Talk:Saka

Population unknown ?

why is this saying population unknown? it should say population extinct. Hypothetically if sakas were still around this would be one of the oldest surviving ethnicitys in the world. 76.244.154.251 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

they are not extinct. it's the slavs. the albanians are adressing the slavs as "shkja" which is a borrow therm from latin sclav, which is a borrow therm frim greek saclab, which is a borrow therm from arab saqalibi or saka libi which means saka people.

The Sakya Clan?

Is it possible that the Sakas - Scythians - are the same as the Sakya clan of Buddha Sakyamuni?--Xact (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No. About 1000 miles, and a large mountain range separated them. The similarity of the names is coincidence. There is no suggestion that the Buddha's people spoke a Turkic language or that there were any Turkic speaking people in Eastern India (ever AFAIK). Everything suggests that the Buddha spoke an Indo-European language. mahaabaala (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sakas spoke an Indo-European language, although they were awfully far from the home of the Buddha 65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed academic titles as per Wikipedia Manual of Style

I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of academic titles - see: [1]. In the process I made a number of other small edits - mainly spelling and grammar mistakes. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

date of replacement by Turkic language

in the reference Bailey mentions "The Khotan Saka language was replaced by Turkish from about 1000 of our era". However trhe article mentions (no reference given) that "Saka..resided in and migrated over the plains of Eurasia from Eastern Europe to Xinjiang Province, China, from the Old Persian Period to the Middle Persian Period when they were displaced by or integrated with Turkic language speakers during the Turkic migration.". Should we replace this?--Xashaiar (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree.. Bailey by the way is the top scholaron Khotanese Saka and virtually translated/edited all existing texts. It will be tough to fill in his shoe.. I think we should improve his own article also.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge?

There has been a box for a long time now suggesting that the articles on Sakas and Indo-Scythians be merged and a request that this possible merger be discussed here. There has been absolutely no discussion so far. I am totally against the idea as many Saka tribes seem to have had nothing to do with India at all, and the term "Indo-Scythian" has been used very loosely for groups of people (such as the Kushans - to give just one example) of whom the origins are still being hotly debated. I propose, therefore, that unless there is a significant number of editors with referenced arguments in favour, that we remove the merge boxes on both articles sometime soon. Any comments? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The merge request is not a good request: it is like asking Iranian languages be merged with Indo-Iranian languages. Yes they are related but should not be merged.Xashaiar (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

this isn't correct. The problem is that this article has no clear scope. Already the claim that Saka is rendered in Greek as Skuthoi in the lead makes this clear. This article appears to be about the Indo-Scythians, but before they entered India, i.e. prehistorically. That is, when they were still just Scythians, of an eastern and therefore unattested variety. Now, it turns out that Saka is simply the Old Persian term for "Scythians". This makes the obvious merge candidate the Scythians article. It is unclear why we should have an article on the Scythians under their English name, and another one under their Old Persian name. If the point of this article is simply the discussion of the names "Scythians" and "Saka", we can call it Scythian (name) or similar. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. the Persians may have called them all "Saka", but other sources indicate that while the Saka were Scythians, not all Scythians were Saka. The article needed more focus though.--Joostik (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Such are the problems. The peoples under this name were or were dominated by Iranian speakers, which fact lends unity to the entire group from the Vistula to China. However, look at the range: thousands of miles. Even though they were mounted and nomadic, differences because of locality were bound to occur. The difference of names comes from the different viewpoints of the sources. In the west following the Greek model it was "Skythian." In the east it was "Saka." Even Herodotus recognized regional variants. We have two articles here on the same ethnic unity based on differences of name and location. From a pragmatic point of view, both articles are or will be fairly long. Why create an even longer article? Let's keep two articles based on difference of name and viewpoint. Naturally the topics will not always be distinct as the ethnic group itself lends unity. That does not offend me intellectually. Having to read through a gigantic article at one sitting, or finding my way through it, that would be most tedious. Oh by the way, hello dab, long time no see. You have managed to keep away from me all this time. End of aside. So here is what I would like to do. As the discussion is coming down on the side of two articles, remove the tag. I'll be back to work on this article later. If the tag is still there when I get back I will take it out. I think we are ready. Minority point of view, thank you for your concept. I think when you made it you did not realize the size of the topic.Dave (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Scythian and Saka are virtual synonyms

