Talk:Xiongnu/Archive 2

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." ^{[1] [2]} 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. ^{[3] [4]} 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"." ^[5] "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)" ^[6]

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=

"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." ^[1]

"The ethnogenetical connection of the ancient Türks with the Hunnu (Huns) was very definitely stated by the source." ^[2] "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)." ^[2] 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).^[3][4]

"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." ^[2][5] "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" " ^[2][3][6][7] "Ancestors of Tele were descendants of the Hunnu (Huns) (Sui-shu)" ^[8]

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.^[9] Some sources say the ruling class was proto-Turkic,^[10] 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^[11].

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,^[12][13] and corroborated by studies of L.Gumilev ^[14], Yu.Zuev.^[15] 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." ^[16] 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)

I will leave this on the talk page for about a month to see if anyone thinks it is wrong. It sounds good, but it may be a questionable private opinion.

Barfield ref>Thomas J. Barfield, 'The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China,221 BC to AD 1757',1989</ref attempted to interpret Xiongnu history as well as narrate it. He made the following points. The Xiongnu confederation was unusually long-lived for a steppe empire. The purpose of raiding China was not simply booty, but to force the Chinese to pay regular tribute. The power of the Xiongnu ruler was based on his control of Chinese tribute which he used to reward his supporters. The Han and Xiongnu empires rose at the same time because the Xiongnu state depended on Chinese tribute. A major Xiongnu weakness was the custom of lateral succession. If a dead ruler's son was not old enough to take command, power passed to the late ruler's brother. This worked in the first generation but could lead to civil war in the second generation. The first time this happened, in 60BC, the weaker party adopted what Barfield calls the 'inner frontier strategy.' They moved south and submitted to China and then used Chinese resources to defeat the Northern Xiongnu and re-establish the empire. The second time this happened, about 47AD, the strategy failed. The southern ruler was unable to defeat the northern ruler and the Xiongnu remained divided. [[User:Benjamin Trovato|Benjamin Trovato]] ([[User talk:Benjamin Trovato|talk]]) 01:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) :Examples of divisions are not specific to the order of succession, Chinese history is a good example. Chinese despised the Hun's lateral succession tradition, and worked hard to overcome it, but their own succession tradition did not prevent them from divisions, quite the opposite, Chinese history is a compendium of inner divisions and rebellions. The Hun's underlying problem was ethnical devision, they subjugated a relatively numerous and powerful Tele confederation which they could control only superficially, and Tele brought them down over and over again. That observastion was formulated by L.Potapov ref> 'Ethnic Composition and Origin of Altaians' (Leningrad, 1969) /ref>, and corroborated by later studies. Any succession conflict rests on division of forces, is unsustainable without a partizan division able to mount an effective rebellion, and any system of succession had rebellions of pretenders: Rome, Greece, Frankish, Japan etc. To attribute the flow of of events to the charachters of the ruling elite (Barfield, Beckwith 2009) without analyzing divisions within the countries and forces that the contenders used is skipping on the surface. Barefact (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no mention of this rather important discovery in this section. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you add it as an external link? if you want help, please let me know. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the discovery is important enough that it deserves to be incorporated into the text, but I don't have time to do it right now. I did want to point it out though, as the discovery got quite a bit of attention on genetics forums and websites. I will try to get to it when I return from a wikibreak if someone doesn't beat me to it. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't refer to that blog entry, but to the original source. --Latebird (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your link doesn't load, unfortunately. But I was in no way implying that we should cite the blog as the source. I was simply using it as illustration of the discovery. Far better always to cite a scientific source. Either way, the information should be incorporated into the text. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to adding mention of this archaeological find to this piece yet, but given the presence of the western Eurasian haplogroup R1a1, and a possible link to the Tocharians, perhaps, I think it would be prudent to incorporate the information here. I'll try to get on it soon. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The connection of Xiongnu with Turkic-speakers is speculative only, as the article makes clear. Categorization is a crude instrument, but I do not see any harm in categorizing this article under Turkic, or indeed Iranian, Yeniseian, and Mongolic as well if anyone wants to. Perhaps this would enable us to bypass strong nationalist feelings and avoid an edit war? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call Richard, let's not worry about categorization - something good may come of it. Philg88 ^contact

Articles should not be categorized according to speculative theories. There is no evidence that the Xiongnu had any turkic connection. There is just one speculative theory (among several competing ones) that they might theoretically have spoken a pre-turkic language. "Pre-turkic" (not even actual "turkic") because the real origin of the turkic family of languages, the Gökturks, only came into existence quite some time later. --Latebird (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Latebird, I have no disagreement on the facts. What, after all, is categorization for? It is not to provide a definitive account of the evidence. That is what the article is for. I suggest that categorization exists in order to list articles that may be interesting to readers, and that this particular categorization probably does so. That the connection is entirely speculative does not, I think, have to be the deciding factor. What do other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Once more the voice of sanity, Richard - thank you. I have reinserted the category pending consensus on its removal. See my Talk Page for Latebird's view. Best Philg88 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On balance I'd personally not put the category in, I merely suggest that it's probably acceptable and definitely not worth any edit warring. Philg88, could I commend to you the view that connections between Turks and Xiongnu, while fascinating, really are speculative and may best be left for more nuanced analysis within the body of the article? Latebird, categorizing this article as one of interest in the context of Turkish history does not in any way require that any Xiongnu ever spoke a single word of any language related to Turkish. That both groups probably lived in eastern Asia and might conceivably have overlapped is sufficient. You are both experienced and valuable editors with unusual skills. Perhaps really wise editors at this point would focus their efforts on something else, and in particular avoid any further reversions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed wise editors would Richard, and thank you for your comments. Somewhere along the line I believe that there is a Turkic connection, but alas I have no time to do the research. The language trees involved are certainly interelated but I will leave the edit warring to someone else. Best, Philg88 (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed

Chinese military forces sometimes **asked** the Xiongnu en masse when they feared that their failure to defeat an enemy would get them at risk of punishment.

to

Chinese military forces sometimes **joined** the Xiongnu en masse when they feared that their failure to defeat an enemy would get them at risk of punishment.

based on context and stylistic principle. If this is inaccurate, which seems unlikely, by all means revise it. 99.14.216.43 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Buttocho uttered the only phrase that reached us in the Xiongnu native language" according to wikipedia (and these sentences seem turkic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpluskx (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Xiongnu words "chengli" (Tengri) and "ordo" are found in Mongolic. I don't understand why people automatically assume that the words are Turkic. Because the Mongol people were born in the 13th century and the Turks existed before that? That is not even true, Mongols existed way before. Because Turkic tribes are descended from the Xiongnu? That should be considered after analyzing the words in the first place. The word "kuktu" 孤塗 (child) especially seems to be a distinctly Mongolic word (namely kuktu or "child"). Then there is also the Jie phrase 秀支 替戾剛 僕谷 劬禿當. 秀支 [si̯u-ci̯e] means 軍 “army”; 替戾剛 [tʰei-let/lei-kɑŋ] means 出 “go out”; 僕谷 [bok-kuk/yok] is 劉曜胡位 “Liu Yao's barbarian title”; 劬禿當 [gi̯ou-tʰuk-tɑŋ] means 捉 “capture”. Here it seems that "siucie" would be Mongolic "tsauji/tsuuji" (army). In Khitan we have the word cau.ur for war, in Mongolian the equivalent is tsaur (pronounced tsuur) also meaning war or something related to war. "Teiletkan" would be Mongolic "dailadkun" meaning "going out/invading/attacking/attacked". Bokkuk is a title which can also be Mongolic. "Gioutuktan" would either be the Mongolic imperative "guitegtun" (chase and capture!) or the Mongolic imperative "kaptiktun" (capture!). I don't understand why Ramstedt etc failed to see this very obvious Mongolic possibility. Were they biased? Or did they lack expertise in Mongolic for some reason? I have no idea. (Yastanovog (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Modern Mongolian alternative name is needless. Mongols appeared in 7th century. Shiwei was not in the Mongolian Plateau. This alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's composed in order to avoid mentioning their Turkish trace (the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu). Under the disguise of "scientical approach" the connection between the Xiongnu and the Turks is erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chonanh (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkish word "Kyun" (sheep) is a word used in tribe and dynasty names. As it appears in Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu. "Kyunnu", "Kyunlu" or a variant is a possible root of "Xiongnu". It should be mentioned in the article.

