Talk:Khazars - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.88.74.138 (talk) at 01:06, 26 May 2006 (→Dictionary of the Khazars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:06, 26 May 2006 by 70.88.74.138 (talk) (→Dictionary of the Khazars)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Khazars received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Khazars has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Dictionary of the Khazars

Mention should be made of Pavic's book Dictionary of the Khazars. 128.196.226.101 17:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It is, in Khazars in fiction. --Briangotts 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

From User 128.196.226.101, that is Khazar fiction if I may say, that is not a fact. Please reply? You statting that "So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that the number was very high." has nor facts to supported. I urge you to read this article posted at the World Zionist Org. http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=140 . It says the opposite:

"REMARKABLY, the Khazars, a people of Turkic origin, converted to the Jewish religion sometime in the 9th century, beginning with the royal house and spreading gradually among the general populace. Judaism is now known to have been more widespread among the Khazar inhabitants of the Khazar kingdom than was previously thought. In 1999, Russian archaeologists announced that they had successfully reconstructed a Khazarian vessel from the Don River region, revealing 4 inscriptions of the word "Israel" in Hebrew lettering. It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqih, in fact, wrote "All of the Khazars are Jews." Christian of Stavelot wrote in 864 that "all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety."

I believe this statement should be taken out!!!!

First of all, the "Khazars in fiction" comes in response to the comment about Pavic's book, which is fiction.

Second of all, both ibn al-Faqih and Christian's statements are referred to in the article. The statement that you object to states that there is no evidence, genetic or otherwise, that the Khazars formed a majority of Eastern European Jewry. That does NOT mean that most or all of the Khazars didn't convert to Judaism, which clearly they did. The evidence you raise does not go to the point you are trying to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There is something wrong in the communication here. Please focus with me:

You are saying that : "So although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim"

And I am asking for a source for this statement? Are you disputing my request for a proof? That is not right?

You are talking about a point I am making? that is a political question if I may say.

I am just ASKING for a source, and you provided an article? That is not an evidence!!!

...

How many of today's Jews are actually descended from the Khazars? -- SJK

I am not sure if anyone knows. I do know that there were some interesting biological tests done which showed that there has been much less intermarriage and conversion than anyone had previously imagined. Some scientists compared some biological traits that were markers for certain genes, specifically the fingerprint whorls, and found that most of today's modern day Jews matched the patterns for biological descendents of middle-eastern semites. There is an article on this (explaining the test, and logic of the arguement) entitled "Who are the Jews" by Jared Diamon, in "Natural History", volume 102, No. 11, Nov. 1993. RK

If Khazars really converted to Judaism and took the apellation, "Son of Abraham," then they really were Jews -- and their descendents really are Jews. I am sure that in the long history of the Children of Israel, many many people have been adopted into the family -- and it would be wrong, both morally and legally, to consider them any less members of the family.

There may be some scientific merit to asking hat percentage of Jewish ancesors today came from where. But as far as "Jewish" concerns, it doesn't matter whether a small or high percentage come from the land of the Khazars or elsewhere. As long as the mothers were Jewish, or they converted, they are all Jews.

The notion of some pure bloodline smacks of racialist thinking, and may even be racist. But even were it benign, I just do not think it makes sense in the context of Jewish beliefs about being Jewish.

An admitedly very hypothetical example will illustrate my point. My family could have a practice of marrying only non-Jewish men. My father, three of my grandparents, seven of my greatgrandparents, and so on could all be non-Jews. I would have a very low percentage of "Jewish blood." But by the law of my people I would be 100% Jewish. SR

Genetically, it is now known that between 70 and 80 percent of paternal Ashkenazi lineages are from the Middle East, and that these lineages are related to Palestinian Arabs, Kurds, Anatolian Turks, Armenians, Syrians, and Lebanese. This leaves only about 25 percent of lineages which come from other sources (like Slavic and Khazar). The Eu 19 chromosomes are among the markers for a East-European as opposed to Israelite paternal lineage, and it is found among about 13 percent of Ashkenazi Jewish men. See the study by the Israeli scientist Ariella Oppenheim and her colleagues, "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001): 1095-1112. In maternal lineages the Slavic and/or Khazar components may be more significant than in the paternal lineages. Alexander Beider's book "A Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names" (2001) goes into a lot of detail about the Slavic-speaking Jews who lived in the Lithuanian Grand Duchy before the Yiddish-speaking Jews merged with them. They had East Slavic names like Kasper, Bogdan, Bogdana, Golosh, Ryzhko, Samodelka, Il'ya, and Domanya. Beider concluded that while we can't tell for sure, some of these East Slavic Jews could have been part-Khazar. But he also presents evidence that the Slavic Jews were numerically inferior to the Yiddish Jews. So historical and genetic evidence coincide. -- KAB

The above interesting quote does not make it clear that the same genetic fact may be said for almost anyone with European ancestry since it has been proven Europeans have a near-eastern genetic origin. This is besides the only really interesting relevant results ironically being for male lines which are not recognised by predominant "Jewish" law as valid lines of descent. Maybe Khazars are in part perhaps a bit of red-herring but the Avar case seems -much to the disappointment of a few Hungarian nationalists- to hold some answers User:Zestauferov

no russians

in 10th century there were no Russians. Rusins. Not Russians.

Were Ruthenes subject to the Varangian Russ?

