Talk:Scythians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Scythians were a Turkic people.

Scythians were not a Iranian, were a Turkic people. Madyas (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC) They were not "iranians", some of them become iranian after they come to Iran and India much later. So, word "iranians" is not correct at all. They are Proto-Indo-Iranian language or proto-indo-europians or protoaryans183.89.196.19 (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a very minority view among scholars. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, just the opposite. Scythians were Turk accordin to generally accepted opinion. Madyas (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, they just weren't! sources? That is not to say that some people described, either in ancient times or in modern sources, as "Scythian" were not Turcic. The term is a very elastic one, as the article tries to make clear. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Scythians were Turkic according to Oxford. Madyas (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should one listen to a nationalist who has no reliable sources with him and only likes to make disruptive edits? exactly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Iranian boy, "HistoryofIran" username, he is not a nationalist, not only all Turkish historians, I mean all Turks (I mean not only Turkey Turks, all Turkic peoples) believes the "Turkic" theory. But we are used to hearing these lies from Wikipedia lie "encyclopedia". For example, there is no "Turko-Persian" or "Persianate" Turkic khaganate, empire in Iran in history. But ridiculous thing that Wikipedia creates something popular in Iran or Europe, but not Turkic countries, if it suit for your freaking interests, you show us "Oxford" or etc. sources, but if not, "No, why we listen a nationalist?" Really? Give me a break... KARA (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"you show us "Oxford" or etc."

René Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, Rutgers University Press, 7;"Modern linguists believe that the Scythians should be classified as an Iranian people— an Indo-European family.."

Bruce Lincoln, Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology & Practice, University of Chicago Press, 202;"Insofar as the Scythians were an Iranian people..."

Sarah Iles Johnston, Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, Harvard University Press, 302;"...to the ritual use of hemp smoke among the Scythians (a non-Zoroastrian Iranian people)..".

John Van Antwerp Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 307;"Scythians: An Iranian people which dominated the Steppes during the first millennium B.C..

David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, Russian Orientalism: Asia in the Russian Mind from Peter the Great to the Emigration, Yale University Press, 13;"The first to enter recorded history in some detail were the Scythians, an Iranian people whom the fifth century B.C.E.".

Paul R. Magocsi, A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, University of Toronto Press, 29;" The Scythians actually formed a branch of the Iranian people....

Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road, Princeton University Press, 61;"The Scythians were a Northern Iranian people."

Introduction, Ann Farkas, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 5, From the Lands of the Scythians: Ancient Treasures from the Museums of the U.S.S.R. 3000 B.C.-100 B.C. (1973 - 1974), 8;"The Scythians were an Iranian -speaking people , one of many groups of nomads who dominated the Eurasian steppes during the first millennium B.C."

Iranians and Slavs in South Russia, A. Kalmykow, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 45 (1925), 68;"...was the discovery that the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes, who are the first historically identified inhabitants of South Russia, belong to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family and form the Western part of the Iranians." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Let us compare modern scholarship with historical authors who linked Herodotus’ Scythians with various Turkic tribes (like Huns, Turks, Khazars etc.).

• Zosimus: "Unns are Royal Scythians".

• Menander Protector: "Turks, in antiquity called Sakas".

• Procopius of Caesarea: "peoples called in antiquity Cimmerians, now are called Utigurs".

• Theophanes the Confessor: "Scythians, who also are named Unns", "Turks, in antiquity called Massagets".

• Rus Primary Chronicle: "from Scythians, i.e. Khazars, came so-called Bolgars".

Between 400 and 1500 A.D. Byzantine sources call Σκΰθαι - Skuthai - twelve different Turkic peoples  (G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica II, p.236-39). How comes Scythians are now considered Iranian. I think this is a good question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokhan Su (talk • contribs) 07:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Did Ataturk himself discover all these stuff or was it invented later on in Ankara after his death?

• • It is very simple and very often done in the history, by the fabricators: Till 1650, the term "turks" / "turckik" meant ENTIRELY other people/languages.

Good night! --90.154.151.101 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-sequiturs in the Classical Antiquity section

This section:

" The Olanesti treasure is unique in Europe. Discovered in the 1960 the artefacts are dated to the 5th century BC. The treasure contain six helmets, five greaves and an oil lamp. All the pieces are from the army of the Alexander The Great under Zopyrion command "

does not make sense. Pieces dated to 5th century BCE (500-400 BCE) cannot also belong to the army of Alexander, who was not born until 356 and did not take the throne until 336 BCE. The last "sentence" here runs straight into the next:

"All the pieces are from the army of the Alexander The Great under Zopyrion command By the time of Strabo's account (the first decades AD), the Crimean Scythians had created a new kingdom extending from the lower Dnieper to the Crimea."

I am not going to attempt to fix this. The last time I tried to correct a grammatical error I got banned for "trolling". I know NOTHING about Wiki politics or customs. I do however like articles to make sense. And I can't even figure out what the writer(s) intended here, except that nobody named Zopyrion commanded troops under Alexander (I spent a decade researching the man), and I would wager that the name is Skythian due to its similarity to some Skythian names I've seen in classical histories. So it looks like there should be a period after "Alexander the Great" and "under Zypyrion command" may be left over from something that has been deleted.

2600:1003:B850:7B0:3426:EFA4:9188:8CB9 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Cynndara Morgan (No, I'm not going to start an account because I don't have time to absorb dozens of pages of etiquette guides and then play politics. I'm a writer, not a politician.)

Thanks for spotting this. The sentence was introduced about a year ago without a source [1]. I've removed it for the time being, pending further investigation. Of course, the problem could simply be a mistake of saying "5th" instead of "4th". There does seem to have been a guy named Zopyrion who led a Macedonian army against the Thracians in Alexander's time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

In the fourth paragraph from the top (Introduction)in the 10th line, there is a spelling error. The word "prompting" is missing the letter "p" in the middle Vikasthusoo (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the "admins" are so afraid of discussions?

I can be seen "from the Skies" tht the admins are so afraid by possible discussions of the historical topics, that they often prefer more to lock the pages, or erase the talks, than to provide arguments for their "thesis"...? :) --90.154.151.101 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

the talk entries are archived - all the old rants can be found by following the links at the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Correction to statement referencing Footnote #35

In reference to the statement with footnote #35, I disagree with the Wiki. The writers of Colossians 3:11 are explaining the idea that there is no discrimination, so opposites are compared: "The new self allows no room for discriminating between Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

So, from that statement, Scythians would be considered the opposite of barbarians.

Therefore, the Scythians referred to in Col 3:11, are most likely the Royal Scyths, mentioned earlier in the Wiki ("Based in Crimea the western Scythians were ruled by a wealthy class known as the Royal Scyths. The Scythians established and controlled a vast trade network connecting Greece, Persia, India and China, perhaps contributing to the contemporary flourishing of those civilizations"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.98.130 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Physical Appearance" Section Cites White Supremacist Organization

Every portion of the "Physical Appearance" section which details accounts of the actual appearance of Scythians themselves (not groups purpotedly related to them) uses [64] as a citation, which uses a white supremacist organization as a source (Institute for the Study of Man). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakya Volume 2 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If Scythian is just a broad name for Eurasian nomads, why...?

Why this article does not clarify it or expand it further?

• Section: Origins > Archaeology > Third paragraph > Completely unsourced.
• Greeks and Persians called all nomads Scythian. Can someone add a comparison section? We want to read about those various tribes. Their similarities and differences.
• And why those different tribes spoke an Iranian language? The reason to choose it as their lingua franca?
• A lot of rants and debates on this talk page; e.g. typical Scythians were ... or Scythians were NOT .... Does this article miss some details? Or those ranters are a normal part of wikipedia?! If those ranters are right about their claims, why the article does not solve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.187.135 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: nobody knows. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Scythians, Indo-European migrations, and contemporary historiography

The Scythians are hardly mentioned at Indo-European migrations and Indo-Aryan migration theory. Anybody cares to change this?
As an aside: there seems to be a major lacune in the coverage of Euarasian history: the focus on city-empires, and the neglect of the nomadic people. I've got several historical atlasses in my library, and none of them has a separate section, or maps, on the Indo-European migrations. It's only thanks to my editing at Wikipedia that I found out how important their place in history is.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Those articles mostly cover events (theories of events) before the Scythian grouping formed, which is generally taken to be some time after 1000 BC. Like the Celts, the Scythians are neglected because they couldn't write and very little is known about them. Compared to settled peoples they left relatively little for archeology, though some of what they left is spectacular, and sources for attempts at a political history come only from their literate and usually hostile neighbours. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Intro

This thread concerns this revert of 23 september 2015 14:01 on the genetics of Alanic, Sarmatian-Alan and Saltovo-Mayaki burials, and this revert of 23 september 2015 19.15 on "Iranian nomads" versus "Eurasian nomads."

Explanation on nomads, reply on genetics

Re this, one can reference any number of different positions to RS, partly because (as the article goes on to explain) there are any number of definitions of what peoples "Scythians" covers, and we know very little about any of them, and the differences between them. So the initial definition should be broad - there are almost certainly people described as "Scythian" who did not speak Indo-European languages at all. Editors exhibiting strong nationalist tendencies, whether Iranian, Turkish, Chinese, Russian, Indian, Polish or Romanian (all nations capable of claiming the Scythians, or a slice of them), can expect to be rebuffed unceremoniously. The references used were mostly not specialist. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"The references used were mostly not specialist. "

Is that some kind of bad joke? The reference is the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow. How is that not specialist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What kind of argument is this? Since when has genetic material anything to do with the "origin-dispute" of Scythians? Certanly this is no excuse for the recent removal of sources. It is a well known and accepted fact in the scientific world. That Sarmatians-ALans are a Scythic people (speaking a Scythic language). It is a well known accepted fact in the scientific world that Scythians are by definition an East Iranic speaking nomadic people. Everything else is mere nationalistic speculation. Only because someone claims the world is flat doesn't mean the "roundness" of the world is disputed.

Also those are scientific papers recently published about Scythic (Sarmatian-Alan) genetic material and they belong here under the genetic section because they have not even anything to do with the dispute of Scythic origin. If they don't belong here why does a genetic section even exist? And why are other scientific sources from Russia used if Russian sources are "not specialist enough" by your definition?

I will add the scientific papers back. And if you mean you have to change it because you don't feel comfortable about genetic SCIENCE. Than contact and Admin and we can talk about this "dispute".

Wikisupporting (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are talking about the same edits. I was adressing this, which I reverted. Nothing to do with genetics. But many definitions of Scythian include people who were probably not East Iranic speaking. Bringing "Scythic (Sarmatian-Alan)" into it complicates matters still further. Please learn to format references properly, and ideally translate Russian titles. Also this is propably primary research. Do you have secondary sources? Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetics: Alanic, Sarmatian-Alan and Saltovo-Mayaki burials

I see what happened - I did revert your genetics edit, because it appeared to consist entirely of nonsense (rendering of all the Russian characters). When I looked again I reverted myself, but you must have alreadty reverted, so this does not show in the history. Having said all that, Alans are not Scythians (or perhaps not Scythians), & I question whether material on them belongs here. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not uncomfortable with the genetic results as far as they go, but they don't go very far. As your text makes clear, both are from single sites of burials of people who would not normally be called Scythians, even on broader definitions. In one case the burials were nearly 1,000 years after the (variously dated) end of the "Scythians". In Western European archaeology, which many editors will be more familiar with, that sort of evidence would never be extended in this way. Not being able to read Russian, I don't know what claims the sources actually make. There are two mini-disputes here: one linguistic and one genetic. These two factors should not be conflated - you speak English (more or less) - does that make you genetically English? Your interpretations of my meanings and understanding are just all wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear John even by 600 AD Scythic groups still existed Central Asia by the name Saka. To understand the "difference" between Scythians and Sarmatians or Sogdians for that matter someone needs to understand the linguistic chronology of the Iranic languages.

As Scythians were people of East Iranic origin reffered to who lived in the Eurasian Steppes, South_Central Asia and parts of West Asia and East Europe. This Scythian language is, beside Massagetaen language the main representative of East Iranic languages of the Old Iranic period. Those Scythian tribes started to diverge and became tribes of their own, known as Sogdians and Sarmatians for example. Those people spoke Scythic dialects of the middle Iranic period. And today the only East Iranic branches descend of those middle Iranic groups, which in return are descend of the old Iranic branch of Scythian, are the Yaghnobi and Ossetians.

This relationship is like the relationship between Old Persian of the Old Iranic period, middle (Sassanian) Persian of the middle Iranic Period and modern Farsi of the new Iranic period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian_languages

For further clarification see here. It is for a reason that Sarmatian is called Scytho_Sarmatian in linguistic classifications.

But for the sake of staying professional. If you want, you can remove it I am not going to hunt after it. but just take in mind that you are not helping it by removing articles which might be very usefull in understanding the origin and role these people played.

Wikisupporting (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

All that covers most of them no doubt, though the evidence is far less clear than you suggest as to who spoke what when, since they left no writing, but that is true of all the peoples that may be called Scythian or Scythic is more than anybody knows. The articles won't be at all helpful to anyone who doesn't read Russian, which is nearly all our readership! I am more concerned at your reversion in the lead. The later peoples have their own articles. Please note that you have a clear conflict of interest in writing up your own research. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir you do know that It is not even clear if Andronovo is Proto_Scythian and this assumption is merely based on hypothesis? So why is there even a section dedicated to genes with Adronovo and Pazyryk samples in it ( Both not even clear if Scythian)?

I quote from Wikipedia. The Sarmatians (Latin: Sarmatæ or Sauromatæ, Greek: Σαρμάται, Σαυρομάται) were a large confederation[1] of Iranian people during classical antiquity,[2][3] flourishing from about the 5th century BC to the 4th century AD.[4] They spoke Scythian, an Indo-European language from the Eastern Iranian family.

What does speaking a Scythian language mean to you may I ask?

"consist entirely of nonsense] (rendering of all the Russian characters). "

I don't know if simply not understanding or trolling. The paper is scientific from the archeological center of Moscow. The only nonsense I see here is your deliberated attempt to dismiss a scientific source. Genetics is nothing theoretical it is pure science. Wikisupporting (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've explained I thought it was pure nonsense, which is what the all-Russian characters look like in a diff. If you had formatted the ref properly, and translated the names, this would not have been the case. You entirely misunderstand my actions and my views. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought the statement "The reference is the Institute of Archaeology in Moscow" in my first comment above would have been clear enough. That this is not just simply some "pseudo refference but a real scientific source recently published. And those are not the only samples. There are going to be another 100 of them belonging to various Steppic and North Caucasian groups. I hope when I publish them hear we don't need to go all over this again.

signing out 37.201.154.171 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Iranian nomads

I don't know very much about the Scythians, but I do know something about Wiki-behaviour. Talkpages can be telling in that respect. Pushing "Iranian nomads" instead of "Eurasian nomads" is also a telling sign. Maybe we can have a look at the sources:

• 1: "Scythian". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
• 2: Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 1438129181. Retrieved January 16, 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp=719–724
• 3: West, Barbara A. (January 1, 2009). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 1438119135. Retrieved January 18, 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp=713–717
• 4: "Scythia". Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. Retrieved 16 May 2015.
• 5: "Saka". TheFreeDictionary.com. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. 1979. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
• 6: Sinor, Denis (1990). The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge. ISBN 978-0-521-24304-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) p=97 "All contemporary historians, archeologists and linguists are agreed that since the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes were of the Iranian linguistic group..."

• ad1: "Scythian [...] member of a nomadic people, originally of Iranian stock" - no references; what is "of Iranian stock"? Quite unspecific.
• ad4: "They spoke an Indo-Iranian language but had no system of writing. They were nomadic conquerors and skilled horsemen." - speaks for itself. And seems to copy Wikipedia...
• ad5: "the name of Iranian-speaking tribes, mostly nomadic" - copies Wikipedia.
• ad6: the quote does no say "Iranian nomads," but "of the Iranian linguistic group".

I'll leave the books to John; I've seen enough. Clear POV-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As you acknowledge yourself. You don't seem to know much about Scythians. There are indeed inscriptions of Khotanese Scythian language in West China. Those were indeed analysed. So you are wrong in that case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_language

Herodotus accounts mention Sogdians as descend of Scythians. Sogdian was also analysed and just as the Khotanese insciription identified as Eastern Iranian. Herodotus mentions Sarmatians as descend or related tribe to Scythians speaking Scythian language themselves. And also this, just like the descend the Alans and Ossetians are identified as Eastern Iranian language. So let this linguists who understand these things decide.

Also even most of the sources you posted above clearly mention Scythian as belonging to the Eastern branch of the Iranian family.

Even more hilarious how you use the designation "Eurasian Stepppe nomads" as contrast of them being an Iranian tribe as if it is impossible to be both at once. But considering that you don't know much about the Steppic and Iranic history (as you admitted yourself) it must be big news for you that the Eastern Iranian branch were Eurasian nomads. I think it isn't even clear for some people here what Eurasian means.

Virtually 99% of the reliable sources and scientists label the Scythians as Eurasian nomads of the East Iranic branch. We aren't here to please the nationalistic feelings of individuals from various nationalities. And from what I am seing John seems to be simply uncomfortable with the genetic results rather than the source, since the other sources of the genetic section are also mostly Russian. So I don't see the problem here.

Wikisupporting (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You changed "Eurasian nomads" into "Iranian nomads". So if there is no contrast, why did you hide "Eurasian nomads"? The sources above are the sources you've added; at least two of them are problematic, since they are copies of Wikipedia. A little bit disappointing, if "Virtually 99% of the reliable sources and scientists label the Scythians as Eurasian nomads of the East Iranic branch." Surely you must be able to find better sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir don't excuse me of things I didn't do. The change of Eurasian nomads to Iranian nomads happened far before I edited anything. I simply changed it back to the version before Johnbod removed my genetic sources. Also I don't see all the fuss about Iranian vs Eurasian nomads. Thats like arguing about "Germanic Vikings" and "Scandinavian Vikings" Both are correct. The one is simply pointing out their geographic location, the other their ethno-linguistic heritage.

Wikisupporting (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the history you didn't change it to the old version. The ethno-linguistic heritage of most of them, probably, depending on which of the many available definitions are used. That's the point. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: your edit of 8 september 2015 undid this edit of 1 march 2015 by Krakkos, right? Seems like a correct revert to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realize the "Iranian" version had survived so long. The version I went back to was agreed, more or less, way back, and the new references were not strong, and not entirely supporting the text he had anyway. Nobody (except the Turks, Chinese etc) is denying that most of the Scythians, especially in the Western end of the steppes, spoke Iranian languages and were predominantly of "Iranian" stock, but to say they all were is much more than we know. People might ask themselves where the Turkish peoples suddenly appeared from, not to mention the situation at the East Asian end. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys all I see are two guys who are simply uncomfortable with the reality and facts, established and accepted by the whole reliable scientific world, and try to hide your own ethnocentric egoism by declaring or accusing others of being ethnocentric. Not only did non of you adress my point that there is not really an issue with the designation Iranian nomads because it describes their ethno-linguistic heritage. The only reason I see why you guys favor the designation "Eurasian nomads" (a simple geographic designation) over Iranian nomads. What they basically are accept by all big scientific libraries. I only see two individuals here so sensitive about anything what could "drag" the Scythian into a direction which would distan remove them further from their preffered ethnicities, that they even feel uncomfortable about widely accepted Scythian part strains such as the Sarmatians (despite this group even being mentioned in the article already!).

But ok. Wikipedia is the only place where you guys can believe and distribute your own fairy tails to other people since really non scientific encylopedia would agree on those claims of people from various modern ethnicities such as Turks, Slavs or whoever.

And while we are on it. Why stop here? Why not change the Vikings article from "Germanic Norse seafareras" to "Scandinavian or European Seaferars". Since I have seen people claim the Vikings for being actually Slavs or even Turks have I heard! I mean if any claim can cause a dispute over ethnic designation why not start to question the ethnicity of everyone? Are the Romans really Latin? Maybe the Celts were Africans!!

It's getting too ridiculous here. Signing and out Wikisupporting (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And for the last time. I didn't change it to Iranian nomads nor was it my purpose. I simply took the first best version which had still my added genetic papers on it. Maybe I catched up some version which had this. "Iranian Nomad" on it. But Iranian or Eurasian nomad isn't something so big for me to be bothered about. But it seems to bother you guys.

Wikisupporting (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know all you care about is spamming your primary research! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If your intention was to add your preferred genetic papers, then you could have taken the care only to include that, and to check what more you added or changed. You make a big deal out of something you say is not a big deal. Incuding unwarranted ad hominem attacks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

At 23 september 2015 16:14 you reverted John's removal the genetics-info; at 23 september 2015 23:16 you re-inserted the "Iranian nomads" phrase. That's two different edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources 2 and three were still left to be checked. Funny, they were accessed at 16 and 18 january 2015. The topic seems to be a longer standing issue.

• ad 2: Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 1438129181. Retrieved January 16, 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp=719–724 - Unfortuanelty I can't access p.219. p.720 says: "[The Scythians] and the Sarmatians, who spoke a related language, have been referred to as European Iranians."
• ad 3: West, Barbara A. (January 1, 2009). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 1438119135. Retrieved January 18, 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pp=713–717 - p.713: "...the Scythians, whom the Greek knew on the Pontic steppes north of the Black Sea. The same ethnonym has been used by scholars for centuries to refer to many different Indo-Iranian speaking nomads of the Eurasian steppes..." The same page also says "Ancestry: Indo-Iranian, Indo-European more generally."

NB: the article gives three possible origins for the Scyths, from "eastern Iranian" to "a whole host of otherwise unrelated peoples sharing only certain similarities in lifestyle (nomadism), cultural practices and language." So, what can we conclude? Not so much, except that it's save to say that the Scythians were Iranian speaking Eurasian nomads. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Another source:

• Esther Jacobson (1995), The Art of the Scythians: The Interpenetration of Cultures at the Edge of the Hellenic World, BRILL:

• p.29: "a subdivision within the larger group of Scytho-Siberian early nomads"
• p.29: "emerged from the Bronze Age cultures that dominated Siberia, Kazahkstan and the Russina steppe region"
• p.32: "by the time the Pontic scythians settled in the region of the Black sea, they almost certainly spoke an Iranian language and had mixed significantly with Iranian peoples."

Iranians did not originate in Siberia, did they? Given your statement "Virtually 99% of the reliable sources and scientists label the Scythians as Eurasian nomads of the East Iranic branch", I'm looking forward to those 99 reliable sources which clearly state that the Scythians were East-Iranians. Google Books gives only 48 hits... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Scythians were not iranians

They were not "iranians" or indians, some of them become iranian and indo-europeans after part of them come to Iran, India and Europe much later. So, word "iranians" is not correct at all. They had proto-indo-iranian or proto-indo-european and proto-aryans language. This theory is based on Kurgan hypothesis and Yamna culture. Yamna peoples have spreaded own languages from own territory to rest of the Europe, India and Iran 183.89.196.19 (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Unfluenty conculusion !! Foundation and Arguments are cildish...! You can´t change the history becaus you are afraid from the facts!Kurgan and all the founded articels are belonging turkic ancients.. If you say i don´t accept that, this is your pour vision only! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810C:840:E40:18BD:54C5:6508:C606 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is solid evidence, in addition to linguistic and historical, that Scythians were an Iranian people, and have origins on the Iranians plateau. In recent years, compelling evidence has supported the origin of genetic Haplogroup R1a is Eastern Iran. The descendant group R1a1, is well established as a Scythian Marker. So as far as genetics supports, Scyths came from Iran.2601:882:100:D7B0:3CD9:3E01:463A:B1D2 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Scythians were from CENTRAL ASIA, not Iran and they were defintely Iranian people. Also R1a originates from either central asia or india and not iran. Akmal94 (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Rus ethnic relation to scythians.

I believe there is an issue with the following paragraph in the article:

"Byzantine sources also refer to the Rus raiders who attacked Constantinople circa 860 in contemporary accounts as "Tauroscythians", because of their geographical origin, and despite their lack of any ethnic relation to Scythians. Patriarch Photius may have first applied the term to them during the Siege of Constantinople (860)."

It consists of two parts. One part is the referencing of Rus as Tauroscythians by the Byzantine. Second part is the claim that Rus lack any ethnic relation to Scythians. Both of these statements require citations.

The first part is rather well known and numerous sources indicate this, for instance mentions this.

The second part in a way contradicts the rest of the article itself, since Scythians are said to be assimilated by Slavs, hence to Byzantines Rus indeed might have ethnically appear to be Scythian. In the very least the statement requires citation and seems rather strong given the other well cited portions of the article.

(Petver29 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

The image caption translates a phrase as "wearing pointed caps Sakae". This would be more readable as "pointed-cap-wearing Sakae" or "Sakae wearing pointed caps". 24.130.189.187 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Eurasian nomads

To the above:

"Eurasian nomads" attempts to tell the modern reader, in an appropriately vague way, where these people lived, and the sort of lifestyle they followed. Your complaints about this I found so bizarre I had to comment.

I am guessing (hoping!) English is not your first language. Neither is it mine so do not blame your faulty logic on that. Lots of tripe is written over Scythians these days, and yours is not the worst, certainly. Perhaps you are a young person who can be steered correctly.

- Do not complain about an intentionally vague phrase unless you have an alternative which does the same job. "Eurasian" at least tells people that Scythians did not live in Iowa or Kenya. "Steppe" - a Ukrainian word meaning "grassy field" or "pasture". It is as generic as "forest" or "desert". The implication would be that the Scythians ceased to be Scythians upon entering forests or mountains, yet any nomad in any field is a Scythian. ("Nomad" itself comes from a Greek word meaning the same thing as "steppe").

- Do not lie. "Steppe" was never used by any ancient writer to describe anywhere in Europe or Asia, much less both of them together. You have no evidence that it is "authentic" to a "BCE context" (?) and you'll never find any. Anyway, as I've told you it a topographical descriptor, not a geographic one. No-one would read "steppe" and think "oh, Europe and Asia!" The word spread after it was borrowed by French writers as an exoticism in the 19th century after the anti-Napoleon powers (including many cossacks) occupied Paris. ("Bistro" spread the exact same way).

- Do not write garbage. There was never an ethnic group called "Eurasians" and simply because the word was coined in the 19th century does not mean a bunch of people suddenly sprang up calling themselves that. "European" and "Asian" are vague enough but at least you don't have to live in two continents simultaneously.

- Do not make statements like "the Greeks are the real Europeans" while claiming that Scythians are "logically" the ancestors of Europeans while thinking it necessary to point out that Greeks are not Scythians.

- Do not conflate geographical or linguistic terms with ethnic names. Don't disregard them, either, unless you have some kind of racialist or nationalist motive for doing so. "Europe" and "Asia" have no accepted etymologies and were used by the ancients as very vague geographical terms. The Greeks call themselves "Hellenes" wherever they are, not "Europeans". Many of them - including Herodotus, who wrote virtually everything known about the Scythians which has survived - came from Asia or Egypt or elsewhere. The term was actually considered rather inexplicable and was derived (maybe?) from a Phoenician lady mention by Homer. It means "wide-eyed" in Greek. How it stuck to a whole continent is a mystery and same thing with Asia.

- Do not end your diatribes with statements like "X is just X, Z is just Z". Such statements may seem confident, and are a time-tested rhetorical formula to end arguments. That may still work in front of a biased audience when delivered with a bit of swagger. Written down they are much more obviously the thought-terminating cliche you may or may not have intended it to be.

- Do not attempt to fake a familiarity with the ancients. Especially at he same time you are parroting vague modern theories ("the Scythians are 9th century BC"...) as if you have any expertise or discernment.

- Do not accuse a word of being misleading on the basis of being somehow anachronistic. These are articles, not historical fiction. If "Eurasian nomads" is tough to digest because it is an "AD term", please notify your intestines that histories are going to be full of such terms when written in an AD language like English. Would you recommend Wikipedia re-write things for a BC audience? Hopefully not. 73.190.90.235 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why

Assertion: Scythians were Eurasian Nomads

This sentence is tough to digest:

"Eurasian nomads who were mentioned by the literate peoples surrounding them as inhabiting large areas in the central Eurasian steppes from about the 9th century BC until about the 1st century BC."

A few thoughts:

- "Eurasian" is not a BCE term, it's an AD term. There is no justification to use the Scythians in the same context of Eurasian because they are not the same and could not be because of time. The Scythians are ancient people from 9th century BCE and the Eurasians were/are 19th century people. The Eurasian and Scythians cannot be one in the same when they existed 28 centuries apart. It is reasonable to refer to the Scythians (if that's right) as the ancestors of Eurasians, but it is not logical to suggest they are the same people.

- "Europeans" are not automatically Scythian. The Greeks are the real Europeans in BCE terms. The Scythians and Greeks while both ancient people are not the same. In fact, the Greeks, who initially called themselves European, attached the "European" label to the inhabitants of the lands of antiquities that stretched from Greece to Sicily. So, the use of "Eurasian" in the context of the Scythians seems inappropriate.

- I searched the book on Google to see if I could find the use of "Eurasian nomads" and found "nomad". "Eurasian" used in the book usually referred to the Steppe (which seems to be used in a BCE context with Eurasian).

Scythians were just nomads. The Steppe is just the Steppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othelllo (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Eurasia is a geographical term, not limited by date. I've no idea what you mean by "the Eurasians were/are 19th century people" at all. It makes no sense, at least in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I get it - you mean Eurasian (mixed ancestry) people. But that is not the main meaning of the term, which refers to the continents of Asia and Europe. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Saka

Any reason why Saka is a stand-alone article?--Zoupan 08:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Someone has added a merge tag there, but if this is a merge proposal, it is operating undercover! Anyway, I oppose. There is enough uncertainty as to how the Saka related to other Scythians to justify a stand-alone article. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

Please add a reference to Elhaik's paper, where he is cited so the source will be clear, except the Independent source.

87.163.42.51 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sai" to "Se" for the Chinese name (塞)

Can someone change the historical Chinese name from Sai to Se? Sai is one of three contemporary Standard Chinese pronunciations of the word 塞 (sai1, sai4, se4), corresponding to different usages. But there's conclusive evidence from linguistic sources that se4 corresponds to the historical literary pronunciation in the era where the Scythians existed, whereas sai1 and sai4 were recent vernacular variants, e.g. see this (for Chinese language readers): http://www.zdic.net/z/17/kx/585E.htm (《廣韻》蘇則切,《集韻》《韻會》《正韻》悉則切). In fact, there is a record on how the sai pronunciation was created some time between 1000 and 1700 AD due to a merger with a different character, which can be found in 清代段玉裁『說文解字注』. So the character 塞 used in the pre-1000 era corresponds only to its Se usage in modern Chinese.

I don't have an English language source that mentioned this exact annotation, but it's verifiable by checking Baxter-Sagart's extensive list here (search for 塞, with three entries) http://ocbaxtersagart.lsait.lsa.umich.edu/BaxterSagartOCbyMandarinMC2014-09-20.pdf. As they noted, the second column is a transcription of Middle Chinese pronunciation from Song-era dictionaries. The "sai" pronunciation corresponds to sojH and the "se" pronunciation corresponds to sok, and if you then check the third column, the latter corresponds to the *[s]ˤək Old Chinese pronunciation that's already included in the article. (and it's also the unique pronunciation that's consistent with the fact that the Chinese term is derived from the Persian term Saka, though this only qualifies as circumstantial evidence.)

Bayesian linguist (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

Magadra (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Closest to the Scythian language of the modern languages is Ossetian

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Topher385 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Scythians, Ephraimites and Germans

Sorry, but this is really off-topic here:

"There are some theories, with records behind them, that the Ephraimites became the Scythians, who in turn became the Germanics."

References

If there is any relevance in such folklore (theories is the wrong word here), then it belongs at the page of the persons or organisations who make such claims, such as W. Cleon Skousen. ldsfreedomforum is not WP:RS, nor can a primary source like The Heimskringla be used in this way when making such claims. Skousen himself also is far from WP:RS. And, to add further, to claim that the Scythians descended from a Semitic tribe, and that the Germans in turn descended from the Scythians, is not even fringe, it's plain fantasy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, The Lost Tribes and the Mormons; well, that's already in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added a further information link to Generations of Noah - this was cutting-edge science in the 8th century. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Origins

Are tehre "two broad hypotheses"? Or is there one broad hypothesis, and one deviant minority option? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, @Joshua Jonathan:, this topic has reminded me a notorious sockmaster WP:Tirgil34...Anyway, regarding the origins of Scythians, the general consensus is that they were semi-nomadic Iranics and were Europids. However, since they also migrated to eastern parts of Asia, they, not surprisingly, mixed with the locals and assimilated some of them. Thus, Euro-Mongoloid types and East Asian haplotypes could be found at the eastern parts of Scythia. 193.19.118.194 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Note 4 better citation

Two things could be better regarding note 4, most importantly, in the most recent edition, it is not page 97, but 117. Secondly, the author should be better recognized by formulating the citation as follows: A.I. Melyukova, 'The Scythians and Sarmatians', in: D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge 1994) 117. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:E01E:3850:F0B0:28DD (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Scythians are Not Iranian and They didn't speak an Iranian Language

This talkpage is not for debating personal opinions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a sad fact that european history has been changed deliberately and viciously since nineteenth century. I can understand the reasons behind it; like trying to keep European history and the roots of many Europeans as far as possible from Turks who have been seen as 'muslims in Ottoman empire or Anatolia' while this is mostly not true at all. It was a childish attempt yet gave rise to powerful consequences as people were ignorant about turks at that time due to Christian doctrines and imposition. However what worries me today is the still ongoing ignorance and blind-faith among europeans and even european scholars. Who has proved that Scythians spoke an iranian language for god's sake? Is it a fact or what some scholars want it to be? Please beware, turkish scholars and academicians are also researching and they are increasingly providing sound findings and outcomes related to the language and origin of Scythicans, who are our ancestors. We even have a region in Ankara called Iskitler (Scythians) and they keep living in our culture and names. That many leading tribes within them spoke turkish has been proved (Ilhami Durmus-Iskitler, Osman Karatay-The origin of Turks etc.) and they lived like all other ancient turks did (like Huns, Cumans, Avars..many) with the same culture end tradition. So I kindly invite all the smart europeans especially academicians to be open-minded, objective and honest to do searching for the truth. Don't follow the cliche and stereotypes, always look at the other side of the medallion. Ancient turks brought an incredibly big culture and many traditions as well as shaman & pagan beliefs to europe which was occupied mostly by latins and greeks at that time. Please research all these and always be ready for the unexpected. Buusra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.8.2 (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC) There were no Turkish speakers in Europe or Turkey at the time of the Scythians.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC) ..and there were iranian speakers in Europe at that time??? Oh yes, you also say Sarmatians spoke iranian in europe too.. My, how could presumably intelligent people believe in such dumb arguments without ever searching the turkish and objective writers/scholars? Who has proved that they didn't speak turkish? Nobody..But our findings and research prove that they spoke turkish. I am sorry but world will be talking about these facts very soon, and the reign of fake history will come to an end. Buusra

Turkish

I found this from OUP that may be useful:

Byz. writers used the term Scythians as an archaism denoting all nomadic peoples whom they encountered, beginning in the 4th C. with the Huns (Asterios of Amaseia) and in the 6th C. with Cotrigurs and Utrigurs and the Old Turks. The usage continued throughout the empire's history; the name Scythian was later applied to the Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Uzes, Cumans, Seljuks, Mongols, and Ottomans. Sometimes the term included the Slavs; the Rus᾽ were also called “Scythians” or “Tauroscythians.” Chalkokondyles (Chalk. 1:8.3–6) uses the term Scythian to designate “the people speaking the same tongue and equipped in the same way” who occupied the territory from the Don (Tanais) to Sarmatia (Poland), but indiscriminately transfers this name also to the Tatars.

I will also add that there are gaps in our knowledge about language development in the Caucasus. While I agree the above comment would have been more productive if it had included sourcing, I do think it might be worthwhile to trace back the classification as an Iranian language - this must have originated somewhere, and what the evidence and reasoning for that classification is given by the sources- scholarly debates about ancient language can be quite complex, and I notice the article has not really discussed any of this. There is also a statement about Turkification and Islamization that needs to be expanded on and source checked - are those terms used in the sources? When William the Conquerer conquered England, the Normans intermarried with many of the Anglo-Saxon houses. Their language changed, and English changed. Of course, every detail of this has been exhaustively studied. Other areas of history still have major gaps, because there is a lack of written sources and language barriers to overcome. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused etymology of "Ashkenazi" Jews

"Ashkenazi" likely does derive from "Scythian," as stated, but does not refer to the Scythians' ancient homeland--as the article mentioned, in more recent times, lots of people thought the Germans were descended from Scythians, and thus the Jewish word for "Germany" was derived from "Ashkenaz." Jews in different parts of the world were labeled by the place they lived, ie, German Jews were "Ashkenazi Jews." There's no genetic support for the idea that Ashkenazi Jews once lived in Turkey or north of there--genetically, Ashkenazim are about half Italian, (please check the page on Jewish genetics; I'm sure it has all of the relevant studies linked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.243.162 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Asheknazi's are related to Middle Easterners and not Schytians or Indo-Europeans. What people thought in the past is irrelevant today. Akmal94 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead section and its issue

• The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Ancient Greek: Σκύθαι), also known as Scyths, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai, were a large group of Iranian[1][2][3][4] Eurasian nomads...
• The relationships between the peoples living in these widely separated regions remains unclear. The term "Scythian" is used by modern scholars in an archaeological context for finds perceived to display attributes of the "Scytho-Siberian" culture, usually without implying an ethnic or linguistic connotation.[10] The term Scythic may also be used in a similar way,[11] "to describe a special phase that followed the widespread diffusion of mounted nomadism, characterized by the presence of special weapons, horse gear, and animal art in the form of metal plaques".
• From Origins: The term Scythian, like Cimmerian, was used to refer to a variety of groups from the Black Sea to southern Siberia and central Asia. "They were not a specific people", but rather variety of peoples "referred to at variety of times in history, and in several places, none of which was their original homeland."

So what is your opinion? Is the current revision OK? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There have been battles in the past over the unmodified "Iranian" - of course references can be produced for a whole range of statements. I think it has been "mostly Iranian" etc (or similar) in the past, & I'd be happy to see it return there, but it might need permanent defending. I see the last time I edited the article it began "probably mainly Iranian", which I think better. There is tons on this in the archive pages here. At times we have also had "... were Eurasian nomads, probably mostly using Eastern Iranian languages, who were mentioned...". There is a lot of strong nationalist POV feeling, in various directions. At least we have managed to hang on to the later bits you quote. The lead has got bloated, with the big para much too long. Johnbod (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

1. maybe [Iranian languages|Iranian-speaking] for those that might confuse the 2 meanings of Iranian. 2. Historical peoples (from documents) do not always match archeological cultures (from what is dug up). Maybe distinguish. 3. Like Hun, Moor and Tartar, Scythian was sometimes used vaguely for distant ill-understood peoples. Maybe distinguish from Scythians proper. I am not sure how to fix. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Benjamin Trovato: Sorry for late reply. I forgot this discussion. Let me ping other editors about it. @Kansas Bear and PericlesofAthens: What do you think about the current lead? Should we keep or remove "were a large group of Iranian..."? in the lead section? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be sensible to say they "were a group of predominantly Iranian-speaking steppe nomadic peoples", which would be accurate enough without excluding the non-Iranian speaking tribes and elements among them. The latter were no doubt a small minority among the Scythians, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we remove 'Iranian' from the first sentence because, two sentences later, 'Scythian languages..' accurately explains what Iranian means in this case. 2. 'Not a specific people' needs improvement. 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I know of no evidence of non-Iranian languages at this time.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple - there is precious little evidence for what languages any of them spoke, and at the least Chinese and Turkish modern sources claim evidence for use of those language families - how credibly I don't know. There is no reason for them all to speak related languages, and probably they didn't. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes - change - basicly it has been better before. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. Remove Iranian from the first sentence, fix the The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1 source, to A.I. Melyukova(author) not Denis Sinor(editor). What is also needed is removing references from the lead, replace tertiary sources with secondary sources, and placing them in the body of the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead (intro/first paragraph):

• "The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Ancient Greek: Σκύθαι), also known as Scyths, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai, were a large group of Eurasian nomads who were mentioned by nearby literate peoples as inhabiting large areas of the western and central Eurasian steppes from about the 9th century BC until about the 1st century BC. The relationships between the peoples living in these widely separated regions remains unclear. The term "Scythian" is used by modern scholars in an archaeological context for finds perceived to display attributes of the "Scytho-Siberian" culture, usually without implying an ethnic or linguistic connotation. The term Scythic may also be used in a similar way, "to describe a special phase that followed the widespread diffusion of mounted nomadism, characterized by the presence of special weapons, horse gear, and animal art in the form of metal plaques". Their westernmost territories during the Iron Age were known to classical Greek sources as Scythia."
• A short summary of Iranian background (which Scythian tribes were Iranian according to modern scholars, we could mention Saka, Parni, and etc), language and other info after intro part is helpful but more details should be moved to Origins, Languages, and other sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Above is complicated for a lead paragraph. I think I can simplify. 'Scythian languages' is probably ok since it neatly ducks the question of unattested non-Iranian languages. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you write your simplified lead? I want to compare it with the current lead. The lead section should summarize the content of article. So we can't make it too short and simple. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

How about: The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Ancient Greek: Σκύθαι), also known as Scyths, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai, were a group of Eurasian nomads who inhabited the western and central Eurasian steppes from about the 9th century BC until about the 1st century BC. Scythia was the Greek term for the grasslands north and east of the Black Sea. The Scythian languages belonged to the Eastern branch of the Iranian languages.

First paragraph very simple and following paragraphs expand on it. The second paragraph and good parts of the third should be moved down to the names section, which I may do.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Begin your edits. Then I compare your revision with the current revision to see the changes. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

In Encyclopædia Britannica & Encyclopædia Iranica says that Scythians are from Iranian stock. why me shouldn't mention that? Rostam2 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read my concerns. And about your sources: The Iranica article is about Alans not Scythians. You can use it on Alans. Britannica is WP:TERTIARY. Plus we didn't finalize the lead section yet and if someone restores the old revision, I'm neutral about it. I have opened this section to improve the article. Read our comments. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017

The Armenian version of the name must be սկյութներ, not սկյութները։ The latter is put in nominative case (ending in -ը), but there is no need for it. To be more precise, it must be written in its authentic Classical Armenian version սկիւթ 'skiwtʰ', and as such, must be moved to another place, since now it is grouped with other names reflecting the form Saka. Thanks! Վազգեն Ղազարյան (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 16:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

done done. Needs a source though. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

also, the Armenian term is clearly just a loan from (late) Greek and does not show any Armenian sound laws, so there is no reason to cite it in the context of etymology (unless we can cite a source giving an etymological discussion involving Armenian forms). --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Scyths & Scots

There is some literature on the etymology being linked before Scyth & Scot is differentiated. Discussion? WyndingHeadland (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Iranian stock

Hi. we have some sources which says Scythians are from Iranian stock such as Encyclopædia Britannica or Encyclopædia Iranica. why we can't show this conversation in the lead section ? --Rostam2 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rostam2: Please see Talk:Scythians#The_lead_section_and_its_issue and participate there. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Iranian-speaking" would do fine, but the current lead section already conveys as much.

The problem with the dual meaning of "Iranian" is that the to the uninitiated (which is 99.9% of prospective readers) it will sound as if it connected the Scythians to Iran and lead to endless and fruitless debate. "Iranian stock" is of course correct, but only to people who are able to understand the archaic meaning of "stock" (i.e. race). Lead sections need to be written in language accessible to first-graders if at all possible. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I just saw your discussion here (after I edited the main article.) The term 'Iranian people' or 'Iranian' has been mentioned in several scholarly sources that I added to this article as an ethnonym and to refer to Scythian people. We are not arguing to whether 'Iranian languages' implies ethnicity or not, which it does; rather we are using a term for exactly the same usage and significance as mentioned in the references. Any other arguments about the implications of a ethnonym which has been used as an ethnonym is an example of original research. Iranic (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scythians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3yysAsLqccYJ:www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20160909231531/http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf on http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/52-3/mallory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

different sections need to be recast in light of groundbreaking new DNA research, December 2017

Diverse Origins of Mitochondrial DNA in Iron Age Black Sea Scythians (Juras, Krzewińska, Nikitin et al 2017 ) This has profound implications for most sections of the article. I'm not knowledgeable enough to write it in. But plainly, some old "scholarship" of 19th century antiquarians and linguists and 20th century anthropology cited in the article urgently needs to be put into its historical perspective as hunches and educated guesses that have been superseded by hard data (provided by much more recent finds, by various dating technologies by YDNA studies and now by this MtDNA study), instead of being continually recycled as if it could still be authoritative. The population of ancient Scythians surveyed in the above paper is shown to have mitochondrial DNA which is a meld of (or in its mix, lies between) Srubna and earlier Yamna peoples found in the same plains regions.

Most people wanting to understand who Scythians were, would take "Iranian" as meaning that a very substantial proportion of Scythians migrated from the present day nation of Iran. In the context lent by this research -- MtDNA from all across the Eurasian Steppe-- it becomes even more confusing. Iranic-speaking (if that's known that specifically) would be far more enlightening.

Present day Scotland and NI have YDNA descent contributed to by steppe nomads to an unusually high degree, when compared with other modern European populations.This study flags up a concomitant, if less dramatic MtDNA input from the Black Sea Scythians' particular ancestral mix of women from eastern as well as western Eurasia. So this study also throws additional suggestive light on what was until recently unsubstantiated and mostly dismissed as rather fatuous mythology; the Irish annals identification of Scots as "Scythians". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.243 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I will add the summary of the mentioned study to the article. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

similarities to eastern Scythian are found to be more widespread, but almost exclusively among Turkic language speaking (formerly) nomadic groups

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615#discussion

"Concerning the legacy of the Iron Age nomads, we find that modern human populations with a close genetic relationship to the Scythian groups are predominantly located in close geographic proximity to the sampled burial sites, suggesting a degree of population continuity through historical times. Contemporary descendants of western Scythian groups are found among various groups in the Caucasus and Central Asia, while similarities to eastern Scythian are found to be more widespread, but almost exclusively among Turkic language speaking (formerly) nomadic groups, particularly from the Kipchak branch of Turkic languages (Supplementary Note 1). The genealogical link between eastern Scythians and Turkic language speakers requires further investigation, particularly as the expansion of Turkic languages was thought to be much more recent—that is, sixth century CE onwards—and to have occurred through an elite expansion process." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.234.40.23 (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It already cited. See Scythians#Autosomal_studies. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As correctly noted in the cited article, the language shift from Indo-European to Turkic "occurred through an elite expansion process". Genetic similarities between ancient Scythians and modern Turkic speakers does not mean that the Scythians were Turks. It means that modern Turks have also ancestors among ancient Indo-Europeans and that their ancestors adopted a Turkic language a few centuries ago. This should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. 89.27.136.10 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you mean this part:

• The genealogical link between eastern Scythians and Turkic language speakers requires further investigation, particularly as the expansion of Turkic languages was thought to be much more recent—that is, sixth century CE onwards—and to have occurred through an elite expansion process. There are potentially many more demographic factors involved in the origins of Turkic language speakers, such as migration waves associated with Xiongnu, ancient Turkic or early Mongolian populations. The extent to which the eastern Scythians were involved in the early formation of Turkic speaking populations can be elucidated by future genomic studies on the historic periods following the Scythian times.

then we can add it to article but it needs copy-editing. I can't copy-paste it. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

they where Turkic turkish not from iran 80.6.58.185 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

See archives, at length. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Scythians as an Iranian people

It is not mentioned in the article that Scythians were an Iranian people while they are considered as an Iranian people in Iranian peoples? Is there any evidence that the Scythians were not an Iranian people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrutator1993 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scrutator1993, belonging to the Iranian peoples article is an ethno-lingustic caracterization and the article clearly says in the lead that most Scythians speak eastern Iranian languages. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes - there is also an issue regarding how broad or narrow the definition of Scythians is. This has been discussed many times before - most recently in the section above. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please link to the dab page, and do some cleanup

Change

<includeonly></includeonly>{{Redirect|Scythian|the obsolete stratigraphic term|Early Triassic|the languages|Scythian languages|the band|Scythian (band)}}
{{Redirect|Scyth|the tool|Scythe}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}

To

{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{Redirect|Scythian|the obsolete stratigraphic term|Early Triassic|the languages|Scythian languages|other uses|Scythian (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|Scyth|the tool|Scythe|other|Scythe (disambiguation)}}

This will fix the superfluous "includeonly" and place the semiprotect template as the first entry on the page, where it should be.

-- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Applied ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)