Talk:Saka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saka article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Saka is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	Saka is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Saka is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Saka or Shaka are names that Persians and Indians called Sarmathians and Scythians by it,so this article must be redirected to Scythian page. (Anonymous User:81.12.38.14, not otherwise represented at Wikipedia)

On the other hand, the article on Scythia and the Scythians is now well grounded in archaology, referenced, and linked. This speculation on "race-origins" does not belong at Scythia. This article needs some intellectual ballast. --Wetman 08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Pottery associated with Saka peoples has also been found in Iran?" 2 Merge proposal 3 Mr Wetman 4 Sakas and Turkic ? 5 Whats in a name 6 Iranian names, family names 7 Saka and Drang nach Osten 8 Saka and Iranian literature 9 Zagh 10 Surgery 11 Some reasons that Sakae people are Turkic 12 Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes 13 ashkenazi? 14 Reply to query on the Ashkenazi 15 Theoretical Connections to Celts and Teutons 16 Arsacids and Sakas

[edit] "Pottery associated with Saka peoples has also been found in Iran?"

The text reads "These Sakas followed other Aryans into present day Iran, and returned back to their original area in Central Asia." What motivates such a contortion? Is this a post-Soviet equivalent of "Pottery associated with Saka peoples has also been found in Iran?" A disinterested outsider senses that in such contortions several ideological dogmas seem to be served at once. Hard for a Westerner to disentangle. In Soviet archaeology in Central Asia, excellent technique was habitually combined with race-political interpretations. Is there any way to cut the spin and tell the story here? --Wetman 15:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph looks like it's heavily contaminated with a lot of needless, irrelevant, and discredited race-science POV. There is no credible evidence linking the Saka, a putatively Iranian-speaking Central Asian nomadic group, with the Germans, the resemblance of "Saka" and "Saxon" aside. The spin can be cut from this article, but it would involve starting from scratch. Janos Harmatta, a credible source on pre-Islamic Central Asian nomads, would link the Khotan Saka (existing far later than 3000 BC, but carrying the ethnonym) ultimately to the Kushans by way of the Yueh-chih of Chinese sources. The problem with the whole shebang is that nobody writing the relevant histories from the Greeks to the Chinese were particularly consistent or accurate in naming groups of "barbarians". Designations like Yueh-chih or Xiong-nu get applied to different groups living in the same places at different times, who might not have had anything in common with one another.--KASchmidt 05:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

As far as I know Saka (Scythian) and Shakya (the Buddha's tribe) are totally unrelated, although both were probably Indo-Aryan (since the Shakya were Kshatriya). I have never seen anywhere a connection between the two, appart from some vague suggestions from time to time. I really don't think the articles should be merged. PHG 11:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. There's an "Aryan Scythians" agenda lurking here. --Wetman 17:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Wetman

1- you reject without any clear alternative reason. 2- Budha was not Kshatrya cast but Chudras. 3- Chudras were farmers and not millitary or Defenders (Kshatryas) 4- Budhas family were land owners (Feudalistic nobels) - Kshatriya or EKH-SHAT-RAYA is an old Iranian word means DEFENDER, PROTECTOR and the same definition later pronounced as SHAH hence its meaning have changed to THE KING, the kings of Persian empire were called "Ekhshatrayas" , later Shah, such as Shah of Persia. In India Kshatrya is the title of DEFENDER class of hinduism.

[edit] Sakas and Turkic ?

The little we know about Sakan language is enough evidance to know that Sakas were not speaking a language vocally harmonic !

The Turkic languages are branch of Mongol family and similar with this branch of languages it has vocal harmony !

Today turkics have been enfluenced by Persian, europeans, Arabic, Hindi. they have loan words which are not vocally harmonic but these aren't Turkic definitions originally

What we know about Turkics is relatively new compared with ancient Sakas, The turks or Turkics are related to mass immigrations happened during and after Moghol war expanding for the last 1000 years.

Certainly one may say that the indoeuropeans or indoaryans genetically survived during\under brutal dominance of Turko-mongolic alien occupants!

These regions were showered partly by Mongol agression and immigration followed when indigenous people lives and cities were ruined or disabled.

Historical records tells us the Mongols would attack many cities and brutally murder entire population, encluding women and children in Sentral asia, west china now called Turkistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Capsean sea region , also Caucasus and Anatolia )

This has lead to creation of Othoman empire and same expanding began in east and sentral europe! So the wave of Othoman Turkic agression towards Europe was attached and followed by Mongol empire ! and its only reason : Distruction !

After when attacked any who survived would stand to rebuild but often disturbed by mass immigrations of agressors tribes.

Savagery of mongol-turkic tribes were so brutal that they them selves began to change or regret after disusters and then adapting ISLAM as their religion or Persian culture for their social requirements.

The culture of all turkic Asians and Europeans today is what I call Perso-Arabo-Europeanic! They are not Shamanic any longer. They were nomades before satteling so they did not need governing, social strcutures, the culture law.

The cultures and countries we know as "TURKIC" are indeed mixture of many ethnics and divers races, ethnic languages, cultures, sub cultures so one may say for instance Uzbek language belongs to mongol family yet their race is not purely mongol ! they are mixed.

Notice that whole above happened for the last 1000 year whilst studdy about Sakas goes back to ancient times ! .............................................

Some turkish guy sent insulting messege here in English and Turkish, here is his or her ID !85.101.213.10 10:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

race, race, race, destruction, destruction, destruction, always the turks, always the mongol, no culture, no culture, race, race, race, destruction, destruction, destruction, race, race, race, race. dude, what's your point?! 134.100.1.177 10:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out some mistakes made in this statement:

1 - Sakae language COULD BE vocally harmonical but this is impossible to distinguish Sakae language since no written texts of Sakae language exist.

2 - Turkic is NOT a member of mongol language family, turkic languages existed long before Çingiz's conquests. Cumans, Pechenegs, Western Huns and Hsiung-Nu (Eastern Huns) are evidence of that.

3 - As I already said turkic people migrated to Europe long before Mongol Empire. Seljuks came to power in Persia, Transoxiana & Eastern Anatolia 200 years before Mongol Empire invaded Hungary. And Cumans probably lived in steppes between Ukraine and Central Asia for thousands of years before XIII century.

4 - There can't be any "genetical dominance" of immigrants if we use the theory of immigration according to which immigrants (i.e. mongols) don't assimilate, contrariwise to what most people think they become assimilated by natives(in our case it is turkic people). We see the proof in history - most of descendants of Çingiz or Çingizids adopted Islam, most of them had mix of turkic & arabic names (like Hajji-Murad or Ibrağim-bek), some continued to use mongolian & mixed turko-mongolian names (such as Mengu-Timur).

5 - There weren't any "mass migrations" of mongolians since there were actually very few mongolians in Çingiz's army, there simply wasn't so many mongols during the rise of Mongol Empire, most of mongols were nomads and lived in mongolian & buryadian steppes. Most of Çingiz's army consisted of both settled & nomadic Tatars (east-turkic people, NOT-modern tatars), Uygurs, Gök-türks (settled).

6 - There actually wasn't any "savagery", it was simple conquest. Yet there were many cities destroyed, but I doubt that there was any extermination of native turkic & persians in Central Asia, they still live here and speak with turkic & persian languages.

7 - There wasn't any "iranians" in Central Asia before Mongol Conquests, all people were turkic (except tajiks & afghans). Most of Central Asians were already muslims at the the 1100s.

8 - Turk is the name that have very ancient roots, it isn't a mix of different culture since your claims are based on primitive view of history through prism of prejudice. Word 'turk' probably was derived from word taw - mountain; taw-er - "mountainous people". Word turk is widely used today, though many turkic folks name themselves differently. However most ancient of turkic or proto-turkic names are as, az, ash, ish; er, ar; hun, ğun, sün, şan, şaŋ, žan; saq, çaq, çak, ak; men, man; quz, guz, ğuz, kuz; bey, bay, bek, beg, pek,.

Iliassh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't any "iranians" in Central Asia before Mongol Conquests, all people were turkic (except tajiks & afghans). Most of Central Asians were already muslims at the the 1100s... Actually that is wrong. The oldest languages from the region are Sogdian language and Chorasmian language. Enough testaments exist from both of them. Also the Saka language is Iranian see [1]--alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Saka language could be iranian. I don't trust indo-iranian theory because of lack of reasonable proofs. The texts in Khotanese script could be written in sanskrit, avestan, maybe it was a pidjin, a mixed language such as Ruso-norsk or Tok-pisin. Mongols & Uygurs used same script as did Bactrians but this doesn't make them indo-iranian, isn't it? The only prooves are based on linguistics and language of peoples can change, take influences from other languages but it doesn't change ethnicity.

