Talk:Khwarezm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khwarezm article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Article morphed!

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)
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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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