Download PDF | Georgios Kardaras - Byzantium and the Avars, 6th-9th Century AD_ Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations-Brill (2019).
280 Pages
Preface
The present work is a revised translation of my published in Greek monograph: Byzantium and the Avars, 6th—-gth c. A.D. Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (NHRF/1BR, Monographs 15), Athens 2010, based on my dissertation at the University of Ioannina. I have to note that in the course of the last decade, the scientific production on the Avars was really out of any expectation and it continues with ever more greater dynamic thanks to a new generation of researchers particularly in Central Europe. Nonetheless, the topic “Avars” concerns today scholars all over the world. Regarding my work, the greater part of time was devoted not to the typical translation of a text but to the study and the enrichment of the prototype with the new research data provided in the last decade. On the other hand, many older works were replaced.
Maybe is not right to repeat here all of the thanks regarding the Greek version of the book. As researcher at the IHR/NHRF in Athens I have to express first my thanks to the Director of the Institute, Professor Taxiarchis Kolias and the Emeritus Researcher Telemachos Lounghis for their constant support to my work at the Institute. The same I due to the former Director, Emeritus Researcher Kriton Chrysochoidis for his permission to translate the monograph for Brill Publishing House. Further, my thanks concern Professor Florin Curta who read the English manuscript and his corrections and valuable observations brought the text to its final version. I am also greatly obliged to Emeritus Professor P. Golden, Dr. Peter Somogyi as well as the researchers Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska (Leipzig) and Adam Bollék (Budapest) who read some chapters of the book and helped me with their suggestions and bibliographical information. Special thanks I own to other colleagues who contributed with their way to my effort: Prof. Katalin Pintér-Nagy (University of Szeged), Prof. Panos Sophoulis (University of Athens), Researcher Maria Leontsini (INR/ NHRF), Dr, Pantelis Charalampakis and Dr. Ioanna Tzifa. I am also indebted to Marcella Mulder, Elisa Perotti and Gert Jager at Brill Publishing House for their implicit support at the publication process. During the work I was benefited from a DAAD research fellowship in Leipzig, I express also my gratitude. Finally, I would like to thank once more my family for all they have done for me.
Georgios Kardaras
A Note on Transliteration
Greek personal names and place names have been transliterated directly from their Greek forms except where a Latinate or Anglicized version is well known: therefore Nikephoros, Axiopolis, Beroe, but Justinian, Adrianople, Thrace. For transliterations of bibliography, names and place names from Russian follow the Congress System, using sh, zh, ch, shch, ia etc. instead of § % & S¢ j. The same method for Bulgarian, where also d instead of u. Place names in Romania and Hungary follow current Romanian or Hungarian usage.
Introduction
1 Avars and Byzantine-Avar Relations: The Current State of Research
Despite its rather long presence, at least by medieval standards (from 568 to 796), the history of the Avar khaganate did not attract scholarly attention until recently. Denis Sinor was quite right when he noted in 1963 that “the history of the Avars is not yet written.”! Sinor’s view was fully justified, as the history of the Avars was usually treated as a separate chapter or section in studies dealing with the steppe peoples in general. By 1970, there were still no monographs or synthetic studies of the abundant written and archaeological evidence pertaining to the Avar khaganate, which could serve as a point of reference for future research on the presence of the Avars in Central Europe.
One of the reasons for this scholarly indifference may have been that the study of Avar history and culture concerned mostly those countries that included the territories once within the Avar khaganate, particularly Hungary, Slovakia and Austria. In most other countries in Central Europe or in the Balkans, the interest was limited to specific issues relevant to the history of their modern national territory, such as Avar attacks or the Avar cultural influences on the Slavs. Furthermore, two separate schools of thought developed in Central Europe in terms of how best to study the history of the Avars in the interest of the national identity. In Slovakia, the emphasis was primarily placed on the relations between the Avars and the Slavic populations, the ultimate goal being to distinguish the purely Slavic material culture from that of the rest of the (Avar) population inside the Avar khaganate. By contrast, Hungarian scholars use to call “Avar” all finds from the Carpathian Basin that could be dated between the last quarter of the sixth and the early ninth century.
They also insisted upon the cultural continuity of the area from the Huns to Avars, and later the Magyars. Regarding the Greek scholarship, studies cover the history of the Avars from 558 to 626, evidently with a focus on Avar raids on the Byzantine provinces, the conclusion of treaties between the Empire and the Avars, as well as the question of the Slavic settlements in Greece, a topic linked to the aggressive activity of the Avars against Byzantium. A first contribution to research was the study of Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou on the Avar and Slavic raids during the reign of Maurice? while in the last years the author of this monograph has contributed many studies to the history of the Avars, as well as of the early Slavs.?
