Talk:Huns/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Religion

The sources for the Huns worshipping Tengri seem somewhat suspect to me. One is a quote mentioning Tengri being worshipped by "the nomads of the steps" from the "6th and 9th centuries", while the other is about the Hungarians. Does anyone have any actual sources for the Huns worshipping Tengri? It strikes me as the sort of thing romantic nationalists would assume.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a mistaken suspect, btw. "the other" is not about Hungarians, it is just a google book link to the same book cited before. Even the assumption of "the sort of thing romantic nationalists", is unprofessional and fallacious, the source is a high quality academic work with notable authors.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC))

I don't much appreciate your tone. It might very well be a high quality academic source, but does it mention the Huns? All I see is "nomads of the steppe", and a listing of centuries that are AFTER the end of the Hunnish Empire. Surely books ABOUT the Huns (rather than about Hungarians) would mention this if it were "generally assumed".--Ermenrich (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Further, the use of two footnotes for the same book is obviously against the style guide.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you would not appreciate (?) in my tone, I answered to you and draw attention to more mistakes. The book mention the Huns. I could not access recently the whole chapter you are pinpointing to check further.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC))

You don't see how saying that my comment is "unprofessional and fallacious" is insulting? It strikes me as a questionable assumption, given our utter lack of information on Hunnic religion.

Anyway, this claim needs far more citations (and more than a passing mention in a book about the Hungarians) to be stated as "generally assumed". I've ordered the book in question and will look at it to see if it actually does say that the Huns (not "nomads of the steppes") are thought to have worshipped Tengri. But in the meantime, can anyone find other sources, ideally about Tengrism or the Huns, that make this claim? If we're going to say it's "generally assumed" we can't just cite one book about something else from 1999.

So far all I've found by searching JSTOR is one source mentioning the possibility that the Huns might have believed in Tengri: "After the Hun invasion of the Ukraine and Hungary in the 370's and 380's Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, or Priscus could possible have heard of tengri, provided the Huns believed in him. But the name, transcribed ταγγρα, occurs for the first time in a Protobulgarian inscription of the ninth century. In the Byzantine literature it does not appear before the fifteenth century" [QEGRI and Tengri] by Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 87, No. 1 (Jan., 1966), pp. 80-83. --Ermenrich (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any insulting, maybe you misinterpret something since I did not comment on your person, or similar, I just care about the content of what is written down, as it should always be here. Precisely, fallacious was what you stated about the second source, unprofessional would be considering if the author/source would have been motivated by any romantic nationalism (yes here I used the word fallacious, not on the other case, however are synonymes in a way). However, I think it is totally ok that you ordered the book, thus you may check on your own, and then we may get rid of all doubts. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC))

I recall reading that the earliest evidence is of the Caucasian Huns in either Movses Khorenatsi or another Armenian source, who were being converted to Coptic Christianity, but there's no real details on Hun religion before then, really. Unless you go to Scythian, Sarmatian, and Xiongnu (Hun) religion. In which case we can probably extrapolate that they practiced a form of Tengriism. But I'd have to check the sources and it would take some time to find them all.MMFA (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be worth looking, though I can't guarantee that I can do it all. I think at the very least we need to rephrase the statement unless we can find an abundance of sources; probably somewhere someone has written about the lack of info on Hun religion, which would be a far better way to begin the section, followed perhaps by "some scholars believe they may have practiced a form of Tengrism". But let's see what reliable sources we can find first.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm commenting here in response to a request posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. The tl;dr (or short) version of the answer to the question "What was the religion of the Huns" is we don't know for sure.

From what I remember of my reading of Jordanes & Ammianus Marcellinus -- who are our best primary sources for the Huns of the Attila's time -- neither discusses the religion of the Huns. Marcellinus is more interested in their military skills & horsemanship. The article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary says that little is known of their culture or religion. The German Wikipedia cites Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns to state the Huns practiced shamanism. I don't have ready access to the other standard reference on the Huns -- E. A. Thompson, The Huns -- so I don't know what he says on the matter.

Possible answers would be some form of paganism, shamanism, Tengrism, & even a variant of Christianity! (The other barbarians along the Roman frontier, such as the Goths & the Vandals, embraced Arian Christianity, so it is possible Attila & his followers were also Arian Christians.) Most likely would be a mixture of these beliefs, since the Hunnic alliance comprised many different ethnic groups, who were more interested in military might & not religious homogeneity.

What I would write on the topic is (1) emphasize our lack of information on the topic; (2) state what the experts say, explicitly accredited in the text to each author (e.g. "Maenchen-Helfen believes the Huns practiced shamanism"). -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Llywrch, this is precisely the sort of well-informed response I've been hoping for. I'm trying to get my hands on the three main books on the Huns and, if my extremely busy real-life does not intervene, I'll try to put something like that together.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change the subheading to "Culture and Society", as there's very little known about their religion beyond speculation? The Oxford Classical Dictionary, for instance, does not mention religion explicitly.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I take that back: J. Otto Maenchen-Helfen has a chapter on Hunnic religion, which could replace the current sort of strange reference used for the sword of Mars, for instance.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've put together a new version of the section in my sandbox. Please comment on its suitability for the article. I'm still waiting for the book on the Hungarians, but, honestly these are all better sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add this to the article. I think there should be something in it to please everyone.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. The new text is clearer and fully verified. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Legends

The current section on legends is not very good. I've started putting together a new version in sandbox that anyone is welcome to contribute to, particularly anyone who knows about non-Germanic legends about the Huns. I'm going to go ask over at WikiProject Norse history and culture for any help anyone might provide as well.

Anyway, the various chronicle also need to be removed, unless there is some particular legendary information being conveyed (Hungarian descent from the Huns, for instance). Also, the section on Widsith is much too long - the poem mentions the Huns in literally a single line! I'd cut it down to a single sentence, if that, given that all it mentions is that Attila ruled the Huns, which is not exactly legendary information. A bare mention ought to suffice, really.

Is there consensus for changes along these lines?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I saw your message on the WikiProject. This would be an improvement. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On further inspection, I realise the references in this article are a disaster worthy of {{Citation style}} tagging. If you could keep any new content using {{sfn}} footnotes that would be good. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Widsith also recounts the tale of the Battle of the Goths and Huns, and according to Hedeager may be the oldest extant source to do so. In addition, that paragraph doesn't just talk about Widsith; it also talks about the use of Attila/Ætla as a given name in Anglo-Saxon England, which Neidorf argues is a reference to Attila as mentioned in Widsith.--Beneficii (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that part of the narrative. The bit about the name can probably stand as its own paragraph.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just one objection to your proposed edit. That Widsith named Attila as king of the Huns isn't very notable. What Hedeager found more notable was that on Widsith's list of kings and tribes, which she said was ordered by "fame and importance", Attila the Hun came first. Otherwise, your proposal looks good.--Beneficii (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've tweaked it some more, also added a bit on Christian legends since the current article only mentions the notion of Peter and Paul appearing to Attila with a painting. I'm not sure if I should put it before or after the Germanic material. I'm waiting for another source so I can characterize the Huns in the Germanic legends more fully.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's looking good. Just once issue, however. The list in Widsith was not limited to Germanic groups. In addition to the Huns, the Caesar of the Greeks (i.e. Byzantines) and Cælic of the Finns were also named. Otherwise, I think what you've written is really good, and it adds a lot of interesting information that isn't in the current version.--Beneficii (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I was misinterpreting how the current article's wording put it. I had been trying to figure out how to get around that problem but I seem to have created it myself. It's good that people are looking this over!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Move the wikilink for "Old English" from the 3rd paragraph to the 1st, and you've got yourself a good edit. Thanks for your hard work, and hearing me out!--Beneficii (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we shouldn't move the "claims of descent" section into the legends section. I intend to add at least a bit about the Hungarian legends about the Huns, and the main one is of course that the Hungarians (or Szekely) ARE the Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make whether to merge the 2 sections a separate discussion from this one? I think your proposed edits as they are are pretty good, and I would not object to your implementing them now. Once that's done, you can start a new discussion and we can see your proposal for the merger.--Beneficii (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll still add a bit on medieval Hungarian legends and we'll see where that leads.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Language section

The language section appears to be pushing the view that the Huns were Turkic speakers, even making it look like skeptics doubt despite a preponderance of evidence. While there is a signicant community of scholars who argue that the Huns spoke a Turkic language, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about it. I've already removed a fringe source from the section, and, upon checking another reference giving to back up the idea that "many scholars" believe the Huns spoke Turkic, I actually found that the source was stating exactly the opposite:

"Turkic-speaking groupings were probably present among the Huns who corssed the Volga in about 375 [...] The affiliations of the language of the European Huns, known only in fragments stemming from a variety of sources [...] remains as uncertain as those of the language of the Hsiung-Nu [...] Although some of the tribal names of the European Hun era could be interpreted as Turkic [...], it is only with the advent of the Oghuric Turkic groupings into the Ponto-Caspian steppes in the 460s that we have firm evidence for Turkic-speaking peoples."