I also see a continous effort to remove content from the article in order to blur or erase the Turkic origins of Xiongnu people. Especially Persians are keen on revising the history of Turkish people and Turkish culture and appropriate it to Persian/Iranian people and culture. I just wanted to mention that disguising, camouflaging or covering up the facts in the interest of Persians will not lead to anywhere.

Persians/Iranians -especially Persian/Iranian Wikipedia users- are demeaning themselves. That's what they actually succeed in.--98.199.22.63 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This source clearly states that Xiongnu finds show them to have been a very heterogenous people, both in terms of physical morphology and likely in culture and language. As this is repeated not just in the body of the paper but also its abstract and conclusion, the edits that suggest this source says otherwise are hard to see as anything other than deliberate misrepresentation. The edit summary of "Adding the most the most important part" certainly suggests a WP:POV problem, and this "most important part" is a description of just one of the elements that goes into the author's conclusion, which is already present in the article (and already mentions Mongoloid finds). Ergative rlt (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

" Previous Turkic interpretations of the aforementioned sentence do not match the Chinese translation as precisely as using Yeniseian grammar." This is stupid, obviously something translated into Yenisean would have grammar closer to Chinese if it was well-translated. This is because of the much closer taxonomic relationship between Yenisean and Chinese versus Yenisean and Altaic or Chinese and Altaic. 76.166.144.21 (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeniseian language family grammar is nothing like Chinese grammar. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of the recent edits to this article have serious problems with misrepresenting or falsifying sources. These edits - done by socks of indef blocked user Tirgil34 - include:

• The passage cited to Findley: "It has been widely held that the Xiongnu, or at least their ruling clans, had or were acquiring a Turkic identity, or at least an Altaic one. [...]. By the end of the Xiongnu period, however, the Altaic peoples would be the ones most identified with the equestrian culture earlier developed among the Indo-European peoples of Inner Asia. Furthermore, the earliest clearly Turkic peoples appeared on the peripheries of the late Xiongnu Empire. [...] If not their ethnic progenitors, then, the Xiongnu had manifold ties to the later Turks." This is an example of deceitful selective quotation. The elipsis in the quote refers to "However, what is known, via Chinese sources, of the Xiongnu kingly language leaves this point open to doubt.", and immediately preceding the quoted sections is "As usual in tribal societies, their confederation and even their member tribes were probably polyethnic in origin. They would have been united more by politics than by common descent, although that would have provided the idiom for imagining their common identity, much as nationalism would do for their modern descendants." Findley is thus not stating that the Xiongnu were necessarily Turkish, but that they were multiethnic, and even the notion of a Turkic ruling class can be doubted - the exact opposite of what he is pressed into saying in this article.
• The statements cited to Di Cosmo including "The great majority of the scholars, examined comprehensively by Western historians, assume that the Xiongnu were mainly of Altaic stock (i.e. Turkic and Mongolian)" and "There is not much doubt among historians about the Turkish nature of the Great Hun Empire, which ruled between 318 B.C. and 216 A.D., as well as that of its predecessor proto-Huns, whose presence was confirmed by Chinese sources. The Great Hun Empire, the Western Hun Empire and especially the European Huns were examined comprehensively by Western historians" are not by Di Cosmo or from the article in question, but rather from Hasan Celâl Güzel's introduction to The Turks. Besides this example of misrepresentation, there is the fact that quoting an introduction over the actual articles isn't a good way of doing things, and the introduction itself is mainly nationalistic puffery. The material is nothing more than an editor's opinion, and should in no way be presented in Wikipedia's voice, especially as it implies that those who don't agree with a Turkic origin haven't performed a comprehensive examination of the data.
• This edit is a clear attempt to downplay an Iranic-speaking origin for the Xiongnu and alter the scope of proposed Iranic vocabulary in Xiongnu.