The first time the Avars made their appearance in Western historiography was in Joseph de Guignes’s four-volume work on “Huns, Mongols, Turks, and other western Tartars’, published in 1756—-1758.* In the second part of the first volume, de Guignes, relying primarily on Chinese sources, wrote about Avars in Central Asia. Their history in Europe is described from 558 to 626 and from 791 to 799, based on testimonies of the Byzantine and Latin sources. Although the coverage is patchy, de Guignes’s work is of great significance for the history of the Avars, because he was the first to identify them with the Juan-Juan (Geou-gen) known from the Chinese sources.
Much more detailed than de Guignes’ work is a long article published in 1889 by Henry Hoyle Howorth.5 The “Manchester Conservative” politician-turned-historian treated the history of the Avars from their migration into Europe until their defeat by the Franks, without any time gaps. Howorth used every single Byzantine, Latin, and Syrian source at his disposal, but, despite his interest in archaeology, he ignored some of the key finds of his time, especially in Hungary. Although his interest was limited to political history, the paper provided a solid ground for future research. In 1919, the Austrian historian Ernst Stein produced a systematical study of the Byzantine-Avar relations during the reigns of Justin 11 and Tiberius 1 (565-582), as part of his Habilitation in Vienna.® After World War I, Ludmil Hauptmann undertook the task of studying the entire period of Byzantine-Avar relations from Justinian 1 to Maurice (558-602).’
By 1930, however, the explosion of archaeological research in Hungary, and the extraordinary quality of some of the resulting finds, re-directed the interest of the scholars towards the material culture of the Avars. In one of the first significant approaches to the archaeological material, the Hungarian historian Andras Alféldi attempted to discern possible Byzantine influences onto the jewelry, the buckles, and the decorative motifs of the Avars, with a special emphasis on Christian symbols.® In the 1930’s Eugene Darko put under scrutiny the military influences of the nomads to the Mediterannean world, including those of the Avars to Byzantium.’ The archaeological research on the Avars grew considerably after World War 11 in both Hungary and Slovakia.
Names such as Ilona Kovrig, Dezs6 Csallany, and Jan Eisner are now associated with some of the most important discoveries of the Avar era, and to the excavation of whole cemeteries. Particularly influential, however, was the two-volume study of the Hungarian Byzantinist Gyula Moravesik published initially in 1942-1943 in Budapest under the title Byzantinoturcica, and revised in 1958.!° The first volume of that monumental work contains a summary of the Avar history with a list of all the Byzantine sources pertaining to the steppe peoples, including the Avars.
Meanwhile, the Byzantine-Avar relations also constituted the object of inquiry by Polish (Gerard Labuda!!), Yugoslav (Franjo Barisic!*), and Austrian historians (Arnulf Kollautz). The latter offered in 1954 the first global, synthetic view of the Avars, with an equal emphasis on their relations with Byzantium, the West, on the inner organization of the khaganate, and a survey of the most important archaeological finds.
This, in turn, became the template for the subsequent monographs on the Avars. In addition, Kollautz published in 1960's papers on the Byzantine-Avar relations as well as a comprehensive bibliography on the Avars,!% which completed Csallany’s pioneering work in that regard.!+ In 1960's, two studies were published about the siege of Constantinople in 626, the first by Venance Grumel! and the second by Andreas Stratos.!® At this early stage, very important archaeological discoveries were announced and discussed at a 1966 symposium in Nitra (Slovakia), where the emphasis was on Avar-Slavic relations.!”
A true synthesis of all those partial advances in research came only in 1970, in the form of a monograph on the history of the Avars, which Arnulf Kollautz wrote together with the Japanese historian Hisayuki Miyakawa.'® Their monograph examines not only the political history, but also the material culture of the Avars, the inner organization of their society and polity, the ethnic composition of the Avar-age population, the religious beliefs and many other issues related to the Avar khaganate. Two other books were published in the 1970s on the Avars, one by the Slovak historian Alexander Avenarius!® and the other by the Yugoslav archaeologist Jovan Kovacevi¢.2° This coincided in time with a much more systematic study of the archaeological evidence pertaining to the Avars. The Hungarian archaeologist Istvan Bona spelled out the results of the archaeological research in an article published in 1971, while at the same time laying out some of the directions of future research.”!
