Talk:Huns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merger Discussion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and / or Redirect.

Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of North Caucasian Huns into this talk page's article was:

'''Not Done—No Consensus to Merge.
— — — — —

Merge North Caucasian Huns into Huns. North Caucasian Huns is a stub and only has one source I'd really consider reliable. I propose merging it to Huns. The vast majority of scholars believe that the North Caucasian Huns were descended from or closely related to Attila's Huns, including Denis Sinor, Peter Golden, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, and Jin Hyun Kim. There's no real reason to give them their own article. Additionally, the article currently falsely gives the impression that the North Caucasian Huns are the "Khunni" mentioned in Ptolemy.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a request for sources, so here they are:
"In the 360-370's we have some indications that Hunnic groups were beginning to raid Transcaucasia. The "North Caucasian Huns," as we may term this grouping, would prove to be a formidable force, requiring, in time, an accommodation between the mutually hostile East Roman and Sasanid empires."[1]
"In 395, the Huns, apparently driven by famine in the steppes, staged a devastating raid through the Caucasus into the adjoining regions of the Sasanid Empire and the Roman East [...] Thereafter, Hunnic raids into Sasanid holdings become more frequent. In particular, Armenian sources make note of the Hunnic tribe or grouping called Xailandur, some elements of which were being drawn to Christianity. Hunnic interaction with the Roman Empire was also increasing."[2]
"It cannot be determined [...] whether [Attila's] authority encompassed the "North Caucasian Huns" as has been claimed."[3]
"We have a variety of notices in Byzantine and Armenian sources about the Huns in the North Caucasus[...] In 535 or 537, an Armenian missionary team headed by the bishop Kardost baptized many among the North Caucasian Huns." etc.[4]
"[The North Caucasian Huns] became an important part of the Khazar state and were still a distinct element in the late 7th century. After that, our sources lose sight of them."[5]
"More is known about another, more successful attempt to preach the Gospel among the Huns. In 682 the Albanian bishop Israel visited what is known as the Caucasian kingdom of the Huns, a vassal-state of the Khazars, located north of Derbend, near the CaspianSea. Nothing is known about the beginnings of this epigone state, since our principal source, the Armenian historian Moses Daskhuranci, is mainly concerned with ecclesiastical matters. However, he clearly distinguishes these Huns from the Sabirs, whom he locates further east, and, at this time and place, there is no other likely possibility for another people to have borne the name Hun [...] How long and to what degree this Hun state was able to maintain a certain autonomy within the Khazar empire, how and when the final absorption of this Hun enclave came about, cannot be established. It is probably safe to say that it is the last identifiable Hun community" [6]
Otto Maenchen-Helfen, in The World of the Huns, nowhere explicitly discusses the North Caucasian Huns, but includes their names in his lists of Hunnic personal names, p. 442.
Thompson similarly includes them as Huns without discussion, see here
"The activities of the Caucasian Huns in the sixth century AD also deserve mention at this point. These Huns were separated from the rest of the Huns due to the establishment of the Sabir realm ca. 506 AD in the Volga region [...] these Caucasian Huns would found a smaller kingdom in what is now modern Dagestan."[7]
"The Caucasian Huns, despite the small size of their polity, would persist for centuries. Within the Khazar Khaganate (seventh-eleventh centuries AD) [...] there were seven hereditary kingdoms. One of these kingdoms was a HUnnic kingdom located in the basin of the Sulak river to the north of the city of Derbent, no doubt the continuation of the old Caucasian Hunnic state."[8]--Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: Two of these make definitive claims they are Huns proper (Kim and Denis Sinor). The rest (from Golden) are using it colloquially; Golden isn't making an assertive claim they are Huns proper. And as another user (KIENGIR) below stated that there were many peoples among the Huns themselves. Not to mention this term was thrown around referring to many raiding peoples during that time. I'm not pointing the finger towards any ethnicity/tribe in particular (it is debated/uncertain) which is why I'm suggesting it be a disambiguation. If not then keep it as is (no merge). DA1 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@DA1: I have to disagree. Golden mentions them specifically in the context of "The Huns of Europe" (chapter title), immediately before describing them crossing the Volga. Thompson is similarly fairly clear about using Hun to refer to Attila's people, as is Maenchen-Helfen, who vehemently denies connections between the European Huns and other groups.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: Perhaps he is. But "Europe" here may include the Caucasus as well, so unless he or they specifically spell out who they're referring to, it's a big question mark still. Nonetheless, even if I go by your interpretation, the point being is it is a matter of debate; as I've pointed to below of other sources that both refer to Sabirs as "Huns" and of operating in the North Caucasus. There is also these additional sources, one that specifically refer the Sabirs as being of the Huns proper (quoting Byzantine accounts) and, according to Procopius, of living in the Kuban (North Caucasus): [1]; and this source which speaks of the an Opsites of Abasgia of having escaped to "the neighbouring Sabirs" [i.e., Kuban or somewhere in North Caucasus] from a Roman assault [2], seemingly confirming the former. Something which Maenchen-Helfen also claims (of the Sabirs living in Kuban; pg. 432). DA1 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@DA1: I'm not debating whether there were Sabirs in the Caucasus. The point is that none of these authors refer to the Sabirs as Huns - Golden covers the Sabirs separately, as do all of the other authors listed above. When they refer to "Caucasian Huns" or "North Caucasian Huns", it's very clear they are not referring to Sabirs. Sinor discusses the possibility that the Sabirs had connections to the Huns before moving on to the North Caucasian Huns, whom he clearly differentiates from them. I've found some references to the North Caucasian "Huns" in scare-quotes in other sources, but they are nevertheless not using the term "generically" as you've claimed - it's the name of this group, whom the above scholars connect to the Huns of Attila.
You're confusing the fact that ancient sources refer to the Sabirs as Huns with the usage of (at least the majority of) scholars of the Huns, who do not refer to them as such. Even the Iranica citation you give has to refer to them as "Sabir Huns", not "Caucasian Huns". Modern scholarship either reserves the term "Hun" for the European Huns or else for groups it believes related to them/ the Xiongnu.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. MMFA (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Redirect it to this one. That article was created in 2005 and it looks like a WP:POVFORK. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The article Huns refers to Huns proper, exclusively. There are about a dozen other articles on groups that were colloquially referred to as "Huns" by the Persians, Byzantines, Caucasians and Indians; this being one of them. I don't know how you can definitively say they're the same Huns; personally I always thought the article should be merged with Sabir people. They were the "Huns" who invaded from the North Caucasus through the Darial and Derbend passes.
Now, if you have sources (as you hinted) to support this notion that they were the same Huns, assuming that is the case, the term "North Caucasian Hun" can yet be used to refer to either Huns proper and Sabir "Huns" both then. So merging the title with Huns isn't right. Make it a disambiguation page. DA1 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem with lumping the Sabirs under the Caucasian Huns is that the Sabirs are widely thought to be the Xianbei... MMFA (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@MMFA: The article on Xianbei doesn't say anything about that though. If you are alluding to the refs in Sabir people, I believe they're referring to it being either of Xianbei or Finno-Ugric; I know that the Sabirs origins aren't decisive but rather debated. In either case, "North Caucasian Huns" as a disambiguation page works best. This article from Iranica even describes the two as being the same using both names [3] (last paragraph). Both groups coincidentally operated out of the North Caucasus during the 500s, so why shouldn't it be a disambiguation? DA1 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
That really should be added to the Sabir page then because the etymology of the name Xianbei to Sabir is pretty thoroughly established (Xianbei being pronounced "Sebri" which then flipped consonant and vowel position into "Sebir/Sabir" basically). Also the Sabirs weren't in the Caucasus, they were on the Volga which is in Astrakhan on the Caspian Steppes, above Transcaucasia (where the Hunnic groups were mostly located e.g. the Xailiandur, Brjan, etc.). The North Caucasus was mostly populated by Iranic-speakers like the Alans and the Zekhoi of Procopius. MMFA (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say, careful about this we cannot say that at the Caucasus or lower were not Sabir people, may information contradicts such a severe exclusion. There are etymological similarities regarding Siberia, but it does not mean it is surely the source. Also Sabartoe-Asphaloe was referred more tribes that after joined other tribes forming the early Hungarian tribes before the Conquest of the Carpathian Basin, although there are debates of the etymology, also the Kangars came from lower near-east, they are as well non-Indo-Eruopeans, we cannot say only "Iranic-speakers" were there as you say. The Hun tribal alliance formed many people with many different places, it is not so unform as one may expect. So I wish a totally neutral approach and not so much to fall into the "Finno-Ugrian" trap.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC))
If they didn't operate in the North Caucasus then how did they travel into the South Caucasus and Persian/Byzantine territories? Everything I've read about the Sabirs (referred to as "Sabir Huns" by Iranica) is that they would raid the region through places like the Derbent Pass in Dagestan, etc. The Wikipedia article on 'Sabir people' also says they lived in the Kuban area which is in the North Caucasus. They were colloquial "Huns" who raided from the North Caucasus, irrespective of where they may have lived. Prior to the Khazar Empire, everything beyond southern Dagestan and the coastline of Circassia and Crimea were unknown; the established civilizations had no idea what was out there. DA1 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@KIENGIR:I'm not talking about Siberia at all. Sebri is the Old Late Chinese pronunciation of "Xianbei" a proto-Mongolic people who probably flipped to proto-Turkic like the Huns and in this process Sebri became Sabir. It has nothing to do with Finno-Ugrian or Siberia.
The Sabirs lived on the Volga Mouth near the Caspian. These peoples had high mobility and it was rather easy to raid from the Volga down as far as Mesopotamia like the Huns did in 395. As for "established civilizations having no idea what was out there," Priscus has a pretty good idea, and so does Prokopios. Also, it's worth noting that many major authors like Peter Golden separate the Sabirs from the various Caucasian Hunnic groups. MMFA (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I wish to add - although this is not even discussed or accepted or regarded by some parties fringe nowadays- that regardless of the todays scholarly consensus on the views of Indo-Iranians or Scythians, Massaegetaes or similar and many other nations we have to add that only after 19th national romanticism which rewritten the whole history of Europe and many new theories emerged or rendered serving some political agendas (Finno-Ugrian theory, Daco-Roman theory, Indo-German theories) they are regarded such, before all historic sources distinguished them racially, culturally from Indo-Iranian/Indo-European people, they were regarded as classic horse-nomadic people with non-Semitic, non-Indoeuropean, but agglutinative speaking people. There are even serious and renowned scholars who openly critize the Scythian and related classification and origins. Pan-Turkism corrupted them all to be Turkic, however I disagree with this, I think the truth are not even the halfway, history tries to forget about the non-Semitic, non-Indo-European, non-Mongolic people in Eurasia as if they cannot be classified as Semitic, Indo-European or Turkic claims are coming and "absorbing" them, since racially there is not much difference, even if we regard the mass admixture of these people. I just wanted to express, I am quite skeptic and cautious with harsh conslusions, since not just Mongolic/Altaic people spoke agglutinative languages, and they do not seem the source. Depsite, in the middle east, lower the Caucasus still in the very early middle ages could be agglutinative-speaking people which were non-Turkic, non-Semitic, non-Indo-European or non-Mongolic. Subartu could be also a very ancient connection, however there is not any striking evidence for this, but I've met with such assumptions. Returning to the Sabartoe-Asphaloi, also in Greek they could not interpret properly the meaning and added Greek suffixes also...some say it means "brave Sabirs", some say people from lower Sabiria as "asphal" would mean lower. All in all, it is possible also that by location, people were referred or called themselves as Sabir because they stem from the location that was called/referred Subar or similar in the past.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC))
Okay at this point Kiengir I have literally zero idea how what you're talking about is even remotely connected to the Sabir Huns (whose name is rendered in Procopius and Priscus as 'Sabeirioi or Sabireioi." What I'm talking about is this: https://www.academia.edu/20107948/Some_Notes_on_the_Etymology_of_Sabir MMFA (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added sources. definitely not talking about the Sabirs.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, anyone have access to this? Could be relevant.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I do. Reading it now. Interesting paper. MMFA (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
If it seems relevant to you, I'll try to get access myself. I think that, regardless of whether we end up merging the Caucasian Huns article or making that a disambiguation page, it would be great if we could them in some more depth here.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@MMFA: So what position are you arguing for (regarding move)? Because I've made mine: they are also referred to as Huns, by various sources. I noted Iranica above, and you can search plenty of other sources that quote "Sabir Huns" and Sabir operating in the North Caucasus (if you search on Google). NPOV applies. This one even quotes your author [4]: Procopius speaks of the "Huns called Sabirs" Their first appearance on the Byzantine horizon is connected with a migration which took place between 461 and 465 and brought them to the region north of the Caucasus where, in the 6th century, they became a major power. DA1 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: Yes, I'm aware you're not talking about the Sabirs, but if the goal is to get rid of the stub, then making it a disambiguation is fair. The term can point to both the Huns proper and Sabir "Huns", both of whom operated in the North Caucasus. DA1 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@DA1: What I meant was: these scholars aren't. They seem to use "Caucasian Huns" or "North Caucasian Huns" to mean specifically this group of Huns. I'd be willing to take your suggestion, but I'd prefer a straight merger. Let's see what the consensus brings about.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Leaning Oppose, but you should do a proper Wikipedia:Proposed mergers tagged discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
My point is the term Caucasian Huns refers to Huns in Dagestan, Chechnya, etc. etc. in the region just north of the Caucasus called Transcaucasia. It technically doesn't refer to the Sabirs who were much further north of the Caucasus in the lower Volga Steppes. MMFA (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought I had followed the precedure for that... might you be of any assistance?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Any chance any of the sources I've posted or the discussions here have changed your mind?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Not really - you now have assembled good quotes to improve NCH & ref it properly. If it were to be merged anywhere it would surely belong in HotH, which already covers them quickly; I can't see it fitting in here. But from your quotes they seem to have been a distinct entity for long enough to justify a stand-alone article. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

::::Leaning oppose based on Johnbod's comments, agreed the quotes support keeping a stand-alone article.Dilbilir (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, p. 89
  2. ^ Golden, History, p. 90
  3. ^ Goldem History, p. 91
  4. ^ Golden, History, p. 107
  5. ^ Golden, History, p. 108
  6. ^ Denis Sinor, "The Hun Period," in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, p. 201.
  7. ^ Kim, The Huns, p. 136
  8. ^ Kim The Huns, p. 137
— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Anthropology and genetics[edit]

Following a discussion I've been having with Wario-Man, he's suggested we rename the race section "Anthropology" and create a separate genetics section, partially to reduce the danger of nationalist edits to the "race" section. @MMFA:, I believe you would have the necessary expertise to create such a genetics section. What does everybody think about doing so?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC) :Renaming the section won't help. I don't think "danger of nationalist edits" is a good reason to rename the section, which is about race. If it becomes a problem we can revisit it, but right now the section is about modern researchers who have discredited a well-attested to antiquated racial classification.Dilbilir (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I could do it but I would keep it very simple and general. It's not my area I just know about it regarding the Huns. MMFA (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That's probably all we need. Do you have an opinion on renaming "race"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah Race definitely brings up very old connotations. Anthropology, Ethnicity, virtually anything would be a better term. MMFA (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wario-Man:, am I understanding you correctly that genetics should be added to a renamed version of the current section, or should it get its own section?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Genetics has its own section on other articles. You can rename "Race" to "Anthropology" or "Physical appearance" or "Origins". --Wario-Man (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The "for other nomadic polities" hatnote[edit]

The hatnote "for other nomadic polities" is so long that it seems almost useless. The only way anyone could use it is if they already knew what other name that group of "Huns" had, and in a few cases, (the Khazars, Sabirs, and Utigurs, for instance) readers are very unlikely to find them described as Huns in modern sources. Can we reach a consensus to only include the Iranian Huns and Xiongnu, or figure out some other way to make the hatnote more productive?--Ermenrich (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It has no usage in my opinion: I) Most readers look for Attila's Huns when they search "Huns" and they are not interested in those other so-called Huns and linked articles. Plus those other peoples were just called Huns in some historical sources. II) If someone search for X Huns, the results will redirect to the related articles. e.g. White Huns and Red Huns. III) Hun (disambiguation) already covers those other articles, so I think it's better to remove hatnote "For" and keep "other uses". IV) Aren't all of them already linked in the body of this article? --Wario-Man (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That seems a logical solution to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm on board. MMFA (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Navbox[edit]

Currently, Huns articles are only connected via categories or linking on articles. Huns have enough articles for creating a navbox/template. I created navboxes for Parthian and Sasanian Empires, see Template:Parthian Empire and Template:Sasanian Empire. So please comment about your suggested structure of navbox (e.g. groups/lists). --Wario-Man (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The main would be Huns, obviously, followed by a section called History and Culture, maybe? That could include Origin of the Huns, History of the Huns, and Hunnic Language.
As another section after that, we can list battles. Category:Battles involving the Huns currently has 9 entries, to which we could possibly add the stub Treaty of Margus.
Then we have a large number of pages for Hunnic rules/individuals. Do we want to limit the NavBox to just rulers or include anyone identified as a Hun?
Lastly, do we want to include the other Hunnic peoples in a section called "Related and potentially related peoples"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I am pro-iclusionist.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC))
I create the first revision and we can change it to make it better. --Wario-Man (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First revision is ready and I added it. "Wars" is incomplete. Also, I think adding the other so-called Huns (e.g. Hephthalites) may confuse the readers and could cause some troubles in the future, e.g. some people adds to unsourced terms and claims to those articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a section for "Other notable Huns" and completed the wars. I also added Akatziri under culture (not sure where else would be better to put them).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Akatziri belongs to related topics because the origin of that tribe is uncertain, and I don't see any notable cultural aspect. Culture includes language, art, artifacts, religion, clothing, and literature. Except the language, the others don't have their own articles. Are there any notable/important articles left? --Wario-Man (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Addition of a Genetics section[edit]

Per Hunan201p's recent revision, a new paper has been published on Genetic profiles of Carpathian-basin nomads, which includes three Hunnic burials, one of which exhibits Q-M346 (Q1a2) which is related to the Q-M242 (Yeniseian/Xiongnu) subclade (It is, IIRC, a Subclade of Q-M242 itself). Another exhibited R1a-Z93 and a third R1b-U106.

Here was his proposed addition:

Ancient DNA analysis is finally resolving the 20th century debate about the phylogenetic origin of the Huns. In 2019, Y-chromosome haplotypes and autosomal SNP information of three elite male Huns were retrieved by European researchers. One Hun was found to carry the Y-DNA haplogroup Q1a2, while a second specimen was found to carry Y-DNA haplogroup R1a-Z93. A third Hun fossil yielded Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-U106. Multiple SNP analysis indicated that all three individuals were largely European in ancestry, ranging from 0-47% East Asian, and that all three had dark eye and hair color. [1] Based on the presence of Y-DNA haplogroups Q1a2 and R1a1, it was concluded that these individuals were related to the Xiongnu. Authors speculated that the R1b-U106 haplotype present in one Hun may have had Germanic origins.

I have a few problems with this.

1. A Hun cannot technically have Germanic origins because we're discussing two different things here. If looking for Genetic markers of "ethnic Huns" then only the first individual really falls in line with Xiongnu examples from L.L. Kang et. al. The presence of people expressing R1a and R1b is representative of the multiethnic makeup of the Hun polity. What you have is a person of Germanic heritage participating in the Hun system, not a "Germanic Hun." Same for the R1a (Indo-Iranian, more or less, but probably culturally far more Hunnic than any Germanic newcomers) individual.

I need some time to go over the paper in-depth (gave it a quick scan) but this addition as is I find... tenuous. And if we're going to add a section on Hun Genetics we need to talk about more than a single paper.

MMFA (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


The paper makes clear that R1a1 was present among the Xiongnu, and also among the later Hungarian conquerors:

Hun/3 belongs to Hg R1a1a1b2a2- Z2124, a subclade of R1a1a1b2-Z93, the east Eurasian subbranch of R1a. Today Z2124 is most frequent in Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan, but is also widespread among Karachai-Balkars and Baskhirs 19. Z2124 was widespread on the Bronze Age steppe, especially in the Afanasievo and Sintashta cultures 20 and R1a detected in Xiongnus 21,22 very likely belong to the same branch.

Two samples from the Karos Conqueror cemeteries (K1/3286 and K2/61) were also classified as R1a-Z2124 and two Avar age individuals (DK/701 and MM/227) belong to the same R1a1a1b2a-Z94 branch but marker Z2124 was not covered in latter samples.


There can be no doubt that R1a1 is a Xiongnu and Hunnnic founding Y-DNA haplotype.
If R1b-U106 is present in a Hunnic cemetary as this analysis suggested it was; that is obviously relevant. Hunan201p (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this is that R1a is present in almost every single Eurasian culture. Using it as an identifying marker of the Xiongnu is not feasible. Furthermore, Y-DNA Haplogroups transmit really, really easy. That's why we find Q-M242 subclades M25 L712 through L715 in the same cultures you mention (the Afansievo and Sintasha cultures). This marker of R1a is inherent to virtually all Eurasian steppe nomads. Genetics is not as definitive as you're saying it is here, and we need to reflect that in any section we add to this article. MMFA (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Who said anything about an "identifying marker"? It is commonplace to list the fossil DNA evidence of graves belonging to ancient cultures. That R1a1 is common in Eurasia does not mean that a Hun with R1a1 is not a Hun. Since R1a1 is found in Xiongnu elite burials, it belongs in this section. The R1b-U106 also belongs here just as it was presented in Table 2, since it was found in a Hun cemetary and has always been considered a Hun.
I believe you are redacting my contribution because you want all Huns to be Q1 and/or subscribe to the Yeniseian theory of Xiongnu origins. The genetics of people who are found in Hunnic graves should be listed as given by researchers without any bias related to "identifying markers" or some kind of made-up Hunnic nationalism. Hunan201p (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this from a peer-reviewed journal? We can only cite it if it's been peer-reviewed and published, and it looks like it may just be published on a website.
In any case, MMFA is right, we can't just cite one source for this section. Also, the way you wrote it appeared to be arguing a position.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

We can only cite it if it's been peer-reviewed and published, and it looks like it may just be published on a website.

Source? Anyway, yes, it was published in PLOSone:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920

In any case, MMFA is right, we can't just cite one source for this section.

And? That's not justification for taking my contribution down.

Also, the way you wrote it appeared to be arguing a position.

I essentially wrote exactly what was in pages 5 and 6 from the paper and summarized the genetic data from table 2. What position do you suggest I am trying to argue?Hunan201p (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm referring specifically to this sentence: "Ancient DNA analysis is finally resolving the 20th century debate about the phylogenetic origin of the Huns." This is a very strident position to taken, and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. As MMFA has pointed out, moreover, the DNA evidence is not as clear cut as you're presenting.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground when arguing your points. Your method of disecting others' posts is somewhat offputting. We're all here to improve the article, the point right now is to make a good genetics section, which is why we're discussing here.
Also, please properly indent your posts, including your signature.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. My point is that we should be showing that genetic evidence is evidence and only one part of a larger picture of understanding these peoples and cultures. And that if we are going to add this section, we should write it out beforehand and utilize multiple peer-reviewed sources (which when it comes to European Hun genetics, AFAIK are still pretty rare. The Xiongnu ones are hard to come by as well.)
"The R1b-U106 also belongs here just as it was presented in Table 2, since it was found in a Hun cemetary and has always been considered a Hun." Actually no, what this does is it contradicts an assumption about an individual who until now was considered a Hun. Is he still a Hun? It's hard to say (I'd have to look at the grave goods). But he certainly partook in the greater Pontic-Danubian cultural sphere. But it shows that an earlier assumption was wrong and it prevents a more diverse and complex view of that particular cemetary.
(And yes I do subscribe to the Yeniseian theory by the way because it's by far the strongest supported theory for Xiongnu/Hun origins when taking archaeology, linguistics, and genetics all into account, but the presence of Q subclades isn't definitive for many of the reasons I mentioned above, namely including that other subclades can be found in the Xiongnu cemetaries e.g. Barkol and also because Y-Chromosomal haplogroups spread really easily through populations. Linguistics is a better identifier of a greater cultural sphere, IMO.).MMFA (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
How is that statement incorrect? As far as I am aware there were no genetic studies of Huns being performed in the 20th century. Until recently, all people did was infer their genetic ancestry via physical anthropology. This paper describes genetic evidence linking the Huns to the Xiongnu, which is consistent with what some anthropologists suggested.
(MMFA did not give any reason for your statememt "the DNA evidence is not as clear cut as you're presenting". The DNA evidence was clear cut, he simply feels that we should not describe a Hun with Y-DNA R1a or R1b as a "true Hun" because he personally believes only Huns with Y-DNA Q1a can be "true Huns" -- despite R1a going way back in the Xiongnu. By the same reasoning, Thomas Jefferson should have a disclaimer on his page stating that he is "not a true American" because he belonged to the middle eastern Y-DNA haplogroup T, or Barack Obama should be noted as merely a "Kenyan participating in the American system" because of his father's nationality.
MMFA said:

And yes I do subscribe to the Yeniseian theory by the way because it's by far the strongest supported theory for Xiongnu/Hun origins when taking archaeology, linguistics, and genetics all into account

There is not a shred of genetic or achaeological evidence to support that theory and you are in a minority opinion with regards to linguistic research. The predominant consensus is that the Xiongnu were Indo-Iranian and later on, Mongolic. The recent genetic evidence does not support a Yeniseian theory, either. Hunan201p (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I've already asked you to please properly format your responses, your posts are making this talk page very difficult to read. Please indent all of your post one indentation (using :) over from the previous respondant. That includes your signature, which you keep placing on a separate unindented line for some reason.
You appear to be ignoring the central issue, which is that we need multiple sources for this section, which, as MMFA suggests, we should format and write here first, given the difficulties of using genetics research. The Yeniseian theory is irrelevant to this discussion. I would also note that genetics cannot "prove" that the Xiongnu spoke or didn't speak a Yeniseian language, anymore than it could prove they spoke an Indo-Iranian or Mongolic language.
So let's see some more sources and write this collaboratively. Per WP:BATTLEFIELD, please stop trying to make this into a you vs. MMFA (or me) thing.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
So just because I support the Yeniseian theory does not automatically mean I assume someone with R1a is not a Hun. First of all, Hun was an identity, not an ethnicity which is the entire point I'm trying to make. Huns are usually identified through cultural markers via archaeology, not genetic profiles. Second of all, yes there is a LOT of archaeological evidence to support the Yeniseian theory since modern reconstructions of the archaeological development of several Xiongnu cultural identifiers point towards the Yenisei Valley as their point of origin. Regarding linguistic evidence several of the foremost linguists on Old Turkic including experts on the Hun language Etienne de la Vassiere, Christopher P. Atwood, and Alexander Vovin (who refined Pulleyblank's reconstruction of the Jie poem) agree that Yeniseian is the most likely language of the early Xiongnu. However this does not mean it was the language of the majority of the population or the language the Huns spoke when they emmigrated into the Central Asian, Caspian, and Pontic steppes. The Huns were a multiethnic, multicultural polity whose primary source of unity was a common identity, and identity is a very fluid thing on the steppes. To the Huns, ethnicity didn't matter so much as familial ties, and familial ties and clan were the building blocks of greater identity, and they also carried a similar concept to the Chinese idea of imperial authority as shown in Peter Golden's research.
Anyways my point here is that this was a multicultural, multiethnic people and genetic markers did not define them.MMFA (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(Outdent)@Hunan201p:, could you give me the full bibliographic data for the two articles you cite? I'd like to add them to the page bibliography. @MMFA:, what other articles about Hun DNA are there that we should add?--Ermenrich (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hunan201p:, I have removed the Kazakh DNA Project info as it is not from a reliable source. As you questioned before whether we have to use peer-reviewed papers published in a respectable journal, I would like to draw your attention to WP:Reliable sources and, more specifically, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science): "primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS." "An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the first article you added also specifically says it has not been peer-reviewed, so we can't cite it either. I've removed the whole section.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Let me look up that first article because that's a pre-publishing print. It may have been peer reviewed and published by now. PLOSOne does double-blind Peer Review. As for other papers there is this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2 but most of the papers I have are on the Xiongnu. EDIT: It hasn't been yet it's still undergoing the process for publication. MMFA (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The L-M20 Hun source is available here:

OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN  SERIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL  ISSN 2224-5308  Volume 4, Number 322 (2017), 39 – 50 L. B. Dzhansugurova1 , K. B. Dzhantaeva1 , Nurzhibek1 , G. S. Zhunussova1 , E. B. Kuzovleva1 ,  L. Z. Musralina1 , Sh. Evinger2 , A. Kustar2 , O. A. Ixan1 , E. М. Khussainova1 1 Laboratory of Population Genetics, «Institute of General Genetics and Cytology» CS MES RK,  Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2 Department of Anthropology, Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Budapest, Hungary.  E-mail: leylad@mail.ru  ISOLATION AND ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT DNA  FROM HUMAN BONES OF THE HUN PERIOD Abstract. A paleogenetic analysis of the human remains of the Hun period was carried out. It is shown that the  bone remains of the Hunnic period from Hungary are 100% characterized by the L haplotype of the Y-chromosome  and the D4j12 mtDNA haplotype, which is evidence of the Asian origin of the paternal and maternal line of the  ancient find from Europe. 

http://rmebrk.kz/journals/3436/74890.pdf#page=39Hunan201p (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Neparáczki, Endre (April 2019). "Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the  Carpathian Basin" (PDF). Preprint (bioRxiv): Page 7, Table 2.