The author thinks that, for diplomatic reasons, Turks attempted to prove to the Byzantine Empire that the pastoral nomads settled in the Carpathian Basin at the Easter of 568 were not Avars but “they were actually Varchonites, the subjects of the Turks fleeing from their rule.” It involved “the legitimacy of holding the title of kagan.“
“They called themselves Avar”—Considering the pseudo-Avar question in the work of Theophylaktos
Mihály
Dobrovits
[i]
Ērān ud Anērān, Webfestschrift
Marshak, 2003
Abstract
My paper deals with the problem why
and how the pastoral nomads settled in the Carpathian Basin in 568 and
introducing themselves as Avars were held for and called Pseudo-Avars in the
Turko-Byzantine diplomatical affairs. My point is that they were held for
Pseudo-Avars by the Türks for diplomatic reasons. Recognizing that the people
settled in the Carpathian Basin were true Avars connected with the Juan-juan
khaganate meant that their chiefs also were legitimate khagans and therefore
both rivals to the A-shih-na and legitimate allies to the Byzantine Empire.
A new branch of pastoral nomads
settled in the Carpathian Basin at the Easter of 568. According to the written
sources, they called themselves Avar. They were undoubtedly fleeing from the
Turks. Their presence constituted the key issue in the Turkish-Byzantine
relations in the last 30 years of the 6th century. It was the
diplomatic demand of the Turks that brought about the issue of the “pseudo-Avars.”
The question at hand is whether we are talking about true Avars or this
population was only using the name Avar in their foreign relations. This
present paper would like to take stand in this issue. In my opinion, what we
have here is a historical postulate professed by the Turks that was later
accepted by Byzantium. The essence of this postulate concerns the unity of the
kagan’s authority. The question formulated in present-day diplomatic
terminology would be: legally speaking, whose subjects are the Avars taken in foedus
by Byzantium? Though the pseudo-Avar question came down to us in Byzantine
Greek sources, it was an argument postulated by the Turks. They were attempting
to prove that the population admitted by Byzantium used the name Avar
for malicious reasons, since they were actually Varchonites, the subjects of
the Turks fleeing from their rule.
The
Evidence of Protector Menander
Protector Menander described the
Turkish envoy arriving in Byzantium in 568 as follows: The Sogdian Maniach and
his fellow envoys bringing the Scythian letter sent by the Turkish kagan in 568
were only talking about the rebellion of the Hephtalite city-dwelling people
[...] and part of the Avars against the Turkish rule. Then, we get to know that
“There are, oh Emperor, people who faithfully cling to our country, while
those who escaped were about 20 thousand” (CONSTANTINUS PROPHYROGENETUS
II. 452; SZÁDECZKY-KARDOSS 1992, 35).
The statement that the population
moving into the Carpathian Basin were not Avars but Varchonites first appears
in the sources in connection to the diplomatic mission of Valentinos (576). It
was Valentinos and his fellow envoys, who were threatened by the Turkish
prince— Turxanthos—with execution, because the Emperor took into his alliance “the
escaped slaves of the Turks,” the Varchonites, that is the Avars. It is
apparent from this source that in 576 they considered the population, which had
eight years earlier been regarded as Avars, Varchonites in the Turkish–Byzantine
relations: “And your Emperor will expiate as well, since he tells me he is
devoted to our friendship, while in the meantime he makes an alliance with the
Varchonites, who are our servants and still dared to flee their lords”
(CONSTANTINUS PROPHYROGENETUS 205; SZÁDECZKY-KARDOSS 1992, 45).
The population Maniach called Avar
was called Varchonite by Turxanthos. It is especially important that in his
outrage he precisely listed the dwelling areas of the European Avars together
with the routes to reach them.
The
Evidence of Theophylaktos Simokatta
The continuer of Menander was
Theophylaktos Simokatta, with whose work even textual connections can be
demonstrated (OLAJOS 1988, 96–106). The most important evaluation of Theophylaktos
was written by Haussig (HAUSSIG 1953). Theophylaktos Simokatta composed his
work around 629 on the reign of emperor Maurikios (582–602). Theophylaktos’
text can be dated at the earliest to the mission of Tardu in the years 583–584,
or to the period between 595–603 (OLAJOS 1988, 102–103; PHOL 1988, 30, 81).
