Talk:Huns/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Turkic names of ruling elite/core

In the following source, worked out by Otto Maenchen-Helfen who is an authority on Hunnic studies, the Turkic names are listed. http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_6.html

The kams (man of religion), commanders, leaders (father and mother of Attila) etc., at least the original ones before adopting Gothic ones, had Turkic ones. If you can proof otherwise, then feel free to show us. Until then don't simply delete this information for no reason. Akocsg (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So? And there are academics that state otherwise mentioned within the article, which you have conveniently ignored.

• Doerfer, Gerhard. Zur Sprache der Hunnen. Central Asiatic Journal, 17(1): 1-50.
• Sinor, Denis. 1977. The Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory. Journal of World History, 4(3):513-540.
• Poppe, Nicholas. 1965. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Ural-altaische bibliothek; 14.

Therefore, you are taking ONE academic and placing his opinion within the lead is undue weight. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

AND, according to Otto Maenchen-Helfen, "Hunnic cannot be classified at present, and there is no consensus on its affinities".

• Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press, 1973
• Sinor, Denis. 1977. The Outlines of Hungarian Prehistory. Journal of World History, 4(3):513-540.
• Poppe, Nicholas. 1965. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Ural-altaische bibliothek; 14.

Since, on the Hunnic language article there are numerous theories as to the Hunnic language, Altaic, Turkic, Indo-European, Uralic, Xiongnu, Yeniseian. All of which are referenced. So, why are you clearly cherrypicking what Maenchen-Helfen states to give undue weight to one theory? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah, you won't get anything here with your generic "undue" excuse. Stating some random sources concerning Huns, where it isn't proven otherwise is nothing but an act of distraction. Again, in that source by a renowned authority the Turkic names are listed, it is fixed information, not an opinion. In the article it is not stated otherwise, there is no reference to the personal names of the ruling elite. So stop falsely accusing me of ignorance. Prove that these names are false in any way, if you can't stop deleting these facts!

You keep stating that the Hunnic language is contested, it's the names we are tlaking about. And they are clear. Cherrypicking and ignoring, refracting by changing the debated topic, do you think you will get anyhwere by accusing the other user with the things you are doing yourself? Better stop with this indecent style of pushing discussions in your favor.Akocsg (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The names are the main evidence for the language - and their affinities are contested. Maenchen-Helfen's opinion is not the only one. We discuss the linguistic issues appropriately elsewhere. Per Kansas Bear, your edit is cherrypicking and I have reverted it again.

More constructively, has anyone else read Hyun Kim's recent work, The Huns, Rome, and the birth of Europe? He offers an interpretation of the Huns by drawing on what is known of other steppe empires, and he suggests that they may have shifted their dominant language as they incorporated new linguistic groups.Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, their names listed by the source are not contested. They are fixed. There is nothing about names being of contested origin. This isn't a matter of opinion. Simple as that. You come up with the whole language itself again. So it's actually you who is cherrypicking. I'll add the information regarding the names again, as it is an important issue. If you can bring up a renowned, scientific source who proves otherwise, you can show us here and we can discuss it. Until then please don't delete valuable content without reason.Akocsg (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, they are contested. You are taking a website that only shows pages 401-412(ie. cherry-picking information) and making a conclusion from these select pages(ie. original research).

Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture, page 382-383, "Many languages were spoken in Attila's kingdom. His "Scythian" subjects were "swept together from many nations". They spoke, wrote Priscus, "besides their own barbarian tongues, either Hunnish, or Gothic, or, as many have dealing with the Western Romans, Latin; but not one of them easily speaks Greek, except captives from the Thracian or Illyrian frontier regions". We must be prepared to meet among th names borne by Huns Germanic, Latin and (as a result of the long and close contact with the Alans) also Iranian names. Attempts to force all Hunnic names into one linguistic group are a priori doomed to failure."

Maenchen-Helfen, page 386, "Attila is from Gothic or Gepidic"; page 388, "Bleda is Germanic"; page 388, "Laudaricus is Germanic"; page 388-389, "Oneges appears to be Hunigis. Hun- in East Germanic", page 389, "Ragnaris is a Germanic name."; pages 390-392 mentions names of Iranic origin... "

Also, I see nothing on that website to support your statement, "points out that the core and original ruling elite of the Huns had predominantly Turkic names". Since I have shown above that Maenchen-Helfen states Attila is from Gothic or Gepidic. Along with other Huns whose names were Germanic, not to mention the other names on pages 390-392 that are listed and are stated to be Iranic. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kansas Bear, rather than editwarring we need this cherrypicking removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Mongoloid"

