The History of the Hunnu Nation (part 1 of 3)

L. N. Gumilev - "MTF", 1974 – (part of the Steppe Trilogy)

Jul 30, 2023

Son of famous poets Anna Akhmatova and Nikolai Gumilev, Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev (1912-1992) devoted his life to science. He was attracted by the mysterious East, the mysteries of ancient civilizations, ancient peoples and tribes. Engaged in archeological studies of Khazaria, the history of the Hunnu and ancient Turks, he wrote several scientific papers. В 1957-1959 on behalf of the Institute of Oriental Studies, he wrote a monograph "Hunnu", and in 1960 appeared his first book, "Hunnu: Central Asia in ancient times. The Hunnu tells of a nomadic people, which in European historical tradition became known as the Huns. The reader learns about the great commanders of this ancient nomadic people. Much of the work here in part one explains Paleoanthropology sources, and works with ancient Chinese written history.

About its life, culture and traditions, its role in world history. After all, we, modern readers, know only one representative of this militant nomadic people - the formidable king of the Huns, conqueror Attila, raids and conquests expanded the borders of his state.

For the most part, Gumilev’s studies and books are quite detailed and long to read. This is a condensed version. The full version in Russian is about 300 pages. This one is 68 pages. Since I am translating these from the Russian, (quite laborious), I will start with the condensed version. (In some cases the condenses was so interesting that I did also translate the full version. I’ll tell you when that occurs, and probably publish both of them.)

(These page numbers refer to the Russian edition. In any case I have not included page numbers on Substack.)

Hunnu 5

Introduction 5

I. In the mists of centuries 10

In ancient China 10

Origin of the Huns 11

Nature of the eastern steppes 12

Juns and Huns 13

Zhou's victory and its consequences 14

II. Outcasts in the steppes 17

Prehistory of the Huns 17

Formation of the Huns 20

Discovery of Siberia 21

Movement of the Huns to the north 24

Neighbors of ancient Huns 25

III. On the shores of Sand Sea 28

First invasion of the Huns to China 28

Struggle of the Huns and Chinese 29

Culture of slab graves 30

About the language of the Huns 31

IV. The Great Wall 33

War between Xiongnu and Zhao princedom 33

Construction of the great wall 35

War between Xiongnu and Qin state 36

Fall of Qin state 37

About ancient Chinese method of historical narration 38

V. The Whistling Arrows 41

Shanyu Mode and Emergence of the Hunnu State 41

The First War of the Huns and the Huns 42

Nomadic Tibetans-Kyans 44

Usuns 44

The Structure of the Hunnu State 45

End of introductory excerpt. 48

Introduction

The existence of Hunnu people became known from the Chinese sources. Its name turned out to be much more durable than the people itself. It is widely known, in spite of the fact that its speakers perished about fifteen hundred years ago, while the names of many ancient neighboring and modern Hunnu peoples are now known only to specialized historians. The Xiongnu left a deep mark on world history. Moving westward from Asia, they found shelter in the Ugrian Urals. Mingling with them, they formed a new people which became known in Europe as the Huns. To this day, the word "Hun" is often heard as a synonym for "savage". And this is no accident, for the Huns for a thousand years acted not only as creators, but often as destroyers. Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis1.

However, our task is not to praise or condemn the long-defunct tribes. We want to understand how a small nomadic people created a form of organization and culture that allowed them to maintain their independence and identity for many centuries, until they were finally defeated and totally exterminated. What was the strength of this people and why did it dry up?

Who were the Huns to their neighbors and what did they leave to their descendants? Finding the answers to the posed questions, we will thus correctly determine the significance of the Xiongnu in the history of mankind.

** *

Scientific interest in the Xiongnu, their history and ethnographic peculiarities first arose in China. The genial author of the "Historical Notes" of Sima Qian, who lived in the 2nd century B.C., is considered the founder of "Hunnology." Not only did he chronicle the war that the Han Empire waged with the Xiongnu, but he posed the question: why, everywhere, were the victorious Chinese weapons unable to crush the nomadic barbarians? The geographical position, climate and terrain of China and Central Asia were so different, that the Chinese could not live in the Hun's steppes as well as the Huns could not live in China; therefore, the conquest of a different landscape and a different way of life is not feasible2.

The rational grain of Sima Qian's analysis was the search for the objective factors of the historical process, but the reality revealed the invalidity of the geographical method: in the 1st century B.C. the Huns weakened, and the Han Empire became the hegemon in Central Asia for half a century.

Sima Qian's follower was a talented historian of Confucianism Ban Gu, who wrote "The History of the Senior Han Dynasty", but he didn't finish his work, as he was among friends of a disgraced nobleman and so was imprisoned, where he died in 92 A.D. (Notes and references will be added as we move forward.)

1 Times change, and we change with them (Lat. - Ed.).

2 Bichurin N.Ya. A Collection of Information about the Peoples Who Dwelled in Central Asia in Ancient Times. VOL. I. M.-L., 1950. С. 51, 55, 57. Sima Qian, the son of the court astrologer Sima Tang, served at the court of Emperor Wudi in the late 2nd - early 1st century BC. He wrote the book "Shiji" - "Historical Notes", which became a model for further historical works. He was nicknamed in China, like Herodotus, "the father of history".

Ban Gu considered problems of subjugation of the Huns from the point of view of expediency, and believed that inclusion in the empire of a culturally alien people could be harmful for China. He considered Huns so distant from Chinese culture that he did not allow any thought of possible assimilation, and justified in details necessity of fortification of Chinese borders with Huns even in peacetime3. It is possible that the historian's position was dictated by the fact that he wrote his work in the midst of the Hunnish-Chinese war.

The third book of interest, The History of the Younger Han Dynasty, was written in the 5th century A.D. by the South Chinese scholar Fan Hua. He used as his material works that have not survived, which he had, in his own words, "pondered intelligently”.4 His work is drier and poorer than his predecessors, but through it Fan Hua rose to prominence. He later participated in an anti-state conspiracy and was executed.

