Talk:Sarmatians

Sources used for the article

Sources used in article are Classical authors. They put officially Sarmatians as the people of Iranian stock even if they refer like crazy to the only Asiatic Sarmatian tribe of Alans all the time forgeting about Baltic Sarmatians or Hyperboreans living in Germanic lands of Europe, so not very Asiatic or very of Iranian stock people it would seem like to be.

The source used in this text is Encyclopedia Britanica which stinks overly with rasist Aryan Anthroposophy. It is not a serious XXI century modern science like modern archeology and modern genetics for example.

Sources not used in this article are Chinese ancient authors. Are they not Anthroposophic enough to be mentioned? Or maybe they are just simply too contradicting the Encyclopedia Britanica hypothesis that Sarmatians are of "Iranian stock" statement?

Sources not used in this article are archeologic finds, which show clearly that the ancient Sarmatian people of Alans living in territory of modern Eastern China were also red and blond haired, so these ancient Sarmatian people known as Alans couldn't biologically be of Iranian stock according to genetic finds about gene of red hairs and its origins. These Asian Sarmatians were abviously of Germanic or Slavic peoples stock (as to use the language) just living in today's territory of Eastern China's deserts and steps. Certainly Mongols or Scythians, who were also battling China's ancient armies, were not famous in being the Asians with blond and red hairs. Which makes also sense with all classic authors reports about Sarmatians living also in Northern and Eastern Europe, which are blantantly forgotten.

Sources not used in article are genetic finds, which show clearly that non-Germanic and non-Iranian native people of Northern Europe with I1a and I1b Y-DNA are responsible for carrying the red hairs gene of Homo Neanderthal (native European species of man), which was passed on Homo Cromagnon (native European species of man) and then to I1 Y-DNA Homo Sapiens (the native European modern man). Now I know only of one European people who can have red hairs. They are the modern Slavic and Germanic peoples. So obviously Asiatic Sarmatians tribe of Alans have more in common with modern Slavic peoples stock, then with Iranian stock. It has to be mentioned that I1 Y-DNA natively exists only in Europe with 25% or more population of Europe having it with exception of Spain and Italy, where it is rather very rare and where we know Sarmatians historicaly never lived in ancient times. The exception seems to be only Cuacasian Ossetians, Kurds and etc, where reach of "red haired" Sarmatian I1 Y-DNA should be natural because the move of the only Asiatic Sarmatians known as Alans from territory of modern Eastern China to Caucasus, which is testifyed plentifully by both ancient Chinese authors and classical European authors.

Pan Piotr Glownia 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [PS. And by the way Germanic R1b Y-DNA is not the cause of "nordic" red and blond hairs in Europe. I1 Y-DNA is the responsible DNA and it is not Germanic Y-DNA for sure. Further its spread in Europe is very identic with places where ancient Sarmatian peoples lived in Europe according to classical authors in Europe and movememnts of Celtic people from Central Europe to Western Europe and then to British Islands.]

Modern day descendants of Sarmatians

Shouldn't there be some reference to the modern day descendants of the ancient Sarmatians? It is not like major people of ancient Europe just vanished without a trace. Right? Something mentioning roots of the Scotish Nobility (they are the only Scotish descendants of Pikts), the Norwegian Vikings, the Polish Nobility and 40% of Germans (I get this number from I1 Y-DNA frequency in Germany), who are also descendants of the same Slavic-Polish Sarmatians like Polish Nobility just Germanized from Xth century.

Ossetians seem to be modern descendants of mixed Sarmatian-Scythian origin.

Piotr Glownia

78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)to me it seems that Sarmatians are Balts and Schitians are slavs. The word Sauromatai or Sarmatai is very Baltic, and the mutual fear between Germans and themm says that they were living in the neighbourhood like Balts or Slavs...of cause it can be and otherwise, but it is sure that Sarmatian-Scythian are Balto-Slavs78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins/Earliest mentions?

Why are all the commentators from antiquity given their own heading? This is unnessecary especially the sparseness of the information contained in the comments. This article should begin with hard facts in relation to the origins and EXISTANCE of the Sarmatians. The Celts were in many of their territories illiterate pastoral nomads but no one doubts theie existance. The overall impression I get from this article is that 'Sarmatian' is an invention of the medieval Polish nobility being grafted onto initially tales from antiquity then more recently archeological evidence from the Black Sea region. Pierce, Ireland June 2007

Answer to Pierce from Irland: 1. Sarmatians roots have been falsyfied during last 2000 years to root Sarmatians out of Europe. Why? Because Sarmatians have blood enemies Romans/Germanics living on Sarmatian lands. 2. What these Sarmatian lands consist of? Have a look at Ancient Roman maps. It is not Iran. It is not Caucasus. It is not even Ukraine. It is NORTHERN EUROPE. The same place Germanic rasisits usually grab for their "superior teutonian race", but which in reality belongs to I1 Y-DNA (READ NON-GERMANIC NATIVES!) people of Europe. 3. Genetists traced I1 Y-DNA to the very Sarmatian tribes of ancient and medieval Europe and none else. The same historic tribes partially Slavic and partially grabed as Germanics (after some germanization effort also historically well documented!). Now, these lying people who grab Sarmatian roots as some kind of freaky of-shoot of Scythians and not conquered by Scythians in 900 BC NORTHERN EUROPEAN PEOPLE lie outright about R1A Y-DNA, as the blood of Sarmatians, when everywhere in Europe where TRUE Sarmatians lived and still live 25% of the people of least is of I1 Y-DNA, when R1A or R1B can be down to almost 0%. However people of Kazahstan, Iran, Northern India living in Europe as Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Balts, Serbs and so on have strong feeling that their Turkmen R1A Y-DNA should be some genetic mark of Sarmatian people in Europe too... just because they are so numerous in Eastern Europe, but the only thing Sarmatian they have here in Europe is just their Sarmatian-derivate language and their Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Polish nobility, which if they didn't "accidently" killed for their ethnic reasons (Sarmatians DIFFER from Scythians aka FLAXEN HAIR PEOPLE VS BLACK HAIRED PEOPLE) then they killed in communist massacres in XXth century. 4. There is during last 200 years great rasists science proving that Germanic people, who invaded Europe 4500 years BC are actually "nordic race" and northern Europe is their native territory. It didn't die with Adolph Hitler. European Union and all its Germanic countries are hell bend on their roman-westeneuropean civilization conquest of everything that do not belongs to these Teutonic Caucasians union with Ancient rome on lands of ancient Kingdom of Sarmatia in Europe. 5. Once some ancient Roman wrote about Thracians and their Sarmatian brethren that they linguastically are the most populous people in Europe. A power to recognize, which if unified could be bigger from that power in India itself. Sad modernity shows that Sarmatian people are at most 25% Europeans, which give population of just about bare 100 millions of living Sarmatians in Europe. Defeated and germanized mostly. XXIst century the only cultural inheritors of great ancient Sarmatian civilization are just these obscure 10 millions of Polish Nobles, who after 100 years of communism in Poland still can be differed from their Polish countrymen just by their native ancient Sarmatian looks, but sadly slowly are forgeting about their cultural differences from their eastern Russian, western German and southern ancient Roman neighbours. 6. Now when we know that 23% Polish are of I1 Y-DNA the 25% Polish, who are Polish Nobility and were forced into peasanthood in XIX century by occupying powers can regain their noble titles in Poland by genetic test only. Will genetics give a rebirth to Sarmatian Kingdom and Sarmatian ancient war-living ways in Europe? Only future will show.

Piotr Glownia, Sweden August 2007 PS. I found some Gaelic prenounciations of word "Pikt" almost identical with Polish Slavic word "walker". It could have something in common with fighting on foot, as infantry in Polish Slavic is also refered to as "walkers".

78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Moreover Belarus people are not slavs, but Balts, thus slavized in the last two centuries of russian occupation78.151.173.242 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead-in sentence

Hello codex s., thanks for your comment. Your effort to make it better gets you further into the problem. No, by amorphous I do not mean nomadic. Amorphous has never meant nomadic and could never be interpreted as such by someone whose 1st language is English. But that isn't your point. It sounds wierd. I lingered on it myself but the use is perfectly correct. Amorphous means poorly defined, shapeless, fuzzy, and that is what historical concepts of the Sarmatians are.

You put ethnic polity in there. Neither of those things, ethnic or polity, are true or known for sure. By ethnic we usually mean one ethnos, but the Sarmatians were not that. Moreover, various peoples moved in and out of the designation. As for polity, that applies to smaller, more unified states, as the polis was originally a Greek city-state. But the Sarmatians were a vast and sprawling confederacy at best, perhaps dominated by the Iranians. You seem to dislike the word unity also. I don't know why, but you know what, as a former writer of documents often used in marketing I am going to respect your judgement. If it sounds wierd to you it probably will to others. If you don't mind I think I will try to make your selection of words more accurate. If it still doesn't seem right to you after what I just said, I am sure you will make another attempt. Lead-in sentences are worth the effort. Thanks so much.66.30.94.153 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The nomadic, multi-ethnic Iranian people confederacy. Hello Amir. You altered my lead-in. This is not a minor change. From the fact that you left it in bad English I deduce that your first language is not English. That's all right, most English speakers can fix the English. No problem there. However, did you not read the article? Multi-ethnic does not mean Iranian, it means speakers of many languages. You may wish to apply the term Sarmatian only to the Iranians, but this is history. There were also significant Balto-Slavic and other elements among them, even probably some Germans. I have no doubt that once we fill out the people list we are going to find some Turkics. Your wishful thinking does not alter the history, so I am taking out your change. Sorry. Please forgive me. The goal is accuracy tempered by neutral point of view. Thanks so much for your understanding.Dave 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranianizing lead-in

Is it you, Amir? OK, let me expand. Here is what you say: "who according to Herodotus were a nomadic tribe of Iranian origin, they"

Here is what Herodotus says:

"The Sauromatae speak the language of Skythia, but have never talked it correctly..."

How do you get Iranian out of that? Moreover, how did you get your changes out of the history, so that they cannot be reverted? OK, it is true that there was a large Iranian element among the Skyths. And it is true that the southern Sarmatians were probably mainly Iranian, which we can deduce from other evidence. You can't say that Herodotus said it, because he didn't. This is all a deduction based of chains of evidence. I think the concept is adequately developed in the article. You persist in using incorrect English of equivocal meaning. The Sarmatians were not one tribe. And, you have to consider all the sources, not just Herodotus.

You do have a certain point. Maybe there was an originally Iranian tribe that became the basis for a confederacy. You want to say that up front, but you can't seem to get the words right. Your English is a work in progress. How about if I try to say what I think you are trying to say? That will put the word Iranian up front and will emphasize the possible Iranian origin of the southern element. But, you know, there are other possibilities. Maybe the name is older than Iranian! So, I don't want to be narrower in definition than are the sources. Here we go. Check it out, and quit removing yourself from the history. Right now I am assuming you are not a vandal.

OK I wrote it. You're not trying to say that THE Sauromatians, the only ones there were, were an Iranian tribe are you? Because, that is clearly wrong. Maybe there was an Iranian-speaking tribe, the Sarmatians, but that is not the whole case. There were Balto-Slavic Sarmatians, Turkic Sarmatians, and what have you, and moreover, they acquired that name in prehistory. Why is it you do not discuss?Dave 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarmatians were not dominated by Scythians. They were conquered by Scythians in 900 BC. They were again conquered in 5 century AD by Scythians, which of course gave birth to Slavic people, who originally were famed with flaxen blond hairs and not R1A YDNA Slavic hairs. A feature, which could hardly originate from any R1A YDNA Turkmen people of Great Persia/Iran called Scythians. Isn't it so? Piotr Glownia

Sarmatian glossary

Does anybody know of any Sarmatian glossary/word-list. Alexander 007

• suya (by russian letters шуя) — capital
• chalibus (чалибус) — steel
• eburnus (эбурнус) — white
• amazon (амазонка) — conyugicida woman
• don (дон) — water

(References would be welcome at Scythian languages.) --Wetman 11:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The external link seems to be broken

Croats are Sarmatians?

Take a look at this:

1. We take the word sarmat.
2. The ar changes into a vocalic r: srmat.
3. The sibilant s changes into h: hrmat.
4. The nasal m changes into an approximant v: hrvat
5. Voila! There you have, ladies and gentlemen, the Croatian word for a Croat!

These changes might have occured in any order. Not only they are possible - they actually happen very frequently!

Please comment... - Phraine

Yes also:

'Martian'

ad: 'cro'

remove" mar'

get -> "croatian" Hxseek 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, whether or not these changes are phonetically possible, analysis like this can only be done when you have a whole collection of words exhibiting the same changes. And Croatians speak a Slavic language, so unless you want to argue that all Slavs are Sarmatians -- which would be hard, since IIRC there are clear differences between the Slavic and Indo-Iranian language families -- your theory will have to account for this development also. --Saforrest 19:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia forbids original research, partly in order not to get into tangles like this. This article is essentially a report on Sarmatians. A report on published analysis of Croatian founding myth as Sarmatians might go in Culture of Croatia. --Wetman 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC) --Wetman 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Historical linguistics is the study of regular diachronic sound changes in languages. What you propose is a set of fortuitous happenstances. Things don't happen that way. Using the technique you outline, you can turn any word into any word, can't you? What you need to do is show that those changes occur regularly over time; in other words, Sarmatian changes into Croatian by such and such a set of regular changes. But some of the changes you propose already contravene known tendencies. The ar would have come from a vocalic r rather than vice versa. The s would never go to a k; rather, palatal k goes to a sibilant. As for the h from s and the m to v, I would say, you need to find a reason for that to happen, some rule or analogy or reason why this exception to some rule occurs. But if you could do that, you'd be a linguist and could join all the the other Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian linguists, publishing your own original perceptions in the journals designed for the purpose.

You did ask for comments. I'd say, get some materials on Indo-European linguistics, study them, and when you think you know enough, start looking up some words and names in the etymological dictionaries and reading the stuff on the Internet. Study will help you to distinguish amateurs from professionals. Can you read German? Julius Pokorny's dictionary is complete on the Internet. So is the American Heritage Dictionary with Calvert Watkins' Indo-European etymologies. All the easy names have been decoded long ago, but I grant you sometimes wrongly. How can you have any idea if you don't know any linguistics? Good luck in your future reading in historical linguistics. Maybe you will find out what all these tribal names mean. Maybe not. Not every name can be decoded. You know, there is a good book you might enjoy, "The Decipherment of Linear B" by Michael Ventris. I don't believe Linear A has been deciphered. You might enjoy that. Ventris made his contributions when he was in his 20's. He was a WWII code breaker but he died in a car crash: "Lycidas is dead, young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer." Best wishes, best of luck.Dave 03:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

King Arthur movie

Having read the article, it is clear that the movie is riddled with inaccuracies, which should probably be mentioned. Also, since that article doesn't go into it, to what degree was the movie accurate in the relationship between Sarmatian cavalry and Rome (the whole thing about promising their sons to fight for Rome and such) should also be coverred (albeit briefly). --DragoonWraith 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't inaccuracies in the movie be covered on the King Arthur page? i thought this page was supposed do be factual and not comparing with movies. -- Wiki ian 10:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following fictitious statement: "The Sarmatians were a fearsome people however, with expert cavalry, which led to their cavalry being the only survivors after a invasion from Rome, which led to each horseman's onward generations to be contracted as knights in the Roman military, these knights including Ambrosius Aurelianus, most known in legend as King Arthur. " RandomCritic 14:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that any references from the movie King Arthur should be mentioned as long as it is under a "Sarmatians in pop culture" heading. After all, there aren't many references to the Sarmatians in pop culture, this one should not be excluded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HammerHeadHuman (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Whoops, thanks...HammerHeadHuman 06:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

horrible sentence in the lead

Their major element in the south was undoubtedly Iranian, and perhaps in prehistory there was a founding Sarmatian tribe, or even two tribes: Sarmatians and Sauromatians (though this does seem unlikely, and pedantic in the extreme).

perhaps the article could explain where the two variations come from and discuss the theories regarding them, with attribution to named sources, instead of making vague speculations and following them with a Drunk Buddy Disclaimer. generally, Sarmatian' is a latin usage, applied to people on the northeastern european frontier; Sauromatian is greek, used for tribes east of the Tanais. (there are exceptions, e.g. strabo and ovid.) the equation of the two names has been accepted at least since Pliny the Elder wrote about them (Ab eo in plenum quidem omnes Scytharum sunt gentes, varie tamen litori adposita tenuere, alias Getae, Daci Romanis dicti, alias Sarmatae, Graecis Sauromatae. . . [emphasis added]); does anyone argue that the two names actually refer to different ethnoi? if so, why? 65.95.38.209 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i removed the second half, from and perhaps on, and took out the word undoubtedly: if no one doubts it then the word is entirely superfluous, and if someone does doubt it the article should cover those doubts. 65.95.38.209 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarmatians vs. Alans

Someone seems to have confused Sarmatians with Alans. I suggest the following unsourced chunk of text should be moved to Alans --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One might therefore conclude that the Alans were the dominant element of the confederacy.

Archaeology springs a few surprises on students of the Roman empire. In the Roman authors the existence of the Chinese is little suspected. Many earlier scholars concluded that the Chinese were unknown to the Romans. And yet, they appear in Ptolemy as the Seres, to the east of the Scyths, and Ptolemy was certainly a favorite text of late Roman students and scholars. Ptolemy seems to have been familiar with most of the far east as well as central Asia and the central Asian subcontinent.

Perhaps the peoples there were too remote for serious consideration; however, they were not at all remote to the Alans. Alanic women of the Middle and Late Sarmatian Periods wore pendant hand mirrors imitating Chinese mirrors of the same period. They were ornate bronze disks silvered or tinned on one side.

The decorative motivs are reminiscent of Scythian art with similarities to both Chinese and Mycenaean Greek themes. Similar mirrors are known from Japan. Alanic women decorated their clothing and shoes with beads of glass and precious stones embroidered into the cloth, many of which by analysis have been traced to a Chinese origin. And yet the remains of the Alans indicate they were entirely Europoid in appearance.

One might presume a trade intermediary, which kept the Alans from intermarriage with the Chinese for the times. Authors such as Jordanes (a Gothicised Alan) and Ammianus Marcellinus lead us to believe that the Huns burst in upon the Ostrogoths completely by surprise from totally unknown regions to the east containing horrible monsters and fearsome innumerable enemies on horseback.

In fact Ptolemy mentions the Chuni as one of the peoples in the Sarmatian domain. Scholars did not know what to make of this, or of the Serboi, who were located on the Volga. The consensus now is that the Serboi were early Serbs, who were nomadic, and the Chuni were Huns. The latter were not only known to the Sarmatians and therefore to the Goths, but were subordinate to each in turn.

Alans were not dominant part of Sarmatian people. They were more like Scythian people of Sarmatian descent. This Scythian/Sarmatian mixed people arised possibly about (this is my guess) 900 BC, when Sarmatians were conquered by Scythians for the first time. Alans lived in Asia amogst Asian Scythians during the ancient times, but moved to Caucasus mountains before Hun Attilla's times (around 400 AD). Place of the last settlement of Alans explains acurately the spread of I1 Y-DNA amongst Cuacasian people and Kurds. Huns in Europe lived as eastern neighbours of Kiev's Sarmatian tribes, so Huns had to live in a place between Kingdom of Sarmatia and Scythian/Sarmatian Alans in Caucasus. During this time leftovers of Kingdom of Scythia in Romania and Southern Ukraine was conquered by Sarmatians and Visigoths, so Huns in Eastern Ukraine and Volga Bulgars in Russia in V century AD could as well be the only independent remnants in Europe of the Scythian kingdom. Piotr Glownia

The old name of a town called Paraćin in central Serbia was: Sarmatae -you´ll find it right next to Horrea Margi on old roman maps. Then let us think about this... there´s a Sarmatian tribe called Serboi, there is a town called Sarmatae in the very heart of Serbia....hmmmm well what to say ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.0.50 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

I'm not competent to assess the credibility of the article in general, but every assertion mentioning the Slavs is untenable, making me suspect a serious admixture of original research in the text:

• We know now from language studies that the Celts did play a significant role in Slavic ethnogenesis. Perhaps the words of Strabo are telling us between the lines that it was happening in his time. - From which "language studies" do you know that? Can you name a single pan-Slavic loan from a Celtic language?

• The Geography of Ptolemy includes the entire Balto-Slavic territory in Sarmatia. - Perhaps it does, but it would be nice to see an excerpt from Ptolemy's text where he mentions "the entire Balto-Slavic territory".

• They [Huns? Sarmatians?] played a significant part in the rise of early Russia. - This assertion left me speechless. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research... Doh! I love Sarmatian traditions and Genetics, as they tell more then original research and more accurately. What Genetics and Sarmatian tradition says abour Celts? Well... 1. Both loved trees and women and it seems besides the same druid religion and far going equal rights for women amongst Celts and Sarmatians both also shared the distinctive trail of Sarmatian I1 YDNA from France to UK. 2. I don't know if it is on purpose, but Ptolemy includes also ENTIRE NORTHERN EUROPE (the Sacndinavia!) in borders of Sarmatian peoples. Hyperborean Sarmatians anyone? Not only Baltic-Slavic territory, which in 5 century stretched up to river Ren as the official western borders of Hun Attila Empire. Germanics please do not leave these "nice" details out like historic specifications of original Germanic dwellings in 5 century AD during reign of Hun Attila. 3. Huns were not Sarmatians. They were Scythians. After fall they left back home to Kazahstan, where population is mostly Scythian/Iranian. Futhermore after Slavization of most of population of Russia from Volga Bulgars certainly most Russians are very "Hun" in appearance at least if not in many of their "Mongolian" from a Polish point of view Russian customs. Piotr Glownia

Suggestions for expansion

With tons of speculations about the Sarmatian-Alan connections that we have in the article, there are numerous aspect which need to be addressed. I post several quotations from the 2006 Britannica to highlight missing subjects:

Sarmatians vs. Scythians: Owing to their common nomadic and Central Asian heritage, Sarmatian society paralleled, at first, that of the Scythians, but there were many differences. The Scythian gods were those of nature, while the Sarmatians venerated a god of fire to whom they offered horses in sacrifice. In contrast to the reclusive, domestic role of Scythian women, unmarried Sarmatian females, especially in the society's early years, took arms alongside men.

Matriarchal society: An early matriarchal form of society was later replaced by a system of male chieftains and eventually by a male monarchy. This transition may well have stemmed from the rapid development of horsemanship and a male cavalry corps, attributable to the invention of the metal stirrup and the spur. These innovations contributed greatly to success in military campaigns and even influenced the Roman style of combat.

Sarmatian art: An outstanding specialty was the Sarmatian long sword, which featured a hilt of wood with gold lacing, topped with an agate or onyx knob. Sarmatian art was strongly geometric, floral, and richly coloured.. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Good Samaritan"?

As I recall, the phrase "a good Samaritan" refers to someone who is kind without expecting reward. This sounds too similar to "Sarmatians" to be a coincidence. Possibly linked to Sarmatism. Can anyone confirm this? Kennard2 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt it, but it is possible. Samaria, the homeland of the Samaritans, is in the holy land. The Samaritans were a race of Jewish (not really Jewish per say, but they believed in and followed the Torah) people who were considered less than equal (to put it politely) to the native Hebrew populations. At one point in their history they were scattered by a Babylonian invasion, and later the Roman takeover. So it is possible that some of them went strait north across the Caucasus, etc. But I think that that is highly improbable. Additionally, there is primary evidence that both peoples existed as distinct cultures around 500BCE. Check out the Samaritan article for more info. HammerHeadHuman 02:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no connection. The names sound similar only in English by linguistic coincidence. In the original Hebrew, Samaritans are "Shomronim". "Sarmatian" comes from the Greek Sauromatae. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatian Clothes???

Who made that image with "Sarmatian Clothes"? Two of those are clearely Dacians as reprezented on Trajan's column an on the Arch of Constantine. Also the draco banner is used by the Dacians on the column and not by Sarmatians. Either correct the image or remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.39.116.36 (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

So who wrote that Dacians were not Sarmatians? Sarmatians were many tribes. Just Dacians were Romanized alike Wends in Germany, who became Germanized in Xth century AD. Perphaps part of Dacian culture was still representative to the ancient Sarmatian ways, which were... very free, over-the-top liberal and very very war-loving (Pannonians anyone?). Piotr Glownia

is the website creditable source ? and major topic is Chechenia and Degestan.

• link #2 http://www.sarmat.esp.st/ Sarmatia Eurasia

contins sholary :) historiograhic articles like this

• Violéncia Sexual Rusa contra Chechénia
• Colectánea de Artículos A Respecto del Invasión Rusa en la Sarmática Chechénia:

Anyway schold we reconsider genetic data since r1a1 presen in Caucasus in few % ?

I have nothing to stimulate freedom movements, but why sacrifice Sarmaians or truth ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nasz (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

• Not really sure what your trying to say, or ask here, but if your wondering if that website is a valid source I would say no. HammerHeadHuman 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranian languages

Genesis of Iranian languages may be linked to Scythian influence. Sarmatian seems to be more directly related to older Scythian. There is even probable that the Sarmatian were Scythian 'core' under another name. They lived where Scythians were reported. Persian armies under Darius tried to conquer them. We know from Herodotus that Persian were’t even able make contact with them. They heard only Persian asses as wrote Herodotus whose asses worry scythian she horses.

That rather not enoght to transfer language :) Nasz 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatian tribes

Are the links for all the tribes needed? It looks bad when three-quarters of them are red. Raistlin11325 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the red. Why does it look bad? Are you so desperately anally retentive that you need blue? It's just more projects for future wikipedians :) That surely is a good thing! 79.162.18.14 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)woofgrrr

Well, Raistlin, woofgrrr is right about Wikipedia. I don't even need to bother looking him up in the address directory. When I started on here there were .75 mill articles. Now there are 2.5 mill. People are going to want to know something about ethnic history east of the Volga and WE can give it to them. You know all those countries around Iran and Afghanistan? How did they get there, anyway? Someone might like to know! The goal is expansion of knowledge. Now, my guess is, many of those in red exist under a different name. I will go thru there this time around. Just leave it.Dave (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PS I was put onto here by a note for lack of data that said see discussion. Well, I've seen it. There seems to be a lack of the lack of data explanation. I don't mean to be insulting but it is pretty obvious the data is under the linked articles or ought to be. If you are in a rush for those articles and that data, why not try YOUR hand?Dave (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the orange map

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarmatians. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Buddhipriya 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

here is my answer. The map is false. Nasz 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the map is not false! The map is correct. It shows correctly territory of Sarmatae Scytians (these Scythians who became mixed with Sarmatians after 9 century BC) and excludes any possible territories of Slavic/Sarmatae Venedi, which are in Germany and Poland and obviously this map can not cover this territory to the north-west from Scythia. Even genetically to this day R1a1 Y-DNA is not even existing in the German part of Sarmatae/Slavic Venedi, whom genetists consider I1 Y-DNA "proto-Germanic and proto-Slavic" peoples in Europe. Please do not erase valid information from wikipedia, but you are always welcome to add your own valid information. Thank you. Pan Piotr Glownia 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the map again seems uncivil. Personally I will follow a practice of not repeating a reversion. I suggest that you take the matter up on the talk page for the article in order to build more agreement on your edit. Buddhipriya 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is beter to negotiate than to confrontate. So du you have idea what The map show and why ? Nasz 02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ps I propose to move this discussion to the subject talk page. If you mind, please let me to know.

