Introduction 17
with burials containing horses, as a result of several stray finds containing
spearheads and stirrups being interpreted as the product of similar practices,
despite knowing little about their archaeological context.81
The cremation rite of the Bácsújfalu complex was refuted by Péter Tomka
who drew attention to the fact that no unambiguous traces of burning can
be observed on any of the artefacts coming from the supposed ‘pyre’, while its
archaeological context is also obscure since it was not excavated by profes-
sional archaeologists.82 As a consequence, we refer to this complex as a ‘sacri-
fice’, with artefact combinations characteristic for burials of horses, but not a
pyre or cremation, drawing attention to the absence of evidence for burning,
calcinated bones or ash in these shallow pits. However, it is important to note
that the combination of artefacts found in such complexes is identical with
horse burials, therefore they may be regared as ‘symbolic horse burials’.83
István Bóna played a decisive role in research on the ‘Migration Period’ in
Hungary, as reflected in the study of Avar-age weaponry. His historical approach
is characterised by an emphasis upon ethnic questions related to two major
problems: the origin of the Avars, and the immigration of the Onogurs during
the Middle Avar period (around 670 AD).
Bóna’s ethnic theory on the origin of the Avars was influenced by the histori-
cal theory of Károly Czeglédy based on the ‘pseudo-Avar story’ of Theophylact
Simmocatta, according to whom ‘Avar’ is only a pseudonym, and the original
name of the Avars is ‘Uar’ and ‘Khunni’.84 In spite of the controversial nature
of this narrative source Károly Czeglédy used it as a key source for Avar ethno-
genesis assuming that the Avars were composed of two ethnic groups: the
‘Uars’ (or ‘Vars’ identified with the Ruanruans of the Chinese sources) of Inner
Asian85 origin and the ‘Khunni’ (Hephtalites) of Central Asian86 descent.87 This
81 The study of Early Avar period burials with horses by Némethi – Klima (1992, 176–177) still
used the term ‘pyre’, listing 51 such complexes, while András Liska (1995, 93–96) already
called them offerings.
82 The stirrup—horsebit—spearhead combination are called offerings by Péter Tomka
(2008, 250–252).
83 These finds are characterised by a combination of stirrup, horse bit and spearhead.
84 Dobrovits 2006, 176–183.
85 Inner Asia is the central part of Eurasian steppes including Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Tuva
and Minusinsk Basin, which is identical with the Russian concept of ‘Центральная Азия’.
86 Central Asia is the southwestern part of Inner Asia including Khorezm, Khorasan and
Transoxiana which are mainly characterised by oasis civilisations and a settled lifestyle.
This geographical term is identical with the Russian concept of ‘Средняя Азия’.
87 Czeglédy 1983, 25–126; Pohl 2002, 34–35.