(The following was copied from Talk:Attila) The section "Appearance and character" (apparently misnamed, as it only discusses his appearance) uses the word "Mongoloid". I thought that term was pretty derogatory; the only other places I've heard it used were in an old encyclopedia classifying the races of the world and as another word for Down's Syndrome. If it really is a slur, we should remove it or qualify it (so-called "Mongoloid" traits). Does anyone else know if it's a current term in anthropology? Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is referenced to (one) secondary source, but it goes beyond the available primary sources and it hints at pseudoscientific racism; other secondary sources more cautiously just use the comments made by the primary source. I have removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If the term Mongoloid is so offensive than I suggest someone delete this wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid ( Yes " Mongoloid " wiki page which had existed since 2005 ) including removing that term that had been edited in hundreds ( possibly thousand ) of wikipedia pages since the beginning of wikipedia. I honestly don't see what's so offensive about this " Mongoloid " term. Being part Hungarian and 1/4 Chinese myself ( I look nothing like Asian by the way). Many historians have already acknowledged the description of Attila as being Asian ( in other word " Mongoloid " ) this ain't just based on the fact that Romans had described these invaders with a totally different appearance to theirs but is is also evidently backed by our Hungarian anthropologists aswell which proved Huns were from two races: Mongoloid and Turanid ( predominately Caucasoid with Mongoloid admixture )

Anthropology[edit]

Hungarian archaeologist István Bóna argues that most of Europeans Huns were of Caucasoid and that less than 20-25% were of Mongoloid stock.[47]

Turanid was most common among the Hun, ::According to the Hungarian anthropologist Pál Lipták (1955) the Turanid type is a Caucasoid type with significant Mongoloid admixture, arising from the mixture of the Andronovo type of Europoid features and the Oriental (Mongoloid).'

[48] Eickstedt's concept on this race as a variety of the Turanid type, transitional between the Europeoid and Mongoloid.[49]--Spiritclaymore (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, and nobody would argue that people from different parts of the world do tend to look different and have identifiably different though slight genetic differences - especially out of Africa, we're a very homogeneous species. However, the kind of firm racial divisions (that Bóna and Eickstedt appear to have used several decades ago) are not scientifically supportable and they are strongly identified with pseudoscientific racism. On the specific issue of references for an "Asian" interpretation of Attila's appearance, Wolfram from 1990 is a suitably reliable source and uses acceptable language. Magill is a tertiary source, from 1998 and quite possibly uses Wolfram's comment as a basis. I'd suggest keeping it short, using some form of words like "At least one modern scholar has suggested that this description confirms Attila's Asian origin" and just using Wolfram as a reference.

Other pages need discussion elsewhere, but I don't think that we should be using decades-old sources that I can't check and which can only have been using outdated and dubious methods (modern DNA testing wasn't available then and craniometry is dubious for several reasons). I'll consider the Huns page. The Mongoloid page is remarkable, the final sentence of the lede is almost all that saves it from being a catalogue of pseudoscientific racism. I'm not sure if I feel brave enough to tackle it, but thanks for drawing it to my attention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source directly linking grave DNA to a Xiongnu origin.

There is no scientific racism at all since they even admitted the majority of Huns were Turanid, Caucasoid with minority being Mongoloid. One would think that majority of Huns should have been Mongoloid instead based on the description given by Romans which described them like a Alien race but this could be due to variety of reasons, maybe Mongoloid Hun were at one time more significant before absorbing the majority conquered population. A minority of Huns were indeed Mongoloid but most Huns were still Caucasoid and Caucasoid-Mongoloid admixture. We also have recent facial reconstruction of Huns showing strong Mongoloid features in our Museum which proves Bóna and Eickstedt were scientifically supportable. Not just Hungarian anthropologist but even Russians had discovered Huns with Mongoloid skulls and Euro-Mongoloid skulls which isn't surprising since they came from South Siberia/Central Asia. Hungary had also made a documentary of Huns in our history channel using anthropology evidence and claimed most of the skulls were found to be Caucasoid and part Caucasoid. The only problem is we can't decide for sure who were the original Huns although Russian claimed original Huns were Mongoloid aswell as some Hungarian historian who believed Huns were originally Mongoloid and claimed the discovery of Caucasoid Huns were results of incorporating Alan soldiers (after having conquered from Volga region and North Caucasus region)long before they even invaded Europe and settled in Hungary. Many agreed that Germans and Alans would make the majority of Hunnic army. But regardless of which race was the original Hun all I know Attila was described as Mongoloid from the description and was the ruling core and the discovery of Mongoloid skulls of Huns from Hungary to Volga region supports this fact.

Here were some modern reconstruction of Huns

A Hun women

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kMnXiF51Ni8/UPbvQjOYkNI/AAAAAAAAGMM/B3ucKgm1hQ4/s1600/hunnin.jpg

Skull elongation of Hun man and child

http://i49.tinypic.com/2wrde9l.jpg -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC).

