“Hsiung-nu, Hun, Turk” ― William Samolin

Even though the facts that the Hsiung-nu of the Inner Asia and the Huns of mid Europe were “one and the same people,” and both had Turkic elements have long been established since he published this article 67 years ago in 1957, there are still very useful information and references in it.

Otto Mänchen-Helfen (1894–1969), an Austrian sinologist, not a turcologist, having studied sinology, archaeology, ethnology and art history at the universities of Vienna, Gothenburg and Leipzig, was a total failure in both respects.

William Samolin (1911–1992), an American professor of Central Asian history, focusing on India, China, Iran and Russia, was not a Turkic specialist in language and/or history, either, but had an interesting educational background. He had his bachelor’s degree in 1933 from New York University, and then received his master’s degree in Math and Physics in 1936, and his PhD in Central Asian history in 1953, both from Columbia University.

William Samolin, “Hsiung-nu, Hun, Turk,” in Central Asiatic Journal, 1957.

A. HSIUNG-NU AND HUN

Until recently it was assumed that the Hsiung-nu of the Chinese and the Huns of Europe were one and the same people, a point of view that has prevailed since this identification by Deguignes.[1] This position was adopted and popularized by Gibbon[2] and is still the generally accepted viewpoint. In recent times, Maenchen-Helfen produced much cogent evidence to undermine this facile and somewhat naïve identification. On the other hand, it may well be that in his eagerness to dispel some traditional illusions, Maenchen-Helfen went too far. His points were made in an article published over a decade ago:[3]

On the basis of the evidence available at the present time, the question of the Hsiung-nu Hunnish identity can be summarized as follows:
1. The theory that the Huns originally came from the Far East cannot be supported by any direct or indirect literary or archaeological evidence;
2. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the Huns and the Hsiung-nu spoke the same language;
3. The art of the Huns, as far as it is known, was fundamentally different from that of the Hsiung-nu.

Since I cannot take exception to the third point, I will confine myself to a consideration of the other two. In spite of the fact that Shiratori and Pelliot were inclined to see a Proto-Mongol element in the language of the Hsiung-nu,[4] Maenchen-Helfen’s contention that it is thus far impossible to affiliate the language of the Hsiung-nu with any of the linguistic families of Eurasia appears sound at first sight.[5] Maenchen-Helfen went on to say that the Hsiung-nu were not a large nation, and that it is doubtful that it will ever be possible to establish the language of the “Royal Hsiung-Nu.”[6] This point is well taken, since a major Hsiung-nu migration left no more than 3,000 (total? warriors?) after a costly trek.[7] Maenchen-Helfen’s concluding comment on the direct linguistic evidence is as follows:[8]

The only Hunnish word the meaning of which is known, namely strava, “funeral,” has been explained as Slavic, Gothic and Turkish. Those proper names which are not simply Gothic, resist all attempts to etymologize them.

It has been suggested that the Huns spoke an early form of Chuvash. It may be so. In view of our complete ignorance of the language of the Huns, no data to prove that theory could possibly be adduced, and there are no reasons whatever to assume that the Hsiung-nu in Mongolia spoke Proto-Chuvash.

Moreover, there is no evidence that there were Altaic speakers in Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, or the North Caucasus prior to the time of the Huns, if indeed the latter were Altaic in speech. Some indirect evidence may throw some light on the problem. Two articles by Menges offer a point of departure.[9] Menges collected some 44 terms from the Slovo o Polkŭ Igorevě, which Roman Jakobson maintained was close to the oral tradition and thus of particular value for our purpose.[10]

Of the 44 terms, one, Polovьčin, is a Slavic translation of the ethnikon Quman, and need not be considered.[11] Of the remaining 43 terms, two are probably Slavic. Thus, we are left with 41 known or suspected Oriental terms. Of the 41 terms, 21 are either Turkish or introduced via a Turkish filter. By way of this, it may be noted that 2 of the 21 Turkish forms are of Semitic origin. The 20 non-Turkish forms are distributed as follows: 2 Mongol, 10 “general Altaic” without clear provenience, 3 clearly Čavaš, of which one is ultimately of Chinese origin, one term Japhetitic, which may also be the case with two of the terms introduced via Turkish, one term is Semitic through an unknown filter, one term is Proto-Bulgarian, one Armenian, and one German.

Since the Slovo antedates the Mongol period, the problem of explaining non-Turkish Altaic forms remains. Though “general Altaic” forms are not to be excluded as possible vestiges of substratum, we must exclude Mongol. Mongol terms can only be attributed to Mongol speaking immigrants. From among the invaders from the East, the most likely bearers of the Mongol elements are the Huns and the Avars. If the Avars of Europe were a portion of the Juan-juan, we should expect a Mongol element, at least among the “Royal Avars.” In the light of the known stability of the Mongol language, the distinction between Mongol and Proto-Mongol is unimportant for the period under consideration.

One “general Altaic” form is Хунъ,[12] no doubt the name Hun-Khion. The filter through which it entered Old Russian cannot be established. In the Slovo, Хунъ designates Hungarian. At first sight, Čavaš appears the most likely source for Хунъ, since with the possible exception of Mongol, Čavaš seems to be the oldest layer of foreign terms in Old Russian.[13] A valid objection to the use of Čavaš as a tracer is that we know practically nothing about the origin of Čavaš. Menges is inclined to equate Proto-Bulgarian with Old Čavaš, though he does not say so explicitly, since on the one hand he regards Proto-Bulgarian as a form of Turkish, while he looks upon Čavaš as something else.[14]

The reference to Hun in the Slovo is not as significant as the form Žьnьčjug.[15] This is derived from the Chinese Chu “pearl.”[16] This deserves some attention. As Menges pointed out, it represents a compound Chên-chu “precious pearl.”[17] In the course of a detailed discussion in which he treated the form and its distribution in the Altaic world, Menges was inclined to attribute it to Old Čavaš.[18] Though the argument is not conclusive, it does suggest that the form came into Old Russian at a very early date–prior to the invasion of known Turkic tribes. This would put it in the period of the European Avars, if not the Huns. The possibility that the term was transmitted by merchants is not to be excluded, but it is unlikely since the merchants of the period were Sogdians, Semites, and Byzantines, and one would expect the form to show some trace of the transmitting filter.

Another clue to the Hun-Čavaš-Bulgar problem may be provided by various tribal names ending in -gur, which appear in Europe after the collapse of the Hunnic state.[19] Menges associated this ending -guroi with:

a suffix designating tribal units found today almost exclusively with the Tungus: -gir (also: -jir, -hir), as e.g., Kindigir, Čapogir, Lakšikagir, Bultogir, Samagir, Manegir, etc., of the Evenki-Tungus. This suffix is found in Mongol Dželajir (modern Xałxa Džalajir), which now is also the name of Central Asiatic tribes speaking Turkic, and possibly with the Ogur and Ujγur.[20]

Boodberg found a similar form ultimately derived from the root *BUGUR-*LUGUR-*UGUR, which had the basic meaning of “horn.”[21] Among the Hsiung-nu, we find references to the organization of the state into “Ten Horns,” a procedure followed by the Turks with their “Ten Arrows” -onoq, to which the Chinese referred as the “Ten Clans.”[22] This, according to Boodberg, throws light on tribal names ending in *-uγur, *-γur, *-γuz, *-oγuz, “which appears with such disconcerting frequency in so many supposedly ethnic designations among the nomads.”[23]

Boodberg maintained that these forms were not ethnic but rather political designations.[24] He is probably right with respect to the Hsiung-nu, since the great change in Hsiung-nu organization introduced by Mao-tun evidently followed Chinese organizational principles.[25] There are, however, examples where titles and political designations were taken over as tribal names.[26] In the nomadic world, political designations were ephemeral, the stable unit was the clan and the tribe. Political designations retained significance over an extended period only in the rare instances of well organized states, such as the first Hunnic Empire during the period of the Former Han, and the Mongol Empire of Činggiz Khan and his successors. The empires of the Liao or Qytai and Chin or Jurčen could hardly be considered “nomadic.” In the light of these Čavaš-Bulgar-Hsiung-nu points of contact, some Hun-Hsiung-nu connection is not to be rejected outright. The names are surely of the same origin.

Maenchen-Helfen also attacked the historical evidence on the basis of which the Hun-Hsiung-nu link was made. The principal arguments for the identification were presented in two articles by Friedrich Hirth.[27] Maenchen-Helfen pointed out that, before Hirth, two Russian scholars, N. A. Aristov and K. Inostrancsev, drew attention to the same Chinese text Hirth used as a basis for his arguments.[28] The text in question is the Hsi-yü Chuan of the Wei Shu. Hirth was evidently unaware of the articles of Aristov and Inostrancsev, since he remarked that the identification Hun–Hsiung-nu, though generally accepted, had not yet been established on the solid ground of literary monuments.[29] After a comparison of the Wei Shu with the related texts, the Pei Shih and the Chou Shu, in the course of which he made some appropriate textual criticism, Maenchen-Helfen showed that the texts in question do not warrant the conclusions drawn by Hirth and his followers.[30]

There is another aspect to the western conquests on the part of the Hsiung-nu to which the Chinese histories refer. The Hsiung-nu of the texts in question are not the Hsiung-nu of Han time but rather the various Khion groups.[31] These people were known as Hunnas by the Indians. Since the decipherment of the Hephthalite coin inscriptions, we know that the Hephthalite ethnikon was Khion.[32] The Hunnas of northern India were the ǰavula Khionites, originally vassals of the Hephthal-Khion.[33] The Hephthalites were also known as Khun in East Turkistan.[34] They were the “White Huns” of the Byzantine sources.[35] The Khion groups known as “White Huns” appear to be Indo-Europeans, most likely of Scythian and Issedon origin, who at one time were subject to the Hsiung-nu and retained the name for prestige purposes. It would of course be an oversimplification to regard these invaders as the direct descendants of the old Scytho-Saka and affiliated people who were in South Russia and Central Asia at the time of the Ionian geographers, yet they surely must have been a kindered people. The various tribes with names ending in -gur, who begin to molest the Eastern Empire in the mid-fifth century, are still to be accounted for.[36] The house of Attila, whose onomastics show no trace of Altaic, may well have been of Gothic origin. It is possible that the founder of the house was a member of the guard or an official of the Volga Huns, and later usurped power over a dominant Khion tribe.[37] On the other hand, the Hsiung-nu who pressed Kidara must have been the same Khion groups who eventually gave rise to the dynasty of Hephthal, i.e., the Hephthalites.[38] They may have been the people called x’wn in the Sogdian letters.[39]

We are, thus, confronted with two independent and apparently inconsistent sets of data. One suggests that Altaic tribes, presumably fragments of the Western Hsiung-nu, merged with Uralic tribes in Siberia, and gave rise to the leading elements, if not the royal house, of the European Huns. Among their descendants were the Volga Bulgars and the Čavaš. The other set of data suggests that Indo-European nomads and semi-nomads, formerly vassals of the Hsiung-nu and Juan-juan in turn, bearing the general designation of Khion, moved along a more southerly route, and therefore came in contact with the Sasanians rather than the Romans.

B. TURK AND HSIUNG-NU

The Chinese sources are rather consistent in maintaining that the Turks were descendants of the Hsiung-nu. This was intended in an ethnic rather than a political sense. In the Yüeh-pan section of the Hsi-yü Chuan of the Pei-Shih, the Yüeh-pan are said to be northern Hsiung-nu, their language is like that of the Kao-ch’ê, i.e., Turkic.[40] “The Ka-ch’ê were formerly ‘Red Ti,’ and their speech was like that of the Hsiung-nu, but now is a little different.”[41] “The Töläs are descendants of the Hsiung-nu.”[42] “The Turks who lived to the right of the Western Lake are a separate branch of the Hsiung-nu.”[43] In the Tang Shu, the presumed Hsiung-nu origin of the Turks is restated.[44] The Uyγurs are likewise said to be of Hsiung-nu origin.[45] Thus, all tribes listed with little or no reservation as former Hsiung-nu turn out to be Turkic. On the other hand, the Hsien-pi, whom we have reason to believe were ruled by Mongol-speaking clans, are said to be of Tung-hu origin.[46] The ethnic affinity of the Juan-juan is not clear, perhaps the ruling tribe was a composite group as Chinese tradition suggests.[47]

NOTES:

[1] H. Deguignes, Histoire général des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols et des autres Tartares, 5 vols. (Paris, 1756–58), II, pp. 1–124.

[2]  E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ed. W. Smith, 6 vols. (New York, n.d.), III, p. 113 (Ch. XXVI).

[3]  O. Maenchen-Helfen, “Huns and Hsiung-nu,” Byzantion, Amer. Ser. III, Vol. XVIII (1944–45), p. 243.

[4]  K. Shiratori, “Sur l'origine des Hiong-nou,” JA, 1932, pp. 71–81; P. Pelliot, according to R. Grousset, Histoire de V Extrême-Orient, 2 vol. (Paris, 1929), I, p. 207, note.

[5]  Op. cit., p. 243.

[6]  Ibid., p. 225.

[7]  Han Shu, Ch. 94b, fol. 6b.

[8]  Maenchen-Helfen, op. cit., p. 225. Altheim lists four Hunnic tribes, Amilzur, Itimar, Tunsur, and Boisk, for which he presents Turkish etymologies. His source appears to be Priscus, though he does not indicate this, cf. F. Altheim, Attila und die Hunnen (Baden-Baden, 1951), p. 100. We find these tribal names along with others in Jourdanes, Ch. XXIV. This passage appears in Altheim in translation, op. cit., pp. 78, 88. The text has . . . illico Alipzuros, Alcidzuros, Itamaros, Tuncassos, et Boiscos . . . Jourdanes, Ed. Nisard (Paris, 1851), pp. 445, 446. Altheim’s attempt to etymologize Attila as Ata-la, where la is substituted for *-čim, i.e., Ata, Turk–“father,” and *-čim, “mine” is indicative of this method, since -či forms a noun indicating agent, cf. Altheim, op. cit., pp. 138, 207, n. 34. The name Attila is probably connected with Atyl, the name of the Volga.

[9]  K. H. Menges, “Oriental Elements in the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Epos, The Igor’ Tale,” Supp. to Word, Vol. 7 (1951), Monograph I; “Altaic Elements in the Proto-Bulgarian Inscriptions,” Byzantion, XXI (1951), pp. 85–118.

[10]  “Oriental Elements…,” pref. p. v.

[11]  Ibid., p. 43.

[12]  Ibid., p. 63.

[13]  Ibid., p. 5 ff.

[14]  “Altaic Elements. . . ,” pp. 88, 89. Prof. Tibor Halasi-Kun in a personal discussion rejected what he called the “Menges-Poppe Theory” on Čavaš. He remarked that after extensive reading of Čavaš texts, he retained the feeling that this was a Turkish language, “a peculiar sort of Turkish, but Turkish none the less.”

[15]  “Oriental Elements,” p. 25 ff.

[16]  This appears in the Orkhon Inscriptions as “Jinču,” cf. V. Thomsen, Inscriptions de l’Orkhon déchiffrées, Mém. de la Soc. Finno-Ougrienne, V, p. 159, n. 49. Thomsen identifies this with the Zarafšan, the Polymitetos of Strabo and the Arang of the Pehlevi texts. The reference, however, is to the present Ču, the river north of the Jaxartes, which flows through the territory in which the refugium of the West Turks was situated.

[17]  “Oriental Elements,” p. 26. GS(453 i–128 e) *ti̯ǝn/ti̯en–*ti̯u/tśi̯u.

[18]  Ibid., p. 26.

[19]  “Altaic Elements,” pp. 86, 87.

[20]  Ibid., p. 87.

[21]  A. Boodberg, “Marginalia to the Histories of the Northern Dynasties,” HJAS, IV, Nos. 3, 4 (1939), p. 234.

[22]  Ibid., p. 235. For the reference to the “Ten Arrows” of the Turks, cf., Chiu T’ang Shu, Ch. 194b (Lieh Chuan Ch. 144b), fol. 3a, b; Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-kieue (Turcs) Occidentaux, pp. 27, 28. For Western references to tribes in -gur, cf. Boodberg, op. cit., pp. 137, 238.

[23]  Boodberg, op. cit., p. 235.

[24]  Ibid., p. 236.

[25]  Han Shu, Ch. 84a, fol. 17b. The establishment of a right and left pair of functionaries is a Chinese tradition imitated by the Hsiung-nu after Mao-tun’s reform. Whether or not the decimal principle in military organization was likewise taken from the Chinese is problematical. The Hsiung-nu may have imitated this practice of their Iranian neighbors, from whom they borrowed the greater part of their military technique.

[26]  “Altaic Elements,” pp. 112, 113.

[27]  “Über die Wolga-Hunnen und Hiung-nu,” Sb. kgl. Bay. AW, P-H. Kl., Bd. II (1899), pp. 245–278; “Hunnenforschungen,” Keleti Szemle, 1901, pp. 81–91.

[28]  “Huns and Hsiung-nu,” p. 245. Recently K. Enoki reconsidered this material in an article, “Sogdiana and the Hsiung-nu,” CAJ, I (1955), pp. 43–62. In his article, Enoki remarked that Maenchen-Helfen’s article was not available to him at the time of writing, op. cit., p. 45. With respect to the matter under consideration, there is no basic disagreement between Enoki and Maenchen-Helfen.

[29]  “Über die Wolga-Hunnen,” p. 245.

[30]  Op. cit., pp. 226–229.

[31]  These were the Hsiung-nu who forced Kidara to migrate west and then south, cf. Pei Shih, Ch. 97, fol. 20a, 21b. One of these groups became known as the Hephthalites, since the Sasanians began to deal with them by the reign of Peroz (459–484), who used them as allies against the later Kušans, cf. A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sasanides (Copenhague, 1944), pp. 290–294. Christensen makes Kidara the Kušan ruler at approximately the time of Peroz, which puts Christensen in closer agreement with the Kidarite chronology proposed by Curiel and Schlumberger than that proposed by Ghirshman, who makes Kidara a contemporary of Šahpur II, cf. R. Curiel et D. Schlumberger, Trésors Monétaires d‘Afghanistan, Mém. de la délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan, XVI (Paris, 1953), pp. 119–124; R. Ghirshman, Les Chionites-Hephthalites (Le Caire, 1948), p. 74. In all events, it seems that the Hephthalite invasion of Sogdiana and Bactria must be put some time in the first half of the fifth century.

[32]  Chionites-Hephthalites, pp. 10, 11, figs. 7, 9.

[33]  Ibid., pp. 107, 108, note 110.

[34]  W. B. Henning, “The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters,” BSOS, XIII, pts. 3, 4 (1948), p. 615. Henning regards the x’wn of the letters as the Hsiung-nu of the Han.

[35] ] J. Marquart, Eränšahr, nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac’i, Abh. d. kgl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, 1901, pp. 60, 61.

[36]  The Saraguroi have been etymologized as Hungarian *Sar – “light,” “whitish,” and -gur, “tribes.” Onoguroi suggests Turkic On- “ten,” corresponding to later forms such as on-oq, onoyuz, toquzoyuz, etc., cf. D. Sinor, “D’une migration de peuples au Ve siècle,” JA, 1946–47, pp. 5, 6.

[37]  Such developments, though rare, have nevertheless occurred. The assumption of power need not have been a usurpation. The best example of a transfer of power in a state with a nomadic background to another line in the name of a well-established royal house is provided by the Qara-Qytai of Kirman, cf. K. A. Wittfogel and C. S. Fêng, History of Chinese Society, Liao (907–1125) (New York and Philadelphia, 1946), p. 626.

[38]  Pei Shih, Ch. 97, fol. 21b.

[39]  Henning, “Sogdian Ancient Letters,” p. 615. Henning dates these letters A.D. 312–313. The expansion of Hua power probably followed the weakening of the Juan-juan as a result of the great campaigns waged against the Juan-juan by Wu Ti of the Northern Wei in the first quarter of the fifth century, though as vassals of the Juan-juan, the Hua may have moved into East Turkistan earlier. The consolidation of the Juan-juan took place during the reign of Mu Ti (of the Eastern Chin, i.e., A.D. 435–362, or almost a half century after the date of the Sogdian letters, cf., Pei Shih, Ch. 98, fol. 1a.

[40]  Pei Shih, Ch. 97, fol. 14b.

[41]  Ibid., Ch. 98, fol. 23a.

[42]  Ibid., Ch. 99, fol. 19a.

[43]  Ibid., Ch. 99, fol. la.

[44]  T’ang Shu, Ch. 215a, fol. 3a. The text says that the royal house was presumably of northern Hsiung-nu origin.

[45]  Ibid., Ch. 217a, fol. la.

[46]  It is often assumed that the Tung-hu were Tungus since their location in early times corresponds to the habitat of Tungus speakers today. The similarity between Tung-hu and Tungus led to a popular etymology of identification. The Chinese designation means “Eastern Hu,” the term Tungus is not native to the Tungus languages. The word is Turkic and means “swine,” cf. A. von Gabain, Alttürkische Grammatik, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1950), p. 342; B. Atalay, Divanü Lûgat it Türk, 5 vols. (Ankara, 1943–45), V, p. 641. Atalay, the editor of the Turkish edition of the pronouncing dictionary of Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, gives numerous Middle-Turkish forms in the Arabic script, Tercümesi, I, 301, 346; II, 343; III, 363, 394.

The designation “swine” may well be due to the fact that the Tung-hu were long recognized as swine breeders before they became pastoral nomads. Swine breeding was not a culture trait of the Hsiung-nu and the Turks, cf. W. Eberhard, “Kultur und Siedlung der Randvölker Chinas,” TP, Supp. to vol. XXXVI, p. 416. The only native designation, “Evenki,” used by the northern Tungus, is derived from “even,” “man.” There is no common southern Tungus designation. The word Tungus is never used by Tungus speakers.

[47]  Wei Shu, Ch. 103, fol. la, “the Huan-juan were descendants of the Tung-hu.” Nan Shih, Ch. 79, fol. 17a, “the Juan-juan were probably a separate branch of the Hsiung-nu.” Pei Shih, Ch. 98, fol. la, gives no indication of the ethnos.

“Steak à la Hun: Food, Drink, and Dietary Habits in Ammianus Marcellinus” ― Paul Tuffin and Meaghan McEvoy

Excerpts relevant to the Huns. Footnotes are reset, and hence starts at 1.

Paul Tuffin and Meaghan McEvoy, “Steak à la Hun: Food, Drink, and Dietary Habits in Ammianus Marcellinus,” in Fast or Famine―Food and Drink in Byzantium, Mayer and Trzcionka eds., 2017.

… [T]he link… between excess in the consumption of food and drink and beast-like lack of the control of reason immediately brings to mind descriptions (presented in the next section of this paper) of barbarian behaviour.[1]

[1] The European Alans (and others), the Huns, and the Asiatic Alans are all compared to beasts (respectively, 22.8.42, 31.2.11, and 31.2.18). On Ammianus’ use of bestial comparisons in general to emphasise negatively lack of rationality and control, see e.g. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, 258; T.D. Barnes, Ammianus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca and London 1998), 109–110. Wiedeman makes a thorough analysis of Ammianus’ use of comparisons with animals and concludes, inter alia: “Animal metaphors are applied to any person or group falling short of the standards of civilized human behaviour...” (T.E.J. Wiedeman, “Between Men and Beasts: Barbarians in Ammianus Marcellinus,” in I.S. Moxton, J.D. Smart and A.J. Woodman [eds], Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman historical writing [Cambridge 1986: 189–201], 201).

Dietary habits as a sign of savage versus civilised behaviour

This aspect of Ammianus’ concern with the consumption of food and alcohol is one that is revealed almost exclusively in his accounts of different regions and their inhabitants...

The existence of the tradition naturally begs the question of veracity in the accounts we are considering: is Ammianus simply drawing on the tradition or is he bringing more reliable knowledge to bear (witnesses’ reports, his own autopsy) — or is he doing both?...

A later excursus is devoted to the Huns, Alans and other nations of Asiatic Scythia (31.2). The Huns “are quite abnormally savage” (31.2.1) and

... their way of life is so rough that they have no use for fire or seasoned food, but live on the roots of wild plants and the half-raw flesh of any sort of animal, which they warm a little by placing it between their thighs and the backs of their horses (31.2.3).

The Huns too are nomadic and plant no grain:

None of them ploughs or ever touches a plough handle. They have no fixed abode, no home or law or settled manner of life but wander like refugees with the wagons in which they live (31.2.10).

like “unreasoning beasts... entirely at the mercy of the maddest impulses” and “totally ignorant of the distinction between right and wrong,” (31.2.11) they are indeed a “wild race” (31.2.12).

The characteristics of being nomadic, non-agricultural, eating wild meat and plants have already been referred to Herodotos.[2] Here, we can add that Herodotos’ account of the Androphagoi (at 4.106) includes these words: (“neither practising justice nor living under any law”).

[2] On the Saracens: The Saracens (in an excursus on more of their customs), rapacious as kites and “desirable neither as friends or enemies” (14.4.1), never plough or till the land but are constantly on the move (14.4.3). They feed off the land (plants, game, birds they are able to catch), “drink an abundance of milk, which is their main sustenance,” and Ammianus has seen some who “were wholly unacquainted with grain and wine” (14.4.6).

On the question of veracity, we might begin with the question of the ‘steak à la Hun.’ It has been the subject of comment and explanation by various scholars,[3] and the attempt at humour in our title is, of course, based on Ammianus’ suggestion that the meat was being warmed for consumption as opposed to being used to heal wounds or soothe chaffing as such scholars have suggested. A recent study by King comments that “Ammianus had heard about the meat on the horses’ backs, but did not have the knowledge of Hunnic culture to explain why it was there.”[4] The study goes on to point out the inaccuracy of Ammianus’ assertions that the Huns lacked fire, ate raw food, and never farmed;[5] it suggests also, in case we might be wondering why Ammianus presents the Huns as he does, that

[3] E.g. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, 337–338; J.O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns: Studies in their history and culture, M. Knight (ed.) (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1973), 14–15, as part of the author’s overall assessment of Ammianus’ account of the Huns, where he suggests a heavy reliance on the Augustan historian, Pompeius Trogus, 9–15.

[4] King, “The Veracity of Ammianus,” 80.

[5] Ibid.

portraying the Huns as subhuman and bestial works well with Ammianus’ overall image of the Huns as savages so terrifying that even the Goths that defeated the Romans at Adrianople could not face them.[6]

[6] King, “The Veracity of Ammianus,” 82. In relation to King’s point, however, it should be noted that Ammianus shows the Goths as being frightened (in the company of some Huns and Alans) also by a Saracen. The occasion is the Gothic attempt on Constantinople, narrated towards the end of the Res Gestae: “One of [the Saracens], a man with long hair wearing nothing but a loincloth, drew his dagger and hurled himself with blood-curdling yells into the midst of the Gothic host. He cut a man’s throat, then put his lips to the wound and sucked the streaming blood. This appalling sight terrified the barbarians (31.16.6).

In the same excursus on the Huns, Alans and others, we meet the Anthropophagi of Asiatic Scythia. These are nomads “who live on human flesh” (31.2.15) — both characteristics of the already-mentioned Androphagoi, described by Herodotos at 4.106.

The Asiatic Alans are made up of various peoples who share similar traits, including being nomadic and “their wild way of life” (31.2.17).

they have no huts and make no use of the plough, but live upon meat and plenty of milk. They use wagons...and move in these over the endless desert. And when they come to a grassy place, they arrange their carts in a circle and feed like wild animals... (31.2.18)

In introducing the Asiatic Alans Ammianus notes that they “are the ancient Massagetae” (31.2.12), leading us back once again to Herodotos and his description of these neighbours of the Scythians (1.216) who sow nothing, live on beasts and fish, and are milk-drinkers. To these characteristics of their dietary habits Ammianus has added that they “feed like wild animals” (31.2.18) — reminding us of his earlier description of the European Alans (and others) at 22.8.42.[7]

[7] The Latin expressions are quite close: “ferarum taetro ritu uescuntur” (22.8.42); “ferino ritu uescuntur” (31.2.18).

The Alans, however, do keep cattle as the above passage suggests,[8] and this is perhaps one reason why Ammianus comments that, although nimble and active warriors “and in every way a match for the Huns,” they “are less savage in their habits and way of life” (31.2.21).[9] …

[8] See also 31.2.19.

[9] King, however, asks the question: “Were the Huns really like the Alans, or does Ammianus link them because Herodotus linked the Scythians and the Massagetae?”; the issue is discussed further in a note (King, “The Veracity of Ammianus”, 85 and n. 40).

It is clear from the passages cited above that dietary habits are an important characteristic for Ammianus in describing different tribes and nations. This is not in itself surprising — as Wiedeman writes: “Dietary habits are among the more obvious ways in which one group of people can differentiate itself from another.[10] On the other hand it is also clear that, with the exception of his treatment of the Gauls and Persians, Ammianus is using characteristics that are drawn from the tradition of descriptions of barbarians that goes back to Herodotos, and that his use of these across the range of groups gives us little hope for their veracity.[11] How is this to be explained? It seems probable in fact that (a) they are not being used for the purposes of descriptive ethnography so much as for the purposes of moral evaluation, in order to and as part of defining the ‘otherness’ of these ethnic groups in contrast to the civilised Romans; and (b) they also reflect Ammianus’ desire to conform to the traditional requirements of his genre by including these traditional descriptors of savagery within his digressions on such groups.[12] It is in any event evident that these dietary practices are for Ammianus, as for those predecessors he is drawing upon, amongst the key defining characteristics of the uncivilised versus the civilised...

[10] Wiedeman, “Between Men and Beasts,” 189.

[11] In general on the use by Ammianus of ethnic equations, identifications of peoples of his own time with those he read about in earlier literature, see King, “The Veracity of Ammianus,” 83–85.

[12] These points are well argued by Wiedemann in his “Between Men and Beasts.” See also D. Rohrbacher, The Historians of Late Antiquity (London and New York 2002), 27-28. On (a) only, see similarly O. Longo, “The Food of Others,” in Food: A culinary history from antiquity to the present, under the direction of J.-L. Flandrin and M. Montanari, English edn. by A. Sonnenfeld, trans. by C. Botsford (New York 1999: 153–162), 155.

Concluding remarks

It turns out, then, that the consumption of food and drink is treated by Ammianus in quite deliberate and significant ways. For, although in the military-political context he may present in this regard more or less what the reader might expect (yet even here introduces value judgements on foresight and indeed its absence), habits of eating and drinking are revealed also as an intrinsic aspect of his value system and a regular means of judging the moral worth not only of individuals and groups or sections of society but also of tribes and nations as a whole — and in both of these categories, even though the first covers only Romans, the link exists to a broader judgement: that which is to be made between the savage and the civilised.

The Veracity of Ammianus Marcellinus’ Description of the Huns—Charles King

The gross prejudice of Ammianus Marcellinus, the Roman soldier and historian in the fourth century, in Res Gestae against the Huns is exposed by Charles King, PhD, professor of Roman History, Late Antiquity, Social & Religious History. This prejudice still persists today, as explained in this article and the definition by the Oxford English Dictionary even amongst scholars. Furthermore, the article proves that he is an unreliable source in many respects, and it is surprising that this fact has not been realized before.

“The Veracity of Ammianus Marcellinus’ Description of the Huns”―Charles King

The American Journal of Ancient History, 1987.

New “Introduction” by the author, 2014.

What follows below is an article that I originally published in The American Journal of Ancient History 12 (1987 [=1995]): 77–95. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the journal’s former editor, the late Ernst Badian, for publishing it in the first place and the current AJAH editor T. Corey Brennan for his supportive comments.

Lest there be any confusion, I should explain the article’s dual date. The journal uses an official dating system that skips years when no journal volume appeared. Thus, volume 12 was technically the “1987” volume, but was actually published in 1995, and my article in it was not written until 1994.

If I were to rewrite the article now, there are various minor points, particularly of writing style, that I might change, but the major arguments about Ammianus would be largely the same. Indeed, since I first published this article, there has been a definite trend in academic publications away from endorsing the accuracy of Ammianus’ description of the Huns, and I would like to think this article has played a role in that trend, even when scholars did not cite it directly.

Ammianus’ account has a long-term popularity that derives from the way Ammianus gives readers the sort of “Huns” that readers seem to want, that is, extremely bestial and savage. It is unfortunate that there is still an attitude that the Huns are only interesting for their alleged barbarism. The use of the word “Hun” as a metaphor to mean “savage continues to be widespread to this day, and Ammianus’ account is the ultimate source of that image. Later authors who presented the Huns in a similar light, like St. Jerome, Claudian, and Jordanes, were not independent authorities and actually adopted some of Ammianus’ specific wording.

Like Ammianus, they found it rhetorically useful to present the enemies of the Romans and/or Goths as less than human. Even the existence of a much more sober genuine eyewitness account by Priscus did not change the popularity of Ammianus’ image of the Huns, then or now. Indeed, the use of “Hun” as an insult in World War I propaganda and other modern contexts succeeded only because Ammianus’ image of bestial Huns had already become (directly or indirectly) imbedded in modern popular culture. So, assessing Ammianus’ accuracy remains an issue of current relevance.

I would like to clarify one point about my meaning that could, I think, be misinterpreted. In suggesting that much of Ammianus’ account is fiction, I am not trying to suggest that the Huns as a people are fictional or that they were just some amalgamation of Roman mercenaries that coalesced into a state in the fifth century. The eyewitness account of Priscus, who visited the Huns and spoke to them through interpreters, makes it clear that there was a core Hunnic people based outside of Roman territory, and that their existence as a people must predate the time that Ammianus described. Although Priscus sometimes used “Scythian” as a synonym for “Hun,” he could also distinguish between the Huns and the other peoples that the Huns con-quered in the geographic area of “Scythia.” Most notably, he says that there was a specific Hunnic language, different from that of other Scythians (Priscus, 11.2.407–415 Blockley). Languages simply do not appear in the space of a few decades, and a distinctive language would indicate a culture that was already of long-term duration. Likewise, Priscus says that Attila claimed that both he and his father Mundiuch were noble by birth (15.2.1–12 Blockley). The father could not have been born much after the period around 376 that Ammianus claims to be describing. For a hereditary elite to exist already at the time the Huns first encountered the Romans would again suggest that Hunnic culture and institutions dated back considerably earlier than their involvement with Rome. There was a core Hunnic people already in the fourth century, who would ultimately conquer a number of their non-Hunnic neighbors by the time of Attila in the mid-fifth century. The question is not whether the Huns really existed, but whether Ammianus knew anything about them at the time that he claimed. On that issue, considerable skepticism about Ammianus is warranted.

The article that follows is identical to the published version of 1995 with two exceptions: (1) For orthographic convenience, Greek quotations are transliterated using the Roman alphabet, not the Greek letters of the original publication; and (2) English translations of all the Greek and Latin passages are now provided [in brackets]. These translations were not present in the original publication. Adding them should make the article more accessible for non-classicists, for example, to scholars in fields like the history of Asia, who may have an interest in the Huns, but not have a background in the Latin and Greek languages. It also makes the work easier to assign to undergraduate students, including my own students, as a reading assignment.

THE VERACITY OF AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS’ DESCRIPTION OF THE HUNS[1]

A central question for the study of the Huns is the validity of the description of them written by Ammianus Marcellinus, supposedly describing the Huns as they were at the time of their entry into Europe in AD 376. If the description is not reliable, there is no detailed description of the Huns before that of Priscus of Panium, who visited Attila’s camp in 449.[2] E. A. Thompson and John Matthews have presented Ammianus as well informed, and his description as accurate, conceding only minor errors.[3] Brent Shaw has recently dismissed the description completely, arguing that it is just an expression of a widespread anti-nomadic ideology, but his “ideology” seems ill-suited to the text at hand and cannot stand as given.[4] The most balanced discussion remains that of Otto Maenchen-Helfen, who conceded many flaws in Ammianus’ portrayal of the Huns (and the description of the Alans which follows it), but nevertheless accepted it as essentially accurate.[5] This paper will argue that even Maenchen-Helfents guarded conclusions are too optimistic, and that Ammianus’ description has little historical value. The type of errors that the text contains demonstrate that the author did not have a reliable source of information about the inner workings of Hunnic society, and make it implausible that he could have known other details that require such intimate knowledge. The credibility of the text is further weakened by Ammianus’ use of material borrowed from earlier descriptions of the Scythians. Comparative evidence from other nomadic societies shows more discrepancies than similarities with Ammianus’ account, and cannot be used to confirm it. What information Ammianus had about the Huns consisted only of garbled descriptions of the visual appearance of customs that he lacked the cultural background to interpret properly.

[1] The following works, which are cited repeatedly, will be identified in the notes by their author:
Baldwin, Barry, “Priscus of Panium,” Byzantion 50 (1980) 19–61.
Blockley, R. C., Fragmentary classicising historians of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols. (1981).
Harmatta, János, “The dissolution of the Hun Empire,” AArchHung 2 (1952) 277–304.
Khazanov, A. M. , “Characteristic features of nomadic communities in the Eurasian steppes,” in Wolfgang Weissleder (ed.), The nomadic alternative (1978) 119–126.
Linder, Rudi Paul, “Nomadism, horses and Huns,” Past and Present 92 (1981) 3–19.
Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J., The World of the Huns (1973).
Matthews, John, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (1989).
Peisker, T., “The Asiatic Background,” Cambridge Medieval History (1911) 1.323–359.
Schuster, Mauriz, “Die Hunnnenbeschreibungen bei Ammianus, Sidonius und lordanis,” WS 58 (1940) 119–130.
Shaw, Brent, “Eaters of flesh, drinkers of milk: The ancient Mediterranean ideology of the pastoral nomad,” AncSoc 13–14 (1982–83) 5–31.
Thompson, E. A., A history of Attila and the Huns (1948).
Werner, Joachim, Beiträge zur Archäologie des Attila-Reiches (1956).

[2] Otto Maenchen-Helfen, “The date of Ammianus’ last books,” AJPh 76 (1955) 383–399, showed that the description by Claudian is dependent on Ammianus and not an independent source. Ammianus’ date of authorship is controversial, but most scholars put it between “the late 380s,” (Naudé, AJAH (1984) 70–94) and 396 (Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968) 17–24). Cf. Matthews 9–11 and T. D. Barnes, “Ammianus Marcellinus and his world,” CP 88 (1993) 55–70.

[3] E. A. Thompson 6–8; John Matthews 332–342, 353–355. The latter concedes more flaws than the former, but his position is still that the text is essentially accurate. On p. 332 n. 47, he notes the presence of literary stereotypes throughout Ammianus’ history, but says that the real issue is the degree to which the description of the Huns differs from other descriptions of nomads. Establishing that the description was distinctive would allow Matthews to discount the role of stereotypes in this particular passage. Thus, he repeatedly and vehemently states (pp. 334–335, 354) that the Huns were unlike other barbarians and that Ammianus did not incorporate the traits of other peoples in his description of them—allowing little role for literary or cultural stereotypes. He cites comparative evidence (pp. 334–335) to defend Ammianus’ description of the Huns, and even that of the Alans, for which he does concede some use of literary stereotypes. He explains (pp. 336–337) that similarities in Ammianus’ portraits of the Huns and Saracens are due not to stereotypes but to common behaviors of the two peoples. On p. 353, he lists Hunnic lack of roofs as an example of a cultural stereotype in the description, but on p. 355 he asserts that the Hunnic houses described by Priscus show a later stage in social development than the Huns of Ammianus’ text—showing that he accepts Ammianus’ portrait as basically accurate. For Matthews, the description was “influenced but not overwhelmed by rhetorical convention” (p. 333), and should be accepted except for certain specific points, on which Matthews generally follows Maenchen-Helfen (1973).

[4] Brent Shaw 5–31 argues that all classical authors who described nomads (including Ammianus) did so according to an anti-nomadic ideology, which led them to portray nomads in a consistently negative manner. Shaw’s model for this ideology is based on Homer, Aristotle and Herodotus. While Shaw is certainly right that some ancient authors present a dichotomy between pastoralist peoples and Greco-Roman civilization, his uniform “ideology” breaks down almost immediately. Shaw argues for a consistently negative image of pastoralists, but even Herodotus, one of his main sources, portrays the Ethiopians and their pastoralist diet in entirely favorable terms (3.23). Likewise, Shaw’s theory requires authors to present laziness as the dominant characteristic of nomads, but Herodotus’ “lazy” Massagetae kill Cyrus the Great (1.214), and his “lazy” Scythians drive away the Persians (Book 2). Ammianus presented the Huns as extremely dangerous, not indolent. It is hard to see laziness in lines such as “ita victu sunt asperi, ut neque ignis neque saporati indigeant cibi” ([”They are so fierce in their way of life that they do not need either fire or cooked food”], Ammianus, 31.2.3: text of W. Seyfarth, Leipzig, 1978). Shaws model may have value for some texts, but it is not a universal constant of antiquity, and its “lazy” image does not fit Ammianus’ text.

[5] Maenchen-Helfen 9–15.

I. DEGREE OF CONTACT

Maenchen-Helfen’s chapter on Hunnic religion provides a useful standard by which to judge Ammianus’ text. Ammianus wrote that the Huns wore their clothes continuously until they dropped off.[6] Maenchen-Helfen, citing a parallel Mongol custom, argued that this was a religious practice, designed to conciliate river spirits.[7] The question of the relevancy of the Mongol custom is secondary to the question of the reliability of the data. It is one thing to see a Hun wearing ragged clothing and assume it to be typical. It is another to actually know that the Huns never changed their clothes. That would require contact with Huns over a period of time long enough to observe that they wore clothes until they were ragged and never changed them. No one has ever claimed that Ammianus was an eyewitness, but did he have access to an observer with this degree of exposure to the Huns?

[6] mianus 31.2.5: sed semel obsoleti coloris tunica collo inserta non ante deponitur aut mutatur quam diuturna carie in pannulos diffluxerit defrustata [“But once a faded tunic is placed around (a Hun’s) neck, it is not taken off or changed before it will have collapsed into little rags, dissolved by long-term decay.”].

[7] Maenchen-Helfen 259–260. Thompson 42 used the same passage and same parallels as indications of Hunnic poverty. The difference in interpretation does not affect the argument here.

Maenchen-Helfen himself presented some of the evidence that the answer is negative. In a key passage, Ammianus said that the Huns scarred their faces at birth in an attempt to prevent beards from growing (31.22). Matthews has recently tried to defend this passage based on a parallel statement in Jordanes’ Getica (24.127–128). However, Jordanes’ initial description of the Huns, like the description of the fall of Hermanaric in which it is located, is largely derived from Ammianus, and cannot be used as independent confirmation.[8] The 6ᵗʰ century author Jordanes is only as reliable as the source he used for a given detail. Maenchen-Helfen rightly emphasized another passage in Jordanes, which the author attributed specifically to Priscus. This passage says that the Huns scarred their faces at funerals as an act of mourning.[9] The Huns were not beardless either. Attila had a beard.[10] Sidonius, who had information about the Huns from some source that was independent of Ammianus, likewise attributed the scarring to acts of mourning.[11]

[8] Theodor Mommsen, Iordanis Romana et Getica (1882) xxxiii-xxxiv, notes on pp. 90–94; Charles. C. Mierow, The Gothic History of Jordanes² (1915) 163 (“Note that many of the actual words used by Ammianus recur in the account given by Jordanes”); Schuster 119–130; Maenchen-Helfen 15–17. Matthews 338–339 does not acknowledge a textual relationship between Ammianus and Jordanes, and seems to imply that Jordanes was speaking from personal knowledge. However, authors in the 6ᵗʰ century called Kutrigurs, Sabirs, Hephtalites, and even Avars by the name “Huns,” and the connection (if any) between these peoples and Attila’s Huns is unclear. Even if Jordanes did have the “Huns” of his day in mind (and there is nothing to suggest that he did), it is hard to see how that would make him a better authority on Attila’s Huns than Priscus (cf. main text below). Admitting the 6ᵗʰ century material would not change the issue in any event. Agathias, Hist. 5.20, recorded how the Kutrigurs (whom he called “Huns”) slashed their faces out of grief.

[9] Jordanes 49.25 Priscus 24.1. Cf. Maenchen-Helfen 274. Priscus is cited from R. C. Blockley 2:222–400, using his numbering system. There are three other systems in use. Cf. Blockley’s correlation table (2: 491–493).

[10] Jordanes 34.182 = Priscus 11.3.

[11] Sidonius, Cam. 7.238–240. Schuster 124–125 viewed Sidonius’ description of the Huns as dependent on Ammianus. Some elements may be, but there are numerous points of divergence, including the point at hand. Cf. Maenchen-Helfen 361.

As Sidonius’ sources are uncertain, the above argument depends upon the superiority of Priscus as a source, which deserves some discussion, particularly since the discussion of facial scarring comes from his description of Attila’s funeral, an event at which the author was not present. Priscus accompanied the Eastern Roman ambassador Maximinus on an embassy to Attila in 449. For the sections of his text in which he described what he observed on his journey, he is our best source for the Huns. His status as an eyewitness cannot be discounted. He did see and speak to the Huns, and the burden of proof lies with any modern scholar who chooses to dispute his observations, though some care may be required to distinguish his observations from his interpretations.[12]

[12] For instance, Priscus (13.1.41–65) presented the details of a Hunnic feast so as to prove that Attila had a temperate character, but the slanted emphasis is not sufficient to prove that the details are false. Priscus was present at the meal and ate the food, as did other members of the embassy, who might later be expected to read his history.

The remainder of Priscus’ material on the Huns must be judged according to the degree that his experiences among the Huns would be likely to give him the information he reports. One might question whether such experiences would be sufficient to explain a battle scene like the Hunnic siege of Naissus in 441,[13] but the facial scarring is another matter. Priscus does not say that the practice of scarring originated at Attila’s fineral, but rather that it was a Hunnic custom. There can be no doubt about the scars. Not only did Priscus see the Huns, but his most immediate likely audience would have contained people who had also seen them. Priscus traveled in diplomatic circles. He was invited on the embassy as a personal friend of Maximinus and would later go on another embassy to Rome. Other persons who accompanied Maximinus’ embassy to Attila and diplomats who had seen the various Hunnic embassies to Constantinople would all know what Huns looked like. A member of a circle that contained others who had seen Huns is not likely to have made up details about their appearance.[14]

[13] Priscus 6. R. C. Blockley, “Dexippus and Priscus and the Thucydidean account of the siege of Plataea,” Phoenix 26 (1972) 18–127, showed that Thompson, “Priscus of Panium, Fragment 1b,” CQ 39 (1945) 92–94, went too far in suggesting that Priscus invented the Hunnic ability to conduct siege warfare (of which they were clearly capable), but Baldwin 54–56 is probably right to caution against the other extreme of accepting every detail. Embellishing battle scenes was a well established genre.

[14] For Priscus’ diplomatic connections, see Baldwin 20–25, though he may be wrong to equate the Maximinus of the embassy with the one who worked on the Theodosian code. Cf. John Martindale, “Maximinus 7” and “Maximinus 11,” PLRE 2 (1980) 742–743.

Priscus’ curiosity about the Huns is also clear. In Attila’s camp, he obviously inquired about the construction of the Roman style bath built by Attila’s lieutenant Onegesius, for he knew the name of the architect. Priscus also questioned the Hunnic subject Constantiolus about Hunnic history, and, at a Hunnic banquet, he questioned a “barbaros” [“barbarian”] about Attila’s family.[15] He also had other occasions for casual inquiry: On the trip to meet Attila, Priscus’ party had enough of a dialogue with their Hunnic guides to start an argument eventually over the relative merits of Theodosius and Attila, and Priscus would later be invited to dinner by an aide to Attila’s wife Hereka.[16] It would be odd indeed if Priscus, given numerous opportunities, did not inquire about the reason for the scars, which would have been such an obvious visual difference between himself and his hosts. Priscus, therefore, was in a position to know the reason for the facial scarring.

[15] Priscus 11.2.356–372, 11.2.575–636, 13.3.15–20.

[16] Priscus 11.2.24–35, 14.17–24.

In fact, Ammianus’ explanation is implausible in and of itself. To actually prevent beard growth with a knife would require removing someone’s hair follicles by skinning his cheeks, chin, neck and lips. If beardlessness was the goal, this seems an illogical and possibly life-threatening alternative to shaving. Ammianus had some garbled information from someone who had seen Huns. He knew that the Huns slashed their faces, and believed—perhaps because his informant saw clean-shaven Huns—that Huns were all beardless. He did not, however, have a knowledge of Hunnic culture that could explain the scarring phenomenon. Either he or his informant simply invented an explanation that combined the two pieces of information about Hunnic faces.

Another error enhances the impression that Ammianus had a description of the Huns’ appearance, but no knowledge to help interpret it. Ammianus said that the Huns ate half-raw meat that they kept under their thighs when riding horses (31.2.3). Ammianus was misinterpreting the use of meat as a saddle pad, a custom known from other Central Asian peoples. The meat reduced chafing from the saddle. The comparative evidence shows that the raw meat under the saddle becomes quickly inedible and no one consumes it.[17] Ammianus had heard about the meat on the horses’ backs, but he did not have the knowledge of Hunnic culture to explain why it was there.

[17] Peisker 340; A. Solymossy, “La légende de la ‘viande amortie sous le selle’,” Nouvelle Revue de Hongrie 30 (1937) 134–140; conceded by Thompson 6–7 and Matthews 333. Maenchen-Helfen 14–15 defended Ammianus’ statement, citing a 14ᵗʰ century parallel by an author who he says could not have read Ammianus. Peisker and Solymossy, however, are describing a visual misunderstanding, not a literary trope, and Maenchen-Helfen does not explain why his example could not be another example of the same misunderstanding.

Even Ammianus’ defenders concede that he was wrong about some of the most basic elements of Hunnic society. Ammianus said that the Huns lacked fire and ate raw food (31.2.3). However, cooking pots are among the most distinctive of Hunnic archaeological finds, and the supposedly fire-free Huns even forged the metal themselves.[18] Ammianus said that the Huns never farm (31.2.10), but agricultural implements linked to the Huns have been found in Central Asia.[19] Ammianus said that the Huns had no religion (31.2.11), but an array of sources suggests differently.[20] While we might concede that horses played an important part in Hunnic life, it is hard to accept his statement that the Huns conducted all activities and even slept on horseback (312.6–7). If taken literally, Ammianus would mean that the Hunnic men got back on their horses to sleep, after having sex with their wives in the wagons in which the women and children live (31.2.10), an unparalleled cultural practice.[21]

[18] Maenchen-Helfen 306–330, especially 321, followed by Matthews 341. I am not personally qualified to assess what is or is not a Hunnic artifact, but Maenchen-Helfen (and Werner, whom I cite elsewhere on the subject) were building on a solid foundation of (mostly) Russian archaeological work.

[19] Maenchen-Helfen 178.

[20] Thompson, “Christian Missionaries Among the Huns,” Hermathena 67 (1946) 73–79; Maenchen-He1fen 259–296; Matthews 340; Werner 69–81, though Maenchen-Helfen 461–463 expressed reservations about some of Werner’s conclusions.

[21] The exaggerated stereotype of Hunnic life (and sleep) on horseback can also be found in Ammianus’ contemporary Eunapius. Cf. Zosimus 4.20.4 = Eunapius fr. 41.2 Blockley: machēn men stadian oute dunamenoi to parapan oute eidotes epagagein (pōs gar hoi mēde eis gēn pēxai tous podas hoioi te ontes hedraiōs, all’ epi tōn hippōn kai diaitōmevoi kai katheudontes) [“They were totally incapable and ignorant of carrying out close combat (for how could they be otherwise, for they are not able to stand firmly on the ground, but they live and sleep on their horses)”]. This text would be particularly important if Ammianus was also drawing upon Eunapius, but this is not certain. Cf. the works cited in notes 37 and 38 below.

Defenders of Ammianus’ veracity have always minimized the importance of the factual errors in his description, asserting that, as Thompson put it, “Ammianus’ statements will be accepted as valid, except in the few instances... where they can be proved false.”[22] The errors are not so few, however, and it is hard to imagine what sort of source they envision for Ammianus. Ammianus claims to have detailed intimate knowledge about the Huns, and yet makes errors about the most basic elements of their culture. How could anyone know that the Huns raise their children in wagons until puberty (312.10), and not know that they did not eat the meat they used as saddle pads? How could anyone know the manner in which their leaders hold conferences (312.7), and not know that they possessed fire? How could anyone be around Huns long enough to know that they never changed their clothes (312.5), and not know that they ate cooked food? It does not seem possible. Ammianus’ source had only visual information—as if seen from a distance—and even that was sometimes garbled.

[22] Thompson 8. Cf. Maenchen-Helfen 15. Matthews 332–342 minimizes the importance of errors throughout his discussion. Cf. note 3 above.

Even the subject on which Ammianus seems best informed—the military tactics of the Huns—does not change the impression that Ammianus had only limited visual information. Ammianus described formations of archers on horseback dividing into small groups and attacking with hit and run tactics. In addition to bows, they used lassos and swords as weapons (31.2.8–9). Ammianus had some genuine information here, perhaps because their military threat was the main point of interest which the Huns had for the Romans. The tactics are consistent with those used by other Central Asian nomads, and Sidonius, Zosimus, and Isaac of Antioch described the Huns as archers on horseback. Archaeologists have found Hunnic swords and bows, and Sozomen confirmed the Hunnic use of the lasso.[23]

[23] Sidonius, Carm. 2.265–269; Sozomen 7.26; Zosimus 4.20; Isaac of Antioch, Homily on the royal city, 170–90 (ed. and tr. from Syriac by C. Moss, Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 7 (1929) 295–306 and 8 (1930) 61–72); Maenchen-He1fen 201–258; Gyula László, “The Significance of the Hun Golden Bow,” AArchHung 1 (1951) 91–106; János Harmatta, “The Golden Bow of the Huns,” AArchHung 1 (1951) 107–151; Werner 38–56.

There are other clues, however, to suggest that Ammianus’ knowledge of Hunnic military matters did not go beyond the general description that he gave. There is a sharp contrast between the amount of detail Ammianus claimed to have about Hunnic society and that he provided on Hunnic wars. Ammianus spent twelve paragraphs describing the Huns and nine describing the Alans (31.2.1–12, 17–25), but he presented the Hunnic conquest of the Alans in a single subordinate clause, giving no details (31.3.1). Likewise, the Hunnic wars against the Goths are told from the Gothic point of view (31.3). The Gothic leaders have names and personalities. The Huns are an anonymous threatening mass who attack without any stated motive. The Gothic leaders took their people into Roman territory, and it is not surprising that Ammianus would know something about them, but there is nothing in Ammianus’ description of the Hunnic army in action that suggests that he had the type of detailed information that he would have needed to write the preceding description of Hunnic society. If he knew as much as his description of their society implies, it is curious that he would say so little about the actions of a people that he was presenting as the totius... sementem exitii et cladum originem diversarum ([“the seed... of all the destruction and the origin of diverse misfortunes”], 312.1), the prime movers ofthe disasters of Valens’ reign.

Even within the general description of Hunnic tactics, there are indications of the limits to Ammianus’ knowledge. He attributed Hunnic military success to their use of bone arrowheads (31.2.9), but archaeology has shown that the Huns used metal arrowheads.[24] Likewise, Ammianus’ description of tactics only resembles that used by other nomadic armies if one ignores the interpretation that Ammianus himself placed on what he was describing. He said that the Huns were led nulla severitate regali, sed tumultuario primatum ductu contenti perrumpunt ([“with no royal discipline, but, they forced their way through, content with the disordered leadership of their important men.”] 31.2.7). They attacked with incomposita acie ([“a disorganized battle line”], 31.2.8). Ammianus did not understand how the type of tactics he was describing could be consistent with a chain of command as he understood it. As Harmatta put it, “When the Huns first appeared, the Romans were nonplussed by the tactics of small groups acting independently of one another: they saw in this only an absence of order and unified leadership. They naturally jumped to the conclusion that the scattered small Hun groups have only temporary leaders... but are not under the unitary command of a ‘king,’ i.e., a tribal chief.” It is implausible, however, that small groups of Huns working independently could have overrun the Goths and Alans.[25] Once again, Ammianus lacked the cultural background to interpret what was reported to him. What military information he did have, such as the use of bows and lassos, could be observed at a distance and did not require his informant to have spoken or closely associated with Huns.

[24] Maenchen-Helfen, “The Ethnic Name Hun,” in Søren Egerod and Else Glahn, (eds.), Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren Dedicata (1959) 232–233 (with illustrations) and Maenchen-Helfen (1973) 221–222; followed by Matthews 338.

[25] János Harmata 289; likewise Maenchen-Helfen 12–13. Matthews 339–340 and note 60 concedes that the Huns might unite under a single leader in an unusual situation such as the migration into Gothic territory, but interprets primatum ductu [“by the leadership of their imponant men”] to mean that their regular leadership was that of independent leaders over “separate groups.” In this, he follows Thompson 44–45, who held that the Huns were united only in times of war. Neither Thompson nor Matthews, however, explain how Ammianus could know how the regular governmental structure of the Huns worked, and not know that they possessed fire. As corroboration, Thompson cited the lack of a monarch among the Mongols prior to Chinghis Khan, which he presented as the typical political structure of nomadic peoples, but one could as easily cite the Mongols after Chinghis—or the Seljuks, Ottomans, or Umayyads— proof of the reverse. Cf. below on comparative evidence.

Ammianus might also be deliberately distorting his kernel of visual information. Whatever description of the Huns he had, there is more venom than observation in Ammianus’ statement that the Huns were “prodigiose deformes etpandi, ut bipedes existimes bestias vel quales in commarginandis pontibus effigiati stipites dolantur incompte” (“prodigiously deformed and misshapen, so that you would think they were two-legged beasts or were roughly cut like the logs shaped to put the sides on bridges”], 312.2). On the other hand, portraying the Huns as subhuman and bestial works well with Ammianus’ overall image of the Huns as savages so terrifying that even the Goths that defeated the Romans at Adrianople could not face them.

Ammianus’ presentation of the Huns as subhuman raises doubts about details which cannot be confirmed elsewhere. For instance, Ammianus asserts that the Huns did not use infantry tactics because their shoes were constructed in a way that was unsuitable for that purpose.[26] If Hunnic shoes were really distinctive, an observer could have seen them without intimate contact with Hunnic society—by examining a corpse, for instance. Ammianus could then be using a piece of true information to lead into his (exaggerated) portrait of Hunnic horsemanship, which follows immediately. On the other hand, the shoe description itself follows the portrait of the Huns wearing mouse skin rags until they dropped off and wrapping their legs in goat skins—a suitably savage wardrobe. Since the emphasis is on the primitiveness of Hunnic clothing, Ammianus’ point about the shoes may be that the Huns were simply too savage to make proper (i.e., Roman) shoes, just as they were too savage to use fire (ita victu sunt asperi, ut neque ignis neque saporati indigeant cibi, [“They are so fierce in their way of life that they do not need either fire or cooked food”], 312.3). Such a context leaves open the possibility that Ammianus simply invented his description of the shoes. The Huns, after all, did cook.[27]

[26] 31.2.6: eorumque calceiformulis nullis aptati, vetant incedere gressibus liberis. qua causa adpedestresparum accommodati suntpugnas, verum equis prope affixi... [“And their shoes, which were formed without shoemakers’ moulds, prevent them from walking with free steps, which is why they are not sufficiently fit for battles on foot, and indeed they are almost attached to their horses...”].

[27] In support of Ammianus’ description of Hunnic shoes, Matthews 333 cites Suda entry A 1019(A) on Akrosphaleis. En tōi badizein sphallomenoi, toutestin hoi Ounnoi [“Akrosphaleis: those who trip while walking, that is the Huns”], to which one could add the preceding entry on the same word, A 1018: Ho de ekeleuse chōrein epi tous apodas kai akrosphaleis Ounnous, aneu gar hippōn ou raidiōs an Ounnos tēn gēnpatēseien [“He ordered them to advance on the Huns, who were unsteady (akrosphaleis) and not strong on their feet, for, without horses, the Hun does not easily walk the earth”]. These passages present the Huns as unable to walk, but it is not clear that shoes are the perceived cause. Thomas M. Banchich, “An Identification in the Suda: Eunapius on the Huns”, CP 83 (1988) 53 takes the Suda to mean, “The Huns, accustomed as they were to life on horseback, found it difficult to walk.” He argues that the Suda was drawing upon Eunapius, but the parallel passage in Zosimus (4.20.4, quoted above, n. 21) does not mention shoes, either. Maenchen-Helfen 207 thought Ammianus and Eunapius were describing bowleggedness, but he did accept that the Huns wore soft shoes. His parallels for both points are drawn from other cultures and are not conclusive.

II. ETHNIC EQUATIONS

Ammianus further weakened his credibility by making use of ethnic equations, identifications of peoples of his own time with those he read about in earlier literature. Such equations were common in Late Antiquity and served several purposes. Greco-Roman writings about peoples outside of their cultural sphere were extremely conservative. Traditions Herodotus recorded about the Scythians, for instance, were repeated without significant variation for centuries.[28] The incursions in Late Antiquity of barbarians with names different than those described by the classical Greeks challenged this conservative style of ethnographic writing. Equations both defended the validity of treating authors such as Herodotus as if they were current sources, and provided background information about new peoples who were otherwise unknown. Ethnic equation also could serve to enhance, by association, the impression that an author wished to give about a people, through the use of selective references to earlier events. Synesius equated the Goths with the Scythians, emphasizing past Scythian defeats to make them appear contemptible. Jordanes made the same equation, emphasizing Scythian victories to make the Goths seem heroic. St. Jerome and Philostorgius both wanted the Huns to appear savage. The former equated them with the Scythians (paraphrasing Herodotus’ description of their savagery), the latter with the Neuri, whom Herodotus said were werewolves.[29] Ammianus also used equations to reinforce his portrait of Hunnic savagery by showing that their behavior was not only distinctively non-Roman, but had been so since the days of Herodotus.

[28] M. I. Finley, “The Black Sea and Danubian Regions and the Slave Trade in Antiquity,” Klio 40 (1962) 52.

[29] Synesius, De regno, especially 17a, 25a–b; Jordanes, Get. 5.43–10.65; Jerome, ep. 77.8 (cf. Hdt. 1.104); Philostorgius, 9.17 (cf. Hdt. 4.105). On equations, cf. Maenchen-Helfen 5–9, though his theory that all equations were designed to emphasize past defeats does not fit all of the examples he cites.

Matthews has recently denied that Ammianus used ethnic equations in his description of the Huns, but his case is not strong. Ammianus certainly used ethnic equations. Matthews himself notes that Ammianus simply called the Alans the veteres Massagetas ([“ancient Massagetae”], 31.2.12), and that he derived the list of peoples that border on the Huns and Alans from the list of neighbors that Herodotus gave the Scythians.[30] Maenchen-Helfen has noted the similarity between Ammianus’ description of the Huns and the description of the Scythians by the first century author Pompeius Trogus (or its epitome by Justin, which survives). Trogus-Justin said that the Scythians avoided roofs, had no laws, and wore mouse-skin clothing:

[30] Matthews 334–335, but he adds: “That Ammianus neither attempts nor implies any such comparisons with previously attested peoples in the case of the Huns is a measure of their sheer novelty in Roman eyes.”

neque enim agrum exercent, nec domus illis ulla aut tectum aut sedes est... justitia gentis ingeniis culta, non legibus... pellibus tamenferinis ac murinis utuntur. [“For they (the Scythians) neither cultivate the land, nor do they have any home or roof (tectum) or place of residence (sedes).. Justice is practiced by the natural inclination of the people and not by laws (legibus)... [For clothing] they use the skins (pellibus) of wild animals and mice (murinis).”]

Ammianus said the same of the Huns, using similar terms:

nec enim se tutos existimant esse sub tectis. indumentis operiuntur linteis vel ex pellibus silvestrium murum...omnes enim sine sedibusfixis, absque lare vel lege aut ritu stabili dispalantur.[31] [“For they (the Huns) do not consider themselves safe under roofs (tectis). They cover themselves with linen clothing or with the skins (pellibus) of forest mice (murum)... For they are all without fixed places of residence (sedibus), and they wander without a household god, or a law (lege), or a regular ritual.”]

[31] Justin, 2.2.4–5, 9; text of E. Chambry and L. Thély-Chambry (1936); Ammianus 312.5, 10; cf. Maenchen-Helfen 14.

Maenchen-Helfen regarded the combination of these elements as proof of Ammianus’ direct borrowing from Trogus, and the resemblance is indeed quite striking. Since Trogus’ text has been lost and the date of Justin’s epitome is uncertain, the question of direct borrowing may not lend itself to absolute proof.[32] The comparison of the texts does, however, suggest an ethnic equation. While some of the traits that Ammianus attributed to the Huns (such as lack of laws) may be stereotypes applied to many nomadic groups, as Shaw asserted,[33] others are more distinctive. No one ever said that the Saracens wore mouse skins. Not only did Trogus say it of the Scythians, but Seneca did as well.[34] Ammianus had the Huns constantly on the move in wagons beyond the Ister. Trogus gave the same combination of lifestyle and location to the Scythians, as did Philostratus and Herodotus.[35] Ammianus was attributing traits to the Huns that he expected his readers to recognize as Scythian, to accompany his more bluntly identified “Massagetae.”

[32] Justin’s epitome may be contemporary with Ammianus. Ronald Syme, “The date of Justin and the discovery of Trogus,” Historia 37 (1988) 358–371, argued for a date c. 390. However, there is no reason to assume that Ammianus read the epitome simply because it survives to our time. Jordanes (Getica, 10.61) cited Trogus by name in 551. Indeed, Syme’s theory of a resurgence of interest in Trogus in the 4ᵗʰ century would be consistent with Ammianus having read the original work.

[33] Shaw. See note 4 above.

[34] Seneca, Ep. 90.16.

[35] Ammianus 312.10, 31.2.13; Justin 2.2.4, 2.5.10; Philostratus VA, 7.26; Herodotus 4.46, 4.51.

Matthews argued against this position by citing Ammianus’ statement that the Huns were monumentis veteribus leviter nota [“little known from ancient records”].[36] However, he neglected an obvious parallel. Zosimus who was paraphrasing Ammianus’ contemporary Eunapius wrote:

[36] 312.1; cf. Matthews 335–336.

A certain barbarian race rose against the Scythian peoples [i.e., Goths] across the Ister, [a race] that was not known previously, but appeared suddenly at that time. They called them Huns. They are either those it is proper to call Royal Scythians, or the snub-nosed and weak people whom Herodotus says live near the Ister.[37]

[37] Zosimus, 4.20.3: phulon ti barbaron tois huper ton Istron Skuthikois ethnesin epanestē, proteron men ouk egnōsmenon, tote de exaiphnēs anaphanen; Ounnous de toutous ekaloun, eite basileious autous onomazeinprosēkei Skuthas, eite hous Hērodotos phēsi paroikein ton Istron simous kai astheneas anthrōpous. My translation [in main text] from the text of F. Paschoud (1971); included as fragment 41.2 of Eunapius by Blockley 2: 58. Cf. Matthews 335–336 and note 54.

Eunapius-Zosimus here says that the Huns were previously unknown, and then offers several ethnic equations. This is a contradiction unless the initial statement means “unknown under their current name.” Ammianus’ leviter nota [“lightly known”] does not preclude an ethnic identification, any more than does Zosimus’ more emphatic proteron mev ouk egnōsmevon [“not known previously”].

The relationship between Ammianus and Eunapius-Zosimus is unclear. Many scholars have argued that Ammianus drew on Eunapius.[38] Maenchen-Helfen argued the reverse.[39] Whatever the overall connection between the authors, the differences between the texts show that neither author simply copied the other in his ethnic equations involving the Scythians and Huns. The comparison reveals instead the variation possible within the same literary motif. Zosimus identified the Scythians with the Goths, Ammianus with the Huns. Zosimus referred back to Herodotus, but Ammianus also drew on Latin sources. Ammianus aimed for an association between the savagery of the Huns and Scythians. Zosimus offered his readers a choice of how to view the Huns. They were either the proverbially strong Royal Scythians (cf. Hdt. 4.20) or the proverbially weak Sigynnae (Hdt. 5.9). Ammianus identified the Alans with the Massagetae (31.2.12), but Zosimus did not. The device of ethnic equation was in both cases a conscious part of the author’s process of composition, and such methods obviously create problems for the modern historian.

[38] G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (1978) 7–9; W. Chalmers, “Eunapius, Ammianus, and Zosimus on Julian’s Persian expedition,” CQ n.s. 10 (1960) 152–159; but recently disputed by Charles Fornara, “Julian’s Persian expedition in Ammianus and Zosimus,” JHS 111 (1991) 1–15. None of these works specifically addresses the passage on the Huns.

[39] Maenchen-Helfen 9.

Ethnic equation adds a host of question marks to the text. Since we do not know all of the works on the Scythians that Ammianus might have read, it is difficult to distinguish between his literary borrowings and what he might have heard about the Huns. Did the Huns really wear mouse skins, or is this simply a borrowed marker of “Scythian” identity? Were the Huns really like the Alans, or does Ammianus link them because Herodotus linked the Scythians and Massagetae?[40] We cannot be sure, and the doubt weakens the value of any piece of information in Ammianus that is not confirmed by some other source.

[40] On the Hunnic/Alanic resemblance, see Ammianus, 312.21 and Herodotus, 1.215, and cf. Will Richter, “Die Darstellung der Hunnen bei Ammianus Marcellinus,” Historia 23 (1974) 360–362. Note also that Ammianus’ likely Latin source Trogus seems to have merged the Scythians and Massagetae. Thus, the Massagetan queen Tomyris (Hdt. 1.212–214) became a Scythian (Justin, 1.8).

III. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE

Underlying every defense of Ammianus is the assumption that his account is confirmed by comparative evidence with other later and better documented nomadic groups.[41] Conversely, there has also been a tendency to use comparative evidence to fill in the gaps in Ammianus’ portrait. Such attempts derive ultimately from the work of Peisker, who assetted the absolute unity of nomadic culture throughout history:

[41] For instance, Thompson 42 or Matthews 335, 529 n. 52. The latter cites American Indians, which seems a far reach.

The identical origin of all the mounted nomads of historic and modern times is also demonstrated by the identity of their entire mode of life, even in its detail and most trivial particulars, their customs, and their habits. One nomad people is the counterfeit of the other, and after more than two thousand years no change, no differentiation, no progress is to be observed among them. Accordingly we can always supplement our not always precise information about individual historical hordes, and the consequences of their appearance, by comparisons with the better known hordes.[42]

[42] Peisker 359.

J. B. Bury and Thompson took Peisker quite seriously and used his model to create for the Huns an elaborate social and political system—supported solely by Ammianus’ statement the Huns were lacking severitate regali [“royal discipline”]—which they then used to explain the eventual decline of the Hunnic kingdom. Thompson went so far as to use Peisker’s model to create population statistics for the Huns.[43]

[43] J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (1923) 101–104, 265–298; Thompson 41–62, 161–183.

No one now accepts Peisker’s theory of the absolute unity of nomadism. More recent scholars have recognized the wide diversity in pastoralist societies.[44] Even allowing for Peisker’s oversimplification, however, there remain two basic questions: Does any model of central asiatic nomadism confirm Ammianus’ account? And are there enough data available about the Huns of the period described by Ammianus to apply any model confidently to expand our portrait of them? The answer to both questions is no.

[44] Neville Dyson-Hudson, “The study of Nomads,” in William Irons and Neville Dyson Hudson (eds.), Perspectives on Nomadism (1972) 2–26, especially 26: “As soon as we break down the category of ‘nomadism’ into even its immediate constituents of herding and movement... we are faced with dozens of variables which admit of virtually infinite recombination. Until we possess precise knowledge on such matters, we cannot claim adequate knowledge of even a single nomadic society—let alone ‘nomadism’ as some more general form of human experience.”

Much of what Ammianus reports is simply unparalleled in anthropological accounts of later nomads, including the Hunnic lack of both a religion and the use of fire. Even Peisker’s nomads did not eat raw meat. Nor were they always on the move like Ammianus’ Huns, but only traveled back and forth between their winter and summer pastures.[45] More recent work shows even greater contrasts to Ammianus’ description. A. M. Khazanov has categorized several types of nomadism in Central Asia, but none seem a close match for Ammianus, and the two most common types of nomadism in Central Asia have been patterns where the nomads either farmed as a winter auxiliary to the nomadic pastoralism they practiced in the remainder of the year, or part of the population was actually sedentary and agricultural while another part engaged in nomadic pastoralism. Maenchen-Helfen’s evidence for Sarmatian and Hunnic farming in Central Asia should not, therefore, come as a great surprise, and one would not expect the Huns by the Danube to be as ignorant of agriculture as Ammianus said (31.2.10).[46]

[45] Peisker passim, especially 325, 340.

[46] A. M. Khazanov 120–121, and cf. his Nomads and the Outside World (1984); Maenchen-Helfen 174–178.

Both Maenchen-Helfen and Matthews explain Ammianus’ portrait of constantly nomadic Huns who live in wagons—as opposed to the tents used by later nomads—by asserting that Ammianus (or his source) was confused and mistook the way the Huns looked during an unusual migration into Gothic territory for their usual appearance and lifestyle.[47] This may be plausible, but it only confirms the main thesis of this paper. Someone who was well informed about Hunnic culture would not have made such a mistake. It is the error of someone observing the Huns’ arrival from a distance.

[47] Maenchen-Helfen 214; Matthews 339. Khazanov 120 also sees the Hunnic move as a migration and not a typical nomadic pattern of movement.

Ammianus’ portrait of the Alans seems a bit closer to what one would expect in a description of pastoralists, in that he actually described them as herding animals toward pasture (31.2.18–19). However, Matthews himself notes that the portrait of their search for pasture seems idealized rather than realistic.48 There is nothing in the description of herding that requires the author to have any intimate details of their society. The Alans also live in wagons, as any reader of Herodotus would expect from the “Massagetae” (31.2.18; cf. Hdt. 1.216).

[48] Matthews 334.

Concerning the Huns, Ammianus gives no clue that they should be regarded as pastoralists. He does not say that they herd animals, and he does not place them on grasslands. He says that their children learn endurance by wandering the montes... et silvas ([“mountains... and forests”], 31.2.4). Hunnic clothes are made from the pellibus silvestrium murum ([“skins of forest mice”], 31.2.5). These forest- and mountain-dwelling Huns are a poor match for the comparative evidence about Eurasian nomads, and such evidence does not confirm Ammianus’ account. It is certainly not sufficient to reverse the negative verdict about Ammianus reached in the literary analysis above.

In light of the problems of Ammianus’ account, one possible option might be to compile a comparative model of nomadic life, which, when applied to the Huns of 376, could replace rather than just expand Ammianus’ text—but this merely raises our second question: Khazanov and others have developed a range of models for nomadic life, covering a number of variations in the degree of mobility, economic and political structures, and the degree of dependence on sedentary agriculture. What data do we have that would tell us in which of these categories the Huns of 376 belong? In fact, there is almost nothing.

There is archaeological evidence tying the Huns to Central Asia, where nomadic cultures were widespread.[49] The Huns used cavalry and mounted archery tactics that are consistent with those used by later nomads (see above discussion). They spoke some type of Altaic language.[50] These points may be sufficient to place the Huns in the cultural sphere of Altaic nomadism, but they do not allow a more specific model to be applied for the period described by Ammianus. Indeed, they do not prove that the Huns, apart from their migration into Hungary, were ever particularly nomadic. The use of cavalry does not prove a nomadic lifestyle. Central Asia did contain sedentary peoples. While Chinese sources tend to present the Hsiung-nu of Mongolia as quite nomadic, A. V. Davydova has excavated one of their settlements, which showed evidence of animal herds, but also was clearly permanent and had fortifications, moats, agricultural implements and a forge.[51] We cannot assume that a Central Asian origin requires the Huns to be highly nomadic, even if they were (to some degree) pastoralists.

[49] For instance, Werner 26–37, 57–81.

[50] 50 There is a dispute over the details. Maenchen-Helfen 376–443 argued that they spoke a form of Turkic with some non-Altaic elements. Omeljan Pritsak, “The Hunnic language of the Attila clan,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 6 (1982) 428–476, argued for Proto-Bulgar, which is closer to Mongolian. The evidence is only personal names. Gerhard Doerfer, “Zur Sprache des Hunnen,” Central Asiatic Journal 17 (1973) 1–50, argued that the evidence was insufficient for a definite answer.

[51] A. V. Davydova, “The Ivolga Gorodische (A monument of the Hsiung-nu culture in the trans-Baikal regions),” AArchHung 20 (1968) 209–245, especially 239: “The investigations of the last few years show that its population was acquainted with agriculture from time immemorial, and these new materials change the traditional opinion on Central Asia as a region of purely nomadic life.” It was once commonly asserted that the Huns and Hsiung-nu were the same people. The comparison here is valid even if this is not true, and indeed it has been strongly challenged. Cf. Maenchen-Helfen, “Huns and Hsiung-nu,” Byzantion 17 (1944–45) 222–243 and “Archaistic names of the Hiung-nu,” Central Asiatic Journal 6 (1961) 249–261; Manfred Raschke, “New studies in Roman commerce with the East,” ANRW II 9.2 (1978) 612–613 and note 101.

The latter point gains significance when we turn to Priscus. Seventy-three years separate the period described by Ammianus from Priscus’ embassy. For this reason, I have not previously contrasted Ammianus’ and Priscus’ portrait of such changeable structures as housing. However, in the eyewitness sections of Priscus’ account—our best source—the Huns were living in a settled village. Attila lived in a complex of buildings surrounded by a wooden wall large enough to have towers attached. His lieutenant Onegesius had his own complex of buildings, complete with a Roman-style stone bath, built with imported stones.[52] One could argue that this represents a rapid change from the lifestyle described by Ammianus.[53] Such an argument, however, requires Ammianus to be reliable enough to serve as a contrast to Priscus’ observations. He was not, and our only lengthy glimpse at Hunnic society shows a sedentary lifestyle. Perhaps a comparison between Priscus’ account and one of the less mobile models of Asian nomadism would be a worthwhile direction for future research, but I have doubts that even Priscus contains enough data for such an approach. Nevertheless, without the “authority” of Ammianus to argue the reverse, we have to consider the possibility that the Huns “adapted” well to sedentary life in the fifth century because they had previously been relatively sedentary.

[52] Priscus, 11. Evgenii I. Lubo-Lesnichenko in Vladimir N. Basilov (ed.), Nomads of Eurasia, transl. Mary F. Zirin (1989) 53 describes this settlement as a “mobile headquarters,” but it is hard to see how the architecture Priscus describes could be moved without modern technology. Cf. Maenchen-Helfen 179 note 86; Linder 10.

[53] Argued in different ways by Thompson 161–183, Linder 3–19, and Matthews 355.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Ammianus’ description of the Huns has little historical value, and it is not sufficiently reliable to be used as evidence for a different stage of Hunnic society than that described by Priscus. The type of errors it contains make it implausible that Ammianus could have had reliable information about the internal political and social structure of Hunnic society. He does appear to have had some visual details about their appearance and military tactics, but there are also some demonstrable errors in these areas (i.e., lack of beards, bone arrowheads). These errors, the lack of support from comparative evidence, Ammianus’ considerable negative bias, and his attempts to shape his description to resemble earlier descriptions of Scythians mean that no piece of information in Ammianus’ description can be casually accepted without confirmation from another source. Those investigating Hunnic culture in the future should focus primarily on Priscus, whose text contains most of what little we know about the Huns.[54]

[54] I would like to express my thanks to Richard Saller and Walter E. Kaegi Jr. for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and to Alan Bernstein and Sue Peters for their encouragement in this project, though final responsibility for the contents is, of course, my own.