Origins of the Huns

[goro]

Playing Attila made me curious on the actual origin of the Huns.There is plenty of history about their invasion of Europe but not much about their journey and starting location.Can someone provide sources and details on their origins?

[Roma_Victrix]

Well, as proposed by the French sinologist Joseph de Guignes in 1748 and popularized by Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789), the Huns who attacked the Roman Empire in the 5th century AD were the same as the Xiongnu who warred with the Han Dynasty of China from the 2nd century BC onwards (initially powerful enough to exact tribute from the Han Chinese emperors, in the Heqin agreement). The Xiongnu were a nomadic confederation of tribes from ancient Mongolia. Their confederation was eventually split into a northern branch that fled after a defeat inflicted on them by Han Chinese forces in 89 AD.

I'm not exactly convinced about the link between the two, especially considering the paucity of evidence about the Huns, and de Guignes's generally false proposals, such as the earliest ancient Chinese being ancient Egyptian colonists, and the Chinese written system as a direct offspring of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

[Hresvelgr]

It remains a pretty popular theory though, and the issue is still thorny and foggy as hell what with the fact we don't know terribly much about the Xiongnu themselves, least not as much as we'd like. From what I've heard, the most plausible theory as to the ethnic/linguistic identity of the Hunnic tribes is that they were either a Turkic or Altaic people, the former being more likely as it's possible they spoke an Oghur Turkic language like the Bulgars, Avars, and Khazars that would follow them into Europe. Still though, that doesn't tell us much about their origins and I'm as curious as you are, although it looks like we may never know and it is a rather divisive or heated debate to this day.

[Roma_Victrix]

It remains a pretty popular theory though, and the issue is still thorny and foggy as hell what with the fact we don't know terribly much about the Xiongnu themselves, least not as much as we'd like. From what I've heard, the most plausible theory as to the ethnic/linguistic identity of the Hunnic tribes is that they were either a Turkic or Altaic people, the former being more likely as it's possible they spoke an Oghur Turkic language like the Bulgars, Avars, and Khazars that would follow them into Europe. Still though, that doesn't tell us much about their origins and I'm as curious as you are, although it looks like we may never know and it is a rather divisive or heated debate to this day.

Well, during the Chinese Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD), sources such as Sima Qian's Shiji (compiled by 109 BC) tell us that the Xiongnu apparently had writing on wooden tablets and had their own script for doing so (not just the Chinese seal script used during the Han period). This seems to be corroborated by the ancient petroglyph rock inscriptions found in the aristocratic Noin-Ula kurgan burial mounds of Mongolia (dated 13 BC), some of which bear resemblance to certain written Chinese characters. Lacquer cups with written Chinese characters were also found at the site. As argued by N. Ishjamts (1996) from the Institute of Oriental Studies at Ulan Bator, Mongolia, these Xiongnu inscriptions also bear a striking similarity with the much later Orkhon runic script originating from the Orkhon Valley of Mongolia. This was the same script used as the Old Turkic alphabet for the Göktürks by the 8th century AD. It was also the basis for other Turkic runic writings, such as the Yenisei variant used by the medieval nomadic Kyrgyz.

This doesn't prove that the Xiongnu spoke either a Mongolic or Turkic language, but it does show a continuity between nomadic peoples of the regions using a previous written script to make their own. It's funny how the ancient Chinese seal script may be the root ancestor for the later Old Turkic alphabet, if the Xiongnu originally took the idea of writing from the Chinese and adopted it to their own language. It should be noted that the Mongolic Xianbei tribes uitilized the same script as the Xiongnu. Perhaps the proximity of these two nomadic cultures is enough to argue the Xiongnu were Mongolic and not Turkic.

