Talk:Huns/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Tomb of Attila

Thr tomb of Hun warrior has been discovered in Romania this winter. Some claim it is Attila's tomb. It has hundreds of gold itemd and the corpse has a golden mask. Such piece of news has been already included in the article Attila The Hun, should we include it here as well? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Some claim eh? Source?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There are two sources in the article of Attila (section "Rediscovery of the tomb")

I have found more

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/extraordinary-discovery-in-romania-perhaps-the-tomb-of-attila-was-found-the-scourge-of-god/ss-AA16PdZS?li=BBJDXDP#image=3

https://www.ilmattino.it/esteri/news/attila_tomba_romania_spada_ferro_oggetti_oro_oggi_24_1_2023-7187867.html

They say it will take a year before a study is published. Theres only a few pictures available online, but in the Italian article (il mattino) there is a video with several pictures not available online Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

These are sensationalist claims. Per WP:NOTNEWS we should wait till a study is published. Even then, a single grave will add little to this article.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Allright, let's wait

Do you have an opinion on the Xiongnu image? I opened a section above this one Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I can‘t disagree at present, but some individual grave-hoards (e.g. Sutton Hoo) have proved highly informative about the societies that produced them. From the gold artefacts alone, stylistic and chemical/radiological analyses both may reveal much about the cultural & economic milieu that brought them to the site. So while WP:CRYSTAL too weighs against covering the discovery at this early stage, it’s quite exciting news that’s well worth following to see what develops.—Odysseus1479 21:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 I think that the news about the discovery are at least worth keeping in the Attila article. What do you think? (the news has been well covered by newspaper all around the world. So even if the identification is incorrect, the discovery is still notable)

However, after hearing about the news here, @Ermenrich deleted everything about it at the Attila article. Maybe that was excessive. I don't know. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They say the tomb looks from the Hun period (based on archeological data, I suppose). When I look at the artifacts, Ithink that's definitely gonna be the case (golden objects inlaid with asymmetrical gems of different forms).

Maybe no the tomb of Attila, but of some high ranking Hun. Perhaps one of his sons.

Its interesting that the warrior was buried with his horse. I thought that was typically Avar. Maybe this will shed light on the practices of the Huns and their relation with the Avars. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We can’t use those sources to claim someone found the tomb of Attila, sorry. And Sure, the find might be exciting, but we don’t know yet.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

But the discovery has elicited a lot of attention and was reported in many newspapers, thus achieving notability. So it can (and IMO should) be published somewhere in Wikipedia. OTOH I don't think it is notable enough to have its own article, though (at least for now).

Publishing it in Wikipedia.en may also have a positive effect, by drawing attention to English speaking scholars and archeologists that my contribute to the Romanian study. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to keep it in the Attila article you need to discuss it over there, not here. Right now we don’t have RS we can use anyway. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to “draw scholars to new work” it is supposed to summarize established scholarship.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be a side effect. I thought I was clear that the reason for the insertion would be that the news has achieved relevance (notability) IMO, having been published by many newspaper Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. News reports are only generally reliable for routine current events such as disasters and school shootings, and the sources have to be high status news organizations. It is not acceptable to use news reports about the recent discovery of a tomb as as the basis for details about a supposed connection to Atilla. For a good example, see a similar recent discussion at Talk:Genghis Khan regarding his allegedly discovered burial site. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

User:Hunan201p I noticed an image missing and that you removed. Its actually the image of Xiongnu, I know it from the article Xiongnu. The source used to prove it is Xiongnu there is: ]. Could you restore it with this source? I am not allowed to edit protected articles Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

On what page does it say that this object is Xiongnu? I can't read French. I tried searching for sources that said it was Xiongnu, but couldn't find any. They all simply labled it as "Bactrian". The content was added by a sockmaster who is known for falsifying things/original research. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Hunan201pI don't know but this picture and its caption are ok

It says so on page 35, which starts with two pictures of this artifact (front and back)

Below these is the caption:

"Plaque from Saskanokhur, wild boar hunting, the horse wears a Xiongnu type harness, the Hunter has his hair pulled back and tied in a bun"

Next they describe the item at page 36

"A famous openwork gold plate found on the site depicts a boar hunt by a rider in the steppe dress, in a frame of ovals arranged in frames meant to receive inlays. We can today attribute it to a local art whose intention was to satisfy a knight patron native to the distant steppes and related to the Xiongnu"

Then it describes the clothing and harnessing (in the item), saying theres elements found in the Xiongnu from Mongolia but not in the Scythians

It seems this is a well known Xiongnu item that's why they used it in the Xiongnu article, I suppose.

