Talk:Pannonian Avars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hua and Uar

Would it be a good idea to combine the Hua & Uar & Avar pages together? User:Zestauferov

I don't think so. While the Hua and the Uar were likely absorbed into the Avar confederacy, they did possess a separate existence long before then and so deserve their own headings. The reference to them in this article should suffice. Ddama

Dubiosities

Many things stated in this article seem rather dubious to me. For example: "Their relation to the Hephthalite has been demonstrated."

The demonstration of an Avar relationship to the Hephthalites is a widespread notion due to deductions made from the documentations of early greek writers like Simokattes, Procopius, Menanda etc. here are just a few sites from the internet it took me about 5 seconds to find these and there are plenty more. www.silk-road.com/artl/heph.shtml members.tripod.com/great-bulgaria/Central-Asian-Nomads-Unite/ origins.html members.tripod.com/great-bulgaria/Central-Asian-Nomads-Unite/ origins.html basically anyone who can be considered to know a fair iota about the Avars knows about this connection. User:Zestauferov

Also, the statements about 'Hebrews'

off the top of my head have a look at A. Scheiber "Jewish inscriptions in Hungary from the 3rd Century to 1686" (1983) or many things from Jewish Studies journals like V.L.Vikhnovich "From the Jordan to the Dneiper" from Jewish Studies 31 (1991). User:Zestauferov

and 'Mongolian skeletons'

try Istvan Erdelyi's "Kabari (Kavari) v Karpatskom Basseyne" specifically page 179 from Sovietskaya Archeologiya 4 (1983) User:Zestauferov

... Basically what this article lacks is any factual back up. A paper trail.

!!

I would never rest on a few choice linguistic simularities as a back-bone of an argument. R.L. Trask, a Historical Linguist, has shown that any list of simular words between different ethnolinguistic groups may exist purely due to coincidence (he uses a list of Hawaiian and Greek words to demonstrate this).

what point relevant to the article are you making here please? User:Zestauferov

And where is the information about the skeletons from?

see above User:Zestauferov

How does one define 'Mongolian'?

It is another way of saying "Aboriginal Siberian Type" as in similar to those people from (surprise, surprise) Mongolia! It is a politer phraseology than refering to Mongoloid which is fading out of use these days along with dated terms like Negroid (except apparently people like you!) User:Zestauferov

And how were the skeletons identified as Avars?

now you are just being silly but see below and read the papers suggested above for specialist info (or email me for a reading list on dating archeaological finds and the related problems).User:Zestauferov

Central Asia today is peopled by groups of varyingly mixed ancestry--one can see it plainly.

that is a typical ethnocentric statement. In fact Central asia is still inhabited by the same physical type that has been there for centuries (except for a few tens of million more Europeans thanks to Russia). Their "obviously much mixed physical types" is the original out of which distilled "East European Types" "Iranian Types", "Pamir Types" "Chinese Types" etc.. User:Zestauferov

It would seem more likely that any 'Avar skeletons' would bare both European and Asian (or, Caucasoid and Mongoloid, if you prefer) features.

to be sure the carpathian basin has a huge variety of skulls burried scattered about it I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. The info in the article is relevant only to the Avar area which later became the Kabar domain where Mongolian Type skeletons appear in the more noble graves dated to the Avar period. User:Zestauferov

Honestly, this article smells abit of crack-pot history. No offense, of course.

actually I am offended and maybe it is just you are the wrong person in line this week but I am sick and tired of poorly-read individuals (not even with enough knowledge to call themselves amateurs) criticizing scholarly efforts from people who really do try hard and do well on this site simply because the info is of a higher callibre than that which you can read in the most popular encyclopaedias. The most sickening thing is people like you think if it has not been written about IN ENGLISH it does not exist at all (an example from earlier this month is even having English-only-speakers telling Jews we must be Judaean and not a Benjaminite or even Hebrew just because that word is not used to describe ethnic Jews in english! Now how is that for an example of imperialism in language?) Well let me tell anyone reading this something. The original articles you can read here at wiki have been composed free-of-charge by people who love their subjects rather than by general researchers gathering info on topics they have been given with no enthusiasm for finding all the perameters of the topic who get a monthly paycheck whether they do a good job or not! All they have to worry about is whether the format is correct, the paragraphs read easily, the spelling is standard et.. The days of high quality research for encyclopaedias even for renouned companies like Brittanica are even getting distant. Just compare the wealth of info and objectivity on a topic like Scythians from a 1952 version with the bare (usually erroneous) fact pompous style of a modern version and you can see what I mean. User:Zestauferov

I personally am not learned enough in the realm of the Avars.

THAT my friend is very obvious! User:Zestauferov

It is for that reason, in fact, that I came upon this article. I'd love for the author (Zestauferov?) to prove him(/her)self. I am open-minded. I just need credible evidence. Peace. User:D.E. Cottrell

And peace be with you also I should I suppose thank you for editing your words from saying that it stank to saying it smelt a little, but the first thing you wrote stung a little. I am willing to edit the anger out of this post if you appologise and re-work your original question to a more honest inquisitive style and not let so much of your "White Hun" fascist agenda come out. If you are not of the latter then you ought to be aware that the field I focus on is full of them and their latent ideas. The fact is this, The vast majority of Europeans do NOT preserve the original physical features of any Hunnic ancestors they may possess. This does not mean we might not descend from them, even 100 times over, it just means that we are very mixed and no nation can claim pure descent from another and the best we might say could sound something like "Central Eurasians is that they are descended from Central Eurasians". We can at least be proud of our ancestry if we feel the nomad inside (though it probably has more to do with one's psychologocal than genetic background) and if we feel like it refresh the Central Eurasian bloodline by moving to central Eurasia and starting a family with someone from there. I will re-vamp the entire article to make it more readable, categorized and less meandering. I will have no hard feelings if you do not and lets edit this talk later to make it less personal and more useful. After you appologise you can edit my text and I will edit yours so that the useful info remains and the pointless jabs dissappear. User:Zestauferov

__ To speak colloqially: dude, chill! Yowza. I had no idea I'd get this kind of rise out of you. I never intended to insult you. I wanted your sources and I commend you for producing the paper trial you lacked. White Hun fascist agenda!? I have no idea what that's about. I never said Huns were 'White,' nor am I a fascist. If you knew me, you'd laugh at such a statement. How is it ethnocentric to call Central Asia mixed? Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in Genes, Peoples, and Languages (2000) did not use genetic data from Central Asia for that reason. Saka intermarried with Turks. How is that not mixed? And yes, I accept the fact that nomadic populations had an impact in Europe. However, the extent to which that occurred is up for debate. As a general rule, pastoralist societies have smaller populations than agricultural ones. The main mode of subsistance, and I doubt I need to tell you this, of Europe for thousands of years before the Huns was agriculture. The logical conclusion of this would be that Huns (and Magyars, Avars, et cetera) had a limited genetic impact. I believe Sforza's results are that (in Hungarians) a 10% 'asiatic' genetic component (though I may be remembering the results for Finns). This goes with what you said, that no nation can claim a pure heritage. Such claims are dangerous, ignorant conveniances. When I wrote Negroid and Mongoloid I did not write out of belief in racial classification. I attempted to understand your classification. I personally do not buy into racial concepts. Speaking in ethnic terms is a bit more accurate, but even then, as we can see so clearly here, there is confusion and the potential for useless conflict. I understand you were angry, and I apologize for making you that way. No hard feelings. D.E. Cottrell 09:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article would benefit from discussion of the nature of the links between the Juan-Juan federation and the Avars, as this remains a topic of academic interest. Also, the Kabars are recorded in all of the primary sources as tribes of Khazar Turk federation who joined the proto-Magyars during their migrations from the Ukranian steppes to the Danubian steppes. I suggest that a more appropriate place for them is as a subheading in the Khazar article and/or as a sub-sub-heading in the Origins section of the Magyar article, which needs much work. Ddama

Avars should become a disambiguation page

There are the Avars which are the nomadic tribes that this article is about, and there are the Avars which are the predominant inhabitants of Dagestan, numbering 501,000. I suggest that this should become a disambiguation page, because on the List of ethnic groups page, it mentions Avars as the Dagestani type, but it goes to this page. Dagestan

This article is about the same Avars that live in Dagestan. The article even mentions Dagestan. Isomorphic 02:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I vote in favor of disambiguation. It is unlikely that the modern Caucasian Avars are descended from the ancient European Avars. Even the current Avar article, which includes some questionable theories, mentions this:

A connection between the European Avars and the Caucasian Avar and Kabard is severely questioned

The Right Thing To Do is to have separate articles with each including a section that a minority opinion believes that a connection exists. Ddama

Exactly. Besdies, the famous Muslim leader Imam Shamil was a Dagestani Avar. He was not a European Avar. Dagestan

So... what are we going to do about it? If no one replies, I will take matters into my own hands. Most of the people agree anyway. Dagestan

The section "Classical sources" would be improved by relating it directly to some classical sources. Wetman 22:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some additional facts

I do not feel competent enough to edit the Avar page, but here is a couple of facts that can be included:

567-568 is when Avars permamently moved to Pannonia.

Before Longobards moved from Pannonia fearing Avars they together were fighting against Gepids, another Germanic tribe, which was completely destroyed. (Gepid page in Wiki mentions their destruction by Avars in 567).

Avar raids on Byzantium helped/allowed Slavic settlement of Balkans. (Slavs were used as infantry in Avar army).

After years of wars with Franks Avars were finally defeated in 803.

Legacy

I edited the Legacy section, which non sequitor claimed that both the Avars and Huns first introduced stirrups to Europe.

Rulers

Where is this kings' list from? It appears to confuse Eurasian Avars and Caucasian Avars. Also the allegations of Khazar involvement of AVar politics is not supported by any source I know. Please provide citations.

Avars ethnicity

Are the Avars Germanic?

Noone knows. The latest Britannica says: "of undetermined ethnicity". I suppose our article should be purged of unverified speculations. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Avar language?

