The revise the paper of the Eurasian nomad history

1 The Political Organization of Steppe Empires and their Contribution to Eurasian Interconnectivity: the Case of the Huns and Their Impact on the Frankish West

HYUN /IN KIM

Comparative studies of Eurasian empires in general are without a doubt a

relatively recent phenomenon. The comparative analysis of the history and

political organization of Eurasian empires of the fourth and fifth centuries

CE in particular has never been seriously attempted. Yet. in these two cen - turies the various regions of the Eurasian continent China, Persia, India and

Rome, underwent a similar experience, the invasion and settlement of Inner

Asian peoples mostly called the Huns or Xiongnu. What was the impact of

this near 'global' phenomenon? Purely wanton destruction. as traditional

historiography has claimed. or was it the facilitation of interconnectivity,

interaction and impetus for political transformation? As Skaff in Chapter

2 and Adah in Chapter 3 of this volume also demonstrate clearly, it is now

time to abandon the false dichotomy of the supposedly 'incompatible: 'bar-

barian' nomads versus 'civilized: 'sedentary' peoples paradigm and begin to

appreciate the reality of 'entangled histories: 1 The history of Antiquity and

the so-called 'Middle Ages' could in fact arguably be described as the his-

tory of intense engagement and interaction between the Inner Asian world

and the peripheries of Eurasia (China, Europe, India and Iran),"

This chapter will argue that Inner Asian steppe empires and peoples

were the active facilitators of political innovation in Late Antique and

Early Medieval Eurasia. The quasi-feudal' (for want of a better term) sys- tem of political organization developed by Inner Asian peoples such as the

Xiongnu/Huns and the Scythians/Saka may have had a significant impact

on the political organization of the Tuoba Xianbei Northern Wei Empire

of Northern China, the later Sassaman Empire of Persia and the Frankish

Empire in Europe. Because of the lack of space available this chapter will

I Gould 2007: 766. 1 This chapter draws Inspiration from the contents and conclusionsof my two previous books on

the Huns: Kim2013; Kim2015. 15

16 Hyun lin Kim

focus specifically on the political organization of the Xiongnu/Huns'

and their impact on the development of incipient Frankish 'feudalism' in

Western Europe. In traditional historiography it has long been assumed (erroneously) that

Inner Asia, from which the Huns of Europe originated, was a region of pol-

iticallyand culturally 'backward' peoples.' The Huns were thought to be

politically 'primitive' with only rudimentary, if any at all, political organ-

ization in the mid-fourth century CE, when they first appear in our Greco-

Roman records, and culturally backward (whatever that implies), a savage

people with nothing to contribute to the development of European 'civiliza-

tion: This astonishingly flawed understanding of the political organization

of the Hunnic Empire and the culture of the Huns in general largely stems

from the partial acceptance and internalization of certain elements of the

pseudo-ethnography on the Huns found in the work of the contemporary

fourth century CE Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. Numerous

scholars in both Classics and Inner Asian Studies have repeatedly pointed

out that Arnrnianus' account of Hunnic society belongs in the category of

fairytales," It is most certainly not fact -based ethnography or history. Yet, the myth of the 'primitive Huns' has proven to be surprisingly enduring

both among the general reading public and even in academia," The fallacy of taking literally (or seriously) any of the fictitious descrip-

tions of the Huns in Amrnianus, has already been criticized and analysed in exhaustive detail by Maenchen -Helfen, Richter' and King. They have

proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Ammianus' 'ethnography' on

the Huns is based on much earlier Greco-Roman ethnography on steppe

nomads. It is definitely not an eye-witness description of the contemporary

) On the Hun-Xlongnu identification,see La Vaissiere 2005: 3-26. See also Kim 2U13: 26~9. for an extended summary of scholarship in support of the identification.

• For instance Kelly 2009. whose eng:lgingbook on the Huns, unfortunately uses the heading ":I backward steppe' as the title for one ofils chapters (17-28) .

5 Maenchen-Helfcn 1973: 9-15 ; King 1987: 77-95: Bona 1991 : 41; Barnes 1998: 95-6 ; Haussig 2000: 257;etc. Maenchen-Helfen was highly critical when discussing the accuracy of Ammianus' descriptions of the Huns. He, however, was still inclined 10believe that there was some historically valid information in Amrnlanus' pseudo -ethnography, This assessment is rlghtly rejected by King.

• Thompson 1948: 6-8; Heather 2009: 215-16 ; Halsa1l2007: 171 -2; and Matthews 1989: 332-42. 353. whose otherwise admirable works of scholarship have been led astray by the beliefin the essential accuracy of Ammianus' portrait of a primitive Hunnic political community. This view. however, cannot be substantiated and is due 10 the neglect of the latest scholarly research on Central Asian history and archaeologywhich clearlyshows that the Huns were a politic:llly and culturally sophisticated people. far removed from the wanton savagesthat they are portrayed 10 be in the p:lgesof Ammianus.

• Richter 1974: 343- 77.

TI,e Political Organization ofSteppe Empires

Huns and their political organization. There is therefore neither the need

nor the space here in this chapter to demonstrate yet again the error of

every detail of Ammianus' de scription in full. However, it is necessary to

address further the long-standing supposition, ultimately derived from

Arnmianus, that the Hunnic Empire, because of its origin in the so-called

'p rim itive steppe: was merely a 'primitive tribal society: which could not

have contributed anything to European political developments.

In current Inner Asian scholarship there is an unresolved debate on

how one should classify early steppe empires such as the Xiongnu (in early

Middle Chinese, possibly pronounced Hun-nu"), This debate is of par-

ticular importance because the Xiongnu provided the political model on

which the Huns and other Inner Asian peoples later built their empires and

states/proto-states. Although all Inner Asian specialists are in complete

agreement on the reality of the existence of impressive political complex-

ity within In ner Asian steppe empires, some argue that these Inner Asian

empires were sophisticated super-complex tribal confederacies with imper-

ial dimensions rather than actual 'supra -tribal' state entities," The weight of

the evidence, however, increasingly suggests that Inner Asian empires prior

to the rise of the Huns achieved what could be termed statehood or an early form of statehood.J()

That the Huns did not originate from a region mired in ' political back-

wardness' is amply demonstrated when we observe in greater detail the

political system of the famous Xiongnu. The Xiongnu and other Inner

Asians are frequently labelled nomads (a more accurate designation would

be hybrid agro-pastoralists). This categorizat ion as nomads, however, is

an error, if we are equating nomadism with decentralization and absence

of political order. The Xiongnu and other so -called ' n om ad ' polit ies pos-

sessed fixed territorial boundaries and excellent organizational capacity.

For the se 'nomads' regular movements under the controlof an authorita-

tive leadership and corresponding organization was essential for the sur-

vival of their community in a very fragile ecological environment and

this necessity eventually contributed to the formation of tightly organized

state entities capable of controlling vast territories in the steppes and adja- cent regions. I I

• Golden 2009: 83. • Kradin 2002; 20I I. • Krader 1978: 93-108; Di Cosmo 2011 : 44-5 . For discussion on what constitutcs nn 'early state;

see Claessen and Skalnik 1978: 22-3 and :1150 Scheidel 2011: 114. See also Khazanov 1984. I I See Barfield 1981 : 59; Tapper 1991: 525; Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2006: 255-78, in

particular 262.

17

18 Hyun lln Kim

This Inner Asian political model, for want of a better term, has been

called quasi -feudal." It was a hierarchical system concentrating power in

the hands of an emperor called the Shanyu/Chanyu (f(l T, dan-wa, repre- senting darywa in Early Middle Chinese)." The central government, which

the Shanyu/Chanyu headed, was in practice run by elite officials called

the Gudu marquesses, who had the responsibility of managing relations

between the central government and provincial governments within the Xiongnu Empire. To the East and West of the central government there

were two preeminent kings (representing the two principal Wings of the

empire in a dual system 14), the Wise King of the Left (ruler of the East with orientation to the South, usually the heir to the throne) and the Wise King

of the Right (ruler of the West). Ranking right below these two kings were

the Luli kings of the Left and Right, who together with the Wise Kings

administered the four main subdivisions of the Xiongnu Empire. The four

kings (the sons and brothers of the reigning emperor) constituted the so-

called four horns and each was supported by his own administrative bur-

eaucracy," There were also six further kings labelled the six horns. They

were the Rizhu kings of the Left and Right (titles also held exclusively, at

least initially, by the sons and younger brothers of the Shanyu), Wenyuti

kings of the Left and Right, and the Zhanjiang Kings of the Left and Right."

The Xiongnu Empire also possessed twenty -four major provinces or gov-

ernorsh ips controlled by the twenty-four imperialleaders/ministers called

'Ten thousand Horsemen: 11 These leaders usually consisted of members of

the imperial clan and nobles of the three Xiongnu aristocratic clans. IS For

Il de Crespigny 1984; 178; Pritsak 1954a: 239. II Pulleyblank2000:64. •• Kradin 2011:93 argues that there was originally a tripartite administrative system within the

Xiongnu Empire that gradually evolved into a dual system. U The four kings are called 'horns' in the Hou Hans/lit, a Chinese source compiled in the fifth

century CE recording the history of the Later Han Period (25-220 CE). See also Kradin 2011 : 89; Christian 1998: 194;de Crespigny 1984: 176-7. The four superior kings reappear in later Hunnic contexts and are found among the Volga Bulgars(Hunnic descendants in Europe). See Pritsak 1954b:379. The institution is also found among the Gokturks who ruled Inner Asiaafter the demise of the Huns and the Rouran Khaganate , see Pritsak 1954c: 186.

I. HOIl HaIlS/III 79. 2944. See also Kradin 2011:92, and de Crespigny 1984: 177.Mori 1973: 22-3, argues that the six horns were added to the Xiongnu political system well after 97 BCEand was a feature specific to the Southern Xiongnu and not the original Xiongnu Empire. His view has been Widely criticized and is based on the observation that these titles do not appear In the earlier Siliji. Lessproblematic is his observation (30-1) that the officeof Rizhu kings was later transferred from members of the imperial dan to those of aristocratic Huyan dan who were related 10 the Chanyus by marriage. See also Brosscder and Miller 2011:20.

•, See Kiirsat-Ahlers 1994: 276. Ishjamts 1994: 158; Kollautzand Miyakawa 1970: 44.

The Political Organization ojSteppe Empires

the government of the more distant regions under the suzerainty of the Xiongnu, e.g. the oasis cities of the Tarim basin, the Xiongnu allowed local

rulers who had submitted to retain their positions under the supervision of

the Xiongnu 'Commandant in charge of Slaves: This overseer was himself

placed under the supervision of the Xiongnu Rizhu king and as the head of

both the civil and military administration of the locality had the power to tax local city-states and to conscript corvee labour,"

At the bottom of this highly complex administrative hierarchy there were subordinate tribal leaders who were issued titles such as sub-kings, prime

ministers, chief commandants, household administrators. chu-ch'u officals,

and so on. They were placed under the rule of major Xiongnu governors, but could also at times exercise a degree of local autonomy, provided they

efficiently collected their due taxes for the Xiongnu government.20 A system

of decimal ranks (thousands, hundreds, tens) was used to mobilize troops

under a single command structure during times of war," and censuses were

also taken to determine the empire's reserve of manpower and livestock."

A replica of this earlier highly elaborate political system is later found

among the Huns in Europe in the fourth and fifth centuries CEo The Xiongnu

system of appointing sub-kings under the authority of a paramount ruler is

also a feature of the Hun system ofgovernment in Europe. We can note that

king Uldin, the first Hunnic ruler to be named by our Greco-Roman sources,

was a regulus (sub-king) and according to Olympiodorus the Hunnic sub- king Donatus was a vassal of his overlord 6 TWV PT1YWV lI'pWTO') (the first of

the kings) Charaton." The strict hierarchy that characterized the Xiongnu

system discussed above was likewise the dominant feature of the Hun sys-

tem. We learn that in one of the Hunnic subdivisions in the Ukraine, the

Akatzirl, their leader Kouridachus, who was senior in office (lI'pea~UTepov

OVTO Tn apxn). was given his gifts second by the Roman ambassador by

mistake. This was interpreted as a slight and denying Kouridachus the hon -

ours due to his rank (eli KeTO Ta~tv).24 Later Attila the Hun appoints his

eldest son Ellac as overlord of this rebellious eastern subdivision." Ellacs

,. Yii 1990: 127-8 . :D Barfield 1981: 48-9 . I I Barfield1981: 49. For archaeological evidence of this highly sophisticated social hierarchy

among the Xiongnu, see Honeychurch and Arnartuvshin 2006:264-5. See also Kiirsat·Ahlers 1994: 289-90 . for the importance of Xiongnu military organization in the formation of Xiongnu political administration.

