Lably
Skip to content

Donghu people

697–150 BCE nomadic confederacy in northern China

  • 12 min read
  • 4 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Nomad and Pastoral

Name

Nomenclature

The Classical Chinese name Chinese: 東胡 literally means "Eastern Barbarians". The term Dōnghú contrasts with the term Xīhú meaning "Western barbarians" (Chinese: 西胡, meaning "non-Chinese peoples in the west" and Five Barbarians 五胡 (Wǔ Hú) "five northern nomadic tribes involved in the Uprising of the Five Barbarians (304–316 CE)". Hill (2009:59) translates Xīhú as "Western Hu" and notes:

The term hu 胡 was used to denote non-Han Chinese populations. It is, rather unsatisfactorily, commonly translated as 'barbarian'. While sometimes it was used in this general way to describe people of non-Han descent, and carried the same negative overtones of the English term, this was not always the case. Most frequently, it was used to denote people, usually of Caucasoid or partial Caucasoid appearance, living to the north and west of China. (2009:453)

In 307 BCE, the 胡 Hú proper, encompassing both the eastern Dōnghú (東胡, "Eastern Hu") and the western Linhu (林胡, "Forest Hu"), were mentioned as a non-Chinese people who were neighbors of Zhao and skilled at mounted archery (a military tactic which King Wuling of Zhao would later adopt). However, the term Hu can also refer to a variety of different races and different ethnic groups. It was used by Han Chinese to describe anyone who is not of ethnic Han Chinese descent and were considered barbarians: for example, Sima Qian also used Hu to refer to the Xiongnu, who were then ruled by Touman Chanyu, once expelled by Qin general Meng Tian north from the Ordos Loop, yet able to regain their territory following the Qin Empire's collapse. All Hu workmen were famed for their skills at making bows and carts even without specialization.

The peoples categorized as the Five Barbarians, or "Five Hu", were the Xiongnu, Jie, Xianbei, Di, and Qiang. Of these five ethnic groups, the Xiongnu and Xianbei were nomadic peoples from the northern steppes. The ethnic identity of the Xiongnu is uncertain, but the Xianbei appear to have been Mongolic. The Jie, another pastoral people, may have been a branch of the Xiongnu, who may have been Yeniseian or Indo-Scythian. The Di and Qiang were from the highlands of western China. The Qiang were predominantly herdsmen and spoke Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burman) languages, while the Di were farmers who may have spoken a Sino-Tibetan or Turkic language. The traditional explanation, going back to the second-century Han dynasty scholar Cui Hao 崔浩 is that the Donghu were originally located "east of the Xiongnu" who were one of the "Five Barbarians" (Hú). Modern Chinese apologetics suggests that "Donghu" was a transcription of an endonym and did not literally mean "Eastern Barbarian".

The usual English translation of Dōnghú is "Eastern Barbarians" (e.g., Watson, di Cosmo, Pulleyblank, and Yu), and the partial translation "Eastern Hu" is occasionally used (Pulleyblank). Note that "Eastern Barbarians" is also a translation for Dōngyì 東夷, which refers to "ancient peoples in eastern China, Korea, Japan, etc."

Chinese Sinocentrism differentiates the Huáxià 華夏 "Chinese" and the Yì 夷 "barbarians, non-Chinese, foreigner": this is referred to as the Huá–Yì distinction. Many names besides Hu originally had pejorative "barbarian" meanings, for instance Nanman 南蠻 ("southern barbarians") and Beidi 北狄 ("northern barbarians"). Edwin G. Pulleyblank explains:

At the dawn of history we find the Chinese, self-identified by such terms as Hsia and Hua, surrounded and interspersed by other peoples with whom they were frequently in conflict and whom they typically looked down upon as inferior beings in the same way the Hellenes looked down on the barbaroi and, indeed, as human we-groups have always looked down on their neighbors.

The historian Nicola di Cosmo concludes:

We can thus reasonably say that, by the end of the fourth century B.C., the term "Hu" applied to various ethnic groups (tribes, groups of tribes, and even states) speaking different languages and generally found living scattered across a wide territory. Their fragmentation, however, could be turned, when the need arose, into a superior form of political organization (a "state"). This explains why hu appears often preceded by a qualifier that we may take for a specific ethnic group, as with the Lin Hu and the Tung Hu. Whether or not it had originally been an ethnonym, such a designation had been lost by the Warring States period.

In modern Standard Chinese usage hú has lost its original meaning although it still appears in words like èrhú 二胡 (lit. "two foreign") "Chinese two-string fiddle", hútáo 胡桃 ("foreign peach") "walnut", and húluóbō 胡萝卜 ("foreign radish") "carrot".

Etymology

The modern pronunciation Dōnghú differs from the Old Chinese pronunciation, which roughly dates from the Warring States period (476–221 BCE) when Donghu was first recorded. Old Chinese reconstructions of Dōnghú include *Tûngɣâg, *Tungg'o, *Tewnggaɣ, *Tongga, and *Tôŋgâ > *Toŋgɑ. William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart (2014) reconstruct the Old Chinese ancestor of 胡 Hú as *[g]ˤa. Recently, Christopher Atwood reconstructs a foreign ethnonym *ga, which was borrowed into Old Chinese as 胡 *gâ (> hú), while an i-suffixed derivative of *ga underlies two Middle Chinese transcriptions: namely,

  • *Bo-lâk Khėi (> Bùluò-Jī) (步落稽), based on the ethnonym of a people of Xiongnu, Mountain Rong or Red Di origins in Northern Shaanxi-Shanxi-Ordos; as well as
  • *Gʰiei, based on the ethnonym of the Mongolic-speaking Xī (奚), whom Arab geographers knew as Qāy.

The etymology of ethnonym *ga (> 胡 Old Chinese *gâ > Chinese hú) is unknown.

As for Qay, Golden (2003 & 2006) proposes several Mongolic etymologies: ɣai "trouble, misfortune, misery", χai "interjection of grief", χai "to seek", χai "to hew", albeit none compelling.

Some dictionaries and scholars (e.g. Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat) confuse Dōnghú 東胡 with Tungusic peoples, Tonggu 通古. Russian Mongolist Lydia Viktorova states that:

This is due to the insufficient amount of materials and partly due to the mistakes made. For example, the phonetic identification of the ancient people of the Donghu (Eastern Hu) with the Tungus, made at the beginning of the 19th century by Abel-Rémusat only on the principle of sound similarity between Donghu and Tungus. This led to the fact that for a long time all the descendants of the Donghu were considered the ancestors of the Tungus."

This "chance similarity in modern pronunciation", writes Pulleyblank, "led to the once widely held assumption that the Eastern Hu were Tungusic in language. This is a vulgar error with no real foundation."

Sign in to keep reading

3 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Ancient