Origins of the Huns

[Aru]

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.

I was replying to this post:

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.

Saying we are talking about specific people, not steppe peoples in general. Therefore I asked if others wrote about Huns specifically.

I'll go and read the posted link now, but even before it, I must mention that confusing names of peoples (calling anyone living east of Carpathians Scythians or Sarmatians, for example) was common so I don't hold much faith in various records being exactly true, but I'll hold judgement until I read it.

edit: Read it. The texts mentioning Huns just prove that the name existed in central Asia in 300's and Xiongnu were called that twice. After that the text give the same various theories of how the name can be linked to European Huns that I already made. Which is a lot of guessing and various possibilities, but without tools to prove anything.

In conclusion, the Huns were in some way connected with Xiongnu. In what way precisely - unknown.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well the Huns also used the Xiongnu administrative system. The text might have those pages available but I don't know. I have it here next to me, so I can type it if needbe, but I'll check online first.

[Aru]

How unique was Xiongnu administrative system and what place would Huns have in it to be able to use it? Did they invent it if they were indeed no other than Xiongnu themselves or were they one of subject peoples who adopted it, how long were they a subject people, or are they a collection of groups, families, minor tribes who were subject to Xiongnu but got away for some reason and formed Hunnic confederation, a new nation altogether. Books will just pose those same questions and no responsible historian will say it's one or the other because there is no proof.

Don't get me wrong, I like considering what may have happened, but that's as far as we can do. I didn't read too much about Huns, but enough that I know those questions (who are they, where are they from) are not answerable currently. The best we have is few clues, like that they have connection with Xiongnu, but concluding from that that they are Xiongnu is wrong.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well the reason I support the theory is that it's the only well supported theory about Hunnic origins. The others are mired in nationalism and unfounded, or random suggestions, at best.

[Påsan]

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

Attila's sons were soundly defeated by a confederation of Germanic tribes, and then the political conglomerate that was the hun world collapsed into a number of independent tribes where the hunnic peoples are thereafter insignificant.

[Roma_Victrix]

Attila's sons were soundly defeated by a confederation of Germanic tribes, and then the political conglomerate that was the hun world collapsed into a number of independent tribes where the hunnic peoples are thereafter insignificant.

"Oh how the mighty have fallen! The weapons of war have perished!" 2 Samuel, 1:27.

It's amazing how rapidly their confederation dissolved and was chewed up by the Germanic tribes, shortly after Attila's death.

@Aru: fair enough. I think the links are quite strong, strong enough for me to believe that the Hun rulers were linked to the Xiongnu chanyus in a direct line of succession, even if muddled by intermarriage over the centuries with Turkic tribes and others.

@Magister Militum Flavius Aetius: Could you share details about the Xiongnu administration? I'm guessing the heavy details come entirely from Chinese historical sources, from the Han dynasty to the Jin dynasty. Do Bactrian and Sogdian sources say anything about the Xiongnu administration, though? From what I understand the Han Chinese took an interest to describe the politicking and even intimate family affairs of the ruling chanyus, with details as rich as any biography for a Chinese noble or powerful scholar-official. Some people of Xiongnu descent were even fortunate enough to rise to high levels in Han Chinese society, like the former prisoner of war and slave Jin Midi (134 - 86 BC), who became a high official in Emperor Wu's court and even a co-regent over the Emperor Zhao of Han. Here's a depiction of him in a 2nd-century stone-carved relief:



Clearly he dropped his Xiongnu attire for Chinese digs and silk robes (assimilation and all that). That's unfortunate, since it would have been interesting to see traditional Xiongnu dress. As far as I know the Chinese actually never made a depiction of them as such. We do, however, have plenty of Chinese paintings and sculptures of the Xianbei, Mongolic neighbors of the Xiongnu who originally made up part of their confederation after being conquered by them. The Xianbei became rulers of several successive dynasties in northern China from the 4th to 6th centuries AD, until the establishment of the Sui and Tang dynasties. For what it's worth, here's what a Xianbei warrior of the 6th century looks like:

"This figure is clad in the military uniform of the Xianbei people; with a covered "wind hat", trousers, short upper tunic and a cape tied around the neck, the outfit was designed to protect one against the wind and dust."

