Talk:Xiongnu

奴

Though I am no historian, but I really question the explanation of 奴 in this article. The term 奴 simply means slaves. Just like in Chinese Ming history, 倭寇 refers to the Japanese thieves, but no one would try to explain the term 寇 as a some kind of tribes. I may be wrong, but I am not convinced by this article either. Can some scholars confirm this? Kowloonese 22:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Simple, the meaning and use of words and phrases evolve and change over time. For example, in the English language, the word 'awesome' means 'awe-inspiring' and was used in a more serious fashion e.g. Awesome God. Nowadays, every second thing is awesome. another common example is the world 'gay'. even though it still means happy, this meaning is becoming more and more archaic and its entirely possible that gay will be used exclusively to mean a male homosexual in the distant future. considering that thousands of years have passed since the word 'Nu' was first used to describe these people, it is not too far a stretch to see that Nu may have had another meaning or concurrent meaning back then.

I have the same question in mind too!wshun 22:25, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is no attempt to translate Nu (奴) as tribes, rather the author has attempted to explain that Xiongnu means the slaves of the ferocious ones and that these slaves actually consisted of many different peoples. It is nonetheless quite confusing and the article does need re-working. Anyone who has time to phrase it better should give the re-working a shot. Also some of the Characters need to have Pinyin or Wade Giles transliterations.

Kaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 September 2003

• • • Important update to the DNA and racial identity of Xiongnu, please click the link below and add this scientific findings to wiki, thank you

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml UPDATE SEPT, 2006*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.43.11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 21 September 2006

This page looks a little mess. :o --Gboy 06:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It looks too daunting to tidy up but taking away the Korean & adding wg or py would be a start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 October 2003

How would Uighurs, Göktürks, Jurchens and Khitans all come under the suzerainty of the Xiongnu? This page needs a serious rework. kt2 06:32, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The for-runners of those peoples are obviously meant but this needs clearer expression. At least it is clear that the Nu tribes under the Xiong were actually a pretty mixed-up group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 October 2003

One explanation about the origin of the word Nu (奴), is that Nu was once the name of the tribe and later it became synonymous with "slave". --Kvasir 09:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiung was the name of the Hun military elite (become later known as white Huns without the "slave" tribes), and -Nu means the controlled tribes under their rule. This confusion in their name have lead later the unclear ethnic definition of the European Hun people (European or Mongoloid). So that can be say that Hiungnu were Hunnic and Mongol too. Later, in the time of Genghis Khan the Mongols were the ruler class, and the remnanst of east white Huns (the later Uyghurs) were in their army.

--Dzsoker 12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Translations

It would make this unreadable entry a bit more accessible if the Chinese could be translated. And transiaxartesia ('beyond the something-or-other') isn't universally recognizable geography.Wetman 07:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes if anyone knows which English terms correspond to the Chinese names or could at least give a correct Pinyin transliteration (I can only give them from Korean) alongside the characters it would be useful. I discovered the full geographical description of Transiaxartesia was deleted in December by someone who thought it was something to do with role-playing. I don't remember much about what it said, but do know that it was the land beyond the Jaxartes river. If the person who wrote that entry (or the one who deleted it) could put the info back under the renamed link it would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zestauferov (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 January 2004

Rewrite

This article seems to be based on the contention that the Xiongnu were synonomous with the Huns. This theory has been discredited in the academic world for some time. It keeps referring to the "Xion" and their "nu" - which seems very far-fetched. The basis for the Chinese term "Xiongnu" is still contentious and should not be treated as fact. The article then moves onto a discussion of "Hu", sometimes not directly related to the Xiongnu. I'm going to attempt a rewrite. --Yu Ninjie 04:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Boy, that article needs it! BTW, "Xion" is a typo, isn't it? (I'm a bit unsure because there are non-Han pronunciations like 休麻 Xoima.) — Sebastian 05:31, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether if it's typo. Maybe the writer meant "Xiong"? --Yu Ninjie 06:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. — Sebastian 06:55, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

One should note that the word 匈 is pronounced /hUN/ in Cantonese, a language reputably older than Mandarin. It's reasonable that this sound is preserved in an older language. So yes, I do see a connection between the Xiong-nus and the Huns. Whether they were they same people or that the chinese confused them to be the same that's another debate. --Kvasir 09:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in old Chinese, "Xiong" was pronounced like "Hong". The Character itself is not a depiction of scarred faces, rather it is the phonetic part of the character. 胸 (chest), 凶 bad luck, and 汹 (??) also have this phonetic part. "Nu" may or may not be part of the name, and may or may not be a disparaging term used for them. The Xiongnu are part of the 5 Hu. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciations of Xiongnu names

All Xiongnu names and terms are Chinese transliterations. Often the characters representing Xiongnu names have pronounciations quite different to their modern pronounciations. An example is Modun (冒頓), the great unifier of the Xiongnu tribes. The annotated notes to the Shiji says that the first character of his name should be pronounced "mo" (p. 2889 of the Zhonghua Shuju edition), and not "mao" as is the modern usage. Similarly, the Xiongnu term for chief consort (閼氏) is noted to be pronounced "yanzhi" instead of Yanshi.

So even when an error of transliteration from Chinese to English on my part seems obvious, please don't change it unless you've consulted the relevant historical source. --Yu Ninjie 06:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Work done by E.G. Pulleyblank shows the original pronounciation of the characters the Chinese used to write the name of the Xiongnu would've been pronounced more like flong-nakh contemporaneously based upon ancient pronouncing dictionaries the Chinese wrote. The flong part is related to the Chinese word for dragon. The nakh part is theorized to be a foreign word for whislting arrow. The proto-Turks supposedly copied the governmental structure and words of the arrow=tribe symbol from the Yeneseians to form the well-known hun/oghur/oghuz names. If you can get it , read "Mounted Archer's: The Beginnings of Central Asian History" by Laszlo Torday, who collected the latest research on the subject and presented it in summary form. Later I'll have to dig out the exact reference and explanation for it for the article. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From E.G. Pulleyblank, 'The Consonantal System of Old Chinese', Asia Minor 5 (1962), Pulleyblank gives the following old pronounciations for Xiongnu.

Old (Han) Chinese: *flong-nahh

Middle Chinese: hion-nou

Where /i/ is an auxiliary vowel and /-hh/ is a breathy, laryngeal h-sound.

Regarding the dragon, I was mistaken. What was really meant is that the old pronounciation of the graphs used in the name of the Shanyu's clan and capital (lung (dragon) and luan (horns)) was originally similar to *flong. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should change things like "Maodun" into "Modu". Those names are NOT historical mysteries: you can find the explanations about their pronunciations in a modern Chinese dictionary. See http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%92%E9%A1%BF%E5%8D%95%E4%BA%8E -- Callofktulu 03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Xiong Nu Words Titles & Names

I have often heard that a lot of work has been done on trying to find the etymology of the collection of words, titles, and names from Xiongnu (e.g. Chanyu/Shanyu, Yanzhi, Modun etc.) that the chinese chroniclers documented. If anyone can find the chinese characters used and list them with their modernday pronunciations and suggestions of how they might have been pronounced 2 millenia ago that would be a great addition to the article.

Unrelated Xiongnu question by the way, who were the Xien Yun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.100.172 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 July 2005

• I am not sure what you're referring to. Can you give the Chinese characters for these? --Nlu 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

liu song

"After the fall of the Western Jin in 317, the southern Xiongnu succeeded in establishing the first alien dynasty in Chinese history, known to history as the Liu Song (劉宋)."

This is not correct, Liu Yu (劉裕), the founder of Liu Song, is not of Xiongnu origin. He is somewhat related to the royal family of Han dynasty, according to Chinese history.--Guangyiwang 00:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiongnu/Han

I think the Xiongnu that Chinese referred are the Huns. The ancient chinese pronunciation was Hyun and nu as one of the suffixes that the Chinese used to name whom they considered to be barbaric. It's noteworthy that the Europeans described Attila as having a flat nose. We all know that the Huns are a mixed race, in fact in Han dynasty, a Chinese would recognized a Hun even dressed in Chinese manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.83.207 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 August 2005

• There is in fact a dispute on this. See the article on Huns about this. --Nlu 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Mixed, perhaps, but not European/Asian. Look at any Northern Asian around Mongolia and you'll find they do often have wavy/curly and even lighter hair, sometimes hazel or blue eyes, taller, bigger, but by no means look　European. Many Chinese in northern provinces look very different than Chinese from southern provinces, and you can tell immediately they are from the North, or even NW, NE, etc. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rulers

Hi all, I lifted this section from the Hun article because it seems it might fit better here.

|}

c. 1800-1766 BC

夏淳維 Xia Chungvi / Chunwei / Sunni -mythological dating

夏淳維 was the son of the last Emperor of Xia, China's earliest dynasy. After his father was removed, he returned with 500 members of his Xia nationality to his relatives the Huns.

Traditional History

? - 270? BC	Ta
270 - 240?	Tangriqut?
240 - 209	頭曼 (Tumen / Tu-Man Tengriqut)
209 - 174	Mo-Tun / Mao-Tun / Batur Tengriqut / 冒顿
174 - 161	Ki-Ok / Kokkhan / 老上
161 - 126	Chun-Chin / Kunkhan / 軍臣
126 - 114	I-Tsin-Xien / El'chishye / 伊稚邪
114 - 105	Wu-Wey / Uvey / 烏維
105 - 102/1	Wu-Shi-Lu-Ir / Uyshilar / 烏師盧
102/1 - 101/0	Zhou-Li-Hu / Kulighu / (口句)黎湖
101/0 - 96	Chu-Di-Hu / Qutighu / 且提侯
96	Possible unknown ruler
96 - 85	Hu-Lu-Ku / Hulugu / 狐鹿姑

The legend of Wang Zhaojun (王昭君) is usually placed within this period though any candidate for her husband Huhanxie Chanyu (呼韓邪 單于) appears much later on.

85 - 68	Huandi / Chuangdi / 壺衍提
68 - 60	Hsu-Lu and Chuan-Chou / Shuluy Qanghuy / 虛閭權渠
60 - 58	Uyanquti / 握衍(月句)提
58 - 31	Ho-Han-Yeh / Khukhenye I / 呼韓邪, opposed by: Bosiuytang-Zhuki (West) Huge (Northwest) Cheli (Southwest) Uji (Northwest) 58 - 56 58 - 57 58 - 56 58 - 57 Zhunzhen (West) Zhizhi-Guduhu (East) 56 - 54 55 - 47
31 - 20	Fu-Chu-Ley-Ju-Di / Pozhulonuti / 復株累若提
20 - 12	Su-Xie-Ju-Di / Shuzhunoti / 搜諧若提
12 - 8	Che-Ya-Ju-Di/Qiyanoti/車牙若提 opposed by... Ulunoti / 烏累若提 11 - 10
8 BC - AD 13	Wu-Zhou-Liu-Ju-Di / Uchilonoti / 烏珠留若提
13 - 18	Wu-Ley-Ju-Di / Ulunoti / 烏累若提 (restored)
18 - 46	HuTuIrShiTaoGaoJuDi / GhuduarshiDavganoti / 呼都而尸道皋若提 opposed by... Xiuybudan 18 - 19 Udatqu 21 - 46
46	Wu-Ta-Ti-Ho 烏達提侯
46 - 48	Pu-Nu / Panu / 蒲奴

From 48, the an independent Southern Xiongnu set itself up in the east where it competed with the Northern Xiongnu for supremacy over the course of 50 years. Please also read the article about the Southern Xiongnu.

Rulers of the Northern Xiongnu or "Western" Xiong-Nu:

48 - 83	Pu-Nu / Panu / 蒲奴
83 - 84	Sanmolo Otzi / San-Mu-Lu-Tzi
84 - 89	Ulugh / Yu-Liu
89 - 91/3	Yu-Chou-Chien 91: The Hunnoi first appeared in the west near the Caspian Sea perhaps as a result of 班超 Pan Chao's campaign.
91-93	El'tekin
93-98	Panghu (?Finghay?)
98-118	Finghay

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.106.203 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 August 2005

Hunuk

"훈육은 夏나라 때 중국의 북방에 살던 만족으로서 漢나라 때는 흉노라고 하였음." -- 신자해, 민중서림, 1967.

"Hun-yuk [or simply Hun (犬+熏)], the barbarians living to the north of China at the time of Ha [Xia], was referred to as Hiungno [Xiongnu] at the time of Han." [my translation]

This quote seems to need an indepth scrutiny. --KYPark 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hunuk is mentioned in the Huns article. --KYPark 03:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In order to understand the Xiongnu people, we must use the Old Chinese pronunciation,bear that in mind that the Chinese language it's not an alphabetic languange, so the pronunciation can be varied through time. Today the so called Mandarin has been the result of ancient Chinese language being greatly influenced by invading nomadic peoples in pronunciation and grammar, so as you can see that when the ancient Chinese scribes wrote down these foreign names, they were using Old Chinese. So historians must know that these Chinese characters' modern Mandarin pronunciation is chanyu, the title of Xiongnu leader, but the ancient pronunciation of the characters says chanyu is actually dar wa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.98.150 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 October 2005

i am a chinese.i think Xiongnu is a mixed race.long long ago,Xiongnu may be a pure race.then they grow stronger and stronger.some other races are conquered by Xiongnu.year by year Xiongnu become mixed.and i want to tell occidental that Xiongnu is maybe a transliteration by our ancestors.and i think there is another possiblity.The term Nu奴 is a humiliating word added to The term Xiong匈.Xiongnu,they just call themselves Xiong匈.and the article say that "Very ancient (perhaps legendary) historic records alleged that the Xiongnu descended from the founders of China's first dynasty, Xia Dynasty",i think it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.230.175 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 20 October 2005

The word "allege" was added in there for a reason. --Nlu 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The term 奴 doesn't mean slaves here.--212.68.230.160 12:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

language

Some noteworthy (and quite convincing) work has been done by Alexander Vovin that suggests that the Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language similar to Ket. This is definitely worth mentioning on the page.

