Talk:Khwarazm

Korasmian

I notice that Korasmian redirects here, presumably because I created the redirect from Crusade :) But then today I also noticed that there are Korasmians mentioned in Herodotus' Histories...are they the same people? That's 1000 years before these Korasmians. (It was actually spelled Chorasmian in the version of Herodotus I have, so maybe they are entirely different.) Adam Bishop 21:54, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was also curious about the same question. I have heard of references to Chorasmia dating back to 1300BC and being founded by Sumerians, but there is a pretty massive gap between the two if they are ths same. There is also Chorasan however could this be what Herodotus was refering to. I am suspicious about the name of Khwarezmia since it is so similar to Khorasan and was the state to the north of that province. Also does the Greek name Chalisioi a reference to the resurgent Turkic kingdoms or 1300BC & 600BC-305CE states? Perhaps the real name was something like Khwary but it was documented as Khwar-ezmia because of a similarity of the state's name with a state in the same area which coincidentally had a similar sound and hence the two were confused?

It would be really great if anyone could come up with all the original source materials about the area's name as links for the reader to deduce from.

Kaz

I think a separate article may be needed for Khanate of Khiva - either that or remove the link as it just redirects back to Khwarezmia. Sikandarji 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation needed

Could some good soul provide a translation of the statement "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس"? I'm not even sure what language this is: Arabic? Persian? Khwarezmian? An additional comment: it is somewhat silly to provide a page number to an otherwise unreferenced source edition. Lambiam 17:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس"

It translates to (in Arabic): The forefathers of the Khawarezm were a branch of (دوحه) the Persians.

I'm not sure what ( دوحه ) means; the only definition of the word that I know means garden or open area. I'm adding the translation to the article. Also, the source which the page number belongs to is actually referenced. I went ahead and italicised it to make it clearer that it is a book title.Stoa 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think duhah ( دوحه ) translates to something like "land". But I'm just speculating. You might wanna check the etymology of Doha.--Zereshk 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just put region [in brackets] where the meaning of the word ( دوحه ) would be, hoping that it's a close enough definition of the word. I'll do some research to see what it really means, and change it if I find something worth contributing. Stoa 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation needed

I object at why Khanate of Khiva gets redirected to Khwarezmia. It was an independent entity and only part of ancient Kwarezm and deserves its own article. For instance Bukhara khanate does Abdulnr 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabic transcription wrong?

"Khwar" (لحم), and "-razm" (حطب) The former is read lhm not khwr, the latter htb, not rzm. Can someone clear this ?

I think it got jumbled up in the editor. The editor sometimes inverts the places of Arabic text. I dont know why.--Zereshk 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Took care of it; Arabic words now match the English transliteration. Stoa 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Article morphed!

Well, actually saying that Khwarezm is and was Persian is wrong. Khwarezm was a part of Achaemenid Empire for some time. But after the fall of Achaemenids it was independent until the Arabs arrived. Ancient population was indeed Iranic, but it does not mean that it was Persian. If we follow the same logic then Shakespeare was German because English is a Germanic language, and Voltaire was Italian because French is a Romance language) So, it is an undeniable fact that Persian and Iranic are not the same thing. All Persians are Iranic. But not all Iranics are Persians. Even the languages of Khwarezm and Achaemenid Persia were different. Old Persian of Achaemenid Empire is a Southwestern Iranian language meanwhile Khwarezmian as well as Soghdian are Eastern Iranian languages, just like Pashto is today. No person with a minimum knowledge of history or current events can say that Tajiks and Pashtuns are the same thing. So why claim that Khwarezmians and Persians were the same. So, after the Achaemenids Khwarezm was independent, under its own local dynasty. Turkic tribes began gradually arriving soon after the Arabs. Some here mentioned that Turkification of Khwarezm began with Mongols. That is also incorrect. Khwarezmshahs who fought against the Mongols were a Turkic dynasty. Khwarazmshah Ala al-Din Muhammad had and Oghuz Turk (possibly Turkmen) father and a Qipchaq Turk mother. His son Jalal al-Din, the last Kwharazmshah, was born to Aychichak, a Turkmen woman. Majority of Khwazamshahs generals were also Turkic, Timur Malik from Turkic tribe of Qangli being the most famous. So, qualifying Khwarazmshahs as a Pesian dynasty is wrong, for they were Turkic rulers, from a non-Persian region who conquered Iran from last Seljuks. They did not move their capital to Persia, and ruled Persia from their capital in Khwarezm. Calling them a Persian dynasty is like calling Byzantine emperors at the peak of their power an Egyptian dynasty, simply because Egypt was a part of their empire. After Mongol conquest Khwarezm became a part of the Golden Horde. Though, Iranic (not Persian) language of Kwarezm could still be heard in XIV century, but by that time majority of population was Turkified. After the Golden Horde it was ruled by Turkic Timurids, after them by Turkic Uzbeks as a Khanate of Khiva. Today, no one in Khwarezm speaks Persian, or any Iranic language as a first language. It is entirely Turkic. Some here also mentioned that until the arrival of Russians it was under the influence of Persia, and some went as far as calling it a Persian territory. Let's take a look at the period from Timurids until the arrival of Russians. All during this period Kwharezm was a Sunni Muslim region, and still is today. It was not under Shia Persian rule, and thousands of Persian slaves were sold on the markets of Khiva. If it was indeed a Persian territory, I don't see a reason why would a Shia Shah of Iran allow Persian Shia citizens to be sold as slaves to Sunnis in his own empire). The only ruler of Iran that did take control of Khwarezm was Nadir Shah (who was a Turkmen himself), but his rule there was short, and he is still remembered in Khwarezmian and Karakalpak tales and legends as a symbol of cruel, invading tyrant. So, how in the world can some people state that "Khwarezm is an was Persian"? It is not Persian and it was not Persian. It was an Iranic, but not Persian province of the Achaemenid Empire, and was independent from Persia for the past 2500 years. Egypt was a part of Persian empire under Achaemenids. So, can anyone say today that "Egypt was and is Persian"? Qozi Kalon (UTC)

I wasn't paying attention. The article had been tagged by the Iranians -- Khwarezm is and was PERSIAN. Now it has been tagged by the Russian/Turkish side of things, ignoring the Persian heritage. Neither view is particularly balanced. I'm grotesquely over-extended, but I'll see what I can do later. Zora 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources if you want to add new historical arguments as per WP:NOR, and don't remove entire paragraphs just because you don't like them. Khwarezm has a Persian heritage, Turks and Russians came centuries later. --ManiF 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezm wasn't part of Persia from the Achaemenids until 1878. That's just plain wrong. Utterly wrong. It was part of the Achaemenid Empire, then independent, then conquered by the Arabs and mixed into the "new" Persian culture. If Transoxania was so dang "Persian", then why is it called "Aniran", not Iran, in the Shahnameh? Zora 08:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. "Khwarezm wasn't part of Persia from the Achaemenids until 1878" according to whom? Khwarezm was the center of the Samanids (819-1005) the first indigenous dynasty to rule in Persia following the Arab conquest. [1] --ManiF 12:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezm was not a center of the Samanids. Bukhara was. Bukhara was a Samanid capital. And Bukhara is separated from Khwarezm by a vast desert. It is just wrong to keep saying that Khwarezm and Transoxiana are Persia. They were part of Persia for a short period of time, during Achaemenids. Calling them Persia just because they were part of Persian empire at one point of their history is the same as saying that Iran is Mongolia just because it was a part of Mongol empire at one time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.10.176 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

May I just also point out the obvious that Achaemenids did not exist at 1878 and was ended many hundred years back =) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Khwarezm was independent from the 4th century BCE until the Arab conquest in the 8th century. That's 12 centuries of independence! After the Mongols in the 13th century, it became increasingly Turkified. See [2]. Y'all are so gung-ho for the Columbia Encyclopedia when it suits you -- are you going to pay attention to it here?

That encyclopedia account must be based on something more detailed (and complicated), so it may not be completely accurate, but I think that's enough to show that "it was part of Persia until the 19th century" is just wrong.

OK, how about we give two views? The "always Persia" view and the other view. But you have to come up with some quotes from Persian histories that say "always Persia," you can't just assert it. Zora 03:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits that should clarify this issue.--Zereshk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The map was a good addition too.--Zereshk 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also quite concerned about the ammount of confusion of sources in this article. Much of it pertains not to Khwarezm, but to Chorasan. Chorasan was always Persian (not Iranian) and Khwarezm was always an independent kingdom to the north populated by "Huns". This article needs some de-POVing.Kaz 07:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the basic problems here is that 'Iranian' is the name for a large ethnolinguistic group, like 'Slavic', but was adopted in modern times as the name of Persia--now Iran--on the basis of ancient usage (Eran, Arya, etc.). The adjectival form 'Persian' refers to both an inhabitant of Persia and the Persian language. At one or another time in its long history, Khwarizmia did indeed come under the rule of a Persian dynasty. That does not make it 'Persian', despite the fact that its language, Khwarizmian--which existed well into the Middle Ages--is an 'Iranian' language (which is like saying that Russian is a Slavic language). The name Persia in sensu strictu refers to modern Iran and, usually until modern times, much of what is now Iraq. In short, Khwarizm was never 'Persian' or a part of 'Persia' or 'Iran', though it was occasionally under Persian imperial rule--usually quite indirectly. The best, reliable source for much of Iranian history (including Khwarizmian and Persian history) is the Encyclopedia of Islam; another good source is the Cambridge History of Iran. Chris B 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TURKAN HATUN?

When i was a little girl i read a book which took place in Khorezm Empire. It's like a fairy tale and cought me with it's magic. Since then i wanted to go to Urganj to see the Tilali Garden (i found out that it's still lies under the ground in Turkmenistan and old palace of Jelal Ed Din is not excavated yet).

I was looking for something about the woman called Turkan Hatun. I wanted to now more about the characters in the book and i learned a lot about Jelal Ed Din, Muhamed II... But data i found about her were very confusing.

According to that book, she was very cruel, ruled the great Khorezm Empire and she was a mother of shah Muhamed II, grand mother of a brave prince Jelal Ed Din but not very fond of him. She promoted the people of Kipchak but majority in Khorezm were Turkmenian. There was also mentioned very brave turkmen hero Kara Konchar and his maid... And that lasted untill Mongols conquered Khorezm 1221.