Khazars'descent

You quote two books: 1) The thirteenth tribe by Arthur Koestler 2) The Jews of Khazaria by Kevin Alan Brook Both are quite interesting but to make it short: A. Koestler tries to demonstrate that in the present day askhenaz communities, the Khazar influence is predominant with no interferences from western european Jewish communities who were nearly extinct at the time and just could not initiate any mass migration to eastern europe. K.A. Brook, on the other hand, does not try any demonstration but only states in just a few lines that the present days Askhenaz Jews may, to some extent, have some Khazars ancestors but that this ascendancy was greatly influenced by migrants coming from western europ. Why not? I know that the subject is so sensitive that it is nearly a taboo, but, nevertheless when you try to find out hard facts about populations history (with no interests in the present days political implications)this is far from satisfactory. After all you being an encyclopedia should you not try to sort the problem out and help your visitors?

I am reverting Mikkalai's last deletion. It is always better to rephrase something which doesn't seem right rather than to completely censor the opinon just because it doesn't fit with our own. No hard feelings Mikkalai, but how can NPOV be achieved if people keep ommitting the POVs they don't like? Skillful editing involves taking two conflicting POVs and making them fit well together in the same article. Simply deleting them is the quick & easy way out.Zestauferov 05:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is about facts, not POVs. One cannot put into 'pedia every opinion on every subject. Go ahead, write an article in a magazine, with proofs and references, not just wild guesses. You may go ahead with obscure habiru, eberites, ets., but leave cossacks out of your wordplays, about which you seem to know much less. Mikkalai 05:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too Mikkalai. Check the history, I had nothing to do with the cossack thing. In fact I consider it personally to be erroneous, however, just because I have never come accross that argument and it seems totally wrong according to what I know, it does not make me a master of the Khazar question and I am not in a position to correct it. I suspect neither are you. The best thing to do is make a request next to the suspect info for references. If you do not replace it in such a way I am sure someone else will. All the best Zestauferov 05:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right. My fault.

The following section is removed from the body.

--Linguistics--

The word 'Khazar' is theorised to be the root of several other words, including cossack, hussar and 'ketzer' (an derogatory German term for a heretic), although the latter is more probably derived from the medieval Cathari gnostics. Some theories also consider Khazars to be ancestors of Terek cossacks.

First, it doesn't correspond to its title, second, it is not good to put each and every marginal theory in 'pedia, especially without refernces. It could be of encyclopedic value to know that such and such luminary thought this and that, but, I can think of quite a few "some theories" myself, basing on supereficial similarity of words only, without any historical traces of usage. Mikkalai 15:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

By the way, right here on by bookshelf sits a pretty serious article that endeavors to prove that Ilya Muromets was in fact a Jew (i.e., of Khazar descent). Very interesting, isn't it? But I have no desire to put it into wikipedia.Mikkalai 15:31, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

online version of Arthur Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe

Dear friends, maybe you know already that there is an online version of Arthur Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe available. Regards Gangleri 11:38, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

It appears that that site may contravene copyright laws; perhaps it's best to avoid it. Jayjg 05:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, we don't want to remove the book from the references section, as someone has just done. Whether or not one agrees with its conclusions, Koestler's book is one of only a handful of books on the Khazars available in English. Hence it should be listed here. Isomorphic 20:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue I raised was aiding and abetting copyright violation, not the books contents or conclusions. Jayjg 20:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right. I wasn't really responding to you, but to an edit made to the article by someone else. He made a bunch of edits at once, including removing Koestler's book from the References section. Sorry I wasn't clear. Isomorphic 21:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Koestler's book was totally unscientific, and is not a valid source to cite. Its "theories", such as they are, have long since been disproven by genetic testing. His historical sections were plaigarized wholesale from Dunlop, whose work is cited here. --Briangotts 03:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge/redistribute

Incidentally, while some people are paying attention to this article I'd like to point out the Khazaria article. I'm not sure how material should be distributed between Khazars and Khazaria, but the two should be a bit better integrated, or maybe even merged. Isomorphic 21:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Jayjg 21:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe the information on rulers should go into the Khazaria article. There's a lot there, and it's a ibt overwhelming where it is, but Khazaria is a shorter article and it might help flesh it out. Isomorphic 21:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all. Jayjg 21:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, now I'm thinking we should wait until Briangott finishes completely re-writing this article, and then re-visit the question. Jayjg 19:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have merged the articles in question. Thanks for bringing the Khazaria article to my attention. --Briangotts 03:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whither the Khazarische Jüden?

I'm going to be so bold as to propose something that is not only "New Research" but also not even mildly NPOV. I think the vast majority of Ashkenazim are of western European extraction, and that a very small minority of their number, especially prominent among the Litvaks, are descendants of the Khazarim. I also happen to believe that the fullest legitimate modern expression of Khazar Judaism is found, not among the Mizrachim of the Kurdish villages, but among the Tats and Gruzim of Azerbaijan and Kartveli Georgia. Another group (and this will perhaps draw criticism and create controversy) that I feel are closely connected with the Khazarim, are the Qara'im. Not only is their rise to prominence co-chronological with the conversion of the Khazarim, but their greatest descendancy is found among the Karaim of the Krimea and Lithuania. I think the historical rôle of the Khazars in Judaism, by Jews has been greatly underestimated, while its rôle by antisemites has been greatly overestimated, in completely different realms... TShilo12 10:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on some points, but as long as this new research is not backed by an authoritative source, we should keep it to the Talk page. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are concerned here with facts, not beliefs. The claims that Mountain Jews, Georgian Jews, and/or Karaites are descended from Khazars have to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as when this claim is applied to Ashkenazi Jews. So far the DNA evidence does not support the claim with regard to Mountain Jews, while to my knowledge no data has yet been released on the DNA of Crimean Karaites and Lithuanian Karaites, and Georgian Jews have DNA that apparently matches non-Jewish peoples of Georgia and environs. There is no reason to believe that Mountain Jews have any more, or any less, Khazar ancestry than Ashkenazi Jews. The Karaites' settlement in eastern Europe is not co-chronological with the era of the Khazar empire; Karaites first appear in historical sources geographically within eastern Europe only after Khazaria fell; the Karaite movement developed in the Middle East during Khazar times. -KAB

