Talk:Xiongnu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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This is so out of date as to be impossible to take seriously.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 [2] and [3] --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am fed up with this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

ancient dna tells tales from the grave

by nancy touchette

july 25, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xiongnu is Turkic in origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have a Turkish book, Göktürkler of Ahmet Taşağıl (written from the Chinese sources). In this book, the Xiongus were the ancestors of the Göktürks(Köktürk)... Where did the Göktürks come from? Where did the Turkish people come from? Where did the European Huns come from? Böri (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Turkic origin of Xiongnu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we do to improve this article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you might want to check here: [4] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

What do you (both) mean exactly?

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

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

I don't really get, what is the problem here, those archaeological and genetical data comes from those scholars, who published these in the scientific journals. They were, these geneticists, archaeologists, etc., who identified, named these results as Xiongnu: e.g. from the first study:

"The associated funeral material was of great interest and allowed us to link the necropolis to the Xiongnu culture ..." or from the second: "Concerning the Xiongnu people...", etc. Dzsoker (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

European revisionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we do to improve this article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=Turkic and Mongolic theories=

Main articles: Turkic languages and Mongolian languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barfield's Interpretation

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. 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)

Pending changes

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:

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).

Genetics section

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no mention of this rather important discovery [5] 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)

Category:History of the Turkic people

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)

Sometimes Asked?

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)

Why no mention of Buttocho?

"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)

Xiongnu language might have been Mongolic

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

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)

Remember this only about this wiki page

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)

Kyun

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)

Tumen D. "Anthropology of Archaeological Populations" source

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)

Yenisean link? Meh

" 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)

Significant misrepresentation of sources

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 [6] 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)

Hun / Xunnu etymology

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)

Religion

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)

people or country

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)

Xiongu territorial rule

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)

Up-date or removal needed

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)

"History of Kazakhstan"

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)

Xiongnu were of predominately Mongoloid with some mixture of European Physical stock

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)

Turkic categorization.

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)

Sources for article expansion

• <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)

Being a little hard on ourselves, aren't we?

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)

Chronology / outline / summary

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)

Categories

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)

User:1sasdasd

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)

Huns

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)

Irrelevant or misrepresented info in Mongolic section

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)

New edit request

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. [7]. 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)

Wrong statements

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)

Iranian chauvinists again!

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)

Origin and ethnicity

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

Troll Attacks

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)