Talk:Kabar

[Untitled]

The contention that the ancient Kabars had anything to do with the Avars is erroneous. All of the ancient primary sources agree that the Kabars were rebel Khazar tribes who joined the proto-Magyars in their emigration from the Ukraine to the Danube.

I understand how this confusion might have come about. Modern Kabards belong to a modern ethnic group called Avars, whose relation, if any, to the ancient Avars is dubious and in much dispute. Language is not a static thing. Names change over 1500 years.

Wrong, Kabars were the second wave of Avars according to the published historians linguists on the matter, e.g. and Archaeologists Bunardzic, Zivanovic, Wexler, Erdelyi, Vikhnovich, and Brook.82.6.29.26 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ddama

Previously the page was a redirect to the Avar page (the one that described the ancient ones), so it's better that it stays as a disambiguation page because there may be other outdated/wrong references like that, and we have a proper page for Kabards anyway. You can tack on the fact that it's wrong in the article. --Shallot 08:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It would make little sense to include the Kabars as a tack-on to the Avar article. It would be equivalent to having a redirect from French language to Spanish language and a mention on the Spanish page that there was such a thing as French. Ok, the analogy isn't great, but Kabars do not = Avars at all, so the redirect is clearly in error. If there is going to be a Kabar page it should talk about Kabars.

Wiki is pretty handy. There's a "What links here" tab. I'll fix any links broken by this change.

Ddama

Ddama can you produce references for your ancient your sources please? Zestauferov 16:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't recall the primaries at the moment, but Peter Golden's Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples and Khazar Studies would be good places to start looking. Please note that my computer recently dropped dead, so my Wikipedia access will be intermittent until I can obtain repairs or a new computer.

Ddama

Thts ok Ddama, take your time. I hope all goes well for youZestauferov 12:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kavar and Star Wars

Kavar is also the name of a somewhat prominent character from the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Problem is, Kavar redirects to this page. How can this be resolved? Imperialles 20:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured out how to make disambiguation pages. Searching for Kavar will now lead to such a page. Imperialles

Clarification of some confusions

1. Kabars are clearly a Turkic tribe, not an Alan tribe. The Alans where an Indo-European (Nort-Western Iranian sub-group)tribal cluster who emigrated toward the Western Europe after the forth century and than in North Africa, where they founded, toghether with the Vandals, the short lived Kingdom of Vandals and Alans. When the Kabars appeared in the North Pontic steppe, the Alans where not anymore in the area since centuries.

2. After the defeat from the hands of the Cuman tribe, the Hungarians and them allies, the Turkic Kabars retreated toward north, along the Dnestr River, because the Cumans just beginned to control the lowlands of the actual Moldavia and Romania and forbided the retreat of the Hungarians and Kabars toward Transsylvania. Arpad and his tribal confederation of Hungarians and Kabars crossed the Carpations in the nowday Zakarpatia Region of Ukraine, in order to swiftly and efficiently attack from the rear the Swiatopluk's Slavic state.

3. The Hungarians made several plundering raids and conquest attempts into Transsylvania, as proved by the archeological evidences and by the historical accounts, during the 10th century. And actually conquered this territory later in the 11th century, in a sistematic manner, after the Christianisation of the Hungarian People.

Please make the necessary corrections to the article, Sincerely yours, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 09:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it helps to sign your name at the end.

Second of all, original research is NOT permitted in Wikipedia. Before I talk about Kabardins, your assumption that Kabardins don't come from Alans is correct, however, your assumption that all Alans disappeared into history is incorrect. Ossetians of North Caucasus, whose self-designation has always been 'Iron' (a cognate of 'Alan'; both are variants of the word 'Aryan') who speak an Indo-European Iranian language, descend from the historical Alans, settling in Caucasus in early middle ages due to the Mongol drive to the west.

Now, Kabardins are a tribe of Adyghe (Circassian) peoples, who during the 13th-14th centuries resettled from the west Caucasus to where they are now to form Greater and Lesser Kabardas. Confirming the fact that they are Caucasian in origin rather than Turkic is their language, which belongs to the Northwest Caucasian language group. Caucasian language family, in case you don't know, has nothing in common with Indo-European and Turkic language families, or any other language families, other than the Basque language of Iberian peninsula, with the proposal that Basque and Caucasian languages share a common origin now being mainly accepted by scholars.

Where you got your information that Kabardins are a Turkic people is a mystery to me, but I'll be glad to know your source and continue this argument with you to prove your assertion wrong. Even Kabardins themselves don't consider themselves Turkic, and your assertion is more reminiscent of the typical Turkish propaganda which tries to pigeonhole every group of people that are relatively unknown as being Turkic. This kind of Turkish "research" has no place in this encyclopedia, let alone ANY. Or perhaps you were confused by the fact that today in Caucasus, there is a republic of Kabardino-Balkaria. Now, Balkars speak a Turkic language, but they and Kabardins only share the republic where they constitute the majority, and not their origin or language. --24.188.136.219 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Err...someone had referred to Kabardins as Kabars with a link, causing this confusion. Don't mind my post above --24.188.136.219 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my original post at the Karachay, NOT Kabardin article: ''It is well known that the Alans was an more than 3000 years old and prestigious north-western iranian people of indo-european descent. During the first centuries AD, they competed with the other north-western iranian peoples of indo-european descent -the Sarmatians- over the stepe territory between the Don and Volga. After them defeat on the hands of the Huns in the year 370, they begun their westward migrations together with the Vandals, Goths and other migrating peoples. Some of the Alans settled in Ukraine, Pannonia, Gaul, Hispania and Africa (modern day Hungary, France, Spain and Tunisia) and assimilated with the local peoples.Some of the Alans, retreated from the stepe into the Caucasus Mountains and become the modern - day Ossetians. It is remarcable that the modern-day Ossetians are still using the north-western iranian language and they are still calling themselves "iron" (meaning "of iranian descent"). But some of the Alans, retreated into the actual area of Karachay and settled on the northen slopes of the Caucasus Range.

After abb. 800 years, during the middle 11-th century, the Mongolian Invasion pushed the Turkic warriors of the stepes toward the Caucasus Mountains (as previousely the Huns pushed Alans)and the newly arrived Turkic tribes mingled with the Highland Alans.

The resulting people, the actual Karachays, are a Turkic - speaking people who adopted Islam in the 15-th century. Therefore, the Karachays have some partial Alan ancestry and they did not remained faithfull to the indo-european and iranian language, as the Ossetians did.

Therefore I NEVER said that Kabardins are Turkic ! 1- I know that there is alot of crappy and boring Turkish propaganda propaganda which tries to pigeonhole every group of people that are relatively unknown as being Turkic. 2- I know very well that the Caucasian language family has nothing in common with Indo-European and Turkic language families. I know very well that the Kabardins are Caucasians ! 3- I know that the Balkars and Karachay are Turkic and I know that the Alans and them offspring - the Ossetians - are a North-Iranian people. In fact I wrote an article about the Iranian origin of the Alans and respectively Ossetians. 4- As a matter of fact I have an extensive record about the peoples of Caucasus (Caucasians, Indo-European and Turkic )and I can provide further informations about them, in order to avoid confusions and crap propaganda you are talking.

Take care with your comments... Regards, and Good Luck. User:Transsylvanian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Erdelier (or shall I say seitsenlinnalainen) welcome to the at least 11.000 years old Finno Ugrian world. Your ascenders are of one of the Onogr heimos (tribes) not Indo European origin known also today as Mansi (Magyari / Madjaari) kansa (people). Nothing to do with much later Indo European peoples, the last Indo Iranians in European soil were the members of Kyyros and Dareios soldiers above the Caucasus. The Uandals were not Indo Iranians. Yes, some stayed in Tunisian soil around ancient Karthago, but packed their belongins to their horses, camels and donkies and wandered through Sahara to Niger bend and Rain Lake where they formed an ancient Kingdom of Sao. German explorers before 1914 find there at least 30 settlements which had pure Finno Ugrian names. Please stop spreading the Indo Iranian propaganda regarding the Kaverit (Linguistical Ystävät / Friends). The Skyytit (Scythians) had much closer ties to Han people in China than to any of Iranian tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.113.243 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Magyar Material

Dear Nostradamus1, the reason I have reemoved your original research about Turkic Magyars is because it is original research and irrelevant to the article. The Reoprt which I have provided is taken from several authors such as Bunardzic, Zivanovic, Wexler, Erdelyi, Vikhnovich, and Brook.82.6.29.26 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

82.6.29.26, There is no original research in my contribution to this article. Magyars were and still are not a Turkic people. However Kabars were undisputedly a Turkic people. Source point to the Kabar origin of the Arpad dynasty and the three of the ten tribes migrating to present day Hungary being Kabars. Your edits were simply nonsense. In that part of the world one should doubt what the local historians say since it's all clouded by ethno-nationalism. I'm not sure whether Hungarians deny the Turkic origin of the Arpad dynasty but the Bulgarians have recently produced the Iranian origin theory for Bulgars and are uneasy about the Turkic origins of their Asenid, Terterid, and Shishmanid dynasties. So let us not bring in local historians and testaterone talk into this and stick to credible sources. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are removing some well-sourced and as far as I know universally accepted material on the Kabars being a Khazar tribal confederacy and inserting a very confused mishmash alternatively identifying them as Bulgar, "Mongol-looking", and apparently confusing them with the Eurasian Avars. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian, all the claims are referenced. The answers to all the points you raise above for example can be seen on page 250 of Brook 1999. It is elementary beginners stuff. Is it wiki policy to delete anything which is not common myth? Kabars were a "Judaized Mongolian People" according to the archaeological experts on the issue Bunardzic and Zivanovic. Brook 1999 p. 274 "The Khazars on the other hand were largely non-mongolian in type" as well as Erdelyi 1983 p.179 Menumarot who was a Kabar prince is spoken of in the Hungarian records as being a Bulgarian. Kabars were a Bulgarian people three of whose tribes were dominated for a time by the Khazars. Bulgars and Khazars used the same Turkic language anyway so the differences we are talking about are very slight. The Magyar material is 100% irrelevant and does not belong. I have provided several sources for the work while the man you are protecting has provided one misquote. But I will not go against the Wiki Qabal, but at least I am not sly enough to use it either. Luckily I don't have any testosterone to care.82.6.29.26 (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are engaging in synthesism and original research. Bunardzic and Zivanovic might claim that the Kabars are Mongolian in appearance. Brook might argue based on the same archeological evidence that Khazars were not mongolian. What Brook actually states, if you have read him, and what Golden, Pritsak, and others have also stated, is that the Khazars were likely made up of a number of different tribes of different origin. But the fact of the matter is that every historical source going back to Constantine Porphyrogenitus refers to the Kabars as a renegade faction within the Khazar tribal alliance that rebelled against the Khazar government. Moreover, Brook, who claimed that Menumorut was a Kabar in the first edition of his book, removed that from the second edition and now repudiates that view. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1

I found this book[1] that has numerous dates concerning Turkic peoples. I'm not sure of the historical accuracy, so you might double check before using them in any references. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to read this[2], page 168. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Both sources appear to be OK. I don't know if there is a List of Historical Turkic Peoples and Tribes but the first link may be a useful starting point source for that. There are so many of them and I doubt there is a complete list available anywhere.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The second book might be helpful for that anon user than was posting nonsense of "Pseudo Avars??". The first book's title, The Secret Alchemy of Mary Magdalene, makes me question the veracity of that volume, but hopefully the chronological part is correct. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I removed the It is not clear whether the name of Hungarians comes from the Turkic word On-Oghur, or "ten tribes from being a reference and added it as a sentence. The reference I added for that sentence comes extremely close but doesn't cover it completely. I know I've read that sentence before, but I couldn't find it. If you have a reference that would work/cover that sentence, please add it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A book containing the word "alchemy" can not be a primary reference for such an article. But the names mentioned there may serve as a starting point where each item has to be backed up by more credible sources in order to be taken into account. Regarding the origins of the word Hungarian. Nicole states that

Among the Hun tribes who remained in the south Russian steppes after the collapse of Attila's empire were the Onoghurs (people of 'Ten Arrows') who, as the Bulgars (meaning 'mixed people'), gradually created the state of Old Bulgaria around the sea of Azov. Onoghurs had also been in close association with the Magyars, a forest-dwelling people of Finno-Ugrian origin who eventually set off on their own to create the nation Hungary. To further confuse the issue the term 'Hungarian' may actually stem from Onoghur! 'Nicole, D., "Attila and the Huns', 1990, Osprey'

According to Grosset

..The Turkic khanate of the Bulgars, which included southern Hungary, Wallachia, and Bulgaria north of the Balkan range. The Bulgarian tribe of the Onoghundur or Onogur, destined perhaps to give its name to Hungary, ... 'Grousset, R. "Empire of the Steppes", 1970, p.175-76

To make the matter even more confusing is the Hun association. Perhaps, many people think that the word Hungarian comes directly from Attila's Huns. But this is not debated by experts. My understanding is that it is not clear whether the Bulgar Onoghur or Onoghundur -which meant "Ten Arrows" or "Ten Tribes" (since oghur aslo meant branch)- or the confederation of ten tribes - seven Magyar and three Turkic Kabar or Onogur- that moved into Pannonia is the "Ten Tribes" giving its name to Hungary.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarios' recent edits

Bulgarios has added a number of things that are ethnocentric and misleading. I propose to simply revert the page back due to his bias.

His edits represent a non-widely accepted POV. Most Hungarian historians agree that the Kabars were not the ruling tribe of the Magyar tribal confederation. These scholars say that their role during the Magyars' military campaigns show that the Kavars were a subject people, that is why the Kavars provided the vanguard during attacks and the rearguard during withdrawals. My problem with Bulgarios' most edits that his sentences are not connected to the Kabars, or their connection to the Kabars is unclear. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see that the passage you object to was first inserted back in 2007 by User:Nostradamus1 then removed by [3] User:Briangotts [4] and User:213.16.74.75 [5] and User:82.6.29.26 [6]. However, the objection is more than a decade old and the insertion remained for more than a decade after the conflict was resolved. A külföldi történészek jelentős része ezt úgy veszi, ők voltak az uralkodó törzs. Moreover a reliable source has been provided. Nevertheless, I'm happy to re-word it since there have clearly been a few presumably Magyar POV leaning editors who have been offended by it. How about "a scholarly theory proposes that the [[7]] were...." etc. and then the Hildinger reference? The paragraph about the Magyar invasion can then be shaved down quite a bit as I too feel it is rather unecessary. Bulgarios (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)