" Christian 1998: 194. " Olymplodorus fro19 (Bibl. Cod. 80, 173), Blockley1983: 182. : . Priscus, fro 11.2, Blockley 1983: 258. :< Ibid.

19

20 Hyun /in Kim

appointment to rulership over the Akatziri incidentally also shows the old Xiongnu practice of giving key 'fiefs? provinces to members of the royal family.26 The Hunnic Empire disintegrated after the death of Attila because

of an unresolved dispute between Attilas heirs over the distribution of these

'fiefs:27

Dualism, representing the two wings (Left and Right or East and West) of the steppe imperial system," which we have already noted as a key feature of Xiongnu political organization, was also a characteristic feature of the Hunnic Empire. The Hun king Ruga is known to have ruled together with his brother Oktar. According to the Getica (35.180), germani Octaret Roas, qui ante Attilam regnum tenuisse narranturP The brothers were followed in the Hunnic kingship by their nephews Bieda and Attila." Attila, once he attained supreme power, also apportioned the East to his son Ellac in the familiar dual system. Priscus calls Attila the praecipuus Hunnorum rex, the high king of the Huns," which points to the existence of other Hunnic sub- kings under his rule. In the 460s CE during the brief restoration of Hunnic rule along the Danube we again see two rulers, Dengizich and Ernakh (the sons of Attila in the West and East respectively). The so-called 'Bulgar' suc- cessors to the Hunnic Empire in the Pontic steppes also had two wings, the Kutrigurs in the West and the Utigurs in the East, ruled, according to their foundation legend recorded in Procopius, by the two sons of a dynastic

founder, presumably Brnakh." Of particular interest also is the group of high-ranking officials in the

Hun hierarchy whom Priscus calls the logades. This group included men such as Onegesius, the 'grand vizier: Edeco, the Hunnic ruler of the Sciri and Berik 'the ruler of many villages in Scythia' due to his noble birth."

These officials were clearly the equivalent of the Gudu marquesses and

10 Seealso Pritsak 1954a: 240. " Prlscus fro 25 (Jordanes Gctita 50. 259-63 ), Blocklcy 1983: 319-21. The word 'fief' is a loaded

term which means differentthings for different hlstorians.See Reynolds 1994: 12.48-74 . For the sake of convenience, the lerm ' fief' is used here as a synonym for appanage and grants of largeterritories by the king to his close vassals.

;. Findley2005: 33. :. SeeCroke 197i: 353. and Bona 1991; 50. J" Sinor 1990: 188; Croke 1981 : 160, 164. ) 1 Priscus fro 24. Blackley 1983: 318. S} Procopius8. 5.1-4. See Golden 1992: 103. for an excellent discussion on the Bu!gar prince

list. which featuresAttilaand Ernakh as the founding ancestorsof the Bulgars (includingthe Kutrigurs and Utigurs).

)) Priscus,fro13. Blockley 1983: 284. Againindicativeof the Hunnic practice of distributing 'fiefs' to royal family members and top ranking noblesas among the earlier Xlongnu, See also Thompson 1996: 181,and Demougeot 1979: 533. 541 -2 .

The Political Organization of Steppe Empires

the twenty-four governors of the Left and Right (Lords of Ten Thousand Horsemen), which we have seen in the Xiongnu system. This is confirmed

by the fact that these /ogades in different stages of their career functioned as ambassadors and communiques" to vassal tribes (Onegesius for instance was sent to the Akatziri to supervise the appointment of Ellac as the over- lord of that tribe, Edeco to negotiate with the Eastern Roman govern- ment in Constantinople"). As among the Xiongnu the Huns also assigned key military commands to members of their royal family, e.g, Basich and Kursich, who commanded an expedition against Sassanian Persia in the 420s CE.36 The name or rather the title ofone of these Hunnic nobles is tell-

ing, Ernmedzur, which is a Latinized corruption of Hunnic amacur, 'horse lord: This of course must be a reference to the Xiongnu title for governor,

'lord of ten thousand horsemen:" Priscus also helpfully notes that there was a strict regulated hierarchy

among the logades. This is revealed through the distinctly Inner Asian seating arrangements during the state banquets organized by Attila for his vassals and the visiting Roman ambassadors. Onegesius and Berik, both important logades, according to Priscus, were seated to the right and left of the Hunnic king respectively. However, Onegesius, who outranked Berik in the Hunnic hierarchy, sat to the right of the king, which was the position of honour. The right, denoting the East with orientation towards the north, always had precedence over the left (West) in steppe political systems" and

this passage of Priscus confirms that the same organizational arrangement was in existence among the Huns in the fifth century CEo Members of the royal family who ranked even higher than the logades, e.g. Oebarsius, the paternal uncle of the king, and Eilac, the king's eldest son (presumably the equivalent to the Xiongnu Wise Kings of the Left and Right), were seated

in conspicuous positions of honour right next to the king himself on the same couch. J9

,. Fordiscussion on similar functions (diplomatic missionsand militaryassignments) performed by Xiongnugovernors/sub-kingsdispatchedby the central government.see Prusak 1954c: 194.

)S Priscus fro11.Blockley 1983: 258. M> Blackley 1983: 386. 31 Altheim 1959. Vol. I: 27. )II The Muslimgeographer Ibn Fadlan(922CE) notes that the Khazars and the Volga BuIgars

(descendentsof the Huns) also held the right (East)as the place of honour. The most important princes were thus seated 10the right of the ruler in ceremonialsettings, as in the Hunnic context. See Yelidi Togan 1939: 43, 212. See also Pritsak 1954b: 379.

J. Priscus fro 13. 14, Blockley 1983: 284,290.Theselogades wereclearlynot random selections of men. but are probably identical with the ranked graded-officials of the Xiongnu.This is confirmed by the later East Roman/Byzantl ne usage of the same term to describe graded- officials within the AvarEmpire that succeededthe Huns. see Poh11988: 186.

21

22 Hyun lin Kim

The Huns thus possessed a governmental apparatus of the Inner Asian variety, significantly different from the more rudimentary political organ - ization found among the contemporary Germanic confederacies, possess -

ing a tighter political command structure, precise ranks among government officials and allocation of clearly defined roles to subject peoples." In this regulated Inner Asian empire taxes and tribute were also regularly collected by, presumably, the lower-ranking officials under the direction of the loga - des and the central government. Taxes usually seem to have been collected in the form of agricultural produce of various kinds from the empire's sed -

entary agrarian subject population." We have thus noted that the Huns had their equivalent ofthe Xiongnu dual

kingship, Gudu marquesses, Lords of Ten Thousand Horsemen, system of taxation and elaborate hierarchy. It is also highly probable that they likewise possessed the above-mentioned Xiongnu political institutions of the four horn kings and six horn kings," We have already noted earlier that in Volga Bulgaria. founded by a branch of the Bulgars (later Huns). there were four pre-eminent sub -kings, the equivalent of the old Xiongnu four horn kings representing the four main sub-divisions of the Empire, who sat to the right of the supreme ruler," Although there is no direct evidence that the Huns possessed this institution, given the fact that they are shown to have retained many of the other aspects of the old Xiongnu political system. it is almost cer- tain that they too possessed their own version of the four horn kings.

The evidence for the existence of the six horn kings among the Huns is more substantial. In the Xiongnu Empire these six horn kings consisted of members of the royal family (Xulianti) and other select aristocrats (usually those linked to the imperial family by marriage) from three other high- ranking noble families. the Huyan, Lan and Xubu (later also the Qiulin clan)." When rendered in Turkic this institution would have been called Alti (common Turkic, six) cur (nobles). In the Greek transliteration this was rendered Oultlzouroi" in the Hunnic context. The institution would

'" Burns 1984: 46-7.189. 'I Chelchal,a Hun in Roman service during Dengizichs invasionof the Roman Empire in thc

late 460s CE vividlydescribes this Hunnic practice of tax/tnbute collection to the Goths in the Hunnic army.The unpleasant memory of these tax collectionsdrives the Goths to mutiny against their Hunnic officers, Priscus fro49. Blockley 1983: 356.

.. See Ishjamts 1994: 158.for a description of the six horn nobles. See also de Crespigny 1984: 177.

•, Pritsak 1954b: 379. .. Ishjamts 1994: 158; de Crespigny 1984: 77. .. Referred10 as a tribe in Agathias 5.11.2.Frendo 1975: 146. It is. however. likelyto be a

reference not to a specifictribe. but to tribes led by the six lords. See Altheim 1959. Vo!. I: 27.

-

TIle Political Organization of Steppe Empires

later evolve into the College of six boliades (boyars/nobles) in the Danubian Bulgarian Empire formed by Hunnic descendants."

The transfer ofXion gnu political practices from Inner Asia to the Huns in Europe is remarkable enough. However, we discover that a very similar pol- itical system is also found among the Franks of Western Europe under the

famous Merovingian dynasty (ca. 450-752 CE), whose kingdoms/empire absorbed the Gallic territories of the former Western Roman Empire and the western Germanic territories of the Hunnic Empire. The Hunnic sys- tem of 'fief' allocation to royal family members. division of the patrimo- nial inheritance (the kingdom/empire) among royal heirs, the gradation of rank among nobles and territorial/tribal lords, and the allocation of polit- ical office based on these ranks, is very similar to the system found among the Merovingian and Carolingian Franks, who also divided their realm into territorial kingdoms for royal heirs and into smaller counties which were distributed to a class of ranked military nobles." This can hardly be a coincidence.

Among the Franks we observe the entrenchment of the Inner Asian con- cept of rulership, quite alien to Western Europe before the arrival of the

Huns. Inner Asian political entities were distinguished by their strict obser- vance of the dynastic principle buttressed by the concept of the sacred, legitmizing, hereditary charisma of the ruling dynasty. The concept is found among the earlier Xiongnu (whose ruling dynasty lasted well over 500 years) and also in the Rouran Khaganate (Avars (?) in Mongolia. whose ruling house lasted for ca. 200 years) which co-existed with the Huns (Wei

Shu 103.2294=Bei Shi 98.3255). The Bulgars who succeeded the Huns in Europe also likewise in the old Inner Asian manner stressed the sacred, divine origins of their ruling dynasty," The Merovingian Franks, whose kingdom was probably established with Hunnic military aid," Similarly

Another variant of this name is found in Iordanes in his referenceto the Hunnic tribes north of the Black Sea. the Altziagiri(Gctica 5.36-3 7). See also Moravcsik 1958.Vol. 2: 230. for discussion.The author of this chapter has argued in his 2013and also his 2015 publications that the oulti/oult (a commonly found element in Hunnlc names during the fifth and sixth centuries CE) of names such as Oullizouroi and Uld-In was an Oghuric Turkic variant of the common Turkic word for number six.This Is an error and he now seeks to correct this mistake here. As the variant transliteration Altziagirishows, Oultizouroi was In all likelihoodjust an imprecisetransliteration by Greco -Roman writers of Alticur.See Haussig 2000:277. Constantine Porphyrogenltus, De Cerimoniis Aulae ByzarrtillQc, 2.47. See also Haussig 2000: 277. .

., See Bloch 1961: 394-5 . For the divisionof the dynastic patrimony among Carolingian heirs, see Nelson 1995: 110-2 7. See Khazanov 2001: 4- 5: Krader 1958: 79: Srepanov2001: 17.

... See Kim 2013: 81-3. for a detailed discussion on the Hunnic involvementin the enthronement and rise to power of Chllderic, the father of Clovis.

23

24 Hyun lin Kim

emphasized the legitmizing sacred charlma of their 'long-haired kings'"

who traced their lineage to the founding kings Childeric and Clovis. The Franks, like the Inner Asian Huns and Turco-Mongols, showed an

astonishing attachment to this dynastic principle," in sharp contrast to the Romans and earlier Germanic tribal confederacies, among whom the dyn- astic principle was never fully established or even accepted. So-called dyn- asties in the Roman Emp ire for instance never lasted for more than three or four generations at the most. As a matter of fact, right up to the sixth century CE an imperial house ruling for even just three or four generations was highly exceptional by Roman standards. Most 'dynasties' lasted barely two generations. In contrast the Merovingian dynasty armed with the Inner Asian var iety of legitimacy and dynastic principle (suitably buttressed by newly adopted Christian ideas of legitmacy also) maintained their rule for

an astonishing 300 years. Instead of the old Germanic confederacy in which virtually independ -

ent and largely equal petty kings and ch iefs of different dynastic lineages regularly defied the authority of the judge or over-king (who exercised greater power than his peers only during emergencies and times of war), in Frankish Europe we find a mu ch stronger, regulated kingship, " which is confined to a single dynasty, and an elaborate hierarchy of the steppe Inner Asian sort where the supreme ruler reigns in conjunction with his brothers (in some instances also male cousins) in a collective system with a clearly stratified ranking system for subordinate, inferior sub-kings and dukes. Thus in exactly the same way as among the Huns, the Frankish kings allo- cated major 'fiefs' to their brothers and cousins who together partitioned the royal realm/patrimony," but at the same time man aged to maintain the

principle of the unity of the dynastic state." After the death of Ch llderic, the dynastic founde r, we begin to see this

principle being applied in practice. Clovis, Childerics yo ung heir, did not immediately start ruling all of his father 's patrimony, but found himselfshar- ing the rule of the Franks with three other kings, a total of four: Sigibert (a relative, King of the Ripuarian Franks), Chararic and Ragnachar (a cousin

of Clovis who ruled at Carnbrai) . Just like Attila before him Clovis had to

eliminate his relatives and allies to seize supreme power accord ing to th e

Van Dam 1999: 205 -6. ~ Fouracre 1999: 387. 395 : non-Merovingian usurpations of the throne weresimply

unacceptable to the Frankish aristocracy for almost 300 years. '1 Oosten 1996: 222-3 . Hummer 1998: 12. accurately points out that this new form of kingship

among the Franks was triggeredby influences from the Eurasian steppes. S) Ganshof 1971: 88-9: Kaiser 1993: 68 - 7 1. '" Geary 1988: 117.

TIle Political Organization of Steppe Empires

principle of Inner Asian tanistry," After this bloodletting, the notion of an undivided Merovingian dynastic state would remain intact despite repeated partitions that followed the death of every prominent king . This is of course clearly reminiscent of the same phenomenon found in Inner Asian states such as the Xiongnu and the Hunnic Empire described earlier.

The division of the realm into two main wings and also four constituent parts, an old Inner Asian political practice (recall the dualism and four main sub-divisions of the Xiongnu Empire discussed earlier), is repeated time

and again in Merovingian history. The Merovingian kingdom in exactly the same way as the steppe empires of Inner Asia had two main wings/divi- sions, initially the Salian and Ripurian, then later with territorial adjust- ments Neustria and Austrasia (a dual system). Later Burgundy was added to the mix as the third regnum . However, Burgundy was soon combined with Neustria to re-establish the dual structure (Aquitaine was also at times governed separately as a fourth kingdom, but in a subordinate position)." What is revealing is the fact that wherever Inner Asians are found in any substantial numbers, this mode of governing/partitioning the realm was practised with regularity. For instance in the Alan (Inner Asian) dominated tribal confederacy that conquered Roman Spain in the first quarter of the fifth century CE, the realm was in the familiar Inner Asian manner divided into four territorial sub -divisions. The dominant Alans were allotted the

largest and most important share, nearly half of Spain consisting of the old Roman provinces of Lusitania and Carthaginensis. The Siling Vandals were given the province of Baetica, The Suebi and the Hasding Vandals were each

given half of Gallaecia, creating four subdivisions."

That none of the above was an accident or Simply a coincidence is shown by what happens at the death of the ruthless Clovis in 511 CEo The Frankish

kingdom is again divided among his four sons ." This was not simply because Clovis happened to have four surviving sons. Rather what we are seeing is a structural imitation of Inner Asian state organization. This is shown clearly

by yet another partition which occurs after the death of Clovis' last surviv- ing son Chlotar I in 561 CE.s~ Again the Frankish realm was divided into

four parts." Despite these partitions, however, the dynastic state was still regarded by the Franks, as among the Huns and other Inner Asians, as a

" See James 1988: 88-91. and Perinand Peffer 1987. Vol. 1: 159-60. for Clovis' brutal elimination of his rivals and kin. Seealso Van Dam 1999: 197-8.

S<o Geary 1988: 157; Goetz 2003: 326; VanDam 1999: 203. l' SeeArce 2003: 138-40. s. Bachrach 1972: 18; Kaiser 1993: 28: Wood 1994: 50; VanDam 1999: 99. ~ James 1988: 171. t~ Wood 1994: 56.

25

26 Hyun lin Kim

single entity." This enabled the periodic ' reunification' or rather central- lzation of power within the dynastic state under the authority of a particu- larly assertive and strong ruler such as Chlotar II in 613 CE.62 The Franks

also utilized the Hunnic/ Inner Asian practice of appointing sub-kings and regularly distributed 'fiefs' to members of the royal family and high ranking nobles, By way of example King Dagobert I, who like Chlotar II united the Frankish realm under his authority. before he became the supreme Frankish king was himself a sub-king. In 629 CE Dagobert would appoint or rather concede the appointment of his half-brother Charibert II (629-32 CE) as

sub -king of a part of Aquitaine." This Inner Asian system ofgovernance was continued by the Carolingians

who in the eighth century CE displaced the 300-year-old Merovingian dyn- asty as the new ruling house of the Franks. The great Charlemagne in 781 CE, following what was by then established Frankish tradition, appointed his two younger sons Louis and Pepin sub-kings of Aquitaine and ltaly.64 In exactly the same fashion as in the earlier Xiongnu and Hunnic empires, less important 'fiefs' and buffer zones between the core Frankish territor- ies and the lands controlled by foreign powers were allocated to Frankish dukes who ranked below the royal sub-kings. These dukes controlled more distant territories such as Bavaria, Thuringia. Rhaetia, Provence and some - times also Aquitaine." Thus, the Frankish political system was likely to have been a conscious imitation of the preceding Inner Asian state model, described above, which was imported into Europe by the Huns and other

Inner Asians such as the Alans. Some might disagree with this analysis and argue that the Franks were

not imitating Inner Asian practices, but rather they had simply inherited from the Romans the model of the tetrarchy attempted during the reign of Diodetian (284-305 CE) or the Franks were drawing on the subsequent Roman model of the four praetorian prefectures ." Such arguments are, however, dearly unsustainable, since the specific, characteristic features of

the Frankish system, as demonstrated above, clearly align it with the pol-

itical systems found in Inner Asia rather than with the proposed Roman models . The tetrarchy in the Roman Empire was a one-off experiment that ultimately failed after just two decades, and was then hastily abandoned.

.. Geary 1988: 117.

., Sec Widdowson 2009: 3. Schutz 2000: 183-4. and Lasko 1965: 213. 0' Wickham2009 : 116-19. '" Grierson 1965: 290: Ganshof 1971: 278; McKitterick 1983: 53. 0' Geary 1988: 118-19; James 1988: 105-6: Wood 1994: 159-64; McKillcrick 1983: 17-18.23. .. For instance. see Geary 1988: 95.

The Political Organization ofSteppe Empires

The system of prefectures is also clearly different in nature from the Merovingian dynastic partitions. Both the Roman tetrarchy and the system of prefectures were innovations attempted by the Roman state primarily to

resolve critical administrative problems faced by the empire during Late Antiquity. The Merovingian territorial divisions in contrast were not caused primarily by administrative concerns, but rather by the necessity of provid- ing 'fiefs'/territories to royal heirs according to the very Inner Asian laws of dynastic succession. In Inner Asia any legitimate male heir of the ruling dynasty was entitled to his share of the patrimony (the dynastic state). This necessitated the constant division of territory to satisfy potential heirs and also precipitated struggles over the extent and value of individual shares of the dynastic inheritance, which is exactly what we find happening among the Franks under the Merovingians. The Franks were thus following Inner Asian dynastic precedents, not Roman administrative innovations.

This is made even clearer when we observe how territory was distrib- uted to royal heirs . In the event of a partition Frankish kings and sub-kings usually assigned major former Roman administrative centres as the pri- mary residences of royal power," However, larger Roman administrative

divisions and Roman provincial boundaries were completely ignored when it came to demarcating and determining the boundary, extent and size of the various territories and sub-kingdoms distributed to contending heirs." This implies that Roman administrative norms and precedents were not the key factor in determining the nature and extent of territorial divisions.

What mattered was the comparative value of urban centres and population groups allotted to the specific groups of heirs, which, as in Inner Asian pol - ities, would determine who among the kings had seniority and whether the distribution was 'fair' or 'unfair' to those involved in the dynastic partition.

What is more, the Frankish practice of distributing smaller and less import- ant territorial 'fiefs' to relatives of the royal family and also graded members

of the high nobility, despite the use of familiar Roman titles such as dux and comes by sources writing in Latin, is definitely Inner Asian inspired, and has simply no equivalent in the Roman tradition.

.., Geary 2002: 136; Van Dam 1999: 209. y Kaiser 1993: 28. • VanDam 1999: 209. See also Fouracre1999: 374 -5. 385. and Van Dam 1999: 212. 2 18. for

discussionon the relationshipbetween the Frankish central government (i.e. the kings) and the aristocracy. how aristocraticfief-holders were tied to the dynasty by an inherent conservatism and dedicalion 10 the dynastic principle.and how the person of the king was associated with military leadership.distribution of prestigegoods and privileges. legitimacy of land entitlements. and guaranteeof noble status. This systemis highly reminiscentof the relationshipbetween the kings and their military aristocracyin Inner Asianempires.

27

28 Hyun lin Kim

Also noteworthy is the fact that the oath of loyalty of the vassals to the

king that characterized the Merovingian political order and, equally, later

'feudal' Europe which arose out of the 'proto-feudal' Frankish system of

governance, had precedents in the Hunnic Empire where sub-kings and

major vassals were required to swear an oath of loyalty and allegiance to

the supreme Hun Klng." Other similarities between the Frankish state and Inner Asian polities abound. The annual Frankish assemblies," where the

rank and file of the Frankish army and the military nobility of the kingdom

in the presence of the king/kings discussed critical issues relating to for-

eign policy and also attended to legal disputes, closely resemble the Inner

Asian Turco -Mongol assemblies like the Kuriltai where key foreign pol-

icy issues, the all important matters of dynastic succession and legal issues were debated and decided. The Frankish practice of tribute-collection from

subjugated peoples and vassal states, e.g. from the Lombard kingdom in

Italy, the Saxon tribes in Germany and the Galle-Roman inhabitants of the

core Frankish lands," in lieu of more direct taxation of the Roman sort,

may also be partially the result of the influence of the Inner Asian model of

tributary empires." Furthermore, the Frankish institution of the missi regii closely resembles the functions of the Hunnic logades mentioned earlier in the chapter, "

Naturally, the impact of pre-existing Roman administrative structures on

the Merovingian Frankish state must also be considered in order to arrive at a

holistic assessment of the nature of the Frankish political system." However.

what can no longer be denied or disputed is the fact that the Merovingian

kingdoms were built on a highly complex and hybrid political model that

combined pre -existing Roman administrative institutions, Christian reli-

gious ideology, Germanic traditions and steppe-derived Inner Asian dyn-

astic political practices and stratified hierarchy. Only when we consider all

these factors together can we arrive at a full appreciation of the nature of

Frankish political organization in Early Medieval Western Europe.

In conclusion, the various empires of Eurasia in Late Antiquity were intim-

ately connected with each other. Only by adopting a thoroughly comparative

;. [ordanes Getica48.248.Gesimund and the Goths under his rule support Balamber, king of the Huns. against another Gothic ruler by the name of VinithariusbecauseGesimund was mindful of his oath offidclity to the Huns.

11 Wickham2009: 122-3 . 71 Geary 1988: 100; Fouracre 1999: 378. " Ganshof 1971: 96; Reuter 1985: 75-6. :. Altheim 1959, Vol. 4: 25. For the missircgii. see also Gricrson 1965: 291.and Ganshof 1971:

56-8.126-35.166 -7,173, for more information. " Lewis 2000: 73-4. and SL'CWood 1996: 361 -2.

11lC Political Organization of Steppe Empires

perspective can we begin to comprehend to what degree these early states

were affected by the extensive exchange and transmission of political practices

and traditions across Eurasia. In this imperial exchange and transmission of

political ideas and cultural practices the Huns of Inner Asia played a pivotal

role. Their arrival marked the initiation ofintense political transformations in

Western Europe, most notably among the Merovingian Franks. A compara-

tive analysis of Inner Asian, Greco-Roman and Frankish history can there-

fore yield surprising new revelations about Eurasian interconnectivity and the

critical role played by Inner Asian steppe empires in facilitating the spread of

political and cultural ideas across Eurasia. A comparative political and insti-

tutional history of all Eurasian empires in the fourth and fifth centuries CE

will no doubt yield even greater surprises and demonstrate that Eurasia was in

Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages an interconnected totality. A more com-

prehensive, comparative, holistic, and interdisciplinary approach is therefore

necessary to accurately understand these Eurasia-wide political and cultural

transformations facilitated by Inner Asian steppe empires.

Bibliography

Altheim, F. 1959. Geschichte der Hillmen. Berlin. Arce,J. 2003. 'The Enigmatic FifthCentury in Hispania: Some Historical Problems:

in H. Goetz. J. larnut, and W. Pohl (eds.) Regna and Gentes: T1/C Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World. Leiden, 135-59.

Bachrach, B.S. 1972. Merovingian Military Organization 481-751. Minneapolis. Barfield, T. 1981. 'The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign

Policy'Journal oj Asian Studies 41 (I): 45-61. Barnes, T.D. 1998. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical

Reality. Ithaca. Bloch, M. 1961. Feudal Society. London. Blockley, R.C. 1983. T1/C Fragmentary Clasucistng Historians of the Later Roman

Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus. Priscus and Malchus. Liverpool. Bona, I. 1991. Das Hunnenreich. Stuttgart. Brosseder, U. and Miller, B.K. 2011. 'State of Research and Future Directions of

Xiongnu Studies: in U. Brosseder and B.K. Miller (eds.) Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn. 19-33.

Burns.T.S. 1984. A History of the Ostrogot1ls. Bloomington. Christian, D. 1998. A History of Russia, Central Asiaand Mongolia: Volume 1: Inner

Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. Oxford.

29

30 Hyun iin Kim

Claessen, J.M. and Skalnik, P. 1978 'The Early State: Theories and Hypotheses: in J.M. Claessenand P. Skalnik (eds.) TIle Early State. The Hague, 3-30.

Croke, B.1977. 'Evidence for the Hun invasionof Thrace in A.D. 422' Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 18: 347-67.

Croke, B. 1981. 'Anatoliusand Nomus: envoysto Att ila' Byzantinoslavica 42: 159-79. de Crespigny, R. 1984. Northern Frontier. TIre Policies and Strategies of the LaterHan

Empire. Canberra. Demougeot, E. 1979. La Formation de L'Europe et Le Invasions barbares. Paris. Di Cosmo, N. 2011 . 'Ethnogenesis, Coevolution and Political Morphology of the

EarliestSteppe Empire: The Xiongnu Question Revisited: in U. Brossederand B.K. Miller (eds.) Kiongnu Archaeology: 'Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn, 35-48.

Doerfer, G. 1973. 'Zur Spracheder Hunnen' Central AsiaticJournal 17 (I): 1-51. Findley, C.V. 2005. The Turks in World History. Oxford. Fouracre, P. 1995. 'Frankish Gaul to 814: in R.McKitterick (ed.) The New Cambridge

Medieval History, Volume2. Cambridge, 85-109. Fouracre, P. 1999. 'Francia in the Seventh Century: in P. Fouracre (ed.) TIre New

Cambridge MedievalHistory, Volume 1. Cambridge, 371-96 . Frendo, J.D. 1975. Agathias tire Histories. Berlin and New York. Ganshof, F.L. 1971. The Carolingians and tire Frankisl: Monarchy: Studies in

Carolingian History, translated by J. Sondheimer. Ithaca. Geary, P.J.1988. Before France and Germany: TIre Creation and Transformation of the

Merovingian World. New York and Oxford. Geary, P.J. 2002. The Mytlr of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton

and Oxford. Goetz, H. 2003. 'Gens, Kingand Kingdoms: The Franks: in H. Goetz, J. Iarnut, and

W. Pohl (eds.) Regna and Gentes: TIle Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms ill tire Transformation of tire Roman World. Leiden,307-44 .

Golden, P.B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and tire Middle East. Wiesbaden,

Golden, P.B. 2009. 'Ethnogenesis in the tribal zone: the shaping of the TUrks' ArchivumEurasiae MediiAevi 16: 73-112.

Gould, E.H. 2007. 'Entangled histories, entangled worlds: the English -speaking Atlanticas a Spanish periphery' The American HistoricalReview112 (3):764-86.

Grierson, P. 1965. 'Charlemagne and the Carolingian achievement: in D.T. Rice (ed.) TI,e DarkAges. London, 269-98.

Halsall, G. 2007. Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568. Cambridge. Haussig, H.W. 2000. 'Herkunft, Wesen und Schicksal der Hunnen; in H.R. Roemer

(ed.) Philologiae et Historiae Turcicae Fundamenta I. Berlin. 256-81. Heather, P. 2009. Empire and Barbarians: TI,e Fall of Rome and tile Birtlr of Europe.

Oxford.

The Political Organization ofSteppe Empires

Honeychurch, W. and Amartuvshln, C. 2006. 'States on Horseback: the Rise of Inner Asian Confederations and Empires: in M.T. Stark (ed.) Archaeology of Asia. Malden and Oxford, 255-78.

Hummer, H.J. 1998. 'Franks and Alamanni: A Discontinuous Ethnogenesis', in I. Wood (ed .) Franks and Alamanni in tire Merovingian Period: All Etlmograplric Perspective. Woodbridge,9-32.

Ishjamts, N. 1994. 'Nomads in Eastern Central Asia', in J. Harrnatta (ed.) History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. 2, TI,e Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris, 151-69 .

James, E. 1988. The Franks. Oxford. Kaiser, R. 1993. Das romiselle Erbe und das Merowingerreicl« . Miinchen. Kelly, C. 2009. Attila the Hun: Barbarian Terror and the Fall of the Roman Empire.

London. Khazanov, A.M. 1984. Nomads and tire Outside World. Cambridge. Khazanov, A.M. 2001. 'Nomads in the History of the Sedentary World: in A.M.

Khazanov and A. Wink (eds.) Nomads in the Sedentary World. Padstow, Cornwall. 1-23.

Kim, H.J. 2013. TIle Huns, Romeand tire Birthof Europe. Cambridge. Kim. H.}. 2015. TIle Huns. London. King, C. 1987. 'The veracity of Amrnianus Marcelhnus' description of the Huns'

American Journal of AncientHistory 12 (1):77-95. Kollautz, A. and Miyakawa, H. 1970. Gesellichte und Kultur cines vOlkerwander-

ungszeitlichen Nomadenvolks: die lou-jan der Mongolei und die Aware" in Mitteleuropa . 2 Volumes. Klagenfurt,

Krader, L. 1958. 'Feudalism and the Tatar polity of the Middle Ages' Comparative Studies in Society and History 1: 76-99.

Krader, L.1978. 'The Origin of the Stateamong the Nomads of Asia: in J.M . Claessen and P. Skalnik (eds.) The Early State. Mouton and The Hague, 93-108.

Kradin, N.N. 2002. 'Nomadism, evolution, and world-systems: pastoral soci- eties in theories of historical development' Journal of World-System Research 8: 368-88 .

Kradin, N.N. 2011. 'Stateless Empire: The Structure of the Xiongnu Nomadic Super-Complex Chiefdom: in U. Brosseder and B.K. Miller (eds.) Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn, 77-96.

Kiirsat-Ahlers, E. 1994. lur friihen Staatenolldung von Steppenviilkem. Berlin. La Valssiere, E. de. 2005.'Huns et Xiongnu' Central AsiaticJOIlrIlal49 (1): 3-26 . Lasko, P. 1965. 'The Frankish Kingdom from the Merovingians to Pepin', in D.T.

Rice(ed.) TheDarkAges. London,197-218. Lewis. C.M. 2000. 'Gallic Identity and the Gallic Civitas from Caesar to Gregory

of Tours', in S. Mitchell and G. Greatrex (eds.) Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. Swansea, 69-81.

Maenchen-Helfen, J.O. 1973. The World of the Huns. Berkeley and London.

3 1

32 Hyun lin Kim

Matthews, J. 1989. The Roman Empire of Ammianus. London. McKitterick. R. 1983. The Frankish Kingdoms under tile Carolingians, 751-987.

Harlow. Mori, M. 1973. 'Reconsideration of the Hsiung-nu state. A response to Professor

O. Pritsak's criticism'Acta Asiatica 24: 20-34. Moravcsik, G. 1958. Byzantinotutcica. 2 Volumes. Berlin. Nelson. J.L. 1995. 'The Frankish Kingdoms, 814-898: The West: in R. McKitterick

(ed.) TheNew Cambridge Medieval History. Volume 2. Cambridge. 110-41. Oosten, J. 1996. 'Ideology and the Development of European Kingdoms'. in H.J.M .

Claessen and l.C, Oosten (eds.) Ideology and the Formation of Early States. Leiden.220-41.

Perin, P. and Peffer, L. 1987. Les Francs. 2 Volumes. Paris. Pohl, W. 1988. Die Awaren: Ein Steppenvolk in Mittcleuropa 567-822 n. Chr.

Miinchen. Prusak, O. 1954a. 'Kultur und Sprache der Hunnen; in Festschrift fiir Dmytro

Cyzevs'ky]. Berlin,238-49. Pritsak, O. 1954b. 'Orientierung und Farbsymbolik' Saeculum 5: 376-83. Pritsak, O. 1954c. 'Die 24 To-chen. Studie zur Geschichte des Verwaltungsaufbaus

der Hsiung-nu Reiche' Orlens Extremus 1: 178-202. Pulleyblank, E.G. 2000. 'The Hslung-nu; in H.R. Roemer (ed.) Philologiae et

Historiae Turcicae Fundamcnta 1. Berlin. 52-75. Reuter. T. 1985. 'Plunder and tribute in the Carolingian empire' Transactions of the

RoyalHistorical Society 35: 75-94. Reynolds. S. 1994. Fiefs and Vassals: TI,e Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. Oxford. Richter. W. 1974. 'Die Darstellung der Hunnen bei Ammianus Marcellinus (31.2.1 ·

11)' Historia 23: 343-77. Scheidel, W. 2011. 'The Xiongnu and the Comparative Study of Empire: in U.

Brosseder and B.K. Miller (eds.) Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire itl InnerAsia. Bonn. 111-20 .

Schutz. H. 2000. The Germanic Realms in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe. 400-750. New York.

Sinor. D. 1990. 'The Hun Period: in D. Sinor (ed.) TIle Cambridge History of Early InnerAsia. Cambridge.177-205.

Stepanov, T. 2001. 'The Bulgar Title KANALYBIn: reconstructing the notion of divine kingship in Bulgaria. AD 822-836' Early Medieval Europe 10 (1): 1-19.

Tapper, R. 1991. 'The Tribes in the Eighteenth- and Nineteenth- century Iran: in P. Avery. G.R.G. Hambly. and e. Melville (eds.) TI,e Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 7. Cambridge.506-41.

Thompson. E.A. 1948. A History of AltHa and tile HUllS. Oxford. Thompson. E.A. 1996. TI,e Huns. Revised and with an afterword by Peter Heather.

Oxford. Van Dam. R. 1999. 'Merovingian Gaul and the Frankish conquests: in P. Fouracre

(ed.) The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 1. Cambridge. 193-231.

TI,e Political Organization ofSteppe Empires

Velidi Togan, A.Z. 1939. Ibn Padlans Reiscbericht, Leipzig. Wickham, e. 2009. TI,e Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000.

New York. Widdowson, M. 2009. 'Merovingian partitions: a genealogical charter?' Early

Medieval Europe 17: 1-22. Wood,I. 1994. TheMerovingian Kingdoms 450-751. London and New York. Wood. I. 1996. 'Die Franken und ihr Erbe- "Translatio Imperii": in K. von Weick.

A. Wieczorek. and H. Ament (eds.) Die Franken Wegbcreiter Europas Vor 1500 lahren: Konig CIIlodwig lind seine Erben, Volume 1. Mainz, 358-64.

Yii. Y.S. 1990. 'The Hsiung-nu, in D. Sinor (ed.) The Cambridge History of Early InnerAsia. Cambridge.118-50.

33