These sorts of edits not only need to be reverted, they also call into question anything else the editor adds, even when cited, and even if the editor wasn't indef blocked. That these were done by socks of a blocked user, and one with a history of similar misrepresentations to push nationalistic or fringe opinions, means that I will be reverting back to the version that existed prior to their editing. Ergative rlt (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read your arguments on this topic and I must assert that in point 1 and 2 we have got typical Wikipedia Standard citations with no fringe and no nationalistic pov. Findley's statement dealing with an most possible Turkic (Altaic) identity is correct and it is not necessarily in conflict with his multiethnic statement. In contrast it is constructive. Yet it is supported by the most of the authors dealing with this. Regarding your 2nd statement you are wrong. Di Cosmo indeed is cited by Hasan Celâl Güzel in the editors introduction to The Turks (taken from pp.217-227). This introduction represents the contents of the book. And its reliability is completely given. Furthermore you have deleted many other significant text parts with reliable literature. Your 3rd statement is far away from an attempt to downplay anything. Summing up I see not any problems with misrepresenting or falsifying sources, instead of that I rather think that we have a problem with deletion of significant text with reliable sources done by you. Thence I have to revert your edit manually. -- Fulviian (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just removed the recent material, per Ergative lrt's cogent points. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with misrepresenting or falsifying sources at all.

• Findley clearly says: "[...] that the Xiongnu, or at least their ruling clans, were mainly of Altaic stock." I can not follow your point here. Findley's statement about the multiethnic origins of the Xiongnu does not necessarily contradict the above cited passage. Before you do such huge edits, first read and understand carefully.
• About Di Cosmo you are partially right. Indeed these statements are from Hasan Celâl Güzel's introduction to The Turks and not from Di Cosmo directly. But the point you've forgotten is that this statement is based on Di Cosmo's part in which he tooks place as an author for this topic.

(See the editors index about the authors: Cosmo, Nicola Di / The Origin and Rise of the Xiongnu Empire, pp.217-227) You can also see that the book series are based on international cooperation, so I do not understand your argument regarding the introduction and its so called "mainly nationalistic puffery". Please inform yourself in future before you are vandalizing in such a high degree again.

• Indeed this edit was due to following reasons completely comprehensible:

1. There was a typographical error.

2. There was a false and uncited claim.

The sentence is also an example of misinterpreting selective quotation. It could be seen as a reason the delete this part completely. However Wikipedia implies a Neutral Point of View. Furthermore your edits could also be seen as a deceitful try to underplay an Altaic idiom.

Beside this you have deleted many sources from following sections without any reasons:

Introduction:

• Mythologies: A Polytheistic View of the World, By Wikipedians, PediaPress, p.406.
• Yuri Pines, The Everlasting Empire: The Political Culture of Ancient China and Its Imperial Legacy, Princeton University Press, 2012, p.37.
• John Man, Attila: the barbarian king who challenged Rome, Bantam, 2005, p.62.
• Zhonghan, Wang (2004). "Outlines of Ethnic Groups in China". p. 133.