Building on Kovrig’s analysis of the Alattyan cemetery, Béna distinguished three periods of the Avar age (Early, Middle, and Late) and touched upon numerous other issues, from the Byzantine influence upon the Avar art, to the so-called Keszthely culture, the nomadic tribes and the Slavs inside the Khaganate, or the survival of the Avars in Pannonia during the ninth century. Meanwhile, the Hungarian Byzantinist Samuel Szadeczky-Kardoss began the compilation of all sources (Byzantine, Latin, Slavic and Oriental) pertaining to the history of the Avars.?? A collection of Latin and Byzantine sources, some of which refer to the Avars, was published in Germany during the 1970's.” Specialized studies continued to be published: Arnulf Kollautz’s on Christian symbols in the Middle Danube region,?* of Bohumila Zastérova’s on the image of Avars and the Slavs in the Strategikon,* etc.
During the 1980s, research on the Avars continued to develop at a very rapid pace in Hungary and Slovakia thanks to a younger generation of historians and archaeologists: Attila Kiss, Csanad Balint, Eva Garam, Tatiana Stefanovicova, Darina Bialekova, Zlata Cilinska, and Jan Dekan. Furthermore, the Avars figured prominently in the program of several international conferences dedicated to the history of Central Europe. A remarkable volume on Avar archaeology — particularly the most spectacular finds of gold and silver — was published in the mid-1980s.27
Time was therefore ripe, slightly less than two decades after Kollautz and Miyakawa, for a new synthesis of Avar history. This came from the pen of the Austrian historian Walter Pohl.28 Pohl’s work is representative for what came to be known later as “Vienna School’, the main purpose of which was to move away from the tenets of the national(ist) historiographies, while at the same time emphasizing the multiple ethnicities of the Avar khaganate, the het-erogeneous elements that formed together its culture, as well as the cultural contacts of the Avars with the West, the Mediterranean and the East. Pohl also attempted a new approach to the ethnogenetical processes taking place into the frame of the Avar khaganate, for example the ethnogenesis of the Croats. Furthermore, he did not refer to the archaeological finds as “Avar” in an ethnic, but in a chronological sense (“Avar-age”), as he insisted upon the fact that the Avar culture represented a multitude of peoples under Avar rule.
While Walter Pohl’s book established the Avars firmly in the mainstream European research on the early Middle Ages, particularly important for the interpretation of the archaeological record was (and still is) the work of the Austrian archaeologist Falko Daim, who moved the discussion about the influence of the Byzantine art motifs beyond the chronological limits of the Early Avar period. The state of research around 1990 is best reflected in two collective volumes that he edited.29 Both Pohl and Daim offered two surveys of Avar history and archaeology respectively, in the collective volume entitled Regna et Gentes.°° Equally associated with Vienna is the name and work of Peter Stadler, who introduced a number of new methods and techniques in the study of the Avar-age material, being able to classify that material and to distinguish chronological groups.*!
Several other collective volumes were published in the 1990s and the early 21st century in Austria,3? as well as in Italy.33 An important collective work specialized on the problems of the Middle Avar period came to light in Hungary in 2008.44 Further on, the history and archaeology of the Avars is presented in more and more volumes, which nowadays describe the state-of-the-art.3> Of special interest is the Nagyszentmiklds hoard, namely its cultural features and ethnic attribution,*® as well as the so-called “Keszthely culture.”3”
Some Hungarian contributions are worth mentioning at this point, namely Eva Garam’s monograph on sixth- to seventh-century Byzantine artifacts in the Avar khaganate*® Csanad Balint’s on the Byzantine and steppe influences to the Avar material culture,?9 and Péter Somogyi’s studies of Byzantine coins in the Khaganate.?° Furthermore, a new generation of Hungarian origin scholars gave a new impetus to research in the last years. Two of them, Katalin Nagy*! and Gergely Csiky*? focus on Avar warfare, Adam Boll6k*? on cultural interactions, Gergely Szenthe** on Late Avar period, while Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska offered the most complete contributions about the metalworking technologies employed inside the Khaganate.**
For the Central-Asian past of the Avars, as well as the migrations to the west in Late Antiquity, a prominent place have the studies of Peter Golden.*® The cultural diversity of the Avar khaganate is presented by Tivadar Vida,*’ along with his studies on the Avar pottery. An investigation of 3,500 Avar sites offers the data-base project of Joszef Szentpéteri, quite useful on issues of periodization.*® A new approach to the siege of Constantinople in 626 was introduced by the Slovak historian Martin Hurbani¢.*9 The political and diplomatic framework of the Byzantine-Avar relations is thoroughly considered in recent studies, as those of Ecaterina Lung,5° Edward Nicolae Luttwak,>! and Ekaterina Nechaeva.°2
The aim of the present monograph is to bring a contribution to the study of the relations between Byzantium and the Avars, especially after 626, when the Avars disappear from the written sources. Much of what has been so far written on the subject concerns the period 558-626. While still covering that period, I will take a critical approach to certain issues, such as the Byzantine image of the Avars, the question of whether the Avars were granted the status of federates ( foederati) through the treaty of 558, the Turkic parameter in the Byzantine-Avar relations since the 560s, the Byzantine-Avar cooperation against the Slavs in 578 and the recruitment of mercenaries by Emperor Tiberius, the existence of a peace-loving party among the Avar dignitaries after 582, the data about Scythia Minor in the late sixth and early seventh century as well as a minute approach on the reasons that led to the failure of the military operations of Maurice against the Avars from 592 to 602.