Vovin, Alexander. "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic Journal 44/1 (2000), pp. 87-104.

-Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.3.53 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 December 2005

I think this idea was first suggested by Lajos Ligeti in 'Mots de Civilisation de Haute Asia en Transcription Chinoise', Acta Orientalia Hungarian I (1950). He traces the Chinese transliteration of the Xiongnu word for 'high boot' back to Kettish. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hunuk

This was posted on Huns and it seems it might be better posted here. 86.140.13.205 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"훈육은 夏나라 때 중국의 북방에 살던 만족으로서 漢나라 때는 흉노라고 하였음." -- 신자해, 민중서림, 1967.

"Hun-yuk [or simply Hun (犬+熏)], the barbarians living to the north of China at the time of Ha [Xia], was referred to as Hiungno [Xiongnu] at the time of Han." -- Sino-Korean Dictionary Sinzahay, Minzungserim, 1967. [my translation]

This quote seems to need an indepth scrutiny. --KYPark 03:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

燻 are the "Huns" referred to in the story of Xia Chunwei.

On the Korean search engines I can only find the Character 獯 for Hun instead of 燻 as you wrote. Sadly the Yuk character is too archaic to be included in the Microsoft Chinese character bank for me to type it here and had to be represented by a picture on the Korean Yahoo dictionary. Here is the link anyway for anyone who can read Korean http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/kids/search/hanja/result.html?id=3002199&seq=1&part=word&style_mode=big Notice that during the 周 dynasty they were called Hom(獫)-Yoon(?) again the Yoon Character is too archaic for microsoft to reproduce.86.140.13.205 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I just found these alternatives too 獫狁(험윤)﹑葷粥(훈육).86.140.13.205 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Northern Xiongnu

Northern Xiongnu is extremely short and there's a section in this article covering both Northern and Southern Xiongnu. I suggest merging the Northern Xiongnu article into this article. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be merged with Northern Chanyu, but not here since the Northern Xiongnu article is a matter of more European interest relating to the Alans and the presence of Hunnoi north of the Caspian in 91AD noted by Tacitus and others after him. The Northern Xiongnu are not well documented by the Chinese. Unless there are chinese sources to expand it then it should be left where it is. 81.153.122.48 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how European interest should mean that it should be merged with Northern Chanyu or not merged with the Xiongnu article here itself. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How can it be more of European interest when the names are all in Chinese? --Sumple (Talk) 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that Chinese do not like to make a connection between Xiongnu and Hunnoi is meant. However, this discussion has been had before. Once upon a time Xiongnu and Huns were one article and the decision was made to separate the two. The Northern Chanyu article was established by User:Eiorgiomugini on the 1st of April this year (presumably not as a joke though the user seems to have vanished on the 11th of July 2006), and is s counterbalance to the Chanyu article. If anything those two articles should be merged but if there is enough room in one article for it all then I for one am not experienced enough to do such a large merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaz (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 August 2006

I would really appreciate it if editors do not do any merging, redirecting, or editing of the existing merge tags while this discussion is still taking place. No concensus has been reached yet. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to note that I'm opened to anything. Maybe merging with Northern Chanyu is the right decision. Or maybe we should actually move the content in this article's section to the Northern Xiongnu article itself. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

dui(4) bu(4) qi(3). zhe(1) bu(2) hui(4) zai(4) fa(1) sheng(1) le(1). :-) IM(not so)HO, since 1) by the term Xiongnu it is usually the Southern Xiongnu that are meant, and 2) the southern Xiongnu eventually became part of Shanxi's population, the Article Xiongnu should remain a Chinese-centric article. However, Since 3) the Northern Xiongnu clearly roamed the vast steppes not being tied to any particular country, and 4) the comparatively little comment about the Northern Xiongnu in Chinese sources comprise an ethnologue of a far away people of the Northwest, all things pertaining to the Northern Xiongnu should be in one comprehensive seperate article drawing upon what has been published concerning the Sanskrit, Tocharian, Persian, Armenian, and Byzantine sources (none of which I presume commented upon the southern Xiongnu). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaz (talk • contribs) 04:43, 31 August 2006

Yeah, but the Xiongnu article itself shouldn't be one soley based on Chinese sources and pertains only to matters related to Chinese civilisation, should it? If the article is about Xiongnu, then it should be about the Xiongnu, regardless of whether the sources are Chinese or Western, and regardless of how much effect they had on either the Chinese or the West, right? I mean, I don't think the articles on the Mongol Empire or its history are split up into Chinese and Western counterparts. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much of any support for the merge, I'm going to remove the merge tags. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Southern Xiongnu AFD

Southern Xiongnu is on AFD right now (here), just to let you know. It will probably end up as a discussion on if/where to merge it. Kappa 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

SHANYU/CHANYU

The Chinese Dictionary of the Peoples of Xinjiang [新疆民族辭典 ] contains the following gloss [單于] 匈奴最高統治的稱號. 全稱的原音為"撐犁孤途單于" (Tangri Kut daiwuni), "撐犁"為 "天", "孤途" 為 "福", "單于" 為 "大王" 的音譯. 稱號的含義是"天所賜福的大王". 通常只簡稱"單于". Roughly translated [Shanyu ((Chanyu?))] is the appellation of highest ruler of the Xiongnu. The complete appellation in its original sounds was Tangri Kut daiwuni; "Tangri" is "tian" {'heaven/sky'}; "Kut" is "fu" {'fortune/blessing'}; and "daiwuni" is "dawang" {'Great King'} transcribed {in Chinese characters}. The meaning of this appellation is "Great King Blessed by Heaven." Generally it is simply called "Shanyu." Doc Rock 19:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Did the Xiongnu become the Huns?

In Xiongnu#Did_the_Xiongnu_become_the_Huns?, the last paragraph doesn't make much sense, and draws stong conclusions based on weak, uncited evidence. I plan to remove it (or possibly leave a sentence or two with some {{Fact}} tags) soon (in a week or two?), so discussion on it is encouraged, especially if you'd like to see it stay. —Firespeaker 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the one about the Bulgarian King list? Because I agree. The link to the bulgarian king list page has a translation which doesn't include any of the assertions made here, and on top of that, this paragraph hasn't got any citations, not even the said king list (which you would think would be easy to cite if the writer had actually gotten the information from it). RB3 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not about the King list, the paragraph created in 2007 january by me, not in 2006 dec. So it refers to the one before the last. Anyway I made the citation to the article. Noting that the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans wiki article says too in his later text, that there was research made on the subject by Pritsak and others after the first discover and publication of the king list. And it includes some of the assertions made here: the name Ernakh Irnik, the third son of Attila the Hun. So please read carefully before you agree anything. Thx. Dzsoker 06:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reconstructed pronounciation of 匈

I have removed the assertion that the reconstructed pronounciation of 匈 may have been influenced by the assumption that the Xiong Nu are the same as the Huns. That is not true of the methodology followed by historical linguists such as Pulleyblank and no reference is cited for this claim.Bill 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the Xiongnu did became the Hun, as depicted in the movie Attila, the Huns has a very strange custom when they mourn the death of their king , they cut themselves and put their own blood on their face

This strange custom is exactly the same as the Xiongnu people

this has not been mentioned in the discussion , so just want to bring this point to the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.47.60 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The pronunciation in ancient Chinese is "Hong". The character is comprised of two parts: The determinative, and the phonetic. The phonetic is the bottom part with the "X". this is pronounced as "xiong" today and "hong" back then. The top part is a determinative which gives meaning to the character. I'm not sure at the moment what the meaning is, I'll have to look it up in my Chinese dictionary. The main thing here, however, is the phoenetic part. "xiong" is found in several other characters. It is NOT for scarring their cheeks. It is most likely a transliteration of the word "Hun" since Chinese don't have an alphabet. For example to write "Pizza Hut" Chinese will write "Pi Sheng Ke". The "nu" afterwards may or may not be phonetic, and may or may not be a derrogatory word saying "Hun slaves". [[User:xiaogoudelaohu] 03:42, 7 December 2008--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeniseian language

I checked out a copy of Vovin's article in Central Asiatic Journal in hand regarding the Yeniseian theory for the language spoken by the Xiongnu. I updated the article accordingly but maybe there is more. I'm not sure on how detailed I should get. Suggestions? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting [2], about a buried Xiongnu city being discovered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.70.92 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 January 2007

"There exists about 150 words and a single sentence from Chinese documents."

I had found that you made a certain changes right here[3]. This sources here are doubtful, as far I know, the only grammatical sentence based on Chinese documents that could possibly related to Xiongnu came from Jinshu 95 (see Geng, 2005), here its mentions 秀支替戾冈，僕谷够吐当，此羯语也 (Old interpretation: 秀支，军也；替戾冈，出也；僕谷，刘曜胡位也；够突当，捉也), which was based on Jie's languages given by a monk, so if we tired recontructed the Xiongnu's language based on this it would clearly led more close resembled to Kets languages, there's actually very few Chinese translation on the Xiongnu pronounce that could be considered as "clean" or without admixture elements, I think only abt less than 20 of them If I remembered correctly. Eiorgiomugini 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO a note should be mentions besides the texts to prevent misapprehension. Eiorgiomugini 13:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. What misapprehension are you trying to avoid?

You're right, it comes from Jinshu. According to the Vovin article, Futo Cheng was a multilingual Indian monk. Not only fluent in Chinese, he was supposedly familiar with the Xiongnu language as well, considering his close relationship to Shi Le. One can deduce from this that Futo Cheng's translation into Chinese of a Xiongnu sentence to be quite "clean". --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that sentence belongs to "Jie languages" as stated clearly under the text. Assumption and personal opinion is not really a good way of editing the article right here. This deduce is no way close to turth. Eiorgiomugini 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the Vovin's article in Central Asiatic Journal, if you do have it in hands, please do tell us where can I get it, since it is so important for u, it would be more harmonious for all of us to make edit right here. Eiorgiomugini 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you think there is assumption and personal opinion? The words I wrote are a summary of Vovin's article and conclusions, which is properly cited in Xiongnu. I'm not writing original research, assumption, nor personal opinion. The "deduce" is from Vovin. The Jie were a member tribe of the Xiongnu. I got Central Asiatic Journal from the library. Try there. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While most Chinese in ancient times were no more interested in the languages of surrounding people than they are interested in minority languages of China today, those who were interested left us samples of very careful and reliable transcriptions that can and must be utilised with application of proper knowledge of Chinese historical phonology. The translation of Xiong-nu poem is done by Futo Cheng himself. And we do know that Futo Cheng, an Indian monk, was multilingual. He was of course, fluent in Chinese, and we can expect that being a close confident of Shi Le, he was quite familiar with the Xiong-nu language as well. Thus, the possibility of incorrect segmentation is almost non-existent.

Could you kindly show me the URL for the Vovin's article in Central Asiatic Journal? Because it stated differently from my sources, it would be greatly appreciated, thanks. I had see you changed my edits to[4], which it not necessarily, since Jie is a different group from Xiongnu under a "confederation" based upon modern studies. That quote I believe is far from enough to make any determine, any assumption, personal opinion or deduce must based accordingly right under the scholar's name. Eiorgiomugini 04:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I couldn't find any free PDF of the article online, which is why I got it from the library. If you have a JSTOR subscription you can possibly find it there. I changed your edits because it formed a poor sentence in English. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 06:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help and recommends, I am really appreciated that. Eiorgiomugini 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not even sure why we are having this discussion... It seems obvious to me that you have some strong opinions on the conclusions in Vovin's article. I'm not here to do original research. I was attempting to expand the article's single sentence that mentioned the Yeniseian language theory by summarizing the Vovin article that was cited. I think it is unnecessary in an encyclopedia to explain the details of Vovin's argument. It is enough to present a single paragraph describing others' research. If you have a problem with Vovin's sources you should write to Vovin himself. You are wasting your time by having this discussion with me. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please watch over your civility, there's no original research conducted right here, I was based on my sources and was curious about your changing of sentence to the article, you asked for suggestions on the opening, and I'm suggesting some. You might think is unnecessary, but that's just point of view, any details if available should be shown. Eiorgiomugini 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeniseian language credibility?

How Credible is the claim that Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language in general? Does this theory have a sizable group of followers? Isn't this a fringe theory? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what criteria you use for evaluating what is "credible" versus "fringe". To me, "fringe" would be something pseudo-scientific, which I don't think applies to this theory based upon what I've read of it. The idea goes back to the 50s and 60s with Lajos Ligeti and Edward Pulleyblank first suggesting it. The most recent data I read on it (as mentioned above) is from Alexander Vovin, a rather well known linguist and professor. Is the theory widely accepted? I don't know too much regarding that. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Edwin Pulleyblank was the first to expand upon this idea with credible evidence." The article itself uses the term credible. So there is an assumed context for the use of this term. The reader is then channeled to look for the evidence. Then we learn Vovin claims that Yeniseian grammar better suits to one Xiongnu sentence. One sentence is not enough evidence for the credibility of a theory. Grammatical similarities between languages are generally dismissed by the IE language researchers as a measure of relatedness. Also Xiongnus claimed to be the rulers of China at one time. Ket is a moribund language and it is the only surviving member of the Yeniseian languages. If one time rulers of China spoke this language and now this language is almost extinct, we need to answer a series of questions: How did it happen? How many Xiongnus spoke this language? Why did the number of speaker shrink so drastically? What language did they lose ground to? Was Yeniseian language the majority language of the Xiongnu? If so what were the factors that diminished its standing to a minority language and a moriund language later on? If it was not a majority language then what is the basis for claiming that Xiongnu spoke this language and what was the majority language? Occams Razor principle tells us that we should prefer the theories that simplify things for us. Yeniseian language speaking Xiongnu theory seem to complicate things. I am not saying it is a false theory. I am just asking whether it is a superior theory to Turkic or Mongol or Manchu speaking Xiongnu theory? That is how credible is it? AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmong mythololgy

I'm moving this disputed text from the article to this page for further discussion. Please provide a reliable source before it is relinked. In my opinion, it is pure speculation and I have never heard anything about this story in any of the materials on Hmong history or culture that I have come across. It has been demonstrated that there is no link between "Hmong" and "Mongolia" or "Manchuria". The idea is linked with early 20th-century missionaries and a mistranslation of the Hmong funeral ritual. It has been perpetuated by Keith Quincy in his truly unscholarly book (no references or citations), "History of a People". For more detail about the problems with these conjectures, see: Nicholas Tapp. "The State of Hmong Studies." Hmong/Miao in Asia. Silkworm Books: Chiang Mai, Thailand (2004). Even if this is based on a folktale, I have never seen it any any collection.

