Talk:Scythians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Knox

Skythian's, Sakasuni, Saka, Saxon, Son of Issac? Why does no one here mention the Israelite link to these people? The BritAm organisation in Israel has published numerous books on the subject www.britam.org. See also Covenant Publishers book catalogue.

Griffin

According to Pliny the Elder, Scythia is the traditional home of the griffin, a mythical creature. I believe that the griffin that we know today is a figure representing the nomadic tribe that lived in the general area. (Anon. User)

Origin theories

The last edits have reverted from a stance that bashes the Turkic theory to a stance that bashes the other one. Regardless of which one is "right", that part of the article needs rewriting to be less partisan. --Shallot 09:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm the one who toned down the "pro-Turkic" language. I'm not a linguist, but a quick Googling indicates that this is one of those subjects about which people seem passionate, and there is some scholarly controversy. Whoever reverted the language section to a passionate pro-Iranian one not only commits the fallacy of anonymous authority ("the vast majority of scholars") but contradicts himself when he states categorically that Scythian was an Indo-European language, but that the dialects "are not very well known" (how can you make such a ringing affirmative when the language itself is not very well known.

I'd fix it, but I don't really care enough to get into an edit war. But if war breaks out between Iran and Turkey over Wikipedia, don't say I didn't warn you Dukeofomnium 20:43, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. Vast majority of historians and linguists consider Scythians Iranian people. Give me example of a serious work proving Turkic origins of Scythians, please. The basis for "Turkic" theory is a proposed explanation of some Scythian names in Turkic language. Unfortunatelly, this IS NOT sufficient argument as the names could be explained in every language of the world and are much better explained in Iranian. The same about the place names and words saved in Greek or Roman texts. Also all texts from this Central Asia area are definitelly Indoeuropean text (for example Choresmian or Sogdian) and there are no CONFIRMED traces of Turkic people before 3-4th century. This is strongly supported by atnhropological researches. If you want to make revolution you have to support your thesis sufficiently.

I am not a Persian, Iranian or anything like that but I hate "cowboy" historians. Bye.Yeti 12:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that Scythean or Saka's were speaking turkish language. Turks are known to be of asian look who cam from Eastern Asia to Central Asian steppes. There are no evidence that even in Central Asia Turks existed before 500 AC. The language of Scythean clearly was Eatern-Iranian which eventualy become the core of Sogdian, Bactrian and Alan Languages. Even animal artifacts where later followed by Persians and Central Asian Iranians clearly indicateing their heritage from Scythes. Iranian tribes or better yet Arian tribes were the aborigens of Eurasian steppes. And Turks came to dominate these steppes much-much later.

Well, none of the claims seem scientific. Even though I am a Turk I do not think that all the Scythians were Turkish origined. In the article it says "... apart from that no Scythian texts survive; however, the personal names found in the contemporary Greek literary ...". And by this it is claimed that, Scythians were speaking some kind of an Iranian Language and they are from Iranian origin. This may be partly true. During the Medieval times by the effect of Islam many Turks had taken Iranian and Arabic names, but we cannot conclude that they were of Iranian origin-just by investigating their names. The truth is, none of the steppes nation was homogeneous. For example Army of Genghis Khan had many Turks as well as Mongolians. The Gokturk Empire had Soghdians and also sent a group of them to Eastern Rome as ambassadors. I think this worked the same way for Scythians. They were most probably a confederation of clans just like every steppes nation and they had Turkish or proto-Turkish clans in the confederation. If you check the map which shows the areas they ruled, you can easily see that it also covers the Turkish homeland. Sincerely. Tengriteg

So many lies

What are ignorance do you store in your mind, huh? It seems you don't know that the first Turkic people lived there, long before Roman, Greek, Macedonian, Persian empires! If there realy was Iranian people in our steppes & OUR blessed ALTAY? You must know about Tomiris, Modë or about Tigrahauda, Massaghety, Great Huns, West Huns, do you even know who is Buryndyk ,Edil , Biledu, huh? All this names of peoples,personalities & states ARE TURKIC. I'm a very proffesional linguist, even for my age.

So? Do you understand that your's "Origin Theories" is nothing but pill of lie & ignorance.

Excuse me, but Massagetes seems to be an iranian ethnonim.

"Scythians" as barbarians

"Owing to their questionable reputation as promulgated by Greek historians, the Scythians served as an epitome of savagery and barbarism in the early modern period. Specifically, the early modern English discourse on Ireland frequently resorted to comparisons with this people to prove that the indigenous population of Ireland (in Latin called Scoti, the etymology of which was, rather doubtfully, traced to Lat. Scythes) were descendants of these ancient "bogeymen" and as barbaric as their alleged ancestors. The connection was apparently first established by the twelfth-century historian Giraldus Cambrensis in his Topography of Ireland. A convenient overview of the proto-ethnological argumentation behind this connection may be found in Edmund Spenser's View of the Present State of Ireland (1596)."

I moved this contentious new section here, until some quotes that relate Scythians to Scots can be produced. Perhaps a less furious presentation would be more easily understood. Leave out the etymology and give us some quotes from the Spenser work being linked to, of the Irish being called "Scythians." Otherwise there's no connection. Wetman 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointed advice, I'll provide more info when I have the time. The funny thing is that the etymological argument is practically the sole foundation. ;-) Florian Kläger 22:11, 28 Aug 2004 (CET +1)

Whether any Scythian/Scoti connection is actually real or not is beside the point. Quote Giraldus and Spenser to show that medieval and Elizabethan English thought so. I'm adding a sub-section "The idea of Scythia" for this imagery. Wetman 20:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How would this sound to you?

"Owing to their reputation as promulgated by Greek historians, the Scythians served as an epitome of savagery and barbarism in the early modern period. Specifically, the early modern English discourse on Ireland frequently resorted to comparisons with this people to prove that the indigenous population of Ireland were descendants of these ancient "bogeymen" and as barbaric as their alleged ancestors. Edmund Spenser wrote that "the Chiefest [nation that settled in Ireland] I Suppose to be Scithians ... which firste inhabitinge and afterwarde stretchinge themselves forthe into the lande as theire numbers increased named it all of themselues Scuttenlande which more brieflye is Called Scuttlande or Scotlande" (A View of the Present State of Ireland, c. 1596). Among the proofs Spenser names for this origin are the alleged Irish customs of blood-drinking, nomadic lifestyle, the wearing of mantles and certain haircuts and "Cryes [or wailings] allsoe vsed amongeste the Irishe which savor greatlye of the Scythyan Barbarisme". William Camden, one of Spenser's main sources, comments on this myth of origin that "to derive descent from a Scythian stock, cannot be thought any waies dishonourable, seeing that the Scythians, as they are most ancient, so they have been the Conquerours of most Nations, themselves alwaies invincible, and never subject to the Empire of others" (Britannia, 1586 etc., Engl. transl. 1610)." Florian Kläger 13:27, 22 Sep 2004 (CET +1)

Outstanding. It's now a report of a historic perception, weaving attributed quotes and commentary, set into their original context. (I wish you were working on entries like True Cross!) I didn't mean to set up as sole arbitor. But that's a passage transformed by good editing. Wetman 17:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quote that relates Scythians to Picts: Bede: Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book I, Chapter I

"...it happened, that the nation of the Picts, from Scythia, as is reported, putting to sea, in a few long ships, were driven by the winds beyond the shores of Britain, and arrived on the northern coast of Ireland, where, finding the nation of the Scots, they begged to be allowed to settle among them, but could not succeed in obtaining their request...The Picts, accordingly, sailing over into Britain, began to inhabit the northern parts thereof, for the Britons were possessed of the southern. Now the Picts had no wives, and asked them of the Scots; who would not consent to grant them upon any other terms, than that when any difficulty should arise, they should choose a king from the female royal race rather than from the male: which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts to this day. In process of time, Britain, besides the Britons and the Picts, received a third nation the Scots, who, migrating from Ireland under their leader, Reuda, either by fair means, or by force of arms, secured to themselves those settlements among the Picts which they still possess. From the name of their commander, they are to this day called Dalreudins; for, in their language, Dal signifies a part."

Romantic Scythian origins

Also the legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Quest for the Holy Grail are believed to be of Scythian Iranian origin." (Sea Scott Littleton,C.: From Scythia to Camelot, New York 2000).

If Littleton makes a good case for King Arthur's Scythian ancestors, give a condensed version of it for the Idea of Scythia" subsection, if you feel it throws light on the subject, which is essentially Scythia. Or add it to King Arthur if it throws light on the Arthurian legend. Wetman 20:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scythian an Indo-European language

There is no evidence that the Scythians were a Turkic tribe. The remnants of the Scythian language appear to be Indo-European. Alexander 007, November 2004

Wikipedia entry Scythian languages could use some work, including references. --Wetman 11:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reading the debate at the top of this page, I noticed something. Though Scythian was an Indo-European language, saying it was an Indo-European language is not saying the Scythians were Iranian. I won't consider them Iranian until I see the evidence. Not that it would surprise me if they turn out to be Iranic, since they seem to have originated from the Median regions. Alexander 007

Wikipedia should reflect standard practice rather than our assertions of whether or not Scythian belongs in the Iranian group of IE languages. Links to the best recent publications on the subject are useful. There is an entry Scythian languages devoted to this subject. --Wetman 11:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The article on Scythian languages needs attention from people with references on the language. But this crosses over into this article as well, as evidenced by the Turkic claims that occasionally surface here. Alexander 007 19:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Genetics

sorry Wetman - I removed the Genetics section, as this was randomly spammed to about a dozen pages. I didn't notice you had improved it, at first. Still, I think the section was hardly relevant to this article, and should maybe be moved to an article on population genetics or similar. dab 10:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I revised and shortened the reference to that Y-chromosome haplogroup and put it into "The idea of Scythia" subsection. It's too interesting and relevant to lose simply because national racists misuse it. How's it looking now? --Wetman 17:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it's fine, sorry again. however, in order for the reference to be appreciable, we would also have to say what percentage of people outside scythia/indus valley share this mutation, and how "people of the Indus Valley" were selected (is that literally the population of a certain valley??) dab 18:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the link. There is neither mention of Scythia, nor of the Indus valley. All it says on the R1a haplogroup is "? Europe". Therefore I still think the mention is unsatisfactory. You need either a scientific source mentioning the "Indus valley" or to remove the term. dab 18:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If one scrolls down at the linked page, which explains what a haplogroup is, one can read a brief paragraph about R1a haplogroup." It's quite relevant to the theme "the idea of Scythia." The authors say, "This lineage is currently found in central and western Asia, India, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe." I'll remove the mention of Indus Valley and quote the link. --Wetman

cool. I will include this in Kurgan. "Indus Valley" was indeed bullshit, though. I'm growing allergic to the term ;o) dab 19:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==================================================================================================================

                               Who are the Saka Scythians?  By: A Saka Scythian

If you happen to not be a Saka of that Race, then who are you to comment on a race not your own? I am a Saka Scythian and our origin is where Turkmenistan is northeast of Afghanistan. We are a tall, strong and fierce people who migrated to many lands east, west, north and south. If you go back farther, Central Asia is our ancestral point of origin. Central Asia refers to places like Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgastan. East Iran, Afghanistan and where northwestern India is today (was separate from India until the illegal 1947 fraudulent annexation of the Saka "Rajput" Princely States). Sakas are 3.5% of India to include Rajputs, Jatts and Pathans. However, most of the Sakas are in Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, and a higher count exist in Pakistan. There was always a Pakistan in terms of Race, different from the Dravidian dark natives of India. Sakas had dominated the Middle East prior to Islam and also were responsible for bringing the Roman Empire to a collapse. Huns/Rajputs, Medes, Jats, Khazars, Sissodia are all Scythian tribes. The Hun invasions of India replaced the original Indian warriors with Huns, now called "Rajputs" and "Sikhs" by the East Indian natives. Also, Sakas migrated to Eastern Europe and dominated the region. Many Europeans especially Germans, are a mixture of East Iranics and Nordics. Not all of them, but a good size of the Germans are a mixed people. That is evident by the swarthy complexions and almond eyes typical to some German tribes. Most of Europe has some (20%) Central Asian mixtures to their genetics. Technically the dominate warlike groups from India to Eastern Europe are Eurasians (not so much natives of all those lands). You can call them all sorts of names, but I'm speaking about Eurasian nomadic warrior tribes, one of them is Sakas or Scythians. As for the natives of Europe and India, they are the extreme opposites of each other. Western European and South Asian are their own distinct people. But the Central Asian (Eurasians) are distinct also in their own right. Basically, northwest India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, contains a large number of very tall and strong warlike Sakas or Scythians. Their true origin is from Central Asia. If you need to get a map and locate where Central Asia is, do it. Asia begins east of Poland and ends out there in Oriental part of Asia, as in East Asia. Central Asians are not too different from many Middle Eastern-looking people. I know in America, "Asian" refers to oriental and Chinese-looking people only. But on the geographic-sense, Asia starts from Turkey and goes all the way to the East Asian Orient. Central Asia refers to Asia's center where Khazakstan is, running down to where Iran and Afghanistan are. Many warrior nomads from that region spilled off to surrounding regions of Central Asia in all directions. Just to let you know, "India" is no more a "nation" than the equator is a nation. Before they were communized into the "India Union" in 1947, they were many distinct nations, today India is land of many races, where the dominate dark-skinned native Dravidians (Hindus) are racist against all other non-Dravidians. Punjabis, Rajputs, Jatts, Sikhs, Pathans are mostly (65%+) of Central Asian stock, that is why they don't look like the mostly native people, and are a tall, strong and much lighter skinned people. There is no debate here, what is, is. America isn't one race neither is India and many other lands. As for Pakistan they're more Middle Eastern with 50% being native Indian. They didn't want to end up under Indian Tyranny like the Punjab and Rajastan are now, so they separated a long time ago. Try not to believe the mainstream lies propagated by Hindus. Because the Rajput, Jatt/Sikh and Pathans are mostly of Central Asian racial origin, or are Eurasians, not the typical Indian Dravidian East African types which make up much of India. The bickering between Turks and Iranians on who is Scythian is childish, that is like the Dutch and the British arguing on who is Anglo-Celtic. Sorry to tell them, they BOTH are Anglo-Celtic, just have different cultures. Sakas are Turks, East Iranians, Afghans, Turkmenistanis, half of Pakistan and 3% of India (Rajputs, Pathans & Jatts). Sakas also have their bloodlines mixed into various European groups. Pretty simple to understand. Anyone can speak a different language and change their religion, so keep language and religion out of this. Physical appearance and habits count for genetic origins.

Material for a first edit of Scythians, currently a redirect

An anonymous contributor has inserted the following abstracts, which would make a sound basis for an article Scythians (plural like Lombards etc.) . Anyone want to edit this material? --Wetman 22:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations

François-X. Ricaut et al.

Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

...

The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population.

...

The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).

...

The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.

AAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill.

The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.

Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.

Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples

Barbed arrowheads?

A recent edit adds a reference to "barbed arrows." Are Scythian arrowheads barbed? Any reference in the archaeology? --Wetman 20:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Only Iranians in Europe?

The Ossetians are not the only Iranian people in Europe. The details depend on exactly where the border of Europe is drawn. But most modern definitions include Georgia, Armenia and the Azerbaijan Republic within Europe. Azerbaijan is the homeland of the Tat and Talysh peoples, and there are also Kurds in Armenia and Azerbaijan; these are all Iranian peoples. Even if these countries are excluded from Europe, there is also the Jewish Tat or Mountain Jewish community living in the Russian North Caucasus as well as Azerbaijan; they speak an Iranian language, but their ethnic origins may be debatable.

Peter Kirk Peterkirk

"Northwest South Asia"

This agonizing circumlocution to avoid mentioning a Modern Nation would be more stylish if some specific geographic identifiers were identified instead. "Northwest south Asia" is droll enough though.--Wetman 03:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Distinct articles

Scythia is a place. Scythians and Saka are peoples. No merge is sensible. I'm deleting the thoughtless tag. --Wetman 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Floating sentence

Can anyone verify or expand the sentence mentioning "Philip II of Macedon delivered a setback in 339 BC."? It seems rather out of place just floating by itself, with no other back up information. I did some searching, but it appears most articles concern themselves with other parts of Philip II's campaign.

Not Indo-Aryans

I have edited the article to state the Iranian linguistic afiliaton of scythians instead of Indo-Aryan which is the language group of Pakistan and north India. omerlives~~

Were all scythians Iranian

It is odd the only documents in saka are found in central asia ,the Iranians where literate, but the scythians in scythia did not leave any writing.The idea that scythians where all Iranians is based on loan words in slavic and the quotes of a dubious ancient historian (nothings changed).Was England invaded by Indo-aryans,since english contains loans word such as jungle,bungalow etc.Scythians may have acquired Iranian names and words from economic and cultural contact,the dominant culture of central asia was iranian.I like to use the term Indo-european,the Iranian origins of scythians is used by most european historians since it fits into the aryan-kurgan model.

Scythian appearance

I have noticed that on scythian trousers [ http://www2.kah-bonn.de/1/9/0058.htm] the circular pattern is very similar to persian reliefs [1][ http://www.livius.org/a/1/iran/persian_warrior.jpg].Similar reliefs diplayed in the british museum show a brown skinned race.Although scythians of europe/asia had mixed with local populations.

Scythians are ALTAIC!!!

It will sound wired to you but was found that Scythians, Sakae people & ancient Aryans are ALTAIC!!! If they would be so-called 'Iranian' would they live in Altay, very cold place in that time, if you want to know, would Indo-Iranians that never has freezed because of cold just settle on places that was colder than Himalayas(In that times ofcourse). There was found that images of Scythians & Aryans, looks very similar & who said that Indian man liked to wearing bashlyk(Ancient turkic hat). Do Word 'Kurgan' says something? This words even sounds too turkic. There also another evidence of this teory, in example the name of Kazakh(And they are turkic) people, this name was very evolved & it changed very much, but it comes from sound Kasaq-Hasak-Ghai-SAK! It absolutely destroyes, western archaelogic so-called science. Yes! You say it could be everyone Iranians,Mongols,Chinese,Indians but not Turkic. Why?! Why all western science treat to Turkic culture as it was something bad?!

Just like to point out that Turkman of central asia consist mainly of Haplogroup R1b and altaians R1a1 ,these account for 60% of European and Indian populations.One must not confusion language with race.Turkman contain East Asian Haplogroups; these are not found in Iranians or Indians .Hence Turkman are probably part IE with East Asian components ("A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia" [2]

So? I know that Turkmen people are genetically Iranians, it is not secret, even their language mixes with Farsi. If I can understand you, the 60% of Europeans & Indians constist in R1b genetical group. And? You know why? I know. It because they not just Altaic, they are turkic, you must know that the turkic, mongolian & tungusic people has a different genetic code. If you want to know, ancient turkic wasn't mongoloid they had europeid faces. Modern day turks is mongoloid because the were mixed with mongolians. But did you saw turkish faces, they don't look like eastern central-asians.

So here is explain: Mixing of Nations, Climaticaly adoptation. (anon)

Hell yeah! That was an awesome rant. Great article btw, what do you guys think of making it a featured article? I don't think it has far to go... Sam Spade 21:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting ranting and raving but do you actually read? Iranic peoples were in the Caucas and central asia thousands of years before Turks, and Turks are mongoliods, they got eureopean features mixing with Iranic tribes, have you as a Turk ever looked at a central asian Turk? ANd then looked at a Turk from Modern day Turkey? Notice that the central Asians look more Chinese and Mongoloids? Please Kurgan is a word used, that was not the original name of this culture just a label used. Please leave Nationalistic Turkish Ideologies behind. Also I noted the word Azerbayjan used, why is this in here? Or are you refereing to the REAL Azerbayjan, which is in Modern day Iran and not the Republic of Azerbijan which was formed in 1918 and never existed before this date. I suggest removing this bit of information! --Aryan 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

=================================================================

If you travel town-by-town and village-by-village, from Tianjin, my ancestral hometown, the biggest port in Northern China, to Hamburg, the bigget port in Northern Europe for many years until Rotterdam catched up, you will find out that the faces of the inhabitants change gradually in the vast Euroasian Continent. Turks in Turkey is definitely European (Southern or Meditterean type), whereas Turks in China (Hui Muslim) is definitely East Asian (Northern Chinese Hui type). In Chinese records Central Asians were traditionally known as having green or blue deep eyes, big noses and fair but hairy skin.

In old Chinese historical records, the Huns, who occupied Mongolia and northern Altai mountain, looked the same as the Han Chinese (Han is the name of the dynasty in China which lasted from around 200 BC to 200 AD) Han Chinese is the mix of Sino-Tibetian population in Shaanxi, Shanxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Tibet, etc and the Dong Yi population in Hebei, Shangdong, eastern Henan and northern Jiangsu. The Han's ally, Da Xia, was described as people with hairy white skin, big noses and deep green or blue eyes. These Da Xia people lived in western Gansu and Xinjinag, and later were forced by the Huns to immigrated to Afgahnstan and Pakistan. Old corpes were recovered in Xinjiang and they were distinctly Iranian or European.

In Chinese historical records in the Tang dynasty, it is recorded that the homeland of the Turks was north of Mongolia in and around Lake Bakal. Unlike the Central Asians who immigrated to Xian and described as having deep eyes, no special descriptions were mentioned on their physical apperance, which imply they were Mongoloid. Off course modern day Turks in Turkey look Southern European.

Karolus 2006/5/25

have a look

I went after the article from top to bottom, have a look. Sam Spade 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent recasting of the material. I corrected the status of larch: its deciduous nature is essential in this context. "Old records actually say that the land where the Scythians originated was called Gerrhos." Not good enough any more, in such an outstanding article! I think this might be Pomponius Mela or someone misreading Herodotus and placing Gerrhos in the Altai, where Scythians did trek their elite dead, instead of at the source of the Dnieper. I made a stub of Gerrhos to get a grip on this. Bravo Sam Spade! --Wetman 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing "The genetic argument" section

I'm removing this section:

Genetic research in modern populations reveals that the same Y chromosome haplogroup (R1a) represents a genetic lineage currently found in central, western and south Asia, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe. The simplest explanation of this distribution is that this Y-chromosome mutation originated in people of the kurgan-building culture of traditional Scythia (see link).

However haplogroups H, J2, R1b and L are also found in populations of Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia and India, and the idea that R1a1 originates from Kurgan Culture is questionable, since there seem to be a complete absence of haplogroup I and E in India (although it is common in Europe, particularly Ukraine).

I'm sure it's valuable and meaningful, to someone, but it's nonsense to me. I invite anyone who can translate or supplement it with a plain-English summary to please do so. Also "(see link)"? What link? —James S. 07:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Tradition" or "disputed theory"?

Article states that the Marathas are Scythian and that this belief is a "Tradition". It certainly is not one; a 'tradition' is accepted wisdom; no Marathi grandmother ever even heard of Scythia. A speculative theory of scythian origin was proposed by interested parties a century ago, in line with the then-prevailing trend to associate every "ruling" community with foreign lands. I object to being declared a foreigner in my own motherland. If you insist on mentioning a scythian origin for my people, you must phrase it to say that the notion is a "disputed theory", definately not present it as a "tradition". ImpuMozhi 17:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By "tradition" (in the case of the others) is meant a classical, or historical written account. The Irish, Hungarians etc. all have these, hence they are 'traditions'. The Marathi claim is new to me, I had not heard it myself, but a new user named New Rock Star just the other day added it in place of 'Gujjar'. I looked at the article for Marathi, saw no mention of it, and pulled it. If you note, he re-added it with the comment line: "the reference in the Maratha article has been vandalised. Marathas call themselves Shakas apart from using the Shaka calender. Read any book on the Marathas"... I have not had the time to read any book on the Marathas since then, so I certainly can't speak from knowledge, but if you claim to have knowledge, just out of curiosity, can you confirm or deny that Marathas refer to themselves with the name "Shakas"? I will change the header for the other peoples to 'Traditions' again, since it is indeed accurate for them, including apparently the Gujjars, but maybe we should leave out Marathas until we hear more evidence about this, ie, cited material one way or the other... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I just left as "various peoples of India". There was someone here a few months ago that temporarily replaced the entire article with a lengthy copyvio'd essay about an Indian tribe called the Jats and their Scythic traditions, so surely "various peoples" is accurate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ImpuMozhi, I respect your opinion, but who is calling you a foreigner in your own land. Marathas are of varied descent. There are many Dravidians, Hunnics, Sinos and others too in Marathas but the majority are of Aryan and Scythian origin. And it's a fact.It doesn't mean you are of Scythian origin. And it certainly doesn't mean you're a foreigner. I appreciate your nationalistic attitude, but it is a personal opinion.. Marathas have been using the Shaka tradition for ages now. Various scholars have agreed to this varied descent theory. It is not a disputed theory. It may be for you, but certainly not for the majority of Marathas. I am proud to be Maratha and I am certainly not a foriegner. Maharashtra is my own land. How can one be a foriegner if his clan is of varied descent ??? Does this mean that certain Pakistanis are foriegners in their own land, does this mean Americans are foriegners in their own land, does this mean Mestizos are foriegners in Mexico, does this mean Hispanics are foreigners in Latin America ???? This argument of being a foreigner is totally flawed. And especially when you're talking about migrations of people who roamed the world more that two millenia ago. I don't know about the Gujjars so I wouldn't talk about that. New Rock Star 05:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We are all foreigners to our own countries. I suppose that my linguistic ancestors (Indo-Europeans) sickled into my country (Denmark) ca. 4,000 years ago. Fortunately, they succeeded in eradicating the languages of the neolitihic predecessors, so there's nobody around anymore to assert their authochthony. In India, the Dravidian-speaking people are probably more indigenous than the Aryan-speaking population, but they are not "born from the earth" either but have migrated into the country at some time in prehistory. At any rate, the discussion is futile and dangerous: A person is not entitled to certain rights or deprived of certain rights just because one is able to trace his linguistic or his genetic profile back to some distant ancestors. Privileges are not inherited genetically through a bloodline or the adherence to a certain linguistic platform, but bestowed upon the fortunate by society. Enkyklios 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the wording of the article - I would say either write "various peoples", or list all the peoples of India for whom Indo-Scythian ancestry has been claimed. So far, that includes, Gujjars, Jats, and Marathas. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Nasz has inserted this paragraph into the section "Etymology":

"Polich and ukrainian folk song call stepe people sokoli which is probaly form of skolo'nti or skolo'ci known also from Hungarian shekli skolonti. [ttp://litopys.org.ua/ipatlet/ipat02.htm Letopys] in 907 list several tribes and call them together Great Skuth; си вси звахутьс̑ Великаӕ Скуфь (si wsi zwanhuts'sa Velika'ia Skuth)."

Nasz cites no sources for his etymology, and I suspect that it is original research (which may be appreciated in itself but cannot be included into a wikipedia article). I would very much like to have reliable references supporting the connection of Polish-Ukranian sokoli and Hungarian shekli skolonti with Herodotus' Scythian Skolotoi.

Скуфь, like Modern Russian Скиф, is without any doubt borrowed from Greek Skythēs (with regular Byzantine Greek Θ [θ] > Slavonic Ф [f]). The expression Великаæ Скуфь ressembles Scythia Major = Eastern Europe + Asia in Medieval Latin sources (in Old Norse translated as Svíþjóð in Mikla, "Great Sweden"). It may belong to the section "The idea of Scythia". Enkyklios 09:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: to have reliable references supporting the connection of Polish-Ukranian sokoli

ok there is the song , ask anybody and is comonly known.

"hej hej hej sokoli obnimajtie pola lasy rzeki doły, dzwoń dzwoń dzwón szwoneczku mój stepowy skowroneczku wina wina wina wina dajecie a jak umrę pogrzebajcie na zielonej Ukrainie przy koachanej mej dziewczynie

"hej hej hej sokoli obnimajtie pola lasy rzeki doły,

)

The tehe other sentence is given reputable URL Nasz

for more prove http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=hej+hej+hej+sokoly about 1700 listings in rusian polish ukrainian

I didn't mean sources for the name sokoli (anyway, thank you for that), but scholarly literature supporting that Polish-Ukrainian sokoli comes from Skythēs/Skolotai. For all we know, the similarity is probably coincidential. However, if you can give us such references, sokoli of course belongs into the section.

The other word, Скуфь, comes from the Greek, so there is no need for quoting it in this discussion - unless we want to make a list of the forms derived of the Greek Skythēs (Scythian, Skythen, Skyter, Escita, Scythes, Скиф etc.). Enkyklios 12:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is too frickin long

I propose an article in Simple English, or some other organization of this article to make it readable. Also, a map would be helpful, and/or a timeline, and/or some other easy visual means of comparing this group with other groups it was near and interacted with. Thank you.

24 Feb 06 whoistheroach

why? people should be able to read about things in more than a brief overview...

you may want to look at simple:, which is a project directed precisely at people who cannot be bothered to read 'actual' English. dab (ᛏ) 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving to Scythian and merging with Saka

The article is mainly about Scytians (not about the region Scythia). I suggest to move this article to Scythian (The first paragraph can remain here under the title Scythia). Bidabadi 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain please

If scythians were iranians then where altaic people came from?

From Altai, Mongolia and north east Asia!

• It is undoubtable that Scythians of Eastern Europe (proper scythians) were Iranians. This fact is confirmed by linguistics and toponomastics.
• In Siberia (and eastern part of Central Asia), the problem is much difficult because the so-called Sakas (often identified with eastern scythians) were probably a mix of Finno-ugrians, proto-turkics, tocharians (see afanasevo culture) e iranians.

Therefore, in my point of view, Sakas can not be identified so easily with Scythians.

Putative Scythian Origins

I Suppose to be Scithians ... which firste inhabitinge and afterwarde stretchinge themselves forthe into the lande as theire numbers increased named it all of themselues Scuttenlande which more brieflye is Called Scuttlande or Scotlande"

If Scythia -> Scotland, then why not go one step further and include the Irish, as clear Iran -> Ireland ?

--Philopedia 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (being "ironic")

Sythian/Saka

I was under the impression that Sythian was the name used by the Greeks to define a (for want of a better term) 'horse nomad' and that Saka was the Persian equivelent. If this is the case how wise is it to differentiate between the various tribes by such terms?

Endless Iranian v. Turkic bickering

There seems to be endless reverting between a version that presents the views and evidence for Turkic origin within the article, and a version that summarily ignores said evidence.

Maybe the only solution is to split into dedicated sections, one for presenting the Iranian theory, one for presenting the Turkic theory, and just keep them separate. Both deserve to be presented, and they are not necessarily exclusive; that is, there may well be some truth to both. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, there is no bickering, in the Scytho-Iranian article section, both sides of the argument are presented, however, this article about scythia should post what most scholars believe, not a minority. The theory page is the right page for the two arguments, not the main article.Khosrow II 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Turkic Scythians" stuff is unacademic, and if referred to as a minority opinion needs close referencing. Obviously, the "Sakha" became Turkicized later, just like the Turkic Bulghars were Slavicized, this is a normal process of acculturation, but prior to the 4th century AD, "Scythians" were almost certainly East Iranian speakers. dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

No, what you are "agreeing" is that all of the academics who have proposed Scythian and Turkic relations, are not entitled to be called 'academics' in your book, and should be repressed, because they do not conform to your agenda of suppressing any evidence linking Scythians and Turks. There are massive amounts of evidence here that have been blanked. Some of the Scythians certainly seem to have had Indo-European language but we can't say what really happened linguistically from one end of Scythia to the other (a vast space) and from beginning to end (a vast time). Neutrality requires presenting BOTH viewpoints and ALL the evidence, not squelching one of them out that you are trying to suppress, won't work on wikipedia. I guess calling for an RFC is the onluy solution here, because this has gone on for a very long time. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

no, what we are agreeing (I think) is that if you want to keep your statements, you need to cite your academics, we won't just take your word for it. I am used to keeping even the most ludicrous statements in articles for the sake of peace, provided they are properly sourced. dab (ᛏ) 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Turkic theory for the scythians is mostly bbased on circumstantial evidence, such as "well, the scythians were nomads so they must have been turkic", or "the scythians came from central asia so they must have been scythians" etc...

but the truth is that all iranian tribes were nomadic at one point in their history, and that iranian tribes also came from central asia as well as other places. also, the scythians were masters of art, and the miniatures they made of themselves show them with caucasian features, not mongoloid features. the turkic theory for scythians is ONLY A MINORITY in the historical community.

If the turkic theory should be added here, then we might as well add every historians opinion on every subject, whether or not it is widely accepted, we would have total anarchy.Khosrow II 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

also, i might add that linguistic analysis has shown that they were iranians.Khosrow II 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Codex, filing your rfc you may mention that I accuse you of being in violation of Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter whether you are asked to provide references via {{fact}} or on talk. {{fact}} is a courtesy towards statements considered dubitable but not completely spurious. We are perfectly within our rights to remove assertions we consider spurious until you quote exactly where you get them (I don't doubt that there is a citation for this, mind you, but I expect it will be extremely dubitable, so that the statement should not appear without the reference putting it in context) dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion in question is not that Scots, Magyars, and Serbs are descended from Scyths. The assertion is that Scots, Magyars and Serbs etc. all have RECORDED TRADITIONS of being descended from Scyths. Are you seriously disputing this? I know you know well that the traditions are there, dab, didn't you and I write the article Fenius Farsa together? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Things that were deleted from this article:

I am going through the entire article history and going to list below all the Turkic-theory related stuff that was ever suppressed from the article so that RFC'ers may discuss its encyclopedic merits. Here's what I have so far: ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

"...while other scholars support the testimony of classical authors who identify Scythians with nomadic Türks.

The 13th-century geographer Vartan says: "Scityia, what others call Turk, extend from Itil to Imaush mount, countries and nations the Tochars and Eftalitas and other barbar nations.[Saint Martin Memoires sur l'Armenie, 448 pg.

...the Scythian tribe of Akathyrs described by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC were a main cavalry army of the Attila's Huns in the 5th c. AD.

Alternate etymology suggest an ancient Türkic ethnonym Sk that over the centuries, with various modifications developed into a multitude of Türkic ethnonyms, including those known from classical times as Scyth, Sak, Sogdy, Skolot and others.

---

the 13th century reference is no problem, it should be put back. The other statements are dubious and must be sourced. The Herodot reference is outright ridiculous, how can a 5th century BC tribe participate in a 5th century AD cavalry? You will note, reading my comments above, that I am perfectly happy to assume acculturation to Turkic influence from the 5th century AD. Such a process has however nothing to do with Scythian origins, or the Scythians of Classical Antiquity. By the 13th century, of course most of "Scythia" was populated by Turkic tribes. dab (ᛏ) 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. At this stage I am just combing the history for anything that might be of use, so we can sort out the wheat from the chaff. Here's another little deleted tidbit I have come across: (still searching) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

"Priscus, the Byzantine emissary to Attila, referred to Attila's followers repeatedly as "Scythians". Some of the Huns may have had Scythian ancestry."

---

the term Turk is a perso-arabic term describing nomadic people of the regions. They used it for all of them, just as the turks in turn used the terms tajik to refer to central asian iranians. The term Turk is not a Turkic word, it is a name given to them, which they now use to describe themselves. Furthermore, i would like to inform you all that the scytho-iranian theoroy page is completely POV and biased, and when I have the time i will try and fix it but for now you can take a look at it. Also, it seems to be copy pasted from another source, which is unacceptable, so it needs to either be re-written or deleted. Turan is a Persian word, and Turk/Turkestan are perso-arabic words.Khosrow II 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The huns themselves did not number much, most of the tribes that they subdued and that followed them were not Turkic at all. The scythians are reported to have been assimilated into the huns, and thus mostly wiped out. but the fact of the matter is that hte hunnish army consisted mostly of slavs, and iranics.Khosrow II 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The scythians mentions by Herodotus were Iranians. Encyclopedia Britannica says: member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries Bc . Centred on what is now the Crimea, the Scythians founded a rich, powerful empire that survived for several centuries before succumbing to the Sarmatians during the 4th century BC to the 2nd century AD. . Similarly you may consult the History of Turkic people by Peter Golden where the Scythian influence on Turks are mentioned nevertheless they were Iranians. They all have Iranian names for example

Saka Haumavarga - The Saka bearinng the Hauma - Hauma is the sacred drink of the Zoroastrians and ancient Areyan Hindus of India.

Saka TigraKhauda - The Saka with the pointed hats. "Khauda" for example is middle Persian (Pahlavi) "Khaud" and present day "Khood" or "Kolah-Khood" in modern Farsi (Helmet). Tigra modern Persian (Tiz, Tigh) means shap, pointed, edged. And you can see these Scythians had the pointed hats[3].

Saka Paradraya - The Saka from beyond the sea. Para is Indo-European (and it's subset Iranian) for "beyond" (there in no such root in Turkish or indeed any Altaic languages that I know of). Certain dialects in Khorassan still seem to use the word "para" in that context. "Draya" is sea (Persian "Darya" - which is also a word loaned into modern Turkish as "Derya").

For further information I humbly suggest that you refer to:

Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984). Iindo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Typological Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture (Parts I and II). Tbilisi State University.

Mallory, J.P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language Archeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson. Read Chapter 2 and see 51-53 for a quick

reference.

Newark, T. (1985). The Barbarians: Warriors and wars of the Dark Ages. Blandford: New York. See pages 65, 85, 87, 119-139.

Renfrew, C. (1988). Aecheology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European origins. Cambridge University Press.

Abaev, V.I. and H.W. Bailey, "Alans," Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 1. pp. 801-803.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia, (tr. Of 3rd Russian edition), 31 vols., New York, 1973-83.

Vogelsang, W J 1992. The rise & organisation of the Achaemenid empire – the eastern evidence (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Vol. III). Leiden: Brill. pp. 344. ISBN 90-04-09682-5.

Note at one time or another all tribes in Central Asia would be called "Turk, Alan, Scythians, Huns..", but when you look at it individually, the Scythians of Herodotus and ancient period were Iranians and this is proved by linguistic evidence and Scythian is classified as Iranian language with middle Khotanese Saka and then modern Ossetian being its descendant. Also the word Soghd has the same root as skewd (scyth) and the Soghdians were another Iranic group. Note Huns, Turks and other Altaic people were influenced by Scythians as well Slavic people and other Iranic non-Scythian groups, but the Scythian of Herodotus are Iranian people. This is the latest accepted theory by modern scholars of at least the last 20 years or so and old theories from 50-100 years. Another word mentioned by Herodotus is Anares and interesting enough, it would be Pahlavi Anar. Also the stuff by Fred Hamori (A Hungarian nationalist) claiming affinity between Hungarian, Sumerian, Scythians and etc. is not scholarship material. (--Ali doostzadeh 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Via the RFC:

Yet at this distance of time it is impossible to determine the exact racial group to which the Scythians belonged. The problem has given rise to much controversy, some authorities asserting that they were Huns, others that they were Turks or Mongols. In the main, however, most scholars agree that they were people of the Indo-European group, possibly of Iranian stock or, as Géza Nagy and some others suggest, Ugro-Altaians. The only indubitable fact which emerges is that the tribes of the entire plain all spoke the same language, in much the same way that many present-day nomads throughout Asia all speak the Turki dialect of Turk, ish. The language spoken by the nomads was basically an Iranian tongue, but it may have been more closely allied to Avestic then to ancient Persian.

Rice, Tamara Talbot (1957). The Scythians. New York: Praeger. pp. p. 39. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Very dated, and fails to provide any reference as to which authorities asserted they were Turks—but hope it helps.EricR 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

also it should be noted that the inscriptions at perspolis, and scythian art, depict scythians as having iranian features (caucasoid), not mongoloid features (which turks have). As ali and i have pointed out, along with other users, those who support the turkic theory are in the MINORITY, a very very small minority at that.Khosrow II 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Turkic theory has no support in the scholarly community anymore. It is more based on nationalistic reasons and it is mainly supported by Turkish and Hungarian nationalists. For example Professor. Peter Golden's book " An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples", is the most comprehensive book on Turkic people and in it Scythians are clearly an Iranic group. --Ali doostzadeh 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is exactly the type of bullying ostracism of scholars with viewpoints you are trying to suppress that caused me to call a RFC. It's easy to state that it has no more support: the people who still support it don't count any more, so we don't have to mention it. There, wasn't that conveniently swept under the rug? Move on folks, nothing to see here. Yeah, right. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no bullism. Please bring some scholarly books from the last 20 years from serious Professors in serious Universities that claim Scythians were Altaic and not Iranic. I brought many references including Encyclopedia Britannica. The claims that Turks are related to Sumerians, Hittites, Scythians, Elamites.. and multitude of other groups is supported by some scholars in Turkey, but these are all nationalistic reasons. Wikipedia has a policy of NOR (No Original Research). --Ali doostzadeh 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

well, there are also a minority of people (notably turkish nationalists historians) who claim that Turkish is the mother of all langauges, and that sumerians, etruscans, the first greeks, iranians, etc... were all origionally turks. should we put their views on wikipedia also?Khosrow II 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes... even though I do not agree with them, I am not afraid to give them a mention they deserve, that people have these theories, provided it is NPOV and sourced to the names of the Turkish scholars who presented them. You on the other hand seem to not want anyone to even know these thoeries exist, and that is wrong. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That is where we disagree. There are 1000's of psuedo theories all over the internet, but we need to make sure to ask authorities on the subject and these are scholars that have actually studied these languages and peoples for most of their lifetime and have published articles in peer reviewed journals. That is why Wikipedia has a policy of NOR. --Ali doostzadeh 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

but do you realise how many minority theories there are out there? If i were to find a scholar who theorises that the scythians were origionally martians, would you put that theory in this article as well? there is a line between adding factual information into an encyclopaedia and just cramming useless information in.Khosrow II 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually read [NOR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR]. Yes people have many weird theories, but it is important to keep Wikipedia accurate. For example why doesn't Encyclopedia Britannica mention all the weired theories about Turks being related to Sumerians, Elamites, Hittites, American Indians, Dravidians, Scythians, Medes... and etc. Do you think the following theory also deserves to be mentioned in serious Wikipedia aritcles [4]. The Turkish theory about Scythians is not even a minority point of view of scholarship anymore, but it is a POV of Turkish nationalists. That Scythians are Iranians has been settled for a long time now by mainstream scholars. If you know any serious scholar within the last 10-20 years from any western University that has published anything about Scythians being Turks, then we should consider it as a minority viewpoint. --Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see... So we don't mention it at all... If you cited a scholar who believed they were Martians, that would all be fine as it is cited, but that the Scyths and Turks, who roamed the same steppes, had ever heard of each other is just too far fetched, and besides, might cause some of the Natives to become restless if this kind of idea leaked out. Best to keep it under wraps, huh? So all of the scholars over the years who suggested such a thing, simply put, have to go, and may not be mentioned here. Is that correct? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope Scythian scholarship is a serious research area in top notch universities like Harvard, Oxford... For example look at the names of the Professors I mentioned above. They are very well known in their field. None of them are Iranian or Turkish either. Do you have any sources from the last 10-20 years from a serious Scythian scholar in the field of Scythian studies that has mentioned Scythians are Altaic or Martians? And no you won't any scholar from these top universities mentioning that Scythians were Martians, else they will be fired. Please read again: [5]. What is the important thing here? Isn't to provide reliable material about Scythians? Or is it to discuss theories that have no support from any serious scholars within at least the last 20 years? For example of I make up a weired claim that Germans are really descendant of Chinese, then should it be mentioned? No. It is the same here. If you think there is a minority POV of some scholars thinking Scythians were Altaic, please provide a modern reference within the last 10-20 years by a serious scholar of Scythian studies. That is not bullying but just trying to make sure the information is accurate. --Ali doostzadeh 18:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it NOR to cite the scholars who postulate a Turkic connection? You don't seem to understand NOR. NOR means don't make up your own theories. I am only imploring that a certain school of thought that is cited not be ignored or written off.

What is the fallacy here in the following?

You: We are only allowed to mention Proposition 1, because proposition 1 has sources A, B, C, but proposition 2 has no support you can quote.

Me: Well, what about sources x,y, and z?

You: They don't count, because they are disqualified.

Me: Why?

You: Because they support Proposition 2, which is clearly wrong. Therefore, you still have to find sources that support Proposition 2 in order to mention it.

Me: Well, what about sources u, v, and w?

You: Ah, well they don't count either. They are disqualified too, because they support Proposition 2, which is clearly wrong. So proposition 2 is therefore OR, because you still have to come up with some sources that support it.

Me: You mean, some sources that support it, that aren't disqualified because they support it? That's raising the bar pretty high...

And so on... Is this "scientific procedure"???

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)\

Again please provide a single reference to Scythians being Turks from a Western scholar in a Major University who has published articles on Scythians in peer reviewed journals. Is that too much to ask for? The fact that Scythians are Iranic has been 100% established through the evidences provided by many scholars that I mentioned. It is not a theory anymore. Modern Ossetian and Middle Khotanese Saka are two descendants of the Scythian language. The reason it is NOR is because the theory that Scythians are Altaic is not supported by modern scholarship and books. 100 years ago there were theories that Scythians were Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Iranic, Finnic.. and etc. But when all evidences were gathered and new ones were discovered, the picture has become clear and all the old theories from 100 years ago are obsolete. And they are not obsolete because I believe them to be, but they are obsolete because the scholars I have mentioned have verified so. --Ali doostzadeh 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The view that Scythians were actually Altaic or Turks is only one extreme of some Turkish historians. In the middle, there is another view that Scythians were Indo-Iranian linguistically, but that Altaic speaking peoples also had some traditional connection with this people. There is the Turkish name for themselves like Oghuz (Ishkuz), the Sakhs of the Kazakhs, and the Sakas of the Yakuts. People can change to speaking a different language family in all kinds of surprising ways that are not readily apparent. But the tradition is there, scholars from the 13th century and before and after have picked up on it, and it is fair game for mention. Not just Indo-Iranians, but peoples from all sorts of linguistic backgrounds from Cambodia to Ireland definitely have traditions connected with Scyths, even if these claims are bogus or mythological, it still indicates that there is much more to this puzzle, and the pieces of evidence shoul not be covered up for anyone's nationalist or anti-nationalist agenda. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but you see, you didn't bring any serious scholars that agreed with your theory. I agree that Scythians had a wide ranging influence. As per the Oghuz and Ishkuza that is not true. Ishkuza is the Assyrian (semitic) pronounciation of Scyth and in Assyrian, S changes to Sh. The Gh sound does not exist in English but the French language has it. Actually the word Ashkenazi could be related to Scythian supposedly as well, but can one claim that Ashkenazi Jews are Scythians? The Iranian province of Sistan, Sakestan is another example. Also in the Shahnameh, the main heroe Rustam is a Scythian (Sagzi). Now finding similar words in other languages does not naturally show linguistic affinity. Even if there is a group of Yakuts called Sakhs, it does not mean that they are related to Scythians. Yakuts (as original Turks) have mongolian feature whereas Scythians were Caucasian. Oswald Szemerényi has a book, "Four old Iranian ethnic names: Scythian - Skudra - Sogdian - Saka" (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 371), Vienna, 1980. In it he shows that Soghdian and Scythian are the same words. The Soghdians as you know are 100% Iranian and we have much textual evidence from them that leaves no doubt. I do agree with you that Scythians had a strong effect on varying numbers of people. Even Biruni mentions that the Iranic Alans were mixing in with the Turkic Pechengs. Just like Americans or Turks or Jews or Arabs or Romans or Greeks or Rssuians.. have effected various people. But this does not make these people into other people. that they were not originally. So we can have a separate section on influence of Scythians on other people and Slavs and Turks and Germans and Irish can be mentioned. But to claim that there is a existing minority school that claims Scythians are Altaic is not true. [6]--Ali doostzadeh 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just do some research on for example the Yakuts who call themselves Sakas, they have very strong Scythian-origin traditions and even their national flag is practically the same Scythian flag they were using in 500 BC with the horse and rider motif. As for Ashkenazim, no, Jews in Europe only adopted this name in the Middle Ages because they figured they were living in the country of 'Ashkenaz', modern research believes this name to be a corruption of Ashkuz, the name known to Assyria and the Middle East from 700 BC, by misreading the Hebrew letter waw as nun. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the is a group of Yaquts calling themselves Sakha, it does not make Scythians into Yaquts or Turks. I brought the example of Soghdians and also the Iranian province of Sakestan, both are which ancient and etymologically related to Scythian. The Yakut Sakhas could have adopted a scythian group, or the word could just be a resembelences without any connection. Like the English word bad and Persian word bad, both meaning bad, but not being cognates. Some Kurdish tribes in Iran have Turkic roots and some Turkic tribes have Kurdish roots. Are there is an American Indian tribe called Iroqui, but they are not related to Iraqis. Or the name Iran and Iraq sound similar to the unfamiliar ear, but they have totally different roots and meanings. And BTW here are some picture of modern Yakuts [7], [8],[9]. Do they look like Scythians? (whose racial features we have from ancient monuments) BTW Yakuts are the purest Turks genetically with the least admixture[10]. So a similar sounding name is not enough without studying history and linguistic, else Ashkenazi jews by similar psuedo theory could be related to Scythians. Going back to the discussion, if somebody claims that there is a minority school supporting that Scythians were altaic, they need to bring references from scholars within the last 10-20 years that have published articles in major peer review journals about Scythians. --Ali doostzadeh 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course (as I keep saying), not that Classical Scythians were Altaic, as they clearly WERE Indo-Iranian linguistically... but the other possibility that might be implied by the Yakuts claiming to be the original Sakas (they do), etc. is not so much that Scythians were Altaic, but rather that Altaic peoples, or some of them, were originally Scythians, or a branch of them, that somehow came to speak a different language family. There is enough scholarly support for this much, if you will not simply brush it off as 'disqualified' and accuse anyone who cites these scholarly views of conducting their own OR. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We can not really pay attention to a group that claims they are descendant of this old group. Some of these claims are due to modern nationalism, rather than historical facts. Ossetians also claim they are descendants of scythians, but there is linguistic and historical evidence to prove it. For example Ossetians look pretty much like the ancient Scythians whereas Yaquts do not. Of course I did not disagree with you that Scythians had influence on varying groups of people and some of them were absorbed into Slavs, Turks, Germans.. and other groups. Indeed the Alans even played a role in the formation of the people of Gaul. So I propose we could make a section about Scythian influence on other groups and mention all these facts and their role and influence from Ireland all the way to Siberia. But the original dispute was about the language of the original Scythians, which is confirmed by all the up to date scholarly sources as Eastern Iranian Language(other Eastern Iranian languages include Avesta, Pashtu, Soghdians, Ossetian..). --Ali doostzadeh 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we CAN pay attention to a group that claims to be descended from this old group. What we cannot do is suppress it. It deserves to be mentioned, and not covered up, just because you are trying to bury it. It isn't going to go away. The Yakuts and other Altaic groups DO claim to be descended from Scythians. Rightly or wrongly, but neutrality demands that only your one viewpoint not be presented to the exclusion of all other claims. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the Sakha (Yakut) Republic of Russia. The Sakhas claim to be the original Scyths, and deliberately chose an ancient Scythian motif for their symbol. Encyclopedic?

Again this has to do with modern nationalistic reasons and nothing to do about Scythians. This does not change the fact that original Scythians are viewed as Iranians by modern scholars. Some German nationalist a while back also claimed Alans as Germanic. This does not make it so. The Neutral point of view is the academic point of view and not the nationalistic point of view. The Yaquts have no physical resembelence to ancient Scythians as the ancient Scythians from their relief were clearly caucasoid. Yaquts do not have an ancient literature (I would not be suprised if its from the last two centuries), so to claim they are descendants of scythians, you need to show this has evidence beyond nationalistic reasons inspirsed by USSR national building. Furthermore, the discussion was about the Altaic origin of Scythians which you now also agree that the original Scythians were Indo-Iranians. This is the main point. Ossetians are the descendants of Scythians and they claim also. Now both Yaquts and Ossetians can not be linguistically descendant of Scythians. Scholars agree that Ossetians are the linguistic descendants of Scythians. --Ali doostzadeh 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again: I am not trying to claim that Sakhas etc. are descendants of Scythians. I am only trying to mention anecdotally in the article that Sakhas claim THEMSELVES to be descendants of Scythians, without it being massively suppressed and censored. The fact that they claim this, even if they are wrong, is encylopedic in itself. What is Original Research, is all of this debating you are doing to try to "prove" or "disprove" whether they were or not. They make the claim, this can easily be sourced, and that is all we need. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well any statement needs to be supported by facts. For example when did a group of Yaquts start claiming descendant of Scythians? I am very sure nomadic Yaquts were not even aware of the Scythians before the USSR period when serious scholarship begain to surface. This is related to USSR nation building. Now the original dispute was not about what Yaquts or Ossetians or many different groups think about themselves. It was about wethear there exists any sizable scholarly community in Academida that counters the claim that the original Scythians spoke an Iranian language. Is there is even one scholarly paper in a major peer reviewed journal from the last 20 years by a major Scythian scholar? That was the original dispute if you recall. The people of Sistan in Iran also consider themselves Scythians as well as their state was called Sakestan in the older days and scholars also agree that Sakestan and Scyth are cognates. These are all fine. What is important is that they should be in a separate section. What a group thinks of itself is not related to who the original Scythians were. Remember what the original dispute was. The Parthians for example were a group of Scythians and 15% of Armenian language is Parthian. I believe this article should be about who and what were the Scythians. There could be a small section in the end about Scythian influences and etc and mention this fact. But this does not have any bearing about the academically agreed upon facts on the Iranian speaking Scythians. --Ali doostzadeh 20:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you be so "sure" about the Yakuts, when you don't even seem to understand that "Yakut" is an ethnonym, and all of the people have always called themselves Saka, not just a group of them? Please understand what you are speaking about. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you need to bring academic references. For example please name one serious scholar of Scythian studies from a major university who has published numerous articles in peer reviewed journals that makes you claim. I can be sure about Yaquts simply by looking at them: [11], [12],and plus their language is Altaic and not Iranian, like the Scythian language. The modern Yaqut language is a Turkic language. Scythians were Iranians as mentioned by scholars. You can't work backwards here, and go from Yaquts to Iranian Scythians. Scholars agree that modern Ossetians are descendants of Scythians. As per a group of Turkic people calling themselves Sakha, this does not necessarily mean linguistic affinity. Like Iroqui American Indian tribe and Iraqi does not mean linguistic evidence. Also Sakestan in Iran and Soghd are both related to Scyth which ultimately derives from Indo-Europan Skewd. (The references I brought mention this). Please read Prof. Golden's book on Turkic people. He is one of the foremost authorities on Turkic people and in his book he mentions clearly that Scythians were Iranians. There is btw an Iranian tribe called Saka-Wand (tribe of Saka) in Lorestan as well..but they are Iranic (Laki) speakers. --Ali doostzadeh 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One more time, yet again: You still don't seem to get it. I am not trying to prove that the Sakha people are or could be descended from Scyths, nor am I trying to open up a debate about it with our own research to determine if we think they could have been... I am merely asserting the fact, that that they do consider themselves Scyths. Which is easily verifiable. And deserves to be mentioned here somewhere, and not censored. What part of that is too hard for you to understand? If I wanted to debate it, I might mention that genetics and appearance are poor indicators of descent because newcomer populations get genetically swamped by their neighbours in about three generations. Magyar ancestors once would have looked more like the Yakuts do today, now they look like their neighbours. Or another example, there are people on islands off the coast of East Africa who claim themselves to be Iranians, now they look indistinguishable from mainland Africans and speak the same language (Swahili) but nevertheless their tradition is to call themselves Persians because they claim some Persians in their geneaology. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the point. The article should reflect modern scholarship. The identity formation of a group which was influenced by USSR nation building is not really relavent to whom historical Scythians were. We can mention in a section about "Scythian influence on various people", but as we agreed the ancient Scythians were not Altaic and that was the original source of the debate. Original Turks were mongloid and btw the Yakuts are relatively the purest Turks. Modern nationalistic constructs can have a smalls section, but that should not skew the readers from the main facts about Scythians. See the genetic reference I brought up. The article as I said should reflect modern scholarship about Scythians. Other interesting facts related to USSR nation building policy could come in a separate section. Many modern Croats also claim believe they have Iranian ancestery. All these things are interesing, but the main point is to get actual facts about Scythians and not theories that do not have scholarly support. Also your geographical example a big flaw. Iranians going to Africa have travelled thousands of mile and have integrated there. But Yakuts and other Turkic tribes live in the same exact areas as Scythians, but do not have the same physical feature. --Ali doostzadeh 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This more than anything else proves you aren't clear on the concept of exactly how far away the Yakuts live from the Scythian homeland. There is actually far more distance there than there is between the 'Persians' of East Coast Africa, and Iran. Try looking at the map where the article on Yakuts is and compare it with the map on this article. But my point is it doesn't matter what our arguments are, because we aren't conducting our own lab experiments on wikipedia. All that matters is what can be cited. Can sources be cited claiming that there is a link between Scyths and Turks? You betcha. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Scythians streched very far almost from near Siberia to Europe, for example take Mongolia which is not far away from the areas where Yaquts live. They were a nomadic and mobile tribe. And btw a source can only be cited if it is academic source from serious scholars in the academic field from peer reviewed journals that are modern. I have brought references from qualified scholars in major universities that are experts in the fields of Indo-Iranians, Indo-europeans, Scythians and etc. Not some random webpage written by a non-specialist. It can not be psuedo-nationalist source or else it is original research and WIKIPEDIA has a policty of NOR. Indeed we are not conducting our own lab experiments, we are trying to reflect what modern scholarship thinks not what some nationalist groups think. BTW the word Sakha used by Yaquts does not affinity with the word Skewd (Saka) and k and kh are two different sounds totally, although the English language does not capture it well. --Ali doostzadeh 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus, you do not seem to understand that the scythians did not have mongoloid features. so how can they be turkic if they had no mongoloid features? i suggest you look at the inscriptions at perspolis, as well as scythian art. check these out: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

those are just a taste, notice the noses and the eys, none of which are mongoloid.

Or another example, there are people on islands off the coast of East Africa who claim themselves to be Iranians, now they look indistinguishable from mainland Africans and speak the same language (Swahili) but nevertheless their tradition is to call themselves Persians because they claim some Persians in their geneaology

very interesting, never knew of these people, can you give me more information or places to look on my talk page? thanks. Also i might add that there are many arabized persians all over the arabian peninsula, the middle east, and possibly africanized (if that is even a word...) persians in east africa, since persians did reach nubia and southern arabia. but the case for scthians is differet because the yakuts have mongoloid features, not caucasoid like scythians, so either the yakuts are a turkified iranian people or they are just simply turkic...Khosrow II 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, this has nothing to do with facial features, mongoloid or otherwise. Is it 1780 where you live or something? They are an Iranian people because they spoke a bleeding Northeastern Iranian language. dab (ᛏ) 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people here seem to be very ignorant about the process of formation of modern "races." The so-called Mongoloid and Caucasoid races are a very controversial subject in current anthropology, because there is mounting evidence that the anatomical features taken to define the Mongoloid and Caucasoid races (or at least those features that are taken to define the Mongoloid race) have evolved more than once in the history of Homo sapiens, and recent phylogenetic studies strongly refute the antiquated theory that the modern Mongoloid and Caucasoid races have derived from a monophyletic ancestral group. To put it another way, phylogenetic evidence suggests that the modern races known as Mongoloid and Caucasoid have formed through the interbreeding of a great number of prehistoric tribes, and that some of the tribes that have contributed mainly to the ancestry of modern Mongoloids were originally more closely related to some of the tribes that have contributed in a small degree to the ancestry of modern Caucasoids, while other tribes that have contributed mainly to the ancestry of modern Caucasoids were originally more closely related to some tribes that have contributed in a small degree to the ancestry of modern Mongoloids. Do you all have an IQ high enough to comprehend what I am saying? It really shouldn't be too difficult to understand, because it is only what anyone with a good brain and understanding of the modes of prehistoric human life would predict even without any of the modern genetic evidence. There did not exist in prehistoric times only three tribes, "proto-Caucasoid," "proto-Mongoloid," and "proto-Negroid," that somehow managed to maintain complete genetic isolation while expanding into the myriad modern ethnic groups of the Eurafrasian continent, and anyone who would think that such a scenario might be possible must be a complete idiot.

It is also important to note that the typically Caucasoid morphology is older than the typically Mongoloid morphology. The oldest human remains that are accepted by the paleo-anthropological community as fully (i.e., "stereotypically") Mongoloid date to merely 10,000 years before present in North China or Inner Mongolia. Caucasoid or pseudo-Caucasoid (Cro-Magnoid) skulls, on the other hand, have been found on nearly all Paleolithic remains of Homo sapiens sapiens from Eurasia and the Americas, and the few Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens remains from Eurasia or surrounding islands that are not pseudo-Caucasoid are either pseudo-Negroid or pseudo-Australoid: the Mongoloid morphology had apparently not evolved prior to the onset of Neolithic or proto-Neolithic (Mesolithic) culture, which some extremists have taken to suggest that Neolithic culture actually evolved along with the physical evolution of Mongoloids. This very ancient pseudo-Caucasoid morphology persisted among some isolated East Eurasian populations, such as the Ainu of Japan, long after typically Mongoloid traits had begun to increase in frequency among some prehistoric populations of continental East Eurasia and the Americas. Many populations that amateurs tend to group with the stereotypical Mongoloids of Northeast Asia, such as modern Southeast Asians, Japanese, or Amerindians, are really only partially Mongoloid at best and actually preserve a morphology that is intermediate between the ancestral "pseudo-Caucasoid" or "proto-Caucasoid-Mongoloid-Australoid" morphology and the modern stereotypical Mongoloid morphology. Other prehistoric populations that dwelt in particularly cold regions of North Eurasia and North America also evolved to express some traits similar to the modern Mongoloids at a relatively high frequency, but these populations were not necessarily closely related to one another, neither in origin nor through gene flow. Populations such as the Saami appear to be descended from the same recent ancestors as the majority of West Eurasian Caucasoids, but they display many physical characteristics reminiscent of Mongoloids due to parallel adaptations. Another case is presented by the Papuans, who have traditionally been categorized as Australoid, which is a sort of pseudo-Caucasoid morphology, although recent genetic studies have shown that the Papuans are a branch off the same ancestral group that has produced both modern Caucasoids and Mongoloids, and if anything, they are more closely related to Mongoloids than to Caucasoids, despite their rather Caucasoid-like morphology: in short, any physical resemblance between Papuans and Middle Eastern Caucasoids, or between Papuans and African Negroids, is an instance of sympleisiomorphy (shared retention of primitive ancestral traits) or otherwise a case of convergent evolution due to each group's recent ancestors having lived in a hot, tropical environment.

With the aforementioned facts in mind, I would like to inform you that the great majority of Sakha men have been found to harbor mutations on their Y chromosomes that place them in a genetic grouping called Haplogroup N (c.f. Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups for more information). The Y chromosomes of the majority of men who belong to Uralic-speaking ethnic groups, including the Finns, also belong to this same Haplogroup N. The closest phylogenetic relatives of Haplogroup N belong to Haplogroup O, which is prevalent among most ethnic groups of East Asia and Southeast Asia. However, the spread of Haplogroup N is not limited to the Sakha and Uralic peoples, although it is particularly prevalent among them: men whose Y chromosomes belong to Haplogroup N can be found at a low frequency throughout Eurasia, from the British Isles in the west to the Japanese Archipelago in the east, and even including such groups as the Ashkenazi Jews. In contrast to the Sakha and Finns, the great majority of Central Asian Turkic men belong either to Haplogroup R1a1, which is also very common among Slavic and Indo-Aryan peoples and found at a lower frequency throughout Europe, or to Haplogroup C3, which is particularly prevalent among Mongols and Kazakhs, but also found at an even lower frequency than Haplogroup R1a1 throughout Europe (and even among some Native American tribes). I should note that most modern Iranians, i.e. people of Iran, do not belong to any of the aforementioned haplogroups, and rather appear to have a closer genetic relationship with Semitic peoples of the Middle East or with the Turks of Turkey, although some Iranian-speaking ethnic groups of Central Asia and South Asia (Tajiks, Pashtuns, etc.) do appear to have a closer relationship with Central Asian Turkic peoples or Indo-Aryans. Thus, if we took Haplogroup N to represent the most prevalent paternal lineage among the "original Scythians," then the original Scythians would have been the direct ancestors of most Uralic peoples and the Turkic Sakha, but they might have also contributed slightly to the genetic heritage of most modern peoples of Eurasia, from the English to the Japanese. On the other hand, if we took Haplogroup R1a1 to represent the most prevalent paternal lineage among the "original Scythians," then the majority of their direct patrilineal descendants would be found among the Slavs, Central Asian Turkic peoples, and Indo-Aryans, with a slight influence throughout Europe and southern Siberia but no direct patrilineal descendants at all among the Japanese or most other peoples of North Asia and East Asia. It is also notable that the Uyghurs of Xinjiang display Haplogroup R1b Y chromosomes at a significant frequency; this haplogroup is the most common among modern Western and Central European populations, such as the Germans, Italians, French, Irish, and Basques, and it is also found at a low frequency among the Iranians, Manchus, Koreans, and some small Siberian populations. Haplogroup J, which appears to have originated in the Middle East and is found at a very high frequency among modern Semitic, Anatolian, and Iranian populations, is also found at lower frequencies throughout Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia, but generally not in North Asia or East Asia. So, which lineage represents that of the "original Scythians"? Go ahead and take your pick, since it would be about as good as anyone else's at this point. Ebizur 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agathyrsi

Ali doostzadeh, please stop wiping out chanks of history not to your taste. The way you do it is a vandalizm in Wikipedia. you need to come up with a less crude way of enforcing your views. Note that the section you dislike consists almost exclusively of citations, you are displaying a blatant discarding of the very sources you keep complaining you want. Barefact 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, wikipedia has a policy of NOR. (No Original research). Unless you bring reliable scholarly sources for your materials, then I have the right to delete them. For example the Greek word Agatharios has nothing to do etymologically with the word AqaJari from the Safavid era! Stop making up folk etymology. No one considers Scythians Turks today in the scholarly community and I will make sure that the scholarly opinion of the scholarly community is reflected here and not pan-turkist ideologs like yourself who claim everything from Sumerian to Scythians to be Turkic. And no your section has no citation. As demonstrated by this article [19] all of your citations and folk etymology is pan-turkist propaganda and has no reliability. So stop polluting Wikipedia with contents of your nationalistic site: [20] (note in it he takes many ancient Greek, English, French words and claims they are Turkic). Wikipedia is not debate club, or a place for Original research when it comes to established scholarly facts accepted universally. And Also I am keeping my eye on Sumerian, Elamite and all the similar articles, because I know there are Turkic nationalists claiming they were Turks also. Also I will keep an eye on the Goths and Vandals articles, since this person claims: If the Goths and Vandals are German (whish is still unproved), then how to explain a presence in Spain of the Türkic elements, which, as we shall show, are there in massive quantities[21].!! Or what about this nonsense which was proven wrong in the Ossetic discussion page: the Ossetian is an Agglutinative language and belongs to an Agglutinating language family.

[22]. Stop your blatant cut & pasting of materials from this site: [23] as it damages the credibility of Wikipedia. BTW your articles are in copy right violations as they ahve been written by Tatar psuedo-scholars and not by yourself. So that is a Wikipedia copy right violation as well. --Ali doostzadeh 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ali doostzadeh, you better blame the message and not the messanger, Herodotus and not me. You may not worry about copyright, all the citations are in public domain for at least a millenia. The section is of a tertiary nature, it relies on scholarly publications, and calling academia psuedo-scholars is demeaning to you and not to them. You already shown an element of civility in demonstrating the accuracy of Adygo-Kartvellian/Ossetian ratio as being 5:1, thank you. So, please be civil and brace yourself to the facts of life different of your convictions. It would be nice if your censorship mission was complimentary to your Iranian cause, instead of presenting the Iranian cause in the worst uncivic light.

You may start reading on Savars/Suvars, they also were notable Herodotus peronalities, and traceable in the classical and scholarly sources to the 15th c. This way you may start concentrating on the message, not the messangers, instead of playing vigilante censor.

Regards, Barefact, 21:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

no, Ali is quite right, there is no place for Pan-Turkic propaganda here. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Before removing citations that you disagree with, you need to produce verifiable arguments that the citations are not pertinent, or that they are false. Othervise they are vandalism to prevent public from scrutinizing the subject.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Barefact 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

move/split?

Scythians was originally made a redirect of Scythia for lack of material, but it is high time to move this to Scythians now, and make Scythia a separate article on the term in ancient historiography etc. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this portion

Agatharius not related to Aghajari and no such thing as Aghatarius Scythians

I deleted the below because it lacks any connection. What is the connection between Agatharius and the Safavid tribe Aghajari!! cmon we are not playing folk etymology here. Show me one serious scholar in academia that has come up with such cooked up theories. Herodotus does not mention any Agatharius Scythians. Agatharius is just a mythical character in Herodotus and not a tribe. One needs to take a 100 miles leap of faith to go from the etymology Agatharius to Aghajari!! So the falsified quotes I removed (and this is the 50th time probably that the user barefact has pasted some false materials). --Ali doostzadeh 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Portion deleted

---

start------------

Agathyrsi is one of the two Scythian tribes that can be traced in literary sources from the 6th c. BC to the present. Herodotus provided description of the 6th c. BC great Scythian nomadic empire and Agathyrsi Scythians, and elaborately recounted the expedition (516 - 513 BC) of Persian king Darius Hystapes (522-486 BC) against Scythians in the N. Pontic (Herodotus 4.10, 4.48, 4.49, 4.78, 4.100, 4.102, 4.104, 4.119, 4.125). Herodotus mentioned Agathyrsi together with another tribe, Geloni. Agathyrsi, who were noted for their love of jewelry, refused to join a fight against Persians unless directly provoked, which highlighted the autonomy and voluntary association of the members of the Scythian confederation. The writer of 2nd c. AD Claudius Ptolemy places Agathyrs and Savars, another easily traceable tribe, in the N.Pontic. Ca. 380 AD, Ammianus Marcellinus in Res Gestae Ch. 22, 8 writes that beyond the palus Maeotis together with Geloni live Agathyrsi, among whom there is an abundance of adamantine stones. Further, he writes that over the border from Geloni are Agathyrsi, who tattoo their bodies and dye their hair blue, the common people with a few small, but the nobles with many large marks (Amm. 31, 2, 1-11). Ammianus also describes the Alanian empire that the Alans cobbled together before the end of the 2nd c. AD, that by repeated victories Alans incorporated under their own national name Geloni, Agathyrsi, Melanchlaeni, Anthropophagi, Amazons, and Seres.

An interesting tidbit comes from Servius on Aenid 4.v.146, that probably closer to 300 AD the Agathyrsi sent across a sea a contingent to Scotland, where it became identified with Picts, who were formidable warriors and seriously fatigued all who stood against them. Traditionally, the Picts are depicted as wearing conical hats and speaking language incompehensible to local Indo-Europeans.

Next we find Akatziri mentioned by Prisco di Panion in Vol XI, 823, who encountered Agathyrs leading nomadic life north of Black Sea during the 5th century, and reported them as being Hunnic tribes. A bit later, Priscus in his Byzantine History finds Agathyrs as Hunnish subjects in pre-Attila time, and a main force of Hun's army in the Attila time. Attila appointed Karidach as Akatzirs' Khan. Jordanes, who quotes Priscus in Getica, described the European Agathyrs as extremely brave people.

After the death of Attila and fracture of the Hunnish empire, a coalition of the Bulgarian tribes defeated Agathyrs in a battle for supremacy, and incorporated them in their empire, known in the 7th c. as "Great Bulgaria". In the following centuries, the N.Pontic steppes were dominated in turns by Khazars, Badjanaks, Oguzes, Kipchaks, Mongolo-Tatars, and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the Middle Ages, Agathyrs poped out again in the Seljuk Anatolia. In the 15th century a branch of Agach-Eriler (Türkic pl. of Agacher), who lived in the region of Marash-Elbistan in Central Anatolia, immigrated to Safavid (Azeri dynasty) Persia. Until nowadays this branch of Agachers has survived in Iran.

---

--Ali doostzadeh 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking up 4.10 and all the other above cited lines in Herodotus here, http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/index.htm it becomes obvious that everything Herodotus said about Agathyrsi tribe in connection to the other Scyths, should definitely have a place on Wikipedia. I do not understand the argument for banning Herodotus, other than that it is somehow politically inconvenient for the aspirations of some, to allow Herodotus' testimony any visibility. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start name calling again. I could also say that : I think it is politically convenient for you to write non-academic material just to annoy other users, but with all due respect, I do not wish to start an insult game. Read Herodotus 4:102 and Scythians are not the same as Agatharius tribes. --Ali doostzadeh 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation Rawlinson [24].

[4.102] The Scythians, reflecting on their situation, perceived that they were not strong enough by themselves to contend with the army of Darius in open fight. -They, therefore, sent envoys to the neighbouring nations, whose kings had already met, and were in consultation upon the advance of so vast a host. Now they who had come together were the kings of the Tauri, the Agathyrsi, the Neuri, the Androphagi, the Melanchaeni, the Geloni, the Budini, and the Sauromatae.

Note it menions the Agathyrsi as separate from Scythians and it mentions them as a neighbor of Scythians. Also can anyone show me the etymological relationship between Agathyrsi and Aghajari!? (I mean an scholarly source!). So no one is trying to delete facts. But it is definitely the right thing to do when bogus claims are thrown here and there. I am wondering really are you interested in reflecting what the Academia and scholarship says or are you looking for wild unsubstantiated theories that no scholar has ever written? The reason I am asking this is that you were also trying to connected Magyar to Magains. Is wikipedia an Encyclopedia or chat room? Please also read this for the names of Scythian tribes [25]. --Ali doostzadeh 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ali Doostzadeh, was I trying to conenct the Medes to the Magians? Come on! You'd better go change the Medes article again tehn, because it still quotes Herodotus as saying the Magi were one of the six clans of the Medes. better go erase that Herodotus, It must be awfully inconvenient for you... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what I meant (typo and I fixed it). In that article someone had claimed Magians are related to Magyar and you defended it. Note I did not delete Herodotus, but I mentioned that there is no connection to Magyars and I actually brought the exact statement from Herodotus so there would be no quarrels. The same thing is happening here. It is not about inconvenience, but about actually not falsifying facts. Note Herodotus clearly separates Agathyrsi from Scythians. Furthermore Agathyrsi customs he says are related to those of Thracians (I am sure Thracians were Turks also by barefact's logic and when he puts his usual bogus source, you will defend it too). --Ali doostzadeh 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't think Thracians were Turks. I am not for anyone's nationalist agenda, I am mainly interested in preserving the Historiography; as dab has suggested, there is certainly enough of it for an article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree..sorry if I am .. I am also serious in preserving historiography. Note I have corrected the user barefact more than 10 times. So again I have corrected him here. Agathyrsi is not related to Aghajari Turkic tribe and Agathyrsi were not Scythians as Herodotus clearly separates them and considers them neighboring nation of Scythians. Note Herodotus in 4.102 not only separates Scythians from Agathyrsi but in 4.104 he considers them close to Thracian.

[4.104] The Agathyrsi are a race of men very luxurious, and very fond of wearing gold on their persons. They have wives in common, that so they may be all brothers, and, as members of one family, may neither envy nor hate one another. In other respects their customs approach nearly to those of the Thracians. '

You might also want to read barefacts opinion: [26]. --Ali doostzadeh 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Without verifiable reference that challenges the classical authors who listed Agathyrsi as Scythians, your repeat removal is a vandalism to prevent the community from srutinizing the subject. You need to restore the contents until you can provide references on both points, Scythians and immigrants to Persia. I did not repotr your vandalism because at least you are interested in subject, and discover something new for yourself and your friends, like the real status of the Ossetian lang. Arbitrary removal of contents, like citations of the classical authors, without justification is a vandalism.

Barefact 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is not verifable so far is all of the polemic materials you have copied from [www.turkicworld.org]. Whereas I quoted Herodotus and clearly showed Agathyrsi tribe is not a Scythian group. He clearly differentiates between the two. For the 500th time, and I have corrected you more than 10 times, read the Wikipedia policy on NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Comprende? As per the status of the Ossetic language, it is Iranian according to every modern reference except pan-turkist turkic world references. Note your other Wikipedia thread was deleted (which is not good on your record) because it had Original Research whereas you yourself said the opposite to your theory was UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by SCHOLARS. When someting is Universally accepted by scholars, then bringing a weired hypothesis based on nationalistic reasons is considered ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Let me bring the link for you several times: Wikipedia has a policy of No Original Research. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Read it again: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and again: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. --Ali doostzadeh 00:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that Barefact is trying to take on the accepted facts that Ossetians or Scythians are/were an Iranian people, all by himself. Barefact, what makes you believe so ardently that these people are/were not Scythians when I can give you the names of several Encyclopaedia's that site them as so? I mean, I have no problem with you presenting another point, but its the way you are trying to present it that is the problem.Khosrow II 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with presenting another view either as long as relavent scholars in that field who have published high quality papers in distinguished peer review journals also propose multiple viewpoints. --Ali doostzadeh 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "I have no problem" words are music to my ears. So, do not remove the statements together with the references. Herodotus should satisfy your high standards, I hope. He relays that Agathyrsi are brothers of Scythians (4.8-4.10), I have added this reference to remove any objections. This makes Agathyrsi pertinent, weather the brothers are Persians, Eskimo, or Iroqui, they are all ethnically identical, like you and your brother. Do not vandalize any more, please.

G. Moravcsik, I hope, is a "relavent scholar" for you, nobody complained about low quality of his monumental work. Actually, he is one of the most respected, if not the most respected authorities on Byzantine chronicles. Do not vandalize any more, please. Pass this word to your friend, who in Scythian would be called "Kim-er", i.e. "archer".

A.Amanjolov is a most respected scholar, with international reputation, nobody complained about low quality of his numerous and outstanding works. Read the peer review comments to his book. They will satisfy highest standards, even yours. Do not vandalize any more, please.

Barefact 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Herodotus differentiates between Agatharius and Scythians, look at the quote I brought. Show me some publications in Amanjolov in English.. the book sounds like propoganda to me. Try to add English sources where everyone can read and has access to. Here are some references that are exact:

“… Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin” [John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18] , “…Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians” [Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, London: Concord Publications Company, p.6], “The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian” [Brzezinski, R., & Mielczarek, M. (2002), The Sarmatians: 600 BC- AD 450. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing Men at Arms Series, p.3]. ,“…of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta…” [Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22]. The book you brought: Amanjolov, A. S., "History Of The Ancient Türkic Script", Almaty, "Mektep", 2003 (in Russian), sounds like propoganda. What ancient Turkic script are you talking about? --Ali doostzadeh 17:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But before adding topics they need to first be discussed. I learned that the hard way a couple weeks ago. I added information into an article before a consensus was made, got into a revert war, and eventually got blocked for 24h. I know how Wiki works from experience, and the way your doing it is not the right way. Discuss first, come to a consensus, then move on from there.Khosrow II 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us not get into rv war, stop using proxies, leave contents on, put a disputed tag, and we will discuss. I already spelled out the refute to the objections, accomodated the claim that Acathyrsi are not Scythians, explained the references. I will do it again, if needed,

But do not vandalize the contents in between. You will be reported, especially when your only contribution to the subject is a blanket vandalism.

Barefact 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow is totally correct. If you have reliable information you must bring all the sources.. You can't just claim Herodotus said this without bringing the actual quotes. Also I do not disagree with russian material, but still they need to be verified by Western Sources that are readily available. The reason is that we can't bring unverified sources like your previous article. And your reporting will not do anything really, since you had your other entery closed and have put up a good amount of non-factual information. From now on you need to bring actual quotes from the actual ancient sources in English else I believe I have the right to disagree due to your previous non-factual and wrong quotes. That is evidence must be presented before insertions are made. For example Herodotus differentiates between Agatharisi and Scythians (look at the quote I brought). So they were not Scythians. Greek myths about origins are not factual information to lead to interpolations into Safavid era. Also etymology is not an easy science and similar sounding words (although Aghajari does not sound even like Agatharisi) does not necessarily correspond to cognates. If you want to provce cognate, then you must do so using materials from top linguistics in the area and not popular folk etymology. --Ali doostzadeh 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is better than vanton blanket deletions. Among the objections the main was that Herodotus differentiates between "Agatharisi" (i.e Agathyrsi, I presume) and Scythians. Your contention is that while Scythians are Scythians, and therefore Iranians, the Agathyrsi are not Scythians, and therefore can be Chinese or any other viable alternative. And that Greek's folk tale about Agathyrsi and Scythian brotherly kinship is irrelevant because Agathyrsi have commonality with Thracians. Did I expressed your objection right?

Does it also apply to Gelons, because Agathyrsi and Gelons taxonomically are on the same level in respect to Scythians, and Gelons also have some differences with Scythians? Does it apply to Amaxobies, Melanchlens etc, who even are not listed as Scythian brothers? Who else is excluded from the Scythian classification?

Barefact 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope that is not only objection. There is no link to huns, khazars, turks and using faulty etymology like Aghajari to connect to Agatharyisi is ridicolous. And also bring the exact lines from Herodotus (from reputable English translation and not your own) and it will be examined. So far Herodotus has differentiated Agatharysi from Scythians and has said the former are close to Thracians in customs(who are not Turks either). --Ali doostzadeh 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, we should be able to resolve this. First, about reputable English translation. You pick any that you like, I would not have problem with that. I give you the reference, you select the reputable English translation. Second, Herodotus [1.201] states that Scythians are a race, as opposed to a tribe. Race consistes of many tribes, and Scythia is populated by many tribes, which speak a multitude of languages, and have unequal traits, described at length in Herodotus Book 4. Not all tribes being pastoral, they nevertheless are Scythian tribes living in Scythia. Agatharysi happened to be one of them, and along with Gelons and Scythians, are so similar that Greeks call them brothers, as Herodotus states in (4.8-4.10).

Third, Strabo in Geography 7.3.2 tells that wagon-dwelling Scythians and Sarmatians are mingled with the Thracians, with different tribes at different degree. To exclude either Scythians or Agatharysi because they "mingled" (Strabo) or "customs approach" (Herodotus 4.104) would be preposterous and would totally depopulate Scythia of the Scythians.

Your objections are so unreasonable that it is clear that your objective has nothing to do with "reputable translation" or Scythian traits. Your objections, along with the deletion vandalism game, is a ploy to keep the contents from the public scrutiny. I have given you and Arash your last vandalism warnings, please stop vandalizing, and we can talk over any other objection you may ever invent.

Thank you, Barefact 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus 4.8-4.10 says no such thing. You need to read carefully: Hereupon he strung one of his bows - up to that time he had carried two - and showed her how to fasten the belt. Then he gave both bow and belt into her hands. Now the belt had a golden goblet attached to its clasp. So after he had given them to her, he went his way; and the woman, when her children grew to manhood, first gave them severally their names. One she called Agathyrsus, one Gelonus, and the other, who was the youngest, Scythes. Then she remembered the instructions she had received from Hercules, and, in obedience to his orders, she put her sons to the test. Two of them, Agathyrsus and Gelonus, proving unequal to the task enjoined, their mother sent them out of the land; Scythes, the youngest, succeeded, and so he was allowed to remain. From Scythes, the son of Hercules, were descended the after kings of Scythia; and from the circumstance of the goblet which hung from the belt, the Scythians to this day wear goblets at their girdles. This was the only thing which the mother of Scythes did for him. Such is the tale told by the Greeks who dwell around the Pontus.. As you can see this information is about mythical origins and you can't use it to actually write history. Herodotus makes up mythical origin relating many groups to ancient Greek mythical figures. You need to separate myths from facts and that is why if you look at Herodotus's other statement, he doe clearly distinguish between Scythians and Agatharysi (which have no connection to Turks anyway). He says: The Scythians, reflecting on their situation, perceived that they were not strong enough by themselves to contend with the army of Darius in open fight. -They, therefore, sent envoys to the neighbouring nations, whose kings had already met, and were in consultation upon the advance of so vast a host. Now they who had come together were the kings of the Tauri, the Agathyrsi, the Neuri, the Androphagi, the Melanchaeni, the Geloni, the Budini, and the Sauromatae. (4.102). As per Strabo, the passage is: 2 Now the Greeks used to suppose that the Getae were Thracians; and the Getae lived on either side the Ister, as did also the Mysi, these also being Thracians and identical with the people who are now called Moesi; from these Mysi sprang also the Mysi who now live between the Lydians and the p177Phrygians and Trojans. And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian tribe, as are also the Mygdonians, the Bebricians, the Medobithynians,59 the Bithynians, and the Thynians, and, I think, also the Mariandynians. These peoples, to be sure, have all utterly quitted Europe, but the Mysi have remained there. And Poseidonius seems to me to be correct in his conjecture that Homer designates the Mysi in Europe (I mean those in Thrace) when he says, "But back he turned his shining eyes, and looked far away towards the land of the horse-tending Thracians, and of the Mysi, hand-to‑hand fighters"60 for surely, if one should take Homer to mean the Mysi in Asia, the statement would not hang together. Indeed, when Zeus turns his eyes away from the Trojans towards the land of the Thracians, it would be the act of a man who confuses the continents and does not understand the poet's phraseology to connect with Thrace the land of the Asiatic Mysi, who are not "far away," but have a common boundary with the Troad and are situated behind it and on either side of it, and are separated from Thrace by the broad Hellespont; for "back he turned" generally61 means "to the rear," and he who transfers his gaze from the Trojans to the people who are either in the rear of the Trojans or p179on their flanks, does indeed transfer his gaze rather far, but not at all "to the rear."62 Again, the appended phrase63 is testimony to this very view, because the poet connected with the Mysi the "Hippemolgi" and "Galactophagi" and "Abii," who are indeed the wagon-dwelling Scythians and Sarmatians. For at the present time these tribes, as well as the Bastarnian tribes, are mingled with the Thracians (more indeed with those outside the Ister, but also with those inside). And mingled with them are also the Celtic tribes — the Boii, the Scordisci, and the Taurisci. However, the Scordisci are by some called "Scordistae"; and the Taurisci are called also "Ligurisci"64 and "Tauristae."65 . There is no mention of Agathyrisi here. There is also no mention of Agathyirsi. As per Herodotus (1.201): When Cyrus had achieved the conquest of the Babylonians, he conceived the desire of bringing the Massagetae under his dominion. Now the Massagetae are said to be a great and warlike nation, dwelling eastward, toward the rising of the sun, beyond the river Araxes, and opposite the Issedonians. By many they are regarded as a Scythian race. . Note Kurds have also many tribes. So do Pashtu. It is clear that Herodotus distinguishes between Scythians and Agathyrisi. And Strabo does not talk about Agathyrisi. It is clear from Herodotus 4:102 that Agathyrisi are not Scythians and the two are clearly distinguished. --Ali doostzadeh 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Barefact wrote: Agathyrsi is one of the two Scythian tribes that can be traced in literary sources from the 6th c. BC to the present. That is simply unfounded and unsourced nationalistic claims. So is the faulty etymology. Do not forget that your other article was deleted. Note Herodotus does not consider Agathyrisi as Scythians, I have brought the relavent quotes. Neither does Strabo mention Scythians. Any material should be backedup by modern English references. Folk etymology should be exclused if there is no reliable material to back it up. Neither is anyone scared of a case since one of the other enteries of barefact was deleted. I will reask for the user Dab again if there is a problem. --Ali doostzadeh 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ali is completely right. All Barefact tries to do here is give prominence to a completely discredited notion of "Turkic Scythians". To this end, he will copy material from Pan-Turkist websites, misquote Herodotus, whatever it takes. This is dishonest. The main encyclopedic point is, Sythians were Indo-Iranians. Any competing minority views can be cited under "minority views" in all fairness. As long as Barefact does not do that, but prefers to tilt the whole article, there can be no question of accepting his edits. This is just one more case of a single editor with a pre-conceived single idea who just cannot understand "reliable source" and "due weight". dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

turikc scythians

I removed a passage from the text that said scythians were associated with turkic people. this is not generally accepted among scolars and against the rest of the text and if some people insist that it should be mentioned in the article, I suggest that they create a paragraph explaining this point of view. Arash the Bowman 11:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Arash the Bowman, you were given your last warning. {{subst:test4}

You better stop spending time on vandalism and spend it on reading the discussion. Barefact 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't threaten people.. You gave me so called Last warnings 100x times. You can do this to Arash too, but your warnings lack credibility since it is perfectly legal to remove unsourced information and discuss it in the talk page. As long as you bring unsubstantiated material, you need to discuss it in the talk page, let there be a concensus and then insert in the article. It has to also be sources correctly, (unlike your previous article which was deleted) and must not contain folk etymology. --Ali doostzadeh 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

oh for chrissake, can we drop the "turkic scythians" cruft already and go back to improving the article, please? (ᛎ) qɐp 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

that is what I have been saying to.. Unfortunately user [[27]] and Barefact quote OR material from www.turkicworld.org and then claim there is an Iranian watchdog. These people do not check their material for their sources. Herodotus for example clearly distinguishes between Agathyrsi and Scythians and yet they bring their faulty information everywhere. Even in the medes article the usercodex_sinaiticus tried to defend that Magyars are related to Magians. --Ali doostzadeh 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Stop the false accusations. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of being part of an Iranian watchdog whereas I have already shown at least 10 major errors and faults with barefact's unverifable quotes.. Yet you cut & paste it like it is not a big deal! Also you did RV the false magian magyar connection when I deleted it from the Medes article (I wonder how many people might have been misguided reading that article before such unreliable claims were deleted). I have no agenda except to make sure articles related to Scythians, Medes and the sort correspond to modern scholarly opinion and for example Enyclcoped Britannica. Barefact was even claiming that ossetic is non-Indo-Iranian going against every scholar in the field. This is major OR. I am getting tired of correcting his OR from www.turkicworld.org and then someone else just cut & pasting the same unsubstantiated materials..All of his materials needs to be checked with modern English translations of relavent texts before insertion into actual articles or else every single people of antiquity will morph into Altaic people(no that anything is wrong with Altaic people, but putting false information is wrong) (check his website). So I think it is best to get any quotes verified from the sources and then check to see if the content is what it is being claimed then to insert it in the article so we stop repeated arguments. --Ali doostzadeh 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agathyrsi

Reference to a good expanded article is a good idea, but complete removal of Scythian people from Scythia article is way too harsh. A synopsis would be more reasonable. Without a good synopsis removal would look as a Iranist agenda, especially when it is removing classical references and literature. Barefact 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Too bad but the Encyclopedia Britannica and thousands of other books and encyclopedias Encarta and Columbia are not Iranist agendas and their articles on Scythians says nothing about Turks and they have a neutral POV will be reflected in Wikipedia despite all your disruptive efforts to push your unscholarly sites POV. --Ali doostzadeh 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting is a Redirect vandalism. Its purpose is to remove the subject from public scutiny. You can't advance your agenda by vandalism Barefact 15:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are the one deleting quotes and inserting unrelated quotes and that is vandalism. Scythians, Alans, Ossetians according to all modern sources were Iranians and the information of scholars and not pan-turkists will be reflected in Wikipedia. That is what an Encyclopedia is. Instead of paying many dollars for Britannica or Encarta, a person wants to know the correct information for free. If you have problem with what universities and Encyclopedia Britannica say, then you should take it up with them. --Ali doostzadeh 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting is a Redirect vandalism. Using socketpuppets to redirect is a saocketpuppet vandalism. Its purpose is to remove the subject from public scutiny. You can't advance your agenda by vandalism. Today, the subject was already redirected twice. This repeat vandalism does not add credibility to your cause. Barefact 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly everyone who gets ever blocked for 3RR cries vandalism, but it never does them any good, when it is clearly a content dispute. You have no reverts left today so I suggest you cool it before you get blocked. Also what in the world do you mean by "redirect", are you using the right term? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To barefact, there is no suckpuppets and the ip address is mine, but Khosrow and Arash the Bowman and Codex are not me. As per credibility, you have lost all credibility because of your home www.turkicworld.org. For example I was just reading the proto-slavic article on that page and how it supposedly contains abundant material of Turkic! I guess Slavs, Sumerians, Scythians, Elamites.. are all fair games. My suggestion to barefact is that if he has problems with what modern scholars say, then write to them and ask them to change their opinion. But Wikipedia is not that place and should reflect the opinion of actual scholars in the field on the current subjet. That is the purpose of Wikipedia to create a free encyclopedia and not a free forum of ideas between amatuers (and note I am not considering myself a scholar either but I try to directly quote scholars in the relavent fields and Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, peer reviewed Journal publications and etc.). --Ali doostzadeh 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes

Now that copyediting has made it clearer what the content of this article is, I suggest that that it be deleted and relevant sections be moved to Indo-scythians, Scythians, Sakas, Scythia, etc.

The content of Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes itself substantially duplicates these articles and I can't see any reason for keeping it as a standalone wikipedia entry.--Saganaki- 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)