I'm sorry not to have made myself clear. Classifying people into defined races is pseudoscientific racism. Classifying people in this way from skulls is dubious for several reasons. First, because I can't check the references to see what they did or how well they did it. And a facial reconstruction, even by a museum, is not a reliable source by itself. Second, especially with skulls that have become distorted in the ground, it's very easy to make measurements that confirm whatever the measurer was hoping to find, particularly relevant to someone like von Eickstedt who seems to have spent his entire professional career desperately trying to classify skulls into "races". Third, back to the point about references, identifying any particular skull as that of a Hun requires evidence. I note for example that the title of Lipták's work indicates that he thinks he's talking about Avar skulls rather than Attila-period skulls. I propose to copy this debate to Talk:Huns, where we may profitably continue it, but in the meantime I propose to make the edit that I suggested above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think most people don't see it as pseudoscientific racism because if they were than why do all wiki pages allows it? Also one can easily say every skulls is distorted including the Scythians and Vikings not just Hun. He was definately talking about the Hunnic skulls from Attila period, those pictures of Huns I shown you were from Attila's time with more advance reconstruction. I can find you plenty of book sources. Mongoloid skulls and Mongoloid-Caucasoid appeared in Hungary since the 5th century long before the appearance of Mongoloid skulls in the 7th century by the Avars. The Mongoloid skulls from the 10th century in Hungary are attributed to Avars however. " Thanks to Pál Lipták's researches it has been known for almost half a century that only 16.7 percent of 10th century human bones belong to the Euro-Mongoloid and Mongoloid types.[62][63] "

THERE IS NOT ONLY ANTHROPOLOGY EVIDENCE BUT GENETIC EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP

A Mongoloid genetic marker of Huns in Hungary could very well be haplogroup Q. You can find in book sources and even genetic articles about this claim. This could be a link that proves the Huns of Europe were descendants from the Xiongnu Huns due to the fact the excavation showed they carried a great number of appreciable frequencies of Y-DNA Q.

Haplogroup Q reachest highest frequencies in Hungarians in the Balkans at 3% and sometimes 2.5% however is 2x higher in some villages although still small.

Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism and the New Age books.google.co.uk David Livingstone - ‎2013 -

" One hypothesis is that Q came to Europe with the Huns in the fifth century "

A genetic article on Hungarian Y-DNA frequencies.

" Ornella Semino, Giuseppe Passarino, Lluís Quintana-Murci, Aiping Liu, Judit Béres, Andreas Czeizel, and A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti. "MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool." European Journal of Human Genetics 8 (2000): pages 339-346. This particular study's Hungarian samples carried the R1a Y-DNA haplogroup at a frequency of 60 percent. Abstract: "

" There are some Hungarian villages where the inhabitants possess small frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups from Central Asia and Northern Asia such as those in the N, Q, and C families. " ( C is heavily related with Mongols, N with Uralic people, Q is related with Siberian Turks and Turkmen Oghuz Turks, the Huns were believe to have spoke Oghuz Turks this seems like a strong link) -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Above copied from Talk:Attila. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of pseudoscientific racism, Wikipedia is not censored. There is a large amount of literature on all sorts of dodgy subjects, for example racism, and we report it accordingly. We don't however use dodgy literature to make Wikipedia points. In Racism we use this scientifically-rubbish picture

Drawings from Josiah C. Nott and George Gliddon's Indigenous races of the earth (1857), which suggested black people ranked between white people and chimpanzees in terms of intelligence.

to illustrate the subject of racism, but not as a basis for racist claims in Wikipedia's voice. Now, that picture is a particularly blatant example of racist rubbish, but there is a large literature which is of poor scientific quality and purports to trace the racial ancestors of various modern groups. We should use it only with great care. Accounts of the skull shapes of Avars, for example, really aren't suitable for inclusion on this page. Craniometry has been used for over a century and its literature is heavily contaminated with racist assumptions and other forms of wishful thinking. We should use craniometric studies in Wikipedia only if they review the literature on the specific point to be referenced, selectively use only articles of particularly good quality, and come to careful conclusions that their methods can transparently support. von Eickstedt's "concepts" do not meet this criterion, nor do István Bóna's comments, nor do museum displays. Although modern genetic analysis is probably a much better way of tracing ancestries than craniometry ever was, we should avoid using primary literature on the subject.

Now, following Kim's speculations, I don't have any trouble suspecting that a group calling themselves something like "Huns" spent centuries making their way west and south across Eurasia, assimilating cultures and genes as they went, and finally ended up in Europe. If you can find a really good-quality reference telling us what Attila's people really looked like, that would be great, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of them might look to a Roman as if they'd come from quite a long way east. But we would need really good-quality references, and so far none have been presented. Until we get them, the Anthropology section should be removed or at least greatly abbreviated. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just keep the anthropological source but at the same time claim " Archeological finds in the Huns tomb remains controversial " ?. Even if it was a poor scientific quality like you claimed is still the only thing we have. Besides Pak Liptak in 80's had further improved the method of anthropotaxonomical differential diagnosis for Europids and Mongolids. He acknowledge that there are deformed Hunnic skulls mistaken for being euro-mongoloid but also unmistkably claimed that it's undeniable that there were Mongoloid and euro-mongoloid with no sign of deformation. It is our finest work of Hungarian of Huns we had exhamined. I think that should be given more credit. Please read more on Turanid race-- Spiritclaymore (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2014 (UT