"== Mythological folk-tales of Hmong == The Hmong people in Vietnam believe that the ancient Xiongnu were actually a group of Hmong, led at the time by a sage of the clan. According to such theory, Hmong people once inhabited the area near Manchuria about 5,000 years ago. Ultimately, after their defeat at the mythological Battle of Zhuolu and the death of their leader Chi You (sometimes said to be a beast), they fled southward through China and Vietnam, although some of them stayed and regrouped to become the Xiongnu. There is speculation that the name "Xiong" means "the ruler" or "the great". In the Hmong language, the word Nu (maybe pronounced with a higher tone) means "work". It could be that the Xiongnu were the Hmong Xiong ruler's subjects. "

Nposs 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xiongnu and Turkic people

An anonymous IP (Special:Contributions/58.110.70.92 has proposed an addition to the first paragraph of the article suggesting that Xiongnu people may "one of the progenitors of Turkic peoples." The first paragraph of an article is extremely important and I suggest that this speculative statement not be included unless more reliable WP:RS sources can be found. The two sources given do not satisfy this requirement in my opinion:

• "Sir H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols (1876-1880); 6th Congress of Orientalists, Leiden, 1883

This is so out of date as to be impossible to take seriously.

• http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Xiong_Nu_Empire

This article suggests that they might be descended from Turkic peoples (thus, can't be progenitors). It also notes that "the name Xiongnu was applied to the Xiongnu’s subjects too, including Turkics, Mongolics, Tokharians, Iranics, etc." So perhaps the name was simply applied to unrelated peoples.

• http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0065888.html

Three sentences with nothing about "progenitors of Turkic peoples."

The anonymous user could be using "progenitor" in the sense of "direct ancestor," but these sources only say that the Xiongnu "are thought to be" ancestors of Turkic peoples. Who thinks so? We need a better reference. Nposs 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not link any more references in the article. You can list them here for discussion. Thanks. Nposs 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had changed the wording of that earlier to "one of the progenitors" because the original "of Turkic origin" wasn't chronologically correct and didn't match something mentioned further in the article.

"Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave "Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period."

The above would be the correct citation for the statement. It comes from the Origin section. I agree that the other references are poor. See [5] and [6] --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a high possibility that the Xiongnu mostly spoke one of the Altaic languages; even if one of those dominated over the others as that of the ruling class or whatever, doesen't mean that the others were not spoken among the Xiongnu at all. Yeah I think if the Xiongnu were Turkic, there is definetely a clear genetic connection to be found to the various Asiatic Turkic peoples who inhabit that region or the neighboring regions now, for sure!! Altayans, Tuvans, Kyrgyz, hell, even Turkmen of Turkmenistan, damn right! Well even if the Xiongnu were'nt Turkic, the genetic link would be overwhelming, no friggin' doubt. But...

DNA, what?! I don't get it! DNA, my ass! You guys got bribed by the Turkish government, or what? Corrupt scientists, what a goddamn pity. Government deals between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Turkey, that's what it looks like to me!! The people of Anatolia got barely anything to do Central-Asian Turkics, genetically speaking. The Turks migrated to Persia and Anatolia, I mean to Persia, and then to Anatolia, hey, look it up yourself, one thousand years ago, 1. 000 years ago (no, there were Turks showin' up in Europe before, in countless numbers! Some Europeans have slanted eyes, really, just look at Jimmy Page). Assimilation and intermarriages happen, naturally, I mean, this is so natural, does it need any more explanation?

Look, here dudes and dudettes, Turkmen people in Middle Asia and the people of Turkey, who belong to the same subbranch of Turkic, lingualistically speaking, and have the closest historical ties as far as Turkishness is concerned, even those who claim direct ancestry to Turkmen tribes and trace it several generations back, don't look that much alike. Hell. This is getting ridiculous! What does this DNA thing prove? That nowadays' Turkey-Turks just look like ancient Xiongnu? That the ancient Turks originally had Middle-Eastern/Mediterranean/European looks, but those remaining in Central-Asia were the ones to assimilate larger populations who inhabited the steppes in abundance, specifically Asians/"Mongoloids" who changed their original ethnic make-up? That actually the Sumerian language is related to Turkish, no was in fact a successor of Turkish? That Aryan peoples like the Scythians who populated the Central-Asian steppes and Aryan peoples like the Medes who populated Asia Minor were somehow miraculously related? Or maybe that descendents of Central-Asian Turkic people who fled from the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union to Turkey, still retained their genes, and that those still can be traced back via genetic testing to the ethnicities they belonged to primarily and whom they formerly lived amongst, and even the more so can be genetically linked to historical populations in Central-Asia who might have spoken an 'Altaic' language? That out of millions of Turkish individuals in Anatolia and Thracia there are still some couple of thousand who managed to preserve the original ethnic and genetic make-up of their Oghuz-Turk forefathers, and therefore can be genetically linked to the Central-Asians predating the Middle Ages as stated above?

I am fed up with this.

THERES NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UYGHUR-TATAR-TURKMEN AND TURKISH PEOPLE, YAKUT AND SOME KAZAKH-KYRGYZ PEOPLE HAS TURKO-MONGOL IN ORIGINS. NOTHING NEW. YOU SUCKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.174.97 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu (Huns) are not Turks, get over it. There is a stupid Turkish extremist/nationalist propaganda spreading about everyone in Asia being "Turkish" (They don't even say Turk or Turkic). Mongols are not Turks. Manchurians are not Turks. Xiongnu are not Turks. Xianbei are not Turks. Not all Turks are the same either. Uighurs replaced the Gokturks after they were defeated by the Tang dynasty. The Uighurs were then later replaced by the Kyrgyz. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So who are the Turks . Where they come from to Anatolia. Hmm they could be come from sky! So who are Xiongnu people. Where are they now. You say they are not the Turkic people so who the hell are these peoples! "Manchurians are not Turks. Xiongnu are not Turks. Xianbei are not Turks" you can not say that if so prove it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.140.205 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know Turks were originated from the tribe of Tujue after rebelled against their Rouran overlords in 6th century. They lived under Xiongnu rule but the Xiongnu migrated west and south, and then Xianbei and Touba and Rouran emerged. In 516, the Rouran defeated the Tiele. Within the Rouran confederation was a tribe noted in Chinese annals as the Tujue. So they were a tribe of Ashina clan in the beginning of 6th century and then emerged large prominence in a relatively short period of time (like in the 20th century Turkey they were approx. 20 million in 1950s and now over 75). So its like you would say the Turkic people living in Russia today are Slavs or Russians, in China are Chinese and in Germany are Germans and so on, moreover Kurds living in Turkey are Turkish. I don't think so. So we can say Turks were Turks, it's all that simple. Dzsoker (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, we can see that the Turks didn't even mix with the Mongols or any other people like that, there was only a cultural exchange that occured. Xiongnu, on the other hand share the same genes as Xianbei and other people. Therefore,Turks couldn't be the descendents of Xiongnu since they do not share the same genes.

Also, Xiongnu split into two groups, North and South. Southern Xiongnu integrated with Chinese in Shaanxi province, and Northern migrated westward into Europe. No Turks split off from these two groups. The Gokturks who invaded China hundreds of years later were not the same, and only Turkish nationalists try to claim so (even saying Native Americans are Turks).

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_16596591-population-origins-mongolia-genetic-structure-analysis-ancient-modern.htm

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_17905712-genetic-analyses-affinities-tuoba-xianbei-xiongnu-populations.htm

--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

before the arrival of huns, nomadic peoples from west of altayan mountains to pontic steppes were predominantly iranian groups (scythians, sakas, sarmatians, alans etc.). after collapse of the hunnic power in pannonian plain and retreat of the huns back to pontic steppes, most peoples of the same area were turkic (onogurs, bulgars, utigurs, kutrigurs). the descendants of huns were turkic speaking utigurs and kutrigurs. if huns were related to xiongnu, which archeological findings, burial customs and similarity of their ethnonym suggests, then there is a high probablity of xiongnu were speaking a proto-turkic dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.148.237 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

at least two xianbei peoples later known among turkic speaking groups. one of them suwa (suwar/sabir people) which migrated to west after huns. actually xianbei name tought to be related to sibir/sabir. another one is tuoba people. their descendants are turkic speaking touvan people.

---

ancient dna tells tales from the grave

by nancy touchette

july 25, 2003

dna from a 2,000-year-old burial site in mongolia has revealed new information about the xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in central asia. researchers in france studied dna from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.

ancient grave in the egyin gol necropolis. courtesy e. crubezy, université paul sabatier, toulouse, france

the researchers found that interbreeding between europeans and asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. they also found dna sequences similar to those in present-day turks, supporting the idea that some of the turkish people originated in mongolia.

the research also provides glimpses into the xiongnu culture. elaborate burials were reserved for the elite members of society, who were often buried with sacrificial animals and humans at the time of burial. and relatives were often buried next to each other.

this is the first time that a complete view of the social organization of an ancient cemetery based on genetic data was obtained, says christine keyser-tracqui of the ınstitut de médecine légale in strasbourg, france. ıt also helps us understand the history of contacts between the asiatic and european populations more than 2,000 years ago.

the necropolis, or burial site, was discovered in 1943 by a joint mongolian-russian expedition in a region known as the egyin gol valley of mongolia. skeletons in the site were well preserved because of the dry, cold climate. the researchers estimated that the site was used from the 3rd century b.c. to the 2nd century a.d.

the researchers were able to figure out how various skeletons may have been related by analyzing three different types of dna. they used mitochondrial dna, which is inherited only from the mother, y-chromosome dna, which is passed from father to son, and autosomal dna (that is, everything but the x and y chromosomes), which is inherited from both mother and father.

most scientists had previously thought that people from asia mixed with europeans sometime after the 13th century, when ghengis khan conquered most of asia and parts of the persian empire. however, keyser-tracqui and her coworkers detected dna sequences from europeans in the xiongnu skeletons.

this suggests that interbreeding between the european and asian people in this part of the world occurred before the rise of the xiongnu culture, says keyser-tracqui.

the oldest section of the burial site contained many double graves. this may reflect the ancient practice of sacrificing and burying a concubine of the deceased along with horses and other animals. this practice, reserved for the more privileged members of society, was apparently abandoned later sections of burial site revealed no double graves.

the most recent sector of the necropolis contained only the remains of related males, a burial grouping that had never been seen before.

skeletons from the most recent graves also contained dna sequences similar to those in people from present-day turkey. this supports other studies indicating that turkish tribes originated at least in part in mongolia at the end of the xiongnu period

© 2003 american journal of genetics http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.206.228 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tidy up the English?

Can someone tidy up the English on this page so the sentences can be understood more clearly? For example - "Very ancient (perhaps legendary) historic Chinese records say that" implies that it is the Chinese records that are legendary which I'm not sure is what is meant by the writer. Or this sentence - "The language of Xiongnu reflects without any scholarly consensus", what does that mean? Or this - "Recent genetics research dated 2003[3] confirms the studies[4] indicating that the Turkic peoples,[5] originated from the same area and therefore are possibly related.", when previous sentence says - "Previous Turkic interpretations of the aforementioned sentence do not match the Chinese translation as precisely as using Yeniseian grammar." Contradictory and very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.16.63 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 April 2007

There are really nothing contradictory and confusing on that part itself, if anything, it should be the section "did the Xiongnu become the Huns?" being contradicting. With all the informations given on the origin language of Xiongnu, or their "first language". What we know exactly was that they certainly did not spoke a language that was agreed under any scholarly consensus, they could even be bilingual (including Chinese). In other words, none of the proposals can be absoluteness. The "very ancient (perhaps legendary" parts related about the information provided by Sima Qian. Eiorgiomugini 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's finish the job. Someone carried the notes only as far down as the archaeology. So that needs to be finished. This article is large but not as large as some. I think some condensation could take place and whoever looks at that could check the consistency of explicit and implicit statement as well. There is no need to get rigid as the Xiongnu were not ethnically or linguistically rigid; for example, any evidence that they used one language does not exclude all other languages so we should avoid any narrow interpretations and conflicts about "which language did they use". They probably used a lot of them and the article says that but it should be phrased in such a way as not to imply any such conflict or question.Dave (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Noin-Ula

I request editors competent in the Xiongnu civilization to review the content of Noin-Ula article. If you think they have any merit, please incorporate the third and fifth sections into this article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BC/BCE and political correctness

Wikipedia sure as h. is not politically correct and does not intend to be. The states are multi-ethnic, multi-ideologic, and multi-political and intend to stay that way. We have separation of church and state and freedom of speech for which our cultural forbears fought hard starting with the magna carta. So, that has not a thing to do with the BC/BCE issue. Wiki has a policy of using whatever convention was previously in place, but it must be done consistently. It adopted this convention to avoid the endless edit wars over which one to use, just as freedom of religion and speech were adopted to stop the endless wars over religion and politics. In any case whatever the previous history the article is not consistently BCE so there is no point in putting it all over to BC is there? When I look at an article I always ascertain first which convention it is using and go with thatDave (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu at Crimea?

