Chelsea Stevenson
History 160
Songster
March 26, 2012
The Xiongnu: Barbarians of the North
The Xiongnu people were a group of northerners occupying the Inner Asian territory as
neighbors to the ancient Han kingdoms and dynasties. Though they are first referenced—and
therefore recorded into history—in Chinese annals in a “united political body” around the end of
the third century BC, the Xiongnu as a people must have existed to some extent—perhaps to a
great extent—before then but we are left only with the Chinese accounts of their interactions and
culture.1 The Han Chinese saw the Xiongnu as they saw all outsiders: as barbarians. In our
modern historical context this term must be taken with a certain amount of scrutiny and, though
we have no accounts of the Xiongnu from Xiongnu peoples, we may try to interpret their identity
as a group through other means. We can look at their culture objectively, examine the
environment they resided in, and evaluate the Han’s reactions and interactions with them in order
to better define them as a people.
As we know, the Xiongnu originated from the lands north of the Chinese in the Inner
Asian steppes. Their culture could only be roughly described as statehood and would have been
characterized by a nomadic lifestyle with an emphasis in animal husbandry and, like later steppe
cultures of Inner Asia, the Xiongnu were well known for their horsemanship.2 According to
Chinese standards this was a subpar culture; the Xiongnu had neither written script, extensive
1
Di Cosmo, Nicola. “Ancient Inner Asian nomads: Their economic basis and its significance in Chinese History.”
The Journal of Asian Studies. Nov 1994; 53, 4; ABI/INFORM Global, 1095.
Ed. Sinor, Denis. “Introduction: the concept of Inner Asia.” Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. SMC
Publishing Inc.: Taipei, 8.
2
2
agriculture, cities, nor crafts—they did, however, share a language that was distinctly their own.3
Since we have no documentation of them beyond the earliest ones in the third century BC, there
is no way of concretely describing or labeling them as a cohesive whole. In fact, before their
ascent to influence and power under Motun it is not possible to place the moniker of nation on
them at all. At best we might say that the Xiongnu at the time were a loose society of tribes who
shared cultural practices as well as a common geography.
Their geography, centered as it was in the steppe, was a great contributor to the
development of their culture. Steppe biomes are ideal for herd animals and it was with
domesticated herd species that the Xiongnu were prosperous with as a commodity. As read in the
Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia: “The horse was the mainstay of steppe economy, the
principal commodity produced, and in it lay the wealth of the nation.”4 This was also an
environment which would have made widespread agriculture difficult and thus made the Chinese
requirements for non-barbaric culture difficult and unlikely. Since they were a mostly nonsedentary society as well, being nomadic herders, crafting items that would require a stable base
of operation—think blacksmithing, silk weaving, etc.—was just as improbable. To judge them
by Han standards then is impractical; the Xiongnu adapted to their surroundings and their culture
followed accordingly. If they are not barbarians then, how are we to define them? This answer
may be more easily examined by discussing later developments among the Xiongnu peoples as
they became a nation under the shan-yü Motun.
3
In-class lecture 2A
Ed. Sinor, Denis. “Introduction: the concept of Inner Asia.” Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. SMC
Publishing Inc.: Taipei, 8.
4
3
Motun came to power after assassinating his father, the current shan-yü Tumen, in
209 BC.5 While it was Motun’s father who initially brought together the Xiongnu tribes, it was
Motun who went on to challenge and successfully bring to heel the recently united Chin Dynasty
of China. In the Ho-ch’in Treatiesof 198 BC, the now subservient China pledged tribute—luxury
goods—and wives to the Xiongnu for peace.6 His descendants would go on to contribute more
and more land and vassal territories to the Xiongnu name and it was at this point in history that
we might best consider them a nation. The solidification of authority and sovereignty meant that
the Xiongnu were no longer a scattered group of tribes but now a unified people. They became a
militaristic state dependent upon their tributary pacts to receive the goods they did not produce
themselves—namely agricultural and craft merchandises. While the Han may have merely seen
them as barbarians of the north, we know that at least by that point the Xiongnu had developed
their own sense of identity. They did not, for example, consider non-Han neighbors as equals or
relatives of their cultural identity. The Tung-hu people , another northern group who were
themselves called Eastern barbarians and hailed from parts of what would become Mongolia and
Manchuria, were the rivals and neighbors of the Xiongnu—raiding them as the Xiongnu had
raided the Han but, as with the Chinese, being defeated and made vassals under Motun.7 So we
see that while the Xiongnu were considered northern barbarians, they saw themselves as their
own unique group separate from other northern tribes or nations. Unlike the later northern
Yü Ying-shih. “The Hsiung-nu.” Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Ed. Denis Sinor. SMC Publishing Inc.:
Taipei, 120.
5
6
“The Hsiung-nu.” 122.
7
“The Hsiung-nu.” 125-6.
4
invaders of China, the Jurchens, the Xiongnu did not accept outsiders into their culture nor did
they assert their culture upon others, as did the Mongols ruling in the Yuan Dynasty.
What best conclusion we can come to then is this: the Xiongnu were a group of people
who first began as a number of northern, nomadic tribes from the Inner Asian steppe who then
reformed as an official nation of people under the guidance of Motun and the subsequent shanyü’s who followed up until their defeat by the Han during a decline of power in the century 100
BC. They were a people defined by the environment they came from and from the countries they
interacted with—being raiders, traders, and invaders on the Han and surrounding neighbors.
Though they may have been lumped together with other northern groups by the Han as
barbarians, clearly the Xiongnu had their own definition of identity that separated them from all
other northern tribes and powers. That they exerted force over and demanded tribute from
northern peers like the Tung-hu demonstrates a lack of cultural camaraderie one might expect
from a group of people who are purportedly the same—at least by Han standards. They were
inclusive enough to define themselves as a group by anyone sharing their common cultural
practices, language, and geography but exclusive enough to omit those considered by some to be
their equals in non-civility.
5
Works Cited
Di Cosmo, Nicola. “Ancient Inner Asian nomads: Their economic basis and its significance in
Chinese History.”The Journal of Asian Studies. Nov 1994; 53, 4; ABI/INFORM Global.
Ed. Sinor, Denis. “Introduction: the concept of Inner Asia.” Cambridge History of Early Inner
Asia. SMC Publishing Inc.: Taipei.
Songster, Edith. “Lecture 2A.” History 150. Saint Mary’s College of California, Moraga.
February 2012. Lecture.
Yü Ying-shih. “The Hsiung-nu.” Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Ed. Denis Sinor. SMC
Publishing Inc.: Taipei.