|
Post by alanidragonrising on May 12, 2011 1:08:14 GMT 3
I believe there were points stretched beyond credibility, but I do consider that the Scythians might be related to the groups talked about as they did cover those areas. The idea that multiple languages somehow makes this doubtful shouldn't be taken that seriously. There are nations now with multiple languages within them. What I found to be of great interest was the Chinese description of the Huns, or at least the hierarchy, as being tall and mainly Europid. My suspicions have been that the Alani were a part of the set up early on and not just later. They had been in the regions and their mode of operation suggests to me that they would gain access to as many tribes and kingdoms as they could.
|
|
|
Post by aynur on May 24, 2011 13:53:49 GMT 3
It's interesting debate. If you ask me, none of the ancient steppe confederations and empires were controlled/inhabited by a homogeneous population. You had tribes that lived side by side that could've had both Mongoloids (Turks/Mongols/Tungus) and Caucasoids (Scythians/Saka) or the ones in between.
As for the Huns:
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on May 24, 2011 23:44:53 GMT 3
In regard to those accounts of the Huns I remember that Lev Gumilëv has written somewhere that they fit more Ugorian than Mongoloid type. Then I wondered what does he mean by "Ugorian type"...
|
|