Talk:Pannonian Avars/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Avar Khaganate

We have to distinguish between Avar people and Avar Khaganate, section of history has gone to page of Avar Khaganate.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Avar khanate was the Avar people. Only outdated nationalostic literature presents that there was some 'original' Asian looking Mongolian or Turkic speaking Avars. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
And please do try to actually read what already written in the article
"It is pointless to ask who exactly the forefathers of the European Avars were. We only know that they carried an ancient, very prestigious name (our first hints to it date back to the times of Herodotus); and we may assume that they were a very mixed group of warriors who wanted to escape domination by the Göktürks."[10] If the Avars were ever a distinct ethnic group, that distinction does not seem to have survived their centuries in Europe. Being an 'Avar' seems to have meant being part of the Avar state (in a similar way that being 'Roman' ceased to have any ethnic meaning).
rather than debating back and forth whether they were Turkic or not. Were they Turkic ?

-language : sparse remains of few runes and names - not enough to comment on definitively. Remaining history and toponyms - only Slavic. - the fact that they rode horses or some, minority of them had Mongoild skulls has nothing to do explicitly with Turkic languages.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is about ethnic Avars. This page negotiates history of Avar people. Your reasoning is false. You have removed academic sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about "ethnic Avars"? This is not a modern country with "ethnic Kurds", and "ethnic Tajiks". yes, different groups spoke different tongues, but you don;t even know exaclt who the leading clan of Avars were, where they came from exactly, or whether this same clan even continued to rule uninterruptedly, let alone what language they spoke.

Please present decisive evidence for your claims so that they are to be left in the intro in a manner-of-fact way, otherwise its POV. Just because you claim you have references it doesn't mean your view of how the article should be presented is correct. I have other sources which claim different things, and which I could argue are 'better than yours, anyway. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

and the Avars were characterized by the Byzantines on the basis of their military organization, their disticntive fighting style (ie as Pohl states the world of the steppe with its specific forms of organization), and the rule they administered (ie Avars were those from the steppe who ruled Pannonia, any break way groups was known as Bulgars). Clearly, this has little to do with what language they spoke, or how they looked, or what DNA they carried. Anyhow, we well know that GOthic, Slavic, Oghuric, Urgic, Iranic and multifold other languages were spoken in the western steppe at that time. What decisive evidence do we have that it was "Turkic" ??

Answer nil, 0 , zip. If I am wrong, please write it here for all of us to see.
and please do not see this as anything against Turkic. You are well entitled to be proud of your heritage, but when that clouds academic clarity, then it needs to be addressed. Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to correct myself. I mean this page has to negotiate ethnic Avars too not just the latter (6-9th centuries) part of Avar history. The history of the Avar people is not equal with history of Avar Khaganate. Accordingo to the researches Avars were possibly Turkic Horse people from Central Asia. They were consisted of different ethnic groups as all of the steppe nomad nations (Huns, Kipchaks, Petchenegs, Magyars etc...). We actually know nothing about their mother tongue but it was likely Turkic according to the linguistics. Moreover the theories of their lingua franca in Europe after 567 are only assumptions (Turkic, Gothic, Slav etc) and do not really matter in connection with Turkic origin of Avar people. Actually we can not demonstrate the proper process of Avar ethnic change because we do not know the exact ethnic situations from the "beginning" (beginning=Central Asia) to the 9th century. BUT the diverse ethnic background does not change the fact they were possibly Turkic people originally. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you'd only listen to your own advice, friend, then we wouldn't be debating :)
You, correctly, said We actually know nothing about their mother tongue but it was likely Turkic according to the linguistics. Actually we can not demonstrate the proper process of Avar ethnic change because we do not know the exact ethnic situations from the "beginning"
Firstly, scholars think they spoke Oghuric, an important distinction to Turkic. Either way, we all know groups like this form through an alliance of several groups. It is without doubt they spoke a multitude of languages. There is no evidence which language was the pre-eminent one, or that spoken by the ruling clan - we have NO records of what they spoke, and only the name "Bayan", and toponyms in the Carpathian basin which show absolutely nil evidence of Turkic presence, only Slavic and pre-Slavic. [1]
Irrespective, what I was trying to impress on you earlier is that the Avars were not defined on the basis of what langauge they spoke (whatever that might have been), but on the fact they "were a very mixed group of warriors who wanted to escape domination by the Turks", came from "the world of the steppe with its specific forms of organization". Further " It is pointless to postulate any homogeneous ethnic substrate as a basis for these differences, for both gentes were the heirs of the polyethnic barbarian environment of the sixth century that had split up into so many bands and petty kingdoms. Of course, organizing a large group of warriors and their following always meant setting off an ethnogenesis; only ethnic bonds, supported by traditional myths and rites..". from Walter Pohl [2], [3], arguably the leading authority on the "ethnicity' of the Avars. As you'd see whether they "originally" spoke Turkic, Oghuric, Finnic, Mongolian, or Martian is really of little relevance as to what defined the Avars. Their definition, formation, and growth was a political and military process. We should'nt back-project anachronistically as to what we speculate they spoke back then and its alleged relationship to modern Turkic. Even if related linguistically, this does not mean they were "Turkic". In fact, the very criteria by which they defined themselevs is that they were not Turks, but enemies/ refugees of the GokTurks.

the Avars can be considered as a “political ethnos” (Pohl 1988, 329)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

1. The simple fact of the matter is that there are two separate articles for the Avars and the Avar Khaganate. Not that "Turkic" label would be a stretch for a state that's called "khaganate".
2. You must have been joking when you said it doesn't matter what language they spoke.
3. Gokturks weren't the only Turkic people at the time. History is full of Turkic peoples fighting and displacing each other. --Mttll (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no. Your misunderstanding concepts which appear to be over your head. Simple - give one piece of definitive evidence that they spoek Turkic . Just one:___________ Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
You sound confused. I don't have to prove anything to you. This is not a forum. I only need to show you sources which were in the article before you removed them:

To Slovenski Volk

From Encyclopedia Britannica: --Mttll (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Chuvash language, member of the Turkic branch of the Altaic language family, spoken in Chuvashia and nearby regions along the middle course of the Volga River, in the central part of European Russia. Chuvash constitutes a separate and distinct branch of the Turkic languages that differs considerably from the so-called Common Turkic languages; it is the only modern descendant of the extinct Volga-Bolgarian language. Formerly, scholars considered Chuvash to be a Turkicized Finno-Ugric (Uralic) language or an intermediary branch between Turkic and Mongolian.

