I cannot think that there is any sufficient ground for the marked ethnical distinction which several authors draw (contrary to Herodotus) between the Scythians and the Sarmatians. Boeckh considers the latter to be of Median or Persian origin, but to be, also, the progenitors of the modern Sclavonian family: “Sarmatæ, Slavorum haud dubie parentes,” (Introduct. ad Inscr. Sarmatic. Corp. Inscr. part xi, p. 83.) Many other authors have shared this opinion, which identifies the Sarmatians with the Slavi; but Paul Joseph Schafarik (Slavische Alterthümer, vol. i, c. 16) has shown powerful reasons against it. Nevertheless, Schafarik admits the Sarmatians to be of Median origin, and radically distinct from the Scythians. But the passages which are quoted to prove this point from Diodorus (ii, 43), from Mela (i, 19), and from Pliny (H. N. vi. 7), appear to me of much less authority than the assertion of Herodotus. In none of these authors is there any trace of inquiries made in or near the actual spot from neighbors and competent informants, such as we find in Herodotus. And the chapter in Diodorus, on which both Boeckh and Schafarik lay especial stress, appears to me one of the most untrustworthy in the whole book. To believe in the existence of Scythian kings who reigned over all Asia from the eastern ocean to the Caspian, and sent out large colonies of Medians and Assyrians, is surely impossible; and Wesseling speaks much within the truth when he says, “Verum hæc dubia admodum atque incerta.” It is remarkable to see Boeckh treating this passage as conclusive against Herodotus and Hippokratês. M. Boeckh has also given a copious analysis of the names found in the Greek inscriptions from Scythian, Sarmatian, and Mæotic localities (_ut sup._ pp. 107-117), and he endeavors to establish an analogy between the two latter classes and Median names. But the analogy holds just as much with regard to the Scythian names.