Czeglédy thinks that the events described in the letter were carried out by at
least three kagans (CZEGLÉDY 1969, 103). In his Scythian excursus,
Theophylaktos already applies the usual expressions of the Turkish kagan (VII
7,7–8,6): “The one who is honored by the Turks as kagan” establishes
contact with the Byzantine emperor (THEOPHYLAKTOS 275). He is the lord of the
seven clans and the sovereign of the seven regions. He is the one who announces
the defeat of the Abdels, or in other words the Hephtalites, he is the one, who
made Stembischagan his ally, thus subduing the Avars. And we are informed that
the Avars are not the same barbarians living in Europe in and around the area
of Pannonia, who arrived here before the era of the emperor Maurikios.
The barbarians living in the Danube
area had only maliciously adopted the name Avar. Part of the defeated Avars
fled to the masters of the city of Taugast. Taugast is a splendid city lying
about 1,500 miles from those called Turks. This place has a border with the
Indians. The barbarians dwelling around Taugast make up the most aggressive and
the most numerous people. They cannot be set in line with the people of the
rest of the world precisely because of their number. The rest of the Avars fled
to the people of Mukri.
Actually, the European Avars are the
Ogors living on the banks of the black Til, whose chiefs were Var and Chunni.
They gave their names to the different branches of their race (that is the
Ogurs) who are called by the names Var and Chunni. A fraction of these people
migrated to the west and the Barselt, Onogur, Sabir and other people conquered
by them identified their subduers with the Avars, so the name remained with
them. They are the pseudo-Avars, whose Var and Chunni clan names also remained
(CZEGLÉDY 1969, 101-103; SZÁDECZKY-KARDOSS 1992, 14-15, 20).
There have already been several
attempts to interpret the text in question. It must be stated that these three
quotations form an integral part of the text, and not only contextually, but
also syntactically, as it is proved that Theophylaktos drew on Menander as a
source. These passages come primarily from sources concerning the
Turk-Byzantine diplomatic relations, where the Byzantine authors recorded the
changes in the Turkish point of view.
During the earliest Turkish-Byzantine
negotiations, the Turks unambiguously called the population of about 20,000
(probably counting only squires), who fled from them, Avars. Eight years
later, when Constantinople was forced to take them as allies, the Turks already
insisted that they were Varchonites. The decisive innovation comes in
Theophylaktos text—where he claims, referring to Turkish sources, that the real
Avars stayed in the east, while the Varchonites appearing in the
west only usurp the name. This means that actually the Avars fled to the east,
that is towards China and Korea. So, according to Theophylaktos the true Avars
are the Juanjuans to which fact Haussig has already drew the attention (HAUSSIG
1957).
They
Called Themselves Avar
However, there are no pseudo-Avars.
Even if we accept Theophylaktos’ statement, that they began to use the name
Avar only as a secondary development—which is contradicted by the data given by
Maniach—they unambiguously used it to denote themselves. The farthest we can go
is to suppose some kind of a duality in the use of names. The name Avar
was used by the population moving into the Carpathian basin at Easter of 568 to
denote themselves, if not otherwise as a constituent of the name Varchonite.
Regarding the Avar-Juanjuan relation, Denis Sinor has already demonstrated that
the Avars described by Priscos rhetor are different from the Juanjuan at the
height of the power (SINOR 1946-47, 35). The work (470) by Priscos rhetor
precede greatly the age researched here. According to him, this Avar group left
its earlier habitation together with the Saragurs, the Ogurs, and the Abirs
(CONSTANTINUS PORHYREGENETUS 486). Haussig’s argument that they are the real
Avars, and considering the data provided by Theophylaktos, they migrated in a
west to east direction is based on the above passage (HAUSSIG 1957, 35-41).
Though this argument is hardly acceptable, Czeglédy referred to the east-west
movement of the Hephtalites in the mid 5th century in connection
with the migration of the population mentioned by Priscos. The question was
readmitted by János Harmatta in relation to the migration of the Onogurs
(HARMATTA 1992), while Gábor Vékony (VÉKONY 1987) and István Erdélyi (ERDÉLYI
1988) provided detailed analyses of the pseudo-Avar question. According to
these works, part of the confusion is due to the fact that a century before the
appearance of the European Avars, they had already left their original
habitation, moved to the west and became constituents of the empire mentioned
by the Hephtalite dynastic name.
