The Huns were traced to a nomadic tribe in Central Europe (the Steppes near the Black Sea). It is still uncertain whether the Huns in Europe were the same as Xiongnu (which sometimes are also called Huns) [see Encyc. Britannica].
Huns in Europe appeared around 370 AD, while the presence of Xiongnu was felt in China during Qin dynasty (221 BC). The result of conflict between Han dyasty and Xiongnu was a division of Xiongnu. Part of the Xiongnu tribe was "sinicized" (Hanized?), as recorded in history about Wang2 Zhao1 Jun1 and Han Wudi. The others were driven away. It is not surprising that after several hundred years, they actually showed up in Europe.
Hungary, which obviously is derived from the word "Hun", has a language of Uralic origin. It is quite certain that Hungary had heavy influence by the Huns. Interestingly, a Hungarian friend told me that Hungarians put their family first when they address people, which is distinctly different from other European culture, but similar to Chinese culture. Whether this is the influence of the original Huns or the Mongolian occupation later in 1200 AD is uncertain.
Huns are significantly different from Hakka in their cultural behavior. Although both Huns and Hakkas are migratory, Huns never settled in one place. They kept moving, conquering and moving. Huns mainly made their living by snatching from the conquered while Hakkas are agriculturally based and self-sufficient. Huns were illiterate and had no idea about civilization and knowledge preservation, while Hakkas have a tradition of strong emphasis on education and intellectualism. These two cultures are totally dissimilar and incompatible. Huns finally disappaered and was integrated with Europeans without a trace of their original "culture". Xiongnu in China also intermarried Han people. During the downfall of West Jin dynasty, the Han people cross the yangtze River and settled in southern China, bringing with them some Xiongnu soldiers and servants. While Xiongnu descendents established "Han" Kingdom in the north, gradually became sinicized. Han Kingdom was destroyed by Zhao kingdom (Jie2 ethnic group), which was in turn destroyed by Han people again.
If Hakka were actually sinicized "non-Han", then Hakka migration from north to south would not be "fleeing" the "northern foreign invasion" to "preserve" their own culture. Intead, Hakkas would have to be the actual "invaders" from the north trying to spread their own culture to the south. However, how a non-Han minority could preserve the Han culture better than the true Han people would be very difficult to explain. And it would be even more difficult to explain why the poems in Shijing (The Book of Poems) popular in the Chunqiu-Zhanguo period (pre-Qin) rhymes better with Hakka than Mandarin. Xiongnu although had attempted invasion of the northern kingdoms during the Chunqiu-Zhanguo period, they could hardly have had major settlement in "China" prior to Han dynasty.
The "theory" on Hun origin of Hakka was based on very fragmentary blood typing and DNA analysis done by Japanese and Russian researchers. According to DNA typing by Hideo Matsumoto (1966) who gathered blood from China, Korea, Rusia, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia countries and found the folloiwng: [extracted from Kiang's book] ¡@ GM genes ¡@ AG AxG ABST AFBB North Mongoloids (Koreans, Japanese, Hakka) 45% 15% 25% 15% Malaysian, Polynesian, Southern Chinese 10% 5% 85% Burma, Assam, Tibetan, Nepal, Malayo-Polynesian ~0% ~100% The author thus concludes that Hakkas like Koreans and Japanese were from Baikal Lake as a subgroup of the Altaic people. Similarity in bloodtype between Japanese, Hakka and Koreans, however, should not be the only way to classify Hakkas. In fact, using blood-type is not a good way to define a culture. Undoubtedly, the original Hakkas migrated under the pressure of the northern intruders. During this cultural conflict, there could be a small portion of the population derived from voluntary or involuntary marriages causing the inclusion of non-Han factors. However, blood-typing does not explain the deeply rooted Han culture of Hakka people. Xiongnu as an ethnic group "foreign" to Han culture and just starting to occupy northern China during Jin period. Never in history before was class distinction more obvious than Jin dynasty. The Royal Jin families and other Han aristocrats might have brought some surrendered Xiongnu soldiers and servants to the south. The number cannot be larger than Han. It was estimated 60% of the Han in the north crossed the Yangtze River. It is also doubtful that under such social discrimination, sinicized Xiongnu could received the proper education to evolve a large number of poets and other literati such as Han Yu, Du Mu in Tang dynasty, which is the dynasty immediately following the short-lived Jin dynasty.
After hundreds of years of migration and settlement in the south, Hakka people likely carry all kinds of genotypes. And there is no distinction any more on Man, Yi, Yong, Di, which are all Han people. Whether Hakkas were blood-related to Xiongnu is beside the point. Hakka culture should be basically Han culture and not Xiongnu culture. More discussion on this topic is available in the following section on Hakka and Xiongnu.
Last updated September 20,1996.