File talk:Khazar map1.PNG

The map has significant defects:

1) If "Kiev(Sambat)" should be understood as "Kyiv" (most likely I think), then it should be placed a few hundreds km to the north (along river), where real "Kyiv" is situated. Or (if you can argument exactly this position) there should be left only name "Sambat".

2) "Rus'" position at very north is highly controversial (for more than 500 years of literacy tradition it wasn't part of Rus' proper), its better to remove it or rename to something less controversial, like "Varangians" or along this branch.

3) Map contains ethnic names and political subjects names, but does not distinguish them. This can cause many misunderstanding. Example - there is very small "Alania", which probably represent more Byzantium-dependent part of Alans (or As-Alans), but doesn't mentioned much bigger amount of Alans(or As-Alans), which were subjects of Khazars.

4) "East Slavs" and "West Slavs" marks at 820 year are looking significantly strange, as at this time there was still common language with very small dialectical differences. So this can't be linguistic division. Also this can't be ethnic division, since Slavic ethnoses still wasn't formed, and mass migration across (Slavic dominated) parts of eastern Europe (from east to south, from west to south, from west to far north, later from east - closer north, from east/west boundary to Pannonia and next Bohemia, from Pannonia to later Poland etc) were or very recent or even still doesn't happened. So its far better to mark them solely as "Slavs" or alike.

P.S. Didn't spent a lots of time checking map - wrote only about features, which immediately cause "something wrong here" (1,3,4) or even "BS detected"(2) flags. So if you are author, please check this map more carefully.