Is there any information as to which language the ancient Avars spoke?--Johannes Rohr 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, however, there is an article in the German section, de:Altawarische Sprache which claims i.a. that ancient Avaric was a Turkic language, closely related to the Hunnic language, written in a Turkic runic script, in something called "Talas style" and that the name of the language would have been "Avar tila" in ancient Avaric. I wonder what to make out of this, and would be grateful for a second opinion. --89.50.36.122 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Whoops, was I logged off?) --Johannes Rohr 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoof. There is no substantial record of the Avar language to draw a conclusion as to its character. Ditto about the Hunnic. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me, to your knowledge, which kind of record does exist? --Johannes Rohr 13:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Eurasian Avars in Daghestan

Omeljan Pritsak about Caucasian Avars in Daghestan:

Omeljan Pritsak Proto-Mongols in Khazarian Transcaucasia

It used to be considered that the Mongols appeared in history at the turn of the 12th century as Chingiz Khan formed his empire. Now we know with the help of the analysis of the Chinese sources that the Proto-Mongols were one of the key players in the struggle for hegemony in the "northern lands" of the Eurasian steppe. The Chinese sources call them "Eastern Barbarians" (Tung-hu); their opponents were dubbed the Hsiung-nu. As to the Tung-hu, they were divided into the Wu-huan and Hsien-pi. Among the Hsien-pi, the main role was played by the K'u-mo and Hsi, and also a new political organization formed by the northern Chinese imperial dynasty, the T'o-po. The name of the K'u-mo Sinologists have reconstructed as *Ku-mak and the Hsi as Qay. On the northern Caucasus, which was the border zone between the Sassanids (and latter the Islamic Caliphate) and the Khazar Kaganate at the time of its flower, we find the same Proto-Mongol structures that we find on the northeastern Chinese border. The main role there was played by the "true Avars" (*Ahwar /Wuhuan), the *Sebirs (Hsien-pi), the K'u-mo and the *Qay+lan/Qay+dag (Hsi). The author was able to locate more than 30 Proto-Mongolian etymons in medieval sources of Byzantino-Arabo-Iranian, Armenian, Syrian and Georgian origin. Of them 12 are from the language of the Qay, 8 from the Sebirs, 6 from the Avars, and 2 from the K'u-mo. http://ssvit.iatp.org.ua/sum/sum96~1.htm Nordkaukasier 80.237.10.233 20:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Eurasian Avars. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"Nonsense to Wikipedia"? Avars or Caucasian Avars are a modern people of Caucasus, mainly of Dagestan, in which they are the predominant group. The Capital City of Caucasian Avars is Khunzakh which means "At The Huns" or "The City of Huns". http://www.circassiancanada.com/ing/04_daghestan/05_history/da_caucasian_avars.htm

OR OMELJAN PRITSAK IS NONSENS FOR WIKIPEDIA? 80.237.10.233 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 80.237.10.233 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

I have had to remove the following from the page in order to highlight a point for discussion.

- known as Zhuan Zhuan to the Chinese

Like the later Mongols and Qitan, the Avars belonged to the Śyän-bi tribal confederation, and are "without doubt the first Mongolian tribe to be historically attested"

K.H. Menges, "Altaic people", Encyclopaedia Iranica, v, p. 908-912, Online Edition (LINK)

The problem is that the European Avars have never been directly connected with the Rouran and the matter is highly complicated. Please read up on the story of Sarosios for further clarification, and the story of the Asian Avars, only to which the lower reference quoted above applies. Kaz 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) I had a personal message from User:Tajik and so I think I need to re-iterate that the matter is highly complicated and ask those involved to read the material with precision and critical engagement in order to avoid mis-reportage in future.Kaz 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While we are discussing, how about removing the Avar kings list and the Anthropological origins section for discussion too?Kaz 10:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

screw u

Anthropology of Pseudo-Avars

About Avarian (Pseudo-Avarian) anthropology:"Liptak (1955) went into the details of Avar Period’santhropology in his candidate degree thesis.He stated his opinion that archeological chronology system was simply wrong.According to Liptak, too much cemeteries were dated for the 8th century and too few for the 7th and the 9th centuries.He pointed out as an obvious contradiction the fact, that 7th century, early Avar anthropological material was almost exclusively Europid, while grave-goods indicated Middleand Central Asian parallels. On the other hand there were cemeteries dated for the 8th century that contained Mongoloid elements among others. The attire and armament introduced by the Avars was rapidly adapted by other ethnic groups, it became the general fashion of the region in the 7th century.Therefore the separation of autochton elements was (and is)simply impossible by archeological means. That is why Liptak strongly emphasized that to talk of Avar Period population makes much more sense than to stick with the phrases of “the Avars” and of “Avar population”... Liptak outlined his view that the gracile Mediterranean type was autochton, while the brachycran Europid types were partly typical of the local inhabitants,partly they migrated to the Central Danubian Basin with the Avars. He found the origin of Cromagnoids, Nordoids and large stature Mediterraneans uncertain, and he indicated migration as the probable reason of their emergence. Liptak mentioned the Asiatic origin of Mongolid and Mongoloid population elements, but he did not go into the details of any closer relationship or parallel. Liptak analysed the Avar Period population of the Danube-Tisza midland region and stated that 80% of them was of Europid character.He separated narrow-faced dolichomorph types (Nordoid, Mediterranean) in 38%, broad-faced Cromagnoid types (A and B) in 22.6%, and brachycran forms(Pamirian, Dinarian, Near Eastern and short-headed individualsof undefined origin) in 17.1%... He found the tall stature, dolichomorph, narrow-faced variation (its frequency was 22%) non-homogenous. Liptk put the northern (Nordic) and tall Mediterraneans under this heading.He separated two regional varieties, a western(Atlanto-) Mediterranean one and an eastern or Indo-Iranian one...Liptak considered the gracile Mediterranean (Ibero-Cromagnoid types Insular) type the most significant component of the Avar Period population. The that were classified the descendants of the Upper-Palaeolithic Cromagnon race were rated important components of the Avar Period population by Liptak. He added that these types kept their significance in the Arpadian Age as well. The author put Pamirian (Pamiro-Ferganian), Dinarian, Alpine and Near Eastern (Armenoid types under the heading of brachycran) elements... Their presence was insignificant in the Avar Period. Liptak paid the most attention to the Turanid (South-Siberian)and to the Ural types from the Europo-Mongoloids. Noneof the two had much significance in the Avar Period, but they were dominant among the conquering Hungarians. Liptak identified and described in detail three kinds among the Mongoloids of the Avar Period: the Northern-Chinese(Chinid), the Central Asian Mongol and the palaeo-Siberian types. He considered the two later types the keycomponents of Avar Period Mongolids...Liptak voted for the dual origin theory when studying the ethnogenesis of the Avars.He called true-born (pure blooded)Avar (Varchonite) those small series which were characterized by Mongolid and Mongoloid features. According to Liptak’s opinion the progenitors of the Vachonite originated from beyond Lake Baykal,and they migrated into Southern- Central Asia only sometime later.From there they were forced out by the Turkis hpeoples, and so they escaped into the Central Danubian Basin.There were series with acomparatively high ratio of the Iranian type (Kiskoros-Varos alatt,Alattyan).Liptak named them ones with Hephtalite origin because he considered the Indo-Iranian Mediterranean type a significant ethnical component of the Hephtalites. This type could be traced back as far as Central Asia (Liptak1983)". Volume 44(1-4):87-94, 2000 Acta Biologica Szegediensis http://www.sci.u-szeged.hu/ABS. Erzsébet Fóthi. Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods Acta Biol Szeged 2000, 44:87-94 Abstract PDF. SYMPOSIUM Department of Anthropology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest,Hungary Anthropological conclusions of the study of Roman and Migration periods. Erzsebet Fothi.--Awarenstuermer 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

about Hurrian type

"Armenoid" type in the middle of Eurasian Avars is Hurrian type. Armenoids and Kurds are typical Hurrians (for anthropology). Armenoid racial type= Hurrian type. Cromagnon (Proto-Nordic) race: German, Skandinavian, Tokhars, Old-Caucasion type of Balkano-Caucasians, Old-Dinlings and others). Brachikephales: Balkano-Caucasians (or Celtic or Pamirian-Alpic), Dolichokephales: Medditeran (Iranians,Pushtuns and others). Pamirians are brachicephal Europoids (Mountain Tadjiks)--Awarenstuermer 16:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Avars

Please stop moving the page and rep[lacing references without discussion. `'mikka (t) 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I was surprised to return to this page and find it so reduced. The reason is clear: a vicious series of edit wars worthy of the Avars and Byzantines themselves (and with similar results). While burning each other's academic villages, you seem to have destroyed a lot else besides. For instance, surely the king list didn't need to go?

Please remember that Wikipedia is about spreading knowledge, not furthering our own ideological struggles. Ask yourself, what will the reader in Brisbane or Buenos Aires want from this page?

So I have tried to restore everything that is non-contentious, and have indicated some of the theories that you guys have been arguing about while stressing that there are competing theories and that much of it is hotly disputed. Because of the lack of historical records, some speculation is necessary and adds interest, as long as the reader is told what is fact and what is unproven.

While I know more about the Avars than anyone I know, I don't have the same expertise the editors who have been struggling for control of this page. What I do have is an objective outlook and professional editing skills.

