[tattoo]

It is often mentioned that Han Wu Di forced the XiongNu to move westward. Thus, later, the XiongNu became known as the Huns in the west. How true was this?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Although not proven, this theory has been generally accepted by most scholars. The European Hun's genetic testing has high similarity with the Xiongnu.

[DaMo]

A reconstruction of a Hunnish head from a skull found in Austria showed a strongly Mongoloid-looking face. This was featured in a recent documentary on Discovery.

[General_Zhaoyun]

tattoo, on Jul 1 2004, 10:39 PM, said:

It is often mentioned that Han Wu Di forced the XiongNu to move westward.  Thus, later, the XiongNu became known as the Huns in the west.  How true was this?

Emperor Han Wudi launched 3 military campaign to attacks the XiongNu. I don't know if this was the reason why some of the XiongNu tribes move westwards towards central asia. But not only that, there was also several wars between eastern Han and the XiongNu. The XiongNu splitted into north Xiongnu and south Xiongnu in 48 AD. The South Xiongnu migrated towards China, while northern Xiongnu continued to battle the Han. It might be likely that northern Xiongnu had began migrating westwards towards Europe.

The direct relation of Huns in Europe to XiongNu is still under debate, but this theory might be proven if more achaeology founding is discovered.

[caocao74]

Regarding the Xiong Nu I have read that they were what were known as the Huns in Europe. Is this so? If this is the case, what similarities (and differences) were there between the Xiong Nu in their wars against the Han, and the Huns who poured into eastern Europe during the so-called Dark Ages?
M.Lorimer

[Yun]

Hi Caocao74, we've discussed this question briefly before on this thread: http://www.chinahist...p?showtopic=305

Many Western and Chinese sources simply state it as a given that the Xiongnu and the Huns are the same people, but this old theory has never been proven by anything more than circumstantial evidence (such as the vague similarity of the names and the fact that the Huns appeared in Europe in the mid-4th century, roughly about the time that the Xiongnu were wiped out in China).

This is David Nicolle's take on the issue in his "Attila and the Nomad Hordes":

The whole question of whether some Hsiung-Nu, perhaps mingling with nomads further west, eventually reappeared in eastern Europe as Huns remains unanswered. The Chinese described them as having almost Western features, while European chroniclers remark on the strong Asiatic appearance of the Huns. The Hsiung-Nu wore pigtails; the Huns did not but may have scarred their faces as warrior adornment. The Huns practised cranial deformation, making their skulls elongated, as did the Germans and Iranian Sarmatian nomads - but the Hsiung-Nu did not. The Huns, according to their foes, killed their own old folk, and lack of respect for the elderly characterized Indo-European peoples like the Germans and Alans but ran counter to east Asian tradition.

[Note: Nicolle's last point is based on a superficial reading of Chinese sources, which make it quite clear that the Xiongnu and other such nomadic peoples despised the elderly and glorified those who died young in battle.]

[caocao74]

Thanks Yun
Sorry if I bring up questions that have already been approached previously. I have been on other forums for some years and I regularly see the same questions being brought up by new members, but now it's my turn. Thanks again anyways.
M.Lorimer

[cniht]

Yun, on Nov 25 2004, 10:43 PM, said:

Many Western and Chinese sources simply state it as a given that the Xiongnu and the Huns are the same people, but this old theory has never been proven by anything more than circumstantial evidence (such as the vague similarity of the names and the fact that the Huns appeared in Europe in the mid-4th century, roughly about the time that the Xiongnu were wiped out in China).

It was not until the 1970s did the renowned Chinese historian, Qi Si He (齐思和）remade through textual research the westward route the Xiongnu took. His essay was first translated and published in a U.S.S.R-based periodical.

Traditionally, Chinese historians believed the Xiongnu left no record in Chinese histories after 91 A.D.

Quote

By 91 the northern Xiongnu were driven from the Ordos and fled west, their leadership dissipated.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/...ngnu/essay.html

[caocao74]

Thanks for that cniht, much appreciated.

[Yun]

Quote

Traditionally, Chinese historians believed the Xiongnu left no record in Chinese histories after 91 A.D.

That only applies to the northern Xiongnu. The southern Xiongnu remained important in Han history as border vassals who occasionally rebelled. Cao Cao reorganised them into several Sections (bu) and deposed their Chanyu, then resettled them in Shanxi to both control them more directly and employ them as military auxiliaries. There were Xiongnu rebellions in 271, 294, and most significantly in 304 - this last one succeeded in toppling the Western Jin dynasty, conquering north China, and ruling it as a state named the Han (later renamed Zhao) until 329. It was then destroyed by the Jie (Sogdian?) state of Later Zhao, and the Xiongnu aristocracy was massacred. However, the surviving Xiongnu remained prominent in the Ordos region, as rivals of the Tuoba Xianbei. In 407, a Xiongnu aristocrat named Liu Bobo (later Helian Bobo) founded the Xia state, which became quite strong and was only conquered by the Northern Wei in 431.

I have seen Qi Sihe's essay but have not yet studied it carefully. It is not generally recognised by Western scholars as authoritative, I suspect because of Qi's heavily Marxist inclinations. If anyone could summarise his argument here, both caocao and I would be very appreciative.

[cniht]

Yun, on Nov 26 2004, 10:56 PM, said:

I have seen Qi Sihe's essay but have not yet studied it carefully. It is not generally recognised by Western scholars as authoritative, I suspect because of Qi's heavily Marxist inclinations. If anyone could summarise his argument here, both caocao and I would be very appreciative.

His argument involves much Chinese textual record. I have not much time for a summary now.
That essay does not contain much Marxist stuff. It is only traditional textual research in line with Chinese historians' conduct.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

I have seen Qi Sihe's essay but have not yet studied it carefully. It is not generally recognised by Western scholars as authoritative

I'm not sure about that, according to McGovern's ancient empires of central asia, most historians accepted that theory.

[Yun]

Well, I'll try buying the collection of Qi Sihe's essays when I go to Shanghai later this month, and then post my further comments.

For interest's sake: Qi Sihe was a Harvard-trained historian who got his PhD and returned to China on the eve of the Communist victory, and chose to stay on. He had been trained in Chinese history, but the PRC government assigned him to teach world history because of his proficiency in English. From 1949 onwards, he produced little original work in either Chinese or world history, supposedly because he saw little chance of writing freely. His most significant activity was editing the first volume of a textbook on world history, dealing with ancient civilisations. He met an untimely death, like so many other scholars, in the Cultural Revolution.

[thirdgumi]

There was thread in AE about this subject, some forumites also stated some archeological findings, I wounder where this thread is? Maybe Yhsan would know.

[Yihesan]

I also opened a thread on this issue in the SHF:

On the Xiongnu-Hun Issue