Didn't you check the Xiongnu article as the first thing? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The source does not say, much less prove, that this plaque depicts a Xiongnu or even belonged to one. It does say that the horse harness depicted is of the Xiongnu type, but you have chosen not to mention other details which the author also links to other steppe cultures such as Scythians, including:

"The mounted boar, lion or hare with a brandished spear is the classic hunt of the Persians and the Greeks, well known in their arts and found in the Greco-Scythian productions of the Black Sea 66 as well than, for example, on an openwork buckle which would be Parthian (?) 67. Now, if one observes the harness of Saksanokhur's horse, the attention is immediately drawn by two characteristic features. We note on the one hand that the tail of the horse is taken in a sheath, like those of the mounts of the steppe riders and that we notice in the Altai (in the kurgans of Pazyryk, Berel' and others) and on the coins of the Indo-Scythians and Heraos 68."

and also:

"In addition, the four comma-shaped ornaments of the boar's mane, intended to receive inlays, of turquoise for example, reinforce the analogies with Tillya Tépa and the art of the steppes up to that of Khokhlatch..."

Several other sources describe this object, and none of them refer to it as a Xiongnu plaque. Peerless Images page 9 does not mention anything about Xiongnu, but it does say much about the Kushan in the next paragraph. History of Humanity Volume 3 page 666 likewise displays the object with other typical Iranian finds, and doesn't mention Xiongnu. It is clear that your source associates the artifact with steppe cultures, which includes groups like Scythians, Xiongnu, and Tillya Tepe. Not to the Xiongnu alone. This is just another case of people making cocksure interprerations that aren't in the source, despite its contradictory details. The plaque exhibits a mosaic of attributes, most of them distinctly Iranian, and there's no way we can definitively say that it "probably" belongs to one culture based on any of the sources provided, so far. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Hunan201p Your French is actually awesome, why do you say you "can't read it"?

Your sources don't discuss this item in detail as Henri-Paul Francfort does. Further, they are old,specifically 18 and 22 years older than Francfort's. As an editor you should know that as time goes on, new discoveries and assessments are made. I didn't "chose to leave out". You asked where does it say it is Xiongnu and I showed you. What you are referring to is simply a description of the artistic features of the item. The Xiongnu/Huns didn't have a culture of their own. This object was not made by the Xiongnu (but by some Bactriane artist, hence why your other sources claim this) and his dress, etc., were likewise made by civilized artisans, or at least inspired by their products. You chose to mention some parts were the author states what was popular in which culture, focusing on the non-steppe ones (indeed, the article concludes with: the details of the harness, costume hairstyle, are nevertheless unquestionably steppe, of the Xiongnu or Yuezhi(?) type. In this sense... It corresponds to the mixed and complex Greco-Oriental art of Tylla Tepa. and We can thus regard it as a Bactriane and Hellenized version of the steppe hunting plates. In other words, the Xiongnu had elements from other cultures, but this horserider is Xiongnu or some related people) but in the other pages also the steppe elements are discussed, which outnumber the Persian and Greek influences you quoted. What matters most to us is Francfort' s very opening statement:

We can today attribute it to a local craft, whose intention was to satisfy a horseman patron originating from the distant steppes and related to the Xiongnu

Even though the Xiongnu (Xiongnu-related) identification is certain, the caption syill said it is probably Xiongnu (just like at the Xiongnu article) . So again I think the picture and caption are quite okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark. PaloAlto (talk • contribs) 12:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Xiongnu-related" does not mean "Xiongnu". Yuezhi, Scythians, Kushans, etc, are all Xiongnu-related. Your source does not make certain that the horserider is a Xiongnu any more so than a Scythian, and to use this image as a physical depictor of a "probable" Xiongnu is original research whether here or at the Xiongnu article - Hunan201p (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the Huns were Xiongnu related, apparently a weak offshoot of them (also, the Xiongnu, like the Huns, weren't of homogeneous ethnicity). The place where this artifact was discovered belonged to the Xiongnu sphere of influence (it was on the edge of their hypothesized territory, where they had contact with artisan). It has characteristics of Xiongnu dress and harnessing, as well as hairstyle (also, the perforation-like eyes, frontal bossing, big head, stocky, short legs, long bust and wide shoulders, are reminiscent of the European description of the Huns, but this is not stated by Francfort, just my opinion) that is why Francfort say it is unquestionably Xiongnu or, more hesitantly, Yuezhi.

