The Chapter "Race" of O. Maenchen-Helfen book displays the contrast between the information of the classical authors, prevailing throughout the western science, and the factual data. This well-researched article about western sources provides a wealth of details about the Western Huns in the western sources, and a review of anthropological studies up to 1970es, accompanied with, in O. Maenchen-Helfen's favorite expression, galimatia, predicated by the absence of data in Russian/Soviet scientific research, about which O. Maenchen-Helfen complains, but still draws weighty conclusions from thin evidence. Without scientific dating and detailed genetical analysis, most of the conclusions reached by 1960es were not much more than attempts to confirm preconceived notions, where the facts that were contradicting those notions were discarded.

Those who may be offended by O. Maenchen-Helfen terminology, please be generous. The word "negro" in Romance languages means "black", and the term dates back way more than two millennia, so O. Maenchen-Helfen is just honestly and objectively analyzing the literary status of ca 1,500 years ago. It should be no more offensive than the terms "race" and "race classification", without which this article could not have been written.

358

The following investigation is largely based on paleoanthropological evidence (Following the usage of the Russians to whose works I so often refer, I mean by anthropology what in the English-speaking countries is called physical anthropology). To the reader who has been exposed to so much that was merely a reasonable guess, exact measurements must come as a relief. The date of a battle may be controversial, but the naso-malar angle and simotic height of a skull are never in doubt. And yet the many hundred pages and the tens of thousands of figures with which the paleoanthropologists overwhelm us are of little value for historical studies unless they are supplemented by literary and archaeological evidence. Even if, for instance, the number of skulls from the thirteenth-century graves between the Kerulen and the Volga were twenty times greater than it is now, they would be useless in retracing the campaigns of Genghiz Khan, Batu, and Subotai. Mongoloid skulls of the paleo-Siberian type in the Avar graves in Hungary prove that one group of the multiracial hordes came from northeastern Asia, but they cannot tell us when these Mongoloid Avars left their pastures and over which routes they reached the middle Danube. These are limitations which are almost self-evident, but the historian faces other difficulties which he is well advised to recognize in order not to set unrealistic hopes in paleoanthropological studies.

Paleoanthropology is a relatively new science, and its terminology is still fluid. At times this can be rather bewildering. To give examples which refer directly to our problems, Nemeskeri regards the "Ural-Altaic" or "Sub-Uralic" type as Mongoloid; other anthropologists assign it to an intermediate position between Mongoloids and Europoids. Debets distinction between the paleo-Sibirian and Baikal type is ignored by others. "South Siberian" and "Turanian" mean the same, but there is no equivalent to the "Tungid" type of the Hungarian anthropologists in Soviet taxonomy, although its "short-faced" Mongoloid type seems to be the same; Debets' suggestion to call it the Katanga type has not been generally accepted.

In the present studies mainly the paleoanthropological material from the Soviet Union will be discussed, so I adhere to the terminology used in Osnovy Antropologii by Roginskii and Levin, and Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia by Levin.

"Great race" designates the three basic racial divisions of mankind, the Negroid, Europoid, and Mongoloid; "race," the large subdivisions within the great races. Thus the Mongoloid great race comprises, among others, the North Asiatic, Arctic, and Far Eastern (Sinid) races. Within the races "types" are distinguished, for example, within the North Asiatic race, the Baikal and Central Asiatic types (The Russians distinguish between Middle Asia and Central Asia, Haute Asie of the French, i.e., Mongolia and Tibet).

The paleoanthropological findings permit only a partial reconstruction of the physical appearance of the people. They remain silent about so much one would like to know; the color of the skin, eyes, and hair; the shape of the lips and eyelids; the patterning of the subcutaneous fat, to mention some of the characteristics by which, without measuring the skull, we can tell between, say, a Russian from Vologda and a Madrileno.

For reasons I do not quite understand the Soviet paleoanthropologists are exclusively, or almost exclusively, interested in skulls. This is all the more regrettable as stature is often of considerable importance for the racial diagnosis. To give an example, the burials in the kurgan cemetery at Shipovo take a prominent place in Hunnic studies. The furniture in kurgans 2 and 3 has been minutely described by Minaeva. Maslovski carefully measured the skull from kurgan. But only Rykov gave the length of the skeletons. The woman in kurgan 2 was 176 centimeters, the man in kurgan 3 was 170 centimeters tall; the man in kurgan 2 had the imposing height of 185 centimeters. These people could not be Huns, who were exigui forma, of small stature, as Jordanes said.