No, I've reverted you. This really doesn't belong in this article. It's obsolete and poor scientific quality. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is who are you guys to claim this is obsolete and poor scientific quality? is there even a source for such a claim? it had been in edited in the article for nearly 7 months now all of sudden it's getting removed. If you think this it's poor science quality than edit it in the wikipedia however let's not try to be indenial by not mentioning the existence of anthropology data on Huns like it never existed Spiritclaymore (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

Linguistic debate around common word link with

Here is another contribution to the discussion on:

"Conclusion

The present study has identified ten Hungarian and Yeniseian shared etymologies that belong to the basic vocabulary, and observes that a regular sound change can be stated in three Hungarian and Yeniseian shared etymologies. The regular sound change validates the etymological connection between Hungarian and Yeniseian. The Hungarian and Yeniseian shared etymologies support a Hunnic continuity that includes the historical Xiongnu, the Huns, the Hunnic substratum of Hungarian, and the attested Yeniseian languages"

Discussion of source and merits of research

As noted, not all sources stand the test of time and given the comparative controversy of the origin of the Hunnic peoples and modern day nationalism on the subject there is far from consensus on the subject. As noted in the ligustic debate, this scientific community, the anthropologists, historians and anthro-geneticists have often conflicting answers to both the origin and composition of the people the Romans referred to and Huns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Swed (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to clean up header section

This section part of the current header should probably be merged with the Origins section as it does not fit the current structure:Erik the Swed (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"In the 18th century, the French scholar Joseph de Guignes became the first to propose a link between the Huns and the Xiongnu people, who were northern neighbours of China in the 3rd century BC.[3] Since Guignes' time, considerable scholarly effort has been devoted to investigating such a connection. However, there is no scholarly consensus on a direct connection between the dominant element of the Xiongnu and that of the Huns.[4] Priscus, a 5th-century Roman diplomat and Greek historian, mentions that the Huns had a language of their own; little of it has survived and its relationships have been the subject of debate for centuries. "

This seems over specific and is redundant by origin section. Perhaps a lead into the hunnic language page explaining the diversity of the word use.Erik the Swed (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Further more information to help a reader understand the common use or misuse of the description of 'Hun' would be handy.Erik the Swed (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed modification of Evidence against the link with Xiongnu section

The specific information in conflict " The Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation, while there is no evidence of such practice among the Xiongnu.[15]" However Cranial vault modification as a cultural artifact: a comparison of the Eurasian steppes and the Andes Original Research Article HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology, Volume 56, Issue 1, 2 May 2005, Pages 1-16) directly contradicts Specifically noting that the Hunnic peoples of cranial deformation spread from North China to to the Central asian and beyond in around the 1 century CE.Erik the Swed (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

From the journal: After AD 200, circular deformation appeared and spread quickly throughout the Eurasian steppes (Fig. 4), eventually becoming the dominant form, replacing occipital modification. Much research has been devoted to circular modification (Khodjaiov 1966; Ginzburg & Trofimova 1972; Tur 1996). Its appearance is probably connected to encounters with the Huns who practiced a pronounced form of circular modification at a very high rate. The Huns traveled from north China to the Central Asian steppes and subsequently to the southern Russian steppes. Circular modification appeared for the first time in Central Asia in the last centuries BC as an ethnic attribute of the early Huns. The peoples of the southern Russian steppes had not practiced cranial modification during the early Iron Age until the appearance of the Huns.

During the first centuries AD, after the Hun invasion of Eurasia, circular forms of modification spread throughout the steppe from the Ural Mountains up to theDanube River. This distribution parallels the movement of the Huns. Nearly 80% of the steppe population, which consisted of nomadic societies of different ethnicities, came to shape their heads in the same manner soon after the Hun expansion (Tot & Firshtein 1976). People, irrespective of their own genetic origin and local customs, wanted and tried to be similar to the conquerors

This new information switches circular deformation to support the link with Xiongnu.Erik the Swed (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources: Nonmetric cranial variation in human skeletal remains from the Armenian Highland: microevolutionary relations and an intergroup analysis - Anahit Y. Khudaverdyan Erik the Swed (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Jordanes

I removed some recent attempts to add material regarding Jordanes's comparison of the Huns with the Alans, at first because of copyright violations, and later because the material appeared WP:UNDUE and redundant. Jordanes's description is given earlier. This article is not about the Alans, and the article makes no attempt to identify them with the Alans -- pointing out that Jordanes said they are different is unnecessary at that point.

