Talk:Modu Chanyu

Oghuz Khan

Oguz Khan redirects here but it shouldn't. Oğuz kağan is alagendary figure like King Arthur. There are suggestions that this legend takes its origins from life of Tanrıkut Mete of Huns (Mo-tun Shanyu of Xiangnu or whatever) which is possibly corect but legend of Oguz Khan should be a separete article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.187.215 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The story of Oğuz Han is completely paralel to the life of Mete Han. But I do agree that they should have seperate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.7.198 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The name Dulo appeared more than half millenium after Modu, so I changed dynasty name to Modu dynasty.78.191.73.74 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The article that shoudl be about Oghuz Khan has to be entirely different. There is no reason to take a mythical figure and link him to a historical figure. This redirect is absolutely ridiculous except as pure speculation. WikiPedia has to do better than this.

There is a wiki article about Oghuz Khan http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oghuz_Khan so why do Oguz Khan redirects here instead of there? Oğuz Kağan, Oghuz Kagan, Oguz Kagan, Oguz Han Oguz Khan and all other variations and spellings of that name should redirect to Oghuz Khan article. Moderators should attend to this at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.162.147 (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected.--Joostik (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oghuz Khaqan is still redirected to this article. As said earlier, Modu Chanyu(a historical figure) and Oghuz Khan(legendary, mythological character) are DİFFERENT individuals. Please redirect Oghuz Khaqan link to Oghuz Khan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.100.205 (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Modu Chanyu

Modu Shanyu, and the artificially imagined heroic statue-image of Modu Chanyu (located in Sogut, Turkey) should be removed from Project Turkey as the Xiongnu have nothing to do with Turks. They are a group of steppe people who appeared much earlier in history before the Gokturks, Mongols (Khitans, Jurchens, etc.) and Manchus. I removed the word Khan from the text as Xiongnu did not have khans, and this word is not mentioned in any Chinese sources that I have read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.20.120.78 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

no it cannot be because only turks doing research about mete han's origin and mete han is believed (and supported by many remarkable historians) to be the ancestor of the turks,and even in offical logo of turkish army you ll see the remark 'since B.C 209'[[1]] which implies mete han's first military system..

to advice you should find and read the legend of oguz khan who is legendary father of the oghuz turks and thought to be Modu Chanyu or mete han.. the smilarities between two is remarkable and the legend is translated from chinese sources.. turkish claim is not a extremist bullcrap, historians work hard to reveal his real identity and soon it will be revealed. nothing is clear right now so it isnt the right time to state certain information, we shall also see..

if you read Mao-tun in turkic its nothing but Mete-han...

you cant simply say that 'turkey has nothing to do with xiongnu' since you havent got a valuable source

IN RESPONSE to user Deadkid's insisting that Modu Chanyu's Turkish sourced fantasy-based image need not be challenged and questioned: Hi Deadkid. You said "omgwtf" because of the citation for facts again on the contentious matter regarding the Turkish-based nationalist (racist?) or Turkish-fantasy of the Modu Chanyu image and likeness. The only surviving references to Xiongnu people exist only in surviving Chinese-based historical texts, where no indications are made to any extraordinary or unusual appearances as to the racial background of the Xiongnu and Modu Chanyu. If anything that's ethnic or racial that can be drawn from these references, it would be the indication that the Xiongnu people are generally related to the ancestry of the Han Chinese themselves, to that of King Jie of Xia according to Sima Qian. To have the likeness of Modu Chanyu fashioned after some imagination and ethnically-biased slant of some Turkish fantasy is simply veering away from the facts and thus un-encyclopedic and warranted for removal due to deceiving and mis-educating potential readers. We as Americans must face reality and owe it to the younger generation to be aware and competent as future educators and motivators of an advancing society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.8.150 (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