I don't understand why, using this source, saying that this is probably a Xiongnu hunter is original research?! If you want, we can swap that statement with "today it is assumed that this hunter is Xiongnu related", but in my opinion, saying that it is "probably Xiongnu" is more cautious.

The source does not "make it certain that this is Xiongnu" because it is impossible, just like most ancient artifacts starting from the Egyptian busts. However, the source is positive that it is Xiongnu related, and that it is absolutely certainly Xiongnu (or Yuezhi?). It is a steppe hunter, and the only steppe hunters with whom these Saksanokhur artisans had contact at the time were the Xiongnu. Much less likely, Yuezhi, who lived further away, and didn't use hairbuns.

P. S. If you still disagree, I will open a discussion with the portal so other editors can opine. I also think that you should meanwhile remove the image also from the Xiongnu article.

User:ScottishFinnishRadish Pardon me but I don't understand your message. Anyway, do you have an opinion? Keep in mind that the question isn't whether to put a Xiongnu image in this article, but whether, based on the Francfort's source, we can say that this hunter is "probably Xiongnu" or not. Let me know if you want to read the whole pages. So I will quote them all (you need to have an Acedemia profile to access the source) Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My message was a template for closing the edit request, as there has been an objection. If a consensus emerges to make the change you've requested you can reopen the edit request. If you're looking for more input WP:3O might be the way to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I'll wait for his reply and then consider which way to go Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You are blowing out copious amounts of original research, which is not what we do here. The author doesn't say that the plaque is a Xiongnu. He links it to all kinds of nomads, including Yuezhi, Pazyryk Scythians, and Tillya Tepe Scythians (all located within the Bactrian sphere). We can't use this source as evidence of Hunnic or Xiongnu appearance. You should find a source that definitively states that this is Xiongnu, or stop wasting your energy with the far-reaching original research. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You only needed to say you disagree. Why do you want to repeat so much this is original research? It won't make it true

The text by Henri-Paul Francfort does state that today, with the 2020s knowledge, we know that the patron, the horserider hunter (not the artisan) was Xiongnu related. It then describes why this hunter was Xiongnu, or less likely Yuezhi.

Like I already noted, the article stated that the hunter is probable Xiongnu, which definitely surmises the meaning of Francfort's work. Even so,I proposed to quote Francfort, by reporting that this artifact is today assumed to represent a Xiongnu-related hunter horserider. However, you appetently disregard this compromise. For this reason I am looking for a third opinion.

I will also post the whole book pages here, highlighting the parts that interest us (where Francfort mentions the Xiongnu), so other editors who don't have access to Academia may read.

User:ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry to bother again. I was thinking that beside a 3rd opinion, I could open one of those project template, where you expose the issue and invite other editors to read (often those experienced in the topic). However, I have no idea how they are called. I hope you understand what I am talking about and can provide me with the page of the template. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:RFC I believe, but I think getting a third opinion and giving some of the talk page watchers time to respond would be wise, per WP:BEFORE. There are almost 700 editors that watch this page, so give them a week to respond before going any further. You can also reach out at WP:ORN to get other opinions on if you position constitutes original research. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mark. PaloAlto: your source does not say that your plaque depicts a Xiongnu rider. "Xiongnu-related" is not the same thing as Xiongnu. Your author describes affinities to the Pazyryk and Yuezhi cultures, all of whom are Xiongnu-related but not Xiongnu. At best this plaque could be used as a representative of broader steppe cultures of various ethno-linguistic affiliations. A better plan for you would be to simply find an image that is definitively Xiongnu, and to use that one instead. Why are you so fixated on this one picture and this one vague source? - Hunan201p (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are right: Xiongnu related and "unmistakenbly of the Xiongnu or Yuezhi(?) type" is not the" same as Xiongnu". That is why I proposed to keep th original caption of the Xiongnu article, namely saying it is "probably Xiongnu". I then also proposed to quote Francfort's words.

I am not fixated. I appreciate it, it is the closest to the description of Huns I can think of.

I would also ask you why are you so opposed to it? At first you didn't think the Xiongnu were linked to it because you didn't read the source as you said you can't understand French. Now you say the author doesn't say it is certainly Xiongnu. Indeed, he doesn't, but he says it is very likely Xiongnu and that it is certainly Xiongnu related.

Its relation to the Xiongnu, its steppe gear, it's horserifing and hunting, and even its obscurity makes it fit for this page in my opinion, with the proper caption.

Since the problem here is whether or not the author says/implies, in his book, that this is probably Xiongnu, I will ask for a third opinion on the meaning of the text. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, RFC is exactly what I was thinking of. Thanks.

Allright, I will do as you say. Meanwhile I have translated the disputed pages and I will post the text here as I anticipated. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the editors interested in the discussion, here is the whole text concerning the item. It is badly translated from French (which I only vaguely understand) with the help of a translator. The text is from of Henri Paul Francfort's article Sur quelques vestiges et indeces nouveaux de l' hellenisme dans les arts entre la Bactriane et le Ganhara, from Journal des Savants (2020):

(Figure 14 is on top of the page)

Fig. 14. – Openwork gold plaque from Saksanokhur (Tajikistan), wild boar hunting, the horse wears a “Xiongnu type” harness, the hunter has his hair pulled back and tied in a bun. National Museum of Dushambe. According to Kunst, catalog of the exhibition “Oxus, 2000 Jahre Kunst am Oxus-Fluss in Mittelasien, neue Funde aus der Sowjetrepublik Tadshikistan”, Zurich, Museum Rietberg, 1989, no. 25, p. 43. Back of this plate (photograph V. Zaleski).

(... ) A renowned openwork gold plate found on the surface of the site depicts a wild boar hunt at the spear by a rider in steppe dress, in a frame of ovals arranged in cells intended to receive inlays (fig. 14). We can today attribute it to a local craft whose intention was to satisfy a horserider patron originating from the distant steppes and related to the Xiongnu. Indeed, if the hunt wild boar is indeed a theme in the art of the steppes, as shown, among other things, by a famous pair of gold plates from the Hermitage Museum, this one is practiced in Asia bow, not spear. Mounted wild boar, lion or hare hunting with a spear brandi is that, classic, of the Persians and the Greeks, well known in their arts and which is found in the Greco-Scythian productions of the Black Sea as well as, for example, on an openwork buckle that would be parthian (?). Now, if we observe the harnessing of Saksanokhur's horse, attention is immediately drawn by two characteristic features. We note on the one hand that the tail of the horse is taken in a sheath, like those of the mounts of the steppe riders and that one note in the Altai (in the kurgans of Pazyryk, Berel' and others) and on the coins of the Indo-Scythians and Heraos. We can also clearly distinguish the crupper adorned with three rings forming a chain, as well as, on the shoulder of the mount, a very recognizable clip-shaped pendant, suspended from a chain passing in front of the chest and going up to the pommel of the saddle, whose known parallels are not to be found among the Scythians but in the realm of the Xiongnu, on bronze plaques from Mongolia and China (figs. 15 and 16 (TN, two Xiognu-attributed plaques, figure 16 is this)).

In addition, the four comma-shaped ornaments on the mane of the boar, intended to receive inlays, of turquoise for example, reinforce analogies with Tillya Tépa and the art of the steppes up to that of Khokhlatch in the 1st-2nd centuries. The same applies to another chain, attached to the cantle, to which could be hung various accessories. This is an additional testimony of direct links of Bactria with the world of the steppes, already observed in Tillya Tépa. The costume of the rider is just as worthy of attention. The character is dressed in pants that are tight at the ankles, agai as in the steppes, but his coat crossed and fastened at the waist by a belt is very long, going down to his leg: this is the "kushan" costume, in this case rather Yuezhi. It stands out in high relief on a large carpet of saddle with rounded sides falling very low above the ground. The hairstyle of hunter, with long hair pulled back and gathered in a bun, is found at Takht-i Sangin; it is that of the eastern steppes, which can be seen on the plates wild boar hunting “des Iyrques” (fig. 15 (TN figure 15 is a Xiongnu belt plaque)).

The place of origin of this item, Saksanokhur, near Farkhor (Tajikistan) and close to Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan), is remarkable because we know there not only the manor mentioned above, but also huge "royal" kurgans marking the terrace of the Surkh Ab (or Kyzyl Su). Although these have not been excavated and are not yet dated, it is tempting to recognize a funeral complex close to a habitat site and a hunting area located in the riparian forests (“jungles”) of the valley near Pandj (Tigrovaja Balka, Darqat). Anyway, this plate is an exceptional example of Bactrian Saka-Yuezhi “Greco-Steppic” art: the framework of oves is Greek, as are also the scheme of composition of the chase and the style of execution of the goldsmith. If the flexibility of the horse's hindquarters and the twist of three-quarters of the bust of the rider gives him a movement, an animation in the Hellenic tradition, the details of the realia (harness, costume, hairstyle) are nevertheless unquestionably steppe, of the Xiongnu type or Yuezhi (?). In this sense, and although it may date back to the end of the 2nd 1st century BCE, it corresponds to the mixed and complex Greco-Oriental art of Tillya Tépa. This belt ornament, despite the awkwardness of the ovals of its frame, manifests a beautiful survival of the art of the skillful Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian goldsmiths, placed at the service of the new elites coming from distant steppes on the borders of the China. It offers a magnificent complement to the art of Tillya Tépa, illustrating Greek way of Central Asian mythological themes and conceptions. We can thus regard it as a Bactrian and Hellenized version of the steppe hunting plaques, those of Takht-i Sangin or those "of the Iyrques". Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"...I am not fixated. I appreciate it, it is the closest to the description of Huns I can think of...."

This is called tendentitious editing, that is, stretching the sources to fit your worldview, which matches closely with your cocksure interpretation of a very vaguely worded source, which does not support such a WP:BOLD description of this rider as a "probable Xiongnu". - Hunan201p (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, my bad for answering your question about why I (personally) like this image. That is obviously not the matter here but with hindsight it was a sly question you made.

I am not stretching the sources, and I have no "worldview". On the other hand, you removed an image because you said the source doesn't talk about Xiongnu. Then you said you didn't read the source because you didn't understand French (but then why you removed the image and the source if you couldn't verify it?). Now it seems you understand or can translate French but you say the source is still not okay.

Let's remember that the sole issue you have here is that, according to you, the source does not say this horserider is probably Xiongnu (as stated in the original caption here and in the Xiongnu article).

I disagree with you. For this reason, I have posted the whole book pages, in preparation for asking a third opinion. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"...you removed an image because you said the source doesn't talk about Xiongnu..."

Go look at my edit in which I removed the photo. The source we're discussing wasn't there. The sources given were three genetics papers that don't say anything about the photo.

"Then you said you didn't read the source because you didn't understand French (but then why you removed the image and the source if you couldn't verify it?). Now it seems you understand or can translate French but you say the source is still not okay."

I cannot read French. The source you gave me is a +100 page book, without a page number. Once you gave me the page number, I could identify and translate the content. And the content does not support your bold interpretation, unsurprisingly. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My mistake about your first removal:indeed there was no source for the probable Xiongnu association-part. However, the Xiongnu article from which this well known image was taken does have a source, so I find it strange you didn't check there for starters.

You also made a mistake, though, because the source I earlier provided at this talk page did include page numbers (35-39). Also, if you didn't know, you can search for words in PDF files ("Xiongnu" in this case).

I disagree that the content does not support my "bold" interpretation. I think the text is pretty clear about the Xiongnu relation. And that is why also other articles from Wikipedia with that artifact claim it is probably Xiongnu.

I will soon ask for a third opinion. Then consider a RFC. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. So for the third opinion discussion. I was reading the translations provided as well as the original work (with Google Translate). I was looking at whether or not the author states" in his book, that this is probably Xiongnu". I have to say that from the text provided the statement doesn't say that the person is from Xiongnu. In fact it doesn't even state if the person depicted is real. It discusses it being a commission. The link to the Xiongnu is there, I agree however I do think its reaching conclusions that the author doesn't state. It might be a readaption of a classical figure into the Xiongnu style. It might even be a made up person. The author doesn't state who they are. However I am very open to hear the discussion from both points. Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Chefs-kiss (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss

Thanks for your input. First, I wasn't the one who chose to recap the author's pov with "probably Xiongnu". This was done by other editors at articles such as Xiongnu

(where the statement was apparently accepted since no one has objected till now).

I personally find it a concise summary of the author's thought. However, like I said I am also open to directly quote him, saying that the horserider was Xiongnu-related and came from north of China.

P. s. It might not be a real person. But neither are we using it as the info box picture of anybody. While it may not be a real person, it was inspired by the physical and cultural features of the patron's "people". The artisan certainly made a portrait of the patron's ethnicity as flattering as he could, but he certainly had to represent some distinctive features of it . OTOH, he could not use a "classical model", or it would not have looked like the patron at all. Also, according to your reasoning, we should delete all pictures of Xiongnu, and any other people relying on foreign artisans, since there is no way to have certainity about who the model was. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can provide what you'd put so I get a better idea? Like how would you quote it? Also I'd like to wait to hear from Hunan201p. See what they say Chefs-kiss (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss

I would say: "Gold buckle made for horserider-hunter patron originating from the distant steppes on the border with China and related to the Xiongnu"

This is quoted directly from the text above. I would also consider adding in a note the characteristic that made him Xiongnu, since that's relevant to this and the Xiongnu articles.

P. S. Again, when you add to the text quoted above, the fact the author says the horserider is unquestionably Xiongnu or Yuezhi (for which the author adds a question mark; the Yuezhi didn't use airbuns and didn't border on the land next to Tajikistan, differently from the Xiongnu), I believe "probably Xiongnu" spares a lot of words. But again, just my opinion. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Since most of the text is in the french could you on please include your page numbers. I mean this in regard to the statement of the author stating they are "unquestionably Xiongnu". Also do this on ongoing discussion since I am not fluent in french (and I think neither is Hunana201p) and I cannot translate the whole text. Chefs-kiss (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What is unquestionably Xiongnu is actually the harness, dress, and hairstyle (p. 39):

les details des realia (harnachment, costume, coiffure) don't neanmois incontestablement steppiques, de type Xiongnu ou Yuexhi (?) (the details of the regalia (harness, costume, hairstyle) are nevertheless unquestionably steppe, of the Xiongnu type or Yuezhi (?))

Earlier (p. 36) Francfort says:

On peut aujourd'hui l'attribuer a un art local dont l'intention eteit de satisfaire un patron cavalier originarie des steppes lointaines et appartenete aux Xiongnu. (We can today (2020s) attribute it to a local craft whose intention was to satisfy a horserider patron originating from th distant steppes and related to the Xiongnu)

and (p. 39):

... mis au service des nouvelles elites venues de lontaines steppes des confins de la Chine ((object was made by Bactrian artisans) in the service of new elite leaders coming from distant steppes on the borders of China)

You can find the whole pages quotes above, with the chief references to the Xiongnu in bold characters. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"the details of the regalia (harness, costume, hairstyle) are nevertheless unquestionably steppe, of the Xiongnu type or Yuezhi (?))" obviously does not equal "unquestionably Xiongnu". Mark._PaloAlto also left out the part where the author said that the horse's tail was wrapped in the Scythian (Pazyryk or Indo-Scythian)/Yuezhi style. The source is only vaguely saying that the artifact depicts a "Steppe" rider, not Xiongnu. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I'm afraid that I agree with User:Hunan201p that the text never states that it is "undoubtedly" Xiongnu. However I do find that your proposed statement

"old buckle made for horserider-hunter patron originating from the distant steppes on the border with China and related to the Xiongnu"

Sounds ok since it just claims relation. That's what I'd say. Make sure to include the citation. Chefs-kiss (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hunan201p keeps implying that I leave out things on purpose. OTOH, they stretch themselves the text, failing to grasp its meaning. While, as quoted, the author states quite clearly that today we know that the artifact is Xiongnu related, and then goes on to say the horserider came from the steppe north of China, and to describe the details of the horserider (imagine someone describing the Renaissance painting of a Frenchman, noticing the Roman columns in the background, the Italian trousers, the Arabic jacket, the English or Dutch hat etc.). Yet they willingly read the text as if the author was stating that, because the horse has "Pazyryk tail", then the horserider is a Pazyryk. Indeed, the vast majority of details suggest a Xiongnu ethnicity for the horserider, which is why the author makes the quoted statements.

Chefs-kiss I never stated that the author says it is "obviously Xiongnu" but that he says it is "unquestionably Xiongnu or Yuezhi (?)" with a question mark following the word "Yuezhi". Thus the author makes it clear that the artifact patron must be Xiongnu or Yuezhi (plus question mark for Yuezhi), and nothing else. OTOH, Hunan cut the part about Yuezhi when they quoted me, so they could criticize my statement.

Thanks for you input and I am glad we have consensus for the quote. I will still wait before employing it though, since I am hopeful some other editor will read the text correctly and comment.Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss: The picture in question was being used as an example of the physical appearance of Xiongnu people. Surely you will agree that this picture, with its very vague source not even definitively stating that it is Xiongnu, but merely related to Xiongu (or Yuezhi, or Pazyryk), is useless as an examplar of the Xiognu people's physical appearance? We have artifacts that are confirmed Xiongnu from their actual territory. Why not use one of those instead, instead of a Bactrian plaque that is only vaguely related to Xiongnu by one source? - Hunan201p (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it was. I do agree that it cannot be used to confirm appearance. The author does not state that in his text at all. Mostly commenting on what the person is wearing. I do agree with User: Hunan201p that the author does not say that. Especially academics are very nitpicky with language. I think the reversal is suitable. Especially since there is already another image providedChefs-kiss (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)¡

@Chefs-kiss When you say The author does not state that in his text at all. Mostly commenting on what the person is wearing.

You make wonder whether you have any understanding of archeology and artistic analysis. How do you think that an ancient Roman bust is identified? Or how is the figurine of an ancient German identified? Do you think they are identified based on appearance and facial features? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Might I suggest a compromise. Look for another image that is well known within the field. Cite said articles confirming their "well known regard". That way we can move on past this. It would provide the same purpose. How does this sound User: Hunan201p User: Mark. PaloAlto
Also I'd expect civility here please. I do indeed know how archeology is conducted. Thank you for asking. I would like to point out that the author is not determining if the statue is depicting a Xiongnu, its it discussing it for its value as a Xiongnu work. I have not questioned your intentions and I'd expect the same courtesy.

@Chefs-kiss Wait. You need to look at the matter closely. There is not way to know whether any of the plaques associated with the Xiongnu are in fact Xiongnu. This image is confirmed as Xiongnu related. Differently from most of the others, it depicts a horserider in the act of hunting on his horse, which is remarkable.

User Hunan had originally removed the image claiming it had no source (indeed there was no source, but this image is well known and used at the Xiongnu article, where it has the Francfort source--so I find it curious they didn't look there. By the way, remember that if we delete the image here, we will also have to delete it there). Then they said they can't understand French and now are making the arguments you read.

Really, this artifact isn't "more Xiongnu" than any other. But it depicts a Xiongnu/Hun hunting on his horse, and was produced along the hypothesized migration route of Huns towards Europe, for patrons coming from distant China. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss

I am sorry you read my reply as "uncivil". It wasn't meant to. Maybe it sounded "harsh", but it wasn't meant to. I just thought it and wrote it, but I said it in a gentle/curious way (not scornful). Also, lack of knowledge is something that can be easily fixed. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That's all right. But how does my suggestion seem to you? Perhaps that something in between that solves the issue of sources but still keeps the main text that you want to include Chefs-kiss (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure what your proposal is at this point. Could you repeat it? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chefs-kiss

I have added another Xiongnu image as per the compromise. I took this image from the Xiongnu article. It would be nice if @Hunan201p or you could create a crop of the male figure, since the section is about appearance. I used the previous template and part of the previous caption.

I am still hopeful that some editor may review Francfort's text and have a say though. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References