There are turkic words in Sumerian, Hittite & Ukrainian languages but this doesn't make them turkic. Bactrian Sogdian states adopted Buddhism, which had it's influences on language. Probably these "iranian" texts are just adaptation of indian buddhist text written in sanskrit or some indian dialect, it could happen that such buddhist text introduced sanskrit and this language could be used as basic by aristocracy & rulers. There can be thousands of interpretations for such texts. There are runestone in Minnesota that have written text in old swedish & this fact doesn't say that native americans who lived in Minnesota were scandinavian?

I also should mention that Ulı juz("elder tribes") of Kazakh people call themselves saq. The ethnonym saq can be seen in many names that are considered turkic such as kıpçak, kıwsaq, székely, saxa, qasaq, qazaq,.

Another thing is that Herodotus never mentioned any similarity between Persians and Saka-Scythians. And if Saka were "iranian", then they would look, speak, live like persians. What we saw in Kushan? Blue-eyed, red-haired "iranians". And what we saw in Alexander Mosaic in Naples? Darius III and his soldiers with same faces as modern-day persians.

Also I should mention that chinese author Shi-Gu, that lived in VII century said that ancestors of modern-day Ulı-juz - Üysüns had blue eyes and red hair, this was mentioned many times by chinese historians and explorers, they even called them monkey-like because of their hair & eye color. Even today there is a tribe of Sarıuysın ("Yellow Uysuns") in Ulı Juz. I don't think that black-haired, brown-eyed persians and hindustanis could be relatives of red-haired, blue-eyed folk. Another proof is that there are no historical documents or any other archaeological evidence of ethnic changes from europeoid type to indic type of population in India. We can say that modern-day Punjabi, Nepali, Bengali look the same way as did their "indo-european" ancestors.

There was a scythian tribe or people that Herodotus called Ακαθιρος(akathyr). How would you translate it using "iranian" language? I can translate it using my own language - ağač-eri(Tree people).

Indians called these people shakya, persians called them saka. The name of Sogdiana have origins in word saq - saq-dı (saka's, -that belong to saka). Khwarazm is for hu-ar & as-ım, hu part is mutated version of turkic word su - water, ar or er is for people, as - one of turkic endoethnonyms (alongside with ğün,sün, hun), - ım is an affix meaning my, mine. Tocharia is derived from the name of turkic tribe called Tugar, Toxar, Tuğar, Tuğ-er, which translates like spirit, soul, men, people.

Herodotus also mentioned a people named Γανδaρι (Gandari), as I know their name, Xandı-ar translates as king's\han's men\people.

These are just few reasons of my doubt in indo-iranian theory. I was very surprised when I first discovered that european ethnologists think that saka, scythians, sarmatians, alans were related with indo-europeans. I lived in Kazakhstan my whole life and ethnological & archaeological findings here debunked all myths about "great indo-aryan race" and other non-scientifical theories. I wonder why the "mainstream" science is so locked-in their "indo-iranian", "indo-aryan", "indo-european" theories that they don't leave any chance for alternative point of view and doubts.

Thanks for the link, I appreciate this. Iliassh (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually Sogdian is a well studied Iranian language [2]. And the word Sughd is actually of the same root as Scythian. Actually Scythians have Iranian names in Herodotus. If you look at the German book by Zgusta:Zgusta, L.: Die griechischen Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. Die ethnischen Verhältnisse, namentlich das Verhältnis der Skythen und Sarmaten, im Lichte der Namenforschung, Prague 1955. For example SakaParaDarya. Darya occurs in both Old Persian and Scythian. Same with Para. Or some of their names like Aryazantes, AryaPharnes and etc. occur in both Old Persian and Scythian. Iranian racial feature is diverse today. You can find many light hair blue eyed people in say Pamirs and Kurdistan and among mountain Tajiks and Pashtuns, while you find darker Iranians in some of the warmer areas. As per their nomadic lifestyle, Herodotus says that Persians were both settled and nomadic. Same with Medes. Scythians feature prominently in the Iranian epic Shahhnameh and there is a placename Sakastan (modern Sistan but classical texts have called it Sakastan). Anyhow, I would actually read the works of European scholars, they 100% agree with Indo-Iranian theory. Etymology is not about finding similar sounding words, you can find it in any language[3]. It is about showing that the words have occured in proto-state and ancient state and regular sound changes apply in each stage. Anyhow, I don't doubt your good intention, but Wikipedia is edited based on scholars from Western universities. Was the education system changed from the USSR time? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all you must understand that Persians named different kinds of sakas with different names both of persian names such as tigrahauda (with pointed hats), haumavarga (amürgian scythians?), tyai-para-darya (overseas scythians). These names are not endoethnonyms, these names aren't of proto-turkic nor scythian origin. As I know persian word darya refers to water, since Caspian Sea is translated to persian as Mazendaran daryoi or Xazar daryoi and rivers Amu Darya & Syr Darya are also have this word. Let me tell you about Herodotus's legends of origin of scythians (and saka) & comment it.

As basis for discussion I shall use book of tatar researcher Mirfatıh Zakiev who studied the origins of tatar folk most of his life. He encountered much of hostility from government during his studies, he was labelled many times as "pan-turkist", "nationalist", "separatist" & "pseudo-scientist". His works has been oppressed by Soviet and Russian authorities.

According to Herodotus' first theory very first of scythians was Targitai, his father and mother were Zeus and Boristhena. Targitai had three sons - Lipoksai, Arpoksai & Koloksai. During Targitai's rule over Scythian land four golden items fell from sky - plough, youke, axe & chalice(or bowl).

Older Lipoksai decided to go first and take these items but when he came near them they inflammated,

Middle Arpoksai came next but these items inflammated again,

Flame stopped when Junior Koloksai came next to these items, he picked them up and took them to his house.

Thus two older brothers agreed that Scythian kingdom (or realm) shall belong to Koloksai.

Lipoksai gave birth to Auhats',

Arpoksai - Katiars & Traspes,

And Koloksai gave birth to Paralates.

All tribes together became known as Scoloti.

Second legend:

Hercules, a son of god Zeus and Alkmena, driving the Geryon's bulls, a tri-headed giant, arrived to an uninhabited then country of cold and bad weather (now occupied by Scythians ). He drew a pork (or lion) skin about him, fell asleep, and at that time his horses disappeared [Herodotus, 4, 8]. Upon awakening, the Hercules traced all the country and finally arrived in the land by the name Gilea, i.e. in the Scythian area by the estuary of modern Dnestr. Here in a cave he found a certain creature, a half-maiden, half-snake. Seeing her, Hercules asked if she saw his lost horses. In reply the snake woman said, that she has the horses, but she would not return them until Hercules took her for his mistress. After satisfaction of her request the snake woman returned the horses. She gave birth to three sons and asked Hercules what she should do with them. Hercules replied: "When you see that the sons have grown up, better di like this: see, who of them can string my bow and fasten this belt as I am telling you, and leave him to live here. Those who could not do it, send to the foreign lands" [Herodotus, 4, 9]. Then Hercules left.

When the children have grown, their mother gave them the names Agathyr (gr. Αγαθιρος, tr.ağač-er - tree man\men)Gelon (yığlan - snake, lizard) and Scyth (as-ğuz, aş-quz - man\human-tribe),. Then, remembering the advice of Hercules, she did as he ordered. Only the youngest son, Scyth, succeded in accopmplishing the task, and he remained in the country. From this Scyth, the son of Hercules, came all the Scythian kings [Herodotus, 4, 10]. Agathyr became the primogenitor of the Agathyrs and Gelon of the Gelons.

There is still a third legend, Herodotus notes that he most of all trusts that version.

According to this legend Scythians lived in Asia for a very long time. When the Massagets pushed them out by a military force, they moved to the Cimmerian lands. With approach of the numerous Scythians, the Cimmerians, not willing to fight them, abandoned their native land, the N.Pontic [Herodotus, 4, 11]. And just because the Cimmerians lived there earlier, in the Scythian lands are Cimmerian fortifications and Cimmerian crossings; there is also a province by the name Cimmeria, and the so-called Cimmerian Bospor. It is also known that the Scythians in a pursuit of the Cimmerians went astray and intruded the land of the Medes [Herodotus, 4, 12].

First Legend looks very unrealistic, it is rather symbolic. Koloksai, the youngest of Targitai's children became Targitai's heir, ruler of Scythian land. In Kazakh folk Kişi juz (junior tribes) is often considered to be Sqıp or Sqıf, while Orta juz (middle tribes) & Ulı juz (older tribes) are being Ğun & Saq respectively. This could mean that according to this legend Lipoksai could be progenitor of Saka, I know that there is a tribe of Saqaldı in Ulı juz and as we know Herodotus called tribes that descended from Targitai's sons skolotes - royal. Another lesser tribe in same juz exists, it's named Eskeldı that descends from Dulat tribe.

Descendants of Arpoksai were katiars & traspies. In Orta(Middle) juz there is a tribe Qaratay that descends from Naiman tribe. Another tribe of the same juz is named Er-Kosai, this tribe descends from Uaq tribe, one of the smallest in Middle juz.

From the positions of the Turkic language the word Targitai consists from targy or taryg - Old Türkic "farmer" and soy\toy - Türk. - "clan"; as a whole it is ‘Clan or Ancestor of the Farmers’. Besides, the name Targitai is met not only in Herodotus, it also appears with Avars as a Turkic name. Theophilact Simocatta (the historian of the 7 c.) informs, ‘Targitiy is an outstanding man in the Avar tribe’ [Simocatta Th., 1957, 35]. Menandr the Byzantian informs that in 568 the Avar leader Bayan has sent Targitai to Baselius requesting a concession [Byzantian Historians, 1861, 392]. In 565 Avars sent the same Targitai as an ambassador to Byzantium [Ibis, 418]. In the 2 c. Polien informs that Scythians, living at Meotian (Azov) Sea, had a famous woman named Tirgatao [Latyshev S.V., 1893, 567]. Hence, these Scythians were also Turkic speaking. (M.Zakiyev)

Lipoksai is a senior son of Targitai. The etymology for this word V.Abaev (pro-iranian researcher) borrows from Fasmer. The second part, in his opinion, consists of a root ksaia,khsai "to shine, to sparkle, to dominate", Ossetian. - queen, dawn; the first part is not clear, there can be a distortion instead of Khoraksais: compare Old Iran. hvar-xsaita - sun , Pers. Xorsed [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189]. (M.Zakiyev)

Turkic etymology - Turk. soi "clan, family, relatives, ancestors, generation, offspring, stock, origin"; ak "white, noble, rich"; aksoi "a noble, rich clan; sacred clan, forefather" etc. For Türkic peoples the names with an element soi is a usual phenomenon: Aksoi, Paksoi, Koksoi. The first part is lip-lipo-lep is "border". As a whole, Lipoksai "Sacred Clan with (or Protecting) Borders, i.e. its Country". (M.Zakiyev)

I must mention that most of Ulı Juz Kazakhs live in South-East of Kazakhstan, near Tien-Shang (kz.Alatau) and Tien-Shang are considered to be some kind of natural "border" between Central Asia and East Turkestan.

Arpoksai is a middle son of Targitai. The first part Abaev at once transforms in apra and ‘water’ and deduces from the Iranian roots ap "water" and Ossetian ra, arf "deep"; apra "water depth"; ksaia "possessor"; apra-ksaia "Possessor Of Waters" [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189]. (M.Zakiyev)

Turkic etymology: We already know about the second part: aksoy "a sacred clan, noble clan". The first part - arpa "barley, grain, product"; arpalyk "possession of land"; Arpaksai "Head of a Clan Possessing Land, Territory, or Clan of the Farmers". (M.Zakiyev)

This theory also sounds correct. Most of Orta Juz kazakhs live in East, Central and North-East territories of modern Kazakhstan. Most of Central Steppes of Kazakhstan are uninhabitted, Central & Eastern territories used as grain-fields. I was born in eastern parts of Kazakhstan and I know that it's a good part for agricultural industry. Unlike South-Western (Kishi juz) territories that represent mostly arid steppe and desert.

Kolaksai is a younger son of Targitai. Per Fasmer and Abaev, the second part ksaia "shine, sparkle, dominate", in Ossetian khsart "valour", khsin "princess", khsed "dawn" etc.; the first part is not clear, maybe, it is a distortion instead of Khoraksais, compare Old. Iran. khvar-khshaita "sun" [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189]. The supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory sometimes lead this name to the phonetic form of Persian Skolakhshaia and announce Kolaksai as a king of the Persian clan Skol (Skolot) - Scythians [Dovatur A.I., 1982, 207-208]. (M.Zakiyev)

From the viewpoint of the Turkic language Koloksai can historically go back to a combination of words kuly-ak-say "clan with pure, sacred hands". Kuly-ak-say can easily change to Koloksai. Another possible Turkic etymology is: the second part of a word Kolaksai - aksai "a noble, sacred clan"; the first part - kola-kala "city, capital"; it could be borrowed from the Arabic still then when the Subars (su bar "have water") lived on the left bank of the Tiger. The Kolaksai "Noble, Sacred Clan Of a (Protecting) Capital, Country". (M.Zakiyev)

If we arrange in order the Iranian etymologies for the names of the father Targitai and his three sons Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai, we receive: Targitai "Longostrong", Lipoksai "Shine Of The Sun", Arpoksai "Possessor Of Waters" , Kolaksai "Shine Of The Sun or Skolakhshaia". There is no etymological, semantical and lexico-structural system.

Let us consider the system in the Turkic etymology of the names of the father and his three sons. Targitai "Farmers Noble Clan", Lipoksai "Border Protecting Noble Clan", Arpoksai "Protecting Possessions Noble Clan"; Kolaksai "Protecting Capital (i.e. Kingdom) Noble Clan" or "Clan with Noble Arm". The last, the younger son, as relayed by Herodotus, accepts the kingdom from his father after he brought home the golden tools fallen from the sky: the plough, yoke, hatchet, and cup [Herodotus, 1972, B. 4, 5]. (M.Zakiyev)

But systematic study of the Türkic ethnonyms brought us to the idea that the root sky historically ascends to the ethnonym Saka. With the affix it becomes Sakady or Sakaly "people consolidated with Sakas " or " people that includes Sakas". Sakady gradually could phonetically change: Sakady > S'kady > S'k'dy > Sk'dy. This ethnonym with the affix -ly is found in the sources as a name of one of the components of the Volga Tatars in the 10th century [Bartold V.V., vol. 8, 545]. In the Assyrian documents the Scythians under the name Asguz~Ishkuza~Ishguza are recorded in the 7th century BC. This ethnonym also can be a phonetical variation of the ethnonym Skid: in fact in the Turkic dialects the sound interchange s-sh, d-z, i-u is usual: Skide - Iskidy - Iskuzy - Ishkuzy. Once again this proves, that in words Skide and Ishkuzy the word-formation affix is same: -de/-ze. Naturally, there are also other Türkic etymologies of the word Ishkuzy [Zakiev M.Z., 1995, 23, 40-41]. Skolot is the endoethnonym of the Scythians, its etymology could not be explained by the Iranian languages. In Turkic Skolot consists of a part Sak > Sko plus -lo/-ly, the affix of possession, -t/-ta is a plural index. In the common Turkic it is -tar/-lar, in the Karachay-Balkarian it is -ta/-la. Skolo is Sakaly > Skoly "people with Sakas", Skolota > Skolot is the same word, but in plural: Sakalylar > Skolotar > Skolot. Skolot, apparently, had survived in Balkarian language as shylty with a meaning "nobles, upper caste" [Miziev I.M., 1986, 48]. (M.Zakiyev)

The supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory for the proof of their correctness frequently use the etymology of the ethnonym Sak or Saka, with which the Persians designated Scythians. In the V.I.Abaev's opinion, the ancient Persian word Saka is ostensibly a totem with a meaning "deer" [Abaev V.I., 1949, 179]. The Ossetian sag "deer" from saks "branch, stump, deer horn, branching horned". As many historians think, the Sak is a name of one of the Scythian tribes which was accepted by the Persians as an ethnonym for all Scythians. None of the ancient authors notes a meaning of the ethnonym Sak/Saka in the sense "deer", and Stephan the Byzantian informs that "Saka is a people, so are called the Scythians of the "armour" because they have invented it" [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 265]. Here the word Saka approaches the Turkic sak/sagy "defense, protection, cautious". Besides, it should be noted that in the Turkic sagdak "quiver", i.e. "case for the protection weapons". Sagay is the ethnonym of a Turkic people between Altay and Yenisei, they are a part of the Khakass people, Saka (Saha) is the ethnonym of the Yakuts. The word Sak/Saka is a part of a compound ethnonym Sakar (Sak-ar or Saka-ar "Saka's people") by which a significant part of the Turkmen is designated in the form Sakar Türkmenleri [Begliev A.-N., 2000, 32-38, 59-63, 155-162]. The Turkic-speaking of the Sakas is proved by many researchers of the history of the Turkic peoples and their neighbors [Karatay О., 2000, 21-26]. Thus, Sagay (Sak/Saka) is the Turkic word, which had transfered into the ethnonym of one of the Scythian tribes, and it was accepted by the Persians as their general ethnonym. (M.Zakiyev)

