18 August 2024

“Odoacer: German or Hun?” ― Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez (1946)

Robert Leonard Reynolds (1902−1966) was an American historian. Roberto Sabatino Lopez (1910–1986) was an Italian-born American historian. In this article, they somewhat sarcastically criticize the “Germanic bent,” which claim that Odoacer was Germanic with almost no evidence, and instead suggest a number of Turkic etymologies for names mentioned in the period before, during and after Odoacer’s lifetime. Rightly so.

The article discusses the linguistic origins of certain Gothic and Hunnic names and terms. It notes that the Gothic use of “ata” to mean “lord” or “father” is very similar to the Turkic use of “ata” with the same meaning. When the suffix “ila” appears in many names across historical sources, the article suggests that this may indicate a Hunnic or Turkic linguistic influence, rather than a purely Gothonic origin as is commonly assumed.

They argue that scholars familiar with ancient Altaic languages could potentially find much insight by further examining these linguistic connections. They suggest that Old Persian and non-Persian Iranic philologists should also investigate these possibilities, as it could lead to important new understandings about the history of the German language.

Until such in-depth studies are conducted, the authors caution that much of the then-current (1946) secondary scholarship on this topic may be based on flawed assumptions that “impair its usefulness.” Actually, this argument is more or less still valid today. The article also notes that there is a very limited bibliography on this subject matter.


Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez, “Odoacer: German or Hun?” in American Historical Review, 1946.


The history of the migrations which marked the downfall of both the Roman Empire in the West and the Han Empire in China is still very obscure. “Nowhere, since the time of Alexander the Great, do we feel so strongly that the meagreness of the sources flouts the magnitude of the events.”[1]

[1] J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (2d ed., London, 1923), preface.

Unfortunately, the starting point, hence the guiding thread of all these migrations, lies in Central Asia, whose political, economic, and cultural history will in most of its details remain to us a blank page. For even such remote and belated repercussions of Central-Asiatic events as took place within the view of the classic world are but dimly shown to us in cursory, contradictory, and often unreliable sources.

To be sure, new archaeological and philological material has been piling up in the last two or three scores of years, which has been used in a number of valuable studies. But, little of such evidence is specific enough to contribute to the revision of the histories of individual tribes. It is clear, nevertheless, that non-Germanic steppe peoples and cultures must have had a deep influence on many groups which were denominated German by a bygone generation of historians and philologists.[2]

[2] Cf. Bernnard Salin, Die altgermanische Thierornamentik (Stockholm, 1904); Ellis H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913); M. I. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia (Oxford, 1922); J. M. de Groot, Die Westlande Chinas (Berlin, 1926); A. A. Vasiliev, The Goths in the Crimea (Cambridge, Mass., 1936); Frederick J. Teggart, Rome and China (Berkeley. 1939), with bibliography.

Two chief difficulties are encountered by anyone attempting to use the Asiatic materials which throw light upon the history of the great migrations. In the first place, despite the archaeological and philological discovery of Asia, no one has yet appeared to draw together from the one hand the learning of Ural-Altaic philology and archaeology and from the other the written documents and monuments, the epics, sagas, and even the modern folklore, of the West. Moreover, the affinities of the varied Asiatic peoples are still uncertain. It is still unclear whether the earliest Turks were ethnically more akin to the “Mongoloid” or to the “Caucasic” stocks (although the Turkish speech has always been Altaic), and whether the leading tribe of the Hunnic conglomerate was Turkic or Mongolic. Even the identifications of the Hunni with the Hiung-nu and of the Avars with the Yuan-yuan are not definitely proved. We do perceive that all these tribes were so thoroughly commingled by intermarriage, migration, and conquest that we can scarcely speak of clear-cut ethnic border lines. At the most, we can speak of linguistic groups, as far as the Asiatic evidence goes.

When we turn to the Western source materials, we find that a rich secondary literature has already been created from such evidence alone.[3] But, it is a noticeable characteristic of most of it that the history of every group of invaders of the Western Empire―except for the Huns, the Avars, the Alans, and a few such tribes―is reconstructed on the assumption that each such group was Germanic. This assumption is maintained not only when the weight of philology and contemporary statement support it, but when neither does, a phenomenon which is apparently a consequence of the fact that when the pioneering research in the field was undertaken―to organize and to bridge the great gaps in the surviving Western sources―it was almost exclusively promoted by Germans. The eager nationalism of the rising German Reich turned their attention to the task in the first place; the picture of the migrations which emerged from their studies quite justified the zeal of their retrospective patriotism.

[3] The basic general works are those of Eduard Wietersheim, Geschichte der Völkerwandertung (2d ed., Felix Dahn, Leipzig, 1880–81) and Ludwig Schmidt, Allgemeine Geschichte der germanischen Völker (München-Berlin, 1909) and Geschichte der deutschen Stämme bis zum Ausgange der Völkerwanderung (Berlin, 1910–18); also Alfons Dopsch, Wirtschaftliche und soziale Grundlagen der europäischen Kulturentwicklung (2d ed., Wien, 1923–24); Torsten E. Karsten, Les anciens Germains (Paris, 1931); N. Aberg, Nordische Ornamentik in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit (Leipzig, 1931), with bibliography.

Whatever may have been the state of information two generations ago to support their assumption that the solution for doubts should be sought in a “Germanic" direction, consideration of the import of the new materials from Asia suggests that a wider horizon should now surround the interpretation of even the well-picked-over Western sources. Perhaps, on re-examination these sources can be better fitted into those from South Russia and Central Asia and can even provide clues to steppe history itself.

With such ideas in mind, may we try some modest “chunk of history,” giving it revisionist treatment, in a sort of experiment designed to test the possibilities of a “Hunnic” rather than a “Germanic” approach? Despite our weakness in Ural-Altaic and Scytho-Sarmatian materials, it does seem to us worth essaying, in connection with King Odoacer and the whirlpool of peoples in which he made his career.[4]

[4] We are particularly indebted to Professors Sidney Fish, Ernst Herzfeld, Karl Menges, and Martin Sprengling, and to Dr. Orkhan Yirmibesh for their valuable suggestions, without which this paper could not have been written. It goes without saying that they cannot be responsible for the judgments expressed in it.

For the purpose, we find in the Western sources the names of a number of key persons: Odoacer; his father, Edicon; his son, Thelan or Oklan; his brother, Hunoulphus. Bits of the careers of each are revealed. With their names were associated the tribes or groups of the Torcilingi, Sciri, Heruli, and Rogians, or Rugians, concerning whose histories there are also fragments of information. For philological work, there are these and some other names.[5]

[5] Jordanes, M.G.H., Auct. Ant., V, Get., 70, IX. See appendix to this essay, p. 51 below.

The Torcilingi (some manuscripts carry the spelling “Turcilingi”) are to us little more than a name. They appear in the extant sources only twice.[6] In the Historia Miscella of Landulphus Sagax, they are listed with those nations, which under Attila’s command took part in the battle of Châlons. The statement is unconfirmed by other sources. While the Historia is itself a late and unreliable chronicle, it includes some materials from earlier and better sources, which have not come down to us. In the list of Landulphus, the Torcilingi appear jointly with the Sciri.[7]

[6] Kaspar Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme (München, 1837), pp. 155, 189, suggested that the Ῥοντίκλειοι mentioned by Ptolemy, II, ıı, 7, were the Torcilingi. This was accepted by Karl V. Müllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde (Berlin, 1870-1900), III, 319, and IV, 494. But, most scholars have rejected this identification, which entails an amazing number of metatheses in order to build a Germanic etymology. Even the acceptance of this dubious proposal would not affect the thesis of this paper.
[7] On the passage of the Historia Miscella, cf. Wietersheim, II, 245. See also Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina, VII, 321.


The Torcilingi are mentioned the other time in the account of―once more, jointly with the Sciri―as forming the core of the tribes or mercenary bands of which Odoacer was the leader when he deposed Romulus Augustulus. Jordanes refers to the Torcilingi three times, but only and always in connection with a single event: Odoacer’s seizing of power over Italy. After that, we hear no more of the Torcilingi, not even in connection with Odoacer’s later career.[8] Furthermore, Jordanes is the only first-hand source calling Odoacer king of the Torcilingi; most often Odoacer is called king of the Sciri or a Scirian.[9] Neither Landulphus nor Jordanes supplies a scrap of information as to the race, language, mode of life, origins, or earlier whereabouts of the Torcilingi.

[8] Jordanes, Get., 120, XLVI; 133, LVII, and Rom., 44. In Paul Diac., M.G.H., Auct. Ant., 11, Hist. Rom., XV, 8, and elsewhere, the name of the Torcilingi appears, but the source in such later references is evidently Jordanes.
[9] See A. Nagl, “Odovacar,” Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Enzykl. (1888 ff.); Moritz Schoenfeld, Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen (Heidelberg, 1911), s. v. One Byzantine writer, Theophanes (ed. de Boor, 1883), I, u9, 122, says that Odoacer was a Goth, but the source is late and is contradicted by all the earlier writers.


Nevertheless, the German scholars of the nineteenth century built up a pedigree and a Lebensraum for these obscure “ancestors.” Since the Torcilingi were mentioned (in the fifth century) in company with the Sciri, it was deduced that the two peoples had been neighbors and kinsmen in the first century. Or, they were supposed to have been the royal clan of the Sciri, which is not far from our own conjecture, as will be shown below. Some scholars, leaving behind the caution of those who first worked over the sources, found for the Torcilingi an early home on both sides of the Oder, with the Sciri on the east, the Vandals on the left, and the Rugians on the north.[10] So surrounded, the Sciri and Torcilingi then became lesser twigs of the great Gothonic trce.[11] As a last step, historical dictionaries of Germanic names came to list Torcilingi among the rest, even though a question mark had to be put in place of the etymology, which no efforts had been able to produce.

[10] Ilesides Schoenfeld, s.v. “Thorcilingi” and p. 289, see Schmidt, Allgem. Gesch., p. 135, and id., Gesch., I, 349-50; Gudmund Schütte, Our Forefathers, the Gothonic Nations (Cambridge, 1929), II, 29; G. Romano, Le dominazioni barbariche in Italia (Milan, 1909), p. 46, etc. R. Much, s.v. “Turcilingi,” Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Enzykl., and Deutsche Stammeskunde (Berlin-Leipzig, 1920), pp. 125-26, gets rid of all problems by assuming that the term is just another name for Sciri. Especially, cf. Müllenhoff, as cited in note 6 above.
[11] The end product of a century of scholarship with a “Germanic bent” is perhaps this quotation from Schutte, II, 29, “No ancient historian or law codex states that there existed a special (Gothonic) branch embracing Rugians, Sciri, and Torci!ingi. These tribes may be called supernumerary members of the East Gothonic sub-group... Owing to occasional co-operation at certain times, they may most conveniently be considered under a common heading.” There is, however, nothing to criticize in the conscientious scientific work which goes with these assumptions.


As far as etymologies go, however, it is not difficult at all to suggest them, if the starting assumption be that the Torcilingi were some sort of Turks. An early Turkish form Türk-lük, “Turkdom,” might be postulated. Or, the root Turk, designating Turks both in early and in modern times, might have been “bedeutsched” in barbarian circles, by process of analogy, through the addition of the suffix -ing or -ling, as in Karling, Merowing, Sikling, Knythling, for descendants of Karl, Merovech, Sigehere, and Knut. Or, the same suffix might have been added to the Turkish personal name Toghril, Toghrul, or Togrul, of which we have samples from the eleventh century on, and which was borne, inter alios, by the founder of the Seljuk empire.[12]

[12] Kar-luk is probably a far-fetched analogy; its etymology is not established; Togrul seems a fairly plausible root, with a little metathesis. There is the Petcheneg princely name, Turak, cf. Gyula Nemeth, Inschriften des Schatzes von Nagy-Szent-Miklós (Budapest-Leipzig, 1932), pp. 30-31.

These have been simply offered as possibilities; there may be better. The first to suggest that the Torcilingi were Turks was Cesare Balbo. The Italian historian knew no Turkish but had no particular urge―as had the Dahns and Grimms―to aggrandize the German peoples; he wrote, “Of the Torcilingi one would say, judging from their name, that they were Turks.” The French orientalist, Edouard Blochet, holds for Türk-lük, in remarks buried in an essay where a medievalist would hardly look for them. Besides, the essay for good reasons enjoys little credit among orientalists.[13]

[13] C. Balbo, Sommario della storia d’ltalia, IV, chap. v; E. Blochet, “Les noms des Turks dans le chapître x de la Génèse,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, XXVIII (1931-32), 412 ff.

