Talk:Sarmatians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sarmatism and Polish words

The following box contains the (grossly overlong) original title of this section:

Sarmatism and Polish words: sarmacki, szarmancki (these words come into beeing right after polish nobles started to think about themselves that they are direct descendant of Sarmatians

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)

Brest was Brivates, it was not a town of the gaulish Veneti (NOT Venedi), Bre in old briton means height as it still does in modern brythonic languages, -st is a known suffix in many Breton and Welsh place names, and is cognate with irish Bra and Gaulish Briga and there were also Illyrian Veneti, so it's unlikely the ethnonym is ONLY sarmatian. The Insular and Celtiberian Brigantes have names with that cognate, and the old form of the city's name was Bri, which is a more archaic form of Bra/Bre in insular celtic languages. This isn't the first time you use this page to make ridiculous philological statements. 70.53.136.141 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2009 (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)

On the Herodotus History Section

The transition “in short, pretty much as” seems awkward and misplaced. Following the statement about the appearance of the Sarmatians, it feels to me like the editor of that section proposes that the Sarmatians should be related away from the Greeks and closer to the Budinoi, the Scythians and the Thracians. It is possible that the editors of this section may be somehow connecting the Budinoi, whom Herodotus describes as having blue eyes, with the Sarmatians. If that connection is being strengthened, it would serve better if it is given a citation, reference or direct quotation from Herodotus. Otherwise, that sentence should be removed. In addition, the two sentences following it should be removed regardless because they have nothing to do with the Sarmatians per se in that context, but are merely presenting a presumed logical conclusion. Yet, if the editors wish to establish a closer relationship with the Cythians and Thracians, it may be possible to do that in a more concrete or direct way.

If I am way off on this topic, please excuse me as I am by no means highly experienced in these subjects. I was simply studying the Amazons and it led me to this article. However, my limited reading and searching in Herodotus has not given me reason to think that he described the appearance of the Sarmatians in the way stated in that section. However, I may have misread or not read an important part or my sources could be inaccurate. If so please clarify this for me so I can correct this. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreQuester (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) --FreQuester (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

well, it is undisputed that this article is a giant mess: this is why it is tagged for cleanup. I will try to improve it over time, but I don't have the time that would be necessary to do it in a single session. You are most welcome to lend a hand. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Any data on 5000 Sarmatian cavalry posted to Britannia circa 175 AD?Euphonia (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit to the "name" section

First sentence of the fifth paragraph in the "name" section repeated the word "mention," both before and after a parenthetical description of who is doing the mentioning. I removed the preceding. 76.90.73.71 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC) DRS, 10OCT2010

Asia Sarmatia hatnote

"

"Asia Sarmatia" redirects here. For other uses, see Asia Sarmatia (disambiguation).

"

This is not English. We never use Asia as an adjective, we always use Asian. I think that was the intent because there is a "European Sarmatia" in boldface in at least one article. However, neither one of those redirects currently exist, nor does any "Asia Sarmatia (disambiguation)." Now, if you had an Asia Sarmatia disambig why would you redirect Asia Sarmatia to here and not to the disambig? It seems to me before you put the hatnote in you need the pages referenced by the hatnote, and before you can have those, you need to decide what scheme you are going to use. I don't see Asia Sarmatia used anywhere in WP, but before we had an Asian Sarmatia disambig, would it not be better to have a Sarmatia or Sarmatian disambig? Excuse me, let me see what articles there are. Well, there is a nice disambig to cover Sarmatia and Sarmatian. So, it seems clear, what is called for is an otheruses to it. You can create redirects to here from a new Asian Sarmatia and European Sarmatia. It isn't necessary to say they redirect to here. Other pages do as well. If the user enters Asian Sarmatia and we have a redirect to here it will be noted at the top of the page as usual.Dave (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarmatians and Getae