This map is a joke, Xiongnu having a BBQ with the Greeks on the shores of the Sea of Azov????. Please take a look at Historical Atlas of Central Asia by Yuri Bregel and remove this phantasy map once and for all! Guss2 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

User:Dzsoker wrote: "map:all right.fantasy maybe, but on the second map (Asia200bc) the empire is twice in size than on the first (on Maotun domain), Xiongnu empire was the greatest under Maotun. So either is not good:)". Please don't be offended, but I challenge your either is not good. The second map looks nice indeed, but unfortunately its showing of the western boundary of the Xiongnu empire is unsourced. According to map 17-18 (The general map of the Western han Dynasty Period) in the Concise Historical Atlas of China (简明中国历史地图集, ISBN 7-5031-1015-5), the northwestern boundary of the Xiuongnu empire runs from Lake Balkash up to Lake Baikal, leaving the area between Lake Balkash and the Aral Sea outside Xiongnu sphere of influence. An Historical Atlas of Central Asia by Yuri Bregel (ISBN 90-04-12321-0) places the westernmost boundary of the empire at Lake Balkash also. See map 4: 3rd-2nd Centuries BC: Parthia. Bactria and the Yuezhi and map 5: 1st century BC - 2nd century AD: Parthia, the Kushans, the Han and the Xiongnu. According to map 4 the area between Lake Balkash and Aral was inhabited, not by the Xiongnu, but by the Kangju, on p. 8 is explained: The region north of the middle and lower course of the Yaxartes (Sïr-Darya), up to the Aral Sea, was occupied by people (possibly Indo-European, and evidently numerous) called Kangju in Chinese sources. Finally the steppes to the north-west of the Aral Sea wereinhabited by the Sarmatians, who had replaced the Scythians in the 3rd century BC. So no mentioning of Xiongnu in that area at all. In the explanatory notes for map 5 on p.10) one may read: Farther west, in the middle and lower course of the Sïr-Darya, the mixed nomadic-sedentary polity of the Kangju continued to exist until the 3rd century AD. It also included the region of Chach and had some close ties with Chorasmia (Khorezm) to the west and Dayuan (Ferghana) to the east, and Soghd was apparently its dependency. It was sufficiently strong to withstand (in the mid-1st century BC) the attacks of the Wusun from the east and, in turn, to subjugate a Sarmatian group norhwest of the Aral Sea called Yancai in Chinese sources and Aorsi by the Greek authors. So no mentioning of Xiongnu either! Guss2 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all right, (but first the map was not mine work, just copied from and older French wiki edition article), but the problem, is that Modu ruled between 209BC-174BC, I wrote either is not good, because the empire was greater after 200BC, not smaller, like the first map mentoined, it can show a status of around 209-205, at the start of his rule, and the second thing is: all right that Xioungu weren't lived that region west of Baikal around Aral, and Caspian Sea, but the Kangjus and the Yuechi, but these both were under Xioungnu rule, the east-Yuechi from 203BC, the rest who fled west later, like the Kangjus too, as mentoined also in the Kangju description: "It acknowledges sovereignty to the Yuezhi people in the South and the Xiongnu in the East." from the ""Records of the Great Historian, Han Dynasty II", Sima Qian, translated by Burton Watson, Revised edition (1993) Columbia University Press, p. 234. ISBN 0-231-08167-7" Anyway the paradox can be resolved, I'll write under the first map the date: around 205 BC, and such both can be good. Dzsoker (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Guss2, Man, I just seen (in your map picture's descrition) that your map from Historical Atlas of Central Asia by Yuri Bregel is dated to the 1st century BC, not the 3rd-2nd. So you were right, it's in fact, indeed a fantasy on Mauton's era. So the maps need a serious revision. If I'll have time, I'll made a true one from scans of historical map sources. Dzsoker (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it! Guss2 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

8/24 semi-protection

I've put in a semi-protection after a request for help by Dzsoker (talk · contribs). This semi-protection is related to the issue discussed above at "Xiongnu and Turkic peoples." I am expressing no opinions as to the merits of the issue, but I do think that more discussion is necessary before any view is unilaterally imposed. Further, nationalistic, inflammatory, and/or personal attack language by anyone is not helpful in the discussion; scholarship is. Please cite and, if possible, quote scholarship, and remember that Wikipedia is not a place for turf war, no matter how just or unjust the cause might be; it is an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

what is the difference beetween proto-turk and proto-hun

is there anyone knew before that these of two, has the same meaning. pls read more you really sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point of the discussion about the Xiongnu are Turks or not. If they are they are no different. But if not, they are. Dzsoker (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No you are wrong .There is no differnce means they have same ancestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.140.205 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is over exactly on this. Had they the same ancestor? Based on what? Dzsoker (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Language

please add Turkic to langauge162.84.164.178 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Start year & end year

?-c.360 --125.25.41.144 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

article on origin

[7]--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Xiongnu is Turkic in origin

many academics agree that they speak altaic specially turkish, and there are many sources about their origins, their Turkic identity shouldnt be removed from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No academics agree on this. Only Turkish Nationalists and extremists. Mongols, Manchus, Xiongnu, etc. are NOT Turks.

No sources about Turkic origins exist. Turks didn't mix with anyone like the Xianbei, however the Xiongnu (Huns) did. Turks merely had a cultural exchange, they don't share the same genes as the others. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth, Shiratori Kurakichi, Gustaf John Ramstedt, Annemarie von Gabain, and Omeljan Pritsak are only some of the academics that suggested Turkic origin of the Huns(Xiongnu). About sources about Turkic origin - numerous chinese sources, for example the New Book of Tang, state that the Ashina clan (which founded Göktürk kaghanate and clearly was Turkic) were descedants of the Xiongnu ruling family. 88.234.11.97 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"About sources about Turkic origin - numerous chinese sources, for example the New Book of Tang, state that the Ashina clan (which founded Göktürk kaghanate and clearly was Turkic) were descedants of the Xiongnu ruling family." - This is untrue. Dzsoker (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

About sources about Turkic origin - numerous chinese sources, for example the New Book of Tang, state that the Ashina clan (which founded Göktürk kaghanate and clearly was Turkic) were descedants of the Xiongnu ruling family. -THIS IS TRUE! Böri (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is UNTRUE. The Book of Tang does not say this. I suggest you learn Chinese and have a look for yourself before you make such ridiculous claims. I will also remove the claim from the article if it is added back again.--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar's latest edits

The latest edits seem to be selective one, in addition, the previously added sourced information was removed. Please refrain deleting the sourced content from the article while contributing. I'm in favor of a revert to the version prior to Nepaheshgar's edits. You can add them back, but keep the previously added sourced information. Thanks. E104421 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You need to be specific instead of general comment. Everything is sourced and nothing is removed except a couple of websites which do not meet WP:RS and WP:verifiability(barefact's site is obviously POV) or did not work (were dead websites sites). Or websites like allempire.com are not academic. Or some sources did not have a date and year, but I kept them. There are different theories and you removed many sources which is unacceptable. If you have academic sources, add them, but do not delete sources and a POV introduction which does not take into account all sources is unacceptable. I have contacted an interested admin about this. There are neutral sources that say that Paleo-Siberian seems to be the concensus but other theories do exist. If you disagree with the order of caterogization, then again feel free to shift them around (with sound justification). So the current format is the most natural in order to categorize different theories on their origin, when one concensus theory does not exist (although it does seem to be Paleo-Siberian). Feel free to add sources (I did remove websites but if you put them back, then you need to justify them), but the introduction can not obviously highlight one POV (which is not even the current concensus) at the expense of others. Thanks.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• You removed the information from the following sources (see the diffs for comparison):

1. Muller, F. M. 'Lectures on the Science of Language', Adamant Media Corporation, Elibron Classics, p288, ISBN 1421249006

2. Wink, A., 2002, 'Al-Hind: making of the Indo-Islamic World', BRILL, p60-61, ISBN 0391041746

3. Maxwell, V., (2005), 'Istanbul', Lonely Planet, p12, ISBN 1740594835

4. Smith, V.A., 'The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest', The Clarendon Press, p217

5. Dughlat, M.H., 'A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia', Adamant Media Corporation, p87-88, ISBN 1421249251

6. Hucker, C.O., 1975, 'China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture', Stanford University Press, p136, ISBN 0804723532'

7. Keyser-Tracqui C., Crubezy E., Ludes B. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia American Journal of Human Genetics 2003 August; 73(2): 247–260.

8. Nancy Touchette Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave

9. Population origins in Mongolia: genetic structure analysis of ancient and modern DNA. Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Moléculaire, Institut de Médecine Légale, 67085 Strasbourg, France.

10. Paola Demattè Writing the Landscape: the Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia Province (China). (Paper presented at the First International Conference of Eurasian Archaeology, University of Chicago, May 3-4, 2002.)

11. MA Li-qing, On the new evidence on Xiongnu's writings. (Wanfang Data: Digital Periodicals, 2004)

What you do is ignoring the sources in favor of your synthesis. This is against the policy. See WP:SYNTHESIS. See also WP:OWN. Actually, what you're doing is violating both of the policies. On the other hand, i urge you to be civil in your comments and edit summaries as you did here. This is also against the policy. Regards, E104421 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken(assuming good faith). Check again, none of these were removed except:"[Maxwell, V., (2005), 'Istanbul', Lonely Planet, p12, ISBN 1740594835"] (nonsense source!) and MA Li-qing, since the website did not work and proper citation (volume and etc. were not given). The rest were moved to the Turkish section or kept as they are. WP:OWN and WP:Synthesis does not apply here, since I have categorized the topic and there is no WP:synthesis. This is what occurs when there is different POVs, they are categorized. You need to give one final justification on why the current POV introduction needs to be there which is designed to concentrate on one origin, reject all other theories and why the Turkish name needs to be here (since this is an English Wikipedia). Gerhard Doerfer rejects any connection of their origin to Turkic/Mongolian and he is one of the top well known linguist along with Pulleyblank . If you do not have a good reason, and note the concensus is Paleo-Siberian, then it needs to be in the list rather than intro. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Muller is from 1861! I should have removed him along with the Istanbul from lonely plant! Smith (The Early History of India from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest') is from 1914! The DNA stuff needs its own section, but definitely needs to be read clearly and watched out for any POV. I did not remove them, but I did ask for proper quotes.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please mind WP:Weight. Doerfer and Pulleyblank are well know linguists of Turkic languages. They are not historians, but very specialized linguists. You can not claim equal weights from 1861, 1914 or websites or lonley plant and etc. So please mind WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The current concensus is Paleo-Siberian, so a neutral introduction is needed.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another bad source: "Dughlat, M.H., 'A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia', Adamant Media Corporation, p87-88, ISBN 1421249251". This is from the 16th century Mogul India and I doubt he knew the words Xiongnu and proto-Turk and etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: "This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period. "[8] very different than language spoken by XIongnu. Since DNA and language are two different things. The DNA stuff needs its own section.

Maybe I should have discussed my initial rewrite. But I did not remove sources (except lonley planet and websites which did not work or were unreliable), but now I am waiting for E104421 to justify the introduction which supports only one theory for the origin with some of the sources being from the 16th century, 1914, 1861 and etc. Obviously, in light of the sources I mentioned, one needs a to show all the different theories and it is better to move that part about origin from the introduction to the appropriate section (it is in its section now). Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two of the books named by User:E104421 are totally off-topic and cannot be used as sources in this article:

1. Wink, A., 2002, 'Al-Hind: making of the Indo-Islamic World', BRILL, p60-61, ISBN 0391041746
2. Dughlat, M.H., 'A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia', Adamant Media Corporation, p87-88, ISBN 1421249251

The first book is about the Muslim conquest of India. At that time, the Xiongnu had already ceased to exist. The second book is totally off-topic. It is the historical account of the Timurid royal Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat, a distant cousin of Babur. He cannot be quoted in this article.

Additionally, I suggest to remove the Turkish names, for the Turkish language did not exist at that time and there are no proofs that there is any connection between the Oghuz languages and the Xiongnu. Only the Chinese writings are relevant, because they can be sourced with historical writings. Tājik (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way: the article says: ... Recent genetics research dated 2003[28] confirms the studies[29] indicating that the Turkic peoples,[30] originated from the same area and therefore are possibly related. ... One medical publication and a news-paper article are given as sources:

1. Keyser-Tracqui C., Crubezy E., Ludes B. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia American Journal of Human Genetics 2003 August; 73(2): 247–260.
2. http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml

The first source, Keyser-Tracqui, is probably quoted because of the following statement: "Interestingly, this paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs), found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al. 2001)". However, this does not support the claim in the article. One (!) individual (see Henke et al. 2001) in Turkey (!) does not prove that the Turkic peoples (!) originated in Central Asia. This is totally exeggerated and selective quoting and thus POV. The second source, the news-paper article, is just an unscientific summary of the first source and thus against WP:RS. Tājik (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the information change in the infobox in [9]. The old information was someone's wishful thinking and outright incorrect (i.e., Shanyu was the Xiongnu leader's title.) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been trying to include WP:RS sources and clean up the introduction from one-sided viewpoint which has been rejected by the top linguists(Doerfer, Pullyblank) in Altaic. I will re-edit in the weekend.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• As User:Nlu had already said here: ...the prior intro was better in that it does acknowledge the dispute... So, the only improvement is the information change in the infobox. I'm agree with User:Sborsody here. In short, i'm still in favor of User:Nlu's version. BTW, There is a very informative article on Xiongnu in "History of Humanity" by UNESCO (Vol.III) which is better to rely upon. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The other users agrees with my revision and you can not leave talk for a week and then come back and r.v. without discussing. User Nlu did not involve himself furthermore, but he said to discuss the issue. He does not have a preferred version and he just asked us to stop accusing. Also he kept my categorization which shows he agrees with that section. Since he kept the categorization, then it means he does not accept a POV with one theory. Plus you need to address all the points I mentioned and the dubious sources that are quoted. I have contacted user dab on the issue who banned barefact for 6 months. It is clear that you are also pushing a nationalistic viewpoint on the article where-as my version takes into account all theories. As per what is in the UNESCO volume, I remind that Hermatta is an editor of that volume and wrote the conclusion. Plus Doerfer is a Turkologist of first class and he strongly disclaims any sort of relationship with altaic. Nevertheless, I have created a section where various theories based on verifiable sources are mentioned. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who said so? User:Sborsody said the improvement is in the infobox (here), User:Nlu said the previous intro was better (here). You're misrepresenting what other users said. This is clearly obvious. In addition, you cannot accuse and treaten people. Be civil E104421 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nlu kept my categorization(you removed it initially), but he asked for more discussions which you were not present. He also said he is too busy, although I asked him to involve himself. I am being WP:Civil, you did not partake in the discussion and did not address the many points I made and went right into r.v. after 1 week or so. Again when respected linguists like Doerfer (he might not be an expert in anything else but he is an expert in Altaic languages) and Pullyblank who discredit the theory, there is no way the dubious sources (which I did not remove except for lonely plant) can give one POV in the intro. Lets wait for dab. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• What you're doing is cherry picking, you're not quoting the whole paragraph or the whole statement in your references but just pick up one. You are distorting the sources, and misrepresenting what other users say.That's the problem. I recommended you a very reliable source, on Xiongnu in "History of Humanity" by UNESCO (Vol.III) which is better to rely upon, but you just insist your version. You're not the owner of the articles you edit. More importantly, you cannot accuse and threaten anybody. I'm the one who started the discussion here. Let's ask the users Nlu and Stacey Doljack Borsody about what they said. You're complaining to other users, but misreprenting what's really going on. E104421 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify here. I said I supported the infobox change but didn't use the word "only". I didn't comment on the rest because I didn't have time then to read through all the changes being made nor do I have much expertise on the issue and removed sources as Nepaheshgar seems to have. My main source is Alexander Vovin's article regarding the Chinese transliteration of the Xiong-nu (Jie) phrase. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That was just one of the mistakes. The previous title was mistakenly written as "Khaqan", which although not necessarily an Altaic word (it could even be from Xiongnu or Yenisian language or others), was used by Altaic rulers. The reason the wrong title was put there was to claim Altaic origin, but as you noticed, the title was wrong according to the Chinese sources (which is all we have on this group).

To E104211. You need to watch WP:Civil and not accuse me of cherry picking. No need for me to do such thing, recall the other user who did that and got banned. That is the proper action for cherry picking and manipulating sources for nationalistic reasons or using unspecialized sources to make unrealistic claims. I actually do not need to cherry pick since if I was cherry picking, I would just quote Harmatta and Doerfer and remove everything else. If you have a statement in history of humanity (edited by harmatta by the way) against the quote I mentioned, then go ahead and put it in the proper section. What Hermatta says is valid, it is from the same book and it is from the conclusion chapter from a book which he edited and more importantly he is an expert in the area and so his quote will stay. You can have in the same book possibly a differing opinion from another author, then you should feel free to mention it. I have not examined that section actually of the same book but I looked at another section. This can happen in an Encyclopedia also, two different authors can write different entries and there could be a difference of opinion. Obviously Hermatta is more than qualified and there could be another author that is qualified. Everyone from that book is in my opinion qualified for Wikipedia. And so is what Doerfer has stated, since he is qualified in the linguistic aspects. I do not need to cherry pick, and so please watch WP:Attack. Neither do I quote dubious sources (see my comments above about lonely planet, Muller (outdated) and etc.) All the sources I mentioned are academic and can be verified and I can bring even the whole page. Also you are right, no one owns the article. What you did was simple r.v. without responding to the points I made. I waited more than a week and noted you did not make comments, so I justifiably fixed the article. We can wait for dabs comment.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, remove the Turkish names. Who cares if Turkish people say "Mete Han"? In English we call him "Modu Chanyu"...does that make him English or American? Does it make him Chinese? Of course not. Turkish extremists need to stop with this propaganda and saying everyone is Turkish. Gengis Khan was not Turkish either. Also, learn the DIFFERENCE between TURKISH and TURKIC. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Tenger

I take back what I said in an edit summary about Tenger, r-Turkic and z-Turkic. "Sea" in Chuvash is apparently "tines" and in Mongolian it is "tengis". I think it is still a different word that is being confused with Tangri. I'd like to see the proposed etymology on this one. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol I've just want to suggest, that we discuss it here in the talk page, but I see you already started it.:) So I meaned the Hungarian word Tenger, meaning Sea, sky, and their religion Tengrism, it is the same word as the Turkic Mongol Tangri, since the name we talking about is the Son of Sky, Son of Heaven, Son of Tengri. And Tengri is also the name of the God is Tengrism. I thought this also connects to the name Dengizich (Tengizik), son of Attila the Hun, and Dengiz (Tengiz,Genghis) khan, these also mean sea, I think. Dzsoker (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the same word. Tengri and Dengiz are two different words. Please provide a source for your claim. Tenger means sea in Hungarian, not both sea and sky. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think these the same. Look. From the articles of Tengri, and Tengrism: "Tenger literally means "sky" in Mongolian language and modern Mongolians still pray to "Munkh khukh tenger" ("eternal blue sky"). Therefore Mongolia is called as "land of Eternal Blue Sky ("Munkh khukh tengriin oron" in Mongolian). And also in modern Turkey Tengriism is sometimes called Göktanrı religion by some scholars." I've original wrote it means blue sky in archaic Hungarian with the word "kek", meaning, blue: "kuk tenger" in Mongol, "kök tangri" in Turk, and "kék tenger" in Hungarian, all meaning blu sky. And the other: you just wrote that of z and r Turk-speaking: for i.e.: Dengiz (Tengiz) in z-speak, Tengir in r-speking (in Hungarian i and e, is only a dialectical difference (for example: feher, fehir, is the same, means white), and in these languages the d, t, g are only phonetical, or archaical in some cases (for ie.: gök, kök in Türk) differences. So Dengiz, and Gengiz, Tengiz, Tenger is all the same. In phonetics and linguistics these are logical reasoning so undeniable, I think, so because of these I wrote what I've written. Maybe you can deny or expand it. Dzsoker (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. We can't add material to Wikipedia because one of us think this is how it is. We need to hear it from verifiable, reliable, and respected sources. I agree that the words look the same, but there are unexplained problems with your proposed relationship between the two. Tenger is indeed the word for "sky" in Mongolian, but not the word for "sea". Where is it demonstrated that the words for sea, sky, and god are the same in ancient Hungarian? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop for a second. It's not my speculation, I read it in many books, just I don't rembember where momentarily. For example:

"Avar Tengrism in Croatia

In the 8th and 9th century the Avars, an Eurasian equestrian people was present in Croatia. Ladislav Heka (Heka László) a Hungaro-Croatian historian of law affirms that Croats as a nation were still forming during 9th century and that the non-Slavic tribes - among them the Avars- were a significant numerical addition to them. According to the opinion of Heka the slavised Avars held their political autonomy under the rule of the bans in Lika, Korbávia and Gács (Lika, Krbava, Gačko) counties and maybe also some elements of theire traditional Tengrist religion was preserved.

Tengrism, an essentially monothesitic faith, revered heavenly Tengri, as the sole God. The early Hungarians were followers of Tengrism as well.

A prominent scholar, Louis Elteto (Éltető Lajos) supposes that the ancient Hungarian monotheism had an important influnece on the birth of Unitarian faith in Transylvania and it is not an accident that Unitarianism could survive as an institutionaliz ed religion only among Hungarians.

We can say that Tengrism, as one of the possible sources of the Unitarian thought, was present in Croatia directly and indirectly as well."

Anyway, I'll check up this subject accurately sometime, and I'll cite sources. Dzsoker (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review what the point of contention is. The sentence in the article is "In these words may be detected Turko-Mongol roots: ch'eng-li in particular is the transcription of the Turkic and Mongol and Hungarian[citation needed] word Tängri, Heaven or God." You added "and Hungarian". So the discussion is surrounding the claim that Tängri is a Hungarian word, not that the ancient Hungarians practiced Tengriism. You justify this addition by saying Tenger is Hungarian for sea (a fact not disputed) and that somehow this word is related to Tängri (a disputed fact). All I request is a source discussing the etymology of the Hungarian word "Tenger" and its relation to the word Tängri. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

From personal correspondence: "According to Tuncer Gülensoy's etymological Turkish dictionary, the Old Turkic Täŋiz comes from the root word *Täŋ (Lake, Swamp) with a -(i)z plural suffix." Got a Hungarian etymological dictionary available to look up tenger? It is still possibly a loanword from r-Turkic and has nothing to do with Tangri (as evidenced by the etymology for Tangiz). --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not available in English, but I looked after it, and possibly you were right about these two words are different, for ie. in Mongolian, tengiz means sea, and tenger means sky (so I have to and will translate the related passages of Hungarian etimology dictionary in the next year and write the results). But I've something interesting: the linguist Uchiraltu, Professor of Mongolian Studies College, Inner Mongolia University, translated the root of the name of the the Great King or shan-yu's title "Ch'eng-li Ku-t'u Shan-yü" as the same as “Chingiz/ Chenger/Tengri”, meaned in the old Mongolain “the collector of a people as great as ocean”, and he pointed out that the word of the later Tengri, meaning the sky and god of Tengriism, originally meaned something like ocean, or great sea, and the root of this word of all the three languages, Mongol, Turk, Hungarian derived from the same ancient Xiongnu word. His works also aren't available in English online, but some clue can be found in Dr. OBRUSÁNSZKY, Borbála: The History and Civilization of the Huns, University of Amsterdam, 8 October 2007. http://www.epa.oszk.hu/00000/00007/00028/pdf/00028.pdf, pg. 61. So I think it makes some sense that these words are of the same root, so in my opinion it can be left in the article. You? Dzsoker (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that some researcher somewhere made that connection. But until it is accepted consensus in a significant part of the scientific community, we shouldn't mention it. And don't take this personally, but I would be very careful with Hungarian sources in this context. There's a lot of national pride on the line there, and at least some Hungarian researchers may let their wishful thinking get in the way of scientific fact finding. I hate to generalize, but if some theory about the Xiongnu/Huns is only taken up by Hungarian sources, but not generally accepted elsewhere, then I wouldn't add it to Wikipedia as fact. Some of it may eventually turn out to be true, but Wikipedia doesn't want to represent the most recent research, but rather the established knowledge. --Latebird (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

you're wrong I suppose, read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing"Editors often post minority views to articles. This fits within Wikipedia's mission so long as the contributions are verifiable and do not give undue weight." and "Verifiable and noteworthy viewpoints include protoscience as published through reputable peer-reviewed journals. Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources." Dzsoker (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't exactly get the point what are you mentioning, but those were from Chinese and Mongolian scholars like professors of Inner Mongolia University, China. But on the issue of the Xiongnu/Huns I disagree. It had nothing to do with the so-called Hungarian sources. It has became commonly accepted, as far as I know among academicians. Anyway that's why I wrote to Sborsodys comments that he was possibly right about the difference of the words Tengri/Tenger, he can correct it. Dzsoker (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you citing any Chinese or Mongolian scientists (china.org.cn is a travel propaganda site, not an authority in historical matters). As has been said several times already, your use of sources is generally inappropriate. You don't seem to understand which sources are reliable and which opinions are notable enough to be mentioned. The result is (possibly unintended) POV pushing and giving undue weight to fringe theories. Incidentally, about a year ago another editor was banned from editing topics related to medieval history because of very similar problems. --Latebird (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for have to say but you are wrong again, If you'd examined carefully my sources, you may'v seen two thing, the sources I cited are: an article of National Geographic, an established magazine, written by an Orientologist of an Academy of Sciences, and the other is not a travel site source, but was two official reports of the Xinhua News Agency, Official Govermental News Agency of China citing by name almost 15 professors, archaeologists, and specialists of the Chinese scientific elite. I think they know better who the Xiongnu were than you and your friend, so I think their opinion should be in the article, rather than yours. Dzsoker (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when is a chinese government news agency a reliable source for scientific matters? Please bring the reputable peer reviewed journals as asked for in the guidelines. Arguing by Appeal to authority will not convince anyone either. --Latebird (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I mentioned that Chinese sholarly opinion only because it was not a travel site's opinion, and in your previous comment (09:02, 9 December 2008) you mentioned that: "I hate to generalize, but if some theory about the Xiongnu/Huns is only taken up by Hungarian sources, but not generally accepted elsewhere, then I wouldn't add it to Wikipedia as fact. Some of it may eventually turn out to be true, but Wikipedia doesn't want to represent the most recent research, but rather the established knowledge." So it is accepted by a number of scholars abroad too, but anyway I agree with your opinon, hence I suspended the previous dispute. yes, we must wait for peer-reviewed sources and journals to represent it as an established view. Regards Dzsoker (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To add to the whole Chinese scholarly thing, I've read some scholars work in Chinese about the Xiongnu, which support the theory that Hungarians are the descendents of the Huns (Xiongnu). One professor's name is Wang Shiping (王世平) and he's a researcher at Shaanxi Historical Museum in Xi'an. A short page about him can be found here: http://www.chinesejy.com/yuwen/259/305/2005122925403.html

Another professor who supports the same theory is Lin Gan (林干). He is a professor at Inner Mongolia University who researches Central Asia and Ethnic history in China.

