Talk:Massagetae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Criztu, you wrote in the article that in Old Persian 'massa' means 'big'---but has any reference connected this word with the ethnonym Massagetae? Just want to verify the info. Alexander 007 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i have to say i read on a site that massa meant big in old iranian, hmm... - Criztu 21:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

now, just after googling for Moesians, i've came upon a dialog about Moesi in the Haemus -> Mysi in Anatolia, known as Masa by the hittites http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/1999/v1999.n203 -- Criztu 23:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maha/Mah means big and the Indo-Iranian s->h is common. --alidoostzadeh 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, just like the name of the province "Mazenderan" which means "Mas Indra" or great Indra

massagetae means ur mum


Indeed Maz is a word of Iranian orgin which means big and Saka means Scythian.

The Iranian-root Maz (big, great) is related to its counterparts in  the Sanskrit (Maha) and in the Greek (Mega).

Babakexorramdin 06:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian?

I doubt that Massagetae is iranian name. You should not forget that Massagetae is how Herodotus described these people, and he was Greek, he adaptated foreign names to his own greek language.

The etnonym Massaget is etymologized in a number of ways. In the traditional historical science prevails the opinion that the Massaget means "Great Gets", there were also suggestions that the Massaget is in Persian "fisheaters" (Pers. masya "fish"). Many are inclined to parse the word Massaget as Mas-sakata or Mas-saka, which means "Great (big) Saka Horde" or "Great Sakas", meaning under the Sakas a Persian-lingual people (Dovatur A.I., 1982, 183).

There are also weighty arguments to count Massagets as Türks.

Anyway even if it could be translated as "Great Gets" what does "get" part means? I.e. what does "get" mean?

First, the neighbors of the Massagets by the name Horasm (Huarasm "My Suaras"), Tochar (Dag-ar "Mountain People") and their subjects in the confederation by the name Apasiak (Apa-Sak "Senior Sakas"), Attasi (Atty-As "horsed Ases"), Augasi (Awag-As "Capricious Ases"), Derbik (Dar-bek "Decisive, Comradely Beks"), most likely, were Türkic-speaking, therefore some historians link Massagets with the ancestors of the Turkmen.

The composite word Massaget in the Türkic model can be parsed into parts as mas-saga-ta, where the root is Saka, the initial Türkic ethnonym, mas or mach is the Türkic word with the meaning "happiness, matching, similar", -ta is the plural index (-tar/-lar). The Massaget means "Happy Sakas".

But let's leave old "origin of name" discussion for another time. Let us look into cultural and anthropological facts:

Theophan the Byzantian (5 c.) renders Huns as Scythians. He writes: Meanwhile Scyth Attila, son of Omnudiy, brave and proud man, removed his senior brother Vdela, assumed sole authority over Scythians, which also are named Unns, and attacked Thracia (Theophan the Byzantian, 1884, 81). On the other side, he depicts Türks as Massagets: East from Tanaid live Türks, in antiquity called Massagets. Persians in their language call them Kermikhions (Byzantian Historians. SPb., 1861, 492). In this record of Theophan deserves an attention the fact that he knew well both Massagets (one of the Scythian tribes), and Persians. If Scythians-Massagets spoke Persian, he would inevitably note this detail. But Theophan identifies Massagets with Türks, not the Persians.

Strabo said that Massagetae were sky-worshippers ("They regard Helius alone as god, and to him they sacrifice horses") in very familiar manner as modern Buryats, Tuvans & Altaic turks who worship Sky-God "Tenger" (bur.) & "Tura" (tuv.). Strabo also said: "And they consider it the best kind of death when they are old to be chopped up with the flesh of cattle and eaten mixed up with that flesh. But those who die of disease are cast out as impious and worthy only to be eaten by wild beasts."

This is very similar to Issedonians, as described by Herodotus: "[4.26] The Issedonians are said to have the following customs. When a man's father dies, all the near relatives bring sheep to the house; which are sacrificed, and their flesh cut in pieces, while at the same time the dead body undergoes the like treatment. The two sorts of flesh are afterwards mixed together, and the whole is served up at a banquet. The head of the dead man is treated differently: it is stripped bare, cleansed, and set in gold. It then becomes an ornament on which they pride themselves, and is brought out year by year at the great festival which sons keep in honour of their fathers' death, just as the Greeks keep their Genesia. In other respects the Issedonians are reputed to be observers of justice: and it is to be remarked that their women have equal authority with the men. Thus our knowledge extends as far as this nation.

Concerning the fact of gender-equality it should be noted that Volga Bulgars & Oghuz Turks had very same tradition:

Ibn Fadlan: (About Oghuzes) "Their women do not cover from their men and from others of them, and also a woman does not cover anything of her body from anybody of the people. And really, in one of the days we stopped at a man of theirs and sat down, and the wife of this person sat together with us. And, talking to us, she opened her "fardj" and scratched it while we looked at her. Then we closed our faces and said: "My God, Forgive me!" The husband of hers laughed and said to the translator: "Tell them, - we open it in your presence and you see it, and she protects it so, that there is no access to it. It is better, than if she would cover it and (at the same time) would concede it to somebody". They do not know fornication, but if they find out anything about somebody, they break off him in two halves, namely: they pull together an branches of two trees, then tie him to the branches and release both trees, and the one between the unbending (trees) is ripped apart."

Ibn Fadlan: (About Bulgars) "Men and women go down to the river and bathe together naked, do not cover one from another and do not commit adultery in any way and there is no possibility. And who of them committed adultery, whoever he was, for him are staked four thills, his hands and legs are tied to them and he is dissected with an axe from his nape to his hips. And the same way they deal with the woman too. Then each piece of him and her is suspended on a tree. I did not cease to try that women would be covered from men, but that I did not manage to correct. And they kill a thief the same way as they kill a fornicator."

Strabo: "Each man (of Massagetae) marries only one wife..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliassh (talk • contribs) 09:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what all scholars say today. Also Helius is not the Sky but the Sun, which in Iranian mythology is identified with Mithra, modern Persian word for the Sun is Mehr which also comes from Mithra. Nomads (both Iranian and others) have had similar lifestyle and women were more liberated in nomadic societies since they had a great role to play. One can see that in both Iranian speaking and Turkish speaking nomads of today's Iran. Also the juxtaposition of Huns and Scythians is due to geographical region, but many, even ancient authorities distinguished between Scythians/Alans on one hand and Huns on the other. So Huns and Scythians/Alans were not the same people, and even for example, Ottomans are called Romans in Persian literature. Khwarizm (what you called Horasm) were not Turkic people, there is even linguistic material from the Khwarizmian language and books in that language. [1] and Strabo links the Massagetae with the Khwarizmians. The Chorasmian language is recorded in books and different written material and is a relatively studied language. Several manuscripts and sentences in this language (which is the same area where Massagetae lived) lives no doubt on the nature of the old Chorasmian language. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that Helios is Sun. But what was the difference for a Greek man either it Sun or Sky? they regarded both as generally common. Arabic Bedouin nomad women aren't that "liberated" as Kazakh women in Mongolia & East Turkestan where they still practice nomadic way of life. During winter Nenets women usually spend their time in chums, care about children and toddlers while their husbands are herding reindeers, hunting or fishing. Nomadic Roma people are also very strict about it, men are seen higher than women whose work is to care about children, such thing is more common in Eastern Europe and Russia than Central Europe, where Roma are rather settled settled population. Now this contradicts information that nomadic scythian women fought alongside with men in war and went to hunt.
The juxtaposition of Huns and Scythians seems to be strange, Europeans and especially greeks were already familiar with Persia and some of Central Asia. It's known that Hunns could be the Herodotus's Neuri, and Neuri were known to have affiliation with Scythians. Anyway Why would a Greek confuse a mongoloid, (as western science says, though without any genetic analytical proof) black-haired, low-heighted people with high-stated "indo-iranian" blondes and reds? The whole idea of scythians being blondes and reds can't give enough evidence of their indo-iranism. Take Sami and Suomi (Finns) for example, they're mostly blonde and still they're not iranian. Take Karaim as example, they're descendants of Khazars and yet they're not mongoloids.
You trying to say that Massagetae & Chorasmians were iranians only because scripts in "Chorasmian" language was found there. Though there are no evidences that these language couldn't be an adaptated version of persian (like tajik or pamir languages) or some north-indic language like modern kashmiri. If Chorasmians were really iranian they couldn't "disappear". Tajiks most of their history lived under turkic & muslim rulers and their language hasn't disappeared, same situation in India. There are no such thing as "massive immigration" and if we take that modern-day population is approx. 6,6 billion, at that time it was in 3 times smaller. Could it be so that Chorasmians were so little nation that they eventually "disappeared". Ofcourse if we'll view it from the point of western science that depicts Seljuk Turks as immigrant horde of pillagers we say "yes". But if we'll look sober we'll see that assimmilation by exteriors is rarely found in history. You can't consider people iranian only because of language. Hungarians speak & write in ugric language but it's obvius that they are descendants of turkic magyars. Another good example is Buryat word for ruler spirit hormasta which is strikingly persian still doesn't make them iranians. Kazakh language have tons of persian words and still we're not iranian.
Iranica isn't very accurate:
"Turkish steppe" weren't pagan, Seljuqs were muslims, even non-muslim turks never worshipped different deities like did Mediterraneans or Aztecs. Ibn Fadlan noted that turks took different spirits as their "patrons" but when being faced to difficulties or oppression they looked at the sky and cried "Oh, God!". This is clearly described in Ibn-Fadlan's Risala[2].
Iranica describes turkic peoples as barbarians which is anti-scientifical, since no one shall be viewed as barbarian in fair science.
And still, all notable turkologists admitted that scythians, sakas and sarmats in general consisted of proto-turkic tribes.
Visual culture (metalwork, clothing & etc.) is surely turkic. Toponymy in from Central Asia to Pontic steppe is dominantly turkic. Iranians weren't known for their horsemanship and archery, instead nomads were viewed by parthians as barbarians. Even arabs are better known for their horsemanship than persians or iranians. Clothing is different, iranians & indo-europeans in general never had pointed hats, Pamirian nomads never had pointed hats. But turkic kazakhs and karakalpaks had such clothes. This is obvious fact and it can't be denied.[3],[4] Iliassh (talk)