On the
Title of Kagan
A long list of historians have been
trying to decipher Theophylaktos line “they called themselves Avar.” Here
is the text (VII 8, 1-6): “They called themselves Avar and awarded the title
of kagan to their chief” (THEOPHYLAKTOS 258; SZÁDECZKY-KARDOSS 1992, 20).
If we do not take the name Avar as
our starting point, we might find what the real issue was here: “....and
awarded the title of kagan to their chief.” The Turkish-Byzantine
diplomatic issue was about the title of kagan. The title kagan appears
first in Chinese sources around 265 AD. The tribes of Hsien-pi origin used it
from the beginning, and before 552, when the Turks took over, the last to use
the title were the Juanjuans. The charisma called qut (‘luck) in the
sources, similar to the “celestial authorization” (tien ming) of the
emperors of China, was given to the kagans by a mountain, Ötüken, identified as
present-day Hangaya mountain. By occupying the territory, the power of the
kagan should have passed over to the Turks. However, the Avars arriving in
eastern Europe held on to it. The words of the Orchon inscription are clear—Ötüken
and the title of kagan can only be held by one clan at a time. There was no use
arguing about who the title of the kagan was vested in before 552. Thus, the
basic matter of the discussions with Byzantium was that the new population
coming to Europe were not Avars entitled to the title of Kagan, but some
fugitives, who had no right to this title. This is how we can reach the essence
of the Avar–pseudo-Avar discussion. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the
kaganate is not vested in a person, but in a clan that can utilize the single
empowerment anytime, anywhere (CZEGLÉDY 1974). There is no reason to doubt this
in the case of the Avars of the Carpathian basin. Their sovereign was always
awarded the title of kagan. This very argument had already been reflected by
the Byzantine sources. The expressions—obstamus dominis, profugis damus
ostia servis—of Corippus praising the new foreign policy of Justinos II who
adopted a stricter approach to barbarians as opposed to the Justinian era, fits
in this line exactly. Following the unsuccessful diplomatic attempt of 563,
Byzantine diplomacy seems to have decided on the Turks in 568.
[1]
It is thus almost certain that
behind the claim of the Turks that the new inhabitants of the Carpathian basin
were not “true” Avars, but another population, who just identify themselves
with the Avars, there lies the argument about the title of the kagan. If the
Avars are not real Avars, then their leaders are not real kagans, either.
Considering that Maniach described the Avars as possible mutual enemies, while
the diplomatic mission of Valentianos took place following the foedus,
we have arrived at the core of the problem. The Turks were preoccupied by the
title of kagan, nevertheless they were talking about ethnic differences.
The
authority of the kagan and the territory
We will find another interesting
element of the argument about the legimacy of holding the title of kagan if we
take into consideration another factor as well, namely, the territory. Though
the authority of the kagan is not essentially territorial, it still required
beside celestial sanctioning that of the local spirits as well. It is well
known from Turkish inscriptions that beside the Heavens (tänri) the area
(yer sub), that is earth and water, (cf.: Chinese shan sui) also
intervened.
This is what the texts say:
I. E 11; II. E 10: üzä türk
tärisi ïduq yeri subï anèa temis, türk bodun yoq bolmazun teyin, bodun bolèun
teyin qaïm elteris qaanï, ögüm elbilgä qatunï täri töpüsintä tutup yügärü
kötürmis ärinè. “High above the Turkish Heaven, the holy region [that is
its holy land and water] said: ‘The Turk confederation of tribes should not
disappear, let it become a confederation of tribes!’ [And for this reason], the
Heaven raised my father, the Elteris [Empire gatherer] kagan and my mother, the
Elbilgä [the sage of the Empire] katun practically by the top of their heads.”
I.E 19; II. E 16: äèümiz apamiz
tutmis yer sub idisiz bolmazun teyin az bodunu etip yaratïp “We have
created the Az people, so the area owned by our forefathers would not become
masterless.”