The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JOGG) has just published an extensive article that examines the last two decades of population genetics research related to Jewish populations. The author makes a rather compelling argument that there is a notable amount of genetic admixture that may be attributed to Khazar populations merging with Eastern European Ashkenazim. Recent studies examining a Khazar connection to Levite Jews are particularly interesting. Acarvin←Talk 23:39, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

interwikiconflict

Please see Template:Interwikiconflict#ru:Хазары and ru:Хазарский каганат about ru:Хазары and ru:Хазарский каганат. Thanks in advance! Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 09:12, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Foreign-language article links

How come they don't appear at the end of the article? Is there a way to make them appear?

They aren't supposed to appear at the bottom. Interlanguage links have their own behavior. I use a non-default Misplaced Pages skin where they appear at the top of the screen. I think the default skin has them appear on the left sidebar. Isomorphic 21:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, where they are placed in the article's source code doesn't affect where they display. It's just Misplaced Pages convention to put them at the bottom to make them easy to find. Isomorphic 21:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proper adjective

is "khazaric" the correct adjective to use in association with the khazars?Gringo300 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read (which is actually pretty extensive), the four adjectival forms I've encountered are, in order of frequency, "Khazar", "Khazarian", "Khazari" and "Khazaric". The selection of which of these four as the "correct adjective" seems to be the preference of the individual author. Without actually polling the popularity of each of these adjectival forms, I'd say "Khazar" comprises about 60%, "Khazarian" about 25%, "Khazari" about 12% and "Khazaric" about 3%. As a cursory study of Google hits will demonstrate, "Khazaric" is a relatively rare form, and I'm guessing that it's likely that a study of the literature using that form will demonstrate a consistent viewpoint among its authors. Tomer 08:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Most scholarly sources use "Khazar" as both a nown and an adjective. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about the other options. --Briangotts 13:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I just rewrote the intro in an attempt to answer the "so what" question quickly and succinctly. If in doing so I've introduced any inaccuracy, please correct it. Isomorphic 03:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Khazar origin

Um, yes, there is controversy. Certainly some anti-Jewish groups use Khazar descent as a propaganda tool, but that doesn't mean it's false. While the Khazars do not make up a majority of the Ashkhenazi bloodline as was once claimed, it is near certain that at least a few Khazars went to Europe. There's no historical record of genocide, and they didn't just vanish into thin air, so lots of Khazars went somewhere. The question is to what extent the Khazars mixed with the rest of the Jewish community. Isomorphic 05:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt matter how many. They do not make a substantial part of Ashkenazic Jewry and they are now a part of the Jewish people. If they do not make a majority, there should be no "controversy". It deserves a mention that they are a part of the Jewish nation and Ashkanazic Jewry, but it doesnt deserve the controversy title.

Guy Montag 06:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that there is major controversy among scholars; rather, that there is a lot of politics and strong feelings around the issue. After all, you just finished calling the whole thing a myth propagated by neo-nazis. I wouldn't really call Arthur Koestler a neo-nazi, considering that he was Jewish and actually thought (for some reason) that if he could show that Ashkhenazi Jews were not actually Hebrews, it would reduce antisemitism. Isomorphic 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I hope you didnt take my edits as an attack on you. What I should have wrote is that neo nazis have hijacked this claim for themselves as an argument to cast doubt on Jewish claims to Israel by saying that the Jews who are there are not the descendants of the "real Jews" who vanished or as they like to claim, are White Anglo Saxons, or some other rubbish. Along with that there is an entire theological basis for who is Jewish which has little to do with genetics and more to do with the Jewish way of life. I hope you accept the modification to the claim.

Guy Montag 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack. I'm still not completely satisfied; I want it to mention the politicized nature of the issue. I'll try another edit. Feel free to edit what I write. Isomorphic 19:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not trying to endorse anything. I just think that the intro should mention the political aspects of the issue, since that's the context in which most people might see it. People rarely care about the finer points of the history of dead civilizations unless they're trying to use them for politics of one sort or another. Isomorphic 20:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that your additions are satisfactory. Do you happen to know among whom there is a heated discussion? The reason I ask is, that if it is only among fringe types it should be mentioned, if not, it is fine as it is.

Guy Montag 20:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler's book was widely read, and is still one of only three books on the Khazars in my college library. So the Khazar-origin theory quite is well-known. Is that what you meant? Isomorphic 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Do mainstream professors hold his theories as legitimate or do only fringe types? i think this is a better way to phrase the question.

Guy Montag 21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Guy is pointing out that the only people who push Koestler's theory are non-scientists with an agenda. Which, now that I think of it, applies perfectly to Koestler himself. Jayjg 21:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going for. Thanks Jayjg.

Guy Montag 21:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anybody mainstream thinks that the Khazars make up a majority of the Ashkhenazi bloodline. However, there is serious support for the Khazars being a non-trivial minority. Kevin Alan Brook believes this, for example. Isomorphic 21:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

True enough, at least on the male side. The problem is it's really hard to figure out what percentage that "non-trivial minority" actually is, as we don't have any examples of Khazar DNA. Jayjg 22:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. I was just clarifying that the issue isn't completely closed, that it's not just a fringe theory, and that it's appropriate to mention it. Even Koestler's theory wasn't ridiculous when he proposed it, it just doesn't appear to be true given modern research. Isomorphic 22:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Koestler's book wasn't serious work. He had an agenda, and he mostly plagiarized actual historians. Jayjg 22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Never said his book was good. Just that the theory, at the time, wasn't ridiculous. Anyway, this is veering into side discussion. I think nobody objects to the current wording. Isomorphic 22:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I dont object. I was further inquiring to see if any more additions are necessary. It seems that we came to the conclusion that they are not.

Guy Montag 05:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is there is no evidence that Jews made up a majority of the Khazars, in fact there is no real evidence they even made up a significant portion of the population beyond a few upper nobility. The only reason they converted in the first place was because Jews were seen as the lesser evil to both Muslims and Christians. Furthermore the genetic test was more conclusive that this article suggests, if it was possible that Khazars made up any more of a part of the modern population than any other local women then the mitochondrial DNA of the the matrinealial line wouldn't have been so jumbled. So unless there are a sections devoted to a possible minute Hungarian, French, German, etc. etc. contributions to modern Ashkenazi Jewish DNA it doesn't make very much sense to have one in this article unless it is only here to refute the theory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting question

Is there a way to put an image next to the TOC, under the History of Russia box, to fill in that blank space? I think it would look better. I have a couple images I'd like to add. --Briangotts 21:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. I usually just play with this stuff. Sometimes it even works. :-) Jayjg 22:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I took a minute or so and played around with it. Check out this diff . You'll notice the image appears under the template, which still leaves a bit of space, but at least it's not that huge gaping wound. Don't use that image, obviously, as it fits in much better down further in the text, from whence I ripped the wikiformatting for it. :-p Tomer 00:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I will find something appropriate when I have a chance. --Briangotts 14:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How's that? --Briangotts 13:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks a bit smallish, but it's probably good--I have my monitor set on pretty high resolution. Good work. Tomer 15:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jayjg 16:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Break up article?

I hate even to suggest it, because I like the way this article is organized, but should we think about splitting it up? It is now 41 KB in length, and the suggested maximum on Misplaced Pages is 32. --Briangotts 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)

It's not a hard and fast rule, though it's a generally good ieda; if there's a particularly large sub-section that could logically be removed, then you could hive it off. I'd work on footnotes first if I were you. ;-) Jayjg 28 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)
I have to wonder...I'm all for splitting up big articles, but how would you propose to split this one up? None of the sections seem particularly large enough to consititute articles of their own, and splitting off "History of the Khazars" as a set of sections seems almost oxymoronic, since the Khazars are, essentially, only History... :-p For now, while the file length seems from the strict constructionist's standpoint to be a WP style problem, I don't think that the article itself warrants splitting. Tomer June 29, 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Which map is better

the one used in the article or http://de.wikipedia.org/Bild:Chasaren.jpg ? 02:49, 14 August 2005 172.177.50.53

The one used currently shows some polities not shown on the German map, though the German one is MUCH nicer on the eyes. What is the source of the German map? I'm also not sure about the propriety of putting a German map on an English Misplaced Pages article. I have added a link to the map though and am interested to see what others think. --Briangotts (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to edit it and translate the terms, if anyone is up to it. Or find the source, and ask them to. It's a nice map. Jayjg 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Having a look on the german history of the article will show the source. The image was drawn by a german wikipedian. Formerly we used a much worse map, based on english material, which was translated step by step when drawing the first sketch of the map. If I were you, of course I would translate the tribes from german to english. 172.180.112.37 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (anonymous, since I havent got an english account, sorry)

Conflict

How do proponents of the Khazar theory answer this- No archeological evidence exists whatsoever linking the Khazars to Judaism-while vast stores of judaica are constantly discovered in western Europe no ritual object has ever been discovered in relation to the Khazars, no torah scroll or Prayer book has ever been found written by a Khazar. Although according to the theory Khazaria abounded with yeshivoth-there is not even one known Khazarian Rabbi or work of jewish law originating in Khazaria. The Khazar legend originated with Ibn-Shaprut of Spain-history records him as searching for a Jewish kingdom prior to "discovering" the Khazars.(much like a commited ufologist finally having an "encounter") His actual correspondence appears to be a forgery-King Josephs replies seem to be more the work of a spanish Rabbi-than a central asian king. It is suggested that Ibn Shapruth was fearful of Spanish anti-semitism and created the Khazars to frighten opponents of the Jews. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi's work is clearly fictional. beyond these source little else exists to support the theory other than a couple of vague comments by travellers regarding "jews beyongd the mountains". The theory resurfaced in 19th Europe-yet its few proponents were politically motivated-and since then the theory has only attracted anti-semites. So how are my changes vandalism-Overwhelming evidence???? no evidence exists that jewish khazars existed.

