Talk:Scythians/Archive 5

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

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

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

The first part is rather well known and numerous sources indicate this, for instance ^[1] mentions this.

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

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

This edit request to Scythians has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

To the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why

This sentence is tough to digest:

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

A few thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to Scythians has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a reference to Elhaik's paper, where he is cited so the source will be clear, except the Independent source. ^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to Scythians has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Sorry, but this is really off-topic here:

"There are some theories, with records behind them, that the Ephraimites became the Scythians, who in turn became the Germanics.^[2][3]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this from OUP that may be useful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about: The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Ancient Greek: Σκύθαι), also known as Scyths, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai, were a group of Eurasian nomads who inhabited the western and central Eurasian steppes from about the 9th century BC until about the 1st century BC.^[1] Scythia was the Greek term for the grasslands north and east of the Black Sea. The Scythian languages belonged to the Eastern branch of the Iranian languages.^[2]

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

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

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

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

This edit request to Scythians has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you mean this part:

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

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

This edit request to Scythians has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please link to the dab page, and do some cleanup

Change

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

To

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

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

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

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