II. E 35: II E 35: igidmis al [p
qaanïa ya] ïltï. üzä täri, ïduq yer sub, [äèim qa] an qutï taplamadï ärinè”
[The Tokuz-Oguz] rebelled [that is diverged] against the heroic kagan, who
feeds them. Above the heavens, [below] the area [that is the earth and the waters],
and the holy luck [qut] of my uncle the kagan [Qapan (691–716)] are indeed not
happy about this.”
Ib.: toquz ouz bodun yerin subin
ïdïp tabaèaru bardï “The Tokuz-Oguz confederation having left [actually
having sent] the area, moved towards China.”
We can decipher the meaning of these
passages from the Scythian logos of Herodotus. The Kimmer aristocracy that was
beset by the Scythians was unwilling to leave the area, because by doing so
they would have lost its blessing too. The text (IV/11) is cited below: “According
to the traditions, the land now inhabited by Scythians used to be owned by the
Kimmers. On hearing about the invasion of the Scythians—since a great army of
the enemy was approaching—they held a council where opinions differed; both
parties held steadfast to their opinion, but that of the kings was the more
correct. The people thought that they should move and not take risks against
heavy odds. However, the kings thought that they should fight for the land with
the invaders. Neither the people wanted to give in to the kings, nor the kings
to the people. The people decided to move on and give over their land to the
invaders without a fight. But, the kings decided to meet their fate and have
their resting place in their own country rather than escape with the people, as
they have considered what great benefits this land had given them and what
evils would await them if they left their land. [...] As they reached two
decisions, they were divided into two equal parties and began to fight each other
and fought until they were killed by each other. The rest of the Kimmers buried
them at the river Tyras (Dnester) (their burial mound can still be seen), then
following the burial they left the country, while the Scythians moved in.”
The
documentary value of Theophylaktos
The work of Theophylaktos tells us
about the Turkish conception of the Avar kaganate. This statement is also
supported by the fact that according to Boodberg the information provided by
Theophylaktos on China are clearly from Turkish sources (BOODBERG 1938, 231).
However, Károly Czeglédy drew attention to the fact that “the letter
includes such material errors, that could not have originated from the Turkish
ruler. It is much more probable that the information included in the letter was
based on the communication of those Turkish envoys, who appeared in Byzantium
after 568, and took the written and oral messages of the Turkish kagans to the
Emperor. One of these letters must have reached Theophylaktos, however, not in
its original form, but in a rewritten version. This could be the reason why the
letter contains a mixture of the messages of various Turkish kagans, while also
including such Byzantine literary commonplaces that cannot have any connection
with the messages of Turkish rulers. Considering the other parts of the work of
Theophylaktos, we can conclude that he was a meticulous author. Thus, it would
not be right to suppose that the letter in this form was written by him”
(CZEGLÉDY 1969, 103).
We should keep in mind that Theophylaktos
describes an age when Avar-Byzantine relations were the most critical, while
the Turks counted as faithful allies of the Empire. Sirmium was taken by the
Avars in 582 following a long siege. The fight for the limes unfolded in 584,
which was followed by the full-fledged Balkan war (592–602) lead by urice
(582–602). This led to the military rebellion resulting in the dethroning of
the emperor, the usurpation by Phokas (602–610) and the collapse of the
Justinian restoration. The great rebellion of the Tieh-lê tribes (that is the
Ogurs identified as “pseudo-Avars” in the west) of the Turk kaganate about to
be divided broke out shortly after 600. At the same time, the Avars came to
rule the western frontiers of the Eurasian plain. Thus, it is most probable
that the Theophylaktos’ work—who was a member of the circle formed around
Heracleus and an enemy of Phokas—written about 629 and motivated by a
commitment to the policies of Maurice and Heracleius, would want to conceal the
legitimacy of the Avar kaganate more than anything else. Emphasising the
legitimacy of the (western) Turks in alliance with Byzantium was a great
argument against the Avars who forced Byzantium into a life or death struggle
during the time of Heracleios by sieging the City in alliance with the Persians
in 615/16, and by themselves in 626. The Turks and the Kazars in their
footsteps counted as allies of Heracleios without whom the 627/28 campaign in
Mesopotamia would have been impossible. What Theophylaktos, whose text fits in
line with the descriptions of the 596 Byzantine counter offensive (HAUSSIG
1953, 299-300), did was that he took the Turkish arguments originally directed
against the Avar-Byzantine alliance, and the Byzantine acknowledgement of the
Avar kaganate and appropriated it to the contemporary needs of Byzantium.