The Sciri are more frequently heard of than the Torcilingi, although notices are cursory and indefinite. Pliny the Elder, in a passage which is outstandingly unspecific, even for that vague section of his dealing with the misty Baltic regions, mentions an Aeningia, off somewhere north or east. Perhaps giving notice of Aeningia’s inhabitants, or perhaps just mentioning something else he had heard about the general region, he then writes of Sarmatians, Venedae, Sciri (or maybe the original text of Pliny carried Ciri or Cyri), and Hirri. The latter two, for all the text reveals, may have been subgroups of the Venedae, or the memory of some rhyme scheme.

After having finished this vague section, Pliny turns with manifestly increased confidence to a discussion of the Germans; he does not include the Sciri, nor any group with a similar name, in his catalogue of Germans. Neither Caesar nor Tacitus had heard of Sciri.

At some time after 300 B.C. (or after 200 B.C., or even a good deal later than that again, for all the certainty we have), “Galatae and Sciri” tried unsuccessfully to capture Olbia, a Greek city on the northwestern coast of the Black Sea. That is all the Protogenes inscription has to say about the Sciri.[14] Since Greek was vague in its use of the term Galatae, the latter may have been true Kelts, in which case all we know is that the Olbians excluded the Sciri from that category; or the term may have covered both Germans and Kelts, in which case we conclude that some Greeks thought that the Sciri were neither.

[14] Minns prints the text in his appendixes. Rostovtzeff holds for an early date (say, early third century, B.C). But for other comments, with basic edition of the text: Corpus lnscriptionum Graecarum, 2058.

Following the time of Pliny, there is silence concerning the Sciri for three hundred years. About 381 and again in 408 A.D., they were combined with Carpi, Sarmatians, and Huns in affrays along the lower Danube. First they tried, with Carpi, to push across the river; the second time they tried with Huns. Indeed, the second time the Hunnic khagan, Uldes or Uldin, was apparently their sovereign. On each occasion they met with military disaster, and many Sciri were sold or settled as peasants in eastern Roman territory.

Those Sciri who remained north of the river apparently fell under the rule of Attila the Hun; as we have seen, they were reported to have been with him at Châlons. After the death of the Great Hun, the Sciri appear as the bitterest foes of the Ostrogoths, who had led in the coalition against the heirs of Attila. The Scirian leaders, Edica or Edicon, and his son, Hunoulphus, began an all-out war against the Ostrogoths. In the opening clashes, the Ostrogothic king, Valamir, father of Theodoric the Great, lost his life; but shortly after, the Sciri met with crushing defeat near the Bolia river (468 A.D.), and Edicon himself apparently found death in the battle. Hunoulphus escaped with a following to Constantinople, where he rebuilt his power as a condottiere in the imperial service.

Soon after the Scirian disaster, Odoacer, another son of Edicon, began a career quite parallel to that of Hunoulphus, but under Ricimer, in Italy. The latter used him in the struggle against Emperor Anthemius (472). Four years later, the uprising of the barbarian mercenaries against Orestes and his son, Romulus Augustulus, gave Odoacer and his Sciri and Torcilingi and their associates, the rule of Italy. It is very likely that Odoacer set in motion his plotting in agreement with Hunoulphus, who was just at that moment at the height of his influence at the eastern court. Some years later, Hunoulphus, fallen into disgrace with Emperor Zeno, joined Odoacer in Italy, with a small bodyguard. Thus, both remnants of the Scirian group, scattered after the battle of the Bolia, were joined again, about 486.

But in 488 the last days of the Sciri began: Theodoric the Great, followed by the Ostrogothic people and a train of lesser groups, and backed in the enterprise by Zeno, descended upon Italy. After long and bloody fighting, Odoacer was defeated and then treacherously murdered (March 15, 493).[15] The nearest relatives of Odoacer were killed at once upon Theodoric’s orders; many of his followers were killed by mobs. After that, like the Torcilingi, the Sciri disappear, save a few simple peasants of the name, left in the Balkans and known to Jordanes.[16]

[15] Anon. Vales. On the epos which pictured Odoacer as the betrayer, not the betrayed, cf. Schmidt, Gesch., I, 163; Schütte, II, 35.
[16] Sources and bibliography on the Sciri are listed in Schmidt, Gesch., I, 350 ff.; Schütte, II, 30 ff.; K. Kretschmer, “Sciri,” Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Enzykl.


One possibility remains, though the evidence is insecure, that some sort of Sciri yet survived. Jordancs’ list of the peoples who remained faithful to Attila’s son, Dengesich, includes Ultzinzures, Bittugures, Bardores, and Angisciri, who―according to the writer in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. “Hunni”―“cvidently bear Turkish-Hunnic names.”[17]

[17] Jordanes, Get., 128, LIII. The words in quotation marks are from Kiessling, “Hunni,” Pauly-Wissowa, Rea!-Enzykl.

Now, as sketched above, the Sciri were found, in the nineteenth century, to be an old Gothonic group, indeed, the first of them all to have raided the classic peoples in Gothonic style (on the strength of the Olbia inscription). But there is absolutely nothing that hints that any contemporary author thought of them as Germanic.[18] German philologists have found significance in the name, however, by adding an r to the root ski, “to shine” or “to glow.” One scholar, endorsing this etymology, wonders whether the Sciri were “shining” because of their illustriousness (as in the Latin clari, splendidi), or because of their innocence (as in candidi, sinceri), or because of racial purity (reinen, unvermischten). A Danish scholar has no doubt: the Sciri were “the pure ones.”[19]

[18] Save for Procopius, who once calls them Goths (De Bello Goth., book I, 1). But the ethnological inaccuracy of that particular passage makes it worthless; he lumps together as Gothic the Alans (who certainly were not Germans, but Iranians), and the Sciri.
[19] R. Much, “Skiren,” Real-Lexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. Schütte, II, 29, adds, “The Sciri belong to a series of (Gothonic) tribes with names of the short type.” Incidentally―and this accounts for so unusual a classification―he works out a theory which is developed in various ways in his studies, to the effect that short names were the original Germanic type but that longer compound names spread from Ostrogothic beginnings starting about the time when the Huns came to dominate. He does not connect the two phenomena. One might suggest that the longer compound names follow polysyllabic Iranian patterns as well as resembling the “word-built” pattern of Turkic names. Cf. especially Schütte, I, 187 ff.


By way of suggestion, it can be mentioned that a very common word in modern Persian and in Pahlavī, shīr, might be considered. The word has two quite different meanings: “milk” and “lion.” Steppe peoples rely and have relied upon milk; but “lion” has always been an attractive name to peoples. In old Persian, shīr in the sense of “lion” would have been shagr, and the fall of the g may have taken place quite early;[20] it can be conjectured that the name among the Scytho-Sarmatians was similar. But if there was any substance under Pliny’s text, his Sciri lived in lands now postulated to have been the ancestral homes of Baltic or Slavic tribes, or even of Finns. Perhaps etymologizing with those languages should be attempted.

[20] Cf., for instance, E. S. D. Bharucha, Pahlavī-Pāzend-English Glossary, p. 245.

Sciri and Torcilingi are said to have formed the main element among the mercenaries who revolted against Romulus Augustulus and hailed Odoacer as rex gentium. Long before Odoacer reached this position, his father and brother had been leaders of the Sciri. However, most of the sources also mention that Heruls and Rugians, or Rogians, were included in the following of Odoacer in 476. There is no need for the Heruls to have been related by blood or speech to the others; Sarmatic Alans joined up with Germanic Vandals, Germanic Lombards made common cause with Mongolic (?) Avars against Germanic (?) Gepids, and so on.

It may be granted that the Heruls apparently were Germanic despite the fact that most of the personal names of their leaders baffie German philologists.[21] In any case, only a fraction of the Heruli could have been included in the mixed bands which followed the fleeting fortune of Odoacer. An independent kingdom of the Heruls, back in Europe's interior, is often mentioned long after Odoacer’s fall, and various leaders of Herul troops fought over Europe and the Near East and Africa, for their own accounts or in Byzantine service. The Heruls are variously depicted by Greek and Roman observers as daring seamen, as excellent cavalrymen, or as fierce, naked warriors fighting exclusively afoot! They remind one of the Northmen-Danes-Varangians-Rōs-Normans of the eighth to the twelfth centuries. They apparently migrate through other peoples, they adapt themselves and their fighting techniques to the most various circumstances, they pick up outlandish names―and maybe womenfolk and speech?―they serve bravely for pay, and they found kingdoms which vanish again.[22]

[21] We find among the Heruls an Ochus, which appears Iranian; an Aordus which appears to be based on the name of the Sarmatian Aorsi; and even a Verus, which is quite Roman. Names which “sound” perhaps Dacian were Andonnoballus, Datius, Faras, Alvith, for which neither Försternann nor Schoenfeld offers a Germanic etymology or can offer one only on the supposition that Greek sources misspelled the name. Only Halaricus, Rodvulf, and Fulcaris yield results to Germanic etymology.
[22] Sources and bibliography in Schmidt, Gesch., I, 333 ff; Karsten, pp. 75–76; Rappaport, “Heruli,” Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Enzykl. Several classic and postclassic writers mention the Heruls as “Scythians,” but save that it implied the author thought they lived the nomad life, the term, of course, had no classificatory significance.


The Rugians, or Rogians, counted by Jordanes among the peoples of Odoacer, were probably Germanic, if they were the same Rugians whose king Odoacer killed and whose kingdom he destroyed. Two branches of one folk often fought; there were the bitter struggles between the Ostrogoths of Theodoric Strabo and the Ostrogoths of Theodoric the Great; there were the Frankish civil wars of the Merovingians and Carolingians; the Norse leaders fought each other, and so on. But it really is strange―and has puzzled all scholars who have touched the problem―why no source hinted that a king hailed by at least some Rugians as their leader should throughout his reign have been the Rugians’ enemy.[23] The sources carefully mention that when Theodoric marched against Odoacer, one of the farmer’s roles was to pose as avenger of the Rugian king Odoacer had executed. Earlier, when Odoacer destroyed the Rugian kingdom, he resettled in Italy a number of Romans from those lands above the Brenner Pass, but he was content simply to wreck the power of the Rugians, without trying to become their king. In no case, in other words, did Odoacer behave as we should expect a Rugian princeling to have behaved, nor is there contemporary comment on such conduct of his.

[23] Paul. Diac. Hist. Lang., I, 19, tried in a curious way to explain why Odoacer, whom Jordanes had called Rogus or king of the Rogians, should have waged war against the Rugians. The Lombard historian built up the assumption that while Odoacer ruled part of the people, the rest were his enemies. Cf. Schmidt, Gesch., I, 325 ff.

It is necessary to note that our source which connects Odoacer with some sort of Rugian (?) following does not―precisely in that passage―spell the tribal name as any other author spells it, or as he (this is Jordanes) himself spells the name when writing about the enemy Rugians whom Odoacer destroyed. In the latter case he spells with a u; Odoacer’s enemies were Rugians. In the former case he uses an o; Odoacer was a Rogian or had Rogians in his train.

Jordanes had occasion in three different passages to refer to the events which brought Odoacer to power. Once he does not mention any “Rogian” follower: “Torcilingorum rex habens secum Sciros, Herulos.” In another passage he says: “Odoacer, genere Rogus, Thorcilingorum Scirorum Herulorum turbas munitus...” In this second case, it appears that Rogus is not a tribal name, but a family name, showing descent from some real or mythic Rogus. The third passage might go to show that the name did refer to a tribe: “sub regis Thorcilingorum Rogorumque tyrannide ...” Here, however, the Sciri and the Heruls are forgotten, as though they were secondary in describing Odoacer’s real status. Putting these statements in at least one logical sequence, it appears that Odoacer was the Torcilingi-king, of the stock of Rogus, with Sciri and Herul followers.[24]

[24] Jordanes, Rom., 44; Get., 133, LVII.