Not to add more ancestry claims on top of what it was added, but there are plenty of historic sources which connect Sarmatians (and Scythians) with the Daco-Getae. Some authors believe that Getae have at least a partial ancestry from the Scythians (maybe a Dacian-Scythian mix), while some of the Dacian tribes have a mix with the Sarmatians. Others believe that ancient historians mistaken the Getae from Scythia Minor and Moesia for Scythians. There are also linguistic affinities between Geto-Dacian toponyms and known words and Sarmatian and Scythian languages. The Dacians and Sarmatians were also allies in many instances, especially fighting the Romans. Whatever the truth may be, they clearly interacted a lot. I am suggesting a section or paragraph for that. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from Sarmatians/Comments

It doesn't look like a B-class article at this point. More citations are needed.Codrin.B (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarmatians are mentionned from the romans 3-2 sentury B.C. These are the bulgarian people which earlier came from Bactria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.149.221 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2011 (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)

The Assyrian's conquered (Northern) Israel, its capitol was Samaria, the southern kingdom of (Israel) was called Judah its capitol was Jerusalem, hence Jews, so getting back to Northern Israel, were the ten lost tribes lived, they were taken into captivity to Assyria, and probably stayed there until the Scythians destroyed Assyria, it might be a coincidence or might not be, but at about this exact time, when the whole area North of Assyria was called Scythia, then once Assyria is destroyed all of a sudden the Sarmatian's appear, coincidence?, is it not conceivable that they started to not call themselves not by their tribal names of the sons of Joseph, or Israel but by the name of their old capitol, i.e Samaria, hence Sarmatians? well that's my two bob's worth and I think its definitely food for thought. Stephen C Grant-Davies. 09/10/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.243.166.218 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2012 (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

You are too obsessed with racializing and phenotypes. LouisAragon (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2013 (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

ROFL polish construction worker obsessed with his Iranic heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Like blue eyes and flaxen hair is the summmum you simple soul! It doesn't make you a better man, fool. These retarded nationalists.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This passage was written by a drunkard?

The Sarmatians remained dominant until the Gothic ascendancy in the Black Sea area. Goths attacked Sarmatian tribes on the north of the Danube in Dacia, what is today Romania. The Roman Emperor Constantine called his son Constantine II up from Galia to run a campaign north of the Danube. In very cold weather, the Romans were victorious, killing 100,000 Goths and capturing Ariaricus the son of the Goth king.[18][19][20]

In their efforts to halt the Gothic expansion and replace it with their own on the north of Lower Danube (present-day Romania), the Sarmatians armed their captives. After the Roman victory, however, the local population revolted against their Sarmatian masters, pushing them beyond the Roman border. Constantine, on whom the Sarmatians had called for help, defeated Limigantes, the leader of the revolt, and moved the Sarmatian population back in. In the Roman provinces, Sarmatian combatants were enlisted in the Roman army, whilst the rest of the population was distributed throughout Thrace, Macedonia and Italy. The Origo Constantini mentions 300,000 refugees resulting from this conflict. The emperor Constantine was subsequently attributed the title of Sarmaticus Maximus.[19][21][22][23][24] '

This funny mess should be corrected immediately. 109.81.252.94 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Serboi not included

Why Serboi are not on the list of Sarmatian tribes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serboi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.71.234 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Have now added them.--Navops47 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarmatian an Iranian people

Per these sources;