These three historical works form the basis of the history of the East Asian Xiongnu. In the case of the Western Huns, so named in distinction from their eastern ancestors,5 the first place is occupied by the work of Ammianus Marcellinus6, who gave a colorful description of the people.

Like the Chinese historians, Ammianus Marcellinus, "a soldier and a Greek", stressed the differences between the Huns and all other peoples he knew, including the nomadic Alans. Of course, his description is one-sided7, imbued with hatred for the aliens, but for the researcher is important data, which coincides with his observations of the Chinese authors. They make it possible to reconstruct the image of the ancient people.

The mentioned authors exhaust the first period of "Hunnology", as the history of European Huns does not fall within the framework of our topic, neither chronologically, nor territorially.

The second period of "Hunnology" began in the 18th century, when the French began to deal with this problem. In the 18th century, French missionaries became interested not only in China, where their activities took place, but also in the northern peoples. Gobil, de Maillat and others, fluent in Chinese and Manchurian, compiled witty translated compilations that introduced Europe to the history of the eastern nomads. Professor Deguigne of the Sorbonne took advantage of this body of work, compared Chinese and Byzantine sources, and published his capitol work on the Oriental Peoples8.

Vivien de Saint Martin collected and reworked Near Eastern sources9. The work, begun by the French school of the 18th century, was continued by the 19th century scholars, Abel Remusat, who left a great deal of private study, and Claproth, who created the Tableaux historiques de l'Asie, a historical and geographic atlas which was a valuable synthesis in its day. A new flowering of French historical scholarship on Central Asian issues came at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. This was the high point of European Orientalism. They are the general and specialized works of Édouard Chavanne.

3 Ibid. С. 93-96.

4 Ibid. С. 18.

5 Inostrantsev K.A. The Huns and the Huns. Л., 1926.

6 Ammianus Marcellinus. History III. Book XXXI. Kiev, 1908.

7 Cf. the description of the Hun's court by Priscus of Pania. Priscus encountered the descendants of Asiatic Huns, and Ammianus Marcellinus described them already in a mixture with Ugrians and other Eastern European peoples, in the "Chronicle of Priscus of Pani" (Uchenie zapiski Rossii Akademii. Kn. VII. Vyp. I. SPb, 1861).

8 Deguignes J. Histoire des Huns, des Turcs, des Mogols et des autres Tartas occidentaux avant et depuis J. C. jusqu'a present. P., 1756-1758.

9 Saint-Martin V. Les Huns blancs ou Ephtalites des historiens bysantins. P., 1849 - For a critique of Vivien de Saint-Martin's conclusions

see: Gumilev L.N. Ephtalites and their neighbors in the IV century (VDI. 1959. No 1).

Paul Pelliot, Henri Cordier, and René Grusse highlighted many issues and made it possible to proceed to the second, after Degin, generalization of the accumulated material. Of the German scholars, the monumental works of de Groot10 and Franke11 are worth mentioning; the information they provide is overwhelmingly the same as that found in French and Russian sources. As for Friedrich Hirt,12 his works on the Xiongnu have not stood the test of time and have lost all value.

The works of English and American scientists occupy a special place in the history of science. Parker's book "Thousand years of the Tartare" (Shanghai, 1895) is vividly written, but lacks a reference system, which does not allow the reader to check the sometimes-unexpected claims of the author. Aurel Stein's monographs on the oases of the Tarim River basin, as well as Teggart's chronological studies are undoubtedly valuable contributions to science. The study of O. Lattimore is by no means uninteresting, although it only slightly touches on our subject. But all these works are only auxiliary to the "Hunnology", the book by McGovern13 and articles by Otto Menchen-Helfen14 are directly devoted to the Huns.

McGovern is captive to Chinese historiography, which he perceives uncritically. In fact, he is presenting in good English the contents of the Chinese dynastic chronicles. His book is valuable as a complete sourcebook, and I have used it as a parallel translation of a Chinese text.

Otto Menchen-Helfen questions Russian scholarship and denies the continuity of European Huns from Asian Huns. However, his arguments are refuted by detailed examination and comparison of facts, and his works are of no more than negative value. Thus, many scholars have participated in the study of the question of interest, but the first place in the study of the ancient history of Central Asia for the past 100 years belongs to Russian science.

The first Russian scholar to elevate Central Asian studies above the level of European science of the day was Bichurin, known as Iakinf, a monk. His splendid knowledge of the Chinese language and remarkable capacity for work enabled him to translate almost all Chinese works on the ancient history of Central Asia. His works, published in the second quarter of the 19th century, are still a cornerstone of nomadic and Hunnish history. No less important are his works on the historical geography of China and neighboring countries. These works were not printed in their time and began to be published only in the Soviet period.

Bichurin's publication of Chinese sources ushered in a brilliant era of Russian Orientalism, although some of his views and considerations were not fully confirmed (for example, his opinion that the Huns were Mongols).

V. V. Grigoriev was the first to summarize Western and Oriental materials. Grigoriev, not only an Arabist and Iranist, but also a brilliant expert in Greco-Roman historiography. Using N.Ya. Bichurin's translations for comparison with Near Eastern sources, he constructed a consolidated work, "Chinese, or Eastern Turkestan", which was an exhaustive study at his time and has not lost its value to this day.

10 S.S.M. de Groot. Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte Asiens. Die Hunnen der vorchristlichen Zeit. Berlin-Leipzig, 1921.

11 Franke Otto. Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches. Berlin, 1930.

12 Hirth Fridrich. ?ber Wolga - Hunnen und Hiung-nu. M?nchen, 1900. - For a critique of this work see Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. С. 126-131.

(my note: embedded question marks mean that my version of Word lacks some fonts.)

13 McGovern W. The early empires of Central Asia. L., 1939.

14 Maenchen-Helfen O. The Huns and the Hsiung-nu (Byzantion. Vol. XXII, 1945); The legend of origine of the Huns (Byzantion.Vol. XVII, 1945).

But it is not only cabinet scientists who have devoted their labors and energies to the study of Asian antiquity. No lesser merit fell to individual travelers and the Geographic Society as a whole. N. M. Przewalski discovered and described countries that had until then been known only by hearsay. His students, P.K. Kozlov and V.I. Roborovsky completed the work of their teacher and not only visited but also described the environment of the lands where the Hunnic people had originated, lived, and disappeared. They were followed by M.V. Pevtsov, brothers M.E. and G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo, G.N. Potanin, V.A. Obruchev and in our time E.M. Murzaev. In the bright and colorful expedition reports and diaries in front of the reader pictures of endless steppes, mountain ranges, from which clean streams, heated rocky and sandy deserts, snow storms and gentle blooming Asian spring. The pages devoted to hunting acquaint us with the kinds of animals that the Huns hunted in ancient times, and the discovery of archaeological sites allows us to get in touch directly with the material culture of distant times. No less important are their ethnographic observations, which provided material for the classification not only of modern peoples, but also of those who disappeared in ancient times.

In 1896 N.A. Aristov published in the journal "Zhivaya Starina" a small, but extremely rich research "Notes on ethnic composition of the Türkic tribes and nations," in which an important place is given to the ancient peoples.

The famous traveler G. E. Grumm-Grzhimailo, who devoted a number of works to the history of Central Asia, the most important of which is "Western Mongolia and the Urian-Chai Territory", was his successor. This remarkable study summarizes all the work of Russian and European historians and geographers and critically examines all the hypotheses and viewpoints of his time. This work by Grumm-Grzhimailo is a handbook for historians of Central Asia. But not all issues of the history of Inner Asia were in the field of vision of Grumm-Grzhimailo, who was interested mainly in historical geography, paleoethnography, and some issues of chronology. This gap is filled by a small but exceptionally valuable book by K.A. Inostrantsev, "Huns and Huns". The content of this work is defined by its subtitle: "Analysis of theories about the origin of the Hunnu people in the Chinese annals, about the origin of the European Huns, and about the mutual relations of these two peoples”. It is safe to say that none of the existing concepts escaped the gaze of the author and his detailed analysis.

The books of G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo and K.A. Ivan Strantsev together contain the quintessence of all previous science about the Huns.

A step back was A.N. Bernshtam's book "Sketch of the History of the Huns". It does not contain a coherent account of events and changes in Hun society, and the author's conclusions, when subjected to criticism, did not stand up to it15. However, this particular failure pales in comparison with the success of archaeology. There is no need to dwell on certain discoveries and works, although they have forced us to completely abandon the prejudiced point of view, which painted us ancient nomads as rude savages. A special study by S. I. Rudenko "The Material Culture of the Xiongnu" is devoted to these issues. Suffice it to point out the monumental work of S.V. Kiselev "The Ancient History of South Siberia", dedicated to the richest culture of the Sayan-Altai, and the study of A.P. Okladnikov "Neolithic and Bronze Age in Lake Baikal Region". Only these studies made it possible to trace the history of the Xunnu people, to establish the northern boundary of its distribution, and thus to understand its historical role. It was a rival not only to the Han Empire in the areas adjacent to the Great Wall of China, as has been hitherto imagined, but also to other tribes and peoples. The history of the Xiongnu ceased to be an appendage of Chinese history16.

15 See: Soviet Archaeology. VOL. XVII. 1963. С. 320-326.

16 This book deals exclusively with the Asiatic Huns, and the history of their Eastern European branch the reader can find in the book: Artamonov M.I. History of the Khazars. L., 1960, and also: Altheim Franz. Geschichte der Hunnen. Berlin, 1959.

The present work aims to clarify the place which the Hunnu occupied in the world history as creators of an independent though underdeveloped culture. This aspect deals with their relations to the Chinese people and the emperors of the Han dynasty; of interest are their varied relations with the nomadic steppe tribes and their Western connections, not directly mentioned in the sources, but revealed through a comparison of available materials. As in any consolidated work, this book makes use of advanced scholarship.

I. In the Dark Ages In ancient China

In ancient times, China's territory bore little resemblance to that of today. It was covered by virgin forests and swamps fed by rivers that flooded, vast lakes, impassable saline lands, and only on the plateaus were grasslands and steppes.

In the east, between the lower reaches of the Huang He (Yellow River) and the Yangtze stretched a chain of quicksand soils. The modern Hebei province was a huge delta called the "Nine Rivers". Farther from the seashore stretched wide lakes and swamps, and the Yi and Huai rivers disappeared into the swampy valley of the lower Yangtze. "Lush vegetation clothed the entire Weihe River basin; majestic oaks grew there, and groups of cypresses and pines were visible everywhere. The forests were inhabited by tigers, irbis, yellow leopards, bears, buffalo, wild boars; jackals and wolves howled perpetually.

The fight against rivers has for centuries occupied a great place in the life of the Chinese people. During the dry season, they were very shallow, but as soon as it rained in the mountains, they swelled and burst their banks. When the rivers overflowed, they lost their speed of flow and deposited sediment. One part of the ancient inhabitants of Northern China escaped the raging waters and retreated into the mountains where they supported their livelihood by hunting, another part fought the rivers with determination: they were the ancestors of the Chinese. Hard-working Chinese farmers have been building levees since ancient times, to protect their livelihoods and their fields from floods. The land where they lived has long been inhabited by tribes with different cultures and ancestors. In the lands where they lived, each tribe developed its own culture in the struggle against the forces of nature.18 These tribes often struggled with each other. According to the Chinese historical tradition, already the first of the Chinese dynasties, the semi-legendary Xia, were struggling with other tribes inhabiting the territory of China in the 3rd millennium B.C. These tribes were called Zhong and Di. They inhabited the forested mountains, while the ancestors of the Chinese got the lowlands. To the north, in the dry steppes, lived Hun-yu tribes. Legends tell us that in 2600 B.C. The "Yellow Emperor" undertook a campaign against them. But the main opponents of the Xia were not they, but the Juns and Di.

In Chinese folklore there are echoes of the struggle between the "black-headed" ancestors of the Chinese and the "red-headed devils"19. The Chinese won the thousand-year war. They pushed the "barbarians" into the mountains, the steppes and even the southern jungles, but, as we shall see below, this victory was not final. Despite its successes, the Xia Kingdom possessed only the Henan region and the southwestern part of Shanxi; it was here that the core of the future Chinese nation was concentrated. In 176 420 B.C., the Xia Dynasty in China was replaced by the Shang Dynasty in a coup, which established the foundations of the ancient Chinese civilization and formed the ancient Chinese nation21.

17 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Can the Chinese be considered autochthons of the basins of the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River? (Proceedings of the State Geographic Society, 1933. Separate imprint). С. 29-30.

18 Fan Wen-lan. The Ancient History of China from the primitive communal system to the formation of the centralized feudal state. М., 1958. С. 36.

19 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. The Western Mongolia and Uryankhai Krai. VOL. II. Chapter. 1. Л., 1926.

20 According to new calculations, this date was changed to 1586 (see: "Essays of the history of the Ancient East". L, 1956. P.229) or 1562 (?) (see: Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... P.45). On the degree of legends about Xia see also: Lattimore O. Inner Asian frontier of China. New York, 1940. P. 286.

21 Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... С. 38-66.

Shang-Yin is the first fully historical dynasty of China. The emergence of the first Chinese state is connected with it. Numerous excavations restore the picture of its culture, but the political history is still dark. What is clear is that the Shang was already a true slave-holding state with hereditary power and aristocracy. The most important cultural achievement of this era was the invention of hieroglyphic writing, which played an extremely important role in the later history of China. Not only did trade develop with Hebei to the north of the Huang Heg, trade reached as far north-east as Baikal and the banks of the Angara River. Of course, only goods reached there, not the Chinese themselves, who usually made the exchange with the help of intermediary tribes. Metal was sent to Siberia: tin, bronze, and from Siberia green and white jade, precious furs and possibly slaves22. This is how a Far Eastern cultural hotbed was formed.

Origin of the Xiongnu

In the Eighteenth Century B.C. two events took place in northern China with enormous repercussions. In 1797 B.C. the Chinese nobleman Gong-li fell into disgrace and fled westward to the Jungs. He was apparently followed by many supporters, for here he was able to build a town for himself and rule on his own, separating himself from the Chinese kingdom of Xia. According to sources, Gong-li "was transformed into a Western Jung. In 1327 their descendants, driven by the prince Shan-fu and persecuted by zhuns, returned to their homeland and settled in the northern Shaanxi (Qishan mountains).24 From this newly formed tribe emerged came the Zhou dynasty25. Being still a small princedom, Zhou fought against Jungs, and in 1140-1130 BC the Chang prince "chased Jung-i from the rivers Gin and Luo" (in the Gansu province) northward26.

The zhun-i were tributaries of Zhou for some time, but around the 10th century B.C. "steppe tribute” ceased and a persistent war broke out. The Jungs sought to regain their lost lands; the division of China into many principalities facilitated their advancement. At the same time, a new nation, the Xiongnu, was forming in the steppe bordering the southern edge of the Gobi. The Hanyun and Hanyu tribes had been wandering there for a long time. Neither of them were Huns27. At that time there were no Huns yet. But after the overthrow of the Xia Dynasty, Shun Wei, son of the last king Jie-kyu, who died in exile, went to the northern steppes with his family and subjects28. Shun Wei, according to Chinese historical tradition, is considered the ancestor of the Xiongnu. According to this tradition, the Xiongnu emerged from a mixture of Chinese immigrants and steppe nomadic tribes. Undoubtedly, these legendary accounts only very closely reflect the historical reality. However, it would be wrong to deny their rationality. Although attempts have been made to deny the existence of the Xia period on the grounds that there is no mention of the preceding dynasty in the records of the Shang dynasty, the most skeptical scholars of Chinese antiquity, such as Guo Mozho, as well as Lattimorot, acknowledging the legendary character of the stories about Xia, believe that this dynasty existed29, that in ancient times "Xia" meant "China"30, and that its borders coincide with the borders of Neolithic black ceramics culture31. Further, Lattimorot notes the enormous difference between Xia and Shan cultures and suggests even a partial synchronicity of their existence32.

22 Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic and Bronze Age of Pribaikalye. CH. III. MOSCOW.; L., 1955. С. 200-202.

23 Bichurin N.Ya. Collection of information about the peoples who lived in ancient times in Central Asia, Vol. M.; L., 1950. С. 40.

24 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL.III. M.; L., 1953. С. 67.

25 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 41.

26 Ibid.

27 See: Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 80, where the opposite opinions of Chavannes and Sira-tori are refuted.

28 Bichurin N.Ya. 28 BICHURIN N.YA. С. 40.

Thus, it is possible to assume that the two tribes clashed and one of them won. It is even more probable that as a result of the defeat some of the defeated fled beyond the borders of their native country, invaded by the enemy, and found a shelter with neighboring tribes.

But who were these mysterious Hanyun and Hunyu tribes that Shun Wei's comrades-in-arms mingled with? In ancient times, the Chinese called the Gobi periphery "the sandy country of Shasai"33, and considered it the homeland of the Dinlins. According to anthropological data, the Euro-peoid short-headed type and Mongoloid narrow-faced, i.e., Chinese type were mestizated here at that time34. The Mongoloid broad-faced type was common at that time north of the Gobi.

We are entitled to conclude that hanyun and hongyu were descendants of the aborigines of Northern China who were pushed out by the "black-headed" ancestors of the Chinese into the steppe as early as in the 3rd millennium BC. The Chinese who came with Shun Wei mixed with these tribes and formed the first Prahun ethnic substratum, which became Hunnic only in the subsequent era, when the Prahuns crossed the sandy deserts. Then a new interbreeding took place on the plains of Khalkha, resulting in the historical Xiongnu. Until then they were called Hu, i.e. steppe nomads. So, the Huns were the first people to conquer the deserts. And for that they needed to be brave and tenacious.

The Nature of the Eastern Steppes

Central Asia is surrounded by mountains on all sides. From the northwest, the powerful Sayan-Altai Mountain range separates it from the cold and damp forest of Siberia. A strip of desert (Gobi), like a sea, divides Central Asia in two, and it is not without reason that the Chinese called this desert Han-hai-more. Przewalski describes Gobi as follows: "For weeks at a time the same images appear before the eyes of the traveler: the immense plains, yellowish in color with dried grass, the blackish, rugged ridges of rocks, the gentle hills, on top of which sometimes a silhouette of an antelope is drawn"35.

In addition to antelopes, the Gobi is the habitat of wild camels, which lived there in the 19th century, and a huge number of rodents. To the ancient Chinese, this desert seemed impassable.

In the southeast, the boundary of Central Asia is the Yingshan Range (a meridional extension of the Great Khingan) and the adjoining Liaoxi Mountains. On the slopes of these mountains once grew dense forests full of game, horned and feathered. From the north, Yingshan borders the steppe.

To the west of the bend of the Huang He stretches the Alashan Desert. Przewalski wrote: "For many tens or even hundreds of kilometers, we see here bare, loose sands, always ready to suffocate a traveler with their scorching heat, or be covered by the sand storm. There is not a drop of water in them; there is no beast or bird in sight, and the dead desolation fills the soul of a man who wanders here with horror.36 The high mountain system of Nanshan ranges closes the desert from the south.

29 See: Lattimore O. Inner Asian... P. 286.

30 Ibid. P. 300; Fan Wen-lan. Ancient history of China... С. 135.

31 Lattimore O. Inner Asian... Р. 302. Fan Wen-lan believes that the Xia epoch corresponded to the Lunshan culture (see: Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... P. 43-44).

32 Lattimore O. Inner Asian... Р. 300.

33 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 11.

34 Debets G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. MOSCOW; L., 1948. С. 82.

35 See: Berg L.S. Travels of Przewalski. M.; L., 1952. С. 13. 36 Ibid. С. 20.

To the west lies the rich Dunhuang oasis, and from it begins the caravan route to the Khami oasis. The way is exceptionally hard. Przewalski gave a vivid description of it: "Bones of horses, mules and camels continually lie along the road. Over the heated soil hangs cloudy, as if filled with smoke atmosphere. Often hot whirlwinds and columns of swirling dust drifted far away. Ahead and on the sides of the traveler mirages play. The heat in the daytime is unbearable. The sun burns from sunrise to sunset. The bare soil was heated to 63 °, and in the shade it was not less than 35 °. There was also no chill at night, but it was possible to move along this path only at night and in the early morning.37 The Chinese called the Alashan Desert a "bay" or "bay of the Sea of Sand" (Gobi). For centuries, this sea of sand had been an impassable barrier between the East and the West. But this barrier did not frighten the Xiongnu.

The Jungs and the Xiongnu

The events of the first and second periods of the Hun's history (from 1200 to 214 B.C.) have not found a sufficient reflection in the Chinese historiography. It is understandable why. The Xiongnu were an intermediate link between the steppes and civilized China. They held in their hands a wide strip of foothills from the Khami oasis in the west38 to Khingan in the east. Their numerous tribes "lived scattered over the mountain valleys, had their own sovereigns and elders, often assembled in a large number of clans, but could not unite".39 It is quite probable that the Huns steppes sometimes took part in the campaigns of their neighbors, and that was the only way for the Chinese to learn about their existence.

Therefore, the information about the Huns of the ancient period is sketchy. The latter gave rise to different hypotheses identifying Huns either with Hanyun and Hunyu40, or with the Shanjuns themselves41, and it was forgotten that Huns were steppe people, not mountaineers.

In connection with all stated above the enigmatic ethnonym Jun is revealed. Because of an error or inaccurate Sima Qian expression, there were attempts to identify Jungs with Huns42, but we see that everywhere in the sources Jungs are presented jointly with Di43, so that they, maybe; correctly Bichurin interprets in his translation as a single people - Jung-di. Moreover, there is a legend, according to which chidi and quan-di were of the same origin44. The Jungs and Di apparently differed so little from each other that the Chinese called some genera of the Di the Western Jungs45. The most eastern tribe of them, inhabiting the slopes of Khingan and Yinshan, was called Shanzhun, or mountain zhun. Being cut off from the main masses of their people, the mountain junks merged partially with the eastern Mongols – Dunhu46, partially - with the Huns. No less intensively they merged with the Chinese47 and, in the west, with the Tibetans. In the latter case they turned into the still existing people - the Tanguts.

37 Ibid. С. 45-46.

38 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. III. С. 57. 39 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 43. 40 Ibid. С. 39.

41 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 85; Chavannes Ed. Les memoires historiques des Sst-ma Th'ien. P., 1899. P. 31; Wylie. History of the Hiung-noo in their relations with China (Journal of the Anthropol. Institute of Gr. Britan and Ireland 1874. No9). Р. 401.

42 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 39. Cf: "Tszinshu", ch. 97, where is the boundary between Huns (Huns) and six Hun tribes (Bernshtam A.N. Sketches of the Hun history. Л., 1951. С. 219. Published text).

43 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 45. 44 Ibid. С. 15.

45 Ibid. С. 45.

46 Ibid. С. 85.

47 Ibid. С. 45-46. - Reference to Art: V.P. Vasiliev, On the relations of the Chinese language to the Central Asian languages (Journal of the Mini-.

On the relations between Chinese and Central Asian (Jurnal of the Ministry of National Education. 1872. September); Fan Wen-lan. Ancient history of China. С. 136.

A special race in China ceases to be a mystery: in ancient times the Tanguts were much more widespread than now, when they survived as a small ethnic islet near Lake Kukunor.

This view is at odds with that of European and American historians. In particular, McGovern considers the Jungs and the Di as Huns48, wondering only that their ethnographic features do not coincide. A detailed and detailed analysis of this topic is given by Lattimore49, who concludes that Jungs and Di inhabited the inner China and were settled mountaineers, not steppe nomads, i.e. not Huns, but he says nothing about their racial affiliation.

Cheboksarov N.N. completely ignores the Zhun problem50, not noticing that this prevents him from resolving correctly the ethnogenesis of the Chinese. The quote from the "Jin shu" (Ch. 97), which states that Huns in the west border on the six Jung tribes51, that is, the difference between these peoples is clearly underlined, makes sufficient definition.