Searching for just "Jordanes Alans Huns" in Google Books, Jordanes's comparison between the two rarely comes up. Overemphasis of the distinction sounds way too much like there's something else that's being argued. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Huns -> Bulgars -> Utrigurs -> Yuezhi

Traditionally historians associate Bulgars and their ruling dynasty of Dulo with the Huns, and some scholars equate the Bulgars with the Huns. Most Roman, Greek and later Byzantium historians (as Jordanes, Priscus, Procopius, Agathias, Menander, Theophylact) refer to Bulgars and Huns indiscriminately to describe the same people. The European Huns that entered Europe in the 4th century AD, were grouped into four major tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Akatziroi and Sabirs. Procopius first reported that Utigurs and Kutrigurs were the two key tribes who created the Union of the Huns in the fourth century. On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled and his people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and they retreated from Pannonia (modern day Hungary) westward into the territories of modern day Ukraine. One of these tribes, the Utigurs Huns, was soon to be known as the Bulgars. It was in 482, some thirty years after Attila’s death, that the Bulgars first appear by name. Already in 1772, the German historian August Schloetzer identified the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs with Bulgarians. In 1918 a Bulgarian scientist Vasil Zlatarski investigated late ancient evidence of post-Attila Kutrigurs and Utigurs and considered that under the name Utigurs in late antique chronicles lies the original Bulgarian ethnic substrate. The Utigurs formed the nucleus of 680s’ Asparuh Bulgarian state, to which the Kutrigurs joined in the beginning of 9th century AD and as a result the ninth century Bulgaria became one of the great militarist powers of Europe. Many European scientists as George Vernadsky, Steven Runciman, J. B. Bury, J. Marquart and Musset considered that Irnik from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans is the third son of Attila, Ernak.

Usually it is assumed that European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from Xiongnu. A hypothesis that is wrong because it can't explain several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:

1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars and Dulo) were Xiongnu:

   Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and 
   ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu.  
   
   Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the 
   continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu.

The taxonomic analysis of the artificially deformed crania from 5th–6th Century AD (Hun-Germanic Period) found in Northeastern Hungary showed that none of them have any Mongoloid features and all the skulls belong to the Europid "great race" but further identification was impossible.

2. There is no convincing evidence that the language was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (Pritsak), indeed, some of them seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive. Some researchers think that Huns and proto-Bulgarians spoke language different from all other "barbarian" languages.

3. There are academic sources stating the connections: Vokil->Yuezhi, Utrigurs-> Yuezhi According to Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank the Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti. According to Maenchen-Helfen some of Yuezhi 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.

4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.

5. European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.

6. The genetic tests from a reliable scientific source clearly state:

   A) a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian
   people  
   B) paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Central Asian
   Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible  

Encyclopedia Britanica do states this information.

7. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there. Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of Dulo- Upsilon "|Y|".

8 The so called evidence about the similarity between Hunnic and Xiongnu cauldrons can be very easily assigned to the Yuezhi because they originated from the Ordos region in North China. Similar bronze cast cauldrons were used also by Sarmatian tribes from the lake Aral area. Also there is evidence that the recurve bow was brought to Bactria by Yuezhi.

9 The Huns, Bulgars and part of the Yuezhi share some common burial practices as the narrow burial pits, pits with a niche and the northern orientation of the burials.

10 The clothes of the Yuezhi depicted on Bactrian Embroidery are almost identical to the traditional Bulgarian costumes made nowadays.

Summing all these 9 points and taking them together, the conclusion is obvious and inevitable:

   European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European   
   population from northern China and particularly from the people known to
   the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to
   Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially   
   Turkic and Iranian groups.

This information is presented in this book: http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga AtStamatov/Drevnite baalgari.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop pushing here your original research and pseudoscience about that unexisting relations. 212.5.158.4 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) The usual accusation here on Wikipedia when you don't have effective counterarguments. 188.254.217.159 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate anthropology data

There is obviously cherry picked bias data on wikipedia. Either remove it or stop being otherwise you might as well claim that the Huns were Yuezhi or some iranian people. The anthropology data edited by 93.152.143.113 ( you need sign up to see the data )

The taxonomic analysis of the artificially deformed crania from 5th–6th Century AD (Hun-Germanic Period) found in Northeastern Hungary showed that none of them have any Mongoloid features and all the skulls belong to the Europid "great race".[34]

However from the very same source of medscape it mentions in page 2 and 4, it mentions they have problem assigning these graves and skeletons as Huns. https://login.medscape.com/login/sso/getlogin?urlCache=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tZWRzY2FwZS5jb20vdmlld2FydGljbGUvODIzMTM0XzI=&ac=401

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823134_4

Archaeologists have problems assigning graves and skeletons to the Huns for several reasons. The origin and the culture of the peoples who lived in the Carpathian Basin in the Hun-Germanic Period (5th–6th century ad), are still a matter of debate. However, it has been pointed out that the custom of artificial cranial deformation appeared with all these peoples; that is, with the Sarmatian, Alan, Gothic, Gepidic, and Hun populations equally.[39]

An than user 93.152.143.113 included data from " Otto Maenchen-Helfen. E. A. Thompson, which has nothing to do with the medscape study at all.

Also why was this data removed, it was on the Huns wiki page for at least a 1 year. It at least deserves a mention. At least list on the reason why there not realible.

Hungarian archaeologist István Bóna argues that most of Europeans Huns were of Caucasoid and that less than 20-25% were of Mongoloid stock. Turanid was most common among the Hun, According to the Hungarian anhtropologist Pál Lipták (1955) the Turanid type is a Caucasoid type with significant Mongoloid admixture, arising from the mixture of the Andronovo type of Europoid features and the Oriental (Mongoloid). Cheboksarov noted that typical Mongoloids of "Central Asiatic type, " with a large, flat face, a great morphological facial height, and a wide bizygomatic breadth, were unknown in Europe until the appearance of "steppe nomads in the fourth century A.D., "i.e., the very same Huns . The Mongoloid character of the anthropological type of the Huns, who penetrated Europe in the fourth century is also confirmed by the historical sources." -Lev Vasil´evich Oshanin, Henry Field, "Anthropological composition of the population of Central Asia: and the ethnogenesis of its peoples", Peabody Museum, 1964. Page 18

(talk) 86.138.237.156 17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What you should understand is that there are many papers on the anthropology of the (European) Huns. This particular paper is included because it is resent and more recent studies clearly show that mongoloid admixture was low, compared to the studies before 50 years. That's way percentages as 20-25 today are seen as unacceptable. I would safely state that it was below 10 %. Also stating in the article that these crania might have been Germanic is not very important, what is important here is the fact that they were not Mongoloid. They might as well be Russian. The authors clearly state that further identification is impossible. Hence your point that the anthropological data is inaccurate is not true. And you don't need scientific papers to reach to this conclusion - tribes that were able to stand military against the Roman Empire must have been of considerable size. If they were Mongoloids, then south-eastern Europeans should look like Mongolians, at least partially. Which obviously is not true. 188.254.217.159 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And what do you have against Yuezhi or Iranian people? Do you have some real reason why European Huns cannot be Yuezhi or Iranian nomads? How will you explain all 9 points in the previous section (Utigurs-> Yuezhi) on this talk page?188.254.217.159 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

1) You're absolutely wrong. All the anthropology study they had done on Huns so far and none of them can surely attributed to true Huns. Even the Mongoloid skulls they claim to have found during 1950's in Hungary, even than they can't be surely attributed to Huns.

2 ) I also don't believe Yuezhi were European Huns. In Chinese records, it described the Yuezhi, Iranian people the as physically tall stature, blue eyes, brown hair, big eyes, long nose, hairy and yes they did artificial deforming like the European Huns but the Huns were described by the Romans as being short stature, hairless, swarthy, black hair, small eyes, flat nose, hairless, small hands, small feet. If they were the same why are they described the polar opposite of eachother? And mind you there Mongoloids from Kazakhstan, Mongolia, South Siberian who are tall, blue-green eye, red-blonde hair but look completely like Mongoloids. But surely the records would be referring to the Yuezhi Indo-European physical type of Xinjiang ( which was not part of China's land until it was incorporated in 1949 by Mao Zedond ) but the natives today are the Turkic Uyghurs call it East Turkistan, and today many of these Uighur fit the physical description of Yuezhi.

3) There is no way puny invader of possibly 50,000 - 100,000 or more could have physically change a subjugated population of possibly 3,000,000 - 5,000,000 people. Even a 100,000 Huns invaders only a portion of them would be true Mongoloid Huns AND even among those Mongoloid Huns many would have been a hybrid of Mongoloid-Caucasoid not to mention when the Huns had conquered Europe it included a large portion of the conquered Alans who made a bulk of the Huns army. But for your even there there is genetic evidence in parts of Hungary especially in Hungarian villages. Found Mongoloid Y-DNA such as Q, C3, N but none of them can be surely attributed to the Huns. Could have been from Mongols, Magyars or other central Asian invaders.

(talk) 86.138.237.156 13:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.193.144 (talk)

References

Origin of the Huns

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. Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya(1980, 23) and Edgar Knobloch(2001, 15) identify Massagetae with the Great Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi -> Ta-Yue-ti(Great Lunar Race) -> Ta-Gweti -> Massa-Getae. Dahiya wrote about the Massagetae and Thyssagetae : "These Guti people had two divisions, the Ta-Yue-Che and Siao-Yue-Che, exactly corresponding to the Massagetae and Thyssagetae of Herodotus ... " (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, who are known as the Lesser Getae, correspond with the Xiao Yuezhi, meaning Lesser Yuezhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.110 (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors and WP:FRINGE theories, or through them manipulate with due and undue WP:WEIGHT of major and very minor viewpoints, are not welcome on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Crovata. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References

The use of Talk pages

Dear Anon, please try to properly use this page. Talk pages are not the proper places to create an article. You may want to use the WP:sandbox. Borsoka (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is held a discussion regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring by several IPs these days (see Talk:Kutrigurs, Talk:Sandilch, Talk:Zabergan). --Crovata (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

Due to the article and talk pages are protected, there is a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Tacitus about something in the article. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article?

The article's title suggests that the article is about the Huns, and not about other peoples who were or may have been or claim to be connected to them. Of course, all relevant theories should be mentioned in the article, but there are articles dedicated to the Utigurs, Xiungnu, etc. I think, we do not need to write about the Huns' (alleged or actual) successors when writing about their origin. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Shallow argument to destroy the structure of the article (Origin- Modern ethnogenesis interpretation - Traditional Xiongnu theory - Evidence against the link with Xiongnu). Strong evidence is provided against the link with Xiongnu and you simply want to delete the information because you don't like it but do not have any counterarguments. 130.204.142.213 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do not care whether Huns and Xiongnu were connected or not. Would you be more specific? What pieces of important (and verified) information were deleted? Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit removed a large amount of material which is already included elsewhere in the article, some very vague arguments from ignorance, and also some arguments (with RS) that do indicate some continuity between Huns and later peoples. I look forward to suggestions on this talk page for edits that use only the relevant parts of the material. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The edits by IP '130.204.142.213' and User:Epnax, like previously by IP '46.40.112.239', '188.254.217.159', and blocked IP '93.152.143.113' and User:PavelStaykov (in August 2015), have the same or almost the same behavior (way of speech, no signature etc.), use of sources and claims (see eg. noticeboard and talk1, talk2). The sources he cited were reviewed recently at Bulgars talk page. All IP address are located in Bulgaria. I think we're dealing with the same editor all this time.--Crovata (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Recently finished the article on Onogurs and Kutrigurs, the Utigurs will follow, but at the moment Epnax reverted the Kutrigurs article to previous revision Kutrigurs, as well those of the Huns and Zabergan, because he finds it, as usually, "Turkic Vandalism" and "Biased turko-nationalist propaganda".--Crovata (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no need of discussion, when you finish these articles, every single nomadic tribe/nation from Central Asia will be of Turkic origin. Probably this is normal, because you are Turk. What is not normal is your deleting of information that you don't like(under various false accusations) instead of simply adding what you want to say into the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epnax (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why you're so delusional? Why do you want to prove that Bulgars and other tribes were Huns, ie. stubbornly negate their Turkic heritage, negate modern scholarship and scholars who are specialists in the field. Why it affects you so much personally? How much longer will it take? Whether you see that all this has more to do with you than the article? --Crovata (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself the same. This section of the article was written before many years by someone else, I simply added a couple of books to support the information. You have deleted it without even thinking, do you realize how wrong is it to delete a whole section, supported by multiple sources, from such an important article as "Huns" ?Epnax (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Epnax, it would help if you would discuss your various points on this talk page, one by one, and gain consensus, before you put them into the main article. This article does suffer from a variety of ill-supported modern nationalist narratives, and it is semi-protected for a good reason. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect any discussion from Epnax, who is  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Crovata, thanks for the heads up, but try not to use words like "delusional" when responding to other users, even if you strongly suspect they are socks and even if they turn out to be socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge What's your current opinion, and do you have any questions? What sections should be primarly worked on?--Crovata (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Primarly you should delete every vestige that suggests Huns were not Turks. Someone can read them. But primarily you should study 451 F

As someone who speaks several Sinitic/Sinitic-influenced languages, I was really surprised to learn that the idea of the Huns and the Xiongnu being the same people is considered controversial at all. For your information, 'Xiongnu' is the contemporary Mandarin pronunciation, which is a relatively young language that tends to corrupt 'h' into 'x' and is far removed from older Sinitic languages. The word is pronounced with a 'h' in almost all other Sinitic/Sinitic-influenced languages, such as 'Hongno' in Cantonese, 'Hiungnu' in Hakka, and 'Hyongno' in Korean. In fact, the normal transliteration for the English term 'hun' would literally just *be* 'xiongnu', so Chinese has to forcibly drop the 'n' sound from the transliteration entirely and replace with the term for 'person', making 'Xiongnu'=匈奴 and 'Hun'=匈人 ('xiong-person'). So I guess I just really don't see how the similarity in names can be 'controversial' at all to be honest... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.182.6 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be generally agreed that the words "Hun" and "Xiongnu", and other variants, referred to prestigious groups of steppe nomads over a wide range of time and space but were probably all derived from the same origin. Not proven, but I don't see anyone argue against it. The problem comes when we try to identify a wide range of groups as the "same people." That concept, "same people", is very tricky. Does that mean that they all spoke the same language? Same dialect? Related languages? Had nobility who were actually related to each other? Or believed they were? Or were "the same people" as some modern ethnic / national group which can point to some degree of continuity with steppe nomads? Think of the Mughals? A "Persianate dynasty of Chagatai Turco-Mongol origin" - does that mean that Bahadur Shah II was a Persian, was a Turk, was a Mongol, while he wrote Urdu poetry? One feature doesn't make modern ethno-nationalist claims secure, and while people of the first millennium had their own identities and loyalties these weren't the identities of modern nations nor loyalties to modern ideas of nationalism. Caution and careful adherence to Wikipedia guidelines are required here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming of Huns by Tacitus

Added on behalf of BLebow4500, the request was listed above on RFPP and linked to by Tbhotch previously.

The article says that Tacitus refers to the Huns as the "Hunnoi", which dovetails nicely with the Chinese "Xiōngnú" and is a fact found all over the internet; however, according to [3], Tacitius refers to them as "Hunos." I do not know Latin, so perhaps "Hunnoi" is acceptable in some declension, but the claim in this article that Tacitus says "Hunnoi" does not have a citation. Can someone knowledgeable about Latin check this out? --BLebow4500 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have made the change. --BLebow4500 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hunos is the accusative plural. It makes more sense to mention the nominative, huni, though the usual Latin spelling was actually hunni.[4] --Macrakis (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for since I don't know any Latin. My concern, though, as I said, is that Tactitus didn't use that form, and "Huni" is misleadingly close to Xiongu given the reconstruction of Chinese. How about if Tacitus's actual form is provided in the lead paragraph and then an explanation provided below? --BLebow4500 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Borsoka changed the page, noting that my citation was a primary source not a secondary source. I undid that change with a request to discuss the issue on this talk page and then changed my citation to a secondary source. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We should not discuss any issues on this Talk page if we cannot verify that that issue is relevant for the subject of the article. Can you refer to a reliable source to verify your claim that Tacitus' text is relevant for the purposes of this article? Borsoka (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The internet is filled with pages claiming that Tacitus called the Huns "Hunnoi." My guess is that those claims come from this article which formerly made that claim without a citation, and I was merely trying to correct this misinformation. However, as to whether this information should have been in the article before I made my edit, I believe the citation is important as it is the earliest clear mention of the Huns and it should be worked into the history section. It is also information relevant to linking the Huns to the Xiongnu. See also wiktionary:匈 and wiktionary:奴 for reconstructions of the syllables. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I see that Borsoka has put question marks next to my claim that Tacitus is the first to mention the Huns. I have no problem with deleting the word "first." Is it possible to discuss the issues here on the talk page instead of having an edit war? --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, also, I'm confused about why my citation has attached to it the comment "non-primary source needed". I have listed a non-primary source. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct your above message means that you cannot refer to to a reliable source to verify that Tacitus' text is relevant for the purposes of this article. If this is the case why did you revert my edit here ([5])? Borsoka (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My only reason for reverting that edit was that it seemed to be starting an edit war when I had already asked if the issues could be discussed here. If my reversion was poor etiquette, I apologize. I'm confused about how to convince people to discuss the issues. I made my first edit only after posting to this talk page and waiting for about a week with no response, and my edit was followed by two people changing my edit without discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by "to verify that Tacitus' text is relevant for the purposes of this article". The mere fact that Tacitus mentions the Huns earlier than anyone else cited in this article seems adequately important. --BLebow4500 (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. I understand that you think that it is relevant, but you should verify this claim with proper references to at least one reliable source, written by a historian or scholar, who also thinks that Tacitus' text relevant for the history of the Huns. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. This article has a section on the history of the Huns and the fact that Tacitus talks about them, as mentioned in my secondary source, seems relevant to their history. --BLebow4500 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

However, "your" secondary source (Barnes) specifically states that Tacitus did not write of the Huns and it was only Orosius who identified Tacitus' Scythicae gentes from Tacitus' text with the Alans, Huns and Goths. That is why we should not carry out original research. Can you cite reliable sources to verify the results of your own original research? Borsoka (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up. Now I understand your point. I think this sentence should be deleted and should never have been in the article to begin with. --BLebow4500 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Name "hun" is one signification only for who understand their world. So delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.154.195 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Early Movement of Huns

The first paragraph states that the Huns moved from the Caspian Sea to the Caucasus Mountains in a SOUTHEASTERN direction. Since the Caucasus are WEST of the entire Caspian Sea, how is this description of the direction of movement possible? Shouldn't be a SOUTHWESTERN movement? Bsteel2000 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I Found The Flag

Hunnic Empire flag - as featured on 16 Great Turkic Empires!

The Info Box for the Hunnic Empire is missing its flag. It's flag is already uploaded and is in need of adding, but I can't add it!--99.157.108.186 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this is the right flag? Would need some solid research. A quick search on the internet doesn't show anything. Apparently "16 Great Turkish Empires" is a concept in Turkish ethnic nationalism, according to the WP page. --Cornellier (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometime, this kind of troll comments should not be even bothered to discuss. What a waste of talk page space.--Crovata (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well judging by Peter Golden and other scholars' research on the origin of the Turks, if the Turkish peoples did have a flag it certainly wouldn't have been an eagle. More likely a she-wolf. She-wolf foundation myths are common to several cultures.

The Horse Chamfron emblem from the D2 period Brut burial in Ukraine is perfectly fine for the page's image.

MMFA (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On the note of the Brut burial, the section on Hun warfare could use some updates. We have plenty of examples of Hun military equipment such as the Brut and Volnikovka burials, the Altlussheim Sword, amongst other finds. There are other examples too - several Helmets in a work by Christian Miks and I've heard of other Spathae, Burials, and Chainmail Fragments. Not to mention bows of the type found at Qum Darya and Niya. At least the Volnikovka paper includes a section in English. I even know of two finds of Lamellar armor fragments from the 4th Century that are probably Hun, although I can't read Russian.

MMFA (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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