Talk:Sogdia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sogdians are not the ancestors of Uzbeks!

Sogdians are among the ancesteral lines of modern-day Tajiks! Uzbeks, on the other hand, are a Turkic people who migrated to Central-Asia (modern Uzbekistan) in the 15th century - that means: more than 1000 years after Sogdiana! The following text is taken from the article Uzbeks:

  ... The Uzbeks began as a group of tribes affiliated with the Golden Horde. In 1422, a group of nomadic clans east of 
  the Lower Volga, including Qangli, Qunggirat, Mahnghit, seceded from the central authority of the khan at Sarai 
  (near modern Volgograd). They called themselves Uzbeks, after the Horde's most famous ruler, Uzbeg Khan. Their first 
  leader, Barak, ravaged the lower Volga area between Sarai and Astrakhan, but he was murdered in 1428. Barak was succeeded 
  by Abul Khayr, a descendant of Batu's brother Shiban. The ruling house was therefore known as the Shibanids. In 1431, Abul Khayr
  moved to the central Kazakh steppe. In 1446, however, he changed his policy. The tribes moved south towards the Aral Sea and 
  the Syr Darya to resume contacts with the sedentarists in Transoxania. ...

There is no connection between the ancient Sogdians and modern Uzbeks. Sogdians are neither linguistic ancestors nor genetical ancestors of the Uzbeks. -213.39.138.12 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sogdians are the ancestors of Uzbeks!

Historians Calum MacLeod and Bradley Mayhew in their “Golden Road to Samarkand” say “visitors come for a Sogdian culture that predates political boundaries and lies at the ethnic of both the Tajik and Uzbek peoples” (page 182)

I think it is reasonably safe to state that many (perhaps most?) modern-day ethnic Uzbeks are aslo partly descended from assimilated Persians and Tocharians and that the Mongols also left their genetic footprints in some clans/blood lines. //Big Adamsky 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but usually, ethnic Tajiks are distinct from ethnic Uzbeks. Tajiks are what people call Caucasian and they speak an Indo-European language (Persian). Uzbeks, on the other hand, are mostly Mongoloid and they speak a Turkic (Altaic) language. Those "Uzbeks" who may be descendants of ancient Sogdians and Bactrians are actually ethnic Tajiks who are being "Uzbekized" by the nationalist government in Uzbekistan. Read the following article which is a reasearch done by the Harvard University, stating that up to 40% of Uzbekistan's population is actually ethnic Tajik: http://medlem.spray.se/Samarqand/index.html

-213.39.138.12 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

High Middle Ages?

Why is a term for European history periodization being used for Central Asian history, it makes more sense to throw in some century numbers. Jztinfinity 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Sogdians

Unresolved

provides no source. I will delete that section in a month if no source is provided. --74.12.106.156 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

\\added august 13 2009: Source appears to be in article An_Lushan, w/ around 10 sources\\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are still no sources for that section......Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Sogdiana

That section seems to lack sufficient context to be of value, and it's not really about Sogdiana, is it? Besides, I have difficulties accepting as relevant any modern text suggesting that Chinese forces employed fire-breathing dragons in combat. If no one objects, I'll remove that section as irrelevant. Huon (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, the dragons apparently were just vandalism, but the section is still suspect. It's out of chronological order, we have nothing else suggesting the Parthians were relevant to the history of Sogdiana, and the Chinese military expedition seems to contradict the following section which details numerous peaceful embassies and trade relations. Huon (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi the image of central Asia depicted in the map is incorrect! It doesnt show India's border correctly. Please rectify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.192.56 (talk • contribs) 10:24, December 16, 2010

The modern borders on that map are just a help to see where Sogdiana is. Since no part of Sogdiana is in modern India, India's borders aren't that important. Also, I don't see why India's borders are incorrect - the map seems to show the actual lines of control. Showing India's claims would probably lead to protest from those whose claims conflict with India's. Or did I miss something? Huon (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Central Asian role

The detailed presentation of slavery, the sex trade and intermarriage in the last two paragraphs of this section seems out of place here, or at least not presented with a larger relevance to Sogdian civilization. Could this section be:

- tightened up and presented so as to show the impacts that slavery/intermarriage and/or racial inter-mixture had on Sogdiana

- moved to other more appropriate articles, i.e Slavery_in_China#Tang_Dynasty

Avagad2 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I totally agree. Tajik (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

non-working links

Links to smoe articles and websites are not working, they need to be updated, eg the one to Iranica etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the Iranica link and removed the Chinese one about the An Ting rebellion. The others still work. Huon (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sogdian dress is influenced by early Turkic Peoples

Some unquestionable academic facts:

• http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/yatsenko.html
• http://www.transoxiana.org/14/yatsenko_turk_costume_chinese_art.html

Turkization reflected in wearing special turbans by both sexes, kaftans and sleeved coats with two lapels and also in male hair-cuts with 2, 4 or 6 braids and including plate-decorated belts along with large plaques, groups of pairs or fours of small semi-spherical plaques into the general set of ornaments. On the whole, the costume of Sogd in the 6-th - 8-th cc. underwent Turkization in the biggest degree if compared to the costume of any other Iranian-speaking people. The political dominance of early Turks (approximately from 565 to the 40-ies of the 8th c.) accompanied by economical and cultural rise of Sogd is characteristic for the second period. For the kaftans fabric was usually beveled to the collar (pl. 3, 36-37), for the coats of the later period we see two lapels according to the Turkic tradition (pl. 3, 17-18). On establishing Turkic political domination from the middle of the 6th c. there appeared a tradition to alternate large round rimmed plaques with 2-4 small semispherical ones (a Sogdian priest, leading gift-horses - personage 11 on the southern wall in the 'Hall of Ambassadors' in Afrasiab60). Sometimes, the belt just had a line of small semispherical plaques (an adorant: pl. 2, 69). Besides, there appeared additional short pendant straps for fastening different accessories, typical for Turks. Such belts are not often depicted Sogdian art (pl. 2, 69) but judging from frequent archaeological finds of belt plates (see, first of all, in Penjikent61) the real picture was just the opposite. --Tirgil34 (talk) 01:14, 15. March 2012 (CET)

Yes agreed with you Tirgil34, these are unquestionable facts, but 217.24.133.219 ist still making vandalism in context of persian nationalism. I think the next time we should report him. I think 217.24.133.219 is the same as 109.165.161.93. He is manipulating with 2 IP's. Maikolaser (talk) 02:55, 15. March 2012 (CET) Note: Maikolaser has been blocked as a sockpppet.

Facts are clear:

• Photo File:SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg is named after 550 CE and Northern Qi dynasty which ruled between 550–577, and sources [3] date that stele to 567 or 573CE. According sources which Tirgil34 gave, costumes from 5th-6th century were Heptalitian or Sassanid-influenced Iranian, NOT Turkic (given date is 7th-8th century).
• So, what did Tirgil34 (along with his sockpuppet Maikolaser) done? He has tried to change date of photo at commons from 550CE to "700CE" [4] (Turkic period) assuming that no one will notice his insidious faking, but I noticed his manipulation at commons and many Wikipedias on other languages. I've reverted his fakes, and he was so desperate that he tried to undone my changes some 15 times (!) [5].

Final, it isn't hard to assume that we're dealing with cheaters and servile people who beside all dare to accuse others of "vandalism" or "Persian nationalism" (I'm not Persian at all), and since Tirgil34 is (in)famous for his pseudo-historical edits at Scythian languages it's pretty clear that he's Turanist activist who is desperate to deepen Turkic history by misinformations, accusations and persistant reverting facts. I've noticed two admins about all issue so I'm sure they'll know how to react. --109.165.234.31 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion of costumes from the image caption to the section on culture where it belongs, adding a description of some elements of Sogdian costumes and the changes Turkization brought. I must add that I'm highly skeptical about the attempts to make the image description at Commons conform to one's favorite theory. The book by Dorothy Wong given as a source does not, for all I can tell, mention either Sogdians or Hephthalites, and while p. 150 (which unfortunately is not included in Google Books' preview) does discuss the Northern Qi dynasty, I doubt it actually mentions the stele relevant to our article. Huon (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Huon, now I've collected the complete information regarding this topic.

The two main periods in the history of the Sogdian costume. (on Yatsenko's website: http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/yatsenko.html)

• Heptalitian (5th -6th cc.) and Turcic (7th - the beg. of the 8th c.).
  • Definition of "5th -6th cc." is 400 - 550 A.D. (because "cc." means half of a century)
  • Definition of "7th - the beg. of the 8th c." is 600 - 725 A.D. (because "the beg." means beginning)
• On the same website we find the chapter "Periodization" where the date are more closely explained. I cite: "Early Medieval clothes of Sogd known to us, in my opinion, can be researched in the boundaries of two periods. The first one is connected with nomads-Heptalites prevailing in Western Turkestan (the 5th - the 1st half of the 6th cc.). The political dominance of early Turks (approximately from 565 to the 40-ies of the 8th c.) accompanied by economical and cultural rise of Sogd is characteristic for the second period."
  • Definition of "(the 5th - the 1st half of the 6th cc.)" is 400 - 550 A.D.
  • Definition of "(approximately from 565 to the 40-ies of the 8th c.)" is 565 - 740/50 A.D.

And now lets tackle the Sogdian Stele: As we know it is dated to 567 or 573. This is exactly fiting to the political dominance of early Turks (565 - 740/50). So it is highly possible that the Sogdians got their first Turkic costumes right here, on this Sogdian Stele: ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> --->

But on the one hand S. Yatsenko goes on as follows, I cite: "But the second period of the costume history evidently started not soon after the beginning of the Turkic rule but half a century later, at the beginning of the 7th c. It was the starting point of turkization of Sogd (especially after the reforms of West Turkic qaghan Ton-jazbgu (618-630), in the course of these reforms the local nobility in conquered countries got Turkic titles and was officially included into the administrative system of the Qaghanat. [.]. So, the boundary line between two periods of late “costume” history of Sogd lies, to my mind, approximately in the 20-ies of the 7th c."

But on the other hand S. Yatsenko goes on in the next chapter (Turkization) as follows, I cite: "Turkization reflected in wearing special turbans by both sexes, kaftans and sleeved coats with two lapels [...]."

So, that means that two lapels is of Turkic origin IN EVERY CASE.

Yatsenko is ending as follows, I cite: "On the whole, the costume of Sogd in the 6-th - 8-th cc. underwent Turkization in the biggest degree if compared to the costume of any other Iranian-speaking people."

Conclusion: The Sogdian Stele (dating to 567 or 573) is clearly fiting into the era of Turkization during the political dominance of early Turks (565 - 740/50) : ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> --->

Further Gokturk dress with two lapels: [6], [7], [8], [9] - (taken from this website: http://www.transoxiana.org/14/yatsenko_turk_costume_chinese_art.html)

Or Petroglyphs from Zavkhan Province, Mongolia, depicting Göktürks (6th–8th century): [10] (exactly the same as the Sogdian dress with 2 lapels of Turkic orign)

To strenght my position, Yatsenko says on this [11], that: "A series of Early Turkic costume depictions belonging to the 2nd half of the 6th – the 1st half of the 8th cc. in art monuments of neighboring China may be and should become much more important for the study of their dress."

This means that even many decades before the 6th c. there was Turkic influences in this region.

- Maikolaser (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2012 (CET)

Firstly, I'd read "cc." as "centuries", akin to "pp." for "pages". Secondly, I don't see where Yatsenko says two lapels show Turkic influence in every case. Even your date for the stele (except your rather blunt attempt to date it to 700; what was that about?) puts it squarely into the not-yet-Turkicized period of Sogdian dress. Using Yatsenko to support Turkic dress before 600 is your original research. I also see no reason to discuss the lapels at all in the image caption. That's a rather trivial detail for the first image of Sogdians in our article. If you want to discuss lapels, the culture section seems a better place than the image caption. Thirdly, I have more general doubts about the dating of the Northern Qi stele and the sources given. Neither of the Yatsenko papers, the one cited above and Early Turks: Male Costume in the Chinese Art, discusses our stele. Neither mentions the years 567 or 573. I have no idea where those dates come from, but it's not Yatsenko. I also doubt it's from Wong; according to Google Books her work about Chinese steles does not mention Sogdians at all. Before the recent edit war, that stele image's page at Commons dated it to 550 (apparently based on the museum description), and unless someone can point to a source actually giving another date for it, I see no reason to change that date. Huon (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

1st point: Sorry for misleading, I meant this ---> (the 5th - the 1st half of the 6th cc.)

2nd point: Here:[12] in chapter "Turkization" Yatsenko says that, I cite:

• "Turkization reflected in wearing special turbans by both sexes, kaftans and sleeved coats with two lapels and also in male hair-cuts with 2, 4 or 6 braids and including plate-decorated belts along with large plaques, groups of pairs or fours of small semi-spherical plaques into the general set of ornaments."

In the same chapter Yatsenko says that this Turkization took place in the 6-th - 8-th cc., I cite:

• "On the whole, the costume of Sogd in the 6-th - 8-th cc. underwent Turkization in the biggest degree if compared to the costume of any other Iranian-speaking people."

And again in chapter "Female thrown-open clothing" Yatsenko says following, I cite:

• "For the kaftans fabric was usually beveled to the collar (pl. 3, 36-37), for the coats of the later period we see two lapels according to the Turkic tradition (pl. 3, 17-18), and a long coat of a female-dancer, depicted on the ossuary from Ak-Kurgan with an original small left lapel (pl. 3, 21). The sleeves of female thrown-open clothing were always long and narrow."

Is it now clear that two lapels are traditionally Turkic?

3rd point: The date 700 A.D. was my fault, at this moment I didn't recognized the fact that this stela is dating to 567/573. That this Sogdian stela is from 567/573 is taken from >> Dorothy C Wong: Chinese steles : pre-Buddhist and Buddhist use of a symbolic form, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004, p.150 <<. I suppose 550 CE is reffering to the beginning of >>Northern Qi Dynasty<< (ruled 550–577). This information was added to the File:SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg. And again, the date (567-573) is exactly fiting to the political dominance of early Turks (565 - 740/50) in Sogdiana. Keep this important notes in mind, they are irremissible.

4th point: In my opinion it is very important to make a short annotation to the presented Sogdian dress in this article. This is an essential point in academic circles as well as on wikipedia. Imagine some potential boobies are claiming those dresses as "Iranic". This would be very fatal. And where could this fatal error better happen than here in this article.

5th point: Here in the first chapter "Summary" you can find the direct link to the Sogdians and their stelas from the 2nd half of the 6th c., I cite:

• "The earliest images (the earliest known ones belonging to the epoch of the First Turkic Kaghanate) are presented on mortuary beds and sarcophaguses >> of Chinese Sogdians of the 2nd half of the 6th c. <<"

- Maikolaser (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2012 (CET)

I have just received an email from Prof. Wong. She says: "First off, the image you showed me was not part of a stele, and it was not illustrated in my book. The detail comes from a panel of a sarcophagus--panels of this sarcophagus are scattered in the Musee Guimet, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, etc." This does not in the least alleviate my concerns; rather, it seems likely that we're spreading misinformation using a "source" that does not support what we claim it does. On a more general note, Yatsenko says both that Sogdian dress before 620 was Hephthalitian and that kaftans and sleeved coats with two lapels were part of the new Turkic style post-620. What we have here seems to be a depiction of kaftans with two lapels dating from ca. 550 - and whether it's 550 or 573 doesn't make much of a difference; in any case one of Yatsenko's statements contradicts the other when applied to our image. Prof. Wong advised me to ask Judith Lerner on the details of Sogdian clothing. For now I would suggest not labeling the clothing in the image as either "Turkic" or "non-Turkic" unless we can get a source to say exactly that in reference to that same image - rather, we should describe the changes to Sogdian dress in the article proper. Huon (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the date I have to agree with you then, because I didn't know that Orijentolog brang forward the wrong source. However, there is no doubt that its from the 2nd half of the 6th c. (begin of Turkization). About the Turkic style you are wrong, because Yatsenko wrote as follows:

• "Turkization: Sogd was one of the most important regions included into Great and then Western Qaghanat. Turkization reflected in wearing special turbans by both sexes, kaftans and sleeved coats with two lapels and also in male hair-cuts with 2, 4 or 6 braids and including plate-decorated belts along with large plaques, groups of pairs or fours of small semi-spherical plaques into the general set of ornaments. On the whole, the costume of Sogd in the 6-th - 8-th cc. underwent Turkization in the biggest degree if compared to the costume of any other Iranian-speaking people."
• "The political dominance of early Turks (approximately from 565 to the 40-ies of the 8th c.) accompanied by economical and cultural rise of Sogd is characteristic for the second period. For the kaftans fabric was usually beveled to the collar (pl. 3, 36-37), for the coats of the later period we see two lapels according to the Turkic tradition (pl. 3, 17-18). On establishing Turkic political domination from the middle of the 6th c. there appeared a tradition to alternate large round rimmed plaques with 2-4 small semispherical ones (a Sogdian priest, leading gift-horses - personage 11 on the southern wall in the 'Hall of Ambassadors' in Afrasiab60)."
• "The earliest images (the earliest known ones belonging to the epoch of the First Turkic Kaghanate) are presented on mortuary beds and sarcophaguses >> of Chinese Sogdians of the 2nd half of the 6th c."

- Maikolaser (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2012 (CET)

The third of Yatsenko's statements refers to images of Turkic people on sarcophagi of Chinese Sogdians - the Turkic people depicted are not the Chinese Sogdians themselves. I have mailed Yatsenko himself about our image; with some luck he will reply and tell us whether the clothing depicted is of the old Hephthalitic style or the new Turkic style. Prof. Wong suggested we ask Judith Lerner, another expert on Sogdian culture. If we are truly lucky, one of them will be able to point us to a reliable source we can cite. Huon (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouh right, third statement canceled. Btw, I really hold your investigation about this problem in high regard (as well as in my case 8-] ). It is very good that you are mailing to the authors. I am sure Yatsenko will bring the deciding and final information.

The other question is: "what happens if Yatsenko doesn't answers." We have only two relevant information regarding the two periods:

• 1. nomads-Heptalites influences (the 5th - the 1st half of the 6th cc.)
• 2. Turkic influences (2nd half of the 6th c. - the 40-ies of the 8th c.)-> the period which is responsible for 'two lapels' (not to be mistaken with the lather main Turkic period, beginning in the 20-ies of the 7th c.)

- Maikolaser (talk) 21:019, 17 March 2012 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Based on your info from Prof. Wong, I've found a bit more about this object and added it to File:NorthernQiStellaeDepictingSogdianFestivities550CE.jpg. Kanguole 09:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I just received word from Prof. Yatsenko regarding the kaftans with two lapesls, and he had this to say:

The caftans with two lapels were not originally a Turkic costume element. They were used first time in the 2nd-4th cc. in Khotan Oasis, Xinjiang, by Iranian-speaking Khotanese Sakas (See Bibliography, 2000, p. 332-333; pls. 55-56). The Early Turks were only a users and active “propagandists” of this element (2004; 2006, pp. 252-251, 282-283). But in my recent work devoted to the earliest images of Turks in China (2009) I wrote that two caftans with lapels were not popular in Turkic Qaghanate (between 661 and 603). They became popular only in the early 7th c. The Chinese Sogdians used such costume element in the second half of the 6th c., probably, after their trade activity along the Silk Road (see 2009: the costume details of Kutcha and Khotan oasis were popular after the activity their merchants, dancers, musicians and painters in China).

I wrote in details on Heptalite elements in the Costume of Transoxiana in 2002-2004. We know a series of such elements (similar to costume of Heptalite coins and silver bowls) not in Sogd but in Tokharistan (Bactria); really, Heptalite center was in Tokharistan and their costume influence in this country was big (see Yatsenko 2006, pp. 250-262, Pls. 189-190). The costume in Guimet’ relief had some similar elements but it was really Sogdian as whole.

I presented the first big paper on Sogdian costume in China first time in November 2009 in Wroclaw conference “Serica - Da Qin”. But this paper still not published in English after economic crisis in Poland; the version for Transoxiana-15 (2010) was not published also (the Journal was really closed that time). Probably, I shall publish the English version of this text in Silk Road, Vol. 11 in Seattle, USA (in 2013?). The short Russian version vas published in 2010 autumn, more big text in this year in Almaty (Kazakhstan) (2012b).

I may send you my non-published manuscripts on Chinese Sogdians in English and more detailed in Russian (if you use this language) with illustrations. In 2008-2010 I worked actively on ethnic identifications of foreigners on the Early Tang terracotta. The results were partly published still. But they may be interesting for you also.

His selected bibliography:

• Yatsenko S.A. 2000. Costume (Chapter 3). In: The Eastern Turkestan in Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. /Vol. 4/. Architecture. Fine Art. Costume (Ed. by B.A. Litvinsky). Moscow, 2000: Vostochnaya literatura, pp. 296-384 (In Russian).
• 2004. The Costume of Foreign Embassies and Inhabitants of Samarkand on Wall Painting of the 7th c. in the Hall of Ambassadors from Afrasiab as a Historical Source // Transoxiana. Vol. 8. (June 2004). Rome - http://www.transoxiana.org/0108/yatsenko-afrasiab_costume.html .
• 2006. Costume of the Ancient Eurasia (the Iraninan-Speaking Peoples). Moscow: Vostochanaya literatura, 661 pp. (In Russian).
• 2009. Early Turks: Male Costume in the Chinese Art. Second half of the 6th – first half of the 8th cc. (Images of ‘Others’). In: Transoxiana (Online-journal). Número 14 (Agosto 2009), Buenos Aires, 2009 - http://www.transoxiana.org/14/yatsenko_turk_costume_chinese_art.htm .
• 2010. In the Motherland and in the Foreign Lands: the Costume Characteristics of Early Medieval Sogdians after the Depictions. In: Integration of Archaeological and Ethnological Studies. Vol. 1 (Ed. ByN.A. Tomilov). Kazan: MardjaniInstituteofHistory, pp. 459-462 (In Russian).
• 2012a. Sogdian Costume in Chinese and Sogdian Art of the 6th-8th cc. In: Serica – Da Qin: Over 2000 Years of Sino-Western Relations (Ed. by A. Paron). Wroclaw (In print).
• 2012b. Sogdians in the Native Land and Abroad: a Distinctions of the Costume of the 6th-8th cc. after the Depictions in Sogd and China. In: Archaeology of Kazakhstan (Arkheologiya Kazakhstana), 2012/1. Almaty (In print) (In Russian).

I'll work that into the article proper, and then we should be able to close the "two lapels are Turkic!" discussion: The Sogdians clothing on this image shows some Hephthalite influences, not Turkic ones. Huon (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin of word "Sogd"

Taken from http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/KushansYuezhiEn.htm

Saka - aka Sak, Sk, a Türkic endoethnonym recorded in the form Sé in Indian and Chinese sources of the 2nd millennium BC and located in C. Asia. In the secondary compound ethnonyms, Sak took various dialectical forms which reached us in the form Sakar = Saka + ar = people, men, i.e. Saka People, Sagadar = Saka + Tr. pl. affix dar, i.e. Sakas, Sogdy or Sogd = Saka + Tr. possessive. affix dy, i.e. Sakian, Sakaliba (Arab) = Saka + Arab. liba, i.e. Saka White, etc. Dialectical variations for the ethnonym Saka are reflected in the toponymy, like Sakastan, Seistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.200.186.219 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no """"reliable"""sources for your claims. Plus 99% of modern scholar agree they were Iranians & most ancient sources tell us that that area was inhabited by Iranians. --74.12.106.156 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

i would like to know why they keep saying iranian language instead of persian? nothing in history says iranian language, its persian language, iranian belongs to modern country called iran, not samarkand !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.91.161.59 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For all I can tell, the language spoken in Iran today is the "Persian language". But the language family is called "Iranian languages", a subgroup of the Indo-Iranian languages. Counterintuitive, but that's the way it is. Huon (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Surnames and people

The "Surnames of Sogdians in Asia State" and "People" sections were unsourced. Of the people, we already mention An Lushan in the "Notable Sogdians" section, his stepfather seems non-notable, and I found no indication that Shi Le was a Sogdian at all. The many links in the "Surnames" section pointed to various irrelevant pages - many disambiguation pages with no clear target relevant to Sogdian names, a few obviously incorrect targets (Gang? That's something else...). For these reasons I have removed the sections. Huon (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sogdian silk weaving

According to the Eurasia - Episode V (The Silk Road Unites East And West), the Sogdians used a unique method of weaving silk textiles that influenced the Chinese practice of weaving them. I think this would also help. Komitsuki (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's more info. When Silk was Gold: Central Asian and Chinese Textiles by James C. Y. Watt, Silk Road Luxuries from China. Here are more sources. Komitsuki (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Sogdiana

The idea that the Battle of Sogdiana was a Chinese-Roman confrontation is not supported by any modern historian, and basically just proposed once (on shaky grounds) in the past without any follow up. It is likely a Chinese-Hunnish confrontation, that has nothing to do with the present article. If we report on wikipedia any possible interpretation of ancient sources, each article will be full of misinformation. Thus I remove this section. 90.8.184.229 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Source for conversion

Regarding this claim: ... "Sogdians and remained so until shortly after the Islamic conquest, when the Arabs made repeated efforts to forcefully suppress it. Manichaeism and Nestorian Christianity also had significant followings.."

Sogdian conversion to Islam was Not shortly after Islam, this is a false statement. The conversion to Islam was gradual, albeit, the rate was faster in Central Asia than compared to Iran region,but, it was a gradual process. Secondly, whats the source to the statement that Arabs suppressed the Sogdian religion?. Under the Samanids, the conversion to Islam was at a faster rate than under the Arabs. And, Richard Bulliet curves which covers Greater Iran's conversion to Islam, also shows that rate of Conversion to Islam was gradual. -- Thanks

Why Sogdia?

the territory is usually refered to as to Sogdiana, I have never before seen "Sogdia"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubossekk (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Article expansion

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been greatly expanding this article (for instance), but it still needs lots of work. Hopefully someone can raise it up to good status one of these days. The citations are rather haphazard, though, and that is partially my fault. Apologies for that. At this point it looks like it would be a nightmare of an edit job to conform them all to one standard, though. What this article really needs is a whole section on the Sogdian cities. I've added tons of information on the interactions with China, created whole sections like the Byzantine Empire, merchants and generals in China, Muslim conquest, and modern historiography, expanded the Achaemenid and Hellenistic sections as well as the sub-section on religion. This is not enough, though. Perhaps a thorough discussion of how Panjakent and Samarkand were formed is necessary. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to nominate the article for good status, seeing how I was able to provide inline citations for all the questionable bits of the article and really improve the writing. It could probably use a good copy-edit, though. If anyone would like to volunteer, now's the time! So please, by all means, be bold and copy-edit the article in areas where it needs it the most! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts on the article. I think the article has too much Chinese elements, while this region was often under Iranian influence. Iranica is a good source of information for improving the article. You may find these articles useful:

• SOGDIANA iii. HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY
• SOGDIAN LITERATURE i. Buddhist
• CLOTHING vi. Of the Sogdians
• SOGDIANA vi. SOGDIAN ART

Also, regarding the Sogdian cities, Iranica is again a useful source of information. -- Kouhi (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the links and the input. The reason China features so prominently in this article is more or less a consequence of the Sogdian role as Silk Road merchants selling Chinese silk, plus the enormous ethnic minority community they maintained in China through several subsequent dynastic periods. The greatest abundance of pictorial evidence of Sogdians also perhaps comes from the Chinese, who may have ironically produced more surviving artistic images of Sogdians than the Sogdians did of themselves. Then there is also the mountain of literary evidence for Sogdian culture and civilization in Chinese sources, from Chinese official histories, legal documents, and poems. Compared to the Parthian and Sasanian documentation of the Sogdians it is overwhelmingly the Chinese who described them, not the Persians. The Achaemenid and Hellenistic accounts of Sogdians also pale in comparison to the level of detail provided by Chinese sources. The Chinese simply had a longer working relationship with them than any of these other powers and were fairly neutral in that regard since they were never generally hostile towards the Sogdians. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the Arab historians did a very decent job explaining the political situation of Sogdia from the 8th century onwards, but this was the tail end of Sogdian civilization. It wasn't long after the Muslim conquest that the unique Eastern Iranian civilization of the Sogdians began to disappear, swallowed by the more standard Persian civilization of Western Iranians and of course the Turkic peoples as mentioned in the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've decided to add a copy-edit tag, to request help in transforming the inline citation style of this article to a more standard format, as outlined by Template:Cite encyclopedia. The article could also use a general copy-edit by anyone who's interested. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sogdia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from Iazyges

• Hello again pericles, I am adding these comments here, feel free to add them or reject them, I will be adding more. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• "even served as one of the official languages of the early Turkic Khaganate." Maybe "even served as one of the official languages (I'm skeptical that they recognized official languages at such a time, or at least to a modern standard.) along with _____"
• "Their merchants and diplomats traveled as far west as the Byzantine Empire." Because of the way this is laid out, it could be construed as either the sogdian merchants or the imperial chinese merchants.
• "who inherited his late father's empire in 323 BC.[27]" given that the macedonian empire fragmented like a dropped glass, it seems weird to say he inherited the empire.
• "The Greco-Bactrian king Eucratides I apparently recovered sovereignty of Sogdia temporarily." apparently seems a bit weak, perhaps remove it replace it with "may have" if it isn't fully authenticated (as far as ancient things like these can be)
• "that by the 4th century they may have monopolized trade between India and China." Maybe an explanation as to how they could do it, my assumption is that the chinese, by trading through the tarim basin, did not have another route, however to the common reader this could make little sense.
• "the latter had the members of the embassy poisoned to death." Poisoned to death is somewhat redundant, while it does establish that they died beyond doubt, the common reader may find it redundant.
• "It appears, however, that direct trade with the Sogdians remained limited in light of the scanty amount " Scanty may not be the most encyclopedic word to use, perhaps low?
• "Eastern Roman gold coins were used more as ceremonial objects like talismans confirms the pre-eminent importance of Greater Iran in Chinese Silk Road commerce of Central Asia compared to Eastern Rome.[67]" Perhaps a short thing saying that no trade was known to have happened between western rome, or else expand if it had?
• "other Sogdians settled down in China with their families for generations. " maybe remove with their families
• "which split the loyalties of the Sogdians in China, with some following him and others siding with the Tang." maybe remove ",with some following him and others siding with the tang", unless we have a general idea of what percent supported them, it seems redundant.
• "of Dunhuang is evident in a large number of manuscripts written in Chinese characters from left to right instead of vertically, mirroring the direction of how the Sogdian alphabet is read." Nothing wrong with this one, just really interesting.
• "The Islamic Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) initiated the Muslim conquest of Sogdia during the early 8th century. The initial conquest was carried out by Qutayba ibn Muslim (669–716), " Perhaps "Qutayba ibn Muslim, Governor of Greater Khorasan in the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750) initiated the Muslim conquest of Sogdia during the early 8th century."
• "The Sogdian ruler (i.e. ikhshid)' Perhaps the "i.e."

Second wave

• Sorry for the delay, i've been working on clearing the 12 year backlog for roman and byzantine MILHIST.
• "The Sogdians were noted for their tolerance of different religious beliefs but Zoroastrianism was their main religion as shown some examples of material evidence." Perhaps "The sogdians were noted for their tolerance of different religious beliefs, however most of them followed zoroastrianism.
• "At Turfan, Sogdian burials were brought in line with traditional Chinese practices, yet they still retained essential Zoroastrian rituals," brought inline may not be the most encyclopedic words, perhaps were similar to?
• "in addition to their full names, in hopes of protection from harm granted by the Buddha." the "From harm" may be redundant.
• "The Sogdians also practiced the faith of Mani, Manichaeism, a faith that they spread to the Uyghurs. The Uyghur Khaganate (744–840 AD) developed close ties to Tang China once they aided the Tang in suppressing the rebellion of An Lushan and his Göktürk successor Shi Siming, establishing an annual trade relationship of one million bolts" Perhaps specify what a bolt equates to? such as "one million bolts (or ____ ____'s)"
• "The Uyghurs were also followers of Buddhism, so it is perhaps no surprise" so it is perhaps no surprise seems a bit to casual for an encyclopedia, but its your choice, perhap "So it should come as no surprise."
• "Apart from the Puranic cults mentioned above, five Hindu gods were known to have been worshipped in Sogdiana, namely: Brahma, Indra, Mahadeva (Shiva), Narayana, and Vaishravana, who had the Sogdiana names of Zravan, Adabad and Veshparkar respectively." This one is somewhat confusing, it lists 5 indian gods than list 3 sogdian names, the reader (and I) don't understand if 1. They mixed some of the gods together (which would be highly interesting and should definitely be expanded upon, or else 2. the first 3 gods are respective to the 3 sogdian names, which should be stated, or 3. Basically 2 but they are out of order.
• "1%,[116] far lower than the estimate for the contemporary Greco-Roman world." Perhaps state the estimate?
• "Manumission was also permitted when a slave woman gave birth to her master's son, which allowed for her elevation to the legal status of a commoner, yet she could only live as a concubine and not as the wife of her former master.[119]" This may need to be explained further, such as "In order to not be penalized under the tang law for fornication with a slave, if a slave was to give birth, she was generally freed."
• "In Tang poetry Sogdian girls also frequently appear as serving maids in the taverns and inns of the capital Chang'an.[123]" Do we know if it is a fact that they tended to be serving girls (unsure if this is being used as a euphemism), or merely mentioned in tang poetry?
• "A document dated 731 AD reveals that precisely forty bolts" Again how much is a bolt? It would be useful considering that the wikipedia page for it is a stub, not linked, and doesn't itself give a definitive answer.
• "A person from Xizhou, a Tokharistani (i.e. Bactrian), and three Sogdians verified the sale of the girl." Do we know what positions of authority allowed them to verify that? Were they officials, or merely friends and or relatives who informally verified this?
• I find no problems with the citations, given that it takes up roughly 1/3 of the article, I did switch them to 3 columns however for ease of reaching the bottom.
• Thats the end of my comments, feel free to ping me when you have fixed them or rejected them, other than these comments I see nothing stopping this from being GA quality. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Response by PericlesofAthens

Hi Iazyges! Thanks for carefully critiquing the article. These are really good suggestions! I've already made a dozen edits to the article to reword certain parts per your suggestions. I hope they are to your liking. For instance, I provided a clarification about the role of Sogdian in the Turkic Khaganate, it being a court language used to write documents, so yes, not exactly an "official" language in the modern sense (in modern nation-states). I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the ikhshid part, though. What exactly is wrong here? In either case, great suggestions. Keep them coming! Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: sorry, I realize I forgot to finish that one, It was meant to say "Perhaps remove the i.e. and say (or Ikshid) or else (Ikshid in their tongue or language).

Hello once again, Iazyges. I have once more edited the article according to your suggestions. I tried to address the majority of your points, but there are a couple that need to be discussed, particularly the two points about bolts of silk. This was not currency; this was a bartering item. There was no fixed price for silk. It would be impossible and moreover a fluctuating and subjective statement to try to claim that there was a fixed value for a bolt of silk. The value is actually indicated by what was exchanged: in the two instances cited, one million bolts for a hundred-thousand horses, and forty bolts of silk for a single young slave girl. You're honestly not going to get a better understanding than that, and it would be pointless to create an exhaustive list of historical exchanges and items that were worth various different amounts of silk bolts. Aside from that, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns! The article is much better for it, because I didn't even catch the fact that someone had basically plagiarized and copied word for word from Kumar (2007) to write about the Hindu deities. I had to reword that entire paragraph to avoid plagiarizing him and felt compelled to quote him directly in one sentence. In either case, thanks for the review! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I've closed it now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No Persian in lead

WP:LEDE#Foreign language allows for one "closely associated" language. Modern Persian in the Arabic script is not such a language here; the Soghdians had their only languages and scripts (whose modern-day closely descendant is Yaghnobi, now written in Cyrillic) and the modern-day territories speak Turkic and Iranic languages, and Perso-Arabic script is not used at all in this region (except maybe a tiny sliver of Afghanistan). There is no case for modern Persian being the most closely associated. Even if you think historical primary sources is a valid argument, there's at least as strong a case for Chinese here as Persian. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 18:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Currency

I added a part about its currency, however this only pertains the currency of Sogdia from the 7th century onwards, if anyone can find sources on earlier forms of coinages then please correct my edit with a better overview of their currency. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool addition, thanks for finding info on this! Unfortunately I don't know anything about their currency before the 7th century AD. Presumably people of the region used Achaemenid, Seleucid, Greco-Bactrian, and Parthian coinage. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, unfortunately until more archeological evidence of older coins has been uncovered all we could do is assume. My only issue is that unless the time period it specified that it might mislead some readers, maybe we could change it to "currency<br>from the 7th century" or something. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The Sogdian language and its disappearance

Sogdian, along with many other eastern Iranian languages had already more or less been replaced with Persian during the Samanid era. Thus it makes no sense to say that the language was largely supplanted by Turkic with the rise of Karakhanids, who first seized Transoxiana from the Samanids in the late 990s. History of Civilizations of Central Asia touches upon this subject. Mind you, Sogdia was a even smaller region during the Islamic era compared to the Achaemenid/Alexander era, and had always been centered in the Bukhara/Samarkand region (esp. during the Islamic era), not Xinjiang. I'm not denying that in some places Sogdian was replaced by Turkic, but saying that it was 'largely supplanted' is a bit of a stretch. Saying that the Persian spoken in Transoxiana was supplanted by Turkic would be a lot more accurate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I'm fine with that then, although that should probably be explained in the body of the article rather than the lead section. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hinduism and WP:OR

@Prodx3: The cited source [13] and [14] does say anything about Hinduism but just:

• No correctly painted Buddhist images exist in Sogdian painting, but images of Hindu gods (of secondary importance from the Buddhist point of view) helped the Sogdians to create their own religious iconography in the sixth to the eighth century.
• The Sogdians probably regarded themselves as Zoroastrians, as indeed they were considered by al-Biruni and other authors writing in Arabic. Those Sogdian customs that seem contrary to Zoroastrian doctrine (Hindu-style iconography, the mourning of the dead) also existed in Khwarizm, whose Zoroastrianism is not open to doubt and where the Avestan g¯ ahanb¯ ars (phases of creation) were celebrated as religious feasts.
• In particular, the paintings of the lesser hall of the palace of Kala-i Kahkaha I show a three-headed, four-armed divinity, which may be a specifically Ustrushanian interpretation of the Hindu Vishparkar.

So I revert your edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Persian" vs. Iranian deities

@Aryzad:, can you explain what your objection to the use of "Persian" for these deities is based on? The article linked to is Persian mythology; furthermore, "Persian" and "Iranian" are largely synonymous, as far as I know. My only concern is consistency.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Both "Persian" and "Iranian" can be used to refer, for example, the Safavids or Sassanids; But not here. Calling those deities "Persian" is like calling Sogdian language an Eastern Persian language, which is wrong. When Zoroastrianization of Persis (Persia proper) took place, the Sogdians were Zoroastrian for centuries. Aryzad (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any article or a book that you are aware of that discusses the Persianization of the Iranian people and the development of the Persian language as a result of interaction of other Iranian languages? Hiesen2 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

List of notable people from Sogdia

Hi User:HistoryofIran, as I explained, the article is about the geographical area and Iranian civilisation, whose culture and language survived until the late 10th century Because the article, and the list, are not about an ethnic group or nation (which Sogdia never was) it is perfectly legit to include, e.g., Avicenna and the others you deleted in the listof "notable people from Sogdia", viz. notable "Sogdians". Consider also that this is an article about an ancient civilisation and that is simply a list. So, at any rate, I don't understand why fussing over this.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read the article - it is just much about the people as its about the geographical area. Sogdia was also a geographical region indeed, but 'Sogdian' is exclusively referred to the people that actually were ethnic Sogdians, a people with their own language, culture, and whatnot. Please show a source that uses Sogdian as a geographical term, and not an ethnic one - which also goes for claims that Avicenna or a Greek king like Antiochus are Sogdians. All in all, this is pure WP:OR. Also, please be nice, this is not okay [15] [16]. Neither is your continued edit warring - you have to reach WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No man, that would be an article about the Sogdian people, which may be created one day. But this is an article about the civilisation and the geographical area. I really don't understand why you are fretting about this. I even changed the section's title to appease your nitpicking (though I don't think it was necessary, because the meaning of "Sogdian" in "notable Sogdians" in this article must be clear, and because Iranians from Sogdia (as well as Jews, Bactrians, Indians and whoever lived there), well, were "Sogdians").--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon, you reverted my edits, fair. I am happy that you showed interest in this matter. Could you tell us whether you agree with including people from Sogdia (specifically: Narshakhi, Avicenna, Bukhari) in the section about notable people from Sogdia/Sogdians of this article about the ancient geographical region (and civilisation) of Sogdia? Could you explain why? Also, take notice that with your action you deleted "Antiochus I Soter" (and the sources for the claim) which was part of the stable version of this article.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "'Sogdians: Inhabitants of Sogdiana (Sughd), mentioned by Strabo (XI, 11, 2–4) and Ptolemy (VI, 12). Although previously under Achaemenid, Seleucid, Graeco-Bactrian, and nomadic (Saka?) Kangju rule, a more distinct Sogdian culture, typified by agriculture, commercial trade, and use of the Sogdian script, emerged during the 1st–3rd centuries. Increased irrigation, urbanization, and the development of literature, art, and architecture, coupled with continued expansion of trade networks (northward into Chach and the steppes, eastward into China), resulted in Sogdian cultural and economic flourishing during the 4th–6th centuries." -- Mark Dicken (2018) "Sogdians" in Oliver Dickens. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford Universtiy Press.[17]
• "Sogdian religion: The indigenous religion of the Sogdians was a local form of Zoroastrianism with a pantheon of deities, including the Babylonian goddess Nana, and thus distinct from orthodox Sasanian Zoroastrianism, where Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) predominated. Religious art was influenced by Hellenistic, Mesopotamian, and Indian iconography and murals from Panjikent give evidence of localized Mithra-worship and a Sogdian funerary cult. Like Persian Zoroastrians, Sogdians utilized ossuaries for burials, but fire-altars were much less common than in orthodox Zoroastrianism." -- Mark Dicken (2018) "Sogdian religion" in Oliver Dickens. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford Universtiy Press.[18]
• "Sogdiana (Sughd, Sogdia): Traditional homeland of the Sogdians in Transoxiana. Narrowly defined, it comprises the Zarafshan and Qashqadarya river valleys, more broadly all territory between the Oxus and Jaxartes rivers. Important Sogdian cities included Bukhara, Samarkand, Nasaf, Kish, and Panjikent. Previously ruled by the Achaemenids, Seleucids, Graeco-Bactrians, and Kangju, Sogdiana emerged as an independent kingdom during the Chinese Han dynasty. The arrival of Huns (Chionites, Kidarites, Hephthalites) c.350 politically disrupted Sogdiana, but the agricultural economy and population grew in the 5th–6th centuries." -- Mark Dicken (2018) "Sogdiana (Sughd, Sogdia)" in Oliver Dickens. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford Universtiy Press.[19]

I thus fail to see how historic figures such as Antiochus I Soter and Avicenna belong on this page. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

What you posted is not present in the article, which is about the historical geographical area and civilisation. But anyway, like the citation says, Inhabitants of Sogdiana, that is what Avicenna, Bukhari and their ancestors were. Then it is obvious that, as Iranians from Sogdia, they were "Sogdians", but "Sogdian" was never a nationality or an ethnicity.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

So Polish people who live in Poland are not actually an ethnic group? Just a term for people living in Poland? That is the kind of argument you’re using. Again, please read the article. HistoryofIran (talk)

Replying to your: So Polish people who live in Poland are not actually an ethnic group? Just a term for people living in Poland? That is the kind of argument you’re using. Again, please read the article Polish people, who like you said mostly live in Poland, are a self-determined ethnic group whose homeland is a nation (with a long history at that). Sogdia was never a nation, we know little to nothing about what "Sogdians" (i.e. Iranians from Sogdia, like Avicenna, Bukhari, etc.) thought of themselves, and, again, the article is about the geographical area and the ancient civilisation, not the "Sogdian people", their "ethnicity" or their "nation".--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The article and sources listed here contradict you though. Also, you’re yet to show a source for your claims, including the one about Antiochius, a Greek king based in Western Asia, being Sogdian. HistoryofIran (talk)

They do not. The article is about Sogdia, and the sources I provided prove those people were from Sogdia, and no passerby either (e.g., Avicenna's father was from Balkha, but his mother was from Sogdia, born before c. 960; Bukhari's line can be traced back two generations to Sogdian farmers, who lived there before the Muslim invasion). It is you who wrongly interprets the "region of Sogdia" / "Sogdian" as meaning a nation or self-defined ethnic group. I even proposed to change the section's title from "Notable Sogdians" to "Notable Sogdians/people from Sogdia", though I still think it'd be funny. P.S. The "sources for my claims" are in the material you deleted, and don't attribute to me elements I did not add, namely Antiochius.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You are more or less repeating yourself now. Also, since when did having a mum from Sogdia make someone Sogdian? And since when did having descendants of another ethnic group make you part of said one? Why cant you just list sources that actually support your claims? I.e Avicenna, Antiochus etc are referred to as Sogdian? This still is still pure WP:OR. I think we’re done here. HistoryofIran (talk)

You are more or less misunderstanding and mixing up things now.

First problem: adding people from Sogdia to a list about people form Sogdia: res ipsa loquitur, but I tried to explain it to you nevertheless.

Problem you just raised: you said: since when did having a mum from Sogdia make someone Sogdian? And since when did having descendants of another ethnic group make you part of said one? I did not opt for the list's criterion, I just followed it, and btw, I think it is fair to include someone whose parent was from Sogdia, because this is simply a list about an ancient civilisation, readers just like to have things grouped, follow new links and learn more things. I don't get why you are fretting so much about this. I won't explain the same things over again though. It is not "pure WP:OR" (if you really want to nitpick so much) because the list is about people from Sogdia, and the people I added are from Sogdia. Again, sir, I provided multiple sources for my addition, which you deleted. We are not "done" here, though perhaps that is what you wish .--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Just because you don't get your say doesn't mean I'm nitpicking. This is twice you've randomly said it now - Comment on the comment, not the person. You haven't explained anything except your own opinion, which is not supported by neither the (1) sources listed here, (2) nor the article, which is to no surprise why you are unable to just list even one source that support your claims. Also, some more sources just for the lolz;

The Sogdians inhabited the fertile valleys, surrounded by deserts, that are situated between the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, and in particular the valley of the Zarafshan, today located in Uzbekistan and Tadjikistan. Speaking an Iranian language, this people is attested for more than fifteen centuries, from the inscriptions of the Achaemenid sovereigns in the 6th century BCE to the texts of the Arab geogra�phers of the 10th century CE, which note the irreversible decline of the cultural and linguistic identity of the Sogdians. Even though they founded Samarkand and Bukhara, the Sogdians have remained largely unknown to the general public, for they afterward melted into the mass of Islamic Iranian-speaking peoples. - p 2, Sogdian Traders, Étienne de la Vaissière.

The Avestan language is similar to the languages of the ancient eastern Iranians, for example, the Bactrians, the Sogdians and the Khwarazmians; thus Zoroaster and the Avesta can be placed in the eastern regions of ancient Iran, present-day central Asia. - p 71, Continuity in Iranian Identity, Davaran

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Should we include people from Sogdia (i.e. people born before 1000 in Sogdia or elsewhere to parents from Sogdia) in this article's section called "Notable Sogdians" or "Notable Sogdians/people from Sogdia"? --Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. To anyone seeing this, please read the section above. This is starting to get disruptive. Two veteran editors are against you, as well as the sources listed here and the article itself. Yet you proceeded to do this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support. As pointed out, this is an article about a historical geographical area, not a nation or an ethnic group. The title of the section "Notable Sogdians" (which has been proposed to be changed to "Notable Sogdians/people from Sogdia" to calm HistoryofIran) must be intended as people from Sogdia, which is the case of Avicenna and Bukhari, both born here before AD 1000, and whose ancestry can be traced back to Sogdia. We have multiple sources supporting the claim they were from Sogdia. I could understand opposition to mentioning they were from Sogdia in their own article, but I don't see why not including these verified pieces of information in the list. [Vote was added later because User:HistoryofIran changed their first comment into a bold vote later]--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is starting to get weird. The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding (on your part) of what the article is about, and of what the section "Notable Sogdians/people from Sogdia"'s list is about. The sources you provided, which are not included in the article, prove nothing, except that Sogdia was a historical geographical area inhabited by Iranians, and that the inhabitants of "Sogdia" were known as "Sogdians". There is a difference between this and a self-defined ethnicity, or even nation, which Sogdia never was. With that being said, the sources I provided, which you deleted, justify the addition of all people I added, including Avicenna and Bukhari, who were born in said geographical area, and, further, whose ancestry is rooted there.

I again point out that I proposed to change the title of the section from "Notable Sogdians" to "Notable Sogdians/people from Sogdia" to appease your nitpicking, even though I think it'd be funny.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeating yourself again and now even falsely claiming that those sources support you. Not to mention you are commenting on me again (this is like what, the fifth time in 2 hours?). Go on, do it again and I will gladly report you. Perhaps you will be topic banned from here as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Only because you are failing to understand again. "List of people from Sogdia" = content: people from Sogdia. What is it you don't get? No, it's you who's falsely accusing me to be a liar. The sources I provided do support my additions, showing those people's origin.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You: Not to mention you are commenting on me again (this is like what, the fifth time in 2 hours?). Go on, do it again and I will gladly report you. Perhaps you will be topic banned from here as well? this is a personal attack. I advise you to stop this behavior.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as that is inconsistent with WP:NOR and WP:V. Being born in [fooland] does not make one [foolandian]; so unless there are actual sources to support the person being actually part of this civilisation/ethnic group/whatever, then inclusion is inappropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Looking through a few more examples, this is obvious OR (someone's mother being [foolandian] does not make one [foolandian], either), and the only reason I'm not removing it entirely right now is out of some certainly unwarranted bit of respect for process.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral As it is clear from WP:RS if there is reliable secondary source that state than the suggested people group are indeed Sogdians than it should be included else discarded🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Luwanglinux, RandomCanadian, even if the meaning of the list, of what Sogdia was or where Avicenna was from is not clear enough: here is a source stating that the mother of Avicenna was Tajik (i.e. a descendant of "Sogdians") and this is to support that he was Sogdian plus, of course, that his mother was from Sogdia (born 950s or 960s, in Bukhara, probably in the small village of Afshona). According to Richard Foltz, Avicenna's native language could well have been Sogdian.

I even found Baumer claiming Al-Farabi was probably a Sogdian, so now I propose we include him as well. For Bukkhari: if the fact his ancestors were 8th-century Sogdian farmers kidnapped from Sogdia and converted to Isam, and that he was born in Sogdia, isn't enough to consider him a "Sogdian", I will provide some sources for him too.

I point out this is a list about an extinct civilisation, our sole purpose must be inform and entertain the reader. I would not add that these individuals were "Sogdians" or partly "Sogdian" (such as Alexander IV of Macedon, which Canadian randomly deleted without discussing) to their own article. But is fine to have the information here. I propose we change the title of the section, if necessary (to "Notable Sogdians and people from Sogdia").--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. Most of the citations arent even reliable and half of them doesnt even state that they wre Sogdian. More WP:OR. Only the bit about Farabi is fine, but his origin is heavily disputed - read his article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Henry Corbin and Giovanni Caselli are not reliable? They state: Avicenna was only the most famous of many Sogdian scientists and Each author naturally retains traces of his cultural origin: Avicenna was a Sogdian whose family came from Bactria. Those are the sources supporting the claim. Regarding Farabi, you must take in consideration this is not Farabi's article, just a list about people from Sogdia in Sogdia's article. We won't change his article. The claim is supported, and I think it's fine to include Farabi, in addition to Avicenna.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Giovanni no. Corbin yes, but he never stated what you wrote. This is taken out of context, he is quoting someone, but I assume you didn't know that? Regardless, the vast majority of sources call Avicenna a Persian, read WP:UNDUE. Also, Canadian didnt 'randomly' remove anything, the fact that you are trying to argue a son of Alexander the Great as a Sogdian is next level WP:OR. Being Sogdian is still an ethnicity, as stated by these various sources and the article itself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic conduct discussion RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I see you like using he with other editors instead of they, and also like to call people by name. It is custom in Wikipedia to use "they" between editors, and is custom in the Italian and English world to use the surname when referring to somebody we are not familiar with. Thus "Giovanni" should be called "Caselli". But anyway, Doctor Caselli is a respected Italian anthropologist and yes, he is reliable. I did not try to argue that Alexander was Sogdian, that is what you want to see. I said Canadian might've discussed it before taking action, since there is a discussion going on here at the talk page. And yes, I do think it is fine to include Alexander, the son of a "Sogdian" woman, in a "list of people from Sogdia/Sogdians" because this is just a wikilist about a scarcely known place and civilisation whose purpose is to entertain and inform the reader. Also note that I did not add Alexander in the first place.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC) It also custom for users to know the guidelines and read the article before they edit it. This is a clear case of WP:JDLI and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing - I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC) You: It also custom for users to know the guidelines this looks like another personal attack. You have already been warned. To clarify, does "I am out" mean you retire from the discussion? --Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with user Luwanglinux - if there are *valid WP:RS* sources that clearly indicate a person is Sogdian, it certainly makes sense to include them as a "notable Sogdian" and cite the source. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Here the sources that indicate that the possibly Sogdian native speaker Avicenna a native of Sogdia was Sogdian. This is for Farabi. And this is for Narshakhi. At least them may be included. As for Antiochus, I think we can just mention him in the entry of his mother Apama.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Some of the sources are unreliable: Sterling, Anmol etc. Some are non-specialist works whilse some are trade books. Almost all scholarship, regarded as authority in the domain, do not support the floated proposal. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - TrangaBellam how is Sterling unreliable, where does it state these individuals were Sogdians, and what difference does it make anyway? One source is enough, but we have several from renowned Western scholars stating the individuals were "Sogdians" (again, if the fact they were born there isn't enough to be included in such a list in the first place). Also, be more specific, so far your opposition goes only against Sterling and Anmol, the only sources that do not state they were Sogdians (and were not used in my above comment with the proposed sources to be included in the article). You should address each object specifically (there is Narshakhi, Avicenna, and Farabi) and also each scholar. Why do you think that Corbin, Caselli, Foltz, and Ferro are unreliable? Could you provide some sources for your claim that Almost all scholarship, regarded as authority in the domain, do not support the floated proposal. Thanks, much appreciated.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Classic every pidgeon is a bird, but not every bird is a pidgeon. A Sogdian is someone who is overwhelmingly described as such in WP:RS. Finding one or two that may describe guys like Avicenna as Sogdian won't cut it as there are literally hundreds that describe him as Persian. Same goes for Greek historic figures that may have had Sogdian maternal descent (i.e. they're still Greek as per WP:DUE, WP:VER and WP:RS).

1. "'Sogdians: Inhabitants of Sogdiana (Sughd), mentioned by Strabo (XI, 11, 2–4) and Ptolemy (VI, 12). Although previously under Achaemenid, Seleucid, Graeco-Bactrian, and nomadic (Saka?) Kangju rule, a more distinct Sogdian culture, typified by agriculture, commercial trade, and use of the Sogdian script, emerged during the 1st–3rd centuries. Increased irrigation, urbanization, and the development of literature, art, and architecture, coupled with continued expansion of trade networks (northward into Chach and the steppes, eastward into China), resulted in Sogdian cultural and economic flourishing during the 4th–6th centuries." -- Mark Dicken (2018) "Sogdians" in Oliver Dickens. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford Universtiy Press.[20]
2. "Sogdian religion: The indigenous religion of the Sogdians was a local form of Zoroastrianism with a pantheon of deities, including the Babylonian goddess Nana, and thus distinct from orthodox Sasanian Zoroastrianism, where Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) predominated. Religious art was influenced by Hellenistic, Mesopotamian, and Indian iconography and murals from Panjikent give evidence of localized Mithra-worship and a Sogdian funerary cult. Like Persian Zoroastrians, Sogdians utilized ossuaries for burials, but fire-altars were much less common than in orthodox Zoroastrianism." -- Mark Dicken (2018) "Sogdian religion" in Oliver Dickens. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford Universtiy Press.[21]
3. "Sogdiana (Sughd, Sogdia): Traditional homeland of the Sogdians in Transoxiana. Narrowly defined, it comprises the Zarafshan and Qashqadarya river valleys, more broadly all territory between the Oxus and Jaxartes rivers. Important Sogdian cities included Bukhara, Samarkand, Nasaf, Kish, and Panjikent. Previously ruled by the Achaemenids, Seleucids, Graeco-Bactrians, and Kangju, Sogdiana emerged as an independent kingdom during the Chinese Han dynasty. The arrival of Huns (Chionites, Kidarites, Hephthalites) c.350 politically disrupted Sogdiana, but the agricultural economy and population grew in the 5th–6th centuries." -- Mark Dicken (2018) "Sogdiana (Sughd, Sogdia)" in Oliver Dickens. Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford Universtiy Press.[22]

Only figures that are overwhelmingly referred to as "Sogdians" in WP:RS should be included, IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: But what do the sources you provided prove or disprove about Avicenna&co though? Even if you want to go on assuming this is an article about the Sogdian ethnicity (Avicenna was a Sogdian by birth, but also "ethnic Sogdian" the way you understand it), it would still be about it and not Avicenna's own article (though I now think the info should be included in his article as well), and the reliable sources still claim he was a Sogdian. First you said: come back with sources. Now you say "no source could ever be found for this claim." But anyway, do you have an English source saying Avicenna wasn't an ethnic Sogdian? Matter fact, do you have a reliable source claiming he was a Persian in a way that we are sure isn't just a synonym for Iranian? You said Only figures that are overwhelmingly referred to as "Sogdians" in WP:RS should be included, IMO. Your opinion differs from Wikipedia's basics, though, and that isn't the case for the Persian claim either.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I would have to agree with LouisAragon and TrangaBellam and the information LouisAragon has provided. I also suggest Haldir Marchwarden read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment at a related RfC. This is fundamentally an issue of WP:V. Though its not a specific requirement, obviously, WP:N provides a good benchmark, because the desire here is to describe someone as a "notable x". What do the reliable sources say? Do we have multiple instances of reliable sources describing the person as "x"? If nothing else were available about that person, could we describe them as a "notable x" based on the reliable sources we have? If not, then I think we have to question why Wikipedia should be describing them as such if reliable sources do not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Disruptive and malformed RfC: of course we should include people from Sogdia (i.e. people born before 1000 in Sogdia or elsewhere to parents from Sogdia) in this article's section called "Notable Sogdians" or "Notable Sogdians/people from Sogdia", but this says nothing about the specific figures the nominator has disruptively [23] [24] [25] tried to include in this article. These figures should probably be discussed one by one in an appropriately civil way (before starting an RfC!), and this non-RfC should not be taken to establish any precedent on that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Gao Juren's order to kill ethnic Hu from a citation

This sentence was removed from a citation whose source inaccurately describes a historical event in 761, which does not support the proposition that the Tang Court took retribution against Sogdians in the suppression of the An-Shi Rebellion.

The Goguryeo general Gao Juren ordered a mass slaughter of West Asians (Hu) identifying them through their big noses and lances were used to impale tossed children when he stormed Beijing from An Lushan's rebels.

The episode of inter-ethnic clashes within Fanyang (seat of Youzhou, modern Beijing), known as the "Disorder within Jimen" （蓟门内乱） that occurred in the spring and summer of 761, was an incident of infighting within the rebel camp, not one of retribution by the Tang court against ethnic minorities.

By early 761, An Lushan, the original leader of the rebellion and founder of the Yan Dynasty had already been dead for four years. The rebellion he launched was riven by infighting as he was killed by his son, and his son by his lieutenant Shi Siming. In the spring of 761, the rebel infighting continued when the rebel Yan Emperor Shi Siming was killed by supporters of his eldest son Shi Chaoyi (Shi Chaoyi 史朝义) near Luoyang, who were alarmed that Shi Siming who made his younger son Shi Chaoqing (史朝清), the Crown Prince, was about to eliminate Shi Chaoyi.

After his supporters killed his father, Shi Chaoyi took the thrown of the Yan Dynasty and sent minister Zhang Tongru (张通儒) to Fanyang to eliminate his brother Shi Chaoqing.

Zhang Tongru summarily put Crown Prince Shi Chaoqing and Shi Chaoqing's mother Empress Xin to death. He then directed rebel generals Gao Juren (高鞠仁) and Gao Ruzhen (高如震) to execute the Empress' brother, Xin Wannian (辛万年). The two Gaos decided to spare Xin and killed Zhang Tongru instead. They reported to Shi Chaoyi, the new Yan Emperor in Luoyang, that Zhang Tongru was planning to surrender Fanyang to the Tang court. They sought to recruit another rebel general Ashina Chengqing to lead their faction. Ashina Chengqing refused and killed Gao Ruzhen. Gao Juren then turned against Ashina Chengqing. These two rebel generals fought for control of Fanyang (also known as Jimen). Within the ethnically-diverse rebel army in Fanyang, Gao Juren, who was ethnic Korean (Goguryeo), led fighters from beyond the northeastern frontier, such as Koreans, Khitan, Xi, and Mohe, while Ashina Chengqing (阿史那承庆), an ethnic Turk, drew support from fighters from the northwestern frontier, collectively known as Hu and included Turks, Sogdians, Tongluo and Tiele. After Gao Juren drove Ashina Chengqing out of Fanyang, he ordered the killing of Hu in the city to eliminate Ashina Chengqing's supporters.

The Yan Emperor Shi Chaoyi recognized Gao Juren as the commander in Fanyang, but also named Li Huaixian (李怀仙), another rebel general, to a more senior post in the city. Li Huaixian, who was an ethnic Hu, arrived in Fanyang and pretended to respect Gao Juren's authority. Gao did not harbor any apparent animus against Li Huaixian on account of Hu ethnicity, despite his earlier order to kill Hu fighters and their families in the city because Li Huaixian was not allied with Ashina Chengqing. At a meal banquet, Li Huaixian killed Gao Juren and took Fanyang. This bout of infighting further weakened the rebel Yan regime.

In 763, Li Huaixian surrendered to the Tang court and drove Shi Chaoyi to commit suicide, ending the An-Shi Rebellion.

Hence, the removed sentence is misleading in that:

1. Gao Juren was not a general who was fighting on the side of the Tang court as the sentence implies.
2. Gao did not storm Fanyang he was already based in Fanyang during the in-fighting among rebels.
3. The rebel faction he defeated was not led by An Lushan.
4. The ethnic killings in Fanyang was waged by one faction of ethnic minority rebels against another faction of ethnic minority rebels.
5. Order in Fanyang was restored by another ethnic Hu rebel general who surrendered to the Tang court in 763.

Sources: ContinentalAve (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC) ContinentalAve (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References