However, all authors find it difficult to determine the difference between the Jungs and Di from the Chinese inside China and from the Xiongnu outside China, while from the analysis of historical events it is clear that this difference was obvious for their contemporaries. Here the so-called "Dinling" theory of Grumm-Grzhimailo completely solves the question. It was a racial difference that ancient Chinese authors were not yet able or did not consider it necessary to emphasize52.

Zhou's Victory and Its Aftermath

The princedom of Zhou was located in the territory of the modern Shaanxi province and had among its subjects many warlike Jungs and Chinese accustomed to frontier battles. At the time when the Achaeans were ravaging Troy, and the Huns were crossing the Gobi, the Chzhou king Wen-van "by the forces of the blond [and black-haired] barbarians” was making conquests between the sea and the Tibetan Plateau.53 He left his son a host of warriors who "had the hearts of tigers and wolves," and bequeathed the conquest of the Shan-Yin kingdom.

His son Wu-wang began a war and reached the Huang He River, but was repulsed. Two years later, in 1027 BC55, he repeated the campaign, this time successfully: the Shang-Yin state fell. Many of the defeated were enslaved and granted to Zhou warlords and officials, and they were granted to entire clans. Many slaves were taken from among the eastern (i) and southern (man) neighbors of the Shan-yin Empire. The Zhou king seized the entire interfluve and both banks of the great rivers Huang He and Yangtze.

On the fall of the Shang dynasty there are three completely different opinions. European scholarship holds that the Shang dynasty was destroyed by the invasion of Zhou tribes from the west into the Huang He valley. Feudal Chinese historiography believed that the Shang was a degenerate dynasty and the coup of 1066 B.C., which brought the Zhou dynasty to power, was a step towards progress. Finally, Guo Mozho, considering this view as a tendentious apologia for the violent seizure of power by the Zhou, emphasizes, that the coup led only to the fragmentation and decline of China56. The Zhou consisted of 1,855 self-styled fiefdoms that only nominally recognized the supremacy of the tsar.

48 McGovern W. The early empires of Central Asia. L., 1939. P. 87, etc.

49 Lattimore O. Inner Asian... P. 340-349.

50 Cheboksarov N.N. To a question about the origin of the Chinese // Soviet Ethnography. 1947. No 1. С. 30-70. 51 See: Burnshtam A.N. Essays on the History of the Huns. С. 219. (The published text of the "Tszin shu").

52 See: Gumilev L.N. Dinglin problem // IVGO. 1959. No 1.

53 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 69.

54 Ibid. С. 16.

55 According to the corrected chronology, in 1066 (see: Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... P. 72).

Some historians consider this era as the beginning of Chinese feudalism57. The division of the country into many principalities did not meet the needs of the population; could the petty princes have organized works of land reclamation and river-bank protection? The economy naturally deteriorated.

The ideology also changed: "The Zhou obscured the idea of Shang-di, the supreme god - ruler of the world, and brought naturalism and the cult of heroes into the renewed religion"58, eliminating the human sacrifice that existed59. There was ethnic intermixing, with the result that the Chinese sometimes had tall noses and puffy beards.60

The talented and industrious Chinese people stubbornly sought order and peace, which could not be achieved in political fragmentation. The king's government was powerless against it. But over time, individual principalities began to enlarge at the expense of their neighbors. In the Chongqiu period (Spring and Autumn, 722-480) only 124 large principalities remained, and in the following Zhangguo period (Warring States, 403-221) only seven large and three small principalities remained.

This era is reflected in the geographical treatise Yuigong, a section of the classic book Shanshu. It was written presumably in the Spring and Autumn period, when the North Chinese states were already connected with the territory of the modern Sichuan province; there were iron mines in the latter, which is mentioned in Yugun61.

In Yugun China is divided into nine districts located between the middle reaches of the Huang He and Yangtze and on the coast to the south from the Yangtze estuary, including Guangdong. In the south the author of Yugong knows Annam, but the western regions of Tibet, Qinghai, Xian, Gansu, Yunnan, and Guizhou are unknown to him. "Strong and brave barbarians," as the author of the Yugun calls them, "sheltered by mountains, forests, and deserts," separated the eastern center of culture from the western middle and southern Indian ones for a long and lasting time.

But who were the "barbarians" who separated the East from the West? They could not have been the Xiongnu, who lived at this time much to the north, away from the caravan routes.

Some light on this confusing question is shed by Western antique sources, in particular Ptolemy62. Ptolemy places two different peoples in the territory of modern China: Sines and Serbs. The Sines are placed to the south of the Serae and their capital is named - Tina, which lies deep inland from the port of Kattigara.

Ptolemy's map is so approximate, if not fantastic, that it is extremely difficult to identify the place names. However, another thing is significant for us: the Sines are undoubtedly authentic Qin Chinese and are not identified with the Seri, who supplied silk-sericum to Parthia and the Roman Empire. The Sers are mentioned earlier than the Sines, and in another connection. So, the Greco-Bactrian king Eutidemus about 200 B.C. expanded his possessions in the east "to the possessions of the fauns and the Seri"63. along the great caravan route, subsequently, when the silk trade was established, the name "sulphur" was applied to the silk suppliers in the Tarim Basin, not to the Chinese themselves64.

56 Guo Mozho. The era of the slave system. М., 1956.

57 Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... С. 69; see: T? kei F. Sur le terme nong-fou dans le Che-king (Acta Orientalia. 1955. Vol. V). P. 123-141.

58 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 35; De Harles. Les religions de la Chine (Le Mus? on. 1891. Vol. X).

59 Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... С. 100.

60 Grumm-Grzhimailo points out that many Chinese emperors had an eagle's profile and a lush beard. Rightly so. The Three Kingdoms describes many heroes in the same way, and one of them, the red-bearded Sun Quan, was even nicknamed "the blue-eyed brat" (Lo Guan-chong) (See: The Three Kingdoms. VOL. I. М., 1954. С. 369.

61 See: Zaichikov V.T. The most important geographical works of ancient China // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Series Geo Graphic. 1955. No 3.

62 Thomson J.O. History of ancient geography. М., 1953. С. 437-439.

63 Ibid. С. 253. The Fauni-Kyans were Tibetan tribes that were nomadic in the Yarkend-Darya basin (see: Maenchen-Helfen O.

The next, even more important report about sulfurs, which Thomson regards as "absurd"65 is based on the account of Ceylon ambassadors. According to them, the Sulphurs are tall, red-haired and blue-eyed people who live beyond "Emod", i.e., beyond the Himalayas. This account is rejected as improbable by Jul 66, but in vain, for Pseudo-Arrian (Pericles of the Eritrean Sea, § 39, 49, 64) mentions routes from the country of the Sulphurs to Bactria and from there to the Indian harbors67. Thus, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the Ceylonians met the Seriki. The territory of the Seriki, according to Thomson's summary, extends from Kashgar to Northern China, north of the "bauts," i.e., Tibetan gods.68 It is a territory occupied by the tribe of the Bactria and the Indian harbors. It is an area occupied by the Di tribes, whom we have the right to identify with the Sera both territorially and physically.

Psewdohuns // Central Asiatis journal. Vol. I. No 2. P. 102-103; Tarn W.W. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge, 1950. P. 84- 85; Gumilev, L.N. Terracotta figures of monkeys from Khotan // Short reports of the State Hermitage. Л., 1959. No 16.

64 Gumilev L. N. Terracotta figures of monkeys from Hotan; see also: Soothill. China and West. L., 1925; Yule-Cordier. Cathay and Way Thither. L., 1915.

65 Thomson J. O. History of ancient geography. С. 427.

66 Yule-Cordier. Cathay... P. 200.

67 Thomson J.O.. History of Ancient Geography. С. 428. 68 Ibid. С. 431.

II. Exiles in the steppe Prehistory of the Hunnu

In the study of the most ancient period of the Hun's history a question about the ancient population of Siberia and its area acquires unexpected importance. As will be shown below, the Xiongnu are first mentioned in Chinese history under 1764 BC. The next mentions of them go under 822 and 304 B.C. Nearly a thousand and a half years of Hun history remain in deep shadow. To come closer to illuminating this period, we must turn to the archaeology of Siberia.

Archaeologists distinguish two synchronous self-styled cultures in the 2nd millennium B.C. in southern Siberia the Glazkov culture in the east and the Andronovo culture in the west. "On the territory of Lake Baikal there lived a group of related tribes that could most likely be the ancestors of the modern Evenks, Evenks or Yukaghirs. Their culture... was extremely close to the culture of the inhabitants of the upper Amur River and Northern Manchuria, as well as Mongolia, up to the Great Wall of China and Ordos. It is possible, therefore, that this entire vast area was inhabited by culturally related tribes of hunters and fishermen of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.69

Later, some ancestors of the Huns encountered and mingled with the southern part of these tribes - people of the Gluck culture. The western half of southern Siberia and Kazakhstan up to the Urals were occupied from 1700 to 1200 BC by the Andronovo culture. Its bearers, belonging to the white race, in the 18th century BC took possession of the Minusinsk Basin and were just about to merge with the Glazkovs on the Yenisei River.71 The Andronovs were agriculturalists, they were farmers and sedentary stockbreeders72; of metals, they knew bronze, and their graves contain many exquisitely ornamented clay vessels. The Andronovo culture is connected with the West.73 Non-Andronovo and Neoglazk culture played its first role in southern Siberia in the 2nd millennium B.C.

We have already mentioned above the Dinlins in the "sandy land Shasai", i.e. on the Gobi margin74. They also inhabited the Sayan-Altai highlands, the Minusinsk Basin and Tuva. Their type is "characterised by the following features: average height, often tall, stout and strong build, elongated face, white skin with blush on the cheeks, blond hair, nose, which protrudes, straight, often eagle-like, and bright eyes75. These conclusions based on written sources are also confirmed by archaeology. The Sayan-Altai was the birthplace of the Afanasyev culture, which dates to approximately 2,000 B.C. Anthropologically, the Afanasyevs were a peculiar race. They had "a sharply protruding nose, a relatively low face, low eye sockets, a broad forehead - all these signs indicate that they belonged to the European trunk. The Athanasians, however, differ from modern Europeans by their much broader face. In this respect they are similar to the upper Paleolithic skulls of Western Europe, that is, to the Cro-Magnon type in the broad sense of the term76.

69 Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic and Bronze Age of Baikal Region. CH. III. MOSCOW; L., 1955. С. 8.

70 Ibid. С. 9-10.

71 Kiselev S.V. Ancient History of South Siberia. М., 1951.

72 Griaznov M.P. Monuments of the Karasuk stage in Central Kazakhstan // Soviet Archeology. 1952. T. XVI. 73 Kiselev S.V. Ancient History. С. 100.

74 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia and the Uryankhai Krai. VOL. II. L., 1926. С. 11. 75 Ibid. С. 34-35.

The descendants of the Athanasian culture were the tribes of the Tagar culture, which survived to the 3rd century B.C.77. It makes one think that the Athanasian-Dinlinians carried their culture through the centuries, despite foreign invasions.

About 1,200, in the Minusinsk steppes, the Andronovo culture was replaced by the new Kara-Suk culture, brought by settlers from the south, from North China78 from the banks of the Yellow River. The Chinese style penetrated into Western Siberia for the first time. This is not just borrowing. A new racial type - a mix of Mongoloids and Europoids, where Europoids are brachy-cranes, and Mongoloids are narrow-faced and belong to the "Far-Eastern race” of Asian trunk79.

This race was formed in Northern China during the Yangshao era. In appearance, its representatives resemble modern Uzbeks, who are also the product of a mixture of Caucasoid and Mongoloid components. They mixed locally in turn, but for us it is especially important to note that "a mixed people had already migrated to southern Siberia. To the narrow-faced southern Mongoloid, a Europoid Brachy-Cranian type is mingled, whose origin is unclear, as well as its place in the systematics"80.

One is tempted to compare this mysterious brachicranial Europoid element, which came from China, with Di. But the presence of a Europoid element of different types in Siberia and China makes the question be resolved as follows: Di and Dinlins are peoples of the European racial trunk, but of different racial types; similar, but not identical81.