Unlike the Xiongnu, we are largely aware of who the Xianbei were due to their later prominence in Chinese history. This begins with them being part of the nomadic Donghu confederation during the Chinese Zhou Dynasty (1050 - 256 BC), their conquest by the Xiongnu during the 2nd century BC, and their wars against the Han Dynasty in the 2nd century AD after the power vacuum on the northern steppes was left by the flight of the Northern Xiongnu westward into Central Asia. After the Western Jin Dynasty suffered a devastating defeat against the Wu Hu (meaning "Five Barbarians," aka the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, the Qiang, the Di, and the Jie) in 316 AD and the establishment of the Sixteen Kingdoms in northern China (the remnant Jin court would reestablish control over all of southern China the next year as the Eastern Jin Dynasty), the Xianbei were on the ascendency. They provided the rulers of the powerful Northern Wei Dynasty of the Southern and Northern Dynasties period (420 - 589 AD). After the fall of the Chinese Tang Dynasty in 907 AD, the Khitan people, direct descendants of the Xianbei, would go on to establish the Liao Dynasty in northeastern China, with Beijing as the capital city. They were dislodged from these lands in 1125 AD by the ethnically-Han Northern Song Dynasty and the Jurchens (ancestors of the later Manchu), who established their own Jin Dynasty in the north. However, the Khitan people were able to flee west and establish the Kara-Khitan Khanate of Central Asia. They also developed their own Khitan script that was used for a time by the Jurchens until they created their own.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I believe we don't have a definitive answer to that question to this day, and probably never will.
Steppe nomads were by their very nature a highly mobile bunch to begin with. On top of that, they left very little behind in the way of permanent settlements compared to sedentary peoples, and written histories never caught on with them to a significant extent, making them essentially archeologically invisible. As result, most of what we know about them is historical hearsay from our records of more conventional sedentary civilizations, resulting in information which is incomplete and inaccurate even by historical standards (which aren't what you call an exact science to begin with).

That being said however, the Xiongnu theory is worth mention due to how often it seems to come up. Personally, I think its far fetched. While steppe nomads certainly migrated far and wide, going all the way from Mongolia to Eastern Europe over such a time period seems unlikely at best. Too much distance, too many hostile competing tribes along the way, and not enough cultural and linguistic similarities to connect between the Huns and the Xiongnu to support such an unlikely scenario.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Ah, yes, a fascinating topic. Although I originally did not support the theory of a connection with the Xiongnu, instead believing the Huns to be from Khwarzrem, recent evidence and studies show that the two are connected.

In a nutshell, the Xiongnu were Altai with Yeniseian influence, who ruled over the steppes of Mongolia for several centuries. But they were defeated and overpowered by the Xianbei, another Altaic proto-Mongol group, and forced back into the Altai mountains from whence they came. In the 1st century AD, they came back out, on the other side of the mountains, and spread into Kazakhstan, conquering the proto-Oghur people known as the Dingling to the North West of the Altai range in South Russia. With this newly acquired manpower, they overthrew the kingdom of Kangju East of the Aral sea, and the Kushan Empire in Bactria and Sogida, by the end of the 3rd century.

In the early 4th century Roman sources record the Alpilcuri and Tonguri as peoples on the Volga river: these were Hunnic groups, who had vassalized the Itimari and Boisci (Rhobasci), who were Sarmatian. Meanwhile in Iran, the Kushans had been replaced with the Kidarite (later Chionite) kingdom, AKA the "Red Huns". These groups both were a Hunnic core, ruling over a predominately Sarmatian and Iranian steppe empire. Two years ago it was proven that in roughly 360 AD there was a megadrought caused by the El Nino cycle, which spurred the Huns to migrate out of the Aral sea basin and Khazakstan and into Europe, as well as into Iran. It also caused the Hua to move and fill in the gap in Khazakstan, having fled their Rouran overlords, and the Hua would eventually become the "White Huns" or Hepthaltites, although they were not Hunnic.

So were the Huns and Xiongnu connected? Yes, certainly. Were the Huns and Xiongnu the same? No. The Xiongnu had a singificant Yeniseian element, while the Huns did not. The Huns had a significant Oghur element, while the Xiongnu did not. The combination of the Altai peoples and the Oghur Dingling formed the Huns in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD.

For further reading, the Introduction of Hyun Jin Kin's "The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe" can be found on academia.edu for free, and I also recommend Etienne de la Vassiere's "Huns et Xiongnu" (in French):

https://www.academia.edu/10526494/Th...irth_of_Europe

https://www.academia.edu/1476535/Huns_et_Xiongnu

https://www.academia.edu/1476531/Is_There_a_Nationality_of_the_Hephtalites_

[Roma_Victrix]

So were the Huns and Xiongnu connected? Yes, certainly. Were the Huns and Xiongnu the same? No. The Xiongnu had a singificant Yeniseian element, while the Huns did not. The Huns had a significant Oghur element, while the Xiongnu did not. The combination of the Altai peoples and the Oghur Dingling formed the Huns in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD.

An amalgamation of the two seems quite plausible. These big nomadic confederations, from the ancient Donghu to the medieval war machine of Genghis Khan, were initially made by the forced absorption of many nomadic tribes who didn't exactly share the exact same culture and language. This was the "snowball" effect that swallowed up numerous unrelated peoples into one group. It makes sense that a force as large and widespread as the Huns would have featured a number of nomadic peoples at its core. However, since you argue the Oghur element was most prominent for the Huns, could it be argued they were essentially more Turkic than Mongolic? That's considering their strong connection to the Turkic Dingling people of Chinese sources.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well neither Turkic or Mongol had developed yet. Both developed from the Altai peoples.

The differences were more than genetic as well: there were cultural differences as well, like head-binding.

[Roma_Victrix]

Well neither Turkic or Mongol had developed yet. Both developed from the Altai peoples.

The differences were more than genetic as well: there were cultural differences as well, like head-binding.

Right, the ancient Xianbei (as I mentioned above) for instance were "proto-Mongolic," while their descendants, the Khitan people, were Mongolic proper, their spoken tongue belonging to the same language family as the contemporaneous Middle Mongolian spoken by Genghis Khan.

Hehe, just for fun, here's a Chinese movie scene depicting the Battle of Mobei in 119 BC, fought in the Orkhon Valley of Mongolia between the Chinese Western Han forces of Emperor Wu of Han, led by generals Wei Qing and Huo Qubing, and the Xiongnu forces of Yizhishie, the ruling Chanyu (Tsanak in the Xiongnu language, meaning their khan, or king). For a typically cheesy Chinese production (with some funny special effects when people are flung from their horse), the music is actually surprisingly decent.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Thorn777]

They where German.

[Cyclops]

Many good points ITT, the question of identity is a vexed one as the myth-makers of settled nation states have an interest in defining pre-modern nomad groups for their own purposes.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Linguistically the closest to the Huns are the Chuvash, the only remaining Lir-Turkic speakers. Ethnically I'd say the Altai in Eastern Kazakhstan might be closest.

[Claudius Gothicus]

One thing is clear: by the time the Huns entered the early European legendarium, crushing petty kingdoms left and right, exacting tributes from the decaying empire and forcing other tribes into their confederation, they were significantly distant from the Central Asian origins that once characterized them.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

That's not true, ethnically they may have been but the fact of the matter is that many "medieval" traditions originate from introduction of Iranic and Central Asian customs via the Huns and Alans. Court Jesters, Cloisonne, Riding Coats, etc.

[dogukan]

That's not true, ethnically they may have been but the fact of the matter is that many "medieval" traditions originate from introduction of Iranic and Central Asian customs via the Huns and Alans. Court Jesters, Cloisonne, Riding Coats, etc.

thats interesting!
Any academic works on that?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Kim's book. He exaggerates their impact but it gets the point across.

[Roma_Victrix]

That's not true, ethnically they may have been but the fact of the matter is that many "medieval" traditions originate from introduction of Iranic and Central Asian customs via the Huns and Alans. Court Jesters, Cloisonne, Riding Coats, etc.

Awesome! Aside from court jesters and riding coats, I'm surprised cloisonne was introduced to the West from the steppes instead of from the ancient Near East and Egypt, where cloisonne had apparently been used. It didn't even make an appearance in China until about the 14th century.

[Ludicus]

Simple answer: nobody knows.

Peter Heather. Book, Empire and Barbarians-Migration,Development and the Birth of Europe
Page 208/9,
Chapter,The Origin and Seedbed of al of All Evils' - excerpts ( from 68 pages...)

Key points:

Of all the migrants featured in this book, the Huns are perhaps the most mysterious. They wrote absolutely nothing about themselves...More problematic is the fact that very little appears about them even in Roman sources until the time of Attila, or perhaps half a generation before: the later 420s onwards, but above all the 440s.

It was only natural for Roman commentators to concentrate on them rather than on the Huns who caused the initial problem.
As a result, our ignorance of the Huns is astounding ( ) ...It is not even clear what language they spoke... by then (for reasons that will become apparent later in the chapter), Germanic had become the lingua franca of the Hunnic empire...etc...etc... the true is that we do not know what language the Huns spoke, and probably never will.

The direct evidence we have for the motivations and forms of Hunnic migration is equally limited.

According to Ammianus, there was nothing to explain ( ): The origin and seedbed of all evils...I find to be this. The peoples of the Huns...are quite abnormally savage"

What we can say is that, originally the Huns were nomadic pastoralists from the Great Eurasian Steppe"

--------

Everything else is pure speculation.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It's not speculation. Heather is not an expert on the Huns, although he has done a lot of work expounding upon their impact on Europe. The fact of the matter is that there is research on the Huns being done and we can safely say they were organized nomadic groups from the Altai mountains. We can also safely say they migrated due to several factors, one of the driving ones being a megadrought.