Xiongnu

The Xiongnu were a confederation of mounted nomadic peoples that dominated the eastern Eurasian steppe from the late 3rd century BCE and became the first great steppe empire and the principal northern rival of China under the Han dynasty. Their polity centred on the Mongolian Plateau and at its height reached into Central Asia and the Tarim Basin. Because the Xiongnu left no substantial literature of their own, nearly all knowledge of their political history comes from Chinese dynastic records, above all the chapter on them in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, supplemented by archaeology and, more recently, by linguistic and genetic research. This dependence on outside sources shapes every question about them, from their ethnic identity to the meaning of their diplomacy.

The Xiongnu matter for several reasons. Their unification under Modu Chanyu and their sustained military pressure forced the Qin and Han states to develop defensive walls, a tribute-and-marriage framework known as heqin, and expensive campaigns that changed Chinese frontier policy. Their control of the steppe and the trade routes linking China with Central Asia also helped set the stage for the Silk Road and for long-distance exchange of goods, technologies and ideas across Eurasia. Later, after the fall of the Han, Xiongnu-led states ruled parts of northern China, and the question of whether they were ancestors of the Huns who reached Europe has been debated for centuries.

This article traces the Xiongnu from the origins debate and the problem of their language, through the rise of Modu and the structure of the state, to their relations with Han China, their economy and material culture, and their division, decline and afterlife. It closes with the history of scholarship and the questions that remain unresolved.

Name, Origins and the Chinese Sources

The ethnonym and its transliterations

The name Xiongnu is written 匈奴 in Chinese characters, and the Mandarin reading xiōngnú is only the modern standard pronunciation. Historical phoneticians reconstruct the first character's sound for the 4th to 6th centuries CE as roughly hoŋ, a value close to European forms of "Hun". That resemblance has encouraged comparisons with the Huns, which later sections examine, but it does not by itself establish any relationship. Chinese texts also used other names for peoples they associated with the north: the Shiji lists Shanrong, Xianyun and Hunyu, and Han-era and later commentators equated Hunyu and Xunyu with the Xiongnu. Outside China the name was rendered through separate reading traditions, such as Japanese kyōdo, Korean hyungno and a Mongolian Cyrillic form. Each of these passed through a different intermediary, so Latin spellings carry no reliable phonetic evidence about the people's own pronunciation. Chinese characters were also chosen for their sounds rather than their meanings, and the element 奴 ("slave") in the name reflects the derogatory attitude of the Chinese writers who recorded it.

The Xia genealogy and why it is treated as myth

The Shiji gives the Xiongnu a Chinese origin story. Its account says the founding ancestor was named Chunwei and descended from the Xia royal lineage, the first dynasty in the traditional chronology. Some later accounts make Chunwei a son of Jie, the last Xia king, although there is no independent evidence for either version. Historians generally treat the genealogy as a literary construction rather than memory. The claim does not appear in earlier sources, and the Xia dynasty itself is only partly attested by archaeology. Sima Qian used a similar method for other non-Chinese states, attaching the rulers of Chu, Wu and Yue to sage-king ancestry. The effect was to place the steppe peoples inside a single Chinese cosmology, which implied that Chinese rulers had a legitimate right to command them. Later steppe rulers reused this pattern for their own purposes: Helian Bobo claimed descent from Yu the Great, and Liu Yuan presented himself as a relative of the Han imperial house.

Sima Qian, the Book of Han and the problem of perspective

The core textual sources are the "Account of the Xiongnu" in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, completed around 94 BCE, and the corresponding chapter in Ban Gu's Book of Han, compiled in the 1st century CE. Later dynastic histories add further material, including Fan Ye's Book of the Later Han on the Southern Xiongnu and the Book of Jin on the Northern Di and Xiongnu. These works share a basic limitation: they were written by Han-state scholars looking back on a long conflict with a rival power. Information about the Xiongnu therefore comes largely through Han diplomatic files, military reports and court debates, and the Xiongnu rarely speak in their own voice. Sima Qian's position was also personal. After he defended the general Li Ling, who had surrendered to the Xiongnu in 99 BCE, he was punished with castration, and his treatment of the Xiongnu reflects a government that was simultaneously fighting, negotiating with and reassessing them.

The Hu on the northern frontier

The Xiongnu were not the first northern nomads to attract Chinese attention. The term Hu (胡) was used broadly for northern and western peoples, not for a single ethnic group, and the Hu appear in the records of several Warring States states. By the 4th century BCE, Zhao, Yan and later Qin were fighting or building defensive walls against mounted nomads along their northern borders. The Zhao ruler King Wuling is recorded as adopting horse-riding and mounted archery around 307 BCE, and these skills reached the Chinese states through contact with the steppe. The practice illustrates a broader pattern: from the 4th century BCE, northern frontier societies in China and on the steppe were in continuous contact, through raiding, trade and military borrowing. The name Xiongnu came to designate the most powerful of these groups only later, when a unified steppe confederation took shape in the late 3rd century BCE under Qin pressure.

Language and Ethnic Identity

No continuous text in the Xiongnu language survives. What is known comes from personal names, titles and a few glosses that Chinese historians wrote down in Chinese characters, chosen for their sound rather than their meaning. The only longer specimen is a short couplet in the language of the Jie, a group within the confederation, recorded in Chinese transcription in connection with the 329 CE conflict between two Xiongnu-led regimes. Because Chinese characters were not designed for foreign phonology, every reading depends on a reconstruction of Old and Middle Chinese pronunciation, and the disagreements about that reconstruction feed directly into the disagreements about the language itself. Much of the scholarship therefore concerns method as much as conclusions. For this reason the Xiongnu language is usually described as recorded but not understood.

Competing hypotheses

The most developed proposal is that the ruling stratum spoke a Yeniseian language. Linguists such as Lajos Ligeti first put this forward in 1950. Edwin Pulleyblank expanded the argument in 1962 by matching Chinese-recorded glosses to Yeniseian words, and Alexander Vovin later reworked the morphology and phonology, arguing that the Jie language was closer to Kott than to Ket. Critics note that several of Pulleyblank's etymologies are unconvincing, and that some plausible matches may reflect shared vocabulary borrowed by both sides rather than common descent.

The Turkic hypothesis rests on a different body of work. Anna Dybo's 2007 analysis of the most transparent glosses found two lexical layers: an earlier one, mostly in Western Han sources, consisting largely of titles and dairy terms of Eastern Iranian origin, and a later Turkic layer. This finding supports the view that the confederation's vocabulary was mixed, though it does not settle which language the elite spoke. A Mongolic affiliation, sometimes linked to proto-Mongolic or proto-Turkic groups, has also been argued, and Iranian identifications, such as Harold Bailey's 1985 suggestion, have their own supporters. At the other extreme, the Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer rejected any demonstrable relationship between Xiongnu and known language families, a position that supports treating the language as an isolate.

Evidence from titles, names and kinship

Titles and personal names are the most common material, but they are also the easiest to borrow, so scholars give more weight to basic vocabulary. Kinship terms are treated as especially diagnostic for this reason: words for close relatives change slowly and are less often taken over from neighbours than words for trade, weapons or political offices. The Book of Han records a few Xiongnu words with Chinese glosses, including the word for heaven, transcribed as chēnglí, and a word glossed as "child", transcribed as gūtú. Both are reported in Chinese sources and interpreted in different ways, and the Chinese explanations, such as the gloss on the title chanyu as meaning something "vast and great", should not be taken as reliable etymologies.

Kinship structure also appears in the political organization of the confederation. Chinese accounts describe the Luandi as a paternal dynastic lineage, while the Huyan and the Xubu are described as tribes whose dynastic role was maternal, which implies that marriage exchanges between houses shaped the political order. These records are valuable but reflect Chinese categories, so the labels themselves cannot be assumed to reproduce Xiongnu usage.

A multi-ethnic confederation

The linguistic evidence is most consistent with a confederation whose subject peoples spoke several languages. Chinese sources list groups such as the Dingling and the Gekun, the ancestors of the later Kyrgyz, among the peoples that Modu Chanyu subdued, and the Dingling are often associated with a Turkic or Mongolic background. Pulleyblank and Vovin proposed that the Jie formed a minority ruling class over Turkic- and Iranian-speaking groups, a view that some scholars share and others consider too neat. The lexical layers identified by Dybo fit the same picture, with Iranian titles in the early record and Turkic vocabulary later.

If this model is correct, the ruling elite and the subject tribes may have spoken different languages, and the Chinese record of a single "Xiongnu language" may conflate several. The unresolved question is therefore not only which language was the Xiongnu language, but whether the confederation had one dominant language at all. The field has not reached consensus, and most specialists regard the multilingual picture as the most defensible starting point while treating each specific language hypothesis as open.

Formation and the Rise of Modu Chanyu

The Qin collapse and the loss of pasture

By the late 3rd century BCE, the steppe north of the Yellow River was already contested. In 215 BCE, a 300,000-man army under the Qin general Meng Tian entered the Ordos region and drove the Xiongnu about 1,000 li (roughly 416 km) northward. Some chronologies place this campaign a year earlier, in 214 BCE. The loss of the Hetao region removed grazing land that had supported the leading Xiongnu groups. Touman, unable to hold out against the Qin forces, had withdrawn to the far north, and he survived there for more than a decade. After Meng Tian's death in 210 BCE, Touman led the Xiongnu back across the Yellow River to regain their former territory. The collapse of the Qin state into civil war that followed left the northern frontier without effective defence, which allowed the steppe groups to recover and to compete with one another for dominance.

Modu's seizure of power

Touman's succession was disputed. According to the Chinese accounts, a consort whom Touman favoured bore him a younger son, and Touman then wanted to kill Modu and make the younger son crown prince. Modu was sent as a hostage to the Yuezhi. When Modu reached the Yuezhi, Touman immediately attacked them. The Yuezhi tried to kill Modu, but he stole a fine horse and rode it back to the Xiongnu. Touman then gave Modu command of ten thousand cavalry, a force that became the basis of his power.

In 209 BCE Modu moved against his father. He had trained his personal guards to shoot the whistling arrow, and then launched a coup, killing Touman during a hunt before proclaiming himself chanyu. The method served as a test of obedience: Modu shot Touman with a whistling arrow, and all of his followers followed suit and killed Touman. He then consolidated his position through purges. He had his stepmother and younger brothers executed, along with the ministers who refused to submit to him. Whether the sequence of events is accurate in every detail is uncertain, since the main account comes from later Chinese histories, but the pattern of a violent handover followed by purges is consistent across the sources.

Unification of the steppe tribes

Modu's authority rested on the subordination of rival groups. He first confronted the Donghu to the east and the Yuezhi to the west. He then turned against neighbours to the south and north. He drove the Yuezhi westward, annexed tribes such as the Loufan to the south, and recaptured the Hetao region. He also conquered northern peoples such as the Hunyu, Qushe, and Dingling.

Unity gave the confederation advantages that fragmented groups lacked. A single command could mobilise cavalry from several tribes at once, coordinate raids on Han and other frontiers, and sustain campaigns over long distances. It also allowed the chanyu to redistribute booty and pasture rights, which reinforced the loyalty of followers who depended on his success. These advantages were structural rather than personal, and they outlasted Modu himself, though the confederation did not always keep the same cohesion.

Expansion in all directions

The Yuezhi were the principal target in the west. In 177 or 176 BCE, following his father's direction, Modu's son Jiyu drove the Yuezhi from Gansu, and their king's skull was made into a drinking cup. The Yuezhi subsequently migrated westward. Later scholars describe this as the Yuezhi being permanently evicted into Central Asia, which is the usual account in modern encyclopedias. The displacement opened the Gansu corridor and the routes that linked it to the Western Regions.

The Xiongnu then asserted influence over oases and polities in Xinjiang. One chronology notes that after the eviction of the Yuezhi the Xiongnu gained hegemony over the Western Regions as well as the Wusun, though the degree of direct control is debated and probably varied from place to place. The confederation's territory in the 2nd century BCE is commonly described as including Mongolia, east Kazakhstan, east Kyrgyzstan, south Siberia, and parts of northern China such as western Manchuria, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Gansu. Modu died in 174 BCE, and his son Laoshang succeeded him, so the expansion that began under Modu continued under the next generation.

