My friend's theory is simple - he just picks up the issue where the traditional arguments stop.

So these are the traditional difficulties posed to equating Xiongnu and Huns:

The Huns are described by Europeans as Eastern Asians, with the turn-down at the eyes and yellowish skin.

The Xiongnu are described by the Chinese as if they were Indo-Europeans (i.e. as Scythians).

The Huns deformed their skulls.

The Xiongnu didn't.

The Huns scarred their faces.

The Xiongnu didn't.

What my friend adds is this:

When the Juan-Juan (who lived close to the area where once the Xiongnu dwelt) were crushingly beaten by the Turks, much like the Xiongnu were once beaten by the Chinese, and chose to flee to Europe, they left in 550 AD and reached present-day Hungary in 558 AD (where they were called "Avars").

The Xiongnu were beaten by the Chinese in 44-36 BC. The Huns appeared in the Ukraine in 372 AD, pushing the Alans before them.

If the Huns were fleeing the Chinese, then why would they take over 400 years to reach Europe?
Even if the Huns WERE the Xiongnu, there must be another reason for their migration other than being beaten by the Han Chinese.



What do you think of this theory?, I am waiting for Knight Dragon and all the sino-experts of the forum.

No need to wait for the Sino-experts, though I'm sure Knight-Dragon et al will weigh in with a much more competent analysis than mine.

From the European point of view, there was a very wide application of the term "oriental" that can be deceiving today. When the first Magyars showed up in the 9th century they were described by Germans and Latins as short, stocky, yellow-skinned, "slant-eyed" oriental peoples. The very name "Hungarian" very likely derives from the contemporary Europeans' tendency to label any and every horse-bound people from the East as Huns after the 5th century. Europeans didn't bother with the fine distinctions between the Finno-Ugric peoples and the Sinic peoples. Why should the Hsong-Gnu or the Huns be an exception?

Also, another medieval reality, especially among the equestrian peoples of the Steppe is they organized themselves by tribes, not by ethnicity. A "nation" on the Steppes was usually composed of multiple ethnicities, so that there probably were a few genuinely Far Eastern Asian orientals with the Hungarians when they invaded the Carpathian Basin, and again Europeans weren't interested in the differences. We do know there were several Turkic-speaking groups in the mix when the Hungarians crossed into the Basin, and even a mysterious Khazar tribe called "Khabars" (= "rebels") who left behind Middle Eastern-style Islamic artifacts. The Europeans just saw wild equestrian warrior peoples, surely heathens all.

I'll bet the mere coincidence of the names, Hsong-Gnu and Hun, were enough to convince modern Europeans in the 18th and 19th centuries as they penetrated Chinese history that they'd found their ancient nemeses' homeland.

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
What do you think of this theory?, I am waiting for Knight Dragon and all the sino-experts of the forum.Oooh, waiting for me. :love: :)

Nobody probably knows but my understanding was the Xiongnu were not Indo-Europeans at all. In fact, they were the force who had been driving out the Indo-European tribes to the west (the Yueh-chih) where they became the Kushans and conquered a vast stretch fr Central Asia to N India.

Like Vrylakas said, these steppe 'tribes' or confederations (better description) were very fluid and could be composed of any kind of clans/tribes whatever. The Xiongnu as they moved west probably picked up much local habits, customs and took up other clans/tribes with them before eventually ending up in the west.

The Huns who arrived in Europe could very well have really originated in the Altaic region but they could be considered another people altogether by the time they reached the far west, due to all the influences and people they picked up along the way. But who knows?

My 0.02 cents. :)