Talk:Scythians/Archive 3

Map
I believe the map on this page is misleading, since it shows the expanse of the Roman Empire on the map, but the caption place it in 100-50BC before the empire. I think this is erroneous and we need to fix it up. 24.34.208.193 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

horses, horse tack, costume, weapons, armor, warfare missing
Salve, correct me if I am wrong but these subjects are completely missing from this 'Scythians' entry - horses, horse tack, costume, weapons, armor, warfare missing. Especially missing here is the English work of  two great scholars of the late Soviet Scythian-ology, i.e. Chernenko (eg 'Skifskiye luchniki' 'Dlinnyje kopiya Skifov') and Gorelik (eg 'Skifskiy dospeh' still active) - The Scythians by Osprey Publishing, and one very recent  scholarly work  - Costume of the ancient Iranians  by S.A. Yatsenko...   I think it would be worthwhile to consult works like "Nomads of the Eurasian steppe in the early Iron Age" and recent work of D.Anthony - The Horse, the Wheel and the Language." Also reading of  "the Golden Deer of Eurasia" could do wonders here ...  there are plenty of articles and books written in Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, Persian and French that could be quoted here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.88 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clothing
hey, I intend to work a bit on the clothing of the Saka/Scythian peoples. I started editing, perhaps some could jump in - especially from the Russian speaking side - I will provide footnotes shortly .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzhaan-2
Hi,

Amidst all of this nationalistic warfare, could someone please at least mention the Arzhan-2 site? It surprises me that an archeological find of such importance (i.e. Ancient Scythian Royal Burial in South Siberia) is not mentioned at all on the article and only once on the talk page. I am not very good at internet and html, but this find really is worth mentioning, as it is generally attributed to the Scythians, and maybe someone could include it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmoxis (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A missed historical point
There's a point about the unity of the whole identity being missed. On the plains of course there is a replacement sequence of cultures. In pre-history the prevailing theory is that the Indo-Europeans held them. These were replaced by Aryans, Indo-Aryan ancestors. These in turn were replaced by the proto-Iranians. Some of those entered Iran and possessed it. The rest remained on the plains as the Skyths. Even in modern times there were some villages isolated in the Altai who spoke Iranian dialects. Iranians are scattered all across the plains including the mountain stongholds of Afghanistan. These Skyths inherited dominance of the plains probably from the first Indo-Europeans. They were always dominant is what I am trying to say. The name of Skythia does not mark people who were "like the Skyths." What do you have to do to be like a Skyth? Whatever you guess is wrong, because the term comprised multiple language speakers and many ways of life. They all had one thing in common: they were under the governance of the Skyths, and then the very last of the plains Iranians, the Sarmatians. The line was at the Vistula, as all the Roman geographers show. The Balts, the Slavs, the Finno-Ugrians, all "Skythic." I am an early editor on the article. I had this argument with an Iranian editor who knew of course that the main-line skyths were Iranian, and the Iranians dominated, but could not seem to grasp that Skythia, the country of the Skyths, included numerous different peoples. Frankly the Romans didn't care to tangle with the Skyths, whether Baltic, Slavic or Iranian. The Athenians used their captives as police; no one dared to tangle with them. They left them right alone. What happened to the Skyths? The Huns of course. The last of them, the Alans, were driven into the Roman empire begging for mercy. They ended up somewhere in France with the Goths. The Skyths were beat with their own weapons, the mass attack by mounted horseman shooting the recurved bow with great precision. Until recently those customs (except for the attack) were practiced in Mongolia. In contests the horseman rides at full tilt at a post, leans over the saddle and fires an arrow at high precision into the post. They were also pretty good with the steel, and at the end the Sarmatians had chain mail. So, we have somehow to capture this unity, the last of the native Indo-Europeans, cantering over the plains from China to the Volga, ruling the entire vast region and calling it after themselves, Skythia. Only a combination of the ancient sources and the archaeology is going to do that. It might take more than one article; that depends how condensed we get.Dave (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting fact
Removed the following from the main page:

"Interesting fact is that in Bulgarian language the verb 'да се скитам / da se skitam' (to wander, move or travel slowly through or over) Cognitive скит- / skit- and the word скитник, скиталец/skitnik, skitalec have meaning of (wanderer, nomad)."

While I do find this of interest there are at least 2 major problems with this text. The first is that it was placed in the "Tillia tepe treasure" section of the article. It probably belongs under the "Etymology" section. The second is a more serious problem as the text has no citations and appears to possibly be original research. If reliable citations can be provided I would love to see this information returned to the article, in the appropriate section of course. 66.97.213.94 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence you removed is an attempt at etymology. One derivation of "Skyth" is "nomad." It is not in fact original research. There are a few good etymologies. They can't all be right. The one I like is "shooter" from the universal Skythian use of the recurved bow. I would guess with you, etymology should be in a section of its own. Each assertion should have a reference of course. If we can find a ref for the removed passage (there is one I am sure) it might go back.Dave (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel this source is unreliable?
was recently added in. I've removed it, and after discussion with the editor that placed it in, I would like to see if anyone else thinks this source is unreliable. At the very least, it's not properly cited, since page 52 of volume I of Metcalfe's work does not mention the Scythians at all. I assumed that the wrong page number was put in, and searched through the rest of the book (both volumes) for all mentions of Scythia. Volume 2 does mention that the Scythians as having come from Iran and North India, but as part of espousing Godfrey Higgins's belief that humanity originated in South Asia (see and ).

Metcalfe does not repudiate Higgins's claims, but affirms them. Modern scholarship holds that humanity came out of Africa, not out of India. Since Caloric advocates a fringe theory, and is not peer-reviewed, it does not qualify as a reliable source. It is a questionable source, and questionable sources can only be used sources of material on themselves according to the guidelines.

TL;DR: Metcalfe's book Caloric makes claims about the origin of humanity that are not supported by modern scholarship, claims based on the works of Godfrey Higgins, whose claims that are repudiated by modern scholarship. I am not disagreeing that the Scythians come from Iran/North India, that part isn't an issue. Caloric states that humanity originated in Asia. That goes against modern scholarship, that makes the book a questionable source, which means that it should not be treated as a reliable one. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To state for the record

 * Quote: Samuel Lytler (M.D),ed.(1859) "Caloric: its mechanical, chemical and vital agencies in the phenomena of nature" (p.52) “....were in fact Scythians, that came originally from the north of India and Persia”


 * http://books.google.ca/books?id=oUIIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false


 * (1) This book was written in 1843 and 1859. DNA studies only recently in the last 10 years have confirmed that we all come out Africa. But in the 1700-1800's even up until the early 1930's there was several competing theories of the origins of mankind.


 * Human Evolution article: Wikipedia
 * "Carolus Linnaeus and other scientists of his time also considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of humans due to morphological and anatomical similarities. The possibility of linking humans with earlier apes by descent only became clear after 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This argued for the idea of the evolution of new species from earlier ones. Darwin's book did not address the question of human evolution, saying only that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#History_of_ideas


 * (2) This book is part of the Harvard University Collections - So it's Legit!
 * http://www.archive.org/details/caloric00unkngoog


 * (3) I have asked this editior to clearly provide criticism pertaining to the relevant text. Don't understand why he is ignoring and POV claims and not providing relevant material to back it up.


 * (4) Ian.thomson stated himself "I am not disagreeing that the Scythians come from Iran/North India, that part isn't an issue", and "Honestly, I'd just sneak in the words "and Northern India" and call it a day"


 * (5) It's against Wikipedia rules to critique sources YOURSELF (Making Your Own Assumptions), you need OUTSIDE material proof to back it up. Ian.thomson is just stating there is wide mounting criticism but has not provided 1 source. Since It's part of the Harvard Collections I think it's safe to say your assertions with no material proof is not acceptable.


 * Jewels034 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see nothing that Metcalfe has written that makes him a reliable source on this subject, which appears to be outside his field. He certainly isn't significant enough to be used as a source either for this purpose. I have no idea what the Harvard library so it's legit means, Harvard library has a lot of books that are of little but historical interest if that. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Ian.Thompson has asked you support him above ("DR") and you can't play games here. (2) It's part of the Harvard University Collections and if you've never heard of it, you most likely haven't been to University before - So if you guys feels it's not a reliable source show Sourced Material directly connected with the Text provided countering it or otherwise you guys are blowing smoke. Agree all you want on debating it but if you have no material support to backup your claims, it means YOUR USING YOUR OWN OPINIONS! Can't do that it's called Original Research.

Jewels034 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What's with the stuff about 'playing games'? What's DR? Looks like a personal attack on me, please seee WP:NPA. I don't mean to be rude, but unless the Harvard library is very different from the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale, where I spent many happy hours as a student, it holds many books that would not be reliable sources for this article, and a lot that are just arcane but not thrown away. Four million books is a lot of books. As I said, there's no evidence that this guy is a reliable source for this article -- now if you can find where his opinion on the Scythians has been quoted several times in other academic books, he might be a reliable source if we were writing about obsolete 19th century opinions, but you haven't come up with any. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Look if your going to continue to make your own assertions based on your own personal critique fine but it's Original Research. And by the amount of time you spend on Wikipedia I doubt you are a student because you spend all hours of the day, everyday and no student has that much time LOL And get it right.. it's part of the Collections. Don't be disruptive if you have no direct material support to show. And I've never heard of several sources needed. Please provide 1 criticism attributed to THIS SPECIFIC SOURCE. Jewels034 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop these personal attacks. I'm retired, that gives me loads of time. My comments on him are not original research, that's a misuse of the term. Take this to WP:RSN if you think it's a reliable source. Meanwhile it is you that are being disruptive as you are editing against consensus. 3 editors disagree with you. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all the editors keeping this poor citation and the associated misinformation from this article. I'll keep watching this page and reverting crap. TeamZissou (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks, please. These disputes are the least enjoyable aspect of working on WP. I just finished one myself, and boy am I sick of it. This is a very complex topic! There is little original research to be had on it. Theories are multiple and numerous. It is not an easy topic and if we keep getting impatient it will become an impossible topic, and then WP will follow its tradition of having no words of value in this article too. Calm down. Is anyone 100% wrong or 100% right? Think it over. Thanks.Dave (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Scythians
Current Addition discussions about the origins of the Scythian are on-going aswell here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ian.thomson#Hmmmm. Jewels034(talk 22:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, the page is blank. The user cleared it off. Frankly I'm just as happy. As far as I can see this is yet another article of more discussion than article. For the standard, mainstream origin of the Skyths I have made a brief statement below. They come charging out of pre-history, you know. There are numerous books on it. Dave (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BC vs BCE
It appears as though I am doing some clean-up - what an interesting article. The convention is, either BC or BCE, whichever was first. Since the whole article is mainly BC I'm assuming it is a BC article and am changing the BCE. If I'm wrong, fix it (makes no diff to me). I see many of you use bots to do that. Should be no problem if necessary.Dave (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible 2-col?
Many articles I've seen with this number of notes are 2-col for the notes. There are 2 ways to do it, one for plain vanilla browsers and one for Mozilla. In the latter you add a parameter to the ref list. This way does not affect the vanilla browser. The other way sets it up with commands. I sort of like the Mozilla arrangement, but what do you think of 2-col for this?Dave (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro
The intro contains a number of good refs that do not fit what is being said. My take is that an originally more lengthy text was condensed, perhaps by subsequent editors, leaving the refs. I sure am not going to delete those excellent refs. So, the answer seems to be to make them fit. I can do that by adding phrases or small sentences. This works because the refs are on the topic if not on the subject after which the note number has been placed. Sometimes if you are going to say something you have to say it. Condensation only works up to a point.Dave (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Greater Iran and Persia
One sentence appears to be slightly misleading, I think. It refers to greater Iran (Persia). According to our articles on those, which appear to be excellent and correct, they are not exactly the same. Persia is the political entity descending to today's Iran. It is named after the Fars tribe, which moved from some unknown place called Arya into the region it now occupies. Then it built a sequence of empires. Greater Iran refers to the entire steppe and mountainous area from beyond the Altai to north of the Caspian. Most of that in historical times was never under the Fars even as an empire. And yet, it was Iranian. Even today, you find pockets of Iranian speakers in it, who were never of the Fars. Our article here implies Central Asia was in Persia and that the Persians expanded from there. A series of refs are given. I'm looking at page 44 of the first ref and it says no such thing. I will quote what it does say. A second issue is that at least in this ref it is the eastern Iranians, the Saka, that originate in Central Asia. I am sure this sentence can be made right by not implying that Iranians=Farsi or that Saka=all Scythians or that Central Asia is further south than it is. South of Central Asia is the Central Asian subcontinent, not Iran. But, before I alter anything I want to make sure of the refs. If what I say is still warranted then I will only make the minimum alterations.Dave (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More. Hm. We are using the Linguist List for language classification throughout WP. In the articles about specific languages and language groups their data is referenced by clicking on the ISO code in the box. That goes to the Linguist List database. Now, Scythian is eastern but Farsi is western. So, that lets out any identification of Greater Iran with the Fars (Persians). In inscriptions where the Saka are mentioned they are never parts of Fars, always provinces, but no province ever captured them all. Maybe the Saka did come from central Asia. I know one of the sources in the intro suggests that they came from the Altai region. Central Asia is the northern plains (and mountains) so they can't migrate from Central Asia to the plains, as they are already on them in Central Asia. But, I will finish these references.Dave (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank Edgar Farley's Book
Farley, Frank Edgar (2009) Scandinavian Influences in the English Romantic Movement; p. 197

First, the 2009 date is deceptive. This is a reprint of a 1903 book. Second, Farley leans heavily on John Pinkerton, publishing in 1787, whom he considers the first scientific student of the Scythians. Not by modern standards. Pinkerton's view is that the Scythians came from Persia and that the Scandinavians and Germans are descended from them If that is so then the Scythians cannot have spoken East Iranian. Pinkerton also held that the Sarmations were Slavonic. If so, they cannot have spoken Iranian either. These early theories on the Scyths predate all modern scholarship. You can't mix centuries on this; the differences are too great. So, I took this out.Dave (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bosworth's book
Bosworth, Joseph (1848) The Origin of the English, Germanic, and Scandinavian Languages, and Nations; p. 204

The date of the book is 1848, again preceding by far all evidence used today whether linguistic or archaeological. Bosworth presents the Tower of Babel theory. All the peoples of all the Earth were located in Mesopotamia. When they attempted to ascend to heaven by building a tower, God confused their speech, creating all known languages. The people then moved outward from Mesopotamia as on the spokes of a wheel. Bosworth views Iranian as the original language. From it came Scythian, which gave rise to the languages of Europe. Before you draw your own conclusions I have to caution you that this view is held by Judaeo-Christian fundamentalists whether Christian or Jewish and is taught in many theological seminaries of either brand. Here, I do not see how we can have it both ways. If we are presenting modern scholarship we cannot consistently present the fundamentalist view as though it were the same practically in the same breath. I leave it to you to decide what religion you want to follow if any and similarly the resolution of any of these issues. WP is using modern scholarship. So, I'm taking this out. To use it would require a considerable rewrite unless you would prefer to have paradoxical and contradictory articles to satisfy some ideological, political or commercial requirement.Dave (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Encarta gone missing now
MSN Encarta - Scythians, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009, Contributed By: Maria Brosius, D.Phil, 1997–2009, 2009-09-30

Microsoft stopped offering Encarta in 2009 and is only going to support the ones they sold to 2012. So, you can't find or won't be finding the online articles you formerly did. I used to have it myself. Great maps. But, now we have a number of map sites and encyclopedic sites. Of the 5 notes originally sequenced I updated and left two. All we were trying to do is say that the Scyths were undoubtedly from Central Asia. Five notes on one sentence seems a bit of overkill. The notes I kept do that adequately. In addition the notes of the intro also make the point; in fact, we should probably expand a little on the Altai Mountain theory, which is that the Scyths found enough isolation in the mountains to form a distinctive culture.Dave (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Harvard ref system
Many of the notes feature a book noted elsewhere with a different page number. This situation calls for the harvard ref. It features a bibliography listing the books ref'd with multiple page numbers. I did the initial set-up. Books not ref'd in the Bibliography would remain in additional reading.Dave (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge History
This chapter was put online by Azargoshnap for free. Cambridge Histories Online has it in a subscription site. The book is dated 1985. I do not know if the Azargoshnap publication is legal.Dave (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Origins and prehistory to 700
This section is a bit of a problem. There is some text and there are some sources. The sources generally do not contain any page numbers; moreoever, one note is actually a list of unpaged sources. They do not seem to fit the text. The text is a bit disorganized; it seems to have grown by accumulation of statements by different editors. There was perhaps some edit controversy before the whole thing was just abandoned. There is also a mixture of some modern and some Biblical ideas without any transitions or flow. On the whole they are all on the same theme: the origin of the Scyths. Since that is so it seems that moving pieces around like a jigsaw puzzle might result in a referenced coherent text. I think I will try that. On the notes, each source should have its own note. Also, care should be taken to give the page numbers and to place the note after the text one is trying to substantiate. I think we want to avoid having strings of references on single sentences in some places and nothing on statements in others; however, notes have to fit text and the text and note have to be coherent. The refs are good; one just has to get them to fit. This analysis is longer than the whole section; maybe some expansion is in order. I will be on this for a bit.Dave (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The two etymology sections
Apparently there are two etymology sections. Well, it is difficult to try and fit this huge topic into one article and also considering that it is a Biblical topic the degree of emotion concerning it is not surprising either. All the previous editors seem to have worn themselves out on it so maybe this lull, to to speak, is the time to try to organize it coherently. I am merging the two etymologies. The best place for language seems at the top, as language is an important part of ethnic identification.Dave (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Origins
The classification of Scythian suggests that the culture dissimilated from the western Iranian on the east of the Iranian group range (Greater Iran), in Central Asia.[13] They must have been coming from there when they occupied sites of early India to their south.[14] As a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples they would have expanded westward into the Pontic steppe after that region was vacated by the western Iranians (Medes and Persians) at some unknown prehistoric time approximated by a conventional date of 1000 BC.[15][16][17]

This is B.S. You cannot just include one perspective. And, the source cited in support is some book about the Persian Empire -hardly a detailed look at Scythians themsleves. Anyone who has read any real literature on the Scythians would know that extensive debate since the 19th century until continues as to their origins.

This sounds like weasal work, and should will be reverted. Hxseek (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources actually countering the existing ones? Or for the edits you're attempting to make?  The best course of action would be to reflect all available sources and views.  One of the many sources is about Persia, but not specifically the empire, and it would be a decent source for cultures possibly influenced by Iranian cultures.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Persia" is inaccurate. We should be using accurate geographic terms when possible - not "greater Iran". Sounds like nationalistic forum stuff rather than serious encyclopedic article. the sources actually mentioned mostly propose either a Black Sea origin, ro western Siberia/ Turkestan. No one says the Iranian plateau. i''l go throught them however, and see what others are worht serious consideration for inclusion Hxseek (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, do you have sources to cite to support any of the drastic changes you're making? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hxseek, if you go through the sources provided you will see they have well-published credentials, and refer the Scythian origins from either "Persia" or "Iran" (1 says both also), and in the Encarta Encyclopedia reference (1997-2009) says "Iran".


 * Where as you are providing your own point of view, with no sources? Not reliable. You have different users here asking for your supporting sources in reference to your counter argument(s), please provide them here, would be helpful. Thank you! HonestopL 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear fellows, let me start by declaring that I have no personal issue with things "Iranic". However, on an acedmic level, the are several problems with the version being defended by HonestopL and I Thmopson :

(1) It starts off with  The Scythians are thought to have originated from the region of Greater Iran and As a branch of the ancient Iranian peoples, it is thought they expanded into the steppe regions by 1000 BC

This is makes an otherwise complicated and still debated issue appear that there is unanimous agreement as to where Scythinas originated. The second sentence following is plain wrong. Iranic peoples spread from the steppe to Iran, not vice-versa. If you disagree with this, then you're disagreeing with the large corpus of linguists and archaeologists

(2) The term Greater Iran has better alternatives. For a start, it has political, nationalistic connotations. This is not a persoanl issue for me (for I am not from 'that area"). It is both anachronistic and unspecific. Surely, we can come with more accurate regional designations

(3) WP:Undue weight. Let's look at the sources, as well as the heirarchy of sources. Let's look at some devoted sources which consider the issue in detail.


 * Cambridge History of early Inner Asia - D Sinor : claims a Srubnaya origin (ie Black Sea). Page 99
 * A History of Russia, Cenral Asia and Mongolia - speaks of widespread Scythian culture throughout various regions . No bold statements about Scythians originating ion "Greater Iran".
 * The Empire of the steppe - Grousset. localizes it to Turkestan and western Siberia. "Greater Iran", anyone ?
 * Nomads of the Eurasian steppe in the early Iron Age. PaGE 31- complex issues, but suggests local origin with some evidence of eastern contribution, the exact location and degree of which is unclear. Page 31

Arguably, 4 of the most authoritative, detailed and recent books on the issue.

Let's look at ths sources in support of "Greater Iran"
 * The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period - very generalist, and not really focussing on nomads
 * Scandinavian Influences in the English Romantic Movement. I;m not even going to comment on this one ! !
 * Ancient Communities of the Himalaya;  - Again, impotent
 * The Origin of the English, Germanic, and Scandinavian Languages, and Nations - Insipirational ! !! Wow.
 *  MSN Encarta - Scythians, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009   I stopped reading this when I was 12.

Plus I querie if they even all say "Greater Iran"

The quality of discussion and analytical degree betweeen the former and latter sources is quite obvious. I could go on and on. I trust there will be no further arguements.. Thanks chaps.

Hxseek (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're throwing a lot of "he said, she said..." you need supporting sources to prove what your saying is actually supported, and not made up!  Wikipidia is not the place for un-sourced opinion over scholarly research.


 * You are just going through the sources saying things like "Insipirational ! !! Wow." and "I stopped reading this when I was 12". And that's your proof?!... And to top it off you add your own Point-Of-View theory (as Fact) with nothing?


 * It's really not up to you to make judgments on the credentials of Encyclopedia's, whether it's Britannica or Encarta. Dr. Maria Brosius, who was the contributor for the Scythian article in the (MSN) Encarta Encyclopedia (1997-2009), IS an Expert in the History of Ancient Persia, and ancient Greek History.


 * She is a professor at the University of Newcastle. She teaches it, researches it, and publishes in these specific fields. She got her D.Phil from the University of Oxford, and was awarded a Postdoctoral Fellowship of the British Academy, and then held a three-year lectureship at Queen's College, Oxford (meaning she was a professor at Oxford University as well). She was also awarded a two-year Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship for 2005-2007, part of which she spent as a Visiting Scholar at Wolfson College, Oxford.


 * So, what I'm trying to say is... we have a Scholar, who has a Doctorate from Oxford University, has also taught there, received major award(s), fellowships etc., specializes in the Ancient History of Persia, teaches it, researches it and publishes it, and wrote for the Scythian article for the MSN Encarta Encyclopedia and published:

"Scythians, groups of nomads that originated in Iran and inhabited the Eurasian steppes in the 1st millennium BC ..." Feel this has a stronger case. Thank you! HonestopL 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The sources I provided are quite clear. See them for yourself. A multi-hundred page work on Eurasian nomads is obviuosly better than an Encarta article. the articles you have provided are generalist. They did not even go into discussing the issue, but merely mention something on the Scythians in passing.

Can you please explain how you think your book on Scandinavian influences on English Romanticism is a specialist book dealing with Scythians, contra to mine ? Even if we accept the encarta article, that still does not represent a majority of opinion, not even a peripheral one. You're bias is so twisted that you somehow make this the main and only theory. Please see WP:UNDUE. Failure to abide by the will result in you being reported

Hold it, fellas
I am considering protecting this article but there are other venues to go down first. Can I suggest for instance a Request for Comment? See WP:RfC. I'd like to see this dispute settled without bloodshed, please. And without anymore personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Perhaps by moving it to Rfc, it would take out some of the personal attacks and better reframe this debate intellectually. It's a complicated topic that deserves an in-depth discussion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this piece definitely needs an RFC. In particular I find the ongoing edits -- including removal of comments by other editors on the talk page -- by editor Hxseek, in addition to failure to seek any consensus before continuing to proceed editing, extremely problematic, as well as disrespectful of other editors here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This bit of gloating, combined with his refusal to withdraw calling HonestopL a troll, doesn't really serve any civil purpose. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that this editor "HonestopL" is a troll. Not only are his edits academically weak, but he is outright misrepresenting sources. This is a serious breach of ethics, and I really suggest other users take note of it.

(1) He insists on stating that the Scythians came from "Greater Iran". As I have stated, this is a vague, imprecise, and some what loaded term. Agree/ Disagree ?

(2) Not only that, he does not wish to allow the inclusion of other proposed geographic regions, which are actually (more) supported by reputable sources.

(3) Most importantly, he has used sources which are of doubtful quality, and moreover, misrepresented them. Case in point:

The only thing is states about Scythians is Scythians originated in "Central Asia. A very vague term, hardly a detailed look at the issues. There are tons of very good works which look into details. And nowhere does it use the term "greater Iran"
 * He has cited Scandinavian Influences in Englsih ROmantic movement. What does this have to do with Scythians ? ?

" Book "Persian Empire: a corpus of sources..." This states The Sacae are the Scythians, in this instance the Scythians of Central Asia, who always lived on the margins and beyond the frontiers of the Achaemenid empire .... Where is this Greater Iran other than his own POV ?

This infers specifically to the Sakae, not all Scythians. This is dealt with on a different article !


 * His other sources include: Ancient Communities of the Himalaya and The Origin of the English, Germanic, and Scandinavian Languages, and Nations.

Does anyone think I am incorrect or rash to doubt the quality and real relevance of these sources, especially given that I have brought forward much better works (see above) ?

In contrast, my version clearly states that the origins are still debated, and moreoever, there were many different "Scythian" groups, and therefore cannot expect a single, magical place of origin- as highlighted in valid sources. Is this not a more appropriate and academically sound approach ?

Hxseek (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You should withdraw the troll comment, you've already violated WP:3RR, violating WP:NPA will not help you either. Your version does not yet cite any sources (click here to learn how to cite sources).  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to comment. I have only had time to read the entry so far (and adjust it a little for clarity on the way.) There are contradictions within it re origins, which I have not managed to resolve. The Origins section presents two alternatives, one of which is authochthonous development from within the Pontic steppe, while the separate archaeology section dates the Scythian material in the Sayan-Altai area in Central Asia as older than that on the North Pontic area. This latter material needs to be worked into origins, in my view.

The genetic evidence has not been fully explored and linked to the linguistic evidence. Essentially the Andronovo Culture is considered Proto-Indo-Iranian. We have a trail of ancient R1a1a Y-DNA from there across the steppe and in successive cultures to Scythian kurgan burials, the Scythians being classed as Iranian speakers. The Scythians appear to be descendants of that rump of the people of the Andronovo Culture who remained on the steppe after groups departed into what is now Iran and India/Pakistan. They spread east along the steppe, deep into Asia. Then their descendants returned to the Pontic/Caspian region in around the 8th century BC, under pressure from eastern tribes. However I would need to pull sources together to present this case. --Genie (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review of the piece and your work on it thus far, Genie. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ideed, Genie, for your comment. Having "contradictions", ie different alternatives presented, is not a problem. Naturally, academics will have often different interpretations of evidence, especially given that many different groups were called 'Scythians' - frmo eastern Europe to central Asia. This is an inevitable result given that there was no homogeneous people called "Scythians" There were many different Scythian groups. Therefore a single place of origin is naturally not going to be agreed upon. That is why past scholars, taking a narrow 'homeland' approach have failed to end their disagreement Hxseek (talk)


 * I agree with Genie's edits, and before you go reverting them some more, Hxseek, I think you need to discuss further on the talk page. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

-> I think we should split it into written, anthropological and archaeological evidence. As Genie suggested, some of the stuff on dating and archaeology should be incoporated here. IE make it more structured Hxseek (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... the Debate is not over, and your sources provided are slim and non relevant, so why are you pretending they carry more weight? Don't Personally attack me and act your age when you deal with others here please. Work together and reverting 6 times in one day is not acting appropriately okay?


 * How come none are providing counters sources on claims of the "Persia" or "Iran" origin sources -wasn't that your contention?? Because the sources provided are sound!


 * Now, resolve this with BOTH sides, or don't edit. Simply as that. PROVIDE COUNTER SOURCES to your claims that the 5 we provided are faulty (as you claim), Academic ones! Please and Thanks - Work Together and everybody is happy HonestopL 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the majority of "your" sources don't even mention the word Iran. So you've lied and misrepresented. Secondly, Iran barely gets a mention amongst serious scholarship with regard to an, or one of, the original abodes of Scvythians. When mentioned, they all state they later invaded it, just liek Indo-Iranian groups in general.

I do not apologise for reverting POV edits. Hxseek (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your view of others' edits, this site still has WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This editor is falsifying evidence, and consequently trying to deceive other good-faith editors. This is clearly a lack of respect for others' intelligence. Whilst it seems that you are buying it, I do not feel particularly obliged to show undeserved respect for such behaviour.

Now if you have anything actually cnstructive and intelligent to say regarding the article, which it does not appear you do, then I suggest you stop your disruptive, pseudo well intentioned commentary

Hxseek (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That does it, I'm going to WP:WQA. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to just point out that Encyclopedia Britannica says for Scythians origin as:"Scythian, member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries bc. " They also say for "Central Asia" that it is "north by Russia and on the south by Iran, Afghanistan". So that's pretty much in sync with what the Encarta Encyclopedia and The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period. Volume 1 says, all 3 are very solid.HonestopL 01:09, 23 October 2010

Scythians and Scythic= the Zelenchuk script, everything points to an Iraqian Arab origin!
Dear mr's and ms's as you know history was misused by the racist white man kokazid imperialistic and racist theories (remember crusades, inquisition, colonisation, ww1, ww2, iraq war, afghanistan war, massacres and deportations of Turks, Uyghurs, Arabs, Chechens, Tatars etc...) Since the kokazawid white man from caves (ie Neanderthalos and Cromagnon) is synonim with evil and destruction.

But the Adamic humans (ie the ones from Adam+Eve hg's + mt DNA F,G,H,R,I,J,K etc...) gave civilization+religion+architecture+alphabet to the world. Why why WHY W H Y bekoz we are from Adam and paradise thus no strange that all nobel prizes are from arabian ashkenaz (iskit) or arabian-mixed cromagnons+neanderatluziiis.

Thus in light of the above you should know that Scythians are Arabian (europe comes from arab=west) Scythians are Arab Scythians are Arab Scythians are Arab Scythians are Arab Scythians are Arab Scythians are Arab Scythians are Arab Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you understand? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY ARE ARABS ARABS ARABS ARABS... A-RA-BS SCYTHIANS ARE AR-ABS AND INDO-EUROPEANS ARE ARABS ARABS ARABS ARABS AR-AB-S!

First attestation of Scythians and Indo-European dialect of Arabic speaking Arabs was in Arab Assyrian documents and they are named Ashkuz=strong in Arabic from the root "shkz" as well as their language is Arabic (from the Arabic Canaanite alphabet) as could be seen from the Zelenchuk script please see below

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/ZgustaZelenchukEn_files/ZelenchukKafoev's_drawing.gif

It's written: 1ashkuz

2ta=>ashkuzta=schythia

3adhim=great and so on"

THE STAFF BELOW IS FUNNY IS NOT but sadly similar rhetorics are present in this article as well its Turkish and other versions, you should not believe in everything only because it's was written in a book by scholars!

So as long as we dont know 100% the language and the geographic origin of the Scythians (as well as why should a tribe first attested in Assyrian documents be from empty cold and very poorly habitated Steppes origin and not the overcrowded agricultural mesopotamia"

Please study my requests

Have a good work

Yours Hum An By, Castelnegro Campania Italy

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, saying white people are inherently evil cave men is racist. Just so you know.  Take your post, switch "kokazid" with "Arab," and you have the very racism you seem to have a problem with.  Hypocrite.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was of course joking :) and of course there is no angel and evil; what I want to say (this time I am serious) that I noticed that some Wikipedia moderators accept to include the claims "they like" as long as they have sources but dont accept to include the claims "they dont like" even when sourced for example when I brought a source saying that the first swastika motif was found in central Iraq and goes back to 6300 bc then some moderators did not include it because how come Iraq has swastika!!! but when there are claims that evil arab and muslims enslaved as much as 1,25 mln Europeans in North Africa they are quickly included and common folk would read this and believe it as well as other claims of the Bernard Luis etc... Come on the whole North-Africa (except Egypt) had a population of 3 mlns and there is no mines or extensive farms to make work as high as 1,25 mln Europeans or sub-saharan Africans despite genetic studies (Y-DNA+mt DNA+autosomal mapping) is unable to find those 1,25 mln European slaves!!! afaik apartheid laws are a product of "white man"(I am not using "white" in the phenotypic sens myself I am blue eyed blonde haired white skinned) in USA and South Africa. Also when speaking about Semitic/Indo-European similarities I was insulted and attacked as they think "how come sub-human arab and semites have a language similar to the one of us the super-human whites" What about Indo-European Bengalis and Pakistanis why it should be the northern Nordid folsk who indo-europeanised Bengalis and Indians why it could not be the Indians or the Western Asians who have done it. By the way the Indo-European theory has many flaws because Early Indo-European scholars thought that all Europeans are superhumans that do descend from the superhero ancient indo-europeans. But todays we know that Indo-Europeanisation was a linguistic process and that many pre indo-european words of the "real" pre indo-european speaking ancestors of actual europeans were zealously counted as indo-european. Please see the criticism of the Indo-European theory by Marcantonio, Fournet and other linguists here below

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=112644#post112644

Humanbyrace (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Scythians and Getae
Not to add more ancestry claims on top of what it was added, but there are plenty of historic sources which connect Scythians with the Getae. Some authors believe that Getae have at least a partial ancestry from the Scythians (maybe a Dacian-Scythian mix). Others believe that ancient historians mistaken the Getae from Scythia Minor and Moesia for Scythians. There are also linguistic affinities between Geto-Dacian toponyms and known words and Scythian and Sarmatian languages. The Dacians and Sarmatians were also allies in many instances. Whatever the truth may be, they clearly interacted, at least in Scythia Minor if not on a larger area. I am suggesting a section or paragraph for that.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?
When talking about burials, the article stated that the men and women dressed the same and were buried with the same objects, including axes and other weapons.

Then, the first sentence of the clothing section says that the men and women dressed differently.

Which is true?

68.197.99.184 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People don't usually walk around in burial clothes. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maeotians and Sindi
I find it extremely improbable that the Maeotian and Sindi tribes of the the Taman peninsula spoke Indo-Aryan languages. What is the source for this statement? In Indo-European linguistics the term 'Indo-Aryan' references solely the Indo-European languages of the Indian Sub-Continent, as against the Indo-Iranian languages discussed in the present article.

The Taman peninsula is part of the historic territory of the North-west Caucasian (Adyghe) tribes, and there is firm evidence that the Maeotians were members of this group. It is known that they traded with the Greek city-colonies of the the north-eastern Black Sea region, as, indeed, did the Scythian tribes and, later, the Sarmatians. In the first millenium BCE Adyghe tribes seem to have extended much further to the west - certainly to the Crimean peninsula - than the much reduced immediate North-west Caucasus area they now occupy, and were swept up in and absorbed by subsequent folk migrations, ref. 'The Circassians: A Handbook' by Amjad Jaimoukha.(Peoples of the Caucasus Handbooks, originally published by Curzon.) Geoff Powers (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Chromosome DNA on ancient Bronze Age skeletons?
Someone just added this: "Y-Chromosome DNA testing performed on ancient Scythian skeletons dating to the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Siberian Krasnoyarsk region found that..."

I'm no expert, so please pardon my ignorance, but not so long ago, it seemed like it was "common knowledge" that Bronze Age skeletons didn't have any Chromosomes or DNA on them. But nowadays (ie the past couple of years) we see bold claims like this being put forth more and more often. Has there been some tremendous new advance that allows us to determine a skeleton's genetics? Or is this a red flag? Thanks to anyone who can explain for patiently indulging my query. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * DNA has been used on bones a lot further back than the Bronze Age, but here's a sample article for Bronze Age . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I looked at both of those URLS - "The interpretation given to the findings of the world's oldest DNA samples was that Greenland had been a green and forested area within the last million years; providing a different picture to the barren wasteland that was previously envisioned." - very fascinating stuff, although I'd guess only a very tiny percentage of living people today would be able to follow arguments like "polymerase chain reactions" and "hybridization probing" much, beyond the sheer impressive sound of these words! Anyway, sorry to digress from the topic of Scythians, and thanks again for the explanations. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Herodotus
Citations to Herodotus are done in a few different ways. Perhaps they should be consistent. The first ones I encountered were done Harvard ref style: (Herodotus x.y). You do see this in encyclopedias, especially Britannica. This method seems convenient to me; this ancient author does not take full modern book citation and it is perhaps better not to tell the reader what publication of what translation he must use. The linked Herodotus article contains full links to online versions of his work; either a translation or the original are available without moving from your chair. In some places the Herodotus cite has been placed in a note. If there is no objection I think I will put those in the Harvard ref form.Dave (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) -- there are no doubts about ashkenazim origins, khazars were called red jews in old times, it is the best and only real solution to consider ashkenazim as descendants of khazars, when khazar empire collapsed the east europe was being ruled by other turkic khanats like bulgars and cumans, it is quite reasonable to consider some khazrs took refuge in their brotheren's lands and kingdoms.

can any one please tell me what is the "iranian people"?? iranian is not a race and the name iran is recently adopted, there has not been any iran or iranian people at the scythian's time, they definately have been a pro- turkic people from altai mountains, if u study the history u will see all of the turkic tribes were described as white/blond people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.129.55 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anon, to quote an episode of STAR TREK: "your facts are un-coordinated" - use Reliable Sources for the Talk Pages - they are not a place for wild fantasy, soap-boxing and they certainly are not a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Objection
concerning thesis in section Origins. Mentined Collosans 3:11 pairs oppositions. So Scythians could not be any kind of barbarians, despite customs connected with war art. Author specifies them as example of civilized people rather than barbarians. And this view is consistent with knowledge about my ancestors. Or else, how forefathers of almost all world civilisations could be barbarians in historical period when even in prehistory weren't? PS Greetings from Poland, fatherland of West Scythians aka Sarmatians, Alans, Slavians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.170.66 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no. For starters, ALL "forefathers" of civilized people were at one point un-civilized, aka "barbarians" - a term which due to its sometimes negative connotations, many modern people shy away from.  The Scyths are not the origin of 'almost all world civilizations' - they had nothing to do with the some dozen-odd Meso-American civilizations, or any of the Semitic civilizations, nor the Sumerians, or Elam, nor the Indus-Valley civilization, nor the Chinese/Korean/Japanese/Khmer civilizations, the Etruscans, etc.  Also, don't confuse Indo-European LANGUAGES with peoples; language can spread to indigenous populations without massive invasions of foreign peoples.  The mounted peoples of the steppe were not urban people.  History shows that the Slavs originated out of Black Forest regions, and were not Scyths. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Material deleted from genetics
Even the edit summary left by the editor who restored the material seems to suggest that the article doesn't back the text he added. The second source, doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dated statement
The piece now contains this statement: "A second school of thought suggests an autochthonous development from within the Pontic steppe/ trans-Caucasian region. Followers of this theory argue that the Scythians emerged from local groups of the Timber Grave culture (broadly associated with the "Cimmerians"), who rose as the new leaders of the region. This second theory is supported by anthropological evidence which has found that Scythian skulls are similar to preceding findings from the Timber Grave culture, and distinct from those of the Central Asian Sacae. (Pavel Dolukhanov. The Early Slavs. Eastern Europe from the initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus. Longman, 1996. Pg 125) Aside from being quite dated (1996), I think it's a stretch to pin an entire theory on cranial measurements. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1996 is "quite dated"? Anyway, it doesn't matter what our personal opinion is, it is that of the Reliable Sources that matters. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Why everyone wants to have Scythian ancestors?
I really expect the moment when someone will try to add a section "proving" that the word "USA" comes from "Scythian" and "America" is an ancient Scythian term. We have already Germans, Slavs, Hungarians, Iranians etc. etc. as the true Scythian heirs.

I do believe it's time to finish with this silliness and entomb all those speculations in one section of the article about false etymology, urban legends and other non-scientific theories about Scythian heritage in the modern world. --Friendly Neighbour 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * that sort of Scythomania is in itself an interesting historical phenomenon. I've never felt the desire to consider myself a true-blooded heir of the Scythians, so I'm not sure I can follow the why, but I think the thing is fascinating the way all weird and irrational twists and turns of history can be fascinating in retrospect (a bit like Abba, Postmodernism or the hennin). dab (𒁳) 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, finally someone asked this question! I read through this and other articles and online sources on scythian history, interesting, but not fascinating. Never created big civilizations, didn't leave much cultural heritage if any, had rather episodical and mostly destructive impact on human history and finally succumbed completely to smaller numbers of less advanced turkic invaders. Not much to be proud of, yet such a rush to get related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.44 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Scythians had an extremely barbaric way of life, yet their lifestyle was milder than turks and mongols and more cultural (This is well described by the number of their artifacts, their ritualistic burials and inventions like the carpets and early use of horses and horse-ware[!]). I think as those people have gradually vanished in the history, this must add to their mysterious nature and level of "coolness".حضرت محمود (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Must be something like this. The Scythians were a cool warrior society of conquerors. Who doesn't like victorious barbarian hordes on horseback? But I wonder whether there isn't more behind this. After all, it is surprising how already the actual barbarians of the migration period were careful to emphasize their Scythian roots. I suspect that the Scythians did in fact exert considerable influence on European culture in the Iron Age (note the Scythian-Celtic-Germanic connections of the ornamental animal style over the centuries), and that genealogical narratives were constructed to somehow account for memories of such influence. I am just saying the question may be deeper than it appears at first sight, I am not proposing to put any of this in the article. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is more. As someone of part-Turkish and part-Hungarian ancestry myself, I too had a period in my life where I was certain that the Scythians were proto-Turks or proto-Magyars. Now, however, in light of what I’ve learned, I am in a different opinion. The name Scythian, just like Hun, Mongol, Tartar, Turk, Uighur, etc. was an umbrella-term applied to all of the distinct-yet-culturally-similar tribes of the steppe. Let me put it this way, there are many Iranic-Turkic or Mongolian speaking tribes that come together once in a while, form a nomadic confederacy, and are named after the central tribe that united them. Think of Genghis Khan, and how his Mongols had more Turks then “pure” Mongols. You see, the distinction between a Mongol-speaking and a Turkish-speaking tribe usually was not more than that between a Turkish-speaking and Turkish-speaking tribe. And while Persian or later on Chagatai was the lingua franca, all of these tribes accepted themselves only as that: Central Asian horse peoples.

Enough of that rant. Let me come to the real point: why do we all try to prove that we are Scythian? Because the Scythians were our “cultural fathers,” they were the first steppe-dwelling horse-peoples and therefore, they formed the basis of the entire Steppe culture that even now still exists in isolated pockets in Eurasia, without having changed much. The Scythians were the real Eurasian nomads, and everything after them, the Mongols, Huns, Turks, are their legacy and follow their footsteps. That is why we all want to prove that we are Scythians, because the Scythians were the true nomads, the founders of the steppe-culture (which, alas, most of us have long forgotten). If one nation is proven to be the direct descendants of the Scythians, then everything else that happened in the steppes is due to them. Think this: the descendants of the Scythians would be the “nobles” of the Horse Peoples.

As for my own humble, worthless opinion, I think that this is ridiculous. All of the following steppe peoples. The Huns, Turks, Mongols, Magyars, Tartars, Sarmatians, Persians, Goths, all of them had their nucleus in the Scythians and were part of the tribes that formed up the “nation,” regardless of name and race. Just as it is with the Mongols and Huns. The rest is just names.-----Seljuq--- (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Scythian-origin tales are not a modern phenomenon, all of these legends are many centuries old. Even by classical antiquity, Scythians were regarded as one of the original proto-races and vied with the Egyptians for the honour of being the very first, as the Greek historians relate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a clear answer on what the Scythians called themselves?
The etymology section as it stands is just a jumble of similar sounding ethnonyms with no distinction made between self-designative names and non-native names, all of them seem to be clustered together as if the Scythians referred to themselves as something different for every day of the week.

The plethora of names is ridiculous. I've heard "Skuda"/"Skudat", "Skolotoi" (from which the Greek "Scoloti" is apparently derived), Saka (which appears to refer to the spoken language and ethnic group) and Khotanese.

The ambiguity of the Scythian etymology is really unparalleled, it's needlessly confusing and just seems to thin out the available, documented, historical evidence we have about these very obscure, wandering nomads; which is not much in the first place. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Scythians are for all practical purposes a prehistoric people.

It isn't even clear that they themselves considered themselves a single people, that's just the perception from the outside. So consequently, there may have been as many self-designations as there were tribes, practically all of them unknown. --dab (𒁳) 08:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

=
===== scythians were calling themselves "sakha" people, there are still people who call themselves sakha, they live in sakha republic, east russia confederation. and they are a turkic poeple, how ever scythians most likely were pro turkic because they had originated from altai mountains. the ancient mother land of turkic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.138.83 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ashkenazi
"It may have provided the source for biblical Hebrew Ashkenaz (original *אשכוז ’škuz got misspelled as אשכנז ’šknz), later a Jewish name of the Germanic areas of Central Europe and hence a self-descriptor of the Central European Jews who lived there among the Ashkenazim ("Germans") at that time called Teutons or Wendels."

I do not believe this unreferenced paragraph is accurate. It does not correspond to the article on Ashkenazi Jews. It would need a reference, certainly. However, it seems not really to be about the Scythians; it is off-topic. The Ashkenazi I know of were not confined to central Europe and I don't know of any use of the word to mean Germans or Wends. In fact, in every use I've ever seen it always refered to one of the two main branches of Jewish culture, especially with regard to language and custom. As far as I know the jews of Europe never called themselves Germans or Slavs. The language they are known for, Yiddish, means "Jewish". It is a Germanic language.Dave (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For your occultists above - 1. Torah was written in 11th century AD, known as Leningrad Codex, besides "Hebrew" language has NOTHING to do with "Indo-European" language and less with Teutons and Wendels (old Slavs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.131.70 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

vandalism of the page
This page gets constantly vandalized by various users (almost always due to the background of Scythians). Any decent search into google scholars of the last 50 years shows that the Iranian background of Scythians is the prevalent viewpoint. I have quoted Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/530361/Scythian "Scythian, member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries bc." Dozens of others sources have been quoted. If one looks back to the history of the page, similar ips deleted the word Iranian. I hope the page is protected from such vandalism (it seems the users who are not sensitive if the word Iranian is deleted).. --74.96.254.213 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is a theory, not a fact. The article already has is a section on the origins of Scythians, quoting various sources, and you will clearly see that while the Iranian origin is the predominant theory, it is not considered irrefutable. That is why it is important to ensure that the header is non-POV, and unbiased. Please do add any relevant information you think is missing to the sub-sections f the article, but the header needs to be clear that the origins are not 100% certain.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The current theory is the one lead by numerous scientists.. if there is any other theory it needs to be shown to be significant. As long as the scholarly concensus (overwhelming majority of scholars) states Iranian and there is no serious other theories, then one cannot provide equal weight WP:WEIGHT.  If you want, get a third opinion on the issue, but the page had Iranian for a long time until it was vandalized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.254.213 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to request a "semi protection" for this article (edit available only for auto confirmed users). Xooon (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be highly inappropriate, and hopefully declined. This is clearly a content dispute, which the IP has as much right to participate in as a registered user. If you need to, please pursue dispute resolution on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A question: Changing/replacing sourced content with false/not mentioned content is equal to content dispute or falsification? For example, The source says: "A is X". Then, an user changed it to: "B is X", or "B and C is X", or "A is Z", or "B is Z", and etc... When I browse this article version history, there are many edits like above examples (by both IPs and registered users) You said: "This is clearly a content dispute...". But I think it's not. I don't want to lock this page forever. Because we need every bit of good edits by both IPs and the others. But protecting this page for a definite time (short, at most 1 or 2 weeks) can help content improving and we can have a stable revision. This is just a suggestion. Because many editors watch this article, so the content is well maintained. If my suggestion does not help and makes only restrictions, OK, then there is no need to change current status. I don't like collaboration will become limited. Xooon (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

this page has been created by Persian vandals who are known to be trolling in wikipedia, there has never been any thing caled iranian people, Scythians brought Zorrostrian religion to Persia and some words of their proto Turkic language got through Persian language, that does not make Persians Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.110.141 (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Please begin by reading WP:5P, then WP:FORUM and WP:RS if you want to participate. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

pathetic state of article
Well, this has been a WP:BATTLEGROUND pitting Turkish nationalist trolls against Persian nationalist trolls. The loser is Wikipedia, and anyone expecting to find an article about Scythians at this address.

I have tried to fix the worst of the more recent deterioration, but the article is far from well or stable. Over all the trolling, it appears that fact-checking has suffered, not to mention encyclopedic style and structure. At least I have now put related material into the relevant sections so that blatant self-contradictions become more visible (such as Scythian women dressed in much the same fashion as men. Men and women dressed differently.)

I do not have the resources to babysit trolls these days, but the only workable approach here is to clamp down with zero tolerance on all ethnic bickering. The alternative is a perpetually broken article, and this cannot be in the interest of the project. On Wikipedia, the principle "anyone can edit" is clearly subservient and secondary to integrity of content. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamgas
We have a long-time Turkish nationalist trolling the "Scythian" articles, adding poorly referenced and completely disfigured material. The material is always based on a private website (s155239215.onlinehome.us).

In the case of the "Scythian tamgas", we are looking at this page, apparently based on a Russian publication identified as
 * Yatsenko, S. A., "Tamgas of Iranolingual antique and Early Middle Ages people". Russian Academy of Science, Moscow Press "Eastern Literature", 2001

This is probably a decent study in origin, but we cannot use it via a completely broken English translation. We can add information about this if somebody can be bothered to properly identify this study, and consult it to see if it says anything about Scythians. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference is apparently this: If anyone manages to consult it, this would probably be a valuable addition to the Tamga article. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * С. А.Яценко, Знаки-тамги ираноязычных народов древности и раннего средневековья. М.: Восточная литература, 2001 (13 а.л., 190 с. + 36 табл.). 1000 экз.
 * I have this book. I'll read it and try to expand the articles. Feel free asking about the content of the book.--Bouron (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, this sounds nice, another act of indo-europeanisation. --Tirgil34 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The etymology
The write-up is too condensed - it does not match the source very well. I altered it to fit the source. According to that source, Saka is not in the "shooter" group, it comes from an Iranian word "wander." Saka was the term used by the Persians. I am going to look at the removed "wanderer" etymology above to see if it cannot be put back in some form.Dave (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I checked, and no, the writer was trying to relate "Scythian" to Bulgarian "wanderer" rather than Saka. There's no ref for it. If the author can find one, he might put it back as an alternative to the one given.Dave (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * скита - skita(skytha), скитач - skitach(skythach), да скита - da skita, on modern macedonian language is wanderer, to wander around.79.126.237.2 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally Eurocentric wiev
This article is full of flase infomatin, unbalanced and eurocentric wiev of scytians. There are no standart origin thery for sctyinas, there are diffrent ones. But this article of wiki contains only one. Why ? BEcous of political and ideological wiew. İ will cahnge it.

((Copyright violation of material stolen from http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/OssetianGeneticsEn.htm removed))

Balabanpasa (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article just neutrally summarizes (as defined here) what reliable sources (as defined here) have to say on the subject. Do not accuse people you do not know of bias without evidence, assume good faith is a cornerstone of this website.  Your suggested additions include very few sources (giving undue weight to Russian sources), uses older (and probably outdated) sources, and editorializes (Wikipedia does not interpret sources to make a point).  If you change the article to your suggested version, I will have to revert it and I'm totally sure that other editors will do so as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And once again, you've posted the exact same copyrighted material you were previously told not to post. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There are different theries about this subject but vikipedi show one, how will be call it ? And Abayes poit of iranian dialect is a old source for show them iranian too. İt declined most of writers today Balabanpasa (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal theories and personal interpretation are not accepted here (see WP:No original research), nor does fringe material. Do not remove others' posts and do not post copyrighted material.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012
This category must be added to the article: Central Asian people It is because the genetic evidences shows that they were of Central Asian origin genetically as it is mentioned in the article, so it mst be added.

78.172.217.231 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. A reliable source would also be useful. I don't believe that Category:Central Asian people should be added because, from what I've seen, it is used for more current people. But I'm happy to add it if there is a consensus reached here first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012
In section Scythians's sub-section Scythians's first line Jats are mentioned as claimed possible descendants of Scythians, alongwith several tribes. I am suggesting the admins/reviewer to add a reference for this —

202.131.116.162 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Offline source accepted in good faith.&#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 22:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2012
In the section 'Scythians', there is a line, "Some Asian Saka include Nagbanshi, Bala, Gurjjara." Please add Jats also; providing the reference of Tadeusz Sulimirski --

122.173.205.19 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC) see also -- Indo-Scythians 122.173.205.19 (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC) ✅Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

False information in Turkish language article
Dear Sir/Madam,

I just read the Turkish language article about "Scythians". Unfortunately, this article is full of false information and references can not be credible. This type of behavior is due to a sense of racism and chauvinism of its authors, who unfortunately make a shadow on the scientific nature and informative mission of the Wikipedia. I don't know if it is possible to do more audit on this kind of articles in another languages.

ref:

Yours Faithfully, Mehdi Zarei. Mehdizj2000 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Skythians
Yeah, it's less confusing when you spell it with the kappa instead of a Latin "K" in the form of a C.

Just a comment about the importance of the Hellenic histories of the world. People seem unwilling to accept that the Greeks were the only ones to write about these issues of race and culture in such extensive way. Although others had some sporadic written records it was always about religion, trade or "the law" not about who someone was, their culture and life stories in general, not broad, never as prodigious. I was surprised that they are theorized to come almost from India, but not shocked. A large portion of the history of the Near Asia and Europe is shared between the Persian incursions and imperial expansion on one hand and the Greek settlements and colonial integration of Hellenization on the other, with a little Phoenician, Philistine and wandering clans mixed in-between up until the Romans. Even the Kelts come partly from Asia Minor and hung around the fringes of the Hellenic World until they supposedly wandered toward Britain. The world was a very strange place. It is very funny that everyone is trying claim everything, when it all eventually boils back down to some very old written history, most likely written in Greek or Hieroglyphs. Maybe if they raise some tablets at the Alexandrian library site one day, maybe that will solve one or two mysteries. There are so many people out there that want to claim some kind of ancient glory for themselves not knowing "who they are". So many out there just don't accept that civilization developed so very slow at the start, they do not respect the past and want to wish or will some new reality not realizing that societies have killed each other just over those very differences! Most of you would hate yourselves if you only knew which way the blood mixes.

The highly developed and advanced civilizations of the people we only assumed were primitive until modern times, do not exist. If cryptic, superior yet undiscovered cultures did exist then we would have an entirely different reality in our current world.

So many ethnic groups are coming up with so many distorted, embellished wild fantasies about the past that it is just tremendously funny and just a little dangerous. Hey, if they didn't write about you on stone tablets then you are just not ancient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.62 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DNA and recent changes
The article was recently edited by Slovenski Volk and has been reverted by both Zheek and Dougweller. Rather than seeing an edit war, I'd like to encourage all involved editors to discuss. I've read the article Slovenski Volk uses as source, and it's a perfectly acceptable WP:RS. On the other hand, it talks very little about Scythians. They are mentioned five times in the text, two of which deals with animal art and is of no interest for the topic at hand. The three remaining times, the authors talk about Scytho-Siberians. It would be helpful if Slovenski Volk could give a direct quote of the passage he builds his edit on, and if Zheek and Dougweller could explain what it is they feel is inappropriate in the edit.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The link Slovenski left links to here, which does not mention Scythians. If Scythians are mentioned, this information needs to be presented, else as it stands right now, it is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It talks about Scytho-Siberians, and I must confess to not being aware of the exact relationship between Scytho-Siberians and Scythians. That's why I won't get involved in any editing of the issue, and that's why I asked Slovenski Volk for a clarification.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted this revision and I explained my reason in edit summary. His edit was unsourced (just used a ref with this text: "Keyser 2009") and he changed current sourced content (changing "Iranian people" to "Iranic-speaking"). if a new theory/evidence with reliable sources is provided, we should mention it, but this doesn't mean we can change current sourced texts/content. New theory can be added to the current content and new changes should match with current sources. For example, consider this as an intro:
 * Scythians were an ancient Iranian people (sources) or an Iranian-speaking people (sources)...
 * Then I have a new RS that says "Scythians were X", I should add it to the article like this:
 * Scythians were an ancient Iranian people (sources) or an Iranian-speaking people (sources) or "Scythians were X" (source)...
 * We can not remove or replace previous sourced content because of new ones. We can reject them when they are completely rejected and not supported by experts and academic sources. Zheek (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And why he reverted my general fixes (wikilink and dashes)? diff 1 - fixed wikilink, diff 2 - fixed dashes, and his RV. Zheek (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nationalistic/chauvinistic point of view is the problem
I submitted a request yesterday referring to the classification of Scythian language. It was Indo-european when checked last yesterday. I asked whether it should change back to Iranian or not.

You know what the problem is of this Scythian information page? Everyone is trying to pull the Scythians to their own heritage. I asked whether the language definition could be changed, and when I check now they are somehow of Eastern European origin! That means they originated in the Ukraine, Baltic States and Western Russia! And who is the corrector? a Yugoslavian man of Eastern European origin!! Come on people, don't be so idiotically nationalistic. The correct way should be: (nomadic) Iranian peoples that originated in Central Asia (and spread later afterwards to Eastern Europe, Greater Iran, Chinese Turkestan, east of the Danube, Southern Siberia and places in between these areas.

I've read most correction claims and I have to conclude this page is FULL and really mean FULL of trolls who try to claim their heritage due to nationalistic and chauvinistic point of view.

Origin: Central Asia, spreading afterwards. Language: Iranian. Ethno-linguistic Identity: Iranian Peoples

Stop with this trolling, please.

Regards


 * Your very statements only betray your very own biases, ignorance and dubious intentions, not the least your "conclusions" which are not only biased and unrepresentative of the scholarly corpus, but fundamentally incorrect in that they mean to imply that for an anceint, enigmatic and diverse people there exists one and only one 'origin'.
 * in any case, your incorrect, and you do not even appear to know that the two main theories as to where the Scythians arose are: (1) exactly where they are attested - southern Russia and Urkaine from the preceding Catacomb culture or (2) the Sayan -Altai region - neither of which have anything to do with Iran.
 * moreover, you appear confused on the difference between language and identity. Yes - they spoke ancient Iranian, but no they don't come from Iran; they were never "brothers" of the Persians, nor the Medes, nor do they have anything to do with modern Iranians. The Scythians were an ethno-political group, defined by the complex social -political- cultural relations whihch they maintained and enforced. Their ethnicity was Scythian. They never called themselves "Iranians", nor did ever the anceint historians like Herodotus, or Ovid. They ceased to exist in late Antiquity, and did not impart their "legacy" neither to Iran, nor Poland, nor Zimbabwe. So no one is stealing anyone's history
 * sorry to burst your nationalistic bubble, but the genetic study by Kayser (who appears to be of German origin) - which you ignorantly and belligerently claim to be nationalistic propaganda, is nothing but reproducible and reliable fact. Please feel free to conduct your own high-quality ancient DNA study and publish any results to the contrary.
 * for your further information, 'eastern Europe' is a region, not a nation, and 'Yugoslavs' if anything are more Mediterranean & Dinaric than EE. So I have no personal agenda in promoting the reality of their eastern European origins.
 * so as you see, your statements are naught but nationalism, wrapped in ignorance, wrapped in irrationality. So kindly spare us from your rants in future. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't claim they were living in modern day Iran. Nor did they origin there. They didn't have one kind of look. Not all Scythian tribes had light eyes/fair hair color and not all of them were Mediterranean or Mongolic looking. However, they all originally belonged to Iranian stock. You are just changing my words and trying to give it that fake twist. All this evidence shows that the name arya "Iranian" was a collective definition, denoting peoples (Geiger, pp. 167 f.; Schmitt, 1978, p. 31) who were aware of belonging to the one ethnic stock, speaking a common language, and having a religious tradition that centered on the cult of Ahura Mazdā. Persians, Medes, Scythians and Bactrians, for example, they all spoke an Iranian language and they had a religious tradition centered on the cult of Ahura Mazda. I never SAID Scythians called themselves Iranian, but the ancient Persians/Medes knew they were in some way related to them, hence the cultural and linguistic link. However, they were no brothers of each other as you stated. I apologize if my words were misunderstood for that matter. However, Ancient Iranian peoples have a link with modern day Iranian peoples due to the ethno-linguistic heritage.

I think you are living in an imaginary bubble then as you like to call it, as you are denying that people have vandalised parts of this article in the past. The claims of various people saying there is vandalism is all fake I guess, according to you... As for the Scythians living space, you are just changing the meaning of my words. I know Eastern Europe is a region, so was Scythia. They didn't solely live in Eastern Europe or Central Asia nor did solely origin in Eastern Europe. For example the Saka. Scythians lived in a very wide area known as Scythia around the places I described in my previous post. They don't belong to one ethnicity or one land. Nor did I claim this. Stop being ignorant please.

So this talk page is/was not full of trolls? I've read Arabian people and Turkish people claiming heritage without any kind of scientific links/arguments! That is not trolling I ask you? I'm not trying to change anything, I'm just stating facts. So what were the Parthians then according to you? I guess the Parni tribe was composed of Congolese people then who ruled over what is now Iran lol. Modern Iran's history had some African people rulers then.... Please... you are being a little bit ignorant. Scythians, by speaking an Iranian language (thus giving a link to all other speakers of Iranian languages/Aryan languages/IE languages) gives them a link to modern day Iranian PEOPLES Their pre-zoroastrian religon(IRANIAN-like, don't confuse it with modern day Iran) also gives them a link to these Iranian peoples. I didn't ment to be rude to you in my last post, however, you are mocking me here by claiming things I didn't refer to.

I'm not here to argue with you or anybody, I've just been watching this page for a while and the reason it's such a vague article is because of it's constant changing by people claiming X or Y, without the needed scientific facts.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Again you're incorrect. No one is adding that they were blond/blue eyed (although that's what the article itself suggests), and I don't really care what they looked like. What you're insinuating is racialist and has no real place in Academia. Rather, the genetic evidence helps pin-point their geographic origins. Moreover, a lot of what you describe above is clearly OR - the Scythians never worshipped Ahura Mazda, but rather they had their own northwestern Eurasian traditions, very little to do with Iran. The only real similarity was language, which was already severely differentiated by that time, anyway. The fact that you insist of using terms like "ethnic stock' only reaffirms you have a very cursory knowledge of anthropology. What you don;t understand is that I'm not against you labelling Scythians as "Iranian", but the very compulsion to label them anything else other than "Scythian". That is because most people do not understand how ancient identities evolved. Im elevating the article toward a higher level of classification, yet you're pulling it down toward the dregs of chauvanism and race-based classification. See further below. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)