Talk:Huns/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mounted State

Establishment of the first Hun state is also the first appearance of the culture of horseback migration in history.

Mounted nomads had dominated the steppe since at least the appearance of the Scythian tribes. Don't they count for something?

As far as I know the story of Scythians go back to only 7th and 8th century BC. So, Huns seem to be a little bit older. On the other hand, my initiation date for Huns (1400 BC) is highly disputable and indeed they became a significant power only after the 2nd century BC. Anyway, probably even Sumerians were a nomadic, horse-back culture who took their origins from Persian, Indian or maybe from Altaic tribes (for their language have some striking similarities with Altaic languages). So, I would better change this statement. I am planning to go on working this article (hopefully) in the future with some friendly help ErdemTuzun.

I would be very surprised if any relationship between Sumerian and Altaic speech was more than coincidental - as far as I know no proposal for a relationship between Sumerian and any other language has gained general acceptance. But that is neither here nor there. Regarding horses, the Sumerians were definitely not a horse-back culture since horses had yet to be domesticated at the time (they used oxen and onagers instead). I don't think that horses were ever used as mounts until the iron age. In short, antiquity of the Huns, whatever that may be, is not the same as antiquity of the Huns as a mounted group and I don't think the transition could have possibly taken place before around the time of the Scythians anyways.

You seem to be correct about the Scythians but probably the first mounted horses were used for warfare long before than we both presume:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115394&tocid=10301#10301.toc ErdemTuzun

I just came across this horse/Talk . The Sumerians did have four -wheel chariots drawn by onagers / asses. These asses looked like ponies and did not look like donkeys. They are shown on the "Standard of Ur" and it seem they were light colored. (Asen ,asier were nature 'god's of Germanic people . As was also the name of Roman money or coins .)

Barbarians

Your composition of five barbarians (Wu hu): Xiongnu, Hu, Tartars, Mongols and Turkics) was highly disputable. Actually I cannot clearly find out your exact composition so I prwsume the above was yours.

My questions are as follows: 1) The term Xiongnu or Hiung-nu was never used until 2/3 century B.C. (the establishment of Qin Dynasty)

Your paragraph partially explained by saying they were under various names (xian3 yun3) which may be regarded as partial answer to my question.

2) Mongols did not ever appear as a small group of tribes until early 9th century A.D. So your date of "5 barabrians occupation of China" was not even close.
Even if you changed to 9th century, the Mongols was still too weak to challenge Tang's authority of Northern China at the time.
3) Please explain more about Tartars and Turkics. Your usage of the words was too vague. What tribes of the Tartars and/or Turkics invaded China at your timing of invasion? Your arguments were too weak.
4) If you really meant that the Huns inhabited northeastern China, presumably Manchuria, and Mongolia from 1000 BC to 6th cen. A.D., you was certainly wrong.

a) No Huns or any tribes with Hunnic blood was inhabiting the area since 2nd cen. A.d.
Either they moved out (like N. Xiongnu) or migrated south into Northern China (like S. Xiongnu).

b) Manchuria was the motherland of Xianbei, Wuhuan and other tribes that could be considered as nominal ancestors of Manchus.
Xiongnu, only being recognized as the master of the steppes, never inhabited areas occupied by Xianpei and fellow tribes.

5) Answer to Establishment of the first Hun state is also the first appearance of the culture of horseback migration in history.. I agreed that Sumerians never were a horse-riding civilization; however some researches I have done showed that the first Hun state was not the first horseback state either. The argument greatly depends on whether you considered Attila's state as the first Hun state. If you can define it more concisely, I may be able to help you. In other words, I need your timing of your Hunnic state.
6) Even before 6th century the term Hu2 already meant non-Hunnic "barbarian tribes".
7) Seems like you interpreted Hu as barbarians but I can prove to you that such an interpretation is wrong.

I don't want to be mean or anything but reading your paragraph provoked many second-guesses. I also don't mind helping you out on this article.

Personally I don't like the word "Mongolian" since it has been abused to stand for all tribes that inhabit the steppes in today Mongolia, no matter how close or loose they are related (like ancestors, descendents, by marriage, offshoot or no relationship at all) to the "true" Mongolian who ravaged Europe in early 13 century.

Ktsquare

If you know things are wrong, please fix them. That's the Wiki way.

I agree that we need better terminology for Mongol peoples at different times (including the Golden Horde), modern Mongolia, the region (as distinct from the nation-state)... but I don't have a good suggestion. I came to the talk page for one small point, which is that the link being called "traditional Hungarian history" has "controve.htm" as the filename. This suggests that the claim is nothing like a consensus. Vicki Rosenzweig

Chinese characters

Can anyone with knowledge please please put in the Chinese characters in brackets () next to the reconstructed names of the Hun rulers in place of the transliterations. Kaz 04:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would sugguest moving your Hunnic rulers from "9th dynasty" to "11th dynasty" into an independent article. I planned to write articles for each of the Sixteen Kingdoms after finishing up Wu Hu but I would start an article as soon as your have already provided the rulers' list. Wu Hu article keep requiring more, if not way too time-consuming, researches on my part, making it almost impossible to finish singlehandedly. :) kt2 04:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Copyediting please

Wow, this page is really hard to read. My kingdom for a copyeditor! 19:18, 27 Dec 2003 Puffy jacket

Mongolian origin

I think that Huns where ancestors of Mongols. Huns' Mongolian name is Hunnu - meaning 'humans' (or 'humun' or 'hun', 'nu'- is plural from 'nugud' in ancient language) in Mongolian language. First unified king was Modun shanyu son of the Tumen shanyu. Mongolian historians believe that Mongolian land has several nomadic kingdoms. 1st Hunnu, 2nd Siyanbi, 3rd Toba and Muyun, 4th Nirun (Avar), 5th Tureg (Turk), 6th Uigar, 7th Hitan (Liao dynasty), 8th Great Mongolia. Hunnu, Siyanbi, Toba, Muyun were ancestors of Mongolians and Nirun, Hitans were true Mongolians. Nirun, Hitans used same language, tradition lake Mongolian. G.Ganbat

Xiong-nu terms in Japanese

I know I saw a paper which was looking at some Xiong-Nu terms documented in Chinese sources which were easily explained through Japanese. I can only remember Shanyu = Tenno and Liu = Ryu (dragon) off the top of my head. Maybe someone knows which paper this was and can put something about this in the page.Zestauferov 03:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Xiong-Nu was ancester for the Gokturks and the present day Uyghurs who migrated from Mongolia to Xinjiang area during the Tang dynasty.

Xian-bei was ancestor for Mongolian who were from Manchuria and moved west to now Mongolia.

In japanese: xiongnu = kyoudo 87.0.217.126 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Germans as Huns

Just a question: As I recall, the term Hun for Germans doesn't derive directly from the people, but from a speech Wilhelm II. made in the context of the Boxer Rebellion. Shouldn't that be cleared up? Io 14:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agee that something needs to be added as to why the germans were refered to as Huns, especially during WWI, because it just looks like an ommission here, and I do not know much about why, though I will add a bit from a different page.say1988 01:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I thought Germans were called Huns even earlier during the American Revolutionary War. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Huns as Turks

The following is remooved from teh article Turkic peoples where it did not really belong. I have not read this artilce to see whther there is anything useful in this addition but will leave this to you to sift HUNSThe Huns, whose origins go back to 1200 BCE, are considered the first Turks by scholars. In ancient Chinese sources they were referred to as "Hsiung-Nu" and as the "colored-eyed" people. The Huns are famous for four empires which they established:1) The Great Hun Empire which was founded by Mete (Bagatir) in 204 B.C. and which covered an area which at the north was Siberia, to the south Tibet and Kashmir, to the east the Pacific Ocean and to the west the Caspian Sea. 2) The Western Hun Empire which was founded by Panu in 48 A.D. and covered the area of central Asia.3) The European Hun Empire which was founded by four brothers by the names of Muncuk, Oktar, Rua and Aybars. This empire covered what is southern Russia, Romania, Northern Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, Czech republic, southern & central Germany and the area from eastern France to the Ural mountains; from northern Hungary to the Byzantine Empire.4) The White Hun Empire which was founded in 420 A.D. by Aksuvar. This empire covered most of Turkistan (central Asia) as well as parts of northern India and also Afghanistan. Perhaps the most famous of Hun rulers, Attila, who was called the "scourge of God" by the Romans, was King and General of the Hun empire from A.D. 433 to 453. Refdoc 23:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stw! Thanks for sorting out the mess!Zestauferov 13:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huns and Xiongnu

The anonymous idiot who keeps vandalizing this page has raised a valid point, though in what is possibly the most obnoxious manner possible: The connection between the Huns of European history and the Xiongnu of Chinese history isn't, to my knowledge (which is mostly of English, with a bit of French, scholarship), as concrete as this article makes it out to be. Perhaps much of this article (including the rather dubious lists of rulers) ought to be moved off to Xiongnu and this article should be refocused on the European Huns? Or should both be moved into separate articles (European Huns and Xiongnu) and this page converted into a disambiguation between the two, and perhaps the Hephthalites as well (since they're also known as the White Huns)? In either case, this article definitely needs a fuller exploration of the scholarship on the relation between the various groups called Huns. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) okay this person messed up dates and information! You shouldn't be looking at wiki anyway! Most of the time no one knows what they are talking about on here... look at a real internet page..

I SPEAK

There is an increasing tendency amongst china-centrists to link everything to china and ancient chinese civilizations.

My first modification was not offensive. But since it got reverted back, wrongly, i decided that whoever did it is gay and i should devise more effective ways of stating my point. Hence, the "obnoxious manner".

However, since you did acknowledge that my point is valid, I will stop vandalizing the page. I will also write an article on the true history of Huns and their tribal and royal lineage(s).

Lastly, I got banned 2 times while editing this article. But it was not effective at all!! because my IP address seems to change every now and then. I just don't know how the fuck it happens. Perhaps the tooth fairy comes by and changes it???

Re: There is an increasing tendency amongst china-centrists to link everything to china and ancient chinese civilizations.

As far as I remember, the theory that the Huns and Xiongnu were connected was first posed over 200 years ago, and (again, if I remember correctly) it was posed by a French scholar. Besides which, the Xiongnu weren't Chinese; they were one of the numerous barbarian tribes which lived beyond the northern and northwestern frontiers. In any event. . . just remember to cite your sources; I'll be watching eagerly, as I find this subject very interesting. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai

Dear Lao Wai, You are right that the Huns are to be distinguished from the Xiongnu. Sadly it seems your recent edits are further clouding the issue. The term Xiong is the Historical Chinese term for the Huns whose power base was apparently on the other side of the Tien Shan around Lake Baikal, while the Xiongnu were nothing but vassal Hu tribes to the east of the Huns which the had subjugated and employed to harass china. They were not Huns as you correctly point out, but they were Hu tribes under the yoke of the militarily elitre Xiong (Huns) to the west of Tien Shan. The previous wording was confusing, but at least it made sense to those who know about the history. Can you try to re-phrase please?

I am trying to make this article clear and certainly not trying to make it worse. But the fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Xiongnu is a Classical Chinese term for the Huns. What it is a term for is for a nomadic group that arose in China about the time of the Qin and struggled on in the post-Han dissolution before vanishing without a trace. As long as you use Chinese terms for the Chinese tribes I do not mind. But you should not use a European term for a "Chinese" tribe. There is no historical basis for it. There is no good reason to think there is a link between the Xiongnu and the Huns. The dates do not even match. In fact I think all references to the Xiongnu ought to be removed and placed in the Xiongnu article and any other reference to China belongs in a Hua or Hu article, not here. This is pretty much the consensus around here from what I can see. It is also pretty much the view of most modern scholars. Lao Wai 14:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Most scholars think that the Xiongnu and the Huns that appeared in Europe have some connection. The Chinese drove them west and a century or so later, they appeared in eastern europe. Descriptions of Attila interestingly enough match sort of closely to Mongolians/East Asians. Further, the Huns had similar weapons and styles of attacks as the Mongols and other Northeast asian nomads.Kennethtennyson 00:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well you can disagree if you like, but this is something I know about and it is simply not true that most scholars think this. But if you really think so please try to find one. Look at Denis Sinor's Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia for example. A century or so? That was a very slow trip across Inner Asia! I agree that the Huns are described as being of East Asian appearance. But then so are the Uzbeks. It does not make either of them Xiongnu. The Huns were nomads. The Xiongnu were nomads. The Uzbeks were nomads. They all shared a lifestyle, weapons, methods of warfare. Doesn't make any of them related to any of the others. If you can find proof I'll not only stop objecting, I'll apologise. I think you can't because there is none. Lao Wai 09:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is trying to be authoritative, when it's supposed to be encyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles provide background on all the theories, and tells the reader which is the current most widely held theory, along with supporting scholars names and works. Idealy it would also trace the evolution of the term "hun", where/how it originated, how its been used over time. Any article on the Huns is clearly going to contain multiple POV's and needs to be structured as such. See Feudalism for how this is done in the opening paragraph. Stbalbach 01:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - you will notice I have not removed all references to the Xiongnu from this article. I just object to the term crossing over. Xiongnu rulers need to be described as Xiongnu rulers and not as Huns. Lao Wai 09:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Xiongnu (a group of conquered/slave people) were not Huns, but they were ruled by Huns from the west of Tian Shan. Respectfully Lao is confusing the easternmost serf nations with their Central Eurasian masters to the west of Tian Shan. The serf nations continually harrassed China. The Huns also had other serf nations to the west which harrassed Europe. The Huns leaders themselves were probably always centred around the uplands near karaganda. The article was clear but is now getting confusing.

That claim is so a-historic I do not even know where to begin. There are no Huns in China. If there are any Huns in China they are the Xiongnu. But there is no evidence that they are. The easiest way to clarify this article is to take everything related to the Xiongnu and put it in the Xiongnu page. Leave everything related to the Huns on this page. Put in a quick mention of the fact that an older sort of historian used to claim the two were related. If anyone has any source that would sugest otherwise, much less anything like what is claimed above, I would love to hear of it. Lao Wai 09:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are a historian or not or have even published, but why don't you read the encyclopedia brittanica's article on the Huns and the one on the xiongnu - most people would believe that there is a connection Even the descriptions of Attila the Hun in Roman texts describe him physically with East Asian Features.

