Origins of the Huns

[Roma_Victrix]

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.

We also know a bit about their burial practices, don't we? I'm very interested in that, plus any artefacts that can be associated with the "Hun" culture if it can be said to be one unified culture at all. For instance, their golden bejewelled horse trappings.

[Ludicus]

we can safely say they were organized nomadic groups from the Altai mountains.

The Altai is a mountain range in Central Asia, Eurasian Steppe; it was an important barrier for the coexistence and mixture of the European and Asian populations. In the Altai mountains took place the Eurasian genetic blending- over 2,000 years ago. It seems that the Asian population adopted the Scythian culture, more advanced; it also seems that the genetic blending is a consequence of the demographic expansion of local Central Asian populations.
Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture

That being said, where is the exact location of the origin of the Huns? nobody knows for sure.

We can also safely say they migrated due to several factors,

Several factors, obviously....as to what reason or reasons led the Huns to move eastward, no easy answers are available; Heather discusses in detail all possible factors.

Heather is not an expert on the Huns

We can safely say that Heather is probably one of the best experts when it comes to the "barbarian" Huns.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm well aware of the Genetic admixtures, I have a friend who's an expert on the Central Asian Alans and Sarmatians and knows all about Turanid admixtures and the identification of certain peoples. A perfect example are the Wu-sun, from the Tarim Basin south of the Altai mountains, who were of a mix of Europoid and Mongoloid people. Heck, their article on Wikipedia is fantastic, far better than the article on the Huns who are much more well known and have way more archaeological finds associated with them.

The fact of the matter is that although the upper tiers of their society were most certainly Hunnic (that is Altai/Oghur-Turkic), the main body changed depending on the location. In East Khazakhstan it was mostly Turkic. In Bactria/Sogdia and around the Caspian sea it was mostly Iranian. In Europe it was mostly Germanic.

We can't say an exact location for the origin of the Huns: that would be entirely absurd and as difficult to pin down as the exact location Julian was standing when he was proclaimed Emperor. They were an Altaic people who mixed with the Proto-Oghurs, as confirmed by archaeology and genetic testing, and were the descendants of the older Xiongnu confederation. Whether or not they were the Xiongnu can't be supported, but the historical evidence shows that the Xiongnu retreat into the Altai mountains, and two centuries later out pop the Huns into Central Asia. There is a cultural and political connection, even if they were not the same.

[Ludicus]

They were an Altaic people who mixed with the Proto-Oghurs, as confirmed by ...genetic testing.

Link, please
Here?
Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture

[Cyclops]

Is wave theory helpful in understanding horde dynamics? We have people in Britain calling themselves Anglo-Saxons when they probably have more "insular kelt" and Dane than central German DNA in them.

I don't think there's a Hunnic cultural assemblage like the Hallstatt or Hellenic cultures have: there's some general steppe traits but nothing strictly "Hun" that's been identified, is that right? They are a short historical moment in Europe where they formed a tidal wave of collapsed tribes. Its like trying to discern which drops of water were part of the Japanese Tsunami.

I thought the Hun language was completely unknown (given the Xiongnu connection is tenuous)? If it was related to Chuvash then that's a clue to part of their make-up but by no means conclusive, IRRC Attila spoke a German tongue.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I don't think there's a Hunnic cultural assemblage like the Hallstatt or Hellenic cultures have: there's some general steppe traits but nothing strictly "Hun" that's been identified, is that right? They are a short historical moment in Europe where they formed a tidal wave of collapsed tribes. Its like trying to discern which drops of water were part of the Japanese Tsunami.

The Huns were a political entity. They had culturally distinct elements, yes, but frankly other than their genetic admixture they weren't that far removed from the Sarmatians before them culturally. They were simply far better organized than the Sarmatian kingdoms of Central Asia (Kangju, Yancai/Alanliao, and Kush but the latter was overrun over time, took about 75 years).

I have to re-read Kim's book (been about a month) to go into detail on what made the Huns culturally distinct.

I thought the Hun language was completely unknown (given the Xiongnu connection is tenuous)? If it was related to Chuvash then that's a clue to part of their make-up but by no means conclusive, IRRC Attila spoke a German tongue.

It's not completely unknown, we know bits of it thanks to Hunnic names. The Hunnic language has been determined to be a Lir-Turkic branch along with Oghur, the Avar language, and others. Gothic was the lingua franca of the Hunnic empire, but it may have been similar to the Roman Empire where although Greek became dominant in the Eastern Half, Latin was still required to be in any government position. So although everyone knew Gothic, you probably had to know Hunnic to be a part of the Hun-dominated governing body.

Link, please
Here?
Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture

Yes it's well known that Eurasian features became common during the late Scythian era, and especially the Sauromatian period in Central Asia. Chinese sources talk about steppe peoples/kingdoms that looked, frankly, "Caucasian." The Battle of the Red Cliffs (I think it's called) is a perfect example of East Asian Sarmatians.

According to Kim the Hunnic skeletons that have been found are about 70% predominately Caucasoid and 30% predominately Mongoloid in ratio (obviously to varying degrees of each, and skull features varying as well).

A quote from Kim about the Yeniseian origins of the Xiongnu

I would suggest you read some of Pulleyblanks's and also Vovin's articles on this. I am these days more uncertain about the Yeniseian origin of the Xiongnu core group. There was certainly the Jie confederation within the Xiongnu nation that spoke Yeniseian, but most of the linguistic data we have seem to point in my opinion more in the direction of Turkic. Research is still on-going on this topic.

[Aru]

It may be in vain to search of Hunnic origins.

Just as Greeks assimilated into Roman identity, it is possible that many peoples assimilated into Hun identity long before Huns were established in Europe. The original Huns could therefore "drown" among all other Huns and lose their specific tribal identity, or they could simply vanish in some military defeat while the usurpers, the new ruling class, chose to keep the name of the confederation (which was obviously formed by Huns because steppe confederations take name of dominating people/tribe. See Mongols and Magyars).

Between the time of forming of Hunnic tribal confederation and them being noticed by Romans, the ruling tribe could have changed several times, as well as the language they spoke. Most theories of Hunnic origins disregard this simple fact, that identities are constantly changing. Huns could have existed as a nation (confederation of tribes) for centuries before reaching Roman empire and in their early days they may have been nothing like the people Romans encountered and fought. (aside from general similarity of steppe cultures to one another).

If we accept that so much is possible and that we can't know almost anything at all with any certainty about Huns before Romans wrote about them, any conclusions about Hunnic origins based on Roman descriptions and specially archeological finds are automatically false. Say, skeletons with asiatic features. What do they tell us about Huns? Absolutely nothing except that part of the Hunnic people had origins in eastern half of Euroasian steppe. Which can mean anything. They could be fresh arivals, they could be the oldest part of confederation. Or something in between. All that it says is that there was a connecton of Huns with area east of Kazakhstan or thereabouts. Likewise for the language. If Germanic was lingua franca only decades after Huns conquered Germanics (Goths), why should the Turkic language be much older among Huns? It could be a language of people conquered just before Huns which was adopted by the dominant tribes. It may have nothing to do with what Huns from 100 years before spoke.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Umm... it's not just Roman literature (which is mostly worthless for it anyways); Iranian, Bactrian, and Chinese literature discuss the steppe peoples in the intervening period in good detail.

[Rinan]

The question of where the Huns came from is made more complicated by the question: What actually is Hunnic identity?

Even if the Huns originally were the Xiongnu and therefore originally came from the East-Asian steppes, how much of that identity was still dominant and actually mattered? Was it a Hunnic core group of tribal leaders that lorded over a vast amount of tribute people, or is it more complicated than that? Was Atilla, for example, even still related to the Xiongnu, and if he was, did he know? I've read Guy Halsall claiming Atilla is a Gothic name. (I must admit that Atilla does sound similar to the name of the Ostrogothic king Totilla).

So, you could argue that there isn't really any origin for the Hunnic people. They were simply a federation of a host of different people, claiming Hun as a political name (just as much as someone from Gaul and from Egypt could call themselves Roman, despite their ancestral roots). In this scenario, "Hun" is simply a name for a political group, based upon whatever various multitude of tribes constituted the federation. It could be a collection of Goths, Gepids, Vandals, Sarmatians, etc. coming together and calling themselves "Hun" for some reason. In a way, that'd explain why we don't hear so much about Huns anymore after the fragmentation of their empire when Atilla dies.

