Talk:Saka/Archive 1

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)

"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)

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)

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.

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

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 !

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)

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)

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?

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.


 * ''

 ,, See also: Pashtun, Jat (people)''

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.  --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:.  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.  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 .  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. 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 []. 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:   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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)