This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mann Mann (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 10 December 2022 (→Order of ethnolinguistic origins (theories): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:31, 10 December 2022 by Mann Mann (talk | contribs) (→Order of ethnolinguistic origins (theories): Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xiongnu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | ||||
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Korean connection
I believe this paper http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf&levelId=jn_009_0010 may help to explain or suggest a possible connection that Koreans were allies or part of them were members of the Xiongnu Confederation 138.36.44.72 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The link doesn't work (connection timed out). Ratata6789 (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- i know im late but i think this could work :v http://contents.nahf.or.kr/directory/downloadItemFile.do?fileName=jn_009_0010.pdf
- i noticed the link didnt work in PC when i posted it, but when i opened it in my phone it worked and dowloaded the pdf, it should work now
- hope you see this 138.255.51.11 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The link still doesn't work on my PC (in French : "Sans titre")
- Rishāringânu 16:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
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' ". 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:
Yet this is irrelevant to whether the Xiongnu spoke Turkic.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"
- 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. 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.
- 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. 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".
- 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.
- in n. 24 on p. 32, mentions Ottoman-Turkish term for the Zaporizhian-Cossacks;
Hunnu dynasty
This is not true. The Hunnu dynasty is the ancestor of the Mongols. China was scared 59.153.87.184 (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
What... two very conflicting sources about Turks and Mongols
This article says:
"Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to Anatolian Turks from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkic tribes originated in Xiongnu or at least in the late period of Xiongnu."
The paper listed as source also says:
"The main result of our study was the genetic similarity observed among Mongolian samples from different periods and geographic areas. 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. Furthermore, it appears that the Yakuts probably did not find their origin among the Xiongnu tribes, as we previously hypothesized."
So, there's actually stronger evidence here that Turkic peoples did not originate in Xiongnu. Why is this article saying otherwise.
159.146.13.220 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Removed, it was WP:OR as it wasn't verifiable in the cited references.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Genetics section clutter
Is the genetics section cluttered? I believe it is. Huge paragraphs are dedicated to primary source material about haplogroups such as R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124
and such encyclopedic and digestible language as "early/Xiongnu_west" related to Scythians, "early/Xiongnu_rest" with more Northeastern Asian ancestry and "late/Xiongnu"
. IMO, this section could use organizing, condensing, and more reliance on secondary sources, rather than a card catalogue of primaries describing individual specimen haplogroups. Very little will be fully understood by laypeople from the current genetics section. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Order of ethnolinguistic origins (theories)
- Huns, Turkic, Mongolic, Yeniseian, Iranian, Multiple ethnicities, Language isolate
Does the order represent the strongest theory to the weakest one? For example, Mongolic theories >> Yeniseian theories? Or Iranian theories >> Multiple ethnicities? Or it's just random placed headings? --Mann Mann (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Mann Mann: The old order was surreptitiously changed months ago by a known article defacer. The current descending ranking does not reflect scholarly consensus on probability. This part of the article should be reverted to the pre-troll state. Happy holidays. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. The section and its sub-sections should not violate WP:WEIGHT, and the order of theories should not be something random. Thank you, happy holidays to you too! --Mann Mann (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Mongols articles
- Top-importance Mongols articles
- WikiProject Mongols articles
- C-Class Central Asia articles
- Top-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- C-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles