Talk:Origin of the Huns

Shouldn't Xionites be mentioned in the lead?

• "The Origin of the Huns and their relationship to other peoples identified in ancient sources as Iranian Huns such as the Alchon Huns, the Kidarites, the Hephthalites, and the Huna..."
• I don't see Xionites there. Any specific reason? BTW, nice article. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope! Adding.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair Xionites (Khionites) is effectively just another name for the Kidarites. MMFA (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that Xionites were no longer in the lede - I've readded them.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Protect the Page

Can we get this page protected before the Turkic/Hungarian/etc. nationalists start editing it with their pseudohistory, as a pre-emptive measure? MMFA (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You are asked to stop making ethnically charged comments denigrating other editors. Asking for a page to be "protected" because if "Turkic nationalists" edit it they will add "their pseudohistory" is denigrating to other editors. Especially "as a pre-emptive" measure implies strongly that there is no basis for this comment other then ethnicity (ie no one has added any "pseudohistory"). Dilbilir (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar to my comment elsewhere, nationalists are not an ethnicity. Plenty of nationalists of various colors add pseudohistory to Wikipedia articles, and the problem is especially prevalent with ancient Eurasian topics. MMFA is completely on the mark to try to prevent this on this page. You might try taking less of a battleground mentality.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of any ideology "Turkic nationalism" and since there is no example of "pseudohistory" no one can judge whether MMFA is "on the mark" without evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbilir (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Turanism and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sun_Language_Theory - These were nationalistic pseudohistories promoted by Ataturk and they remain a persistent issue with topics on ancient Eurasia, particularly the Huns, Sumerians, etc. It's not the only form of nationalism either, I've frequently had to deal with pseudohistory which is partially plagued by anti-turkic and pro-turkic nationalism from the people who manage sites like "Hunno-bulgars" and "Turkicworld" (both of which I've repeatedly reported to Google as Pseudohistory yet still end up at the top of the search results). I'm not saying peoples of these ethnicities should be prevented from contributing - after all, the foremost archaeologist on the Huns, Istvan Bona, was Hungarian. But these nationalist ideologies that are associated with these ethnic groups need to be prevented from pervading the page. Just like say, Americans from where I live editing civil war pages to claim it wasn't about Slavery, or something. Do you get what I'm trying to say? MMFA (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Anything other than the Xiongnu?

This page purports to be about what evidence there might be for the origin of the Huns, but the entire article focuses on any tenebrous links between the Huns and the Xiongnu. Hasn't any research been done toward any other ideas? Surely the Xiongnu can't be the only people with suggested ties to them, and there might be minimal ties with any other group at all if the Huns are simply an ethnic entity unto themselves entirely. This page might as well be renamed "Hun-Xiongnu connection hypothesis" or something like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.246.231 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There are no other hypotheses that I'm aware of. The question is whether they're related to Xiongnu or not.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I've read sources, like the Ancient History Encyclopedia and National Geographic, that have said that most historians disregard the Xiongnu hypothesis as based on outdated information and that the Huns likely came from Kazakhstan. I feel like the title of the article is still a bit misleading as it is. I'll have to do more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.39.224.38 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Coming from" Kazakhstan doesn't exclude Xiongnu origins. The article is based on scholarly books and peer-reviewed sources. Those trump National Geographic or other magazines. The most recent consensus seems to be in favor of a link, but there is still controversy. The names cited in favor here are certainly not minor figures, (e.g. Christopher Atwood)--Ermenrich (talk)

Kim 2015

Hi Ermenrich, This is what was written in the source

"it was often thought that there is a gap of about two-hundred years during which we know next to nothing about the Huns [...] Fortunately, more recent research on Chinese sources has allowed us to establish a clearer picture of this ‘two-hundred years’ interlude’. Were the Northern Xiongnu extinguished as a political entity? Did they simply vanish during these two-hundred years? Were they completely absorbed by other polities like the Xianbei? The answer is none of the above [...]Archaeology in addition to the written evidence shows that the main group of Huns/Xiongnu in the Altai region (i.e. the strong Xiongnu as opposed to the weak Xiongnu Yueban) had already started to absorb the Dingling Turkic tribes to their west, an area corresponding to modern northern/northeastern Kazakhstan, and the Irtysh and Middle Ob regions (western Siberia) in the third century AD [...]The Wei Shu (102.2278-9) confirms that the Central Asian White Huns originated from the Altai region and moved into Central Asia ca. 360 AD"

Kim rejects the idea of the 200 year gap. The source did not link 360 AD to the 200 year gap. It specifically gives archival evidence that the White Hun migration occurred in 360 AD. I'm not quite sure what is your objection about? 42.61.172.8 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As the two hundred year gap is cited to Kim, I'm not sure how he can reject it. He has very clear notions of what happened to the Huns, but he can't reject the fact that sources don't report on them for 200 years because that's the time between the two dates mentioned - 153 and 360. He just takes the Wei Shu at its word, whereas many scholars do not. I'll also note that Kim is relying on archaeological evidence mostly.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Kim introduced the term "Two hundred year gap" but he did not support it, he called it "The So-called 200 year" and "supposedly... 200 year interlude". The whole first half of that chapter was dedicated to saying that there were still various sources written about the Xiongnu in this period, first the Weilue, the Weishu and Shi-san zhou ji. are you talking about a strictly contemporary source? Weilue is mid-3rd century. He only mentioned archaeology ("with written evidence") once in this chapter. i'll read Erdy and get back to you, but at least the Weilue part should be left in the article? 42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide the source specifically saying that then, which you have not done above. As I read Kim (not recently), and cannot recall any of this, I'm naturally skeptical. It seems likely that this is actually just Kim's theories identifying the Xiongnu from other sources. He has several other theories that are not really scholarly mainstream, e.g. Attila won the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields or that the Huns were from the beginning an organized empire and state. As far as I know the 200 year gap continues to be the scholarly mainstream theory, and the gap between the Book of Later Han and the Wei Shu is 200 years.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hang on. The Wei shu was written after 360 AD, like all history books. I'm pretty sure the 200 year gap is a gap in the accounts of Xiongnu history and Hunnic history, not the gap between the dates that the sources were written. If the Wei Shu (6th century source!!!) writes about something before its time I dont think it should be excluded. We could however add that it is not contemporary. For weilue: "The Weilue (=Sanguozhi 30.863-864), a mid third century AD source, which we have already met before, gives us a clear indication that the Xiongnu still existed at the time as a political entity in the Altai region, just west of their original power centre in Mongolia, a hundred years after the mid second century AD which supposedly initiated the two-hundred years’ ‘gap’ in our sources" 42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the time between the dates recorded. And what does that mean "gives a clear indication"? You aren't completing the quote.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I copypasted that from Kim's book. OK im going through the pdf: Kim also says "The Weilue also provides us with a clear sense of the geographical context in which these Xiongnu Huns were situated in the third century AD. The Weilue notes that the Zhetysu region (modern eastern Kazakhstan) directly to the southwest of the Altai (where the Xiongnu were located) was still occupied by the Wusun people, and the area to the west of this area and north of the Kangju people (centred around the city of Tashkent in what is now modern Uzbekistan) was the territory of the Turkic Dingling tribes. The Wusun and the Kangju are said to have neither expanded nor shrunk since Han times[...]the White Huns originated from the Altai mountains (where the Weilue places the Xiongnu in the third century AD)," and thats all he says about the matter. He seems to be saying that the Weilue specifically states that the Xiongnu were living in Altai in the 3rd century. Another issue is that he says something about "written evidence" that they were moving into the Kazakh-Siberian region in the 3rd century, and his source is Erdy 1995 which I have no access to.42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've asked for further input from others over at Huns. I'm sort of skeptical, but I don't have the sources fresh in my mind anymore.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I think for the sake of leaving a proportionate representation of all views it is best to leave a statement like "Kim disputes this, saying that the Weilue indicated that Xiongnu continued in the Altai during the 3rd century. He also says that there is written evidence that the Xiongnu absorbed Northern Kazakhstan and Western Siberia in the third century." I dont think theres anything inaccurate about this paraphrase. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternative view's undue weight as the IP-s attempts to present Kim ideas is not acceptable. Jingiby (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, sources should be used with respect of WP:WEIGHT.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've read the quote more carefully now. Kim appears to be depending on his identification of peoples not called the Xiongnu in the Weilue with the Xiongnu. There might be a way to include it, but we need to be more cautious. Kim has a lot of theories that are viewed with skepticism by other scholars.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do decide how to include Kim's points in a manner that satisfies everyone. I am unsure how further reservation can be added in my proposed phrasing, short of simply leaving the source out completely. Yet the source is strangely already used in the existing article in a manner which contradicts the author's line of argument. Thank you. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nezaks

Ermenrich, I apologize. This is my mistake. There was no malice. I wanted to add a deleted mention about Nezaks. Don't you mind?--KoizumiBS (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe you're acting with malice. The problem isn't adding the Nezaks, the problem is changing what the lead says: the beginning is about the relationship to the Iranian Huns. The next sentence introduces the Xiongnu theory. You keep adding Xiongnu to the first sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Earlier I removed Xiongnu from the first sentence. Then they were returned. And here I just removed the additional link. I'm not against maintaining the status quo. The main thing is that there is no misunderstanding between the editors.--KoizumiBS (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Ancestry proportions" from Neparáczki et al. (2019)

@Hunan201p: Do you really think it is a good a idea to cite in detail the "ancestry proportions" from Neparáczki et al. (2019) that are based on 34(!) ancestry informative markers (AIMs), when following studies use qpAdm and similar tools based on hundreds of thousands of SNPs from the full genome? It's like having the result of licking on a chemical sample next to a mass spectrometer analysis. Austronesier (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Austro, thanks for mentioning that. I am unsure whether to simply remove the information or to clarify that it is based on AIMs. I am not totally familiar with the following studies and I'm not sure if they contain equivalent qpAdm analysis for these specimens. I know Maroti, et al. (2022) has that for their Hun_Asia_Core samples, but I'm not immediately seeing if they have it for any European Hun samples. Any input is appreciated. Ultimately I don't mind if we just remove the AIM-based info from the article. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should be careful with that source. See [1]

In the politically polarized climate after the 2006 riots on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, and with the Euro crisis after 2008, a number of scientists who were then on the side of the political opposition, seem to have agreed that replacing the neoliberal intellectual elite’s hegemony with a new Eastern paradigm in the study of Hungarian ancestral history was of utmost importance. Since 2016, this narrative has received new scientific backing from two geneticists at the University of Szeged: Professor Tibor Török and his (then) PhD candidate Endre Neparáczki, who started giving scientific lectures at Kurultáj. They identified a genetic link to Central Asia from ninth century cemeteries across modern Hungary, publishing their findings in PLoS ONE (Neparáczki et al.2018). Following Richard McMahon (2020a: 1), this can be seen as a regional illiberal project of ‘genetic ethnology’, with all the problematic implications—with the risks of essentialism and determinism, such practices and organization of classification posing greater political dangers

Perhaps we should include criticism of the study if we're going to include it? I think PloS ONE isn't the best journal either?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I see we actually cite an article from the next year - but I suspect the same problems remain.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Welp, I've removed the AIM-based data from Neparáczki's 2019 paper. I still struggle to determine the exact ratio of geographical ancestry from Maróti's convoluted diagrams and mounds of supplementary data. If there are concerns about Neparáczki's paper, by all means add the critiques or just delete Neparáczki entirely. Deletion was what I really wanted, since I get tired of having to run through all of these studies to make sure the LTAs got all the page numbers correct and didn't falsify any information. - Hunan201p (talk)

@Hunan201p: I have been there with Maróti et al. It really took me some time to figure out from the supplementary data how the diverse cluster are actually made up (but it's nothing aginst the impenetrable mess in Kumar et al. (2022), which is unrelated here but I'm sure within your range of interest). For that paper, we should probably only cite the prose, since they have a bundle of qpAdm results for each indivdual without singling out a specific one that we could cite as high-confidence figure (pruning the ones with the best p-values obivously is OR and very bad practice).

As for @Ermenrich's interesting find: genomic research is rarely fully context-free. If it is embedded in issues from other scholarly disciplines, that's a great thing; if it emerges from ideological think tanks, that's obviously a curtain-sized red flag. Neparáczki and Török (who are mentioned in the paper by Kremmler) are co-authors of Maróti et al. (2022), and Török is the author of the 2023 review article. So we should really keep in mind a) where these papers come from and b) why their results are contextualized in the way as happens in these papers. But eventually, the question of whether research is due for inclusion or not here in WP only can come from assessments by peers in the field. While these relatively new papers are still undercited, I want to point out that the teaser to Maróti et al. in Cell was written by "uninvolved" scholars, which gives me a feeling that Maróti et al. (2022) and the secondary source Török (2023) are not just ideology-driven pieces. The fact that some aspects of their research fit within the narrative of the Orbanists does not per se disqualify it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to see. Kremmler notes that there's another project investigating Hungarian origins that comes to opposite conclusions from the pro-Orban MKI (which Török mentions as an affiliation in his review article). Török at least appears to acknowledge that Hungarian is a Uralic language (which is not a given among this crowd). However, I noticed how carefully hypothetical all his conclusions about the Ugric peoples in that article are: It seems feasible that on their way, the Xiongnus integrated a significant part of the Ugric-speaking communities. As a result, these communities left their homes and moved together with their new masters. Therefore, Ugrian populations were very likely part of the medieval course of events on the Pontic-Caspian steppes, listed in historical sources, right from the Hun period. [...] However, both the genetic data and the archaeological record provide growing evidence that during this period the Xiongnus resided between the Altai and the Urals, mostly in Ugric territories. By the time they crossed the Volga in 370 CE, their power was significantly augmented by the recruited Ugric and Sarmatian peoples. He apparently can't come out and just say that the Hungarians were part of the Huns, but he can make hypothetical statements about it (which become less marked as hypothetical as he goes on). This is definitely something we need to be on guard for.

I'd also note that the "teaser" to Maroti makes far less sweeping conclusions than the paper seems to want to.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich, Austronesier, at the end I commented Kremmler's study here Talk:Huns#Huns - old Hungarians, genetic connection. This is a typcal political story from a political book, that A side critize all things of B and B side critize all things of A. Like in U.S Democrats critize every things by Rebuplicans and inverse Rebuplicans critize every things by Democrats. In Hungary there are left liberal side and right side, they always critize each other. How can we determined which side is the "good" or "bad" guy? Is there any wiki rule about this? Indeed the right side is nationalist conservative like in every country while the left is mostly internationalist (in communist times in Hungary also) which means the left side does not care much about Hungarian history and this kind of researches. Also many non liberal non leftist nationalists Hungarians critize Orban, we also do not know the political situation about certain scholars until if they do political actions. I think scholar websites like Cell are not a political websites, many studies refering each other, many times there are international cooperations, supervisions, also Hun-Hungarian things clearly not started by the Orban regime as I provided many medieval examples earlier.

I see this is a secondary source from London by British scholars using many references not only the Hungarian researches.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00902-2

I bet in the future it will be more Hungarian and non Hungarian studies in the subject. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Origins-oriented section in "History of the Huns"

I just noticed that the contents of this section https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_the_Huns#Potential_history_prior_to_370 are not in the origins article. It is about "long shot" ideas but that's not necessarily bad. In any case if it should not be in Origins, should it be in History? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is entirely devoted to the relation of the Huns with the Xiongnu (word count for "Huns": 116, for "Xiongnu: 92). While it is sufficiently nuanced to admit that the question is far from settled, it gives little room to other hypotheses that are mentioned in History_of_the_Huns#Potential_history_prior_to_370. The only thing mentioned here is Ptolemy's Χοῦνοι. Which is technically not ideal since that section has a hatnote pointing to this article (ok, it's "see also", but still, as a reader you would expect at least some overlap). –Austronesier (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest? The section at Huns is mostly just about potential previous mentions in European sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone written anything more recently about the Chunnoi? (Ptolemy often seems surprisingly under-studied to me! I get the impression there is a lack of good modern editions?) I don't think their existence challenges much of the consensus about the Huns as a mixed people with a heavy eastern component but it does make you wonder about the origin of the ethnonym? As usual, if no one has published then there is not much we can or should do. It just seems odd that it is so infrequently mentioned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we might be able to add on the earlier mentions in the "classical sources" sections. I'm not aware of anything new on the Chunnoi specifically though.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just two small things: "Khunnoi/Chunnoi" is a bad transliteration of Χοῦνοι, obviously to increase the partial phonetic match with Hunni. I find it manipulative. Among our sources, only Kim uses that bad transliteration, so I will replace it with the standard (and commonly used) transliteration "Khounoi".

And then there's the beard thing. Yes, OR needs to go, but if no-one has talked about beards after Maenchen-Helfen in 1945 (and he does so as if Xiongnu and Huns each were culturally homogenous groups, which is poor reasoning), then the entire beard argument has no place here. Please revert/discuss if someone thinks I'm on the wrong track. –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't object to the beard thing being moved - it is sort of a strange objection (and Attila is described having a beard).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: what was the normal Greek spelling for Hun (Attila's type)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The regular spelling was Οὗννοι (Hunnoi) with spiritus asper. This spelling is so common that it also retroactively found its way (in later redactions) into of the Periegesis by Dionysius Periegetes (cf. Maenchen-Helfen's The World of the Huns, p. 445–447). –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on languages of the Iranian Huns

I believe that there is no consensus on what language the Iranian Huns originally spoke, but it's difficult to find sources on this (and other things such as the Xiongnu and artificial cranial deformation, where I'd like a more recent consensus position on whether the Xiongnu did it than 1945), partially because of the databases in the Wikimedia Library simply don't do very good searches. If anyone can help out, please do.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've solved the riddle on artificial cranial deformation (which is perhaps more neutrally called "infant head shaping"). I'd appreciate if anyone would keep an eye out for more work on it though.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Genetics section

I suspect that the part of the genetics section that I've labeled under "Individual studies" is not necessarily serving our readers well. Can those more versed in gene-craft have an edit through it?

I think some note on the problems of genetic evidence when the Huns and Xiongnu appear to have been multi-ethnic seems appropriate as well. --Ermenrich (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It is very good as it is. The introduction of the section was enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Tibor Török article

Looking over this article, while I've removed OrionNimrod's addition for the reasons stated, it appears to me that the article does still include some information that potentially belongs in the article, as Török is arguing for a reconciliation of the linguistic and archaeological evidence with the genetic data found in Maroti et al. (basically). Unfortunately, he's neither a linguist nor an archaeologist (still an archaeogeneticist), so I'm uncertain how much weight we should give his arguments. On top of that, there's the "illiberal science" problem with the "House of Arpad" project and the "Institute for Hungarian Research" he belongs to, as reported by Kremmler: it's convenient that the Török's argument just happens to support the preferred narrative of Victor Orban (though it's much more nuanced than just "the Huns are the ancestors of the Hungarians"). Austronesier, Andrew Lancaster, do you have any thoughts?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose I added info only about the Huns genetic not at all about the Hungarian one from that study (as you can see, today's Hungarians genetic described as a very complex, I also do no know any genetic studies which would say that too simple "the Huns are the ancestors of the Hungarians" ignoring many other components). Btw I do not know what is Orban narrative about genetic, or even he would say anything like that, I did not follow much political things. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)