Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Asia: Mongols B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mongols (assessed as High-importance). Central Asia B‑class Mid‑importance Huns is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force. Former countries B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Middle Ages B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Dacia B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Ethnic groups B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Eastern Europe B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. European history B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Romania B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Hungary B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Balkan / European / Roman & Byzantine / Classical Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

So I noticed two odd things about one of the articles in our genetics section:(Neparáczki, Endre; et al. (November 12, 2019). "Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin". Scientific Reports. 9 (16569). Nature Research: 16569. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53105-5. PMC 6851379. PMID 31719606. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |layurl=, and |nopp= (help))

1) the author is clearly Hungarian, and 2) it appears to be arguing for a Hunnic origin of the Szekelys. When I look into the journal, Scientific Reports, I read Some^[1] have suggested that Scientific Reports has a tendency to publish junk science, and have questioned the review process. Controversies listed on the Wikipedia page include: 1) publishing a paper saying the sun is causing global warming; 2) publishing a plagiarized thesis; 3) various questionable medical studies. Given the nationalist aspects of arguing for Hungarian/Szekely origins with the Huns, and the problems with the journal, I wonder if we ought to remove it. It currently supports the following text:

A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in November 2019 examined the remains of three males from three separate 5th century Hunnic cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin. They were found to be carrying the paternal haplogroups Q1a2, R1b1a1b1a1a1 and R1a1a1b2a2.^[2] In modern Europe, Q1a2 is rare and has its highest frequency among the Székelys. All of the Hunnic males studied were determined to have had brown eyes and black or brown hair, and to have been of mixed European and East Asian ancestry.^[3] The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns.^[4]--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neparáczki I would keep, if the other studies are kept as well (however, on the whole genetic research sections we share a common opinion, at least here they don't want to conclude proto-x-y-z speaking peoples hypothetical languages shifts based on genetics :-) ) (KIENGIR (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Krakkos, Wario-Man, and Slovenski Volk:.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer keeping Neparáczki et al., although I'm open to removing the sentence on haplogroup prevalence among Szekelys. Krakkos (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but if you think the study is not reliable, you better take it to WP:RSN. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The study is reliable insofar as the results are valid and clear. The interpretation, however, may be disputed or better said - more nuanced reading of the observations can be had. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just become aware of this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/early-nomads-of-the-eastern-steppe-and-their-tentative-connections-in-the-west/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55

To sum up, while historical and archaeological evidence may imply the inclusion of some steppe component among the Huns, the very limited linguistic and genetic data do not provide support for linking this component with the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe, or the Xiongnu specifically.

@Krakkos:, do you think you'd be able to figure out how to fit it into our current genetics section? It's the only genetics study we've had so far that finds the connection questionable.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this study, Ermenrich. I have added it to the genetics section. Krakkos (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recent DNA study:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1

The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians: Published: May 25, 2022

Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns OrionNimrod (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another over-simplified palaeogenetics paper to me. How can they assume that the only people from modern Mongolia with these genetic markers were Xiongnu?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They analised 265 new ancient genomes (Total 3000 ancient samples had the full world database, so this is a significant increase), if you read, you can see there is a very detailed explanation and results. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Neparáczki Endre And the University of Szeged published a genetical study. This study genetically tested many 10th century Hungarian graves and the results show that the early Hungarians DNA is 47% the same as the DNA of Huns. 2A0A:F640:1305:AB18:F1FB:BF8B:D2BA:CF14 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the source? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians: Published:May 25, 2022 (265 new ancient genomes help to unravel the origin of migration-period populations. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns, Conquering Hungarians had Ugric ancestry and later admixed with Sarmatians and Huns) The Hungarians have a deep-rooted Hungarian-Hun tradition. Until the middle of the 19th century, it was generally accepted that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns and Scythians, besides Árpád, Grand Prince of the Hungarians was a direct descendant of the great Hun leader Attila. Hun-Hungarian affinity was declared in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources and has been maintained in Hungarian folk memory. I know a lot of medieval sources wich states this.

Finally, it was proved by science, that old Hungarians are a mix of Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, and the Huns were mostly also Europids. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not conclusion of the research. Hungarian conquering elite was ~50% Mansi-like, ~35% Sarmatian-like, and ~15% Hun/Xiongnu-like. Huns became partly "Europids" only in Pannonia mixing with Scythian and especially Germanic people, but many still carried "ancient northeast Asian" (some almost exclusively). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the lates publication, they analised 265 new ancient genomes, the result say Hungarians and Huns were mostly Europid and the Avars were rather "Asian like":

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1

Archaeogenetics study by French academics:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4

“Our findings confirmed that the Xiongnu had a strongly admixed mitochondrial and Y-chromosome gene pools and revealed a significant western component in the Xiongnu group studied...”

“We propose Scytho-Siberians as ancestors of the Xiongnu and Huns as their descendants.” OrionNimrod (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KeithTyler: check article's "Genetics" section as well as Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Genetic evidence. Connection is possible, but indirectly as original Hungarian elite wasn't Hun related, but acquired such genetics with migrations. The section "Links to the Hungarians" doesn't contradict it at all. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a fundamental problem with how these studies determine whether an individual is “Hun”, “Xiongnu” or “Hungarian”, something also noted by Savalyev and Jeong, who are cited in the section. We have some fairly bold conclusions based on the presence of steppe DNA that is assumed to be Xiongnu rather than belonging to some other steppe people. They rely at least partially on archaeological assessment of ethnicity based on material assemblages in graves - something that has become extremely controversial in the last 20 years. Add to that the nationalist obsession with proving that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns (and that they must in turn be descended from the Xiongnu) and it’s a recipe for a problematic section, like so many genetics sections on WP. In any case, I suspect some of the bold declarative statements in the genetics section need to be tempered and overstate what the authors concluded.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue with reliable genetic studies, and Savelyev & Jeong 2020 at the time had limited data hence had erroneous conclusion and criticism. As said, genetic results don't contradict that "the notion that the Hungarians are descended from the Huns has been rejected by mainstream scholarship". The connection was minimal and indirect.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ermenrich! I usually read those studies, and videos when those scholars explain the results. And these tests were made by not only Hungarian genetics, as you can see I linked a French study also which confirmed each other. The archeologists found the graves, they determine that they are Hungarian conqueror graves or Avar graves. Mongolian scholars also discovered a lot of Hun graves, and the scientists analyse and compare the bones by DNA.

Until the middle of the 19th century, it was generally accepted that Hungarians were kinsfolk of the Huns and Scythians. Hun-Hungarian affinity was declared in Hungarian and foreign written medieval sources and has been maintained in Hungarian folk memory. The Finno-Ugric theory was a language theory in the 19th century, and it became origin of nation theory, however Finnish and Hungarian DNA is quite far each other. Today's Hungarian genetic is similar to Austrian, Slovaks, Slovenians, Poles, Ukrainians, Croatians, so similar to their neighboars. According to these new genetic studies, the Finno-Ugric theory is just a theory in Hungary and not the mainstream anymore officially.

You can see this in a Hungarian government website and institute regarding the research of Hungarian prehistory and medieval times: https://mki.gov.hu/en/intezet-en/kuldetes-en

They made already a lot of conferencies with collaboration, inviting worldwide a lot of scholars from many countries and share and publish together the common researches.

https://mki.gov.hu/en/konferenciak-en/minden-eloadas-en

Sorry if I will be long, just I would like tell you that this is my understanding based on these result:

The horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes. The domestication of horses got a huge impact on the development of human civilization. The most western part of the steppe zone is the Carpathian Basin. The Scythian nations moved east to conquer the eastern regions, they controlled the full steppe area. 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 relationship with the returning nations.

Steppe#/media/File:Eurasian steppe belt.jpg

It was a continuous movement of the horse archer nations between the west and the east in the past. Between the Carpathian Basin and the Tarim Basin. And the core were the Scythians. If a horseman starts to ride from the Carpathian Basin (Great Hungarian Plain, Hungary) then he could reach the Tarim Basin (Northwest China) within a year because the steppe connects these areas. The Scythians became a nomadic culture based on possessing domesticated horses. Their culture was based on using horses, and by the 7th century BC, Scythians had become one of the first peoples to ride mounted. The Scythians invented the earliest saddle, probably their greatest contribution to civilization.

https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsrep43950/MediaObjects/41598_2017_Article_BFsrep43950_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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 (Royal Scythians), and then they suddenly emerged as European Huns. Genetic continuity is detected between Xiongnus and European Huns.

Recently found a Europid Scythian female mummy from the 5th century BC in a kurgan near to today’s Chinese border:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Ice_Maiden

Reconstructed face, we can see her face is Europid.

https://siberiantimes.com/upload/information_system_38/1/9/8/item_1988/information_items_1988.jpg

"Miraculous Deer" tattoo found on her arm:

https://ctl.s6img.com/society6/img/Ca3y0Z6VQ8rdyvqZpgEXT0mcLQc/w_1500/prints/~artwork/s6-0049/a/21317026_12660082/~~/scythian-deer-tattoo-from-the-ice-princess-by-sheridon-rayment-prints.jpg

https://johnhawks.net/graphics/ice-maiden-tattoo.jpg

In Central Europe, in Hungary, in the Carpathian Basin, the archeologist found this Scythian golden deer from the same time period from the 6th BC. As we can see the area of the Scythian influence was from the Carpathian Basin to the Tarim Basin. And also this "Miraculous Deer" is a very important element in Hungarian mythology.

https://mnm.hu/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_item/public/gallery/01_szkita_aranyszarvas_01_jpg.jpg?itok=4hKa_-eM

Scythian/Hun/Hungarian(Magyar) "Miraculous Deer"

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-27f804de6ebd5e63bd6c1badb8bd8a27

Archaeogenetics also seems to help clarify this issue, because the Y chromosomes of the Asian Hun nobles who excavated in Mongolia bear the greatest resemblance to the Asian Scythians, King Béla III of Hungary, the nobleman marked II / 54 who buried next to the King in Székesfehérvár, and the men who examined from the conquering leading class from Arpad time.

The DNA of the Hungarian King: (Béla III of Hungary, reign 1172–1196)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béla_III_of_Hungary

Newest DNA analysis from the European Journal of Human Genetics, Published: 07 July 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-020-0683-z

I am very familiar with these old texts and I can show you these all, so these things are not from my mind, and not today's Hungarians imagined recently the Hun-Hungarian connection:

All old medieval Hungarian chronicles say: Hungarians = Huns and Scythians, Attila is King of the Huns and King of Hungary, Székelys (Hungarian subgroup in Transylvania) = the remnant of Huns, the Hungarian royal dynasty is the direct descendant of King Attila.

The contemporary Byzantine sources say: Avars = Turks, Avars = Scythians, Hungarians = Turks, Hungarians = Scythians, King Attila = Scythian (Priscus), King Attila = Avar (Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus), Hungarians = Sabirs (Hun tribe).

The contemporary other foreign sources say: Huns = Avars = Hungarians, King Attila = Scythian, Huns = Scythians, Huns = Avars, Avars = Hungarians, Hungarians = Scythians, Hungarians = Bashkirs.

I know also many sources which clearly say the Huns, Attila was Scythian (Saint Jerome, Priscus, Jordanes).

Same horse archer warfare, same customs like blood oath, magic deer worship...

According to the these recent modern DNA studies, the old Hungarians were a less homogeneous group than the today's Hungarians in the conquering Hungarian period. The blood oath was a Scythian tradition that was used by the Hungarian chieftains and many tribes together became a new nation by this custom. It means the old authors did not make mistake when they named the old Hungarians in various names, because the old Hungarians were a confederation in which were Scythian, Hun, Avar, Turkic… tribes too. According to the genetic studies we can also see there is no Finno-Ugric connection, but we can also see the old Hungarians were mostly Europids like today's Hungarians. The old Hungarians also mixed with the local Avars who survived the Frank and the Bulgarian occupation. They also mixed with Slavs and later many Germans were invited and settled in Hungary during the centuries. Many of today's Hungarians have also some Celtic genetics, which means all previous people who lived in the territory of the Carpathian Basin got an impact on today’s Hungarian genetics, so the ancestors of today’s Hungarians are living a long time ago in the Carpathian Basin.

Hungarian mythology on Avar treasures:

Emese

Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós#/media/File:Emesesdreemhungary.JPG

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c8d6ad8f8292af092fc88cfdda292790-lq

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-94dff1417f109744901134b450cf024a-lq

The Anglo-Saxon 'Cotton' world map from 1040. This old map calls the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom: “Hunorum gens” = “Hun race” (next to the name of Pannonia, zoom it)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cotton_world_map.jpg

Just some examples: (and I would show much more)

Menander Protector, Byzantine historian (6th century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander_Protector

Byzantine authors called the Hungarians as Turks and Scythians and Meander Protector called the Avars as Turks and Scythians.

(Excerpta de sententiis 28)

"It is said that after the defeat of the Romans, at that time the Avars sent messages to Tiberius and the delegated messenger said: "Well why dare you if your trouble you have a few people, to wage war against the Avars (who are Scythians too, I say), or you do not have writings and parchments, from which you would read to find out that the Scythian tribes are invincible and indestructible?" And Tiberius said in response..."

(Exc. de Leg. Rom. 7)

"After the Turks, who used to be called Saka, sent embassies to Justinian for peace, the emperor planned to have an embassy send it out to the Turks"

In this document the Turks mean the Avars, the Saka is a Scythian tribe.

Theophylact Simocatta, Byzantine historian (early 7th century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophylact_Simocatta

"the tribe of the Avars, as they say, is the most valiant among the Scythian peoples"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annales_Fuldenses

The Annales Fuldenses are East Frankish chronicles that cover the period from the last years of Louis the Pious (died 840) to shortly after the end of effective Carolingian rule in East Francia with the accession of the child-king, Louis III, in 900. Throughout this period they are a near contemporary record of the events they describe and a primary source for Carolingian historiography.

Annales Fuldenses (Pertz I. 412):

"Avari qui dicuntur Ungari" = "The Avars called Hungarians" (this text is more times in the document)

Regino of Prüm (Abbot of Prüm 892–99):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regino_of_Prüm

“In the Year of Our Lord 889, the Magyars [Hungarians], the most unrestrained and most merciless savages, came out of the land of Scythia and crossed the marshes that are continually flooded by the River Don. If we read the notes of the historians, we will learn some things about the location of Scythia and the customs of the Scythians.”

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widukind_von_Corvey

The Saxon chronicler Widukind von Corvey (925-973) write this about the Hungarians:

"Avares autem, ut quidam putant, reliquiae erant Hunorum." = "The Avars, as some believe, were the remains of the Huns."

"Avares, quos modo Ungarios vocamus" = "the Avars, who we now call Hungarians"

"De Ungariis, qui et Avares dicuntur." = "As for Hungary, who are also called Avars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicon_Salernitanum

Chronicon Salernitanum (10th century) says:

"Hunni et Avares eadem gens fuere qui postea Hungri seu Hungari appellati sunt, et adhuc appellantur." = "Huns and Avars were the same race/nation who later named Hungarians and still call them Hungarians"

Godfrey of Viterbo (1120-1196) the clergy at the court of the Holy Roman Emperors, Conrad III and Frederick I Barbarossa, accompanying the latter on many of his campaigns, and frequently fulfilling for him diplomatic missions.

This was recorded by Godfrey of Viterbo at the year of 561-562:

"Avares, id est Ungari Pannonii" = "Avars, who are actually Hungarians in Pannonia"

"Avares, qui et Huni, sive Hungari" = "Avars, who are Huns, otherwise Hungarians"

Godfrey of Viterbo writes in the Pantheon:

"Regnum Scitarum et Avarum, id est Ungarorum priorum." = "The country of the Scythians and Avars, i.e. the former Hungarians.”

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HrIuIJHI3Vg/Xj6yL3nEC6I/AAAAAAAAYOQ/t1htpoGhkvE7EzF35NZ6tds4Y_woMzeqACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Vatikan%252C%2BBiblioteca%2BApostolica%2BVaticana%252C%2BPal%2Blat%2B1813%2BGottfried%2Bvon%2BViterbo%2BLiber%2Bpantheon-vert.jpg

From the laws of King Andrew I of Hungary (around 1063):

“In Hungary, every Hungarian or newcomer who does not abandon the ancient pagan custom of Scythia, who will not immediately return to the true religion of Jesus Christ and will not obey the holy law given by the glorious King Stephen, punished with the loss of his head and goods." Paragraph 4: "Turn away from the unholy Scythian customs and false Gods and destroy Idols.”

Antonio Bonfini (Rerum Ungaricarum Decades, 1488–1497):

“... All historians record that the Hungarians came from the Huns ... who came from the Scythians.”

Eustathius of Thessalonica (1115-1195):

“The Scythians, meanwhile, moved away as a result of infection with foreign sins from the first Scythians, those with religious spirits and unfilthy characters... until the time in which they became known under the Hungarian name and began to establish an eternal permanent homeland in Pannonia. Then, just as if we remove the water from the fire, it will automatically return to its original coolness, just as they have returned to their ancient original moral integrity.”

Chronicon Pictum (1358) says:

“And this Captain Árpád had a special dignity in Scythia, it was the custom of his clan, according to the Scythian law and tradition, that he went alone before those who went to war and those who retreated, saying, therefore he was the first to enter this land before the other captains going to Pannonia.”

John Thuroczy (Chronica Hungarorum 1488):

“No one doubts that the mother of the Huns, namely the Hungarians, was Scythia: Even at the beginning of their exodus from Scythia, the famous fighting virtue glowed in them, and now, in our day, their swords are flashing over the head of the enemy.”

Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus (1436–1506) was a scholar and historian from Venice:

“No one can doubt that the Huns or the Hungarians were Scythians.”

Annalista Saxo from 908, Monumenta Germaniae Hist. SS:

About the Hungarian campaign in the Duchy of Saxony from 906, Annalista Saxo writes that of the two raiding Hungarian armies one was Avar and the second Magyar (Hungarian).

"The Dalemnicians hired the Avars", against Henrik, the prince of Saxony; and these, after they made many massacres in Saxony, when they returned in Dalamantia, met face in face with the other army of the Magyars"

Many people in Hungary is making a personal DNA test, and they upload to mytrueancestry, those Hungarians had high match with ancient Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar, Proto-Hungarian samples,

one example:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d89f7b2287ed61a64afbac90a5ed82c0-pjlq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyefhWBVxY OrionNimrod (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WALLOFTEXT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, the problem is not one of reliability in the sense of whether they are WP:RS - they are certainly that. It's a more fundamental issue with how archaeogenetics is being pursued. Beyond that, there's the issue of howwe should word things. We have a lot of verbiage such as The results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns. and and suggested on this basis that the Huns were descended from Xiongnu, who they in turn suggested were descended from Scytho-Siberians.. What this means to a scientist working in the field of genetics and what it means to a layman reading it on Wikipedia are likely to be quite different. While the papers find slight genetic connections, as you say, the way we write about it here sounds an awful lot like saying that genetics confirm that the Huns are the Xiongnu, in a highly problematic, völkisch sort of way.

Beyond that, I think this latest addition, which seems to be improperly cited, is somewhat problematic According to it, the genetic data is in accordance with interdiciplinary sources as confirmed Xiongnu origin from Mongolia and their subsequent mixing with Scythians/Sarmatians and Germanic/Goths after traveling toward Europe.. That whole last paragraph verges on gobbledygook, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wasting my time discussing where there's no issue. Have you even read the papers? That's exactly what they say and imply. They confirm what we already know about the origin of the Huns. There's no dispute and issue about that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See most recent indepenent source review by Saag & Staniuk, "Historical human migrations: From the steppe to the basin" (July 2022).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I was listening videos (this institute publish even English videos also, has own youtube channel) from those genetic professors who did these studies, they said, they plan to sit together with the other scholars from other branches and they would like to share their results and making conclusion. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woof... Well, is it worth a note of some kind pointing out what you say? As Ermenrich says, to the casual reader, the sections may seem to contradict. The encyclopedia should be clear. WP:MTAU. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KeithTyler: please explain where and what exactly is contradicting so it can be explained in better words to casual reader.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not very impressed with your response to the concerns I’ve raised about the wording. There is of course something to discuss: stating the section in such a way that, to a layman, it does not appear to say that the Huns are proven by genetics to be the Xiongnu, because, as you say, this is not what the papers show or say. You appear to be claiming some sort of expertise in understanding genetics papers - can’t you think of a solution? Your recent addition, for instance, is much better than our current section. I would also note that some of this probably belongs at Origin of the Huns rather than here.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about now? This discussion is about Huns-Hungarians connection not Huns-Xiongnu connection. I did not say that at all regarding Hunnic origin from the Xiongnu and archaeogenetic papers clearly show and say they were of Xiongnu origin. There's no debate, we have 6-7 papers reliably and clearly suggesting and confirming Xiongnu connection and origin of the Huns. If you have an issue with that, open another discussion (update: actually there's already one above), but again there's no evident problem, there's no point referring to the review of Savelyev & Jeong 2020 now since at the time of paper's publishing had lack of data and recent review of Saag & Staniuk 2022 overstates previous review.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, I've expressed myself quite clearly, so I'm not sure why you have (twice) claimed not to be able to follow me.

If you feel the need to silo discussions on the genetics section, that is not my problem. The Xiongnu-Hun connection is an aspect of the Hun-Hungarian connection. It is the same (mostly Hungarian) researchers making both connections. If you are unfamiliar with the problems of the interpretation of archaeogenetic data as performed by these authors (our own article on the subject is notably lacking in any), I suggest you look at [1], [2], [3], [4]. It is a well-known problem (there's even a New York Times article on it) and is precisely why archaeologists and other scholars worried about völkisch interpretations in the vein of Gustaf Kossinna are not all that enthused with a lot of archaeogenetic research.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar about it and the contesting methodological approaches in archaeology and historiography as well. The "problem" is partly invented and forced exactly by the camp with unscientific influences based on Marxism, critical theory and else. None of the articles and papers mention Hungarians, Huns, Xiongnu etc. hence it is an extrapolation and SYNTH which aren't valid argument. I am also asking you, please explain where, what and how the section "Genetics" is contradicting what's stated in "Links to the Hungarians" section (as well as Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin#Genetic evidence). Archaeogenetic studies show that the conquering Hungarian elite mostly was not related to the Huns, the connection was minimal and represented foreign component in Hungarian genetics, related to the Hunnic westward migrations and later Hungarian westward migration assimilating Hunnic descending people along the way and in the Pannonian Basin. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hun element was not minimal among Hungarian conquerors as you say. The table clearly shows from the linked recent study, the brown color Xiongnu/Hun component among 2 conqueror core populations, in the second, it is around 1/3 Hun component. Below the mixed Asian-European conqueror table shows also with red color Hun component. Probably the leading class originate from this group, that is why this was emphasized in all Hungarian and many foreign medueval chronicles.

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/233759b5-8d49-4759-b941-6b2b00f704d4/gr3.jpg

On 2 Hungarian pages, you emphasis in the header only the Asian component and ignore the predominant European component among Hungarian conquerors, I do not know why. What is your purpose? I explained the issue in the other talk page.

Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magyar_tribes&diff=1102672849&oldid=1102543350 OrionNimrod (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe OrionNimrod or his ancestors is/are from the turkic identity Kunság region, where the neo-Cuman (officially non recognized) minority lives. Neo- Cumans are often suppporters of turanist pseudo history. Interestingly these turanist tales about the origin of Hungarians are the very same in many ways what the anti-Hungarian Romanian propaganda spread about the origin of Hungarians. Longsars (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Longsars, I don't think comment is acceptable in WP. Please review WP policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggest you remove it yourself before someone else does. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many dates are given without their unit of measurement! (…In 451, the Huns…) While "AD" my be inferred from prior sentences, it is the an absolute standard that everyone always adds the unit of measurement regardless of how many times and how obvious. Austemagne (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. It is standard not mention AD after the first mention once it is obvious. AD is not a "unit of measurement".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giray Altay:, you're citing a book by Christopher Kelly (historian) in Italian. He certainly didn't write in Italian, so citing him in translation is bad form, especially as most of our readers and editors won't know Italian and be able to check the citations. Can you please find the original English version and change the citations to that?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ermenrich:. Tbh I used the Italian book because I couldn't find its English version, namely the original, and I trusted the Italian wiki editors on this occasion as the statements make sense and are well sourced, though I wasn't able to check that citation myself. I have now found the English version. However, I am still not able to check. I am going to use the English version instead of the Italian one, hoping that the pages are the same. If some of you is able to check it would be great.--Giray Altay (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over your addition, I don't think it belongs there. That section is on the physical appearance of the Huns. Your added text is about stereotypes about their lifestyle. We have other sections that already talk about that.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time @Ermenrich: ping me, thanks. I think that the fact that Ammianus and Jordanes' accounts contain errors and inconsistencies about the Huns belongs to the article, and the best place to put it is here. The reason I mentioned their lifestyle too is to avoid repeating everything over in other section(s). Because the utterly negative accounts hammer on the Huns' "monstrous" appearance and their alleged East Asian traits, I think this is the best place to remind the reader of the unreliability of Ammianus and Jordanes, as Kelly and Kim, among others, suggest. These modern scholars also say or imply that the accounts of Priscus and Olympiodorus don't give a more positive account just by pointing out more desirable features of their lifestyle and positive "inner" traits of the Huns (their skill with the bow; Charaton's perception of justice; the chiefs' kindness; Kreka and Adamis' cordiality; Scottas' intelligence; Attila's humbleness, etc.) but also by failing to notice anything strange or "terrifying" about their appearance, so casting serious doubts about their physical description by other authors, who never even met them. Indeed, I feel that mentioning that these "negative" authors haven't seen them definitely belongs here.--Giray Altay (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]