Jump to content

Talk:Kutrigurs: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 96: Line 96:
'''Kutrigurs''' were [[Eurasian nomads|nomadic equestrians]] who flourished on the [[Pontic-Caspian steppe]] in the 6th century AD. To their east were the similar [[Utigurs]]. They warred with the [[Byzantine Empire]] and the Utigurs. Towards the end of the 6th century under pressure from the Turks they moved to the [[Avar Khaganate]].
'''Kutrigurs''' were [[Eurasian nomads|nomadic equestrians]] who flourished on the [[Pontic-Caspian steppe]] in the 6th century AD. To their east were the similar [[Utigurs]]. They warred with the [[Byzantine Empire]] and the Utigurs. Towards the end of the 6th century under pressure from the Turks they moved to the [[Avar Khaganate]].


There are two theories about the origin of Kutrigurs and related to them tribes Utigurs and Onogurs. According to the first theory (which is the older one and is based on careful consideration of ancient sources) these tribes appeared in [[Pontic-Caspian steppe]] after the dissolution of the Hun Empire and they came to Europe together with the Huns. In fact many scholars, for example Grousset, thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns{{sfn|Grousset|1970|p=79}}.<ref>Great Walls and Linear Barriers, Peter Spring, page 199:"In 460 the Huns split into The Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false</ref><ref> History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, page 303: "The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia."</ref><ref> The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press), page 256: " Thus in our sources the names 'Kutrigur', 'Bulgar' and 'Hun' are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group."</ref><ref>The World of the Huns, O. Maenchen-Helfen, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language."</ref><ref>The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kutrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion" </ref>
There are two theories about the origin of Kutrigurs and related to them tribes Utigurs and Onogurs. According to the first theory (which is the older one and is based on careful consideration of ancient sources) these tribes appeared in [[Pontic-Caspian steppe]] after the dissolution of the Hun Empire and they came to Europe together with the Huns. In fact many scholars, for example Grousset, thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns.{{sfn|Grousset|1970|p=79}}<ref>Great Walls and Linear Barriers, Peter Spring, page 199:"In 460 the Huns split into The Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false</ref><ref> History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, page 303: "The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia."</ref><ref> The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press), page 256: " Thus in our sources the names 'Kutrigur', 'Bulgar' and 'Hun' are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group."</ref><ref>The World of the Huns, O. Maenchen-Helfen, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language."</ref><ref>The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kutrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion" </ref>


The second theory appears in the historical science after 1980 and is supported mainly by Peter Golden and some other scholars. It is based on linguistic similarities between the names Kutrigurs/Utigurs and some Turkic words. According to this theory the [[Huns]] disappeared after the death of [[Attila]]. At the same time, about 460 AD, new Turkic group, namely Oghur tribes, entered Pontic-Caspian steppe.<ref>''Sometime about A.D. 463 a series of nomadic migrations was set off in Inner Asia... Archeological and literary evidence permits us to place the homeland of these newcomers, the Oghur tribes, in Western Siberia and the Kazakh steppes... The Oghurs were part of a large Turkic tribal grouping known in Chinese sources as the Tieh-lê, who were to be found in Inner Asia as well The fluidity of the situation in the steppes is mirrored in our sources, a kaleidoscope of dissolving and reforming tribal unions... Although some of the antecedents of this important migration are still unclear, there can be no doubt that the 0ghur tribes now became the dominant element in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The term Oghur denoted “grouping of kindred tribes, tribal union” and figures in their ethnonyms: Onoghur, Saraghur, etc. The language of these Oghur tribes, which survives today only in Chuvash, was distinct from that of Common Turkic. In 480 we find our earliest firm notice on the Bulghars (“Mixed Ones”), a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements. In addition, we have reports about the activities of the Kutrighurs and Utrighurs who appear in our sources under their own names, as “Huns” and perhaps even as “Bulghars.” Their precise relationship to the latter cannot be determined with any certainty, but all three clearly originated in the same Hunno-Oghur milieu.'' For more see: Golden, P. (1990). The peoples of the south Russian steppes, p. 257, in D. Sinor (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 256-284). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243049.011 .</ref> However people with the name Oghurs are not documented in any of the Chinese, Iranian, Indian or Armenian sources. Actually we know nothing of the languages of the nomadic people who entered Europe before the 7th century AD. The theories for existence of specific Turkic group (the so called Oghurs, to which Bulgars supposedly belonged), are nothing more than a hypothesis.<ref> Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, Boris Zhivkov, page 37: "It is generally accepted that the Bulgars came to Europe either slightly earlier or during the Hunnic invasion", https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false</ref>
The second theory appears in the historical science after 1980 and is supported mainly by Peter Golden and some other scholars. It is based on linguistic similarities between the names Kutrigurs/Utigurs and some Turkic words. According to this theory the [[Huns]] disappeared after the death of [[Attila]]. At the same time, about 460 AD, new Turkic group, namely Oghur tribes, entered Pontic-Caspian steppe.<ref>''Sometime about A.D. 463 a series of nomadic migrations was set off in Inner Asia... Archeological and literary evidence permits us to place the homeland of these newcomers, the Oghur tribes, in Western Siberia and the Kazakh steppes... The Oghurs were part of a large Turkic tribal grouping known in Chinese sources as the Tieh-lê, who were to be found in Inner Asia as well The fluidity of the situation in the steppes is mirrored in our sources, a kaleidoscope of dissolving and reforming tribal unions... Although some of the antecedents of this important migration are still unclear, there can be no doubt that the 0ghur tribes now became the dominant element in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The term Oghur denoted “grouping of kindred tribes, tribal union” and figures in their ethnonyms: Onoghur, Saraghur, etc. The language of these Oghur tribes, which survives today only in Chuvash, was distinct from that of Common Turkic. In 480 we find our earliest firm notice on the Bulghars (“Mixed Ones”), a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements. In addition, we have reports about the activities of the Kutrighurs and Utrighurs who appear in our sources under their own names, as “Huns” and perhaps even as “Bulghars.” Their precise relationship to the latter cannot be determined with any certainty, but all three clearly originated in the same Hunno-Oghur milieu.'' For more see: Golden, P. (1990). The peoples of the south Russian steppes, p. 257, in D. Sinor (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 256-284). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243049.011 .</ref> However people with the name Oghurs are not documented in any of the Chinese, Iranian, Indian or Armenian sources. Actually we know nothing of the languages of the nomadic people who entered Europe before the 7th century AD. The theories for existence of specific Turkic group (the so called Oghurs, to which Bulgars supposedly belonged), are nothing more than a hypothesis.<ref> Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, Boris Zhivkov, page 37: "It is generally accepted that the Bulgars came to Europe either slightly earlier or during the Hunnic invasion", https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false</ref>

Revision as of 21:44, 24 September 2018

Kutrigurs under Attila

This article has several inconsistences.

1) "An interesting fact about the Kutrigurs is that, along with their counterpart the Utigurs, they formed the striking forces of Attila's Hunnic armies. After Attila's death, the larger part of the Kutrigurs returned to their homes in the Scythian plains."

This is obviously not an interesting fact, but pure nonsense, as Attila died at least about 100 years earlier in 453 and was long dead, when the Kutrigurs formed.

2) In the 'Utigur'-article, it is said: "In the mid 6th century some Utigur groups were conquered by the Eurasian Avars and became known as the Kutrigurs, while the remaining (eastern) portion retained the Utigur ethnicon." Obviously this means, the Kutrigurs were the western portion.

But: "The conquest of the easternmost Kutrigurs by Gokturk arrivals ..." But the eastern ones were Utigurs not Kutrigurs.

