Talk:Pishdadian dynasty

No historical basis
Re - could we get an exact quote from the source? Afaict it just says they were “mythical” which no ones arguing otherwise. But “mythical” and “no basis in historical fact” are two different things. Just ask Homer.  Volunteer Marek  19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to the talk page. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. The relevant passage from that particular source is that they "are anchored not in Iranian history"...in a sense I could stop there but it's better to see the whole context: "are anchored not in Iranian history but in myth that partly antedates Iranian tradition proper and can even be traced to Indo-Iranian and even Indo-European levels. The figures involved straddle theogonic and anthropogonic strata in a manner which leaves no doubt about their mythic status. They have Avestan counterparts which help trace their origins. The first king Keyumars is the Avestan Gaya maretan, literally "Mortal Life" an abstract anthropogonic ancestor, apparently created in the flush of the original Zoroastrian rush to abstraction and subsequently "re-mythologized"." The point is (and I can find other sources to support this) they are not based on some remote obscure Irananian historical figures that have been mythologized (is that what you're getting at?). They're derived from archetypes, abstract concepts of human qualities and pre-Iranian at that. At this stage I'm only guessing what you're concern is. If it's about them being loosely based on historical figures then I'll definitely find other sources to refute that. If it's something else, it would be helpful to understand that. There probably was an Odysseus of sorts. There never was a Keyumars of any sort. thanks. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)