Political and Military Organization

The chanyu (also spelled shanyu) stood at the apex of the state, and reference accounts credit him with concentrating military and administrative authority in one office. The Chanyu (equivalent to the Son of Heaven or Emperor of the Central Plains) was the supreme leader. Under Modu's successors, the polity was organized as two halves, the left and right wings, and the division followed geography rather than kinship alone (dividing the Xiongnu into left and right branches on a geographical basis). The chanyu governed the central territory himself, while the wings were run by subordinate rulers. The title usually translated as "wise" corresponds to the Xiongnu word tuqi, which is why the Chinese record names Left and Right Wise Kings as the principal deputies ([In the Xiongnu state] there are the Left and Right Wise Kings... The Xiongnu word for "wise" is tuqi). Below them, paired left and right offices extended down through guli kings, army commanders, governors, danghu and gudu officials.

The annual gathering at Longcheng shows how the Xiongnu centre worked in practice. Sources locate it in what is now Mongolia, and the site is described as the annual meeting place and de facto capital. Its status was therefore functional rather than architectural: it was where the elite convened each year, not a fixed seat of government. Excavations of the site are recent, since Longcheng ruins were discovered in 2017 south of Ulziit District, Arkhangai Province. The lack of a permanent capital fits a mobile pastoral society in which the court and its assemblies followed herds and seasonal movements.

Authority was shared unevenly between the centre and the wings. The two Wise Kings had considerable independence. Each could appoint his own subordinates, conduct local wars and retaliatory raids, and command the tribes assigned to his wing (Both Left and Right Wise Princes were fairly autonomous in their actions, had a right to appoint their subordinates). The division of functions was also specific: the Left Wise King was largely occupied with the army and acted as supreme commander when the chanyu was away, while the Right Wise King was closer to a judge and chief minister involved in daily administration (the Left Wise Prince commanded a larger contingent of the army... the Left Wise Prince was detached from the daily operations, and his main function was to control the army). Noble houses added a further layer. Xiongnu was made up of five aristocratic houses, Luandi (house of the chanyu and the tuqi king of the east and west), Huyan, Xubu, Qiulin and Lan. Huyan belonged to the left wing, while Lan and Xubu belonged to the right, so the military strength of the tribes was not wholly at the chanyu's disposal.

Royal succession followed dynastic lines that the Chinese sources distinguish carefully. The Luandi house was paternal, and its members were eligible for the throne when their father was a chanyu and their mother came from a Xubu family (only the male members of the Luandi line, whose father was a Luanti Chanyu, and mother was a Xubu Khatun (Queen) were eligible to be chanyu.). The Huyan and Xubu houses were maternal lines whose members were traditionally excluded from the throne (the members of the Right Wing belonged to the Khatun clan Huyan or later Xubu, were traditionally not eligible for the throne, and could be raised to the throne only as a result of a court coup.). Within the left wing, the heir was the Tuqi King of the Left, who was normally the presumed heir. In practice, succession was often disputed: After Chanyu Yizhixie, the succession of Xiongnu Chanyus became frequent.

Wives and kin also shaped governance, and the Chinese texts preserve several kinship terms for this role. The title yanzhi is linked in Chinese sources to huanghou (empress) and was often used to include concubines of the chanyu. The mothers of chanyu could be decisive in succession. For example, Huyandi was not first in the line of succession and only became chanyu, due to a plot by his mother Zhuanqu Yanzhi and the Han defector Wei Lü. In 60 BCE, his wife, Yanzhi Zhuangü, conspired with his younger brother Dulongqi to install the Right Wise King Tuqitang as Chanyu. The sources also describe a levirate custom: a Han envoy reported that if the father dies, a son marries the father's second wife; if a brother dies, the rest of the brothers take the brother's wife. Chinese commentary defended the practice as a means of preserving the lineage, and it applied to successors (the practice of taking fathers' or brothers' wives was sanctioned solely for successors.). Royal daughters are recorded under the term juci, as in the names of Subu Juci (须卜居次); Dangyu Juci (当于居次), which shows how the sources mark female members of the ruling family within the same kinship framework that governed succession.

Relations with Han China

Relations between the Xiongnu and the Han dynasty followed a recurring cycle of military pressure, negotiated appeasement and renewed war. The cycle began after the Han army was trapped at Baideng in 200 BCE. According to Chinese accounts, Emperor Gaozu faced an overwhelming force of Xiongnu horsemen and escaped capture only narrowly, and he was then compelled to negotiate.

The settlement of 198 BCE, known as heqin ("peace and kinship"), formally presented the Xiongnu ruler and the Han emperor as equals joined by a royal marriage alliance. In practice, the Han were forced to send large amounts of tribute items such as silk clothes, food, and wine to the Xiongnu. The treaty also treated the Great Wall as a shared boundary, and its trade and gift provisions made up most of the arrangement. Later emperors confirmed the pact, all three Han emperors confirmed the heqin peace and kinship treaty with the Xiongnu. Border markets were a further point of leverage. The Xiongnu were especially sensitive about trade, and Chinese annals record occasions when the border trade was opened and others when it was apparently banned.

Peace did not stop raids. Incursions still occurred in the 150s to 140s BCE, and Chinese courts sometimes sought Xiongnu backing in their own rivalries, which gave the chanyu leverage in dealings with the Han. Under Emperor Wu, the court moved away from the marriage policy. One official, Wang Hui, proposed instead a strategy that aimed to weaken the confederation from within. His plan to lure the Xiongnu into a trap at Mayi was put into action in 133 BCE. The Xiongnu chanyu, Junchen, was warned by a captured local official and withdrew before the ambush could close, so no battle was fought. The failed operation nonetheless ended the formal peace. Wang Hui was condemned for failing to pursue the enemy and took his own life. The incident also encouraged the Han to build up their cavalry and to adopt more aggressive expeditionary tactics.

Emperor Wu's offensive, which lasted for decades, reached its high point in 119 BCE. At the Battle of Mobei, Han commanders Huo Qubing and Wei Qing defeat the Xiongnu, and the reverses pushed the chanyu's followers away from the frontier, north of the Gobi Desert. Han reports credited their own side with killing 80,000 to 90,000 Xiongnu, while the Han army recovered only a fraction of the horses it had taken into the desert. Defection also shaped the war: in 131 BCE the Xiongnu general Zhao Xin defected first to the Han dynasty then back to the Xiongnu. Major campaigns ceased around 117 BCE, but the gains already made were substantial. The Han took control of the Hexi Corridor and parts of the Tarim Basin, which helped open the Silk Road to Chinese trade.

Fortification accompanied these campaigns. The Great Wall was extended to the Jade Gate in the northwest, and garrisons were placed at strategic points to respond to sudden raids, to stop Chinese deserters from joining the Xiongnu, and to protect trade routes. The financial and human costs were heavy. The historian Sima Qian, whose account appears in the Records of the Grand Historian, was an opponent of the war and stressed how expensive the northern expeditions were. Modern accounts describe the war as costing hundreds of thousands of lives and horses. Han diplomacy, in other words, combined tribute, markets, marriage ties, fortification and offensive war, and none of these instruments delivered lasting security on its own.

Economy, Society and Material Culture

Sima Qian's account of the Xiongnu, which describes them as herders moving across the steppe with horses, cattle and sheep, still anchors the standard picture of their economy. In his Shiji, he describes them as a pastoral nomadic people wandering in search of grazing lands for their herds, and he also relates that the Xiongnu had no walled cities and did not engage in agriculture. Winter was the main threat to this way of life. When winter temperatures fell, the grassland of the Mongolian Plateau often could not feed livestock such as horses, oxen and sheep, and losses of this kind pushed herders to seek new land or to raid.

Recent archaeology has complicated the herding-only model. Excavations at settlements such as Ivolga and Duryony have yielded plows, sickles, grinding stones and domesticated cereals, and isotopic and plant evidence from Transbaikalia points to millet and fish in the diet. Research has moved the view of the Xiongnu economy from one based mainly on herding toward one that also included agriculture. Historians still disagree about how much grain mattered. The so-called trade-or-raid hypothesis held that the Xiongnu needed Chinese goods, and if they could not get them by trading, they would get them by raiding. Critics note that raids usually seized livestock and captives, and that grain was rarely taken. Grain also came from the oases of the Tarim Basin, where farming communities were brought under Xiongnu control and supplied grain, fruit and fodder.

Tribute and exchange formed the second pillar of the economy. Under the heqin arrangements, the Han court was forced to pay yearly tributes to the Xiongnu, including a large amount of silk and foodstuffs, and rice and wine are also named in some accounts. Trade was less formal. Horses could be exchanged for grain and silk, and access to Chinese civilization normally demanded that the Xiongnu submit tribute, accepting inferior status in return for trade rights and other rewards. For the elite, these goods were political currency as much as luxuries: silk and other items were distributed to followers, which helped a chanyu keep warriors loyal. Goods from much further away also reached the steppe along the Silk Road, and many objects in Xiongnu tombs were imported from other regions, indicating active participation in long-distance trade.

The richest evidence comes from Noin-Ula, a group of kurgans in northern Mongolia excavated in 1924–1925, and now largely in the Hermitage collections. Because the graves had flooded, organic material in them was well preserved, and up to two thirds of the contents of the graves consisted of organic material. The tombs are generally dated from the first century BCE to the first century CE. Among the finds were wool and Chinese silk, felt work and painted objects, bronze mirrors, enamel cups, and gold plates. Silver plates with animal images were used as horse fittings. The coffins were modelled on Han coffins and covered in gold foil, and they were probably made by Chinese craftsmen. Garments show the same mix: the Xiongnu received silks from the best Chinese workshops as gifts from the imperial court, and local craftswomen then combined these textiles with woollen fabric and fur. One study has proposed that some of the woollen cloth was dyed in Mediterranean workshops, a claim that remains open. Looting has been severe; although the graves of Noin-Ula were plundered, they still contain a large number of finds, and the loss of context has limited what can be said about burial sequences.

Metalwork in animal style links the Xiongnu to a wider steppe world. The Ordos bronzes, including blade weapons, tent-pole finials, horse gear and small plaques for clothes and harness, use animal-style decoration with links both to Scythian art farther west and to Chinese art. The Ordos material only became central to Xiongnu studies in the 1930s. The steppe animal style is traceable to the Ordos Loop, the Tuva basin and the Altai axis, and bronze ornaments from the Xiongnu cemeteries of Daodunzi and Xichagou in Liaoning show contorted rams devoured by felines. The Xichagou buckle has close parallels in the Ordos corpus. Stag-dressed horses from Altai and Ordos sites suggest shared motifs across these regions. Such objects document contact and shared taste, but whether they reflect a single Xiongnu identity or a broader steppe elite culture is still debated. The relationship between the Ordos bronzes and the Xiongnu is controversial; for some scholars they are the same and for others they are different. The material therefore points to networks of exchange and artisanship, and it cannot by itself establish ethnic boundaries.

Division, Decline and the Northern Xiongnu

Scholars generally explain the weakening of the Xiongnu through several overlapping pressures rather than a single cause. Han armies had already taken the Hexi corridor and pushed into the Western Regions, cutting off lands and tribute that had supported the chanyu's authority. Han also restricted the flow of iron and salt to the northern tribes, which reduced the weapons available to the Mobei confederation. Han policy was therefore less a matter of open war alone than a sustained effort to starve the steppe of resources, and famine in 68 BC reportedly killed a large share of people and livestock, which further undermined the pastoral base.

The most visible fault line was succession. After Chanyu Xulüquanqu died in 60 BC, his widow Yanzhi Zhuangü joined with his younger brother Dulongqi to place the Right Wise King Tuqitang on the throne. Rivals soon contested the title, and by the time the tyrannical Woyanqudi Chanyu was killed in 58 BC, the already weakened confederacy had broken into several factions. Competing claimants held the title simultaneously during the Contention of the Five Chanyus. By 55 BCE the field had narrowed to two principal contenders, Huhanye and his brother Zhizhi, and the Chinese sources record that the rivalry was settled by force rather than by any stable procedure.

Huhanye's choice to submit to the Han court changed the balance decisively. Huhanye was defeated by Zhizhi in 51 BC. He fled south and submitted to the Han dynasty, travelling to Chang'an to meet Emperor Xuan, who allowed his people to settle in the Yinshan area. Dating varies among sources; some Chinese-derived accounts place the submission in 53 BCE. Emperor Xuan granted Huhanye a seal recognising him as chanyu, which turned his faction into a Han dependency. Zhizhi initially made a nominal submission as well, but he declared independence in 48 BC once he saw that the Han favoured Huhanye, and moved further west to attack Fergana and the Wusun. Huhanye returned north in 43 BCE, and the confederacy thereafter existed in two halves, usually described as Southern and Eastern on the one hand and Western or Northern on the other.

Zhizhi's western venture was the last major independent Xiongnu enterprise in Central Asia. He formed a marriage alliance with the rulers of Kangju near Lake Balkhash and brought his people westward, though only 3,000 people reached Kangju, and it is unclear whether this was the whole population or only fighting men. In alliance with Kangju he raided the Wusun, and later he forced the Kangju to build him a fortress on the Dulaishui River, possibly the Ili or Talas, while extracting tribute from Dayuan. The Chinese commandery authorities in the Western Regions judged this a threat of empire-building. In late 36 BCE, Gan Yanshou and Chen Tang led an expedition of roughly 40,000 men against the Xiongnu and their allies. The Battle of Zhizhi, fought between October and December 36 BC near Taraz, ended in a Han victory, and Zhizhi was the only Xiongnu chanyu killed by the Chinese. Chen Tang's head-count ratio, which equated one Han soldier with about five Xiongnu, is recorded as his own justification of the campaign.

The northern branch's later history is harder to follow. Its leadership was unstable from the start. Punu became chanyu in 46 CE after his brother died, at a time when the Xiongnu were suffering a severe drought and raids from the Wuhuan. In the years that followed, the Eastern Han court pursued a policy of lobbying among rival factions rather than launching full campaigns, but the split became permanent: the Xiongnu divided into Northern and Southern groups in 48 AD. The southern group, led by a chanyu installed in 48 CE, accepted Han suzerainty and later served as frontier auxiliaries against its former kin.

The northern Xiongnu continued to resist. In 89 AD, General Dou Xian led 50,000 cavalry on an expedition that decisively defeated the Northern Xiongnu's main force. In 91 AD, the Northern Chanyu was defeated at the Battle of the Altai Mountains, and the group fled west into Dzungaria. Chinese sources also describe a second wave of westward movement, in which the Xianbei rose on the Mongolian Plateau and the Northern Xiongnu migrated west again to Kangju, joining the remnants of Zhizhi's forces, and Kangju was pushed south into the Sogdiana region. Their harassment of Chinese frontiers continued sporadically until 151 AD, when a 4,000-strong Han militia was enough to defeat them, and they moved further into Central Asia and vanished from the historical record.

Written evidence therefore thins out sharply after the mid-2nd century CE. Later Chinese texts sometimes treat Kangju and Sogdiana together, which makes it difficult to identify who was who. Some scholars, noting that according to one theory the Huns, who first appeared on the southern Russian steppes about 370 CE, were descendants of these migrants, which links this section to the broader debate on Huns discussed elsewhere in this entry. Archaeology is the main route to what the written sources leave out. Burials and settlements in Transbaikalia, Tuva, the Semirechye region and Dzungaria have been assigned to Xiongnu-related populations on the basis of pottery, metalwork and burial rites. Attribution remains contested, however, and few sites can be dated closely enough to match specific events such as the 91 CE battle, so the northern branch's fate beyond the Chinese record is still reconstructed in outline rather than in detail.

Later Xiongnu Polities in North China

Han-Zhao and the collapse of Western Jin authority

The later Xiongnu regimes arose from the breakdown of Western Jin power in northern China during the War of the Eight Princes. Liu Yuan, a Xiongnu aristocrat who had spent his youth as a hostage in Luoyang, became thoroughly sinicized and held several posts under the Western Jin. As the War of the Eight Princes weakened Jin authority in northern China, Liu Yuan was called upon by the Five Divisions to lead their rebellion, and in late 304 he declared independence and founded the Han-Zhao dynasty. The support came from within the Xiongnu aristocracy: in 304, a plot led by the Xiongnu aristocracy broke away from the ruling Jin dynasty, and Liu Xuan, a member of the ruling Luandi clan, was among those who helped bring Liu Yuan to power.

The choice of name was deliberate. Liu Yuan presented his state as a successor to the Han, and his surname Liu and the title "King of Han" tied it to the imperial past. The claim to Han descent was later dropped by the Helian Xia state, which changed its family name in 413 to Helian, judging that a lineage through the Han maternal line was inappropriate. The Han-Zhao ruling house thus depended on Chinese legitimacy while keeping Xiongnu military strength at its core.

Governing a largely Chinese population

Han-Zhao adopted Chinese bureaucratic forms and filled them with a mixed elite. Liu Xuan became the first prime minister of the state and played an influential role in its administration. Xiongnu clans were tied to the dynasty through marriage, as with the Huyan clan, whose ties to Liu Yuan's family came through the marriage of Empress Huyan. Chinese-educated officials were also recruited. Chen Yuanda, a Xiongnu minister who had originally been known by a Chinese surname, was courted by Liu Yuan and accepted the office of Gentleman of the Yellow Gates.

The state also relied on non-Xiongnu commanders where the Xiongnu aristocracy was thin. When non-Xiongnu tribes in the Guanzhong region rose up against Liu Yao in 320, You Ziyuan, a general of tribal birth, helped him put the revolt down. This pattern shows that the regimes ruled through a layered system: Xiongnu lords held the highest offices, while Chinese administrators, frontier peoples and local commanders filled the rest. Sinicization here was a matter of institutional form and elite culture, not a simple replacement of one population by another.

Liu Yao and the shifting capitals

Liu Yao, a successor of Liu Yuan, marked the regime's greatest expansion. In 311 Liu Yao and Wang Mi sacked Luoyang and captured Emperor Huai of Jin, an event known as the Disaster of Yongjia. Chang'an fell in 316 after a siege, and the Western Jin emperor surrendered. Liu Yao then moved the capital from Pingyang to Chang'an in 318, and in 319 he renamed the state Zhao, a title later historians use to distinguish it as Former Zhao from the Later Zhao founded by Shi Le. The relocation of the capital to the old Han-Wei heartland of Guanzhong indicates how the regime sought to rule the core of the Chinese population from within its traditional political centre.

Decline and absorption

Former Zhao did not outlast Liu Yao's captivity. Shi Le's Later Zhao defeated Liu Yao in 329, and Liu Xi, Liu Yao's heir, and all Former Zhao princes and senior officials were killed, while the Xiongnu nobility in Luoyang was massacred and Chinese clans of Qin and Yong were moved to the Later Zhao capital. The Former Zhao dynasty came to an end at this point.

The Helian Xia state, founded by Helian Bobo in 407, shows a different path. Bobo's lineage was rooted in the Tiefu, a Southern Xiongnu group, and the state took its name from the Xia dynasty in the Chinese genealogy. Its capital at Tongwan was taken by the Northern Wei in 427, and Helian Ding was intercepted in 431 and captured, ending Hu Xia. The Northern Wei executed him the following year. One reference account describes the Northern Wei killing much of the Xia nobility and forcing survivors into settled life, though this is less well documented than the state's fall itself. A daughter of Helian Bobo later became an empress of the Northern Wei, which shows how Xiongnu royal families were absorbed into the Xianbei-led court.

Compared with the steppe confederation under the chanyu, these regimes were built on cities, bureaucracies and the control of farmland, and they claimed legitimacy through Chinese dynastic forms. Their rulers did not preserve a federation of nomadic tribes with its own annual assemblies and tributary system. Once they fell, their Xiongnu elites were absorbed into Chinese and Xianbei society, and the Xiongnu name ceased to designate an independent political body.

Huns, Migration Debates and Scholarly Controversy

The idea that the Xiongnu were the ancestors of the Huns, who appeared north of the Black Sea in the 370s CE, dates to the eighteenth century. The French orientalist Joseph de Guignes, in his five-volume Histoire générale des Huns (1756–1758), argued that the Huns of European sources and the Chinese Xiongnu were one people. His case rested mainly on the similarity of the names and on the political form of both groups, each of which was a confederation of many tribes under a supreme leader. He was writing political history rather than ethnology, and he did not claim a shared language or race. Edward Gibbon later popularised the identification in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and it became a long-lived assumption in European historiography.

Doubt followed quickly. J. B. Bury argued that the two names were merely similar, and in the nineteenth century scholars such as Julius Klaproth judged the resemblance to be the main reason for de Guignes's equation. Friedrich Hirth later argued that the Xiongnu had migrated westward to the Volga. In the mid-twentieth century the Sinologist Otto Maenchen-Helfen attacked the connection, and it largely fell out of favour. Objections have centred on three points. The first is chronology: Chinese sources last describe the northern Xiongnu intervening in the Hami and Turfan region in the early second century CE, and the gap to the Huns' arrival in Europe is usually given as about two centuries, or closer to three if the confederation's collapse around 100 CE is taken as the starting point. The second is language, since the Huns' own languages are poorly attested and the phonological route from Xiongnu to Hun has been questioned. The third is archaeology. Arguments that Hunnic cauldrons derived from Xiongnu examples, and that climatic cooling in the Altai drove migration, have not won wide acceptance, and the palaeoclimatic premise has been judged probably false. Xiongnu graves also differ markedly from those of the Hun period in Europe. Behind all of this lies a basic problem noted in the Chinese character for the name: the syllable reconstructed for 匈 in the fourth to sixth centuries CE resembles the European name, but whether this reflects kinship or coincidence cannot be decided on phonetic grounds alone.

Genetic work has since reopened the question. A 2025 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Gnecchi-Ruscone and colleagues analysed 370 ancient genomes from the Mongolian steppe, Central Asia and the Carpathian Basin, including 35 newly sequenced individuals and ten Hun-period burials with eastern features. Long shared DNA segments link some Hun-period individuals in Europe with high-ranking members of the late Xiongnu elite, one of them buried in an elaborate Xiongnu tomb. The same study found no evidence for a large community of eastern or steppe descent in the Carpathian Basin, and it describes the Hun-period population as highly diverse, which points to a mixed origin for the incoming conquerors. Its own authors frame the result as a patchwork of ancestries produced by mobility and interaction rather than mass migration. The methodological limits are substantial: the sampled individuals are few and mostly elite, the time span covers some eight centuries, and the Xiongnu confederation was itself genetically heterogeneous, with elite ancestry differing from that of retainers. Commentators have stressed that the descendants of the Xiongnu elite were a small minority among the Huns.

Linguistic arguments have also been renewed. Bonmann and Fries (2025, Transactions of the Philological Society) contend that Xiongnu and Hunnic speech reflect a single early form of Arin, a member of the Yeniseian family, a view first proposed in part by Lajos Ligeti and later developed by Edwin Pulleyblank and others. They point to Old Arin loanwords in Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic, to Xiongnu titles and glosses, to Hunnish personal names, and to river names along the Huns' presumed route of migration. The evidence is thin and depends heavily on reconstruction, because Xiongnu speech survives only through Chinese transcriptions of a few titles, names and glosses. The relationship between the Xiongnu language and Turkic, Mongolic, Iranian or an isolate therefore remains contested, and the Huns' affiliation is no less disputed.

The central question today is whether a Xiongnu connection means descent of a population, transmission of political institutions, or merely participation in a broader steppe culture. Political continuity, in which the Huns consciously presented themselves as heirs of the Xiongnu and borrowed their titles, can be argued on textual grounds without implying a large ethnic core. Ancient DNA suggests that a few elite lineages crossed over, but not that the European Huns were mainly Xiongnu. Other proposals, such as an earlier steppe population of Saka origin being absorbed into the Xiongnu, further complicate the picture. The term "Hun" was applied to many peoples, including the "Iranian Huns" and the Huna who invaded India, whose relation to one another is also disputed. For these reasons, the Xiongnu–Hun problem has no scholarly consensus, and the answer may differ according to whether a researcher is considering language, genes, political structure or material culture.

Archaeology, Historiography and Open Questions

Noin-Ula and the making of an image

The first large body of Xiongnu material came from Noin-Ula, a cluster of mounds in northern Mongolia. Pyotr Kozlov, who excavated there in 1924–1925, concluded that the graves belonged to the Xiongnu aristocracy, and one is associated with the ruler Wuzhuliu, who died in 13 CE. Because the chambers had flooded and then frozen, organic materials survived that rarely endure in steppe burials. The assemblage included silk and woollen fabric, fine embroidery, felt carpets, lacquer bowls, gold and silver articles, and parts of chariots and horse harness. Many silks were imported from Han workshops, which fits the view that these nobles received gifts from the Han court (see Han dynasty) directly from the Emperor's storeroom.

The site's influence has been uneven. Its finds were published early and were so rich that they defined the typical forms of Xiongnu art for decades. Later work has shown that this was too narrow: the Noin-Ula material alone cannot define Xiongnu art, since these people also worked stone, horn, wood, felt and especially bronze. Context was also damaged before scientific recording began. Earlier investigation by Ballod's team used amateur methods that limited what could be recovered. Tombs had been disturbed in antiquity as well, and one account describes royal graves being desecrated by new nomadic leaders. The result is that much of what is known about Noin-Ula comes from objects removed from their original positions, and the sequence of deposition in each grave is only partly recoverable.

Modern fieldwork, rock art and dating

Systematic work expanded after the 1920s. The Noin-Ula discovery renewed interest, and from 1928 onward several expeditions devoted to the Xiongnu were launched. Only in recent years have some Xiongnu sites in the Trans-Baikal area been thoroughly excavated. Modern projects have worked at cemeteries such as Gol Mod 2, where stratigraphic excavation combined with radiocarbon dating has been used to date artefacts more precisely. Recent work at Takhiltyn-khotgor and Shombuuzyn-belchir has also found small features outside the graves that point to ritual activity beyond the burial itself.

Radiocarbon dating has changed the chronology. One study of Mongolian burials reports that a burial at Khulkhiin Am dates between 46 BC and 5 AD, but it also warns that reservoir effects may skew results in bone dating. A later series of twelve dates suggests that Xiongnu-period artefacts may date from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE, and its authors argue that the archaeological culture labelled "Xiongnu" remains inadequately defined. The Burkhan Tolgoi cemetery illustrates the difficulty of attribution: its dates fit the confederation period, yet nothing at the cemetery definitively links it to the ethnic Xiongnu, and the same kind of grave type may have been used by several groups. A 2022 excavation at Ar Gunt, part of a Mongolian-Hungarian project, yielded more than 1,250 archaeological and zooarchaeological items, and its radiocarbon date places the burial in the 2nd century BC to 1st century AD.

Rock art poses a particular problem. The deer stones of Mongolia are Bronze Age monuments: they are carved with symbols and are associated with khirigsuur burial mounds, and their dates fall between about 1400 and 700 BCE. They therefore predate the confederation by centuries. Because archaeologists have not found human remains associated with deer stones, their interpretation rests on the carved imagery alone. Possible links to later belief are speculative: a sun cult may be connected with the sun and moon worship documented among the Xiongnu and Tujue, but the nature of these beliefs remains unclear.

Texts and finds

Chinese texts portray the Xiongnu in terms that archaeology complicates. One well-known passage claims that they had no towns, no settlements, and no agriculture. Excavated sites suggest a more varied economy: at one fortress, finds from dwellings and pits suggested agriculture, cattle-breeding, minting and fishing, with metalwork in iron, bronze and precious metals. Burial evidence also raises questions about social organisation. Analysts have argued that the archaeology of Xiongnu burials points to a highly structured society, more politically and economically complex than dependency theory suggests. The graves of the elite contain Han-style goods and possibly Han-inspired architecture, so it remains difficult to separate local custom from imported models. One survey notes that graves with stone settings above them are believed to belong to nobility and are comparatively unusual, and they may have been inspired by Han burial practice.

Questions about religion are especially hard to settle. The Chinese sources offer only brief and external descriptions, while the burial record yields objects and structures whose meanings must be inferred. Assigning a ritual function to a particular ornament, such as the silver plaques from burials containing chariots, has been proposed as a way of marking aristocratic status and protecting the dead, but such readings remain interpretations rather than established facts.

Open questions

Many basic matters remain unresolved. The confederation's origins are still debated; genetic work on Xiongnu-period burials has been informative, but only a subset of the known graves has been excavated and sampled, and the genetic evidence does not settle questions of language or political structure (see population genetics). Archaeologists continue to ask how far the burial record reflects the whole confederation and how far it reflects a narrow elite. The institutions that linked the chanyu to subordinate leaders, the reasons the confederation formed when it did, and the relationship between the northern and southern Xiongnu all require further excavation, improved chronology and closer reading of both Chinese and archaeological material.

References

1. Xiongnu - New World Encyclopedianewworldencyclopedia.org
2. Xiongnuen.wikipedia.org
3. Xiongnu - Wiktionary, the free dictionaryen.wiktionary.org
4. Chunweien.wikipedia.org
5. Xunyuen.wikipedia.org
6. Sima Qian’s Imperial Dilemmaoxfordandempire.web.ox.ac.uk
7. 1.8 Sima Qian, Shiji (Records of the Grand Scribe-Astrologer), ca. 95 BCEfanhan.org
8. Xiongnu languageen.wikipedia.org
9. Modu Chanyuen.wikipedia.org
10. Linguistic Evidence Suggests that Xiōng‐nú and Huns Spoke the Same Paleo‐Siberian Language - Bonmann - 2026 - Transactions of the Philological Society - Wiley Online Libraryonlinelibrary.wiley.com
11. RESEARCH ARTICLE Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentativecambridge.org
12. Toward the question of Yeniseian homeland in perspective of toponymystarlingdb.org
13. Did the Xiong-nu speak a Yeniseian language?researchgate.net
14. Did the Xiongnu Speak a Yeniseian Language? (Part 2: Reexamining the Lexical Evidence) - Permanent International Altaistic Conferencealtaist.org
15. Chanyuen.wikipedia.org
16. Luandien.wikipedia.org
17. Yenisei Kyrgyzen.wikipedia.org
18. Toumanen.wikipedia.org
19. Modu Chanyu（a Xiongnu Chanyu of the late Qin and early Han period）_Baiduwikibaike.baidu.com
20. Touman Chanyu_Baiduwikibaike.baidu.com
21. Laoshangen.wikipedia.org
22. Hu (people)en.wikipedia.org
23. Timeline of the Xiongnuen.wikipedia.org
24. Xiongnu（an ancient nomadic people of northern China）_Baiduwikibaike.baidu.com
25. Timeline of Mongolian historyen.wikipedia.org
26. Xiongnu: A Powerful Force on the East Asian Steppes - AloneReaders.comalonereaders.com
27. Yizhixieen.wikipedia.org
28. Tuqi Kingen.wikipedia.org
29. Huyanen.wikipedia.org
30. Xubuen.wikipedia.org
31. Political Role Played by Yanzhis in the Xiongnu Empire ...dergipark.org.tr
32. Huyandien.wikipedia.org
33. Empress Dowager Lou the Kingmaker: Succession, Marriage, Identity, and Politics in Northern Qi (550–577)cambridge.org
34. Fuzhulei Ruodien.wikipedia.org
35. Han dynastyen.wikipedia.org
36. Junchenen.wikipedia.org
37. Timeline of the Han dynastyen.wikipedia.org
38. Zhao Xin (general)en.wikipedia.org
39. Battle of Mayien.wikipedia.org
40. Battle of Mobeien.wikipedia.org
41. Markleyasianstudies.org
42. 4.7: The Silk Roads and the Xiongnu War - Humanities LibreTextshuman.libretexts.org
43. Ancient World History: Han Wudiearlyworldhistory.blogspot.com
44. The Xiongnudepts.washington.edu
45. The Xiongnu Agency and Its Political Economy Through ...atlantis-press.com
46. Iron age societies of Western Transbaikalia: Reconstruction of diet and lifeways - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
47. Xiongnu Confederationebsco.com
48. World History 1 - 5.2.2 Tribes, Confederations, and Settled Neighborselon.io
49. State Hermitage Museum :: Noin Ula |depts.washington.edu
50. The treasures of the Xiongnulisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de
51. CLOTHES FROM THE XIONGNU WARDROBE (Based on Finds from the Noin-Ula Burial Mounds)researchgate.net
52. NEOLITHIC ORDOS AND MONGOLIAfactsanddetails.com
53. (PDF) RE-MAKING ANIMAL BODIES IN THE ARTS OF EARLY CHINA AND NORTH ASIA: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE STEPPEresearchgate.net
54. Ordos cultureen.wikipedia.org
55. 5.6: Xiongnuhuman.libretexts.org
56. The Xiongnu gold from Noin-Ula (Mongolia) (@journal-aeae-en) - SciUp.orgsciup.org
57. Xiongnu burial complex: A study of ancient textiles from the 22nd Noin-Ula barrow (Mongolia, first century AD) - ScienceDirectsciencedirect.com
58. Huns - World History Encyclopediaworldhistory.org
59. (PDF) Hun (Xiongnu) Scythian Artresearchgate.net
60. (PDF) The Decline of the Xiongnu: Research on the Impact of Internal Division of the Xiongnu and the Strikes by Han Dynasty on the Decline of the Xiongnuresearchgate.net
61. Huhanyeen.wikipedia.org
62. Zhizhien.wikipedia.org
63. Battle of Zhizhien.wikipedia.org
64. Chen Tang (general)en.wikipedia.org
65. Punu Chanyuen.wikipedia.org
66. Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu Warsen.wikipedia.org
67. Kangju State_Baiduwikibaike.baidu.com
68. Zhizhibritannica.com
69. Southern Xiongnu_Baiduwikibaike.baidu.com
70. Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu warsen.wikipedia.org
71. Zhizhien.wikipedia.org
72. Liu Yuan (Han-Zhao)en.wikipedia.org
73. Liu Xuan (Han-Zhao)en.wikipedia.org
74. Xia (Sixteen Kingdoms)en.wikipedia.org
75. Huyan Yanen.wikipedia.org
76. You Ziyuanen.wikipedia.org
77. Timeline of the Jin dynasty (266%E2%80%93420) and the Sixteen Kingdoms (304%E2%80%93439)en.wikipedia.org
78. Liu Xi (Han-Zhao)en.wikipedia.org
79. Helian Dingen.wikipedia.org
80. Chen Yuandaen.wikipedia.org
81. Liu Baoen.wikipedia.org
82. Fall of Chang%27anen.wikipedia.org
83. Empress Helianen.wikipedia.org
84. Helian Dingen.wikipedia.org
85. Da Xia（a separatist regime established by Helian Bobo of the Xiongnu during the Sixteen Kingdoms period）_Baiduwikibaike.baidu.com
86. Origin of the Hunsen.wikipedia.org
87. Hunsen.wikipedia.org
88. Joseph de Guignesen.wikipedia.org
89. XIONGNU - Encyclopaedia Iranicairanicaonline.org
90. Ancient genomes reveal trans-Eurasian connections between the European Huns and the Xiongnu Empirepnas.org
91. Attila’s Huns were a motley crew of central European locals and East Asian immigrantsscience.org
92. Xiongnu / Hun / Arin. : languagehat.comlanguagehat.com
93. (PDF) Xiongnu and Huns: Archaeological Perspectives on a Centuries-Old Debate about Identity and Migrationresearchgate.net
94. Man In India, 95 (4): 93–108 © Serials Publicationsserialsjournals.com
95. UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Identifying the Huns and the Xiongnu (or Not):ucalgary.scholaris.ca
96. Chandman cultureen.wikipedia.org
97. Tasmola cultureen.wikipedia.org
98. Noin-Ula burial siteen.wikipedia.org
99. Opening of the exhibition An Archaeological Phenomenon. Between the Past and the Futurewebwire.com
100. Faces from the Pastscfh.ru
101. Untitled Documentxiongnu.atspace.com
102. Noin-Ula burial site — Grokipediagrokipedia.com
103. Noin-Ula burial site explainedeverything.explained.today
104. Archaeology of the Hsiung-nu in Russia - new discoveriessilk-road.com
105. (PDF) A Xiongnu Tomb Complex: Excavations at Gol Mod 2 Cemetery, Mongolia (2002-05)academia.edu
106. Stone lines and burnt bones: ritual elaborations in Xiongnu mortuary arenas of Inner Asiacambridge.org
107. (PDF) SEVEN RADIOCARBON DATES FOR XIONGNU BURIALS IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL MONGOLIAacademia.edu
108. (PDF) Twelve Radiocarbon Dates for Xiongnu sites in Mongoliaacademia.edu
109. Radiocarbon Dates from Northern Mongolia Item Type Article; text Authorsrepository.arizona.edu
110. Some results of the excavation of the xiongnu burial at Ar Guntmongoliajol.info
111. Deer stones cultureen.wikipedia.org
112. A Bioarchaeological lnvestigation of the Xiongnu Politydocs.lib.purdue.edu
113. The Rock Art of Inner Mongolia & Ningxia (China) by Paola Demattèbradshawfoundation.com
114. Institute of Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciencesmongolianarchaeology.academia.edu
115. Pyotr Kozloven.wikipedia.org
116. Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scalesscience.org
117. Sculpture of Mongoliaen.wikipedia.org
118. Slab-grave cultureen.wikipedia.org