Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Xiongnu
View on Wikipedia
Key Information
| Xiongnu | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese | 匈奴 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Xiongnu (Chinese: 匈奴,[9] [ɕjʊ́ŋ.nǔ]) were a tribal confederation[10] of nomadic peoples who, according to ancient Chinese sources, inhabited the eastern Eurasian Steppe from the 3rd century BC to the late 1st century AD. Modu Chanyu, the supreme leader after 209 BC, founded the Xiongnu Empire.[11]
After overthrowing their previous overlords,[12] the Yuezhi, the Xiongnu became the dominant power on the steppes of East Asia, centred on the Mongolian Plateau. The Xiongnu were also active in areas now part of Siberia, Inner Mongolia, Gansu and Xinjiang. Their relations with the Chinese dynasties to the south-east were complex—alternating between various periods of peace, war, and subjugation. Ultimately, the Xiongnu were defeated by the Han dynasty in a centuries-long conflict, which led to the confederation splitting in two, and forcible resettlement of large numbers of Xiongnu within Han borders. During the Sixteen Kingdoms era, listed as one of the "Five Barbarians", their descendants founded the dynastic states of Han-Zhao, Northern Liang and Helian Xia and during the Northern and Southern dynasties founded Northern Zhou (founded by members of the Yuwen tribe of Xiongnu origin) in northern China.
Attempts to associate the Xiongnu with the nearby Sakas and Sarmatians were once controversial. However, archaeogenetics has confirmed their interaction with the Xiongnu, and also possibly their relation to the Huns. 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. The name Xiongnu may be cognate with that of the Huns or the Huna,[13][14][15] although this is disputed.[16][17] Other linguistic links—all of them also controversial—proposed by scholars include Turkic,[18][19][20][21][22][23] Iranian,[24][25][26] Mongolic,[27] Uralic,[28] Yeniseian,[16][29][30][31][32] or multi-ethnic.[33]
Name
[edit]The word "Xiōngnú" means "fierce slave."[34] They were identified by the Han Chinese as invaders from the north who rode on horseback.[35] The pronunciation of 匈奴 as Xiōngnú [ɕjʊ́ŋnǔ] is the modern Mandarin Chinese pronunciation, from the Mandarin dialect spoken now in Beijing, which came into existence only in the second millennium CE. The Old Chinese pronunciation has been reconstructed as *xiuoŋ-na or as *qhoŋna according to Wang Li and Zhengzhang Shangfang respectively, the two most widely recognized Old Chinese reconstructions in China.[36] Sinologist Axel Schuessler (2014) reconstructs the pronunciations of 匈奴 as *hoŋ-nâ in Late Old Chinese (c. 318 BC) and as *hɨoŋ-nɑ in Eastern Han Chinese; citing other Chinese transcriptions wherein the velar nasal medial -ŋ-, after a short vowel, seemingly played the role of a general nasal – sometimes equivalent to n or m –, Schuessler proposes that 匈奴 Xiongnu < *hɨoŋ-nɑ < *hoŋ-nâ might be a Chinese rendition, Han or even pre-Han, of foreign *Hŏna or *Hŭna, which Schuessler compares to Huns and Sanskrit Hūṇā.[15] However, the same medial -ŋ- prompts Christopher P. Atwood (2015) to reconstruct *Xoŋai, which he derives from the Ongi River (Mongolian: Онги гол) in Mongolia and suggests that it was originally a dynastic name rather than an ethnic name.[37]
History
[edit]Predecessors
[edit]The territories associated with the Xiongnu in central/east Mongolia were previously inhabited by the Slab Grave Culture (Ancient Northeast Asian origin), which persisted until the 3rd century BC.[39] Genetic research indicates that the Slab Grave people were the primary ancestors of the Xiongnu, and that the Xiongnu formed through substantial and complex mixture with West Eurasians.[40]
During the Western Zhou (1045–771 BC), there were numerous conflicts with nomadic tribes from the north and the northwest, variously known as the Xianyun, Guifang, or various "Rong" tribes, such as the Xirong, Shanrong or Quanrong.[41] These tribes are recorded as harassing Zhou territory, but at the time the Zhou were expanding northwards, encroaching on their traditional lands, especially into the Wei River valley. Archaeologically, the Zhou expanded to the north and the northwest at the expense of the Siwa culture.[41] The Quanrong put an end to the Western Zhou in 771 BC, sacking the Zhou capital of Haojing and killing the last Western Zhou king You.[41] Thereafter the task of dealing with the northern tribes was left to their vassal, the Qin state.[41]
To the west, the Pazyryk culture (6th–3rd century BC) immediately preceded the formation of the Xiongnus.[42] A Scythian culture,[43] it was identified by excavated artifacts and mummified humans, such as the Siberian Ice Maiden, found in the Siberian permafrost, in the Altai Mountains, Kazakhstan and nearby Mongolia.[44] To the south, the Ordos culture had developed in the Ordos Loop (modern Inner Mongolia, China) during the Bronze and early Iron Age from the 6th to 2nd centuries BC. Of unknown ethno-linguistic origin, it is thought to represent the easternmost extension of Indo-European-speakers.[45][46][47] The Yuezhi were displaced by the Xiongnu expansion in the 2nd century BC, and had to migrate to Central and Southern Asia.[48][49]
Early history
[edit]Western Han historian Sima Qian composed an early yet detailed exposition on the Xiongnu in one liezhuan (arrayed account) of his Records of the Grand Historian (c. 100 BC), wherein the Xiongnu were alleged to be descendants of a certain Chunwei, who in turn descended from the "lineage of Lord Xia", a.k.a. Yu the Great.[53][54] Even so, Sima Qian also drew a distinct line between the settled Huaxia people (Han) to the pastoral nomads (Xiongnu), characterizing them as two polar groups in the sense of a civilization versus an uncivilized society: the Hua–Yi distinction.[55] Sima Qian also mentioned Xiongnu's early appearance north of Wild Goose Gate and Dai commanderies before 265 BC, just before the Zhao-Xiongnu War;[56][57] however, sinologist Edwin Pulleyblank (1994) contends that pre-241-BC references to the Xiongnu are anachronistic substitutions for the Hu people instead.[58][59] Sometimes the Xiongnu were distinguished from other nomadic peoples; namely, the Hu people;[60] yet on other occasions, Chinese sources often just classified the Xiongnu as a Hu people, which was a blanket term for nomadic people.[58][61] Even Sima Qian was inconsistent: in the chapter "Hereditary House of Zhao", he considered the Donghu to be the Hu proper,[62][63] yet elsewhere he considered Xiongnu to be also Hu.[64][58]
Ancient China often came in contact with the Xianyun and the Xirong nomadic peoples. In later Chinese historiography, some groups of these peoples were believed to be the possible progenitors of the Xiongnu people.[65] These nomadic people often had repeated military confrontations with the Shang and especially the Zhou, who often conquered and enslaved the nomads in an expansion drift.[65] During the Warring States period, the armies from the Qin, Zhao and Yan states were encroaching and conquering various nomadic territories that were inhabited by the Xiongnu and other Hu peoples.[66]
Pulleyblank argued that the Xiongnu were part of a Xirong group called Yiqu, who had lived in Shaanbei and had been influenced by China for centuries, before they were driven out by the Qin dynasty.[67][68] Qin's campaign against the Xiongnu expanded Qin's territory at the expense of the Xiongnu.[69] After the unification of Qin dynasty, Xiongnu was a threat to the northern border of Qin. They were likely to attack the Qin dynasty when they suffered natural disasters.[70]
State formation
[edit]The first known Xiongnu leader was Touman, who reigned between 220 and 209 BC. In 215 BC, Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huang sent General Meng Tian on a military campaign against the Xiongnu. Meng Tian defeated the Xiongnu and expelled them from the Ordos Loop, forcing Touman and the Xiongnu to flee north into the Mongolian Plateau.[71] In 210 BC, Meng Tian died, and in 209 BC, Touman's son Modu became the Xiongnu chanyu.
In order to protect the Xiongnu from the threat of the Qin dynasty, Modu Chanyu united the Xiongnu into a powerful confederation.[69] This transformed the Xiongnu into a more formidable polity, able to form larger armies and exercise improved strategic coordination. The Qin dynasty fell in 207 BC, and was replaced by the Western Han dynasty in 202 BC after a period of internal conflict. This period of Chinese instability was a time of prosperity for the Xiongnu, who adopted many Han agriculture techniques such as slaves for heavy labor and lived in Han-style homes.[72]

After forging internal unity, Modu Chanyu expanded the Xiongnu empire in all directions. To the north he conquered a number of nomadic peoples, including the Dingling of southern Siberia. He crushed the power of the Donghu people of eastern Mongolia and Manchuria as well as the Yuezhi in the Hexi Corridor of Gansu, where his son, Jizhu, made a skull cup out of the Yuezhi king. Modu also retook the original homeland of Xiongnu on the Yellow River, which had previously been taken by the Qin general Meng Tian.[74] Under Modu's leadership, the Xiongnu became powerful enough to threaten the Han dynasty.
In 200 BC, Modu besieged the first Han dynasty emperor Gaozu (Gao-Di) with his 320,000-strong army at Peteng Fortress in Baideng (present-day Datong, Shanxi).[75] After Gaozu (Gao-Di) agreed to all Modu's terms, such as ceding the northern provinces to the Xiongnu and paying annual taxes, he was allowed to leave the siege. Although Gaozu was able to return to his capital Chang'an (present-day Xi'an), Modu occasionally threatened the Han's northern frontier and finally in 198 BC, a peace treaty was settled.
Xiongnu in their expansion drove their western neighbour Yuezhi from the Hexi Corridor in year 176 BC, killing the Yuezhi king and asserting their presence in the Western Regions.[13]
By the time of Modu's death in 174 BC, the Xiongnu were recognized as the most prominent of the nomads bordering the Han empire[75] According to the Book of Han, later quoted in Duan Chengshi's ninth-century Miscellaneous Morsels from Youyang:
Also, according to the Han shu, Wang Wu (王烏) and others were sent as envoys to pay a visit to the Xiongnu. According to the customs of the Xiongnu, if the Han envoys did not remove their tallies of authority, and if they did not allow their faces to be tattooed, they could not gain entrance into the yurts. Wang Wu and his company removed their tallies, submitted to tattoo, and thus gained entry. The Shanyu looked upon them very highly.[76]
Xiongnu hierarchy
[edit]
The ruler of the Xiongnu was called the chanyu.[79] Under him were the tuqi kings.[79] The Tuqi King of the Left was normally the heir presumptive.[79] Below him in the hierarchy were more officials in pairs of left and right: the guli, the army commanders, the great governors, the danghu and the gudu. Beneath them were the commanders of detachments of one thousand, of one hundred, and of ten men. This nation of nomads, was organized like an army.[80]
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 shanyu, a ruler equivalent to the Emperor of China, exercised direct authority over the central territory. Longcheng (around the Khangai Mountains, Otuken)[81][82] (Chinese: 龍城; Mongolian: Luut; lit. "Dragon City") became the annual meeting place and served as the Xiongnu capital.[5] The ruins of Longcheng were found south of Ulziit District, Arkhangai Province in 2017.[83]
North of Shanxi with the Tuqi King of the Left was holding the area north of Beijing and the Tuqi King of the Right was holding the Ordos Loop area as far as Gansu.[84]
Marriage diplomacy with Han dynasty
[edit]In the winter of 200 BC, following a Xiongnu siege of Taiyuan, Emperor Gaozu of Han personally led a military campaign against Modu Chanyu. At the Battle of Baideng, he was ambushed, reputedly by Xiongnu cavalry. The emperor was cut off from supplies and reinforcements for seven days, only narrowly escaping capture.
The Han dynasty sent commoner women falsely labeled as "princesses" and members of the Han imperial family to the Xiongnu multiple times when they were practicing Heqin (Chinese: 和親; lit. 'harmonious kinship') marriage alliances with the Xiongnu in order to avoid sending the emperor's daughters.[85][86][87][88][89] The Han sent these "princesses" to marry Xiongnu leaders in their efforts to stop the border raids. Along with arranged marriages, the Han sent gifts to bribe the Xiongnu to stop attacking.[75] After the defeat at Pingcheng in 200 BC, the Han emperor abandoned a military solution to the Xiongnu threat. Instead, in 198 BC, the courtier Liu Jing was dispatched for negotiations. The peace settlement eventually reached between the parties included a Han princess given in marriage to the chanyu; periodic gifts to the Xiongnu of silk, distilled beverages and rice; equal status between the states; and a boundary wall as a 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 nine times, each time with an increase in the "gifts" to the Xiongnu Empire. In 192 BC, Modun even asked for the hand of Emperor Gaozu of Han widow Empress Lü Zhi. His son and successor, the energetic Jiyu, known as Laoshang Chanyu, continued his father's expansionist policies. Laoshang succeeded in negotiating terms with Emperor Wen for the maintenance of a large scale government sponsored market system.
While the Xiongnu benefited handsomely, from the Chinese perspective marriage treaties were costly, very humiliating and ineffective. Laoshang Chanyu 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 Shangdang and another 30,000 to Yunzhong.[citation needed]
The Xiongnu also practiced marriage alliances with Han dynasty officers and officials who defected to their side by marrying off sisters and daughters of the chanyu to Han Chinese who joined the Xiongnu and Xiongnu in Han service. The daughter of Laoshang Chanyu (and older sister of Junchen Chanyu and Yizhixie Chanyu) was married to the Xiongnu General Zhao Xin, the Marquis of Xi who was serving the Han dynasty. The daughter of Qiedihou Chanyu was married to the Han Chinese General Li Ling after he surrendered and defected.[95][96][97][98][99] Another Han Chinese General who defected to the Xiongnu was Li Guangli, a general in the War of the Heavenly Horses, who also married a daughter of the Hulugu Chanyu.[100] The Han Chinese diplomat Su Wu married a Xiongnu woman given by Li Ling when he was arrested and taken captive.[101] Han Chinese explorer Zhang Qian married a Xiongnu woman and had a child with her when he was taken captive by the Xiongnu.[102][103][104][105][106][107][108]
The khagans of the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate claimed descent from the Chinese general Li Ling, grandson of the Han dynasty general Li Guang.[109][110][111][112] Li Ling was captured by the Xiongnu and defected in the first century BC.[113][114] And since the Tang royal Li family also claimed descent from Li Guang, the Kirghiz Khagan was therefore recognized as a member of the Tang Imperial family. This relationship soothed the relationship when Kyrgyz khagan Are (阿熱) invaded Uyghur Khaganate and executed Qasar Qaghan. The news brought to Chang'an by Kyrgyz ambassador Zhuwu Hesu (註吾合素).
Han–Xiongnu war
[edit]
The Han dynasty made preparations for war when the Han Emperor Wu dispatched the Han Chinese 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. During this time Zhang married a Xiongnu wife, who bore him a son, and gained the trust of the Xiongnu leader.[102][115][116][105][106][117][108] While Zhang Qian did not succeed in this mission,[118] his reports of the west provided even greater incentive to counter the Xiongnu hold on westward routes out of the Han Empire, and the Han prepared to mount a large scale attack using the Northern Silk Road to move men and material.
While the Han dynasty had been making preparations for a military confrontation since 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 late 129 BC, when 40,000 Han 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 Xiongnu court to flee north of the Gobi Desert.[119]

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.[a] 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 the Han Empire.
In 104 and 102 BC, the Han fought and won the War of the Heavenly Horses against the Kingdom of Dayuan. As a result, the Han gained many Ferghana horses which further aided them in their battle against the Xiongnu. As a result of these battles, the Han Empire 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. Because of strong Han control over the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu became unstable and were no longer a threat to the Han Empire.[124]
Xiongnu Civil War (60–53 BC)
[edit]
When a chanyu died, power could pass to his younger brother if his son was not of age. This system normally kept an adult male on the throne, but could cause trouble in later generations when there were several lineages that might claim the throne. When Xulüquanqu Chanyu died in 60 BC, power was taken by Woyanqudi, a grandson of Xulüquanqu's cousin. Being something of a usurper, he tried to put his own men in power, which only increased his number of his enemies. Xulüquanqu's son fled east and, in 58 BC, revolted. Few would support Woyanqudi and he was driven to suicide, leaving the rebel son, Huhanye, as the chanyu. The Woyanqudi faction then set up his brother, Tuqi, as chanyu in 58 BC. In 57 BC three more men declared themselves chanyu. Two dropped their claims in favor of the third who was defeated by Tuqi in that year and surrendered to Huhanye the following year. In 56 BC Tuqi was defeated by Huhanye and committed suicide, but two more claimants appeared: Runzhen and Huhanye's elder brother Zhizhi Chanyu. Runzhen was killed by Zhizhi in 54 BC, leaving only Zhizhi and Huhanye. Zhizhi grew in power, and, in 53 BC, Huhanye moved south and submitted to the Chinese. Huhanye used Chinese support to weaken Zhizhi, who gradually moved west. In 49 BC, a brother to Tuqi set himself up as chanyu and was killed by Zhizhi. In 36 BC, Zhizhi was killed by a Chinese army while trying to establish a new kingdom in the far west near Lake Balkhash.
Tributary relations with the Han
[edit]In 53 BC Huhanye decided to enter into tributary relations with Han China.[126] 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).

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. In the same year, another envoy Qijushan was received at the Ganquan Palace in the north-west of modern Shanxi.[128] 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 further 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 (18–48 AD), corresponding to the political upheavals of the Xin dynasty. The Xiongnu took the opportunity to regain control of the western regions, as well as neighboring peoples such as the Wuhuan. In 24 AD, Hudershi even talked about reversing the tributary system.
Southern Xiongnu and Northern Xiongnu
[edit]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. In contravention of a principle of fraternal succession established by Huhanye, Huduershi designated his son Punu as heir-apparent. However, as the eldest son of the preceding chanyu, Bi (Pi)—the Rizhu King of the Right—had a more legitimate claim. Consequently, Bi refused to attend the annual meeting at the chanyu's court. Nevertheless, in 46 AD, Punu ascended the throne.
In 48 AD, a confederation of eight Xiongnu tribes in Bi's power base in the south, with a military force totalling 40,000 to 50,000 men, seceded from Punu's kingdom and acclaimed Bi as chanyu. This kingdom became known as the Southern Xiongnu.
Northern Xiongnu
[edit]The rump kingdom under Punu, around the Orkhon (modern north central Mongolia) became known as the Northern Xiongnu, with Punu, becoming known as the Northern Chanyu. In 49 AD, the Northern Xiongnu was dealt a heavy defeat to the Southern Xiongnu. That same year, Zhai Tong, a Han governor of Liaodong also enticed the Wuhuan and Xianbei into attacking the Northern Xiongnu.[130] Soon, Punu began sending envoys on several separate occasions to negotiate peace with the Han dynasty, but made little to no progress.
In the 60s, the Northern Xiongnu resumed hostilities as they attempted to expand their influence into the Western Regions and launched raids on the Han borders. In 73, the Han responded by sending Dou Gu and Geng Chong to lead a great expedition against the Northern Xiongnu in the Tarim Basin. The expedition, which saw the exploits of the famed general, Ban Chao, was initially successful, but the Han had to temporarily withdraw in 75 due to matters back home. Ban Chao remained behind and maintained Chinese influence over the Western Regions before his death in 102.[131][132]
For the next decade, the Northern Xiongnu had to endure famines largely due to locust plagues. In 87, they suffered a major defeat to the Xianbei, who killed their chanyu Youliu and took his skin as a trophy. With the Northern Xiongnu in disarray, the Han general, Dou Xian launched an expedition and crushed them at the Battle of the Altai Mountains in 89. After another Han attack in 91, the Northern Chanyu fled with his followers to the northwest, and was not seen again, while those that remained behind surrendered to the Han.[131]
In 94, dissatisfied with the newly appointed chanyu, the surrendered Northern Xiongnu rebelled and acclaimed Fenghou as their chanyu, who led them to flee outside the border. However, the separatist regime continued to face famines and the growing threat of the Xianbei, prompting 10,000 of them to return to Han in 96. Fenghou later sent envoys to Han intending to submit as a vassal but was rejected. The Northern Xiongnu were scattered, with most of them being absorbed by the Xianbei. In 118, a defeated Fenghou brought around 100 followers to surrender to Han.[131]
Remnants of the Northern Xiongnu held out in the Tarim Basin as they allied themselves with the Nearer Jushi Kingdom and captured Yiwu in 119. By 126, they were subjugated by the Han general, Ban Yong, while a branch led by a "Huyan King" continued to resist. The Huyan King was last mentioned in 151 when he launched an attack on Yiwu but was driven away by Han forces. According to the fifth-century Book of Wei, the remnants of Northern Chanyu's tribe settled as Yueban, near Kucha and subjugated the Wusun; while the rest fled across the Altai Mountains towards Kangju in Transoxania. It states that this group later became the Hephthalites.[133][134][135]

Southern Xiongnu
[edit]
Coincidentally, the Southern Xiongnu were plagued by natural disasters and misfortunes—in addition to the threat posed by Punu. Consequently, in 50 AD, the Southern Xiongnu submitted to tributary relations with Han China. The system of tribute was considerably tightened by the Han, to keep the Southern Xiongnu under control. The Chanyu was ordered to establish his court in the Meiji district of Xihe Commandery and the Southern Xiongnu were resettled in eight frontier commanderies. At the same time, large numbers of Chinese were also resettled in these commanderies, in mixed Han-Xiongnu settlements. Economically, the Southern Xiongnu became reliant on trade with the Han and annual subsidies from the Chinese court.
The Southern Xiongnu served as Han auxiliaries to defend the northern borders from nomadic forces and even played a role in defeating the Northern Xiongnu. However, with the fall of their northern counterpart, the Southern Xiongnu continued to suffer the brunt of raids, this time by the Xianbei people of the steppe. In addition to the poor climate and living conditions of the frontiers, the Chinese court would also interfere in the Southern Xiongnu's politics and install chanyus loyal to the Han. As a result, the Southern Xiongnu often rebelled, at times joining forces with the Wuhuan and receiving support from the Xianbei.
During the late 2nd century AD, the Chanyu began sending his people to deal with the Han's internal matters; first against the Yellow Turban Rebellion and then another rebellion in Hebei in 188. Many of the Xiongnu feared that it would set a precedent for unending military service to the Han court. At the time, another Han vassal, the Xiuchuge people had revolted in Bingzhou and killed the provincial inspector. Subsequently, a rebellious faction among the Southern Xiongnu allied with the Xiuchuge and killed the Chanyu as well. The Han court appointed his son, Yufuluo, entitled Chizhi Shizhu (持至尸逐侯), to succeed him, but he was expelled from his territory by the rebels.
Yufuluo travelled to Luoyang to seek aid from the Han court, but the 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 subsequently settled down with his followers around Pingyang, east of the Fen River in Shanxi. In 195, he died and was succeeded as chanyu by his brother Huchuquan. Meanwhile, the rebels initially elected their own chanyu, but after he died just a year into his reign, they left the position vacant and had an elderly nominal king put in his place. With the Southern Xiongnu in disarray, many of the tribes opted to distance themselves from the ongoing Han civil war. Yufuluo's group and the Xiuchuge were drawn into the conflict from time to time before they were all subdued by the warlord Cao Cao.[131]
The Southern Xiongnu upheaval caused several frontier commanderies such as Shuofang and Yunzhong to be lost to hostile tribes, prompting Cao Cao to abolish and abandon them. In 216, he detained Huchuquan in the city of Ye and reorganized the last vestiges of the Southern Xiongnu into the Five Divisions (Left, Right, South, North and Centre) around Taiyuan Commandery in modern-day Shanxi, bringing them closer to the Chinese court's influence. The office of chanyu remained with Huchuquan at Ye until his death, after which it became vacant, while the Five Divisions were placed under the supervision of his uncle, Qubei. Each division was led by a local chief, who in turn was under the surveillance of a Chinese resident. This was aimed at preventing the tribes in Shanxi from engaging in rebellion, and also allowed Cao Cao to use them as auxiliaries in his cavalry.[136]
Descendants and later states in northern China
[edit]Fang Xuanling's Book of Jin lists nineteen Xiongnu tribes that resettled within the Great Wall: Chuge (屠各), Xianzhi (鮮支), Koutou (寇頭), Wutan (烏譚), Chile (赤勒), Hanzhi (捍蛭), Heilang (黑狼), Chisha (赤沙), Yugang (鬱鞞), Weisuo (萎莎), Tutong (禿童), Bomie (勃蔑), Qiangqu (羌渠), Helai (賀賴), Zhongqin (鐘跂), Dalou (大樓), Yongqu (雍屈), Zhenshu (真樹) and Lijie (力羯). Among the nineteen tribes, the Chuge, also known as the Xiuchuge, were the most honored and prestigious.[137]
With the fall of the Southern Xiongnu state, the Xiongnu name gradually lost its unifying influence among its descendants, only ever invoked for political and symbolic purposes or as a generic label for tribes that did not belong to one of the major ethnic groups at the time. In Bingzhou, the Chuge identity held more weight than that of the Xiongnu among the Five Divisions, while those excluded from the group mingled with tribes from various ethnicities and were referred to as "hu" or other vague terms for the non-Chinese. Many of them began adopting Chinese family names such as Liu, which was prevalent among the Five Divisions.[138]
Nonetheless, the Xiongnu are classified as one of the "Five Barbarians" of the Sixteen Kingdoms period. The Han-Zhao and Helian Xia dynasties were both founded by rulers on the basis of their Xiongnu ancestry. The Northern Liang, established by the Lushuihu, is sometimes categorized as a Xiongnu state in recent historiographies. Shi Le, the founder of the Later Zhao dynasty, was a descendant of the Xiongnu Qiangqu tribe, although by his time, he and his people had become a separate ethnic group known as the Jie.
Han-Zhao dynasty (304–329)
[edit]Han (304–319)
[edit]
Eventually, the Five Divisions grew weary of subservience and attempted to assert their own power. The Commander of the Left Division, Liu Bao briefly unified them during the mid-3rd century before the Cao Wei and the Western Jin courts intervened and forced them back into five. To further ensure their loyalty, nobles of the Five Divisions had to send their children to the Chinese capital as hostages, where they became accustomed to Chinese Confucian teachings and culture. They were even allowed to hold government offices under the Jin, but their status remained low compared to their Chinese peers. Amidst the War of the Eight Princes in 304, as Jin authority was collapsing in northern China, the Five Divisions took the opportunity to rebel.
Liu Yuan, the son of Liu Bao and a general serving under one of the Jin princes, was offered by the Five Divisions to lead their rebellion. After deceiving his prince, Liu Yuan returned to Bingzhou and was acclaimed as the Grand Chanyu. Later that year, he declared himself the King of Han. Liu Yuan and his family members were Chuge people, but he also claimed to be a direct descendant of the Southern Xiongnu chanyus and depicted his state as a continuation of the Han dynasty, citing that his alleged ancestors were married to Han princesses through heqin.[131][138] He adopted the Chinese ruling system and allowed the Han Chinese and non-Chinese tribes to serve under him. In 308, he elevated his title to Emperor of Han, and in 309, he settled his capital at Pingyang.
The Western Jin, devastated by war and natural disasters, was unable to stop the growing threat of the Han. A few months after Liu Cong took the Han throne, the Jin imperial army was annihilated by his forces in 311. Soon, the Han descended upon the Jin capital Luoyang, sacking the city and capturing Emperor Huai of Jin in an event known as the Disaster of Yongjia. In 316, the Jin restoration in Chang'an, headed by Emperor Min, was also crushed by the Han. After the fall of Chang'an, the remnants of the Jin south of the Yangtze river at Jiankang re-established themselves as the Eastern Jin dynasty in 318.[139]
Despite military success, the Han's imperial authority was limited. They suffered from internal strife under Liu Cong, who was described as a cruel and dissolute ruler. Faced with stern opposition from his own ministers, he greatly empowered his consort kins and eunuchs to counter them, throwing the Han court into a power struggle which ended in a brutal purge. Liu Cong also failed to constrain Shi Le, a general of Jie ethnicity who effectively held the eastern parts of the empire. After Liu Cong's death in 318, the consort kin, Jin Zhun massacred the imperial family in Pingyang before he was defeated by a combined force led by Liu Cong's cousin, Liu Yao, and Shi Le.
Former Zhao (319–329)
[edit]During Jin Zhun's rebellion, the Han loyalists that escaped the massacre acclaimed Liu Yao as the new emperor. In 319, he moved the capital from Pingyang to his base in Chang'an and renamed the dynasty as Zhao. Unlike his predecessors, Liu Yao appealed more to his Xiongnu ancestry by honouring Modu Chanyu and distancing himself from the state's initial positioning of Han restoration. 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. That same year, Shi Le proclaimed independence and formed his own state of Zhao, challenging Liu Yao for hegemony over northern China. For this reason, Han-Zhao is also known to historians as the Former Zhao to distinguish it from Shi Le's Later Zhao.
Liu Yao retained control over the Guanzhong region and expanded his domain westward by campaigning against remnants of the Jin, Former Liang and Chouchi. Eventually, Liu Yao led his army to fight Later Zhao for control over Luoyang but was captured by Shi Le's forces in battle and executed in 329. Chang'an soon fell to Later Zhao and the last of Former Zhao's forces were destroyed. Thus ended the Han-Zhao dynasty; northern China would be dominated by the Later Zhao for the next 20 years.[140] The Chuge people would remain a prominent ethnic group in northern China for the next two centuries.
Tiefu tribe and Helian Xia dynasty (309–431)
[edit]The chieftains of the Tiefu tribe were descendants of Qubei and were related to another tribe, the Dugu. Based on their name, which meant a person whose father was a Xiongnu and mother was a Xianbei, the Tiefu had mingled with the Xianbei, and records refer to them as "Wuhuan", which by the 4th-century had become a generic term for miscellaneous hu tribes with Donghu elements.[141] In 309, their chieftain, Liu Hu rebelled against the Western Jin in Shanxi but was driven out to Shuofang Commandery in the Ordos Loop. The Tiefu resided there for most of their existence, often as a vassal to their stronger neighbours before their power was destroyed by the Northern Wei dynasty in 392.
Liu Bobo, a surviving member of the Tiefu, went into exile and eventually offered his services to the Qiang-led Later Qin. He was assigned to guard Shuofang, but in 407, angered by Qin holding peace talks with the Northern Wei, he rebelled and founded a state known as the Helian Xia dynasty. Bobo strongly affirmed his Xiongnu lineage; his state name of "Xia" was based on the claim that the Xiongnu were descendants of the Xia dynasty, and he later changed his family name from "Liu" (劉) to the more Xiongnu-like "Helian" (赫連), believing it inappropriate to follow his matrilineal line from the Han. Helian Bobo placed the Later Qin in a perpetual state of warfare and greatly contributed to its decline. In 418, he conquered the Guanzhong region from the Eastern Jin dynasty after the Jin destroyed Qin the previous year.
After Helian Bobo's death in 425, the Xia quickly declined due to pressure from the Northern Wei. In 428, the emperor, Helian Chang and capital were both captured by Wei forces. His brother, Helian Ding succeeded him and conquered the Western Qin in 431, but that same year, he was ambushed and imprisoned by the Tuyuhun while attempting a campaign against Northern Liang. The Xia was at its end, and the following year, Helian Ding was sent to Wei where he was executed.
Tongwancheng (meaning "Unite All Nations"), was one of the capitals of the Xia that was built during the reign of Helian Bobo. The ruined city was discovered in 1996[142] and the State Council designated it as a cultural relic under top state protection. The repair of the Yong'an Platform, where Helian Bobo reviewed parading troops, was completed and restoration on the 31 m (102 ft) tall turret follows.[143][144]
Juqu clan and Northern Liang dynasty (401–460)
[edit]The Juqu clan were a Lushuihu family that founded the Northern Liang dynasty in modern-day Gansu in 397. Recent historiographies often classify the Northern Liang as a "Xiongnu" state, but there is still ongoing debate on the exact origin of the Lushuihu. A leading theory is that the Lushuihu were descendants of the Lesser Yuezhi that had intermingled with the Qiang people, but based on the fact that the Juqu's ancestors once served the Xiongnu empire, the Lushuihu could still be considered a branch of the Xiongnu. Regardless, contemporaneous records treat the Lushuihu as a distinct ethnic group.[145][146] The Northern Liang was known for its propagation of Buddhism in Gansu through their construction of Buddhist sites such as the Tiantishan and Mogao caves, and for being the last of the so-called Sixteen Kingdoms after it was conquered by the Northern Wei dynasty in 439.[147][148] There was also the Northern Liang of Gaochang, which existed between 442 and 460.
Significance
[edit]The Xiongnu confederation was unusually long-lived for a steppe empire. The purpose of raiding the Central Plain was not simply for goods, but to force the Central Plain polity to pay regular tribute. The power of the Xiongnu ruler was based on his control of Han tribute which he used to reward his supporters. The Han and Xiongnu empires rose at the same time because the Xiongnu state depended on Han 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 the dominant Central Plain regime and then used the resources obtained from their overlord to defeat the Northern Xiongnu and re-establish the empire. The second time this happened, around 47 AD, the strategy failed. The southern ruler was unable to defeat the northern ruler and the Xiongnu remained divided.[149]
Ethnolinguistic origins
[edit]The Xiongnu empire is widely thought to have been multiethnic.[150] There are several theories on the ethnolinguistic identity of the Xiongnu, though there is no consensus among scholars as to what language was spoken by the Xiongnu elite.[151]
Proposed link to the Huns
[edit]| Pronunciation of 匈奴 | |
|---|---|
| Old Chinese (318 BC): | *hoŋ-nâ |
| Eastern Han Chinese: | *hɨoŋ-nɑ |
| Middle Chinese: | *hɨoŋ-nuo |
| Modern Mandarin: | [ɕjʊ́ŋ nǔ] |
The Xiongnu-Hun hypothesis was originally proposed by the 18th-century French historian Joseph de Guignes, who noticed that ancient Chinese scholars had referred to members of tribes which were associated with the Xiongnu by names which were similar to the name "Hun", albeit with varying Chinese characters. Étienne de la Vaissière has shown that, in the Sogdian script used in the so-called "Sogdian Ancient Letters", both the Xiongnu and the Huns were referred to as the γwn (xwn), which indicates that the two names were synonymous.[17] Although the theory that the Xiongnu were the precursors of the Huns as they were later known in Europe is now accepted by many scholars, it has yet to become a consensus view. The identification with the Huns may either be incorrect or it may be an oversimplification (as would appear to be the case with a proto-Mongol people, the Rouran,[citation needed] who have sometimes been linked to the Avars of Central Europe[citation needed]).
Iranian theories
[edit]
Most scholars agree that the Xiongnu elite may have been initially of Sogdian origin, while later switching to a Turkic language.[156] Harold Walter Bailey proposed an Iranian origin of the Xiongnu, recognizing all of the earliest Xiongnu names of the 2nd century BC as being of the Iranian type.[25] Central Asian scholar Christopher I. Beckwith notes that the Xiongnu name could be a cognate of Scythian, Saka and Sogdia, corresponding to a name for Eastern Iranian Scythians.[71][157] According to Beckwith the Xiongnu could have contained a leading Iranian component when they started out, but more likely they had earlier been subjects of an Iranian people and learned the Iranian nomadic model from them.[71]
In the 1994 UNESCO-published History of Civilizations of Central Asia, its editor János Harmatta claims that the royal tribes and kings of the Xiongnu bore Iranian names, that all Xiongnu words noted by the Chinese can be explained from a Scythian language, and that it is therefore clear that the majority of Xiongnu tribes spoke an Eastern Iranian language.[24]
According to a study by Alexander Savelyev and Choongwon Jeong, published in 2020 in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, "The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic". However, important cultural, technological and political elements may have been transmitted by Eastern Iranian-speaking Steppe nomads: "Arguably, these Iranian-speaking groups were assimilated over time by the predominant Turkic-speaking part of the Xiongnu population".[158]
Yeniseian theories
[edit]
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. The Yeniseian theory proposes that the Jie, a western Xiongnu people, spoke a Yeniseian language. Hyun Jin Kim notes that the 7th century AD Chinese conpendium, Jin Shu, contains a transliterated song of Jie origin, which appears to be Yeniseian. This song has led researchers Pulleyblank and Vovin to argue for a Yeniseian Jie dominant minority, that ruled over the other Xiongnu ethnicities, such as Iranian and Turkic people. Kim has stated that the dominant Xiongnu language was likely Turkic or Yeniseian, but has cautioned that the Xiongnu were definitely a multi-ethnic society.[161]
Pulleybank and D. N. Keightley asserted that the Xiongnu titles "were originally Siberian words but were later borrowed by the Turkic and Mongolic peoples".[162] Titles such as tarqan, tegin and kaghan were also inherited from the Xiongnu language and are possibly of Yeniseian origin. For example, the Xiongnu word for "heaven" is theorized to come from Proto-Yeniseian *tɨŋVr.[163][164]
Vocabulary from Xiongnu inscriptions sometimes appears to have Yeniseian cognates which were used by Vovin to support his theory that the Xiongnu has a large Yeniseian component, examples of proposed cognates include words such as Xiongnu kʷala 'son' and Ket qalek 'younger son', Xiongnu sakdak 'boot' and Ket sagdi 'boot', Xiongnu gʷawa "prince" and Ket gij "prince", Xiongnu "attij" 'wife' and proto-Yeniseian "alrit", Ket "alit" and Xiongnu dar "north" compared to Yugh tɨr "north".[163][165] Pulleyblank also argued that because Xiongnu words appear to have clusters with r and l, in the beginning of the word it is unlikely to be of Turkic origin, and instead believed that most vocabulary we have mostly resemble Yeniseian languages.[166]
Alexander Vovin also wrote, that some names of horses in the Xiongnu language appear to be Turkic words with Yeniseian prefixes.[163]
An analysis by Savelyev and Jeong (2020) has cast doubt on the Yeniseian theory. If assuming that the ancient Yeniseians were represented by modern Ket people, who are more genetically similar to Samoyedic speakers, the Xiongnu do not display a genetic affinity for Yeniseian peoples.[158] A review by Wilson (2023) argues that the presence of Yeniseian-speakers among the multi-ethnic Xiongnu should not be rejected, and that "Yeniseian-speaking peoples must have played a more prominent (than heretofore recognized) role in the history of Eurasia during the first millennium of the Common Era".[167]
Bonmann and Fries (2025) argued that the Xiongnu and succeeding Huns were of multi-ethnic origin, but had, at least a partial, Paleo-Siberian, specifically Yeniseian ethnic core, corresponding to the early Arin language.[168]
Turkic theories
[edit]
According to a study by Alexander Savelyev and Choongwon Jeong, published in 2020 in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, "The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic". However, genetic studies found a mixture of haplogroups from western and eastern Eurasian origins that suggested large genetic diversity, and possibly multiple origins of Xiongnu elites. The Turkic-related component may be brought by eastern Eurasian genetic substratum.[158]
Other proponents of a Turkic language theory include E.H. Parker, Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth, Gustaf John Ramstedt, Annemarie von Gabain,[158] and Charles Hucker.[18] André Wink states that the Xiongnu probably spoke an early form of Turkic; even if Xiongnu were not "Turks" nor Turkic-speaking, they were in close contact with Turkic-speakers very early on.[171] Craig Benjamin sees the Xiongnu as either proto-Turks or proto-Mongols who possibly spoke a language related to the Dingling.[172]
Chinese sources link several Turkic peoples to the Xiongnu:
- According to the Book of Zhou, History of the Northern Dynasties, Tongdian, New Book of Tang, the Göktürks and the ruling Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation,[173][174][175][176][177]
- Uyghur Khagans claimed descent from the Xiongnu (according to Chinese history Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler).[181][182][183]
- The Book of Wei states that the Yueban descended from remnants of the Northern Xiongnu chanyu's tribe and that Yueban's language and customs resembled Gaoche (高車),[184] another name of the Tiele.
- The Book of Jin lists 19 southern Xiongnu tribes who entered Former Yan's borders, the 14th being the Alat (Ch. 賀賴 Helai ~ 賀蘭 Helan ~ 曷剌 Hela); Alat being glossed "piebald horse" (Ch. 駁馬 ~ 駮馬 Boma) in Old Turkic.[185][186][187]
However, Chinese sources also ascribe Xiongnu origins to the Para-Mongolic-speaking Kumo Xi and Khitans.[188]
Mongolic theories
[edit]
Mongolian and other scholars have suggested that the Xiongnu spoke a language related to the Mongolic languages.[192][193] Mongolian archaeologists proposed that the Slab Grave Culture people were the ancestors of the Xiongnu, and some scholars have suggested that the Xiongnu may have been the ancestors of the Mongols.[27] Nikita Bichurin considered Xiongnu and Xianbei to be two subgroups (or dynasties) of but one same ethnicity.[194]
According to the Book of Song, the Rourans, which the Book of Wei identified as offspring of Proto-Mongolic[195] Donghu people,[196] possessed the alternative name(s) 大檀 Dàtán "Tatar" and/or 檀檀 Tántán "Tartar" and according to the Book of Liang, "they also constituted a separate branch of the Xiongnu".[197][198] The Old Book of Tang mentioned twenty Shiwei tribes,[199] which other Chinese sources (the Book of Sui and the New Book of Tang) associated with the Khitans,[200] another people who in turn descended from the Xianbei[201] and were also associated with the Xiongnu.[202] While the Xianbei, Khitans, and Shiwei are generally believed to be predominantly Mongolic- and Para-Mongolic-speaking,[200][203][204] yet Xianbei were stated to descend from the Donghu, whom Sima Qian distinguished from the Xiongnu[205][206][207] (notwithstanding Sima Qian's inconsistency[62][63][64][58]). Additionally, Chinese chroniclers routinely ascribed Xiongnu origins to various nomadic groups: for examples, Xiongnu ancestry was ascribed to Para-Mongolic-speaking Kumo Xi, as well as the Turkic-speaking Göktürks and Tiele;[188]
Genghis Khan refers to the time of Modu Chanyu as "the remote times of our chanyu" in his letter to Daoist Qiu Chuji.[208] Moreover, the sun and moon symbol of Xiongnu discovered by archaeologists is similar to Mongolian Soyombo symbol.[209][210][211]
Multiple ethnicities
[edit]
Since the early 19th century, a number of Western scholars have proposed a connection between various language families or subfamilies and the language or languages of the Xiongnu. Albert Terrien de Lacouperie considered them to be multi-component groups.[33] 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.[213] Kim rejects "old racial theories or even ethnic affiliations" in favour of the "historical reality of these extensive, multiethnic, polyglot steppe empires".[214]
Chinese sources link the Tiele people and Ashina to the Xiongnu, not all Turkic peoples. According to the Book of Zhou and the History of the Northern Dynasties, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation,[215][216] but this connection is disputed,[217] and according to the Book of Sui and the Tongdian, they were "mixed nomads" (traditional Chinese: 雜胡; simplified Chinese: 杂胡; pinyin: zá hú) from Pingliang.[218][219] The Ashina and Tiele may have been separate ethnic groups who mixed with the Xiongnu.[220] Indeed, Chinese sources link many nomadic peoples (hu; see Wu Hu) on their northern borders to the Xiongnu, just as Greco-Roman historiographers called Avars and Huns "Scythians". The Greek cognate of Tourkia (Greek: Τουρκία) was used by the Byzantine emperor and scholar Constantine VII in his book De Administrando Imperio,[221][222] though in his use, "Turks" always referred to Magyars.[223] Such archaizing was a common literary topos, and implied similar geographic origins and nomadic lifestyle but not direct filiation.[224]
Some Uyghurs claimed descent from the Xiongnu (according to Chinese history Weishu, the founder of the Uyghur Khaganate was descended from a Xiongnu ruler),[181] but many contemporary scholars do not consider the modern Uyghurs to be of direct linear descent from the old Uyghur Khaganate because modern Uyghur language and Old Uyghur languages are different.[225] Rather, they consider them to be descendants of a number of people, one of them the ancient Uyghurs.[226][227][228]
In various kinds of ancient inscriptions on monuments of Munmu of Silla, it is recorded that King Munmu had Xiongnu ancestry. According to several historians, it is possible that there were tribes of Koreanic origin. There are also some Korean researchers that point out that the grave goods of Silla and of the eastern Xiongnu are alike.[229][230][231][232][233]
Language isolate theories
[edit]Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer has denied any possibility of a relationship between the Xiongnu language and any other known language, even any connection with Turkic or Mongolian.[162]
Geographic origins
[edit]The original geographic location of the Xiongnu is disputed among steppe archaeologists. Since the 1960s, the geographic origin of the Xiongnu has attempted to be traced through an analysis of Early Iron Age burial constructions. No region has been proven to have mortuary practices that clearly match those of the Xiongnu.[234]
Archaeology
[edit]
In the 1920s, Pyotr Kozlov oversaw the excavation of royal tombs at the Noin-Ula burial site in northern Mongolia, dated to around the first century AD. Other Xiongnu sites have been unearthed in Inner Mongolia, such as the Ordos culture. Sinologist Otto Maenchen-Helfen has said that depictions of the Xiongnu of Transbaikalia and the Ordos commonly show individuals with West Eurasian features.[235] Iaroslav Lebedynsky said that West Eurasian depictions in the Ordos region should be attributed to a "Scythian affinity".[236]
Portraits found in the Noin-Ula excavations demonstrate other cultural evidence and influences, showing that Chinese and Xiongnu art 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 is seen to be identical with the Ashina clan hair-style.[237] Well-preserved bodies in Xiongnu and pre-Xiongnu tombs in Mongolia and southern Siberia show both East Asian and West Eurasian features.[238]
Analysis of cranial remains from some sites attributed to the Xiongnu have revealed that they had dolichocephalic skulls with East Asian craniometrical features, setting them apart from neighboring populations in present-day Mongolia.[239] Russian and Chinese anthropological and craniofacial studies show that the Xiongnu were physically very heterogenous, with six different population clusters showing different degrees of West Eurasian and East Asian physical traits.[27]

Presently, there exist four fully excavated and well documented cemeteries: Ivolga,[241] Dyrestui,[242] Burkhan Tolgoi,[243][244] and Daodunzi.[245][246] Additionally thousands of tombs have been recorded in Transbaikalia and Mongolia.
The archaeologists at a Xiongnu cemetery in Arkhangai Province said the following:
"There is no clear indication of the ethnicity of this tomb occupant, but in a similar brick-chambered tomb of the late Eastern Han period at the same cemetery, archaeologists discovered a bronze seal with the official title that the Han government bestowed upon the leader of the Xiongnu. The excavators suggested that these brick chamber tombs all belong to the Xiongnu (Qinghai 1993)."[247]
Classifications of these burial sites make distinction between two prevailing type of burials: "(1) monumental ramped terrace tombs which are often flanked by smaller "satellite" burials and (2) 'circular' or 'ring' burials."[248] Some scholars consider this a division between "elite" graves and "commoner" graves. Other scholars, find this division too simplistic and not evocative of a true distinction because it shows "ignorance of the nature of the mortuary investments and typically luxuriant burial assemblages [and does not account for] the discovery of other lesser interments that do not qualify as either of these types."[249]
Genetics
[edit]Maternal lineages
[edit]
A 2003 study found that 89% of Xiongnu maternal lineages are of East Asian origin, while 11% were of West Eurasian origin. However, a 2016 study found that 37.5% of Xiongnu maternal lineages were West Eurasian, in a central Mongolian sample.[250]
According to Rogers & Kaestle (2022), these studies make clear that the Xiongnu population is extremely similar to the preceding Slab Grave population, which had a similar frequency of Eastern and Western maternal haplogroups, supporting a hypothesis of continuity from the Slab Grave period to the Xiongnu. They wrote that the bulk of the genetics research indicates that roughly 27% of Xiongnu maternal haplogroups were of West Eurasian origin, while the rest were East Asian.[251]
Some examples of maternal haplogroups observed in Xiongnu specimens include D4b2b4, N9a2a, G3a3, D4a6 and D4b2b2b.[252] and U2e1.[253]
Paternal lineages
[edit]According to Rogers & Kaestle (2022), roughly 47% of Xiongnu period remains belonged to paternal haplogroups associated with modern West Eurasians, while the rest (53%) belonged to East Asian haplogroups. They observed that this contrasts strongly with the preceding Slab Grave period, which was dominated by East Asian patrilineages. They suggest that this may reflect an aggressive expansion of people with West Eurasian paternal haplogroups, or perhaps the practice of marriage alliances or cultural networks favoring people with Western patrilines.[254]
Some examples of paternal haplogroups in Xiongnu specimens include Q1b,[255][256] R1, R1b, O3a and O3a3b2,[257] , J2a, J1a and E1b1b1a.[258]
According to Lee & Kuang, the main paternal lineages of Xiongnu Elite remains in the Egiin Gol valley belonged to the paternal haplogroups N1c1, Q-M242, and C-M217. Xiongnu remains from Barkol belonged exclusively to haplogroup Q. They argue that the haplogroups C2, Q and N likely formed the major paternal haplogroups of the Xiongnu tribes, while R1a was the most common paternal haplogroup (44.5%) among neighbouring nomads from the Altai mountain, who were probably incorporated into the Xiongnu confederation and may be associated with the Jie people.[259] Elite Xiongnu samples from Duurlig Nars belonged to R1a1 and to C-M217, while elite Xiongnu remains from Tamir Ulaan Khoshuu beloged to R1a-Z95, R1a-Z2125, Q1a-M120, J1 and N1a1.[260][261] According to Juhyeon Lee sample DA39, a likely chanyu of the Xiongnu empire from Gol Mod 2 site in central-north Mongolia was assigned to haplogroup R1.[150] Högström et al. (2024) later reassigned DA39 to haplogroup R-Y56311.[262][263]
Autosomal ancestry
[edit]A study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in October 2006 detected significant genetic continuity between the examined individuals at Egyin Gol and modern Mongolians.[264]

A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined the remains of five Xiongnu.[265] The study concluded that Xiongnu confederation was genetically heterogeneous, and Xiongnu individuals belonging to two distinct groups, one being of primarily East Asian origin (associated with the earlier Slab-grave culture) and the other presenting considerable admixture levels with West Eurasian (possibly from Central Saka) sources. The evidence suggested that the Huns probably emerged through minor male-driven geneflow into the Saka through westward migrations of the Xiongnu.[266]
A study published in November 2020 examined 60 early and late Xiongnu individuals from across Mongolia. The study found that the Xiongnu resulted from the admixture of three different clusters from the Mongolian region. The two early genetic clusters are "early Xiongnu_west" from the Altai Mountains (formed at 92% by the hybrid Eurasian Chandman ancestry, and 8% BMAC ancestry), and "early Xiongnu_rest" from the Mongolian Plateau (individuals with primarily Ulaanzuukh-Slab Grave ancestry, or mixed with "early Xiongnu_west"). The later third cluster named "late Xiongnu" has even higher heterogenity, with the continued combination of Chandman and Ulaanzuukh-Slab Grave ancestry, and additional geneflow from Sarmatian and Han Chinese sources. Their uniparental haplogroup assignments also showed heterogenetic influence on their ethnogenesis as well as their connection with Huns.[212][267] In contrast, the later Mongols had a much higher eastern Eurasian ancestry as a whole, similar to that of modern-day Mongolic-speaking populations.[268]
A Xiongnu remain (GD1-4) analysed in a 2024 study was found to be entirely derived from Ancient Northeast Asians without any West Eurasian-associated ancestry. The sample clustered closely with a Göktürk remain (GD1-1) from the later Turkic period.[269]
Relationship between ethnicity and status among the Xiongnu
[edit]
Although the Xiongnu were ethnically heterogeneous as a whole, it appears that variability was highly related to social status. Genetic heterogeneity was highest among retainers of low status, as identified by their smaller and peripheral tombs. These retainers mainly displayed ancestry related to the Chandman/Uyuk culture (characterized by a hybrid Eurasian gene pool combining the genetic profile of the Sintashta culture and Baikal hunter-gatherers (Baikal EBA)), or various combinations of Chandman/Uyuk and Ancient Northeast Asian Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave profiles.[150]
On the contrary, high status Xiongnu individuals tended to have less genetic diversity, and their ancestry was essentially derived from the Eastern Eurasian Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave culture, or alternatively from the Xianbei, suggesting multiple sources for their Eastern ancestry. High Eastern ancestry was more common among high status female samples, while low status male samples tended to be more diverse and having higher Western ancestry.[150] DA39, a likely chanyu identified by his prestigious tomb, was shown to have had similar ancestry as a high status female in the "western frontiers", deriving about 39.3% Slab Grave (or Ancient Northeast Asian) genetic ancestry, 51.9% Han (or Yellow River farmers) ancestry, with the rest (8.8%) being Saka (Chandman) ancestry.[150]
Culture
[edit]Art
[edit]


Within the Xiongnu culture more variety is visible from site to site than from "era" to "era," in terms of Chinese chronology, yet all form a whole that is distinct from that of the Han and other peoples of the non-Chinese north.[275] In some instances, the iconography cannot be used as the main cultural identifier, because art depicting animal predation is common among the steppe peoples. An example of animal predation associated with Xiongnu culture is that of a tiger carrying dead prey.[275] A similar motif appears in work from Maoqinggou, a site which is presumed to have been under Xiongnu political control but is still clearly non-Xiongnu. In the Maoqinggou example, the prey is replaced with an extension of the tiger's foot. The work also depicts a cruder level of execution; Maoqinggou work was executed in a rounder, less detailed style.[275] In its broadest sense, Xiongnu iconography of animal predation includes examples such as the gold headdress from Aluchaideng and gold earrings with a turquoise and jade inlay discovered in Xigoupan, Inner Mongolia.[275]
Xiongnu art is harder to distinguish from Saka or Scythian art. There is a similarity present in stylistic execution, but Xiongnu art and Saka art often differ in terms of iconography. Saka art does not appear to have included predation scenes, especially with dead prey, or same-animal combat. Additionally, Saka art included elements not common to Xiongnu iconography, such as winged, horned horses.[275] The two cultures also used two different kinds of bird heads. Xiongnu depictions of birds tend to have a medium-sized eye and beak, and they are also depicted with ears, while Saka birds have a pronounced eye and beak, and no ears.[276] Some scholars[who?] claim these differences are indicative of cultural differences. Scholar Sophia-Karin Psarras suggests that Xiongnu images of animal predation, specifically tiger-and-prey, are a spiritual representation of death and rebirth, and that same-animal combat is representative of the acquisition or maintenance of power.[276]
Rock art and writing
[edit]
The rock art of the Yin and Helan Mountains is dated from the 9th millennium BC to the 19th century AD. It consists mainly of engraved signs (petroglyphs) and only minimally of painted images.[278]
Chinese sources indicate that the Xiongnu did not have an ideographic form of writing like Chinese, but in the 2nd century BC, a renegade Chinese dignitary Yue "taught the Shanyu to write official letters to the Chinese court on a wooden tablet 31 cm (12 in) long, and to use a seal and large-sized folder." The same sources tell that when the Xiongnu noted down something or transmitted a message, they made cuts on a piece of wood ('ke-mu'), and they also mention a "Hu script" (vol. 110). At Noin-Ula and other Xiongnu burial sites in Mongolia and the region north of Lake Baikal, among the objects discovered during excavations conducted in 1924 and 1925 were over 20 carved characters. Most of these characters are either identical or very similar to letters of the Old Turkic alphabet of the Early Middle Ages found on the Eurasian steppes. From this, some specialists conclude that the Xiongnu used a script similar to the ancient Eurasian runiform, and that this alphabet was a basis for later Turkic writing.[279]
Religion and diet
[edit]According to the Book of Han, the Xiongnu called Heaven (天) 'Chēnglí,' (撐犁)[280] a Chinese transcription of Tengri. The Xiongnu were a nomadic people. From their lifestyle of herding flocks and their horse-trade with China, it can be concluded that their diet consisted mainly of mutton, horse meat and wild geese that were shot down.
Historical evidence gives reason to believe that, from the 2nd century BC, proto-Mongol peoples (the Xiongnu, Xianbei, and Khitans) were familiar with Buddhism. Remains of Buddhist prayer beads were found in a Xiongnu grave in Ivolginsky District.[281]
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ This view was put forward to Wang Mang in AD 14.[123]
- ^ Small bronze plaque showing a horseman with prominent cheekbones and full beard, from Troitskosavsk,Transbaikalia. Features are similar to those of the Xiongnu statue of Huo Qubing.[125]
References
[edit]- ^ Coatsworth, John; Cole, Juan; Hanagan, Michael P.; Perdue, Peter C.; Tilly, Charles; Tilly, Louise (16 March 2015). Global Connections: Volume 1, To 1500: Politics, Exchange, and Social Life in World History. Cambridge University Press. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-316-29777-3.
- ^ Atlas of World History. Oxford University Press. 2002. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-19-521921-0.
- ^ Fauve, Jeroen (2021). The European Handbook of Central Asian Studies. BoD – Books on Demand. p. 403. ISBN 978-3-8382-1518-1.
- ^ Hartley, Charles W.; Yazicioğlu, G. Bike; Smith, Adam T. (19 November 2012). The Archaeology of Power and Politics in Eurasia: Regimes and Revolutions. Cambridge University Press. p. 245, Fig 12.3. ISBN 978-1-139-78938-7.
- ^ a b Yü, Ying-shih (1986). "Han Foreign Relations". The Cambridge History of China, Volume 1: The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 BC – AD 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-0-521-24327-8.
- ^ Shufen, Liu (2002). "Ethnicity and the Suppression of Buddhism in Fifth-century North China: The Background and Significance of the Gaiwu Rebellion". Asia Major. 15 (1): 1–21. ISSN 0004-4482. JSTOR 41649858.
- ^ a b Zheng Zhang (Chinese: 鄭張), Shang-fang (Chinese: 尚芳). 匈 – 上古音系第一三千八百九十字 [匈 - The 13890th word of the Ancient Phonological System]. ytenx.org [韻典網] (in Chinese). Rearranged by BYVoid.
- ^ a b Zheng Zhang (Chinese: 鄭張), Shang-fang (Chinese: 尚芳). 奴 – 上古音系第九千六百字 [奴 – The 9600th word of the Ancient Phonological System]. ytenx.org [韻典網] (in Chinese). Rearranged by BYVoid.
- ^ Gökalp, Ziya (2020). Türk Medeniyeti Tarihi. ISBN 978-605-4369-46-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ "Xiongnu People". britannica.com. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2020-03-11. Retrieved 2015-07-25.
- ^ Di Cosmo 2004, p. 186.
- ^ Chase-Dunn, C.; Anderson, E. (18 February 2005). The Historical Evolution of World-Systems. Springer. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-4039-8052-6. "The primary focus of the new threat became the Xiongnu who emerged rather abruptly in the late 4th century BC. Initially subordinated to the Yuezhi, the Xiongnu overthrew the nomadic hierarchy while also escalating its attacks on Chinese areas."
- ^ a b Grousset 1970, pp. 19, 26–27.
- ^ Pulleyblank 2000, p. 17.
- ^ a b Schuessler 2014, pp. 257, 264.
- ^ a b Beckwith 2009, pp. 404–405, notes 51–52.
- ^ a b Étienne de la Vaissière (15 November 2006). "Xiongnu". Encyclopedia Iranica online. Archived from the original on 2012-01-04.
- ^ a b Hucker 1975, p. 136.
- ^ Savelyev, Alexander; Jeong, Choongwon (10 May 2020). "Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2 e20. doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.18. hdl:21.11116/0000-0007-772B-4. PMC 7612788. PMID 35663512. S2CID 218935871.
The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic (Late Proto-Turkic, to be more precise)
- ^ Robbeets, Martine; Bouckaert, Remco (1 July 2018). "Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian family". Journal of Language Evolution. 3 (2): 145–162. doi:10.1093/jole/lzy007. hdl:21.11116/0000-0001-E3E6-B. ISSN 2058-4571.
- ^ Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt (2019), "Northern Dynasties and Southern Dynasties", Chinese Architecture, Princeton University Press, pp. 72–103, doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77f7s.11, S2CID 243720017"Turcs ou Turks". Larousse Rncyclopedie (in French). Larousse Éditions. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
- ^ Book of Zhou, vol. 50.Henning 1948.
- ^ Sims-Williams 2004.Pritsak 1959.Hucker 1975, p. 136.Jinshu vol. 97 Four Barbarians - Xiongnu".Weishu. Vol. 102: Wusun, Shule, & Yueban.
悅般國,... 其先,匈奴北單于之部落也。... 其風俗言語與高車同
Yuanhe Maps and Records of Prefectures and Counties vol. 4 quote: "北人呼駮馬為賀蘭.Kim, Hyun Jin (18 April 2013). The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511920493. ISBN 978-0-511-92049-3.Du You. Tongdian. Vol. 200: 突厥謂駮馬為曷剌,亦名曷剌國。.Wink 2002, pp. 60–61. - ^ a b Harmatta 1994, p. 488: "Their royal 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 Saka type. It is therefore clear that the majority of Hsiung-nu tribes spoke an Eastern Iranian language."
- ^ a b Bailey 1985, pp. 21–45.
- ^ Jankowski 2006, pp. 26–27.
- ^ a b c Tumen D (February 2011). "Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia" (PDF). Oriental Studies. 49. Dankook University Institute of Oriental Studies: 25, 27. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-07-29.
- ^ Di Cosmo 2004, p. 166.
- ^ Adas 2001, p. 88.
- ^ Vovin, Alexander (2000). "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic Journal. 44 (1): 87–104. JSTOR 41928223.
- ^ 高晶一, Jingyi Gao (2017). "Quèdìng xià guó jí kǎitè rén de yǔyán wéi shǔyú hànyǔ zú hé yè ní sāi yǔxì gòngtóng cí yuán" 確定夏國及凱特人的語言為屬於漢語族和葉尼塞語系共同詞源 [Xia and Ket Identified by Sinitic and Yeniseian Shared Etymologies]. Central Asiatic Journal. 60 (1–2): 51–58. doi:10.13173/centasiaj.60.1-2.0051. JSTOR 10.13173/centasiaj.60.1-2.0051. S2CID 165893686.
- ^ Bonmann, Svenja; Fries, Simon (2025). "Linguistic Evidence Suggests That Xiōng-nú and Huns Spoke the Same Paleo-Siberian Language". Transactions of the Philological Society. 0: 1–24. doi:10.1111/1467-968X.12321.
- ^ a b Geng 2005.
- ^ Pearce 2023, p. 128.
- ^ Zeldovich, Lina (10 November 2023). "The powerful women of an ancient empire". BBC Home. Retrieved 2025-03-13.
- ^ Gao, Jingyi (高晶一) (2013). "Huns and Xiongnu Identified by Hungarian and Yeniseian Shared Etymologies" (PDF). Central Asiatic Journal. 56: 41. ISSN 0008-9192. JSTOR 10.13173/centasiaj.56.2013.0041.
- ^ Atwood, Christopher P. (2015). "The Kai, the Khongai, and the Names of the Xiōngnú". International Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2: p of 45–47 of 35–63.
- ^ Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Patterson, Nick; Moorjani, Priya; Rohland, Nadin; Bernardos, Rebecca (6 September 2019). "The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia". Science. 365 (6457). doi:10.1126/science.aat7487. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 6822619. PMID 31488661.
- ^ Khenzykhenova, Fedora I.; Kradin, Nikolai N.; Danukalova, Guzel A.; Shchetnikov, Alexander A.; Osipova, Eugenia M.; Matveev, Arkady N.; Yuriev, Anatoly L.; Namzalova, Oyuna D. -Ts; Prokopets, Stanislav D.; Lyashchevskaya, Marina A.; Schepina, Natalia A.; Namsaraeva, Solonga B.; Martynovich, Nikolai V. (30 April 2020). "The human environment of the Xiongnu Ivolga Fortress (West Trans-Baikal area, Russia): Initial data". Quaternary International. 546: 216–228. Bibcode:2020QuInt.546..216K. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2019.09.041. ISSN 1040-6182. S2CID 210787385. "The slab graves culture existed in this territory prior to the Xiongnu empire. Sites of this culture dating back to approximately 1100-400/300 BC are common in Mongolia and the Trans-Baikal area. The earliest calibrated dates are prior to 1500 BC (Miyamoto et al., 2016). Later dates are usually 100–200 years earlier than the Xiongnu culture. Therefore, it is customarily considered that the slab grave culture preceded the Xiongnu culture. There is only one case, reported by Miyamoto et al. (2016), in which the date of the slab grave corresponds to the time of the making of the Xiongnu Empire."
- ^ Rogers & Kaestle 2022
- ^ a b c d Tse, Wicky W. K. (27 June 2018). The Collapse of China's Later Han Dynasty, 25-220 CE: The Northwest Borderlands and the Edge of Empire. Routledge. pp. 45–46, 63 note 40. ISBN 978-1-315-53231-8.
- ^ Linduff, Katheryn M.; Rubinson, Karen S. (2021). Pazyryk Culture Up in the Altai. Routledge. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-429-85153-7.
The rise of the confederation of the Xiongnu, in addition, clearly affected this region as it did most regions of the Altai
- ^ "Pazyryk | archaeological site, Kazakhstan". Britannica.com. 11 September 2001. Retrieved 2019-03-05.
- ^ State Hermitage Museum 2007
- ^ Whitehouse 2016, p. 369: "From that time until the HAN dynasty the Ordos steppe was the home of semi-nomadic Indo-European peoples whose culture can be regarded as an eastern province of a vast Eurasian continuum of Scytho-Siberian cultures."
- ^ Harmatta 1992, p. 348: "From the first millennium b.c., we have abundant historical, archaeological and linguistic sources for the location of the territory inhabited by the Iranian peoples. In this period the territory of the northern Iranians, they being equestrian nomads, extended over the whole zone of the steppes and the wooded steppes and even the semi-deserts from the Great Hungarian Plain to the Ordos in northern China."
- ^ Unterländer, Martina; Palstra, Friso; Lazaridis, Iosif; Pilipenko, Aleksandr; Hofmanová, Zuzana; Groß, Melanie; Sell, Christian; Blöcher, Jens; Kirsanow, Karola; Rohland, Nadin; Rieger, Benjamin (3 March 2017). "Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe". Nature Communications. 8 14615. Bibcode:2017NatCo...814615U. doi:10.1038/ncomms14615. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 5337992. PMID 28256537.
- ^ Benjamin, Craig (29 March 2017). "The Yuezhi". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.49. ISBN 978-0-19-027772-7.
- ^ Bang, Peter Fibiger; Bayly, C. A.; Scheidel, Walter (2 December 2020). The Oxford World History of Empire: Volume Two: The History of Empires. Oxford University Press. p. 330. ISBN 978-0-19-753278-2 – via Google Books.
- ^ Marshak, Boris Ilʹich (1 January 2002). Peerless Images: Persian Painting and Its Sources. Yale University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-300-09038-3.
- ^ Ilyasov, Jangar Ya.; Rusanov, Dmitriy V. (1997). "A Study on the Bone Plates from Orlat". Silk Road Art and Archaeology. 5 (1997/98). Kamakura, Japan: The Institute of Silk Road Studies: 107–159. ISSN 0917-1614. p. 127:
The image on this belt-buckle represents a rider striking a wild boar with a spear.
- ^ Francfort, Henri-Paul (2020). "Sur quelques vestiges et indices nouveaux de l'hellénisme dans les arts entre la Bactriane et le Gandhāra (130 av. J.-C.-100 apr. J.-C. environ)" [On some vestiges and new indications of Hellenism in the arts between Bactria and Gandhāra (130 BC-100 AD approximately)]. Journal des Savants: 35–39.
Page 36: "A renowned openwork gold plate found on the surface of the site depicts a wild boar hunt at the spear by a rider in steppe dress, in a frame of ovals arranged in cells intended to receive inlays (fig. 14). We can today attribute it to a local craft whose intention was to satisfy a horserider patron originating from the distant steppes and related to the Xiongnu" (French: "On peut aujourd'hui l'attribuer à un art local dont l'intention était de satisfaire un patron cavalier originaire des steppes lointaines et apparenté aux Xiongnu.")p. 36: "We can also clearly distinguish the crupper adorned with three rings forming a chain, as well as, on the shoulder of the mount, a very recognizable clip-shaped pendant, suspended from a chain passing in front of the chest and going up to the pommel of the saddle, whose known parallels are not to be found among the Scythians but in the realm of the Xiongnu, on bronze plaques from Mongolia and China" (French: "les parallèles connus ne se trouvent pas chez les Scythes mais dans le domaine des Xiongnu").p. 38: "The hairstyle of the hunter, with long hair pulled back and gathered in a bun, is also found at Takht-i Sangin; it is that of the eastern steppes, which can be seen on the wild boar hunting plaque "des Iyrques" (fig. 15)" (French: La coiffure du chasseur, aux longs cheveux tirés en arrière et rassemblés en chignon, se retrouve à Takht-i Sangin; C'est celle des steppes orientales, que l'on remarque sur les plaques de la chasse au sanglier «des Iyrques» (fig. 15)
- ^ "The Account of the Xiongnu, Records of the Grand Historian",Sima Qian.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216358_00
- ^ Shiji Ch. 110: Xiongnu liezhuan quote: "匈奴,其先祖夏后氏之苗裔也,曰淳維。"
- ^ Di Cosmo 2002, p. 2.
- ^ Shiji Vol. 81 "Stories about Lian Po and Lin Xiangru - Addendum: Li Mu" text: "李牧者,趙之北邊良將也。常居代鴈門,備匈奴。" translation: "About Li Mu, he was a good general at Zhao's northern borders. He often stationed at Dai and Wild Goose Gate, prepared [against] the Xiongnu."
- ^ Theobald, Ulrich (2019) "Li Mu 李牧" in ChinaKnowledge.de - An Encyclopaedia on Chinese History, Literature and Art
- ^ a b c d Pulleyblank 1994, pp. 518–520.
- ^ a b Schuessler 2014, p. 264.
- ^ Bunker 2002, pp. 27–28.
- ^ Di Cosmo 2002, p. 129.
- ^ a b Shiji, "Hereditary House of Zhao" quote: "今中山在我腹心,北有燕,東有胡,西有林胡、樓煩、秦、韓之邊,而無彊兵之救,是亡社稷,柰何?" translation: "(King Wuling of Zhao to Lou Huan:) Now Zhongshan is at our heart and belly [note: Zhao surrounded Zhongshan, except on Zhongshan's north-eastern side], Yan to the north, Hu to the east, Forest Hu, Loufan, Qin, Han at our borders to the west. Yet we have no strong army to help us, surely we will lose our country. What is to be done?"
- ^ a b Compare a parallel passage in Stratagems of the Warring States, "King Wuling spends his day in idleness", quote: "自常山以至代、上黨,東有燕、東胡之境,西有樓煩、秦、韓之邊,而無騎射之備。" Jennifer Dodgson's translation: "From Mount Chang to Dai and Shangdang, our lands border Yan and the Donghu in the east, and to the west we have the Loufan and shared borders with Qin and Han. Nevertheless, we have no mounted archers ready for action."
- ^ a b Shiji, Vol. 110 "Account of the Xiongnu". quote: "後秦滅六國,而始皇帝使蒙恬將十萬之眾北擊胡,悉收河南地。…… 匈奴單于曰頭曼,頭曼不勝秦,北徙。" translation: "Later on, Qin conquered the six other states, and the First Emperor dispatched general Meng Tian to lead a multitude of 100,000 north to attack the Hu; and he took all lands south the Yellow River. [...] The Xiongnu chanyu was Touman; Touman could not win against Qin, so [they] fled north."
- ^ a b Di Cosmo 2002, p. 107.
- ^ Di Cosmo 1999, pp. 892–893.
- ^ Pulleyblank 1994, pp. 514–523.
- ^ Pulleyblank 2000, p. 20.
- ^ a b Di Cosmo 1999, pp. 892–893, 964.
- ^ Rawson, Jessica (2017). "China and the steppe: reception and resistance". Antiquity. 91 (356): 375–388. doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.276. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 165092308.
- ^ a b c Beckwith 2009, pp. 71–73.
- ^ Bentley 1993, p. 38.
- ^ Baumer, Christoph (18 April 2018). History of Central Asia, The: 4-volume set. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-83860-868-2 – via Google Books.
- ^ Di Cosmo 1999, pp. 885–966.
- ^ a b c Bentley 1993, p. 36.
- ^ 又《漢書》:"使王烏等窺匈奴。法,漢使不去節,不以墨黥面,不得入穹盧。王烏等去節、黥面,得入穹盧,單於愛之。" from Miscellaneous Morsels from Youyang, Scroll 8 Translation from Reed, Carrie E. (2000). "Tattoo in Early China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 120 (3): 360–376. doi:10.2307/606008. JSTOR 606008.
- ^ Museum notice
- ^ Kradin, Nikolay N. (23 January 2020). Competing Narratives between Nomadic People and their Sedentary Neighbours. 7th International Conference on the Medieval History of the Eurasian Steppe. Competing Narratives between Nomadic People and their Sedentary Neighbours. Vol. 53. pp. 149–165. doi:10.14232/sua.2019.53.149-165. ISBN 978-963-306-708-6.
Nonetheless, among archaeologists, there are many supporters of the Xiongnu migration to the West. In recent years, S. Botalov (2009) constructed a broad picture of the migration of the Xiongnu to the Urals, and then Europe. In Kazakhstan, A. N. Podushkin discovered the Arysskaya culture with a distinct stage of Xiongnu influence (2009). Russian archaeologists are actively studying the Hun sites in the Caucasus (Gmyrya 1993; 1995)
Citing:- Botalov, S. G. (2009). Гунны и турки Gunny i tiurki [Huns and Turks]. (in Russian) Chelyabinsk: Рифей
- Gmyrya, L. B. (1993). Prikaspiiskiy Dagestan v epokhu velikogo pereseleniia narodov. Mogilniki [Caspian Dagestan in the Period of the Great Migration of the Peoples. Burial Places]. (in Russian) Mahachkala: Dagestan Scientific Center, RAS Press.
- Podushkin, A. N. (2009). "Xiongnu v Yuznom Kazakhstane". ["Xiongnu in Southern Kazakhstan"]. In: Z. Samashev (ed.) Nomady kazakhstanskikh stepey: etnosociokulturnye protsessy i kontakty v Evrazii skifo sakskoy epokhi [Nomads of the Kazakh Steppes: Ethno-socio-cultural Processes and Contacts in Eurasia of the Scythian-Saka Era]. (in Russian). Astana: Ministry of Culture and Information of the Kazakhstan Republic pp. 47‒154
- ^ a b c Barfield, Thomas J. (1981). "The Hsiung-nu imperial confederacy: Organization and foreign policy". The Journal of Asian Studies. 41 (1): 45–61. doi:10.2307/2055601. JSTOR 2055601. S2CID 145078285.
- ^ Grousset 1970, p. [page needed].
- ^ "ASYA HUN DEVLETİ (BÜYÜK HUN İMPARATORLUĞU) (M.Ö. 220 – M.S.216 ) — Dijital Hoca".
- ^ "Türklerin tarihî başkenti: Ötüken - Avrasya'dan - Haber".
- ^ "Archeologists discover capital of Xiongnu Empire in central Mongolia".
- ^ Yap 2009, p. liii.
- ^ Lo, Ping-cheung (2015). "11 Legalism and offensive realism in the Chinese court debate on defending national security 81 BCE". In Lo, Ping-cheung; Twiss, Sumner B. (eds.). Chinese Just War Ethics: Origin, Development, and Dissent. War, Conflict and Ethics (illustrated ed.). Routledge. p. 269. ISBN 978-1-317-58097-3 – via Google Books.
There were altogether nine marriages of Han princesses (fake or real) to the Xiongnu during these roughly 60 years (for a complete list of details, see Cui 2007a, 555). We will call this policy Heqin Model One, and, as Ying-shih Yu ...
- ^ Qian, Sima (2019). Historical Records 史记: The First and Most Important Biographical General History Book in China. DeepLogic – via Google Books.
Liu Jing said: "The Han dynasty was just calm, the soldiers were exhausted by the fire, and the Xiongnu could not be ... If the majesty could not send a big princess, let the royal woman or the fake princess, he I will know that I will ...
- ^ Chin, Tamara T. (2020). Savage Exchange: Han Imperialism, Chinese Literary Style, and the Economic Imagination. Harvard University Studies in East Asian Law. BRILL. p. 225. ISBN 978-1-68417-078-4 – via Google Books.
In the Han- Wusun alliance (unlike the Han- Xiongnu heqin agreements) the gifts flowed in the proper direction, ... Thus, while Empress Lü transgressed the heqin marriage in having a false princess sent, Liu Jing's original proposal ...
- ^ Chin, Tamara Ta Lun (2005). Savage Exchange: Figuring the Foreign in the Early Han Dynasty. University of California, Berkeley. pp. 66, 73, 74 – via Google Books.
Figuring the Foreign in the Early Han Dynasty Tamara Ta Lun Chin ... Emperor Han Wudi's military push to reverse the power relations between Xiongnu and Han stands in stark contrast to the original ... Xiongnu with a false princess.
- ^ Mosol, Lee (2013). Ancient History of the Manchuria. X libris Corporation. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4836-6767-6 – via Google Books.
... 孝文皇帝 sent a girl as a new wife for the Chanyu as a 'fake princess of Royal family' with a eunuch named '中行 ... The Han lured the Xiongnu chief deep into the China proper town called "馬邑," but Gunchen Chanyu realized the trap ...
- ^ Moorey, P. R. S. (Peter Roger Stuart); Markoe, Glenn (1981). Ancient bronzes, ceramics, and seals: The Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection of ancient Near Eastern, central Asiatic, and European art, gift of the Ahmanson Foundation. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art. p. 168, item 887. ISBN 978-0-87587-100-4.
- ^ "Belt Buckle LACMA Collections". collections.lacma.org.
- ^ a b Prior, Daniel (2016). "FASTENING THE BUCKLE: A STRAND OF XIONGNU-ERA NARRATIVE IN A RECENT KIRGHIZ EPIC POEM" (PDF). The Silk Road. 14: 191.
- ^ So, Jenny F.; Bunker, Emma C. (1995). Traders and raiders on China's northern frontier. Seattle : Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, in association with University of Washington Press. pp. 22, 90. ISBN 978-0-295-97473-6.
- ^ Francfort, Henri-Paul (2020). "Sur quelques vestiges et indices nouveaux de l'hellénisme dans les arts entre la Bactriane et le Gandhāra (130 av. J.-C.-100 apr. J.-C. environ)". Journal des Savants. 1. p. 37, Fig.16. doi:10.3406/jds.2020.6422.
"Bronze plaque from northwestern China or south central Interior Mongolia, wrestling Xiongnus, the horses have Xiongnu-type trappings" (French: "Plaque en bronze ajouré du nord-ouest de la Chine ou Mongolie intérieure méridionale centrale, Xiongnu luttant, les chevaux portent des harnachements de «type Xiongnu».")
- ^ di Cosmo, Nicola, Aristocratic elites in the Xiongnu empire, p. 31
- ^ Sima, Qian; Watson, Burton (January 1993). Records of the Grand Historian: Han dynasty. Renditions-Columbia University Press. pp. 161–. ISBN 978-0-231-08166-5 – via Google Books.
- ^ Monumenta Serica. H. Vetch. 2004. p. 81 – via Google Books.
- ^ Wakeman, Frederic E. (1985). The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-century China. University of California Press. pp. 41–. ISBN 978-0-520-04804-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ Sima, Qian (1993). Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty II. Columbia University Press. p. 128. ISBN 0-231-08167-7.
- ^ Lin Jianming (林剑鸣) (1992). 秦漢史 [History of Qin and Han]. Wunan Publishing. pp. 557–558. ISBN 978-957-11-0574-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ Hong, Yuan (2018). The Sinitic Civilization Book II: A Factual History Through the Lens of Archaeology, Bronzeware, Astronomy, Divination, Calendar and the Annals (abridged ed.). iUniversе. p. 419. ISBN 978-1-5320-5830-1.
- ^ a b Millward, James A. (2007). Eurasian crossroads: a history of Xinjiang. Columbia University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-231-13924-3. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ Lovell, Julia (2007). The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC – AD 2000. Grove Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-8021-4297-9. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ Andrea, Alfred J.; Overfield, James H. (1998). The Human Record: To 1700. Houghton Mifflin. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-395-87087-7. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ a b Zhang, Yiping (2005). Story of the Silk Road. China Intercontinental Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-7-5085-0832-0. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
- ^ a b Higham, Charles (2004). Encyclopedia of ancient Asian civilizations. Infobase Publishing. p. 409. ISBN 978-0-8160-4640-9. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ Indian Society for Prehistoric & Quaternary Studies (1998). Man and environment, Volume 23, Issue 1. Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies. p. 6. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ a b Mayor, Adrienne (22 September 2014). The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World. Princeton University Press. pp. 422–. ISBN 978-1-4008-6513-0 – via Google Books.
- ^ Veronika Veit, ed. (2007). The role of women in the Altaic world: Permanent International Altaistic Conference, 44th meeting, Walberberg, 26-31 August 2001. Asiatische Forschungen. Vol. 152 (illustrated ed.). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 61. ISBN 978-3-447-05537-6. Retrieved 2012-02-08 – via Google Books.
- ^ Drompp, Michael Robert (2005). Tang China and the collapse of the Uighur Empire: a documentary history. Brill's Inner Asian library. Vol. 13 (illustrated ed.). BRILL. p. 126. ISBN 90-04-14129-4. Retrieved 2012-02-08 – via Google Books.
- ^ Kyzlasov, Leonid R. (2010). The Urban Civilization of Northern and Innermost Asia Historical and Archaeological Research (PDF). Curatores seriei Victor Spinei et Ionel Candeâ VII. Romanian Academy Institute of Archaeology of Iaşi Editura Academiei Romane - Editura Istros. p. 245. ISBN 978-973-27-1962-6. Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque Antiqutatis et Medii Aevi.
- ^ Drompp, Michael (2021). Tang China and the Collapse of the Uighur Empire: A Documentary History. Brill's Inner Asian Library. BRILL. p. 126. ISBN 978-90-474-1478-0 – via Google Books.
- ^ Veit, Veronika (2007). The role of women in the Altaic world: Permanent International Altaistic Conference, 44th meeting, Walberberg, 26-31 August 2001. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. p. 61. ISBN 978-3-447-05537-6. OCLC 182731462.
- ^ Drompp, Michael R. (1999). "Breaking the Orkhon Tradition: Kirghiz Adherence to the Yenisei Region after A. D. 840". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 119 (3): 394–395. doi:10.2307/605932. JSTOR 605932.
- ^ Lovell, Julia (2007). The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC – AD 2000. Grove Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-8021-4297-9. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ Andrea, Alfred J.; Overfield, James H. (1998). The Human Record: To 1700. Houghton Mifflin. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-395-87087-7. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ Indian Society for Prehistoric & Quaternary Studies (1998). Man and environment, Volume 23, Issue 1. Indian Society for Prehistoric and Quaternary Studies. p. 6. Retrieved 2011-04-17 – via Google Books.
- ^ Grousset 1970, p. 34.
- ^ Loewe 1974, p. [page needed].
- ^ Qingbo, Duan (January 2023). "Sino-Western Cultural Exchange as Seen through the Archaeology of the First Emperor's Necropolis". Journal of Chinese History. 7 (1): 52. doi:10.1017/jch.2022.25. S2CID 251690411.
- ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, pp. 369–370.
- ^ For a frontal view: "Horse Stepping on a Xiongnu Soldier". en.chinaculture.org.
- ^ Han Shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju ed) 94B, p. 3824.
- ^ Bentley 1993, p. 37.
- ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, p. 370.
- ^ Grousset 1970, pp. 37–38.
- ^ Psarras, Sophia-Karin (2 February 2015). Han Material Culture: An Archaeological Analysis and Vessel Typology. Cambridge University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-316-27267-1 – via Google Books.
- ^ Fairbank & Têng 1941.
- ^ Bunker 2002, p. 104, item 72.
- ^ Grousset 1970, p. 39.
- ^ a b c d e De Crespigny, Rafe (1984). Northern frontier: the policies and strategy of the later Han Empire. Faculty of Asian Studies monographs. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-86784-410-8.
- ^ Grousset 1970, pp. 42–47.
- ^ Book of Wei Vol. 102 (in Chinese)
- ^ Gumilev L.N. "Ch. 15". История народа Хунну [History of Hun People] (in Russian). Moscow. Archived from the original on 2009-06-29.
- ^ Hyun Jim Kim (2015). "2 The So-called 'Two-Hundred year Interlude'". The Huns. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-34090-4.
- ^ Grousset 1970, p. 54.
- ^ Fang, Xuanling (1958). Jìnshū 晉書 [Book of Jin] (in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press. Vol. 97
- ^ a b Tang 2010, ch.〈魏晋杂胡考 一 屠各〉.
- ^ Grousset 1970, pp. 56–57.
- ^ Grousset 1970, pp. 57–58.
- ^ Tang 2010, ch.〈魏晋杂胡考 四 乌丸〉.
- ^ Sand-covered Hun City Unearthed, CN: China
- ^ National Geographic (online ed.)
- ^ Obrusánszky, Borbála (10 October 2006). "Hunok Kínában" [Huns in China] (PDF). Amsterdam Studies (in Hungarian) (3). ISSN 1873-3042. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-07-18. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
- ^ Zhou, Yiliang (June 1997). "〈北朝的民族問題與民族政策〉". 《魏晋南北朝史论集》 (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing University Press. ISBN 978-7-301-03191-9.
- ^ Tang 2010, ch.〈魏晋杂胡考 二 卢水胡〉.
- ^ Bell, Alexander Peter (2000). Didactic Narration: Jataka Iconography in Dunhuang with a Catalogue of Jataka Representations in China. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 107. ISBN 978-3-8258-5134-7.
- ^ Whitfield, Roderick; Whitfield, Susan; Agnew, Neville (15 September 2015). Cave Temples of Mogao at Dunhuang: Art History on the Silk Road: Second Edition. Getty Publications. p. 55. ISBN 978-1-60606-445-0.
- ^ Barfield 1989, p. [page needed].
- ^ a b c d e Lee, Juhyeon; Miller, Bryan K.; Bayarsaikhan, Jamsranjav; Johannesson, Erik; Ventresca Miller, Alicia; Warinner, Christina; Jeong, Choongwon (14 April 2023). "Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scales". Science Advances. 9 (15) eadf3904. Bibcode:2023SciA....9F3904L. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adf3904. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 10104459. PMID 37058560.
"In this genome-wide archaeogenetic study, we find high genetic heterogeneity among late Xiongnu-era individuals at two cemeteries located along the far western frontier of the Xiongnu empire and describe patterns of genetic diversity related to social status. Overall, we find that genetic heterogeneity is highest among lower-status individuals. In particular, the satellite graves surrounding the elite square tombs at TAK show extreme levels of genetic heterogeneity, suggesting that these individuals, who were likely low-ranking retainers, were drawn from diverse parts of the empire. In contrast, the highest-status individuals at the two sites tended to have lower genetic diversity and a high proportion of ancestry deriving from EIA Slab Grave groups, suggesting that these groups may have disproportionately contributed to the ruling elite during the formation of the Xiongnu empire." (...) "a chanyu, or ruler of the empire. Like the elite women at the western frontier, he also had very high eastern Eurasian ancestry (deriving 39.3 and 51.9% from SlabGrave1 and Han_2000BP, respectively, and the rest from Chandman_IA; data file S2C)" (...) "Chandman_IA was representative of people in far western Mongolia associated with Sagly/Uyuk (ca. 500 to 200 BCE), Saka (ca. 900 to 200 BCE), and Pazyryk (ca. 500 to 200 BCE) groups in Siberia and Kazakhstan." (...) "This further suggests the existence of an aristocracy in the Xiongnu empire, that elite status and power was concentrated within specific subsets of the broader population."... Although not conclusive, this suggests that the ANA ancestry source of the Xiongnu-period individuals may not be exclusively traced back to the Slab Grave culture but may also include nearby groups with a similar ANA genetic profile, such as the Xianbei. ... Last, our findings also confirm that the highest-status individuals in this study were females, supporting previous observations that Xiongnu women played an especially prominent role in the expansion and integration of new territories along the empire's frontier.
- ^ Kim, Hyun Jin (29 March 2017), "The Xiongnu", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.50, ISBN 978-0-19-027772-7, retrieved 2024-02-29,
There is thus no scholarly consensus on the language that was spoken by the Xiongnu elite
- ^ Betts, Alison; Vicziany, Marika; Jia, Peter Weiming; Castro, Angelo Andrea Di (19 December 2019). The Cultures of Ancient Xinjiang, Western China: Crossroads of the Silk Roads. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-78969-407-9.
In Noin-Ula (Noyon Uul), Mongolia, the remarkable elite Xiongnu tombs have revealed textiles that are linked to the pictorial tradition of the Yuezhi: the decorative faces closely resemble the Khalchayan portraits, while the local ornaments have integrated elements of Graeco-Roman design. These artifacts were most probably manufactured in Bactria
- ^ Francfort, Henri-Paul (1 January 2020). "Sur quelques vestiges et indices nouveaux de l'hellénisme dans les arts entre la Bactriane et le Gandhāra (130 av. J.-C.-100 apr. J.-C. environ)" [On some vestiges and new indications of Hellenism in the arts between Bactria and Gandhāra (130 BC-100 AD approximately)]. Journal des Savants (in French): 26–27, Fig.8 "Portrait royal diadémé Yuezhi" ("Diademed royal portrait of a Yuezhi").
- ^ Polos'mak, Natalia V.; Francfort, Henri-Paul; Tsepova, Olga (2015). "Nouvelles découvertes de tentures polychromes brodées du début de notre ère dans les "tumuli" n o 20 et n o 31 de Noin-Ula (République de Mongolie)". Arts Asiatiques. 70: 3–32. doi:10.3406/arasi.2015.1881. ISSN 0004-3958. JSTOR 26358181.
Considered as Yuezhi-Saka or simply Yuezhi, and p.3: "These tapestries were apparently manufactured in Bactria or in Gandhara at the time of the Saka-Yuezhi rule, when these countries were connected with the Parthian empire and the "Hellenized East." They represent groups of men, warriors of high status, and kings and/ or princes, performing rituals of drinking, fighting or taking part in a religious ceremony, a procession leading to an altar with a fire burning on it, and two men engaged in a ritual."
- ^ Nehru, Lolita (14 December 2020). "KHALCHAYAN". Encyclopaedia Iranica Online. Brill.
About "Khalchayan", "site of a settlement and palace of the nomad Yuezhi": "Representations of figures with faces closely akin to those of the ruling clan at Khalchayan (PLATE I) have been found in recent times on woollen fragments recovered from a nomad burial site near Lake Baikal in Siberia, Noin Ula, supplementing an earlier discovery at the same site), the pieces dating from the time of Yuezhi/Kushan control of Bactria. Similar faces appeared on woollen fragments found recently in a nomad burial in south-eastern Xinjiang (Sampula), of about the same date, manufactured probably in Bactria, as were probably also the examples from Noin Ula."
- ^ Neumann, Iver B.; Wigen, Einar (19 July 2018). The Steppe Tradition in International Relations: Russians, Turks and European State Building 4000 BCE–2017 CE. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-108-42079-2 – via Google Books.
While most scholars hold the Xiongnu to have originally had a leadership from a Sogdian kinship line, Kim (2023: 28-29) argues that during their migration west, they seem to have undergone a transformation from having had a Yeniseian leadership, which ruled over various Iranic, Alanic and Turko-Mongol to developing a Turkic royal line.
- ^ Beckwith 2009, p. 405: "Accordingly, the transcription now read as Hsiung- nu may have been pronounced * Soγdâ, * Soγlâ, * Sak(a)dâ, or even * Skla(C)da, etc."
- ^ a b c d Savelyev, Alexander; Jeong, Choongwoon (7 May 2020). "Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2 (E20) e20. doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.18. hdl:21.11116/0000-0007-772B-4. PMC 7612788. PMID 35663512. S2CID 218935871.
Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. "Such a distribution of Xiongnu words may be an indication that both Turkic and Eastern Iranian-speaking groups were present among the Xiongnu in the earlier period of their history. Etymological analysis shows that some crucial components in the Xiongnu political, economic and cultural package, including dairy pastoralism and elements of state organization, may have been imported by the Eastern Iranians. Arguably, these Iranian-speaking groups were assimilated over time by the predominant Turkic-speaking part of the Xiongnu population. ... The genetic profile of published Xiongnu individuals speaks against the Yeniseian hypothesis, assuming that modern Yeniseian speakers (i.e. Kets) are representative of the ancestry components in the historical Yeniseian speaking groups in southern Siberia. In contrast to the Iron Age populations listed in Table 2, Kets do not have the Iranian-related ancestry component but harbour a strong genetic affinity with Samoyedic-speaking neighbours, such as Selkups (Jeong et al., 2018, 2019)."
- ^ a b Bunker 2002, p. 29.
- ^ a b "Metropolitan Museum of Art". www.metmuseum.org.
- ^ Jin Kim, Hyun (November 2015). The Huns. Taylor & Francis. pp. 6–17. ISBN 978-1-317-34090-4 – via Google Books.
- ^ a b Di Cosmo 2004, p. 164.
- ^ a b c Vovin, Alexander. "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language? Part 2: Vocabulary". Academia.
- ^ Georg, Stefan (22 March 2007). A Descriptive Grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak): Part 1: Introduction, Phonology and Morphology. Global Oriental. p. 16. ISBN 978-90-04-21350-0 – via Google Books.
- ^ Vovin, Alexander (2007). "ONCE AGAIN ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE TITLE qaγan". Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia. 12. Kraków. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
- ^ Xumeng, Sun (14 September 2020). Identifying the Huns and the Xiongnu (or Not): Multi-Faceted Implications and Difficulties (PDF). PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository (Thesis).
- ^ Wilson, Joseph A. P. (21 July 2023). "Late Holocene Technology Words in Proto-Athabaskan: Implications for Dene-Yeniseian Culture History". Humans. 3 (3): 177–192. doi:10.3390/humans3030015. ISSN 2673-9461.
- ^ Bonmann, Svenja; Fries, Simon (2025). "Linguistic Evidence Suggests that Xiōng-nú and Huns Spoke the Same Paleo-Siberian Language". Transactions of the Philological Society. doi:10.1111/1467-968X.12321. ISSN 1467-968X.
- ^ "Metropolitan Museum of Art". www.metmuseum.org.
- ^ Bunker 2002, p. 137, item 109.
- ^ Wink 2002, pp. 60–61.
- ^ Craig Benjamin (2007, 49), In: Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe. Cambridge University Press. 2013. page 176.
- ^ Linghu Defen et al., Zhoushu, vol. 50 quote: "突厥者,蓋匈奴之別種,姓阿史那氏。"
- ^ Beishi "vol. 99 - section Tujue" quote: "突厥者,其先居西海之右,獨為部落,蓋匈奴之別種也。" translation: "The Tujue, their ancestors dwelt on the right bank of the Western Sea; a lone tribe, probably a separate branch of the Xiongnu"
- ^ Golden, Peter B. (August 2018). "The Ethnogonic Tales of the Türks". The Medieval History Journal, 21 (2): p. 298 of 291–327, fn. 36. quote: "'Western Sea' (xi hai 西海) has many possible meanings designating different bodies of water from the Mediterranean, Caspian and Aral Seas to Kuku-nor. In the Sui era (581–618) it was viewed as being near Byzantium (Sinor, 'Legendary Origin': 226). Taşağıl, Gök-Türkler, vol. 1: 95, n. 553 identifies it with Etsin-Gol, which is more likely."
- ^ a b Du You, Tongdian vol. 197 quote: "突厥之先,平涼今平涼郡雜胡也,蓋匈奴之別種,姓阿史那氏。"
- ^ Xin Tangshu, vol. 215A. "突厥阿史那氏, 蓋古匈奴北部也." "The Ashina family of the Turk probably were the northern tribes of the ancient Xiongnu." quoted and translated in Xu (2005), Historical Development of the Pre-Dynastic Khitan, University of Helsinki, 2005
- ^ Wei Zheng et al., Suishu, vol. 84 quote: "突厥之先,平涼雜胡也,姓阿史那氏。"
- ^ Zhoushu, "vol. 50" "或云突厥之先出於索國,在匈奴之北。"
- ^ Beishi "vol. 99 - section Tujue" quote: "又曰突厥之先,出於索國,在匈奴之北。"
- ^ a b Golden 1992, p. 155.
- ^ Wei Shou et al., Book of Wei vol. 103 - section Gaoche quote: "高車,蓋古赤狄之餘種也,初號為狄歷,北方以為勑勒,諸夏以為高車、丁零。其語略與匈奴同而時有小異,或云其先匈奴之甥也。其種有狄氏、袁紇氏、斛律氏、解批氏、護骨氏、異奇斤氏。" translation: "The Gaoche are probably remnants of the ancient Red Di. Initially they had been called Dili. Northerners consider them Chile. The various Xia (aka Chinese) consider them Gaoche Dingling (High-Cart Dingling). Their language, in brief, and Xiongnu [language] are the same yet occasionally there are small differences. Some say that they [Gaoche] are the sororal nephews/sons-in-laws of the Xiongnu of yore. Their tribes (種) are Di, Yuanhe (aka Uyghurs), Hulu, Jiepi, Hugu, Yiqijin."
- ^ Xin Tangshu vol 217A - Huihu quote: "回紇,其先匈奴也,俗多乘高輪車,元魏時亦號高車部,或曰敕勒,訛為鐵勒。" translation: "Huihe, their ancestors were the Xiongnu; because they customarily drove carts with high-wheels and many spokes, in Yuan Wei's they were also called Gaoche (High-Cart), or also called Chile, mistakenly rendered as Tiele."
- ^ Weishu, "vol. 102 Wusun, Shule, & Yueban" quote: "悅般國,…… 其先,匈奴北單于之部落也。…… 其風俗言語與高車同"
- ^ Jinshu vol. 97 Four Barbarians - Xiongnu"
- ^ Yuanhe Maps and Records of Prefectures and Counties vol. 4 quote: "北人呼駮馬為賀蘭"
- ^ Du You. Tongdian. Vol. 200. "突厥謂駮馬為曷剌,亦名曷剌國。"
- ^ a b Lee, Joo-Yup (2016). "The Historical Meaning of the Term Turk and the Nature of the Turkic Identity of the Chinggisid and Timurid Elites in Post-Mongol Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal. 59 (1–2): 105.
- ^ "Belt Buckle LACMA Collections". collections.lacma.org.
- ^ Bunker 2002, pp. 30, 110, item 81.
- ^ So, Jenny F.; Bunker, Emma C. (1995). Traders and raiders on China's northern frontier: 19 November 1995 - 2 September 1996, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (PDF). Seattle: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Inst. [u.a.] pp. 90–91, item 2. ISBN 978-0-295-97473-6.
- ^ Ts. Baasansuren "The scholar who showed the true Mongolia to the world", Summer 2010 vol.6 (14) Mongolica, pp.40
- ^ Sinor, Denis (1990). Aspects of Altaic Civilization III. p. [page needed].
- ^ N.Bichurin "Collection of information on the peoples who inhabited Central Asia in ancient times", 1950, p. 227
- ^ Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2000). "Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity", Early China. p. 20
- ^ Wei Shou. Book of Wei. vol. 91 "蠕蠕,東胡之苗裔也,姓郁久閭氏" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"
- ^ Liangshu Vol. 54 txt: "芮芮國,蓋匈奴別種。" tr: "Ruìruì state, possibly a Xiongnu's separate branch"
- ^ Golden, Peter B. "Some Notes on the Avars and Rouran", in The Steppe Lands and the World beyond Them. Ed. Curta, Maleon. Iași (2013). pp. 54-55
- ^ Liu Xu et al. Old Book of Tang "vol. 199 section: Shiwei"
- ^ a b Xu Elina-Qian (2005). Historical Development of the Pre-Dynastic Khitan. University of Helsinki. p. 173-178
- ^ Xu Elina-Qian (2005). Historical Development of the Pre-Dynastic Khitan. University of Helsinki. p. 99. quote: "According to Gai Zhiyong's study, Jishou is identical with Qishou, the earliest ancestor of the Khitan; and Shihuai is identical to Tanshihuai, the Xianbei supreme chief in the period of the Eastern Han (25-220). Therefore, from the sentence "His ancestor was Jish[ou] who was derived from Shihuai" in the above inscription, it can be simply seen that the Khitan originated from the Xianbei. Since the excavated inscription on memorial tablet can be regarded as a firsthand historical source, this piece of information is quite reliable."
- ^ Xue Juzheng et al. Old History of the Five Dynasties vol. 137 quote: "契丹者,古匈奴之種也。" translation: "The Khitans, a kind of Xiongnu of yore."
- ^ Schönig, Claus. (27 January 2006) "Turko-Mongolic relations" in Janhunen (ed.) The Mongolic Languages. Routledge. p. 393.
- ^ Shimunek, Andrew. "Early Serbi-Mongolic-Tungusic lexical contact: Jurchen numerals from the 室韦 Shirwi (Shih-wei) in North China". Philology of the Grasslands: Essays in Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic Studies, Edited by Ákos Bertalan Apatóczky et al. (Leiden: Brill). Retrieved 22 September 2019. quote: "Asdemonstrated by Ratchnevsky (1966: 231), the Shirwi confederation was a multiethnic, multilingual confederation of Tungusic-speaking Mo-ho 靺鞨 people (i.e. ancestors of the Jurchen), the Meng-wa 蒙瓦 ~ Meng-wu 蒙兀, whom Pelliot (1928) and others have shown were Proto-Mongolic speakers, and other groups. The dominant group among the Shirwi undoubtedly were ethnolinguistic descendants of the Serbi (鮮卑 Hsien-pei), and spoke a language closely related to Kitan and more distantly related to Mongolic."
- ^ Shiji "vol. 110: Account of the Xiongnu" quote: "東胡初輕冒頓,不爲備。及冒頓以兵至,擊,大破滅東胡王,而虜其民人及畜產。" translation: "Initially the Donghu despised Modun and were unprepared. So Modun arrived with his troops, attacked, routed [the Donghu] and killed Donghu king; then [Modun] captured his people as well as livestock."
- ^ Book of Later Han. "Vol. 90 section Xianbei". text: "鮮卑者, 亦東胡之支也, 别依鮮卑山, 故因為號焉. 漢初, 亦為冒頓所破, 遠竄遼東塞." Xu (2005:24)'s translation: "The Xianbei who were a branch of the Donghu, relied upon the Xianbei Mountains. Therefore, they were called the Xianbei. At the beginning of the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), (they) were defeated by Maodun, and then fled in disorder to Liaodong beyond the northern border of China Proper"
- ^ Xu Elina-Qian (2005). Historical Development of the Pre-Dynastic Khitan. University of Helsinki. p. 24-25
- ^ Howorth, Henry H. (Henry Hoyle). History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th century. London : Longmans, Green – via Internet Archive.
- ^ "Sun and Moon" (JPG). depts.washington.edu.
- ^ "Xiongnu Archaeology". depts.washington.edu.
- ^ Elite Xiongnu Burials at the Periphery (Miller et al. 2009)
- ^ a b c d Jeong, Choongwon; Wang, Ke; Wilkin, Shevan; Taylor, William Timothy Treal; Miller, Bryan K.; Bemmann, Jan H.; Stahl, Raphaela; Chiovelli, Chelsea; Knolle, Florian; Ulziibayar, Sodnom; Khatanbaatar, Dorjpurev (12 November 2020). "A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia's Eastern Steppe". Cell. 183 (4): 890–904.e29. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 7664836. PMID 33157037.
Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- ^ Di Cosmo 2004, p. 165.
- ^ Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe. ISBN 978-1-107-00906-6. Cambridge University Press. 2013. page 31.
- ^ Linghu Defen et al., Book of Zhou, Vol. 50. (in Chinese)
- ^ Li Yanshou (李延寿), History of the Northern Dynasties, Vol. 99. (in Chinese)
- ^ Christian 1998, p. 249.
- ^ Wei Zheng et al., Book of Sui, Vol. 84. (in Chinese)
- ^ Du, You (1988). 辺防13 北狄4 突厥上. 《通典》 [Tongdian] (in Simplified Chinese). Vol. 197. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. p. 5401. ISBN 978-7-101-00258-4.
- ^ "Об эт нической принадлежности Хунну". rudocs.exdat.com. Archived from the original on 2018-09-14. Retrieved 2014-06-21.
- ^ Jenkins, Romilly James Heald (1967). De Administrando Imperio by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae (New, revised ed.). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-88402-021-9. Retrieved 2013-08-28. According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing in his De Administrando Imperio (ca. 950 AD) "Patzinakia, the Pecheneg realm, stretches west as far as the Siret River (or even the Eastern Carpathian Mountains), and is four days distant from Tourkia (i.e. Hungary)."
- ^ Günter Prinzing; Maciej Salamon (1999). Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453: Beiträge zu einer table-ronde des XIX. International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Copenhagen 1996. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 46. ISBN 978-3-447-04146-1. Retrieved 2013-02-09.
- ^ Henry Hoyle Howorth (2008). History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century: The So-called Tartars of Russia and Central Asia. Cosimo, Inc. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-60520-134-4. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
- ^ Sinor (1990)
- ^ Nabijan Tursun (5 July 2023). "The Formation of Modern Uyghur Historiography and Competing Perspectives toward Uyghur History". The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly. 6 (3): 87–100.
- ^ James A. Millward & Peter C. Perdue (2004). "Chapter 2: Political and Cultural History of the Xinjiang Region through the Late Nineteenth Century". In S. Frederick Starr (ed.). Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-7656-1318-9.
- ^ Susan J. Henders (2006). Susan J. Henders (ed.). Democratization and Identity: Regimes and Ethnicity in East and Southeast Asia. Lexington Books. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-7391-0767-6. Retrieved 2011-09-09.
- ^ Reed, J. Todd; Raschke, Diana (2010). The ETIM: China's Islamic Militants and the Global Terrorist Threat. ABC-CLIO. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-313-36540-9.
- ^ Cho Gab-je (5 March 2004). 騎馬흉노국가 新羅 연구 趙甲濟(月刊朝鮮 편집장)의 심층취재 내 몸속을 흐르는 흉노의 피 (in Korean). Monthly Chosun. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
- ^ 김운회 (30 August 2005). 김운회의 '대쥬신을 찾아서' <23> 금관의 나라, 신라" (in Korean). 프레시안. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
- ^ 경주 사천왕사(寺) 사천왕상(四天王像) 왜 4개가 아니라 3개일까 (in Korean). 조선일보. 27 February 2009. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
- ^ 김창호, 〈문무왕릉비에 보이는 신라인의 조상인식 – 태조성한의 첨보 -〉, 《한국사연구》, 한국사연구회, 1986년
- ^ 자료검색>상세_기사 | 국립중앙도서관. www.nl.go.kr (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2019-04-15.
- ^ Honeychurch, William. "Thinking Political Communities: The State and Social Stratification among Ancient Nomads of Mongolia". The Anthropological Study of Class and Consciousness: 47.
- ^ Maenchen-Helfen 1973, pp. 370–371.
- ^ Lebedynsky, Yaroslav (2007). Les nomades. Éditions Errance. p. 125. ISBN 978-2-87772-346-6.
Europoid faces in some depictions of the Ordos, which should be attributed to a Scythian affinity
- ^ Camilla Trever, "Excavations in Northern Mongolia (1924–1925)", Leningrad: J. Fedorov Printing House, 1932 [1]
- ^ The Great Empires of the Ancient World – Thomas Harrison – 2009 – page 288
- ^ Psarras 2003, p. 69.
- ^ "Hermitage Museum".
- ^ A. V. Davydova, Ivolginskii arkheologicheskii kompleks II. Ivolginskii mogil'nik. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Siunnu 2 (Sankt-Peterburg 1996). А. В. Давыдова, Иволгинский археологи-ческий комплекс II. Иволгинский могильник. Археологические памятники Сюнну 2 (Санкт-Петербург 1996).
- ^ S. S. Miniaev, Dyrestuiskii mogil'nik. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Siunnu 3 (Sankt-Peterburg 1998). С. С. Миняев, Дырестуйский могильник. Археологические памятники Сюнну 3 (Санкт-Петербург 1998).
- ^ Ts. Törbat, Keramika khunnskogo mogil'nika Burkhan-Tolgoi. Erdem shinzhilgeenii bichig. Arkheologi, antropologi, ugsaatan sudlal 19,2003, 82–100. Ц. Тѳрбат, Керамика хуннского могильника Бурхан-Толгой. Эрдэм шинжилгээний бичиг. Археологи, антропологи, угсаатан судлал 19, 2003, 82–100.
- ^ Ts. Törbat, Tamiryn Ulaan khoshuuny bulsh ba Khünnügiin ugsaatny büreldekhüünii asuudald. Tükhiin setgüül 4, 2003, 6–17. Ц. Төрбат, Тамирын Улаан хошууны булш ба Хүннүгийн угсаатны бүрэлдэхүүний асуудалд. Түүхийн сэтгүүл 4, 2003, 6–17.
- ^ Ningxia Cultural Relics and Archaeology Research Institute (寧夏文物考古研究所); Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Archaeology Institute Ningxia Archaeology Group; Tongxin County Cultural Relics Administration (同心縣文物管理所) (1988). 寧夏同心倒墩子匈奴墓地. 考古學報 [Archaeology Journal] (in Chinese) (3): 333–356.
- ^ Miller, Bryan (2011). Bemmann, Jan (ed.). Xiongnu Archaeology. Bonn: Vor- und Fruhgeschichtliche Archaeologie Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn. ISBN 978-3-936490-14-5. Archived from the original on 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- ^ Lai, Guolong. "The Date of the TLV Mirrors from the Xiongnu Tombs" (PDF). The Silk Road. 4 (1): 34–43.
- ^ Miller, Bryan (2011). Jan Bemmann (ed.). Xiongnu Archaeology. Bonn: Vor- und Fruhgeschichtliche Archaologie Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn. p. 23. ISBN 978-3-936490-14-5. Archived from the original on 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- ^ Miller, Bryan (2011). Bemmann, Jan (ed.). Xiongnu Archaeology. Bonn: Vor- und Fruhgeschichtliche Archaologie Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn. p. 24. ISBN 978-3-936490-14-5. Archived from the original on 2013-07-29. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
- ^ Lee, Joo-Yup; Kuang, Shuntu (2017). "A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and Y-DNA Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples". Inner Asia. 19 (2): 197–239. doi:10.1163/22105018-12340089. ISSN 1464-8172. S2CID 165623743. "Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA, which is maternally inherited, shows that the Xiongnu remains from this Egyin Gol necropolis consist mainly of Asian lineages (89%). West Eurasian lineages makeup the rest (11%) (Keyser-Tracqui et al. (2003: 258). However, according to a more recent study of ancient human remains from central Mongolia, the Xiongnu population in cen- tral Mongolia possessed a higher frequency of western mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (37.5%) than the Xiongnu from the Egyin Gol necropolis (Rogers 2016: 78)."
- ^ Rogers, Leland Liu; Kaestle, Frederika Ann (2022). "Analysis of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup frequencies in the population of the slab burial mortuary culture of Mongolia (ca. 1100–300 BCE )". American Journal of Biological Anthropology. 177 (4): 644–657. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24478. ISSN 2692-7691. S2CID 246508594. " The first pattern is that the slab burial mtDNA frequencies are extremely similar to those of the aggregated Xiongnu populations and relatively similar to those of the various Bronze Age Mongolian populations, strongly supporting a population continuity hypothesis for the region over these time periods (Honeychurch, 2013)"
- ^ Damgaard et al. 2018, Supplementary Table 8, Rows 87-88, 94-96.
- ^ Kim et al. 2010, p. 429
- ^ Rogers & Kaestle 2022:"While during the slab burial period (ca.1100–300 BCE) eastern patrilines seem to have been dominant, in the Xiongnu period about half of the population had western patrilines with virtually no change to the mtDNA gene pool in east–west terms. If sex bias migration patterns were similar with those found in Europe, this increase of western patrilines would be consistent with aggressive expansion of people with western male ancestry (Batini et al., 2017); however, such a pattern could also be due to a gradual nonaggressive assimilation, such as the practice of marriage alliances associated with an expansion of trade or cultural networks that favored people with western patrilines (Honeychurch, 2013)."
- ^ Kang, L. L.; Jin, T.; Wu, F.; Ao, X.; Wen, S.; Wang, C.; Huang, Y.; Li, X.; Li, H. Y (2013). Y chromosomes of ancient Hunnu people and its implication on the phylogeny of East Asian linguistic families. ASHG 63rd Annual Meeting 22–26 October 2013: Boston. Vol. 2041. American Society of Human Genetics. (Poster abstracts p. 235; 2041F)
- ^ Ren Meng; Wang Jian Xin (2011). "Knowing the Xiongnu Culture in Eastern Tianshan Mountain from Tomb Heigouliang and Dongheigou Site at the Beginning of Xihan Dynasty". Xibu Kaogu: 252–290. (Journal: 西部考古 Xibu kaogu [Archaeology of the western regions])
- ^ Damgaard et al. 2018, Supplementary Table 9, Rows 20-23.
- ^ Jeong, Choongwon; Wang, Ke; Wilkin, Shevan; Erdene, Myagmar; Hendy, Jessica; Warinner, Christina (2020). "A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia's Eastern Steppe". Cell. 183 (4): 890–904. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015. hdl:21.11116/0000-0007-77BF-D. PMC 7664836. PMID 33157037.
- ^ Lee, Joo-Yup; Kuang, Shuntu (18 October 2017). "A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and y-dna Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples". Inner Asia. 19 (2): 197–239. doi:10.1163/22105018-12340089. ISSN 2210-5018.
- ^ Kim et al. 2010, p. 429
- ^ Keyser, C.; Zvénigorosky, V.; et al. (2020). "Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia" (PDF). Human Genetics. 140 (2): 349–359. doi:10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4. PMID 32734383. S2CID 220881540.
- ^ Foundation, Kyrgyz American (17 October 2024). "The Huns in Scandinavia: A New Approach Centered Around Modern DNA - Karl O. Högström". Kyrgyz American. Retrieved 2025-11-06.
- ^ Högström, Karl O. (9 September 2024). "The Huns in Scandinavia: A new approach centered around modern DNA". Reconstructing the Past: Journal of Historical Studies. doi:10.54414/XNAJ8079.
- ^ Keyser-Tracqui et al. 2006, p. 272.
- ^ Damgaard et al. 2018, Supplementary Table 2, Rows 28-32.
- ^ Damgaard et al. 2018, pp. 371–374: "Principal Component Analyses and D-statistics suggest that the Xiongnu individuals belong to two distinct groups, one being of East Asian origin and the other presenting considerable admixture levels with West Eurasian sources... We find that Central Sakas are accepted as a source for these 'western-admixed' Xiongnu in a single-wave model. In line with this finding, no East Asian gene flow is detected compared to Central Sakas as these form a clade with respect to the East Asian Xiongnu in a D-statistic, and furthermore, cluster closely together in the PCA (Figure 2)... Overall, our data show that the Xiongnu confederation was genetically heterogeneous, and that the Huns emerged following minor male-driven East Asian gene flow into the preceding Sakas that they invaded... As such our results support the contention that the disappearance of the Inner Asian Scythians and Sakas around two thousand years ago was a cultural transition that coincided with the westward migration of the Xiongnu. This Xiongnu invasion also led to the displacement of isolated remnant groups—related to Late Bronze Age pastoralists—that had remained on the south-eastern side of the Tian Shan mountains."
- ^ Maróti, Zoltán; Neparáczki, Endre; Schütz, Oszkár (25 May 2022). "The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians". Current Biology. 32 (13): 2858–2870.e7. Bibcode:2022CBio...32E2858M. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.04.093. PMID 35617951. S2CID 249050620.
- ^ Jeong, Choongwon (12 November 2020). "A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia's Eastern Steppe". Cell. 183 (4): 890–904.e29. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 7664836. PMID 33157037.
The Xiongnu emerged from the mixing of these populations and those from surrounding regions. By comparison, the Mongols exhibit much higher eastern Eurasian ancestry, resembling present-day Mongolic-speaking populations.
- ^ Lee, Juhyeon; Sato, Takehiro; Tajima, Atsushi; Amgalantugs, Tsend; Tsogtbaatar, Batmunkh; Nakagome, Shigeki; Miyake, Toshihiko; Shiraishi, Noriyuki; Jeong, Choongwon; Gakuhari, Takashi (1 March 2024). "Medieval genomes from eastern Mongolia share a stable genetic profile over a millennium". Human Population Genetics and Genomics. 4 (1): 1–11. doi:10.47248/hpgg2404010004. ISSN 2770-5005.
- ^ "Metropolitan Museum of Art". www.metmuseum.org.
- ^ Bunker 2002, p. 136.
- ^ Bunker 2002, p. 30.
- ^ Bunker 2002, pp. 29, 101; item 68.
- ^ Bunker 2002, p. 100, item 67.
- ^ a b c d e Psarras 2003, p. [page needed].
- ^ a b Psarras 2003, pp. 102–103.
- ^ Ishjamts 1996, p. 166, Fig 5.
- ^ Demattè 2006.
- ^ Ishjamts 1996, p. 166, Fig 6.
- ^ Book of Han, Vol. 94-I, 匈奴謂天為「撐犁」,謂子為「孤塗」,單于者,廣大之貌也.
- ^ Александр Берзин, Тибетский буддизм: история и перспективы развития, M., 1992 (Alexandr Berzin, Tibetan Buddhism: History and Future Prospects, Moscow 1992; Буддизм, Л. Л. Абаева, М., Республика, 1991 (Buddhism, L.L. Abaeva, Respublika, Moscow 1991)
Sources
[edit]Primary sources
[edit]- Ban Gu et al., Book of Han, esp. vol. 94, part 1, part 2.
- Fan Ye et al., Book of the Later Han, esp. vol. 89.
- Sima Qian et al., Records of the Grand Historian, esp. vol. 110.
Other sources consulted
[edit]- Adas, Michael (2001). Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History. American Historical Association/Temple University Press.
- Bailey, Harold W. (1985). Indo-Scythian Studies: being Khotanese Texts, VII. Cambridge University Press. JSTOR 312539. Retrieved 2015-05-30.
- Barfield, Thomas J. (1989). The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Basil Blackwell.
- Beckwith, Christopher I. (16 March 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. Retrieved 2015-05-30.
- Bentley, Jerry (1993). Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Bunker, Emma C. (2002). Nomadic Art of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes: The Eugene V. Thaw and Other Notable New York Collections. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 978-0-300-09688-0. OCLC 819761397 – via Internet Archive. ("Via Metropolitan Museum of Art Libraries". Archived from the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2021-12-27.)
- Christian, David (1998). A history of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia, Vol. 1: Inner Eurasia from prehistory to the Mongol Empire. Blackwell.
- Damgaard, P. B.; et al. (9 May 2018). "137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes". Nature. 557 (7705). Nature Research: 369–373. Bibcode:2018Natur.557..369D. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0094-2. hdl:1887/3202709. PMID 29743675. S2CID 13670282. Retrieved 2020-04-11.
- Demattè, Paola (2006). "Writing the Landscape: Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia Province (China)". In David L. Peterson; et al. (eds.). Beyond the steppe and the sown: proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology. Colloquia Pontica: series on the archaeology and ancient history of the Black Sea area. Vol. 13. Brill. pp. 300–313. (Proceedings of the First International Conference of Eurasian Archaeology, University of Chicago, 3–4 May 2002.)
- Di Cosmo, Nicola (1999). "The Northern Frontier in Pre-Imperial China". In Michael Loewe and Edward Shaughnessy (eds.). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press.
- Di Cosmo, Nicola (2002). Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press. (original edition)
- Di Cosmo, Nicola (2004). Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press. (First paperback edition)
- Fairbank, J.K.; Têng, S.Y. (1941). "On the Ch'ing Tributary System". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. 6 (2): 135–246. doi:10.2307/2718006. JSTOR 2718006.
- Geng, Shimin [耿世民] (2005). 阿尔泰共同语、匈奴语探讨 [On Altaic Common Language and Xiongnu Language]. Yu Yan Yu Fan Yi 语言与翻译(汉文版) [Language and Translation] (2). ISSN 1001-0823. OCLC 123501525. Archived from the original on 2012-02-25.
- Golden, Peter B. (1992). "Chapter VI – The Uyğur Qağante (742–840)". An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. O. Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-03274-2.
- Grousset, Rene (1970). The Empire of the Steppes. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-1304-1.
- Hall, Mark & Minyaev, Sergey. Chemical Analyses of Xiong-nu Pottery: A Preliminary Study of Exchange and Trade on the Inner Asian Steppes. In: Journal of Archaeological Science (2002) 29, pp. 135–144
- Harmatta, János (1 January 1994). "Conclusion". In Harmatta, János (ed.). History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations, 700 B. C. to A. D. 250. UNESCO. pp. 485–492. ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
- Harmatta, János (1992). "The Emergence of the Indo-Iranians: The Indo-Iranian Languages". In Dani, A. H.; Masson, V. M. (eds.). History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 B. C. (PDF). UNESCO. pp. 346–370. ISBN 978-92-3-102719-2. Retrieved 2015-05-29.
- Hucker, Charles O. (1975). China's Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese History and Culture. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2353-2.
The proto-Turkic Hsiung-nu were now challenged by other alien groups — proto-Tibetans, proto-Mongol tribes called the Hsien-pi, and separate proto-Turks called To-pa (Toba).
- Ishjamts, N. (1996). "Nomads In Eastern Central Asia". In Janos Harmatta; et al. (eds.). History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume 2: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations, 700 bc to ad 250. UNESCO. pp. 151–170. ISBN 92-3-102846-4. OCLC 928730707.
- Jankowski, Henryk [in Polish] (2006). Historical-Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Russian Habitation Names of the Crimea. Handbuch der Orientalistik [HdO], 8: Central Asia; 15. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-15433-9.
- Keyser-Tracqui, Christine; et al. (October 2006). "Population origins in Mongolia: genetic structure analysis of ancient and modern DNA". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 131 (2). American Association of Physical Anthropologists: 272–281. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20429. PMID 16596591.
- Kim, Kijeong; et al. (July 2010). "A western Eurasian male is found in 2000-year-old elite Xiongnu cemetery in Northeast Mongolia". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 142 (3). American Association of Physical Anthropologists: 429–440. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21242. PMID 20091844.
- Loewe, Michael (1974). "The campaigns of Han Wu-ti". In Kierman, Frank A. Jr.; Fairbank, John K. (eds.). Chinese ways in warfare. Harvard Univ. Press.
- Maenchen-Helfen, Otto (1973). The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture (1st ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-01596-7. LCCN 79094985. OCLC 801712. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
- Pearce, Scott (2023). Northern Wei (386-534): A New Form of Empire in East Asia. Oxford University Press.
- Psarras, Sophia-Karin (2003). "Han and Xiongnu: A Reexamination of Cultural and Political Relations". Monumenta Serica. 51: 55–236. doi:10.1080/02549948.2003.11731391. JSTOR 40727370. S2CID 156676644.
- Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1994). "Ji Hu: Indigenous Inhabitants of Shaanbei and Western Shanxi". Opuscula Altaica: Essays Presented in Honor of Henry Schwarz. 19: 499–531.
- Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2000). "Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity" (PDF). Early China. 25 (25): 1–27. doi:10.1017/S0362502800004259. S2CID 162159081. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-11-18. Retrieved 2017-12-01.
- Schuessler, Axel (2014). "Phonological Notes on Hàn Period Transcriptions of Foreign Names and Words" (PDF). Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Dialect, Phonology, Transcription and Text. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series (53). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-06-07. Retrieved 2021-12-27.
- State Hermitage Museum (2007). "Prehistoric Art - Early Nomads of the Altaic Region". The Hermitage Museum. Archived from the original on 2007-06-22. Retrieved 2007-07-31.
- Tang, Changru (December 2010). 《魏晋南北朝史论丛》 (in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press. ISBN 978-7-100-07451-3. Chapters:
- 〈魏晋杂胡考 一 屠各〉
- 〈魏晋杂胡考 四 乌丸〉
- 〈魏晋杂胡考 二 卢水胡〉
- Whitehouse, Ruth, ed. (2016). Macmillan Dictionary of Archaeology. Macmillan Education. ISBN 978-1-349-07589-8.[permanent dead link]
- 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 978-1-4490-0604-4. AuthorHouse.
Further reading
[edit]- Davydova, Anthonina. The Ivolga archaeological complex. Part 1. The Ivolga fortress. In: Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu, vol. 1. St Petersburg, 1995.
- Davydova, Anthonina. The Ivolga archaeological complex. Part 2. The Ivolga cemetery. In: Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu, vol. 2. St Petersburg, 1996.
- (in Russian) Davydova, Anthonina & Minyaev Sergey. The complex of archaeological sites near Dureny village. In: Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu, vol. 5. St Petersburg, 2003.
- Davydova, Anthonina & Minyaev Sergey. The Xiongnu Decorative bronzes. In: Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu, vol. 6. St Petersburg, 2003.
- Keyser-Tracqui, Christine; et al. (July 2003). "Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of a 2,000-Year-Old Necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia". American Journal of Human Genetics. 73 (2). Cell Press: 247–260. doi:10.1086/377005. PMC 1180365. PMID 12858290.
- (in Hungarian) Helimski, Eugen. "A szamojéd népek vázlatos története" (Short History of the Samoyedic peoples). In: The History of the Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic Peoples. 2000, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
- Henning, W. B. (1948). "The date of the Sogdian ancient letters". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 12 (3–4): 601–615. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00083178. JSTOR 608717. S2CID 161867825.
- (in 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). Moscow.
- (in 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.
- (in Russian) Kradin , Nikolay. 2002. "Hun Empire". Acad. 2nd ed., updated and added., Moscow: Logos, ISBN 5-94010-124-0
- Kradin, Nikolay. 2005. Social and Economic Structure of the Xiongnu of the Trans-Baikal Region. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, No 1 (21), p. 79–86.
- Kradin, Nikolay. 2012. New Approaches and Challenges for the Xiongnu Studies. In: Xiongnu and its eastward Neighbours. Seoul, p. 35–51.
- (in German) Liu Mau-tsai. 1958. Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T'u-küe). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
- Minyaev, Sergey. On the origin of the Xiongnu // Bulletin of International association for the study of the culture of Central Asia, UNESCO. Moscow, 1985, No. 9.
- Minyaev, Sergey. News of Xiongnu Archaeology // Das Altertum, vol. 35. Berlin, 1989.
- Minyaev, Sergey. "Niche Grave Burials of the Xiong-nu Period in Central Asia", Information Bulletin, Inter-national Association for the Cultures of Central Asia 17 (1990): 91–99.
- Minyaev, Sergey. The excavation of Xiongnu Sites in the Buryatia Republic// Orientations, vol. 26, n. 10, Hong Kong, November 1995.
- Minyaev, Sergey. Les Xiongnu// Dossiers d' archaeologie, # 212. Paris 1996.
- Minyaev, Sergey. Archaeologie des Xiongnu en Russie: nouvelles decouvertes et quelques Problemes. In: Arts Asiatiques, tome 51, Paris, 1996.
- (in Russian) Minyaev, Sergey. Derestuj cemetery. In: Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu, vol. 3. St-Petersburg, 1998.
- Minyaev, Sergey. The origins of the "Geometric Style" in Hsiungnu art // BAR International series 890. London, 2000.
- Minyaev, Sergey. Art and archeology of the Xiongnu: new discoveries in Russia. In: Circle of Iner Asia Art, Newsletter, Issue 14, December 2001, pp. 3–9
- (in Russian) Minyaev, Sergey. The Xiongnu cultural complex: location and chronology. In: Ancient and Middle Age History of Eastern Asia. Vladivostok, 2001, pp. 295–305.
- Miniaev, Sergey & Elikhina, Julia. On the chronology of the Noyon Uul barrows. The Silk Road 7 (2009): 21–30.
- Minyaev, Sergey & Sakharovskaja, Lidya. Investigation of a Xiongnu Royal Tomb in the Tsaraam valley, part 1. In: Newsletters of the Silk Road Foundation, vol. 4, no.1, 2006.
- Minyaev, Sergey & Sakharovskaja, Lidya. Investigation of a Xiongnu Royal Tomb in the Tsaraam valley, part 2. In: Newsletters of the Silk Road Foundation, vol. 5, no.1, 2007.
- Minyaev, Sergey & Smolarsky Phillipe. Art of the Steppes. Brussels, Foundation Richard Liu, 2002.
- (in Hungarian) Obrusánszky, Borbála. August 2009. Tongwancheng, city of the southern Huns. Transoxiana, August 2009, 14. ISSN 1666-7050.
- (in French) Petkovski, Elizabet. 2006. Polymorphismes ponctuels de séquence et identification génétique: étude par spectrométrie de masse MALDI-TOF. Strasbourg: Université Louis Pasteur. Dissertation
- (in Russian) Potapov, L.P. 1969. Этнический состав и происхождение алтайцев Archived 20 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine (Etnicheskii sostav i proiskhozhdenie altaitsev, Ethnic composition and origins of the Altaians). Leningrad: Nauka. Facsimile in Microsoft Word format.
- (in Russian) Potapov, L.P. [Потапов, Л.П.] 1966. Этнионим Теле и Алтайцы. Тюркологический сборник (The ethnonym "Tele" and the Altaians. Turcologica): 233–240. Moscow: Nauka.
- (in Russian) Talko-Gryntsevich, Julian. 1999. Paleo-Ethnology of Trans-Baikal area. In: Archaeological sites of the Xiongnu, vol. 4. St Petersburg.
- 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.
- Brosseder, Ursula, and Bryan Miller. Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn: Freiburger Graphische Betriebe- Freiburg, 2011.
- Csányi, B.; et al. (July 2008). "Y-Chromosome Analysis of Ancient Hungarian and Two Modern Hungarian-Speaking Populations from the Carpathian Basin". Annals of Human Genetics. 72 (4): 519–534. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x. PMID 18373723. S2CID 13217908. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
- 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)
- Houle, J. and L.G. Broderick (2011) "Settlement Patterns and Domestic Economy of the Xiongnu in Khanui Valley, Mongolia", 137–152. In Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia.
- Mallory, J. P.; Mair, Victor H. (2000), The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West, London: Thames & Hudson.
- Miller, Bryan K. (2014). "Xiongnu "Kings" and the Political Order of the Steppe Empire". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 57 (1): 1–43. doi:10.1163/15685209-12341340.
- Neparáczki, Endre; et al. (12 November 2019). "Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin". Scientific Reports. 9 (16569). Nature Research: 16569. Bibcode:2019NatSR...916569N. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53105-5. PMC 6851379. PMID 31719606.
- Pritsak, O. (1959). "XUN Der Volksname der Hsiung-nu". Central Asiatic Journal (in German). 5: 27–34.
- Sims-Williams, Nicholas (2004). "The Sogdian ancient letters. Letters 1, 2, 3, and 5 translated into English".
- Toh, Hoong Teik (2005). "The -yu Ending in Xiongnu, Xianbei, and Gaoju Onomastica" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. 146.
- Touchette, Nancy (25 July 2003). "Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave". Genome News Network. Archived from the original on 2006-05-16.
- Vaissière (2005). "Huns et Xiongnu". Central Asiatic Journal (in French). 49 (1): 3–26.
- Yap, Joseph P, (2019). The Western Regions, Xiongnu and Han, from the Shiji, Hanshu and Hou Hanshu. ISBN 978-1-7928-2915-4
- Zhang, Bibo; Dong, Guoyao (2001). 中国古代北方民族文化史 [Cultural History of Ancient Northern Ethnic Groups in China]. Harbin: Heilongjiang People's Press. ISBN 978-7-207-03325-3.
External links
[edit]- Material Culture presented by University of Washington
- Encyclopedic Archive on Xiongnu
- The Xiongnu Empire
- The Silk Road Volume 4 Number 1
- The Silk Road Volume 9
- Gold Headdress from Aluchaideng
- Belt buckle, Xiongnu type, 3rd–2nd century B.C.
- Videodocumentation: Xiongnu – the burial site of the Hun prince (Mongolia)
- The National Museum of Mongolian History :: Xiongnu
- Xiongnu and the Central Plains: The Collision and Fusion of Civilizations, Henan Provincial Museum exhibition (in Chinese)
Xiongnu
View on GrokipediaName and Etymology
Linguistic Interpretations
The term "Xiongnu" (匈奴) represents the Chinese transcription of the name of this nomadic confederation, rendered in Middle Chinese as approximately /xjuŋ-nuo/ and reconstructed for Old Chinese as *xəŋ-na or *kʰoŋ-naʔ.[3] Chinese sources, such as the Shiji of Sima Qian (c. 100 BCE), do not provide an explicit etymology, though some traditional interpretations suggest it connoted "fierce slaves" (xiong implying ferocity and nu servitude), reflecting Han perceptions rather than the group's self-designation.[4] This exonym likely phonetically approximates a foreign term, with proposed self-names including Hūŋ-nu or Huŋ-nu, potentially linking to the later "Huns" in Western sources, though direct equivalence remains unproven.[3] No indigenous Xiongnu texts survive, leaving linguistic analysis reliant on roughly 50 Chinese-transcribed words, primarily titles, personal names, and glosses from Han records (e.g., Shiji, Hanshu). These yield no consensus on affiliation, as the Xiongnu empire encompassed multi-ethnic groups, but elite terminology suggests a dominant language among rulers. Hypotheses include Yeniseian (Paleo-Siberian), Turkic, Eastern Iranian, or Mongolic origins, often with substrate influences.[5] A Yeniseian affiliation for the ruling elite has gained traction through comparative etymologies of titles and loans. For instance, the supreme title šanyu (單于, c. 209 BCE onward) reconstructs to dʒaŋ-u or similar, paralleling Yeniseian dʒaŋ- or ʔaŋ- 'vast, broad, whole' (as in Ket ʔaŋ- 'all'), denoting "broad ruler" or "universal sovereign."[6] Additional evidence includes the Jié tribal couplet (a Xiongnu successor group) with forms like kʷala 'son' matching Arin (Yeniseian) qala; loans into Proto-Turkic/Mongolic (e.g., kȫl 'lake' from Arin kul 'water'); and Hunnic names like Attila as Arin atɨ-la 'quicker.' Hydronymic patterns (e.g., 171 toponyms with Arin kul) trace westward migrations aligning with Xiongnu-Hun routes. This Paleo-Siberian model, detailed in a 2025 analysis, posits Old Arin (Yeniseian branch) for both Xiongnu and Huns, corroborated by genetic data showing Siberian admixture, though critics argue methodological overreach in reconstructions.[7] [8] Turkic proposals emphasize semantic matches in 19 of 56 etymologies, such as administrative titles (danghu 'leader of 100' akin to Old Turkic tängri or numerical terms) and the Jie couplet interpreted as Late Proto-Turkic. Eastern Iranian elements appear in 9 cases, including dairy vocabulary (yabğu 'pour milk' from Scythian yap-) and possible substrate in titles, suggesting Saka or other steppe Iranian influences on a Turkic base. Mongolic links are weaker, limited to minor loans, while multi-lingual models posit a Turkic-majority confederation with Iranian and Yeniseian elites. Absence of decisive evidence, including script or extensive corpus, sustains debate, with Yeniseian gaining from recent interdisciplinary support but Turkic/Iranian views prevailing in steppe nomad continuity studies.[5][7]Relation to "Huns"
The phonetic resemblance between the Chinese name for the Xiongnu, Xiōngnú (匈奴), and the European Huns' name, first noted in ancient sources, prompted early scholarly identification of the two as related entities. In 1757, French sinologist Joseph de Guignes explicitly proposed that the Huns who invaded Europe in the late 4th century CE were westward-migrating remnants of the Xiongnu Empire, which had fragmented after defeats by the Han dynasty around 93 CE, citing name etymology and nomadic parallels as evidence.[9] This hypothesis, popularized in the 18th–19th centuries, posited a direct ethnic continuity across the Eurasian steppes despite a roughly 300-year gap between the last secure Xiongnu references in Chinese annals and the Huns' appearance near the Roman frontiers circa 370 CE.[10] Linguistic evidence has revived support for a connection, with a 2025 analysis of toponyms, personal names, loanwords in neighboring languages, and phonological patterns concluding that both groups likely spoke dialects of a Paleo-Siberian language family, distinct from proposed Turkic, Mongolic, or Yeniseian affiliations for the Xiongnu.[7] This shared linguistic substrate implies cultural transmission or migration of core Xiongnu-speaking elites eastward from Mongolia to the Pontic steppes, aligning with etymological links like Xiōngnú deriving from a term for "fierce slave" or steppe tribal descriptors that could evolve into "Hun" via intermediate languages.[11] Critics of earlier Turkic or Iranian interpretations for Xiongnu speech note that such assignments relied on anachronistic projections, whereas Paleo-Siberian fits better with sparse Xiongnu-era inscriptions and neighboring attestations.[7] Ancient DNA from Hun-period (4th–5th century CE) burials in Europe reveals genetic diversity, with admixed West Eurasian, East Asian steppe, and local components, but elite males often carry Y-chromosome haplogroups and autosomal profiles tracing to Xiongnu noble lineages from the Mongolian plateau, including elevated Northeast Asian ancestry absent in pre-Hun steppe populations.[10] A 2025 study of 52 Hun-associated genomes identified direct paternal-line continuity in some cases to Xiongnu chieftains dated 200 BCE–100 CE, suggesting small-scale migrations of Xiongnu splinter groups—possibly fleeing Han campaigns or internal strife—contributed to Hun formation, rather than mass displacement.[12] This contrasts with broader Hun heterogeneity, incorporating Sarmatian, Gothic, and other recruits, indicating the Huns emerged as a confederation where Xiongnu-derived elements provided leadership and ideology, not wholesale population replacement.[13] Archaeological parallels, such as cauldron designs, bow types, and horse gear motifs in Hun artifacts resembling late Xiongnu finds from Transbaikalia, offer circumstantial support but lack definitive chronospatial chains due to steppe-wide diffusion of technologies.[14] Prior skepticism, dominant until the 2020s, dismissed direct links for want of migratory artifacts or textual bridges, attributing similarities to convergent nomadism; however, integrated genetic-linguistic data now substantiates targeted elite dispersal over coincidence, though full Xiongnu-to-Hun equivalence remains untenable given the Huns' multiethnic makeup and independent western adaptations.[5]Historical Overview
Pre-Xiongnu Steppe Dynamics
The eastern Eurasian steppe, encompassing the Mongolian plateau and surrounding regions, supported diverse nomadic pastoralist communities during the late Bronze and early Iron Ages, prior to the Xiongnu political consolidation around 209 BCE. These groups sustained themselves through herding sheep, goats, horses, and cattle, with dairy production evidenced as early as circa 3000 BCE, enabling seasonal migrations across vast grasslands and fostering a mobile lifestyle punctuated by hunting and intermittent raiding. Archaeological cultures such as the Deer Stone-Khirigsuur complex (c. 1200–600 BCE) reveal stratified societies via khirigsuur stone enclosures and burial mounds accompanied by up to hundreds of sacrificed horses, alongside anthropomorphic deer stones up to four meters tall engraved with motifs of flying deer, belts, and weapons, indicative of elite warriors and ritual emphasis on equine symbolism.[15][16] In eastern Mongolia, the Ulaanzuukh culture (c. 1450–1150 BCE) featured figure- and hourglass-shaped graves with flexed burials and bronze artifacts, transitioning into the Slab Grave culture of the early Iron Age (c. 1000–300 BCE), marked by rectangular slab-lined tombs containing iron weapons, horse gear, and millet remains, signaling technological advances in metallurgy and agriculture supplementation. Genetic evidence from these periods demonstrates primary descent from Ancient Northeast Asian lineages, with three distinct dairy-herding clusters in the late Bronze Age reflecting localized biogeographic variation but minimal large-scale western admixture until later eras, underscoring endogenous development of pastoral nomadism amid environmental adaptations to arid steppes.[2][16][17] Socio-political dynamics involved loose tribal affiliations vulnerable to domination by stronger neighbors, as recorded in Sima Qian's Shiji, which portrays proto-Xiongnu groups sandwiched between the expansive Yuezhi to the west and Donghu to the east, suffering repeated incursions that compelled tribute and military subservience under leaders like Touman. This fragmentation, exacerbated by the incentives of pastoral mobility for hit-and-run tactics over sedentary state-building, persisted until external catalysts such as the Qin empire's collapse in 207 BCE created opportunities for centralization. Slab Grave expansions disrupted prior cultural equilibria, incorporating diverse elements that prefigured Xiongnu multiethnicity, though chronic inter-tribal conflicts and raids on northern Chinese frontiers defined the pre-unification equilibrium.[18][19][2]Rise and State Formation
The Xiongnu transitioned from fragmented tribal confederations on the eastern Eurasian steppe to a unified imperial polity in the late 3rd century BCE, representing the earliest known steppe empire. Preceding this, Bronze Age cultures such as the Deer Stone-Khirigsuurs in western Mongolia (circa 1300–700 BCE) and Slab Grave complexes in the east demonstrated nascent social hierarchies through elite monumental burials, pastoral economies, and early metallurgy, which facilitated the organizational preconditions for state formation.31321-0.pdf) These groups engaged in mobile herding and intermittent warfare, but lacked centralized authority until external pressures from the collapsing Qin dynasty (221–206 BCE) displaced populations northward, accelerating consolidation.[1] Central to this process was Modu Chanyu, who seized power in 209 BCE by assassinating his father, the incumbent chanyu Touman, and enforcing unwavering loyalty through innovative military drills, including the use of whistling arrows to identify and eliminate disloyal followers during training exercises.[20] Modu's forces subsequently subjugated neighboring powers, defeating the Donghu confederation to the east and expelling the Yuezhi westward around 202 BCE, thereby unifying tribes across Mongolia, southern Siberia, and the Ordos region into a cohesive entity under a single chanyu.[21] This rapid expansion incorporated diverse pastoralist and semi-sedentary groups, with archaeological evidence from early elite tombs—featuring horse gear, composite bows, and imported silks—indicating a militarized aristocracy capable of coordinated campaigns involving tens of thousands of mounted archers.[22] State formation under Modu established a hierarchical decimal system for administration and warfare, dividing the population into units of 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 households, which enabled mass mobilization and tribute extraction from subjugated peoples.[1] Genetic studies of imperial-era burials reveal this polity's multiethnic character from inception, blending eastern steppe (Slab Grave-related) ancestries with western Eurasian (Sarmatian-like) and Han Chinese influxes, reflecting conquest-driven integration rather than ethnic homogeneity.[21] By circa 200 BCE, the Xiongnu's strength was demonstrated in the siege of Baideng, where they encircled a Han army, compelling tribute payments and affirming the steppe empire's dominance over sedentary neighbors.[20]Han-Xiongnu Conflicts
The Han-Xiongnu conflicts commenced following the establishment of the Han Dynasty in 206 BCE, as the Xiongnu under Modu Chanyu (r. 209–174 BCE) conducted raids into northern Han territories.[18] In 200 BCE, Emperor Gaozu (Liu Bang) mobilized approximately 320,000 troops to counter Xiongnu incursions but was ambushed and besieged for seven days near Pingcheng (modern Baideng) by a Xiongnu force of comparable size.[23] The crisis ended with the negotiation of the first heqin treaty, under which Han agreed to annual tribute payments of 20,000 pi of silk and an equivalent amount of grain and wine, alongside the marriage of a Han princess to the Chanyu.[23] This diplomatic arrangement, renewed multiple times between 198 and 135 BCE, temporarily curbed large-scale invasions while allowing sporadic Xiongnu raids.[23] Tensions escalated in the mid-2nd century BCE despite the heqin policy. In 177 BCE, the Wise Prince of the Right led a major Xiongnu invasion into northern territories, exploiting Han internal rebellions that prevented retaliation; subsequent negotiations restored tribute flows.[23] Further raids occurred in 158 BCE, when Chanyu Junchen commanded 60,000 cavalry to plunder the frontier, prompting Han deployment of six armies, though the Xiongnu withdrew without decisive engagement.[23] By 144 BCE, Xiongnu forces attacked Han horse-breeding studs, killing over 2,000 personnel, though Han cavalry later repelled an attempted follow-up incursion.[23] Under Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE), Han policy shifted from appeasement to aggressive military campaigns to neutralize the Xiongnu threat. In 133 BCE, Han forces under General Li Guang attempted an ambush at Mayi using 300,000 troops as bait, but Xiongnu scouts detected the trap, leading to a withdrawal without battle.[23] Renewed offensives in 129 BCE yielded mixed results, with two Han columns suffering defeats while others inflicted minor damage on Xiongnu encampments.[23] General Wei Qing achieved a significant victory in 124 BCE by defeating a Xiongnu force near Longcheng, killing several thousand and disrupting their right-wing divisions.[23] The campaigns intensified in 121 BCE, when Huo Qubing led deep strikes into Xiongnu territory, capturing key leaders and prompting the defection of 30,000–40,000 warriors, including the Hunye Prince, who was enfeoffed as a Han marquis.[23] The culminating Battle of Mobei in 119 BCE involved a Han expedition of around 100,000 cavalry divided under Wei Qing and Huo Qubing pursuing the Xiongnu core north of the Gobi Desert; the engagement resulted in approximately 19,000 Xiongnu killed or captured, though Chanyu Huhanye escaped, and Han suffered the loss of over 110,000 horses due to attrition and combat.[23] These victories forced the Xiongnu to retreat northward, ceding the Ordos region and Hexi Corridor to Han control, but intermittent raids persisted into the 1st century BCE, prolonging the conflict until the Xiongnu confederation fragmented around 48 BCE.[1]Internal Divisions and Decline
The prolonged Han military campaigns from 133 to 89 BCE, which inflicted heavy casualties and captured vast herds, eroded the Xiongnu chanyu's prestige and exacerbated latent rivalries among tribal leaders, fostering internal dissent as subordinate groups questioned central authority.[24] This fragility stemmed from the confederation's dependence on personal loyalty to a dominant chanyu rather than institutionalized succession, making power transitions vulnerable to fraternal or collateral challenges.[25] A pivotal succession crisis erupted following the death of Xülüquanqu Chanyu in 60 BCE, igniting a civil war from 60 to 53 BCE (intensifying around 57 BCE) among his sons and relatives, which fragmented the Xiongnu into multiple warring factions and prompted defections to Han allies like the Wusun.[26] [27] Although Huhanye Chanyu eventually consolidated power by 58 BCE and sought Han suzerainty in 51 BCE to stabilize his rule, these conflicts highlighted the confederation's structural weaknesses, as defeated factions retained autonomy and harbored grudges.[28] Renewed instability arose in the early 1st century CE amid Han interregnum under Wang Mang (r. 9–23 CE), whose rejection of tribute and provocative policies alienated Xiongnu elites, prompting raids and further erosion of unity.[25] The death of Yu Chanyu in 46 CE triggered another succession dispute, with Wudadihou briefly succeeding, followed by Punu, but rival claimant Bi (declaring himself Huhanxie Chanyu) defected to the Han with approximately 50,000 followers in 48–49 CE, formalizing the split into Southern Xiongnu (allied with Han in Ordos) and Northern Xiongnu.[24] [29] This division, driven by personal ambitions and Han support for dissidents, halved Xiongnu military cohesion and resources. The Southern Xiongnu experienced recurring civil strife, including a 94 CE conflict where Anguo's killing led to Shizi's contested succession and a northern-backed rebellion involving 200,000 people, while natural disasters like droughts and locust plagues from the 60s to 100s CE compounded famine and desertions.[24] Northern Xiongnu faced Xianbei incursions from 78 CE onward, culminating in a decisive Han-Southern Xiongnu expedition in 89–91 CE under Dou Xian, which killed 13,000, captured 200,000, and forced the remnants westward, dissipating centralized leadership by 92 CE.[29] [24] Internal divisions thus causally amplified external pressures, as fragmented loyalties prevented effective mobilization, leading to the confederation's collapse and absorption into successor polities.[25] Chinese records, primarily from the Han Shu, emphasize these events but reflect Han-centric bias, portraying Xiongnu disunity as moral failing while understating nomadic resilience factors.[24]Successor Entities
Following the decisive Han-Xianbei campaigns of 89–91 CE, which shattered the Northern Xiongnu confederation, surviving elements migrated westward across the Altai Mountains and Central Asia, contributing to the formation of subsequent nomadic groups.[20] Genetic analyses of Hun-period burials in Europe (circa 4th–5th centuries CE) reveal admixture patterns linking elite strata to Xiongnu-period populations from the Mongolian steppe, including shared East Asian ancestry components and multiethnic profiles consistent with Xiongnu imperial structure.[10] These findings indicate that Northern Xiongnu remnants, or closely related lineages, integrated into or seeded the Hunnic core, though full ethnic continuity remains unproven due to the confederative nature of both entities and intervening migrations.[30] In contrast, the Southern Xiongnu, who had relocated south of the Gobi Desert under Han suzerainty by 48 CE, underwent gradual assimilation into northern Chinese polities while retaining tribal autonomy.[31] By the late 3rd century CE, amid the Han collapse, Southern Xiongnu elites leveraged military roles within the Jin dynasty to seize power, establishing the Han-Zhao kingdom in 304 CE under Liu Yuan, a Xiongnu-descended warlord who claimed Han imperial lineage to legitimize rule over mixed Sino-nomadic territories in Shanxi and beyond.[23] Descendants and affiliates also founded the Helian Xia regime in 407 CE, controlling Gansu and parts of the Ordos, marking a transition from tributary vassals to independent dynasts during the Sixteen Kingdoms era (304–439 CE).[32] The power vacuum in the eastern steppe was rapidly filled by the Xianbei, a Donghu-derived confederation previously subjugated by the Xiongnu in the late 3rd century BCE but revived through fragmentation and opportunistic expansion.[20] Under leaders like Tanshihuai (r. circa 156–181 CE), the Xianbei consolidated tribes east of the Xiongnu heartland, launching raids that weakened Northern Xiongnu cohesion and enabled their 91 CE alliance with Han forces.[33] Though genetically and culturally distinct—Xianbei burials show stronger Northeast Asian affinities without the Xiongnu's pronounced Western Eurasian admixture—their hierarchical chieftain system and horse-archer warfare echoed Xiongnu models, facilitating succession as dominant steppe actors until supplanted by Rouran in the 4th century CE.[2] This shift underscores causal dynamics of nomadic succession: elite defections, resource competition, and alliances with sedentary powers rather than direct lineage inheritance.Political and Social Structure
Hierarchical Organization
The Xiongnu political hierarchy was led by the chanyu, the supreme ruler who exercised centralized authority over the nomadic confederation, drawing from a royal lineage typically associated with the Luanti clan. This position, established by Modu Chanyu around 209 BCE, combined military command with ritual and diplomatic functions, enabling the integration of diverse tribal groups through conquest and alliance.[20] Immediately subordinate to the chanyu were the left and right wise kings (tuqi wang), who administered the eastern (left) and western (right) flanks of the empire, respectively; these roles were hereditary and often held by the chanyu's sons or brothers, ensuring kin-based control over semi-autonomous appanages. Beneath them operated a network of lesser kings and chiefs, including the luli wang (heirs apparent) and various guli wang, who managed tributary tribes and enforced loyalty through redistribution of tribute and spoils.[20] The administrative and military framework relied on a decimal system, dividing forces and households into units of 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000, with the latter commanded by 24 great chiefs (wanqi), each overseeing hereditary divisions of approximately 10,000 cavalrymen; this structure facilitated rapid mobilization for warfare and raids while binding local elites to the center.[20] Sima Qian's Shiji describes this as a meritocratic overlay on kinship ties, where promotions rewarded valor, though Han sources like the Shiji may emphasize uniformity to contrast with Chinese bureaucracy, potentially understating internal factionalism evident in succession disputes. At the hierarchy's base were common pastoralists organized by clan and dependent tribes, with slaves—predominantly captives from conflicts with the Han and other neighbors—performing menial labor; elite burials, such as those at elite sites like Noin-Ula, reveal stark status disparities through grave goods, corroborating textual accounts of stratified access to wealth and mobility.[20] This organization balanced central authority with decentralized tribal autonomy, enabling the Xiongnu to sustain an empire spanning from the Altai Mountains to the Korean Peninsula fringes by the late 3rd century BCE.Marriage Alliances and Diplomacy
The Xiongnu employed marriage alliances as a primary mechanism of diplomacy, particularly in relations with the Han dynasty, where such unions formed the core of the heqin (peace-and-kinship) policy initiated by the Han to avert nomadic incursions. Following the Han defeat at the Battle of Baideng in 200 BCE, Emperor Gaozu formalized the first heqin treaty in 198 BCE with Xiongnu chanyu Modu, dispatching a Han noblewoman as a bride to the chanyu alongside annual tribute of silk, grain, and wine to secure non-aggression and border markets for trade.[23] This agreement framed the Han emperor and Xiongnu chanyu as fraternal equals in diplomatic correspondence, though the Xiongnu interpreted the marriages and tribute as markers of Han subordination rather than parity.[34] Subsequent heqin treaties renewed the alliance multiple times through the reigns of Emperors Hui (192 BCE), Wen, and Jing, with at least nine renewals documented up to 135 BCE, each involving additional Han brides—often surrogates from imperial kin or nobility—and escalating tribute to maintain fragile peace amid intermittent Xiongnu raids.[35] Notable examples include the marriage of Wang Zhaojun, a palace lady, to chanyu Huhanye in 33 BCE, which temporarily stabilized relations and facilitated Han influence through cultural exchanges via the brides' entourages.[36] These unions provided the Xiongnu access to Han luxury goods and technologies while allowing Han envoys to gather intelligence, though violations by Xiongnu forces, such as incursions during succession disputes, repeatedly undermined the pacts until Emperor Wu's pivot to military campaigns in 133 BCE.[23] Internally, Xiongnu rulers reinforced confederation cohesion through exogamous marriages, wedding chanyu kin to leaders of subjugated or allied tribes to bind multiethnic groups under centralized authority. Archaeological evidence from elite burials, including those of high-status women with artifacts sourced from distant regions like the Altai and Baikal areas, indicates that such alliances integrated diverse pastoral populations, with brides serving as political conduits for loyalty and resource sharing across the steppe empire.[37] Diplomatic ties with neighboring steppe entities, such as the Wusun and Yuezhi, were predominantly coercive, involving subjugation and tribute extraction rather than reciprocal marriages; for instance, Xiongnu forces displaced the Yuezhi westward around 176–160 BCE through conquest, absorbing remnants into tributary roles without evidence of kinship-based diplomacy.[38] Overall, Xiongnu diplomacy prioritized pragmatic alliances to sustain raiding economies and imperial expansion, with marriages functioning as tools for short-term stabilization amid inherent steppe volatility.[39]Multiethnic Integration
The Xiongnu Empire integrated a diverse array of ethnic groups, as evidenced by genetic analyses of individuals from elite and commoner burials dated circa 40 BCE to 210 CE. Genome-wide data from 18 samples across Mongolian sites revealed substantial heterogeneity, with admixtures primarily from eastern Eurasian sources like the Slab Grave culture and western Eurasian components akin to the Chandman Iron Age and Gonur Bronze Age populations.[2] This diversity stemmed from the empire's expansion, which incorporated conquered nomadic and sedentary neighbors through conquest and subsequent assimilation into the social fabric.[2] Elite status within the Xiongnu hierarchy concentrated among genetically distinct subsets, often with higher eastern Eurasian ancestry and lower overall diversity, as seen in aristocratic square tombs occupied by females of SlabGrave1-related lineages.[2] In contrast, lower-status satellite graves exhibited peak genetic variability, indicating that peripheral or subjugated groups retained distinct ancestries while contributing to the empire's manpower and economy.[2] Mechanisms of integration included co-option of local chieftains and foreign elites, evidenced by shifts in elite burial practices and artifact assemblages that blended local and imported styles during the empire's formative phase around the late 3rd century BCE.[40] Genetic patterns further suggest social integration via intermarriage, particularly female-mediated gene flow, where diverse maternal lines entered core lineages, fostering extended family networks with mixed ancestries.[2] Historical accounts in Sima Qian's Shiji (ca. 100 BCE) portray the Xiongnu as a tribal confederation uniting disparate steppe peoples under a centralized decimal-based military and administrative system, enforced by tribute obligations and loyalty to the chanyu, which compelled integrated groups to participate in raids and defenses.[3] Archaeological evidence from sites like Takhiltyn Khotgor corroborates this, showing locally homogeneous communities within a broader heterogeneous imperial patchwork sustained from circa 200 BCE to 100 CE.[2]Military Capabilities and Economy
Warfare Tactics and Raiding
The Xiongnu military relied on light cavalry archers armed with powerful composite bows, which allowed for rapid volleys of arrows while maintaining high mobility across the steppe. This tactical emphasis on ranged combat from horseback enabled them to outmaneuver slower infantry-based armies, such as those of the Han dynasty, by avoiding direct melee engagements and exploiting superior speed.[41] A hallmark of Xiongnu tactics was the feigned retreat, where forces would simulate withdrawal to draw pursuing enemies into prepared ambushes, a strategy rooted in the nomadic tradition of Inner Asian warfare. In confrontations like the Han pursuit during campaigns under Emperor Wu, Xiongnu riders used this maneuver to inflict heavy casualties on overextended Chinese vanguards unaccustomed to steppe conditions. They also employed encirclement and harassment of supply lines, prioritizing disruption over decisive battles to conserve strength and prolong conflicts.[41][42] Raiding constituted a primary mode of warfare and sustenance for the Xiongnu, involving swift incursions into Han territories to seize livestock, grain, and human captives, thereby supplementing scarce steppe resources and compelling tribute payments. These operations targeted vulnerable border pastures and settlements, as seen in repeated attacks that pressured the Han into diplomatic concessions during the early 2nd century BCE. Unable to fully suppress subordinate tribes' raiding impulses, Xiongnu leaders leveraged these activities to maintain economic viability and military pressure, though they sometimes escalated into larger wars when Han forces counterattacked.[23][42]Nomadic Economy and Tribute Systems
The Xiongnu economy was fundamentally based on pastoral nomadism, with large-scale herding of livestock such as horses, cattle, sheep, goats, and camels across the Eurasian steppes.[43] Horses held particular centrality, enabling mobility for seasonal migrations in search of pasture and supporting military operations, while other animals provided meat, dairy, hides, and transport.[44] This system relied on vast grazing lands rather than intensive agriculture, though archaeological evidence indicates supplementary consumption of millet grains and riverine fish obtained through trade or limited local cultivation.[45] Raiding sedentary populations and trading with neighboring groups supplemented pastoral resources, yielding grains, metals, and luxury goods essential for steppe life. Xiongnu incursions targeted livestock, prisoners, and commodities from Chinese border regions, functioning as a core economic strategy to redistribute wealth and sustain elite authority.[34] Informal border markets facilitated exchanges of animal products for Han silks and foodstuffs, though these were often disrupted by conflicts.[46] The tribute system formalized under the heqin policy, initiated in 198 BCE following Emperor Gaozu's defeat at Pingcheng, compelled the Han court to deliver annual payments to the Xiongnu chanyu in exchange for nominal peace and cessation of raids.[47] These included fixed quantities of silk, grains, and wine, alongside marriage alliances involving Han princesses to the chanyu, framing the states as "brotherly" equals in Xiongnu terms but effectively subsidizing nomadic demands.[48] Tribute volumes escalated over time; for instance, Chanyu Junchen in the mid-2nd century BCE demanded an increase to 10,000 pi of silk plus additional wine and grain, reflecting the system's role in channeling sedentary wealth northward.[49] This arrangement persisted intermittently until Han Emperor Wu's offensive campaigns from 133 BCE disrupted it, underscoring tribute as a coercive economic lever rather than mutual exchange.[1]Cultural Practices
Material Culture and Artifacts
The material culture of the Xiongnu emphasized portable, durable items suited to a nomadic lifestyle, including weapons, horse harnesses, and personal ornaments crafted from bronze, iron, gold, and felt. Archaeological excavations at sites like Noyon Uul in Mongolia have uncovered elite burials containing composite bows, iron swords, and daggers, reflecting a martial society reliant on horseback archery.[50] Iron artifacts indicate a technological tradition involving low-carbon iron processed through carburization, with evidence of cast iron usage in tools and weapons from central Mongolian sites dated to the 3rd–1st centuries BCE.[51] [52] A distinctive feature of Xiongnu artifacts is the "animal style" art, characterized by dynamic depictions of real and mythical creatures such as deer, horses, boars, and griffins in contorted poses, often rendered on belt plaques, buckles, and harness fittings. These motifs, similar to Scytho-Siberian styles, adorned silver and gold ornaments, including plaques showing hunting scenes and wrestling figures from the Ordos region, dated to the 2nd century BCE.[53] [54] Bronze and gold crowns, as found in elite tombs, incorporated these animal elements, signifying status and cultural continuity with broader steppe traditions.[55] Artifacts from the Xiongnu period also include dragon-shaped items, such as gilded silver dragons unearthed from noble tombs in north-central Mongolia, reflecting influence from Han Chinese culture due to interactions.[56] Household and daily items included tripod cauldrons of bronze or iron for communal cooking, often placed in burials as grave goods, alongside felt carpets, wool textiles, and silk imports from Han China, evidencing trade networks.[57] Excavations in the Tamir River valley and Transbaikalia reveal locally produced bronze wares, such as vessels and fittings, contrasting with imported Chinese lacquerware and coins that highlight diplomatic exchanges.[58] Felt garments and tents, preserved in permafrost tombs, underscore adaptations to the steppe environment, with jewelry like necklaces and earrings incorporating pearls and ceramics for personal adornment.[59] Burial assemblages frequently featured horse gear, including bits and saddles decorated in animal style, alongside sacrificed animals and wooden carts, indicating the centrality of equine mobility in Xiongnu society from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE.[60] These artifacts, recovered from terrace tombs and mound burials, demonstrate a blend of indigenous production and acquired prestige goods, without evidence of monumental architecture due to the nomadic ethos.[61]Religious Beliefs and Daily Life
The Xiongnu practiced a shamanistic religion centered on the worship of natural forces and ancestral spirits, including heaven, earth, the sun, and the moon, as recorded in Chinese historical accounts.[62] Rulers claimed divine sanction from the heavens, akin to later Tengriist concepts among steppe nomads, which legitimized their authority over multiethnic confederations.[63] Shamans held significant influence, serving as intermediaries between the living and spiritual realms, though direct archaeological confirmation remains limited to inferred roles in rituals.[62] Ritual practices emphasized offerings to ancestors, spirits, and celestial entities, often involving animal sacrifices such as sheep, cattle, horses, and goats, evidenced by faunal remains in mortuary contexts dated to the late 1st century BCE to 1st century CE.[64] Post-interment ceremonies included constructing east-west stone lines north of tombs filled with calcined bones and ash from fires, suggesting feasting or purification rites distinct from primary grave deposits.[64] Elite burials featured satellite tombs, horse sacrifices, and ritual objects like cauldrons with cooked animal remains, reflecting beliefs in an afterlife equipped for the deceased.[64] Daily life revolved around pastoral nomadism, with families herding horses, sheep, goats, and cattle across the steppe, supplemented by limited agriculture such as millet, barley, and wheat cultivation in river valleys.[62][65] Dwellings consisted of portable tents, and communities practiced skilled crafts including bronze working for tools, weaponry, jewelry, and ceramics.[62] Social structure permitted polygyny, with levirate marriage customs where widows wed the younger brothers or sons of deceased husbands, and subsistence involved seasonal mobility, horseback archery, and occasional feasting indicated by zooarchaeological finds of cattle traction harnesses and processed livestock.[62][43][64]Geographic and Archaeological Evidence
Core Territories and Sites
The core territories of the Xiongnu Empire centered on the Mongolian Plateau, extending across the Eastern Eurasian Steppe and incorporating regions in present-day northern China, southern Siberia, and the eastern fringes of Central Asia from the 3rd century BCE to the late 1st century CE.[21] This expanse, unified under Modu Chanyu around 209 BCE, included the Ordos region south of the Gobi Desert, the Selenga River valley, and areas up to the Altai Mountains westward and Lake Baikal northward, supporting large-scale pastoral nomadism through vast grasslands suitable for horse and livestock herding.[1] Archaeological distributions confirm dense concentrations of Xiongnu material culture in Inner Mongolia and Mongolia, with sparser extensions into adjacent zones reflecting tributary or allied integrations rather than uniform control.[66] Key archaeological sites illuminate settlement patterns and elite practices within these territories. The Noyon Uul necropolis in northern Mongolia's Selenga River valley comprises over 200 kurgans, primarily from the 1st century BCE to 1st century CE, featuring log-chamber tombs of aristocracy that yielded Chinese silks, Persian carpets, and local bronze artifacts, evidencing long-distance exchanges. Excavations here, initiated in the 1920s, revealed frozen preservation of organic remains, including millet grains and horse sacrifices, underscoring dietary and ritual norms.[68] In Transbaikalia, the Ivolga settlement near modern Ulan-Ude, Russia, dated to the late 1st century BCE, spans 27 hectares with mud-brick walls, craft workshops for bone, metal, and ceramics, and an associated cemetery of over 300 burials, indicating semi-sedentary administrative centers atypical of pure nomadism.[58] Further evidence from the Duurlig Nars cemetery in central Mongolia includes multiethnic burials analyzed for genetic diversity, supporting hierarchical integration of diverse groups within core steppe zones.[21] Ordos region sites, such as slab-grave clusters in Inner Mongolia, exhibit Xiongnu-style weaponry and horse gear, marking southern frontier influences amid Han interactions.[1] These loci collectively demonstrate a networked polity with fixed nodes for governance and burial amid mobile pastoralism.Recent Excavations
Excavations at the Bayanbulag site in central Mongolia, conducted by a joint Mongolian-Russian team in 2009, uncovered a mass burial pit containing the remains of approximately 22 Han Dynasty soldiers killed during conflicts with the Xiongnu around the 2nd century BCE.[69] Bioarchaeological analyses published in 2025, including dental morphology and ancient DNA, confirmed the individuals as East Asian males of Han Chinese origin, with evidence of perimortem trauma consistent with battlefield injuries from Xiongnu raids or ambushes.[70] These findings provide direct archaeological evidence of the scale and violence of Han-Xiongnu warfare, challenging earlier interpretations that minimized nomadic military impacts based solely on Chinese textual accounts.[69] In north-central Mongolia, excavations in 2019 at two elite Xiongnu tombs yielded over 40 artifacts, including gilded silver dragon figures, gold-embellished horse harnesses, silk textiles imported from China, and bronze weapons, dating to the 2nd-1st centuries BCE.[56] The tombs, featuring ramped entrances and satellite burials, indicate hierarchical structures among Xiongnu nobility, with grave goods suggesting trade networks extending to the Hellenistic world via intermediaries.[56] Complementary surveys in the Mongolian Altai, ongoing since 2007 by the Mongol-American Hovd Archaeology Project at sites like Takhiltyn Khotgor, have revealed proto-urban settlements with fortified enclosures and over 100 burials, including terrace tombs up to 100 meters wide, which housed horse sacrifices numbering in the dozens.[71] In 2020, archaeologists identified the site of Longcheng, or "Dragon City," along the Orkhon River in central Mongolia, proposed as the capital of the Xiongnu Empire. This discovery evidences a fortified settlement indicative of centralized political organization within Xiongnu territories.[72][73] The Boroo Gol settlement in Selenge aimag, excavated by a Swiss-Mongolian team from 2003 onward with intensified work post-2010, represents the first fully investigated Xiongnu residential site in Mongolia, spanning 20 hectares and including semi-permanent structures, pottery kilns, and iron-smelting furnaces active from the 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE.[74] Artifact assemblages, comprising local bronze tools alongside Chinese lacquerware and Central Asian glass beads, demonstrate Xiongnu economic diversification beyond pure nomadism, with radiocarbon dates confirming continuous occupation disrupted by Han incursions.[74] A 2025 discovery in Erdene soum, Selenge Province, unearthed an undisturbed Xiongnu tomb preserving organic remains such as wooden coffins, textiles, and faunal bones, dated preliminarily to the 1st century BCE via stratigraphy and associated ceramics.[75] This find, among over 10,000 surveyed Xiongnu-era mounds in northern Mongolia since 2010, highlights the density of burial landscapes and ongoing threats from looting, with preliminary reports noting hybrid artifacts blending steppe and sedentary influences.[76] Integrated genetic studies from these sites, including Bayanbulag and Boroo Gol, reveal multiethnic compositions with East Asian, West Eurasian, and Northeast Asian ancestries, supporting interpretations of Xiongnu society as a confederation incorporating captives and allies rather than a monolithic ethnicity.[77]Debates on Origins
Ethnolinguistic Theories
The Xiongnu language remains unattested in native script, with ethnolinguistic theories relying on Chinese transcriptions of approximately 100 personal names, clan titles, and function words from Han-era records such as the Shiji. These provide limited data, precluding definitive classification, and scholarly interpretations vary based on comparative linguistics and reconstructed proto-forms.[1][78] Prior to the mid-20th century, some analyses linked Xiongnu nomenclature to Indo-European (e.g., Tocharian or Iranian) or Uralic (Finno-Ugric) families, drawing from perceived similarities in artifacts and early loanwords, but these proposals lacked systematic phonological matches and were abandoned amid insufficient evidence.[79] From the 1960s onward, the dominant view positioned the Xiongnu as proto-Altaic speakers, specifically ancestral to Turkic or Mongolic groups, inferred from their steppe nomadic lifestyle and later linguistic dominance in the region by such peoples; this theory aligned with historical narratives of continuity in Inner Asian confederations but faced criticism for circular reasoning and failure to account for non-matching onomastic forms.[80][1] The Yeniseian hypothesis, initially proposed by Lajos Ligeti in the 1940s and refined by Edwin Pulleyblank (1983) and Alexander Vovin (2000), argues that the Xiongnu elite spoke a language from the Yeniseian family—a Siberian isolate now surviving only in the Ket language along the Yenisei River. Supporting evidence includes regular sound correspondences, such as the Xiongnu title tanɣrï (lord) matching proto-Yeniseian tiŋgús ("to rise, rule"), and royal names like Modu deriving from mïdu ("tree, foundation"), alongside clan designations aligning with Yeniseian terms for body parts and numerals. This model posits Yeniseian as the superstrate language of the ruling class, with Turkic or Mongolic elements as adstrates from incorporated tribes, consistent with the confederation's multiethnic structure.[80][78] Iranian (Scythian-Sarmatian) affiliations have been suggested for peripheral elements, based on western Eurasian archaeological influences and possible Indo-Iranian loanwords in titles, but these are interpreted as substrate contributions from earlier steppe migrations rather than the core ethnolinguistic identity.[81] A 2025 study reinforces the Paleo-Siberian (Yeniseian) linkage by analyzing four independent datasets—Chinese loanwords into Xiongnu, Prakrit glosses, onomastics, and toponyms—demonstrating shared derivations between Xiongnu and European Hunnic forms, challenging prior Turkic assumptions for both and suggesting migration of Yeniseian speakers westward post-Xiongnu collapse around 93 CE.[7][7] Despite these advances, no consensus prevails, as the evidence base is fragmentary and confederative polities like the Xiongnu likely featured linguistic layering, with elite Yeniseian overlaying diverse substrates; genetic data indicating admixture of eastern steppe, Siberian, and western Eurasian ancestries supports such pluralism without resolving the primary vehicular language.[1][78]Multiethnic Composition Critiques
Critiques of the multiethnic composition of the Xiongnu emphasize that genetic diversity, while evident, does not imply a uniformly integrated or egalitarian society but rather a stratified structure where a core elite maintained distinct ancestry and authority over diverse subject populations. Ancient Chinese records, such as the Shiji, describe the Xiongnu under Modu Chanyu (r. circa 209–174 BCE) as unifying a core group with 24 subordinate tribes, including groups like the Dingling and Yuezhi, suggesting incorporation through conquest rather than organic ethnic fusion.[4] This hierarchical model posits that the "Xiongnu" label primarily denoted the ruling nomadic confederation of eastern steppe origin, with peripheral tribes retaining separate identities and contributing tribute or military service without full cultural assimilation.[1] Archaeogenetic analyses support elements of this critique by revealing that elite status was disproportionately held by individuals from specific genetic subsets, often with higher eastern Eurasian ancestry akin to earlier Slab Grave culture populations (circa 1100–300 BCE), while lower-status burials exhibited extreme admixture, including up to 86.8% western Eurasian components in some cases.[2] For instance, in cemeteries like Takhiltyn Khotgor (circa 100 BCE–100 CE), high-status square tombs contained individuals with more uniform eastern profiles (e.g., 90.7% eastern ancestry), contrasting with heterogeneous satellite graves of servants or captives.[2] Critics argue this pattern indicates strategic integration of diverse groups at the empire's base to bolster labor and military numbers, but power remained concentrated among a less diverse ruling lineage, challenging narratives of the Xiongnu as a fundamentally "multiethnic" polity from inception.[21] Linguistic and ethnolinguistic theories further critique overemphasis on multiethnicity by proposing a unifying Paleo-Siberian language for the Xiongnu core, evidenced by toponyms, personal names in Chinese transcripts, and parallels with later Hunnic terms, which would imply cultural cohesion despite genetic heterogeneity.[7] Such views contend that steppe confederations like the Xiongnu operated via a dominant lingua franca and shared nomadic practices, assimilating or subsuming diverse elements without diluting the primary identity, as seen in the empire's centralized chanyu system enduring from circa 209 BCE to 93 CE.[1] This perspective prioritizes functional unity over demographic diversity, noting that Han Chinese sources consistently treated the Xiongnu as a singular adversarial entity rather than a mosaic of equals.[4]Genetic Analyses
Lineage Studies
Ancient DNA analyses of Xiongnu remains have identified diverse Y-chromosome haplogroups, indicating multiple paternal lineages within the population. Keyser et al. (2020) analyzed samples from Mongolian Xiongnu-period sites and reported paternal haplogroups spanning at least five major clades: R, Q, N, J, and G, with autosomal STR data suggesting close kinship among some individuals. In a study of the Takhiltyn Khotgor cemetery (circa 100 BCE–100 CE), Jeong et al. (2023) sequenced six males, finding Y-haplogroups Q and C, where Q predominates in pre-Xiongnu eastern steppe groups and C appears more frequently in contemporaneous Xianbei samples; higher-status burials exhibited lower paternal diversity compared to lower-status ones.[21] Earlier work on an elite cemetery at Duurlig Nars (circa 200 BCE) identified Y-haplogroup C3 in one male, alongside evidence of a western Eurasian autosomal profile in another individual, though without a resolved Y-haplogroup for the latter.[82] Mitochondrial DNA studies reveal predominantly eastern Eurasian maternal lineages, with significant heterogeneity reflecting incorporation of diverse groups. In the Duurlig Nars elite site, mtDNA haplogroup D4 was found in multiple individuals, a lineage widespread in Northeast Asia.[82] Keyser et al. (2020) documented mtDNA haplogroups consistent with East Asian origins, including subtypes of C, D, and others, supporting maternal continuity from local steppe populations. Jeong et al. (2023) analyzed 17 individuals from Takhiltyn Khotgor, observing high mtDNA diversity empire-wide, with lower-status graves showing the greatest maternal heterogeneity, potentially indicating captive or allied groups from varied regions; elite subsets displayed more focused eastern Eurasian ancestry.[21] A 2007 study of northeastern Mongolian Xiongnu remains classified 89% of mtDNA sequences into Asian haplogroups (A, B4b, C, D4, D5, D5a, F1b), with about 11% aligning to western Eurasian types, though sample sizes were small.61915-6) These uniparental markers collectively evidence a multiethnic Xiongnu society, where paternal lineages suggest elite consolidation around select East Asian haplogroups like Q and C, while maternal diversity points to broad integration of females from eastern steppe and beyond.[21] Recent analyses linking some European Huns to Xiongnu elites via shared genomic segments further imply transmission of specific high-status lineages westward, though direct haplogroup continuity remains under investigation.[10] Overall, lineage data challenge monolithic ethnic origins, favoring a confederation model with genetic stratification by status.[21]Connections to Later Groups
Ancient DNA studies have identified genetic connections between Xiongnu elites and the later European Huns, particularly through shared ancestry profiles and migration patterns across Eurasia. Analysis of genomes from Hunnic-period sites in Europe (circa 4th–5th centuries CE) reveals affinities with high-status Xiongnu individuals from Mongolia, characterized by a mix of Ancient Northeast Asian (ANA) and West Eurasian components, suggesting direct elite migration or cultural transmission following the Xiongnu Empire's collapse around 100 CE.[83] This evidence supports a trans-Eurasian link, with Hunnic "immigrant cores" tracing origins to Mongolian steppe populations akin to those of the Xiongnu era.[30] Y-chromosomal haplogroups further underscore these ties; for instance, haplogroup Q subclades prevalent among Xiongnu males (up to 60% in some samples) appear in Hunnic and subsequent nomadic groups, indicating paternal lineage continuity amid broader admixture.[21] However, the Xiongnu's multiethnic composition—encompassing East Asian, Siberian, and Iranian-related ancestries—implies that such connections represent elite or subset transmissions rather than wholesale population replacement.31321-0) Links to Turkic and Mongolic peoples are more indirect, mediated through persistent Eastern Steppe genetic substrates. Post-Xiongnu periods saw influxes from groups like the Xianbei, but ANA-enriched profiles similar to Xiongnu locals reemerge in medieval nomads, contributing to modern Turkic and Mongolic gene pools, particularly via haplogroups C2 and Q.31321-0) Genetic modeling estimates that up to 20–30% of Xiongnu-like ancestry persists in some contemporary Mongolian populations, though diluted by later expansions such as the Mongol Empire.[21] These patterns highlight recurrent admixture cycles rather than linear descent, with Xiongnu serving as a foundational layer in the steppe's nomadic genetic mosaic.[84]Implications for Social Hierarchy
Genetic analyses of Xiongnu burials demonstrate that social hierarchy was reflected in patterns of genetic homogeneity and admixture, with elite individuals exhibiting lower genetic diversity compared to lower-status groups. In a study of 55 individuals from imperial and local Xiongnu sites spanning the 3rd century BCE to 1st century CE, higher-status burials—identified through grave goods, tomb size, and location—showed ancestry predominantly from eastern Eurasian steppe populations, with limited external admixture, suggesting endogamous practices among ruling strata to preserve lineage exclusivity.[2] Lower-status individuals, conversely, displayed the highest genetic heterogeneity, incorporating ancestries from western Eurasian, southern Siberian, and even East Asian sources, indicative of the empire's strategy of assimilating diverse conquered or tributary groups into subordinate roles without granting access to elite circles.[2] Paternal lineage studies further underscore patrilineal inheritance of status, as elite males frequently shared specific Y-chromosome haplogroups, such as Q1b1a, linked to earlier eastern steppe nomads, while maternal lines in high-status tombs varied more, pointing to hypergamous marriages where elite men incorporated women from allied or captive groups to forge alliances without diluting core paternal lines.[2] This structure aligns with archaeological evidence of ranked burials, where imperial elites received elaborate square tombs with gold artifacts, contrasting with simpler pit graves for commoners, and implies a meritocratic yet hereditary system where military success and kinship ties elevated select lineages.31321-0) Rare instances of non-local males, such as a western Eurasian individual with R1a1 haplogroup in an elite Northeast Mongolian tomb dated to circa 200 BCE, suggest occasional integration of high-value outsiders, possibly as strategic incorporations, but did not disrupt the dominant eastern steppe elite profile.[85] These genetic patterns reveal a causal dynamic in Xiongnu social organization: the confederation's expansion relied on absorbing multiethnic labor and warriors at the base, fostering resilience through diversity, while restricting power to a genetically cohesive apex ensured stability and loyalty among rulers, a model echoed in later steppe empires but unique in its scale of documented admixture gradients by rank.[2] Such stratification likely amplified internal tensions, as evidenced by historical records of revolts and factionalism, yet enabled the Xiongnu's dominance over sedentary neighbors for over two centuries.31321-0)Long-Term Impact
Influence on Eurasian Nomadism
The Xiongnu, unifying nomadic tribes around 209 BCE under Modu Chanyu, formed the first expansive steppe empire spanning from Manchuria to the Aral Sea, establishing a hierarchical confederation that integrated multiethnic groups through kinship ties, marriages, and conquests. This supratribal model, with a chanyu as supreme ruler overseeing decimal-based military units and tribute systems, provided a blueprint for later nomadic polities by demonstrating how pastoralist mobility could sustain imperial control over diverse populations without fixed urban centers.[21][1] Militarily, the Xiongnu's reliance on composite bows, heavy horse breeding for endurance, and tactics like feigned retreats enabled forces of up to 300,000 mounted archers to dominate the steppes and extract tribute from the Han Dynasty, innovations that standardized cavalry-centric warfare across Eurasia and forced sedentary states to innovate defenses such as walled frontiers. These practices persisted in successor confederations, including the Xianbei and Turks, where similar horse-archer armies conducted hit-and-run raids, underscoring the Xiongnu's role in codifying nomadic offensive strategies over settled defenses.[86][87] The empire's multiethnic structure, evidenced by genetic diversity in burials showing eastern steppe elites alongside incorporated western and southern lineages, fostered a flexible incorporation of subjects via servitude and alliance, a pattern replicated in later empires like the Mongols, where high-status roles extended to women in frontier governance and elite burials featured hybrid grave goods blending local and imported artifacts. This approach to heterogeneity mitigated internal fractures in expansive nomadic domains, influencing the durability of steppe unions from the 4th-century CE onward.[88] Post-100 CE fragmentation into northern and southern branches propelled Xiongnu remnants westward as progenitors of the European Huns and eastward into Han territories, perpetuating cycles of nomadic resurgence that defined Eurasian steppes dynamics, with economic foundations in dairying, herding, and Silk Road trade sustaining mobile polities until the Mongol era 1,500 years later.[1][88]Interactions with Sedentary Empires
The Xiongnu, under Chanyu Modu (r. 209–174 BCE), initiated aggressive raids against the northern borders of the Han dynasty following their unification of steppe tribes around 209 BCE.[42] In 200 BCE, Han Emperor Gaozu (Liu Bang) led an army of approximately 320,000 against the Xiongnu but was besieged at Baideng near Pingcheng for seven days by Modu's forces, prompting the negotiation of the first heqin (peace through kinship) treaty; this agreement required annual Han tribute of silk, grain, and wine, alongside the marriage of a Han princess to the chanyu, establishing a pattern of diplomatic deference to avert further invasions.[23] The treaty was renewed multiple times through the reigns of Emperors Hui, Wen, and Jing, with Xiongnu incursions persisting intermittently, such as a major raid by the Wise Prince of the Right in 177 BCE that exploited Han internal rebellions, leading to resumed tribute payments.[23] Under Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BCE), the Han shifted from appeasement to offensive warfare, abrogating the heqin policy in 133 BCE after a failed ambush at Mayi exposed Xiongnu vulnerabilities.[23] [42] Han generals, leveraging superior logistics and cavalry reforms, launched campaigns into Xiongnu territory: in 129 BCE, four Han columns inflicted defeats but suffered losses; Wei Qing's 124 BCE night assault routed Xiongnu forces under Yizhixi; and Huo Qubing's 121 BCE expeditions captured the Hexi Corridor, prompting 30,000–40,000 Xiongnu defections and the submission of the Hunye king as a Han marquis.[23] The decisive Battle of Mobei in 119 BCE saw Han forces of 100,000 cavalry pursue Chanyu Yizhixie north of the Gobi, claiming 19,000 Xiongnu casualties and territorial gains, though Han horse losses exceeded 110,000 and the chanyu escaped intact.[23] These victories fragmented Xiongnu unity, securing Han access to the Western Regions and Silk Road routes. By the late 1st century BCE, Xiongnu internal strife under weak chanyus like Huhanye (r. 58–31 BCE) led to a split into Northern and Southern branches around 48 CE, with the Southern Xiongnu submitting as Han tributaries ca. 50 CE, providing auxiliary troops in exchange for settlements south of the Gobi.[1] The Northern Xiongnu persisted in raids until their decisive defeat in 89 CE by Han general Dou Xian, who destroyed their royal encampment and claimed over 13,000 killed, forcing remnants westward.[42] Diplomatic exchanges included controlled trade at border markets, where Xiongnu exchanged horses and furs for Han ironware and luxuries, though Han records emphasize the economic strain of tribute—estimated at 40,000 silk bolts annually at peaks—while Xiongnu sources, preserved indirectly via Han annals, portray these as rightful acknowledgments of steppe supremacy.[1] Beyond the Han, Xiongnu influence extended to subjugating semi-sedentary oasis states in the Tarim Basin and displacing the Yuezhi westward ca. 176–160 BCE, indirectly shaping interactions with later sedentary powers like the Kushan Empire, but direct engagements with entities such as Parthia remain undocumented in primary records.[1] ![Horse stomping a Xiongnu warrior from the tomb of Han general Huo Qubing][float-right]This Han-era relief depicts a horse trampling a fallen Xiongnu fighter, symbolizing martial triumphs during Emperor Wu's campaigns.[23]
References
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/241118485_Plant_remains_from_noin_Ula_burial_mounds_20_and_31_Northern_Mongolia
