However what you wrote is horribly oversimplified and a lot of it is spelled wrong. You didn't at all write about the known Hunnic grouups under Attila's sons and what happened to them - the campaigns and death of Dengzich, the Ultzinzur Huns under Ultzindur, the Akatir Huns under Ernak, etc. Not to mention the Huns that served under the Romans, like Chelchal and the Huns of Belisarius' employ. Some Huns are also mentioned in the civil war of 502 and in the Lazic wars. I have some stuff coming in this week that I can use. I want to see what Crovata writes first. Furthermore, you can conjecture both without actually having to write two sections. MMFA (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, these two websites: "kroraina.com" and "promacedonia.org" are very, very clearly HEAVILY biased and distraught with nationalism and pseudo-history. And bad research. You also use several sources that are pretty badly outdated. There is a lot of more recent scholarship on the Huns and the Oghur peoples that moved into the Pontic zone. Kim is one of them. I have tons on my computer.

Also the title Qagan (Khagan/Khan) wasn't introduced yet. It's with the arrival of the Avars that the title appears. There's a paper on it somewhere on Academia.edu, I need to find it because it does talk about the Oghur migrations as well when discussing the appearance of the title.MMFA (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Found it: Vovin, Alexander. "Once again on the etymology of the title qagan." Studia Etymologica Cracoviensa: 12. 2007. Pages 177-187.

Also worth reading: Golden, Peter. "Some notes on the Etymology of Sabir." Koinon Doupon (St. Petersburg State University). 2013. Pages 49-55.

--MMFA (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WRONG. Kan/kagan was Yuezhi title. According to Hyun Jin Kim the nomadic Yuezhi possessed political institutions that closely resemble the Xiongnu and later Hunnic models. The Chinese refer to the five xihou or Lords of the Yuezhi who rule the five tribes of their imperial confederation. According to Pulleyblank the Yuezhi were Indo-Europeans and they spoke a Tocharian type language. The title xihou corresponds in the pronunciation to what would later become the Turkic title yubgu. This originally Yuezhi royal title appears on the coins of their rulers as IAPGU/yavuga and it came to the Xiongnu from the Yuezhi. Among the Turks, the title yabgu gained a new lease of life. In the Turkish inscriptions of Mongolia, it refers to a noble ranking immediately after the qagan. Kuyan/gayan was a "common Uechji" symbol for a terrestrial embodiment for the Moon and Milky Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.110.156.205 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I can't say whether or not the Iranic Yue-Zhi or the Xiongnu adopted the title Yabgu first (IIRC the word is Yenisei meaning it was probably of Xiongnu adoption), there are no historical records of the title Qagan before it began use in the Mongolia/Altai region in the late 5th Century AD. There are no historical records of the use of the title until the Avars bring it in the mid-late 6th century AD.--MMFA (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

the original word is most probably γaya - Scythian word for light/white. The myth about Milky Way Kuyan goes this way: The goddess Si-van-mu lived with her grand daughter weaver Chjinui, who was weaving light clouds out of silk, on the spurs of Kunlun, on the bank of a terrestrial Silver river Inhe. Kunlun is sometimes identified with Yuezhi Tsilyan (Qilian/Keglen) mountains. On the opposite bank of the river lived a lonely oxen shepherd Nulan, passionately in love with the goddess-weaver. Crossing the river from time to time, once the oxen shepherd attained that she became his wife. Learning about the marriage of a simple shepherd with her grand daughter, Si-van-mu became furious. To end the love encounters of the young, she moved the Silver river to the sky, and scratched it with her golden hairpin. The quiet smooth surface of the river became an insurmountable wild stream. The separated shepherd and weaver suffered so much that they became Oxen Shepherd (the star Altair of Aquila) and Weaver (the star Vega of Lyra) constellations on the opposing banks of the Silver river - Milky Way. The faithful Shepherd till now have not lost his hope to meet his beloved. Every night he tries in vain to drain water from the Silver river with a ladle, to cross to other bank.

