Talk:Xiongnu

To Interpret or to Mis-Interpret

Four sources are listed to support the thesis that

• Hucker, Charles O. (1975). China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2353-2. page 136
• Pritsak, O. (1959). "XUN Der Volksname der Hsiung-nu". Central Asiatic Journal (in German). 5: 27–34.
• Henning, W. B. (1948). "The date of the Sogdian ancient letters". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (BSOAS). 12 (3–4): 601–615. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00083178. JSTOR 608717. S2CID 161867825.
• Sims-Williams, Nicholas (2004). "The Sogdian ancient letters. Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5 translated into English".

Let's evaluate:

• On p. 36 of Hucker (1975), it is written "The proto-Turkic Hisung-nu were now challenged by other aliens groups". So Hucker (1975) is correctly interpreted as supports the thesis that the Xiongnu were proto-Turkic speakers
• Sims-Williams (2004) translated Sogdian Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5. Letter 2 mentioned the Huns (i.e. Xiongnu) yet letter 2 did not say that the Xiongnu spoke a Turkic language at all. Whoever added Sims-Williams (2004) misinterpreted the source for pan-Turkist POV-pushing.
• Nowhere in Henning (1948) are the Xiongnu / Xwn asserted to be as Turkic speakers. The word Turkestan is found in page 602, footnote 1 "Cf. Bartold, Turkestan, p. 161", a source which Henning uses to support this assertion "No doubt the agents of the 'merchant-princes" of Sogdia'¹ [...]". Again, whoever added Henning (1948) misinterpreted the source for pan-Turkist POV-pushing.
• Pristak (1959): :
  • in n. 24 on p. 32, mentions Ottoman-Turkish term for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks;

    • Es ist deswegen möglich, daß man -yü als einen chin. Spottnamen für ihre nomadischen Nachbarn, etwa 'Brei(esser)' nach der Hauptnahrung derselben zu deuten hat. Vgl. hierzu die osmanisch-türkische Bezeichnung für die ukrainischen Zaporoger-Kosaken [...] Potqalï ,,Grützenbreiesserʽʽ (s. darüber Pritsak. Oriens , Bd. 6:2. 1953. 204). Verl. hierzu noch Anm. 25"

  • Rough translation:

    • It is therefore possible that one has to interpret -yü as a Chinese derisive nickname for their nomadic neighbours, as 'porridge(-eater)' after their staple food itself. Cf. the Ottoman-Turkish designation for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks [...] Potqalï ,,Groat-porridge eaterʽʽ (see above). (See on this Pritsak. Oriens, Vol. 6:2. 1953. 204). See also Note 25"

      Yet this is irrelevant to whether the Xiongnu spoke Turkic.
  • In n p. 29 Pritsak wrote:

    • 5. Die in den ersten chin. Reichsannalen „kanonisierte" Bezeichnung für die (asiatischen) Hunnen 匈奴 Hsiung-nu ist nicht alt. Sie ist erst ab etwa 230 v. Chr. belegt.⁹ Sie gehört zu den Bezeichnungen der zweiten Gruppe. Das zweite Zeichen 奴 -nu pflegte schon Otto Franke entsprechend seiner chin. Bedeutung als ,,Sklaven, Knechteʽʽ zu übersetzen.¹⁰

  • rough translation:

    • The designations "canonized" in the first Chinese imperial annals for the (Asiatic) Huns 匈奴 Hsiung-nu is not old. It is only from about 230 BCE.¹⁰ It belongs to the designations of the second group. Otto Franke used to translate the second character 奴 -nu according to its Chinese meaning as "slaves, servants".¹⁰

  • For note 10 Pritsak cited:

    • Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens (Berlin 1904), 5; Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches, Bd. 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1930), 134

  • Rough translation:

    • Contributions from Chinese sources on the knowledge of the Turkic peoples and Scythians of Central Asia (Berlin 1904), 5; History of the Chinese Empire, Vol. 1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1930), 134

  • Yet Pritsak did not explicitly mention the the Xiongu were Turkic speakers.
  • So again, whoever added Pritsak (1959) misinterpreted the source for pan-Turkist POV-pushing.

Adding new information to Turkic language section

This new philological finding should be added to the Turkic languages section:

Recent research has revealed that in chapter 96 of the Book of Han (Han-shu), entitled "Western Regions", the Xiong-nu gave the title "拊離 (fǔ-lí)" to a ruler of the Lesser Wu-sun Kun-mo, a descendant of a Xiong-nu princess, who was killed in 30 BC as a result of a throne dispute. In chapter 50 of the Tongdian, Chinese sources clearly define the meaning of "拊離 (fǔ-lí)" as "wolf". With this military-political title, the Wu-sun were declared the protector of the western region of the Xiong-nu territories. For the same reason, this title was given to the ruler of the western wing of the state in the Gokturks, Seljuks, Khwarazmians, Mongols and Anatolian Turkish beyliks. In addition, the word "böri" is a word used in all Turkic languages, Mongolic languages, Korean, Japanese, Manchu-Tungus with the meaning of "wolf". These results may have revealed a connection with Altaic languages, especially Turkic languages. ref: Çoban, Ramazan Volkan. (2023). Türk Mitolojisinde Kurt Kültü (Wolf Cult in Turkic Mythology). Mus: Alparaslan University Publishing. Philosophia091 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes HaciMusto (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No way. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

NOR wouldn't apply here if the material is from a source independent of the Wikipedia editor(s).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2025

Please add the Mongolia topics end bar that links this page (4th on the top row).

2405:6E00:632:FDE:D401:E632:DAEB:45E2 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2026

after "Chinese chronicles may indicate that the Xiongnu were of Turkic rather than Mongolian origin".. ADD

"The mid sixth-century work Weishu relates that the lan-guage of the Gaoche (高車), a Turkic people who established a nomadic state in modern-day Xinjiang in the late fifth century, and that of the Xiongnu were roughly the same with some differences."

~2026-47624-6 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Theeverywhereperson talk here 13:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Propose Renaming Page to Hunnu

Given that Xiongnu is a derogatory term (匈奴) ascribed to the Hunnu people by Chinese sources, it would be prudent to refer to them by the established Hunnu (Хүннү) term that is more humanizing. Indeed, when one uses the Mongolian term Hunnu, it is easier etymologically to see how Hun derived from Hunnu than from the label Chinese placed on them. ~2026-58052-8 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses common names for page titles and as far as I am aware Xiongnu is the common English name of this group. I am also not too worried about offending a group that hasn't existed for over 1,000 years. DervotNum4 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

My concern is about the group that has existed for over 1,000, the Mongols. Mongolian people descend from the Hunnu people. This is my concern. Mongolian people refer to their ancestors as Hunnu people. They were termed Xiongnu from southern neighbors rather than themselves. ~2026-58052-8 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

To repeat my prior comment, Wikipedia uses common names for page titles and as far as I am aware Xiongnu is the common English name of this group, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use the name used by a group that may (based on the contents of this article) have descended from said group. DervotNum4 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)