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)

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 (UTC)

• • • 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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 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 (UTC)

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)

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 (UTC)

• 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 (UTC)

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

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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)

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

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

I had found that you made a certain changes right here[2]. 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[3], 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 [4] and [5] --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.

P.S.: Freedom for the Uyghurs! Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights for East Turkistan! 134.100.1.177 15:22, 4 May 2007 (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 (UTC)

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)