Xiongnu

Xiongnu Nomadic confederation 3rd century BC–460s   → Territory of the Xiongnu (green) (c. 250 BC). Capital The Longcheng (蘢城), near Khoshoo Tsaidam in Mongolia, was established as the annual meeting place and de facto capital. Political structure Nomadic confederation History  - Established 3rd century BC  - Disestablished 460s

The Xiongnu (Chinese: 匈奴; pinyin: Xiōngnú; Wade–Giles: Hsiung-nu, Middle Chinese: Guangyun: xĭwoŋ˥˩-nu˩) were a confederation of nomadic tribes from Central Asia with a ruling class of unknown origin. The bulk of information on the Xiongnu comes from Chinese sources. What little is known of their titles and names comes from Chinese transliterations from their language.

The identity of the ethnic core of Xiongnu has been a subject of varied hypotheses, because only a few words, mainly titles and personal names, were preserved in the Chinese sources. Proposals by scholars include Mongolic, Turkic, Iranian^[1] and Yeniseian.^[2][3] The name Xiongnu may be cognate to the name Huns, but the evidence for this is controversial.^[3][4]

Chinese sources from the 3rd century BC report them creating an empire under Modu Chanyu (who became supreme leader in 209 BC)^[5] stretching beyond the borders of modern day Mongolia. In the 2nd century BC, they defeated and displaced the previously dominant Yuezhi and became the predominant power on the steppes north of China. They were active in southern Siberia, western Manchuria, and the modern Chinese provinces of Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang. Relations between early Chinese dynasties and the Xiongnu were complex, with repeated periods of military conflict and intrigue alternating with exchanges of tribute, trade, and marriage treaties.

Chronology

ca. 700-209 BC Pastoral Nomad society develops north of China. There are petty raids on China but no organized nomad state.

221 BC: Qin dynasty founded. 215 BC: Meng Tian drives nomads out of the Ordos Loop but they return when Qin falls.

Rise: 209 BC: Modu Chanyu becomes Xiongnu Chanyu (ruler). 208?: Modu conquers the Donghu to the east creating an empire from the Ordos to Manchuria. 202 BC: Han Dynasty founded. 200: Xiongnu defeat and almost capture the first Han emperor. ca. 200-140 BC Heqin policy adopted. Chinese pay tribute to Xiongnu which is cheaper than war. Chinese hope to civilize or corrupt Xiongnu with Chinese luxuries. Raids continue because the Chanyu does not fully control his tribesmen.

176 BC: Wusun in far western Gansu annexed. They later flee westward. ?: Xiongnu expand into the Tarim Basin and gain a non-Chinese source of urban and peasant produce. 162 BC: Modu's son drives the Yuezhi out of the Gansu corridor. 158 BC: Xiongnu raid near Han capital.

Decline: Before 140 BC: Chinese begin extensive horse-breeding to support a proper cavalry. 140-87 BC: Emperor Wu of Han adopts aggressive policy. 138-126 BC: Zhang Qian travels west to Bactria and returns with first information on the Western Regions. 133 BC: Han attempt to ambush the Chanyu. 133-119 BC: Han occupy Ordos Loop. Peasant colonization and food-growing military colonies. 119 BC: Battle of Mobei, a major Xiougnu defeat, Chanyu withdraws north of Gobi. 119-104 BC: Chinese raids north to Ulan Bator area. Han expand west to the Gansu corridor between Mongolia and Tibet. Xiongnu confined to Outer Mongolia and cut off from the Quiang on the Tibetan plateau. 104-87 BC: expansion into the eastern Tarim Basin, thereby 'cutting off the Xiongnu right hand'. Thereafter major fighting dies down. In the Tarim over the next two centuries there are complex shifts of power between Han, Xiongnu and local rulers.

104-100 BC: Li Guangli conquers Dayuan in the Ferghana Valley.

Breakup: First civil war: 60 BC: two rivals for throne. 51: weaker party moves south and submits to Chinese. 43: Southern Chanyu defeats northern one and reunites the empire. Some ^[6] say that the defeated Northern Chanyu led his men west where they later became the Huns. Second civil war: 47 AD: One faction moves south as Chinese ally or subject. Unable to retake the north, Xiongnu permanently split between northern and southern Chanyus. In the east Wuhuan and Xianbei (former Donghu) become independent and are paid by Chinese to attack northern Chanyu. 83 AD: disorders in the north. 87 AD: Xianbei behead northern Chanyu, tribes defect to the south. 89 AD: Han, Xianbei and Southern Xiongnu defeat Northern Chanyu who flees north. Many tribesmen join the Xianbei. 155 AD: last mention of northern Chanyu. Northern regions now controlled by the Xianbei state.

After 47 AD the Southern Xiongnu lived along the frontier as allies, subjects or border guards and become mixed with Chinese. After the fall of the Han in 220 AD Xiongnu remnants created many short-lived states all over north China. The Xiongnu seem to disappear as a distinct people by the fifth century AD.

Early history

Sima Qian stated, on the evidence of the preceding Chinese records (Bamboo Annals), that the Xiongnu's ruling clan were descendants of Chunwei (淳維 "Chun tribes"), possibly a son of Jie, the final ruler of the legendary Xia Dynasty (ca. 2070-1600 BC).^[7]

The Xiongnu were initially a collection of small tribes residing in the barren Mongolian highlands. During the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (1045-256 BCE), the campaigns by Zhou's vassal states to purge other hostile "barbarians" allowed the Xiongnu the opportunity to fill a power vacuum. These newly arisen nomads became a great problem for the Chinese, as their horseback lifestyle made them ready for rapid invasion and raiding villages and townships. During the Warring States period (476-221 BCE), three out of the seven warring states shared borders with Xiongnu territory, and a series of interconnected defensive fortresses were constructed, which joined later into the Great Wall.

During the Qin Dynasty (221 to 206 BC), the Chinese army, under the command of General Meng Tian, drove the Xiongnu tribes away and recaptured the Ordos region. The presence of the powerful Donghu in the east and Yuezhi in the west also served to check the Xiongnu, forcing them to migrate further north for the next decade. With the collapse of the Qin Dynasty and the subsequent civil war (206–202 BC), the Xiongnu, under Chanyu Toumen, were able to migrate back to the border with China.

Confederation under Modu

Domain and influence of Xiongnu under Modu Chanyu around 205 BC

Asia in 200 BC, showing the early Xiongnu state and its neighbors.

In 209 BC, three years before the founding of the Han Dynasty, the Xiongnu were brought together in a powerful confederacy under a new chanyu named Modu Chanyu. This new political unity transformed them into a more formidable state by enabling formation of larger armies and the ability to exercise better strategic coordination. The reason for creating the confederation remains unclear. Suggestions include the need for a stronger state to deal with the Qin unification of China^[8] that resulted in a loss of Ordos at the hands of Meng Tian, or the political crisis that overtook the Xiongnu in 215 BC, when Qin armies evicted them from their pastures on the Yellow River;^[9]

After forging internal unity, Modu expanded the empire on all sides. To the north he conquered a number of nomadic peoples, including the Dingling of southern Siberia. He crushed the power of the Donghu of eastern Mongolia and Manchuria, as well as the Yuezhi in the Hexi Corridor of Gansu where his son Jizhu made a cup out of the skull of the Yuezhi king. Modu also reoccupied all the lands previously taken by the Qin general Meng Tian. By the time of Modu's death in 174 BC, the Xiongnu had driven the Yuezhi from the Hexi corridor, killing the Yuezhi king in the process and asserting their presence in the Western Regions of Xinjiang.

Nature of the Xiongnu state

After Modu, later leaders formed a dualistic system of political organisation with the left and right branches of the Xiongnu divided on a regional basis. The chanyu or shan-yü — supreme ruler equivalent to the Chinese "Son of Heaven" — exercised direct authority over the central territory. Longcheng (蘢城), near Koshu-Tsaidam in Mongolia, became the annual meeting place and de facto Xiongnu capital.

Xiongnu Hierarchy

The chief of the Xiongnu was called shan-yü, (Chinese Chengli Gutu Shanyü), "Majesty Son of Heaven". Chengli might be a loanword from Turko-Mongol Tängri, Heaven or God.^[10] Under the shanyü served "two great dignitaries, the kings tuqi (t'u-ch'i)" (Turkish word doghri, straight, faithful): i.e., the wise kings of the right and left. Insofar as one can speak of fixed dwellings for essentially nomadic people, the shanyü resided on the upper Orkhon, in the mountainous region where later Karakorum, the capital of the Jengiz-Khanite Mongols, was to be established. The worthy king of the left—in principle, the heir presumptive—lived in the east, probably on the high Kherlen. The worthy king of the right lived in the west, perhaps near present day Uliastai in the Khangai Mountains. Next lower in the hierarchy came more officials in pairs of left and right: the guli (kuli, 'kings'), the army commanders, the great governors, the dunghu (tung-hu), the gudu (ku-tu). Beneath them came the commanders of detachments of one thousand, of one hundred, and of ten men. This nation of nomads, a people on the march, was organized like an army.^[11]

The marriage treaty system

In the winter of 200 BC, following a siege of Taiyuan, Emperor Gao personally led a military campaign against Modun. At the battle of Baideng, he was ambushed reputedly by 300,000 elite Xiongnu cavalry. The emperor was cut off from supplies and reinforcements for seven days, only narrowly escaping capture.

After the defeat at Pingcheng, the Han emperor abandoned a military solution to the Xiongnu threat. Instead, in 198 BC, the courtier Liu Jing (劉敬) was dispatched for negotiations. The peace settlement eventually reached between the parties included a Han princess given in marriage to the chanyu (called heqin 和親 or "harmonious kinship"); periodic gifts to the Xiongnu of silk, liquor, and rice; equal status between the states; and the Great Wall as mutual border.

This first treaty set the pattern for relations between the Han and the Xiongnu for sixty years. Up to 135 BC, the treaty was renewed no less than nine times, each time with an increase in the "gifts". In 192 BC, Modun even asked for the hand of Emperor Gao's widow Empress Lü Zhi. His son and successor, the energetic Jiyu, known as the Laoshang Chanyu, continued his father's expansionist policies. Laoshang succeeded in negotiating with Emperor Wen terms for the maintenance of a large scale government sponsored market system.

While the Xiongnu benefited handsomely, from the Chinese perspective marriage treaties were costly, humiliating, and ineffective. Laoshang showed that he did not take the peace treaty seriously. On one occasion his scouts penetrated to a point near Chang'an. In 166 BC he personally led 140,000 cavalry to invade Anding, reaching as far as the imperial retreat at Yong. In 158 BC, his successor sent 30,000 cavalry to attack the Shang commandery and another 30,000 to Yunzhong.

War with Han Dynasty

The Han Dynasty made preparations for war when the Han Emperor Wu dispatched the explorer Zhang Qian to explore the mysterious kingdoms to the west and to form an alliance with the Yuezhi people in order to combat the Xiongnu. While Zhang Qian did not succeed in this mission, his reports of the west provided even greater incentive to counter the Xiongnu hold on westward routes out of China, and the Chinese prepared to mount a large scale attack using the Northern Silk Road to move men and materiel.

While Han China was making preparations for a military confrontation from the reign of Emperor Wen, the break did not come until 133 BC, following an abortive trap to ambush the chanyu at Mayi. By that point the empire was consolidated politically, militarily and economically, and was led by an adventurous pro-war faction at court. In that year, Emperor Wu reversed the decision he had made the year before to renew the peace treaty.

Full scale war broke out in autumn 129 BC, when 40,000 Chinese cavalry made a surprise attack on the Xiongnu at the border markets. In 127 BC, the Han general Wei Qing retook the Ordos. In 121 BC, the Xiongnu suffered another setback when Huo Qubing led a force of light cavalry westward out of Longxi and within six days fought his way through five Xiongnu kingdoms. The Xiongnu Hunye king was forced to surrender with 40,000 men. In 119 BC both Huo and Wei, each leading 50,000 cavalrymen and 100,000 footsoldiers (in order to keep up with the mobility of the Xiongnu, many of the non-cavalry Han soldiers were mobile infantrymen who traveled on horseback but fought on foot), and advancing along different routes, forced the chanyu and his court to flee north of the Gobi Desert.^[12] Major logistical difficulties limited the duration and long-term continuation of these campaigns. According to the analysis of Yan You (嚴尤), the difficulties were twofold. Firstly there was the problem of supplying food across long distances. Secondly, the weather in the northern Xiongnu lands was difficult for Han soldiers, who could never carry enough fuel.^[13] According to official reports, the Xiongnu lost 80,000 to 90,000 men. And out of the 140,000 horses the Han forces had brought into the desert, fewer than 30,000 returned to China.

As a result of these battles, the Chinese controlled the strategic region from the Ordos and Gansu corridor to Lop Nor. They succeeded in separating the Xiongnu from the Qiang peoples to the south, and also gained direct access to the Western Regions.

Ban Chao, Protector General (都護; Duhu) of the Han Dynasty embarked with an army of 70,000 men in a campaign against the Xiongnu insurgents who were harassing the trade route we now know as the Silk Road. His successful military campaign saw the subjugation of one Xiongnu tribe after another. Ban Chao also sent an envoy named Gan Ying to Daqin (Rome). Ban Chao was created the Marquess of Dingyuan (定遠侯, i.e., "the Marquess who stabilized faraway places") for his services to the Han Empire and returned to the capital Loyang at the age of 70 years old and died there in the year 102. Following his death, the power of the Xiongnu in the Western Regions increased again, and the emperors of subsequent dynasties were never again able to reach so far to the west.

Leadership struggle among the Xiongnu

As the Xiongnu empire expanded, it became clear that the original leadership structures lacked flexibility and could not maintain effective cohesion. The traditional succession of the eldest son became increasingly ineffective in meeting wartime emergencies in the 1st century BC. To combat the problems of succession, the Huhanye Chanyu (58-31 BC) later laid down the rule that his heir apparent must pass the throne on to a younger brother. This pattern of fraternal succession did indeed become the norm.

The growth of regionalism became clear around this period, when local kings refused to attend the annual meetings at the chanyu's court. During this period, chanyu were forced to develop power bases in their own regions to secure the throne.

In the period 114 BC to 60 BC, the Xiongnu produced altogether seven chanyu. Two of them, Chanshilu and Huyanti, assumed the office while still children. In 60 BC, Tuqitang, the "Worthy Prince of the Right", became Wuyanjuti Chanyu. No sooner had he come to the throne, than he began to purge from power those whose base lay in the left group. Thus antagonised, in 58 BC the nobility of the left put forward Huhanye as their own chanyu. The year 57 BC saw a struggle for power among five regional groupings, each with its own chanyu. In 54 BC Huhanye abandoned his capital in the north after being defeated by his brother, the Zhizhi Chanyu.

Tributary relations with the Han

The Han Dynasty world order in AD 2.

In 53 BC Huhanye (呼韓邪) decided to enter into tributary relations with Han China. The original terms insisted on by the Han court were that, first, the chanyu or his representatives should come to the capital to pay homage; secondly, the chanyu should send a hostage prince; and thirdly, the chanyu should present tribute to the Han emperor. The political status of the Xiongnu in the Chinese world order was reduced from that of a "brotherly state" to that of an "outer vassal" (外臣). During this period, however, the Xiongnu maintained political sovereignty and full territorial integrity. The Great Wall of China continued to serve as the line of demarcation between Han and Xiongnu.

Huhanye sent his son, the "wise king of the right" Shuloujutang, to the Han court as hostage. In 51 BC he personally visited Chang'an to pay homage to the emperor on the Lunar New Year. On the financial side, Huhanye was amply rewarded in large quantities of gold, cash, clothes, silk, horses and grain for his participation. Huhanye made two more homage trips, in 49 BC and 33 BC; with each one the imperial gifts were increased. On the last trip, Huhanye took the opportunity to ask to be allowed to become an imperial son-in-law. As a sign of the decline in the political status of the Xiongnu, Emperor Yuan refused, giving him instead five ladies-in-waiting. One of them was Wang Zhaojun, famed in Chinese folklore as one of the Four Beauties.

When Zhizhi learned of his brother's submission, he also sent a son to the Han court as hostage in 53 BC. Then twice, in 51 BC and 50 BC, he sent envoys to the Han court with tribute. But having failed to pay homage personally, he was never admitted to the tributary system. In 36 BC, a junior officer named Chen Tang, with the help of Gan Yanshou, protector-general of the Western Regions, assembled an expeditionary force that defeated him at the Battle of Zhizhi and sent his head as a trophy to Chang'an.

Tributary relations were discontinued during the reign of Huduershi (18 AD-48), corresponding to the political upheavals of the Xin Dynasty in China. The Xiongnu took the opportunity to regain control of the western regions, as well as neighbouring peoples such as the Wuhuan. In 24 AD, Hudershi even talked about reversing the tributary system.

Late history

Northern Xiongnu

The Xiongnu's new power was met with a policy of appeasement by Emperor Guangwu. At the height of his power, Huduershi even compared himself to his illustrious ancestor, Modu. Due to growing regionalism among the Xiongnu, however, Huduershi was never able to establish unquestioned authority. When he designated his son as heir apparent (in contravention of the principle of fraternal succession established by Huhanye), Bi, the Rizhu king of the right, refused to attend the annual meeting at the chanyu's court.

As the eldest son of the preceding chanyu, Bi had a legitimate claim to the succession. In 48, two years after Huduershi's son Punu ascended the throne, eight Xiongnu tribes in Bi's powerbase in the south, with a military force totalling 40,000 to 50,000 men, acclaimed Bi as their own chanyu. Throughout the Eastern Han period, these two groups were called the southern Xiongnu and the northern Xiongnu, respectively.

Hard pressed by the northern Xiongnu and plagued by natural calamities, Bi brought the southern Xiongnu into tributary relations with Han China in 50. The tributary system was considerably tightened to keep the southern Xiongnu under Han supervision. The chanyu was ordered to establish his court in the Meiji district of Xihe commandery. The southern Xiongnu were resettled in eight frontier commanderies. At the same time, large numbers of Chinese were forced to migrate to these commanderies, where mixed settlements began to appear. The northern Xiongnu were dispersed by the Xianbei in 85 and again in 89 by the Chinese during the Battle of Ikh Bayan, in which the last Northern Chanyu was defeated and fled over to the north west with his subjects.

Southern Xiongnu

Southern and Northern Xiongnu in 200 AD, before the collapse of the Han Dynasty.

Economically, the southern Xiongnu relied almost totally on Han assistance. Tensions were evident between the settled Chinese and practitioners of the nomadic way of life. Thus, in 94 Anguo Chanyu joined forces with newly subjugated Xiongnu from the north and started a large scale rebellion against the Han.

Towards the end of the Eastern Han, the southern Xiongnu were drawn into the rebellions then plaguing the Han court. In 188, the chanyu was murdered by some of his own subjects for agreeing to send troops to help the Han suppress a rebellion in Hebei - many of the Xiongnu feared that it would set a precedent for unending military service to the Han court. The murdered chanyu's son Yufuluo, entitled Chizhisizhu (持至尸逐侯), succeeded him, but was then overthrown by the same rebellious faction in 189. He travelled to Luoyang (the Han capital) to seek aid from the Han court, but at this time the Han court was in disorder from the clash between Grand General He Jin and the eunuchs, and the intervention of the warlord Dong Zhuo. The chanyu had no choice but to settle down with his followers in Pingyang, a city in Shanxi. In 195, he died and was succeeded by his brother Hucuquan.

In 216, the warlord-statesman Cao Cao detained Hucuquan in the city of Ye, and divided his followers in Shanxi into five divisions: left, right, south, north, and centre. This was aimed at preventing the exiled Xiongnu in Shanxi from engaging in rebellion, and also allowed Cao Cao to use the Xiongnu as auxiliaries in his cavalry. Eventually, the Xiongnu aristocracy in Shanxi changed their surname from Luanti to Liu for prestige reasons, claiming that they were related to the Han imperial clan through the old intermarriage policy.

After the Han Dynasty

After Hucuquan, the Xiongnu were partitioned into five local tribes. The complicated ethnic situation of the mixed frontier settlements instituted during the Eastern Han had grave consequences, not fully apprehended by the Chinese government until the end of the 3rd century. By 260, Liu Qubei had organized the Tiefu confederacy in the north east, and by 290, Liu Yuan was leading a splinter group in the south west. At that time, non-Chinese unrest reached alarming proportions along the whole of the Western Jin frontier.

Liu Yuan's Northern Han (304–318)

In 304 the sinicised Liu Yuan, a grandson of Yufuluo Chizhisizhu stirred up descendants of the southern Xiongnu in rebellion in Shanxi, taking advantage of the War of the Eight Princes then raging around the Western Jin capital Luoyang. Under Liu Yuan's leadership, they were joined by a large number of frontier Chinese and became known as Bei Han. Liu Yuan used 'Han' as the name of his state, hoping to tap into the lingering nostalgia for the glory of the Han dynasty, and established his capital in Pingyang. The Xiongnu use of large numbers of heavy cavalry with iron armour for both rider and horse gave them a decisive advantage over Jin armies already weakened and demoralised by three years of civil war. In 311, they captured Luoyang, and with it the Jin emperor Sima Chi (Emperor Huai). In 316, the next Jin emperor was captured in Chang'an, and the whole of north China came under Xiongnu rule while remnants of the Jin dynasty survived in the south (known to historians as the Eastern Jin).

Liu Yao's Former Zhao (318–329)

In 318, after suppressing a coup by a powerful minister in the Xiongnu-Han court (in which the Xiongnu-Han emperor and a large proportion of the aristocracy were massacred), the Xiongnu prince Liu Yao moved the Xiongnu-Han capital from Pingyang to Chang'an and renamed the dynasty as Zhao (Liu Yuan had declared the empire's name Han to create a linkage with Han Dynasty—to which he claimed he was a descendant, through a princess, but Liu Yao felt that it was time to end the linkage with Han and explicitly restore the linkage to the great Xiongnu chanyu Maodun, and therefore decided to change the name of the state. However, this was not a break from Liu Yuan, as he continued to honor Liu Yuan and Liu Cong posthumously.) (it is hence known to historians collectively as Han Zhao). However, the eastern part of north China came under the control of a rebel Xiongnu-Han general of Jie (probably Yeniseian) ancestry named Shi Le. Liu Yao and Shi Le fought a long war until 329, when Liu Yao was captured in battle and executed. Chang'an fell to Shi Le soon after, and the Xiongnu dynasty was wiped out. North China was ruled by Shi Le's Later Zhao dynasty for the next 20 years.

However, the "Liu" Xiongnu remained active in the north for at least another century.

Tiefu & Xia (260–431)

The northern Tiefu branch of the Xiongnu gained control of the Inner Mongolian region in the 10 years between the conquest of the Tuoba Xianbei state of Dai by the Former Qin empire in 376, and its restoration in 386 as the Northern Wei. After 386, the Tiefu were gradually destroyed by or surrendered to the Tuoba, with the submitting Tiefu becoming known as the Dugu. Liu Bobo, a surviving prince of the Tiefu fled to the Ordos Loop, where he founded a state called the Xia (thus named because of the Xiongnu's supposed ancestry from the Xia dynasty) and changed his surname to Helian (赫連). The Helian-Xia state was conquered by the Northern Wei in 428-431, and the Xiongnu thenceforth effectively ceased to play a major role in Chinese history, assimilating into the Xianbei and Han ethnicities.

Tongwancheng (meaning "Unite All Nations") was the capital of the Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms), whose rulers claimed descent from Modu Chanyu.

Inner-Mongolian Xiongnu Museum. Hohhot, Inner-Mongolia, China

The ruined city was discovered in 1996^[14] and the State Council designated it as a cultural relic under top state protection. The repair of the Yong'an Platform, where Helian Bobo, emperor of the Da Xia regime, reviewed parading troops, has been finished and restoration on the 31-meter-tall turret will begin soon.^[15][16]. There are hopes that Tongwancheng may achieve UNESCO World Heritage status.^[17]

Juqu & Northern Liang (401–460)

The Juqu were a branch of the Xiongnu. Their leader Juqu Mengxun took over the Northern Liang by overthrowing the former puppet ruler Duan Ye. By 439, the Juqu power was destroyed by the Northern Wei. Their remnants were then settled in the city of Gaochang before being destroyed by the Rouran.

Interpretation

Barfield ^[18] attempted to interpret Xiongnu history as well as narrate it. He made the following points. The Xiongnu confederation was unusually long-lived for a steppe empire. The purpose of raiding China was not simply booty, but to force the Chinese to pay regular tribute. The power of the Xiongnu ruler was based on his control of Chinese tribute which he used to reward his supporters. The Han and Xiongnu empires rose at the same time because the Xiongnu state depended on Chinese tribute. A major Xiongnu weakness was the custom of lateral succession. If a dead ruler's son was not old enough to take command, power passed to the late ruler's brother. This worked in the first generation but could lead to civil war in the second generation. The first time this happened, in 60 BC, the weaker party adopted what Barfield calls the 'inner frontier strategy.' They moved south and submitted to China and then used Chinese resources to defeat the Northern Xiongnu and re-establish the empire. The second time this happened, about 47 AD, the strategy failed. The southern ruler was unable to defeat the northern ruler and the Xiongnu remained divided.

Religion

Chinese sources inform us that the Xiongnu worshipped the sun, moon, heaven, earth, and their ancestors.^[19]

Languages: origins and descendants

Turkic theories and possible relationship to Huns

Since the early 19th century, Western scholars have proposed various language families or subfamilies as the affines of the language of the Xiongnu. Proponents of the Turkic languages included E.H. Parker, Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth, Kurakichi Shiratori, Gustaf John Ramstedt, Annemarie von Gabain, and Omeljan Pritsak.^[20] Some sources say the ruling class was proto-Turkic,^[21][22] while others suggest it was proto-Hunnic.

An inscription in the Iranian language, Sogdian, reports the Turks to be a subgroup of the Huns (Henning 1948).^{[23][24][25][26][27]} Henning (1948) also exorcised the perpetual debate about equivalency of the numerous Chinese phonetic renditions of the word Hun and the Huns known from non-Chinese sources, by demonstrating an alphabetical form of the word coded in the Chinese as Xiongnu.

The names "Xiongnu" and "Hun"

Location of Xiongnu and other steppe nations in 300 AD.

The supposed sound of the first character has a clear similarity with the name "Hun" in European languages. Whether this is evidence of kinship or mere coincidence is hard to tell. It could lend credence to the theory that the Huns were in fact descendants of the Northern Xiongnu who migrated westward, or that the Huns were using a name borrowed from the Northern Xiongnu, or that these Xiongnu made up part of the Hun confederation. As in the case of the Rouran with the Avars, oversimplifications have led to the Xiongnu often being identified with the Huns, who populated the frontiers of Europe. The connection started with the writings of the eighteenth century French historian de Guignes, who noticed that a few of the barbarian tribes north of China associated with the Xiongnu had been named "Hun" with varying Chinese characters. This theory remains at the level of speculation, although it is accepted by some scholars, including Chinese ones. DNA testing of Hun remains has not proven conclusive in determining the origin of the Huns.

"Xiōngnú" [ɕɥʊ́ŋnǔ] is the modern Mandarin Chinese pronunciation. At the time of Hunnish contact with the western world (the 4th–6th centuries AD), the sound of the character "匈" 'chest' has been reconstructed as /hoŋ/. The second character, "奴", appears to have no parallel in Western terminology. Its contemporary pronunciation was /nhō/, and it means "slave" — usually a pejorative term, although it is possible that it has only a phonetic role in the name 匈奴. There is almost certainly no connection between the "chest" meaning of 匈 and its ethnic meaning. There might conceivably be some sort of connection with the identically pronounced word "凶", which means "fierce", "ferocious", "inauspicious", "bad", or "violent act".

Although the phonetic evidence is inconclusive, new results from Central Asia might shift the balance in favor of a political and cultural link between the Xiongnu and the Huns. The Central Asian sources of the 4th century translated in both direction Xiongnu by Huns (in the Sogdian Ancient Letters, the Xiongnu in Northern China are named xwn, while in the Buddhist translations by Dharmarakhsa Huna of the Indian text is translated Xiongnu). The Hunnic cauldrons are similar to the Ordos Xiongnu ones. Moreover, both in Hungary and in the Ordos they were found buried in river banks.^[28]

Iranic theory

Among scholars who proposed an Iranic origin for the Xiongnu are H.W. Bailey (1985)^[1] and János Harmatta (1999), who believe that the Xiongnu confederation consisted of 24 tribes, controlling a nomadic empire with a strong military organization, and that "their loyal tribes and kings (shan-yü) bore Iranian names and all the Hsiung-nu words noted by the Chinese can be explained from an Iranian language of the Saka type. . . . It is therefore clear that the majority of Hsiung-nu tribes spoke an Eastern Iranian language".^[29] Jankowski concurs.^[30]

Yeniseian theory

Lajos Ligeti was the first to suggest that the Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language. In the early 1960s Edwin Pulleyblank was the first to expand upon this idea with credible evidence. In 2000, Alexander Vovin reanalyzed Pulleyblank's argument and found further support for it by utilizing the most recent reconstruction of Old Chinese phonology by Starostin and Baxter and a single Chinese transcription of a sentence in the language of the Jie (a member tribe of the Xiongnu confederacy). Previous Turkic interpretations of the aforementioned sentence do not match the Chinese translation as precisely as using Yeniseian grammar.^[31]. The hypothesis of Edwin Pulleyblank (1962) in favor of the Ket also seems to be favored by some scholars^[4]

Mongolic theories

Some scholars, including Paul Pelliot, insisted on a Mongolic origin.

Theories on multi-ethnicity

Albert Terrien de Lacouperie considered them to be multi-component groups.^[32] Many scholars believe the Xiongnu confederation was a mixture of different ethno-linguistic groups, and that their main language (as represented in the Chinese sources) and its relationships, have not yet been satisfactorily determined.^[33]

Language Isolate theory

The Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer has denied any possibility of a relationship between the Xiongnu language and any other known language and rejected in the strongest terms any connection with Turkish or Mongolian.^[34]

Archaeology and genetics

In the 1920s, Pyotr Kozlov's excavations of the royal tombs dated to about 1st century CE at Noin-Ula in northern Mongolia provided a glimpse into the lost world of the Xiongnu. Other archaeological sites have been unearthed in Inner Mongolia and elsewhere; they represent the Neolithic and historical periods of the Xiongnu's history.^[35] Those included the Ordos culture, many of them had been identified as the Xiongnu cultures. The region was occupied predominantly by peoples showing Mongoloid features, known from their skeletal remains and artifacts. Portraits found in the Noin-Ula excavations demonstrate other cultural evidences and influences, showing that Chinese and Xiongnu art have influenced each other mutually. Some of these embroidered portraits in the Noin-Ula kurgans also depict the Xiongnu with long braided hair with wide ribbons, which are seen to be identical with the Turkic Ashina clan hair-style.^[36]

Geographic location & Xiongnu genetics

The original geographic location of Xiongnu is generally placed at the Ordos. A study based on mitochondrial DNA analysis of human remains interred in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia concluded that the Turkic peoples originated from the same area and therefore are possibly related.^[37]

A majority (89%) of the Xiongnu mtDNA sequences can be classified as belonging to Asian haplogroups, and nearly 11% belong to European haplogroups. This finding indicates that the contacts between European and Asian populations were anterior to the Xiongnu culture, and it confirms results reported for two samples from an early 3rd century B.C. Scytho-Siberian population (Clisson et al. 2002).

Another study^[38] from 2004 screened ancient samples from the Egyin Gol necropolis for the Y-DNA Tat marker. The Egyin Gol necropolis, located in northern Mongolia in the region of Lake Baikal, is ~2300 years old and belongs to the Xiongnu culture. This Tat-polymorphism is a biallelic marker what has so far been observed only in populations from Asia and northern Europe. It reaches its highest frequency in Yakuts and northern Finno-Ugric peoples. Opinions differ about whether the geographic origin of the T-C mutation lies in Asia or northern Eurasia. Zerjal et al. suggested that this mutation first arose in the populations of Central Asia; they proposed Mongolia as a candidate location for the origin of the T-C polymorphism. In contrast, for Lahermo et al. the wide distribution of the mutation in north Eurasian populations suggests that it arose in northern Eurasia. According to them, the estimated time of the C mutation is ~2400–4440 years ago. (According to some more recent researches of the Y-DNA Hg N the presence of N1c and N1b in modern Siberian and Asian populations is considered to reflect an ancient substratum, possibly speaking Uralic/Finno-Ugric languages.^{[39][40][41][42]} Haplogroup N). Concerning the Xiongnu people, two of them from the oldest section harboured the mutation, confirming that the Tat polymorphism already existed in Mongolia 2300 years ago. The next archaeogenetical occurrence of this N-Tat ancient DNA was found in Hungary among the so-called Homeconqueror Hungarians.^[43] Also three Yakuts' aDNA from the 15th century, and of two from the late 18th century were this haplogroup^[44]. Additionally two mtDNA sequence matches revealed in this work suggest that the Xiongnu tribe under study may have been composed of some of the ancestors of the present-day Yakut population.

Another study of 2006^[45] aimed at the contacts between Siberian and steppe peoples with the analysis of a Siberian grave of Pokrovsk recently discovered near the Lena River and dated from 2,400 to 2,200 years B.P., and proved the existence of previous contacts between autochthonous hunters of Siberia and the nomadic horse breeders from the Altai-Baikal area (Mongolia and Buryatia). Indeed, the stone arrowhead and the harpoons relate this Pokrovsk man to the traditional hunters of the Taiga. Some artifacts made of horse bone and the pieces of armor, however, are related to the tribes of Mongolia and Buryatia of the Xiongnu period (3rd century B.C.). This affinity has been confirmed by the match of the mitochondrial haplotype of this subject with a woman of the Egyin Gol necropolis (2nd/3rd century A.D.). This haplotype was attributed to the mtDNA D haplogroup. The paternal lineage of the Pokrovsk subject seems to differ from the lineages found in the modern population. The mtDNA sequence was compared with databases and the haplotype matched two Buryats from the Baikal area, two West Siberians, two Mansis, one Evenk, one older and two modern Yakuts, and one female from the Egyin Gol necropolis. This mitochondrial haplotype is not found in Koryaks, Chukchi, Itelmen, or Yukaghirs, sometimes considered "Paleo-Asiatic" ethnic groups, or in Central Asian populations. The similarity of the mitochondrial haplotype of the Pokrovsk subject with Buryats and a skeleton from the Egyin Gol necropolis, located 2,000 km to the south, confirms the occurrence of ancient contacts between the Altai-Baikal region and Oriental Siberia before the end of the Xiong Nu period (3rd century B.C. to 2nd century A.D.). Some female ancestors of this Pokrovsk hunter may originate from the First Empire of the Steppes, well known for its military expansion to the south (China) and to the west. However, the man of the Pokrovsk grave shows that these nomadic people may have also tried to explore the north by diffusion along the rivers. The match of our sequence with two Mansis from the Ural Mountains and two western Siberians could be related to an extensive gene flow along the Ienissei River (Starikovskaya et al. 2005). Considering the important frequency of Asian haplogroups present in the Mansi (Derbeneva et al. 2002), this similarity may stem from the wide expansion of the nomadic tribes from the southern steppe to the Ural Mountains. Thus the gene flow seems to have affected autochthonous populations from Oriental and Occidental Siberia during the Xiong Nu period since the 3rd century B.C. The analysis of the Pokrovsk grave corroborates the great influence of the Xiongnu Empire over the Siberian populations and early admixture between populations from the southern steppe and Central Siberia aboriginals.

Another 2006 study observed genetic similarity among Mongolian samples from different periods and geographic areas including 2,300-year-old Xiongnu population of the Egyin Gol Valley. This results 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 previously hypothesised.^[46]

A research study of 2006^[47] focused on Y-DNAs of the Egyin Gol site, and besides the confirmation of the above mentioned two N3-Tats, it also identified a Q haplogroup from the middle period and a C haplogroup from the later (2nd century AD). The Q is one of the haplogroups of the indigenous peoples of the Americas (though this is not this subclade), and a minor in Siberia and Central Asia. Only two groups in the Old World are high majority Q groups. These are the Uralic Selkups and the Yeniseian Kets. They live in western and middle Siberia, together with the Ugric Khantys. The Kets originally lived in southern Siberia. The Uralic-Samoyedics were an old people of the Sayan-Baikal region, migrated northwest around the 1st/2nd century AD. According to the Uralistic literature^[48] the swift migration and disjunction of the Samoyedic peoples may be connected to a heavy warring in the region, probably due to the dissolution of the Xiongnu Empire in the period of the Battle of Ikh Bayan. The mutation defining this haplogroup C, is restrained in North and Eastern-Asia and in America (Bergen et al. 1998. 1999.) (Lell et al. 2002.). The highest frequencies of Haplogroup C3 are found among the populations of Mongolia and the Russian Far East, where it is generally the modal haplogroup. Haplogroup C3 is the only variety of Haplogroup C to be found among Native Americans, among whom it reaches its highest frequency in Na-Dené populations.

A research project of 2007 (Yi Chuan, 2007^[49]) was aimed at the genetic affinities between Tuoba Xianbei and Xiongnu populations. Some mtDNA sequences from Tuoba Xianbei remains in Dong Han period were analyzed. Comparing with the published data of Xiongnu, the results indicated that the Tuoba Xianbei presented some close affinities to the Xiongnu, which implied that there was a gene flow between Tuoba Xianbei and Xiongnu during the 2 southward migrations.

A study of 2010 ^[50] analysed six human remains of a nomadic group, excavated from Pengyang, Northern China. From the mtDNA, six haplotypes were identified as three haplogroups: C, D4 and M10. The analyses revealed that these individuals were closely associated with the ancient Xiongnu and modern northern Asians. The analysis of Y chromosomes from four male samples that were typed as haplogroup Q indicated that these people had originated in Siberia.

Rock Art

2nd century BC - 2nd century AD, characters of Hun- Syanbi script (Mongolia and Inner Mongolia), N. Ishjamts, "Nomads In Eastern Central Asia", in the "History of civilizations of Central Asia", Volume 2, Fig 5, p. 166, UNESCO Publishing, 1996, ISBN 92-3-102846-4

2nd century BC - 2nd century AD, characters of Hun- Syanbi script (Mongolia and Inner Mongolia), N. Ishjamts, "Nomads In Eastern Central Asia", in the "History of civilizations of Central Asia", Volume 2, Fig 5, p. 166, UNESCO Publishing, 1996, ISBN 92-3-102846-4

The rock art of the Yinshan and Helanshan is dated from the 9th millennium BC to 19th century. It consists mainly of engraved signs (petroglyphs) and only minimally of painted images.^[51].

Excavations conducted between 1924–1925, in Noin-Ula kurgans located in Selenga River in the northern Mongolian hills north of Ulan Bator, produced objects with over twenty carved characters, which were either identical or very similar to that of to the runic letters of the Turkic Orkhon script discovered in the Orkhon Valley. From this a some scholars hold that the Xiongnu had a script similar to Eurasian runiform and this alphabet itself served as the basis for the ancient Turkic writing^[52].

References

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Ban Gu et al., Book of Han, esp. vol. 94, part 1, part 2.
• Fan Ye et al., Book of Later Han, esp. vol. 89.
• Sima Qian et al., Records of the Grand Historian, esp. vol. 110.

Works consulted

• Adas, Michael. 2001. Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, American Historical Association/Temple University Press.
• Bailey, H[arold] W. 1985. Indo-Scythian Studies: being Khotanese Texts, VII. Cambridge Univ. Press. (Reviewed here)
• Barfield, Thomas. 1989. The Perilous Frontier. Basil Blackwell.
• Beckwith, Christopher I. 2009. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13589-2
• Csányi, B. et al. 2008. Y-Chromosome Analysis of Ancient Hungarian and Two Modern Hungarian-Speaking Populations from the Carpathian Basin. Annals of Human Genetics, 2008 March 27, 72(4): 519-534.
• Demattè, Paola. 2006. Writing the Landscape: Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia Province (China). In: Beyond the steppe and the sown: proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology, edited by David L. Peterson et al. Brill. Colloquia Pontica: series on the archaeology and ancient history of the Black Sea area; 13. 300-313. (Proceedings of the First International Conference of Eurasian Archaeology, University of Chicago, May 3–4, 2002.)
• Di Cosmo, Nicola. 1999. The Northern Frontier in Pre-Imperial China. In: The Cambridge History of Ancient China, edited by Michael Loewe and Edward Shaughnessy. Cambridge University Press.
• Di Cosmo, Nicola. 2004. Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press. (First paperback edition; original edition 2002)
• (Chinese) Geng, Shi-min [耿世民]. 2005. 阿尔泰共同语、匈奴语探讨 (On Altaic Common Language and Xiongnu Language). <<语言与翻译（汉文版）>> (Yu yan yu fan yi, Language and Translation), 2005年 第02期. Wulumuqi (Urumqi). ISSN: 1001-0823. WorldCat id=123501525. Database citation page for this article
• Genome News Network. 2003 July 25. Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave
• Grousset, René. 1970. The empire of the steppes: a history of central Asia. Rutgers University Press.
• (Russian) Gumilev L. N. 1935. История народа Хунну (History of the Hunnu people).
• Harmatta, János. 1999. Conclusion. In: History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume 2: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations, 700 bc to ad 250; Edited by János Harmatta et al. UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102846-4. 485-493.
• (Hungarian) Helimski, Eugen. A szamojéd népek vázlatos története (Short History of the Samoyedic peoples). In The History of the Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic Peoples. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.
• 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.
• Hill, John E. (2009) Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. BookSurge, Charleston, South Carolina. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1. (Especially pp. 69–74)
• Hucker, Charles O. 1975. China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2353-2
• N. Ishjamts. 1999. Nomads In Eastern Central Asia. In: History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume 2: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations, 700 bc to ad 250; Edited by Janos Harmatta et al. UNESCO. ISBN 92-3-102846-4. 151-170.
• Jankowski, Henryk. 2006. A historical-etymological dictionary of pre-Russian habitation names of the Crimea. Brill. Handbuch der Orientalistik [HdO], 8: Central Asia; 15. ISBN 9004154337.
• (Russian) Kradin N.N., "Hun Empire". Acad. 2nd ed., updated and added., Мoscow: Logos, 2001, ISBN 5-94010-124-0
• (Russian) Kiuner (Kjuner, Küner) [Кюнер], N.V. 1961. Китайские известия о народах Южной Сибири, Центральной Азии и Дальнего Востока (Chinese reports about peoples of Southern Siberia, Central Asia, and Far East). Мoscow.
• (Russian) Klyashtorny S.G. [Кляшторный С.Г.]. 1964. Древнетюркские рунические памятники как источник по истории Средней Азии. (Ancient Türkic runiform monuments as a source for the history of Central Asia). Moscow: Nauka.
• (German) Liu Mau-tsai. 1958. Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T'u-küe). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
• Loewe, Michael. 1974. The campaigns of Han Wu-ti. In: Chinese ways in warfare, ed. Frank A. Kierman, Jr., and John K. Fairbank. Harvard Univ. Press.
• (Hungarian) Obrusánszky, Borbála. 2006 October 10. Huns in China (Hunok Kínában) 3.
• (Hungarian) Obrusánszky, Borbála. 2009. Tongwancheng, city of the southern Huns. Transoxiana, August 2009, 14. ISSN 1666-7050.
• (French) Petkovski, Elizabet. 2006. Polymorphismes ponctuels de séquence et identification génétique: étude par spectrométrie de masse MALDI-TOF. Strasbourg: Université Louis Pasteur. Dissertation
• (Russian) Potapov L.P. [Потапов, Л. П.] 1969. Этнический состав и происхождение алтайцев (Etnicheskii sostav i proiskhozhdenie altaitsev, Ethnic composition and origins of the Altaians). Leningrad: Nauka. Facsimile in Microsoft Word format.
• (German) Pritsak O. 1959. XUN Der Volksname der Hsiung-nu. Central Asiatic Journal, 5: 27-34.
• Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 2004. The Sogdian ancient letters. Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5 translated into English.
• Taskin V.S. [Таскин В.С.]. 1984. Материалы по истории древних кочевых народов группы Дунху (Materials on the history of the ancient nomadic peoples of the Dunhu group). Moscow.
• (French) Vaissière, Étienne de la. 2005. Huns et Xiongnu. Central Asiatic Journal, 49(1): 3-26.
• Vaissière, Étienne de la. 2006. Xiongnu. Encyclopædia Iranica online.
• Vovin, Alexander. 2000. Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language? Central Asiatic Journal, 44(1): 87–104.
• Wink, A. 2002. Al-Hind: making of the Indo-Islamic World. Brill. ISBN 0-391-04174-6
• Yap, Joseph P. (2009). "Wars with the Xiongnu: A translation from Zizhi tongjian". AuthorHouse. ISBN-13: 978-1449006044
• (Chinese) Zhang, Bibo, and Dong, Guoyao [张碧波, 董国尧], eds. 2001. 中国古代北方民族文化史 (Zhongguo Gudai Beifang Minzu Wenhuashi = Cultural History of Ancient Northern Ethnic Groups in China). Harbin: Heilongjiang People's Press. ISBN 7-207-03325-7
• (Russian) Zuev, Yu. A. [Ю. Л. Зуев] 1960. К Этнической Истории Усуней (Ethnic history of the Wusuns). Trudy Instituta Istorii, Arkheologii i Etnografii, VIII. Alma-Ata: Akad. Nauk Kazakhskoi SSR.

Further reading

• (Russian) Потапов, Л. П. 1966. Этнионим Теле и Алтайцы. Тюркологический сборник, 1966: 233-240. Мoscow: Nauka. (Potapov L.P., The ethnonym "Tele" and the Altaians. Turcologica 1966: 233-240).

External links

• Downloadable article: "Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age" Li et al. BMC Biology 2010, 8:15. [1]