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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
(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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [3]
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 [4] Erik the Swed ( talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
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. [1]
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. [2]
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. [3] 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] [5] [6] [7]
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. [8]
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. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
6. The genetic tests from a reliable scientific source [16] 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. [17] [18] [19] 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|". [20]
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. [21] Also there is evidence that the recurve bow was brought to Bactria by Yuezhi. [22]
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. [23]
10 The clothes of the Yuezhi depicted on Bactrian Embroidery [24] are almost identical to the traditional Bulgarian costumes made nowadays. [25]
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%20AtStamatov/Drevnite%20baalgari.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
References
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. [1] 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). [2] 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 [3] 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 [4]
(
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)
( talk) 86.138.237.156 13:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.193.144 ( talk)
References
Roman historians Themistius(317-390), Claudian(370-404), and later Procopius(500-560) called the Huns Massagetae. [1] 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. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.110 ( talk) 12:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Very good idea !-- 200.110.156.205 ( talk) 02:26, 15 September 2016 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
(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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [3]
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 [4] Erik the Swed ( talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
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. [1]
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. [2]
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. [3] 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] [5] [6] [7]
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. [8]
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. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
6. The genetic tests from a reliable scientific source [16] 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. [17] [18] [19] 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|". [20]
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. [21] Also there is evidence that the recurve bow was brought to Bactria by Yuezhi. [22]
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. [23]
10 The clothes of the Yuezhi depicted on Bactrian Embroidery [24] are almost identical to the traditional Bulgarian costumes made nowadays. [25]
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%20AtStamatov/Drevnite%20baalgari.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
References
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. [1] 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). [2] 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 [3] 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 [4]
(
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)
( talk) 86.138.237.156 13:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.193.144 ( talk)
References
Roman historians Themistius(317-390), Claudian(370-404), and later Procopius(500-560) called the Huns Massagetae. [1] 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. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.110 ( talk) 12:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Very good idea !-- 200.110.156.205 ( talk) 02:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)