Abstract
Hirth asserted that the identy of the Huns and the Hiung-nu could be assumed not only from the resemblance of their names and customs, nor only from the temporal proximity of their migrations, but also from the fact that in the Wei-shu an event which should have been attributed to the Huns was ascribed to the Hiung-nu. In contrast to his opinion, some scholars maintain : (1) that this record of the Weishu must be referred not to the Huns, but to the Ephthalites, and (2) that the Hiung-nu spoke Altaic, while the Huns spoke Uralic. But afterwards it was made clear (1) that Hirth was correct in his explanation of the record, and (2) that the language of the Huns was not Uralic, but Altaic. Therefore the principal objections to Hirth's opinions were removed. Furthermoer, students of the classics discovered old documents which showed that the ancient Romans had called the East Asian Hiung-nu the Huns, and archeologists have determined the ccmplete resemblance between the style of Hiung-nu relics and those of the Huns. Thus the identity of the Hiung-nu and the Huns has been ascertained from ancient records as well as from language and archeology. However, certain doubts remain as to their physical type. That the Huns belonged to some completely Mongoloid group is clear from old documents and also from anthropological measurements of recently-discovered skeletal remains. On the contrary, the Hiung-nu, on the basis of ancient Chinese records, skeletal remains and a stone image, appear to have resembled the Caucasoid type.