3) "The last of the Utigurs had settled in Pannonia (modern Syrmia) by April 677. The majority submitted to the Avar Kaghan, though some rebelled moving to Pelagonia under the leadership of Maurus (nicknamed Kuber meaning "rebel") ..." "Under the leadership of Kuber, another part of the Kutrigur tribe seems to have moved to Sirmium (Pannonia) and from there south to the Pelagonian plain." Now what? Utigurs or Kutrigurs?

Truchses (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utigurs and Kutrigurs were tribes of Hunnic origin, later known as Bulgars. According to Romans historians, these two tribes formed the nucleus of the Hunnic Union in 4th century AD. The legend about Kerch marshes and the deer(stallion in some versions) is about the Kutrigurs, who returned home and told about the western lands to their relatives, Utigurs. The two tribes attacked the Goths together. The two names, Utigur and Kutrigur appear around 500 AD, some say Utigur and Kuturgur were grandsons of Attila, sons of his third son Ernak. Some historians think that Utigurs were the same people as Akatirs. Many historians consider the first two names in Bulgarian Prince List to be Attila and his son Ernak. [1]

Also their origin is not so unclear as it is usually assumed. Probably they were Yuezhi tribes - see article Huns, against Xiongnu. This is what is generally accepted among modern Bulgarian historians as Атанас Стаматов, Ж. Войников, Петър Голийски, Георги Владимиров, Цветелин Степанов, Тодор Чобанов and others.

Utigurs were eastern part, Kutrigurs - western.93.152.143.113 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is Kutri- / Kotrag- derived from Toqur-?

In the article is mentioned that the name of the tribe comes (presumably) from *toqur ("nine" in Türkish), however, I don't get how this is possible? Is there a rule in Turkish languages, which governs such a shuffling of syllables? If not, has ever been found any source, in which the Kutrigurs were called Tokurgurs / Dokirgurs or anything of this sort, upon which one can build such a relation?

this articles are written by turkish manafs, they believe that Kutrigurs were Turks. Kutrigurs were Huns and they were one tribe, not nine. Search google books to find out who were they, WP is not reliable (unless turkish manafs are banned from editing), you can start from these books, they were deleted many times from this article.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] [9][10][11][12] [13]

Again same IP sock (with adress in Sofia, Bulgaria) by blocked User:PavelStaykov. Those sources and statements were already discussed, and personal attack on other editors is not supported on Wikipedia. Your personal opinion and WP:OR is not supported on Wikipedia. If there's even a possibility Kutrigurs were Huns (and there's none evidence), then again Kutrigur name etymologically derives from Turkic since Huns spoke a Turkic language. However, you believe that Huns were Indo-Europeans (Yuezhi), which is a fringe theory already heard countless times since March 2015. So please stop spamming talk page walls with the same text over and over again. --Crovata (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop spamming WP pages with turkish shit. If the Huns spoke turkish language is only a hypothesis based on Pritsak's analyses of a couple personal names. Even if we assume that Huns spoke turkic, which is far from proven, this doesn't make them automatically turkic tribes. Language != nationality. And as a side note, Huns had their own language, from which later Turks borrowed many words, even the word Turk is not turkish, it is tocharian and was used for the first time by the tocharian Usun's kings in the mid 5 century. Some scholars have explained the words connecting the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans as coming from the Turkic languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from the Türkic language branch. This theory is inadequate, It has been suggested that “Suo 索” [sheak] is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting.[14]