And thus, we have reached the bottom
of the matter. The first phase of the Turkish-Byzantine discussions at the end
of the 6th century (the diplomatic mission of Valentianos, and the
letter cited by Theophylaktos) was concerned about the legitimacy of holding
the title of kagan, into which the memories of the 5th century
movement of the Hephtalites (Varchonites) was incorporated. The second phase of
the discussions—taking place in the 7th century—demonstrates how
Byzantium took advantage of the Turkish arguments.
BOODBERG 1938
Boodberg, P.A.: Marginalia to the
Histories of the Northern Dynasties I: Theophylactus Simocatta on China, HJAS
III (1938) pp. 223–243.
CONSTANTINUS PORPHYROGENNETUS
Excerpta de legationibus,
ed. C. DE BOOR, I–II, Berolini MCMIII.
CZEGLÉDY 1954
Czeglédy K.: IV.–IX. századi
népmozgalmak a steppén, Budapest 1954. (A Magyar nyelvtudományi Társaság
Kiadványai 84).
CZEGLÉDY 1969
Czeglédy K.: Nomád népek
vándorlása Napkelettõl Napnyugatig (Kõrösi Csoma Kiskönyvtár 8), Budapest
1969.
CZEGLÉDY 1974
Czeglédy Károly: Szakrális királyság
a steppei népeknél (a kazároknál és a magyaroknál) Magyar Nyelv LXX
(1974) pp. 11–17.
DOBROVITS 2001
Dobrovits M.: Az apar népnév és az
avar kérdés az orchoni feliratokon, in: Márton Alfréd (szerk.): A
kelet-európai stppe és a Kárpát-medence történeti kapcsolata az 5–12.
Században, Budapest 2001, 86–105.
ERDÉLYI 1982
Erdélyi István: Az avarság és a
kelet a régészeti források tükrében, Budapest 1982
FARKAS 2000
Farkas Csaba:Megjegyzések a
bizánci-türk kapcsolatok történetéhez, elõadás, a “Nomád népvándorlások, magyar
honfoglalás” c. konferencián, Szeged 2000. február 8–9.
HARMATTA 1992
Harmatta János: Az onogur vándorlás,
Magyar Nyelv LXXXVII (1992), pp. 257–272.
HAUSSIG 1953
Haussig, H.W.: Theophylakts Exkurs
über die skythischen Völker, Byzantion XXIII (1953) pp. 275–462.
HAUSSIG 1957
Haussig, H.W.: Die Quellen über die
zentralasiatische Herkunft der europäischen Awaren Central Asiatic Journal
II. (1957).
OLAJOS 1988
Olajos, Th.: Les sources de
Théophylacte Simocatta historien, Budapest 1988.
OSTROGORSKI 1940
Ostrogorski, G.: Geschichte des
Byzantinischen Staates München 1940.
SINOR 1946–1947
Sinor, D.: Atour d’une migration des
peuples au Ve siècle, Journal Asiatique 1946–47.
SZÁDECZKY-KARDOSS 1992
Szádeczky-Kardoss Samu: Az avar
történelem bizánci forrásai (Magyar õstörténeti Könyvtár 5) Szeged 1992.
THEOPHILACTUS/DE BOOR/WIRTH 1972
Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae
(ed. de Boor/Wirth) Stuttgart 1972.
VÉKONY 1987
Vékony Gábor: Az “ál-avarok,” in:
Gregor Ferenc-Nyomárkay István (szerk.) Szlavisztikai Tanulmányok
(Budapest 1987), pp. 397–413.
[1] Farkas, Csaba, Megjegyzések a bizánci-türk kapcsolatok történetéhez (Notes on the History of Byzantine-Turkic Relations). Lecture delivered at the conference entitled: “Nomad népvándorlások, magyar honfoglalás” (Nomad Migration, Hungarian Conquest), Szeged, 8-9 February 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment