Talk:Scythia

Comment by Roserwilson

The land like that of Scythia doesnot seem to be that impressive and important to bare eyes on world map since past. But people seems to be too crazy about this newfound land. Many of the people have more than 90 percent of pool of local genes but all those 90 genes prove to be nothing when compared to just 0 to 10 percent of the Scythian (probably fictious) genes in case of many. It seems that lands like Scythia were probably extremely poor which made its inhabitants to migrate to other lands. Can anybody give a brief but impressive account of this precious land.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roserwilson (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 March 2007

split

{{split}} from Scythians. dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) the bits that need cleanup were originally posted at Scythian European Kingdoms by Barefact (talk · contribs). dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add information about the customs and culture of Scythians? Xanon

see Scythians, doh

Ali doostzadeh's Lambda

I suggest that Ali doostzadeh should first provide references representing other exemplars of the Atails' coin demonstrating his alleged spot erasure, to substantiate his stipulation "because pf the a has been erased and thus looks like a lambda". Ali doostzadeh editing war about the name "Atails" tends to show ulterior motives unrelated to the alleged erasure, but directly connected with the actual semantics of the name. ~~~~

what ulterior motives? It's not like a king ATAILS is known besides ATAIAS. We have to trust the specialists of epigraphy, and if those tell us the coin is one of Ataias', I see no reason to doubt that. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ulterior motives is that under a guise of spelling correction to remove undesired contents. I asked for a verifiable reference, not a round about. Here we see a most detested type of falsification: a verbal spin against an artifact, and refusal to substantiate the claim. Ata-ils spelled his name Atails because he called himself with a title-name of a "father of the country", and this fact falls under the ethnic cleansing censorship rules of Iranian censors. Ata is like in Ataturk, ataman, atabek, Atila, and Il is like in Il-Khanids, Itil, Atila, etc., quite transparent and alarming for these censors. The speculation of "mistaken spelling" had soon to be discarded back in 70es with finds of other exemplars. I thought that instead of obvious falsification attempt, the Iranians would turn agains the artifact itself, somehow defaming it to eradicate it completely, or eradicate it by defaming the source. In any case, I trust that Admin is fair and neutral, is helpful to the editors, and afford fair and equal treatment independently of his/hers own beliefs. Barefact 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also, I have difficulties believing this is a "personal photograph" of yours. It looks like ripped from a museum site. When and where did you take this picture, Barefact? dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This language sounds much lake Kosrow. No, it was not "rripped from a museum site", or even from a museum catalog. I also did not take this picture, it would be a travesty to claim that. These coins widely circulated for about 35 years by now, but I still have yet to see them in a museum catalogue. Its background is like any other coin photograph in WP, see for example "Coin of Azes II, 1st century BCE. Personal photograph, 2005. Released under GDFL." in Scythians. Barefact 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by "personal photograph" then? Image:AzesII.jpg is an image by PHG (talk · contribs), probably taken in the British Museum. You cannot just copy his description for an image that isn't your own. The image may be released under GFDL by its creator, but we have no way of knowing unless you cite the origin of the image. tagging "unknown". You must have gotten the image somewhere, and simple honesty dictates that you state your source, evn if it is some geocities site or something. dab (ᛏ) 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "probably taken in the British Museum"? Taking a picture of a coin takes special conditions and skills, and one can't legally take a picture in a museum. Have you inquired PHG (talk · contribs) if he ripped from a museum site? I gave an honest answer to your question, that it was not "ripped from a museum site", or even from a museum catalog. "Personal photograph" is not equivalent to "its creator", you are not saying that all images in Scythians and the rest of WP are by "its creator" or "probably taken in the British Museum"?. I released under GFDL the photograph of Atails coin that is personal photograph and in my best knowledge is not copyrighted. Its authentity can be checked against publications of other exemplars of this coin. Are you also pursuing references for "because pf the a has been erased and thus looks like a lambda", please? What is "pf"? Barefact 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"personal photograph" means that you have taken it. Honestly, PHG's credibility is rather better than yours. Look at User:PHG where he clearly states which image he (himself) has taken at which museum (correction, the Azes II coin is in his personal collection). Do not describe an image as a "personal photograph" unless you have taken it. If an image is "not copyrighted", you have no way of releasing it under GFDL. Doing so means that you claim copyright for the image, go and read GFDL. Note that Wikipedia:image use policy is binding, and that you may be blocked from editing for persistently disregarding it. Regarding "Its authentity can be checked against publications of other exemplars of this coin" -- precisely. It is your job to cite such publications, we are not here to clean up after you. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of our discussion is shown on my Talk page: Q: "Regarding Image:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif, why don't you just tell us where you got this image, and which museum is keeping this coin (preferably with its inventory number). dab (?) 08:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
and my response: "Regarding Image:BC 339KingAteasScythiaAr.gif, I think that publicizing my sources to the whole world is not fair neither to me nor to my sources."
About museums,I do not remember seeing it personally in museums or museum catalogs. It was published at least twice. If all you wanted for me to cite a publication of other exemplars, you should just have said so. The first find was described by Anokhin in his "Coins of Atey" published in Kiev in 1973. Anybody who follows the Scythian dvelopments has at least an idea about Scythian coins.
I checked the WP references for images you gave me, and did not find that " "personal photograph" means that you have taken it ". Its personal because I personally own it (the photograph, not the coin). As I already responded to you on my Talk page, "I released under GFDL the photograph of Atails coin that is personal photograph and in my best knowledge is not copyrighted." If you think that an alternate tag is more suitable, please advise. In my collection I have other privite photographs that fall into the same category.
For credibility, alidoostzadeh supposition of erased Lanbda without references, or his militant deletion of C14 study by Arizona Universisty about Sayan-Altai unity of the Scythian Kurgans, or his militant insistance that Ossetian developed in Russian neghborhood, the militant deletion of Alinei etymology for the word "kurgan", and a slew of other absurdities evidently have so much credibility that I do not want to have any part of it. Barefact 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Barefact. Here is a source with coin and king ateas. Do a google search "king atails" and you barely get any bare facts and hits where as King Ateas gives about 768 hits. But do a search for King Ateas and Coin and you even get link to prestigous journals like JSTOR and also coin clubs.[1] [2]. And BTW you have mispronounced many of the names in Herodotus before and thus it is my every right to check and verify each name. --alidoostzadeh 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for civil response, but please do not switch the subject. The question is not if many writers found in Google use Greek rendition of the Atails' name, but how Atails calls himself on his own coins. This is precisely how it goes with other names, Google gives more responses to Darius than to Darayawush. But that does not give you a right to distort his name to Darayabush or Darayaiaush just because you do not like the implications of correct rendition. In addition, the fake is clearly evident to anybody familiar with Cyrillics, Greek, etc. You could have added a dissenting comment (with a source) instead of disgraceful war. Your "correction" displays an ulterior motive that dab is assuring us has nothing to do with your convictions, but gosh, it really smells it. To call my spelling "horrible" and then to find an only mistake, and that precisely in the Atails name, in my modest opinion is self-deprecating. Barefact 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I did not find any coin sites that refer to the coin as Atails. Also I am not talking about spelling mistakes, but your disfiguration of several names from Herodotus. After correcting those, I corrected the coin as well. As you can see the first A is totally wiped out as well. If you have a problem with that, bring a reputable coin site. --alidoostzadeh 14:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not if coin sites refer to the coin as Atails, but how Atails calls himself on his own coins. Barefact 08:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ateas is not alive. So we go with the coin site. --alidoostzadeh 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Spread of Eastern Iranian languages" on the Scythia Map

Dbachmann, I already addressed once the comment which was added in the Revision as of 07:02, 6 October 2006 (edit). While the political area of the Scythian dominance may be correct, the statement that this is a predominantly linguistic area is not supported by artifacts with written evidence, and in light that that huge area produced many peoples speaking various and different languages from different families of languages makes this comment offensive to the people who continue living in this territory and continue speaking their different languages, and displays an unbalanced perspective. Barefact 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is what scholars have consistently say and not what one person in some group (I am assuming you are a tatar) might find offensive. It is about facts and what scholars (not you or I) say DIRECTLY (and not cut and pasting this word and that word from each scholars without looking at the rest and then reaching the wrong conclusion) say. The linguistic evidence that the original Scythians spoke an eastern Iranian language is today accept by all scholars. I can bring close to 50, but so far I have brought some of the best known names. Britannica 2006 also clearly says eastern Iranian people. I think with websites like [www.turkicworld.org], you can possibly think about speaking about balanced and unbalanced. --alidoostzadeh 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern is that the area shown on the map had many different languages from different families of languages, only Caucasus had reported to have 360 languages, and the indigenous people that inhabited N.Pontic are thought of as speaking non-Scythian languages before the advance of the Scythians. The comment "Spread of Eastern Iranian languages" on the Scythia Map is false, independently from the language of Scythians. Barefact 08:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the discussion is about the language of Scythians not all the languages of that area. Sure there was other languages in the area as well which we know nothing about today since they left no remnants from that time. --alidoostzadeh 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

си вси звахутьс̑ Великаӕ Скуфь

The last historical source "В лѣто . ҂s҃ . у҃ . е҃ı ... си вси звахутьс̑ Великаӕ Скуфь" 907 AD ... they all call themself Great Skuth Do somebody object this historical source, if so why? Nasz 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian зовутся is not just "call themselves", but also "are calling by sombody"
In this source we read also
сѧ зовѧху ѿ Грѣкъ Великаӕ Скуфь
The Greeks call them Great Scythia Greek: Σκύθαι
But present-day: English Scythians, Russian Скифы, Esperanto Skitoj.
Notice that Latin letter "y", if somebody read it like Cyrillic "у" will be "u". Probably there is place to mistake in old source, if writer didn't :: knows foreign languages. Also there is a long chain of copyists --Aleks Revo 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See http://litopys.org.ua/ipatlet/ipat02.htm and http://litopys.org.ua/ipatlet/ipat01.htm --Aleks Revo 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Changed --Aleks Revo 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near Eastern population -- references?

I challenge this comment as unsourced:

"In ancient Palestine a Scythian and Thracian population inhabited the lands between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee from circa 5th century BC. According to biblical references, the Scythians there took part in many significant events such as the introduction of the Ark into Jerusalem by King David, and conflicts between Romans and Jews."

If there's a reference, great, but I can see none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.76.62 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Scythia valid citation removal

This additional geographic information and valid citation was added to this article: According to authors Samuel Arrowsmith, B Fellowes and Luke Graves Hansard in their 1832 book A Grammar of Ancient Geography, Scythia had two parts, Scythia Intra Imaum and Scythia Extra Imaum[1] both covering a combined area of 1,129,000 mi² or 2,924,096 km².[2]. If you dispute the source please provide other reliable sources that dispute the claim in this book which fulfills the criteria for inclusion here: WP:Verifiability until then please leave the source in place until we reach WP:Consensus on its inclusion or exclusion thank you.--Navops47 (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A school textbook from 1832, this book is far too old to be a WP:RS on such a matter. No modern RS attempts to give a precise area to a region that is never precisely defined and varied very considerably over the nearly 1000 years it existed as some sort of polity. The author himself says the northern boundaries of Scythia were undefined, and does not give a date for this supposed area. The division into two parts is unclear - by whom? when? It will not be found as a significant division in more recent sources. Sources like this should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod Could you be more specific as to why this should not be considered a reliable source iaw Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I note that a map in the article fairly precisely defines an area even if it does use the word 'approximately' in the caption. A specific area has been identified. Do you propose a date, before which, sources should be considered unreliable. I believe the tone used in comments to be quite inappropriate. Phrases like "ridiculous claim" and "please don't be silly" lack civility. They are not positive forms of communication. The do nothing to articulate the rational for your 'point of view'. On a 'rough' calculation, the figure appears to be of the right order of magnitude. Now that you have more specifically articulated a reasonable concern, there is perhaps a better way to use this imformation in a way that does not imply that degree of accuracy - say: approximately 1,300,000 sqmi? although this varied? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the division of Scythia and naming of its two divisions it is the work of Ptolemy's in his 2nd century AD book Geographia recreations of his map can be seen on the article page showing where they were, which the author has made a calculation on the source material available to him he was infact Hydrographer to William IV and a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society not really somebody who would not have been thought of as a Subject Matter Expert of his time the fact that its a school book is irrelevant I accept the size of Scythia may have varied it certainly was not smaller than the figure stated by the author and what I find particularity astounding is the removal of that source again with talking about first, you have offered no alternative sources disputing the author's data and your assertion to its removal is not based on any evidence you have supplied to the contrary. The generally accepted academic view is that Scythia certainly comprised of the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Kazakh Steppe at least and its the only printed source I have managed to find quoting actual figure. Re-wording it is fine but point blankly removing again it is also wrong.--Navops47 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It's a nonsense figure while it has no date attached. Leaving the quality of this source aside, it's unwise to attempt a precise measurement for such a vague and fluid area, which is why you won't find any serious modern source attempting it. It should stay removed and there is no need to replace it. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Arrowsmith, Fellowes, Graves Hansard, S, B & L (3 Apr 2006). A Grammar of Ancient Geography: Compiled for the Use of King's College School. Oxford University: S. Arrowsmith, and B. Fellowes, 1832. p. 14. Retrieved 20 August 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Arrowsmith, Fellowes, Graves Hansard, S, B & L (3 Apr 2006). A Grammar of Ancient Geography: Compiled for the Use of King's College School. Oxford University: S. Arrowsmith, and B. Fellowes, 1832. p. 15. Retrieved 20 August 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Defeated by the Chinese, driven from the Near East and reconquer lands north of the Black Sea?

I don't understand how the following sentence forms an idea: "After being defeated by the Chinese and driven from the Near East, in the first half of the 6th century BCE, Scythians had to re-conquer lands north of the Black Sea." Also, this sentence is not cited. Can someone provide a citation and make it clear how China, the Near East and the lands north of the Black Sea are related? --BLebow4500 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad source

Removed :

  • Bagnall, R., J. Drinkwater, A. Esmonde-Cleary, W. Harris, R. Knapp, S. Mitchell, S. Parker, C. Wells, J. Wilkes, R. Talbert, M. E. Downs, M. Joann McDaniel, B. Z. Lund, T. Elliott, S. Gillies. "Places: 991379 (Scythia)". Pleiades. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The issue is clear on visiting the link - it places "Scythia" close to the Dardenelles. 5.198.10.236 (talk)

Lead

@Antiquistik: This page is titled simply 'Scythia'. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, it should come first and be in bold. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: I have corrected it. Antiquistik (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Much of the information on Scythia, both as a state and as a geographical area, is inextricably part of the history and anthropology of the Scythian people and requires significant information from the other pages relating to Scythian history. Therefore I suggest that the contents of this page should be merged into the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are ~198,000 and ~67,000 bytes. Clearer article structure is probably needed, but I'm not sure a merge will be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, would be too big, unless you have a solution for that. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: @Johnbod: Most of the information on this page is already on the Scythians page. The only parts which would really have to be added there are the infobox, the section about the Pontic Scythian kingdom, some small paragraphs in the other sections, and the kings' family tree. It wouldn't be moving all of the 67K bytes of the Scythia page into the Scythians page. Antiquistik (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose until this proposal is done properly and clearly, using the correct WP:MERGE procedure. You have set up merge tags on three articles - here, Scythians and Iškuza, and two discussions. This is not at all clear from the noms, which are identical, but do not link to the other. Doing it in this backdoor way, not through WP:RM, prevents a wider group of editors being aware of the proposals through Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. I'm pretty sure this is not the first iffy move/merge proposal I've seen from you. You've been around for some time and really should know better. The two proposals would have been better combined in any case. You have already started moving large chunks of material around without discussion. Personally, I think there should be articles on different areas and periods of Scythia, and Scythians already probably has too much on the western end. The pretty short Scythian cultures should probably be built up. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see Scythians is now 205,000 crude bytes after you have moved more stuff in. Let's be clear - this is too long. Changes should be reducing not increasing this size. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: the information I have already moved is content that had to be moved irrespective of whether a merger should or should not happen. They reference each other and other information on the Scythians article that made them useless within the Scythia and Iškuza ‎pages.
I am less certain whether the information on the Scythia and Iškuza ‎can or cannot stand alone, given how they also non-negligibly reference each other, although less than than the content about archaeological developments. Which is why I have made two merger proposals, so the issue can be discussed.
However, I was under the impression that I had in fact correctly followed the procedures for a merger proposal. Since it appears that I was wrong about this, I would need to request you to help me correctly understand and follow the procedures. Antiquistik (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod that the Scythians page cannot get longer. Splitting is more urgently needed than any merging. As for this article, it could perhaps be narrowed to a political scope and moved to a different title, allowing Scythia to either redirect to Scythians or else stand alone as an article on geographical terminology. Antiquistik, I am unsure why you think that pages that non-negligibly reference each other should be merged. Hyperlinking is how we make sure readers can find information spread across multiple articles. And it will always be spread across multiple articles. Srnec (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: the issue is with the extent of the references. If an article requires half or more of it to consist of the copied content of another article to exist, should it or should it not be merged into the article that most of that information is copied from? I'm not sure of the answer, hence why I'm requesting that it be discussed, so we can come to a proper understanding and consensus. Though I do think that the Archaeology section on the Scythians page should be split into a separate article about the Scythian culture (as distinguished from the Scythian cultures). Antiquistik (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, we do not need that kind of duplication. One solution, if it cannot be decide whether Scythian archaeology is better treated as the archaeology of an area over a certain period or of sites associated with a certain people, is to have a separate article on Scythian archaeology to which both can link. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Antiquistik for your fantastic work on the Scythians and related topics. I support the transfer of the bulk of the material of this article to Scythians to reduce duplication. Iškuza covers a quite distinct topic and should perhaps stay the way it is, but could maybe be moved to the title "Scythian invasion of West Asia" or something similar. The size of the Scythians article can be reduced by moving content about archaeology, names, clothing, religion, metallurgy and art to Scythian culture, Names of the Scythians, Scythian clothing, Scythian religion, Scythian metallurgy, Scythian art and so on. Separate articles about Scythian warfare and Scythian economy may also be created to reduze size. The lead of the Scythians article also has some trimming potential. I think that this Scythia article should be about the historical region itself, and be based on sources that are directly about the topic. The following Oxford sources may be of use.[3][4][5] Krakkos (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the appreciation. The problem with Iškuza, however, is that half of the article requires content copied from the main Scythians article to be able to stand on its own, which is an issue that I am not sure how to resolve other than through a merger, although I am open to other suggestions for how to deal with that.
I agree with the suggestion to move content away from the page, although I would suggest that this should primarily be done for the sections who have become too large, like the ones on archaeology, religion and names. The smaller sections can be maintained on the page so long as they are short enough. Antiquistik (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was… . Antiquistik (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The merger proposal has been closed. Present discussions relating to the possible merger of Scythia into Scythians are being held at Talk:Scythians#Merger proposal.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antiquistik (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volga?

