Talk:Hunnic art

Synth, OR

This article should be WP:TNTed, it’s full of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and otherwise improper attributions: that Attila was associated with a Turkic “Turul” symbol is sourced to a book on 19th century art, for instance. Other artistic matters are sourced on the Sakas, who are not Huns at all!—Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear, पाटलिपुत्र, Hunan201p, Borsoka, and Erminwin: you all have some expertise in this area. This page was created by blocked sock puppeteer Giray Altay and has barely been altered since he created it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have not checked the sources to ensure there is no original research. I will do that and get back to you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ermenrich, the Turul bird (which national symbol of Hungary, everywhere in Hungary: File:Turul - Budai vár - 2.jpg) symbol associated with Attila by the medieval Hungarian chronicles like the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum from 1280s (Hungarian royal family was called as Turul dynasty by these medieval chronicles).

Attila old depictions with the Turul:

From 1358: File:Attila-Turul Képes-krónika.jpg

File:Képes krónika - 7.oldal - A hunok bejövetele Pannóniába.jpg

File:Chronicon Pictum P014 Atilla Aquileiát ostromolja.JPG

From 1488: File:Thuróczy krónika - Attila király.jpg

From 1664: File:Attila Rex Hunnorum.jpg

I think you think this edit by a Turkish IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Huns&diff=prev&oldid=1174907759

That Turul item found in an old Hungarian graves from 10th century, female silver hair decoration disk:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_rakamazi_hajfonatkorong_2_-_Turul.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that Hungarian medieval sources associate Attila with the Turul, OrionNimrod, but this is a page on Hunnic art, not the Hunnic legacy among the Hungarians.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich Yes, just I informed you what I know about Turul. Those items cannot be Hunnic art, because made by medieval Hungarians. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich I found a Hun crown with a bird: https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1693178556707217423 OrionNimrod (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's from China, so it can't be counted as "Hunnic art", even if we accept that the Huns are connected to the Xiongnu. Hunnic art natural refers to the art of the European Huns, not to anyone anywhere who is connected to them. Plus, birds are among the most common symbols used by peoples anywhere, see e.g. the Aquila (Roman). Also, it's on Twitter.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - birds may very well be symbols used by the European Huns, but that does not mean that we can call them Turul birds without reliable sources doing so.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, if you goole "hun crown bird" you can see several result with the same crown, it is in a Chinese museum, and connected to the Asian Huns (Xionghus). Just I made a fast research, my purpose was just to answer to your Turul question. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick overview of the sources;

Dahm, Murray; Rava, Giuseppe (2022). Hunnic Warrior Vs Late Roman Cavalryman Attila's Wars, AD 440–53. Bloomsbury Publishing. Murray Dahm is an independent scholar with no specialization in this field. Guiseppe Rava is merely an illustrator. This is not a reliable source for Hunnic art.
Elemer Illyes, does not appear to have any specialization in this field. The majority of their work focuses on Transylvania and Romania.
"The Gepids during and after the Hun Period". www.mek.oszk.hu. Appears to be a blog.

As for the writing:

The first paragraph starts off with "Examples of early Saka-Hunnic art include diadems found in Kanattas, near Lake Balkash...", I have found nothing stating "Saka-Hunnic" in my searching. This appears to be POV pushing.

"They ultimately derive from the cauldrons of the Xiongnu. Not only the Xiongnu cauldrons and those of the Huns are virtually identical, but they were also found in similar locations (e.g. on banks of rivers), which also proves continuity of rituals.", cited by The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, is plagiarized(highlighted section).

Fifth paragraph under Cauldrons section: Is WP:OR, stating Hunnic(ie. Xiongnu) citing Eurasian Studies Yearbook Volume 67. Eurolingua. 1995. pp. 21, 52. Except Xiongnu is not mentioned on pages 21 or 52.

From this I would say either delete or move to draft space.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnic art is a potentially legitimate topic, so in my experience people will vote against deleting the page outright despite the difficulty in actually fixing this page or the fact that it's probably all already covered at Huns. Maybe delete and redirect to the section there Huns#Art and material culture? I think everything here that's legitimate is covered there.

Alternatively, we could draftify it.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this article is legitimate. Do we have separate articles for art of European and Asian Huns? Or use the same article with separate chapters? OrionNimrod (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I TNT'd the article and replaced it with a version of the text found at Huns. Most of the sources used here were either unreliable ("Hunnic Warrior vs. Roman Legionnaire" was the sole source for large parts of the article, other parts were sourced to the unreliable "Pen and Paper Books"), and those real sources that were used supported WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Now we can expand this article with reliable sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]