To study contacts between Byzantium and the Avars after 626, one needs to turn to the rich archaeological material from Avar cemeteries, and to the possibility of communication between the two sides. Artifacts or decorative motifs of Byzantine origin dated to the seventh and eighth centuries, as well as Byzantine coins struck after the reign of Heraclius have led many scholars to the right conclusion that Byzantium and the Avars continued to have contacts after 626. However, the issue has not until now been studied systematically. Although Byzantium maintained a foothold in northern Italy (the Exarchate of Ravenna) as well as in coastal areas in the Balkans (even after the settlement of the Bulgars), it is not altogether clear that the road network in these areas remained in use throughout the seventh and eighth century for trade activity, and therefore cultural contacts between Byzantium and the Avar khaganate. This issue is perhaps the most important among those with which this book deals, along with the formulation of a third assumption, regarding the Byzantine possessions in Crimea. Another important under discussion topic is that of the Christian symbols and the interpretations regarding the influence of Christianity into the Avar khaganate.
There are several other questions in modern scholarship regarding Emperor Heraclius’ policy towards the Avar khaganate, the revolt of Samo against the Avars, the settlement of the Croats and the Serbs in the Balkans, and the revolt of Kubrat. The role of the Byzantine diplomacy in all those cases will be re-assessed critically by taking into account both the written sources and the geopolitical situation. The main objective is to distinguish the real dimension of the Avar factor in the frame of Heraclius’ foreign policy.
The last part of this book concerns warfare and the mutual influences between Byzantium and the Avars. The main research problem is the degree of the Avar influence on the armament and the tactics of the Byzantine army, as it appears in a military treatise known as the Strategikon of Maurice, and, furthermore, to distinguish that influence from that of other steppe peoples and of Sassanian Persia during the fifth and sixth century. Special attention will be also paid to the transmission of the art of siege from the Byzantines to the Avars, as illustrated by an episode in the History of Theophylact Simocatta involving a Byzantine captive to the Avars named Bousas.
2 The Image of the Avars in Byzantium
In Byzantine sources, the Avars are described with the same stereotypes that apply to other nomadic peoples: unfaithful, greedy, ugly, cruel, malicious, etc. Such a negative portrait is a trope of the ancient ethnography, going back to Herodote’s description of Scythians. The nomadic peoples were viewed in light of the opposition between the “civilized” world and the “barbarians” (called &$vy or gentes/nationes),°* the latter living outside the geographical and cultural boundaries of the Christian Roman world and being therefore different in language, customs, or religious beliefs.5+ One of the most important differences between the two worlds is freedom, which in nomadic societies is not an individual, but a collective value related to the entire community and the way of its life. What made the freedom of the nomads palpable was the steppe, the herds of animals, the tents (yurts), the lack of luxury dwellings, the warlike spirit, and other such traits. From that point of view, sedentary people, “the others,” had no freedom.*®°
From the point of view of the sedentary populations, however, the only way to deal with nomads was to build extensive fortifications against them.°® Although the Byzantine authors used to reproduce the negative stereotypes of the Greek and Roman historiography about the nomads, there are nuances worth highlighting, While the classicizing historians Procopius of Caesarea, Menander the Guardsman, and Theophylact Simocatta have a general contempt for steppe peoples (with the exception of the Hephthalites Huns, in the case of Procopius), others, such as the equally classicizing Priscus, as well as the author of the Strategikon have in some points a rather more positive attitude.5”
Byzantine authors were mostly interested in the political and military aspects of the Byzantine-Avar relations (raids, conflicts, exchange of embassies, and treaties), and not in any economic or cultural issues. They call the Avars by that name, but also Scythians and Huns.** In Western sources, the Avars appear as Avari, Avares/Abares and Hunni, while their country is called Hunnia, Avaria, marcha Avarica, regnum Avarorum, partes Avariae and provincia (or terra) Avarorum.®? In Byzantium, Theophanes Confessor employs an equivalent to the name Avaria (Afapia), while an anonymous Byzantine geographer has Avar for an area different from that of the Avar khaganate.®°
The name Scythians was the standard one for peoples of the North (the northern barbarians) in direct imitation of classical historiographical models embodying the other in the ancient Greek world.® It was particularly the nomadic peoples that were called Scythian nations (cxudixd vy). This was the result of a combination of geography (nomads lived in Scythia) and awareness of their nomadic way of life, difficult conditions of living, and poverty.®? Scythia was mentioned first by Homer.®? Early Byzantine authors employed the name both for the Hungarian plain, and for the land north of the Black Sea, sometimes even for the (Roman province of) Scythia Minor.®*+
In the early Byzantine historiography, the name Skythes is used both for the steppe peoples and for the Goths. Imitating Herodote, Theodoret write of Scythians-nomads, while Menander the Guardsman and Theophylact Simocatta use the name for the nomads of Scythia. More complex is the case of Priscus, who calls Scythians both the Huns and the Goths, and, in a broader sense, either the inhabitants of Scythia or the union of peoples being under the rule of Attila. For Procopius and Agathias, Scythians were the tribal groups living in the steppes beyond the Sea of Azov.® Another historiographical model is the identification of the northern barbarians with Gog and Magog. The background of the relevant accounts is made of Biblical references to those mythical peoples living north of Caucasus, whose name was a synonym of disaster. Peoples of the steppe were also the Hyperboreans in reference to their northern abodes.®?
