What is the origin of the Huns?

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,493
Blachernai
#21
Interesting point. However, Jordanes is also known for having invented the confusion between Getae and Goths, which led to the fantasy denomination of Dacia for Danemark, in the 12-14-th centuries ... It would be interesting to study in detail the Graf Etzel recordings in the various Niebelungenlied - versions. Can it be possible to guess if the early Germans retained Etzel as scary or rather similar to them?
I think there is very little of Jordanes that we can take seriously, however this is a curious point. If it was so well known that the Huns were very far away, why create a story that connects their origins to the Goths? If everyone knew that the Huns were invaders from distant Asiatic lands, then one has to question why Jordanes gave them more local origins.
 
Mar 2014
440
Goettingen
#22
If everyone knew that the Huns were invaders from distant Asiatic lands, then one has to question why Jordanes gave them more local origins.
I perfectly agree, and believe in fact that this is a point of major relevance. Over times, classical sources are discarded when incongruences arise. Some reasons for discarding a source are often provided. But why and how far would some historian go with lying or fabulation is a question that is never thought through in all of its consequences. It is for instance agreed upon that Jordanes was motivated to provide a noble origin and past to his Gothic lords and kinmen. This would explain his identifying them with Getae. But what about the Huns? What is the motivation there? And Jordanes is by no means the only old historian whose statements are discarded with some good, but possibly only partial, reasons ....
 
Jan 2014
1,675
Portugal
#24
By the time the Huns attacked the Romans they had become quite heterogeneous, a mixture of different peoples. Anyway, nobody knows for sure who the "real" Huns were.
I think that this makes the controversy even bigger.
I'm quite sure they have Asiatic origins, but the fact that the most known period of the Huns history is the attacks to the Roman Empire, makes everything harder, cause at that time they were a already "quite heterogeneous, a mixture of different people."
 
Mar 2014
1,711
Lithuania
#25
As far as I understand modern theory on origin of Huns is that they were not a nation or tribe, but confederation of tribes. At least some of these tribes were of European origin. It is unlikely that they were from as far away as Mongolia. Huns of upper class were deforming (elongating) their sculls and as far as I know there is no burials of people with such sculls in Mongolia. Their heads may be reason of Roman hysteria about them. Google it, even now there are s lot of nutcases in the net that believe that these sculls belong to aliens. (when elongating scull it gets significantly bigger in volume, even though brain is the same size as in "normal" humans)
 
Jan 2015
955
EARTH
#26


Facial reconstruction of the Hunnic elite look very asiatic. I don't think they were originally Germanic, but probably a mixture - kind of like Turkics nowadays.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,332
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#27
I think that this makes the controversy even bigger.
I'm quite sure they have Asiatic origins, but the fact that the most known period of the Huns history is the attacks to the Roman Empire, makes everything harder, cause at that time they were a already "quite heterogeneous, a mixture of different people."
Exact.

We can be sure they came from Asia [central Asia], but during their journey towards west they aggregated different tribes and the final result was "heterogeneous" as said.

As we know, Amminaus Marcellinus [IV century] sustained they came from a region near to the cold sea [arctic sea]. A part this, previous attempts to identify the Huns with Chinese or Mongol populations of the far past have been criticized in a heavy way by modern scholars [we can remind the "Hsiung-nu", just to have an example].

We could mention also the matter of fact that it was a kind of fashion [because of prestige] to claim to be part of the "Huns" for the nomad populations coming from East. This has made things ever more difficult, if possible.
 
Dec 2015
518
Newburg, Missouri
#29
I lend credence to the general conclusion of experts who say that the Eurasian steppe, following domestication of the horse, hosted a long succession of nondescript, ever-changing confederacies of ethnically diverse semi-nomadic herders and raiders (all depending, however, on some settled agricultural base), who went by a variety of names in ancient history, such names often being used and reused uncritically for a very long time, even to this day. The details and a more discriminate identification of any given confederacy at any given time are lost to history, forever, say those honest and humble experts who are not beating a personal drum.
 
Mar 2015
2,987
ballkan
#30
They came from the Asian steppes. They had common roots with the so called altaic people and the Chinese.

2- either the early proto indo- European tribes came from the steppes. They mixed with the indigenous people of pontic steppe and we had the so called IE people.
 

Similar History Discussions