But now i found the information that she lived centuries ago and she was a wife of Sultan Melikshah who died in 1092.

As my country was under the Osman Empire for 500 years and their language had a great influence, i am aware that Turkan Hatun was not her real name, it's more like Turkish Lady and probably was used to describe more than one woman who had ipmact to the history of muslim people.

I would really apreciate if you know something about the Turkan Hatun who lived in Khorezm or where to find something about her.

Thanks a lot. Boka

Woah. Khwarizm is not the same as Persia....

I don't know where have you guys getting your information from but, Khwarizmi is certainly not Persian. Let's put sources aside, if you know a Khwarizmi person or ever been to Khwarizm you would know that Turkish and Khwarizmi is almost identical. Khwarizmis should know better their roots which are not Persian. I don't know where this piece of information went wrong, possibly the fact that the area was once belonged to Persia? Anyways there a lot of smart people here, but some things you might be misinformed about and develop a strong belief about it, but you guys need to do a better job and learn that Khwarizm is Turkic, although geographically it was once belonged to Persia...

Khwarezm, as well as almost all of Central Asia, was inhabited by Iranics for thousands of years before the Turkic tribes left Siberia and northern Central Asia. Havent you ever heard of the Scythians, Bactrians, or Sogdians? Even during the Sassanid period, the majority of the population was Iranic. Even after the Arabic occupation the majority of the population was Arabic. It was not until the fall of the Caliphates and the Turkic invasions that the regions became predominantly Turkic in terms of population. Even so, the Turkic peoples adopted the Iranian culture, the Persian language, and mixed heavily with the local populations (for example, some Turkmens and Uzbeks still exhibit Caucasoid features). Even today, Iranian culture can still be seen all across Central Asia, including Khwarezm. The name itself is Iranic and not at all Turkic. I dont know where you got your information from, but its certainly not based on any facts I have seen. It seems to me you are confusing the past and the present, and even looking at the present, signs of Iranic civilization are verywhere, and who knows how many of the people who now inhabit these countries are actually Turkic or not, for example, one set of numbers suggests that there are up to 11 million Tajiks in Uzbekistan alone.Khosrow II 05:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am well informed about that most parts of Central Asia belonged to Persia including Khwarezm, but I was saying that the Khwarezmi peoples (culture, language etc although some Persian culture is mixed within) are Turkic, not the geographical place. I know this because I'm from Uzbekistan. I actually realized now that the article is talking about the Khwarezm geographically right? If so then, yes it was once part of Persia.

Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were and still are in many ways, Iranic. This has nothing to do with Persia. These regions were first inhabited by Iranics, and are still today inhabited by Iranics, as well as Turkics, while the culture is still overwhelmingly Iranic.Khosrow II 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are the Iranics in modern Turkmenistan? 95.28.41.8 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's Time to Fix this Article

This article is full of inaccuracies, from top to bottom. To begin with, the claim that Khwarizm was mostly a part of 'Persia' or 'the Persian Empire' from primordial times down to the Russian conquest is complete nonsense, as is the idea that "Khwarezm has always been part of the Persian cultural sphere, even til the present day." If Khwarizmia was/is a part of "the Persian cultural sphere" then we need to add to that "sphere" also most of India, East Turkistan (Xinjiang), Turkey, and many other places where a Persian literary language was used, for a time, alongside the local language. Khwarizm/Khwarizmia appears in antiquity as an Iranian-speaking region. During its long history it was at times independent and at other times part of one or another empire, including one or another Persian empire; in the pre-Mongol period it was itself an empire that included large areas of Persia, among other regions; the Khwarizmians became Turkic-speaking in the Middle Ages, and the region remains solidly Turkic-speaking to the present day. All this needs to be pointed out explicitly, and the national biases taken out; there is no need for the article to reflect either the national views of the modern Iranians or the national views of the Russians, the Uzbeks or other Turks, or anyone else. It seems a lot of people are intensely interested in Khwarizm. That is good. But one or more of you needs to go to the library with this article and go through the Encyclopedia of Islam (or, use the CD edition of it) and the Cambridge History of Iran (N.B.: not 'Persia') and cite them and at least fix the major misstatements here.Chris B

Not a Vassal of Kara Khitan

In the section Khwārazm Empire it is claimed that Around 1141 Yelü Dashi took control of Khwarezm, making it part of the Kara-Khitan Khanate. Well I am not exactly sure. As far as I know, Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty was not a part of Kara Khitans and reached its peak in early 13th century. (see Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty) Year 1141 may refer to Karakhitans' victory over East Kara Khanids. But that has nothing to do with Khwārazm Empire. (incidently, Khwārazm Empire conquered West Kara Khanids.) I think this section needs the attention of an expert. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-history

This is all pseudo-history, much if of it is simply (and often incorrectly) summarising content in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.199.181 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of what needs to be in the article is not there. First of all, Khwarezm is Amudarya delta oasis, and its history was run by the volume and course of the Amudarya. Civilizations appeared and vanished with Amudarya changes. From the 8th c. BC and before the 5th c. BC it was a land of pastoral Scythians/Saka/Massagetes/Masguts, in the 6th-5th c. BC they were raided by Achaemenid army, which stole all the nearby herds, and forced the impoverished pastoralists to settle, creating the Kuzeligyr culture. That was the beginning of the archaic Khwarezm. The article does not say when Achaemenids annexed Khwarezm and for how long, but ca. 400 BC Khwarezm became independent, later it was controlled by Kangar/Kanju, then Tochars/Yueji moved in ca 135 BC, creating 5 yabgu statelets, which grew into Kushan, then Ephtalite empires. In ca 170 BC for about 100 years it belonged to the Eastern Hun empire, that's when the Hun-type cranial deformation and burials appeared in the Khwarezm. In other words, the history is incompatibly richer then the one-dimention pseudo that appear in the article. See Tolstov 1962; Yagodin 1978; Kuznetsova 1988; Weinberg 1991; Rapoport 1996; Yablonsky 1996, 1999; Itina et al, 1996; Vishnevskaya et al, 1997; Dani, Masson 1999; Tsvetsinskaya 2002; Fry "Bukhara", and a ton of others. Barefact (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Hua/Huar were a branch of Sino-Caucasian Caucasoid "Di" People

Hua word in Chinese is Hua "side, country, Pashtun/Pahtun country" (huayend "sleepery", huadzedel "to ask to be let off")word in Afghan language.Well-known, that in the most different languages of a word with value " the side, the party " can have the single-root variants in the form of "to slide, wander, pass, extend". For example in a Hebrew: 'eber "side of river", la'avor "To pass, be forwarded", 'avar "has passed".Thus we see full concurrence with oldiranian word varah/var " a side, the party " and modern iranian avardan "to bring",avare "wandering, the tramp". In Iran there is also a river Auhar and the city Auhar.In Language of Caucasian Avars (<Auhar<Huar) hwa-deze is "to wander"/"-d" is a parameter of the speeded up action, and "-ze" the verbal termination/, and "hua-ze" to draw, spend a line, to draw " (the same value is available in Chinese). Old designation of the Caucasian Avars were "Auhar" (see W.Minorsky) is iranized form of Hua/hwar.On L.N.Gumilev Hua people (Hephthalites) is a part of chineze-tibetan (now it is possible with confidence and to tell more precisely that Sino-caucasian) caucasoid Di people.No doubt descendants of people "Di" are modern pashtuns (AparDi, Afridi) and the Caucasian Avars. The first having lost the language send on Afghani (Pashtun), the second on one of Nakh-Dagesthanian (Caucasian). See also Omeljan Pritsak: "On the northern Caucasus, which was the border zone between the Sassanids (and latter the Islamic Caliphate) and the Khazar Kaganate at the time of its flower, we find the same Proto-Mongol structures that we find on the northeastern Chinese border. The main role there was played by the "true Avars" (*Ahwar /Wuhuan), the *Sebirs (Hsien-pi), the K'u-mo and the *Qay+lan/Qay+dag (Hsi)". ssvit.iatp.org.ua/sum/sum96~1.htm. This Hua/Hwa/Hoa people really was under strong influence of Protomongols. The chinese classic Liang chih-kung-t'u describes Hepthalites (Afu/Hua/Avar) as of the same origin as the Hua Country (Huaguo). Meanwhile the western Hvar branch migrated into Hualazimu (花剌子模 aka Kua-Li-kia) and still exist to this day in Daghestan (Northern Caucasus). From this location they launched the European Avar empire, and enjoyed their last flourish of prowess under Kuber before settling in Transylvania to join the Magyar federation as the Havar. Several central European family names derive from the name of this tribe.And besides, the Byzantian sources directly speak that Avars lived on coast of the river. "Khwarezm is iranian HuarZamin (The Land of Sino-Caucasian People Hua/Huar).--81.24.80.50 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research? 95.28.41.8 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues

As others have already mentioned, this article needs a rewrite, mainly because it contradicts the Wikipedia entry on "Khwarezmid Empire" (or "Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty") to which it is linked. The main disagreement is concerning the ethnicity of these people but there are others.

Also, the long quotes from Mackay under the section titled "Khwarezmid Empire" are inappropriate. First, the page numbers referenced are wrong (at least compared to the version of the book I found online). Second, Mackay is clearly not an expert on the subject. He uses the name "Korasmins" (who others here have pointed out may be a people from another time/place) and calls their leader "Barbaquan" (a name I cannot find anywhere else). As suggested by the book title, his book is full of opinions about various times in history with only a couple references to "Korasmins". Third, the quotes stand alone with no explanation or context (other than the footnotes), and they exhibit clear, strong opinions about the "Korasmins" with no verifiable evidence. Can someone please replace these quotes with someone better? If not, I'm going to attempt to remove these quotes myself eventually.

Beck8888 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Name

• Khwarazm -Llc 15,200 results
• Khwarezm -Llc 4,940 results

Takabeg (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mongols

In articles elsewhere about the Mongol conquest, one reads about Khwarezm's slaughter of emissaries as the instigation or rationale of Mongol assault and aggressive destruction. all this is absent in the article here. 202.179.16.76 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hard to read

Maybe it's just how it is for me today, but some portions are hard to read:

The Iranian Chorasmian language survived for several centuries after Islam until the Turkification of the region, and so must some at least of the culture and lore of ancient Khwarezm, for it is hard to see the commanding figure of Biruni, a repository of so much knowledge, appearing in a cultural vacuum[11]....

....and. so. must. some. at least. of. the. what?

The native Chorasmian(an Iranian language)[9][10] [11] speaker Biruni says that the land was first colonised 980 years before Alexander the Great, sc. before the Seleucid era, i.e. in 1292 B.C., when the hero of Iranian epic Siyavash came to Khwarezm, and his son Kay Khusrawwas established on the throne 92 years later, in 1200 B.C.

Can we get rid of the uses of some latins here? Again, maybe I'm just having a bad reading day. Aforementioned edits were introduced by Nepaheshgar[3].--JBrown23 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

logartithms

logarithms were intoduced by the great muslim mathematicai Abu Muhammad Musa al-khawarizmi

Policy breaches :

This article is almost all based on two sources (listed in the reference section) - Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam plus some additional articles written by Bosworth and McKenzie who are also cited as contributors to the encyclopaedic entries - 14 out of 27 entries, however this does not include their repetition (i.e. a,b,c,d etc) , if I do that I count 22.

Other references appear to be padding - for example:

• 23. 'A.A Simonov';
• 6. No publishing info. or link;
• 10. I don't know what that is, some random quote from a book supposedly published in Calcutta in 1951 though it is presented in French and then translated by I don't know who, which makes reference to a preface in a book on drugs...
• 20. الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية (p47) translates to 'the remaining signs of past centuries'. That's it, no author, no publishing information nothing.

etc etc

The items listed as sources are again doubling up sources and an encyclopaedic entry. I searched that encyclopaedia for the topic and I can't see any similarities to what is in this article. Another source is a book by an historian - but it is a book on Alexander the Great, who is only mentioned in passing in a sentence discussing the guy no.10 reference.

This article appears to to be in breach of the following wikipedia policies: 1. Verifiable : referencing and source material makes the article unverifiable.

2. Neutral point of view : (just one example for you - by omission: does not mention their invasion of Syria in 1246AD (after fleeing the Mongols) and their defeat of the Sultans in the Levant e.g. Aleppo, Damascus)

3. No original research : since material is not verifiable by following up references and sources do not appear to in fact be sources I can only assume it is either mythology, propaganda or 'original research'.

11/05/16 BlimeyOut (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)BlimeyOut

Meanings of khwar and razm?

The article now says: "Persian compound of khwar (خوار), and razm (رزم), referring to the abundance of cooked fish as a main diet of the peoples of this area."

I do not speak Persian, and if I try to look up in the Internet some English meaning for the words, I get "despicable, contemptible" and "combat, battle". Huh? Nothing about fish or cooked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:682:4710:7DEF:548E:867D:4982 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khwarezm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714064908/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f5/v5f5a015.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f5/v5f5a015.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Xorazm be merged into Khwarezm. I think that the content in the Xorazm article can easily be explained in the context of Khwarezm, and the Khwarezm article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Xorazm will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. pablohoney (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Makes no sense to merge them - one is a newly created province with a different name, the other one is a ancient historical region. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the same reason given by historyofIran. Also, Wikipedia has many articles about scholars and dynasties from Khwarezm (eg. Al-Biruni, Khwarazmian dynasty, etc ...), this would be quite confusing for the readers if "Xorazm" was merged into "Khwarezm".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just look at Macedonia and many other similar articles about historical regions. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Khwarezm → Khwarazm – It has 16.000 more results in books, not to mention many major academic sources such as the Cambridge History of Iran and History of Civilizations of Central Asia use this spelling. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support : Khwarezm does not really make sense, while Khwarazm (or even better Kharazm), is the English equivalent of the word خوارزم (Persian).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per ngram. No such user (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Switched to Khorezm per AjaxSmack's findings, which seem to be valid (no false positives) on a quick skim. No such user (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per above comments --Wario-Man (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• ​​​"Khorezm" gets even more Google Books results. —  AjaxSmack  00:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Khorezm is not even used in one proper academic source. Mind you, there was also a Soviet state called Khorezm. It has nothing to do with the ancient region of Khwarazm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose this proposal; it was just FYI. —  AjaxSmack  02:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose. Britannica gives Khwārezm while Merriam-Webster gives "Khwārizm or Khwarezm or Khwârazm". So the current title is accepted by both authorities. Regardless of the spelling, the vowel sound in the third syllable is /ə/. As for Khorezm/Khoresm, that's an "administrative subdivision of Uzbekistan." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Britannica should be avoided, it's not the most reliable source out there. I was told that myself by an admin a few years back when I used the source. I'm gonna repeat myself again, and say that the majority of prominent academic sources such as Cambridge and History of Civilizations of Central Asia use the spelling 'Khwarazm'. Also, good to finally see someone who can tell Khorezm/Khoresm and Khwarazm apart. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Nine Zulu queens is a sockpuppet. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Culture of Khorezm

The parts of texts have been taken from another articles in Wikipedia: Toprak-Kala and Akchakhan-Kala. If these articles contain copivio delete them too.Khorazmiy (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the part where you restored the copyvio from Iranica which I just had removed. Also if youre gonna copy from other articles then attribution is required. For the third time, it's not called 'Khorezm' either - this is the English Wikipedia, not the Uzbek one. HistoryofIran (talk)

Please be careful with mentioning ethnicity matters, because in Tajik and Uzbek languages, Khwarazm is Khorazm but not Khorezm. Please put back the text which have not any copivio, but extracted from Toprak kala and Akchakhan-Kala articles.Khorazmiy (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No. As I said, attribution is required. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia on how to add it properly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Inhabited by the Turks by the 1300s

Ibn Khaldun says the area was inhabited by the Turks at the time of his writing The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. No mention of Persians. Please review the below passage and tell me what you understand from it:

In the Iraq are al-Kufah, al-Qadisiyah, Baghdad, the Reception Hall of Khosraw (at Ctesiphon), and al-Hirah. Beyond that live non-Arab nations such as the Turks, the Khazars, and others. The Arabian Peninsula comprises the Hijaz in the west, the Yamamah, al-Bahrayn, and Oman in the east, and in the south the Yemen along the coast of the Indian Ocean.

In the cultivated area, they say, there is another sea to the north in the land of the Daylam. This area has no connection with the other seas. It is called the Sea of Jurjan and Tabaristan (Caspian Sea). Its length is 1,000 miles, and its width 600. To the west of it lie Azerbaijan and the Daylam territory; to the east of it the land of the Turks and Khuwarizm; to the south of it Tabaristan; and to the north of it the land of the Khazars and the Alans.

176.54.25.24 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Where did he say that? Seriously how did you interpret "...to the east of it the land of the Turks and Khuwarizm" as Khwarazm = land of the Turks?! And how is your claim has anything to do with Persians? The lead talks about Iranian peoples (e.g. Khwarezmian-speaking groups like Afrighids) not Persian or people of modern Iran. And do you really think inhabitants of Khwarazm disappeared with the rise of Turkic dynasties? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

So you admit Iran was ruled by the Turks since then and until 1926. All of the dynasties were of Turkic origin until the Shah's revolution. 176.55.84.83 (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense. And for the record, you're wrong (Template:History of Iran). Please don't turn into this into a forum discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Being under foreign occupation by turks =/= being inhabited by turks, otherwise everything from Slovakia to Algeria to Bengal would be turkic. And again, your statement has nothing to do with Khwarazm's ethnic demographics in 1300 AD. You've yet to provide any source whatsoever that Khwarazm was a turkic-majority land in that time period. That quote from Muqaddimah does not at all state that Khwarazm was turkic, the "and" in the phrase "the land of the Turks and Khwarizm" indicates that both are two separate things. Before trying to post authoritatively on English WP I recommend first learning the basics of English grammar. --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:CIR and WP:FORUM are obvious. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Turkification of Transoxania

The below is from Uzbeks#Turkification of Transoxiana:

"The dominance of Ghazna was curtailed, however, when the Seljuks led themselves into the western part of the region, conquering the Ghaznavid territory of Khorazm (also spelled Khorezm and Khwarazm).[45] The Seljuks also defeated the Qarakhanids, but did not annex their territories outright. Instead they made the Qarakhanids a vassal state.[47] The Seljuks dominated a wide area from Asia Minor to the western sections of Transoxiana in the 11th century. The Seljuk Empire then split into states ruled by various local Turkic and Iranian rulers. The culture and intellectual life of the region continued unaffected by such political changes, however. Turkic tribes from the north continued to migrate into the region during this period.[45] The power of the Seljuks however became diminished when the Seljuk Sultan Ahmed Sanjar was defeated by the Kara-Khitans at the Battle of Qatwan in 1141.

In the late 12th century, a Turkic leader of Khorazm, which is the region south of the Aral Sea, united Khorazm, Transoxiana, and Iran under his rule. Under the rule of the Khorazm shah Kutbeddin Muhammad and his son, Muhammad II, Transoxiana continued to be prosperous and rich while maintaining the region's Perso-Islamic identity. However, a new incursion of nomads from the north soon changed this situation. This time the invader was Genghis Khan with his Mongol armies.[45]"

176.54.25.24 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It just talks about the arrival of Turkic tribes and their dynasties. Where is the claims about "complete population replace" and Khwarazm = Land of the Turks? You better see what Turkification means. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, almost all of the land was inhabited by and ruled by Turks. See this template: History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century

The only thing that template shows is the lands that turks invaded and subjugated through history. No mention of "inhabited by", unless you're trying to say that Egypt, Arabia, and India are/were ever turkic lands. Military occupation of a foreign land doesn't make it "turkic land". --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

By your logic being ruled by British Empire, Roman Empire, Russian Empire, Achaemenid Empire, or Mongol Empire is equal to being British/English, Roman, Russian, Persian, or Mongol/Mongolian. Stop spamming this talk page by forum-like comments. See WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal opinion does not matter. You need WP:RS. The only valid point of your claims is that we can re-write the lead section and mention the arrival of Turkic tribes and the rise of Turkic dynasties in Khwarazm. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Khwarazm and Biruni

• Do not delete text with sources. Biruni knew many languages, including Turkic language. All references to his works are given. These works have been published by outstanding Soviet scholars.Khorazmiy (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted me to respond to? What do you want me to say? you didn't exactly come with much of an argument. Gimme the name of these so called "outstanding Soviet scholars" then, I'll try to look them up myself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • Footnotes are given to the works of Biruni himself, translated by academician Ubaidulla Karimov and other orientalists. For you, apparently, Biruni's works are not a reliable source. Abu Reykhan Beruni, Izbrannyye proizvedeniya. t.4. Perevod s arabskogo U.Karimova. Tashkent, 1973; Sachau, Eduard, ed. The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athâr-ul-Bâkiya of Albîrûnî, Or" Vestiges of the Past". Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain & Ireland, 1879.Khorazmiy (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please stop assuming of what I think? Is Ubaidulla Karimov the only one? Literally zero academic sources cite him, heck he seems to be obscure at best - so much for being an outstanding Soviet scholar. I'm sure you can find a English translation of al-Biruni's work by an actual historian? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • We are talking about the work of Biruni, give arguments that his works are not reliable, and that he was lying when he wrote about the Turkic names. Here is English translation: Sachau, Eduard, ed. The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athâr-ul-Bâkiya of Albîrûnî, Or" Vestiges of the Past". Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain & Ireland, 1879. 108 academic sources cited this translation. Khorazmiy (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • https://scholar.google.ru/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=памятники+минувших+поколений&btnG= citations of Karimov's translations more 35.Khorazmiy (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No we aren't, the topic was never about al-Biruni (since when did I ever say he 'lied'..? I've not even as much as mentioned him), it was the dodgy 'outstanding Soviet scholars' you were using. Also, you do realize I can't read Cyrillic nor Russian? You linked that but you didn't link the file to the English translation? This Karimov guy is a obscure figure not cited by a single academic source. The first thing that comes up when you search for him is a Instagram profile, talking about being outstanding. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • We are discussing here the information of Biruni, I have already pointed out to you the English translation of his work, (Sachau, Eduard, ed. The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athâr-ul-Bâkiya of Albîrûnî, Or" Vestiges of the Past". Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain & Ireland, 1879) which is quoted 108 times. What are your complaints about this Biruni's work? Khorazmiy (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay this is going nowhere, you're still putting words in my mouth. Ping me when you're willing to take this discussion seriously. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • As I understand it, you have no complaints about the translation of Biruni's work by Eduard Sachau? Khorazmiy (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Look, can you just gimme the pdf link of the English translation you found? One step at the time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a convincing argument considering that your only western source (Sachau) is a dude from the 19th century, you don't have any modern sources to support your claims? The Soviet Uzbek guy you put is neither notable nor even trustworthy, considering the ideological and unscientific bias widely noted in all Soviet republics during its time.

As for your unsourced claim that he knew turkish, on the contrary he pretty clearly states he doesn't in his book "The Chronology of Ancient Nations"([4]):

Pg. 81: "And the months of other nations including those of India, China, Tibet, Turks, Khazars, Ethiopians and Zangs. Although I know the name of some these months, but I am looking for further time in order to completely understand them. Because with the approach that I have taken so far, it is not correct for me to mix doubt and certainties and what I understand with what I do not understand"

Pg.83, as a note above the Turkish months column: "I have not been able to learn how long these months are, nor what they mean, nor of what kind they are." --Qahramani44 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • • We are discussing here my additions to the text of the article Khwarazm, in which I gave Biruni's information about Turkic terms in Khwarazm. I have provided footnotes to two works by Biruni, translated by Soviet academicians M. Salie and U. Karimov. These translations were reviewed by such an editorial group consisting of prominent scholars such as A.A. Semenov, S.P. Tolstov and others. In Google Scholar, you will find a high citation rate of publications of these scientists. In addition, I cited a text from Biruni's work in Sachau Eduard's English translation. This translation is still used by scholars, since there are no other complete translations of this work by Biruni yet. Biruni mentions the names of the Turkic months, days, plants and I gave these footnotes to his works in translation both in Russian and in English. So, please, explain why did you are deleted this information? Khorazmiy (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkic according to Ibn Battuta

Ibn Battuta says of its city that it is “one of the largest, most beautiful and most well-kept cities of the Turks”. Again, it was Iranian before but became Turkic both in culture and looks over time. 786wave (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta was in the 14th century, not the 9th like your edit claimed. --Qahramani44 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits and comments are very similar to this IP-user's. Read [5] and [6] again. You need WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for your claims. Wario-Man ^talk 11:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I might have forgotten to login. It seems that whatever does not fit your narrative is considered an unreliable source then. Is that it? 786wave (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If your idea of "reliable" is a random book in turkish by a no-name author, then no wonder you were reverted. Anyone with an agenda can write a book about history with a claim, whether its valid enough to be used as a source depends on if its endorsed or supported by someone reputable. Again, read WP:RS. --Qahramani44 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I never added that info here and no, the book is by a respectful professor of history. Whatever happened to “assuming good faith”? Your tone is pretty aggressive. I suggest you take a break. 786wave (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi

I came across some writings in Turkish by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi stating the area was Turkified already before the arrival of the Seljuks. Might want to do some research on this point and add it along with a reliable source. 786wave (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

According to:

• A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East, by Richard Foltz, page 94, "In the wake of all this devastation[Mongol invasion] Khwarazm became largely Turkified as the bulk of the settled, Iranian-speaking population were either annihilated or driven into exile...."
• Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, ed. Robert L. Canfield, page 60, "Barthold thought that the country[Khwarazm] had already been Turkified by the beginning of the thirteenth century, but he did not give convincing evidence to support this opinion, except for the existence of Turkic place-names. But from the evidence of a complete, or almost complete, Turkification of Khwarazm in the fourteenth century one may conclude that this process must have begun before the arrival of the Mongols." --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@786wave: See Frye, Richard N.; Sayili, Aydin M. (1943). "Turks in the Middle East before the Saljuqs". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 63 (3): 194–207. doi:10.2307/593872. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 593872. A couple of relevant extracts:

Our studies have led us to believe that the supposed conditions of exclusively nomadic life and small population did not exist, but that: (a) Turks were already in the regions of Khurasan and Transoxania at the time of the Arab conquest, and remained there after the Arab domination. The Turkicization of these districts had, therefore, begun long before the Saljuqs. (b) Turks were town and village dwellers except in regions where natural conditions imposed a nomadic life on them. (c) They probably had a relatively large population in Central Asia and infiltrated in fairly large numbers into the Near East. (p.195)

The situation was much the same in Khwarazm. We have already mentioned a statement of Awfi concerning the existence of Turks there in pre-Islamic times. In 728 Tabari mentions Turks aiding the people of Kardar, a Khwarazmian village, against the Arabs under Ashras. (p.203)

Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your source makes no mention of numbers or proportion, only stating that it "had begun" before; considering that the Western Turkic Khaganate entered that region in the 6th century and had controlled it at the time of the Arab conquest it's not surprising. Also note that "Central Asia" in your source encompasses the entire steppe and not just Khwarazm/Khorasan. The OP's claims are that the region was mostly turkified long before the Mongol period, which neither his nor your sources have been able to prove. --Qahramani44 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Their findings are mainly about Khurasan and Transoxania:

The following passage taken from Mas'udi ... indicates clearly that the large Turkish army of Mu'tasim was largely recruited from the districts of Khurasan and Transoxania (p.199) ... In fact, we have already seen that Turks lived in many cities in these regions, and that the Turkish armies fighting the Arabs there usually did not come from beyond the Yaxartes. (p.200)

It seems that by the 8th century most of these regions had composite and multi-ethnic populations. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty classic example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, to draw from sources indicating the presence of Turks in the 8th century (which is obvious as they controlled the area previously) to conclude that the area was "composite and multi-ethnic". Again you've yet to find a source that confirms your claim. Lastly, this article is about Khwarazm and not Khurasan or Transoxiana. The former is a separate region from the latter. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the paper. Here is a quote: "most of these cities seem to have had a composite population" (p.200). And in the context of Turk settlements "The situation was much the same in Khwarazm." (full quote above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly I have, given that the latter quote does not relate to the former at all:

Throughout its history Dahistan has been the habitat of nomads, quick to raid and pillage. -Abdullah ibn Tahir (830-844) built a fort for protection against the ancestors of the Turk-mans.103 The Turks of this district were not only nomads, but they also peopled the numerous irrigated oases.'04 The situation was much the same in Khwarazm. We have already mentioned a statement of Awfi concerning the existence of Turks there in pre-Islamic times.105 In 728 Tabari mentions Turks aiding the people of Kardar, a Khwarazmian village, against the Arabs under Ashras.

It's quite dishonest to take two quotes from two separate pages and sections and attempt to relate them to each other. The description of Khwarazm in that article only mentions the presence of Turks, with no indication of their proportion to the native population. "Much the same" relates to the previous paragraph describing Dahistan, and not the paragraph you're quoting about Khurasan and Transoxiana. The line you and the OP are trying to peddle is that the area was already turkified before the Seljuks, when the article you're referencing only states that it had begun before pre-Islamic times, with no description or indication of majority or minority status. Every other source in this Wikipedia article states the conclusion was in the 14th century, and that the area became majority turkic only after the Mongol invasion. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the trukification issue. But if Turks were in Khwarazm since pre-Islamic times, then we should mention it in the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Who were the Khwarezmians of 1244 Jerusalem and La Forbie?

Who were the "Khwarezmians" (Khwarezmian tribes/mercenaries) who took & destroyed Jerusalem in 1244 & helped the Egyptians defeat the Crusaders and the Ayyubid emirs allied with them at the Battle of La Forbie? I mean ethnicity, language, geographic origin. Were they just from Chorasan/Khwarezm, or from the much larger empire ruled by the Khwarazmian dynasty? All that's usually said is that they were fleeing the Mongols, which fits both options. Arminden (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Old Chinese equivalent

In the opening of the article it gives the Old Chinese equivalent *qʰaljɯʔmriɡ (呼似密) without citation. Axel Schuessler in contrast gives this "驩潛 Huánjiàn huɑn-dziam 107 B.C.E., ca. [SJ 123] , Khwarezm (Pelliot, see Pulleyblank 1981:280)." So, quite a different citation. SJ is the Shiji of Simaqian, and the article by Schuessler is "Phonological Notes on Hàn Period Transcriptions of Foreign Names and Words" Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, 249-292. --Tibetologist (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)