As you can see; Oghur is, by definition, a subset of Turkic. It doesn't matter how far it is from other branches, because it's as Turkic as any other branch, no less. --Mttll (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A linguistic presentation of Turkic languages: The lexical proximity wave model of Turkic languages, Swadesh-215, borrowings included, (2009, 2012). What we can observe is that the Chuvash language (Oghur-Bulgaric dialect) has got a proximity of 47-52% to any other Turkic tounge. --62.143.40.193 (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

well, such 'statistics are highly controversial, and the Swadesh technique is criticized by mainstream linguistcs. Í can make 'statistics' show that English in not germanic on the basis of some grammatical features. Im not denying the real and certain relation of CHuvash with Turkic in general', however, the Discussion on Chuvashian is peripheral to Avars, anyway. There is assumption after assumption in the notion that Chuvash is some long-lost ancestor of Avar or Bulgar. And even if it was, modern Chivash is so Turkiized now that it would have been quite different back in the 6th century, and ven now its still not inteeligible to Turk propper.
To be sure, one accepts that general history books often call the Avars Turkic, however, articles which analyze the issue closely clearly state ït is still not knwon for certain what the language of the Avars was". [4], other than it might have originally been some for of Áltaic. In fact the words "bayan"and "chagan" are not Turkic, but Mongolian. Many Avar inscriptions are actually in Soghdian ! although definitely some are Turkic, but a very different form of "Turkic"comparde to that in the Orkhon inscriptions (see Peter Golden - which Ill add to the language section. n fact he says its not Turkic at all ! ! ). So to call it Turkic is to push the evidence to an extreme point of view, in light of the fact there appear to be no Turkic toponyms in Carpathian or SE Romania, or anyqhere in the Balkans until 11th century (when Cumans and Pechenegs arrived). So it is somewhat surprising, then, if the Avars spoke Turkic that after some 3 centuries they left no trace of Turkci on the landscape. They couyld have spoken some now long extinct language, and would be entirely hypothetical to conject how close to Turkic it was. Regardless of what we try and guess, as Walter Pohl states - the Avars were a military group of refugees. Thus, there is no reason to assume they had a distinvt Ävar' language other than to propagate nationalist theories and pseudoscientific theories. This is nothing against Turkic peoples. I wrote exactly the same for South Slavic history , and Im not anit-Slavic , am I ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is not a forum. Why are you discussing the subject itself in that wall of text with WP:OR analysis on toponyms and such no less? It's a waste of time. Write a peer reviewed article about it instead.
As for being anti-Turkic, I assume good faith. But it's a fact that you have gone out of your way to avoid the word Turkic. You even said it shouldn't matter if Avars spoke Turkic:

As you'd see whether they "originally" spoke Turkic, Oghuric, Finnic, Mongolian, or Martian is really of little relevance as to what defined the Avars.

As for Chuvash, it's not periphery discussion. According to up-to-date sources, Chuvash and Oghur were considered Turkicized Finnic or an intermediate between Turkic and Mongolic in the past. No longer. They are considered a branch of Turkic now. So the sources you added rehearsing the debunked theories are indeed obsolete. --Mttll (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk, what you are doing now is considered edit warring. --Mttll (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And u not ? Fine let's discuss a conclusion : coz yr only presenting B grade , knit-picked sources. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not. I hardly made an edit without discussing it here while your edit is a brutal mass revert. --Mttll (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If you call removing a dubious claim with associated quality sources , used in a dubious way, and instead placing more neutral and factually justifiable terms, a :mass revert", then you need to consult, both, Wikpedia policy and a basic English dictionary on what 'mass revert'means. But enough small talk, lets consult the specialist literature on what terms they use, and how they descibe it...:
See below for clear evidence. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My recent edits

Sorry for making such huge edits. I tried to restore the version from 11:14, 25 January 2013. --62.143.40.193 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"No consistent with English language historical review consensus"

What does this even mean? --Mttll (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It means the version you uphold is not consistent with English language scholars concensus. Ie:
  • "It is still not known for certain what the language of the Avars was...MOst experts ...think ..belonged to Altaic group". Cambridge History Inner Asia Ed D Sinor. Pg 221.
  • "Proto-Mongolian Avars". The Turkic Languages and Peoples Pg 54 K H Menges.
  • "The ruler of the Avars was called Bayan whose name features Chuvash-type linguistic features".. and an "Oghur people". A Rona-Tas, pg 261 in Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages.
  • "The origin of the Avars are still open to debate. In any case....their khanate was not a stable political unit but was made of numerous hordes of horsemen grouped around a core of leaders who directed war operations". Slavs & Avars. In History of Humanity. Pg 252
  • "Eurasian steppe was the home of two main pastoralist groups, probably of heterogeneous origin. When they were organized into the frameworks of paxes, two linguae francae developed, one Turkic and used in the east (ie Mongolia), the other Hunnic and used by the western group(ie Pontic). " O Pritsak. pg 363 The Slavs and Avars
  • "The information on the Avar language consists of names like Bayan (Mongolic Bayan vs Turkic bey) at tarpan...none of which is diagnostic enough to allow form conclusions. Pg 406 The Mongolic Languages. J Janhunen.
  • "These languages have in common such features which unite them with the Chuvash and Mongolian languages and distinguish them from Turkic. From the historical perspective, it is incorrect to call them "Turkic", since the first Turks appear in Europe long after the advent of Huns and Bulgars". Classifcation of the Hunno-Bulgarian Loan-Words in Slavonic. A Granberg. In Swedish Contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists 2008. Pg 19
  • "That the ruler of the Inner Asian Jou-jan of the 5th century had the title of k’o-han – the Turco-Mongol kaghan – does not mean that the people of the Jou-jan were either Turkic or Mongol". D Sinor Reflections on the history and historiography of nomads empires of central Eurasia. 2005.
  • "Joanna Nichols advanced the Avars spoke an Iranian, not a Turkic language." whilst several inscriptions of Turkic exist, so there too are of Soghdian. "But nothing survives of the Avar language, however we may choose to classify it, in the otherwise rich place name evidence in Hungary. All place names of Turkci origin in the Alfold are of a much later date and should be associated with the Cuman settlement of the 13th cenutry. F Curta. The Slavic Lingua Franca. Pg 140-141.
  • D Sinor does call them Turkic. "West Turkic" to be precise.