I know that there are blonds and people with green and blue eyes among Tajiks & Afghans. I once myself saw an afghan child with bright blond hair. But I was born in eastern part of Kazakhstan. I lived in city and most of Kazakhs I saw had rather mongoloid facial features but their skincolor was rather bright, they had very dark brown or black hair. But me, my father, uncles & grandfather look very different from most of city kazakhs. They all were born in one village and as my mother recalls, people from that village had blue, green and grey eyes. I have common light-brown eyes & light-brown hair color, my father have grey eyes and curly hair. And this is 100% contrary to what european say about turkic people and kerey tribe in particular. If kerey clan descended from mongols of Kerait clan then we should be mostly mongoloid but this is strange to see almost europeoid-type people with grey & green eyes, bright hair-color labelled as mongolians.

I don't trust most of european historians, ethnologists and ethnographists because I don't find them trustworthy as I don't find trustworthy works of pan-turkist and pan-turanist researchers who claim that turkic peoples founded first civilization or that Sumerians were turkic. Though I should admit that I don't believe in "civilized\uncivilized" theory, even nomads of Pamirs and Tibetan Plateu have their own unique civilization. I rely only on sources that I find reasonable and that have basis in archaeology and historical records. And I don't find indo-iranian & indo-european theories trustworthy enough. Education system in USSR was extremely oppressive about new ideas and theories. Many turkologists that refused to accept idea that there was turks before Genghis's conquest were oppressed and labelled as "enemies of progress & science". Nowadays Kazakhstan's education system is suffering regress and its quality is worse than in Turkey or Iran. Most of information I discovered through deep research of kazakh and tatar peoples, folklore, ethnogenesis and origins of turkic peoples. I also discovered that indo-iranian theories are based on science of XIX century which is full of prejudice, disregard towards possible proto-turkic hypothesises, especially the one concerning Yueji, founders of Kushan Empire, that had contacts with Xiongnu. Most of pan-indo-european researchers see in Huns a typical "barbarians" which is crime against science, because there is no such thing as "barbarians" because every folk, people, nation, even the smallest and unsignificant, has culture. Proto-turkic hypothesis must have a chance for research by european archaeologists. Anyway, according to indo-european theory Saka & Scythians in general simply couldn't avoid proto-turkic people since there were archaeological findings that showed europeoid-type people on Altay. Thus I think that disregard of this fact can proof unprofessionalism and prejudice of european scientists.

With best regards, Iliassh (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually Skolotai/Skula has a good Iranian root. See this source which is [4] very recent and discussed various meanings. On Alans, there is a very comprehensive book published in 2000 [5]. Actually we have 12th century text from the language of Alans inscribed in the Theogony of John Tzetzes, a Byzantine poet and grammarian. It is in Greek Alphabet and the language is Iranian. You could have a point that the Persian names Sakaparadarya, Sakatigrkhuad, SakaHamavarga.. are Persian names for Scythians. But Scythians themselves had Iranian names: Aripharnes, Ariantes, Ariamanes. These exact names like Ariapharnes, Ariamanes.. occur in Old Persian. Now I am not saying Zakiev, the Tatar scholar was a pan-Turk, but he says: Thus, Türks formed 20-30 thousand years ago and lived in different regions of Eurasia under various ethnonyms. Where as that is impossibility since proto-Turkic and proto-Indoeuropean do not go back to at most 7000 years ago! (at most). About Turkic racial features, you find diversity today, but in Persian literature, it has been described as "Mongloid" rather than "Caucasoid". The Turkomens of Iran are overwhelmingly Mongoloid but with some Cacausoid admixture. I would persume the Iranian speaking Sogdians[6] and Chorasmians[7] were relatively light featured, just like Pamiri Tajiks. Since the Pamiri Tajiks speak dialects that are descendant from Sogdian. Also Hungarian (a non-Indo European language) scholars like János Harmatta and Ilya Gershevitch and others have studied Scythians [8]. In my opinion, the western Academic world which is based on peer review system is immune to most conspiracy theories. Specially on matters relating to 2000-3000 years ago. Best Regards.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I can't agree with you that western peer review system is immune to most conspiracy theories. In science nothing is immune, especially history & ethnography. I agree with you that Alans used Greek alphabeth due to christianization. As I already noted that Sakaparadarya translates from persian like "overseas saka" (according to M.Zakiev), in this[9] document they named saka paradraya which is either translation mistake or intentional error but whatever does it mean it sounds more "sanskrit-like" than persian daryo. I also should mention that word Suɣdıq ethnonym was mention in this particular article, it was called as "Western Iranian" but it is obvious turkic word scheme typical for modern kazakh & kirghiz languages - kz.Saqtıq, dlct. kz. Sağdıq, krg. Saktık, ttr. Saqlıq - translates as Sakian, Saka. In this article a Pahlevi word sudiq is also mentioned, this one is also easy recognisable - kz.,ttr. Sulıq - Of water, watery, near water. Then we see Suɣdyk, an "iranian" word that I found perfectly translateable from kazakh as Suğ, of Suğ, NOT Suğd. Many names ending on -es look like they were transformed by Greeks (correct me if I'm wrong) for better readability by greek language:

Aripharnes in original could be Ari-barna (Erbarın, Erbarım), Ariantes - Ar-i-and(Erıyendı), Ari-man (Ermen). These names could be scythian in original but I doubt that this hypothesis is right. It is widely known that Scythians and Persians fought with each other, but this doesn't mean that they always killed and robbed each other. Common names are general among neighbouring peoples, well, you won't call tatar or kazakh an arabians because they have names like Muhammad-ghazi or Ibrahim, you won't do it because you know that these are different people with different languages, physical appearence, etc. Common names doesn't proof any common genetical relationship between different peoples, there are tatars with russian names like Pyotr, Alexandr or Timofey but they still aren't russians. Thus having common names by Scythians and Persians doesn't make them genetically related, instead it makes them more culturaly related. Also I should note the name Aršak - kz. Ersaq, old-tr. Arsak, Arçak it perfectly translates like man, saka meaning man-saka, of sakas.

I want to say that Herodotus would mention any facial similarities between Saka\Scythians and Persians. I know that Turkmens of Turkmenistan look more mongoloid-like, linguistically and culturaly they are definitely turkic but genetically they're much closer to Persians than any other turkic folk. There are turkic & mongolian people with mongoloid faces but with blond hair[10], [11], most of Volga, Crmean, European and Siberian tatars have more Europeoid-like faces.

With kazakhs situation is much more difficult. Most of Kazakhs considered to be of western mongoloid type[12] but there are many kazakhs that have more europeoid-like faces, some have uncertain Mongoloid\Caucasoid[13] type. I & my father have at least 85% Caucasoid genetics: bright eyes (my father have gray, I have light brown eyes), typical "big" european eyes contrary to mongoloid-type little eyes, we both have curly hair & typical european noses (not flat siberian\mongoloid). When I was a child approx. of 2-3 years old but not older I had straight blond hair and blue eyes, later eye-color changed from blue to light gray, hair became dark brown, after during puberty they became curly, later they changed again, they became bright-brown. Though 15% of my genetics have some mongoloid background such as form of my head, I have relatively wide form of head and forehead, My grand-grandfather, grandfather, father and I myself had very little or no facial hair.

But even today I can be named as typical eastern "indo-european" despite of my kerey and hunnic ancestry.

If we take a scythian mummies (found in Mongolia and Altay) in mind we'll see that scythians also lived near Altaic mountain range. The problem is that if "Turkic Tribes" according to indo-europeanists came later to Central Asia from Altay then why would Scythians would live with their geneticaly and historicaly unrelated mongoloid neighbours? First of all there was no such word as türk during Herodotus's travels. Instead there were such names as as, es, aş, iş and others. This is one of earliest (according to M.Zakiev) ethnonyms of proto-turkic peoples, in kazakh esti translates like the one who thinks, understands, reasonable i.e sapient.

Another problem is that, at least as I know almost every turkologists and researchers of turkic & proto-turkic languages who studied scythian names and words found similarities between it and modern turkic words. But these scientists were labelled as fabricators & pseudo-scientists by mainstream science. This proofs that modern western science is full of prejudices towards proto-turkic history. No european scientist would care about what people were first turkic, what culture they had, when western scientist arrived to Altay they found blond scythians and continued to claim that turkic were aliens to this lands despite their previous claims that turkic came from Altay. These facts tarnished their reputation in my eyes.

Iliassh (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

- WHY ARE TURKS ATTACKING ANOTHER CULTURE FOR PROOVING THEIR OWN? CAN'T YOU JUST REFER TO LOGICAL SOURCES WITHOUT CLAIMING BUDHA WAS NOT , JAPAN IS NOT , ARABS ARE NOT , THIS IS NOT AND THAT IS NOT , YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE AND IT ALL IS SO FRUSTRATING TO EXPERIANCE A DEBATE IS MIXED WITH INFERIORITY COMPLEX OR IDENTITY TROUBLES ! HITLER WAS ENOUGH SO GET OVER WITH IT. BY THE WAY FOR YOU TO RELAX IRANIANS WERE SENT BY GOD FROM HEAVEN WITH A SPACE SHIP THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T EXIST IN YOUR EYES, ANOTHER : GENETIC RESEARCHES INDICATES THAT ALL WESTERN TURKS HAVE COMON CHARACTOR AS ALL PERSIANS AND ASHKENAZI JEWS, SYRIAN, LIBANESE ETC , WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING RACE , WE ARE DISCUSSING WHO THE HECK WERE SAKAS, THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN MOGHOLS ,,, THIRD : WHY TURKS THINK THEY CAME FROM SCANDINAVIA? THEN WHERE SCANDINAVIANS CAME FROM? ISN'T IT AFRICA? AREN'T WE COMING FROM AFRICA ALL ? DARN IDENTITY CRISES!(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.120.201 (talk)

I wonder wherever in history is ambiguous, the Persians and Kurdish people use it to prove their civilisation, since they do not know where they are from in 2500 years ago, and because they did not have any scripts at that moment and they just imitated Elami's, so they try to connect themselves to Aryans and central Asian people. Firstly Turkic languages are different from Mongolians Language and both are branches of Altaic Languages, Secondly Turkish people migrate to this territory 400 years before Mongolians Attacks, and their kingdom was GHAZNAVID Kingdom who saved Iran from Arabs, Thirdly Turkish people were the only muslims who accept Islam through Persians without any fighting, then Muslims, especially the Persian people of that time wanted Turks to fight against the Christians in the first row of the battle field, and the Turkish migrated here without any fighting just on Iranians demands, of course the Persians did not know that one day turkic people would defeat the Christians! if they did know it, they never wanted Turks to migrate to this region, and eventually would not make them opponents of the Persians in this territory. Finally about the harmonic languages, who knows the exact languge of Sakas? But we know this Persian ,which we use it, is not even 1% of real Persian in both vocabulary and Grammar (structure), so how they name themselves as the Persians, just a historical lie. About 60% of New Persian language has been derived from Arabic and the rest is derived from Greek (in time of ALEXANDER the Great) , Turkish (throughout 1000 years kingdom of Turks in Iran) and just about 1% from ancient Persian. Even Firdausi in Shahnameh names the region above the Damavand Mountain as TURAN which shows the ancient inhabitants of that territory have been the TURKS and TURANIAN. The written So-Called issue in above, about Turkic and Mongols are totally wrong and out of truth. Also ottoman empire started in Seljukid time 200 years before Mongols. Please study the history first and without any prejudices and without any racism senses then write your subjects, what is written cannot become the part of history as here is done, everybody is able to gather information from different sources and put them as a whole like a Puzzle, in this way so many lies will be discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.26.166 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to "prove" civilization. The early Aryans were nomads and borrowers. They immitated the more advanced people they came in contact with and/or conquered. Ancient Persian architecture for example is a mix of the nomadic past of the Persians (the audience hall of Persepolis with its 100+ collumns reflected the ancient tents of the Persian nomads) and the more advanced sedentary architecture of the Elamites, Egyptians, etc. The Persian civilization is a continuation of the more ancient Mesopotamian civilization. The only difference is that Persians shaped that civilization in the past 2500 years. Only for a very short period Greeks and Arabs interrupted the dominance of Persianate culture - for the rest, it was undeniably "Persian", be it under native Iranian, or under Turco-Mongol rule.

Your allegation about the Turks is wrong. The first Turks (and even later) were converted to Islam by force. As late tas the 10th century, the Samanids prided themselvs for defeating and converting "20.000 tents of the barbarian Turks". The very first Turkish Muslim rulers were military slaves - mamluks- and they remained military slaves for the next 400 years. Entire dynasties were named "slave dynasties", such as the Slave dynasty of India or the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt. The word "Turk" itself was considered pejorative and was not used by Western Turks up until the 20th century. And Turan is a totally different thing. It has nothing to do with "Turks" - Turkish nationalists adopted the concept of Turan in the late 19th century.

Your claim about the Persian language is also wrong. While it is true that Persian has borrowed a lot from other languages, your claim that it is only "1%" of the ancient Persian is totally wrong. For every Arabic word in Persian, there is also a Persian equivalent - those words are simply not used in the vulgar "every day" language. And besides that, borrowing from other languages is nothing bad or wrong. Modern English has extensively borrowed from French and Latin, Ottoman Turkish was up to 90% Perso-Arabic in vocabulary. Basically, every Persian word was also an Ottoman word, only with a typical Turkish suffix (-lar, -lu, etc). During their journey through Iranian lands, the Turks have extensively borrowed from Iranian languages. Even the Turkish titles "Bey" and "Yabghu" are Iranian and Indo-European in origin. The Turkic word "beg", for example, is borrowed from Sogdian and is related to the Sanskrit word bhagavan ("god") and to the Slavic word bog ("lord", "god"). The modern Turkish word "bey" is borrowed from Middle Persian "bay" with the same meaning. All of this proves that the "Turkic peoples" did not have functioning civilization before they came in contact with settled Iranians. "Turkic civilization" - whatever its definition may be - is essentially Iranian and Perso-Islamic in origin. This may be hard for Turkish nationalists to accept, but it is that way. A civilization is not necessairly driven by a specific ethnic group. "Persianess" was for centuries propagated and celebrated by Turks, Mongols, Indians, and even Arabs. That'S what makes the Persian civilization universal - just like the Arab-Islamic civilization. "Turkishness" has for most of the time been an isolated ethnic-based ideology. That only changed with the rule of Atatürk who was a Non-Turk himself. The same way Non-Persians celebrated "Persianess" for centuries, Atatürk - Greek Albanian in origin - celebrated "Turkishness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.101.167 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you're right. Turkic people weren't converted to Islam by force. In Kazakhstan, for example Islam wasn't dominant before enforced denomadization of people by russians. Dominant religion of nomadic kazakhs was shamanistic tengriism. First muslim people that came to Central Asia were traders from Islamic Caliphate and muslim geographers who brought islam to settled altaic people (sakaleeba) who lived mostly on river Itil and Bulğar.

Mamluks weren't slaves in western undestanding of the word. Slaves were the non-muslim people who depended on their muslim senior, usually they were prisoners-of-war that were taken by muslim victors as slaves. According to Shariah, after adoption of islam these people should be freed because of Islamic principle that every muslim is "'Abd-Allah" (Slave of God) and shouldn't be anyone's servant except servant of Allah.

The word beg, bek, bey isn't Sogdian, since Sogdian language is rather Sanskrit dialect adaptated for Sogdian\Bactrian script than separate language. Slavic word bog & modern turkic beg have more connection to modern mongolian word bogdo (knowing, enlightened), kazakh bilgir (enlightened), bögde (other, stranger) & indian bodhisattva (deity, enlightened existence). During the rise of Great Huns there was a xan named Modu or Modé, trk. Mete, and if you know, M & B sounds are quite relative among turkic languages. If we change M for B we'll see Bodu, Bodı. But this particular hypothesis isn't trostworthy enough. Another one, more trustworthy is that mongolian Bogdo-gegen was used in proto-turkic as Bŭğdıxan, Boğdoxan and Böke-xan.

Every people have it's functioning civilization, even nomadic Tofalars, Nenets, Buryats or Tuvans have. What you saying about turkic civilization is rather racist than scientific. Even Altaics that had very few external contacts for more than 2000 years have very unique and sophisticated cutlure & traditions. Take Göktürk monument of Kültegin for example. It was made in pre-islamic era and with stone-craftsmanship unique to that region. Monument was written with orkhon script. The fact of existing script and stone-craft proves that there WAS "civilization" as you understand it.

Mustafa Kemal was the author of the türkic ethnonym. Before his foundation of pan-turkism most of modern-day turkic people were called by their endoethnonyms and tatar word. Only peoples that use türk word in their endoethnonyms are modern turks and turkmen. Thus it became a reason for misconception that all turkic people use word türk in their languages though it's not true. You look on turkic people from pan-turkist's prism which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliassh (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whats in a name

Could saka be derived from the name for horse 'Ashva'.

[edit] Iranian names, family names

Many Iranian names of cities : Sega, seka, sika, sigaa, sigu, segaan, sigaan, sikan, sakan, sakaan, Sagasar, Sakasar, Siestan ( Sakastan ) , sagez, , .............and names , Ashkan, Sasan (sakan or sagan ) , or ...............family names : Sakai, Sekai, Sakui, Sakoi, Sakooi, Saakaaee, Saakaaian, Sasani, Saghai, Sazai, Ashkan, Ashkani, Askui, Askooi, Ashkooian, Askaani, TONS of names of cities, regions , mountains, rivers , even human names and family or clan names cognated from SAKA. also mystical terms in persian piterature such as SAGHI a highly respected "BAR TENDER" whom is giving, or donating, or even allowing the POET to drink WINE or taxucating drinks ! Bartender some times appears as God or some sort of super being ,, but his devotion is not more than a normal bartender would do in a bar ! plenty of songs in Iranian foklorinc expressions SAGHI has the sentral rule ! I think a house where drinking water for public would be called Sagha khaneh (?), a Sagha is whom protect the water disturbers ? water-man would be called sagha (?) I am not very sure on sagha or sagha khaneh issue, any one who speaks persian? leave a coment on this please !

[edit] Saka and Drang nach Osten

The recent User:24.251.32.45 who has recast this article has done comparable work at Drang nach Osten. --Wetman 06:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saka and Iranian literature

This article does not mention the importance of Saka heroes in Iranian literature. The Saka heroes Rustam, Zal and others are among the most important heroes of Persian nationalism and Persian literature. Usually, Persians identify themselvs with these Saka heroes, as mentioned in Ferdousi's "Shahnama". According to some historians (for example Frye), this is a proof for the Iranian heritage of the Saka. -213.39.153.241 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

They were Parthians not Sacaes --88.68.217.53 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zagh

Many Persian dialects use a word "ZAGH" for any one having blue eyes. Being ZAGH is not necessarily being white or European. I make some example below :

Kamran Russ ast = Kamran is blond ( rus or ross not to be mixed with Russians, see below example ) Mikhail Rusi ast = Mikhail is Russian Kamran boor ast = Kamran is blond In kurdish Kamran SUR e = Kamran is blond but when Kamran ZAGH ast = his look maybe Indian , Arabian, Turkish, Persian, European.....only the color of eye. So maybe Saka people have had genetically divers background yet their eye color could have been either blue or green ? We can find many ethnics like that in Caucasus, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Iran and India : Sarkass or Sakiss for instance , varies skin or hair color but majority blue or green eyes. Dark haired-skins with Hazel eye or braun and black with sort of BLUISH or GREENISH flash in the EYE is also ZAGH. Majority Gypsies in europe are Zagh acording to this definition ! Many dark tribals from India too are Zagh. The conclussion is : Has ZAGH any thing to do with Saks linguistically? can any one answer me professionally?

[edit] Surgery

I have deleted a major part of the article. The theory that the Germanic people has originated in the Saka branch of Indo-Iranian has no support at all in the handbooks. There are no similarities between Germanic and Indo-Iranian beyond the fact that both language groups are Indo-European. They do not share any common linguistic innovations (even the merger of o and a is different in the two branches since Germanic does not have "Brugmann's Law"). The racial argument is even more problematic. Enkyklios 11:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The deleted text:

Although, the term "Aryan" is today limited to the ethnolinguistic identification of Indo-European speakers in India, it was once a commonly used term for the Indo-European family as a whole, before the Second World War when Nazi propogandists utilized the term for their political movement. Ethnically, the Germanic nations are a separate branch of the Indo-Europeans and their language is not closely related to the Indo-Iranian branch. Nonetheless, there are significant historical linguistic similarities between Germanic languages and Indo-Iranian languages which combined with other archeological, histographical, and ethnological evidence provides a compelling case for the Germanic peoples having origin in the Saka/Scythians if not the entire Northern Indo-Iranian speaking Aryan nations. Furthermore, evidence suggests that at a minimum, the Alans, a Central Asian Iranian people related to the Scythians, are known to have entered Europe and merged with Germanic Gothic tribes in the 4th century AD, taken part in the conquest of Rome and eventually settling in Spain.

...

Growing anthropological evidence suggests that the Saka race, with an affiliated tribe under a different name, fled the Hunnic and Mongol-Turkic invasions of Central Asia and migrated to the area of the Baltic Sea, giving rise to the Saxon tribe in the area of present day Germany. Interpretation in the 19th century of primary sources and sagas relating to the Völkerwanderung ['fœlkər"vandərʊŋ] ("the migration of peoples"), known as the Germanic Migration Period, led to numerous early archeological expeditions into Central Asia. These early anthropologists discovered the initial findings which buttressed the linguistic studies of European languages then showing startling similarities between national groups.

By the early 20th century, enough archeological discoveries had been collected which when collated with the new statistical methodologies and linquistic development patterns provided near overwhelming evidence for European origin in Central Asia particularly among the Germanic nations. However, growing specialization of the arts and sciences contributed to a diffussion and fracturing of the Aryan study and retarded it's development. Finally, political revolutions in the Russian Empire, World War, and other events made continuing discoveries near impossible.

Additionally, politicization of the scientific study by various groups also limited it's growth. As competing ideologies began infiltrating academia, the legitimacy of both proponents and opponents of the Aryan theory became questioned. During the spread of Germanic Nazism, Hitler utilized the Aryan origin theory of Germany as citation for Drang nach Osten ("Striving towards the East") which was in favor of claims that Germans were "original descendants of the Aryan race" and deserved the right to return to the East. However, anti-Germanic and anti-Nazi groups equally mobilized evidence from philologists to reject the notion, and began frivolous questioning of the archaeological evidence for major cultural contacts between anyone in Uzbekistan or Iran, and the Baltic area. Only now after fifty years since the end of WWII has the academic community began to rediscover the Aryan study. Nevertheless, Germans have always maintained by virtue of tradition, saga, and history that there there was a connection between people in Central Asia and their own ancestors who were settlers from the East.

According to the traditions mentioned in Gothiscandza by Jordanes, Gotho-Germans were settled for some time in the Vistula Basin and south-east towards the Black Sea. They battled with, and temporarily subjugated, the ancestors of the Slavs (there were many Gothic loanwords in proto-Slavic), who lived between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea and ultimately settled in their former homelands of 'Scythia' a vast undefined region that includes modern Ukraine, Belarus, Southern Russia, and the Central Asian steppes (called Oium by Jordanes). The implication being that the Germans originated in Scythia.

Sagas of the Germanic nations also cite references to ties with the East. For example, when the Saxons invaded England ca. 400 AD, their chroniclers said they "sent back to Scythia for reinforcements". The deduction is that the Saxons considered themselves to be Scythians -- the name having traveled with them, even though they were far away from the region the Greeks had labelled "Scythia". Additionally, the word Saka and Saxon have the same root spelling and in more than one chronicle, the Saxons are described as Saka and vice versa. Furthermore, the description by unrelated individuals separated by generations and nationalities of the living styles, customs, manners, and warmaking by both Sakas and Saxons are near identitical. The burial customs of the Scythians and Vikings also show similarities, wherefore nost archeologists specializing in the subject argued a common origin in support of the theory. The English are known to be descended from two related tribes, the Angles and the Saxons.

