Talk:Sogdia: Difference between revisions

Central Asia B‑class Mid‑importance

Sogdia 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, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan 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.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran B‑class Mid‑importance

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

\\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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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