So there you have it, the current theories from the leading authorities on the subject (and I can go on and on and on). So all but one tend not to use Turkic - its not my "opinion", buti have merely been accurately and dispassionately following the concensus of scholarship and using terms supported by the evidence.

Out of interest, lets look at the source you used to support your unwarranted, POV , blanket, masss-reverting, "Turkic "theory": The Next World War: Tribes, Cities, Nations and Ecological Decline, A book about the world economy ??? Were you even aware that this was used as your source. Poor quality, brief and generalist books should not be used when far better quality material is available.

I hope this closes this series of misunderstandings Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To me this is a clear case where WP can do nothing more than truthfully present the scholarly aporeia and not give undue weight to one or the other theory. I am perfectly ready to accept Oghur as a possibility, but there is no conclusive source material to decide, and frankly not enough to give Oghuric any precedence over others. I would, however, love to be proven wrong by a similar mass of quotes from scholars specialised in linguistics. Trigaranus (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with giving alternate theories their due. My main complaint is that Slovenski Volk tries to contrast Oghur with Turkic when the former is a subgroup of the latter according to up-to-date sources. --Mttll (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
A "new" editor appears, Link.
Wrong # 1. Ive been on Wikipedia for 7 years (how about you?). and Ive been consistently editing Avar article, in fact, I created the version it currently is. Not that it matters.
Are you saying User:SnowInTheFace is also your account? You shouldn't edit the same article in such short period of time without declaring this. --Mttll (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
systematically erasing the word "Turkic" from the article:
Wrong # 2. "Systematic" ? More like once, from the lede, given that the terminology you wish to apply is not based on scholarship concensus but rather your personal bias. Entirely justified, therefore.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Oghur languages were only called Oghur when they were classified as a subgroup of Turkic. They weren't called as such in debunked Turkicized Finnic or Turko-Mongol intermediate theories. This irrational behavior has to end. --Mttll (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
wrong # 3. No one is debating the position of Oghuric within greater Turkic, or Altaic, and noone is saying anything about Turkicized Finns, anywhere, If youre going to argue at least stick to the facts. I am a monkey; I do not claim to be a genius (although I am); rather I have merely followed the terms that current, credible scholars have used to describe the supposed language of the Avars. They use the terms Oghuric or Hunnic, so that's what I added. If you have an issue with that, then perhaps best write to them and convince them otherwise. And your insistence to use Turkic intead of Oghuric is like writing "In England is spoken a Germanic language" when I can more simply and to-the-point write "they speak English". So yr actions are unfortunately nothing but thinly veiled attempts to push your own personal, nationalist agenda. Lets take the issue to Arbcom if you want , see how it pans out ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
In the language section at the bottom of the article ; I will elaborate on all the Turkic type tunes found in some inscriptions , names etc; but ledge should be left simple as specific as possible Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
No, this is not English and Germanic at all. English is a very well-known, recognizable word, naming the second most commonly spoken language in modern world. Oghur, on the other hand, is a branch of Turkic language family that includes one modern and several extinct languages. It means nothing by itself. No academic source utters the word Oghur without the word Turk or Turkic in the same paragraph. Look at what this source says:

This may suggest at least the leading stratum of the Avars spoke a Chuvash-type Turkic language.

It doesn't even use the word, Oghur. It was used to reference this sentence in the article:

Although there is sparse knowledge about the Avar language, if there was some original Avar (Ur-Avar) language, scholars generally posit that the extinct language of the Eurasian Avars belonged to the Oghuric group,[REFERENCE HERE] showing both strong similarities and discernable differences to Common Turkic.

How do you go from A to B? And is there a theory at all that there wasn't an original Avar language? Or is that just some weasel wording by an Wiki editor who claims it shouldn't matter what Avars originally spoke? --Mttll (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


the matter's closed. No further discussion, and your own OR "perspectives" and "thoughts" are not relevant here. The sources have spoken.Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)I

Who do you think you are to unilaterally close the discussion? You don't own the article. --Mttll (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I never claimed to own anything, except a better grasp neutrality and acedmic resources than yuo. Your cotinual insistance to inject "Turkic" into the article, when (a) the acedmic sources clearly do not use the word, and. (b) use alternative words (ie "Oghuric", or "Hunnic"), cannot be defended. Whilst the relation of Oghuric to Turkic is not worthy of discussion on an article about the Avars, your insistence to use it not only defies specificity, but also flies against the caution voiced from two of the arguebly most influential orinetalists/ altaicists in the world: "It remains a matter of contention whether Oghuric is (a) an earlier form of Turkic (b) an earlier grouping of peoples.. or (c) a separate, para-Turkic tongue" (ie not directly descended from it, but somehow related. [5] Given these issues, it is again clear, the best option is to continue the use of "Oghuric", like all the sources clearly do. Your inability to cooperate is a blatant disregard of innumerable sources and your behaviour is becoming irrational and disruptive. This leaves on little options but to report you to Arbcom Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? Academic sources don't use the word? You are literate, yes?

This may suggest at least the leading stratum of the Avars spoke a Chuvash-type Turkic language.

As for the source you just showed, I thank you for it. But don't quote selectively:

...it is only with the advent of the Oghuric Turkic groupings into the Ponto-Caspian steppes in the 460s that we have firm evidence for Turkic-speaking peoples.

It also confirms what I said earlier: The term, Oghur, is absolutely meaningless without the Turkic context:

"Oğur" is the Oghuric reflex of the better known term Common Turkic "Oğuz"

Feel free to make a report wherever you wish. Regards.--Mttll (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


"The term, Oghur, is absolutely meaningless without the Turkic context" Just more and more OR. This is not a forum for you to give your personal opinions and preach your proverb. Moreoever, why, then, is there an "Oghur language" article existing ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
How is that OR? It's what the source is saying. Oghur is merely a word play with Oghuz to reflect the differences between in languages in -r and -z sounds. Its synonyms are Lir-Turkic and r-Turkic. --Mttll (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
irrelevant what you want to call it : "word -play", "footsies", or whatever. 90% of the sources above called it simply, straightforwardly and unambiguously Oghuric, or Hunno-Bulgar. It is your porsonal OR that "Turkic" must necessarily follow it. In the lede, it is an unneccessary addition which improves the article in no way other than your own personal sentiments. The meaning of Oghuric is self-evident, no additional qualifiers, advers or adjectives are needed - it is an entity of its own. Sure, in the language section, we can say that Oghuric is in someway related to Turkic, perhaps having split off from Turkic propper eaerlier, or is para-Turkic, as the sources clearly state. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that's my very point: Oghur is not self-evident at all. What you are doing here is akin to turn "r-Turkic languages" to "r-languages". It's bad for clarity, but apparently you are not concerned about that. --Mttll (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me quote from your source again:

...it is only with the advent of the Oghuric Turkic groupings into the Ponto-Caspian steppes in the 460s that we have firm evidence for Turkic-speaking peoples.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, not hide it. --Mttll (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Not self-evident to you maybe. That same source you repeat states that Oghuric could be "para-Turkic", ie not descended from Turkic, but develpoped somehow in parallel to it, or from a common predecessor still. Combined with Granberg who states calling the Avars, Huns, and Bulgars "Turkic" to be wrong, and the majority of other sources calling the Avars Öghuric"withoug a Turkic qualifier, then it remains that your insistence on using additionally Turkic is not justified. English speak English, not English Germanic, Croatians speak Croatian, not Slavic Croatian, Finns speak Finnish, not Finnic Ungrian. I cannot teach you basic English vocabulary Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a fact for you: "Turkic Avars" turns up 182 results in Google Books (Link) and 23 results in Google Scholar (Link). "Oghur Avars" or "Oghuric Avars" turn up 0 results in either. That's not to say Avars weren't Oghur, but it's clear that Oghur is not a self-evident term that can be easily recognized like you claim. --Mttll (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have tried this for the lede "Although the linguistic evidence is not conclusive, scholars generally posit that the (now extinct) language of the Avars was ancient Oghuric, closely related to Turkic[2]. " So now it is objective and more neutral, and also contains the "Turkic" appelletive yu so wish to add Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that won't do; Chuvash (the only surviving Oghur) is not classified outside Turkic. I propose the following the wording to you: --Mttll (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Although the linguistic evidence is not conclusive, scholars generally posit that the (now extinct) language of the Avars was Oghur, a distinct branch of Turkic.[2]

For the record, I don't have anything to do with any of the recent IP editors in this article. --Mttll (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

we'll let the admins decide thatSlovenski Volk (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Source of the term? avar = a war ?

Source of the term?

avar = a war = people of war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Czech republic point of view.

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the Eurasian Avars. This is the only artifact that I know about that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Centry. It is located 8kn from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first enter Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. It's written in Latin and Greek from the time but there are many citie's and rivers named. None of these are on todays Czech Lands, http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the chronicle of fredegar "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatfull. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't quite understand what you're saying. But Avars and huns are differnt people, first of all. Seconly, there are quite a lot of Avar artefacts found in the Czech lands, all the way to eastern Germany, due to trade, exchange, diplomatic ties, etc. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent round of edits to the page removed narrative and sourced content without explanation. About half the page was deleted and replaced with two long, copied-and-pasted block quotes. What remains is incoherent and full of grammatical errors. I am reverting to the last intelligible version of the page. If the new content is to be re-added, the quotes should be summarized and blended into the existing narrative. If a full rewrite and removal of sourced content is proposed, it should be discussed here first. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Laszzslo, the content of the updates falls entirely within the standards and are in fact of a superior quality, given the editor's aptitude. What's more, its features the most recent authorities and views on the Avars, and address previously under investigated aspects , eg relation to Ruanruan, etc.
The sourced content is still contained, at least its 'meaning', or was simply moved to other sections. Nor is the quoting excess, or undue. And remember, there is nothign wrong with WP:bold.
So the feigned pretenses of your objection really have no grounding. Regards

Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What was left was incoherent, with all narrative removed. Two long block quotes -- almost as much text as the rest of the page -- is certainly excessive and not encyclopedic. The quotes should be summarized and blended into the narrative. Better yet, a secondary source summarizing those quotes should be used. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Laz, you're quite incorrect. Granted, there were some grammatical ommissions, which i fixed. The first excssive text i felt was important because it is the only real detailed source we have on postulated Avar origins. However, I accept that this might be shortened, which i'd be happy to do soon. But it does not warrant mass reversion of a good -faith update.

