Talk:Scythians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Sources & other views

We need to get rid of encyclopedias, the BBC etc and stick to academic sources. Look at [1] and [2] and avoid old sources (some of which might have modern dates as they are reprints). If there are other views with reliable sources they should be included. I've tried to make this slight more tentative than it was. Please don't use sources that don't specifically mention Scythians. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As for my reversion, my edit summary wasn't very good. I've read the article and can't see that it actually back the claim for which it was used as a source, and even if it did, that would not justify the article ignoring anything else. I await quotations from the article showing that it backs the text that was added. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I searched and found the PDF file for that source. Search for the "Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people" and you can find the PDF file (full text). Review it and after that, we should decide for the lead section or other sections/parts of the article if necessary. Zheek (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Scythians were very likely related to the ancestors of modern Eastern Europeans, at least those in the far west. Even in classical sources, these Scythians are described as light-skinned and blond warriors. Other Scythians, especially those in Central Asia, were most likely more of a Mediterranean blend, perhaps also blending into Mongolid groups (in the far east; according to some scholars, i. e. P. Golden, the very first Turks - the Ashina - were an Iranian-speaking Scythian tribe). But that does not make them "Non-Iranian". They were still an Iranian people, very much like modern Ossetians. Genetics and language are not the same. The very first Indo-Europeans most likely resembeled modern Eastern Europeans. All specialist scholars agree that that the Balto-Slavic languages, especially the Lithuanian language, are the most conservative of the modern IE languages. Lithuanian has more similarities with ancient Sanskrit and Avestan than some modern Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages ("Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant" - A. Meillet). Like almost all languages, the IE languages also spread as a political instrument, not as a genetic unity. Modern Iranian peoples are largely of the Mediterranean stock, blending also into Mongolid (Tajiks, Hazara), Negroid (Western Iran) and White European (Ossetians) groups at the borders of the Iranian world - they all inherited the Iranian languages from their ancestors who were not only part of the IE migration, but who were partailly conquered and assimilated by them. Modern Indo-Europeans are much more diverse. Remember that a modern Hazara is as much an Indo-European as modern Europeans and modern African-Americans. Genetics and language are not the same. --Lysozym (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

..and possibly having spoken ancient Iranic languages does not make them Iranian either - the latter is a modern, ethno-nationalist construct which did not exist in its current use in 750 BC. Thanks. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013 - Eurocentrism

Hi there. I've noticed that someone has changed the language Scythians were speaking from 'Iranian' to 'Indo-european'. Whilst I fully agree that Scythians lived in very wide area; their language was an Iranian language, belonging to the Indo-European major language group

I think the term given on this article for their language is too eurocentric in my opinion.

I mean a speaker of the Dutch language doesn't say that his/her language is Indo-European; he/she says it's a Germanic language... Same goes for the French language. Conclusion: It has to change back to 'Iranian language'. I think Indo-European is just a far too big concept and just includes too many peoples who ain't have anything to do in particular with Scythian's and their language.

LouisAragon (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don;t think there is any reason to doubt the corpus of river names and personal names which has been interpreted by the large majority of scholars to have Iranic in character. I never changed that. I was merely adding what ancient DNA studies suggest as to their geographic/ 'biological' origin. People appear to have confused the two elements which represent two different "layers" of what constituted the anceint Scythians, sorry if this has caused confusion Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree with Slovenski Volk. However, putting that information directly in the lead is very misleading. The Scythians proper, meaning the distinctively Iranian nomads known as "Scythians", inhabitted a very large area from what is now China to what is now Bulgaria. Those living in the far west surely were of a blond and blue-eyed "Eastern European" type. But those in the far east and in Central Asia were blending into the Mediterranean and Mongolid types. Simply claiming that "all" Scythians were "of Eastern European type" is wrong, no matter how many DNA-tests are being presented. Just to name one exaple: the Arsacid dynasty that ruled Persia for centuries was Scythian in origin. But they were not blond and blue-eyed and they were not considered "exotic" by the people they ruled. Iran's greatest mythological hero - Rustam - was also a "Scythian", a "Saka" from Sakistan, the "Land of Scyths". --Lysozym (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lysozym. There was not 'one' kind of looks Scythians had, due to the vast area they occupied. However, they were all originally from Iranian stock but due to vast area they occupied (with various looking indigenous peoples there), they blended in. Some looking ultimately Mongolian, some with as you call Nordic looks, and some with Mediterranean looks. The latter, as Lysozym already said, being the rulers of the Parthian empire. Scythians are a hard subject to write a good article about. However, the fact that they are of Iranian stock is, I think, the main assumption we should accept and continue working from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

the problem with both yr views; however, is that the true, historically, textually attested "Scythians" are only those in Black Sea region , as attested by the Greeks. Others in Asia etc are not real Scythians - they were not called scythians, nor did they ever call themselves scythians. They are merely put generically under the label scythian because their material culture is broadly related, ie a part of broad "scytho-siberian complex". This has been more due to scholarly malaise than historical reality, and in anycase are all regionally different. The black sea (real ) scythians had nothing to do with those in Mongolia or Iran; they weren't one "nation" not even cousins. If you want to write about the Sakae or Mongolian nomads, then there are appropriate articles for them. So the added genetic info merely confirms what more recent archaeological evidence shows - that the scythians were natives of southern Russia , Ukraine and northern caucasus Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And you whinge about Eurocentrism ?- the Scythians are European ! It is some G.I.'ist fanatics who keep linking the article to some non-existent link to Southern Asia. The Sakae are a totally different entitiy with their own history. THe only link with the Black Sea Scythians is a recycled ethonym used by the Greeks and Persians because they recycled names for people they perceived to be generally the same - nomads on their northern frontiers. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just because Herodotus named them Scythian, it still doesn't mean they are the only Scythians or whatever you want to call them as he (and later Greek authors), mainly concentrated on the nomads living in modern day Ukraine, not those who may had been related to them, for example in the east Also, just because they lived (those mentioned by the Greeks) at the edge of modern day Europe, it still doesn't mean you can call them European as a whole by any means, if that is what you are implying. Heck, those living in that area didn't even call themselves Scythian. It's just a term given by the Greeks, as the Persians did in the east calling them Sakae, apart from the fact that the Greek-called Scythians and Persian called-Sakae both spoke an Indo-Iranian language and sharing almost the same life style. Those Black Sea-Scythians called themselves 'Skudat' in their own Indo-Iranian language, but so did the Sakae.. Does that give enough reason to call them Iranian peoples? No. I don't agree with everything you stated here, but I kinda like your revision stated down below. Perhaps if more people give a reply to it, we can make an agreement for a good, well-argumented, scientific intro, instead of one that is changing every few days lol... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Greater Iran"

• http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scyth1.htm says "The main Iranian-speaking peoples of the region at that period were the Scyths..."
• http://azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scyth2.htm says "The country called after them was ruled by their principal tribe, the "Royal Scyths" (Her. IV. 20), who were of Iranian stock..."
• http://azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scyth5.htm says "Scythian tribes who lived within the confines of ancient Scythia were not the only Iranians in the North Pontic region."
• http://azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/fouroldiranianethnicnames.pdf says that their ancestors migrated from Southern Russia, but still says that they were Iranian tribes (page 6 of the file). Page 18 of the file says that the very name of the Scythians has an Iranian origin (it disputes one origin, but not an Iranian origin itself, as demonstrated by the next page's "Having established the Iranian prototype..."). Page 23 of the file also says that they were an Iranian speaking people and repeats the Iranian origin of the name Scythian.

Greater Iran "refers to the regions that have significant Iranian cultural influence." I would assume this would include speaking Iranian languages, using an Iranian name to refer to one's people, and being considered an Iranian tribe to be significant cultural influence. While the ancestors of the Scythians may have come from another region, they are defined by Iranian culture. To dismiss this is about as senseless as saying English isn't a Germanic language because the ultimate ancestors of the British came from the Indo-European urheimat, not Germany. The Scythians can be refered to as coming from Greater Iran, just as the English can be refered to as coming from the Germanic world (even if the British existed before the Anglo-Saxon invasions).

Now, if someone wanted to do an unbalanced push for a Thracian origin closer to the Balkans (say, around modern Yugoslavia), they would ignore this information and want it removed. I'm going to assume good faith for now, and believe that this information isn't going to be ignored with accusations of Iranian nationalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomson, your argument is not quite right. Firstly, for you to get a bit of a basic understanding on the issue, may I suggest you read Iranic peoples, Iranian peoples, and Andronovo culture.

So there is, strictly speaking, a difference betwen Iranic peoples (any people, past or present, who spoke an Iranic language), and Iranian peoples - those from the modern country.

Secondly, at no point have I disputed that the Scythians spoke an Iranic language. From the (albeit fragmentary) evidence, their names and the etymology of "Scythian" is indeed from Iranic language. {And nobody's saying that they were Thracian, so here you are attacking a straw man}

However, this does not mean that they came from Iran. This is a geographic qualification. I would have thought that this is a pretty basic concept to grasp.

The Scythian world is not synonymous with the Persian/ Greater Iranian world. The Scythian culture - their animal art, their weapons, their nomadism, their kurgan burials etc, did not coincide with the region of Greater Iran. The latter, as is described here on Wiki, refers to the particular area which somewhat peripheral to the Scythian world. The Scythian world was one of the Eurasian steppe nomads, from the Danube to Mongolia. Greater Iran was the area south of that, the agricultural and sedentery world of the Achaemenid Empire (& its successors), the Assyrian civilisations, etc - an entirely different world outlook and ideology to the Scythians. So did the Scythians come from Greater Iran ? No.

So where did the Scythians forms ? The sources that actually go into detail on the subject, point to, geographically, several areas which influenced the genesis of the SCythian culture. They point to specifically the Volga-Ural region, western SIberia, the Kazakh steppe and southern Siberia. Areas which are not part of Greater Iran.

Andronovo culture- proposed 'genesis of Iranic speakers

File:Greater Iran.gif

"Greater Iran"

Also, when you have gained an introductory knowledge on the genesis of Iranian languages, you'd see that the Iranian languages are supposed to have formed north of what the lands we associate with Greater Iran, and later spread into them

I hope this clarifies your confusion. It is indeed a very intersting topic

Hxseek (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As the author of a number of articles on barbarian peoples in the Greco-Roman world (e.g. Carpi (people), Costoboci, Free Dacians), I would support Hxseek's arguments 100% EraNavigator (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

it is misleading to make a distinction between "Iranic" and "Iranian" peoples, as the linguistic phylum is usually called "Iranian", not "Iranic".

But Hxseek is of course entirely right. "Iranian peoples" is a linguistic term, which includes the Scythians. The Scythians were Iranian tribes who lived in Central Asia and the Pontic steppe, i.e. not in the Iranian plateau. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely agree with that. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

can u tell us what is the "iranian people"?? at first iran is a name that only recently has been adopted and iranian is not a race, iranians are consisted of turks persians arabs kurds and other races. there was not any thing called iran at scythians time, scythians hve been definately a pro- turkic people from altai mountains. if u study history u will see that all turkic tribes were described as whites and blonds, while persians have always been a semitic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.129.55 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Anon, obviously you have NOT studied history, because that is hardly the description of Asian Turks. "Iranians" in this historical context means those tribes that would later become Medes, Parthians, etc. Persians are NOT a semitic people - you must be reading hogwash/crank websites. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

---

if you mean the fake manipulated history by Pahlavi regime's propaganda then no i have no interest in decieving myself with thosel ies, you think if Turkic people appeared from nowhere? scythians were ancestors of Turkic people, they also brought Zorrostrian religion to current Azerbaijan and son worshiping Persians (Mithraism) converted to this religion, a few Scythian proto Turkic words borrowed by Persians does not make you Aryans does it? and try to remember that among various Turkic people there are no as you have induced to yourself east Asian looking people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.110.141 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to answer to these Pan-Turkish trolls filled with inferiority complexes. LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people

Editors (Dougweller, Jeppiz, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, Lysozym, Slovenski Volk, and the others) please write your comments and reasons in this section to reach a consensus. An accepted revision for the lead section based on all cited sources and our reasons. There is no need to have multiple sections/threads for the same issue. Zheek (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Iranian people, or, equivalently, Iranian-speaking people. What is the point of having an article dedicated to the Iranian-speaking peoples if we then pipe "Iranian-speaking people" to Iranian languages?--dab (𒁳) 10:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

dab, I've started this new section because of the recent edits. I know the Iranian peoples (Iranic) is a ethno-linguistic group and includes both Iranian peoples and Iranian-speaking peoples. Verify the recent changes to this article (lead section, Slovenski Volk's edits). What's your opinion about the intro? Recent changes to "Iranian nomadic people" section. I don't think there is a point to change that wikilink from related article to Iranian languages article, or changing Iranian to Iranian-speaking. I accept the current revision by Lysozym. It's based on cited sources (Britannica and others). If there is a new strong theory, we can add it to lead section, but changing the recent sourced text/section OR ignoring them, is not a good idea. Because everything should match with cited sources. Zheek (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's look at your sources:

(i)the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica - so its 100 years old, and people generally stop reading Enc Britt when they graduate from Primary School.

(ii) the other is a dubious quality hungarian publication from 1980, which is rather generalist and not up-to-date with cultural anthropology

(iii) the third is an on line source, which in any case, does not call them an "Iranian peoples" but "speakers of the Proto-Indo-Iranian language" and also noted that moved from Ukraine to the southeast

(iv) this one is a BBC newspaper article ! I feel smarter already !

Now, lets see how some good sources describe them :

Cambridge History of Inner Asia: "Iranian-speaking tribes". Pg 97

The art of the Scythians: [3] The Scythians constituted a subdivision within the larger Scytho-Siberian early nomads inhabiting the Eurasian steppe. ..This broad cultural grouping is believed to have emerged from the Bronze Age cultures that dominated Siberia, Kazakhstan and the Russin steppe region in the late 2nd and early first millenia. ....Although we refer to the Scytho-Siberians as nomads, in fact they practiced semi-nomadism"...

The Scythians propper: "refer to those Scythians who inhabited the Kuban Valley, the Taman and Kerch peninsulas, Crimea, the northern and northeastern littoral of the Black Sea.." But were culturally related to "'Saraumatians in the Volga-Ural, Massagetae in the region east of the Caspian, and Saka who dominated east Kazakhstans".

So they clearly 'differentiated between the Scythians propper (Herodotus' "classic' Scythians and other Scythian-like groups , including the central Asian Sakae (for which a separate article already exists in Wikipedia).

Another source "This occurred concurrently with the advance of Scythian nomad tribes from the steppes east of the Volga River and Caspian Sea to the North Caucasus, including the Kuban region (Machinsky, 1971; Khazanov, 1975, p. 2O3ff; Leskov, 1981, p. 64ff). Upon their arrival to the North Caucasus, the nomadic steppe tribes met a multi-ethnic sedentary population whose culture in the central part of the North Caucasus is described as Kubanskaya and in the western areas as Old Meot. The interaction of the heterogeneous steppe tribes with the local population determined the cultural origins of the Scythian tribes in the Kuban River area and in the central and eastern regions of the North Caucasus.'". (NOMADS OF THE EURASIAN STEPPES IN THE EARLY IRON AGE: a multi hundred page collaborative on Scythian archaeology)

Another: (The Barbarians of Ancient Europe; 2011) "During the 1st millenium BC, from Mongolia in the east to the Carpathians in th west, there evolved economic systems with a stong nomadic element. As a consequence a characteristic material culture evolved...It is assumed that several related populations using some ancient Indo-Iranian language were the bearers of this Scytho-Siberian type".

So in certain editor's haste to call them "Iranian peoples" (perhaps to serve chauvanistic purposes) they miss out the complexity and inherent diversity of the Scythians. The most important aspect of the Scythians was their militarist semi-nomadism and west Eurasian (EE) geographic origins. Yes, they spoke Iranian, but , no, they were't "Iranians" . This is an anacrhonism and historically inaccurate. Its a matter of precision and making the article better quality. They were never called "Iranians", they never called themselves "Iranians", and did not have a common "Iranian" tradition. Rather, they were closer culturally to other steppe nomads in Eurasian - Iranic speaking or not. The automoatic linking of language with 'peoples' 'nations' and collectivity has long been abandoned as a descriptive tool by western Historians.

"Language does not reflect ethnicity, as the assumption that those who spoke, what linguists call Iranian ,must identify themselves as ‘Iranians’, or be a compact group that shares the same identity makes no sense" Rather "Ethnicity is a complex social, political and cultural construction that might be constructed in many different ways,but is most frequently a social construction that reflects the power relationships inside society and its social and political mobilization " (I.e. 'groups like Scythians form on the basis of local social circumstances an not a priori because of speaking a particular language. They were not defined for the "Iranianess") Sian Jones - Archaeology & Ethnicity Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I submit a better lede would be something like "The Scythians were a diverse group of militaristic, semi-nomads who lived in the northern Black Sea and fore-Caucasus regions. They predominantly spoken Iranian languages, and whilst the circumstance surrounding their rise remain nebulous, they appear to have originated in western Eurasia/ eastern Europe. The term "Scythian" is also used by modern scholars to describe various other groups in Eurasia, based on observed cultural similarities, such as the Sauromatians in the Volga-Ural, Sakae in central Asia and other, unnamed groups in the Sayan-Altai region. However, these each had distinct local cultures and independent histories".Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The crucial point is that Iranian as such is an anachronistic term that was never used in antiquity. It is a modern coinage based on Modern (Western) Persian Īrān (plural) < (is descended from) Middle Persian Ērān (plural) < Old Persian Aryānām (genitive plural), a word which is straightforwardly rendered as "Aryans" in English and originally, as a general term, covered all peoples and languages which are now more usually (and rather awkwardly) called Indo-Iranian, though some scholars continue to use the term "Aryan" in this – historically justified – sense, as opposed to the outdated use for "Indo-European" in general. (This is also the origin of the name of the modern country of Iran: "Persia" is pars pro toto, but "Iran" is more inclusive as it also includes the Kurds and other Iranian-speaking groups such as the Kurds and Balochi – though strictly speaking, it does not include groups speaking Turkic, Arabic, Aramaic, Armenian, Caucasian languages etc. –, as well as conveniently signalling to the Germans where the true Aryans live, which could really have been a historical motive for the choice of this traditional name in preference to "Persia" though Reza Shah in 1935.)

We do not know what names the Scythians called themselves – probably names of subgroups, perhaps (at least among some of the subgroups) saka- (although this may be a name related people such as the Persians gave them), although there is a good chance that they called themselves "Aryans", too, considering the tribal name Alani, which must be from Aryānām, too, with the sound change ry > l(l), which is diagnostic for the Scythian-Sarmatian-Ossetic group. As Cheung has pointed out, there is a word allon (designating a legendary people of ancient times) attested in Ossetic which must be a cognate or continuation of this. Hence, we can reconstruct *al(l)ān- "Aryans" for the Scythian-Sarmatian language, from which was descended *allan in the medieval Alanic language (this was apparently also borrowed into Nakh languages in the sense "prince, chieftain, nobleman"), from which Ossetic, with its allon, is descended. (In this context, Cheung has moreover pointed out that iron, the name of one of the main groups of the Ossetians, is from *vīrānām – this designation has been transferred to the Georgians in Armenian, by the way –, not *aryānām, as incorrectly claimed throughout Wikipedia and elsewhere.)

This is nothing but speculation given that there is nothing to testify that Scythians called thmemselves Aryans, and whether we further speculate an Aryan - Alanian connection is not really relevant to the Scythians, (its like saying all Latin speakers are "all the same" and all come from the same place - no matter whether they're French, Spanish, Italian or Puerto Rican ! Im sure Puerto Ricans do not call themselves Italians nor do they follow Italic customs) We should only work , carefully, with what evidence we have. They were called Scythians and according to Herodotus, the called themselves Skoloitoi. No Aryans, no Iranians.

The Scythians had no "Iranian" identity – no ancient people had such an ethnic identity. They spoke languages which we now call Iranian, but they called themselves "Aryan", if anything, as a general term. Therefore, "Iranian-speaking people" and "Iranian people", both modern categories, are equivalent and it makes no sense to attempt an artificial separation between the two. The relevant literature also uses both synonymously, as far as I am aware, consistent with all of this.

Well merely refer to how the above sources word the issue

By the way, that the Scythians spoke Proto-Indo-Iranian is bunk; that is as incorrect as saying that the medieval Romanians/Vlachs spoke Latin.

True. Their Iranian language is not disputed, although minorities suggest Thracian type languages

Neither did the Scythians move from the Ukraine to the southeast, but the other way round, considering the archaeological identification of the early Aryans/Indo-Iranians with the Andronovo horizon. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the archaeological data is subject to interpretation and re-interpretation. A significant portion of the scholarship sees it as a local, Pontic development, others that they came from Volga-URal, others from Sayan-Altai (where the earliest Scythian type kingly barrows were apparently excavated).

And the Andronovo culture has nothing to do with SCythians given that it is 1000 years before the Scythians emerge. In anycase, the Andronovo culture is an off shoot of the Timber Grave (Srubnaya) culture, which originated in the Black Sea.

The point is there were many, different Scythian groups, so to try and pigeon-hole them all into a single place of origin is wholly incorrect. Do people even read the article and sources ? Or do they just like to pontificate blindly ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And the Andronovo culture has nothing to do with SCythians given that is 1000 years before the Scythians emerge. Non sequitur. Anyway, the mainstream hypothesis is roughly: Yamnaya (Ukraine) = Proto-Indo-European → Poltavka (Middle Volga) = Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian → Sintashta (Ural–Tobol steppe) = Proto-Indo-Iranian → Andronovo (Central Asian) = early Indo-Iranian, a dialect continuum including (Pre-)Proto-Iranian → Scythians (a broad swath of territory including the Ukraine), hence the (western) Scythians represent a back-migration in effect. (This may well mean that there was a population speaking dialects perhaps more akin to Balto-Slavic or Balkan Indo-European in the region that the Iranian-speakers ruled over and eventually assimilated. This population would have been – at least linguistically – related, being likewise of Indo-European origin, but different, being non-Indo-Iranian. However, there is no clear attestation of such a pre-Scythian population, there is only a general plausibility as the pattern is so common in history. Actually, we should even expect such an older population layer, unless the region had somehow become emptied before the arrival of the Scythians there. This is a point not usually clearly understood by prehistorians. Population mixing, multilingualism and repeated expansion and assimilation movements are the norm, not exceptional cases. It happens all the time, and must have happened all the time in prehistorical periods, too, even where we have no record or even hint of it.)

Whether this picture is correct is irrelevant anyway. Your arbitrary and biologistic (even subtly racist) distinction between "Iranian" and "Iranian-speaking" is completely OR and completely immaterial, and supported by none of the relevant sources, as none make it. Drop it. The mainstream assumption is that all the Scythian groups were Iranian-speaking, whether this is the historical truth or not; depending on the author, non-Iranian-speaking groups might not even be recognised as Scythian by definition, so the point is moot. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic reconstruction is not "mere speculation", by the way. Anyway, my point is that the Scythians may not have had an Iranian identity, but that is irrelevant as they could not have had one as the concept did not exist. They could not have called themselves Iranians, the term being a modern coinage. Similarly, calling the ancient Goths Germanic or the ancient Gauls or Britons Celts, or the medieval Prussians Balts is all modern categories based on linguistic research and terminology coined in the 19th or 20th century. That doesn't make it wrong or historically nonsense. It's just a shorthand. "Iranians" is just a shorter way to say "Iranian-speaking people", or "people speaking some Iranian language/dialect/variety/idiom, i. e., some language/dialect/variety/idiom descended from Proto-Iranian, as their native, i. e., first language" if you will. You'll agree that's terribly complicated, verbose and redundant, won't you?

I know many archaeologists don't get that, but that's the way it simply is. "Celts" and "Celtic" has no meaning outside of linguistics, as the term originated in linguistics and was subsequently applied in archaeological research with reference to the linguistic meaning. Its archaeological meaning is derived from and thus wholly dependent on the linguistic meaning. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Florian you do make some good points, however, also other parts of your arguements lack a deeper understanding of cultural anthropology. So I will respond to yur points sequentially.

And the Andronovo culture has nothing to do with Scythians given that is 1000 years before the Scythians emerge. Non sequitur. Anyway, the mainstream hypothesis is roughly: Yamnaya (Ukraine) = Proto-Indo-European → Poltavka ...

What is your point ? If you want to labour the point, please make some direct and tangible proposals, citing direct references. Yes migrations were a reality in prehistory as they are today. But people did not migrate as large-scale homogeneous 'nations'. Only small groups migrated, and these were goal-directed, within pre-defined ecological niches and well-trodden routes, and still relatively small distance (ie from one side of the Carpathians to the other; or from Volga to the Don). There were no large scale migrations of thousands of people from Iran to Ukraine. Not only is this devoid of any archaeolgical proof, but is simply logistically unfeasible.

Your arbitrary and biologistic (even subtly racist) distinction between "Iranian" and "Iranian-speaking" is completely OR and completely immaterial, and supported by none of the relevant sources

Incorrect. The irony is, underneath your ad hominem and huff and puff of an offended, well meaning editor , it is ironically you who are perpetuating the 19th century racialist idea of linguistic groups = archaeological groups = ethnic groups mentioned in texts. In advocating that speaking an anceint form of Iranian makes one an "Iranian' , who are uknowingly following the HErderian concept that language is the quintessential aspect of ethnicity, a view that few (if any) western, post 1950 specialists maintain. As you correctly point out in your later addition, the Goths were not "Germans" although they certainly did speak Germanic (as Robert E Burns and Walter Goffart have pointed out).

Anyway, my point is that the Scythians may not have had an Iranian identity, but that is irrelevant as they could not have had one as the concept did not exist

Incorrect. The Scythians certainly did have an identity, it was just not a "national" identity, nor was it "Iranian", nor "Aryan". What it was we cannot definitively say, because of the biased and one-sided nature of texts, and the limits of archaeological interpretation. However, that they shared certain burials forms and elite swords - which are "emblemic styles" expressing an elite identity and perhaps a greater "Scythian" ethnicity, for lack of a better term.

Archaeological research with reference to the linguistic meaning. Its archaeological meaning is derived from and thus wholly dependent on the linguistic meaning

What makes languages the most important factor in idenity ? Nothing. Merely an outdated concept from early 20th century (see above) tied to the rise of ethno-national nationalism which sought to created territorially bond, ethnically homogeneous and monolignual nation-states. Was the most important aspect in defining Scythians their Iranian language? NO. In fact , in ancient times, language was far less important, and people were more multilingual. A multitude of languages were spoken, only that Iranian was the most widespread and prestigious. Does leaving their description simply as "Iranian" capture their mode of organizations ? NO Does it describe specifically the geographic origin ? NO Was there in fact any homogeneous culture, religion or anthropological type shared by Iranian speakers ? NO

So is leaving the lede simply as "Scythians = Iranian nomads" an apt way of characterizing the totality of what we know about the Scythians ? IMHO - No.

But you don't have to take my opinion for it. The above cited texts illustrate how current specialists described the Scythians. Yet you offered no direct responce to them, nor any sources which negate what they suggest. And the sources which you claim to "unanimously' claim to unequivocally equate the Scythians as "Iranians" were on-line Encyclopedias like MS Encarta and pre-1980s , non -verifiable texts. Hardly inspiring. Did you even look at the sources you claim to have knowledge of ?

As per my revision: Scythians were diverse groups inhabiting south-eastern Europe and central Asia[1] who speak ancient Iranian languages as a koine. Their historical appearance coincided with the rise of equestrian semi-nomadism from the Carpathian Mountains of Europe to Mongolia in the Far East during the first millenium BC.[3][4] Whilst local cultural distinctions were maintained, a broadly similar material culture (sometimes referred to as the "Scytho-Siberian complex") evolved over this vast area

Does it unnecessarily complicate the article ? is it racialist ? I think the answer is a resolute no. Does it describe what they were about in a fuller , more concrete , less chauvanistic manner. I vote for yes. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd hope you read the article better and form more careful criticisms in the future

I make no apology for introducing more esoteric, specialised, tertiary level concepts to the article. Because itsn't improving articles what we're meant to do ? Rather than being controversial, my suggestion actually moves beyond the notions of petty chauvanism by understanding the very nature of ethnicity in ancient times. As a final analogy, mark the lede in the Antes article I wrote most of The Antes or Antae were a medieval European tribal union who lived north of the lower Danube and the Black Sea (on the territory of modern Moldova and Ukraine) in the 6th and 7th century AD and who are associated with the archaeological Penkovka culture. They are generally viewed as an early Slavic-speaking group, although that they also spoke Iranic or East Germanic is also a postulate. So does this also make me anti-Slavic by not outright stating that "The Antes were Slavs" ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition of "Iranian people", in historical context, is "speaking an Iranian language". Hence, the Scythians were an Iranian people by definition. There is no need to discuss this simple fact. Whether the Scythians or any other tribes back then called themselves "Iranian" or not is irrelevant, because "Iranian" is a modern ethno-linguistic concept defined by scholars and scholarship. I will not take part in this useless discussion. Here is a good reference article to start with: [4]. Have fun reading. Slovenski Volk had a point at the vey beginning. But he has totally drifted away, trying to "racialize" this article. "Scythians" were not a race, they were defined by their way of life and by the language(s) they spoke. The Scythians in the far west may have been blond and blue-eyed, but those in the east and south ("Indo-Scythians") were not. And there is no doubt that - much like the later Turks and Mongols - the expansion of the Scythians (meaning their political dominance, their languages, and their way of life) was from east to west, and not the other way around. --Lysozym (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

From your "Encyclopedia Iranica", the Central Asian origin of SCythians is proven by similarities in clothing, ect. Well it is hardly surprising there are similarities given that trade and exchange has been a constant reality in Eurasia since the Bronze Age to modern times, and is furthermore not surprising there should be diffusion of styles from ancient Persia given its political and cultural greatness. Does that "prove" they 'came from' central Asia - NO. And these exchanges were bidirectional - again as they always have been. Objects of Black Sea origin were, in turn, found in the kazakh region , just north of Persia (The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages). Any honest and cautious scholar recognizes these facts. The only "no doubt" of opinion lies in your (apparently biased?) mind, and not in the concensus of specialist literature, although, yes, most scholars have traditionally supported an eastern scenario - which is adequately represented in the archaeology section, is it not ?

Now if you believe my initial writing that they "appear to have been of eastern European origin" is racializing, then Im afraid your twisting reality, or are simply a little dim. Eastern Europe is a region of the world (try google.com), not an ethnic, racial, or national grouping. Anyhow, this is shown by the ancient DNA evidence by one of the leading authorities in the field. It realy isn;t my fault if you dont' like that. The DNA evidence clearly shows that a whole range of Scythians, from Bronze Age times to Late Iron age , and from the Black Sea to southern Siberia, appear to have spread from eastern Europe to Asia (at least from a male perspective). This needn't offend you, and is a legitimate evidential source. Further work (currently underway0 wil further clarify this - ie whether the R1a haplogrops in Scythians beling to "European" M458 or Z280, or 'south Asian' (India, Iranian) Z93 markers, or perhaps both (my suspicion).

Anyhow, as it stands I think the lede reads well know, and there are plenty of links to relevant East Iranian languages, Scythians lagauges, Saka and Central Asia your heart might desire. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As Lysozym already mentioned, their expansion whether politically or their way of life, was from east to west. You're sticking valiantly to the idea that they moved from west to east but that's just false. I don't care either if they called themselves Scythian or not. They spoke an Iranian language. The definition of "Iranian people", in historical context, is "speaking an Iranian language". Hence, the Scythians were an Iranian people by definition. Whether they called themselves Scythian or Iranian is not relevant. Being Iranian is a modern ethno-linguistic term. So if you want to stick with more 'reliable sources' as you call it, like Herodotus, rather than modern academic scholarship, that's your choice. I think you are indeed trying to racialize this article. The Scythians are defined by their way of life and language they spoke, not by whether some of them were blonde and blue eyed as alot of them (scythians) were not. The current revision is not good and I think most people will agree with that. LouisAragon (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you're incorrect , without knowing it.

(1) Nowhere did I add anything on what the Scythians looked like (are you hallucinating?) , I merely stated verifieble genetic evidence that it appears to suggest a western Eurasian profile than southern or central asia. So strike 1 for you

(2) Nor did I say the went from west-to-east - but rather that there were many different Scythian groups, and the ones in the Black Sea arose 'indigenously' in the Black Sea, just as the Sakae arose in central Asia/ northern Iran. Strike 2

(3) I did not say Herodotus is a reliable source. Where'd you get that ? He's called the "father of lies" for a reason. Strike 3

(4) With regard to language and ethnicity: I was making the very real and appropriate distinction between language and ethnos. it is not my fault you are unaware of this - maybe you should try reading any Anglo-American work on cultural anthropology and ethnicity in archaeology written in the past 4 decades. I understand this might be a difficult concept to grasp, and I know that is not what your understanding based on whatever meager sources you normally read is; however improving the article is what we're meant to do isnt it ? Your ignorance on the matter is not a valid reason to revert.

So please, go educate yourself, then discuss (and I don't mean this in a rude way), because you have provided absolutely nothing to disprove what I have written - and you cannot and will not. Like I have reiterated numerous times, this is nothing against Iranians, out of the question (nothing but fondness, in fact), however It is our duty to continually improve. .

(5) Finally, you don't know that they all spoke Iranian. In fact, we know that the eastern most Scythians almost certainly did not. There were "Mongolian" Scythians, "Thracian" Scythians and "Siberian" Scythians, etc Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No one agrees with your intro! Don't you get it?! I think that is what you don't understand. Heck this is a talk page right? That means we are ought to talk here and reach an agreement regarding the intro (for example). No one even bothers writing a comment anymore as you are acting like some kind of crybaby that ain't getting his candy. You are sticking to a theory that no one agrees with at the moment. If more people will agree, we are more than happy to see your revision in the intro, as we are trying to improve articles, right? :-). But as long as you are the only one agreeing with it, it's kinda strange to change it. Looks a bit undemocratic, IMO. So unless Wikipedia is yours (wich I think is not), you should stop changing it each time like some nerd (nothing personal), unless more people agree with you, wich they currently don't. If more people will accept it, I am more than happy to see your revision in the intro. At least, that's how I see it. Regards. LouisAragon (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to the last stable version, before it was changed by Slovenski Volk. --Lysozym (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The consensus is apparent (not pointing out the origins of editors involved). Just reiterating my changes were on good faith, perhaps concepts are too advanced for current readership and the subject is too close to some people's heart. But i accept Slovenski Volk (talk)

The lede (and in particular, the first sentence - as it stands - is potentially misleading to the casual reader who may not understand the term 'Iranian' in any context other than the modern one. Without clicking into the link, the context is not clear to non-experts - the term, as stated, implies a genetic/racial link to modern Iran. It should be made clearer that the term is ethno-linguistic. Gabhala (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Perhaps nomadic Iranic peoples could do the trick. LouisAragon (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the lede (somewhat clumsily), but I think it looks better now, and still is tagged for discussion. Four 'dubious' tags on the first sentence is too much, and would only confuse the casual reader, potentially leading them to disregard the entire article. Gabhala (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Iranic-speaking is probably better. Thanks for the input. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes, particularly to the number of brothers

Imorthodox23 has been making changes to this article without explanation, involving omitting one of the three brothers and changing which one is successful. What is the reasoning behind these changes? They do not correspond to the sources. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DAB note

I have added a disambiguation sentence at the top to aid those who, like me, alight on this page looking for the stratigraphical term 'Scythian', a subdivision of the Triassic Period. Though the name is now formally obsolete, it occurs widely in the scientific literature. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bible "reference"

"the Bible includes a single reference to Scythians in Colossians 3:11, immediately after mentioning barbarian, possibly as an extreme example of a barbarian.[18]"

Bible can not be considered as scientific source of information simply because it a religious & ideological book; 1. "Oldest" Testament was even written in 11th century AD and is called Pentateuch(there are no older accounts about Scythians in the Bible).

Yes. the original Greek uses the word "Scythian". Whoever first committed Colossians to paper probably knew of Scythians only as a far-flung barbaric people. At any rate, I doubt that its of much value here. Plenty of other uses of the word in post-classic culture. Kortoso (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing it to 'Iranian people'

Hi,

I just found out that for some reasons, Scythians are 'degenerated' into Iranian-speaking people, while they have been called 'Iranian people' for years on this same Wikipedia page. I can't see the reason for this change, so I am planning to change it. Not before I'll explain why I am going to change this etiquette. Scythians were not only linguistically Iranian (or Iranic), but also religiously and to some extent socially. We can find common religious elements in Scythian religion and religions of other Iranian people, like the Persians, who practiced Zoroastrianism at that time, and before that practiced a proto-Iranian religion. The Persian (or Median) religious caste of priests called the 'Magi' is almost comparable to the Scythian religious caste of priests called the 'Enarei'. The same counts for the practice of horse sacrifice, nomadic life and mythology. So the claim that Scythians are only linguistically Iranian is not only incorrect, but also misleading, as there are many cultural similarities between the various Iranian groups of that time. The role of women in military warfare is, for instance, another example. So if we would agree with the notion of people being a body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life, its quite easy to defend this change. I am going to collect various academic sources to substantiate and emphasize this greater linguistic, cultural and religious bond between the people called Iranian, and then I am going to edit this page. If anyone has suggestions, or questions, feel free to post them.

With regards,

Apollonia (I am not logged in right now).

Err, no, Scythians were not Zoroastrian, and they had no "bond" with Persians. This is not a forum for you to discharge your ill-informed opinions.The academic texts do not describe SCythians in terms of Zoroastrianism, but Animal Style art and shamanistic type cultures of the Siberian regions. Of course there was some PErsian influence, but then again, that was felt all the way to Thrace, GReece and Macedonia. So what ? 12:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ordžonikidze or Yenakievo?

On the picture about Gold Scythian pectoral we see text about pectoral: ″Gold Scythian pectoral, or neckpiece, from a royal kurgan in Tolstaya Mogila, Ordžonikidze, Ukraine, dated to the second half of the 4th century BC. ...″ But on the name of Ukrainian city Ordžonikidze, in Dnepropetrovsk region - ″Gold Scythian pectoral, or neckpiece, from a royal kurgan in Tolstaya Mogila, Ordžonikidze, Ukraine, ...″, where really was fouded the Gold Scythian pectoral, we can see a link to another Ukrainian city - Yenakievo, in Donetsk region, where in the 9th of July 1950 was born the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, but not Scythian pectoral. It is a very bad mistake. Please, pay attention and take action. --Cambronn (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Biblical Reference to Scythian

Addressing the comment that was made in the 3rd paragraph under the Origins heading Literary Evidence of interpretation of the Biblical quote "The Bible included a single reference to Scythians in Colossians 3:11. after immediately mentioning barbarian,possibly as an extreme example of barbarian." The Bible, according to the oldest and most scripturally reliable version that of the King James, says:"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:but Christ is all, and in all."( Bible Gateway:Holy Bible. King James Version. New Testament:Colossians 3:11.) Referring to the manner in which the above verse was written,noting that both of the words Barbarian and Scythian were capitalized and a comma placed in between them,would place them on equal ground as two distinct groups rather than one being a subgroup of the other or a further explanation of the other. This is also in sync with the quote above this reference stating that["They were not a specific people" but rather a variety of peoples "referred to at variety of times in history, and in several places, none of which was there original homeland."](K.Kristiansen.Europe Before History, Cambridge University Press.1998. p.193.)Blessinggiver2u (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ishpaki = Ishvaku ??

Scythian myth of being led by Ishpaki corresponds very well with the Hindu puranas which states all Kshatriyas to be descendant from Ishvaku. Interesting coincidence? And the timeline is interesting as well. Right before the rise of the Indian Vedic period is when Ishvaku is supposed to have started his dynasty to which essentially all major characters of the Mahabharata and Ramayana can be traced to (way prior to the historically known Indo-Scythian kingdoms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.224.239 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice read -- what about Ishvaku and Ishkuzi? More study needed into the links of the scythians and India certainly provide a more accurate picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.189.175 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Israelite or Slavic connection to Scythians

Sorry Ian.thomson, I didn't read your edit summary before re-submitting my edit. The claim in the original source is not valid. Yes, it is in that book. But no, it's not correct. It is not cited within that book. It defies common sense. No one in their right mind would claim from either genetic evidence or from the Bible's genealogy (which is what the Christians during the Middle Ages actually believed in) that there was ANY connection between Israelites (Semitic people) and Scythians (Aryan/Indo-Aryan/Indo-European). If you want to re-insert that, then appropriate care should be taken to remind people they are reading under a heading which says "CLAIMS of descent", and that this is a CLAIM, in contrast to modern evidence and most other claims, though the historical nature of this claim is in doubt because as I said, it defies common knowledge and belief. One example of a long-shot "CLAIM" which could be mentioned is the Irish claim to Scythian descent. That is somewhat plausible through their own legends and what limited evidence is available. There is NO link whatsoever for these "Lost tribes of Israel" theories. Every race seems to be attributed to one of these "lost tribes" at one time or another and it's about as valid of a claim as UFOs or the Illuminati. It has no business being on a Wikipedia page unless it's one talking about fantastic conspiracy theories. In short, that's not a claim. That's just a fantasy. I don't know how this hasn't been pointed out yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.16.130 (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY agree with the user below me regarding "Why everyone wants to have Scythian ancestors". The only descendants of Scythians that are historically proven are A) CENTRAL ASIANS, because they live in the Scythians' home region (yes there are many Turkic people in Central Asia who were the ones who displaced Scythian but it stands to reason from the example of human history that Scythians wound up contributing a genetic component to their heirs... an entire people do not just disappear from a region) B) INDO-SCYTHIANS, which is the last historically documented civilization of Scythians who were forced out of Central Asia and established kingdoms in the Northern part of the Indian subcontinent. There is most likely definitely a link between Slavic populations of Asia and Scythians from Central Asia, but there's likely a link between Scythians and MANY populations. The two most concrete links are the ones I just mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.16.130 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia does allow fringe theories that are notable and sourced, regardless of how stupid they are, and the article does not say anything about John Wilson being correct, just that Wilson made the claim. I understand that it is a fantasy, but it is a sourced piece of information. Wikipedia is not about what is true, but what is just a summary of different sources. EDIT: Also, the heading for the section is already "Descent claims". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw your newest edit which qualifies that claim as being of loose basis. That's acceptable, thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.16.130 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god people from the Ukraine and adjoining areas might be descendants from scythians? That's crazy like saying modern Egyptians could descend from ancient one's, Greeks from the ancient Greeks. Nobody will ever admit a link between the two as it would debunk the theory of the slavic origin's in the mysterious swamp of narnia? About the Israel link/similarities -- There where no lost tribe's if you want to get into the origins of the bible look into The Vedas,Zoroastrian, Greek and Babylonian text's -- a good start is The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus's Histories As Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible. Nothing but the fact's ma'am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.189.175 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Saka vs caucasians

There has to be a clear distinction made between the scythians , to the east of the caspian sea and the inhabitants of caucasia.

92.42.52.23 (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Goshtasp

Well, yes and no. The Alans, the last descendants of the Iranian Skyths, took refuge from the Huns in the Caucasus. Half speak "Iron" (Aryan) and half Digger, a Caucasian language. It is a complex ethnic situation enduring over thousands of years and thousands of miles rather than a local circumstance. It is in fact not going to be an easy article even if we can find out the facts and agree on them.Dave (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Digger(?)(Digoron) is not Caucasian language. It was spoken by western Alans. And it is considered having minimum caucasian borrowed words.--Bouron (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we know what language they spoke? History book's are really out of date. Clear example is Abaev version of the word Alani = aryana? Why make such a giant leap say the word 'deer' in Russian and bingo you have Alan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.70.214 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Genetics of Scythian People

Dear editors,

While researching on the genetics of Scythian people, I have just found the following article. Quoted paragraphs from the article:

First of all, Klyosov asserts and explains that R1a is of “Proto-Indo-Europeans”, and the R1b is of “Pra-Türks”.

Also, Scythian people were both Türkic-lingual (nomadics), and Iranian-lingual (farmers) in consideration of genetics and archeological studies.

Quoted from the article: "In conclusion, a brief pause on the Scythian issue. From the above, it is clear that the Scythian people - in fact, a collective term, were both Türkic-lingual, and “Iranian-lingual”, or more accurately, Aryan-lingual. They were both nomadic pastoralists (which is typical for the Türkic tribes), and farmers (which is often typical for the Aryans). They had both haplogroups R1a1, and R1b1. They lived in felt yurts (many of those who lived in them, were carriers of R1b1), and also in stationary buildings (many of those were farmers, R1a1). Unfortunately, neither the specialists in the Indo-European languages, nor the Turkists are willing to recognize the duality (at least) of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and many other steppe (and not only steppe) tribes of the 1st millennium BC and the beginning of our era. Moreover, these tribes definitely had other haplogroups, in the first place G, Q, N, C. The carriers of the haplogroup G in the Scythian and Sarmatian times likely were “Iranian-speaking”, and lived in the Iranian Plateau much earlier then the Aryan times. Then, of course, they were not “Indo-Europeans”. The carriers of the Q, N, and C were most likely Türkic-lingual.

The sooner both sides, the “Iranists” and “Türkists” recognize these facts, or at this point only considerations, the sooner linguistics would be enriched by new findings and discoveries. Especially, if in addition they would adopt in their research arsenal the DNA genealogy. I dare to hope that this article would facilitate that."

Overview of Türkic genetics, Anatole A. Klyosov, The principal mystery in the relationship of Indo-European and Türkic linguistic families, and an attempt to solve it with the help of DNA genealogy: reflections of a non-linguist, Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58 Read Online: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm

As the issue is still controversial among the Iranists and Turkists, should we remove, change or update the following expression "an ethnolinguistic group of ancient Iranian nomadic tribal cultures" in the article? Or you can alternatively use this and similar articles as the resource to focus on the genetics of Scythians under the genetics chapter.

So, what do you think about the issue? --- 78.170.96.70 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Journal of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy sounds impressive until you find it is self-published by Lulu.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah I thinks it's pretty clear on DNA most scythian male's come back positive for R1a. Remember if it has gene's of a duck it's a duck why make leaps?

One of the etymology sections

"The Scythians known to Herodotus (Hist. 4.6) called themselves Skolotoi. The Greek word Skythēs probably reflects an older rendering of the very same name, *Skuδa- (whereas Herodotus transcribes the unfamiliar [ð] sound with Λ; -toi represents the North-east Iranian plural ending -ta). The word originally means "shooter, archer", and it ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *skeud- "to shoot, throw" (compare English shoot, German Schütze)."

This is probably what was originally there. However, there is no ref on it, and note that it contains editorial guesswork. Someone later added a ref for this topic to the top and I made sure the text fit the ref. So, it is already covered and referenced by the top etymolgy section. No need to have editorial guesswork when we have the referenced text; it would just be confusing.Dave (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

" The word originally means "shooter, archer", and it ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *skeud- "to shoot, throw" (compare English shoot, German Schütze)."" If "skeud" is "Indo-European"(artificially invented) word for "shooting", then Slavic language is not "Indo-European" at all (I am just checking and comparing Slavic words with so called "Indo-European" "list"; and they don't match at all... ) Scynthians WERE old Slavs (R1a1 haplogroup); I've visited so called "Scynthian Kamyana Mohila" by myself and noticed "pagan" sculptures of goddess Makosh. If "Herodotus" claimed that Scynthians called them selves "Skolotoi" (oi is another greek perversion of "Scynthian" word "Sokoloti" or originally "SKOLOTI"- "FALCON", which is also Russian, Ukrainian, etc "Sokol" today.

Nice read -- Skolotoi it sound's like золотой 'golden' in Russian to me? Problem is Σκύθες is a greek word for them - they mostly they seem to be called saka or zaka from India to Russia ie. Saka in the mahabharata, Saka-stan Iran and zaka-zanka in Belarus.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.189.175 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links section

I think current external links section needs clean-up. Are all of those links really necessary? For example links like this one:

• Scythia Group (a Yahoo group for discussing the Scythians)

Also, if some of those links are used as citations, why to repeat them in external links section? Any point? --Zyma (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, well spotted, feel free to reduce them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

Please remove sock puppet's edits. Both editors are socks of same user. Unreliable and falsified content:

Unreliable content

• edit1, main problematic edit

Uploaded image is problematic

• edit2
• edit3
• edit4

188.158.79.50 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: Noticed WikiProject Iran members. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Done —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Clothing

This section seems contradictory: "Scythian women dressed in much the same fashion as men." is followed in the next paragraph by "Men and women dressed differently." I suppose the reality is more complicated, but juxtaposing contradictions isn't good exposition. If I knew the subject matter better, I'd reorganize it along the lines of:

Men and warrior women dressed like...

Non-warrior women dressed...

, but I'm not sure that's the right division and also unclear on what determined the difference between warrior and non-warrior women.--Wcoole (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discover Magazine Says Scythians Are Slavs, And/Or Mongols, Not Iranians

We're not a forum for this kind of nationalist conspiracy theory bollocks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/25-frozen-siberian-mummies-reveal-a-lost-civilization < They claim that Slavic+Monglic nomads of the steppe, FAR away from Greece are the groups that Greeks called Scythians. Which should we believe? I wouldn't believe that people long from Greece who had no contact with them, or knowledge of them, or relation to them were Scythians... But, then I saw a gold thing on this wikipedia page which clearly depicts Slavic or Mongolic men with bows. So, I don't know. Iran is close to Greece, so makes sense... But, if art depictions of Scythians look like Steppes natives instead of like the natives of Iran, it wasn't Iranians. Clearly, who they were is under dispute, and wikipedia should thus either inform about it being disputed, or drop the claim that they know for fact who the Scythians were, because they apparently don't know despite different 'experts' are apparently acting like they know with certainty despite their lack of properly looking into it, and properly comparing to make sure they have higher odds of being right, and instead of being more open to that who they suspect they were might not be correct. It's obviously not a proven fact that Scythians were Iranians, and all such claims must be removed from this wikipedia article. Isn't it bad enough that wikipedia has false information propaganda on it that says the Persians are the Iranians? (Iranians are not Persians. And, 'official' 'experts' say they are not Scythians, so why did someone let Wikipedia get hit with this propaganda to steal that history for Iran? Iranians, and other Middle Easterners also try to rewrite history on wikipedia to say that they're the natives of Mongolians & Slavic lands, when their presence in Asia is explicitly from invasion & conquest, and they are not Asian at all. The Turkic race that most Middle Easterner folks are is EUROPEAN. There's a reason why Turkey is called Turkey, and why it neighbors another country with "Turk" in it's name. Wikipedia needs to stomp out this NAZI propaganda lying about history to bolster Muslim conquest goals to take over Asia. They are genocidal, invaders, and their lies have no place on Wikipedia. This is not a tool for the Muslim Empire, it is a tool made by Americans that branches to cover a bunch of languages, and be more international... Yet, it's still an American website, bound to American laws, and should not be letting highly inappropriate, and harmful NAZI propaganda of a foreign empire take over parts of it's site.) --174.19.181.117 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not concerned with beliefs. It merely summarizes mainstream academic sources without addition or alteration, giving the weight given by those publications, without creating any false balance. Also, I'm not seeing the word "Slav" anywhere in the Discover magazine article, nor anything saying they weren't Iranian or mostly so. The sources currently cited in our article do say "Iranian," and they meet our reliable sourcing guidelines, so that's enough to include such information and undo any attempts to remove it (barring higher-quality and higher-quantity sources overshadowing such information). Also, your political race-baiting and Nazi accusations are shameful and are a sign YOU have no place here. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Siberia. Look at a map. Iran is not near Siberia. And, It's true. The "Scythians" were clearly Slavs, Mongols, or a mixture thereof. The artifacts on this Wikipedia article match the Siberian mummies, and they show blatantly Slavic, and/or Mongolian men. Clearly, it is not based off a real summary of what academic sources say when Discover Magazine is in direct contrast to the claim that Scythians are Iranians, and when Scythians factually match the Siberian (mostly likely Slavic) group in question. The tattoos match the artifacts, and artifacts depicting people match the Slavic & Mongolic races native to the Steppe in looks. You are trying to steal my ancestors' history for invaders of our homelands, and this is not acceptable. --174.19.181.117 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Oh, so, it's okay for you to put racist, NAZI propaganda that's lies in favor of Iranians up on the article, or for someone else to do it... But, if I dare to call it what it is I'm a racist who is race-baiting? No. Get a reality check. You can't use wikipedia for propaganda. It is here to cover facts, not to push the political agendas of Iran. You can't claim my stating indestputable facts in defense against racists attacking possibly MY heritage for possibly MY people's native land is me being the racist. You're not remotely having anything in this, while that is probably MY ancestors (otherwise a neighboring, more closely related group to my ancestors! Which is still too close to consider okay to be attacked like this!) you're stealing the heritage of for Iranians! I have every right to care about this, you racist piece of dung! Until it is proven which group was the Scythians, you can't say it was one, or the other! And, it looks very clearly to not have been Iranians! Just like they also aren't Persian! I am sick of this propaganda for Muslims all over wikipedia! They are after my heritage! They are after my ancestors' lands! And, they want me dead, or else to be a slave! And, you want me to pretend I'm okay with that? Go fuck yourself. You racist assholes can take your race-baiting lies you push every time victims of racism fight it, and shove it up your asses. You fucking NAZI. --174.19.181.117 (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Iranian peoples extend beyond and before the modern state of Iran. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Tree of Life symbol Balkans - Serbs

Some interesting symbols and artifacts from the Balkans and around the world. It seems that Scythians were very huge ethnic group in the past, and most of them today are Slavs and Germans (Scandinavians too). https://www.scribd.com/doc/43082766/God-s-Firesteel-The-Tree-of-Life

There are some old epic songs of Serbs which were kept in vocal form and passed from generation to generation (Serbs were famous as bards of the Balkans in the past) about their return to India which was disastrous. Also, other investigators can pay attention to Serbian Slava, specific custom which was kept for centuries and succesfully implemented into Christianity. Also pay attention to word KOLOVRAT, there is ancient Roman town and graveyard with such a name and it was a SYMBOL 12 Scythes which reminds on the Sun.

There is a story that Serbs came from the Black sea to the Balkans, some connects them with Scytho-Sarmatian tribe Serboi, others with Sarbans (some Iranian tribe), Serbs had belief that they were always on the Balkans and that they migrated in 4 different sides of the world from there. SO, put the Serbian cross in present day Bulgaria and Crimea in the Black sea and you'll see where! To the North-East those were Proto-Turks and proto-Bulgars; to the South-East - Persians/Iranians, to the North-West - Western Slavs and Germans/Scandinavians and to the South-West present day Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, Croats, Slovenians, Hungarians.

Of course these are just some legends, but for those who investigates can be a nice starting point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.71.220 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Clothing

According to Herodotus, Scythian costume consisted of padded and quilted leather trousers tucked into boots, and open tunics. They rode with no stirrups or saddles, just saddle-cloths. Herodotus reports that Scythians used cannabis, both to weave their clothing and to cleanse themselves in its smoke (Hist. 4.73–75); archaeology has confirmed the use of cannabis in funeral rituals. Pazyryk findings give the most number of almost fully preserved garments and clothing worn by the Scythian/Saka peoples. Ancient Persian bas-relief – Apadana or Behistun inscription, ancient Greek pottery, archaeological findings from Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, China et al. give visual representations of these garments. Clothing was sewn from plain-weave wool, hemp cloth, silk fabrics, felt, leather and hides.

Scythian women dressed in much the same fashion as men. A Pazyryk burial, discovered in the 1990s, contained the skeletons of a man and a woman, each with weapons, arrowheads, and an axe. Men and warrior women wore tunics, often embroidered, adorned with felt applique work, or metal (golden) plaques. Persepolis Apadana serves a good starting point to observe tunics of the Sakas. They appear to be a sewn, long sleeve garment that extended to the knees and belted with a belt. Warrior belts were made of leather, often with gold or other metal adornments and had many attached leather thongs for fastening of the owner's gorytos, sword, whet stone, whip etc. Belts were fastened with metal or horn belt-hooks, leather thongs and metal (often golden) or horn belt-plates. Based on numerous archeological findings in Ukraine, southern Russian and Kazakhstan men and warrior women wore long sleeve tunics that were always belted, often with richly ornamented belts. The Kazakhstan Saka (e.g. Issyk Golden Man/Maiden) wore shorter tunics and more close fitting tunics than the Pontic steppe Scythians. Some Pazyryk culture Saka wore short belted tunic with a lapel on a right side, upright collar, 'puffed' sleeves narrowing at a wrist and bound in narrow cuffs of a color different from the rest of the tunic.

Men and women wore coats, e.g. Pazyryk Saka had many varieties, from fur to felt. They could have worn a riding coat that later was known as a Median robe or Kantus. Long sleeved, and open, it seems that on the Persepolis Apadana Skudrian delegation is perhaps shown wearing such coat. The Pazyryk felt tapestry shows a rider wearing a billowing cloak. Men and women wore long trousers also, often adorned with metal plaques and often embroidered or adorned with felt appliqués; trousers could have been wider or tight fitting depending on the area. Materials used depended on the wealth, climate and necessity.

There where however some differences between men and women outfit.

Herodotus says Sakas (man) had "high caps tapering to a point and stiffly upright and ... wore trousers." Asian Saka headgear is clearly visible on the Persepolis Apadana again staircase bas-relief – high pointed hat with flaps over ears and the nape of the neck.[45] From China to the Danube delta, men seemed to have worn a variety of soft headgear – either conical like the one described by Herodotus, or rounder, more like a Phrygian cap. Based on the Pazyryk findings (can be seen also in the south Siberian, Uralic and Kazakhstan rock drawings) some caps were topped with zoomorphic wooden sculptures firmly attached to a cap and forming an integral part of the headgear, similar to the surviving nomad helmets from northern China. Women wore shawls, often richly decorated with metal (golden) plaques. Scythian women wore sometimes long, loose robes, ornamented with metal plaques (gold). Warriors, men and women, wore variations of long and shorter boots, wool-leather-felt gaiter-boots and moccasin-like shoes. They were either of a laced or simple slip on type. But women wore also soft shoes with metal (gold) plaques. Women wore a variety of different headdresses, some conical in shape others more like flattened cylinders, also adorned with metal (golden) plaques.

85.233.202.40 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

The text about clohing has several informations in contradiction. I propose this text

According to Herodotus, Scythian costume consisted of padded and quilted leather trousers tucked into boots, and open tunics. They rode with no stirrups or saddles, just saddle-cloths. Herodotus reports that Scythians used cannabis, both to weave their clothing and to cleanse themselves in its smoke (Hist. 4.73–75); archaeology has confirmed the use of cannabis in funeral rituals. Pazyryk findings give the most number of almost fully preserved garments and clothing worn by the Scythian/Saka peoples. Ancient Persian bas-relief – Apadana or Behistun inscription, ancient Greek pottery, archaeological findings from Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, China et al. give visual representations of these garments. Clothing was sewn from plain-weave wool, hemp cloth, silk fabrics, felt, leather and hides. Scythian women dressed in much the same fashion as men. A Pazyryk burial, discovered in the 1990s, contained the skeletons of a man and a woman, each with weapons, arrowheads, and an axe. Men and warrior women wore tunics, often embroidered, adorned with felt applique work, or metal (golden) plaques. Persepolis Apadana serves a good starting point to observe tunics of the Sakas. They appear to be a sewn, long sleeve garment that extended to the knees and belted with a belt. Warrior belts were made of leather, often with gold or other metal adornments and had many attached leather thongs for fastening of the owner's gorytos, sword, whet stone, whip etc. Belts were fastened with metal or horn belt-hooks, leather thongs and metal (often golden) or horn belt-plates. Based on numerous archeological findings in Ukraine, southern Russian and Kazakhstan men and warrior women wore long sleeve tunics that were always belted, often with richly ornamented belts. The Kazakhstan Saka (e.g. Issyk Golden Man/Maiden) wore shorter tunics and more close fitting tunics than the Pontic steppe Scythians. Some Pazyryk culture Saka wore short belted tunic with a lapel on a right side, upright collar, 'puffed' sleeves narrowing at a wrist and bound in narrow cuffs of a color different from the rest of the tunic. Men and women wore coats, e.g. Pazyryk Saka had many varieties, from fur to felt. They could have worn a riding coat that later was known as a Median robe or Kantus. Long sleeved, and open, it seems that on the Persepolis Apadana Skudrian delegation is perhaps shown wearing such coat. The Pazyryk felt tapestry shows a rider wearing a billowing cloak. Men and women wore long trousers also, often adorned with metal plaques and often embroidered or adorned with felt appliqués; trousers could have been wider or tight fitting depending on the area. Materials used depended on the wealth, climate and necessity. There where however some differences between men and women dress. Herodotus says Sakas (man) had "high caps tapering to a point and stiffly upright and ... wore trousers." Asian Saka headgear is clearly visible on the Persepolis Apadana again staircase bas-relief – high pointed hat with flaps over ears and the nape of the neck.[45] From China to the Danube delta, men seemed to have worn a variety of soft headgear – either conical like the one described by Herodotus, or rounder, more like a Phrygian cap. Based on the Pazyryk findings (can be seen also in the south Siberian, Uralic and Kazakhstan rock drawings) some caps were topped with zoomorphic wooden sculptures firmly attached to a cap and forming an integral part of the headgear, similar to the surviving nomad helmets from northern China. Women wore shawls, often richly decorated with metal (golden) plaques. Scythian women wore sometimes long, loose robes, ornamented with metal plaques (gold). Warriors, men and women, wore variations of long and shorter boots, wool-leather-felt gaiter-boots and moccasin-like shoes. They were either of a laced or simple slip on type. But women wore also soft shoes with metal (gold) plaques. Women wore a variety of different headdresses, some conical in shape others more like flattened cylinders, also adorned with metal (golden) plaques.

References

85.233.202.40 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

States

When did found the first Scythian state? How many states founded by the Scythians? britannica: "From the second half of the 8th century bce, the Cimmerians were replaced by the Scythians, who used iron implements. The Scythians created the first known typical Central Asian empire. The chief thrust of their expansion was directed against the south rather than the west, where no major power existed and which thus offered little chance for valuable booty. In the late 8th century bce, Cimmerian and Scythian troops fought against the Assyrian king Sargon II, and, at the end of the 6th century bce, conflict arose between the Scythians and the Achaemenian king Darius I." Pazkyle (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Should there be further detail regarding the usage of the term, "Scythian" by the Romans?

It seems that many primary sources which include references to others as "Scythians" do so in a very derogatory sense. Its usage as a term for referring to others as barbaric heathens, who live far away, which demonstrates the ignorance of the person using the term, seems like it deserves more explaining. Denoting the significance of the term's historical usage as a derogatory seems like it would be important for this article, and it is not clear from reading it what its true colors are. Further elaboration and citing primary sources that demonstrate the haughty attitudes had by citizens of the Western Latin world who used the terms for describing their perceptions of the East Romans. A number of Western Latin citizens saw the Greek-Eastern Romans as barbaric heathens and express their attitudes in reference to the transferring of Roman power and authority to Constantinople, that the once great city of Rome had gone mad, forsaken its values, and furthermore had somehow "receded into some Scythian wilderness". It resonates with the phrase, "going native". The usage of the term "Scythian" hardly ever seems to actually refer to actual Scythians, and comes off as a term which reeks of imperialism and claims moral highground over whom it presumes is any number of nasty adjectives such as, uncultured, barbaric, and filthy. I think its a term more people should be familiar with and I imagine discussing its usage in further detail will significantly improve the content of the article.

I don't trust my own writing well enough to do the edits myself. However, I thought I'd offer my feedback and advice on how to improve it.

Hope this helped in some small but marginally significant way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:F01:3724:3425:A735:1CFA:832E (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Clarify the lead section. Add a direct link to Scythian languages instead of Eastern Iranian languages. Why readers/viewers are forced to read a whole article about Eastern Iranian languages? Readers want direct info and details about Scythians, not all living, dead, extinct, ancient, old, modern, and new Eastern branch of Iranian languages. Thanks. --188.158.119.78 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC) 188.158.119.78 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Iranic stock or just various tribes who shared same Iranic language?

I don't know why editors don't agree on a "acceptable revision". The lead changed again. According to revision history:

• Some users used "Iranian" or "Iranic" for all Scythians.
• Some user agree to use "Iranian-speaking" or "Iranic-speaking".
• And now User:Johnbod's revision: [5]

1. So what were Scythians?! A general name for some Eurasian nomads? Majority of them were Iranic? Different tribes with different stocks and languages (Iranic, other Indo-Europeans, Turkic, Mongolic, Magyar, Uralic, etc.)?
2. If they were not Indo-Iranians (Aryan), then Scythian languages is just a weak theory/hypothesis?
3. So what about Sarmatian tribes and Alans?
4. This article needs a complete clean-up to solve this confusing things.

--188.158.69.139 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[Nothing was "done"] The vagueness reflects the notorious uncertainty of most things to do with the Scythians who, let's remember, flourished for around 1000 years in an area several '000 miles across, around 2000 years ago, and left almost no written records themselves. As long as scholars don't agree on them, Wikipedia won't either. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just adding that much of the problem is the varied scope of the term, which some writers use for a large larger set of peoples than others. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to all editors: Edits on Lead section

Please read this 2013 consensus (talk page, archive 4, started by me): Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people. There are opinions by involved editors plus second and third opinions by other editors. We don't need another edit war or endless reverting. If you want to improve the lead section, consider comments on that 2013 consensus. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a consensus there? What is it? The recent spat of reversions really concerns the scope of the term, which is notoriously not used consistently. This definitional difficulty is adressed a little later, but the lead should not begin with a statement that says or implies the Scythians were exclusively "Iranian_people_or_Iranian-speaking_people". Where those links go is not of great importance to me. The wording I reverted to has been there for a while now (well since Feb 8). I was also concerned to remove the bad Easter-egg piping of "Eurasian_nomads|equestrian". In general the scope of the term remains variable, and the linguistic and ethnic make-up of most groups so defined rather uncertain and controversial, so the beginning of the lead should be rather cautious and reticent on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not one of the major contributors to this article (only few minor edits). Plus, I don't see any problem in your edits (current revision), it's better and more neutral than previous revisions. I agree with your edits and changes. But I'm sure that "last dispute" will start again, so if you decided to improve this article, reading the talk page archives will be helpful. I didn't say you must create a revision that satisfy all editors! But there are good points that can help you to improve this article. That's my point and suggestion. I watch this article and I wish this article becomes a good article or had a stable accepted revision at least. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I hope it won't revert to disputes - it is protected now, which helps. I have also done very little here and don't intend to add much more - my main interest in this area is Scythian art. As so often with ethnic/nationalist-related disputes, it all seems to be about the first couple of lines. I don't think that the 2013 debate, though it was interesting and useful, can be said to agree on a consensus version, and I personally prefer how it is at the moment. The trouble is that depending on the scope used for the term, it may be correct (within the uncertainty surrounding the whole area) to say that Scythians entirely/mostly/partly used Iranian/Scythian languages, or that they did not. Thanks for your comments. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Settled metal workers producing for the Scythians

The Scythians conquered the Caucasus and pillaged and subjected the Maykop culture. The Dolmen City was part of the Maykop culture. The dolmens were millennium old safe deposit structures for the treasures belonging to those metal workers the main article mentions: "The Scythians and settled metal workers producing for them made portable decorative objects..." It is extremely important that historians understand and accept the true nature of the Dolmens of the Caucasus: these dolmens were safes or vaults where the metal workers kept their treasures. The Scythians invaded the dolmen city and enslaved the metal workers after sacking the dolmens and leaving them empty. This is a new quite important theory. 190.152.194.184 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Santiago Sevilla