G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo, who identified the Di and Dinlins, noted: "The long-headed race that inhabited Southern Siberia in the Neolithic epoch hardly had any genetic connection with the Di tribes, i.e. Dinlins (?), who lived, as we know, from time immemorial in the Yellow River basin. Rather, it can be seen as a race, the remnants of which have survived to the present day in the far east of Asia (the Ainu. - L.G.)82.

But the Chinese considered this particular long-headed race as Dinlins, and the Sayan mountains were called "Dinlin83 . Dinlins disappeared from the historical arena in the middle of the II century AD, while Dili, a steppe group of Di, entered it in the IV century. It should be assumed that the Yenisei Kyrgyz were connected with the aborigines of Siberia, the Dinlins, and not with the Di that came from the south. The southern branch of the Dinlins, who roamed south of the Sayan Mountains, intermingled with the ancestors of the Xiongnu, and it is no accident that the Chinese considered high noses as an outward distinguishing characteristic of the Xiongnu. When Shi Min ordered that every last Hun be slaughtered, in the year 350. "Many Chinese with high noses died"84.

76 Debets G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. MOSCOW; L., 1948. С. 65.

77 Kiselev S.V. Ancient History... С. 301; Debedz G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. С. 128.

78 Kiselev S.V. Ancient History... С. 114-116.

79 Debets G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. С. 83.

80 Ibid.

81 Gumilev L.N. Dinlinskaya problem // IVGO. 1959. No 1.

82 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 43.

83 Bichurin N.Ya. Collection of information about people who lived in Central Asia in ancient times. VOL. I. M.; L., 1950. С. 107.

84 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 15.

Distribution of tribes in Central Asia around the 7th century B.C.

** *

So, the Dinlins were a people that mixed with the Yuga Pre-Khuns.

The Chinese history has preserved the description of the life of the Hu, ancestors of the Huns85 in the prehistoric period of their life. In this description the Hu are not much like the historical Huns in their social structure, but are close to them in their everyday life. In ancient times, the Huns apparently had no state structure. Individual families roamed the steppe with herds of horses, cattle and small ruminants, and, to a lesser extent, camels and donkeys.

Nomadic life did not involve wandering randomly across the steppe. In spring, nomads would move to their summer camps in the mountains, where the lush vegetation of the alpine meadows attracted people and cattle, and in autumn they would descend to the flat, snowy steppes, where cattle would forage all winter long. The summer and wintering grounds of the nomads were strictly distributed and formed the property of the clan or family. This was also the case with the Huns.

However, it is necessary to note that Sima Qian86 perhaps, attributed to him deep antiquity, some features of the Hun's way of life were so habitual for him, that he could not imagine that it could be otherwise. He may have exaggerated the role of nomadic herding in the Hu economy, but it would be unreasonable to deny completely the pastoralism of the Inner Mongolian steppe of the Neolithic era. The only question is to what extent this pastoralism was nomadic.

The most important for the characterization of this period of the Hun's history are the following notes: "Those who can wield a bow all join the lath (?!) cavalry... everyone is engaged in military exercises to make raids... The strong eat fat and the best; the weary eat their leftovers. The young and the strong are respected; the old and the weak are little esteemed... Usually they call each other by names; they do not have nicknames and names (clan names. - L.G.)87.

85 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С 40. 86 See footnote 2 in the Introduction.

87 Bichurin N.Ya. T. I. С. 40.

All this testifies to some weakening of the clan ties, to the domination of physical force over customs and traditions. Especially important is the lack of clan nicknames in the epoch of the clan system, while in the later historical epoch the source clearly states the complete triumph of the clan relations (see below). It can be assumed that the above remarks refer to some period when the Hun's ancestors were bound not by the common origin but by the common historical destiny.

But the weakening of clan ties must have had its reasons, especially because along with the above phenomena we observe institutions and customs indisputably related to the clan system. For example, the form of marriage was not a double family but a polygamous one, with the wives being inherited as other property: stepmother to her son, daughter-in-law to her brother, which is characteristic of the patriarchal patrimonial system. It would not be correct to consider this only as a woman's inferior position; often the form of marriage guaranteed a woman against poverty in case of widowhood because the new husband was obliged to give her a place at the hearth and a share of the food and could not leave her to the mercy of fate. All together points to some interrupted historical process, which most likely took place when the Huns were still living inside China.

Let us reconcile this with the archaeological data.

The Swedish expedition of 1927-1937 discovered the Neolithic culture in Inner Mongolia, with its late stage dating to "the time of about 2,000 B.C., if not later88. This culture differs sharply from the Neolithic of Northern China "with which it had only known contact”89.

The conclusion suggests itself. The Neolithic culture belonged to those steppe hunter-gatherer tribes to which the defeated Di first fled from China and then their overthrown victors, the supporters of the Xia Dynasty. This conclusion is supported by the fact that "many infiltrations of the North Chinese Neolithic culture are found everywhere”. An attempt to reconstruct the way of life of the Neolithic population leads to the conclusion that these were hunters, fishermen and gatherers who lived in permanent settlements along rivers and lakes.

Thus, the ancient Hu, who welcomed into their midst two waves of exiles from China, were, according to both narrative and material sources, a very primitive people, devoid of state organization and not yet even in need of it. Their contribution to culture is that, having mastered nomadic herding, they were able to cross the desert, the sandy sea of Gobi. i.e. They discovered Siberia, just as their Phoenician contemporaries, having learned to sail the sea, discovered Europe. Both discoveries were important for the destiny of history, and it is difficult to say which is more significant. Since archaeology asserts, to the best of its ability, the data of the Chinese chronicles, we should also pay close attention to that part of them, which by its very nature cannot find archaeological proof - the description of the marriage customs and the disrespectful treatment of elders. The data of the chronicles speak of the absence of family traditions, and this can only be brought about by a drastic deterioration of living conditions, when all the weak are doomed to perish. The poverty that befell the ancestors of the Huns was such that all their strength went to maintain their physical existence, and traditions died with the elders.

Librarian’s Substack

Discussion about this post