To respond to the last point first, as I said some days ago "I agree that the Huns are described as being of East Asian appearance. But then so are the Uzbeks. It does not make either of them Xiongnu." Nothing has happened to change my mind in the meantime. There is still no evidence of this link. I had a quick look at EB's on-line articles on those two subjects. What's your point? Most people do not think there is a connection actually. At least not those who know something on the subject. And what does it matter? People think they know a lot of things. Where is the evidence? There are a number of Xiongnu burial sites. They are certainly interesting. Would you claim there is a continuity of material goods and styles in Xiongnu and Hunnish burial sites? If so what is the evidence? Lao Wai 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, you can argue on the Hun vs. Xiongnu connection, but the thing is most people and historians would state that the Xiongnu and Huns are related in some way. To make a distinction is like stating that people from Northern China and Southern China are distinct and not chinese at all. The Huns and Xiongnu are so closely related that although there are distinctions, in the end, for the average reader it is more confusing to make distinctions than to lump them together. All you need to do is open up the encyclopedia brittanica or most major textbooks. You state that there is a dispute and I agree that there is, but you haven't cited any books that suggest what you are suggesting - that there is no connection. As to how long it took the Xiongnu to travel west (100 years or so) to end up at the borders of Europe like the Huns, that would make sense if you weren't actively riding west but migrating slowly west after being pushed by imperial china westwards. Along with that it was a mass migration of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. The reason why the Uzbeks look East Asian is because of the fact that the Mongols migrated westwards into current day uzbekistan, just like the Huns migrated westwards. Kennethtennyson 17:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am not arguing on the Xiongnu-Hun connection, I am denying it. I will make it easy for you by making a strong claim - there are no credible historians who claim any proven link between the Xiongnu and the Huns. There are actually very good grounds for claiming Northern and Southern Chinese are distinct. Blood tests and DNA show they are not in fact all that closely related. There is still no evidence to suggest the Xiongnu and the Huns were closely related nor will you be able to produce any. It is clearer, as well as more accurate, to put all thew Xiongnu stuff in the Xiongnu article and all the Hun stuff in the Hun one with a short link between the two expressing the possibility that perhaps they are related. I have actually pointed people to the Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Let me do so again. Of course I can't produce any evidence Santa Claus doesn't exist either. The onus of proof is not on me. 100 years or so? I think it took a little longer than that. China didn't push anyone Westward and there is no evidence of mass migration. Most Xiongnu settled in China anyway. I know why they look East Asian, but that still doesn't make them Huns. Lao Wai 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, I agree with you that the connection between Xiongnu and Hun is not clear. However, it is not fair to deny the connection. It is good to let readers know the debate of Hun's origin in this article. I think maybe we could add other 2 evidences one of which verifies and another doesn't verify the connection. First is Alans. This name appears almost at the same time in Greco-Roman geography and somewhat later Chinese dynastic chronicles of the 1st century BCE. In Bei Shi(History of Northern Wei Dynasty), It was recorded that an emissary of Alans visited China in 445 and told Chinese government that their country had been destroyed and occupied by Xiongnu for 3 generations. Because Alans was conquered by Huns in 370, this visit seems to prove the connection between Huns and Xiongnu. Another is the discoveries of the Huns' and Xiongnu's tombs in the former USSR. The scientists, histories and archaeologists researched the DNAs of the remainders in those tombs but find both Huns and Xiongnu are mixed-bloods. It is hard to say Huns and Xiongnu have direct consanguinity. I am Chinese. I can understand that its hard for westerns to admit that their ancestors were defeated by nomadic people exiled from China. I also agree that the ancestry of Huns is still unclear. But your attitude is very subjective. In fact, there are 2 obvious errors in your description. First is "China didn't push anyone Westward". That's wrong. Han empire pushed Xiongnu westward for 2 times. First is in 36 B.C. General Chen Tang defeated Xiongnu in Middle Asia and forced the remainders to flee westwards (to Alans, by Bei Shi). Second is in 91 A.D. General Dou Xian defeated N. Xiongnu and forced them to flee westwards again. Another error is "Blood tests and DNA show they are not in fact all that closely related." In fact, blood tests and DNA proves that both south Chinese and north Chinese share the same patrilineal ancestry. But their matrilineal ancestries are different. Han Chinese conquered south China, married with the indigenous women and expanded Chinese culture to south China. So people in south China are Chinese as well. If you argue that south Chinese is not Chinese, it is as ridiculous as if you argue that the son of Attila and his Nordic wife is not a Hun. woshiwppaa 9:26, 16 Feb. 2006 (UTC)

Identity of Huns and a Chinese ideograph

Opening quote

"He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." -- Lao-tze as quoted by C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards in the opening paragraph of The Meaning of Meaning.

Imperial imperative

divide et impera (divide and rule)

What is that ideograph anyway?

混

Senses

(1) unclear, obscure, mixed

(2) Central Asiatic barbarians (west of China)

Phonetics

• Chinese: hun
• Japanese: kon
• Korean: hon for the sense (1); gon for (2)

Usage, Korean phonetics, and likely literal meaning

• 混夷, Gon'i, western barbarians or archers
• 東夷, Dong'i, eastern barbarians or archers, say, Koreans and Jurchens
• 九夷, Gu'i, nine ethnic groups of eastern barbarians or archers, hence synonymous to Dong'i (This line is newly inserted. --KYPark 16:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC))
• 西戎, Se'yung, western barbarians, say, Scythians and Sarmatians

Note

• 夷 (archer) = 大 (man) + 弓 (bow)
• Alchon = Al (White) + Chon cf. gon (Hun)
• Alchon cf. Partian Alsaces = Al + Saces (Saka/Skuthai)
• It's nonsensical that Hun means "person" in Mongol.

---

• 混夷, Hun'i, mixed archers
• 東夷, Dong'i, eastern archers (from which derives linguistic term Tungus)
• 西戎, Xi'yung, western Rong, sounds vaguely like 匈

"The Huns from west of Tianshan who ruled the Xiongnu serfs north of China were 混 pronounced Hun, but also termed 匈 as a pun espesially in reference to their subjugated peoples north of China." [my copy and paste of this relevant passage mentioned elsewhere below by the same editor of the above three lines --KYPark 16:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)]

OK it is hard to work out who said what here. The character hun4 (混) is not usually given as meaning a Central Asian barbarian. My Taiwanese dictionary does not list such a meaning. Nor does Matthews. I have my doubts. The modern sound of characters tell us nothing about what they sounded like in the Han period. There is no reason to think any puns were puns in 220 AD. Admittedly Xiong may have sounded more like Hun back then but I am not entirely convinced of that either. Certainly there is no reason to think hun4 was said as "Hun" in 221 BC. Lao Wai 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, it is me that opened this section "Identity of Huns" (neglecting signing here) as well as the next "Aetius" (but signing here!) An anonymous editor added the above three lines. Is that clear now?

Of course, I have not invented but simply moved the above data from the Korean dictionary of Chinese characters. I'm quite surprised that hun4 (混) make no sense of "western barbarians" in those dictionaries of your reference. You may better not believe them altogether.

No doubt, have any doubt. But it is wrong to say, "The modern sound of characters tell us nothing about what they sounded like in the Han period." That is, NOT "nothing" BUT "not everything!" You are making a BIG logical mistake. Such is the case with your saying, "There is no reason..." It is okay to say, "Admittedly Xiong may have sounded more like Hun back then but I am not entirely convinced..." but not okay to say, "Certainly there is no reason..."

I don't like either Hsiung or Xiong being phonetically identified as Hun, though it may be regarded as a best guess of identity. This is where I jump in; simply I am suggesting another best guess, based on likelihood of phonetic consistency and continuity. In this regard, Chinese phonetic is so varied in spacetime and helpless, while Sino-Korean is petrified and stable. A Chinese ideograph remains one however different it may sound. This is really great while awfully confusing. Iung (戎) is also Rong. Xiung and Xung should be considered in addion to Xiong and Hsiung. Chinese is divided, while China is united!

But I see a great commonality in many respects between Huns, Hsiungnu, and Scythians, all mounted archors and nomads in the steppe and rugged terrain. Let's try not to face away nor break them down, but find as much commonality as it is! --KYPark 19:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I disagree with your characterisation of my logic but it hardly matters. I will not waste time over it. The best guess is that Huns were Huns and the Xiongnu Xiongnu. Nothing needs to be added to that. I disagree about Sino-Korean - it too has evolved, just in a different way to Chinese. There is a commonality of life style (all lawyers make money from the law, many Americans are lawyers, therefore there are no Korean lawyers as everyone who makes money from the law in Korea must be American) but nothing else. The Scythians are, of course, Indo-European speakers. The Huns were almost certainly not. The Xiongnu, in so far as it is possible to work out what they spoke, were probably related to some Siberian peoples now in Russia. Lao Wai 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to use pronunciation to verify that Hun is Xiongnu or vice versa. In fact, pronunciation can be changed by history and Chinese characters cannot precisely record the pronunciation of a word from other languages. For example, 突厥, which is Turk, should be read as "toojour" in Chinese. The pronounciation is very different. I think the best way is to wait for some strong evidence which disclose the origin of Huns. woshiwppaa 21:52, 16 Feb. 2006 (UTC)

Aetius vs. Attila

Ethnicity

• Wikipedia at first:

"He was the son of Gaudentius, who, although possibly of barbarian family, ..."

• Wikipedia at last:

"He was the son of an Italian mother named Auraelia and of Gaudentius, who, many historians point out, was possibly of a Germanic family."

• Catholic Encyclopedia:

"He was the son of an Italian mother and Gaudentius, a Scythian soldier of the empire, ..."

• Catholic Encyclopedia: Attila the Hun

"King and general of the Huns; died 453. Succeeding in 433 to the kingship of Scythian hordes disorganized and enfeebled by internal discords, Attila soon made of his subjects a compact and formidable people, the terror of Europe and Asia."

• Romans regarded Huns as Scythians, while recent Russian archeologists regard Hsiungno as such, which is a mere Chinese name or phenomenon. So it is not too bad to regard Huns as either Scythian or Hsiungno. To be too bad is to believe that a name necessarily stands for what it is named. Such a "word magic" is a common linguistic fallacy exposed in The Meaning of Meaning, which dirty historians still make best use of. That is to say, Huns could not simply be equated to either Scythians or Hsiungno or "a compact and formidable people, the terror of Europe and Asia" as described in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Aethius the last of the Romans was Hunnish! Attila was not a mere tough terrorist; he was persuaded on horseback by the Pope! It really sounds ridiculous to speak too well of the Pope's persuading Attila while to speak too ill of Attila's being persuaded. The jealous Emperor Valentinian III himself killed Aetius the so-called last of the Romans, who was Scythian or Hunnish in origin. Naturally he was soon killed by Huns or Scythians. He may have been better replaced by Attila. But, alas, everything should remain within white supremacy and nothing else! --KYPark 16:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of this is too silly and a-historic to be worth my time. You will notice the Romans were like the Chinese in using archaic terms - they too recognised a similar life style and applied an old term. It means nothing. And, whatever else you can accuse the Romans of, you cannot accuse them of white supremacy. Rome accepted, without complaint, African Emperors, Arab Emperors, Syrian Emperors and more. If they had a problem with, say, Phillip the Arab, it was because of his character, not his race. It is even more true of the Syrian ones. Lao Wai 21:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wei, first of all I would like to inform or remind you of S. I. Hayakawa's insightful warning:

"...the ignoring of contexts in any act of interpretation is at best a stupid practice, and, at its worst, it can be a vicious practice." -- Language in Thought and Action (1949)

Your refutation may sound reasonable when you strictly focus on the last passage of my last words, especially the last two sentences. The overall context of this section, however, clearly centers around the ethnicity of Aetius in particular varying from Germanic (Wikipedia) to Scythian (Catholic), perhaps either regarded as barbarian. I prefer the Catholic to Wikipedian view, taking into account the present rather than past white supremacy, which is no doubt a modern Western phenomenon. Why do you push it back to Romans? I am not sure whether you might mistake me or would mislead readers. Here I focus on the present interpretation of the past history. But it's up to you or readers whether or not to agree with me. Simply I ask wiki editors and readers to reconsider the ethnicity of Aetius, Germanic or Scythian. It would be most likely because of white supremacy to disguise Aetius the paternal Hun or Scythian as Germanic.

Elsewhere you are certain Scythians are Indo-European. But I am certain they are no more so than Xiungnus are Chinese. Both Scythians and Xiungnus are traced back to the Siberian steppe in the north, west and east of the Altai and Tienshan mountains, stretching endless from Manchu to Hungary. Kurgan in Kazakhstan is not the place for Indo-European but Scythian burial. Compare their costume above all with that of Koguryo as drawn in the tombs. You could hardly deny the remarkably similar fashion. Their influence is also seen even in the famous gold crown of Silla.

Particularly noteworthy is the Eurasian common ground of the western Scythian and eastern Xiungnu culture. The two keywords shared very consistently among the Eurasian steppe descendents were khan/han and beg/bey/beile, ranging from the east European Khazars and the far east Jurchens who in effect made China the largest country in the world.

You seem to avoid mentioning Scythians in relation to Huns and Xiungnus. Your best guess is that Hun is Hun and Xiungnu is Xiungnu. That A is A is not any guess but a logical ABC. I myself would not simply equate any two of them, but say that all of them are very closely related.

If you have no trouble with English comprehension, you are supposed to be a tricky historian who used to distort historical truth, as cunningly as Chinese, Japanese, and other historians. I am hesitating to waste my time in responding to your comments elsewhere. You dare to speak up what you appear to know little. Refer to my opening quote from Laotzu in the previous section, reading "he who speaks does not know." You must know what he meant. Your words quoted in the following is simply untrue, not to mention its irrelevancy:

"There is a commonality of life style (all lawyers make money from the law, many Americans are lawyers, therefore there are no Korean lawyers as everyone who makes money from the law in Korea must be American) but nothing else."

Here we should focus on ancient Huns. Lao Wei, remember you look stupid while mentioning here American lawyers making money in Korea, which is untrue. Korean laws are so different that American lawyers have little to do but for some international affairs. There is no American law firm in Korea so far. I dare to advise you to try to be more reasonable. --KYPark 17:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. I took your comments on white supremacy to be a little more intelligent than they were. My apologies. As for the Scythians I think the evidence for Indo-European origins is fairly strong. In fact just off hand I can't think of anyone who disputes it. No one claims the Xiongnu are Chinese. A slight difference there. If of course you refuse to accept that the Scythians are Indo-European then Scythian burials are not of IE people. But if they are, then they are. I will not waste time on Korea. Neither group is Korean and if you thought about the difference between cultural transmission and language or DNA transmission you would see your error. I do not accept that Khan is consistently used across the steppe. For one the Xiongnu do not seem to have used it. Nor am I that convinced about bey. Of course these terms become widely used. I'll grant that. So what? There is no rational reason to mention the Scythians in the same sentence as the Huns or the Xiongnu. Three different peoples. I will no dignify your racism towards Chinese and Japanese scholars. Think about my quote because it is the same as your argument. Just because nomads are nomads it does not make them related. I did not mention any American lawyers making money in Korea. Please dare away. Lao Wai 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, or anyone else, you are most welcome here to tell above and after all your point of view, hopefully neutral while divergent so far as sampled above, on the ethnicity of Aetius the last of Romans. Otherwise you may look eccentric and marginal, I am afraid.

His ethnicity may look trivial but much easier to agree upon than that of the most mixed and mysterious Huns as a whole. So this is expected to serve as a good starting point or clue to clear up the hazy mazy identity of Huns, which are quite mixed up.

My own suggestion, whether you accept or not, neutral or not, is that he was of paternal Scythian or, more precisely or contemporarilly, Hunnic ethnicity though Roman nationality. Current Western historians used to treat Scythians as an extinct ethnicity almost a millenium earlier than Huns. But Romans themselves regarded Huns as Scythians. Speak up why they were wrong! --KYPark 03:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why they were wrong. You must remember the ancient practice of appling a name to different ethnicities who 1) lived in a similar fashion and 2) occupied the same region. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Romans and Byzantines called any non-Turkic people living north of the Danube "Scythians". Even the Slavs got this moniker, see Schenker's The Dawn of Slavic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) for a discussion of why Romans and Byzantines used ethnonyms that we now know were wrong. CRCulver 23:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Huns

Hi, I'm only asking out of curiosity, since I really don't know the answer and hope someone better infiormed on this can shed some light, but here goes:

1. The Chinese call themselves "Han". Is this just a coincidence?

2. The Koreans call themselves "Han". Is this just a coincidence?

3. For that matter, is it just a coincidence that both Chinese and Koreans call themselves "Han"?

I've never even seen anyone raise these questions before, let alone any answers. Thanks, Codex Sinaiticus 16:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

all the term Han represents is the name that all northeast asian tribal groups called themselves way back when - this includes those who eventually formed korea and china. the term Han that you might think of in terms of koreans is Dae Han which refers to the old Korean empire which was something to the effect of "the great Han". The first Korean nation was believed to be formed from migrants from what is known today as northern china although back then there wasn't any china.

Koreans call themselves 韓 But Chinese call themselves 漢 the two words sound almost identicle but as can be seen have quite different meanings. The Huns from west of Tianshan who ruled the Xiongnu serfs north of China were 混 pronounced Hun, but also termed 匈 as a pun espesially in reference to their subjugated peoples north of China.

Would you all please sign your posts with four tildas (~)? That character, in fact all those characters, is so pronounced in Modern Standard Chinese. There is no reason to think they sounded the same in ancient times. None at all in fact. There are many attempts to work out how characters were said, thanks to poetry handbooks, but it is mostly guesswork. The Xiongnu were never serfs either by the way. The term Han in Chinese refers to the Han dynasty. A pretty basic fact of Chinese history. It comes from a region in northern China where the founder of the Han dynasty had connections. This is all First Year history. I have no idea why the South Koreans (not the North I believe) use one of the other Han characters but I could find out without too much trouble. Certainly it has no link whatsoever to any northern tribal peoples 1000 years before there were any Koreans. Lao Wai 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, some words may sound more or less different over time, while others exactly the same. Certainly there is no way to ascertain it in Chinese but other languages, say, Greek.

By Hsiungnu it is likely to mean Hsiung's (or Hsiung and their) male slaves. Otherwise, the last syllable "-nu" is nonsensical, which is nonsensical. Therefore doubtful is your claim "The Xiongnu were never serfs..." Such is the case with Xianbei or Xianbi (鮮卑) which suggests Xian's female slave (鮮婢) where Xian may indicate Chosen (朝鮮) or the most ancient Korea. In addition, Hsiung (匈) suggests hsiung (凶) meaning all kinds of bad things. Such are puns that ancient Chinese are supposed to have enjoyed a great deal.

Lastly, it is admittedly not quite clear why (South) Koreans call themselves Han (韓), except that there were Ma-, Jin-, and Bien-Han (韓) in ancient South Korea, that the last dynasty was renamed Dai Han (大韓) at last, and that there was Sino-phile among elites silly enough to call their capital Han-seng 漢城 and the river there Han-gang 漢江.

But the Korean Han (韓) may be a mere transliteration of one or more of the pure Korean homonyms "han" meaning as follows:

1. one
2. much
3. great

It may be akin to "khan." Furthermore, it may relate to hanu or hanul (sky, heaven, heavenly supreme god), which may be akin to the Sumero-Akkadian "An" or "Anu." The Hebrew "HanukkAh" meaning dedication sounds like the Korean expression meaning "(dedication) to the heavenly god." Anyway the Korean language is quite a mystery worth special attention, believe it or not. --KYPark 20:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is a way to work it out in Chinese - as I said in Han times they produced handbooks for writing poetry which included acceptable rhymes. Which suggests how various characters were said at the time. It is a little better than guessing but not much. Greek does not help with the Xiongnu. And there is a perfectly good explanation for the Xiongnu name - they really annoyed the Chinese and so the Chinese gave them a petty spiteful name. It has nothing to do with whether they were really slaves or not. It is hard to keep nomads as slaves anyway. Surely they were called Xiong because they were pretty damn xiong. As for the Xianbei, surely it is the other way around - Korea used to be called Chosen partly because it lies to the East of China and so has a similar name to Japan ("Place where the Sun rises") but also because the Chinese were having a go at the Koreans and making sure they knew they were barbarians by using the same character. Surely Seoul is called Hancheng because the Chinese founded it. I believe that the Korean language is a mystery. But not that it has any links to Akkadian or Hebrew. Lao Wai 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your insights KYPark. I have also read about the Messopotamian connections in the Korean language, and even the thematic origins of the Arirang in the epic of Gilgamesh or something like that. I believe the author worked at SOAS. By the way, what is the Chinese character for Khan? Is it also pronounced Han? The explaination of Xiongnu as slaves of the Xiong makes much sense.

< REPLY >

Thank you so much for your encouragement, (I miss your ID). The idea of Xiong and its Nu is not mine. Anyway, such makes sense of the leading tribe and supporting ones as usual of Altaic confederations. To call such supporters slaves is to discourage them. Romans called Slavs slaves, hence the name. Then what tribe was the leader of the unprecedentedly mixed Hunnic confederation, Far East and Far West? This is the central question of Hunnic identity. It may or may not have been Xiong's or its Nu's. Or it may have been a tribe farther east than them, say, Xianbis or Proto-Koreans. These people from the Far East deeply engraved the most exotic culture into Europe, civilized or not. I am looking for the tongue over tomb, linguistic over archaeologic evidence, as you may guess. I welcome anyone along this perspective. Meanwhile:

• 汗 (Khan) /han/ in Chinese and Korean and /kan/ in Japanese.
• 可汗 (Khagan) /geughan/ as dictated by the Sino-Korean dictionary, instead of commonsensical /gahan/. I have no idea why.
• 可汗猶單于也, 妻曰可敦. -- 唐書. (Khagan is the same as Chanyu; his wife is called khadon (Geugdon in Korean). -- Tangshu.)
• [The] bordering tribes asked for Taizong to take on the title of Heavenly Khan (天可汗). -- Wiki article Li Shimin.

The 汗 (khan/han) is made from 水 (/su/ water) + 干 (/gan/ shield), meaning perspiration or any water infiltrating through the watertight wall, perhaps in analogy to the Great Wall of China. So this would eventually mean Khan as a metaphor for the "great" power enough to get through the Great Wall in addition to the natural barrier of little use in winter, the Yellow River, and/or, perhaps ironically, enough for flood control.

Both Korean 한물 /han-mur/ and 큰물 /kun-mur/ mean flood, where the root /mur/ means water and the prefixes /han/ and /kun/ means big in synonymy perhaps of an origin. The Hun may have related to 混, or alternatively and more likely the above kun or more precisely keun. The German Hüne (giant) and Hünengrab (giant's grave or Dolmen) stem from Hunne (Hun)!

The kun is homonymous to several Sino-Korean characters such as 君 (prince), 群 (crowd), 軍 (army), and so on. The first is partcularly interesting. The Old High German kunig (king) may literally mean "princely", hence probably stemming from the Sino-Korean kun 君.

The name Hammurabi or Khammurabi used to be syllabicated into ham-mu-ra-bi, which might be a corrupt or incorrect characterization of han-mur-a-bi, meaning hanmur (flood) and abi (father) in Korean. He may be the first Khan or its founding father. Note that the hanmur rather sounds hammur, and that about a thousand Sumero-Akkadian syllabaries may not be enough to characterize every sound precise. Furthermore, the Amur or Amurru may be a further corruption of hanmur, and then Hammurabi may literally mean Amur father. Note that he is famous for flood control and use in defeating the downstream city-states. He is worth the father of flood control, hence the name, as understood in Korean.

Surprisingly, there are two hononyms to Babylonian Amur, that is, the nickname for Heilongjiang and the Amur Darya, also better known as Amu Darya. More surprisingly, the Turkic mainstream rose from near the Heilongjiang, crossed the Amu Darya, and eventually flooded all over the land of Amurs. Meanwhile, many Turkish people as well as Magyars claim that they have originally risen or inherited from the Sumerians if not Babylonian Amurs. The three apparent homonyms of Amur may have been related together.

< END REPLY > --KYPark 16:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Q. How can we be sure that the character was used in ancient times to refer to a barbarian people? Is the use of 混 just a modern application of an arbitary chinese character with an appropriate sound for the people westerners call Huns in translating movies like Mulan?

< REPLY >

Oh no. The Sino-Korean dictionary would be the last medium of choice aiming at such sensationalism as the movie Mulan contributing to silly white antagonism towards the Huns, whom this article implausibly identifies with Xiongnu while the featured article Attila does not.

According to the dictionary, the character at issue simply means the barbarians west of China, definitely without regard to the Huns in Europe. It should not be extrapolated beyond Turkestan, whether Eastern or Western at farthest. The Han Wudi sent an envoy Zhang Qian to Yuehzhi in Western Turkestan, which remained practically forgotten until the Tang dynasty dominated it for a short while. The people of Eastern Turkestan, i.e., Xinjiang, must have been the western barbarians of interest worth 混 throughout most of the Chinese history.

Nevertheless, I cannot assure you how long the Chinese meant such barbarians by that character. I am supposed to be the first to introduce that character as the etymon of Hun purely from the philologic point of view. I hope it would be better than "person" in Mongolian and "Xiongnu" in Chinese, as suggested in this article. It appears to be much more coherent. But it is not my final answer but mere suggestion. No intention of sensationalism whatsoever.

Mulan (木蘭) sounds like moglan in Korean, which looks like an anagram of magnol of magnolia. So mulan and magnolia might share the the same origin. But history cannot readily answer this likely mystery. The East and West may be much more closely interlaced than known so far. For example, the ancient mainstream Huns Europeans still hate could be Proto-Koreans and partly Proto-Europeans. So many European words sound like Korean! Would Europeans be shamed should they share the same ancestry with Koreans? Anyway, they would better stop hating Huns, perhaps self-defeatingly.

< END REPLY > --KYPark 16:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

混夷태矣 -- 詩經. < Western (mixed) barbarians clash. -- Shi Jing. >

• The third character replaced by the Korean 태 is made up of horse (馬) + shortcut (兌), meaning clash on horseback.
• 混 : 오랑캐 이름 곤, 西夷의 하나. < 混 : The name of a barbarian tribe /gon/ that is one of the western barbarian tribes. >
• The Shi Jing is "one of the Five Classics, canonized by the Han Dynasty, whose scholars framed the 305 poems as having been edited by Confucius."
• In short, the idea of 混夷 is earlier than the Shi Jing. --KYPark 13:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Bar-Guni (Orkhon) may be an alternative way of writing Hua-Guni. Korean pronunciation of Hua sounds like Huar similar to Korean sound for fiery. Also the Korean Word Bul looks like Bar and perhaps Balkan has the same meaning as Bar-Gun (Avar-Huns). Germanic Bert = Bright and Baltic Bul = Light. Maybe there is a European-Korean connection via the Huns as you say. But perhaps all this is just Altaic comparative linguistics which certainly influenced East & Central European languages?

I respond in the following section "Turk". --KYPark 13:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I don't remember any chinese and koreans ever riding a horse and using archery... It's a non-sense that Chinese and koreans argue about the origin of the term 'hun' in relation to their languages. appearantly, you can find similar sounds in any languages!!

Saxons

``When the Saxons invaded England ca. 400 AD, their chroniclers said they "sent back to Scythia for reinforcements." The implication is that the Saxons considered themselves to be Scythians -- the name having traveled with them, even though they were far away from the region the Greeks had labelled "Scythia". The English are known to be descended from two related tribes, the Angles and the Saxons. The burial customs of the Scythians and Vikings also show similarities, wherefore some have argued a common origin in support of the theory.`` -- excerpt from the Wiki article Saka

At the moment, Scythia was definitely ruled by the Hunnic dynasty. That is, the Saxons then were either ruled or supported by Huns, though their descendants now may hesitate to say that as frank as Franks, whose descendants also might do so. Such is history. --Ishiakkum 03:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting note on relations between Saxons and Huns/Scythians. Who made this note? Which "chroniclers" are meant? Who dated it to 400 AD? (instead of regular dates as 410 or especially the 'northern campaign' of Atilla) And what makes that "Saxons considered themselves to be Scythians"? Please enlighten me. Details are welcome. Thanks. Johanthon. 20 december 2005.

Saka: Yes, I connect to Jonathon, these are terrific interesting questions, I also would like to read Your answers, 'cause it seems to be a relation, where the legend of Holy Gral comes from, what is by no means of "celtic" origin, but maybe this way? - Sindbad

It is hard to follow these things if people do not sign their posts with four tildas. May I ask everyone to make sure they do so? It is traditional in the West to apply Classical names to regions even if everything had changed. So Scythia is a region where Scyths used to live. No more. And that means, roughly, the north-west of Europe. There is no implication the Saxons were Scythians. Nor is there any reason to think the Saxons were supported or ruled by Huns. I would ask for sources but I expect no one has one. And please let's keep the Holy Grail out of this. Lao Wai 11:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Scythia" was actually the northeast of Europe and extended through Central Asia. The Saxons had no relation to the Scythians other than they both spoke Indo-European languages. The Hunnic Empire at this time did rule from the Caspian to northern Germany, where the Saxons came from, so it is probably this that is referred to by the Saxons' sending to Scythia for reinforcements- namely, they sent for reinforcements from the Huns because they were vassals to the Huns.--Rob117 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, "Scythia" could simply be a name for barbarian Europe as a whole.--Rob117 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Scythia is roughly located in Ukraine and further down east to Caucasus and Central Asia. The Huns of Attila however lived not far from the Danube in Hungary and Rumania. Sigibert of Gembloux wrote about a "northern campaign" of Attila and it is not unreasonable to suggest the Huns dominated the Saxons afterwards - as they dominated so many others. My specific interest is the early history of the Franks and according to the Libri Histori Francorum and the Deci Libri of Gregorius Tourensis the Franks came from the Danube and earlier they where fighting the Alans in the swamps at the sea of Azov in Scythia. The grave of Chlodovechs father Childeric was excavated in Doornik showing a Frankish king dressed up in the uniform of a Roman Magister Militum, his horse decorated with golden bees as seen with Scythian Alans and the grave contained jewellery that looked much like those excavated in Rumania. Given the fact that Attila motivated his Gallic attack with the quarrel between the sons of the Frankish King Chlodio/Cloio it is not unreasonable to suggest one of those sons (the legal new king that was not supported by Aetius) commended himself to Attila. Furthermore in early medieval Frisia there was a county called "Hunsingo" located west of Saxony. If this Hunsingo had contact with Huns than they had to cross Saxony. Hunsingo can be seen on every good map of the Netherlands north-west of the city Groningen.

Moreover Simonis de Kéza writes in his Gesta Hungarorum that Attila descended from a clan with the Germanic name "Erd". He claimed that Attila descended from Arminius, a guy from modern Saxony that beated the Quadi, who were located along the Danube in modern Slowakija and Hungary.

So, there are clear relations between Saxons and Huns based on relevant sources.

And I remain very curious to written connections between Huns and Saxons because after all the Saxons may be brought to England by the Franks that controlled the vir classicus (this might be both speculation and an educated guess). So please Old Hands, help me out. Which English chronicler wrote about it ??? Johanthon 22:37, 21 januari 2006

Tabla erasa

09:55, 26 August 2005 Lao Wai (Who deleted the entire article? This is a lot of people's work)

Nothing is ever deleted thanks to the history pages. But I think we all agree the Tabla Erasa pproach is needed. Did Lao wai even read the sceatch article he reverted? If so then he will see it brings in lines from the older version. remember the first rule of wiki "Be bold" and of course "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

P.. Why is Lao trying to change history and hide the very well documented fact that Huns appear on the edges of Europe directly after Pan Chaos campaign and not out of no-where centuries later?