The Avars were “marginalized” for the same reasons as other nomadic peoples: their religious beliefs, language, nomadism, diet, behavior, perceptions, etc. Both Scythian and barbarian conveyed the idea that the Avars, along with other steppe peoples, were inferior to the Romans. The image of the Avars did not change even when they settled in the former Roman Pannonia, as they maintained their principles regarding the way of life and social organization.®* The cultural contrast with Byzantium is evident in many cases, such as in the Corippus’ poem, which gives the impression that the Avars were not used to large buildings and luxury decoration. The poet even compares them with wild beasts entering the hippodrome.®® On the other hand, as Tivadar Vida points out, “although the Byzantines despised the Avars, just as they did all other barbarian peoples, they did acknowledge their military prowess and their ability to create and administer an empire.””°
Barbarians like the Avars give speeches in the works of the Byzantine authors (Corippus, Menander the Guardsman, and Theophylact Simocatta), who use them to characterize the speakers as barbarians. In other words, those are speeches crafted to fit the stereotypes about barbarians of the steppe. Avar envoys, full of vain pride, employ direct speech, a mixture of sarcasm and threats (‘now pleading, now threatening,” according to Menander), a clear desire to deceive the addressee (usually the emperor).
The khagan speaks plainly, without rhetorical ornament, however by means of his direct and inelegant way of speaking, he therefore appears as aggressive and violent.” On the other hand, the Avars seem to have impressed the Byzantines with their long hair braids, which caught the attention of the inhabitants of Constantinople, when the Avar envoys showed up in the capital of the empire in 558.” Regardless of the Avars, the long hair was the characteristic feature attributed to peoples living outside the Roman world and braids were particularly associated with steppe nomads.”8
Stereotypes about the Avars are a bit more credible when appearing in speeches delivered by emperors or higher officials. During the negotiations with the Avar envoys, who came to Constantinople in 568, Emperor Justin 11 told them that “it is more painful to be the friends of the Avars —- nomads and foreigners — than their enemies, since their friendship is treacherous.’”4 Three years earlier, upon his ascension to the throne, the same emperor had called the Avar envoys “dogs,” threatened to cut their hair, and imprisoned the envoys for half a year in Chalcedon, asking them not to reappear before him.”® The Byzantine authors emphasize also the greed of the Avars as motivation for their demands.’6 Linked to the nomadic morals is the fact that the Avar khagan or his envoys considered it shameful to return “empty-handed” to their land after negotiations,’”’ or not to share the war loot of the Byzantines after operations against the Slavs of the Lower Danube region.”8
Another common place in Byzantine speeches about the Avars is that they were in fact “fugitives,” refugees from the East seeking the protection of Byzantine emperor.”? The same concept is attributed to the (Western) Turks. According to the khagan of the Turks, the Avars were his subjects who had fled from him to seek asylum in Europe.®° On the other hand, the Avars are also believed to have had their own negative image about the Byzantines, which reflects the general perception of sedentary populations among the nomads.®!
Such a negative image appears in the reply the Avar envoy Kokh gave to general Priscus in the spring of 593, in which he accused the Byzantines of being corrupt and unworthy.®? At the same time, the gifts that the Byzantines sent to the rulers of nomadic peoples, including the Avars, were highly appreciated particularly because they were regarded as enhancing the prestige of the khagan, while the annual subsidies (tribute) paid to them by the imperial government constituted an income of vital importance for political and military reasons.®?