The second quote is not a primary source, but is a quote from a secondary source - a theory directly related to the Avar formation by one of the foremost authorioties on Avars, and east-central Europe in general. Its point form, and really nails the crux of the issue. Quoting it does not appear to breach any regulations , or the "flow" of the article Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Title

Given how much territory the Avars ruled wouldn't Avars (medieval) be more unambiguous than Avars (Carpathians), Avars (Central and Eastern Europe) or Eurasian Avars? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Their khaganate was centered on the Carpathian Mountains and the Carpathian Basin where they seemed to be present in the highest concentration, hence the current title is fine. Yes they did expand from there, so the second suggestion Avars (Central and Eastern Europe) is also correct. However the second suggestion is a bit too long and not WP:CONCISE. The current title has the advantage of being concise. As for the third suggestion Eurasian Avars, it is very ambiguous because the North Caucasus, which is the homeland of Avars (Caucasus), is located right near the center of Eurasia. Eurasian Avars can therefore refer to both the Caucasus and the Carpathian Avars and a further disambiguation is needed for the third title. "Avars (medieval)" is not clearer either. Khestwol (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
My only suggestion was Avars (medieval). The others titles I listed were the current title & previous titles. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Avars (medieval)" could also refer to the Avars of the North Caucasus during the Middle Ages, in the times when they were pagans or when they were early converts to Islam. It makes it ambiguous. Something like "Avars (extinct)" could be a clearer title because only one of the two groups called Avars are extinct. But again, the current title is fine in my opinion. Khestwol (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Still the current title is not the best. "Carpathian Avars" is not a term in common use, and we could just as well say "Pannonian Avars", which gets many more hits in reliable sources. 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The Carpathian Mountains were a mere boundary of Avar Khaganate, a loose boundary with other Slavic and non-Slavic tribes, and the Avars were not situated and concentrated at the Carpathians yet within Roman Pannonia (lower-mid and mid part of the Pannonian Basin). The "Eurasian Avars" is alright to split according the current sitation (as exist Caucasian ethnic group), but the "European" Avars aren't known as "Carpathian" as "Pannonian", and personally wouldn't describe this Avars as "Carphatians" or with any toponym and additional description as when historically speaking almost exclusively are considered this "Pannonian" Avars. Khestwol, before moving the article a mutual conclusion and discussion was needed.--Crovata (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Crovata, if I undertand correctly, your suggestion is to use Pannonian Basin as geographic disambiguation (like we are using the Caucasus for Avars (Caucasus)), and move to "Avars (Pannonian Basin)" / "Avars (Carpathian Basin)"? If so then that seems a good suggestion. Khestwol (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol, the current division in "Avars (Caucasus)" and "Avars (Carpathians)" is not bad per se, only slightly inaccurate for the "Avars (Carpathians)", but can stay. However, I would suggest "Avars (Pannonia)" as Pannonia was both province and basin they dwelled in.--Crovata (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol, or if "Avars (Carpathians)" stays, then in the text would not use the term "Carpathian" for the basin and land they dwelled as "Carpathians" are the mountains and only a boundary of the Khaganate, instead "Pannonian" as they settled the Roman (Pannonia) province and basin within the mountains (being South-West of Carpathian Mountains, North of Dinaric Alps, and East of Alps) .--Crovata (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Crovata, that is ok, we can say "Pannonian Avars" rather than "Carpathian Avas". I can also support a move to "Avars (Pannonia)", but there is a slight confusion about the usage of "Pannonia" on Wikipedia. The current article Pannonia says Pannonia was an ancient province of the Roman Empire and lists 20 AD–107 AD as the time period when "Pannonia" existed. This is centuries before Pannonian Avars appeared in the region, so a title "Avars (Pannonia)" is likely to confuse readers about the time period. Perhaps we can move "Pannonia" to "Pannonia (Roman province)"? Note that "Pannonia (Roman province)" was even the name of the present article "Pannonia" since 2011 before a recent move was made this month ([6]). And then we can also move Pannonian Basin to the more concise title "Pannonia" to clarify things? If we make these 2 moves, it will also make the move of this article to "Avars (Pannonia)" easy. Khestwol (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol, I was slightly surprised that under "Pannonia" was considered a Roman province because today in Croatia under "Pannonia" is concisely meant "Pannonian Basin". The province existed under the Roman rule de facto until 5th century (see for example Pannonia Prima), while Avars took control around 560 AD. However, as seen on Google search and Encyclopedia Britannica, under "Pannonia" is indeed considered "historical region", while under "Pannonian Basin" a "geographical region", and as such would not advise to move "Pannonian Basin" to concise "Pannonia". Now all depends; the geographical "Carphatians" looks neutral but not entirely true, however that does not make an major issue, the geographical "Pannonian Basin" is most accurate, but not concise, while regional "Pannonia" could be really least accurate as (see image) the Roman province border was the Danube, while the "Pannonian Basin" and the territory Avars dwelled (ie. Khaganate streched) is more broad than the Roman province. This is confirmed by the formation of March of Pannonia and Avar March, with which was intended to expel the Avars from the Danube and former Roman province territory. Geographically speaking, the "Avars (Pannonian Basin)" is more accurate than "Avars (Carpathians)", but as mountains are considered for other "Avars (Caucasus)", the "Avars (Carpathians)" looks passable. It could be also done that this article is named simply as "Avars" (with current note For the modern ethnic group native to the North Caucasus, see Avars (Caucasus). For other uses, see Avar.), with "Avar" even be moved to "Avar (disambiguation). Any other idea? --Crovata (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"Avars" is ambiguous, and in my opinion it cannot be used for this group because the other Avars (Caucasus) are also a historical and highly notable ethnic group, and the largest one in Dagestan both historically and currently. More people on Wikipedia are likely to look up for the Avars (Caucasus) article rather than this article, because they are a modern native people from southern Russia. But right now I am thinking about picking the article title as "Pannonian Avars"... Is this plausible? "Pannonian Avars" seems a more WP:RECOGNIZABLE title in English and refers to this group unambiguously. This move will be not likely to affect the articles Pannonia and Pannonian Basin either, because the adjectival "Pannonian" can relate to both equally and so these other articles can stay as they are at the moment. Khestwol (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In light of this discussion, I have boldly moved the article and proposed a move to just plain "Avars" below. Srnec (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Srnec for the bold move to "Pannonian Avars". Agreed with this move. Khestwol (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


– The early medieval people are the primary topic. All other WPs treat the topic this way, as does Britannica. The top results at Google Books are for the early medieval people. Srnec (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Question – The Pannonian Avars lived and roamed in Pannonia? Or Avaria? More specifically, Eurasian Avaria, also known as the Avar Khaganate? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Answer – The Pannonian Avars are a group of Eurasian Avars who got separated and mostly lived and roamed in the geographical region known as Pannonian Basin (which includes Roman province Pannonia), where established the Avar Khaganate. The remaining Avars (Caucasus) established Avar Khanate on the Caucasus. The disambiguation page Avaria is outdated, and the name "Avaria" for both regions Khaganate and Khanate is not precise. Going to edit the page Avaria, and note that the purpose of the page Avaria is meaningless.--Crovata (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, ambiguous title. "Avars" can more of the times refer to Avars (Caucasus) who more people on Wikipedia may want to look up while they type "Avars", because they are a modern ethnic group and culturally and economically dominant in Dagestan, their Avar language being understood in most of Dagestan even by many non-Avars (Caucasus) making it among one of the most important non-Russian languages of the North Caucasus and southern Russia. If we have an article "Avar language" for the Caucasus Avars then for consistency we can't have an article "Avars" for an extinct medieval people who have no relation with Caucasus Avars. "Pannonian Avars" is our best option for title. It provides a WP:NATURAL disambiguation, is very WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources ("Carpathian" was uncommon which made "Avars (Carpathians)" a bad option), and has clarity in reference to what ethnic group it deals with. Therefore thanks for your recent move to "Pannonian Avars". Khestwol (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in the last 90 days the previously named "Eurasian Avars" (26,597) was slightly less visited than "Avar people (Caucasus)" (30,610), and as editor Khestwol said, the term "Avar/s" is too ambiguous and better to use for this groups in the disambiguation page, and article titles but with adjective like Pannonian and Caucasian. Personally consider "Pannonian Avars" quite well defined and precise.--Crovata (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A million Ciscaucasian Avars alive today are a serious challenge to the primary topic argument. —  AjaxSmack  00:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What are the implications of this to Eurasian Avars, currently a disambiguation page with an excessive number of incoming links? bd2412 T 03:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully the incoming links to Eurasian Avars can be disambiguated with Dab solver. But right now, as I am checking, it seems the Dab solver is not working properly. Khestwol (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Avars (Caucasus) are a modern group -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It appears that these Avars aren't necessarily the primary topic & it's too ambiguous of a title when there's a modern group called the Avars. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing history

I'm not expert on early Medieval history, but I was astounded to find that this entry contains nothing about the defeat and eventual displacement of the Eurasian Avars by Charlemagne and his lieutenants around the turn of the 8th to 9th centuries. The well-referenced German WP article contains a 1,000-word section on this important chapter in European history, detailing the Carolingian campaigns against the Avars in 791-803, [7] and notes that after 822 the Avars "disappeared from (European) history virtually without a trace" (verschwanden die Awaren praktisch spurlos aus der Geschichte).

Among a dozen sources cited is, repeatedly, Walter Pohl: Die Awaren, Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. 2 Aufl. München 2002, ISBN 3-406-48969-9 — termed a "standard work on the Avars of the Early Middle Ages by one of the most authoritative historians of the area" (Standardwerk zu den frühmittelalterlichen Awaren aus der Sicht eines der angesehensten Historiker auf diesem Gebiet).

The absence of this history seems to me a very serious deficiency in the present article. Sca (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The absence is obviously due to the fact that it is in German. If Mr Pohl and his publishing company pulled their finger out and published in the world's language (English), then Im sure his wonderful work will be cited to the nth degree.
Moreover, there is a separate article on the actual avar khanate. (I was opposed to its separation last year) Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
English isn't the world language in all topics. In many historical topics German or French are still dominating. --2A02:2028:51E:6901:583D:B720:BE98:DF10 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You obviously didn't understand the statement. TODAY, English has replaced French as the 'language of diplomats' and is desired by non-English speaking students as the language to learn. Good, bad or indifferent, English is the "world language" of the early 21st century.

Varchonites

etymology. could it be from var and chunni?Andyvader (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkic Avars

Avars were Turkic group. All scientific world accepted this. Cenglu (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has several warnings about disruptive editing and block warnings over such nonsense as this - disregard his post is the best option IMHO.
  • "Avar". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 14, 2015. "Avar, one of a people of undetermined origin and language..."
  • Frassetto, Michael (1 January 2003). Encyclopedia of Barbarian Europe: Society in Transformation. ABC-CLIO. pp. 54–55. ISBN 1576072630. Retrieved 28 May 2015. "The exact origins of the Avars remain uncertain..."
  • Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Infobase Publishing. pp. 46–49. ISBN 1-4381-2918-1. Retrieved 5 May 2013.
  • Beckwith 2009, pp. 390–391: "... the Avars certainly contained peoples belonging to several different ethnolinguistic groups, so that attempts to identify them with one or another specific eastern people are misguided."
  • "Avars were Turkic group. All scientific world accepted this."
Clearly this is not the case. Your statement, like your editing appears to be rather single purposed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

