This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The sources for the Huns worshipping Tengri seem somewhat suspect to me. One is a quote mentioning Tengri being worshipped by "the nomads of the steps" from the "6th and 9th centuries", while the other is about the Hungarians. Does anyone have any actual sources for the Huns worshipping Tengri? It strikes me as the sort of thing romantic nationalists would assume.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm commenting here in response to a request posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. The tl;dr (or short) version of the answer to the question "What was the religion of the Huns" is we don't know for sure.
From what I remember of my reading of Jordanes & Ammianus Marcellinus -- who are our best primary sources for the Huns of the Attila's time -- neither discusses the religion of the Huns. Marcellinus is more interested in their military skills & horsemanship. The article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that little is known of their culture or religion. The German Wikipedia cites Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns to state the Huns practiced shamanism. I don't have ready access to the other standard reference on the Huns -- E. A. Thompson, The Huns -- so I don't know what he says on the matter.
Possible answers would be some form of paganism, shamanism, Tengrism, & even a variant of Christianity! (The other barbarians along the Roman frontier, such as the Goths & the Vandals, embraced Arian Christianity, so it is possible Attila & his followers were also Arian Christians.) Most likely would be a mixture of these beliefs, since the Hunnic alliance comprised many different ethnic groups, who were more interested in military might & not religious homogeneity.
What I would write on the topic is (1) emphasize our lack of information on the topic; (2) state what the experts say, explicitly accredited in the text to each author (e.g. "Maenchen-Helfen believes the Huns practiced shamanism"). -- llywrch ( talk) 23:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The current section on legends is not very good. I've started putting together a new version in sandbox that anyone is welcome to contribute to, particularly anyone who knows about non-Germanic legends about the Huns. I'm going to go ask over at WikiProject Norse history and culture for any help anyone might provide as well.
Anyway, the various chronicle also need to be removed, unless there is some particular legendary information being conveyed (Hungarian descent from the Huns, for instance). Also, the section on Widsith is much too long - the poem mentions the Huns in literally a single line! I'd cut it down to a single sentence, if that, given that all it mentions is that Attila ruled the Huns, which is not exactly legendary information. A bare mention ought to suffice, really.
Is there consensus for changes along these lines?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've tweaked it some more, also added a bit on Christian legends since the current article only mentions the notion of Peter and Paul appearing to Attila with a painting. I'm not sure if I should put it before or after the Germanic material. I'm waiting for another source so I can characterize the Huns in the Germanic legends more fully.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we shouldn't move the "claims of descent" section into the legends section. I intend to add at least a bit about the Hungarian legends about the Huns, and the main one is of course that the Hungarians (or Szekely) ARE the Huns.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The language section appears to be pushing the view that the Huns were Turkic speakers, even making it look like skeptics doubt despite a preponderance of evidence. While there is a signicant community of scholars who argue that the Huns spoke a Turkic language, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about it. I've already removed a fringe source from the section, and, upon checking another reference giving to back up the idea that "many scholars" believe the Huns spoke Turkic, I actually found that the source was stating exactly the opposite:
Similarly, the Peter Heather quote currently found in the section is truncated. In full it reads: "Opinions differ even over their linguistic affiliation, but the best guess would seem to be that the Huns were the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into Europe"
I suspect that a certain amount of Turkish nationalism is playing a role in this POV being pushed in the article. Regardless of why its taken place, this section needs to be rewritten so as to balance the leading theory of linguistic affiliation, which is that the Huns spoke Turkic or some related language, with the fact that many scholars are highly skeptical of assigning any language to the Huns.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've put together a draft of a new version in my sandbox. I went ahead and moved the next version to the main article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
These two sections seem extremely long to me at the moment - as far as "origins" is concerned, I suspect that's because its been added to over time without any reorganization. Accordingly, I'd like to propose compacting the section down a bit. For the history section, we might consider making a separate "History of the Huns" article and shortening the version here. The section about the Huns before Attila seems particularly long.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to start a draft of a new version of the "Origins" section, which I will rename to "Origins and relationship to other groups called Huns"; this second part is currently not addressed anywhere in the article but is hinted at repeatedly through references to the Hephthalites, Caucasian Huns, Huna, etc. I think both issues can be tackled much more briefly than the current section. A more extensive version could be included in a "History of the Huns" article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've put together a first draft in my sandbox. I don't think it needs to be much longer than that, otherwise it gets very technical for this article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
About the recent addition:
However, there is no genetic or linguistic evidence supporting the theory of a Hun connection; instead the evidence clearly substantiates a Finno-Ugrian (Magyar) origin of the Hungarian people.
...now I noticed -, it does not raise any accuracy, on the contrary, I checked both of the sources and such in this form as such is not stated; or cannot be even consecutively deducted.
Btw, for the first part of the statement, I just randomly found in a first place this source ( [1]) (the title should not confuse anybody, better the content is interesting, reinforced by another reliable source)...
However, the second part of the sentence is completely confusing, since what is immediately well-known even among ordinary people that genetically there is not any releavant relation between Hungarians and Finno-Ugrian speaking people, and the given source's abstract also pinpointing that, and based on 4 ancient remains - two of them - they want to make a general deduction, that has to be taken very carefully. Majority of the genetic studies did not reinforce any genetic connection (plenty of genetic research was made on the landtaking Hungarians, none reinforcing anything "Finno-Ugrian" (that is anyway a language family, nothing more)), since Hungarians were proven partially in a little amount relevant South-Asian markers, but not any case North-Asian.
Moreover, putting together "Finno Ugrian (Magyar)" has the same problem, since Finno-Ugrian is a language family, while Magyar is name of a language and an ethnicity, that cannot be made equal by any means of a language family.
The sentence has to be rephrased, if it is stated there is no genetic evidence for Hun connection, the same is true for the Finno-Ugrian connection (if not twice as much), since the great problem, of the researchers are that the obsolete theory not just genetically cannot be confirmed properly, but even as language family is problematic, as there is no confirmation for any proto-Finno-Ugrian common language.