Section: Nature of the Xiongnu state:

• Carter Vaughn Findley: The Turks in World History, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp.31

Section: Religion:

• Carter Vaughn Findley, The Turks in World History, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.54

Section: Theories on multi-ethnicity:

• Carter Vaughn Findley: The Turks in World History, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp.28

Section: Geographic location & Xiongnu genetics:

• Christoph Baumer, Southern Silk Road: in the footsteps of Sir Aurel Stein and Sven Hedin, Orchid Press, 2003, p.44
• Ma, Liqing: The Original Xiongnu, An Archaeological Exploration of the Xiongnu's History and Culture. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University Press, 2005, p.231.

This is a clear behaviour for vandalism. It shows clearly that you have deceitful purposes on Wikipedia. The only thing that I can do here is to warn you and to revert this huge edit.--Fulviian (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A recent edit removed a sentence about Hun/Xunnu etymology as unsourced. If someone has access to 'The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan' byO Pritsak - Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 1982 - JSTOR, it might provide a source for this commonly held opinion.Kdammers (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edit you mean, but feel free to check the reference, at http://140.247.132.248/huri/pdf/hus_volumes/vVI_n4_dec1982.pdf - the server seems to be rather slow but it works in the end. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the edit: 2012-09-21T00:55:46‎ Bobrayner (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,435 bytes) (-128)‎ . . (→‎Names "Xiongnu" and "Hun": unsourced etymology) (undo). It's been 25 min. and the download still hasn't come through, so I hope some-one else can follow up on this. Kdammers (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We do need scholarly sources for this, and http://www.silk-road.com/artl/xiongnu1.shtml isn't one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I introduced some sources. Are they ok? --Henephon7 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that {{Infobox Former Country}} should be placed there if this article is about the people. Besides, that specific entity (described/depicted in the infobox) ceased at the end of the 1st century, while the lifespan date--that is given as "3rd cent. BC–460s AD"--seems more like a collection of dates from every Xiongnu entity that one could come up with put together. ----Cold Season (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done... None of the important info is missing. The "hierachy" and "capital" bits was cited by me months ago in the main body anyway. I moved the "religion" bits (not my info) from infobox to lead (couldnt find a proper spot in the main body).--Cold Season (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The map clearly shows eastern kazakhstan, kyrgyztan as part of the Xiongnu area control and territory. Also the word Xinjiang is china's province, but in reality it's Tarim basin and East Turkistan.... people may thing Xinjiang is a Chinese province when it's not. 92.236.36.173 (talk) 0:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat again, Xinjiang was just a name given by China and was separate from China and was called by different names in the past..... so therefore it's not really a ancient Chinese territory especially during the Xiongnu peroid. Would you consider Tibet as a province of China? East Turkistan and Tibet was conquered around the year please don't forget that it is different.92.236.36.173 (talk) 9:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't forget western Manchuria today is also a Chinese province, it doesn't make any sense for you to include Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang as Chinese provinces when they were not and never had been, although I understand they are today but historically they were never part of China.92.236.36.173 (talk) 1:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is: What is now...the Chinese provinces of Inner Mongolia, Gansu and Xinjiang. Jingiby (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@92.236.36.173. Khazakstan is a modern name, Manchuria is a modern name. Even your "East Turkestan" is a modern name, which is also a non-accepted name for the region. By that reasoning, none if those names are correct, especially not your suggested one. It is clear for the obvious-minded that the current is an approximation of present-day regions which historically had encompassed the Xiongnu territory. You are certainly not adding contemporary placenames for the period, even if you think so. (On another note: don't ever sign your comment with my username again like you did earlier.) --Cold Season (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is January 2013, but the article says an anniversary will be celebrated in 2011. Was it celebrated or not? If so, then it either the tense should changed ("was celebrated") or the mention should be removed. Kdammers (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I know there is a "Hun period" in Kazakhstan, but that has (virtually) nothing to do with the Xiongnu . They were always in ~ Mongolia/ northern China until they disappeared/ were Sinicized. Thus removed the part of Kazakh history link, as it is uncalled for Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

From anthropology to genetics it shows this, why would any question about this? Genetics already showed they are 89% East Asian mtDNA with only 11% of Indo-european admixture.

