Northwestern region of the Avar qaganate. Outside the qaganate, such traits appear only in the neighboring regions—the western and northwestern parts of Lower Austria and Moravia—in which a massive presence of the Slavs is often assumed for the century following the collapse of the Avar qaganate. Within the qaganate, the only other, but much smaller cluster of burial assemblages that produced wares decorated with prick-like comb punches is in the environs of Pecs. It becomes therefore apparent that beginning with Middle Avar I a regional identity may have formed in the northwestern lands of the qaganate, which was marked in funerary contexts by means of both ritual and the deposition in graves of ceramic wares with specific ornaments. It is quite possible that the northwestern lands had been under Avar control since the beginning, but no signs exist of a serious settlement before ca. 630. That date remarkably coincides with the rise of Samo’s polity known from the Chronicle of Fredegar.143
A further indication of the special nature of the northwestern lands of the Avar qaganate is the cluster in that region of the largest number of warrior graves. This suggests a sudden military presence of the Avars in the area, perhaps in the aftermath of Samo’s rebellion. If the region was part of Samo’s polity, it must have returned relatively quickly to Avar rule, this time reinforced by the military posturing of the population settled in the region. Indeed, the only area within the qaganate where such a deliberate policy of settlement is so evident in the archaeological record is the northwest. Avar-age burials, particularly horseman burials, in the northwest seem to have been systematically robbed after ca. 800. Whether or not this phenomenon may be attributed to the revolt of the former Avar subjects, groups 9-12 in Figure 19 must be seen as a reaction to the particular political and military circumstances of the early seventh century. That some of the cultural traits in those groups outlived the Avar qaganate further suggests that that reaction resulted in inventing cultural traditions of long-term political consequences.
The interpretation advanced in this chapter is based on a much improved chronology, itself the result of refined methods combining traditional seriation with radiocarbon dating. My only hope is that an improved chronology may contribute to a new evaluation of the problem of ethnicity in the archaeology of the early Middle Ages. Sebastian Brather’s critique of traditional approaches has done much to advance our awareness of the pitfalls of an archaeology of ethnicity. However, he did not propose anything to replace the supposedly outdated models. The very absence of any alternative is an indication that for Brather ethnicity should be banned from the archaeological vocabulary. My own understanding of the archaeological record avoids the pitfalls of Brather’s agnosticism and advocates instead for the use of refined methods of establishing relative and absolute chronologies, as a preliminary, but necessary phase in the study of cultural patterns that might, under certain circumstances, mark ethnic boundaries.
World History