Yet another scholar in China named Wang Zu (王族), famous for poems and essays, supports this theory.

A Mongolian scholar also in support of this theory is Professor Uchiratu, who works for a Mongolian University in the fields of linguistics and literature. He has done research in Hungary and finds many similarities between the Hungarians and Mongolians, which he attributes to the Huns. You can watch a Hungarian scholar talk about some of his research at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAo38hnqvkQ Her name is Borbala Obrusanszky, and she is a Historian-orientalist of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institution of Ethnography Shamanism Archive. She does fieldwork in Mongolia and Northern-China among Mongolian people. She has good connection with Mongolian State Universtiy, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, and with Inner Mongolian scholars. She began to get connected with the Hun researchers from the Shaanxi Normal University. She published 1 book, and 20 articles on comparative history.

Therefore, with the aforementioned professors and scholars from China and Mongolia, there is no reason to have such a sarcastic attitude with anyone mentioning eastern sources. Furthermore, I suggest you learn Chinese or Mongolian so you can read some of them before being so eager to dismiss anyone's mentioning or citation of these sources! --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for these good infos, I also consider that the Chinese and Mongolian researchers are among the most competent ones in the field of Xiongnu research. Especially the experts of the Shaanxi Historical Museum, since that county was the home and center of the Southern Xiongnu for hundreds of years. Wang Shiping's idea about the large number of persons with Liu surname in Shaanxi is a very interesting theory, a number of them can be the descendant of the royal Liu Xiongnu clan of Liu Yuan's Han Zhao, and Liu Bobo's Xia. Dzsoker (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC - comments on this diff, please: [10]

One editor thinks he has added valuable and well-referenced work, another edits this and feels that he has removed hyperbole and nationalist wishful thinking to leave only the useful material.

I think modern research should be presented. Dzsoker (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents established knowledge. Unconfirmed recent research may only be mentioned if it has resulted in significant echo in the scientific community, so that more than one scholarly source can be used to reference it. --Latebird (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "unconfirmed" in the above statement. Irregardless of the scientific quality of these sources, they appear to be too new and haven't been published in the appropriate international trade journals to benefit from proper peer-review and confirmation. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have come in response to the RFC but am not sure what the disputed text is. Is it the section beginning,'The original geographic location...'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, someone removed it, it is here: : [11]

Thanks. Firstly, let me make clear that I know nothing at all about the subject of the article but, in a first reading, the version by Richard Keatinge seems to be far more encyclopedic than the version by Dzsoker , which seems to have additions more in the style of an essay or exposition.

What's the dispute

What's the dispute here? Teeninvestor (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This diff summarizes it: [12] Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Xiongnu, Turkic according to Chinese sources

This article really has become messed up, we have guys who can't stop spurting hatred and constant slurs against Turks who want us to believe they can be taken seriously. The edits are hardly objective, they are just filled with anything that can try to disprove a connection between Xiongnu and Turkic peoples.

The Chinese ancient sources are the best information we have about the Xiongnus as they were written either during the Xiongnu reign or soon after.

As for the language of Xiongnu: Weishu 91

"高车，盖古赤狄之余种也，初号为狄历，北方以为敕勒，诸夏以为高车、丁零。其语略与匈奴同而时有小异，或云其先匈奴之甥也。"

Translation: Gaoche, all the remnants of old Chidi, original name was Dili, in the north known as Chile, among Xias known as Gaoche, Dingling. Their language is same as Xiongnu with small difference, or can be said the nephews of Xiongnu.

Now we know that the Dingling to whome the Gaoche or Chile and Tiele tribes are related and often these terms are used interchangably, we know these peoples spoke Turkic.

The Xiongnu speaking Turkic is the most commongly accepted theory in this field, however, some historical revisionists here seem to think its anything but Turkic.

There are countless other Chinese sources indicating the Xiongnu being Turkic, no doubt they subjicated tribes of other ethnic groups like any empire does.

--Torke (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese say NOTHING about the Xiongnu being Turkic since Turks did not have an empire until hundreds of years after the Xiongnu, and thus the word Turk did not exist in history during that time. Modern Chinese researchers (and even Mongolian) support that Huns are the ancestors of today's Hungarians (Magyars). There are not "countless" other Chinese sources saying Xiongnu are Turkic. I recently bought several books on my trip to China this winter, and can give the names of the authors and their background for anyone interested (or who can speak Chinese and wants to read them, since English versions aren't available yet). In one of the books, there is even a chapters even titled "Not the ancestors of Turks".

The Dingling you speak of are the ancestors of the Uighurs, who replaced the Gokturks after their defeat by the Tang dynasty (which was hundreds of years after the Xiongnu left and migrated to Europe). Save the Turkish nationalism for someone who cares --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Read "Weishu", study some basic history, then try to have a civillised discussion without making accusations.

1. Hungary is a misnomer, in Hungarian its "Magyarország", land of the Magyars, now go and learn who the Magyrars are and who the Huns are, when you realise they are two different people then return.

2. Weishu source states

Gaoche, all the remnants of old Chidi, original name was Dili, in the north known as Chile, among Xias known as Gaoche, Dingling. Their language is same as Xiongnu with small difference, or can be said the nephews of Xiongnu.

They can all understand each other, you yourself admit Dingling are ancestors of Uygurs, therefore de-facto also have accepted the Uygurs spoke the same language as the Xionnu ie. Turkic. The word "Turk" as a pollitical term to define speakers of Turkic may have not been recorded in history at that time but the sources clearly state these people spoke the same language. These people who spoke the same language are also the peoples who later became known as "Turks" in the written sources.

3. The vast majority of historians connect Xiongnu with Turkic peoples.

This article is nothing but historical revisionism and is another prime example of why Wikipedia is a laughing stock among people who study and are involved in the field of history.

--Torke (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I try to clarify the situation a little bit: (But if you are a Turkic person you should know better.)

Today's Turks are considered as the descendants of the Oghuzes, from the Tiele or Gaoche who were conquered by the real Turks (Tujue). (The exception are the Kyrgizes, who are probably from the Kienjun or something, a northern people). The Tiele originated from the Dingling. For the Turks, there are 3 theories in the Chinese sources:

1. "The Tujue were a separate people from the Xiongnu, in itself a tribe, who previously lived east from the Western Sea." (this is the Yellow Sea, so it means probably North-Korea, south from the Tungusic peoples. The word Ashina is either of Iranic origin or of a Tungusic tribe Asina. Or the territory of Aral See, where lived a people west of the Wusun? or what).

2. "The Tujue Ashina originated from the mixed barbarians (Hu)" (not even clear Hu, but mixed, so it means a more undefinite origin).

3. "The Tujue are from a tribe who lived north from the Xiongnu."

So the sources state exactly the opposite of what you have written. The Xiongnu were different from both the Dingling and the Tujue people.

And for the language, the source you cited, the Book of Wei was written after 550, when the Xiongnu people were already disappeared (or migrated west if we accept the theory of Xiongnu-Hun identification) long time before that. But even if the two-language were similar with minor differences in those times or a little earlier, this says nothing about the original language of the Xiongnu, first mentioned almost a thousand years before that. And we also even don't know what was the language of the real Turks of that time. The first clearly Turkic language material is the Orkhon scripts. (See Britannica if you think Wiki is errorous).

And finally I think that the article is not a revisionist view but an advanced one, today the Xiongnu language and people are considered mainly as unknown (the Turkic theory what was mentioned, is already an obsolote school of thought (approx. 200 years old, since then the science developed at a least a bit) (This goes for the Huns too).) But at the same time this do not close the door that in the future the research will identify them as Turkic or Mongolian or even as Uralic or Iranic. The wiki enc sould present all relevant scientific viewpoints, and this article does exactly this, so it fits well in the scope of the pedia.

P.S. and for Hungary: It originates from the name of the Huns (what a surprise), because the peoples and scholars, chroniclers of that time considered the Hungarians as the descendants of the Avars (Var-Huns) and the Huns. (see also Britannica) And in the case of them, there are indeed a large number of sources that state that continuity, hence they (and not the Turks or Mongols or Germans, etc.) bear the name of the Huns. Dzsoker (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Hungarians as the descendants of the Avars (Var-Huns) and the Huns... hence they (and not the Turks or Mongols or Germans, etc.) bear the name of the Huns". This explains Dzsoker's motives - we get an Hungarian nationalist instead of Turkish, who is implying that Huns were in fact Hungarians. He says that he clarifies situation but in fact he is ignorant of some facts. The only example I will mention; he says that Turks are descedants of Oguzes, but this is true only for western Turks, many Turkic ethnic groups aren't Oguz (like Kazakhs, Kyrghyzs, Tatars, Uzbeks, etc.). I suppose Turks is understoos as people of modern Turkey in the first place, but there are many Turkic groups beside them. I think this is the cause of confusion. Göktürks(Tujue) gave a collective name to a group of related peoples with similar languages, that is Turkic peoples. It is also very possible (as suggested by Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth, Shiratori Kurakichi, Gustaf John Ramstedt, and Omeljan Pritsak and many other scholars),that before the emergence of Göktürks, the collective name for this same group of peoples and tribes was Xiongnu(Huns). 88.234.11.97 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Chinese sources, they don't say that Xiongnu were Turkic, because Turks emerged after Xıongnu, that is true. But Chinese sources (ancient ones, not the ones you can buy on your trip to China), for example the New Book of Tang and many older sources, state that Turks, particularly Tujue and Ashina clan, were descendants of Xiongnu, precisely Xiongnu ruling family. 88.234.11.97 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you CAN buy them at the book store in China- there are many publications of ancient texts (including Sima Qian's historical records). I've read the passage of the Book of Tang you referred to, and it does not say they were descendants of Xiongnu. It says they are descended from tribes NORTH OF the Xiongnu. In short, Ancient Chinese never said Xiongnu were Turks or that Turks were descended from Xiongnu. Furthermore, even today no scholars in China are saying this. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the Tujue and Ashina thing what you wrote is untrue.

Second: That motive you explained goes exactly for you, not for me. I didn't write that the Hungarians are the descendants of the Huns or Avars, (what I am thinking is another thing, but it is irrelevant in this discussion regarding the Xiongnu or Huns), I just wrote what is in the sources, and explained the origin of the name of Hungary, based on Britannica, to react to Tork's writing, who named it as a misnomer.

And third: Yes, there were nationalists with us in this field since long time, but they are not on the Hungarian side but mainly on the Pan-Turkic one, who try to claim everything as Turkic. And they were mentioned in the scientific books of the Hunnic research too, for example:

O. Maenchen-Helfen: The World of the Huns: "In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere, Germanic scholars discover Germans in unlikely places. Convinced that all proto-Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Németh offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. Now it has turned out that Asparuch is an Iranian name. Validi Togan, a scholar of profound erudition but sometimes biased by pan-Turkism, derived shogun, Sino-Japanese for chiang chün, "general," from the Qarluq title sagun. Pro-Germanic bias led Schönfeld to maintain, in disregard of all chronology, that the Moors took over Vandalic names." etc.

And yes there were a number of sholars in the past, who tried to classify the Xiongnu and Hunnic language as Turkic, but nowadays it is not accepted anymore (and it never was universally, some scholars insisted Mongolian, Iranic, etc. origin of the Huns and Xiongnu), nowadays they are classified mainly as unknowns. This is the current situation with the Avars too, who were also written as Turkic or Mongolian in the past, but not anymore. See also Britannica, before you try to accuse me with false statements again. Thx. Dzsoker (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt offended Joker, I didn't mean that. I didn't accused you of the false statements, I only said they were incomplete, that Turk in broad sense may mean not only major ethnic group of modern Turkey and their ancestors, but also many Turkic groups. It's not true that Turkic theory is not accepted anymore, there are still many scholars of this view, for example Pritsak. I didn't use affirmative statements like "the Tujue and Ashina thing what you wrote is untrue" (unconvincing for me, by the way) as you do, but only said it is very possible. I accept that motive guessing was unfair, but it was so tempting in the light of statements like "hence they (and not the Turks or Mongols or Germans, etc.) bear the name of the Huns". I apologize for it. By the way, I am not Turkish, rather Russian, but at the moment I am in Turkey. Here I usually I edit from the public computers.85.96.22.167 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote "that is untrue" thing not to convince but to this sentence of you: "But Chinese sources (ancient ones, not the ones you can buy on your trip to China), for example the New Book of Tang and many older sources, state that Turks, particularly Tujue and Ashina clan, were descendants of Xiongnu, precisely Xiongnu ruling family.", because this is untrue, since the sources don't state these things (It was written above what they contain about Tujue and Ashina.). Or if I'm wrong: which are those passages exactly you referred to? Dzsoker (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. All right. - And to the topic: I also meaned in the broad sense: all Turkic peoples, not just those of Turkey, could trace back their origin to the various tribes of the Tiele (Dingling) people. And the Dingling are not the Xiongnu, so this can be an affirmative statement. - And that mindset on Pritsak's view is a misconception: his Concluding Remarks on the Hunnic language: "It was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and Mongolian." which has some ties to the old Chuvas type, but to consonantism, its initial position in Hunnic was in agreement with Old (and Middle) Mongolian rather than with Old Turkic. etc. - from The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan - OMELJAN PRITSAK, 1984. - But the majority of scholars (like Doerfer, Rona-Tas, etc.) don't accept these Turkic and/or Mongolian viewpoints, mainly because they are just based on full assumptions, since the historical sources don't contain any meanings of those Hunnic person and tribal names. Dzsoker (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkic origin of Xiongnu

The genetic researches suggest that the Huns were a confederation of Turkic, Ugric, Finnic, Tungus and Mongolic peoples. It's not what you call as "Turkish nationalism". There are biological facts from the history. You can also compare the language spoken by Xiongnu with modern Turkish. For instance, "tengis" in Xiongnu language has the same meaning with Turkish word "deniz", the sea. "qara, khara" in Xiongnu is the same in Turkish, "kara", black. Also, we call the God "Tanri, Tengri" in Turkish. There is no doubt that Uighurs in Eastern Turkistan (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region), are the descendents of Xiongnu. --Kimizci (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such qara, khara Xiongnu word in the Chinese sources. There was an European Hun ruler named Charaton, but we do not know what this name meaned. And the word tengis is the same in Mongolian too. Dzsoker (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no genetic research that suggests the Huns were Turks (let alone a confederation of other peoples.) Actually, genetic research suggests that the Turks only had a cultural exchange with other peoples, not a genetic one.

