Talk:Huns/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The "for other nomadic polities" hatnote

The hatnote "for other nomadic polities" is so long that it seems almost useless. The only way anyone could use it is if they already knew what other name that group of "Huns" had, and in a few cases, (the Khazars, Sabirs, and Utigurs, for instance) readers are very unlikely to find them described as Huns in modern sources. Can we reach a consensus to only include the Iranian Huns and Xiongnu, or figure out some other way to make the hatnote more productive?--Ermenrich (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It has no usage in my opinion: I) Most readers look for Attila's Huns when they search "Huns" and they are not interested in those other so-called Huns and linked articles. Plus those other peoples were just called Huns in some historical sources. II) If someone search for X Huns, the results will redirect to the related articles. e.g. White Huns and Red Huns. III) Hun (disambiguation) already covers those other articles, so I think it's better to remove hatnote "For" and keep "other uses". IV) Aren't all of them already linked in the body of this article? --Wario-Man (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems a logical solution to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm on board. MMFA (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Navbox

Currently, Huns articles are only connected via categories or linking on articles. Huns have enough articles for creating a navbox/template. I created navboxes for Parthian and Sasanian Empires, see Template:Parthian Empire and Template:Sasanian Empire. So please comment about your suggested structure of navbox (e.g. groups/lists). --Wario-Man (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The main would be Huns, obviously, followed by a section called History and Culture, maybe? That could include Origin of the Huns, History of the Huns, and Hunnic Language.

As another section after that, we can list battles. Category:Battles involving the Huns currently has 9 entries, to which we could possibly add the stub Treaty of Margus.

Then we have a large number of pages for Hunnic rules/individuals. Do we want to limit the NavBox to just rulers or include anyone identified as a Hun?

Lastly, do we want to include the other Hunnic peoples in a section called "Related and potentially related peoples"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I am pro-iclusionist.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC))

I create the first revision and we can change it to make it better. --Wario-Man (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First revision is ready and I added it. "Wars" is incomplete. Also, I think adding the other so-called Huns (e.g. Hephthalites) may confuse the readers and could cause some troubles in the future, e.g. some people adds to unsourced terms and claims to those articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a section for "Other notable Huns" and completed the wars. I also added Akatziri under culture (not sure where else would be better to put them).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Akatziri belongs to related topics because the origin of that tribe is uncertain, and I don't see any notable cultural aspect. Culture includes language, art, artifacts, religion, clothing, and literature. Except the language, the others don't have their own articles. Are there any notable/important articles left? --Wario-Man (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Addition of a Genetics section

Per Hunan201p's recent revision, a new paper has been published on Genetic profiles of Carpathian-basin nomads, which includes three Hunnic burials, one of which exhibits Q-M346 (Q1a2) which is related to the Q-M242 (Yeniseian/Xiongnu) subclade (It is, IIRC, a Subclade of Q-M242 itself). Another exhibited R1a-Z93 and a third R1b-U106.

Here was his proposed addition:

Ancient DNA analysis is finally resolving the 20th century debate about the phylogenetic origin of the Huns. In 2019, Y-chromosome haplotypes and autosomal SNP information of three elite male Huns were retrieved by European researchers. One Hun was found to carry the Y-DNA haplogroup Q1a2, while a second specimen was found to carry Y-DNA haplogroup R1a-Z93. A third Hun fossil yielded Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-U106. Multiple SNP analysis indicated that all three individuals were largely European in ancestry, ranging from 0-47% East Asian, and that all three had dark eye and hair color. Based on the presence of Y-DNA haplogroups Q1a2 and R1a1, it was concluded that these individuals were related to the Xiongnu. Authors speculated that the R1b-U106 haplotype present in one Hun may have had Germanic origins.

I have a few problems with this.

1. A Hun cannot technically have Germanic origins because we're discussing two different things here. If looking for Genetic markers of "ethnic Huns" then only the first individual really falls in line with Xiongnu examples from L.L. Kang et. al. The presence of people expressing R1a and R1b is representative of the multiethnic makeup of the Hun polity. What you have is a person of Germanic heritage participating in the Hun system, not a "Germanic Hun." Same for the R1a (Indo-Iranian, more or less, but probably culturally far more Hunnic than any Germanic newcomers) individual.

I need some time to go over the paper in-depth (gave it a quick scan) but this addition as is I find... tenuous. And if we're going to add a section on Hun Genetics we need to talk about more than a single paper.

MMFA (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The paper makes clear that R1a1 was present among the Xiongnu, and also among the later Hungarian conquerors:

Hun/3 belongs to Hg R1a1a1b2a2- Z2124, a subclade of R1a1a1b2-Z93, the east Eurasian subbranch of R1a. Today Z2124 is most frequent in Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan, but is also widespread among Karachai-Balkars and Baskhirs 19. Z2124 was widespread on the Bronze Age steppe, especially in the Afanasievo and Sintashta cultures 20 and R1a detected in Xiongnus 21,22 very likely belong to the same branch.

Two samples from the Karos Conqueror cemeteries (K1/3286 and K2/61) were also classified as R1a-Z2124 and two Avar age individuals (DK/701 and MM/227) belong to the same R1a1a1b2a-Z94 branch but marker Z2124 was not covered in latter samples.

There can be no doubt that R1a1 is a Xiongnu and Hunnnic founding Y-DNA haplotype.

If R1b-U106 is present in a Hunnic cemetary as this analysis suggested it was; that is obviously relevant. Hunan201p (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this is that R1a is present in almost every single Eurasian culture. Using it as an identifying marker of the Xiongnu is not feasible. Furthermore, Y-DNA Haplogroups transmit really, really easy. That's why we find Q-M242 subclades M25 L712 through L715 in the same cultures you mention (the Afansievo and Sintasha cultures). This marker of R1a is inherent to virtually all Eurasian steppe nomads. Genetics is not as definitive as you're saying it is here, and we need to reflect that in any section we add to this article. MMFA (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Who said anything about an "identifying marker"? It is commonplace to list the fossil DNA evidence of graves belonging to ancient cultures. That R1a1 is common in Eurasia does not mean that a Hun with R1a1 is not a Hun. Since R1a1 is found in Xiongnu elite burials, it belongs in this section. The R1b-U106 also belongs here just as it was presented in Table 2, since it was found in a Hun cemetary and has always been considered a Hun.

I believe you are redacting my contribution because you want all Huns to be Q1 and/or subscribe to the Yeniseian theory of Xiongnu origins. The genetics of people who are found in Hunnic graves should be listed as given by researchers without any bias related to "identifying markers" or some kind of made-up Hunnic nationalism. Hunan201p (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this from a peer-reviewed journal? We can only cite it if it's been peer-reviewed and published, and it looks like it may just be published on a website.

In any case, MMFA is right, we can't just cite one source for this section. Also, the way you wrote it appeared to be arguing a position.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

We can only cite it if it's been peer-reviewed and published, and it looks like it may just be published on a website.

Source? Anyway, yes, it was published in PLOSone:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920

In any case, MMFA is right, we can't just cite one source for this section.

And? That's not justification for taking my contribution down.

Also, the way you wrote it appeared to be arguing a position.

I essentially wrote exactly what was in pages 5 and 6 from the paper and summarized the genetic data from table 2. What position do you suggest I am trying to argue?Hunan201p (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to this sentence: "Ancient DNA analysis is finally resolving the 20th century debate about the phylogenetic origin of the Huns." This is a very strident position to taken, and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. As MMFA has pointed out, moreover, the DNA evidence is not as clear cut as you're presenting.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground when arguing your points. Your method of disecting others' posts is somewhat offputting. We're all here to improve the article, the point right now is to make a good genetics section, which is why we're discussing here.

Also, please properly indent your posts, including your signature.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that we should be showing that genetic evidence is evidence and only one part of a larger picture of understanding these peoples and cultures. And that if we are going to add this section, we should write it out beforehand and utilize multiple peer-reviewed sources (which when it comes to European Hun genetics, AFAIK are still pretty rare. The Xiongnu ones are hard to come by as well.)

"The R1b-U106 also belongs here just as it was presented in Table 2, since it was found in a Hun cemetary and has always been considered a Hun." Actually no, what this does is it contradicts an assumption about an individual who until now was considered a Hun. Is he still a Hun? It's hard to say (I'd have to look at the grave goods). But he certainly partook in the greater Pontic-Danubian cultural sphere. But it shows that an earlier assumption was wrong and it prevents a more diverse and complex view of that particular cemetary.

