Talk:Sarmatians/Archive 1

Lead-in sentence
Hello codex s., thanks for your comment. Your effort to make it better gets you further into the problem. No, by amorphous I do not mean nomadic. Amorphous has never meant nomadic and could never be interpreted as such by someone whose 1st language is English. But that isn't your point. It sounds wierd. I lingered on it myself but the use is perfectly correct. Amorphous means poorly defined, shapeless, fuzzy, and that is what historical concepts of the Sarmatians are.

You put ethnic polity in there. Neither of those things, ethnic or polity, are true or known for sure. By ethnic we usually mean one ethnos, but the Sarmatians were not that. Moreover, various peoples moved in and out of the designation. As for polity, that applies to smaller, more unified states, as the polis was originally a Greek city-state. But the Sarmatians were a vast and sprawling confederacy at best, perhaps dominated by the Iranians. You seem to dislike the word unity also. I don't know why, but you know what, as a former writer of documents often used in marketing I am going to respect your judgement. If it sounds wierd to you it probably will to others. If you don't mind I think I will try to make your selection of words more accurate. If it still doesn't seem right to you after what I just said, I am sure you will make another attempt. Lead-in sentences are worth the effort. Thanks so much.66.30.94.153 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The nomadic, multi-ethnic Iranian people confederacy. Hello Amir. You altered my lead-in. This is not a minor change. From the fact that you left it in bad English I deduce that your first language is not English. That's all right, most English speakers can fix the English. No problem there. However, did you not read the article? Multi-ethnic does not mean Iranian, it means speakers of many languages. You may wish to apply the term Sarmatian only to the Iranians, but this is history. There were also significant Balto-Slavic and other elements among them, even probably some Germans. I have no doubt that once we fill out the people list we are going to find some Turkics. Your wishful thinking does not alter the history, so I am taking out your change. Sorry. Please forgive me. The goal is accuracy tempered by neutral point of view. Thanks so much for your understanding.Dave 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

horrible sentence in the lead
Their major element in the south was undoubtedly Iranian, and perhaps in prehistory there was a founding Sarmatian tribe, or even two tribes: Sarmatians and Sauromatians (though this does seem unlikely, and pedantic in the extreme).

perhaps the article could explain where the two variations come from and discuss the theories regarding them, with attribution to named sources, instead of making vague speculations and following them with a Drunk Buddy Disclaimer. generally, Sarmatian' is a latin usage, applied to people on the northeastern european frontier; Sauromatian is greek, used for tribes east of the Tanais. (there are exceptions, e.g. strabo and ovid.) the equation of the two names has been accepted at least since Pliny the Elder wrote about them (Ab eo in plenum quidem omnes Scytharum sunt gentes, varie tamen litori adposita tenuere, alias Getae, Daci Romanis dicti, alias Sarmatae, Graecis Sauromatae. . . [emphasis added]); does anyone argue that the two names actually refer to different ethnoi? if so, why? 65.95.38.209 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i removed the second half, from and perhaps on, and took out the word undoubtedly: if no one doubts it then the word is entirely superfluous, and if someone does doubt it the article should cover those doubts. 65.95.38.209 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research?
I'm not competent to assess the credibility of the article in general, but every assertion mentioning the Slavs is untenable, making me suspect a serious admixture of original research in the text:


 * We know now from language studies that the Celts did play a significant role in Slavic ethnogenesis. Perhaps the words of Strabo are telling us between the lines that it was happening in his time. - From which "language studies" do you know that? Can you name a single pan-Slavic loan from a Celtic language?


 * The Geography of Ptolemy includes the entire Balto-Slavic territory in Sarmatia. - Perhaps it does, but it would be nice to see an excerpt from Ptolemy's text where he mentions "the entire Balto-Slavic territory".


 * They [Huns? Sarmatians?] played a significant part in the rise of early Russia. - This assertion left me speechless. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research... Doh! I love Sarmatian traditions and Genetics, as they tell more then original research and more accurately. What Genetics and Sarmatian tradition says abour Celts? Well... 1. Both loved trees and women and it seems besides the same druid religion and far going equal rights for women amongst Celts and Sarmatians both also shared the distinctive trail of Sarmatian I1 YDNA from France to UK. 2. I don't know if it is on purpose, but Ptolemy includes also ENTIRE NORTHERN EUROPE (the Sacndinavia!) in borders of Sarmatian peoples. Hyperborean Sarmatians anyone? Not only Baltic-Slavic territory, which in 5 century stretched up to river Ren as the official western borders of Hun Attila Empire. Germanics please do not leave these "nice" details out like historic specifications of original Germanic dwellings in 5 century AD during reign of Hun Attila. 3. Huns were not Sarmatians. They were Scythians. After fall they left back home to Kazahstan, where population is mostly Scythian/Iranian. Futhermore after Slavization of most of population of Russia from Volga Bulgars certainly most Russians are very "Hun" in appearance at least if not in many of their "Mongolian" from a Polish point of view Russian customs. Piotr Glownia

Suggestions for expansion
With tons of speculations about the Sarmatian-Alan connections that we have in the article, there are numerous aspect which need to be addressed. I post several quotations from the 2006 Britannica to highlight missing subjects:

Sarmatians vs. Scythians: ''Owing to their common nomadic and Central Asian heritage, Sarmatian society paralleled, at first, that of the Scythians, but there were many differences. The Scythian gods were those of nature, while the Sarmatians venerated a god of fire to whom they offered horses in sacrifice. In contrast to the reclusive, domestic role of Scythian women, unmarried Sarmatian females, especially in the society's early years, took arms alongside men.''

Matriarchal society: ''An early matriarchal form of society was later replaced by a system of male chieftains and eventually by a male monarchy. This transition may well have stemmed from the rapid development of horsemanship and a male cavalry corps, attributable to the invention of the metal stirrup and the spur. These innovations contributed greatly to success in military campaigns and even influenced the Roman style of combat.''

Sarmatian art: ''An outstanding specialty was the Sarmatian long sword, which featured a hilt of wood with gold lacing, topped with an agate or onyx knob. Sarmatian art was strongly geometric, floral, and richly coloured.''. -- Ghirla -трёп-  15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

King Arthur movie
Having read the article, it is clear that the movie is riddled with inaccuracies, which should probably be mentioned. Also, since that article doesn't go into it, to what degree was the movie accurate in the relationship between Sarmatian cavalry and Rome (the whole thing about promising their sons to fight for Rome and such) should also be coverred (albeit briefly). --DragoonWraith 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * shouldn't inaccuracies in the movie be covered on the King Arthur page? i thought this page was supposed do be factual and not comparing with movies. -- Wiki ian 10:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the following fictitious statement: "The Sarmatians were a fearsome people however, with expert cavalry, which led to their cavalry being the only survivors after a invasion from Rome, which led to each horseman's onward generations to be contracted as knights in the Roman military, these knights including Ambrosius Aurelianus, most known in legend as King Arthur. " RandomCritic 14:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that any references from the movie King Arthur should be mentioned as long as it is under a "Sarmatians in pop culture" heading. After all, there aren't many references to the Sarmatians in pop culture, this one should not be excluded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HammerHeadHuman (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Whoops, thanks...HammerHeadHuman 06:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatian Clothes???
Who made that image with "Sarmatian Clothes"? Two of those are clearely Dacians as reprezented on Trajan's column an on the Arch of Constantine. Also the draco banner is used by the Dacians on the column and not by Sarmatians. Either correct the image or remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.39.116.36 (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

So who wrote that Dacians were not Sarmatians? Sarmatians were many tribes. Just Dacians were Romanized alike Wends in Germany, who became Germanized in Xth century AD. Perphaps part of Dacian culture was still representative to the ancient Sarmatian ways, which were... very free, over-the-top liberal and very very war-loving (Pannonians anyone?). Piotr Glownia

Iranian languages
Genesis of Iranian languages may be linked to Scythian influence. Sarmatian seems to be more directly related to older Scythian. There is even probable that the Sarmatian were Scythian 'core' under another name. They lived where Scythians were reported. Persian armies under Darius tried to conquer them. We know from Herodotus that Persian were’t even able make contact with them. They heard only Persian asses as wrote Herodotus whose asses worry scythian she horses.

That rather not enoght to transfer language :) Nasz 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This "Senuric Legacy" section is suspicious
Is anybody else suspicious or concerned about the section "The Senuric Legacy"? That's the one that speaks of Jews running a trade in European women as slaves.

To begin with, I can't find out anything on this word "Senuric." Every search result in Yahoo or Google leads to this article, or to a copy of the article somewhere.

This "author" cited in the section, Aymn Almsaodi--I can't find out anything about him, either. The link provided here in the section redirects to an article on one Ali al-Masudi, apparently an eminent Arabian scholar and historian of the 10th century; the Almsaodi connection is that one Dr. Abdulaziz Almsaodi is descended from him. I cannot find the author, or his alleged book Historic atlas of Iberia in either the Library of Congress or in OCLC. And searching Almsaodi on line, apart from this and other Wikipedia articles, and verbatim copies of them on other pages, the only Aymn Almsaodi I find was knocked out in his first professional boxing bout. 72.66.108.162 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * Further on this. I waded through the history.  The section was added on March 23, 2007 by Serenesoulnyc, who has been banned.  And the comment on the "beter (sic) product" was added by anonymous 24.13.244.169 who has been cited for vandalizing.  72.66.108.162 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Croats are Sarmatians?
Take a look at this:

 We take the word sarmat. The ar changes into a vocalic r: srmat. The sibilant s changes into h: hrmat. The nasal m changes into an approximant v: hrvat Voila! There you have, ladies and gentlemen, the Croatian word for a Croat! 

These changes might have occured in any order. Not only they are possible - they actually happen very frequently!

Please comment... - Phraine

Yes also:

'Martian'

ad: 'cro'

remove" mar'

get -> "croatian" Hxseek 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, whether or not these changes are phonetically possible, analysis like this can only be done when you have a whole collection of words exhibiting the same changes. And Croatians speak a Slavic language, so unless you want to argue that all Slavs are Sarmatians -- which would be hard, since IIRC there are clear differences between the Slavic and Indo-Iranian language families --  your theory will have to account for this development also. --Saforrest 19:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia forbids original research, partly in order not to get into tangles like this. This article is essentially a report on Sarmatians. A report on published analysis of Croatian founding myth as Sarmatians might go in Culture of Croatia. --Wetman 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) --Wetman 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Historical linguistics is the study of regular diachronic sound changes in languages. What you propose is a set of fortuitous happenstances. Things don't happen that way. Using the technique you outline, you can turn any word into any word, can't you? What you need to do is show that those changes occur regularly over time; in other words, Sarmatian changes into Croatian by such and such a set of regular changes. But some of the changes you propose already contravene known tendencies. The ar would have come from a vocalic r rather than vice versa. The s would never go to a k; rather, palatal k goes to a sibilant. As for the h from s and the m to v, I would say, you need to find a reason for that to happen, some rule or analogy or reason why this exception to some rule occurs. But if you could do that, you'd be a linguist and could join all the the other Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian linguists, publishing your own original perceptions in the journals designed for the purpose.


 * You did ask for comments. I'd say, get some materials on Indo-European linguistics, study them, and when you think you know enough, start looking up some words and names in the etymological dictionaries and reading the stuff on the Internet. Study will help you to distinguish amateurs from professionals. Can you read German? Julius Pokorny's dictionary is complete on the Internet. So is the American Heritage Dictionary with Calvert Watkins' Indo-European etymologies. All the easy names have been decoded long ago, but I grant you sometimes wrongly. How can you have any idea if you don't know any linguistics? Good luck in your future reading in historical linguistics. Maybe you will find out what all these tribal names mean. Maybe not. Not every name can be decoded. You know, there is a good book you might enjoy, "The Decipherment of Linear B" by Michael Ventris. I don't believe Linear A has been deciphered. You might enjoy that. Ventris made his contributions when he was in his 20's. He was a WWII code breaker but he died in a car crash: "Lycidas is dead, young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer." Best wishes, best of luck.Dave 03:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources used for the article
Sources used in article are Classical authors. They put officially Sarmatians as the people of Iranian stock even if they refer like crazy to the only Asiatic Sarmatian tribe of Alans all the time forgeting about Baltic Sarmatians or Hyperboreans living in Germanic lands of Europe, so not very Asiatic or very of Iranian stock people it would seem like to be.

The source used in this text is Encyclopedia Britanica which stinks overly with rasist Aryan Anthroposophy. It is not a serious XXI century modern science like modern archeology and modern genetics for example.

Sources not used in this article are Chinese ancient authors. Are they not Anthroposophic enough to be mentioned? Or maybe they are just simply too contradicting the Encyclopedia Britanica hypothesis that Sarmatians are of "Iranian stock" statement?

Sources not used in this article are archeologic finds, which show clearly that the ancient Sarmatian people of Alans living in territory of modern Eastern China were also red and blond haired, so these ancient Sarmatian people known as Alans couldn't biologically be of Iranian stock according to genetic finds about gene of red hairs and its origins. These Asian Sarmatians were abviously of Germanic or Slavic peoples stock (as to use the language) just living in today's territory of Eastern China's deserts and steps. Certainly Mongols or Scythians, who were also battling China's ancient armies, were not famous in being the Asians with blond and red hairs. Which makes also sense with all classic authors reports about Sarmatians living also in Northern and Eastern Europe, which are blantantly forgotten.

Sources not used in article are genetic finds, which show clearly that non-Germanic and non-Iranian native people of Northern Europe with I1a and I1b Y-DNA are responsible for carrying the red hairs gene of Homo Neanderthal (native European species of man), which was passed on Homo Cromagnon (native European species of man) and then to I1 Y-DNA Homo Sapiens (the native European modern man). Now I know only of one European people who can have red hairs. They are the modern Slavic and Germanic peoples. So obviously Asiatic Sarmatians tribe of Alans have more in common with modern Slavic peoples stock, then with Iranian stock. It has to be mentioned that I1 Y-DNA natively exists only in Europe with 25% or more population of Europe having it with exception of Spain and Italy, where it is rather very rare and where we know Sarmatians historicaly never lived in ancient times. The exception seems to be only Cuacasian Ossetians, Kurds and etc, where reach of "red haired" Sarmatian I1 Y-DNA should be natural because the move of the only Asiatic Sarmatians known as Alans from territory of modern Eastern China to Caucasus, which is testifyed plentifully by both ancient Chinese authors and classical European authors.

Pan Piotr Glownia 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [PS. And by the way Germanic R1b Y-DNA is not the cause of "nordic" red and blond hairs in Europe. I1 Y-DNA is the responsible DNA and it is not Germanic Y-DNA for sure. Further its spread in Europe is very identic with places where ancient Sarmatian peoples lived in Europe according to classical authors in Europe and movememnts of Celtic people from Central Europe to Western Europe and then to British Islands.]

Catholics do not "worship" Mary
I changed, "A special worship of Saint Mary, the saints and the Passion was practiced," to "A special devotion to Saint Mary, the saints and the Passion was practiced." Catholics worship only God, in the three persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We revere the saints, and we honor Mary in a special way, as the Mother of God. But Mary is not a God(dess), and we do not worship her as one. 140.147.160.78 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * That's why deeply Catholic Poland banished Jezuites from Poland. The patriotic and popular "Restitution of Law and Order" movement in XVII century had banishment of Jezuites as one of its main goals. Pity its rebelion didn't succed to overthrow the king, as we could get rid with that dissease from Poland much more sooner and we wouldn't suffer any Partitions of Poland later on either.. hopefully. Of course Catholicism in Poland even today is more early christian with stain of paganizm on top of it about its worship of Holly Mother (Czestochowa?), then Jezuites would wish for. Bad for Jezuites. Bad for Rome. Bad for Roman Catholicism. Excelent for Poland and its Sarmatians. Excelent for Polish Catholicism. BTW there is a reason why there was no Polish popes in Vatican/Rome before XXth century... Polish Roman-Catholic Church just wasn't "so-Jezuite-closed" part of that Roman Roman-Catholic Church. We were kind of... Ethiopia alike independent Catholics and for a reason, as Germanics and Romans are 2000 year old blood enemies of Sarmatians. Piotr Glownia

This seems to be a kind of disjointed ramble about a dozen different things--not one of them saying enough to be clear. But I'll say again: we do not "worship" the Blessed Virgin Mary--not as the Holy Mother, not as Our Lady of Częstochowa. We revere the saints, and we honor the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in a special way. We worship only God. 140.147.160.78 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * Before talking "we" as "we Sarmatians" I sugest you to go to Silesia and have a look at Sleza mountain. There Pagan cult of Godess "in white cloths" was very strong even in historic times... Now, all people know how medieval Clergy fought pagan cults in Poland. They added them to their "saints" or marked as "satan" (as it happened with God Perun). Now the interresting thing is that "Goddess Mother in white cloths" from Pagan Sleza or Catholic Czestochowa is not the regular cult found in all European civilizations, where she is the fertility god. It is after all the Sarmatian God of creation (like Jupiter/Zeus) who created the pagan holy tree prised by Pagan Slavic people and Pagan Celtic people (Druids' religion huh?). Why tree of creation? Because we Sarmatians at being farmers SUCKED always. We were hunters, killer, warmongers and prime barbarians of Europe. Most precisely we Sarmatians were _forest_ hunters. In Poland people hunted for dinner in woods untill late XVth century, when imigrant Polish feudal peasantry cut the Polish eternal forest down and started doing agriculture in its place. Now, maybe for Polish feudal peasantry and their ofsprings today it is only "honoring God's Mother" and "worshiping God", but Polish feudal peasantry never refered to themselves as Sarmatian people and never did put any claim on Sarmatian heritage like we Polish feudal Lords did in our entire 25% of entire Polish population strength before year 1795. Now when we are clear about "who are we" and "who are you" about this Sarmatian heritage and legacy, then lets clear also that issue about worshiping "Mother God" in Poland even today as form of Pagan continuacy of Sarmatian roots in borders of Catholic religion in Poland. "Mother Godess from Czestochowa" is the only surviving today Sarmatian Pagan cult in frames of modern Polish Catholic Church after 200 years of Catholic Germanization and if it wasn't so, then it should have no "traditional" value any more today in Poland, but it still has... at least amongst 25% of modern Polish people... very traditional and very also _Sarmatian_, as it is spelled "Sarmatian medieval culture of Poland". Certainly the rest Polish must feel it as something ethnically alien. But hey! It is only Sarmatian thing. BTW. We still do worship Virgin Mary, "The Mother of God"... or like Polish Slavic Pagans would rather say "The Mother of Gods" with the accent on the last "s" and to prove that I have to say that we Sarmatians when Poland was still under Sarmatian rule, we made "the White Lady of Czestochowa" officially the honorary Queen of Poland. An honor that would never be given in Poland to some Jezus Christ of Nazaret even if he was most loved child of God. Some modern Polish politicians thinks they could pull crowning him as "King of Poland", but where is popular support for that from these 25% of Polish? Ha! Fancy thing also about this Catholic prophecy of "Mother of God/Gods" in Czestochowa, which says that only Sarmatian Polish will live for ever, when the rest of humanity will be swept by Armagedon. Fancy, because it seems God will wipe out all good Catholics who worship "only God (that's him, the God who will be wiping them out!)" and will not worship "the Mother of God" the Sarmatian way. But hey! even Catholic popes recognized it as legitimate Catholic Church prophecy, so something must be very fancy about this prophecy. ;) Piotr Glownia

I can't make sense out of half of what you said, but I wish you wouldn't change my subject line for me to make it say something different. No Catholic Polish noble who has any business calling himself that would "worship" the Virgin Mary--as the Mother of God, as Our Lady of Częstochowa, as Queen of Poland, or as "Holy Mother in White Clothes." We venerate Mary in a special way, above all the saints, but we do not worship her. 140.147.160.78 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I changed the headline back. Piotr's "emendation" to my headline implied that the notion he added is somehow part of my point. It most emphatically is not. Take a look at my name, Pan Glownia. It is my real name, and we bear OUR OWN herb (coat of arms), not one borrowed from someone else. And I most certainly do not "worship" a lady dressed in white clothes--that would be a sin. 140.147.160.78 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Restructure article
THis article is difficult to read, confusing.

Instead of cataloguing historical accounts, can someone just summarise the features of Sarmatians, to read like other articles. Eg origins, etymology, history, etc.

And whats with the overemphasised Polish section ? Hxseek 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC


 * The question of the Polish section has been discussed above, and there's a proposal to shift it to the article on Sarmatism; there is such an article. Actually, it's improved a lot recently.  I rearranged the sections and headings; before that you could hardly tell if you were reading about the ancient Sarmatians or the Sarmation vogue of Renaissance Poland.  140.147.160.78 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * Let me sumarize it. Ofspring of ancient Sarmatians are: Clans of Scotish Nobility, most Norwegians (Clans of Vikings), white haired (not just blond) Germans and Clans of Polish Nobility. Even if Polish clans are more similiar to Vikings clans and not to Scotish ones. These Germans were Germanized during Xth century and lost their Sarmatian clans then due the German Catholicism. Now the only cultural (freedom loving, democracy loving, war loving... the typical characteristics of ancient Sarmatian barbarians) from Xth century when Vikings (who were Germanized in first place alike earlier Celticized Picts in Scotland) got Catholic until XXI century are... Clans of Polish Nobility. If this article is about I1 Y-DNA correct biologic Sarmatians, then I would suggest sticking us Polish Sarmatians in it. Unless it is about our genetically I1 Y-DNA ancient ancestors, then the article should be more precize about this. How about making an article about "Ancient Sarmatians" and move all non-Polish stuff to it and leave Polish Nobility and its Sarmatian roots alone? Okay? Piotr Glownia


 * BTW it is I1 Y-DNA, which is by genetic scientists associated with German/Polish Sarmatian Venedes(Polish "Wieleci") (Baltic Sarmatians anyone?) and it is not the Scythian R1a Y-DNA, which was suggested here by someone. Maybe R1a Y-DNA is genetic mark of the Slavic "communist" people of Europe, but we Sarmatians certainly are the I1 Y-DNA Feudal Lords and Nobility of these Slavic people of Eastern Europe. At least we were untill communist massacres in Eastern Europe started during last century. That is when R1a Y-DNA started exterminating I1 Y-DNA from Eastern Europe on great scale in XXth century. It is great to know however after these 100 years of communist massacres that you as Nobleman from the Eastern Europe do significantly genetically differ (like Black people from Africa do differ from Chinese, just it doesn't show like that on skin color) and it is not just difference in social class in our own families, our own tribes, our own clans. It is difference of blood. Out is blood is "blue" and theirs is "red". Slavic people is not a family, is not a clan, is not a tribe. Slavic people is a full fledged multiethnic hell and unity of Slavic people during last 1000 years I think is the best proof of this. It was the Scythians, who as communists were butchering us Sarmatians on our very own ancient Sarmatian lands here in Europe. It was an alien immigrant ethnic group after all, the Scythians. It was not any wrong-done social class of our own Sarmatian people. It wasn't our Sarmatian people at all. It was the other Slavic peoples of other ethnicity. It were the guests on our Sarmatian European land, the Scythians. It is very good to know that today and also imho it would be great also to move the Scythian cultural element out of this page, as our Sarmatian culture _always_ significantly differed from culture of Scythians (and not only on the sole issue of women rights in society) and if you don't believe me, then ask any archeologist for God's sake. Just because some Sarmatian words or names were borowed from Iranian languages it doesn't mean that Sarmatian culture is a cheap ofshoot of Iranian civilization and Sarmatian people are genetic copies of Iranians (I think historic records are quite clear about Sarmatian ancient appearance and Iranian ancient appearance and my God they really do significantly differ, don't they) even, if some Scythian cultures and Scythian peoples are very, very very Iranian even today. Piotr Glownia

Please try to leave out nationalist propaganda from Wiki. Unfortunately your content is pseudo-science, nay, peasant folklore. Heplotype I1 is associated with the Germanic peoples. No mention of it linking ancient Sarmatians with 'Polish nobility' such as yourself, or ? scottish kings. Hxseek 13:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, this discussion belongs to Talk:Sarmatism so maybe you can move it there if you want to continue (anyway, this reaks of original research) But since this relates somewhat to Sarmatians, I'm curious who tested their DNA? Do they have mummies of Sarmatians? -- AdrianTM 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Yes exactly Mr ATM. i have not come across any such research about sarmatian DNA. THe German stuff is well known though. Would be interestin thoughHxseek 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Pigmentation)

 * The original title of this section was the single character "?"

""Herodotus (Histories 4.21) in the 5th century BC placed the land of the Sarmatians east of the Tanais, beginning at the corner of the Maeotian Lake, stretching northwards for fifteen days' journey, adjacent to the forested land of the Budinoi. Herodotus describes the Sarmatians' physical appearance as blond, stout and tanned; in short, pretty much as the Scythians and Thracians were seen by the other classical authors." Were not the thracians (and scythians) dark, meditterannean looking people. Hxseek 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, It might be incorrect to give a blanket description of what a 'typical' sarmatian might look like, because there was no typical sarmatian. Were they not a confederacy of different ethnos. Now certainly the western-most 'sarmatians' might be blond due to their mixture with germans/celts/slavsHxseek 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's hard to say, keep in mind that some classical Greeks were blond with blue eyes -- "Mediterranean" might not have much meaning in that context, if some Greeks were blond it's conceivable that a more Nordic population might have been too. -- AdrianTM 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatians and Samarkand
Back when i was in the high school, in history books during the otoman empire it was mentioned that a lot of Albanians served in the otoman army in Samarkand as well. By that i can understand that there was a place called Samarkand by those countries/people under the Otoman Empire. Anyone can think that it is possible, that this Samarkand can be the same place of Samartians???

Best

Illuminati 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This Samarkand? -- AdrianTM 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Samarkand, which is in Central Asia and now part of Uzbekistan, was never part of the Ottoman Empire. It was at initially the capital of the Samanids and then a capital of the empire of Tamerlane, before becoming an important city of the Uzbek Khanate. It was conquered by the Safavid Empire of Iran, but eventually reverted back to the power of local Khans before being incorporated to the Russian Empire in the early 19th century. The name has nothing to do with the Sarmatians and anyway, one is s-a-r-m-a-t and the other s-a-m-a-r!--Khodadad (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistancy
The last two paragraphs of the Archaeology section is inconsistant with the rest. While the article is talking about the Sarmatians and the four sequences of their history, the last two paragraphs all of a sudden jump into the Hunic period and also change the term to "Alans" without any prior introduction.--Khodadad (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatians vs. Alans
Someone seems to have confused Sarmatians with Alans. I suggest the following unsourced chunk of text should be moved to Alans -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ''One might therefore conclude that the Alans were the dominant element of the confederacy.


 * ''Archaeology springs a few surprises on students of the Roman empire. In the Roman authors the existence of the Chinese is little suspected. Many earlier scholars concluded that the Chinese were unknown to the Romans. And yet, they appear in Ptolemy as the Seres, to the east of the Scyths, and Ptolemy was certainly a favorite text of late Roman students and scholars. Ptolemy seems to have been familiar with most of the far east as well as central Asia and the central Asian subcontinent.


 * ''Perhaps the peoples there were too remote for serious consideration; however, they were not at all remote to the Alans. Alanic women of the Middle and Late Sarmatian Periods wore pendant hand mirrors imitating Chinese mirrors of the same period. They were ornate bronze disks silvered or tinned on one side.


 * ''The decorative motivs are reminiscent of Scythian art with similarities to both Chinese and Mycenaean Greek themes. Similar mirrors are known from Japan. Alanic women decorated their clothing and shoes with beads of glass and precious stones embroidered into the cloth, many of which by analysis have been traced to a Chinese origin. And yet the remains of the Alans indicate they were entirely Europoid in appearance.


 * ''One might presume a trade intermediary, which kept the Alans from intermarriage with the Chinese for the times. Authors such as Jordanes (a Gothicised Alan) and Ammianus Marcellinus lead us to believe that the Huns burst in upon the Ostrogoths completely by surprise from totally unknown regions to the east containing horrible monsters and fearsome innumerable enemies on horseback.


 * In fact Ptolemy mentions the Chuni as one of the peoples in the Sarmatian domain. Scholars did not know what to make of this, or of the Serboi, who were located on the Volga. The consensus now is that the Serboi were early Serbs, who were nomadic, and the Chuni were Huns. The latter were not only known to the Sarmatians and therefore to the Goths, but were subordinate to each in turn.

Alans were not dominant part of Sarmatian people. They were more like Scythian people of Sarmatian descent. This Scythian/Sarmatian mixed people arised possibly about (this is my guess) 900 BC, when Sarmatians were conquered by Scythians for the first time. Alans lived in Asia amogst Asian Scythians during the ancient times, but moved to Caucasus mountains before Hun Attilla's times (around 400 AD). Place of the last settlement of Alans explains acurately the spread of I1 Y-DNA amongst Cuacasian people and Kurds. Huns in Europe lived as eastern neighbours of Kiev's Sarmatian tribes, so Huns had to live in a place between Kingdom of Sarmatia and Scythian/Sarmatian Alans in Caucasus. During this time leftovers of Kingdom of Scythia in Romania and Southern Ukraine was conquered by Sarmatians and Visigoths, so Huns in Eastern Ukraine and Volga Bulgars in Russia in V century AD could as well be the only independent remnants in Europe of the Scythian kingdom. Piotr Glownia

The old name of a town called Paraćin in central Serbia was: Sarmatae -you´ll find it right next to Horrea Margi on old roman maps. Then let us think about this... there´s a Sarmatian tribe called Serboi, there is a town called Sarmatae in the very heart of Serbia....hmmmm well what to say ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.0.50 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The best of changes and the worst of changes
Well, my friends, since I left this article in a storm of controversy it has fared very well and very badly. Today I find it full of tags, badly formatted, and in very rough English in most places. On the positive side I find that it contains much more information and that is really quite heartening. Moreover many of the controversies have been settled. I think it could really benefit from a formatting cleanup and source check. If you had left it alone I would have had to do all the research myself, possibly months of work. It is true for the most part you speak in shrill, nagging, insulting voices and use terrible English revealing your lack of understanding of English culture. But, no matter how badly and rudely you say it, you seem to have something to say. This is good. This is raw material that can be polished. You are all rough-cut gems. I think by now you see that however loudly you yell and however good you are at insulting there is always someone better. Maybe there is a time when the wolves must stop howling at each over the vast plains of Asia and come and sit by the fire. You aren't going to settle all the problems of all the peoples from China to the Don, so maybe it is time to realize that Wikipedia must stand above all that. This is not a national effort. It is just a group of private intellects trying to capture some knowledge in this confusing blind alley we call life. So knock it off, hey? I am going to start with some minor cleanup and formatting issues as I usually do. I respect the knowledge you have put in there and I hope you knew what you were getting insulting about. We will find out.Dave (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the orange map
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Buddhipriya 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

here is my answer. The map is false. Nasz 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the map is not false! The map is correct. It shows correctly territory of Sarmatae Scytians (these Scythians who became mixed with Sarmatians after 9 century BC) and excludes any possible territories of Slavic/Sarmatae Venedi, which are in Germany and Poland and obviously this map can not cover this territory to the north-west from Scythia. Even genetically to this day R1a1 Y-DNA is not even existing in the German part of Sarmatae/Slavic Venedi, whom genetists consider I1 Y-DNA "proto-Germanic and proto-Slavic" peoples in Europe. Please do not erase valid information from wikipedia, but you are always welcome to add your own valid information. Thank you. Pan Piotr Glownia 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the map again seems uncivil. Personally I will follow a practice of not repeating a reversion. I suggest that you take the matter up on the talk page for the article in order to build more agreement on your edit. Buddhipriya 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is beter to negotiate than to confrontate. So du you have idea what The map show and why ? Nasz 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ps I propose to move this discussion to the subject talk page. If you mind, please let me to know.

I am not qualified to assess the content. The issue is with process for performing changes to pages. In cases where others may not understand your change, moving content to the talk page where others can discuss your concerns is preferred to simply cutting things. On the talk page you may make your case as needed. Also, please sign your contributions. (I forget to do it too sometimes.) Regarding the removal of my deletion warning on your talk page, it is better to leave active disputes visible until they have been fully resolved. That way others can express views more easily. I have no particular interest in this page, by the way. I was just looking at recent changes. Buddhipriya 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps somebody who is "qualified to assess the content" will discus the subject. Let’s wait.
 * Nasz 05:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the issue with that map? It looks about as accurate as sources of the period allow for (although "Roman Empire" is a bit of an anachronism). —Abou 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is 1 lack of sources. 2 incoherence with description on top of article BELOW. 3 Description on image. 4 descriptions in file: (Historical spread of Iranian peoples/languages: Scythia, Sarmatia, Bactria and the Parthian Empire in ca.100-50 BC. Modern political boundaries are shown to facilitate orientation.)


 * Also 5 the holly war against me when i asked for the sources (but this plz disregard, i'm ok)

HERE Pliny the Elder (N.H. book iv) wrote that the Latin Sarmatae is identical to the Greek Sauromatae. At their greatest reported extent these tribes ranged from the Vistula river to the mouth of the Danube and eastward to the Volga, and from the mysterious domain of the Hyperboreans in the north, southward to the shores of the Black and Caspian seas, including the region between them as far as the Caucasus mountains. The richest tombs and the most significant finds of Sarmatian artefacts have been recorded in the Krasnodar Krai of Russia.

You can chek what time period cover the description of Pliny the Elder. And confront with the map.

Is it the same ? I see NOT. So what?? What is the map source?
 * Nasz 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the part of the map labeled "Sarmatia" seems to agree pretty closely with your description. Granted, it's a map of Scythia, and not solely of Sarmatia; but we can't always expect to get custom maps for each article.
 * I'm comparing the map to Colin McEvedy's Atlas of Ancient History, which is the closest map I have to hand that covers the same period and area. The only significant discrepancies I see are around the Black Sea littoral — where the Scythia-Parthia map omits the Kingdom of Mithridates — and in eastern Scythia, where McEvedy has the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Greater Yuezhi in Transoxiana. But the eastern sections aren't directly relevant to Sarmatia. I don't see anything controversial enough to require sources — am I missing something?
 * —Abou 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * hm, yes, the map omits Scythia Minor, that may need to be fixed; note that the orange area doesn't equal "Scythia", the map is intended as linguistic (orange=East Iranian, red=West Iranian, it just happens that red corresponds largely to "Parthia" while orange corresponds largely to "Scythia/Sarmatia+Eastern bits", but the colouring is not intended as political boundary. It is impossible to say where exactly the Thracian/Iranian linguistic boundary was; strictly speaking, the Hellenized areas should show up as "holes" in Scythia, but that's asking too much of a map of this scale. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

what exactly are you objecting to? That the "orange" region doesn't quite reach as far as Poland? Firstly, this is the "greatest extent" in the 1st century AD, immediately before the arrival of the Goths, while the map shows a time almost 200 years before that. Secondly, it is impossible to draw precise boundaries. The map cannot give more than a rough idea. We could consider drawing "Sarmatia" a bit further to the west, but there's no reason to be hysterical about it. Is the Vistula bit your only concern, or do you have others? dab (𒁳) 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On the map is the territory of Sarmatae Scytians (these Scythians who became mixed with Sarmatians after 9 century BC) and excludes any possible territories of Slavic/Sarmatae Venedi, which are in Germany and Poland and obviously this map can not cover this territory to the north-west from Scythia. Even genetically to this day R1a1 Y-DNA is not even existing in the German part of Sarmatae/Slavic Venedi, whom genetists consider I1 Y-DNA "proto-Germanic and proto-Slavic" peoples in Europe. If one would draw ancient Sarmatia I guess one would have to include also Sarmatian Scythians. The territory of ancient Sarmatia would include entire Northern Europe (Hyperboreans), France (Gaul Venedi), Germany(Venedi), Poland(Venedi), Czech (Sklavene/Getae), Slovakia (Sklavene/Getae), Belarusia(??), Russia to the river Volga in east (??) and of course the Sarmatian Scythians territory from Ukraine (Sklavene + Anti/Alans) to Russia from border of Ukraina to Caucasus (Anti/Alans). I think the picture of Sarmatia is quite clear from descriptions from Roman and Greek ancient sources. However I wonder if Dalmatians and Tracians doesn't have any place in Sarmatia too as the majority of them may also been I1 Y-DNA carriers like Slavic/Sarmatian Venedi from Poland (Lechitic tribes of Mazowszans, Wistulans, minority of Pomeranians, Silesians, Lendians, Goplans) and Germany (the majority of all Lechitic tribes with majority of Pomeranian tribe). If I wrote some tribal name in Polish instead of English or Latin... sorry. Pan Piotr Glownia 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen in the article any refference on findings of Sarmatian maternal DNA lineages in modern day Central Asians, though it is established fact by now and there are plenty of research done. I hope noone minds adding a nicely composed material regarding this subject.(64.230.32.153 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)).

To my knowledge the Alans (Scythians of Sarmatian descent) moved around 400 AD from the Central Asia to the Caucasus Mountains. So, I would expect to find some Sarmatian maternal DNA lineages in modern day Caucasus and _not_ Central Asia. Sarmatian fathernal lineages (I1 YDNA) actually are present amongst modern Caucasus people and Kurds. Because I1 YDNA is exclusively native European Y-DNA the only Alans can be seen, as the only possible cause of its spread over Caucasus Mountains, as the flow of people was to the west and not to the east to Caucasus with exception of Alans who moved from Europe to Central Asia, before settling in Caucasus. Alans surely were very easy to spot amongst Scythians, Mongolians and Chinese in Central Asia with their blond and red hairs, which never were common mark of any Asian people. Piotr Glownia

What does phenotype of Central Asians has to do with genetics? These things do not necessarily go together. I am sure you are aware of that. I think research of Jeannine Davis-Kimball on Sarmatians and later a documental about genetic match of ancient Sarmatians mtDNA to a Kazakh child from Mongolia should be mentioned in this article for clear three dimentional picture. (64.230.79.68 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)).
 * Leave the map in! The caption clearly states the time over which it is to be considered true and for that time it is true. It is completely imposssible to get a map that would cover all the times. We don't have layered maps here. The total territory would cover most of central Asia and Europe over to the Vistula.Dave (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarmatian tribes
Are the links for all the tribes needed? It looks bad when three-quarters of them are red. Raistlin11325 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the red. Why does it look bad? Are you so desperately anally retentive that you need blue? It's just more projects for future wikipedians :) That surely is a good thing! 79.162.18.14 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)woofgrrr


 * Well, Raistlin, woofgrrr is right about Wikipedia. I don't even need to bother looking him up in the address directory. When I started on here there were .75 mill articles. Now there are 2.5 mill. People are going to want to know something about ethnic history east of the Volga and WE can give it to them. You know all those countries around Iran and Afghanistan? How did they get there, anyway? Someone might like to know! The goal is expansion of knowledge. Now, my guess is, many of those in red exist under a different name. I will go thru there this time around. Just leave it.Dave (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I was put onto here by a note for lack of data that said see discussion. Well, I've seen it. There seems to be a lack of the lack of data explanation. I don't mean to be insulting but it is pretty obvious the data is under the linked articles or ought to be. If you are in a rush for those articles and that data, why not try YOUR hand?Dave (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern day descendants of Sarmatians
Shouldn't there be some reference to the modern day descendants of the ancient Sarmatians? It is not like major people of ancient Europe just vanished without a trace. Right? Something mentioning roots of the Scotish Nobility (they are the only Scotish descendants of Pikts), the Norwegian Vikings, the Polish Nobility and 40% of Germans (I get this number from I1 Y-DNA frequency in Germany), who are also descendants of the same Slavic-Polish Sarmatians like Polish Nobility just Germanized from Xth century.

Ossetians seem to be modern descendants of mixed Sarmatian-Scythian origin.

Piotr Glownia

78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)to me it seems that Sarmatians are Balts and Schitians are slavs. The word Sauromatai or Sarmatai is very Baltic, and the mutual fear between Germans and themm says that they were living in the neighbourhood like Balts or Slavs...of cause it can be and otherwise, but it is sure that Sarmatian-Scythian are Balto-Slavs78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins/Earliest mentions?
Why are all the commentators from antiquity given their own heading? This is unnessecary especially the sparseness of the information contained in the comments. This article should begin with hard facts in relation to the origins and EXISTANCE of the Sarmatians. The Celts were in many of their territories illiterate pastoral nomads but no one doubts theie existance. The overall impression I get from this article is that 'Sarmatian' is an invention of the medieval Polish nobility being grafted onto initially tales from antiquity then more recently archeological evidence from the Black Sea region. Pierce, Ireland June 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.150.233 (talk) 05:01-:06, 24 June 2007


 * Answer to Pierce from Irland: 1. Sarmatians roots have been falsyfied during last 2000 years to root Sarmatians out of Europe. Why? Because Sarmatians have blood enemies Romans/Germanics living on Sarmatian lands. 2. What these Sarmatian lands consist of? Have a look at Ancient Roman maps. It is not Iran. It is not Caucasus. It is not even Ukraine. It is NORTHERN EUROPE. The same place Germanic rasisits usually grab for their "superior teutonian race", but which in reality belongs to I1 Y-DNA (READ NON-GERMANIC NATIVES!) people of Europe. 3. Genetists traced I1 Y-DNA to the very Sarmatian tribes of ancient and medieval Europe and none else. The same historic tribes partially Slavic and partially grabed as Germanics (after some germanization effort also historically well documented!). Now, these lying people who grab Sarmatian roots as some kind of freaky of-shoot of Scythians and not conquered by Scythians in 900 BC NORTHERN EUROPEAN PEOPLE lie outright about R1A Y-DNA, as the blood of Sarmatians, when everywhere in Europe where TRUE Sarmatians lived and still live 25% of the people of least is of I1 Y-DNA, when R1A or R1B can be down to almost 0%. However people of Kazahstan, Iran, Northern India living in Europe as Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Balts, Serbs and so on have strong feeling that their Turkmen R1A Y-DNA should be some genetic mark of Sarmatian people in Europe too... just because they are so numerous in Eastern Europe, but the only thing Sarmatian they have here in Europe is just their Sarmatian-derivate language and their Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Polish nobility, which if they didn't "accidently" killed for their ethnic reasons (Sarmatians DIFFER from Scythians aka FLAXEN HAIR PEOPLE VS BLACK HAIRED PEOPLE) then they killed in communist massacres in XXth century. 4. There is during last 200 years great rasists science proving that Germanic people, who invaded Europe 4500 years BC are actually "nordic race" and northern Europe is their native territory. It didn't die with Adolph Hitler. European Union and all its Germanic countries are hell bend on their roman-westeneuropean civilization conquest of everything that do not belongs to these Teutonic Caucasians union with Ancient rome on lands of ancient Kingdom of Sarmatia in Europe. 5. Once some ancient Roman wrote about Thracians and their Sarmatian brethren that they linguastically are the most populous people in Europe. A power to recognize, which if unified could be bigger from that power in India itself. Sad modernity shows that Sarmatian people are at most 25% Europeans, which give population of just about bare 100 millions of living Sarmatians in Europe. Defeated and germanized mostly. XXIst century the only cultural inheritors of great ancient Sarmatian civilization are just these obscure 10 millions of Polish Nobles, who after 100 years of communism in Poland still can be differed from their Polish countrymen just by their native ancient Sarmatian looks, but sadly slowly are forgeting about their cultural differences from their eastern Russian, western German and southern ancient Roman neighbours. 6. Now when we know that 23% Polish are of I1 Y-DNA the 25% Polish, who are Polish Nobility and were forced into peasanthood in XIX century by occupying powers can regain their noble titles in Poland by genetic test only. Will genetics give a rebirth to Sarmatian Kingdom and Sarmatian ancient war-living ways in Europe? Only future will show. Piotr Glownia, Sweden August 2007 PS. I found some Gaelic prenounciations of word "Pikt" almost identical with Polish Slavic word "walker". It could have something in common with fighting on foot, as infantry in Polish Slavic is also refered to as "walkers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.217.247 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2007
 * 78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Moreover Belarus people are not slavs, but Balts, thus slavized in the last two centuries of russian occupation78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving info to Sarmatism
I think the info that was good was already merged into Sarmatism article therefore I removed the Polish Sarmatism from this article. If you want to add/edit info about Polish Sarmatism and talk about the issue, I suggest you do it in that article, and its talk page. For now there's only a dab article that leads to Sarmatism if people consider that's worth mentioning in the article please add a short and to the object description with a link to Sarmatism -- personally I think the disambiguation link is enough. -- AdrianTM 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, if there's some info that is worth transferring to Sarmatism and it hasn't been yet, please don't re-add it to this page, just fish it from the history and add it directly to Sarmatism. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To Piotr Glownia. Piotrus what do you smoke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.132.3 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarmatian glossary
Does anybody know of any Sarmatian glossary/word-list. Alexander 007


 * suya (by russian letters &#1096;&#1091;&#1103;) &mdash; capital
 * chalibus (&#1095;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080;&#1073;&#1091;&#1089;) &mdash; steel
 * eburnus (&#1101;&#1073;&#1091;&#1088;&#1085;&#1091;&#1089;) &mdash; white
 * amazon (&#1072;&#1084;&#1072;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085;&#1082;&#1072;) &mdash; conyugicida woman
 * don (&#1076;&#1086;&#1085;) &mdash; water


 * (References would be welcome at Scythian languages.) --Wetman 11:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The external link seems to be broken

89.243.166.66 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)it's a bullshit, because Don comes from the more ancient word 'Tennais' which in Lithuanian language means 'there' and not water!!!!! the name Don comes into beeing well after Sarmatian name was in the use. Moreover Kaliba/Chaliba/Chalibus in Lithuanian language means the forgery art or act...so it's a vivid evidence who was who...even 'suya' in Lithuanian language 'sueja' (pronounces like suya) means the place where people come together/gathering place. Amazon is a greek word for women warriors.

== (Claims re Balts & Russians) == The following box contains the (grossly overlong) original title of this section: Balts are Sarmatians and Scythians ('Skydai' in Lithuanian language means 'shields' they used shields in combats) and russians are Sauromatians or asiatic Schytians

Balts are Sarmatians even the word 'Sarmata' is still used in Lithuanian language and means a shame or 'beSarmatis' is the one who does not follow Sarmatian spiritual codex. Another word for the shame in Lithuanian language is 'Geda' and comes from another Lithuanian tribe Gots or Gets meaning the man who follows Gotian spiritual codex.


 * suya - capital
 * chalibus - steel
 * exchalibour - a sword

Kaliba/Chaliba/Chalibus in Lithuanian language means the forgery art or act...so it's a vivid evidence who was who...even 'suya' in Lithuanian language 'sueja' (pronounces like suya) means the place where people come together/the gathering place. 'Iskalibos' in Lithuanian language sounds like 'exchalibous' and means from forgery or by forging, i.e. made by forging...Arthur in Lithuanian language means the man who is the ploughman or 'Artorius'...Aryan in Lithuanian language means the ploughmen too because both forms Artorius (PRONOUNCES LIKE ARTHOR!!!) and Arejas (PRONOUNCES LIKE ARYAS!!!) are used in Lithuanian language EVEN TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Viking in Lithuanian language (we write Vykingas, but pronouncing 'Veekingus') means the traveler!!!

The ethimology of the word Sarmatia is as follows: Sar-Matia, the first 'Sar' in Lithuanian language means 'to guard' ('sargas' means 'a guard') and 'Matia' means 'Mother' ('mate/mote' means 'mother'), so the word Sarmatia means the land where Mothers are defended or where women rules or are in comand (remember Amazons!!!)!!! (you have to understand that Latin is very very similar to Lithuanian language and Sarmatai in Latin means exactly the same what Sarmatai means in Lithuanian language...it is the people who live in Sarmatia (Latin) or Sarmatija (Lithuanian) or Sarmatya (in English phonetics)).

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/vikingai/

Moreover the old name for Asia is Aria...in Lithuanian language meaning the land of ploughmen or arrable land. 'Plugas' in Lithuanian language is the item or instrumen with whom to plough the land, pronounces 'Plougus'...Europe in Lithuanian language means the land at the sea or surrounded by sea. 'Jurop' pronounces 'Europe' and means toward the sea, but if you use the form 'Juropa', pronounces as 'Europa', you'll get the meaning of the land at the sea. All IndoEuropean number systems are derived from Lithuanian language in which still remains the logic derivation of bigger numbers from the smaller ones by subtracting from bigger or adding to the smaller to get desired numbers. For example 100 is 'simtas' and 10 is 'de-simtas' or 1 is 'vienas' and 9 is 'de-vienas/de-vyni'...moreover the name for zero is derived from the word for Moon - 'Me-nulis' is a Moon and 'nulis' is zero/nill/null, so even the sign 0 is of the shape of a full Moon which starts a new month!!!

Even more interesting that Scandinavia and Suevia are both derived from Lithuanian language...Scandinavia means the land at which coasts ships are sinking and Suevia means the land where all travelers come together the same word as for Sarmatian word for the capital city...if you notice well all ancient words are very similar to each other, but means lots of different groups of people and lands at different epochs and are situated in a close proximity to ancient Lithuanian lands (we were living in this region between Baltic and Black seas for at least 7000 years and we are using the same language as we were using it at least 7000 years ago)...and only Lithuanian language has a key to unlock all ancient mysteries (this is not my words this is Immanuel Kant's words)...'Skandina' pronounces as Scandina in Lithuanian language means 'sink' and 'Skandinava' means the land where ships are sinking; 'Sueiva' means the land or the place where people come together...peace and respect

Here we are! Just the names of tribes (we do not know was it the names of tribes or the names for something else or just words of Sarmatians)...almost all of them are Lithuanian tribes or words!!!


 * Achaei - 'Akiai' means 'the people who harrows' or 'Aciai/Aciu' means 'thank you' so it can be people who gives a thank to others.
 * Asaei - Tacitus mentions that one tribe of Lithuanians are Aisciai/Aiscae meaning the traveling people (today Estonia bears this name, but nowadays Estonia was named 1500 years after Tacitus). this can be the same name, but it can mean and 'Asiai' meaning 'the people who makes pots'.
 * Alans (Alauni, Halani, Alanorsi) - this tribe was in the territory of nowadays east Belarus and Smolensk, but until russian occupation in 1795 this land was Lithuania and the name 'Alauni' means 'very fast ones' and 'Alanorsi' Alaunai Narsi means 'the very brave ones'...we (Lithuanians) still say 'Ale' meaning some surprise (poles took this word from us and they use it too, but do not understand the meaning). 'Alauni/Alanai' in Lithuanian language means and 'ales makers' because 'the ale' in Lithuanian language is 'alus' and is of the same meaning as previuos mentioned word 'alaunas' (that who gaves a foam or the air bubbles or sparkling substance...related with the speed or rapidity).
 * Alontae - in Lithuania we still have a town sAlantai ('saldus' means 'sweet', the barley sugar was used in the production of all ales) and the lake Alausas (this one comes from the same meaning as is explained for Alans), moreover Alans most often were called Alauni.
 * Bodini - 'Budini' in Lithuanian language means the same as Budha in Budhism and in Lithuania
 * Borusci - one of the most famous Lithuanian tribe Prussians (in germany they call us Borussia), however their name comes from Kiev Rus name and probably from Roxalani tribe.
 * Burgiones, Phrungundiones - nowadays only the name remains in germany Burgundia; bur-ius gen-antys (Burgioniai/Burginiai) meaning the lieutenants of the Lithuanian army
 * Cariones, Careotae, Choroatos, Horouathos or Horouatos - 'Kariones, Kareitai/Kariai and Kariautos' in Lithuanian language mean the tribes of warriors 'karas' means 'the war' and 'kariai' means 'the warriors'
 * Carpians - 'Karpiai' means tailors or just the cutters 'karpyti' means 'to snip', but I'm not certain
 * Costoboci - Kasti Bociai 'Kastibociai' means 'those who burry ancestors', but I'm not certain
 * Diduri - 'Diduriai' means 'giants or very powerfull ones'
 * Galindae - 'Galindai' two Lithuanian tribes which  were still alive in 13th century in Prussia and close to the Moscow (here they were called by russians Goliady)
 * Gelones, Igylliones - 'Geluoniai' people who can sting, Igilioniai means the same as Geluoniai just the action 'to sting in' ('gelti' and 'igelti' mean 'to sting' and 'to sting in') or it can be the same Gythones aka Gots and Gets
 * Gerri - 'Geri' in Lithuanian language means 'good ones', and another meaning is 'tu geri' equivalent to 'you drink'.
 * Greater Venedae, Venedae - 'Vandeniai' the people who live at the water (slavs mostly poles want to steal this tribe saying that it was slavic tribe, but we see clearly that it was Baltic tribe)
 * Gythones - 'Gydoniai' people who can heal; today Lithuanians still call Belarus people Gudai
 * Heniochi - 'Geniociai' means people who are capable of cutting trees
 * Iazyges - 'Jotzygiai' or in other words Jotvingiai meaning the warriors who go to fight with horses (cavalery)...the Lithuanian tribe still was alive in 15th century and was in the region between nowadays Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Poland, but mostly in Lithuania and Belarus the capital city was Drohichin in nowadays Belarus
 * Materi - 'Moterys' means 'the women' (maybe Amazones???) or it can be and 'Matoriai' the men who can see (probably scouts or inteligence of ancient Lithuanian army)
 * Metibi - 'Metejai/Metiba' means 'the throwerers'
 * Melanchlaeni or Melanchlani - translation from greek language means 'black coat', so it can be the archers, moreover in the same place now live the Lithuanian tribe (in nowadays Belarus) 'Jotvingians, Juodvieshiai, Jotvyciai or Iazygiai', so and Iazyges which means in Lithuanian language 'black people' and even in Kijev Rus they were called Black Rus. Later their name changed to Jotvyciai which means the people who are horse riders.
 * Nasci, Nesioti - 'Nasciai' and 'Nesioti' are pure Lithuanian words - first means people who carry something; second means to carry ('nesioti' means 'to carry')
 * Orinei - 'Orinei' means 'aerial' (it seams that some words are not the names of tribes or army's people (by duties), but just the simple Lithuanian language words WITHOUT ANY CHANGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
 * Pagyritae - 'Pagyritai' the people who were prised ('pagyrti' means 'to prise')
 * Peucini - 'Puciniai' means 'the ones who blows a war horn'
 * Piengitae - 'Piengaviai' means 'the milkmen'
 * Rhoxolani - Rus Alani, even Prussians are named after Rus people and in Lithuanian language Prussia (PaRus) means the land at the Rus; and Alani is the tribe of Gots (Gets, Gudai)
 * Saboci - we still have the family names 'Subociai'
 * Sacani - 'Sakaniai' means 'those who tells, tellers'
 * Saii - 'Sejai' means 'the sowers'
 * Sargati - 'Sargaitiai' means 'the guards'
 * Savari - 'Savariai' means 'the ones who bead/string/stab doors or something on the string or on the javelin'
 * Scythian Alani - Scythian Alani
 * Senaraei - 'Senariai' means 'the elite solders or the old members or elders, like senators'
 * Sidoni - 'Sidoniai' means 'those who sits'
 * Sturni - 'Stirniai' means the animal (the roe or hind) smaller than Taurus
 * Suani - 'Suaini' means 'those who comes together'
 * Suardeni - 'Suardeniai' means 'the destroyerers'
 * Sudini - 'Sudiniai' means 'the salted stuff or people who dig/sell the salt'
 * Sulones - 'Suloniai' means 'the people who give/produce a sap of trees'
 * Tanaitae - Tanais is the old name of the river Don and 'tenais' in Lithuanian language means 'yonder' or 'there' (the river far from the living areal)
 * Tauroscythae - Tauro Scythae ('Tauroskitai'), 'Tauras' the extinct Lithuanian bizone and the Scythians
 * Thatemeotae - 'ta tematai' means 'you see only this one', but it can mean and another thing Tate (father) and Mate (mother)...so it realy seams like some Lithuanian words just were put together meaninglessly by ancient writers.
 * Udae - 'Uodai' means 'mosquitos'
 * Vali - 'Valia' in Lithuanian language means 'the will'; or 'valy-ti' means 'to clean'
 * Veltae - 'Veltai' direct translation would be 'felt boots', but it can come from the word 'valtis' meaning 'a boat'
 * Zinchi - 'Zinciai' means 'the oracles'

of cause some names can be just distorted names of something else, but majority I believe are almost unchanged Lithuanian language words.

Moreover, Herodotus writes that 78.146.120.203 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hipanis is Dnube river,
 * Boristenis/Istra is Dnestr,
 * Polikapas is S. Bug,
 * Geras - Dnepr,
 * Tenais - Don.

Fear between Dacians and Sarmatians
IMHO there was a mistranslation of the Latin text by Tacitus which I corrected. He didn't speak of mutual fear between Dacians and Sarmatians, but of fear between those people living in Germania and Sarmatians and Dacians. It's some years ago that I studied Latin, but I definitively read it that way: "Germania omnis [...], a Sarmatis Dacisque mutuo metu aut montibus separatur" or "The whole Germania is separated [...], from the Sarmatians and Dacians by mutual fear or mountains.". Furthermore, "Dacisque" = "Dacians" seems more than a bit strange to me. de:Waifar 84.178.93.148 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What would Dacisque mean? Sarmatians from Dacia? -- AdrianTM 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It’s the ablative plural of Daci, plus the enclitic que: “and from the Dacians”. —benadhem 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

can it be Sarmatian Duchee (Dux or Duxque)??????????????????? that would explain everything and Grand Duchee of Lithuania (plus Pomeranians, Prussians and Latvians) would be the same Sarmatia which borders nowadays germans, and the river Odder is a separation line and close to it reside Carpatian mountains!!!!78.146.120.203 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Connection with the Slavs
Did Sarmatians mix with some other ancient people,to make it Slavs,Serbs,Croats etc?Because these names doesnt seem to be pure Slavic,they are either of Sarmatian influence.Anyone answer on this one?Basically what im asking is were the Sarmatae came into any contact with Germanic people,or with Finnic people etc?


 * The Sarmatian culture and influence penetrated all the way to the forest-steppe zone of Russia and Ukraine, influencing the Zarubintsy culture of 200 BC to 200 AD, a network of postulated Balto-Slavic communities. Scholars debate as to whether this was simply due to contacts or an actual penetration (invasion) of Sarmatians. The Chernyakov culture, the archaeological reflection of the Gothic 'state', contained a mixture of Sarmatian, Germanic, Dacian and Slavic peoples. There are a few Iranic loanwords in Slavic languages. So yes, Sarmatians influenced the development of Slavic stock. And many southeastern Slavs might be 'Slavicized' Sarmatians. Hxseek (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

 * The text in the two following boxes was placed on this talk page by Poeer, who signed their first edit to this section at 14:19, 1 May 2009. They made 3 further edits to this section by 14:37, without indicating that the timestamp applied to only one of them. Jerzy•t 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 

In later tradition, recorded in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, "Salm" is one of three sons of Fereydun, and the ancestor of the European peoples.

Since there is the theory that the linguistic descendants of the Sarmatians are the Ossetians (contrary to, at that time completely unknown genetic data), one may include the three following theories for the origin of the name: The Indo-European root, which is the *ĝerh2- of Julius Pokorny, "old", opens out exciting speculations. The word Greek, Latin Graeci, is from the same root, originating from an obscure Balkan tribe, the Graioi, which the ancients took to be "the old ones." In the area of Sauro-matae lived Ma-zurian. If zur(zar -sun) is similar to saur (sol -sun) then is also related to water founded 'zur niesiemy zur', vedi vodi or (sola sla). Graroi, given ż<>g<>h may be related to Żaroi Graroi Haroy Harian Hurian or even Hunga till today sing as Ha'Hary, Compare the war cray Hurra of people from this area. Sarmatian is the satem equivalent of centum Greek. It must be noted here that Αέρα ( AERA ) is the Greek battle cry to this day. A genetic commonality would require an original satem word in Proto-Indo-European. Such a connection is speculative at this point.
 * 1) Dumezil: oss. saw (black) scr. róman- (fur), oss tae (plural marker)
 * 2) Abaev: oss. saw (black) oss arm (arm), oss tae (plural marker)
 * 3) Christol: *sarumant (archer) from scr. saru (arrow)
 * Poeer placed the preceding and following boxed texts on this talk page, enclosing both between the same single pair of "double quote" characters and separating them by a single new-line character; this invited the impression that the two constituted a single removed passage, and in fact that the text now in the second box was the remainder of the last 'graph that is now in the first box (since it rendered here that way). The real situation is described following Poeer's sig, along with some related details. Jerzy•t 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC) 

Sarmata in Lithuanian language means a shame, but this is not a case. 'Sartas/sartis' in Lithuanian language means 'a riding horse' (in Lithuania even exists a lake with this name - Sartai) and 'matai' means 'to see', in other words 'matai' here means some fostering. And whole name Sarmatae means a horse fostering people, and they are of Baltic/Lithuanian origin. Moving this text to the talk page because it's poorly written and a lot of it appears to be original research. Also, the relevance of most of the points discussed needs to be made clearer. Poeer (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Poeer's removals, in their 4 edits to the accompanying article (all between 14:06 and 14:26 on the 1st, and not to be confused with their 4 edits, in an overlapping period, to this talk page), were from the "Name" section. They removed (without copying to the talk page)
 * or kos'tur of sun or fire.
 * at the end of the "The exact sense" sentence in what is now the 2nd 'graph, with the edit summary
 * seems out of place and relevance not clear.
 * In one of the two removals from the article they reflected here, they made no distinction between text that had been rendering on the article page until its removal to this section, and text that was enclosed by comment markup, and thus visible only while editing and not as part of the article's rendering. The "commented out" text includes all that is in the second of the two boxes above in this section, but also an, uh, comment discarded by Poeer, reading
 * (this is so incomprehensibly phrased, that I am commenting it out for just a bit.)
 * that had been added, inside the comment markup, by Cimon Avaro at 00:28, 19 January 2009, when Cimon placed that markup and summarized
 * commenting out a particularly incoherent paragraph. feel free to re-inserting it after it has been edited to make sense. also moving it closer to the bottom of the section,
 * Two of those edits of Poeer also, respectively, placed the fact tag (which renders with the super-script text "[citation needed]") that appears above, and removed both it and the text it was applied at the end of (moving it to this talk page). --Jerzy•t 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

, which had the effect of corrupting the visible record of the removal, and i have restored it on this talk page. The cryptic error was part of what was removed, and if anyone has a theory of what was intended, please factor in the facts that or other markup rendered with a new-line char clearly cannot have been what was intended.
 * Poeer's additions appear to be, individually, accurately copied from the accompanying article, including the markup . Those 5 chars appear to have stood in the article's markup, despite an intervening move of their section within the accompanying article, since its addition to an existing sentence 2.5 years ago(!) in the following form:
 * Since there is the theory that the linguistic descendants of the Sarmatians are the Ossetians, one may include the three following theories for the origin of the name:
 * That insertion was part of an edit that also added a sentence outside that one's paragraph; it was made by -- who BTW was blocked the next month and is now formally banned. However, at 17:46, 5 August 2009 a colleague replaced those 5 chars with the markup
 * at the time of the Nasz edit, Template:1 was between its third deletion (12 months before) and fourth creation (2 weeks hence), and inserting a
 * Then, if you find it worthwhile, chime in on what might motivated its addition, for the benefit of evaluation here of any future claims that the recently removed material should be reworked and some of its substance reused in the article. --Jerzy•t 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(Sarmatians/Sarmatism split)
This page is becomingly increasingly focused on what several termed "Sarmatism" - the Polish movement a couple of centuries back. I have no issues with people posting lots of great info about that movement, but it has virtually nothing to do with Sarmatian culture and history. Can't it go on a "Sarmatism" page instead (with a link to/from it from/to this page)? Or can't we at least move all the non-Sarmatian stuff into the section already labeled "The Polish Reference to Sarmatians"?

Having all this information mixed together (with nothing to separate it from the information about the Sarmatians) is extremely misleading to youngsters and others ignorant of historical timelines. The sections I am particularly speaking to include:


 * General Background
 * Political Thought
 * Philosophies
 * Customs
 * Funerals
 * Costumes
 * Architecture
 * Painting

There's a lot of great information on this page, but you now have to go hunting for the information about the Sarmatians themselves. There's so little in English on the web (or in literature) about these fascinating peoples, please fix this page so it is once again a good resource for information about them.

Thank you, Scottnjulie 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time the following contrib was made, it was immediately followed by the section
 * "Sarmatians" and "Sarmatism" muddled
 * Hello! Only after I wrote my comments below did I stumble on your comments here.  You're absolutely right!  At the very least, it's badly muddled; you think you're reading about Sarmation customs, etc., and then you find you're reading about the Polish nobility of the 16th century.  I'm not registered with Wikipedia (notice, I sign my real name).  But I've made mechanical/technical fixes before, without trying to add or take away material.  I might try here to set up a Sarmatism section here, and relegate those sections to it.  And I hope it'll be moved by people more conversant with Wikipedia ways than I.  13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.160.78 (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2007
 * DID IT. I collected all the discussion of Polish Sarmatism as subheadings under the discussion of the Polish view of the Sarmatians.  But I still feel that it should all be moved to the article on Sarmatism, and a brief reference and link should be left here.  140.147.160.78 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza The name appearing as plain text, following the (accurate) sig/timestamp, was part of the same edit.
 * A long, unsigned contrib, attributed to "Piotr Glownia", was placed at this point, at 22:49, 3 August 2007 by, and moved at 11:36, 11 August 2007 to the "Genetics" section of this talk page by a user at the same IP address.
 * Thank you SOOOO much! It's 100% better! :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.28.44 (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to do with a Polish view, when 25% of Polish people in Poland certainly look like ancient Sarmatians, live in territory of ancient Sarmatian Kingdom and like ancient Sarmatians are historic brethren with modern day descendants of Scythians like Magyars and Lithuanians, who are of Iranian stock and also still look very Iranian. Piotr Glownia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.217.247 (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2007
 * I suppose that
 * I don't think we have to do with a Polish view
 * could be an attempt to say
 * My opinion is that there is no reason to discuss Sarmatism as something separate from the fact of the relationship of Samatians and Poles
 * (presumably based on that contributor's opinion that Sarmatism accurately reflects the facts. But until that contributor clarifies themself in this section, using words with a clearly assignable English meaning, the statement must be treated as meaningless. --Jerzy•t 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sarmatians" and "Sarmatism" muddled
The article as written jumbles two different topics. The article is supposed to be about an ancient people called Sarmatians. But somewhere, and without a clear introduction, one finds oneself reading about "Sarmatism," the 16th century vogue among the Polish nobility to suppose that they were descendents of the ancient Sarmations, and to adopt what they saw romantically as the trappings of that society. A full eight sections prove to be dealing with this Polish phenomenon, and they are just inserted, as a block and without distinction, into the middle of the sections on Sarmations proper.

I suggest one of two things. Either establish a section here on Sarmatism and put all those eight sections under that section. Or, much better, I think: Make a brief, clearly titled reference to Sarmatism, and move those eight sections to the Wikipedia article on Sarmatism. There is such an article.

The eight sections are: General Background; Political Thought; Philosphy; Customs; Funerals; Costumes; Architecture; Painting. 140.147.160.78 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * It maybe is not evident, but Polish aristocracy was not overly found of Polish Sarmatism. Polish knighthood and aristocracy were not very Sarmatian at all in XVth century, as they were busy copying culture of the West European chivalry. Sarmatism was however the popular local culture and tradition in Poland of Polish native peasantry, who in XVth century massively joined rankes of Polish Nobility (they were after all also landowners in Poland even if very small ones _and_ they were the standing Polish infantry in Polish Common General Leavy even if they were not knights). Piotr Glownia

(Questioning of source)

 * The orginal, oversized section title was
 * is the website creditable source ? and major topic is Chechenia and Degestan.
 *  Lest the contrib's format provide further confusion, please note that the contents of the following box reflect exactly the non-section-hdg portion of the unsigned edit referred to where the sig belongs.


 * link #2 http://www.sarmat.esp.st/ Sarmatia Eurasia

contins sholary :) historiograhic articles like this
 * Violéncia Sexual Rusa contra Chechénia
 * Colectánea de Artículos A Respecto del Invasión Rusa en la Sarmática Chechénia:

Anyway schold we reconsider genetic data since r1a1 presen in Caucasus in few % ?

I have nothing to stimulate freedom movements, but why sacrifice Sarmaians or truth ?
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nasz (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Not really sure what your trying to say, or ask here, but if your wondering if that website is a valid source I would say no. HammerHeadHuman 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (The "smile" text emoticon between the 1st & 2nd bullet points has the best chance of being relevant if one assumes the contributor confused the "i want to reassure you that i think our interests coincide here" icon with the "i mean the opposite of what i just said" one. (The reference to #2 was not, as context suggests, a footnote reference, but rather the result of having manually counted to two among the bullet points in the "External links" section of the accompanying article, before saving an edit that preceding N's contrib in this section.) As to whether the specific page Sarmatia Eurasiana is "[a credible] source" re the accompanying article, i am uneasy with the simple answer "no" (that a colleague made above). WP policy and well-established guidelines are much more like international law than like reading a contract: much of international law is composed of the history of "the acts and forbearances" of states, and even where what editors may or must do or not is it is written down, editors learn it far more by example and experience than by study, including article-specific discussions. In this case, more response is required, lest Nasz or others be misled. A major issue here concerns N's apparent insinuation that at least one of the following constitutes either prima facie evidence against credibility, or a particularly valuable hint of excessive PoV on the external page in question:
 * interest in Chechnya and/or Dagestan (N. mentions them in the former section title), disapproval of Russian policy toward its ethnically non-Russian federated republics (the formal status of the named places), or use, in titles, of terms that defenders of Russian policy might be expected to claim to be falsely applied.
 * I agree with HHH's conclusion, in that IMO two factors do interfere with the potential for using that page as a ref:
 * its apparent status as an unsigned blog (implying a need to establish rather than assume reliability of the site), and
 * its poor accessibility to most of :en:WP's target audience of English-fluent readers, by reason of being a foreign-language site.
 * More specifically, however, "Violéncia Sexual Rusa contra Chechénia" is attributed by the external page in question to Human Rights Watch, and appears to translate "Russia: Investigate Sexual Violence by Troops in Chechnya", an official release (dated a day earlier) in very temperate language (e.g. "charged" as a verb; "alleged" as an adjective) by the respected advocacy organization, whose site -- properly used -- might offer good sources, and V refs, for some WP articles. (And "Colectánea de Artículos A Respecto del Invasión Rusa en la Sarmática Chechénia" seems not to be an external page or article title, but merely the blog's precis or categorization of that foreign-language version of it of the HRW page i just ext-linked to.)
 * Looking into the use of the site by the accompanying article, Nasz's closest-in-time edit there, 8 minutes later, was removing that ext link -- but neither as footnote ref nor from the Refs section, but from the "External links" section; doing this with the stated reasoning suggests a profound misunderstanding or misrepresentation of V. The edit summary only makes the situation worse:
 * Do While Loop .Circular reference ERROR. The deleted website quote Wikipedia. in referenced link. Se also talk page.
 * In detail
 * _ As to anything before the 2nd period, i consider it close enuf to being meaningless that attention to it is a waste, and i infer an editor going far beyond their depth with programming languages and software internals, in the midst of exercising one of the most clueless senses of humor that i've seen a Wikipedia editor exhibit. YMMV, and if you can come up with anything of value (that we can nevertheless credit with reasonable charity), please enlighten us. _ Between the second and fourth periods -- the third one must have been intended as a comma, unless the editor hoped to convey, following it, "[And it not only does this, but does so] in [a] referenced link." --
 * _ of course, the term "referenced link" is either surprising or meaninglessly vague, _ the only thing changed in the article edit was separate from any ref (in our normal sense: a footnote) and from the existing refs secn, _ there is no reason to avoid a page (even as source, which no one has claimed) for quoting WP -- except when the issue is citing it to verify on WP something that it states solely on the grounds that WP says so, _ N. names no specific quotation from WP, and it is unlikely such a quote was acknowledged (whether by name or link, and whether taken from Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre or Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia), at the URL cited since the current version lacks even the string "wi" (in any casing) in its source, and the last apparent addition to the main page was on "09 de diciembre de 2006", 7 weeks before N's complaint, so that removals since are unlikely. It also appears unlikely that either the word "wikipedia" or such a lk appears elsewhere on the site. (I note that AGF -- while IMO not necessarily voided when the editor concerned is banned, as N is -- does not free any editor from the need to document where a quotation appears and is quoted from, so that others can verify the facts, judge what constitutes quotation, paraphrasing, or other forms of derivation, and judge the direction of derivation; this editor's style of work and command of English in fact call for heightened vigilance in checking.)
 * _ As to the final sentence of the summary, re seeing the talk page, i've already addressed what N. wrote earlier in this contrib.
 * My bottom line is that a more thoro answer to N's question would be well advised, e.g.
 * No, it doesn't belong here as V, but you don't seem to have any grasp of why not, nor of why that answer doesn't justify your removal.


 * Jerzy•t 06:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Centum-Satem?
I removed this from the lead section, as it seemed very strange and lacked a citation:


 * "It is perhaps no coincidence that the boundary between the so-called Centum-Satem isogloss in the Indo-European languages apparently split at the European border of the Sarmatians."

At first I was completely confused, and thought this statement was trying to connect the Sarmatians with the origins of the centum-satem split about 2000 years earlier. Once I had removed it, though, I realized that it referred to the modern positions of centum and satem languages within Europe, and was a roundabout way of connecting the Sarmatians with the migration of the Slavs. I just stepped in the middle of the whole messy debate on this talk page. Whichever way that debate shakes out, however, I do not believe the above statement should appear anywhere in the article without further elaboration, as it is potentially very confusing. A. Parrot (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of necklace and amulet available
Hello fellow editors! Is this photo useful to the article? It has been donated by the president of http://www.tamoikinsmuseum.com. The items are currently on sale on eBay and there is additional information available there - please verify carefully. Wikipedia should not advertise for the auction. User:Nillerdk (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarmatians in Northern Europe is pure rubbish
Please delete from main article the chapter which starts: Around 100 BC ... There is no evidence found from any sources of their existence north of Volga-Kama confluence. If they were there, they were only as traders, and this area had not any Sarmatian cultural influence. There were some trading connections with the Scythians and the coming of burial Kurgan Culture but that was all. No language connections north of middle Volga area. The only Indo-European culture which ever reached this area before 700 AD was the so called "Hammer Axe Culture" which spread from the west and reached Volga bend c.2000 BC, is the only Indo-European culture of which some remarks have been found in the area. And these new wanderers, only in small numbers, were soon assimilated by the Finno Ugrian peoples living in the area. Finno Ugrian peoples were not of Indo-European origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.131 (talk) 18:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)