Not saying this is the only explanation, or that it's neccesarily true. But this "ethnogenesis theory" is currently popular with a lot of historians, so it's an interpretation you should seriously consider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#Mo...interpretation

[Aru]

Ok, can you tell me if any non-Roman sources speak about Huns and we are absolutely sure it is those same Huns they are speaking about?

We are not talking about steppe people here, we are talking about specific confederation which migrated deep into Europe and invaded Roman empire.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'll respond to all of this soon, give me a while to type.

[Roma_Victrix]

We are not talking about steppe people here, we are talking about specific confederation which migrated deep into Europe and invaded Roman empire.

From which direction and region of Eurasia do you think this confederation came from when it initially invaded Eastern Europe? Finland? At the very, very least their origin in the steppes isn't a debated point at all in academia. Their language and precise culture, however, is largely ambiguous and subject to debate.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It would take too long to type, so go here and read pages 26-30 (31 is cut off but it's just a conclusion for the most part):

https://books.google.com/books?id=fX...page&q&f=false

[Roma_Victrix]

It would take too long to type, so go here and read pages 26-30 (31 is cut off but it's just a conclusion for the most part):

https://books.google.com/books?id=fX...page&q&f=false

There you have it folks. Not only do 4th century Sogdian and Bactrian writers explain that the Huns are the same as the Xiongnu of Chinese sources (not just a generic name for all nomads as applied later), but modern archaeology has concluded that the Hunnic cauldrons have the same shape and artistic design as those of the Xiongnu from Inner Mongolia, both of them even interred on the banks of rivers. They had the same sword cult as well. Let's call it a wrap, folks.

The writer is rightfully cautious, though, about explaining their transformation from a Yenisei to a more Turkic culture, as well as incorporating Germanic elements as they moved further west, changing the nature of their confederation and spoken languages of the elite. The comparison of this with the later Turkification of the Golden Horde and Chagatai Khanate of the Mongols during the 13th and 14th centuries is spot on.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It's not a wrap, but it supports the theory. There is still the question of where the Huns picked up head-binding, for example

[Ludicus]

It could be a collection of Goths, Gepids, Vandals, Sarmatians, etc. coming together and calling themselves "Hun" for some reason. In a way, that'd explain why we don't hear so much about Huns anymore after the fragmentation of their empire when Atilla dies...
...I must admit that Atilla does sound similar to the name of the Ostrogothic king Totilla

That makes sense.That's the opinion of some scholars. In fact, Huns never fought alone. Attila's empire incorporated several clusters of Goths, Gepids, Rugi, Sueves, Sciri and Heruli, Iranian-speaking Alans and Sarmatians. During the reign of Attila, Germanic had become the lingua franca of the Hunnic people; we really don't know what language the Huns spoke.

What we can say ( previous post) is the Huns were nomadic pastoralists from the Eurasian steppe, and frankly, this is a vast landscape from Europe to the borders of China, thousands of kilometres.

We don´t know the reasons for the westward expansion, there are several theories, namely :
1- climate change/ecological pressure: Highly improbably. Even so, they could have moved in any of several directions, why westwards?
2- Political/military pressure from other nomadic groups. Why not? we can't rule out this hypothetical explanation.
3- and...as a response to fundamental inequalities of wealth: these invasions were undertaken with cash in mind and there are detailed accounts of the diplomatic contacts that preceded and followed the invasions/attacks.

Back to Heather's book,
"Identity is about mental and political identities... the fact that everyone within the Hunnic Europe used broadly the same material culture does not mean that there were no crucial status divides or group identities operating within it"

[NikeBG]

It's not a wrap, but it supports the theory. There is still the question of where the Huns picked up head-binding, for example

I was just going to ask you about that. Didn't the Xiongnu practice ACD (I presume by head-binding you mean artificial cranial deformation)? And, generally, who practised ACD in the Eurasian steppes before the Hunnic migration?

[Hresvelgr]

Is it even clear that "Attila" was the Hunnic king's birthname? There are convincing arguments that the name Attila is of Gothic origin but for all we know it could've been an appellation Attila appropriated from his Germanic subjects later in life, much like how Genghis Khan's original name was actually Temujin.

[Denny Crane!]

What happened to the Huns after they kicked all the ass in Europe? Did they merge into the population.

[Timotheus]

I wonder that also... then we could have some asiatic looking europeans but there are none (except modern day immigration)