The evidence strongly hints that Odoacer's Rogian connection did not tie him with the tribe of Rugians, but that instead it linked him with the family of some Rogus. Among the Huns only do we find this name, and when we find it, it belongs to a man well worthy to give it to his line. One of the three brothers who ruled the Huns before Attila was Rogas or Ruga or Rugila (as the different sources, including Jordanes, variously call him). The other brothers were Octar or Otcar, and Mundiukh or Mundzuch―the latter Attila’s father.

German tribes and families often sprang, or thought they sprang, from some noted leader, but among the Turks and Mongols the same thing was true. We have the Ottoman Turks, the Seljuk Turks, the Chagatai Mongols, and the Nogai Tatars, to mention only a few.[25] It is quite possible that Odoacer’s Torcilingi, or at least their royal clan, were thought of as derived from Attila’s uncle, Rogas the Hun-king.[26]

[25] Some of these eponymic heroes were probably legendary; the existence of a Seljuk is doubted (cf. E. Rossi, “Turchi,” Encicl. Ital., with bibliography). But Othman, Chagathai, and Nogai were historical.
[26] This is also the opinion of B!ochet, loc. cit. Jordanes, Get., 88, XXIII, mentions “Rogas” beside the Finns, Aestii, Slavs, and Eruli, subjugated by the Ostrogothic king, Ermanaric, about 350 A.D. Nobody has been able, so far, to explain this passage; neither can we, unless it reflects some tradition that Rogas and his kin had been forced for some time to accept some sort of overlordship by Ermanaric. This would be our only evidence for such a fact. Cf. Get., 105, XXXV.


What was the nation of the leader of those Torcilingi, Sciri, and Rogians? “Genere Ragus,” says Jordanes, and as we have seen, a Rogas was one of Attila’s uncles. Octar or Otcar are names given the other, and there is no paleographic reason to prefer either of those forms, unless further evidence should tip the balance. As a matter of fact, such evidence is available.

There is a fragment of a Greek chronicler, quoted by a later grammarian, which presents us with a Hunnic name more or less halfway between an Otcar and an Odoacer: “Odigar, the supreme ruler of the Huns, died.” These are the only extant words from that source. We have no means to locate the quotation as to time or place. Whether the personage in question was Attila’s uncle, or still another Hun-king, his name certainly approaches that of Odoacer.[27] Odoacer’s own name evidently could not be pronounced by Roman mouths without some kind of alteration.[28]

[27] Menander Protector (Fragm. Hist. Graec, IV), p. 269.
[28] Cf. Ratchis-Radagaisus, Karl-Carolus, etc. In Latin the name Odoacer is often spelled Odovacer, with a v which is never indicated in Greek.


Like Torcilingi, Odoacer is one of the names included in the onomastic dictionaries of the German tongues and like the former, it appears with a question mark in place of an etymology. But Turkish offers at least two promising choices: If we regard this name as an adaptation of Ot-toghar, it may mean either “grass-born” or “fire-born.” And a shorter name, Ot-ghar, which is closer to Otcar, might be translated by “herder.”[29] If Ratchis could become Radagaisus, why could Ot-toghar or Ot-ghar not have become Odoacer or Odovacer?[30]

[29] al-Kāshgharī, A Dictionary of the Turco-Tataric Languages (Constantinople, 1915–17). s. v. There is also the Kalmuk wnrd oduaki (“the present one”; Ramstedt, Kalmückisches Wörterbuch, Helsinki, 1935), if the addition of an r could be explained in some way. The form ODOVAC is found on Odoacer’s coins.
[30] Curiously enough, the name of Odoacer has its historical revival in non-German groups, though its use by them has been taken to indicate that they were thereby manifesting surrender to German influence. The Přemysl Ottakar, crowned king of Bohemia in 1198, may have been showing in his name the vestiges of old Avar or Magyar relations with the Czechish nobility. It is closer to Ot-togar than to Odoacer itself.


In addition to Otcar and Odigar and Odoacer, there was still “another” of like name, who had a career as an unlucky free lance around Angers in the 450’s and 460’s.[31] In our unique source for this leader, written a century after the events by Gregory of Tours, we find this Adovacrius or Odovacrius heading a “Saxon” band. He and his men took part in a chaotic struggle for control of the Loire region, between the battle of Châlons (451) and the consolidation of Visigothic authority in the region, by Euric (466–484).

[31] While in the following section of our paper we develop the thesis that the “Adovacrius” of the Loire region in the 450’s was the same as Italy’s Odoacer, it should be noted that the major thesis of this study—that the latter was a royal Hun—does not depend upon this subsidiary point.

Since Gregory is the only chronicler who mentions this “Saxon” (?) it is worth while to analyze his story, unfortunately very confused.[32] According to the historian of the Merovingians, “Adovacrius” went to Angers “cum Saxonibus,” sometime after the battle of Châlons.[33] Childeric I, king of the Salian Franks (and father of Clovis; hence Gregory’s interest in this business), intervened in the same area. Paul, a Roman count who had first beaten off the Visigoths in the district with the help of the Franks, was killed in a new affray―apparently in a joint onslaught of Childeric and “Adovacrius” against him. The winners seem to have quarreled immediately after the death of Paul. Many of the “Saxons” had been killed in the battle with Paul’s Romans; then “their islands” (whose?) were captured by the Franks. Finally, in his last sentence in this account, Gregory made an astonishing leap, certainly through space and likely through time: “Odovacrius” (no longer “Adovacrius") came to an agreement of foedus with Childeric, concerning matters far off on the other side of Gaul. They jointly “subjugated those Alamans who had invaded part of Italy.” Here Odovacrius is no longer connected with a “Saxon” band.

[32] Greg. Turon., Hist. Franc., M.G.H., SS. Rer. Merov., I, 83, 18, and 19.
[33] The phrase “cum Saxonibus” is reminiscent of the one Jordanes used when describing Odoacer’s seizure of power: “habens secum Sciros ...” In both passages the authors appear to be indicating that while the leader was of one breed, the troops were of another, as a modern historian would imply if he wrote, “Lawrence, with his desert Arabs.”


It seems well established that Gregory of Tours took this detailed information about Angers from a municipal compilation which has not come down to us, the Annales Angevini.[34] His condensed and unclear account is apparently an extract or a direct copy of those lost Annales, except for the agreement of “Odovacrius” in the last sentence. This combination of Childeric and “Odovacrius” for joint business touching Italy hardly grows out of their squabbles at Angers. For his last fact Gregory could have drawn on the text or the extract of the text of some foedus between Childcric and the Italian Odoacer, after the latter had risen to power.

[34] Cf. Wilhelm Junghans, Histoire critique des règnes de Childerich, et de Chlodovech (Paris, 1879), pp. 12 ff.; Godefroid Kurth, Etudes franques (Paris-Bruxelles, 1919), II, 214 ff.

This last supposition jibes with other material we have on the basic foreign policy of the successor of Romulus Augustulus; this policy apparently aimed at securing the flanks of Italy by a chain of treaties with the barbarian rulers of Gaul and Africa, and at securing wherever possible direct control over all territories included in the Italian prefecture. We know that in this last connection, he reconquered Dalmatia from the murderers of Julius Nepos, and that he destroyed the Rugian kingdom in Noricum. When he could not retain lands above the Alps, he aided their Roman inhabitants to withdraw into Italy proper. As to his western neighbors, we have long had evidence of treaties made early in his reign with Visigoths, Burgundians, and Vandals. Gregory of Tours appears in this muddled passage to complete the chain by revealing a pact made around the same time (Childeric died about 480) by which the Franks of Childeric helped him restrain the Alamanni in the Rhaetian parts of the Italian Prefecture.[35] (No other source reveals evidence of Alamannic invasion of Italy proper, south of the Alps, at this time.)

[35] On the foreign policy of Odoacer, cf. especially Ferdinando Gabotto, Storia dell’ Italia occidentale (Pinerolo, 1911), I; Ludwig M Hartmann, Geschichte ltaliens im Mittelalter (Stuttgart-Gotha, 1923), I; Luigi Salvatorelli, L’ltalia dalle invasioni barbariche al secolo XI (Milano, 1939), pp. 70 ff.; G. B. Picotti, “Sulle relazioni fra re Odoacre e il Senato e la Chiesa di Roma,” Rivista Storica Italiana, ser. 5, IV, 363 ff., with bibliography.

Beyond the fact that Gregory apparently had reason to fuse “Adovacrius” with “Odovacrius” and our deduction that the latter was Italy’s Odoacer, there are general reasons for identifying “Adovacrius” of Angers with the same ruler. Just before the Angers incidents began, Sciri and, probably, “Torcilingi” had been in Gaul with Attila; after the latter’s withdrawal, northern and central Gaul were in confusion and there was no reason why petty leaders of all sorts should not try there to make their fortunes. If Sciri were there under Odoacer, that explains why he is not mentioned in connection with the war his father and brother waged against the Ostrogoths; it also explains why, about four years after his kinsmen had met crushing defeat in central Europe, he had sufficient followers to cause Ricimer to enlist him for Italian enterprises.

But Gregory calls Adovacrius’ followers “Saxons,” not Sciri.[36] The fact that this is the unique reference to Saxons in the region, for a long time after, bears no weight; scraps of peoples strayed far in those days and it cannot be held that Sciri wandered but denied that Saxons could. Besides, the Saxons then were great pirates and the region was open to penetration from seas they roamed. However, it can be pointed out that palaeographically the confusion of Sciri and Saxones, either by Gregory in reading his own source or by a copyist working on an early text of Gregory’s history, is quite reasonable. The Saxons lasted on; long before the time of Gregory himself the Scirian name had disappeared. And Gregory was not a particularly erudite man.[37]

[36] While Sciri were at Châlons, these passages in Gregory are the only notice we have of Saxons in those parts where this “Adovacrius” operated, for centuries before and after Gregory’s day.
[37] Confusions of the CI letter group with an A, and of R with X, are far from impossible in the script of the time, while IR could also be confused with IBUS.


Pretty good cases can be made out then, for theories that in the period of the migrations two or at most three Odoacers flourished: Otcar, uncle of Attila the Hun; Odigar, “thc supreme ruler of the Huns,” who was probably the same man; and Odoacer, leader of Torcilingi and Sciri, who tried fırst in Gaul and then succeeded in Italy.

Of Edicon, Odoacer’s father, we do not hear before the death of Attila; by that time, however, he would have been at least in middle age, for his son Hunoulphus shared leadership with him (and, if the suggestions in the preceding section be accepted, his other son was a leader at the same time in Gaul).[38]

[38] Odoacer was about sixty in 493 (cf. Nagl, loc. cit.).

Only a few years before (448), we read of an Edica or Edicon who was a very high official under Attila. The Hunnic ruler sent this man to Constantinople as ambassador to Theodosius II, along with a noble Roman, Orestes, who probably acted as interpreter and liaison officer. Priscus, the Greek who tells of this legation, fırst calls this Edicon a “Scythian,” which was the archaistic name often used in that day for steppe nomads of Southeastern Europe and Central Asia.[39] However, Priscus goes on to relate that the emperor invited Edicon to a state banquet but did not extend the invitation to Orestes. When the latter complained, courtiers told him that he could not expect the same treatment as Edicon, “a Hun by race, excellent in fight.” Now, though Priscus would have meant “Scythian” to be taken as a literary term, he would not have used “Hun” for anyone not a Hun; in his day “Hun” meant Hun (only later did it extend to mean peoples like Avars and Magyars, when it became in its turn an archaistic term), and Priscus, of all Greeks in his day, knew the Huns.

[39] Priscus, fragments 7 and 8; see especially pp. 76–83 and 95.

A bit later, Orestes seems to have persuaded his noble Hun to plot the poisoning of Attila. Edicon, however, made no move to effect that project; indeed, he revealed the plot to Attila, who forgave him. Orestes abandoned the Hunnic court.

We need scarcely recall that many years later, Orestes made his own son Emperor of the West, through a new betrayal of his new lord, Julius Nepos. Then Odoacer, son of an Edicon, put Orestes to death and sent into retirement the son of Orestes, Romulus Augustulus.

As for Edicon, the “Hun by race” who was so high in Attila’s service, we do not hear of him after the return of his mission to Constantinople. But within a few years we find Edicon the “Scirian,” father of Odoacer and Hunoulphus, leading a bitter attack upon the Ostrogoths who had betrayed their allegiance to the heirs of Attila. While there is no positive proof that the two Edicons are identical, nothing seems more probable. It is more or less taken for granted by all who have touched the problem. If so, Odoacer was the son of a “Hun by race, excellent in fight.”[40]

[40] Approving the identification of the Edicons are, among others, Wietersheim-Dahn, Förstemann, Hodgkin, Bury, Nagl. Only A. Juris, “Über das Reich des Odovakar,” Gymnasium Program (Kreuznach, ı883) is definitely against the identification because of Priscus’ statement that Edicon was a Scythian. He gives no other reason. The French historiographer of the seventeenth ccntury, Henri de Valois (Valesius), recognized Edicon, who was a Hun (Priscus), as Odovacar’s father; and in the eighteenth century Tillemont agreed with this opinion. Le Nain de Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs et des autres princes qui ont regné durant les six premiers siècles (Brussels, 1740), VI, 178–79.

The name Edicon is not found among early Germanic peoples; Germanic philologists have been unable to find an etymology for it. But there was a Mongolic Edgü among the chieftains of the Golden Horde, as late as the thirteenth century.[41] There is a “good” etymology in the Ural-Altaic linguistic group; in fact, ädgü in Turkish means “good.”[42]

[41] Edgü-Timur was a lieutenant of Ogotai in 1239, cf. B. Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran (Leipzig. 1939), pp. 39, 383, with sources.
[42] Etymology suggested by Blochet.


Odoacer’s son is called by two different names in our sources: Thelan and Oklan.[43] This would seem to hint that one or the other was a title or a nickname; neither has a satisfactory Germanic etymology.

[43] On the spellings of Thelan-Oklan, cf. Schoenfeld, s. v. Thc best source, Joh. Antioch., fragment 214a, spells Ὀκλάν. One is reminded of the words Infanta and Junker, grown into titles.

Thelan resembles the name borne by the khagan of the eastern Turks, Tulan, who reigned from 587 to 600 A.D.

Oklan resembles closely the Turkish-Tatar word oghlan, “youth,” which in modern times came through into German as uhlan, the name for lancers of “tartar” type. If this etymology be accepted, then the young man was named Thelan and he was also called familiarly or even by title, “The Youth.”

The name of Odoacer’s brother, Hunoulphus, is formed of two elements which often recur in the names of early Germans: hun and wulf. The latter word is self-translating, but the meaning of hun has not been agreed upon by philologists. However, the best and most generally accepted of all guesses so far offered is just “Hun.” The early barbarians, impressed by the might of the Huns, seem to have begun giving the name to their offspring well before Attila’s glory won him the highest seat in their Valhalla.[44] Thus, the son of the famous Vandal-Alan king, Gaiseric, was named Hunneric: “king of the Huns” or “Hun-king.” And the son of thc renowned Ostrogoth, Ermanaric, was named or nicknamed Hunimund: “under the mund (or suzerainty) of the Huns”; actually he did reign under the suzerainty of the Huns, if we may believe Jordanes respecting this period of Ostrogothic history.[45]

[44] H Ernst Förstemann, Altdeutsches Namenbuch (2d ed., Bonn, 1900–16), I, s. v.
[45] According to the vague story of Jordanes, Hunimund was succeeded, after a long interregnum, by Valamir, Theodoric’s father, who was to die fighting the Sciri. But Ammianus gives different names. He speaks of a king, Withimer, after whom the Ostrogoths were ruled in the name of the minor Witheric, by Alatheus and Safrac, two lieutenants of the Huns. The first name, probably Grecized by Ammianus, is difficult to etymologize; the otlıer seems Sarmatic(?)—at any rate, non-Germanic—like Candac, Suktak, and other names of the sort which were common in the period.


Hunoulphus, then, was the “Hunnic wolf” or “wolf of the Huns.” Why wolf? With the Germans, the frequent recurrence of the suffix wulf in personal names is an unexplained, although a noticeable phenomenon. The wolf has no favorable place (in fact, the wolf-god, Loki, has the most despised of all) in saga and folklore, and the man-wolf or werewolf is one of the most abhorred figures invented by the folk imagination. But the animal holds a most distinguished place among the Turks and Huns. The legends of the Hiung-nu, as related by the ancient Chinese historians, made the whole people stem from a princess Hiung-nu and a wolf. Likewise, the early Turks–not unlike the Romans–maintained that their khagan was the offspring of a she-wolf. Here is what a Chinese historian writes about the T’u-kiüe (Turks), as early as 58ı A.D.: “On top of the staff of their flag, they put the golden head of a she-wolf. The barons of their rulers call themselves wolves. As they descend from wolves, they do not want to forget their origin.”

The Turkish equivalent for “wolf” is büri, böri, or börü. This word could have been an element in the name of Attila’s grandfather—the father of Otcar, Rogas, and Mundzukh—whom Jordanes calls Balamber. Hun-wulf could have been a translation of such a name, or even the translation of a title the son of Edicon, one of the noblest Huns, could rightfully bear: “baron (börü) of the Huns.” No satisfying etymology has been found for the feudal word baro or baron, in the sense of noble warrior.[46]

[46] For baro, cf. Du Cange, Glossarium Med. et Inf. Lat., s. v.; Rene Grousset, L’empire der steppes (Paris, 1938), p. 125; G. B. Picotti, “Unni,” Encicl. Ital., with bibliography. A hundred years later, the sovereign of the Western T’u-kiüe (Turks) was named Istami, yet the Greeks called him by his title, Sir-yabghu, which they rendered as Sizabul. A Hephthalite king defeated the Sassanian ruler, Peroz, in 484; the Arabo-Persian writers took the victor’s title, khshevan “king,” to be his name, rendering it Akhshunwaz.

A recapitulation of the evidence brings out these points:

While in all the secondary literature generally followed it has simply been assumed that Odoacer and his peoples were Germans, there is no scrap of source material to support such an assumption in the case of his immediate following and some evidence which goes far to indicate that they were not Germans.

Next, while we have Jordanes’ testimony that Goths often took Hunnic names, it would seem strange for any Gothonic family to use them exclusively. Here, however, we have leaders—Odoacer, and his father and his son—who bear names no Germanic philology has been able to explain but which appear to make sense in some sort of Ural-Altaic speech. There is a brother with a “Germanic” name, but half of that is Hun.[47]

[47] There is one exception, Odoacer’s wife, whose name is given as Sunigilda by Joh. Antioch. (fragment 214a). But the wife was not necessarily of the same stock as the husband. The sagas, although they often mention the name of Odoacer under different transliterations, are unfortunately of little help, because of their unhistorical commingling of quite distinct personages and peoples; there are the many ways in which Aetius the Roman and Attila the Hun were first conceived to be German heroes and then blended into one saga personality. The connection is at best tenuous, and is here pointed out with diffidence, yet we may have a like curious echo of real history in the case of Odoacer and his family. For instance, an Ottarr is said by saga genealogy to have been the grandson of Alf and the great-grandson of Ulf: a vague recall of some Hun-wulf? In Beowulf, Ohthere (Odoacer?) is the son of Ongentheow (“servant of the Huns”?— Edicon?), and the brother of Onela (Hunoulph?). On the other hand, Onela is said by a modern philologist to be the same as Anala, mythic ancestor of the Ostrogothic royal clan.

More than this, there are the coincidences (but a whole group of coincidences) which link the names of this group to those of Attila’s own kindred and to Hunnic officials at Attila’s court.

The careers of Odoacer, of his father, and of his brothers—even of his ill-fated son—were entirely consistent with those which could have been achieved by noble Huns in the generation after Attila’s death: “Torcilingorum rex, habens secum Sciri, Herulos. . .”; “a king of the Turks, having with him Sciri, Heruls. . .”

If any should question why for just this one time the name Turk should appear in our sources for the period, it can be pointed out that here clearly Jordanes was drawing upon Cassiodorus, who delighted in showing off just that kind of knowledge, and who was in a position to possess it with respect to the family of Odoacer.

Having deliberately chosen a “Hunnic” rather than the traditional “Germanic” point of view, then, here is how one can reconstruct the main developments in the “chunk of history” which was picked for the experiment:

The Sciri (originally a Baltic [?] or Sarmatic [?]—but hardly a Germanic—people) were drawn into the Hunnic political constellation around the middle of the fourth century. Their ties to the master Hunnic people were drawn tighter and tighter in the reigns of Uldin, Rogas, and Attila. Under the latter, one of his relatives of the royal clan of Rogas was leader of the Sciri, supported by a band of Torcilingi, his Turkish tribesmen. The plot of this leader, Edicon, with Orestes, was forgiven; still, Attila left at home his once-tainted kinsman when marching against Aetius, the Roman who had the best connections among the Huns and who might have tried to tamper with some of the shakiest vassals of his adversary.

Young Odoacer was with the Scirian contingent at Châlons; he remained in Gaul to profit from the disorder which followed that battle. Then Attila died, and his sons and relatives divided among themselves the empire—or rather, the tribes—over which the Hun-king had held sway. Edicon retained control of that part of the Sciri which was not in Gaul with Odoacer; he carried on Attila’s drive to rule over the peoples but his forces proved inadequate. Only a handful of his Sciri survived the defeat on the Bolia and accompanied Hunoulphus to Constantinople. Odoacer, squeezed out of Gaul between the Visigoths and the Franks, accepted service with Ricimer.[48]

[48] Two other things may be mentioned, although they are not of great apparent significance. In his coins, Odoacer is represented with a thick mustache, which may be a Turkish as well as a German adornment, and with heavy eyelids, which seems to be rather a Turkish than a German characteristic; Roman moneyers of the fifth century were usually skilled and realistic. Then, according to one chronicler, Odoacer favored the Arians; but for an orthodox Catholic writer of that century impartiality already amounted to a bias in favor of the heretics. On top of this, there is a tradition that Theodoric had Odoacer buried in a Jewish synagogue; and since the Ostrogothic king showed on another occasion his respect for the synagogue, we have no reason to think that he meant by this decision to inflict a last outrage upon the body of his enemy. lf Odoacer was a heathen, burying him in a synagogue might seem the only solution, for his body would have been out of place both in a Catholic and in an Arian church.

Appendix: A Note Upon the Etymologizing of Names From Our Western Sources for the Period of the Great Migrations

In our essay, we have suggested a number of Ural-Altaic etymologies for names mentioned in the sources for this epoch. If there had not been accumulated in the last hundred years a great mass of Germanic etymologizing on all such names, we should have taken this step more lightheartedly, for two good reasons:

1. Whatever names may earlier predominate in a human group, when it falls under the religious, political, moral, social, or cultural leadership of some other group, the personal names or the naming principles of the latter will tend to be taken up by the former, though not, of course, to the exclusion of all older names. On several of these counts Hunnic dominance of the Germanic world endured throughout the period of the migrations. One should therefore expect that “German” names, especially those in leading families which had cause to mingle with the masters in campaigns, in court life, and in nuptials, should have been both adopted and adapted from Hunnic names. Names of leaders, in turn, are just the sort our sources have preserved.

2. We do not have to rely upon deduction alone to conclude that in the epoch studied the process took place exactly in the manner stated. Jordanes writes, “. . . let no one who is ignorant cavil at the fact that the tribes of men make use of many names, even as the Romans borrow from the Macedonians. the Greeks from the Romans, the Sarmatians from the Germans, and the Goths frequently from the Huns.” (Jordanes, M.G.H., Auct. Antiq., Get., 70, IX, Mierow’s trans.)

To us it would seem that these two reasons are above challenge regarding this particular field of study. However, they are not challenged—they are simply passed over—in the whole mass of dictionaries and philological studies touching the subject. In these, the approach is overwhelmingly according to Germanic preconceptions. All name elements, clear or doubtful, are fed automatically into a complex apparatus of roots, analogies, hypothetical forms, similar terms known to have been later in use by some Germanic people somewhere, and the answer nearly always comes out at the other end: This is what the name meant—in German. The rest of the time, when the machine fails to work: A question mark!

We feel that in questioning this whole approach we are doing more than tilt at windmills. Of course, the Germanic predilection of the history of the period as constructed in the nineteenth century gives great support to the assumptions of Germanic philology; the reverse is quite as true. We nurse, as is apparent, deep reservations about at least some of the “history” but we face the “facts” of the philology and have no tools with which to dig into them except those furnished by the philology itself. Still, we are bothered by it.