user Deadkid_dk answered: "It is clear that the statue is an imagined depiction, nobody said this is how he had looked like. The point of the image was to provide a view on his legacy (legitimate or not), since we have no clear knowledge of what historical figures looked like. If even an imagined likeness can be contentious, then I'm afraid the pictures of statues in Shang Yang, Qin Shi Huang, Sun Zi and the like would also be considered unencyclopedic, misleading, etc. Since you obviously are deeply invested in this issue, I invite and urge you to find a better picture that conforms to the license requirements of Wikipedia. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page so others can have a chance to join in." _dk (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

user 99.130.8.150 responds: I have started this topic on the actual article's talk page, and I will maintain the citations tag or remove the image, and you may do the same with the disagreement you have about the image/likeness of Shang Yang, Qin Shi Huang, Sun Zi and any other ancient Chinese figureheads. Although these individuals you mentioned have far more historic precedence to their appearance than the Turkish-based Modu Chanyu, I would say that any ancient anonymous Asian male picture would easily make more sense than the current Turkish slant, but I would not resort to that. Apparently a Russian sponsored archaeological dig in the 1930's uncovered a painting of an "Mongoloid" male in an alleged royal Xiongnu tomb in Mongolia, but the Russian team apparently disappeared with it, and thus we are supposed to live with the Turkish rendition of Modu Chanyu. Better yet, the picture should just be removed, and I'll tag it for citations one more time before it's gone. I will bring this to the attention of Chinese archaeological authorities, and maybe they can lead us to more convincing material. Happy Chinese and Mongolian New Year! comments added by 99.130.8.150

Chanyu is preferable to Shanyu

I will go through the article and change the title 'Shanyu' to 'Chanyu' throughout (except in quotes). The reason is that the Guangyun, a dictionary compiled in 601 CE by Lu Fayan, and completed during the Song dynasty, gives three readings for the first character of this title [i.e. Chanyu]: dan, chan, and shan. The form chan is specifically mentioned as being used in the Xiongnu title Chanyu. The reading shan is used as a place or family name; the reading dan means 'single' or 'alone.' Also see, for example: "Early Chinese Settlement Policies towards the Nomads." Pan Yihong. Asia Major, 3rd series, Vol. V, Part 2, (1992), p. 42, n. 2; Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin, p. 48. (1991). Edwin G. Pulleyblank. UBC Press. Vancouver; Indo-Scythian Studies being Khotanese Texts Volume VII, p. 32. H. W. Bailey. Cambridge University Press. John Hill (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

More changes to this article

I am planning to go through this article and make a number of changes so I thought I should first explain the reasons I am doing so, and the broad outline of what I am attempting to do. 1. First a lot of speculation has crept into the article. The only historical evidence we have about this great early leader of the Xiongnu people is from the Chinese sources - anything else is speculation (and there are a number of mutually contradictory points of view - with little agreement between scholars). So, as this is meant to be a general encyclopedia article (not containing original research) I believe we should stick closely to the accounts given in the Chinese histories and anything more should be clearly identified as speculation. The same may be said regarding the relationships and language(s) of the Xiongnu people(s).

2. Claims and identifications have been made without proper references being made. Unless there is a good reason for keeping them, or unless I can find good references to back them up, I shall delete them.

3. I will use the Pinyin system of romanisation throughout, as this is now the most common and widespread system of romanising Chinese.

4. The article is badly in need of proper referencing and I will try to begin this task, starting with references to (translations of) the original Chinese texts, which are our only known sources of information about Modu.

I hope readers will take my edits for what they are, sincere attempts to improve this article, and that I don't upset too many people in the process - but, if you disagree with any of my edits - please let me know on this page and we can discuss the pros and con (I am always open to criticism as I am, like everyone else, prone to making mistakes). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mete, Batur, Bahadır

User 62.248.42.19 from Bursa in Turkey has again inserted these "names" for Modu. The fact is these are, I believe, later suggested possible reconstructions of Modu's name. As far as I know, they do not occur in any early documents or historical sources. Christopher I. Beckwith, in his recent book Empires of the Silk Road, p. 387, n. 8, discusses the possible origins of Modu's name: "It has not been identified, but as some have suggested, the Old Chinese pronunciation appears to represent a foreign *baγtur. a relative of the later-attested Central Eurasian culture word baγatur 'hero'. The etymology of the word is unknown, though the first syllable is very likely the Iranian word *baγ 'god, lord', an element in many later Central Eurasian titles."

I will, therefore, add a note on this possibility to the article, but I have no idea where "Mete" comes from. If User 62.248.42.19 still wishes to have this name included in the article for Modu, would s/he please give their reasons and valid references before inserting it again - I would be happy to discuss this further here. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

its not modu,its mete khan. teoman,çi-çi and mete are the first turkish names we know.you can see them in chinese archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.50.80 (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC) why the hell this is not in project turkey!!

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Xiong_Nu_Empire read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.50.80 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore any mention of "Mete Han, Khan" or anything else. These are only Turkish nationalists trying to rewrite other people's histories and their own as well. Modu Chanyu was not a Khan. He was not a Turk either. Any further insertion of such names will continue to be removed. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If this issue is such a source of conflict, then there certainly are scholarly material available that talks about this chanyu from the Turkish viewpoint. In the interest of a neutral point of view, those "Turkish nationalist" views will need to be noted. For the moment, please leave the picture alone as I was only attempting to provide a depiction of him as a person, not just the lands he conquered (and that depiction I did not remove, I only shifted it to a more relevant section). Cheers. _dk (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing from the "Turkish point of view" since Turks did not come from Huns, nor are they Huns themselves. They have no records about Modu Chanyu aside from what was written by Chinese.--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you deny that the Turks came from the Huns? In the inscriptions of the Göktürk state, they base their roots on the Huns. Yasincansahin (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

According to the Turkic etymology dictionary on the Starling database [baɣatur] is a Turkic word that was borrowed into Iranian rather than the other way about. Xaghan (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange as it may sound: baytur or a similar word is in everyday use in modern hungarian: baytur->batur->bator->bátor (meaning fearless or brave (or acting heroically) in modern hungarian) Considering the story about being able to escape and kill his own father and half relatives, there might be a connection somewhere there as a nickname. Even stranger the word itself is attributed to common turkish (or turkic-hungarian) roots (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/b%C3%A1tor) Other than the meaning bátor, the word itself was used as a family name before Turkish occupation of Hungary 1541-1699 (so used as a family name predating 1541). Example of this is the medieval noble family of Báthory https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/B%C3%A1thory_family Other interesting informations, might be related to the language people spoke around there: - I found out, early Byzantine records mixed the Magyars (early hungarians) as turkish, and when they asked a turkic person about do they know about them, the turks called early Magyars (hungarians) as parts of their tribal confederation (but with disdain, because they left or escaped the confederation). https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hungarians (Might give credit to that, that even the turkish name for hungarians stands for "10 arrows". Each arrow is a tribe, similar as it was mentioned in the translation of the Orkhon inscriptuion. In the Orkhon inscriptions there were 30 arrows originally, standing for 30 tribes, so that might be a hint of where the 10 arrows/tribes of hungarians belonged to (what confederation) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Orkhon_inscriptions - I found some hungarian (or protohungarian-turkic) words (even sentences) on one of the Orkhon stones after translating it, I got something similar to archaic hungarian. I could even read the story (as a hungarian) . The story was talking about the "Jazyges" crime (as a specific tribe, who committed a crime) the crime being itself "Jazyges killing the old Khagan", which even made sense after reading the Bilge Khagan story. The strange thing is that the story is 900 years in difference to this one, and the stones predates hungarian honfoglalás by twenty decades [if they correctly dated it to ~700 AD)(https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin) So whoever lived around there could have been speaking turkis, proto hungarian or mix of those languages etc. around for almost a millennium, which itself is a mistery. - I do know that there was a catholic expedition before the mongol invasion (pre dating 1241) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe In this expedition a hungarian monk or a clergy man found people speaking archaic hungarian or similar languages in mid Asia, whom were readying (or already fighting) against the mongols... The clergyman turned back after hearing the threat, and warned the kings and other kingdoms on his way to hungary. Despite this early warning, they couldn't prevent the total destruction of the hungarian army (greatest military failure "battle of 1241 muhi"), the mongol massacre following it (~1-2/3 of total population lost). If I remember correctly, after the mongol invasion (because miraculously the Khan died, mongol hordes turned around preparing for succession wars) the Dominican order, and the specific monk himself tried to return to that place, but found no living souls left alive. edit:The name of the monk was Julianus from the Dominican order after some more research. His story is possibly the only reliable western source before Mongols redrawned the whole demographic of that area (so whoever finds it interesting, there might have been people around there who spoke a strange languages up to early 1200 AD, before the mongol genocide) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Friar_Julian Corvonouveau (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

See Also

• Race Bending

Possible synthesis with the line about Yeniseian

I removed the bit about the Yeniseian language theory for the following reason. The line provides no information regarding the name Modu. Instead, the line creates the implication that Modu Chanyu was Yeniseian yet the citation doesn't exactly support that supposition. Vovin's short article analyzes a phrase in the Jie language then extends that to all of the Xiongnu tribes in the conclusion without much support to make that leap. First off, steppe confederations tend to follow a pattern of multi-ethnic conglomerations so the extension is difficult to make. At best we can say that the Jie, a member tribe of the Xiongnu, were Yeniseian. Secondly, personal names frequently cross ethnic boundaries. It is still possible that Modu Chanyu was Yeniseian but carried a Turkic name. Or he was Turkic and the Jie alone spoke a Yeniseian language. But now we're getting outside of the scope of the article! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation is not required because the issue is about the etymology of the name Modu which the references in the article say nothing about. If others feel that citation is necessary, I can provide many. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To anonymous person who has issues with my removal of the Vovin article: First off, I don't appreciate being called Pan-Turkist, if that is what you were implying with your last edit. I was the editor who bothered to check out the Vovin article from the library and expanded the Xiongnu article with that information [2]. Second, please read the Vovin article as I did. It really says nothing that relates to this article. It is best used on the Xiongnu article. Third, I agree that the section on the etymology of Modu's name needs work. I didn't add it, I'm just trying to improve this article. I'll try to find better citations for that. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mete Han2.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mete Han2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mete Han2.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Beckwith

IP has falsified the referenced content, from the source:

• 8. Th e name Mo- tun 􀝦􄷧 NMan mòdùn is in MChi ✩m􀅩k (Pul. 217–218) -✩ tw􀅩n3

(Pul. 84). It has not been identified, but as some have suggested, the Old Chinese pronunciation appears to represent a foreign *baγtur, a relative of the later- attested Central Eurasian culture word baγatur ‘hero’. The etymology of the word is unknown, though the first syllable is very likely the Iranian word baγ ‘god, lord’, an element in many later Central Eurasian titles. Mo- tun is presented as the found er hero in the story given in the Chinese sources, but he was actually the son of the found er (*Tumen). He was skilled with horses and the bow, the king (*Tumen) and his favored son attempted to use a stratagem to have him murdered, the prince was warned in time and miraculously escaped, he acquired a personal bodyguard of courageous warriors, and finally he attacked and killed the evil king and established a righteous and prosperous kingdom.

• Source: Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present, page 387. --Zyma (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Mete-han needs to be added to his name next to Modu Chanyu because he is Turkic origin and considered one of the ancestors of Turks. Also this has to be mentioned. I want to edit this article and add Turkic information in related parts. Metinemre2 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Mete Khan

Modun Chanyu's turkish name is Mete khan, Xiongnu Empire are a confederate state. The Chinese cannot claim the Xiongnu Empire And Mete Khan and his father Tuman are Turk! http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Xiong_Nu_Empire Analysis of skeletal remains in Mongolia: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/ 88.238.197.89 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Modun Chanyu → Modu Chanyu – This was a move by Erminwin, without a request. However we can [3] see that Modun Chanyu is not used in English. It might be correct in foreign languages, but per WP:COMMONNAME this should be moved back to Modu Chanyu. Beshogur (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you're right modu chanyu is not used in english ŒSpa (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Modu Chanyu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• commons:File:ModuChanyu.jpg. Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)