02-28-2014, 03:04 AM
Based on Maenchen Helfen, Peter Heather, and other recent works, this is what I think happened regarding Hunnic origins.
In the 2nd Century AD Ptolemy mentions a group called the Chunni between the Maetois and the Dniester, North of the Black Sea and near the Bastarnae and other Dacian peoples. It is likely this group was Daco-Germanic. The name coincides with other peoples recorded by Pliny, Tacitus, and Armenian Scholars (Uenni, Ons, Hons, Unnoi, etc.) but these people are mixed up - Maenchen-Helfen suggests that later copyists took the names of different tribes and associated them with something similar sounding and Familiar.
The difference between Ptolemy and Tacitus/Pliny/etc. is that the Chunni are listed below the middle of the list of his minor tribes. Had this been the doing of a copyist, they would have listed them in the major tribes, and likely at the end of the list. (A good example of this is the 6th century scholar Marcian, who uses Ptolemy and calls the Chunni the same as the Huns, and equates the Acatziri with the Agathyrsi who had disappeared in Aristotle's time).
The Chunni disappear from Roman Sources afterwards: they were likely "overrun" by the emigrating proto-Goths and proto-Heruls who form their groups in the early 3rd century. But a new people pop up in the mid-3rd century: the Urugundi. These people are sometimes equated as another group of Burgundiones, who chose to head East instead of West. However, the evidence shows otherwise as Mamertinus (a 3rd century Scholar) even implies that the Urugundi (which he calls Burgundi) and the Burgundiones are not related. Maenchen-Helfen suggests that the Urugundi are equivalent with Agathias in his mention of the two extinct hunnic tribes (the Vurugund and Ultizuri, the latter of which may have been Attila's tribe but I will elaborate on that later). The term "Urugundi" and "Burugundi" was a common change in translation (The B being a V, and an ending added); it was done a lot with "Scythian" tribes. Theophanes and Porphyrogenitos also use a very similar term to "Burgundi" or "Vurugundi" (I cannot read Greek though, but Helfen mentiones it.) The literary evidence points to the Vurugunds being the first "Huns." How and why the Huns came to be called Huns is unknown, but it is possible the Vurugunds may have occupied the same territory of the old "Chunni" and as such came to be called "Chunni" (or the equivalent in their languages) by the native Goths etc. The Huns likely never adopted the name "Hunni/Chunni" themselves.
The Vurugunds are "almost completely annihalated" by the Goths after the raids of the 250's, and disappear. It's likely this was because they did not have the same military capacity as the later "Huns". The 7-lathe asymmetric bow had likely not yet been invented, or they might not have been predominately horsemen. But they probably were a mix of Altaics and Europoids (more or less "Huns" or "Scythians" as the Romans called many Eastern Barbarians). But we cannot be certain in such matters.
Now we shall look at Heather's works. Peter Heather has done excellent research into the Huns stationed in Europe, and is rally the first scholar to have made serious contributions to research on the Huns since OMH (many came out of former Soviet Russia, but their works were heavily corrupted by Russian historical propaganda and lack of access to recent scholarship, but some made some worthwhile contributions in the intervening time). Heather, however, does not really try to address their origins: instead he simply says that Maenchen-Helfen never comes to any real "conclusion" about whether or not the Huns were Turkic (and he does not make such a conclusion) and Heather merely states they were Altaic at best.
But Maenchen-Helfen and Heather's works are both needed to understand the beginning of Hunnic "migration" in the 4th century. As I have already said, the first reference to Hunnic tribes were the "Vurugundi." Prior to this, any "huns" in the area around the Aral sea west to the Black sea seem to have had no cohesion, and were simply passed over by Sarmatians and Alans. In other words, they were entirely serf class and did not seem to have any significant family or clan dynasties to be mentioned as "tribes." They did, however, develop these.
The first Huns to enter Europe were the Alpilcurs (Alpil - cur or Alp - il -cur). The reason we know they were on the fringes of Gothic and Alanic Europe is that they were closely tied in literary references to the Tungurs, Boisci, and Itimari. The Tungurs are probably Denghzich's Tongurs of the 460's, being one of the groups that would form the Great Hun confederation in the Carpathian and Pannonian basin in the 5th century. The Boisci are the same as the earlier Rhobasci, and the Itimari were also some sort of Daco-Germanic peoples. This at best places the first Huns in the general area where the Alans were (around the River Volga and River Don: after all Barbarians did not have borders, and especially not steppe nomads) in the 350's, when they began "harassing" the Alans.
The reason for Hunnic movement is unknown: however, in understanding Hunnic origins we have to at least guess. Around the same time as Hunnic movement began, the Chionite/Kidarite Confederation to the south was exerting pressure on more or less all sides, "pushing" the Rou-Ran (Juan-Juan) or "Avars" North. The Avars began pressuring the Southeastern Huns - that is probably the (proto) Sabirs and (proto) Saragurs, who we know were fleeing from the Avars in the 460's onwards. These Huns were forced to move North to the area between the Aral and Caspian seas, in turn pressuring other Huns.
There is another reason as well - just before the Huns appear in Roman sources in the 370's, there was a severe drought caused by the El Nino cycle (a recent book was published on this) in Central Asia. This same drought occured twice more (but not as severely) - once in about 460 (when the Avars, Saragurs, and Sabirs migrated again, coupled with Hepthaltite expansion) and again in 550 (when the Avars finally migrated into Europe and at the height of the Hepthaltite raids). The co-incidence of dates cannot be a coincidence.
These Huns (likely including the Acatziri of Priscus whose name translates back into Lir-Turkic as Akatir) pressured the Tongurs and Alpilcurs, who pressured the Alans. Most Alans seem to have chosen to "migrate" so to speak, otherwise their presence would have influenced Hunnic naming conventions (as it later would in the 6th century). Obviously, not all Alans migrated, probably just the noble and military castes of those who were effected. The presence of Alpilcur, Tongur, and Akatir Cunei (that is a combination of both a Tactical unit and Family/Friend/Clan Ties, as suggested by OMH) probably explains the presence of Huns on both sides of conflict between the Grethungi/Heruli (who probably began feeling Hunnic pressure in 360) and the Alans/Huns themselves. This would be supported by Priscus' description of the Akatir (who were still Nomadic at his time) which had a system of many independent kings that determined their leader (Maenchen-Helfen says the title is Alik or "Al - ik") by prestige. Many kings with many political and fiscal motivations, to fight on many sides. This was probably the same with other Hunnic groups (although they did not at the time have the same prestige system to determine a chief king.)
It should be mention that the Huns likely still did not, and likely never would, actually call themselves "Chunni." The name was an equation of some kind given to the Romans by the "terrified Gothic refugees." Ammianus obviously had read Ptolemy when he says they are sparsely attested in ancient sources.
Although the front of the "Hunnic invasion" (which was probably mostly Hunnic mercenary warbands fighting on both the sides of the emigrating Alan upper classes and the Grethungi/Heruli) was West of the Maetois, the Huns themselves now dominated the area of the River Don, with Alans and Armenians to their south. In 395, from this more fertile grazing land, they had reached the military capacity to launch a serious raid through the Caspian gates (a passage way they would later control for the next 200 years).
In 408, however, one group of Huns seems to have arrived at the Dniester. Uldin (whose name probably translates to Ultzin, being one of the few Hunnic names) may have been part of the Ultinzur Huns (OMH does not suggest this, it is my own theory), a group mentioned to have been under Dengzich, Attila's son. If so, this could possibly narrow down Attila's "tribe." The reason is such: Aetius remained in the Hunnic court upon Uldin's death (although it is known there was a period of disorganization between 411 and 413), whic subsequently sees Charaton as "ruler of the Huns" (as mentioned by Olympiodorus). If Aetius remained in the same Hunnic court, that means the Huns the Western Romans established a treaty with under Uldin, must have been the same Huns to have maintained said treaty with Charaton (possibly Qaraton, as OMH suggests). Another period of discord occurs with Charaton's death (after 425 but before 427, so 426) and then Octar and Rua are found as joint rulers (Mundzuck and the 4th brother who was alive in the time of Priscus' expedition had no power) and this seems to occur as a theme. It's likely they were of the same Cuneus, but Rua in the East (in Dacia Mutenia and parts of modern Wallachia) and Octar in the West (the Titza basin). However, this is not certain that the Ultinzurs were Attila's tribe - it is just a theory. They were destroyed under Dengzich though, and considering Agathias calls them one of the "Great extinct tribes of the Huns," it is entirely possible.