In the lead of this article, it references that the Scythians crossed the Araxes; however the wikilink for Araxes is a redirect to the article on the Volga river, which notes that Araxes is an ancient alternative name. So should the usage in *this* article be something more like "Volga" or "Araxes (also known as the Volga)" instead? ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seem it si just a mis-link, because Araxes seems to be cited as one of the names of the river Aras in Caucasus area.
Also, the article Persian_sturgeon refers - concerning it's spawning area - to Volga and Ural rivers coming from north, and Arax (linked to Aras) as different entity, with Kura, from Caucasus. There are also two different settlements (villages) with the name Arax in the same general area, with different locations:
40°05′35″N 43°57′03″E
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
40°03′17″N 44°18′10″E
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those names seem to be not only in ancient, or recent, but also in current use (and not only in reported ancient names, as is with Arax supposedly for Volga)
I also briefly looked into the documents allegedly supporting that Araxes would be an ancient name for Volga, but documents supporting that claim - that I only skimmed, not read thoroughly - were both from the same author, and about Scithians migrations; it seems author(s) missed the actual Aras (Arax) river, and postulated from context it might be Volga; and that was used as reliable source to support Arax as a name for Volga in WP article.
I'll put a link to here also on talk page of Volga article so somebody better knowing the subject can also check that there.
Considering all above I am changing the disputed link from Volga to Aras in this article. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uratu or Urartu?

Can somebody more familiar with this subject - and with access to the sources cited - verify the name of the kingdom in question (or might, even if it is low probability, even be two different kingdoms) in first two paragraphs of the section Scythia: 7th Century. I intended to insert a link to the article of the kingdom in question, and can find Urartu but not Uratu, so its probable Uratu is a typo, but I can't reach the source cited to verify that. By my experience from elsewhere there might also be a typo in one of the sources (I often spot such things, investigate, and propose corrections at the source), so I don't want to edit before the situation is clear. If anybody has access to a cited (or another suitable) source, please verify, add link I intended if possible, and correct typo if needed. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scythia&oldid=1199030160"