"This result supports the hypothesis that the succession over time of different Turkic and Mongolian tribes in the current territory of Mongolia resulted in cultural rather than genetic exchanges."

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_16596591-population-origins-mongolia-genetic-structure-analysis-ancient-modern.htm

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_17905712-genetic-analyses-affinities-tuoba-xianbei-xiongnu-populations.htm

The Huns came much earlier in history- several hundred years before the Turks, and over a thousand years before the Mongols. The latter two only share some words because they were influenced by the Turks, not because they are descended from them. The Huns split into two groups, the north and the south. The south settled in northern Shaanxi, China, while the north tribe settled in Hungary.

The Uighurs are NOT at all descended from the Huns. The Uighurs replaced the Gokturks after they were defeated by the Tang dynasty in China (and then were replaced by the Kyrgyz). When it is said the Huns were a confederation of tribes, it is because all the tribes were Huns, just not allied with each other until Modu Chanyu united them. Any Turkish person who claims descent from the Huns is simply a nationalist. Any claim about linguistic connection even is ridiculous as hardly anything is known about the language, and very few words are recorded in Chinese history.

--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is actually genetic reserach that suggests Huns were a Turkic people but genetics don't proove ethnicity. I already wrote above that the Ancient Chinese sources describe the Huns to have the same language as the Dingling, we know the Dingling to be related to Tiele who were involved in forming the KokTurks. The overwhelming evidence today points towards a Hunnic-Turkic connection.

Its not Turkish people claiming Huns were Turkic, are you going to accuse the majority of world historians as being Turkish nationalists because they claim this connection. These sorts of claims are ridiculous.

The Turks didn't magically appear one day, they had predecesors, these included the Huns.

Please go and read some elementery history and get rid of your prejeduces.

--Torke (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While there were some EARLY historians who suggested a Turkic origin for the Huns, no one holds that view today. As I said before, the Huns split into two groups: Northern Huns and Southern Huns. Southern Huns settled in Shaanxi Province, China. Northern Huns migrated to Europe. No Turks or even Mongols split off from the Huns. The Turks were a separate people living elsewhere in Central Asia just as the Mongols, Manchus, and other peoples were living elsewhere. Huns were not the ancestors of everone! Also, I've read many history books about the Huns, both in English and in Chinese.

--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From Britannica Mongolia, History » Ethnography and early tribal history:

"The first mention in the Chinese chronicles of tribes that can be identified with Mongolia goes back in a shadowy way to the 2nd millennium bc. The first inhabitants of whom there is certainty, however, are the Xiongnu, in about the 5th or 4th century bc. It was once thought that they were Turks, or at least Turkic-speaking, but the opinion has grown that they spoke a paleo-Asiatic language, represented today by the Ket dialects of the Yenisey River valley in Siberia. The Xiongnu created a great tribal empire in Mongolia while China was being unified as an imperial state under the Qin (221–206 bc) and Han (206 bc–ad 220) dynasties. After several centuries of war with the Chinese, complicated by civil wars among themselves, the Xiongnu confederation broke up. Some of the southern tribes surrendered to the Chinese and were settled within China, where they were eventually absorbed. Some of the northern tribes migrated westward, where descendants—together with the members of other tribes—appeared in Europe in the 5th century ad as the Huns of Attila. By then, of course, these people were considerably more mixed ethnically.

In Mongolia the Xiongnu were succeeded both by Turkic-speaking peoples and by others identified by some scholars as Mongols, or Mongol speakers. There is a lack of convincing archaeological or historical evidence that these groups came to Mongolia from some distant region to fill a void left by the Xiongnu departure. Probably they were there all the time as the subjects of the Xiongnu, until the breakup of that confederation gave them the opportunity to assert themselves. Among the peoples who have been considered possibly Mongol, the most important tribal names are Sienpi (Xianbi), who may however have been Tungus (modern Evenk) rather than Mongol, recorded in Han dynasty annals, and the Juan-juan (Rouran, or Geougen) of the 4th to 6th centuries. The latter have been identified by some scholars with the Avars, who migrated into Europe along the plains of the Danube and were nearly annihilated in Hungary by Charlemagne in the late 8th century.

According to a legend recorded by the Chinese, the Turks of Mongolia, whose name is recognizable under its Chinese transcription “Tujue,” were a subject tribe ruled by the Juan-juan. The Turks overthrew their masters and soon were in control of all Mongolia, centring their power in the Orhon valley in the northern part of the country. ..." Dzsoker (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Huns were speaking a Turkic language, thats why they were Turkic. Xiongnu people were also Turkic according to their language. Uyghurs of China and Turkish people are nearly same in both language and living style. Why dont you start searching from Uyghurs instead of Turkish people of Germany? Such a stupidness--94.54.245.56 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Huns did not speak a Turkic language, nor do you have any evidence to suggest that. Uyghurs and Turkish do not have the same living style. Turkish people have adopted so much culturally and linguistically from Arabs (and Persians too). As stated before, the Xiongnu existed in the area long before the Turks did, and the word Turk was never mentioned in Chinese sources or any other sources to describe the Xiongnu. The Xiongnu split into two groups, one migrating westward and one settling in northern Shaanxi province, China. No Turks or Mongols descended from either of these two groups. The Xiongnu were much more ancient as a people and influenced both Turks and Mongols. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The forebears of the Tiele belonged to those Xiongnu descendants, having the largest divisions of tribes. They occupied the valleys, and were scattered across the vast region west of the Western Sea [Black Sea],

1.At the area north of the Duluo River (Tuul River), are the Pugu, Tongluo, Weihe (Orkhon Uyghur),[26] Bayegu, Fuluo (Fufuluo), which were all called Sijin (Irkin). Other tribes such as Mengchen, Turuhe, Sijie, Hun (Hunyu), Hu, Xue (Huxue) and so forth, also dwelled in this area. They have a 20,000 strong invincible army.

2.In the regions west of Yiwu (Kumul), to the north of Yanqi (Karashahr), and close to the White Mountains (Tian Shan), come the abodes of the Qibi, Boluozhi, Yidie, Supo, Nahe, Wuhuan (Wuhu), Hegu (Kyrgyz),[27] Yedie, Yunihuan (Yunihu) and so forth. They have a 20,000 strong invincible army.

3.Passing over the Gold Mountains (Altay Mountains) to the south west, are the Xueyantuo (Syr-Tardush), Dieleer, Shipan (Yueban), Daqi and so forth. They have an over 10,000 strong army.

4.Leaving these, we come to the regions north of Kang (Samarkand), close to the river A-De (Volga). Here dwell the Hedie (A-Die), Hejie, Bohu, Bigan, Juhai, Hebixi, Hecuo, Suba, Yemo, Keda and so forth. They have a 30,000 strong army.

5.At the west, to the east and west of the De Yi Sea (Caspian Sea), are the Sulu, Hesan (Hazar), Suoye, Miecu, Longhu (Sahu) and so forth. They have an over 8,000 strong army.

6.When we reach to the east of Fulin (the Byzantine Empire), are the Enqu, A-Lan (Alans), Beiru, Jiuli, Fuwahun and so forth. They have a near 20,000 strong army.

7.Lastly, in the regions south of the Northern Sea (Lake Baikal), dwell the Dubo (Tuva) and some other tribes. The names of these tribes differ, but all of them can be classified as Tiele. The Tiele do not have a master, but are subjected to the both Eastern and Western Tujue (Göktürks) respectively. They don't have a permanent residence, and move with the changes of grass and water. Their main characteristics are, firstly, they possessed great ferocity, and yet showed tolerance; secondly, they were good riders and archers; and thirdly, they showed greed without restraint, for they often made their living by looting. The tribes toward the west were more cultivated, for they bred cattle and sheep, but fewer horses. Since the Tujue had established a state, they were recruited as the auxiliary of empire and conquered both east and westward, annexing all of the northern regional lands.

The customs of the Tiele and Tujue are not much different. However a man of the Tiele lives in his wife's home after marriage and will not return to his own home with his wife until the birth of a child. In addition, the Tiele also bury their dead under the ground.

—Suishu, 84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.217.100 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Chanyu is preferable to Shanyu

I will go through the article and change the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout (except in quotes). The reason is that the Guangyun, a dictionary compiled in 601 CE by Lu Fayan, and completed during the Song dynasty, gives three readings for the first character of this title [i.e. Chanyu]: dan, chan, and shan. The form chan is specifically mentioned as being used in the Xiongnu title Chanyu. The reading shan is used as a place or family name; the reading dan means 'single' or 'alone.' Also see, for example: "Early Chinese Settlement Policies towards the Nomads." Pan Yihong. Asia Major, 3rd series, Vol. V, Part 2, (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin, p. 48. (1991). Edwin G. Pulleyblank. UBC Press. Vancouver; Indo-Scythian Studies being Khotanese Texts Volume VII, p. 32. H. W. Bailey. Cambridge University Press. John Hill (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What can we do to improve this article?

I am searching for help on how to improve this article which seems to have developed into a bit of a mess.

The Xiongnu only became a recognisable political group in the 3rd century BCE and most scholars seem to believe they were very possibly a confederation of different nomadic groups, and quite likely from different ethnic and/or linguistic backgrounds. There is certainly no generally-agreed consensus as to who they were, what language(s) they spoke, or who they became, and I think this should be made clearer in the article.

It seems to me that the article has become too long and detailed to be a good Wikipedia article. The "Geographic location & Xiongnu genetics" section particularly seems far too long and complex to be of interest to anyone except experts in genetics who may reasonably be expected to go to the original articles rather than seek their information in the mass of data on this page. Could someone please briefly summarise the findings that can be fairly made from the genetic data to date? I think it would be important to take particular care to make sure it really refers to the Xiongnu and not just to some remains excavated from sites assumed to be in areas under Xiongnu control at the time.

Also, how do we know that the information in the "Rock art" section actually refers to Xiongnu rock art (not to mention the "carved characters" or "runic letters". Is this an attempt to claim that the Xiongnu had their own system of writing?). Finally, how can rock art which dates back as far as the ninth millennium BCE right up to the 19th century CE in one area be considered relevant to the understanding of what was probably a confederation of highly mobile and and ethnically and linguistically mixed peoples in the 3rd century BCE to about the 3rd century CE?

Likewise, how can an archaeological report on the Xiongnu which apparently claims to show information on the "Neolithic and historical periods of the Xiongnu's history" have any credibility? Didn't the authors have any clue that the peoples inhabiting these regions regularly moved and replaced over time? The steppes are not noted for supporting stable, static populations over long periods of time.

I would greatly appreciate help from others with the knowledge and a great respect for what can possibly be truly learned about the Xiongnu (and what can not) to rewrite most of this article. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I think, therefore, I should lower this article's quality class rating from B to Start until more editing is done. John Hill (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

you might want to check here: [13] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts: On the Xiongnu genetics section: Yes it may be a little too long, but it is exactly what you asked for: the summary of all the available present genetic data of the Xiongnu researches, consisting of more than a hundred pages in total. While it maybe is long, despite I tried to make it as short as possible, it is hard to shrink it without breaking its consistency and accuracy. But at the same time I also think that it describes the most authentical and modern studies of the Xiongnu, presents a great amount of good information (mostly using the original phrasing of the scientific articles), and exact new data based partly on natural sciences, which makes it as the only not speculative part of all the centuries long Xiongnu researches, thus on the other hand making that section as the most valuable part of the whole article. So hard to decide the appropriate rate.

On the concrete Xiongnu: one thing should be included, namely that those "most recent graves" of males, mentioned in the first paragraph (as some kind of proto-Turks) are probably not Xiongnu but a new population which replaced them around a few years before 100 AD (since it is a new part and differs from the previous stocks, this is also in an other article which treats this issue partly but also writes that more research is needed before it could be accurately decided). This also seems to coincide with historical source datas which write that the Xiongnu left that territory around 89-91 and were never seen or heard of again, and other peoples (like the Xianbi and Dingling) had taken over their country. But I left unchanged it for the above reason (more research is needed as yet). - Dzsoker (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with John above; we have too much detail, much of it with only speculative connections to the subject of the article. I suggest a rewrite concentrating on what we can actually know about the Xiongnu and drastically pruning speculation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you (both) mean exactly?

In general, I consider that the article is not so bad in this form, but some of those things mentioned by John (like that Neolithic etc.) indeed really should be rewritten, since as far as I know, nothing like this is accepted in the literature. But the uncertainty of the knowledge of the historical research about their ethnicity and language, origin, pre-history etc. is represented rather well. Also, I agree with that in the genetic section perhaps some of the really technical expressions should be excluded for simplification, but the results revealed by these new fields of scientific research, namely archaeo- and modern genetics (from 2003-) about both ethnicity and geography issues of the Xiongnu people and empire, together with their genetic relationships to other archaic and present populations are important matters, which worth the lines. To summary I think your critiques of the whole article are too generious (for example, Richard what do you referring to as the speculations?, etc.), needing some concrete suggestions. Dzsoker (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitions and connections are fundamental here. To achieve a sensible consensus, we need to define the Xiongnu (presumably as an ethnicity recorded in Chinese). To comment on anything else, we need to make an explicit connection, with sources that report evidence rather than making speculations of their own, between, for example, the recorded Xiongnu and a given body, artifact, or whatever. Only then does it make sense to discuss Xiongnu genetics, rock art, or whatever. And I suggest that almost all of the present Archaeology and genetics section is based on speculation about Xiongnu identity of the people or artifacts concerned. The section has other problems as well. As John Hill suggests, it needs drastic pruning. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro should just present that various viewpoints exist. There is a section for each viewpoint and any specific information favoring one viewpoint should be put in that section. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

European revisionism

Huns are Mongoloid people. Xiongnu and Huns are probably related. Xiongnu means "Hunnu" in the Mongolian language. or Hun = person in the Mongolian language. If you don't trust that, click on the Mongolian language page of Xiongnu. It is spelled Xynny (Hunnu). If you don't believe that Hunnu=Xiongnu means "person" in the Mongolian language, ask someone that knows Mongolian language or go to a dictionary. There is tendency for great debate possible revisionism to claim that Xiongnu are not Mongolians. Where were they. Xiongnu are regarded as integral history of Mongolia. Modun Shanyu are regarded as proto-Mongolic people and nation. They are direct ancestors of Genghis Khan and Mongols. What do you think was happenning in Mongolia during Xiongnu people. Do you think bunch of white people were in Mongolia during the time. Where were the Asian people then? Things don't really change that much in history. It is ok to debate Xiongnu, but don't claim that the "Germanic people" inhabited Mongolia, and all blue eyed white people immigrated to Mongolia during the late glacial period and then they attacked China and then they attacked Europe. Where were the modern Mongolians during the time. Were they 5 Mongolian people living in Siberia in a cave and decided to come out of the cave and replace all the white people thinking that they left and decided to make a living. Where do you think proto-Mongol people were at this time if Xiongnu weren't Mongolians. Do you think Mongols were just suddenly dropped in some day from some space ship in the 12th-13th century during the Genghis Khan period.

Xiongnu particularly Modun Chanyu, Toumen are generally regarded as one of the authentic direct line Mongolian people in history. They are direct ancestors of Mongols as we know it today. Modun is also very close to the Mongolian word "modon" = wooden. Toumen is tumen a word in Mongolian language today also meaning "very many." Please debate but don't take this article to claim that the good old Indo-European = Germanic people lived in Mongolia and Xiongnu are really a Germanic people kind of story. I know the article doesn't say that, but it is getting really close. Xiongnu are Asians, particularly Mongolians. If you don't trust that, read some more on the appearance of Attila and the other Huns. Just my input. Please keep the balance. Remember most of the sources are European in this article.174.16.243.39 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the direct ancestors of genghis khan were some golden visitor and a woman that made her children break arrows. This "Xiongnu"="Hunnu" takes a Chinese word from 2000 years ago and tries to make it sound sound similar to the word "Hun" or to a Mongolian word used today, altogether not very convincing without further proof. You know that the 'X' as in 'Xiongnu' nowadays sounds like something between 's' and 'sh' (like the 'X' in Xinjiang)?

Of course, if the Xiongnu had left more written artifacts, this might all be much simpler, but it seems there is not much.

Are you aware that in Mongolia there are quite a few stone inscriptions from the 8th or 9th centuries, and none of them is in Mongolian language? Yaan (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that Xiongnu and Mongolian "Xynny" needs more source. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Mongolian word "Xyn" that is literally pronounced in English as "Hun" is trying to be like the word Hun, but that is the transliteral pronounciation. Another variation is "Xynny." These probably are very close to the Middle Mongolian language. But it definitely needs more source for sure though. About the 8th and 9th century writings in Mongolia they are not modern Mongolian language per se. That is a proto language like any other language in other parts of the world. Even if you see the language of Europe some centuries before, they don't come to the modern language. Also there is no concrete proof that language existing in 8th century that doesn't resemble Mongolian language today word to word doesn't necessarily mean that the language is from outer space or from the "Germanic" people. All of these needs source. I think that during the 8th century, etc. the Mongolian area were inhabited by the proto-Mongolics, and during the Gokturk (blue turk) empire, the Turks moved/conquered the Mongolian region during the 11th and 10th century. As far as the Xiongnu, they are not related to the Turks because that is before the Turkic expansionism (Gokturks, etc). I think the Xianbei, Xiongnu and the Tungisics are related to Xiongnu. As far as the Huns going east to conquer Europe, they are more mixed like the Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions. Another resemblance of Xiongnu basically being proto-Mongols or some people very closely related to the later Mongols is the religion. They practicied Shamanism just like the Mongols. Both Xiongnu and Mongols worshipped sun, moon, flame, stars, etc. Just a thought. I personally think that no Germanic or Slavic people in any nature were in Mongolia. Turks moved in later right before the Genghis Khan period like the Gokturks. Before that the people were Tungisic, Xianbei and others that are most closely related to the Chinese. All of these needs source for sure though. I agree with that, but decided to put some input. About the Xiongnu being pronounced as Xinjians is I think trivial. These are authentic Chinese translation like Shionu, Shinjiang, Shanyu, Chanyu. If you look at Chinese language, everything starts with Zh and X. Also if you look at the Russian language of this article, it is like "Xynny" or "Hunnu". Also Xiongnu, Xianbei, Xinjians are more closely pronounced with a "S" in the Chinese language like Syunny = Xiongnu. 174.16.243.39 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The character "xiong" (匈) in ancient Chinese was pronounced as "Hong", not like today's "Xiong". The language has changed overtime, therefore it was pronounced the same and is just a transliteration of Hun. As for the Xianbei, they mixed with the Xiongnu during a couple southward migrations. Turks didn't mix with other tribes, but had a cultural exchange instead. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Göktürks were in the 7th/8th century (not 8th/9th, sorry), they are also the ones who left all those inscriptions. I think no respected author seriously claims that the Xiongnu were Slavs or Germanic people. But if most of Mongolia was inhabited (or at least, ruled) by turks and later Uighurs for centuries, how come you think the area must have been inhabited by Mongols and no-one else before that era?

Religion is a rather weak argument, I think. What is your proof that the turks did not have shamans, too? After all, there are still shamans in Tuva and Yakutia. You probably know that there were some christian and muslim Mongols in the 13th, but also in the 12th century, obviously their religion did not make them Hebrews or Arabs.

And btw, Chinese does of course have words that start with "h". You have probably heard of "Ni hao"? Harbin or Shanghai? Hongkong does actually start with X when transcribed from Beijing dialect, but unless you find a reliable source I won't accept it as proof for anything :) !

In any case, don't let yourself discourage from improving articles, just keep in mind that it's often better to look into a good book before adding information that "everyone knows". Cheers, Yaan (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It was just my opinion. Good luck on your editing. The article is getting better. It is always good to debate all sides for sure. 174.16.243.39 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What can we do to improve this article?

In line with John's July observations, we have some substantial general info missing. Among the most visible I find a huge gap on the period before Touman, information on the names Chinese used, and a section on the constituent tribes. All this information is available in the annals and further discussed in the historical works.

For the pre-inmperial period, when the relations were mostly mutually beneficial, I suggested the following citation:

"Before the advent of the Imperial period in the Chinese history, the relations between nomadic pastoralists and settled agriculturists were quite amicable. Sima Qian recorded that in 636 BCE, "Mu-gyun, a Prince of the Jin principality, enticed Yuiui tribe, and eight possessions of the Western Juns to submit voluntary to the House of Jin: for this reason from the Lun westward were located generations Gunchju, Guan-Jung, Di-wan, from the Qi and Lyan mountains, from the rivers Gin-shui and Qi-shui to the north were located Jungs of the generations Ikui, Dali, Uchjy and Suiyan; from the Jin principality to the north were located Jungs of the generations Linhu and Leufan; from the Yan principality to the north were located generations Dun-Hu (Mongols) and Shan-Jun. All these generations lived dispersed in the mountain valleys, had their own sovereigns and elders, frequently gathered in a large number of clans, but could not unite." The alliances were reinforced by mutual matrimonial unions that produced half-breed offsprings, and were beneficial to the principalities, as they gained instanteneous reinforcement by the cavalry troops."

For the names Chinese annalists used, I quote the following. This I believe is most substantial, because the article implies that Xiongnu was true and only name known, which is far from truth:

The oldest phonetization of the name "Hun" had different forms: in the earlier pre-historic period the Huns were called Hu and Jun (Jung), in the late pre-historic period the Huns were called Hun-yui, in the literate period starting with Yin Dynasty (殷代 , 1600-1046 BC) they were called Guifan, in Zhou period (1045–256 BC) they were called Hyan-yun, starting from the Qin period (221-206 BC) the Chinese annalists called them with a derisive Hunnu (Ch. Xiongnu, "malicious slave"), as was stated by Sima Qian. That the "-yui/-yun/-jun" portion was a proper name component was illustrated by Wang Mang's change in the 15 CE of the Hun's state seal legend from "non-semantically meaningful hieroglyph "shan" with identically sounding hieroglyph "shan" meaning "kind, good". After the change of the hieroglyph, the title (Shanyu) assumed a meaning "Kind Yui" or "Good Yui"." "Wang Guowei... came to a conclusion that the tribal names found in the sources, Guifan, Hun-i, Sün-yui (Hün-yui), Syan-yun (Hyan-yun), Jun (Jung), Di, and Hu designated one and the same people, which later entered history under a name Sünnu (Hunnu)"

Any constructive comments? I am sure we can inprove contents and their phrasing. I am greatful to John Hill for review and editing. Barefact (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section claiming that the Book of Zhou and Book of Tang compared the Xiongnu with Turks. I checked the original sources and it says no such thing. Also, Chinese classified northern nomads into more groups than three, so it is not at all like today's Altaic language classification. Adding a perceived comparison in the article is drawing false parallels. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Xiaogoudelaohu, I have a problem identifying what you deleted, but I suspect it is generally the following contribution to the "Turkic and Mongolic theories". My references are not direct to the sources, since unlike you I can't read them, but to the recognized scholars who published works and monographs on the subject, including outstanding Chinese scientists. The section cites these scientists, and the citations are referenced. If you can find citations that refute the statements of the scholars, then we would be in position to discuss the relative pertinence of the comments. WP guidelines require more then your own perusal of the sources. As you can see, the sources I referenced are cited by the scientists, and the publications are given. What about the conspiciously missing parts, the constituent tribes, the spectrum of the names Chinese used, etc? Any comments?

BTW, the works of Kuner and Taskin (and others) generally fill the gap that Beckwith is complaining about, the subject of critical review of the translated material. Beckwith is complaining about the Western scholarship, not about the scholarship at large. Regards, Barefact (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

=Turkic and Mongolic theories=

Main articles: Turkic languages and Mongolian languages

"Staring with Sima Qian, Chinese historians divide the northern people into three large ethnic groups - Sünnu (Hunnu), Dunhu, and Sushen, which agrees with the presently accepted by the science division of the same peoples into Turkic-speaking, Mongolic-speaking, and Tungus-speaking."

"The ethnogenetical connection of the ancient Türks with the Hunnu (Huns) was very definitely stated by the source." "From the Zhou (551–583) dynastic history was already for a long time known that the ancestors of the ancient Türks - Tugue, under a name Ashina, were a separate branch of the house of Hunnu (Huns)." Liu Mau-tsai directly cited Linghu Defen in Zhou shu:

"Der Bericht über die T’u-küe (Türken) in Tschou-schu (50, 1a-3a) Die T’u-küe sind ein besonderer Stamm der Hiung-nu (Hunnen). Ihr familiename heisst A-schi-na. Sie Bildeten eine selbstandige" Stamm ("The report about the T'u-küe (Turks) in Zhou-shu (50, 1a-3a), <is that> the T'u-küe are a special tribe of the Hsiung-nu (Huns). Their surname is A-shi-na. They were a stand-alone" tribe).

"The known ancient written sources state that some Türkic-speaking tribes belonged to Tele group, also originating directly from the Huns. Take the Uigurs, whose Türkic-linguality does not raise any doubts. Tang shu directly tells that Uigur ancestors were Huns." "The earlier dynastic history Weishu not only derived the ancestors of the Tele tribes, in particular the ancestors of Uigurs, from the Huns, but also identified with them in respect to the language. The annals state about Uigurs: "Their language is like Hunnu, but with a small difference" " "Ancestors of Tele were descendants of the Hunnu (Huns) (Sui-shu)"

From the early 19th to the 20th century, Western scholars have proposed a range of opinions; proponents of the Turkic languages included Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth, Shiratori Kurakichi, Gustaf John Ramstedt, Annemarie von Gabain, and Omeljan Pritsak. Some sources say the ruling class was proto-Turkic, some others suggest it was proto-Hunnic. Others, like Paul Pelliot, insisted on a Mongolic origin. Findley believes that if not ethnic progenitors of Huns, the Xiongnu clearly had close ties to later Turks.

A positive written identification of the Türks with the Huns by a third party, Sogdians, was made by W.B.Henning in 1948, and later confirmed by S.G.Klyashtorny, and corroborated by studies of L.Gumilev , Yu.Zuev. S.G.Klyashtorny stipulated a "local Sogdian tradition (literary and verbal), based on the old (4th century AD) acquaintance with the one of the Hunnic tribes in the Hesi-Gaochang that subsequently became known under a name Türk." The W.B.Henning's 1948 work also exorcised the perpetuasl debate about equivalency of the numerous Chinese phonetic renditions of the word Hun and the Huns known from non-Chinese sources, by demonstrating an alphabetical form of the word coded in the Chinese as Xiongnu.

The information I removed said that Chinese wrote about the Xiongnu being the ancestors of the Tujue. This was never said in those books. Later this week I'll try to post the sentences from the Chinese books that mention Xiongnu and give an English translation. I was suspicious after reading the section with that information, so I went back to the sources and read them over, finding nothing of the sort, so I'm not sure why other authors would say they had gotten their information there. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)