Talk:Huns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetics[edit]

Genetics confirm genetic mixing between magyars and huns CE 217-315.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.204.36 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35617951/

Predecessors and Sucessors[edit]

The huns formed a state, proto-state under Bleda and Attila. Thats the consensus (even if it was a "robbing state")

So, it should have their predecessors and sucessors¡

For predecessors:

-Since the xiong-Nu connection debate will rage for some time, no mention should be done.

-The Alans, conquered by huns

-The Greuthungi, conquered by huns

-The Thervingi, conquered in part by huns

-Roman Pannonia province: base under Attila

-Perhaps lombards, ruggi,sarmatian, and other conquered tribes

Successors:

-After Nedao:

-The kingdom of the Rugii

-The kingdom of the Gepids

-The kingdom of the Ostrogoths

-A suebian kingdom in the danube.

Bolghars, kutrigurs, utrigurs remain speculative, so no for the moment.

Comments?

Székelys[edit]

@Dominiks1970:, the quoted source ([1]) says g Q1a2- M25 is very rare in Europe, where it has highest frequency among Seklers (a Hungarian speaking ethnic group in Transylvania) according to Family Tree DNA database..--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)fReply[reply]

Endre Neparáczki and his colegues are not real scientist, they do not follow scientific methode, they strictly serve and execute political orders of the government. As a teenager he already decided that he will prove that the debunked and widely refuted medieval myths and tales represent the only historic truth, and the scholars were all wrong.. And accordingly, they serve this political agenda. For example, they group of that scientists "Magyarságkutató Intézet" were created against the Hungarian Academy of sciences. The researchers of "Magyarságkutató intézet" had low rank in scientific hierarhy. They consider academic scientists and scholars as anti-Hungarians and liberal/communists
HEre you can read five articles about that institution: "Magyarságkutató Intézet" https://hungarianspectrum.org/tag/magyarsagkutato-intezet/ Dominiks1970 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any connection between that link and the author of the study. I have my own questions about its findings, but it's a reliable source as far as anyone has established here.--14:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Magyarságkutató Intézet which is the institution of these publications. The above cited five articles are about that institution. Here is the homepage of the institution. Main page: https://mki.gov.hu/en/ or read this: https://mki.gov.hu/en/hirek-en/minden-hir-en/a-hunyadiak-eredete-en

--Dominiks1970 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krakkos and Austronesier:, you both deal a lot with genetics, do either of you have an opinion on this?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ermenrich: The statement in Neparáczki et al. (2019) looks indeed a bit cherry-picked. AFAICT from other sources, the haplogroup is also found with much higher frequency in present-day Central Asian populations, so it may just be evidence of a wider C. Asian connection. Why the occurrence of the haplogroup among Okunevo and Karasuk individuals should support a Hunnic origin is also not clear to me. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Austronesier, that's actually sort of been my problem with the entire study - it's stretching evidence that Hungarians have steppe connections, which no one doubts, to argue that they have Hun/Xiongnu connections. Still, in previous discussions no one has been able to find fault with it... @AndrewLancaster:, I understand you're also knowledgeable on this subject, what do you think about it (and the genetics section as a whole perhaps)?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging again, with a space inbetween: @Andrew Lancaster: –Austronesier (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guys, have you recognized the political connections and pressure of these "scientists" at the "Magyarságkutató intézet" in the cited 5 articles of Hungarian Spectrum? Dominiks1970 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ermenrich: I am not familiar with this case, but maybe these remarks help:

  • Haplogroup Q-M242 is indeed unusual in Europe and more common far to the east, at least in modern populations. OTOH there can be big differences between modern and ancient frequencies and perhaps more importantly (because it clashes with "common sense" high frequency in a modern area does NOT normally correspond with point of origin.
  • 3 Y chromosomes is not a good data set. It is not only small, but it is also the wrong technology for trying to establish ancestry. Every Y chromosome is a toss of the dice because they are inherited unmixed. If you find out you are Q-M242 what does it mean for you personally, as one person? Not much. Every autosomal test effectively looks at a wide range of ancestors. Probably they've used this test because it is what they had access to. Maybe Ancestry.com should start offering tests to eastern European archaeologists!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y DNA is an old backward technology, it is not suitable to determine personal ancestry, neither suitable for the understanding of the relationship or ancestry of populations, even if you have large sample, it is just simply useless. Y DNA is fantastic, if you want to examine movement of ancient populations, but nothing more. In the era of modern autosomal and full genom researches, the backward Y DNA technology is similar stupidity, as sombody want to build an airplane with steam-engine in the era of modern jet propulsion! Let's don't forget, with Autosomal and full genom researches, you can compute/determine genetic distances of persons and whole populations and put them to PCA maps--Dominiks1970 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Lancaster, do you have an opinion on the use of any of the other genetics articles here? This one is actually by some of the same authors [2]. Is there a way we can make the presentation accord with the fact that the evidence is actually pretty sparse in some cases? A lot of them use only a few samples and Y-DNA. The exceptions seem to be [3] and [4]--Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ermenrich: I hope no-one minds if I slip a short answer in here, using a big indent to show that I am typing after the mass of material below. This is an old problem on Wikipedia and difficult to find a simple solution. In theory we are not supposed to be reporting every lab result, but only information which has been processed and widely accepted by experts who have then proceeded to comment on them. In effect Wikipedia has however collected Masses of results come quickly from smaller labs. It is sometimes difficult to tell how seriously we should take them, but obviously if we leave it up to Wikipedians to decide which reports to exclude then editors will suspect each other of bias and no doubt they will often be right. (Just banning the whole topic seems impossible of course, because this is a genuinely important field.) In practice I and others have argued that for small reports, even if they come from a proper academic lab, we should still usually try to limit ourselves to the dry data. Strong interpretations of data should come from authors, teams or articles who are highly cited. Even then there are often problems. Population geneticists seem to feel forced to write conclusions about issues they are often ill-equipped to write about, such as language families and archaeology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrew, the biggest problem is that: this institution "Magyarságkutató Intézet" and its scientists serve strict political expectations. See: https://hungarianspectrum.org/tag/magyarsagkutato-intezet/ Dominiks1970 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ermenrich I had a read at the talk page while waiting a reply in a other section, and I have this article on my watch list.
I noticed that you removed a "However" from the article, which anticipated some statements contrasting with what previously said, saying (in edit summary) that "someone seems to be making an argument about the nature of the Huns".
OTOH in this section, you seem to start an argument against the authors of the research(es) proposing to "make the presentation accord with the fact that the evidence is actually pretty sparse in some cases".
While the "however" in the article seem logical to me (the reaserches are presented in chronological order, and the late 2020 research conclusion contrasts with the previous one (early 2020), I don't understand why you now attempt to make an argument against the researchers to promote your own idea, when you just preached against such behavior? Why do you want to make the presentation accord with the "fact" the evidence is scarce? What does it even mean? Are you saying we should criticize the authors of the researches or their methods so your idea about the origin (or non origin) of the Huns can be promoted?
@Dominiks1970 You seem knowledgeable about this Hungarian study, and if these researchers are indeed politically motivated I agree the connection with Szekelys in article should be discussed. But keep in mind that some researchers could be politically motivated to make certain researches (on certain topics), and even hope for certain conclusions, but if they can legitimally prove their point, their conclusion is not to be discarded just because of their inspiration.
I don't know much about genetics, but, if I remember correctly Y chromosome is the one passed down from father to son. For some cultures the paternal descent is extremely important (Islam). In the Occident, surnames are inherited from the father, too. So many people would consider that alone the actual meaning of ancestry. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, what? Including "however" in this context is not neutral. It reads as an attempt to dismiss the findings of the first study and promote the findings of the second.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds normal to me. Reading the article I don't even think whether it is neutral or not. It is just not a problem for a reader. Next statement is in disagreement with previous one, so I use "however".
OTOH if I thought the article must not be neutral and/or I had some specific concept about the Huns or their origin, I may fantasize that that adverb is malicious.
Let's see what the other editors have to say about this adverb.
Anyway, that was not the main point... Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ermenrich You also changed "lack of Xiongnu samples with "scarcity of Hunnic samples", without giving a reason.
Was it just confusion or what? Did you read the research? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Székely is not a real separate ethnic group according to modern studies, but rather they are historic social group.
The Székelys speak the Hungarian language "without any trace of a Turkic substratum", indicating that they did not have a language shift during their history, according to scholars, who propose that the Székelys were descended from privileged Hungarian groups. Most place names in Székely Land are of Hungarian origin, showing that the Székelys spoke Hungarian when they settled in the region. The three main Hungarian dialects of Székely Land are closely connected to the Hungarian variants spoken along the western and southwestern borders of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. The dialect of the Székelys of Marosszék is similar to the dialects spoken by the Hungarian communities near Pressburg (now Bratislava in Slovakia) and in southern Burgenland. The Hungarian variant of Udvarhelyszék is closely related to the tongue of the Hungarians in Baranya County and Slavonia. The easternmost Székely communities' dialect is connected to the Hungarian variant of Burgenland.
Other important social phenomenon supports the social group thesis. If Székely men moved to the cities or towns in Székelyland, they lost their Székely social status and identity immediately, moreover the new townsmen and the Székely villagers considered each other as extraneous. It also confirms that Székelys considered themselves as a special Hungarian social group rather than a real separate ethnic group in the medieval and early modern period. A very similar social phenomenon and a new strong local identity emerged in Hajdúság region of Hungary in the early modern period, when the Hajdú soldiers got feudal privileges and own territory from prince Stephen Bocskai. Dominiks1970 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominiks1970 Thanks for the interesting information. So the Szekelys looks to be the same as Hungarian.
The fact Hungarians and Szekelys would bed the same does not exclude Hun/Xiongnu ancestry though as the Magyars as a whole could have such ancestry.
You say that they speak Hungarian without Turkish substratum. This however doesn't exclude a Hun or Xiongnu origin. We don't know the language of the Xiongnu and Huns. Crazy thought: suppose they spoke Magyar. Their language was preserved by the Szekelys, while that of the other Xiongnu became Turkish due to later Gokturk influence. Or, more likely, they Szekelys could have shed the Hun/Xiongnu language and adopted the Magyar language in the intervening centuries between the end of Huns and Magyar conquest. Szekely might not have a Turkish substratum but I am pretty sure it has a Slavic substratum. They could have adopted Magyar just like the Avars or some other Balkanic people adopted Slavic, as a lingua franca.
About your previous reply: what concerns me the most is this: "Endre Neparáczki and his colegues are not real scientist, they do not follow scientific methode". I have not looked at the source and don't know the authors, so I wonder what do you mean by this.
If the genetic tests were executed well and aren't compromised, I think that the gathered evidence might still be valuable, no matter the political affiliation of the researchers. However, if their political position is extreme and has been considerably criticized, we might consider mentioning it in the article. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He work and follow pre-conceptions. I can give you the link of the PHD thesys of Neparáczki, long before he made his first "researches". He has turanist views. See the Hungarian Turanism article. https://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/3794/1/Neparaczki_PhD.pdf
PAGE 68 support the pre-conception long before his researches:
"Our data is also supported by historical sources, and based on our data, there are many so far the authenticity of a historical source with doubtful credibility can be verified. Thus, for example, medieval Hungarian according to chronicles, the ancestral home of the "occupying" Hungarians is Asia, who are in a fraternal-descent relationship they stood with the Huns. Our chronicles report on the second arrival of the Hungarians instead of the conquest in (Vienna Capable Chronicle). ARC. In László's court, Simon Kézai records that in 1282 a Hungarian clan heads consider themselves to be of Hun origin. The Hungarian folk tradition (say, folktale) also preserved the Hun-Hungarian sense of identity, in addition to the Mongolian, Kazakh, Turkish tradition also holds that the Hungarians are descendants of the Huns and a people related to them, who They came from Inner Asia. Always before the arrival of our ancestors from Inner Asia to the Carpathian Basin they moved in the field of view of great cultural peoples, thanks to which many traces of them appeared between Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Muslim, and Greek written sources, which are the Hun and Onogur (Hungarian) they report on the identity of a people (Thúry, 1897). Based on the genetic results, Árpád's people remained on the Eastern European steppe or thereabouts could have been a branch of the retreating Huns. It follows that folk traditions and chronicles are based on real facts, their data must be taken seriously. So most likely a "second arrival" is also based on real foundations, that is, the Hungarian ethnogenesis from here on is not can be narrowed down to the "occupiers", but should be extended to at least the European Hun era."
He search proofs and interpret everything in genetics to support folk tales and legends, and to support his pre-conceptions.

Such tales myth like that (please do not laugh) : https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Hunor_and_Magor from that medieval Gesta: Gesta Hungarorum, which contradicts the historiography of all more ancient Byzantine Frank-German Kievan and Polish chronicles and sources .

Dominiks1970 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link and your translation. I don't understand Hungarian but I believe you. So this researcher seems to have some pretty strong beliefs.
So, he would not follow the scientific method because he doesn't reason inductively, but already has the answer and looks for evidence to back his strong views, I suppose.
What I ask is: if his studies were conducted legitimately, and if they indeed show some evidence of a Szekely-Hun relation, should we consider publishing them in spite of the researcher's background and personal beliefs? I believe yes
So, provided everything is legitimate, we need to determine whether there is indeed such evidence. I get the point of @Austronesier (I think). However, if Q1a2 was indeed find among the Szekelys it must mean something, as, beside the Hungarians (if they indeed aren't the Huns) among Central Asians only the Avars and Huns populated those (Magyar/Transylvanian) lands in great numbers (excluding the brief invasion by Mongols, who did not settle), and possibly some Cumans. Were Q1a2 Avar, we should have it at higher level among Slovaks and Czechs and general Hungarians. However, the source apparently states it is rare in Europe. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Ermenrich, Erminwin, Krakkos, Austronesier, Mark. PaloAlto, Andrew Lancaster, Norden1990, Gyalu22!
I see Dominiks1970 is a new registered user who has rather a personal or political problem with Hungarian scholars. He wrote: "Endre Neparáczki and his colegues are not real scientist, they do not follow scientific methode" I think we are not genetic scholars here in the Wikipedia to decide this, I think Dominiks1970 is also not a scholar. I think this is not our problem if he does not like some genetic results, and genetic is a science, a math.
Many genetic studies were made by the Institute of Hungarian Research (Neparáczky is the director of the archeogenetic research branch), were published in very high ranked scientific journals, like Helyon.
Heliyon is a very prestigious Q1 ranked journal, a top ranked scientific journal where only 17% of the articles are accepted.
If Neparáczky and many other scholars who are participating in these studies would be not a real scholars, then why do top scientific journals accept their scientific works?
These analized genomes by the Institute of Hungarian Research (Hunyadi family, Hungarian kings, 265 ancient genomes from Huns, Avars, old Hungarians...) were uploaded and to international database, these samples were aproved, for example mytrueancestry uses this data instantly. It is not surprising, because I am Hungarian, for example I can see many genomes matches with these uploaded old locally samples, however I did my personal test with a foreign 3rd party genetic company, which proves the genetic data are correct. (I mean as a Hungarian person, I uploaded my genetic profile anomyously and the website does not show me Chinese, Japanese or African genom matches, but a lot of local Carpathian Basin sample matches, which was expected.)
Why do genetic sites aprove the genetic studies of Neparáczky team if he is not a real scholar?
Also there are many cooperation with other countries, for example regarding the Hunyadi genetic:
Researchers from the Institute of Hungarian Research, the University of Szeged, the University of Pécs, the Hungarian Institute of Justice, researchers from the Croatian Ministry of Culture and Media, and a researcher from Atlanta's Praxis Genomics LLC participated in the research.
This is also very big genetic study with lot of scholars regarding Huns, Avars, Hungarians by the same Institute of Hungarian Research:
Other similar studies published by the same Institute of Hungarian Research:
This book was published by the Institute of Hungarian Research regarding the genetic studies where explain the researches:
https://mki.gov.hu/assets/pdf/MKI_EN_006_kings_and_saints_B5_web.pdf
I suggest to read 3 chapters from these academic scholars: Makoldi Miklós, Neparáczki Endre, Török Tibor
Similar genetic studies by other scholars from many other countries, these foreing scholars are usually refering to the studies of Neparáczky, and the Hungarian studies also usually refering to other foreign studies:
It seems for me it is just a personal harrasment from Dominiks1970 who say that those people "are not real scientist, they do not follow scientific methode" If Neparáczky and many other scholars who are participating in these studies would be not a real scholars, then why top scientific journals accept their works? Morover I see many similar genetic studies from French, German, etc scholars who are refering to the genetisc studies of Neparáczki, why if Neparáczky would be not a real scholar?
Dominiks1970 says that "Neparáczky is turanist", the Hun-Hungarian things are "laughable folk tales and legends, and pre-conceptions". It is fact and not a preconception that the Hungarian-Hun connection and tradition was the standard in all Hungarian literature and also in non-Hungarian literatures before the Finno-Ugric theory became the mainstream theory at the end of the 19th century.
Probably he does not like if a modern science does not support a theory which is based only a language. Because Finno-Ugric theory is just a theory, it was always a lot of Hungarian scholars who does not accept it, which proves that Dominiks1970 has a political motivation (as he emphasized many times) that he does not like to show results which support other theories. The Finno-Ugric theory started as a language theory then it became the theory of the origin of the Hungarians. The problem with this theory: For example, the Afro-Americans are speaking English, but they did not originate from England. For example, I think we cannot determine the origin history of an Afro-American person in New York from the English language. For example, the Avars, the Pechenegs, or Cumans also became Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin, they speak a “Finno-Ugric” language, but their origin cannot be “Finno-Ugric”.
The Finno-Ugric theory, this linguistic theory, this origin of the Hungarian people theory, today it has shrunk to a third, there is no longer a theory of origin, there is no longer a common cultural landscape. For example, Hungarians have a golden deer or a miracle deer cult (like Scythians and Huns), a flying táltos horse that eats ember (the táltos is a figure in Hungarian mythology, a person with supernatural power). The northern Finnish and Uralic folks have a bear cult. The Hungarians used blood oaths like the Scythians, the Hungarians were horse archer warriors and used the same weapons as the Huns, Avars, and Scythians, while the Finnish and Uralic folks did not.
Today the Finno-Ugric origin dogma is over. Nowadays in Hungary, there is a paradigm shift in Hungarian prehistory. In the 1960–80s, the framework of the prehistory research was based on Finno-Ugric linguistics. Nowadays Hungarian prehistory is based on a new methodology: archeology, archaeogenetics, analyzing the old sources, and reconciliation of the researches of academic disciplines. In the previous decades, based on the Finno-Ugric dogma, the Hungarians researchers investigated only the Ural region and neglected the other areas, but nowadays Hungarians scholars started again to explore other regions regarding the origin of Hungarians, such as Scythian regions, the Caucasus region, excavation of Hun cemeteries in Mongolia with collaboration and sharing knowledge with foreign scholars. Doubtless, in the previous decades, Hungarian scholars who researched the Finno-Ugric theory, language things, archeology, etc made many useful types of researches, which can be used in a different way regarding the latest modern genetic researches. According to the recent researches, the Ural region was just a short dwelling place.
However the Finno-Ugric theory has also useful materials, that a Scythian folk, the Mansi which used horse burials even in the 19th century, the Mansi moved to the north to the forested regions from the steppe zone in the Iron Age, they could give words to north, then these words were taken by the local fisher and hunter folks. The Finno-Ugric peoples lived in the north, there are possible connection with the Scythian peoples who lived southward, but the culture came from the south to the north and not inverse, so if the Finnish language has some similar words, it means the Finno-Ugric peoples was taken words from the Scythians in the past.
By the way I do not know what does mean "turanist", but Neparáczky just explained what was the standard in the past, why would be this a preconception to explain what was the standard history in the past? Dominiks1970 says that only Hungarian folk tales say about the Huns, however this is also not true, I know and I able to present a lot of amount of medieval foreign sources (German, Italian, Byzantine...) who are clearly say the Hungarians are Huns, Avars, and Scythians. Even the English name of Hungarians is "Hun-garian".
Just 1 example: Anglo-Saxon cotton map from 1040, in the territory of the Kingom of Hungary named: "Hunnorum gens" (Hun race)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Cotton_world_map.jpg
Dominiks1970 literally say that everybody was silly in the past before the 19th century, because he has personal problem with some genetic studies.
By the way this Hun-Hungarian conncetion is very complicated. Summarizing these studies:
And many above linked genetic studies suggest the Huns emerged from the Asian Scythians: Scythian tribes moved east, archeologists found a lot of blonde mummies in the Tarim Basin in Eastern China. The Asian Scythians played a key role in the formation of the Asian Hun Empire. The predominantly European-looking Asian Scythians merged with the local population in East Asia and southern Siberia, followed by other European Sarmatians during the Xiongnu period, later Alan elements. The Asian Hun Empire had a civil war and the losing Xiongnu tribes belonged largely to the Europid anthropological type who were displaced to Central Asia in the first century. Expanding to the west they integrated the related Sarmatian tribes and mixed with Sakas, and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns.
According to these genetic researches, the Hungarian conquerors had many genomes from the Huns, the Hun cultural impact could be more significant. The proto-Hungarians and Huns admixed around 300, later the old Hungarians integrated more additional Hun remains on their way through the steppe zone. This means there were original Huns among the Hungarian conquerors who represented the population of the former Hun Empire. The genetic studies proved the Hun, the Avar, and the Hungarian populations were present during the centuries together in that huge steppe zone, and genetic continuity was detected between them.
A significant part of the Hungarian conqueror elite completely lacked the "proto-Ugric" heritage, instead showing themselves to be of Hun or Avar descent, with varying degrees of Iranian (Alan) and local admixture.
The horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes. The domestication of horses got a huge impact on the development of human civilization. It was a continuous movement of the horse archer nations between the west and the east in the past. The western end of the Eurasian steppe zone is the Carpathian Basin, and the eastern end is the Ordos region. The Scythian nations moved east to conquer the eastern regions, they controlled the full steppe area. This 8000 km long area was the ancient homeland of the horse archer Scythian folks, they were a tribal confederation, and the Hungarian tribes were among them. According to modern genetic studies, the old Hungarians was less homogeneous group than today's Hungarians in the conquering Hungarian period. The blood oath was a Scythian tradition and many tribes together became a new nation through this custom. The vast majority of old Hungarians were Europids. Even a lot of Hungarian conquerors had blue eyes, light brown, red, and blonde hair. The name of the tribal confederation always came from the name of the strongest leading tribe, who was raised on the shield, who was the elected leader among them. The Huns were also not only Huns. In Hungary, there are Iazyges, Palócs, Székelys... in the Carpathian Basin, but it is called "Magyar-country" in the Hungarian language because Árpád was raised on the shield from the Megyer tribe, and this tribe and he was the elected leader. But it was more tribes always in the Carpathian Basin. But there were many comebacks in many waves such as the Huns, the Avars, the Hungarians. The Carpathian Basin had constantly a base population and according to the latest archaeogenetics results, this base population had a relationship with the returning nations.
Archaeogenetics study by French academics, Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu, Asian Hun cemetery in Asia:
Xiongnu Y-DNA connects Huns & Avars to Scytho-Siberians | Indo-European.eu
The study is confirming the presence of Andronovo or Scytho-Siberian ancestry in the Asian Huns. Moreover, these haplotypes also matched those of ancient Hungarian rulers, which indicate the persistence of some Asian Hun paternal lineages in the gene pool of early Hungarian conquerors. Close matches were also found with Scytho-Siberians. The database search also revealed a shared haplotype between a Hun person in the cemetry and King Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196), one of the most significant rulers of the first Hungarian dynasty as well as a matching haplotype between an another Asian Hun person in the cemetry and another male individual found in the Royal Basilica in Hungary where King Béla III was buried. More Asian Hun individuals also carried haplotypes similar to those carried by the 10th century Hungarian conquerors and by 7–8th century Avar individuals. The genetic study suggests that some modern subclades, those related to Avars or Hungarian Conquerors became first integrated among Scythians. The Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian conqueror elite and belonged to the branch that was observed in Asian Hun samples. Moreover, similar haplogroups were also major components of these groups, reinforcing the view that Huns, Avars and Hungarian conquerors derive from the Asian Huns as was proposed until the 18th century and declared in medieval documents.
My personal story:
I am in Europe, for example 6 family members of me did a personal genetic test with 23andme in anonymous way in different time and the results showed that we are close relatives, because this is simple math, the website connected my father and my mother together with me that I have their child, and the website connected to us 2 of my well knows cousins who are living in the USA who are made the same test with the same company, which means the genetics is not a false science. Then I uploaded my result to mytrueancestry. Many Hungarians are making personal genetic tests and the majority of Hungarians have similar results as I saw many. According to these genetic tests, there are 3 main components in the today's Hungarian genetic: the Hungarians have a vast amount of shared genomes with local ancient Stone Age and Bronze age samples from the Carpathian Basin which was the western part of the Scythian civilization and where later the Hungarian state was established around 900. Hungarians also have a big Scythian impact on their genetics from the Scythians and from Scythian folks (Sakas, Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, Hungarian tribes of Árpád). And of course, Hungarians have Germanic and Slavic genetic impacts. For example I can see mostly local Carpathian Basin and Scythian samples from the whole Eurasian Steppe in my genetic map, I have also many Asian Scythian sample matches from the Iron Age (Pazyryk Scythian, Sauromatian, Saka Scythian...)
If you see mytrueancestry then you will see selecting modern nations that the Hungarian genetic is most close to the Scythians among the ancient nations which was claimed in that "laughable medieval folk tales" and a lot of foreign sources.
OrionNimrod (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOR. We are not here to share our thoughts and assumptions about scholars, theories, peoples. Nevertheless, it is really interesting that peoples in our region are obssessed with their alleged relationship with obscure short-living fallen "empires" - the Romanians with Dacia, the Slovaks with "Great" Moravia, and the Hungarians with the Huns. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Borsoka, That is why I linked here above many scientific genetic studies regarding the ancient steppe folks because that is not WP:NOR. Did you see these genetic links above? I shared that links, because a new registered user said that those sourced studies made by "not real scholars..." which is his personal opinion. You are Hungarian, you know well the Hungarian history, you know well this Hun-Scythian thing is more than 1000 years obsession, you know well Hungarians were always all the time obsessed with the Huns (all medieval Hungarian literature, and still many things even after the 19th century Finno-Ugric theory, today's Hungarian national hymn mention the Huns, Attila painting in the Hungarian parliament...), morover a lot of foreign medieval sources from many countries much eralier than the medieval Hungarian documents wrote the same that the Hungarians had Hun connection. Romanian, and Slovak obsessions are quite new comparing this. Anyway genetic is science, and we are not here to deny their results, which made by many academic scholars from many countries. If there are more academic theories, we can present all. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with @OrionNimrod@OrionNimrod here. He was just replying to another user by showing why, in his opinion, the criticized researcher is reliable. And he added sources too. Also, I thought Wp:nor was for articles and not talk pages.
Thanks Orion Nimrod for your long and detailed reply.
I have to say that, regardless of the actual origin of the Magyar/Szekelys, there is no doubt that all Hungarians descent from the Huns. In fact, I am pretty sure all Europeans descent from the Huns. Consider that they say half Europeans descend from Charlemagne, and about 20 milion people from Genghis Khan. These are singles individuals who lived later/much later than the Huns, a whole people, in position of ruthless command and probably polygamous and very sexually active at least in the upper classes (consider that even on the day of Priscus visit to Attila, the Hun king got a marriage with a random woman on his way).
However, if I am not mistaken, you can descend from someone (distant ancestor) and have none of their genes.
It is interesting that the Szekelys apparently share dna with the Huns. Whether this is because they are actually the Huns who just changed name, or because they mixed with the heavily Hun-mixed Pannonians we don't know, and probably never will. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neparáczki set up a pre-conception, (like a true believer) that he will prove that (the often ridiculous) medieval gestas were right. Iterestingly such Gestas are supported only by some nationalist Romanian scholars with anti-Hungarian sentiment (including the self-appointed scholar Nicolae Ceasusescu ) , Hungarian scholars always rejected it, similar to the Czech , Serb, German Austrian and Slovak scholars, and it is widely considered unreliable source among western scholarship (UK and USA). So Neparácki wnat to prove a pre-conception. He use backward technology for that, the so-called Y chromosomes (instead of modern full geno and autosomal genetic researches), which can not provide personal and ethnic group sized ancestry, neither can depict genetic distance maps of various ethnic groups and paste it into a PCA map. Y chromosomes are good to depict male migrations, especially important in migration period, but can not prove ethnicity. Using Y DNA in the age of modern full genome and autosomal DNA researches is like trying to use a steam engine to propel an airplane in the age of modern jet propulsion.

Scythian civiliaztion and Hun civilization are oxymorons. The mening of the word "nomad" is the opposite of the word civilization. Nomads did not have even civilization, since the word civilization refer to settled agricultural people, who had cities towns and permanent villages. Civilized/civilization derived from the Latin term: city civis civilis etc. Original scythians has nothing to do with conqueror Hungarians, they were indo-iranian speaker people. Another turanist fairly tale are the Sumerian origin of Hungarians.

The remnants of the Huns fled to the east after 453 and were soon dispersed, so neither in the Carpathian basin nor before that, when the Hungarian tribal confederation was formed, they could no longer become part of the Hungarian confederation.

Due to the organizational habits of equestrian nomadic peoples, all major nomadic tribal confederations consisted of ethnic groups with diverse languages and cultures. Some tribes split into two and even joined different alliances, a new alliance was often designated by the neighboring peoples with the name of the nomadic alliance that previously lived in the same area. During the time of Attila, the central camp of the Huns was in the southern part of the Hungarian Great Plain, but when, after the death of the great king (453), the former allies of the Huns inflicted a heavy defeat on them, the Huns retreated to the east, and certainly merged into the successive Turkish tribal confederations, because under their own name they did not appear later. Thus, the Hungarians who arrived in the Carpathian basin more than four hundred years later could no longer find Huns here.

The Huns who migrated back to the east remained as an independent ethnic group for only a few decades. Therefore, when the Hungarian tribes living in the Turkish tribal confederations in the 8-9 In the 19th century, they became considerably stronger and organized their own tribal confederation, although – like all other nomadic confederations – they included other ethnicities besides the Hungarian-speaking ones, the Huns were could not be among the peoples who joined to Hungarians.

The origin of ancient nations, is a very complex multidisciplinar science, which includes archeology, history, genetics, lingiusts however people like Neparáczki try to neglect these, and try to re-interpret freely (without competence) even the language and culture of the ancient people. It is a good scientific criticism about his work: (Google translator) https://m-nyest-hu.translate.goog/renhirek/no-para-no-finnugor?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Another good criticism, how laughable are the arguments of Neparáczki: https://m-nyest-hu.translate.goog/renhirek/hun-ugor-gentango?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Neparáczki is against the proven fact, that Hungarian language belong to the Finno-ugric language group, despite he is not even a linguist!--Dominiks1970 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dominiks1970"Neparáczki is against the proven fact, that Hungarian language belong to the Finno-ugric language group, despite he is not even a linguist!"
That is why Neparáczky made gentic studies, not a linguist studies... do you see the published studies are genetic studies? It is not our problem that you deny genetic results because you have preconception that the language group = genetic origin of people. Genetics is science, math, genetic is proven fact. Altough, the Hungarian genetic is very far from Finnish people. The genetic, the origin of the people does not link necessary with the language, for example Afro-Americans speak English but they are not originate from England.
"The remnants of the Huns fled to the east after 453 and were soon dispersed"
There are many Byzantines sources about the Huns above the Black Sea 100 years after Attila. Seems you have lack of knowledge in the topic. Also later the Avars were refered as Huns in many old contemporary sources. These genetic studies connected the Avars and Huns as well.
Please tell your feedback to the top ranked scientific journals and to other genetic scholars that you know these result and methods better than the published documents and you want to supervise the results. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not proven fact, as you try to suggest. With wrong interpretation of archeology and history and written with strong biassed pre-conceptions, genetics can be misleading at best. All of his fantasy is built on backward Y DNA which is not so conviencing like a modern full genom or autosomal researches. Interestingly he never published the results of available autosomal researches, which is suspicious.
Ethnic Hungarian genetics is very far from the highly mixed Asian-like genetics of the Huns, the Hungarian conquerors, and from any Central Asian people like Scythians. Modern Hungarians are genetically not closer to that Central-Asian ancient people like to Khoekhoe people of Africa, or Australian aboriginal people. It means that there is no relationship with them. The closest genetic relatives of modern Hungarians (on PCA genetic distance maps) are the Western Christian neighbouring people, in that order: Slovenians , Austrians , Slavonians and Czechs. Interestingly Slovaks are too oriental and are further from Hungarians than the above mentioned ethnic groups, depsite their migration to the Alföld region and sharing hundreds of years in the same state.
Székelys - as it is revealed from their old letters and correspondence from archival offices - were not real ethnic group on its own, but simply privileged social group, a legal cathegory like the Hajdú people of Hajdúság region. IF they left their village and moved to one of the towns of Székelyland, they ceased to be Székely anymore, and they Székely identity immediatelly gone. It was not until the post 1848 period, where székely townspeople started to adopt the Székely identity. After that a quesy sub-ethnic group identity emerged, biut it is a modern phenomenon.
Even if they have some Asian markers, it does not mean that they are truly an other fantastic ethnicgroup like late-avars, or conqueror Hungarians etc.. fairly tales, but comes from the fct, they were the bulwark against brutal nomadic people like Cumans. Kun military incursions were not realized only in murders, but also, as usual, mass rape of women. Dominiks1970 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means that there is no relationship with them. The closest genetic relatives of modern Hungarians (on PCA genetic distance maps) are the Western Christian neighbouring people, in that order: Slovenians , Austrians , Slavonians and Czechs
You need to consider also historical sources here. All these people were in contact with the Huns or their progeny. Further, most of these people were ruled by the Avars, in similar fashion as the Huns a few centuries earlier.
Genetic similarity with them does not disprove an Avar/Hun origin. If anything it confirms it. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Domniks1970
''they could no longer find Huns there'', but they did find the Pannonian/Scythian population, heavily mixed with Huns due to the land being controlled by them via a ruthless regime for about a century.
If the Q-etc. DNA was indeed found in Huns ''and'' Szekelys it is a matter of interest. Because if it was Avar it should be at higher level in Czechs, and if it was Cuman it should be high level in Hungarians. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dominiks1970, I see just your preconception that you want to determine the result of a genetic study and you are not happy it is not match with your preconception. You can repeat the same but please consult the scholars. Those genetic studies are relaiable academic sources, while your personal problem is: Wikipedia:No original research. The full modern history is based on old sources, if all Hungarian and a lot of foreign medieval sources stated something, and if this thing was proven by genetic science, why it is so painful for you? Do you say every people before the 19th century (before the Finno-Ugric theory) was stupid and liar? And why would be preconception of the scholars if they mention that the Hun-Hungarian connection was declared in medieval documents? It is fact, or it is forbidden to mention?
"Ethnic Hungarian genetics is very far from the highly mixed Asian-like genetics of the Huns, the Hungarian conquerors, and from any Central Asian people like Scythians. Modern Hungarians are genetically not closer to that Central-Asian ancient people like to Khoekhoe people of Africa, or Australian aboriginal people. It means that there is no relationship with them. The closest genetic relatives of modern Hungarians (on PCA genetic distance maps) are the Western Christian neighbouring people, in that order: Slovenians , Austrians , Slavonians and Czechs."
Of course the closest relatives group to Hungarians are their neighbors (the Finish genetic are far from Hungarian but it not problem for you to say "proven fact"), but I am talking about the closest ancient groups: Please check yourself by visiting the website before you deny the Scythian connection:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/MyTrueAncestry_-_To_closest_Ancient_group.jpg
Archaeogenetics study by French academics:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4
“We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.” “East Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since.”
Another archaeogenetics study by French academics, Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu, Asian Hun cemetery in Asia:
https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/
"The study is confirming the presence of Andronovo or Scytho-Siberian ancestry in the Asian Huns. Moreover, these haplotypes also matched those of ancient Hungarian rulers, which indicate the persistence of some Asian Hun paternal lineages in the gene pool of early Hungarian conquerors. Close matches were also found with Scytho-Siberians. The database search also revealed a shared haplotype between a Hun person in the cemetry and King Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196), one of the most significant rulers of the first Hungarian dynasty as well as a matching haplotype between an another Asian Hun person in the cemetry and another male individual found in the Royal Basilica in Hungary where King Béla III was buried. More Asian Hun individuals also carried haplotypes similar to those carried by the 10th century Hungarian conquerors and by 7–8th century Avar individuals. The genetic study suggests that some modern subclades, those related to Avars or Hungarian Conquerors became first integrated among Scythians. The Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian conqueror elite and belonged to the branch that was observed in Asian Hun samples. Moreover, similar haplogroups were also major components of these groups, reinforcing the view that Huns, Avars and Hungarian conquerors derive from the Asian Huns as was proposed until the 18th century and declared in medieval documents."
Do you think the French scholars used also a preconception because they mention the historical view before the 19th century?

OrionNimrod (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gestas are not sources, it is a medieval European genre, the European medieval ancestor of modern comics books, like modern Superman , Batman etc...
The writer did not interested about real history, otherwise he would wrote so-called Histora or Chronicle instead of Gesta.
The main goal was not the true recording of the events but creating an amusing story using some historical events as a framework. Thus a lot of hostile tribes and leaders were created to point out the military skills and the well-remembered glory of the winning rulers. (The Hungarian ones in this case.) If somebody wanted to record the events properly, wrote a historia or chronicle and not a gesta.
Important facts that you have to know about the Gesta:
  • 2 Gesta was written only in the 13th century. The Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian basin happened in the 9th century. Thus this is not a contemporary work, was created 300–400 years later.
  • 3 Modern historians analyzed the non-Hungarian personal names used by Anonymus. And the personal names that are known from contemporary sources (Byzantian and Kiev Polish and German chronicles etc). The leaders and states in the Gesta are incompatible and completely different from the leaders, and states in the much older Byzantine, Polish and German chronicles. Anonymus invented fictitious heroes or leaders, who he named after towns, rivers or place names associated with the topography. Anonymus fictional heroes fought imaginary battles against imaginary peoples and powers that did not exist in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Hungarian conquest. They realized, that Anonymus practically did not use any of the well known names of powerful emperors kings and rulers, who opposed and fought with Hungarians during the conquest period. The only plausible conclusion is that Anonymus did not know these ancient names 300–400 years later and therefore he created some names to have figures in his novel.
  • 4 G. Hungarorum has no value as historical source. It is written around 1200, with 300 years after the Hungarian conquest. It is proven that the Gesta Hungarorum preserves no credible data about the real events from the period of the Hungarian conquest period from the 9th and 10th centuries. It is mostly an invention, fairy tale of Anonymus and Kézai, who lived with 300 years after the events happened. They do not know about the important events of the Hungarian history of the conquest period, like the battles of Brezalauspurg from 907, Brenta of 899, Eisenach of 908, first Augsburg of 910, Rednitz of 910, Puchen of 919, Brescia of 924, Riade of 933, do not know about the most important enemies and allies of the Hungarians of that period like the Byzantine emperors like Leon the Wise, Constantinos Porphyrogenethos, Italian kings like Berengar the I and the II., Hugo from Provence, German princes, kings and emperors like Luitpold prince of Bavaria, his son Arnulph, kings like Louis the Child, Konrad the I, and Henrik the Birdcatcher, or the emperor Otto the I. Instead of them Anonymus invented kings and princes like Gelou, Menumorut, Salan, Glad, and battles which never happened, because no contemporary source (from the 9th to 12th century) knows anything about them.
  • 5 So Anonymus did not know the name of the contemporary names of Emperors kings and other foreign monarchs of the Hungarian conquest period, therefore he created and invented the names of the enemies of Hungarians from various mountains rivers and existing towns of his era, it is called as toponymic Romance.
  • 6 Anonymus writes that the Hungarians met the Cumans there, although in the 9th century the Cumans lived North to China, and came only in the vicinity of Hungary, in the 2nd part of the 11th century. (“Forthwith, the duke of Kiev, despatching envoys, asked the seven dukes of the Cumans, his most faithfulfriends, for help.” - Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18975/1/18975.pdf
More information: https://www.surugadai.ac.jp/sogo/media/bulletin/Ronso35/Ronso35finch.pdf
  • 7 He also writes about ancient Khazars who lived in Eastern Hungary, Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest, which is again false, because the Khazars in the 9th century lived in the Caucasus area,
  • 8 According to Gesta Hungarorum, the Kingdom of Croatia was founded by Hungarians, which is also false because Kingdom of Croatia was established by Croats around 925AD.
  • 9 Because of the previous facts, the historians think, the gesta cannot be used as a reliable source especially not as a reliable contemporary source for personal names and tribal names of the Carpathian basin in the 9th century.
Finno-ugric people are liguistic relatives of Hungarians, it means that earliest Hungarians were genetic cousins of other finno-ugric people , which is proved by genetics. learn about it here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-019-00996-0
Huns have no genetic trace in Hungary, similar to conqueror Hungarian groups, they were small elite warrior groups, who conquered vast territories and ruled over a lot of other ethnic groups.
And you come up with Y haplogroups, which is only good for modelling migrations, but they are fail to prove ethnic relationship (genetic distance and PCA maps) between ethnic groups and individuals. In a comparison of backward Y DNA and modern Autosomal DNA, the difference in data/info capacity is similar huge, as the difference between the capacity of a floppy disc and a blu-ray disc. Dominiks1970 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominiks1970 I always wondered: if the ancient Hungarian rulers wanted to legitimate their ruler in Pannonia, why would they identify with such a negative, stereotyped people as the Huns?
They could've claimed to be descendants of Avars, Bulgars, Romans, Illyrian Pannonii... Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mark. PaloAlto, it is a good question, Attila had a very negative view in the Christian medieval Europe, and Hungarian royals did many thing for the Christianity and got the highest number of saints from a single family to the world. For example Bayan Avar Khagan was more success than Attila because he unified the Carpathian Basin and his empire lasted for 250 years. Btw I know many foreign contemporary sources which clearly say Avars=Hungarians. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OrionNimrodI also believe that the Hungarians are mostly descended from Avars. IMO, they also have Hun descent but because they mixed with the Pannonians, themselves previously mixed with the Huns. Thus the Magyars would have both Avar and Hun descent but not necessarily because these two people mixed. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dominiks1970,
The questioned wiki sentences had sources regarding genetic studies, not about gestas and not about any linguist theory. I see you have just off-topic arguments, because you have personal problem with the result of the genetic studies. Please consult the genetic website that you know it better, you are just spamming the same. I see your argument is only the Gesta Hungarorum. By the way there are many Hungarian and vast amount of non Hungarians foreign high ranked medieval sources who wrote clearly Scythians=Huns=Avars=Hungarians, not only the Gesta Hungarorum. I am able to show all of them. But I supposed we are talking about genetic studies not about gestas, but I see your problem that Neparczky said what the medieval sources claimed in his study, French scholars wrote the same as I showed, do you think it is a big crime to show what was the historical view in the past? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mark! The most important task of medieval states was national defense and the maintenance of a strong army, although they had judicial functions and a very primitive public administration, but the bulk of the revenues "national income" always went to the army to build castles for defense. This accurately indicates the incredibly important prominent role of armies in medieval societies. The fantasy of Hun kinship is most likely actually King Béla III. forced it on Hungarian history. This is a good article about it: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Name_of_Hungary#European_exonyms_for_Hungarians_and_Hungary After that, even the name Hungary was very wrongly tried to derive from the Huns. the original exonym of the Hungarians was Ungari, the name of the country in Latin in the earliest sources was Ungaria. The name of the country of the Huns was Hunnia in Latin. Hunnia and Ungaria, you can see, these are not even similar.
The "H" prefix before the ethnonym and country name appeared in official Latin language Hungarian documents, royal seals and coins since the reign of king Béla III (r. 1172–1196). The German and Italian languages preserved the original form (without H prefix) of the ethnonym.
Let's not forget that the Huns and Attila himself had such a dreaded reputation in medieval chronicles as Hitler, Stalin or Pol-Pot had for 20th century people. Béla believed that if he could create such feared heroes for the Hungarians, then other peoples would be more afraid of them, perhaps less likely to attack him, this might have been a medieval "war psychology" in the eyes of Béla III. Dominiks1970 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OrioNimród, they are all based on backward Y DNA researches, which are not trustable. I know it is much more harder and expenzive to get autosomal or full genome research from ancient fossiles (and often impossible), but with Y DNA you can prove only migration of ethnic groups, but you can not determine ethnic kinship (genetic distance) between various ethnic groups or between individuals either. Interestingly, Neparáczki admitted that modern autosomal research was also used, but they were not published, as they were "only" used to isolate certain individuals, thereby ruling out the possibility that the overrepresentation of close relatives distorts the research results. This is extremely suspicious, because if, based on modern autosomal or full genome research, it turns out that the genetic distance between the Huns and the Avars and the conqueror Hungarians, etc. is unbelievably enormous, then all his research based on Y DNA markers would be immediately questionable! Dominiks1970 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dominiks1970, I see you ignore the vast amount of foreign contemporary sources which was written much earlier than the Hungarians chronicles that claimed the Hun-Hungarian-Scythian-Avar connection. Do you deliberately ignore them? Or do you have no knowledge about them? But I see you cherry picked and attack only one medieval Hungarian source which say the same as the much earlier foreign sources.
Example: Anglo-Saxon cotton map from 1040, in the territory of the Kingom of Hungary named: "Hunnorum gens" (Hun race)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Cotton_world_map.jpg
Please blame the old English map with "Hungarian national boost", the Huns had very negative image in the medieval Christian Europe.
Anyway the discussion was about the modern genetic study which were published in top ranked scientific journals, but you bring here a lot of off topic. Your real problem is that you do not like the result, and you do not like that the author mentioned what was the historical view in the past. I think the scientific journals and many foreign scholars who are referring to Neparáczky studies know better than you what is relaible. Perhaps do you want determine a wished result of a DNA study by your preconceptions? You are still forcing your personal beliefs against international academic studies. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominiks1970
Thanks for your reply. Your have a point.
But the reputation of fear might work practically for unorganized or little organized chiefdoms such as the Rouran (who sent to Chinese some guys looking worst than all the description of the European Huns combined) and the Huns (both of whom sussisted on raids on neighboring communities organized in states). Or temporary/transitional regimes like the Nazis', Ustashes', Communists, Manchukuo, Mongol empire.
. Or temporary regimes such as the Nazis', Ustashes', Manchukuo, Mongol Empire, Communists, etc.
But I don't know if that would be advisable for a blossoming state that needs to think long term, to base its legendary genesis on a people with the reputation of the Huns, since the people you are associating with now are the ones your offsring will call ancestors tomorrow.
Also, in the middle ages there was a lot of importance placed on honor, and the chivalric ideal. The manuscripts of Hungarian chronicles are themselves heavily romanticized. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OrioNimród: A prestigious journal does not mean anything by itself, since his research began on a topic and from a region that had hardly been researched by geneticists until then, so this in itself was considered a pioneering work, so it can be called sensational in its own right. That's why it's no wonder that it immediately hits the magazines. These have not been verified by other research groups. I'll say it again so you understand, this was just a Y DNA research, the value of this should be treated in its place. Anyone can easily dispute these results until modern full genome or autosomal genetic distances are determined between these ethnic groups.

And yes, the conquerors had finno-ugric genes. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44272-6 Nature is also a well known scientific magazine. --Dominiks1970 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dominiks1970, well I do not see in the text what you state, and this study did not analyze the conquerors but the modern Hungarians, but I see your linked source refer to foreign genetic study of conquerors and refer to Neparáczy many times many studies :) Neparáczy also published in Nature... or Nature will be not enough good now because "Neparáczy is not a real scholar accoriding to you"? Neparáczy published in many scientific journals and those scholars also did not ignore him.
And another one from the text: Neparáczki, E. et al. Revising mtDNA haplotypes of the ancient Hungarian conquerors with next generation sequencing. PLoS One 12, 1–11 (2017).
"Archaeogenetic studies also confirm the admixed genetic background of the early Hungarians. Comparing the Hungarian Conqueror mtDNA dataset to a large modern-day population dataset and archaeogenetic database, researchers found strong genetic affinities towards modern populations of Inner Asia, North and East Europe, Central Russia, and Late Bronze Age populations of the Baraba region, situated between the rivers Ob and Irtis21."
"Similar findings come from the maternal gene pool of historical Hungarians: the analyses of early medieval aDNA samples from Karos-Eperjesszög cemeteries revealed the presence of mtDNA hgs of East Asian provenance21."
OrionNimrod (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dominiks1970 (or should I call him Stubes99?) is guided by his political views and not by reliable sources. Hungarian Spectrum is a political (not scientific) blog that is (quoting its WP article) "highly critical of the current government in power in Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán". Nothing about Hungarian researchers' personal life in this and similar sites he was informed from should be believed. I don't know how that changes anything anyways. Neparáczky et al. are recognized experts who have published in many reputed scientific journals OrionNimrod has mentioned, and their results are not questioned by any independent professionals. Their methods are indeed scientific and documented on their YouTube channel. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are no such large database. Only soe big American and an Israely global commercial companies, and the FBI have reliable huge ethnic-related huge databases enormus large samples, including huge number of Hungarian samples.

Universities and small national research institutes do not have enough money, enough equipment, and enough professionals to take reliable samples from today's modern population. Their results should therefore be viewed with skepticism regarding today's modern populations. What is clear from the data of large commercial research companies is that: all Eastern Slavs also have a much higher proportion of Eastern, i.e. Asian, Mongoloid genes in Romanians than in today's Hungarians.--Dominiks1970 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dominiks1970, I see you spam again with full of off-topics. The methods of the genetic studies also explained and published in that studies, it seems these methods was ok for many top scientific journals and many foreign scholar who are referring them in their studies. It seems the method is not good only for you, however interestingly it was not a problem for you to refer to an another Hungarian genetic study which are not Neparáczky and which also not the "your FBI standard", I see you contradict yourself, which means that you have only a personal harrasment against Neparáczky, as it was demonstrated in that long conversation. Wikipedia is not a website for trolling. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Earlier this day I read the discussion up to that point and still felt in the mood to answer some of the fallacies and simplicisms thrown around here. Since I've got a life and only have found leisure to comment now, but seeing all the fallacies and simplicisms still being repeated and blown up ad nauseam in textwalls with all their typographic splendor, I can for now only join User:Borsoka in being baffled (and of course not really surprised) by all this. –Austronesier (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @OrionNimrod and @Dominiks1970; @Austronesier has a point because you should be more concise. We understand you have different views on the origin of Hungarians. But let's put this aside for a moment. @Dominiks1970 did right in telling us of the background of the author. However, I believe that no matter his motivations, if he has some evidence we should take him in consideration.
    No matter the type of genetic testing the author chose to carry out (autosomal, haplogrouos, etc.), so unless Dominiks has some criticism on the practical testing (whether the tests may have been falsified) we have the evidence that this Q-etc. was found in both ancient Huns and modern Szekelys. Now we need to see what's the meaning of this. I guess the author suggests a connection in his research (which I haven't read), though this is not made explicit in the article (which goes like this: In modern Europe, Q1a3l2 is rare and has its highest frequency among the Szekelys).
    Do you believe this is evidence of a Hun-Szekely connection? I do, because of what mentioned earlier (unless such haplogroup is also present at as high level among Czechs and Slovaks-Avar related-and Hungarians and Romanians-Cuman related). Even if you don't want to believe in a link, I guess that this bit of information is still worth mentioning in the vague form it is now, because of the rarity of this haplogroup in Europe. After all, we are not claiming Hun descent for the Szekelys but merely reporting the result of this Hungarian test. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you explain me, how can you use Y haplogroups markers to determine kinship between ethnic groups? It is not able to determine at all.
    Do you remember the fiasco of turanist András Zsolt Bíró when he tried to prove that madi-yars and magyars have the same roots? He tried to prove it with the haplogroup G? https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
    See the article: Madjars Dominiks1970 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • I fully agree with User:Andrew Lancaster's earlier comment above[5]. Not everything that appears in a peer-reviewed sources is citeable. Due weight applies. Is it a secondary source? If not, are the findings we want to present here cited in multiple other reliable (ideally secondary) sources? Are the citing sources associated with the cited study (→ "in-universe")? WP has long suffered from (at best) indiscriminate or (at worst) cherry-picked amassment of primary research results, especially in the field of population genetics, and even more so if the context is a contentious ideological minefield. So preference for secondary sources is vital here, as recommended (but not prescribed) in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
    A few comments about the material discussed here, escpecially the notion "Genetics is science, math". Yes, molecular biology is based on an exact science (= chemistry), but: population genetics (including archeogenetics) is based on the mathematical science of statistics. This statistic-based research depends crucially on sample quality, size and (NB!) choice. We still have an enormous lack of representative ancient genomes and in many areas, the statistical bias introduced by this will never be resolved due to natural conditions that accelerate decay of aDNA. And as @Andrew Lancaster also correctly pointed out, the interpretation of this inherently ambiguous data best lies in the hands of interdisciplinary teams, and not geneticists alone.
    A focus on Y-haplogroups also introduces bias here, since modern genetics in the last decade has focused on the study of the full autosomal genome as a more reliable tool to understand ancient population dynamics. Uniparental markers provide incidental information, and usually are most helpful in cases of small population sizes with a high amount of inbreeding. The occurrence of a uniparental haplogroup may also attest concrete individual gene flow events that are otherwise completely "washed out" in the full autosomal genome. But that occurrence of a haplogroup is completely non-defining for a personal or population group ancestry.
    So the homework is: how many secondary sources not written by Neparáczky actually cite the Székely thing? If there aren't, we shouldn't bother either to give it undue prominence here.
    Finally, I have noticed an intersting red flag. Several sources by said author always mention "Huns, Avars" in one breath, although the article we're talking about here only has three Hunnic era samples. But the paper is cited in other articles from the same group (remember, "in-universe") as providing a "high number" of Hunnic and Avar samples, insinuating that that Hunnic sample has a significant size that allows for generalization, whereas actually only the Avar data does. –Austronesier (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let's return to the topic. Before the 19th century, Székely was not a quasi ethnic group,but a privileged social group (border guards) and status like the Hajdúks in the territory Hajdúság. See: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Hajduk_(Kingdom_of_Hungary) The only difference, that Székely status is much more older than Hajdú. Since their lethal enemies were the nomadic Cumans, who often broke into the the Székely territory, raped women, that's why Székely population got some Q haplogroup markers . Dominiks1970 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we have sufficient data to say that the statement on the Székelys should be removed. What we still need to establish is whether saying that the Y-DNA of three individuals "are consistent" with Xiongnu origins of the Huns is worth including - indeed, whether several of the other statements to this effect should be kept. Andrew Lancaster and Austronesier bring up excellent points about the nature of these sources and whether they are due or reliable for some of the conclusions they make. The study by Damgaard et al. in Nature (journal) is certainly one thing (338 citations on Google Scholar). Neparaczki et al. 2019 has 43; the critical study by Saveleyev et al. has only 8; Keyser et al. has 18; Necchi-Ruscone et al. 2021 has 42; Necchi-Ruscone et al. 2022 has only 6; Maroti et al. 2022 has 8. Neparaczki appears as an author or co-author in Neparaczki et al. and Maroti et al. I will note that in the studies where Neparaczki 2019 is cited, Neparaczki and other scientists who collaborated with him often seem to be the ones doing the citing [6], and that most of the works citing the study refer to Hungarian genetic history rather than Hunnic.
Both studies besides Damgaard have 3 (Neparaczki 2019) or just 1 (Necchi-Rusconi 2021) "Hunnic" sample (how one determines who is a Hun is another minefield that these papers don't seem to delve into). I would suggest then that despite their citations, they don't really tell us much. I think we should probably summarize them both in a sentence. We need to cite the other studies too, but they should also be summarized in about the same amount of space. Damgaard, on the other hand, should probably be given more space.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at Damgaard et al.: it's a bit unclear to me who they consider Huns in their study. They refer repeatedly to "Tian Shan Huns," which is obviously far from Europe. They also refer to "nomads Hun period" (PCA of Xiongnu, ‘Western’ Xiongnu, Tian Shan Huns, Nomads Hun Period, and Tian Shan Sakas, using 39 individuals at 242,406 autosomal SNP positions. This suggests to me a much smaller sample size of "Huns" (whoever is meant) than the number of individuals in the study suggested. All in all, I'm not sure how useful this study is for the article either, but I leave it to those who understand these things better than I.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, actually looking at the article reveals that they aren't discussing European Huns at all: We used D-statistics (Supplementary Information section 3.7) to investigate the genetic relationship between Iron Age nomads, the East Asian Xiongnu and the early Huns of the Tian Shan. We find that the Huns have increased shared drift with West Eurasians compared to the Xiongnu (Extended Data Fig. 6). We tested for patterns of shared drift between the Xiongnu and the Wusun, the preceding Sakas and the slightly later Huns (second century ad). We find that both the earlier Sakas and the later Huns have more East Asian ancestry than the Wusun. To apply this information to this article, you'd need to assume that the "Tian Shan Huns" (in Central Asia) are definitely the same people who invaded Europe - which is precisely the sort of thing that's debated by scholars in the disciplines that the authors rely on to make this connection.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. The liberal labelling of the samples as "Tian Shan Huns" (in an otherwise very impressive study) leads to introduce circular reasoning here. There are hints at connections between a certain horizon in the Tian Shan area and the Carpathian Huns ("Similarly there are also only single burial finds from the Tian Shan region, with objects that can be stylistically connected to the European Hunnic ones"[7]), but that's not enough to take "Tian Shan Huns" as genetic proxies for the Huns of the historical record. We can keep Damgaard et al., but only with an explanation what "Tian Shan Huns" actually refers to. –Austronesier (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that each and every research about the Huns is valuable due to their paucity, and generally I am of the opinion that if something has a reliable source it may and should be used. Citing the recurring statement we are not sure what's Hun and what's not, this article should basically not exist or have a few sentences. This excuse is also all too often used to discredit the topic by those who don't want to give prominence to the subject for a number of reasons.
I have myself had red flags here, in noticing a problem happening here and elsewhere, where it is always the same few editors always determining what goes into the article.
In this case, I noticed that @Ermenrich has a lot of influence on the topic and some strong beliefs.
For this reason, no matter the decision for each of the discussed issues, I am willing to start an RFC to bring more, uninterested editors to have a say.
I will address now the issues : I agree with OrionNimrod that the statement about Szekelys should be kept. No matter @Austronesier's personal views and preferences about genetic testing, genetic is indeed science, math (and I don't get why Austronesier's critique of testing and population genetics should apply here more than each and every genetic study published in Wikipedia); we have evidence of an haplogroup found in both Szekelys and Huns, and we have a reliable source making the link. We don't need anything else. There is paucity of researches and commentators on the topic, so asking for secondary sources here is useless.
Clearly the Huns and Avars are separate groups as far as we know. But I am positive the scientists and historians who carried out the tests (not Wikipedians such as ourselves) are aware of all these things. So I trust them and not @Ermenrich's suppositions about how wide is the Hun gene pool.
If Damgaard did in fact analyze only Tian Shan Huns, then this fact should be mentioned in the article.
P. S. Ermenrich seems almost stuck in the 1940s, when Maenchen-Hefen was worried about the scarcity of Hun burials/skulls and how to determine which is Hun. Things have changed in several decades, scientists are aware of all the facets, they know their stuff and we should rely on them.
I don't understand much of genetics but I will try to have a read of those researces ASAP, and I hope that some "new" editor (new for this talk page) will do the same. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Austronesier
@OrionNimrod
I noticed that @Ermenrich has started editing on the discussed matters, changing the article to his/her view. But they don't have even established consensus and we are still discussing.
Why, for example, I have to wait before republishing an image (about which I am discussing in the section below) but they can immediately change the article to their preferred version? How is this fair? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quoted the full sentence from Savelyev and Jeong instead of what Ermenrich added in his/her several unapproved edits.
Now I wonder whether Savelyev and Jeong should be included in the section genetics at all. It is an interdisciplinary study for which they didn't conduct any new genetic testing. OTOH, they apparently say that no Hun genome was tested up to May 2020 (the eastern steppe heritage is extremely limited in their archeological record, and surprisingly no ancient genome from the Hunnic period Carpathian basin has been reported to test the eastern Eurasian genetic connection). But they failed to notice Neparaczki who had examined three Hun remains from separate cemeteries in 2019. Since Neparaczki was published in late 2019, and Saveljev and Jeong in May 2020, I think they might have been writing /testing at the same time.
Also take note that in his edit, Ermenrich had put an emphasis on the alleged fact that as of 2020 no Hun genome was tested. Following the sentence with "In the same year," with the Keyser et al test. This seemed to fog the fact that Savelyev and Jeong published their interdisciplinary study three months earlier than Keyser et al. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't get why Austronesier's critique of testing and population genetics should apply here more than each and every genetic study published in Wikipedia What gives you the idea that I don't apply the same standard to other articles or sections of articles about population genetics as I do here? It's exactly this kind of your discourse by making unfounded assumptions about other editors (not to talk about the stuff you say about @Erminrich: "strong beliefs"? what about you then?) that makes this discussion so impalatable for outsiders to join in. We do have relevant policies about inclusion of sources with due weight; I have mentioned them above. Another relevant policy is WP:ONUS: not everything that can be based on a reliable source automatically needs to be included here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dominiks1970: In many respects, this goes to you too. While you don't try to implicitly label other editors as "biased", you should leave your focus on how to build good content on good sources as they are, with too much emphasis on this or that background of the author(s). If a source is problematic, you should be able to tell it by its content alone. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without replying to all the other nonsense about "unauthorized edits" etc. (please see WP:BOLD), I'll note that Savelyev and Yeong cite Neparaczki in their article, so obviously they do not consider that work on Y chromosomes to be a publish genome from the Hungarian basin.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the way you had edited the article, it made it look as if as of 2020 no Hun remains had been tested.
I myself don't know much about genetics. But I thought that Y chromosome testing would be considered genome testing.
Anyway, I still believe that the section Genetics is not the right place for Savelyev Jeong. Theirs isn't a genetic study. To the layman it will look like they have made genetic tests. Also, saying that up to May 2020 no Hun genome had been tested and so no Xiongnu-Hun connection was confirmied is pretty useless, since the first serious testing started after that. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea is given me by the very fact such sections exist and I haven't noticed any attempts from you to remove them all, As according to your assumptions, all genetic studies would be intrinsically faulted (or potentially so).
I said what I think about Ermenrich not for the sake of accusing them but for the sake of the articles, as well as the editor himself /herself. We cannot afford that some editors have monopoly on any aticle (this isn't the first article and probably not the last where I notice this). That doesn't help build a good encyclopedia. OTOH, sometimes we might have some bias and not realize it ourselves. I noticed some repeated behavior from him/her, and I thought I would mention it.
So why would publishing the source give undue weight? Because in your own opinion Q-... haplogroup is found in other Central Asians and the author should have taken it into account? As if you or any Wikipedian knew more about it than these experiences scientists?
Or because you, personally, think that the paternal descent isn't important to determine ancestry ? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Choongwon Jeong appears to be a biologist. The article is a sort of review article, so of course it doesn't include new research. There's no reason to exclude it.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeong may be a biologist, but theirs is still an interdisciplinary study. It has no place in that section. It would have place in the Origin of the Huns section/article, and indeed they are cited there.
It also appears that Savelyev is one of the scholars opposing the Xiongnu-Hun connection. So if we want to talk about bias we can talk about him.
Yet that's not the reason why I want to exclude his research. I will recap:
A) The "genetics" section is not the right place for an interdisciplinary study
B) The study did not conduct any new genetic testing. In fact, they didn't make any genetic testing at all
C) The claim that up to May 2020 no Hun remains had been tested is incorrect because in November 2019 Neparacki examined three males from separate 5th century Hun cemeteries (and here we should wonder why did Savelyev leave this out?)
D) Major testing on actual European Huns started from July 2020. So why do we need to mention that up to May 2020 no test had been made (and so no Xiongnu-Hun connection proven)? It's obvious Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P. S. I noticed that the editor who started this discussion, @Dominiks1970, has been blocked. Ermenrich supported him, but ever since he/she was blocked new arguments have been made in favor of the Szekelys inclusion, and they are not able to comment (assuming they are still allowed to). So as far as I know, now it is me and OrionNimrod supporting the inclusion of Q-... haplogroup for Szekelys and Huns, while Ermernirch oppeses it. I assume also @Austronesier opposes. So with 2 vs 2, there is still no consensus for the changes that Ermernich has already made.
I also note that @Dominiks1970 is the one who started making arguments against the scholar, but they have turned out to be themselves biased. So I now doubt whether the scholar is biased at all (notwithstanding that his scientific evidence is valuable regardless) Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, not everything that has been puiblished in a scientific study is due for inclusion here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. If some piece of information from a primary research paper isn't reflected/cited in other sources, we don't bother with it either. Simple.
Also, it is not my personal opinion that "paternal descent isn't important to determine ancestry". Read modern genomic studies like Maróti et al. (2022), or multiple review articles about the state of the art in population genomics, and you will see how archeogenetics actually works: uniparental markers are of secondary importance for the history of population groups, and mostly serve as additional information, unless we can spot a genuine imbalance based on large sample sizes that allow to detect sex-based bias in geneflow. Btw, you will notice that Maróti et al. do not mention the Székely trivia. If even they don't, why should we? –Austronesier (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Consensus is not a vote;
  2. As Austronesier has already said, accusing other editors of bias is not a winning argument here;
  3. a study being interdisciplinary is not a reason to exclude it from a genetics section if the interdisciplinary study discusses genetics;
  4. You are making some rather bizarre ad hominem arguments about Savelyev now. Savelyev and Jeong cite Neparaczki: Recent studies on mitochondrial and Y haplogroups of Avar elites report a substantial fraction of their haplogroups with broadly eastern Eurasian origin (Csáky et al., 2020; Neparáczki et al., 2019). Neparaczki says: genetic data from Huns of the Carpathian Basin have not been available yet, since Huns left just sporadic lonely graves in the region, as they stayed for short period. We report three Y haplogroups (Hg) from Hun age remains, which possibly belonged to Huns based on their archaeological and anthropological evaluation. Obviously Savelyev and Jeong do not consider this good enough and do not consider Y haplogroups to be "genomes".--Ermenrich (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To answer your points.
    1)fine, it's not a vote. Then I do not give consent to your edits, especially the one about the Szekelys and I look forward to hearing from @OrionNimrod
    2) I already explained that I have some concerns about your conduct. I need to air my concern for the sake of Wikipedia. I prefer to tell this here rather than make a formal accusation with administrators since I wouldn't even well know how to do it
    3)I disagree. I could cite a bunch of authors claiming the Huns are genetically thought to be Xiongnu or that genetic tests suggest the Szekelys are Huns descendants. I would leave the "Genetic" sections only for actual genetic studies, not to air the opinion of some linguist with a non-Xiongnu Hun origin bias
    4) The fact Savelyev(with a non-Xiongnu origin position) only mention the Avars from Neparaczki study, forgetting to mention the possibly first analysis on European Huns in history, confirming East Asian Xiongnu origin for the Huns, is a reason of alarm and one more reason to keep this interdisciplinary study out of the genetics section.
    Finally, you fail to address what's my main point: why mentioning that up to May 2020 no Hun genome was tested when serious tests started from July 2020?Its a useless statement. The only use it may have is to casually add some argument against the other studies. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are saying that we should leave out a (2019) study about the Szekely and Hun origin, which can be counted on the fingers of two hands, because they are not cited in other sources? I don't agree with this. I believe Wikipedia policy would support me and that you could keep the trivia out only by making some critic against the researcher (as the blocked editor did) or with the Wp:due rule. But this is a section about a scarcely documented topic, and there is no "minority" or majority views about this genetic details. There is a historical theory about the Szekelys Hun origin (and btw I believe the majority of Szekelys supports it).
Perhaps Maroti et al don't mention the Szekely trivia because their focus is in other stuff.
As for the paternal descent, again, the meaning of ancestry is not restricted to the Scientific, empirical realm. Many people believe that the ancestry is taken directly from the mother and other believe it is from the father (Muslims). So it's kind of offensive to disregard in such way the paternal descent which is so important for many people. This is what determines ancestry for them. The knowledge and teaching is passed down from father to son, so the paternal descent has more importancr than the other chromosomes for many people.
P. S. I will now make an admission that I (who hadn't looked at Neparaczki so far) cannot find the Szekely trivia after a cursory look. You mentioned earlier that you read and found it. Could you quote it for me? Thanks Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is suggesting "leav[ing] out a (2019) study about the Szekely and Hun origin." Such a study does not exist - I'd suggest actually looking at what Neparaczki's study is about. The current version summarizes what it has to do with this article. As to what Neparaczki et al. says about them, just look at the discussion above, where it's quoted.
And whether a majority of Szekelys believe in Hun origins is irrelevant: a majority of historians do not.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first reply was actually for @Austronesier
I now replied to you
P. S. I am not sure the majority of historians doesn't believe in the Szekelys Hun origin Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mark. PaloAlto: They use the form "Seklers", so it is easy to miss when looking for the mention of Székelys. By the way, here is a nice article as a counterpoint to Neparaczki et al.: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14010133, see page 18. They use the same methodology, so the studies are on par, regardsless of our different views about the importance of uniparental markers in population genetics. –Austronesier (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, now I was able to find it
So in fact your study does state that the Szekelys have mostly other haplogroups and it mentions a small percentage with Q-M242 as opposed the Hunnic Q1a2 (as an ignorant in this kind o stuff I wonder whether the two are or might be still related? ). It does not exclude a relation though, saying that the Hunnic origin of the Szekelys remains questionable...
We know that Naparaczki found Q1a2 in the European Huns. This is a fact. Then he adds "it has highest frequency among Sekler according to Family Tree DNA database". I don't think he is lying, and if even a low percentage of Szekelys has Q1a2, then the trivia is worth mentioning. However I wonder why your 2022 study fails to mention the Q1a2 at all.
I think with a source confirming Q1a2 presence among Szekelys (even the Family Tree DNA data as primary source), Naparaczki's trivia could be published, perhaps in a footnote.
P. S. One thought regarding the Huns and paternal ancestry has occurred to me: I believe that the best way to determine Hunnic origin among ancient sample would be precisely via the Y chromosome. This because we know that the European Huns (those whose remains we can positively call European Huns' because of cranial shape, artifacts, 5th century burial etc.) were areledy heavily mixed with the Germanic people. They took Germanic women in marriage, and they probably did so even earlier, with the Alans and the Akatziris. Yet, it appears that the Huns were patriarchal, and the right to rule was passed down from father to son(s). Therefore I think that the Y chromosome in ancient Huns findings (especially those of the elite) tells us more about their ultimate origin. I wonder what do you think about this. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, WP:NOR: we are not here to discuss our theories and assumptions on subjects. For instance, if you think the Hunnic origin of the Székelys is supported by the majority of mainstream historians, you can refer to them. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Borsokawhy are you repeating Wp:nor without even knowing the discussion?
Ermenrich stated his/her opinion that the majority of historians do not support this theory and I replied to him/her. He/she didn't "refer to them (historians)" and I don't expect him/her to, because this is just a talk page, not an article, and that is not even the point.
We have a reliable source making a genetic connection, supported by science, of the Szekelys to Huns, and we are discussing whether to include it or not. This is not about the historical theory about the origin of Szekelys (that which most historian may or may not support), based on geography, archeology, language, tradition, etc. It is just about genetics.
One user (now blocked) has argued against adding this trivia because he/she didn't think the researcher "followed the scientific method". Another user (@Austronesier) has since suggested we should not include the trivia because it would give undue weight. I believe that because researches on the subject are scarce, there is no such think as a majority or minority views regarding the genetic heritage of Huns / Szekelys, and every information is valuable. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunatelly, sockpuppetry is not unusual. For instance, Dominiks1970 was quite obviously Stubes99's sock, and I am sure that the banned user Giray Altay is also ready to return masquerading as an unexperienced new editor. Above, you were sharing your own assumptions about the Huns' paternal ancestry and its effects on genetics although "talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". I fully agree with Austronesier that we should not include the results of Neparaczy's genetic studies because they have not been widely discussed by mainstream scholarship. Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was so obvious that w Dominick was Giray Altay why didn't you make a report before he/she was blocked, when they were still commenting and supporting what we now know is your view?
I notice that now you have changed. First the problem was that I'd think "Hunnic origin of the Székelys is supported by the majority of mainstream historians" (and so in your eyes "original research) now the problem is my question to @Austronesier.
My question was spontaneous and I am not confident enough with the editor to publish directly on his/her talk page. Come to think of it, it might actually be useful when deciding whether to give prominence or not to Y chromosome analysis over autosomal for Hun remains. So it could serve to improve the article.
You seem more interested in criticizing the way certain editors are discussing rather than commenting on the issues we are all discussing. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one thinks that Dominick is Giray Altay, my friend...
By the way, you forgot Borsoka when you were counting who supported what.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Friend? We don't even know each other
As far as I know, Borsoka "voted" only now. Before they were just making comments about the way some editors are discussing. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mark. PaloAlto please read my comments above more carefully. 1. I did not associate Dominiks1970 with Giray Altay. 2. I commented on the issue under discussion by supporting Austronesier's position. 3. I draw your attention to WP:NOR because you were sharing your own assumptions about the Huns' paternal ancestry. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) My mistake sorry
2) comment : first you said it was because my "claim" of "Hunnic origin of the Szekelys" had no source
P. S. Ermenrich, who had earlier removed the Szekely trivia we are still discussing, has now started to change the content against a Szekely/Hun relationship. While they argue they removed the Szskely trivia because the research did not receive enough scholarship review, etc., they are now supporting their changes with a brand new 2023 article... Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure we know each other, Giray Altay.
Statements in a study summarizing the state of the field is preferable to the finds in an individual study, see WP:RS/AC.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ermernrich, I don't like your attitude and accusations. Why do you want so much to control this article? And, do you have a grudge against me? Is there some specific reason why you accuse me or is it just because I don't agree with you?
It doesn't matter the nature of the content in the studies, if your problem is the "reputation" of the source. You also interpreted the 2023 source your own way. At page 18, it states that the Hunnic Szekely relation is still "questionable", after claiming that the Q haplogroup was found in 7.6% Szekelys. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lest anyone should believe what Giray Altay's sock has stated about my adding "my own interpretation", this is the quote from the article: Due to the lack of evidence, modern historiography and archaeology do not consider the Székelys to be of Hunnic origin [8].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Austronesier, would you be able to summarize the findings of Maróti et al. 2022? I've been reading the section called "The European Huns had Xiongnu ancestry" over and over again and I can't for the life of me figure out which of the samples they are discussing are actually European, since they also discuss our friends the "Tian Shan Huns" and samples they identify as Xiongnu. I know from elsewhere in the paper that they sequenced 9 skeletons from the Carpathian basin, but I can't account for them all.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ermenrich: Not to forget the "Kurayly Huns" from Kazakhstan 😂. I have had exactly the same experience earlier. They confusingly cluster them in the main text by genetic profile and period only (e.g. "Hun_Asia_Core" with two European indivduals and two inferential "Huns" from Kurayly and Tian Shen), but not by region. The European samples (Supplemental Data3, filtered for "OWN_Hungary_Hun") are: MSG-1 and VZ-12673 in "Hun_Asia_Core", KMT-2785 and ASZK-1 with a intermediate genetic profile (which they analyze as Sarmatian-derived), and the remaining ones that largly cluster with contemporaneous Europeans: SEI-1 and SEI-5 with "minor Sarmatian components", CSB-3 with "minor Scytho-Siberian ancestr[y]", and Sei-6 and SZLA-646 who "presumably belonged to Germanic groups allied with the Huns". –Austronesier (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Apart from its problematic labeling of indivduals, the article by Maróti et al. is quite interesting and deserves a better coverage than just being combed for Y-haplogroups (which is a direct result of the limited genetic "literacy" of many among those editors who insert genetics-related content into WP). –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I summarizing this correctly: In 2020, no Hunnic period genome was available from the Carpathian region,[1] whereas in 2022, two were available.[2]? It's unclear to me what counts as a genome, since Savelyev and Jeong (who is involved in some of the other studies) clearly don't count what Neparaczki et al. did in 2019 as producing "genomes," and then Maroti et al. "sequenced 9 skeletons" in 2022, the same year as the statement about there only being two genomes available by Gnecchi-Ruscone. It appears to me that the two "Huns" in Hun_Asia_Core in Maroti et al. are these same two genomes mentioned here, but then it appears that Gnecchi_Ruscone et al. are deliberately excluding any samples that don't show Asian ancestry in their statement that With the exception of the only two Hunnic-period genomes available (Hun_P_Budapest_5c, Hun_P_NTransdanubia_5c), one newly generated and one previously published (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., 2021), all pre-Avar individuals from the Carpathian Basin fall in the genetic variability of west Eurasians. I would have thought that this means that the other pre-Avar samples are not "Hun period" but I guess it does not?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neparaczki et al. 2019 indeed don't have full genomes, but only focus on the Y-chromosome and on parts of the autosomal genome (viz. parts "associated with eye/hair/skin color and lactase persistence phenotypes as well as biogeographic ancestry"). The remaining three papers all cover full genomes, even if one gets the impression from the way their data is presented here that they only covered the Y-chromosome. This is just deplorable bias ("it's a man's man's man's world") and limited reading competence on the editors' part, as I have said before, and which is not limited to this article.
Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. (2021) only have one European Hun sample (which is clustered together with the Kurayly Hun sample as "Hun_elite_350CE") that was dug up in 1961 in Budapest. This sample is also covered in Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. (2022), plus an additional one ("Hun_P_NTransdanubia_5c") that has a less markedly East Asian genetic profile. The other "pre-Avar" individuals are from Sarmatian-period sites, so no coverage bias here. (2022). Maroti et al. (2022) have nine Hun-period individuals, one of them being the Budapest Hun but resequenced yielding a higher number of SNPs plus another European individual with a very similar genetic profile.
So at least two of all sampled individuals (including the Budapest Hun) are genetically very similar to elite burials in Western Kazakhstan and the Tian Shan mountains (the "Hun_elite_350CE" cluster in Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. (2021) and "Hun_Asia_Core" in Maroti et al. (2022)). I think, we can report this here with attribution, together with the very diverse genetic profiles of the other seven individuals covered by Maroti et al. I leave it to others if we want to keep the lists of Y-haplogroups; IMO, it's just cruft in this context. –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that we should remove the lists of Y-haplogroups - they don't add anything. Reading this stuff kind of makes my head hurt (I don't have much genetics literacy myself it seems), but I'm willing to give it a go.
Also: Should the genetics section be moved out of the "origins" section? When Krakkos added it, it was at the bottom of the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having limited genetics literacy is not that much of problem as long as one doesn't have an axe to grind; unfortunately most people who feel the calling to add genetics-related content here do have their pet axe :) Apart from such disturbances, it can really be a fun topic.
Btw, I've noticed that actually, there's Origin_of_the_Huns#Genetic_evidence. These genetics section are spitting image (except for variable POV-additions here and there). So most of the cleanup/update should probably happen there, leaving only a very brief summary here to avoid content forking. I don't get it why people think there is any merit in mass-duplicating content and why some people think that proper attribution is the only issue. –Austronesier (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that section needs work too and having just a summary here is a good idea.
I got a hold of Keyser et al. It appears that they base all of their conclusions about the Huns and Xiongnu on Neparaczki et al. rather than having done any analysis themselves: Some matches were also observed with Avar and Hungarian early-medieval individuals (Csàky et al. 2020; Neparáczki et al., 2018), as noted above for the Y-haplotypes. In their study, Neparáczki et al. (2019) showed that east Eurasian R1a subclades R1a1a1b2a-Z94 and R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 were a common element of the Hun, Avar and Hungarian Conqueror elite and very likely belonged to the branch that was observed in our Xiongnu samples. Moreover, haplogroups Q1a and N1a were also major components of these nomadic groups, reinforcing the view that Huns (and thus Avars and Hungarian invaders) might derive from the Xiongnu as was proposed until the eighteenth century but strongly disputed since (De la Vaissière 2005). After they were defeated by the Chinese Han dynasty, the Northern Xiongnu had fled northwestward; their descendants may have migrated through Eurasia and conquered the Carpathian Basin. Finally, one mitochondrial haplotype matched an ancient Yakut individual, confirming their southern origin. Taken together, these results show that genetic links may exist between consecutive nomadic populations, especially between elite groups.
Do we still include this and how?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023[edit]

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: ].[3] Could you restore it with this source? I am not allowed to edit protected articles Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

"...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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
"...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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
 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)Reply[reply]
Searchtool-80%.png 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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)¡Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Savelyev & Jeong 2020.
  2. ^ Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2022.
  3. ^ Francfort, Henri-Paul (2020). "Sur quelques vestiges et indices nouveaux de l'hellénisme dans les arts entre la Bactriane et le Gandhāra (130 av. J.-C.-100 apr. J.-C. environ)". Journal des Savants: 35–39.

Tomb of Attila[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Some claim eh? Source?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huns&oldid=1146136196"