|Sogdia has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Central Asia||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Iran||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Sogdians are not the ancestors of Uzbeks!
- 2 Sogdians are the ancestors of Uzbeks!
- 3 High Middle Ages?
- 4 Origin of word "Sogd"
- 5 Notable Sogdians
- 6 Source for conversion
- 7 Battle of Sogdiana
- 8 Request
- 9 Central Asian role
- 10 non-working links
- 11 Sogdian dress is influenced by early Turkic Peoples
- 12 Surnames and people
- 13 Sogdian silk weaving
- 14 Battle of Sogdiana
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. -22.214.171.124 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
- -126.96.36.199 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)
Origin of word "Sogd"
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 188.8.131.52 (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. --184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (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)
- There are still no sources for that section......Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 16:04, 13 August 2009 (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
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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
- 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:
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 22.214.171.124 ist still making vandalism in context of persian nationalism. I think the next time we should report him. I think 126.96.36.199 is the same as 188.8.131.52. 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  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"  (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 (!) .
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. --184.108.40.206 (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: , , ,  - (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):  (exactly the same as the Sogdian dress with 2 lapels of Turkic orign) To strenght my position, Yatsenko says on this , 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.
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: 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. <<"
- 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).
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. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)