I moved the Xiongnu rulers to the Xiongnu talk page maybe someone there can do something with it. I really don't think it belongs here.

Anonymous wrote: But I think we all agree the Tabla Erasa pproach is needed.

If that is another name for "wholesale deletion", your "we" doesn't include me. Who is the "we all" who agree, anyway? A bunch of people inside your house?

Some of your rewrite may have some useful info in it, but it ought to be merged within the existing framework, not simply blanking it out entirely. I think you'll find that's the procedure normally favored here on wikipedia. Codex Sinaiticus 00:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree a TE approach is needed. Especially without discussion first. Some poor bastard has slaved away to create those tables and someone else wants to delete it all without even asking? Come on now, that is just rude. I did like some of the replacement article and I think bits of it could be included. You be bold. Watch me be bold back. Well documented? Ban Chao dies in 102 AD. The Huns appear in Europe in 359 AD. Directly? The Huns do in fact appear suddenly, out of nowhere, hundreds of years later as, for example Ammianus makes clear. I have struggled to get as much of the Xiongnu stuff out as possible so that is fine by me. There is no obvious link between the two. Other than that let me agree with Codex here. I don't think this approach is going to win friends. Lao Wai 10:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In trying to fix the new article, my basic problem comes down to this,

It is semi-literate in English and in Chinese

The tone is unsuited to Wikipedia

It displays no particular knowledge of the field at all

It is highly speculative

It contains nothing on the Huns

It is entirely original research

Despite that it is unsourced and unverified

In short it is garbage. I say it is unfixable and we ought to go back to the original and whoever keeps making these changes ought to go away and not come back until they have read a book or two and can tell us what the evidence for their changes is. I don't want to sound so rude, but I'm pissed off. I have tried hard to fix this article and have some idiot turn it into a vanity page is annoying. Lao Wai 10:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Turk

The Chinese 突厥 sounds like /tor-gur/tol-kul/ or practically but wrongly /tol-kwol/ in Korean. The first character /tor/dol/ (突), made up of /hyol/ (穴, hole) and /kyon/ (犬, canis, dog), primitively means a dog or wolf suddenly emerging out of the den, and generally, dashing, piercing, extrusion, sudden, etc. Truly, the Turks emerged all of a sudden! And they kept piercing through almost all Eurasia so steadily. But it was certainly after the Huns so emerged in Europe.

I am sorry but if you know nothing about Chinese characters and their origins you ought not to lecture Wikipedia on the subject. Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao don't compare Korean with modern chinese, try to think of it as a different system. Though originally from the same source the two have been diverging for centuries, and as any scholar will tell you the Korean and sometimes Japanese forms preserve a much more ancient record of Chinese than does modern Chinese.

I am not comparing Korean with modern Chinese. There is no Korean in the bit above (except the sounds). Mr Park is lecturing us on the origins of a Chinese (not modern by the way) character. The irrelevance of the rest of your comments is fairly obvious. Lao Wai 08:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You are too close to see what you are doing it seems to us.Sino Korean is a different language from pure Korean and from Chinese. It is much more archaic. Your belittling of the importance is due to your unpercieved comparing.

I see nothing relevant here. Sino-Korean is not more archaic by the way. Lao Wai 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The wolf used to be a popular totem of northern nomads, while a derogatory metaphor of southern peoples as of China and Korea for such barbarians. Interestingly, the legendary founding father Romulus of the Roman Empire was allegedly milked by a wolf, and the German family name Wolfgang is quite popular. These appear to suggest the northern nomadic origin of Roman and German rulers.

Exactly in what sense is "dog" or the Dog radical perjorative in Chinese? Are you claiming that Chinese people avoid the radical themselves? There used to be a DPP candidate in Taiwan whose name was A-Gou (A being a meaningless (and typically southern peasant) word, and gou meaning what exactly?). What is the relevance here? This is not a vanity page. Who cares about Romulus and Remus when it has nothing to do with Huns? Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

very interesting, I read about a roman garrison which was stranded west of china for some reason which eventually became assimilated. It is very possible that this garrison may have brought the wolf legends to the Turks. Also perhaps it should be mentioned in the article that the so-called "Huns" in the Mulan story would have in fact actually been Turks.

Oh God, I knew the Black Horse Odessy would come up. You have not read about a Roman garrison. You have read some nonsensical, unsubstantiate, a-historic claims. At best. Wolf stories are older than that in Inner Asia anyway. Why mention Mulan at all? What is the relevance? Lao Wai 08:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You really should read more science and less fiction. Try for starters Oxford professor Homer H. Dubs work (1955). I really don't see why we should accept your amateur and "the races of mankind never interacted with each other" version of history over Oxfordians like Dubs. I think you are being greedy in your insistence that chinese history books are about matters pertaining to the chinese only and not for the enlightenment of the rest of the world.

I quite like Professor Dubbs' work but it is extremely dated. I am not much impressed by that appeal to authority either by the way. What is your point? What makes you think I am an amateur anyway? I wouldn't go down that path if I were you. I do not accept the existence of races as such but then I do not deny the people of the world have interacted. The Ruanruan have some sort of link to the Avars. The Turks appear on both sides of Eurasia. Just that there is no evidence of the Huns in East Asia. What insistence? Lao Wai 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thus the first character is such a metaphor well suited for the Turks. In addition, it is highly synonymous to the Korean root /tturh/ttulh/ (뚫) which strikingly sounds like German durch and English through. That is, that Chinese character may be a translation and transliteration of the Korean root ttulh, from which the name Turk may also originate.

Strikingly? Chinese word from Korean? Come on now, you're wasting bandwidth. No original research. NPOV. Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, the second /gur/kul/ (厥) specially means a barbarian state or country roughly synonymous to /gug/kuk/ cf. /guo/ (國). This appears to make sense of /-gur/-guz/ as of Kutrigur, Utighur, Onogur, Oghuz, and so on and so forth. The ancestry of Turks may not be confined to Onghuz as alleged as such so often. They would be the most likely descendents or successors of the Huns at issue. It took a century for the Huns or Turks to lick up the wounds and rose again east of Europe. The runic would be what they learned from Europe rather than invented themselves. Some of them came back to Europe again and again by different names, together with newcomers.

All this would be more convincing if there was a shred of evidence that links the Chinese with the Kutrigur. There is little evidence the Huns were ever in East Asia. Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Turkic metalworking subjects in the Altai mountains who rebelled against the Yuyeon or Juan Juan may not have been the sufficient center of the subsequent Turkic earthquakes. Some Yuyeons may have joined the Huns to Europe and come back to their homeland. Then the rebel would rather be an internal power struggle resultng in such a new strong external label as Turks suggesting wild piercing forces instead of Yuyeon meaning mild. Either would need more wild forces to pierce through, or keep from, China in the south for survival endangered by the new aggressive power Sui that tried to overthrow Koguryo for example.

No original research. Find a book that claims any of this or write one yourself. Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Had the warriors later known as Huns set out of Koguryo, they would have passed through the Yuyon, other Xiongnu, and Turkestan (including Gon 混) tribes, being allied together like a rolling snow ball. Around that time, Koguryo in fact made friends with Yuyen and even the Southern Song, all endangered by the Xianbei's Northern Wei, so that its warriors could easily find way to Europe. This hypothesis helps explain the unusual similarity of the Korean to European languages, and vice versa. Above all, however, this would help clear up the shallow and mysterious origin of Huns and Turks in spite of their huge impact on the world population. Korea is namely a Hunnish or Hünengrab country in the sense that half of the worldwide dolmens are found there.

This is speculation and irrelevant to Wikipedia. It is also wrong. I don't know what your agenda is but this is not the place for it. There are dolmens in Britanny, are they Hunnish too? Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The "Bar-guni" in the Orkhon inscription and elsewhere would be a Hunnish tribe, judging from the interchangeable roots /Hun/ and /Gun/, regardless of /gon/ (混). At present, I miss the contexts surrounding the Bar-guni. Simply it means expert, from balgun (밝은: bright) and -i (이: person) in Korean. The root balg (밝) would be akin to bul (불: fire) that also means "light" as well as Baltic, and perhaps relates to Latin Vulcan, Greek pyr (fire), and especially Old English bœl (fire) that has recently dropped from a famous dictionary. But Balkan is said to mean "mountainous" in Turkish.

No original research. Coincidences in sounds are usually meaningless. Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We hear you lao, But how about you stop assuming the people around you know nothing and why don't you yourself pick up a book or something? This is not original research, this is greenberg comparative linguistics. This sort of stuff is bassic reading for a field dealing with comparative Eurasian studies. 101.

I don't assume that. There are a lot of people here who know a lot and who do good work. Mr Park is not one of them. I don't assume either - it has been comprehensively demonstrated. It is original research. If it isn't find a source for it. And please sign your posts with the four tildas (~). It is hard to follow. Lao Wai 08:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wel it seems to me as an outsider that Mr Park is providing more source info than you have. Unless re-iterating the penguin children's dictionary entry on Huns is where you are getting your stance from.

That wouldn't be you Mr Park would it? Lao Wai 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I would rather be faithful to the root Guni and focus on the prefix Bar- in Korean that appears akin to Western Eurasian words. It simply means foot. In addition, the root of bar-da (바르다) interestingly means right or true, relating to English very, German wahr, and Latin ver-. Then, Bar-guni would mean either Pseudo/Low or True/High Huns, depending on the context. By the way, I prefer to refer to the White Huns or Alchonites as the Western Huns rather than the white or Europeans. Note that white simply stands for west in Altaic rather than the white Europeans.

Well actually when Procopius spoke of "White Huns" he was refering only to the Hua/활/Huar polity (i.e. Hephthalites) and although Alchonites seem to have won the leadership of the Hephthalites there is (as you say) no indication that they were White. But surely if white meant "western" then it would better apply to the European Huns rather than the Transoxian Huns? We do know that the Huar tribe was under the subjugation of the Yuyon for a time, indicating south-siberianoids (as were the Avars in Europe) who whould have had much fairer complexions than Transoxians in the vicinity of say the Hunza valley. But if Procopius had only heard them called white and assumed it meant their complexion, when it was rather a designation of the direction in which they lay, then all the more reason to suspect his classification of them as Huns while his experience of them was second hand.

Still another point is baral (sea) perhaps akin to Arabic bahl (sea) and seafaring Phoenician Baal (supreme god). Hannibal allegedly means "one blessed or chosen by Baal", while probably "western sea" from hani (west) + bal (sea), where hani is also the Arabic equivalent to Korean hanui. The baral (now bada) also looks akin to the Aral Sea. There is still another, i.e., the first character /bal/ of Balhae cf. Bohai/Po-hai (渤海) which is the proper name of the sea surrounded by the two peninsulas, Yodong and Sandong, on top of the Yellow Sea. This may be a rough transliteration of /baral/, and akin to Baltic that sounds like Bal-like (misty, freezing and almost inland sea). This was the sea around which the Proto-Koreans prevailed, rising and falling. The point is that Bar-guni may indicate the sea-faring Huns rather than season-faring nomads.

I am afraid all the above reasons might miss the target, though I hope some part may make sense anyway. Good luck! --KYPark 14:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Speculation and not very good speculation at that. No original research. Lao Wai 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, I hope you never forget that with your tongue you are in effect shaping the Chinese image representing one fifth of the world population. You could do harm to them for nothing. "Look back in anger" what you have done so far. No regret? Go ahead! --KYPark 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try not to forget, but of course I am doing no such thing. No regrets at all. I am happy to play nice, but this article is getting out of control and, worse, someone around here thinks it is appropriate to go around vandalising other people's work. This is not nice. You cannot expect people to treat you with respect if you do not treat others the same way. Find some sources. Wikipedia has rules - no original research (which most of this article is now), provide sources. Care to follow these two simple rules? Lao Wai 10:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I just finished whole talk page for Huns, i think that you are repeating yourself too much Lao Wai. While you ask others to prove their points, you never back your denials of possible ideas. Most of the times you repeat sentences like " No original research, speculation " etc. I am not in a position to attack someone personally, but it gets irritating after sometime to see that you put yourself in the center of judgement system on the matter. Please back your denials and accusations. Also you have a threatening tone in your words which does not sound very academic. I am just someone who was trying to get more info about Huns. And i wont probably read this page again. Thanks. Just a reader

Hunuk

"훈육은 夏나라 때 중국의 북방에 살던 만족으로서 漢나라 때는 흉노라고 하였음." -- 신자해, 민중서림, 1967.

"Hun-yuk [or simply Hun (犬+熏)], the barbarians living to the north of China at the time of Ha [Xia], was referred to as Hiungno [Xiongnu] at the time of Han." -- Sino-Korean Dictionary Sinzahay, Minzungserim, 1967. [my translation]

This quote seems to need an indepth scrutiny. --KYPark 03:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

燻 are the "Huns" referred to in the story of Xia Chunwei.

On the Korean search engines I can only find the Character 獯 for Hun instead of 燻 as you wrote. Sadly the Yuk character is too archaic to be included in the Microsoft Chinese character bank for me to type it here and had to be represented by a picture on the Korean Yahoo dictionary. Here is the link anyway for anyone who can read Korean http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/kids/search/hanja/result.html?id=3002199&seq=1&part=word&style_mode=big Notice that during the 周 dynasty they were called Hom(獫)-Yoon(?) again the Yoon Character is too archaic for microsoft to reproduce.86.140.13.205 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I just found these alternatives too 獫狁(험윤)﹑葷粥(훈육).86.140.13.205 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

It was passable before, but now it is a joke. Stbalbach 18:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are tons of unsourced, POV edits, there is no chronological sense and the grammar is terrible. What's to be done about it?--Briangotts (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Destruction is much easier than construction, perhaps the easiest of all, as may be observed from the earliest development stage of a child, not to mention Nero.

Make clear what is your point. I agree with you only partly, because it WAS also problematic as evidenced by the opening passage above all. It was NOT passable.

Everything hinged and still does around whether the Huns were the Xiongnus or not. The main concern should not be as such but what was the combat and life style of the most exotic people that Europeans had ever met, if they had been really the first AND most exotic. Most likely, the Huns were not invading BUT invited into Pannonia by the Romans themselves. Never forget doing justice to the Huns whoever they might be. --KYPark 10:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember the movie Mulan or the like, in a word, is not doing justice to the Huns. --KYPark 10:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would quote "Destroy the shamelessness." This was, and still is, the motto of enlightenment. --KYPark 11:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would go back to the question on top of everything:

< quote >

Establishment of the first Hun state is also the first appearance of the culture of horseback migration in history.

Mounted nomads had dominated the steppe since at least the appearance of the Scythian tribes. Don't they count for something?

< end quote > --KYPark 12:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole question of who the Huns were can be isolated into a single section of the article. There is no reason to focus the entire article on a contensious issue, and ignore everything else we know about the Huns and history. The opening section should just say "..whose origins there are many theories and no consensus". Period. Then the origins section lists the various published theories, and names of academics. Wikipedia is not original research we report on what other people say. Its not that hard. Stbalbach 16:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope that Wikipedia could keep moving toward the best possible image of the world, or the most coherent outlook of the worldwide jigsaw puzzle, and it could get the job done by helping feel free to alternate the jigsaw puzzle pieces to fit better, without sticking to the policies of NPOV and no original research. Too much of such sticking might result in Wikipedia articles at worst looking like a balance sheet of conflicting theories. Please advise us if it should be even in Talk pages that we only "report on what others say," or that we never insist or deny, like Lao Wai for example, from an arbitrary rather than neutral point of view that Huns are Xiongnus. --KYPark 13:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing references to Scottish Football in the article as it is completely off topic and derogatory in context.PalX 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sindbad

Ok dear friends interested in knowing about Hiungnu, Huns, and the like... Here is Sindbad speaking, an authentic Hungarian also much studied these questions of originating of nationalities.

First of all, it is in each case the same game: We go back in history, then we find allways a point of no more information... This is so 'cause 1. the people (as "ethnicum") did not exist before really, but from this time on, that we call "ethnogenese", however 2. in case of many ethnic groups, they maybe older, but there where no (scriptual notations, archeological relevances or linguistic relations) proofs found yet, so we donot know, where they are, from where they cam, and who are their relations, etc.

E.g., chronologic spoken, at the earliest down of mankind we have some good theories about the development lines of oldest african hominids (from over 3 million y. B.C.) to "white" Neanderthaler and Cro-Magnon (from 250.000 y B.C.) and then to indoeuropean-aryan-caucasian peoples (as we are today), but nothing about the two other big races, i.e. today "mongolid" and "negrid" ethnic races (missing links). This repeats till and after beginning of "written" historic times often.

Much later, but yet in prehistoric times the Hiungnu (Xiung'nu) of surely asiatic-mongolid type nomads (Far East) lived about 400 y. B.C. in North of China, Mongolia, against them the first Great Wall was erected by the Chinese. Most probably they live now as mongolid Uyguric people in the same area. Besides, nobody knows (yet?), who were the latest in about the same area found blue-eyed blond "caucasian type" mummies (dated 4000 y.B.C.), it is questionably said, maybe early "celtic"-? But, agreeing with Hungarian academic opinion, they had with the much late Huns seemingly nothing to do. (Another surprize: Shortly I saw a TV report from far Mongolia incl. a drink bottle with the traditional hun name "Attila" - ?)

By the official, educated and since ca. 100 years world-wide-spreed theory of Hungarian Academy the origine and few relations of Hungarians are of uralic Finno-ugor type based merely on some - very weak - ethnographic and linguistic comparisoms. There are much relevant or at least much more probable relations by another stronger theories, from which the most likely and realistic follows. Novadays many Hungarian believe more in it, than in academic one. And this newer one reflects to Sumerians, Scythians, Huns... (by archeology, folk-art, language, many chronicles!, and latest DNA!). So, let it see.

In contrary to Hiungnu, the Scythe from historic 7. century B.C. to 4 c.A.D. and following Huns about 0 to 4. c. A.D.(indoeuropean - caucasian races) riding mounted nomads, partially settled too, but not city-building, both are known from Central Asia (Lake Baical to Black Sea), that is the steppe. Finaly the Scythes maybe dissolved partially in Huns coming from East, and others. From about 400 no explicite scythic tracks. At this time already the Huns ruled from Lake Baical over Europe far to the Atlantic coast until (with death of "head" Attila = "Daddy") the Hun realm disappears too. Huns were similarly dissolved among more peoples, mainly mixed with "newcomer" in the step from South, the Caucasian territory, they call themselves Magyars (i.e today so-called Hungarians may have their errorously name in western languages from it), who then later went further to West, conquisted 895 the Carpathian basin (Danube area in North of Balkan) in Central-Europe together with the Huns, by a legend bargain "soil" from Svjatopluk, king of norther Moravia (today Czech and Slovakia), against a white horse, also "incorporating" residual turc Avars and first Slaves living there and established Kingdom Hungary before 1000 A.D.

Quite another people of the city-building Sumers (indoeuropeans) in far South of Mesopotamia (today Iraq) 4000 y. B.C. we see the first "historic" high-civilization (invention of scripting at all, not fully decoded runa-hyeroglyphic, further wheel, etc., their spoken language was taken over by later ruling states Assur, etc.) Some theoretics say, after having centuries long trouble with semitic (e.g. Assyrian) and hamitic (Arabian) kingdoms, the Sumers went North to Scythe and with them to Magyars (headquarter at this time near coast Black Sea), and so they are the ancestors of the today 2.5 million Hungarian speaking, but special "Szekely" population in Transylvania, (homeland of vampiric Dr. Frankenstein) from 1000 - 1919 part of Hungarian Kingdom, territory belongs since 1st W.W. to Rumania.

20th November 2005, Sindbad, privateer@freemail.hu

I'm sorry but the chronology doesn't match. Proto-Uralic and Sumerian were spoken around the same time. Proto-Uralic split around 4000 or 5000 BC. Proto-Uralic is firmly established and Hungarian is an Ugric language. There is no way that Hungarian or any of the other Uralic langauges can be descendents of Sumerian language if they were different languages being spoken at the same time in history. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In principle I agree, however it doesnt deny the possibility of those mere theory. Why not? First: There are many cases in both early and also later history known, when under political circumstances great populations changed their used language. Second: Latest complex scientific DNA investigations incl. Finnic, Hunnic mentioned Hungarians from Carpathians down to Transylvania, in Ukraina, etc., show definitely NO relation in biological provenience of Finns and Hungarians, although some far language relations, and thus overtakings may be derived from possible early contacts between them (I am Hungarian, and can-t understand just one Finnic word, and vica versa...) Third: Very frustrating, but I understand surprised some Sumeric words indeed - if transliteration and pronunciation are realy so as scientist-specialists report. That alone of course by far no proof enough for biological-blood relationship... Who knows more? --Sindbad, 02.03.2006

I guess I don't understand what point you are trying to make or which theory you are arguing for. The reasons you mention are contradicting each other. And yes, the theory on the Hungarian language being descended from Sumerian would be denied by the chronology I mentioned. I think you also misunderstand the modern understanding of the Finno-Ugric theory. It is a linguistic theory about the language alone. One hundred years ago the theory was different because it assumed that language descent also equalled ethnic descent. No modern scholar today makes this mistaken assumption. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear S.D.Borsody with these Hungarian name, I am realy one and living in Hungary, so I try merely to feed the discussion with aspects in dispute newly, i.e. now in our country. These are not my fictions. E.g. the Sumer-Hun theory by Ida Babula, etc. There are no doubt two facts for me in this search: 1) In that times out there in the steppe there were more than 3 populations, maybe hundreds, and they were mobile and communicative over great distances we fatally underestimate yet, allways till today. 2) It is no sense to search for language relations itself exclusively, but much more for real genetic ones, archeological, folkloristic, etc. facts. --Sindbad, 02.03.2006 /2

Koreans and Huns

Would someone please source the claim that Koreans are descended from Huns before they actually put it in? It is probably better to discuss such claims before adding them. Especially a-historical ones. Lao Wai 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Huns and the forgotten Korean

Europeans called them "Huns". Originating From the main land of Korea, they

invaded the Roman empire during the 4th century. Ancient Greeks historian

recorded them Scytians, and later European called them Mongols. Around early

4th century, the temperature fell lower than usual for many years in far

East Asia. It caused grains not to ripen, grazing grass land for animals was

scarce. For these reasons a large number of semi-nomadic tribes left from

what is known today as the Korean mainland to Eastern Manchuria.

Gathering other tribes along the way they proceeded to the Central Asiatic

step. From there, the mass of tribes went westward. Around AD 370 these

nomadic people arrived upon the Horizon of the Roman empire. They

established a kingdom along the Danube, on the prairies that are present day

Hungary.About AD 443, Atilla,the son of king Ruga assassinated his brother

Bleda and united the Hun tribes.

He lead the warriors onto ruthless and savage conquest;destroying anything

in sight, looting and mercciless killing of innocent people. He conquered

Germany,Eastern Europe and most of Southern Europe. The Huns were superior

horseman and combined with their archery skills were the bane of the

romans... they used a short, inverted bow made from few different materials

glued together. Huns iron arrow head was able to pierce any European armor.

Their horses were short in hight, but has speed and endurances, they were

also agile and smart.

Hun warriors, while twisting their upper body, were able to shoot arrows

behind them while their horses were running forward (referring picture).

When Atilla was young, his father Ruga exchanged his son with a young son of

a prominent Roman family, his name was Aetius. For ten years Atilla was

educated in the Roman court vise versa Aetius from the Hun kingdom. Atilla

was probably the first western educated Mongol in its history. Later these 2

men would confront each other in Gaul (today's France), in 451. Atilla would

go on to lose this battle and invaded Italy in 452 with Germanic tribes.

His army advanced to Venice (today's) and negotiated with a Roman

representative Pope Leo for 10 hours. All the while on horse back, Atilla

received tribute from Rome, and would thereafter retreat from Italy. Pope

Leo received the title "The great" from the church for his successful

negotiations with Atilla. Atilla married to a German princess, Ideco in AD

453. After his wedding celebration he died that wedding night, possibly from

alcohol poisoning. His people dammed the Danube river and buried him in the

middle of the river. They opened the dam for no one, so that none could ever

find his grave.

After his death, the Hun kingdom crumbled and his people scattered from the

Europe. He would be known as "the scourge of god" by the Roman Empire

because of his cruel acts. The Huns left a number of legacies in Europe

especially the Chteau area of France, all children born there have a blue

round mark in their hip as the Mongolians do today. The country of Hungary

got its name from the Huns, to commemorate the Hun Kingdom. During the world

war ll allied forces refer to Germans as Hun because of their relationship

with Huns in the 4th and 5th centuries. Funeral cultures of Europe are also

deeply influenced from the Hun. 68.229.106.118 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you open a map of geographic China, you will see Huns and Koreans were divided by ranges of mountains going from north to south in Manchuria.

The Huns - A multi-ethnic group?

copied from Talk:Attila the Hun by —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Huns were known to encorporate many tribes and ethnic groups into their own after conquering them during the westward movement. Is it quite possible that they made quite an impact on the early Hungarian tribes that they continued to claim that title until today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.188.204.2 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 January 2006.

Further supports this article:

"Recent research has suggested that many of the great confederations of steppe warriors were not entirely of the same race, but rather tended to be mixtures of Central Asian and eastern Caucasian. Also, many clans may have claimed to be Huns simply based on the prestige and fame of the name, or it was attributed to them by outsiders describing their common characteristics, believed place of origin, or reputation. Thus it is probably fruitless to speculate on the ethnic origins and geographic home of the Huns."

The impact on present-day peoples is discussed some in the genetics section, generally. --Stbalbach 18:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Huns have Turkic origins

Huns have Turkick origins but in this articlle there is no information about that. Can you tell me why? CrashMex 12 Jan 2006 23:12 UTC

I think that's from the belief of Turkic people. There is a legend that a group of Xiongnu were slaughtered by Chinese. The only survival was a young boy whose name is Asena. He was saved and fed by a wolf. When he grew up, he had 10 sons with the wolf. Those sons become the ancestors of Turkic people. This is only a legend. But some scholars also believe that Turkic people came from many archaic ethnic groups including Xiongnu. I myself agree with the scholars considering the middle asian is the best place for people to mix blood. It is almost definite that Xiongnu is one of the sources of Turkic people. Another problem is the relation between Xiongnu and Hun. This is still a mystery. But even if there is no direct relation between Xiongnu and Hun Turkic people can still possess Huns' genes because they lived in the same area and married exchanged cultures with each other. In this way, we can say one of Turkick's origins is Hun. --- woshiwppaa 16 Feb 2006

Our (Turkic) myth about Asena (originally Ashyna) is not related with Huns but Gok Turks Orhanoglu 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kama

In regards to this paragraph discussing the linguistic debates surrounding the origins of the Huns and Kama:

[[One of the linguistic debates about the origins of the Huns is centered on Kama, legendary ancestor-King of the Huns. Research is still ongoing to learn if there ever was a ruler among the Xiongnu with that name, and because none to date has been found, some have suggested that the Huns were entirely distinct from the Xiongnu. However, the Huns and/or Xiongnu were both said to have been largely military tribes with very few written records, so the research remains tentative. Additionally, some believe the story of Kama is probably more mythology than history.

Please provide sources for the removal of this information from the article. Pointing back to the Wikipedia article doesnt qualify as a source. There simply is no "definitive answer", that is why there are debates about it, and why we report on those debates. --Stbalbach 19:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

how?

my god!! how can you change the history? Huns were a typical Turkic tribe and its not written in the Huns page... its totally a fun!!

damn

wikipedia is not a dictionary for kids

--hakozen 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

look here, its written after many works http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/FeaturesEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm

i cant understand what you wanna do

please respect the history, i think theres much more useful sources then armenian! history books

i can barrow a history book from my 9 years brother for you... --hakozen 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. You need to respect history and respect the time devoted by objective scholars on the study of the subject who agree there is no conclusive evidence that the Huns were Turkic. You need to respect that Huns were Huns. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic identification in header

Considering that so much of the article is dedicated to the dispute on the exact nature of the Huns, it is inappropriate to claim in the article header that they were Turkic. I have reverted accordingly and added the phrase "of disputed origin" so that the reader is immediately aware of the uncertainties. CRCulver 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i want to change "central asian" to Turkic, because only Turks living there, if you find any English in central asia please alert me --hakozen 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Turks are in no way the only peoples who were living in Central Asia during the Age of Migrations. There are Tungusic peoples, Mongolic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, Samoyedic peoples, Indo-Europeans (the Tocharians), and so forth CRCulver 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't even know how many tribes or what all their names were, the history is almost non-existent except for what the neighboring agricultural empires tell us when they happened to bump up against their borders, and only then in terms that are not very helpful to modern historians. Plus they were very fragmentary in nature, splitting, and recombining, intermarrying, renaming. -- Stbalbach 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think many folks who are not Turks and living in Central Asia would be offended by your statement. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Huns were a multi-ethnic federation of tribes with a Turkic ruling class, that's for sure, Attila's son's name is Dengizik, it derives from the Turkic root "Tengiz" which means sea. If you want a neutral source: see René Grousset, L'Empire des Steppes Orhanoglu 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately onomastics can't really solve this riddle for us. Attila's name is Gothic, should we then assume that they were Goths? That's generally considered unlikely. Furthermore, this root also exists in Mongolic, so by your argument there's just as likely a chance they were Mongols. Now, since you have a citation, then the view can be represented here somewhere in the body of the article. However, there's no excuse for putting "Turks" everywhere with no explanation of the issues like Hakozen has done. In the header, however, I think we should not specifying their ethnic identity at all. CRCulver 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lang

how are you? myself from Central Asia, that region is pure Turkic, your mentioned folks are guests...

Language and genetic id of Huns

there are many prooves that Huns were a typical Turkic tribe, their language(Hunnic) was a old Turkic language which (only)all the Turks in the asia talk to. And their names, life style were totally 100% Turkic

Actually, this is disputed by almost all historians. The only thing there is consensus on is that we just don't know. Krastain 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think theres someone who want to destroy all the prooves in wiki, i think it wont work(becouse it mustnt work) --hakozen 21:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem of Hakozen

I'm sure there are people here with much more experience with problematic users than me. Do we have to do an RfC first, or can this go straight to Vandalism in Progress or Report Vandalism? Furthermore, I just know I'm going to be bumping up against 3RR sooner or later, so I'd appreciate your vigilance in protecting the page. CRCulver 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put up an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/hakozen. I would be grateful if other editors could sign there ASAP (2 people are necessary).

I don't agree with Hakozen going in and making the unilateral edits he is making. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is all about consensus and continuously trying to edit Turks into the page seems fruitless. But on another level I think maybe Hakozen is having language issues. His English doesn't seem very good. Maybe one way to rectify this issue is to expand the article itself. It doesn't discuss very well the current theories as to the identity of the Huns. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The current modern mainstream theory is, we don't know how the Huns were and and it is fruitless to speculate, for a bunch of reasons (the issue is not specific to the Huns, genetics research on many ancient peoples has shown no racial integrity, the very notion is a leftover of the 19th century ideals of romantic nationalism which saw "race purity" and wrote history along racial divides). Older theories include the Mongols, which is discussed here. Others have attributed it to the Turks, a theory which is not discussed. Some have also suggested Iranian-speakers but this has such little support I'd rather not mention it. So out of the 3 theories, two are discussed and one is not. I'll add a blurb and reference about the Turks. -- Stbalbach 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

stalbach; theres many people searching about Huns from Turkic Khazar books which are teach as a official Huns documents in many universities and collagues, so please change your Armenian sources into official Turkic Khazar texts. one more time, i will report you if you make any intervention to Hun's language and their descent, dont try teach us our own history, its unaccaptible and infernal--hakozen 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to open another RfC for Hakozen, with an aim toward having him banned. His English seems too poor to actually understand what is happening, so trying to reason with him is a waste of time. Thoughts? CRCulver 04:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hakozen, you are wrong. Huns were Ugric, not Turkic. Dr. Csaba Detre says so and has the word-list to back it up [1]. (*tongue-in-cheek*) --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ammianus Marcellinus

Does anyone here have experience with the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus in order to provide comment on this blog entry [2]?

The basic jist of the blog is that Ammianus used two different spellings in Greek for the Europeans Huns versus the Hephthalites so the deduction is that Ammianus recognized that they were two different peoples, not necessarily related. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins and research: Iranic?

Theres no article about Huns were Iranic or Caucassian in the old history books.

but i found theres a good number of Tungus clans in he Hun empire

i delete those parts till anybody ll find a proove about that --hakozen 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Newer findings mention them. -- Stbalbach 15:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

you dont even know Huns were Turkic, if you dont interested in history you may give up this stuff, so please stop deleting mines--hakozen 09:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

hakozen, if you have a comment to make about the Hun's article do so here, not on my personal talk page. -- 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Age of Empires 2

In the PC game Age of Empires 2, the huns have a unique anti-building cavalry called a tarkan. The only tarkan article is about a turkish singer. Can somebody please create an article about the tarkan soldier? Bluepaladin

The article you're looking for already exists. Tarkhan. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bluepaladin 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hun" as pejorative in Scotland / NI

I'm not convinced this material merits any inclusion in this article at all. However, if it is going to stay, the references to religion should be removed, since they constitute a red herring as to the nature of the epithet.

In Scotland, the term refers exclusively to Rangers and their supporters. For example, Lorenzo Amoruso -- a catholic, and former Rangers captain -- was not spared the label during his time in Scotland. Equally, the term does not apply to anyone who does not either support or represent Rangers in some way, protestant or not.

The usage in Northern Ireland may differ, but if it does, the previously cited source is not sufficient support for such a contention: note that "hun" appears only in the glossary of the cited text, without even a single instance elsewhere, to that effect or otherwise anywhere within its body. This curiosity may well shed some light on the cited authors' sense of a glossary's purpose, but it provides no aid to the citing text.

If anyone knows of a good reason to explicitly refer to the so-called "traditional" religious affiliations of Scottish football teams in this article, please document it here, rather than simply re-inserting such references into the article without comment. Cdswtchr 02:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I support removing it entirely for a number of reasons. -- Stbalbach 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although it seems from some comments further up the page that it has been deleted before, only to re-appear. Won't this just happen again? I'm new to WP -- forgive my ignorance. Cdswtchr 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the religious references, it is WP:OR to suggest the division is religious based; as you pointed out there are clear instances to the contrary. It might make an interesting research project for someone to put forth the thesis of religion conflict masquerading as "friendly" sports rivalry, but this is not the right forum. I also added a {fact} request for the Northern Ireland cite. -- Stbalbach 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't that information put into another article? "For other usage of the word Hun see..." --Stacey Doljack Borsody 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to this suggestion in the least -- I just don't know how to do that. Can somebody maybe do that, unless there are objections? Cdswtchr 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For examples as well as further definitions of the use of "Huns" as a derogatory term for Protestants in Northern Ireland see, for example, The Global Review of Ethnopolitics Vol. 3, no. 1, September 2003, 76-91 Special Issue: Northern Ireland ‘Who Fears to Speak’: Fear, Mobility, and Ethno-sectarianism in the Two‘Ardoynes’ by Peter Shirlow, University of Ulster: "You get young ones now going on about Huns and Jaffa’s (derogatory names for Protestants)". http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ethnopolitics/shirlow03.pdf or the report of the human rights group the Pat Finucane Centre on sectarian attacks and graffiti: "New graffiti on the Nationalist side reads: "HUNS OUT - C.IRA" ... Huns is a pejorative word for Protestants” (28/29 August): http://www.serve.com/pfc/sattacks/aug00att.html (BBO) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBO (talk • contribs) .

I'm gonna dispute your first source there. That is a report/article about sectarianism, it refers to religion, almost ignoring the political reason, nationalist and unionist together are used under ten times in it, while protestant and catholic are used almost 50. Beside that it is used to explain the quote off an old man and tie it into there report/article, not a statement by the writers of the report. Its all too common in the north to try to claim terms/symbols have to do with religion, many do, obviously, but in some cases its just a political move to try to claim the other side is attacking religion. This is one of those cases, Huns was a term coined for Brit soldiers because of what they did in the early 70s, it later began getting used for people who made it all too known how British they were, just because the vast majority of those people were protestant does not make it a term for protestants. SCVirus 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to BBO: Quantity of citations is no substitute for quality. The first quotes an old man actually presented as admittedly not understanding those he cites as (mis)using the term -- phenomenally weak support, even by typical tertiary-source standards. The second example is entirely explicable in terms excluding religion, and is forcibly framed in that sense only by a misguided (or disingenuous) editor.

I am not suggesting that individuals who misunderstand or misrepresent the term do not exist, but I have also met people who believe that any criticism of Israeli state policy amounts to anti-Semitism.

I repeat: this usage of the term "hun" as a pejorative has no basis in religion, except through faulty secondary inference. Cdswtchr 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the evidence presented to show that there is a religious aspect to the word is strong. Adding the original reference which has been removed from the article Institute for Conflict Research to the evidence in this discussion, two academic works and a report from a human rights group have been cited. All three contain both definitions by the authors of “Hun” as meaning Protestant and examples of that usage. All three are specialist works in the field concerned. None strikes me as "the other side" making claims.

Evidence from less specialised fields is also available. When BBC Northern Ireland wanted to provide some background to one of their TV series, they defined “Huns” as meaning Protestants BBCNI. This indicates its general currency. There are also broadsheet newspaper reports (the first of which contains obscenity) showing its use along with other religious abuse Telegraph Guardian. Clearly the term has moved beyond being applied to the British security forces or Unionist activists - if indeed that was where its use in a Northern Irish context originated. This is hardly surprising, considering that the political and the religious/tribal are closely bound up in Northern Ireland. Similarly with the word “Fenian” which, while it can mean Irish Republican, is also used as a derogatory term for Roman Catholics [[3]].

It’s worth emphasising that I am not seeking to exclude or censor references to Unionism or the security forces (which are currently supported only by a song lyric) but to include a related aspect which I venture to suggest is better supported than many things that appear in Wikipedia. I would also emphasise that what I have written is factual: for example, the associations between Ulster Unionism and Protestantism are undeniable.

Finally, my apologies if I mess up my signature or anything else. I am new to this. (BBO) BBO 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian and Telegraph can be very safely ignored in all circumstances, in fact I almost choked on the bullshit reading the first paragraph of the Telegraph's article. You're very right that political/religious/tribal/national groupings are so bound up in the north that the line between them is often very greyed. The term is targetted a Political group, because it is taken to have anything to do with religion, really is just a note, and I'm changing it to that.SCVirus 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to BBO

...the original reference which has been removed from the article Institute for Conflict Research to the evidence in this discussion, two academic works and a report from a human rights group have been cited. All three contain both definitions by the authors of “Hun” as meaning Protestant and examples of that usage. (BBO)

• This is an appeal to laziness. Anyone who takes the time to read your cited sources will see that your claim on their behalf is in fact false, something I pointed out in two separate posts above. Did you not read those either? Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

None strikes me as "the other side" making claims. (BBO)

• Which side is "the other side", exactly? And in what manner are you well placed to make this judgement about their claims? Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from less specialised fields is also available. (BBO)

• "Less specialised", maybe, but still specialised. The BBC seem like good chaps -- I wonder what that first B stands for? Ditto the Telegraph and Guardian. I mean, this is all well and good but what does the Queen have to say about the matter, and let that be the end of it, I say! Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the term has moved beyond being applied to the British security forces or Unionist activists - if indeed that was where its use in a Northern Irish context originated. (BBO)

• This, I agree with, at least. And, as to the origins of use in NI, I too am not certain, but we can only go by the earliest evidence, which seems to be a few old rebel songs. It seems likely, given the timeline, that the WWI usage in England (roughly equating to "savage invader") may have smacked of hypocrisy to the Irish. Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly surprising, considering that the political and the religious/tribal are closely bound up in Northern Ireland. (BBO)

• Absolutely spot on -- couldn't have said it better myself. Well, except I doubt that I would have put a "/" between "religious" and "tribal", since that would seem to suggest an interchangeability with which I am not comfortable. "Closely bound up" seems to serve a similar purpose. How about "...the political, religious, and tribal are often conflated in Northern Ireland"? To which I would append, "...sometimes deliberately, in an attempt to gain or strengthen political advantage."

Similarly with the word “Fenian” which, while it can mean Irish Republican, is also used as a derogatory term for Roman Catholics [[4]].

• It "can" mean Irish Republican because it does mean Irish Republican. The trope, therefore, from this meaning to that of "catholic", is an example of the kind of conflation you cite above as common in Northern Ireland. The epithet "taig" -- also etymologically rooted in Ireland -- falls into a similar category. Note, however, that the denotation of "hun" has nothing to do with Ireland, Scotland, or Rangers, pre-dates the Reformation by at least a thousand years, and that its relation, therefore, to any of these can only be through metaphor. My apologies if I made you read this whole paragraph and it still doesn't seem an important distinction. Trust me, it is. Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s worth emphasising that I am not seeking to exclude or censor references to Unionism or the security forces... (BBO)

• No, you're inserting specious references to religion which help foster the kind of possibly well-meaning but misguided ignorance exhibited in all those British newspapers and human rights reports. It's natural for the disinterested to want to ascribe a perfect symmetry to every aspect of a conflict about which they wish to appear neutral. It's also either lazy or disingenuous. Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

...(which are currently supported only by a song lyric)... (BBO)

• Especially a song that old. How could that be relevant in any way?

...but to include a related aspect which I venture to suggest is better supported than many things that appear in Wikipedia. (BBO)

• If Wikipedia contains "many" poorly supported "things", it's because there aren't yet enough people who care and can spare some time to expose deficient support everywhere it is found. Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also emphasise that what I have written is factual: for example, the associations between Ulster Unionism and Protestantism are undeniable.

• That's a very carefully selected example. Care to say whether this association is mutual and if not, in which direction it runs? Could you say the same for Catholicism and Irish Republicanism?

The bottom line is that this is an insult referring to Rangers or their fans in the Scottish context, but one for which an inferred religious basis is unfounded: "Socrates is a Greek; we dislike Socrates; therefore, we dislike all Greeks."

The usage almost certainly relates in some way to Unionism/Republicanism, given the evidence, but it has nothing to do with religion.

If anyone wants to insist on including references to religion, a workable solution may be to also include information about possible reasons for intentional blurring of lines between religion and politics.

My sincere apologies to anyone who just wants this page to be about the real Huns. I agree -- this does not belong here. Cdswtchr 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep my reply brief then. There has been a good deal of assertion such as "it has nothing to do with religion" or "an inferred religious basis is unfounded". I stand by the actual evidence which says otherwise, in which "Hun" is defined several times as a derogatory term for a Protestant. There is no "intentional blurring of lines between religion and politics" on my part. Those lines are already blurred in Northern Ireland. Rather, there seems to be an agenda to declare one side in the conflict innocent of a religious slur, when the religious aspect of the term is well backed-up. BBO 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not backed up at all and, as pointed out above, the blurring of lines can continue only as long as:

• unscrupulous people perceive advantage in it, and
• commentators unwittingly perpetuate misconceptions to that effect.

Given the history, it's likely that unscrupulous people on both sides will continue to seek advantage and influence by rolling it all up into one big "them and us" package. We have a choice in whether we help them or not. Cdswtchr 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Entire Football Section?

As much as I have enjoyed not having this thread hijacked by the usual Turkic nationalists and high school students who have read one book, don't you all think this Football stuff has gone a little too far? How about simply deleting that entirely section and return the Hun page to Central Asianists and other assorted weirdos? It is of no interest to anyone, I doubt if it is much more than OR, and it places enormous importance on what goes on in a frozen corner of a small peninsular attached to the larger Eurasian landmass. Would anyone really miss it? Lao Wai 16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned it here before. Move it to another page and provide disambiguation links. Just because the information isn't important to me, it is obvious that others have had enough interest on the topic to edit it. That is why I think deletion is not an option. I think my proposal was agreed upon previously. Just takes someone to do it. I've been too disinterested to take action. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also tired of the football religion wars (but also relieved from the respite from Turkish nationalists). If it continues I'm going to delete it on grounds of original research, there are no citations. If they add citations and the wars continue, there may be then enough material to fork it off to a dab page or stub (or football article) and they can knock themselves drunk somewhere else. -- Stbalbach 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Saxons again

While discussing perviously a (probable) relation between Saxons and Huns someone unknown wrote:

Furthermore in early medieval Frisia there was a county called "Hunsingo" located west of Saxony. If this Hunsingo had contact with Huns than they had to cross Saxony. Hunsingo can be seen on every good map of the Netherlands north-west of the city Groningen

The suffix 'go' in Hunsingo means 'land', 'country'. Hunsingo is named after a (small) river called 'Hunze' which meant 'swamp', 'muddy stream'. Hunsingo has absolutely nothing to do with Huns whatsoever! Please keep these pseudo historical speculations away from Wikipedia. Guss2 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkic

Huns were ruled by Turks... and the Turks were in majority in state and nation.

You don't have a proof... I do not agree. Huns were Mongols. If they were Turks or Celtic or whatever why there are no any left there today? they were Mongols and some of them moved to somewhere, but still some left in the original land. the land is called now Mongolia not Turkey or whatever

Turk-Hun

There are many ideas about where Huns came from...

I ll write some scientists saying they were Turks:

they were Turks =>J. De Guignes, 1757; J. Klaproth, 1825; F. Hirth, 1899; J. Marquart, 1903; P. Pelliot, 1920; 0. Franke, 1930; Gy. Nemeth, 1930; McGovern, 1939; R. Grousset, 1942; W. Eberhard, 1942; B. Szasz, 1943; L. Bazin, 1949; F. Altheim, 1953; H.V. Haussig, 1954; W. Samolin, 1958; 0. Pritsak, 1959; G. Clauson, 1960

There are some scientists saying they were a mix of Turks and Mongols

In Chinese annuals the words which taken from Huns (TANRI, KUT, börü, il (el), ordu, tuğ, kılıç etc.) are Turkish words.

Hun means tribe in Turkish. (Hun also means 'person' in Mongolian!!)

The language which spoken in dynasty were Turkish.

Mongols got the Tanrı word from Turks(Tanrı means God)(Mongols were belieiving in totems)

Huns were a big empire,there are no doubt there were many tribes in empire but Turks were the rulers and in majority.

Definitive

Regarding this sentence:

"The recent genetic research is in contrast to older theories, which put forward more definitive answers about the Huns' origins"

I'm not sure what the problem is. Is it over the word "definitive"? Because I think there is a misunderstanding. If you read the previous paragraph, it says that the most recent scientific research shows that the origins of the Huns is fairly ambiguous (ie. un-definitive). So the second paragraph leads off with saying the older theories had more definitive (un-ambiguous) answers to the origins of the Huns. It doesn't say the older theories are definitive. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, your last edition of the the paragraph of origins and research starts as follows "The genetic research is in contrast to older theories". I'll try to explain how this should be done, for the general case (not only restricted with the "Huns" article).

First, in academical writing, you should first state what the problem is (or simplifiying to our case, what the "origin and research" is about) then continue with explaining first "older" then "newer" ones briefly. Just trowing away some of them and putting the results of the ones you like the most is nothing more than a POV fork. That's why i removed these sentences. Secondly, while summarizing these, you should give reliable sources (scientific articles, books, journals...), then you should explain why some of them are considered to be more probable (if the research is still going on the results cannot be certain, cause it's possible to find out some new information...). The reasons, critics and comparisons, should also be mentioned. Thirdly, the conclusion should be stated according to all the information given about the article. This is just a rough description. I'm try to explain my reasons of removing and changing (not the content, just the way of writing) some your sentences. You can compare the two versions and see that my edition is more neutral and formal one.

If we turn back to your statement, what's the older research and the hyphotesis is about?, what are the current ones?, comparison of these, references should all be given in the article. However, you chose one of them, continued with it, skipped all the others. I think you are pushing your own POV (this is what i understood, may be a misunderstanding due to language barrier).

To sum up, not only the information but also the way of writing is important. One should put the data, analysis, and the conclusion in a comprehensive manner, otherwise this makes no sense (if you cannot explain in a proper and reliable way, no one could understand what you are talking about). I'm not against the information you have. I'm just trying to put the things in a more considerable way. e104421 8 September 2006 (UTC) 11:35

I did provide reliable sources, and I did explain why the new genetic research is considered the current view - but you keep deleting it. -- Stbalbach 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just paraphrased some of the sentences, cause the way of writing and removed the claims without references. Please, read the comments above again and also compare your version with mine. e104421 15 September 2006 (UTC) 07:45

The map of the Hun Empire

The map of the Hun empire used in the article has one very strange feature: it states that Hun empire covered areas in southern caucasus, Anatolia, Azarbaijan, Armenia, and northern Iran. I would like to know what is the historical basis for this map, since I have never seen any history book that extends the Hunic possessions into the above mentioned areas. If this map is not accurate, it should be replaced by a more accurate representation.mrjahan

And southern Sweden and some Islands in the Baltic are also include in the Hun empire. Is there historical evidence for this? Krastain 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

White Huns?

"To avoid controversy, this article will not mention..." You just did. I slapped a POV template on that.195.24.29.51 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly. I still don't see how the original wording could be considered POV. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Huns were Turks

Huns had Turkish leaders and about half of them were Turks see article Scientists_telling_huns_are_turks Aceflooder 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

J. De Guignes, 1757;

J. Klaproth, 1825; F. Hirth, 1899; J. Marquart, 1903; P. Pelliot, 1920; 0. Franke, 1930; Gy. Nemeth, 1930; Mc.Govern, 1939; R. Grousset, 1942; W. Eberhard, 1942; B. Szasz, 1943; L. Bazin, 1949; F. Altheim, 1953; H.V. Haussig, 1954; W. Samolin, 1958; 0. Pritsak, 1959; G. Clauson, 1960 Aceflooder 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

I'm not real happy with the new picture. It gives the article a "popular history" look and feel, like something you'd see on the History Channel about "the dark ages" and blood and glory, and not something that belongs in a scholarly academic work. A picture would be great, preferably something from the period, or historical. Any ideas? Any objections to removing it? -- Stbalbach 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, better to remove. E104421 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

The style of presenting information and sources pushes a POV fork, preventing other scientific sources and arguments to be added. Especially, the sentence "it is probably fruitless to speculate on a single ethnic origin and geographic home of the Huns" is either be paraphrased or removed from the article. Although, there are authors claiming so, there are also the ones proposing the contrary. This is a controversial issue. There is no good in favoring one POV. The aim is to give neutral scientific comprehensive information not to push single POV. (see also, my comments above [5] under the definitive section) E104421 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is controversial for some people. I recognize you are Turkish or have Turkish interests in mind and that there are many historians from countries that have an interest to show that the Huns were from their country (Turks are not the only ones making a claim on the Huns) - but there is a mainstream broadly accepted view and the article reflects that view as being the predominate one in the English speaking world - there is simply not enough information to know where they came from, or if they even existed as an ethnic culture, and if they did, where and when they existed - so just about anyone can throw together "facts" (usually problematic secondary evidence) and come up with a theory. If you want to write a historiography from different historians points of view that's fine - but you need to name names and say where these historians are from and how other historians view their theories. The historians mentioned here are the top of the field. Peter Brown, etc.. these are from the top ranked universities in the world, it is the current standard mainstream view. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood my comments. Yours is just a simplistic pov. What i commented is related with the neutrality and reliability of the article (there are sources, authors, scholars, ...etc. claiming the contrary). I'm not pushing any pov as you do, but trying to neutralize the article. As i commented before [6], the style is not proper for an encyclopedia, the sentences should be paraphrased or rewritten cause these are pushing a pov. Furthermore, your statement that "your references are from the top ranked universities in the world" does not scientifically make sense. There are many cases that the top ones made great mistakes, too. E104421 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to do "science", that violates WP:NOR. It's here to mirror scholarship, and top-ranked university publications carry the most weight as sources. NPOV rules do not mean that minority theories must get the same amount of attention as scholarly consensus, there are rules of proportionality. CRCulver 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do not try to mix/confuse my comments. If you do not know what scientific means, i have nothing to tell to you. What is history? a pov push? Do you know what neutrality is? your pov? It's ridiculous to read your comments, cause it's totally illogical. E104421 01:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the following policy: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The idea that Huns must be identified with Turks and not left nebulously defined is a minority opinion, and therefore does not need as much attention on this page as the mainstream view. CRCulver 02:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're totally unaware of what i state. I'm not supporting that huns are turks. i'm opposing the way of your representation. E104421 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The simple addition of three little words and the article no longer takes any stand on an issue nor does anything need to be deleted. Isn't that easier than constantly deleting, adding POV tags, and arguing with people on talk pages? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution, thanx, but i do not think the article is well-written academically. I already commented about this above [7], but the users CRCulver and Stbalbach continued pushing the same version. For this reason, in my opinion, the POV tag is deemed appropriate. E104421 15:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is not POV. Your using the tag to discredit the article because you don't agree with the mainstream academic view. The article could be improved, but there is no reason for a POV tag. Please stop interfering, complaining and "throwing poo on the walls" (POV tag) just because you are unhappy with the mainstream academic view. If you were serious you would contribute something to the article, instead of deleting views you don't like. -- Stbalbach 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As you already know, it is impossible to add anything to the article cause whenever someone contribute either CRCulver or Stbalbach reverts the article. This is the main reason i put the POV tag, cause the article reflects your version not a consensus built by wikipedians (article's edit history/summary simply reveal this to be so). Furthermore, as i repeated here several times, the article is ill-written. Especially, which reference refers to which part is unclear. There are pov pushes implied by sentences such as "it's fruitless to specualate...". Putting a reference tag next to such a pov sentence does not make the sentence NPOV but just shows that this idea or argument belong to the author of that reference as well as the editor. If you want the article to be improved you should give up the revert war against other wikipedian. You should at least give some time to other users to reflect add contributions. If you have any counter argument, you should first use the discussion page as i do so, not to revert first. If well-sourced, you should let other arguments to be represented, you always have a chance to balance these by providing counter arguments based on reliable sources. Otherwise, pushing the same version all the time does not make it NPOV in time. E104421 11:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Need proffesional viewing article...Turkish Historians Come and Correct Our History....

My request is "A Turkish Historian Scholar Team" Come And Correct all articles about Huns...

This article is very general and may be seen from different views.

This article starts about European Huns... Leaders written here are leaders of European Huns....

I offer change name to European Hunnic State.... and add/change content

offer 2:

AND START A NEW ARTICLE NAMED BIG ASIAN HUNNIC STATE and put these in Turkish Imperial States in History category...

because first hun leader is Mete Han.(Oguz Khan) And they were in Asia Chinese long-wall made to protect from Asian Huns....

An addition ;Huns may include have different peoples but

THE LEADERS WERE TURKISH...
THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN WAS TURKISH
THE WORDS WRITTEN WERE TURKISH...

Mongolian historians are welcome!!

No any voices from Mongolian historians. It is not fair that the huns become Turks because of Internet, wikipedia, and English language are not popular among the Mongolian historians... If you meet any Mongolian historians they can proove you that they were Mongols with their archeological findings and etc!!! It was the Mongolians who were the nomadic conquerors, not the Turks only ruling ones!! And then how about genetic research. Have you heard about popularity of Mongolian genes? Do you think this is just has to do with Genghis Khan?

Do you know that Mongolia is first Turkish homeland. Turks were step nation, but Mongols were originially forest nation. Then, Mongols captured "Mongolia" form Turks and started live in steppes. (750) Later Turks(Turkmens) came to Turkistan and to "Turkey" escaping from Mongols. But, Mongols also came to Anatolia. Finally, Turks moved to West Anatolia and to Europe. Mongols in Mongolia keep their language, but all Mongols in Islamic-Turkish world forgot Mongol language and they became Muslim Turks in 1 century(1330). So, Huns are more near to Turks, then Mongols.

Turkic-speaking?

This is a controversial topic that should not be in the introduction. The basic theory rests on the premise that the European Huns (which this article is about) were the same as the Asian Huns (see Xiongnu) and that the Chinese said the Asian Huns spoke a Turkic language. The idea of Hun continuity is disputed and therefore we cannot build further assumptions about the language spoken by European Huns upon this house. Please stop adding "Turkic-speaking" to the introduction. The language issue is dealt with further in the article. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The Wikipedia:Lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, and since there are opposing views on who the Huns were, the lead section should not take a stand one way or another. Although I suppose it could mention something about a controversial origins if or when the lead section is more fully developed. -- Stbalbach 14:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe better to carry this discussion to the Hunnic language article by adding a couple of words on Hunnic language in the Huns article. E104421 11:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It keeps getting added here so we should discuss it here. The cited reference is http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/FeaturesEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm.

"Chinese annals reveals that the Hunnic language was very close to that of the Töles, a Turkic tribe.
The Byzantine Empire said that the language of the Huns was the same as the languages of the Bulgars, Avars, Szeklers"

It goes from talking about the Chinese Huns to the European Huns in the same paragraph as if there is no dispute on the continuity. It doesn't explain anything. And I really wish that webpage would cite references. I don't recall ever coming across a Byzantine source that specifically mentions Szeklers. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is another website that seems to be credible, and supports Huns' origins as of being Turkic, From a website called Encyclopedia of the Nations, " http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Mongolia-HISTORY.html " (I'd appreciate it if this could be possibly integrated into the article, in addition to that Kemal Cemal guy) ---Berkay

Also of being from a Turkish background, at schools we are taught that original Huns were of Turkic origin, and eventually as they continued conquering, other races joined to the ranks of their army thus into their life, which would have caused mixing between the original Huns and other races.---Berkay

My name is from original Turkic meaning Berk(bright, strong)- ay(moon), my brother's name is Baturay; Batur(Warrior, hero)-ay(moon) again from original Turkic, by the way my uncle's name from my father's side is Attila, which is also a common name among Turkish people in Turkey.---Berkay

Vandalism in main article

Someone has vandalised the main article, removing a section of text and replacing it with "OMG the huns what a great subject many dont know this but the huns new of the coming of christ! many dont believe this but thanks to the mueseum of natural science we finally have proof that they knew christ was coming and performed a ceremony that created the anti-christ who destroyed the coming christ notice why the huns dissappeared when christ came the second time.". I am a new user and unsure how to revert to the previous edit - PocklingtonDan 18:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

think I have managed to revert to last known good copy before vandalism, pelase leave a msg on my talk page if I messed up! - PocklingtonDan 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Walter Pohl

I went back to the Walter Pohl source and re-examined, it's been a while since I wrote it and thought the "fruitless" quote was direct but it is not, it was a paraphrase. As well he is speaking within the context of Late Antiquity. I will re-write. -- Stbalbach 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Xiongnu

Joseph De Guignes and his claims about the origins of the Huns being Xiongnu were introduced by a different user and others interested in this article agree upon it. The addition of the origins of the Xiongnu should be included since the website it is obtained from cites Joseph De Guignes with proper citation. It should not be possible to just remove it because the website is a secondary source, wikipedia states that secondary sources are acceptable if the secondary source is credible. The website who provides this information has cited its sources properly which makes it possible to check if the sources actually agree with what is provided in the website, thus making it credible. So it should be included in the article.

Why send the reader to another encyclopedia which will just in turn refer him to someplace else? The citation should be for the original monograph or article. Don't you have access to a university library? So far, you seem to be relying just on stuff you find on the Web, which is not where most reputable scholarship is found. CRCulver 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Once I get my hands on the texts I shall integrate them into the article.

I introduced Joseph De Guignes in the first paragraph as a historiography, it is a starting point to show how old the controversy is. If the anon author insists on pushing Joseph De Guignes's view, I'll simply remove his name from the first paragraph, it's not needed, and can be re-phrased in another way without mentioning his name there. -- Stbalbach 12:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Yeniseian theory is a theory of origin of the Xiongnu, not the Huns. The Hun connection to the Xiongnu is theoretical and debated. This is why there are two different articles in Wikipedia, one for the Xiongnu and one for the European Huns. We can't make claims that the Huns are of Yeniseian origin. It is enough to mention the theory that the Huns originate from the Xiongnu. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources

I added the following information to the article, cause it's really necessary to point out the ambiguity whether "Huns" are related with "White Huns" or not. The paragraph is based on the world wide recognized encyclopedias, namely Britannica and Columbia.

• "This article will not discuss the "White Huns" of Procopius, people of obscure origins, possibly of Tibetan or Turkish stock, while he calls them "Huns", there is no definite evidence that they are related to the "Huns". Furthermore, nothing is known of their language.However, there is an ongoing research on whether they were closely related to the "Huns" or not."

However, the user CRCulver continuously reverts the article by claiming "Do NOT cite other encyclopedias in ref tags". However, Encyclopedias reflect the summary of the works of mainstream of academicians which is built upon a consensus by world wide known editors. Furthermore, this user not only removes the references as he claims inappropriate, but also deletes the information given. I do not go into debate with anyone, but this user should understand that this is not his private page. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a place for original research. The aim is to give comprehensive information based on reliable sources. Regards. E104421 19:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias base their material on primary sources. It would take you all of five minutes to determine what these primary sources were, and cite them directly. Then I would have no problem with your edit. As for encyclopedias and consensus, encyclopedia entries are often written by single individuals with little peer review. By citing primary sources that have undergone rigorous peer review, you then can prove that the source is trustworthy. CRCulver 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is the best guideline we have so far. It is generally accepted and we do not have any better guidelines yet. As an implication of the WP:NOR we are strongly discourage to use primary sources. In most cases tertiary sources like Britannica are preferential to the secondary sources. Obviously since Wikipedia has much more info than any paper encyclopedia in existence, so we cannot limit ourselves to tertiary sources. The problem is that every source has its own point of view, according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight we have to give more weight to the mainstream opinions, lesser weight to different novel and original theories that are not shared by everybody, etc. Original research publications tend to go the other way - there is no sense to publish that is already the common knowledge among professional and the novel info is usually not accepted by everybody. It is a reasonably difficult task to find what weight to give to an opinion even stated in a peer-reviewed source. The encyclopedias do it for you - they are paid not to provide novelties but mainstream. On the other hand encyclopedias (not unlike Wiki) can have errors, provide outdated views or lapses of their staff (still their staff is usually better qualified than an average wikipedian). Thus, if we have a secondary source against a tertiary source the matter is discussable - we might should decide which one (or both) to use. Removing material as sourced "only" to Britannica or Columbia is absolutely outrageous and against the traditions of wikipedia. Alex Bakharev 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not outrageous if there is good reason to suspect the Encyclopedia's are wrong - this happens, Encyclopedia's notoriously recycle old material in newer editions. I don't know if that is the case here or not, if there is evidence or rationale to support it. It is a very controversial and often-changing topic. Asking to know what sources these encyclopedia's use is a fair question, if they are 19th C sources for example. -- Stbalbach 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What about illustrations?

The article is not illustrated. Why don't you add some archaeological items traditionally associated with the Huns? What about this torque, for instance? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting website

An interesting website to checkout: http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/english.html

Thanks. I was thinking of writing a section on the Huns and nationalism this might be a useful case study of the phenomenon. Stbalbach 13:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The web page is really ridiculous. E104421 16:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The website even claims that Nowruz "originated within the Turkish culture":

• "... Ergenekon/Nevruz Feast originating from Turkish culture, is a customary national feast, enriched by the Turkish customs and traditions with its origins going back to five thousand years back. ..." [8]
• "... Nevruz, the oldest Turkish feast, was extended through Eurasia via Turks. ..." [9]

Tājik 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Categories are not statements of fact, they are kind of like "see also" or "of related interest" to help with navigating Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, its just that Crculver keeps removing the category for Turkic peoples for no reason. I was thinking people can have look at this category due to a possible relation. Since Ancient people of Russia is assumed to be relevant, the category for Turkic peoples would also be relevant.

Vandalism of Stbalbach and CRCulver

Somebody should stop those guys, they will change the whole history of world

they want to see Huns as a new identity, like having empty root confederation

they always attack their Turkic, Finno-Ugric and Mongolian roots. pls somebody stop those vandalists--hakozen 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to present the various attempts to connect the Huns to other historical populations, provided you can provide sources from peer-reviewed scholarship. However, such assertions may not go in the very first paragraph, as the matter is disputed. I have no problem if you put such information below, see how I'm letting one recent edit of yours stand? Also, please source your edits. Surely you have access to a university library. CRCulver 19:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hakozen, the genetic evidence is in regards to all the Eurasian nomads - not just to the Huns. -- Stbalbach 04:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with hakozen. I know from my own experience with them which can be clearly seen in this talk/discussion page that they're behaving as they're the owners of the Huns article. Always pushing their own version and ignoring all others. E104421 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean we should let people like you flood Wikipedia with nationalistic (Pan-Turkist) nonsense, like the claim that Akbar the Great (Emperor of India) and Aliyev (president of Azerbaijan) were/are citizens of Turkey (see: [10]) ?! Tājik 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not try to mislead people, i reverted the page cause you deleted the entries without any reason see here [11]. I never added anything to the list but just prevented deletion. E104421 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

... which - in this case - is just the same thing ... Tājik 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion without any reason is called vandalism. That's it. You should prove your arguments first. E104421 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Without reason"?! The claims were WRONG ... THAT was my reason to delete them. That's not vandalism, that's deleting nationalisticlic-motivated POV! The question remains why YOU reverted to that nationalistic-motivated POV although all sources are mentioned in the articles?! Tājik 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted cause you deleted without any comment/sources in the talk/discussion page. That's it. E104421 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I commented ALL of my edits! Tājik 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What about sources? You just disputed, never proved anything. E104421 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will provided sources, and then I want YOU to applogize. Tājik 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I always appreciate the ones providing sources. Cheers! E104421 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

hakozen is wright, how can we get rid of those people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.103.179.242 (talk • contribs).

WikiProject Turkey?

I'm hoping the addition of the WikiProject Turkey template has more to do with the history of Hunnic relations with the Eastern Roman Empire. I fail to see what Huns have to do with the history of Turkey. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think, the one who put the template probably is not well acquainted with the issue. E104421 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To make clear some points in a general manner

no doubt Attila is a Turkic man, making unless disputes but for what? to be satisfied for nothing or to make Attila's origin questionable? for example "he was an European"

Eurasia is a heart of World, all thinkable and major invasions rooted from Eurasia, Chingiz Han, Attila, Suleiman Magnificent, no one had achieved that territorial acquisitions before and ever.

The roots of these Folks were Turkic

1)Mongolian, 2)Iranian, 3)European stocks are highly disputed.

1) in 6-13 AD centuries Mongols didn't exist, the word was more political and combined than ethnic 2) the steppes of Kazakstan full of a stone mini statues, the faces have clear and pure Asian features, all statues dated 3 - 9 AD centuries, it means Iranian roots did not represented in Central Asia 3) Turkic migration flows were in the direction of Europe, India and Middle Asia but not vice versa

The Biggest Scandal that ive ever see in Wiki

The Huns who dress, speak, look a like of 100% old Turks, are shown like the Slavs or Germans in the Huns page of wiki... congratulations to editors and the wiki family for this stupidness

You seems to be confusing Huns with European Huns. As a whole, to the rest of Europe, the Huns in Europe probably did look more like Europeans than anything else because of the close connections of the Huns with the eastern most of those European elements, such as the Ostrogoths. The "Huns" under Attila aren't the Huns you think they are.Ernham 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkic-speaking

I propose that "Huns having a Turkic speaking aristocracy" should be included in the article, possibly in the intro or somewhere appropriate in the article, since it is known that the Hunnic language is under the Turkic languages family. having a Turkic speaking aristocracy does not state that all the peoples under the banner of Huns were Turkic, because there were Goths and other peoples within their ranks who spoke Gothic or other languages, its only stating that the aristocrats of the Huns were Turkic speaking. Cheers.

While it's entirely possible Hunnic is Turkic language, and while it's also possible the Huns had an Aristocracy that happen to speak it, none of these are known for sure. The Huns the Chinese knew well seemed to have used a language that was most likely Turkic, but the Huns were not a monolithic entity and should not be treated as such. Both the Asian and European Huns were a confederation of different ethnicities and tribes that had more or less started working together.Ernham 14:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is known that the Huns initially arose from somewhere in Central Asia, and other Eurasian tribes joined their ranks as the Huns moved towards Europe which made their ethnicities very different to that of originally. But even as a confederation, the ethnic Huns were Hunnic speaking even though there were Goths and many other ethnicities, who spoke different languages, within the horde, I proposed previously that this should be mentioned somewhere within the article. Cheers.

European huns are not the same as "Huns"

Article needs to be changed. We don't know the connection of the European Huns, if any, with the Huns "proper". The name was abused and used broadly too often in Europe, much like the term Scythian which suffers from the same problem, thus it's very hard to determine much regarding their origins. They were multi-ethnic, multi-tribe confederation that basically joined together. Little more is actually known. This article needs to clarify when speaking of "European Huns" versus "Huns".

anon user 58.110.65.230 constant vandalism

This guy seems to do nothing but vandalize the Attila and Hun wikis with his turkocentric agenda. Please do not be afraid to revert him outright as he seems to have no intention of rational debate or understand what a cite is and/or the credibility of experts versus cranks.Ernham 13:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hunnic language

Do you not think that the Hunnic language should be mentioned somewhere in the article?

The Huns must have originated from the far eastern asian nomadic tribes around ancient Han(Korean) tribe inhabiting region.

As far as I know, the huns are not european at all! They came from the far far east of Asia... The pronunciation of HUN is just similar to HAN, which means HAN tribe, the tribe of people who had inhabited in northern part of Korean peninsula and in Korean inland.

One of the legacies from old tombs in Silla dynasty from Kyungjoo, South Korea is very peculiar in that many sculptures of riding horse has "Bronze" pan in their rears! Such ones are also found in many tombs in the huns traces in central Asia and Manjuria.

Moreover, Silla Kings' head shapes are very similar to the ones of the huns leaders'. So-called PYUN'DOO(in their foreheads grown pressed backward whereas the top heads are highly shaped consummated).

The Romans recorded about the barbarous huns; their eyes are small and sharp, their noses are a bit lowered, their cheek bones high and their faces round, which means the HUNs were the far east Asians by the shapes.

The HUNs were experts in arrow-shooting on horse ridings; these hunting styles cannot be seen in any other tribes'. Some of tomb paintings in some North Korean regions show such horse riding men aiming backward with their peculiar bows and arrows against targets.

So, we can cautiously infer that the huns are the ancestries of asian people around Korean peninsula. The huns didn't have their letters so they had to borrow Chinese letters until they fablicated themselves HAN'GEUL(the letters of HAN tribe).

So, in my point of view, I would like to dare to say the HUNs are very relative of ancient Korean, not European.

<cf> See this Video; This tells about the HUNs. http://www.zdf-enterprises.de/en/sphinx_attila_king_of_the_huns.40.htm?template=d_zdfe_program&skip=81&sort=sheadline_en&order=asc&from=40&l=en

There is only circumstantial evidence that the Huns came from East Asia. There is nothing whatsoever to say that they were Korean. How do you know how "Han" was pronounced in 500 AD? How do you know it was that Han and not dozen of otherr Hans like the Han dynasty in China? How do you know what the Huns called themselves? Inner Asian technology, especially that related to horses, tends to be shared. What Korean horses did or did not wear is not relevant. The skull deformation would be interesting but I would like to see evidence that they did this in Korea. For that matter, I'd like to see evidence that the Silla Kings were Korean. And an explanation of why the southern Silla state would have done it but not Koguryo for instance. What makes you think they were not like modern Uzbeks? Dare to say it, but without evidence, or a good reason to believe it, it is not relevant here, nor is it encyclopedic. It is original research and banned. Lao Wai 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the posts of other users

It is generally frowned upon removing the posts of other users to the talk pages, and particularly if they concern the scope of the article. Posts that have nothing to do with the article can be removed at anytime since Wikipedia is not a forum, as well as incivilities and personal attacks, but otherwise posts can stay. Obviously one exception to that would be the excessive flooding of the talk pages that have happened in Talk:Persian Gulf for example, but that is not the case here for now. Cheers! Baristarim 13:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Baristarim. Thanks for your advice. I have posted my 2nd discussion four times here. And they were gone without any explanation about it. Was it done by your decision? Even if yes, now that is OK. Because I came to know this place is not apposite to discussion. Just for what, then? As far as I know, this page is forum or discussion page!. The theory that users would like to show or insist on about could be introduced in an article page? Anyway, though not so many days since my entrance to commence writing here, I feel very awkward here. Anybody can delete, change other's writings! Wow! And it seems that it is not strictly clear about the guideline to appropriate postings here; See the other's comments; some of them is GRUMBLES, not discussion at all.

But my writings deleted many times by others were the well-know historical theories acknowledged quite a bit in Far estern societies here. They are not my own adamant personal contention!

It is up to you whether deleting this or not.But I am very disappointed with these obscure guidelines and no reason exists here for me to stay for further postings.

Sayonara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.MK (talk • contribs)

The Huns were NOT turkic in origin....but more likely ancestors of mongols

The Huns were NOT turkic in origin....but more likely ancestors of mongols

You have the right to change it but make sure you reference it. Nareklm 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

if they are ancestor what gene mark this ancestry? Example to defined ancestry are marked by Y haplogrups eg r1b ,R1a1 ... Nasz 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) what is VERY wondering me is the note that Attila claim (by Priscus +oth?) that bischop of Nis had desecrated his ancestor ancient royal graves. Usualy the tradition was to burry, at least kings, in ancestor vaterland. Scythes are reported to transport the corpses by thousands om miles. Although the custom may be different, there are numerus quotes scythian custom in reference to Attila. The word Scyth* occured 33x in short 8pages, description of Priscus travel to Attila.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

Huns

nomadic and pastoral people of unknown ethnological affinities who originated in N central Asia, appeared in Europe in the 4th cent. A.D., and built up an empire there. They were organized in a predominantly military manner. Divided into hordes, they undertook extensive independent campaigns, living off the countries they ravaged. The Huns have been described as short and of somewhat Mongolian appearance. Their military superiority was due to their small, rapid horses, on which they practically lived, even eating and negotiating treaties on horseback. Despite the similarity of their tactics and habits with those of the White Huns, the Magyars, the Mongols, and the Turks, their connection with those peoples is either tenuous or—in the case of the Magyars and the Turks—unfounded. The Huns appear in history in the 3d cent. B.C., when part of the Great Wall of China was erected to exclude them from China. Called Hsiung-nu by the Chinese, the Huns occupied N China from the 3d cent. A.D. until 581. Having swept across Asia, they invaded the lower Volga valley c.372 and advanced westward, pushing the Germanic Ostrogoths and Visigoths before them and thus precipitating the great waves of migrations that destroyed the Roman Empire and changed the face of Europe. They crossed the Danube, penetrated deep into the Eastern Empire, and forced (432) Emperor Theodosius to pay them tribute. Attila, their greatest king, had his palace in Hungary. Most of the territories that now constitute European Russia, Poland, and Germany were tributary to him, and he was long in Roman pay as Roman general in chief. When Rome refused (450) further tribute, the Huns invaded Italy and Gaul and were defeated (451) by Aetius, but they ravaged Italy before withdrawing after Attila’s death (453). Their later movements are little known; some believe that the White Huns were remnants of the Hunnic people. The word Huns has been used as an epithet, as for German soldiers, connoting destructive militarism.

I like the part where it says that the connection with Magyars and Turks are unfounded yet continues to propagate the equally unfounded belief that the Huns were the same as the Xiongnu as if it were an undisputed fact. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes i've seen this description before, seems weird, and a few other websites use the same info...but as you said its self-contradictory.

Hun* in last names

Plese add to the list other you may found cases of hun*. If language make sense also as *hun* (but explain why). I propose folowing simple format: I think ther is also sound change ż g h ch which may be reported as addeum. Nasz 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• 98 k huniewicz PL
• 87 k huneck D
• 45 k hunski PL
• 42k hunek PL/D
• 1.8 k hunser D *
• 9 hunowicz PL

Hunfeld/Huenfeld, Germany

Hundorf, Germany

Hunau, 88353 Kißlegg, Ravensburg, BW, Germany