(And yes I do subscribe to the Yeniseian theory by the way because it's by far the strongest supported theory for Xiongnu/Hun origins when taking archaeology, linguistics, and genetics all into account, but the presence of Q subclades isn't definitive for many of the reasons I mentioned above, namely including that other subclades can be found in the Xiongnu cemetaries e.g. Barkol and also because Y-Chromosomal haplogroups spread really easily through populations. Linguistics is a better identifier of a greater cultural sphere, IMO.).MMFA (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

How is that statement incorrect? As far as I am aware there were no genetic studies of Huns being performed in the 20th century. Until recently, all people did was infer their genetic ancestry via physical anthropology. This paper describes genetic evidence linking the Huns to the Xiongnu, which is consistent with what some anthropologists suggested.

(MMFA did not give any reason for your statememt "the DNA evidence is not as clear cut as you're presenting". The DNA evidence was clear cut, he simply feels that we should not describe a Hun with Y-DNA R1a or R1b as a "true Hun" because he personally believes only Huns with Y-DNA Q1a can be "true Huns" -- despite R1a going way back in the Xiongnu. By the same reasoning, Thomas Jefferson should have a disclaimer on his page stating that he is "not a true American" because he belonged to the middle eastern Y-DNA haplogroup T, or Barack Obama should be noted as merely a "Kenyan participating in the American system" because of his father's nationality.

MMFA said:

And yes I do subscribe to the Yeniseian theory by the way because it's by far the strongest supported theory for Xiongnu/Hun origins when taking archaeology, linguistics, and genetics all into account

There is not a shred of genetic or achaeological evidence to support that theory and you are in a minority opinion with regards to linguistic research. The predominant consensus is that the Xiongnu were Indo-Iranian and later on, Mongolic. The recent genetic evidence does not support a Yeniseian theory, either. Hunan201p (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've already asked you to please properly format your responses, your posts are making this talk page very difficult to read. Please indent all of your post one indentation (using :) over from the previous respondant. That includes your signature, which you keep placing on a separate unindented line for some reason.

You appear to be ignoring the central issue, which is that we need multiple sources for this section, which, as MMFA suggests, we should format and write here first, given the difficulties of using genetics research. The Yeniseian theory is irrelevant to this discussion. I would also note that genetics cannot "prove" that the Xiongnu spoke or didn't speak a Yeniseian language, anymore than it could prove they spoke an Indo-Iranian or Mongolic language.

So let's see some more sources and write this collaboratively. Per WP:BATTLEFIELD, please stop trying to make this into a you vs. MMFA (or me) thing.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So just because I support the Yeniseian theory does not automatically mean I assume someone with R1a is not a Hun. First of all, Hun was an identity, not an ethnicity which is the entire point I'm trying to make. Huns are usually identified through cultural markers via archaeology, not genetic profiles. Second of all, yes there is a LOT of archaeological evidence to support the Yeniseian theory since modern reconstructions of the archaeological development of several Xiongnu cultural identifiers point towards the Yenisei Valley as their point of origin. Regarding linguistic evidence several of the foremost linguists on Old Turkic including experts on the Hun language Etienne de la Vassiere, Christopher P. Atwood, and Alexander Vovin (who refined Pulleyblank's reconstruction of the Jie poem) agree that Yeniseian is the most likely language of the early Xiongnu. However this does not mean it was the language of the majority of the population or the language the Huns spoke when they emmigrated into the Central Asian, Caspian, and Pontic steppes. The Huns were a multiethnic, multicultural polity whose primary source of unity was a common identity, and identity is a very fluid thing on the steppes. To the Huns, ethnicity didn't matter so much as familial ties, and familial ties and clan were the building blocks of greater identity, and they also carried a similar concept to the Chinese idea of imperial authority as shown in Peter Golden's research.

Anyways my point here is that this was a multicultural, multiethnic people and genetic markers did not define them.MMFA (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(Outdent)@Hunan201p:, could you give me the full bibliographic data for the two articles you cite? I'd like to add them to the page bibliography. @MMFA:, what other articles about Hun DNA are there that we should add?--Ermenrich (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hunan201p:, I have removed the Kazakh DNA Project info as it is not from a reliable source. As you questioned before whether we have to use peer-reviewed papers published in a respectable journal, I would like to draw your attention to WP:Reliable sources and, more specifically, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science): "primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS." "An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the first article you added also specifically says it has not been peer-reviewed, so we can't cite it either. I've removed the whole section.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me look up that first article because that's a pre-publishing print. It may have been peer reviewed and published by now. PLOSOne does double-blind Peer Review. As for other papers there is this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2 but most of the papers I have are on the Xiongnu. EDIT: It hasn't been yet it's still undergoing the process for publication. MMFA (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The L-M20 Hun source is available here:

OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN  SERIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL  ISSN 2224-5308  Volume 4, Number 322 (2017), 39 – 50 L. B. Dzhansugurova1 , K. B. Dzhantaeva1 , Nurzhibek1 , G. S. Zhunussova1 , E. B. Kuzovleva1 ,  L. Z. Musralina1 , Sh. Evinger2 , A. Kustar2 , O. A. Ixan1 , E. М. Khussainova1 1 Laboratory of Population Genetics, «Institute of General Genetics and Cytology» CS MES RK,  Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2 Department of Anthropology, Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Budapest, Hungary.  E-mail: leylad@mail.ru  ISOLATION AND ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT DNA  FROM HUMAN BONES OF THE HUN PERIOD Abstract. A paleogenetic analysis of the human remains of the Hun period was carried out. It is shown that the  bone remains of the Hunnic period from Hungary are 100% characterized by the L haplotype of the Y-chromosome  and the D4j12 mtDNA haplotype, which is evidence of the Asian origin of the paternal and maternal line of the  ancient find from Europe.  http://rmebrk.kz/journals/3436/74890.pdf#page=39Hunan201p (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and / or Redirect.

Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of North Caucasian Huns into this talk page's article was:

'''Not Done—No Consensus to Merge.
— — — — —

Merge North Caucasian Huns into Huns. North Caucasian Huns is a stub and only has one source I'd really consider reliable. I propose merging it to Huns. The vast majority of scholars believe that the North Caucasian Huns were descended from or closely related to Attila's Huns, including Denis Sinor, Peter Golden, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, and Jin Hyun Kim. There's no real reason to give them their own article. Additionally, the article currently falsely gives the impression that the North Caucasian Huns are the "Khunni" mentioned in Ptolemy.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a request for sources, so here they are:

"In the 360-370's we have some indications that Hunnic groups were beginning to raid Transcaucasia. The "North Caucasian Huns," as we may term this grouping, would prove to be a formidable force, requiring, in time, an accommodation between the mutually hostile East Roman and Sasanid empires."

"In 395, the Huns, apparently driven by famine in the steppes, staged a devastating raid through the Caucasus into the adjoining regions of the Sasanid Empire and the Roman East [...] Thereafter, Hunnic raids into Sasanid holdings become more frequent. In particular, Armenian sources make note of the Hunnic tribe or grouping called Xailandur, some elements of which were being drawn to Christianity. Hunnic interaction with the Roman Empire was also increasing."

"It cannot be determined [...] whether [Attila's] authority encompassed the "North Caucasian Huns" as has been claimed."

"We have a variety of notices in Byzantine and Armenian sources about the Huns in the North Caucasus[...] In 535 or 537, an Armenian missionary team headed by the bishop Kardost baptized many among the North Caucasian Huns." etc.

"[The North Caucasian Huns] became an important part of the Khazar state and were still a distinct element in the late 7th century. After that, our sources lose sight of them."

"More is known about another, more successful attempt to preach the Gospel among the Huns. In 682 the Albanian bishop Israel visited what is known as the Caucasian kingdom of the Huns, a vassal-state of the Khazars, located north of Derbend, near the CaspianSea. Nothing is known about the beginnings of this epigone state, since our principal source, the Armenian historian Moses Daskhuranci, is mainly concerned with ecclesiastical matters. However, he clearly distinguishes these Huns from the Sabirs, whom he locates further east, and, at this time and place, there is no other likely possibility for another people to have borne the name Hun [...] How long and to what degree this Hun state was able to maintain a certain autonomy within the Khazar empire, how and when the final absorption of this Hun enclave came about, cannot be established. It is probably safe to say that it is the last identifiable Hun community"

Otto Maenchen-Helfen, in The World of the Huns, nowhere explicitly discusses the North Caucasian Huns, but includes their names in his lists of Hunnic personal names, p. 442.