The reconstruction of the Eurasian steppes rests on a narrow base. According to the Han shu, the Wu-sun (aka Wusun, Usun, Usün, i.e. As-Sün, Ases+Huns or As'ed Huns - Translator's Note) numbered 630,000, which is of course too exact; who could have counted them? (tax collector, who else? - Translator's Note). Still, the figure probably was in the neighborhood of half a million. In the five centuries we can follow the history of the people, there lived several million Wu-sun. But to date not even two hundred of their skulls have been found. In 71 B.C., the Wu-sun took 39,000 Hun (Hsiung-nu) prisoners. Where are their skulls? About 150 B.C., the Chinese princess Hsi-chun for political reasons had to marry a Wu-sun king. She came to his tents with several hundred servants and eunuchs. It was sheer luck that in the Wu-sun graves at least one Chinese skull was found.

Finally, it must not be overlooked that the graves can very rarely be dated as exactly as the historian would wish (the technical retardation of Russian anthropology science is a permanent curse for the Türkic studies, an ever-present complaint of the scientists - Translator's Note). The skull in kurgan 12 at Kurgak in the Alai Valley is artificially deformed, Bernshtam dated the grave to the third century B.C., which puzzled Ginzburg, for cranial deformation was supposed to make its appearance with the coming of the Huns in the first century B.C. So he called this premature occurrence an echo, "otgolosok", of the connections of the Kurgak people with the Huns, although the echo does not precede the sound. Later Bernshtam changed his mind and dated the kurgan to the beginning of our era. Perhaps he was right this time, perhaps not. I do not want to be misunderstood. The paleoanthropological contributions to the study of the Huns cannot be overrated, but the uncertainties inherent in them must not be overlooked either. They can be somewhat, reduced if the written sources come to our help. We now turn to them.

There exist four descriptions of the appearance of the Huns. The first and earliest one, written by Ammianus Marcellinus in the winter of 392/3, was paraphrased by Jerome and Claudian. The second was the Gaulish writer Sidonius Apollinaris; third picture of the people was drawn by Jordanes, who must have seen Huns in the East Roman army. His portrait of Attila, however, goes, through Cassiodorus, back to Priscus, our fourth source. As the king "showed the evidence of his origin," we may take what Priscus said of him to be racial characteristics of the Huns.

Ammianus' description begins with a strange misunderstanding: "Since the cheeks of the children are deeply furrowed with the steel from their very birth, in order that the growth of hair, when it appears at the proper time may be checked by the wrinkled scars, they grow old without beards and without beauty, like eunuchs." This was repeated by Claudian and Sidonius and reinterpreted by Cassiodorus. Ammianus explanation of the thin beards of the Huns is wrong. Like so many other people, the Huns "inflicted wounds on their live flesh as a sign of grief when their kinsmen were dying."

Ammianus not only misinterpreted the Hunnic custom; his description of the Huns as beardless is at variance with Priscus. Ammianus may have seen an occasional Hunnic mercenary; in the main he had to rely on his Gothic informers, Priscus, in contrast, was personally acquainted with Attila, his sons, his uncles, and many Hunnic dignitaries. Attila, Priscus wrote, had a thin beard, rarus barba. To a Roman of the fifth century, a time when the beard was valued as a sign of manhood, indicium virilitaiis, as Jerome said, the beards of the Huns may have looked sparse. But Attila did not look like a eunuch. His thin beard was not necessarily a racial characteristic, a Mongoloid feature as has been maintained, any more than the sparse beard of Mynheer Pepperkorn in Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain. The definitely Europoid Scythians were often depicted with thin beards (H. Schoppa 1933, 21-22). Besides, Ammianus speaks of the hairy legs, hirsuta crura, of the Huns.

That in the eyes of the Romans and Germans the Huns were an ugly crowd does not mean much, and when Ammianus compares them, he evidently wants to emphasize the coarse features of the Huns. Only reluctantly he has also two good words for the hated savages: They have compact, strong limbs and, like Ammianus' beloved emperor Julian, strong necks.

