The History of the Hunnu Nation (part 2 of 3)
L. N. Gumilev - "MTF", 1974 – (part of the Steppe Trilogy)
Formation of the Xiongnu.
We know nothing about the wars between the Hun nomads and the Shan-Yin state. However, archaeological material points to the close contact between China and the steppe people during this era. We cannot rule out the possibility that there were no major clashes between them, because on the on the one hand, the "barbarians" were still poorly organized, and on the other hand, both had a common enemy - the growing power of the Zhou princedom.
88 Okladnikov A.P. New data on the ancient history of Inner Mongolia // VDI. 1951. No 4. С. 173. 89 Ibid. С. 172.
For the steppe peoples, no less than for China itself, the triumph of the Zhou van was an event that defined their history. Even before the rebellion, the Principality of Zhou had been China's bulwark against the northern tribes. It should be noted that the Huns of the 12th century BC are quite different from their ancestors. Degin, on the basis of Sima Qian, believes that "about 1200 B.C. is when we should place the establishment of the Xiongnu kingdom91. Cordier also accepts this date92. At that time Huns inhabited the steppes from Hebei to Lake Barkul and were already raiding China. A description of their way of life and order shows considerable progress. "They have no houses and cultivate no land, but live in tents...” They respect their elders and gather at fixed times of the year to order their affairs.93 Therefore, it is not at all surprising that, having crossed the desert, they gained the upper hand over the scattered bearers of the Glaskovo and Andronovo cultures.
Discovery of Siberia
The second date of the Hun's prehistory, found by archaeologists, is approximately 1200 B.C. Around this date, as already noted, the first passage of the southern nomads across the Gobi Desert took place; since that time the desert became passable, the Huns had occupied the area94. First of all, the question arises why the crossing of the "sandy sea" was possible during this period. Apparently, the Hun's nomadic cattle breeding had already developed so much that the Huns moved north in search of pastures, and the same cattle breeding economy provided them with sufficient draught power.
The rock engraving depicts the "ship" in which the ancestors of the Huns crossed the "sea of sand. It is a roofed cart on wheels, pulled by oxen, for it was too heavy and clumsy for horses95. The assumption stated would be correct, but not sufficient. Nor can we overlook the climate change at the turn of the second millennium B.C. and the related changes in the distribution of landscapes. It is possible that it was at this time that the process of cooling and slight humidification of the climate began, ending by the middle of the first millennium BC. The arid xero-thermal period began to be replaced by a sub-Atlantic humid period, and the borders of the Gobi Desert should have shifted accordingly.
During that period, the number of lakes stretching in a belt from the lower Volga region, through Kazakhstan and Mongolia, to Khingan should have also increased (dry climate and lakes are interconnected geographical phenomena)96. At the same time, the "taiga sea" began to advance southward. The forest-steppes were transformed into dense thickets, and this undermined the economic base of the inhabitants of Siberia.
Circumstances favored the southern nomads who were able to take advantage of them. Written sources have not preserved traces of a thousand-year struggle for the steppe, but by the 3rd century B.C. the Huns were already masters of all the steppe areas.
90 McGovern W. The early empires of Central Asia. L., 1939. P. 91.
91 Deguignes Y. Histoire des Huns, des Turcs, des Mogols et des autres Tartares occidentaux avant et depuis, J.C.jusqu'a present. Vol. I. P., 1758. P. 216.
92 Cordier H. Histoire g?n?rale de la Chine. Vol. I. P., 1920. P. 205.
93 Quoted in Cordier H. Histoire g?n?rale de la Chine. Vol. I. P. 205.
94 See: Kiselev S.V. Ancient History... С. 147.
95 Ibid. С. 161.
96 Murzaev E. North-Eastern China. М., 1955. С. 83, 113.
The people of the Xiongnu were the only ones to be able to live in the Siberian taiga. On the banks of the Yenisei and Abakan the round nomadic yurt appeared next to the breviary hut. Along with the cultural mix, racial mixing also took place: in this epoch, referred to as the Karsuk era, Mongoloid, narrow-faced North Chinese type97 and Caucasian brachyacranian of southern descent began to appear in the burials.
But if the Huns influenced the Aborigines of South Siberia, the latter were not less influenced by them. "The life of Neolithic fishermen of the late Stone Age and early Bronze Age on the Angara and upper Lena was not at all such a peaceful and quiet idyll as it was portrayed before”... Constant inter-clan and inter-tribal wars were common, as we know, in the conditions of tribal life98. The purpose of the wars was to acquire slaves in order to relieve themselves and their wives of the burdens of economic cares, and to obtain 'wealth.' However, "wealth" had quite a different meaning from the one that we put in that term. These "values" had essentially no meaning in everyday life. They were the pride of their owners, but they lay in barns like dead treasure...
They were processed pieces of jade, seashells, mother-of-pearl, etc., things that delighted the eye, but were of no real use. Cultural relations of ancient inhabitants of the Baikal Region extend to Southern Manchuria and North-Eastern China100. Here one can trace the exchange mainly of nephrite ornaments (discs, rings, half-discs), beads, seashells and, what is especially important, metal raw materials. On the basis of new archaeological data, we can conclude that an independent cultural complex existed in the territory from the Angara to the Ussuri in the 2nd millennium BC. Archaeological materials collected by A.P. Okladnikov, describing the life of the tribes of the Baikal area in the 2nd millennium B.C. and at the start of the 1st millennium B.C., show a patriarchal clan system with slavery, where slaves, obtained by captivity and purchase, were used in labour-intensive and unpleasant works, and in bloody sacrifices101.
Judging by the above description, the Huns were more primitive than the Khalkha natives and, therefore, must have perceived much of their culture. In fact, in the 3rd century BC we find the Huns a patriarchal clan structure and domestic slavery, similar to that suggested by Okladnikov for the Glaskovo culture.
Although the history of the Huns from 1200 to 214 B.C. (with a few exceptions) is not illustrated in written sources, much may have happened during the course of this 1000 years, and we have no right to omit this period without saying a word about it. It is true that here will only be speculations and considerations based on analogies, but they may shed some light, if not on the history, then on the ethnography of the Xiongnu.
Archaeological research established that throughout South Siberia in the Bronze Age there was a custom of a wife or concubine's death and her burial in the grave of her husband102. But in addition, men sacrificed were also found103. This can be interpreted as a tuom custom, a very ancient rite of summoning the spirit of war by shedding blood. It existed among the tribes of the Lowland, and its memory is preserved to this day104.
97 Debets G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. С. 83.
98 Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic... С. 261.
99 Ibid. С. 244, 247.
100 Ibid. Chapter IV.
101 Ibid. С. 231 ff.
102 Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic... С. 233, 237; Kiselev S.V. Ancient History... С. 24, 113; Salnikov K.V. Ancient Monuments of Urals History. Sverdlovsk, 1952. С. 68, 69.
103 Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic... С. 259.
104 Okladnikov A.P. Historical tales and legends of Lower Lena (Collection of MAE. 1949. No 11). С. 82, story 9. 22
However, we have much closer analogies. The Kidans had a custom - during the war on their way to the enemy country to bring as a "redemptive sacrifice" to the spirits of their ancestors a criminal, shooting him with "a thousand arrows". Likewise, when the war was over, they would sacrifice one of their enemies to the spirits, this time as a "thanksgiving sacrifice105. The same custom was recorded among the Hunnish in the 2nd century B.C.106. While the Lower Silesian tribes, belonging to the circumpolar cultures, were separated from the southern Baikal area by the "taiga sea", and making the Hunnic connection with them is problematic.
Thus, we can say that the sacrifices were offered not to Ilbis, the god of war107 but to the ancestral spirits, obviously very bloodthirsty.
Most important, A.P. Okladnikov concludes: during the Glashkovsky time, "a new funeral rite appeared due to the idea of the existence of the underworld, into which the river of the dead leads, and replaced the old rite, which had other ideas about the fate of the dead in the netherworld108.”
This change of the worldview is compared with the transition from matriarchy to patriarchal patrimonialism. It radically alters the entire concept of life and, above all, is reflected in the cult of ancestors: "The return of the dead brings misfortune and distress to the living, whereas previously it was considered an inevitable and desirable link in the cycle of life and death".109 From this point of view "redemptive" and "thankful" sacrifices to the spirits of ancestors as a reward for non-interference in earthly affairs are understandable.
In connection with this worldview, a dualistic system emerges: heaven - father - good and earth - mother - death, and hence the solar cult, expressed in the manufacture of disks and rings of white nephrite. A.P. Okladnikov suggests that the sun cult in the Pre-Baikal area replaced the earlier beast cult.
Finally, A.P. Okladnikov's most interesting observation and conclusion is his interpretation of two burials from the Glaskovo period as shamanic110. And if we admit that the burials described above are truly shamanic, it would be more correct to conclude that they are of later origin, i.e. to date them after 1,200 BC and compare them with the southern shamanism, which already existed in China and came to Siberia, obviously, together with the Huns. This assumption does not contradict either the general concept of A.P. Okladnikov, or his collected material, because he himself compares the bone spoons from the burial, found near the village Anosovo, with bronze spoons from Ordos111. The assumption that shamanism emerged in Siberia independently on the basis of the development of older beliefs, not only is not proven, but apparently cannot be proven; on the contrary, the cultural links between Siberia and the Far East can be traced from the Bronze Age.
The description of the culture and social structure of the fishing tribes of Lake Baikal is of secondary, but essential importance for our topic. The Xiongnu for a thousand years absorbed and processed this culture, and the independent appearance of the Xiongnu culture, so different from the Chinese and even opposite to it, is a consequence of this fact.
105 Plath J.H. Geschichte des ?stlichen Asiens. G?ttingen, 1830. S. 105; cf: Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic... С. 261. 106 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 76.
107 Okladnikov A.P. Neolithic... С. 259.
108 Ibid. С. 328.
109 Ibid. С. 334.
110 Ibid. С. 339ff. 111 Ibid. С. 347.
We meet almost all the marked rites with some changes in the Xiongnu power in the II century BC. Therefore, A.P. Okladnikov's studies and his conclusions acquire a special value: they reveal the second source of the creative peculiarity that found its embodiment in the creation of the Xiongnu power and nomadic culture.
The Movement of the Xiongnu to the North
A.P. Okladnikov singled out the Shiver culture as a special stage, which arose as a result of the contact between the ancient Huns and the ancient Tungus. It is distinguished from the preceding Gluck stage by the rapid development of metal technology and by the appearance of "amazing affinity with features of primitive axes of the Celts and Archaic China of the Yin (or Shang dynasty) dynasty”112. The spearheads also repeat the Yin ones, and the daggers and knives belong to the archaic variants of the Karasuk flat daggers.
Considering our traced course of events, we can confidently date this culture to the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. After all, Huns were enemies of Zhou and, consequently, friends of Shang-Yin113. Being driven out of China by the Wu-wang at the very end of the 12th century, they transferred the skills and forms borrowed from the Chinese to Siberia; thus, for Siberia things similar to the Anyan should be dated to the era immediately following the demise of the Shang-Yin kingdom. But this should not be extended to the field of ideology, because the difference in the way of life and economy between nomads and Chinese excluded direct borrowing.
So, we can state that Shiver stage of Baikal culture and Kara-Suk culture are not only synchronous but also appeared for the same reason. However, their fate was different.
The western unit of the Xiongnu, which crossed the Sayan Mountains, found itself surrounded by the warlike Dinlins and isolated from the bulk of their tribesmen. No matter how the struggle went on, the Dinlins won.114
The Tagar culture powerfully overtook the Kara-Suk culture, and the local tradition triumphed over the newcomer one. According to the latest measurements, the Karasuk skulls resemble most of all the skulls of the Uzbeks and Tajiks (reported by V.P. Alekseev), which means that, as in Central Asia, the Mongoloid component was absorbed by the Europoid component.
The Karasuk culture was much more widespread than the anthropological type of its bearers115. It widely interacted with the preceding Andronovo culture and left a trace on the subsequent Tagar culture. This allows us to assume that the newcomers who introduced from the south quickly established peaceful relations with the Aborigines and, impregnating their culture with their own, dissolved in their mass.
Not so in the east. Closer by blood to the Huns and less organized, the tribes of the Baikal area submitted to them, and by the 3rd century B.C. all Central Mongolia and the Transbaikal steppe made up the main territory of the Huns. The fighting for the steppe expanses apparently took about 300 years, and during that time no mention of the Xiongnu was made in China.
During these 300 years a new people was formed, mingling with the aborigines and perfecting their culture (e.g, the bronze technique). And in China during the same time the Zhou dynasty fell into decay. But apart from the Chinese, the Xiongnu had many other neighbors.
112 Okladnikov A.P. Shiver cultural-historical stage (manuscript).
113 It is quite remarkable that the Huns preserved the traditions of Shan art until the 5th century AD and brought them to Western Europe. The handle of a bronze sacrificial vessel of Hunnish origin was found in the Katalaun field. Similar finds were made in Hungary, Silesia, in the south of Russia, in the Altai Mountains near Lake Teletskoye, in Mongolia, and in the Ordos. They date to the Elder Han period, 3rd-1st centuries BC, but their style ascends to the style of the Shang-Yin period, when such vessels were called "yu". [see: Tak? ts Z. Catalaunischen Hunnenfund und sein ostasiatischen Verbindungen // Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. T. V. Budapest, 1955. S. 143-173.
114 Artamonov M.I. On the Origin of the Scythians // VDI. 1950. No 2. С. 46.
115 Gryaznov M.P. History of ancient tribes of the Upper Ob // IIA. Т. 48. 1956. С. 38-41.
Neighbors of the ancient Xiongnu
The Jungs occupied a territory very homogeneous in landscape and monolithic: In the northwest they inhabited the Khami oasis116, where they bordered the Indo-European Cheshians who lived in Turfan; in the southwest they possessed the banks of Lake Lobnor and the Cherchen-Darya, adjoining Khotan and the Altyntag mountains, where the Tibetans - Jokyan (or Erkian) were roaming; the Jungs also owned the Qaidam Plateau, and their kindred Di tribes lived in northern Sichuan. But the main mass of Rong tribes was grouped in Northern China. In Hebei province lived tribes: Beizhong (also Shanzhong), Tszyashi (offshoot of Chidi tribe), Xianlui, Fei and Gu (offshoot of Chidi tribe), Uzhong. Their common name was Baidi. In the west lived tribes with the common name of Zhundi. They lived among the Chinese population, not mixing with it, in the provinces: Shaanxi - dazhuns, lijuns, quanjuns; Gansu - xiao-juns; Henan and Shanxi - maojuns, baidi, chidi, quanjuns, lushi, lusy and dochun117.
The nomadic Leufan and Bayan tribes belonged to the Zhong tribe. The Leufan tribes were originally located in Shanxi (in the area of modern Taiyuan)118, but later we find them in Ordos. Apparently, Ptolemy had them in mind when he spoke of the people of the Seri, living in the neighborhood of the Sino-Chinese.
The easternmost of the Jung tribes, the Shanshuns lived in the southern Khingan, neighboring the Dunhu and the Huns. The location of the Huns in ancient times is precisely defined in the "Tszinshu", ch. 97(119). The Xiongnu land in the south was joined with Yan and Zhao departments (modern provinces Hebei and Shanxi), in the north reached Shamo, in the east adjoined the northern and, in the west, reached the six tribes of the Juns, i.e. the ancient borders of the Hun's spread, coincided with the modern borders of the Inner Mongolia without Barga. Subsequently, they narrowed as the steppes east of Khingan were populated by the Dunhu, or more precisely the Khoras, a people of the Mongolian race.
It should be noted that the North Chinese type is very different from the Mongolian. The Chinese are narrow-faced, thin and slender, while the Mongols are wide-boned, short and stocky. In the steppe we observe both types: pure Mongols were called by the Chinese Dunhu, i.e. eastern Hu, and among the Hu-huns was a Chinese narrow-faced type with an admixture of Dinglin features, for example, high noses120. Certainly, the Huns and the Dunhu-huns had mixed over the centuries, and this mixture determined to a large extent the character of the Huns: the Dinglin indomitability combined with the Chinese love of the system and with the Mongolian endurance.
To the north of the Huns lived the Dinlins. They inhabited both slopes of the Sayan range from the Yenisei to the Selenga. On the Yenisei River were located the Kyrgyz (Chinese: Qigu), a people which had originated through the mingling of the Dinlins with the unknown Gyan-Gun tribe, while to the west of them, on the northern slope of the Altai, lived Kipchaks (Chinese: Kyueshe), similar in appearance to the Dinlins and probably related to them.
From the 5th century B.C. onward, the Chinese chronicles mention the Yuezhi, a nomadic people living in Hexi, i.e., in the steppes west of Ordos. Their territory is defined as "from Dun-huan to the north, from the Great Wall under the Ordos to the northwest up to Hami121”. However, this territory could not have been home to numerous Yuezhi people, as the same era Chinese geography places the Usuns and Chidi Uighurs there.
116 Bichurin N. Ya. VOL. III. С. 57.
117 Fan Wen-lan. The ancient history of China... С. 137-138.
118 Chavannes Ed. Les memoires historiques de Sse-ma Ts'ien. P., 1899. P. 71, 89. 119 See: Burnshtam A.N. Sketch of the Hun history. Л., 1951. С. 219.
120 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 15.
121 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL.III. С. 57.
Prior to the V century, the Chinese do not write about Yuezhi, which could not be if they occupied an area so close to China. Hence, Yuezhi captured Hesi in 5th century BC, with an already developed base for attack; such base could be only Dzungaria, because the Central Mongolia was already occupied by Huns, and the western Mongolia - by Kipchaks and Gyanguns122.
We turn to the last and most mysterious white-robed people, the northern Boma. The Boma inhabited the northern slopes of the Sayan-Altai123. The following is known about them: "They lead a nomadic way of life; they prefer to settle among mountains, overgrown with coniferous forests”, they plow with horses; all their horses are peaked, hence the name of the country - Boma (the peaked horse).
To the north their lands extend as far as the sea. They make frequent wars with the Hagas, whom they resemble very much in face; but their languages are different, and they do not understand each other. The houses are built of wood. The cover of the wooden log is the wood bark. They are divided into small clans, and have no common chief124. N. Ya. Bichurin's translation contains certain differences: for instance, horses were of Savrasaya stock, the Bom did not ride, but held horses only for milk, and the Bom army was estimated at 30,000 people125.
So, this was a large nation by Siberian scales. Fortunately, we have authentic names for it in the Chinese rendering: Bitse-bike and Oloje126. Hence, it becomes clear that the Boma are just a nickname, and the comparison of the Siberian Boma with the Ganasu ones is unfounded, especially since they are written in different characters127. Their ethnonyms coincide with Bikin, an ancient tribe, mentioned by Rashid ad-Din, and Alakchin, about whom Abulgazi writes that "they have all horses are peg, and hearths are golden". He places the country of Alakchins on the Angara128. Thus, we cannot classify the Bomas as either Dili or Dinlins.
Having localized the Alakchins, let us turn to the anthropology of Lake Baikal. There, during the Neolithic Era, which was probably very protracted, three types were outlined: 1) Eskimoid - in the middle course of the Angara, where there was no Caucasoid admixture; 2) Paleosiberian - in the upper course of the Angara and Lena; and 3) Caucasoid, who infiltrated from the Sayan-Altai and mixed with Abori-122.
For a history of the issue see: Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 91-94. The territory inhabited by Yuezhi is reconstructed on the basis of the comparison in the following way. In the epoch before the Hunnish conquest of the steppe Asia, two states adjoined Altai: Kangyu from the west and Yuezhi from the east. Kangju, contrary to the opinion of S.P. Tolstov, was in the Eastern Kazakhstan, and there is little evidence that the steppe tribes possessed the mountain valleys of the Altai. The Yuezhi area, according to Chinese information, lay between Alashan and Hami, but the southern, fertile part of this territory was occupied by Usuns, who were conquered by Yuezhi around the 4th century B.C.
The attempt to understand the Chinese information literally, i.e., to place two large peoples in the same desert territory, has failed. It has to be assumed that the area was conquered by Yuezhi from the west, and since the oasis area was inhabited by Tochars and the territory of Mongolia by Huns, that leaves only Jungaria, adjacent to the Altai and Tianshan. From here the Yuezhi were displaced by the Huns in 165 BC. For identification of Pazyryk with Yuezhi the following data are:
1) Chinese items, for example a mirror from the Qin princedom, closely connected with Yuezhi.
2) Yuezhi were shaving their heads, the remains found in Pazyryk, testify to the same.
3) Sharp characteristic profile on the Pazyryk images, which is an aesthetic canon, coincides with the profile on Kushan coins.
4) Sharp characteristic profile on Pazyryk coins is nothing new.)
The supposed dating of the V-III century BC coincides with the blossoming of Yuezhi, while Kangyu existed for another 500 years, and in the Qin time it was not connected with China, and the Qin mirror with other things could come to Altai only through Yuezhi again.
5) Many large stone barrows of the Pazyryk type are located in the eastern areas connected with Mongolia and Dzungaria, but not with the Karaganda steppe, and not with Baraba; the similarity of the Pazyryk items with the Scythian ones is simply explained by the fact that both peoples had relations and exchanged cultural values, and the intermediaries were the Alans, related to Scythians.
Of new works, see: Pelliot P. Les coutchenes et les tokhariens // Journal asiatique. 1934; Haloun G. Zur ?etsi Frage // Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl?ndischen Gesellschaft. 1937; Umnyakov I.I. Tocharian pro- blem // VDI. 1940. S.P. Tolstov compared Yuezhi with Massagetes, based on the sound of names in a supposed reconstruction (see: Ancient Khorezm. M., 1948). This hypothesis is not accepted by all scholars.
123 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 51, 59.
124 Chavannes E. Documents sur les Tou-kiue (turos) occidentaux // Collection of works of Orkhon expedition. Т. VI. SPb. 1903. С. 29, note 4.
125 Bichurin N.Ya. T 1. С. 350.
126 Ibid.
127 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia... С. 13. 128 Ibid. С. 353-354.
The distribution area of this type in Lake Baikal is limited to its southern regions, adjacent to islands of steppe or chernozem soils, the chain of which stretches from Minusinsk territory to Kansk steppe approximately along the line of the present-day railway129. We observe a similar picture in the Krasnoyarsk Territory130.
Thus, the presence of the northern Bomas, or, more precisely, Alakchins and Bikins, is confirmed. Their ethnic difference with Dinlins, despite their racial similarity, should neither surprise, nor amaze us. They were probably distributed very widely, from the Altai to Baikal, in scattered groups like many other Siberian tribes.
129 Debets G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. С. 58-61. 130 Ibid. С. 62.
III. On the shores of the "sand sea"
The first invasion of the Huns in China.
The IX century was coming to an end. The Zhou dynasty was already losing its power in China, and Wan Xuan began to be afraid of discontent of his subjects inclined to rebellion. It was at this time that the Xiongnu, dubbed by Chinese poetry "heavenly prides" and crude prose "wicked slaves," showed themselves to the world for the first time.
The first poetic account of the Xiongnu, already renewed, formed, and therefore formidable, dates back to 822 B.C. One of the odes of the Book of Songs describes the invasion of China by the Xiongnu131:
In the sixth month132, what confusion!
Chariots of war are on the alert,
Four stately horses are mounted in each,
They are equipped, as is usual.
The Hunnu invaded furiously,
So, we must hasten forth; To free the capital,
The King133 ordered us to march.
We defeated the Xiongnu,
With great courage...
The Xiongnu were ill calculated,
Taking Qiao and Hu,
Capturing Hao and Fen134,
Reaching the northern part of the Jin River.
Our banners, adorned with images of birds,
Fluttered with their white folds.
Ten war chariots raced ahead...
We defeated the Xiongnu.
This is an example for ten-thousand (metaphor for, many) countries135.
The data are too sparse to assess the Xiongnu march on its own merits. It is not entirely clear whether it was simply a successful plundering raid or a serious war calculated to seize territory. The former is more likely, but in this case too, large and organized masses must have acted. Mobilization was needed to repel the enemy, and yet the war was not easy.
It is all the stranger that after this, the Huns are not mentioned again for about 500 years. Apparently, they were pushed northward by the Jungs136.
131 They are not called Hsiung-nu, but Xunnu, evidently because of the archaic language.
132 In July.
133 Xuan-wang of the Zhou dynasty.
134 The capital of the Zhou kingdom.
135 Avdiev V.I. History of the ancient East. М., 1953. С. 655.
136 The name Junnu appeared in China in the Zhangho era (IV-III centuries BC) [cf: Tseng Yong. Defensive Wars against the Huns in the Han era. Shanghai, 1955 (Abstract Book. 1956. No 15. P. 95).
The struggle between the Juns and Chinese.
The power of the Zhou tongs was kept "on a tip of a spear". This situation could not last indefinitely. In 842 BC, the population of the capital rebelled against Li-wang and stormed the palace. Li-wan fled. The dignitaries Zhou-gung and Zhao-gung took power and met the demands of the rebellious people. The era of their regency (842-827) is characteristically known as the "General Consent" (Gonghe). At that price, the dynasty was saved, but its power was not restored despite the successful repulsion of the Xiongnu and the victorious war with the Xu Kingdom in southeastern China.
While there were many feudal and appanage possessions in China, their size was very small. Therefore, the van (King) had an unquestionable advantage over any of his princes. But when the possessions enlarged, the power of individual princes increased proportionally, and the wans had to reckon with them. However, this was not always the case: often personal interests and passions interfered with political calculations and overturned them.
For example, Yu-wan fell in love with the beautiful Bao-si and neglected his legitimate wife, the daughter of Prince Shen. The latter defended his daughter; a conflict ensued between the feudal lords, with the offended nobleman asking for help from the neighboring "barbarian" tribes. Here the Jungs and Di began a counteroffensive. In 771 Guanjun intervened in the feudal war and invaded China. Yu-wang fell in battle, and the Guanjong settled on Chinese soil. They occupied the area between the Ging and Wei Rivers "and continued to harass the Middle State.137 Ping-van of the House of Zhou, unable to fight off the encroaching enemy, retreated eastward to Luoyang, but the Guanzhu were repulsed by Prince Xiang in 770 B.C. From that time the actual disintegration of the Zhou Principality began.
Somewhat later the Shanzhuns became active in the east. In 706 they broke through the Principality of Yan and the Principality of Qi and defeated the Qi prince under the walls of his capital. Only 44 years later Huan-gong, the prince of the Qi princedom, drove them out of the Chinese borders138. However, conflicts still prevented Chinese from uniting their forces, and in 644 the Jungs ravaged the Jin province, the prince of which was the head of the imperial union. In 642 they came to the aid of their former enemy - a rebellious prince of the province of Qi, and carried out a devastating raid on the Wei province.
However, the Jungs achieved their greatest success in 636 BC. The Grand Duke Xiang-van married a princess of Zhuns for political reasons. However, the young princess was part of a conspiracy against him by one of the court cliques. They brought their tribesmen and her friends opened the gates of the capital for them, and the Grand Duke had to flee. For four years the Jungs plundered defenseless China, while Wen-gong, prince of the Jin dynasty, sought the consent of the imperial Diet to authorize him to expel the Jungs and restore order. It was not until 632 that he expelled the Jungs from the capital and executed the traitorous Prince of the Dai, a usurper. At the same time Qin Mu-gun (659-621) destroyed the 12 possessions of the Jungs in the west and returned to China the land of Zhou.
However, the Jungs were not defeated, and the struggle continued until 569, when they made peace with the Jin domain 139. In the fifth century the odds tipped in favor of the Chinese. Zhao-wang, the prince of the Jin domain, conquered the kingdom of the Yiqiu Jungs in Shaanxi and eastern Gansu. By Ling, prince of Zhao, conquered Leufan and Linhu in the Ordos, and Qin Kai, the commander of Yan princedom, "defeated Dun-hu by a sudden attack140.
137 Bichurin N. Ya. Collection of information about the peoples who inhabited Central Asia in ancient times. VOL. I. M.; L., 1950. С. 42.
138 Confucius said that had it not been for this victory, "we would probably have to walk unbrushed, button our clothes to the left and experience alien domination" (see: Fan Wen-lan. The Ancient History of China from the Primitive Communal System to the Formation of the Centralized Feudal State. VOL. I. М., 1958. С. 120).
139 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 43-44. 140 Ibid. С. 45.
How the final victory went to the Chinese is convincingly shown by them. The Huns occupied a vast territory and were divided into many large and small tribes. The Jungs occupied a vast territory, divided into many large and small tribes, and "all these generations scattered over the mountain valleys, had their own sovereigns and elders, often gathered in a large number of clans, but could not unite"141. As long as feudal fragmentation reigned in China itself, the Jungs could have private successes, but as soon as possessions were consolidated and princes became kings, the centralized force defeated the brave Jungs.
Stone castles proved more reliable shelters than mountain gorges. The Ikuyu Juans tried to imitate the Chinese and built a number of fortresses. But the Chinese were already skilled in siege techniques and easily took those castles. Besides, we don't know what was the relationship between the Jungs and the Huns. It is unlikely that they were friends. And if so, the situation of the Jungs must have been tragic: sandwiched between China and the Great Steppe, they had no rear, and the mountain valleys, where they tried to hide from the advancing enemy, proved traps with no way out, not a refuge, but a place of death.
As a result of five centuries of fighting, the Jungs were divided into two parts: the main one was pushed westward to the mountainous Lake Kukunor and the other was pushed eastward to the Khingan mountains where it developed among the eastern Hu142, harboring animosity against the Chinese. As a result, in the 3rd century B.C. a Dunhu tribal alliance was formed that seized hegemony in the eastern part of the Great Steppe. At the same time the peoples of the western part of the Steppe came to life again and returned to the active historical life.
In 250 B.C. the Parthians, leading the Iranian liberation movement, drove the Macedonian conquerors out of Midia, and the related Sarmatians conquered Scythia, i.e. the Black Sea steppes143. It is as if by some powerful push the steppe peoples were set in motion in the middle of the 3rd century BC.
The Tile Grave Culture
At the time when the Chinese and the Juns were killing each other in wars of extermination, an original culture was developing in the steppes of Central Mongolia and South Transbaikalia. This so-called "tile grave culture" is in fact an early stage of an independent Xiongnu culture. It was studied by G.I. Borovka144 and G.P. Sosnovsky145, but was fully described by A.P. Okladnikov146. These graves, stretched in chains from south to north, contain magnificent bronze articles. I omit their description, as it is available in the works of the above authors, and, based on A.P. Okladnikov's description of the tile grave culture, I will try to proceed to the interpretation.
According to the materials that have come down to us, cattle breeding was the main occupation of the people who left these graves; in addition, they were experts in casting. The graves contain cowrie shells from the Indian Ocean, white cylindrical beads of pyrophyllite and fragments of Chinese tripods. This indicates the breadth of cultural relations that stretched from China to Altai, Minusinsk Basin and Central Asia. However, there is still no trace of class stratification: "the arrangement of the graves points to the strength of the communal-patrimonial ties"147 .
141 Ibid. С. 43
142 Grumm-Grzhimailo G.E. Western Mongolia and Uryankhai Krai. VOL. II. L., 1926. С. 85.
143 Kiselev S.V. Ancient History of South Siberia. М., 1951. С. 321.
144 Borovka G.I. Archaeological Survey of the Toly River Middle Current // Northern Mongolia. VOL. II. L., 1927.
145 Sosnovsky G.P. Early nomads of Transbaikalia (KSIIMK. V. VIII. M.; L., 1940); Tile Tombs of Transbaikalia / / Proceedings of the Department of the History of Primitive Culture Gos. Hermitage. VOL. I. Л., 1941.
146 Okladnikov A.P. Ancient population of Siberia and its culture (Manuscript).
This does not mean, of course, that there were no rich or poor families, but both were within the patriarchal kin. The patriarchal kin was an aristocratic structure. The meritorious warriors, elders and chiefs constitute its apex, and their graves must differ from those of their ordinary fellow tribesmen. These are "reindeer stones", i.e. slabs decorated with images of reindeer, the solar disk and weapons. Their manufacture required so much labor that it was beyond the means of one family of the deceased. Apparently, it was a public work148. The anthropological type did not change throughout the 1st millennium B.C., when the characteristic Paleo-Siberian type, rightly attributed to the Huns,149 evolved and formed.
What are the differences between the Tile Grave Culture150 and the later, immediately adjoining Xiongnu culture? First, the Huns widely used iron, which is rare in tile graves. This fact has a very simple explanation. The steppe tribesmen originally received iron from the Tibetan-Kyans to the south151. They converged with them about 205 BC,152 and only then iron flowed into the Steppe in a broad stream. Second, we find royal tombs among the Huns. And this is understandable, because only in 209 BC clans were consolidated and a firm central authority was established. Before that the Huns were simply a confederation of clans. So, the appearance of the royal tombs is nothing but a stage in the history of one people. All other features coincide, and consequently, the above characterization refers to the early Xiongnu society, more precisely, to its formation in the IX-IV centuries BC.