I am not qualified to assess the content. The issue is with process for performing changes to pages. In cases where others may not understand your change, moving content to the talk page where others can discuss your concerns is preferred to simply cutting things. On the talk page you may make your case as needed. Also, please sign your contributions. (I forget to do it too sometimes.) Regarding the removal of my deletion warning on your talk page, it is better to leave active disputes visible until they have been fully resolved. That way others can express views more easily. I have no particular interest in this page, by the way. I was just looking at recent changes. Buddhipriya 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody who is "qualified to assess the content" will discus the subject. Let’s wait.

Nasz 05:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the issue with that map? It looks about as accurate as sources of the period allow for (although "Roman Empire" is a bit of an anachronism). —Abou 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is 1 lack of sources. 2 incoherence with description on top of article BELOW. 3 Description on image. 4 descriptions in file: (Historical spread of Iranian peoples/languages: Scythia, Sarmatia, Bactria and the Parthian Empire in ca.100-50 BC. Modern political boundaries are shown to facilitate orientation.)

Also 5 the holly war against me when i asked for the sources (but this plz disregard, i'm ok)

HERE Pliny the Elder (N.H. book iv) wrote that the Latin Sarmatae is identical to the Greek Sauromatae. At their greatest reported extent these tribes ranged from the Vistula river to the mouth of the Danube and eastward to the Volga, and from the mysterious domain of the Hyperboreans in the north, southward to the shores of the Black and Caspian seas, including the region between them as far as the Caucasus mountains. The richest tombs and the most significant finds of Sarmatian artefacts have been recorded in the Krasnodar Krai of Russia.

You can chek what time period cover the description of Pliny the Elder. And confront with the map.

Is it the same ? I see NOT. So what?? What is the map source?

Nasz 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the part of the map labeled "Sarmatia" seems to agree pretty closely with your description. Granted, it's a map of Scythia, and not solely of Sarmatia; but we can't always expect to get custom maps for each article.

I'm comparing the map to Colin McEvedy's Atlas of Ancient History, which is the closest map I have to hand that covers the same period and area. The only significant discrepancies I see are around the Black Sea littoral — where the Scythia-Parthia map omits the Kingdom of Mithridates — and in eastern Scythia, where McEvedy has the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Greater Yuezhi in Transoxiana. But the eastern sections aren't directly relevant to Sarmatia. I don't see anything controversial enough to require sources — am I missing something?

—Abou 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

hm, yes, the map omits Scythia Minor, that may need to be fixed; note that the orange area doesn't equal "Scythia", the map is intended as linguistic (orange=East Iranian, red=West Iranian, it just happens that red corresponds largely to "Parthia" while orange corresponds largely to "Scythia/Sarmatia+Eastern bits", but the colouring is not intended as political boundary. It is impossible to say where exactly the Thracian/Iranian linguistic boundary was; strictly speaking, the Hellenized areas should show up as "holes" in Scythia, but that's asking too much of a map of this scale. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

what exactly are you objecting to? That the "orange" region doesn't quite reach as far as Poland? Firstly, this is the "greatest extent" in the 1st century AD, immediately before the arrival of the Goths, while the map shows a time almost 200 years before that. Secondly, it is impossible to draw precise boundaries. The map cannot give more than a rough idea. We could consider drawing "Sarmatia" a bit further to the west, but there's no reason to be hysterical about it. Is the Vistula bit your only concern, or do you have others? dab (𒁳) 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the map is the territory of Sarmatae Scytians (these Scythians who became mixed with Sarmatians after 9 century BC) and excludes any possible territories of Slavic/Sarmatae Venedi, which are in Germany and Poland and obviously this map can not cover this territory to the north-west from Scythia. Even genetically to this day R1a1 Y-DNA is not even existing in the German part of Sarmatae/Slavic Venedi, whom genetists consider I1 Y-DNA "proto-Germanic and proto-Slavic" peoples in Europe. If one would draw ancient Sarmatia I guess one would have to include also Sarmatian Scythians. The territory of ancient Sarmatia would include entire Northern Europe (Hyperboreans), France (Gaul Venedi), Germany(Venedi), Poland(Venedi), Czech (Sklavene/Getae), Slovakia (Sklavene/Getae), Belarusia(??), Russia to the river Volga in east (??) and of course the Sarmatian Scythians territory from Ukraine (Sklavene + Anti/Alans) to Russia from border of Ukraina to Caucasus (Anti/Alans). I think the picture of Sarmatia is quite clear from descriptions from Roman and Greek ancient sources. However I wonder if Dalmatians and Tracians doesn't have any place in Sarmatia too as the majority of them may also been I1 Y-DNA carriers like Slavic/Sarmatian Venedi from Poland (Lechitic tribes of Mazowszans, Wistulans, minority of Pomeranians, Silesians, Lendians, Goplans) and Germany (the majority of all Lechitic tribes with majority of Pomeranian tribe). If I wrote some tribal name in Polish instead of English or Latin... sorry. Pan Piotr Glownia 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen in the article any refference on findings of Sarmatian maternal DNA lineages in modern day Central Asians, though it is established fact by now and there are plenty of research done. I hope noone minds adding a nicely composed material regarding this subject.(64.230.32.153 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)).

To my knowledge the Alans (Scythians of Sarmatian descent) moved around 400 AD from the Central Asia to the Caucasus Mountains. So, I would expect to find some Sarmatian maternal DNA lineages in modern day Caucasus and _not_ Central Asia. Sarmatian fathernal lineages (I1 YDNA) actually are present amongst modern Caucasus people and Kurds. Because I1 YDNA is exclusively native European Y-DNA the only Alans can be seen, as the only possible cause of its spread over Caucasus Mountains, as the flow of people was to the west and not to the east to Caucasus with exception of Alans who moved from Europe to Central Asia, before settling in Caucasus. Alans surely were very easy to spot amongst Scythians, Mongolians and Chinese in Central Asia with their blond and red hairs, which never were common mark of any Asian people. Piotr Glownia

What does phenotype of Central Asians has to do with genetics? These things do not necessarily go together. I am sure you are aware of that. I think research of Jeannine Davis-Kimball on Sarmatians and later a documental about genetic match of ancient Sarmatians mtDNA to a Kazakh child from Mongolia should be mentioned in this article for clear three dimentional picture. (64.230.79.68 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)).

Leave the map in! The caption clearly states the time over which it is to be considered true and for that time it is true. It is completely imposssible to get a map that would cover all the times. We don't have layered maps here. The total territory would cover most of central Asia and Europe over to the Vistula.Dave (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarmatism and Polish words: sarmacki, szarmancki

In the section about the Polish idea of sarmatism there was a claim that the Polish word "szarmancki" (=extremely polite to women) is related to the notion of sarmatism. This is completely not true. Polish "szarmancki" comes from French "charmant" (=charming). One can check that e.g. in this dictionary [1]. Courtesy to women is part of the stereotype of sarmatism and of Polish national character (hand-kissing etc.), but the similarity of the two words ("sarmacki" = sarmatian; "szarmancki" = charming) is just a coincidence. I have removed this spurious passage. 87.244.153.187 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone returned this false sentence about "szarmancki" and "szarmancko". I removed it again. I gave the source above - a well known Polish dictionary.

87.244.154.171 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it is coincidence, as France have Slavic sounding in name city of Brest, which by accident was city of Celtic Venedi, who could be just a branch of Slavic/Sarmatae Venedi. In about 1st century BC these Gaul Venedi as they were also called were all conquered by Julius Ceasar and sold by him into slavery. It is proven fact that I1 Y-DNA, which genetists and historians give to Sarmatae/Slavic Venedi, whom they consider "proto-Germanic and proto-Slavic peoples", was spread over France not by Celts, who are R1b peoples, but together with them by tribes moving together with the Celts. Tribes like Celtic/Gaul Venedi, who called their border city "Brest" on border with atlantic ocean in France as well alike Slavic/Sarmatae Venedi called their border city "Brest" on Poland border with Belarusia. Or maybe we Slavic people borrowed word "brest" also from French language and what would word "brest" now have for a meaning in any of germanic/celtic/gaul languages? Pan Piotr Glownia 04:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wladyslav Koplainski is not a native Pole he perhaps lacking the filings on Polish language. He just find out the charmant is similar to szarmancki but is not the case if it will be, that should be czarmancki. The word czar meaning seduction may be more similar to charming than szarmancki but is definietly of Slavonic origin and Kopalincsi didnt even try to betread it. Also sauro-ma-ti is similar to zauro- and zauro- is a part of other seductive word zauroczenie. Anyway the word is not a coincidental the rules s <> sz in mazurzenie and eastern Poland dilacts rule miód<>mniód explain the conversion sarmacki<>szarmancki. References for the rules are obvious.

The best etymology method is to show which word in particular language have a numerous lexical correlations. In resume charming and szarmancki have less common than Sterling to Kopaliski.

