Well it's a bit difficult, since there were "white" Iranians living in Asia to just say "white" or "asian". But we are not entirely sure what the Huns are. Probably related to the Turks more so than the Iranians. So they were possibly more Asiatic. It is difficult to say, however, since the Romans discriptions really helpful, and I don't think too many burials have been found (unlike say the Iranians and the Turks).sarmatians are white I believe, huns are asian, right?
More or less. Only some Iranian peoples were blonde, some were darker. And then the Huns, Turks, Arabs, and finally Mongols came, and interbred with the Iranians. Some remained pretty independant, like the Alans after the Huns fell. But as a whole other peoples assimilated them (nomadic peoples tended to just join up with a stronger tribe), yeah.Okay so let me get this straight.
In 280 or so BC, the Northern Iranians and the Sarmatian tribes west of the Urals were "white" in the sense that they looked somewhat like the modern Swede, or what not.
Then comes the migrations westward of Asiatic peoples from east of the Urals, culminating in the arrival of the Huns in the Western Roman Empire. So in the end the whitish peoples of Eastern Europe and the Caucauses were replaced or intermarried into Asiatic peoples with darker hair and complexions?
And before the migrations, the Iranians weren't mixed with Asiatic peoples.
Thanks Neon God and Ranika for clearing up the Aryan issue, I wasn't entirelly sure about the whole thing.He didn't make it up, he just got it wrong. Germans aren't Aryans.
The comparison between Persians and other Iranians reminds me of comparing one Celtic tribe to another. The Cymru were darker in complexion and hair than the Goidils, for example.
Bookmarks