As an example of the sort of thing that is met with, take the name Attila. All we have of common sense and the witness of Jordanes demand that that man’s name be considered a Hun name. Turning to the historico-philological literature, though, we find the following over-all presentation: “Since ila is a Gothic diminutive, the name is Gothonic, and its bestowal upon the baby Hun prince illustrates the rapid permeation of Gothonic culture to the highest ranks in Hunnic society. The first element in the name is ‘not so certain,’ though Gothic ata (‘lord’ or ‘father’) is probably involved.” (Gothic use of ata for “lord” or “father” looks a whole lot like the universal Turkic use of ata to mean “lord” or “father’—and as early as Ulfilas, let alone Attila.)

Then when the suffix ila turns up all through the sources as a component of names, no eye takes note that man after man who bore such a name was demonstrably a Hun, probably a Hun, or of a group which had strongly felt Hunnic power. No, the ila just goes to show the Gothonic character of those names, “since ila is a commonly used Gothonic diminutive, appearing often as an element in Gothonic names, even in those of Attila and many of his closest relatives.”

Maybe so.

Starting with hunches like ours about ila (that somewhere in it lurks a Turk term), and going through the Namenbücher, we feel that scholars familiar with the more ancient Ural-Altaic tongues might find much that would profit them and help place more exactly the Huns and their language among the Ural-Altaic groups. Old-Persian and non-Persian Iranic philologists should also examine the possibilities. Important additions to our understanding of German language history might derive from such research. At least until such studies have been made, and through them the original Germanic assumptions have been sustained, the general evidence indicates that much of the current secondary material floats upon doubts which impair its usefulness.

A few Germanic words which are considered to show traces of Asiatic influence are listed in Karsten, pages 194–97 (see footnote 3 above). There is practically no bibliography upon the subject.

05 May 2024

“Is There a ‘Nationality of the Hephtalites’?” ― Étienne de la Vaissière (2003)

This article discusses the sources and historical information available on the Hephtalites, also known as the White Huns. The author argues that Kazuo Enoki's analysis of the Weishu texts was biased and flawed, as he did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the origin of the Hephtalites in the Altai region. Instead, he tried to prove in vain the western Himalayan origin.

The Tongdian is the only text in the Chinese sources that gives a date of the migration of these nomadic tribes from the Altai to the south, between 360 and 370. However, the original source of this date should be the Weishu.

The connection established by the original Weishu between the Hephtalites and the Gaoju could mean that the Hephtalites were a Turkic tribe, and more precisely an Oghur tribe, since the Gaoju are considered to be the heirs of the ancient Tiele confederation, which, in turn, is said to be the origin of the various Oghur tribes.

The author had previously shown[*] that the great Hunnic migrations that reached the Volga at around the same time originated in the Altai, and that these Huns were at least the political and cultural heirs of the Xiongnu. Part of these migrations reached Central Asia, and the Hephtalites were among the tribes that arrived, i.e., the Hephtalites were in Bactria a century before gaining control there.

In the last section, he discusses the Xiongnu sword known as “qïŋïraq” in Turkic languages that was worshipped as a god or the attribute of a god, identified as the god of War, Mars, among the Xiongnu and Attilanic Huns. The article suggests that the prefix “Eš-” attached to the sword’s name “Eškiŋgil” < “Khiṅgila” may have been a common Turkic prefix meaning “comrade, companion of,” as evidenced in Hunnic names like “Ešqam.” This would make “Eškiŋgil” a meaningful Hunnic name or title, meaning “companion of the Sword (i.e., of Mars),” and would be in line with the shared political and ethnic past of the European, Central and Inner Asian Huns. The article references various linguistic and historical sources to support these conclusions, but surprisingly he misses the fact that the German sinologist Friedrich Hirth had already discussed it as “Kingrak — the oldest Turkish word on record” back in 1908, while “king-lü” in ancient Chinese records, referring to a two-edged knife or sabre, was meaningless in that language.

[*] This paper was published in 2003, but somehow he claims to refer to the English translation published in 2005 of the corrected and expanded edition of his own “Histoire des marchands sogdiens,” published in 2002. Or, there is a mistake, and he is actually referring to “Huns et Xiongnu,” also published in 2005.

Étienne de la Vaissière, “Is There a ‘Nationality of the Hephtalites’?” in Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 2003.


1. Interpretation of the Dynastic Histories

In 1959, Enoki Kazuo published his groundbreaking article “On the Nationality of the Ephtalites” in the Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko.[1] Since then, it has been regarded as the basic study of the ethnic affiliation of the Hephtalites. According to Enoki, this tribe was a local one whose origin was the western Himalayan Mountains. This idea is based on geography and on some Iranian names attested among them but also on the fact that the Chinese sources described polyandry as one of the Hephtalite customs. Polyandry, well known on the Western Tibetan plateau and quite unusual elsewhere, was used by Enoki as the cornerstone of his demonstration of the local origin of the Hephtalites (pp. 51–55).

[1] Enoki 1959. As this article will be thoroughly quoted, in the text I will give only the reference to the pages.

What Enoki could not have foreseen is the discovery in the Rob archive of a polyandric marriage contract antedating the first mention of the Hephtalites in Bactria by a century.[2] As usual in the Chinese descriptions of the Western world, their authors simply mixed together customs of the various components of the Bactrian society and gave them the name of the leading tribe, that of the Hephtalites. Polyandry was a genuine Bactrian custom, not a Hephtalite one. While logical half a century ago, Enoki’s hypothesis can no longer be regarded as demonstrated. It is time to return to the Chinese texts, our main sources.

[2] Sims-Williams 2000, 32–33.

Enoki proceeded in his article by following the various origins of the Hepthalites that can be found in the Chinese sources: first the Jushi, an ancient tribe located to the north of Turfan; then the Da Yuezhi, the tribes that conquered Bactria in the second century BC; and finally the Gaoju, the Turkic tribe that conquered the Turfan region in the fifth century AD.

The Jushi theory is found in the Liangshu. The Liang (502–557) were a Southern Dynasty, but they were in continuous contact with Central Asia through Qinghai. The beginning of the text is:

The country of Hua is another branch of Jushi (Turfan). In the 1st year of Yongjian (126 A.D.) of the Han, a Jushi named Bahua, who under (the Chinese general) Ban Yong had rendered distinguished services in conquering the Northern savages (i.e., the Xiongnu), was promoted to Hou-bu Qin-han-hou (or Marquis of Posterior Jushi, who is friendly to the Han) by arrangement of Ban Yong.[3]
[3] See the complete translation in Annex 1.

Enoki correctly rejected the commentary linking the Hephtalites with a Jushi general as a learned gloss. But, did the author of the commentary deduce that the inhabitants of the country of Hua were Jushi from the ethnic identity of Ba Hua only, or was “Jushi” a data with which he had to deal? Enoki answered this question in another article, published in 1970. From the biography of Pei Ziye (471–532), it seems indeed clear that the only information the Liang court had was the name of Hua, so that the Jushi theory is devoid of any basis: “During this period, there were beyond the Northwestern frontiers the states of Boti and Hua, who sent envoys through the mountain road of the Min (river, in Sichuan) to offer tribute. These two states had not been guests of the successive dynasties, their origin was unknown.” Then, Pei Ziye continues with his erudite explanation of both names, and the emperor orders him to write an illustrated treaty on the foreign countries, which is the source for chapter 54 of the Liangshu.[4]

[4] Liangshu, chap. 30, p. 443; Enoki 1970, 39–41.

While this chapter gives a good deal of information about the Hephtalites, it is strange that the ambassadors were unable to provide any about their origin. It might suggest that the precise origin of the Hephtalites was already something that was not clear in their own country in the first quarter of the sixth century, an idea that is to be found in other Chinese texts, as we will see.

The second theory to be read in the Chinese texts, that they are of Da Yuezhi stock, seems at first glance to have a wider textual base than the previous one but is in fact easier to dismiss. The Weishu chap. 102, p. 2278; Zhoushu chap. 50, p. 918; Beishi chap. 97, pp. 3230–31; and Suishu chap. 83, p. 1854; all wrote that the Hephtalites (Yada in the Weishu, the Zhoushu, and the Beishi, Yida in the Suishu) “are a branch of the Da Yuezhi.”

However, it has long been known that all these texts copy each other. The original text of the Weishu, the basis of this textual tradition, is lost. The chapter of the Weishu in question was reconstructed according to the Beishi. Enoki inserted very useful line-by-line comparisons of these texts (pp. 7–10), and demonstrated, after Hermann and Funaki, that some parts of the present chapter of the Beishi and Weishu are copied from the Zhoushu and Suishu. In particular, the description of the Hephtalites as a branch of the Da Yuezhi is convincingly interpreted by him as meaning only that, in the sixth century, they occupied the former territory of the Da Yuezhi, that is, Bactriana and Tokharistan (p. 11).

But, the Beishi, or Weishu, also states that “it is also said that they are a branch of the Gaoju. They originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and came down south from the Jinshan mountain.” The Gaoju were a nomadic tribe that lived to the west of Mongolia, between Turfan and the Jinshan, that is, the Altai. This is the third point of Enoki’s demonstration.

He agreed that this part of the Beishi must have been in the original Weishu, as it is not in the Zhoushu and Suishu (p. 12). But, he nevertheless dismissed the Gaoju theory as well: “It is not clear why the Ephtalites were identified with a branch of the Gaoju, while it is recognized that the language of the Ephtalites was different from that of Rouran, Gaoju and other tribes of Central Asia (according to the Beishi). There is no evidence, both literal and archaeological, which shows us that the Ephtalites originated in the neighbourhood of Altai Mountain or anywhere to the north of the Tianshan Mountains. So far as we know for the moment, the Ephtalites had risen to power in Tokharistan where the Ephtalites continued to live even after the destruction of their empire. This will show that the origin of the Ephtalites should be looked for in, or in the neighbourhood of, Tokharistan” (p. 13).

It is obvious that there is a flaw in this argument. If Enoki assumed that the Hephtalites had always lived in Tokharistan, why did he try to explain the Chinese texts saying that they arrived in Tokharistan? To say that there are no archaeological remains of the Hephtalites in the Altai is not convincing, as there has been no archaeological research on this period in the Altai, while identified Hephtalite remains, even in Bactriana, are also almost nonexistent. Also, to say that there is no textual evidence is not convincing either, given the fact that the only texts that deal with northern Central Asia at that time are Chinese.

Enoki’s argument is flawed, because these Chinese texts are not analyzed for themselves but only as an introduction to the geographic and ethnographic rationale with which Enoki tried to prove the western Himalayan origin of the Hephtalites. He had to discard the text of the Weishu to clear the ground for his geographic and ethnographic comparisons, and obviously he failed in this regard. Basically, Enoki does not explain why a text placed the origin of the Hephtalites in the Altai. If he had good reasons to reject the Jushi and Da Yuezhi theories, he had none for rejecting the original Weishu, which situated the Hephtalites there.

The consequence of this is that not only the ethnographic section of his article should be corrected but also the textual one, as all his reasoning was biased.

2. The Tongdian

The Tongdian, published at the beginning of the ninth century, can also be a source for the history of the Hephtalites. Regarding the Western Regions, the Tongdian juxtaposed or summarized texts taken from the various dynastic histories, so that in it there are three texts concerning the Hephtalites: one on the country of Hua, taken from the Liangshu; one on Yada country, from the Weishu; and one on Yidatong, from the Suishu.[5] On the whole, these texts add very few facts to the parallel passages in the dynastic histories. But, the Tongdian was written before the disappearance of the original Weishu and preserves or summarizes the lost original text, which was still extant at the beginning of the ninth century. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that here and there the Tongdian directly quotes the Weishu, as “The Weishu said . . .”[6]

[5] Tongdian, 5258–60.
[6] For instance in the Shiwei chapter, 5487.


The relationship between the various chapters on the Yada country is then:

original Weishu (+ Zhoushu + Suishu) → Beishi → reconstructed Weishu.

original Weishu → summarized in the Tongdian.

Enoki recognized that some parts of the text of the current Beishi, which are not in the Zhoushu or in the Suishu, must have come from the original Weishu (p. 12). Regarding the text of the Tongdian, it is possible to demonstrate this hypothesis: most of these precise parts of the Beishi are also in the Tongdian, while the few facts that are in the Beishi and not in the parallel passage of the Tongdian are summarized in it, or can be read in other parts of the Tongdian. All of them are dated from the Wei dynasty and can be assumed to have been in the original Weishu.

