Under "Tattooed chieftain", there is no mention of any dates of either the discovery or supposed burial. Would it not be clearer if they were added by someone who knows them?

DNA studies of mummiesEdit

has any mtdna/Y dna haplotype analysis been done for these mummuies ( and other ones)? would go a long way in unravelling mystery. the ice maiden mummy was supposed to bear haplotype commonly found in altaic-uralic peoples. any update? also re oetzi the iceman, etc.

hoell felt?Edit

What is that supposed to be? (image caption) Jagdfeld (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannabis seed referenceEdit

T. Taylor does not mention cannabis at all in his 2001 article "Conversations with Leo Klejn". Pazyryk is, in fact, only mentioned briefly and with regard to the history of missing professionalism within Russian archaeology.

It's entirely possible that the contributor meant another article by another T. Taylor from 2001, but it seems unlikely. Furthermore, because they failed to include a more detailed reference it's impossible to know.

I've changed that section to remove reference to Taylor's article, but it could still do with a real reference.

Tomythius (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Pazyryk peope"Edit

I am sorry, but this is annoying. It is difficult enough to write an enyclopedia as it is without people inventing random nonsense. So back in 2007 some random editor decided it was cool to turn Parzryk from a toponym into a demonym, and nobody noticed over the best part of two years. --dab (𒁳) 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does this mean?Edit

There is also the possibility that the current inhabitants of the Altai region are descendants of the Pazyryk culture, a continuity that would accord with current ethnic politics? Iapetus (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carpet Loop

The Main Page link for the carpets loops back to the page itself. Was there a consolidation of the carpet page back into this page?

Theinfo (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musical instrumentsEdit

Can the fact that a musical instrument (a harp) was found in the tombs be mentioned in the article? (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pazyryk burials. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Scythian Ice Maiden ...Edit

I Just Don’t Understand how how today people of Altai consider themselves "Descendents" of Pazyryk culture , Meanwhile the are of mongolic Race and the Maiden skeleton (Specifically the Skull) demonstrate clear Caucasoid Racial Phenotype , This Akin to say That Nigerian are Descendents of Ancient Egyptian O.o , funny people indeed ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


ZaniGiovanni, upon looking at various sources, I see that we can't say "most sources". The opinions are quite diverse. Russian article Пазырыкский ковёр#Происхождение cites e.g. Peter Stone Oriental Rugs: An Illustrated Lexicon of Motifs, Materials, and Origins: "There is considerable speculation about the origin of the Pazyryk carpet. It has been attributed to the early Turkmens, "proto"-Armenians, Persians and Assyrians. Some scholars think that the rug came into the hands of the Scythians through trade or conquest". Alois Riegl, cited in this article, writes: "The Pazyryk carpet is often taken to be an imported Persian work because of its decoration, and on the basis of ancient sources..." So we should indicate the Armenian origin version as one of many, not as a prevailing view per WP:BALANCE. Brandmeistertalk 17:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, this is English Wikipedia. but even in ru-wiki, Armenian viewpoint has the most sources cited hence it is the most significant, see WP:WEIGHT. So the current wording is appropriate, per number of sources and significance of viewpoint. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I brought the example of ru-wiki article because it cites more sources than the English one. Among those sources, I see at most four supporting Armenian version while seven other authors support some other origin. This is definitely not "most sources", especially when at least one explicitly acknowledges that "there is considerable speculation about the origin of the Pazyryk carpet". Brandmeistertalk 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't notice "7 other origin sources" if I'm being honest, could you please cite those? And do they specify anything or just in general terms? Because as far as I've noticed, Armenian specifically (not grouped into others / togheter, but separately on its own) has the most sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is one for Iran, one for other origin, etc, you can least them if you want. What I'm saying is that Armenian specifically has the most sources as far as I've noticed. If you're trying to look into significance of one nation's origin over other, we don't group multiple countries against 1, it's 1 against 1, and which as a separate country has the most sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm referring to the relevant section of that Russian article, Пазырыкский ковёр#Происхождение. There, the Armenian version is just one of many. It's possible to import all those sources to the English article to correctly reflect the scholar disagreement about the carpet's origin. I think that would be a fair option. Brandmeistertalk 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brandmeister I'm asking again, could you please show me the sources supporting a single country, and I'll add the ones supporting Armenia? Then we can decide which one has the most significance. Because as far as I've noted, these "7 sources" (I didn't count 7) are all supporting different nations and not a singe entity (like the ones supporting Armenian), are they not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why they should support a single country? For the purpose of WP:BALANCE, it's clear there that "reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence", so the English article should reflect that. Brandmeistertalk 09:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't understand your question. If there are several points of view regarding the country of origin of something, in order to determine which has the most significance, you gather which one has the most sources? Per WP:WEIGHT
  • Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts.
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, we don't have evidence that most sources support the Armenian version. In fact there are more sources supporting some non-Armenian version, rather than Armenian and, as I cited above, at least one source says that "there is considerable speculation about the origin of the Pazyryk carpet. It has been attributed to the early Turkmens, "proto"-Armenians, Persians and Assyrians". I think this is clear by now. Brandmeistertalk 10:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's on you to cite your sources. I can cite sources for Armenian origin and that out of all countries, it has the most sources, hence most significance. "non Armenian version" isn't a country, we don't WP:SYNTH to achieve desired outcome, that is not how you look at significance of each origin viewpoint. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not how WP:BALANCE works. There is no source saying that scholar consensus favors Armenian version over all others, as required by verifiability. What matters here is contradiction between reliable sources itself: when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. Brandmeistertalk 10:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Islamic source suggesting it is likely Armenian [1].
Also a source suggesting the carpet might be an "Achaemenid royal gift commissioned in Armenia". This is consistent with "imported Persian work" with the Riegl source, which doesn't actually say it was manufactured by Persians, and could be rewritten to something like: "Another source suggested it might have been an Achaemenid royal gift commissioned in Armenia." [2] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]