• The Sarmatians, 600 BC-AD 450, by Richard Brzezinski, ‎Mariusz Mielczarek, page 3, "The Alans were essentially of the same Iranian stock as the Sarmatians...".
• Encyclopedia of European Peoples, ed. Carl Waldman, ‎Catherine Mason, page 692, "The Sarmatians were a nomadic Indo-Iranian people."
• North Pontic Archaeology: Recent Discoveries and Studies, ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, page 22, "What is important is that these examples prove the presence of Iranian ethnic elements and the existence of Iranian traditions, surely connected with the Sarmatians (an Iranian people) in the chora of Olbia." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Those removals by that user ([2], [3]) are WP:OR/personal analysis. According to his/her edit summaries, it looks like that user is not familiar with the Iranian peoples (Iranic) term. --Zyma (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Iranian" is indeed an ambiguous term to use in the ethnic sense, because of the muliethnic country named Iran. I personally favor "Iranic" because "Iranian" these days is used mostly as a demonym for a resident of the multiethnic Iran. Some sources use "Iranic" too for the ethnic groups to differentiate them from the demonym, I suggest we also do the same on Wikipedia to avoid such ambiguity which has been leading to slow edit-wars. Khestwol (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Iranian and Indo-Iranian (or even Indo-Aryan and Aryan) are confusing for the editors who are not familiar with IE studies. Maybe, a clarification on articles like this article will be helpful, but it's not necessary. Because we have a direct wikilink to that ethno-linguitic term (Iranian peoples). I agree that Iranic is better than Iranian, but it's not popular as much as Iranian term. I have no opinion about replacing Iranian with Iranic, because WP policies say that we should use common words/terms. My suggestion is: Improve and expand main article (Iranian peoples), just like Slavs, Germanic peoples, and etc. I'm sure it will solve a lot of issues. But it looks like this repetitive Iranian/Iranic/Iranian-speaking/Iranic-speaking stuff is a eternal part of some articles. --Zyma (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarmatian etymology

Besides that such an important article about well known ancient people lacks proper editing and citing of modern scholarship point of view, think that the archeologists finding about the real existence of warrior-women known as Amazons among the Sarmatians is additionally proved (or supported) according the etymologists Oleg Trubachyov and Alemko Gluhak Croatian source, pg. 132, by whom the Sarmatians ethnonym derived from Indo-Aryan *sar-ma(n)t (feminine - rich in women, ruled by women), from Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian word *sar- (woman) and Indo-Iranian adjective suffix -ma(n)t, by which was noted the unusual high status of women (Matriarchy) from the Greeks point of view and went to the invention of Amazons.--Crovata (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If your source and its authors pass as WP:RELIABLE (for this topic), add that content to "Name" section. Do some other experts on Sarmatian history support this etymology or not? --Zyma (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, without any exceptions the source and both authors pass. However, that is what would like to know before the information is included. We first could find what other reliable scholars on Sarmatians etymology wrote about, and when we will finish, gather those information and authors and properly include them into right context (NPOV of many, if they exist, scholars POV).--Crovata (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a very solid etymology to me. The ending -atai is generally considered an Iranian plural marker (note that we have the ethnic name attested as Sairim in Avestan, i.e. < *Saⁱrmi) and the root *sar- may be the same as Avestan sar "to move suddenly" (see: Harold Walter Bailey, Khotanese Texts, Volume 7, Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 65).Cagwinn (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What Harold Walter Bailey wrote in the source see the link. Nice to see there's another reliable scholars POV, neverthless the good scholar's try, have to say it is just too far-fetched. The ethnic name is not attested, that's an scholar assumption. He connected the Sarmatians with alleged Avestan region in the west Sairima, and character Salm from the epic written between the late 10th and early 11th century AD, while the Sarmatians are mentioned many centuries before the epic work was written and released. However, the derivation of Avestan sar- (to move suddenly) from Old Iranian tsar- (tsarati, tsaru-, hunter), is interesting and can be linked with the Eurasian Steppe nomadic lifestyle.--Crovata (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the Enclyclopedia Iranica, "The earliest reference to the Sarmatians is in the Avesta, Sairima-, which is in the later epic Slm *Sarm and Salm." Cagwinn (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Iranica we can not use as authority or source as it is another reference encyclopedia like Wikipedia, however, the site is well referenced and could be used as indication for reliable sources. The cited statement is again without reference, but it is obviously connected with H. W. Bailey as he is mentioned in the text below, and that is a scholar's assumption, not reality.