The wide shoulders and the broad chest, scapulis latis (Jordanes), la to pectore (Priscus), insignes urneri, pectora uasia (Sidonius) are for the racial diagnosis as irrelevant as the narrow waist, succincia sub ilibus alvus (Sidomus). The great sitting height might be of more importance: "The figure of the foot soldiers is of medium height, but it is elongated if you look at the horsemen. Thus they often are considered tall when they are sitting" (Forma quidem pe-diti media est, procera sed extat, si cernas equiies; sic longi seape putantur, si se-deant, Sidonius). Like the Huns, the Bashkirs, with their considerable Mongoloid admixture, are long-bodied, well muscled, and robust, with wide shoulders. But the Belgian Flemings and Walloons also are described as "moderately thick-set in bodily build; their shoulders are broad, and their relative sitting height great."

Jordanes stressed the small stature, exigui forma, and the swarthy complexion of the Huns, species pavenda nigridinis; Priscus described Attila as swarthy, teter color, and of short stature, forma brevis. Althias (Türk. alty = "six", or altyn = "gold, golden" - Translator's Note) commander of the Hunnic auxiliaries in Belisarius' army, was "lean and not tall of body." Asterius of Amasea called the Huns nimble and slender. But Emperor Arcadius was also of short stature and dark complexion. Ammianus called the Persians subnigri (μέλας=niger). Emperor Valens was nigri coloris; so was the Egyptian philosopher Pamprepius, whom Hodgkin took for a Negro. Whereas their height and the color of their skin did not markedly set the Huns apart from many Romans, the difference between them and their Germanic and Alanic white-skinned and tall subjects and allies must have been striking. The Alans were a tall, blond people (allegedly speaking subnigri language - Translator's Note). In the Middle and Late Sarmatian graves in the Volga region lay men as tall as 182, 185, 187, and 189 centimeters (Rykov 1925, 66, and 1926, 103, 117, 123).

The description of the heads of the Huns are really revealing. The heads were round and shapeless (informis offa, Jordanes), "a round mass rises into a narrow head" (consurgit in artum [or arcum] massa rotunda caput, Sidonius); the eyes small and deep-set: "tiny eyes, perforations rather than lights" (minutis oculis havens magis puncta quam lumina, Jordanes), "their sight is there in two hollows beneath the forehead; while the eyes are not visible, the light that enters the dome of the skull can hardly reach the receding eyeballs" (geminis sub fronfe cavernis visus adest, oculis absentibus acta cercbri in cameram vix ad refugos pervenit orbes, Sidonius). The nose was flat; this follows from Sidonius' description of the way the skulls of the children were deformed, and Jordanes, quoting Priscus, says expressly that Attila had a flat nose, semo nasu.

The weakly accentuated profile, together with the small eyes, point to a Mongoloid strain in the Huns. How strong it was cannot be determined from the few words in our sources. The more pronounced racial features in a mixed population always attract the most attention. Movses Dasxuranchi ignored the Europoids among the Khazars and described the whole people as "an ugly, broad-faced, eyelashless mob". The women in the Kiptchak horde, wrote William of Rubruk, were exceedingly fat "and the smaller their noses, the fairer they were esteemed"; he was so impressed by the flat Mongol faces that he had no eyes for the non-Mongols who constituted the majority of the population. One must also not forget that Ammianus and Jordanes hated the Huns with such an intensity that, however the savages may have looked, they had to be depicted as subhuman monsters. A comparison between Ammianus' and Jordanes' descriptions of the Huns and what Western chroniclers wrote about the Magyars is instructive. To the Germans and Italians the Magyars were "a monstrous nation, a horrid tribe, a tribe more cruel than any wild beast" (mostrifera natio, horrenda gens, gens omni belua crudelior). Crossing Hungary on his voyage to the Holy Land, Otto of Freising admired God's patience in giving so beautiful a country not to human beings but such monsters. But Gardizi, a disinterested observer, called the Magyars handsome and pleasant-looking.

Ammianus and Jordanes may be forgiven, but what excuse have modern authors who ascribe to the Huns swollen lips, beady eyes, and bandy legs (Dudden 1925, 1, 1; Goon 1930, 229) ?

Atilla had canis aspersus, "sprinkled with gray," said of his beard.

The descriptions give a somewhat distorted picture of the Huns. What is known about other steppe peoples of northern Eurasia in the first millennium A,D. makes it unlikely that the Huns were as Mongoloid as say, the Yakut or Tunguz of our times. Many Huns were halfbreeds. Balamber (i.e Bulümar, 363-378 - Translator's Note) married a Gothic princess (Getica, 249), Attila's last wife had the Germanic name Ildico, the Gepid Mundo was of Attilanic descent (Getica, 301,49). Though we do not hear of Alano-Hunnic marriages, the Mongoloid strain in the Alans of Sapaudia shows that such marriages were fairly common. The leader of Stilieho's Alanic auxiliaries was a small man; among his ancestors were probably Huns.

Most large cemeteries of the post-Hunnic centuries in the steppes reveal a mixture of races. The Gepidic cemetery at Kiszombor shows Mongoloids. In their Scandinavian home the Gepids may not have been pure Nordics, but there were no Mongoloids among them; in Hungary they mixed with the Huns. In the Avar cemeteries; next to Europoids, at least four Mongoloid types are represented: Sinid, Baikal, Tungid, Yenisei (Liptak 1959,, 251-279. On the other hand, of the skulls from the Avar necropolis at Alattyan, county Szolnok, only two in the earlier group are Mongoloid of the Baikal). In the cemetery at Kyukyal'dy in the valley of Kzyl-Alai, datable to the sixth and seventh centuries, Mongoloids with both wide and narrow faces were buried side by side with Europoids of the Andronovo and proto-Mediterranean type with varying degrees of Mongoloid admixture, testifying to the complex, composition of some groups in the Western Turkish Kaganate.

The paleoanthropological evidence indicates that the Huns were likewise racially mixed. In 1939, when Bartucz published his fundamental study on the races in Hungary, he did not know "of a single skull which could, beyond any doubt, be regarded as Hunnic." This is still true. Yet the situation is not as bad as it looks. The following list of non-Europoid skulls in graves of the Hunnic period is probably not complete, but it suffices for our purposes:

Vienna-Simmering: Skull of a mature man (Geyer 1932).

Strazhe I near Pieshtany, Slovakia: woman. E(uropoid)+M(ongoloid) (Vlcek 1957, 403, 405, 432-424).

Beshenov V, district Surany, Slovakia: man. E+M (Ibid., 410-411).

Adony, Hungary: One artificially deformed skull of a child which "seems to belong to the Europid type." Of the twenty-one skulls not deformed, "ten are dolichocranic, six mesocranic, and four brachycranic. In one case it was impossible to determine the index. As to the distribution of varieties, the Europoid type is represented by the Northern, the Mediterranean, and the East-Europid varieties. In the case of four skulls, we have to do with the so-called dolimorphic Ural-Altaic or Sub-Uralic varieties of the Mongolid type. The skulls belonging to this type are characterized by a long and moderately wide cranium cerebrale (mesoerany); by a low cranium viscerale, by a moderately vaulted forehead, and pronounced browridges." (Nemeskeri 1952, 225-226).

Györ (incidentaly, "Gyor", "ring" and its derivatives like "central plazza" and "wagon ring" in Magyar, phonetically resembles the name of the Alanian king, Goar/Goarchar, where "char" is a high title spread between Türks: Bagchur, Boyanchur, Khan Kura, Kurbat, Mochur, and Goar was a perennial puzzle for IE etymologies - Translator's Note) Szechenyi Square, Hungary: Twenty-three skulls from a cemetery in and outside of a Roman camp. One artificially deformed skull of a child. "The skulls belong to the Europid and Mongolid types, represented by six skulls each. No clear assignation to types was possible in the rest of the cases. The Mongolid varieties show a predominance of Tungid characteristics. Special importance attaches to the skulls found in graves nos. 9 and 21: these skulls belong to the dolichocranic Mongolid type. The closest parallel is the classical type found in the Avar cemetery at Mosonszentjanos."(Ibid., 226-227).

Dulceanca, rayon Roshiori in Muntenia, Rumania: Deformed skull of a man of about fifty years, E+M, (Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1961, 543-547). This cemetery is dated earlier than the last quarter of the fourth century. No Mongoloids lived between Vienna and Dulceanca before the coming of the Huns. On the other hand, the locations and the grave goods preclude the possibility of dating the skulls later than the fifth century. They are those of Huns or people who came with the Huns.

The descriptions and racial diagnoses which have been quoted verbatim require some comment. There are first the skulls that show both Europoid and Mongoloid features. Some anthropologists refuse to go beyond the statement that in a given skull characteristics of the two major races can be discerned. The artificial, and in particular the circular, deformation affects nearly all cranial indices to such a degree that it is often impossible to determine even the major races (Debets, Antropologicheskii Jurnal 1, 1936, excluded all deformed skulls from racial diagnosis; K. F. Sokolova (in A. P. Smirnov 1958, 63) disregards the artificially deformed skulls from Chufut-Kala). If, in addition, a deformed skull shows, or seems to show, features of both major races, the diagnosis of the types becomes an extremely difficult task. Most Soviet anthropologists are content with classifying such skulls as Europoid-Mongoloid.

In the list of skulls of the Hunnic period, I did not include the deformed skulls from Szekszard, Mohacs, Gyöngyösapati, and Szirmabesenyö. According to Liptak, none of the skulls shows any Mongoloid admixture. Of those from Strazhe and Besenov which Vlcek took for Mongoloid, Liptak accepted only two as E+M (with all respect to the OMH's canvassing the tendency of the Russian science to concentrate on E/M antipodes with a blind eye to other factors, the author lists whole categories of crucial facts being completely excluded from consideration in order to abide to the doctrine, with the measurements becoming acts of faith in lieu of the facts - Translator's Note).

Even after elimination of the controversial skulls, there remain a number of Mongoloid and E+M skulls datable to the Hunnic period. To be sure, a possibility that one or another of the supposedly Mongoloid skulls may turn out to be E + M or even Europoid cannot be ruled out. However, it is unlikely that all diagnoses were wrong. Nemeskeri found two skulls of the Baikal type.

The material from Hungary, Slovakia, and Rumania is by far too small to determine the numerical relationship of the various races in the Hunnish hordes. Besides, most of the skulls come from the graves of poor people. The prominent Huns, or, to be more cautious, some of them, cremated their dead (here OMH must be confusing Gothic/Germanic leaders in service of the Huns with the Huns themselves. Any description of Hun's or Türkic funeral rites and burials, including OMH's work, refers to inhumation, and never to cremation. Talk about statistical impact of cremation is completely devoid - Translator's Note). Some E+M skulls might also be Alanic. There were individuals of the South Siberian type among the Sarmatians at Kalinovka in the Volga region. The skulls in the graves at Saint Prex, canton Vaud, with their considerable Mongoloid admixture, were in all probability the skulls of Alans or descendants of Alans. Such a half breed was also the man in whose grave at Vienna-Simmering objects were found that could be Hunnic. The man himself was 180 centimeters tall (Vlcek 1957, 403, 406, 410-414), thus clearly not a Hun (by excluding all tall people with deformed sculls, and all Europoids from the Hunnic remains, any study would default to a conclusion that the Huns were Mongoloids - Translator's Note).

THE HUNS (Chinese "Hsiung-nu", Eastern Huns)

Until the 1940's, the identity of the European Huns with the Hun (Hsiung-nu) on China's borders was rarely questioned (in the European science - Translator's Note). As no one doubted that the Hun (Hsiung-nu) were Mongoloids, the (European - Translator's Note) Huns must have been Mongoloids too. Are there paleoanthropological finds to reconstruct the routes over which they migrated into eastern Europe?

The answer given by A. N. Bernshtam in 1926 was for a while widely accepted: In the last century B.C., Hun (Hsiung-nu) wrere supposed to have moved to eastern Middle Asia and from there spread westward. Bernshtam's thesis centered on a catacomb in the cemetery on the Kenkol River in the Upper Talas Valley. Bernshtam excavated kurgan 10. "In the catacomb," he wrote, "lay two Mongoloid skeletons with deformed skulls; the skeletons in the dromos were Europoids, apparently slaves from the local population of the Pamiro-Fergana race." (Bernshtam 1940, 30-31).

Bernshtam was an excellent and indefatigable excavator who went on digging when he hardly could walk any more; he died from cancer at the age of forty-six. Bernshtam was also a courageous man. He defended the views of the eminent but often mad linguist N. Marr at a time when so many Soviet scholars who had praised Marr to heaven were kicking the dead lion after Stalin had branded him an anti-Marxist (That's a fine reference to science that praise and kick depending on the debile at the helm's mood. Just be careful building paradigms based on that science - Translator's Note). But Bernshtam built his ideas on the narrowest foundations. His interpretation of the Kenkol finds is a telling example. The two Mongoloids became in no time Turkish-speaking Hun (Hsiung-nu), and the Europoids in the dromos (became) Wu-sun slaves. Because the Mongoloids were buried in catacombs, all catacomb burials in Middle Asia were declared Hun (Hsiung-nu) burials. The shepherds from Kenkol were the missing link between the Hun (Hsiung-nu) in Mongolia and the Huns in Hungary. Bernshtam's interpretation by now it is practically abandoned... The alleged difference between the "lords" and the "slaves" turned out to be nonexistent.

Debets measured the horizontal profiles of the couple in the catacomb and the two men in the dromos. They are as follows:

The angle of nasal prominence of the skulls in the catacombs is 26, of those in the dromos, 26 and 25. In other words, there are no real differences between the "lords" and the "slaves" in the degree of the horizontal profile of the face. The ones are not more Mongoloid than the others. All four skulls are Europoids with some Mongoloid admixture.

Debets' almost indignant refutation of Bernshtam's thesis of course does not solve the problem of the Kenkol finds. Where did the Mongoloid admixture come from ? The wider question still remained whether the Mongoloids in the graves in Hungary had anything to do with the Mongoloid Hun (Hsiung-nu). (This whole squabble laid out by O. Maenchen-Helfen reads like a sentence to the Russian science. Nobody would accuse Bernshtam's of not knowing how to read a scale or how to use a campus, so the contention lies in falsification of the results to get from A to B, the results that naiveties like O. Maenchen-Helfen take seriously and refer to in their studies, and worse, come to definite doctrines, like the infamous Osseto-Scythian doctrine - Translator's Note)

Debets measured sixteen sculls from the kurgans in the Selenga Valley near Ust-Kiakhta, between 1897 and 1903, excavated by the Polish anthropologist Talko-Hryncevics, and a female cranium from Noin Ula, found by the Kozlov expedition in 1925. The skull of a man, found by the Hungaro-Mongolian expedition in Noin Ula in 1961, has been measured and described by T. Toth. He found in it the features of the Baikal (paleo-Siberian) type: dolichocephalic, low skull, high and orthognathous face, very slight horizontal profile, that is, a very flat face and a broad, flat nose, sloping forehead, strong browridges. The other skull from Noin Ula is of the same type; so are the skulls from the Selenga Valley, although among them one has somewhat attenuated Mongoloid features (as, possibly, the whole series). The skull from the Ivolginskoe gorodishehe which Gokhman studied is likewise of the Baikal type. The earliest Baikal skull was excavated in 1952 in a cave near the Shilka River; Okladnikov dates it to the Glazkovo period (about 1700-1300 B.C.), though it might be later. The skulls from the slab graves in Transbaikalia of the beginning of the Iron Age (fourth to second century B.C.) are of greater importance to us. They are the low-faced skulls of the pre-Hun (Hsiung-nu) population of the area.

When the Hun (Hsiung-nu) came, the low-faced skulls gave way to the high-faced ones of the Hun (Hsiung-nu). In the early and the beginning of the later Han period a great part of the Hun (Hsiung-nu) confederacy, perhaps we may say its nucleus, consisted of Mongoloids of the Baikal type. This does not make all Mongoloids of the Baikal type into Hun (Hsiung-nu). Nor does it prove that all members of the confederacy were of the Baikal type. Besides, what was true for the last two centuries B.C. and the beginning of our era was not necessarily true for the third and fourth centuries. We turn to the written sources and the archaeological monuments.

EUROPOIDS IN EAST ASIA

A stone horse at a tomb in the valley of the Wei River in Shensi is trampling a barbarian under its hoof. The tomb has been identified as <lacuna> for his victories over the Hun (Hsiung-nu). Although the exact date of the sculpture is not quite certain, it is doubtless of the Han period. The general buried under the earth mound was perhaps not Ho Chu-ping, but he must have been an outstanding man, and the enemy was definitely a Hun (Hsiung-nu). He has a flat face and prominent cheekbones, but a luxuriant beard which is quite un-Mongoloid. In this respect he closely resembles the horseman on a small bronze plaque found by P. S. Mikhno near Troitskovavsk in Transbaikalia (fig. 74). A bronze in the British Museum, from the Ordos region, which was for a long time held by the Hun (Hsiung-nu), represents a Europoid; note the thick moustache and the wide open eyes (fig. 75).

FIG. 74. Small bronze plaque showing a horseman with prominent cheekbones and full beard, from Troitskovavsk in Transbaikalia. From Petri, Dalekoe proshloe Pribalkalia 1928, fig. 39.	FIG. 75. Bronze plaque from the Ordos region, showing a man of Europoid stock with wide open eyes and moustache. British Museum. Photo G. Azarpay.

The Mongoloid elements in the Hun (Hsiung-nu) were considerably strengthened by the many Chinese renegades. The Han sources are full of reports on soldiers and "rabble" on the borders who went over to the Hun (Hsiung-nu), and prisoners of war. Of the Hun (Hsiung-nu)'s Ch'iang, Ta Hu, and Ting-ling slaves in the third century (San-kuo-chih, ch. 30), the Ch'iang were almost certainly Mongoloids. But from their raids into the oasis cities of Hsin-chiang (Kucha, Kao-ch'ang, and other towns in the northern Tarim basin) (ie. Sinkiang Province, ie Eastern Turkestan, ie. Xinjiang Uygur "Autonomous" Province - Translator's Note), the Hun (Hsiung-nu) must have brought back quite a number of Europoids. A double burial in the desert, region north of Min-feng hsien is instructive. The polychrome silk, jackets, trousers, stockings, whose features are distinctly Europoid. The couple in the grave was also Europoid ( Li Υü-chun, WW, June 1960, 9-12) (Very ironically, these "distinctly Europoid" people are quickly classed by certain scientists as "Iranian-speaking", only to be later embarrassed by their pronounced "non-European" genes - Translator's Note) .

Two references for the problem of the first appearance of the Europoids on the borders of China. Karlgren pointed out that the bronze figure of a kneeling man from one of the Chin Tsun graves, datable between about 450 and 230 B.C., does not represent a Mongoloid. The hunter on an often reproduced gold plaque in the Siberian collection of Peter the Great (Most recently reproduced by Rudenko 1962b, pt. 4) is undoubtedly Europoid. The plaque has been dated between the third and first century B.C., if not earlier.

As the account of the massacre of the Hun (Hsiung-nu) Chieh in Chao in 349 A.D. shows, the great majority of that people were Europoids. When Jan Min made himself lord of Chao in northern Honan, which until then had been ruled (i.e. populated - Translator's Note) by the Chieh, he ordered the extermination of all Chieh in and around Yeh, more than two hundred thousand were slain. The Chieh soldiers were recognized by their high noses and full beards ( Chin shu 107, 8a).

Uchida Gimpu and I adduced this characterization of the Chieh as proof of the existence of a Europoid group among the Hun (Hsiung-nu) in the fourth century (Gakugei 36, 28-32, and Yuboku minzoku no shakai to 6un/ca, see Gimpu 1953). This was rejected by S. G. Klyashtornyi with reference to Yao Wei-yuan, who tried to prove that the Chieh were originally Yueh-chih. Taking one step farther, Pulleyblank declared the Chieh to be Tokharians.

It is entirely possible that the Chieh were ethnically different from other Hun (Hsiung-nu); but this does not change the fact that they were one of the nineteen tribes of the Hun (Hsiung-nu). When they joined the Hun (Hsiung-nu) in the 4th c.century BC, there were Europoids among the Hun (Hsiung-nu) .

Liu Yuan, the Hun (Hsiung-nu) conqueror of Lo-yang in 311, was 184 centimeters tall; there were red strains in his long beard (Wei shu 45). The Hun (Hsiung-nu) Ho-lien Po-po, founder of the short-lived Hsia dynasty, a contemporary of Attila, was 195 centimeters (Ibid., 95). Some Tu-yu-him princes were also very tall.The disproportinately large number of tall barbarians indicates a racial difference between them and the Chinese (if OHM cites facts that indicate presence of tall Huns at both Western and Eastern Huns, how could he uncritically follow Priscus and reject the "nonconforming" evidence - Translator's Note).

The Mu-jung Tu-yu-hun were a branch of the Hsien-pei. An anecdote in the Shih-shuo hsin-yii, compiled by Liu Yi-ching in the first half of the fifth century, shows that the Hsien-pei, who are supposed to have spoken a Mongolian language, were racially anything but Mongoloid, When in 324 Emperor Ming, whose mother, nee Hsun, came from the Hsien-pei kingdom of Yen, heard about the rebellion of Vang Tun, he rode into the camp of the rebels to find out their strength. He rode in full gallop through the camp. His puzzled enemies thought he was a Hsien-pei. Sakanoke no iamuramaro s "Uimese ancestor Acm no umi came; ne naa a reddish face and a yellow beard (Wedemeyer 1930, 114, n. 244).