I have tried to improve this page based on your previous contributions. I have tried to be honest and objective, but if you think I've got anything wrong, can we discuss it in the Talk page first? The last thing this page needs is another edit war. Patrick Neylan 12:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The king list is practically a hoax. No unsourced speculation is permited by WP:ATTR, no matter how much interest it adds.--91.148.159.4 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruler list

Moved the folliwng list of rulers to talk page. First, Pohl (see the link in the article), an expert on the subject, says we only know one name, Baian. Second, this amateur page says Tudun and Zodan are titles, that the names of Baian's successors are unknown, and generally shows that everything about that is very uncertain. Third, Bulgar ruler Kubrat was obviously not a ruler of the Avars at all, nor was his son Batbayan! Forth, the etymology of baltavar as "half-Avar" is ridiculous, and fifth, "baltavar" itself (or rather, something remotely similar, with only consonants and, I think, without the initial "b") is only attested in some form in Ibn Fadlan's 10th century account about Volga Bulgaria - the rest is in Djagfar tarikhy, a source that no respectable historian ever used. Sixth, the source for all that stuff are probably sites like this pan-Turkic site which also uses Djagfar tarikhy. Note, finally, that the whole list was added by an anon user who no longer edits. --91.148.159.4 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Avar Rulers

552-562	Kandik aka Khingila asked the Alan King Sarosios to introduce his people to Byzantium as refugees from Central Asia.
562-602	Bayan I settles Pannonia in 568 and established Avar puppet Houdbaad of Onogunduri - Kutigurs & Utigurs in 580s
602-617	Bayan II
617-630	N... (established Regent Organa 600s-635 over Onogunduri)
635-660	Kubrat first Bulgarian BaltAvar (Half Avar)(Father was an Avar)
660-?	Bayan III Eldest son of Kubrat rules from Crimea to avoid Khazar mercenaries
685-791	1st Khazar Avar alliance.
729/730	Surakat (Khazar puppet establishes Caucasian Avaristan)
791-795	Yugurus during Avar civil war
795-?	Kajd Tudun
803-?	Zodan the puppet of Krum who claimed European Eastern Avaria through relation to Kubrat's Kuber estate.
?-814	Theodorus (Carolingian Puppet) opposed by Khazar candidates.
814-?	Abraham (Khazar puppet) supported against Carolingians
?-835	Isaac Tudun (Khazar puppet)

Another list

• Surakat, at the time of Abu Muslima....................729/30
• Andunik-Nutsal, at the time of Abu Muslima
• Dugry-Nutsal
• Largely to Georgia.............................c. 1000-1050's
• To the Alans....................................1050's-1120
• To Shirvan.....................................c. 1120-1225
• To the Mongols....................................1225-1278
• Surakat (Amir Khunzkh)....................c. 1230-1256
• Bayar.....................................c. 1256-c. 1270
• Masum Beg.................................c. 1270-c. 1275
• Sultan....................................c. 1275-c. 1295
• To the Persian Ilkhanate..........................1278-1340
• Malik Sarashan....................................c. 1300
• To Jalayrid Baghdad...............................1340-1382
• To the Timurid Empire.............................1382-1405
• To the Horde of the Black Sheep...................1405-1468
• Gandunik..................................c. 1460-c. 1485
• To the Horde of the White Sheep...................1468-1502
• Bulak.....................................c. 1485-c. 1510
• To Persia.........................................1502-1516
• To the Ottoman Empire.............................1516-1620
• Nutsal-Khan I.............................c. 1540-c. 1568
• To Persia.........................................1620-late 1700's
• Umma Khan I...............................c. 1620-c. 1634
• Moldar Mirza..................................fl. 1650
• Muhammad Khan I...........................c. 1650-c. 1668
• Dugru.....................................c. 1670-c. 1699
• Muhammad Khan II..............................fl. 1713
• Umma Khan II (Bulach the Old).............c. 1720-c. 1730
• Ankalav...................................c. 1730-c. 1735
• Umma Khan II (Bulach the Old, restored)..fl. 1735-1740
• Nutsal-Khan II............................c. 1740-c. 1744
• ?
• Muhammad-Nutsal IV........................1753 > -1765 with...
• Muhammad Mirza............................1753 > - ?
• Nutsal-Beg...................................1765-1774
• Umma Khan III.....................................1774-1801
• Gebek Janku ibn Muhammad..........................1801-1802 (succeeded by his father)
• Muhammad ibn Umma......................................1802
• To Russia indirectly..............................1802-1843
• MEHTULI dynasty
• Sultan Ahmed Khan Mehtulinski................1802-1823
• Bahu (or Huh) Bike (fem.)..................c. 1823-1834 with...
• Surhai Khan..................................1823-1827 and then...
• Aslan Khan of Ghazi-Ghumuq...................1827-1828 and then...
• Abu Sultan...................................1828-1834
• Hadji Murat..................................1834-1836 with...
• Mohammed Mirza Khan (also in Ghazi-Ghumuq)...1834-1837
• To Imamate of Shamil (Dagestan)...................1837-1859
• To Russia once again..............................1859-1864
• Ibrahim Khan.................................1859-1863

The funny thing is that it has got nothing to do with Avars as shown by the fate that extends beyond their existence. I did not delete it since it may be needed by another article. -- Zz 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these are the Caucasian Avars.--91.148.159.4 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

Fz, why you reverting incorrect map to this article? It is not correct that only Avars lived in this area and not Slavs. See for example this about Slavic archaeological findings in Vojvodina and Hungary: http://curug.rastko.net/9-vek/index_en.html Quote: "Pottery made on a slow wheel, decorated in the same manner as the pots from Čurug, was found in the vicinity of Zemun, in a settlement from the second half of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century, as well as in the vicinity of Vršac and in settlements and graves in Hungary, where it was dated to the 9th and 10th century. In the Bačka region similar ceramics on a slow wheel was found in Botra near Bečej, from the 8th-9th century, and in the “Veliki Put” site near Čantavir, from the 9th century, but kneaded pottery is present in a far larger percentage in these sites. Considering the said analogies, as well as the small percentage of kneaded pots, the houses from Čurug might be dated to the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th century. The characteristics of the pottery from this structure undoubtedly point towards a Slavic population from the time of Hungarian conquests". Also see this: http://www.bac.co.yu/english/Istorija/Sadrzaj.htm Quote: "He was preaching and converting to Christianity the Slavs in Backa and Bac,a settlement that was founded in the year 873 both by the Barbarians and the Slavs.", etc, etc. Thus, it is clear that Slavs lived in these "Avar-inhabited regions" as well (not only in the areas where you placed them on this map), thus the presence of Slavs have to be reflected somehow and I think that best way to do this is to writte "Avar and Slavic population" instead just "Avar population". If you have better idea how we can reflect presence of Slavs, please say what better idea that might be. PANONIAN 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't think there was no Slavic population in the region at all - those who accepted the protection of the Avars, - but the Avars were still the dominant ethnic group in the 7th century. Don't forget the maps shows the year 680 from where the Second Avar Empire is dated (when a new ethnic group settled amongst the Avars the so called 'griffin and tendril' culture). Plus the Slavs were unable to cross the Carpathians while the region was under the rule of Gepides. Gepidia was destroyed by the Avars and I don't see why and when the whole Avar Empire was invaded by Slavic peoples en masse and in several decades, they became a majority while the Avars did nothing but twirled their fingers ...--fz22 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very disputed whether Slavs or Avars were dominant group in Avar state. Some history books mention this state under name Avaro-Slavic state. The point is that you showed on your map that Slavs lived only outside of areas where Avars lived implying that there were no Slavs at all in the areas inhabited by Avars and that is simply wrong. There are two ways to make this map correct: 1. either to mention that Slavs also lived in the area inhabited by Avars, or 2. to delete any mention of Slavs from this map showing only area inhabited by Avars with no any implication whether Slavs lived inside or outside this area. You choose which of these two solutions is better. PANONIAN 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Slavic populations lived only near the Avar-Slavic ethnic border. They started to settle in significant numbers after the fall of the Avars. No evidence on Avar-Slav cohabitation ... See this: http://www.magtudin.org/Puspoki%202.htm (unfortunately only in Hungarian)--fz22 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Avars were known to re-settle captured peoples (slavs, Gepids, etc) wothin the central regions of their empire (pannonia). So Slavs could well have lived side by side with Avars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If there were so many Avars to occupy almost all of the Carpathian Basin, the modern genetic research would give different readings for the Asian haplogroups amongst the modern Hungarians. As the percentage is actually only 5% for the cumulated (?) Hunnic/Avar/Magyar influence, I see no reason why not to believe that the Avars truly lived side by side with the Slavs or whatever the predominant population was there.A black hole (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Language of Avars

Author wrote:The 6th Century historian Menander Protector noted that the language of the Avars was the same as that of the Huns, appearing as an Oghuric Turkic branch like modern Chuvash or Turkic Bulgarian and Khazar. We do not have any proofs of that language of Huns was Turkic or Chuvash. From 29 Asian-Hunnic words reached us in the Chinese transcription are not present any Turkic. All of them-Yenisseyan (Kets).On this theme is written works of Dulson.A lot of researchers also considers, that the most part of early avars made protomongols and east iranians (Hephthalites, Khionites). And you only about turkis write. Where proofs? Turkis were population only subdued by avars - the Protobulgars. Avars did not love them and concerned to them badly.You in general can result even one Hunnic or the Avarian document written on Turkic? No.--87.117.157.9 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure they were Persian... pffffffff Persians claim everyone in the history was Persian. Have a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.248 (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote most of the current version. I'm not Turkish, so have no bias. If you read the article, it mentions everything that you said- the Iranic and mongol theory. But in the end - no one really knows their exact origins. Like all steppe peoples, they were multiethnic and hetergeneous. Hxseek (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Avars are said by Chinese sources to be descended from the Xianbei (Rouran), and would thus speak a Mongolic language, not Turkic. It should not be said that it is "now classified as Ogghur", which itself is a stupid idea-- a group made up of all the extinct "Turkic" languages, that no one even knows anything about. Avars were not Turks. I remember reading about 20 or so known words still existing in Hungarian, so I'll try to dig those up later. --218.20.119.88 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Identity

Isn't it fairly well known that the Avars (in Europe at least) used material culture items with Jewish symbols on them? This seems to be a precedent for the later Khazar state, the Jewish identity of which is also sometimes overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.150.169 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the Chelarevo gravesite, where some graves contained Jewish inscriptions. See [1]; [2]; [3]. It's likely that this gravesite was Kabar and not Avar. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your point ? There was long-distance trade amongst all the steppe nomads Hxseek (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Szeleky

We'll need to find some actual sources for the claim that some 'pure' presence of Avars managed to survive up to the 12th century (four hundred years after the Avar polity collapsed), at which time they were reolcated to Transylvania. Hxseek (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Identity

To the anonymous editors 77... and 88.. , firstly, get a user I.D if you want to edit. Secondly, the Avars were an ethnically mixed groups, as all such confederacies were. Yes, generalist the text books you have used a references claim that they're Turkic, but this is a simplification used by books which would have briefly mentioned the Avars in passing, and not actually delved into the complex ethnogenesis process which occurred. Expert on medieval ethnogenesis and Avars, such as Rona-Tas and Pohl, explicitly state they were mixed, and any editor who actually knows anything understands this.

They show evidence of a lot of Turkic cultural influencs, such as their leadership organization, and Turkic runes have been found. But other steppe traditions were not Turkic, and they acquired a local tradition as well. Ethnically, they were a mix even before they arrived to Europe , not to mentio after their extensive mixing in the Black Sea steppe area and then Pannonia with Europoid peoples (Germanics and SLavs) who were the predominant population.

But then you'd know this if you actually read the article and stopped POV-pushing. Hxseek (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

KERMIKHIONS

Your "uygur's" from Volga/Ural region were not modern Turkic people, bat Finno-ugrian "UGOR/OGOR" as magyar-ugrian "kotzagir", zabender" and "tarniakh" among Avars/Uarkhonites. By the way, in Caucasian-Avarian language ägaraw is the "relative, making related, relatives" (in Afghan Pashto wagәri "People", in other languages GHUR is "konfederation", for example Dzhamuha-Ghurkhan among Mongols). Also in Afghanistan there is province Ghur, whence have intruded in India GHURDZHARS in structure of Hephthalites. In Caucasian-Avarian language avarag "the prophet, the messenger" and Avaristan "land of Avars", avaral "the Avars (Caucasian Avars)" means. See: Avarsko-Russkij slovar'//by red.M. Saidov. Moskva. 1967, s. 25. And still... In the Byzantian sources are mentioned people Kermikhions, living among Avars. In Iranian languages kerm is "worm", and in language of Avesta (also in the Armenian language) karmir is "red". Red paint in olden time did of a special kind of worms, therefore here is no contradiction,for example, in Russian cherv' (= cservy in transcription of Magyar language) - the worm, but chervonnyj (chervonniy) means "brightly red". In Caucasian-avarian language, khumur /plural. khurmal/ (this dialect word) is the "wolf" and a worm living in a body of the person (khomor, plural. khormal) means (see for "wolf" Avarsko-Russkij slovar'//by red.M. Saidov. Moscow. 1967, p.530; and for Khomor "a worm living in a body of the person", see: P.A. Saidova. Dialektologicheskij slovar' avarskogo jazyka. Moskva. "Nauka"., 2008, pp. 363, 382). And now compare: Mittel-Mongolian qoroqai, Mongolian written qor-qai, Baoan GorGei, Dagur χorugw, Mongor xorGui "a worm, an insect". In Kalmyk the basis xor "maggot of Horsefly". In Turkic languages it are related: Old-Turkic qurt, Turkmen Gurt, Turkish kurt, Khakass xurt, Chuvash xort "worm". (See Starostin S.A. Altajskaja problema i proishozhdenije japonskogo jazyka. Moskva. "Nauka", 1991, pp 54,186) And in Turkish, Turkmen and the some othwer Turkic languages there is an additional value "wolf". In Persian kerm "worm" (< indoeurupean *kur-mi-), Afghan (pashto) khamar "mythological snakes, a dragon". Also in Finn language is available (kurmu), but this probably Indo-Iranian loan. The ROURAN...De Groot the name of this people writes as Dsu-dsu (Dsut-dsut, Dsurdsut). Marquart specifies, that in «Sun-shu» same people is called "Da-Dan"or a "Dandan". In G. E. Grumm-Grzhimajlo's opinion, Rouran (Zhouzhan) it at all the name of the state, and a nickname, «on accord given by emperor Toba-Dao who wished to tell her, that as neighbours Ruan-Ruan are so unpleasant and restless, as insects Ruan-Ruan». (see: Grumm-Grzhimajlo G. Е. Zapadnaja Mongolija i Urjankhajskij kraj. Т.II. Leningrad, 1926, p. 27). The etnic Name "KHOR" were the general name of Proto-Mongols - Dung-hu (see: Gumilev L. N. «Hunnu». Sankt-Peterburg. "Tajm–aut kompas", 1993, p. 31). Also the mythological ancestor Khorin Buryats - is "KHORIDOY". Among Mongols were known also KHORCHIN (khor and probably mongolian chinuo/chino/chon "wolf" and CHAKHAR (from dzha "red" and khor). And at last the last... At Proto-Mongols Wuhuan (O-huan) a place dwellings of spirits of ancestors the RED MOUNTAIN (!) was considered. (see: Mify Narodov Mira. Т.I Мoskva. Sovetskaja enciklopedija. 1991,p.170) I shall remind, that the Afghani city of Kunduz is known as Wuhuan, and later as War-waliz, that means "City of Avars". The state symbol of the Caucasian Avars (Caucasian Avar Khanate) according to Georgian geographer Vakhushti Bagrationi "the wolf with a banner on a background of mountains" (17-18 centuries). (see: Vakhushti. Istorija Gruzii, pp. 553,641,653// Institut rukopisej imeni K. Kelidze. Akademija Nauk Gruzinskoj SSR. f. N., № 2079). Actually AVAR in Caucasian Avaristan it is KHUNZAKH which has no translation except for as "at Huns". Avarian from Daghestan--81.24.80.233 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Pay attention to a fragment from the Byzantian source: Turkic qaghan has become angry on Byzantines and has declared, that it is necessary not to cut this people (Avars) a sabre, but to tramble down as Ants (=INSECTS) by horses : "Bu gec kalisin sebebi, Gok Turkleri fiili savasa istirak icin tazyik eden Bizansin gonderdigi muteaddid elcilerden biri olan Valentinosu 576’da Aral Golu havalisindeki Turk bolgesinde karsilayan Turk prensi Bizans’i, Gok Turklerin af edilmez hasimlari olan Avarlari (Varhonitai = Uar-huni) himaye etmekle ve kilicla degil, atlarin ayaklari altinda karinca gibi ezilerek oldurulmegi hakeden bu kavme barinacak yer vermekle sucluyordu ki, bu dogru idi" (See: Kafesoglu, Ibrahim. Asya Turk devletleri // Turk Dunyasi El Kitabi. I cilt, Turk Kulturunu Arastirmalari Enstitusu. Ikinci Baski. Ankara. 1992. s.130). To me it is not clear, why here constantly try to represent true enemies of Avars as true Avars. That is attribute an origin of enemies their victim. Turks and Tele have attacked Avars. Subsequently the part of Tele tribes began to refer to as Uigurs (hueyhe/hueyhu). The image of avars also mismatches Avars. Anybody from scientists does not approve, that Rouran it are Turks, or Hephthalites/Hua/Uar are Turks. This Article absolutely ridiculous. It simply joke.It is possible to speak about Turkic and Slavic influence on Avars only during Avarian Khaganate, but not earlier.--81.24.80.233 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 81.24.80.233, there is a clear Pan-Turkist agenda running all the way through Wikipedia on all Eurasian Nomad articles. The Oghur question is of particular concern to me. It is a fringe idea not accepted by the scientific community that "Oghur" were proto-Turkic, it has been well established for more than a century that Ugors were related to Finns in language and culture and together with Samoyedes formed part of the Uralic peoples. 82.6.30.147 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell. As long as we present all major interpretations (and that's all they are), then its OK. Hxseek (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

@81, you said there were people called Kermikhions mentioned in Byzantian sources living among Avars. Do you mean Kuber's Keramisians?82.6.115.62 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Inter-article cleanup desperately needed

The average reader is going to be completely confused between the relationships (if any, and how demonstrated) between the Caucasian Avars and European Avars (a.k.a. Pseudo-Avars a.k.a Eurasian Avars). Both of these articles needs to be very clear on this blindingly obvious question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no relationship. Completely different people. Unfortunating naming Hxseek (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

The caption of the illustration at the upper right corner of the article is "Avar warrior with captive" But the same illustration also appears in the article of Khazars with the caption "Khazar warrior with captive". Which is correct ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

War on sources?

This article is a good example of how people try to bias data. There are so many sources on all sides Avars are of Turkic/Hungarian or Slavs or whatever... Are the source "reliable"? I believe in archeology and not in chronicles, as lots of chronicles were found fake at the end. Archeology is difficult to make fake. For example, do you know what is the difference between Slav and Hungarian tomb? Slav tombs have NO character whatsoever, they say it has no differentiation, so they say "this must be Slavic" -- but at the end it is just a theory, it is not FACT. Turkic/Hungarian (or Avar, Hun, Scythian) tombs have very strong cohesion: all are entombed in the ground (not burnt) with the horse next to the person and most cases it is with some jewels or items of mettalurgic interest. Do you know the percentage of found tombs in the former area of Kingdom of Hungary? Little more than 4000 tombs, 45 tombs are "Slavic" (or some other ethnicity, as this could be something else). On the basis of the facts above, Avars have nothing to do with Slavs. Abdulka (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Firstly, Turkic and Slavic are modern linguistic categories. Language, anthropology/ genes and culture (incl. burial rites) do not go hand in hand. The article states that Slavic might have been spoken as the idiom of the Avar khaganate. There is no reason why a "Slav" can't use any other burial other than simple cremation {and by the way your knowlegde of Slavic burial rites is celarly non-existant). Secondly, to just heapAvars with Magyars, Turks and Scythians is wrong. Yes, they shared some similarities, but this was secondary to lifestyle conditions in the steppe, and not a vestige of a common biological origin. You just typify the common biases of people on wiki - one not limited to, but particularly prominent amongst, "Greater Turkicists"/ Orientalists, who aim on "proving" that Huns, Avars, Bulgars are "Turkic". Unfortunately, this only debases the articles to nationalist dribble and severely restricts understanding of how (i) obscure (ii) complex and (iii) mixed the origins of all these people really were.

So Avars = Turkic ? Define what is Turkic : Turkic is a linguistic categorisation created by modern scholars to define a set of related languages. It is not a priori a culture, a "race" or religion. The use of horses and 'khagans' was not in any means limited to Turkic people. Anthro has well shown that , physically, Avar settlements are mixed, but predominantly "Europid" (ie not Mongol). Similarly, archaeological remains show mixed influces. "Eastern", Byzantine, local/ native, even Persian. Ultimately the material culture of the Avars was UNIQUE, nothing 100% in common with other "Turks", whether they be the Uighurs of Mongolia, or whomever. So this leaves, did the Avars speak Turkic ? Possibly some elements did speak Turkic , but the only Toponymic evidence for Turkic in Pannonia (ie Hungary) comes from Cuman times in the 12th century, not the 7th to 9th. Therefore, it is unlikely Turkic was spoken significantly by the Avars in Europe. And Avars have A LOT to do with Slavs, given that, as some propose, the break-up of the Avar Empire led to the appearance of new, "Slavic" groups all over eastern Europe Hxseek (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think where we are getting bogged down is from where the Avar elite were. Noone can deny that the Avar Empire itself was ethnically mixed. What concerns us is whether the ruling elite were 'Turkic", "Mongolic, or the like. Like I said before, we cannot say. "Turkic" is a linguistic category created by modern-day linguists to group together languages with similarities. Historians have next to no proof that the Avars spoke Turkic, apart from a few Turkic inscriptions, the title chagan (which is probably Mongolic, anyway), and the name "Bayan" (which is actually Chuvashian, and not Turkic proper). In fact, it is currently favoured that Avar realm used Slavic as its official language. So there goes the linguistic proof. Secondly, at no point do contemporary sources refer to the Avars as "Turkic". The only "Turks" in the 6th century were the GokTurks - the sworn enemies of the Avars ! So the Avars certainly did not see themselves as Turks or anything Turkic. Then there is archaeology, which shows a largely unique material culture influenced predominantly by Byzantine-Mediterranean fashions, as well as 'Germanic', 'Slavic', Sassanian-Persian, and steppe nomadic elements. Nothing directly analogous to other "Turks" in Mongolia. Finally, there is anthropological evidence: shows a predominantly Europid type, with some Mongolids too. Nothing proving that only the Mongolid type was the ruling elite, rather, princely burials feature all phenotypes. Even if we equate Mongolid with Turkic speakers (which as everyone knows is wrong - look at modern day Turks- they are Anatolioid or whatever you want to call them), everything points to a mixture of influences. Hxseek (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is known that there were Slavic tribes in the Avar Confederation but Avar Khaganate was certainly a Turkic Khaganate. (By the way Chuvash is a Turkic language.). Have a nice day.F.Mehmet (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, scholars still debate as to the exact relation between Chuvash and Turkic. Secondly, only very fragmentery evidence exists about a "native" Avar language, apart from some runes and the dubious quality of making judgement from personal names, eg Bayan. All we do know is that they likely spoke Slavic. Their life, at least initially, was steppe nomadic - not a specifically Tirkic trait; one which, in fact, originate amongst Indo-European speakers of the Ponto-Caspian steppe thousands of years earlier. Their ruler was a khagan - a titile which first appeared in proto-Mongol groups. Finally, their physical characteristics showed a large mixture. So please highlight exactly how they were "certainly Turkic" ? Have an even nicer day

Hxseek (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On Eurasian, European, Ancient or Whatever Avars

I've brought the article back here because I had noticed that in November an anon had ravaged the article to move it, using copy-and-paste to change the article name, thus losing all the article's history. If somebody doesn't like the current name held by the article, then I invite him to search with the other editors a consensual position to be searched through WP:RM; then an uninvolved admin will make the necessary move if there is agreement.--Aldux (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Slaves talking about lords

Avars - the white Khuns. They were the masters of old Asia , they were caucasoids - look the "taklamakan mummies". Mongols and Chinese people were rebel to those Caucasoids. Rebellion was be succesful and Caucasoids migrated to the west. Some of caucasoid Khuns and his slaves migrated to the North and the Asian Khuns ( half mongoloid - half caucasoid ) people were be. in the west the migrated Avars ( or Khuns or White Khuns ) had a state "hepthalites". Some of Caucasoids went in to iran - they were the Parthian. Some of Avars fought against Turkic and mongolic barbarian tribes , and migrated from Asia to the Volga - North Caucasus , they mixed with native Caucasian Avars , and were ride their horses on east europe. Magyars' fathers are unknown ! may be the north east germans are the sons of Avars , Poland and Northern Russias' old nordics. We know , a very elit archers named "mergen" - they were mongolian - warriors are in the army of Avars. Avars are Caucasoids. if they were mongoloids - todays' frankia and germania people must be mongolian too :) but they are still caucasian (most of them. even though their women now choose niggar boys for love). there is no honostly archaeological search in Caucasus - about Avars. Russia do not let this. This searches will be the key. WARKHONNS ( white khuns - hephtalites ) - AVAR KHUNZ ( still using in Caucasus to define Avars people). You are my son Europe - you are Caucasian ! Do not make your father any mongoloid turkics ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 888.226.117.75 (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Takabeg, please, substantiate your removal of category tags from the article. Removing categories without discussion is not acceptable when the action is disputed. Atabəy (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Avars also known as Abhiras or Ahirs in India

The Avars who came to India as a tribe of the Sakas > are known today as Abhiras/Ahirs.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=4yOUTcUPibSsB7Pm9P8L&ct=result&id=1EyBAAAAMAAJ&dq=abhira+afghanistan&q=abhiras

Racial basis of Indian culture: including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal-page-269

http://books.google.com/books?ei=nSI9TdSII8WAlAft4LzOBg&ct=result&id=xOA0AQAAIAAJ&dq=avar+tribe+and++abhira&q=avar+

http://books.google.com/books?ei=nSI9TdSII8WAlAft4LzOBg&ct=result&id=1EyBAAAAMAAJ&dq=avar+tribe+and++abhira&q=avar+

Racial basis of Indian culture: including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal-page-50

http://books.google.com/books?ei=nSI9TdSII8WAlAft4LzOBg&ct=result&id=w-g9AAAAIAAJ&dq=avar+tribe+and++abhira&q=+abhira

http://books.google.com/books?ei=nSI9TdSII8WAlAft4LzOBg&ct=result&id=SqQCAAAAMAAJ&dq=avar+tribe+and++abhira&q=avar</ref>

The section about (alleged) Avars in India doesn;t belong in this article. Even if there was some distant relation between the Pannonian Avars and those in India, it has little relevance to this article. It;s best placed in an article about the Sakas, or Indian history Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Carpathianbasin late avar.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Carpathianbasin late avar.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving discussions

On Talk:Costoboci there have been many digressing endless discussions between me, User:Slovenski Volk and User:EraNavigator (EN is the "IP author" - usually from the 31.* and 178.* ranges). However at least the two sections below are within the scope of this article, as they are about Avars (but also about Huns and Slavs) - about their physical appearance, about the langauges they spoke, also about the Avar society with an emphasis on the relations between the nomadic newcomers and the local population. I believe and hope they can be used to improve this article, so here they are. Daizus (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Overlordship and identities

• On the Hunnic empire (p263) " The historical evidence... makes it clear that becoming part of the Hunnic empire did not mean that one became a Hun. The empire was essentially an unequal, involuntary confederation. All the participating non-Huns that we know about were forced to join, were systematically exploited under its auspices and eventually forced their way free of its domination" (p230) "For some scholars... group identities within this multicultural empire were infinitely malleable...the original nomadic core and the largely Germanic-speaking contingents who bulked out Attila's manpower all came to share fully in the same Hunnic group identity". ( p231) "[But it is clear that] larger group identities were not broken by participation [in the empire]. The Huns themselves had a basic interest in maintaining these identities, since being a Hun was to occupy a position of privilege..."( p238) "The empire was destroyed from within, when its various subject peoples reasserted their independence militarily after Attila's death. If they had all been subsumed voluntarily into an equal Hunnic identity, why would this have happened?"

• On the Gothic kingdom: (p166-7) "the Tervingi [Goths] comprised a dominant Germanic-speaking Gothic elite, most able to trace their origins back to the 3rd c immigrants, with dependent freedmen ans slaves of various origins closely tied to them. Alongside... these Goths "proper" existed many communities descended from the older indigenous populations of the region. They had certainly been subdued by the Goths...may well have paid them tributes, but were probably largely autonomous..."

• On the Avar empire: (p443) "the Avar empire was... [similarly to the Hunnic empire] a hegemony, established by military conquest and maintained by intimidation". ( p444) "Avar domination was something that many Slavic groups wanted to avoid - or to throw off... [as did] the Sorbs...under Samo".

To the above quote has to be added the testimony of Fredegar, that in battle the Avars would stay in camp and watch while their Slavic subjects did the fighting, and that nevertheless the Avars would keep all the campaign booty for themselves. Also that "every year the Avars would winter with the Slavs and sleep with the latter's wives and daughters, and in addition the Slavs paid tribute and endured many other burdens". NB If these Avars do not qualify as "overlords", who does?

( p443) "[there were] numerous instances of the determined efforts of Avar khagans not to lose face even in defeat, since any sign of weakness was a signal for... disaffected subjects to rebel". (Gives example of siege of Constantinople in 626: after the failure of the final Avar plan, the Avars slaughtered large numbers of their Slavic foot-soldiers as scapegoats).

Bollocks. Heather has not read the sources. From Priscus' embassy to Huns:

This man, on the contrary, resembled a well-to-do Scythian, being well dressed, and having his hair cut in a circle after Scythian fashion. Having returned his salutation, I asked him who he was and whence he had come into a foreign land and adopted Scythian life. When he asked me why I wanted to know, I told him that his Hellenic speech had prompted my curiosity. Then he smiled and said that he was born a Greek and had gone as a merchant to Viminacium, on the Danube, where he had stayed a long time, and married a very rich wife. But the city fell a prey to the barbarians, and he was stript of his prosperity, and on account of his riches was allotted to Onegesius in the division of the spoil, as it was the custom among the Scythians for the chiefs to reserve for themselves the rich prisoners. Having fought bravely against the Romans and the Acatiri, he had paid the spoils he won to his master, and so obtained freedom. He then married a barbarian wife and had children, and had the privilege of eating at the table of Onegesius. [so contrary to Heather's empty rhetoric, as the other authors pointed out, fighting in a barbarian army was a way of gaining freedom and rights and this born Greek merchant was for all purposes a Hun (a Scythian to Priscus)]

Matthews 1989, p. 326 (the book is mentioned in the previous section): It would not be surprising if the Gothic federations, like their settlements, were more varied in composition than first impresions might suggest. According to Ammianus, the Huns killed and despoiled many of their Alan rivals and took the rest into alliance (31.3.1) - a pattern of warfare and accomodation among the barbarian peoples that must have been very frequent in the turmoil of this unsettled period.

Then there's evidence of Hunnic generals and chiefs having Germanic names, most famous is Attila himself. As for Goths, there's rich evidence (some quoted above) that in the Ostrogothic and Visigothic kingdoms, many Romans and non-Gothic barbarians had high positions in the Gothic society. There's also evidence for volunteers.

Heather's marxist and anachronic fantasies of "nations" oppressed by other "nations" ("Avar domination was something that many Slavic groups wanted to avoid - or to throw off") are so laughable that they are usually ignored when not ridiculed by other scholars (see some of the quotes I presented above). When Heather writes of "the Sorbs...under Samo" he fails to notice Samo was a Frankish merchant, not a "Slav" throwing off Avar domination. Daizus (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what scholars who know something about Avar society have to say. From Tivadar Vida's "Conflict and coexistence. The local population of the Carpathian Basin under Avar rule (sixth to seventh century)", in Florin Curta and Roman Kovalev (eds.), The Other Europe in the Middle Ages. Avars. Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (2008), pp. 13-46:

• p. 29: There is ample evidence for advanced social stratification within the Avar qaganate. Lavishly furnished “princely” burials stand out among poorer graves of common wariors, and the structure of many cemeteries with several hundred burials strongly suggests social differentiation. What remains unclear is the relationship between the ruling Avar aristocracy and the local population. There are several mentions in Byzantine sources of Gepids fighting in the Avar army. No indication exists in the archaeological record that these were slaves of the Avar, nor can burial assemblages with weapons found in Pannonia be interpreted as an indication of anything less than free men.
• p. 32: In my opinion the theory of the transplanted POWs does not work with the existing archaeological evidence. The wealth of the cemetery by the horreum of the Late Roman fort in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, which is outstanding even by early Byzantine standards, cannot be easily reconciled with the idea of an enslaved population of prisoners. It is also very unlikely that the captives brought from the Balkans would have been moved to such a strategically important location, undoubtedly a hub of trade and cultural routes. Much more persuading is Walter Pohl’s interpretation of the Keszthely culture as an “island culture” formed in a foreign milieu and playing the role of a cultural bridge between the nomadic traditions of East European origin and the local traditions of Central and Southeast European character.
• p. 40 The ethnic melting-pot of the early Avar history is well documented in written sources. For no more than a couple of generations, the Avar qaganate was in fact a more or less odd mosaic of groups with different traditions and political aspirations. The “Germanic” and “Roman” components of that mosaic seem to have been much more prominent than previously assumed. By means of a refined chronology, it is possible to monitor the process and to see how from initially clearly distinguished cultural groups, a new culture emerged after ca. 600 by means of contact, integration, and acculturation, integration. The first traces of cultural syncretism cannot be dated earlier than the first three decades of the seventh century, but the process of cultural unification and “standardization” did not start in earnest before the second third of the that century. By 670, most “Germanic” and “Roman” traditions have completely disappeared, making room for the Middle Avar culture of a distinctly East European appearance.

In other words by 670 the "subjects of the Avars" became "Avars". Daizus (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur. A common material culture does not necessarily imply a common ethnic identity (come on, we've been over this ground before!) Nothing in the archaeological record excludes the scenario of the Avar realm continuing to be ruled by a Turkic tribal elite. Non-Turks could, no doubt, in some cases attain high status, but only by marrying a Turk (to the extent that this was permitted: probably intermarriage was limited to non-Turkic females). Evidence: Avar khans continued to carry Turkic names and there is no record of a khan with a Slavic name. EraNavigator (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. The early Avars had a specific settlement pattern and a specific material culture brought with them from the steppes. Their subjects had also their specific settlement patterns and their specific material culture ("Roman", "Germanic", etc.) After few generations all these differences faded away, evidence that the bearers of the two cultures intermingled. It would be absurd to claim Avars maintained "biological purity" but instead they forgot their ancestral rites and culture and replaced them with a new culture strongly influenced by their subjects. It is also absurd to claim that the well-defined communities like Keszthely abandoned their culture (in this case a Christian one!) and embraced a new culture, only because their evil overlords oppressed them. Besides we have plenty of examples from Goths, Huns, Alans and many other barbarian confederacies that subjects could attain high status. "Intermarriage was limited to non-Turkic females" is nonsense, it is demolished by Priscus' story above: a born Greek merchant proved himself in battles, earned his freedom, married a Hun woman, and became one of Onegesius' close commanders/soldiers (eating at his table).

As for onomastic evidence, you're wrong again. We don't even know the names of all Avar khagans (Bayan can be a title as well, in modern Chuvash puyan means "rich (person)" and apparently some scholars derived it from a proto-form *bayan). In fact we know so little of early Avars, that some scholars assume they spoke an Iranian language. Daizus (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Priscus' tale: note that the former wealthy merchant Greek did not marry a "Scythian" (ie Hun), but just a "barbarian" (ie non-Greco-Roman), who could be any non-Hunnic inhabitant of Hunno-Carpathia: a Gepid, Goth, Sarmatian, Dacian etc. Also, as Heather points out, the experiences of high-status Greco-Roman captives cannot represent the position of the Huns' subjects. The Greek would have been given VIP treatment because of his social status and his literacy and education, which would have been useful to his master, enhancing his prestige. As regards the khans, several names survive (eg Tudun, Yugurush, Katun) all are Turkic, none Iranian. So are the tamgas found in Avar graves.EraNavigator (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Heather is wrong again, this Greek was enslaved ("allotted to Onegesius in the division of the spoil") and his high status only made him prisoner to a chief ("as it was the custom among the Scythians for the chiefs to reserve for themselves the rich prisoners"). His prestige did not come from literacy and education, but from martial prowess and gifts or payments ("Having fought bravely against the Romans and the Acatiri, he had paid the spoils he won to his master, and so obtained freedom.") Daizus (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

All what you call Avar names, are in fact titles. Among the Avars there are some people with high status (certainly not slaves) with non-Turkic names such as Kunimon, an envoy of Bayan (whose name can be a form of the Gepidic Kunimund). Also in 796 we have a mention of the councillor of the Avar khagan Unguimeri who bears a Germanic name (Inguimer). Daizus (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Avar/non-Avar biological apartheid would have been assisted (as it was in S. Africa) by the fact that the Avars were racially, not just culturally, distinct from their Caucasian subjects: they were slitty-eyed Mongoloids. In the words of an exhibition-guide produced by the Inst of Archaeology (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) : "in the upper stratum of Avar society, the Mongoloid anthropological type prevails". EraNavigator (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a Hungarian physical antrhopology paper on the Avars from various settlements - looking at those in "Avar" burials, etc; they were mixed. Some were indeed East Asian appearance, others were Dinaric., Nordic, Meditteranean, Iranian. Like with the Scythians, there is no proof that Avars came from Mongolia. People did;nt just migrate across entire continents. Even nomads had well defined, rather limited, ecologicaly bound transmigration routes. The Ruanruan-Avar thesis is a load of s*@t. The Avars were from the Ponto-Caspian region, just like all European nomads. And they probably spoke Slavic that is why there are no Turkic toponyms in Hungary pre-dating the Arpad arrival, and that is why that Slavic language suddenly 'exploded' during this period. IT must have been the lingua Avaria; just like Latin was the lingua Roma.

EN, let's read that paper, shall we?

• "Though it happens only rarely that all of the elements can be traced at one site, people of different origins and cultures inhabited the same settlements and used common cemeteries, forming many-sided contacts. The material and spiritual culture of these peoples was characterized by continuous changes and interrelations, it was strongly influenced by the civilisations surrounding them, like Byzantium, Iran and China. In the Carpathian Basin, we can trace the colourful mosaic of ethnic and cultural traditions of foreign origin up till the late 6th and early 7th century. Later on, acculturation and integration occurred." [no apartheid!]
• And as usual your quotes are fabricated: "In the leading stratum of Avar society, the Mongoloid anthropological element prevails. " (leading meaning khagans and the topmost ranks; among soldiers and other free men there's no evidence of prevailing anthropological elements, see SV's comment just above) Daizus (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have another paper written by a Hungarian scholar in 1970s, overall Mongoloids comprise 16% throughout Avar period, although this varies with settlements, and many settlements are "purely Europoid". Ullo I peaks at 41% for Mongoloids. The entire basis on which "leading" members/ clans of Avar society was made is on presumption of archaeological finds, ie those with griffin and tendril belt mounts are "Asian nobles" vs those with bow belt mounts; itself a questionable basis. Nevertheless, the book does suggest that 'pure Avars" were decidedly Mongoloid, specifically hailing from Trans-Baikal region. I wouldn't think many modern scholars would make too much of this other than showing its mixed nature. Interestingly, I have always that that this female Serbian tennis player has some faint Mongoloid features left over ? from the Avars :) Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC) [4]

Re: Avar archaeology: Dazius you're correct in that identifiable 'ethnic' elements disappeared after early Avar period, however, each site & region was nevertheless varied, as expected. As you mentioned, previous decidedly "Germanic" , "East Roman" etc features dissolved. What's more, by the 8th century, the Carpathian/ Pannonian basin was densely settled. A thriving, poly-ethnic empire indeed. It is during this latter time when mentions of Avar raids cease and they are barely mentioned in chronicles, is after the 630 disaster at the gates of Constantinople. Despite reverberations, the Empire 'settled down' and began to flourish

There are hardly any names of Avars other than a few Germanic names and Zabenger - the Kutrigur envoy. We have Bayan which was the name (? title) of the leader and his sons. It might mean "wealthy" in Mongoloid. However, neither this, nor chaganus proves that they were "Mongol" stock, coz if we recall, the Rus leader was called a chaganus by the Franks, he certainly wasn;t a mongol. Also check this paper out by D Sinor [5]; very good about "Asian" origins of Avars and Huns and etymologies, etc Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More overlordship and identities

Thank you, Slovenski, for providing scientific evidence which supports the overlords scenario: "the Mongoloid element constitutes 14% [of burials found] throughout the Avar era ". If, as Dz claims, the ethnic groups mixed freely, then the proportion of skeletons identified as Mongoloid would have declined over time as they mingled with the indigenous Caucasian majority. In fact, given that the original Mongoloid immigrants probably did not exceed 1% to 5% of the total population, one would, in a free intermarriage scenario, expect the Mongoloid element to effectively disappear over the 300 years (15 generations) that the Avars ruled the Hungarian Plain. The fact that instead, the Mongoloid proportion held steady can only be explained by restrictions on intermarriage and/or the continued influx of new Mongoloid immigrants into the region. Most likely the latter would have been other Avars invited by the established ones, precisely in order to keep up the numbers of the ruling elite.EraNavigator (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're again abusing the quote: "14% of the burials found throughout the Avar era", not "14% throughout the era". The "the Mongoloid proportion did not held steady", there was no continuous flux of "fresh Avars" from Central Asia coming in. Daizus (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The link between high status and Mongoloids is proven by the fact that the latter constitute a far greater proportion of high status graves than is proportionate to their likely share of the total population. Thus the figures are consistent with a privileged, racially-defined ruling class (although one would need a more up-to-date, statistically rigorous and sophisticated analysis of the achaeological data to confirm this.

As regards to the common culture=common identity scenario, let me quote Heather again (the following remarks concern the Hunnic empire, but are applicable to its Avar successor, which ruled much the same region and which Heather considers largely similar in nature and structure:

• (p237) "Nor...is the view of the Hunnic empire which emerges from the historical evidence - one riven with internal tension between ruler and ruled - remotely contradicted by the archaeological evidence, even if you take the [unproven] view that the Huns' invisibility stems from their...starting to bury their dead in ways [similar to] their Germanic subjects".
• "Everyone is now clear...that individual groups cannot be assumed to each have their own diistinctive material culture. But it is sometimes assumed that if a...culture does not show any clear differences, then there cannot have been any clear distinctions of identity within it. But this is just an inverse application of the mistaken assumption...that distinct groups should have distinct culture".
• "The whole point of the Huns in conquering Goths, Gepids, Heruli and others was to turn them into subjects whose military and economic potential could be...exploited. If they were all allowed to become fully-fledged free Huns...the overall benefit to the Huns from their initial conquests would have been lost."

I'm sure that the Avars was stratified and exploitative; however, Im not sure this operated on a 'racial' basis. Rather, as with all nomadic confederacies, this was on a "Clan" base. ie the level of standing of the individual clan one came from; not whether they were "slanty-eyed" or not. And I think the Avar's of 568 were probably different to the Avars of 750 AD Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's read Ammianus' Roman History, XXXI, 3, 1: "Therefore the Huns, after having traversed the territories of the Alani, and especially of that tribe of them who border on the Gruthungi, and who are called Tanaitae, and having slain many of them and acquired much plunder, they made a treaty of friendship and alliance with those who remained. And when they had united them to themselves, with increased boldness they made a sudden, incursion into the extensive and fertile districts of Ermenrichus, a very warlike prince, and one whom his numerous gallant actions of every kind had rendered formidable to all the neighbouring nations." Daizus (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

More studies contradicting EN and Heather's theory:

• [6] p. 89 on Huns: "According to his [Bartucz's] opinion the Gepids inhabiting the territory of later day Hungary were not only in close contact with the Huns on the political and trade level, but these peoples lived in a state of strong racial amalgamation, too. [...] Skull deformation was a widespread custom among the Gepids (21 of the 54 skulls examined were deformed), that they took over from the Huns living with them. It was present in all six groups identified within this population, but its ratio was the highest among the Mongoloids. [...] The Gepid cemeteries of the Hungarian Plain contained Mongolid deformed skulls as well as Nordic ones." but p. 90: "We have very few Hun finds, archeological and anthropological as well. The Huns spent only a brief period in the Central Danubian Basin, therefore no Hun cemeteries of any size worth mentioning were uncovered. Only the skeletal material of a limited number of Hun graves became known."
• same study, p. 90 on Avars: "Bartucz (1934) was the first scholar to go one step further beyond the analysis of individual cemeteries and to attempt the formation of a general anthropological image of the Avars. He declared that the Avars were characterized by a heavily mixed racial composition." on p. 91: "Lipták paid the most attention to the Turanid (South-Siberian) and to the Ural types from the Europo-Mongoloids. None of the two had much significance in the Avar Period, but they were dominant among the conquering Hungarians. Lipták identified and described in detail three kinds among the Mongoloids of the Avar Period: the Northern-Chinese (Chinid), the Central Asian Mongol and the palaeo-Siberian types. He considered the two later types the key components of Avar Period Mongolids. [...] "Lipták went on refining his taxonomical system and he establihed five types of Avar Period Mongoloids in the Carpathian Basin. These were: Chinid (Far Eastern Mongoloid), Baykal (Palaeosiberian), Tungid (Broad-faced Mongoloid), Jenysej (Americanoid) and Central Asiatic (Northern Mongoloid) types." and more recent research p. 93: "Fóthi (1998) carried out examinations by systematic cluster analysis. She placed the Avar Period population of the Central Danubian Basin in the focus of her analysis. She took 224 series under consideration. Anything resembling a permanent Mongolid population appeared with the arrival of the Avar in the Central Danubian Basin, and the author classified this group as the “true” Avar. This people probably evolved from two tribes, as the differing similarity circles of its two main components, the Sajanian and Baykal elements, indicated it." (so the Avar slit-eyes overlords were of different origins themselves) and as I said, the people intermingled: "The majority of Avar Period Transdanubian individuals were long-skulled and tall in stature. This group has a common feature: they all had analogies in the Pannon autochton peoples and Germanic Periods of the Central Danubian Basin, and among the Slavic peoples. The Avar Period groups who populated the regions to the east of the Danube were mostly new elements in the history of the Central Danubian Basin. The 8th century inhabitants of the Danube-Tisza interfluvial were one of the most markedly characteristic groups of the whole Avar Period. They simply had no analogy whatsoever in the Central Danubian Basin, but also no parallel in the Eurasian steppe populations. Fóthi proposed the view that most probably this characteristic type came into being as a result of local evolution. The Danube-Tisza region already had a Europid population and they intermingled with a low-skulled, mongolid (possibly Tungid) group. The process took something like 200 years."
• [7] p. 147: "Seventy-seven graves of a Late Avar Age cemetery were excavated near Jászberény (Hungary) in 2006. Bones of 23 males, 30 females, 24 children and juvenile individuals of undeterminable sex were examined in this study." and p. 161: "Each excavated individual from Jászberény-Disznózug is reckoned into the Europid taxon. Altogether three individuals (objects 36, 46, 92) have some features that are common in Europomongolids or Mongolids (e.g. shovel-shape teeth, flat fossa canina, typical-shaped nasal bones)." (so again mixture: in this cemetery out of 77 individuals 3 have Mongolids features)
• [8] p. 387: "In the medieval necropolis of Vicenne (Italy) among 130 skeletons, thirteen horsemen, recognized on the basis of the contextual burials with horse, have been found. This rite, rarely found in Europe, recalls an Asian rite, attested from the Iron Age to the Age of Migration in nomadic Asian populations. Local and Germanic goods were also found. In order to study the anthropological composition of this population, some morphometrical skeletal features have been analyzed. Heterogeneity both in the horsemen and in the other males of the necropolis has been observed. Besides the multicultural context testified by archaeological data, a multiethnic society seems to emerge by the anthropological analysis. [...] The early medieval necropolis (7th–8th C.) of Vicenne-Campochiaro is an important site in Central Italy because of the presence of material attributable to the Asian cultural context in addition to the Lombard one." and "We found heterogeneity both in the horsemen and in the other males. Both the samples showed morphometric heterogeneity and some individuals present biological characteristics resembling Central Asian typologies. This suggests some crossing between the autochthonous, Germanic and Oriental populations and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to associate specific cultural elements to a particular group. The multicultural picture observed in the necropolis by the archaeologists does not prevent us from recognizing that the horsemen may have had a special role, as shown, not only by the contextual grave with the horse and some burial goods, but also by the observations of particular habits and behavior (anomalous lingual wear) that could suggest a restricted social group." (please note: two 'social groups', both heterogenous)
• [9] p. 4: "Among the 254 individuals examined, 73 women and 73 men were found.", p. 5: "There were 25 male and 11 female skulls suitable for detailed analysis. Male and female skulls show similar taxonomical characteristics, in similar portions. This could be a very unified population from the taxonomical aspect. The skulls analysed all belong to the Europid type. We could not carry out a clear-cut classification in the majority of cases, as most of the skulls belong to intermediate groups. On the other hand the taxons taking part in the mingling are markedly traceable. These are Nordic, Mediterranean, and Cromagnoid A in the sequence of their ratios. [...] The anthropological image of the Kaposvár Avar Period population is presumably created from the intermingling of the ethnic groups that were co-inhabiting Transdanubia for centuries."
• [10] p. 619: (citing other works): "Toward the demise of the Avars, it is reasonable to assume that the individuals had, during their lifetimes, interbred with other ethnic groups that ultimately became their masters with the consequence that the sample studied was probably not ethnically homogeneous." Daizus (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done on all the studies. Slovenski Volk (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually some of Heather's claims are more nuanced, but EN distorted them through his cherry-picking and eliminating inconvenient information (and thus creating an illusory ignorance of sources). The quote from p. 237 is "The whole point of the Huns in conquering Goths, Gepids, Heruli and others was to turn them into subjects whose military and economic potential could be harnessed and exploited. If they were all allowed to become fully-fledged free Huns like the former Roman merchant ..." What Roman merchant? The one I mentioned already, see also Heather, p. 235-6: "All of this has strong implications for the operation of group identities within the Hunnic Empire. They were not unchanging. Priscus' former Greek merchant shows that it was possible for particularly succesful individual slaves to rise to full free status among the Huns - that is, to pass across pre-existing divides in status and identity. But the original Hunnic core was itself at this times experiencing substantial changes in group identity. I mentioned earlier that as far as we can tell, its original identity was based on immediate loyalty to a series of ranked kings, whose association created the larger group, but these lower-level identities were swept away by the political restructuring that came with the rise of the dynasty of Rua and Attila." I still think Heather's argument about Huns, Goths and Gepids is speculative, as he brings no evidence. But at least he admits the story of Priscus as evidence for a slave rising to "full free status among the Huns".

Now, even though Heather is fully aware of the literary sources, apparently he is not familiar with Eastern European archaeology (and sites) and his research was restricted to few works readily available in English (or maybe even less than that). For example at pag. 446 Heather writes: "Recent excavations of the early Slavic village of Dulcinea in Wallachia have shown that this settlemetn of ten to fifteen houses shifted its site on several occasions in response to the need to open up new arable fields." and also p. 683 in an end-note (so we can be sure it's not a typo!): "On Dulcinea see Curta (2006), 56-7". However there's no Dulcinea in Wallachia! The village's name is Dulceanca (see Curta 2006, p. 57) and there's no evidence this was a "Slavic village", at least not according to Heather. Heather objects to Curta's theory that Slavs were a new identity formed near the Roman border (where Dulceanca is also located) and instead makes them migrants from the north (the "Korchak migrants" as he calls them). In this case to call this village "Slavic", he must equate the material culture with ethnic groups, which is something he argues against when he writes about Huns or other groups. As Halsall so eloquently put it, Heather is hoist with his own petard. Daizus (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

although he is probably just following literary sources and general historiography that groups called "Slavs" lived in Wallachia in 6th century, whether we can say those in Dulcanea were is the same as asking whether those who lived in 2nd century upper Lipita were Costoboci (perhaps, more secure for the former) 203.10.55.11 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In general perhaps he does that. But not on this particular issue. It's also wrong to write of "recent excavations" because the Dulceanca sites were excavated in the late 60s and the 70s (not sure about the dates, just checking the bibliography in Curta 2001). And also in that chapter Heather makes several such mistakes, e.g. Dabritas instead of Dauritas (on pages 424, 682 and 723), indicative of a poor bibliography, rather based on hearsay and sloppy notes than on other scholarly materials and careful examination of primary sources. Heather's patchy bibliography is most obvious when he writes things like "there do seem to be more, slightly earlier, datable imports in Podolia than in Curta's favoured spot to the south-east" (p. 396), but see Curta 2001, p. 308 and more specific, p. 235 sqq. (some pages are not in preview) showing that Baran's Podolian homeland is supported by two iron crossbow brooches from Kodyn, which however are not the earliest artefacts in the south-eastern Europe. Curta eventually concluded on p. 246 that on some sites (such as Kodyn and Bucharest-Mihai Vodă) "occupation must have begun much earlier", but there's no reason to date the Podolian sites before the other early sites. Let's also note Heather cites Curta 2001 but he ignores Curta's discussion on Podolia (Kodyn). Daizus (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not distort quotes: I abbreviate them, in order to focus on their central points, and in order to avoid copyright infringements. Obviously, there are nuances and exceptions to each point, but in order to include those, one would have to reproduce large chunks of text, which is forbidden. It is true that Heather accepts that the Greek merchant became a fully-fledged Hun (a point I would dispute, given Priscus' wording and the fact that it's unlikely he would be permitted to marry a Mongoloid woman), but it is also true that Heather considers the Greek's case to be limited to high-status individuals among the non-Huns.

I don't understand how quoting hundreds of words from Heather is ok, but adding five more suddenly becomes an issue. It's obvious Heather doesn't support the extremist, misguided view that all free Huns were coming from some Hunnic homeland in Central Asia as you suggested. So yes, you distorted that quote, making Heather the author of an absolute statement, whereas he supports not only "the Greek's case" but also that "it was possible for particularly succesful individual slaves to rise to full free status among the Huns" ("individual slaves" - plural and no preference for Greeks or Romans). Daizus (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything not in quote marks is my own opinion and not that of Heather. Neither Heather nor Curta address the racial issue, but I think it's an important point, because racial distinctiveness makes it easier to maintain an overlord class. None of the quotes given by Dz above really addresses the core question: is there are a significant correlation between Mongoloid features and high status graves? In other words, is the incidence of Mongoloid features greater in high-status graves than in the population as a whole, and was such incidence maintained through the Early, Middle and Late Avar eras? I appreciate that intermingling was substantial (eg Avars taking the Slavs' wives and daughters). but is there any evidence that "pure" or at least "predominantly" Mongoloid types persisted throughout the Avar era?

Of course they do. In most of those studies it's pointed out there's no correlation between skull morphology and high status (e.g. "We found heterogeneity both in the horsemen and in the other males"). In some studies it's pointed out the intermingling happened gradually ("The Danube-Tisza region already had a Europid population and they intermingled with a low-skulled, Mongolid (possibly Tungid) group. The process took something like 200 years.") Daizus (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Curta's argument that the common language (lingua avarica) of the Avar empire was Slavic is just a theory, not a fact. Paulus Diaconus states (IV.37): rex Avarum, quem sua lingua Cacanum appellant ("the king of the Avars, whom they call the Kakan in their own language") may imply that the Avars (at least the ruling elite) still spoke their original Turkic language ca. AD 800 (there is nothing surprising about this: the ruling Norman elite continued to speak among themselves in Norman French for 300 years after the Conquest in 1066). Whether Turkic was became the lingua franca of their subjects is uncertain. (Norman French became quite widely spoken by educated persons in England, although the illiterate masses spoke only English). Since the core of the empire (Hungary/Transylvania) was previously the realm of the Gepids, it is more likely that Gepidic German (an East Germanic dialect which was probably similar to the Gothic language) was the common language of the non-Turkic inhabitants than Slavic, which was only spoken in peripheral areas. Heather considers that Gepidic German was already the common language of the Hunnic empire, which ruled much the same region. It is probable that the Avars communicated with their Slavic military serfs in Wallachia and Austria in German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.97.7.190 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

the Deacon's evidence of Avar's speaking in their "own language" does not exclude that this "their" language was Slavic. you're presuming that just because more of those in 'noble graves' were of Turanid phenotype they must have automatically been Turkic speaking (which in any case is incorrect; they were Oghuric - different to "Turkic"). Morepver, you are assuuming that their was some "core" of "real" Avars which rode their horses around Eurasia before settling down in Pannonia, keeping distinct from others and practicing endogamy and closed cultural contacts (against the evidence we have for nomadic societies); rather than having simply 'just formed' c. the 550s in opposition to the GokTurks. Nor does the fact that they used the term "chagan" imply anything about their origin or language, heck, we do'nt even know for sure where it first originated, it is merely just passed around from scholar to scholar presuming this was a "Mongolic" term (whatever that means) without any real evidence or scrutiny. I wholly agree that Gothic was the language of the Hun Empire, however, that of the Avars was Slavic; whilst open to interpretation, we do have strong support for it (a) absence of Turkic pre-Magyar toponyms in Hungary and strong presence of Slavic toponyms and loanwords into Hungarian. (b) the chronological synchronicity between the "Avar Empire" and spread of Slavic language (c) literary sources note that "Slavs" and "Avars" spoke the same language, and by 8th century interchange/ confuse the two term Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So the language of the Rus (and maybe also of the Russians) was Turkic, because the Rus called their leader Chacanus?

The presence of numerous Turkic in this region and this time is not supported by evidence. Even the often claimed numerous Germanic speakers in Gothia left little/no toponyms/hydronyms. Were they that many? We do have ancient Latin, Greek, Germanic, Celtic hydronyms throughout Europe. We do have Thracian, Illyric, Iranic, possibly even Dacian hydronyms. We have hydronyms of unknown origin (possibly from other unknown languages). We have many Slavic hydronyms. We have even later Turkic hydronyms (e.g. Ottoman). We have Magyar hydronyms. Where are the ancient Turkic ones (it is often claimed the Turkic language of the Avars was a language closely related to the Turkic Bulgar)? And I echo SV's query, how can one explain the Slavic substratum in Hungary (of both language and toponymy)? And the same question goes for Romania. Daizus (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and this discussion reminded me of this unfinished draft. As for titles and languages, you should also read this. The Slavic župan was often related to a loanword from the Turkic languages of the Avars and of the Bulgars. It seems that these tribes borrowed this word from Iranic speakers. The etymon was either *fšu-pāna "protector of cattle" (cf. the later Persian šubān = "shepherd") or *ču(b)-pān = "protector of a region, district", where ču and čub are forms attested among the Turkic and Iranic speakers of Central Asia, borrowed from the Chinese zhou = "region, district". Daizus (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

great article, good link Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian toponymy [11]