Nasz 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

The article stated: The haplotype diversity and frequecy of R1a1 DNA prove that the Polish Sarmatin tradition has factual basis and is inherited from ancestors. 56% percent of Poles have the R1a1 Y chromosome gene ,

I do not see how the sources cited support the claim. The comments in the text show that some are trying to fill the gaps. The attempts are highly dubious, Please respect the rule of No original research.-- Zz 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Learn (good strting point is to clik on wikilinks) or ask a specific question. The "idononow" is not a reason to remove a sourced edition. 24.13.244.169 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is common policy to move dubious paragraphs to the discussion page. And you did not answer my question other than with vacuous truths. -- Zz 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is more clear: how or what does the 56% of all Poles R1a1 Y chromosome gene prove about being Sarmatic? -- Zz 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that may be easily answered. You may see in references that R1a1 gene is linked to people Scythian/Sarmatian/kurgan culture. If you don’t know (but I explained it in R1a1 art) the genetic marker point with undisputed certainty to male ancestors - those who have it are definitely parentally related(by fathers). All the people who have R1a1 are offspring of one single male ancestor/person. (Like a genealogical tree of family spanning few millennia) You ma look at the map] to see where in Europe are the R1a1 located, The blue.., is it centered at Poland?

Is it suficient answer?

Nasz 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering.

part2

As far as I see, your theory is not supported by the sources. Semino, Passarino et al' do not link R1a1 with the "Scythian/Sarmatian/kurgan culture", they do link Eu19 with the Kurgan culture and the spread of the Indoeuropan languages. That is a difference. For one, Eu19 is not R1a1, a part is not the whole. For another, even if we accept the theory that the Indoeuropan languages spread from Kurgan culture - which is not granted -, equating the Kurgan culture with the Sarmatians is not justified. There is a lot of time between them. The Kurgan culture of the Kurgan hypothesis is 3000BC, maybe even 4000BC: The Scythians/Sarmatians appear 2000 or even 3000 years later from the east.

Further, the language of the Sarmatians is North-Eastern Iranian, the closest relatives existing in Tajikistan. In other words, it is not the source of the Indo-European language, it is a branch of it. Hence, it cannot be the Kurgan culture mentioned. Further, there are Sarmatians still surviving, namely the Ossetians as descendents of the Alans. According to Pericic, Lauc et al they have 43% R1b lineages, with only little (2%?) R1a. Go figure.

So, have you got any published and scientic research at hand that directly links the Polish genetic heritage to the Sarmatians, as in The haplotype diversity and frequecy of R1a1 DNA prove that the Polish Sarmatin tradition has factual basis and is inherited from ancestors ? If not, all this is Original Research, and very likely to be wrong. -- Zz 13:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1

• Z..they do link Eu19 with the Kurgan culture ...Eu19 is not R1a1...
• N: The EU19 equals to M17. M17 equals to R1a1 . Spend some time to read before acusing me of OR. Howevwr there is recently a lot of new 'original research some of it published in Science or other respectable sources. The original reserch was completly unknown before, when anybody, was able to claim ancestry of anybody, now DNA reveal who is who, with eneormous precision. Do you have any questions? If not restore my edits becose it looks that your claims are empty.

Nasz 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2

• Z: Further, the language of the Sarmatians is North-Eastern Iranian, the closest relatives existing in Tajikistan. In other words, it is not the source of the Indo-European language, it is a branch of it. Hence, it cannot be the Kurgan culture mentioned
• N: but as you wrote above 'they do link Eu19 with the Kurgan culture Just substitute uncer your they the publicators Sience enc do you need future debete in point 2 ? Im not a person who think about newspaper autority and i can debate anybody, but you seem to lok (IMO) like an autority praising peopel .. so ?

3: Z: the Indoeuropan languages spread from Kurgan culture - which is not granted -, N: what is your sugestion? Whose bones we diging in roal chambers of Kurgans ? What Languages they talk? Can you read the sence of alphabet (Warning This is new and may be fatal if swawoled) ?

4 Z equating the Kurgan culture with the Sarmatians is not justified. There is a lot of time between them. The Kurgan culture of the Kurgan hypothesis is 3000BC, maybe even 4000BC: N: the genes we talking about are much older 10 k years at least

Z:The Scythians/Sarmatians appear 2000 or even 3000 years later from the east N: hmm That i didn read it, please teach me, i will gratly praise your sources about 4000 y old Sarmatian moving from east (but i dont belive you will deliver the sources).

5 Z: Further, there are Sarmatians still surviving, namely the Ossetians as descendents of the Alans. According to Pericic, Lauc et al they have 43% R1b lineages

N: Didi you Z read it here ? :::: The spatial distribution of R1b lineages shows a frequency peak (40%–80%) in western Europe and a decrease in eastern (with the exception of 43% in the Ossetians) and southern Europe (fig. 6C), whereas R1b variance shows multiple peaks in West Europe and Asia Minor (fig. 6D). While R1b variance displays a clear-cut northwestern-southeastern decline in SEE (fig. 6B), R1b frequency decline continues from western toward southeastern and southern Europe, but two intermediate local peaks are evident, in north among mainland Croatians and Serbians and in south among Kosovar Albanians, Albanians, and Greeks (fig. 6C). These spatial patterns might be due to the fact that R1b lineages contain associated RFLP 49a,f ht 15 and 35 sublineages with opposite distributions possibly reflecting repeopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene (Cinniolu et al. 2004).

N: You Just misquote the source. If R1B is Sarmatian then Sarmatian live in Irealnd, you have to tell in to Galles so next 600 year later they will have a Sarmatian legend & tradition like Poles. I do not sing its imposible King Artur was at corner...

anyway i'm open to the debate... For me the Poles may be even pollens of Panspermae so i do not care for Sarmatae :) I think truth is the lovest info stadium so it is self discovering. as some R1a say olva pravdlva

Nasz 08:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let us cut it short, point by point:

• 1 The EU19 equals to M17. M17 equals to R1a1. No, it is "not equal to". A part is not the whole.
• 2 Kurgans appeared in many cultures. There is a pre-Sarmatian culture that gives the base of the Kurgan hypothesis. However, since this Kurgan culture is not the Sarmatian culture, no statements about genes of the bearers of this Kurgan culture can be transferred to the Sarmatians.
• 3 The Kurgan hypothesis has little archeological evidence speaking for it. Compare the Wikipedia article. For theories that are more grounded in fact, see for instance Cavalli-Sforza et al, The History and Geography of Human Genes.
• 4 The genes are older, yes. So what? There is no evidence connecting the genes to the bearers of the cultures in question, and that is the point.
• 5 If R1B is Sarmatian then Sarmatian live in Irealnd - I did not say that. I said that the last known descendants of the Sarmatians show a high percentage of R1b with little R1a1, thereby invalidating the R1a1 connection.

I see a lot of simple logic mistakes. The last one is particularly telling: Sarmatians have a lot of R1b is different to R1b is Sarmatian. For that reason, I repeat my request: have you got any published and scientific research at hand that directly links the Polish genetic heritage to the Sarmatians, as in The haplotype diversity and frequecy of R1a1 DNA prove that the Polish Sarmatin tradition has factual basis and is inherited from ancestors ? If not, all this is Original Research, and very likely to be wrong.

By the way, I have nothing against you or against the Polish, for that matter (ale mój polski jest okropny). As you see, the theories you propose got rejected in other Wikipedia articles, too. Please understand what constitutes WP:OR and why it is rejected. -- Zz 11:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1Z: A part is not the whole
• N: I dont have idea where from you have that information. look it is clear in page 1156 that M17 is part of M173. M173 has 'parts' Eu18 and EU 19 . Stright line going down has M17 and is only deliminated as EU19. < this description of picture is writen to show you just simple fact. It can be explained more but is it enogh to show you that you are mistaken? If you do not belive, the source is www.science.org. Again M17 is R1a1 and Semino EU19 is whole M17 never part of M17. M17 is insted a part of M173. I think there was you error in readin the source you qouted. Do you agre now?

• re:2,3,4 Did you wrote: As far as I see, your theory is not supported by the sources. Semino, Passarino et al' do not link R1a1 with the "Scythian/Sarmatian/kurgan culture", they do link Eu19 with the Kurgan culture and the spread of the Indoeuropan languages. That is a difference. For one, Eu19 is not R1a1, a part is not the whole.'

Do you agre that you dispute published in science article on false these debuted in point 1: As far as I see, your theory is not supported by the sources. Semino, Passarino et al do not link R1a1 with the "Scythian/Sarmatian/kurgan culture", they do link Eu19 with the Kurgan culture and the spread of the Indoeuropan languages. That is a difference. For one, Eu19 is not R1a1, a part is not the whole.

• Re5 Who link R1b1 with the Kurgan culture and the spread of the Indoeuropan languages ? It is your OR.

Nasz 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ps_ also look at top of Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) is writen in bold: In human genetics, Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup ... It is a Semino assignment that he in his article assigned EU19 a symbol equaling to M17

Eu19 belongs to R1a1, but that does mean it is equal to, as you claimed. The Kurgan connection comes from Eu19, not from R1a1 in general. So, if you wish to build a Polish-Sarmatian connection, you must base it on Eu19, and not on R1a1 in general. What is it you do not understand here?