removed - editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked user

turkic

again we see deliberate switch of nomenclature. persians can not be iranic. macedonians can not be greek. kemetians can not be egyptians. illyrians can not be albanians. uguro-finnes can not be turkic but opposite. since turks believe they originate from huns and every second name in turkey is attila. panonian huns are for gods sake europeid people, blond, having the oldest proto european haplogroup "I". this has got to stop.89.205.2.27 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you want to say? Almost all of your claims are wrong:
The Persians / Farsi are linguistically Iranic (although some of them are ethnically descendant from non-iranic people) - for example, their name is cognate of the Indo-European word for person. The Ancient Macedonians, at least after the time of the Greek-Persian wars, were culturally and linguistically Greek. The nowadays (Slavic) Macedonians aren't, but they are more related to the ancient Paeonninans and Thracians anyway, so this doesn't prove anything. Chemetians is just the native word that the Egyptians (which btw is a word of Greek etymology) used for themselves - it means "people from the fertile lands". The nowadays Egyptians, except the Copts, are indeed linguistically unrelated to the ancient ones, but yet again this cannot be used to support your claim. Finally, regarding the "Turkishness" of (all?) Ugro-Finnic people, I'll leave it without comment... If you base it only on that "every second name in turkey is attila", then by analogy almost all of Europe should be Jewish, since names like John/Ivan/Giovanni or Maria (Jewish in their origin) are wide-spread there, too! There is only some historical point in that the Albanians aren't direct cultural and linguistic descendants of all Illyrians (rather than just of their southern branch), but one can argue with you even for this...
And in conclusion - note that this is an article about the Avar tribe, not about the "panonian huns".
you seem to miss the point. the word "greece" or "Greeks" didn't exist in the antiquity. not on any artifact, vase, coin, epitaph, proclamation etc. it's of newer origin. roman graeci i think. so naming something older with a word of newer origin is deliberate. to fool the scholars. the language which macedonians, celts, thracians, proto bulgarians, achaians, tessalians, epirotes, phrygians, lydians, luwians, lycians, parsians and bactrians used, can not be called greek. at least they didn't call it that way for sure. about albanians. even if they originate from illyrians, that doesn't mean that illyrians were albanians. diggin? also iran is a word of newer origin. those people living in ancient persia, certainly didn't call themselves iranians. kemetians too. they never heard of that british made-up word "egypt". turks also. they originate from gokturks and ogus turks, which originate from xionites, abdel, turushka, which originate from huns. so you can not call huns a turkic peoples but opposite. am i the only person who notices these differences?Andyvader (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No, there are many posters on Wiki with Original Research, synthesized personal opinions, and other nonsense. You are not a historian, that's for sure.104.169.26.177 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture

I would like to remove the picture of the coins because they have no direct connection to the Avars they were not made by them they are just roman coins whic caimed into posession of the Avars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.87.67 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion

CLOSED
Clear consensus to merge. Non-Administrative closure-- Ermenrich "Talk to Me" 22:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Avar Khaganate into Pannonian Avars. Currently Avar Khaganate discusses the history of the Pannonian Avars, while Pannonian Avars seems to be mostly concerned with their ethnicity and culture. There is no reason to keep these two topics, separate, however, especially given the short length of Avar Khaganate. The information from Avar Khaganate would be better found here on a single page.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Comment I just want to let everybody know that this merger discussion is the 3rd one about this matter. 1st, 2nd. The previous discussions have not been closed yet. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The second discussion is not a formally listed requested, and the first is also taking place in the wrong place if I understand the guidelines correctly (discussion should be on the talk of the page being merged to). The first one is from 2013, anyway, so it's de facto closed, even if it was properly listed (which I doubt - it, like number 2, looks like consensus building before a formal move request).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ermenrich, Even if it was not properly listed (2013), somehow "de jure" it should be closed to avoid later confusion and any possible legitimacy complaint of the current one. Ask an admin or an experienced wiki clerk what to do in this case.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC))
I have contacted an admin and we'll see what they say.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem has been solved by an admin. This is the only one from now on. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Where do we vote then? T8612 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Here, if I've understood correctly.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. (Just to get this ball rolling).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nom., it just makes sense to me.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per rationale by the nominator. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support merging the content into this article. Khestwol (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. T8612 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Aldux (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: @Ditinili: @78.148.63.63: @HistoryofIran: @Slovenski Volk: @Fakirbakir: @Codrinb: @Al Khazar: @Laszlo Panaflex: @Mttll: @Attilios: @Aldux:  ::: Previous input regarding possible merge. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genetics section

@Fakirbakir:, the genetics section is from a source that explicitly says it is not peer-reviewed, which means it cannot count as a reliable source. In addition to that, however, genetic studies such as that one, even if it were peer-reviewed, are not to be used to create content on Wikipedia, per WP:SCIRS: "However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead." Unless we can find an article describing the direction of genetic research on the Avars, this section and source need to be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Actually there is no other study about this subject. It seems that you want to employ censorship. It doesn't matter -yet- if it is peer-reviewed or not, the research itself was published only a couple of months ago. This study is not an article from an unknown newspaper or magazine. The authors are respected academics. For instance, Mende is employed by the Hungarian Academic of Sciences (MTA), leader of the MTA Laboratory of Archaeogenetics. It is absolutely not about "reliability"....Fakirbakir (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am absolutely serious. We need to follow WP:SCIRS, which expressly disallows using this source. You have no basis to accuse me of censorship.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Then, pls provide useful information about the genetic makeup of ancient Avars instead of mass deletion. If you don't like it take it to the reliability noticeboard.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Even if the source were reliable, which it is not, as it has not been peer-reviewed, it is still unacceptable under WP:SCIRS because it is a primary source.
You can't say that my attempt to apply policy is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when it is clear they you are only insisting on its inclusion because you like it. If there aren't reliable secondary sources on Avar genetics, we simply can't include a section on it. You have offered no policy based arguments, you are simply ignoring the policy on the subject and thus arguing against the consensus of the project.
I have no opinion at all on Avar genetics, this is not a case of bias, this is not a case of wanting a particular presentation of Avar genetics. This is a case of a very clear policy on genetics sources being willfully ignored.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Here are the relevant guidelines from WP:SCIRS:
"A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles."
"A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity)."
"A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.
However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS."
The two authors are directly involved in the research, ergo the source is primary and cannot be used here per the above. My opinion of the research, authors, etc, has nothing to do with it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Useful information is lost because of administrative nonsense. It is disgusting. Well done. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way but these rules were created to stop oodles of edit warring and to prevent questionable studies and conclusions from taking over genetics sections. Eventually, there will be reliable sources to create a genetics section here, but until then, we'll have to do without.
You might, by the way, want to consider being a bit more WP:CIVIL in the future and to WP:Assume good faith from other editors. You've accused me of some new imagined offense or bias every time you've posted.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Marot" and Menumorut

I happen to have the source that the IP is quoting (without page numbers) to justify including a king "Marot". According to the editors of the chronicle:

By "another tradition" [that relates that the Hungarians encountered a king Marot when they arrived in Pannonia] the author is referring to the Anonymous (the author of the Gesta Hungarorum); the latter's name for this prince is Ménmarót," from the Hungarian marót "Moravian". (p. 76Fn. 1)

So besides that fact that the existence of Menumorut himself is extremely questionable and should not be included in the list (he's not called an "Avar khan" anywhere on his own article...), he's obviously the same person as Marot, not his grandfather.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hun-Avar-Hungarian continuity in old sources

Hello, recently I added this info in the Avar page, but it was removed, reason: "poor written", could you know how can I improve? You can see in the current page the Avar-Hungarian theory by Prof Laszlo Gyula and these things connect to this theory. Btw I have much more similar old sources, this list is not complete.

The old contemporary sources say Avars = Huns, Avars = Hungarians, Avars = Turks, Avars = Scythians The Saxon chronicler Widukind of Corvey (925-973) write this about the Hungarians: Avares autem, ut quidam putant, reliquiae erant Hunorum. = The Avars, as some believe, were the remains of the Huns. Avares, quos modo Ungarios vocamus. = The Avars, who we now call Hungarians. De Ungariis, qui et Avares dicuntur. = As for Hungary, who are also called Avars. — Widukind of Corvey: Res gestae saxonicae sive annalium libri tres

Chronicon Salernitanum (10th century) says: Hunni et Avares eadem gens fuere qui postea Hungri seu Hungari appellati sunt, et adhuc appellantur. = Huns and Avars were the same race/nation who later named Hungarians and still call them Hungarians. — Chronicon Salernitanum

Godfrey of Viterbo (1120-1196) the clergy at the court of the Holy Roman Emperors, Conrad III and Frederick I Barbarossa, accompanying the latter on many of his campaigns, and frequently fulfilling for him diplomatic missions. This was recorded by Godfrey of Viterbo at the year of 561-562: Avares, id est Ungari Pannonii. = Avars, who are actually Hungarians in Pannonia. Avares, qui et Huni, sive Hungari. = Avars, who are Huns, otherwise Hungarians. — Godfrey of Viterbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Iranian language

The view that the Scars also or primarily spoke an Iranian languages was recently deleted. Here is the reference and the quote. Any further unconstructive deletion will get reported. Source:[1]

Quote: By contrast, there is very little evidence that speakers of Slavic had any significant contact with Turkic. As a consequence, and since the latest stratum of loan words in Common Slavic is Iranian in origin, Johanna Nichols advanced the idea that the Avars spoke an Iranian, not a Turkic language.

As such, a deletion is unconstructive and a violation of WP:NPOV.77.119.197.94 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus before re-adding this information.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be WP:RS and can be verified, here. So what is the issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: what are your objections? How should the "consensus" look like to include a reliable reference to an article? I even included an inline citation. If there are no serious objections I will reinclud the content. Please explain your view first.77.119.197.94 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The source is included in the Language section for Iranian language origin. The source, however, does not indicate Iranian language being a lingua franca. I believe that may be the issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The page edit history says much about the discussion. There is no academic conclusion of that. So I'm removing. Beshogur (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Curta, Florin (2004). "The Slavic lingua franca (Linguistic Notes of an Archeologist Turned Historian)" (PDF). East Central Europe. 31 (1): 132. doi:10.1163/187633004X00134.
My only concern is the edit warring. I have no opinion about anything else.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, than I will reinclud it. Thank you for your explanation.77.119.197.94 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: not fringe! It was already discussed here! Stop removing sourced content or you will get reported for unconstructive editing! @@Kansas Bear: if Beshgour does not stop, please make an intervention.178.115.58.71 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
As I said, the Curta source does not make any mention of lingua franca, only that the language had Iranian origin(which is already stated in the article and referenced). So it should not be in the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic

Proto-Slavic as the Avar's language is a speculation, as the article itself acknowledges. It was almost certainly not the original language of Avars, so why is it listed as the first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:24A5:B00:5190:4C67:FA03:2D8C (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Pannonian Avars - Slavic Lingua Franca

To elaborate on the topic of Slavic in the Avar Khaganate, I must say the article provided is very fringe [(Curta, Florin (2004). "The Slavic lingua franca (Linguistic Notes of an Archeologist Turned Historian)" (PDF). East Central Europe. 31 (1): 132. doi:10.1163/187633004X00134]. It presents the idea that Common Slavic rapidly broke up after the fall of the Avars, which isn't true, because it doesn't account for the fact that Late Common Slavic (c. 800–1000) existed, so Slavic was likely still mutually intelligible after the breakup of the Avar Khaganate.

The Avars were known to have oppressed their subject Slavs, as is known from contemporary Bavarian writings. The Primary Chronicle is a later mix of earlier manuscripts and talks of similar oppression (using Dulebi Slav woman as draft horses for their carts!), perhaps exaggerated, but the language used is telling. The Avars didn't allow Slavs in high positions of power as the Bulgars did, which DID lead to Bulgars becoming assimilated by Slavs over a few hundred years. The Avars were strikingly homogenous in their ethnic makeup until the fall of the Khaganate which is when groups of Avars start fleeing to present day Northern Austria (Avarian Austria). If it counts, this may be when some mixed Avar elite may have adopted Slavic as a lingua franca.

The article also talks about bilingualism and how Slavic spread but that's a beast of its own. It either spread from agricultural community to agricultural community (as a lingua franca) or was spread by sheer masses of Slavs migration around. In my opinion the most likely explanation is the latter. This is also backed up by genetic evidence. The Slavs did assimilate locals where they went but also forcefully so. As a farmer outside the big cities (in the Balkans) you either tribalized, i.e. became a part of a Slavic tribe or you perished. The cities were native 'strongholds' for a while until they too assimilated into the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibby01 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, however, the "mistake" is probably because the article originally was called as Avar Khaganate. Will move the infobox from the lead to appropriate section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pannonian_Avars/Archive_2&oldid=1221721332"