Talk:Noin-Ula burial site

I suggest the "Uchjulü-Chanuy" and "Culture and anthropology" passages should be moved elsewhere, probably to Xiongnu. They deal with much broader topics than the kurgans at hand. Furthermore, the article should be verified and wikified. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Can any actual evidence of the name, title, or political affinities of these burials be produced? This article is overdue for abbreviation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To much Eurocentrism in these articles about ancient Asian history, especially nomadic history
Excerpts by the Eurocentric propagandist try to create a racial-divide between the Han people and Hun people, when the racial distinction is most likely the least of the differences between majority of Han vs Hun. The agricultural and nomadic ways of the Han and and Hun people, including the literacy of the Hans are the real dividing factor between these two neighbors. Statements by Russians who initially took/stole the Noin-Ula kurgan belongings of Mongolia and their Eurocentric followers have made many audacious statements and much that would be considered original research with no credible scientific backing, especially from the international community of the region from where the missing artifacts were originally taken from. Such statements like: "It has been claimed that the portraits depict Greco-Bactrians, or are Greek depictions of Scythian soldiers from the Black Sea" only support Eurocentrism and not true Asian history. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On another seemingly Eurcentric note, which there are too many, the statement: "The braid was a part of a formal hairstyle (of Huns/Xiongnu) and the braid resembles the death-masks of the Tashtyk." The Tashyk own ethnic identity is marred by Eurocentric ideas and hypothesis(ancient dna? when??) As another user describes such statements, "far-fetched", at linking this Xiongnu braided hairstyle to ethnically misinterpreted "death masks of the Tashyk". How does one reach such a conclusion anyways, about braided hairstyle and death masks? Another Eurocentricist statement in this article is edited this way: "What to the rest of the Chinese looked like a high nose, to the Europeans looked like a flat nose." Really? Does this help make the artifacts taken away from Mongolia by the Russians more "Caucasian" now that the "Chinese standard" for "nose height" is less than what Europeans perceive? Or is it intended to make another misleading racial division between the hans and Huns? Garbage Eurocentric and White pride(no pride) weaseling and editing. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There really is no such thing as "Asian" history when it comes to subjects like this, as though "European looking" people have never existed outside of Europe...Which isn't true at all. In fact, the first inhabitants of North Western China were Caucasians and they were central to the Silk Road. The population of Central Asia was far more Caucasian in the past than it is today, this began to change around 2000 years ago when Turkish tribes started to expand westwards and culminating to when the Mongols swept through and systematically massacred entire populations in the 1200s, Central Asians are not the same people that were there in the distant past and this goes with few exceptions [Tajiks are one]. The Noin-Ula burial has artifacts from the silk road and it clearly shows "European" looking people on it, so there is no eurocentrism going on at all, and from the few teeth found, those teeth have a causcasian dental pattern as well. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:2448:E547:983E:1D00 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)