The sources highlight the khagan of the Avars, for he (or his deputies) was the one with whom the Byzantines negotiated treaties. After their settlement in Central Europe, the bellicose nomads turned into political partners with whom one needed to deal by means of diplomacy. This change, as well as a number of social transformations taking place inside the Avar society, considerably strengthened the position of the khagan, who was now not only the conqueror of new lands and peoples but also the one regulating more complicated social relations.**
In the eyes of their sedentary neighbors (and, most certainly, in those of the Byzantine authors), the khagan was a warrior and a bandit, a charismatic ruler, but also the embodiment of a certain tradition and the political link between different peoples. To the nomads, he was the leader who took his people into new lands, and stood at the top of the tribal hierarchy. The military success of the khagan, namely the acquisition and redistribution of booty gained from campaigns and plundering expeditions, reinforced his authority and prestige. Such success meant simultaneously political cohesion and prosperity for his subjects.®5
The only khagan of the Avars known by name is Baian, and he was apparently the most influential in Avar history. All other rulers are mentioned with the title khagan (yaydvos, cagan) that is otherwise known from the history of other steppe nomads.®6 Names of several envoys are known (Kandikh, Targitius, Kokh, and Apsikh), and members of the Avar elite are even called Aoyddec (“the chosen ones” or “aristocrats”).8” Sometimes, Avar leaders are simply dépyovtec (leaders)88 or éapyoc (commander).89 Genuinely Avar (or broader nomadic) titles are known for the later period: Jugurrus, Tudun, Kapkhan, Tarkhan, as well as a female one: Catun.°°
It is important to note that, unlike other nomadic or Germanic rulers, the khagans of the Avars never received from the Byzantines such titles as patrician or magister militum. As Tivadar Vida points out “the ideologically and administratively closed Khaganate was unable to align its long-term goals with those of Empire, and neither were there any particular Byzantine expectations to do so.” It is therefore difficult to accept Dietrich Claude's suggestion, according to which the first treaty between Byzantium and the Avars in 558 created a technical relationship (adoption) between Justinian and the khagan Baian. To be sure, references to such a relationship are placed in speeches delivered by Avars. However, because of the nature of those speeches and their role in the narrative strategies of the Byzantine authors, such references cannot be taken at face value, namely as evidence that Baian had ever been adopted by Justinian.*!
3 The Avars Come to Europe
The migration of the Avars to Europe is believed by most scholars to have been caused by the political turmoil generated in the mid-sixth century by the rise of the Turks in Central Asia. In fact, however, the Avars are first mentioned by Priscus in the fifth century (likely c. 463), on the occasion of the delegation of three nomadic peoples (Saragurs, Urogs and Onogurs) to Constantinople. According to Priscus, the Sabirs, pushed by Avars, drove out of their country — probably the Khazakh steppes — the Saragurs, the Urogs, and the Onogurs. The Avars were pushed out of their own homeland by other, unnamed people who had been attacked by ocean mist and griffins living on the shore of the Ocean.°? Also, “in the same way the Saraguri were driven out and came into contact with the Akatirian Huns”.93
The reference to griffins and the Ocean betray the Herodotean origin of Priscus’ story. The ‘AGapic (Abaris) of Herodote was one of the Hyperboreans, who were neighbors of the man-eating griffins and lived by the northern ocean.** The myth of Abaris appears in various narrations in the ancient Greek literature. This mythical person was a servant or priest of Apollo. He had obtained mantic power from him, and rode all around the world on this arrow without eating anything. He went around Greece prophesying, making sacrifices to Apollo and gathering golden offerings to place in Apollo’s temple in the land of the Hyperboreans, upon his return there.9°
While there can be little doubt about the authenticity of the information regarding Sabirs, Saragurs, Urogs and Onogurs,°° one would have to take Priscus’ account at face value to admit that he described the mid-fifth century conflicts and expansion of the Avars in Central Asia. Under that assumption, the Avar invasion into southern Kazakhstan caused the migration both of the Sabirs and of the three Ogur tribes (the western branch of Ting-ling or T’ieh-lé tribes).
