In most books, articles, textbooks, encyclopedias such an uncontested concept of the history of the Huns is given. This nomadic tribe lived in the 2nd century BC. - II century AD north of China. It was known to the Chinese under the name "Hsiungnu". After that, it began to migrate to the west, and in the 4th century it reached Eastern Europe, where we learn about it from ancient sources. It is impossible to establish exactly who the Huns were by language. It is assumed that they belonged to the Türkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu Finno-Ugric or Paleo-Asian language group.
However, back in the 19th century, historians Yu. Venelin and A. F. Veltman, and at the beginning of the twentieth century - A. V. Nechvolodov, were sure that the Huns were of Slavic origin. At the end of the 20th century, A. G. Kuzmin also disputed the traditional identification of the Huns with a people who came from somewhere in the depths of Asia. So what's wrong with the Huns?
Did the Huns come from Central Asia?
We should start with the fact that the hypothesis of the identity of the Chinese Huns with the subsequent European Huns is not supported by anything other than the consonance of names. But even more consonance with the Huns is the people of the “Xiongnu” mentioned by Ptolemy in the II century. The Hunnu lived "between the Bastars and Roksolans". The Bastars lived somewhere in present-day Romania and Moldova, and the Roxolans lived in the Azov and Don regions. Both tribes are most likely Iranian. “Between them” means that the Xiongnu lived somewhere in the Northern Black Sea region and / or on the Lower Dnieper. And this was even at a time when the Huns continued to live next to China.
The appearance of the Huns as a wild, unbridled nomadic people, extremely primitive and cruel, ugly and frightening in appearance, was formed from the descriptions of the Huns by the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus (IV century) and the Gothic historian Jordan (VI century). Note that both historians themselves did not see the living Huns and wrote about them only from the news of others. By the way, even from these descriptions it does not at all follow that the Huns belonged to the Mongoloid race.
The source for Ammianus Marcellinus was the stories of the Goths expelled by the Huns to the territory of the Roman Empire. It was only natural that the Goths painted their enemies in the most terrible colors. It is also natural that Jordan, who lived after the collapse of the Hunnic state, retained the same Gothic tradition in depicting the Huns. However, we know very well, especially from the history of the twentieth century, that the enemy is always portrayed as some kind of devil. One should not trust the descriptions of the people made by their sworn enemies. Do we have more objective sources of information about the Huns?
Promotional video:
Honey, kvass and strava among the Huns
In 448, the East Roman emperor Theodosius II sent the diplomat Priscus Pannius (from Panion) as an ambassador to the ruler of the Huns, the formidable Attila. This was not long before Attila's famous campaigns to the west, fatally undermining the Western Roman Empire. Apparently, Priscus successfully fulfilled his diplomatic mission, warding off the threat of the Hunnic invasion from Constantinople and sending the Huns towards Rome.
Priscus left interesting information about Attila, his court and the country of the Huns. Traditionally, it is believed that Attila's headquarters was located in the territory of modern Eastern Hungary. Priscus reports that the Byzantine embassy crossed the Istria (Danube), after which it drove north for a long time, until it reached the navigable rivers Drikona, Tiga and Tifisa. Of these rivers, only Tifisa is supposedly identified with the Tisza, but this is ambiguous. Priscus writes that they rode for seven days after the mention of these rivers, but it is unclear whether this period refers to the part of the journey after these rivers, or to the entire journey to Attila's headquarters after crossing the Danube. Nechvolodov was inclined to the first interpretation and came to the conclusion that Attila's headquarters was not located on the territory of modern Hungary, but in Little Russia (Ukraine).
According to Priscus, he himself and his closest retinue received a treat in the villages of the Huns in the form of the drink "honey", which replaces wine among the Huns. Other embassy staff received a drink made from barley "kamos". In these drinks, most historians are forced to recognize Slavic honey and kvass. In this regard, there is Jordan's news that after the death and burial of Attila, the Huns arranged, according to their custom, a funeral feast at his grave, which they called strava. As everyone knows, the word "strava" was the name for the memorial meal among the ancient Slavs.
Priscus describes the luxury and sophisticated culture of Attila's court. He also mentions that the king of the Huns washed in a bath. The capital of Attila was surrounded by wooden walls and towers, similar to ancient Slavic settlements, as archaeologists reconstruct them. This construction technique was clearly brought by the Huns from other places, since their capital was located in the steppe region, where, according to Priscus, there was neither stone nor forest.
Historians have long put forward the hypothesis to explain these facts that the Hunnish state was diverse, uniting many conquered peoples, and that Attila's headquarters was located in an area inhabited mainly by Slavs.
Who were they after all?
It is noteworthy that the news of the invasion of the Huns on the Goths in 371 was preceded by the attack of the Eastern Goths on the Antes tribe, during which the Gothic king Ermanarich captured the Ant leader Bozha (Busa, Leader - in different readings) along with 70 nobles and crucified them all. The Antes are all recognized as a Slavic tribe. It is noteworthy that they lived in the lower reaches of the Dnieper - in the same place where the earlier news of Ptolemy puts the Huns. Is there a direct connection here? And was not the notorious "invasion of the Huns" on the Goths an uprising of the Slavs and revenge for the murder of their leaders?
The names of the Huns, known to us in the transmission of Priscus and other ancient authors - Attila, Onigisy, Scott, Edikon - do not have an unambiguous ethnic connection, and, moreover, they are probably distorted for the convenience of pronunciation. Meanwhile, they point to a Turkic, Mongolian or Finno-Ugric origin no more than to Indo-European.
Paleogenetic studies of burials presumably belonging to the Huns did not give a clear picture. So far, four Y-chromosomal haplogroups have been found there. Of these, two are most widespread in North Asia, one is in the South-West, and another - R1a1 - is typical for Indo-European peoples, including the Slavs. It is noteworthy that they have no correspondences among the studied remains of the Huns, which most historians pass off as the ancestors of the Huns.
Thus, with regard to the Huns, the following can still be stated:
1. The origin of the Huns from Central Asia, especially from the Huns of the ancient Chinese chronicles, cannot be considered proven.
2. The state of the Huns included a significant Slavic ethnic component.