The Avars // were a group of equestrian warrior nomads who established an empire spanning considerable areas of Central and Eastern Europe from the late 6th to the early 9th century. They were ruled by a Khagan, who led a tight-knit entourage of professional nomad warriors. Although the name Avar first appeared in the mid-fifth century, the Avars of Europe enter the historical scene in the mid-sixth century AD, having formed as a mixed band of warriors in the Pontic-Caspian steppe wishing to escape Göktürk rule. Their linguistic affiliation may be tentatively deduced from a variety of sources, betraying a variety of languages spoken by ruling and subject clans. Oghur, a distinct branch of the Turkic languages, figures prominently for the original Avar language. In any event, Slavic ultimately became the lingua franca in the Avar Khaganate.
Early literary sources
The earliest clear reference to the Avar ethnonym comes from Priscus the Rhetor who accounts that, c. 463, the Saraghurs, Onoghurs and Ughors were attacked by the Sabirs, who had been attacked by the Avars. In turn, the Avars had been driven off by people fleeing “man-eating griffins” coming from “the ocean” (Priscus Fr 40). Whilst Priscus’ accounts provides some information about the ethno-political situation in the Don-Kuban-Volga region after the demise of the Huns, no equivocal conclusions can be reached. In fact, Denis Sinor has argued that whoever the “Avars” referred to by Priscus were, they were different to the Avars who appear a century later, during Justinian’s reign.
The next late antique author to discuss the Avars was Menander Protector, who details Gokturk embassies in Constantinople in 565 and 568 CE. Each time, the Turks appear angered at the Byzantines for having made an alliance with the Avars, whom the Turks saw as their subjects and slaves. Turxanthos, a Turk prince, calls the Avars “Varchonites” and “escaped slaves of the Turks”, who numbered “about 20 thousand” (Menander Fr 43).
Much greater, but somewhat confusing, details are provided by Theophylact Simocatta, who wrote c. 629, but detailed the final two decades of the 6th century. In particular, he (claims to) quote a triumph letter from Turk Khan Tardan.
According to the interpretation of Dobrovits and Nechaeva, the Turks insisted that the Avars are only pseudo-Avars, so as to boast that they were the only formidable power in the Eurasian steppe. The Gokturks claimed that the 'real Avars' remained loyal subjects of the Turks, farther east.
Furthermore, Dobrovits has questioned the authenticity of Theophylact's account. As such, they have argued that Theophylact borrowed information from Menander’s accounts of Byzantine-Turk negotiations to meet political needs of his time – i.e. to castigate and deride the Avars during a time of strained political relations between the Byzantines and Avars (coinciding with Emperor Maurice's north Balkan campaigns). By calling the Avars "Turkish slaves" and "pseudo-Avars", Theophylact undermined their political legitimacy.
The French historian Deguignes postulated a link between the Avars of European history with the Juan-Juan of Inner Asia based on a coincidence between Tardan Khan’s letter to Constantinople and events recorded in Chinese sources, notably the Wei-shi and Pei-shi.
The Chinese sources state that T’u-men (=Bumin) khan, founder of Turkic dynasty and son of the legendary Ashina, defeated the Juan-Juan. Some of the Juan-Juan fled to the Chinese Western Wei. Later, according to another Chinese source, Mu-han khan, Bumin’s successor, defeated the "I-ta" (interpreted as Hephthalites) as well as the Tieh-le, who were also known as Oghuz. Thus the events contained in the various Chinese sources, recording victories over the Tiehle, Juan-Juan and Ita (Hephthalites), seem to coincide with the narrative in the Turk envoy’s letter (in Theophylact above), boasting of Tardan’s victories over the Hephthalites, Avars and Oghurs. However, the two series of events are not synonymous. The events of the letter took place during Tardan’s rule, c. 580-599, whilst Chinese sources referring to the Turk defeat of the Juan-Juan and other inner Asian peoples occurred 50 years earlier, at founding of Turk khanate by Bumen.
Thus Harmatta rejects the association of Avars with Juan-Juan. Further hypotheses linking them with the Hephthalites are based on the Avars being called Varchonites by the Turks, i.e. being led by Var and Chunni factions. For, according to some Chinese transliterations, the term Var is rendered Hua, a term used by some Chinese sources when referring to the Hephthalites. This appeared to be supported by the name of a Hephthalite town, Varvaliz. However, this has rather been interpreted to mean "upper Fortress" in various Iranic languages.
Steppe Empire dynamics and ethnogenesis
Contemporary scholars are less inclined to view the tribal groupings mentioned in historical texts as monolithic and long-lived 'nations', but were rather volatile and fluid political formations whose dynamic depended on the sedentary civilizations they bordered as well as internal power struggles within the barbarian lands.
Such views are mirrored by Csanad Balint. "The ethnogenesis of early medieval peoples of steppe origin cannot be conceived in a single linear fashion due to their great and constant mobility", with no ethnogenetic "point zero", theoretical "proto-people" or proto-language.
Moreover, Avar identity was strongly linked to Avar political institutions. Groups who rebelled or fled from the Avar realm could never be called "Avars", but were rather termed "Bulgars". Similarly, with the final demise of Avar power in the early 9th century, Avar identity disappeared almost instantaneously.
Anthropological research has revealed few skeletons with Mongoloid-type features, although there was continuing cultural influence from the Eurasian nomadic steppe. The late Avar period shows more hybridization, resulting in higher frequencies of Euro-Mongoloids. Mongoloid and Euro-Mongoloid types compose about one-third of the total population of the Avar graves of the eighth century.
According to Pál Lipták the early Avar anthropological material was almost exclusively Europoid in the 7th century, while grave-goods indicated Middle and Central Asian parallels. On the other hand, cemeteries dated for the 8th century contained Mongoloid elements among others. He analysed population of the Danube-Tisza midland region in the Avar period and found that 80% of them showed Europoid characteristics.
Social and tribal structure
The Carpathian basin was the centre of the Avar power-base. The Avars re-settled captives from the peripheries of their empire to more central regions. Avar material culture is found south to Macedonia. However, to the east of the Carpathians, there are next to no Avar archaeological finds, suggesting that they lived mainly in the western Balkans. Scholars propose that a highly structured and hierarchical Avar society existed, having complex interactions with other "barbarian" groups. The khagan was the paramount figure, surrounded by a minority of nomadic aristocracy.
A few exceptionally rich burials have been uncovered, confirming that power was limited to the khagan and a close-knit class of "elite warriors". In addition to hoards of gold coins that accompanied the burials, the men were often buried with symbols of rank, such as decorated belts, weapons, stirrups resembling those found in central Asia, as well as their horse. The Avar army was composed from numerous other groups: Slavic, Gepidic and Bulgar military units. There also appeared to have existed semi-independent "client" (predominantly Slavic) tribes which served strategic roles, such as engaging in diversionary attacks and guarding the Avars' western borders abutting the Frankish Empire. Yet other tribes were equals and allies of the Avars, such as Khan Zabergan's Kutrigur Bulgars and Ardagastus' Slavs, which often conducted autonomous offensives into Byzantine land.
Initially, the Avars and their subjects lived separately, except for Slavic and Germanic women who married Avar men. Eventually, the Germanic and Slavic peoples were included in the Avaric social order and culture, itself Persian-Byzantine in fashion. Scholars have identified a fused, Avar-Slavic culture, characterized by ornaments such as half-moon-shaped earrings, Byzantine-styled buckles, beads, and bracelets with horn-shaped ends. Paul Fouracre notes, "[T]here appears in the seventh century a mixed Slavic-Avar material culture, interpreted as peaceful and harmonious relationships between Avar warriors and Slavic peasants. It is thought possible that at least some of the leaders of the Slavic tribes could have become part of the Avar aristocracy". Apart from the assimilated Gepids, a few graves of west Germanic (Carolingian) peoples have been found in the Avar lands. They perhaps served as mercenaries.
Although there is sparse knowledge about the Avar language, scholars generally posit that the extinct language of the Eurasian Avars belonged to the Oghur branch, of the Turkic language family. Today, Chuvash is thought to represent the last remaining branch of Oghuric. How well modern Chuvash represents archaic Oghuric remains speculative. Chuvash itself is not intelligible by speakers of other Turkic branches, despite having undergone significant degrees of Kipchakization in recent centuries.
Whatever the original Avar language was, Slavic eventually became the dominant language of the Avar Khaganate.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Eurasian Avars.|
- Avar Khaganate
- Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal
- Oghur languages
- Khazar language
- Bulgar language
- Hunnic language
- Chuvash language
- Turkic language
- Keszthely culture
- Pannonian Romance
- Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós
- Pritsak (1983, p. 359)
- Walter Pohl, Die Awaren: ein Steppenvolk im Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n. Chr, C.H.Beck (2002), ISBN 978-3-406-48969-3, p. 26-29.
- Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge medieval textbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81539-0. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
- Róna-Tas, András. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages (1999) p 116.
- Curta, Florin (2004). "The Slavic lingua franca (Linguistic Notes of an Archeologist Turned Historian)" (PDF). East Central Europe/L'Europe du Centre-Est 31 (1): 125–148.
- Maenchen-Helfen (1976, p. 436)
- Dobrovits (2003)
- Whitby (1986, p. 226, footnote 48)
- Nachaeva (2011)
- Harmatta (2001)
- Pohl (2003, pp. 477–78)
- Balint (2010, p. 150)
- Pohl (1998)
- "Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae", Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1 Jan 1967, Page 86 
- Russian Translation Series of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology ... - Page 21 
- Erzsébet Fóthi, Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods, Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 44(1–4):87–94, 2000
- History of Transylvania
- The New Cambridge Medieval History. Paul Fouracre
- Price, Glanville. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe (2000) p 68.
- Marcantonio, Angela. The Uralic Language Family (2002) p 24.
- Languages in Contact. Linguistic Convergence in the VOlga Area, L Johanson. p 165-178
- Futaky, I. (2001). Nyelvtörténeti vizsgálatok a Kárpát-medencei avar-magyar kapcsolatok kérdéséhez. Mongol és mandzsu-tunguz elemek nyelvünkben (in Hungarian). Budapest.
- Helimski, Eugene (2000). "Язык(и) аваров: тунгусо-маньчжурский аспект". Folia Orientalia 36 (Festschrift for St. Stachowski) (in Russian). pp. 135–148.
- Helimski, Eugene (2000). "On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication)". Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia (5): 43–56.
- Curta, Florin (2004). "The Slavic lingua franca (Linguistic Notes of an Archeologist Turned Historian)" (PDF). East Central Europe/L'Europe du Centre-Est 31 (1): 140. "By contrast, there is very little evidence that speakers of Slavic had any significant contact with Turkic. As a consequence, and since the latest stratum of loan words in Common Slavic is Iranian in origin, Johanna Nichols advanced the idea that the Avars spoke an Iranian, not a Turkic language."
- E. Breuer, "Chronological Studies to Early-Medieval Findings at the Danube Region. An Introduction to Byzantine Art at Barbaric Cemeteries." (Tettnang 2005).
- Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. ISBN 0-521-81539-8.
- Fine, Jr, John V.A (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans; A critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.
- Bruno Genito & Laszlo Madaras (eds.), (2005) "Archaeological Remains of a Steppe people in the Hungarian Great Plain: The Avarian Cemetery at Öcsöd 59. Final Reports. Naples". ISSN = 1824-6117
- László Makkai & András Mócsy, editors, 2001. History of Transylvania, II.4, "The period of Avar rule"
- Maenchen-Helfen, Otto (1976). The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture. University California Press. ISBN 9780520015968.
- Pohl, Walter (2003). Regna and Gentes: The Relationship Between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World. Brill. ISBN 90 04 12524 8.
- Pohl (1998). "Conceptions of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies". In Rosenwein. Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and Readings. Blackwell. ISBN 9781577180081.
- Dobrovits, Mihaly (2003), ""They called themselves Avar" - Considering the pseudo-Avar question in the work of Theophylaktos", Transoxiana Webfestschrift Series I Webfestschrift Marshak 2003
- Pritsak, Omeljan (1982), The Slavs and the Avars, Spoleto
- Michael & Mary Whitby (1986). The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822799-X.
- Ekaterina Nachaeva (2011). "The "Runaway" Avars and Late Antique Diplomacy". In Ralph W. Mathisen, Danuta Shanzer. Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity. Ashgate.
- Janos Harmatta (2001), "The letter sent by the Turk Khagan to the Emperor Mauricius", Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41: 109–118