As a side note - Yuezhi were not Iranian, neither they were Turkic. I doubt that they were Tocharian either. --200.110.156.205 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The Yue-Zhi were Iranic speakers. That much is absoltuely certain, as they formed the Kushanshahs. They may have also formed the Alans, who were Iranic. Except for nationalists impingent upon suggesting every steppe nation they can was Turkic, pretty much all scholars agree on them being Iranic-speakers. The primary sources group them with Iranic speakers.--MMFA (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

More recent scholars agree that they were Tocharian speaker(probably influenced by Iranian/Turkic speakers). Anyway, language != nationality. Here is a legend about their origin:

At the end of the 4th century the name "Huns and Tochars" (Faunos-Ficarios) surfaces for the last time in the Gothic legend, rooted in annalistic               traditions, about an origin of the western Huns: " Filimer, Gothic king and son of Gandaric the Great... learned that among his people are witches, whom he called "Haliarunna" - "diabolic sorcery" in the Gothic language. They were expelled on his orders, and sentenced to range in the steppes, far from the Gothic camp. The forest people Fauns - Fikars ("Huns and Tochars"), upon seeing the witches wandering in the desert, mated with them, and produced these barbarous people - Huns". And in silvestres homines, the "wood people" of the "General history" we see Greek ακατζιροι, Latin Akatziri, Huns - Turkic Agach-eri and Yiysh-teem ("wood people") of the Iranian and Türkic authors. If that so, then according to this version, the Türkic-speaking Huns - Agacheri must be viewed as a western branch of "Huns and Tochars" of the Jeti-su. --200.110.156.205 (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That is 100% BS. First of all Akatziroi/Acatziri transliterates back into Oghur Turkish as "Akatir". The Akatirs were the Eastern and dominant Hun branch according to Kim. The other known groups were the Bittugurs and Ultinzurs. Possibly the Bardor and Torcilingi as well. The Alpidzuri ("Alpilcur") and Tongurs are also mentioned as living on the Volga with the Sarmatian Itimari and Boisci in a quasi-dualist system (the Alan dualist system was not as advanced as the Xiongnu one) but Kim posuits these are simply Oghur speakers, who had spread out during the initial conquest of the Dingling by the Xiongnu, not Huns.

There is no evidence for the Yue-Zhi or the Tocharians being related to the Huns. Primary sources make a clear distinction between the Huna and the Iranics (including Tocharian which is related to Iranic). -- MMFA (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Tentative section "Post Attila"

After the breakdown of their Empire, the Huns never regained their lost glory. One factor was that the Huns never fully established the mechanisms of a state, such as bureaucracy and taxes (unlike Bulgars, Magyars or the Golden Horde). This seems to be untrue and Huns have 100% human genes unlike modern Indo-Europeans 99% chimpanzee equivalent, Huns did levy tribute and were bureaucratic it seems, and wanted an all-humanity confederation and were limited by their morals and dignity in modern times and then suffered mass genocide in the 18th century including for feminist ideals with women in war, they are allued to as roses at the end of Goethe´s Faust, and for the purity of German youth, with abstinence and true romance and no degrading physical inspections, World War II, the Cold War and as of March 2015 or 2016, they are told Huns are not allowed on trains in Portugal, with 250 million Huns believed killed including by European Union armies or airforces respectively. Many Huns restricted from their natural professions by their morals and dignity of avoiding public acts of intercourse or excessive stripping, had sons by non-Ural Altaic women or ignored their customs to be major European scientists and army generals also skilled workers and soldiers. Winston Churchill was Hun himself. Once disorganised, the Huns found themselves absorbed by more organised polities. when they had been among the most organized and organization had been learned from them and been their original gateway to success. Like the Avars after them, once the Hun political unity failed the ethnos lacked a way to re-create it, especially because the Huns had become a multiethnic empire even before Attila. The Hun Empire included, at least nominally, a great host of diverse peoples, each of whom may be considered "successors" of the Huns. However, given that the Huns were a political creation, and not a consolidated people, or nation, their defeat in 454 marked the end of that political creation. Newer polities which later arose might have consisted of people formerly in the Hun confederacy, and carrying closely related steppe cultures, but they represented new political creations.

Some Hun's tribe indeed survived

Later historians provide brief hints of the dispersal and renaming of Attila's people. According to tradition, after Ellac's defeat and death, his brothers ruled over two separate but closely related hordes on the steppes north of the Black Sea. Dengizich is believed to have been king (khan) of the Kutrigurs and Ernakh khan of the Utigurs, whilst Procopius claimed that Kutrigurs and Utigurs were named after, and led by two of the sons of Ernakh. Such distinctions are uncertain and the situation is not likely to have been so clear-cut. Some Huns remained in Pannonia for some time before the Goths slaughtered them. Others took refuge within the Eastern Roman Empire, namely in Dacia Ripensis and Scythia Minor. Other Huns and nomadic groups may have retreated to the steppe. Indeed, subsequently, new confederations appear such as Kutrigur, Utigur, Onogur (Onoghur), Sarigur, etc., which were collectively called "Huns", "Huno-Bulgars", or "Bulgars". Some historians as Steven Runciman, Josef Markwart and George Vernadsky consider the first two names of the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans to be Attila and his third son Ernakh.

References

Huns disappeared and the term was used only in generic sense

However, it is likely that Graeco-Roman sources habitually equated new barbarian political groupings with old tribes. This was partly due to the expectation that contemporary writers emulate the "great writers" of preceding eras. Apart from exigencies in style was the belief that barbarians from particular areas were all the same, no matter how they changed their name.

I've been meaning to add a Post-Attila section for some time but this is rather oversimplified. I'll address this later this week when I have more time, I need to find papers specifically on this topic if this is going to be written. Kim's book is good (but flawed) but there's academic papers as well.MMFA (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

DO ADD THIS SECTION, YOU CAN USE THIS ARTICLE FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA WHERE IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE HUNS RETREATED INTO MODERN DAY UKRAINE [29]

ALSO YOU CAN USE THIS HARVARD PAPER OF Pritsak [30]

"...groups of Huns returned to their "inner" territory on the river Vär (= Dnieper) in the Ukraine." (page 429)

--Българ (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

References

THE HUNS WERE CALLED MASSAGETAE

Roman historians Themistius (317-390), Claudian (370-404), and later Procopius (500-560) called the Huns Massagetae. . The Huns were 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. However some historians mentioned Huns and Massagetae as distinct and different people who were cooperating during their raids, for example St Jerome tells us about the Great Hun raid of 395-6 into Armenia and Syria that " swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter".

AND WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION? THE HUNS WERE TWO GROUPS OF TRIBES WITH DIFFERENT ETHNIC AFFINITIES (Pulleyblank, 1999):

HUNS = "CORE HUNS"   MASSAGETAE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Българ (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC) 

References

The Huns were not called Massagetae, any people on the steppes were. The term is used to refer everything from the Scythians to the Goths because the authors are trying to pay homage to or emulate Herodotus.MMFA (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Huns, or to be more accurate, part of the Huns were called Massagetae without any doubt. There are many books stating this connection, as this one [31] or this one [32] and so on. Actually you don't have to read all these books, I would advise to read very carefully pages 4-6 from Maenchen-Helfen. Your explanation is too childish: "they called the Huns Massagetae because they wanted to emulate the Herodotus". But Herodotus also wrote about the Issedones. Why they didn't call the Huns Issedones? The answer is simple: because they meant Massagetae, not the Issedones or the Arimaspians. Read carefully this passage from St Jerome :

" swarms of Huns ...and monstrous people of the Massagetae... filled the whole earth with slaughter... " [33](page 182)

Hence, when it was needed, ancient authors distinguished between the Huns and Massagetae after all. We should not assume that Roman and Greek historians and geographers were idiots and they used all these names with promiscuity without any thinking. Actually they were quite accurate when it was needed. Such is the conclusion of Maenchen-Helfen who wrote in his monograph that despite the fact that Romans called the Huns Massagetae "The Huns, not the Massagetae, attacked the Alans and Goths..." (page 6)[34] But on the same page 6, read note 40: "The Massagetae, ..., therefore must be the Huns". All this points are summarized by Pulleyblank: "European Huns comprised two groups of tribes with different ethnic affinities and the ruling group that bore the name Hun was directly connected with the Xiongnu".

I am waiting for you to write the section "Post Attila" - I need it in order to write a section about the possible origin of the Huns.--Българ (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

All your statements above do is show me that you don't know what you're talking about. I can give you dozens of examples where the word Massagetae is used to describe random peoples, usually Iranic nomads like the Scythians, the Alans, the Kushans, or the Sarmatians. Massageta is not an Ethnonym like Huna which has a well established etymology which is laid out on this page, and you will not be butchering the section on the origin of the Huns with your pseudo-history. What I'm going to do is ask around and see if we can get a real expert to look at this page and write an expansion on the Huns post-Attila.MMFA (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I explained my point of view, it is supported by scholars as Maenchen-Helfen and Pulleyblank. If you cannot grasp it, this is your problem. Also the section "Military equipment" contains incomplete information: the Huns used not only metal arrowheads but also bone arrowheads at the same that time. Ask yourself why? Why someone who has metal arrowheads would use bone arrowheads at the same time? Because they were two groups of people- that's why. You should do your research more carefully. --Българ (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean all those bone arrowheads that we haven't found in a single Hunnish burial because they were all steel? Your misinterpretation of sources is probably responsible for your miscontrived perception that there was a group of people called massagetae that invaded Europe alongside the Huns. This is in no way true, because Massagetae is a blanket term used by primary sources, as I have already stated, in an honorary way to refer to Herodotus much like Chinese authors would honorarily refer to Confucius, to describe steppe nomads. Everything from Scythians to Cumans were called Massagetae in the Roman and "Byzantine" scholarship. Even the word "Hun" ends up with this same usage, where beginning in the 7th century every Turkic speaking Steppe nomad becomes a "Hun." MMFA (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

bla-bla- bla. The most prestigious book on the Huns states that they were called Massagetae. Hence this will be put on the article no matter if you like it or not. The difference between me and you is that I know who were the Huns and you don't. They were not Turkic people, neither they were Mongols. Put this firmly into your head. Cheers. --Българ (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I already stated Ammianus has been widely discredited. Maenchen-Helfen and Pulleyblank BOTH cover how words like Massagetae, Scythian, and yes, even Hun became Blanket terms referring to every steppe nomad under the sun. The problem is that you clearly don't understand their arguments and have used it to build your own Pseudo-history of the Huns. If any edit is made, I am requesting administrative attention to the page. MMFA (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"They are lightly armed and so fast and unpredictable that they will scatter suddenly and gallop here and there chaotically, inflicting untold slaughter...They can fire missiles from far off, arrows tipped not with the usual arrowheads but with sharp splintered bones, which they attach onto the shafts with extraordinary skill. They fight close-to without any fear for their own lives;..."   --Българ (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

" swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter" [35] --Българ (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATIVE ATTENTION IS VERY WELCOME - JUST BECAUSE SOME EDITORS ARE SLOW THINKERS THIS SHOULD NOT PREVENT READERS OF WP FROM READING THIS INFORMATION. --Българ (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

AND SINCE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WRITE A SECTION POST-ATTILA HUNS, I WILL DO IT MYSELF - ACTUALLY SOMEONE HAS STARTED IT. THE CITATIONS ARE NOT VERY CORRECT, BUT THE TEXT WILL DO THE JOB. --Българ (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If you edit the page with this "information" it's going to fall under Wikipedia' "original research" rule, technically, which will only result in you being banned.MMFA (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Re the Huns

The article states: "They knew nothing of metal, had no religion and lived like savages, without fire, eating their food raw, living off roots, and meat tenderized by placing it under their horses' saddles." Yet the article has pictures of their metal work. Either the pictures or this sentence must be wrong. Ect48 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It should be made more clear that this is the view of Ammianus, and should be put in quotations. MMFA (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Origin of Huns

Suggested addition to the article's paragraph :

"St Jerome tells us about the Great Hun raid of 395-6 into Armenia and Syria that "swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter". But despite the fact that Roman historians as Themistius, Claudian and Procopius called the Huns Massagetae, the Huns, not the Massagetae, attacked the Alans, who threw themselves upon the Goths. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Bulgars were no longer there."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:ac8:21:8::276e:25 (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2017

The problem is that it's out of place and redundant. This section is irrelevant to the massagetae or any Roman classicizing topos of using the word "massagetae" to describe various steppe nations. The word massagetae in the Roma period referred to no specific people, and we can't confirm who it referred to in Hellenistic sources (the best guess is that the Yuezhi/Kushans/Massagetae were the same but there's flaws in that argument). It's also irrelevant to state that the Huns were not on the 6th century borders of the Chinese empire (there was no unifying state in China until the Sui and it already discusses their migration elsewhere). Your citations also need to be improved. Too many arbitrary links to google books and Pulleyblank's paper is from 1963, which is long outdated. By his own research too. MMFA (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not our business to interpret the sources. Wikipedia is a place where we put the most valuable and relevant knowledge on a topic that we have. And I cann't see any good reason why we should devoid the readers of learning the connection Huns-Massagetae which is presented on almost all historical books, e.g. this one[36] and many other books. It is more relevant to discuss that Huns were not present at the borders of China in the 6th century. I will try to explain why. First, these borders are well defined by the Chinese themselves with the building of the Great Wall of China starting from 3rd CBC. Hence it is not a concept from Literature but a particular geographical place. From this place started the spread of the custom of artificial cranial deformation (of annular type). From this place the hunnic cauldrons were brought to Europe. And it is among the people who were living around this geographical area where we should look for the origin of the Huns.

People around Great Wall

There were five groups of people living around and we can test each group against the facts that we know for sure about the Huns. This is what we call the Method of Exclusion in science. Let's start with the Turks. It is well known who were the historical Turks - 3 groups of tribes (Dingling, Gekun and Xinli - check out Golden for example) located in Southern Siberia. There is no information about historical migration of Turkic tribes before the 6th century. Also Southern Siberia is not very close to the Great Wall of China. Possibly some Turkic tribes under Xiongnu suzerainty raided North China and were present at our area of interest, but this is only a hypothesis. What most scholars accept is the fact that Turkic tribes reached the borders of China in the 6th century. At that time the Huns were no longer there. The conclusion is obvious - Huns were NOT tribes from the historical Turks and we can quite safely exclude historical Turks from consideration.

Bayesian inference method leaves a little doubt who were the Huns

Despite the fact that the Huns possibly spoke some language similar to Turkic. Actually the Hunnic language shows direct influences from various language families: Turkic, Mongolian, Iranian and even Chinese; actually any attempt to determine who were the Huns only on the basis of the language is quite stupid attempt. And futile one. Next people that we should consider are Xiongnu. The core Xiongnu tribes were not Turks, neither they were Mongols. Despite all the controversy, in all likelihood the "core" Xiongnu were of the same origin as the Chinese. Anyway, Xiongnu were a confederation of many tribes, including Turks and historical Mongols and other tribes. In the light of this information including the suggested paragraph is more than relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I own studies on the peoples and cultures of the Steppe. In no way does Peter Golden state the Huns and the Massagetae were connected: he is clearly showing that Greek/Roman terminology is not accurate for describing individual peoples on the steppes. Read it again. This is not interpreting sources in any way.

We can't actually say "no Huns were present on the borders of China in the 6th century." The Chinese used Xiongnu as a general term as often as they used it as a specific term. Many "Hunnish peoples" formed parts of the Rouran and Xianbei and other confederations that came after them, because of the fluidity of steppe nations. And finally, 6th century Chinese sources still refer to Southern Xiongnu settled within their lands. As for artificial cranial deformation, evidence shows that this was an Alan practice the Huns adopted. See "Hunnic Modified Skulls" by Susanne Hackenbeck or "The Steppe World and the Rise of the Huns" by Etienne De La Vassiere.

Golden states these people are accepted as speakers of a proto-Turkic language. This does not make them tribes of Turks. In fact the Dingling are the various peoples Priscus mentions coming into the Pontic Steppes in 460 AD, and were the people who formed the dominant part of the Hun confederation in the 2nd Century AD onwards, which is why they changed languages from Yeniseian to Oghur. The Dingling would help form the early Bulgars.

As for the language of the Huns, that is covered thoroughly with modern research. They spoke Oghur, a language that is related to modern Turkic but different in many ways, and has similarities to both Mongolian and Tungusic because they all belong to related language families (this used to be called Altaic but the Altaic theory has come under fire). We don't know what language the Xiongnu spoke, the evidence suggests Yeniseian (see Alexander Vovin, "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian Language?", after which they flipped to Oghur Turkic from centuries of mixing with the Dingling (Tiele/Gaoche/Tingling). We see a similar flip with other steppe peoples - the Xianbei, for example, who become the Sabirs, and the Chagatai also switched from Mongol to Turkic after the majority of their population became Turkic speakers.

What scholars accept is that people calling themselves "Turks" appeared on the borders of China in the 6th century. The language was irrelevant to their identity. These people spoke "Turkic" but were not Turks.MMFA (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

so, what is your conclusion? Historical Turks (Dingling, Gekun and Xinli) spoke "Turkic" but were not Turks. Who were the Turks then and where they lived? --2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That conclusion has long been established: the first Turks were nomadic peoples living in the Rouran Confederation who called themselves the Kok and Ashihna who first appear in the 5th century AD. They became the Gok-Turks and the first people to call themselves Turks. It's in Peter Golden, who you linked to. Also see "The Turks in World History" by Carter Vaughn. MMFA (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The earliest Turkic-speaking peoples that can be identified in Chinese sources are the Dingling, Gekun (or Jiankun), and Xinli, located in South Siberia. Historical Turks ARE NOT INDOEUROPEANS, they are Siberian branch of the Mongol race. There is a thread of historical continuity linking the Dingling of Han times with the Tiele of the fifth and sixth centuries out of whom the Uighurs eventually emerge. The Gekun/Jiankun have long been identified with the Kirghiz. The name Xinli is the same as Xue of seventh century Chinese sources, transcribing the Turkish tribal name Syr found on the Orkhon inscriptions. There is not even a shred of evidence for migration of this people before the 6th century. Ashina dynasty of the ancient Turkic peoples is of indo-european origin among the Wusun tribes and the gold (Kagan’s) clan of the ancient dynastic tribe Ashina was called Shar-Duly ( Middle Persian: Golden raven Duli). In that clan was born prince Kul-Tegin. However Ashina of the 6th-7th century were already racially mixed. The majority of Wusun moved to Kazakhstan in the second half of the 5th century. The forest-steppe zone of South Siberia around the Altai extending into Mongolia, is the area where Turks have acquired elements of equestrian culture and pastoral nomadism from the Indo-Europeans. Just because the ruling dynasty Ashina had indo-european roots DOES NOT MAKE Turks to be Indo-Europeans.

I think it is better to ask third opinion: Wikipedia:Third opinion 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The Huns and the Bulgars were Turkic speaking Central Asiatic Nomads and they, as the rest of the early Turkic people were mixture from Mongols and Indo-Europeans. Jingiby (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And of course this is only a wishful thinking of Turkic biased editors of Wikipedia. As it was explained the early Turkic people were not some mixture, but they were Siberian branch of the Mongol race. Before they encounter indo-european Wusun and Yuezhy, THERE WASN'T ANYTHING INDOEUROPEAN IN the EARLY TURKS. And because you cannot make any substantiated links between proto-Turks and Huns(and Bulgars), that's why you need the concocted concept of 'Oghurs'. Such people didn't exist. Such language also did not exist. The Huns spoke unknown language, which was formed on the North-Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. This language was directly influenced by various languages families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. To rename this language as Oghur Turkic is a pure form of pseudo-scientific deception. Modern computer simulations on genetic origin of Iron Age nomads DO NOT support your claims that early Turks were mixture from Mongols and Indo-Europeans. ABC analysis revealed that eastern groups were most likely derived from one single population, whereas scenarios that assumed that the eastern Scythian sample groups were derived from two previously diverged populations received very little statistical support. Results suggest that western and eastern Scythian groups arose independently — perhaps in their respective geographic regions. Simulations support asymmetrical gene flow from western to eastern groups, rather than the reverse. The eastern Scythians display nearly equal proportions of mtDNA lineages common in east and west Eurasia, whereas in the western Scythian groups, the frequency of lineages now common in east Eurasia is generally lower, even reaching zero in four samples of the initial Scythian phase of the eight to sixth century BCE. Modern populations with genetic similarities to eastern Scythian groups are found almost exclusively among Turkic language speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:AC8:21:8:0:0:276E:25 (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you on about? It is well established that the Huns spoke a dialect of Turkic called Oghur and that the Dingling and Huns were Turkic speakers. See Peter Golden and Pulleyblank (at least his recent work, not that stuff from the 1960's you cite). I never said the early Turks were a mix of Mongols and Indo-Europeans, although certainly such populations interacted and to a certain extent mixed with the early Turkic speakers. You're only confusing yourself.

What are you trying to argue here? MMFA (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

THE CONCLUSION IS OBVIOUS: THE HUNS AND THE HISTORICAL TURKS ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:EA00:1:1:0:0:A7C:96F8 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying... MMFA (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Anglo-Saxon Huns? I think not

I pondered whether to re-word this, but the only sensible option is to delete it:

The Anglo-Saxons may have believed themselves to be partly descended from Huns, through their Angle, Saxon, and Jute ancestors.[127] In his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, the historian Bede stated:

... [M]any of which nations [Ecgbert] knew there were in Germany, from whom the Angles or Saxons, who now inhabit Britain, are known to have derived their origin; for which reason they are still corruptly called Garmans by the neighboring nation of the Britons. Such are the Frisons, the Rugins, the Danes, the Huns, the Ancient Saxons, and the Boructuars (or Bructers). There are also in the same parts many other nations still following pagan rites, to whom the aforesaid soldier of Christ designed to repair, ...[132]

As James Campbell has noted, this list of peoples has generally been regarded by historians as being a list of peoples living in Germany at the time Bede wrote this passage in the 8th century, "[b]ut the sense of the Latin is that these are the peoples from whom the Anglo-Saxons living in Britain were derived."[133]:53 He wrote that the list of peoples fits the 5th century better, when the Anglo-Saxons began migrating to Britain, than the 8th century, and noted that "Huns sound odd; it is equally odd that Priscus heard of a boast by Attila that he had authority over the islands in the ocean."[133]:123-124

Note 127 cites a source, but the source makes no reference to such a claim. The idea that Bede is suggesting the Huns as presumed ancestors is tenuous at best and in my years of medieval studies I have never heard the suggestion anywhere else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick_Neylan (talk • contribs)

Agreed that the Widsið paper does not support direct Hunnish descent: rather, it says the peoples in the Bede quote were all recognized as cousins with a common proto-Germanic heritage, at least insofar as oral history or legend is concerned, and that the context predates any sense of a common Anglo-Saxon identity.—Odysseus1479 03:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I see your point on the Widsith article, but I object to the removal of the part that references Campbell. In a footnote to a passage discussing that passage by Bede on page 53, Campbell makes clear his view that "the sense of the Latin is that these are the peoples from whom the Anglo-Saxons living in Britain were derived." Then on pages 123-124, Campbell discusses the inclusion of the Huns as well as Rugini on that list, as you can see on Google Books here:

Google Books

More recently, The Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature in Britain asserts that this was a list of peoples the Anglo-Saxons were descended from:

Google Books

I support re-inserting the paragraph, taking Patrick_Neylan's and Odysseus1479's concerns into account, and showing that it is a view held by a significant minority. I can insert it myself, unless there is a consensus here against doing so.--Beneficii (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the passage, taking into account what we discussed about the Neidorf/Widsith source.--Beneficii (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been genocide against 250 million Huns in the European Union

There has been genocide against 250 million Huns in the European Union, my appeals to the International Criminal Court have not stopped it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.119.181 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Huns - Bulgars

There is possible Huns-Bulgars conection mentoned by several late anciant historians. So you can mentoned that possibility also in the article. Wich will be no less corect then huns-magers possibel conection. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.139.177 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is briefly mentioned already in the "after Attila" section. It is a controversial theory (although there is far more possibility of a connection between the Huns and Bulgars than the Huns and Magyars). MMFA (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

Please delete "of course" in "They had no buildings, of course..." and "The most famous weapon of the Huns, of course..." per MOS:NOTE. 5.151.0.111 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done—thanks. The passages cited to John Man in the Appearance section strike me as likely to be excessively close paraphrasing, or even unmarked quotations, but I’m not in a position to check them against the text of the book.—Odysseus1479 22:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Odysseus, I actually own the book and decided to check this. The citation is incorrect, it is not page 79, in fact I cannot find it in his book. It does not come from Christopher Kelly's "The End of Empire" either. Although it is an accurate paraphrasing of Ammianus' description, I cannot find such paraphrasing in either of their books. MMFA (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed a section

I have removed the following section, because it is not about Huns and would fit better in another article about Sectarian issues in Northern Ireland than here in this article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

.

Sectarian slur in Northern Ireland and Scotland

"Hun" is also used as a sectarian slur against Protestants in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the term has been used by fans of Celtic FC in Old Firm derbies against Rangers FC supporters, while Orange Halls in Ulster have been daubed with graffiti reading KAH ("Kill all Huns").

A pamphlet issued to PSNI officers in 2008 listed "Huns" – along with the terms "black", "prods" or "jaffas" (referring to the Orange Order) for Protestants and "fenians", "taigs", "chucks" or "spongers" for Irish Catholics – as terms not to use to avoid causing offence.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

"scuplture" = "sculpture" 2605:E000:1301:4462:B05A:29BC:45B1:8D4 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Huns and Frisians

In the German "Saga of Tidreck of Bern", its written versions beginning from the 13th century, the Huns are called Frisians. Frisia was often called Hunaland in the Middle Ages.[125][126]

The sources given for this claim are both Russian websites. As far as I know, the claim that Frisia was "often" called Hunaland is incorrect. The Hunaland in the Thidrekssaga is located around Soest, so in Westphalia, not Frisia. The name and origin of the Thidrekssaga is also incorrect, which makes me suspect that the whole thing should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)