Thompson similarly includes them as Huns without discussion, see here

"The activities of the Caucasian Huns in the sixth century AD also deserve mention at this point. These Huns were separated from the rest of the Huns due to the establishment of the Sabir realm ca. 506 AD in the Volga region [...] these Caucasian Huns would found a smaller kingdom in what is now modern Dagestan."

"The Caucasian Huns, despite the small size of their polity, would persist for centuries. Within the Khazar Khaganate (seventh-eleventh centuries AD) [...] there were seven hereditary kingdoms. One of these kingdoms was a HUnnic kingdom located in the basin of the Sulak river to the north of the city of Derbent, no doubt the continuation of the old Caucasian Hunnic state."--Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Two of these make definitive claims they are Huns proper (Kim and Denis Sinor). The rest (from Golden) are using it colloquially; Golden isn't making an assertive claim they are Huns proper. And as another user (KIENGIR) below stated that there were many peoples among the Huns themselves. Not to mention this term was thrown around referring to many raiding peoples during that time. I'm not pointing the finger towards any ethnicity/tribe in particular (it is debated/uncertain) which is why I'm suggesting it be a disambiguation. If not then keep it as is (no merge). DA1 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I have to disagree. Golden mentions them specifically in the context of "The Huns of Europe" (chapter title), immediately before describing them crossing the Volga. Thompson is similarly fairly clear about using Hun to refer to Attila's people, as is Maenchen-Helfen, who vehemently denies connections between the European Huns and other groups.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Perhaps he is. But "Europe" here may include the Caucasus as well, so unless he or they specifically spell out who they're referring to, it's a big question mark still. Nonetheless, even if I go by your interpretation, the point being is it is a matter of debate; as I've pointed to below of other sources that both refer to Sabirs as "Huns" and of operating in the North Caucasus. There is also these additional sources, one that specifically refer the Sabirs as being of the Huns proper (quoting Byzantine accounts) and, according to Procopius, of living in the Kuban (North Caucasus): [1]; and this source which speaks of the an Opsites of Abasgia of having escaped to "the neighbouring Sabirs" [i.e., Kuban or somewhere in North Caucasus] from a Roman assault [2], seemingly confirming the former. Something which Maenchen-Helfen also claims (of the Sabirs living in Kuban; pg. 432). DA1 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: I'm not debating whether there were Sabirs in the Caucasus. The point is that none of these authors refer to the Sabirs as Huns - Golden covers the Sabirs separately, as do all of the other authors listed above. When they refer to "Caucasian Huns" or "North Caucasian Huns", it's very clear they are not referring to Sabirs. Sinor discusses the possibility that the Sabirs had connections to the Huns before moving on to the North Caucasian Huns, whom he clearly differentiates from them. I've found some references to the North Caucasian "Huns" in scare-quotes in other sources, but they are nevertheless not using the term "generically" as you've claimed - it's the name of this group, whom the above scholars connect to the Huns of Attila.

You're confusing the fact that ancient sources refer to the Sabirs as Huns with the usage of (at least the majority of) scholars of the Huns, who do not refer to them as such. Even the Iranica citation you give has to refer to them as "Sabir Huns", not "Caucasian Huns". Modern scholarship either reserves the term "Hun" for the European Huns or else for groups it believes related to them/ the Xiongnu.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. MMFA (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. Redirect it to this one. That article was created in 2005 and it looks like a WP:POVFORK. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The article Huns refers to Huns proper, exclusively. There are about a dozen other articles on groups that were colloquially referred to as "Huns" by the Persians, Byzantines, Caucasians and Indians; this being one of them. I don't know how you can definitively say they're the same Huns; personally I always thought the article should be merged with Sabir people. They were the "Huns" who invaded from the North Caucasus through the Darial and Derbend passes.

Now, if you have sources (as you hinted) to support this notion that they were the same Huns, assuming that is the case, the term "North Caucasian Hun" can yet be used to refer to either Huns proper and Sabir "Huns" both then. So merging the title with Huns isn't right. Make it a disambiguation page. DA1 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with lumping the Sabirs under the Caucasian Huns is that the Sabirs are widely thought to be the Xianbei... MMFA (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@MMFA: The article on Xianbei doesn't say anything about that though. If you are alluding to the refs in Sabir people, I believe they're referring to it being either of Xianbei or Finno-Ugric; I know that the Sabirs origins aren't decisive but rather debated. In either case, "North Caucasian Huns" as a disambiguation page works best. This article from Iranica even describes the two as being the same using both names [3] (last paragraph). Both groups coincidentally operated out of the North Caucasus during the 500s, so why shouldn't it be a disambiguation? DA1 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That really should be added to the Sabir page then because the etymology of the name Xianbei to Sabir is pretty thoroughly established (Xianbei being pronounced "Sebri" which then flipped consonant and vowel position into "Sebir/Sabir" basically). Also the Sabirs weren't in the Caucasus, they were on the Volga which is in Astrakhan on the Caspian Steppes, above Transcaucasia (where the Hunnic groups were mostly located e.g. the Xailiandur, Brjan, etc.). The North Caucasus was mostly populated by Iranic-speakers like the Alans and the Zekhoi of Procopius. MMFA (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say, careful about this we cannot say that at the Caucasus or lower were not Sabir people, may information contradicts such a severe exclusion. There are etymological similarities regarding Siberia, but it does not mean it is surely the source. Also Sabartoe-Asphaloe was referred more tribes that after joined other tribes forming the early Hungarian tribes before the Conquest of the Carpathian Basin, although there are debates of the etymology, also the Kangars came from lower near-east, they are as well non-Indo-Eruopeans, we cannot say only "Iranic-speakers" were there as you say. The Hun tribal alliance formed many people with many different places, it is not so unform as one may expect. So I wish a totally neutral approach and not so much to fall into the "Finno-Ugrian" trap.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

If they didn't operate in the North Caucasus then how did they travel into the South Caucasus and Persian/Byzantine territories? Everything I've read about the Sabirs (referred to as "Sabir Huns" by Iranica) is that they would raid the region through places like the Derbent Pass in Dagestan, etc. The Wikipedia article on 'Sabir people' also says they lived in the Kuban area which is in the North Caucasus. They were colloquial "Huns" who raided from the North Caucasus, irrespective of where they may have lived. Prior to the Khazar Empire, everything beyond southern Dagestan and the coastline of Circassia and Crimea were unknown; the established civilizations had no idea what was out there. DA1 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@KIENGIR:I'm not talking about Siberia at all. Sebri is the Old Late Chinese pronunciation of "Xianbei" a proto-Mongolic people who probably flipped to proto-Turkic like the Huns and in this process Sebri became Sabir. It has nothing to do with Finno-Ugrian or Siberia.

The Sabirs lived on the Volga Mouth near the Caspian. These peoples had high mobility and it was rather easy to raid from the Volga down as far as Mesopotamia like the Huns did in 395. As for "established civilizations having no idea what was out there," Priscus has a pretty good idea, and so does Prokopios. Also, it's worth noting that many major authors like Peter Golden separate the Sabirs from the various Caucasian Hunnic groups. MMFA (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I wish to add - although this is not even discussed or accepted or regarded by some parties fringe nowadays- that regardless of the todays scholarly consensus on the views of Indo-Iranians or Scythians, Massaegetaes or similar and many other nations we have to add that only after 19th national romanticism which rewritten the whole history of Europe and many new theories emerged or rendered serving some political agendas (Finno-Ugrian theory, Daco-Roman theory, Indo-German theories) they are regarded such, before all historic sources distinguished them racially, culturally from Indo-Iranian/Indo-European people, they were regarded as classic horse-nomadic people with non-Semitic, non-Indoeuropean, but agglutinative speaking people. There are even serious and renowned scholars who openly critize the Scythian and related classification and origins. Pan-Turkism corrupted them all to be Turkic, however I disagree with this, I think the truth are not even the halfway, history tries to forget about the non-Semitic, non-Indo-European, non-Mongolic people in Eurasia as if they cannot be classified as Semitic, Indo-European or Turkic claims are coming and "absorbing" them, since racially there is not much difference, even if we regard the mass admixture of these people. I just wanted to express, I am quite skeptic and cautious with harsh conslusions, since not just Mongolic/Altaic people spoke agglutinative languages, and they do not seem the source. Depsite, in the middle east, lower the Caucasus still in the very early middle ages could be agglutinative-speaking people which were non-Turkic, non-Semitic, non-Indo-European or non-Mongolic. Subartu could be also a very ancient connection, however there is not any striking evidence for this, but I've met with such assumptions. Returning to the Sabartoe-Asphaloi, also in Greek they could not interpret properly the meaning and added Greek suffixes also...some say it means "brave Sabirs", some say people from lower Sabiria as "asphal" would mean lower. All in all, it is possible also that by location, people were referred or called themselves as Sabir because they stem from the location that was called/referred Subar or similar in the past.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Okay at this point Kiengir I have literally zero idea how what you're talking about is even remotely connected to the Sabir Huns (whose name is rendered in Procopius and Priscus as 'Sabeirioi or Sabireioi." What I'm talking about is this: https://www.academia.edu/20107948/Some_Notes_on_the_Etymology_of_Sabir MMFA (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added sources. definitely not talking about the Sabirs.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, anyone have access to this? Could be relevant.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I do. Reading it now. Interesting paper. MMFA (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If it seems relevant to you, I'll try to get access myself. I think that, regardless of whether we end up merging the Caucasian Huns article or making that a disambiguation page, it would be great if we could them in some more depth here.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@MMFA: So what position are you arguing for (regarding move)? Because I've made mine: they are also referred to as Huns, by various sources. I noted Iranica above, and you can search plenty of other sources that quote "Sabir Huns" and Sabir operating in the North Caucasus (if you search on Google). NPOV applies. This one even quotes your author [4]: Procopius speaks of the "Huns called Sabirs" Their first appearance on the Byzantine horizon is connected with a migration which took place between 461 and 465 and brought them to the region north of the Caucasus where, in the 6th century, they became a major power. DA1 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Yes, I'm aware you're not talking about the Sabirs, but if the goal is to get rid of the stub, then making it a disambiguation is fair. The term can point to both the Huns proper and Sabir "Huns", both of whom operated in the North Caucasus. DA1 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: What I meant was: these scholars aren't. They seem to use "Caucasian Huns" or "North Caucasian Huns" to mean specifically this group of Huns. I'd be willing to take your suggestion, but I'd prefer a straight merger. Let's see what the consensus brings about.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose, but you should do a proper Wikipedia:Proposed mergers tagged discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is the term Caucasian Huns refers to Huns in Dagestan, Chechnya, etc. etc. in the region just north of the Caucasus called Transcaucasia. It technically doesn't refer to the Sabirs who were much further north of the Caucasus in the lower Volga Steppes. MMFA (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had followed the precedure for that... might you be of any assistance?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Any chance any of the sources I've posted or the discussions here have changed your mind?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really - you now have assembled good quotes to improve NCH & ref it properly. If it were to be merged anywhere it would surely belong in HotH, which already covers them quickly; I can't see it fitting in here. But from your quotes they seem to have been a distinct entity for long enough to justify a stand-alone article. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

::::Leaning oppose based on Johnbod's comments, agreed the quotes support keeping a stand-alone article.Dilbilir (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

Change "...relationship between the Xungnu, the Huns, and a number of people in central Asia were also known as or came to be identified with the name "Hun" or "Iranian Huns", the Chionites, the Kidarites, and the Hephthalites (or White Huns) being the most prominent." to "...relationship between the Xungnu, the Huns, and a number of people in central Asia who were also known as or came to be identified with the name "Hun" or "Iranian Huns", with the Chionites, the Kidarites, and the Hephthalites (or White Huns) being the most prominent." There are two words added in the changes: adding the word 'who' after 'Asia' and adding the word 'with' after "Iranian Huns". These changes correct two grammatical errors. Goman1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, more or less. Thanks for pointing out the errors.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The following references have no corresponding citations that I can reliably determine. Would someone with access to the original documents please check then out.

• 50) Heather (undated) pp 151-152. This could be 1996, 1995, 2010 or 2005.
• 61), 63), Heather 1990.
• 102) Heather 1999.
• 127), 129), 197), 198), 208), 213), 214) Heather 2006.
• 58) Thompson 1999. Choices are 1946 or 1996.
• 78) Thompson 1973
• 266) Lafferton 2007. The word "Lafferton" is only mentioned in the referenced, not as any part of any citation.

It may be relevant that the following citations are not erferred to in the text:

• Ammianus, Marcellinus (1939)
• Heather, Peter (1996) (but see above)
• James, Edward (2009)
• Jordanes (2006)

I've tidied up all that I can safely. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I've tried to fix these (since I think I caused them originally in most cases). I didn't do them in order though, so I may of missed something.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a vast improvement. Reference 112 is still showing Heather 1999, that seems to be missing from the list above. All the other red links have gone though. Two of the unreferenced citations are now showing as referenced, only Ammianus and Jordanes are unused. This is not a problem though, if you don't have the tools enabled you'd never know. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well done. Not a single red reference anywhere. This WikiGnome feels very happy! ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Religion of hun

Religion of hun is tengrism because

See this information in wikipedia :

John Man argues that the Huns of Attila's time likely worshipped the sky and the steppe deity Tengri, who is also attested as having been worshipped by the Xiongnu.[187] Maenchen-Helfen also suggests the possibility that the Huns of this period may have worshipped Tengri, but notes that the god is not attested in European records until the ninth century.[188] Worship of Tengri under the name "T'angri Khan" is attested among the Caucasian Huns in the Armenian chronicle attributed to Movses Dasxuranci during the later seventh-century.[183] Movses also records that the Caucasian Huns worshipped trees and burnt horses as sacrifices to Tengri,[183] and that they "made sacrifices to fire and water and to certain gods of the roads, and to the moon and to all creatures considered in their eyes to be in some way remarkable."[183] Khan slayer (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Two scholars say they might have worshipped Tengri, but there’s no evidence. In other words it’s speculation. There is no reason to link this to “Tengriism”, which is mostly a questionable pan-Turkic concept anyway. Nothing we know about Hunnic religion suggests it.—Ermenrich (talk)

First paragraph of genetics section

Krakkos, I'm not sure the first paragraph of the genetics section belongs here, as it is not clear that the "Tian Shan Huns" are actually the Huns who invaded Europe/what the connection is.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich I agree that the relevance of the first paragraph is somewhat problematic. One would assume that the "Tian Shan Huns" studied in the 2018 Nature article are Kidarites, Huna people or Xionites, but the authors of the study consistently refer to them as "Tian Shan Huns", "Huns" or "early Huns". Nevertheless, the ancestral profile of these "Tian Shan Huns" are cited as evidence for the origin of European Huns. The paragraph might be trimmed somewhat, but it is at least partially relevant and the source is certainly reliable. Krakkos (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Misinfo in genetics section

This statement was removed from the article: "The authors of the study suggested that the Huns emerged through the conquests of Sakas by the Xiongnu, which is evident in the increased levels of East Asian paternal ancestry among the Tian Shan Huns."

In fact the study said nothing about paternal ancestry, but rather, autosomal ancestry that was male-mediated. That's hugely different than "East Asian paternal ancestry" (which would imply haplogroups). That's relevant because a lot of Xiongnu's paternal ancestry was not East Asian.

Also, this

" Later Turkic peoples of Central Asia displayed higher levels of East Asian ancestry than the Tian Shan Huns, indicating that the Turkification of Central Asia was carried out by dominant minorities of East Asian origin. The results of the study were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns."

Is POV not in Damgaard. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Austosomal ancestry is neither paternal neither maternal related stuff, because people inherit autosomal DNA equally from both maternal and paternal side.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of interest at Origin of the Huns

This discussion at Talk:Origin of the Huns#Kim 2015 could use more input.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

@Ermenrich Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I added informations about a new genetic study, why did you undo that ? Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

because you’re misrepresenting the study, the authors of which merely “suggest” continuity between the Huns and Xiongnu according to the abstract and doesn’t in fact seem to be about that at all. On top of that it was only just published and we should probably wait to see how it's received.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you think Krakkos? You're more well-versed in genetics than me.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Keyser et al. (2020) examined samples from the Xiongnu, not the Huns. On the basis of similarities between these Xiongnu and formerly examined Huns, they do however make claims about the origins of the Huns, which are made both in the abstract and the conclusion. The study is published in a reliable journal, and i think it is justified to add it to this article, but given that the study is primarily about the Xiongnu, we should not be giving it much weight. Krakkos (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like they're also proposing that the Hungarians and Avars are descended from the Xiongnu and Huns... surely there's a better explanation for the presence of those genetic markers though? Perhaps they're simply common on the steppes... They mention at least that the Hungarian-Avar connection is not in fashion.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the sentence in Keyser et al. (2020) in which they appear to take for granted that the Pannonian Avars and Hungarian conquerors were derived from the Huns. That is surely not a generally accepted view. A problem with articles on genomics is that their authors are primarily geneticists, with little apparent knowledge about archaeology and history. Sometimes they appear to be making sweeping conclusions solely based on genetic material, without taking other evidence into account. Archaeologists and historians are however often included as co-authors of papers on archaeogenetics, which should make such errors less likely. Authors of research papers obviously seek to gain maximum attention for their work, and the best way to do this is to present your work as groundbreaking, which usually means either confirming, debunking or presenting a new important thesis. It's important that Wikipedia editors are aware of this. I'm not in favor of an outright ban on the use of reliable research papers on genomics at articles not directly about genomics (such at this one), but i do think that we should use great caution when doing so. Krakkos (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is the solution. There are many genetic/DNA studies with different conclusions/results. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Kakkros. The geneticist seem to make rather naive conclusions. I have added a modified to the end of the sectionSlovenski Volk (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk, can I ask you add page numbers for those citations? Also: if the citations don't directly relate to genetics (i.e. they don't say that genetics don't actually prove Xiongnu origins) then we shouldn't use them to suggest that. That's an example of wp:SYNTH and/or wp:OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, will add pages shortly, However, w.r.t to second point- any dubious aspect can be claimed without the possibility of sobering refutation of basic factology, which is not WP:SYTNH. It relates to back to the basic premise of the article in question Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"Scientific Reports" in genetics section

So I noticed two odd things about one of the articles in our genetics section:(Neparáczki, Endre; et al. (November 12, 2019). "Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin". Scientific Reports. 9 (16569). Nature Research: 16569. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53105-5. PMC 6851379. PMID 31719606. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |layurl=, and |nopp= (help))

1) the author is clearly Hungarian, and 2) it appears to be arguing for a Hunnic origin of the Szekelys. When I look into the journal, Scientific Reports, I read Some have suggested that Scientific Reports has a tendency to publish junk science, and have questioned the review process. Controversies listed on the Wikipedia page include: 1) publishing a paper saying the sun is causing global warming; 2) publishing a plagiarized thesis; 3) various questionable medical studies. Given the nationalist aspects of arguing for Hungarian/Szekely origins with the Huns, and the problems with the journal, I wonder if we ought to remove it. It currently supports the following text:

A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in November 2019 examined the remains of three males from three separate 5th century Hunnic cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin. They were found to be carrying the paternal haplogroups Q1a2, R1b1a1b1a1a1 and R1a1a1b2a2. In modern Europe, Q1a2 is rare and has its highest frequency among the Székelys. All of the Hunnic males studied were determined to have had brown eyes and black or brown hair, and to have been of mixed European and East Asian ancestry. The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Neparáczki I would keep, if the other studies are kept as well (however, on the whole genetic research sections we share a common opinion, at least here they don't want to conclude proto-x-y-z speaking peoples hypothetical languages shifts based on genetics :-) ) (KIENGIR (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC))

@Krakkos, Wario-Man, and Slovenski Volk:.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping Neparáczki et al., although I'm open to removing the sentence on haplogroup prevalence among Szekelys. Krakkos (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep but if you think the study is not reliable, you better take it to WP:RSN. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

The study is reliable insofar as the results are valid and clear. The interpretation, however, may be disputed or better said - more nuanced reading of the observations can be had. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Many dates are given without their unit of measurement! (…In 451, the Huns…) While "AD" my be inferred from prior sentences, it is the an absolute standard that everyone always adds the unit of measurement regardless of how many times and how obvious. Austemagne (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not true. It is standard not mention AD after the first mention once it is obvious. AD is not a "unit of measurement".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

2020 paper doubting Xiongnu-Hun connection

I've just become aware of this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/early-nomads-of-the-eastern-steppe-and-their-tentative-connections-in-the-west/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55

To sum up, while historical and archaeological evidence may imply the inclusion of some steppe component among the Huns, the very limited linguistic and genetic data do not provide support for linking this component with the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe, or the Xiongnu specifically.

@Krakkos:, do you think you'd be able to figure out how to fit it into our current genetics section? It's the only genetics study we've had so far that finds the connection questionable.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this study, Ermenrich. I have added it to the genetics section. Krakkos (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, recent DNA study:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1

The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians: Published: May 25, 2022

Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns OrionNimrod (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like another over-simplified palaeogenetics paper to me. How can they assume that the only people from modern Mongolia with these genetic markers were Xiongnu?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

They analised 265 new ancient genomes (Total 3000 ancient samples had the full world database, so this is a significant increase), if you read, you can see there is a very detailed explanation and results. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hun-Hungarian Connection

Neparáczki Endre And the University of Szeged published a genetical study. This study genetically tested many 10th century Hungarian graves and the results show that the early Hungarians DNA is 47% the same as the DNA of Huns. 2A0A:F640:1305:AB18:F1FB:BF8B:D2BA:CF14 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you link the source? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians: Published:May 25, 2022 (265 new ancient genomes help to unravel the origin of migration-period populations. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns, Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns) The Hungarians have a deep-rooted Hungarian-Hun tradition. Until the middle of the 19th century, it was generally accepted that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns and Scythians, besides Árpád, Grand Prince of the Hungarians was a direct descendant of the great Hun leader Attila. Hun-Hungarian affinity was declared in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources and has been maintained in Hungarian folk memory. I know a lot of medieval sources wich states this.

Finally, it was proved by science, that old Hungarians are a mix of Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, and the Huns were mostly also Europids. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not conclusion of the research. Hungarian conquering elite was ~50% Mansi-like, ~35% Sarmatian-like, and ~15% Hun/Xiongnu-like. Huns became partly "Europids" only in Pannonia mixing with Scythian and especially Germanic people, but many still carried "ancient northeast Asian" (some almost exclusively). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the lates publication, they analised 265 new ancient genomes, the result say Hungarians and Huns were mostly Europid and the Avars were rather "Asian like":

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1

Archaeogenetics study by French academics:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4

“Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied...”

“We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.” OrionNimrod (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@KeithTyler: check article's "Genetics" section as well as Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Genetic evidence. Connection is possible, but indirectly as original Hungarian elite wasn't Hun related, but acquired such genetics with migrations. The section "Links to the Hungarians" doesn't contradict it at all. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There’s a fundamental problem with how these studies determine whether an individual is “Hun”, “Xiongnu” or “Hungarian”, something also noted by Savalyev and Jeong, who are cited in the section. We have some fairly bold conclusions based on the presence of steppe DNA that is assumed to be Xiongnu rather than belonging to some other steppe people. They rely at least partially on archaeological assessment of ethnicity based on material assemblages in graves - something that has become extremely controversial in the last 20 years. Add to that the nationalist obsession with proving that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns (and that they must in turn be descended from the Xiongnu) and it’s a recipe for a problematic section, like so many genetics sections on WP. In any case, I suspect some of the bold declarative statements in the genetics section need to be tempered and overstate what the authors concluded.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There's no issue with reliable genetic studies, and Savelyev & Jeong 2020 at the time had limited data hence had erroneous conclusion and criticism. As said, genetic results don't contradict that "the notion that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns has been rejected by mainstream scholarship". The connection was minimal and indirect.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ermenrich! I usually read those studies, and videos when those scholars explain the results. And these tests were made by not only Hungarian genetics, as you can see I linked a French study also which confirmed each other. The archeologists found the graves, they determine that they are Hungarian conqueror graves or Avar graves. Mongolian scholars also discovered a lot of Hun graves, and the scientists analyse and compare the bones by DNA.

Until the middle of the 19th century, it was generally accepted that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns and Scythians. Hun-Hungarian affinity was declared in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources and has been maintained in Hungarian folk memory. The Finno-Ugric theory was a language theory in the 19th century, and it became origin of nation theory, however Finnish and Hungarian DNA is quite far each other. Today's Hungarian genetic is similar to Austrian, Slovaks, Slovenians, Poles, Ukrainians, Croatians, so similar to their neighboars. According to these new genetic studies, the Finno-Ugric theory is just a theory in Hungary and not the mainstream anymore officially.

You can see this in a Hungarian government website and institute regarding the research of Hungarian prehistory and medieval times: https://mki.gov.hu/en/intezet-en/kuldetes-en

They made already a lot of conferencies with collaboration, inviting worldwide a lot of scholars from many countries and share and publish together the common researches.

https://mki.gov.hu/en/konferenciak-en/minden-eloadas-en

Sorry if I will be long, just I would like tell you that this is my understanding based on these result:

The horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes. The domestication of horses got a huge impact on the development of human civilization. The most western part of the steppe zone is the Carpathian Basin. The Scythian nations moved east to conquer the eastern regions, they controlled the full steppe area. But there were many comebacks in many waves such as the Huns, the Avars, the Hungarians. The Carpathian Basin had constantly a base population and according to the latest archaeogenetics results, this base population had relationship with the returning nations.

Steppe#/media/File:Eurasian steppe belt.jpg

It was a continuous movement of the horse archer nations between the west and the east in the past. Between the Carpathian Basin and the Tarim Basin. And the core were the Scythians. If a horseman starts to ride from the Carpathian Basin (Great Hungarian Plain, Hungary) then he could reach the Tarim Basin (Northwest China) within a year because the steppe connects these areas. The Scythians became a nomadic culture based on possessing domesticated horses. Their culture was based on using horses, and by the 7th century BC, Scythians had become one of the first peoples to ride mounted. The Scythians invented the earliest saddle, probably their greatest contribution to civilization.

https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsrep43950/MediaObjects/41598_2017_Article_BFsrep43950_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Eastern China. The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas (Royal Scythians), and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns.

Recently found a Europid Scythian female mummy from the 5th century BC in a kurgan near to today’s Chinese border:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Ice_Maiden

Reconstructed face, we can see her face is Europid.

https://siberiantimes.com/upload/information_system_38/1/9/8/item_1988/information_items_1988.jpg

"Miraculous Deer" tattoo found on her arm:

https://ctl.s6img.com/society6/img/Ca3y0Z6VQ8rdyvqZpgEXT0mcLQc/w_1500/prints/~artwork/s6-0049/a/21317026_12660082/~~/scythian-deer-tattoo-from-the-ice-princess-by-sheridon-rayment-prints.jpg

https://johnhawks.net/graphics/ice-maiden-tattoo.jpg

In Central Europe, in Hungary, in the Carpathian Basin, the archeologist found this Scythian golden deer from the same time period from the 6th BC. As we can see the area of the Scythian influence was from the Carpathian Basin to the Tarim Basin. And also this "Miraculous Deer" is a very important element in Hungarian mythology.

https://mnm.hu/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_item/public/gallery/01_szkita_aranyszarvas_01_jpg.jpg?itok=4hKa_-eM

Scythian/Hun/Hungarian(Magyar) "Miraculous Deer"

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-27f804de6ebd5e63bd6c1badb8bd8a27

Archaeogenetics also seems to help clarify this issue, because the Y chromosomes of the Asian Hun nobles who excavated in Mongolia bear the greatest resemblance to the Asian Scythians, King Béla III of Hungary, the nobleman marked II / 54 who buried next to the King in Székesfehérvár, and the men who examined from the conquering leading class from Arpad time.

The DNA of the Hungarian King: (Béla III of Hungary, reign 1172–1196)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béla_III_of_Hungary

Newest DNA analysis from the European Journal of Human Genetics, Published: 07 July 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-020-0683-z

I am very familiar with these old texts and I can show you these all, so these things are not from my mind, and not today's Hungarians imagined recently the Hun-Hungarian connection:

All old medieval Hungarian chronicles say: Hungarians = Huns and Scythians, Attila is King of the Huns and King of Hungary, Székelys (Hungarian subgroup in Transylvania) = the remnant of Huns, the Hungarian royal dynasty is the direct descendant of King Attila.

The contemporary Byzantine sources say: Avars = Turks, Avars = Scythians, Hungarians = Turks, Hungarians = Scythians, King Attila = Scythian (Priscus), King Attila = Avar (Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus), Hungarians = Sabirs (Hun tribe).

The contemporary other foreign sources say: Huns = Avars = Hungarians, King Attila = Scythian, Huns = Scythians, Huns = Avars, Avars = Hungarians, Hungarians = Scythians, Hungarians = Bashkirs.

I know also many sources which clearly say the Huns, Attila was Scythian (Saint Jerome, Priscus, Jordanes).

Same horse archer warfare, same customs like blood oath, magic deer worship...

According to the these recent modern DNA studies, the old Hungarians were a less homogeneous group than the today's Hungarians in the conquering Hungarian period. The blood oath was a Scythian tradition that was used by the Hungarian chieftains and many tribes together became a new nation by this custom. It means the old authors did not make mistake when they named the old Hungarians in various names, because the old Hungarians were a confederation in which were Scythian, Hun, Avar, Turkic… tribes too. According to the genetic studies we can also see there is no Finno-Ugric connection, but we can also see the old Hungarians were mostly Europids like today's Hungarians. The old Hungarians also mixed with the local Avars who survived the Frank and the Bulgarian occupation. They also mixed with Slavs and later many Germans were invited and settled in Hungary during the centuries. Many of today's Hungarians have also some Celtic genetics, which means all previous people who lived in the territory of the Carpathian Basin got an impact on today’s Hungarian genetics, so the ancestors of today’s Hungarians are living a long time ago in the Carpathian Basin.

Hungarian mythology on Avar treasures:

Emese

Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós#/media/File:Emesesdreemhungary.JPG

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c8d6ad8f8292af092fc88cfdda292790-lq

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-94dff1417f109744901134b450cf024a-lq

The Anglo-Saxon 'Cotton' world map from 1040. This old map calls the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom: “Hunorum gens” = “Hun race” (next to the name of Pannonia, zoom it)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cotton_world_map.jpg

Just some examples: (and I would show much more)

Menander Protector, Byzantine historian (6th century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander_Protector

Byzantine authors called the Hungarians as Turks and Scythians and Meander Protector called the Avars as Turks and Scythians.

(Excerpta de sententiis 28)

"It is said that after the defeat of the Romans, at that time the Avars sent messages to Tiberius and the delegated messenger said: "Well why dare you if your trouble you have a few people, to wage war against the Avars (who are Scythians too, I say), or you do not have writings and parchments, from which you would read to find out that the Scythian tribes are invincible and indestructible?" And Tiberius said in response..."

(Exc. de Leg. Rom. 7)

"After the Turks, who used to be called Saka, sent embassies to Justinian for peace, the emperor planned to have an embassy send it out to the Turks"

In this document the Turks mean the Avars, the Saka is a Scythian tribe.

Theophylact Simocatta, Byzantine historian (early 7th century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophylact_Simocatta

"the tribe of the Avars, as they say, is the most valiant among the Scythian peoples"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annales_Fuldenses

The Annales Fuldenses are East Frankish chronicles that cover the period from the last years of Louis the Pious (died 840) to shortly after the end of effective Carolingian rule in East Francia with the accession of the child-king, Louis III, in 900. Throughout this period they are a near contemporary record of the events they describe and a primary source for Carolingian historiography.

Annales Fuldenses (Pertz I. 412):

"Avari qui dicuntur Ungari" = "The Avars called Hungarians" (this text is more times in the document)

Regino of Prüm (Abbot of Prüm 892–99):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regino_of_Prüm

“In the Year of Our Lord 889, the Magyars [Hungarians], the most unrestrained and most merciless savages, came out of the land of Scythia and crossed the marshes that are continually flooded by the River Don. If we read the notes of the historians, we will learn some things about the location of Scythia and the customs of the Scythians.”

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widukind_von_Corvey

The Saxon chronicler Widukind von Corvey (925-973) write this about the Hungarians:

"Avares autem, ut quidam putant, reliquiae erant Hunorum." = "The Avars, as some believe, were the remains of the Huns."

"Avares, quos modo Ungarios vocamus" = "the Avars, who we now call Hungarians"

"De Ungariis, qui et Avares dicuntur." = "As for Hungary, who are also called Avars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicon_Salernitanum

Chronicon Salernitanum (10th century) says:

"Hunni et Avares eadem gens fuere qui postea Hungri seu Hungari appellati sunt, et adhuc appellantur." = "Huns and Avars were the same race/nation who later named Hungarians and still call them Hungarians"

Godfrey of Viterbo (1120-1196) the clergy at the court of the Holy Roman Emperors, Conrad III and Frederick I Barbarossa, accompanying the latter on many of his campaigns, and frequently fulfilling for him diplomatic missions.

This was recorded by Godfrey of Viterbo at the year of 561-562:

"Avares, id est Ungari Pannonii" = "Avars, who are actually Hungarians in Pannonia"

"Avares, qui et Huni, sive Hungari" = "Avars, who are Huns, otherwise Hungarians"

Godfrey of Viterbo writes in the Pantheon:

"Regnum Scitarum et Avarum, id est Ungarorum priorum." = "The country of the Scythians and Avars, i.e. the former Hungarians.”

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HrIuIJHI3Vg/Xj6yL3nEC6I/AAAAAAAAYOQ/t1htpoGhkvE7EzF35NZ6tds4Y_woMzeqACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Vatikan%252C%2BBiblioteca%2BApostolica%2BVaticana%252C%2BPal%2Blat%2B1813%2BGottfried%2Bvon%2BViterbo%2BLiber%2Bpantheon-vert.jpg

From the laws of King Andrew I of Hungary (around 1063):

“In Hungary, every Hungarian or newcomer who does not abandon the ancient pagan custom of Scythia, who will not immediately return to the true religion of Jesus Christ and will not obey the holy law given by the glorious King Stephen, punished with the loss of his head and goods." Paragraph 4: "Turn away from the unholy Scythian customs and false Gods and destroy Idols.”

Antonio Bonfini (Rerum Ungaricarum Decades, 1488–1497):

“... All historians record that the Hungarians came from the Huns ... who came from the Scythians.”

Eustathius of Thessalonica (1115-1195):

“The Scythians, meanwhile, moved away as a result of infection with foreign sins from the first Scythians, those with religious spirits and unfilthy characters... until the time in which they became known under the Hungarian name and began to establish an eternal permanent homeland in Pannonia. Then, just as if we remove the water from the fire, it will automatically return to its original coolness, just as they have returned to their ancient original moral integrity.”

Chronicon Pictum (1358) says:

“And this Captain Árpád had a special dignity in Scythia, it was the custom of his clan, according to the Scythian law and tradition, that he went alone before those who went to war and those who retreated, saying, therefore he was the first to enter this land before the other captains going to Pannonia.”

John Thuroczy (Chronica Hungarorum 1488):

“No one doubts that the mother of the Huns, namely the Hungarians, was Scythia: Even at the beginning of their exodus from Scythia, the famous fighting virtue glowed in them, and now, in our day, their swords are flashing over the head of the enemy.”

Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus (1436–1506) was a scholar and historian from Venice:

“No one can doubt that the Huns or the Hungarians were Scythians.”

Annalista Saxo from 908, Monumenta Germaniae Hist. SS:

About the Hungarian campaign in the Duchy of Saxony from 906, Annalista Saxo writes that of the two raiding Hungarian armies one was Avar and the second Magyar (Hungarian).

"The Dalemnicians hired the Avars", against Henrik, the prince of Saxony; and these, after they made many massacres in Saxony, when they returned in Dalamantia, met face in face with the other army of the Magyars"

Many people in Hungary is making a personal DNA test, and they upload to mytrueancestry, those Hungarians had high match with ancient Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar, Proto-Hungarian samples,

one example:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d89f7b2287ed61a64afbac90a5ed82c0-pjlq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyefhWBVxY OrionNimrod (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, the problem is not one of reliability in the sense of whether they are WP:RS - they are certainly that. It's a more fundamental issue with how archaeogenetics is being pursued. Beyond that, there's the issue of howwe should word things. We have a lot of verbiage such as The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns. and and suggested on this basis that the Huns were descended from Xiongnu, who they in turn suggested were descended from Scytho-Siberians.. What this means to a scientist working in the field of genetics and what it means to a layman reading it on Wikipedia are likely to be quite different. While the papers find slight genetic connections, as you say, the way we write about it here sounds an awful lot like saying that genetics confirm that the Huns are the Xiongnu, in a highly problematic, völkisch sort of way.

Beyond that, I think this latest addition, which seems to be improperly cited, is somewhat problematic According to it, the genetic data is in accordance with interdiciplinary sources as confirmed Xiongnu origin from Mongolia and their subsequent mixing with Scythians/Sarmatians and Germanic/Goths after traveling toward Europe.. That whole last paragraph verges on gobbledygook, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not wasting my time discussing where there's no issue. Have you even read the papers? That's exactly what they say and imply. They confirm what we already know about the origin of the Huns. There's no dispute and issue about that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See most recent indepenent source review by Saag & Staniuk, "Historical human migrations: From the steppe to the basin" (July 2022).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

When I was listening videos (this institute publish even English videos also, has own youtube channel) from those genetic professors who did these studies, they said, they plan to sit together with the other scholars from other branches and they would like to share their results and making conclusion. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Woof... Well, is it worth a note of some kind pointing out what you say? As Ermenrich says, to the casual reader, the sections may seem to contradict. The encyclopedia should be clear. WP:MTAU. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@KeithTyler: please explain where and what exactly is contradicting so it can be explained in better words to casual reader.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not very impressed with your response to the concerns I’ve raised about the wording. There is of course something to discuss: stating the section in such a way that, to a layman, it does not appear to say that the Huns are proven by genetics to be the Xiongnu, because, as you say, this is not what the papers show or say. You appear to be claiming some sort of expertise in understanding genetics papers - can’t you think of a solution? Your recent addition, for instance, is much better than our current section. I would also note that some of this probably belongs at Origin of the Huns rather than here.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about now? This discussion is about Huns-Hungarians connection not Huns-Xiongnu connection. I did not say that at all regarding Hunnic origin from the Xiongnu and archaeogenetic papers clearly show and say they were of Xiongnu origin. There's no debate, we have 6-7 papers reliably and clearly suggesting and confirming Xiongnu connection and origin of the Huns. If you have an issue with that, open another discussion (update: actually there's already one above), but again there's no evident problem, there's no point referring to the review of Savelyev & Jeong 2020 now since at the time of paper's publishing had lack of data and recent review of Saag & Staniuk 2022 overstates previous review.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, I've expressed myself quite clearly, so I'm not sure why you have (twice) claimed not to be able to follow me.

If you feel the need to silo discussions on the genetics section, that is not my problem. The Xiongnu-Hun connection is an aspect of the Hun-Hungarian connection. It is the same (mostly Hungarian) researchers making both connections. If you are unfamiliar with the problems of the interpretation of archaeogenetic data as performed by these authors (our own article on the subject is notably lacking in any), I suggest you look at [5], [6], [7], [8]. It is a well-known problem (there's even a New York Times article on it) and is precisely why archaeologists and other scholars worried about völkisch interpretations in the vein of Gustaf Kossinna are not all that enthused with a lot of archaeogenetic research.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar about it and the contesting methodological approaches in archaeology and historiography as well. The "problem" is partly invented and forced exactly by the camp with unscientific influences based on Marxism, critical theory and else. None of the articles and papers mention Hungarians, Huns, Xiongnu etc. hence it is an extrapolation and SYNTH which aren't valid argument. I am also asking you, please explain where, what and how the section "Genetics" is contradicting what's stated in "Links to the Hungarians" section (as well as Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Genetic evidence). Archaeogenetic studies show that the conquering Hungarian elite mostly was not related to the Huns, the connection was minimal and represented foreign component in Hungarian genetics, related to the Hunnic westward migrations and later Hungarian westward migration assimilating Hunnic descending people along the way and in the Pannonian Basin. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hun element was not minimal among Hungarian conquerors as you say. The table clearly shows from the linked recent study, the brown color Xiongnu/Hun component among 2 conqueror core populations, in the second, it is around 1/3 Hun component. Below the mixed Asian-European conqueror table shows also with red color Hun component. Probably the leading class originate from this group, that is why this was emphasized in all Hungarian and many foreign medueval chronicles.

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/233759b5-8d49-4759-b941-6b2b00f704d4/gr3.jpg

On 2 Hungarian pages, you emphasis in the header only the Asian component and ignore the predominant European component among Hungarian conquerors, I do not know why. What is your purpose? I explained the issue in the other talk page.

Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Magyar_tribes&diff=1102672849&oldid=1102543350 OrionNimrod (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe OrionNimrod or his ancestors is/are from the turkic identity Kunság region, where the neo-Cuman (officially non recognized) minority lives. Neo- Cumans are often suppporters of turanist pseudo history. Interestingly these turanist tales about the origin of Hungarians are the very same in many ways what the anti-Hungarian Romanian propaganda spread about the origin of Hungarians. Longsars (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Longsars, I don't think comment is acceptable in WP. Please review WP policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggest you remove it yourself before someone else does. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Kelly

@Giray Altay:, you're citing a book by Christopher Kelly (historian) in Italian. He certainly didn't write in Italian, so citing him in translation is bad form, especially as most of our readers and editors won't know Italian and be able to check the citations. Can you please find the original English version and change the citations to that?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ermenrich:. Tbh I used the Italian book because I couldn't find its English version, namely the original, and I trusted the Italian wiki editors on this occasion as the statements make sense and are well sourced, though I wasn't able to check that citation myself. I have now found the English version. However, I am still not able to check. I am going to use the English version instead of the Italian one, hoping that the pages are the same. If some of you is able to check it would be great.--Giray Altay (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading over your addition, I don't think it belongs there. That section is on the physical appearance of the Huns. Your added text is about stereotypes about their lifestyle. We have other sections that already talk about that.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Next time @Ermenrich: ping me, thanks. I think that the fact that Ammianus and Jordanes' accounts contain errors and inconsistencies about the Huns belongs to the article, and the best place to put it is there. The reason I mentioned their lifestyle too is to avoid repeating everything over in other section(s). Because the utterly negative accounts hammer on the Huns' "monstrous" appearance and their alleged East Asian traits, I think this is the best place to remind the reader of the unreliability of Ammianus and Jordanes, as Kelly and Kim, among others, suggest. These modern scholars also say or imply that the accounts by Priscus and Olympiodorus don't give a more positive picture just by pointing out positive features of their lifestyle and more desirable "inner" traits of the Huns (their skill with the bow; Charaton's perception of justice; the chiefs' kindness; Kreka and Adamis' cordiality; Scottas' intelligence; Attila's humbleness, etc.), but also by failing to notice anything strange or "terrifying" about their appearance, thus implying there was nothing so strange and terrifying, and so casting doubts on their physical description by ancient authors such as Ammianus and Jordanes, who never even met them. Indeed, I feel that mentioning that these "negative" authors haven't seen them definitely belongs there.--Giray Altay (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: if you left the discussion, I am going to re-add the deleted content with some minor edits, such as removing the mention of the Huns' "lifestyle". If you don't have left the conversation, please let me know if what I propose is fine. If you disagree, please tell me where I could place the content and which words should I use iyo. Thanks.--Giray Altay (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not left the discussion- it’s been one day since you posted. We have the description of Priscus, who met Attila. He still mentions strange things about him from a Roman perspective (flat nose, small eyes). The fact that not all Roman descriptions make them out to be terrifying or monstrous is not relevant if they *typically* do.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: They typically do, true, and I would agree with you if it wasn't that those who don't make them out terrifying or monstrous are those written by eyewitnesses, people who actually met the Huns. This is why it is so relevant!

True, Priscus described East Asian features in Attila, and I also personally think that all Hun rulers had East Asian features, just like the rulers of all [other] Turkic people (we don't known, however, what the bulk of the Huns looked like. Leave alone the, later, mixing with the Goths, we still don't know how even the Xiongnu looked like. They lived near China, but most of the Xiongnu art shows people with Europid features, similar to the neighbouring Yuezhi). But one thing is being racially different, or even strange, and another thing is being a misshapen monster, incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, looking like a stump from the bridge. Olympiodorus and Priscus, apart from the East Asian features of Attila, don't notice anything monstrous in the Huns, nothing monstrous in their face, legs, gait, etc., as they'd be supposed to do if the haranguing accounts of people who never even met them were somewhere near true.

If anything, Priscus notices the "dignified" gait of Attila and the good looks of the Hun women.

Now if someone is not a fool and is experienced enough to have read Herodotus and other Roman historians they are able to take the ancient accounts of the Huns by those historians (those who also talk about witches, evil spirits, magical powers and enchanted deers controlled by demons) with a grain of salt. But some readers, perhaps LOTR watchers or even believers, might really take those accounts at face value if the text is left pristine.

I think it is right to report in the article that all (actually, most) Roman accounts make them out as "monsters", but we should also make it clear for the average reader that all those accounts stem from one account by Ammianus, who based it on Herodotus' account of the Scythians, all of them attempting to demonize the "other", the pillager of the good land-in Jordanes' case, the mass-murderer who enslaved his people; that they have inconsistencies, that no negative account was written by an eyewitness, and most of them were written after the "original" Huns's disappearance (from Europe). --Giray Altay (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Iranian languages, Jingby POV

Recently a angry user reverted my edits and removed Secondary references without any reasoning other than obviously disliking my additions, such as the mentioning of an Eastern Iranian theory (an Eastern Iranian language,) sourced and verified:https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/early-nomads-of-the-eastern-steppe-and-their-tentative-connections-in-the-west/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55

@Ermenrich:, also see the talk page of Bulgars which has multiple issues and propagates a fringe theory created by one user (Hunno-Bulgar languages). This is kind of disruptive. Orange172212 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What the cited source "Savelyev and Jeong" concludes is not the biased agenda above and is in accordance with the article's content about the mixed origins of the Huns and their language: Different lines of evidence provide support for a mixed eastern/western Eurasian origin of the Xiongnu of Inner Asia. As is suggested by archaeology and cultural history, the core Xiongnu population in eastern Mongolia may have included an Iranian (Saka) component or, at least, the Xiongnu were strongly affected by the Iranians. From a linguistic viewpoint, this component can be associated with the items of Eastern Iranian origin in the reconstructed part of the Xiongnu vocabulary. The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic (Late Proto-Turkic, to be more precise). This picture seems to be mirrored in the genetic profile of the Xiongnu, suggesting a mixture of a western Eurasian ancestry (which is related to modern and ancient Iranian populations, among others) and an eastern Eurasian genetic substratum. Our linguistic analysis finds evidence for a Yeniseian affiliation of the Xiongnu, or a part of them, unconvincing; nor is the Yeniseian hypothesis supported by population genetics. Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jingiby: In which world is the inclusion of Eastern Iranian a "biased agenda" when the above quote supports the presence of Iranian, or at least the influence, while it rejects a Yeniseian affiliation? Why you removed the "Eastern Iranian affiliation"? Why Yeniseian is mentioned but Iranian is not mentioned? Do I miss something or is this simply a bad joke?? They say: "Our linguistic analysis finds evidence for a Yeniseian affiliation of the Xiongnu, or a part of them, unconvincing;"!! You just posted exactly this quotation!! As such, please restore the mentioning of Eastern Iranian, as proposed by (Bailey 1985,p.25) cited by "Savalyev and Jeong" to conform to WP:NPOV which you referred to in Hunnish language, yet act in exact opposite. Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

Consider this quotes too:

The Hunnic titles are common titles of the nomadic steppe world. Most of them are attested in Turkic, but their ultimate origins may lie outside the Turkic family, as is most likely the case for the title of khagan (χαγάνος, chaganus) < ? Middle Iranian *hva-kama- ‘self-ruler, emperor’ (Dybo, Reference Dybo2007: 119–120)... Following Benveniste (Reference Benveniste1966), Dybo (Reference Dybo2007: 106–107) considers Turkic *χatun ‘king's wife’ a word of ultimate Eastern Iranian origin, borrowed presumably from Early Saka *hvatuñ, cf. the attested Soghdian words xwt'w ‘ruler’ (< *hva-tāvya-) and xwt'yn ‘wife of the ruler’ (< *hva-tāvyani). For a possible Eastern Iranian etymology of another title, khagan, see Section 2.2.

And finally, this important quotes about the Huns:

The few common nouns that were recorded as part of the European Hunnic vocabulary are all of local origin, and the personal names of the Huns include items that are connected to the Indo-European languages of Europe (Germanic and Ossetic, in particular). This implies a crucial role of Western Eurasian components in the formation of the Huns. The titles of the Huns are broadly related to the steppe nomadic world, but no specific connection with the early Turkic speakers of eastern steppe (respectively the Xiongnu as their historical and archaeological counterpart) can be firmly established on this basis. The ambiguity of possible interpretations is as much the case for the Hunnic personal names for which a Turkic origin was previously proposed. To sum up, while historical and archaeological evidence may imply the inclusion of some steppe component among the Huns, the very limited linguistic and genetic data do not provide support for linking this component with the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe, or the Xiongnu specifically.

I hope it is now clear that there is no "biased agenda", but everything is sourced and verifiable.Orange172212 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just have fixed the Eastern Iranian hypothesis. However I removed other changes, not supported by a source. Jingiby (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References