"The skulls examined by anthropologists showed the Huns(Xiongnu) were Predominantly Mongoloid with some admixture of European physical stock, the Xiongnu spoke a palaeo-Siberian language. Nevertheless, they shared many cultural traits with their Indo-European neighbors, such as horse racing, sword worship."

SOURCE: Ancient bronzes, ceramics, and seals: the Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection of ancient Near Eastern, central Asiatic, and European art, gift of the Ahmanson Foundation

LINK: -----> https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Predominantly+Mongoloid+with+some+admixture+of+European+physical+stock%2C+the+Xiongnu+spoke+a+palaeo-Siberian+language.&btnG= (talk) 4:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Xiongnu isn't nothing but a Chinese person writing down what he heared from a Hunnic person in Turkish. In pre historic Turkish if you asked who are you? They would answer Hunlu. Not i am Hunnic ! Hunlu to Chinese is Xiongnu ! Like Mete a Turkish name translated to Chinese Mao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.72.183 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If right Mongol category, must right Turkic category. Erim Turukku (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What? — LlywelynII 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• <ref>Olberding, Garret. ''Dubious Facts: The Evidence of Early Chinese Historiography''. SUNY Press, 2012. Accessed 12 Dec 2013.</ref>
  This includes contemporary memorials to the throne: they're certainly biased but could probably contribute to the article, at least to provide various details and the Chinese perspective. The section starting on page 183 details Xiongnu raids on Longxi Commandery during the time period this article says they were "at peace"; the section just before that includes the considered opinion that

  The problems of subjugating the Xiongnu are not those of a single generation. Their plundering and pillaging is how they support themselves and certainly is in keeping with their Heaven-sent nature. Since the times of the Emperor Shun and the rulers of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, it is certain that no ruler has overseen or supervised them; instead they have herded them like captured beasts who did not belong to the human race.

   — LlywelynII 17:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As bizarre as some parts of the talk page are, this article looks rather better than "start" or "C" class to me. In the meantime, kudos to whoever added all the details on the Han-era wars; and my sympathies to whoever's maintaining the page. — LlywelynII 17:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is simply an abstract-ish summary of what is a "history" section. It should be removed. It's wholly uncited too (the only cite being purely about the great wall rather than in the context of the topic itself), so I see no point in nit-picking things out to work into the article, rather start from scratch if anything particular is notable and verifiable enough for inclusion. --Cold Season (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no nessecity to add some kind of repetitive sectional outline either (previously a list chronology, practically similar in function). This isn't some kind of large body of work comprising book volumes, rather than an encyclopedic article. There's a lead to make a reflection of the article, so it's unneeded to not get to the point and repeat the same info for the third time. --Cold Season (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How come the Asian Huns (Xiongnu) are categorised as Mongols and Mongolic people here? Scientific resources clearly favor a Turkic origin, as remaining words, titles and names are (predominantly) Turkic. The Proto-Mongols at that time were living in far more eastern regions and were called Xianbei (check the article). So I'll change this wrong categorization. Akocsg (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean?! Do you read this section or not?:

• The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses, because only a few words, mainly titles and personal names, were preserved in the Chinese sources. Proposals by scholars include Turkic, Mongolic, Yeniseian,[2][3] Tocharian, Iranian,[4][5] and Uralic.[6]

So DO NOT change the categories without other editors' opinion. You should wait for the consensus. --Zyma (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. A section (one of many actually, especially the ones that desperately try to hide/undo the Turkic presence) that doesn't belong there. One thing is for sure: They were Altaic, and mostly Turkic at the core. Definitely not Uralic, or even Tocharian or Iranian! Wikipedia should not be a place for you desperate pan-persian propagandists.Akocsg (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor needs to explain his edit warring which is not supported by academic or wikipedia consensus and give undue weight to one theory. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In Hohhot there is a museum dedicated to the Xiongnu, and the info panels use the term Hun interchangeably with Xiongnu in English pointing out the meaning Hun in Mongolian today is 'Human', thus acknowledging the Xiongnu as proto-Mongolians.