The Sabirs replaced the latter in western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan and the Ogur tribes moved from those areas to the western Ponto-Caspian steppes.9” On the other hand, the migration of the Sabirs to the fringes of the northern Caucasus is dated to the early sixth century, c. 506—515.98 Against this generally accepted interpretation, one could argue that Priscus’ account could concern the events of 350 in Central Asia and not the westward migration of the Ogurs from the Kazakh steppe after 460, as that event is not mentioned in any other sources and is in fact derived from the tenth-century Suda lexicon.°9
The information of Priscus on the westward migration of nomadic tribes under the pressure of the Avars matches the evidence regarding the history of Central Asia as the Avars (referred also as Uar-Huns, Juan-Juan, Jou-Jan, RuanRuan or Rouran)!©° imposed their authority over the area for almost a century, approximately from 463 to 555. The Avars are considered to derive their origin from the Eastern Hu, referred as Donghu/Tunghu in the Chinese sources. The latter provide testimonies on the Avars as they came often in conflict with the Northern Wei dynasty (386—534).!0!
The beginning of the Avar expansion in Central Asia is dated back to 350 AD. According to the meager testimony of a Chinese source, known as Tongdian (based in part on a now lost part of the Weishu), the Avars, coming from the Altai Mountains, drove out the Huns from the southern Kazakh steppe and the adjacent territories. After their defeat, a part of the Huns moved to Europe. Further, the Avars invaded Sogdia and Tokharistan (northeastern Afghanistan), where they expelled the Kidarites Huns, and then moved towards the Turkmen steppe and Iran, reaching the shores of the Caspian Sea. At about the same time, the Ogur tribes moved from the Irtysh region to northern Kazakhstan, and occupied the formerly Hunnic territory in the southern Kazakh steppe.!©?
Since the early fifth century, the Avars, under the khagan Shih-lun (402-410) were masters of the Inner Asian steppes, expanded their control up to Lake Baikal and Eastern Turkestan, and defeated the nomadic T’ieh-le (or Kao-chii) coalition in northern and western Mongolia. The Avars became a dangerous neighbor for the Chinese, but in 429 the T’o-pa Wei (Tuoba/Northern Wei dynasty) of northern China managed to defeat them. In c. 434, the Avars attacked the Kidarite Huns in Bactria and in c. 450, they were waging wars in the region of the T’ien-shan city-states, reaching as far as Turfan and Uriimai.!°3
After the migrations of the early 460s, the Avars ruled over Central Asia (Mongolia, Southern Manchuria, the Tarim Basin, parts of Southern Siberia and much of Xinjiang) until the mid-sixth century. During that period, they fought against their T’ieh-le subjects and came in conflicts with T’opa.!©* The balance of power gradually changed when the Turk chieftain Bumin (T’uman), who was a subject of the Avars, allied himself in 545 with the Western Wei. Being engulfed in internal struggles and defeated by the Turks in 552 and 555, the Avars fled to Europe, and the Turks replaced them as rulers of Central Asia, where they founded an Eastern (552-630) and a Western (552-659) khaganate.!°> After 546, the Turks subjugated the coalition of Tie-le. After his victory over the Avars, the khagan Mu-han defeated the Hephthalites (I-ta) and placed under his rule “all the northern barbarians,’ before attacking both the western and the eastern Wei.!0° The Avars are mentioned to the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Rhetor (compiled c. 569) as one of the peoples who lived in the wider area of the Black Sea in c. 555, after the afore-said realignments in Central Asia, however they likely arrived there somewhat later.!07
The Avars appear in the steppe lands north of the Caucasus Mountains in 557, after being first defeated by the Turks.!°8 Most historians have taken Theophylact Simocatta’s account of early Avar history to refer not only to the split of the Avars (“real” and “Pseudo-Avars’), but also to the western migration of a number of other peoples, who were now regarded as “Avars”. According to Simocatta, in the letter he sent to Emperor Maurice probably in 598, the khagan of the Western Turks bragged about being “lord of the seven climates,” and called “Pseudo-Avars” the Avars who had migrated to Europe.
The Byzantine historian picks on that to explain that the Avars were in fact two different tribes, the Uar and Chunni who had given themselves the name “Avars.” He also states that the Barsilt, the Onogurs, the Sabirs and other Hunnic tribes, seeing that a part of the Uar and the Chunni had taken refuge in their lands, were afraid that the invaders were the real Avars. For that reason, they gave the refugees magnificent gifts, believing that by such means they would maintain their freedom. That, however, encouraged the Uar and Chunni to take the name of Avars seriously, seeing that it caused terror to other peoples.!°? As for the “real” Avars, Simocatta mentions only that they fled to a country named Moukri, near Tavgast (Tabghach), two areas that historians have identified with North Korea and northern China (Manchuria) respectively."
Simocatta’s account has caused much debate about whether the Avars who migrated to Europe could be identified with the Juan-Juan. Most scholars assume that those coming to Europe were a part of the “real” Avars, and that the names Abar/Avars and Ouarchonites (Ouar and Chunni) refer to one and the same people, who, furthermore, may be identified with the Juan-Juan (or Hua) of the Chinese sources." By contrast, others accept Simocatta’s theory and believe that the “real” Avars, whether identical with Juan-Juan or not, have in fact fled to the east, and not to the west.
The main opponent of such an identification was the German Byzantinist Hans Wilhelm Haussig. He proposed instead that the Avars were associated to Apar, Abar, Ben (Hun or Hion) and Bou-Huan, all of which are peoples known either from old Turkic inscriptions in the Orchon valley in Mongolia, or from Chinese sources. Those are names of peoples who migrated from Manchuria to western Turkestan and Sogdia, and then to Europe.
Haussig believed that the Juan-Juan, who lived in southern Mongolia, had been conquered at some point between 552 and 555 by the Turk khagans T’u-men, K’o-lo and Mu-han. Meanwhile, the “European” Avars were defeated in western Turkestan by the Turk khagan Sizabul (Istami). Haussig regarded Theophylact Simocatta’s account of the Avar flight as confirming the testimony of the Chinese sources about the defeat of Juan-Juan, and noted that those sources make no reference to Juan-Juan fleeing to the west. Furthermore, Haussig identified the Uar and Chounni with the Hephthalites." Nonetheless, the Uarchonites are clearly identified with the Avars in the work of Menander the Guardsman."? A name similar to Bou-Huan is Wusun, which is identified by Victor Henry Mair and Fangyi Cheng with the early Turks and the mythical tribe Ashina.""4
The identification of the “European” Avars with the Juan-Juan appears particularly complicated because of the confusion in Chinese sources regarding the names of Central Asian peoples," as well as the obviously mythical elements in the Byzantine sources. Furthermore, an important argument is that “the steppe society tribes used at least two names for themselves. First of all they had an own tribe name, as Ogur, and if they belonged to a big alliance, they used that, too.”"6 Simocatta’s account of the “Pseudo-Avars” is likely a topos, which both Karoly Czeglédy and Walter Pohl associated with an equivalent description in Tacitus’ Germania. Simocatta mentions that first, the neighbors of the Uar and Hunni regarded them as the real Avars, and then, those two tribes (the “European” Avars) adopted this name in order to instill fear into other peoples. Tacitus similarly argues that “the name Germania has later origins and spread relatively recently. The people, who initially crossed the Rhine and expelled the Gauls, now Tungri, were called at this time Germans: it was the name of a single tribe and not of an entire people, which was imposed gradually in such a way that all the Germans, because of the fear which evoked the name of the victors, espoused the same name””” This parallel suggests that Simocatta’s account is based on a trope, and therefore not much trust may be placed on it.
From the above, it is not too far-fetched to believe that the Avars (or part of them) came to Europe after the conquest of Central Asia by the Turks. The whole may be not a moot point, if one accepts that, leaving aside those who remained under the rule of the Turks, the Avars fled both to the east and to west.8 At this assumption, we may provide two arguments. First, such a split is mentioned in a Chinese source, the Pei-Tsi-schu. Describing the Avar-Turkic conflicts, the text records that after the victory of the Turks in 552, a part of the Avars fled to the northern Ts’i, while those Avars (Ju-ju) who remained in their lands elected a new ruler (T’ie-fa). The next year, after a new attack of the Turks, the latter “escaped to the south”.9 Second, we have to take into account the claims of the Turks to the Byzantines about the “fugitives Avars,” which suggest their split after the defeat at the hands of the Turks.!2°
Regarding these arguments, we may consider a passage of the Pei-schi, for the year 555: “the leader of Juan-juan escaped with more than one thousand families to Kuan-tschung (to the western Wei). As the Turks (T’u-kiie) were feeling powerful and maintained friendly relations with the western Wei, they sent many delegations to them asking, for their satisfaction, that all the fugitives of Juan-juan should be killed ... The later emperor Wen-ti (T’ai-tsu of the northern Tschou) granted them this favour, arrested the leader of Juan-juan and his subjects, more than three thousand people, and delivered them to the envoys of the Turks.
All of them were beheaded at the gate Ts’ing-men. Only the boys under 18 years old avoided the slaughter and were given as slaves to the homes of the local authorities of the western Wei.”!?! Also, according to the Biography of Schi Ning, after the victory of the Turks over the Avars, “those who escaped, were concentrated around the descendants of the [khagan] A-nakuei and attacked the area west of the Yellow River. [The general] Schi Ning led troops, attacked them and captured two descendants of A-na-kuei and the leaders of their tribes. Thereafter Schi Ning defeated them in every battle and killed in toto some ten thousand men’!22
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق