Talk:Kutrigurs

message: This article has several inconsistences.
1) "An interesting fact about the Kutrigurs is that, along with their counterpart the Utigurs, they formed the striking forces of Attila's Hunnic armies. After Attila's death, the larger part of the Kutrigurs returned to their homes in the Scythian plains."
This is obviously not an interesting fact, but pure nonsense, as Attila died at least about 100 years earlier in 453 and was long dead, when the Kutrigurs formed.
2) In the 'Utigur'-article, it is said: "In the mid 6th century some Utigur groups were conquered by the Eurasian Avars and became known as the Kutrigurs, while the remaining (eastern) portion retained the Utigur ethnicon." Obviously this means, the Kutrigurs were the western portion.
But: "The conquest of the easternmost Kutrigurs by Gokturk arrivals ..." But the eastern ones were Utigurs not Kutrigurs.
3) "The last of the Utigurs had settled in Pannonia (modern Syrmia) by April 677. The majority submitted to the Avar Kaghan, though some rebelled moving to Pelagonia under the leadership of Maurus (nicknamed Kuber meaning "rebel") ..."
"Under the leadership of Kuber, another part of the Kutrigur tribe seems to have moved to Sirmium (Pannonia) and from there south to the Pelagonian plain."
Now what? Utigurs or Kutrigurs?
Truchses (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kutrigurs under Attila 

message: In the article is mentioned that the name of the tribe comes (presumably) from *toqur ("nine" in Türkish), however, I don't get how this is possible? Is there a rule in Turkish languages, which governs such a shuffling of syllables? If not, has ever been found any source, in which the Kutrigurs were called Tokurgurs / Dokirgurs or anything of this sort, upon which one can build such a relation?
this articles are written by turkish manafs, they believe that Kutrigurs were Turks. Kutrigurs were Huns and they were one tribe, not nine. Search google books to find out who were they, WP is not reliable (unless turkish manafs are banned from editing), you can start from these books, they were deleted many times from this article."The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe",  Hyun Jin Kim, p. 141, :"Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars", p. 256 :" Thus in our sources the names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group." https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=onepage&q=Kutrigurs&f=falseThe Age of Justinian, J. A. S. Evans, page 340, https://books.google.bg/books?id=jjSDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=kutrigur&f=falseScythia minor, Mihail Zahariade, pages 32-33, https://books.google.bg/books?id=29FoAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y"The Empire of the Steppes", René Grousset, page 79: " Other Hun clans survived north of the Black Sea in two hordes : the Kutrigur Huns, who led a nomadic life northwest of the of Azov and the Ututgur or Utrigur Huns, whose haunts were by the  mouth  of the Don." https://books.google.hr/books?id=CHzGvqRbV_IC&pg=PA79&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMIvfOPuuqTyQIVxQcsCh1bWwlR#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false"The Byzantine Empire", Donald MacGillivray Nicol, King's College, University of London, http://history-world.org/Byzantines.htm Great Walls and Linear Barriers, Peter Spring, page 199:"In the Huns split into The Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false"Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World", David Keys, "...a barberian people, the Kutrigur Huns...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=wpGN4ekwHgYC&pg=PT51&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false  "Early Medieval Europe", Roger Collins, page 206 :"...Utigur and Kutrigur Bulgars...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=ZukcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false "Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire", Jennifer Lawler, page 298: "In 551, the Kutrigur Bulgars raided the Balkans""A History of Byzantium",  Timothy E. Gregory, p. 151 :"in 559 the Kutrigur Huns crossed the Danube and pressed as far south as Thermopylae in Greece", https://books.google.bg/books?id=gXCl9P0vKS4C&pg=PA151&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=fals "The New Encyclopædia Britannica", p. 383 "After the Kutrigur Bulgar attack ...", https://books.google.bg/books?id=oEguAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigur&dq=kutrigur&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y 
:Again same IP sock (with adress in Sofia, Bulgaria) by blocked User:PavelStaykov. Those sources and statements were already discussed, and personal attack on other editors is not supported on Wikipedia. Your personal opinion and WP:OR is not supported on Wikipedia. If there's even a possibility Kutrigurs were Huns (and there's none evidence), then again Kutrigur name etymologically derives from Turkic since Huns spoke a Turkic language. However, you believe that Huns were Indo-Europeans (Yuezhi), which is a fringe theory already heard countless times since March 2015. So please stop spamming talk page walls with the same text over and over again. --Crovata (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop calling renowned academical scholars, and modern mainstream scientifical opinion a "turkish shit" (Huns, Hunnic language). No one cares what's your and every others editor personal opinion, what we care is citing reliable sources by academical scholars who specilized in specific related field. Minor opinions and fringe theories are not supported or given equal weight like mainstream opinion - the end. Wikipedia, like every normal encyclopedia, is edited according WP:NPOV principles, and if you have something against that, then stop disruptively editing Wikipedia and start writing a personal historical blog (and check What Wikipedia is not).--Crovata (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks on other editors and WP:FRINGE theories, or through them manipulate with due and undue WP:WEIGHT of major and very minor viewpoints, are not welcome on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How exactly is Kutri- / Kotrag- derived from Toqur-? 

message: Kutrigurs were Huns and were related to the Bulgars.https://books.google.bg/books?id=mcf4CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=falsehttps://books.google.bg/books?id=CHzGvqRbV_IC&pg=PA79&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=falsehttps://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&pg=PA392&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=falsehttps://books.google.bg/books?id=KIFJiOCSYc8C&pg=PA151&dq=kutrigur+huns&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20huns&f=falsehttps://books.google.bg/books?id=ZukcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&dq=kutrigur+bulgars&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20bulgars&f=falsehttps://books.google.bg/books?id=sEWeCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA296&dq=kutrigur+bulgars&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur%20bulgars&f=false
Kutrigurs from Byzantine sources were identified with Kuci/Kidar Bulgarshttp://promacedonia.org/vz1a/vz1a_a_5.html and David Marshall Lang identified them with the Kidarites.The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest(1976), David Marshall Lang, https://books.google.bg/books/about/The_Bulgarians.html?id=8EppAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y Kidarites appeared in Kazakhstan in 4th century and they originated from the Little Yuezhi.A NOTE ON KIDARA AND THE KIDARITES, WILLIAM SAMOLIN, Central Asiatic Journal
Vol. 2, No. 4 (1956), pp. 295 – 297, „The Yueh-chih origin of Kidara is clearly established...“, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41926398?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Some of them inherited Kushan empire and were also called little Kushans.COINS OF THE TOCHARI, KUSHÂNS, OR YUE-TI, A. Cunningham, стр. 279, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42680025?seq=12#page_scan_tab_contents THE KIDARITE KINGDOM IN CENTRAL ASIA, E. V. Zeimal, стр. 132: „The Pei-shih (Chapters 7, 13) mentions that the Kidarites, whom it refers to as the Ta Yüeh-chih (Lesser Yüeh-chih), have money made of gold and silver. This information
is confirmed by the evidence of their coins. The first comprehensive attempt to categorize
and interpret Kidarite coins was undertaken by Cunningham.“, http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_III%20silk%20road_the%20kidarite%20kingdom%20in%20central%20asia.pdf  The little Yuezhi remained in north China and were included in the Xiongnu confederation under the name Chieh people. Sometimes they are also referred as Jie people.page 201 https://books.google.bg/books?redir_esc=y&hl=bg&id=J8J8AgAAQBAJ&q=Jie#v=snippet&q=Jie&f=false Their number were not small at all - between 184 AD and 221 AD there was a serious revolt of the little Yuezhi in north China, Gansu.The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1,
Denis Sinor, стр. 170, https://books.google.bg/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cranial+deformation+Yueh-Chih&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjApt2UmLrMAhWM8RQKHdvQBr04ChDoAQg9MAc#v=onepage&q=Yueh%20Chih&f=false Under pressure of Rouran Khaganate they started migration at the beginning of 4th century AD toward Kazakhstan. In 349 AD according to Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen 200 000 Chieh were slain.The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, стр. 372-375, https://books.google.bg/books?id=CrUdgzSICxcC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=Kenkol+River&source=bl&ots=KIZSHZyaJZ&sig=NixP5N00kD3QfzxQgebZCE-HF9w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6JSIibrMAhXJaxQKHXDgBEMQ6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=Kenkol%20River&f=false This was the reason for their final migration from Gansu, China and the ultimate appearance of the Huns in Europe in 370 AD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.95.172 (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per geolocation Information, the IP is located in Sofia, Bulgaria, like many previous socks by PavelStaykov. The original research and synthesis were previously discussed above, and now even below which information is in relation to this discussion. --Crovata (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kutrigur Bulgars 

message: Regarding the edit by , which is very similar to the previous sections and WP:SYNTH edits done by PavelStaykov socks; the etymology is generally considered, not sometimes. The theory that the Kutrigurs were identified with Chdar/Kidar Bulgars is wrongly cited, they were identified by Josef Markwart (died 1930) and some unknown scholar with Duč'i (whose name some read as Kuchi) Bulgars, whose name identification with Kutrigurs does not make any etymological sense (neither is pointed out in which way) as they are etymologically identified to the river Dnieper (Kocho in Armenian), which is also pointed out in the source. The theory is mentioned by Vasil Zlatarski who died in 1935, and the source was originally released in 1918, almost century ago. No wonder that no one considers such "origin" theory today. The connection with the Kidarites by David Marshall Lang on page 31 is typical example of WP:SYNTH.--Crovata (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, David Marshall Lang mentioned Kutrigurs, but on page 34, "a name deriving from Old Turkish kötrügür, meaning 'conspicuous', 'eminent' or 'renowned'".--Crovata (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Your reaction only proves the connection with previous socks. Obviously you don't know anything about the subject, the neutrality (while in the same time using improper editorial synthesis) and terminology of vandalism on Wikipedia. That was invalid example. Some theories continue to be endorsed, but many do not, get over it.--Crovata (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

text: That's an example of WP:OR which is not supported on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The words don't have the same spelling, a video game is not a reliable source, nor children are reliable scholars. Invalid argument.--Crovata (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Kutrigurs were nomadic equestrians who flourished on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 6th century AD. To their east were the similar Utigurs. They warred with the Byzantine Empire and the Utigurs. Towards the end of the 6th century under pressure from the Turks they moved to the Avar Khaganate.
There are two theories about the origin of Kutrigurs and related to them tribes Utigurs and Onogurs. According to the first theory (which is the older one and is based on careful consideration of ancient sources) these tribes appeared in Pontic-Caspian steppe after the dissolution of the Hun Empire and they came to Europe together with the Huns. In fact many scholars, for example Grousset, thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns.Great Walls and Linear Barriers, Peter Spring, page 199:"In 460 the Huns split into The Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs", https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury, page 303: "The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia." The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press), page 256: " Thus in our sources the names 'Kutrigur', 'Bulgar' and 'Hun' are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group."The World of the Huns, O. Maenchen-Helfen, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language."The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kutrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion"  
The second theory appears in the historical science after 1980 and is supported mainly by Peter Golden and some other scholars. It is based on linguistic similarities between the names Kutrigurs/Utigurs and some Turkic words. According to this theory the Huns disappeared after the death of Attila. At the same time, about 460 AD, new Turkic group, namely Oghur tribes, entered Pontic-Caspian steppe.Sometime about A.D. 463 a series of nomadic migrations was set off in Inner Asia... Archeological and literary evidence permits us to place the homeland of these newcomers, the Oghur tribes, in Western Siberia and the Kazakh steppes... The Oghurs were part of a large Turkic tribal grouping known in Chinese sources as the Tieh-lê, who were to be found in Inner Asia as well The fluidity of the situation in the steppes is mirrored in our sources, a kaleidoscope of dissolving and reforming tribal unions... Although some of the antecedents of this important migration are still unclear, there can be no doubt that the 0ghur tribes now became the dominant element in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The term Oghur denoted “grouping of kindred tribes, tribal union” and figures in their ethnonyms: Onoghur, Saraghur, etc. The language of these Oghur tribes, which survives today only in Chuvash, was distinct from that of Common Turkic. In 480 we find our earliest firm notice on the Bulghars (“Mixed Ones”), a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements. In addition, we have reports about the activities of the Kutrighurs and Utrighurs who appear in our sources under their own names, as “Huns” and perhaps even as “Bulghars.” Their precise relationship to the latter cannot be determined with any certainty, but all three clearly originated in the same Hunno-Oghur milieu. For more see: Golden, P. (1990). The peoples of the south Russian steppes, p. 257, in D. Sinor (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 256-284). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521243049.011 . However people with the name Oghurs are not documented in any of the Chinese, Iranian, Indian or Armenian sources. Actually we know nothing of the languages of the nomadic people who entered Europe before the 7th century AD. The theories for existence of specific Turkic group (the so called Oghurs, to which Bulgars supposedly belonged), are nothing more than a hypothesis. Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, Boris Zhivkov, page 37: "It is generally accepted that the Bulgars came to Europe either slightly earlier or during the Hunnic invasion", https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=yuezhi+deformation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI1qLS7L71xwIVBLgaCh0FjwTZ#v=onepage&q=yuezhi%20deformation&f=false
:Nobody disputes the Hunnic admixture in this tribe, however this mixture was basically Turkic. Check even the sources you have provided. They confirm the same thesis. For example in The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim have stated on p. 29 that the Huns seem to have had a core Turkic element, ruling over initially a large Turco-Iranian population... The heavier concentration of Turkic peoples in the western half of the old Xiongnu (Eastern Huns) Empire is likely to have contributed to this shift from a Yeniseian core language group to a Turkic one... Yet the fact that the Huns chose to hold on to the name of the imperial Xiongnu (Eastern Huns) as their own ethnonym or state name, even after the probable Turkification of the elite, is a clear indication that they regarded this link with the old steppe tradition of imperial grandeur as valuable and significant, a sign of their original identity and future ambitions no doubt. You dislike those facts, that Huns' elite was build from Turkic people and they spoke Turkic language and those facts are missing here. More the Oghuric admixture in this tribe was also Turkic, i.e. in general they were a large conglomeration of Oghur, Hunnic and other elements, but their elite was Turkic one. Jingiby (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Two other editors also disagree with your POV and have reverted you, i.e. there is such input, and please stop reverting everybody. Jingiby (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Please, stop edit-warring. If you suspect meta-puppetry, paid edits etc. you can describe that case on the page about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Martin Lee Smith, by removing one word, replacing it with some other further down the text and adding a vague source... and you consider that as an improvement? You are not doing any improvement at all. So please, don't fool yourself and most importantly - don't try to fool us. --Ted Masters (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

text: As I am not an expert in this period, I do not have a strong opinion regarding your points. I do have a strong opinion regarding this: "By the way how much do you make from such activities?" Please stop forthwith or you are going to get yourself blocked. Which will significantly reduce the chances of your contributing to the article. WP:PA please. You stated that you would like some input from a non-involved editor - which is a reasonable request. My first input is a request that you read and adhere to WP:CIVILITY and WP:GF, which I also consider reasonable. We may then be able to make some progress. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested intro 

message: In this academic source the buried bodies in Kutrigurs necropolises are described as " brahiochranic with barely detected Mongoloid signs"   How is that Turkic? 2A02:A400:F33A:1:8DF8:46CE:625C:F3BD (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with their classification as Turkic people. Modern Gagauzes are genetically 99% Western Eurasians, but are classified undoubtedly as Turkic people. Jingiby (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: the picture of the map seems to have a black rectangle over the bottom quarter (roughly) which blocks out most of central africa and also the list of what the numbers on the map mean. someone who has the original image please put it back Spacebusdriver (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrible crop job 

message: For the umpteenth time, the article has been attacked by a dubious IP with the sole purpose of changing the thesis that this tribe is not Turkic but Hunnic. Please read the discussions above and you will see that there is no consensus on writing such statements as leads in the article. They are not confirmed by the prevailing sources, both for the Bulgars in general and for this tribe in particular, which consider them Turks. Jingiby (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2024