[Rinan]

Well the reason I support the theory is that it's the only well supported theory about Hunnic origins. The others are mired in nationalism and unfounded, or random suggestions, at best.

What about the theory that they don't *have* a (single) origin, and that it's just a complicated mix of numerous ethnic groups? The rulers don't have to originate from the Xiongnu in order to have Xiongnu cultural traits (administrative system, the style of cauldrons). It could simply be the result of the Eurasian steppe being one giant zone of acculturation through trade, warfare, diplomacy, etc. If anything, the Hun-Xiongnu theory connection also has a subjective flavour, because it appeals to our romantic senses and our desire to connect the ancient Mediterranean world to the ancient East-Asian world.

Attila's sons were soundly defeated by a confederation of Germanic tribes, and then the political conglomerate that was the hun world collapsed into a number of independent tribes where the hunnic peoples are thereafter insignificant.

I guess that's one part of the story. But don't the Bulgars and Magyars claim to be related to the Huns? In any case, after the downfall of the Hunnic empire all these different groups (Bulgars, Magyars, Goths, Gepids, Alans, etc.) emerged. They formed the Hunnic confederacy, so they were the Huns. What happened after its collapse was all these different groups emerging and claiming certain ethnic identities different from "Hunnic" for themselves.

[NikeBG]

What about the theory that they don't *have* a (single) origin, and that it's just a complicated mix of numerous ethnic groups?

You mean the Huns were a polyethnos? Well, as far as I know, that's not a theory, but widely regarded as a logical fact. All major powers on the steppe were a polyethnos - the Huns weren't just Huns, but also included Turkic, Iranic and Germanic tribes; the Avars weren't just Avars (and weren't even Avars at all - they were Rourans who adopted the Avar name without having any actual link to the original Avars), but also included Bulgars and Slavs (though the Slavs were a bit more segregated and distinguished); the Bulgars weren't just Bulgars, but also included Turkic, Iranic and possibly Finno-Ugric (Magyar) tribes as well; the Magyars weren't just Magyars, but also included Turkic (Khazar) and other tribes as well. So, indeed, as you say, the steppes were a melting pot of high mobility and no one was really homogeneous.

I guess that's one part of the story. But don't the Bulgars and Magyars claim to be related to the Huns? In any case, after the downfall of the Hunnic empire all these different groups (Bulgars, Magyars, Goths, Gepids, Alans, etc.) emerged. They formed the Hunnic confederacy, so they were the Huns. What happened after its collapse was all these different groups emerging and claiming certain ethnic identities different from "Hunnic" for themselves.

Indeed. The Bulgar Nominalia starts with two legendary rulers (Avitohol, who lived 300 years, and Irnik, who lived 150 years), which are claimed to have founded the Dulo clan, which is the clan which founded Old Great Bulgaria and, respectively, the Danubian and Volga Bulgarias. And scholars believe Avitohol and Irnik are references to Attila and Ernakh. The Magyars, according to the Gesta Hungarorums etc, also claimed to be descended from Attila (and it's possible that the Arpads could've been related to the Dulo clan as well, though that's just speculation) and got their Hungarian name from them (or from the Onogurs, at least).
In any case, as the core Hunnic power faded, these constituent tribes rose to power and so did their identities arise as well. Some of those tribes then disappeared in history, together with their identities. The Bulgars and the Magyars being the "exceptions" simply because they managed to create organized states which lasted long enough for their names to be taken on by their successors and to be kept despite the various transformations those states and peoples faced in the following centuries (f.e. modern day Bulgarians have little to do with the original Bulgars, both in language, culture, religion etc, except for the name; the Magyars have changed quite a lot as well, though at least they've preserved not only their name, but their language as well).

[PikeStance]

My understanding is that the Central Asian groups constantly intermixed. It is probably a safe bet that the "Huns" were an admixture of many different people. Moreover, the genetic evidence suggest that Central Asia is by far the most heterogeneous region in the world. While this isn't direct evidence, it does suggest the region was anything but "settled," but quite volatile.

The problem to to slave the mystery goes a little beyond their "mobile" society. These regions are still less populated than other regions resulting in less accidental excavations of clues.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You mean the Huns were a polyethnos? Well, as far as I know, that's not a theory, but widely regarded as a logical fact. All major powers on the steppe were a polyethnos - the Huns weren't just Huns, but also included Turkic, Iranic and Germanic tribes; the Avars weren't just Avars (and weren't even Avars at all - they were Rourans who adopted the Avar name without having any actual link to the original Avars), but also included Bulgars and Slavs (though the Slavs were a bit more segregated and distinguished); the Bulgars weren't just Bulgars, but also included Turkic, Iranic and possibly Finno-Ugric (Magyar) tribes as well; the Magyars weren't just Magyars, but also included Turkic (Khazar) and other tribes as well. So, indeed, as you say, the steppes were a melting pot of high mobility and no one was really homogeneous.

This also applies to the Germanics. The Visigoths included three distinct Gothic groups, Heruli, Alans, Huns, and probably a few Scirii or Gepids. The Franks formed from Chamavi, Bructeri, etc. The Saxons were pretty much all the Ingervones.

There was a core group of people who identified themselves as "Huns", and had many people part of their confederation. Dingling, former Kushans, former Kangju, Alans, etc.

Indeed. The Bulgar Nominalia starts with two legendary rulers (Avitohol, who lived 300 years, and Irnik, who lived 150 years), which are claimed to have founded the Dulo clan, which is the clan which founded Old Great Bulgaria and, respectively, the Danubian and Volga Bulgarias. And scholars believe Avitohol and Irnik are references to Attila and Ernakh. The Magyars, according to the Gesta Hungarorums etc, also claimed to be descended from Attila (and it's possible that the Arpads could've been related to the Dulo clan as well, though that's just speculation) and got their Hungarian name from them (or from the Onogurs, at least).

The Magyars are a Uralic people, genetically unrelated to the Huns, although archaeological evidence shows the Huns were in the area south of the Urals in the 300's AD. The Bulgars are believed to be of Bactrian origin, not Hunnic. The so called "Oghur Bulgars" were part of the Hun confederation and may have been part of the Hunnic core group itself, but these were not the same Bulgars who would form the Bulgarian kingdom under Asparuch 100 years after the last Huns were assimilated.

In any case, as the core Hunnic power faded, these constituent tribes rose to power and so did their identities arise as well. Some of those tribes then disappeared in history, together with their identities. The Bulgars and the Magyars being the "exceptions" simply because they managed to create organized states which lasted long enough for their names to be taken on by their successors and to be kept despite the various transformations those states and peoples faced in the following centuries (f.e. modern day Bulgarians have little to do with the original Bulgars, both in language, culture, religion etc, except for the name; the Magyars have changed quite a lot as well, though at least they've preserved not only their name, but their language as well).

Don't forget the Turks.

[Rinan]

You mean the Huns were a polyethnos? Well, as far as I know, that's not a theory, but widely regarded as a logical fact. All major powers on the steppe were a polyethnos -

Well, I'm glad you agree with me. It's certainly not a controversial statement, but realising this fact has significant consequences for this thread's question. Namely, it raises the issue if there even was a "pure Hunnic" core, and even if there was, if it's related to the Xiongnu at all. And of course, whether the question of Hun-Xiongnu-descendy actually still matters...

[NikeBG]

The Bulgars are believed to be of Bactrian origin, not Hunnic.

That's just one theory (Peter Dobrev's). IMO, the West-Iranic/Sarmatian one is quite more feasible (Rasho Rashev's in particular, though perhaps with less intense Slavic influences).

The so called "Oghur Bulgars" were part of the Hun confederation and may have been part of the Hunnic core group itself, but these were not the same Bulgars who would form the Bulgarian kingdom under Asparuch 100 years after the last Huns were assimilated.

That's a most peculiar new idea.

Don't forget the Turks.

Indeed, they're actually the primest example for that case.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

That's a most peculiar new idea.

It's not new, it's well known the Oghur Bulgar groups (which were Hunnic) were assimilated before the year 630 by the Avars and one survived in Dagestan until it was assimilated later by the Khazars. They're probably somewhat related, depending on whether or not the Bulgars were Iranic or Turkic, but they weren't part of the group Asparuch led into Bulgaria years later.

[NikeBG]

Ah, by Oghur Bulgars you mean the Kutrigurs (the OGB part of which took part in the formation of Volga Bulgaria, whereas Asparuh's Bulgars were likely the Utigurs and/or maybe the Onoghurs)? If so, yes, it's not a new idea, but then again, the Kutrigurs weren't assimilated by the Avars in 630, considering in 631 (according to Fredegar) there was a power struggle inside the khaganate between the Avars and the Bulgars (Kutrigurs), where the rebelling Bulgars were defeated, sought refuge in Bavaria under Dagobert I, but were largely slaughtered there and the few survivors finally settled in Italy. Furthermore, Krum the Fearsome himself was said to have been "from the Pannonian Bulgars" and that's from the late 8th-early 9th c. Of course, this could have been due to subsequent waves (just like there were several waves of Black Bulgars towards Danubian Bulgaria in the first couple of centuries after its establishment), but still...

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Kutrigurs, Utigurs, Onogurs, Saragurs, and Sabirs were all part of the so called "Oghur Bulgars." The Kutrigurs and Utigurs formed when Danizik (Dengzich) and Irnak (Ernak) retreated across the Dniester and conquered the Akatir and Saragur Huns respectively.

As for "Pannonian Bulgars" they could have been Hunnic elements that were picked up under the Avars and followed them back into the Carpathian basin.

[NikeBG]

Or they were remnants of the Bulgars which were there before the arrival of the Avars (who originally lived with the Gepids, but when the Lombards and Avars came, joined the Lombards (among a number of other tribes from that area, mostly Germanic) in their migration to Italy). There's no way to tell. Not that it matters anyway. My point is that, according to the sources, there were still Bulgars in Pannonia by the beginning of the 9th century (just like the Black Bulgars still existed within the Khazar Khaganate), so obviously they weren't assimilated into the Avars. If anything, they assimilated into the Magyars, just like the Esegels.

In any case, I hope this comes to show the OP the steppes were particularly a mess - identities and tribes rose and dwindled like modern memes.

[Roma_Victrix]

Why does your chronological list above detail lots of events concisely, but then conspicuously leaves out the fact that the Xiongnu ruler Modu Chanyu defeated the Han Dynasty emperor Gaozu (Liu Bang) at the Battle of Baideng in 200 BC? This led to the Heqin agreement in 198 BC that forced the Han court to enter a marriage alliance with the Xiongnu and offer them hefty tribute of silk and other treasure for the next seven decades. This arrangement was only broken when Emperor Wu of Han actively broke the alliance and initiated a war against the Xiongnu, one that his successors would finish with the splitting of the Xiongnu into its northern and southern branches (the former being a loyal vassal to Han, the latter fleeing westward into Central Asia and believed to be connected with the Huns).

You also repeatedly spelled the word "Shanyu" or "Chanyu" incorrectly as "shan uy." I'm not sure why you reversed the "u" and "y" letters there; that's not how it's pronounced in Chinese. Chanyu (單于) is a Chinese transliteration of the word Sanok in the now extinct Xiongnu language (a proto-Mongolic predecessor to Middle Mongol language of the medieval period). Chanyu is also the shorter version of a longer title, Chengli Gutu Chanyu, meaning heaven child of immense appearance. The word chan can also be translated as "sky," whereas the whole title is thought to be related to the later Mongol title "Tengriin Huhudu Chino" or "Heavenly Wolf Child."

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Any reference to "Huns" anywhere near the Caspian and Aral seas prior to about 200 AD is not talking about the Huns. Both Unni, Hunni, etc in every Grco-Roman manuscript except Ptolemy was proven to be a later addition/etc. by medieval copyists. Ptolemy lists Chunni as part of his original text and it's not a later addition because the Huns aren't listed as a "major" tribe, and it's believed from the context they were a Sarmato-Dacian people, not the later Huns.

You also repeatedly spelled the word "Shanyu" or "Chanyu" incorrectly as "shan uy." I'm not sure why you reversed the "u" and "y" letters there; that's not how it's pronounced in Chinese. Chanyu (單于) is a Chinese transliteration of the word Sanok in the now extinct Xiongnu language (a proto-Mongolic predecessor to Middle Mongol language of the medieval period). Chanyu is also the shorter version of a longer title, Chengli Gutu Chanyu, meaning heaven child of immense appearance. The word chan can also be translated as "sky," whereas the whole title is thought to be related to the later Mongol title "Tengriin Huhudu Chino" or "Heavenly Wolf Child."

Pretty much this^^

Karaton (kadadon= dress)
Mundjuk, Attila's father (bondjus = bead, tirquose)
Attila (Itil= birthplace, or Ata-il = father of country)
Illek, Attila's son (Il-Ek = country fortress)
Dengizik, Attila's son (Den(g)iz = Sea)
Irnek, Attila's son (=young soldier)
Aibars, Attila's uncle (= bars, lion)
Oktar, Attila's uncle (= )
Ary Kan (aryg-kan = beautiful Quinn)
Basyk
Kursyk
Atakam
Eshkam
336 Türkic names of Hun rulers (cont'd)
Nation
Agacheri (Forrest people)
Shar (sary - ak, = yellow - white)
Ogur (Ok-gur = ten federates)
Potential link of ruling family with Asian Tankhu (king)

Many of these are wrong, for example it's not Karaton by "Qaraton" (different dialect) which according to Kim means "Black Cloak." This applies to the rest of your translations as well (Ellak is not Illek but Alik, which according to Maenchen-Helfen was the title for the King of the Akatir Huns). Munjuq means "Red Banner" or basically bannerman, according to Maenchen-Helfen.

Many of your spellings are wrong. Dengzich = Danizik, Irnek = Aranak, Basik and Kursik.

Oghur were a people and a language group, Onogur means "Ten Oghurs", Utrigur means "9 Oghurs", Kutrigur means "30 Oghurs" according to Kim. Not sure on Saragur though. The Sabirs were also Oghur or admittedly possibly Bulgar.

[Diocle]

How can we be sure about the correct spelling of a language that was never written by the people which was speaking it during the V century?

Of course today there are Turkish, Bulgar, Hungarian accents, Mongolian accents, Iranic accents, and Chinese accents ... the languages of that area are infinite, their evolution is infinite and few of them were written so ... who cares about correct spelling?

Any spelling of Attila's language is highly hypothetical, so what is this discussion about?


Thanks to manaskhan for his interesting post! +rep!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Attila was not born on the Volga, he was born probably in Wallachia or on the Tisza probably sometime inbetween roughly 403-413 AD. His father was Munjuq brother of Rua, Aibars, and Oktar, all of whom were related to Qaraton who he himself was related to Ultzin.

It's still controversial whether or not Attila's name was Gothic or Oghur. Rua/Ruga/Rugila, even by modern scholars like Kim, is still agreed to be a Gothic and not a Turkish name.