You are quite mistaken. Saadya Gaon, who lived in the generation before Hisdai, referred to the Jewishness of the Khazars, as did numerous Karaite authors. Abraham ibn Daud wrote of meeting Khazar yeshiva students in 12th century Toledo.

Nobody has suggested that the Kuzari is to be taken as a non-fiction account.

Scores of contemporary Arab writers, including al-Masudi and ibn Fadlan, also report Jewish Khazars. Likewise Byzantine sources such as Constantine VII, St. Cyril, and Christian of Stavelot, all of whom lived either contemporaneously or before Hisdai ibn Shaprut. Early Russian sources likewise refer to the Khazars as Jews.

The Kievian Letter is written by Jews, some of whom have Turkic names, and signed by a Khazar official in Turkic runiform script. The Schechter Text is written by a Jewish Khazar. The Madngellis Document refers to the Jewish Khazar ruler David.

The suggestion that ibn shaprut invented the Khazars to "frighten" his opponents is one I have never heard. Please cite a scholarly work which states so. I suspect none exists.

Khazar burial practices shifted from pagan to Jewish-style burials in the early 9th century. Bricks from Sarkel featured stars of David and menorahs.

How many eleven hundred year old Torah scrolls, tallits, tefillins, etc. have survived to the modern day from any region in the world? By your logic there is no proof for the existence of Jews on most of the Earth through most of history.

While I have seen much debate over the timing and extent of the Conversion, you are the first person I have ever run into to outright deny it ever happened. This is original research (in the flimsiest sense of the word). --Briangotts (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What I will say, is that the Khazar myth has simply blossomed "yesh m-ayin". Only a few Arab writers mention Jewish Khazars-and many of these references don't directly refer to\Khazars, but might refer to Khazars. Bear in mind there are medieval references that support all\sorts of things-two-headed men dragons etc. There are more references to Israelites in the Americas. The Kievan letter in no way proves the existance of Jewish Khazars. As for burials-sheer nonsense, and really dishonest research. Boodies found, assumed to be Khazars, and then extrapolate they must be Jewish since the pagan practice of burying posessions isnt evident!!!!! So any body found without treasure anywhere is a jew. No actual Jewish symbols were found-why????? Many thousand Jewish artifacts remain over a thousand years old. And why no famous Khazar Rabbis???????????or responsa????? If the King in ibn Shapruts correspondence was as erudite(and fluent in Hebrew) as he appeared to be why isnt he a quoted Halachic figure???-why isnt he a Jewish hero?????this is impossible!remember Akiva was convert. Saadya Gaon was relying on Ibn Shaprut-this is common , Rabbis relying on the word of other Rabbis-The Gemarah is full of it. I could quote pages of absurd and untrue statements by Rishonim Ahronim etc. And why no substantial communication with other communities or even individuals after the Ibn Shaprut correspondence. Surely more mention would have existed if the story was true. Most of all Ibn Shaprut was looking for a existant Jewish kingdom prior to "finding" the Khazars. The story was taken as a fairytale until a few Maskilim promoted the Idea in the late nineteenth century-like Ibn Shaprut they were trying to counter anti-semitism-as was Koestler. The reality is the primary source evidence for this myth is almost non-existant-more proof exists linking the British Royal family to Congoid pygmies-I think that the Misplaced Pages entry is misleading in presenting the Khazar myth as fact-read Ibn Shaprut with an open mind-no such king ever existed-and not enough positive evidence exists to suggest that he did! That is the funny thing with the Khazar theory, the question of whether Ashkenazim are of Khazar descent is debated-the obvious reality that the Jewish Khazars never existed is overlooked. I feel the entry should offer this perspective, Jews leave very large footprints wherever they go-due to the literate nature of Jeiwsh society-these "remarkable" jews vanished leaving a few hexagons and very vague quotes by travellers. Even id Ashkenazim tried to conceal and destroy evidence of their "convert" yichus-they surely didnt travel to cnetral asia to scrub hebrew inscriptions off graves-and why dont "jewish Khazar graves" contain the hebrew lettering(that the king knew so well) and All Jewish graves of that era contained???? Were they trying to be low key?

Please explain how Saadya Gaon could rely upon Hisdai ibn Shaprut when he preceeded him by half a century. The rest of your argument is so disjointed, illogical, and full of straw men arguments that I am at a loss how to begin responding. --Briangotts (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Strawmen arguments-pointing out that no actual evidence exists suggesting that the Jewish Khazars were. That there is no memory of any Khazaric Rabbis, responsa, no found artifacts,no ritual objects, nothing. Strawmen arguments-doubting that a Jewish capital existed on an island in the middle of the volga. Suggesting that a Jewish leader who constantly was forced to debate Catholic clerics, who alleged that the Jews were rejected by God since they had no Kingdom-might have had a motive for making the whole thing up. Strawmen arguments-pointing out that little else exists but ibn-shapruts writings. No prizes for guessing the original letters of the king were lost. You are the one asserting the absurd and denying the obvious-a theory with so little evidence that it is hard to argue against it-like convincing a madman that there isnt a pink elephant hovering above his head. I think the entry should include these points.

Can you please provide a source for your novel theory that the Jewish Khazars never existed? Jayjg 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is there arent many sources suggesting they did. What source do you want? like saying provide a source that UFO's never existed. Actually numerous jewish scholars doubt they existed-one was Isaiah Berlin.

Can you quote him please? Jayjg 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. Isaiah Berlin is a political philosopher, not an archaeologist or a historian. Even if it's true that he said so, whether the Khazars existed or not is as far outside his area of competence as international relations is outside Noam Chomsky's. --Briangotts (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you argue that there were no Jews in 6th century Yemen, and that the evidence of Jewish kings in Himyar is a complete fabrication, simply because they are not "Jewish heros" (by your conception) and they produced no great works of halakha until a much later period? --Briangotts (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I also suppose that the vast Saadya Gaon-Hisdai ibn Shaprut-Yehuda halevi conspiracy had the scores (not "a few") of Muslim and Christian sources for the Jewishness of the Khazars as members? Amazing, so much ecumenical cooperation!--Briangotts (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You really want to believe this theory!! The Jews of Yemen exist today! If a distict Khazarian community , claiming outright to be descended from Khazars and speaking a Khazarian dialect and calling their sons Bulan-I would believe in jewish Khazars. And the Saadya Gaon/Ibn Shapruth "conspiracy" isnt exactly vast. And the "scores" of sources, when examined, arent exactly very convincing. For instance the famous "kievan letter" doesnt really mention jewish khazars-just possible Jews with Turkic names

In kevin brooks own words-n the early 10th century, the Khazarian Jews of Kiev wrote a Hebrew-language letter of recommendation on behalf of one of the members of their community, whose name was Yaakov bar Hanukkah. The letter is known as the Kievan Letter and was discovered in 1962 by Norman Golb of the University of Chicago. The names of the Kievan Jews are of Turkic, Slavic, and Hebrew origins, such as Hanukkah, Yehudah, Gostata, and Kiabar. Scholars disagree as to whether these Jews were Israelites who had merely adopted local names, or whether their local names were a sign of their Turkic Khazarian origin

In other words the Kievan letter proves nothing along with all the other quotes(on close inspection. So what, Jews with turkish names-so Jews with names Harold or Irving are Norman or Celt(or whatever)???? The name Hanukah is popular amongst mountain jews. Another hint at the non-truth of the Khazar Bobe mayse is its startling similarity to old talmudic "lost tribes over the River Sambatyon" stories, even in terms of location. Doesnt Ibn-shapruth say the capital was "sambat"? Bit suspicious

and the theory is further discredited-from the Sephardic sages website- "Hisdai's correspondence (written by Menahem ben Saruq) with a Jewish Khazar king, Joseph, is of historic importance. The Khazars, a Turkic people dwelling in southern Russia, had converted to Judaism in the middle of the 8th century AD. Hisdai's letter and the king's response led a shadowy existence until their unexpected publication in the 16th century CE. After much controversy, the authenticity of both letters and the accuracy of their information seem well established." So even the original source is second-hand and suspect. I might add that one indication of the level of "scholarship" on this topic is the fact that there is an actual "smoking gun" text,however, not one, not even one, of the proponents has discovered it, but believe me buried amidst mounds of old rabbinic literature is a beauty-a real "smoking gun" -personally I think it is another bobe mayse by a rabbi with a fertile imagination-but I aint telling you where or what it is-but believe me it is a beauty.

Ibn Shaprut never says that the capital was Sambat. The capital was Itil. You invented this detail along with the rest of your "theory", to which you cling despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You have yet to provide any solid evidence for your beliefs that make them appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Cite a scholarly source that supports your beliefs, or write an article and have it published in a peer reviewed journal. Until then edits to the effect that the Khazars never converted to Judaism will be reverted. --Briangotts (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am planning to write an article disproving the Khazar theory and exposing the fraud-the fact that none of the "primary sources" really specifically mention the Jewish Khazars. Like I say , beneath mounds of obscure rabbinic literature exists what you would regard a smoking gun-that puts any of your sources to shame(including the Ibn Shaprut letters)-if you know so much why havent you found it-I gaurantee it is there.

So what IS the overwhelming evidence for the Jewish khazars-do tell? and I cant find the Saadia Gaon quote anywhere-does it exist?

I look forward to reading your article. --Briangotts (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to publish such an article. Elsewhere. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for original research, so we recommend to you one of the many history or archaeology journals that do serve such a purpose. Isomorphic 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny that my suggestion that the Jewish Khazars didnt exist is regarded as "original"-the Khazars were always regarded as a fairytale and the Jewish scholars that "proved" they did in the 19th were commited members of the Haskalah(emancipation) (I might add I am not orthodox myself) and had very very clear-cut reasons to promote the idea-they felt that if they showed that Jewish traditon arent that ancient, jews would modernise. Ibn Shapruts letters are very very suspect-and if not a forgery in the first place-were a later forgery-remember they were "discovered" in the 16th century. Old Jewish encyclopedias were generally very much written by proponents of the emancipation. The extent to which the Emancipation movement hijacked and distorted Jewish History is actually incredible. It is time that intertested peoples start sifting through the actual evidence and facts and start re-writing Jewish history as it might have occured.

Can you quote sources who advance the same thesis you are proposing? Jayjg 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a productive discussion. Please cite scholars who agree with your interpretation, or take your thoughts to another forum. There is no point trying to convince us of anything, since even if you succeeded, Misplaced Pages policy requires us to reflect external sources, not our own beliefs. Isomorphic 14:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There are more sources that agree with my viewopint that disagree with it. I will post them soon ..another bogus khazar quote-Rabbi Petachia-clearly refering to karaites. Notice the proponents of the KHazar theory never actually quote Rabbi petachia but make reference to it-

The text of the article doesn't even say that Rabbi Petachiah refers to the Judaism of the Khazars, only that he passed through their country (and mentioned it by name) two full centuries after they were crushed by the Rus and encountered people who lived in perpetual mourning (who may or may not have been Khazars and may or may not have been Karaites). The Petachiah quote excerpted here is about his report of Jewish kings in "Meshech". What you are doing (again) is setting up straw men. Khazaria.com has a wide array of quotes from independent sources, many of whom lived thousands of miles apart and never heard of one another, that refer to the Judaism of the Khazars. Write your article, get it published in a peer reviewed, reliable and scholarly source and then you can add whatever addendum you wish about your "alternative theory".--Briangotts (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As point of fact, the assertion that the Jewishness of the Khazars was regarded as a fairy tale until recent times is a total fabrication. Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov, ibn Tibbon, and other Jewish scholars who discussed Halevy's Kuzari clearly regarded the Khazars as a historical people and their Jewishness as a historical fact. And the Khazars and their Jewishness have been mentioned in numerous historical works for centuries- including those by Graetz and Dubnow, who refer to earlier writers, and whose research probably included sources lost to us today. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Date crusade

Please do not bring the "date crusade" to this article, particularly with the claim that Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras requires either AD or the absence of CE. In fact, MOS states:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

--Briangotts (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Link

If I understand correctly, Kevin Brook, operator of Khazaria.com and author of the excellent Jews of Khazaria, has removed a link to another interesting website claiming that it is a personal attack on his work (how can a criticism of one's scholarly work be "personal"?)

I have restored the link. I see nothing in the essay that is a personal attack. It is one person (who has done a considerable amount of research himself) commenting on information found in Khazaria.com and other sites. Indeed Finkelshteyn expresses admiration for Brook's accomplishments. I think the removal of this link is unwarranted and unbecoming a scholar. --208.211.44.22 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If a response has been posted, that should be linked as well. --Briangotts (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I do wonder about the three links to Finkelshteyn's website and the two links to Brook's website. I would think one link to each website in the external links should be enough.Shsilver 17:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually would leave the link deleted, since a legitimate reason for removing the link, as mentioned by the person who removed it, is that it deals critically with something the remover's website used to say, not with what it says now. Tomer 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely a personal attack by Finkelshteyn who I believe has a vendetta against me. He targets me in that page, instead of the people who actually wrote those quotes and came up with those ideas. Additionally, he doesn't quote what I currently have at the page, and therefore portrays me in a bad light, as if I pass along bad research and never correct it or analyze it. That is not true. We learn new things each year. He took a few select quotes out of context and presents it as if it's my research methodology or as if I still believe these things are valid. Finkelshteyn has not read my book even 6 years after its publication and refuses to reference my book in his main bibliography on his site. He does not even refer to any of my later research from after 1999. He claims those few examples "are typical of how he approaches his sources", in an "extremely sloppy", ahistorical approach, with "fascile assumptions". Actually, I constantly update my knowledge and revise my conclusions based on this new knowledge and have reconsidered the views of certain archaeologists and historians which he had rightly questioned. In July 2005 I caught him using the phrase "sloppy English oversimplifiers" (there's that word sloppy again!) in the Khazar-Fiction discussion group to refer to what people's opinion supposedly is of both Koestler AND me, but in reality I feel he's referring to his own view, and certainly he can speak only for himself. He also uses the phrase "rosey-colored glasses" to refer to me, on his links webpage, i.e. pretending that I don't see things as they really are, but through a prism or bias of some sort. Years ago to public forums like newsgroups he attacked me by calling me a "fruit with some sort of agenda" and with "some sort of chip on his shoulder" (see his post of February 14, 1996 to rec.org.sca). All this shows his attitude towards me, that he would list a truly irresponsible work like Koestler's but not my book or articles. Mr. Silver has a good point about the lack of necessity for duplicate links to the same sites when there is straight-forward navigation on them. If you want to know my actual research methods and see some updated knowledge see my article "The Origins of East European Jews" in Russian History/Histoire Russe 30:1-2 (2003) or my forthcoming second edition and do not rely on my outdated book's first edition. I will continue to defend my reputation against those who claim I have a bias, an agenda, or an improper research methodology. - KAB 18 October 2005

Chernigov

The cite for Chernigov as a Khazar town is:

Pritsak, Omeljan. "The Pre-Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe in Relation to the Khazars, the Rus', and the Lithuanians". Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in HIstorical Perspective, ed. Howard Aster and Peter J. Potichnyj. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1990. p. 7.

Erasure

My edit of 12 November, 2005 came from New International Encyclopedia, which is a high-quality encyclopedia. Why was my edit destroyed? Superslum 18:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the bit about Cyril in a more appropriate spot. I think the other material was already covered elsewhere in the article. Isomorphic 07:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist Opinion

It is stated in this article that 'The Khazar theory has been adopted by many anti-Zionists, especially in the Arab world; such proponents of the theory argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar in origin, then they would be exempt from God's promise of Canaan to Israelites as recorded in the Bible, were one to ignore that the promise also applies to converts, and the fact that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi.'

This is only part of a two-pronged argument, using the Khazar theory. The cited example uses the Khazar theory *in conjunction* with Religious Zionist Logic (i.e. that God promised Palestine to the Children of Israel) and is probably the least used part of the argument.

The part of the argument using the Khazar theory which is probably the most popular is designed to counter a fundamentally racist Zionist belief that Jews occupied the land thousands of years ago and therefore have some genetic claim to the land right now. In arguing that the majority of Ashkenazim (and thereby the majority of Israeli Jews) are not genetically related to Semitic Jews of ancient History, but to the Eastern Khazars, an attempt is made to discredit the racist Zionist argument.

It would be nice to see this page accurately reflect this anti-racist use rather than an attempt to counter the patently ridiculous religious justification.- Sign your name in the future

Give me a Break, the "fundamentally racist Zionist belief that Jews occupied the land thousands of years ago"?, take your rants elsewere. Are you trying to suggest that we never really lived in the land? Did you miss your David Duke meeting or something and decided to take your frustration out on us? And in the future sign your name after a comment, it makes it really confusing if you don't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks and quoting out of context are not particuarly helpful. He wasn't saying that the belief that they lived there was fundamentally racist, but rather that using that belief as an argument for Zionism was. I would urge you to be more civil in your discourse. Generic69 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, dear Generic69, it is wrong to blame MCHS for being uncivil after the anon adopting a popular notion among anti-Semites "Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar" and repeating allegations of Zionism being racist, which was rescinded even by the unreformed UN. The applicable policy here is WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The applicable policy is the incivility of Mr. Al-Silverburg. If a user wants to express his opinion on a talk page in the context of making a suggestion about changes to the article that's well within his rights. Generic69 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA means discussing the argument and not the person. While I agree that MCHS could have chosen a nicer language, the original post should not be overlooked. This is not only about "being nice". I someone uses/supports/spreads antisemitic allegations, I don't see a problem calling their arguments antisemitic. ←Humus sapiens 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(Added some indents to make clearer who posted what. Play nice, children :) PiCo 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

you are a very good examaple of leftist ignorance and racism.(the one who opened this thread)

and what zionsim have to do with racism? do you know the principles of zionism? did read the protocols of the elders if zion? please save your:"i dont have problems with jews but i oppose zionsim" bullshit. zionism is a movement that is goal is to build a jewish nation for the jews. nothing more than that. not an evil organization that want to take over the world. and one more thing,why when russians daily killing dozens of chechens just beacuse they want to,and no one gives a ****.why when serbs slaughtering bosnians no body calling their nationlist group"racist"? not even mention what the europeans did to the poor natives of america,but nobody calling ameica racist. did you know that before 65 years there was no such entity "palestians? untill then they just called "arabs". did you that the brtish mandte gave the arabs the west Jordan,until then it was part of israel. but arabs wanted all israel without jews. and if the arabs so like their palestians brothers? why dont give them some of their land? they have half of the ****ing world!

i know you are anti-jewish,dont use your anti-zionist mask.

im a mountain jew,and we are not khazrs(as you wanted it to be).we are a branch of the persian judaism and immigrated to the Caucasus.

hebrews and khazars

apparently, pure-blooded hebrews aren't khazars, and pure-blooded khazars aren't hebrews. however, logically hebrews and khazars could have interbred.

reportedly, before their conversion to judaism, the khazars didn't use the hebrew language. this makes me wonder: how familiar were they with the hebrew language before they actually adopted it as their language? and if they were familiar with it before they adopted it, for how long before were they familiar with it?

Gringo300 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Hebrew was "adopted" as the Khazar language. The only documents we have that were definitely written in Hebrew by Khazars are the King Joseph's Letter and the Schechter Letter, both of which were written to non-Khazar Jews in Spain. --Briangotts 04:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

obviously, archeology must be a very frustrating job. Gringo300 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the Soviets purposely flooded the Khazar site that had the most intact artifacts, Sarkel, and that Atil too is supposedly underwater now, I imagine that Khazar archeology is even more frustrating than most other types... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Asimov quote

I removed "'If I could trace my origins to Judas Maccabaeus or King David, that would not add one inch to my stature. It may well be that many East European Jews are descended from Khazars, I may be one of them. Who knows? And who cares?' -Isaac Asimov". The quote is not cited. Where did Asimov make it, and in what context? If it's properly cited it might be appropriate to include it in a separate paragraph giving Asimov's view on the subject or lending Asimov's authority to the opinion that the alleged Khazar descent of Ashkenazim is irrelevant today. The quote should not stand alone, even if attributed. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article

This is a very interesting article for several reasons, not least of which is the historical maps! Badagnani 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is really a great article.--Rob117 16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Map of the World c. 820

I hate to nitpick a really good article, but the Map of the World c. 820 seems a wee bit fanciful. Tibet includes Burma in one vast empire? Sez 'oo? Nice to see the Thais get so much space, but I don't think it's quite right. I think the map is a valient attempt at the unattainable. PiCo 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the Thais on the map. I don't think they had a kingdom at the time. The one on the map is the Khemer Empire, which was roughly that size. I don't know about Tibet, but it did reach to Bangledash. It is pretty close but could be moved a bit. 12.220.94.199 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- The map is derived from the Cassell Atlas of World History, by John Haywood (Cassel, 1998). Sorry if it appears a "wee bit fanciful" to you, but with respect, Tibet's sphere of influence during this period did indeed extend south to the Bay of Bengal and included most of what is now northern Burma. And there are no Thai polities on the map. The one you are referring to is the Khmer Empire; the Thais did not arrive on the scene from Yunnan until roughly the 13th century. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories: