On the Heterogeneity of the Xiongnu

The origin of the Xiongnu is a current problem in the Eurasian archaeology. Since cultural changes in the eastern part of the “Scythian world” were more gradual than in the Sayan-Altai region, the study of the Xiongnu “roots” concerns not only the HunSarmatian period but also the Early Iron Age. In the time of the early nomads in the “eastern province of the Scythian world” there were the Maoqinggou, Yanlang, and Shajing cultures, group of Taohongbala tombs (sometimes known as “culture”) and others (including some syncretic with Chinese rituals, similar to the monuments of the Zhongshan Kingdom). Scholars (N.V. Polosmak, S.A. Komissarov, A.V. Varenov, P.I. Shulga, etc.) have focused on various types of sources, primarily archaeological. Some, like A.A. Kovalev, attempted to link historical ethnic names with archaeological sites and narrative accounts about the Xiongnu homeland. In this article, using the evidence from the scholarly studies, written sources, and excavation data, the author concludes that the Xiongnu were heterogeneous even during the imperial era. Groups with similar material cultures were consolidating in the earlier period (before the 3rd century BC), and identifying those “primordial” Xiongnu appears to be a highly complex task. After defeats by the Han, the Xiongnu lost their unity again, which is clearly visible in the monuments of their “northern” and “southern” branches. Regarding the Xiongnu, one should probably speak not so much about the ethnogenesis or the origin of the people, but more of the emergence of a political community.