Either way, in 420 the Huns have moved to the Pannonian/Titza Basin, with the Huns East of the Dniester being the Akatir, Kutrigur/Utigur/Onogur, and then the Saragur and Sabir (the latter two still around the Aral sea.) West of the Dniester seem to be the Tongur, Alpilcur (as they are not listed as extinct), Ultinzur, Bittugur, and Bardor (the first and the last 3 being under Dengzich in the 450's/460's). The Huns now establish their Hunnic confederation, which seems to take place in multiple steps.
1. Olympiodorus mentions Charaton as king of the Huns (more or less). It must have been under his reign that the West-Dniester Hunnic groups were united, and upon his death their rule was divided between Octar and Rua. It should be noted that the Scirii are under Hunnic sway at this time (and since the time of Uldin, who was likely "king" of the Ultinzur and whose method or fule was likely based on the same prestige system as the Akatir.)
2. Octar and Rua begin subduing Germanic tribes. Upon Octar's death, Rua (by the way these names are Germanic) becomes the sole ruler (at this point the addition of -la may have been given to his name hence the Germanic Rugila). He seems to unite most of the Carpathian Basin, and Pannonian Basin Germanics including the Amalic Goths, Several other Gothic Groups, the Gepidae, Heruls, Scirii, likely local Slavs, (hence the three "Hunnic words" we supposedly know which are actually Gothic and Slavic words, not Hunnic at all), and others.
3. Attila and Bleda (both Germanic names - like Rugila Attila is based on Atta which means "father" and is a Gothic pet name given to a notable leader evidently.) They take what Rua built and put it to use - with Bleda in the East and Attila in the West. We know this because Attila was the one who received Western Embassies, and his war on the Eastern Empire did not go much farther than Moesia (and Pannonia Secunda which had come under Eastern Jurisdiction at some point - possibly prior to 425). Prior to this, they undergo a series of pacifications of their subjects, lest they overthrow Hunnic rule (like they did in 454.) In 441, they are ready to and indeed make War on the Romans, destroying Aetius' attempt to retake Africa. (Around this time Attila also has a treaty with the West established - either in 439 or 443.) After the war ends in 443, Attila assassinates Bleda sometime around 444 or 445, and in 446 Hunnic raiding on the East (evidently outside of Attila's control; possibly the Akatir Huns), along with push by his own Huns for war, force him to declare it again. After the war of 447, Attila uses his prestige to exploit a rift in Akatir "kingship" (which Priscus says was his common tactic and supports the theory of the reason for the war of 451 being the Frankish succession) and he subdues them. The Akatirs were, unlike the Carpathian and Pannonian Basin Huns who had become semi-sedentary, still nomadic, and Attila obviously wanted to expand his control to the East Hunnic groups.
Then begins Hunnic collapse, which I won't discuss as the topic is moreso on their origins. This seems to be triggered by a second movement of Huns though, coupled with the collapse of their ability to maintain their "prestige" ranking system of kingship upon Attila's death.
So where did the Huns come from? Based on this reconstruction, prior to their movements in the 350's-370's, the Huns were a mix of Altaic peoples (with some Europoids), probably predominately Turkish, extending from the area of the River Volga, to the area East and South of the Aral Sea, and possibly as far north as the Volga Bulgars. The Huns themselves were probably Turks, or at least Altaics, but upon the beginning of their invasion in the 370's they must have already included a significant number of Iranians and Finno-Ugrians, possibly (but remotely) even a few "Mongols." This is my best Guess for the Origin of the Huns.
I will again remind you that my reconstruction here is based on prior work, and is mostly hypothetical. There are likely flaws and feel free to point them out so we may better understand this subject.
In the 2nd Century AD Ptolemy mentions a group called the Chunni between the Maetois and the Dniester, North of the Black Sea and near the Bastarnae and other Dacian peoples. It is likely this group was Daco-Germanic. The name coincides with other peoples recorded by Pliny, Tacitus, and Armenian Scholars (Uenni, Ons, Hons, Unnoi, etc.) but these people are mixed up - Maenchen-Helfen suggests that later copyists took the names of different tribes and associated them with something similar sounding and Familiar.
The difference between Ptolemy and Tacitus/Pliny/etc. is that the Chunni are listed below the middle of the list of his minor tribes. Had this been the doing of a copyist, they would have listed them in the major tribes, and likely at the end of the list. (A good example of this is the 6th century scholar Marcian, who uses Ptolemy and calls the Chunni the same as the Huns, and equates the Acatziri with the Agathyrsi who had disappeared in Aristotle's time).
The Chunni disappear from Roman Sources afterwards: they were likely "overrun" by the emigrating proto-Goths and proto-Heruls who form their groups in the early 3rd century. But a new people pop up in the mid-3rd century: the Urugundi. These people are sometimes equated as another group of Burgundiones, who chose to head East instead of West. However, the evidence shows otherwise as Mamertinus (a 3rd century Scholar) even implies that the Urugundi (which he calls Burgundi) and the Burgundiones are not related. Maenchen-Helfen suggests that the Urugundi are equivalent with Agathias in his mention of the two extinct hunnic tribes (the Vurugund and Ultizuri, the latter of which may have been Attila's tribe but I will elaborate on that later). The term "Urugundi" and "Burugundi" was a common change in translation (The B being a V, and an ending added); it was done a lot with "Scythian" tribes. Theophanes and Porphyrogenitos also use a very similar term to "Burgundi" or "Vurugundi" (I cannot read Greek though, but Helfen mentiones it.) The literary evidence points to the Vurugunds being the first "Huns." How and why the Huns came to be called Huns is unknown, but it is possible the Vurugunds may have occupied the same territory of the old "Chunni" and as such came to be called "Chunni" (or the equivalent in their languages) by the native Goths etc. The Huns likely never adopted the name "Hunni/Chunni" themselves.
The Vurugunds are "almost completely annihalated" by the Goths after the raids of the 250's, and disappear. It's likely this was because they did not have the same military capacity as the later "Huns". The 7-lathe asymmetric bow had likely not yet been invented, or they might not have been predominately horsemen. But they probably were a mix of Altaics and Europoids (more or less "Huns" or "Scythians" as the Romans called many Eastern Barbarians). But we cannot be certain in such matters.
Now we shall look at Heather's works. Peter Heather has done excellent research into the Huns stationed in Europe, and is rally the first scholar to have made serious contributions to research on the Huns since OMH (many came out of former Soviet Russia, but their works were heavily corrupted by Russian historical propaganda and lack of access to recent scholarship, but some made some worthwhile contributions in the intervening time). Heather, however, does not really try to address their origins: instead he simply says that Maenchen-Helfen never comes to any real "conclusion" about whether or not the Huns were Turkic (and he does not make such a conclusion) and Heather merely states they were Altaic at best.
But Maenchen-Helfen and Heather's works are both needed to understand the beginning of Hunnic "migration" in the 4th century. As I have already said, the first reference to Hunnic tribes were the "Vurugundi." Prior to this, any "huns" in the area around the Aral sea west to the Black sea seem to have had no cohesion, and were simply passed over by Sarmatians and Alans. In other words, they were entirely serf class and did not seem to have any significant family or clan dynasties to be mentioned as "tribes." They did, however, develop these.
The first Huns to enter Europe were the Alpilcurs (Alpil - cur or Alp - il -cur). The reason we know they were on the fringes of Gothic and Alanic Europe is that they were closely tied in literary references to the Tungurs, Boisci, and Itimari. The Tungurs are probably Denghzich's Tongurs of the 460's, being one of the groups that would form the Great Hun confederation in the Carpathian and Pannonian basin in the 5th century. The Boisci are the same as the earlier Rhobasci, and the Itimari were also some sort of Daco-Germanic peoples. This at best places the first Huns in the general area where the Alans were (around the River Volga and River Don: after all Barbarians did not have borders, and especially not steppe nomads) in the 350's, when they began "harassing" the Alans.
The reason for Hunnic movement is unknown: however, in understanding Hunnic origins we have to at least guess. Around the same time as Hunnic movement began, the Chionite/Kidarite Confederation to the south was exerting pressure on more or less all sides, "pushing" the Rou-Ran (Juan-Juan) or "Avars" North. The Avars began pressuring the Southeastern Huns - that is probably the (proto) Sabirs and (proto) Saragurs, who we know were fleeing from the Avars in the 460's onwards. These Huns were forced to move North to the area between the Aral and Caspian seas, in turn pressuring other Huns.
There is another reason as well - just before the Huns appear in Roman sources in the 370's, there was a severe drought caused by the El Nino cycle (a recent book was published on this) in Central Asia. This same drought occured twice more (but not as severely) - once in about 460 (when the Avars, Saragurs, and Sabirs migrated again, coupled with Hepthaltite expansion) and again in 550 (when the Avars finally migrated into Europe and at the height of the Hepthaltite raids). The co-incidence of dates cannot be a coincidence.
These Huns (likely including the Acatziri of Priscus whose name translates back into Lir-Turkic as Akatir) pressured the Tongurs and Alpilcurs, who pressured the Alans. Most Alans seem to have chosen to "migrate" so to speak, otherwise their presence would have influenced Hunnic naming conventions (as it later would in the 6th century). Obviously, not all Alans migrated, probably just the noble and military castes of those who were effected. The presence of Alpilcur, Tongur, and Akatir Cunei (that is a combination of both a Tactical unit and Family/Friend/Clan Ties, as suggested by OMH) probably explains the presence of Huns on both sides of conflict between the Grethungi/Heruli (who probably began feeling Hunnic pressure in 360) and the Alans/Huns themselves. This would be supported by Priscus' description of the Akatir (who were still Nomadic at his time) which had a system of many independent kings that determined their leader (Maenchen-Helfen says the title is Alik or "Al - ik") by prestige. Many kings with many political and fiscal motivations, to fight on many sides. This was probably the same with other Hunnic groups (although they did not at the time have the same prestige system to determine a chief king.)
It should be mention that the Huns likely still did not, and likely never would, actually call themselves "Chunni." The name was an equation of some kind given to the Romans by the "terrified Gothic refugees." Ammianus obviously had read Ptolemy when he says they are sparsely attested in ancient sources.
Although the front of the "Hunnic invasion" (which was probably mostly Hunnic mercenary warbands fighting on both the sides of the emigrating Alan upper classes and the Grethungi/Heruli) was West of the Maetois, the Huns themselves now dominated the area of the River Don, with Alans and Armenians to their south. In 395, from this more fertile grazing land, they had reached the military capacity to launch a serious raid through the Caspian gates (a passage way they would later control for the next 200 years).
In 408, however, one group of Huns seems to have arrived at the Dniester. Uldin (whose name probably translates to Ultzin, being one of the few Hunnic names) may have been part of the Ultinzur Huns (OMH does not suggest this, it is my own theory), a group mentioned to have been under Dengzich, Attila's son. If so, this could possibly narrow down Attila's "tribe." The reason is such: Aetius remained in the Hunnic court upon Uldin's death (although it is known there was a period of disorganization between 411 and 413), whic subsequently sees Charaton as "ruler of the Huns" (as mentioned by Olympiodorus). If Aetius remained in the same Hunnic court, that means the Huns the Western Romans established a treaty with under Uldin, must have been the same Huns to have maintained said treaty with Charaton (possibly Qaraton, as OMH suggests). Another period of discord occurs with Charaton's death (after 425 but before 427, so 426) and then Octar and Rua are found as joint rulers (Mundzuck and the 4th brother who was alive in the time of Priscus' expedition had no power) and this seems to occur as a theme. It's likely they were of the same Cuneus, but Rua in the East (in Dacia Mutenia and parts of modern Wallachia) and Octar in the West (the Titza basin). However, this is not certain that the Ultinzurs were Attila's tribe - it is just a theory. They were destroyed under Dengzich though, and considering Agathias calls them one of the "Great extinct tribes of the Huns," it is entirely possible.
Either way, in 420 the Huns have moved to the Pannonian/Titza Basin, with the Huns East of the Dniester being the Akatir, Kutrigur/Utigur/Onogur, and then the Saragur and Sabir (the latter two still around the Aral sea.) West of the Dniester seem to be the Tongur, Alpilcur (as they are not listed as extinct), Ultinzur, Bittugur, and Bardor (the first and the last 3 being under Dengzich in the 450's/460's). The Huns now establish their Hunnic confederation, which seems to take place in multiple steps.
1. Olympiodorus mentions Charaton as king of the Huns (more or less). It must have been under his reign that the West-Dniester Hunnic groups were united, and upon his death their rule was divided between Octar and Rua. It should be noted that the Scirii are under Hunnic sway at this time (and since the time of Uldin, who was likely "king" of the Ultinzur and whose method or fule was likely based on the same prestige system as the Akatir.)
2. Octar and Rua begin subduing Germanic tribes. Upon Octar's death, Rua (by the way these names are Germanic) becomes the sole ruler (at this point the addition of -la may have been given to his name hence the Germanic Rugila). He seems to unite most of the Carpathian Basin, and Pannonian Basin Germanics including the Amalic Goths, Several other Gothic Groups, the Gepidae, Heruls, Scirii, likely local Slavs, (hence the three "Hunnic words" we supposedly know which are actually Gothic and Slavic words, not Hunnic at all), and others.
3. Attila and Bleda (both Germanic names - like Rugila Attila is based on Atta which means "father" and is a Gothic pet name given to a notable leader evidently.) They take what Rua built and put it to use - with Bleda in the East and Attila in the West. We know this because Attila was the one who received Western Embassies, and his war on the Eastern Empire did not go much farther than Moesia (and Pannonia Secunda which had come under Eastern Jurisdiction at some point - possibly prior to 425). Prior to this, they undergo a series of pacifications of their subjects, lest they overthrow Hunnic rule (like they did in 454.) In 441, they are ready to and indeed make War on the Romans, destroying Aetius' attempt to retake Africa. (Around this time Attila also has a treaty with the West established - either in 439 or 443.) After the war ends in 443, Attila assassinates Bleda sometime around 444 or 445, and in 446 Hunnic raiding on the East (evidently outside of Attila's control; possibly the Akatir Huns), along with push by his own Huns for war, force him to declare it again. After the war of 447, Attila uses his prestige to exploit a rift in Akatir "kingship" (which Priscus says was his common tactic and supports the theory of the reason for the war of 451 being the Frankish succession) and he subdues them. The Akatirs were, unlike the Carpathian and Pannonian Basin Huns who had become semi-sedentary, still nomadic, and Attila obviously wanted to expand his control to the East Hunnic groups.
Then begins Hunnic collapse, which I won't discuss as the topic is moreso on their origins. This seems to be triggered by a second movement of Huns though, coupled with the collapse of their ability to maintain their "prestige" ranking system of kingship upon Attila's death.
So where did the Huns come from? Based on this reconstruction, prior to their movements in the 350's-370's, the Huns were a mix of Altaic peoples (with some Europoids), probably predominately Turkish, extending from the area of the River Volga, to the area East and South of the Aral Sea, and possibly as far north as the Volga Bulgars. The Huns themselves were probably Turks, or at least Altaics, but upon the beginning of their invasion in the 370's they must have already included a significant number of Iranians and Finno-Ugrians, possibly (but remotely) even a few "Mongols." This is my best Guess for the Origin of the Huns.
I will again remind you that my reconstruction here is based on prior work, and is mostly hypothetical. There are likely flaws and feel free to point them out so we may better understand this subject.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