That is especially the case regarding the Gaoju theory. The beginning of the text is:[7]

[7] See Annex 1 for a complete translation.

Yada country, Yidatong: Yada country is said to either be a division of the Gaoju or of Da Yuezhi stock. They originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and came down south from the Jinshan mountain. They are located to the west of Khotan. To Chang’an, to the east, there are 10,100 li. To the reign of Wen(cheng) of the Late Wei (452–466), eighty or ninety years have elapsed.

Enoki was aware of the presence of some data in the Tongdian only. If he did not bring up the fact that the Gaoju theory was mentioned there first (so that it can be assumed that it was also the case in the original Weishu, a fact which would have weakened his own theory) he did comment upon the date, but in a surprising manner.

The Tongdian is the only text in the Chinese sources that gives a date of the migration of these nomadic tribes from the Altai to the south, between 360 and 370. Clearly, this date comes from the original Weishu, as a Wencheng (452–466) was a Wei emperor. Moreover, it is known that a great part of the Wei knowledge of Central Asia comes from the Hephtalite embassy that arrived in 456. This is demonstrated by Enoki, who wrote: “here the time of the emperor Wencheng means 456, when the Ephtalites sent the first embassy to the Wei.” But, curiously, he added: “But, the authority on which this chronology was based is not known,” and he concluded, after discussing the textual variants on the name of the emperor:[8] “According to Syriac sources, the date of the Ephtalites cannot go back earlier than 460” (p. 2, n. 3). But obviously, it is most probable that the information on the date of the migration came from the ambassadors themselves, while the Syriac sources gave only the date of their access to political power. There is no good reason to dismiss this date.

[8] Wencheng is the reading of the oldest manuscripts. See n. 29 in Tongdian, 5284.

Moreover, the Wei were certainly the Chinese dynasty that best knew the Western countries, as they sent some envoys to the West and received several embassies.[9] But, the embassy of 456 was the earliest contact between the Hephtalites and China, and is separated from the next one by half a century. The data in the Weishu derived from this embassy are logically the most reliable found in the Chinese dynastic histories. According to these data, gathered from the Hephtalites and early enough to be regarded as a reliable account of their origin, the Hephtalites had migrated from the Altai to the south in the middle of the fourth century and were of the same stock as the Gaoju. We do not have the slightest reason to doubt this description from a sinological point of view.

[9] Kuwayama 1989, 116–18.

The link established by the original Weishu between the Hephtalites and the Gaoju may mean that the Hephtalites were a Turki[c] tribe and, more precisely, an Oghuric one, as the Gaoju are regarded as inheritors of the old Tiele confederation supposed to be the origin of the various Oghuric tribes.[10] But, I would argue parodoxically that in this description, the main point is certainly not the ethnic affiliation, but the date.

[10] Golden 1992, 93–96. Outside of the sinological data, two recent discoveries might confirm this idea: (1) a word is attested in the Hephtalite kingdom as σωπανο and in proto-Bulgar as ζοαπαν (Sims-Williams 2002, 234). This might mean a common Oghuric past. But, we cannot be sure that it was not a Chionite or Kidarite word or whatever tribe arrived with the Hephtalites in Central Asia. (2) A new Bactrian seal has been discovered in Pakistan, but it was written at Samarkand, as this seal gives the titulature in Bactrian of a 5th-century lord of Samarkand. It gives a title ογλαργο υονανο þαο king of the Oghlar Huns. Oghlar looks like a clan name, although an interpretation as Oghlar, king of the Huns, that is, as a personal name, cannot be excluded. This name is unknown from other sources, but it sounds very close to the eponymous name of the Oghuric tribes, Oghur, -lar being a plural suffix in Turkish while Oghur being itself regarded as a form based on Ogh- child, to be liked, and a denominative suffix -ur. Oghur is supposed to mean “the Kindred ones,” and so might be the meaning of Oghlar (Golden 1992, 96. Differently in Rahman, Sims-Williams, and Grenet 2006, where Oghlar is understood as “the princes, the sons.” Many thanks to Peter Golden, who provided me with some help on this point). However, it is a Chionite or Kidarite seal, as the titulature on the seal includes Kushanshah, a title that disappeared after the Kidarites. For discussions of the ethnic background of the Hephtalites according to the vocabulary, see Tremblay 2001, 183–88, and Sims-Williams 2002, 233–34. Tremblay could not have made use of the Bactrian documents, then still unpublished.

3. Bactrian Hephtalites

In a recently published article, I attempted to analyze the events in the Altai in the middle of the fourth century. I demonstrated that the great Hunnic migrations that reached the Volga at that time originated in the Altai, and that these Huns were the political, and partly cultural, heirs of the Xiongnu.[11] But, we also know that part of these migrations reached Central Asia, and that the Hephtalites were among the tribes that arrived then, at least if we are to believe the date provided by the Tongdian. They were one of the various tribes loosely united under the old Xiongnu political and cultural leadership. In other words, the Hephtalites were in Bactria a century before gaining control there, and were under the leadership of others. The last nomadic dynasty did not arrive in Bactria later than the other ones but was there from the beginning of the nomadic period. This probably means that all the nomadic kingdoms that flourished in Bactria between the middle of the fourth century and the middle of the sixth century can trace their origin back to a single episode of massive migration in the second half of the fourth century (circa 350–370), and not to a whole set of successive migrations. The Sasanians did not fight against successive waves of nomads freshly emerged from the northern steppe but against successive leading tribes or clans within the nomadic world established in northern Bactria.[12] The date provided by the Tongdian implies a new reconstruction of the events in Central Asia.

[11] La Vaissière 2005.
[12] See, for instance, Bivar’s article, and many others, on the Hephtalites in the Encyclopaedia Iranica: “It is, therefore, assumed that the Hephthalites constituted a second Hunnish wave who entered Bactria early in the fifth century CE, and who seem to have driven the Kidarites into Gandhara.” The idea of waves is to be found in all the historiography.


Moreover, these leading tribes are better described in political terms than in ethnic or linguistic ones. This is quite clear regarding the Hephtalites. If during one century the Hephtalites, already united or not, were among the numerous tribes living as nomads on the pasture grounds of the mountains, and were not at the apex of the political hierarchy, the possibility that they partially or totally lost their language and their ethnic identity in a new environment should be taken into account. This idea can be demonstrated from the succession of the Chinese sources. If each of them gives a static view, it is worth considering them chronologically:

  • The oldest source, which is preserved in the Tongdian and goes back to the embassy of 456, is able to record quite a precise origin, as I have demonstrated.

  • The Beishi and the Tongdian state that “their speech is different from that of the Rouran, the Gaoju and all the other hu,” while a few lines before this state that the Hephtalites are a branch of the Gaoju. This part of the text is certainly from the first half of the sixth century when Song Yun and several embassies gathered most of the data, while the only data from 456 are concentrated at the beginning of the text, where Wencheng is mentioned. An evolution had taken place, and I understand it to mean that the Hephtalites had ceased to retain their original Altaic language and adopted Bactrian.[13]

  • The Liangshu and the Liang Zhigongtu, based on data gathered in the 520s, bridged the gap concerning the origin of the Hephtalites with a learned gloss. The Liangshu adds also that “they were without a written language and kept records by notching wood; [but from] the exchange of ambassadors with the neighbouring countries, they came to employ a Hu alphabet, using sheepskin for paper,” and that the people of Henan, that is here the Tuyuhun, a proto-Mongolic people in the Qinghai region, acted as translators for them. It has been understood as an indication of the proto-Mongol character of the Hephtalite language. However, the Liang dynasty was mainly linked with Central Asia through the Qinghai region, and as the main go-betweens in that region, it is quite natural that the Tuyuhun acted as translators, and that they translated from Bactrian, explicitly mentioned in this text.

  • The Zhoushu, from data of the third quarter of the sixth century, says nothing about their origin, except that they are Da Yuezhi.

  • The Suishu says only that they are Da Yuezhi.

  • The Tongdian, written at the beginning of the ninth century, adds to the text of the Suishu a commentary of Wei Jie, the envoy of the Sui dynasty to the Western countries between 605 and 616, according to which “I had a personal talk with some Ephtalites and knew that they also called themselves Yitian. In the Hanshu, it is stated that the viceroy of Kangju, named Yitian, plundered provisions and arms under Zhen Tang who marched against Shishi (Shanyu). This may mean that they are descendants of Kangju. However, the information has come from remote countries and foreign languages are subject to corruption and misunderstanding and, moreover, it concerns the matter of very ancient time. So we do not know what is certain. (In this way), it is impossible to decide (the origin of the Ephtalites).”[14]

[13] In itself, the sentence is quite hard to understand, because “all the other hu” can include all the populations of nomadic and sedentary Central Asia, including Bactrian. But, the contrast with the oldest part of the text is quite clear.
[14] Transl. Enoki 1959, 6–7.

That these Chinese texts, however imprecise, could support the hypothesis deduced from the Hephtalite onomastic in Tokharistan, in which at least some names, for instance Akhshunwar, one of the earliest Hephtalite kings, are clearly Iranian, was recognized by Henning. This does not mean that they were Iranian from the beginning, as Enoki tried to prove, but only that the pace of assimilation for a tribe or a clan not at the height of the political hierarchy was swift after one century in Bactria. The Chinese texts are not contradictory or devoid of value—the various Chinese courts were in constant contact with the Hephtalites during the sixth century—but they reflect the fact that in the Hephtalite empire itself, the old ethnic origin was an intricate or perhaps even meaningless question, while, linguistically speaking, an evolution had already taken place when the Hephtalites came to power and was still going on during the period recorded by the Chinese sources. The Hephtalites went Bactrian.

We can go beyond linguistic assimilation. The other sources we have on the Hephtalites, the Byzantine sources, do confirm that an assimilation regarding their way of life took place, although later than the ethnic/linguistic assimilation. Procopius wrote, from information of the 530s or 540s:[15]

[15] He was with Belisarius in his wars against the Persians from 527 on, and he wrote the History of the Wars between 540 and 550. If he also gives information from an earlier period, it seems nevertheless that the description is that of an eyewitness, and that his testimony on the Hephtalites can be dated from 527 on.

The Ephtalitae are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name; however, they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us, for they occupy a land neither adjoining nor even very near to them; but their territory lies immediately to the north of Persia; indeed, their city, called Gorgo, is located over against the Persian frontier, and is consequently the centre of frequent contests concerning boundary lines between the two peoples. For, they are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been established in a goodly land. As a result of this, they have never made any incursion into the Roman territory except in company of the Median army. They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances, which are not ugly. It is also true that their manner of living is unlike that of their kinsmen, nor do they live a savage life as they do; but, they are ruled by one king, and since they possess a lawful constitution, they observe right and justice in their dealings both with one another and with their neighbours, in no degree less than the Romans and the Persians.[16]

[16] Procopius I.iii.2–8 (transl. Dewing), vol. 1, 13–15.

The accent is clearly put on the difference between the Hephtalites and pure nomads. Assimilation with the sedentary population probably was the major problem in the Hephtalite kingdom. Another source, Menander, confirms slightly later that the Hephtalites at the end of their empire were regarded as a mainly urban population. To a Sogdian ambassador, after the conquest of the Hephtalite empire by the Turks, the emperor asked: “‘You have, therefore, made all the power of the Ephthalites subject to you?’ ‘Completely,’ replied the envoys. The Emperor then asked, ‘Do the Ephthalites live in cities or villages?’ The envoys: ‘My Lord, that people lives in cities.’ ‘Then,’ said the Emperor, ‘it is clear that you have become master of these cities.’ ‘Indeed,’ said the envoys.”[17]

[17] Menander (ed. and transl. Blockley), 115–17.

These Byzantine descriptions contrast directly with that of Song Yun, who met the Hephtalite emperor as he was nomadizing in the mountains in 519. The Beishi, from the testimony of Song Yun and other contemporary embassies, states that: “Without cities and towns, they follow water and grass, using felt to make tents, moving to the cold places in summer, to the warm ones in winter. [The king?] separates his various wives, each one in a separate place, apart from one another at a distance perhaps of 200 or 300 li. Their king travels around and changes places every month, but in the cold of winter stays three months without moving.” But in the Zhoushu, using later mid-sixth-century data, we read: “Its king has his capital in the walled city of Badiyan, which means something like ‘the walled city in which the king resides’”[18] and is in agreement with the Byzantine sources. The evolution of the Hepthalites’ way of life seems also quite clear, although it took place later.

[18] The passage is also in the Beishi, but here this text only copies the Zhoushu.

On the whole, I suggest using the contemporary and parallel evidence from Tuoba-dominated China as a model for understanding the situation in northern Bactria. The Tuoba Northern Wei dynasty split in the sixth century, among other reasons due to the question of their relationship to the sedentary past, here Chinese. The Qi were more in favor of sinization than the Zhou, who at least ostensibly clung to the Xianbei past.[19] Although the context is different, it is beyond doubt that the question of assimilation was a major one for the tribes in Bactria. In this regard, the main difference between the Hephtalites and the others, either Kidarites or Chionites, is their renunciation of the title of Kushanshah, which implies a different relationship to the sedentary Bactrian past.[20] The Hephtalites, like the Zhou in China, chose at the beginning of their political history not to present themselves as the inheritors of the past glory of the Kushan empire, and are described by Song Yun in 519, and in all the other sources, as clinging to their nomadic way of life up to the first quarter of the sixth century. On the other hand, their Kidarite predecessors, who seem to be the first creators of the new urban network in mid-fifth-century Central Asia, had chosen a Kushan titulature that might be in agreement with this urban policy.

[19] Thanks to Prof. François Martin for his indications on this matter.
[20] Grenet 2002, 210.


I have shown that the Chinese texts were not so garbled on the origin of the Hephtalites as Enoki has tried to show in a biased demonstration. The Tongdian preserves some data from the first Hephtalite embassy to China. The Hephtalites might have been Oghuric, and certainly came from the Altai. But, the very fact that they are listed among the great migration of people who arrived in Central Asia in the second half of the fourth century combined with their subject status there makes it impossible to speak with precise meaning of a nationality of the Hephtalites. They were, as all the tribal groupings of that period, an intricate mixture of political and clan relationships, not mainly an ethnic or linguistic entity. They might have been Oghuric at the beginning, but such also might have been the case of the Chionites and the Kidarites, and all of them made use of the old imperial name of Hun. All of them went Bactrian. But, while the Kidarite dynasty seems to have played the card of the local Kushan past, the Hephtalites differentiated themselves and perhaps even defeated the Kidarites on this very question of the nomadic past and way of life. They accepted the sedentary way of life very late in their history and probably not completely. We have no data to differentiate all these various dynasties on a linguistic or ethnic basis. We do have some to differentiate them on a political one. The ethnic question is certainly not of great help for understanding the history of the Hephtalites and the sources regarding them.

Annex 1. The Chinese Texts

A) The Tongdian

Translation

Yada country, Yidatong: Yada country is said to either be a division of the Gaojgu or of Da Yuezhi stock. They originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and came down south from the Jinshan mountain. They are located to the west of Khotan. To Chang’an, to the east, there are 10,100 li. To the reign of Wen(cheng) of the Late Wei (452–466), eighty or ninety years have elapsed. Their clothing is similar to that worn by other Hu barbarians, [but] with the addition of tassels. They all cut their hair. Their speech is different from that of the Ruanruan, the Gaoju, and all the other Hu. Their troops number perhaps 100,000 men. They wander in search of water and grass. Their country is without the She but has the Yu,[21] and has many camels and horses. They apply punishments harshly and promptly; regardless of how much or how little a robber has taken, his body is severed to the waist, and even though only one has robbed, ten may be condemned. When a person dies, wealthy families pile up stones to make a [burial] vault, while the poor ones simply dig a hole in the ground and bury [the corpse]. All of the deceased’s personal effects are placed in the tomb. Brothers, again, all together marry a wife. If there are no brothers, the wife wears a cap with one horn; if there are brothers, then she adds horns according to their number. Kangju, Yutian, Sule, Anxi and over thirty of the small countries of the Western Regions have all been subjugated by them. They are reputed to be a large country. They often sent envoys bearing tribute. In the Xiping reign period of Xiao Ming Di, Fu Zitong and Song Yun were sent as ambassadors to the Western Regions but were not able to learn much of the history or geography of the countries they traversed. We will nonetheless give a rough outline.[22]

[21] Both are chariots and this passage, repeated in the Beishi, might be corrupted.
[22] Transl. Wakeman 1990, 709–13, modified.
[23] Tongdian, 5259.


B) The Liangshu

Translation

The country of Hua is another branch of Jushi (Turfan). In the 1st year of Yongjian (AD 126) of the Han, a Jushi named Bahua, who under (the Chinese general) Ban Yong had rendered distinguished services in conquering the Northern savages (i.e., the Xiongnu), was promoted to Hou-bu Qin-han-hou (or Marquis of Posterior Jushi, who is friendly to the Han) by arrangement of Ban Yong. Since the Wei and Jin, no envoy came (from the country of Hua) to China [. . .]. While the Yuan Wei (or the Tuoba Wei) had their capital at Sanggan (i.e., 398–494 when the capital was situated at Pingcheng to the north of the present Datong), the Hua was still a small subject community under the Ruirui; but, waxing more and more powerful in the course of time, they succeeded in conquering the tribes in the neighbourhood such as Bosi (Sasanid Persia), Panpan (Warwâlîz?)[24] Jibin (Kashmir), Yanqi (Karashar), Guizi (Kucha), Shule (Kashgar), Gumo (Aksu), Yudian (Khotan) and Juban (Karghalik), and expanded their territory by more than a thousand li.[25]

[24] According to Enoki, but it should be rather Tashkurgan, Keban as in the parallel text of the Tongdian.
[25] Liangshu, chap. 54, 812, transl. Enoki 1959, 1–2.


C) The Beishi

Translation

Country of the Yada. A kind of Da Yuezhi, they are also said to be a division of the Gaoju. They originated from the north of the Chinese frontier and came down south from the Jinshan mountain. They are located to the west of Khotan. Their capital is 200 li or more to the south of the river Wuhu. To Chang’an, there are 10,100 li. The capital of their king is the town of Badiyan, which probably [means] the residence of the king. Its city wall is ten square li or more. There are many pagodas, all decorated with gold. Their customs and those of Tujue are nearly the same. It is their custom that brothers share a wife in common. If a man is without brothers, his wife wears a hat with one horn, if he has brothers, there are as many horns as he has brothers. They have fringes on their garments. They all cut their hair. Their tongue is different from the tongues of the Ruanruan, the Gaoju, and the various Hu. Their total number can be estimated to be ten miriads. Without cities and towns, they follow water and grass, using felt to make tents, moving to the cold places in summer, to the warm ones in winter. [The king?] separates his various wives, each one in a separate place, apart from one another at a distance perhaps of 200 or 300 li. Their king travels around and changes places every month, but in the cold of winter stays three months without moving. The throne is not always passed on to the [elder] son, the [other] sons and younger brothers might also be appointed, if they are able, when the king dies. They do not have the She but have the Yu. They have many camels and horses. Corporal punishments are severe and quick, regardless of the importance of the theft; the thief is severed to the waist, and if one steals, ten are punished. As regards the dead, if rich, a chamber made of stones is constructed; if poor, the earth is dug and he is buried in the ground. All their belongings are put in the tomb. They are violent and fierce men, able to fight at war. Among the Western countries, they control Kangju, Yutian, Shale, and Anxi as well as more than thirty small countries. They claim to be a great country. They have marital ties with the Ruanruan. From the Taian period onward, they frequently dispatched envoys to pay tribute. At the end of the period, Zhengguang, an envoy, offered a lion as tribute. He went up to Gaoping,[26] where he met Moqi Chounu,[27] so that he had to stay. Once Chounu was defeated, he brought the lion to the capital. From the period Yongxi on, they stopped bringing tribute. The 12th year Datong, they dispatched an envoy who brought native products. The second year of Feidi, the second year of Mingdi of the Zhou dynasty, they also sent an envoy with tribute. Later they were smashed by the Tujue. The tribes declined and dispersed, they stopped bringing tribute. In the Daye period of the Sui, again they dispatched an envoy who brought native products. To the south, there are 1,500 li to the kingdom of Cao, to the east, there are 6,500 li to Guazhou. Before, during the period Xiping, Mingdi sent as an envoy to the Western countries Sheng Fuzi, who ordered Song Yun, the monk Fali, and others to collect Buddhist sutra. There was then also the monk Hui Sheng, and they went all together. They came back during the period Zhengguang, but Hui Sheng could not learn the history, or [the names of the] mountains or rivers, or the distances in li of the countries he passed through. We have just given a rough outline.[28]

[26] Modern Guyuan.
[27] A Xianbei rebel.
[28] See also the French translation of Chavannes 1903, 402, n. 3.


D) The Zhoushu

Translation

The country of Yada is of Greater Yuezhi stock. It is west of Yutian, and 10,100 li west of Chang’an. Its king has his capital in the walled city of Badiyan, which means something like “the walled city in which the king resides.” This walled city is some ten li square. Its penal laws and customs are about the same as those of Tujue. They also have a custom by which elder and younger brother both marry one wife. If one has no elder or younger brother, his wife wears a one-horned hat. If one has brothers, horns are added to the hat according to their number. Its people are fierce and violent, and make mighty warriors. Yutian, Anxi, and other countries, large and small, altogether more than twenty, are all subject to it. In the twelfth year of the period Datong (546), it sent an envoy who presented its characteristic products. In the second year of the reign of Wei Feidi (553), and in the second yearof the reign of (Zhou) Mingdi (558), it also sent envoys, who came with tribute. Later, it was smashed by the Tujue. Its settlement were scattered and its tribute stopped.[29]

[29] Zhoushu (transl. Miller), 11–12.

E) The Suishu

Translation

The country of Yida has its capital 200 li or more to the south of the river Wuhu. The people are of Greater Yuezhi stock. They have an army of five to six thousand men. They are reputed to be good warriors. Formerly, the country became disordered, and the Turks sent Tong Shad Zijie, who forcibly took possession of this country. The capital walled city is 10 square li or more. There are many pagodas, all decorated with gold. Brothers share a wife in common. If a woman is married with only one man, she wears a hat with one horn, if he has brothers, there are as many horns as he has brothers. To the south, there are 1,500 li to the kingdom of Cao, to the east, there are 6,500 li to Guazhou. In the Daye period, they dispatched an envoy who brought native products.

Annex 2. The Liang Zhigongtu

Enoki had to return to the Jushi theory later on because of the discovery in the Nanjing museum of a Song copy of the Liang Zhigongtu (Liang dynasty images of tributaries), an illustrated manuscript describing ambassadors sent to the Liang from various tributary countries, with images of them (twelve out of thirty-five are extant).[30]

[30] Enoki devoted a long article to this manuscript and its textual tradition: Enoki 1984, and a specific article on the Hephtalites in this manuscript: Enoki, 1970, reprinted at the end of Enoki 1984. Detailed images in Enoki 1984.

Ambassadors from the Western countries or from the sea are depicted: from left to right, from Marw (Mo), Balkh (Boti), Kumedh (Humidan), Qubadiyan (Hebatan), Karghalik (Zhouguke), Dengzhi (some mountainous tribes on the road to Gansu), Langyaxiu (Ceylon or Malaysia)/Japan (Wei), Kucha, Paekche (Boji) in Korea, Persia (Bosi), and Hephtalites (the country of Hua).

The Liang Zhigongtu is derived from the original treatise of Pei Ziye, as is the chap. 54 of the Liangshu, and gives a slightly more complete text on the Hephtalites (in italics):[31] “When the Suolu (the Northern Wei) entered (the Chinese frontier) and settled in the (valley of the river) Sanggan (i.e., 398–494), the Hua was still a small country and under the rule of the Ruirui. In the Qi period (479–502), they left (their original area) for the first time and shifted to Moxian, where they settled.

[31] It also gives some additional data, especially that the Hephtalites enslaved the kings of the countries which they conquered, and the names of three ambassadors: Puduoda (?) (the last character is missing), sent in 516, Fuheliaoliao, and Kang Fuzhentong sent in 520. It describes their costumes and hairdos: Enoki 1970, 44.

With this new indication, and after correcting Moxian to Moyou (*mâkshu), seen as a transcription of Wakhshu, Enoki proposed that, having deduced from the name of Ba Hua that the Hephtalites were Jushi, Pei Ziye logically thought: (1) that they were under the rule of the Ruirui as the whole area north of Turfan was under their rule in the second half of the fifth century; (2) that the reason for the presence of Hua in Tokharistan and not to the north of Turfan was that when the Ruirui were expelled from there in 485 (hence the mention of the Qi period from 479 to 502) by the Gaoju, the Hua moved to Tokharistan, perhaps to escape the turmoil. In other words, the whole set of political data from the Liangshu and the Liang Zhigongtu would have been only an ad hoc explanation of Pei Ziye to bridge the gap between his own explanation of the country of Hua as being to the north of Turfan and the location of Hua in Tokharistan.

Although Enoki’s argument is quite logical, especially in his first part, I am not so sure that the part of the text dealing with Moxian is only a mere learned gloss, and I would like to propose another hypothesis, the weakness of which I am fully aware.

As a matter of fact, Moxian is a real name, unknown from other sources, and it crept into this precise part of the text, which might mean that some part of these data might have come from the ambassadors themselves. Furthermore, Enoki corrected the name, but if left uncorrected, Moxian (EMC mâk-xɨanh, Karlgren mâk-χi̯ɒn’ might be a truncated transcription of (Sa)markand, Greek Marakanda, as Enoki himself first proposed.[32]

[32] Enoki 1970, 41.

It is not known precisely when Sogdiana was conquered by the Hephtalites. I have in my Sogdian Traders followed Kuwayama and understood the end of the embassies from Samarkand to the Northern Wei in 509 as a hint to the date of the Hephtalite conquest of Sogdiana.[33] But, the last embassies of Sogdiana to the Wei are dated precisely to 479, and Enoki understood the disappearance of the name of Sogdiana in the Wei annals as the date of the Hephtalite conquest. He might be right: there is no question that in 516 or 520, the date of the embassies of Hua recorded in the Liang Zhigongtu, many of the towns or small regions that sent embassies to the Liang were within the Hephtalite empire. The embassies of Kumedh, Qubadiyan, and Karghalik were all sent in 520 with the embassy of Hua, while Balkh sent its embassy in 522. It is clear that the Hephtalites permitted independent embassies from the main towns of their empire, so that the fact that there were embassies of Samarkand up to 509 is not in itself a proof of a late conquest of Sogdiana, while the end of the embassies of the kingdom of Sogdiana in 479 might indeed mean more.[34]

[33] La Vaissière 2005, 110–11; Kuwayama 1989, 117–18; see also Grenet 2002, 211.
[34] However, this would leave unexplained the end of the embassies from Samarkand in 509.


Moreover, the text gives the Qi period as the moment of the shift to Moxian, but the Qi period began in 479 precisely, and the coincidence would be perfect between the end of the embassies from Sogdiana and the movement to Moxian. The last character means to settle but also to occupy, so that the whole sentence might be translated “in the Qi period they began to go to Moxian and occupied it.” From then on, Sogdiana would have been the wealthiest part of their empire.

It is strange that among all the conquests of the Hephtalites, the Liangshu failed to mention only Sogdiana, then certainly conquered, while mentioning all the other conquests (“they succeeded in conquering the tribes in the neighbourhood, such as Bosi [Sasanid Persia], Panpan [Warwâlîz?], Jibin [Kashmir], Yanqi [Karashar], Guizi [Kucha], Shule [Kashgar], Gumo [Aksu], Yudian [Khotan], and Juban [Karghalik], and expanded their territory by more than a thousand li.”) The parallel text in the Weishu does mention the conquest of Sogdiana. It is known that a Hephtalite king bore a Sogdian title as early as the 480s, which is difficult to explain if Sogdiana was not within the empire.[35] Sogdiana would have been conquered first, before the war with Persia, and not last, as usually believed, and this idea would have consequences for our understanding of the Sogdian economic and urban growth: I have proposed that the Kidarites, who invaded Sogdiana from Bactria sometimes around 440, could have been held responsible for both of them. But, with the Hephtalite conquest of Sogdiana pushed backwards by thirty years, the Hephtalites might have quickly superseded the Kidarites[36] and have pursued the Kidarites’ efforts to construct a whole series of fortified Hippodamian towns, attested from Herat to Bukhara and Panjikent.[37] The wealth of Peroz’ ransom might have been invested locally.[38] In fact, this hypothesis, while based on flimsy evidence, would not contradict anything known of the very obscure history of the Hephtalite empire in the second half of the fifth century, and would help to explain in a neat and compact way the new distribution of wealth and power in western Central Asia after this period.

[35] Ṭabarī I.874, transl. Bosworth 1999, 113, gives the name of the Hephtalite king who defeated Pērōz in 484 as Akhshunwār, which can be Sogdian ’xš’wnd’r “power-holder” (Henning 1936, 17).
[36] Pērōz defeated them in 468 (Priscus, transl. Blockley, 361).
[37] Grenet 1996, 372–83.
[38] Grenet 1996, 388, already suggested this idea, but did not see that it contradicts his idea of a Hephtalite conquest of Sogdiana in 509.


Annex 3

Khiṅgila, Eškiŋgil

The name Khiṅgila is known from various sources, Indian, Chinese and Arabic, as well as on coins and inscriptions.[39] It is now known also on a Bactrian seal, recently published by P. Callieri and N. Sims-Williams, at least if we regard the εþκιγγιλο to be read on this seal as a variant of the same name.[40] Sims-Williams cautiously proposed an etymology through Indic—(Khiṅgila > *Kṣiṅgila [sanskritization] > Škiŋil [metathesis] > Eškiŋil [prothesis]), but it is not clear why this name, unattested in Indian onomastic, should be Indian. While various Khiṅgila are known in Indian history, all of them seem to be related to foreign dynasties of the Northwest, so that it would be more logical to regard Khiṅgil as a foreign name. The problem is, in fact, double: we have to find a suitable etymology for Khiṅgila and to explain the variant Eškingil. As regards the first part of this problem, another possibility, first proposed to my knowledge by X. Tremblay, would be interesting. Tremblay indeed made the link between Khiṅgila and an analysis by Pulleyblank[41] of the name of the Sacred sword worshipped by the Xiongnu, kenglu (< *keŋ-ĥlax) compared by Pulleyblank and others with Turki[c] qïŋïraq “double-blade knife,” the Wakhi xiŋgār, and the Sogdian xnγr[42]. This sword was worshipped among the Xiongnu in the same way as the Scythians and the Attilanic Huns worshipped one.[43]. But, kenglu was not only the name of a sword but also, at least among the Xiongnu and Attilanic Huns, the name of a god (kenglu shen),[44] or perhaps the attribute of a god, identified as the god of War, Mars, in Jordanes’ testimony about the “sword of Mars” given to Attila.[45] Khiṅgila might have been a theophoric name.

[39] Petech 1964; Kuwayama 1999; Callieri 2002, 129.
[40] Callieri 2002; Sims-Williams 2002b.
[41] Pulleyblank 1962, 222. Akinakès is sometimes added to this family of names.
[42] Tremblay 1999, 182–84.
[43] See Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 278–80.
[44] Kao 1960, 222–23.
[45] Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 279.


What would then be the Eš- prefixed to it? Immediately, there comes to mind the common Turkic prefix Eš-, meaning “comrade, companion of,”[46] attested precisely during this period among the Attilanic Huns (for instance Ešqam Ἔσχάμ, companion of the Shaman).[47] Eskiŋil would be a meaningful Hunnic name or title, companion of the Sword (i.e., of Mars), and would be perfectly in accordance with what I have demonstrated to be the common political and ethnic past of the European and Central Asian Huns.

[46] Clauson 1972, 253–54.
[47] Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 408. Ἀσχάν in Belisarius’ army, although interpreted differently by Maenchen-Helfen (p. 413) might also be “companion of the Qan.”


Bibliography

Beishi: Li Yanshou. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974.

Bivar 2004: A. D. H. Bivar. “Hephthalites.” EIr, vol. 12, fasc. 2.

Callieri 2002: P. Callieri. “The Bactrian Seal of Khiṅgila.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 8:121–41.

Chavannes 1903: É. Chavannes. “Voyage de Song Yun dans l’Udyana et le Gandhara (518–522).” BEFEO 3:379–441.

Clauson 1972: G. Clauson. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, 989. Oxford.

Enoki 1959: K. Enoki. “On the Nationality of the Ephtalites.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 18:1–58.

Enoki 1970: ____. “The Liang chih-kungt‘u on the Origin and Migration of the Hua or Ephtalites.” Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia 7.1–2:37–45.

Enoki 1984: ____. “The Liang chihkung-t‘u.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 42:75–138.

Golden 1992: P. Golden. An Introduction to the History of the Turkish Peoples, 489. Turcologica, vol. 9. Wiesbaden.

Grenet 1996: F. Grenet. “Crise et sortie de crise en Bactriane-Sogdiane aux IVe–Ve s. de n.è.: De l’héritage antique à l’adoption de modèles sassanides.” In Convegno internazionale sur tema La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo/Accademia nazionale dei Lincei and IsMEO (Rome, 9–12 novembre 1994), 367–90. Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127. Rome.

Grenet 2002: ____. “Regional Interaction in Central Asia and North-West India in the Kidarite and Hephtalite Period.” In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. N. Sims-Williams, 203–24. Proceedings of the British Academy 116. Oxford.

Henning 1936: W. Henning. “Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus.” ZDMG 90:1–18 (repr. in idem, Selected Papers, vol. 1, 379–96. ActIran 14, Leiden, 1977).

Kao 1960: Kao Ch’ü-Hsün. “The Ching Lu Shen Shrines of Han Sword Worship in Hsiung-nu Religion.” Central Asiatic Journal 5:221–32.

Kuwayama 1989: Sh. Kuwayama. “The Hephtalites in Tokharistan and Northwest India.” Zinbun: Annals of the Institute for Research in Humanities. Kyoto University 24:89–134.

Kuwayama 1999: ____. “Historical Notes on Kāpiśi and Kābul in the Sixth-Eighth Centuries.” Zinbun: Annals of the Institute for Research in Humanities. Kyoto University 34.1:5–77.

La Vaissière 2005: É. de La Vaissière. Sogdian Traders: A History. Leiden.

Liangshu: Yao Silian. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974.

Maenchen-Helfen 1973: O. Maenchen-Helfen. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. Berkeley.

Menander: R. C. Blockley, ed. and transl. The History of Menander the Guardsman. ARCA, 17. Liverpool, 1987.

Petech 1964: L. Petech. “Note sur Kāpiśi e Zabul.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 39:287–94.

Priscus: R. C. Blockley, transl. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus. 2 vols. ARCA, Classical and Medieval texts, papers, and monographs, 6, 10. Liverpool, 1981.

Procopius: H. B. Dewing, transl., 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London, 1974.

Rahman, Grenet, and Sims-Williams: A. ur Rahman, F. Grenet, and N. Sims-Williams. “A Hunnish Kushan-shah.” Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 1:125–31.

Sims-Williams 2000: N. Sims-Williams. Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan. Studies in the Khalili Collection, vol. 3. CIIr, pt. 2, Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, vol. 6, pt. 1, Legal and Economic Documents. Oxford.

Sims-Williams 2002: ____. “Ancient Afghanistan and Its Invaders: Linguistic Evidence from the Bactrian Documents and Inscriptions.” In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. N. Sims-Williams, 225–42. Oxford.

Sims-Williams 2002b: ____. “The Bactrian Inscription on the Seal of Khiṅgila.” Silk Road Art and Achaeology 8:143–48.

Suishu: Wei Zheng. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973.

Ṭabarī: C. E. Bosworth, transl. The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Albany, 1999.

Tongdian: Du You. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988.

Tremblay 2001: X. Tremblay. Pour une histoire de la Sérinde: Le manichéisme parmi les peuples et religions d’Asie Centrale d’après les sources primaires. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Iranistik, no. 28. Vienna.

Wakeman 1990: Ch. B. Wakeman. “Hsi Jung (the Western Barbarians): An Annotated Translation of the Five Chapters of the T’ung Tien on the Peoples and Countries of Pre-Islamic Central Asia.” Ph.D. diss., University of California.

Weishu: Wei Shou. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974.

Zhoushu: Linghu Defen. Beijing, 1971.

Zhoushu 1959: R. A. Miller, transl. Accounts of Western Nations in the History of the Northern Chou Dynasty. Berkeley.