Originally posted by Jankovska
View Post
...But why?
Archaeological evidence that a people moved from A to B means that you find some artifacts in A and some year later you find some similar artifacts in B.
Imagine the Mongols and the Turks who lived in tents or on top of horses conquering such vast empires as China and the Eastern Roman empire and still keep living in their tents and upon their horses. Does it make sense? It doesn't really.
Apart from the language, all other proof of their existence was erased when they chose to adapt to the lifestyle of the rich countries that they conquered. They actually expanded upon it: The Taj Mahal is in India, but it was built by a Muslim Mongol emperor. Why did he chose to build it as an Indian monument and not as a Mongol monument? Well, what is a Mongol monument? Do you know of a single Mongol monument? The Mongols created the largest empire ever, but you won't find Mongol architecture in any part of their former conquests, perhaps not even in Mongolia itself.
Thus, what you find from the invasion of a barbarian people into a civilized country is nothing more than signs of destruction. These exist in all of these cases, but some people prefer to interpret them as signs of internal strife. This is a possibility, albeit a slim one.
Still, all of the contemporary historians mention all of these invasions. The strongest proof of them is not the creations of the invaders themselves, but the creations of the civilized people who tried to stop them from invading, like the only monument that is visible from space, the Great wall of China...
Comment