Further, I did not link R1b1 with Kurgan culture. What I did was to point out that the surviving descendants of the Sarmatians have a lot of R1b1 and little R1a1, thus contradicting your R1a1-theory.

These glaring logical errors make a discussion more than difficult. So, let us cut it short: have you any published and scientific source linking the Polish genetic heritage to the Sarmatians, as in The haplotype diversity and frequecy of R1a1 DNA prove that the Polish Sarmatin tradition has factual basis and is inherited from ancestors ? If not, all this is Original Research,and it will be deleted from the article. -- Zz 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Look quote from the source you bring here: haplotype Eu19, which is derived from the M173 lineage and is distinguished by M17, is virtually absent in Western Europe. Its frequency increases eastward and reaches a maximum in Poland, Hungary, and Ukraine, Where from you have the information that EU19 is not equal (not exactly equal) to M17 and to R1a1. Ornella Semino defined EU x are clearly given in description of the table 1:

*The haplotypes are defined by the following markers and the respective derived alleles: Eu1, M13-C; Eu3, YAP1, 4064-A; Eu4, YAP1, 4064-A, M35-C; Eu6, RPS4-T; Eu7, M89-T, M170-C; Eu8, M89-T, M170-C, M26-A; Eu9, M89-T, M172-G; Eu10, M89-T; Eu11, M89-T, M201-T; Eu12, M89-T, M69-C; Eu13, M89-T, M9-G, TAT-C; Eu14, M89-T, M9-G, TAT-C, M178-T; Eu15, M89-T, M9-G, M70-C; Eu16, M89-T, M9-G; Eu17, M89-T, M9-G, M11-G; Eu18, M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C; Eu19, M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C, M17(delG); Eu20, M89-T, M9-G, M45-A; Eu21, M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M124-T.

Here is visible that E19 haplotype includes (because is inherited) all the allels of M18: M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C and have additional distinguishing allel M17(delG), which is written as Eu19, M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C, M17(delG)

          Eu18: M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C
          Eu19: M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C, M17(delG)

So it is wrong to say that EU19 is overgroup of M17. Every one haplotype classified by Semino to EU19 contain allel M17. the other allels M89-T, M9-G, M45-A, M173-C, are common to EU18 and EU19 hut allel is a piece of DNA if Somebody may have the piece M17 where Guanidine is deleted (not present) then he will be EU19 or may have it and having the other allels will be EU18. If have other allels will be in another EU group. If you still do not believe in my expertise in understanding the genetic terminology :) its your believe. If you like we can, you can help me to show other what is the sequence of the regions of YDNA in nucleotide precision level. (It will exhaust the presentation) but instead of misunderstanding you should switch yourself to cooperation. So far I consider your opposition somehow constructive because it may once for all help to deeper understand the nature of the molecular genetics objects and terminology. The regions of YDNA are fully sequenced. I only afraid that the nucleotide map will be even more confusing to general public, but since the Wikipedia is not a paper I think we can extend the understanding. I do not have any problems with understanding what Semino wrote in his paper and as I say on the beginning I trying to help you to understand it to. To get the whole picture it will be good to understand also the mechanism of DNA replication, the crossing over in somatic chromosomes and why Y chromosome is different, which cause that is good for researching the population genetics and its application to understanding and verifying historical data.

The other aspect is the microsatelite variance. You did not question this... microsatelite variance gives us more detailed information. Research in this field is not so effective, its involve sequencing while haplotypes can be more quickly mapped by polymerase chain reaction when in 3 hours hundreds DNA of samples may be PCaRed. Do you know 'all the thinks' theoretically, technically, manually? I understand it may be complex sometime confusing and unknown to you. Its ok you may have genuine questions as any thinking person... At end I have only one question: do you do you still have objection about EU19=M17=R1a1?

Nasz 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I concede the point that Eu19 = M17 = R1a1. This spells it out clearly. However, the critique remains essentially unchanged, especially the part about WP:OR. -- Zz 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen in the article any refference on findings of Sarmatian maternal DNA lineages in modern day Central Asians, though it is established fact by now and there are plenty of research done. I hope noone minds adding a nicely composed material regarding this subject.--64.230.66.42 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We Polish Nobles are The Sarmatians. It's not our Polish view about Sarmatians. It's our biologic I1a Y-DNA and I1b Y-DNA descent and our flaxen hairs is our genetic proof for it, which you people with black, yellowish blond and something of corroding iron hairs can do many fancy things about making rasits rants against us flaxen haired Polish Nobles (mostly about our Polish stupidity and our blue eyes stupidity), but steal it from us Polish Nobles you can't. Why? Because it is genetic. You can't even rub yourself with Polish Nobility to get yourself our famous ancient Sarmatian marker of appearance, the our flaxen hairs and blue eyes. As Polish Nobleman and true Sarmatian by birth I have to say to you people, that this thing is genetic, it is DNA, it is BIOLOGIC inheritance, it is VISUALLY OBVIOUS (hint: flaxen hairs somebody? hallo!), it is after our fathers the ancient Sarmatians and not yours fathers, so stop being silly about us Polish Nobles, the last of the proud Sarmatians in Europe and still haired like the ancient Sarmatians our ancient father were haired. And eyes! blue eyes too! Now go and make jokes about some black haired brown eyed R1a YDNA Iranians, as descendants of flaxen haired blue eyed ancient I1 YDNA Sarmatians, if you still can. Piotr Glownia

Polish Y-DNA (XXI century):

- 25% R1b YDNA; - 25% I1 YDNA; - 50% R1a YDNA;

Polish society (XVIII century):

- 75% of aliens, "guests, goscie panszczyzniani" peasantry; - 25% of natives, "hosts, hospodar, gospodarz" Polish Nobility;

Now, how come YDNA of 50% of Polish are suddenly "hosts" in Poland? Only 25% of Polish can make that claim. The 75% of Polish please refer your YDNA to the countries your ancestors come from to Poland during XIV and after centuries. That is Ukraine the R1a Polish "guests" homeland and Germany the R1b Polish "guests" homeland, both of which settled in Poland on GERMAN LAW. BTW Polish, you won't get blue eyed and flaxed haired in one day to become instead of I1 YDNA Polish Nobility the Sarmatians of Poland with ancient Sarmatian looks, which are abviously from acient texts: flaxen hairs and blue eyes. And yes, no "guests" ever claimed any Sarmatian roots in Poland. Only "sarmatian looking" "hosts" Polish Nobility claimed to be Sarmatians in Poland for centuries untill Partitions of Poland and vicious attack of Polish nationalists against Polish Nobility that no Sarmatians ever lived in Poland in historical times. Well, someone certainly still looks like their ancestors. Bad to be Polish Nationalist now. Right? Long live inheritory Y-DNA and genetic evidence!

Piotr Glownia

PLEASE SPLIT THE SARMATIAN TOPIC FROM THE SARMATISM TOPIC

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

This page is becomingly increasingly focused on what several termed "Sarmatism" - the Polish movement a couple of centuries back. I have no issues with people posting lots of great info about that movement, but it has virtually nothing to do with Sarmatian culture and history. Can't it go on a "Sarmatism" page instead (with a link to/from it from/to this page)? Or can't we at least move all the non-Sarmatian stuff into the section already labeled "The Polish Reference to Sarmatians"?

Having all this information mixed together (with nothing to separate it from the information about the Sarmatians) is extremely misleading to youngsters and others ignorant of historical timelines. The sections I am particularly speaking to include:

• General Background
• Political Thought
• Philosophies
• Customs
• Funerals
• Costumes
• Architecture
• Painting

There's a lot of great information on this page, but you now have to go hunting for the information about the Sarmatians themselves. There's so little in English on the web (or in literature) about these fascinating peoples, please fix this page so it is once again a good resource for information about them.

Thank you, Scottnjulie 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Only after I wrote my comments below did I stumble on your comments here. You're absolutely right! At the very least, it's badly muddled; you think you're reading about Sarmation customs, etc., and then you find you're reading about the Polish nobility of the 16th century. I'm not registered with Wikipedia (notice, I sign my real name). But I've made mechanical/technical fixes before, without trying to add or take away material. I might try here to set up a Sarmatism section here, and relegate those sections to it. And I hope it'll be moved by people more conversant with Wikipedia ways than I. 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

DID IT. I collected all the discussion of Polish Sarmatism as subheadings under the discussion of the Polish view of the Sarmatians. But I still feel that it should all be moved to the article on Sarmatism, and a brief reference and link should be left here. 140.147.160.78 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Thank you SOOOO much! It's 100% better! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.28.44 (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have to do with a Polish view, when 25% of Polish people in Poland certainly look like ancient Sarmatians, live in territory of ancient Sarmatian Kingdom and like ancient Sarmatians are historic brethren with modern day descendants of Scythians like Magyars and Lithuanians, who are of Iranian stock and also still look very Iranian. Piotr Glownia

"Sarmatians" and "Sarmatism" muddled

The article as written jumbles two different topics. The article is supposed to be about an ancient people called Sarmatians. But somewhere, and without a clear introduction, one finds oneself reading about "Sarmatism," the 16th century vogue among the Polish nobility to suppose that they were descendents of the ancient Sarmations, and to adopt what they saw romantically as the trappings of that society. A full eight sections prove to be dealing with this Polish phenomenon, and they are just inserted, as a block and without distinction, into the middle of the sections on Sarmations proper.