Similarly, the Peter Heather quote currently found in the section is truncated. In full it reads: "Opinions differ even over their linguistic affiliation, but the best guess would seem to be that the Huns were the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into Europe"

I suspect that a certain amount of Turkish nationalism is playing a role in this POV being pushed in the article. Regardless of why its taken place, this section needs to be rewritten so as to balance the leading theory of linguistic affiliation, which is that the Huns spoke Turkic or some related language, with the fact that many scholars are highly skeptical of assigning any language to the Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it really seems pushy and fits to that "pressure" of "Turkism" ideas. I think we should put in the first place that it is currently unknown/not verified what language the Huns spoke, and after listing the possible suspects, considerations, even if applicable in cluding broader language families that does not necessarily point one language thus any possible nationalistic bias may be avoided.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC))

Feel free to rewrite or NPOV it. Hunnic language has similar issues too. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've put together a draft of a new version in my sandbox. I went ahead and moved the next version to the main article.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Length of "Origins" and "History" sections

These two sections seem extremely long to me at the moment - as far as "origins" is concerned, I suspect that's because its been added to over time without any reorganization. Accordingly, I'd like to propose compacting the section down a bit. For the history section, we might consider making a separate "History of the Huns" article and shortening the version here. The section about the Huns before Attila seems particularly long.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The article itself is too long, at 8374 words. Splitting and compacting where appropriate is a good idea. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've taken some initiative on that front by moving most of the info on Hun=German to the article specifically about things people call Germans. I'll wait for some further signs of consensus before tackling any other sections though.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The section on "Appearance" seems similarly bloated to "Origins" (and is actually sort of a way of discussing the Huns' racial affiliation without using the word race).--Ermenrich (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to start a draft of a new version of the "Origins" section, which I will rename to "Origins and relationship to other groups called Huns"; this second part is currently not addressed anywhere in the article but is hinted at repeatedly through references to the Hephthalites, Caucasian Huns, Huna, etc. I think both issues can be tackled much more briefly than the current section. A more extensive version could be included in a "History of the Huns" article.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do it and I'll give it a thorough check for accuracy. MMFA (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've put together a first draft in my sandbox. I don't think it needs to be much longer than that, otherwise it gets very technical for this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Problematic addition

About the recent addition:

However, there is no genetic or linguistic evidence supporting the theory of a Hun connection; instead the evidence clearly substantiates a Finno-Ugrian (Magyar) origin of the Hungarian people.

...now I noticed -, it does not raise any accuracy, on the contrary, I checked both of the sources and such in this form as such is not stated; or cannot be even consecutively deducted.

Btw, for the first part of the statement, I just randomly found in a first place this source ([1]) (the title should not confuse anybody, better the content is interesting, reinforced by another reliable source)...

However, the second part of the sentence is completely confusing, since what is immediately well-known even among ordinary people that genetically there is not any releavant relation between Hungarians and Finno-Ugrian speaking people, and the given source's abstract also pinpointing that, and based on 4 ancient remains - two of them - they want to make a general deduction, that has to be taken very carefully. Majority of the genetic studies did not reinforce any genetic connection (plenty of genetic research was made on the landtaking Hungarians, none reinforcing anything "Finno-Ugrian" (that is anyway a language family, nothing more)), since Hungarians were proven partially in a little amount relevant South-Asian markers, but not any case North-Asian.

Moreover, putting together "Finno Ugrian (Magyar)" has the same problem, since Finno-Ugrian is a language family, while Magyar is name of a language and an ethnicity, that cannot be made equal by any means of a language family.

The sentence has to be rephrased, if it is stated there is no genetic evidence for Hun connection, the same is true for the Finno-Ugrian connection (if not twice as much), since the great problem, of the researchers are that the obsolete theory not just genetically cannot be confirmed properly, but even as language family is problematic, as there is no confirmation for any proto-Finno-Ugrian common language.

Consequently, this addition should better be abadoned, or if rephrased, then pinpoint that regarding genetics neither the Hun or Finno-Ugrian genetic connection has any convincing evidence or confirmation, while linguistics is something else, we don't have enough info on the languge on the Huns, while officially the Finno-Ugrian theory suggest a linguistic connection between Hungarian and Finno-Ugrian languages.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC))

I suggest also reading ([2]), which pretty interestingly shows there is not any uniform deduction that we may drawn, only that Székelys generally have more Asian-markers than other Hungarians. Consequently, the second part of the addition should be abandoned based one source that does not represent any uniform or relevant view, or even it is doubting itself and just conclude some possibilities about numerous pre-existing populations or substantional later migrations. Regarding the first part of the sentence, the source may worth a check that I found, having the same that any uniform conclusion cannot necessarily drawn based on it.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC))

MMFA, btw. please tell your opinion about the first source presented and this: ([3]), I am just curious, what you say about these.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

Considering that there isn't even consensus that the Xiongnu and the Huns are the same people, I'm not sure how that study could "prove" that Hungarians were Xiongnu. Looks like the sort of nationalist pseudo-science I've unfortunately noticed from not a few studies on this topic. If this were real genetics it would surely have made a larger impact on the field.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in my experience on other pages there is always a debate which genetic study should be accepted or could be valid, because of the various methods necessarily those conclusion may be drawn that they wish to get, if the results are interpreted in a base of a -let's say widely accepted - hyphothesis. Othwerwise a causation and who is the borrower or not may be totally questionable, to say nothing of the location factor in scope of the migrations. In such way, also i.e. the cited source could be treated as a sort of qualifiers you told, however it moved another direction, it is totally POV which is liked more (all of them was made in the famous University of Szeged in the field, that has zero conenction to pseudo-science or nationalism), however, acceptance and impact regarding any research is not necessarily based on the results, however it should be. That's why we should be very careful with universal conclusions. Anyway, is today in the field any result that is widely accepted, whom the Huns relate the most?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

It looks like pseudo science to me. The vocab used is the same as on various nationalist websites or by nationalist academics affiliated with Jobbik, as are the arguments. Anyway peer reviewed studies are always going to trump unpublished dissertations. Ermenrich (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I just wanted to pinpoint that the University of Szeged and their quality of research has an internatinonal fame - more fields included - so I don't think anyone there would afford to publish or accept that would trump the quality (and they argue with genetic studies, not "nationalistic" theories necessarily. But please answer my question, is today in the field any result that is widely accepted, whom the Huns relate the most?(KIENGIR (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

I'm not an expert on Hun genetics, but MMFA seems to know studies on the subject. But to return to my point: dissertations are not peer reviewed. Annals of Human Genetics is. I am thus more inclined to believe them. If you look at the unreliable source I removed above, it contains arguments echoed in the dissertation abstract, including supposed "genetic evidence". It's also written by someone with an Assistant Professor position at the University of Amsterdam. That doesn't make it not nationalist pseudo-science though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The only sources that anyone should be using are secondary sources as defined in WP:MEDRS, this means that on the subject of genetics, a peer-reviewed source is not considered reliable enough to be used. Instead content should be sourced using review articles. For more on this please check WP:SCIRS and this RfC and close. This obviously affects the discussion here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I guess both journal citations should be removed and the text perhaps altered? Ermenrich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In such a case, I don't think even anything needed, it could be removed completely, since in the chapter it is at least three/four times expressed that such relationship are mostly rejected for now.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

If that's true Frayæ Wikipedia's rules on Peer-Reviewed sources basically disclude pretty much any scientific publication. By that logic only secondary sources could be used on radiology, or graphene, or the like. It makes Helen Caldicott, an insane fear-mongering lunatic, more valid than a peer-reviewed study on cancer rates in Fukushima. In fact if that is the rule, then pretty much every source on most of the science pages on this website need to be removed. If that is the case then I will defer to the rules and we will remove that passage, but it is at best an incredibly problematic rule.MMFA (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree. It makes it practically impossible to write about any of the newer advances in the study of historical populations because I am yet to find any suitable source for genetics on any area I have worked on. The primary peer-reviewed research is to my view perfectly good. But to the people who wrote WP:MEDRS apparently not. I will note that these rules only apply to medical topics and it is only recently that genetic studies were deemed to be medical topics. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean meta-analysis are good. For example KIENGIR just posted a Hungarian source he asked me to look at above which might be skewed (it gives little information, just a preliminary abstract of their findings basically, but if they have some sort of proof for an mtDNA relationship between the Yeniseians and Hungarians I'd damn well like to see it). This is why linguistics can be kind of a hell-hole too. For example there's a recent Hungarian paper claiming Hungarian and Yeniseian are related which is nothing but skewing philology and etymology to create an artificial relationship between the two languages because of their "Huns=Hungarian" bias. That's why I by and large avoid most things written by Hungarians (or Turks, Pan-Turanism is a huge problem) on the topic of the Huns, because few are accurate. I've taken the passage down, BTW, on source rules grounds.MMFA (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In fairness to the Hungarians, I've only come across one very tentative suggestion that there might be any connection between them in the Huns in any Hungarian scholarship translated into English. That article Kiengir posted also speaks about the incredible hostility many Hungarian academics have to the Hun connection.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did not search much on to it, but the whole work is accessible in Hungarian, I did not search entirely if it is available in English. However, I did not want to push that, I just totally want to be accurate and NPOV at the same time.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. The paper on Hun DNA is "Y chromosomes of ancient Hunnu people and its implication on the phylogeny of East Asian linguistic families" by L.L. Kang et al. which is technically on Xiongnu DNA but the Hun-Xiongnu connection is actually pretty widely accepted again (it was only really ever argued against by Maenchen-Helfen in his 1948 paper and after Atwood's re-analysis has been widely shown to be likely again). Anyways my point is that Hun skeletons explicitly express the Q-M242 (Q1a3a) marker because of their relationship to the Yeniseian-speaking groups of the Minusinsk Basin. So maybe it doesn't belong in the Hun page since it deals more with Xiongnu-era Huns, but there's virtually no expression of Q-M242 among Hungarian DNA. Hungarians express R1a1a-M17 which is West Slavic and Haplogroup M, while only Szekelers express Haplogroup P, which puts their origin somewhere north of the Pontic and Caspian seas. Furthermore only Szekelers have Haplogroup N1 which is also found in Magyar genomes. 2.2% of Hungarians and 4.7% of Szekelers possess Haplogroup Q (Turkic), but only 0.2% express Q-M242 (East European average is 1.7% Q-M242). Sources: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x; http://loca.fudan.edu.cn/lh/Doc/A104.pdf; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17585514&dopt=Abstract; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947100/ MMFA (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a note on the Xiongnu and Huns, but Sinor and others are also skeptical. It seems to be the majority opinion at the moment, but I expect we'll see some pushback to Kim especially in the next few years.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Sinor and a few others went along with Helfen although they didn't contribute much new to the argument. There was already pushback against De La Vassiere but there seems to be no reliable argument at this point against Atwood's reconstruction (which is better than De La Vassiere, whom he was criticizing). Unless new sources are revealed, we aren't likely to see much more on that front until they are. Archaeologically it's also pretty well supported, recent studies of the typology of "Hun Cauldrons" have reclassified them showing continuity, and also interestingly the spread of the "Narrow Langseax" also does although there's been no official publication regarding transmittance of the narrow langseax across central Eurasia, only from the Pontic into the Danubian and Germanic regions which is the article I cite.MMFA (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus for a separate History of the Huns article?

Would there be consensus for creating a separate History of the Huns article? At the moment the history section is much too detailed, whereas many important aspects of the Huns (art and material culture, even their general perception after antiquity) are not addressed. I would suggest moving the detailed history to a new article, where it could even be expanded if anyone wants to. A more detailed analysis of their possible history between the end of the Xiongnu and the first recorded appearance of the Huns in Europe could also take place there. We could then cut down the history section here considerably without any loss of content for Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Good idea, I am in support. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading your sandbox article now, I'll get back to you with feedback on it ASAP (before next Monday, I have a lot going on at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMFA (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to move the question of racial affiliation, which is sort of danced around in the "appearance" section now, to my origins draft. Appearance doesn't really have anything to do with "Society and Culture".--Ermenrich (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the entire section "Appearance" should be removed and just handled under the heading "Race" within the origins section, as in my current draft.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the separate article necessary? I mean comparing to other articles it does not seem to long right now...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

This article is almost a third longer than the guidelines suggest it should be. Overly long articles are common. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've started working on the draft of a new history of the Huns article in my sandbox. Obviously it will mostly just be material from here, but we could consider adding to it, with things such as "Role in the Fall of the Western Roman Empire" etc. We could also include a more detailed analysis of the Hun-Xiongnu-Hephthalite relationship, though maybe that should go in a separate "Origins of the Huns" article.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If you flesh one completely out in your sandbox I'll help get it to something we can all agree on, as I mentioned before. Been busy with IRL stuff but can find the time. MMFA (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm hard at work on the new History of the Huns if anyone wants to help out. It's made me aware that the current history section here (which I've reduced) is not in very good shape actually.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand tonight or tomorrow. I have some really expensive books that will help out e.g. on Balamber (who never existed) and Ardaric and the like. I recommend we include a section on the continuation of the empire as the Kutrigurs/Utigurs and that controversy.MMFA (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. We also need to address Kim's theories about the Hunnic element in the Gepids in particular, as well as Odoacer (where he's not alone in believing Odoacer to have been a Hun) and the Amali dynasty, etc. I'm pondering whether the article on the North Caucasian Huns ought to be merged with History of the Huns as well, as the consensus among all but a few scholars seems to be that they were "genuine" Huns-I might put that up for a discussion at some point.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Finno-ugric Europe

National-romantic historiography, in general, seem to portray the Huns as foreign invaders from central Asia, whereas research, particularly in linguistics, contradicts this notion. It is of course difficult to assert that the Huns spoke a proto-Hungarian language, but if so, it seems clear that the Finno-ugric peoples are more aboriginal to Europe than the peoples associated with Germanic languages. Paradoxically the latter, pertaining to the Indo-European languages, seem more probable coming from central Asia than the other way around. The Huns may be identical to what Jordanes call the Antes (people), meaning the peoples that came before us. The Roman historian Jordanes speak from a native Gothic perspecive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xactnorge (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've got your facts wrong there. The Indo-Europeans came into Europe a long time before the Huns, and the Germanic peoples originated in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia. Also, the Huns are not Finno-Ugrians. The most popular theory of their linguistic origins is Turkic, with Yeniseian and Mongolic as other possibilities. No reputable modern scholar thinks they spoke anything like Finno-Ugrian.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing unreliable internet source

The following is currently cited in the article: http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0409.pdf

The journal, which only exists online, is based out of China and appears to be pushing fringe views. For instance "German researchers branded traditions of the Magyars, which present the Scythians and the Huns as their ancestors, as fairy tales. These German scholars did not accept the oral traditions of other peoples either. Instead of taking these traditions as the starting point of research, they started to develop theories on the basis of “linguistic” similarities" (p. 158); "From earlier studies, we also have much evidence in order to support the claims of Hungarian researchers that the Magyars are also descendants of the Huns" (p. 160); and the crown jewel:

"It is the goal of the ‘Heritage of the Huns’ to highlight the scientific research of the Huns again. This is especially valuable for the West, including Hungary, where the study of the Huns and their relationship to the Hungarians are investigated on the basis of the old negative stereotypes of the Huns. It is high time for a revision of the ancient history of the Hungarians. An enormous amount of new data has surfaced in the past decades. We have to make clear that the writing of the ancient history of the Steppes and the Hungarians, based on so-called linguistic evidence, has been a dead end street. This line of research is not supported by evidence from any other discipline. Moreover, it has recently been discovered that the Hungarians are genetically not related to the so-called ‘Finno-Ugric’ or ‘Uralic’ peoples. Of course, there might be similarities between Hungarian and the languages and cultures of the peoples in Siberia. This is due, however, to the fact that these peoples borrowed a part of their language and culture from the Huns, the ancestors of the Hungarians. The Hungarians are, however, the descendant of the ancient Scythians and Huns and, in the language and the culture of the Hungarians, the heritage of these ancient peoples is recoverable." (p. 163, my emphasis)

Accordingly, I'm removing the citation and the information it contains.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

First of all, Scythians are a generic term, and an exonymic of nomadic peoples. Whoever lived a Scythian lifestyle were Scythian. The Scythian land was simply were nomadic peoples roamed. Of course, the number of such peoples are limited and to some extent possible to identify through archeology and contextual research, on the premises of admitting huge areas of uncertainty. The linguistic nomenclature speaking of Finno-Ugric and Uralic peoples, is weak. Nevertheless, it seems more likely that the Finno-Ugric is more aboriginal than the Indo-European, in Europe, but that the more aboriginal, less settler-oriented peoples were pushed away and enslaved, with a few exceptions, particularly the Sami, linguistically related to the Finns, the Estonians, and the Hungarians. To genetically determine relationships to ancient peoples is extremely complicated. There is an alarming tendency to try to reject genetic relationships between different peoples based on the ever-increasing database of existing peoples, as commercial and ideologically dubious enterprises such as myheritage.com represent. When such so-called genetic studies are made it is NOT matched with the DNA of remains found in archeological excavations, but conclusions of genetic relationships are simply compared with other individuals in the DNA-database. It is not likely that Hungarians should show a particular genetic similarites with Estonians, Finns, Samojeds or Sami peoples, compared with other European ethnic groups. There are no DNA-sequence denoting any ethnicity, just as there are no DNA-sequence denoting schizophrenia, or Bipolar disorder. I'm not here arguing against the possibility of suchness on certain levels in the future. But, beyond doubt, it is a fallacy to conclude in such manners, and ideologically extremely problematic. Of course there are genetical differences between different peoples, but each populace is a sum of the earlier peoples interaction, sometimes favoured, sometimes sanctioned, prohibited. The alienation, later destruction of the Norse aboriginal peoples did not, for instant, begin until Carolian feudalism was introduced in Norway, whereupon the opponents of this novel Europe, and novel Christendom fled from Norway, in particular to Iceland, Ireland, Scotland and the North Isles. It is quite clear that the more highly cultured peoples fleeing Scandinavia, when feudalist statehood (a precursor to modern nationalism) was installed in the Viking heartlands, did keep a more favourable perception of the more aboriginal Scandinavians, than the novel regime. The very foundation myth of the Norse, the tremendously unknown story about the eponomys Ńór of Norway, is essentially telling the story of how the aboriginals, the inhabitors of Joðland (the land of the embryos, the unborn child, etymology of 'youth' = 'joð') encounter and make peace with the Scyldings, the legendary Danes. My point is that the legends of the Norse prides itself of it's particular ethnic blend, in absolute contrast to the national-romantic notion of racial purity. If the contemporary Norwegians are a blend of nomadic aboriginals, Sami, Quæn and Finns (of the Finno-Ugric language-group) with Goths and Wends, originally generic terms of Asians and Europeans, as the Sagas say, this would not show in the mapping of genetic relationships of contemporary peoples, if these, our peoples later on have been segregated in feudalist and capitalist statehood. Another example of this is the complicated notion of Khazaria, the Jewish central-Asian empire, buffering between the Byzantian Roman empire and christendom, and the internationalist Abbasid Caliphate, of the Muslim golden age. These Jews were by all probability Jews by conversion, genetically "more" Turkish and Uighur, Iranian and Gothic, a multi-facetted blend, although, as later segregation of settler-society became the norm, they became the antecedents of the Askenazi Germans. It is thus logical that the descending Askenazi Jews show particular genetic similar traits, distinct from neigbours, if this mix of peoples, the genomic make up of the decendants of the lost Kazarian empire, hold on to their tradition and make inbreeding with other ethnicities a taboo, even though this taboo wasn't originally there. Genetic research ignoring such complex issues, merely basing the genetic identification on contemporary databases, relying on the given national identities of the individuals participants submitting their DNA-data, is not scientific, simply the contemporary outlook of the national-socialist ideological core. --Xactnorge (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please keep this talk space reserved for suggesting improvements to the article. None of your post has anything to do with the topic of this section, an unreliable internet source, and is full of unreliable speculations that don't help us improve the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No scholarly consensus on Xiongnu=Huns?

IS there no consensus? It seems to me that the consensus now is that they are connected. Can anyone show evidence of anyone questioning it post Sinor 1990? If not, I think we ought to change the article to reflect that, while still noting that some scholars have raised doubts. As I've mentioned above, I think a separate article to examine this question is warrented, which I will try to start once I get through the History of the Huns and fix the history section here.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know of any serious challenges to the position. MMFA (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The closest thing I've found in is Heather 2006, pp. 148-149. He doesn't bring up the idea in Heather 2010, so I have no idea whether his views have changed. He seems to have changed his mind about the Huns speaking Turkic from 1995, so I should probably change that in the Hunnic language article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Supposedly Beckwith 2009, 72, 404-405 argues against the identification.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

spelling error

The word "pony" is misspelt in the Huns article, but it's not letting me edit it.

Fixed.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian legends

Would there be consensus for integrating the current section "claims of Hunnish descent" into "legends", or else rewriting it so that the development of the legend is clearer and the section is better sourced? I can put something together in my sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

To me the concept of doing that sounds quite reasonable. It may help make it clearer, and in general a rewrite of that content in the article would be useful I think. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't support to integrate the current section "claims of Hunnish descent" into "legends", since claims not necessary equal with legends, or even it is dubious what may be classified as a legend or not. Thus the development of the legend section should be done separately.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC))

In that case we need better documentation of who is currently claiming that Hungarians are descended from Huns. Most sources I've seen so far describe it as a historical phenomenon.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've begun work at my sandbox on a reworking of the section. Please feel free to help! I'm having a lot of trouble finding good sources, unfortunately, so I'm happy for any help in that respect, particularly concerning the Szekelys. I know Simon of Keza is the one to make the claim they are the surviving Huns after the battle of Crimhild, but I can't find a reliable source.

Also, does anyone know what "Egyed 2013" is? It's currently cited in short footnote format but the long form is missing from the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: In Origin of the Székelys there is a citation to Egyed, Ákos (2013). A székelyek rövid története a megtelepedéstől 1989-ig (in Hungarian). Pallas-Akadémiai Könyvkiadó. ISBN 978-973-665-365-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) which I suspect is what is being cited here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Aha, thank you! That article should be useful too, although the majority of its sources are unfortunately in Hungarian.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, we might then rename it to "Historical claims of Hunnish descent" because we cannot just grab one person, generally Hungarians accept a considerable relation, however there is a stress-pattern on Székelys who would have a much more straight and direct connection to them and they are claiming it much more openly. If you need proper translation or supervision in Hungarian, I can help.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC))

If it's a commonly held popular belief, there must be something written about it, even if it's just a survey of what percentage of Hungarians believe themselves to be descended from the Huns. We should certainly include it if we can find sources--maybe you can find something in Hungarian? I can't imagine that no one would talk about it since historians seem to universally reject the idea.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I found this. Also, more academically, this on jstor.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been reading this; — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Behind the attack on the Finno-Ugric origin lay nationalist pride: the image of famous warrior ancestors, whom the whole civilised Western world had feared, was certainly more appealing to the public than the idea of ‘fish-smelling relatives’.

Hence the public interest in the imaginary affiliation with the splendid eastern Turks born for ruling, and also the governmental support of Asian expeditions (see Ko´sa, 1989a, p. 110). Hunfalvy bitterly admitted that he had been often accused of being unpatriotic for marrying the Magyars, ‘grandchildren of the famous Huns’, with such a ‘good for-nothing people’ (Domokos & Pala´di-Kova´cs, 1986).

The war however ended with Finno-Ugric victory: Hunfalvy and Budenz proved the Finno-Ugric origin of the Hungarian language. Believing that for the social scientist issues pertaining to national and ethno-history were primarily not emotional, but scientific questions, Hunfalvy destroyed several national myths rooted in romantic historiography, such as the Hunnish-Magyar affinity, or the Hunnish descent of the Szeklers in Transylvania (Domokos & Pala´di-Kova´cs, 1986).

• Domokos, P., & Pala´di-Kova´cs, A. (1986). Hunfalvy Pa´l (A mu´lt magyar tudo´sai). Budapest: Akade´miai Kiado´.
• Ko´sa, L. (1989a). A magyar ne´prajz tudoma´nyto¨rte´nete. Budapest: Gondolat Kiado´.

And in this, The Deeds of the Hungarians or The Gesta Hungarorum is covered in depth, along with Simon of Kéza. The article also cites;

• Szûcs, J. (1999). Introduction (L. s. Vesprémy & F. Schaer, Trans.). In L. Vesprémy & F. Schaer (Trans. & Eds.), Simonis de Kéza: Gesta hungarorum. Simon of Kéza: The deeds of the Hungarians. Budapest: Central European University Press.

As an authority. Theres about 3000 words on the subject so I won't copy it here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Frayae! Unfortunately I can't access the second article, but I've ordered the English translation of the Deeds of the Hungarians. I've expanded and reorganized based on some more sources I've come across. At the moment I'm most interested in current nationalist appropriations of the Hunnic myth/ the average Hungarian's views on his/her origins, if anyone can find something on that.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I can email you the PDF. My email is hidden at the bottom of my userpage, If you email me I can attach it in a return message. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ermenrich, this appeal to accept some "Hunnish minority" is made not the first time, such was near almost twenty yeras ago, not relevant, similar to a near decade appeal of recognizing a Jász people. They are rejected mainly because of lack of seriousness or beucase some groups would try to take financial advantage of similar organizations and other distractions. Back to the topic, ([4]), and ([5]) are good sources regarding the Székelys, especially the first is about a program and meeting of historians where they summarize all of the theories and evaluate them, pinpointing the most popular and accepted among Székelys are the Hunnish descent. The second is an academic work, as well summarizing and evaluating all the theories with a conclusion that history does not necessarily confirm that Székelys would live for a half millenium in the Trasylvanian mountains until the arrival of the Hungarians, nevertheless it reinforces Hunnish tradition as a fact and the origin that would be from a tribe related to Atilla's Empire and later the Avar Empire and independently from the arrival Hungarians, preceding them.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC))

I read through the first source with the aid of Google translate. It does seem to mention in a sentence that Hunnish origins are the most popular theory with the general public, but I'm not sure what to make of that, since the website itself is not a reliable source and is merely summarizing a talk. The second source is from 1922, and since the historians I have read (including Hungarian historians) who have written more recently reject the Hunnish origins of the Szekelys, I don't see how we can use it except as proof of a historical position.--Ermenrich (talk)

By the way, do you have a reliable source saying that this Hunnish minority bid was unserious? Otherwise, it's in the BBC, so I think it qualifies as notable.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You said I should present something that reinforces that the most accepted/popular origin theory among Székelys is the Hunnish origin. I did that, and I don't see why the website would not be a reliable source. Regarding the other source, if you compare it with the first one, they are not much differing by evaluation and summarization. Even though we might use it a s historical standpoint, it would just show that regarding the origin of the Székelys not much changed. I did not say that the bid was itself unserious, I reflected that the whole case could be treated as such, for the above mentioned reason. I.e. some people reneder/develop a Hunnish identity - it is basic right to develop any identity, it should not be even a known or to be former ethnicity, according to the Hungarian laws you could identify yourself having "xaa1ggT" identity - but it is as much relevant that i.e. personally I would start to consider myself Hunnish - although I don't have any evidence to approve it directly - just because of the possible relationship between Huns and Hungarians. However any registration of a new minority is based on votes, at least the claims are checked if they have really some serious ground. Btw, I checked the former appeal, there the claimants argue they cannot/don't need to speak Hunnish because anyway Hungarian is a dialect of the Hunnish langauge (11 year old source). What is important, rejection regarding this does not mean the rejection of the possible Hun-Hungarian relationship, it is just pure politics, and the seriosity of such claims are checked before voting. I.e. the Bunyevác people has also been rejected as a minority, they are counted to Croatians, the proponents of the Hunnish minority allegedly consider themselves Hungarians, just they developed a Hunnish identity....(KIENGIR (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC))

I'm a bit confused. Modern science rejects a Hunnish origin for the Szekelys, regardless of whether they may be popularly supposed to be of Hunnish origin. We cannot cite a source from 1922 (a year by which most academics had given up on the Szekelys being Huns anyway) to show that "not much has changed."--Ermenrich (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, sometimes we don't understand each other properly, I think the first source is enough to demonstrate at the Hungarian section that recently this is view is the most popular among Székelys.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC))

Fair enough, I'll add that to the draft at some point soon. I'm currently waiting for the English translation of Simon of Keza. Once I have that I'll make a few more small changes then replace the current section, probably reducing the bit on Bede and placing it in the legends section.

It strikes me, we really ought to have at least something short on the role played by the Huns in Turkish/Turkic nationalism as well. Perhaps my next project for this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, Turkish nationalism have very harsh claims on the Huns and Attila practically they treat the Hunnish Empire as a predecessor and even introducing a "Huntürkei" designation that seems heavily fake...however, the supporter of this views also treat Hungarians as Turks, along with every Turkic people or even majority of ancient cultures who would not even have Turkic heritage. Maybe these phenomenon are supported by hardline hypernationalists, if you really wish to mention, I support in case something short and moderate, i.e. recently there are popular beliefs in Turkey that they would have a connection to them, etc. Regarding Turkic nationalism, it seems more moderate, having a relation, but it is more similar and fit to Turanism.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC))

I've gone ahead and replaced the current text with my new version. If anyone could find some better images though? There's a statue ot Attila at Heroes Square in Budapest, for instance, as well as some 19th-c. paintings conflating Hungarian and Hunnish history. Ermenrich (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was born in Budapest, but I have never seen Attila or any Hunnic statue in Heroes square. Next time it would be better to read the article what you mention. Like this: Hősök tere

I don't think that Hunnic ancestry is important in modern Hungarian culture, it can be important only for the less educated / primitive worker-class craftsmen and poor peasant (idustrial and agricultural proletarians) type of nationalists , who believe in such fantasy. The vast majority of Hungarian (and other post commie eastern European) proletarians are not more intelligent and educated than average Gypsy population.--Dwirm (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, despite there are already such sculptures in other places, and there are further plans of it. The Heroes Square and their sculptures were set and made between 1905-1911 and deliberately representing heroes of the Kingdom of Hungary, so it is not a reference point.

On the other your further opinions are narrow-minded and prejudicative, especially in Hungary the so-called "less educated" people - as you wish to express - may have wider believes, the cult of Attila an Hunnish history mostly rendered by very educated people who have renowned works and they are writing and publishing high quality books. Your last sentence is again a clear exaggeration and does not represent the reality.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

There is no turanist and Hun-believers among educated people. Just watch the Kurultáj event, 99% of the visitors are craftsmen. In old Hungarian (pre-1945) term was "aljanép", alsóbb néprétegek. ("lower classes" & "lower folks" Here is my opinion about prolee of Eastern Europe, I wrote it many years ago: http://prolivilag.blogspot.com/ But there is a good article about them here: http://demokrata.hu/velemeny/proli--Dwirm (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

in advance let's set that the whole discussion has not necessarily any connection to "Turanism" and you are harshly generalizing, because there is/was/are also renowned academic level authors who had an opinion towards this possibilty to Hunnic, or to ather alternate theory of the the double-conquest (Székelys earlier, Magyars later, i.e. László Gyula), it is another question that especially today, those people who you designate as "proletarians" - in a way a pejorative manner - what they believe in majority. I think it is irrelevant here. Especially Grandpierre K. Endre or Grandpiere Attila are highly educated persons and have very good books on the subject, to say nothing of i.e. other person who are not from this area i. e. Szörényi Levente is also have similar views, and he is as well not obviously and proletarian or uneducated, etc., like many others. I have no opinion of Kurultáj because I was never there, though I heard some debates that some will never go beucase they really knows what is a traditional Hungarian wear, on the contrary of those who organize Kurultáj, etc. But better let's not go offtopic further with this discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

Grandpierre is not a linguist nor a historian nor a geneticist nor an archaeologist, so his opinion is very layman here. What is he? An astronomer. László Gyula's theory was debunked, the history professors don't really care about it anymore. Levente Szörényi is a rock musician so he is not a linguist nor a historian nor a geneticist nor an archaeologist either. This Hunnic and Turanist agendas about the Hungarians' origin resembles me 100% about the Little Entente's efforts and propaganda which discredited and humiliated Hungarians before and during the WW1 Paris peace conference. Read about it (Racism played a part): http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/273638 --Dwirm (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

who said they are? The main thing that I wanted to reflect they are NOT "proletarians" or "less educated" people. And again, you should not mention Hunnic or Turanic at one level, the two is neither identical, nor the same! I knew about what you were linking, the main problem was they always pushed the "barbarian", "Asian" denonyms and a supposed relation to the "Turks" that could be connected to Turanism. Though, you don't have to convince me of anything, because I am NOT a "Turanist". I hope we can close this issue finally.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Maybe Turanism and Hunnic fantasies were not the same originally in the pre WW1 era, but they merged later to the turanism. Especially after WW2, the originally non-related Sumerian Scythian-Parthus-Hunnic-Turkic ridiculous theories merged into the so-called Turanism. Yes, the lunatic Turanism is a modern proletarian new-age movement in the 21th century Hungary, since the 99% of its followers are from lesser educated worker class people, the so-called proletarians, who beleieve in every theories if it sounds enough fantastic. Ironically Russians Eastern Slavic people the Romanians are all genetically closer to these eastern Central-Asian people than Hungarians. You can check all type of population genetic researches and comparisons. --Dwirm (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC) @Dwirm:,

I don't agree that they would have been merged, the Hunnic question and Turanism is not the same. I know about those genetic researches, don't treat me as an ignorant. I tell the the third time, I wish to finish this topic!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Javaslom Ablonczy Balázs (aki a téma kutatója az ELTÉ-n) Keletre magyar! c. könyvét. Kutatásaiból kiderült hogy a II.VH utáni turanizmus nagyon mássá alakult mint ami előtte volt. A modernebb napjainkban élő turanizmus (pláne a rendszerváltás után) összefoglalja (az egyébbként egymásnak ellenmondó) Hun-Sumér-Szkíta-Pártus-Türk-Etruszk áltudományos meséket. A turáni fogalom a rendszerváltás után tiszta gyűjtőnévvé vált. A lényege a finnugor ellenesség, annak ellenére hogy 1945 előtt a finnugor elmélet teljesen része volt a turanizmusnak. Minden ami áltudományosság a magyarok eredetével kapcsolatban összesűrűsödött benne. Szerencsére már az ELTE-n (is) oktatják a hagymázas fantasy alternatív elméletekről a hallgatókat: http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=alterism --Dwirm (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hunnic Empire Map

The Hunnic Empire map kind of bothers me, as it seems unlikely the Huns really controlled territory all the way to Kazakhstan. Does anyone have a source for its boundaries? If not, I think we probably need to replace the image in the info box here and at History of the Huns with something else. An actual sourced map would be preferable, obviously.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) A more realistic, but likely outdated, map is found here. One of the other sources listed for the current map, John Man, does not appear to show the Huns ruling so far East.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's the map of the breakup of the Hun Empire from "The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe" by Hyun Jin Kim. https://i.imgur.com/itPq4w9.jpg MMFA (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Would there be consensus for just replacing it with the map I linked to? It's from 1911, so it shouldn't be under copyright anymore, right? It's either that or make our own, which I don't know how to do.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean both of those older maps are terrible but it's... an improvement, I guess. MMFA (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Begun work on Origin of the Huns article

I've begun working on a "Origin of the Huns" article in my sandbox. The scope of the article will be both the relationship of the Huns to the Xiongnu as well as their relation to the Iranian Huns, principly the Kidarites, Alchon Huns, Hephthalites, and Huna. It's important, I think, to make the article discuss the origins of the Iranian Huns as well: it should be an article that unites things that are either currently found in disparate articles or not at all. At the moment I've only started to sketch a history of the problem from de Guignes onward. Anyone with time and access to reliable sources is welcome to contribute: I envision having it split into sections discussing different aspects (archaeology, linguistics, history), but we'll see what form it takes. If anyone knows a good place to publicize the creation to encourage collaboration from people who edit pages related to the Iranian Huns and Huna, I'd appreciate knowing about it.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of the connection is etymological. Obviously you need Etienne de la Vassiere and Christopher Atwood's articles Huns et Xiongnu and Huns and Xiongnu: New Thoughts on an Old Problem.

Nicola Di Cosmo's book "Ancient China and its Enemies" also goes heavily into the topic of Xiongnu origins. Tohiyo Hayashi's article on Xiongnu Cauldrons is also useful. MMFA (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@MMFA: Have a look at my current section on etymology - I'm still waiting for a proper citation of Bailey and probably something about the M-H denying a connection between the Iranian and European Huns, but otherwise I'd say it's close to done. I can move on to archaeology then.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get Bailey for you. The archaeological section is massively outdated. You need Istvan Bona's 1991 work Das Hunnenreich or his 2002 work Les Huns if you want to discuss Hun archaeology at all. Xiongnu Archaeology... isn't my area, I can't really help with that but I will do what I can with Hun archaeology. There is evidence for continuity, namely the whole cauldrons thing which I mentioned earlier with Tohiyo Hayashi's article on Xiongnu/Hun Cauldrons.MMFA (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Only etymology is close to done. Still working on the other parts. Ermenrich (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've created the page. Obviously there is probably more that could be added.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Maurice's Strategikon

I have some questions about the prominence given to Maurice's Strategikon. It was written well after the end of the Hunnish empire or even the majority of its successor states, and it only describes (as quoted anyway) "Hunnish peoples", which seems like a generalized usage rather than referring to the Huns in particular, as well as a backdoor way of saying (as quoted) that Attila's Huns were Turks. I already had to change the way that it was presented somewhat.

@MMFA:, you know a lot about Hunnish military tactics, etc. How do you think we could improve the presentation of the Strategikon so that it doesn't mislead our readers?

We can add to this section with info from other secondary sources that are discussing the classical Huns - Maenchen-Helfen has a whole chapter on Hunnish warfare, Heather talks about it, as do Kim and others.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you insert exactly what's in the source about the description and affiliation of the Hunnish people (a very surely non-lazy, mistranslated version of it?)(KIENGIR (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

As I read in the article the author refers on warfare similarities...(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

The Strategikon is a Byzantine book of military strategies. It describes steppe tactics here (which I don't think it's controversial to assign to Attila's Huns) but it's discussing the situation at the end of the sixth century, when "Hun" had become a fairly generalized term for nomad.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I actually added that section. The Strategikon does generalize but it's also believed to be fairly accurate for its descriptions. It's... a bit debated. We know the Strategikon borrows heavily from Aelian and Arrian but that appears to mainly be for the sction on Infantry (see Philip Rance's recent work on this). Laura Fyfe's Master's Thesis on Hunnic Warfare (Linked here: http://www.medievalists.net/2017/11/hunnic-warfare-fourth-fifth-centuries-c-e/) is the first real attempt to take the Strategikon and apply it to actual Roman and non-Roman practice (unfortunately her knowledge of the archaeology was lacking, somewhat, but the rest of her research was good). The second attempt is well, mine, in my book on the Catalaunian Fields which is going to be published, which is why I have refrained from really helping out with these articles due to Wikipedia's rules on original research.

As for Translation I can provide the Dennis translation of the whole passage (it's dated but the only new one, Rance's translation, isn't finished and published yet). Also this reminds me I have a new paper on Hunnic bows I came across I can add to this page by Kazanski. MMFA (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong talking about the Strategikon, but we should probably make the context a bit clearer. I'll try and expand the section a bit using M-H, Heather, Kim, and maybe some stuff from "The Cambridge Companion". One of them (forget which) compares the Huns to the Sarmatians and other Iranian nomads in fighting style - generally interesting and informative to our readers.

By the way, you wouldn't happen to have the full citation for the Russian article that appears in the equipment section?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That Soviet article is ancient. What's there is all I know of it. It's online somewhere, I have to find the link I used to have it saved. I'll get back to you with it. MMFA (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also you want Peter Golden's article: "War and Warfare in the Pre-Chingissid Western Steppes of Eurasia" (In here, also a lot of the rest of his work is super-useful too, if a tad dated from the 90's: https://www.academia.edu/9609971/Studies_on_the_Peoples_and_Cultures_of_the_Eurasian_Steppes) MMFA (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm always fairly relunctant to use MA theses or dissertations here. The reliable sources guidelines make it clear they are not to be given as much weight as other sources, and having written them myself, I can tell you that they can often contain impressive gaps of knowledge. Moreover, I find that peddlers of fringe theories can often pull up some MA theses or even dissertations written somewhere that contain their fringe arguments. It's thus, in my opinion, best to avoid them on Wikipedia. That's just an opinion of course.

Have you ever encountered this book? Would it be worth me interlibrary-loaning it?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read that one, but the reviews indicate it's a pretty general book for public audiences. And fair enough on the thesis. One book we should definitely include is definitely Baumer's three volume "The History of Central Asia: The Age of the Steppe Warriors" and "The Age of the Silk Roads." MMFA (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gotten my hands on the original of Golden's article. I'm going to start adding information from it. However, I think we really need to deemphasize (perhaps remove entirely) the Strategikon, as Maurice is not talking about the Huns discussed in this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This sentence requires more clarification

Classical sources also frequently call the Huns Massagetae, Scythians, Cimmerians, and other names for earlier groups of steppe nomads.

From Encyclopedia Iranica:

• Somewhat strange is the localization of the Massagetae in Ptolemy’s Geography 6.10.2 in Margiana, and still more in 6.13.3, where he calls them a Saka tribe along the Askatánkas mountains, i.e., Hindu Kush and Karakorum. In the end, various Byzantine authors use the name of the Massagetae in a quite archaizing manner for Huns, Turks, Tatars, and related peoples (see Moravcsik, pp. 183f.), what has no relevance, however, for ancient times.1
• Greek sources continue to mention the Scythians for a long time afterwards, until the end of the Byzantine period, but from the 4th century BCE on, this term was often used as a collective name for the northern barbarians and could designate peoples who had nothing to do with the historical Scythians. Byzantine authors, for example, used it to denote Slavs or Turkic nomads. The term “Scythians” was also used in a similar way in a number of sources from the Roman period.2

Your opinion? --Wario-Man (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is not meant to imply that the Huns had anything to do with these earlier groups. It is an "archaicizing" usage: calling a new group by the name of an older group. I can clarify that if it isn't clear.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, though we should not forget that before the 19th century romantic nationalism, the groups listed were not considered part of the Indo-Iranians/Indo-Europeans speaking peoples. Since it is written "classical sources", no further clarification needed ("Dahae Sacae, Massegatea uno nationis sunt", "Hunni, olim Massagetae" what I recall instantly classic sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC))

It could be unclear for some readers and may lead to POV-pushing on the linked articles (Massagetae, Scythians, Cimmerians, and etc). It has happened in the past, e.g. readers, IP-users, and new users misunderstand some parts of an article, then they start their quest to insert their own personal opinions on linked articles. So add more detail and clarification to that part. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've clarified the text. Does it look better now?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, simple and clear. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Name and etymology

Is there any specific source which shows what "Hun" means? It would be very useful if editors add a related section about it (Name/Etymology). --Wario-Man (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The only suggested etymology I've found so far is that it's an Iranian term for enemies, which however, not everyone accepts. Xiongnu is usually said to mean "howling slaves" (though Maenchen-Helfen disagreed), but that's seen as a Chinese adaptation of the name rather than the actual meaning. Most etymologies of the name focus on getting at some sort of original form/connecting the various words for Hun in different languages rather than establishing meaning. My impression is no one knows, though, strangely, none of the major books on the Huns bother to say anything about the name. I'll keep digging and see if I turn up anything else.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary has this:

From Old English Hūne, Hūnas, from Late Latin Hunnus, from Ancient Greek Ούννοι (Oúnnoi), borrowed through Middle Iranian, apparently ultimately from Turkic *Hun-yü, the name of a tribe (they were known in China as Xiongnu).

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hun --Beneficii (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There is not any uniform consensus or sure information. What we known, first it appeared in the document written in Sogdiani language informing a battle from 311, calling Xiongnu as "khun (xwn)". However some people as well doubts the equivalence of the Xiongu and Huns.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

@Beneficii, Ermenrich, and KIENGIR: Thanks for the reply. I opened this section because of this edit.[6] In Mongolian wiktionary:хүн (hün) means human or adult male. Also we have other Central Asian peoples like Xionites and other Hunas. So there may be a specific meaning for names like "hun", "xun", "xion", "xion", "xyon" in Chinese, Indian, Mongolian, Persian, Sogdian, or Turkic and even Uralic or Yeniseian sources (historical texts or etymology). We have Hephthalite_Empire#Ethnonyms and Alchon_Huns#Name. So we could consider adding a similar section to this article if there would be enough content for it. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank also for these information!

@MMFA:, @Ermenrich:, please check the articles Wario-Man mentioned for validity, highlighting the Xiognu article and the recent edits there also, in case we should not let the term "Hun" to be misused by any national aim or bias. Thank You all.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC))

It doesn't look like anyone associates Hun with any modern Mongolian word, so that looks like a folk etymology to me - I assume its impossible to derive khun from Hungna (one proposed original pronunication of Xiongnu) and the various other proposed original forms that produce Hunni, Ounnoi, Xwn, Chion, Huṇa, etc. But we certainly have enough for a section on the name even besides etymology, given the fact that the Romans also called them Scythians and Massagetae. There's even debate about whether its an exo- or endonym that can be mentioned. I'll try to put something together, I'm currently waiting for some sources (for some reason this issue is not addressed in any of the three major books on the Huns).

As to the two articles, I can't see anything majorly wrong with them. The Alchon Huns section seems like it might reflect someone's personal interpretation more than the sources cited though. Some of these issues will be better addressed once a centralized article "Origins of the Huns" has been created which can deal with all Hunnic groups in one place.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

According to Atwood's most recent paper the name was originally the dynastic name of the Xiongnu rulers, most likely. He suggests it may also have associations with the Ongi river in Mongolia, which he outlines in his most recent work "https://www.academia.edu/18160947/_The_Qai_the_Khongai_and_the_Names_of_the_Xi%C5%8Dngn%C3%BA_". He also goes over some various words that generically meant "nomad" or the like such as "Hu," "Qai," and "Khonghai."

So in a nutshell we don't really know what Xiongnu means, but we know there's probably a relationship to the original Yeniseian word that comes from the ruling family's name. MMFA (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly the Chinese "Xiongnu" or "ferocious slaves" is a rendition of Turkic "Hun" or "ferocious", with "slaves" being a derogatory term for a foreigner. Another possibility is the Gothic word for "hound" or "young brave". We'll never know, but I think it's fair to assume the Huns spoke a Turkic language as well as Alanic and Gothic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:F00:3946:1DA0:4AE5:9BB8:DA18 (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've found a list of proposed etymologies from before 1959 in an old Maenchen-Helfen article: "The Ethnic Name Hun". He's quite dismissive of them, of course, but he mentions some proposed Turkic and Iranian etymologies before suggesting himself that it might originally have been a title of Indo-Iranian origin, meaning something like "skillful person". I'll try to work on it this week--Ermenrich (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Will you add it to article? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I will, I got distracted by the pan-Turkic nonsense over at the etymology of Attila, though, so I've been correcting that.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of those nonsense on Eurasian articles are leftovers of a long-term abuser and Turanist named Tirgil34 (see his LTA page for more details about his behavior and targeted pages). He's still active and continues his agenda. So I highly recommend keep watching articles you have edited. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, watching the history there my eyes got hurt...all the world is Turkic....pffff.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

Hey @Ermenrich: a new paper on the Huns and the Sogdian Letters was just made available: https://www.academia.edu/38015198/The_Rise_of_the_Sogdian_Merchants_and_the_Role_of_the_Huns_The_historical_importance_of_the_Sogdian_Ancient_Letters MMFA (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, I'll see if we can't incorporate that into the article or Origin of the Huns!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty old article, from the 1990's IIRC. But it's only just now available online. MMFA (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Huns race debate

The section of Huns doesn't do enough to describe that Caucasian Huns could be either European subjects or Alans. Therefore we should add this aswell

Denis Sinor, noting the paucity of anthropological evidence, wrote that "there is no reason to question the basic accuracy of the western descriptions, and the absence of massive supporting evidence by physical anthropology cannot weaken the point they so tellingly make". Some artificially deformed crania from the 5th–6th Century AD have been found in Northeastern Hungary and elsewhere in Western Europe. The skulls appear Europoid; these skulls may have belonged to Germanic or other subject groups whose parents wished to elevate their status by following a custom introduced by the Huns so it unsure if they were actual HJuns or Huns subjects.

As is stated in numerous places throughout the article, scholars no longer ascribe to the idea that the Huns were a distinct racial group. Saying that some remains or groups may have been merely "European subjects" is as meaningless as arguing that certain ethnicities aren't American because they only joined later. That they had some East Asian elements is generally (though not universally) accepted, but it does not reduce the "Hunnishness" of the other people using the name.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's still not clear enough that's the problem. How can you not mention the possibility of Caucasian Huns could be European subjects who became Huns — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHistorian (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're getting at all to me. If your concern is that the racial composition of the Huns might have changed after they enter Europe, then that can be added with a slight edit to the final citation by Kim. At this point, I've sort of said what I have to say on the subject. Your edits are rather suggestive of the idea that Huns with European racial characteristics were not Huns, which is a position held by no one in modern scholarship. @MMFA:, @KIENGIR:, do either of you have an opinion?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I can say the "racial question/origin" regarding the Huns is not set, regardless of the majority opinions/suggestions (based on Western descriptions, having also dominant propagandistic and dehonestating elements), being/having an Europid anything does not mean it could not be Hunnish, having in consideration that Hunnish people consisted of many tribe-alliances, most propably including Asian, Caucasian and the mixture of these (I mean many groups already a long time ago breed looking more Europid with less Asiatic features and vica versa). Thus nominally, I don't support the above proposed inclusion, maybe in case in if a proper context they are represented as a kind of marginal opinion(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).

I'm with Ermenaric and Kiengir. MMFA (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is therefore a clear consensus against this edit. I've made a slight adjustment to the race section to accommodate your concerns, DerekHistorian.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

References

A good image for the lead

Don't you think current lead feels a bit raw without any image? I know it's not necessary but I believe it would be good for the readers and visitors. Something like a painting:

Visual stuff enrich articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that an image would be good for the lede, however I'm not all that happy with the images available at Wikimedia Commons. If we take the one above, it sort of racializes the Huns in a way that I find problematic. It does show them using lassos and bows like in ancient descriptions, at least. Most other images at WM Commons make them out to be sort of half naked blood thirsty plunderers and show them swinging around various barbaric looking weapons.

If enough people want it as an image, I won't object, especially since I can't think of anything better.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Factually speaking it's terrible and I know of no public domain images of the Huns that are even close to accurate. The only half-decent one I've ever seen is from Michael Gorelik's "Warriors of Eurasia," barring the archaeological reconstruction of the Volnikovka Burial. MMFA (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, something "less terrible" would be needed, what about this? [7](KIENGIR (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC))

It's good in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's better than the "Chinese" one. It sort of promotes Hunnic stereotypes, but as a people that's long since disappeared from the earth, they aren't likely to mind, I suppose. I can't think any better image, anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that's from a painting of Gaiseric's sack of Rome. MMFA (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? In that case it should be removed from the article (the history section is sort of crammed with images anyway).--Ermenrich (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What about one of these? A picture of a deformed cranium would be nice, but it would have to be high quality and from a 'Hunnic' grave. Srnec (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

That first map is the one I'd definitely recommend. The second image I'm not sure if that's Hunnic. It may be mis-labelled but I'd have to check the info about it. Because it doesn't look like any Hunnic brooch I've ever seen. MMFA (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I missed your suggestion over the holidays, Srnec! I'll add that map.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The brooch looks like it might be Ordos culture? There's a habit among certain pan-Turks etc on Wikipedia I've noticed to call to Xiongnu Huns so that they can include things known for the Xiongnu in Hun-related things and vice versa.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It was not hard to verify the brooch is Hunnish from the museum website. It is off putting to refer to "certain" editors by their ethnicity in this manner, when a quick google search shows image is labelled accurately at commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbilir (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Although Walters is probably trustworthy I still want to see the typology because I'm not aware of Hunnic Animal brooches like that and it could well be east Germanic. MMFA (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

::If you have a concern of how the museum has classified the piece in their collection, you must take it up with them.Dilbilir (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, adherents of pan-Turkism do not form an ethnicity. It would be nice to see why its classified as Hunnish, sure. Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

::::You do not say pan-Turkish, your comment says pan-Turks. If you are talking about pan-Turkism as a viewpoint or ideology then you should strike comment and make correction because new editors like me will not know what you mean. Keep this in mind in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbilir (talk • contribs) 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no "pan-Turk" ethnicity; it's obvious what I mean. Perhaps you should be less quick to take offense.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::You say "certain pan-Turks" but now you say you mean "certain pan-Turkism"? - I see this already on several articles I want to work on. Its not good use of common space to denigrate views of other editors without evidence and supporting sources, especially when it is easy to confirm that brooch is Hunnish by quick Google search. I think as show of good faith please agree to choose your words more carefully in the future.Dilbilir (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding me on purpose. A "Pan-Turk" is obviously an adherent of pan-Turkism (what the formal term for such people is, I don't know: pan-Turkists? It is irrelevant). Supporters of pan-Turkism are a problem on Wikipedia, as anyone who has edited these articles for any length of time knows. This has nothing to do with the brooch specifically. And that's all I have to say on the subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::The term is pan-Turkist, you should use the correct term, not "Pan Turks". This is an encyclopedia, not kindergarten. If you don't enunciate, how can anyone be expected to understand you? I have not yet seen any edits that are Pan-Turkist, and since Pan-Turkism was a pro-Nazi, antisemitic ideology I don't believe your explanation that "supporters of pan-Turkism are a problem on Wikipedia" because I have never seen any evidence of this.Dilbilir (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Anthropology and genetics

Following a discussion I've been having with Wario-Man, he's suggested we rename the race section "Anthropology" and create a separate genetics section, partially to reduce the danger of nationalist edits to the "race" section. @MMFA:, I believe you would have the necessary expertise to create such a genetics section. What does everybody think about doing so?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC) :Renaming the section won't help. I don't think "danger of nationalist edits" is a good reason to rename the section, which is about race. If it becomes a problem we can revisit it, but right now the section is about modern researchers who have discredited a well-attested to antiquated racial classification.Dilbilir (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I could do it but I would keep it very simple and general. It's not my area I just know about it regarding the Huns. MMFA (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That's probably all we need. Do you have an opinion on renaming "race"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Race definitely brings up very old connotations. Anthropology, Ethnicity, virtually anything would be a better term. MMFA (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, am I understanding you correctly that genetics should be added to a renamed version of the current section, or should it get its own section?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Genetics has its own section on other articles. You can rename "Race" to "Anthropology" or "Physical appearance" or "Origins". --Wario-Man (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)