Other sagas by the Germanic nations also describe battles and customs clearly related to events in the steppes. One great saga describing the Battle of the Goths and Huns, clearly portrays events which are chronicled in other primary sources in Rome and India which are described as taking place in Northwest Central Asia. The Hervarar saga which also describes the battle details a history between the Goths and Huns which spans over generations in which the Huns were in present day Northeast Central Asia. The combined histographic conclusion is that the Germanic nations had settlements in Central Asia which they felt significant enough attachment to fight the growing Hunnic Empire over.

Paul Pezon ardently supports the Germanic national claim, stating that the Saka Scythians and the seemingly related Cimmerians were ultimately ancestors to the Celts and Germans, and that the Germans fled the Baltic area when it was flooded by the rising sea level after the Ice age reasoning that the German tribe Cimbri are thought to be descended from a branch of the Cimmerians).

Some researchers have argued that both the Celts and Germans came from an area southeast of the Black Sea, and migrated westward to the coast of Europe, starting with the reign of the Persian king Cyrus the Great, when they declined to help him in his conquest of the Babylonian empire. Herodotus (Histories I.125) takes the "Germanii" for a division of the Perses (Persians)..

About 50% of Slavs and Balts and about 30% of Central Europeans share the same Y chromosome (R1a) with 50% of the people of the Indus Valley.

[http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/scythian/saka_ethnic.htm]

[http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/Oric.Basirov/origin_of_the_iranians.htm] [14],[15],[16] See also: Pashtun, Jat (people)

[edit] Some reasons that Sakae people are Turkic

1st: mostly of them was horsemen; 2nd: they buried dead in kurgans; 3rd: they was archers; 4th: they lived in Central Asia & didn't migrated to anywhere(like it's said in western books); 5th: You can't say about their genetics 'cause you never saw them.

From the Kurgan that the golden attire was found, a silver plate was also found. There were old Turkish runic writings on the plate and it says the gold attire belonged to a prince who died young. If nothing else, this itself proves that Saka's were Turkish origin. In Shahname, even todays northern Iran was considered as Turkic lands, like the city of Kazvin. Claiming further northern steps as Persian land based on Shahname is simply wrong. There was always a Turkic presence in Euroasian steps, at least from the Hunic times, and even after that those lands were called Saka lands. I don't know any proven evidence for Persian presence at all. I am going to remove the sentence saying Sakas or Scythians were Iranian. I'll try to find the picture of the plate and post it too. There are extreme racist statements about Turks in some paragraphs above, I hope somebody will do smth about those users too.Erguvan7 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Kurgans have been found even before the Scythian age. If you are talking about the Issyk Inscription inscription it is in Khotanese Saka. Kazivin is not really in Northern Iran and in the Shahnameh Azerbaijan, which is above Qazvin is considered Iranian. You should get familiar with Wikipedia's policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Sakas were not Persians, but they were Iranic speaker. There is a lot of material left from Khotense Saka.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22khotanese+Saka%22&btnG=Google+Search. Here you can find some samples[17]. --alidoostzadeh 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, I read Shahnameh, many times, it is a graet saga. In Shahnameh, It says Qazvin was founded by Turks and named after Qaz, a Turkish Princess. There are lots of wars and land exchange in Shahname, but even Shahname accepts that Qazvin was/is a Turkic city. There is an undisputable evidence that Sakas spoke Turkish, which You removed from the page (silver plate). There is NO evidence that Saka's, forget about Iranian, even Indo-European. Therefore I change the page again.

---

Shahnameh was written during mongoli-turkic empire of Ghaznavides - What ferdosi says has nothing to do with FACT but the book is about legends of Perso-Sakic mythology as reviewed re-written for persians and sakic future! why would I say sakic here? yes SISTAN ( Sakestan ) is the senter of every thing in shahnameh , even the main hero ROSTAM is from sistan. Ferdosi mentions varies folks or people as either ARYANS or NOT ARYANS in which amongth them EIRAN versus TURAN as competitive ( not enimy - shahnameh does not support GOOD and EVIL values and it rather follows mythical times value conception , where tragedy and comedy were interpretet as Abrahamic version "good and evil" ..... in shahnameh neither IRAN is good nor TURAN ! but they compete.... and tons of tragedy happens .... TURAN ? ( EUROPE ! )..................................................................................................................... Ghazvin ( arabic name of KASPIAN )..... the definition goes long long before any one knw what TURK is ! KASPAR in TORAT .... KASHMIR in India ( many tribes moved towards india from KASPIR .... later dialectical misinterpretation renames it as KASH-M-IR.... hence in the vedic text we are dealing with KASPIRS invaders of north india and not kashmir ,,,, I beleive TURKS problem has to do with their MODERN identities ,,, all TURKIC states both in west or eastern IRAN of NORTH are given birth by ISLAM ! which means by becoming MUSLIMS and enfusion of tribals ,,, becoming sattlers with Persian culture ,, their IDENTITY was shaped .............. now sociologically one can not say TURK and not MUSLIM ! TURK is synonymous with Islam...................................... running away from this reality Turks of both east and west are trying all they can to attache them selves to any thing that is to debate ! and if you psychoogically read TURKS mind about things they are desperately in search of prooving their IDENTITY ! an example is the definition TURAN ,,, TURAN is not defined by ferdosi ,,, but both Avesta and Veda mention TURAN as the nordic part of the WORLD ! the whole north and beyound........................... I beleive this "TURK THING" mixed in debating to know about ancient peoples is waste of time ! TURK are to concider after 4th entury AD .... as above it is said : during and after mongol expantion into EurAsia !................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.121.177 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Claim! This Iran's history is not Persians', it belongs to Turkish people after they learnt Islam by old people of Khorasan whose language was not Persian but was Dary, this Persian is just a name remains. And if you investigate in Chinese old documents, you can find that Chinese of 5000 years ago called Turkish people in Altay mountains as their western neighbours, but how about the Persian history as of 2500 years ago it began, so Turks do not want to prove their Identity, The Persians need to do it! You even do not know when Mongols came to Iran, they defeat Kharazm Shah, who was Turkish king of Khorasan at that moment, and Turks came here on Iranians demands to fight against the Christians about 400 years before Mongols. Racism is not a good thing (as you are a racist) but sometimes some people make me become a defender of truth. unsigned comment added by 85.15.17.141 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam. Actually Shahnameh does not say this. What you say is in the lexicon dictionary of Kasghari (11th century), he says Qazvin was named after the daughter of Afrasiyab whose name was "Qaz" and it meaning is "the play ground of Qaz"! Now Kashghari is not at fault here since he lived almost 1000 years ago, but such etymology is really not taken seriously by modern scholar and is a folk etymology (which was common in the Islamic era). Real etymology (see R.Schmitt) says Kazvin is Kashvin and related to the word Caspin. The name has also been written az Kazhvin. Also modern scholars are 100% agreement that Afrasiyab and ancient Turanians were not Turks in the Avesta.. around the time of Shahnameh they were identified with Turks. Actually Afrasiyab was probably not a real person . Even in the Shahnameh all their names virtually are Iranian (95%) and in the Avesta this is 100%. As per the silver plate, you need to look here:[18]. The inscription is in Khotanese Saka and not Turkish. Harmatta (1999) identifies the language as the Iranian language Khotanese Saka, tentatively translating "The vessel should hold wine of grapes, added cooked food, so much, to the mortal, then added cooked fresh butter on" (compare Nestor's Cup and Duenos inscription for other ancient inscriptions on vessels that concern the vessel itself).. Harmatta is a Hungarian scholar and well established and cites in multiple journals and has written tons of articles in western journals.[19] Also I brought mainstream sources that Saka were Iranian. So you can not just change page and remove sources. This is called vandalism in wikipedia, but I know your new to wikipedia, so I am just pointing this out. I know I would familiarize myself with the policies like [20]. Wikipedia is neither a debate club or etc. We just mention sources by mainstream neutral scholars who are published and books and journals which are scholarly. --alidoostzadeh 18:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Salam Ali. If removing sources is vandalism, why do You keep removing the picture of the plate, just because it doesn't support your oppinion? Lets put both oppinions in the article and lets readers decide which one makes more sense. You can refer to the any sources, but most reliable evidences come from archeological findings. I am not going to delete your view, I am just going to put sources and evidence supporting Turkic origin. Beginning of the article says Sakas were Iranian, what I am saying is this is at least debatable. I just read Bulgars page and even there someone said Bulgarians were Iranian originally?? Lets devide the origion section into Iranian, Turkic and other sub-sections and put related resiurces into respective sub-section, instead of saying Sakas were Iranian at the beginning. Even if You don't accept Turkic origin opinion, let others express it in the article. I prefer You do that since You made more effort on the article, and You are more experinced in editting. If You don't, I'll try to do it.

