LeFebvre 1

Sarah LeFebvre
Chittick and Vincent
Ancient Barbarians
19 April 2016
Literary Depictions of the Barbarian in Chinese and Greco-Roman Sources
In the ancient world as well as the present, scholars have a common tendency to connect the
nomadic groups of Central Eurasia with the concept of the barbarian. However, even when describing
very similar Central Eurasian nomadic groups, Chinese and Greco-Roman sources vary considerably in
their depictions. In his Historical Records, Sima Qian draws comparisons between two Central Eurasian
nomadic groups, the Hsiung-nu and Yeh-chih, and his own society, the Han. In the Histories, Herodotus
describes the Scythians, another Central Eurasian group with connections to the Yeh-chih, and sets up
comparisons between this group and other barbaric groups like the Amazons, as well as his own society,
the Greeks.
Regardless of the historical fact of these actual nomadic societies, the literary depictions of Sima
Qian and Herodotus reflect ideas of the other and the barbarian in their own societies at the time. Sima
Qians portrayals of the Hsiung-nu, Yeh-chih, and other central Asian peoples reveal his opinion of
which characteristics define a barbarian and also which aspects of his own society he chooses to critique.
In comparison to Sima Qian, Herodotuss portrayal of the Scythians presents them as less human and
more barbaric. By drawing from Beasts or Humans by Yuri Pines and Brutes and Animals by
Benjamin Isaac, this variance in portrayal can be further explained by the concept of labeling a barbarian
due to a lack of social custom in contrast to a difference in race.
Sima Qians Depiction of the Barbarian
Sima Qians Account of the Hsiung-nu sets up a standard for Chinese depictions of Central
Eurasian nomads. On the surface level, this account upholds stereotypes of similar nomadic groups as
ruthless barbarians whose sole advantage over civilized societies is their skill on the battlefield. As
Beckwith points out, Central Eurasians are regularly castigated for their supposed aggression, ruthless
cruelty, and love of violence in generalthat is, after all, the core of the idea of the barbarian (322).
Sima Qian does not avoid this violent stereotype of barbarians in his depiction of the Hsiung-nu. In the
opening pages of his account, Sima describes the movement of the barbarians across the land as they
attacked and conquered various groups. He says, After this the barbarians occupied the area of Lu-hun,

LeFebvre 2
roaming as far east as the state of Wei, ravaging and plundering the lands of central China with fearful
cruelty (Sima, Hsiung-nu 157). These descriptions create a relatively clear picture of the Hsiung-nu as
a fearsome group of nomads with the ability to destroy all in their path. After discussing the use of bows
and spears along with battle traditions, Sima states, Their only concern is self-advantage, and they know
nothing of propriety or righteousness (Sima, Hsiung-nu 155). Simas statement creates an implied
contrast between his own people, who must clearly value propriety and righteousness, and his portrayal of
the Hsiung-nu, who use violence for their own means.
Another common trope in the violent portrayal of barbarians is the depiction of power and how it
is achieved among nomadic groups. Beckwith says, It is noted throughout most writing on Central
Eurasia that the rulers came to power only after brutal massacres, wanton murder, and so forth (322).
Sima Qian perpetuates this tradition in his description of Mo-tuns rise to power. Mo-tun trains his
followers to shoot at any creature that he shoots an arrow at. Then, he goes on a hunting expedition with
his father, the Shan-y Tou-man and . . . he shot a whistling arrow at his father and every one of his
followers aimed their arrows in the same direction and shot the Shan-y dead. Then Mo-tun executed his
stepmother, his younger brother, and all the high officials of the nation who refused to take orders from
him, and set himself up as the new Shan-y (Sima, Hsiung-nu 161). Through this description, Sima
Qian highlights not only the military ability of Mo-tun but also his sense of cold calculation and betrayal.
Since this man becomes the leader or Shan-y of the entire group, Simas story of his rise to power also
serves to characterize the Hsiung-nu as a whole. Clearly, the Account of the Hsiung-nu presents the
Hsiung-nu as the stereotypically violent barbarian.
Beyond the violent portrayal of the Hsiung-nu, Sima Qian also creates the sense of otherness
through the implied differences between the Hsiung-nu and his own people, the Han. Although Sima does
not explicitly draw these lines of differences between the two groups, his descriptions of Hsiung-nu
practices combined with a knowledge of typical Han practices makes this distinction clear. In the opening
of his account, Sima says that the Hsiung-nu . . . move about in search of water and pasture and have no
walled cities or fixed dwellings, nor do they engage in any kind of agriculture (Hsiung-nu 155). This
lack of agriculture is a common way of differentiating between the nomadic barbarians and settled
civilizations of people like the Han, and is an effective way of othering the Hsiung-nu. Sima also points
out that the Hsiung-nu . . . have no writing, and even promises and agreements are only verbal
(Hsiung-nu 155). Compared to the intricate bureaucracy of the Han, a society with no system of writing
would appear lesser and uncivilized. As Di Cosmo says, It is in the silent contrast between the
description of the different and the consciousness of ones own cultural dimension that the historical
narrative finds its true and most powerful message (276). Clearly, the contrast between the descriptions
of the Hsiung-nu and the common Han practices presents the Hsiung-nu as different and other.

LeFebvre 3
However, Sima does not necessarily condemn the Hsiung-nu for these practices. When discussing
the traditions for crime and punishment among the Hsiung-nu, Sima writes, Minor offenses are punished
by flogging and major ones by death. No one is kept in jail awaiting sentence longer than ten days, and
the number of imprisoned men for the whole nation does not exceed a handful (Hsiung-nu 164). This
description of punishment among the Hsiung-nu invites a comparison with the Han practices for
punishment, implying that people in Simas society are kept in jail awaiting sentences and the prisons are
packed. Therefore, although the Hsiung-nu are presented as different in this way, their difference comes
across as an improvement to Han practices. Furthermore, Sima discusses the social traditions of the
Hsiung-nu, including practices of honoring the young over the old and men remarrying the wives of other
members of their family (Sima, Hsiung-nu 156). When originally described, these traditions would
stand as a stark contrast to Confucian traditions of filial piety, in which the young respect the old and
family structure is crucial. In comparison, the Hsiung-nu traditions would seem incredibly strange.
However, Sima later uses the character of Chung-hsing Shuo as a voice of positivity and support of
Hsiung-nu practices. In response to the social traditions, Chung-hsing Shuo argues that feeding the young
allows them to be strong enough to protect the elderly and the practice of inter-marrying keeps clans from
dying out (Sima, Hsiung-nu 171-2). Therefore, although all of these customs present the Hsiung-nu as
different and other, they are not entirely condemned from the perspective of Sima Qian.
In fact, some scholars believe that Sima Qian uses his accounts of barbarians like the Hsiung-nu
as hidden criticism of his own society. This is central to the argument made by Randolph Ford, who
discusses Sima Qians depiction of the Hsiung-nu (Xiongnu) along with Tacituss description of the
Germani. Ford says, . . . both Tacitus and Sima Qian were also aware of the redemptive qualities of life
in barbaricum. In their eyes, the Germani and Xiongnu both led lives free of material clutter; they
enjoyed a degree of personal autonomy unheard of to Romans and Chinese (Ford 2). In other words,
although the Hsiung-nu lack agriculture and writing and have social practices that conflict with Confucian
ideals, their lifestyles could also be seen with a sense of freedom from the eyes of a member of Han
society. Beckwith and Di Cosmo present similar ideas in their own works. Di Cosmo says, The relatively
freer and simpler existence of the Hsiung-nu is not contrasted unfavorably with Chinese society. On the
contrary, behind the plain description of these simple social and legal rules, one might see a veiled
criticism of the cumbersome legal system put into place by Chin Shih Huang-ti and his legalist advisers
(275). Beckwith says, The early Chinese accounts of the Hsiung-nu . . . reveal that some of the
peripheral peoples . . . were fully aware of the fact that life in the nomad-ruled states was easier and freer
than life in the peripheral agricultural states, where peasants were treated little better than slaves (333).
Furthermore: It is undoubtedly true that some historians . . . intended to mask their own criticism of their
imperial governments by putting it into the mouths of foreigners . . . (Beckwith 333). On one hand, Sima

LeFebvre 4
clearly acknowledges the stereotype of the Hsiung-nu as cruel and violent in their military practices, and
points out the unique cultural practices in regards to marriage and social structures. However, Sima also
presents these ideas in such a way that they come across as a subtle critique of his own society, therefore
implying that some aspects of Hsiung-nu society are preferable to that of the Han.
This portrayal of the barbarian in the Account of the Hsiung-nu could be seen as balanced.
However, Sima does not highlight potentially superior characteristics of Hsiung-nu society in order to say
that the Hsiung-nu are good. Rather, Sima makes use of them as a contrast to his own society in order to
criticize certain aspects of the Han. The Account of the Hsiung-nu is therefore in part a disguised
criticism of the Han. The main goal is not to establish the Hsiung-nu as wholly good or bad, but rather to
point out parts of Han society that could change and intermix these criticisms with the history of
barbarian groups.
Although it is only the next chapter in the Historical Records, Sima Qians Account of Ta-yan
presents a very different idea of Central Eurasian nomadic groups, particularly the Yeh-chih. First of all,
whereas Sima depicts the Hsiung-nu as particularly violent, he depicts the Yeh-chih as fellow victims of
this violence. The account begins with the emperor learning from surrendered Hsiung-nu that . . . the
Hsiung-nu had defeated the king of the Yeh-chih people [Indo-scythians] and made his skull into a
drinking vessel. As a result the Yeh-chih had fled and bore a constant grudge against the Hsiung-nu,
though as yet they had been unable to find anyone to join them in an attack on their enemy (Sima, Tayan 264). In this way, the Account of Ta-yan begins immediately by contrasting the violence of the
Hsiung-nusuch as the use of a skull as a drinking vesselwith the Yeh-chih. This places the Yehchih closer to the Han and further from the Hsiung-nu in the readers mind. Therefore, although the Yehchih are also a nomadic group, they appear more sympathetically because they are victims of the Hsiungnu violence along with the Han. The Yeh-chih also stand out as less barbaric because the Han emperor
is willing to create political relations with them. Due to the common enemy they share, the Han emperor
decides to send Chang Chien as an envoy to the Yeh-chih: The Han at this time was engaged in a
concerted effort to destroy the Hsiung-nu, and therefore, when the emperor heard this, he decided to try to
send an envoy to establish relations with the Yeh-chih (Sima, Ta-yan 264). Clearly, the Yeh-chih
are more than a group to conquer or be conquered by; they are worthy of a political alliance in the minds
of the Han. Sima Qian characterizes the Yeh-chih differently from the Hsiung-nu because he
characterizes them in relation to the Hsiung-nu. In some ways, they are similar. For example, Sima writes
that the Yeh-chih are . . . a nation of nomads, moving from place to place with their herds, and their
customs are like those of the Hsiung-nu (Sima, Ta-yan 267). The Han also seem to view the Yehchih and surrounding peoples as greedy. But the Hsiung-nu are still seen as the more prevalent enemies of
the Han, and therefore in comparison, the Yeh-chih come across as more civilized in the eyes of the Han.

LeFebvre 5
Sima Qian portrays this nomad group in a more positive light than the other because the Han benefited
from political relations with the Yeh-chih in the sense that they could potentially help in the fight against
the Hsiung-nu.
Sima Qian also makes an effort to point out positive aspects of the Yeh-chih society. When
describing the king of Great Yeh-chih, the son of the king murdered by the Hsiung-nu, Sima writes,
The region he ruled was rich and fertile and seldom troubled by invaders, and the king thought only of
his own enjoyment (Sima, Ta-yan 265). This makes the Yeh-chih society out to be relatively well
off in terms of wealth and agriculturemarkers of civilizationeven if the ruler comes across as selfcentered. Further into the account, Sima adds, After the Great Yeh-chih moved west and attacked and
conquered Ta-hsia, the entire country came under their sway. The population of the country is large,
numbering some million or more persons. The capital is called the city of Lan-shih [Bactra] and has a
market where all sorts of goods are bought and sold (Sima, Ta-yan 269). Unlike with the Account of
the Hsiung-nu, in which Sima Qian points out the Hsiung-nus lack of agriculture and walled cities, the
Account of Ta-yan shows that the Yeh-chih did control some cities and fertile land, even if only as
conquerors. On a spectrum of civilized to barbarian, this places the Yeh-chih closer to the Han, despite
being a nomadic group. If they are more similar, they are less of an other and less likely to be seen as
barbarians or savages of some sort. The Yeh-chih are further removed from the Han and do not present
as clear of a threat as the Hsiung-nu, so it is easier to present them in a more positive light as a fellow
society of people rather than barbarians.
The Account of Ta-yan focuses on several other western groups beyond the Yeh-chih, all of
which share more civilized characteristics with the Han. Groups like the An-hsi are described as
cultivators of fields, makers of wine, builders of walled cities, merchants, and people who utilize coinage
and a writing system (Sima, Ta-yan 268). Several of these details are major markers of civilization. As
stated before with the Yeh-chih, the utilization of agriculture and walled cities alone separates these
western groups from nomads like the Hsiung-nu and sets them up as more similar in practice to the Han.
During a time when many of these Central Eurasian groups lacked a writing system, the
acknowledgement that the An-hsi write on strips of leather immediately characterizes them as more
civilized. The main purpose for describing these western groups seems to be for the benefit of Han
imperial policy. Sima writes, Thus the emperor learned of Ta-yuan, Ta-hsia, An-hsi, and the others, all
great states rich in unusual products whose people cultivated the land and made their living in much the
same way as the Chinese. All these states, he was told, were militarily weak and prized Han goods and
wealth (Ta-yan 269). Although these groups are clearly seen as more civilized than other groups like
the Hsiung-nu, they are still primarily resources in the eyes of the Han emperor. They are important

LeFebvre 6
because they are potential trade partners, tributaries, and defenders of the Han against more violent
nomadic groups.
Herodotuss Depiction of the Barbarian
Herodotus spends nearly an entire chapter of his Histories discussing the Scythians, another
Central Eurasian nomadic group, and reveals ways in which Greek portrayals of the barbarian reflected a
harsher and more race-based discrimination against foreigners. Although Sima Qians depiction of the
barbarian varies based on different nomadic groups like the Hsiung-nu and Yeh-chih, Herodotuss
depiction of the Scythians varies within the same text. Through reading Chapter Four of the Histories,
some scholars see the Scythians as the ultimate barbarians and others or as quasi-Greeks, depending on
the context of the section. Overall, however, Herodotus does a clearer job of separating himself from the
Scythians and portraying them as the other, whereas Sima Qian finds admirable qualities in both of the
barbarian groups that he describes. Isaacs concept that Greeks discriminated against barbarians based on
race rather than social custom alone helps to explain this.
In general, Herodotus leans more towards a negative and barbaric depiction of the Scythians. As
stated before in relation to the Hsiung-nu, violence is a key component of the barbarian stereotype.
Herodotus upholds this stereotype in his discussion of the Scythians and the tribes around them. When
introducing the Royal Scythians, he says they are, . . . the most warlike and numerous section of their
race, and look upon the others as their slaves (Hdt. 4.20.1). The Royal Scythians are made out to be
important among the Scythians, which implies that their skill in war earns them praise among the nomads.
Herodotus also describes the specific acts used by Scythian soldiers in war to gain honor. He says, As
regards war, the Scythian custom is for every soldier to drink the blood of the first man he kills. The
heads of all enemies killed in battle are taken to the king; a head being a sort of ticket by which a soldier
is admitted to his share of the lootno head, no loot (Hdt. 4.64.1). If this gruesome depiction wasnt
enough, Herodotus describes the custom of the Royal Scythians to . . . cut a piece from their ears, shave
their hair, make circular incisions on their arms, gash their foreheads and noses, and thrust arrows through
their left hands (Hdt. 4.71.2). All of these images of war and violence fall into the stereotype of the
uncivilized barbarian. In comparison, Herodotus focuses very little time on other societal functions, such
as the funeral and religious practices of the Scythians. Aktrk even argues, His account of the Scythians
has almost nothing to do with Scythians as intelligible, communicable human beings, but rather obsessed
with a list of their cruel customs, all of which invariably consist of killing, amputating, and skinning of
their enemies (21). This analysis is certainly not unfounded considering the amount that Herodotus

LeFebvre 7
describes these gruesome acts. The violent and gruesome acts take center stage and set them apart as
barbaric and opposite of the civilized Greeks.
Herodotus creates a separation between the Scythians and Greeks in several different ways. First
of all, as was the case with Sima Qian, Herodotuss descriptions of Scythian acts would contrast with
known knowledge of ancient Greek culture. As Hartog explains it, . . . we may read the text with the
assumption that this or that Scythian practice may be interpreted in relation to its homologue in the Greek
world (8). Basically, when Herodotus describes a Scythian practice like sacrifice, it is inevitably being
contrasted with the Greek equivalent of that practice. This underlying comparison with Greek practices
creates a rubric for defining the otherness of the Scythians.
However, whereas Sima sometimes used this contrast to instead praise the nomadic group,
Herodotus uses the contrast solely to show the negatives of Scythian society. Aktrk claims, . . . his
account now seems as an apparent attempt at scaring his own Greek audience from the Scythians by
portraying them as absolute barbarians in opposition to a civilized us (21). This statement comes
across potentially too harshly. If Herodotus truly wished to scare the Greeks away from the Scythians, he
likely would have made that tactic much clearer in his writing. Instead, his depictionalthough
problematicpredominantly points out the uniqueness of the Scythians, setting them up as interesting
specimens to be studied.
In some ways, these pinpointed differences between the Scythians and Greeks compare to that of
Sima Qian and his nomads. For example, Herodotus points out that the Scythians are indeed nomads and
are not agricultural like the Greeks. However, there are many ways in which Herodotuss depiction of
barbarian is harsher and more barbarian. One way he does this is by using strange physical descriptions
of the Scythians, a tactic that Sima Qian does not apply at all. When describing one of the Scythian tribes,
Herodotus says, They are said to be bald from birth, women and men alike, and to have snub noses and
long chins; they speak a peculiar language, dress in the Scythian fashion, and live on the fruit of a tree
called Ponticum (Hdt. 4.23.2). Such description of this tribes physical features and habits pinpoints
them as strange and other, and in some ways, less human. When Sima Qian described the Hsiung-nu in
the negative light of their violent acts, they still came across as human. Herodotus, however, creates a line
between the normal, human Greeks and the barbaric Scythians.
Another way in which Herodotus differs from Sima Qians method of depicting the barbarian is
that Herodotus does not establish a common ancestor between the Scythians and the Greeks. Whereas
Sima begins his Account of the Hsiung-nu by setting a common ancestor between the Hsiung-nu and
the Han, . . . one cannot detect in the Greco-Roman accounts any description of the Turkic peoples that
implies a common genealogy, religion, or social and cultural patterns between the Turkic peoples and the
Greco-Roman Europeans (Aktrk 22). Although this does not seem like a crucial point, this lack of

LeFebvre 8
genealogy shows that Herodotus does not wish to draw a genetic connection between the Scythians and
the Greeks. He sets the two apart in a few other ways as well. For example, often times when telling a
story about the Scythians, he will interject that he does not believe it himself (Hdt. 4.5.1). He also says
towards the end of his discussion, Like the Egyptians, the Scythians are dead-set against foreign ways,
especially against Greek ways (Hdt. 4.76.1). This statement makes the Scythians come across as
unaccepting of foreigners, which would make it rather difficult for the Scythians and Greeks to ever
assimilate in the future. Due to this, they will remain separate from each other.
Despite all of these methods for depicting the Scythians as barbarians and as the natural opposite
of the Greeks, Herodotus also writes contradictory passages in which the Scythians could seem to relate
very much to the Greeks. This becomes evident in the section on how the Scythians and Amazons joined
to form the Sauromatae. Hartog says, The otherness of the Scythians is certainly apprehended in relation
to the Greeks who . . . play their part as a term of reference. But as soon as the Amazons make their
appearance, the mechanism imperceptibly changes and the Scythians turn into quasi-Greeks (367). In
other words, the Scythians seem very barbaric in certain passages and are placed in the category of other
at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Greeks. Once they are placed next to an even stranger group
of people, however, the Scythians seem far closer to the Greeks. Due to the unique practices of the
Amazons, they are seen as more other than the Scythians, and so the direct comparison places the
Scythians as more similar to the Greeks. Herodotus clearly sees the Amazons as even further beyond the
civilized norm, but it does not entirely cancel out his image of the Scythians as other. This outcome can
be compared with Sima Qians portrayal of the Yeh-chih in contrast to the Hsiung-nu. Perhaps the Yehchih would seem more barbaric and abnormal to the Han if they werent directly contrasted with the
Hsiung-nu, who are particularly savage in the eyes of the Han. Due to this, the depiction of the barbarian
can change based even on the context of who the barbarian is being compared with.
Sima Qians Historical Records (Shiji) and Herodotuss Histories both record descriptions of very
similar Central Eurasian nomadic groups of the time, although the authors lived in completely separate
societies. In some ways, these two authors use similar tactics for portraying the barbarian to their own
societies. They both draw out the traditional social practices of the barbarian, such as marriage or funeral
practices, and highlight the violent tendencies of the nomads. It is clear in both texts that the reader would
know the traditions of the Han or Greek societies and understand that in this context, the nomadic groups
and their traditions are abnormal. Sima Qian and Herodotus also do a similar job of portraying one group
of nomads as more or less barbarian in comparison to another. In the case of Sima Qian, the Yeh-chih
although still a nomadic groupseem more civilized and agreeable in comparison to the more violent
Hsiung-nu. In the case of Herodotus, the Scythians are entirely strange and barbaric until they are placed
next to the Amazons, at which point the Scythians suddenly seem less alien.

LeFebvre 9
Sima Qian and Herodotus also differ in many ways, despite the similarity of what they are
describing. Herodotuss descriptions come across as more negative than Simas do. His method of
highlighting the gruesome acts of the Scythians and of including strange physical descriptions of them
creates a stark contrast between the Scythians as the other and the Greeks. Sima Qian, on the other hand,
draws connections between the Han and both the Yeh-chih and the Hsiung-nu. With the Yeh-chih, it is
clear that the Han emperor is willing to form political relations with the nomads, showing that they are
not so different that the Han must avoid them. In regards to the Hsiung-nu, Sima not only documents a
possible line of ancestry between the two, but even uses the Hsiung-nu as a subtle critique of his own
society. In many ways, Herodotus and the Greeks portray these Central Eurasian groups as more barbaric
than Sima Qian in his Historical Records.
One potential explanation for this differing severity of depiction is the overall tradition for
viewing the other in Chinese and Greco-Roman society. Yuri Pines argues that the Chinese classified
groups as barbarian due to their lack of similar ritual norms or social conditions, not their ethnicity. He
says, . . . despite their clear sense of superiority, ancient Chinese thinkers and statesmen conceived of
the differences with the aliens as primarily cultural, and hence changeable (Pines 62). Therefore, groups
like the Hsiung-nu, Yeh-chih, or other Central Eurasians could be seen as lesser due to their lack of
similar Han rituals and education, but not because of an inherent difference in who they are genetically.
Pines adds, Inherent badness and moral deficiency of the barbarians is conceived of not as biological
reality but as a consequence of inappropriate social conditions (68). The characteristic that makes them
barbarian is not a part of their biology; instead it derives from upbringing. This way of thinking implies
that in theory, barbarians could then change to become more civilized if introduced to the same
upbringing as the Chinese.
This way of thinking contrasts with that discussed by Benjamin Isaac, who studies the
comparison of nomadic barbarians to animals. Isaac says, There appears to have been a genuine feeling .
. . that some people who were lacking in the basic elements of civilization, as understood by the Greeks
and Romans, were closer to animals than to human beings (214). Rather than viewing barbarian groups
as uncivilized humans, some Greeks and Romans viewed them as more animal than human. A primary
difference between this form of discrimination and that detailed by Pines is that the discrimination is
based on nature and race as well as social customs. Isaac says, The further implication of this is that the
foreigners who do not control their powers of reasoning lack this capacity collectively, by nature and not
through illness, and they are therefore incapable of forming orderly communities together (200). These
foreigners are more emotional and less reasonable, and these traits are part of their nature, which makes
them unchangeable. Whereas Pines points out a tradition in which social custom separates the civilized

LeFebvre 10
from the barbaric, Isaac points out a tradition in which the barbarians are separated by both nature and
nurture from their more civilized counterparts.
If Sima Qian and Herodotus held these respective ideas, it could explain the differences between
their descriptions of Central Eurasian. Sima admits that the Hsiung-nu share ancestry with the Han, so
this already lessens the chance of a race-based argument. Instead, the Hsiung-nu are barbarian because
they lack the social and political traditions of the Han. This also further explains the more positive
portrayal of the western groups in the Account of Ta-yan. Although these groups are still primarily
pawns for the Han court, they come across as less barbarian because they share more of the ritual norms
than the Hsiung-nu do. In contrast, if Herodotus does not even view Scythians as human, it would help
explain his more negative and graphic description of them. This concept of othering based on culture or
race plays a large role in whether or not depictions of barbarians even include the concept of humanity.
From the perspective of Sima Qian, these Central Eurasians come across as other humans. From the
perspective of Herodotus, they are less than human.

LeFebvre 11
Works Cited
Aktrk, ener1. "Representations Of The Turkic Peoples In The Shahnameh And The Greco-Roman
Sources." Journal Of Academic Studies 8.29 (2006): 15-26. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W.
Wilson). Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Beckwith, Christopher I. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to
the Present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2009. Print.
Cosmo, Nicola Di. Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.
Ford, Randolph. Barbaricum Depictum: Images of the Germani and Xiongnu in the Works of Tacitus
and Sima Qian. Sino-Platonic Papers 207 (2010): n. pag. Web.
Hartog, Franois. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History.
Berkeley: U of California, 1988. Print.
Herodotus. Book Four. Herodotus: The Histories. Trans. Aubrey De Slincourt. Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin, 1954. 242-310. Print.
Isaac, Benjamin. Brutes and Animals. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2004. 194-215. Print.
Pines, Yuri. Beasts or Humans: Pre-Imperial Origins of the Sino-Barbarian Dichotomy. Mongols,
Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World. Ed. Reuven Amitai and Michal
Biran. Leiden: Brill, 2005. 59-95. Print.
Sima, Qian. Account of the Hsiung-nu. Records of the Grand Historian of China: Translated from the
Shih Chi of Ssu-Ma Chien by Burton Watson. Trans. Burton Watson. New York: London, 1961.
155-92. Print.
Sima, Qian. Account of Ta- yan. Records of the Grand Historian of China: Translated from the Shih
Chi of Ssu-Ma Chien by Burton Watson. Trans. Burton Watson. New York: London, 1961. 26489. Print.