Talk:Agathyrsi

[Untitled]
Insert non-formatted text here --Ali doostzadeh 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Herodotus mentioned the Pontic Greek tale that the Agathyrsi were descended from Agathyrsus, a son of Hercules and the snake-woman; but Herodotus was skeptical of this story, and he also gave two other versions of the Scythian origin (and these other versions from what I remember, do not involve the Agathyrsi): the Scythian version, and another version (three different stories). Herodotus said the third one (neither Scythian nor Greek version) was most credible, not the Pontic Greek myth, which he seems to have doubted.

Untitled
Who is the source of the speculation that Thyrsi may be a Scythian corruption of Thracian Thrausi or Trausi? That doesn'tsound likely to me based only on speculation, unless there is an ancient reference that backs it up or suggests this. The Thrausi from what I remember lived all the way in the south of Thrace, and didn't encounter Scythians that much. I'm going to erase that suggestion for now. Alexander 007 00:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Someone conected the romanian mithology character of Spargepietre whith the Agathyrsi king Spargapeithes.It may be possible that the name of king remained embedded in the romanian folclore.

do not put false information
I request that any material needs to be sources with English actual quotes and the translation and the name of the translator. Faulty etymology needs to be removed. Aghajari is not related Agathyrsi and folk etymology to expand nationalistic claim is not welcome. Also one of barefact's article was deleted because it had too many wrong information. So any new information from his website www.turkicworld.org should be sourced and checked. --Ali doostzadeh 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ali, what is Aghajari and who said anything about it? THese are all verifiable quotes from historians, are you insisting that all the original quote about the Agathyrsi for each one appear here, one by one? That can be arranged... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the quote: In the 15th century a branch of Agach-Eriler (Türkic pl. of Agacher), who lived in the region of Marash-Elbistan in Central Anatolia, immigrated to Safavid (Azeri dynasty) Persia. Until nowadays this branch of Agachers has survived in Iran.  !!  The actual name of this tribe which has a Turkic name (although they speak Dialect of Luri now)  is Aghajari in Iran and there is no relation to Agathyrsi.  So how many false informations do we have to put up with?  The quotes from Herodotus also show they were not Scythians.  The other quotes need to be shown from actual reliable English translations.  Why should Akatazir (a name of a commander) be related to Agathyrsi..  The whole material is OR from www.turkicworld.org.  So you are not reading the material and obviously you have not seen more of the verifable quotes from Historians or else you would actually quote a modern scholarly work on the tribe instead of making weired etymological leaps. By the way the sound th does not exist in Turkish.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, which quotes are you specifically disputing? All of them? I would be more than happy if we dig up all the actual quotes in English if you think they are made up, I'm sure we can find some of these and set the record straight... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is why I suggested you bring it to the talk page first and then we double check every quotes.  I have a right to suspect almost every material from www.turkicworld.org when even thracians are considered Turkish.  I also suspect the faulty etymologies.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You do have a point in that some of the contributor barefact's cites in the past have turned out to not tell the full story, like the one from Zosimus... So I suppose that is enough reason to find out the truth of what material there really is on the Agathyrsi in these classical authors... Anything found and verified should have a place here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well when it comes from www.turkicworld.org (barefact's site), first it needs to be verified then quoted. See the below. --Ali doostzadeh 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here they are: a) Herodotus separates Agathyrsi from Scythians, any sort of mythical fabrications relating to Herodotus is stuff of myths and legends. Here are some false sources that needs to be verified and I can almost sure that they are forged by barefact and www.turkicworld.org.. the stuff in bold slowly shows how the POV OR nationalist users try to make some weired Turkic connection which does not exist and is all based on fantasy.

1) The 2nd century historian Claudius Ptolemy places Agathyrs and Savars, another easily traceable tribe, in the N. Pontic. 2) Servius on Aenid 4.v.146 relates that probably closer to 300 AD the Agathyrsi sent across a sea a contingent to Scotland[citation needed], where it became identified with Picts, who were formidable warriors and seriously fatigued all who stood against them.[citation needed] Traditionally, the Picts are depicted as wearing conical hats and speaking a language incompehensible to local Indo-Europeans.[citation needed] 3) Next we find Akatziri[citation needed] mentioned by Priscus in Vol XI, 823 and Byzantine History[citation needed], who encountered Agathyrs leading a nomadic life north of Black Sea during the 5th century, and reported them as being Hunnic subjects in pre-Attila time[citation needed], and a main force of the Hun army in Attila's time.[citation needed]

First bring the quote. '''Now why should Akatziri be related to Agathyrsi. By what kind of weired folk etymology?!?'''

4) Attila appointed Karidach as the Akatzirs' Khan.[citation needed] Jordanes, who quotes Priscus in Getica, described the European Agathyrs as extremely brave people.[citation needed]

5) After the death of Attila and the fracture of the Hunnish empire, a coalition of the Bulgarian tribes defeated the Agathyrs in a battle for supremacy[citation needed], and incorporated them in their empire, known in the 7th c. as Great Bulgaria[citation needed].

6) In the following centuries, the N. Pontic steppes were dominated in turns by Khazars, Badjanaks, Oghuzes, Kipchaks, Mongolo-Tatars, and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth[citation needed].

7) faulty and extremly ridicolous etymology: During the Middle Ages, Agathyrs popped out again in the Seljuk Anatolia[citation needed]. In the 15th century a branch of Agach-Eriler (Türkic pl. of Agacher), who lived in the region of Marash-Elbistan in Central Anatolia, immigrated to Safavid (Azeri dynasty) Persia[citation needed]. Until nowadays this branch of Agachers has survived in Iran.[citation needed]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathyrsi"

--Ali doostzadeh 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Here is some of what the historian Ammianus said about the Agathyrsi in the original:

XXII 8:31. circa haec stagna ultima extimaque plures habitant gentes, sermonum institutorumque varietate dispariles, Iaxamatae et Maeotae et Iazyges, Roxolanique et Halani et Melanchlaenae et cum Gelonis Agathyrsi, apud quos adamantis est copia lapidis: aliique ultra latentes, quod sunt omnium penitissimi.

32. sed Maeotidos lateri laevo Cherronesus est propinqua, coloniarum plena Graecarum. unde quieti sunt homines et sedati, adhibentes vomeri curam et proventibus fructuariis victitantes. 

XXXI, 2:14. inter hos Nervi mediterranea incolunt loca, vicini verticibus celsis, quos praeruptos geluque torpentes aquilones adstringunt. post quos Vidini sunt et Geloni perquam feri, qui detractis peremptorum hostium cutibus indumenta sibi, equisque tegmina conficiunt bellatoria. Gelonis Agathyrsi conlimitant, interstincti colore caeruleo corpora simul et crines, et humiles quidem minutis atque raris, nobiles vero latis, fucatis et densioribus notis. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/ammianus31.html


 * It would be good if had the English translation. Also do you have access to Claudius Ptolemy and Servius and Priscus ? And assuming the quote from Priscus  is correct why should a commander by the name  Akatazir be taken to be related to Agathyrsi? --Ali doostzadeh 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An English excerpt of this is at this page: "Next to the Geloni are the Agathyrsi, who dye both their bodies and their hair of a blue color, the lower classes using spots few in number and small; the nobles broad spots; close and thick, and of a deeper hue." ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing I hve just found out is that apparently William Smith, LLD, citing a "Newman", mentioned a connection between Agathyrsi and Acatzir in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (entry Habessus Hunni)... So the theory isn't that "original"...  I will try to do some more research soon when I have time, there is a lot to sort through and it will take time... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1854 has passed long away, I believe we need modern etymological references. --Ali doostzadeh 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * French Historian Alfred Nicolas Rambaud also mentions the same connection in his http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_Russia/Chapter_2 1878 History of Russia - so it is certainly permissible to say that there is a long sourced tradition of this connection, and it is far from an original idea to Mr. Barefact. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just now found that even the 1897 Encyclopedia Britannica cites the possibility of an Agathyrsoi-Akatziroi connection: http://khazaria.tripod.com/khazars-britannica.html

Another Agathyrsi-related quote pans out and may now be cited. Servius on the Agathyrsi Scythians becoming the Picts: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0053&layout=&loc=4.146


 * Erasinus vero fluvius est. hi populi, ab Hercule victi, Apollini donati esse dicuntur. pictique agathyrsi populi sunt Scythiae, colentes Apollinem hyperboreum, cuius logia, id est responsa, feruntur. 'picti' autem, non stigmata habentes, sicut gens in Britannia, sed pulchri, hoc est cyanea coma placentes. hos Melissus ab Homero †Achabas appellari ait: qui propter scientiam sagittarum Apollini sunt gregales, sicut Cretes.

I am checking the Pegasus source myself. Three items were found: Agathursoi). A people in European Sarmatia, on theriver Maria (Marosch), in Transylvania, noted for their practice of tattooing their skins Agathyrsi a tribe on the Scythian borders: Hdt. 4.49, Hdt. 4.100, Hdt. 4.102, Hdt. 4.119, Hdt. 4.125 their customs: Hdt. 4.104 --Ali doostzadeh 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW do you know Latin or know the English translation of the quotes you brought? Just finding the word is probably not sufficient since we do not know what the phrase is.  --Ali doostzadeh 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1911 Britannica
[] So all the wrong information about huns, turks and etc. needs to be deleted. I think this is basically the source we should use. Also note it says thracian origin which is pretty much what herodotus mentions. --Ali doostzadeh 23:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ali, that link is the core of this original article (look in th article history) The other authors beside what 1911 EB mentions are just as valid and will be cited once they are verified. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay we agree then that Agathyrsi were thracians? I mean there is direct quotes now. --Ali doostzadeh 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that, according to the earliest authors, they started out as being akin to both Thracians and Scythians. I'll keep trying to get even more direct quotes though ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way the EB 1911 does not make any connection between Agathyrsi and the Acatziri mentioned in the other source.. Also the source says something different than the article (I mean source number 5). --Ali doostzadeh 13:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, EB 1911 does mention the Agathyrsi-Acatziri theory. I just checked, and the 1911 ed. still contains almost the same text as the 1897 EB edition I referenced above.  You just have to look in the right article (KHAZARS)... Also, the Greek words did not scan very well to the computer, but you can also find a facsimile of 1911 EB, if you need to verify that it states the following:


 * "They [the Khazars] have been identified with the 'Acatziroi' (perhaps Ak-Khazari, or White Khazars) who appear upon the lower Volga in the Byzantine annals, and thence they have been deduced, though with less convincing proof, either from the Agathyrsi or the Karlapor of Herodotus, iv. 104. There was throughout historic times a close connexion which eventually amounted to political identity between the Khazars and the Barsileens (the Passils of Moses of Chorene) who occupied the delta of the Volga; and the Barsileens can be traced through the pages of Ptolemy (Geog. v. 9), of Pliny (iv. 26), of Strabo (vii. 306), and Pomponius Mela (ii. c. 1, p. 119) to the so-called Royal Scyths, who were known to the Greek colonies upon the Euxine, and whose political superiority and commercial enterprise led to this rendering of their name."

---ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right it says the proof is not convincing.. Now if you look at peter Golden's book on Turkic people, it says nothing about this connection.. We need some modern reference.  Of course if the Agathyrsi were thracians then they can not be related to Khazars.  Do you have a more modern source, I am sure scholarship has changed in 95 years.  --Ali doostzadeh 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also according to Peter Golden (Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1992)), the connection between akatziri and Khazars are not reliable. He says: These etymologies remain little more than conjectures.  So to go from Agathyrsi to Akatziri itself is a wild jump which there isn't sufficient proof and then to go from akatziri to Khazars is a much more wider jump.  Also Peter Golden does not mention anything on Agathyrsi in his the history of Turkic peoples.  So I think any information connecting Agathyrsi to Aktaziri should be removed from the article unless you have convincing proof from modern scholars.  --Ali doostzadeh 15:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did you receive the authority to be the one to magically raise the bar higher every time I meet your criteria???


 * You said there were no sources and that it was Original research from Turkicworld.com, I found a source from 1854. You said that was too long ago, I found a source from 1878. You said it didn't matter because it wasn't in Brittannica, I found the same theory mentioned in 1897 Brittanica.  You said that didn't count, because it wasn't in the 1911 Britannica, I found the very same words in the 1911 Brittanica. Now that doesn't count either.  No matter what criteria you lay out, I demonstrate that this theory did not originate with Turkic World, you claim the authority to raise the bar higher than the last time you raised it.  However, even assuming this is a discarded theory by everyone but Turkic World, I have established that it was once a theory, at least between 1854-1911.  Therefore I have enough sources to mention that it was conjectured in recent times.  We are allowed to mention what experts thought about the Agathyrsi in the past, from Herodotus until now. The wording of the Britannica article (no convincing proof) indeed may be very close to what we want.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that is correct, there is no convincing proof. But that was 1911.. Now is 2006 and either we find some new sources or we should disregard old theories.  You are not going to see the theory ether under electromagnetic waves, but you will see it under a subsection of old theories that are not correct.  The theory has been totally disregarded now (Peter Golden's book 1992).  You should have it under subsection unconvincing theory.  Indeed the unconvincing proof is sufficient reason not to mention it in the main article but in a subsection or in a different article.  There should be a separate article about acatziri.  BTW whre is the reference to Kirdach khan?  Isn't suppose to be in the same reference number 5? The original article which I put the dispute sign tried to make convincing leaps where it failed.  The same EB 1911 says Agathyrsi were thracians and then author of www.turkicworld.org wanted to make them somehow Turkic where as the links are not convincing even in 1911 (where scholarship was not at its present age).  Now is year 2006 and those leaps have been totally disregarded by scholars else at least Peter Golden's book which is the most comprehensive book on Turkic people would have mentioned it.   Britannica which is an Encyclopedia does put old theories that have been disregared in its main enteries unless it mentions them as being disregarded in the main text.  This is the encyclopedic approach.  You need more modern references to show that Agathyrsi was related to Acatziri and it seems even by 1911 it was deemed to contain inssufficient proof.  Note Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and its enteries should reflect the most commonly held and scholarly viable view about a subject. .  If you want to talk about non-viable theories, you should make a separate entery or at least section.  Wether it is on history or in physics, it should not be part of the main entery..  --Ali doostzadeh 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

not acceptable
This is not an acceptable site: www.turkicworld.org If you want to quote it, then you should mention that the theorist in those site also connect Summerian, Dravidian, Indo-European and every other single language to Turkic. Remember Wikipedia has a policy of NOR. You need to bring relavent information that some theorists have jumped from Agathyrsi to Acatziri and then from there to Aghajari! --Ali doostzadeh 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia's NOR:  Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication.''' Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable."''' When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.

If there is need I can call upon the user dab. --Ali doostzadeh 19:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ali, I don;t think you get the basic concept. This is not the place to discuss Sumerians, Dravidians, so we're not going to do that in this article. This is a page to discuss what people think about Agathyrsi. I have given my cite, it is not my own theory, and I have demonstrated repeatedly that the Agathyrsi-Acatziri connection has existed long before Turkic world. If you continue to turn a blind eye to all the cites and summarily delete them in your information suppression campaign just because they don't fit in with your agenda, we will need to get plenty of arbitrators in here, not just one whom you feel may be partial. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again www.turkicworld.org is not a reputable source.    The Agatghyrsi and Acatziri connection is not held up by reputable sources anymore.  So you need to put under old-theories.  As per going from Acatziri to Aghajari, this is not held up anymore either!  Read again: Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.  You need at least provide citation for the article you are considering!  You can't just refer to a website or the actual address of within the website.    Where is the actual quote from the website?  Lets see if it has a valid reference that goes from Agathyrsi to Acatziri and then from Acatziri to Aghajari!   Yes we can seek an arbitrator.  Note I have much better upperhand since I have shown that another article was totally false and madeup and the user you are using even claims Ossetic is non-Iranian! going against all modern sources.  So the user's website you are citing is not neutral.  Also you are not even citing the article, but just a webpage, which is unacceptable.  Where is the link to the actual article?--Ali doostzadeh 19:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

raising the bar impossibly high
Ali, you are playing a game. You have claimed the authority here to be the one to lay down the rules, and you have stated that only the sources that back up your POV are reputable or valid. The sources that go against your POV are therefore not reputable or valid, therefore they may not be mentioned, and you can pretend there are no sources. There are sources, but they may not be mentioned because in order to be reputable, they have to back up your POV. This allows you to still continue to demand sources. It doesn't matter how many sources anyone finds that there is another POV, they are automatically pre-disqualified and the evidence thrown out of court by yourself, the self-appointed judge. I sincerely hope that the arbitrators who are coming here can see through this charade and allow alternate POVs for the sake of neutrality. NPOV doesn't mean telling only one side and suppressing the other. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you need to first provide citation for your claim. The general name of the website is not enough, you need to show the actual address of the article you are trying to cite!  As per me, yes I have the right to ask for reputable sources by modern scholars.  I brought three, you brought none.  So far you brought no modern sources either wheras I brought some major sources.  More likely a POV is one that is not mentioned by reputable scholars in peer reviewed journal, just like the NOR titled said.  Yes scholars could have a POV but they are entitled to it.  And yes I have a right to be skeptical about a site that manipulates facts(Ossetic is not Iranian, Sumerian is Turkish, Dravidian is Turkish) and plays with folk etymology.  That site has a major POV issue.  But first you need to even bring citation to the article you are claiming.  And yes I have the right to ask for citation, to make the quality of the article higher.  And right now we have written a good article, specially you did a good job.  I am asking for now a citation to the claim which you attribute to turkicworld.org and then we can discuss the content although the site itself is non-neutral and I will seek arbitration. --Ali doostzadeh 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like extreme "credentialism" at work here, wonder what Jimbo would say... But anyway, I haven't been to the library to check your sources yet, but I was wondering if you would be so kind as to actually quote some of them here on the discussion page... I'm just stunned that you so quickly found three book sources specifically rejecting that the Agathyrsoi were the Akatsiroi, when only yesterday you seemed to think that Akatsiroi was the name of a "commander"...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I have collected modern books and have access to some more through my university. I never thought akatziri was a commander, I just wanted to see where is there a mention of a Khan by the name Kirdach.  Note I say Khan in the sources.  As per my sources, I will be happy to provide them if an arbitrator asks for it.  But it is definitely a general rule that you can't make a claim and then not even cite anything.  In this case you wanted to cite a webpage without showing where the actual article is located at.  I'll be glad to send thompsons right away where he rejects the connection of Agathyrsi and Acatziri.  Send me an email and I'll scan the relavent pages.  You need to bring modern sources that hold up the connection.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One reason I am asking is because you stated a couple times above here that Golden never once mentions the Agathyrsi. But currently, in the article, you list him as one of the authors who specifically rejects that the Agathyrsoi were connected to the Akatziroi.  I don't see how he could have done that without mentioning them.  You also stated at first that "Akatazir" was only the name of a commander, and I may be wrong, but you did not seem to realize they were a real tribe until I brought cites.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well he has a section on Khazars and there is no mention on Agathyrsi and just states the connection between akataziri and Khazar is a conjecture that is weak. if there was a remote connection between Agathyrsi and Akataziri he would mention it and he does not.  As per Thompson, he explicitly rejects it.   The original article claimed something about commander if I recall with the epiphet Khan, and so there might be a mix up.. I have scanned the three relavent pages from thomspon.  Golden calls the connection of akatziri to Khazars as a weak conjecture.  And I have said the old theory is not either mentioned or heldup.  Case in point Golden does not mention Agathyrsi to Akataziri connection and Thompson flatly rejects it.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed Thompson has 4 full pages on Akataziri and I can send it to you if you want. It might even prove useful for a separate entery on them.  --Ali doostzadeh 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the section was on Khazars, Golden wouldn't necessarily mention the Agathyrsoi theory - that's two steps back. (Agathyrsoi<->Agatsiroi<->Khazars)... But you are claiming argumentum ad silencio to be able to include Golden among your authors who reject the Agathyrsoi-Akatziri connection. So I'm afraid this one ref. will have to be removed as invalid, because assuming that silene equals rejection is something of a leap.  I am eager to see what Thomspon says specifically about the Agathyrsoi... By the way the Akatsiroi already have their own article at Akatziroi (qv). Note that I have not even touched that one (though I am watching it) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note I said they either do not mention it (Golden) or hold it up (all three none of them either mentions it or holds it up) or they outrightly reject it (Thompson). So Golden indeed does not mention the Akataziri to Agathyrsi connection.  And it is perfectly valid to say so.  As per thompson, send me an email. --Ali doostzadeh 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, two of them don't mention it at all and the third you say rejects it outright... Another point, if Golden was writing about Khazars and he rejects the link to Akatziroi, why would he mention the earlier ancestry of the Akatziroi? He is only concerned with Khazars and once he has broken the second link, there would be no reason to bother with the first link. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if there was a remote connection between the Akatziri and Agathyrsi, Golden would mention it since he discusses the Akatziri. I believe most scholars would look at all possible sources and Herodotus says some interesting stuff about Agathyrsi and if there was a connection Golden would try to deduce it and compare it to Khazar as well.  So all I said is that he does not mention it whereas I firmly believe if any modern scholar believed in a connection, in the discussion of akatziri they would mention Agathyrsi.  That is they would look at all possible sources like any scholar to try to explain more facts.. --Ali doostzadeh 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the direct statement of Thompson about akatziri. Who precisely they were we do not know for certain although several conjectures has been offered; they were Agathyrsi of Herodotus, or the Khazars, or the Magyars, and so on.  These conjectures should be rejected.  --Ali doostzadeh 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * She wouldn't by chance give any supporting evidence or reasoning other than her say-so, would she? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And surely she wouldn't write "...several conjectures has"[sic]...? Is this really a direct quote? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it is a he. E. A. Thompson was Professor of Classics at the University of Nottingham from 1948-1979. His previous books include A History of Attila and The Huns, The Early Germans, The Goths in Spain, Romans and Barbarians and Who was St Patrick? The Huns includes a revised afterword by Peter Heather, Lecturer of Ancient History at University College London. Professor Thompson died in 1994.  As per the quote,, It's direct quote except I mistakenly wrote have as has.  You can look at it in the local library or I can send you the relavent pages.  As per his references he does give a little bit.  And this is a modern scholar who has published in peer reviewed journals and books.   Here is the direct statement of Thompson about akatziri.  Who precisely they were we do not know for certain although several conjectures have been offered; they were Agathyrsi of Herodotus, or the Khazars, or the Magyars, and so on.  These conjectures should be rejected. So I stand corrected on the typo.--Ali doostzadeh 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the book: [] in 1999 edition which I have quoted.. --Ali doostzadeh 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Vekerzugculture
According to Hermann Parzinger, a leading archeologist in the field of scythian history, the Agathysi are associated with the Vekerzugculture of Easthungry and Transylvania.

See also :http://openlibrary.org/b/OL2639592M/Vekerzug-Kultur —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerFreigeist (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thracians?!
"According to most authorities, Agathyrsi were of Thracian stock"

Since when have Thracians lived in Transylvania? Shocking news for me. Centrum99 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Chances are you, like many within the past 100 years, were conditioned to associate "Thracian" with Thrace proper, which is the extreme southeast of the Balkans in the area of Bulgaria and Turkey-in-Europe. But scholars since ancient times to the present have recognized that the tribes for some distance considerably north of there were also "of Thracian stock" - you can learn more at Getae, Dacians, and Thraco-Cimmerian. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Their languages were very different, as toponyms clearly show. In fact, the available evidence points to the relationship between Dacians/Mysians and Albanians on one hand, and possibly between Thracians and Armenians on the other hand. Very different people. Merging Thracians and Dacians together is perverse.109.81.252.94 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Servius and Picts
This is what Servius has to say about the Agathyrsi (Commentary on the Aeneid 4:146):

'Picti' autem, non stigmata habentes, sicut gens in Britannia, sed pulchri, hoc est cyanea coma placentes.

Painted (Pictii) does not refer to tattooing as in the Britain, but to the dying of the hair an attractive blue.

He does not say that the Picts of Scotland came from Scythia.

Bede does not equate the Picts with the Agathyrsi, but the misconception that they came from Scythia probably comes from a second or third hand misreading of Servius, most likely through Irish Medieval texts.

Holinshed does go further, but only in as much as he discredits the Agathyrsi myth in favour of a German origin (also discredited). However it is not considered necessary to quote him in historical articles except where his account has entered popular culture, particularly through Shakespeare (e.g. Macbeth or King Lear). He is not a reliable source.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I see, so Servius did not say what the article claims at all. I can see how it arose as a misreading, perhaps we should address something about it being wrong then, since Agathyrsi connections do pop up occasionally in later sources people might come across. 71.246.145.227 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * They don't appear at all in any modern scholarly work, but we can address it. There's some info here:


 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that explains what we have now perfectly, I will add it as a reference - thanks 71.246.145.227 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good!  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring and cleaning up the article
The user LuUkus has been carrying out disruptive editing on the Agathyrsi entry by constantly adding information rejected as ideologically-motivated historical revisionism by researchers on the topic and is now edit warring with me. LuUkus added an etymology of the name "Agathyrsi" which attributed it to a Turkic language origin, and I removed because it is contradicted by the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue, which is contained in the numerous citations I have added to the article. The Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but a member of related peoples of the Scythian cultures. The sources on the Agathyrsi page, especially Olbrycht and Batty, which contain recent published information gained from linguistic and archaeological research in recent years and decades, do confirm that the present scientific consensus is that even though the Agathyrsi were not a tribe of the Scythians proper, but were nevertheless still a Scythic, and therefore Iranic, people closely related to the Scythians and attest of members of the Agathyrsi having personal names in an Iranian dialect, which is what the info in my edits say since they use the presently published and verifiable peer-reviewed research on the issue as source.

I also cleaned up the article, which for the most part consisted largely direct quotations of Herodotus, Pomponius Mela and Ammianus Marcellinus, i.e. pieces of raw data. I instead added the information based on that raw data in shorter and condensed but on point form in the information from Olbrycht and Batty, and removed these citations. I also cleaned up the section on the discredited connection Akatziri because it contained too many details not relevant to the article, so I trimmed it and kept only the parts relevant to the Agathyrsi. I will of course re-check if anything important was deleted during my edit and I will add the information back with the proper sources in that case. Antiquistik (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no substance here. The way you treated me is not acceptable. This has revealed your true aim. I am also not inclined to discuss with a person who sees himself as self-proclaimed peer review expert. This cannot be accepted in the Wikipedia. --LuUkus (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My actions weren't aimed at you personally nor did I proclaim myself as any kind of expert. There is already an established body of research on the Agathyrsi based on historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence out there which contradicts the info you have been adding, that's all. I am sorry that you are taking this personally, but this is ridiculous. Antiquistik (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)