Establishment of the first Hun state is also the first appearance of the culture of horseback migration in history.
Mounted nomads had dominated the steppe since at least the appearance of the Scythian tribes. Don't they count for something?
As far as I know the story of Scythians go back to only 7th and 8th century BC. So, Huns seem to be a little bit older. On the other hand, my initiation date for Huns (1400 BC) is highly disputable and indeed they became a significant power only after the 2nd century BC. Anyway, probably even Sumerians were a nomadic, horse-back culture who took their origins from Persian, Indian or maybe from Altaic tribes (for their language have some striking similarities with Altaic languages). So, I would better change this statement. I am planning to go on working this article (hopefully) in the future with some friendly help ErdemTuzun.
I would be very surprised if any relationship between Sumerian and Altaic speech was more than coincidental - as far as I know no proposal for a relationship between Sumerian and any other language has gained general acceptance. But that is neither here nor there. Regarding horses, the Sumerians were definitely not a horse-back culture since horses had yet to be domesticated at the time (they used oxen and onagers instead). I don't think that horses were ever used as mounts until the iron age. In short, antiquity of the Huns, whatever that may be, is not the same as antiquity of the Huns as a mounted group and I don't think the transition could have possibly taken place before around the time of the Scythians anyways.
You seem to be correct about the Scythians but probably the first mounted horses were used for warfare long before than we both presume: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115394&tocid=10301#10301.toc ErdemTuzun
I just came across this horse/Talk . The Sumerians did have four -wheel chariots drawn by onagers / asses. These asses looked like ponies and did not look like donkeys. They are shown on the "Standard of Ur" and it seem they were light colored. (Asen ,asier were nature 'god's of Germanic people . As was also the name of Roman money or coins .) H. Jonat
Your composition of five barbarians (Wu hu): Xiongnu, Hu, Tartars, Mongols and Turkics) was highly disputable. Actually I cannot clearly find out your exact composition so I prwsume the above was yours.
My questions are as follows: 1) The term Xiongnu or Hiung-nu was never used until 2/3 century B.C. (the establishment of Qin Dynasty)
Your paragraph partially explained by saying they were under various names (xian3 yun3) which may be regarded as partial answer to my question.
2) Mongols did not ever appear as a small group of tribes until early 9th century A.D. So your date of "5 barabrians occupation of China" was not even close.
Even if you changed to 9th century, the Mongols was still too weak to challenge Tang's authority of Northern China at the time.
3) Please explain more about Tartars and Turkics. Your usage of the words was too illusive. What tribes of the Tartars and/or Turkics invaded China at your timing of invasion? Your arguments were too weak.
4) If you really meant that the Huns inhabited northeastern China, persumably Manchuria, and Mongolia from 1000 BC to 6th cen. A.D., you was certainly wrong.
a) No Huns or any tribes with Hunnic blood was inhabiting the area since 2nd cen. A.d.
Either they moved out (like N. Xiongnu) or migrated south into Northern China (like S. Xiongnu). b) Manchuria was the motherland of Xianbei, Wuhuan and other tribes that could be considered as nominal ancestors of Manchus.
Xiongnu, only being recognized as the master of the steppes, never inhabited areas occupied by Xianpei and fellow tribes.
5) Answer to Establishment of the first Hun state is also the first appearance of the culture of horseback migration in history..
I agreed that Sumerians never were a horse-riding civilization; however some researches I have done showed that the first Hun state was not the first horseback state either.
The argument greatly depends on whether you considered Attila's state as the first Hun state. If you can define it more concisely, I may be able to help you. In other words, I need your timing of the first Hunnic state.
6) Even before 6th century the term Hu2 already meant non-Hunnic "barbarian tribes".
7) Seems like you interpreted Hu as barbarians but I can prove you that such an interpretation is wrong.
I don't want to be mean or anything but reading your paragraph provoked many second-guesses. I also don't mind helping you out on this article.