I suggest one of two things. Either establish a section here on Sarmatism and put all those eight sections under that section. Or, much better, I think: Make a brief, clearly titled reference to Sarmatism, and move those eight sections to the Wikipedia article on Sarmatism. There is such an article.

The eight sections are: General Background; Political Thought; Philosphy; Customs; Funerals; Costumes; Architecture; Painting. 140.147.160.78 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

It maybe is not evident, but Polish aristocracy was not overly found of Polish Sarmatism. Polish knighthood and aristocracy were not very Sarmatian at all in XVth century, as they were busy copying culture of the West European chivalry. Sarmatism was however the popular local culture and tradition in Poland of Polish native peasantry, who in XVth century massively joined rankes of Polish Nobility (they were after all also landowners in Poland even if very small ones _and_ they were the standing Polish infantry in Polish Common General Leavy even if they were not knights). Piotr Glownia

Catholics do not "worship" Mary

I changed, "A special worship of Saint Mary, the saints and the Passion was practiced," to "A special devotion to Saint Mary, the saints and the Passion was practiced." Catholics worship only God, in the three persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We revere the saints, and we honor Mary in a special way, as the Mother of God. But Mary is not a God(dess), and we do not worship her as one. 140.147.160.78 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

That's why deeply Catholic Poland banished Jezuites from Poland. The patriotic and popular "Restitution of Law and Order" movement in XVII century had banishment of Jezuites as one of its main goals. Pity its rebelion didn't succed to overthrow the king, as we could get rid with that dissease from Poland much more sooner and we wouldn't suffer any Partitions of Poland later on either.. hopefully. Of course Catholicism in Poland even today is more early christian with stain of paganizm on top of it about its worship of Holly Mother (Czestochowa?), then Jezuites would wish for. Bad for Jezuites. Bad for Rome. Bad for Roman Catholicism. Excelent for Poland and its Sarmatians. Excelent for Polish Catholicism. BTW there is a reason why there was no Polish popes in Vatican/Rome before XXth century... Polish Roman-Catholic Church just wasn't "so-Jezuite-closed" part of that Roman Roman-Catholic Church. We were kind of... Ethiopia alike independent Catholics and for a reason, as Germanics and Romans are 2000 year old blood enemies of Sarmatians. Piotr Glownia

This seems to be a kind of disjointed ramble about a dozen different things--not one of them saying enough to be clear. But I'll say again: we do not "worship" the Blessed Virgin Mary--not as the Holy Mother, not as Our Lady of Częstochowa. We revere the saints, and we honor the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in a special way. We worship only God. 140.147.160.78 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Before talking "we" as "we Sarmatians" I sugest you to go to Silesia and have a look at Sleza mountain. There Pagan cult of Godess "in white cloths" was very strong even in historic times... Now, all people know how medieval Clergy fought pagan cults in Poland. They added them to their "saints" or marked as "satan" (as it happened with God Perun). Now the interresting thing is that "Goddess Mother in white cloths" from Pagan Sleza or Catholic Czestochowa is not the regular cult found in all European civilizations, where she is the fertility god. It is after all the Sarmatian God of creation (like Jupiter/Zeus) who created the pagan holy tree prised by Pagan Slavic people and Pagan Celtic people (Druids' religion huh?). Why tree of creation? Because we Sarmatians at being farmers SUCKED always. We were hunters, killer, warmongers and prime barbarians of Europe. Most precisely we Sarmatians were _forest_ hunters. In Poland people hunted for dinner in woods untill late XVth century, when imigrant Polish feudal peasantry cut the Polish eternal forest down and started doing agriculture in its place. Now, maybe for Polish feudal peasantry and their ofsprings today it is only "honoring God's Mother" and "worshiping God", but Polish feudal peasantry never refered to themselves as Sarmatian people and never did put any claim on Sarmatian heritage like we Polish feudal Lords did in our entire 25% of entire Polish population strength before year 1795. Now when we are clear about "who are we" and "who are you" about this Sarmatian heritage and legacy, then lets clear also that issue about worshiping "Mother God" in Poland even today as form of Pagan continuacy of Sarmatian roots in borders of Catholic religion in Poland. "Mother Godess from Czestochowa" is the only surviving today Sarmatian Pagan cult in frames of modern Polish Catholic Church after 200 years of Catholic Germanization and if it wasn't so, then it should have no "traditional" value any more today in Poland, but it still has... at least amongst 25% of modern Polish people... very traditional and very also _Sarmatian_, as it is spelled "Sarmatian medieval culture of Poland". Certainly the rest Polish must feel it as something ethnically alien. But hey! It is only Sarmatian thing. BTW. We still do worship Virgin Mary, "The Mother of God"... or like Polish Slavic Pagans would rather say "The Mother of Gods" with the accent on the last "s" and to prove that I have to say that we Sarmatians when Poland was still under Sarmatian rule, we made "the White Lady of Czestochowa" officially the honorary Queen of Poland. An honor that would never be given in Poland to some Jezus Christ of Nazaret even if he was most loved child of God. Some modern Polish politicians thinks they could pull crowning him as "King of Poland", but where is popular support for that from these 25% of Polish? Ha! Fancy thing also about this Catholic prophecy of "Mother of God/Gods" in Czestochowa, which says that only Sarmatian Polish will live for ever, when the rest of humanity will be swept by Armagedon. Fancy, because it seems God will wipe out all good Catholics who worship "only God (that's him, the God who will be wiping them out!)" and will not worship "the Mother of God" the Sarmatian way. But hey! even Catholic popes recognized it as legitimate Catholic Church prophecy, so something must be very fancy about this prophecy. ;) Piotr Glownia

I can't make sense out of half of what you said, but I wish you wouldn't change my subject line for me to make it say something different. No Catholic Polish noble who has any business calling himself that would "worship" the Virgin Mary--as the Mother of God, as Our Lady of Częstochowa, as Queen of Poland, or as "Holy Mother in White Clothes." We venerate Mary in a special way, above all the saints, but we do not worship her. 140.147.160.78 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I changed the headline back. Piotr's "emendation" to my headline implied that the notion he added is somehow part of my point. It most emphatically is not. Take a look at my name, Pan Glownia. It is my real name, and we bear OUR OWN herb (coat of arms), not one borrowed from someone else. And I most certainly do not "worship" a lady dressed in white clothes--that would be a sin. 140.147.160.78 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

This "Senuric Legacy" section is suspicious

Is anybody else suspicious or concerned about the section "The Senuric Legacy"? That's the one that speaks of Jews running a trade in European women as slaves.

To begin with, I can't find out anything on this word "Senuric." Every search result in Yahoo or Google leads to this article, or to a copy of the article somewhere.

This "author" cited in the section, Aymn Almsaodi--I can't find out anything about him, either. The link provided here in the section redirects to an article on one Ali al-Masudi, apparently an eminent Arabian scholar and historian of the 10th century; the Almsaodi connection is that one Dr. Abdulaziz Almsaodi is descended from him. I cannot find the author, or his alleged book Historic atlas of Iberia in either the Library of Congress or in OCLC. And searching Almsaodi on line, apart from this and other Wikipedia articles, and verbatim copies of them on other pages, the only Aymn Almsaodi I find was knocked out in his first professional boxing bout. 72.66.108.162 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Further on this. I waded through the history. The section was added on March 23, 2007 by Serenesoulnyc, who has been banned. And the comment on the "beter (sic) product" was added by anonymous 24.13.244.169 who has been cited for vandalizing. 72.66.108.162 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Restructure article

THis article is difficult to read, confusing.

Instead of cataloguing historical accounts, can someone just summarise the features of Sarmatians, to read like other articles. Eg origins, etymology, history, etc.

And whats with the overemphasised Polish section ? Hxseek 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC

The question of the Polish section has been discussed above, and there's a proposal to shift it to the article on Sarmatism; there is such an article. Actually, it's improved a lot recently. I rearranged the sections and headings; before that you could hardly tell if you were reading about the ancient Sarmatians or the Sarmation vogue of Renaissance Poland. 140.147.160.78 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Let me sumarize it. Ofspring of ancient Sarmatians are: Clans of Scotish Nobility, most Norwegians (Clans of Vikings), white haired (not just blond) Germans and Clans of Polish Nobility. Even if Polish clans are more similiar to Vikings clans and not to Scotish ones. These Germans were Germanized during Xth century and lost their Sarmatian clans then due the German Catholicism. Now the only cultural (freedom loving, democracy loving, war loving... the typical characteristics of ancient Sarmatian barbarians) from Xth century when Vikings (who were Germanized in first place alike earlier Celticized Picts in Scotland) got Catholic until XXI century are... Clans of Polish Nobility. If this article is about I1 Y-DNA correct biologic Sarmatians, then I would suggest sticking us Polish Sarmatians in it. Unless it is about our genetically I1 Y-DNA ancient ancestors, then the article should be more precize about this. How about making an article about "Ancient Sarmatians" and move all non-Polish stuff to it and leave Polish Nobility and its Sarmatian roots alone? Okay? Piotr Glownia

BTW it is I1 Y-DNA, which is by genetic scientists associated with German/Polish Sarmatian Venedes(Polish "Wieleci") (Baltic Sarmatians anyone?) and it is not the Scythian R1a Y-DNA, which was suggested here by someone. Maybe R1a Y-DNA is genetic mark of the Slavic "communist" people of Europe, but we Sarmatians certainly are the I1 Y-DNA Feudal Lords and Nobility of these Slavic people of Eastern Europe. At least we were untill communist massacres in Eastern Europe started during last century. That is when R1a Y-DNA started exterminating I1 Y-DNA from Eastern Europe on great scale in XXth century. It is great to know however after these 100 years of communist massacres that you as Nobleman from the Eastern Europe do significantly genetically differ (like Black people from Africa do differ from Chinese, just it doesn't show like that on skin color) and it is not just difference in social class in our own families, our own tribes, our own clans. It is difference of blood. Out is blood is "blue" and theirs is "red". Slavic people is not a family, is not a clan, is not a tribe. Slavic people is a full fledged multiethnic hell and unity of Slavic people during last 1000 years I think is the best proof of this. It was the Scythians, who as communists were butchering us Sarmatians on our very own ancient Sarmatian lands here in Europe. It was an alien immigrant ethnic group after all, the Scythians. It was not any wrong-done social class of our own Sarmatian people. It wasn't our Sarmatian people at all. It was the other Slavic peoples of other ethnicity. It were the guests on our Sarmatian European land, the Scythians. It is very good to know that today and also imho it would be great also to move the Scythian cultural element out of this page, as our Sarmatian culture _always_ significantly differed from culture of Scythians (and not only on the sole issue of women rights in society) and if you don't believe me, then ask any archeologist for God's sake. Just because some Sarmatian words or names were borowed from Iranian languages it doesn't mean that Sarmatian culture is a cheap ofshoot of Iranian civilization and Sarmatian people are genetic copies of Iranians (I think historic records are quite clear about Sarmatian ancient appearance and Iranian ancient appearance and my God they really do significantly differ, don't they) even, if some Scythian cultures and Scythian peoples are very, very very Iranian even today. Piotr Glownia

Please try to leave out nationalist propaganda from Wiki. Unfortunately your content is pseudo-science, nay, peasant folklore. Heplotype I1 is associated with the Germanic peoples. No mention of it linking ancient Sarmatians with 'Polish nobility' such as yourself , or ? scottish kings. Hxseek 13:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this discussion belongs to Talk:Sarmatism so maybe you can move it there if you want to continue (anyway, this reaks of original research) But since this relates somewhat to Sarmatians, I'm curious who tested their DNA? Do they have mummies of Sarmatians? -- AdrianTM 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Yes exactly Mr ATM. i have not come across any such research about sarmatian DNA. THe German stuff is well known though. Would be interestin thoughHxseek 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving info to Sarmatism

I think the info that was good was already merged into Sarmatism article therefore I removed the Polish Sarmatism from this article. If you want to add/edit info about Polish Sarmatism and talk about the issue, I suggest you do it in that article, and its talk page. For now there's only a dab article that leads to Sarmatism if people consider that's worth mentioning in the article please add a short and to the object description with a link to Sarmatism -- personally I think the disambiguation link is enough. -- AdrianTM 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if there's some info that is worth transferring to Sarmatism and it hasn't been yet, please don't re-add it to this page, just fish it from the history and add it directly to Sarmatism. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 16:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

?

""Herodotus (Histories 4.21) in the 5th century BC placed the land of the Sarmatians east of the Tanais, beginning at the corner of the Maeotian Lake, stretching northwards for fifteen days' journey, adjacent to the forested land of the Budinoi. Herodotus describes the Sarmatians' physical appearance as blond, stout and tanned; in short, pretty much as the Scythians and Thracians were seen by the other classical authors."

Were not the thracians (and scythians) dark, meditterannean looking people. Hxseek 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, It might be incorrect to give a blanket description of what a 'typical' sarmatian might look like, because there was no typical sarmatian. Were they not a confederacy of different ethnos. Now certainly the western-most 'sarmatians' might be blond due to their mixture with germans/celts/slavsHxseek 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's hard to say, keep in mind that some classical Greeks were blond with blue eyes -- "Mediterranean" might not have much meaning in that context, if some Greeks were blond it's conceivable that a more Nordic population might have been too. -- AdrianTM 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatians in Northern Europe is pure rubbish

Please delete from main article the chapter which starts: Around 100 BC ... There is no evidence found from any sources of their existence north of Volga-Kama confluence. If they were there, they were only as traders, and this area had not any Sarmatian cultural influence. There were some trading connections with the Scythians and the coming of burial Kurgan Culture but that was all. No language connections north of middle Volga area.

The only Indo-European culture which ever reached this area before 700 AD was the so called "Hammer Axe Culture" which spread from the west and reached Volga bend c.2000 BC, is the only Indo-European culture of which some remarks have been found in the area. And these new wanderers, only in small numbers, were soon assimilated by the Finno Ugrian peoples living in the area. Finno Ugrian peoples were not of Indo-European origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.131 (talk) 18:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Sarmatians and Samarkand

Back when i was in the high school, in history books during the otoman empire it was mentioned that a lot of Albanians served in the otoman army in Samarkand as well. By that i can understand that there was a place called Samarkand by those countries/people under the Otoman Empire. Anyone can think that it is possible, that this Samarkand can be the same place of Samartians???

Best

Illuminati 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This Samarkand#Etymology? -- AdrianTM 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Samarkand, which is in Central Asia and now part of Uzbekistan, was never part of the Ottoman Empire. It was at initially the capital of the Samanids and then a capital of the empire of Tamerlane, before becoming an important city of the Uzbek Khanate. It was conquered by the Safavid Empire of Iran, but eventually reverted back to the power of local Khans before being incorporated to the Russian Empire in the early 19th century. The name has nothing to do with the Sarmatians and anyway, one is s-a-r-m-a-t and the other s-a-m-a-r!--Khodadad (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fear between Dacians and Sarmatians

IMHO there was a mistranslation of the Latin text by Tacitus which I corrected. He didn't speak of mutual fear between Dacians and Sarmatians, but of fear between those people living in Germania and Sarmatians and Dacians. It's some years ago that I studied Latin, but I definitively read it that way: "Germania omnis [...], a Sarmatis Dacisque mutuo metu aut montibus separatur" or "The whole Germania is separated [...], from the Sarmatians and Dacians by mutual fear or mountains.". Furthermore, "Dacisque" = "Dacians" seems more than a bit strange to me. de:Waifar 84.178.93.148 13:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What would Dacisque mean? Sarmatians from Dacia? -- AdrianTM 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It’s the ablative plural of Daci, plus the enclitic que: “and from the Dacians”. —benadhem 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistancy

The last two paragraphs of the Archaeology section is inconsistant with the rest. While the article is talking about the Sarmatians and the four sequences of their history, the last two paragraphs all of a sudden jump into the Hunic period and also change the term to "Alans" without any prior introduction.--Khodadad (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The contributors to this discussion seem to be wasting a lot of ink on a little knowledge. An extremely sound account on the topic is 'The Sarmatians' by Tadeusz Sulimirski (1970) in the series 'Ancient People and Places', (General editor: Glyn Daniel), publ. Thames & Hudson. Obviously this reference work lacks the benefits of more recent research in archaeology and archaeogenetics.

For the record, there is some limited evidence of cultural and commercial contacts between Scythians and Sarmatians on the one hand, and the Finnic peoples living in the Volga basin, as evidenced by Sulimirski. 86.137.148.195 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The best of changes and the worst of changes

Well, my friends, since I left this article in a storm of controversy it has fared very well and very badly. Today I find it full of tags, badly formatted, and in very rough English in most places. On the positive side I find that it contains much more information and that is really quite heartening. Moreover many of the controversies have been settled. I think it could really benefit from a formatting cleanup and source check. If you had left it alone I would have had to do all the research myself, possibly months of work. It is true for the most part you speak in shrill, nagging, insulting voices and use terrible English revealing your lack of understanding of English culture. But, no matter how badly and rudely you say it, you seem to have something to say. This is good. This is raw material that can be polished. You are all rough-cut gems. I think by now you see that however loudly you yell and however good you are at insulting there is always someone better. Maybe there is a time when the wolves must stop howling at each over the vast plains of Asia and come and sit by the fire. You aren't going to settle all the problems of all the peoples from China to the Don, so maybe it is time to realize that Wikipedia must stand above all that. This is not a national effort. It is just a group of private intellects trying to capture some knowledge in this confusing blind alley we call life. So knock it off, hey? I am going to start with some minor cleanup and formatting issues as I usually do. I respect the knowledge you have put in there and I hope you knew what you were getting insulting about. We will find out.Dave (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Connection with the Slavs

Did Sarmatians mix with some other ancient people,to make it Slavs,Poles,Serbs,Croats etc?Because these names doesnt seem to be pure Slavic,they are either of Sarmatian influence.Anyone answer on this one?Basically what im asking is were the Sarmatae came into any contact with Germanic people,or with Finnic people etc?