The Tang period falls outside the framework of the present studies. I mention only in passing the Europoid "Tokharians," depicted with their red hair and green eyes on the wall paintings in northern Hsin-chiang (ie. Eastern Turkestan - Translator's Note). The barbarian horsemen from Yu-chou in a poem by Li Po, probably Turks, had green eyes. Even later the Chinese knew of Mongol Huang tou Shih-wei, "Shih-wei with the yellow heads," (ie. "border guard with yellow heads" - Translator's Note) and Gengiz Khan and his descendants had blond or reddish hair and deep-blue eyes (Ytieh fu shih chi, ch. 25).

One could think that the Europoid Hun (Hsiung-nu) were originally members of subjugated tribes, prisoners of war, or slaves. Some probably were. But Chin-jih-ti, 191 centimeters tall, a contemporary of Ho Chii-ping, was crown prince of the Hsiu-tu, a royal branch of the Hun (Hsiung-nu) (Groot 1921, 132). After a conquest of present Tuva by the Hun (Hsiung-nu) in the second century B.C., the population, which had been racially mixed with a preponderance of Europoid features (V. A. Alekseev, Trudy Tuv. 1, 1960, 148, 295), became not less but more Europoid (V. A. Alekseev 1956).

Yen Shih-ku's often quoted descriptions of the Wu-sun, neighbors and hereditary enemies of the Hun (Hsiung-nu), seems to prove that at one time the Wu-sun were preponderantly Europoid: "Of all the Jung of the western lands the Wu-sun look the most peculiar. Those of the present Hu who have cerulean, light shade of blue, eyes and red beards and look like Mi monkeys are their descendants." (Groot, 1926, 123.112). The Chinese belief that the Ruses were the descendants of the Wu-sun, first attested in the Yuan period (1206–1368, before Rus became Russia, and before Ruses became Russians - Translator's Note), was based on Yen Shih-ku's statement; cf. Khmer 1961, 68.Yen Shih-ku (579-645) evidently relied on an earlier source.

Already at a time when only a small number of skulls from the territory held by the Wu-sun were known, they were recognized as Europoid (Oshanin 1954, 21). Debets admitted a slight Mongoloid admixture. The Wu-sun were not Indians, but "physiologically the Wu-sun resembled the present day clanless Uzbeks or Fergana Tadjiks, that is, the Europeoid features were still decidedly prominent." As the material accumulated, local differences turned out to be more prominent than it was first thought. The development also did not go in the same direction. As late as the third century some Wu-sun were almost purely Europoid, whereas others were of the South Siberian type, that is, with a marked Mongoloid admixture. Kazakh anthropologist 0. Ismagulov published the results of his studies that have confirmed Yen Shih-ku's statement. Of eighty-seven skulls from graves in the Semirechie (Russ. for Jeti-Su - Translator's Note), six, datable around the beginning of our era, were either of the European type or close to it (Akishev and Kushaev 1963, 188, 153, 155, 211, 212). These Wu-sun did not resemble Uzbeks or Tadjiks; they were people with "cerulean, light shade of blue, eyes and red beards."

The paleoanthropological work in Hsin-chiang (ie. Sinkiang Province, ie Eastern Turkistan, ie. Xinjiang Uygur "Autonomous" Province - Translator's Note) has barely begun. It is, therefore, all the more remarkable that some of the skulls collected by the Sino-Swedish Expedition in 1928 and 1934 and studied by C. H. Hjortsjo and A. Walander point to Europoids of the northern type in the ancient population. Of the three skulls from Miran, datable between the last century B.C. and the third century A.D., one is probably Chinese, one probably Tibetan with a strong Nordic admixture, one preponderantly Nordic, possibly with some Indoid or Mongoloid features. In the third century Miran was a Tibetan fortress, so the Mongoloids were possibly soldiers of the garrison. The presence of Indoid features could be expected; the men on the third-century wall painting are Indians, the inscriptions are in Karosthi. But the Nordic features come as a surprise. A skull from Charchan, unfortunately undatable, is predominantly Nordic, with Indoid and Mongoloid admixture. One of the earlier crania from the Lopnor region, presumably datable to the first three centuries A.D., is Mongoloid with some Nordic features. From the mass cemetery in the same region, which only approximately can be dated after 200 A.D., comes the skull of a Mongoloid with some Nordic features and another one which is Indoid with Nordic and weak Mongoloid admixture. Around the beginning of our era, Europoids of the Nordic type lived, thus, both in the Semirechie (Russ. for Jeti-Su - Translator's Note) and Hsin-chiang (ie. Eastern Turkistan - Translator's Note).