Consequently, this addition should better be abadoned, or if rephrased, then pinpoint that regarding genetics neither the Hun or Finno-Ugrian genetic connection has any convincing evidence or confirmation, while linguistics is something else, we don't have enough info on the languge on the Huns, while officially the Finno-Ugrian theory suggest a linguistic connection between Hungarian and Finno-Ugrian languages.( KIENGIR ( talk) 15:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
It looks like pseudo science to me. The vocab used is the same as on various nationalist websites or by nationalist academics affiliated with Jobbik, as are the arguments. Anyway peer reviewed studies are always going to trump unpublished dissertations. Ermenrich ( talk) 12:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The only sources that anyone should be using are secondary sources as defined in WP:MEDRS, this means that on the subject of genetics, a peer-reviewed source is not considered reliable enough to be used. Instead content should be sourced using review articles. For more on this please check WP:SCIRS and this RfC and close. This obviously affects the discussion here. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 15:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. The paper on Hun DNA is "Y chromosomes of ancient Hunnu people and its implication on the phylogeny of East Asian linguistic families" by L.L. Kang et al. which is technically on Xiongnu DNA but the Hun-Xiongnu connection is actually pretty widely accepted again (it was only really ever argued against by Maenchen-Helfen in his 1948 paper and after Atwood's re-analysis has been widely shown to be likely again). Anyways my point is that Hun skeletons explicitly express the Q-M242 (Q1a3a) marker because of their relationship to the Yeniseian-speaking groups of the Minusinsk Basin. So maybe it doesn't belong in the Hun page since it deals more with Xiongnu-era Huns, but there's virtually no expression of Q-M242 among Hungarian DNA. Hungarians express R1a1a-M17 which is West Slavic and Haplogroup M, while only Szekelers express Haplogroup P, which puts their origin somewhere north of the Pontic and Caspian seas. Furthermore only Szekelers have Haplogroup N1 which is also found in Magyar genomes. 2.2% of Hungarians and 4.7% of Szekelers possess Haplogroup Q (Turkic), but only 0.2% express Q-M242 (East European average is 1.7% Q-M242). Sources: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x; http://loca.fudan.edu.cn/lh/Doc/A104.pdf; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17585514&dopt=Abstract; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947100/ MMFA ( talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Would there be consensus for creating a separate History of the Huns article? At the moment the history section is much too detailed, whereas many important aspects of the Huns (art and material culture, even their general perception after antiquity) are not addressed. I would suggest moving the detailed history to a new article, where it could even be expanded if anyone wants to. A more detailed analysis of their possible history between the end of the Xiongnu and the first recorded appearance of the Huns in Europe could also take place there. We could then cut down the history section here considerably without any loss of content for Wikipedia.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 17:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to move the question of racial affiliation, which is sort of danced around in the "appearance" section now, to my origins draft. Appearance doesn't really have anything to do with "Society and Culture".-- Ermenrich ( talk) 21:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I've started working on the draft of a new history of the Huns article in my sandbox. Obviously it will mostly just be material from here, but we could consider adding to it, with things such as "Role in the Fall of the Western Roman Empire" etc. We could also include a more detailed analysis of the Hun-Xiongnu-Hephthalite relationship, though maybe that should go in a separate "Origins of the Huns" article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm hard at work on the new History of the Huns if anyone wants to help out. It's made me aware that the current history section here (which I've reduced) is not in very good shape actually.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
National-romantic historiography, in general, seem to portray the Huns as foreign invaders from central Asia, whereas research, particularly in linguistics, contradicts this notion. It is of course difficult to assert that the Huns spoke a proto-Hungarian language, but if so, it seems clear that the Finno-ugric peoples are more aboriginal to Europe than the peoples associated with Germanic languages. Paradoxically the latter, pertaining to the Indo-European languages, seem more probable coming from central Asia than the other way around. The Huns may be identical to what Jordanes call the Antes (people), meaning the peoples that came before us. The Roman historian Jordanes speak from a native Gothic perspecive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xactnorge ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is currently cited in the article: http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0409.pdf
The journal, which only exists online, is based out of China and appears to be pushing fringe views. For instance "German researchers branded traditions of the Magyars, which present the Scythians and the Huns as their ancestors, as fairy tales. These German scholars did not accept the oral traditions of other peoples either. Instead of taking these traditions as the starting point of research, they started to develop theories on the basis of “linguistic” similarities" (p. 158); "From earlier studies, we also have much evidence in order to support the claims of Hungarian researchers that the Magyars are also descendants of the Huns" (p. 160); and the crown jewel:
Accordingly, I'm removing the citation and the information it contains.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 21:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
IS there no consensus? It seems to me that the consensus now is that they are connected. Can anyone show evidence of anyone questioning it post Sinor 1990? If not, I think we ought to change the article to reflect that, while still noting that some scholars have raised doubts. As I've mentioned above, I think a separate article to examine this question is warrented, which I will try to start once I get through the History of the Huns and fix the history section here.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The word "pony" is misspelt in the Huns article, but it's not letting me edit it.
Would there be consensus for integrating the current section "claims of Hunnish descent" into "legends", or else rewriting it so that the development of the legend is clearer and the section is better sourced? I can put something together in my sandbox.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've begun work at my sandbox on a reworking of the section. Please feel free to help! I'm having a lot of trouble finding good sources, unfortunately, so I'm happy for any help in that respect, particularly concerning the Szekelys. I know Simon of Keza is the one to make the claim they are the surviving Huns after the battle of Crimhild, but I can't find a reliable source.
Also, does anyone know what "Egyed 2013" is? It's currently cited in short footnote format but the long form is missing from the article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) which I suspect is what is being cited here. —
Frayæ (
Talk/
Spjall) 18:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)I have been reading this; — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 23:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Behind the attack on the Finno-Ugric origin lay nationalist pride: the image of famous warrior ancestors, whom the whole civilised Western world had feared, was certainly more appealing to the public than the idea of ‘fish-smelling relatives’.
Hence the public interest in the imaginary affiliation with the splendid eastern Turks born for ruling, and also the governmental support of Asian expeditions (see Ko´sa, 1989a, p. 110). Hunfalvy bitterly admitted that he had been often accused of being unpatriotic for marrying the Magyars, ‘grandchildren of the famous Huns’, with such a ‘good for-nothing people’ (Domokos & Pala´di-Kova´cs, 1986).
The war however ended with Finno-Ugric victory: Hunfalvy and Budenz proved the Finno-Ugric origin of the Hungarian language. Believing that for the social scientist issues pertaining to national and ethno-history were primarily not emotional, but scientific questions, Hunfalvy destroyed several national myths rooted in romantic historiography, such as the Hunnish-Magyar affinity, or the Hunnish descent of the Szeklers in Transylvania (Domokos & Pala´di-Kova´cs, 1986).
And in this, The Deeds of the Hungarians or The Gesta Hungarorum is covered in depth, along with Simon of Kéza. The article also cites;
As an authority. Theres about 3000 words on the subject so I won't copy it here. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 00:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and replaced the current text with my new version. If anyone could find some better images though? There's a statue ot Attila at Heroes Square in Budapest, for instance, as well as some 19th-c. paintings conflating Hungarian and Hunnish history. Ermenrich ( talk) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I was born in Budapest, but I have never seen Attila or any Hunnic statue in Heroes square. Next time it would be better to read the article what you mention. Like this: Hősök tere
I don't think that Hunnic ancestry is important in modern Hungarian culture, it can be important only for the less educated / primitive worker-class craftsmen and poor peasant (idustrial and agricultural proletarians) type of nationalists , who believe in such fantasy. The vast majority of Hungarian (and other post commie eastern European) proletarians are not more intelligent and educated than average Gypsy population.-- Dwirm ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no turanist and Hun-believers among educated people. Just watch the Kurultáj event, 99% of the visitors are craftsmen. In old Hungarian (pre-1945) term was "aljanép", alsóbb néprétegek. ("lower classes" & "lower folks"
Here is my opinion about prolee of Eastern Europe, I wrote it many years ago:
http://prolivilag.blogspot.com/
But there is a good article about them here:
http://demokrata.hu/velemeny/proli--
Dwirm (
talk) 12:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
in advance let's set that the whole discussion has not necessarily any connection to "Turanism" and you are harshly generalizing, because there is/was/are also renowned academic level authors who had an opinion towards this possibilty to Hunnic, or to ather alternate theory of the the double-conquest (Székelys earlier, Magyars later, i.e. László Gyula), it is another question that especially today, those people who you designate as "proletarians" - in a way a pejorative manner - what they believe in majority. I think it is irrelevant here. Especially Grandpierre K. Endre or Grandpiere Attila are highly educated persons and have very good books on the subject, to say nothing of i.e. other person who are not from this area i. e. Szörényi Levente is also have similar views, and he is as well not obviously and proletarian or uneducated, etc., like many others. I have no opinion of Kurultáj because I was never there, though I heard some debates that some will never go beucase they really knows what is a traditional Hungarian wear, on the contrary of those who organize Kurultáj, etc. But better let's not go offtopic further with this discussion.( KIENGIR ( talk) 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC))
Grandpierre is not a linguist nor a historian nor a geneticist nor an archaeologist, so his opinion is very layman here. What is he? An astronomer. László Gyula's theory was debunked, the history professors don't really care about it anymore. Levente Szörényi is a rock musician so he is not a linguist nor a historian nor a geneticist nor an archaeologist either. This Hunnic and Turanist agendas about the Hungarians' origin resembles me 100% about the Little Entente's efforts and propaganda which discredited and humiliated Hungarians before and during the WW1 Paris peace conference. Read about it (Racism played a part): http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273638 -- Dwirm ( talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Turanism and Hunnic fantasies were not the same originally in the pre WW1 era, but they merged later to the turanism. Especially after WW2, the originally non-related Sumerian Scythian-Parthus-Hunnic-Turkic ridiculous theories merged into the so-called Turanism. Yes, the lunatic Turanism is a modern proletarian new-age movement in the 21th century Hungary, since the 99% of its followers are from lesser educated worker class people, the so-called proletarians, who beleieve in every theories if it sounds enough fantastic. Ironically Russians Eastern Slavic people the Romanians are all genetically closer to these eastern Central-Asian people than Hungarians. You can check all type of population genetic researches and comparisons. -- Dwirm ( talk) 08:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @ Dwirm:,
Javaslom Ablonczy Balázs (aki a téma kutatója az ELTÉ-n) Keletre magyar! c. könyvét. Kutatásaiból kiderült hogy a II.VH utáni turanizmus nagyon mássá alakult mint ami előtte volt. A modernebb napjainkban élő turanizmus (pláne a rendszerváltás után) összefoglalja (az egyébbként egymásnak ellenmondó) Hun-Sumér-Szkíta-Pártus-Türk-Etruszk áltudományos meséket. A turáni fogalom a rendszerváltás után tiszta gyűjtőnévvé vált. A lényege a finnugor ellenesség, annak ellenére hogy 1945 előtt a finnugor elmélet teljesen része volt a turanizmusnak. Minden ami áltudományosság a magyarok eredetével kapcsolatban összesűrűsödött benne. Szerencsére már az ELTE-n (is) oktatják a hagymázas fantasy alternatív elméletekről a hallgatókat:
http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=alterism --
Dwirm (
talk) 12:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The Hunnic Empire map kind of bothers me, as it seems unlikely the Huns really controlled territory all the way to Kazakhstan. Does anyone have a source for its boundaries? If not, I think we probably need to replace the image in the info box here and at History of the Huns with something else. An actual sourced map would be preferable, obviously.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) A more realistic, but likely outdated, map is found here. One of the other sources listed for the current map, John Man, does not appear to show the Huns ruling so far East.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Would there be consensus for just replacing it with the map I linked to? It's from 1911, so it shouldn't be under copyright anymore, right? It's either that or make our own, which I don't know how to do.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've begun working on a "Origin of the Huns" article in my sandbox. The scope of the article will be both the relationship of the Huns to the Xiongnu as well as their relation to the Iranian Huns, principly the Kidarites, Alchon Huns, Hephthalites, and Huna. It's important, I think, to make the article discuss the origins of the Iranian Huns as well: it should be an article that unites things that are either currently found in disparate articles or not at all. At the moment I've only started to sketch a history of the problem from de Guignes onward. Anyone with time and access to reliable sources is welcome to contribute: I envision having it split into sections discussing different aspects (archaeology, linguistics, history), but we'll see what form it takes. If anyone knows a good place to publicize the creation to encourage collaboration from people who edit pages related to the Iranian Huns and Huna, I'd appreciate knowing about it.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I've created the page. Obviously there is probably more that could be added.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have some questions about the prominence given to Maurice's Strategikon. It was written well after the end of the Hunnish empire or even the majority of its successor states, and it only describes (as quoted anyway) "Hunnish peoples", which seems like a generalized usage rather than referring to the Huns in particular, as well as a backdoor way of saying (as quoted) that Attila's Huns were Turks. I already had to change the way that it was presented somewhat.
@ MMFA:, you know a lot about Hunnish military tactics, etc. How do you think we could improve the presentation of the Strategikon so that it doesn't mislead our readers?
We can add to this section with info from other secondary sources that are discussing the classical Huns - Maenchen-Helfen has a whole chapter on Hunnish warfare, Heather talks about it, as do Kim and others.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I've gotten my hands on the original of Golden's article. I'm going to start adding information from it. However, I think we really need to deemphasize (perhaps remove entirely) the Strategikon, as Maurice is not talking about the Huns discussed in this article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Classical sources also frequently call the Huns Massagetae, Scythians, Cimmerians, and other names for earlier groups of steppe nomads.
From Encyclopedia Iranica:
Your opinion? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 20:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any specific source which shows what "Hun" means? It would be very useful if editors add a related section about it (Name/Etymology). -- Wario-Man ( talk) 06:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Beneficii, Ermenrich, and KIENGIR: Thanks for the reply. I opened this section because of this edit. [6] In Mongolian wiktionary:хүн (hün) means human or adult male. Also we have other Central Asian peoples like Xionites and other Hunas. So there may be a specific meaning for names like "hun", "xun", "xion", "xion", "xyon" in Chinese, Indian, Mongolian, Persian, Sogdian, or Turkic and even Uralic or Yeniseian sources (historical texts or etymology). We have Hephthalite_Empire#Ethnonyms and Alchon_Huns#Name. So we could consider adding a similar section to this article if there would be enough content for it. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 07:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I've found a list of proposed etymologies from before 1959 in an old Maenchen-Helfen article: "The Ethnic Name Hun". He's quite dismissive of them, of course, but he mentions some proposed Turkic and Iranian etymologies before suggesting himself that it might originally have been a title of Indo-Iranian origin, meaning something like "skillful person". I'll try to work on it this week-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey @ Ermenrich: a new paper on the Huns and the Sogdian Letters was just made available: https://www.academia.edu/38015198/The_Rise_of_the_Sogdian_Merchants_and_the_Role_of_the_Huns_The_historical_importance_of_the_Sogdian_Ancient_Letters MMFA ( talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The section of Huns doesn't do enough to describe that Caucasian Huns could be either European subjects or Alans. Therefore we should add this aswell
Denis Sinor, noting the paucity of anthropological evidence, wrote that "there is no reason to question the basic accuracy of the western descriptions, and the absence of massive supporting evidence by physical anthropology cannot weaken the point they so tellingly make". [1] Some artificially deformed crania from the 5th–6th Century AD have been found in Northeastern Hungary and elsewhere in Western Europe. The skulls appear Europoid; these skulls may have belonged to Germanic or other subject groups whose parents wished to elevate their status by following a custom introduced by the Huns so it unsure if they were actual HJuns or Huns subjects. [2]
There is therefore a clear consensus against this edit. I've made a slight adjustment to the race section to accommodate your concerns, DerekHistorian.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Molnar_Janos_Szucs_Szathmary
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Don't you think current lead feels a bit raw without any image? I know it's not necessary but I believe it would be good for the readers and visitors. Something like a painting:
Visual stuff enrich articles. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 09:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
It was not hard to verify the brooch is Hunnish from the
museum website. It is off putting to refer to "certain" editors by their ethnicity in this manner, when a quick google search shows image is labelled accurately at commons. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dilbilir (
talk •
contribs) 03:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::If you have a concern of how the museum has classified the piece in their collection, you must take it up with them.
Dilbilir (
talk) 04:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::::You do not say pan-Turkish, your comment says pan-Turks. If you are talking about pan-Turkism as a viewpoint or ideology then you should strike comment and make correction because new editors like me will not know what you mean. Keep this in mind in future. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dilbilir (
talk •
contribs) 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::You say "certain pan-Turks" but now you say you mean "certain pan-Turkism"? - I see this already on several articles I want to work on. Its not good use of common space to denigrate views of other editors without evidence and supporting sources, especially when it is easy to confirm that brooch is Hunnish by quick Google search. I think as show of good faith please agree to choose your words more carefully in the future.
Dilbilir (
talk) 17:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::::The term is pan-Turkist, you should use the correct term, not "Pan Turks". This is an encyclopedia, not kindergarten. If you don't enunciate, how can anyone be expected to understand you? I have not yet seen any edits that are Pan-Turkist, and since Pan-Turkism was a pro-Nazi, antisemitic ideology I don't believe your explanation that "supporters of pan-Turkism are a problem on Wikipedia" because I have never seen any evidence of this.
Dilbilir (
talk) 19:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Following a discussion I've been having with Wario-Man, he's suggested we rename the race section "Anthropology" and create a separate genetics section, partially to reduce the danger of nationalist edits to the "race" section. @
MMFA:, I believe you would have the necessary expertise to create such a genetics section. What does everybody think about doing so?--
Ermenrich (
talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:Renaming the section won't help. I don't think "danger of nationalist edits" is a good reason to rename the section, which is about race. If it becomes a problem we can revisit it, but right now the section is about modern researchers who have discredited a well-attested to antiquated racial classification.
Dilbilir (
talk) 19:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The sources for the Huns worshipping Tengri seem somewhat suspect to me. One is a quote mentioning Tengri being worshipped by "the nomads of the steps" from the "6th and 9th centuries", while the other is about the Hungarians. Does anyone have any actual sources for the Huns worshipping Tengri? It strikes me as the sort of thing romantic nationalists would assume.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm commenting here in response to a request posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. The tl;dr (or short) version of the answer to the question "What was the religion of the Huns" is we don't know for sure.
From what I remember of my reading of Jordanes & Ammianus Marcellinus -- who are our best primary sources for the Huns of the Attila's time -- neither discusses the religion of the Huns. Marcellinus is more interested in their military skills & horsemanship. The article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that little is known of their culture or religion. The German Wikipedia cites Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns to state the Huns practiced shamanism. I don't have ready access to the other standard reference on the Huns -- E. A. Thompson, The Huns -- so I don't know what he says on the matter.
Possible answers would be some form of paganism, shamanism, Tengrism, & even a variant of Christianity! (The other barbarians along the Roman frontier, such as the Goths & the Vandals, embraced Arian Christianity, so it is possible Attila & his followers were also Arian Christians.) Most likely would be a mixture of these beliefs, since the Hunnic alliance comprised many different ethnic groups, who were more interested in military might & not religious homogeneity.
What I would write on the topic is (1) emphasize our lack of information on the topic; (2) state what the experts say, explicitly accredited in the text to each author (e.g. "Maenchen-Helfen believes the Huns practiced shamanism"). -- llywrch ( talk) 23:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The current section on legends is not very good. I've started putting together a new version in sandbox that anyone is welcome to contribute to, particularly anyone who knows about non-Germanic legends about the Huns. I'm going to go ask over at WikiProject Norse history and culture for any help anyone might provide as well.
Anyway, the various chronicle also need to be removed, unless there is some particular legendary information being conveyed (Hungarian descent from the Huns, for instance). Also, the section on Widsith is much too long - the poem mentions the Huns in literally a single line! I'd cut it down to a single sentence, if that, given that all it mentions is that Attila ruled the Huns, which is not exactly legendary information. A bare mention ought to suffice, really.
Is there consensus for changes along these lines?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've tweaked it some more, also added a bit on Christian legends since the current article only mentions the notion of Peter and Paul appearing to Attila with a painting. I'm not sure if I should put it before or after the Germanic material. I'm waiting for another source so I can characterize the Huns in the Germanic legends more fully.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we shouldn't move the "claims of descent" section into the legends section. I intend to add at least a bit about the Hungarian legends about the Huns, and the main one is of course that the Hungarians (or Szekely) ARE the Huns.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The language section appears to be pushing the view that the Huns were Turkic speakers, even making it look like skeptics doubt despite a preponderance of evidence. While there is a signicant community of scholars who argue that the Huns spoke a Turkic language, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about it. I've already removed a fringe source from the section, and, upon checking another reference giving to back up the idea that "many scholars" believe the Huns spoke Turkic, I actually found that the source was stating exactly the opposite:
Similarly, the Peter Heather quote currently found in the section is truncated. In full it reads: "Opinions differ even over their linguistic affiliation, but the best guess would seem to be that the Huns were the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into Europe"
I suspect that a certain amount of Turkish nationalism is playing a role in this POV being pushed in the article. Regardless of why its taken place, this section needs to be rewritten so as to balance the leading theory of linguistic affiliation, which is that the Huns spoke Turkic or some related language, with the fact that many scholars are highly skeptical of assigning any language to the Huns.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've put together a draft of a new version in my sandbox. I went ahead and moved the next version to the main article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
These two sections seem extremely long to me at the moment - as far as "origins" is concerned, I suspect that's because its been added to over time without any reorganization. Accordingly, I'd like to propose compacting the section down a bit. For the history section, we might consider making a separate "History of the Huns" article and shortening the version here. The section about the Huns before Attila seems particularly long.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to start a draft of a new version of the "Origins" section, which I will rename to "Origins and relationship to other groups called Huns"; this second part is currently not addressed anywhere in the article but is hinted at repeatedly through references to the Hephthalites, Caucasian Huns, Huna, etc. I think both issues can be tackled much more briefly than the current section. A more extensive version could be included in a "History of the Huns" article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've put together a first draft in my sandbox. I don't think it needs to be much longer than that, otherwise it gets very technical for this article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
About the recent addition:
However, there is no genetic or linguistic evidence supporting the theory of a Hun connection; instead the evidence clearly substantiates a Finno-Ugrian (Magyar) origin of the Hungarian people.
...now I noticed -, it does not raise any accuracy, on the contrary, I checked both of the sources and such in this form as such is not stated; or cannot be even consecutively deducted.
Btw, for the first part of the statement, I just randomly found in a first place this source ( [1]) (the title should not confuse anybody, better the content is interesting, reinforced by another reliable source)...
However, the second part of the sentence is completely confusing, since what is immediately well-known even among ordinary people that genetically there is not any releavant relation between Hungarians and Finno-Ugrian speaking people, and the given source's abstract also pinpointing that, and based on 4 ancient remains - two of them - they want to make a general deduction, that has to be taken very carefully. Majority of the genetic studies did not reinforce any genetic connection (plenty of genetic research was made on the landtaking Hungarians, none reinforcing anything "Finno-Ugrian" (that is anyway a language family, nothing more)), since Hungarians were proven partially in a little amount relevant South-Asian markers, but not any case North-Asian.
Moreover, putting together "Finno Ugrian (Magyar)" has the same problem, since Finno-Ugrian is a language family, while Magyar is name of a language and an ethnicity, that cannot be made equal by any means of a language family.
The sentence has to be rephrased, if it is stated there is no genetic evidence for Hun connection, the same is true for the Finno-Ugrian connection (if not twice as much), since the great problem, of the researchers are that the obsolete theory not just genetically cannot be confirmed properly, but even as language family is problematic, as there is no confirmation for any proto-Finno-Ugrian common language.
Consequently, this addition should better be abadoned, or if rephrased, then pinpoint that regarding genetics neither the Hun or Finno-Ugrian genetic connection has any convincing evidence or confirmation, while linguistics is something else, we don't have enough info on the languge on the Huns, while officially the Finno-Ugrian theory suggest a linguistic connection between Hungarian and Finno-Ugrian languages.( KIENGIR ( talk) 15:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
It looks like pseudo science to me. The vocab used is the same as on various nationalist websites or by nationalist academics affiliated with Jobbik, as are the arguments. Anyway peer reviewed studies are always going to trump unpublished dissertations. Ermenrich ( talk) 12:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The only sources that anyone should be using are secondary sources as defined in WP:MEDRS, this means that on the subject of genetics, a peer-reviewed source is not considered reliable enough to be used. Instead content should be sourced using review articles. For more on this please check WP:SCIRS and this RfC and close. This obviously affects the discussion here. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 15:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. The paper on Hun DNA is "Y chromosomes of ancient Hunnu people and its implication on the phylogeny of East Asian linguistic families" by L.L. Kang et al. which is technically on Xiongnu DNA but the Hun-Xiongnu connection is actually pretty widely accepted again (it was only really ever argued against by Maenchen-Helfen in his 1948 paper and after Atwood's re-analysis has been widely shown to be likely again). Anyways my point is that Hun skeletons explicitly express the Q-M242 (Q1a3a) marker because of their relationship to the Yeniseian-speaking groups of the Minusinsk Basin. So maybe it doesn't belong in the Hun page since it deals more with Xiongnu-era Huns, but there's virtually no expression of Q-M242 among Hungarian DNA. Hungarians express R1a1a-M17 which is West Slavic and Haplogroup M, while only Szekelers express Haplogroup P, which puts their origin somewhere north of the Pontic and Caspian seas. Furthermore only Szekelers have Haplogroup N1 which is also found in Magyar genomes. 2.2% of Hungarians and 4.7% of Szekelers possess Haplogroup Q (Turkic), but only 0.2% express Q-M242 (East European average is 1.7% Q-M242). Sources: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x; http://loca.fudan.edu.cn/lh/Doc/A104.pdf; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17585514&dopt=Abstract; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947100/ MMFA ( talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Would there be consensus for creating a separate History of the Huns article? At the moment the history section is much too detailed, whereas many important aspects of the Huns (art and material culture, even their general perception after antiquity) are not addressed. I would suggest moving the detailed history to a new article, where it could even be expanded if anyone wants to. A more detailed analysis of their possible history between the end of the Xiongnu and the first recorded appearance of the Huns in Europe could also take place there. We could then cut down the history section here considerably without any loss of content for Wikipedia.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 17:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to move the question of racial affiliation, which is sort of danced around in the "appearance" section now, to my origins draft. Appearance doesn't really have anything to do with "Society and Culture".-- Ermenrich ( talk) 21:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I've started working on the draft of a new history of the Huns article in my sandbox. Obviously it will mostly just be material from here, but we could consider adding to it, with things such as "Role in the Fall of the Western Roman Empire" etc. We could also include a more detailed analysis of the Hun-Xiongnu-Hephthalite relationship, though maybe that should go in a separate "Origins of the Huns" article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm hard at work on the new History of the Huns if anyone wants to help out. It's made me aware that the current history section here (which I've reduced) is not in very good shape actually.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
National-romantic historiography, in general, seem to portray the Huns as foreign invaders from central Asia, whereas research, particularly in linguistics, contradicts this notion. It is of course difficult to assert that the Huns spoke a proto-Hungarian language, but if so, it seems clear that the Finno-ugric peoples are more aboriginal to Europe than the peoples associated with Germanic languages. Paradoxically the latter, pertaining to the Indo-European languages, seem more probable coming from central Asia than the other way around. The Huns may be identical to what Jordanes call the Antes (people), meaning the peoples that came before us. The Roman historian Jordanes speak from a native Gothic perspecive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xactnorge ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is currently cited in the article: http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0409.pdf
The journal, which only exists online, is based out of China and appears to be pushing fringe views. For instance "German researchers branded traditions of the Magyars, which present the Scythians and the Huns as their ancestors, as fairy tales. These German scholars did not accept the oral traditions of other peoples either. Instead of taking these traditions as the starting point of research, they started to develop theories on the basis of “linguistic” similarities" (p. 158); "From earlier studies, we also have much evidence in order to support the claims of Hungarian researchers that the Magyars are also descendants of the Huns" (p. 160); and the crown jewel:
Accordingly, I'm removing the citation and the information it contains.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 21:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
IS there no consensus? It seems to me that the consensus now is that they are connected. Can anyone show evidence of anyone questioning it post Sinor 1990? If not, I think we ought to change the article to reflect that, while still noting that some scholars have raised doubts. As I've mentioned above, I think a separate article to examine this question is warrented, which I will try to start once I get through the History of the Huns and fix the history section here.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The word "pony" is misspelt in the Huns article, but it's not letting me edit it.
Would there be consensus for integrating the current section "claims of Hunnish descent" into "legends", or else rewriting it so that the development of the legend is clearer and the section is better sourced? I can put something together in my sandbox.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've begun work at my sandbox on a reworking of the section. Please feel free to help! I'm having a lot of trouble finding good sources, unfortunately, so I'm happy for any help in that respect, particularly concerning the Szekelys. I know Simon of Keza is the one to make the claim they are the surviving Huns after the battle of Crimhild, but I can't find a reliable source.
Also, does anyone know what "Egyed 2013" is? It's currently cited in short footnote format but the long form is missing from the article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) which I suspect is what is being cited here. —
Frayæ (
Talk/
Spjall) 18:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)I have been reading this; — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 23:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Behind the attack on the Finno-Ugric origin lay nationalist pride: the image of famous warrior ancestors, whom the whole civilised Western world had feared, was certainly more appealing to the public than the idea of ‘fish-smelling relatives’.
Hence the public interest in the imaginary affiliation with the splendid eastern Turks born for ruling, and also the governmental support of Asian expeditions (see Ko´sa, 1989a, p. 110). Hunfalvy bitterly admitted that he had been often accused of being unpatriotic for marrying the Magyars, ‘grandchildren of the famous Huns’, with such a ‘good for-nothing people’ (Domokos & Pala´di-Kova´cs, 1986).
The war however ended with Finno-Ugric victory: Hunfalvy and Budenz proved the Finno-Ugric origin of the Hungarian language. Believing that for the social scientist issues pertaining to national and ethno-history were primarily not emotional, but scientific questions, Hunfalvy destroyed several national myths rooted in romantic historiography, such as the Hunnish-Magyar affinity, or the Hunnish descent of the Szeklers in Transylvania (Domokos & Pala´di-Kova´cs, 1986).
And in this, The Deeds of the Hungarians or The Gesta Hungarorum is covered in depth, along with Simon of Kéza. The article also cites;
As an authority. Theres about 3000 words on the subject so I won't copy it here. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 00:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and replaced the current text with my new version. If anyone could find some better images though? There's a statue ot Attila at Heroes Square in Budapest, for instance, as well as some 19th-c. paintings conflating Hungarian and Hunnish history. Ermenrich ( talk) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I was born in Budapest, but I have never seen Attila or any Hunnic statue in Heroes square. Next time it would be better to read the article what you mention. Like this: Hősök tere
I don't think that Hunnic ancestry is important in modern Hungarian culture, it can be important only for the less educated / primitive worker-class craftsmen and poor peasant (idustrial and agricultural proletarians) type of nationalists , who believe in such fantasy. The vast majority of Hungarian (and other post commie eastern European) proletarians are not more intelligent and educated than average Gypsy population.-- Dwirm ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no turanist and Hun-believers among educated people. Just watch the Kurultáj event, 99% of the visitors are craftsmen. In old Hungarian (pre-1945) term was "aljanép", alsóbb néprétegek. ("lower classes" & "lower folks"
Here is my opinion about prolee of Eastern Europe, I wrote it many years ago:
http://prolivilag.blogspot.com/
But there is a good article about them here:
http://demokrata.hu/velemeny/proli--
Dwirm (
talk) 12:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
in advance let's set that the whole discussion has not necessarily any connection to "Turanism" and you are harshly generalizing, because there is/was/are also renowned academic level authors who had an opinion towards this possibilty to Hunnic, or to ather alternate theory of the the double-conquest (Székelys earlier, Magyars later, i.e. László Gyula), it is another question that especially today, those people who you designate as "proletarians" - in a way a pejorative manner - what they believe in majority. I think it is irrelevant here. Especially Grandpierre K. Endre or Grandpiere Attila are highly educated persons and have very good books on the subject, to say nothing of i.e. other person who are not from this area i. e. Szörényi Levente is also have similar views, and he is as well not obviously and proletarian or uneducated, etc., like many others. I have no opinion of Kurultáj because I was never there, though I heard some debates that some will never go beucase they really knows what is a traditional Hungarian wear, on the contrary of those who organize Kurultáj, etc. But better let's not go offtopic further with this discussion.( KIENGIR ( talk) 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC))
Grandpierre is not a linguist nor a historian nor a geneticist nor an archaeologist, so his opinion is very layman here. What is he? An astronomer. László Gyula's theory was debunked, the history professors don't really care about it anymore. Levente Szörényi is a rock musician so he is not a linguist nor a historian nor a geneticist nor an archaeologist either. This Hunnic and Turanist agendas about the Hungarians' origin resembles me 100% about the Little Entente's efforts and propaganda which discredited and humiliated Hungarians before and during the WW1 Paris peace conference. Read about it (Racism played a part): http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273638 -- Dwirm ( talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Turanism and Hunnic fantasies were not the same originally in the pre WW1 era, but they merged later to the turanism. Especially after WW2, the originally non-related Sumerian Scythian-Parthus-Hunnic-Turkic ridiculous theories merged into the so-called Turanism. Yes, the lunatic Turanism is a modern proletarian new-age movement in the 21th century Hungary, since the 99% of its followers are from lesser educated worker class people, the so-called proletarians, who beleieve in every theories if it sounds enough fantastic. Ironically Russians Eastern Slavic people the Romanians are all genetically closer to these eastern Central-Asian people than Hungarians. You can check all type of population genetic researches and comparisons. -- Dwirm ( talk) 08:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @ Dwirm:,
Javaslom Ablonczy Balázs (aki a téma kutatója az ELTÉ-n) Keletre magyar! c. könyvét. Kutatásaiból kiderült hogy a II.VH utáni turanizmus nagyon mássá alakult mint ami előtte volt. A modernebb napjainkban élő turanizmus (pláne a rendszerváltás után) összefoglalja (az egyébbként egymásnak ellenmondó) Hun-Sumér-Szkíta-Pártus-Türk-Etruszk áltudományos meséket. A turáni fogalom a rendszerváltás után tiszta gyűjtőnévvé vált. A lényege a finnugor ellenesség, annak ellenére hogy 1945 előtt a finnugor elmélet teljesen része volt a turanizmusnak. Minden ami áltudományosság a magyarok eredetével kapcsolatban összesűrűsödött benne. Szerencsére már az ELTE-n (is) oktatják a hagymázas fantasy alternatív elméletekről a hallgatókat:
http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=alterism --
Dwirm (
talk) 12:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The Hunnic Empire map kind of bothers me, as it seems unlikely the Huns really controlled territory all the way to Kazakhstan. Does anyone have a source for its boundaries? If not, I think we probably need to replace the image in the info box here and at History of the Huns with something else. An actual sourced map would be preferable, obviously.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) A more realistic, but likely outdated, map is found here. One of the other sources listed for the current map, John Man, does not appear to show the Huns ruling so far East.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Would there be consensus for just replacing it with the map I linked to? It's from 1911, so it shouldn't be under copyright anymore, right? It's either that or make our own, which I don't know how to do.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've begun working on a "Origin of the Huns" article in my sandbox. The scope of the article will be both the relationship of the Huns to the Xiongnu as well as their relation to the Iranian Huns, principly the Kidarites, Alchon Huns, Hephthalites, and Huna. It's important, I think, to make the article discuss the origins of the Iranian Huns as well: it should be an article that unites things that are either currently found in disparate articles or not at all. At the moment I've only started to sketch a history of the problem from de Guignes onward. Anyone with time and access to reliable sources is welcome to contribute: I envision having it split into sections discussing different aspects (archaeology, linguistics, history), but we'll see what form it takes. If anyone knows a good place to publicize the creation to encourage collaboration from people who edit pages related to the Iranian Huns and Huna, I'd appreciate knowing about it.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I've created the page. Obviously there is probably more that could be added.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have some questions about the prominence given to Maurice's Strategikon. It was written well after the end of the Hunnish empire or even the majority of its successor states, and it only describes (as quoted anyway) "Hunnish peoples", which seems like a generalized usage rather than referring to the Huns in particular, as well as a backdoor way of saying (as quoted) that Attila's Huns were Turks. I already had to change the way that it was presented somewhat.
@ MMFA:, you know a lot about Hunnish military tactics, etc. How do you think we could improve the presentation of the Strategikon so that it doesn't mislead our readers?
We can add to this section with info from other secondary sources that are discussing the classical Huns - Maenchen-Helfen has a whole chapter on Hunnish warfare, Heather talks about it, as do Kim and others.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I've gotten my hands on the original of Golden's article. I'm going to start adding information from it. However, I think we really need to deemphasize (perhaps remove entirely) the Strategikon, as Maurice is not talking about the Huns discussed in this article.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Classical sources also frequently call the Huns Massagetae, Scythians, Cimmerians, and other names for earlier groups of steppe nomads.
From Encyclopedia Iranica:
Your opinion? -- Wario-Man ( talk) 20:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any specific source which shows what "Hun" means? It would be very useful if editors add a related section about it (Name/Etymology). -- Wario-Man ( talk) 06:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Beneficii, Ermenrich, and KIENGIR: Thanks for the reply. I opened this section because of this edit. [6] In Mongolian wiktionary:хүн (hün) means human or adult male. Also we have other Central Asian peoples like Xionites and other Hunas. So there may be a specific meaning for names like "hun", "xun", "xion", "xion", "xyon" in Chinese, Indian, Mongolian, Persian, Sogdian, or Turkic and even Uralic or Yeniseian sources (historical texts or etymology). We have Hephthalite_Empire#Ethnonyms and Alchon_Huns#Name. So we could consider adding a similar section to this article if there would be enough content for it. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 07:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I've found a list of proposed etymologies from before 1959 in an old Maenchen-Helfen article: "The Ethnic Name Hun". He's quite dismissive of them, of course, but he mentions some proposed Turkic and Iranian etymologies before suggesting himself that it might originally have been a title of Indo-Iranian origin, meaning something like "skillful person". I'll try to work on it this week-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey @ Ermenrich: a new paper on the Huns and the Sogdian Letters was just made available: https://www.academia.edu/38015198/The_Rise_of_the_Sogdian_Merchants_and_the_Role_of_the_Huns_The_historical_importance_of_the_Sogdian_Ancient_Letters MMFA ( talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The section of Huns doesn't do enough to describe that Caucasian Huns could be either European subjects or Alans. Therefore we should add this aswell
Denis Sinor, noting the paucity of anthropological evidence, wrote that "there is no reason to question the basic accuracy of the western descriptions, and the absence of massive supporting evidence by physical anthropology cannot weaken the point they so tellingly make". [1] Some artificially deformed crania from the 5th–6th Century AD have been found in Northeastern Hungary and elsewhere in Western Europe. The skulls appear Europoid; these skulls may have belonged to Germanic or other subject groups whose parents wished to elevate their status by following a custom introduced by the Huns so it unsure if they were actual HJuns or Huns subjects. [2]
There is therefore a clear consensus against this edit. I've made a slight adjustment to the race section to accommodate your concerns, DerekHistorian.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Molnar_Janos_Szucs_Szathmary
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Don't you think current lead feels a bit raw without any image? I know it's not necessary but I believe it would be good for the readers and visitors. Something like a painting:
Visual stuff enrich articles. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 09:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
It was not hard to verify the brooch is Hunnish from the
museum website. It is off putting to refer to "certain" editors by their ethnicity in this manner, when a quick google search shows image is labelled accurately at commons. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dilbilir (
talk •
contribs) 03:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::If you have a concern of how the museum has classified the piece in their collection, you must take it up with them.
Dilbilir (
talk) 04:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::::You do not say pan-Turkish, your comment says pan-Turks. If you are talking about pan-Turkism as a viewpoint or ideology then you should strike comment and make correction because new editors like me will not know what you mean. Keep this in mind in future. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dilbilir (
talk •
contribs) 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::You say "certain pan-Turks" but now you say you mean "certain pan-Turkism"? - I see this already on several articles I want to work on. Its not good use of common space to denigrate views of other editors without evidence and supporting sources, especially when it is easy to confirm that brooch is Hunnish by quick Google search. I think as show of good faith please agree to choose your words more carefully in the future.
Dilbilir (
talk) 17:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::::The term is pan-Turkist, you should use the correct term, not "Pan Turks". This is an encyclopedia, not kindergarten. If you don't enunciate, how can anyone be expected to understand you? I have not yet seen any edits that are Pan-Turkist, and since Pan-Turkism was a pro-Nazi, antisemitic ideology I don't believe your explanation that "supporters of pan-Turkism are a problem on Wikipedia" because I have never seen any evidence of this.
Dilbilir (
talk) 19:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Following a discussion I've been having with Wario-Man, he's suggested we rename the race section "Anthropology" and create a separate genetics section, partially to reduce the danger of nationalist edits to the "race" section. @
MMFA:, I believe you would have the necessary expertise to create such a genetics section. What does everybody think about doing so?--
Ermenrich (
talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:Renaming the section won't help. I don't think "danger of nationalist edits" is a good reason to rename the section, which is about race. If it becomes a problem we can revisit it, but right now the section is about modern researchers who have discredited a well-attested to antiquated racial classification.
Dilbilir (
talk) 19:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)