In the 4th century, the Xiongnu strengthened to such an extent that they moved back to the southern side of the Gobi153, and the Chinese, having just defeated the Badi, were forced to defend themselves against the new enemy, given their special strategy and unfamiliar tactics. The monuments of this clash are the Great Wall of China and tile graves in Inner Mongolia154.
On the language of the Xiongnu
The question of language spoken by the Xiongnu has been widely discussed in the literature, and is today mostly obsolete155.
147 Ibid.
148 Ibid.
149 Debitz G.F. Paleoanthropology of the USSR. MOSCOW; L., 1948. С. 121.
150 The identification of the Tile Grave Culture with the Early Hun Culture is disputed by I.I. Gokhman, who based his opposite opinion on his study of seven skulls from Tile Graves of the 4th-2nd centuries BC (Gokhman I.I. Anthropological Materials from the Tile Graves of Transbaikalia // Collection of the MAE. VOL. 188. MOSCOW; L., 1958. С. 428, 437). The skulls examined by I.I. Gokhman are Mongoloid and have no Europoid admixture, typical for the Huns. However, the author does not take into account that the Huns, like any great people, were not racially monolithic. The small amount of craniological material studied does not allow us to judge about the entire racial composition of the population that left the slab graves, and the territory in which they were located was already Hunnish in the 3rd century BC. Rather, we can assume that this Mongoloid type was a component of the Xiongnu people, finally established in the north rather than south of the Gobi. The change in the funeral rites that took place in the 2nd century B.C. is connected not with the relocation of a new people but with a change in the cult, as the Hunnish culture at that time was undergoing a period of rapid development, which broke off in the 2nd century A.D. The presence of slab graves south of Gobi shows that this burial rite was not connected with local features of a single tribe, but was a trace of cultural unity of a multi-tribal ethnic entity in Central Asia in the 1st millennium B.C.
151 Bichurin N.Y. Collected Information... VOL. II. С. 172.
152 Iakinth. The History of Tibet and Huhunor. VOL. I. St. Petersburg, 1833. С. 17.
153 In 317 the Huns in alliance with five Chinese principalities attacked Qin, but were repulsed (Fan Wen-lan. Ancient History of China... P. 235).
154 Okladnikov A.P. New data on the ancient history of inner Mongolia // VDI. 1951. No 4. С. 163.
155 See: Inostrantsev K.A. Huns and Huns. Л., 1926.
156 Shiratori K. ?ber die Sprache der Hiungnu und der Tanghu - St?mme. St. Pb., 1902; Bulletin de l'Academie Imperiale des
The studies of Finnish scholars put the question of Hunnish language on a somewhat different plane: Kastren157 and Ramstedt158 expressed the opinion that the Hunnish language was common to the ancestors of Turks and Mongols. Pelliot noted that it includes elements of an even older stratum159. Ligeti leaves the question of the Hun's language open, referring to the fact that the Hun's word for "boots", known to us in the Chinese transcription, sounds "sagdak" and has no analogues in either Turkic or Mongolian languages. The comparison he made with the Ket word "segdi" does not satisfy the author himself160.
However, this word is directly related to the Old Russian word sagaidak, i.e. kolchan with arrows and bow. It is of Turkic-Mongolian origin and was in use in the 16th-17th centuries. The connection between it and the Hun's word sagdak is absolutely clear, because the Huns stuck arrows behind the cuffs, which did not fit into the quiver,161 as the Russians afterwards stuck knives into them. So, the word sagdak probably comes from the same Türkic-Mongolian linguistic element, which in the 1st millennium BC was evidently still poorly differentiated; but probably also the commonness of the Hunnic and Mongolian words we know is due to the cultural exchange between the peoples closely bound by their historical destiny. In spite of the above considerations, one would think that doubts about Hunnish Türkic are untenable, because there is a direct source reference to the closeness of Hunnic and Telugu languages163, i.e. Uigur, about which one cannot have two opinions. Ligeti himself points out that doubts about the Huns' Turkic origin are based on an analysis of special "cultural words" that very often turn out to be borrowed, which is not surprising, since the Huns' communication with their neighbors was long and intensive.
Sciences de S.-Petersburg. V. Serie. Bd. XVII. No2 (Separate imprint).
157 Castr?n M.A. Ethnologische Vorlesungen ?ber die altaischen V?lker. St.-Pb., 1857. S. 35-36.
158 M.G.S. Ramstedt. ?ber der Ursprung der t?rkischen Sprache. Helsinki, 1937. S. 81-91.
159 Pelliot P. L'? dition collective des oevres de Wang Kouo-wei (T'oung Pao. Vol. XXVI). P. 167.
160 Ligeti L. Mots de civilisation de Haute Asie en transcription chinoise // Acta Orientalia. 1950. S. 141-149. 161 The quiver had only 30 arrows (see: Inostrantsev K.A. Sasanian etudes. SPb, 1909).
162 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 214.
IV. The Great Wall The war of Xiongnu with Zhao princedom.
The victory that the ancestors of Chinese over enemy tribes surrounding them on all sides (Jundi, Kian, Mani, Yue, etc.) was very difficult and costly. However, even after the extermination of the Rong dynasties and the subjugation of the tribes bordering the kingdoms that resulted from the consolidation of the feudal principalities, the Chinese felt their land as an island surrounded by a hostile element.