And the proper name is Kutrigari - it means small people

Stop calling renowned academical scholars, and modern mainstream scientifical opinion a "turkish shit" (Huns, Hunnic language). No one cares what's your and every others editor personal opinion, what we care is citing reliable sources by academical scholars who specilized in specific related field. Minor opinions and fringe theories are not supported or given equal weight like mainstream opinion - the end. Wikipedia, like every normal encyclopedia, is edited according WP:NPOV principles, and if you have something against that, then stop disruptively editing Wikipedia and start writing a personal historical blog (and check What Wikipedia is not).--Crovata (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should consider moving to Turkish Wikipedia, but before that take a close look at this video, manaf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQd-eg4FyKo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.107.103 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Roman historians Themistius(317-390), Claudian(370-404), and later Procopius(500-560) called the Huns Massagetae.[15] 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.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.110 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/
  2. ^ "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", Hyun Jin Kim, p. 141, :"Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars", p. 256 :" Thus in our sources the names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group." https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=onepage&q=Kutrigurs&f=false
  3. ^ The Age of Justinian, J. A. S. Evans, page 340, https://books.google.bg/books?id=jjSDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=kutrigur&f=false
  4. ^ Scythia minor, Mihail Zahariade, pages 32-33, https://books.google.bg/books?id=29FoAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
  5. ^ "The Empire of the Steppes", René Grousset, page 79: " Other Hun clans survived north of the Black Sea in two hordes : the Kutrigur Huns, who led a nomadic life northwest of the of Azov and the Ututgur or Utrigur Huns, whose haunts were by the mouth of the Don." https://books.google.hr/books?id=CHzGvqRbV_IC&pg=PA79&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMIvfOPuuqTyQIVxQcsCh1bWwlR#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false
  6. ^ "The Byzantine Empire", Donald MacGillivray Nicol, King's College, University of London, http://history-world.org/Byzantines.htm
  7. ^ Great Walls and Linear Barriers, Peter Spring, page 199:"In the Huns split into The Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false
  8. ^ "Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World", David Keys, "...a barberian people, the Kutrigur Huns...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=wpGN4ekwHgYC&pg=PT51&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false
  9. ^ "Early Medieval Europe", Roger Collins, page 206 :"...Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=ZukcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false
  10. ^ "Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire", Jennifer Lawler, page 298: "In 551, the Kutrigur Bulgars raided the Balkans"
  11. ^ "A History of Byzantium", Timothy E. Gregory, p. 151 :"in 559 the Kutrigur Huns crossed the Danube and pressed as far south as Thermopylae in Greece", https://books.google.bg/books?id=gXCl9P0vKS4C&pg=PA151&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=fals
  12. ^ "The New Encyclopædia Britannica", p. 383 "After the Kutrigur Bulgar attack ...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=oEguAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigur&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
  13. ^ Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. (1973). "Chapter IX. Language: 5. Iranian names". The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. p. 392. ISBN 9780520015968.
  14. ^ page 15 http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp212_kushan_guishuang.pdf
  15. ^ "The World of the Huns", Otto Maenchen-Helfen, page 4:"But considering that Themistius, Claudian, and later Procopius called the Huns Massagetae,..."
  16. ^ SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 127 October, 2003, page 22-24, http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp127_getes.pdf

Kutrigur Bulgars

Kutrigurs were Huns and were related to the Bulgars.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Kutrigurs from Byzantine sources were identified with Kuci/Kidar Bulgars[7] and David Marshall Lang identified them with the Kidarites.[8] Kidarites appeared in Kazakhstan in 4th century and they originated from the Little Yuezhi.[9] Some of them inherited Kushan empire and were also called little Kushans.[10] [11] The little Yuezhi remained in north China and were included in the Xiongnu confederation under the name Chieh people. Sometimes they are also referred as Jie people.[12] Their number were not small at all - between 184 AD and 221 AD there was a serious revolt of the little Yuezhi in north China, Gansu.[13] Under pressure of Rouran Khaganate they started migration at the beginning of 4th century AD toward Kazakhstan. In 349 AD according to Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen 200 000 Chieh were slain.[14] This was the reason for their final migration from Gansu, China and the ultimate appearance of the Huns in Europe in 370 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.95.172 (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per geolocation Information, the IP is located in Sofia, Bulgaria, like many previous socks by PavelStaykov. The original research and synthesis were previously discussed above, and now even below which information is in relation to this discussion. --Crovata (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.bg/books?id=mcf4CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=false
  2. ^ https://books.google.bg/books?id=CHzGvqRbV_IC&pg=PA79&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=false
  3. ^ https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&pg=PA392&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=false
  4. ^ https://books.google.bg/books?id=KIFJiOCSYc8C&pg=PA151&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=false
  5. ^ https://books.google.bg/books?id=ZukcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&dq=kutrigur+bulgars&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20bulgars&f=false
  6. ^ https://books.google.bg/books?id=sEWeCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA296&dq=kutrigur+bulgars&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20bulgars&f=false
  7. ^ http://promacedonia.org/vz1a/vz1a_a_5.html
  8. ^ The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest(1976), David Marshall Lang, https://books.google.bg/books/about/The_Bulgarians.html?id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
  9. ^ A NOTE ON KIDARA AND THE KIDARITES, WILLIAM SAMOLIN, Central Asiatic Journal Vol. 2, No. 4 (1956), pp. 295 – 297, „The Yueh-chih origin of Kidara is clearly established...“, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41926398?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
  10. ^ COINS OF THE TOCHARI, KUSHÂNS, OR YUE-TI, A. Cunningham, стр. 279, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42680025?seq=12#page_scan_tab_contents
  11. ^ THE KIDARITE KINGDOM IN CENTRAL ASIA, E. V. Zeimal, стр. 132: „The Pei-shih (Chapters 7, 13) mentions that the Kidarites, whom it refers to as the Ta Yüeh-chih (Lesser Yüeh-chih), have money made of gold and silver. This information is confirmed by the evidence of their coins. The first comprehensive attempt to categorize and interpret Kidarite coins was undertaken by Cunningham.“, http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_III%20silk%20road_the%20kidarite%20kingdom%20in%20central%20asia.pdf
  12. ^ page 201 https://books.google.bg/books?redir_esc=y&hl=bg&id=J8J8AgAAQBAJ&q=Jie#v=snippet&q=Jie&f=false
  13. ^ The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Denis Sinor, стр. 170, https://books.google.bg/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cranial+deformation+Yueh-Chih&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjApt2UmLrMAhWM8RQKHdvQBr04ChDoAQg9MAc#v=onepage&q=Yueh%20Chih&f=false
  14. ^ The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, стр. 372-375, https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=Kenkol+River&source=bl&ots=KIZSHZyaJZ&sig=NixP5N00kD3QfzxQgebZCE-HF9w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6JSIibrMAhXJaxQKHXDgBEMQ6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=Kenkol%20River&f=false

Origin

Regarding the edit by 500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ, which is very similar to the previous sections and WP:SYNTH edits done by PavelStaykov socks; the etymology is generally considered, not sometimes. The theory that the Kutrigurs were identified with Chdar/Kidar Bulgars is wrongly cited, they were identified by Josef Markwart (died 1930) and some unknown scholar with Duč'i (whose name some read as Kuchi) Bulgars, whose name identification with Kutrigurs does not make any etymological sense (neither is pointed out in which way) as they are etymologically identified to the river Dnieper (Kocho in Armenian), which is also pointed out in the source. The theory is mentioned by Vasil Zlatarski who died in 1935, and the source was originally released in 1918, almost century ago. No wonder that no one considers such "origin" theory today. The connection with the Kidarites by David Marshall Lang on page 31 is typical example of WP:SYNTH.--Crovata (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, David Marshall Lang mentioned Kutrigurs, but on page 34, "a name deriving from Old Turkish kötrügür, meaning 'conspicuous', 'eminent' or 'renowned'".--Crovata (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP ARTICLES SHOULD BE Neutral point of view AND NOT TO IMPOSE ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW. CHECK OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS AGAIN[1] STUPID ARGUMENTS TO JUSTIFY VANDALISM ARE NOT WELCOME. (e.g. the second law of thermodynamics was discovered before 2 centuries(=200 years) but it is still valid[2])--500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction only proves the connection with previous socks. Obviously you don't know anything about the subject, the neutrality (while in the same time using improper editorial synthesis) and terminology of vandalism on Wikipedia. That was invalid example. Some theories continue to be endorsed, but many do not, get over it.--Crovata (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAY BE YOU ARE SOCK OR MAY BE 9(KUTUR) SOCKS? DRAW A MAP AND SEE WHERE ARMENIANS PLACE KIDAR/KIDARITE BULGARS - NEAR DON WHERE ROMANS PLACE KUTRIGURS - GET OVER IT. --500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an example of WP:OR which is not supported on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this turkish language must be very shit language since 9 and Eminent have the same spelling. If you don't know who are Kutrigurs - ask children who play TOTAL WAR - they know. --500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The words don't have the same spelling, a video game is not a reliable source, nor children are reliable scholars. Invalid argument.--Crovata (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested intro

