Talk:Kutrigurs

Kutrigurs under Attila

This article has several inconsistences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

this articles are written by turkish manafs, they believe that Kutrigurs were Turks. Kutrigurs were Huns and they were one tribe, not nine. Search google books to find out who were they, WP is not reliable (unless turkish manafs are banned from editing), you can start from these books, they were deleted many times from this article.

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

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

And the proper name is Kutrigari - it means small people

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

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

Roman historians Themistius(317-390), Claudian(370-404), and later Procopius(500-560) called the Huns Massagetae. The Huns were called Massagetae also by Ambrose(340-397), Ausonius(310-394), Synesius(373–414), Zacharias Rhetor(465-535), Belisarius(500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus(6th century) and others. Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya(1980, 23) and Edgar Knobloch(2001, 15) identify Massagetae with the Great Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi -> Ta-Yue-ti(Great Lunar Race) -> Ta-Gweti -> Massa-Getae. Dahiya wrote about the Massagetae and Thyssagetae : "These Guti people had two divisions, the Ta-Yue-Che and Siao-Yue-Che, exactly corresponding to the Massagetae and Thyssagetae of Herodotus ... " (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, who are known as the Lesser Getae, correspond with the Xiao Yuezhi, meaning Lesser Yuezhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.110 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

References

Kutrigur Bulgars

Kutrigurs were Huns and were related to the Bulgars.

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

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

References

Origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested intro

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

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

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

Nobody disputes the Hunnic admixture in this tribe, however this mixture was basically Turkic. Check even the sources you have provided. They confirm the same thesis. For example in The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim have stated on p. 29 that the Huns seem to have had a core Turkic element, ruling over initially a large Turco-Iranian population... The heavier concentration of Turkic peoples in the western half of the old Xiongnu (Eastern Huns) Empire is likely to have contributed to this shift from a Yeniseian core language group to a Turkic one... Yet the fact that the Huns chose to hold on to the name of the imperial Xiongnu (Eastern Huns) as their own ethnonym or state name, even after the probable Turkification of the elite, is a clear indication that they regarded this link with the old steppe tradition of imperial grandeur as valuable and significant, a sign of their original identity and future ambitions no doubt. You dislike those facts, that Huns' elite was build from Turkic people and they spoke Turkic language and those facts are missing here. More the Oghuric admixture in this tribe was also Turkic, i.e. in general they were a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements, but their elite was Turkic one. Jingiby (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically you refused to accept what mainstream scholars agree upon:

1. Kutrigurs were Hunnic tribe, they didn't have "Hunnic admixture" whatever this means

2. Although some linguistic elements about the names appear to have Turkic affinities, this is not sufficient to conclude that Kutrigurs and other Hunnic tribes were Turks. You neglect the Iranian, Mongolian and other affinities of these names which makes the problem far more complicated. Detailed analysis of these names (tribal and personal) is given by Maenchen-Helfen.

3. You refused to understand who were the historical Turks: namely three groups of tribes, Dinlin, Gekun and Hinli from southern Siberia. These tribes were subordinate to Xiongnu elite which also was not Turkic. To put it bluntly: Turks were slaves in the Xiongnu Empire.

4. There is no data for historical migration of the above Turkic tribes before 6th century AD.

5. Such people as Oghurs didn't existed. WHERE THEY LIVED ? IN WHICH ANCIENT SOURCE SUCH PEOPLE WERE RECORDED ?

Since this dispute cannot be resolved between us, INPUT from other people is necessary. By that time the word Turkic will be deleted from the article, it wasn't there before and you shouldn't pollute Wikipedia articles with your personal believes. Martin Lee Smith (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Two other editors also disagree with your POV and have reverted you, i.e. there is such input, and please stop reverting everybody. Jingiby (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

these editors are paid puppets as you know very well. Wikipedia is not a place to make money by distorting historical truth. I expect input form English/American etc editors. Martin Lee Smith (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, stop edit-warring. If you suspect meta-puppetry, paid edits etc. you can describe that case on the page about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Martin Lee Smith, by removing one word, replacing it with some other further down the text and adding a vague source... and you consider that as an improvement? You are not doing any improvement at all. So please, don't fool yourself and most importantly - don't try to fool us. --Ted Masters (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to fool you. I am not even trying to persuade you into/out of sth. What I am trying is to prevent you from fooling Wikipedia readers. And this is exactly what your gang is doing here. By the way how much do you make from such activities? It is you who are disrupting Wikipedia - you are imposing only one possible point of view on the readers as sth which is firmly accepted by the scholars. You know very well that engaged readers will found out that Kutrigurs were Huns (you cannot delete these books from Google as you are doing this here) and since WP states that they were Turks, the conclusion would be that the Huns were Turks. Which is sth that most scholars do not accept. And which is wrong. The Huns and historical Turks are different people. DO you understand this ? There is no way to link the Huns and the ancient historical Turkic tribes (Dinlin, Gekun and Xinli). This was attempted 300 years by the most prominent scholars unsuccessfully. Why do you want to present this as a proven fact ??? My last suggestion is:

1. Neutral introduction of the article - no words as Turkic, Mongolian, Iranian etc. "Eurasian nomads" is ok.

2. New section "Origin" to be open where Turkic and Hunnic to be presented as separate theories. Inside this section you can write your own paragraph/s and prove your claims. Not in the introduction, on the very first line of the article.

3. Paragraph relating Kutrigars to the Bulgars can be added into this section.

I know what your answer will be, but I am obliged to ask: do you agree? Martin Lee Smith (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martin Lee Smith: As I am not an expert in this period, I do not have a strong opinion regarding your points. I do have a strong opinion regarding this: "By the way how much do you make from such activities?" Please stop forthwith or you are going to get yourself blocked. Which will significantly reduce the chances of your contributing to the article. WP:PA please. You stated that you would like some input from a non-involved editor - which is a reasonable request. My first input is a request that you read and adhere to WP:CIVILITY and WP:GF, which I also consider reasonable. We may then be able to make some progress. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Origin

In this academic source the buried bodies in Kutrigurs necropolises are described as " brahiochranic with barely detected Mongoloid signs" [3] How is that Turkic? 2A02:A400:F33A:1:8DF8:46CE:625C:F3BD (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with their classification as Turkic people. Modern Gagauzes are genetically 99% Western Eurasians, but are classified undoubtedly as Turkic people. Jingiby (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

terrible crop job

the picture of the map seems to have a black rectangle over the bottom quarter (roughly) which blocks out most of central africa and also the list of what the numbers on the map mean. someone who has the original image please put it back Spacebusdriver (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

For the umpteenth time, the article has been attacked by a dubious IP with the sole purpose of changing the thesis that this tribe is not Turkic but Hunnic. Please read the discussions above and you will see that there is no consensus on writing such statements as leads in the article. They are not confirmed by the prevailing sources, both for the Bulgars in general and for this tribe in particular, which consider them Turks. Jingiby (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)