According certain Valentyn Stetsyuk source, he pointed a good POV If there are better options, we do not take into account the vocabulary of the Avesta, often used by V. Abaev and other professionals as an argument in favor of the existence of this word also in the Ossetian. The formation of the primary Iranian languages (dialects) occurred long before the Scythian times and the writing of the Avesta, and actually indeed, Sarmatians spoke Eastern Iranian languages, but the Western Scytho-Sarmatian dialect of the Scythian languages, while the Avestan was spoken in the completely opposite Eastern side of the Eurasia. Neverthless, the final edited information will be interesting.--Crovata (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarmatia?

As of currently, "Sarmatia" redirects to this article? Should a separate article for Sarmatia be created, just like we have Scythia? - LouisAragon (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can turn that redirect into an article but it must have enough content and notable sources to become a separate article. Because a short article or a content fork is not necessary. It's good if someone start to expand/improve this article and other Sarmatian-related articles (e.g. articles of some of those mentioned Sarmatian tribes). --Zyma (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Image: War elephants in battle with Dacians and Sarmatians

@Baddu676: It's a good image. But can you add more details to its description? For example, the name of battle(s)? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Lesser than signs

(*salm, < *Sairmi), and

• Sъrm- < Proto-Slavic adjective *sъrmatъ

"<" makes little sense, and is not obvious at all what it is delineating. I am replacing it with an Em Dash, seeing as my removal was undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiva.avraham (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sarmatians. 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:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050415164245/http://www.nbz.or.jp/eng/pdffiles/hallandyablonsky1998.pdf to http://www.nbz.or.jp/eng/pdffiles/hallandyablonsky1998.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405232449/http://83.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SA/SARMATAE.htm to http://83.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SA/SARMATAE.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112045241/http://www.sarmacja.com.pl/1697eng.htm to http://www.sarmacja.com.pl/1697eng.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Iranian vs. Iranian-speaking

What's the point of changing Iranian to Iranian-speaking in this edit?[4] Iranian (or Iranic) is a term similar to Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, and etc. We can't have double standard. If most sources use Iranian rather than Iranian-speaking, then we should just follow their pattern too. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think Sarmatian culture should be merged into the archaeology section of this article for reasons cited in WP:OVERLAP (gnanvit (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Comment. I support a merge but that article itself does not sound OK. None of the cited sources are in English and I doubt they're RS or verifiable. And seriously what is this: "Bibliography => Prof. Khalil A. Kabara. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria 2011"?! --Wario-Man (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On/in the Pontic steppe?

This article and Alans use "on the Pontic steppe". A Google search brings up both variants equally. Are they both correct?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarmatia in Russia???

Since when Sarmatia is related to Russia? Neither territorial nor culturally it has no connection with people of Meshchera Woods. Sarmatia is located in Pontic steppes, a territory that belonged to Ukraine-Ruthenia and various Turkic states east of the Kievan Rus. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This right here is an example of Ukrainian pseudohistory/"folk history". I would suggest not delving deeper into trying to offend each other as we can easily descend into the crazy talk of Napoleon nuking Great Tartary (in its turn, an insanely popular topic in modern Russian pseudohistory).--Adûnâi (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sarmatian female.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ossetians

On 13 July 2022 IP editor 134.101.3.12 added "Ossetians are the only remnant ethnicity that has not been absorbed by them and retain elements of Sarmatian culture." inserting it between a sentence and its supporting citation. No reference was provided for this statement. I have removed it, pending citation to a reliable source. The Ossetians article cites only a tertiary source, Microsoft's Encarta, for a similar proposition regarding language. A reliable secondary source is needed. Regardless, the previous sentence should not be separated from its source. The paper "Балты в миграциях Великого переселения народов [The Balts in the Migration Period]" does not mention Ossetians.  --Bejnar (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Mikhailovich (2017)

I am not seeing where this source says that the Sarmatians were "decisively assimilated" (weird wording, never heard thst before) in to the proto-Slavs.

https://www.academia.edu/37147068

There seems to be 7 references to "Sarmat" in the article, and they are mostly on page 97:

Page 97: 3 -four

_________________

________

2017

______________

"Balts at the turn of the eras.

At the turn of the eras, the Baltic archaeological cultures spread from the southeastern Baltic to the interfluve of the Oka and Volga and the upper reaches of the Desna and the Seim. Themthe so-called "fourth" world of ancient Europe is assigned in the classificationRussian archaeologist M.B. Schukin. Among them, the main ones are it's a cultureWestern Baltic burial mounds (later - Western Baltic culture), culturehatched ceramics, Milogradskaya, Dnepro-dvinskaya (then it flows intomedium and further - Upper Tushemlinskaya culture), Yukhnovskaya. The fourth "world"differs neither in the sophistication of forms, nor in the richness of the assortment. itexceptionally varied variants of roughly hand-sculpted low profiles wrought jar-shaped pots. All of these cultures "potted" (Shchukin1994: 21). All these cultures were located in the zone of the Baltic toponymy, from whereit is concluded that their speakers spoke in the Baltic languages: speakersWestern Baltic burial mounds in the Western Baltic languages, the rest East Baltic (Shchukin 1994: 22).

Sarmatian invasion.

Earlier Sarmatian expansion and destruction by the Sarmatians of the classical Zarubintsy culture led to migrations of the Zarubintsy population to the north andsovero East, as a result of which a number of local cultures have developed.

Zarubinets

The majority of the population fled to the east the population is expanding intodifferent sides, escaping in the Podsenye, in the Bryansk region, in the Poseymye, in the upper reaches of the Sula and Psla, reaches the headwaters of the Don and, perhaps, even the Samara Volga region (Shchukin 2005: 68). It was the destruction of the Zarubinets culture by the Sarmatians (ser. I in. AD) and "explosion"the latter at a great distance from the Top. Dniester to the Desenye, upper reaches Psla and the Seversky Donets served as an impetus for the migration of the Baltic tribesYukhnovskaya and Dnepro - Dvina cultures to the north and northeast, to the upper reaches of the Dnieperand Volga, in bass. Zap. Dvina, on the upper Oka and in the west. part of Volgo -Okskyinterfluves (Shchukin 1994: 237).

M. Gimbutas notes that the bearers of Zarubinets antiquities violated quiet life of the Eastern Balts in bass. Dnieper and occupied the lands of the Milogradtribes (neuri of Herodotus), located along the Pripyat, in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and itstributaries, as well as the southernterritory (Gimbutas 2004: 111). As a result of the mixing of post-Zarubinets population groups (and, possibly,what then Sarmatians) with local ancient European and Baltic tribes,the basis of a part of the future East Slavic tribes was born, speaking languages,very similar to Central European dialects of the Proto-Slavs,migrating them to lspringzone of the European Plain in the middle."

Hunan201p: So it only says that one group might have mixed with proto-Slavic population in the Balkans. Even scarcer are references to Turks in this article, I'm seeing only two and they don't say they assimilated Sarmatians.

I don't see how this source got used for this (in the lede, no less), when there were already other sources in the article for the assimilation of Sarmatians proto Slavs, like in Slovene studies:

"For example, the ancient Scythians, Sarmatians (amongst others), and many other attested but now extinct peoples were assimilated in the course of history by Proto-Slavs."

From Chodorow, page 358:

https://books.google.com/books?id=NP64BLqDQNIC

" But the Slavic tribes survived the collapse of these empires, and gradually the remnants of the Avars, Sarmatians, and others were absorbed into the Slavic culture"

Beyond that, the were other places the Sarmatians went in to:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Europe/jrVW9W9eiYMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA105&printsec=frontcover

" the Iranic Sarmatians , whose ability to assimilate into preceding Greek civilization created a brilliant new synthesis "

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Croatia/XO8_DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT112&printsec=frontcover

"On the shores of the Black Sea the Alans absorbed two Sarmatian peoples, the Siraci and Aorsi ... Also, the Goths undoubtedly absorbed both Sarmatian and Slavic groups during their two centuries of rule over the steppe land"

So whether or not this was a simple mistake I do not know, but the current lede citation really isn't appropriate. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)