I wonder if that's because every man and his dog wants to claim that the Xiongnu were their ancestors? The truth is that no one actually knows.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

First, there is nothing in the cited sources that makes a connection between Mongol songs and those of the Xiongnu - that is simple and blatant misrepresentation of the sources and needs to be deleted. As for the sun and moon symbol, again none of the sources say anything connecting the Xiongnu symbols to those of any Mongol people. Using modern day flags with sun and moon symbols to make a connection is not only original research, but OR based on absurd logic - as if the fact that some public architecture in the UK and US is based on Greek forms meant that the ancient Greeks spoke a Germanic language. Adding this material despite its clear problems with OR and verifiability is also arguably tendentious. Ergative rlt (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's an official position of Mongolia. There is no similar symbol among other peoples of the world, isn't it? Coat of arms is not building. Coat of arms: "A coat of arms is a unique heraldic design". It's very strong cultural element. Khorichar (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This does not in any way deal with the objections above. And to choose another example, the Great Seal of the United States features Latin language and Egyptian motifs, but does not make those peoples Germanic speakers. Ergative rlt (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The modern Mongolian population may reasonably claim some degree of continuity with the previous inhabitants of their territory, but the specific points mentioned are not useful for an encyclopedia. At this edit I have removed the obvious irrelevancies that Ergative rlt mentions, and taken the opportunity to do a little rearrangement. I have also used Hyun Jun Kim's recent book to make his point about multiethnicity. I have left in the moon and sun symbol, a nice picture which the source does identify as an example of a widespread Xiongnu symbol. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Absurd. If various theories exist, then it's need to write its basis: Do Xiongnu and Mongolic peoples have any similar things? What cultural elements join them? etc. It is need to clarify similarity and difference between these ethnic groups, isn't it? Some users are dissatisfied because there are many similarities between Xiongnu and Mongolic people. Khorichar (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The continuities mentioned are mostly those common to all Eurasian steppe cultures, plus some retrospectively adopted by the modern Mongolian state. They do not make a useful point here, and they are ill-referenced. Your reversion of my other changes was also unhelpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that your edits have added:

The Xiongnu was the first empire of nomadic peoples. which is unreferenced and appears to ignore the earlier Cimmerians and Scythians.

Henning (1948) also exorcised the perpetual 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. which is poor English and also takes a definite view of an ongoing debate.

This is evidence of mediaeval and modern Mongolian polities claiming continuity with the Xiongnu (not, I feel, a point that we need to make in this article) but is otherwise either irrelevant or nonsense. To take only two examples, the three-layer horn, wood, and sinew composite bow is not unique to Xiongnu or Mongols or both, it has been widespread across the steppes and far beyond, there are some left in Tutankhamun's tomb about the time that the Xiongnu were forming a state. And the Soyombo symbol seems to have been devised about two millennia after the Xiongnu state disappeared. The paragraph needs removal.

You have also re-ordered a large paragraph discussing multi-ethnic theories into the Mongolic section where it is ill-placed.

I commend your insertion of the map, though its mention of "Proto-Mongols" does seem to be making a claim which needs better reference.

I look forward to your comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have seen no such comments. I note that the page has been fully protected so that only admins can edit it.

I would like to ask for a return to my version, and additionally removal of the excess "the" in the first sentence which reads "centered on current the Mongolia." Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Done For subsequent requests; please start new sections to make it easier to understand. Bjelleklang - talk 21:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bjelleklang, you protected the article for a week so restore previous version. Richard Keating, stop trolling. As i mentioned above, coat of arms is very important cultural element. . Khorichar (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia/Wikimedia can not be used to source Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongol Empire Flag - yellow flame, sun and cresent on blue rectangle flag. Image made after Nozomi Kariyasu photos made in Mongolian Military Museum in Ulan Bator in June 2008. Khorichar (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, trying for compromise here, do we have room for a section headed "Modern claims of continuity with Xiongnu"? This might be an appropriate place to put all these symbols and whatnot. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I will not restore another revision just like that, as that would be a continuation of the edit warring. The reason for why I decided to restore the revision now current, was to get rid of a couple of Wordpress-based references, and also because it made more sense having the sections in the order it's currently in. User:Richard Keatinge proposed the change with no objections during the 34 hours from he proposed it and I changed the article. Calling people "trolls" is not an example of showing good faith against other users, and it's also uncivil, so please stop. User:Richard Keatinge seems to be open towards having a new section in the article, so if this is what you want please please create a new section on this talkpage with the exact text you propose and use it a basis for further discussion. Bjelleklang - talk 11:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil? I was busy with some stuff and i don't live on the internet. Khorichar (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No greco-roman author has called Magyars "Scythians". Magyars came in europe arround 8th century and there was no Roman empire, nor Greece. There was only Byzantine empire . The byzantine authors called Magyars not "Scythians" but turks, and "black turks"."Scythians" were called the Bulgars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Magyars in the Ninth Century" by CA Macartney of Trinity College Cambridge is an interesting reference material for this question. Leo the Grammarian did refer to the Magyar as 'Scythians', but I agree that he was rather free and vague with his names, and it doesn't seem to be a very widespread idea. In part, you are correct that early references to the Magyar by Byzantine sources employ the term 'τούρκοι'. However, these references all occur in the writings of one particular emperor and those using his military treatise as a reference. The writings of Leo the Philosopher employed τούρκοι to refer to the Magyar, and this usage continued into the writing of Constantine Porphyrogenitus fifty years later. However, there is evidence to suggest that Leo used the term because both the military tactics employed reminded him of those used by earlier Turkic adversaries, and also because the forces he was describing in the Bulgar wars of AD895 may well have been Turkic Kavars as well as Magyar. Beyond the reign of Constantine, the term quickly falls out of usage as the empire came into more direct contacts with the Magyar, being replaced with versions of 'Hun' or 'Hungarian'. Very soon after, the term τούρκοι itself had to be explained to the Byzantine reader of Leo's military texts by Zonaras, who says that Leo meant ουγγροι. Ethdhelwen (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Xiongnu has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You really should stop iranian chauvinism on Turkic related pages. The origin of Xiongnu is uncertain but scholars suggest mostly Turkic and Mongol origin. They put iranian suggestion on first place with more sources. It is cheating people. This not only page about it. "Iranian" chauvinists are on every Turkic related page. Here are some scholars suggest that Huns were Turkic not iranian. Huns lived on yurts. They were asiatic nomad people. They used bow and horse. They believed in old Turkic-Mongolian religion Tengri. Their titles were Turkic (Khagan , Khatun , Tigin). Howcome they can be İranian? Turkic history is not a playzone for iranians.

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm

Tengirbuyruk (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Krakkos: @130.88.99.230: and other involved editors please write your opinions here. --Zyma (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to call your attention to editings without any explanation about the content topic in spite of this:

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

those resources about contested proposals are just fine and trustable so why deleting them without any explanation about their content, are those resources wrong or something? if there is something wrong with them, then let's discuss it here? --130.88.99.219 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.99.230 (talk)

I reverted your edit then I decided to restore it. Because your IP was blocked for block evasion and disruptive edits (on other articles). But the cited sources look good and if they're disputed, it's better to discuss them here. This article may need a semi-protection. All involved editors should discuss their concerns on talk page. I started a related topic. --Zyma (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zyma, Thank you very much for your neutral consideration, by the way the edits you have made are reverted and the article is now semi-protected so i can't revert it, i do believe that you would rearrange those resources.

Thank you very much for your concern.

--130.88.99.230 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)