Contrary to the (unexplained) claim that there were differences were between "Saka" and "Scythians", the article actually contradicts that and suggests that the two words are virtually synonymous:

Thus the Behistun inscription mentions four divisions of Scythians,

• the Saka paradraya "Scythians beyond the sea" of Sarmatia,
• the Saka tigraxauda "Scythians with pointy hats",
• the Saka haumavarga " haoma-worshipping Scythians" (Amyrgians) of the Pamir and
• the Saka para Sugudam "Scythians beyond Sogdia" at the Jaxartes

Of these, the Saka tigraxauda were the Saka proper. The Saka paradraya were the western Scythians or Sarmatians, the Saka haumavarga and Saka para Sugudam were likely Scythian tribes associated with or split-of from the original Saka.

In which case, I would point out that at least some of the historical peoples concerned clearly equated Scythian, in both the generic and "proper" senses, with Saka.

Consequently, Saka therefore seems to breach the WP guideline against forking/splitting similar material, since the articles appear to be about synonyms (as if, e.g., we had full-length articles about both India and Bhārata.)

Therefore, should a vote be held, I would support the merger of Scythians and Saka. Grant | Talk 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit

The Sanskrit name is शक which should be transliterated as śaka or shaka, not simply saka. mahaabaala (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to consider scholarly usage. Most books talk about the Saka. The western sources seem to have that. When you try to bring these names into English sometimes you have to accept some strange tongue-twisting, but that is true of any language. Some do have it the way you say. Most of us do not read Sanskrit. Until the last few years we have not had the character of the marked s. The issue seems to be whether to keep the anglicization or transliterate it. Any other suggestions?Dave (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Iranian name

The current paragraph on language refers to Iranian - this appears to be vandalism. These people were not Persian or Iranian.72.166.122.60 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. First, I do not see any vandals here, only persons trying to get it right - granted with a lot of blunders. I think we are all trying very hard not to bring current events into this article on antiquities. For purposes of the article, modern Iran does not yet exist, and we don't either. The term "Iranian" as applied to a language group in English does not mean specifically "of the modern nation of Iran." If you said "Iranian rug", the rug would be of Iran, or "Iranian woman", the woman would be of Iran; however, the linguists are adapting the term to mean something different: "a language of the same group as is spoken in Iran." Granted this usage introduces an ambiguity into English. In one breath you might be speaking of the actual Fars language; in another, any language of the group. Only context can get the right meaning across. Thanks.Dave (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

it should be called Persian. As it was much wider therm than just Iran, and saka people are a part of today's Germans, Greeks, Slavs, Caucasians etc. the science doesn't need to obey English way of looking at things.89.205.2.29 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

More infrastructure

This is a very condensed article. I think it could use a little more infrastructure and some expansion. It reminds me of 1911 to some degree. It wouldn't hurt to do an Internet search on some of the phrases just to make sure the writing is in fact distinct from its sources. There is a huge note in it. I would expand that area, breaking the big note up into smaller ones. It is, so to speak, a note for text not yet in the article. Why not put it in? Thanks.Dave (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

history of afghanistan

The scythians spanned all over eurasia as did the turks, russians and british. So why is a "history of Afghanistan" timeline put on there? Are the Scythians exclusively Afghan history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious editing badly needed

I started trying to do some minor edits today (italicising book titles, adding citation needed tags, toning down excessive claims, etc.) but soon realised some major work needs to be done to make (in particular) the section on Plato and note 23 not only grammatically correct but more accurate. The identification of the Kambojas with groups mentioned in Western Classical sources is by no means generally accepted and the article, I believe, should indicate this. However, I have little time to spare at the moment. Is there someone else who could take on this task, please? John Hill (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent tags

I have tagged quite a lot of this article. We simply cannot say things such as "Various accounts agree", without giving at least some indication of what those accounts are, nor can we use the likes of Herodotus without at least some support from a modern secondary source. The article was recently mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Races_as_described_by_Megasthenes. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A specific example of the Herodotus problem is "To Herodotus (484'-425 BC), the Sakai were the 'Amurgioi Skuthai'" How do we know that he meant the Sakai when he wrote Amurgioi Skuthai ? That is original research. It needs a reliable secondary source, preferably of a fairly recent vintage. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe your concerns of lack of citations is legitimate. But you should have used one template for entire article (or section) and not for every sentence which make the article unreadable. Xashaiar (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of preference, I think. In my experience, tagging specifically tends to achieve better results in terms of resolving the issues because it highlights the specific concerns. Tagging at the top of the article often seems to get ignored (well, at least in the sphere of Indian castes/communities, which is where I have been tending to specialise).

Yes, it does to a point make the article unreadable.. But as it stands, the article is not even policy compliant & that is a greater concern: it can be a readable as [name your favourite author here] but if it is "wrong" in a Wikipedia sense then it is meaningless. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, probably - no worries. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(from my personal experience, tagging sentences one by one gives better results. Many times I see one random person dropping by and sourcing one sentence, then another person sourcing another one, etc. Sometimes they also fix surrounding text. This doesn't happen with tags for whole sections.) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading: proto-Turkic people

it is obvious if Saka people were proto Turkic people, this article says if Turks appeared from no where! unfortunately there are a lot of anti Turkic propaganda in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.109.112 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right but to be honest so many historians did proved that saka people were actually a Turkic tribe . wikipedia has been used as a political tool to discredit saka and turkic history but this is because of vandalism and ignorance . may be this is why wikipedia is not allowed as a reserch metarial in high schools and universities . Anyways , saka people are turkic people . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.146 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? Please note that this page is not for general discussion of the article subject, per the boxes at the top of it. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine they are referring to the modern Siberian Turkic tribe that is known as Saka. They indeed claim descent from ancient Saka, and who knows, perhaps rightfully so. The thing is, Saka early in its history apparently became a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual designation for a widespread geography. The Saka rulership often had all kinds of nomadic peoples crossing into their nominal governance, which was over a very large region. Thus there are members of many other language families besides Turkic that also claim descent from ancient Saka. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not massively familiar with the multitude of claims to Scythian, Aryan, Turkic etc descent that pop up across India-related articles. I am happy to consider anything if there are decent sources but I am aware that there will probably be more than one valid opinion & my lack of familiarity may cause me to inadvertently omit/ignore the alternate views. Bearing that in mind, it looks like you might be a useful contact both here and elsewhere! - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis and language are not the same. The Yakuts who call themselves Saxa (pronounced Sakha) may very well be the descendants of the ancient Sakas. But only because they speak a language of the Turkic family today, it does not mean that their ancestors also spoke that language. This claim can easily be countered by the fact, that there are a few Pashtun tribes who collectively call thmselves Sakzi, meaning "[of the tribe] of the Saka". And they speak an East Iranian language which is - by all scholarly evidence available - related to the Saka language. Related Saka groups moved into a wide region near the Gulf of Oman that later became known as Sakastan, "Land of the Saka" (today known as Sistan which derives from "Sakastan"). Also, just to name another example, the modern Bulgarians who are a Slavic people derive their national identity from the medieval Bulgars, a Turkic-speaking (perhaps with an older Indo-Iranian origin). Only because there is a Slavic group today that calls itself "Bulgar", it does not mean that the medieval Bulgars were also Slavic. This is a popular claim in Bulgaria (where the people are usually anti-Turkic due to centuries of Ottoman overlordship), but it is pseudo-scientific. The claim that the Scythians were a Turkic people is also a politically motivated and pseudo-scientific claim popular in Turkey, but it is generally rejected by scholars outside of Turkey. Even though there are not many sources available, it is absolutely clear that the Saka and the Scythians as a whole were not related to the later Turko-Mongol nomads - neither genetically nor linguistically. However, it was the Scythian ethos that later inspired and influenced many other nomadic groups, including Turko-Mongols and Slavs. Many of these later tribal unions adopted Scythian traditions and way of life. --Lysozym (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

They were nomadic warriors roaming the steppes of modern-day Kazakhstan.

This is very romantic and cool and all but only a small percentage of any people are warriors and even they spend most of their time not as warriors but as people. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Will in New Haven