What Ali has done (deleting some things) is what all Persian and Kurdish people do to make a so-called history for themselves by supports and helps of some religious Zionist Jewish people. They even did not know Kourosh(Cyrus) until 100 years ago and they found him by Jewish history. Who destroyed the oldest civilisation of the world, which belonged to Arabs and Assyrians? Of course Kourosh, he did worse than Changiz khan at that moment, but since he is their ancestor he becomes "the Great" and Changiz becomes "wild one". One thing that is so important here is: "Before Turkish Ghaznavis there were not even one famous Persian person or Persian scientist or even Persian Poet and etc". Even in time of Achaemenians, no one can claim there was one famous Persian like Greeks' Plato (Aflatoon), Aristotle (Arastu) and Socrates (Sukrat). They are getting used to change the history by deleting its bad parts in their points of view. The Persian people and also the Kurdish people delete Turkish and Assyrians History to prove their so-called civilisations, but how they could change the history parallel to each other without any interfering? God knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.15.17.141 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Watch your tone and you will be warned. Wikipedia is not a nationalistic battle ground. And I did not remove any plate. But original research is removed. I am not here discussing Bulgars. You need to stay on the topic.

Sakas are considered Iranian by mainstream western scholars and there is a dialect called Khotanese Sakas[21][22]. The "Turkic origin" opinion does not hold in the academic world and there is no need for subsection, when something is not academically supported in the modern academic world and in modern universities. Find support of it in a mainstream source like Encyclopedia Britannica and then there could be a section. Besides the fact that there is a language called Khotanese Saka, which is academically recognized [[23]]. As per Cyrus the Great, he was known way before 100 years ago. Biruni mentions him and many aspects of Shahnameh show similar stories to Cyrus. As per destruction, sorry there was no Arab civilization in Babylon and all sources also say Babylon was flourishing under Achaemenids. So do not make up history although pan-Turanian theories are ripe and we do get people making some claims, but all of them are from a few select countries and they do it for nationalistic reasons. Before the Turkish Gahznavids, there was famous Persian poets: Rudaki, Persian scientist: Razi. As per famous people under the Achaemenids, there is enough evidence that Greeks also studied Persian scientists. The discussion is about Sakas, so bring any modern, up-to-date, Western academic source or else stop the Soap Boxing. We already know there is a lot of cranky pan-Turkists from some places and some of them even mix up Pourpirar crankism with their pan-Turanism. But in Wikipedia, there is no place for cranky theories. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Before prooving that saka were "indo-iranian" and claiming that saka weren't turkic because there was no such name as turk back there is lame example of knowledge. Labelling people that support idea of turkic sakas as "pan-turkists" and "turanists" is typical habit of "pan-indo-european" chauvinism. I'm not pan-turkist but I know from archaeological and toponymical researchers that saka were turkic, though they didn't call themselves as turk. Instead they had other turkic names such as as, ar, sün, hun, ğun, men, man, saq & others, such names as qıwsaq, qıwçak, kipçak, suar, suer, huarasım, saqalıtar (skoltes) were common in the places that are claimed to be inhabited with iranians. This is nonsense.

Another nonsense is the so-called "mainstream scince". The fact that majority doesn't want to take some facts and accept only facts that support their own theories doesn't mean that they're right. Who said that majority knows better? Let our dear reader decide who were Sakas. Let's not jump to conclusion and say that sakas were indo-iranian or turkic, let say something like: "Sakas are claimed by majority of western scientists & ethnologists as indo-iranian, though some researchers claim that they could be of proto-turkic stock" or something like this. Why not give different ideas & theories a place in this article?

That isn't bad idea. I'm not nationalist or pan-turkist, I'm a muslim and I want to see truth. I don't support any of these "pan-turanist" ideas or something. I'm not trying to make up history, everything I wrote here is what I researched myself and discovered through works of good people, researchers, scientists, anthropologists & historians. I just had no luck in discovering any reasonable proof for indo-iranian theory.

Encyclopedia Britannica won't support any modern hypothesises that would doubt in indo-iranianism of saka because it locked-in in old prejudices and eurocentristic ideas. Here are some myths made by europeans:

1-"Turkic came with Mongols". This is a lie, Cumans, Szeklers, Magyars, Besenyos(Pechenegs) lived in Europe for more than 300 years before Genghis united mongolian tribes. Seljuks came from Central Asia to Persia and Messopotamia more than 100 years before Genghis-xan attacked Chinese states.

2-"Turkic are mongoloids with black hair". This is one of the lamest errors of historical science. I don' have any mongoloid facial features instead I look more like europeoid, same thing is with my father. We both turkic & we have slightly bright brown hair. Many modern day Kumyks, Karaçay-Balkars, Nogays, Tatars, Turks, even some Kazakhs & Turkmens don't have mongoloid faces. It is known that nowadays Tatars of Tatarstan are direct descendants of Volga Bulgars since they already lived there when Genghis's armies arrived and they couldn't simply dissapear or assimilate contrariwise to myth of "iranianism" of Bulgars.

3-"Turkic peoples are immigrants". Not true, there are evidences that proto-turkic people inhabited Central Asia from south-west Siberia to Sogdiana before the earliest traces of humans were found in Altay.

4-"Turkic are nomads". Today most of turkic are settled though nomadic way of life was introduced to Central Asia only after 1200s i.e. after Genghis's conquest. Volga Bulgars were settled, muslim people before Genghis-khan's conquest. Through Volga Bulgarians(now Tatars) Islam was first introduced to Golden Horde, while Southern Çingizid states adopted islam through persian & arab people. This also debunks myth that all turkic were immigrants, mongols didn't assimilate natives of Central Asia, instead they (turkic) assimilated newcomers - mongols. Iliassh (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not the only source quoted. Also the myths you ascribe to modern Europeans are non-existent. I would actually read some modern European books, since you do not agree with their theories, but I do not think you have read their book necessarily. For example Soghdian is a well known Iranian language: [24] Seljuqs are well mentioned in European texts. Peter Golden's book , a history of Turkic people is very detailed. He does not claim: "Turkic came with Mongols", so I do not think you have read his book or many European books. In Wikipedia, it is not an open debate forum. We quote main stream Western scholars who have publications in the field in peer reviewed journal article. See WP:OR. If you think Western and Russian scholars are wrong, you should publish your results in a scholarly journal like CA or something and then challenge them. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes

Now that copyediting has made it clearer what the content of Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes is, I suggest that that it be deleted and relevant sections be moved to Indo-scythians, Scythians, Sakas, Scythia, etc.

The content of Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes itself substantially duplicates these articles and I can't see any reason for keeping it as a standalone wikipedia entry.--Saganaki- 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ashkenazi?

why the second paragraph has a link to ashkenazi jews article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.118.161 (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reply to query on the Ashkenazi

Good point! I wonder why too - so I have added "citation needed" tags in two places to see if anyone can come up with proper references for these claims. The info was added by people from the IP addresses: 86.140.13.205 on 28 Aug, 2006 and 81.153.122.48 on 30 Aug, 2006. Hope this is some help. John Hill 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical Connections to Celts and Teutons

This section of the article is so seriously in need of work that it's ridiculous. It appears to be very remedial work, no citations, no capitalizations, obscure wording, and a complete lack of logical consistency, (citation), historical support, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arsacids and Sakas

The banality of some of the discussions and the ethnocentrism of the discussant who try to uselessly connect historic people to this or that modern "ethnicity" is really what drags the quality of Wikipedia down.

Anyway, there is a statement in the article: "Ashkanian means "Sakan people" or "Saka descendants". An Arab source names Sagsar as the place from which Ashkanians originated."

I beg to differ. Yes, the Arsacid family (or as they are called here, the Ashkanian) were originally from the Parni tribe of the Dahae Confederacy. Dahae were a nomadic Central Asian tribal confederacy of Iranian and probably Saka origin (might have been the Saka Haumawarga of the Bistun Inscription of Darius). However, the word "Ashkan" (the root of "Ashkanian") is a patronymic of "Ashk" which is a new Persian version of Parthian "arshak" (Gk. Arsaces), the name of the founder of the dynasty. Now, get on with your baseless discussions...--Khodadad (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)