Kutrigurs were nomadic equestrians who flourished on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 6th century AD. To their east were the similar Utigurs. They warred with the Byzantine Empire and the Utigurs. Towards the end of the 6th century under pressure from the Turks they moved to the Avar Khaganate.

There are two theories about the origin of Kutrigurs and related to them tribes Utigurs and Onogurs. According to the first theory (which is the older one and is based on careful consideration of ancient sources) these tribes appeared in Pontic-Caspian steppe after the dissolution of the Hun Empire and they came to Europe together with the Huns. In fact many scholars, for example Grousset, thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

The second theory appears in the historical science after 1980 and is supported mainly by Peter Golden and some other scholars. It is based on linguistic similarities between the names Kutrigurs/Utigurs and some Turkic words. According to this theory the Huns disappeared after the death of Attila. At the same time, about 460 AD, new Turkic group, namely Oghur tribes, entered Pontic-Caspian steppe.[7] However people with the name Oghurs are not documented in any of the Chinese, Iranian, Indian or Armenian sources. Actually we know nothing of the languages of the nomadic people who entered Europe before the 7th century AD. The theories for existence of specific Turkic group (the so called Oghurs, to which Bulgars supposedly belonged), are nothing more than a hypothesis.[8]

  1. ^ Grousset 1970, p. 79.
  2. ^ Great Walls and Linear Barriers, Peter Spring, page 199:"In 460 the Huns split into The Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false
  3. ^ History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, page 303: "The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia."
  4. ^ The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press), page 256: " Thus in our sources the names 'Kutrigur', 'Bulgar' and 'Hun' are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group."
  5. ^ The World of the Huns, O. Maenchen-Helfen, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language."
  6. ^ The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kutrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion"
  7. ^ Sometime about A.D. 463 a series of nomadic migrations was set off in Inner Asia... Archeological and literary evidence permits us to place the homeland of these newcomers, the Oghur tribes, in Western Siberia and the Kazakh steppes... The Oghurs were part of a large Turkic tribal grouping known in Chinese sources as the Tieh-lê, who were to be found in Inner Asia as well The fluidity of the situation in the steppes is mirrored in our sources, a kaleidoscope of dissolving and reforming tribal unions... Although some of the antecedents of this important migration are still unclear, there can be no doubt that the 0ghur tribes now became the dominant element in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The term Oghur denoted “grouping of kindred tribes, tribal union” and figures in their ethnonyms: Onoghur, Saraghur, etc. The language of these Oghur tribes, which survives today only in Chuvash, was distinct from that of Common Turkic. In 480 we find our earliest firm notice on the Bulghars (“Mixed Ones”), a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements. In addition, we have reports about the activities of the Kutrighurs and Utrighurs who appear in our sources under their own names, as “Huns” and perhaps even as “Bulghars.” Their precise relationship to the latter cannot be determined with any certainty, but all three clearly originated in the same Hunno-Oghur milieu. For more see: Golden, P. (1990). The peoples of the south Russian steppes, p. 257, in D. Sinor (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 256-284). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243049.011 .
  8. ^ Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, Boris Zhivkov, page 37: "It is generally accepted that the Bulgars came to Europe either slightly earlier or during the Hunnic invasion", https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kutrigurs&oldid=861069191"