Talk:Pishdadian dynasty

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No historical basis

Re [1] - could we get an exact quote from the source? Afaict it just says they were “mythical” which no ones arguing otherwise. But “mythical” and “no basis in historical fact” are two different things. Just ask Homer. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to the talk page. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. The relevant passage from that particular source is that they "are anchored not in Iranian history"...in a sense I could stop there but it's better to see the whole context: "are anchored not in Iranian history but in myth that partly antedates Iranian tradition proper and can even be traced to Indo-Iranian and even Indo-European levels. The figures involved straddle theogonic and anthropogonic strata in a manner which leaves no doubt about their mythic status. They have Avestan counterparts which help trace their origins. The first king Keyumars is the Avestan Gaya maretan, literally "Mortal Life" an abstract anthropogonic ancestor, apparently created in the flush of the original Zoroastrian rush to abstraction and subsequently "re-mythologized"." The point is (and I can find other sources to support this) they are not based on some remote obscure Irananian historical figures that have been mythologized (is that what you're getting at?). They're derived from archetypes, abstract concepts of human qualities and pre-Iranian at that. At this stage I'm only guessing what you're concern is. If it's about them being loosely based on historical figures then I'll definitely find other sources to refute that. If it's something else, it would be helpful to understand that. There probably was an Odysseus of sorts. There never was a Keyumars of any sort. thanks. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]