>>/47732/
>>/47732/
> From the beginning of the Scythian era a very typical ornamental style was present all over the steppe belt, what we call the "scythian animal style", we talk about that previously. No matter the ethnicity of those people, all the folk had the very same. This is missing from the findings of the European Huns. What they have instead in their art is Persian. This is why archaeologists resorted to identify "leading finds", like the Hunnic cauldrons, to tell what remains belong to the Huns.
Interesting I didn't know that where does it say that?
> In Hungarian historiography both Turkic (Hunnic) and Iranian (Scythian) relations were dropped entirely to favor the Finno-Ugric origins. Those who tried to pick up those threads, and declared we have lot to do with both groups were bullied out of the academia and the science of history. They were laughed at in scientific journals, made fun of, told they were stupid, or romantic. At best they got obscure positions in tiny museums in the countryside and were denied of professorships, they couldn't teach, at worst they had to leave their career behind. It was the worst during the decades of scientific Marxism, but this was going on from the late 19th century (from the so called Ugric-Turkic War I mentioned before, which was a clash of scientific views, and "won" by the linguists who pushed the Ugric ancestry).
Now a group of scientists, biologists essentially, with the results of genetic studies they started to address taboos. Like the Hunnic relations.
I remember about what you said we talked about these a year ago but I think people take genetics way too serious. Even if you would be %99 identical to us we wouldn't be related due to very different culture. You don't share some kind of common history with other Turkics. Believing linguistic group=genes=ethnicity is so 19th century thing.
It's a shame people politicized the science in the past.