The poem by Qu Yuan "The Calling of the Soul"163 vividly illustrates it. The geographical concept expressed there is noteworthy.
The eastern side is not to be trusted,
The giants of prey dwell there.
And the souls of men feed there;
There the ten suns rise in the sky
And melt ores and stones,
But people there are accustomed to everything...
Curiously, there is not a word about the sea. At the time of Qiu Yuan, the eastern Yue, the "predatory great kans," were still held in Jiang-nan and caused the Chinese more trouble than the sea, which had not been mastered for navigation. The following is said of the south:
And in the south side thou shalt not stay!
There they cover their foreheads with patterns,
Where they sacrifice human flesh
And make a soup of bones.
There are many poisonous snakes,
There are packs of foxy giants that ride there;
The boa constrictors are nine-headed in that land.
All these foul creatures crawl there,
To devour men to their pleasure.
This gloomy picture is in some ways confirmed. Luo Guang-jun also tells us that human sacrifices were practiced by the ancient forest-dwellers.164 The fantastic zoology is left to the conscience of Qu Yuan. But all this is nothing compared to the West:
Of the perniciousness of the West, listen to this:
Everywhere there are quick sands,
Turning, into an abyss of thunder.
You'll burn, you'll melt, you'll perish forever!
And if by some miracle you escape,
There's still the desert waiting for you,
Where every ant is like an elephant,
And wasps are thicker than barrels and black.
There none of the grains are born.
And the inhabitants, like cattle, munch on weeds,
And that land roasts people like a furnace...
Where can you find water, and where can you find it?
And there's no help coming from anywhere.
The vast desert has no end...
163 Qiu Yuan. Poems. М., 1954. С. 128-129.
164 Luo Guan-zhong. The Three Kingdoms. VOL. II. M., 1954. С. 374.
The desert described here is not the Taklamakan desert, as you might think: in the 3rd century BC the Chinese did not pierce that far. It is just a dry steppe in the foothills of the Nanshan mountains and on the Edzin-Golu River. The description of the steppe whirlwind is quite realistic. It says of the north:
Don't think to stay in the north:
The ice is piling up there higher than the mountains,
The blizzards rush there for hundreds of years...
The descriptions of the zenith and nadir are even darker. So, the desire to fence off such a "scary world" is quite natural. But the frontier tribes did not let the Chinese forget them. The annals are filled with stories of attacks by the Jungs. From the eighth to the third century B.C. there was a persistent struggle between them with varying success165. It was only in 214 B.C. that the troops of the united China finally suppressed the resistance of the Jungs.
The victory over the Jungs did more harm than good to the Northern Chinese principalities, placing them in close proximity with the Huns of the steppe; the latter proved to be much more ferocious and dangerous enemies. Already in 307 Bie Lin, a grand duke of the Zhao house, after defeating the Linhu and Leufan tribes, was forced to build a frontier fortress Yai min and a defense wall at the foot of the Inshan range, the ancestral territory of the Huns.
His example was followed by Qin Kai in the Yan Duchy, who erected a defensive line to protect Liaoxi and Liaodong from the Dunhu raids166. However, these private measures did not stop the Hun's raids; moreover, it turned out that it was better to suffer small losses from the depredations of neighbors than to build such cumbersome constructions that did not bring the expected effect. Therefore, the princes preferred to organize light cavalry to repel the Hun's incursions, a plan which was later regarded as the best of all used167.
In the 3rd century B.C. the Xiongnu attacks on China intensified, and Li My, the commander of Zhao (in Shanxi), repulsed the constant attacks of the Xiongnu168. He took a defensive stance: "As soon as the Huns invade our possessions and start plundering, immediately withdraw to the camp and defend," he warned his warriors. - Anyone who dares take prisoners, I will execute!
With this tactic he suffered no casualties, but caused natural displeasure to his van, who suggested that he either change his tactics or resign. Li My chose the latter, but his successor, who took up combat with the enemy, suffered such losses that he was unable to defend the border. Li My was again appointed with enormous powers. The Hun's tactics were lightning raids by small detachments. Such detachments prowled and spread their troops all over the border areas, but were met with repulsion from the Chinese garrisons located there.
165 Bichurin N.Ya. Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Middle Asia in ancient times. VOL. I. M.; L., 1950. С. 42-45; Maspero H. La Chine antique. P., 1927. Р. 383-386.
166 Bichurin N.Ya. VOL. I. С. 45. 167 Ibid. С. 107.
168 Sima Qian. Selected Works. М., 1956. С. 170-171.
To protect themselves from the Chinese, the Huns began to increase the number of troops, and that is all Li My wanted. He succeeded in having the shanyu "at the head of innumerable hordes" attack his trained army.
Li My forces were estimated at 1,300 chariots, 13,000 riders, 50,000 "warriors of a hundred gold”169, 100,000 archers, especially trained by him. These figures should not be taken literally. The first two are close to reality, and the last two are synonymous with a multitude, but it is clear that Li My's main force were archers.
He built an army "as if it were wings," i.e., he covered the flanks of the enemy. Obviously, the "incalculable hordes" of the Huns were numerically inferior to the Chinese army. By a half encirclement Li My forced the enemy to give up maneuvering and engaged in a battle, in which the Huns suffered heavy losses and were defeated. The Danlian tribe was destroyed, the Dunhu were defeated and the Linhu tribe surrendered. The above shows that Huns were already leading a tribal association, but that defeat deprived them of their hegemony in the Steppe, and later it passed to their eastern neighbors, the Dunhu. But the Zhao princedom did not long enjoy the laurels of their victories. In 226 BC it was conquered by the Qin kingdom, which five years later united all of China.
In Part 3 see: